The execution of the royal family: about the main reasons

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family on the night of July 16-17, 1918 was a real shock to the world community. The execution of the last monarch from the Romanov dynasty was condemned in almost all countries of the world, calling it the most cruel and barbaric crime.

Meanwhile, this decision, taken by the Bolshevik leadership, was by no means connected with the “Red Terror” or an act of intimidation, as it was characterized in the West. Historians name at least three reasons that underlay and became the prerequisites for the events of July 1918.

It’s worth starting with what many call the initiator of the execution of the Romanov family, Lenin. Allegedly, he signed the order.

However, no official documents signed by the leader of the revolution have been found to this day. At the same time, historians cite the words of Leon Trotsky, which he uttered in 1929, stating that the problem with the monarch's family was solved by "them" - Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and other top officials of the party.

As for the “problem” itself, the need to solve it, although extremely cruel, according to historians, was dictated by the following reasons.

Firstly, the Bolsheviks feared the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, which at that time looked like a very real threat. That is why, along with Nicholas II, the probable heirs were also shot. Thus, the revolutionaries destroyed the idea of ​​the monarchy in Russia "physically", making its return impossible.

Secondly, the decision to physically eliminate the monarch and his family was made hastily by the Bolsheviks and dictated by circumstances. The thing is that the Whites were preparing day by day to capture Yekaterinburg, where Nicholas II and his family were. In this case, the emperor would be guaranteed to retain his power.

Finally, the third reason named by historians is ideology. At the beginning of the last century, many extremely negative events took place in our country, the economic situation was difficult, and the standard of living was low. Naturally, ordinary people blamed the government for everything.

Thus, the Romanov family was appointed "the culprit of all troubles", and the Bolsheviks became those who "did justice."

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

Monarchs pay taxes with their blood.
Full quote: (Valentin Pikul. I have the honor)
"The profession of kings is too profitable, but they are obliged to pay high taxes to the people with their blood."

[bober1982]

Quote: Mavrikiy

but they owe the nations high taxes with their blood."

The author of this quote died on July 16, some conspiracy theorists associate with the authorship of the famous novel "Unclean Power", in all seriousness.

[invisible_man]

Firstly, the Bolsheviks feared the restoration of the monarchy in Russia

If this had happened by some miracle, then the restorers would hardly have considered the candidacy of Nicholas II, who handed over the throne to his brother. Brother Mikhail Alexandrovich left this question to the discretion of the Constituent Assembly. However, they killed him too.

[AHTONOB]

Los ajusticiaron con el único objeto de erradicar para siempre la monarquía absolutista de Rusia.
En un momento de los más críticos de la Guerra Civil para el Ejército Rojo, los Bolcheviques decidieron que: Es posible que perdamos la guerra y se restaure el Capitalismo en Rusia pero el zarismo (De Caesar, o César), no volverá.

[Tatyana]

Quote from AHTONOB

Los ajusticiaron con el único objeto de erradicar para siempre la monarquía absolutista de Rusia.
En un momento de los más críticos de la Guerra Civil para el Ejército Rojo, los Bolcheviques decidieron que: Es posible que perdamos la guerra y se restaure el Capitalismo en Rusia pero el zarismo (De Caesar, o César), no volverá.

TRANSFER

They staged them for the sole purpose of eradicating the absolutist monarchy in Russia forever.
At the most critical moment of the Civil War for the Red Army, the Bolsheviks decided that: We can lose the war, and capitalism in Russia will be restored, but tsarism (Caesar, or Caesar) will not return.

That's it: "They arranged them for the sole purpose of eradicating the absolutist monarchy in Russia forever." - and not only!
If this goal is called STRATEGIC, then everything else is TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL measures to implement the achievement of this STRATEGIC goal.

This was done in exactly the same way, in essence, as the United States, with its NATO under the leadership of the Pentagon, blew up the Russian gas pipelines "SP-1" and "SP-2", securing the US MONOPOLY in the market for supplies to Europe exclusively of its own American liquefied gas. Namely.

There is no technically-materially to Germany for the EU - the gas pipeline "SP-1" and "SP-2" from Russia - there is no Germany for the EU and STRATEGICALLY AMERICAN and Russian gas itself!
In the same way, there are no representatives of the monarchical family in the Republic of Ingushetia - there is no geopolitically and the most historical state of the historically forming state of the Russian people, which means that THIS Russian people itself does not have any political rights!

As a result, elimination by the Bolsheviks of the monarchical Romanov family Soviet Russia from the Russian Empire as a historical state of the primordially indigenous state of the forming Russian people, followed by a nationalist coup d'état - the administrative division of the territory of Soviet Russia on the basis of the so-called. "titular nationality" - turned by the Bolsheviks into a STATE OF NATIONAL MINORITIES!
And who was at the head of this state nationalist coup d'etat by nationality? That is the question!

[Tatyana]

Quote from AHTONOB

Los ajusticiaron con el único objeto de erradicar para siempre la monarquía absolutista de Rusia.
En un momento de los más críticos de la Guerra Civil para el Ejército Rojo, los Bolcheviques decidieron que: Es posible que perdamos la guerra y se restaure el Capitalismo en Rusia pero el zarismo (De Caesar, o César), no volverá.

Precisamente: "los organizaron con el único propósito de erradicar para siempre la monarquía absolutista en Rusia."- ¡y no solo!
Si este objetivo se llama ESTRATÉGICO, entonces todo lo demás son medidas TÁCTICAS y TÉCNICAS para encarnar el logro de este objetivo ESTRATÉGICO.

Esto se hizo exactamente de la misma manera que Estados Unidos y su OTAN, bajo el liderazgo del Pentágono, volaron los gasoductos rusos SP-1 y SP-2, asegurándose el MONOPOLIO de Estados Unidos en el mercado de suministro a Europa exclusivamente de su gas licuado estadouni dense. A saber.

No técnico-material a Alemania para la UE-gasoducto "SP-1" y "SP-2" de Rusia - no hay Alemania y para la UE y ESTRATÉGICAMENTE de AMÉRICA y el propio gas ruso!
Del mismo modo, No hay representantes de la familia monárquica en RI: no hay un estado geopolítico y el estado histórico más histórico del pueblo ruso que forma históricamente, ¡lo que significa que este mismo pueblo Ruso no tiene derechos políticos!

Como resultado de la eliminación por los bolcheviques de la familia monárquica de los Romanov, la Rusia Soviética del Imperio ruso como estado histórico, el estado indígena original del pueblo ruso que forma, seguido de un golpe de estado nacionalista, la división administrativa del ter ritorio de la Rusia Soviética sobre la base de la llamada "nacionalidad titular", ¡los bolcheviques se convirtieron en un ESTADO de MINORÍAS NACIONALES!
¿Y quién estaba al FRENTE de este GOLPE nacionalista de estado por NACIONALIDAD? ¡Esa es la pregunta!

[AHTONOB]

Los Bolcheviques, naturalmente, estaban al frente.
Para entender el por que hay que leer y entender a Vladimir Ilich Ulianov alias Lenin. La nueva sociedad sovietica no podía ser continuista del Imperio Zarista como carcel de pueblos. Lenin estaba convencido de que la sociedad soviética sería tan sumamente atractiva que ningun pueblo de los que conformaron el imperio ruso querría separarse. Unir en libertad, no en régimem de opresión, era la politica de los bolcheviques en general y de Lenin en particular. Putin, increíblemente ignorante de la Historia de la URSS culpa a Lenin de la disolución de esta, pero un hombre de derechas y religioso como él, está haciendo como Lenin sin saberlo, intentando atraer a las repúblicas ex soviéticas no "manu militari" sino por la persuasion amistosa.
De cualquier modo, los Bolcheviques lograron su objetivo; la Guerra Civil no se perdió, el capitalismo se reinstauro en la ex URSS para suma desgracia de sus pueblos, pero el zarismo, no volvió. Ni se le espera.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote from invisible_man

Firstly, the Bolsheviks feared the restoration of the monarchy in Russia

If this had happened by some miracle, then the restorers would hardly have considered the candidacy of Nicholas II, who handed over the throne to his brother. Brother Mikhail Alexandrovich left this question to the discretion of the Constituent Assembly. However, they killed him too.

And Michael had no right to do it. According to the Code of the Imperial Family, a member of the family had the right to renounce the throne ONLY in favor of another member of the Imperial family, and not in favor of any organization.

[smart ass]

What is there to think Nikolaisha was a weakling and a slobber, so he paid the price, framed his family and country

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family on the night of July 16-17, 1918 was a real shock to the world community.

Well, yes, before that, monarchs were not executed in Europe !!!

[ZhEK-Vodogrey]

The Bolsheviks also shot the tsar's family, including children.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey

The Bolsheviks also shot the tsar's family, including children.

Well, there was only one child there - Alexei, the princesses no longer fit this category

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The Bolsheviks also shot the tsar's family, including children.

In general, not the Bolsheviks, but the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

In general, not the Bolsheviks, but the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.

then not the royal family, but the family of a citizen Romanov

[vovochkarzhevsky]

then not the royal family, but the family of a citizen Romanov

It is truth too. Moreover, it is not clear how he will return to the throne after abdication, the process is irreversible.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Nicholas himself is to blame for what happened, he led his family to the scaffold for a long time and stubbornly

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Nicholas himself is to blame for what happened, he led his family to the scaffold for a long time and stubbornly

This is for sure, first of all, by their unwillingness to change something, what is in the know of the state, what is in personnel policy. And some analogies with the present suggest themselves.

[bober1982]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

This is for sure, first of all, by their unwillingness to change something, what is in the know of the state, what is in personnel policy

So after all, Nikolai Alexandrovich was ruined by all this politics ..... change something...
Constitutional freedoms, read - permissiveness, as we understand these freedoms.
The convocation of parliament, read - empty chatter, bordering on treason.
There are too many changes and innovations for Russia in this very course, further events are known.

[Zoer]

Quote: bober1982

So after all, Nikolai Alexandrovich was ruined by all this politics ..... change something ...
Constitutional freedoms, read - permissiveness, as we understand these freedoms.
The convocation of parliament, read - empty chatter, bordering on treason.
There are too many changes and innovations for Russia in this very course, further events are known.

Well, if these changes were required to be introduced 20-30 years ago, and not when the boiler was already in full swing. The same happened with Gorbachev. If Kosygin's reforms had not been wrapped up, then all those changes by Gorbachev's arrival would have already been smoothly introduced into the state. country policy.

[Nikolay310]

Kosygin's reforms and turned the country's economy from a socialist one is not clear what ... and Gorbachev was only the final chord

[vovochkarzhevsky]

So after all, Nikolai Alexandrovich was ruined by all this politics ..... change something ...
Constitutional freedoms, read - permissiveness, as we understand these freedoms.

The trouble was that a lot of things changed where it was not necessary and did not change where it was necessary.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: bober1982

So after all, Nikolai Alexandrovich was ruined by all this politics ..... change something ...
Constitutional freedoms, read - permissiveness, as we understand these freedoms.
The convocation of parliament, read - empty chatter, bordering on treason.
There are too many changes and innovations for Russia in this very course, further events are known.

Exactly! It was necessary to restore Serfdom, return Corporal Punishment and revive Domostroy!!!

[AdAstra]

Despite the fact that it turns out very interesting - they forced their own - the tsarist generals to leave the throne, they shot the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the Bolsheviks are to blame.

[Maxim G]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

In general, not the Bolsheviks, but the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries.

The Bolsheviks.
They headed the Ural Council.
The biography of these people is known.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The Bolsheviks.
They headed the Ural Council.
The biography of these people is known.

Nevertheless, the Left SRs had a strong influence there. And it was they who carried out this action.

[Maxim G]

It was in the decision-making and execution that they did not take part.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

.


Nevertheless, the Left SRs had a strong influence there. And it was they who carried out this action.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

It was in the decision-making and execution that they did not take part.

Do not read liberal sources.

[Maxim G]

Are Beloborodov and Goloshchekin Left Socialist-Revolutionaries?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Do not read liberal sources.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Are Beloborodov and Goloshchekin Left Socialist-Revolutionaries?

And what, is there any irrefutable evidence of their involvement?

[Maxim G]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

And what, is there any irrefutable evidence of their involvement?

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey

The Bolsheviks also shot the tsar's family, including children.

Not children, but heirs to the throne. The laws of power were not invented by the Bolsheviks.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: Mavrikiy

Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey

The Bolsheviks also shot the tsar's family, including children.

Not children, but heirs to the throne. The laws of power were not invented by the Bolsheviks.

Learn the story Nikolai abdicated the throne both for himself and for his children.
The monarchy was destroyed by the Provisional Government, not the Bolsheviks, present your claims to them. They also introduced the concept of citizenship instead of citizenship.
So the Provisional Government abolished the concept of succession to the throne.

[saigon]

Well, if you remember Europe in such a small way, it’s worth remembering the Hohenstaufen - they were cut to the root, and the Nazis in Sachsenhausen tortured the last Habsburgs.

[zenion]

The fact that today's Russia is a complete version of tsarist Russia does not bother anyone. Everyone is worried not now, but what happened 100 years ago. While everything is walking, but then it can turn into a gallop. Who will be shot, who will go to replace that Nikolai and the place where the same will be done.

[Essex62]

There won't be any. The current ones, they are by origin, "from the plow", besides, they are very cunning for, basically, a well-known smart nation.
We secured ourselves and prepared spare airfields.

[dump22]

before that, monarchs were not executed in Europe !!!

Of course they were executed.

But not in the 20th century.
For example, the French in the 19th century overthrew their monarchs several times (Charles 10th, Louis-Phillip, Napoleon 3rd), but not one of them was executed, but simply driven out of the country.
The Turks overthrew their sultan in 1918, but they did not execute him, but drove him out of the country.
The Spaniards did not execute their king in 1931 either, but drove him out of the country.

Fashion has changed...

[AdAstra]

But in some democratic blacks they lynched and continued like this until the 70s of the 20th century, but yes, the fashion has changed ...

[AHTONOB]

Soy de los que sostienen que el óptimo estado de las testas coronadas es el estar separadas del tronco.
La razón por la cual no se cortarran mas testas reales fue:
1º Toda la putrefacta realeza europea está emparentada.
2º Hoy por tí y mañana por mí.
Ni a un advenedizo como Napoleon Bonaparte le cortaron la cabeza a pesar de no paro de dar motivos.
Si que cambian más que las formas porque no hay que olvidar que en el pasado de las monarquías en general no hacían ascos a ningún crimen ni traición entre padres, hijos, y hermanos, por el trono de turno, y hay que reconocer que esto era poco civilizado.

[stankow]

Ceausescu and his wife were executed, Gadaffi's daughter was killed, Saddam was hanged, Najibullah, etc., there is order in the West and democracy.

[AHTONOB]

No fue un shock para la "comunidad mundial". Para la comunidad mundial fue un mensaje de liberacion. Para quienes tuvieron un shock casi incapacitante, fue para los restos de las putrefactas familias reales europeas. El pánico de la realeza europea y de sus capitalismos fue que la Revolución Soviética constituyó una terrorifica sorpresa. Los ejércitos que estaban para proteger a los ricos no eran fiables. Vieron, sumidos en el pánico más absoluto por el terror a la expansión de la Revolución a otros países, como en Rusia, todos los mecanismos de protección de los dueños del Mundo, saltaban por los aires uno tras otro. La consecuencia de este pánico cerval fue el Nacional Socialismo, no solo para Alemania, sino para todos los capitales. La primera tarea que Hitler ejecutó con exito tras la conquista de Europa, fue el aplastamiento de los poderosos movimientos obreros europeos. Y esto lo hizo bajo las ordenes del capitalismo internacional. Parafraseando un dicho español: "Aquí hay mucha Historia que cortar".

[Reader 2013]

This is what I just read
...............................................

[Old Horseradish]

Ritual murder by masons and some other comrades. The oligarchic world behind the scenes and the owners of the world.

[pharmacist]

Analysis is about nothing. Short, superficial and "maybe this, maybe that." A lot has been written and rewritten on this subject, whoever wanted to read it.

[Cartalon]

Well, not quite the topic that two devout communists will be happy to discuss, infanticide, and even in such a form, is not something that can be easily justified if there was an open trial over Nikolai, and the children would have been quietly killed is another matter.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Cartalon

and the children would have been quietly starved to death is another matter.

let's be frank, the child was alone there, wash away the youngest princess was already 17 years old

[bober1982]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

let's be frank, the child was alone there, wash away the youngest princess was already 17 years old

How old was the Tsarevich?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Do you have problems with reading comprehension?
I clearly wrote the child was one, the girls were all already of marriageable age

[bober1982]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

the girls were all of marriageable age

And, the youngest princess?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: bober1982

And, the youngest princess?

yes, 17 years old, age of marriage RI from 16

[bober1982]

You can, it turns out, kill, we will speak frankly.
Members of the Imperial House had their own legislation on marriage.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: bober1982

You can, it turns out, kill, we will speak frankly.

don’t write heresy, you understood what the conversation was about, you wanted to transfer to the murder of children did not work, now you are trying to pull an owl on the globe
killing in principle is bad, but sometimes it happens

Quote: bober1982

Members of the Imperial House had their own legislation on marriage.

well, what is the question, bring

weak-willed Nikolai himself brought his family to the scaffold, only he is to blame

[bober1982]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Nicholas himself brought his family to the scaffold

You speak very snobbishly.
One of the reasons, if not the main reason for the murder, was that they showed who was the boss in the house, the whole history of Russia ended up in the basement of the Ipatiev House along with the God-fearing people, everything disappeared, but the demons remained.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: bober1982

show who's boss

and who is the owner?

Quote: bober1982

You speak very snobbishly.

it's not a rant, it's a fact

Quote: bober1982

with God-fearing people

this is the people who destroyed the church after?

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Quote: bober1982

show who's boss

and who is the owner?

Quote: bober1982

You speak very snobbishly.

it's not a rant, it's a fact

Quote: bober1982

with God-fearing people

this is the people who destroyed the church after?

The authority of the church among the people before the revolution was meager. Firstly, because it supported the authorities in everything (as it is now), and not the people, and secondly, the church was the largest landowner, and the land issue was very painful in Russia.
So not only landlords, but also church lands rushed to divide. With all the accompanying excesses.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: bober1982

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Nicholas himself brought his family to the scaffold

You speak very snobbishly.
One of the reasons, if not the main reason for the murder, was that they showed who was the boss in the house, the whole history of Russia ended up in the basement of the Ipatiev House along with the God-fearing people, everything disappeared, but the demons remained.

This is not pathos, this is a fact. Many warned the king about this that his policy would lead to this. Including his Interior Minister Durnovo.

[paul3390]

Yeah. And when the Romanovs, for example, the son of Maria Mnishek, the so-called Ivan Vorenok, was publicly hanged for THREE years - as I understand it, it was quite normal, right?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: paul3390

in THREE years they hanged him publicly - as I understand it, it was quite normal, right?

it's different
Ivan VI, was killed by guards while trying to free

[faiver]

Well, what are you, this is different, and in general you can apparently be a saint ....

[AdAstra]

Well, fashion has changed...

[AHTONOB]

Durante los turbulentos días de Febrero la zarina Alejandra Fedorovna escribía al Zar de todos las Rusias: "Sé firme Nicolas, a Rusia le gusta el escozor del látigo". ("Historia de la Revolución Rusa" LT). ¿Merecía otro fin ese tipo de gente? Por otra parte las Revoluciones son asi. Cuando las masas dejan de ser ganado e irrumpen en la Historia pasan factura por siglos de agravios, explotación e injusticia. Que le pregunten a Luis XVI de Francia.

[Pavel57]

There is a hypothesis that the execution of the king was among the demands of the Germans.

[bober1982]

Quote: Pavel57

There is a hypothesis that the execution of the king was among the demands of the Germans

No, the Germans were just trying to "pull" the Tsar and his family out of Russia, the murder of the German ambassador Mirbach in Moscow in early July 1918 was somehow strange.

[faiver]

here, rather, the islanders noted ....

[bober1982]

Quote: faiver

here, rather, the islanders noted ....

The cousin simply refused, the Germans at least tried to do something.

[dump22]

Somehow doubtful.
The Germans in April 1918, on the contrary, saved the grand dukes who were under arrest in the Crimea from execution.

[bober1982]

The murder of the Royal Family did not come as a shock to the so-called world community.
The murder itself was planned for a long time and carefully, long before Tobolsk and Yekaterinburg, and the VKPB itself had nothing to do with these events, it was the Satanists who planned and killed.
To name the reasons for the massacre of the Tsar and the family - the possible restoration of the monarchy, the occupation of Yekaterinburg by the Red troops, this is all babble.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: bober1982

and killed - Satanists.

mdaaaaa
you forgot to mention the pentagrams and the ritual of summoning the devil

[Chief Officer Lom]

Finally, fourthly: horrified by words, many "allies" of tsarist Russia were interested in the physical destruction of the tsar and his family for the same reason as the Bolsheviks. It is no secret that the February Revolution was overseen by the British Embassy. the French were also probably in the know, but they had already become followers, and the Americans were just beginning to become impudent in Europe. In any case, the allies had already divided our country into zones of occupation, the fate of the Bolsheviks hung in the balance, and the return of what the allies called legitimate power, would put them in an awkward position, they would have to leave over time (100% would not have left immediately). Trotsky’s words should not be trusted, especially since it has been proven that during the revolution he was an American agent (although, most likely private, but as we understand today, this is not essential in the USA, and state intelligence services often work directly in their private interests ). Many "revolutionary" parties were directly or indirectly financed from abroad, so you can only say for sure who directly fired, and who was the initiator - they still argue. According to other information that contradicts Trotsky, Lenin found out about this after the fact and did not declare his innocence, so as not to undermine his authority.

[svp67]

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family on the night of July 16-17, 1918 was a real shock to the world community. The execution of the last monarch from the Romanov dynasty was condemned in almost all countries of the world, calling it the most cruel and barbaric crime.

And England and France condemned the same thing? Well, then let them revive their executed monarchs. hypocrites

Meanwhile, this decision, taken by the Bolshevik leadership,

I don’t understand why now this myth is being told? In the Soviet government there were not only "Bolsheviks", despite the split that occurred on July 06, 1918, due to the rebellion of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and their defeat, many people in power sympathized with their ideas.
Yes, and on the ground, they showed quite a lot of various "initiatives" that clearly run counter to the will of the central leadership.
At the expense of the execution of Nikolai Romanov and his family. It could have taken place earlier, in April 1918, in Tobolsk. And a special detachment was going to do this, sent from Yekaterinburg, on behalf of the Ural Council. And only the arrival from Moscow of an armed detachment of the Cheka, led by Yakovlev, one of the organizers of the Cheka, the execution did not take place.
And then it's interesting:

At the same time, the Ural Council itself considered it necessary to put an end to Nicholas II without taking him alive to Yekaterinburg.
This is known from the words of the chairman of the Ural Council A. G. Beloborodov: “It is necessary to dwell on one extremely important circumstance in the line of conduct of the Regional Council. We thought that there was probably no need to bring Nikolai to Yekaterinburg, that if favorable conditions were provided during his transfer, he should be shot on the road. Zaslavsky (the commander of the Yekaterinburg detachment) had such an order and all the time tried to take steps towards its implementation, although to no avail. In addition, Zaslavsky, obviously, behaved in such a way that his intentions were unraveled by Yakovlev, which to some extent explains the misunderstandings that arose later between Zaslavsky and Yakovlev on a rather large scale.
Yakovlev also recalls this:
“Even at the first meeting with the representatives of Yekaterinburg, Khokhryakov and Zaslavsky, the latter said:
“Well, Comrade Yakovlev, we have to put an end to this matter.
- With which? I asked.
- With the Romanovs!
Yakovlev then sharply pulled Zaslavsky, declaring that he had other instructions from the center.
Further more. Before leaving Tobolsk, one of the representatives of Yekaterinburg warned Yakovlev that it would be better for him not to sit down with Nikolai. That, they say, if he does this, they will be killed together.
But Yakovlev defiantly sits down together with the former tsar. All the way to Tyumen, the watchmen of Yekaterinburg are probing the possibility of capturing the tsar, but they do not dare to attack.
Arriving in Tyumen on April 27, Yakovlev telegraphed Sverdlov, calling the royal family “baggage” for the purpose of secrecy: “I just brought some of the luggage. I want to change the route due to the following extremely important circumstances. From Ekaterinburg to Tobolsk, special people arrived before me to destroy the luggage. The "special purpose detachment" fought back - it almost came to bloodshed.
When I arrived, the residents of Yekaterinburg gave me a hint that there was no need to bring luggage to the place. <...> They asked me not to sit next to the luggage (Petrov). It was a direct warning that I might also be destroyed. <...> Not having achieved their goal in Tobolsk, neither on the road, nor in Tyumen, the Yekaterinburg detachments decided to ambush me near Yekaterinburg. They decided that if I did not give them luggage without a fight, they decided to kill us. <...> Yekaterinburg, with the exception of Goloshchekin, has only one desire - to do away with the luggage. The fourth, fifth and sixth companies of the Red Army are preparing an ambush for us. <...> If this disagrees with the central opinion, then it is madness to carry luggage to Yekaterinburg. <...>
So, answer me: I should go to Yekaterinburg or through Omsk to the Simsky mountain district. Waiting for an answer. I'm standing at the station with my luggage."
After some time, Sverdlov contacts Yakovlev and agrees to take Nicholas II to Omsk.
For the Urals, Yakovlev's turn from Yekaterinburg to Omsk means confirmation of their suspicions. Yekaterinburg will immediately learn about the situation. Beloborodov telegraphs over the Trans-Siberian Railway that Yakovlev is a "counter-revolutionary" and demands his detention. In Omsk, a whole army is preparing to meet the train with the Romanovs.
The situation was saved by chance: the head of the Omsk Soviet turned out to be Yakovlev's comrade from the party school, who, after some explanation, cancels Beloborodov's order.
Thus, the desire of the Ural Council to put an end to the royal family turned out to be so strong that the Urals were ready to decide on the murder of the Extraordinary Commissar Yakovlev sent by Moscow and his detachment.
Having escaped the fate of dying at his own hands, Yakovlev contacts Sverdlov. Sverdlov reports that the “cargo” must be handed over to representatives of the Ural Council, that “there was an agreement with the Urals. Measures were taken - they gave guarantees of the personal responsibility of the regionals. It is clear that we are talking about guarantees for the life of the royal family.
After that, Sverdlov instructs Beloborodov to obey Yakovlev in everything: “Moscow, April 29. Everything that Yakovlev does is the direct fulfillment of the order given by me. I will send you the details by a special courier. Do not make any orders regarding Yakovlev, he is acting in accordance with the instructions received from me today at 4 o'clock in the morning. Do absolutely nothing without our consent. Yakovlev full confidence. Once again, no interference. Sverdlov. Here is such a repeated, persistent persuasion (almost a spell) to obey the order.
Yakovlev brought to Yekaterinburg and handed over to Beloborodov Nicholas II, Alexandra Fedorovna and Maria Alexandrovna against receipt. The royal family is imprisoned in the Ipatiev House.

It was from the spring to the autumn of 1918 that the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries played a MAJOR role in the Soviets of the Urals, despite the fact that this party was recognized as "illegal" in Moscow and St. Petersburg in July 1918. And it was the Ural Council that made the decision not to take Romanov to Moscow, but to destroy him on the spot.
Which, in principle, did not meet with strong opposition from the Center at that moment.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: svp67

The murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family on the night of July 16-17, 1918 was a real shock to the world community. The execution of the last monarch from the Romanov dynasty was condemned in almost all countries of the world, calling it the most cruel and barbaric crime.

And England and France condemned the same thing? Well, then let them revive their executed monarchs. hypocrites

Meanwhile, this decision, taken by the Bolshevik leadership,

I don’t understand why now this myth is being told? In the Soviet government there were not only "Bolsheviks", despite the split that occurred on July 06, 1918, due to the rebellion of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and their defeat, many people in power sympathized with their ideas.
Yes, and on the ground, they showed quite a lot of various "initiatives" that clearly run counter to the will of the central leadership.
At the expense of the execution of Nikolai Romanov and his family. It could have taken place earlier, in April 1918, in Tobolsk. And a special detachment was going to do this, sent from Yekaterinburg, on behalf of the Ural Council. And only the arrival from Moscow of an armed detachment of the Cheka, led by Yakovlev, one of the organizers of the Cheka, the execution did not take place.
And then it's interesting:

At the same time, the Ural Council itself considered it necessary to put an end to Nicholas II without taking him alive to Yekaterinburg.
This is known from the words of the chairman of the Ural Council A. G. Beloborodov: “It is necessary to dwell on one extremely important circumstance in the line of conduct of the Regional Council. We thought that there was probably no need to bring Nikolai to Yekaterinburg, that if favorable conditions were provided during his transfer, he should be shot on the road. Zaslavsky (the commander of the Yekaterinburg detachment) had such an order and all the time tried to take steps towards its implementation, although to no avail. In addition, Zaslavsky, obviously, behaved in such a way that his intentions were unraveled by Yakovlev, which to some extent explains the misunderstandings that arose later between Zaslavsky and Yakovlev on a rather large scale.
Yakovlev also recalls this:
“Even at the first meeting with the representatives of Yekaterinburg, Khokhryakov and Zaslavsky, the latter said:
“Well, Comrade Yakovlev, we have to put an end to this matter.
- With which? I asked.
- With the Romanovs!
Yakovlev then sharply pulled Zaslavsky, declaring that he had other instructions from the center.
Further more. Before leaving Tobolsk, one of the representatives of Yekaterinburg warned Yakovlev that it would be better for him not to sit down with Nikolai. That, they say, if he does this, they will be killed together.
But Yakovlev defiantly sits down together with the former tsar. All the way to Tyumen, the watchmen of Yekaterinburg are probing the possibility of capturing the tsar, but they do not dare to attack.
Arriving in Tyumen on April 27, Yakovlev telegraphed Sverdlov, calling the royal family “baggage” for the purpose of secrecy: “I just brought some of the luggage. I want to change the route due to the following extremely important circumstances. From Ekaterinburg to Tobolsk, special people arrived before me to destroy the luggage. The "special purpose detachment" fought back - it almost came to bloodshed.
When I arrived, the residents of Yekaterinburg gave me a hint that there was no need to bring luggage to the place. <...> They asked me not to sit next to the luggage (Petrov). It was a direct warning that I might also be destroyed. <...> Not having achieved their goal in Tobolsk, neither on the road, nor in Tyumen, the Yekaterinburg detachments decided to ambush me near Yekaterinburg. They decided that if I did not give them luggage without a fight, they decided to kill us. <...> Yekaterinburg, with the exception of Goloshchekin, has only one desire - to do away with the luggage. The fourth, fifth and sixth companies of the Red Army are preparing an ambush for us. <...> If this disagrees with the central opinion, then it is madness to carry luggage to Yekaterinburg. <...>
So, answer me: I should go to Yekaterinburg or through Omsk to the Simsky mountain district. Waiting for an answer. I'm standing at the station with my luggage."
After some time, Sverdlov contacts Yakovlev and agrees to take Nicholas II to Omsk.
For the Urals, Yakovlev's turn from Yekaterinburg to Omsk means confirmation of their suspicions. Yekaterinburg will immediately learn about the situation. Beloborodov telegraphs over the Trans-Siberian Railway that Yakovlev is a "counter-revolutionary" and demands his detention. In Omsk, a whole army is preparing to meet the train with the Romanovs.
The situation was saved by chance: the head of the Omsk Soviet turned out to be Yakovlev's comrade from the party school, who, after some explanation, cancels Beloborodov's order.
Thus, the desire of the Ural Council to put an end to the royal family turned out to be so strong that the Urals were ready to decide on the murder of the Extraordinary Commissar Yakovlev sent by Moscow and his detachment.
Having escaped the fate of dying at his own hands, Yakovlev contacts Sverdlov. Sverdlov reports that the “cargo” must be handed over to representatives of the Ural Council, that “there was an agreement with the Urals. Measures were taken - they gave guarantees of the personal responsibility of the regionals. It is clear that we are talking about guarantees for the life of the royal family.
After that, Sverdlov instructs Beloborodov to obey Yakovlev in everything: “Moscow, April 29. Everything that Yakovlev does is the direct fulfillment of the order given by me. I will send you the details by a special courier. Do not make any orders regarding Yakovlev, he is acting in accordance with the instructions received from me today at 4 o'clock in the morning. Do absolutely nothing without our consent. Yakovlev full confidence. Once again, no interference. Sverdlov. Here is such a repeated, persistent persuasion (almost a spell) to obey the order.
Yakovlev brought to Yekaterinburg and handed over to Beloborodov Nicholas II, Alexandra Fedorovna and Maria Alexandrovna against receipt. The royal family is imprisoned in the Ipatiev House.

It was from the spring to the autumn of 1918 that the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries played a MAJOR role in the Soviets of the Urals, despite the fact that this party was recognized as "illegal" in Moscow and St. Petersburg in July 1918. And it was the Ural Council that made the decision not to take Romanov to Moscow, but to destroy him on the spot.
Which, in principle, did not meet with strong opposition from the Center at that moment.

Very interesting. Moreover, the death of Nicholas suited everyone. And the whites, including those who were not at all going to return the throne to Nicholas. And there is no judgment.
Kolchak was certainly not going to give power to Nicholas.

[Lech from Android.]

Nikolai Romanov did nothing to save his children.
Such a mattress and mediocrity blew everything ... the country, power, family, his life in the end.
It is impossible to give power to such terpils in our state ... otherwise everyone will die.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: Lech from Android.

Nikolai Romanov did nothing to save his children.
Such a mattress and mediocrity blew everything ... the country, power, family, his life in the end.
It is impossible to give power to such terpils in our state ... otherwise everyone will die.

And his Durnovo warned that with his policy he would bring the country to a revolution, and himself and his family to death.

[Quiet Don]

The decision to shoot was made by the Ural Council, in which the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and anarchists ruled, namely, there were few Bolsheviks in it, so the leadership of the Bolsheviks was confronted with a fact. The Bolsheviks, of course, wanted to hang the empress, but after an open trial.

[ivan2022]

In the zero years, the Bolsheviks lost access to the money of the royal family after her death completely. And after the murder of Mirbach, the murder of cousin Kaiser also threatened the Brest Peace.

First, back in April 1918, Lenin demanded the extradition of Nikolai and his family to Moscow for trial.

Secondly, Nicholas himself renounced and was extremely unpopular among the people. The heir, Michael, also renounced .... They themselves understood that the restoration of the monarchy in these conditions is complete idiocy. For the people, it would be "great again" ...

Thirdly, it was useless for the Bolsheviks to "appoint guilty" Nicholas, because the period of "search for the guilty" had already passed ..... There WAS ALREADY a new government in the yard. And the main threat to her was the Entente, and not the abdicated Nikolashka. There were enough guilty without him

Today they are sitting on sofas and looking for the guilty ..... in the wilds of history a hundred years ago ...

[infantrefir]

For me, the reason for the murder of the Romanov family lies in their wealth. Who is the main beneficiary and heir? English royal family. Much has been written about the jewels of the Romanovs that surfaced in this thieves' family (exculpatory royal versions look naive and ridiculous). Less known are the export of gold and the transfer of personal funds by the Romanovs (before the revolution) to .... London, London banks. Another question is where did these funds go? The refusal of the English royal family to grant asylum in England looks ambiguous and ... logical. You can talk a lot about this topic. For example, the English Admiral Kolchak (supervised and controlled by the British) is concurrently the Supreme Ruler of Siberia, the very area where the gold reserves of Russia disappeared. Why does the author not mention Yakov Sverdlov, who is directly related to giving the command to eliminate the imperial family? The extended family was related to some of the banking houses of the City of London. And in general, the comrade was very muddy ..... The Romanovs are the richest family in Russia, at that time, we are talking about huge funds.

[tank64rus]

Don't forget the role of the imperial family in the creation of the US Federal Reserve and their dividend rights.

[UAZ 452]

The reign of the Romanovs began with the hanging of a five-year-old child - the son of False Dmitry. So the end of their dynasty was quite natural and, in principle, fair.

[Smoked]

Yes. Nicholas II was generally a funny monarch. He liked to shoot crows, cats, workers.

[Vladimir80]

The reign of the Romanovs began with the hanging of a five-year-old child - the son of False Dmitry. So the end of their dynasty was quite natural and, in principle, fair

there was such a tragic event, but according to the same logic, after 70 years of abortions in the USSR and Russia, what should happen to us???

[Belisarius]

Lord, what nonsense. It's a shame to print this
1) The execution of which "king"? Tsar Nicholas II abdicated in March 1917, thereby changing the monarchy, Russia (he was also Supreme) and God himself. He was the grace of God.
The citizen Romanov, who was not a king, was shot.
2) No "leadership of the Bolsheviks" had anything to do with this, moreover, it was disastrously unprofitable for them, so unprofitable that then we had to lie for 20 years that we do not know where the children are and what is happening to them.
All over Europe, it poured into everyone's ears that the Bolsheviks were barbarians, child-killers and, in general, monsters.
Can you imagine what the prospects for the world revolution are after such propaganda ....
3) The decision was made by the executive committee of the Ural Council, that is, the "left communists", opponents of the Brest peace and the general course of Lenin.
Their fate is also interesting - out of 5 organizers of the decision of the Ural Council - one died in civilian life, 4 - were shot in the late 30s as enemies of the people.
And now they are both bloody executioners and innocent victims of Stalin's repressions .....

[dump22]

No "bolshevik leadership" had anything to do with this, moreover, it was disastrously unprofitable for them

It would be interesting to know then something else.
The "Bolshevik leadership" did not seem to have anything to do with the execution of the tsar's brother in Perm, it seems that the local Chekists did their best. But the murder of the tsar's relatives in Alapaevsk also happened without their knowledge?

And yet, what about the execution of 4 princes in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1919? After all, the Bolsheviks themselves announced this execution as revenge for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht?

then I had to lie for 20 years that we do not know where the children are and what is happening to them.

Well, they lied not for 20 years, but only for 4 years.
The message about the execution of the tsar was published in the newspaper Pravda on July 19, 1918.
An article with details about the execution of the royal family appeared in the Moskovskaya Pravda newspaper in the summer of 1922.

[Belisarius]

Quote from: dump22

The "Bolshevik leadership" did not seem to have anything to do with the execution of the tsar's brother in Perm, it seems that the local Chekists did their best. But the murder of the tsar's relatives in Alapaevsk also happened without their knowledge?

And yet, what about the execution of 4 princes in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1919? After all, the Bolsheviks themselves announced this execution as revenge for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht?

The game of "irony" is not available to you, do not even try. I am answering the questions
1) Perm. Specifically Myasnikov. He writes about it in sufficient detail. Emigrant. Shot as an enemy of the people in 1945.
2) Alapaevsk. Did not have. Enforcement of the decision in Alapaevsk and Yekaterinburg are closely related.
3) Petersburg. They had the decision of the Cheka as part of the policy of red terror. The policy was sanctioned by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars.

[dump22]

Thank you.
1. Please tell me, did the "Bolshevik leadership" sincerely believe in the version of Mikhail's escape, or did they still know the truth about the execution? And if this escape / execution was the sole arbitrariness of the "enemy of the people" Myasnikov, why was he promoted to the chairman of the Perm provincial party committee instead of punishment? Looks like an encouragement.
2. About the murder in Alapaevsk, a version was immediately launched about the alleged abduction of the princes. Did the "leadership of the Bolsheviks" sincerely believe in the version of the kidnapping, or did they immediately know the truth?

[Gardamir]

Charles 1 was executed in England, Louis 16 in France.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Gardamir

Charles 1 was executed in England, Louis 16 in France.

there and before that they had a good frolic

[UAZ 452]

Karl's family was not touched. Louis' wife was executed later, according to a separate verdict, and his son simply disappeared in prison - so external propriety is observed, and there it is even more important.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: UAZ 452

Karl's family was not touched.

for what reason?!

Quote: UAZ 452

Louis' wife was executed later

this fundamentally changes things.

[jaroff]

To begin with, it would be necessary to admit that it was not the Bolsheviks who sent the family to Tobolsk, but the provisional government. You have to look at the root. In fact, there were options to send the royal family abroad, no longer the empire, but still the Russian state. Even through Finland to Sweden. And then, at least do not dawn! Not the first monarchy and not the last where the marked family is removed abroad. In exile. But they didn't. Deliberately? Certainly! Shooting is a consequence, not a cause. The reason is only in the position of the provisional government

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: zharyoff

The reason is only in the position of the provisional government

rather heads of individual states

[Marxism-Leninism Marxism-Leninism]

But nothing that the majority of those who made the decision were Socialist-Revolutionaries, and not Bolsheviks? And there was no unity of the Soviets at that time? And the unity of the party too? and the Ural Council made a decision on its own, only notifying the Council of People's Commissars?

[hipper]

+1. In addition, in 18 there was no talk of any restoration of the monarchy. In the white movement of the monarchists it was with a gulkin's nose. Kolchak, who climbed the Eburg, was one of the first to welcome the abdication of the Sovereign. There was no force that could restore this rudiment. And citizen Romanov got it for his sins.

[zombirusrev]

1. It was not the Bolsheviks who shot, but the Left SRs.
2. Not the family of the King, but the Family of the Former King .. i.e. at that time an ordinary citizen.
3. The Britons were offered to take their relatives, but in order to have a chance to "trample" (c) they did not take the Bolsheviks and organized the execution with the help of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary faction
4. The king was not simple; he had a lot of people's blood on him:
4.1. Lena execution of PMC Lena Golden
4.2. Bloody Sunday
4.3. Bloody suppression led by Colonel Ming
strikes on the Nikolaev and Kazan railways
From Moscow there was a direct order from Vladimir Ilyich the former Tsar to be taken to Moscow and judged by a right-wing revolutionary court.
Z.Y. Why don’t they consider the idea that the Old Believers did it ... like Savva Morozov .. The Romanovs killed many Old Believers ..

[zombirusrev]

I have been tormented for a long time by the question of why the nobles harassed monarchs and other high-ranking persons with a bang and squealing about this is not audible, but only the people ... killed one monarch and his family so screeching to heaven. For me, for example, Paul I is more valuable than the last monarch. Apparently the nobles can do whatever they want, but the cattle .. oh! sorry people can't...

[Nikolay310]

And yes, for some reason, for the innocently murdered EMPEROR (unlike citizen Romanov) Peter the Third, hypocrites like Strelkov do not shed tears ... and there is not so much reverence for Alexander the Liberator, destroyed by terrorists, as for this bloody "passion-bearer".

“Whoever began to reign over Khodynka will end up standing on the scaffold” ... Balmont predicted this back in 1906 ... ALL segments of the population, even many family members, renounced the king-rag, even many family members ... almost all commanders spoke out for the resignation of their commander-in-chief fronts, except for the cunning Kolchak, who, although he abstained, was one of the first to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government ... oh, what a "good" tsar was ...

But 100 years later, all sorts of "historians" and priests of the foreign church, whose predecessors openly collaborated with Hitler, "say that we must repent ... but these churchmen do not want to remember how they themselves renounced the head of the church and ran to choose patriarchs for themselves ???

Repent yourself. And the people have a clear conscience.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: zombirusrev

I have been tormented for a long time by the question of why the nobles harassed monarchs and other high-ranking persons with a bang and squealing about this is not audible, but only the people ... killed one monarch and his family so screeching to heaven. For me, for example, Paul I is more valuable than the last monarch. Apparently the nobles can do whatever they want, but the cattle .. oh! sorry people can't...

So I have spoken about this many times.
And by the way, Paul the First acted courageously and did not renounce even under pain of death and died the emperor, accepting martyrdom.
Here he is worthy of holiness more than citizen Nikolai Romanov. Also Alexander II.

[Kuziming]

It was a dirty, inhumane, illegal affair, it was done secretly.

To shoot a renounced citizen, his wife, children, doctor, cook...

More like a ritual murder than a people's court.

[ivan2022]

No... Not secretly. The decision was made at the highest level of the local legislature. There was no one to fear, the workers supported.

Secret is, for example, the night vigil of Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991. And they found out only in the morning.

But... heh... heh... "they didn't kill anyone".... They just started the process that brought us to today. Hundreds of thousands killed "in the current heating season" and another reduction in the population by 10 million ....

[Ulan.1812]

Quote from Kuziming

It was a dirty, inhumane, illegal affair, it was done secretly.

To shoot a renounced citizen, his wife, children, doctor, cook...

More like a ritual murder than a people's court.

And the Civil War is generally illegal. And a chain of events led to it, about which Nikolai was warned by his Interior Minister Durnovo.
That you can’t get into a world war and that it will end with a revolution and the death of the royal family.
And so it happened - the illegal February revolution, the illegal October, illegal civil war, as a result of which they were killed even then. hundreds of thousands of people were hanged and shot, including civilians - women, old people, children.
Both sides were killed. So the former tsar and his family are the same victims of the Civil War as all thousands of other victims.
Why is it necessary to single him out alone?
It was the reign of Nicholas II that led to all this. The rest is a consequence.

[ivan2022]

Now, many simply do not know that the Civil War in Russia is not a direct consequence of Nicholas's abdication and not a consequence of revolutions, but a consequence of the December 1917 conference of the Entente countries in Paris.

On which Russia was divided into areas of responsibility and funding was opened for future governments and armies opposing Russia.

What happened a hundred years ago, that is today!

[Seamaster]

Shooting children is, of course, not good.
But there was only one child there - Alexei ROMANOV, 13 years old.
But in 1613, the Romanov lackeys killed the LEGAL HEIR TO THE THRONE - the son of False Dmitry and Marina, the so-called. Vorenka.
He was not shot with a revolver, like Alexei - quickly and painlessly.
He, a THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD, was hung up in the cold and he suffocated for 4 HOURS in a noose - he was already very light.
And the rope is thick. Did not drag on the chicken neck.
I even had to wrap him in a sheepskin coat - so that he would not freeze, but suffocate.
But that's a completely different matter, right?
This is what the Romanovs did.
And with the Romanovs, do this NOW!

[lisikat2]

"Romanov lackeys" want the surname "kholuev *:? Kuzma Minin, as a Duma nobleman, prepared a resolution of the Boyar Duma, Pozharsky and Trubetskoy, signed the decision to convene the Zemsky Sobor ..
The number of the Zemsky Sobor. Around 1,500
I do not consider Michael 1 educated, but he had ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE: ALL RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS. Approve at the Zemsky Sobor.
It was Peter 1 who liquidated it, even the Boyar Duma. Suddenly, they will say something against!

[Seamaster]

But what, the decision to hang a 3-year-old child was made at the Zemsky Sobor?

[dump22]

But there was only one child there - Alexei ROMANOV, 13 years old.

Ah, so that changes everything.
Of course, it is already possible to shoot a girl of 17 years old, she is not a child?!
An adult, and should already be responsible for her origin.

He was not shot with a revolver, like Alexei - quickly and painlessly.

Yes, Alexey can be said - just very lucky.
But for example, his own aunt (nun) in Alapaevsk was thrown alive into the mine and she died there rather slowly. Well, no luck, and it happens.

This is what the Romanovs did.

That is, the son of Nicholas II and, in general, the entire Romanov family were executed in retaliation for the crime of 2 years ago, committed by their distant ancestors? And I didn't know, it also changes everything. Then maybe it's possible?

[Seamaster]

Well, you're resenting a crime a HUNDRED YEARS ago.

[dump22]

Well, you're resenting a crime a HUNDRED YEARS ago.

Not certainly in that way.
I am amused by attempts to somehow justify the crime of 100 years ago.
Instead of honestly saying yes, it was a murder. Those who did it are definitely criminals.
And close this thread.

[Seamaster]

About a 17 year old girl.
On January 9, 1905, at the Winter Palace, how many 17-year-old and 7-year-old girls / girls were chopped up by checkers on the orders of the father of this murdered princess?
But that's a completely different matter, right?

[dump22]

how many 17 year old and 7 year old girls/girls

In total, there were 96 killed and 333 wounded, of which 34 more people later died.

chopped up with swords on the orders of the father of this murdered princess?

Nobody was cut down, the soldiers had no sabers. They shot.
And let's even assume that it was Nicholas II who ordered the execution on January 2 (although this is not so, he was not in the city at all that day, he was in Tsarskoye Selo). Let's forget that there was no direct order at all, and the military acted in accordance with the military regulations - to open fire if the crowd does not listen to warnings and approaches the formation closer than a known distance.

And let's even close our eyes to the absence of a trial in this case.

We still have one question.
Do you really think it is justified to kill children for the crimes of their fathers?
Should a wife be killed for her husband's crimes?

[Seamaster]

You are citing the data of the very authorities that committed this crime - the shooting of a demonstration.
Zelinsky also says that the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 500 days of the SVO are 5 thousand, and the Muscovites have 300 thousand.
And FOREIGN journalists give figures of 2000 killed and about 4000 wounded.
Secondly, the soldiers did not have checkers. They were with the Cossacks, who cut down those who fled (their favorite pastime) from the square. Let me remind you that executions that day were not only in front of the palace, but throughout the city - the cattle had to be explained WHO was the boss in the house.
Py.Sy. By the way, there were cases when the CITY tried to protect people from the brutalized Cossack.

[dump22]

You are citing the data of the very authorities that committed this crime - the shooting of a demonstration.

Yes. I bring Russian OFFICIAL data.
You apparently trust the writings of Western journalists more, who are famous for their "objectivity". This, of course, is your right, but their "round" numbers somehow inspire doubts to me personally. It's too similar to "300 thousand" from Zelinsky.

But you still haven't answered my question.
Do you really think it's justified to kill children for the crimes of their fathers?
Should a wife be killed for her husband's crimes?

[Ulan.1812]

Quote from: dump22

But there was only one child there - Alexei ROMANOV, 13 years old.

Ah, so that changes everything.
Of course, it is already possible to shoot a girl of 17 years old, she is not a child?!
An adult, and should already be responsible for her origin.

He was not shot with a revolver, like Alexei - quickly and painlessly.

Yes, Alexey can be said - just very lucky.
But for example, his own aunt (nun) in Alapaevsk was thrown alive into the mine and she died there rather slowly. Well, no luck, and it happens.

This is what the Romanovs did.

That is, the son of Nicholas II and, in general, the entire Romanov family were executed in retaliation for the crime of 2 years ago, committed by their distant ancestors? And I didn't know, it also changes everything. Then maybe it's possible?

And that Nikolai himself committed few crimes? He answered for his deeds. Type in a search engine - executions under Nicholas II.

[dump22]

And that Nikolai himself committed few crimes?

Yes, even though he killed and raped children, like Chikatilo.
There are his crimes - HIM for them and judge.

Do you think his crimes somehow justify the murder of his wife, children, brother, uncles and aunts, nephews, etc.?

[Vladimir80]

LEGAL HEIR TO THE THRON

surprisingly, on v.o. there are even supporters of the Rzhechi Commonwealth!

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: Vladimir80

LEGAL HEIR TO THE THRON

surprisingly, on v.o. there are even supporters of the Rzhechi Commonwealth!

In fact, Nicholas abdicated both on his own behalf and on behalf of his son in favor of his brother Michael. So Alexei was not an heir, Nikolai deprived him of this.

[Vladimir80]

Ulan.1812
actually, my comment was about the execution of the "legitimate heir" of Mnishek and false Dmitry ....

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: Vladimir80

plot

I'm sorry, I did not get it. It happens, do not scold too much.

[Seamaster]

There are no Rzhechi supporters here.
But False Dmitry was officially recognized as the RUSSIAN Tsar by the BEST PEOPLE of the then Russia - the Boyar Duma.
It's not for me, orphan, to argue with them.
And, by the way, when Minin and Pozharsky arrived at the Kremlin to drive the Poles towards the west, not only the Poles, but also Moishik Romanov, the future tsar with his muterchen, looked at him with malice from the walls of the Kremlin.
Such a squiggle, panimash!

[Damask]

Come on, inviolable damn it, there would be a repetition of history and now many deserve walls with their families

[lisikat2]

Okay: the emperor, actually * "begged" for death, the empress was an idiot, but forgive me, but what mother will be happy that her son is seriously ill. And if it were not for Yurovsky, or Ermakov, he proved all his life that he killed the tsar and the crown prince, while others claimed that he shot the girl.
Alexey would not have lived for a long time - this is a medical fact

[Dart2027]

Thus, the revolutionaries destroyed the idea of ​​the monarchy in Russia "physically", making its return impossible.

The fact that there were other Romanovs in the country is unknown to the author.

The thing is that the Whites were preparing day by day to capture Yekaterinburg, where Nicholas II and his family were. In this case, the emperor would be guaranteed to retain his power.

And that the Whites were monarchists? I didn't know.

Thus, the Romanov family was appointed "the culprit of all troubles", and the Bolsheviks became those who "did justice."

"Justice"?

[dump22]

The fact that there were other Romanovs in the country is unknown to the author.

So the Bolsheviks honestly tried to kill all the Romanovs they could find.
And they almost made it.
The king's brother was shot shortly before the murder of the royal family.
After the murder of the family - in Alapaevsk, the next day, the royal relatives were killed.
In 1919, 4 grand dukes were shot in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
The group of Romanovs in the Crimea was almost shot, but they were saved at the last moment by the Germans and the sailor Zadorozhny.

And that the Whites were monarchists? I didn't know.

Never mind. It is in the author's head that the products of Soviet propaganda are decomposing.
Although maybe he really thinks that Kolchak, who was approaching Yekaterinburg, voluntarily wanted to transfer his power to Nikolai? Or maybe the Czechoslovak units (which took Yekaterinburg) were ready to submit to Nicholas?

[Dart2027]

Quote from: dump22

The group of Romanovs in the Crimea was almost shot, but they were saved at the last moment by the Germans and the sailor Zadorozhny.

But there are strong doubts about the sailor. After all, he was not alone, but a whole detachment, and all of a sudden they decided to defend the Romanovs? Doubtful. Rather, there were some hidden factors.

[dump22]

Doubtful. Rather, there were some hidden factors.

There was definitely a hidden factor.
The struggle for power between the Crimean councils of deputies.
Sailor Zadorozhny frankly despised the "civilian politicians" from the Yalta Soviet and was subordinate only to the Sevastopol Soviet, which was made up of practically only military men. And the Sevastopol Council did not give a sanction for execution, to spite Yalta.

[Amateur]

Who, how, why and because of what has long been known.
In the early 20s of the twentieth century, investigator N.A. Sokolov, who investigated this murder in 1918 after the whites took Yekaterinburg (the book was republished "The Murder of the Royal Family / N.A. Sokolov. - M .: Algorithm, 2017.
– 384 p. – (Case is not closed)". Available on the Internet.
In 1989, another "fundamental" book, Twenty-three Steps Down, was published. Author - Mark Kasvinov. The same is on the Internet.
In these two books, this tragedy is painted literally minute by minute.
But with the "light" hand of B. Nemtsov, in an attempt to whitewash Y. Sverdlov and other Zionists, they again tried to confuse the matter.
You just have to read the originals.

[Glagol1]

1918 is actually a troubled time in the 20th century edition. People not only hated opponents, but were ready for any crimes. When hatred conquers the mind. By the way, this is exactly what happened now in the 404th. There, hatred and self-exaltation conquered everything. It is important for us to learn this bitter lesson of 100 years ago and protect our country.

[Ulan.1812]

Several considerations.
First, how tired of these dances around Nicholas II. Is the Russian Orthodox Church trying to wash itself off the betrayal of the former tsar?
After all, the church welcomed the renunciation, by the way, the anointed of God. Now they are trying to blame the people, they say the people betrayed the king. No king was shot. They shot the former king.
Let me remind you that the Provisional Government, by its decree, liquidated the Russian Empire and established the Russian Republic.
At the same time, the titles of all these majesties, highnesses, excellencies and nobility were also eliminated.
The concept of a citizen was introduced. This applied to everyone, including the former king and his family.
In the army, an appeal was introduced - sir. Mr. Lieutenant, Mr. Colonel, etc.
So no tsar was shot in Yekaterinburg.
The decision to execute was made by the Yekaterinburg Council. In which, in addition to the Bolsheviks, there were also Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists.
I read that at that time there were several hundred officers in an illegal position in the city and they did not make A SINGLE attempt to free Nikolai. In FIG, no one needed him.
The whites did not fight for the monarchy, they fought for the Constituent Assembly. Monarchists among the whites were minuscule. Two revolutionary armies fought.
The Whites are the army of the February Revolution and the Reds are the army of the October Revolution.
The west did not give a damn about the king, otherwise he would have been sheltered by an English relative.
Hypocrites, they ruined their kings in batches.
And yet, why did the church focus only on Nicholas? And why didn’t they kill kings and princes before him? Tsarevich Alexei, Peter the Third, Paul the First, who, by the way, was martyred without abdicating the throne under pain of death and died as emperor, unlike Nicholas II. But the church doesn’t care about him for some reason, like Alexander II.
Stop talking about this topic, it does not contribute to the unity of society.
Or maybe everything is simpler, Someone dreams of the revival of the monarchy in Russia?
Just recently, on TV, the deputy editor-in-chief of Tsargrad said that Russia needs to restore the monarchy, and Putin should become emperor. This is not a fake, I saw this story myself. And after all, no one pulled him up. Interesting yes?

[dump22]

The decision to execute was made by the Yekaterinburg Council. In which, in addition to the Bolsheviks, there were also Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists.

Inaccuracy.
According to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the official decision to execute Nikolai and his family was made on July 16, 1918 by the Presidium of the Ural Regional Council of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies. This presidium consisted of 5 people, and all of them are members of the RSDLP (b).

[nov_tech.vrn]

According to the same Prosecutor General's Office, Polish prisoners were shot by the NKVDeshniks, in 40 with cartridges fired in 41-42 in Germany

[Seamaster]

Killing the children and wives of rulers is, of course, bad.
But - again, "BUT"! - this is from the point of view of our, vegan time.
Here they kill the royal couple.
Not in Africa, in Serbia.
Moreover, officers who were educated in Europe and RUSSIA.
".... After Alexander and Draga fell, the killers continued to shoot at them and chop their corpses with sabers: they hit the King with six revolver shots and 40 saber blows, and the Queen with 63 saber blows and two revolver bullets. The Queen was almost all hacked, chest cut off, stomach opened, cheeks, hands also cut, especially large incisions between the fingers - probably the Queen grabbed her hands on the saber when she was killed, which, apparently, refutes the doctors' opinion that she was killed immediately. in addition, her body was covered with numerous bruises from the heels of the officers who trampled on her.Other abuses of the corpse of Draghi ... I prefer not to talk, they are so monstrous and disgusting.When the killers had fun enough over the defenseless corpses, they threw them garden, and the corpse of Draghi was completely naked .... ".
Yermakov and his comrades smoke nervously on the sidelines with their tapestries.
No mind, no imagination. Patamushta were not trained in Europe.
The Karageorgievichs, who replaced the killed Obrenoviches, were supported not only by the authorities of Nicholas 2, but also by the ENTIRE RUSSIAN SOCIETY, in particular, it was because of Serbia that Russia got into the First World War.
Assassinate Franz Ferdinand. And Baba Yvonne was also given a couple of bullets.
And either the Italian or the Romanian queen was generally caucasian with a FILE on a walk.
And "our" EVERYTHING is the Decembrists? They planned to destroy the ENTIRE imperial family.
ALL!
Gentlemen\comrades\bar!
Maybe let's look at historical events from the point of view of contemporaries of those events, and not from the point of view of the authors of Ogonyok in 1989?

[Vladimir80]

Why look through the eyes of 1917 or through the eyes of 1989 at some events? The man is the same as thousands of years ago - the same sins, vices and passions. Only today, from the appearance of dubious achievements of science (such as telephones and televisions), he began to imagine a lot about himself, forgetting about his weakness and mortality.

[dump22]

Maybe we will look at historical events from the point of view of contemporaries of those events

And let's see.
Your quote (from an article by the Russian journalist Teplov) misses the very beginning.
Here's what that intro sounds like:

The Serbs covered themselves not only with the shame of regicide (which in itself does not allow for two opinions!), but also with their truly brutal way of acting in relation to the corpses of the Royal Couple they killed. After Alexander and Draga fell, the killers continued to shoot at them and cut their corpses with sabers...

[Seamaster]

This is yaaaa!
Journalist Teplov condemned this murder.
So what?
And the Russian Empire supported Serbia further, even entered the war for it.
Despite Draghi's open belly, the king has 40 saber wounds.
And all this - 15 years before the Ipatiev basement.
Like, well, what - it's a matter of life!
By the way, the execution of the royal family was treated in the same way in Russia.

[QuestionsNeudobny]

de facto, the new government got rid of the "icon", even stopped attempts to rally the royal rabble around the "holy martyrs". and did exactly the right thing. it is now beginning to glorify, declare "saints" and other verbal junk. the people who organized the revolution in Russia were not from the peasantry, had an excellent education and a head on their shoulders, well aware of what the presence of the king would lead to living, and even more so - alive and abroad.

[nov_tech.vrn]

Again, some anonymous vulgaris casts a shadow on the wattle fence, well, he just doesn’t have enough time and strength to read what is given is written,
1 - who overthrew Nicholas - do not believe the Bolsheviks, they did not overthrow, Nicholas was overthrown by the liberals.
2 - who betrayed his family - do not believe the monarchists, Nicholas and his family refused to receive his crowned relatives from Great Britain
3 - who shot his family - don’t believe the thief whom Voikov expelled from the embassy, ​​Nikolai’s family was shot by the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries

[QuestionsNeudobny]

Again, some anonymous vulgaris casts a shadow on the wattle fence, well, he just doesn’t have enough time and strength to read what is given is written ...

this is not his job! the main thing on this resource is to persistently smoothly and quietly promote the pro-Western agenda. read the writings of a certain author under the nickname "buffoon novel" and everything will become clearer to you.
there is a little normal reading, but basically, anti-Russian propaganda is gradually being dragged through. Moreover, users from the coast of Jordan have much more rights and are zealously protected by administrators.

[tank64rus]

By this time, 40% of the gold reserves of Russia (third or fourth) by 1913 were already in England, moved on the advice of the then Minister of Finance of Russia and the future English baron, plus the treasures of the Romanov family there. And also the story of the US Federal Reserve with the investment of gold rubles in it as start-up capital, which, together with interest, could only be returned by the emperor and two members of the dynasty. True, debt papers disappeared at that turbulent time, but in the States they say, yes, it didn’t happen and go through the forest. In general, the royal family was doomed to death by a very wide range of interested parties. Therefore, the English king did not lift a finger to save them.

[acetophenone]

Thus, the Romanov family was appointed "the culprit of all troubles", and the Bolsheviks became those who "did justice."

I would replace appointed on was and removed the quotes. Then everything is correct. There was probably no more rotten tsar in Russia. Russia's troubles from the parasitic Romanov family are simply indescribable. Comparable only with "Spotted" and his last ones.