Was the TSAR to blame for the Russian Revolution???

[@HenryStewart]

Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/4dlbffR Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free: 500 doubloons, 1.5 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a free ship after you complete 15 battles! Applicable to new users only.

[@theperfectbanjo8610]

So do you get paid per person who clicks the link or do we need to do a full sign up using your link ? Just wondering how to best support the channel.

[@HenryStewart]

Thanks so much :) in this case it's just dependant on the number of views that the video gets

[@paulrasmussen8953]

No he wasn't. Hos grandad was killed trying to start reforms, his dad reaerved the reforms and was harsher and NEVER trained Nicholas. Amd nickli had bad advisors.

[@HumbertoGuajardo-vr2hv]

The Killers Of Family Imperial Is Grand Part Of The Bad Influence Of The Tzarin Alexandra Fiorodovna And The Nefast Monge Grigori Rasputín And Económic And Social Problem The Empire Russian

[@Jaggerbush]

Your hair.... 👀

[@MrMvms]

You have to think about Nicholas II reign in context with his grandfather Alexander II. During his reign he liberated Russian surfs and started serious reforms. In his day these were quite radical within Russia. He was later assasinated and his son Alexander III would forever hold it in his mind that reform and freeing the people led to his father being killed. He then taught that to Nicholas II.

[@EmilyFoxSeaton]

I think Alexander III was poisoned. Kidney failure at 50? Not likely.

[@SC-gw8np]

@@EmilyFoxSeaton I think you're probably right. Always thought that his and Queen Elizabeth II's father's deaths were fishy.

[@sarahudson108]

George VI died from lung cancer , he was a heavy smoker due to the stress of his "job" , George V his father was euthanised by his doctor.

[@maestroclassico5801]

​@@sarahudson108Ironically, they thought the smoking would HELP his stuttering. His mother Mary, and brother Edward VIII were also smokers but lived longer.

[@sarahudson108]

@@maestroclassico5801 Guess it was just bad luck .Sure he would be really proud of what his daughter Elizabeth II achieved in her 70 year reign.

[@countrymanvideos6006]

absolute power means absolute responsibilty

[@dirremoire]

Excellent point.

[@saidtoshimaru1832]

Someone who has never had checks and balances (or limits) to his power hardly ever knows what being responsible is.

[@ted5567]

We need a far right revolt in uk to ouster islam and leftfashism.

[@charlesramirez587]

​@@saidtoshimaru1832this is an absolutely bad take, even the complete autocrats of Rome or Russia have to keep in mind the reality of being assassinated by their noble class.what we have now is a faceless bureaucracy which has no incentive to become responsible.

[@saidtoshimaru1832]

@@charlesramirez587 I wasn't making any comparations with today. But still, todays "bureacuracy" has much more checks and balances than an autocrat, thats a fact easily veirfiable... and dude, they do have the fear of being murdered. Trying to deny that is denying three centuryes of political theory and action. A guy who was raised to be an autocrat has the psychological constitution not to face or understand limits, and that makes him incapable of being responsible.

[@beyondborderfilms4352]

King Nicholas just wasnt ready and he knew that, but he was so determined to prove himself and maintain his birthright that in the end he acted impulsively where he shouldnt and didn't act at all where he should and that costed his empire, the life of his family, and of his own.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

He should have looked to the recent history in Europe - _8_ different revolutions in 1848, 4 of them against autocracies

[@jimmyjakes1823]

@@williamchamberlain2263 And yet for most of the 20th century, half of europe is run by autocracies that are worse than the tsar. It's not that autocracy can't function, but more that the hereditary form of autocracy was getting creaky by Nicky's time.

[@pedroh.ferraz511]

​@@jimmyjakes1823 he just had to do a fake election and give himself 90% of the vote lol

[@Chris-es3wf]

​@jimmyjakes1823 ultimately it boils down to incompetence. Hereditary nature of dictatorships is only bad when the family falls into metaphorical decadence. Not too different than a larger society itself.

[@jimmyjakes1823]

​@@Chris-es3wf Yes, but incompetence in the system as well as the ruler, and on top of that the dysfunction that's baked into Russian culture. The 20th century simply outpaced the Czarist system. The irony is that for all his commitment to absolute rule Nicky would have been a very good ceremonial figurehead in a constitutional monarchy. He's basically an all around B+ person with a sympathetic family. He would have made a great baseball commissioner. He was simply totally out of his depth wrestling with the monstrous Russian system during that catastrophic period of history.

[@laurapeter3857]

Nicholas’s brother, Mikhail Alexandrovich, didn’t outright refuse the throne. He said he would accept only if his accession was ratified by an elected assembly. With that one move, he was smarter than Nicholas and could read the room so to speak.

[@richardchristie3203]

"The beginning of Tsar Nicholas II reign was pretty uneventful" is the understatement of the millennium. What about the crush that happened during the festivities after his coronation? While 1,282 corpses were collected from the scene, injuries estimated from 1,200 to 20,000. While the Tsar and Tsarina parties with a load of French toffs.

[@kornchaiwongkiat7218]

Had Nicolas just agree to make Russia a constitutional monarchy, the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War likely wouldn’t have happened. The Romanovs might still be constitutional monarchs under democratic rule like Norway, Sweden or Britain to this day. His shear stubbornness and ignorance is what ultimately led to his and his family’s ultimate downfall.

[@princemichael4708]

Not true

[@Melcor2304]

I actually agree, even if that failed, at least his bloodline would have lived, because people will blame his ministers and courtiers for leading the country astray, and target them instead of him.

[@theo-dr2dz]

If he was a clever politician, Russia could still be a near-absolute monarchy. It really wouldn't take all that much. He could have made some concessions to factory workers. They demanded better working conditions first and foremost. He could have made some limited land reform to improve the lives of the peasants. Both wouldn't cost him any political power. He could have avoided WWI easily, he only had to not stick with the Serbs at all cost. See what happened in Russia. First it became a communist dictatorship. Effectively rule by a single man that stayed in power for life. After that, Putin. Same thing. It is still an absolute monarchy in all but name. O yes, no heriditary succession, the succession mechanism is a lot more shady now than under the Romanovs.

[@gaborrajnai6213]

It didnt really matter. All what mattered if Russia entered WWI or not. Liberals liked WWI as much as the tzar did, because they were convinced by the western powers to be involved, Russia was unprepared and couldnt be prepared even under a liberal government under such a short time, Kerensky didnt want to quit, that was the cause of his downfall, so they would have been overthrown as he did. Commies on the other hand didnt like WWI they thought it as a war between the elites and aristocracies fought by the working class, so they were the ideal candidates to overthrow all the other political forces.

[@cyrilmauras4247]

In the BBC TV drama "Fall of Eagles", Nicholas did allow the formation of a legislative body that was proposed to alleviate discontent among his people, but then he was advised to dissolve it when it was threatening his royal government.

[@nikolapetrovic3502]

When his country was falling apart, he played dominos, and had read theocratic orthodox literature before sleep.

[@shobudski6776]

And your point is?? Those mean Orthodox Christians

[@Joryo04]

The answer is mostly yes, it was his fault whether from ineptitude or plain obliviousness. Any small amount of rational decision making would have saved his family from their horrible fate. He may not have been a tyrant but he will always have to own what happened to Russia on his watch. “The road paved to hell is paved with good intentions”

[@nickstone3113]

With the fall of the USSR and Gorbachev ,even Putin ,we understand how much was already baked in.

[@jimmyjakes1823]

@@nickstone3113 Lol, it's just a really messed up place.

[@pride2184]

Its always been a shit hole always will be.

[@seandunne231]

He lived a sheltered life behind castles and Hugh estates. And when he did show his face the man was out depths. He knew it. Coupled with bad council advice. I bet he never saw the inside of a work bench.

[@haroldbridges515]

We're you not paying attention? Of course, Nicholas was a tyrant. He was bound and determined to be a tyrant. That's just what "absolute monarchy" means.

[@gordonclarkson2672]

With absolute power comes absolute responsibility.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

It was definitely Nicky II's fault. He had thousands of warnings and bits of advice from all different directions to tell him to dial down the autocracy, and yet he doubled down over and over again. And then taking command of the Russian army in WW1 was a total disaster.

[@pride2184]

It's wasn't being autocracy that failed him it's was joining a doomed war. Lack of military professionalism, fighting the world's greatest military. Starvation.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

He was largely not autocratic enough, it's not like the Soviets fixed the political system with democracy and liberalism. The simply annihilated opposition, the Tsar was always much more restrained and it allowed opposition to chip away for decades within the regime.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@vorynrosethorn903 ...which a constitutional monarch or a whole host of other, less autocratic systems, could have addressed if it was not for NickyII's obsession with clinging to every modicum of power.

[@taylorclark2100]

Could he have kept his throne

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@taylorclark2100 As a con. mon., sure. Much like England.

[@igorzlobinski738]

This is not just a series of mistakes, this is a pure stupidity. You have managed to collect the most determining key facts of his reign in one film. Good job. Thank you!

[@Sam-bp2st]

Hindsight is 20 20

[@englishsteel-nz6im]

Absolute stupidity. It didn't have to go like this, but it goes like this always when things get so bad for rank and file regular population. Any smart ruler knows that and a lot of todays more autocratic Governments do in fact walk the fine line of maintaining a "social contract" where it's more beneficial to the populace(or at least the perception)that they're in power and that the population doesn't get involved and wielding power. But we're seeing cracks in these countries such as Russia, China and Iran as they're actually not walking that fine line well anymore. Nicolas flat out retardio lol it's no comparison. Have a Parliament that's halfway fair, liberalize the economy like other European nation's were doing and be a bit nicer and it likely would have worked out at least as much as preventing a Marxist revolution and at least as much as his fam getting to be a rich ceremonial "Monarchy" like the others.... better than dead!

[@Saurophaganax1931]

I see it as like, imagine your father is a heart surgeon, and his father before him was a heart surgeon, and soon you will be expected to become a heart surgeon one day too. But your father, the only man who can train you, has nothing but distain for you and completely neglects your training, and honestly you don’t even want to be one. Then he dies and now here you are, dressed in full surgeon garb, sweating bullets as you stand oven an open ribcage with scalpel in hand, no idea what you are doing, while everyone watches your every move and judges it harshly. That’s how I view the life and rule of Tsar Nicholas II.

[@elagabalusrex390]

Yep, pretty much. Nicholas II was a terrible tsar, virtually all historians agree on that. I. He occupies a place in history similar to those of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France - a not terribly bright ruler with an equally foolish and unpopular foreign wife.

[@Briselance]

Ah, Louis XVI. That man didn't deserve to die.😢

[@DT-wp4hk]

Sounds like Harry of England

[@KS-PNW]

To be fair his family didn't exactly do him any favors. His mother forbade anyone from ever telling him "No," as a kid and his father (in keeping with Romanov norms) didn't really bother teaching him to rule because the thinking was that once he ascended to the throne God would grant him wisdom. Literally they thought he'd just get smarter when the crown went on. Not trying to defend him. He's still responsible for refusing to compromise any of his power despite being at least somewhat aware of how unqualified he was. Supposedly his first words on hearing about his dad's death were something like "my god I didn't want this. I never wanted this. What will happen to me? To our family? To Russia?" Despite that he spends his whole reign fighting tooth and nail against surrendering any authority. But his parents certainly didn't help matters.

[@paulsara9694]

And Lenin and Stalin were so much better?

[@KS-PNW]

@@paulsara9694 I don't think anyone's saying that. Certainly not for Stalin, he's easily as bad and IMHO even worse than the Romanovs. Dude wasn't even a believer in the revolution so much as he was an opportunist who used those ideals to justify his own gangsterism. Lenin is possibly a little more complex since you can argue he genuinely thought that the revolution would create a world that was better for the vast majority of Russians or even the entire world. It's also easy to empathize with his anger against the Tsar after his brother was executed for taking part in a protest and before that his uncle had died under similar circumstances. But he was still ruthless and more than willing to sacrifice others to advance his goals. They can be evil men without making Nicholas a good one. I think it's also worth remembering that the first revolution wasn't about putting them in charge, for most Russians it was just about getting rid of Nicholas. Just like the French revolution wasn't about putting Napoleon into power even though that is what happened eventually.

[@theavandenberg6876]

Yes Nicholas was for a large part responsible for his own demise. He was a weak man trying to be strong. He stubbornly resisted any changes to his power. He took advise from the wrong people. His marriage, while for love, was a disaster for the dynasty too. She did literally nothing to endear the Russians to her. And she brought the horrible disease that doomed their only male heir. Giving her the power when he went off to try to change the path of WW1 was another big mistake. They lived in a bubble and had no idea how tough life was for ordinary Russians. And that made Russians vulnerably for revolution...which was obviously a disaster for both the Romanovs and the Russians themselves.

[@OrthodoxSr]

So sad how after 100+ years you people still repeat the same jewish masonic lies over and over again. Your claims make absolute no sense whatsoever.

[@Dav1Gv]

Excellent video, thanks. The Durnovo memorandum had warned the Tsar that war would lead to the downfall of the state. Nicholas ignored it.

[@3baxcb]

He made the mistake of getting involved in two wars that the Russian Empire wasn't equipped to get involved in. Being an overly autocratic ruler didn't help either.

[@airborngrmp1]

It almost sounds silly, and an overly-simplified explanation, but giving the people a little reform before they demand a lot of reform sounds like a good policy - one at which Nickolas Romanov failed magnificently.

[@joecurran2811]

That's the foolishness of theocracy

[@englishsteel-nz6im]

If your population is miserable and absolutely hates you.... your State will fall always after some time. It even happened obv to the USSR. Modern Autocracy walk the fine line of being Authoritarian but throwing the people enough of a bone in a social contract. Nicolas dumbest MF you can list lol

[@cra0422]

I think instead of asking what Nicholas II did wrong, it would be easier to ask did he do anything right? Same thing as with Louis XVI.

[@Kaiser_von_Europa]

Can you do this but for Kaiser Wilhelm II? I feel he gets an unnecessary amount of hate for things, he didn't do

[@HenryStewart]

that's a good idea

[@Kaiser_von_Europa]

@@HenryStewart thx!!!

[@Avghistorian77]

True, what happened was mostly the fault of Austria, and the absolutely delusional military high command of Germany.

[@ForageGardener]

Wilhelm was a dunce and ignored his wise advisors

[@williamchamberlain2263]

One of the things Kaiser Wilhelm _didn't_ do was understand the difference in scale between conducting a genocide in Namibia and winning a two-front industrial war in Europe

[@victorperfecto7472]

If the tzar addressed his people’s plight, there’d be no soviet communism

[@maestroclassico5801]

@@victorperfecto7472 I think it just delayed the inevitable. Those Revolutionaries were not backing down.

[@bennymachado2201]

@@maestroclassico5801 but they would probably lose appeal and support, while the tzar would have more appeal and support than he did. Also, Lenin was sent in by Germany: no war, no lenin most likely

[@englishsteel-nz6im]

@@maestroclassico5801 They existed in Western Europe as well... failed tho. WW1 changed stuff def for everyone, rise of Fascism and etc but Commie trash was present everywhere. The main point is if the rank and file regular population is comfy enough a Marxist revolution is impossible because the people aren't giving that up and have no incentive to do so.... so if dummy Nicolas indeed liberalized their economy and had anything resembling fair representation AS WELL as avoiding the WW1 blunder it's highly doubtful that the Bolshevik's take it. The bolshevik's took it under extraordinarily mismanaged circumstances.

[@Ese_osa]

He place foreign interest first before Russia interest and this was evident by him sending Russia into a war that was of no threat to Russia but to support his fellow royal cousins in Europe

[@MicahDamger]

In reality the Russians supported the war effort and even the jooish bolsheviks intended to continue it. Nationalism is stronger political force than Marxism.

[@buddyroeginocchio9105]

Your explanation has merit, it would seem he placed higher value in gentlemen's agreements (some of which were idiotic) than the present and future good of Russia.

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Lol, no dear, the first thing what the bolshies did, was to sue for peace with the Germans, and they even gave up today's poland just to finish the war in the treaty of Brest Litovsk. Why are you fabricating history?@@MicahDamger

[@zx921]

Russia had interests in the Balkans and couldn't let Austria-Hungary get away with invading Serbia after Anexing Bosnia

[@joecurran2811]

He didn't want to look weak

[@MichaelMarsh-dc4ww]

I would say the Tsars and the entire Russian Imperial System was to blame. There were well over 100,000 Black Hundreds who had sworn to protect the Tsar and his family with their very own lives, yet not one managed to do so.

[@ejm51395]

Russian Studies major here!! This was actually an open ended question on a test I had in my Soviet History class Basically what it came down to is yes it was his fault... but not solely his fault. The tensions leading up to the revolution had been building up for a very long time, long before Nicholas existed. The system was already beginnig to fail by the time he took the throne. It also can't be ignored that his own father thought so little of him that he didn't prepare him at all. The poor man even said he didn't know what to do-and let's not forget he was only 26. With all that said... his inherent weaknesses, stuborness and unwillingess to truely understand his people made the revoultion invenitable. One of the best examples of this was the man, the myth and the legend himself, Rasputin. Alexi's hemophilia was probably the BIGGEST state secret, which meant no one knew why Rasputin was there at all. Had the people known they MIGHT have been a little more understanding, because if there's one thing I think we can all sympathize with it's their fear and desperation to keep their son safe. But Nicholas and his wife were worried that letting the public know their sons condition would only make them look weak... and that backfired on them. Honestly it's tragic because he had every chance to be a great Tsar and stop the maddnes that was to come... but he couldn't see past himself. He thought so little of his people and so highly of his power that it destroyed a 300 year old dynasty and got him and his family killed.

[@Jack-4v]

All he needed to do was to give uo power and let the parliament do the work if they screw they get all the blame

[@kevinb9327]

Excellent presentation. Your use of movies and video is the best I've ever seen.

[@N3cromanc3r1]

I agree, but WHICH movies and videos though?

[@tml721]

Russia never forgot the humiliation Japan levied on them. That's why at the end of WW2 Japan wanted nothing to with another fight with the Soviets

[@3baxcb]

That and the brief conflicts between the Red Army and the Japanese Imperial Army convinced leaders in Japan not to get involved against the Soviet Union but tried to focus on Southeast Asia.

[@irawilliams343]

All I can say is that a ruler attracts his or her own downfall. And there is nothing more that can bring down a king or queen or emperor or empress or dictator or president other than his or her own errors.

[@JimmiMarioWilson]

I think I have found a favorite new military historian. Mr. Stewart is outstanding outstanding. I’m actually blown away now. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot of great guys out there and Mark Felton was one of my favorites and he’s very excellent, but I gotta say Mr. Stewart and his channel of his has impressed me. And I can tell you from this point forward I’ll be watching and looking for his videos every day or so I’m impressed and I think he’s got a true passion for and I love the way he speaks something about the way he speaks when he narrates the video. I think there’s a genuine and sincere love and passion for history and the truth and just getting it out there to people so that they could, respect and love and be appreciative for these things because it’s vital. It’s absolutely vital. It’s everything for us to know history it really is because you can see now in the world what’s happening in America where I live and around the world, especially in the western nations of the world, even in Russia and other places, but if you don’t know history, and you don’t know about history, especially important events, and certain types of ideologies you are very likely almost guaranteed going to have peoples in different generations repeat catastrophic events, ideologies, and just ways of living, embracing the wrong thing and just destroying everything that’s good and when you don’t know history well enough and you don’t know the truth or enough of the truth you’re going to repeat the worst things over and over and over that’s what we see now too many people Young people were brainwashed not told the truth about things like communism and suppression of God given rights that a human being has because each one of us being that we were created by God are creator that means that we have a divinity in a certain way that we individually have rights that are given by God that no man or anything of it or anything of man can take away and if you don’t understand these things as well enough you’re doomed to Repeat the chaotic catastrophic events that have continually tried to destroy these things

[@jimmyjakes1823]

The Tsar's brother Grand Duke Michael wanted to be approved by an elected assembly before he assumed the throne, so it was more a conditional acceptance than a rejection. It was a reasonable request because of the legal and political issues surrounding the legality of bypassing the Tsar's son and the questionable legitimacy of the government. It was also probably too nuanced and ethical of a position for that particular time in Russian history when everything was melting down. History might have been different if Michael had been an ambitious strongman.

[@gidzmobug2323]

I think that the anger had built up over the years. Many of the tsars were autocrats (like Alexander III). When Alexander II gave a constitution, hele was assassinated. Nicholas tried to delegate power to a Duma, but that didn't go well. Add to that the anti-German feeling during the First War (Empress Alexandra was German-born) and Rasputin.

[@joecurran2811]

Yes, it seemed Russia didn't get the hint Michael was giving them.

[@formerlydistantorigins6972]

I always drew comparisons between the last Tsar and King Charles 1st. Both strike me as the worst person to become the monarch at the worst time. Their own characters made everything worse for themselves and the country they ran

[@xShadowsithx]

Classical problem of heir monarchies where the monarch has much or absolute power. Capable monarchs can led to a golden age for their country while incompetent ones can led to absolute disasters and for each generation it is totally random if the monarchs rule is great, medium or bad. Another example for your list is Louis XVI. He has some similarities to Nicholas II due to his incompetence as a monarch led to the French Revolution.

[@anthonymorris2276]

You could probably also include Louis XVI of France.

[@waltertaljaard1488]

He wasn't a bad man. But he made some very bad decisions. He would have been a good village priest. But he was totally out of his league as an absolute ruler of the largest country in the world.

[@DPRK_Best_Korea]

He inherited the throne far too early.

[@Sapwolf]

I agree with this.

[@redzeckez3346]

@@DPRK_Best_Korea he knows that he become tsar too earlier but I think he having no choice...

[@jimmyjakes1823]

I agree. Nicky seemed to be an all around B+ person. He would have been an excellent baseball commissioner or charity organizer. Charismatic, smart, healthy. His family and children were very sympathetic. The real issue here seems to be a sort of Dunning Kruger effect. It's hinted at in some of his direct quotes, but after watching this video I still don't really understand his commitment to absolute rule, with himself as the absolute ruler.

[@spicyshiba508]

All the tsars were murderers but he had a knack for it.

[@samkulik8701]

There are many videos of Tsar Nicholas as well as the. Movie Nicholas and Alexandria. The one thing you get realize in everyone of them is that you never see him talk to his people. You see him living in a Disneyland style palace living in incredible luxury while most of his people were poor and usually hungry. Compare that with the British monarchs, and even the emperors of Austria and Germany where you see them talking to their people. They really asked for it

[@garlandgarrison3739]

True. They were severely disconnected from their subjects. Maybe if he would have heard their voices and their grievances he would have began reforms.

[@daniel_sc1024]

There are photos of him talking with his people, including peasants. He wasn't completely cut off from them.

[@MrPrometheus1190]

This is rapidly turning into my favorite History channel on KZbin!

[@iluvcamaros1912]

Yes, though he was a good husband and father. Abysmal autocrat of All the Russias. He and Alix give me a headache when reviewing their continuous mistakes. One right after the other for years.

[@mphodmmphodm6192]

The moment he was brutal and ignoring masses decent requests, people grew desperate and took matters into their own hands, he should have evolved like the UK monarchy, probably Russia woulr still be a monarchy or somewhat peaceful transition

[@MisterJang0]

Nicholas: "Hey, bro, my advisors want me to abdicate. Could you take the throne instead?" Michael: "No thanks. Leave me alone." END OF A DYNASTY

[@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ]

Michael wasn't feeling capable for that position. And he didn't want to steal his brother's or his nephew's inheritance

[@Jerseyboondocks]

That's not how it went

[@MisterJang0]

@@Jerseyboondocks Yeah, obviously that was all said in Russian.

[@M0rshu1]

He swore an oath to god to protect the kingdom and it overthrew him. Yeah it’s his fault lmao. Maybe others helped beforehand, but he was the state, him.

[@davidlogan4329]

Nicholas was of course to blame for plunging Russia into two unnecessary wars and revolutions.

[@michelarsenault4088]

I would say it is 40% His fault, 30% his dad's Fault and 30% Tsar Nicholas I fault Nicholas I: Did not start the industrilization or reforms which should have been done, making Russia lag behind, forcing Alexander II to pick up the pace, albeit not fast enough Alexander III: Did not continue the reforms of his father, but did start slow industrial growth, but no political reforms, which should have taken place. Nicholas II: We all know why Nicholas II was not a bad person, bad ruler yes, but a sweet-ish dude. If he was a Consitutional Monarch, he most likely would have lived and be very popular

[@Rusu421]

China shoved how financial growth could go without any political reforms. As you live in society what extol liberalism you become inclined to call liberalism the main reason for prosperity. Puritans for example, believe that this is a reward for honest work

[@markpickett4403]

The second those soldiers fired on the people...was the Tsars death sentence 😢

[@KenPersson-jb9hk]

I've had many unanswered questions over the years that you answered for me in this video. Bravo to you and your fine work. I look forward to more.

[@MrKyleb1997]

Great video “The last Tsar” On Netflix got me into history so This topic really is never ending interesting and you have one of the best videos on this topic definitely 👍 Great job I subscribed please keep it up.

[@LuKaZz420]

I liked that serie

[@jenjen.rutherford8559]

There is so much blood on his hands . His hubris and arrogance was astonishing.

[@lurker-mq4fp]

The man was in the wrong place/era at the wrong time. The era of European monarchies was on its way out and he kept his eyes closed in front of the wave of progress. He seemed to read all the signs the wrong way.

[@Briselance]

There are still monarchies in Europe: Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and that's without accounting for the small states like Andorra.

[@jenjen.rutherford8559]

@@Briselance thailand still has a despot for a monarch . One of the richest men in the world and it's illegal to criticize him . Wishing him similar fate.

[@dirremoire]

@@Briselance The monarchies you mentioned are completely toothless.

[@JPJ432]

Fun Fact about Russia: It was Russia who saved The Union during the American Civil War as they sent their Navy to San Francisco and New York when England and France were just about to enter the war on the side of the Confederates since London created the Confederates. France was already in Mexico making a spear head movement to resupply the Confederates and to open up a Pacific Theatre and to create a port in California. England already amassed 11,000 troops and growing stationed at their Northern Confederacies border now called Canada ready to open a Northern Theatre to divert Union troops away from their Southern Confederacy then to attack The Unions naval blockade. The Union would have been completely destroyed and annexed by those two great powers leaving the Confederates to exist as either a puppet state of London or to be fully brought back into the fold of the British Empire. London was already courting (threatening/bribing) other countries to get involved like Spain while Russia was in talks with Prussia to ally with incase London was to intervene. Seeing all of this Tsar Alexander II wrote a letter to Queen Victoria saying “If you enter in this war it will be a casus belli for all out war with the Russian Empire”. The stage was set for the 1st World War and Russia stopped it. There is also a memorial in San Francisco for the hundreds of Russian sailors who came off their Asiatic fleet ships that died while helping the city put out a fire that threatened to lay waste to it during the War.

[@JPJ432]

The Russian fleet also threatened to Shell Australian ports along with other British Pacific Colonies if Britain aided the Confederates. A confederate war ship spent a lot of time in Australian waters and was supported by the Australian public, some even signing on as crew members. This Confederate war ship laid waist to the US Pacific whaling fleet and is reported to have fired the last shot in the war. The name of the ship was called the CSS Shenandoah. Its surrender was at Liverpool England where Confederate Commander Bulloch was stationed. Bulloch was the head spy Chief for the Confederates and main go between for London, Montreal, and Richmond. He was heavily involved in the finance of the South with British banking and supplied the south with its warships as most of them were made by the British. He was good friends with those who drafted the Very discriminatory Confederate Constitution and those that would later create the 'Clan'. He was also heavily involved in the assassinations of Lincoln and his cabinet members. He was Also the Uncle to President Theodore Roosevelt (on his mothers side of course) and Teddy greatly looked up to him and learned much from him from a very early age. Teddy called him 'Uncle Jimmy'. This is where Teddy Roosevelt got the idea for the 'Eff Bee Eye' he modeled it almost exactly from Londons 'Em Eye Five'. Russia also helped Thailand (Kingdom of Siam) maintain its sovereignty from being completely Partitioned/Annexed from the British and French around the same time. The very word Thai (ไทย) means 'free man' in the Thai language which is partially to thank to the Russians as they might have ended up being a colony or part of another country/colony if not for their intervention.

[@Teknanam]

No it wasn't. Or at least it wasn't the defining factor. Britain had made for itself 2 conditions for intervening in the Civil War. 1. If the Confederacy could achieve success in an offensive campaign against the Union. This would make Britain lose its fear of potential war with the Union and it would intervene to mediate a peace recognizing the Confederacy. 2. If post-Emancipation Proclamation, a violent slave uprising and race war happened. Britain would then intervene on humanitarian grounds. Condition 1 is the only one that benefits the Confederacy, but that went out the window once Robert E Lee got his butt kicked in the Battle of Antietam. If condition 2 had happened, that likely means the Union and Great Britain working together to restore order in Southern territories. Order that would likely not leave the Confederacy standing in any form. France's own condition was that it wouldn't join in the Civil War without assistance from other European powers. And Spain just didn't trust either the Union or the Confederacy since both could potentially start annexing Spanish assets like Cuba after the war. Russia just wanted the US to keep existing as a geopolitical counter balance to Great Britain. While they made moves with their ships that showed their support of the Union, it remains to be seen just how much of a factor Russia was in keeping other European powers out of the Civil War. After all, the other European powers had their own expressed reasons for not entering the war. Britain still maintained trading with the Union and didn't want to give the US an excuse to try and invade Canada AGAIN. France still remembers going bankrupt helping the Americans in the Revolution, and again, Spain doesn't fully trust either side to not go imperialist on their assets.

[@JPJ432]

@@Teknanam I think you will enjoy this quote from the Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov writing to Lincoln in the Autumn of 1862 a year and a half into the war- "You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted-that any course should be pursued-which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments."

[@JPJ432]

@@Teknanam Here is another quote I think you will like but from Tsar Alexander II in an Interview after the war: "In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: "I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York."

[@Teknanam]

@@JPJ432 Neither of those letters prove that Russia saved the Union though. It just shows Russia's support of the Union. The fact that the Czar acknowledges the proposition wasn't official seems like an acknowledgement that any official acknowledgement of the Confederacy would come much later if they could get their governments fully on-board with it. Which they never fully did. Especially not Britain who needed the Confederacy to prove itself on the battlefield before it would go against the Union. And if Britain doesn't commit, France and Spain won't either. They can profit from the situation just by staying out of it.

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting and informative as always! Thank you.

[@theperfectbanjo8610]

I’ve been waiting for this, fantastic as always my bro. Thank you 🙏🏼

[@myouatt5987]

Thank you, a great video which (imo) crystallised the elements of this saga and with well-cut video clips. 😀 The ineptitude defies belief ... I suppose the only thing which could be said in defence is that he didn't want to be tsar in the first place. (Finally, and as an aside, I was struck by the coincidence that you've published this on the eve of the Battle of Tannenberg - old-style calendar, that is! 😉)

[@frankbaine3918]

I've started watching a couple of HS's presentations and found them to be quite compelling not only for their detailed content, but they are very 'watchable' as well. I find his personal presentation style & narrative skills to be one of the best on KZbin & and in fact they are as good if not better that most commercial documentary channels with paid film celebrities who are just reading a script they generally know little to nothing about. His voice is well modulated, and the video cuts he uses, whether actual historical footage or that taken from relevant films, is very well integrated. Best of all, it is not some inappropriate & weird AI voice-over. Very well produced all around. I'm subscribing.

[@jib7863]

Fantastic video - as is all your work so far - can't wait to binge the rest of them!

[@juliettek.9440]

Not having seen this video, but having personally researched the last Tsar and his family. I don’t think the revolution is entirely his fault, but he is also not tally blameless. Honestly Tsar Nicholas never wanted the throne, but he knew he would one day have to take it. The somewhat untimely death of his father dealt a serious blow to him. He know had to muster the strength and presence he didn’t have that his father did and lead an entire empire. When really all he wanted to do was be a humble farmer and raise his kids. I kind of preferred this outcome in history. If only because I imagine somewhere is Nicholas grooming his son crowned Prince Alexi for the throne. If only to pass it off to him when he felt his son was ready. Maybe Alexi wouldn’t have minded that, maybe if he didn’t have the royal disease and he could take the throne everyone would have been happy. However, I dare wonder what it would do or how it would sound. Taking away your son’s childhood if only for you to live your childhood dreams.

[@isporsathemighty2750]

dude you are very good at what you do.. Keep up the good work and you will be on the top

[@arthurhayward122]

While I agree that Nicolas bears much of the blame I think it would have been impossible for him to agree to the German ultimatum without completely losing face both at home and abroad. There were already whispers referring to him as “Nicolas the Timid” because of the Balkan mess.

[@deeznoots6241]

Nobody blamed him for refusing the ultimatum, he got blamed for his complete ineptitude and mismanagement of the war. When local Russian citizens formed committees to help organise war production he saw those committees as a threat to his power and actively frustrated their efforts to help the war effort and Many factories in Russia went idle as war contracts were handed out to political favourites of the tsar and his family who consistently overpromised and underdelivered. Underperforming Russian generals stayed in service instead of being replaced due to aforementioned political favouritism.

[@gaborrajnai6213]

If you cant win a war then dont start it.

[@manolokonosko2868]

Yes, he knew he wasn't ready and didn't want to be tsar, yet he did everything worse than any of his predecessors ever did, instead of learning from other countries - mainly, the French Revolution, or the British monarchy - and instead of working to get along and make his country peaceful and prosperous as well as save his own skin, made the people hate him even more. Such incompetence wouldn't be seen again until the modern day United States Congress. In the end, though tragic, he got what he deserved.

[@jimmyjakes1823]

Really the fact that he couldn't even save his wife and children tells you all you need to know. At some point he should have seen the writing on the wall and sent the kids for an extended vacation with opa and oma in Denmark. Likewise, the way he and his family died tells you all you need to know about the bolsheviks. Even Mao let the last Chinese emperor live out his life in peace.

[@IbnRushd-mv3fp]

They went sick mode on the fam

[@FairlyFatherless]

The allies were already intervening in the Russia Civil War, and the Bolsheviks had yet to gain the majority control. The Tsar's existence risked the stability of already tumultuous new government. Leaving such a prominent potential player in the upcoming conflict would have been idiotic. He has no one to blame for the outcome but himself and his own inadequacies. Weak, ineffective man should have listened to his people rather than his sychophants.

[@jimmyjakes1823]

@@FairlyFatherless If you love bolshies so much why don't you move to a gulag? Tsar Nicky wasn't a 'prominent political figure' at that point. The most committed monarchists loathed him. You are as uniformed and deluded as the bolshies were stupid and bloodthirsty. No one was going to rally militarily behind a disgraced tsar much less a sick kid or a bunch of teenage girls. They murdered those kids for nothing just like all the millions of other people they murdered for nothing.

[@baneofbanes]

@@FairlyFatherlessah what a wonderful day, I wonder what I’ll find in the KZbin comments section today? >people justifying the murder of children That’s enough internet for today.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@FairlyFatherlessehh he was irrelevant already by 1918, absolutely none of the whites supported putting him back on the throne(in large part because they blamed him for the Bolsheviks rise to power)

[@hound3000]

I feel like that if Nicholas didn't get involve in WW1, he would lose Serbia as an ally, especially what happened to Bosnia. But then again, I think the situation of him abdicating was already inevitable because of all the mistakes that he made before the WW1 decision. WW1 just hastened his abdication and eventually led to his and his family's death. If he didn't get involved in WW1, he and his family might be able to escape Russia. Still, this is just speculation on my part.

[@RedXlV]

Serbia was an incredibly useless ally, though. Russia would've been wise to cut ties with them *years* before WW1 broke out.

[@bennygoodmanisgod]

A much more well informed and educated video on the subject than what I’m used to hearing, thank you. Too often, I hear people blame it all on “the Jews” or some other nonsense like that.

[@harpsdesire4200]

If the Tsardom had treated Jews better or at least left them alone they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the false promises of communism en masse

[@oneshothunter9877]

So, it wasn't the Jews? Then who?

[@bennygoodmanisgod]

@@oneshothunter9877 perhaps watch the video?

[@IbnRushd-mv3fp]

Yeah because in reality jews were over represent in fascism not these bolshevik folk, that's why today they blame it to hide their past involvement with it.

[@cringeclown4087]

Nah it was the Jews

[@andreasl_fr2666]

You blame Karl Marx for the Russian revolution. I blame Australopithecus for climbing down from the tree. We are not the same.

[@user-wr4yl7tx3w]

A bit simplistic. Who tried to banish serfdom. The tsar. The elites opposed it. It’s not always that simple. The tsar and elites are not always the same.

[@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ]

Well said. He may be an autocrat, but the tsar doesn't rule alone. He needs to keep the elites on his side if he's to ensure the stability of the realm and the safety of his family. That unfortunately means that not every reform goes through or in the way it needs to be implemented, no matter how needed it might be 😢

[@shmackydoodRon]

Every monarch should just get up and declare that “I’m going to retire and just go be rich somewhere. Be a democracy or whatever.”

[@MoonBerryShrimp]

What movie sources were used?

[@3618499]

😩 IT IS WRITTEN…. “ Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken. ” - Proverbs 22:8

[@theo-dr2dz]

Both Louis XVI and Nicholas II ended up on the throne by accident. Both became monarch because their older brother died unexpectedly. Both were totally unprepared because their fathers thought them incompetent (which they both were). Nicholas was totally unprepared. He knew nothing of politics and nothing of warfare. His father kept him out of everything because he expected his brother to succeed. The only thing he knew was that his grandfather had abolished servitude and was murdered for it, so his conviction was that liberalisation could only lead to disaster. Nicholas was also widely considered to be not very clever (to put it politely). Russia was not as stable as is presented here. There had been multiple attempts at revolution (the decabrists came very close to succeeding) and there had been considerable political violence before Nicholas became Tsar. A more competent ruler could have saved the situation however. He could have passed at least somewhat decent labour laws, and make some effort to enforce them, and that would alleviate quite some pressure. He could have done something to improve the situation of the rural peasants. Both wouldn't impede his political power significantly and both could make him potentially very popular. Nicholas refused all this. The Japanese war should have told him that the army was weak. He ignored that completely and acted like Russia was a superpower, which it wasn't. Also Nicholas was not able to surround himself with capable ministers. There were some exceptions (Witte was pretty competent) but most were useless. I have the suspicion that this was partly intentional, Nicholas not wanting a competent minister becoming a threat to his power. But like the war minister that was selected for his entertaining war stories, that is just purely unprofessional. Nicholas was also distracted by the sickness of his son (he had haemophilia). That was also the cause Rasputin was so influential: he had convinced the Tsarina (who was a bit religion-crazy) that he could heal the son. Nicholas was a weak man, his wife and her pet monk were very influential. Both of course knew nothing of politics. As for WWI: I was always told that it was a flight forward: an attempt to avert a revolution by rallying the population around the flag. Nothing unites like a common enemy and all. I doubt that is entirely true. If Nicholas had used his brain, he should have known that the Russian army was too weak for that and that he needed all the men with guns that he had at home. He just refused to give up the dream of once controlling the Dardanelles. The Russian fear was that Austria would dominate the Balkans if Russia didn't and that the Dardanelles would be out of reach forever.

[@jorgebersabe293]

Actually, Nicholas II was the eldest. And Louis XVI was the grandson of Louis XV.

[@AlyoshaBosha]

"pet monk" shows the amount of degenerate western media you've swallowed. Rasputin was never tonsured a monk in the first place, and to call a monk a "pet" is incredibly disrespectful towards Orthodox monasticism. Get some manners Theodore!

[@LegendMkr7]

It doesn't need to be said but there was also Rasputin in the background, so that's always fun.

[@tsardripolasii1116]

“I do not rule Russia, 10,000 clerks do”

[@OrthodoxSr]

oy vey

[@davidniggemeyer1692]

I used to have sympathy for Czar Nicholas, but new information has caused me to be less sympathetic.

[@lc7327]

RIP big Nicky, Top lad till the end.

[@HenryStewart]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@maxwellutter3885]

What are those movies at the beginning?

[@irongeneral7861]

🤨​@@HenryStewart🤨

[@margustoo]

22:43 why are the maps so horrendously bad? There are plenty of sources that show how borders really looked like. Austria looks especially ridiculous.

[@panzerkampfwagen6bh]

Watching this and your other documentary, it would appear to me that the Tsar Nicholas has a HUGE role in kickstarting WWI and therefore also WWII

[@Thecaptainblackadder]

Very captivating narration. Just like the video on Louie the 16th end.

[@andrewfusco8580]

Nice video, though the title is a bit incongruous. After chronicling Nicholas' many catastrophic blunders, the title is saying he didn't bring on the Revolution and it wasn't his fault.

[@d.s.archer5903]

33:40 - 33:50 footage from the BBC 1974 miniseries “Fall of Eagles”

[@sarahnichols4439]

I did recognize Nicholas and Alexandra film (1971) and was wondering what the other films were. Could you list them please?

[@kangabroo]

@@sarahnichols4439 spotted some clips from The King's Man (2021) ( Ralph Fiennes, Charles Dance as Kitchener).

[@saidtoshimaru1832]

"God has chosen me to take care of my people" (Gets shot by his people).

[@rennor3498]

It wasn't the people who decided to have Tsar and his family executed, it was a handful of bolshevik revolutionaries. There was never any formal trial of the former imperial family and the people of Russia, even the majority of the Bolshevik Party who was in power at the time, had only learned of the Tsar's "trial" and ''execution'' after it had already happened. Even still the Russian people were only alerted about the death of the Tsar with no information being provided about the rest of the former imperial family. It wasn't untill the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the full case regarding the fate of the Romanovs was made public. The manner in which they were killed and how their corpses were consequently disposed of dimisses any possibility of it being an execution and alludes to a rushed murder.

[@jenjen.rutherford8559]

Allows his people to starve and die after miserable lives.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@rennor3498i think its worth pointing out that the Tsar never became a martyr, sure there was no celebrations when he died but quite importantly nobody cared either way, the Tsar had in such a short time become so totally irrelevant that his death was met with a shrug.

[@andrewvanhalen1984]

​@deeznoots6241 uh dude, the people who supported him were silenced and many Tsar loyalists were jailed. I mean, this is the Soviet Union we're talking about here.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@andrewvanhalen1984 there were no Tsar loyalists, there were some monarchists in the White armies that fought the Russian civil war, but absolutely nobody wanted Nicholas II back(Monarchists instead preferring to put a different Romanov on the throne), he was a political dead weight blamed for everything that had gone wrong with Russia.

[@alank5560]

Great video, thanks for posting.

[@dirremoire]

I find most videos that try to exonerate TsarNicholas are too sentimental and emphasize too much that he was basically a "nice person" and therefore a victim of some sort I couldn't disagree more. He was vain, arrogant, aloof and unintelligent. His whole reign screamed " let them eat cake" in a way that would have put Marie Antoinette to shame.

[@wonderfalg]

Marie Antoinette never said that. Most successful example of propaganda still alive.

[@billmago7991]

​@@wonderfalghow do you know? were you there?

[@irongeneral7861]

Definitely not unintelligent; he spoke multiple languages fluently and was very socially adept. His personal qualities as a man were quite admirable, hence why he is viewed sentimentally. His rigid positions are more to blame for his failings as a ruler, but he had examples he couldn't discard in his predecessors, including one that died in front of him.

[@wonderfalg]

@@billmago7991 It was first published by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1789 and later repeated by Marat. Neither of these had access to the queen. The story behind Rousseaus quote goes back years and he didn't mention Marie-Antoinette, he wrote instead about a princess he heard about saying that. It was clearly Marat personalizing it to Marie-Antoinette. Political things aside: The only source is a (real or made up?) rumour "he heard about" even without a name. Only one fair conclusion left: Marie-Antoinette never said that.

[@dirremoire]

@@wonderfalg Okay, maybe she never said it, but it sure sounds like something she would have said. From what I know about her from movies and stuff, she really was that clueless.

[@stevidente]

If not him, then who? Even if you blame the government, he was responsible for picking the government since Russia was not nor ever was a representative democracy. WW1 was the straw which broke the camel’s back but Russia’s losses were entirely due to mismanagement and misplaced optimism. Even without WW1, there is an argument to be made that their system of government wouldnt have survived 20 or even 10 years.

[@Avghistorian77]

Depends on which Revolution. The February one? Absolutely. The October Revolution is more debatable, as it probably could’ve been avoided had the Provisional Government made peace with Germany.

[@the_styler1]

Not really. The war was actually more popular than you might think. After all it was the bolsheviks who signed the humiliating treaty.

[@Avghistorian77]

@@the_styler1At the start, yes the war was very popular. By 1917 however? Absolutely not, and most Russians were sick of it. Had the provisional government made peace, the deal wouldn’t have been ideal obviously, but they were in a way better position than when the Bolsheviks signed Brest-litvosk. The Russians would’ve lost Poland and some parts of the Baltics but would keep Belorussia and Ukraine, and also wouldn’t fall to Revolution.

[@deeznoots6241]

At the very least not delaying the constitutional assembly due to the ongoing war would’ve helped

[@sarahluise3153]

@@the_styler1 and the Bolsheviks got a lot of flak for signing a humiliating peace but end of the day it was a bullet someone had to bite - as others correctly pointed out by 1917 there was no desire to continue the war, most importantly among the soldiery. Doesn't matter how popular or unpopular the war actually is if the soldiers physically refuse to fight it

[@formerlydistantorigins6972]

You only discuss it for a short time, but, after watching this video, i wonder if Nicholas also played a big part in putting Japan on the path that led it to being a WW2 enemy. Perhaps, if the Japanese were treated better and an agreement being reached, Japan would never had fought and defeated Russia, giving it a win over what seemed to be a stronger European empire, giving them the confidence to eventually take on Britain and then the US

[@anthonymorris2276]

Interesting theory. But it doesn’t square with the fact that Japan was allied with Britain, France and Russia in World War One. I don’t think that Russia or Tsar Nicholas can share the blame for Hirohito and Tojo deciding to emulate Hitler’s and Mussolini’s adventures as war criminals.

[@thomask.8537]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is, Empress Alexandra constantly goaded him to resist sensible people in the Russian elite who could have avoided the catastrophe. She was a low rent German princess from almost nowhere who thanks to her marriage to Nicolas suddenly thrust her into a situation for which she possessed absolutely none of the proper qualifications. Not prepared for the job, no sense of vocation. Never even learned to speak Russian properlyx. As historian Edward Crankshaw put it, her life was "one permanent family teaparty at Alexander Palace." She constantly urged her husband to become more oppressive, not to compromise where sensible compromise could have avoided the worst.

[@declanfeeney7004]

Alex was everything the Jacobin's thought Marie Antoniette was. The definition of a fail daughter

[@sleepthoughamostqruelandde1116]

This was fantastic!!😮 Footage id always wondered was out there is here,very informative!! Thank u!😊

[@sthlk]

my new favourite history channel, great as always

[@amongstus4418]

Giving Austria Bosnia for absolutely nothing was his biggest mistake. The only reason Russia felt like they had to intervene was because Serbia was under threat, but they were under threat BECAUSE of giving up Bosnia. Had they stopped Austria then, they would not have needed to stop Austria later.

[@shinyflygon8883]

Yes, all of these are mistakes, Russia always struggled with handing off from one tsar to another. Nicholas was basically self taught on matters of state due to both the relatively surprising death of Tsar Alexander III and Russian Tsars seeming fear of being ousted by their successors, and thus not training them on matters of state. Am I saying he is blameless? No. Would he have probably been subpar to bad with sufficient learning of how to handle the ship of state? Almost certainly. But is this putting too much on him and not enough on his predecessors, in my opinion? Yes.

[@dirremoire]

But the one thing that caused the end of the empire was 100% his fault and his fault alone. The unfathomably stupid decision to go to war with Austria-Hungary because of Serbia. No way his predecessors can take any blame for that.

[@shinyflygon8883]

@@dirremoire Three things: One: Did entering WW1 actually doom the empire, was it doomed before hand and WW1 only sped it up, or was it doomed by actions undertaken in WW1 itself? I honestly don't know the full answer as I think I could make a claim for any of these to be true. Two: He should have learned to some level from the previous mistake of the Russo Japanese War, yes, but I'm not certain that there is a good solution here. As mentioned, Serbia is Russia's only ally in the Balkans at this point. Keep in mind that his government was not aware of the concessions the Austrians had to give to the Hungarians to even getting a conflict in the first place. He doesn't know Austro Hungary was not after annexing any of Russia's only Balkan ally. Not backing them up could have ruined that crucial relationship. Furthermore, another point of intervening was to repair Russia's military reputation after the Russo Japanese War. With them backing down, how much longer could Russia have remained as a great power worthy of its empire? Three: I can blame the predecessors to some level for not putting up adequate means of learning how the ships of state function early on, which lead to his misreading of the Japan situation which in turn, lead to Russia's aggressive response to the Austrian ultimatum. No action can fully be put into a vacuum. Each action has reasons, be them legitimate or not, before it that make it more or less likely. The Russian decision to enter WW1 is no exception. Let me finish with this: Was it a mistake in hindsight? Absolutely. But hindsight is 20-20. Foresight is not. While a skilled statesman could have foretold it being a mistake, a monarch surrounded by yes men would have had a significantly harder time seeing that.

[@virginiasoskin9082]

He was tutored by the same man who taught is father, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a right winger. It was an education completely lacking in imagination or the idea of innovation across the entire society of Russia. Nicholas simply was not equipped to rule. And when he became tsar while still in his 20s, he was shy, dull, and inflexibly autocratic. What was needed with a visionary who could work with a Duma to create a government, say, like Britain's. But he refused to ceded any power whatsoever and that was his downfall. A shy dull man does not select good government officials who could have helped him if he had only allowed them to.

[@TheWinston86]

Thank you for putting together a very informative video. I learnt a lot🙏🏻

[@JoeSmith-os7zn]

Great Video!!! Really shows how Nicholas really screwed the pooch on some aspects. You know what is a topic that would be interesting? Why did Austria Hungary do so poorly against Russia, despite being more industrialized and Russia having such a backwards and undersupplied army?

[@dirremoire]

Was Austria-Hungary really more industrialized? I think it was very similar to Russia .Both were vastly rural with a smattering of industry.

[@JoeSmith-os7zn]

Based on what little i know, yes, but probably not by too much as far as I know. Austria Hungary had a higher GDP per capita than Russia in many areas and was very high up when it came manufacturing many goods. One I do know is Austria Hungary was rated fourth in terms of making manufacturing equipment and electric components., being only behind the USA, Germany, and British Empire..

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Yes Czechia was pretty industrialized. 20 years later the conquest of Czechoslovakia enabled Hitler the French campaign, some estimates giving it that every second german tank in France was made in the Skoda factory.@@dirremoire

[@thejoseonone]

Can you put some notes as to where you found these movie clips? Would like to watch them

[@ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣΑΜΑΝΑΤΙΔΗΣ-β7μ]

The film is called Nicholas and Alexandra

[@larrydirtybird]

I think one thing nobody ever contemplates is Nicholas‘s intelligence. We hear a lot about how stubborn he was, but not about how smart he was. I don’t think he was a very smart man. I’m not suggesting he had any level of mental retardation, but think he was of average or below average intelligence, and being Tsar at that time demanded exceptionally intelligence, which he did not come close to having. When you read his diaries, and his letters to his wife, you see a very simple-minded man. I don’t think he was capable of very complex thinking and strategizing.

[@daniel_sc1024]

Actually, many of his ministers and others who dealt with him commented that he was very intelligent. Where he was lacking was in his imagination and being resolute. Although he understood things and quick to grasp situations, he was unable to take different information and viewpoints and draw his own conclusions. It was often said that the Tsar's opinion on a subject depended on the last person he spoke to on the subject. He was easily persuaded, which led to him changing his mind frequently, and that was why so many called him weak (even King George V admitted this, when he first heard of revolution breaking out in 1917). Keeping a diary was something that was drilled into royalty since childhood at that time, seen more as an exercise in regimented routine - they all tend to be filled with rather banal information.

[@larrydirtybird]

@@daniel_sc1024 well I believe in Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences, and what you described in your reply to my comment, is a man who may have been intelligent in some ways, but who didn’t have the kind of intelligence needed to do well the job that he was born into.

[@Nomad-XA]

Would love to hear about the Japanese emperor in WW2

[@AlexusYoung-h6t]

Queen Victoria, grandmother to Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt, would never have (had) her English troops fire at the London crowds outside Parliament, let alone anywhere near Buckingham Palace.

[@petravazanska5707]

we were always tought since small age how the Tsar was evil, now i think that he was not born to be a tsar? but in my opinion, what Stalin did, was it worse?

[@OrthodoxSr]

He was not evil, you were taught jewish satanic lies by the soviet regime

[@Avaricumstudios]

Which movie are the clips from?

[@b1crusade384]

Yes. The Tzar is at fault. He should have had prioritized keeping the people feed and worked not to go to war with s major power.

[@d.s.archer5903]

9:26 What movie or mini-series is this footage from? Thanks!

[@World12356]

It seems to be a Russian movie. "The Romanovs: An Imperial Family"

[@richardkeilig4062]

Excellent historical presentation.

[@EmilyFoxSeaton]

This was excellent. Everytime I hear coverage of what happened there is no "detail" they just tell me what happened in glossy plot points. We need to know what happened so we don't make the same mistakes.

[@Syryu]

Tsar Nicolas: I don't want to be Tsar! I'm not prepared and I can barely speak to the administrators! Revolutionaries: Perfect. We were looking to limit the powers of the monarchy anyway. So how about you give us a parliament, give more voice and power to the people and that way you don't have to do as much as Tsar? Tsar Nicolas: Screw you guys! This is MY throne!!!

[@Sackbear_Social]

You definitely held no punches against him here, even I haven't heard a breakdown of his mistakes like this before but wow, no wonder every other line was "due to Nicholas' incompetence" in this video

[@keithbrown640]

At around 29:30 when you brought up the British coming in. There are tons of historians that said they think that British was going to declare war again Germany no matter what due to feeling threatened by Germanys trade

[@GatoSinPelo12]

Well, I was thinking in the same question

[@felixyusupov7299]

The Tsar could have told the Kaiser early on "You made your point in Serbia. Back off before this sh*t gets out of hand". There you go. He would have died an old man.

[@michaelclark4062]

If he made better choices then he could have kept his crown/if I was him i would have just changed things to have a Constitutional monarchy like here in the UK 🇬🇧

[@DMR_MAK]

Thank you for the uploads !