9 ms·

Nicholas II, his German-born wife and their five children were shot by Bolsheviks as a consequence of the October Revolution They were not "shot as a consequen

Nicholas II, his German-born wife and their five children were shot by Bolsheviks as a consequence of the October Revolution They were not "shot as a consequence of". They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, et al. They were all brought together in a room and were shot and stabbed in a process that took about 20 minutes. Their bodies were then desecrated and disposed of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family#Execution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_famil...

lostlogin 8y ago
He was a terrible leader. Racist and horrifically anti Semitic, aggressive, incompetent as a military leader and in domestic policy. The number of deaths directly attributable to him is right up there with most the other Russian leaders. This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it.
- tzahola 8y ago
  >Racist and horrifically anti Semitic Just like basically everyone else at the time.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    To be clear, his anti-semitism extended to support of murderous pogroms. This wasn’t common elsewhere.
    - littletimmy 8y ago
      Saying that the Tsar's death was because he was anti-semitic gives credibility to the notion that Bolshevism had a large Jewish influence. Is that what you're trying to say?
    - tzahola 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_d...
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        The first and last are 100 years earlier and the second two relate to catholics. I may be missing your point but you don’t give any context to those sources.
        tzahola 8y ago
        Yes, catholics. Why does it matter? Persecution is persecution, be it against jews, catholics, protestants, muslims, atheists, whatever. Also, you’re saying “100 years earlier” as if that’s a long timespan in history. I know, the USA is not much older than that, but in Europe, 100 years is nothing. And considering that ~40 years after the last Russian pogroms there was this thing called “the Holocaust”, I’m not really convinced that antisemitism was a thing of the past in Western Europe either.
        lostlogin 8y ago
        You are right, it’s still there and does periodically make it into the news (eg the U.K. Labour Party is still struggling with anti-semitism this week). https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/labour-agrees-to-fresh-antisemitism-consultation-after-stormy-debate https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/... The cited persecution of Catholics was and is still undoubtably, but it things happening around the turn of the 20th century in Britain really weren’t of the same nature as what was happening in Russia, not at all. British weren’t raping and killing Catholics in massive waves of concerted violence with state involvement and approval and that’s exactly what was happening in Russia around that time. 100 years is relatively short time but I definitely argue that a lot has changed and the level of violence is declining. Pinker has some good article on the subject of violence but which notably don’t say anything about violence toward small groups, though say a lot about the larger picture. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-this-is-historys-most-peaceful-time-new-study-not-so-fast/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-thi... https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.htm...
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > > Racist and horrifically anti Semitic > Just like basically everyone else at the time. Does this really matter? I mean, one probably should understand racism and anti-Semitism in the context of their times, but that doesn't excuse them; a racist and anti-Semite is a horrible leader even if surrounded by people with those same horrible qualities. EDIT: Jeez, I hope the downvotes are because people find this off-topic or something, rather than because they disagree with the sentiment.
    - tzahola 8y ago
      Let's say, that in a 100 years, we'll introduce the same fundamental rights to animals as we already have for humans. Killing animals and eating them would become a barbaric thing of the past. Would you find it fair if people of the future spat on your grave, and refer to you with the utmost contempt, because you were a meat eater? "He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! He deserved to die!"
      - mcgarnagle 8y ago
        Yes, that would be the logical thing to find fair once you forgo your current ego. Disclosure, I eat meat, and if people should critique me in the future, so be it. Half the people in this thread are ripping on Lenin because of the things he did, even though at the time they were mostly "lawful" since he wrote the law. We absolutely should disgrace the horrible things people did in the past, so that to not do them over again.
        tzahola 8y ago
        "like many of his contemporaries, he held racist beliefs" vs "he was a disgusting racist antisemite! those bolsheviks sent him where he belongs! shooting and stabbing the whole family to death, hell yeah xDDDDD"
      - JadeNB 8y ago
        > He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! Possibly, if that's the consensus of current mores, but I didn't say that; I said that a racist and an anti-Semite is a horrible leader. > He deserved to die! No, I definitely didn't say that. In fact, lostlogin explicitly disclaimed this position (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982): > This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it. (emphasis mine). There are plenty of horrible people out there, but, most (and possibly all) of the time, wishing death on them is equally horrible.
- baybal2 8y ago
  Are you referring to Lenin?
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Nicholas II, though I suspect you know that. Nicely done. It seems to need stating each time, both the guys were terrible.
- vixen99 8y ago
  What is the point of anonymous opinion casters? They're anonymous, quote no sources and believe think their opinions are important enough to made public. Readers too can check out the last Tsar of Russia and come to their own private views. If you don't like the estimate of 85 and 100 million people killed under communism (other Russian leaders) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet... then please offer a counter offer more in line with your assertion. Whatever please stop offering off-the-cuff unsubstantiated views. They have zero value for others.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    To compare like with like, should the death toll due to communism be compared to that from the Romanov line, or to that from imperial systems of government? I’m not sure communism will compare too badly. A good source is the Montefiore book on the Romanovs and is in my comments here. It’s worth reading. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs-1613-1918-by-simon-sebag-montefiore.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...
imbokodo 8y ago
And Lenin's brother was murdered by the Tsar's father, and the Tsar murdered many other Russians of his own account. Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.
- Melchizedek 8y ago
  Lenin's brother was tried and executed after trying to assassinate the Tsar. Comparing that to butchering children in secret is pretty rich.
- YorkshireSeason 8y ago
  Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar, and exported their incompetency to many other countries, with the last major eruption of Bolshevik violence happening in the 1970s in Cambodian by the Khmer Rouge (the Khmer branch of the Bolshevik/Leninist party). The world would probably have been a much better place without the Bolshevik, despite, and in full view of the many imperfections of the Tsarist rule.
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    Yes Russia was a extremely well developed nation with good education, healthcare etc until those pesky bolsheviks came along and ruined everything...
    - golergka 8y ago
      Yes, it actually was, in many different areas, one of the most developed countries in Europe in 1914.
    - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
      What kind of argument is this supposed to be? Russia was at an average level of development in 1918. European parts of Russia (St Petersburg) where relatively modern, and while much of the rest of the country was rural and backwards * there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it wouldn't have been developed with other forms of government in Russia, whether under a Tsar, or -- even better -- a modern western democracy. * Bolsheviks retarded the development of Russia. All comparable western nations developed faster, practically all 'Soviet' technology was basically invented in the west. The Soviets had nothing to offer but violence. For example (from [1]): "Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States." Let me emphasise: I'm not saying that the Tsarist regime was particularly good, just a lot better than the Bolsheviks. If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%9392)#Economic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...
Boulth 8y ago
> They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin, Unfortunately, according to the Wikipedia article you posted, it's not that easy to verify: > The written record taking the chain of command and the ultimate responsibility for the fate of the Romanovs back to Lenin was, from the beginning, either never made or carefully concealed. ... > However, as of 2011, there has been no conclusive evidence that either Lenin or Sverdlov gave the order.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  The way Lenin worked was to conceal or destroy any direct trace of his responsibility for any decision he ever did. All is written in the same article.
dang 8y ago
All: please don't re-fight the Russian Revolution here. HN is a place for intellectual curiosity, not rageful reactivation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Gargoyle 8y ago
  I continue to be fascinated by the discussions you feel compelled to chime in on.

lostlogin 8y ago

He was a terrible leader. Racist and horrifically anti Semitic, aggressive, incompetent as a military leader and in domestic policy. The number of deaths directly attributable to him is right up there with most the other Russian leaders. This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it.

tzahola 8y ago
>Racist and horrifically anti Semitic Just like basically everyone else at the time.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  To be clear, his anti-semitism extended to support of murderous pogroms. This wasn’t common elsewhere.
  - littletimmy 8y ago
    Saying that the Tsar's death was because he was anti-semitic gives credibility to the notion that Bolshevism had a large Jewish influence. Is that what you're trying to say?
  - tzahola 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_d...
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      The first and last are 100 years earlier and the second two relate to catholics. I may be missing your point but you don’t give any context to those sources.
      - tzahola 8y ago
        Yes, catholics. Why does it matter? Persecution is persecution, be it against jews, catholics, protestants, muslims, atheists, whatever. Also, you’re saying “100 years earlier” as if that’s a long timespan in history. I know, the USA is not much older than that, but in Europe, 100 years is nothing. And considering that ~40 years after the last Russian pogroms there was this thing called “the Holocaust”, I’m not really convinced that antisemitism was a thing of the past in Western Europe either.
        lostlogin 8y ago
        You are right, it’s still there and does periodically make it into the news (eg the U.K. Labour Party is still struggling with anti-semitism this week). https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/labour-agrees-to-fresh-antisemitism-consultation-after-stormy-debate https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/... The cited persecution of Catholics was and is still undoubtably, but it things happening around the turn of the 20th century in Britain really weren’t of the same nature as what was happening in Russia, not at all. British weren’t raping and killing Catholics in massive waves of concerted violence with state involvement and approval and that’s exactly what was happening in Russia around that time. 100 years is relatively short time but I definitely argue that a lot has changed and the level of violence is declining. Pinker has some good article on the subject of violence but which notably don’t say anything about violence toward small groups, though say a lot about the larger picture. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-this-is-historys-most-peaceful-time-new-study-not-so-fast/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-thi... https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.htm...
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > > Racist and horrifically anti Semitic > Just like basically everyone else at the time. Does this really matter? I mean, one probably should understand racism and anti-Semitism in the context of their times, but that doesn't excuse them; a racist and anti-Semite is a horrible leader even if surrounded by people with those same horrible qualities. EDIT: Jeez, I hope the downvotes are because people find this off-topic or something, rather than because they disagree with the sentiment.
  - tzahola 8y ago
    Let's say, that in a 100 years, we'll introduce the same fundamental rights to animals as we already have for humans. Killing animals and eating them would become a barbaric thing of the past. Would you find it fair if people of the future spat on your grave, and refer to you with the utmost contempt, because you were a meat eater? "He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! He deserved to die!"
    - mcgarnagle 8y ago
      Yes, that would be the logical thing to find fair once you forgo your current ego. Disclosure, I eat meat, and if people should critique me in the future, so be it. Half the people in this thread are ripping on Lenin because of the things he did, even though at the time they were mostly "lawful" since he wrote the law. We absolutely should disgrace the horrible things people did in the past, so that to not do them over again.
      - tzahola 8y ago
        "like many of his contemporaries, he held racist beliefs" vs "he was a disgusting racist antisemite! those bolsheviks sent him where he belongs! shooting and stabbing the whole family to death, hell yeah xDDDDD"
    - JadeNB 8y ago
      > He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! Possibly, if that's the consensus of current mores, but I didn't say that; I said that a racist and an anti-Semite is a horrible leader. > He deserved to die! No, I definitely didn't say that. In fact, lostlogin explicitly disclaimed this position (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982): > This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it. (emphasis mine). There are plenty of horrible people out there, but, most (and possibly all) of the time, wishing death on them is equally horrible.
baybal2 8y ago
Are you referring to Lenin?
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Nicholas II, though I suspect you know that. Nicely done. It seems to need stating each time, both the guys were terrible.
vixen99 8y ago
What is the point of anonymous opinion casters? They're anonymous, quote no sources and believe think their opinions are important enough to made public. Readers too can check out the last Tsar of Russia and come to their own private views. If you don't like the estimate of 85 and 100 million people killed under communism (other Russian leaders) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet... then please offer a counter offer more in line with your assertion. Whatever please stop offering off-the-cuff unsubstantiated views. They have zero value for others.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  To compare like with like, should the death toll due to communism be compared to that from the Romanov line, or to that from imperial systems of government? I’m not sure communism will compare too badly. A good source is the Montefiore book on the Romanovs and is in my comments here. It’s worth reading. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs-1613-1918-by-simon-sebag-montefiore.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...

imbokodo 8y ago

And Lenin's brother was murdered by the Tsar's father, and the Tsar murdered many other Russians of his own account. Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.

Melchizedek 8y ago
Lenin's brother was tried and executed after trying to assassinate the Tsar. Comparing that to butchering children in secret is pretty rich.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar, and exported their incompetency to many other countries, with the last major eruption of Bolshevik violence happening in the 1970s in Cambodian by the Khmer Rouge (the Khmer branch of the Bolshevik/Leninist party). The world would probably have been a much better place without the Bolshevik, despite, and in full view of the many imperfections of the Tsarist rule.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  Yes Russia was a extremely well developed nation with good education, healthcare etc until those pesky bolsheviks came along and ruined everything...
  - golergka 8y ago
    Yes, it actually was, in many different areas, one of the most developed countries in Europe in 1914.
  - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
    What kind of argument is this supposed to be? Russia was at an average level of development in 1918. European parts of Russia (St Petersburg) where relatively modern, and while much of the rest of the country was rural and backwards * there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it wouldn't have been developed with other forms of government in Russia, whether under a Tsar, or -- even better -- a modern western democracy. * Bolsheviks retarded the development of Russia. All comparable western nations developed faster, practically all 'Soviet' technology was basically invented in the west. The Soviets had nothing to offer but violence. For example (from [1]): "Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States." Let me emphasise: I'm not saying that the Tsarist regime was particularly good, just a lot better than the Bolsheviks. If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%9392)#Economic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...

Boulth 8y ago

> They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin, Unfortunately, according to the Wikipedia article you posted, it's not that easy to verify: > The written record taking the chain of command and the ultimate responsibility for the fate of the Romanovs back to Lenin was, from the beginning, either never made or carefully concealed. ... > However, as of 2011, there has been no conclusive evidence that either Lenin or Sverdlov gave the order.

saiya-jin 8y ago
The way Lenin worked was to conceal or destroy any direct trace of his responsibility for any decision he ever did. All is written in the same article.

dang 8y ago

All: please don't re-fight the Russian Revolution here. HN is a place for intellectual curiosity, not rageful reactivation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Gargoyle 8y ago
I continue to be fascinated by the discussions you feel compelled to chime in on.