“Rosbalt” continues to acquaint readers with the series of lectures Daniil Kotsyubinsky “In search of the real king,” about the history of Russia from Rurik to Putin.
On the twentieth lecture, the historian explained why Nicholas II was unfit to run the country, and in fact he led Russia to the revolution.
“After the death of Emperor Alexander III came to power, his son, Nicholas II, who was the complete opposite of his father. Nicholas was not malicious by nature, but was the most “malicious” for his subjects as their actions, are inadequate to the challenges exposed the autocratic system and “burst” the country into civil strife, and himself did everything to tragically terminate his reign. We can say that it was a complete failure as a politician, kind of anticar,” said Kovel.
According to the historian, one may sympathize and sympathize with him as a person and as a man he deserves it. But as a Manager of the system under the name of Russia he is antiprimerom.
“On the example of his reign, it is time to read a lecture on “How not to manage Russia”. Nicholas just naturally was unable to lead the country, to be king. For this he was too weak-willed person. Since childhood, he was very dependent on his mother and to depend on her opinions when she had a chance to give his son a direct impact. But to a much greater extent in the period of his reign had been influenced by his wife Alexandra Fedorovna. He, incidentally, found in nature like her mother, that is powerful and able to influence her husband and family in General. In fact, all his life he had “two mothers”, which influenced his decision. However, the influence of the spouse was for Nicholas II in the end fatal”, — summed up Kotsyubinsky.
the Full video of the lecture can be viewed at the link.
Stories about how you tried to get help from the Russian state in terms of coronaries and what came of it, email it to COVIDfirstname.lastname@example.org