Have Russian monarchists oddity, which causes vague doubts that they are actually monarchists, especially Russian.
This strangeness manifests itself in how diligently protect monarchists Nicholas II and sing the Russian Empire during his reign.
However, the monarchists probably also are different. However, for some reason I have not met no one who would admit that Nicholas was a bad ruler, caused great harm to the monarchy and contributed to its destruction. And would the example of someone else – a good, decent ruler who strengthened the monarchy. And better several.
Somehow nobody wrote something like “every family has its black sheep”, Nicholas breaking anything, but it was also our others were the same!
For some reason no one writes that was Alexander III, who conducted a series of counter-reforms that strengthened the monarchy. However, these counter-reforms have not solved the fundamental contradictions that emerged in previous periods, however, when Alexander the revolutionary movement was on the decline – it is a historical fact. And Alexander the Third had only one attempt in contrast to Alexander the Second, who attempted as many as six times – and this despite the fact that he was just spending reform.
For some reason nobody writes that Alexander was the First who defended Russia in the war against Napoleon and reached Paris. Have made the difficult strategic decision to surrender Moscow, that nobody dared neither to, nor after it, but it is due to this decision, Alexander was able to seize the initiative and drive the enemy to a standstill.
You can go back in history and remember Catherine and Peter. Though many criticized them, but Peter made Russia an Empire and he built Petersburg, which became its capital. Therefore, each supporter of the Russian Empire should read Peter as its founder and one of the most successful rulers of the Romanov dynasty.
If there is a claim to Peter and the Romanov dynasty as a whole – then all the more reason to distance himself from Nicholas as the representative of this dynasty, brand it and think about Ruric – Russian real kings. In particular, you can remember about Ivan the terrible.
However Ivan also became the last ruler of the dynasty, however, he abdicated the Kingdom and the war was won and the heirs after him there was because all were lost under different circumstances, many in infancy. And his son contrary to the common version Ivan didn’t. And the Kingdom did a lot.
You can go to does have an ancient history and remember several vplone worthy of monarchs, there were some.
But for some reason none of the defenders of the monarchy does not offer to recall the best representatives of the Russian or the Russian monarchy, worthy and successful rulers, forgetting about Nikolai as a model of the decline of the ruling dynasty, the ruler is unsuccessful, not successful and more made for the destruction of the monarchy than to strengthen it.
This raises the questions whether supporters of Nicholas monarchists?
Whether monarchists those who defend and exalt the ruler, with his own hands put an end to the monarchy in Russia?
Yes, Nicholas did not want to put an end to the monarchy and as such has abdicated in favor of his brother Michael. However, he did not care that Michael took the reins. Not agreed on it with his brother. Just hoped that Michael will not give up power. But the Affairs of state not to do so. This is a gross administrative error was to appoint as his successor the person is not convinced that he is willing and ready. Especially when we are talking not about the post of head of the Department, and the office of the head of state of a vast Empire.
Such errors over the years of the reign of Nicholas has accumulated a great many – the Russo-Japanese war (starting with the prewar period), bloody Sunday, revolution of 1905-1907, the First world war. All the reign of Nicholas was full of gross administrative errors, therefore, an unfortunate abdication in favor of his brother is no exception, but a logical outcome.
And this ruler monarchists (or rather those who consider themselves monarchists) defend in the debate.
Yes, from the standpoint of the monarchy of Nicholas I must denounce as the most harmful, unworthy and a bad representative if not in the entire history of Russia and Russian Empire, at least for the last hundred years. Perhaps only Boris Godunov rules just as badly. During Godunov was a three-year crop failure, so that Boris can even be not guilty. Moreover, he abdicated the throne.
Show me which of the Russian and Russian monarchs ruled worse than Nicholas II, made more mistakes, lost a war and left another without completing, abdicated, without bothering about continuity, created with his own hands a revolutionary situation and left the country in a state of turmoil and crisis authorities, and even in life?
Yes, these bad rulers in world history among monarchs were few, and in the history of Russia and Russian principalities in my opinion also Nicholas don’t have any.
Why the monarchists (those who consider themselves monarchists) to protect Nicholas, not distanciruemsa from him?
Why leap to its defense, but do not declare an exception to the rule and not cite the example of other, successful and worthy rulers?
Why not say that Yes, there was a “mistake of nature” under the name of Nicholas, but was Alexander the First, Alexander the Third, Peter, Catherine, Ivan and others?
Can we consider a person a monarchist, if it protects the worst of the representatives of the monarchy?
Can we consider a person a monarchist if he praises the ruler, who with his own hands put an end to the monarchy in Russia?
Even if Nicholas had not planned to put the point in the history of the Russian monarchy, but in fact he put it. And saw it with my own eyes, in life. Not realized, not recognized error, not addressed to the people, his family or members of the nobility, in order to rectify the situation.
All this gives grounds to think that the supporters of Nicholas – no monarchists really. This pseudo-monarchists who just imagined themselves to be monarchists, but in reality they are the ordinary anti-Soviet, which defend Nicholas, not because they wanted a monarchy (they mean it and know it is often a little bit), but just in defiance of the Bolsheviks, in opposition to the supporters of Soviet power.
Ostaivaete Nicholas on the principle “that the Bolsheviks shot him, so we are going to exalt him, just to annoy the Bolsheviks, to accuse them to Express their anger against them”.
Nicholas defended not real monarchists and ordinary anti-Soviet, who do not know what kind of power they want – the Soviet government they hate liberals I hate Democrats shun, despise Putin, and the monarchy – respect, but really do not know and do not understand its structure and features.
If they were real monarchists, they would take a sample of any other ruler of the Russian and Russian history, but certainly not Nicholas II.
In Russian and Russian history there have been many successful and worthy rulers, which can be taken as a sample, which respects even the supporters of Soviet power, around whose identity can unite patriots of Russia.
But no, they want to Nicholas…
They want Nicholas because they don’t want monarchy, they just want to Express their resentment against the Soviet regime, and what power they want to – do not really know.
Someone of the readers wrote to me that the monarchist, defending Nicholas, akin to a Communist, defending Gorbachev. It is a very correct comparison.
Just as Nicholas was most unfortunate, inept and incapable ruler among all Russian and Russian monarchs, Gorbachev was the baddest of the General Secretary in the history of the Soviet Union. And also essentially renounced the Soviet government, first by making himself President in the Western manner, and then weak-willed to give up power to Yeltsin, his opponent, and openly anti-Soviet. And just like Nicholas, Gorbachev lost the war.
Show me one Communist or simply an active supporter of the Soviet government, which respects and protects Gorbachev. I have not seen such.
One of the most active supporters of Soviet power, Gorbachev does not protect – it or hate and despise, or treat with neglect and regret that such a ruler was in our history. But supporters of Gorbachev among the Communists there. And if Gorbachev shot – whoever did the monarchists, the nationalists, Yes though even the Nazis – none of the Communists would not for this reason to grieve.
Similarly, the real royalists would not have to defend and praise of Nicholas II, and would have found a more worthy representative of the Russian or the Russian monarchy.
Moreover, Nicholas II was not Russian to the full. Like his ancestors.
Although it is certainly not the origin. Personally, I believe that it is necessary to judge by deeds. Stalin also was not Russian, but did for the country and people much more than the subsequent Russian secretaries, not to mention presidents.
While Nicholas II and the Russian origin was not different, and things he did, and went very badly and ended badly, and long before the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. Lenin was abroad, when Nicholas abdicated and in Kronstadt, an armed uprising began. And the defeat in Baranovichi, and the defeat in the Russo-Japanese war, Bloody Sunday and the revolution of 1905-1907 – all this happened without the participation of the Bolsheviks.
So when monarchists start to protect the company of Nicholas II, instead of admit that he was the worst representative of the Russian monarchy and look at the history of anyone more deserving than even quite easy – there are serious doubts that they really are Russian monarchists, want to unite the people around the great ruler of Russia, and wish happiness and prosperity. Because such a monarch like Nicholas II, Russia has not received nor prosperity, neither good.