Did he really deserve to die like that? With his whole family...

Did he really deserve to die like that? With his whole family?! I think he genuinely had the interests of the Russian people at heart - he sided against Germany and Austria because of Pan-Slavism even though William II. was his cousin. He tried social reform, after all. If they left him alone after he resigned, communism wouldn't have such a bloody connotation.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Russian_throne
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes.

spooky

If he'd just stayed out of WW1 the Soviet Union would've probably never happened, he's only got himself to blame. After all it wasn't him being sent to the front without guns or bullets or artillery shells.

Did a shitty abusive tyrant deserve to die? Yes.

Did his family? Probably not but there was a serious risk that they remained or escaped they could be used by other actors who wanted power that would have then used them to accelerate their own position. They would have died there or forever been the pawns of some other dick heads ambition, and the revolution would have been for naught.

He just allied himself with the wrong side. Why would he think siding with the liberal Anglo-Saxon west would be better than siding with his genuine imperial relatives of Germany and Austria?

Then again, I just can't forget that Lenin got almost 50 million bucks from the German Empire just to disrupt Russia. Seems hypocritical.

Killing monarchs is possibly the least damning criticism of revolution imaginable
Like… he's just one person. I don't believe that whether or not someone "deserves" to die is relevant, death should never be an end in and of itself - but the death of this one person with an immense amount of power during his time is no more tragic than the starvation of a peasant. The ruling class aren't entitled any more entitled to life than the working class, and constantly obsessing over the deaths of this one person and his family when it took place in a revolution that involved thousands of people dying is immensely stupid.

Sadly, yes.
The white army probably would have rallied around him or his heirs if they survived.

he was related to british royalty

him, maybe

his family, definitely not

So was almost every Monarch, British Royalty is also just glorified German aristocracy (House Hannover)

Was Tsar Nicholas II the Justin Trudeau of his generation?

we can only hope.

How about stay out of it altogether?

IIRC France had a bunch of investments and other commercial interests in Imperial Russia before the war. Also I remember something about Bismarck bitching out Wilhelm for letting the close relationship between Russia and Germany whither

This. The JOSEPH was opposed to the Yugoslav tits just deposing their king over nothing and argued for a socialist monarchy, because you already had constitutional monarchies all over the world. The reply was "you gotta be kidding, bitch."

Yes, even the cruelty was nescesary.

But with virtue, don't forget the virtue.

He's right, you know.

Yes, fuck him
Absolutely. Fuck em.
You are allowed to be wrong
Most of the royal families in Europe were related, bunch of inbred fucks.
That he had total control over
And he would have tried to come and take back his kingdom, making the civil war even more bloody. Might have even led thw Whites, who were basically proto-fascists.
Propaganda will always cast the what they oppose in a negative light.

Machiavelli was absolutely right on that.

but the cherry to top it all of
you forgot to call him a excellent cishet sinner too


that's it,
this is the thread that finally convinced me that there is no place on this site where you can discuss politics with somewhat functioning people

at the end of it all Holla Forums is full of retards with superiority complexes and Holla Forums is the same kind of shit just with minoritycomplexes instead, which is arguably worse.

fat society rejects with no shred of humanity and dignity, social money leeches without intellect or aspirations.

I mean honestly, killing the children, the fucking children was necessary?
the all-so-mighty worker party trembling from the thought of girls who didn't even hit puberty?
Patheticness in all of it's forms, everyone who agreed to this deserves to choke on a dick.

Yes

sweet anarcho-autism

...

Whoa dude what's the matter I just want to kill children for the revolution but if you can't deal with that I guess that's your problem, looks like you've got some growing up to do.

Silly OP, Russian Tsars only used it to fuck their rivals while oppressing Slavic minorities in their own Empire at the same time.

Yes.

...

his dad was [email protected]/* */ though

When somebody is appointed to a position at birth and for life, I think it comes with the territory.
Nobs kill each other for a couple milennia and we write books about how romantic and chivalrous it is, nobs kill peasants and various lame-ass excuses are made to make the nobs look like the hero of the piece, peasants kill nobs and suddenly it's morally abhorrant and morally reprehensible and how dare they end a unique, irreplaceable human life.
I'm sure the people his guards shot for protesting or those he sent to die in a war because the inbrd idiots runing it had their heads up their asses would appreciate that :^)
I doubt that. If the Russian revolutionaries killed exactly five people, all of whom were known and prolific serial murderers and child molesters, I think the Western press would still have found a way to wring their collective hands about it.
Imperial rivalry, desire for moar clay, Byzantine secret treaties and other playing of Vicky2 IRL had nothing whatsoever to do with it :^)
also
Either your Holla Forums or your Putinbux is showing.

...

I never said it was a good thing. There's just a rational explanation as to why the revolutionaries did it.

Do you understand how politics works? Do you understand how feudalism works?

The Tsar didn't seem to give a shit about the worker's and their families. He didn't care about the orphans create from World War 2. I guess starvation is a more humane way to kill small children as opposed to a bullet.

Whats that? Does it have something to do with tryants?

Aren't you the one moralizing?

What would you need? For people to just say no?

How did you reach that conclusion? Can you speak thats not sperg please?

Why not ask three quarters of Europe from 1914-1918 that?

I'm convinced this board is nothing but autistic tankies without the flag.

Who gives a shit? There were still claimants to the throne. There was still a Civil War. Killing the Romanov daughters did nothing to further the Bolshevik cause and in fact likely hindered it.

well duh, that's not why you come here and you know it.

Yes. Thats the nature of a monarchy. As long as they lived they, and any children they produced could claim to be the rightful heir of the Tsar. And they would not have to do it themselves, many monarchs have been children puppeteered by aristocrats, the monarchs danger is not it's personality, but its role as a figurehead and legitimization of the feudal system.
Some children are born only to die of starvation and preventable diseases, others die at the hands of angry revolutionaries, why should we raise the later tragedy higher than the millions that die in silence?
But don't say that to normies, say murdering children is bad. Because mostly it is, but maybe not in this case.

yes

probably not. But hey, you can't make a revolution without breaking a few eggs.

choose one

only because he got Russia in such a bad situation it was on the verge of collapse from civil unrest and revolution and that forced him to give some concessions (which he took back when he dismantled the Duma, btw).

Maybe he sucked so much just because of incompetence instead of evil, idk. At any rate he was pretty shitty and from a utilitarian standpoint his death was the best alternative.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_former_Russian_throne

It's not like the revolutionaries could hunt down every last member of the Romanov dynasty worldwide, you fool. Keeping the kids close would have been wiser. That way succession doesn't pass to an outsider who can who could then attempt to rally capitalist support for a coup. You can brainwash the kids.

No, the truth of the matter is your peasant revolutionaries were (understandably) asshurt and expressed their asshurt in a way that hurt communism as a whole. Similar to the French revolutionaries killing off the Dauphin.

But now you are arguing tactics, I had the impression you took offense to the murders because they where children. Now you abandon your humanitarian outrage for a pragmatic proposal of holding them captive and brainwashing them.
In this you could be right, maybe it would have been better, or maybe the internal aristocratic disputes of who was the rightful hair weakened them and helped the Bolsheviks. A campaign to save innocent children could appeal to many among the people.

All monarchists deserve to die

This ignores the context in which the Romonovs were executed. This was during the civil war, the Bolsheviks had kept them all captive for several months, they were executed due to the strong possibility that they were about to be recovered by the White forces, the Czechoslovak Legion specifically. It's hard to brainwash the kids if they are in the hands of forces determined to restore them to their throne.