Talk:Nicholas II

100,000 dead soldiers per day

I read somewhere in the internet, that Nicolas II was sending soldiers to the battle with no uniforms, no boots, and no rifles. The slaughter was so bad, that there were days he was losing up to 100,000 people per day! Can someone help find this information? It would be interesting to think, what kind of a person would: 1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time) 2. Have peaceful demonstration of peasants executed,(this is why he was called "bloody" second time) 3. Send millions to their death just for his pleasure, and finally be canonized as a saint, just because he happened to be killed by the bolsheviks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.160.250 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikipedia is a place where facts presented, not propaganda. If you "read something somewhere" it does not necessarily proves to be true. The Great War was a disaster for all the world, and Russia lost less lives than most of its enemies and allies. Max (Moscow, Russia) 62.231.5.194 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Russia lost more soldiers than any other country in WW1 except Germany (and the second most civillians and total lives after Turkey), as can be found on the WW1 Casualties wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.200.129 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One can also read claims that holocaust did not happen. That can be read somewhere.--85.164.223.189 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

laiming that Tsar Nicholas II lost 100,000 soldiers per day is not just wrong — it’s an insult to anyone who can even read a history book. There was never a point in World War I, or in any war in human history, where a nation lost 100,000 soldiers a day. Not even the worst battles like Verdun, the Somme, or Stalingrad reached such ludicrous numbers on all sides combined, let alone for one country alone. Russia’s total casualties over four years of WWI were around three million — wounded, missing, and killed combined — meaning the entire claim falls apart with just the tiniest application of math and common sense. There is no serious historian, Western or Russian, who supports this brain-dead myth. It’s pure internet folklore for people too lazy to pick up a book.

The nonsense about soldiers being sent to war without boots or rifles is another twisted exaggeration. Early in WWI, Russia, like many nations, faced supply shortages — especially during the disastrous early mobilization. But this did not mean millions of men were thrown barefoot and empty-handed into battle. The Russian Imperial Army corrected most supply issues by 1916, and the idea that the Tsar personally ordered a mass suicide of unarmed soldiers is a grotesque distortion invented by Soviet propagandists who needed a cartoon villain to justify their bloody revolution.

Dragging up the Khodynka Tragedy at Nicholas II’s coronation is another intellectually dishonest smear. Yes, it was a tragedy. A terrible stampede killed over a thousand people because of poor crowd management. Nicholas did not cause the stampede. He did not celebrate over corpses. In fact, he wanted to cancel all celebrations but was pressured by government ministers and foreign guests to fulfill diplomatic duties. Pretending this shows him as a heartless monster only exposes the ignorance or malice of the accuser.

As for Bloody Sunday, Nicholas II did not order the massacre. He was not even present in the city when the demonstration was violently dispersed. The truth is that nervous local military commanders, fearing a revolutionary uprising, overreacted. That day was indeed shameful, but laying it personally at Nicholas’ feet is historically false. He actually mourned the deaths and was deeply shaken by what happened.

The claim that he “sent millions to their death for pleasure” is vile. Nicholas II tried to prevent World War I. His telegram correspondence with Kaiser Wilhelm II, known as the “Willy-Nicky telegrams,” shows two monarchs desperately trying to avoid conflict. Once the war was unleashed by Austro-German aggression, Nicholas had no choice but to defend his nation. The suggestion that he derived “pleasure” from war is a slander so evil it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Finally, Nicholas II and his family were canonized not because of his politics, but because they died as Christian martyrs. They were brutally murdered without trial, without defense, without mercy by the Bolsheviks — slaughtered not because they had done evil, but because they symbolized Orthodox Russia. Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children were recognized for meeting death with patience, prayer, and forgiveness, embodying the very Christian virtues that their murderers hated. They are saints because they bore the Cross until the end, not because of how they ruled.

In short, this entire post you shared is a regurgitation of Soviet-era lies, rooted in communist hatred, not serious history. Anyone repeating this trash today is either a fool who hasn’t read a book in their life or a propagandist who thinks smearing martyrs is clever. It’s pathetic.

Mrzovda1905 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok? You trying to portray him as a good or even mediocre leader is even greater a lie. Orangeorang1 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

uhhh... waayyy 2 long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.198.83 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you for one, if read this article on him and Bloody Sunday, you'd know that the czarist officials knew of the event several days before hand, and willingly decided to send the czar out of St. Petersburg on vacation without telling him of the event. He never found out about it until a few days later, in which he wasn't happy. His relatives in St. Petersburg wrote him a letter encouraging not to trust the government officials. My point is the actual czar didn't know how to run the country, and other people were controlling it, and even doing things without his permission. As for him having people stomped on his marriage day, I have no clue what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.177.164 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas II wasn't a saint, but compared to Lenin and Stalin, he a lamb. In the war, Russia lost about 3,000,000 persons against more than 70,000,000 persons during the "Communist peace" between 1917 and 1991.Agre22 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Read Robert K. Massie's book Nicholas and Alexandra for more information on Nicholas' role in Bloody Sunday and World War I; it also contains an extensive bibliography.Sdsures (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, people who wish to make vague references to "heard somewhere" or "people have said" definitely should do some reasonably serious research. With today's availability of sources online this is not a hard undertaking. - The reference "1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time)" is totally incorrect. The applicable fact pertains to Nicholas' coronation. What happened was that people were trampled to death when souvenirs were being distributed at a mass gathering in a field on the outskirts of Moscow. The stmapede was not ordered by anyone and the resulting deaths were an unfortunate accident. - Item 2 referring to Bloody Sunday is also more accurately explained above when it is noted that Nicholas wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time of the demonstration and personally couldn't have and didn't give any orders to open fire on the demonstrators. - Item 3 has absolutely ZERO basis in any fact. Certainly it would have been invented as part of Bolshevik/Communist propaganda - as were any number of seemingly "glorious" revolutionary events, including the "storming of the Winter Palace" which never occurred but was staged for Eisenstein's film on the Revolution. We currently live in a time when truth appears to be whatever is believed. Unfortunately, it has become all too easy to believe what you wish - but that does not make it true.Moryak (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Administrator note Ok, we are going in circles here. If someone has some specific proposals to make regarding edits to the article, backed by reliable sources, those would be welcome. Otherwise this is veering into WP:FORUM territory and it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Nicholas II wasn't a saint. Well they made him into one after he died. =) JIP | Talk 22:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Execution details

I’m surprised that there is no mention in this article of the fact that Masonic rituals were performed over the bodies of the Romanovs after their death. Swehlam (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Swehlam: Adding in the relevant information with a source is more effective than a talk page comment. Although I don't see anything special about that information. Jon698 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Says 1981 and should be 1918

Says 1981 and should be 1918 2601:2C4:4302:FB50:881:35A2:2B8C:BF76 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

1981 is correct. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2025

I would like to copy some quotes regarding the honors of Tsar Nicholas II, in order to modify the section in the Italian language.

Mercedes309 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Punctuation correction needed.

In the revolution section, there is a run on sentence. It is located after the quote paragraph in the beginning of the section.

Current version: "After the divisions and cossacks at the city garrison had sided with the revolution emperor Nicholas II was left without a choice."

Needed change: "After the divisions and cossacks at the city garrison had sided with the revolution, emperor Nicholas II was left without a choice." ~2025-33814-95 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Succession

Michael II, the Byzantine, is listed as his de-facto successor, when the last emperor was a different Michael II. NojbojDva (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That was a recent mistake, introduced just a few hours ago. I have reverted. DrKay (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Split proposal

I proposed to split as Reign of Nicholas II, starting a lead section:

Emperor Nicholas II ascended on 1 November [O.S. 20 October] 1894 following the death of his father Alexander III, until his abdication on 15 March [O.S. 2 March] 1917. Absolutiva 13:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support - provided a reasonable precis of the reign is retained here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Title

In the full title name of the Bolgar city is written without letter L (Bogar) ~2026-14300-87 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Death place

@Sarranidian: Hello. I believe you are mistaken. The name "Russian SFSR" was not official until 19 July 1918, when the new constitution was adopted. The name "Russian Republic" continued to be used and there was no single name used. See for example The Constitutions of the Communist World (1980). In January, the state was not yet renamed. The term "Soviet Russian Republic" was used in the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People. This is also mentioned on page 200 in Hundred Years of the Russian Revolution (2021). Either way, the status quo was "Russia" until it was changed in March so I ask you to maintain the status quo until there is consensus for this change. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the moment it was originally changed. The user is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Mellk (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mellk. I see what you mean surrounding the name. I believe a proper approach is to solve this is to still have a hyperlink to the RSFSR as it was established in January of 1918 without the name as you stated, but have it read "Bolshevik Russia" or a more accurate example being "Russian Republic (Bolsheviks)" or any other general name that applies to bolshevik Russia. Other than that, I do ask you restore the birth date to the Russian Empire as that is not really disputable. Thanks, and have a good day. Sarranidian (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:GEOLINK it is probably not a good idea to include more links and in my opinion we do not need to include the full name since the average reader knows that Saint Petersburg is in Russia and has always been in Russia. Yes, the emperor of Russia was born in the Russian Empire -- is that useful? Per MOS:IBP, the less information there is, the better. Mellk (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally believe it is quite useful and have used former countries in infoboxes before to research and see the information faster as it drives a distinction between modern and historical states and brings context into what states they were born in, and died it. But that is me personally. Personally having it be just russia doesnt distinguish the modern russian federation from former states Sarranidian (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It is also best as it mirrors other historical figures in former states as former states Sarranidian (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally we do not include something based on other content, but even if we did, this is not something consistent. Napoleon simply says "France", Benito Mussolini simply says "Italy", for example. I also do not think this would cause confusion with the Russian Federation ("Russia" does not specifically refer to the current political regime). We wouldn't say "France" only refers to the current political regime since 1958, "China" since 1949, and so on. Considering the infobox already says he was emperor and abdicated, I personally do not see how including more detail would be beneficial. Either way, you were welcome to seek a third opinion if you insist on adding more detail to the infobox. Mellk (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I see thank you. Sorry I was going off the pretext of a couple of specific pages like lenin but I've looked into it further and it should probably remain russia until further notice. Thank you. Sarranidian (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2026

Tsesarevich is inconsistent with Tsarevich Ofegante (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

change "Km" to "km" and more (Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2026)

in the section here:

Nicholas II visited Helsinki on 10 March 1915.

• Russian economy during Nicholas II
• 
  History of rail transport in Russia: Km of rail roads built each year in russian territory, from 1837 to 1989. Nicholas II's reign witnessed the most intense period of rail building.
• 
  Stock market in Russia: Indexes of russian and US equities (1865 - 1917). Nicholas II's reign saw the highest indexes reached by russian equities.

"Km" is not SI-compliant (ambiguous, could be read as kelvin-metres)

+ "most intense" is too non-neutral Alstocras2 (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Partly done Fixed kilometres across the article. Will leave tone issues for another editor to judge. Snowman304|talk 12:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)