Crimes Against Russia - Nicholas II + Family

[LisaDavidson]

It has been suggested on another thread that Nicholas II (and by extension, his family) was guilty of Crimes Against Russia and therefore deserved the murders at Ekaterinburg. I think we should exclude from the discussion whether or not one believes in capital punishment or not. We should also exclude the criminality of the Ekaterinburg murders - it is a separate issue.

What I would like to hear from anyone who cares to participate is this: just what crimes do you think Nicholas committed?

I am willing to defend Nicholas and his family, and I would imagine one or two others would consider helping with this. However, before we can mount a defense, we need to know exactly what those who think "they deserved it" did to merit this treatment.

Responses are most welcome.

[HerrKaiser]

This will be a tough one to quantify. "Crimes" are usually defined within the context of law. In an autocracy, the law is majorly in the hands of the autocrat, therefore, it would be difficult to suggest he/she would be breaking their own laws, from a legal standpoint.
Morally, however, international laws and standards can be put into place to judge any ruler, regardless of whether or not the ruler was within his/her rights in their own country. Given the extreme supression of human rights on a global scale during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it seems difficult to imagine Nickolas being singled out as more worthy of being put to death than the robber barons of America, the empire builders of Britain, etc etc etc.

[LisaDavidson]

Well, we are told by many people that the Ekaterinburg murders really are not so horrible because the IF "deserved it". And so, I am asking those who believe this to be specific about what the IF did that could be considered a crime.

I am also asking those who don't feel the IF "deserved it" if they would be willing to defend the family or a specific family member against these charges, once they are brought forward.

I agree that fallen heads of state can be held responsible at an international level for "crimes against humanity". However, for purposes of discussion, we are interested in "Crimes Against Russia".

[rskkiya]

Who are the "many people" that your were refering to?

[LisaDavidson]

Well, there are mentions of this throught this Forum. On the Topic "Anastasia's Tragedy", there are a couple of people talking this way. I suggested that they move the discussion here and to be specific about what they think Nicholas did to merit serious charges.

In previous discussions, I have heard the phrase "they deserved it" used. So, I am asking.

What's your view on this?

[Sergio]

This is not my personal opinion, but I will be the devil`s advocate.

Some people think that the Imperial Family "deserved" to be killed because they lived in such luxury and millions of people lived in great misery.

So, Nicholas`s crime was: as a Tsar he didn`t worried neither improved the people`s life quality.

[rlbumich]

I believe that this is for the people of Russia to decide what "crimes" did Nicholas II commit. Afterall, we as (most) Westerns are on the outside looking in. I have the same feeling about Josef Stalin. He was a butcher and mass murderer but nervertheless some Russians still view him as a hero! Led the Soviet Union to victory during the "Great Patriotic War". Not trying to compare Nicholas to Stalin but there are so many viewpoints on "crimes against the Russian people from within their country committed by their leaders thoughout their history"

We all have our opinions.  

[LisaDavidson]

I for one am in no way trying to interfere with any rights the people of Russia have to evaluate their own history. This subject was raised under a different topic - Anastasia Tragedy - and was moved here. It will take a person less than a minute to read the posts of those who feel this way.

We do, however, have the right to discuss this if anyone else is interested in doing so. As of now, there is one charge:

Failure to improve the quality of life for his people. Secondarily, living in luxury when others had so little.

[Robert_Hall]

Incompetance doesn't cut it eh?
OK, as Emperor, he was responsible for the actions of his ministers, he appointed them. So, corruption, abuse of powers, theft, murder, [this is tricky, I amit], illegal exile [internal as well as external], undue influence- that alone is a bag of worms. violation of whatever justice there was, arbitrary  punishment, illegal servitude.
That should do for starters?
Best,
Robert

[Elisabeth]

Robert, these are very general charges, you need to be more specific. Are you referring to the suppression of the 1905 Revolution as an abuse of power? "Stolypin's Neckties" as murder? I'm curious: why is it that when we discuss the crimes of the Soviet regime, we can cite statistics to back up every specific charge, but when it comes to accusing the Romanovs of crimes, none of the accusers seems able to come up with any numbers? Or anything but the most blanket of accusations?

[Robert_Hall]

Hey, Lisa just asked for accusations, those were some of them, I'm not presecuting !

[Robert_Hall]

However, there are probably some details with illegal manipulation of the Duma, the abdication itself has questions and f course, the destruction of Russia.
But all that is for the lawyers to find evidence & defense.
Is it not?

[rskkiya]

Many who die deserve life - can you give it to them?
(my dreadful paraphracing of one of the greatest English authors of the 20th century...JRR Tolkien)

   Well as a good socialist I would have to say that IF the Autocratic Tzar indeed had complete and supreme power over Russia - then he was responsible for both the successes and failures of his reign. Those failures would be his "Crimes."
    I am no fan of NAOTMAA and I see the executions as an act of Revolutionary Justice. Was it nice to kill the 'cute little kids'? NO! But then again many 'cute little kids' died on Bloody Sunday, in numerous pogroms and in various military reactions to strikes and protests -- and few people are terribly keen to discuss them.

   I am sorry if my beliefs are too strident, but revolution is a bloody business.

[AGRBear]

Bloody Sunday is a big event and should be  discuss as being or not being one of   Nicholas II's "crime" toward the people of Russia.

This topic will prove to be  deep, dark and controversial.  So, please, no name calling and if some words anger you, wait for a day before writing a calm polite post, PLEASE.

First,  we have to find what historical facts we can all agree upon on the events of that day.

Let's start with who was present,  such as, the people who arranged the march, the leaders, the reason for the march, and the various groups who were part of the march.

Let's also mention the military guards and their duties.

Also, it is a given fact that Nicholas II was not present in the city on this day.

I'm going to have to dig out some books from boxes that have been moved back to my studio which is, now,  useable but stacked high with boxes that were in my garage.

AGRBear

[olga]

I am no fan of NAOTMAA and I see the executions as an act of Revolutionary Justice. Was it nice to kill the 'cute little kids'? NO! But then again many 'cute little kids' died on Bloody Sunday, in numerous pogroms and in various military reactions to strikes and protests -- and few people are terribly keen to discuss them.

I second Rskkiya's comments.