Did she deserve it?

She didnt deserve it, but it was necessary from a bolshevik standpoint

It's not a matter of her being inherently evil, it's a matter of the fact that her very existence would provide a symbol for monarchists to rally around and for foreign powers to invade to restore.

If you kill her you solve this problem.

I still can't understand why the children were executed. Why not just exile them or something?

>g-go to leftypol
Kool story bruh

Giving a shit about nobles that got killed near a century ago is.

No one gives a fuck that the roundheads killed Charles II, and rightly so because it's pointless to cry about.

Yes because bayoneting and bludgeoning unarmed teenagers, as they watch their siblings and parents slowly die is justified because muh evil rich .

Im not that guy, but that still doesnt mean she "deserved it"

You are right tho, it was necessary

Because their British cousins might invade to restore them. And killing literally every pretender of note would be extremely demoralizing to monarchist forces.

Stay mad.

That was Charles 1

Charles 2 just had a spaz fit and died peacefully at home

>Because their British cousins might invade to restore them.
in what world?

I see. Crude, but very effective.

It happened to the French revolution, there was no reason to believe it wouldn't happen to the Bolsheviks.

>Killing people who literally dindu nuffin because they were born in the wrong family

>what is proximity
France is a coin flip across the pond, and the French Revolution wasn't after WWI

Yes.

Yes, and Russia was right beside the British Raj.

And not to mention the French revolution was immediately after a seriously disruptive time for Europe, not least of all Britain who lost the lions share of their empire.

Innocents never deserve their misfortune

and have a claim to the throne...without people with claims to the throne, you cant really reinstate a monarchy...which was a goal of the anti-soviet coalition

Of course not.

Let me ask: why is her death more tragic than the tens of thousands of young girls murdered by Cossacks?

invading through fucking Siberia is a bit harder than invading through Euro Russia, they didn't have enough soldiers stationed in the Raj that could be spared for an invasion either

British Empire was certainly in better shape post-murican revolution than post-WWI as well

It's necessary. You can't make an omelette without cracking eggs

>tens of thousands of young girls murdered by Cossacks?
source?

>Killing people who literally dindu nuffin because enemy is about to capture the city and these innocent people could be used to consolidate your enemies or became a figurehead foreign nations can actively support against you
Yeah, it was a dick move, but it was justified from Bolsheviks' point of view, i.e. I would do the same if I was one of them at the time - if the Whites would capture a single Romanov they would get a lot more international and local support. Peasants would surely support Romanovs, being retarded reactionaries they were.

Yes.

1. You're not invading through Siberia, you're invading through the steppe of central Asia.
2. The Raj was absolutely full of soldiers, in the Burma campaign of WW2 they literally had a million soldiers there.

That's funny, the last time i checked the earth wasn't a fucking omelette.

It's a metaphor, silly boy.

at the end of the day they murdered a young girl

a fitting beginning to a twisted and evil nation

The USSR's only mistake was not being communist enough.

Being Gommunist was it's greatest mistake.

>Be not communist, is shithole
>Become communist, things massively improve
>Stop being communist, things massively degenerate.

The pattern is clear.

She looks kinda smug in that picture.

Almost as smug as a certain philosopher.

>things massively improve
Tell that to the MILLIONS of people murdered by a Communist regime.

Of course, you'll just rebut with the old No True Communist line.

Tell that to the M I L L I O N S of people murdered by the capitalist British empire.

No. She was a non-combatant and should not have been harmed.

Pretty Stalin and his butt buddies murdered a hell of a lot more people than the old empires could ever manage, famalamborghini.

non-whites don't count

They did not.

Unless you take the retarded line that they killed 60 gorillion, which has been conclusively proven untrue since Soviet records were declassified.

>murdered more people than the old empires could ever manage
Yeah no m8

Sorry, 20 million is more accurate.

Kek
Oh please. Like they'd declassify anything that paints the Soviet Union in anything but a positive light.

The British raj puts that figure to shame.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

>Responding with a non-dank /leftypol/ meme
I assume you have no arguement?

>uhhhh, no the legit records aren't true. Only estimates from American rabid anti-communist authors are true.

Class-traitors, not even once.

Oh, I get it, you must be taig

I never said the documents were wrong, you illiterate mongoloid, I said they only published the documents that didn't damage the Soviet Union's reputation too much.

Okay, what haven't they declassified then.

>Liberals shit on dead Irish and Indians.
>Cry non-stop about dead Romanovs and Ukrainians.

Liberals simply have no sense of self-awareness.

Dude, the soviet union collapsed because it wasn't sustainable and the soviet union even at it's best couldn't compare to any given industrialized nation.

>Buh what about
No. That doesn't work.

The massacres and atrocities of capitalist nations whatever they may be do not justify your own atrocities.

I don't know, because it's CLASSIFIED.

We're both stupid, I know.

First of all, that doesn't mean she deserves it.

Second of all, even from the machiavellian bolshevik point of view, isn't it better not to kill her? Doesn't she become a martyr if you kill her so brutally?

Well, maybe not great britain, but surely some monarchist european country would attempt something like that, if they could.

no you are simply wrong, if you dont go by the claims that communists killed litterally half the planet, the numbers simply dont add up in your arguments favor.

Not if you understand that
>capitalism drove colonialism from the 17th century onward
>deaths by 'famine you didnt give a shit about' have to count for the colonies as well (at least if you want to count the holodomor on the soviet deathtoll)

Its just math man...

>the soviet union collapsed because it wasn't sustainable
So unsustainable that it lasted for 70 years...

I just understand that you have an impression of a system that hopelessly skewed because of the proportionate loss in your history

>Dude, the soviet union collapsed because it wasn't sustainable and the soviet union even at it's best couldn't compare to any given industrialized nation.
1. The USSR collapsed mostly because of their shitty bureaucracy as opposed to economic reasons (although those definitely accelerated the whole thing)
2. Russia could never compare to western imperialist nations, but the USSR brought them a long way into doing so.

>The massacres and atrocities of capitalist nations whatever they may be do not justify your own atrocities.
I'm not defending the atrocities of the USSR, not once have I tried to absolve the Soviets of Holodomor or the like. I'm pointing out that it's retarded to use such tactics as an argument against communism as if they're exclusive and inherent to it.

ye maybe spain or denmark

Okay, fine. You've proven me wrong here, but that doesn't justify thr USSR's atrocities.
Wow, 70 whole years. Such an achievement.

Kill one noble and you make a martyr.
Kill them all and you kill the monarchist cause with them.

I don't see how. Especially when "them all" includes some very young children, with crippling disabilities, I might add.

Wow one human lifetime. Much impressive and longevity.

weren't they ALL canonized?

Because you cannot be a monarchist when there is no one to install to the throne.

We're talking about nations here, friend.

In this day and age, things move so fast, socially, we consider 70 years to be a long time. But, in reality, it's nothing on the level of a nation state.

You can't be pro-romanov if there are no romanovs, I agree. But that doesn't mean you can't be anti-bolshevik.

They were all canonized by the ROCOR, but it only exists to be asshurt about communism anyway.

In mainstream orthodoxy some of them were beatified, and I think like one who was a distant cousin that became a nun was canonized proper.

Yes, which is why by this point the republicans were the chief enemy since you can't kill an idea.

>but that doesn't justify thr USSR's atrocities
sure as shit dosnt, but the whole "the communist are litterally the worst people that have ever existed, the did like 10 holocausts!!" 'argument' that often comes with these numbers is invalid...
>Wow, 70 whole years. Such an achievement.
>Wow one human lifetime. Much impressive and longevity.
Well one could name a hell of a lot states that didnt last even 70 years...

But surely most who were monarchists joined the republicans.

I apologize, I misconstrued your words, thinking that you were trying to excuse the USSR of them.

But for a nation as big as the USSR was, 70 years is like a drop in the bucket. Impressive in its own right, but nothing very spectacular.

Probably.

But clearly the Soviets made the right call since the republicans lost.

>>I'm not defending the atrocities of the USSR, not once have I tried to absolve the Soviets of Holodomor or the like. I'm pointing out that it's retarded to use such tactics as an argument against communism as if they're exclusive and inherent to it.
Well if say communism is supposed to be better then say a democratic state with a regulated market economy and social programs to aid the poor then you need to explain to me why just about every attempt at communism I can think of has involved lots and lots of murder.

What's more, most of the bolshevik violence was internal, something you really can't say about a lot of the capitalist nations like the US, UK, France, etc.

But they did not kill all the Romanovs, the line of succession was still well alive.

yes but the rest had to leave russia, no romanovs in russia makes reinstating them a lot harder

Because state building is naturally an extremely chaotic process.

I mean the USA has basically wiped an entire race of people off the face of the Earth in their process of creating their state

Yeah, but dude? Those were injuns. Outsiders. Every nation in existence has wiped out outside groups considered a threat. The list of nations that create the sorts of internal slaughters that the USSR has is pretty limited by comparison and most such places are not ones I'd like to live in.

Because that's how George R. R. Martin wrote the script.

Dindunuffin we wuz good czarz

You could apply that to Ukrainians or whoever you like to absolve a state of their crimes against humanity.

It doesn't make it a very compelling argument.

The Soviet Union was not unsustainable.

No you can't actually, because Ukranians were subjects of the Russian empire that the communists usurped.

>Every nation in existence has wiped out outside groups considered a threat
>Litterally excusing every genocide ever
Thats a very shit argument...

Yes and so were the Cherokee in the trail of tears.

It's a fucking stupid argument.

Yeah it was, if it weren't the soviet union would still exist right now, which it obviously does not.

No they weren't actually, the cherokee were allies that we backstabbed. They weren't considered citizens, which is why treating them so viciously was considered acceptable, and I'm pretty damn sure that what happened to them is not comparable in terms of scale with what the USSR did

yeah your right, the USSR did not almost completley wiped out an entire race...

>It's okay because we didn't even acknowledge them as citizens.
I hope you realize that only makes it worse.

>and I'm pretty damn sure that what happened to them is not comparable in terms of scale with what the USSR did
Ukrainians still exist and are independent.
Native Americans got absolutely fucking decimated.

>I hope you realize that only makes it worse.
Never said it was okay, I said it was a different kind of atrocity, one every state ever has done.

>>Native Americans got absolutely fucking decimated.
Mostly by disease long before the declaration of independence was ever signed.

>Never said it was okay, I said it was a different kind of atrocity, one every state ever has done.
That's exactly my point, every state ever does this in the process of creating itself so it's dumb to whine about the USSR doing it.

>Mostly by disease long before the declaration of independence was ever signed.
You do realize there were native Americans west of the Appalachians as well?