yes, but there is a difference between someone who the people have been told their entire lives is entitled to power by god and some random fuck the bourgeoisie and foreign powers decided to back as their counter-revolutionary leader. one can be done with much more ease and speed while the other takes longer and needs actual political work. nobody cares about a thirds cousin fuckwit, but the king's child? that's someone people can rally behind.
of course counter-revolution is a constant for a proletarian State, but there's no need to do the reactionaries' work for them. there's no way keeping them hostage would have been any better optics (the soviets kept the Romanov children hostage for decades while torturing them and using them as bargaining chips!!!!!!!!)
no one cares about the Romanov family except for monarchists (lmao) and leftists, this is literally a non-issue.
you really think that if the Romanovs were to be in the custody of the bolsheviks for a while that the torture accusations wouldn't pour in? you might think it wasn't necessary to minimize the chances that someone with a direct claim to the throne shows up, but leading thinkers of taking power against monarchies, like Machiavelli, would disagree.
i'm saying no one cares about what happened to them now, back then, as futures heirs to the throne, it was a very different story. to say that a post satirizing the killing of aristocrats is specifically talking (and gloating!) about killing children and hyperfixating on it is arguing against something that only exists in your head, at best, and being dishonest, at worse.
yes, but there is a difference between someone who the people have been told their entire lives is entitled to power by god and some random fuck the bourgeoisie and foreign powers decided to back as their counter-revolutionary leader. one can be done with much more ease and speed while the other takes longer and needs actual political work. nobody cares about a thirds cousin fuckwit, but the king's child? that's someone people can rally behind.
of course counter-revolution is a constant for a proletarian State, but there's no need to do the reactionaries' work for them. there's no way keeping them hostage would have been any better optics (the soviets kept the Romanov children hostage for decades while torturing them and using them as bargaining chips!!!!!!!!)
no one cares about the Romanov family except for monarchists (lmao) and leftists, this is literally a non-issue.
deleted by creator
you really think that if the Romanovs were to be in the custody of the bolsheviks for a while that the torture accusations wouldn't pour in? you might think it wasn't necessary to minimize the chances that someone with a direct claim to the throne shows up, but leading thinkers of taking power against monarchies, like Machiavelli, would disagree.
i'm saying no one cares about what happened to them now, back then, as futures heirs to the throne, it was a very different story. to say that a post satirizing the killing of aristocrats is specifically talking (and gloating!) about killing children and hyperfixating on it is arguing against something that only exists in your head, at best, and being dishonest, at worse.
deleted by creator