0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
Olga is my favorite of the four.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,346 Given: 1,328 |
Is it like this in reality in Russia? Do people still don't see all the evil deed of communism?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 236 Given: 171 |
the government doesn’t recognize and doesn’t give people to see. unless you personally to explore this topic or meet a person who will tell you because people simply have no way to know this. it isn't taught in schools/colleges/universities. history is being rewritten and erased.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 117 Given: 0 |
The Russian monarchy had degenerated long time ago. Empresses of German origins, laying down with anyone around and getting pregnant from God knows who, were ruling Russia. You had emperors of Russia sometimes being more proud of a German princely title they had rather than the title emperor of Russia (like the guy who forgave Prussia in the Seven-Year war). Tzars also had an overtly western lifestyle looking down on the core Eastern Slavic folk of Russia.
Now you had plenty of reasons why Romanov fell such as poor labor conditions of workers or the rise of new socialist philosophies.
However, the last nail on Romanov's coffin was the lack of intelligence of the very Tzar Nicholas in WWI. When his armies were losing on the front, he assumed high command. That means, he took the responsibility of the defeat in the eyes of people.
He could have been more clever. Some steppe folks living in southern Russia 1400 years before him were smarter than him. Namely, Khazarian hagans. They had dual state leadership, the big boss was ruling through a divine mandate and was above politics and daily life. His people were kneeling down and bowing to him whenever, though hardly ever, he took to the street. He was appointing a ruler of the state tasked to look after daily state affairs, and that ruler was the one bearing responsibility (thus being one losing his head upon failures).
Nicholas could not set up a model like this.
In England, they have that steppe Khazar model of monarchy. It is why the monarchy has so far perfectly worked. Queen has ''divine mandate'' and above politics (and its failures). Modern Japanese monarchy also has a similar construct.
Last edited by kundur; 08-10-2020 at 09:29 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,346 Given: 1,328 |
1883 Krakatoa = big famine in east Russia (and east Asia in general). Tsars didn't handle that well for decades to come and that was the major reason why Russian monarchy failed. WW1 was just a bonus. Soviets handled worse. Only after Stalin they started to produce better job.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 117 Given: 0 |
That is correct. There was also a background, including the 1905 skirmish with Japan. Anyway, as a monarch you need to be intelligent not to take political responsibility. You need to show your subjects a kind of Prime Minister or so, whom the folk can unleash its anger upon in times of crises and failures. Nicholas was deposed and ultimately shot by Bolsheviks for failing to set up a system like that.
Pretty much like French King Louis who bore all responsibility for failures and was shot after 1789. German Emperor Wilhelm did the same mistake in WWI, he was leading Germany as dictator and as the war was lost, he was seen as responsible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks