The execution of the romanovs

Sin can only be forgiven through blood

Moralism is reactionary spookyness no matter how poetic you make it.

It's not because they were monarchs, it's because everyone knows their story and it seems like needless brutality.

But the user is right: revolutions are full of needless brutalities.

Yes, Every monarch get a free guillotine ride.

The execution of the Romanovs was committed by a group of angry Red Army soldiers, commanded by Yakov Yakorvsky, independently of Lenin and likely of Sverdlov as well.

And this one is talked about because everyone knows in explicit detail how a family with five kids was gruesomely killed.

How many children did their dynasty kill? They deserved several deaths more.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Honestly I don't think I could bring myself to execute children. What kind of person did they get to do the deed?

By who and for what purpose. Do we, as communists, need to talk about this?

Sounds about right for idpol freaks.

The soviets were undialectical savages.
China didn't only reform a spoiled emperor and made him learn skills so he could lead a happy civilian life, but made him an ardent follower and promoter of communism. Puyi wrote many times how he was much happier and fulfilled in his life as a new man than as the decadent life where he was a political puppet and ruined the lives of his concubines.

Imagine how much the USSR's image have been boosted by Anastasia and Alexey apologizing to the subjects Nicholas and promoting Marx.

It was a hereditary monarchy. The children has to be killed. It is unfortunate not something that could be avoided.

*apologizing to the subjects Nicholas oppressed

This was something Puyi did through his life. He went out to seek his exconcubines and previous servants to listen to their stories, and beg them for forgiveness. He came to understand that the world didn't revolve around him through dialectical reeducation.

t.nazi
You faggots are all the same

It could have 100% been avoided

See:

This
There is no evidences that Lenin ordered to kill the tsar and his family

He wasn't a real emperor.

t. Machiavelli

He was right, you know.

it was a shame that kids where killed but it was that or risk them being used to invade/coup the USSR.

You realize the Prince was written ironically, right?

How can people reationalize, "Oh noooooooooo the Soviets killed children" when about a solid generation's worth of children and their families were bombed, killed since the Iraq war, and far far before that. And what of the representatives of the land of the free and home of the brave decided to exploited and raped by Our Brave #1 Troops

Your selective hypocrisy is just so heinous, how can you be so fucking stupid to think that.

No it wasn't. It was a serious work.

It was the fact that it cut through the mysticism, pageantry and paternalistic ideology that feudalism surrounded itself with and discussed it as it was, a system of domination, that made it subversive. At the end of the day, though, it was legitimate and logically sound advice, not a satire. It would be as if someone today published a work today that was legitimate, brutally honest advice on how to be a politician in a bourgeois republic, complete with how to negotiate backroom deals, suppress the vote, manipulate social strife, etc. The fact that it was good advice would be all the more subversive, since you're discussing bourgeois politics as it actually is, rather than through the lens of liberal ideology.

The only tragedy is that it didn't happen to the other european monarchies.

When we do it, you fucking monsters how dare
you

When Capitalism does it they don't blink a god damn eye.

Yep, I would do it again and again, no questions asked, Revolutionary rage and hatred knows no limits.

WEW, sociopaths ITT

this tbh

Children die in war you naive lunatic

...

yes, and saying that it is a GOOD thing when it happens is another thing altogether, psychopath. when children die in war that's BAD. it's also bad when they're brutally fucking murdered

WAAAAHHHH THEY BUTCHERED A ROYAL FAMILY

Never mind how much money we give to Saudi Arabia, how lax our laws on domestic violence towards children, how much of mass shootings attempted on campus aren't by adults, why we launched missiles at Iraq leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and everything that has come back to that in the form of the highest bidder of Al Qaeda's, is ISIS.

If you really want to make a pesky fucking argument about a revolution a century ago, I both suggest you read history and stop being hysterical.

believe it or not, a person is perfectly capable of thinking that those things are bad while also thinking that the Romanov massacre was bad. the fact that people are actually defending it ITT stretches my capacity to believe.

The context of the thread is fucking obvious, you're weak at bait as you are weak in arguments, as you are weak in keeping my attention span like a small miniature sized dog yapping yapping yapping.

War happens, grow the fuck up

You're a corn cob

you know it's not true, you just have so much hatred in your heart that you're glad it happened. luckily not everyone here is as insane as you are or the movement would be doomed to failure. I didn't even make this thread, but even if it is just counterrevolutionary bait you shouldn't be so shortsighted as to interpret everything as part of some push and pull tug-of-war between counterrevolutionary and revolutionary forces. the Romanov murders were fucked up. it doesn't do leftism any disservice to admit that what happened was fucked up, shameful and wrong.

I love it when liberal moralizers always whimper and piss themselves about the Romanovs, saying how they were unnecessary deaths, forgetting the fact that Nikolai was called "the bloody" because he sicked the imperial army on peasants who came to beg him for relief with the church because work conditions were so awful, 2000 peasants were shot down with one order.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

Or the time when a row of stadium benches collapsed in during an address he held but the people weren't helped because they were peasants, and some 50 died and many were injured.

I don't pity them in the slightest, avoidable or not. Arguably their bloodlust and greed landed them in the situation in the first place.

Basically. You're defending the power structures that actually killed children with neglect and malnutrition in Tsarists Russia, causing starvation and having the unbearable pain of watching the children of your friends, your family, and the people sobbing in the streets

BUT LAWDY NO NOT THE ARISTOCRATS, HOW COULD THEY JUST KILL A CHILD
LAWDY ME WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT

a heir is a heir.

It doesn't do leftism any disservice either to simply stick to the fact that shit happens in wars.

By the way, the kind you feel in this thread comes along with the sane hatred the masses need for the revolution. We can't get one without the other; I wish we could, but we can't.

He was a foreign invader that had lost the mandate of heaven, there was no way for him to come back

Neither was Alexei.

Nice whataboutism. Also no one here says the second is good either.

I didn't know the shitty things your father did also makes you guilty and worthy of having a botched execution. Additionally, someone else doing shitty things does not excuse you doing them.

Who the fuck is defending Tsarist Russia? How is a position like "murdering children is bad" some unacceptable position for you?

My point is countless children died modern wars, and if you think you can throw le blac buk xd at me it's so easily full of holes it might as well be fucking swiss cheese.

It is not what aboutism. It's actually about your dissonance between Western and Eastern revolutions and wars and the context that lead to that point.

You're just sobbing like a kid from elementary school who lost his way home, a lost dog with big droopy eyes

You're fucking pathetic

*the kind of hatred you feel

you are literally what Stalin was talking about in quote related, lmfao

...

I just can't agree with that, man. Did 16-year-old Anastasia really pose a credible threat to the incoming regime? Did their servants, their doctor and maid and cook? I think not. I don't think it was necessary. I don't think it was dialectical. I think it was just spite.

Uh, you. You're defending the possibility they could have a heir to generate enough support and make things at bare minimum one hundred times worse than you (Falsely) think the Soviet Union killed. The Soviet Union has done more in its existence to literacy, mathematics, and teaching children, All America does is drop fucking bombs on nations it hasn't even declared war on.

We both know who you are. Trying to get us to defend the murder of the Russian Royal family. And congratulations you got it, because I have no earthly care in the world of the little runt died by a drowning head first into a toiler

Sit back down.

lol why are you so upset. of course it was spite and revenge. these are normal human emotions and during the heady days of the revolution for soldiers who had seen their friends ground into the dirt in the name of the czar and his family there was satisfaction in the act of killing.

if you actually have compassion for those who suffer needless deaths then you cannot begrudge the necessary consequences of the overthrow of the system that produced untold millions of needless death.

Poverty drives people into political violence about the state of their lives. If they didn't want violence, the solution would be to stop being who they were.

But they said no, and they really fucked up by saying no. That was what early 20th century war look liked. Don't like it? Don't go into the 19th or before.

hey starving soldiers i want you to guard the man who ordered the death of all your friends, i also need you to prop up my regime. it is completely realistic to ask both.

Yes, and those children dying was also shitty, but we're not talking about that because this thread isn't about that.
Jesus m8, maybe you should take a break from the internet.

You do realize that fake quote is used as evidence of Stalin's supposed psychopathy?

It wasn't a dichotomy of "murder the family or deal with foreign support behind an heir", there were more options than that.
No one ITT has said anything about the SU.
Are you literally having a stroke? Chill the fuck out and stop being so invested in events that happened 100 years ago.

because they would have conspired with the forces of reaction to attack the new russia, and would have propagandised themselves to the international community as innocent victims of evil barbarians

the quote isn't fake, it's just misused. He was referring to pissbaby moralizing such as yours.

that's the only point I'm contradicting, here. I don't think it was the worst thing ever. I don't think it makes the Tsar better than the people who massacred his household. but I do think it was unnecessary, and I do think it was wrong, and I certainly don't think it deserves apologia.

plenty of monarchs have been ejected without having their entire families murdered in the process. to imply otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous

do you even know under which context they were killed? You seem ignorant as fuck

I'm sure you must be a big, tough, revolutionary dude, huh?

nah I'm just an average factory worker who isn't spooked as fuck

do you have any evidence that any revolutionary party would/want to keep him and his family safe?

why should we as revolutionaries go out of our way to protect people who are heavily demonized by the public? do you think it would be a wise move for the bolsheviks to move against public will to protect a butcher?

like if a popular mob went into the white house and murdered trump but also got baron too should we all start posting about how we disown that action and the left is against such horrific acts of violence??

we're talking about millions of people so worked up a few of them got the chutzpah to roll some heads. if we stand in their way or harangue them from the sidelines they will only move on to other parties.

The family wasn't killed by a mob or even in passion. The soldiers were ordered to after deliberation.

What context?

replace the romanovs with mussolini

the white army was some 40 kilometers away, and they were outnumbered. What's worse if they dragged civilians (the family) in the cold wilderness along with them they'd have been slowed down and caught, but they couldn't leave the family to get captured by the whites either for obvious reasons. I'd rather 6 or so people die for the revolution than to give the reactionary forces an edge, especially considering that those same 6 people had no issue with peasants being gunned down right before that.

Aristocratic brats are often worse than their parents. Little shits deserved it.

The only think the reds did wrong was allowing their execution site to become a little shrine for reactionaries and didn't even arrest the Tzarist fucks.

whos the pigs now

when will this meme end

Because they were the heads of a reactionary feudal system based on hereditary ownership of land and property. With the Romanovs still alive they would serve as lightning rods for reactionary sentiments and figureheads for reactionary movements throughout Russia and beyond.

Fuck the Romanovs to death and fuck you.

I kinda wish they kept the young one's around and re-educated them. Can you imagine world with a fucking SOVIET PRINCESS, the USSR might of not even fell if there was a loyal Royal trying to hold together the union.

Look at France, their king came back.
Look at Afghanistan, their king is coming back.
Look at Bulgaria, their Tsar came back and became prime minister.
Look at Cambodia.
You gotta kill the kids, man, monarchs are an infection.

Makes me think of Red Alert.

Here's my take,
Yes the czar was awful, but 50% of it was incompetence, not malice.

He didn't know how to run a country properly and blaming Nicholas II himself for the suffering of the proletariat is equal to people directly blaming stalin for causing famines.

The support for Nicholas II was very low during WW1, even among reactionaries. You're delusional and the reason why people are scared of far-left ideas.

Why is nobody mentioning the whites were fighting to get to the Tsar and getting close when the execution was ordered?

...

Had the soviets not killed the family (including the children) their heirs could have been used to spark a coutner-revolution to retake their """rightful""" place as tzars by the other governments.
It happened with after the French Revolution when the monarchy was re-established.
The Bolscheviks just learned from the mistakes of the past.

Fucking this. Being a kid doesn't excuse you from being an asshole. Children are some of the most cruelest creatures on this hellscape we call earth. Fuck them.

...

I'm probably going to blow your mind here, do you know who saved Puyi from execution? The Soviets. He fell into their hands after the invasion of Manchuria at the end of WWII and the main reactionary force in China at the time, the KMT, demanded the Soviets hand him over to stand trial and likely be executed. The two situations really aren't comparable.

...

because deal with it

Eat shit tsarist. Hopefully you share their fate.

As if the Romanovs did not kill thousands of workers and peaseants, the bolsheviks sould have keep them alive though, and make their work the rest of their life as peaseants, as the chinse communist did with the King.
Still it needs to be explained that the decision was taken by the bolsheviks that guarded the Romanovs as the white forces were approaching them, there was not a high order from the party, and they considered it was the best option to protect the revolution.

Looool
You might need to outside more, friend.

No the quote is fake even if I agree with it

...