Killing the Romanovs

[RedZezz]

Was it a mistake? Was it necessary? Was it inconsequential?

What do you think of the deaths of the last tzars?

[Smyg]

The killing of innocent children, no matter their heritage, is always wrong. Strategically good, maybe, but never the correct way to go. Whacking the Tzar was a humanitarian deed, though.

[tir1944]

Sad (for the children at least) but necessary.Of course they were shot only becaus the Whites were preparing to storm the town where they were held (i think it's Simbirsk),otherwise they most likely wouldn't have been shot.

[Bronco]

I know that it was looking possible they would fall into the hands of the Whites but I don't think you can ever justify killing the children, what was their "crime" exactly, besides being born into privilege?

[mrmikhail]

Sad (for the children at least) but necessary.Of course they were shot only becaus the Whites were preparing to storm the town where they were held (i think it's Simbirsk),otherwise they most likely wouldn't have been shot.

It was Yekaterinburg and they were put to death so they could not be used by the whites as a call to arms to free the Tsar (which in turn would possibly cause a risk of their rescue)

It is generally considered an act of fear on the part of the Bolsheviks. Personally feel it wasn't the best moment in the civil war, but in the end it likely did help the Bolsheviks due to the facts the White lost a rescue mission call for more troops and so on.

[mrmikhail]

I know that it was looking possible they would fall into the hands of the Whites but I don't think you can ever justify killing the children, what was their "crime" exactly, besides being born into privilege?

They were considered a risk....even if you just kill the former Emperor, his son is automatically the emperor and a potential risk if the whites were able to obtain them...but as I stated it was more a move of fear and definitely not the high point of the Reds in the civil war.


"My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Yekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov I asked in passing, "Oh yes and where is the tsar?" "It's all over," he answered. "He has been shot." "And where is his family?" "And the family with him." "All of them?" I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. "All of them," replied Yakov Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply. "And who made the decision?" I asked. "We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances "

-Trotsky on the matter

[Rafiq]

I don't know if it was necessary. But it shouldn't stand as a legitement full scale criticism of the Bolsheviks as a whole. Terrible things happened on both sides, to the extent in which the Bolshevik party conducted them is debatable, but they happened.

[Raúl Duke]

If it was neccesary for the revolution, than fine I guess. While the deaths of people are lamentable, particularly the children (not so much the Tsar himself, responsible for an odious system), there were particular reasons why they sought to kill the majority of the Romanovs and that was to thwart the Whites from using the children to rally around to (since they're the heirs to the throne) during the Civil War/Counter-Revolution like the monarchists did (not sure if it was the then king's direct children or that of his relatives; whatever) during the French Revolution.

Note: I realize someone already beat me to it right after I posted it.

[The Young Pioneer]

IMHO...

I share the sentiment of those people here saying that it's entirely regrettable.

I think it wasn't nearly as well-organised as it should have been if they indeed felt the need to kill all the children along with the Tsar and Empress. It also would have been more reasonable to put them on trial first, but as things were, the White Army was advancing on Sverdlovsk, etc. etc.

If they'd planned better, at least the deaths could have been quick and painless. As it was, the execution squad wasn't informed until the DAY OF and when some discovered they'd be killing the children, they backed out. (A few of the guards had struck up friendships with the daughters, ranging in age from 22-17.)

When the execution took place, they planned to shoot everyone in the cellar room of the exile house. The women had sewn family jewels into the children's clothing and thus, when shot, they survived. (Everyone initially shot at the Tsar anyway, though they'd all been pre-assigned to a person. Such goes hate.) The women were reportedly molested and the tsarevich (just 13) took stabbings with bayonets before a point blank shot to the head ended him. The two younger daughters reportedly sat up screaming after the bodies were moved to the trucks for burial.

Their fate was long, slow, and full of suffering. I don't care if they lived their lives surrounded in riches or whatever, they were too young to have an influence and no one deserves such an end. But, the family bloodline was alive and well until they were all killed.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't know about you all, but I personally would find it more fitting if they were sent to the gulag and worked (to death maybe).

[Optiow]

It was a tragedy in a period of tragedies. I have researched a lot about the Romanovs, and especially the Czar's children a few years ago when I was writing a story. My opinion is that the Bolsheviks were hard pressed, and with what they believed to be the fate of the global revolution on their shoulders they killed the Romanovs to show that there was no turning back. They saw that the Romanovs would be a standard for the Whites to rally around, and so they eliminated them to save their revolution.

It was a horrible act, but I am no fool to condemn them for it. I can see why they did it and in their place I might have done the same, but I do not think we should think the Bolsheviks all monsters for doing so. The Civil War was a very dirty war, and many innocents were killed. The Romanovs just so happen to be very famous innocents killed.

[The Young Pioneer]

Well said, Optiow.

The Whites were, of course, infamously brutal in that war as well. It's the story of history- rarely is one side of a battle innocent.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i may sound heartless but im not put off by it. not one bit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know about you all, but I personally would find it more fitting if they were sent to the gulag and worked (to death maybe).

Forgive me for my sarcasm below (it's not my opinion at all on what you've posted succinctly):

<S.Artesian>

That's enough to gag a maggot [...] comes out, and I do mean comes out of his little neutralist closet all dressed up in jackboots and riding crop [...]

He thinks he's talking about utility, when he's really talking about value-- he's getting the surplus labor at below subsistence costs, [Raul Duce] [...] Slow and painful deaths as lab rats? [...] "Strip 'em and Rip 'em" could replace "Arbeit Macht Frei" on [Raul Duce]'s labor camps [...]

I would be honored to be disqualified from participating in what is obviously a circle jerk of those eagerly awaiting the opportunity to be goons and thugs.

The problem isn't that I told this strutting little Beria wannabe [...]

See, it's really not that complicated. A smug [...] steps out [...] to say [...] a slow and painful death, is a "good thing." So I tell this Martha Stewart of the Gulag [...]

</S.Artesian>

[Let's just say that, with my editing, you're missing out on the juicier parts. :D ]

[#FF0000]

don't care

[Cencus]

I think it would have been better if they could have been kept alive and faced the music but circumstances don't lead to ideal situations. It was a war a nasty brutal war and any family member would have been used as a lightning rod for opposition. Maybe they should of been shunted to somewhere safe but where was safe in those times.

[The Young Pioneer]

Maybe they should of been shunted to somewhere safe but where was safe in those times.

Supposedly, the were going to be shipped to England to chill with their wealthy cousins. ;) That obviously didn't come to fruition. However, the Tsar's sister Olga escaped to Denmark (and later Canada) and died an old lady in a small house over a shop.

During WWII she helped Russian emigres coming to Denmark. It led to the Soviet Union accusing her of conspiracy against them. Thought that was interesting.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally I think it's awesome that the Bolsheviks killed those children, but I think it was the wrong thing to do strategically.

[Art Vandelay]

Personally I think it's awesome that the Bolsheviks killed those children, but I think it was the wrong thing to do strategically.

Elaborate:confused:

[Smyg]

Rosario, I would suggest you read up on a subject called 'sarcasm'.

[Art Vandelay]

Rosario, I would suggest you read up on a subject called 'sarcasm'.

I guess I missed the tongue in cheek. Now I feel silly:blushing: Read it fast and it kind of shocked me, its late I should probably go to bed.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't know about you all, but I personally would find it more fitting if they were sent to the gulag and worked (to death maybe).

Well, no. If there were no danger of rescue by the Whites, then a public trial of Nicky and Alexandra, with the appropriate punishments, and re-education of the children in some humane fashion would have been appropriate.

The shootings were a desperate but necessary military measure, not justice. War is hell, as General Sherman said.

-M.H.-

[Smyg]

Well, no. If there were no danger of rescue by the Whites, then a public trial of Nicky and Alexandra, with the appropriate punishments, and re-education of the children in some humane fashion would have been appropriate.


Exactly.

[Raúl Duke]

lol how silly, I'm being facetious/sarcastic about the gulag comment.
Although perhaps also a bit pointed, after all taking into the account the behavior of the USSR especially post-Lenin of dissidents and counter-revolutionaries they would have likely sent them to Siberia.
Didn't know someone would get butthurt (enough to merit some sort of alleged long dreary response filled with ad homineums; which was later I'm guessing prudently deleted since in all reality it would only make its original poster look downright stupid; although I'm not at all clear whether it was referring to me or DNZ or whether it's actually real or imaginary), over some goddamn monarchs, about it. :rolleyes:

Do any of you seriously think I care about the fate of the Romanovs?

I may study history, but in this case, their deaths is just a footnote, not important in the wider picture, and in the past now.

[Tim Finnegan]

Supposedly, the were going to be shipped to England to chill with their wealthy cousins. ;) That obviously didn't come to fruition.
Although this was actually before the October Revolution, and it was delayed by the Liberal government's fear that showing open sympathy with a deposed tyrant would create a negative public reaction. After October, the only ones with any real plan for them were the ultra-Whites looking to reinstate the old Autocracy.

[Leftsolidarity]

Maybe I'm an asshole but I don't care in the least.

[Ostrinski]

Don't care, shit happens.

[Geiseric]

Lol. i found the humor in the work camp comment. i would start off making jokes not as powerful, so people will get you're kidding. anyways the czar and his rich, autocrat wife are probably burning in the deepest pitt of hell. Oh wait, he was named a saint by the church... I guess religeous institutions really don't like communists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Elaborate:confused:

Everyone always says "yeah, it was regrettable that those kids died, but it was the right thing to do strategically", so I just turned it on it's head. Kind of like "I hate the troops, but I support the war" kind of thing.

I make a lot of dumb/trollish comments on this site, take what I say with a boulder of salt. :sleep:

[kahimikarie]

The only reason that I think about the death of the Romanov children is that liberals always seem to bring it up as an example of how cruel and evil the Bolsheviks were.

Nevermind the way peasant/worker children were treated under the Tzar, I guess they haven't been romanticized enough in media.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The killing of innocent children, no matter their heritage, is always wrong. Strategically good, maybe, but never the correct way to go. Whacking the Tzar was a humanitarian deed, though.

This. They should've just shipped them off to Europe or something.

[Bronco]

The only reason that I think about the death of the Romanov children is that liberals always seem to bring it up as an example of how cruel and evil the Bolsheviks were.

Nevermind the way peasant/worker children were treated under the Tzar, I guess they haven't been romanticized enough in media.

I'd say there were far worse atrocities committed by both sides in the Civil War than the execution of the Romanovs

[The Young Pioneer]

This. They should've just shipped them off to Europe or something.

I have an "all or none" philosophy about their execution. The reason [some of] the Orthodox church recognises the family as martyrs is because of their close family and religious dedication. I'd argue for such sheltered children with nothing to rely on in the world would've suffered a fate worse than death had they been separated from their parents by any means.

Trial would've been best, but that's not how things happened. Can't be helped.

I agree again with those saying there were way worse attrocities than killing a group of people who lived comfortable lives of luxury until their demise.

The children during the pogroms who had their throats slashed by the Okhrana, for instance...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Trial would've been best, but that's not how things happened. Can't be helped.

Trial? Would they be sent to revolutionary juvie if convicted? :lol:

[Commissar Rykov]

They should have been forced to work on a collective farm. I would have paid to see those aristocrat dipshits have to actually work.:laugh:

[Smyg]

Trial? Would they be sent to revolutionary juvie if convicted? :lol:

I assume the adults were the ones meant. :rolleyes:

[The Young Pioneer]

They should have been forced to work on a collective farm. I would have paid to see those aristocrat dipshits have to actually work.:laugh:

Pay me, pay me!

http://a57.foxnews.com/images/305660/350/450/1_22_romanovs_wood.jpg

Pictured: Tsar and his son.

Too big to embed, eldest daughter Olga: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/clairecher/OlgaTobolsk.jpg

Too big to embed, daughters Maria and Tatiana: http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4550/oaf12420cv.jpg

Too big to embed, daughters Tatiana and Anastasia: http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2714/oaf12668ff.jpg


Also, Explosive Situation, I meant the parents should be tried.

[Os Cangaceiros]

ah, ok.

Although I don't know what good a trial would've done, it most likely would've just been a kangaroo court anyway.

[Hexane]

Some of the anti-Communist remarks in this thread that are inspired by bourgeois falsification of the Russian Revolution are regrettable, as there is undue prominence attached to the ex-Tsar and his family even though they were insignificant actors during the Revolution and its aftermath. Demonstrating this insignificance, there was virtually no grieving on the part of the Russian people following the news of the Tsar's death, compared to the intense sadness with the death of the great revolutionary leader V.I. Lenin, who was visited by nearly a million Russians while he was lying in state during the freezing winter. Rather than deserving some of the undue criticism found in this thread, the death of Bloody Nikolai and his family members amounted to a powerful victory for the Russian people, who had to smash the the bourgeois regime in order to proceed with the socialist revolution. Not only were these acts necessary, but they also fully conformed to the norms of socialist legality and the relevant laws of the Republic i.e. martial law in the endangered territories.

The focus on the ex-Tsar's children is motivated by desperate attempts to discredit the Russian Revolution, but the basic problem with this approach is that it is isolated from the realities on the ground i.e. the Civil War that the counter-revolutionary forces imposed on the Russia.

Of major importance in May 1918 was the aggression unleashed against revolutionary Russia by the Czechoslovak corps, which was encouraged and supported by the Entente forces. Following this aggression, the Socialist-Revolutionary traitors set up their own counter-revolutionary regime called "Komuch", which proceeded to carry out brutal terror against the Russian people and above all comrades working in the Soviet bodies. Here were the results of this brutal White Terror perpetrated by the SRs and the Entente's Czechoslovak mercenaries, cited in Russian historian I. Ratkovsky's works:


On May 26, the Czechs captured Chelyabinsk. All members of the local councils were shot. On May 30 the Czechs captured Syzran. The next day at Petropavlosk, all 20 members of the Council were shot, as well as 4 Czech internationalists.

The total number of victims of the White Czechs and the Komuch regime in the summer-autumn 1918 in the Volga region was more than 5000 people. Their cruelty sometimes knew no limits. Out of 37 pregnant women arrested, for example, 16 were shot...

And then there was the announcement by the leadership of the Urals Regional Soviet. It emphasized that conspiracies had been unmasked to capture the ex-tsar, as well as how anti-Soviet forces were pressing in on Soviet territory, and that the ex-tsar was guilty of crimes during his rule. From this, it can be concluded that the execution of the ex-tsar was about punishing the man for crimes committed under his regime, as well as the military realities of Civil War during the precarious summer of 1918.

In view of the enemy's proximity to Yekaterinburg and the exposure by the Cheka of a serious White Guard plot with the goal of abducting the former Tsar and his family...In light of the approach of counterrevolutionary bands toward the Red capital of the Urals and the possibility of the crowned executioner escaping trial by the people (a plot among the White Guards to try to abduct him and his family was exposed and the compromising documents will be published), the Presidum of the Ural Regional Soviet, fulfilling the will of the Revolution, resolved to shoot the former Tsar, Nikolai Romanov, who is guilty of countless, bloody, violent acts against the Russian people.

[The Young Pioneer]

Mm, at least for my participation here, I must say I don't wish to discredit the Revolution. It was needed, and I'm glad it happened.

To me the focus of innocence is children in general- the Tsar's as well as the people's (pogrom victims, Khodynka victims, Bloody Sunday victims, to name a few).

To me, the execution of the Tsar was no victory (it was sloppy- even when they finally had the family dead, it took them three days to burn the bodies, drop them down a mind shaft, change their mind, bring them out of the mind shaft, bury again). To me, the real victory of the Russian people was the Feb. 1917 demonstrations in Petrograd that led Nicholas to abdicate. (Interestingly, March 12th, the Soviets presumably did away with the death penalty- I guess this didn't apply to monarchs? :rolleyes: )

Other dates of victory could be the Red take over of Moscow that November, or even 1920 when the last of the White army was defeated.

Executing an already deposed emperor in exile without trial and including his children? Overkill.

[A Marxist Historian]

lol how silly, I'm being facetious/sarcastic about the gulag comment.
Although perhaps also a bit pointed, after all taking into the account the behavior of the USSR especially post-Lenin of dissidents and counter-revolutionaries they would have likely sent them to Siberia.
Didn't know someone would get butthurt (enough to merit some sort of alleged long dreary response filled with ad homineums; which was later I'm guessing prudently deleted since in all reality it would only make its original poster look downright stupid; although I'm not at all clear whether it was referring to me or DNZ or whether it's actually real or imaginary), over some goddamn monarchs, about it. :rolleyes:

Do any of you seriously think I care about the fate of the Romanovs?

I may study history, but in this case, their deaths is just a footnote, not important in the wider picture, and in the past now.

Calmez-vous. Not to worry. Not sure what you are talking about as to the deleted response, sounds like I didn't miss anything as it must have been something the world is better off without.

There was in fact no way of telling that you were being sarcastic. Yes, there are people who post to Revleft who might have posted that meaning every word. Glad to know you aren't one of them.

Sarcasm can be problematic on the Internet sometimes.

-M.H.-

[Princess Luna]

I find it sad, all the people saying they don't care if children are murdered for the crimes of their parent(s), that said the Tsar himself had it coming.
And to the person above who said "The focus on the ex-Tsar's children is motivated by desperate attempts to discredit the Russian Revolution" that is a bunch of bullshit, the focus of the children is because I have no qualms with the rest of the events surrounding the Tsar and his family. They deserved to be forced out of power, they deserved to have their wealth taken from them, and the Tsar deserved to be punished for his crimes. However the children did NOT deserve to die for crimes they had no part in.

[Leftsolidarity]

I find it sad, all the people saying they don't care if children are murdered for the crimes of their parent(s), that said the Tsar himself had it coming.

Did the Tsar NOT have it coming??? :confused:

The children would then become the Tsar. They would still be the rulers. Once the Tsar was killed, his son was the Tsar. You need to destroy the family line so that no one can claim the throne. It might sound scary but its reality. I don't want a Tsar ruling over me and I have no reprehensions about anyone trying to free themselves from oppression by destroying the royal family.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nicholas II had it coming from Bloody Sunday onwards.

As for the Romanov surname, the only acceptable Romanov in the 20th century on a realpolitik basis was Grigory Romanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Romanov), Secretary of the CC CPSU and Gorbachev's main rival in the post-Brezhnev interregnum.

[Princess Luna]

Did the Tsar NOT have it coming??? :confused:

The children would then become the Tsar. They would still be the rulers. Once the Tsar was killed, his son was the Tsar. You need to destroy the family line so that no one can claim the throne. It might sound scary but its reality. I don't want a Tsar ruling over me and I have no reprehensions about anyone trying to free themselves from oppression by destroying the royal family.
The royal family in China was eliminated with out killing even the person who was sitting on the throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puyi), and don't forget there were 100's of people scattered across Europe and beyond who stood to inherit the Tsar's throne and yet the monarchy was abolished without killing them, adding a few more names to that list would not have changed anything.

[Leftsolidarity]

The royal family in China was eliminated with out killing even the person who was sitting on the throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puyi), and don't forget there were 100's of people scattered across Europe and beyond who stood to inherit the Tsar's throne and yet the monarchy was abolished without killing them, adding a few more names to that list would not have changed anything.

I would say the immediate family is totally justified. Not only are you looking back with the priviledge of hindsight but you are leaving out the part where the Whites stood a great chance of capturing the family.

[Commissar Rykov]

The royal family in China was eliminated with out killing even the person who was sitting on the throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puyi), and don't forget there were 100's of people scattered across Europe and beyond who stood to inherit the Tsar's throne and yet the monarchy was abolished without killing them, adding a few more names to that list would not have changed anything.
The Emperor of China was a joke and held no real power outside of the Forbidden Palace. You can't be seriously comparing him to Nicholas the Autocrat.

[Princess Luna]

The Emperor of China was a joke and held no real power outside of the Forbidden Palace. You can't be seriously comparing him to Nicholas the Autocrat.
I wasn't talking about Nicholas (for whom execution was very justified) but his immediate family who, with the possible exception of his oldest son, in the event of being rescued by the white army would have most likely ended up like Puyi, merely a figurehead with no real power.

[Tim Finnegan]

Did the Tsar NOT have it coming??? :confused:

The children would then become the Tsar. They would still be the rulers. Once the Tsar was killed, his son was the Tsar. You need to destroy the family line so that no one can claim the throne. It might sound scary but its reality. I don't want a Tsar ruling over me and I have no reprehensions about anyone trying to free themselves from oppression by destroying the royal family.
You're aware that there was no Tsardom of the All the Russias in July 1918 for either of them to Tsar of? If the Whites had wanted to create a new Tsardom, they could have put whoever they wanted in charge regardless of whether Nicholas was alive or dead. If you're going to argue for the execution, it has to be on a pragmatic basis from the immediate circumstances of the event, not because of this fetishism of royalty itself.

Anyway, Mao didn't feel the need to kill Puyi, and he wasn't exactly what you'd call shy about killing folk. So even on your own terms, I'd say that your stretching things.

[Leftsolidarity]

You're aware that there was no Tsardom of the All the Russias in July 1918 for either of them to Tsar of? If the Whites had wanted to create a new Tsardom, they could have put whoever they wanted in charge regardless of whether Nicholas was alive or dead. If you're going to argue for the execution, it has to be on a pragmatic basis from the immediate circumstances of the event, not because of this fetishism of royalty itself.

Anyway, Mao didn't feel the need to kill Puyi, and he wasn't exactly what you'd call shy about killing folk. So even on your own terms, I'd say that your stretching things.

Fair enough.

I'll respond once I get home for school

[Smyg]

You need to destroy the family line so that no one can claim the throne.


Yes, because history has proved that no monarchs ever come from nowhere without a long established family line. :rolleyes:

[Bronco]

Just a thought on whether the Tsar's children could have taken power in the country had they not been killed, with Nicholas' son Alexis having haemophilia it's likely he would not have lived to actually succeed his father as Tsar, and in any case Nicholas actually named his brother Michael to be his successor upon his abdication and not Alexis

It's true that Michael never actually was confirmed as Tsar and was himself killed but it does undermine the argument for the necessity of killing the children, like any Royal title there is a line of succession and even if the children were dead then there would have been other members of the Romanov family who could have taken the throne

[Smyg]

Even without any Romanovs, the Whites could easily have re-established monarchy if they really wanted. I mean, come on, Napoleon was from a minor Italian noble family. One of his officers, the runaway son of a poor lawyer, became the first of the Swedish Bernadotte royal line. They could have put any remotely related noble in their place, or raised someone completely non-related.

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes, because history has proved that no monarchs ever come from nowhere without a long established family line. :rolleyes:
It is true that has never happened. No one from say the Isle of Corsica ever claimed lets say the Throne of France. That is utterly preposterous.

[A Marxist Historian]

You're aware that there was no Tsardom of the All the Russias in July 1918 for either of them to Tsar of? If the Whites had wanted to create a new Tsardom, they could have put whoever they wanted in charge regardless of whether Nicholas was alive or dead. If you're going to argue for the execution, it has to be on a pragmatic basis from the immediate circumstances of the event, not because of this fetishism of royalty itself.

Anyway, Mao didn't feel the need to kill Puyi, and he wasn't exactly what you'd call shy about killing folk. So even on your own terms, I'd say that your stretching things.

One ought not to be overly legalistic about this sort of thing, certainly the Romanovs themselves never were. Every Romanov Tsar up to and including Catherine the allegedly great started his or her reign by killing off other Romanovs, often, as in the case of Petie the allegedly great, after elaborate and gruesome torture.

In practice, the Whites needed a creditable Romanov heir to reproclaim the Tsarist autocracy. Either an actual child, or at least an imposter verified by one of the imperial servants. so with the Whites virtually knocking at the door, all the children and the servants had to go.

Without that, trying to proclaim somebody or other as the new Tsar would just have discredited the Whites, just as the Polish "false Dimitri" proclaimed during the Time of Troubles never convinced anybody of his authenticity.

As for Puyi, China was not Russia. The Imperial Family had been overthrown in the *first* Chinese Revolution in 1912, and nobody except the Japanese wanted to bring them back. The Japanese attempt to make Puyi a puppet emperor for "Manchukuo" was a total failure.

Whereas in Russia, Boris Yeltsin, often called "Tsar Boris," spent his entire drunken reign trying to bring back the mores and attitudes of Tsarism, with considerable success unfortunately.

-M.H.-

[The Young Pioneer]

I get the bloodline argument, but, they should've realised no matter whether or not they killed the kids, someone will still claim a right to the throne.

Ongoing feud of two distant cousins is case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Russian_throne


Speaking of killing, can we let this thread die now?

[Commissar Rykov]

I get the bloodline argument, but, they should've realised no matter whether or not they killed the kids, someone will still claim a right to the throne.

Ongoing feud of two distant cousins is case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Russian_throne


Speaking of killing, can we let this thread die now?
This thread is a lot better than most of the other threads in History at times I don't see why it should die. People have been respectful and have offered some interesting points and it is an excellent break from the ZOMG Stalin/Mao/Lenin/Jesus killed a bazillion people or the typical tendency baiting that goes on.

I think both sides offer some interesting points but I think AMH hit the nail on the head that for the absolute propaganda coup that the Whites sought they need a legitimate Romanov to sit on the throne or at least a fake one that could be confirmed by servants. Without it the Whites lack the moral soapbox they had propped their fight up on. Was what the Bolsheviks did awful? Yes. Was it ultimately justified in order to prevent the Whites to have a banner to rally upon and renew the vigor of their assault on the Revolution? Absolutely.

[Leftsolidarity]

One ought not to be overly legalistic about this sort of thing, certainly the Romanovs themselves never were. Every Romanov Tsar up to and including Catherine the allegedly great started his or her reign by killing off other Romanovs, often, as in the case of Petie the allegedly great, after elaborate and gruesome torture.

In practice, the Whites needed a creditable Romanov heir to reproclaim the Tsarist autocracy. Either an actual child, or at least an imposter verified by one of the imperial servants. so with the Whites virtually knocking at the door, all the children and the servants had to go.

Without that, trying to proclaim somebody or other as the new Tsar would just have discredited the Whites, just as the Polish "false Dimitri" proclaimed during the Time of Troubles never convinced anybody of his authenticity.

As for Puyi, China was not Russia. The Imperial Family had been overthrown in the *first* Chinese Revolution in 1912, and nobody except the Japanese wanted to bring them back. The Japanese attempt to make Puyi a puppet emperor for "Manchukuo" was a total failure.

Whereas in Russia, Boris Yeltsin, often called "Tsar Boris," spent his entire drunken reign trying to bring back the mores and attitudes of Tsarism, with considerable success unfortunately.

-M.H.-

This is basically what I was going to say btw. thanks for saving me the typing haha

[Bronco]

I don't see why this thread should be left to die either, there's been some good discussion.

I'm not sure I agree with this idea that, if the Whites were to proclaim someone as Tsar/Tsaritsa, it would have to be one of Nicholas/Alexandra or their children. I also find it bizzare this idea that somehow a fraud or an imposter could somehow be proclaimed as the rightful Tsar based merely on the testimony of a couple of only the very closest servants to Nicholas. It's not like people were completely ignorant of any member of the Romanov family beyond Nicholas and his children, I hardly see how putting forward an imposter would be more credible than one of the many Grand Dukes who would be prominent figures in Russia who might be high up in the lineage to the Russian throne.

As an example in 1922 the White Army tried to reconvene the Zemsky Sobor (Russian parliament during the fuedal era) in Vladivostok and they named Grand Duke Nicholas Niklaevich as Tsar. The region fell to the Bolsheviks 2 months later so it was a futile gesture but it does to some extent show that the Whites didn't necessarily feel it was essential to have one of Nicholas or close family as their figurehead. In many ways I'd actually say that he would be a better person to be held up as Emperor than any of the daughters would have.

[Commissar Rykov]

I don't see why this thread should be left to die either, there's been some good discussion.

I'm not sure I agree with this idea that, if the Whites were to proclaim someone as Tsar/Tsaritsa, it would have to be one of Nicholas/Alexandra or their children. I also find it bizzare this idea that somehow a fraud or an imposter could somehow be proclaimed as the rightful Tsar based merely on the testimony of a couple of only the very closest servants to Nicholas. It's not like people were completely ignorant of any member of the Romanov family beyond Nicholas and his children, I hardly see how putting forward an imposter would be more credible than one of the many Grand Dukes who would be prominent figures in Russia who might be high up in the lineage to the Russian throne.

As an example in 1922 the White Army tried to reconvene the Zemsky Sobor (Russian parliament during the fuedal era) in Vladivostok and they named Grand Duke Nicholas Niklaevich as Tsar. The region fell to the Bolsheviks 2 months later so it was a futile gesture but it does to some extent show that the Whites didn't necessarily feel it was essential to have one of Nicholas or close family as their figurehead. In many ways I'd actually say that he would be a better person to be held up as Emperor than any of the daughters would have.
Like I said I imagine the reasoning behind wanting one of the Royal Family Romanovs on the throne would be more about a propaganda coup than it would be excellent leadership. Hell I can't imagine the Tzar would ever have had the same power after the Revolution if the Whites had won. I would imagine you would have a situation similar to China where the Emperor is nothing more then a nice little oddity and the majority of the country is run by the military.

[Bronco]

Like I said I imagine the reasoning behind wanting one of the Royal Family Romanovs on the throne would be more about a propaganda coup than it would be excellent leadership. Hell I can't imagine the Tzar would ever have had the same power after the Revolution if the Whites had won. I would imagine you would have a situation similar to China where the Emperor is nothing more then a nice little oddity and the majority of the country is run by the military.

No I very much doubt he would as well, but I also think the Whites were more unified under an anti-Bolshevik banner than they were under a pro-Monarchist one. A lot of those fighting for them wouldn't necessarily have even wanted to reinstate a Tsar at all, merely oppose the Communist forces.

[Geiseric]

Well if the Tsar was saved, wouldn't that seem like the whites, or at least the ones who got nicholas would seem more legitimate if they had the ex czar? Not necessarily propaganda, but maybe there were still loyalist elements elsewhere who would rally towards the Tsar? I don't know. The kids were a shame, but oh well. We won't kill the Tsar's kids again.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't see why this thread should be left to die either, there's been some good discussion.

I'm not sure I agree with this idea that, if the Whites were to proclaim someone as Tsar/Tsaritsa, it would have to be one of Nicholas/Alexandra or their children. I also find it bizzare this idea that somehow a fraud or an imposter could somehow be proclaimed as the rightful Tsar based merely on the testimony of a couple of only the very closest servants to Nicholas. It's not like people were completely ignorant of any member of the Romanov family beyond Nicholas and his children, I hardly see how putting forward an imposter would be more credible than one of the many Grand Dukes who would be prominent figures in Russia who might be high up in the lineage to the Russian throne.

As an example in 1922 the White Army tried to reconvene the Zemsky Sobor (Russian parliament during the fuedal era) in Vladivostok and they named Grand Duke Nicholas Niklaevich as Tsar. The region fell to the Bolsheviks 2 months later so it was a futile gesture but it does to some extent show that the Whites didn't necessarily feel it was essential to have one of Nicholas or close family as their figurehead. In many ways I'd actually say that he would be a better person to be held up as Emperor than any of the daughters would have.

There is a long history of phony Tsars, and for hundreds of years, the test was always, OK we know who raised this kid, the servants not the Tsar or Tsarina, do the servants verify that this kid is the real thing?

May sound weird, but that's Russian national tradition. And tradition counts for everything in this sort of thing.

Grand Duke Nicky? I thought he got shot too. Or was that another one?

If this was an uncle off in London at the time, that wouldn't have worked, you needed somebody on Russian soil, not an exile. And you needed a legitimate heir, and a child of Nicholas and Alexandra would automatically be legitimate, whereas other relatives would be open to question.

-M.H.-

[Bronco]

There is a long history of phony Tsars, and for hundreds of years, the test was always, OK we know who raised this kid, the servants not the Tsar or Tsarina, do the servants verify that this kid is the real thing?

May sound weird, but that's Russian national tradition. And tradition counts for everything in this sort of thing.

Grand Duke Nicky? I thought he got shot too. Or was that another one?

If this was an uncle off in London at the time, that wouldn't have worked, you needed somebody on Russian soil, not an exile. And you needed a legitimate heir, and a child of Nicholas and Alexandra would automatically be legitimate, whereas other relatives would be open to question.

-M.H.-

Do you have any sources for phony Tsars, I've never heard about that before? I'm still not sure it's feasible, I'm trying to remember the name now of one of the servants who spent a lot of time looking after Alexis but I believe joined the Bolsheviks after the Revolution (I bet he wasn't the only servant to have done so) and surely they could have identified that the imposter was in fact not the son of the Tsar.

This Grand Duke Nicholas wasn't shot, he was the one who'd been in charge of Russian forces in WWI, I'm not sure he was actually in the country at the time so like I said it was a futile gesture but I still don't agree that shooting the Tsar's children was a necessity.

It's also worth pointing out that some in the White Army had hoped the Grand Duke Nicholas could head their forces but there were fears amongst the likes of Denikin that having such a Monarchist figure would alienate potential support, which ties in with what I was saying a couple of posts up about how the Whites were more toeing an anti-Bolshevik line than a pro-Monarchy one, so I question how much the Tsar would actually have become a figurehead for the movement, and considering his son wasn't likely to live long from his haemophilia I doubt he would have either, and that would only leave the Tsaritsa who's reputation had been severaly damaged by her relationship with Rasputing, and the daughters.

[Leftsolidarity]

While this is a good discussion, it has turned to speculation instead of analysis.

[Geiseric]

I don't think there's anything to analyse, and it's down to moralism. The fact of the matter is that the Whites would have done the same to a thousand as many young people in order to get the romanovs back, for whatever reason, and to establish a militarist dictatorship in russia. But in order to remove the chance of the supposedly legitimate tsar coming to power with help from the tons of rich people in russia who supported him, they had to destroy the title of tsar. The same people would have been guiding alexi romanov as nicholas, and the state would have made the same actions as under nicholas if it was under alexi. The killing was to destroy the one thing the monarchists in russia could unite in support of, the position of tsar, the patriarch of the russian autocratic state. They were blood related, I think second cousins to the monarchies of germany, austria, britain, spain, and all of the other constitutional monarchies in europe, and you can't replace that with any reactionary general who wants to call himself tsar. If anything, it's the tsar's and the rest of the whites fault for de facto forcing alexi into taking the position of tsar in the case that Nicholas died.

Jeez I sound like a serial killer. I guess the bolsheviks were all methodical serial killers for killing babies and purging the mensheviks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like I said I imagine the reasoning behind wanting one of the Royal Family Romanovs on the throne would be more about a propaganda coup than it would be excellent leadership. Hell I can't imagine the Tzar would ever have had the same power after the Revolution if the Whites had won. I would imagine you would have a situation similar to China where the Emperor is nothing more then a nice little oddity and the majority of the country is run by the military.

Don't you have the wrong country in mind? That's Imperial Japan.


One ought not to be overly legalistic about this sort of thing, certainly the Romanovs themselves never were. Every Romanov Tsar up to and including Catherine the allegedly great started his or her reign by killing off other Romanovs, often, as in the case of Petie the allegedly great, after elaborate and gruesome torture.

Peter was *Great* by the standards of modernizers. The Bolsheviks admired his modernization, remember? You're right about Catherine, though.

[It would've been nice to see "tovarisch" Grigory been the Romanov exception to what you said.]

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you have any sources for phony Tsars, I've never heard about that before? I'm still not sure it's feasible, I'm trying to remember the name now of one of the servants who spent a lot of time looking after Alexis but I believe joined the Bolsheviks after the Revolution (I bet he wasn't the only servant to have done so) and surely they could have identified that the imposter was in fact not the son of the Tsar.

This Grand Duke Nicholas wasn't shot, he was the one who'd been in charge of Russian forces in WWI, I'm not sure he was actually in the country at the time so like I said it was a futile gesture but I still don't agree that shooting the Tsar's children was a necessity.

It's also worth pointing out that some in the White Army had hoped the Grand Duke Nicholas could head their forces but there were fears amongst the likes of Denikin that having such a Monarchist figure would alienate potential support, which ties in with what I was saying a couple of posts up about how the Whites were more toeing an anti-Bolshevik line than a pro-Monarchy one, so I question how much the Tsar would actually have become a figurehead for the movement, and considering his son wasn't likely to live long from his haemophilia I doubt he would have either, and that would only leave the Tsaritsa who's reputation had been severaly damaged by her relationship with Rasputing, and the daughters.

The highpoint was during the "Time of Troubles," you had several different alleged Tsars running around. The "false Dimitri," protected by Polish troops, occupied Moscow for a year. Also, you had Pugachev claiming to be "Peter the Fourth" (or was it third?) and false Tsars proclaimed in a couple other Cossack rebellions too.

A Tsarist servant who joined the Bolsheviks would not have been considered a reliable witness by pro-Tsarist forces, he'd be assumed to be a liar automatically.

There was one of Nicholas's brothers who was shot at the same time as Nicky, I'm forgetting the name. Anyway, by the Tsarist legitimacy rules the eldest living child is the legal successor. Anybody else is disputable.

Now, how successful proclaiming one of the children as the new Tsar would have been is unknown. Denikin might not have liked the idea, but he wouldn't have been able to object if the legitimate heir claimed the throne. This might have annoyed Denikin and some of your more liberal White Guard supporters abroad, but it would have been a tremendous boost in White authority, always very shaky, would have brought lots and lots of Cossacks and Black Hundreds and Tsarist officers back into the fold.

Remember, there were something like 20,000 former Tsarist officers serving in the Red Army on the basis that, like it or not, the Bolsheviks had the best claim to be the legitimate government and not servants of foreing powers. With a legitimate Tsar back on the throne, quite a few of them might have felt compelled to change allegiance, since after all every one of them had sworn an oath to uphold the Tsar.

-M.H.-

[seventeethdecember2016]

I read that when they were executing the family, they had a hard time killing Maria because the diamonds and jewels sown into her clothes protected her from many of the bullets that they shot at her.

Don't fall for reactionary intrigue. If any monarch is wearing that much jewelry, they deserve a swift death.

[A Marxist Historian]

Don't you have the wrong country in mind? That's Imperial Japan.

And "imperial" Manchukuo under the Japanese even more so. That movie "the last emperor" portrays nicely just how nonexistent Pu Yi's authority was to anybody at any time.



Peter was *Great* by the standards of modernizers. The Bolsheviks admired his modernization, remember? You're right about Catherine, though.

[It would've been nice to see "tovarisch" Grigory been the Romanov exception to what you said.]

Stalin admired Peter's modernization. Lenin most certainly did not.

The dean of Bolshevik historians, Mikhail Pokrovsky, held all the Tsars in complete contempt, and expressed this quite devastatingly in his books on Russian history. The main one was translated into English but is way out of print. I read parts of it a couple decades ago, I've forgotten the title.

Lenin admired him, but Stalin denounced him and banned his books after he died in the early '30s, even though he had been a loyal Stalinist who had argued repeatedly with Trotsky over various historical questions. Trotsky didn't have a high opinion of him.

Getting rid of Pokrovsky and "Pokrovskyism" was necessary for Stalin so he could bring in a new breed of historians who admired various Tsars as great Russian national leaders--like Stalin himself of course.

For an ultra-brief inadequate summary marked by anti-communism of his views, you could look at the Wikipedia entry.

If you can get hold of his book, it has all the dirt on the Tsars you could possibly want.

-M.H.-

[Bronco]

The highpoint was during the "Time of Troubles," you had several different alleged Tsars running around. The "false Dimitri," protected by Polish troops, occupied Moscow for a year. Also, you had Pugachev claiming to be "Peter the Fourth" (or was it third?) and false Tsars proclaimed in a couple other Cossack rebellions too.

A Tsarist servant who joined the Bolsheviks would not have been considered a reliable witness by pro-Tsarist forces, he'd be assumed to be a liar automatically.

There was one of Nicholas's brothers who was shot at the same time as Nicky, I'm forgetting the name. Anyway, by the Tsarist legitimacy rules the eldest living child is the legal successor. Anybody else is disputable.

Now, how successful proclaiming one of the children as the new Tsar would have been is unknown. Denikin might not have liked the idea, but he wouldn't have been able to object if the legitimate heir claimed the throne. This might have annoyed Denikin and some of your more liberal White Guard supporters abroad, but it would have been a tremendous boost in White authority, always very shaky, would have brought lots and lots of Cossacks and Black Hundreds and Tsarist officers back into the fold.

Remember, there were something like 20,000 former Tsarist officers serving in the Red Army on the basis that, like it or not, the Bolsheviks had the best claim to be the legitimate government and not servants of foreing powers. With a legitimate Tsar back on the throne, quite a few of them might have felt compelled to change allegiance, since after all every one of them had sworn an oath to uphold the Tsar.

-M.H.-

Ok thanks, I hadn't heard of that before, I still have doubts as to the feasibility of having an imposter held up as the supposed Tsar though

Generally it would be his son who should succeed him yes, however Nicholas instead named his brother Mikhail as his successor when he abdicated the throne. Ok so Mikhail never actually became the new Tsar but that is significant nontheless, and while he himself was killed I'm not sure that the White Armies were aware of his death

Lets not forget Alexis' illness as well, I'm no medical expert but there were several instances during his childhood where he came very close because of his haemophilia and even if he hadn't been shot I have my doubts as to how long he could have lived anyway, and I very much doubt he could ever have lived to become Tsar himself. And so who then? Alexandra, I don't think she was ever the most popular of Tsarina's, especially not after her relationship with Rasputin, and are they really likely to want to have one of his daughters leading the resistance?

And I'm not sure whether having the Tsar back as the figurehead of the White movement would indeed have been a unifying factor, of course there were pro-Monarchist elements and sympathisers fighting for them but if you look at people like Denikin, Kolchak, and Alekseev, I don't know if they had any real wish to restore the Tsar to power, they'd been supporters of the Provisional Government, and holding up Nicholas, Alexis or an imposter as the head of the movement would have stated an explicit intention to restore Tsarist rule to Russia, and that would have disillusioned and alienated a huge portion of their support.

[dodger]

One fact that always used to fascinate me in all this controversy.....The Tsar was refused asylum in Britain by George V. Aware of how unpopular his cousin was in Britain, no doubt he feared contagion. If I get time I will try to get some background to the story....I do believe cabinet papers were released after many, many years. Such was the obvious scandal...after lauding each other to the sky. The tsar's wife was German another possible reason. The German Shepherd Dog had just been reclassified as Alsation!! The British Royal family name was changed to Windsor from SAXE-COBURG and GOTHA in 1917 such was anti- German sentiment. They say bad luck comes in 'three's', to lose a King on top of a Tsar and Kaiser would have been a hat-trick for one family. As it was an Arch-Duke, Emperor of Austria and a host of others lost their titles....but saved their skins.

[The Young Pioneer]

Lets not forget Alexis' illness as well, I'm no medical expert but there were several instances during his childhood where he came very close because of his haemophilia and even if he hadn't been shot I have my doubts as to how long he could have lived anyway, and I very much doubt he could ever have lived to become Tsar himself. And so who then? Alexandra, I don't think she was ever the most popular of Tsarina's, especially not after her relationship with Rasputin, and are they really likely to want to have one of his daughters leading the resistance?

The Tsar's personal doctor said Alexei would most likely not survive, ergo, Tsar Nicholas didn't abdicate in favour of him. He was NOT expected to become Tsar, even by those who would have liked it.

Alexandra's relationship with the Father Grigoriy has never been proven to be anything more than worshipper to priest. If you have some sources I'm not aware of to prove your point (and here, I honestly completely doubt you do because I've researched the end of the empire extensively), do send me some links.

Lastly, the daughters were only trained in painting, embroidery, and French. They had, very bluntly, shelted, pathetic lives and have been reported in numerous firsthand accounts to behave as 10-year-olds even when they reached adulthood. Highly doubt they had the knowledge, much less gumption, it takes to lead any sort of resistance.

[Tim Finnegan]

Also, I may be wrong on this, but wasn't a lot of popular Tsarism orientated towards the House of Romanov in itself, rather than towards any particular member? The public focus on individual lines of descent in Western monarchy is related to its original social basis in feudalism, while the Tsardom evolved out of a very different social structure.


I read that when they were executing the family, they had a hard time killing Maria because the diamonds and jewels sown into her clothes protected her from many of the bullets that they shot at her.

Don't fall for reactionary intrigue. If any monarch is wearing that much jewelry, they deserve a swift death.
You do realise that the diamonds had been sown into their underwear so that they would be able to survive if they managed to escape? They weren't just flouncing around their prison in bejewelled ball-gowns.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I would just like to comment on the fact that "Killing the Romanovs" would make a great album title, band name, or song name. And i call dibs.

[∞]

Honestly those kids were 100% likely to be reactionaries anyway. Yes it was bad that they killed them. But from my knowledge some of these kids were vocal in their support for their father. So thats where I stand on it morally.

Strategically, it was a good idea.

[Tim Finnegan]

Honestly those kids were 100% likely to be reactionaries anyway. Yes it was bad that they killed them. But from my knowledge some of these kids were vocal in their support for their father. So thats where I stand on it morally.
Lots of Russians were supporters of the Tsar. Would it have been morally correct for the Bolsheviks to kill all of them too? And what about those who didn't support the Tsar, but were still reactionary? And those who were merely centrist? Or just insufficiently left-wing? Or too left-wing? At what point does ideological divergence cease to be the basis of violence retribution?

If you're going to defend this, it really needs to be in the cold terms of strategic necessity. There are no arguments that transform this act in a virtuous one, at least that I've ever heard, that to not carry themselves to gruesome conclusions.

[Bronco]

The Tsar's personal doctor said Alexei would most likely not survive, ergo, Tsar Nicholas didn't abdicate in favour of him. He was NOT expected to become Tsar, even by those who would have liked it.

Alexandra's relationship with the Father Grigoriy has never been proven to be anything more than worshipper to priest. If you have some sources I'm not aware of to prove your point (and here, I honestly completely doubt you do because I've researched the end of the empire extensively), do send me some links.

Lastly, the daughters were only trained in painting, embroidery, and French. They had, very bluntly, shelted, pathetic lives and have been reported in numerous firsthand accounts to behave as 10-year-olds even when they reached adulthood. Highly doubt they had the knowledge, much less gumption, it takes to lead any sort of resistance.

I think you might have misinterpreted my post somewhat because I agree with what you said.

With regards to Alexandra and Rasputin, by "relationship" I didn't meant it was a romantic one at all, perhaps I should have been clearer about that. I'm aware there is no evidence of anything sexual or romantic between them, I just meant that her reputation did suffer because of how close she was to him

I'm also aware that Alexis was never really expected to become Tsar and that the Romanov daughters certainly didn't have the capacity to become heads of the resistance, that was why I was challenging the idea that it was of necessity to shoot the children else they could become figureheads of the White Army, or even future rules of Russia, as that was something I don't think would have happened.

[The Young Pioneer]

Yes it was bad that they killed them. But from my knowledge some of these kids were vocal in their support for their father.

What knowledge is that? Honestly curious, here.

All that's left are diaries and anecdotes written by people who knew them.

But hey, if you wanna count 4-year-old Maria kissing her father's picture when he was ill with typhoid as "reactionary action in support of her father," more power to ya.



And okay Bronco. :)

[∞]

Lots of Russians were supporters of the Tsar. Would it have been morally correct for the Bolsheviks to kill all of them too? And what about those who didn't support the Tsar, but were still reactionary? And those who were merely centrist? Or just insufficiently left-wing? Or too left-wing? At what point does ideological divergence cease to be the basis of violence retribution?

If you're going to defend this, it really needs to be in the cold terms of strategic necessity. There are no arguments that transform this act in a virtuous one, at least that I've ever heard, that to not carry themselves to gruesome conclusions.

I said it was bad to kill them. But it wasn't an act of complete savagery as others suggest.

[A Marxist Historian]

Ok thanks, I hadn't heard of that before, I still have doubts as to the feasibility of having an imposter held up as the supposed Tsar though

Generally it would be his son who should succeed him yes, however Nicholas instead named his brother Mikhail as his successor when he abdicated the throne. Ok so Mikhail never actually became the new Tsar but that is significant nontheless, and while he himself was killed I'm not sure that the White Armies were aware of his death

Lets not forget Alexis' illness as well, I'm no medical expert but there were several instances during his childhood where he came very close because of his haemophilia and even if he hadn't been shot I have my doubts as to how long he could have lived anyway, and I very much doubt he could ever have lived to become Tsar himself. And so who then? Alexandra, I don't think she was ever the most popular of Tsarina's, especially not after her relationship with Rasputin, and are they really likely to want to have one of his daughters leading the resistance?

And I'm not sure whether having the Tsar back as the figurehead of the White movement would indeed have been a unifying factor, of course there were pro-Monarchist elements and sympathisers fighting for them but if you look at people like Denikin, Kolchak, and Alekseev, I don't know if they had any real wish to restore the Tsar to power, they'd been supporters of the Provisional Government, and holding up Nicholas, Alexis or an imposter as the head of the movement would have stated an explicit intention to restore Tsarist rule to Russia, and that would have disillusioned and alienated a huge portion of their support.

All that mattered was the symbol of legitimacy. The personal character of the Tsar or Tsarina wasn't relevant, they wouldn't have been running things anyway, the White generals would have continued to run things.

A daughter would have been fine, there were plenty of Tsarina's in Russian history, including of course Catherine the not so great.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Also, I may be wrong on this, but wasn't a lot of popular Tsarism orientated towards the House of Romanov in itself, rather than towards any particular member? The public focus on individual lines of descent in Western monarchy is related to its original social basis in feudalism, while the Tsardom evolved out of a very different social structure..

Yes, that in fact is the point. There was all sorts of mysticism about the House of Romanov, which is why legitimacy was key, and a son or a daughter would have been the perfect figurehead, whereas some other relative (except Mikhail, whom Nicholas had abdicated in the favor of, but whom the Bolsheviks shot also at the same time, and he had no children I think) would not have worked, if for no other reason than that it would have been impossible to come up with a consensus as to which distant cousing was the legit heir.

-M.H.-


You do realise that the diamonds had been sown into their underwear so that they would be able to survive if they managed to escape? They weren't just flouncing around their prison in bejewelled ball-gowns.[/QUOTE]

[Savage]

i may sound heartless but im not put off by it. not one bit.

Weren't you getting angry at anarchists for throwing water bottles at people during that KKE scandal?

[Tim Finnegan]

I said it was bad to kill them. But it wasn't an act of complete savagery as others suggest.
So you did, my apologies. My point was to stress that the ideological inclinations of the children should play absolutely no role in deciding whether or not the executions were morally acceptable, and I guess I went a bit overboard making it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It would have been just as easy to execute the old crusty monarch, say they killed the whole family, and put the kids in hidden custody until the end of the war. A successor to the throne could have been a banner for the monarchists to rally around but a living Romanov did not necessarily need to become such a banner.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Weren't you getting angry at anarchists for throwing water bottles at people during that KKE scandal?
theres a difference between attacking communist workers and making the future of a 'legitimate' claim to a throne impossible.



also, i dont think a burning glass bottle of petrol counts as a 'water bottle.'





phew. you almost had me there.





PS. A water bottle in the eyes of Savage
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=molotov+cocktail&hl=en&sa=G&gbv=2&biw=1280&bih=818&tbm=isch&tbnid=OCieXYxe4M3L5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/utah-occupier-arrested-for-hurling-molotov-cocktail-at-wells-fargo-branch/&docid=V5FbICioX9d6zM&imgurl=http://www.owsexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Molotov_cocktail_flam.jpg&w=660&h=544&ei=96LhTpO6LpSutweKpumEBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=377&sig=112942816737173573969&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=167&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=55&ty=95

[Savage]

lol I was referring to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2270409&postcount=9) post of yours where you were legitimately angry at them for throwing water bottles in the video above your post

[Rusty Shackleford]

lol I was referring to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2270409&postcount=9) post of yours where you were legitimately angry at them for throwing water bottles in the video above your post
touche :blushing:


i thought you were referring to me getting angry about them throwing a molotov cocktail at the PAME member who was in his 50s or 60s.

regardless. i still think it was fucked up that they threw shit at PAME/KKE.

[Preussen]

I hate to be dogmatic here, but I'm a little confused about self-proclaimed "Marxists" making statements like: "Yes, it was necessary but it was still bad". Genuine Marxism recognizes no supra-class morality - if it was necessary to further the ends of the proletariat, then it was a good thing. End of story.

As for "put them on trial" or "send them to the work camps" etc. I think Robespierre said it best when he said:

"Peoples do not judge like judiciary courts. They pass no sentences; they hurl the thunderbolt. They do not condemn kings: they thrust them back into oblivion; and this justice is not inferior to that of courts. If they arm themselves against their oppressors for their own safety, why should they be bound to adopt a mode of punishing them which would be a new danger to themselves?"

[Invader Zim]

Absolutely not. I don't care what your cause is, the moment you start executing people who haven't been tried and, in the case of the kids, are actually innocent of any crime, then your movement becomes bankrupt.

[S.Artesian]

Absolutely not. I don't care what your cause is, the moment you start executing people who haven't been tried and, in the case of the kids, are actually innocent of any crime, then your movement becomes bankrupt.

By that definition all historical movements have been bankrupt. French Revolution? Bankrupt. Union Army in the US Civil War? bankrupt. Anti-apartheid struggle? Bankrupt. Algerian conflict with French imperialism? Bankrupt. Russian Revolution? Bankrupt from the moment the Cheka was given "special powers."

History becomes nothing but a parade of the bankrupts.

I don't think executing the Romanovs, or the Capets, or the Windsors [ok, I'm indulging myself now] with or without a trial decides the validity of a class struggle ; the validity of the leadership of that struggle.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know about you all, but I personally would find it more fitting if they were sent to the gulag and worked (to death maybe).


Forgive me for my sarcasm below (it's not my opinion at all on what you've posted succinctly):

<S.Artesian>

That's enough to gag a maggot [...] comes out, and I do mean comes out of his little neutralist closet all dressed up in jackboots and riding crop [...]

He thinks he's talking about utility, when he's really talking about value-- he's getting the surplus labor at below subsistence costs, [Raul Duce] [...] Slow and painful deaths as lab rats? [...] "Strip 'em and Rip 'em" could replace "Arbeit Macht Frei" on [Raul Duce]'s labor camps [...]

I would be honored to be disqualified from participating in what is obviously a circle jerk of those eagerly awaiting the opportunity to be goons and thugs.

The problem isn't that I told this strutting little Beria wannabe [...]

See, it's really not that complicated. A smug [...] steps out [...] to say [...] a slow and painful death, is a "good thing." So I tell this Martha Stewart of the Gulag [...]

</S.Artesian>

[Let's just say that, with my editing, you're missing out on the juicier parts. :D ]

You cannot make this up. DNZ so desparate to find someone to share his schadenfreude in Stalin's "primitive socialist accumulation" in working people to death latches on to Duke's throwaway and thoughtless remark.

"Sure, let's work children to death," says DNZ, "It's the socialist thing to do. Better idea than shooting them."

I have the better idea. Since food stores were so tight, and provisioning of the Red Army so difficult, why not feed the Romanov's just enough to keep their weight up, and then eat them? The children in particular, according to Swift, would be quite succulent and satisfying for the hard-pressed soldiers.

And-- the bones and scraps could be brewed into a nutritious stock for nursing the sick back to health.

Mere technicality boys-- It takes a bit of organization, control, transport, infrastructure to build a gulag-- all of which the Bolsheviks lacked in sufficient supply during the war. Can't happen that way.

Shoot 'em or eat 'em. You make the call. Eating 'em is what I would call really, really, really, seriously primitive socialist accumulation.

Like I said-- enough to gag a maggot, but not DNZ apparently.

[Ismail]

I don't care what your cause is, the moment you start executing people who haven't been tried and, in the case of the kids, are actually innocent of any crime, then your movement becomes bankrupt.I'm fairly sure everyone knew the incredibly reactionary nature of the Romanovs, and it isn't like a trial held in wartime would have resulted in much of anything.

Probably would have resulted in this:
*Romanov family stands on trial held by workers*
*Workers bitterly denounce the Romanovs and call for their execution*
*Workers decide to shoot the Romanovs*
*Romanovs shot*

Also the "innocence" of the children is rather disputable. They obviously didn't do much on their own, but they were also monarchical heirs. Getting rid of the children was seen as a necessary evil for that purpose.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm fairly sure everyone knew the incredibly reactionary nature of the Romanovs, and it isn't like a trial held in wartime would have resulted in much of anything.

Probably would have resulted in this:
*Romanov family stands on trial held by workers*
*Workers bitterly denounce the Romanovs and call for their execution*
*Workers decide to shoot the Romanovs*
*Romanovs shot*

Also the "innocence" of the children is rather disputable. They obviously didn't do much on their own, but they were also monarchical heirs. Getting rid of the children was seen as a necessary evil for that purpose.

The plan for the trial was seen as having a big educational value for the Soviet Republic and for the world, an opportunity to really expose the crimes of Tsarism. A *good* "show trial," not on the 1930s model, where they'd be given full opportunity to have real lawyers, try to defend themselves, etc.

That they had to be shot on the spot rather than tried to avoid them being captured by the Whites and used as figureheads was quite unfortunate. Trotsky discusses this in his autobio.

If nothing else, it would have helped dispel some of the mythology that personally Nicholas and Alexandra weren't such bad sorts. Far from the truth. Nicholas was a great fan of the Black Hundreds and pogroms against Jews, and Alexandra was if anything worse.

The myth about Marie Antoinette is that she said "let them eat cake." Not true, though that was her general attitude. Alexandra really did write in one of her letters to "Nicky" that "the Russian people love the whip."

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even if a guilty verdict couldn't be administratively avoided, I do indeed think the prosecution in the Bolshevik show trial(s) would have presented more substantive evidence than baseless confessions.


Duke's throwaway and thoughtless remark.

No shit, and that's to all the Sherlocks in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Prometeo liberado]

Enough said, sadly though. Humanity must come to terms with war in reality not just romantic scenes of movies or enlistment posters. It had to be done.

[Coggeh]

Enough said, sadly though. Humanity must come to terms with war in reality not just romantic scenes of movies or enlistment posters. It had to be done.
No it didn't. The killing of two innocent children because they were born by certain parents goes against everything we fight for. I don't care for the argument of that we would make the effort of convincing them of revolutionary ways however because they couldn't, they would have been made symbols of the counter revolutionary i accept that absolutely, but they're children simple as. It may be a simplistic heart strings argument (similar to the pro-lifers i must concede) but none the less its brutal and should never to accepted.

[Small Geezer]

I think it was fucking awesome wasting those little *****es. The Tsars' execution was necessary and routine but I would have saved my most ecstatic giggling for the snuffing out of the smallest ones.

Fuck it would turn me on seeing the blood draining out of their tiny lifeless bodies.

[Luís Henrique]

I think it was fucking awesome wasting those little *****es. The Tsars' execution was necessary and routine but I would have saved my most ecstatic giggling for the snuffing out of the smallest ones.

Fuck it would turn me on seeing the blood draining out of their tiny lifeless bodies.

Back to under the bridge now, it is well past bedtime.

Luís Henrique

[Small Geezer]

Yet you would have supported it, Luis Henrique.

[Leo]

I would recommend anyone interested in this dilemma Les Justes by Albert Camus. Just to give a brief account of the story, it is about a Russian Socialist-Revolutionary cell which is planning to assassinate a high ranking Tsarist noble. Yet the character who is about to throw the bomb into the nobleman's carriage sees that he is with his nephews who are children, so he doesn't do it. Afterwards there is a discussion among the cell, the would-be assassin defends not throwing the bomb, some take a middle position and some criticize him. The would-be assassin says no cause can gain anything from the murder of children. His main critique responds by telling him that thousands of children starve to death in Russia, asking him ask him whether he has seen a child starve to death and pointing out to the fact that a death by a bomb or a bullet is a hundred times more merciful a death than a death by starvation. Of course the Socialist-Revolutionary cell considers the murder of the nobleman to be an act ultimately serving the end of starvation in Russia, and I think they are wrong and this sort of acts in no way advances the cause of the exploited.

It is obviously true that killing children can not advance any cause either. There is no political dilemma here. To quote Rosa Luxemburg: "The proletarian revolution has no need of terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhorsthe murder of human beings. It does not need these means of struggle because it fights institutions, not individuals, because it does not enter the arena with naive illusions, whose disappointment it would have to avenge". However it is also true that for the revolution in Russia, even the Tsar's children were too dangerous to be left alive and would indeed have been a banner for the Whites to gather around which, the Bolsheviks feared, could tip the balance in favor of the Whites and they reckoned much more children would be dead had that happened. Whether they were right or not is a different question, however if they were, then their action was, given their circumstances and perspective, justified. If one is presented with the choice of whether to kill one or to let that one, for whatever reason, kill one thousand, then not killing the one means being responsible for the deaths of the thousand.

I have no tears to shed for the Tsar's children. Not that I think it is in any way a good thing, but because I am indifferent to the death of famous members of the ruling class in general, regardless of their age. There are billions of children lying dead all around the world, whose lives have consistently been stolen from them everyday for thousands of years, who are dying even today, even now because of class society. Being a communist who I care about is them, the many dead and dying children of the proletariat and other exploited classes before it - not the handful of dead children of the ruling classes.

Yet nothing is entirely black and white. This was done in a was handled in an extremely clumsy way. A trial of the Tsar would indeed have been quite an event, it would have been the trial of the century, it remains a great opportunity missed. However you it would have been impossible to have a trial of his children; no court can give a sentence for the crimes which will be committed in the future. The Bolsheviks should have done a better job with the whole incident. Had they done so, we wouldn't be talking about it today.

[Vanguard1917]

While it's entirely 'natural' and 'human' to feel uneasy about the killing of any family, masses of people, including children, died as a consequence, direct or indirect, of Tsarist tyranny. That liberal and reactionary hearts bleed so plentifully for slain would-be tyrants is the real crime here - it's what really should be making lovers of humanity and freedom feel uneasy.

'A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains.'
- Maximilien Robespierre

[Small Geezer]

So you believe suppressing our human feelings which you so humanistically put in quotation marks is fine. Terror is fine. The end justifies the means.

When does this stop, I ask. When does finding the human conscience irrelevant stop? What kind of person do you become when you have allowed yourself to make those kind of decisions? What kind of socialist leader will you become? How will you sleep at night?

Of course the crimes of capitalism, imperialism, feudalism and all other manner of reactionary movements and ideologies are far worse. They define themselves by their ruthless inhumanity. We as socialists want more humanity; a humanity of mercy, abundance and equality.

A quote by the Libyan National Liberation fighter, Omar Mukhtar, says it very well in regards to executing Italian colonialist prisoners of war; 'We do not shoot prisoners-they do it. They are not our teachers.'

I know this sounds all so ordinary and unmaterialist. But this is how the masses of the people maintain their sanity. We are not machines, nor should we turn ourselves into machines for whatever reason.

[Vanguard1917]

So you believe suppressing our human feelings which you so humanistically put in quotation marks is fine. Terror is fine. The end justifies the means.

When does this stop, I ask. When does finding the human conscience irrelevant stop? What kind of person do you become when you have allowed yourself to make those kind of decisions? What kind of socialist leader will you become? How will you sleep at night?

My point was that liberals' and conservatives' obsession with the neutralisation of a feudal dynasty can tell us a lot about where their sympathies instinctively lie: probably not with the aims and aspirations of the revolutionary masses of Russia.

And it's not as if the revolutionaries made a habit of killing families: the Romanovs were a highly particular and special case, hence the reason for the extraordinary* action against them.


* Extraordinary by Bolshevik standards, not, of course, by the standards of royal dynasties, who killed each other all the time in power struggles, even their own siblings, cousins, wives, etc. But as far as philistine historians are concerned, there's one law for the oppressor and another for the oppressed.

[Bronco]

I still think people are overstating how significant the children could be as a banner for the Whites to rally around. It seems to rely on the assumption that the Whites were all, or mostly, pro-Monarchist which wasn't the case, by this point most Russians had accepted a future without a Tsar; he had lost the support of both the Army and the Duma after all, the Police were effectively the only significant force still loyal to him at the time of Nicholas' abdication. The demise of Tsarism was not only brought about because the Romonav family were executed, it had been a long time coming and was looking inevitable by the 20th century anyway, the Revolution of 1905 came very close to succeeding and it's failure was mainly because the Army were still loyal to Nicholas at this point, which they weren't in 1917. If you ask me there was never any chance of the Romanov's ever holding an autocratic position of power again, had they been executed or not.

In any case, the Whites were a motley army at the best of times. Among the movement you had Kadets, Liberals, SR's, Mensheviks, and yes some Monarchists. These groups were only very loosely connected under an anti-Bolshevik banner in the first place, is upholding a Romanov as some kind of a symbolic leader really going to be a successful unifying factor?

[Luís Henrique]

Yet you would have supported it, Luis Henrique.

Supported what? And how do you know?

But regardless of whether I support or oppose "it", your comment either reveals a psychopatic personality, or is outright trolling.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

No it didn't. The killing of two innocent children because they were born by certain parents goes against everything we fight for. I don't care for the argument of that we would make the effort of convincing them of revolutionary ways however because they couldn't, they would have been made symbols of the counter revolutionary i accept that absolutely, but they're children simple as. It may be a simplistic heart strings argument (similar to the pro-lifers i must concede) but none the less its brutal and should never to accepted.

This inevitably reminds me of all the reactionaries denouncing John Brown as a crazed terrorist because on one occasion, during the Bleeding Kansas wars, some underage slaveowners got killed.

People die in wars, including children. You want to avoid that as much as possible, but if the Tsar's children had been captured by the Whites, then one of them could have been made Tsar, quite likely resulting in large numbers of innocent people dying, including children.

Basic moral rule, greatest good for the greatest number.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I still think people are overstating how significant the children could be as a banner for the Whites to rally around. It seems to rely on the assumption that the Whites were all, or mostly, pro-Monarchist which wasn't the case, by this point most Russians had accepted a future without a Tsar; he had lost the support of both the Army and the Duma after all, the Police were effectively the only significant force still loyal to him at the time of Nicholas' abdication. The demise of Tsarism was not only brought about because the Romonav family were executed, it had been a long time coming and was looking inevitable by the 20th century anyway, the Revolution of 1905 came very close to succeeding and it's failure was mainly because the Army were still loyal to Nicholas at this point, which they weren't in 1917. If you ask me there was never any chance of the Romanov's ever holding an autocratic position of power again, had they been executed or not.

In any case, the Whites were a motley army at the best of times. Among the movement you had Kadets, Liberals, SR's, Mensheviks, and yes some Monarchists. These groups were only very loosely connected under an anti-Bolshevik banner in the first place, is upholding a Romanov as some kind of a symbolic leader really going to be a successful unifying factor?

Who knows? That's all speculative. What is know is that among the Whites, those who were the absolute worst and most murderous were the ones who wanted to put a new Tsar on the throne.

With or without a Tsar, the Whites were indeed a motley army. Could a Tsar on the throne have been a unifying factor? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have been a galvanizing factor mobilizing the very worst, most murderous and most reactionary of the Whites.

How was 1905 suppressed? By deflecting the wrath of the masses onto Jews, through Jewish pogroms. Carried out by the Black Hundreds, who were the extreme Tsar lovers.

The Whites attempted to do the same trick in the Civil War, less effectively, except as to the Jewish death toll, which reached almost Holocaust proportions in certain corners of Ukraine. With a Tsar to rally around, this would certainly have worked better.

-M.H.-

[Bronco]

Who knows? That's all speculative. What is know is that among the Whites, those who were the absolute worst and most murderous were the ones who wanted to put a new Tsar on the throne.

With or without a Tsar, the Whites were indeed a motley army. Could a Tsar on the throne have been a unifying factor? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have been a galvanizing factor mobilizing the very worst, most murderous and most reactionary of the Whites.

How was 1905 suppressed? By deflecting the wrath of the masses onto Jews, through Jewish pogroms. Carried out by the Black Hundreds, who were the extreme Tsar lovers.

The Whites attempted to do the same trick in the Civil War, less effectively, except as to the Jewish death toll, which reached almost Holocaust proportions in certain corners of Ukraine. With a Tsar to rally around, this would certainly have worked better.

-M.H.-

Well call me a Moralist, but I don't think the fact that the children might have been a unifying factor for the Whites justified their execution, especially when in my view they probably wouldn't have been. Although I do take your point about encouraging the most reactionary of the Whites, and though I don't think most of the military leaders supported such acts (I believe Denikin condemned the pogroms but might be wrong) they certainly failed in preventing the mass killings of Jews.

[Small Geezer]

Originally Posted by Small Geezer http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2324020#post2324020)
Yet you would have supported it, Luis Henrique. Supported what? And how do you know?

But regardless of whether I support or oppose "it", your comment either reveals a psychopatic personality, or is outright trolling.

Luís Henrique Just acquainting you with the reality of killing children.

Being one of the most mechanical and soulless 'marxists' on this board like your brainwashed comrade Devrim, I would be extremely suprised if you didn't come up with some weasely wormish justification for the offing of a bunch of kids.

Who gives a fuck if the reactionaries did worse and larger crimes. Are we learning from them? Maybe we should start enslaving people as well. They did it.

[Vanguard1917]

Just acquainting you with the reality of killing children.

The child, Alexei Nikolaevich, was almost 14 and was a lance corporal in the Russian army. Boys not much older were sent to their slaughter in WW1 in their thousands throughout Europe, including by warmongers like Tsar Nicholas II.

[Luís Henrique]

Just acquainting you with the reality of killing children.

And you suppose I have never seen slaughtered children?


Being one of the most mechanical and soulless 'marxists' on this boardYeah? and on what base do you take such conclusion? Where have I expressed any mechanicism or absence of "soul"?


like your brainwashed comrade Devrimdevrim is not my comrade; he is a "left-communist", I am absolutely nothing even remotely close to that. Left communism to me is a theorisation of defeat.


I would be extremely suprised if you didn't come up with some weasely wormish justification for the offing of a bunch of kids.So, to sum it up, you just invented a position for me, isn't it? How honest an open minded of you!


Who gives a fuck if the reactionaries did worse and larger crimes. Are we learning from them? Maybe we should start enslaving people as well. They did it.To whom are you directing this, arsehole? Where have I justified anything on the argument that "they" did even worse things?

Go away, imbecile. Go try and read someone else's mind, mine is obviously too complex for your kindergarten abilities.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Just acquainting you with the reality of killing children.

Being one of the most mechanical and soulless 'marxists' on this board like your brainwashed comrade Devrim, I would be extremely suprised if you didn't come up with some weasely wormish justification for the offing of a bunch of kids.

Who gives a fuck if the reactionaries did worse and larger crimes. Are we learning from them? Maybe we should start enslaving people as well. They did it.

There is no soul,Marxist or not.

[B0LSHEVIK]

It had to be done. Otherwise, you'd have major problems.

Look at Russia now, as in today; if any of the Romanov children's direct descendants lived today, I can almost guarantee you there would be a strong Tsarist element within Russia. And almost certainly, there would have been one following the fall of the Soviet Union. Killing children is not a romantic idea in the slightest. But, it was a necessary evil if Russia were to remain without a monarchy. Besides, when taken in the context of the action, the Romanovs were in danger of falling into the hands of white advanced guards who were approaching. It just had to be done. A lot of 'red youth' met their fates too during the same time span, I think it cancels out.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Hard to say, strictly speaking, that it was necessary to kill the kids. However, if there was one chance, in say, one hundred that leaving any of them alive would lead to the defeat of the revolution, than it was the best option. This is not about bloodthirstiness. I don't want to see children killed -- none of us do, right? Ruthless defense of the revolution especially under the circumstances the Bolsheviks found themselves was a necessity. Under more stable conditions, this would have been a terrible thing.

[Small Geezer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Small Geezer http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2324936#post2324936)
Just acquainting you with the reality of killing children.
And you suppose I have never seen slaughtered children?

Quote:
Being one of the most mechanical and soulless 'marxists' on this board
Yeah? and on what base do you take such conclusion? Where have I expressed any mechanicism or absence of "soul"?

Quote:
like your brainwashed comrade Devrim
devrim is not my comrade; he is a "left-communist", I am absolutely nothing even remotely close to that. Left communism to me is a theorisation of defeat.

Quote:
I would be extremely suprised if you didn't come up with some weasely wormish justification for the offing of a bunch of kids.
So, to sum it up, you just invented a position for me, isn't it? How honest an open minded of you!

Quote:
Who gives a fuck if the reactionaries did worse and larger crimes. Are we learning from them? Maybe we should start enslaving people as well. They did it.
To whom are you directing this, arsehole? Where have I justified anything on the argument that "they" did even worse things?

Go away, imbecile. Go try and read someone else's mind, mine is obviously too complex for your kindergarten abilities.

Luís Henrique


Why don't you just say you wouldn't have supported it rather than working yourself into such a tizz?

[ComradeGrant]

Well you sort of went off on him with baseless insults. Don't expect to insult someone and not have them retaliate.
On topic: I think it was unpleasant but not entirely baseless. It's sad children died, but if you consider it an atrocity you really need to look at other parts of the Russian Civil War.

[bcbm]

boo hoo nobles died

no humanity for the enemies of humanity

[Permanent Revolutionary]

For communists to be able to claim the moral high ground, such an act, as to annihilate an entire family, children an all, must not happen.
Monarchs have been disposed of peacefully, so don't tell me it can not be done. Now, I do understand that the times were different then, and the Tsar was a tyrant who had to be disposed of, but we live in the 21th century,so don't give me this bollocks of revolutionary romanticism were everything that the revolutionaries did, has to be defended. That shit won't fly.

And I would expect better from mods.

[bcbm]

moralism is for liberal weiners, we're dealing with people who cheerfully firebomb entire countries into nonexistence, enslave generations and sip champagne and cackle while they roast babies on spits

execution by firing squad is too kind

[Luís Henrique]

Why don't you just say you wouldn't have supported it rather than working yourself into such a tizz?

Because I don't want to get into such debate, and because my point was your trolling (still unseen by the almighty Board of Administrators, it would seem, or perhaps they are on one of their "everything goes" phases), not the Romanovs' snuffing.

Luís Henrique

[MaximMK]

They didn't have to kill the children. Even if the whites got to them they are just 2 kids. The red army would still win because it had the people on its side.

[B0LSHEVIK]

For communists to be able to claim the moral high ground, such an act, as to annihilate an entire family, children an all, must not happen.
Monarchs have been disposed of peacefully, so don't tell me it can not be done. Now, I do understand that the times were different then, and the Tsar was a tyrant who had to be disposed of, but we live in the 21th century,so don't give me this bollocks of revolutionary romanticism were everything that the revolutionaries did, has to be defended. That shit won't fly.

And I would expect better from mods.

Thats nonsense.

Yes monarchs have been disposed of peacefully, only to hang around, interfere and meddle and typically, make a later claim at legitimacy. Im not surprised most countries in Europe are still constitutional 'kingdoms' so to speak. And, the best example to defend soviet actions against the romanovs is France, a country who experienced a period known as the terror during their own revolution. A terror in which aristocracy or any connection with was a death sentence. Sure, they had people rise to call themselves emperor, or king, but all were short lived.

You dont think that a little Alexei the III wouldn't have made a claim when the USSR fell? It would be like Spain for example, where the monarchy abdicated, peacefully, the republic lost the civil war and guess what, monarchy again!

Get real.

[Ocean Seal]

moralism is for liberal weiners, we're dealing with people who cheerfully firebomb entire countries into nonexistence, enslave generations and sip champagne and cackle while they roast babies on spits

execution by firing squad is too kind
We shouldn't fixate on the individuals. It is the system that causes this. We do not fight the bourgeoisie for revenge, but to establish proletarian rule and end these horrible crimes of which you speak. We do not fight the revolution with silk gloves but at the same time we shouldn't glorify violence for the sake of violence.

[Small Geezer]

moralism is for liberal weiners

'Having any kind of principles and ethics with regard to human behaviour is for liberal weiners.' Crazy. No wonder idiots like you and a consistent number on this board are fucking up the left by throwing out any traces of humanistic thinking.

[bcbm]

We shouldn't fixate on the individuals. It is the system that causes this.

the system is run by individuals. individuals with massive bank accounts who actively profit from the absolute misery of billions.


We do not fight the bourgeoisie for revenge, but to establish proletarian rule and end these horrible crimes of which you speak.

speak for yourself.


We do not fight the revolution with silk gloves but at the same time we shouldn't glorify violence for the sake of violence.

we should revel in the bloodletting of our enemies, their capacity to unleash horror knows no bounds and ours should know even fewer.


'Having any kind of principles and ethics with regard to human behaviour is for liberal weiners.'

we have principles- put our enemies heads on pikes. humanism for humanity, not for its enemies.


Crazy. No wonder idiots like you and a consistent number on this board are fucking up the left by throwing out any traces of humanistic thinking.

oh please the left has been a pathetic clusterfuck of cultists, historical reenactors, crackpots and various fetishists for decades, i seriously doubt that mild fantasy about the apocalyptic bloodbath the bosses deserve on some wingnut forum amoutns to jackshit

[Small Geezer]

oh please the left has been a pathetic clusterfuck of cultists, historical reenactors, crackpots and various fetishists for decades, i seriously doubt that mild fantasy about the apocalyptic bloodbath the bosses deserve on some wingnut forum amoutns to jackshit

Most leftists I have encountered online and in the struggle, with notable and honourable exceptions, seem to want to outdo each other in radicalism on whatever subject they seem to be missing the point on. The only common thread in this ghetto ego wanking session is that modern leftists seem to have an enthusiastic disregard for any limitation of supervision on behaviour be it law or conscience. Any time the idea of decency is brought up, they cringe and quickly slam it down. That is the influence of liberalism. Every civilisation in history has had some conception of what it means to be a decent human being. A lot of it was just plain subjective. But now it has become fashionable to reject even the supposition that there is a decent way to behave. Fuck it, do what feels good or what turns you on. Sounds like the basis for some sort of dystopian hippie capitalism.

[bcbm]

Most leftists I have encountered online and in the struggle, with notable and honourable exceptions, seem to want to outdo each other in radicalism on whatever subject they seem to be missing the point on.

look ill level with u im no fan of blood and guts and gore i think that shit is abhorrent and one of the lesser qualities of humankind and i want a world where we all hug each other and eat weed brownies at work and show mercy to our enemies and shit because were more human and struggling for a humanity for itself but then i watch some shit about conflict minerals in africa where corporations and states are pouring money into conflicts where shittons of people die and are mutilated and kids are involved or like horrible factories where people work 20 hour shifts and die or mass stavration or aids running rampant or police killing with no consequence or fucking how many wars and bombings and genocides and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on in this endless series of horror that is enacted upon billions and god sometimes the guillotine sounds like a gift from heaven


The only common thread in this ghetto ego wanking session is that modern leftists seem to have an enthusiastic disregard for any limitation of supervision on behaviour be it law or conscience. Any time the idea of decency is brought up, they cringe and quickly slam it down.

i've noticed mostly the opposite



Every civilisation in history has had some conception of what it means to be a decent human being.

yeah and most civilizations were excesses of monstrosity so that means a whole lot of fuckall


But now it has become fashionable to reject even the supposition that there is a decent way to behave.

there is a decent way to bheave- exporpriate by any means necessary

[Small Geezer]

Ah, so you have your own standards of decency. Just a completely mechanical and narrowminded version. It seems we can't excape from human prescriptions on how to behave.

I feel terrible hounding poor old Luis Henrique like that, he is Saint Francis himself compared to you and your like.

[bcbm]

oh please ive argued endlessly agains tcommunist blodless im mostly trollin but i do understand that desire sometimes, the world we've created is a sickening hell and i don't know if i'd feel too bad if its architects and oversseers got a little back

[La Comédie Noire]

I think there should be a standard of decency that informs leftists in their actions and we should try our hardest to have a fair, albeit brief, trial before we execute someone.

But these are topics of a practical nature and we are probably decades away from actually needing to discuss them seriously.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't understand this fetishisation of the trial-process. A trial is nothing more than a method of reaching a conclusion which you will then act upon, it produces no magical effect by which responsibility for those actions is transferred from the actors to the impersonal institutions which they inhabit, let alone to some grand abstraction like "the people". The function of trials is simply to make sure that your conclusion is reached by rigorous means, to ensure that more accurate conclusions are reached on the one hand, and to demonstrate to observers the means by which that conclusion was reached on the other. If that wasn't necessary, which is certainly the case with the Tsar himself, then a trial would have been nothing more than a propaganda-event.

[bcbm]

I think there should be a standard of decency that informs leftists in their actions and we should try our hardest to have a fair, albeit brief, trial before we execute someone.

But these are topics of a practical nature and we are probably decades away from actually needing to discuss them seriously.

why execute people

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't understand this fetishisation of the trial-process. A trial is nothing more than a method of reaching a conclusion which you will then act upon, it produces no magical effect by which responsibility for those actions is transferred from the actors to the impersonal institutions which they inhabit, let alone to some grand abstraction like "the people". The function of trials is simply to make sure that your conclusion is reached by rigorous means, to ensure that more accurate conclusions are reached on the one hand, and to demonstrate to observers the means by which that conclusion was reached on the other. If that wasn't necessary, which is certainly the case with the Tsar himself, then a trial would have been nothing more than a propaganda-event.

I don't think anybody should be able to be declared beyond a trial though. While I think the current justice system is a mockery I think things like "innocent until proven guilty" is good stuff and should be strived for in a future justice system.


why execute people

I don't know, it would depend on the situation.

[RefusedPP]

I think that it was viewed as necessary, after all a monarchy is pure nepotism which is wrong. It is sad for the children as stated, but they would have grown up in wealth at the expense of how many others also? I think it was a strategic move as not to allow anybody to claim leadership by blood also.

[bcbm]

I don't know, it would depend on the situation.

if your first response is 'i dont know' it shouldnt even be on the table

[La Comédie Noire]

if your first response is 'i dont know' it shouldnt even be on the table

Let's just say I take a Nihilist position on the issue, until it becomes a practical issue, that is until a revolution actually occurs, I will not know the severity of the crimes committed by the ruling classes and if they would require a death sentence.

[bcbm]

what crimes require a death sentence?

[La Comédie Noire]

Things like murder, especially mass murder such as the bombing of cities. Although the question does arise should retributive justice be the goal of execution? What if someone gave the order to bomb a city, felt guilty about it and turned themselves in. Should they be executed? Probably not.

[Luís Henrique]

what crimes require a death sentence?

None.

Luís Henrique

[B0LSHEVIK]

None.

Luís Henrique

Really? None?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The flower of revolution needs to be watered with blood, everyone should know this by now...

On the one hand I don't really like violence, but on the other hand I watch things like police brutality videos or whatever and yes, a very primitive mindset takes hold, the kind of mindset that would enjoy a good firebombed police station or bullet-ridden precinct. The violence against the powerful during the late 19th-early 20th century was vicious (one noblewoman, I can't remember who it was although I think she was part of the Austrian royalty, was literally hacked to death by an anarchist with a knife) and sometimes one wouldn't mind seeing it return.

But on the other hand, seeing serious violence in real life is gross and I hate it. I don't like seeing people get hurt, and I don't like hurting other people. Some people on this site have had real winning positions on this subject, though...I remember two users in particular, both now banned, one of whom promoted the rounding up and killing in the woods of anyone who was even remotely sympathetic to any other system than the one he supported, and the other supported rape as a weapon of psychological warfare during WW2. There are still people who make all kinds of excuses for Stalin's violence during his tenure, like, "oh, it wasn't that bad guys, there were only like 750,000 executions" :rolleyes: Most people are justifiably sickened by that. Id be interested to know how many of the hardmen who post Mao quotes to counter the "liberals" have even fired a gun or been in a fistfight.

[Ismail]

Id be interested to know how many of the hardmen who post Mao quotes to counter the "liberals" have even fired a gun or been in a fistfight.Well those who originally espoused "hardline" positions did have ample opportunity to fire off guns. Stalin was in the Russian Civil War (plus he robbed banks for the Bolsheviks before that) while Mao and Hoxha led partisan armies. Mehmet Shehu, who made a lot of "yay violence" remarks (telling Mikoyan that Stalin should have shot the entire post-Stalin leadership, saying anyone who violates Party unity would be punched in the face or shot if necessary, etc.), was a Spanish Civil War veteran and was somewhat involved, apparently, in dealing with the May Days. Then there was Dzerzhinsky who led the Cheka, etc.

Kamo, one of Stalin's closest friends before the revolution, was the only guy I can think of who was really, truly violent:

Having been given permission to create his own gang, Kamo would test all of his new members to make sure that they were up to the task. Kamo would test his new recruits by taking the new recruits to a forest clearing and have them be attacked by fake White army members, bound to a tree, and then put through a fake execution to test their courage. Kamo said that with this test "you could be absolutely sure [your comrades] wouldn't let you down." On one occasion, a recruit revealed himself to a be a spy when tested by Kamo; he was shot on the spot. Kamo then cut open the man's chest and tore out the man's heart showing it to the other recruits. When Lenin heard about Kamo's test, he was so disturbed that he sent a message stating that he never wanted to see him again.But even then Kamo's random death was received as sad news by Lenin and his wife. There's a big difference between executing actual and perceived counter-revolutionaries and just killing people for the "fun" of it.

I will note though that:

(one noblewoman, I can't remember who it was although I think she was part of the Austrian royalty, was literally hacked to death by an anarchist with a knife) and sometimes one wouldn't mind seeing it return.Is far more violent than what any communist leader did or advocated. That's Kamo-levels of violence.


There are still people who make all kinds of excuses for Stalin's violence during his tenure,Well again, it isn't like Stalin signed death warrants because he enjoyed death and wanted to kill innocent people. That's the difference. He wasn't some sort of wannabe serial killer. Obviously some internet tough guys will go "RNNNNGH STALIN CRUSH" but even he had apprehensions at times about the scale of the executions, although still considering them justified in the main.

[Luís Henrique]

Really? None?

Of course, none.

Which crimes do you believe "require" a death penalty, and how do you explain no civilised country has death penalties for them?

Luís Henrique

[Ismail]

Which crimes to you believe "require" a death penalty, and how do you explain no civilised country has death penalties for them?Bill Bland, a longtime defender of Albania, visited the country in 1984 and interviewed a Supreme Court judge there: "The death sentence, Mr. Haxhi stated, was a temporary and extraordinary measure applied only in the case of extremely serious crimes such as treason and where it was considered that re-education [for serious crimes] was unlikely to be successful. No death sentences had been passed in Albania so far during 1984."

You might recall that the USSR actually abolished the death penalty after WWII for a few years, but then had to bring it back for those convicted of treason.

[Luís Henrique]

Bill Bland, a longtime defender of Albania, visited the country in 1984 and interviewed a Supreme Court judge there: "The death sentence, Mr. Haxhi stated, was a temporary and extraordinary measure applied only in the case of extremely serious crimes such as treason and where it was considered that re-education [for serious crimes] was unlikely to be successful. No death sentences had been passed in Albania so far during 1984."

You might recall that the USSR actually abolished the death penalty after WWII for a few years, but then had to bring it back for those convicted of treason.

Ah, yes, treason. But treason is a crime against the State, so why would anyone who is for the ultimate abolition of States be in favour of any penalty, much less death penalty, for treason?

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Of course, none.

Which crimes do you believe "require" a death penalty, and how do you explain no civilised country has death penalties for them?

Luís Henrique

Even when civilised ruling-classes forbid no action on their part necessary to crush a revolution?

Lenin's view (Feb 1920), in case anyone's interested:

"We were forced to use terror in response to the terror employed by the Entente, when the mighty powers of the world flung their hordes against us, stopping at nothing. We could not have lasted two days had we not replied to these attempts of officers and whiteguards in a merciless fashion. This meant the use of terror, but this was forced on us by the terrorist methods of the Entente. But as soon as we had gained, a decisive victory, even before the end of the war, immediately after the capture of Rostov, we renounced capital punishment, and have therefore proved that we intend to carry out our own programme as we had promied. We say that the use of violence arises from the need to crush the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists. When this is accomplished we shall renounce all extraordinary measures. We have proved this in practice. And I think, I hope, and I am confident that the All-Russia Central Executive Committee will unanimously endorse this measure of the Council of People’s Commissars and will implement it in such a way that it will be impossible to apply the death penalty in Russia. Needless to say, any attempt by the Entente to resume methods of war will force us to reintroduce the former terror; we know that we are living in a time of the law of the jungle, when kind words are of no avail. This is what we had in mind, and as soon as the decisive struggle was over, we immediately began to abolish measures which all other powers apply without any time limit having been set."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/feb/02.htm

[Ismail]

Ah, yes, treason. But treason is a crime against the State, so why would anyone who is for the ultimate abolition of States be in favour of any penalty, much less death penalty, for treason?Because the state was led by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anyone who consciously sought to weaken this was evidently committing treason against the proletarian state.

As the 1976 Constitution (http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm) notes:

Article 2

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which expresses and defends the interests of all the working people.

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is based on the unity of the people round the Party of Labour of Albania and it has as its foundation the alliance of the working class with the cooperativist peasantry under the leadership of the working class.

Article 3

The Party of Labour of Albania, the vanguard of the working class, is the sole leading political force of the state and the society.

In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania the dominant ideology is Marxism-Leninism. The entire socialist social order is developed on the basis of its principles.

Article 4

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania unceasingly develops the revolution by adhering to the class struggle and aims at ensuring the final victory of the socialist road over the capitalist road, at achieving the complete construction of socialism and communism.Charges of treason were levied against those who wanted Albania to follow the Yugoslav, Soviet or Chinese roads towards capitalism, or who were agents of the USA, Britain or Greece. Evidently treason carries a different meaning in such a state of affairs. Treason against the state becomes treason against the Party, socialism, and the proletariat.

The Albanian penal code plainly states that: "The penal legislation in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania expresses the will of the working class and other working masses and is a powerful weapon of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the class struggle. Penal legislation has the task of defending the socialist state, the Party of Labour of Albania as the sole political guiding force of the state and society, socialist property, the rights and interests of citizens and the whole socialist order from socially dangerous acts by means of the application of penal measures against those who commit them."

[Luís Henrique]

Even when civilised ruling-classes forbid no action on their part necessary to crush a revolution?

Yes, the bourgeoisie recurs to anything necessary to crush, or stall, or abort revolution. Including breaking their own legislation, isn't it?


"We were forced to use terror in response to the terror employed by the Entente, when the mighty powers of the world flung their hordes against us, stopping at nothing. We could not have lasted two days had we not replied to these attempts of officers and whiteguards in a merciless fashion. This meant the use of terror, but this was forced on us by the terrorist methods of the Entente. But as soon as we had gained, a decisive victory, even before the end of the war, immediately after the capture of Rostov, we renounced capital punishment, and have therefore proved that we intend to carry out our own programme as we had promied. We say that the use of violence arises from the need to crush the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists. When this is accomplished we shall renounce all extraordinary measures. We have proved this in practice. And I think, I hope, and I am confident that the All-Russia Central Executive Committee will unanimously endorse this measure of the Council of People’s Commissars and will implement it in such a way that it will be impossible to apply the death penalty in Russia. Needless to say, any attempt by the Entente to resume methods of war will force us to reintroduce the former terror; we know that we are living in a time of the law of the jungle, when kind words are of no avail. This is what we had in mind, and as soon as the decisive struggle was over, we immediately began to abolish measures which all other powers apply without any time limit having been set."

Yes: these are exceptional measures for exceptional times, to be repealed as soon as possible. Not a stable state of things, that we should strive to impose.

As Rosa Luxemburg points out, the problem is to make necessity virtue. When, and if, awful things absolutely have to be done, we do them. We should never fancy them as good things though.

So, again, no crime "requires" a death penalty (and it seems Lenin agrees with that).

Exceptional situations may require exceptional measures; that's a completely different thing, it hasn't to do with "crimes" or "penalties", much less with "justice".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Because the state was led by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Except, of course, it wasn't.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Yes: these are exceptional measures for exceptional times, to be repealed as soon as possible. Not a stable state of things, that we should strive to impose.

As Rosa Luxemburg points out, the problem is to make necessity virtue. When, and if, awful things absolutely have to be done, we do them. We should never fancy them as good things though.

So, again, no crime "requires" a death penalty (and it seems Lenin agrees with that).

Exceptional situations may require exceptional measures; that's a completely different thing, it hasn't to do with "crimes" or "penalties", much less with "justice".

Luís Henrique

Agreed. Thanks.

[Coggeh]

I would recommend anyone interested in this dilemma Les Justes by Albert Camus. Just to give a brief account of the story, it is about a Russian Socialist-Revolutionary cell which is planning to assassinate a high ranking Tsarist noble. Yet the character who is about to throw the bomb into the nobleman's carriage sees that he is with his nephews who are children, so he doesn't do it. Afterwards there is a discussion among the cell, the would-be assassin defends not throwing the bomb, some take a middle position and some criticize him. The would-be assassin says no cause can gain anything from the murder of children. His main critique responds by telling him that thousands of children starve to death in Russia, asking him ask him whether he has seen a child starve to death and pointing out to the fact that a death by a bomb or a bullet is a hundred times more merciful a death than a death by starvation. Of course the Socialist-Revolutionary cell considers the murder of the nobleman to be an act ultimately serving the end of starvation in Russia, and I think they are wrong and this sort of acts in no way advances the cause of the exploited.

It is obviously true that killing children can not advance any cause either. There is no political dilemma here. To quote Rosa Luxemburg: "The proletarian revolution has no need of terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhorsthe murder of human beings. It does not need these means of struggle because it fights institutions, not individuals, because it does not enter the arena with naive illusions, whose disappointment it would have to avenge". However it is also true that for the revolution in Russia, even the Tsar's children were too dangerous to be left alive and would indeed have been a banner for the Whites to gather around which, the Bolsheviks feared, could tip the balance in favor of the Whites and they reckoned much more children would be dead had that happened. Whether they were right or not is a different question, however if they were, then their action was, given their circumstances and perspective, justified. If one is presented with the choice of whether to kill one or to let that one, for whatever reason, kill one thousand, then not killing the one means being responsible for the deaths of the thousand.

I have no tears to shed for the Tsar's children. Not that I think it is in any way a good thing, but because I am indifferent to the death of famous members of the ruling class in general, regardless of their age. There are billions of children lying dead all around the world, whose lives have consistently been stolen from them everyday for thousands of years, who are dying even today, even now because of class society. Being a communist who I care about is them, the many dead and dying children of the proletariat and other exploited classes before it - not the handful of dead children of the ruling classes.

Yet nothing is entirely black and white. This was done in a was handled in an extremely clumsy way. A trial of the Tsar would indeed have been quite an event, it would have been the trial of the century, it remains a great opportunity missed. However you it would have been impossible to have a trial of his children; no court can give a sentence for the crimes which will be committed in the future. The Bolsheviks should have done a better job with the whole incident. Had they done so, we wouldn't be talking about it today.
Singularly the best post i've ever read on revleft. I reconsider my position.

[Ismail]

Except, of course, it wasn't.

Luís HenriqueOf course you'd think that way, so evidently the question you posed was of no real value in terms of debate.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't know about the death penalty for things such as "treason" or being "counter revolutionary" because they are very vague terms and can be applied to a variety of actions.

[Ismail]

I don't know about the death penalty for things such as "treason" or being "counter revolutionary" because they are very vague terms and can be applied to a variety of actions.Not really. Working to undermine socialism isn't "very vague." Obviously it can be misused, but for instance attempts by members of the Albanian army to assert its power over the Party in the 1970's, along with attempts by members of the intelligentsia to do the same, were defined as treasonous activities. Both forces wanted the liberalization of the economy and of foreign policy, just as the pro-Yugoslav and pro-Soviet forces of the 1940's and 50's did and who were also charged in some cases with treason.

A 1977 article in Drejtesia Popullore (People's Justice) noted that, "In our country there is no freedom of thought for enemy elements, who, speculating on democracy, try to spread their anti-socialist, reactionary, liberal and decadent bourgeois or revisionist views and ideas in order to introduce disruption and degeneration into all spheres of life, art, culture, the economy and the army."

[La Comédie Noire]

"In our country there is no freedom of thought for enemy elements, who, speculating on democracy, try to spread their anti-socialist, reactionary, liberal and decadent bourgeois or revisionist views and ideas in order to introduce disruption and degeneration into all spheres of life, art, culture, the economy and the army."

You don't see how sentiments like the above are highly subjective and could be abused?

[Ismail]

You don't see how sentiments like the above are highly subjective and could be abused?I'm aware they can be misused, but revisionism certainly isn't "highly subjective." I'm also fairly sure you can call things like "Songun" in the DPRK (which literally places the army above the party) and Khrushchev-esque "peaceful coexistence" degenerative policies. Degeneration also refers to economic and social liberalism as was practiced in the USSR. Obviously "decadent" is a more gray area.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm aware they can be misused, but revisionism certainly isn't "highly subjective." I'm also fairly sure you can call things like "Songun" in the DPRK (which literally places the army above the party) and Khrushchev-esque "peaceful coexistence" as degenerative policies.

In my tenure on the left I've seen a variety of things called revisionist, some of it was good and some of it was bad.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course you'd think that way, so evidently the question you posed was of no real value in terms of debate.

The point however is, since treason is a crime against the State, anyone's (and not just Communists') position on whether is should be punished depends on what one thinks about the betrayed State. Evidently if I oppose a given State, I oppose punishing those who betray it; conversely, if I support it, I think its traitors must be punished. Of course this cannot be the basis for a properly juridical theory of treason as a crime, for we cannot here uphold the same standards for all States, and consequently, we cannot uphold the juridical principles of equality and impersonality.

And so we cannot evidently say that treason is a crime that "requires" the death penalty (or any penalty whatsoever for what is worth) - we may support the death penalty for the traitors of Albania, if we are so inclined, but we will still probably oppose the death penalty for the traitors of the United States. This is a political stand, not a coherent juridical position.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

A 1977 article in Drejtesia Popullore (People's Justice) noted that, "In our country there is no freedom of thought for enemy elements, who, speculating on democracy, try to spread their anti-socialist, reactionary, liberal and decadent bourgeois or revisionist views and ideas in order to introduce disruption and degeneration into all spheres of life, art, culture, the economy and the army."

This could include forming a rock band, painting an abstract picture, composing an atonal sonata, being homosexual, learning a foreign language, demanding a better wage or complaining about the way rationing is conducted, or refusing conscription for whatever reason. It depends only on what the State deems "disruption and degeneration".

Hardly something that we should strive for.

Luís Henrique

[Prometeo liberado]

No it didn't. The killing of two innocent children because they were born by certain parents goes against everything we fight for. I don't care for the argument of that we would make the effort of convincing them of revolutionary ways however because they couldn't, they would have been made symbols of the counter revolutionary i accept that absolutely, but they're children simple as. It may be a simplistic heart strings argument (similar to the pro-lifers i must concede) but none the less its brutal and should never to accepted.
My argument is that one needs to accept certain brutalities in order to never have to repeat them.

[North Star]

I think it was regrettable but of course the anti-communists will use it as proof of how horrible the Bolsheviks were and why Communism is evil. However the Red Terror was a response to the White Terror which came first. The revolution was initially relatively peaceful, the death penalty abolished but the Whites fired the first shots and turned it into a life or death civil war struggle.

[A Marxist Historian]

Well call me a Moralist, but I don't think the fact that the children might have been a unifying factor for the Whites justified their execution, especially when in my view they probably wouldn't have been. Although I do take your point about encouraging the most reactionary of the Whites, and though I don't think most of the military leaders supported such acts (I believe Denikin condemned the pogroms but might be wrong) they certainly failed in preventing the mass killings of Jews.

Denikin did indeed publicly condemn the pogroms. However, he also was the one who carried out the *worst* pogroms, the ones in the summer of 1919 as his cavalry advanced from Ukraine towards Moscow. Which weren't pogroms really at all, rather industrial-style mass execution of all Jews in villages his cavalry went through, more reminiscent of the Nazis during WWII than of your average pogrom.

In short, he was a hypocrite of the worst order. In his memoirs he tries to blame the pogroms on everybody except himself, when he and his fellow White officers were the true malefactors. This started even before the Revolution, with mass pogroms on the Eastern Front during WWI of Jews in the war zones, carried out by the army command under Nicholas. Especially by the Cossacks of course. That the war zones on the Eastern Front essentially coincided with the Pale of Settlement where Jews overwhelmingly lived was tragic.

Whether a Tsar on the throne would have been a "unifying factor" is speculative and irrelevant. Hitler was not a unifying factor for capitalist assault on the USSR during WWII, to say the least. Does that mean Hitler should not have been opposed when he seized power? Putting a Tsar back on the throne would have been more or less the functional equivalent of the White Russia gong explicitly Nazi. Regardless of how old the new Tsar was.

Nazi notions of Jewish extermination were basically derived from White exiles like Rosenberg who fled Russia for Germany. That's where Hitler got the idea. The most extreme Whites, the ones who would have come to the fore with a Tsar back on the throne, were the ideological vanguard of Nazism.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

None.

Luís Henrique

I agree. And so did Felix Dzherzhinski by the way. He opposed the death penalty when it was reintroduced in 1922. As he liked to put it, "the Cheka does not judge, it strikes."

Killing people is inevitable during wars and revolutions. Of soldiers on the battle front, of counterrevolutionaries on the internal front. Morally, there is no distinction that should be made between the two.

And yes, morality is very important. I consider myself a proletarian moralist. A revolution without basic working class moral standards will degenerate into Stalinism or worse.

So I disagree with Tim Finnegan. It was necessary to kill the Tsar and his children to defend the Revolution, because, and only because, the Whites were about to seize them and use them as icons for Tsarist restoration.

Absent that, the Tsar like anybody else deserved a trial, and I would in fact have opposed the death penalty on general principles, as we seek to create a world with no death penalty.

-M.H.-

[The Young Pioneer]

Still think the heir coulda proven a decent working class citizen if re-educated...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1bajmAnup1qa2zhno1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1325377460&Signature=gWMne4VZ%2BZE3j8jCQC3%2FiY%2BLY%2B4%3D

[Tim Finnegan]

decent working class citizen
http://i.gottadeal.com/forums/images/smilies/yuck.gif

[Ismail]

The CCP literally managed to transform the family of Emperor Puyi into a bunch of film projectionists and street-sweepers, but then again the Chinese monarchy had been discredited since 1912 and especially 1932 (with the formation of Manchukuo.) Hoxha even noted this in his work Imperialism and the Revolution, when he said of the postwar Chinese Government that "the state administration in China was left in the hands of the old officials. Chiang Kai-shek's generals even became ministers. Indeed, even Pu Yi, the emperor of Manchu-kuo, the puppet emperor of the Japanese occupiers, was protected very carefully and turned into a museum piece so that delegations could go to meet and talk with him and see how such people were re-educated in 'socialist' China. Besides other things, the aim of the publicity given to this former puppet emperor was to dispel even the fears of kings, chieftains, and puppets of reaction in other countries, so that they would think that Mao's 'socialism' is fine and have no reason to fear it." (pp. 431-432.)