If he wasn't a beta manlet, could things have turned out differently, or was collapse pretty much inevitable by his time, after consistent failures in enacting reform?
If he wasn't a beta manlet, could things have turned out differently...
Asher Baker
Aaron Watson
Too soft on commies and Jews. A few harsh punishments delt out in 1900-1914 would have saved his family and counltess Russian lives not to mention all the death communism caused post great war.
Eli Stewart
>Too soft on commies and Jews.
This 100%. Tried to play the benevolent ruler much like Louis XVI and it cost him his life.
Jonathan Smith
So he should have went the cruel despot route? It's strange because his wife told him to rule like Ivan the Terrible, whereas he acted like a constitutional monarch with no balls - so in that sense was she right?
Jordan Morales
I think the survival of Romanov dynasty required much more nuance than that. I mean it wasn't even communist who over through the government.
Dominic Gutierrez
It was already fucked. Earliest year you can prevent the Russian Revolution is 1881.
Colton Ortiz
Wrong man at the wrong time. I find it difficult not to feel bad for him and his family.
One thing's for sure, his incompetence didn't help and neither did his bad luck. Don't know if a collapse would have been prevented by a Ivan the Terrible V2.0
Chase Gutierrez
How can one board be so retarded?
Nicky shot at protestors in 1905, sparking the revolution. You can debate if it made it worse or not but you can't say that made it better.
William Green
How does that address the point of old St. Nick being too benevolent? Government troops shot at protesters, this wasn't a rare thing at the time. It doesn't make Nicholas any less benevolent.
Chase Howard
Well the Reds sure weren't soft on him or his family were they?
He would have seemed cruel but in reality he would have saved his country a whole lot suffering.
Zachary Martinez
He shot at revolutionaries who were going to murder his family and countless others following a dead end ideology.
Jayden Ross
>shot at protestors
Should've killed them to the last man and should've never even considered abolishing autocracy and giving any power to the Duma.
De Maistre predicted what would happen to Russia if the tzar cucks out 100 years earlier.
Sebastian Hill
He had golden opportunities planted in his lap to turn the tide, but lacked the narcissistic instincts necessary in a divine right autocrat even if he didn't want reforms. (Pic related) The Russian people were uneducated peasants co-opted by an intellectual vanguard with better story-lines and bigger egos.
Wilhelm II could have managed Russia better through sheer force of theatrical bullshit. He would take Bloody Sunday and turn it into an impromptu military/civilian parade through the whole nation with himself at the head. Wherever he arrived the richest would be expected to throw a lavish party for him and the procession of peasants/soldiers. It would be stupid and expensive but ultimately cheaper than the civil war and a clearer message to the greedy of the consequences of inducing the nation to riot.
Likewise, Nicki could have managed Prussia better because the people were educated and competent without governmentally enforced mysticism so being a pushover would have helped prevent the foreign adventuring in Hungary and Morocco that ultimately screwed them diplomatically.
It was a shame there was no tradition of monarchs trading crowns if they were blood related; it might have saved monarchism.
Hudson Parker
>It was a shame there was no tradition of monarchs trading crowns if they were blood related; it might have saved monarchism.
"You have been divinely chosen as the sole leader of Russia and it's people, you will be schooled in our language, culture and traditions."
>"Aww, that sucks! Can't I trade?"
What a silly notion.
Julian Morris
He could have killed all the protestors at all the revolts, but they would have still over threw him.
The reason he was overthrown is that he lost control of the army. Basically, they were fed up of starving and getting asswhooped by the Germans all the goddamn time.
If he actually had competent generals or didn't get autistic and defend those Serbian terrorists and just avoided WW1 all together he would not gotten overthrown because his army wouldn't have mutinied.
Then it wouldn't matter how many protestors he killed.
But he was too "BUT MUH SERB BROTHERS!"
Had he thrown the Serbs under the bus and made nice with Autistic Wiley, then we'd still have a czar today.
Henry Scott
>Nicky shot at protestors in 1905
Apparently, not enough.
Jordan Bell
These revolutionaries and their followers were protesting to protect and expand their "bourgeois-democratic" constitutional freedoms. It's a whole big thing with Lenin since it meant more ways to criticize tsarism and raise a workers movement. Arguably Lenin was too kind with former tsarist officials (a lot of them cooperated with the Bolsheviks) by the time of the Russian Civil War.
Ethan Cook
I'd argue 1914 really. Unless you mean russo-french alliance sealed the country's fate? Cause without wwi the empire would have absolutely survived or at leas have transitioned peacefully to constitutional monarchy or republic
Nathan Taylor
>/pol/ smugly not realizing that theocratic aristocracy and islamism are two sides of the same coin
Tyler Anderson
>How does that address the point of old St. Nick being too benevolent?
yes... he condoned the suppression of the 1905 revolution by force and offered a sham of a compromise
>abolishing autocracy and giving any power to the Duma.
he really quickly turned the duma into a rubberstamp parliament. he lost absolutely no power.
Jacob Garcia
That's what I said in previous post.
Had the army not mutinied, he could have simply crushed all revolts with it.
But the Russian army got fed up with being beat the hell of by Germans with little or no supplies.
So fuck it. They revolted too.
Had Nicky not gotten involved in WWI his army would have stayed loyal.
Juan Campbell
>But they threatened God's Chosen Nicholas because he literally exemplified the worst of an early capitalist development state.
This really offends the challenged for some reason.
Jordan Moore
>two completely different ideologies are the same because they both oppose another
This is like saying absolutist monarchism and communism are the same because both oppose nationalism.
James Walker
>>But they threatened God's Chosen Nicholas because he literally exemplified the worst of an early capitalist development state.
I don't understand...
You posted that after your first comment, but, yes, we're in agreement. How come you say 1881 in first post though? Tsar Alex II assasination?
Julian Lee
He lacked:
-The charisma to lead the country without reformation.
-The assertiveness to deal with the revolutionaries and other rebels in a decisive way through force.
-The intelligence to mingle in politics and win the duma to his side.
Instead he:
-Fucked off to the front lines to take direct charge of operations, even though he had no idea about anything regarding the military and also putting himself in a place where he could be directly blamed for military disasters (as he was).
-Did absolutely nothing after his troops shot the protesters; did he try to act like a benevolent ruler and apologize and punish those who had fire the shots? did he instead seized the opportunity to crush all rebellion through force after such a display of power?. No, he did nothing.
-Let a crazy monk of dubious reputation handle politics.