Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a surprise that someone using the tag "Robespierre" would take this position.
Didn't Robespierre meet with a bad end himself?:)
In the end, the Tsar decided his own fate. He had always believed in autocracy by 'divine power', and not only resisted effort of democratisation in Russia, but persecuted their authors.
On his wedding day, he had the cossaks charge the crowd ouside the imperial palace, killing hundreds.
In the 1905 revolution, facing loosing his throne, he accepted a Duma, only to close it a few months later when order came back to Russia. He had most of political leaders arrested, deported to Siberia. The tsarist political secret police, the Okrana, was on the same mould as the Chekka, the NKVD and the KGB.
Tsarism cannot be seen through rose-tinted glasses; it was a cruel repressive dictatorship.
Tsar Nicolas II, impervous to the urgent need for reforms, instead plunged Russia in a world war, against the best advices of his generals, at great suffering for the people, at huge cost for his crumbling economy and without any hope of success.
Nicolas II was a despot who cannot be regretted. His execution was just reward for his cruaulty.
Bolshevism was in fact a relief from the excesses of tsarism. That's how it soon had many followers.
Olympics
Judge it!
Libra
Most Popular