• Gang_gang [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Nicholas was a weak and ineffective ruler, but soviet historiography did also portray him that way. Also the bolsheviks did initially deny killing the entire Romanov family, only announcing the death of Nicholas. The only claim that isn’t subjective I see is that the Romanov murders were an “atrocity”. Perhaps it should be changed to controversial military actions. Also I guess “at all costs” lets us know the writers opinion

    But all in all I don’t think this is terribly misleading.

      • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Our boy Nick was easily top 3 dumbest and most incompetent rulers of all time.

        Don't even have to set the bar that high. If you lead your country into a disastrous, losing war that helps catalyze a domestic revolution, that's the definition of "ineffective." If you get ran out of power by your largely pre-industrial populace, that's the definition of "weak."

    • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      It's not just about the fact, it's also about the emphasis. Lenin is described in a very nefarious way, and the emphasis on "portraying" NIcolas II as weak and ineffective, is a rhetorical strategy to imply the inverse.