• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Explanation: Nicholas II was the last Tsar of the Russian Empire. Over the course of WW1, his wife became obsessed with Rasputin, a philandering ‘holy man’ who claimed supernatural powers (whether he and the Tsarina were lovers is questionable, though it was an accusation thrown about at the time), the war itself was going terribly, and the frustration over the autocratic and ultraconservative government of the Tsar led to socialist revolution being increasingly spoken about - and then happening, with astounding suddenness.

    I’d say ‘poor Nicky’, but he was an authoritarian, a warmonger, a racist, and an antisemite, so fuck 'im.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      9 days ago

      Wasn’t she close to Rasputin because he claimed he could cure her son’s hemophilia?

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Yep. The main thing he did was take her son off of aspirin whenever he was around.

        Aspirin worsens bleeding.

        So he had an effect simply by being an anti-medicine quack, and claiming to work miracles.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      Was Nicky a warmonger, though? I mean he fought what, two wars in his entire career? I mean he went to war with Japan on pretty dubious grounds, but I don’t think he ever actually wanted to go to war.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        9 days ago

        Invasion of Manchuria, invasion and occupation of Iran, Russo-Japanese War, and WW1. Three of those were eminently avoidable with minimal, if any, loss for Russia.

        If Nicholas II didn’t ‘want’ to go to war, but was still willing to in order to achieve his aims, I would argue that that is a greater want for the war than for its avoidance.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          I wouldn’t count the invasion of Manchuria here because, like, the other side needs to fight before it’s called a war. That was more of an essentially unopposed land grab. Invasion of Iran was definitely warmonger-y as hell no argument there, but as for Russo-Japanese war his mindset was more “they’re yellow Asian monkeys, they’ll back down if we push 'em hard enough.” He also thought he’d be able to quickly win any potential war with Japan so he wasn’t trying to deescalate by any stretch of the imagination, and government propaganda was bellicose as hell at the time, but still he was legitimately surprised when Japan declared war. As far as this particular war goes, I’d call him more hopelessly delusional than a warmonger.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 days ago

            Starting a war in hopes that the opposing side will yield and not a threat is still starting a war. Also your description starkly resembles something happening in a different century 🤔

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Starting a war in hopes that the opposing side will yield and not a threat is still starting a war.

              He didn’t do that, though. The cause of the war was Russia stepping on Japan’s toes in Korea. It was pretty provocative stuff, but he didn’t start that war. At no point did Russia take military action against Japan before the war. Now I’m not saying he didn’t cause the war because he absolutely did, but causing a war due to incompetence and stupidity isn’t how I would define a warmonger.

              Also your description starkly resembles something happening in a different century 🤔

              Which?

    • GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      He was authoritarian, warmongering, racist, AND antisemitic? Gee, I hope the guy who replaced him wasn’t all of those things!