The Romanovs absolutely deserved a slow death in a smoky basement, and if Lenin ordered it, that only makes me respect him more.
Maybe their deaths would have been more merciful had they not had actual diamonds sewn into their clothes.
Once again:
The execution of children isn't something we should be proud of. It was necessary in a utilitarian sense of the word, and nothing more.
Fuck the king and queen though
It was necessary
Soviet Union: kills the Romanovs and their children, was destroyed in the 90s
People's Republic of China: Reforms the last emperor into a peasant, was not destroyed in the 90s
coincidence?
exactly, what part of “we will not make excuses for the terror” was unclear?
It's funny how we're supposed to feel bad about some children killed by communists 100 years ago, yet somehow we're supposed to ignore the children being killed right now by western and western-aligned forces in the name of capitalism.
The unspoken corollary being that these are white aristocrat children, and therefore worth millions of normal child lives.
St. Ronald Reagan, who Rs and Ds alike revere as "one of the good ones", knowingly supported the Contras torturing and murdering countless children in Nicaragua.
I mean saying the kids “deserved it” is kinda cring. It was a necessity because as long as the family lineage existed there would be pro monarchy forces.
The kids did not “deserve” to be murdered for being born into decadence. The oldest was 17, like cmon.
I wouldn't say it was necessary either. The Chinese didn't feel it necessary to kill the Emperor. The French also didn't kill the children of any of the kings that they overthrew (the Bourbon Restoration originated from one of Louis XVI's cousins, not his children, who all either died young or vanished into obscurity).
and besides, claiming that the existence of counterrevolutionary forces is somehow contingent upon the existence of a claimant to the throne is some non-materialist shit. The counterrevolution will always be attempted, whether they can rally it around a monarch or not.
. a claimant to the throne IS really fucking powerful in a state that has monarchy ideology as its superstructure. THERE’S you historical materialism.
Thanks, that is the correct take
Liberals have more sympathy for Trump catching COVID than any of the 200k people who died from it here in the US.
let us consider this as a physics problem. if we eliminate the variable of time. Would they have grown up to be anything other that what they were born to be? Probably not.
revolution goes brrr
The children of billionaires will surely grow up to be as horrible as their parents should they be allowed to inherit their wealth. Should we execute the children of billionaires as well?
The only good justification for killing the Romanov children is that their deaths eliminated the chance of restoring the monarchy should the revolution fail. This is the only justification we should use on the libs when they say "noooo evil commies killed the princess."
The one time I used the restoration of monarchy justification irl a lib looked at me as if I'd beheaded a goose in front of them
Do you really think "the kids deserved it" fares any better? Because that one makes some MLs (like me) cringe too.
I wasn't implying saying "the kids deserved it" to a liberal would result in a more positive reaction.
My point is liberals will refuse to accept the necessity. They are incapable of seeing violence beyond an amorphous blob of "bad".
Should we execute the children of billionaires as well?
Yes
If a reactionary army is marching on that position and will use them as a puppet ruler, well shitty choices need to be made.
I mean. I'd probably say yeah. Dont wanna deal with that risk for really no reward.
The only good justification for killing the Romanov children is that their deaths eliminated the chance of restoring the monarchy should the revolution fail. This is the only justification we should use on the libs when they say “noooo evil commies killed the princess.”
It of course didn't. Where do you all get this thought that monarchies relied on one particular family to work? There were shit ton of aristocrats everywhere. Just pick one to be your new king? Royal families died off all of the time in European history. If Swedes can pick Marshal Bernadotte to be their king, then sky is the limit on who can become one.
Maybe, some upper class Russians did, including our bread daddy.
But it was war and they were at risk of being overrun.
lets consider a materialist analysis of the situation. Can idealistic nonsense about claims to a throne cause the collapse of a society? Leave the Romanovs alive and everything stays the same except there's a handful of historical footnotes about former Russian royals hanging out with fascists in the 30s.
Thousands of kids killed by US atomic bombings ---- I sleep
The Soviets were 100% justified in their murdering of the kids.
there has never been a more just execution in history than that of the tsar
I will only accept a condemnation of the Bolsheviks if it begins with "I know the Czar was worse and all alternatives were worse and the circumstances of that era were a civil war between two world wars while all the remnant empires sabotaged them, but...". I'll only cry for any Romanov if that person begins their spiel by crying for all of the peasant children whose blood bought those Romanov kids their fancy clothes and fancy palace. The disruption of a benign violence is not the creation of new violence or a new injustice, it's the correction of injustice and restoration of peace.
Roast in whatever Orthodox hell is.
