Thanks wikipedia! (But seriously though wtf is up with this article)
I’m sure those three citations are bountifully well sourced 🙄
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.
Wikipedia? Not even once.
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?
“Well intentioned”, sure. Vague enough that it’s hard to argue with that. Hardworking? Absolutely not. Disinterested at best, complete goober at worst.
