Posted on 12/09/2018 5:52:03 PM PST by marshmallow
The Public Chamber of the Russian Federation held its final meeting of the expert council of the “Great Names of Russia” contest on Tuesday, summing up the national vote for renaming 42 airports throughout the country after great Russians.
5.5 million people participated in choosing 42 names out of a possible 142, and the final results were announced on the program 60 Minutes on the channel Russia-1, reports the Murmansk Gazette.
Among the winners was Royal Martyr Tsar Nicholas II, in whose honor Murmansk Airport will be renamed, having received 49% of the votes (71,652).
The great and beloved Russian saint defeated Ivan Dmitrievich Papanin, a Soviet polar explorer, scientist, and Counter Admiral who was twice awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union and nine Orders of Lenin, who fought for the Bolsheviks in the Russian civil war. He received 41% of the vote (60,402).
State Duma Deputy Natalia Poklonskaya, known as a great venerator of the Royal Martyrs, noted that there are plans to allocate $52,290,000 (3.5 billion rubles) for the reconstruction of the airport, and the new name in honor of Tsar Nicholas will help speed up that process.
“Believe me, having received the name of Tsar Nicholas II, this airport will receive the long-awaited federal money quicker,” she said in an interview with Moscow Speaks.
While some in Murmansk have decried the results, claiming the city has no connection to the Tsar, Royal Russia reports that this is not the case: “Murmansk, Russia’s first ice free port was in fact founded in 1916 by Nicholas II and named Romanov-on-Murman. It was from here that many believed the Imperial family would have been sent abroad to England after the tsar’s abdication, however, it was not to be.”
(Excerpt) Read more at orthochristian.com ...
Good!
+1
Skip the Tatoo
Doesn't really roll off the tongue.
I'd say, "I'm landing at T-Nick".
Too soon?
At least some countries aren’t wiping out their history.
I feel the same about Communist symbols too, it happened, it’s history, no value served in pretending it never existed.
Why don’t they name it Sebastian Squire Senator Tsar Nicholas Two Airport instead?
He made promises to create a representative Duma (parliament) after the 1905 defeat to Japan, but he did this only to calm sentiment and then a year later cut off the head of the Duma.
He persistently didn't end the autocracy that is Russia and thereby made the March revolution inevitable (not the October, the March one).
Tsar Nicholas also continued with his Russification policies in the Baltic states, in Poland, in Georgia etc.that created heavier anti-Russian feelings
Finally, he went into war with 70 year old generals who thought of fighting with fortresses.
He was a part of history, but he was no hero imho
Completely agree with the need to remember a country’s history. OTOH, for Putin to celebrate the age of czars says a lot about his intentions, IMHO.
He was a part of history, but he was no hero imho
_______________________________
Yes you make some good points. However, revolutions come and go... What followed the assassination of the Tsar, I heard Hell had to take notes.
The Tsar’s actions or lack thereof speaks for themselves and when you juxtapose life with Tsar and life after, I can say with confidence he was more than a decent fellow.
Cheers!
1. The horrors of the communists were horrors, yes and they made the Tsarist times seem easy, but the Tsarist times were also horrors, on a lower, incompetent scale (the commies were more efficient killing machines). The gulags, secret police etc. were started under the Tsars, perfected by the Marxists
2. Decent fellow in comparison to Lenin and Stalin -- yes. But that's no comparison, by comparison to Stalin nearly everyone is a saint.
3. a lot of the hell of communism was due to Nicholas's not changing -- he had a chance in 1905 when he set up the Duma. This could have channeled people's ire away from revolution to republicanism/democracy. But he subverted that. The only way for change in Russia was revolution. In contrast in the USA if you didn't like a President, you voted another way in 4 years. In the UK if you didn't like the government, you voted another way. Democracy helps to ease social pressure. The Tsar failed at that (just as Louis XVI was a failure -- why didn't the Tsar learn from history?)
Unfortunately Kerensky and the Mensheviks were too naïve when it came to dealing with the Bolsheviks.
To put this into perspective, the Bolsheviks incarcerated and executed more political prisoners during their first 4 years in power than were imprisoned or executed for political "crimes" during Nicholas II's 20+ years.
a lot of the hell of communism was due to Nicholas's not changing -- he had a chance in 1905 when he set up the Duma. This could have channeled people's ire away from revolution to republicanism/democracy. But he subverted that. The only way for change in Russia was revolution. In contrast in the USA if you didn't like a President, you voted another way in 4 years. In the UK if you didn't like the government, you voted another way. Democracy helps to ease social pressure. The Tsar failed at that (just as Louis XVI was a failure -- why didn't the Tsar learn from history?)
Marxists assassinated Alexander II, a reformist Tsar (he emancipated the serfs). The result was exactly what the Marxists wanted: repression and stagnation under his successors Alexander III and Nicholas II, which paved the way for revolution. The greatest enemy of a radical isn't a repressive reactionary, but a moderate, sensible reformer. Under Alexander II, there was the potential for Russia to evolve into a western-style constitutional monarchy. Instead, it kept autarchy that made the most radical and violent alternatives appealing to a lot of people.
Decent fellow in comparison to Lenin and Stalin -- yes. But that's no comparison, by comparison to Stalin nearly everyone is a saint
That's about right. Under Nicholas the II, Russia was a backward but semi-normal nation in terms of its diplomatic relation to the western world and in the type of people it cultivated as a cultural elite. Under the Bolsheviks, it ceased to be a normal nation in any sense.
What you said about Alex II is true. If Alex III hadn't happened things could have been different
I dispute calling the Tsar's semi-normal -- probably lower than that, but nowhere near the depths plumbed by the communists
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.