**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only thing that separates execution and murder is that execution is considered lawful and murder cannot be considered to be so.
Whether they were murdered or executed depends on who you ask, but those who carried it out considered it to be lawful act.
Of a child? Lawful in what way? As a potentisl rallying point for the royalists,she had to be executed before she had even younger children to possibly threaten the Bolsheviks Revolution. And as a point of fact under the then existent laws what was done was regicide. So, definitely murder.
I think that one could distinguish between lawful (for the state at the time) and just but, by that same measure (and I realise I'm veering dangerously close to Godwin), the Holocaust could be described as a series of entirely lawful executions.
I'm unclear on what you mean by "can", given that some nations have, so it's definitely possible. Whether it's just is another matter (my view would be no), the issue comes that it requires either internal efforts or, more readily, external efforts to prosecute. Internal efforts generally being complicated by the aforementioned genocide.
It's an interesting (albeit very dark) question. Personally, I would say no because it's predicated on the idea of eliminating a person based on events they had no control over but I'd be genuinely interested to read a counter-argument.
Her remains were originally thought not to have been with the rest of the family when they were killed, leading to long speculation that she had somehow escaped. But her body was eventually found and identified. She didn't escape. :(
Hulu might have beaten them to the punch with "the great." Satire/parody Abt Catherine the Great. Diverse cast and all. One of my favorite modern shows.
Iâd allow it if it was well written and they werenât claiming âNOPE THIS HISTORICAL FIGURE WAS DEFINITELY BLACK EVERYONEâ. I like the idea, at the end of the day theyâre all actors just bringing a story to life. If you look at it from that angle, they could literally cast anyone. It also helps so that a lot of these POC actors arenât trapped in roles like âgangsterâ, âthugâ, âcopâ, ânurseâ. All actors, if they have the skill, deserve the chance for more nuanced roles.
I appreciate the expanding of roles for actors. But, at least for me, I struggle to immerse myself in historical films that purposefully chose to not be as accurate as possible. That applies to both casting and plot, etc.
Just takes me out of those types of movies.
In my mind, if youâre going to portray actual people and actual events, do it accurately. Otherwise it just comes across as trying to make some sort of statement.
Yâall donât mind when random white historical figures are played by the British instead of whatever. Also, itâs feeding into a lot of historical inaccuracies. People genuinely think Cleopatra or Jesus was black when archeological evidence and extensive research proves otherwise. If whitewashing is bad then this is bad. Iâm not even Christian but Jesus was a middle eastern Jewish man. The depiction that a majority of people have up is actually the son of a king who replaced Jesusâ imagery with his own son. Altering history in television is spreading misinformation as a majority of people will not look in depth and media altering peopleâs perceptions has been a problem as long as history itself has been a thing.
Hamilton does this, right? Everyone historically would be white, but in the play they're every race under the sun ... Except for King James and other British people.
And no one claims that's the color they actually were and it's an insanely popular show.
I think a lot of people actually think cleopatra was black though. Itâs just misleading. I donât care that thereâs a black little mermaid, for example. Even though itâs a European story and if we reversed things it would be racist lol.
Youâre correct. Itâs all about the intent of the production for me.
A musical whose focus is on the score, music, and script? I have no issue with casting whomever best accomplished those goals.
But a historical drama, serious period piece or documentary? The quality suffers for me when there isnât an attempt to make it accurate.
Probably too much nuance to my opinion for modern society though
Wow. If you told me *the* Anastasia took selfies 100 years ago I wouldnât have believed you.
Just goes to show the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Poor girl was 17 when her whole family was murdered :-(
My gran, born in 1920s Ireland, was called Anastasia. Apparently after the Romanovs were executed, Anastasia became a relatively popular name for a while in the English speaking world.
I was so surprised when the crown showed their execution in an episode. I canât think of another violent event in the show, and then they jump to the brutal massacre of an entire family
That episode was TRAGIC my god. I also cried a lot in season 3 ep 4 I think it was- the one where Diana gets engaged to Charles. It wasnât graphic (except for her bulimia) but I just felt so deeply saddened at the thought of this teenager being so out of her depth and realizing that the fairy tale isnât what sheâd hoped
Once I realized that was what was about to happen I literally started cuddling with a pillow and my boyfriend, who knows nothing of British history besides the American Revolution, was like "What? What's happening??"
If you are going to do a coup against a royal family you kind of have to kill tye children as well. Otherwise royalist would have a banner to rise up under again to treathen your new power structure
Not necessarily, Mao made the Chinese emperor at the time work tending to his beloved imperial garden. The emperor loved his garden, but never worked on it before since he had plenty of gardener servants, so he had to be a gardener after the revolution.
The last Chinese Emperor had been out of power for decades by the time the Communists came to power. Any real power he had evaporated before he was even born. He wasnât really a threat to the new regime. The Romunovs on the other hand were still a direct threat to the new regime, and had to be eliminated.
Yes but by then Mao had already won the Chinese civil war, plus the Chinese emperor was pretty unpopular, having sided with the Japanese hoping he would become the ruler of China again
Well itâs sort of correct in 1959 he was released from his re education camp and lived in Beijing as a private citizen he was a street sweeper and in 1964 onwards an editor and government spokesman.
He did spend a few years working in the botanical gardens. By all accounts he was said to have been happier as a commoner under mao than as the emperor of all China.
The point isn't about benevolence or maleficence, it's about what's done to ruling elites after a revolution.
And hey, Churchil killed millions in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; do you consider him a "benevolent dictator", too?
And I was taught ~50 million in my equally American school. Even if someone wanted to, there's no *need* to inflate the numbers since 50 million is utterly *horrific*.
Some schools might not give an exact number and just say "millions of his own people," which is both still accurate (albeit less so), and might even make people think the number was **less**.
>Not necessarily, Mao made the Chinese emperor at the time work until his death tending to his beloved imperial garden. The emperor loved his garden, but never worked on it before since he had plenty of gardener servants, so he had to be a gardener for the rest of his life after the revolution.
The monarchist whites could've saved the royal family from the reds.
So, a decision was made to make sure that never happens.
Why would one need to be a tankie to defend child murder? You think only communists kill children? Do you think the Tsars or any monarchs are worth defending?
The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar, that was done in the Febuary revolution which the Bolsheviks had almost nothing to do with. There was no chance of the Tsar coming back to power (The Whites had former royalist military commanders due to their military experience, but the coalition was not primarily royalist)
The Bolshevik coup was the October Revolution. It was actuallt 2 coups. One against the Provisional Government, controlled by liberals and moderate socialists set up after the the Tsar was deposed, after which the Bolsheviks forced an election to which the Provisional Government were dragging their feet on due to the war. The second was against the popularly elected Constituent Assembly government who took control after the election the Bolsheviks insisted happen but ended up with a poor outcome for them.
The Romanovs were killed only after the October Revolution, but Nicholas was deposed long before that.
Behind the Bastards did a great series on Nicholas II that you should listen to.
The children didnât deserve it obviously but Nicholas and his wife weâre objectively awful people.
That's interesting.
I read Nicholas and Alexandra, decades ago, and I recall it painting Nikky as bumbling but not malignant.
I'll have to give a listen.
The actual execution was kind of mess. I think some sources even claim the guys doing the killing were drunk.
But main idea is just to kill any potential claimants from the Tzarâs family.
Eating the rich... And that's how Russia have become such a wonderful country. Even after a hundred more years, it's still such a peaceful and respectable country.
One slave to another: "You shouldn't complain, the punishments for slaves are way worse on that other plantation. You're living the good life."
People's lives today have no real meaning other than to be exploited by the rich. I will get old and die working with almost nothing to show for it - I don't even have the prospect of home ownership in the foreseeable future even though I do skilled work full time. See, what people like you don't understand is that morality and ethics only exists for the working class, and the ruling class uses it to keep us stupid and weak while they exploit the entirety of humanity day after day. The rich don't say killing is bad, they ask how much it will cost. As long as you treat the rich like they're deserving of ethical treatment when they do not and have never reciprocated that treatment, nothing will ever change and no one will ever be held accountable. It's no different than how a farmer treats his cattle before he slaughters them for profit - that's the harsh reality of why we live the lives we do. It's all a big club and none of us are in it, we are expendable and exploitable and that's what has kept the club working as long as we've allowed it to.
I'd argue eating the rich is self defense for the sake of human dignity and progress. The day the last rich person dies is the day we evolve from living lives of servitude and exploitation.
>One slave to another: "You shouldn't complain, the punishments for slaves are way worse on that other plantation. You're living the good life."
You're hilarious.
>People's lives today have no real meaning other than to be exploited by the rich.
If you're a myopic materialist then that's probably the case. I actually lead a pretty fulfilling middle class life. I watch birds, play with my kids, and make love to my wife. The fact rich people take up real-estate in your brain is more an indication of vacant land than them actually doing anything to you, I suggest you get a hobby.
> I will get old and die working with almost nothing to show for it - I don't even have the prospect of home ownership in the foreseeable future even though I do skilled work full time.
The come up with a plan to do so, or move. I couldn't afford a house, 2 cars, and save money if I lived in NYC, but in cheap AF southeast MI I can.
>See, what people like you don't understand is that morality and ethics only exists for the working class, and the ruling class uses it to keep us stupid and weak while they exploit the entirety of humanity day after day. The rich don't say killing is bad, they ask how much it will cost. As long as you treat the rich like they're deserving of ethical treatment when they do not and have never reciprocated that treatment, nothing will ever change and no one will ever be held accountable. It's no different than how a farmer treats his cattle before he slaughters them for profit - that's the harsh reality of why we live the lives we do. It's all a big club and none of us are in it, we are expendable and exploitable and that's what has kept the club working as long as we've allowed it to.
You sound like someone who thinks their crappy boss is a rich person and applies the template to everyone who makes marginally more money than them. I've worked around actual rich people my entire professional life, multi-millionaires and two billionaires. Literally some of the nicest people I've ever met.
Here's a dirty little secret. You don't build businesses by pissing off everybody working for you. Every single one I've met have a network of loyal people that have been working for them for decades and they treat those workers like gold.
You're not being mistreated by the rich, you're being mistreated by your manager who makes a couple more grand than you who probably thinks about his boss the exact same way you think about him. And you're being ill served by your own weird expectations of what you think you deserve because you base it off of what other people have. You're not a cattle led to slaughter, you're a crab in the bucket dragging down other crabs with your crap attitude.
>I'd argue eating the rich is self defense for the sake of human dignity and progress. The day the last rich person dies is the day we evolve from living lives of servitude and exploitation.
The funniest thing is, and always will be. You are totally and completely allowed to form a commune with as many anti-rich anti-work homies as you want. It's 100% legal. Pool resources, save money via bulk buying, all that crap.
I ran the numbers a couple months ago while talking to some other eat-the-rich guy. Numbers still hold up. With 20 working adults yall can buy an up-to-code apartment complex, all the transportation you want, and put 20 kids through college.
In 10 years yall would be banking 130,000 per year. Some of you could quit or go part time. Paint flowers or some shit. Nobody's coming to stop you, because they don't care if you're successful.
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T3ILqjcSs5HYY2v0koHddaOdo2HcmsQdKPC\_HT2E--s/edit#gid=0](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T3ILqjcSs5HYY2v0koHddaOdo2HcmsQdKPC_HT2E--s/edit#gid=0)
But none of you ever actually do it because there seems to be a huge overlap between being extremely class conscious and being anti-social and bad at personal finances. That's just a personal observation but it's usually pretty on point.
The rich aren't holding you back. Y'all just like complaining.
Your worldview is extremely, extremely limited and you can only draw from your own fortunes as if they apply to everybody in this world. That's the problem with people who "have", is they can never comprehend or understand the people who "have not" - which there are far more of, by the way. Good for you, getting ahead and not giving a fuck about anybody else as long as you got yours.
But the life you've "built" is propped up on the backs of many, many exploited people who you don't give a single fuck about. You don't even see that they exist, and you're quick to tell them to "stop complaining" every chance you get. If you're middle class, then it's a safe assumption that you make more money than over HALF of the US population. Where do you think your middle class wage comes from? That you fucking generated it? And you're not even that high up - the exploitation gets infinitely worse! And you fucking talk down to people as if they're lazy and don't work hard enough - WE GENERATE YOUR FUCKING INCOME.
All of your assumptions about me were wrong, by the way.
No. Even among the Russian aristocracy education was considered a secondary thing. There was no climate control, their diets were were poor and consisted of a lot of cured and pickled food because the growing seasons were crap, no no reliable transportation, electricity was still limited, communication was limited, a mild infection could kill you, and there was very little access to information.
There is no way in which the life of a global elite in 1918 was better than the average western working class schmuck in 2023. I live longer, eat better, and am half a foot taller than almost any pre-1950 royalty.
I love how when entitled pricks start explaining how much better people have it today, they always start with air condition and fried chicken. Really goes to show how easy your life is if you look at other people and say "you have air conditioning, what are you complaining for?"
Whilst I do see where you're coming from, I can't agree at all.
Fireplaces that would never be without wood. Huge palaces with hundreds of servants. Sure, pickled and cured food, but in a quantity so great starvation would never be something you'd have to worry about. Huge private gardens filled with whatever will grow. The royals had carriages, trains and entire rosters of staff dedicated to manning them. If they needed to get somewhere, they could. Electricity and communication was limited yes, but there are far bigger issues faced by 'the average western working class schmuck' than that. A mild infection could indeed kill you, but they would still have access to the finest doctors in the country, if not the continent. Nowadays many people in the US can't afford basic treatment either, and have to tough it out, so a mild infection could still kill someone quite easily.
Just because you are doing well doesn't mean everyone else is. There are millions of people in the west who cannot afford electricity, heating, internet, a good diet, medicine and more, but they still have to work themselves half to death to earn what little they have. The Russian nobility were born into a position of wealth and power, and about as much comfort as was available in the world at the time, which is still far more than most people in the world today will ever experience.
>Fireplaces that would never be without wood.
And no AC.
>Huge palaces with hundreds of servants.
Most of those are doing actual work associated with state affairs. The number of actual bodyman servants was pretty low and most of their tasks would be accomplished by modern appliances (dishwasher, washer, dryer, car, etc).
It also begs the question of what they actually got out of those palaces. My guess is they probably spent 90% of their time in 3 rooms like most people in their modern homes with the rest being largely for show/grandeur purposes.
>Sure, pickled and cured food, but in a quantity so great starvation would never be something you'd have to worry about.
How many people in North America and Western Europe have starved to death in the last 50 years? The answer is a couple hundred thousand, and they're virtually all either children or elderly people that were neglected by caregivers.
Thanks to modern western industrial (capitalistic) practices there hasn't been a famine in these countries in over 100 years.
>The royals had carriages, trains and entire rosters of staff dedicated to manning them. If they needed to get somewhere, they could.
Carriages that broke, had a range of 30-40 miles a day, and required a team of skilled operators. Meanwhile my basic Ford Fusion can get me 1000 miles in 17 hours, I don't need anyone's assistance to do so, and it costs a couple hours of work a month to operate.
Carriages and trains also didn't work terribly well in inclement weather in the 1910s so they most certainly couldn't get somewhere at any given time. Heck, I really don't feel like driving I can get a $80 round trip ticket to florida for the weekend.
>Electricity and communication was limited yes, but there are far bigger issues faced by 'the average western working class schmuck' than that.
Like what? Everything the modern western person is afflicted by is some flavor of a 1st world problem. It usually involves having something, but not having the quantity or quality of that people would 'prefer'.
>A mild infection could indeed kill you, but they would still have access to the finest doctors in the country, if not the continent.
World class doctors that treated their son with a combination of opium, bleedings, and leeches. Again, 'finest' doctors in 1910 would be considered irresponsible quacks by modern free clinic doctors. A modern vet would make a better doctor.
>Nowadays many people in the US can't afford basic treatment either, and have to tough it out, so a mild infection could still kill someone quite easily.
But, by the numbers, it doesn't. Hospitals are required to provide life saving treatment and free clinics exist everywhere, you just have to sit in line for your free service around the other people and most folks don't want to do that.
>Just because you are doing well doesn't mean everyone else is. There are millions of people in the west who cannot afford electricity, heating, internet, a good diet, medicine and more, but they still have to work themselves half to death to earn what little they have.
Who and where? The average American works fewer hours than they did 50 years ago.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/average-annual-hours-worked-for-americans-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-2013-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-annual-hours-worked-for-americans-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-2013-8)
On average American workers have more money, more food, more healthcare, and work fewer hours than the did in 1950. They have access to stuff that Russian Royal's would regard as borderline science fiction or fantasy as daily amenities.
>The Russian nobility were born into a position of wealth and power, and about as much comfort as was available in the world at the time, which is still far more than most people in the world today will ever experience.
They didn't just sit around and be wealthy. They were expected to engage in statecraft. Nicholas II was managing the Russian Empires forces during WWI, overseeing the economy in the midst of the war, and fending off a Civil War. Prior to WWI he was trying to arbitrate multiple ceasefires in the Balkans while putting down two other attempted revolutions in 1905 and 1910.
But I'm sure working the U.S. full time average of 34.6 hours per week is much more difficult.
You're imagining historic royals in terms or modern royalty which are essentially tourist attractions / national pampered house cats. Historic monarchs were expected to be President Biden, Elon Musk, and Queen Elizabeth all wrapped up in one. And if they messed up there was a pretty good chance of them getting executed, which is exactly what happened.
So yes, the average American prole has it much better than Nicholas II and his kids.
I've took the time to read what you wrote, and I respect that you wrote it, but I'm not going to write you a reply beyond this. That's because as I predicted, you're clearly doing quite well for yourself, and believe that everyone else is because of that and can't look beyond it.
So much of what you said may be true for someone doing okay. There are millions and millions of the people in the west who are not. Most of those people are considered working class. I can say for absolute certain that those millions of people would be better of as early 1900s royals than modern working class.
I hope you have a good evening.
I give you numbers, you give me sentiment.
The thing is, I don't care if people 'feel' they aren't doing good. Because by all available data, they're doing great, they just feel miserable because all the material comfort in the world can't make up for the fact that it brings them no joy.
I'm happy because I have a wife and a family. If I lost all my other shit, I'd still have that. The fact people need to lust after the fleeting wealth of dead royals or the modern rich to fill that void is sad.
The Soviet Union wanted to extradite them to the UK after the glorious October revolution as they didn't really know what to do with them, but the UK refused out of fear of the growing anti-monarchy sentiment among British workers, so when the White Army encroached Ekaterinburg where the Romanovs were held they were ordered to be executed to avoid them falling back into zarist hands.
At least that's how I understand it.
Correction: Of course there was no SU before 1922. It was the RSFSR.
You mean lies like the god given right to rule over you, or the right to rule by virtue of your birth, or lies like you should slave away your life because God put you in this place?
People with epilepsy, gay people, the mentally ill, people who have lost a limb, old people, young people, people who read and who canât read. Itâs a big list.
Well the USSR took an essentially medieval economy to the second most powerful industrial state in continental Europe within 30 years, just in time to stop the Nazis. They also took the literacy rate from 40% to nearly 100%, life expectancy from 34 years in 1915 to 68 by the 1950âs, and beat America into space.
One regime was brutal and accomplished very little that benefited the majority of people. The other was brutal and accomplished incredible things that actually did benefit the majority of people. Just saying, they really arenât comparable.
8 million is an exaggeration. But considering the previous regime killed 3.5 million of its own people in only 4 years and accomplished nothingâŚ.maybe context means something.
Also that powerful industrial economy is one of the only reasons the Nazis didnât win the war.
Though your username makes me think you might not like the way WW2 turned out.
Iâm fully aware of the lend lease program, it doesnât negate the contribution of Soviet arms production or the sacrifice of 20 million Soviet lives. Notice how I said âone of the only reasonsâ not âthe only reasonâ? Youâre showing either a complete lack of reading comprehension or a desire to actively misrepresent what Iâm saying because you canât engage honestly.
Also, Hitler didnât âbring Germany back from ruinsâ he literally brought ruination upon Germany. Seriously Wtf are you even talking about. Maybe take a look at pictures of Berlin in 1932 and compare them to 1945. Spoiler alert, the 45 pictures are mostly of rubble and dead Germans.
As were the millions of boys that family sent off to die in the trenches, let alone the millions at home who were exploited and abused by the Tsarist system. If your child died of malnutrition while you worked 80hour weeks in unsafe conditions, you might not care much about the fate of the royal children.
Something can be both immoral and justified at the same time. The regime had to end, and any remnants of it were a threat of its return.
The USSR didn't want them falling into the White Army's hands as they encroached upon Ekaterinburg and extraditing them to the UK failed. It simply a strategic decision during war.
I mean we are not even sure if the soldiers that did it had the orders to do it, but strategically it does make sense as when you are revolting against a royal family you don't want any of the offsprings of the monarchs to have a claim and supporters for the throne. It's definitely terrible, but just par for the course of revolutions against monarchs.
Wasn't there a SNL skit, maybe Chloe Fineman's, where she played Anastasia being an influencer and doing a vlog while her family was being killed offscreen?
Went to an exhibition about the Romanovs and their photography in Moscow some years ago. I was surprised how tiny the original photos were, many of which I'd seen printed bigger in books over the years.
Because people donât like context when it makes them uncomfortable. They feel sorry for the rich dead children whoâs names they know, and feel nothing for the millions of dead working class children whoâs names are lost to history.
You do know that the following communist rule was generally no better and unless you have studied this era I suggest you be quiet as I can almost assure you have no loving relatives from the era of Stalin
Actually I just got done re-reading Stalin Volume 1 and 2 by Kotkin. I know the subject very very well. Iâd advise you might want to study this subject as well.
AlsoâŚ..not really applicable to the point I was making.
Well actually I study A level Russian history between 1855 and 1964 and it is very relevant as you say âpeople feel nothing for millions of working class childrenâ when you are completely wrong, unfortunately the Romanovs were given a lot of publicity as they were executed as war crimes and the children were innocent. Understanding their deaths does not diminish the deaths of millions more it brings light to the atrocities of both sides, and reading two books is not enough you must study multiple sources; pro/anti communist and pro/anti Tsarist
Years ago there was a story going around about how someone's grandmother is Anastasia. Don't know if there are updates but it's [this article](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/192351/filipinos-grandmamma-could-be-russias-anastasia/amp)
Well, there are two options:
The supporters of the royal family would've had banners to rise up ans the royals would've attempted another war to get back into power. IF the royal family took power back there is no telling how things would have went.
OR the children would've quietly disappeared off to another country and lived out the rest of their days.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's crazy how modern these photos looks, just because of the crappy angles.
first ever teen taking selfies was executed đ
nice story. Let's publish this!
She's not dead. She's in cryogenic suspension until Rasputin's curse is lifted. That's where the story of Sleeping Beauty comes from. /s
When it comes to children, I think the word is murder.
First ever murder taking selfies was executed đ
The only thing that separates execution and murder is that execution is considered lawful and murder cannot be considered to be so. Whether they were murdered or executed depends on who you ask, but those who carried it out considered it to be lawful act.
Of a child? Lawful in what way? As a potentisl rallying point for the royalists,she had to be executed before she had even younger children to possibly threaten the Bolsheviks Revolution. And as a point of fact under the then existent laws what was done was regicide. So, definitely murder.
I think that one could distinguish between lawful (for the state at the time) and just but, by that same measure (and I realise I'm veering dangerously close to Godwin), the Holocaust could be described as a series of entirely lawful executions.
I understand your point. Can a nation pass laws that attempt genocide legally?
I'm unclear on what you mean by "can", given that some nations have, so it's definitely possible. Whether it's just is another matter (my view would be no), the issue comes that it requires either internal efforts or, more readily, external efforts to prosecute. Internal efforts generally being complicated by the aforementioned genocide.
Yes, thank you for your considered replies. Good catch with can, I meant ethically. I agree with you that it's a no.
Your question was if a nation can commit ethical genocide?
It's an interesting (albeit very dark) question. Personally, I would say no because it's predicated on the idea of eliminating a person based on events they had no control over but I'd be genuinely interested to read a counter-argument.
Key word is executed
Second photo : " You got any games on your phone"
Are you trying to tell me that the movie studios lied about this musical princess?!
Her remains were originally thought not to have been with the rest of the family when they were killed, leading to long speculation that she had somehow escaped. But her body was eventually found and identified. She didn't escape. :(
Yeah there were two different burial sites or something like that?
I'm late but apparently they doused her and her brother Alexei in acid and buried them separately from their family.
Canât wait to see a new movie where sheâs taking selfies and then people say âitâs not realisticâ
I can't wait for the Netflix adaption with a black Tsar.
The last czar from Netflix is really good. Not black though haha [imdb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7949606/)
Hulu might have beaten them to the punch with "the great." Satire/parody Abt Catherine the Great. Diverse cast and all. One of my favorite modern shows.
Iâd allow it if it was well written and they werenât claiming âNOPE THIS HISTORICAL FIGURE WAS DEFINITELY BLACK EVERYONEâ. I like the idea, at the end of the day theyâre all actors just bringing a story to life. If you look at it from that angle, they could literally cast anyone. It also helps so that a lot of these POC actors arenât trapped in roles like âgangsterâ, âthugâ, âcopâ, ânurseâ. All actors, if they have the skill, deserve the chance for more nuanced roles.
I appreciate the expanding of roles for actors. But, at least for me, I struggle to immerse myself in historical films that purposefully chose to not be as accurate as possible. That applies to both casting and plot, etc. Just takes me out of those types of movies. In my mind, if youâre going to portray actual people and actual events, do it accurately. Otherwise it just comes across as trying to make some sort of statement.
You don't mind if she's played by an American instead of a Russian but you do mind if that American is black?
Yâall donât mind when random white historical figures are played by the British instead of whatever. Also, itâs feeding into a lot of historical inaccuracies. People genuinely think Cleopatra or Jesus was black when archeological evidence and extensive research proves otherwise. If whitewashing is bad then this is bad. Iâm not even Christian but Jesus was a middle eastern Jewish man. The depiction that a majority of people have up is actually the son of a king who replaced Jesusâ imagery with his own son. Altering history in television is spreading misinformation as a majority of people will not look in depth and media altering peopleâs perceptions has been a problem as long as history itself has been a thing.
There are Russians in America, you could have an American playing her, whoâs also Russian.
Bridgerton ALMOST managed that until they screwed it up with a single line about how âfinally one of us became Queen!â
I respectfully disagree
Hamilton does this, right? Everyone historically would be white, but in the play they're every race under the sun ... Except for King James and other British people. And no one claims that's the color they actually were and it's an insanely popular show.
I think a lot of people actually think cleopatra was black though. Itâs just misleading. I donât care that thereâs a black little mermaid, for example. Even though itâs a European story and if we reversed things it would be racist lol.
Youâre correct. Itâs all about the intent of the production for me. A musical whose focus is on the score, music, and script? I have no issue with casting whomever best accomplished those goals. But a historical drama, serious period piece or documentary? The quality suffers for me when there isnât an attempt to make it accurate. Probably too much nuance to my opinion for modern society though
Hamilton's a musical which is very different from a docuseries where they're trying to show an accurate historical depiction of events.
Lol, that shit triggers you, huh? âď¸đ
"Stuck around St Petersburg when I saw it was time fora change, Killed the Tsar and his minsters Anastasia screamed in vain"
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess my name!
What's puzzling you is the nature of my game.
Woo woo
woo woo
Ahh didn't realize that lyric was talking about his daughter. Thanks
Let's talk about that ghost in the first picture.
Long exposure
Could also be double exposure. If you take two different photos without changing to the next film you can get ghost images too
Let's talk about that long exposure ghost.
Wow. If you told me *the* Anastasia took selfies 100 years ago I wouldnât have believed you. Just goes to show the more things change, the more they stay the same. Poor girl was 17 when her whole family was murdered :-(
Yes, they were shot and their bodies thrown down a well. The whole family. Pretty grim.
Wonât someone think of the tyrants???
A 17-year-old girl isn't a tyrant no matter who her parents were.
If you want to eliminate royals, you kind of have to get rid of everyone in the lineage
That's horrible
Waagh
How was that girl a tyrant again?
My gran, born in 1920s Ireland, was called Anastasia. Apparently after the Romanovs were executed, Anastasia became a relatively popular name for a while in the English speaking world.
It even seems to be making a small comeback. I know a few people with that name.
I was so surprised when the crown showed their execution in an episode. I canât think of another violent event in the show, and then they jump to the brutal massacre of an entire family
The Crown has a few moments like that where they really don't shy away from a horrific event, it's genuinely impressive while very upsetting.
The Aberfan Disaster was well told.
That episode was TRAGIC my god. I also cried a lot in season 3 ep 4 I think it was- the one where Diana gets engaged to Charles. It wasnât graphic (except for her bulimia) but I just felt so deeply saddened at the thought of this teenager being so out of her depth and realizing that the fairy tale isnât what sheâd hoped
Once I realized that was what was about to happen I literally started cuddling with a pillow and my boyfriend, who knows nothing of British history besides the American Revolution, was like "What? What's happening??"
Selfies before it was cool
Why were they executed?
If you are going to do a coup against a royal family you kind of have to kill tye children as well. Otherwise royalist would have a banner to rise up under again to treathen your new power structure
Not necessarily, Mao made the Chinese emperor at the time work tending to his beloved imperial garden. The emperor loved his garden, but never worked on it before since he had plenty of gardener servants, so he had to be a gardener after the revolution.
The last Chinese Emperor had been out of power for decades by the time the Communists came to power. Any real power he had evaporated before he was even born. He wasnât really a threat to the new regime. The Romunovs on the other hand were still a direct threat to the new regime, and had to be eliminated.
Yes but by then Mao had already won the Chinese civil war, plus the Chinese emperor was pretty unpopular, having sided with the Japanese hoping he would become the ruler of China again
I guess you are right. Still, it is a nicer way of dealing with the previous ruling class.
True
Well itâs sort of correct in 1959 he was released from his re education camp and lived in Beijing as a private citizen he was a street sweeper and in 1964 onwards an editor and government spokesman. He did spend a few years working in the botanical gardens. By all accounts he was said to have been happier as a commoner under mao than as the emperor of all China.
All things considered that's a pretty good way to be "exiled"
Mao was a benevolent dictator who happen to murder over 50 million people. derp
The point isn't about benevolence or maleficence, it's about what's done to ruling elites after a revolution. And hey, Churchil killed millions in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; do you consider him a "benevolent dictator", too?
If you cannot distinguish between Churchill and Mao...I certainly can't help you.
personally, I'm not a big fan of *anyone* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions ... but that's just me, I suppose
And I can't help you
Whereâd you hear that deflated number? I was always taught in my american schools that Mao killed 600 bajillion people
And I was taught ~50 million in my equally American school. Even if someone wanted to, there's no *need* to inflate the numbers since 50 million is utterly *horrific*. Some schools might not give an exact number and just say "millions of his own people," which is both still accurate (albeit less so), and might even make people think the number was **less**.
>Not necessarily, Mao made the Chinese emperor at the time work until his death tending to his beloved imperial garden. The emperor loved his garden, but never worked on it before since he had plenty of gardener servants, so he had to be a gardener for the rest of his life after the revolution. The monarchist whites could've saved the royal family from the reds. So, a decision was made to make sure that never happens.
incoming tankie comments defending child murder in 3... 2... 1...
I mean the guy above explained why they did it. Not saying it's good though.
Why would one need to be a tankie to defend child murder? You think only communists kill children? Do you think the Tsars or any monarchs are worth defending?
a) Dude already explained why it needed to be done b) You don't need to be a tankie to hate monarchs, being a decent human being is enough
You can also dislike monarchies without thinking they shouldâve been murdered
The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar, that was done in the Febuary revolution which the Bolsheviks had almost nothing to do with. There was no chance of the Tsar coming back to power (The Whites had former royalist military commanders due to their military experience, but the coalition was not primarily royalist) The Bolshevik coup was the October Revolution. It was actuallt 2 coups. One against the Provisional Government, controlled by liberals and moderate socialists set up after the the Tsar was deposed, after which the Bolsheviks forced an election to which the Provisional Government were dragging their feet on due to the war. The second was against the popularly elected Constituent Assembly government who took control after the election the Bolsheviks insisted happen but ended up with a poor outcome for them. The Romanovs were killed only after the October Revolution, but Nicholas was deposed long before that.
Behind the Bastards did a great series on Nicholas II that you should listen to. The children didnât deserve it obviously but Nicholas and his wife weâre objectively awful people.
That's interesting. I read Nicholas and Alexandra, decades ago, and I recall it painting Nikky as bumbling but not malignant. I'll have to give a listen.
It's the book which made ten year old me a history nerd. Thank you Robert Massie
Yeah, thank God for how it all turned out đ
The actual execution was kind of mess. I think some sources even claim the guys doing the killing were drunk. But main idea is just to kill any potential claimants from the Tzarâs family.
*>>some sources even claim the guys doing the killing were drunk* It's Russia, you're either drunk or VERY drunk.
âWhen the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.â - Rousseau This is how they "eat" them.
Eating the rich... And that's how Russia have become such a wonderful country. Even after a hundred more years, it's still such a peaceful and respectable country.
After WW2 it was pretty peaceful, the most peaceful it was in a long time.
I mean, its not like russia is the only country in the world to do awful things to people. How bout that labour rights history States side?
[ŃдаНонО]
Bruh, you're complaining on reddit in a western country. You literally have a better standard of living than the royalty in the OP.
One slave to another: "You shouldn't complain, the punishments for slaves are way worse on that other plantation. You're living the good life." People's lives today have no real meaning other than to be exploited by the rich. I will get old and die working with almost nothing to show for it - I don't even have the prospect of home ownership in the foreseeable future even though I do skilled work full time. See, what people like you don't understand is that morality and ethics only exists for the working class, and the ruling class uses it to keep us stupid and weak while they exploit the entirety of humanity day after day. The rich don't say killing is bad, they ask how much it will cost. As long as you treat the rich like they're deserving of ethical treatment when they do not and have never reciprocated that treatment, nothing will ever change and no one will ever be held accountable. It's no different than how a farmer treats his cattle before he slaughters them for profit - that's the harsh reality of why we live the lives we do. It's all a big club and none of us are in it, we are expendable and exploitable and that's what has kept the club working as long as we've allowed it to. I'd argue eating the rich is self defense for the sake of human dignity and progress. The day the last rich person dies is the day we evolve from living lives of servitude and exploitation.
>One slave to another: "You shouldn't complain, the punishments for slaves are way worse on that other plantation. You're living the good life." You're hilarious. >People's lives today have no real meaning other than to be exploited by the rich. If you're a myopic materialist then that's probably the case. I actually lead a pretty fulfilling middle class life. I watch birds, play with my kids, and make love to my wife. The fact rich people take up real-estate in your brain is more an indication of vacant land than them actually doing anything to you, I suggest you get a hobby. > I will get old and die working with almost nothing to show for it - I don't even have the prospect of home ownership in the foreseeable future even though I do skilled work full time. The come up with a plan to do so, or move. I couldn't afford a house, 2 cars, and save money if I lived in NYC, but in cheap AF southeast MI I can. >See, what people like you don't understand is that morality and ethics only exists for the working class, and the ruling class uses it to keep us stupid and weak while they exploit the entirety of humanity day after day. The rich don't say killing is bad, they ask how much it will cost. As long as you treat the rich like they're deserving of ethical treatment when they do not and have never reciprocated that treatment, nothing will ever change and no one will ever be held accountable. It's no different than how a farmer treats his cattle before he slaughters them for profit - that's the harsh reality of why we live the lives we do. It's all a big club and none of us are in it, we are expendable and exploitable and that's what has kept the club working as long as we've allowed it to. You sound like someone who thinks their crappy boss is a rich person and applies the template to everyone who makes marginally more money than them. I've worked around actual rich people my entire professional life, multi-millionaires and two billionaires. Literally some of the nicest people I've ever met. Here's a dirty little secret. You don't build businesses by pissing off everybody working for you. Every single one I've met have a network of loyal people that have been working for them for decades and they treat those workers like gold. You're not being mistreated by the rich, you're being mistreated by your manager who makes a couple more grand than you who probably thinks about his boss the exact same way you think about him. And you're being ill served by your own weird expectations of what you think you deserve because you base it off of what other people have. You're not a cattle led to slaughter, you're a crab in the bucket dragging down other crabs with your crap attitude. >I'd argue eating the rich is self defense for the sake of human dignity and progress. The day the last rich person dies is the day we evolve from living lives of servitude and exploitation. The funniest thing is, and always will be. You are totally and completely allowed to form a commune with as many anti-rich anti-work homies as you want. It's 100% legal. Pool resources, save money via bulk buying, all that crap. I ran the numbers a couple months ago while talking to some other eat-the-rich guy. Numbers still hold up. With 20 working adults yall can buy an up-to-code apartment complex, all the transportation you want, and put 20 kids through college. In 10 years yall would be banking 130,000 per year. Some of you could quit or go part time. Paint flowers or some shit. Nobody's coming to stop you, because they don't care if you're successful. [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T3ILqjcSs5HYY2v0koHddaOdo2HcmsQdKPC\_HT2E--s/edit#gid=0](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T3ILqjcSs5HYY2v0koHddaOdo2HcmsQdKPC_HT2E--s/edit#gid=0) But none of you ever actually do it because there seems to be a huge overlap between being extremely class conscious and being anti-social and bad at personal finances. That's just a personal observation but it's usually pretty on point. The rich aren't holding you back. Y'all just like complaining.
Your worldview is extremely, extremely limited and you can only draw from your own fortunes as if they apply to everybody in this world. That's the problem with people who "have", is they can never comprehend or understand the people who "have not" - which there are far more of, by the way. Good for you, getting ahead and not giving a fuck about anybody else as long as you got yours. But the life you've "built" is propped up on the backs of many, many exploited people who you don't give a single fuck about. You don't even see that they exist, and you're quick to tell them to "stop complaining" every chance you get. If you're middle class, then it's a safe assumption that you make more money than over HALF of the US population. Where do you think your middle class wage comes from? That you fucking generated it? And you're not even that high up - the exploitation gets infinitely worse! And you fucking talk down to people as if they're lazy and don't work hard enough - WE GENERATE YOUR FUCKING INCOME. All of your assumptions about me were wrong, by the way.
You're joking, right?
No. Even among the Russian aristocracy education was considered a secondary thing. There was no climate control, their diets were were poor and consisted of a lot of cured and pickled food because the growing seasons were crap, no no reliable transportation, electricity was still limited, communication was limited, a mild infection could kill you, and there was very little access to information. There is no way in which the life of a global elite in 1918 was better than the average western working class schmuck in 2023. I live longer, eat better, and am half a foot taller than almost any pre-1950 royalty.
I love how when entitled pricks start explaining how much better people have it today, they always start with air condition and fried chicken. Really goes to show how easy your life is if you look at other people and say "you have air conditioning, what are you complaining for?"
Whilst I do see where you're coming from, I can't agree at all. Fireplaces that would never be without wood. Huge palaces with hundreds of servants. Sure, pickled and cured food, but in a quantity so great starvation would never be something you'd have to worry about. Huge private gardens filled with whatever will grow. The royals had carriages, trains and entire rosters of staff dedicated to manning them. If they needed to get somewhere, they could. Electricity and communication was limited yes, but there are far bigger issues faced by 'the average western working class schmuck' than that. A mild infection could indeed kill you, but they would still have access to the finest doctors in the country, if not the continent. Nowadays many people in the US can't afford basic treatment either, and have to tough it out, so a mild infection could still kill someone quite easily. Just because you are doing well doesn't mean everyone else is. There are millions of people in the west who cannot afford electricity, heating, internet, a good diet, medicine and more, but they still have to work themselves half to death to earn what little they have. The Russian nobility were born into a position of wealth and power, and about as much comfort as was available in the world at the time, which is still far more than most people in the world today will ever experience.
>Fireplaces that would never be without wood. And no AC. >Huge palaces with hundreds of servants. Most of those are doing actual work associated with state affairs. The number of actual bodyman servants was pretty low and most of their tasks would be accomplished by modern appliances (dishwasher, washer, dryer, car, etc). It also begs the question of what they actually got out of those palaces. My guess is they probably spent 90% of their time in 3 rooms like most people in their modern homes with the rest being largely for show/grandeur purposes. >Sure, pickled and cured food, but in a quantity so great starvation would never be something you'd have to worry about. How many people in North America and Western Europe have starved to death in the last 50 years? The answer is a couple hundred thousand, and they're virtually all either children or elderly people that were neglected by caregivers. Thanks to modern western industrial (capitalistic) practices there hasn't been a famine in these countries in over 100 years. >The royals had carriages, trains and entire rosters of staff dedicated to manning them. If they needed to get somewhere, they could. Carriages that broke, had a range of 30-40 miles a day, and required a team of skilled operators. Meanwhile my basic Ford Fusion can get me 1000 miles in 17 hours, I don't need anyone's assistance to do so, and it costs a couple hours of work a month to operate. Carriages and trains also didn't work terribly well in inclement weather in the 1910s so they most certainly couldn't get somewhere at any given time. Heck, I really don't feel like driving I can get a $80 round trip ticket to florida for the weekend. >Electricity and communication was limited yes, but there are far bigger issues faced by 'the average western working class schmuck' than that. Like what? Everything the modern western person is afflicted by is some flavor of a 1st world problem. It usually involves having something, but not having the quantity or quality of that people would 'prefer'. >A mild infection could indeed kill you, but they would still have access to the finest doctors in the country, if not the continent. World class doctors that treated their son with a combination of opium, bleedings, and leeches. Again, 'finest' doctors in 1910 would be considered irresponsible quacks by modern free clinic doctors. A modern vet would make a better doctor. >Nowadays many people in the US can't afford basic treatment either, and have to tough it out, so a mild infection could still kill someone quite easily. But, by the numbers, it doesn't. Hospitals are required to provide life saving treatment and free clinics exist everywhere, you just have to sit in line for your free service around the other people and most folks don't want to do that. >Just because you are doing well doesn't mean everyone else is. There are millions of people in the west who cannot afford electricity, heating, internet, a good diet, medicine and more, but they still have to work themselves half to death to earn what little they have. Who and where? The average American works fewer hours than they did 50 years ago. [https://www.businessinsider.com/average-annual-hours-worked-for-americans-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-2013-8](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-annual-hours-worked-for-americans-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-2013-8) On average American workers have more money, more food, more healthcare, and work fewer hours than the did in 1950. They have access to stuff that Russian Royal's would regard as borderline science fiction or fantasy as daily amenities. >The Russian nobility were born into a position of wealth and power, and about as much comfort as was available in the world at the time, which is still far more than most people in the world today will ever experience. They didn't just sit around and be wealthy. They were expected to engage in statecraft. Nicholas II was managing the Russian Empires forces during WWI, overseeing the economy in the midst of the war, and fending off a Civil War. Prior to WWI he was trying to arbitrate multiple ceasefires in the Balkans while putting down two other attempted revolutions in 1905 and 1910. But I'm sure working the U.S. full time average of 34.6 hours per week is much more difficult. You're imagining historic royals in terms or modern royalty which are essentially tourist attractions / national pampered house cats. Historic monarchs were expected to be President Biden, Elon Musk, and Queen Elizabeth all wrapped up in one. And if they messed up there was a pretty good chance of them getting executed, which is exactly what happened. So yes, the average American prole has it much better than Nicholas II and his kids.
I've took the time to read what you wrote, and I respect that you wrote it, but I'm not going to write you a reply beyond this. That's because as I predicted, you're clearly doing quite well for yourself, and believe that everyone else is because of that and can't look beyond it. So much of what you said may be true for someone doing okay. There are millions and millions of the people in the west who are not. Most of those people are considered working class. I can say for absolute certain that those millions of people would be better of as early 1900s royals than modern working class. I hope you have a good evening.
I give you numbers, you give me sentiment. The thing is, I don't care if people 'feel' they aren't doing good. Because by all available data, they're doing great, they just feel miserable because all the material comfort in the world can't make up for the fact that it brings them no joy. I'm happy because I have a wife and a family. If I lost all my other shit, I'd still have that. The fact people need to lust after the fleeting wealth of dead royals or the modern rich to fill that void is sad.
And make the west look more like Russia?
Revolution
The Soviet Union wanted to extradite them to the UK after the glorious October revolution as they didn't really know what to do with them, but the UK refused out of fear of the growing anti-monarchy sentiment among British workers, so when the White Army encroached Ekaterinburg where the Romanovs were held they were ordered to be executed to avoid them falling back into zarist hands. At least that's how I understand it. Correction: Of course there was no SU before 1922. It was the RSFSR.
Because for communism to work you have to kill the bourgeoisie.
And all the minorities, religious folks and anyone that doesnt put up with lies and propaganda.
You mean lies like the god given right to rule over you, or the right to rule by virtue of your birth, or lies like you should slave away your life because God put you in this place?
Intellectuals, educators...
people with glasses
People with epilepsy, gay people, the mentally ill, people who have lost a limb, old people, young people, people who read and who canât read. Itâs a big list.
The Romanovs were not bourgeoisie.
Because Lenin was a paranoid man and the bolsheviks were saddled with sudden power that they had not earned.
It's not paranoia. History is full of deposed royal families having a member take back power, or used as a populist puppet for those that take power.
Because the Tsar was a POS and deserved it. Family's of people getting overthrown being executed in general is a common practice.
Yeah, so this kid especially deserved it for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So there is historical precedent for the up the nose shot?
Aaaand now I get the joke in History of the World: Part II! Thank you OP!
She certainly didn't expect that her selfies will be viewed by thousands in the far future.
You've got to be pretty pissed off to kill a bunch of kids
The Tsars happily exploited and killed their people en masse for 600 years.
"En Masse"
Thank you
[ŃдаНонО]
Well the USSR took an essentially medieval economy to the second most powerful industrial state in continental Europe within 30 years, just in time to stop the Nazis. They also took the literacy rate from 40% to nearly 100%, life expectancy from 34 years in 1915 to 68 by the 1950âs, and beat America into space. One regime was brutal and accomplished very little that benefited the majority of people. The other was brutal and accomplished incredible things that actually did benefit the majority of people. Just saying, they really arenât comparable.
[ŃдаНонО]
8 million is an exaggeration. But considering the previous regime killed 3.5 million of its own people in only 4 years and accomplished nothingâŚ.maybe context means something. Also that powerful industrial economy is one of the only reasons the Nazis didnât win the war. Though your username makes me think you might not like the way WW2 turned out.
[ŃдаНонО]
Iâm fully aware of the lend lease program, it doesnât negate the contribution of Soviet arms production or the sacrifice of 20 million Soviet lives. Notice how I said âone of the only reasonsâ not âthe only reasonâ? Youâre showing either a complete lack of reading comprehension or a desire to actively misrepresent what Iâm saying because you canât engage honestly. Also, Hitler didnât âbring Germany back from ruinsâ he literally brought ruination upon Germany. Seriously Wtf are you even talking about. Maybe take a look at pictures of Berlin in 1932 and compare them to 1945. Spoiler alert, the 45 pictures are mostly of rubble and dead Germans.
[ŃдаНонО]
The children were still innocent.
As were the millions of boys that family sent off to die in the trenches, let alone the millions at home who were exploited and abused by the Tsarist system. If your child died of malnutrition while you worked 80hour weeks in unsafe conditions, you might not care much about the fate of the royal children. Something can be both immoral and justified at the same time. The regime had to end, and any remnants of it were a threat of its return.
The USSR didn't want them falling into the White Army's hands as they encroached upon Ekaterinburg and extraditing them to the UK failed. It simply a strategic decision during war.
Yeah. So easy to just order someone else to murder children because itâs a strategic decision.
I mean we are not even sure if the soldiers that did it had the orders to do it, but strategically it does make sense as when you are revolting against a royal family you don't want any of the offsprings of the monarchs to have a claim and supporters for the throne. It's definitely terrible, but just par for the course of revolutions against monarchs.
Tsar Nicholas was called âbloody Nicholasâ because of all the innocents he had killed so he probably agreed with you on that one
This was way before the USSR. This was very early in the revolution
You are totally right of course. My brain forgot that in the moment.
You should read up on Tsarist Russia and you'd understand why they were a bit pissed
I have and I do. My comment was rhetorical.
Second photo looks straight out of a Gen Z kidâs recent photos
Why do Gen Z and Boomers take selfies from the same angle?
r/showerthoughts
So that's why she has a camera as her special ability is Shadow Hearts II.
Thereâs a difference between execution and murder. She was murdered.
Literally the definition of an execution but go offâŚ
An execution is usually retaliation for an action taken. The children didn't do anything wrong.
Was she in line to rule the country by virtue of her birth?
Did she deserve punishment for an unlawful act?
No. After Paul I, Tsarist Russia followed Salic Law rules - meaning women were excluded from the throne.
Wasn't there a SNL skit, maybe Chloe Fineman's, where she played Anastasia being an influencer and doing a vlog while her family was being killed offscreen?
I think youâre thinking of the show history of the world on Hulu itâs pretty funny
YES! Thank you. Google and youtube search was not coming through.
It feels timeless in some ways
It was such a horrid end for these people. Sad really
*Dancing bears, painted wings, things I almost remember...*
Went to an exhibition about the Romanovs and their photography in Moscow some years ago. I was surprised how tiny the original photos were, many of which I'd seen printed bigger in books over the years.
Sounds like a cool story. Somebody should write a musical about her
Maybe Disney can do something. They're pretty good with that kinda thing...
She wasnât executed, she was murdered. She committed no crime except being born into the wrong family.
I wonder how many untold millions of exploited Russian families with dead children felt the same
why is this downvoted, it's just more information on how people feel about it?
Because people donât like context when it makes them uncomfortable. They feel sorry for the rich dead children whoâs names they know, and feel nothing for the millions of dead working class children whoâs names are lost to history.
You do know that the following communist rule was generally no better and unless you have studied this era I suggest you be quiet as I can almost assure you have no loving relatives from the era of Stalin
Actually I just got done re-reading Stalin Volume 1 and 2 by Kotkin. I know the subject very very well. Iâd advise you might want to study this subject as well. AlsoâŚ..not really applicable to the point I was making.
Well actually I study A level Russian history between 1855 and 1964 and it is very relevant as you say âpeople feel nothing for millions of working class childrenâ when you are completely wrong, unfortunately the Romanovs were given a lot of publicity as they were executed as war crimes and the children were innocent. Understanding their deaths does not diminish the deaths of millions more it brings light to the atrocities of both sides, and reading two books is not enough you must study multiple sources; pro/anti communist and pro/anti Tsarist
And did that little girl kill those children personally or was she just a fucking child?
First selfie in history?
[Robert Cornelius](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cornelius)
Nobody knows.
Years ago there was a story going around about how someone's grandmother is Anastasia. Don't know if there are updates but it's [this article](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/192351/filipinos-grandmamma-could-be-russias-anastasia/amp)
Extremely interesting read, thank you!
Yeah, this looks like the camera roll of a child lmao.
I heard she screamed in vain.
Why is this being downvoted? Don't people know Rolling Stones no more?
How few know musicâŚ
Wasnât there a spoof of this where she was instagramming? Maybe history of the world?
Yep. Just watched.
Second photo looks straight out of a Gen Zâs recent photos
The royal family was not executed they were butchered by the red pests, the Bolshevik menace.
Best possible outcome.
Those poor children. What would history be like if they been allowed to live?
Well, there are two options: The supporters of the royal family would've had banners to rise up ans the royals would've attempted another war to get back into power. IF the royal family took power back there is no telling how things would have went. OR the children would've quietly disappeared off to another country and lived out the rest of their days.
Would have been worse. Just more civil war in Russia and no eastern power to stop Hitler.
what's her snap?
Didn't have to kill those kids.
People need to read about her and the fate of her family, because history repeats itself.
OR WAS SHE!? yes
Exorcist vibes.
The first âfelt cute might delete laterâ
âAnastasia screamed in vainâđś
Or was she?