why did they kill the children?

[granduchess_leah]

i thought i start this topic
i do not understand this and havent for a long time
if nicholas and alexandra apparently broke the law then why did they kill the children? i mean what did they have to do with it they were
just incocent people?

[Ally Kumari]

I think that children represented hope for old regime. A living symbol, a hope that one day Russia would rise again to Imperial glory.

And they were needless witnesses of the crime.

And their name was the most hated on: Romanov.

[Ally Kumari]

Besides, if you think about it: only Alexei was not considered to be adult. Olga and Tatiana were more than twenty, and Anastasia was already adult as well with her 16.

[clockworkgirl21]

This isn't really a "having fun" question, is it? 

Think of how hard it would have been NOT to kill the children, though. I doubt N&A would have just dressed and gone into the cellar without their children with them, since (I think) they were being told they were going to be moved. And then if OTMAA had heard the gunshots, who knows what would have happened? It was just easier not to leave anyone, which really explained them killing the servants, too.

[carkuczyn]

I believe you are right, clockwork.  Leaving any witnesses could only be trouble for the revolutionaries........and the children would only have been an added burden for them as far as where to house them.  They were a liability no matter which way you look at it.

[rosieposie]

I think this should be in Final Chapter.  I'll tell Laura.   

As for the killing of OTMAA I agree after reading the thread where I asked if Nicholas was the only one to be killed.   The children were seen as a living hope that they could one day them or their "future" children, grand children would be able to reclaim their right to rule the Imperial Empire.  This would ruin the revolutionaries ideas.   

[Alixz]

Actually my point has always been that the imperial young people were not still children even though that is how they are always described.

Olga was 22 and many young women were married with children of their own at that age.

Tatiana was 21 or 20 and certainly no child either.

Marie was 18, do any of the 18 year olds who post here think of themselves as children?

Anastasia was 16 and old enough to drive in most states in the US today.

Even Alexei at nearly 14 was truly not a child.  He had lived through so much pain and sickness that he seemed near the end to have become an "old soul".

In hind sight, we would think that someone should have stepped in and saved the young Imperials.  But the Soviets were nothing if not thorough. And this, to them, a simple and "clean" solution to the problems of having Romanovs around.  After all, the Soviets also killed many other members of the family and would have gotten to the ones in the Crimea if they had had the time and the man power.

[rosieposie]

Actually my point has always been that the imperial young people were not still children even though that is how they are always described.

Olga was 22 and many young women were married with children of their own at that age.

Tatiana was 21 or 20 and certainly no child either.

Marie was 18, do any of the 18 year olds who post here think of themselves as children?

Anastasia was 16 and old enough to drive in most states in the US today.

Even Alexei at nearly 14 was truly not a child.  He had lived through so much pain and sickness that he seemed near the end to have become an "old soul".

In hind sight, we would think that someone should have stepped in and saved the young Imperials.  But the Soviets were nothing if not thorough. And this, to them, a simple and "clean" solution to the problems of having Romanovs around.  After all, the Soviets also killed many other members of the family and would have gotten to the ones in the Crimea if they had had the time and the man power.

Just want to correct. 

Olga was 22 almost 23 in November
Tatiana was 21
Maria was 19
Anastasia 17
Alexei 13 almost 14.

TMA and Alix had their birthdays a month or within weeks before the murders.  Alexei's birthday was a week or two after the murders. That is why I corrected it.

[rosieposie]

Actually my point has always been that the imperial young people were not still children even though that is how they are always described.

Olga was 22 and many young women were married with children of their own at that age.

Tatiana was 21 or 20 and certainly no child either.

Marie was 18, do any of the 18 year olds who post here think of themselves as children?

Anastasia was 16 and old enough to drive in most states in the US today.

Even Alexei at nearly 14 was truly not a child.  He had lived through so much pain and sickness that he seemed near the end to have become an "old soul".

In hind sight, we would think that someone should have stepped in and saved the young Imperials.  But the Soviets were nothing if not thorough. And this, to them, a simple and "clean" solution to the problems of having Romanovs around.  After all, the Soviets also killed many other members of the family and would have gotten to the ones in the Crimea if they had had the time and the man power.

As far as their ages and mentality.    Remember that Olga to Anastasia were considering young women and were at the age where they were eligble to marry. Olga and Tatiana were eligble for a long long time since they were 16.  Alexei was still a child even though he was seen as 14.  He may have a mature personality as with many children with handicaps have.  He wasn't considered a man until he was 16.        Which sadly he never got to be.

[Alixz]

Rosie,

Thank you for the correction.  I appreciate it.

I didn't have any books open and I don't remember any one's birthday except to know that Olga's was in November and Alexei's was in August.

I tend to do that with my own family, too.  There are some birthday's that I just remember and others that I just can not.

But with your age adjustments, the Imperial young people were even older than I had listed them as and this, I think, goes to proving my point.

So many people keep calling them the "children" but their ages show that there were not.

The only reason that I can see for the Soviets killing all was to leave no witnesses to the crime.  Naturally they would kill Nicholas II, Alexandra (they hated her) and Alexei as he was the heir.  So then what to do with the young women?  Kill them as well so as not to leave any one who could tell the awful story and leave no one who could be rallied around.  As to the three servants and Dr. Botkin, they would be witnesses as well and also, I would think that because they were so loyal and stayed to the end, that the Soviets just believed that they should suffer the same fate as their masters.

This was cruelty at its finast and worst hour.  But man has done worse and so much worse during his long history.  There is no epoch or country or era where man has not shown how inhumane he can be.

[granduchess_leah]

sorry i didnt know where to post this topic...

thanks for the information so far ....everyone

[LisaDavidson]

The main reason, was because they could and did not want to leave survivors. They had little regard for human life - instead the family was killed for what they represented - not because of any real or imagined "crimes". They also wanted to eliminate heirs.

[FairyCutie86]

Yes, to everything LisaDavidson just said. That is totally the answer. But still, I find it stupid and pointless for them have done so. It's all so upsetting to think about the extreme terror they were placed under. I always wished they would have sent the children to exile like everyone else in Russia tended to do back then. But then again, Alexei might have come back and taken back the throne. I could go on about this for hours, that's how disturbing it is to me.

[Grand Duchess Natasha]

Even though deaths have always seemed needless and I will never sympathize with the Bolzeviks for all they did was eliminate Imperialism only to bring Russia something worse...communism. I think at the time that if any of the children, namely Alexei, were aloud to live it would mean hope for the Romanov's who, with an heir, could always claim the throne. That is why the Bolsheviks wanted to kill every Romanov, especially the Tsar, his wife and all of his children, so there was no one who could potentially rally support, claim the throne and overthrown them.

What happened to those children was terrible, sad, and completely avoidable.....to us, but I suppose not to the Bolsheviks and all the countless Russians who were suffering under Nicholas's rein. Only....they didn't know the rein of the Bolsheviks would be much, much worse.

My boyfriend and his family are from Russia and I talked to his grandparents about the last Romanov's and when I asked I knew it was a touchy subject because both of his grandparents were very angry and said it was Nicholas's fault that his children were murdered and he should have tried harder to get them out of the country. But I personally do not think it was that simple.

GDN

[Peterhof]

Hello members,
This is my first post and it's really exiting.
I believe the Bolsheviks killed the Romanovs because they became a threat to their "revolution"  The White Army needed a member, any member, of the Romanovs to put in power once they overcome the Bolsheviks.  Lenin knew this and by getting rid of the imperial family in such a cruel way, sent a mesage that there was no way of going back to the previous regime.  The killing was so brutal as a warning to anyone who may have some ideas about resisting them.  Innocent victims of the Bolshevik regime are unaccountable and the Romanov children are part of them.

I would like to add that Communism in paper had the intention of bringing prosperity to those in need, but the Bolsheviks had more interest in staying in power by controling the population than following their own idealism.