Thanks wikipedia! (But seriously though wtf is up with this article)
Nicholas was
reviled by Soviet historians and state propaganda asa callous tyrant who persecuted his own people and sent countless soldiers to their deaths in pointless conflicts.More recent assessmentsRevisionist monarchist bootlickers have characterized him as a well-intentioned, hardworking ruler who nonetheless proved unable to handle the challenges facing his nation.
Isn’t even the gentlest honest evaluation of Nicolas II that he had basically zero interest in ruling effectively and let the police run roughshod over the citizens, because he was more obsessed with his family than being a good leader?
I’m sure those three citations are bountifully well sourced 🙄
There is actually a kernel of truth in that, but it just shows how monstrous Jefferson was: he was opposed to the continued importation of slaves because he bred them. “I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every two years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.”
Check out the Wikipedia entry for the Ukrainian famine. So obviously an op, it basically takes the side of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi “historians” rather than the broad global consensus among academic historians.
