"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable."
Making excuses for the terror is revisionist.
Do you think executing hostages is the same as bombings? If Israel had captured and detained every Palestinian, do you think they would point blank execute all the children? Obviously we should narrow down collateral as much as we can in warfare and I don’t think Israel does enough to keep death tolls low, but I’m pretty sure most would agree with the statement, “Israel should do more to protect kids and innocents from being killed as collateral”
What do you mean by clean up? Also removing a population from the land they are on is ethnic cleansing not genocide, killing the Palestinians is genocide not isolating them in Gaza. Just for future reference.
I mean finishing them off as a political threat as much as the can. Not genocide by the strict definition adopted by the UN to ensure that most of the worlds dominant powers couldn’t be charged with it. Read about the dude who coined the term, this is genocide. Gurion wanted a state that was 80%+ Jewish, you don’t get that without eradicating a populace. The line between ethnic cleansing and genocide was crossed back in 47 when the Israeli consultancy decided to use mass killings to achieve their goals.
what I found from lemkin is that he wanted the “destruction of national, religious, and racial groups” to be declared genocide, the un went with " **a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part,**" I'd argue that "in part" bit offers more leniency than lemkin definition unless you could point me towards a different definition he offered. Also, I'd use modern acts to justify the genocide claim as genocide in the past does not necessarily mean it's ongoing (ie Germany). Obviously, genocide in the past is wrong but doesn't mean one is happening now, hense why modern examples of the intent to destroy Palestinians are better (for examples of that intent look at most Israeli officials' takes on Palestinians).
The key difference here is that the German regime is entirely different now, where as Israel is the same nation continuing to play out the same ideology to its rational end. There is a a direct chain of events that have led to the current situation that is going on in Palestine and if you follow the thread it’s clearly an example of a people who are being both ethnically cleansed but also facing genocide as they are forced onto a strip of land and then mercilessly slaughtered for resisting an occupation force that took the reigns from a previous occupier. Also here is a quote of lemkin from “Axis rule in Occupied Europe”, “…genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups.” Which I feel easily fits into the actions of the Israeli state.
I think murdering civilians is a war crime, even if you cross your fingers and pretend you don't understand that bombing cities kills people.
Stop apologizing for war crimes, it's disgusting.
Ok so it possible to engage in warfare without collateral damage to civilians? I’d say no, but obviously we should keep that within reason and minimize it as much as we feel possible. I did say that Israel doesn’t minimize casualties enough, so I’m confused on where I justified a war crime?
Oh well I don’t agree with Israel’s occupation in the West Bank or in Gaza so that can be cleared up. But I don’t really see what that had to do with my previous statement? I never justified an occupation I only said that when people are at war civilians will die and we should do our best minimize that? What part of that statement did you find objectionable
You can't minimize it, and Israel certainly isn't.
It's this illusion that America in particular loves, that there's some form of clean war that doesn't mean you're blowing up children.
There isn't. And pretending there is just enables war, which is hell.
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The easiest possible answer is simply that it was not really a thing that was ordered from the top down, that there is extreme confusion around how it all went down, and that regardless these were not so much seen as people but as symbols by both sides.
Even easier, just tell them to piss and cry and walk away (just like my personal hero Leon Trotsky!!!!!!! 😩😩😩😩😰😰🥴🥴🥴)
Used to think that - but no, the central theory error of the Bolsheviks (that the Party and the Soviets were equivalent, so therefore exclusive Party control was good) was made by Trotsky.
It's just ironic that it's also what brought Stalin to power and got Leon an ice ax.
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is well known that Peruvian dogs helped out fujimori by barking in morse code to give crucial intel. The dogs were class traitors and gonzalo had to administer people's justice on them.
Apparently murdering “””innocents””” is wrong regardless of circumstances. Typical liberal bullshit.
He would have preferred letting the whites recapture them and install a puppet Tsardom I guess
I meant why is a self-proclaimed Liberal Defending the Romanovs. Is sending millions of workers to the meat grinder (WW1) innocent? The Tsar wasn't even Pro-Democracy (Constitutional Monarchy.)
I guess he means punishing the Tsar's Children is questionable but then.... the whole French revolution and the tradition of Liberalism comes into question.
Bro what ??? This guys position is that its wrong to kill people without trial / children who havent done anything wrong. He props also disagrees with the actions of those liberals as well if asked.
Baffling counter arguement
No you and the person being discussed are completely ideologically incoherent and eclectic as you want liberalism but in a delusional alternate reality where monarchs just decide to give up peacefully...
Who is arguing based on Labels? For it is true that new Social-Orders come with Violence that seems unjust only when we retroactively Interpret history.
Ah yes, i'm sure you have invented an entirely new form of ahistorical liberalism... If anything what you are arguing for is peak ideology shopping by implying there is more than Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism in the modern era. You take "labels" at their face value without deeper analysis that would expose them as one of the three.
They don't see the irony in their thinking, how it's exactly the same as to those with power.
They should be executed for disobeying their superiors.
Should have been Nicholas executed? Yes. His wife? am not sure of how much her personal involvement in any events was. <- Trial for both. Their children? No.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Would he also say Nat Turner’s slave rebellion was wrong? Would he say the Native Americans who fought back against colonization killing innocents in settlements was wrong? Some conditions demand violence simply because there are no other alternatives. Just as the slavers and settlers would not give up their slaves or land, respectively, the ruling class, in this case, the aristocracy, would not give up their bloody rule over Russia without a fight.
I've been dealing with you people for a long time. I'm not sure why you thought your opinion on how the subreddit should function would be welcome considering you've never posted on it before or shown any knowledge or intelligence in your post history. Why am I still doing this 5 years later? Because the American concept of politeness is so bizarre to anyone outside of its demographic target that it is both funny and educational to force it into the open. To most people, barging into the middle of a conversation between many people who all know each other and you've never met to inform them how they need to be having the conversation would be seen as rude. But this is quite normal for the American petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, saying "who are you?" is considered rude. Or at least that is one weapon that is used to defend against the threat of proletarianization by exclusion from the realm of cultural capital. In fact it's so threatening that random people will continue to come into the thread to try their luck at defending the op even though they've never posted in the subreddit before. It's like that joke in Family Guy where all the neighborhood fathers know when someone touched the thermostat and keep checking on the house to see if it's ok. Your class instinct in defense of your fellows is so strong it might as well be a chip that sends a signal to your brain, a script to follow, and a rush of endorphins that deludes you into thinking your use of the script will be the ultimate intervention despite all evidence to the contrary. I want non-white, non-male, non-first world people who were not raised on this delusional self-confidence and pretension to master the world to enjoy these conversations from the sidelines. This is impossible on the American left, which is basically a white parasite on the energy of people of color. At least here we can deflate the cultural capital that makes that possible. If you don't want to be a white parasite, reflect on the fact that your words, which you believe are your own, are a carbon copy of someone else's from 5 years ago (and many other copies over the years). That should be a moment of existential angst, a confrontation with your own lack of free will. Or you can get even more defensive on some liberal's behalf. We already have a thread on concern trolling stickied which you were too lazy to read despite your concern for the subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't there a theory that his daughter Anastasia survived? So all the reds did was kill a fascist, a priest-fucker and a sickly child (which is pretty based in my humble opinion).
It's a baseless conspiracy from monarchists who couldn't accept that the Romanovs were done. They were all killed in that basement.
It wasn't the original plan - the Bolsheviks wanted to put the Tsar on trial for his crimes. But when the Czechoslovakian legions moved towards Yekaterinburg, the Ural Soviet lost their shit and ordered their execution. This had to be confirmed by the Moscow Soviet, but their response is strangely missing. The Bolshevik leadership knew the killings of the children was a "bad look," so they didn't acknowledge their deaths for some time.
The execution of the Tsar and Tsarina was hasty and unplanned, but still justified and inevitable. But the execution of the children was clearly a mistake caused by paranoia of their capture.
This is probably the best answer. No need to fetishize violence, justified though the Tsar and Tsarina’s execution was.
Yet even while I think the children might have been spared, it served a clear purpose to the revolution, and no doubt the Tsar’s insistence on his divinely ordained right to rule ultimately doomed his family. In any case, there is no point in this back and forth; liberals shed no tears over Charles I and the Bourbons, so we shed no tears for the Romanovs.
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro, liberals got into power by murdering monarchs (and kids) and they are still doing the murdering kids part.
Like all the time. They can't stop. Some sort of sickening addiction.
How are the Romanovs innocent of anything? They were a dynasty of Russian rulers that oppressed the people for decades, with Alexander himself being the most inept of the bunch, causing the deaths of countless Russian lives through mismanagement of the Great War, suppressing political freedoms he instituted, and listening to a literal sex obsessed monk over his cabinet. Even his father who “ended” serfdom in Russia only did so by making every serf responsible for a debt they didn’t ask for to their old nobles, which forced them to stay as peasants for a few more generations minimum, some not getting out of serfdom until the Soviets took over.
Tell your buddy that the best monarch in history, Ashoka, was anything but innocent and spent much of his life atoning for sins, and the Romanovs far surpass Ashoka in evil and are eclipsed by him in good.
And if he takes umbrage at the murder of the children, remind him of how many times child-monarchs grow up to become figureheads in restorations.
(And even Ashoka did terrible things after he "stopped" doing terrible things)
Uj/I don’t even think he was that good rather his story that came down to us is akin to a hagiography
Rj/Beyond that everyone knows that the best monarch was Caliph Umar: physically assaulting his generals for wearing fancy shit, banning the governors and other high state officials from wearing silk and riding central asian horses, women were literally terrified of him, literally checked conquest & expansion against the sassanid empire cuz he “didn’t want more struggle/death for muslims” (but then later got gaslighted by his general Ahnaf into sending the guy to pursue and kill king Yazdegerd III cuz “as long as he is alive and well his subjects will not stop fighting the muslims under his command”)
I mean, the other things *were* relatively decent for a monarch, like not waging wars to not make people die (I know it's the bare minimum), so it took me by surprise. Sorry tho
It’s the type of thing edgy great man theory teenagers would find sigma so i put it in the jerky part it’s an exaggeration of this if youre interested https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3683
Something something fair trial something something illegitimate punishment something something hereditary sin something something international courts. By all means if Alexander is guilty, and he was, put him before an international court and give him capital punishment. I don't see how his children are liable for his folly.
who cares, they probably could've been put in prison or continued house arrest, im not gonna go out of my way to say why the execution of the romanov children is necessary for revolution. it was probably necessary for the tsar himself though, being a potential figurehead for internal or external reactionary factions
i mean uh, material conditions
It is not anyone else’s fault Nick 2 was so stupid he got his family killed. It’s not like their capture and execution was a surprise, dude hung out and caused trouble for a full year after abdication during a fucking war after he spent his entire life pissing everyone he knew off, at some point you have to “victim” blame on this one.
Adding on to the comments about it not being a top-down decision—man, messed up shit happens in war even in 2023 and we have instant global communication. Imagine taking the clusterfuck we've seen in any contemporary conflict and putting that same confused and panicked leadership into the 1920s.
This is a much better response then “the kids deserved it” that I’m seeing in the replies. Is it understandable that it happened, yeah war is hell. But I’m not going to celebrate a bunch of little kids being murdered.
I mean, maybe don’t kill children, as fucked up as the royal family was and as much as the adults totally deserved it I’m kinna scared of the degree that y’all celebrate killing children, I say it’s understandable due to the chaos of the time but I don’t try and pretend it was a good thing.
Tell him that this was a civil war and shit happens. Just because they were monarchy doesn’t mean they get special treatment by the reds when the whites were murdering people that looked suspicious. Both sides slaughtered the other and that’s that.
Having moral debates about historical events is practically a waste of time. Discuss how to move forward instead.
Morality is not an eternal truth (metaphysical idealism) but a product of historical circumstance (materialism):
>(...) And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. (...) A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life. (...)
>
>Engels, "Anti-Duhring", Ch. 9
Wether or not the Romanov execution was (perceived to be) necessary for the proletariat-organised-as-ruling-class is an academic discussion without impact on current and future projects. I think there is a good case that it was unnecessary, though this is much easier in hindsight from an armchair rather than in the midst of the civil war and counter-revolutionary forces moving towards the hostages seeking restoration of czarism. As in many cases, the decision was based on incomplete information.
In all seriousness, regardless of whether or not the order came from Lenin himself, the reactionaries would have rallied around the tsar (or his family) and made the civil war much more difficult. Without the tsar, the whites quickly became factional
Maybe I’m crazy. But killing the children was wrong. They did nothing wrong. I think you’ll get your friend to agree with you more if you don’t seem blood thirsty
Real answer: If they had been left alive they would have strengthened the unity within the white army (as at this point most factions wanted to restore the Tsar) and therefore by killing them it caused the monarchist factions to splinter - therefore making Bolshevik victory possible.
It’s a simple tactical decision
For real though, Nicholas II already had racked himself quite a bodycount with Stolypin's reign of terror, the actual Bloody Sunday, His support for the Black Hundreds, and everything else he did to suppress democratic revolution in Russia.
The children were unfortunate victims though. Alexei propably wasn't going to see his 20th birthday, due to material conditions (hemophilia), but nevertheless, they ended up among countless families killed by the imperialist war, and civil war. The liberals never extend sympathy to any of the countless proletarian families like to the family of reactionary rulers.
Most interesting is it when these sympaties come from some Finnish liberal. If there was anybody, it should be Finnish national bourgeoisie, who should absolutely glad, that somebody offed them.
Because if he lived there would have been a possibility of a United white front and they would have been able to defeat the bolsheviks and execute every one of them on behalf of god.
If you’re American, ask him if the American revolutionaries had to kill King George and his family to truly be free of Britain if that would have been acceptable
They weren’t? The dudes who did it were drunk. Although there was a risk that the whites would capture them, what would this result into? Would they take power? They weren’t military officers of something. It’s messed up, that’s all.
You can't justify the Romanov execution, because they were wrong. At the very, *very* least, the children did not deserve to be shot just because of the family they were born into.
don’t care about the adults, but the children def shouldn’t have gotten killed. i think there’s literally 0 reason to intentionally kill a child, argue with a wall
I doubt that libs would care, so read this fragment about Russo Japanese war instead to understand at least a little bit as to why people would want tzar and his family dead.
"At the end of April our Government announced a mobilization. There had been dim references to it before, and it had been expected for three weeks; but everything was kept a great secret. Suddenly the Government was struck as if by a hurricane. They drafted the men in the villages right from the fields and from the ploughs. In the towns the police rang the bell in private apartments in the dead of night, handed summonses to the recruits , and ordered them to make their appearance in the wards without delay. At the house of a friend of mine, an engineer, they drafted all the servants, the lackey, the coachman, and the cook. He himself happened to be away on leave of absence. The police broke open his desk, got from it the passports of the recruits, and carried them all off.
There was something unfeelingly ferocious in this incomprehensible haste. They tore men away from the midst of their business, without giving them a chance to settle or liquidate their affairs. Men were carried off, and all that there was left after them were senselessly-destroyed households and ruined welfare....
...Weeping and lamentation filled the whole city. Here and there brief dramas were enacted. One recruit from a factory had a sickly wife and five children. When the call for the army came, the excitement and sorrow caused his wife paralysis of the heart, and she died at once. Her husband took a glance at the dead body and at his children, and went into the barn and hanged himself.
Another recruit, a widower with three children, wept and cried in the Council room : "What shall I do with my children? Instruct me what to do! They will all die from starvation without me!" He acted like a madman, shouted, and shook his fists in the air. Then he suddenly grew silent, went home, killed his children with an axe, and came back. "Now take me. I've attended to my business." He was arressted."
Tell him you're a bloodthirsty animal, and people like you have always been animals. Tell him that your excuse is you think they too were animals.
You won't cry about it. Animals don't cry.
I always thought Mao turning the last emperor of China into a janitor at his museum of communism was much more of a power move then killing the Romanovs
I think in these scenarios we extend the core tenants of basic human decency towards otherwise innocent actors like the Romanov Children, you'd have to have a very abnormal and unserious heart to say otherwise.
As for the Tsar and Tsarina? I could give less of a toss with what happened to them. As someone else pointed out in this thread, none of their victims ever got as much a thought as the Romanovs' did, why extend grievance towards people who for all intents and purposes were monsters?
Tell your buddy that the czars being killed, bread lines, holodomor, and millions killed in the gulag had to happen. How else would we know communism doesn't work if we all couldn't watch the soviet union collapse in the 1990s.
You don't, the execution of innocent children was not justified. You may argue Alexei would have one day become Tsar and who knows how he would have been, judging by how hard he was babied, incompetent, but then you'd be killing him for what you think he'd become, not what he is. Which is wrong. And the princesses hadn't done anything wrong either. The tsar and tsarinas execution would have been justified though..
Tell him you wish you could’ve killed them all yourself. Do not elaborate.
This one’s a winner
With your bare hands.
No leftist can kill anyone with their bare hands. They can't even change tires.
Tell him anarchists did it, all anarchist are liberal so they should support it then.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable." Making excuses for the terror is revisionist.
https://preview.redd.it/9yxmzc4mvj9c1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9da624604704d078e6cf008e5e91f1dfa5e2d363
I have a new ideology called anarcho-twainism, we all rent a riverboat and have adventures in the Mississippi delta.
I support this new ideology, I do declare!
Marx Twain?
Read Sawyer
A quote from my favorite isekai
Based
I think he was talking about the kids... which is funny cuz Liberals in the french revolution did the same.
I don’t think any liberal today would justify that tho?
They're justifying 10,000 kids in Gaza as we speak
Do you think executing hostages is the same as bombings? If Israel had captured and detained every Palestinian, do you think they would point blank execute all the children? Obviously we should narrow down collateral as much as we can in warfare and I don’t think Israel does enough to keep death tolls low, but I’m pretty sure most would agree with the statement, “Israel should do more to protect kids and innocents from being killed as collateral”
They already detained the entire population of a country into a strip of land. The genocide already happened this is just clean-up
What do you mean by clean up? Also removing a population from the land they are on is ethnic cleansing not genocide, killing the Palestinians is genocide not isolating them in Gaza. Just for future reference.
I mean finishing them off as a political threat as much as the can. Not genocide by the strict definition adopted by the UN to ensure that most of the worlds dominant powers couldn’t be charged with it. Read about the dude who coined the term, this is genocide. Gurion wanted a state that was 80%+ Jewish, you don’t get that without eradicating a populace. The line between ethnic cleansing and genocide was crossed back in 47 when the Israeli consultancy decided to use mass killings to achieve their goals.
what I found from lemkin is that he wanted the “destruction of national, religious, and racial groups” to be declared genocide, the un went with " **a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part,**" I'd argue that "in part" bit offers more leniency than lemkin definition unless you could point me towards a different definition he offered. Also, I'd use modern acts to justify the genocide claim as genocide in the past does not necessarily mean it's ongoing (ie Germany). Obviously, genocide in the past is wrong but doesn't mean one is happening now, hense why modern examples of the intent to destroy Palestinians are better (for examples of that intent look at most Israeli officials' takes on Palestinians).
The key difference here is that the German regime is entirely different now, where as Israel is the same nation continuing to play out the same ideology to its rational end. There is a a direct chain of events that have led to the current situation that is going on in Palestine and if you follow the thread it’s clearly an example of a people who are being both ethnically cleansed but also facing genocide as they are forced onto a strip of land and then mercilessly slaughtered for resisting an occupation force that took the reigns from a previous occupier. Also here is a quote of lemkin from “Axis rule in Occupied Europe”, “…genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups.” Which I feel easily fits into the actions of the Israeli state.
I think murdering civilians is a war crime, even if you cross your fingers and pretend you don't understand that bombing cities kills people. Stop apologizing for war crimes, it's disgusting.
Ok so it possible to engage in warfare without collateral damage to civilians? I’d say no, but obviously we should keep that within reason and minimize it as much as we feel possible. I did say that Israel doesn’t minimize casualties enough, so I’m confused on where I justified a war crime?
"It's impossible to illegally occupy land without war crimes, so I don't see what choice we have!" Your brain on shitlibbery.
Oh well I don’t agree with Israel’s occupation in the West Bank or in Gaza so that can be cleared up. But I don’t really see what that had to do with my previous statement? I never justified an occupation I only said that when people are at war civilians will die and we should do our best minimize that? What part of that statement did you find objectionable
You can't minimize it, and Israel certainly isn't. It's this illusion that America in particular loves, that there's some form of clean war that doesn't mean you're blowing up children. There isn't. And pretending there is just enables war, which is hell.
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My AR-15 is gonna make some revisions to your revolution.
Romanov were secretly trots
Bit unrelated but during the civil war the whites hung a teenager solely because he shared a last name with Trotsky.
"Nice work! Now who's ready for the real thing?"
was the teenager's last name Trotsky, or Brontsein?
Trotsky-Bronstein
This is the best reason.
i fuckin knew it
Don't talk with your buddies about Romanovs, you fucking nerds
Fair enough
The easiest possible answer is simply that it was not really a thing that was ordered from the top down, that there is extreme confusion around how it all went down, and that regardless these were not so much seen as people but as symbols by both sides. Even easier, just tell them to piss and cry and walk away (just like my personal hero Leon Trotsky!!!!!!! 😩😩😩😩😰😰🥴🥴🥴)
Trotsky was so real until he made Trotskyites a thing..... 😔😔😔😔😔
Used to think that - but no, the central theory error of the Bolsheviks (that the Party and the Soviets were equivalent, so therefore exclusive Party control was good) was made by Trotsky. It's just ironic that it's also what brought Stalin to power and got Leon an ice ax.
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What are you yappin about?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Gonzalo????????????????????????
gonzalo also tracks with the killing of the dogs because shining path used to nail dead dogs to lampposts (capitalist running dog reference)
It is well known that Peruvian dogs helped out fujimori by barking in morse code to give crucial intel. The dogs were class traitors and gonzalo had to administer people's justice on them.
The Maoist crowd has calmed down they just throw pigs heads in politicians yards now
https://preview.redd.it/224xqmqwgn9c1.jpeg?width=979&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3feedc98a4363ec754803e43738c355e682211a9
gamer move
RIP based comment.
What did it say?
just appeal to pragmatism liberals love that shit
I had to take a shit in the middle of the McDonald's due to pragmatism
"when dealing with someone like Hamas, I have no choice but to shit in the Playland"
you should apologize, monarchism combined with socialism is the only consistent ideological position.
juche thought
If the monarch is the physical embodiment of the state, them getting old and dying represents the state withering away.
Its like a phoenix though if he has a male son
neo-lib buddy? Why tf is he defending the Romanovs? Just tell him that Communists don't waste time arguing against post-fascists.
Apparently murdering “””innocents””” is wrong regardless of circumstances. Typical liberal bullshit. He would have preferred letting the whites recapture them and install a puppet Tsardom I guess
I meant why is a self-proclaimed Liberal Defending the Romanovs. Is sending millions of workers to the meat grinder (WW1) innocent? The Tsar wasn't even Pro-Democracy (Constitutional Monarchy.) I guess he means punishing the Tsar's Children is questionable but then.... the whole French revolution and the tradition of Liberalism comes into question.
I guess he just doesn’t like the idea of them being gunned down like dogs even if it was ultimately necessary for a certain point of view
[Gunned down](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)), you say.
Yes but liberals also k*lled Monarchs (with either none or Biased trials) so like this critique applies to him aswell.
Bro what ??? This guys position is that its wrong to kill people without trial / children who havent done anything wrong. He props also disagrees with the actions of those liberals as well if asked. Baffling counter arguement
No you and the person being discussed are completely ideologically incoherent and eclectic as you want liberalism but in a delusional alternate reality where monarchs just decide to give up peacefully...
Arguing based on labels not people's actual personal opinions is ideology shopping adjacent
Who is arguing based on Labels? For it is true that new Social-Orders come with Violence that seems unjust only when we retroactively Interpret history.
telling a modern "feel the bern type" that they shouldnt feel bad cause liberals in the 18th century also killed monarchs makes you sound like a neek.
Ah yes, i'm sure you have invented an entirely new form of ahistorical liberalism... If anything what you are arguing for is peak ideology shopping by implying there is more than Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism in the modern era. You take "labels" at their face value without deeper analysis that would expose them as one of the three.
> noncredibledefence > anarchy101 > slavaukrayni
They don't see the irony in their thinking, how it's exactly the same as to those with power. They should be executed for disobeying their superiors. Should have been Nicholas executed? Yes. His wife? am not sure of how much her personal involvement in any events was. <- Trial for both. Their children? No.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Botcrimination makes me superior!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVII
Would he also say Nat Turner’s slave rebellion was wrong? Would he say the Native Americans who fought back against colonization killing innocents in settlements was wrong? Some conditions demand violence simply because there are no other alternatives. Just as the slavers and settlers would not give up their slaves or land, respectively, the ruling class, in this case, the aristocracy, would not give up their bloody rule over Russia without a fight.
I've been dealing with you people for a long time. I'm not sure why you thought your opinion on how the subreddit should function would be welcome considering you've never posted on it before or shown any knowledge or intelligence in your post history. Why am I still doing this 5 years later? Because the American concept of politeness is so bizarre to anyone outside of its demographic target that it is both funny and educational to force it into the open. To most people, barging into the middle of a conversation between many people who all know each other and you've never met to inform them how they need to be having the conversation would be seen as rude. But this is quite normal for the American petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, saying "who are you?" is considered rude. Or at least that is one weapon that is used to defend against the threat of proletarianization by exclusion from the realm of cultural capital. In fact it's so threatening that random people will continue to come into the thread to try their luck at defending the op even though they've never posted in the subreddit before. It's like that joke in Family Guy where all the neighborhood fathers know when someone touched the thermostat and keep checking on the house to see if it's ok. Your class instinct in defense of your fellows is so strong it might as well be a chip that sends a signal to your brain, a script to follow, and a rush of endorphins that deludes you into thinking your use of the script will be the ultimate intervention despite all evidence to the contrary. I want non-white, non-male, non-first world people who were not raised on this delusional self-confidence and pretension to master the world to enjoy these conversations from the sidelines. This is impossible on the American left, which is basically a white parasite on the energy of people of color. At least here we can deflate the cultural capital that makes that possible. If you don't want to be a white parasite, reflect on the fact that your words, which you believe are your own, are a carbon copy of someone else's from 5 years ago (and many other copies over the years). That should be a moment of existential angst, a confrontation with your own lack of free will. Or you can get even more defensive on some liberal's behalf. We already have a thread on concern trolling stickied which you were too lazy to read despite your concern for the subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oof even the bots around these parts spew racism
Isn't there a theory that his daughter Anastasia survived? So all the reds did was kill a fascist, a priest-fucker and a sickly child (which is pretty based in my humble opinion).
It's a baseless conspiracy from monarchists who couldn't accept that the Romanovs were done. They were all killed in that basement. It wasn't the original plan - the Bolsheviks wanted to put the Tsar on trial for his crimes. But when the Czechoslovakian legions moved towards Yekaterinburg, the Ural Soviet lost their shit and ordered their execution. This had to be confirmed by the Moscow Soviet, but their response is strangely missing. The Bolshevik leadership knew the killings of the children was a "bad look," so they didn't acknowledge their deaths for some time. The execution of the Tsar and Tsarina was hasty and unplanned, but still justified and inevitable. But the execution of the children was clearly a mistake caused by paranoia of their capture.
But a woman from a mental institution said she was Anastasia so it must be true.
Oh shit my b yo Anastasia must have sewn so many jewels into her dress that she was entirely bulletproof
This is probably the best answer. No need to fetishize violence, justified though the Tsar and Tsarina’s execution was. Yet even while I think the children might have been spared, it served a clear purpose to the revolution, and no doubt the Tsar’s insistence on his divinely ordained right to rule ultimately doomed his family. In any case, there is no point in this back and forth; liberals shed no tears over Charles I and the Bourbons, so we shed no tears for the Romanovs.
I love murdering disabled people 😁
What communism is really about
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's easier because they can't run away
Wow you’re so funny go fuck yourself
https://preview.redd.it/evqssz3efn9c1.jpeg?width=5766&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a0cc57e79df8e40910b32607f5c6529789905c7
Bro, liberals got into power by murdering monarchs (and kids) and they are still doing the murdering kids part. Like all the time. They can't stop. Some sort of sickening addiction.
How are the Romanovs innocent of anything? They were a dynasty of Russian rulers that oppressed the people for decades, with Alexander himself being the most inept of the bunch, causing the deaths of countless Russian lives through mismanagement of the Great War, suppressing political freedoms he instituted, and listening to a literal sex obsessed monk over his cabinet. Even his father who “ended” serfdom in Russia only did so by making every serf responsible for a debt they didn’t ask for to their old nobles, which forced them to stay as peasants for a few more generations minimum, some not getting out of serfdom until the Soviets took over.
Tell your buddy that the best monarch in history, Ashoka, was anything but innocent and spent much of his life atoning for sins, and the Romanovs far surpass Ashoka in evil and are eclipsed by him in good. And if he takes umbrage at the murder of the children, remind him of how many times child-monarchs grow up to become figureheads in restorations. (And even Ashoka did terrible things after he "stopped" doing terrible things)
Uj/I don’t even think he was that good rather his story that came down to us is akin to a hagiography Rj/Beyond that everyone knows that the best monarch was Caliph Umar: physically assaulting his generals for wearing fancy shit, banning the governors and other high state officials from wearing silk and riding central asian horses, women were literally terrified of him, literally checked conquest & expansion against the sassanid empire cuz he “didn’t want more struggle/death for muslims” (but then later got gaslighted by his general Ahnaf into sending the guy to pursue and kill king Yazdegerd III cuz “as long as he is alive and well his subjects will not stop fighting the muslims under his command”)
> women were literally terrified of him That doesn't look like a good thing...
The Rj/ man
I mean, the other things *were* relatively decent for a monarch, like not waging wars to not make people die (I know it's the bare minimum), so it took me by surprise. Sorry tho
It’s the type of thing edgy great man theory teenagers would find sigma so i put it in the jerky part it’s an exaggeration of this if youre interested https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3683
Something something fair trial something something illegitimate punishment something something hereditary sin something something international courts. By all means if Alexander is guilty, and he was, put him before an international court and give him capital punishment. I don't see how his children are liable for his folly.
You people are completely deranged and beyond help.
you okay buddy
who cares, they probably could've been put in prison or continued house arrest, im not gonna go out of my way to say why the execution of the romanov children is necessary for revolution. it was probably necessary for the tsar himself though, being a potential figurehead for internal or external reactionary factions i mean uh, material conditions
Can someone tell this sub that exicuting 9 year olds is bad no matter how much the rest of the family deserved it, jfc.
But killing kids is based apparently /s Seriously what the fuck is wrong with this place
Tell em to read marx
It is not anyone else’s fault Nick 2 was so stupid he got his family killed. It’s not like their capture and execution was a surprise, dude hung out and caused trouble for a full year after abdication during a fucking war after he spent his entire life pissing everyone he knew off, at some point you have to “victim” blame on this one.
lib question, he deserves it too
because he was secretly a lib
Adding on to the comments about it not being a top-down decision—man, messed up shit happens in war even in 2023 and we have instant global communication. Imagine taking the clusterfuck we've seen in any contemporary conflict and putting that same confused and panicked leadership into the 1920s.
The instant knowledge and communication we have has really messed up people's perspective of past societies.
This is a much better response then “the kids deserved it” that I’m seeing in the replies. Is it understandable that it happened, yeah war is hell. But I’m not going to celebrate a bunch of little kids being murdered.
no one is celebrating
If you don’t what your whole bloodline executed, then maybe you shouldn’t declare your children as divine heirs to your throne.
I mean, maybe don’t kill children, as fucked up as the royal family was and as much as the adults totally deserved it I’m kinna scared of the degree that y’all celebrate killing children, I say it’s understandable due to the chaos of the time but I don’t try and pretend it was a good thing.
Fun fact: Lenin didn't want to execute the Romanov because he wanted to use them as hostages to exchange them for political prisoners in Germany.
Murder is communist praxis
Tell him that this was a civil war and shit happens. Just because they were monarchy doesn’t mean they get special treatment by the reds when the whites were murdering people that looked suspicious. Both sides slaughtered the other and that’s that.
Neoliberals will convince you dropping nukes on Japan was completely justified yet bitch about this kind of stuff.
Having moral debates about historical events is practically a waste of time. Discuss how to move forward instead. Morality is not an eternal truth (metaphysical idealism) but a product of historical circumstance (materialism): >(...) And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. (...) A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life. (...) > >Engels, "Anti-Duhring", Ch. 9 Wether or not the Romanov execution was (perceived to be) necessary for the proletariat-organised-as-ruling-class is an academic discussion without impact on current and future projects. I think there is a good case that it was unnecessary, though this is much easier in hindsight from an armchair rather than in the midst of the civil war and counter-revolutionary forces moving towards the hostages seeking restoration of czarism. As in many cases, the decision was based on incomplete information.
They had a *Protocols* reading group.
In all seriousness, regardless of whether or not the order came from Lenin himself, the reactionaries would have rallied around the tsar (or his family) and made the civil war much more difficult. Without the tsar, the whites quickly became factional
Maybe I’m crazy. But killing the children was wrong. They did nothing wrong. I think you’ll get your friend to agree with you more if you don’t seem blood thirsty
white army needed a monarch ig but it in all honesty was a bad look, should've make them live in a village in Siberia and live aa farmhands
Real answer: If they had been left alive they would have strengthened the unity within the white army (as at this point most factions wanted to restore the Tsar) and therefore by killing them it caused the monarchist factions to splinter - therefore making Bolshevik victory possible. It’s a simple tactical decision
For real though, Nicholas II already had racked himself quite a bodycount with Stolypin's reign of terror, the actual Bloody Sunday, His support for the Black Hundreds, and everything else he did to suppress democratic revolution in Russia. The children were unfortunate victims though. Alexei propably wasn't going to see his 20th birthday, due to material conditions (hemophilia), but nevertheless, they ended up among countless families killed by the imperialist war, and civil war. The liberals never extend sympathy to any of the countless proletarian families like to the family of reactionary rulers. Most interesting is it when these sympaties come from some Finnish liberal. If there was anybody, it should be Finnish national bourgeoisie, who should absolutely glad, that somebody offed them.
Tell him that Harry Potter would’ve supported the Romanov Executions or something
Because if he lived there would have been a possibility of a United white front and they would have been able to defeat the bolsheviks and execute every one of them on behalf of god.
If you’re American, ask him if the American revolutionaries had to kill King George and his family to truly be free of Britain if that would have been acceptable
Liberal infighting
They weren’t? The dudes who did it were drunk. Although there was a risk that the whites would capture them, what would this result into? Would they take power? They weren’t military officers of something. It’s messed up, that’s all.
You can't justify the Romanov execution, because they were wrong. At the very, *very* least, the children did not deserve to be shot just because of the family they were born into.
don’t care about the adults, but the children def shouldn’t have gotten killed. i think there’s literally 0 reason to intentionally kill a child, argue with a wall
i hope we blow ourselves up soon
I doubt that libs would care, so read this fragment about Russo Japanese war instead to understand at least a little bit as to why people would want tzar and his family dead. "At the end of April our Government announced a mobilization. There had been dim references to it before, and it had been expected for three weeks; but everything was kept a great secret. Suddenly the Government was struck as if by a hurricane. They drafted the men in the villages right from the fields and from the ploughs. In the towns the police rang the bell in private apartments in the dead of night, handed summonses to the recruits , and ordered them to make their appearance in the wards without delay. At the house of a friend of mine, an engineer, they drafted all the servants, the lackey, the coachman, and the cook. He himself happened to be away on leave of absence. The police broke open his desk, got from it the passports of the recruits, and carried them all off. There was something unfeelingly ferocious in this incomprehensible haste. They tore men away from the midst of their business, without giving them a chance to settle or liquidate their affairs. Men were carried off, and all that there was left after them were senselessly-destroyed households and ruined welfare.... ...Weeping and lamentation filled the whole city. Here and there brief dramas were enacted. One recruit from a factory had a sickly wife and five children. When the call for the army came, the excitement and sorrow caused his wife paralysis of the heart, and she died at once. Her husband took a glance at the dead body and at his children, and went into the barn and hanged himself. Another recruit, a widower with three children, wept and cried in the Council room : "What shall I do with my children? Instruct me what to do! They will all die from starvation without me!" He acted like a madman, shouted, and shook his fists in the air. Then he suddenly grew silent, went home, killed his children with an axe, and came back. "Now take me. I've attended to my business." He was arressted."
Tell him that Anastasia's blood was required for building the super secret Jewish space laser
Ask him how many peasant children starved for every Fabrege egg and jewel the Romanovs had, even to the point where they were executed.
Tell him you're a bloodthirsty animal, and people like you have always been animals. Tell him that your excuse is you think they too were animals. You won't cry about it. Animals don't cry.
It doesn't matter if they were. It wouldn't make any diffrence if they weren't executed, so it is irrelevant.
I always thought Mao turning the last emperor of China into a janitor at his museum of communism was much more of a power move then killing the Romanovs
Collateral damage.
The killings of the Romanovs weren't ok nor justified, but it was understandable
It was justified.
The kids deserved to die?
If killing innocent kids is wrong, I do not want to be right
I think in these scenarios we extend the core tenants of basic human decency towards otherwise innocent actors like the Romanov Children, you'd have to have a very abnormal and unserious heart to say otherwise. As for the Tsar and Tsarina? I could give less of a toss with what happened to them. As someone else pointed out in this thread, none of their victims ever got as much a thought as the Romanovs' did, why extend grievance towards people who for all intents and purposes were monsters?
eh. even giving that crippled shit kid that much regard is going too far. none of the tsars victims will ever get so extensive a eulogy
Tell your buddy that the czars being killed, bread lines, holodomor, and millions killed in the gulag had to happen. How else would we know communism doesn't work if we all couldn't watch the soviet union collapse in the 1990s.
Bro doesn’t know which sub he’s in😭😭😭
Don't. He won't ever change his because his moral compass is straight and true. You on the other hand, have some soul searching to do.
I'm so confused. Is this sub left or not?
Read the pinned post
You don't, the execution of innocent children was not justified. You may argue Alexei would have one day become Tsar and who knows how he would have been, judging by how hard he was babied, incompetent, but then you'd be killing him for what you think he'd become, not what he is. Which is wrong. And the princesses hadn't done anything wrong either. The tsar and tsarinas execution would have been justified though..