[Huntress]

"They took power in a bloody revolution, whereas a tsar is anointed by God," he said.

The Tsar and his family certainly didn't deserve their fate, but the above statement is a bit much. Nicholas II was a terrible tsar: weak-willed, none too bright, and totally unprepared to rule. Still, the Bolsheviks managed to do an even worse job than he did.

[agere_contra]

Russia has been run by autocrats throughout history. It seems to be their fate.

But you are right, the Bolsheviks were indeed worse than Nicholas.

[padre35]

Hard to argue with that Huntress, the Russian Army fought even more poorly when the Tsar took direct command, and his previous internal moves turned Russia into a police state the the Bolsheviks used for their own purges and progroms once they seized power in Western Russia...

Literally Tsar Nicholas put the tools in place not only for Russias defeat in WWI, but also the oppression that followed.

[ASA Vet]

"They took power in a bloody revolution, whereas a tsar is anointed by God," he said.

The Tsar and his family certainly didn't deserve their fate, but the above statement is a bit much.

B. Hussein Obama and his worshipers assume the same divine right.