Nicholas II became, in modern terms, the most ineffective manager of all Russian emperors, not counting Ivan VI Antonovich and Peter III Fedorovich, who, in fact, did not have time to accept. As for Catherine I Alekseevna and Peter II Alekseevich, at least they did not spoil anything from the legacy of Peter I Alekseevich during their relatively short stay on the Russian throne (two years each).
In general, if we draw historical analogies, according to the results of his rule, Nicholas II can be called Barack Obama of the Russian Empire, if not worse. The last Russian emperor lost and destroyed everything that he could lose and destroy: the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the state, the throne, family, life.
As you know, in August 2000, Nicholas II and his entire family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, glorified as passion-bearers "in the host of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia." Here I am not expressing any protest, but only asking questions.
The first question: if Nicholas II was canonized, then why are the above-mentioned legitimate emperors Ivan VI Antonovich and Peter III Fedorovich still not canonized? The circumstances of life and death for all three are very similar: dethroning, confinement, murder in confinement.
The second question: how could a saint be confused with the ballerina of easy virtue Matilda Feliksovna Kshesinskaya, that is, to call a spade a spade, be one of her lovers? They may object to me that Saint Vladimir the Baptist had many concubines. But they were before Prince Vladimir received holy baptism!
The third question: if the victims of the executions of 1937-1938 at the Butovo training ground were canonized, then why are the victims of Bloody Sunday 1905 and the victims of the Lena execution of 1912 not canonized? The circumstances of life and death are also very similar for everyone: a divergence with the authorities in their views on the prevailing life circumstances, and as a result - execution.
And after the Lena execution was committed, there are those who claim that Bloody Sunday was an accident.
If after Bloody Sunday only the workers felt humiliated and deceived, then after the June Third coup of 1907, the whole of Russian society, with the exception of persons close to the emperor, found themselves in this position.
Thus, Nicholas II himself laid under his autocracy those time mines that were detonated by his enemies at a convenient moment for them.
In any case, it is Nicholas II who is responsible for everything that happened to Russia and in Russia from November 1, 1894 to March 15, 1917 inclusive.
Of course, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. But just imagine for a second what would have happened if in 1941 Russia had been ruled by this very unfortunate tsar …
