Re: [orthodox-synod] MP nachala sud! Bozos in the woodwork!
- GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST - GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
I read the diaries of Nicholas (much of which were
written in English, and Czar Nicholas seemed to be a
very holy man. However he didn't appear to be a good
leader, because he wasn't trained to lead. His father
died when Nicholas was only 18 or 16 years old, so how
could he have had the training to lead such a vast
country. Besides that, unless ALL of the writers that
I've read are wrong, the Romanov court was an absolute
mad house. Besides, giving one man (whoever it is)
absolute power is putting too much of a burden on him.
Just my humble opinion
--- for4z@... wrote:
> Vova Hindrichs wrote: "The revolution happened__________________________________
> because of an inept monarch, a corrupt government,
> a bloated aristocracy, and lots of hungry Russians.
> He was indeed a passion bearer, but it didn't
> change the fact that a leader has to lead, and
> Nicholas II lacked the innate ability to lead hungry
> troops to the chow hall."
> This is an answer straight out of the Soviet text
> books! Sadly, after the Revolution of 1917, the
> Soviets propagandized false Russian History to the
> rest of the world, including the United States. It
> is interesting to note, that many current Russian
> historians are re-studying the life and career of
> Nicholas II, and are rejecting the Soviet notions
> that he was an inept ruler.
> Many shared fault in the Russian Revolution. Among
> these, at least initially, one can even list some of
> the Cossacks, who only decided to fight against the
> Reds after it was too late.
> -Nick Zaharov
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.