A lot of people like to cut him some slack, like “oh but he loved his family and was a great family man!” It reminds me of people who say Hitler was a great public speaker and artist or whatever. 🙄

I think learning about Nicholas II really contextualized fascism for me. The tsar was a traditionalist authoritarian rather than a fascist, but he really shows, I think, how ordinary people can hold totalitarian beliefs and still be ‘good people’ (note that I would never call the tsar a good person, but bear with me). Oftentimes people say “X is fascism” but quickly backpedal if real-world comparisons are drawn between family or friends. “They’re a good person!” they object, “Just misguided! Not like the other rubes!”

But Nicholas II shows the face of genuinely conservative authoritarianism. The face of the mediocre man, who puts no deeper thought into his beliefs than to parrot what he was raised with and stubbornly resist all challenge to that. He was not exceptionally cruel in terms of personality. I think probably a significant minority of ‘nice’ people, in Nicholas II’s circumstances, would have turned out just as big a piece of shit as he was.

Not rubbing their hands with glee as minorities are murdered, like a ‘normal’ authoritarian, but shrugging when racist pogroms erupt across your empire. Going out to picnic as thousands die on a foreign front you caused. Being more interested in the trinkets in the shop window than the soul-crushing poverty around them. Saying that changing things will just make things worse; you can tell because what we have now ‘works’. Holding onto traditional ways because “that’s how it’s done” despite the wave of reformists and revolutionaries shouting at you in the Duma.

We are surrounded by Nicholas IIs. You can say it’s related to the ‘banality of evil’, how normal people commit terrible crimes; but instead, how ‘nice’ people can hold horrible and sincerely held beliefs. If we knew a Nicholas II in our lives, we probably wouldn’t hate him. If he was family or friend, we would say “He’s just misguided, not a fascist!” or simply note that dear Nicky isn’t very political. He’s a good guy. He’s the sweetest fellow on the block. Our dear Nicky is a good father and a good husband, attentive to his kids, loving to his wife, gentle and kind in person. He’s not a fascist, we say.

But Nicky is also the kind of person who will give no thought to his bigotries or how the outside world affects him. Nicky is the kind of person who is indistinguishable from a fascist, or other authoritarian ideologue, in his political choices. Our Nicky is an authoritarian, even if not a frothing-at-the-mouth political junkie. Our Nicky, when fascism comes, will welcome it. Our Nicky is a fascist.

Our Nicky is Nicholas II. He wasn’t power-hungry, he wasn’t exceptionally cruel, he wasn’t exceptionally fanatical. He was a mediocre man without imagination. And in power, he is ruinous. A tyrant who sent millions to their graves. An autocrat who crushed the opposition and resisted all calls to give it up. A careless spendthrift enjoying baubles while millions suffer in poverty. An obstacle to all progress, and an enemy of all reform.

Mediocre men like Nicholas II rarely get far in politics, so we rarely think about them in that context. But Nicholas II had the ‘good fortune’ to be born into autocracy. He is a rare example of the real ‘nice guy’ who holds authoritarian views, in a position of power. He’ll be nice to you, and mean it. He doesn’t parade his politics around; he may not even care all that much, or express sympathy for the arguments of the opposition. His ‘niceness’ coexists with his authoritarianism. But given power, this ‘nice guy’ will be indistinguishable from the ‘cruel man’ who is given power, without suddenly changing personality or revealing that it was all a charade.

Holy fuck, I got wordy with that. Got a bit out of hand, I think.