Motherfuckers two of them were under 18. One was a 13 year old boy. They aren't responsible for the fucked up shit their parents did. I seriously thought people were doing a bit when they said that shooting kids who happened to be born to the wrong parents is good. You all were being serious?
shooting kids who happened to be born to the wrong parents is good
Making up a person in my head to be angry at.
I literally do not care what happened to the Romanov kids. I only know their names because their parents were playing a real life game of Risk & lost. We do not remember the names of the millions slain in their family's name.
Fuck yeah I'm mad. I'm allowed to be mad at the fact that millions of children died needless death because of a merciless system of exploitation and cruelty. I'm also allowed to be mad about the fact that someone shot children to death and people don't care.
I'd be mad if someone protected a royalist dynasty while my country was torn apart by a war to reinstall them as dictators.
Feel free to play the trolly problem about murdering a child or providing a figure for the White Army to rally behind. I don't care. Be mad about that if you want.
99/100 people who say they care about both Romanov children and peasant children only care about peasant children when prompted after whining about the Romanov children.
the tens of millions of peasant kids who starved weren't responsible either. the bolsheviks were encircled and on the verge of the children being recaptured as a potent rallying point for the monarchists. appreciation of the enormity of the suffering visited by the Romanovs on their people combined with their hereditary system made it an unfortunate necessity
It's fucking terrible what happened to the peasant kids. The Russian Revolution was a good thing. Shooting a 13 year old still wasn't necessary. Even if you don't care about the fact that it involved putting a bullet in a literal child, shooting them risked turning them into martyrs that would inspire further monarchist action. We're still talking about this shit today, and we'll still be talking about it in decades, because of the Romanov kids. They were and are worth fifty times more to monarchists and elites dead then they were alive.
Oh no, someone should tell that to the handful of soldiers who decided to do it. Wait, they're all dead too, as is everyone who at least tacitly approved of their actions and had some material ability to do anything about it? Well fuck, I guess they'll never know then.
We’re still talking about this shit today, and we’ll still be talking about it in decades, because of the Romanov kids.
It's still part of the Discourse because they were inbred royals, and so liberals and monarchists see them as the only real people to die in the Russian Revolution. You can find worse crimes that soldiers of the Red Army committed (often because they were court martialed and executed for them by the Red Army itself) and basically everything the White Army did at all was a worse crime, but all that gets washed away by liberals who focus exclusively on what is functionally a single drop in an ocean of blood.
It's also a part of the discourse because there are people who legitimately think similar things should be done to children of elites in the future. There's stakes behind this because there might be a day where the revolution is in your backyard. You might be wearing a uniform. You might be one of those handful of soldiers. If you are, and if you find yourself in a similar position, I hope you make a different choice.
think similar things should be done to children of elites in the future
Abolishing the right of parental inheritance and the right to property is going to mean the imprisonment and murder of a lot of people who will resist it. Now I dont see many places in the world where any of us are going to have to think about killing small children, but we have to be willing to win and be as ruthless to our enemies as they will be to us. Its not about killing innocent people, its about power. The quicker you can realize that the better you'll be able to respond to questions like "do I kill the Romanov children?"
What do you mean it's only about power? Bad shit isn't suddenly not bad because you're fighting for a cause. Revolution is not an amoral act. Revolution is the ultimate moral act and the ultimate moral decision. You cannot divorce morality from revolution without destroying the justification for revolution itself. The quicker you can realize that the better you'll be able to respond to questions like "do I kill the Romanov children?"
Doesn't that bring us back to the question the trolly problem about murdering a child or providing a figure for a reactionary White Army of racists, monarchists, and fascists to rally behind, not mentioning the de jure right for the other bougeoise monarchs to interfere to protect their cousins?
Maybe so. But it's better to struggle with that question than to pretend that we're absolved of responsibility just because it's a war.
You can find figureheads anywhere, and even if one didn't exist, they could have dredged up a "Romanov" from somewhere or tried to turn the family into martyrs. Lord known enough people over the years have claimed to be descendants. Killing the kid provides just as much of a de jure right for other monarchists as keeping him alive, and maybe even a stronger one.
Magical what-if trolley land is nice and all, but it doesn't take away from the concrete facts here. And the concrete facts here are that they put a child on the wall and the fighting kept going because killing him did fuck all.
Maybe your just an idealist still, and thats all right, but I'm not. I look at everything in shades of what gets and achieves power first, then what we do with it. I'm just not there at the just and moral revolution anymore, and nothing really screams revolution to me than extirpating a horrendous monarchy and leaving it unable to come alive again. The capitalists are going to and have thrown hell at us, there no evil in being a demon in those circumstances.
Yes. History is made by monsters. They fate to die was sealed by their parents letting other children stave to death. It is a tragic sacrifice they didn't chose to make. For the greater good, it was worth not having to risk them growing up to raise an army to try to restore the empire. Which, given hindsight, probably would have worked. Wouldn't the world now be a worse place with The russian empire a UN protected anti-comunist nation of modern serfdom?
I don't give a shit about who does or doesn't make history, and murdering them created martyrs that made raising an army just as easy. They put a child on the wall. Children don't get the wall. That's what matters.
Did it? That is a large counferfactual. Every foruth child that was born under the romanovs got the wall. Oe something like that. Liberals havent bothered to look up the numbers because they only care about princesses.
So play it out? What would have happened if they were taken to the red army? Would they be successful reducated? Would they be a constant source of risk in a troubled time?
I am firmly in the 'I don't give a crap' camp. Killing children is of course bad, but tens of thousands of children died in poverty and squalor in Russia during that period, nevermind all the other shit that went on that harmed tons and tons people. Allocate your fucks given accordingly.
Motherfuckers two of them were under 18. One was a 13 year old boy. They aren't responsible for the fucked up shit their parents did. I seriously thought people were doing a bit when they said that shooting kids who happened to be born to the wrong parents is good. You all were being serious?
Disgusting.
Making up a person in my head to be angry at.
I literally do not care what happened to the Romanov kids. I only know their names because their parents were playing a real life game of Risk & lost. We do not remember the names of the millions slain in their family's name.
Fuck yeah I'm mad. I'm allowed to be mad at the fact that millions of children died needless death because of a merciless system of exploitation and cruelty. I'm also allowed to be mad about the fact that someone shot children to death and people don't care.
I'd be mad if someone protected a royalist dynasty while my country was torn apart by a war to reinstall them as dictators.
Feel free to play the trolly problem about murdering a child or providing a figure for the White Army to rally behind. I don't care. Be mad about that if you want.
deleted by creator
99/100 people who say they care about both Romanov children and peasant children only care about peasant children when prompted after whining about the Romanov children.
the tens of millions of peasant kids who starved weren't responsible either. the bolsheviks were encircled and on the verge of the children being recaptured as a potent rallying point for the monarchists. appreciation of the enormity of the suffering visited by the Romanovs on their people combined with their hereditary system made it an unfortunate necessity
It's fucking terrible what happened to the peasant kids. The Russian Revolution was a good thing. Shooting a 13 year old still wasn't necessary. Even if you don't care about the fact that it involved putting a bullet in a literal child, shooting them risked turning them into martyrs that would inspire further monarchist action. We're still talking about this shit today, and we'll still be talking about it in decades, because of the Romanov kids. They were and are worth fifty times more to monarchists and elites dead then they were alive.
Oh no, someone should tell that to the handful of soldiers who decided to do it. Wait, they're all dead too, as is everyone who at least tacitly approved of their actions and had some material ability to do anything about it? Well fuck, I guess they'll never know then.
It's still part of the Discourse because they were inbred royals, and so liberals and monarchists see them as the only real people to die in the Russian Revolution. You can find worse crimes that soldiers of the Red Army committed (often because they were court martialed and executed for them by the Red Army itself) and basically everything the White Army did at all was a worse crime, but all that gets washed away by liberals who focus exclusively on what is functionally a single drop in an ocean of blood.
It's also a part of the discourse because there are people who legitimately think similar things should be done to children of elites in the future. There's stakes behind this because there might be a day where the revolution is in your backyard. You might be wearing a uniform. You might be one of those handful of soldiers. If you are, and if you find yourself in a similar position, I hope you make a different choice.
Abolishing the right of parental inheritance and the right to property is going to mean the imprisonment and murder of a lot of people who will resist it. Now I dont see many places in the world where any of us are going to have to think about killing small children, but we have to be willing to win and be as ruthless to our enemies as they will be to us. Its not about killing innocent people, its about power. The quicker you can realize that the better you'll be able to respond to questions like "do I kill the Romanov children?"
What do you mean it's only about power? Bad shit isn't suddenly not bad because you're fighting for a cause. Revolution is not an amoral act. Revolution is the ultimate moral act and the ultimate moral decision. You cannot divorce morality from revolution without destroying the justification for revolution itself. The quicker you can realize that the better you'll be able to respond to questions like "do I kill the Romanov children?"
Doesn't that bring us back to the question the trolly problem about murdering a child or providing a figure for a reactionary White Army of racists, monarchists, and fascists to rally behind, not mentioning the de jure right for the other bougeoise monarchs to interfere to protect their cousins?
Maybe so. But it's better to struggle with that question than to pretend that we're absolved of responsibility just because it's a war.
You can find figureheads anywhere, and even if one didn't exist, they could have dredged up a "Romanov" from somewhere or tried to turn the family into martyrs. Lord known enough people over the years have claimed to be descendants. Killing the kid provides just as much of a de jure right for other monarchists as keeping him alive, and maybe even a stronger one.
Magical what-if trolley land is nice and all, but it doesn't take away from the concrete facts here. And the concrete facts here are that they put a child on the wall and the fighting kept going because killing him did fuck all.
Maybe your just an idealist still, and thats all right, but I'm not. I look at everything in shades of what gets and achieves power first, then what we do with it. I'm just not there at the just and moral revolution anymore, and nothing really screams revolution to me than extirpating a horrendous monarchy and leaving it unable to come alive again. The capitalists are going to and have thrown hell at us, there no evil in being a demon in those circumstances.
Fine then. Be a butcher. You're no comrade of mine.
What is the justification for revolution? Do you think your explanation holds up when looking at real revolutions?
I'm not trying to be rude, but do you actually know how royal bloodlines work? Kinda can't do that if there are no more heirs.
I mean the Russian Orthodox Church did canonize the entire family
Fucking reactionaries goddamn
Lmao owned
:angery:
It was truly unnecessary and if nothing else strategically messy. Revolution is nothing if not messy.
Yes. History is made by monsters. They fate to die was sealed by their parents letting other children stave to death. It is a tragic sacrifice they didn't chose to make. For the greater good, it was worth not having to risk them growing up to raise an army to try to restore the empire. Which, given hindsight, probably would have worked. Wouldn't the world now be a worse place with The russian empire a UN protected anti-comunist nation of modern serfdom?
I don't give a shit about who does or doesn't make history, and murdering them created martyrs that made raising an army just as easy. They put a child on the wall. Children don't get the wall. That's what matters.
Did it? That is a large counferfactual. Every foruth child that was born under the romanovs got the wall. Oe something like that. Liberals havent bothered to look up the numbers because they only care about princesses.
So play it out? What would have happened if they were taken to the red army? Would they be successful reducated? Would they be a constant source of risk in a troubled time?
I am firmly in the 'I don't give a crap' camp. Killing children is of course bad, but tens of thousands of children died in poverty and squalor in Russia during that period, nevermind all the other shit that went on that harmed tons and tons people. Allocate your fucks given accordingly.
deleted by creator