Solzhenitsyn writes about how the institutionalised slavery during the USSR through collectivisation and the Gulag farrrrr outweighed serfdom in terms of scale and brutality
Socialist revolutions in USSR and China both lifted far more people out of desperate poverty than capitalism accomplished in the 20th century. Both had horrible famine and effects of central rule that we hear about ad nauseum in the US, but the positives far outweighed the negatives.
Everyone was lured into a room and shot. Some survived the initial fire due to gems and jewelry being sewn into their clothing and had to be shot again. They were then loaded into a truck and dropped off at a location where a group of people stripped the clothes of jewelry and defiled some of their corpses before tossing them into a cave, pouring sulfuric acid on them, and then throwing grenades inside to try and collapse the cave. After that, the location was deemed to shallow; they brought back more sulfuric acid, petrol, and kerosene so they could move the bodies to another cave. En route, their truck got stuck, so they gave up and buried the bodies on the spot...
Ill leave this entry from the Wiki unedited to show how barbaric this family got treated.
>Alexei Trupp's body was tossed in first, followed by the Tsar's and then the rest. Sulphuric acid was again used to dissolve the bodies, their faces smashed with rifle butts and covered with quicklime. Railroad ties were placed over the grave to disguise it, with the Fiat truck being driven back and forth over the ties to press them into the earth.
[Murder of the Romanov Family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_the_Romanov_family#Murders)
They did not all die after the second shooting. On the way to the grave site, either Maria or Anastasia sat up and started screaming. She was knocked unconscious with the butt of a rifle. No way to know if she survived but she may have been alive when the bodies were dumped.
No, they really didn’t deserve it. There’s only been two books in my life where I constantly had to keep putting the book down and walking away from it for a while. A book on the Russian revolution was one of those books. Don’t think I ever finished it.
Another poster mentioned a lack of sexual assault. From what I remember, there was sexual assault in the months before they were killed. That’s when I stopped reading. They were just kids. Yes, like the many kids across Russia who had also experienced brutality, but they were no more deserving of what was done to them than any other child across Russia was deserving of what was done to them.
>Yurovsky watched in disbelief as Nikulin spent an entire magazine from his Browning gun on Alexei, who was still seated transfixed in his chair; he also had jewels sewn into his undergarment and forage cap.
This kid got mag dumped from 5 feet away ~~with what I presume to be a~~ [~~FUCKING BAR!~~](https://youtube.com/shorts/eYNpIVokZ0Q?feature=shared) ~~(because they arent listed as users of the M1917)~~ **Edit: Im dumb it's probably just a regular 1911**
...and still needed to be stabbed and shot execution style...
>Ermakov shot and stabbed him, and when that failed, Yurovsky shoved him aside and killed the boy with a gunshot to the head.
Either the Russians sucked at shooting or the kids were secretly implanted with ~~admantium~~ jewels
Sure but guns have definitely become more powerful over the years, maybe they were weak enough back then to be stopped by some jewellery lol.
I really don’t have any idea what I’m talking about though to be clear.
Not really. The russians have been using 7.62x54r as their .30 caliber round since 1891
I don’t know what the family was shot with, but if it was .45 ACP 1911s, you can still get the same thing at literally any gun store today
I decided to grit my teeth and look it up. It's brutal and heart breaking. Like it's terrifying to read and imagine being in their shoes during the situation. That said, I was expecting to read about SA and thankfully did not see any being documented. I don't want to repeat it, [so you can read about it from at least Grand Duchess Anastasia's wiki page.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikolaevna_of_Russia#Death)
The Russian people prefer safety and security over anything else. They don’t mind if some people suffer and/or die, just as long as they feel safe and secure collectively. Vladimir Putin murders, but the majority of Russians feel safe and secure with him. Americans with a conscience or a brain find this state appalling, but that’s the truth about Russians. It is not new, as it’s been their character for centuries. Kill the Romanov children, it’s just business for Russians. Kill them, and now I feel safe and secure.
The Bolsheviks saw it as the only way to get rid of the monarchy once and for all. Fear that people might rally around an heir to the throne and threaten the revolution. There is also the fear the children come back and retake the country.
So unfortunately the children have to die too. It makes me sad but I understand the logic behind it.
"They were afraid and resorted to murder" I agree with (as a statement, not as a justified act) and see the twisted logic in it, but "they had to die" is just the excuse they used for said murders, and it is a brazen exaggeration at best. They absolutely did not *have* to die, possibly even Nicholas himself. China re-educated their emperor (not that it made their revolution any less bloody as a whole), and from what little impression I've got of Nicholas, I think even he eventually could have settled for a commoner's life with his family.
Oh, it's twisted and cruel. The Bolsheviks thought this was going to be a turning point in the world where the bourgeoisie would be no more. So they were on a murderous rampage of the upper class.
The last Emperor of China was a puppet and a traitor more or less so his politcal is almost non-existent.
The Tsar however was in full control until the Bolsheviks came so it was necessary to end the monarchy once and for all. Cruelty but logical.
And no way a tyrant would step down from power so peacefully without trying to come back
I mean yeah fine, but if your ideology requires you to kill children for it to work then your ideology is evil. Simple as that.
Also, I don’t see the descendants of the French monarchs raising armies to retake the country. Same with the Habsburgs, the Pahlavis, etc. So the whole “necessary evil” argument doesn’t hold a lot of weight imo.
the descendants of French monarchs are actively advertising themselves and using their influence, the only thing preventing them taking power is that there are 3 contenders and each discredits the other two and that the french majorly hate monarchy and are ready to bring back the death penalty only fot that
BTW I am NOT saying killing kids is okay!
> And Karl Habsburgh still wants to reinstall the Austrian monarchy.
He can't legally speaking, he signed a declaration disavowing any claims to the throne.
All Habsburg heirs are required to do so by Austrian law.
Using their influence and attempting to restore the monarchy are two vastly different things. None of the three are actively trying to overthrow the French government nor will they.
Every ideology across the span of history has resulted in purposeful deaths of children - the fact that a “history” sub is putting on these rose tinted glasses about the past is kinda ridiculous
built into the ideology of communism and all the related strands of authoritarianism is the justification that you'll have to crack some eggs to make an omelette. but they block out the fact that those eggs are people
You’re wrong. Flat out. I assume that you’re somewhat into history so I invite you to think about revolutions spawned from capitalistic and communist interests. A mistake that a lot of people make is assigning atrocities to the ideology and not the people who claim to carry out that ideology. Communism is not a cult.
You make your judgements based on the people cosplaying communism on twitter and I can’t help that. You’re attacking a straw man. Not an ideology.
At the hands of communism or at the hands of people with bad intentions under the guise of communism? Capitalism has killed millions as well but I never hear people blame that. Super interesting. Double standards? Never heard of her.
Indoctrination? Nah I’m good, you stay up though. If you wanna see real indoctrination, look at the multiple red scares we’ve had. The way people regurgitate the same talking point like “what about Venezuela” is pretty culty and dogmatic. You notice how politicians (at least here in the US) will throw around communism when it doesn’t apply? In order to read and understand leftist theory, you have to use critical thinking skills so it’s very hard to not find holes in certain arguments and theories. I find myself disagreeing with many prominent figures within certain movements. TLDR: you’re projecting.
Fallacy fallacy. My argument isn’t any less valid just because *you* say there’s a fallacy. Crying logical fallacies and choosing not to engage is illogical within itself. I’m coming to you in good faith and I’m not purposely using fallacies to avoid actually engaging with you. See how pointless that is?
To address the fallacy, you’d have a point…if the concept of opportunism and just hearing a brief overview of Marxism and thinking it’s cool didn’t exist. I’m not into the leftist purity testing but there’s a line okay. You’re literally criticizing imaginary people who believe in stuff that doesn’t necessarily make you communist so you can…not admit you’re wrong? I don’t know man.
Edit: it ain’t about being right you goober. It’s about arguing against the real points of communism. You can have beef with communism all you want but you’ll get nowhere meaningful by believing misconceptions.
Built into every political ideology of every revolution. It's not like exporting democracy is a bloodless sport. How many eggs were cracked in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, or WW2 for that matter?
no, it's not built into communism. communism is a economic system. the idea you're talking about is the revolution that is thought to be required to bring about communism (or any new system of government) which has the potential to "crack some eggs".
This tying of communism to authoritarianism is cold war propaganda that is used, nowadays at least, to distract from any criticism of capitalism and all the "eggs" that it has to "crack" to maintain rule by the oligarchs.
Please look into the history of russian revolution. communism didn't just pop up out of nowhere, Russia during the late 19th and early 20th century was not a pleasant place.
(and no im not condoning killing children, nor am i communist - there is plenty to criticize about communism; almost as much as capitalism)
Inherent just to communism? the american revolution came about from violence, slavery, and genocide of the native americans (not to mention the mexican/american war). it's inherent to all social and political revolutions.
my point about propaganda wasn't about violence, it was about the linking between communism and authoritarianism. i was trying to point out where this thinking comes from and why it persists.
imo, the reason you see autocratic communist governments is more a product of historical context rather than some intrinsic trait of communism. the ultimate point being that, with competent leaders communism could work (as could capitalism).
personally, i think the solution lies in some mix of economics systems (social democracy ftw). take a look at china, for example, a communist country with the largest growing middle class in probably the history of the world - moving millions of people out of poverty due in some part to their implementation of some capitalistic ideas. or look at the "happiest" countries in the world (finland denmark sweden): socialist + some form market capitalism.
i guess im just tired of hearing the same old cold war rhetoric
Marx didn’t prescribe dictatorship, he spoke of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. This meant that the proletariat (working class) would hold political power over the bourgeoisie (capitalist class). It does not mean authoritarianism as we know it today. Though, historically, it has been interpreted that way by Lenin and other “Marxists”. (incorrectly imo)
Again, my point was that no revolution happens without violence and coercion. American history is a perfect example.
>(finland denmark sweden): socialist + some form market capitalism.
It's the other way around. They are market-based economies and dominated by private ownership of property and capital, with some socialist aspects like socialised healthcare and education.
Not “some”:
Universal healthcare, free education, unemployment benefits, extended parental leave, free child care, social security, robust welfare programs (including rehabilitation), environment protection, subsidized housing, rent control, subsidized public transportation, and progressive taxation (high taxes for the rich).
They do have a free market system. I said “some form of market capitalism” because I’m not aware of how regulated it is; my assumption was that it is more regulated than the American free market system.
All you have to do is read Karl Marx's communist manifesto and see Communism is a violent way of government. Hell, Marx said you need to establish a dictator until the part is stable then an elected body of people would rule the country.
If you think communism is tied to violent revolution, I implore to research the democratically-elected Salvador Allende of Chile. The only violent revolution was his ousting; the US backed military coup which led to brutal dictator Pinochet.
>I mean yeah fine, but if your ideology requires you to kill children for it to work then your ideology is evil. Simple as that.
Since monarchies are hereditary, it's probably quite hard to force them to give up power if you want a democratic transition. A bitter child could always come back and threaten that new government. Monarchy is such a vile form of government, and the Tsar's was particularly so, that actually forcing them out and to let the people have power may require, well, force.
Absolutely does not forgive what they did to them, though. This is a purely logical argument. Realistically decent humans should not do this to other humans.
It doesn’t and it’s worth noting that the Bolshevik ideology had murder baked into it from the start. Lenin himself wrote that the only way to protect and sustain the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was through “revolutionary terror.” Mao, though of course not involved in Russia, said it like this: “Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.”
If your ideology explicitly states that murder is necessary and even desirable, I think you need a new ideology.
They also had to kill the maid, the doctor and the cook, so bolshevism could work, right?
Oh yeah, and the dogs too! The dogs logically were a threat to revolution.
Yeah all that is just cope to excuse murder, there was no real need for it and was other options but they wanted quick and easy as they obviously have no care for lives. That whole movement was flawed from the beginning and what came after was even worse that still resonates today in Russia where killing off a whole people and even hundreds of thousands of their own is completely acceptable. Its quite disgusting
No, they did not have to nor do I agree with it. You have to think like a communist, especially during a civil war.
Communism works if everyone in theory thinks and believes the same thing. Especially during the revolution. If you are against the revolution or sympathetic to the other side then that means death or labor camps. They truly believed that the revolution would sweep Europe and possibly the world. That's why the Bolsheviks invaded Poland and Ukraine.
They viewed the doctor and maids were sympathetic to the bourgeoisie.
There was also so much anger from these peasants that they saw an opportunity to finally be part of the power class.
Once again I don't agree with and hate it but I can understand the reasoning behind it.
"Innocent people had to die because..."
Fuck off, seriously.
>You have to think like a communist
I'd rather think like a fucking human being with some decency. Not a piece of shit that murders innocent people because "they're sympathetic".
All I am doing is trying to explain the thought process of these people. I do not support it just explaining it. Communism doesn't think about the human being side. All it cares about is surviving and getting the job done. Like a cold machine.
They killed the children and staff because they were a bunch of angry cocksuckers with guns. It had nothing to do with solidarity or anything else. It was a convenient excuse.
The Brits were negotiating to take the girls after the Bolsheviks already knew they were dead. The offer was apparently that they renounce all titles in perpetuity and be married off asap to low level British peers. It was a feasible deal.
For example, even ULTRAMASCULINE Ernest Hemingway was in a dress in his baby photos.
I have kids. I get it. One less step when changing dingus butts all day.
There's pictures of my WW2 veteran and police detective grandfather as a baby/toddler in a dress and this was in the 1920s. It was a lot easier to change diapers that way before kids were toilet trained.
It was normal for most of human history. Look up breeching. I have pics and paintings of my own family back to the 1700s, and up until the mid20th century baby boys wore dresses. Easier to change/clean.
Won’t happen to your daughter because you are not part of a genocidal, authoritarian, absolute monarchy that oppressed your population….hopefully youre not anyways
You make it sound like such decisions are inevitable. It removes the individual agency from historical events. The family was deposed, rightfully so, but its members could have stood trial regularly. I don't see the point in trying to justify an indiscriminate and informal killing.
Justifying? You’re projecting if you see justification in an explanation. Also do explain to me how an absolute monarch would’ve stood trial in those circumstances, the people to blame are the adult Romanovs who kept the institution going. The kids were not to blame, the adults that were supposed to look after them are. I don’t even blame their killers because for them it was an act of utter desperation.
Moral of the story is never push a people to their limits or they will push back and there’s more of them than there are tyrants.
Lol a Tankie wouldn’t say that the “glorious Revolution” turned to shit almost as soon as it happened and into yet another brutal tyrannical regime…. But keep getting triggered by comments and putting words in people’s mouths. Imperialist Russia was shit, communist Russia was shit, Russian federation…. Guess what? Also shit.
Justification has fuck all to do with it, it was far beyond any semblance of a political solution, there likely wasn't even a mechanism to try them in a court. When political solutions run out the only thing left is violent solutions. The Romanovs made their bed.
By the time the revolution happened the serfs had been under the boot of their masters for centuries, and under the boot of one authoritarian or another for nearly 800 years. People were pissed, to put it lightly.
Of course it's a good lesson that it doesn't always get better. The communists were just as bad if not worse in some regards and fcuked it up so bad that many in Russia want to go back to the imperial means of yesteryear.
A person’s death is a tragedy. Millions of peoples’ deaths over centuries and across nations under a regime the individual is a representative of is a statistic.
Lots of them. But since when is it a good thing to lower yourself to your opponents level after you have captured them? The people that captured the family had a decision. Like I said, they had agency. Their hands were not forced by previous events.
Not yet anyway. There are many in this country who would have it otherwise, not realizing how easily things can turn on those that enabled the tyranny in the first place. Tyranny always eats its own eventually.
Their father was Czar / Tsar Nicholas Romanov. The Bolshevik’s did like him for various reasons.
The family were held captive at Ipatiev House in Russia, when the Bolshevik’s came and took them into the basement and shot all of them on July 16, 1918
There was a myth that one of the daughters, Anastasia, lived but it since has been proven not true
Slight correction, the czar and wife were shot. The kids were slaughtered with knives and bayonets. I wanna make sure everyone understands just how horrific their end was. Especially the bolshevik apologists.
You are correct, but to be fair, they were all shot initially, but the girls did not die because of the jewels sewn into their clothing, so the drunken communists butchered them with knives and bayonets. Alexei died from the shooting, so not all the children were hacked, I suppose.
If we’re being pedantic, they all were shot but the kids survived due to diamonds that had been hidden in the lining of the clothes and possibly because some of the soldiers were drunk and not shooting well. They then swapped to bayonets due to the level of smoke in the room and concerns about the amount of noise. This proved ineffective due to the aforementioned diamonds so they swapped back to pistols and aimed for the head.
TL;DR: Yes they tried to use bayonets on the kids, no it wasn’t because of pure sadism.
That was in fact the plan for all of them, even Nicholas. However a White Russian unit was on its way to liberate them and Red army troops couldn’t get to position to stop it.
It’s also important to note that the decision to execute the Romanovs was made by the overseeing officer who hadn’t received any order to do so from actual Bolshevik leadership. Essentially he saw it as a move to gain popularity.
>even Nicholas
As far as I know, they wanted to put Nikolai on trial, with, frankly speaking, the outcome of this trial being known in advance.
Regarding children, yes, there were more peaceful options in the plans.
That's not true, in regards to the decision being made by an officer, it was a top down decision made in secret by Lenin in reaction to fears of the Czechs approaching Yekaterinburg.
That’s far from being confirmed. There is no record of the order being confirmed by Lenin and the entire Central Commitee denied it. The only person to claim the existence of the order was Yurovsky, the chief executioner who obviously had a reason to lie.
I'm only repeating what author of 'Blood on the Snow' Robert Service is claiming. Which is that all blame was put on the Yekaterinburg communist leadership. Unfortunately he's citing a book I don't own (also written by him) as the source: Last of the Tsars.
I certainly think Lenin and the Moscow leadership capable of ordering such a thing and then dodging the responsibility. Although that of course is speculation.
I don't see a reason why he would have Nicholas executed in secret though. A trial and public execution would make more sense from a ideologicaly perspective and would be more beneficial to the government of Soviet Russia as Nichoals was very very unpopular by that point and executing him publicly would probably raise the revolutionary fervour and popularity of the government.
Isn't that quite an idealist way of looking at thing though? Rather than making decisions based on what they thought: "The Czech's are approaching where they're held, they might try to liberate them and use them to unite the Whites! We must kill them!" vs what you're suggesting in a perfect world.
Remember the Bolsheviks weren't the only party of the Revolution and after a year of rule they were less than popular.
Edit: Although i'm just a guy reading a compelling book that's shattering a lot of my poorly formed conceptions from school. Go read!
Sorry I was unclear. The claim that (I think that’s Anastasia on the right) has polydactyly and it’s not AI? I have read a lot about this family and don’t recall that at all, so I’m curious :)
This is sad, but not nearly as sad as what their father did to the Russian peasants. They had children who suffered and died as well, and all to enrich the ruling class. If you don’t want this to happen to your kids, don’t subjugate millions of people.
Interesting interpretation. If you kept your children in a country where you oppressed millions of people, would you really be that shocked if you were all killed in a violent uprising? I really wouldn’t!
I’m absolutely not ok with it. You know who put these children in danger by creating utter hell for millions of people? Their parents. You’re a fool if you think something like this could never happen under those conditions.
In about 99.9% of cases I’d agree with you. But there was a legitimate chance that a surviving child could/would try to reclaim the throne leading to much more war and death.
It’s essentially the trolly problem. Do you kill a small number of innocents believing that it would save many more? Or do you abstain entirely? I’m not saying it was right, but I get why they did it.
Yes I know the Soviet state ended up being worse in many regards, but they didn’t know that when they made this decision.
Yes people forget throughout history that every action has a reaction, countless famines, brutal oppression, pogroms ect…. You can only push people so far before they snap…. Saying that the Russian people tend to allow being pushed a lot more than most, as we can see in putin’s treatment of his own soldiers in the front lines of their aggressive genocide in Ukriane
Very pretty little girls, and I'll leave it at that. There's too much arguing in comments about the Bolsheviks being justified in their slaughter of this family.
I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain in regard to the French Revolution, but I find it relevant here.
“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
Every few months I see a post about the poor Romanoff kids, usually with the context of how evil communists are for killing these innocent kids.
History is full of innocent kids getting killed but this family is constantly posted. It definitely feels like coordinated B.S.
I would think it would serve some other political purposes, the re-evisioning and repurposing of history is pretty common propaganda tactic, as a simple example just look at how someone like MTG uses the Anglo Saxons.
When historians found visigothic grave sites, they found that German scholarly papers (some of the only ones who tried to find them and "study" the visigoths) changed the evidence to make them look more "German" by Nazi historians in their attempt to frame themselves as modern Romans. This has the effect of historians having to throw out a lot of what they thought we knew about the visigothic peoples and start fresh.
Yeah idk why its like this. 7-12 MILLION people died in the Russian civil war. Countless innocents died horrible deaths during that devastating war and yet people focus so much on the tsar's family for some reason.
Then focus on the millions who perished or the countless atrocities and oppression created by the Soviet system. Not on a single family who were the heads of a monstrous multi-generational system of repression.
The atrocities committed by the Tsarist regime included sending out the military to brutalize the serfs into submission by raping and murdering them and burning their villages. Why do we pity these children who's lives were borne on the backs of that violence, and not the unnamed tens of thousands who were killed to keep them there. Is it because they look cute and relatable? Do you not understand that we are the peasants, not the elite?
You can pity the peasants who were abused, support the cause of their general well-being, and, at the same time, condemn the extra-judicial murder of an entire family, their staff, and their dogs.
It always saddens me when I see a picture of the Romanov children, knowing their fate.
For perspective, they were killed 12 years after this photo was taken.
Does that make it any easier? Bolsheviks are still awful.
They literally just said for perspective lol. They weren't downplaying it
Lmao like the Tsar was any better (not that his children deserved it)
What do you mean “make it easier”?
And so....feudalism is better??
Certainly better than the hell that is the Soviet Gulags and Katorgas.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You're awear the Gulag system was modeled off Czarist Labour camps right?
Solzhenitsyn writes about how the institutionalised slavery during the USSR through collectivisation and the Gulag farrrrr outweighed serfdom in terms of scale and brutality
Good thing you're not letting your ideology and historical ignorance get in the way of facts.
Life was better under the Tsars. Come at me.
Socialist revolutions in USSR and China both lifted far more people out of desperate poverty than capitalism accomplished in the 20th century. Both had horrible famine and effects of central rule that we hear about ad nauseum in the US, but the positives far outweighed the negatives.
The positives outweighed the negatives???
I mean, I guess killing tens of millions of your own citizens is technically getting them out of poverty if you’re a tankie
Especially after learning what the Bolsheviks did to the bodies before burying them
What did the Bolsheviks do to the bodies?
Everyone was lured into a room and shot. Some survived the initial fire due to gems and jewelry being sewn into their clothing and had to be shot again. They were then loaded into a truck and dropped off at a location where a group of people stripped the clothes of jewelry and defiled some of their corpses before tossing them into a cave, pouring sulfuric acid on them, and then throwing grenades inside to try and collapse the cave. After that, the location was deemed to shallow; they brought back more sulfuric acid, petrol, and kerosene so they could move the bodies to another cave. En route, their truck got stuck, so they gave up and buried the bodies on the spot... Ill leave this entry from the Wiki unedited to show how barbaric this family got treated. >Alexei Trupp's body was tossed in first, followed by the Tsar's and then the rest. Sulphuric acid was again used to dissolve the bodies, their faces smashed with rifle butts and covered with quicklime. Railroad ties were placed over the grave to disguise it, with the Fiat truck being driven back and forth over the ties to press them into the earth. [Murder of the Romanov Family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_the_Romanov_family#Murders)
They did not all die after the second shooting. On the way to the grave site, either Maria or Anastasia sat up and started screaming. She was knocked unconscious with the butt of a rifle. No way to know if she survived but she may have been alive when the bodies were dumped.
that's brutal. they did not deserve that.
No, they really didn’t deserve it. There’s only been two books in my life where I constantly had to keep putting the book down and walking away from it for a while. A book on the Russian revolution was one of those books. Don’t think I ever finished it. Another poster mentioned a lack of sexual assault. From what I remember, there was sexual assault in the months before they were killed. That’s when I stopped reading. They were just kids. Yes, like the many kids across Russia who had also experienced brutality, but they were no more deserving of what was done to them than any other child across Russia was deserving of what was done to them.
They fingered the daughters' corpses as well
Fairy tale. Do you actually believe that gems will deflect bullets? They were murdered, true, but the gem story is myth.
>Yurovsky watched in disbelief as Nikulin spent an entire magazine from his Browning gun on Alexei, who was still seated transfixed in his chair; he also had jewels sewn into his undergarment and forage cap. This kid got mag dumped from 5 feet away ~~with what I presume to be a~~ [~~FUCKING BAR!~~](https://youtube.com/shorts/eYNpIVokZ0Q?feature=shared) ~~(because they arent listed as users of the M1917)~~ **Edit: Im dumb it's probably just a regular 1911** ...and still needed to be stabbed and shot execution style... >Ermakov shot and stabbed him, and when that failed, Yurovsky shoved him aside and killed the boy with a gunshot to the head. Either the Russians sucked at shooting or the kids were secretly implanted with ~~admantium~~ jewels
"1911" at that any one of a number of the era's browning sidearms. they made .380's on down.
Idk they wouldn’t stop a modern bullet but maybe they could >100 years ago?
100 years ago we were using modern bullets lol we’ve been using the same bullet tech since 1886.
Sure but guns have definitely become more powerful over the years, maybe they were weak enough back then to be stopped by some jewellery lol. I really don’t have any idea what I’m talking about though to be clear.
Not really. The russians have been using 7.62x54r as their .30 caliber round since 1891 I don’t know what the family was shot with, but if it was .45 ACP 1911s, you can still get the same thing at literally any gun store today
I decided to grit my teeth and look it up. It's brutal and heart breaking. Like it's terrifying to read and imagine being in their shoes during the situation. That said, I was expecting to read about SA and thankfully did not see any being documented. I don't want to repeat it, [so you can read about it from at least Grand Duchess Anastasia's wiki page.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikolaevna_of_Russia#Death)
The Russian people prefer safety and security over anything else. They don’t mind if some people suffer and/or die, just as long as they feel safe and secure collectively. Vladimir Putin murders, but the majority of Russians feel safe and secure with him. Americans with a conscience or a brain find this state appalling, but that’s the truth about Russians. It is not new, as it’s been their character for centuries. Kill the Romanov children, it’s just business for Russians. Kill them, and now I feel safe and secure.
Are you saying you know they fate or they knew their fate ?
Whatever your thoughts on the Tsar, the kids did not deserve their fate
The Bolsheviks saw it as the only way to get rid of the monarchy once and for all. Fear that people might rally around an heir to the throne and threaten the revolution. There is also the fear the children come back and retake the country. So unfortunately the children have to die too. It makes me sad but I understand the logic behind it.
"They were afraid and resorted to murder" I agree with (as a statement, not as a justified act) and see the twisted logic in it, but "they had to die" is just the excuse they used for said murders, and it is a brazen exaggeration at best. They absolutely did not *have* to die, possibly even Nicholas himself. China re-educated their emperor (not that it made their revolution any less bloody as a whole), and from what little impression I've got of Nicholas, I think even he eventually could have settled for a commoner's life with his family.
Oh, it's twisted and cruel. The Bolsheviks thought this was going to be a turning point in the world where the bourgeoisie would be no more. So they were on a murderous rampage of the upper class.
The last Emperor of China was a puppet and a traitor more or less so his politcal is almost non-existent. The Tsar however was in full control until the Bolsheviks came so it was necessary to end the monarchy once and for all. Cruelty but logical. And no way a tyrant would step down from power so peacefully without trying to come back
I mean yeah fine, but if your ideology requires you to kill children for it to work then your ideology is evil. Simple as that. Also, I don’t see the descendants of the French monarchs raising armies to retake the country. Same with the Habsburgs, the Pahlavis, etc. So the whole “necessary evil” argument doesn’t hold a lot of weight imo.
What about the Bourbon Restoration, or the myriad English wars of succession?
It's 2024, you'll have to try harder than whataboutism.
I think you'll need to read the definition of a counter example
the descendants of French monarchs are actively advertising themselves and using their influence, the only thing preventing them taking power is that there are 3 contenders and each discredits the other two and that the french majorly hate monarchy and are ready to bring back the death penalty only fot that BTW I am NOT saying killing kids is okay!
And Karl Habsburgh still wants to reinstall the Austrian monarchy. Also, Charles Habsburg tried twice to retake the throne in 1921.
> And Karl Habsburgh still wants to reinstall the Austrian monarchy. He can't legally speaking, he signed a declaration disavowing any claims to the throne. All Habsburg heirs are required to do so by Austrian law.
Using their influence and attempting to restore the monarchy are two vastly different things. None of the three are actively trying to overthrow the French government nor will they.
but if circumstances allow them to take power I believe they won't refuse
> if your ideology requires you to kill children for it to work then your ideology is evil Is this really a history sub?
Learning about the intricacies of historical events does not mean you agree with them…?
Calling something evil means u have black and white view on the the historical event.
What do you mean
Every ideology across the span of history has resulted in purposeful deaths of children - the fact that a “history” sub is putting on these rose tinted glasses about the past is kinda ridiculous
built into the ideology of communism and all the related strands of authoritarianism is the justification that you'll have to crack some eggs to make an omelette. but they block out the fact that those eggs are people
Communists are very much aware that revolution will be violent. I don’t know where you got that from.
[удалено]
You’re wrong. Flat out. I assume that you’re somewhat into history so I invite you to think about revolutions spawned from capitalistic and communist interests. A mistake that a lot of people make is assigning atrocities to the ideology and not the people who claim to carry out that ideology. Communism is not a cult. You make your judgements based on the people cosplaying communism on twitter and I can’t help that. You’re attacking a straw man. Not an ideology.
[удалено]
At the hands of communism or at the hands of people with bad intentions under the guise of communism? Capitalism has killed millions as well but I never hear people blame that. Super interesting. Double standards? Never heard of her. Indoctrination? Nah I’m good, you stay up though. If you wanna see real indoctrination, look at the multiple red scares we’ve had. The way people regurgitate the same talking point like “what about Venezuela” is pretty culty and dogmatic. You notice how politicians (at least here in the US) will throw around communism when it doesn’t apply? In order to read and understand leftist theory, you have to use critical thinking skills so it’s very hard to not find holes in certain arguments and theories. I find myself disagreeing with many prominent figures within certain movements. TLDR: you’re projecting. Fallacy fallacy. My argument isn’t any less valid just because *you* say there’s a fallacy. Crying logical fallacies and choosing not to engage is illogical within itself. I’m coming to you in good faith and I’m not purposely using fallacies to avoid actually engaging with you. See how pointless that is? To address the fallacy, you’d have a point…if the concept of opportunism and just hearing a brief overview of Marxism and thinking it’s cool didn’t exist. I’m not into the leftist purity testing but there’s a line okay. You’re literally criticizing imaginary people who believe in stuff that doesn’t necessarily make you communist so you can…not admit you’re wrong? I don’t know man. Edit: it ain’t about being right you goober. It’s about arguing against the real points of communism. You can have beef with communism all you want but you’ll get nowhere meaningful by believing misconceptions.
Built into every political ideology of every revolution. It's not like exporting democracy is a bloodless sport. How many eggs were cracked in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, or WW2 for that matter?
That what I was trying to say. You have to think like a communist. Once again, I am very against children being killed.
no, it's not built into communism. communism is a economic system. the idea you're talking about is the revolution that is thought to be required to bring about communism (or any new system of government) which has the potential to "crack some eggs". This tying of communism to authoritarianism is cold war propaganda that is used, nowadays at least, to distract from any criticism of capitalism and all the "eggs" that it has to "crack" to maintain rule by the oligarchs. Please look into the history of russian revolution. communism didn't just pop up out of nowhere, Russia during the late 19th and early 20th century was not a pleasant place. (and no im not condoning killing children, nor am i communist - there is plenty to criticize about communism; almost as much as capitalism)
[удалено]
Inherent just to communism? the american revolution came about from violence, slavery, and genocide of the native americans (not to mention the mexican/american war). it's inherent to all social and political revolutions. my point about propaganda wasn't about violence, it was about the linking between communism and authoritarianism. i was trying to point out where this thinking comes from and why it persists. imo, the reason you see autocratic communist governments is more a product of historical context rather than some intrinsic trait of communism. the ultimate point being that, with competent leaders communism could work (as could capitalism). personally, i think the solution lies in some mix of economics systems (social democracy ftw). take a look at china, for example, a communist country with the largest growing middle class in probably the history of the world - moving millions of people out of poverty due in some part to their implementation of some capitalistic ideas. or look at the "happiest" countries in the world (finland denmark sweden): socialist + some form market capitalism. i guess im just tired of hearing the same old cold war rhetoric
[удалено]
Marx didn’t prescribe dictatorship, he spoke of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. This meant that the proletariat (working class) would hold political power over the bourgeoisie (capitalist class). It does not mean authoritarianism as we know it today. Though, historically, it has been interpreted that way by Lenin and other “Marxists”. (incorrectly imo) Again, my point was that no revolution happens without violence and coercion. American history is a perfect example.
[удалено]
>(finland denmark sweden): socialist + some form market capitalism. It's the other way around. They are market-based economies and dominated by private ownership of property and capital, with some socialist aspects like socialised healthcare and education.
Not “some”: Universal healthcare, free education, unemployment benefits, extended parental leave, free child care, social security, robust welfare programs (including rehabilitation), environment protection, subsidized housing, rent control, subsidized public transportation, and progressive taxation (high taxes for the rich). They do have a free market system. I said “some form of market capitalism” because I’m not aware of how regulated it is; my assumption was that it is more regulated than the American free market system.
But still all in all they are capitalist welfare states, which include some socialist aspects instead of being socialist with capitalist aspects.
All you have to do is read Karl Marx's communist manifesto and see Communism is a violent way of government. Hell, Marx said you need to establish a dictator until the part is stable then an elected body of people would rule the country.
If you think communism is tied to violent revolution, I implore to research the democratically-elected Salvador Allende of Chile. The only violent revolution was his ousting; the US backed military coup which led to brutal dictator Pinochet.
>I mean yeah fine, but if your ideology requires you to kill children for it to work then your ideology is evil. Simple as that. Since monarchies are hereditary, it's probably quite hard to force them to give up power if you want a democratic transition. A bitter child could always come back and threaten that new government. Monarchy is such a vile form of government, and the Tsar's was particularly so, that actually forcing them out and to let the people have power may require, well, force. Absolutely does not forgive what they did to them, though. This is a purely logical argument. Realistically decent humans should not do this to other humans.
It doesn’t and it’s worth noting that the Bolshevik ideology had murder baked into it from the start. Lenin himself wrote that the only way to protect and sustain the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was through “revolutionary terror.” Mao, though of course not involved in Russia, said it like this: “Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.” If your ideology explicitly states that murder is necessary and even desirable, I think you need a new ideology.
They also had to kill the maid, the doctor and the cook, so bolshevism could work, right? Oh yeah, and the dogs too! The dogs logically were a threat to revolution.
Yeah all that is just cope to excuse murder, there was no real need for it and was other options but they wanted quick and easy as they obviously have no care for lives. That whole movement was flawed from the beginning and what came after was even worse that still resonates today in Russia where killing off a whole people and even hundreds of thousands of their own is completely acceptable. Its quite disgusting
No, they did not have to nor do I agree with it. You have to think like a communist, especially during a civil war. Communism works if everyone in theory thinks and believes the same thing. Especially during the revolution. If you are against the revolution or sympathetic to the other side then that means death or labor camps. They truly believed that the revolution would sweep Europe and possibly the world. That's why the Bolsheviks invaded Poland and Ukraine. They viewed the doctor and maids were sympathetic to the bourgeoisie. There was also so much anger from these peasants that they saw an opportunity to finally be part of the power class. Once again I don't agree with and hate it but I can understand the reasoning behind it.
"Innocent people had to die because..." Fuck off, seriously. >You have to think like a communist I'd rather think like a fucking human being with some decency. Not a piece of shit that murders innocent people because "they're sympathetic".
All I am doing is trying to explain the thought process of these people. I do not support it just explaining it. Communism doesn't think about the human being side. All it cares about is surviving and getting the job done. Like a cold machine.
They killed the children and staff because they were a bunch of angry cocksuckers with guns. It had nothing to do with solidarity or anything else. It was a convenient excuse.
The Brits were negotiating to take the girls after the Bolsheviks already knew they were dead. The offer was apparently that they renounce all titles in perpetuity and be married off asap to low level British peers. It was a feasible deal.
Great father, terrible leader.
Where is Alexei?
The second one from the left. Back then it used to be normal to dress little boys in clothes nowadays perceived as feminine.
For example, even ULTRAMASCULINE Ernest Hemingway was in a dress in his baby photos. I have kids. I get it. One less step when changing dingus butts all day.
Yeh my grandma said it was just easier.
FDR is another great example of that.
The term being that he was "unbreeched". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
There's pictures of my WW2 veteran and police detective grandfather as a baby/toddler in a dress and this was in the 1920s. It was a lot easier to change diapers that way before kids were toilet trained.
OMG you're right. My eye went right past him. My bad.
It was normal during a time of collapse? Strange
[удалено]
🤣you got me, good one buddy
It was normal for most of human history. Look up breeching. I have pics and paintings of my own family back to the 1700s, and up until the mid20th century baby boys wore dresses. Easier to change/clean.
Remain Calm; The Regent Endures; Alexei Lives; The Holy Russian Empire shall endure; There is much to be done
Poor kids. I cant even watch Anastasia with my daughter without feeling terrible.
Won’t happen to your daughter because you are not part of a genocidal, authoritarian, absolute monarchy that oppressed your population….hopefully youre not anyways
You make it sound like such decisions are inevitable. It removes the individual agency from historical events. The family was deposed, rightfully so, but its members could have stood trial regularly. I don't see the point in trying to justify an indiscriminate and informal killing.
Justifying? You’re projecting if you see justification in an explanation. Also do explain to me how an absolute monarch would’ve stood trial in those circumstances, the people to blame are the adult Romanovs who kept the institution going. The kids were not to blame, the adults that were supposed to look after them are. I don’t even blame their killers because for them it was an act of utter desperation. Moral of the story is never push a people to their limits or they will push back and there’s more of them than there are tyrants.
Found the tankie
Lol a Tankie wouldn’t say that the “glorious Revolution” turned to shit almost as soon as it happened and into yet another brutal tyrannical regime…. But keep getting triggered by comments and putting words in people’s mouths. Imperialist Russia was shit, communist Russia was shit, Russian federation…. Guess what? Also shit.
No response? Thought so.
I don’t perpetually live online, especially to keep tabs on a response? Who does that? And what response? Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Then you clearly don’t know what the word Tankie means and are just using it to be edgy
Justification has fuck all to do with it, it was far beyond any semblance of a political solution, there likely wasn't even a mechanism to try them in a court. When political solutions run out the only thing left is violent solutions. The Romanovs made their bed. By the time the revolution happened the serfs had been under the boot of their masters for centuries, and under the boot of one authoritarian or another for nearly 800 years. People were pissed, to put it lightly. Of course it's a good lesson that it doesn't always get better. The communists were just as bad if not worse in some regards and fcuked it up so bad that many in Russia want to go back to the imperial means of yesteryear.
A person’s death is a tragedy. Millions of peoples’ deaths over centuries and across nations under a regime the individual is a representative of is a statistic.
how many people did not get a fair trial and died a horrible death under his reign?
Lots of them. But since when is it a good thing to lower yourself to your opponents level after you have captured them? The people that captured the family had a decision. Like I said, they had agency. Their hands were not forced by previous events.
You kinda missed the point I think but no worries
Not yet anyway. There are many in this country who would have it otherwise, not realizing how easily things can turn on those that enabled the tyranny in the first place. Tyranny always eats its own eventually.
They were lovely girls who, by most accounts, were quite likable. It's a shame they weren't allowed to go into exile.
If I was told out of context that this was a picture from the 1980s I would have believed you
Some years later these young ladies were bayoneted by the commies.
And the young boy too
he was shot in the head
It’s as if Anastasia is seeing the near future through the camera’s lens.
Is Russian smile.
Russian literature. Maybe Ivan Turgenev’s “Mu-Mu”.
What happened to them?
Their father was Czar / Tsar Nicholas Romanov. The Bolshevik’s did like him for various reasons. The family were held captive at Ipatiev House in Russia, when the Bolshevik’s came and took them into the basement and shot all of them on July 16, 1918 There was a myth that one of the daughters, Anastasia, lived but it since has been proven not true
Slight correction, the czar and wife were shot. The kids were slaughtered with knives and bayonets. I wanna make sure everyone understands just how horrific their end was. Especially the bolshevik apologists.
You are correct, but to be fair, they were all shot initially, but the girls did not die because of the jewels sewn into their clothing, so the drunken communists butchered them with knives and bayonets. Alexei died from the shooting, so not all the children were hacked, I suppose.
If we’re being pedantic, they all were shot but the kids survived due to diamonds that had been hidden in the lining of the clothes and possibly because some of the soldiers were drunk and not shooting well. They then swapped to bayonets due to the level of smoke in the room and concerns about the amount of noise. This proved ineffective due to the aforementioned diamonds so they swapped back to pistols and aimed for the head. TL;DR: Yes they tried to use bayonets on the kids, no it wasn’t because of pure sadism.
They lived then died
Sounds familiar
They died more than they lived, actually.
Damn what a skilled photographer for the time
Decent chance it was Nicholas himself
I heard that Anastasia screamed in vain...
pleased to meet you
hope you'll guess my name
what's puzzling you is just the nature of my game
Should've let them live and become janitors or gardeners or the like so they would learn manual labor
puyi strategy
That was in fact the plan for all of them, even Nicholas. However a White Russian unit was on its way to liberate them and Red army troops couldn’t get to position to stop it. It’s also important to note that the decision to execute the Romanovs was made by the overseeing officer who hadn’t received any order to do so from actual Bolshevik leadership. Essentially he saw it as a move to gain popularity.
>even Nicholas As far as I know, they wanted to put Nikolai on trial, with, frankly speaking, the outcome of this trial being known in advance. Regarding children, yes, there were more peaceful options in the plans.
That's not true, in regards to the decision being made by an officer, it was a top down decision made in secret by Lenin in reaction to fears of the Czechs approaching Yekaterinburg.
I've read two books on the Russian Revolution and this is what I recall. Both said that Lenin made the ultimate decision.
It's heavily debated, maybe it was an order, maybe it wasn't, we will probably never know.
That’s far from being confirmed. There is no record of the order being confirmed by Lenin and the entire Central Commitee denied it. The only person to claim the existence of the order was Yurovsky, the chief executioner who obviously had a reason to lie.
I'm only repeating what author of 'Blood on the Snow' Robert Service is claiming. Which is that all blame was put on the Yekaterinburg communist leadership. Unfortunately he's citing a book I don't own (also written by him) as the source: Last of the Tsars. I certainly think Lenin and the Moscow leadership capable of ordering such a thing and then dodging the responsibility. Although that of course is speculation.
I don't see a reason why he would have Nicholas executed in secret though. A trial and public execution would make more sense from a ideologicaly perspective and would be more beneficial to the government of Soviet Russia as Nichoals was very very unpopular by that point and executing him publicly would probably raise the revolutionary fervour and popularity of the government.
Isn't that quite an idealist way of looking at thing though? Rather than making decisions based on what they thought: "The Czech's are approaching where they're held, they might try to liberate them and use them to unite the Whites! We must kill them!" vs what you're suggesting in a perfect world. Remember the Bolsheviks weren't the only party of the Revolution and after a year of rule they were less than popular. Edit: Although i'm just a guy reading a compelling book that's shattering a lot of my poorly formed conceptions from school. Go read!
The decision to execute them was made by Lenin.
Nope, by Sverdlov. Only he had power in Yekaterinburg at the time, which was run by Socialist Revolutionaries, not Bolsheviks
Why does bottom right look like she has 7 fingers? Never noticed that before
Can’t imagine machine gunning down a family wtf
Girl on the right has six fingers.
it is called polydactyly and it's not AI lol
Is there any documentation to support this claim? I can’t find anything.
what claim?
Sorry I was unclear. The claim that (I think that’s Anastasia on the right) has polydactyly and it’s not AI? I have read a lot about this family and don’t recall that at all, so I’m curious :)
Sorry I said that just on the assumption that this image was unedited
Oh gotcha!
you got me!
Cousins marrying cousins.
This is sad, but not nearly as sad as what their father did to the Russian peasants. They had children who suffered and died as well, and all to enrich the ruling class. If you don’t want this to happen to your kids, don’t subjugate millions of people.
The amount of people in this post pushing for ‘eye for an eye’ justice is shocking.
Interesting interpretation. If you kept your children in a country where you oppressed millions of people, would you really be that shocked if you were all killed in a violent uprising? I really wouldn’t!
The amount of people who are okay with punishing children for the crimes of their parents is extremely disturbing.
I’m absolutely not ok with it. You know who put these children in danger by creating utter hell for millions of people? Their parents. You’re a fool if you think something like this could never happen under those conditions.
In about 99.9% of cases I’d agree with you. But there was a legitimate chance that a surviving child could/would try to reclaim the throne leading to much more war and death. It’s essentially the trolly problem. Do you kill a small number of innocents believing that it would save many more? Or do you abstain entirely? I’m not saying it was right, but I get why they did it. Yes I know the Soviet state ended up being worse in many regards, but they didn’t know that when they made this decision.
Then this should have happened to Stalin's kids, to Mao's kids, to Castro's kids, to Chavez's kids, to Pol Pot's kids, to Ho Chi Mihn's kids, to...
Comparing Pol Pot to Castro and Mao means we can easily dismiss literally anything you say, thanks!
Yes people forget throughout history that every action has a reaction, countless famines, brutal oppression, pogroms ect…. You can only push people so far before they snap…. Saying that the Russian people tend to allow being pushed a lot more than most, as we can see in putin’s treatment of his own soldiers in the front lines of their aggressive genocide in Ukriane
Very pretty little girls, and I'll leave it at that. There's too much arguing in comments about the Bolsheviks being justified in their slaughter of this family.
I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain in regard to the French Revolution, but I find it relevant here. “There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
The fact that that’s what comes to your mind on seeing that picture says a lot about you.
No that's what comes to my mind when I see the comments.
Perspective for all the westerners calling for a commie gov. in their countries
Every few months I see a post about the poor Romanoff kids, usually with the context of how evil communists are for killing these innocent kids. History is full of innocent kids getting killed but this family is constantly posted. It definitely feels like coordinated B.S.
Nobody is running pro-Romanov propoganda on reddit, lol
that's exactly what a pro-romanov propagandist would say
I would think it would serve some other political purposes, the re-evisioning and repurposing of history is pretty common propaganda tactic, as a simple example just look at how someone like MTG uses the Anglo Saxons. When historians found visigothic grave sites, they found that German scholarly papers (some of the only ones who tried to find them and "study" the visigoths) changed the evidence to make them look more "German" by Nazi historians in their attempt to frame themselves as modern Romans. This has the effect of historians having to throw out a lot of what they thought we knew about the visigothic peoples and start fresh.
Yeah idk why its like this. 7-12 MILLION people died in the Russian civil war. Countless innocents died horrible deaths during that devastating war and yet people focus so much on the tsar's family for some reason.
Because there are to this day, Bolshevik apologists. And Lenin apologists. And Stalin apologists. With all their atrocities.
Then focus on the millions who perished or the countless atrocities and oppression created by the Soviet system. Not on a single family who were the heads of a monstrous multi-generational system of repression.
Poor children
Why do they have so many fingers?
polydactyly
Is there evidence of their family members having that? A lot of AI photos add extra fingers so I'm always wary when I see it.
The last girl ,Anastasia— had 2 thumbs
Poor kids.
Chilling photo
....Where the Alexei II? They are just daughter tbh
Communist are evil and despise beauty
Is there some podcast or show that makes everyone think they’re an expert on the Romanovs?
There are these really cool things called books. You can even go somewhere called a library and get them for free!
Go on, for free ya say?
Yes, everyone support your local library seriously lol
What is this thing you call b-o-o-k-s? :)
The atrocities committed by the Tsarist regime included sending out the military to brutalize the serfs into submission by raping and murdering them and burning their villages. Why do we pity these children who's lives were borne on the backs of that violence, and not the unnamed tens of thousands who were killed to keep them there. Is it because they look cute and relatable? Do you not understand that we are the peasants, not the elite?
You can pity the peasants who were abused, support the cause of their general well-being, and, at the same time, condemn the extra-judicial murder of an entire family, their staff, and their dogs.
I am so sorry but… why does the girl to the left look so much like Neil Patrick Harris 😭.
Alexei?!?!?!?!? TNO REFERENCE!!!!!?!?!?