Remains of the murdered Romanovs 'authentic'(dw.com)
dw.com
Remains of the murdered Romanovs 'authentic'
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-remains-of-the-murdered-romanovs-authentic/a-44700092
63 comments
The Soviet Union shaped much of 20th century politics so this view is pretty reasonable.
I can only imagine, but one thing that's really striking to me is how incredibly long the Soviet Union lasted. There have been a lot of awful things that have happened in history, but they tend to go as rapidly as they come especially when it comes to major powers in modern times. For instance the entire era of Nazi Germany was a mere 12 years from start to finish! The Soviet Union lasted for 69 years.
And the USSR itself was a communistic nation where the government even thinking you said the wrong thing was enough to get disappeared. And tens of millions citizens were killed by this government in its efforts to maintain itself. And then there was the fact that the economic system itself was failing as evidenced from decades of completely unnecessary shortages on pretty much everything. There was a joke within the Soviet Union that the only thing that's permanent within the union are temporary shortages. Of course, again, say such a joke to the wrong person and get disappeared.
Imagine living your entire life from birth to your sixties under such a system. I find it remarkable how little focus is given to things like lessons from the USSR as opposed to e.g. lessons from the Nazis.
And the USSR itself was a communistic nation where the government even thinking you said the wrong thing was enough to get disappeared. And tens of millions citizens were killed by this government in its efforts to maintain itself. And then there was the fact that the economic system itself was failing as evidenced from decades of completely unnecessary shortages on pretty much everything. There was a joke within the Soviet Union that the only thing that's permanent within the union are temporary shortages. Of course, again, say such a joke to the wrong person and get disappeared.
Imagine living your entire life from birth to your sixties under such a system. I find it remarkable how little focus is given to things like lessons from the USSR as opposed to e.g. lessons from the Nazis.
> There was a joke within the Soviet Union that the only thing that's permanent within the union are temporary shortages. Of course, again, say such a joke to the wrong person and get disappeared.
For a list of Russian jokes (including the Soviet Union) see [1]. I got it from HN a while ago btw so I'm merely giving it back. Free quality entertainment, and also you can observe how subtle or multiple interpretable the jokes commonly are.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes
For a list of Russian jokes (including the Soviet Union) see [1]. I got it from HN a while ago btw so I'm merely giving it back. Free quality entertainment, and also you can observe how subtle or multiple interpretable the jokes commonly are.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes
I think more comparable with Nazism would be Stalinizm. It didn't last that long(although the horrors done to the Soviet people in that short time are unimaginable). Most of Soviet Union's history and the Cold War is relatively calm if I just subjectively compare to our times.
Mass slaughter started well before Stalin, so at least 30+ years. What followed was calm compared to Stalin, or to North Korea, but nevertheless you wouldn't want to compare it to saner parts of the world.
When are you saying the slaughter started? 30 years pre-Stalin takes you back to before communist rule by my estimate, however there are a variety of points you can measure from.
Slaughter started with Lenin (not even counting the Civil War), so from the revolution to 1953 give you a bit over 30 years, give or take.
Not surprising at all, since reading China Miéville's "October".
There is a great book on the Romanovs by Montifiore which covers the grisly end and the events leading up to it.
It’s well worth reading his other books on Russia, particularly Young Stalin as it covers the same time period and gives a good sense of the chaos and confusion of the revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...
It’s well worth reading his other books on Russia, particularly Young Stalin as it covers the same time period and gives a good sense of the chaos and confusion of the revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...
> Researchers exhumed Nicholas's father Alexander III — himself assassinated in 1881 — to prove "they are father and son."
Alexander III was Nicholas II's father. He died in 1894 of illness (I don't see any hint of assassination). The Alexander who was assassinated in 1881 was Nicholas II's grandfather, Alexander II. Which body got exhumed?
Alexander III was Nicholas II's father. He died in 1894 of illness (I don't see any hint of assassination). The Alexander who was assassinated in 1881 was Nicholas II's grandfather, Alexander II. Which body got exhumed?
In Yekaterinburg lies the “Church on the blood”, an impressive edifice with portraits of the Romanov. The museum beneath the church has many details of their lives and how they got executed. It is a place not to miss and a traumatic experience, for who wants to understand Russian history.
Somewhat related: I remember it being a little disturbing to learn that during this period (and for a long time before) the leaders of the most powerful countries were related.
Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and King George V of the United Kingdom were first cousins. Not to mention leaders of Norway, Denmark, and others.
Considering that, it's almost surprising how stable the time was.
Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and King George V of the United Kingdom were first cousins. Not to mention leaders of Norway, Denmark, and others.
Considering that, it's almost surprising how stable the time was.
There's a bunch of very interesting, increasingly panicked telegram correspondence between those 3 specifically in the prelude to WWI as they all try to avoid going to war without having a whole lot of choice. I can't find the info about George V, but [0] has more about the telegrams between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy%E2%80%93Nicky_correspond...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy%E2%80%93Nicky_correspond...
Perhaps it's the opposite angle. When they're all family, it's understandable why things were so stable. Any nationalism and cultural differences that might cause tribalistic wars were tempered by family ties and shared blood of the leadership.
Stable...until it went completely bonkers in WW1. The flipside of "stability" is often "unable to change course when something bad happens". The fundamental problem in WW1 is nobody on any side willing to admit this wasn't working for them. In France the and U.K., they could have electoral upheavals. In Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire, they monarchies were all eliminated either during WW1 or immediately after, in large part because they couldn't change course. Stability is only a virtue if you're not screwing up.
> Stable...until it went completely bonkers in WW1
Even WW1 was stable compared to some of the all in brawls that plagued Europe, at least you knew who was on which side for the most part. By comparison look at the Thirty Years War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Involvement
Even WW1 was stable compared to some of the all in brawls that plagued Europe, at least you knew who was on which side for the most part. By comparison look at the Thirty Years War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Involvement
> Considering that, it's almost surprising how stable the time was.
I think that was an intentional feature of the system and they married off kids to gain power and leverage.
I think that was an intentional feature of the system and they married off kids to gain power and leverage.
Every year in (private) school we watched Nicholas and Alexandra. The grade school kids were sent out before the ending.
Why every year? That seems excessive.
Don’t know. Probably to instill in us the dangers of communism.
Of course, the liberal revolution in France took the same step.
They had trials, but it really just came down to, 'The king is guilty of having been king.' The royal family is an existential threat to the new government.
They had trials, but it really just came down to, 'The king is guilty of having been king.' The royal family is an existential threat to the new government.
In both instances, there was a civil war with one side having the royal family arrested, and the other side fighting to free them and reestablish the monarchy. Eliminating the royal family imply there is no going back possible, which must erode significantly the will to fight the civil war, no?
What private school was this? Did you also watch Peter and Fevronia?
No, just that. This was back in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
http://wcdsva.org
http://wcdsva.org
Too late to disprove the several Anastasia pretenders, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikola...
[deleted]
Nicholas II, his German-born wife and their five children were shot by Bolsheviks as a consequence of the October Revolution
They were not "shot as a consequence of". They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, et al.
They were all brought together in a room and were shot and stabbed in a process that took about 20 minutes. Their bodies were then desecrated and disposed of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_famil...
They were not "shot as a consequence of". They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, et al.
They were all brought together in a room and were shot and stabbed in a process that took about 20 minutes. Their bodies were then desecrated and disposed of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_famil...
All: please don't re-fight the Russian Revolution here. HN is a place for intellectual curiosity, not rageful reactivation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I continue to be fascinated by the discussions you feel compelled to chime in on.
> They were deliberately murdered under direct orders from Lenin,
Unfortunately, according to the Wikipedia article you posted, it's not that easy to verify:
> The written record taking the chain of command and the ultimate responsibility for the fate of the Romanovs back to Lenin was, from the beginning, either never made or carefully concealed.
...
> However, as of 2011, there has been no conclusive evidence that either Lenin or Sverdlov gave the order.
Unfortunately, according to the Wikipedia article you posted, it's not that easy to verify:
> The written record taking the chain of command and the ultimate responsibility for the fate of the Romanovs back to Lenin was, from the beginning, either never made or carefully concealed.
...
> However, as of 2011, there has been no conclusive evidence that either Lenin or Sverdlov gave the order.
And Lenin's brother was murdered by the Tsar's father, and the Tsar murdered many other Russians of his own account.
Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.
Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.
Lenin's brother was tried and executed after trying to assassinate the Tsar. Comparing that to butchering children in secret is pretty rich.
Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar, and exported their incompetency to many other countries, with the last major eruption of Bolshevik violence happening in the 1970s in
Cambodian by the
Khmer Rouge (the Khmer branch of the Bolshevik/Leninist party).
The world would probably have been a much better place without the Bolshevik, despite, and in full view of the many imperfections of the Tsarist rule.
The world would probably have been a much better place without the Bolshevik, despite, and in full view of the many imperfections of the Tsarist rule.
> Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar
Lenin was exported to Russia by Germany with the specific aim of causing a revolution. To mangle Churchill’s quote, Lenin was sent in as “plague bacillus”. Obviously he acted with a lot of local support, but German intervention wanted and helped fund the revolution to end the war on their Eastern Front.
In hindsight it wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany.
Lenin was exported to Russia by Germany with the specific aim of causing a revolution. To mangle Churchill’s quote, Lenin was sent in as “plague bacillus”. Obviously he acted with a lot of local support, but German intervention wanted and helped fund the revolution to end the war on their Eastern Front.
In hindsight it wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany.
Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the November revolution: Germany collapsed from the Kiel mutiny onwards, and turned from a monarchy into a socialist anti-war state in 1918.
There was a lot of it about. Churchill sent tanks into Glasgow in 1919; during this period Ireland also fought for its independence (and subsequent civil war).
The old authoritarianism was doomed but it absolutely wasn't going to go without bloodshed. Some of it still lies latent to the present day like a dormant virus.
There was a lot of it about. Churchill sent tanks into Glasgow in 1919; during this period Ireland also fought for its independence (and subsequent civil war).
The old authoritarianism was doomed but it absolutely wasn't going to go without bloodshed. Some of it still lies latent to the present day like a dormant virus.
Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the February Revolution [1], the first of two revolutions which took place in Russia in 1917.
It was the February revolution that lead to the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. For various reasons no decisive new leadership emerged, until the Bolsheviks took over in October.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany
It did end the war in the East, and delayed the war for dominance in the East (which was seen as inevitable -- as it by the US left today, pace the mainstream press' demonisation of the Trump/Putin connection) by two decades. Even today Germany is wealthier than Russia despite having no natural resources.
The biggest victims of the Bolsheviks were the Russian people (and inhabitants of neighbouring states).
[1] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14608/did-the-ge...
But the rise of communism and resulting violence in Germany greatly contributed to the rise of the nazis in the 20s and 30s.
I think comparing Germany to Russia today is missing the point. Europe self-destroyed through two world wars during the XX century. At the end of the XIX and for about 300 years before it pretty much dominated the world. Now it is a club of mid-size countries that have lost most of their international influence and military might.
The rising demography of developing countries being probably the second biggest factor.
I think comparing Germany to Russia today is missing the point. Europe self-destroyed through two world wars during the XX century. At the end of the XIX and for about 300 years before it pretty much dominated the world. Now it is a club of mid-size countries that have lost most of their international influence and military might.
The rising demography of developing countries being probably the second biggest factor.
Yes Russia was a extremely well developed nation with good education, healthcare etc until those pesky bolsheviks came along and ruined everything...
What kind of argument is this supposed to be?
Russia was at an average level of development in 1918. European parts of Russia (St Petersburg) where relatively modern, and while much of the rest of the country was rural and backwards
* there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it wouldn't have been developed with other forms of government in Russia, whether under a Tsar, or -- even better -- a modern western democracy.
* Bolsheviks retarded the development of Russia. All comparable western nations developed faster, practically all 'Soviet' technology was basically invented in the west. The Soviets had nothing to offer but violence.
For example (from [1]): "Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States."
Let me emphasise: I'm not saying that the Tsarist regime was particularly good, just a lot better than the Bolsheviks. If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...
Russia was at an average level of development in 1918. European parts of Russia (St Petersburg) where relatively modern, and while much of the rest of the country was rural and backwards
* there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it wouldn't have been developed with other forms of government in Russia, whether under a Tsar, or -- even better -- a modern western democracy.
* Bolsheviks retarded the development of Russia. All comparable western nations developed faster, practically all 'Soviet' technology was basically invented in the west. The Soviets had nothing to offer but violence.
For example (from [1]): "Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States."
Let me emphasise: I'm not saying that the Tsarist regime was particularly good, just a lot better than the Bolsheviks. If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...
Which "comparable western nations" are you referring to?
> If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule.
There's a lot of "if onlys" that could be said about the period between 1905 and Stalin's takeover. To stay Tsarist seems a peculiar focus.
There's a lot of "if onlys" that could be said about the period between 1905 and Stalin's takeover. To stay Tsarist seems a peculiar focus.
Yes, it actually was, in many different areas, one of the most developed countries in Europe in 1914.
He was a terrible leader. Racist and horrifically anti Semitic, aggressive, incompetent as a military leader and in domestic policy. The number of deaths directly attributable to him is right up there with most the other Russian leaders. This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it.
>Racist and horrifically anti Semitic
Just like basically everyone else at the time.
Just like basically everyone else at the time.
To be clear, his anti-semitism extended to support of murderous pogroms. This wasn’t common elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_d...
The first and last are 100 years earlier and the second two relate to catholics.
I may be missing your point but you don’t give any context to those sources.
I may be missing your point but you don’t give any context to those sources.
Yes, catholics. Why does it matter? Persecution is persecution, be it against jews, catholics, protestants, muslims, atheists, whatever.
Also, you’re saying “100 years earlier” as if that’s a long timespan in history. I know, the USA is not much older than that, but in Europe, 100 years is nothing.
And considering that ~40 years after the last Russian pogroms there was this thing called “the Holocaust”, I’m not really convinced that antisemitism was a thing of the past in Western Europe either.
Also, you’re saying “100 years earlier” as if that’s a long timespan in history. I know, the USA is not much older than that, but in Europe, 100 years is nothing.
And considering that ~40 years after the last Russian pogroms there was this thing called “the Holocaust”, I’m not really convinced that antisemitism was a thing of the past in Western Europe either.
You are right, it’s still there and does periodically make it into the news (eg the U.K. Labour Party is still struggling with anti-semitism this week). https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/...
The cited persecution of Catholics was and is still undoubtably, but it things happening around the turn of the 20th century in Britain really weren’t of the same nature as what was happening in Russia, not at all. British weren’t raping and killing Catholics in massive waves of concerted violence with state involvement and approval and that’s exactly what was happening in Russia around that time. 100 years is relatively short time but I definitely argue that a lot has changed and the level of violence is declining. Pinker has some good article on the subject of violence but which notably don’t say anything about violence toward small groups, though say a lot about the larger picture.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-thi...
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.htm...
The cited persecution of Catholics was and is still undoubtably, but it things happening around the turn of the 20th century in Britain really weren’t of the same nature as what was happening in Russia, not at all. British weren’t raping and killing Catholics in massive waves of concerted violence with state involvement and approval and that’s exactly what was happening in Russia around that time. 100 years is relatively short time but I definitely argue that a lot has changed and the level of violence is declining. Pinker has some good article on the subject of violence but which notably don’t say anything about violence toward small groups, though say a lot about the larger picture.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-thi...
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.htm...
Saying that the Tsar's death was because he was anti-semitic gives credibility to the notion that Bolshevism had a large Jewish influence. Is that what you're trying to say?
> > Racist and horrifically anti Semitic
> Just like basically everyone else at the time.
Does this really matter? I mean, one probably should understand racism and anti-Semitism in the context of their times, but that doesn't excuse them; a racist and anti-Semite is a horrible leader even if surrounded by people with those same horrible qualities.
EDIT: Jeez, I hope the downvotes are because people find this off-topic or something, rather than because they disagree with the sentiment.
> Just like basically everyone else at the time.
Does this really matter? I mean, one probably should understand racism and anti-Semitism in the context of their times, but that doesn't excuse them; a racist and anti-Semite is a horrible leader even if surrounded by people with those same horrible qualities.
EDIT: Jeez, I hope the downvotes are because people find this off-topic or something, rather than because they disagree with the sentiment.
Let's say, that in a 100 years, we'll introduce the same fundamental rights to animals as we already have for humans. Killing animals and eating them would become a barbaric thing of the past.
Would you find it fair if people of the future spat on your grave, and refer to you with the utmost contempt, because you were a meat eater?
"He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! He deserved to die!"
Would you find it fair if people of the future spat on your grave, and refer to you with the utmost contempt, because you were a meat eater?
"He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater! He deserved to die!"
Yes, that would be the logical thing to find fair once you forgo your current ego. Disclosure, I eat meat, and if people should critique me in the future, so be it.
Half the people in this thread are ripping on Lenin because of the things he did, even though at the time they were mostly "lawful" since he wrote the law.
We absolutely should disgrace the horrible things people did in the past, so that to not do them over again.
Half the people in this thread are ripping on Lenin because of the things he did, even though at the time they were mostly "lawful" since he wrote the law.
We absolutely should disgrace the horrible things people did in the past, so that to not do them over again.
"like many of his contemporaries, he held racist beliefs"
vs
"he was a disgusting racist antisemite! those bolsheviks sent him where he belongs! shooting and stabbing the whole family to death, hell yeah xDDDDD"
vs
"he was a disgusting racist antisemite! those bolsheviks sent him where he belongs! shooting and stabbing the whole family to death, hell yeah xDDDDD"
> He was a horrible, disgusting meat-eater!
Possibly, if that's the consensus of current mores, but I didn't say that; I said that a racist and an anti-Semite is a horrible leader.
> He deserved to die!
No, I definitely didn't say that. In fact, lostlogin explicitly disclaimed this position (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982):
> This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it.
(emphasis mine). There are plenty of horrible people out there, but, most (and possibly all) of the time, wishing death on them is equally horrible.
Possibly, if that's the consensus of current mores, but I didn't say that; I said that a racist and an anti-Semite is a horrible leader.
> He deserved to die!
No, I definitely didn't say that. In fact, lostlogin explicitly disclaimed this position (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556982):
> This doesn’t justify what happened to him, but certainly helps explain it.
(emphasis mine). There are plenty of horrible people out there, but, most (and possibly all) of the time, wishing death on them is equally horrible.
What is the point of anonymous opinion casters? They're anonymous, quote no sources and believe think their opinions are important enough to made public. Readers too can check out the last Tsar of Russia and come to their own private views.
If you don't like the estimate of 85 and 100 million people killed under communism (other Russian leaders) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet... then please offer a counter offer more in line with your assertion. Whatever please stop offering off-the-cuff unsubstantiated views. They have zero value for others.
If you don't like the estimate of 85 and 100 million people killed under communism (other Russian leaders) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet... then please offer a counter offer more in line with your assertion. Whatever please stop offering off-the-cuff unsubstantiated views. They have zero value for others.
To compare like with like, should the death toll due to communism be compared to that from the Romanov line, or to that from imperial systems of government? I’m not sure communism will compare too badly.
A good source is the Montefiore book on the Romanovs and is in my comments here. It’s worth reading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...
A good source is the Montefiore book on the Romanovs and is in my comments here. It’s worth reading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/books/review/the-romanovs...
"She considered the most important historical event in her lifetime to have been the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the execution of the Russian imperial family, a view shared by many fellow centenarians."
Goes to show just how impactful this act must have been.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment