Was it justified?

I think Alexei and Anastasia may have been salvageable as people, still they would have probably harboured a resentment towards the ussr and ended up being used by reactionaries so maybe it was for the best.
Nicholas and Alexandra deserved it completely though.

Yes

I quite recently rewatched it and damn, that film was pure tsarist propaganda.

Yes.

Children's lives aren't inherently more valuable or sacred than adult lives and when they're nobility who's source of value is just inherent to their being (to monarchists) as opposed to anything they've actually done the best way to neutralize this threat is to kill them.

what did you expect Capitalism (the studio) to promote? Feudalism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, etc or Socialism?

Capitalism is the brother of Feudalism.

so they were killed because of spook!

...

Basically, yeah. If Russia was not rife with monarchist spooks there would have been no need to kill them.

man I sure hope someone kills them. History repeats itself.

By then overall individuals were so sick of Monarchs, they tolerated a long while. Various Individuals being super sick of Capitalist States when? who knows.

so you want to kill a 10yo autistic boy?

It's not about overreaction, it's a necessary method of self defense for peasants under feudalism, letting them live was too dangerous. They didn't die for anything they did, they died because if feudalism.

Jewish ritual murder.

We need Christian blood because it is the tastiest.

Most Americans hate politics and hate the government. Trump is literally the best figurehead for everything wrong with America and Holla Forums imo aren't utilizing his presidency to it's filled extent.

Obviously not.

Barron is 11 now.

I actually watched a documentary about Romanov family, and killing them was justified. If little tsarevich managed to escape, he would surely want to retake the Russian throne, with the help of the British and French. It had to be done.

fuckin bullshit liar
they love the fucking government. Americans are huge idiotic state cock suckers.

Reminder that most people don't even vote with the turn out being the lowest in years and the disatisfaction with the government being at an all time high.

Here's a photograph of it.

why?

If you found a cock that giant wouldn't you want to preserve it for future generations?

Fun fact, Rasputin's singing voice is the same guy who filled in for Jeremy Irons when he couldn't finish "Be Prepared" in The Lion King. I think it's pretty funny because Rasputin is barely even singing and they probably could have just had Christopher Lloyd do it but they'd rather rely on Jim "that bad guy voice you hear everywhere" Cummings.

*inspecting*

I'll watch Anastasia again after I wake up. I'm sick of reading all day on my f

hummm….no?

What about a cock this giant?

That's a big twinkie.

Anyone got some human child recipes?

world record rh

seems fake. is that real?

if thats faccid then Rasputin must have had the world biggest cock of that era easily.

I'm aware that it thickens a little post mortem underwater. All corpses do underwater.

tbh there is no one in that photo I wouldn't fuck.

The dude is balding the queen is fat.
All the children are model tier through.

test

Yes it's real. Last I heard he was applying for disability because his dick makes it almost impossible to work. It touches the ground when he kneels, and it makes walking more than a little very difficult.

i'm not a dick person, user

Whatever it's preserved in (formaldehyde I guess) may affect that and the glass of the jar and liquid it's in may cause distortions from refraction. Given that the glans is almost entirely exposed, my guess is it's maybe an inch longer than it normally would have been. Foreskin usually covers everything. Of course, it may have engorged with blood as he died. He was thrown in a river and if he was floating face-down the blood would have gone to his cock. People who die face-down or upright (like in hangings) are known to sometimes get death chubbies from the blood pooling there.

Was what justified?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family

They didn't even have a chance yet to detach themselves from the monarchy and become genuinely productive people.
For all we know Anastasia or Alexei could have become great artists, leaders, scientists or a Marxist theorists. It might be unlikely, but neither could a young Marx have been expected to change history or Lenin be known to one day to lead a revolution.
Killing people by association is despicable, and even if you don't believe in justice it's counter-productive.

Even if the adult members of the family were beyond redemption they should have been brought to trial.

Considering the facts that the Whites will later start a ruckus backed by both the Entente and the MIttelmächte, yes!
B killing them all off the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs lost a huge chunk of legitimacy and the succession wasn't clear, since the entire court was in shambles, meaning that even if the Whites have won, the would just start to battle each other about which particular noble gets to call himself """""Emperor of the Third Rome""""".

Killing them was necessary in order to prevent the whites from having any legitimacy, should they had been to win the war.

Idk, I think it would be kinda cool if the Soviet Union had communist royals floating around, would of been great propaganda if they were convinced of it. As stupid as the whole royalty thing is, in a modern society they effectively just become celebrities with a lot of patriotic clout.

Fuck, imagine an alternate timeline where when the Soviet Union is about to collapse, its held together by a beloved Soviet Queen.

They in themselves were not a threat. Nobles in themselves are not anything more than their actual person.

What makes them a threat is not their being, it is their place in monarchist ideology. It's not the house of Romanov anyone was afraid of, it was their monarchist supporters coming to restore them to the throne. And in that sense Alexei was of more use to socialism dead so they couldn't do that than alive so that he may someday do something productive.

And looking at other historical deposed nobles he wouldn't have. He just would have grown up to be a reactionary stooge crying about how communists ruined everything and how he should rule Russia.

You cannot make this shit up

Not surprised tbqh.

Who are you quoting?

...

It's not a matter of wanting to kill someone. It's that the situation has placed their lives in the way of the People. If someone invades your home with a weapon and tries to kill you, killing them doesn't mean you want to do it. You do it out of self-preservation. And the thing is, you would hope to do so before they manage to do you any harm. In the case of royalty, they have already been enacting violence on their subjects. The only significant difference here is that the violence of feudalism is systemic violence, carried out indirectly enough that the human mind doesn't intuitively see the connection. Killing royals is an even more justified form of violence than pre-emptive self defense against a murderer because the royals are already enacting violence on you and other people.

In the case of child heirs, they will be the targets of attempts to reinstate the royal family. If they live after their parents die, there will be further conflict, which will almost certainly result in more deaths, and more deaths of innocent children specifically, than simply killing the royal heirs. Again, this is a problem of not being able to intuit the connection to violence. The choice being made is whether the kids live or die. The consequences are the degree of conflict that will exist in the aftermath. The more the reactionaries have (like a living heir) to back up their cause, the more people will join their fight, the longer the conflict will continue, and the more people will die. And in wars many of the deaths are not directly from battle. Destruction of infrastructure means people will starve or die from other similar systemic effects. These deaths disproportionately affect the weak, including children.

Ultimately, the desire to save ruling class kids is just another example of classism; it ignores all the lower class kids whose deaths would be the price.

Should we just start wiping out religious workers because some of them might turn out as reactionaries? What about lumpen minorities? Should we raze the cities because they're filled with liberals?
This shit has nothing to do with socialism. It's a perverse license to cruelty.

1791154
"The People"? So it's okay now to kill innocent people to benefit some amorphous majority?
Why not just go around enslaving people for the benefit of "The People"? Why advocate socialism at all?
This is some really covert Holla Forums drivel.

This has nothing to do with who the parents are, it's whether you think it's okay to kill innocents by mere association.
It's a stepping stone to genocide, slavery and imperialism.

Yes. Inbred nobles deserved it.

Well here's the thing. There's a difference between someone being or possibly being a reactionary and someone being a symbol for reactionaries that they're seeking to restore to the head of state. "Reaction" is an idea, no matter how many reactionaries we kill we're never going to kill their reactionary ideals. Nobles on the other hand are people, if we annihilate them to the last man the reactionaries won't have anyone to restore - they're all dead.

"Cruelty" is a spook and it's a strategy for the continued survival of the revolution.

It would be irresponsible not to.

That settles it then. Slavery is okay. Genocide it tolerable.
Killing native Americans to make way for a European migrant minority? Justified.
Enslaving people to serve the majority? Okay.

Are you naive? After launching a campaign to kill the land owners in China, the Maoists still ended up creating a new aristocracy of muh privilege'd party bureaucrats.

Regardless, I guess it would be okay to kill you. It's evident you are harboring fascist and bourgeois tendencies. Actually, let's include your extended family as well, because it must obviously run in the family.
But don't worry, it's all okay. We're doing it for the benefit of "The People".

So is "The People" in the way you guys speak of

They're not literal aristocrats though. They're bourgeoisie. I'm talking about actual bloodline nobility.

Did you even read my posts?
My point isn't that Alexei was a reactionary, it doesn't matter what he believes. My point is that the reactionaries of Russia would have wanted to restore him to the throne.

this post unironically really made me think,
pic related was a prince, and he contributed to the devolepment of socialism.
but at the same time the whites might have restarted the romanov

You're holding me accountable for something someone else said. I never mentioned "the people".

Your feelings can choke on the corpses of all the people who would die in a war to reclaim the throne for the "rightful heirs."

But you advocate for the revolution, which is fundamentally done for the sake of "The People"

It's done for the sake of material class interest. If you want to frame it in terms of "the people" then fine but that's not why I'm in for it or why anyone should be, I want it so that my life could be better. It just so happens that the means for realizing this are also pertinent to the rest of the working class.

wew

When it comes to monarchies, you can't have members of the family survive. They'd just lay claim to the throne after you depose the main guy. It was a heartless act but necessary for the revolution.

you shouldn't mourn for your oppressors

Succession crises have been a thing throughout history, even in societies without an official nobility.
Reactionaries and their depraved tendencies are the problem, not whoever they want to put on the throne, which is mostly a figurehead anyway.
And reactionaries weren't defeated because the entire Romanov family were slaughtered (though they were mostly reactionaries), they were defeated because the Whites were defeated in the field and the rest ended up fleeing.

Bloodline nobility is derived from inherited wealth (including land), the mythology of being descendents from heaven (or some other godly authority) was created to justify class relations.
The current premier of China is a direct descendent of the early revolutionaries, and he enjoys a rich family. Even top members of the Soviet communist party enjoyed lifestyles well above the mean.

Wew. Well I guess my life would be materially better if I could just enslave you. As well as kill all those useless mouths that are squatting "my property".

My point is that people like you are fascists and aspiring bourgies in disguise, and would turn the moment they believed their fortunes would be better served anywhere.
Thus following the reasoning of killing the few to "save" the man, I guess your death would be justified considering what a danger you present. Either you will continuously subvert whatever socialist character the revolution has, or you are a 5th column in waiting.
Nice how this works right?

It's not about personal ethics. It's really about whether you want to live in a society where people can nominally justify slavery and genocide.
But I guess ethics, principles and theory don't matter. You can be enslaved as well. After all, as long as it serves "The Majority" it's justified. (Just like in the CSA)

Yes

I know. But here's the thing. If a revolution happened in America and Mark Zuckerberg got shot all the reactionaries in America wouldn't rally around his son (hypothetical, not sure if he has any kids) as the figurehead of their movement. On the other hand if a revolution happened in the UK and the queen died you can be assured that Prince Charles would become the poster-child of reactionaries all across Britain. The mythology and ideology surrounding nobles that bourgeoisie lack is what makes them dangerous and why we should seek to deprive reactionaries of their leaders in this way.

Yep, yep it absolutely would. If I was some slave-owning African warlord or bourgeois millionaire you can be assured that I would be the biggest anti-socialist on the planet because it would be contrary to my class interests. However it is not as I am a prole, socialism is my class interest.

The danger I present to nobility?
Okay, lets kill everyone who poses a threat to the nobility and accuse them of being reactionaries. It's not like defending aristocrats is literally the most reactionary activity on the planet.

i'm sure those kids never oppressed anyone. ,

absolutely
should've been beheaded in public

They weren't killed because they were guilty they were killed because in a utilitarian sense it would have killed far more people to keep them alive. Nobody thinks the kid Romanovs did anything bad though they probably would have grown up to.

too much EDGE

...

Absolutely. That is all.

No, but they would fight on as they did in Russia.
The Romanovs weren't the first case in history of royals dying without suitable or obvious heirs.

You might find one day that there's more than class interests. Though it might just be too alien for you to consider right now.

No, the danger you present to everyone else with your opportunistic, bloodthirsty and subversive attitude. Mind you, this is the logical conclusion to your arguments.
For "The People".

It's not like justifying slavery and genocide is among the most reactionary activities.

I guess it would be okay if I kept a few slaves right? As long as they don't end up being the majority.
Because that would be "wrong".

What about the workers that were killed? Were their doctors, cooks and other servants also nobles and bourgies deserving of death?

Isn't it curious how bloodthirsty would-be-tyrants love to whine about other people's ethics, but when they themselves are subject to oppression they will screech on and on about "utilitarianism".

None of that stuff is inherently evil but extrapolating a justification for that from the targeted killing of the Royal family and the specific circumstances in which it occurred is retarded.

Let's also keep in mind the immediate context of their execution. They were not simply executed as soon as the Bolsheviks seized power, though they well could have been as they had been imprisoned by the Kerensky government and passed into Bolshevik hands after October, they instead waiting until July 1918 to execute them. The possibility of them falling into the hands of the White forced was not some abstract possibility, this was at the height of the civil war and the Czechoslovak Legion was closing in on their location.

If you throw your lot in with aristocrats then there's little justification for complaint when you share their fate. A cop that defends bourgeois interests is a bourgeois cop, etc.

Of course. But with the entire royal house dead they don't have anyone to rally around. It's extremely demoralizing and effectively nips the monarchist cause in the bud.

Of course it alone would not win the war, but it permanently ends any reasonable chance of Russia returning to a monarchy.

No there isn't. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Like what? All I want to do is secure the revolution by any means necessary.

Except I never made any arguments for "the people". You're just taking the arguments of two different people arguing with you and smushing them together.

And when did I do that?

There was a revolution. They could've fled.

will do it again.

I'm taking the utilitarian viewpoint to its logical end conclusion. I can totally understand why they killed the Romanovs, the reasoning has been outlined plenty of times in this thread.
But don't hide your cynicism and survival instinct behind utilitarian troll logic. Own up to it.

I think we should preliminarily slaughter the entire Muslim community, because they're spooked and their idpol would probably threaten the revolution.
It's reasonable though, because they're a minority in the west anyway. After all, when you chop wood chips fly! Million is a statistic, need to crack some eggs to make an omelet, etc.

I guess America then should just be obliterated with nuclear and biological weapons.
After all, most are still profiting from imperialism and neocolonialism.

What a load of utilitarian tripe. This whole thread.
>>>Holla Forums

Finally. A point we can all get behind.

Butthurt isn't an argument.

Utilitarian troll logic isn't an argument.

Butthurt isn't an argument.

As a latin american i wholeheartedly support this.

nicky needed to die and if movies have taught me anything you need to kill the kids to or they will ruin your shit with a halfbaked revenge quest

i fucking hate commies.Isn't your ideology supposed to be based in radical democracy?

QQ bitch

And wasn't the USSR literally an imperial force itself.It had to liberate all of eastern-europe against its will,huh?

The kids…not so much…but by god the Tsar did so so much

Yea, i guess the eastern europeans just wanted to be ethnically cleansed to make room for krauts

Cry more cuck

That map doesn't portray the absolute border gore of the Balkans in an axis victory

Totally. The elimination of the royal family deprived reactionaries and the family-nobility in of the other European countries of imagery and reasons to justify their attack on the soviet republic to their people. Without "the divine rulers of Russia" alive, it is impossible to use them as ammo to motivate the increasingly anti-nobility masses to take up arms and "restore gods order".

I don't know about the two youngest and the queen, but the Tsar and the older daughters are all highly fuckable.

Also the destruction of the royal family dealt a big blow to the royalist army in russia of a figurehead to restore to the throne. Without such a person, the white army would be much more likely to give up earlier, and there wouldn't be a person they looked up to to motivate them with speeches. Take out the figurehead of a movement and the become much less organised, motivated and effective.

Do roaches not lay eggs, user?

absolutely, my man.

fuck off

...

the confusion in this one is palatable

Revolutionary justice isn't served in courts, it isn't based on legality nor morality. It's wild, explosive, and executed by the masses. A revolution is a violent overthrowal of one class by another. For a sense on normalcy, morality, legality to return the fervor needs to transform first. If you don't like these facts of revolutions, you are not a revolutionary and should use the socdem flag instead.

Ever heard about the house negro? They weren't spared in many slave revolts for a reason.

Nice fascist psychology you have there.

...

You are now just using buzzwords.

...

...

no, you

Everything being permitted, you being allowed to become a barbarian, brutish creature who maims and burns in a rage which needs no moral justification, is precisely the appeal of fascism.

Morality is a myth.

Sounds more like a typical reactionary hellscape.

There are enough reasons not to allow that stuff besides morality. You don't create socialism through indiscriminate slaughter.

Really stimulates the neurons.

...

There's a differences between bourgeoisie that refuse to move out of the way or hand over their ill-gotten gains for collectivization/distribution, and children that haven't even had the opportunity yet to be workers.
Why is it so important to kill the children? What does it add? What does it contribute?

Props to the one who made this video, they have good musical tastes

It's this attitude that leads to their deaths, since it defines their life's as instrumental, to be ended when useful.

Do you think that the bourgeoisie or their historical predecessors cared if their machinations ended with the deaths of thousands? millions? Nobody here is actively calling for anymore deaths than is necessary, but neither is anyone shedding tears or feeling remorse for these people. Nobody has time during a revolution to meticulously calculate the complete necesity of each and every life taken in the name of freedom. In the case of royalty, whose legitimacy for control lies within their identity, it is understandable if not reprehensible that the Romanov children had to die. Even then, the real problem is the mentality of people in this thread who can actively call for the overthrow of capitalism and still sleep at night with conventional bourgeois morals. There will be deaths of the innocent, but we know this and we are willing to move forward as communists because we know that the alternative is the hell on earth we have now. It is all or nothing comrade.

Except I'm not. Some people here insist on killing unarmed children and my question is why? Their lives may or may not be instrumental, but can people at least come up with a sensible answer as to why they need to die?

The appeal of socialism is not just to improve the material conditions of those that actually perform work and add value, but also to redefine social relations beyond the point where their value is determined (primarily) by how profitable they are.
Some of the posts in this thread are apex bourgeois thinking: cynical, exploitative, opportunistic. If a million have to be starved, enslaved or executed to benefit "the majority" it's justified - even if they did nothing to harm the revolution. That's not socialism, that's capitalism.

Irrelevant. And that still wouldn't cover children and employees. The problem here is bloodthirsty psychos that want to emulate the exact atrocities of the bourgeois and others reactions; killing people by association, forced labor and arbitrary state-sanctioned mass murder. If it's just going to be the same shit all over again with people brutalizing each other for mundane reasons or no reason at all, why even bother?

History has already shown what eventually happens with this attitude. Did Chinese peasants deserve to be killed for managing slightly more land or having slightly higher yields?
First it's the children of the aristocracy, then its the workers they employed, then it's small shop owners and professionals that never employed anyone, then it's skilled workers, and finally it's peasants that are slightly more productive or just happened to use an extra farming equipment.
Truly if we just kill everyone in the name of "The People" we can finally have socialism.

My problem is not strictly collateral damage, which is tragic. It is deliberately targeting people for having worked for, or having relations to bourgeois agents. Which just isn't the same as being bourgeois or reactionary.

When an opponent is seen as the ultimate evil, ultimate evil is allowed -required even- to be done to them. It is your very logic that explains their reasoning.

...

What logic? Questioning mass murder is now an excuse to commit mass murder?
Would questioning the motives behind a genocide justify said genocide?

Nigga, the fact that the Tsar EXISTED was a crime. Read Robespierre

Was Rasputin /ourguy/

Says everyone that rads your posts.

...

Both Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were tried before execution.