Crimes Against Russia - Nicholas II + Family

[pushkina]

ah, but belochka, we haven't tried him so we don't know exactly which or whose blood is/was on his hands!

[Richard_Cullen]

I have only just caught up with this theme.  I would be quite happy to prosecute Nicholas and probably Alexandra, although I would need to research the evidence in her case.

I am going to speak to a professor at London University who is an expert in Russian law and see how we might, under the laws that existed at the time progress this - of course he might not want to participate.

Although I wouldn't charge the Tsar with 'war crimes', I think it would be a general charge of 'crimes against humanity'.  Of course he didn't personally kill anyone as far as I know, but as the leader he knew of the Jewish pogroms etc.  He sanctioned the drastic and ruthless punishment meted out after the 1905 revolution.

Whether he believed what he was doing was 'right' is immaterial.  If what he was doing was illegal then he should stand trial.  I suppose someone could put some individual names to the deaths, but it is the totality that counts not individual cases.

Any case that is my view

Richard

[olga]

Although I wouldn't charge the Tsar with 'war crimes', I think it would be a general charge of 'crimes against humanity'.  Of course he didn't personally kill anyone as far as I know, but as the leader he knew of the Jewish pogroms etc.  He sanctioned the drastic and ruthless punishment meted out after the 1905 revolution.

Whether he believed what he was doing was 'right' is immaterial.  If what he was doing was illegal then he should stand trial.  I suppose someone could put some individual names to the deaths, but it is the totality that counts not individual cases.

I haven't been posting much here because I and Richard's case is hard to defend. But I still think he should have been trialed and possibly executed.

[Nathan_Davis]

An exercise in futility, it seems to me, since the Tsar was executed eighty-six years ago last July. Along with his wife, family, doctor, and retainers. So lets have a trial anyway. Suppose we find him innocent? I'm sure he and all his unborn descendants will be positively thrilled with the verdict. And if he is guilty, do we dig him up and shoot him again? Are there plans afoot for reparations to be paid to the descendants of his "victims"? Who pays? What about trying the Bolsheviks in absentia for murdering the children? And the alleged crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and others?

"Come on, boys, let's hang 'em all" - from an episode of Gunsmoke

Cordially,

Nathan

[Forum Admin]

Nathan,
Nobody said the discussion was for real or of genuine historical importance. Lighten up, please, some people think the topic is of intellectual interest.  While I personally don't care to engage in the debate beyond keeping it "legally honest", I think it IS of sufficient interest to many readers, as evidenced by the amount of discussion already.

Like I've always said about TV shows (since you started the analogy): If you don't like the program, change the channel.
(I preferred Bonanza to Gunsmoke myself...

[Nathan_Davis]

My apologies to all. You're right of course, my sarcasm was too heavy handed.  

"Couple of you men carry him up to Doc's!" - also from Gunsmoke

Regards,

Nathan

[Phil_tomaselli]

At the risk of causing grave offence, for which I apologise in advance, aren't certain people planning to indict Saddam Hussein for assorted crimes against humanity, including "his own" people, in "his own" country?

If an absolute ruler such as Saddam can be charged surely Nicholas could have been too, whatever the laws of his country said.

In fact we are talking here about "Revolutionary Justice" and didn't Lenin say he'd kill "the whole prayer book" ie the entire Romanov dynasty.  Whatever else you say about Lenin it has to be admitted that he took personal revenge (for the execution of his brother) into a whole new plane.

Phil Tomaselli

[pushkina]

I have only just caught up with this theme.  I would be quite happy to prosecute Nicholas and probably Alexandra, although I would need to research the evidence in her case.

I am going to speak to a professor at London University who is an expert in Russian law and see how we might, under the laws that existed at the time progress this - of course he might not want to participate.

that's great.  maybe then we could at least fix on a code...or list of possible crimes.

Although I wouldn't charge the Tsar with 'war crimes', I think it would be a general charge of 'crimes against humanity'.  Of course he didn't personally kill anyone as far as I know, but as the leader he knew of the Jewish pogroms etc.  He sanctioned the drastic and ruthless punishment meted out after the 1905 revolution.

Whether he believed what he was doing was 'right' is immaterial.  If what he was doing was illegal then he should stand trial.  I suppose someone could put some individual names to the deaths, but it is the totality that counts not individual cases.

Richard

'war crimes'  and 'crimes against humanity" are modern charges based on modern concepts, at least post-1945.  otherwise, i'd lead the charge with both of them.  as there is no retrospecificity (?sp) here, i don't think we can use them.

[BobAtchison]

When the Bolsheviks were planning for the trial of Nicholas II they said that the Tsar could not be legally held accountable for anything prior to 1905 when he was an autocrat.  They planned to try him for illegally suspending the Duma and changing the election rules in order to pack a new one with members more favorable to the Tsar's Government.

The investigators could not come up with enough to 'get' Nicholas.  They wanted and expected to find spectacular crimes that would sway world opinion during a public trial.  Lenin was mad about it.  This was one reason they didn't do a trial.

Bob

[pushkina]

When the Bolsheviks were planning for the trial of Nicholas II they said that the Tsar could not be legally held accountable for anything prior to 1905 when he was an autocrat.  They planned to try him for illegally suspending the Duma and changing the election rules in order to pack a new one with members more favorable to the Tsar's Government.

The investigators could not come up with enough to 'get' Nicholas.  They wanted and expected to find spectacular crimes that would sway world opinion during a public trial.  Lenin was mad about it.  This was one reason they didn't do a trial.

Bob

finally!  a concrete path to follow...

interesting that the bolshies "accepted" the legality of autocracy enough not to try him publically with it.

so, to follow the bolshies legal logic, events/alleged crimes after the granting of the Duma, august 1905, should be examined at least for aspects of murder, rape, theft, and i would think conspiracy, because of course NII would not have committed any such acts himself but only as the head of a conspiracy or, NII, having knowledge that the act would defintiely occur, did nothing to stop it.

the lena goldfields massacre (4 april 1912) then should definitely be one of our events considered for an alleged crime.

[pushkina]

An exercise in futility, it seems to me, since the Tsar was executed eighty-six years ago last July. Nathan

one version of a translation of ecclesiastes 1:2 is "utter futility!---said koheleth--- utter futility! all is futility!"  so ultimately everything in life, from breakfast and making your bed, washing the dishes, marriage, babies, (my favorite) taxes, it is all to nought.

with that out of the way, it remains to choose your futility. to me, re-examining historical records is always appropriate; you never know what you might learn.

can/will it benefit NII and the IF?  no.  
can/will it benefit us? yes.

What about trying the Bolsheviks in absentia for murdering the children? And the alleged crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and others?

if this were a board devoted to all russian XX century history, i'd be right there for that mock trial too.  and, if i remember correctly, there are threads here on which some have tried to do exactly that.

[olga]

'war crimes'  and 'crimes against humanity" are modern charges based on modern concepts, at least post-1945.

They may be modern concepts but it doesn't mean they haven't happened throughout history.

[Belochka]

Here are a few definitions extracted from:

Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, December 20, 1945, 3 Official Gazette Control Council for Germany 50-55 (1946).


a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.

b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.

All three sections (a) (b) and (c) are recognized as a crime. These were formulated in London, in August 1945, to establish a uniform legal basis in Germany for the prosecution of offenders, not dealt with by the International Military Tribunal.

[Richard_Cullen]

I thought we were concerned with whether Nicholas committed any crime not whether the revoltionaries murdered the Imperial Family - of that there is no doubt.  It was regicide as there was no judicial process.

The last post is excellent and it clearly sets out what is a crime against humanity.

'Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated. '

Who would wish to suggest that in Nicholas' name the following were not committed -

Murder - repression after the 1905 Revolution, that Nicholas troops provoked by the 'murders' they committed on Bloody Sunday.

Extermination - the pogroms against the Jews

Deportation - or didn't Siberian exile exist and others sent further afield

Imprisonment - the prisons were over flowing with people who stood up for their rights and had committed no crime

Torture - or didn't the Okhrana do this?

Rape - I'll let him off that one.

And some wish to justify it on his belief in 'the divine right of kings' autocracy.

Richard

[olga]

Who would wish to suggest that in Nicholas' name the following were not committed -

Murder - repression after the 1905 Revolution, that Nicholas troops provoked by the 'murders' they committed on Bloody Sunday.

Extermination - the pogroms against the Jews

Deportation - or didn't Siberian exile exist and others sent further afield

Imprisonment - the prisons were over flowing with people who stood up for their rights and had committed no crime

Torture - or didn't the Okhrana do this?

Rape - I'll let him off that one.

And some wish to justify it on his belief in 'the divine right of kings' autocracy.

Richard has succeeded in saying what I've been trying to say.