If there are any leftists (not liberals) here, can you explain why the killing of the Romanov's was necessary?

[Anonymous]

[OneViewpoint]

The killing of the Romanov family wasn't some cold calculated political ideology thing. It was a pissed off populist mob executing their tormentors in an act of revenge. The Bolsheviks may have claimed to adopt the philosophy of Lenin and Marx for propaganda purposes but I assure you the brutal Authoritarian dictator who grabbed power, Josef Stalin, didn't give a fuck about intellectual bullshit. Stalin wanted power and he wanted all of his opposition dead. One brutal psychopath replaced an uncaring inbred royal monarchy. It was that simple. The peasants lost. Again.

[Asker]

If that's the case why do modern leftists celebrate it? I ask this as a leftist but in the many spaces I see Stalin worship and glee in talking about the Romanov killings.

[OneViewpoint]

Sure the peasants at the time were happy to be rid of the monarchy. They thought they would get something better. Instead they got an even more brutal dictator in Stalin.

To be clear, the Soviet Union was never a communist government. The communism stuff was bullshit marketing to stupid peasants after Stalin seized power and got rid of the handful of intellectuals at the top of the party who actually believed in Marxist ideology. Stalin cared about Russian peasants like tRump cares about MAGA voters. Just unavoidable trash to be used and disposed of.

[Asker]

Are you a leftist?

[Syntosi]

Are you talking about the Tzar family of Russia? In which case, it had nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with power and authority. People wanted to overthrow the government and its institutions and the Romanov family was a long-term threat of having the old power return.

[Asker]

Nicolas I understand to a degree, but the wife and kids? Why was t rehabilitation on the table for them which is core to our beliefs?

The daughters actually were in relationships with common men and worked as nurses, and Alexis was a hemophiliac kid who they took turns bayoneting until they shot him in the head and watched his whole family die. Their mom had her body molested during transport.

Was all that needed?

[Syntosi]

Again, its about power and authority. Russia was a monarchy which means the old system gives legitimate rule to the extended family. If your goal is to make sure that Russia will never have a Tzar again then killing the entire Romanov family is a simple way to ensure that. I am sure you have heard plenty of stories, both fictional and not, about how the last remaining heir to the throne hides away and builds support for an attempt to reclaim their position as a ruler.

Even if you were certain that no member of that family would ever seek to claim the throne in the future, including those that are yet to be born, that does not even solve the problem since there are plenty of historical examples where people basically kidnap a child with a claim and then uses their legitimacy as an excuse to wage a civil war in the childs name. Obviously, if they win the child tends to become a puppet who only does what the powerful backer wants them to do.

As for the brutalities? That is sort of what happens if you do not try to keep a standard of conduct. Revolutionaries are not really trained like police officers to limit themselves or whatever, in fact they have even less discipline than actual soldiers who at least follows rules of engagement. Countries spend A LOT of money and training to make sure that the people they empower with guns and authority does NOT do these things because otherwise this happens.. daily..

[Asker]

I'm assuming you're a leftist because I asked for leftist opinions.

We don't believe in a monarchy, the PEOPLE rose up and rejected the monarchy in the Russian revolution. I don't see why those same people would then hail his children as their leaders when they actively rejected the monarchy.

As for the brutality and "that's just what happens", is sexual violence and brutality good actually as long as it's against approved targets? Would you have fingered the corpse?

As leftists we are revolutionaries, am I expected to behave that way? Are you?

It seems easy to reject the violence and hold the people who did that accountable the same way we have no issues seeing the harm the US and IDF does. They're bad largely because they do that sort of thing. But it feels like you're saying the tactics are fine, it's just about who they're done against.

Stabbing a 13 yr old from a working class family obviously bad.

Bayoneting and shooting the head off a 13 yr old after you made him watch as your people brutality murdered desecrated the bodies of your family, just business?

I'm willing to hear the justification but you're not giving me anything but being vague.

[Syntosi]

By the time that they killed the Romanov family there was an active power struggle between many different factions within Russia, including those that wanted to return to monarchy. This was not a theoretical threat but an active concern.

Also, you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with ideology but rather just power plays. Its a choice everyone has to make when they overthrow a previous government such as when USA was confronted with Japanese Emperor after WW2. History would not have had to go particularly different for USA to kill him and his family like the revolutionaries in Russia did to the Romanovs. Obviously with less torture and sexual assault since US forces are more disciplined.

And yes, if you choose to kill them then you better do it properly and kill everyone involved or there is no real point to it. Its not a question of good or bad, but about eliminating any potential claims of legitimacy. If you are the last in line to the title of Emperor then it does not matter if you are 13 years old and a commoner.

The deaths of the Romanovs is just business, the manner of how they were killed comes down to how professional and disciplined the people involved were. Considering they were rebels, their discipline was probably not that good.

Personally I am against these things and I find them detestable but this is how it is almost always done in history and for good reason, it usually works in preventing an uprising from that faction. Case in point, even though they fought a vicious civil war previously, you dont hear about the royalist faction in Russia anymore. That execution, among other similar practices, has completely eradicated that resistance.

[Asker]

How would you have resolved it then? Many leftists seem giddy about murdering the family.

[Syntosi]

Dont know. This is not really my area of expertise. Solutions has been ranging from ignoring them to imprisoning them to exiling them from the country or indeed, killing them. All of these has their own drawbacks and varying degrees of success. Considering that the royal faction in Russia is dead there is no doubt that their actions did work but I dont know what would have happened if they had chosen another path. Chances are there would have been further civil wars had they not acted as decisively and even if the Communists won the civil wars it would still have damaged the nation further each time.

[Asker]

Would you have stabbed a 13 year old over and over laughing and cheering?

[Asker]

Like you don't know what you would have done, fair but you're making it seem as if murdering and mutilating children is acceptable. Are you a leftist?

[Syntosi]

Again, unnecessary violence is just a sign of poor discipline. Not sure what you think would be materially different if they cleanly executed them or tortured them to death. They are still dead for the purposes of explaining why you might choose to kill them or not.

And yes, I would consider myself a leftist. Not communist by any means but definitely left.

As for making justifications for murdering and mutilating children? This is not about morality, its about problem solving. If you are in the business of power and authority, such as trying to overthrow a country, then you need to do certain things and achieve certain goals. In this case the Romanov family is a problem to you staying in power so you have to choose how you want to deal with them.

You dont know the future so you can't choose the "ideal" solution and every decision can spectacularly backfire on you if you are unlucky. For example, if you kill the Romanov family then they could become martyrs and strengthen resistance against you. Most obvious example of this would be the crucifixion of Jesus serving as the foundation for modern Christianity.

As I have said, this is an age old question that individuals has had to take a stance on over and over throughout human history. Literally millions upon millions of instances where we have tried to find the best solution for this, which usually at least to my knowledge results in a lot of murdering.

Even if you want to ignore the question of maintaining your own authority, it also has a moral component. Kind of like the one about time traveling to kill baby Hitler. Would you kill an innocent baby Hitler to prevent him from potentially becoming a mass murderer in the future? Likewise killing the Romanovs might have meant avoiding future civil wars where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people might have died.

So really, there are no easy choices here but you still have to pick something.

[Asker]

"might have".

Alexi was 17 and his sisters were in their 20 who had partners who were in the proletariat and did mutual aid work to help the common folk. But you're telling me I have to jeer and laugh as you stab them with bayonets and defile their bodies? What you scream in delight as you murder a baby and justify it by saying "he might be the next hitler"?

The gross crimes the IDF commits against Palestinians, do the actions gross you out or enrage you? Or is it the targets? Is raping corpses and killing children cool if you just select the targets correctly? Like explain logistically why they had to watch Alexi write around before shooting him in the head? Not just kill, but torture for entertainment. Why would simply hanging not have worked? Explain it.

[Asker]

Is your point, 'if they have to die might as well have fun with it?' tell me what YOU personally would have done

[Asker]

It all sounds like you don't care and are apathetic towards murder and r*ape, those things are fine the only thing that matters is if the target deserves it based on if it solves a problem or not that you agree with? Give your detailed framework to determine when these things are okay

[Asker]

Should we all ditch morals? It's sickening to me that people in my side are this dismissive or even encouraging r*people and child murder "for the cause"

[Syntosi]

If, hypothetically, I was leading a revolution and had captured the royal family of my nation, how would I ensure that they and their faction would no longer be a threat to my new government? I would be leaning towards two options, either exile or death. I can't see them being free within the nation as anything but a recipe for disaster for literally everyone involved. The decision between exile or death would depend on how likely I thought they would want to return and usurp power.

Having them exiled is probably for the best if there is low threat. Otherwise killing them is a more permanent solution and has the least chance of backfiring. Obviously I dont gain anything from torturing them or sexually assaults so I would not order anyone to commit it against them. However, since its a revolution I also dont expect that I would have a very disciplined force which means that they might do so on their own initiative. I also expect them to loot the homes of the royalty.

If you want an example of what the "worst case scenario" of an undisciplined force would do then consider how historically armies used to rape and pillage any cities they conquered. What they did against the Romanovs is not completely unexpected based on how humans generally behave themselves. If I wanted to stop this from happening then I would have to spend months, if not years of strict training to beat the discipline into them. Generally not something you have the time for in a civil war.

[Asker]

My issue is that you sound apathetic towards sexual violence and child murder if the targets for your criteria.

You don't have "disciplined troops" so what would be the punishment for their crimes? They didn't exile, so the murder is one charge for each, the r*pe and gleeful torture of a 13 yr old crawling around as the people cheered and laughed until their boss shot him in the head. What's your punishment for that crime? Do you consider it a crime and as a fellow leftist why do you sound so understanding and chill about child murder and corpse r*pe?

[Asker]

We correlating characterize acts of the IDF as inhumane and despicable but you're here shurgging your shoulders victim blaming the children. Make it make sense

[Asker]

Are you saying that r*pe and child murder under a leftist framework is good, just choose good targets?

[Syntosi]

Crime? You dont get it do you? They were already revolutionaries. They were already criminals of the highest order. This situation is way past law and order as well as politics or even ideology. The closest thing that I can probably say to make you understand is TOTAL WAR. Social stability, law and even morality had already broken down long ago at that point. You are looking at this situation as if they are still part of a functioning society and with the mindset of a normal person.

Its like assuming that the police is going to roll up in Ukraine and arrest all the soldiers on both sides for brandishing deadly weapons in public and trying to kill people. Your line of reasoning does not make sense within the context of the situation.

In a violent revolution like this its kill or be killed. Your personal ideology or morality is irrelevant, you need to destroy your enemies or they are going to eliminate you instead. And since Russia had a Tzar, a royal family, that paints a target on literally everyone in that family including the children. Had it been a title that is not inherited through the family such as a Democracy then the family would probably have been ignored but monarchies puts everyone in the royal family in danger.

I honestly dont know how to make you understand. You are stuck thinking about this as if its an individual choice, its not. How about this, corporations are usually portrayed as soulless profit machines even though they are made up of humans with human morality and ideals. The structure of a business strips away human emotion from its decision making process. This is similar.

[slatyb]

It wasn't, it was about as logical as the election of Trump -- a bunch of angry people lashing out.

[Asker]

Are you a leftist?

[slatyb]

What does that even mean?

[Asker]

You read the question where I explicitly asked for leftists, and you answered without knowing what a leftist is?

[slatyb]

You tell me what "leftist" means to you, and then I will be able to answer.

[Godihateyou]

Lol. They can't explain always a woman is. You want them to explain Victorian Russian Politics? You must identify as a man loving lesbian

[Syntosi]

Its actually the other way around, you can't explain what a woman is, I can. Also, this question is super easy. Its just about power, not ideology. When you overthrow a government you need to make sure that your actions does not get reverted. Killing the previous leaders is a historically successful way to go about this and since Russia used to be a monarchy that extends to the rest of the family or you will have pretenders running around.

[OldBlu]

Biden's last pick for supreme Court Justice said she had no clue what a woman was.

[blackeagle007]

Are you talking about black widow?