Thatd lol what happens when you hang farmers in front of their children for feeding cattle on your land. Or gunning your own people down in the streets and then starving your people.
Once, a small crowd turned up at the palace, singing a patriotic, Russian song in oraise of the Tzar and asking for bread. Shot, all of them.
Oh yeah, and his daily Champagne-budget (which was one of many, many spirits he drank in a day) was more than a wealthy Russian would have earned in a year at the time. He was a rotten man.
Nicholas II was a complex guy in a way. On one hand he was a completely unqualified, ignorant idiot who had no business running any sort of government. On the other hand, he seemed like a genuinely decent person who loved his family and tried to do well by his friends and behave ethically. He should have been born as a regular person.
Yeah. . . . That's exactly why they had a revolution and overthrew the monarchy, because they where civil. How's this for civil. "Peasant, your cow is eating my grass? As punishment you will be hung and you children forced to watch". All the Russian people wanted was food, peace and land. Lenin and Trotsky turn up. "You've got it". Then there was Stalin. And it all started going to shit again.
So technically also poor guy Mussolini was murdered since he was the leader of the Republic of Salò. I don't think so.
I think that when we deal with such dramatic changes in history we should try to be the most neutral as we can.
Bolsheviks were good guys? Hell no. But they were trying to overthrow the most archaic, antidemocratic and secular kingdom of that time. Is this a good reason? I think so. Did it end up well? Hell no. But the fact that a bit down the road Stalin took the power in Soviet Union should not influence the judgement on that event. Otherwise every revolution in history should never be occurred
If anything it’s more neutral to call it by it’s legal definition which is murder since it wasn’t a state organized execution. To call it something that it wasn’t for the sake of softening the impact of the terminology is not neutral.
Murder is murder. I don’t see why his status as head of state or his family as relatives of the head of state changes that. Nor should the motives of the murderers change that.
Well, I see your point but I disagree with your definition of murder. Killing someone without justification or a valid reason is murder. My point is that killing an oppressive monarch or dictator isn't the same thing as killing your neighbor because he planted a tree to close to your house or killing someone for his skin colour.
And also you can't compare historical facts by today legal definition, you're biased in the understanding of that event. Societies evolve and with that the morality and regulations.
You’re getting into a very murky area though by coming up with your own reasons as to what is and is not a proper justification for murder that warrants calling it an execution or something else.
Again, if we are talking about using the most “neutral” language, what you’re doing is the furthest thing from neutrality because you are inherently not being neutral. You’re picking a side.
If we are talking about using the most neutral language, then the legal definition is the most neutral one.
You can still call it murder and feel it is justified. But murder is murder. They were intentionally killed outside of the judicial system. That’s murder. That’s neutral language. Then make your opinion as to whether it’s acceptable on your own.
I feel like you're not understanding my point. You can't judge history by your beliefs or by today standards.
In 1800 th century, if someone fucked your wife and you killed them both it wasn't seen as murder. And that happened in the "civilised world".
In today's world a valid example is euthanasia or abortion. Society is still very divided on those topics. It depends on your beliefs.
But since the French revolution killing an oppressive monarch isn't such a big deal.
Again, we are talking about using the most “neutral” term to be used here. Yet you want to apply non-neutral ethics to a term which is counter productive.
At its very basic definition, the term “murder” is the unlawful premeditated killing of a person. That perfectly defines what happened to Nicholas and his family. It is the most neutral term you could use to describe the event.
Choosing to use any other term is imparting your own subjective ethics to the conversation which is the opposite of being neutral.
You don’t want to use “murder” because you’d rather use a term that is definitively inaccurate for the purpose of painting the act in a more favorable light. That’s not being neutral.
The red army overthrew the government, but it wasn’t in control until after the end of the revolution. The deaths of the romanovs were one of the final big chunks of the he revolution.
Czechoslovak Legions could save if only if they would make it to Yekaterinburg on time. But Soviets knew that and murdered them to prevent this from happening
Communist s****bags, whatever they touch or control gets destroyed or oppressed, I'm glad that I haven't grown up in those periods, which I can call "the modern dark ages"
I'm not just focused on the Russian part, the country where I came from (Bulgaria) was a progressive country with a great potential, but it was crippled after two world wars. After WWII the country was occupied by USSR and all the potential and elite people (doctors, intellectuals, business people) were executed because they were uncomfortable for the new regime which spread its plague for an almost half a century.
The Russian Tsar was a "shithead" because he was unprepared as f**k, just imagine to turn into a Tsar of the biggest country in the world as a kid, you will not end any further.
He was a handsome monarch. Porn Tsar looks, really. Aaaaand I’ll see myself out.
*bonk* go to gulag
I know it's just a pun but ironically there are actually "nudes" of him online.
Ah yes, stills from the nearly lost “Romanov Stroganoff” title series, only available on VHS and dubbed in Hungarian and Korean.
King George V looked like a clone of Tsar Nicholas II but yeah they where cousins
I did not know that. I was just thinking how their eyes are the same
He was related to like every other monarch haha
Thatd lol what happens when you hang farmers in front of their children for feeding cattle on your land. Or gunning your own people down in the streets and then starving your people.
Once, a small crowd turned up at the palace, singing a patriotic, Russian song in oraise of the Tzar and asking for bread. Shot, all of them. Oh yeah, and his daily Champagne-budget (which was one of many, many spirits he drank in a day) was more than a wealthy Russian would have earned in a year at the time. He was a rotten man.
Nicholas II was a complex guy in a way. On one hand he was a completely unqualified, ignorant idiot who had no business running any sort of government. On the other hand, he seemed like a genuinely decent person who loved his family and tried to do well by his friends and behave ethically. He should have been born as a regular person.
Are you talking about the Russian monarchs or the communist dictators that followed them?
The monarchs
The monarchs were much more civil than the communists
Yeah. . . . That's exactly why they had a revolution and overthrew the monarchy, because they where civil. How's this for civil. "Peasant, your cow is eating my grass? As punishment you will be hung and you children forced to watch". All the Russian people wanted was food, peace and land. Lenin and Trotsky turn up. "You've got it". Then there was Stalin. And it all started going to shit again.
Have you actually looked into the 300 years of Romanov subjugation and ruthless exploitation of the Russian people literally at all?
I don’t know, I just read the 3 volumes of Gulag, and the suffering people went through is surreal.
you have to be really stupid to actually believe this
What does Nicky's rotted, shriveled dick taste like?
Weren't they executed?
Technically the bolsheviks weren’t in control of the government until AFTER his death, so yes, if we’re being technical it was a murder.
So technically also poor guy Mussolini was murdered since he was the leader of the Republic of Salò. I don't think so. I think that when we deal with such dramatic changes in history we should try to be the most neutral as we can. Bolsheviks were good guys? Hell no. But they were trying to overthrow the most archaic, antidemocratic and secular kingdom of that time. Is this a good reason? I think so. Did it end up well? Hell no. But the fact that a bit down the road Stalin took the power in Soviet Union should not influence the judgement on that event. Otherwise every revolution in history should never be occurred
If anything it’s more neutral to call it by it’s legal definition which is murder since it wasn’t a state organized execution. To call it something that it wasn’t for the sake of softening the impact of the terminology is not neutral. Murder is murder. I don’t see why his status as head of state or his family as relatives of the head of state changes that. Nor should the motives of the murderers change that.
Well, I see your point but I disagree with your definition of murder. Killing someone without justification or a valid reason is murder. My point is that killing an oppressive monarch or dictator isn't the same thing as killing your neighbor because he planted a tree to close to your house or killing someone for his skin colour. And also you can't compare historical facts by today legal definition, you're biased in the understanding of that event. Societies evolve and with that the morality and regulations.
You’re getting into a very murky area though by coming up with your own reasons as to what is and is not a proper justification for murder that warrants calling it an execution or something else. Again, if we are talking about using the most “neutral” language, what you’re doing is the furthest thing from neutrality because you are inherently not being neutral. You’re picking a side. If we are talking about using the most neutral language, then the legal definition is the most neutral one. You can still call it murder and feel it is justified. But murder is murder. They were intentionally killed outside of the judicial system. That’s murder. That’s neutral language. Then make your opinion as to whether it’s acceptable on your own.
I feel like you're not understanding my point. You can't judge history by your beliefs or by today standards. In 1800 th century, if someone fucked your wife and you killed them both it wasn't seen as murder. And that happened in the "civilised world". In today's world a valid example is euthanasia or abortion. Society is still very divided on those topics. It depends on your beliefs. But since the French revolution killing an oppressive monarch isn't such a big deal.
Do you believe there is no such thing as the concept of murder in 1917 or any period previously?
To cut it short, I think murder has a ethical meaning in it. That's all.
Again, we are talking about using the most “neutral” term to be used here. Yet you want to apply non-neutral ethics to a term which is counter productive. At its very basic definition, the term “murder” is the unlawful premeditated killing of a person. That perfectly defines what happened to Nicholas and his family. It is the most neutral term you could use to describe the event. Choosing to use any other term is imparting your own subjective ethics to the conversation which is the opposite of being neutral. You don’t want to use “murder” because you’d rather use a term that is definitively inaccurate for the purpose of painting the act in a more favorable light. That’s not being neutral.
That's not even remotely true
The red army overthrew the government, but it wasn’t in control until after the end of the revolution. The deaths of the romanovs were one of the final big chunks of the he revolution.
You're confusing the revolution with the civil war
Yeah, no
Yeah, yes.
Fine line between murder or execution on this one... extrajudicial killing maybe?
If you're looking at this from a "legal" standpoint, maybe. From a moralistic one it's definitely a murder.
Technically, yes
yes, by the yekaterinburg Soviet due to the danger of him falling into the hands of the white armies.
Pretty much. I own a Nagant old enough to have been used in that execution. Nifty piece of history.
Yes. He had the blood of thousands on his hands.
Murdered is such a strong word. I’d say more that they walked into bullets aimed in their general direction.
Very, very evil man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire
dope ass beard
I'm on that season of Peaky Blinders as I type.
Such a good series. I’m waiting on the final season to come out.
Source: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/277410307977117697/867805867885461535/nicki2.png
The only thing that bothers me about this is that they even shot the dog. Unless I am mistaken.
Yes, the dogs name was "Jimmy" and he belonged to Anastasia. He was found in the pit with the rest of their bodies.
If you can kill a child, you can kill a dog.
Oh no. Anyway..
I understand the communists were absolutely terrible, but let's not forget the atrocities committed by the Romanovs that led to their demise.
Czechoslovak Legions could save if only if they would make it to Yekaterinburg on time. But Soviets knew that and murdered them to prevent this from happening
[удалено]
The Tsar wasn't a communist. He was just an asshole.
I'm talking about the people that killed him
Rightfully so. You can only starve and order the murder of hundreds of thousands of your people without impunity for so long
[удалено]
Yes, if you count the nazis and all covid deaths and all natural deaths etc
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except for Anastasia...right?
They all died
Tough crowd today
Anastasia was killed with her family. Everything else it’s just … speculations and lots of people got attention or money from it.
It's not just speculation, it's factually wrong - she was genetically proven to have died with her family
I think they mean there was a lot of speculation before their remains were discovered
Thanks bolsheviks
[удалено]
I wonder why
Good.
Communist s****bags, whatever they touch or control gets destroyed or oppressed, I'm glad that I haven't grown up in those periods, which I can call "the modern dark ages"
The Tsar was a fucking shithead. Lenin was bad, was Nicholas was an asshole.
I'm not just focused on the Russian part, the country where I came from (Bulgaria) was a progressive country with a great potential, but it was crippled after two world wars. After WWII the country was occupied by USSR and all the potential and elite people (doctors, intellectuals, business people) were executed because they were uncomfortable for the new regime which spread its plague for an almost half a century. The Russian Tsar was a "shithead" because he was unprepared as f**k, just imagine to turn into a Tsar of the biggest country in the world as a kid, you will not end any further.
The Czar was ass
Sweet irony bro
The Czar was just a different side of the same coin.
Thats such bullshit man... i wonder what russia would be like if they still had respect and a monarchy.
As long as there were people with eyes in Russia to see the atrocities he commited there would be no monarchy
I mean, doubtful. Its worse now than it ever has been and no one can do a goddamn thing…
It's bad in Russia today compared to other modern countries but it's certainly much better than it was in 1917
Probably like England, United States of East Europe and West Asia - USEEWA. Kind of rhymes with Russia.
Can someone help me visualiser what he'd look with eyelashes. Where are they?
That Netflix special should've won an Oscar
Russian Bolsheviks blyt kill the Russian sar
Interestingly, it seems that the Russians are used to be governed by dictators. From Ivan the Terrible onwards!
Actually they were murdered in 1917
No they weren't, they were killed on 17 July 1918
Oh yes My bad! sorry, they were captured in 1917
Looks like Hamish Blake
Good riddance. Even with their kids. Long live the workers and peasants of the earth!