Murder/ execution of the Romanovs

Oct 2018
652
Adelaide south Australia
#11
"On Indian independence were all the 'State' rulers and their families slaughtered by the new Republic?"

I'm afraid that's a straw man; India is not under discussion.

However, since you've raised , I offer this explanation

Russia was the largest country on earth. It was ruled by one man, the autocratic Czar Of All the Russians, Nicholas 11. He and his family were seen as a significant threat by the Bolsheviks ,who feared counterrevolution with the Czar as a unifying figurehead. This fear a was probably unfounded, but I guess they may have thought "better safe than sorry".In that situationI would reluctantly do the same thing, but at the minute the royal family was in custody. There is only ONE guiding principle in politics; the ends justify the means

India was never a united nation under one ruler, but a patchwork of dozens of small, independent states. That is why it was relatively easy for the East India Company with its relatively small private army from the mid 17th century ,to gain a foothold in India. Each maharaja was either bribed or removed, This policy was continued under the British Raj, who ruled India from 1848 to 1947..

There were some revolts against the British, but never by any significant cooperation between the large number of petty rulers. Such revolts were brutally put down. The Indian states were never unified under the Raj, and were never a political threat to anyone.

By the time of Indian independence in 1947, the remaining maharajas were anon issue.,except perhaps those receiving 'pensions' from the British. Those payments were reduced or abolished.

THE issue, which began with independence was the partition of India into the Muslim majority Pakistan, and the Hindu majority India. it is estimated that between 1-2 million people died as a direct result of partition. Both countries have been at each others throats ever since.
 
May 2011
13,519
Navan, Ireland
#12
"On Indian independence were all the 'State' rulers and their families slaughtered by the new Republic?"

I'm afraid that's a straw man; India is not under discussion..
Sorry don't see how its a strawman -- the discussion is whether the Royal family had to be killed, its an example of where many Royals were removed and not slaughtered.

However, since you've raised , I offer this explanation

Russia was the largest country on earth. It was ruled by one man, the autocratic Czar Of All the Russians, Nicholas 11. He and his family were seen as a significant threat by the Bolsheviks ,who feared counterrevolution with the Czar as a unifying figurehead. This fear a was probably unfounded, but I guess they may have thought "better safe than sorry".In that situationI would reluctantly do the same thing, but at the minute the royal family was in custody. There is only ONE guiding principle in politics; the ends justify the means.
Well you have just contradicted yourself and admitted the Czar may have actually been no threat at all and there may well have been no need to slaughter the whole family.

It was a cruel and needless act however it was really just one little tradegy amongst many at the time.

India was never a united nation under one ruler, but a patchwork of dozens of small, independent states. That is why it was relatively easy for the East India Company with its relatively small private army from the mid 17th century ,to gain a foothold in India. Each maharaja was either bribed or removed, This policy was continued under the British Raj, who ruled India from 1848 to 1947..

There were some revolts against the British, but never by any significant cooperation between the large number of petty rulers. Such revolts were brutally put down. The Indian states were never unified under the Raj, and were never a political threat to anyone.

By the time of Indian independence in 1947, the remaining maharajas were anon issue.,except perhaps those receiving 'pensions' from the British. Those payments were reduced or abolished.

THE issue, which began with independence was the partition of India into the Muslim majority Pakistan, and the Hindu majority India. it is estimated that between 1-2 million people died as a direct result of partition. Both countries have been at each others throats ever since.
Thanks for the Indian History lesson.
 
Aug 2014
92
New York, USA
#13
Bolshevik authorities were a bunch of gangsters, thugs, and terrorists. They have killed many other families of statesmen from former Russian government who didn't escape to the West. There were mass repressions and executions the moment they came into power. And even before that, they specialized in assassinations.
 
Oct 2018
652
Adelaide south Australia
#14
Sorry don't see how its a strawman -- the discussion is whether the Royal family had to be killed, its an example of where many Royals were removed and not slaughtered.



Well you have just contradicted yourself and admitted the Czar may have actually been no threat at all and there may well have been no need to slaughter the whole family.

No. I did not contradict myself. My belief is irrelevant; what mattered was the perception of the Bolsheviks "may have not been a threat" was simply not good enough. I also said thee Bolsheviks may well have thought ":better safe than sorry" I also said that is exactly what I would have done, but as soon as the yRoyal family was in custody. At that point ,the power of bolsheviks as the government had not been established, they had to remove any current or possible future threat, if they could. threat.


It was a cruel and needless act however it was really just one little tradegy amongst many at the time.

Cruel, yes it was. Needless? Judging at a remove of 100 years is pretty easy. The decision to execute the Romanovs a was political one. I've already mentioned thatI would have done exactly the same. hopefully more humanely. Politics is an amoral occupation. Politicians hAve always tried to deny that simple fact. Historically 'the people' have {mostly] fallen for way for it. People tend to get upset on those rare occasions when a politician is candid. At base; w really don' t want to know most of what goes on, and politicians know that.



Thanks for the Indian History lesson.
Welcome. You seemed to need it.:rolleyes:



A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Straw man - Wikipedia


QUOTE="Teslatron, post: 3081782, member: 29626"]Bolshevik authorities were a bunch of gangsters, thugs, and terrorists. They have killed many other families of statesmen from former Russian government who didn't escape to the West. There were mass repressions and executions the moment they came into power. And even before that, they specialized in assassinations.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct . But what's your point?.
 
Mar 2016
386
Australia
#15
Legitimising it by calling it an execution implies there was even a hint of judicial legality involved, and not just the murderous actions of lowly thugs doing the bidding of their higher-up thugs, the Bolsheviks.
 
May 2011
13,519
Navan, Ireland
#16
Welcome. You seemed to need it.:rolleyes: .
Really? you actually said nothing that I haven't known and read about for years but you seemed to be enjoying it so it seemed worth while-- none of it was relevant.


A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Straw man - Wikipedia..................... .
But I didn't do that did I?

You might disagree with my analogy and or comparison but as your quote points out that's not a 'strawman' argument.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,142
Sydney
#17
The czar and his family were executed following a chain of command
there was a contention between parties engaging in a pitiless civil war

did the czar followed some judicial proceeding when his subordinates executed the workers of the gold fields on the Lena river
when his police machine gunned peaceful demonstrator in front of his palace ?
The Okrana secret police were his agents , the murderously idiotic generals of 1914 were his nominees

the exercise of power has a price , his hands were dripping with blood and he was a weak an stubborn man
the Bolsheviks and their rise to power were as much his creation as anyone else
for the czar to be in the hands of a white general was simply an unacceptable risk
it was time for him and his to be removed from the possible futures
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
8,721
India
#18
Indian independence resulted in the amalgamation of more than 500 states into British India. This event was a totally peaceful one and thus in no way comparable with the Russian Or French Revolutions which were the result of a violent passion which was the predominant feeling among the populace of the respective countries. Bloodshed was bound to occur there looking to the anger that people had against their ruling families.
 
Likes: bboomer
Oct 2018
652
Adelaide south Australia
#19
Indian independence resulted in the amalgamation of more than 500 states into British India. This event was a totally peaceful one and thus in no way comparable with the Russian Or French Revolutions which were the result of a violent passion which was the predominant feeling among the populace of the respective countries. Bloodshed was bound to occur there looking to the anger that people had against their ruling families.

Thanks for that. Also my understanding. That is why I couldn't understand an attempt to compare India with Russia in terms of revolution.

I have not forgotten about revolts, especially the one Indians call "The First War of Independence" and the British (to this day) call "The Indian Mutiny". Hardly on par with the Russian revolution.The British still don't seem to have grasped the fact that they were ,and were seem as, invaders. The very notion of imperialism makes the assumption that imperial powers have some kind of right to colonise any country weak enough to be exploited in that way. Colonised peoples rarely seem to have agreed.

Mention has been made of the legality of of the execution of the Romanovs. I'm not sure that's relevant.The Bolsheviks were the defacto government in power in1917. The problem with revolutions generally is that they are usually illegal and treason. There is only one legitimate excuse for rebellion; winning. The question of legality in terms of the displaced power's laws tend to be pretty much ignored at the time. Sometimes, although not always, such actions are given legality after the fact, by the new regime. (Eg Stalin and his government denied committing the Katyn Forest massacres, blaming the Nazis)*** Didn't work, it was apparently an open secret in Poland at the time, and later.


The execution of the Romanovs was mostly certainly horrible.,and certainly illegal under existing Russian Law. Necessary? In my opinion, absolutely. The Bolsheviks, still unsure of their power, could not afford to have a the Czar and his family alive, unless it was certain there would be no counter revolution with them as figureheads. No such certainty exitsed, so they had to die. This was a political decision no doubt argued for the common good. Consequently, it is acceptable to refer to the deaths as execution rather than murder.. I think perhaps this argument comes down to personal opinion; each side of the argument presents justification for their opinion.. I think I understand the opposing view,, I simply disagree.


______________________________________________________________________________________________


***The Katyn massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, "Katyń crime"; Russian: Катынская резня Katynskaya reznya, "Katyn massacre", or Russian: Катынский расстрел, "Katyn execution by shooting") was a series of mass executions of Polish officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD ("People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs", aka the Soviet secret police) in April and May 1940. Though the killings took place at several places, the massacre is named after the Katyn Forest, where some of the mass graves were first discovered.

The massacre was prompted by NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria's proposal to execute all captive members of the Polish officer corps, dated 5 March 1940, approved by the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, including its leader, Joseph Stalin. The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000.[1] The victims were executed in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons, and elsewhere. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were officers imprisoned during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, another 6,000 were police officers, and the rest were Polish intelligentsia the Soviets deemed to be "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials, and priests".[1] As the Polish Army officer class was representative of the multi-ethnic Polish state, the killed also included Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Polish Jews including the Chief Rabbi of the Polish Army, Baruch Steinberg.


Katyn massacre - Wikipedia
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,519
Navan, Ireland
#20
Indian independence resulted in the amalgamation of more than 500 states into British India. This event was a totally peaceful one and thus in no way comparable with the Russian Or French Revolutions which were the result of a violent passion which was the predominant feeling among the populace of the respective countries. Bloodshed was bound to occur there looking to the anger that people had against their ruling families.
Totally peaceful?

And were the families of the 500 state rulers 'executed'? Did any of the 500 rulers lead an insurrection in order to have them placed back on the throne?

Numerous Monarchies have been toppled in the 20th century (Spain, Italty, Austro-Hungary etc) all under different circumstances but how many have seen counter-revolutions to place them back on the throne?

The Kaiser was removed at almost exactly the same time was he and his family executed? he went to live in nearby Netherlands-- did he lead a counter revolution?

Now to be fair the Revolutionaries didn't have the benefit of hindsight and could not have known this but it does challenge the idea that the Romanovs 'had' to be executed.

It could have equally misfired and created martyrs and ,as in the French Revolution, played into the hands of the exiled counter-revolutionaries, the Revolution held the Monarch and the 'rightful' heir in their hands by killing both now the 'rightful heir' is now an exile and able to act as a rally point.
 
Likes: bboomer

Similar History Discussions