This guy's story always makes me sad

I feel more for the more ordinary people who were executed under soviet rule.

At least the royal family got to live a comfortable life before the revolution.

They were such hardcore communists that, instead of bailing with over 1,3 kilograms and a pillow full of jewels, they shot them and the jewels. They probably had no problem murdering them

So it was like the things that under his orders the secret police and the soldiers who dealt with the public protests did. Serves him well.

Just a quick lesson from Socrates.

It is better to have bad things done to you than to do bad things to others.

People who do vile things suffer much more than those who fall victim to them.

You can't prove that and it's way too optimistic.

Id gut Maria with my bayonet if you know what I mean

Not everyone is an autistic edgelord like you.

Socrates had not concept of the pseudo humans known as slavs.

Commies, not even once.

>muh tsars were good guys meme

They were antichristian jews, they were happy about it.

Nothing like being rich and getting killed. Best PR move ever.

>But neither him nor his family deserved what the gommies meted out

nah they did feudal Russia was a fucking nightmare for 95% of people, which he somehow made worse

not saying communism was better at all though

This is an interesting debate. If the murderers were completely in conviction that their ideology was right, would they be scarred still? Would they feel regret or the deep conviction of carrying a righteous deed?

In other words, is there a human nature which forces empathy (and regret of cold murder) upon us or is it a social construct and thus surpassed by ideological/religious fervor?

Try to actually imagine what it would be like to be a poor Russian. That is the problem with this right-wing trend on Veeky Forums, I guarantee that most of you are spoon-in-the mouth little pampered fools who actually believe that the Communist didn't have more than justifiable reasons to overthrow the old order. Who cares about some fucking rich cunts when you and everyone you know is living an awful life.

Go on, mention how bad Stalinism was in response, despite it being irrelevant to my point.

Empathy is genetic. Empathy makes human society possible. If you don't feel the feels, you don't help others if it doesn't suit you, that is almost never in short time frame, that bites you back heavy in long time frame when it's too late.
Sociopathy is an illness because sociopaths literally destroy society.

Shut the fuck up. Tsarist Russia during Nicholas II was infinitely better than all the USSR before mid-Brezhnev period. 50 years and many million lives wasted for nothing.
Picrelated is Khruschev in 1916, the bald guy that threatened to bury Murrica because he could. He's a miner millwright in Yuzovka, future Donetsk. Please tell me this is a man brutally oppressed by feudal Tsars so he's forced to take pictures in suites.

>the bald guy that threatened to bury Murrica because he could.

He didn't threaten. The phrase he uttered meant that they would outlast the United States.

Then every atrocity commited throughout history (e.g. genocides) would cause deep mental issues on its perpetrators? The nazis for one believed the jews to be inferior human beings, so would this empaty apply? Does a farmer feel empathy for the chicken he kills, percieving it as just food (kinda going too far on the analogy but you get my point)? What about the dreaded mongols?

Couldn't the communists perceive the aristocracy simply as enemies instead of human beings, and as such their death would carry no remorse?

4 edgy 2 me comrade

The conscience?

Interesing debate, yes, but it's easily overridden if it exists and if a social construct, it's a terrible one since allyou need is alcohol to drown it out, or hedonistic behavior of choice.

It would have been better to forcibly convert Nicholas and his family to communism, but that's obviously worse considering the torture necessary.

Yes, but only after penetrating them with my penis.

>what replaced something being significantly worse, is irrelevant to a discussion of something

Gommie logic

Does anyone know what other world leaders had to say about Nicholas's assassination? Like if the US president at the time said something about it?

Most humans feel empathy to non-humans, but only when not in danger. A normie guy wouldn't just punch a puppy, but a very starved guy would eat the puny meat sack alive zero feels given to puppy's pain.
Same with dehumanizing. When you're in danger from non-human - zero empathy.

For example, back in 1917 Russian soldiers would regularly chill with German soldiers because widespread Commie propaganda played on feels and "we are alike". Nobody wanted to stab a Hans he smoked with a day ago.
But in 1943-45 same Commie propaganda presented German atrocities to Soviets with such a success that it was very hard to contain the revenge train on the way to Berlin. Hans would have his asshole intercoursed by a spade if tovarisch officers wasn't around, zero feels given, because Hanses were dehumanized to the level of dangerous insects or predators, and power over vermin feels good. Perhaps many years later they would harbour bad feels, but at the moment - none.
As I understand it, the problem of sociopaths is that to them the other humans are no different than invaders from Mars.

I dunno about mass genocide like Mongols did, didn't have an opportunity to study war criminals. I presume that dehumanization was order of the day, as nomads routinely raided settled communities just like they raided wild beasts for foor and fun. So when you're mounted and/or surrounded by twenty buddies in a dire danger of death, then some Khwarezmian or Chinese or Arab or Russian is no different than a wild beast on the hunt - many fun fells, if you don't get stabbed by a spear.
Close and personal and alone with a possibility to leave - probably not. The face and clear sound is very important, as we collect the largest part of emotional info on humans from their voice and facial expressions.
In a dire fight there are too many deadly signals to keep track off besides facial expression of a guy you spend 5 second on to kill.

>For example, back in 1917 Russian soldiers would regularly chill with German soldiers because widespread Commie propaganda played on feels and "we are alike". Nobody wanted to stab a Hans he smoked with a day ago. But in 1943-45 same Commie propaganda presented German atrocities to Soviets with such a success that it was very hard to contain the revenge train on the way to Berlin.

Or maybe the first time they weren't mass exterminating every Russian village they came upon?

Again with the face and sound. Soviets noticed that executioners had feels when killing people whose faces they saw. So in USSR and modern Belarus death convicts are killed by a bullet to the back of the skull, so executing officer never saw the face of his victim to read his last feels.
In Japan they have three guys pushing three buttons, only one of which initiates hanging execution. The victim is beyond the wall unseen by anyone during the process, so no feels given.

It wasn't that neat and simple before widespread firearms executions, hence why executioners were universally despised and ostracised, and mass executioners of revolutionary times were probably animals with human faces (not necessary full-blown psychos, but at least borderline) either before to start the job, or having dulled their empathy after the job to escape feels leading to severe guilt and insanity as a psychic barrier.

Nice imput, thanks for the response.

I, too, saw Nicolas & Alexandra, OP

>order literally tens of thousands of people killed for peacefully expressing their political beliefs
>be incompetent enough to lose power
>be surprised when you get lined up against a wall

I feel bad for the kids, but he richly deserved it.

I find it quite likely that Red Army didn't have the time nor resources to tour each and every fresh conscript through, I dunno, 5300 villages burned with all inhabitants in Belarus.
However if commisars and propaganda artists show you the horrors on daily basis, you won't need to see a ravaged town for yourself to dehumanize your enemy, especially when collectivist instincts kick in and war buddies reinforce each others' hatred.

Also, on execution if Nicholas. All members of Presidium of Ural Oblast Soviet were executed during Stalin purges on made up accusations. All except one who took his life when he got enclosed by White Guards in 1919 - Whites tended to mass execute Red POWs, having seen how Reds routinely torture White POWs to death.
Pyotr Voykov, the instigator, was made an ambassador of USSR to Poland, where he was shot on the street by two White Russian emigrants.

The executioners themselves died on their own just fine though, all evaded the Great Purge. All except one - Pavel Medved fought with White Guards in Perm, was captured. One version states he died in prison from typhus, other says his complicity in regicide was discovered and White Guards tortured him to death.
Karma is real.

>waaah I'm a poor Russian this justifies me bayoneting little girls

Get fucked Red.

Fuck off, kike.

To be fair, millions of other Russians, both underaged and elderly were killed under Nicky's rule. One brutal death of a child doesn't compare to millions who were slaughtered during the revolution/red scare.

Fuck your sense of "fair".
Other children dying has nothing to do with the actual fucking animals that decided it was acceptable to bayonet children to death.

>millions of other Russians, both underaged and elderly were killed under Nicky's rule.
>millions of .. .underaged and elderly
I'd like to read some proofs, tovarisch Isaak Moyiseevich.
That is before some Hohols take most Jewish places in NKVD having shot their chiefs in back of the head.

>peacefully

Anybody have that piece of artwork with the rifle and portrait of Nicky, with the orthodox cross up on the wall? I think it's a White Russian propaganda picture.

He wasn't extremely popular at the time because of the 90-odd protesters that got shot at a peaceful demonstration in 1905.

t. fat pampered nu-males

I like how people suddenly turn into objectivists when it comes to Noblemen. "Oh no, think of the little parasites!". I wonder if they were thinking about the starving peasants and orphaned little boys and girls created by their power grab.

I wonder how many times Rasputins magical 9 inch dick properly inserted in the boy's anus, saved the hemophiliac Tsarevich from bleeding to death?

I wonder how many orgasms Rasputin brought to the Romanov girls while cucked Nicholas pleasured himself in the closet?

Please tell me Veeky Forums you have the answers
My Romanov fetish needs it

ETERNAL ANGLO
T
E
R
N
A
L

A
N
G
L
O

>implying tsarist Russia didn't execute political dissidents

>that pic
woow, nicholas was a truly cuck

>Sure, he was an unluckly and inept spoon-in-the-mouth rich boy who couldn't properly govern a nation. But neither him nor his family deserved what the gommies meted out.

Read more and and think about the life for those under him and you will loose that sorrow fairly quickly.

Not only was he inept he was horrifically stubborn and refused to listen to the advice of those around him until it was literally too late.

His bumbling into wars that got millions killed, his destroying of the monarchies legitimacy among the people and rising middle classes practically gave Russia to the Reds on a platter.

Part of being an absolute monarch is realizing that your life and the lives of your kin are on the line because change is ossified.

The blood of all those who suffered under Bolshevism are on his hands. He is the drunk night watchman who accidently opens the gate to the enemy.

>They should have just exiled him. Fuck the Brits, they could have taken him in but refused to because of bullshit reasons.

You realise hed been placed under house arrest since the February Revolution right? The only way the Brits could have taken him would have been if they invaded their ally marched all the way to Moscow and took him by force.

He had plenty of opportunity to renounce his crown or bail but he didnt.

woow xD

Why was he so perfect Veeky Forums?

Look at him cutting wood with his son, just like us!

Even moderate capitalists should want this guy dead for what he did.
I don't understand how our society only recognises great people responsibility when they are depicted as evil. I noticed people try to actively think about whether or not that poor man had the choice or not to rob that old lady (eventhough they never discuss if it's wrong or right, and I'm not sure they should), but everyone just follows the mainstream opinion when it comes to historical figures.

killing them was a firm and important message for russian revolutionaries to send the world.....the tsars are dead, their line is over, their office is gone....there is no imperial russia to return to and no tsar to re establish

alowing them to live in exile would allow them to be used by other states as a tool of sabotoge and propoganda, it would foster the idea amongs those suporting the whites that there was hope to restore the tsars

while it may be unfortunate that they were all killed its also unfortunate how many ordinary russians died under the tsars so calling them innocent is naive....they ruined the countries finances, brought starvation, destruction, killed hundreds, and lived in unfathomable wealth while most of the country was destitute

This was take in exile. It kind of makes me wonder what the Bolsheviks would have done if things had actually gone according to plan. Could you imagine the propaganda blow if they did what China did with PuYi (i.e. making the Romanovs good communists)? I wonder if maybe that is what they intended to do, but they instead freaked out about the Czech legion and shot them.

According to Richard Pipes' book on the revolution the Germans probably could have negotiated for the release of the Tsar and his family at Brest-Litovsk, considering the new Soviet government was in dire straits - but Imperial Germany's only aim re: the royals was to ensure the safety of the German princesses

But Nicholas II abdicated in 1917 and never actually wanted to rule.

The saddest story is that there is someone who litterally spends their days remaking these threads, posting similar pictures and ignoring the content.

It would've been beautiful. Send them to Siberia for socialist reeducation. Have dear Nicholas quote a lot of Marx in public.

Ah well.

>But neither him nor his family deserved what the gommies meted out.

Yeah, he DINDU NUFFIN.

In real life, Nicholas run Western world's most oppressive regime for over 20 years. While his personal involvement in some events (like the Bloody Sunday) can be questioned, what is unquestioned is that he benefited from the state oppression and worked hard to ensure that things stay as they are and perpetrators of state murders and massacres continue to prance around unpunished. His reign is a string of broken promises and disappointments. It's nothing short of understandable that Russians had enough of him in 1917.

The irony is that the execution of Nicky made the Bolshevik positions' much weaker. Had the deposed Tsar fell into the Whites' hands, he'd do much damage to them, if only because the Whites would have to accommodate him somehow.

>But Nicholas II abdicated in 1917

>Order broke down and members of the Duma and the Soviet formed a Provisional Government to try to restore order. They issued a demand that Nicholas must abdicate. Faced with this demand, which was echoed by his generals, deprived of loyal troops, with his family firmly in the hands of the Provisional Government and fearful of unleashing civil war and opening the way for German conquest, Nicholas had little choice but to submit.

He was forced to abdicate by the Provisional Government when his bungling literally toppled the political order.

>never actually wanted to rule.

Nonsense, he didn't feel ready to rule when he ascended to the throne but once there clung to it tooth and nail. For a man who didnt want to rule not only did he avoid voluntary abdication but he literally shut down the dumas or dissolve them at his whims. He may not have wanted to rule but he refused to allow anyone else to. This stubborness is why he was such a horrific leader/

His wife was taller than him too, that's kind of embarrassing

lol why

the situations were very different tho....pu yi was arguably a puppet for his entire political life

>Nonsense, he didn't feel ready to rule when he ascended to the throne but once there clung to it tooth and nail

Because he was raised from birth with the idea that he would be an absolute monarch with all that entails, and as expected he took that idea seriously. Has any absolute monarch happily surrendered power without massive external or internal pressure?

Nicky was already in his middle ages. His children would be pretty impressionable. Plus, you could always coerce them for propaganda. After all, I am pretty sure Nikolay and Alexandra would have come damn close to killing someone for what Soviet healthcare would become, for all of its faults.

it might have been posible...but what i mean was that the office of the Tsars and the office of the chinese emperor carried very different weight in the popular imagination of the respective nations they belonged too.....pu yi never had power in a real sense and there was never anything for him to return to as a child emeror he was a powerless relic of a dying age

he was never a threat to any one in the way that the Romanov dynesty was the the ussr

If I was a poor single Russian I would be loyal to my state; Russian Empire and defend it and what it stands for until the Soviets take complete control at which point my loyalty would shift to the Soviets for they are now the official state.

tl:dr Loyal to born government until fully overthrown.

>Because he was raised from birth with the idea that he would be an absolute monarch with all that entails, and as expected he took that idea seriously.

He was also fortunate enough to have the education and historical experience to understand the nature of monarchy.

>Has any absolute monarch happily surrendered power without massive external or internal pressure?

You are missing the point here, whilst almost all the other rulers who abdicated were pressured to do so it was still voluntary and done in a way that preserved the aristocracy and often its power.

Despite having a wealth of historical examples before him he dug his heels in and refused to budge until we was physically forced to do so.

Think of it like this Nick is like the car owner who refuses to take a car to the mechanic for servicing until it literally cannot run. Whilst others might be slack who or only take it in when performances issues crop up they still dont wreck the car. He destroyed it.

So which daughter had the loosest legs?

Monarchists are disgusting deluded fools whose sentimental thought process always basically boils down to 'b-but look how dashing they look in those 19th century military uniforms!'

Even fascists have more intellectual depth than you

>all these faggots defending the tsar ITT

>whilst almost all the other rulers who abdicated were pressured to do so it was still voluntary and done in a way that preserved the aristocracy and often its power.

1. I wouldn't call being coerced to give up power voluntary
2. Most of the time the aristocracy stood to gain from a ruler's powers being weakened.

But by the time of the abdication the Russian aristocracy was just as anachronistic as the idea of an absolute monarch.

I don't think anyone's defending the Tsar here

Spotted the commie

The Romanov dynasty was literally appointed by God himself to rule Russia though

>I wouldn't call being coerced to give up power voluntary

Take a look at the other half of my post and in particular the car example again.

>Most of the time the aristocracy stood to gain from a ruler's powers being weakened.But by the time of the abdication the Russian aristocracy was just as anachronistic as the idea of an absolute monarch.

The Tzarist bureaucracy wasn't as primitive as you make it out to be indeed it allowed a person to become nobility through merit right. Regradless rather than seeing the monarchy end gracefully albiet it abruptly much like it did in other Euro countries he drove it into the ground.

>lol why
Hello Manlet

>PEACEFULLY

>Regradless rather than seeing the monarchy end gracefully albiet it abruptly much like it did in other Euro countries he drove it into the ground

In the European countries you're referring to the transition from absolute to constitutional monarch was spread out over the course of centuries. France lost theirs in a revolution and the Kaiser/Austro-Hungarian Emperors were deposed by foreign powers at the end of WW1 (I think)

If God really picked a moron like Nicky, it says a lot about God

hourly reminder that all bolsheviks should be boiled alive

>In the European countries you're referring to the transition from absolute to constitutional monarch was spread out over the course of centuries. France lost theirs in a revolution and the Kaiser/Austro-Hungarian Emperors were deposed by foreign powers at the end of WW1 (I think)

The Kaiser abdicated just a couple of days before the war ended (although he played it bloody close). However given that these events happened after Nick was imprisoned I dont think it would be fair to say he should have followed him.

The advantage of historical knowledge is that it allows one to make changes like this without having to go through all the mistakes and take all the time. For instance Europe took a century to industrialize and introduce constitutional monarchy, yet Japan was able to do so in a few decades and without massive war. Russia could easily have done the same and indeed was on the way towards that but for Nicks meddling.

Your story sad to tell
A Russian ne'er do well
Most mixed up non-republic on the block!
Your future's so unclear now
What's left of your career now?
Can't even get a trade in on Rasputins cock!

>tfw your terrible sense of humor kills the thread

Dont worry Im sure the OP is off finding more pictures of Nickolas's family life and thinking of new ways to say how sad the whole business is

It isn't irrelevant. Communists, and all revolutionaries for that matter, justify their atrocities by insisting it will lead to something better. The fact that it didn't, and doesn't, and won't, is relevant.

For you, family

>waah waah muh bootiful chilluns

Who the fuck cares?

I'm not entirely sure how the right manages to reconcile the supposed Marxist control of the media with the total destruction of communism in the 20th century but you might want to rethink your life and stop seeing the red boogieman around every corner.

>It isn't irrelevant. Tyrants, and all conservatives for that matter, justify their atrocities by insisting it will lead to something worse if they change. The fact that it didn't, and doesn't, and won't, is relevant.

You're pathetic.

I don't know, maybe because marxist intellectuals came to dominate western academia in the 20th century, seperate from the influence of "communism" as you perceive it?

This guy's story always makes me sad.

Sure, he was an unluckly and inept spoon-in-the-mouth rich boy who couldn't properly govern a nation. But neither him nor his family deserved what the gommies meted out.

But outside of Lenin and Stalin werent most of the old bolsheviks Russians like Bukharin, Kirov, Kamenev and Kalinin?