Czar Nick's Kids

[Faux Real]

I don't know the reasons why the Bolsheviks would have done such a thing, but apparently they killed the Czars kids. Can someone explain why and if the Bolsheviks should have been condemned for it?

I've heard that supposedly it was so that they wouldn't leave the country and foment counter-revolution. Still, I don't think that this justified it nor did they deserve such a harsh end. Now they're looked back upon as martyrs(ha-ha, Vinny) and regarded saints along with their father in the RU Orthodox Church.


Originally posted by MSNBC.com
MOSCOW - Prosecutors said Friday they have reopened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the last Russian czar and his family nearly 90 years ago after an archaeologist said the remains of Nicholas II’s son and heir to the throne may have finally been found.

The announcement of the reopened investigation, while a routine matter, signaled that the government may be taking seriously the claims that were announced Thursday by Yekaterinburg researcher Sergei Pogorelov.

In comments broadcast on NTV, Pogorelov said bones found in a burned area of ground near Yekaterinburg belong to a boy and a young woman roughly the ages of Nicholas’ 13-year-old hemophiliac son, Alexei, and a daughter whose remains also never have been found.

Yekaterinburg is the Urals Mountain city where Nicholas, his wife, Alexandra, and their five children were held prisoner and then shot in 1918.

Missing chapter
If confirmed, the find would fill in a missing chapter in the story of the doomed Romanovs, whose reign was ended by the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

The find comes almost a decade after remains identified as those of Nicholas and Alexandra and three of their daughters were reburied in a ceremony in the imperial-era capital of St. Petersburg. The ceremony, however, was shadowed by statements of doubt — including from within the Russian Orthodox Church — about their authenticity.

On Friday, a church official voiced what appeared to skepticism about the latest find.

“I would like to hope that the examination will be more thorough and detailed than the examination of the so-called ‘Yekaterinburg remains,’ which the church did not acknowledge as the remains of members of czar’s family,” Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s External Church Relations department, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.

The spot where the remains were found appears to correspond to a site in a written description by Yakov Yurovsky, the leader of the family’s killers, according to Pogorelov, an archaeologist at a regional center for the preservation of historical and cultural monuments in Yekaterinburg.

“An anthropologist has determined that the bones belong to two young individuals — a young male he found was aged roughly 10-13 and a young woman about 18-23,” he told NTV television by telephone.

Executed by firing squad
Nicholas abdicated in 1917 as revolutionary fervor swept Russia, and he and his family were detained. The next year, they were sent to Yekaterinburg, where a Bolshevik firing squad executed them on July 17, 1918.

Historians say guards lined up and shot the royal family and four attendants in the basement of a nobleman’s house. The bodies were loaded onto a truck and initially dumped in a mine shaft but were later moved, according to most accounts.

The Bolsheviks mutilated and hid the bodies because they did not want the remains — especially Alexei’s — to become a shrine or rallying point for anti-Bolshevik forces.

Parts of the bodies were exhumed in 1991 — the year the Soviet Union fell apart — and reburied in St. Petersburg in 1998. Scientific tests indicated the bones of Anastasia, a daughter some have said survived the shooting, were among the remains that were buried.

But two skeletons have never been found: those of Alexei and a daughter scientists believe was Maria.

The Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei and his four sisters as martyrs in 2000. But the church — citing the two missing corpses and questions over whether the bones were actually those of the royal family — chose to scale down its participation in the 1998 ceremony.

Proceeding cautiously
Historian Edvard Radzinsky, author of a book about Nicholas, told NTV that if the remains are confirmed as those of Alexei and a sister, it would prove the authenticity of the earlier find by providing “documentary affirmation of what is written in Yurovsky’s notes.”

According to NTV, a 1934 report based on Yurovsky’s words indicated that the bodies of nine victims were doused with sulfuric acid and buried along a road, while those of Alexei and a sister were burned and left in a pit nearby.

Archaeologists discovered shards of a ceramic container of sulfuric acid as well as nails, metal strips from a wooden box, and bullets. They also found the remains in a search using metal detectors and metal rods as probes, not by digging.
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20423837/)

[Eleftherios]

I've heard that supposedly it was so that they wouldn't leave the country and foment counter-revolution.

Well, I don't think it was because the Tsar would personally forment counter-revolution. In fact, the Tsar most likely had no intention of trying to regain the throne, since he willingly resigned in the first place. It was because the Tsar and his family gave the monarchist forces a reason to fight on, while if the Tsar's family were dead, the royalists might have realized there was little point in fighting on.

Plus, I don't think the Bolsheviks had any intention of killing the Tsar and his family had it not been for the Czech army that was about to free the them.

[Faux Real]

Yes, the Czar was killed before them. I meant they thought the children would have grown up and become mystical symbols of what their country used to be--and gain support to overthrow the Bolsheviks. (Not that the whites already hadn't been trying that already)

Still, the children and his wife didn't deserve such a death by firing squad I imagine... even if it meant the counter-revolutionaries considered 'rescuing' them.

Any other ideas on why they were killed?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I would give more leeway to the executioners of the Tsarina, and not just for her affair with Rasputin (she had a more active hand in political affairs that many of us here think). ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

They were killed because they were "heirs to the throne". It was logical to kill them, and I wish the revolutionary movement in Iran had done the same thing to the Sjah and his family.

Now his son is a rich asshole in the US, getting funds from the US for his political organization, and waiting for the day that he can come back to Iran to sit on his throne.

These kinds of things should be nipped in the bud and prevented at an early stage.

[Random Precision]

It was absolutely necessary given the circumstances. The town in which the Romanovs and their attendants were being held was at the time threatened by the retreating Czechoslovak Legion, which could have easily taken the town and freed them. If they had been freed, then they could have given the Whites a huge morale boost, as they would be fighting for their return to the throne. And I seriously doubt that Nick wouldn't have reversed his abdication if he had a good chance of making it stick. The Tsarevich Alexei could have been easily persuaded to do the same. Leaving any of them alive would have been an unacceptable danger. I would hope that any of us would have the courage to the same thing.

I guess it is sad that his children had to die, but there were countless proletarian and peasant children who suffered similar fates because of the Tsarist regime. No denominations have stepped forward to honor any of them as martyrs, though.

[Tower of Bebel]

Besides, the Bolsheviks couldn't reason them. Nikolas II was as stupid as hell, the Tsarina thought Rasputin was a God, and the children all were thaught to be superior beings just like their parents.

And as there was a chance they could be liberated...

[Dimentio]

If you want to take over a centralised empire, you would either need to integrate into the ruling dynasty (as Alexander did) or destroy the ruling dynasty (as Pizarro did). Otherwise, the enemy would always have a figurehead to raise for their cause.

[chimx]

the enemy would always have a figurehead to raise for their cause.

This is exactly correct. The fear wasn't that the Czar's kids would walk into the Congress of Soviets and challenge its legitimacy, but that the White Armies or other Czarist supporters would use them as symbol for the restoration of the monarchy.

[Dimentio]

Just look what happened to the Chinese. When the Japanese marched into Manchuria in 1931, they restored the last emperor to the throne as a willing puppet. The last emperor was personally a nice person, but the monarchist system is built around reverence for a specific blood.

[spartan]

perhaps the reds could have kept the kids alive and politically re-educated them into supporters of communism? this would be a huge moral sapper for the whites and the reds would not be demonised for killing children. having said that the reds could of lost some legitamecy for their cause with supporters perhaps being unnerved at the prospect of royals of the former regime getting into any position of influence in the movement or getting into power again (so logically the reds would only be able to use them as propoganda). this is a good thread though i am sure i have seen it covered many times before on this forum. it usually goes with some people saying "kill the bastards!" whilst others go "but think of the children! :( " :lol: my personal opinion is that at the end of the day the children whether they liked it or not (or whether they wanted to be or not) were figureheads for a large counter revolutionary movement aimed at killing off the then still proletariat revolution in russia so killing them got rid of a big problem for the reds and ultimately probably saved more lives in the war. also what makes the tsar's kids so important? what about all the children who suffered under the tsarist regime? i dont see them being made saints! this of course just strengthens my believe that all organized religion should be killed off for good!

[Janus]

Execution of the Romanovs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50124&hl=Nicholas)


perhaps the reds could have kept the kids alive and politically re-educated them into supporters of communism?
They probably would've done this had the circumstances surrounding the possible rescue of the family been different.

[Xiao Banfa]

I don't think it's ever ok to murder children.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:34 am
It was absolutely necessary given the circumstances. The town in which the Romanovs and their attendants were being held was at the time threatened by the retreating Czechoslovak Legion, which could have easily taken the town and freed them. If they had been freed, then they could have given the Whites a huge morale boost, as they would be fighting for their return to the throne. And I seriously doubt that Nick wouldn't have reversed his abdication if he had a good chance of making it stick. The Tsarevich Alexei could have been easily persuaded to do the same. Leaving any of them alive would have been an unacceptable danger. I would hope that any of us would have the courage to the same thing.

I guess it is sad that his children had to die, but there were countless proletarian and peasant children who suffered similar fates because of the Tsarist regime. No denominations have stepped forward to honor any of them as martyrs, though.
My thoughts exactly. Though the Romanovs had no special personal qualities that could endanger the Bolsheviks (after all, Nick was a lousy administrator and commander), they were powerful symbols that gave a morale boost to the Whites through their mere existence. If they had actually been rescued, the Whites' morale would have soared even further. It was absolutely necessary to kill the Romanovs in order to destroy any hope the Whites had of restoring the monarchy.

Besides, many millions of innocent people were executed by armies on various different sides in many different wars.

[Labor Shall Rule]

In his diaries, Trotsky wrote about the decision to execute the Tsar and his entire family.


"The decision was not only expedient but necessary, the severity of this summary justice showed the world that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and dishearten the enemy, but also in order to shake up our own ranks, to show them that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either complete victory or complete ruin."

It was a barbarous decision, but as was made clear by Trotsky and the posters in this thread, it was of the utmost urgency to remove the threat that they presented as Kolchak and the Czechs advanced torwards Ekaterinburg. The Bolsheviks were previously planning to set up a revolutionary tribunal composed of elected workers that would try the monarch and his queen, and I am sure they did not plan to necessarily punish the children, but the situation made such plans impossible.

[luxemburg89]

Having studied World revolutionary history I'm sure they would have looked at the case of Charles II of England. He was beheaded in a revolution (though Cromwell was no better than the monarch he replaced - infact he was essentially a monarch under a different name; when bored he went out an slaughtered the Irish - as seems to have been a habit of British Monarchies). However his son escaped and came back and regained the throne. To avoid this, and the awful affects this would have on the workers - and the new Soviet state - they removed the problem before it went out of their reach. This could be total nonesense - I'm only guessing.

[spartan]

dont you mean cromwell had charles the FIRST (not second) beheaded. also cromwells so called "crimes against humanity" in ireland are very much blown out of proportion. first of all compared to standard military practice of the day cromwell when compared with others was not "severe" at all! indeed when landing in ireland he told his soldiers that they cannot hurt people who have not taken arms against us and that if one of his soldiers did he would have them tryed and most probably executed. also cromwells actions were a reaction which was called for by the protestants of ireland as the catholics had been massacring protestant civilians for no good reason except them being protestant! (and yes i know that protestants had more rights than catholics but that was hardly there fault just the former kings and queens of englands fault) so cromwell was just delivering what he probably thought was divine justice (and remember he was a christian and a puritan one at that so he would have adhered to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" theory) all in all cromwells so called "horrific" and "severe" tactics and punishments were not at all severe according to standard military practice of the seventeenth century. it is just two things that make it stand out in history the first being that it was in britain and ireland (a land that compared to mainland europe did not see as much war in its own backyard and when war did occur it was always conducted in a civil manner) the second being that it was a british person (usually known for being over the top in fairness in war and no i am not being biased) doing it. all in all cromwells "massacre" of "innocent" "civilians" was blown way out of proportion by irish nationalists (though it was in their intrests to do so as they needed "legitimate" reasons and support to garner hate towards the british) as they seem to conveniently forget their "innocent" "civilian" catholics massacring of innocent civilian protestants. remember this was a great, and at that time in history, more than just reason to go to ireland and enact punishment against anti british catholics in the eyes of people at that time (that does not make it right now but is it fair to criticise a man from centuries ago with a different mindset and belief compared to your own modern views on what is right or wrong or what is fair and unfair?). that and the fact that ireland at that time was apart of england and thus these fighters were technically back then in practice regarded (rightly or wrongly) as rebels so that goes a long way to explaining why cromwell did some of the things he did in ireland. oh and to all those who hate me please dont paint me as a cromwell defending british nationalist! i am just a student of history and these are conclusions i have drawn (like many many others who are now finally gainig credit in the face of irish nationalist lies and exagerations) from exstensively studying this certain period of history. i am not anti irish as i myself am welshman and thus a celt and regard them as my celtic brothers and sisters. so all i have is love to the irish (and every proletariat in the world for that matter!).

[Red Flag Rising]

You cannot make a revolution without breaking some skulls along the way.

If the Czar's children were killed, so what? So what?

Being squeemish about using violence to achieve the Revolution does us no good.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:07 pm
dont you mean cromwell had charles the FIRST (not second) beheaded. also cromwells so called "crimes against humanity" in ireland are very much blown out of proportion. first of all compared to standard military practice of the day cromwell when compared with others was not "severe" at all! indeed when landing in ireland he told his soldiers that they cannot hurt people who have not taken arms against us and that if one of his soldiers did he would have them tryed and most probably executed. also cromwells actions were a reaction which was called for by the protestants of ireland as the catholics had been massacring protestant civilians for no good reason except them being protestant! (and yes i know that protestants had more rights than catholics but that was hardly there fault just the former kings and queens of englands fault) so cromwell was just delivering what he probably thought was divine justice (and remember he was a christian and a puritan one at that so he would have adhered to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" theory) all in all cromwells so called "horrific" and "severe" tactics and punishments were not at all severe according to standard military practice of the seventeenth century. it is just two things that make it stand out in history the first being that it was in britain and ireland (a land that compared to mainland europe did not see as much war in its own backyard and when war did occur it was always conducted in a civil manner) the second being that it was a british person (usually known for being over the top in fairness in war and no i am not being biased) doing it. all in all cromwells "massacre" of "innocent" "civilians" was blown way out of proportion by irish nationalists (though it was in their intrests to do so as they needed "legitimate" reasons and support to garner hate towards the british) as they seem to conveniently forget their "innocent" "civilian" catholics massacring of innocent civilian protestants. remember this was a great, and at that time in history, more than just reason to go to ireland and enact punishment against anti british catholics in the eyes of people at that time (that does not make it right now but is it fair to criticise a man from centuries ago with a different mindset and belief compared to your own modern views on what is right or wrong or what is fair and unfair?). that and the fact that ireland at that time was apart of england and thus these fighters were technically back then in practice regarded (rightly or wrongly) as rebels so that goes a long way to explaining why cromwell did some of the things he did in ireland. oh and to all those who hate me please dont paint me as a cromwell defending british nationalist! i am just a student of history and these are conclusions i have drawn (like many many others who are now finally gainig credit in the face of irish nationalist lies and exagerations) from exstensively studying this certain period of history. i am not anti irish as i myself am welshman and thus a celt and regard them as my celtic brothers and sisters. so all i have is love to the irish (and every proletariat in the world for that matter!).
Lol, yeah sorry 'II' was a typo. I'm going to introduce you to a friend of mine, Mr Paragraph. :P

[spartan]

I'm going to introduce you to a friend of mine, Mr Paragraph.
oops yeah i will make a note of that for the future.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:34 am
It was absolutely necessary given the circumstances. The town in which the Romanovs and their attendants were being held was at the time threatened by the retreating Czechoslovak Legion, which could have easily taken the town and freed them. If they had been freed, then they could have given the Whites a huge morale boost, as they would be fighting for their return to the throne. And I seriously doubt that Nick wouldn't have reversed his abdication if he had a good chance of making it stick. The Tsarevich Alexei could have been easily persuaded to do the same. Leaving any of them alive would have been an unacceptable danger. I would hope that any of us would have the courage to the same thing.

I guess it is sad that his children had to die, but there were countless proletarian and peasant children who suffered similar fates because of the Tsarist regime. No denominations have stepped forward to honor any of them as martyrs, though.
Great post.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 01, 2007 09:35 pm
The damning point of Soviet apologists: Two wrongs make a right.

If the family of Hugo Chavez were ever put to death, regardless of the circumstances, their killers would find no defenders amongst the left and any argument that such deaths were "necessary" would be dubbed "fascist", "right-wing", or "fucking disgusting".

The deaths of Czar Nicholas II's family is a huge blot on the already muddy record of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Power symbols or not, no one's innocent family should be put to death.
I would really like to agree with you, I would. But the fact is that the Bolsheviks had no choice. Keeping them alive would have been to put the revolution in jeapordy, and say what you will about the Bolsheviks, they knew what was necessary to defend the revolution and did it. And as RedDali pointed out, the execution of the Romanov family certainly would not have been the Bolsheviks' first choice in the matter under other circumstances.

And furthermore, I hardly think that crimes done in the service of reaction can be compared with crimes done in the service of revolution.

[Random Precision]

The means must justify the ends. Where does this "greater good" mentality end? Are we to believe that murdering children not even old enough to understand class struggle should die for the revolutionary cause?

Unlike others, at least you admit to your double standard. Admit it or not, however, it is still the reason why Leninism will never again be tried by the proletariat.

Whether "communists", the Janjaweed militia, or Nazis, I will never support the outright murder of children.

These weren't just any children. The Bolsheviks were faced with unique circumstances which dictated that either the Romanov family would die, or the revolution would. I believe that they made the right choice.

And yes, in the case of the revolution, the ends do justify the means. In fact, this is one reason why revolutionary Bolshevism was then and is now the only way to accomplish a proletarian socialist revolution. Those who really desire a revolution and the free society that comes afterward must not be afraid of getting their hands dirty to protect it.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 02, 2007 12:24 am
Thankfully, there will never be mainstream support for a Bolshevik party in America. Though not the only reason, the statement you just made greatly embodies the reason why. No revolution should be built on the murder of innocent children.
I have issues with saying that the revolution in Russia was "built on" anything except the desire of the oppressed Russian workers to be free of exploitation, but I guess for our purposes I would say that there was the choice between building it on the murder of innocent children or building it on nothing at all.

Besides, I hear dead children make pretty good building material as far as revolutions go. The more younger and innocent the better. :P

As for your other statement, I think that once it gets to a situation in the United States in which the workers revolt and take control of the means of production, they will follow the Bolshevik path to defend their revolution out of necessity, even if they wish it didn't have to be that way.

[Random Precision]

Inane sarcasm does nothing to benefit your argument.

Well, I guess I'll never try to lighten the mood of a serious discussion again.


You asserted yourself that "either the Romanov family would die, or the revolution would." Therefore, since it stands that the revolution as you perceive it could not have taken place without the Czar's family's deaths, then it also stands that the revolution was built upon their demise, amongst other variables.

That statement was more absolute than I intended it to be, I admit. What I meant was that the death of the Romanovs was a necessary action. It was necessary because while there was the chance that any member of the tsar's immidiate family could be returned to the throne, there was the distict and real possibility that the revolution could be defeated. The way I see it, you can't afford to take any chances, especially not huge ones like that, when it comes to the revolution. This is what I have been saying all along, and I'd rather not go around in circles debating it, m'kay?

But allow me to reiterate that I do not like the deaths of children any more than you do. In this one special circumstance, however, it was necessary.


The belief that the masses would have revolted had they not been put to death is absurd. Factionalism was rampant already and Civil War still broke out. Their deaths served as nothing more than vendetta, which is as evil under a sickle and hammer as it is under a swastika.

Prove it, that it was a vendetta, that is.

Their deaths took away the greatest morale boost that the forces of counter-revolution could have had, along with their claim to legitimacy. That was the purpose that their death served.


This is a separate issue for a separate thread.

Hey, you brought it up...

[WWKMD?]

It was a bollocks move that drove more to the whites than it stopped. The Czar was a minor threat, and most of the Whites werent Czarists. Many of the whites were participants in the February revolution which oversaw the Czars deposal in the first place. There were of course some monarchists/aristocrats in the right of the white movement, but this did not comprise the whole thing. Most of them were Bourgeois Liberals with little sympathies for the Czar, much like the Bourgeois Liberals had little sympathy for King Louis in the French Revolution.

Of course this all changed when the Czar and his entire family were shot. Then he became a rallying point, when he was not a rallying point before. Classic example of how you make an unpopular man popular: you shoot him.

Nicholas II was not an evil man, he was an ignorant idiot put into a position with a dangerous amount of power. He was so sheltered from the reality of Russia that I doubt he had any knowledge of his actions and their consequences. He was more concerned with his family than with the empire he ran, and he did not run it by choice either. He was born into that situation, just as the peasant was born into his. He was terrified of the thought of being Czar when his father died, and he probably only did half the things he did because it was drummed into his head "dont fuck up" from the time he was a child. He was a shitty leader who was responsible for the deaths of millions, but as soon as he abdicated, he was no longer a real threat. Only after he was killed did people really start to use him as a rallying point.

The bolsheviks should have known that destroying relics does not mean that you destroy the perception of martyrdom in their enemies minds, they martyred the family, and it was a bad move on their part. Killing him harmed the revolution far more than he had the capacity to do so. Killing his entire family, including his doctor and dog, is just another example of why I distance myself from Bolshevism and its authoritarian ways.

The Bolshevik Revolution had good potential, but they really fucked it up, especially during the 20's and 30's.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I hope Catbert creams you for what you just said. Nicholas was not an evil man? Personally, I would hate to be a Jew in Russia under his rule.

[synthesis]

I think most of you are missing the point.

The children of the Czar themselves were not killed as revenge or to prevent the children themselves from gaining the throne.

The goal behind killing the royal family was to prevent any sort of heir from gaining the throne - not because of those specific people but in terms of general politics. With no one that truly qualified for the head of the monarchist "ideal government"there was no platform for the monarchists to stand on.

It must be remembered that the royal family was not killed immediately following their deposition; at the time, Russia was in the midst of an extremely bloody civil war and it was thought that removing the figureheads of the reactionaries might cause the monarchists to give up the fight.

What the Leninists forgot was that the forces of reaction mostly saw the Bolsheviks as an assault on their "traditions"; the reactionaries knew that their religion, nationalism, and class standing were all under siege by the Bolsheviks and merely saw the monarchy as the symbol of these traditional standings.

Had this been considered, the Bolsheviks would have recognized that slaughtering the royal family would likely provide the reaction with another symbol, another cause to rally behind: that of the Christian martyr princesses. A major misstep in the Russian struggle, but we can see that the ultimate result of all Leninist revolution - bourgeois democracy - has occurred successfully. Atrocities are inevitable in war; this one was widely known and politicized. That's the distinction.

Interesting side-note: apparently the Czar was the only member of the immediate royal family to die from gunshot wounds. His wife and daughters were wearing several pounds' worth of diamonds, which deflected the bullets; they had to be bayoneted.

[spartan]

DM:
they had to be bayoneted.
I would love to do that to our royal family in the UK :lol: :lol: :lol:

DEATH TO THE SYMBOLS OF REACTION!

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:49 am
DM:
they had to be bayoneted.
I would love to do that to our royal family in the UK :lol: :lol: :lol:

DEATH TO THE SYMBOLS OF REACTION!
Wow. Did you not read my post? I am honestly not sure I could call you a comrade if you think it is a grand thing to stab a 17-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy to death with the sharp end of a rifle.

[spartan]

DM:
Wow. Did you not read my post? I am honestly not sure I could call you a comrade if you think it is a grand thing to stab a 17-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy to death with the sharp end of a rifle.
What so you would rather have them stay alive and be used as figureheads for the anti Proletariat counter revolutionary cause? Remember at one point in the civil war the whites had the upper hand and were seen to be near to victory so if the whites got anyone of the royals they would have got a huge morale boost and some legitamecy which could have given them the edge they needed for victory.

There is also no way people could forget what these royals were in the previous society that they ruled over and thus they would always be used as tools for anti Proletariat purposes whenever something went wrong and the Bourgeoisie saw a chance to exploit and get there former position back. Russia already had foreign armies and counter revolutionaries occupying large areas of Russia and if they got there hands on any of the royals they would have used them as their figureheads and as a head of a government in exile.

Anyway these royals had no problem sitting in their numerous nice warm palaces eating their vast amounts of food and going on their nice holidays in their private yachts whilst Russian peasants and their children starved to death in the houses they were born in and lived all of there lives in but that does not seem to matter to you! The fact is far more Russian Proletariats suffered because of the Tsarist regime then royals suffering from the Soviet regime. If i had to choose between saving a Proletariat child or a royal child then i would choose the Proletariat child anyday.

[WWKMD?]

Heres a question: Why the fuck did they go and kill the dog? I suppose the royal hound was also a "rallying point" for the whites.


The monarchist movement was on the fringe of the white movement. Nicholas was harmless alive, he only became dangerous again when he died. Its allways best to keep such bumbling idiots alive, because when they die, they are no longer bumbling idiots.

[synthesis]

There is also no way people could forget what these royals were in the previous society that they ruled over and thus they would always be used as tools for anti Proletariat purposes whenever something went wrong and the Bourgeoisie saw a chance to exploit and get there former position back.

Politically, they were far more powerful as "martyrs", not to mention that it clearly polarized people who did not have strict allegiances already. Alive, they are of use only to radical monarchist movement; dead, they stand as a testament to the political brutality that the New Boss seems to share with the Old Boss.

[Chapaev]

I don't know the reasons why the Bolsheviks would have done such a thing, but apparently they killed the Czars kids
The deposed emperor and his family were executed in accordance by a decree of the presedium of the Urals oblast soviet. The soviets on the night of 7 November 1917 established themselves as the state authority in Russia, enabling them to pass legislation on important matters. Most important, Ekaterinburg since the Czech aggression had been placed under martial law.

Except for the youngest son, all of the children of the deposed emperor Nicolai Romanov were at least eighteen years of age. Thus, it is misleading to portray them as harmless children when they were not legally minors. Remember that when they were savagely murdered, comrades Alexander Ulyanov, Andreyushkin, Generalov, Shevyrev, and Osipanov were approximately the same age as the former emperor's offspring.

The executions was the appropriate price to pay for the deeds of Nicholas the Bloody, who has dispersed the First and Second Dumas, who drowned Russia in blood, enslaved Poland and Finland, and was in alliance with out—and-out reactionaries conducting a policy of stifling the Jews, whose loyal friends shot down the workers on the Lena and ruined the peasants to the point of starvation all over Russia. The executions could have been avoided had it not been for the unprovoked aggression committed by the Entente and their Czech hirelings.

[Hyacinth]

I’m reminded of a quote by Mark Twain: "I read much complaint about the four years of terror that the French people inflicted on the aristocrats; I read no complaints, however, of the thousand years of terror that the aristocrats inflicted on the French people". It applies well, mutatis mutandis, to this discussion.

[Invader Zim]

Murdering 13 year olds is not a revolutionary act, and anyone who says different is a sick fuck and a total idiot.

[Bilan]

^^^ I would give more leeway to the executioners of the Tsarina, and not just for her affair with Rasputin (she had a more active hand in political affairs that many of us here think). ;)

Why do you care about her love affair?

[Chapaev]

Murdering 13 year olds is not a revolutionary act, and anyone who says different is a sick fuck and a total idiot.

A few facts:

1. The age of the deposed emperor's children were: Olga, 22 years old; Tatiana, 21; Maria, 19; Anastasia, 17; Alexei, 13. Except for Alexei, all of the former emperor's children by any reasonable measurement reached a proper age for execution.
2. They were not murdered, but were executed in accordance with a decree passed by the Urals soviet during martial law.

[Incendiarism]

There's a proper age for execution now?

But yeah...I can fully understand the circumstances behind it. But I'm not one to make moral calls and I hate doing so.

[Invader Zim]

A few facts:

1. The age of the deposed emperor's children were: Olga, 22 years old; Tatiana, 21; Maria, 19; Anastasia, 17; Alexei, 13. Except for Alexei, all of the former emperor's children by any reasonable measurement reached a proper age for execution.
2. They were not murdered, but were executed in accordance with a decree passed by the Urals soviet during martial law.

So basically, you are an apologist for child killers.

And a 17 year old is a minor in the eyes of most.

[KC]

So basically, you are an apologist for child killers.

Yes, of course we support the execution of a possible figurehead/symbol for counterrevolution. You would be insane not to.


And a 17 year old is a minor in the eyes of most.

Only in the eyes of bourgeois states; I would hardly consider 17 year olds minors.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, of course we support the execution of a possible figurehead/symbol for counterrevolution.

If you support murdering children, you are not a revolutionary. It is an unnecessary act of barbarism, a child has no fault in the crimes of its parents, you attribute guilt as a birthright, which is a fundermentally anti-materialistc approach. Counter-revolutionaries should be opposed, but not by murdering children on the vague possibility that they may become a rallying point for reactionaries.


You would be insane not to.

Funnily enough, child killers are usually the ones most would consider insane.


Only in the eyes of bourgeois states; I would hardly consider 17 year olds minors.

Perhaps, but there is no easy way of making such a distinction. One must become considered to be legally responcible at some point, and that age can only ever be arbitary be it higher or lower than 18. And in the early 20th century, rather than in our minds which are of a very different age, it was usually considered to be 18 and, in many cases, even older.

[Chapter 24]

To me it seemed fairly unnecessary to murder the Czar's children. Killing the Czar himself seemed to be enough to demoralize the Whites.

[Trystan]

Murdering 13 year olds is not a revolutionary act, and anyone who says different is a sick fuck and a total idiot.

Agreed 100%. Children "counter-revolutionaries" who must be executed? How reprehensible.

[Kami]

Murdering 13 year olds is not a revolutionary act, and anyone who says different is a sick fuck and a total idiot.

I'll throw my voice behind this one. Also, it didn't do a lot for international sympathy, I should think. But seriously, they were murdered... why? Because they were born into the wrong family?

[ComradeOm]

Killing the Czar himself seemed to be enough to demoralize the Whites.Except that it didn't. Many elements amongst the Whites continued to believe for years that either the Tsar or some descendent had survived and fought under the Tsarist banner right up to the end


Because they were born into the wrong family?That was the same reason that they enjoyed lives of unparalleled privilege prior to the Revolution. That's how nobility works and that's why their deaths were necessary. Execute Nicholas II but allow his children to go free and the Tsardom survives. Only by making a clean sweep could you irreversibly destroy that institution. The lessons of the French Revolution (and later Restoration) are very relevant to this discussion


It is an unnecessary act of barbarism, a child has no fault in the crimes of its parents, you attribute guilt as a birthright, which is a fundermentally anti-materialistc approachStrawman. This is not a matter of 'guilt by blood' and nor has it ever been. The Romanov children were executed not because they shared the sins of their father but because they were an integral component of the Tsarist institution, as outlined above

As for being a 'revolutionary act', in this case I'll defer to the actual revolutionaries who carried out the deed rather than your sense of moral outrage

[Invader Zim]

This is not a matter of 'guilt by blood' and nor has it ever been.

Wrong, that is exactly what it was. They were executed, not because of a single thing they had done, but because of the institution they were, as it happened, unfortunate enough to be born into. Their crime, for which the punishment was death, was simply being born. In other words, they were murdered for the sins of their ancestors.

[ComradeOm]

Wrong, that is exactly what it was. They were executed, not because of a single thing they had done, but because of the institution they were, as it happened, unfortunate enough to be born into. Their crime, for which the punishment was death, was simply being born. In other words, they were murdered for the sins of their ancestors.You're confusing terms. 'Guilt by blood' refers to being answerable to the crimes of one's forefathers. There is a distinction here and this charge was not levelled at the Romanov children - they were not executed because their father had (for example) encouraged pogroms or dissolved the Duma. In the eyes of the Bolsheviks his guilt did not pass unto them on his death

The children were executed because they belonged to the Romanov dynasty which, regardless of circumstances, the Bolsheviks had decided to destroy. It was an accident of birth that they belong to this family but, as I said, that's nobility for you. Tough luck for the children that destroying the Tsardom required their deaths but it was judged, correctly IMO, that this was necessary. It effectively ended the role of the Romanovs in Russian history and prevented any possible later Restoration (a la France or England)

[Devrim]

It is interesting that people in this thread seem to be more concerned about the murder of the Czar's children than that of the three servants and the doctor who was murdered with them.

I think that the killing of the royal family was an action that revolutionaries had to defend. That is not to say that killing kids isn't a nasty business, killing anybody is. The people who did it saw it as necessary to defend the revolution. Our sympathies should be with them, not with the children of royalty.

Shooting the servants and the doctor was in my opinion a bad call. Bad decisions are made by people in struggle. It happens.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Could they (the kids) not have just been sent off somewhere where they would never have been heard of again? Like a village deep in Russia, with different names? And I'm assuming the Czar himself was an arsehole right? Did he really deserve to be killed, as opposed to being imprisoned? But then that begs moral questions of if its right to kill someone who themselves commited evil acts. I'm assuming he did, someone fill me in.

[Chapter 24]

And I'm assuming the Czar himself was an arsehole right? Did he really deserve to be killed, as opposed to being imprisoned? But then that begs moral questions of if its right to kill someone who themselves commited evil acts. I'm assuming he did, someone fill me in.

He (Nicholas II) published, under his administration, anti-semitic propaganda that resulted in pogroms against Jews between 1903-1906. He brutally crushed the revolutions of 1905. He mobilized poorly equipped (Russia was not exactly the most industrialized nation) and unprepared troops into the First World War, resulting in millions of deaths and captured Russians as POWS even before the war had gone through its first year. Not to mention that as Czar, Nicholas II held the role as Supreme Autocrat of Russia, as noted by his official title: Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. He was not only a very poor leader but a fierce, proud enemy to the Russian working class. The way the rest of his family was killed is debatable, but his murder by Bolsheviks is not exactly the greatest crime to ever happen in Russia.

[hekmatista]

You cannot make a revolution without breaking some skulls along the way.

If the Czar's children were killed, so what? So what?

Being squeemish about using violence to achieve the Revolution does us no good.
He laughs at scars who never felt a wound.

[Harrycombs]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Killing them probably looked like a good idea at the time. How were the Bolsheviks supposed to no that killing them could do more harm than good?

Also, what if the royal family was liberated? They would have came to power again, and things would probably gotten even worse for the proletariat.

In some states in America, you can be executed if you are under the age of 18 as well. I also think that the age of 13 is high enough to understand the class struggle :P

[Spartacist]

He laughs at scars who never felt a wound.

I am sure you're oft wounded.

Shut your fucking mouth if you have nothing better to contribute.

[hekmatista]

I am sure you're oft wounded.

Shut your fucking mouth if you have nothing better to contribute.
But of course, I've contributed little enough, since it was organizing actual workers, rather than fantasizing about armed struggle (when was the last time you were even in a fight, kid? Much less been in combat?) I had promised myself I would not respond to this type of post, but I get tired of bullshit from bullshitters.

[CuteCommie]

Like Devrim, it doesn't really worry me that much.

But, what would be a 'more revolutionary act' - killing the children, or making them live a normal worker's life - to actually work for a living?

That said, I think that people forget how the Tsars were looked upon, even in 1917 many considered the Tsar's role as one ordained by God...

[Comrade Castro]

Exactly, at the time the Russian Orthodox Church's official policy was that the voice or actions of the tsar were directly inspired by Jesus, that his crown WAS the Crown of Thorns, etc. Tsarism was quite theocratic, it'd be ridiculous to leave them alive just to be a living symbol of political and religious oppression, and something for reactionaries to rally around.

[Red Flag Rising]

but I get tired of bullshit from bullshitters.

How weary you must be of yourself.

Run along, jackass.

[Red_Dialectics]

Again, it's unfortunate that they were born as part of the Czarist institution, but they lived their whole lives on, "Oh, they're just stupid peasants, sucks for them to be born into that". I think that it must have seemed necessary at the time, and it very well may have been, who knows. I'm sure the revolutionaries and the whole mass of the proletariat/peasants were PISSED. I don't think any of us can even begin to fathom the level of passion and anger present in a revolution. And that may have blinded them to the other consequences of that decision, such as it being discussed decades later on an internet forum in the largest bourgeoise empire ever, haha. But what we must also remember is that it WAS the result of a decision by the councils of soviets, and we must respect the decisions of revolutionary, truly democratic institutions, the likes of which we only dream about today.

[Red_Dialectics]

And BTW, if any of you here HAVE been a part of a revolution and can make a statement as to the energy/atmosphere present, speak up by all means.:D

[Red Phalanx]

Run along, jackass.:lol::thumbup1: