quote:

---

(Moscow) Thousands of Russians marked the 87th anniversary of the assassination by firing squad of Nicholas II, paying tribute Sunday to the last Russian czar. Orthodox Christian priests led groups of observant Russians, Cossacks and others in processions in Moscow and Kyiv. In Yekaterinburg, long lines of regally clad priests marched through the Siberian city to the site where Nicholas and most of his family were killed on the night of July 16-17, 1918.

Hundreds jammed into Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral to participate in ceremonies.

---

(Actually, I wish we could say that no animal ever was either, but I think we're a century or so short of consensus on that topic.)

The revolution was brutal, and then it became corrupt, so it is hard for most of us, a century later and living in bourgeois comfort even if we are poor, to grasp what drove the brutality of this sub-plot.

I have never been an apologist for the Bolsheviks, and for sure not for what followed them, but I recognize the historic jolt that they gave to all Western societies and economies, not just their own, and I honour them for that.

At the same time, can I think that a family of people trained to think in terms not much advanced beyond the mediaeval "deserved" to be demonized and then murdered? Me, a privileged social democrat who always opposes the death penalty (but then I live in Canada a century later, and I can afford to)? Of course not.

As czars go, Nicholas was a softie ... and as czars go, he went. He was a victim of history, and his family of course were just plain victims.

If you read the story of any individual family, you will end up caring about them. Is that such a bad thing? I have read and wept over this story, the story of the young prince and princesses especially, ripped apart by the bullets of hard men, knowing that those children never had any chance of agency, however privileged their earlier lives.

Of course it is tragic. The story of the revolution is tragic. The biographies of individual Bolsheviks are tragic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ineedanisland:
How do Babblers feel about the execution of the Czar? I knew people in the International Socialists who felt that not only was the Czar's death justified, so were those of his children (on the grounds that they would otherwise have been rescued by the Whites and used as figureheads to incite the counterrevolution). To me, there is no end that can justify the means of shooting innocent children: either find a different means or abandon the end. The Czar himself was probably fair game, though, especially in the context of resisting the extremely brutal and fascistic White Army.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I think there are those on both ends of the political spectrum who'd think nothing of walking up to a child and shooting it in the head if it advanced their ideology. Ideology must come before such sentimentality, komrade!

---

And that's exactly what Nicky's guards did to throngs of cold and hungry protestors at the palace gates - shot them ... to death.

I think Nicky brought it on himself, really. During military excursions into other countries, Russian conscripts took notice of Nicky's cowardice when he would ride back to Russia ... to make woopee with Alexandra, allegedly. It was the old, "I've got to go fuck my wife" routine, and the poor bastards on the front lines began to feel less and less amorous toward royalty all the way around. The Romanovs and their parasitic entourage indulged in excess and gave lavish parties at any of their 30 odd summer and winter palaces while millions of Russian's lived in abject poverty.

[ 19 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The last Czar was highly anti-semitic and had policies that had the majority of the Russian populace living in poverty. There was even famines in Russia when the Czar was in charge.

These days when a political leader is overthrown its very easy for him/her to hop on a jet plane carrying suitcases loaded with cash and in a few short hours be thousands of miles away at a sunny beachhouse in exile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
However, I think the Czar would have sanctioned this killing if it were his decision to make. Offing the children of the usurped royalty is a standard practice in monarchies, and any study the history of the English royal family will show.

---

Henry VII was one of the suspects who killed Edward the IV's twin sons. He found legal excuses to execute rival claimants to the throne. He married the princes' eldest sister, Elizabeth of York, to reinforce his hold on the throne, but her right to the throne could only happen after her twin brothers were dead.

Blue bloods often inter-married and sometimes produced insanity and weaklings in their efforts to maintain wealth and power. They hid their genetic baggage from public view. Nicholas and Alexandra's son, Alexis, was said to have inherited hemophilia from Queen Victoria's side. Queen Vicky and hers refused to accept their unpopular Russian cousins for fear of importing revolution.

Royalty was about appalling greed and megalomania while commoners lived in grinding poverty. They weren't behind the door at stabbing one another in the back if necessary.

[ 21 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]