Alexis reaction...

[Tania]

I have just read your post Maj. Jesse Cairns, and was quite moved by your entry.Yes, the assassians/shooters seemed to be remorseful. Perhaps their conscience at the end got the better of them. Yet even today, there are those who know, read, and still support the actions of the murder of the IF, etc. But I think there must have been something psychologically already wrong with those who chose to murder. I have no sympathy for them.

As reasonable human beings those of us these many years hence, are revolted by the actuality of such henious of actions and crime(s). For me, reading these past crimes, as it was for you and many other posters, a more than heart-rendering story. But what is at least for me remains, that of those whom are ever supportive of these murders, but to that address that all of the royal households were not wiped out. To be killed just because one is a person of a particular social standing, or  name value, or just be killed wantonly, is more than senseless. I think reading Russian History of these particular years of communism, and all it's gory entries, is the hardest to comprehend, hardest to accept. I am a decendent of one who escaped, and believe me, it is hard just to shake those personal stories.

If it is hard for us as arm chair readers, can you at all understand to have survived even a few seconds from these brutal monsters; or to be a relative, whom has escaped murder or a gulag, or a child of one who has lived through this type of nightmare(s), and 'try' to go on with your lives? What must their poor loved ones felt receiving such news? Never mind the murderers, for there were countless, yet little for decades were offered of concern by the soviets. It's easy for people to say they are remorseful, but to make sure it is taken up by the whole of the country, states quite something else.
That has yet to be offered collectively...

Tatiana+

 

Hi Joy ;

I have read  [somewhere on the A.P. discuss. forum] that a FEW of the assassans/shooters [in REAL life] had so much remorse for what they had done that they took their own lives.   May I add that I recently finished reading "The Kitchen Boy" and if I may paraphrase the kitchenboy himself--Leonka--he said something like this :  "Now, I  wish that someone would come and blow MY brains out, for I can no longer stand that constant image of their deaths in my mind anymore."     I imagine that the assassins also could not get the sounds of the screams and death-throes out of their ears either.   Oh yes---trust me, they couldn't!


I would never condone suicide--Never!  
However, I can REALLY understand WHY one would want the IMAGES to stop and the SOUNDS to cease!
I have even smelled death--and it is something that is hard to get out of your memory.

[RomanovFan318]

. I have no sympathy for them.

Nor do I. Maybe this does sound heartless but I just can't find any sympathy for ANYONE who chooses to commit  cold-blooded murder. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the Reds who brutally murdered the Russian IF or just someone today who chooses to take another persons life.

I know people have said that the executioners did not have a choice. That they were only following orders. Yet did any of them stand up for what was right in the eyes of God and refuse? True, to do so would have probably mean their own deaths but did any do this?  I've never heard.

Who I have sympathy for are the many devout Christians  who were brutally executed or sent to the gulgags  by the godless Communists throughout their 70+ hold on power merely because of their faith.  

[Tsarina_Liz]

In a regime like the Soviet one, you have to do what you have to do to survive and ensure that your family survives, too.  The actions of the executioners may seem callous, but they were also necessary.

[Tsarfan]

Who I have sympathy for are the many devout Christians  who were brutally executed or sent to the gulgags . . . because of their faith.  

Yeah.  Sort of like the Jews who were forced to live in the Pale of Settlement, denied entry into many professions, and burned out or murdered in pogroms under the tsarist regime.

Let's get back on topic instead of weeping all over the Board about what the godless communists did to the poor Christians.

[Eddie_uk]

Yet even today, there are those who know, read, and still support the actions of the murder of the IF, etc. But I think there must have been something psychologically already wrong with those who chose to murder. I have no sympathy for them.

o be killed just because one is a person of a particular social standing, or  name value, or just be killed want only, is more than senseless.   

So true Tania!

Tsarina_Liz why was it necessary please? It all seemed so unecessary and such a waste, what good did it do?? Was just senseless murder..

I can't understand anyone condoning the murder of the IF, it's beyond belief and pretty sick IMO!!

[Tsarina_Liz]

So true Tania!

Tsarina_Liz why was it necessary please? It all seemed so unecessary and such a waste, what good did it do?? Was just senseless murder..

I can't understand anyone condoning the murder of the IF, it's beyond belief and pretty sick IMO!!

It was necessary for the party ideal, they would have wanted to benefit the Soviet cause and the execution of the Romanovs would have been seen by many in the execution squad as a necessary and even beneficial step (once the Tsar was gone, imperialism would have been too damaged to reemerge).  At that point in time it was becoming dangerous for people to speak or act against the Soviet.  Even if they were opposed to the decision, they may have been scared to voice it.  A monster was emerging in Russia that would devour everything in its path.  

When we think about the actions of these men we must stop thinking like 21st century "Westerners".  These men had lived under an oppressive tsarist regime, many no doubt grew up in poverty with little or no access to education.  They had fought, and had possibly been wounded in a war of epic proportions.  They had seen their commrades die for a cause they really knew nothing about.  They saw friends and family at home starving.  The Tsar, as the figurehead of the Empire, was to be blamed for their problems (and Nicky rightly was, at least for some problems).  A new party, the Bolsheviks (the Soviets), gave them the promise of freedom and democracy - of being treated like people and equals.  They could be rich and educated, every one could.  The war would end, there would be enough bread and enough land.  This new party gave them hope, and this hope was threatened by the presence of the old order, Imperialism, again embodied by the Tsar.  To give birth to the new Russia, the old Russia had to die.  And, besides, at that time the execution of heads of state was not unheard of.  

It is callous to modern ears, but the exection of a handful of people is hardly a momentous event in history.  Perhaps a fascinating case study of the individuals and the politics involved, but not crucial and certainly not a defining moment as some people believe.  It was WWI, and not the execution of the Romanovs (as a symbolic destruction of the old order, of imperialism) that gave birth to the cold post-Modern period in which we live.

[Tsarfan]

The Bolsheviks hardly invented the notion of killing Romanovs, the Romanovs themselves having dipped their hands into the blood of their relatives more often than anyone else.

Peter the Great's sister Sophie was likely planning Peter's ouster and murder, having her hand stayed only by Peter's pre-emptive strike against her.

Peter either murdered his own son or had him tortured to an extent that his death was readily foreseeable.

Elizabeth seized the throne from Anna in a coup that turned out to be bloodless only because Anna raised no resistance, not because Elizabeth would have stopped short of violence had it become necessary.

Peter III was murdered by Catherine the Great's supporters, possibly with her foreknowledge, but certainly without being held to account by her.

Paul I was murdered by his officers, probably with his son's foreknowledge.

It wasn't until late in the history of the dynasty that revolutionaries took over the task of dispatching Romanovs.

[Tsarina_Liz]

They always did have a penchant for backstabbing... Which makes me wonder if the IF had survived the war and the coup and everything and maintained a semblence of power, how long would it have been before one of the Cousins or a rival family decided to make a move for power?  They certainly may have garnered considerable public support.

[Belochka]

It is callous to modern ears, but the exection of a handful of people is hardly a momentous event in history.  

If you believe that the murder of Alexei and his Imperial Family was an event that was not a grave criminal act against humanity, from which flowed serious political  and social consequences, then I pity you in your naiveté.

[Belochka]

Peter the Great's sister Sophie was likely planning Peter's ouster and murder, having her hand stayed only by Peter's pre-emptive strike against her.

Peter either murdered his own son or had him tortured to an extent that his death was readily foreseeable.

Elizabeth seized the throne from Anna in a coup that turned out to be bloodless only because Anna raised no resistance, not because Elizabeth would have stopped short of violence had it become necessary.

Peter III was murdered by Catherine the Great's supporters, possibly with her foreknowledge, but certainly without being held to account by her.

Paul I was murdered by his officers, probably with his son's foreknowledge.

It wasn't until late in the history of the dynasty that revolutionaries took over the task of dispatching Romanovs.

Each of your examples involves the dispatch of an adult.

The revolutionaries chose to murder the innocent children of the imperial family.

Hardly a credible performance don't you think?

[Eddie_uk]

It is callous to modern ears, but the exection of a handful of people is hardly a momentous event in history.  

Thank you for the explanation Liz:)

I cant agree with your last point though Liz. It was a momentous event in history - partly why we are still talking about it. Here was the Ruler of Russia being executed brutually with his family....it was all so dramatic.

[Tsarfan]

Each of your examples involves the dispatch of an adult.
 
The revolutionaries chose to murder the innocent children of the imperial family.
 
Hardly a credible performance don't you think?

But in most of my examples, the purpose was to remove a specific ruler to replace him with another.  The Bolsheviks' purpose was to destroy the dynasty and any prospect of its re-emergence.

I don't think we have any indication the earlier murderers would not have gone further with their violence had their ends required it.

The Russian monarchy (and, in fairness, many other monarchies) was steeped in violence from its earliest days, with brother killing brother, father killing son, son killing father, wife killing husband.  In some ways, the play simply ended much as it ran.

I don't mean to be callous.  But a judgment of political actions -- and the murder of the last Romanovs was a political act -- must at least include a discussion of the longer history and larger forces at play.

[Tsarina_Liz]

If you believe that the murder of Alexei and his Imperial Family was an event that was not a grave criminal act against humanity, from which flowed serious political  and social consequences, then I pity you in your naiveté.

Personal attachment to historical figures does not make the act momentous.  It was no different than any other political killing and assassination before or since.  They were simply a casualty of change and of their own history, it can be argued their death was necessary because they were in the way of progress.  By the time of their deaths, their world had been stripped of any political or social consequence and destroyed.  They were merely shadows of what had been and no longer served a function.  Their deaths did not cause the brutality of Red Russia, that already existed in the minds of the Revolutionaries.  Their deaths did not bring down the wrath of other nations upon Russia, no one cared enough politically anymore - after long years of fighting, it was time to end the struggles.  I fail to see what serious "political and social consequences" came from the execution of the IF.        

A grave criminal act against humanity is the institution of the gulag, the massacres in the Sudan, the starvation in Somalia, the Holocaust, the extermination of millions of Native Americans, the enslavement of millions of Africans.  Not the killing of a dethroned ruler and his family.  

No, murder cannot be condoned due to the influence of social mores.  But it can be understood.

[Tsarfan]

But a judgment of political actions -- and the murder of the last Romanovs was a political act -- must at least include a discussion of the longer history and larger forces at play.

Had I had a voice in the Ural Soviet, I would have voted against killing the children.  However, I would have understood the arguments of others who felt keeping them alive was a risk, and I would have harbored some worry on that account myself.

The Ural Soviet probably made their decision based on guesses about what the Romanovs or their supporters might attempt were they to be freed by the Whites.  I doubt the Soviets were very clear on how little real interest there was among the Whites in a Romanov restoration.

Had the Soviets actually known what really had been discussed at various times about imperial succession, though, they would have been confirmed in their fears.

For instance, before Alexis was born, Nicholas and Alexandra floated the idea of changing the law of succession to allow Olga to succeed.  More tellingly, the proposal included the provision that Alexandra would be made regent should Nicholas die during Olga's minority.

This indicated an extraordinary determination on the part of Nicholas and Alexandra to keep the throne within the control of Nicholas' immediate family rather than within the larger Romanov clan, even if it meant amending the succession law to do it.  Had they not encountered serious resistance, they would have gone so far as to make Alexandra regent instead of other sons of Alexander III.

If the Bolsheviks had killed just Nicholas, if Alexandra and the children had somehow been rescued by the Whites, and if support could be mounted for a Romanov restoration, I think Alexandra would have done all she could to have made her children -- male or female -- the rallying point, rather than other healthy male Romanovs.

Today we all know such support had very little probability of forming.  But that comes from the benefit of hindsight and greater knowledge of what was going on inside the White resistance than the Ural Soviet could have had.

From their perspective, any member of Nicholas' immediate family left alive posed a threat.

The great irony is that, if Alexandra could have had things her way, they would have been exactly right.

[Eddie_uk]

  I fail to see what serious "political and social consequences" came from the execution of the IF.        

Stalin.....? Lenin.....? and tens of millions murdered!