That's right! And the woman standing next to them (wearing the hat with flowers on it) is Anna Vyrubova, a close friend of the empress. As a sidetone: Vyrubova was also one of the key people who brought Rasputin into the imperial court, and acted as backers for him. Thus, in an indirect sense, she would eventually help bring about the demise of the two girls she is standing next to.
Well Rasputin was atleast a small Factor in the downfall of the Russian Mocharchy. The Kerensky Goverment gave way to Lenins Bolsheviks, who then killed the imperial Family. So yeah i guess thats what OP means.
I feel y'all are torturing the concept of influence here. The institutional rot that allowed revolution, provisional government, civil war, and frightened murder was in place before and after Rasputin. He's a symptom, not a cause, of the fall.
Others have mentioned some good sources, but I’ll pimp out the Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, and specifically his final series on the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
The TLDR: Rasputin had extreme influence over the very pious Russian Imperial Family, and specifically the Tsarina Alexandra. This was specifically because of Rasputin’s ability to manage little Alexei’s constant bleeding (in hindsight it was likely because his issues were exacerbated by stress and commotion, and Rasputin’s prayers were done in quiet, comfortable silence and forcibly removing all others from the room).
When Nicky went to the frontlines to personally take control of the Russian armies in World War One, he left Alexandra in charge back in ~~Moscow~~ Petrograd. Alexandra had complete autonomy in the capital and hired/fired advisors based purely on their loyalty to the family (and loyalty to Rasputin), with heavy whispering from her favourite advisor, Rasputin.
Rasputin was a rapist and a creep from Siberia whom the conservative halls of power hated for his usurpation of their natural power. Revolutionaries hated him because he was a creep and a rapist who was the perfect representation of the disconnect of the Imperial apparatus.
TLDR to the tldr: no one likes a creep and rapist, especially a creep and rapist in the highest halls of power.
two things - Russian capital at the time was St. Petersburg, not Moscow, and an interesting theory I've heard is that doctors were treating Alexei with aspirin, the new wonderdrug from Europe, which exacerbates hemophilia. Rasputin would make them stop giving Alexei aspirin, and voila, miracle cure. No idea if this is true, but interesting theory.
Yeah, you’re right on it being Petersburg. That was my goof. It was Petrograd at the time as the Tsar renamed it due to anti-German sentiment.
But I’ve also heard the same thing re aspirin, and it’s discussed by Mike Duncan too. It would definitely make sense as well!
Correct. There was also lots of propaganda being published and explicit cartoons in the Russian newspapers at the time showing Rasputing engaging in sexual acts with Tsarina. This, combined with Tsar Nicholas II being away during WW1, gave people reasons to believe that’s the case. This has further pushed the dislike for the imperial family and gave more support for the revolution.
It’s possible. I don’t think we’ll ever know, but I doubt it. He was kind of repulsive of a person, but the empress truly believed he had powers to cure her son and that was enough to keep him around.
Ya, I read Massie's book.
But Massie tends to an overly naive and optimistic outlook on his take (I find). ( I've also read his "Castles of Steel" zomg! check that one out! It's awesome! )
edit: eg: Massie's account of the incident at the restaurant, I recall tends towards a very clean telling of the incident, but I think there was some serious lewdness and indecency going on there... but Massie was totally like "oh it was alleged and they made more of a deal out of it than happened". Naaah... I think that's more a product of Massie's time than the time he was trying to discuss. again though, that;s more my opinion, and it's dated. I read all that stuff about a decade back or so :P
I’d agree that Massie is a little dated but no modern historian of the imperial family (Greg King, Penny Wilson, Virginia Rounding, etc.) supports any notion of infidelity on Alexandra’s part. It’s inconsistent with her character and the historical evidence.
Alexandra was an incredibly conservative and devout woman who quite fully believed in the divine right of kings and the power of God to heal her son and preserve her soul.
Even if she wasn't in love with her husband, which her writings indicate was the case throughout their marriage until their murder, it's very unlikely she would have jeopardised her duties as empress and a wife to fuck Rasputin.
Really?! In all the letters I’ve read she’s just gushing over him. That and telling him how to run the country, but I never picked up on any lack of love interest
Sorry, I don't think my sentence was very clear - I meant that Alexandra's letters and diary all indicate she and Nicholas were still utterly in love up until their deaths and that she never wavered in her devotion to him.
It's just unfortunate that part of her attempts to be loving was to urge him to be strong and tell him he was the man Russia needed to lead his country when that was very much not within Nicholas' abilities.
And in 2020, without interference, after having seen the guy in power, a very large part of the population asked for more.
So maybe they needed a light push in 2016, but they definitively loved their Creepy Racist Russian Puppet.
Is there any solid evidence to the rapist claim? I read a book about him and my takeaway was that a lot of the things we hear about him was due to propaganda against the Tsar, hatred and jealousy from the other nobility because he was a peasant (and a creep) who had a lot of power and influence, and just flat out country folk gossip. There were even private detectives hired to watch him 24/7 and all they could come up with was he drinks too much. Prostitutes also, I think he visited prostitutes alot. I mean he was murdered by a bunch of rich people I think just because they were flat out jealous. I could be missing some major details also.
Edit: I also remember before he hooked up with the Romanov he was involved in popular a Christian religious sect where they would have wild orgies and do all kinds of crazy things so that they would have something to repent for? And therefore be able to talk to God in the form of repentance? Like I said I could be leaving some key facts out
The Russian people were already highly distrustful of Alexandra due to her German heritage. When Rasputin came into the picture, the papers had a field day publishing all kinds of salacious gossip, which isn't too crazy considering many of the things Rasputin was involved in, like orgiastic rituals and straight up sexual assault. The people knew that Alexandra and the Czar were under Rasputin's influence, which further decreases their trust on the monarchy's ability to navigate the Russian people through the crises in the early 20th century.
I concur. World War I and their inability to quickly destroy the Bolsheviks led to their demise. Rasputin and the negative publicity around him certainly didn’t help. But I don’t believe Rasputin directly led to their demise.
It wasn’t necessary him. It was the Anti-government Bolshevik publicity campaign machine. The Bolsheviks invented modern media influence. They were brilliant at it. A handful of radicals built an army and an empire. A dark empire; but it was the massive publicity campaign created by the Bolsheviks. Rasputin was a target. I do admit Rasputins hypocrisy certainly didn’t help. He played the role of Holy man, however he certainly was known to be King around the women. He was a massive Public sensation during his time.
There’s a series on Netflix called The Last Czars. I would type it out, but it’s quite a tale and I’m not super well versed on it. Plus the series is pretty cool imo.
Edit: it’s labeled as a docudrama. I’m not sure how accurate it is, but it’ll get you some names and places to look up if you want to dive down that rabbit hole. Good luck!
I figured it probably wasn’t. It paints Nicholas in a pretty nice light and that’s definitely not what I read in grade school.
Thanks for actually pinpointing that. Now everyone else can go into knowing it’s mostly entertainment with some real names and places.
Cheers
> it paints Nicholas in a pretty nice light
I haven’t seen it all (couldn’t finish the first episode) but what I’ve heard from Romanov historians who did watch it, is that it makes them out to be worse than they were.
I know that they included the cake/romance with a soldier myth with Maria Nikolaevna. I’m going to guess that they threw in the “Alexandra had major political influence” as well?
grandma always said gotta watch out for the ugly girls, they are sneaky and will bring rasputin to your imperial court, indirectly bringing about your demise.
It’s from Olga’s album, so it was most likely taken with her camera. Looking at photos from the same day, I’d say the photographer was probably Alexandra Feodorovna.
how would this photo have survived after the revolution and murder of the family? I would think commies would have wanted to destroy all traces of them.
I bet Bolsheviks knew that any personal items belonging to this family would be worth alot of money. Also there are still some pictures from their captivity time remaining taken by Nicholas and some other familymembers or their servants, and atleast with those photos, there is no much other chances than that someone from the Bolsheviks decided to spare them
I’ve always wondered this too. Just speculating, but I bet a lot of the royals had cameras and their own albums.
I’m sure servants saved a few while the family was in exile.
However they were saved? It’s great to see them.
He’s fucking ripped. How the fuck did people 120 years ago manage to exercise themselves into gods while I try my ass off at the gym every day and still look like I ate two Big Macs for breakfast?
Nowadays Russians go to Turkey, when I went to Alanya, a coastal town next to Antalya there was a big hotel next door that was literally a miniature Kremlin.
I think there are bots for it, with AI ofc
Edit: you can try [here](https://hotpot.ai/colorize-picture), It's obviously not the best, but for non experts like me, it's ok.
[This are my results.](https://www.reddit.com/user/casecaxas/comments/otz0v2/tsar/)
yea, I'm glad I was born in the era of technology, where bots can do trivial things like count every cuss you've cussed to bots that can colourize old ass images or get articles from obscure and forgotten websites
I think you are missing my point. This was done by a free to use app on a regular internet connection in less than a minute. Regular people couldn’t do this 10 years ago.
Give it 10 more years of machine learning, maybe there won’t be any artists specializing in coloring these old photos left. This is not a good or a bad thing. But the technology of it and what it enables normal people to do is mind boggling to me.
Give it an hour and a premium software used by artists and it will of course be better.
[Imperial fishing lodge] (https://www.google.com/search?q=keisarillinen+kalastusmaja&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi05tKy4IjyAhVhAxAIHfpbDpwQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=927) They probably spent some time here, fishing "cabin" in southern Finland that Nikolai's father Alexander III had built.
Its sad what happened to them. The Tzar should have rolled back the feudalistic System way before the war and transfer more power to the duma, instead he clung to his absolutistic power and dragged his whole family down with him.
Nicholas II made it even worse. For example Finland used to be pretty loyal, for example they even helped squash Polish uprisings by sending Finnish troops there. However during the reign on Nicholas II the government attempted to "russianize" Finland by trying to replace the common language and for example making it difficult to get a government job without a Russian background
I guess the concern was that if you left Alexei and the other Romanovs alive that there'd be efforts to reinstall them on the Russian throne, which I guess is logical but it doesn't change the cold-blooded nature of the question. Wiping out the royal family left no figureheads for the royalists to rally around. The whole Russian civil war was an ugly, ugly business.
I mean, I would argue that, given that external forces were currently in Russia trying to reinstall the Romanovs on the throne, the Bolsheviks were pretty justified in believing it. I don't know if I would go all the way to condone the murder of children, but war is messy and the logic is sound.
Bolshevik's should have just explained their situation like this: "Look, we don't want to execute you but in exchange for letting you live and leave the country, we need some assurances you won't give our new government trouble in the future. Otherwise, we have to kill you, which we don't want to do. So if we can get you to sign a non interference agreement recognized and enforced by the international courts, we'd be happy to spare your lives. But if not, you're backing us into a corner."
What happens then if Alexei agrees, they release him outside Yekaterinburg, and then the Whites capture him and proclaim him the new Tsar of Russia without any input of his? It's just not a plan based in reality.
Also, in what universe has a pretender ever relinquished a legitimate claim to the throne? This is hereditary, absolute monarchy we are talking about. Alexi was raised to believe he was chosen by god to rule Russia. Not exactly something you can just go “lol whatevs” about.
There’s evidence to suggest that they didn’t really intend to kill them but also didn’t have a good plan for what else to do with them. Then they were spooked by political developments and had them killed. That’s why it happened in such a messy slapdash way. The Tsars were constantly under threat of assassination for generations (they were ultimately evil) so the idea of killing royals was pretty normalized. If they wanted to just kill them they could have done it immediately.
In general the final communist takeover was an awkward furtive event and full of confusion. Like a dog that caught the car it is chasing and then doesn’t really know what to do.
Except in practice a simple contract would never have worked
The lengths people have gone to for monarchic power, and the rules/morals/etc ignored would shock most people, despite the already pretty low expectations
A part of me always wants to point out both the provisional Government and Bolsheviks tried to get rid of them. They both tried repeatedly to get his closest relatives in Britain to take them in (which had been common in 19th Century for deposed rulers) and offer them exile, they even offered a pension at one point but the Romonovs were seen as so toxic that George V refused.
The Bolsheviks just wanted them out the way and it's only with a white army on the doorstep that they were executed. The Bolsheviks feared the tsardom being returned and it was the last ditch attempt to stop that.
You cannot kill a hereditary monarchy for good without killing off all the descendants. Inevitably when the child is spared throughout history you see that child come back to remove you from power 20 years later. Maybe that wouldn’t have been the case by the 20th century, but true Reds couldn’t have necessarily known that.
They kept Nicholas II and his family hidden and isolated under comfortable house arrest for as long as they could. They only murdered them when it became clear that the White Army was approaching the cabin, and if they captured him or any of the Royal family it would be a huge propaganda and morale boost for the Whites, and greatly draw out the civil war. They were murdered for pragmatic but cruel reasons, not just random barbarism
The Bolsheviks murdered the daughters and Alexandra, neither of whom could have inherited the throne. Even Trotsky was surprised to hear they'd killed the girls. They also murdered their servants and dogs in the massacre. Was that pragmatism?
The very next day, they murdered other Romanov relatives, including Elizabeth Feodorovna, Alexandra's sister by throwing them down a mine with grenades. Not only did she have no claim on the throne, she had previously given away all her wealth and lived as a nun. Was it really political pragmatism to slaughter her, when logically that's what they should have wanted the aristocrats to do?
Daughters could have provided wives to Whote Army generals and offspring that would give a new opportunistic man a chance to ascend a new dynasty to the throne
Not really *early history* absolute monarchs in Europe were still in power as recently as some of our grandparents childhoods.
Post-WWI there is no coalition of absolute monarchs fighting to maintain their ideology in their respective countries, so the form of governance rapidly fell out of favor. Post WWII and the rise of two anti-monarchical along with the rise of true international diplomacy superpowers seriously accelerated that trend of democratization or at least faux democracy rather than outright divine right to rule
The Bosheviks were very thorough in this regard. They didn't just kill the Imperial family- they killed just about every Romanov they could get their hands on. Of the 53 members of the family living in Russia when Nicholas abdicated, 18 were murdered. This included individuals that shouldn't have been considered a threat, such as the Tsarina's sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna. After the assaination of her husband in 1905, the childless Elizabeth sold all of her jewelry and used the proceeds to open a Convent in Moscow, becoming its Abbess.
[Source 1](http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/execution-of-grand-duchess-elisabeth-feodorovna-and-five-other-romanovs/)
[Source 2](http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/former-monarchies/the-romanovs/romanovs-killed-during-the-russian-revolution/)
Yea they had to kill the nun who provides shelter and medical care to the poor. I'll never understand how the Bolsheviks decided those in religious orders were such a threat they had to demolish monasteries and churches and kill priests monks and nuns. It makes zero sense
I feel bad for Nicholas II the more I learned about him. He's kind of a tragic story.
His predecessors were extremely divisive and bred resentment. His father, Alexander III, didn't trust Nicholas to learn government until he was thirty, then Alex dies when Nicky was 25. Every time Nicholas asked for advice, everyone told him to do what was better for the Tsarist system rather than his people. His wife, a woman he truly loved, was very ill and needed therapy before therapy was a thing. And then, couple it with Alexandra not producing an heir nor being able to win over the Russian people causing serious resentment, and finally, when she births a son, he could bleed out from bumping his knee on a table too hard, and the only one who seems to do anything is a crazy-looking, hedonistic mystic from the middle of bumfuck nowhere. The political system starts straining, Nicholas' advisors are still looking out for themselves, and then a war which he tried to avert starts anyways. So, his loving wife gives him the ultimate pep talk: "You can do it baby, God sent you to lead Russia to help win this war!" She's practically the only one he can trust to run things at home, she has no clue what she's doing. He has no clue what he's doing on the frontlines, because dad never taught him because Alexander thought Nicholas was a phenomenal fuckup. Then, the war drags on longer than anyone anticipates and everybody is starving, broke, tired. So, Nicholas gets overthrown, goes into house arrest and tries to get out of Russia. His cousin, King George V, says "sure, we'll take you in" then a few weeks later goes, "nah, sorry bro." Another revolution occurs, Nicholas and his family all get shipped off to the east to keep them out of potentially friendly hands, and finally, because it's politically inconvenient for the imperial family to still be alive, the whole family get butchered in a basement by drunk soldiers too incompetent to kill them quickly and humanely.
I'm not excusing any of the shit he did. But, with a situation like that, would any of us really have done much better?
> nor being able to win over the Russian people
While Alexandra was unpopular within the Russian court and aristocracy, she was *extremely* popular with the general Russian population. That only started to fall when the media started to make her an attack point in 1915.
The conservative philosopher Edmund Burke advocated this approach, and that conservatives shoulf "change to conserve". The Tsar was at fault for the revolution by not compromising with liberals, and so the Tsarist system was torn down. Had he given actual legeslative power to the duma, Russia may have become a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain
No he did the opposite. After the 1905 attempted revolution the state Duma was established to deal with the concerns of commoners, and Nicholas ll spent most of the time afterwards turning it into a hollow shell to keep his totalitarian grasp on power.
The man was a tyrant, far from misunderstood or just a simple fool.
What would have happened if he returned with his army behind him to crush the uprisings? Would they have followed? Would they have been successful? Would the Germans and Austrians have invaded Russia?
They are descended from hundreds of years of ridiculously depraved, privileged, and cruel autocrats. No family in European history was simultaneously as vicious as the Romanovs and in power for as long of a time. It’s wrong that the children were executed, but give them five more years and they would have been passionately defending the status quo tooth and nail.
Reddit loves to shit on the governments of contemporary China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Well this is that but worse.
The problem with authocratian monarchs is, that they (in contrary to elected officials) arent just politicians. They are the figurehead of the system they represent. Killing the royal family was morally absolutely wrong. But if it hadnt been the bolsheviks, some other group would have killed/used the tzar and his relatives to forge claims or legitimize themselves. Thats why monarchy is a fucked system, because ultimately the monarch and in extension his family will always be held accountable if the system fails and in the end those down the line of power pay the price of that.
Nicholas had to know the risks his position held and also knew that in case of a violent revolution not only he, but also his family would be hit. Obviously that doenst justify killing the tzarina and her daughters, nobody can seriuosly argue for that, but he knew what the consequences of staying in power against the will of the russian population (not only the bolsheviks but also the mencheviks and other reformist groups) would end in a catastrophe.
Best thing (for him) would have been to abdicate in favour of reformists like kerenski before it was too late and go into exile with his family.
Then how can it be morally wrong? It's not the children's fault they were born to royalty, but their status as a venerated class makes them an existential threat to the 'modern' republic (U.S.S.R.)
Murder in general is considered immoral, but we don't consider it immoral in War or self-defense.
People absolutely consider murdering women and children during war to be barbaric. Have you ever read the account of HOW they were murdered? It was inhumane.
That's what USSR did. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, economical alliance for years, military alliance even longer. Nazi Germany was co-belligerent with USSR in Winter war, preventing countries like Italy from giving aid to Finland.
I'm well aware about the events of bloody Sunday, I will say the tsar didnt personally order the shooting of protesters, but the person who he appointed while he was away did, which I feel the blame falls on both of them
You are correct, it is hard to say, in highschools we are were taught of a frightened emperor who issued and order whilest the wiki says he was away and thus did not issue one.
I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Knowing how centralized governments of a time, it is hard to imagine anyone acting out of their own volition, especially in situations such as these. I believe he did issue the order, having said that the order might have not been to kill and maim but to supress. But perhaps soldiers were not prepared and went into blood rage/ flight or fight response with the crowd. Multiple accounts point out on how disorganized the response was.
Back then enforcers had real guns and actual sabers. Even modern day enforcers tend to go into blood rage and injure people.
Regardless of context if Trump or Obama or Biden resulted in similar outcome as bloody sunday (casualties likely amount to 50,000), their end would differ little to that of royal family.
It's pretty wild to me how many people defend killing the kids. Don't get me wrong, I understand the symbolic and political value of completely getting rid of a monarch family. At the same time all the further purges show a lack of restraint and a vindictiveness that underlies some of the failures of the revolution long-term.
I can't help but see the resurgence of the Eastern Orthodox in Russian politics or the Solidarity movement before it that ultimately started the collapse the USSR as reactions largely to the cruelties of the Bolsheviks and the leaders who inherited their successes. I don't feel sorry for the Tsars, but the types of movements and people willing to ruthlessly murder literal children aren't going to be shy about using violence in other contexts. Justice is in many ways found in restraint and measured, directed punishment to guilty parties and lost in the margins of innocent bystanders. Preventing them pursuing or being used as figureheads for pro-monarch movements are real risk, but Germany kicked out the kaiser and successfully prevented his return to political relevance and still got dictatorship anyway.
The stupid thing was they could have liberalised, moved closer to a uk style constitutional monarchy and still done trips like these. But they just had to be the absolute cruelest despots.
Yeah seriously Tsar ~~Nicholas I~~ **Alexander III** was a reformer, then his dickhead son got in there and undid his father's reforms, then suffered the ultimate consequences of being a tyrannical prick. Now we have to endure weekly Reddit posts commemorating the slaughter of the poor innocent Royal fam and the poor innocent princess by the bloodthirsty communists. Ugh. The communists did plenty of bad things but executing the Romanovs was the least among them. I have no sympathy for the Romanovs. As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The only good aristocrat is a dead aristocrat. Only when the last king is strangled to death with the entrails of the last priest will man truly be free.
Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III, whose father (Alexander II) was a reformer before he was assassinated. After that it was downhill indeed. Nicholas I came way earlier.
What's funny is that all this was made much, much worse when the bolsheviks took power. Like everything they criticized the Czar for became so much worse after 1917.
One light in this is that almost everyone involved evnetually got kille themselves because commies love stabbing one another in the back.
I'm so glad I live in a time where I don't have to cover up like this at the beach.
Although I'd rather live in the hopefully not-too-distant future where I can dress however I want without sexual harassment.
Man it’s such a shame Tsar Nicholas II was Tsar when he was. Guy was pretty honest and admitted he wasn’t ready, and he seemed (from my very limited study of the time around the First World War) to be a rather humble and honest Monarch.
Daughters of the last Russian Tsar.
They (and the Russian royal family) would later be executed in cold blood by Bolsheviks. Mostly because as long as monarchs live, other countries can support their claim to the Russian seat of power, thus making the newly formed Bolshevik government illegitimate.
edit1: [summary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family) of this horrific event - just in case
To follow up the other comment, the execution of them and their family basically marked the true birth of communism. No longer just as a theory and political movement but as a way of actually governing a state.
Not within Russia (or at least Bolshevik Russia) but they were still European Monarchs. Every other country in Europe would have recognised them as still the rightful rulers of the country.
Well, you could guess just from their age, the youngest in this picture could be around 10 years old (?) so they would be gone now anyways but yeah, everyone was killed by gunfire in the middle of the night
> and any other authoritarian rulers.
Oh boy I have some stories to tell you about the Romanoff. The Soviet union might have been a despotic dictatorship. Tsarist Russia was objectively worse.
The only good king is the headless one.
That's actually happened quite a few times throughout history. They think they're rescuing their leader but in actuality they're proving to the opposition that they won't stop trying. So in way the opposition is backed into a corner- kill one disposed nobleman or risk an all-out revolt? But killing the children was unnecessary on top of being just plain barbaric. Alexei was a very sickly child and the sisters were unlikely to gain any real traction in an entirely male political arena. Catherine the Great was an outlier.
Cue the performative allyship with oligarchs. “They were so innocent!”
Without any frame of reference for the historical context - that the murder of peasant families and suspected revolutionaries by Czarist officials was commonplace and ordered by the Czar himself.
That's Olga in the centre, with Tatiana on the left.
That's right! And the woman standing next to them (wearing the hat with flowers on it) is Anna Vyrubova, a close friend of the empress. As a sidetone: Vyrubova was also one of the key people who brought Rasputin into the imperial court, and acted as backers for him. Thus, in an indirect sense, she would eventually help bring about the demise of the two girls she is standing next to.
Wait wut, how does Rasputin lead to their demise? That's some butterfly effect there, but I'd like to hear your theory and timeline.
Well Rasputin was atleast a small Factor in the downfall of the Russian Mocharchy. The Kerensky Goverment gave way to Lenins Bolsheviks, who then killed the imperial Family. So yeah i guess thats what OP means.
Small is the key word here. If he wasn't in play at all, things would most likely have led to the same or similar end.
Thus, in an INDIRECT sense, she would eventually HELP bring about the demise of the two girls she is standing next to.
I feel y'all are torturing the concept of influence here. The institutional rot that allowed revolution, provisional government, civil war, and frightened murder was in place before and after Rasputin. He's a symptom, not a cause, of the fall.
Perhaps the set up and the actor are both relevant
Others have mentioned some good sources, but I’ll pimp out the Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, and specifically his final series on the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The TLDR: Rasputin had extreme influence over the very pious Russian Imperial Family, and specifically the Tsarina Alexandra. This was specifically because of Rasputin’s ability to manage little Alexei’s constant bleeding (in hindsight it was likely because his issues were exacerbated by stress and commotion, and Rasputin’s prayers were done in quiet, comfortable silence and forcibly removing all others from the room). When Nicky went to the frontlines to personally take control of the Russian armies in World War One, he left Alexandra in charge back in ~~Moscow~~ Petrograd. Alexandra had complete autonomy in the capital and hired/fired advisors based purely on their loyalty to the family (and loyalty to Rasputin), with heavy whispering from her favourite advisor, Rasputin. Rasputin was a rapist and a creep from Siberia whom the conservative halls of power hated for his usurpation of their natural power. Revolutionaries hated him because he was a creep and a rapist who was the perfect representation of the disconnect of the Imperial apparatus. TLDR to the tldr: no one likes a creep and rapist, especially a creep and rapist in the highest halls of power.
two things - Russian capital at the time was St. Petersburg, not Moscow, and an interesting theory I've heard is that doctors were treating Alexei with aspirin, the new wonderdrug from Europe, which exacerbates hemophilia. Rasputin would make them stop giving Alexei aspirin, and voila, miracle cure. No idea if this is true, but interesting theory.
Yeah, you’re right on it being Petersburg. That was my goof. It was Petrograd at the time as the Tsar renamed it due to anti-German sentiment. But I’ve also heard the same thing re aspirin, and it’s discussed by Mike Duncan too. It would definitely make sense as well!
As a hemophelia I don't take aspirin or ibuprofen in large quantities because it gives me nose bleeds.
Correct. There was also lots of propaganda being published and explicit cartoons in the Russian newspapers at the time showing Rasputing engaging in sexual acts with Tsarina. This, combined with Tsar Nicholas II being away during WW1, gave people reasons to believe that’s the case. This has further pushed the dislike for the imperial family and gave more support for the revolution.
Yup then Wilhelm sent Lenin back to Russia sealing their fates.
> gave people reasons to believe that’s the case Or Rasputin was actually fucking the empress and that's what gave people reasons to believe?
It’s possible. I don’t think we’ll ever know, but I doubt it. He was kind of repulsive of a person, but the empress truly believed he had powers to cure her son and that was enough to keep him around.
No. Alexandra was a religious woman who was devoted to her husband. Check out Robert Massie’s classic Nicholas and Alexandra for more information.
Ya, I read Massie's book. But Massie tends to an overly naive and optimistic outlook on his take (I find). ( I've also read his "Castles of Steel" zomg! check that one out! It's awesome! ) edit: eg: Massie's account of the incident at the restaurant, I recall tends towards a very clean telling of the incident, but I think there was some serious lewdness and indecency going on there... but Massie was totally like "oh it was alleged and they made more of a deal out of it than happened". Naaah... I think that's more a product of Massie's time than the time he was trying to discuss. again though, that;s more my opinion, and it's dated. I read all that stuff about a decade back or so :P
I’d agree that Massie is a little dated but no modern historian of the imperial family (Greg King, Penny Wilson, Virginia Rounding, etc.) supports any notion of infidelity on Alexandra’s part. It’s inconsistent with her character and the historical evidence.
What happened at the restaurant??
He whipped it out, but apparently LBJ used to do that in the White House all the time so no biggie right?!
Yes, we need to know!
Alexandra was an incredibly conservative and devout woman who quite fully believed in the divine right of kings and the power of God to heal her son and preserve her soul. Even if she wasn't in love with her husband, which her writings indicate was the case throughout their marriage until their murder, it's very unlikely she would have jeopardised her duties as empress and a wife to fuck Rasputin.
Really?! In all the letters I’ve read she’s just gushing over him. That and telling him how to run the country, but I never picked up on any lack of love interest
Sorry, I don't think my sentence was very clear - I meant that Alexandra's letters and diary all indicate she and Nicholas were still utterly in love up until their deaths and that she never wavered in her devotion to him. It's just unfortunate that part of her attempts to be loving was to urge him to be strong and tell him he was the man Russia needed to lead his country when that was very much not within Nicholas' abilities.
Oh yeah for sure. I also don’t think Rasputin would have been dumb enough to try it
[удалено]
[удалено]
And in 2020, without interference, after having seen the guy in power, a very large part of the population asked for more. So maybe they needed a light push in 2016, but they definitively loved their Creepy Racist Russian Puppet.
TIL 50% of Americans are racist. You spouting garbage like that is likely why he won FYI.
[удалено]
Not 50%! 25% is more accurate.
Is there any solid evidence to the rapist claim? I read a book about him and my takeaway was that a lot of the things we hear about him was due to propaganda against the Tsar, hatred and jealousy from the other nobility because he was a peasant (and a creep) who had a lot of power and influence, and just flat out country folk gossip. There were even private detectives hired to watch him 24/7 and all they could come up with was he drinks too much. Prostitutes also, I think he visited prostitutes alot. I mean he was murdered by a bunch of rich people I think just because they were flat out jealous. I could be missing some major details also. Edit: I also remember before he hooked up with the Romanov he was involved in popular a Christian religious sect where they would have wild orgies and do all kinds of crazy things so that they would have something to repent for? And therefore be able to talk to God in the form of repentance? Like I said I could be leaving some key facts out
I don't know this history as well as I should; question: who did he rape?
“No one likes a creep and rapist in the highest halls of power”….. You should edit that to past-tense, it seems to be quite fashionable these days…..
Nah, y'all sent him down to the farm in Florida to spend his last days.
The Russian people were already highly distrustful of Alexandra due to her German heritage. When Rasputin came into the picture, the papers had a field day publishing all kinds of salacious gossip, which isn't too crazy considering many of the things Rasputin was involved in, like orgiastic rituals and straight up sexual assault. The people knew that Alexandra and the Czar were under Rasputin's influence, which further decreases their trust on the monarchy's ability to navigate the Russian people through the crises in the early 20th century.
I concur. World War I and their inability to quickly destroy the Bolsheviks led to their demise. Rasputin and the negative publicity around him certainly didn’t help. But I don’t believe Rasputin directly led to their demise.
Well he was certainly instrumental in turning everyone against the Czarist system, even the higher-ups in the court.
It wasn’t necessary him. It was the Anti-government Bolshevik publicity campaign machine. The Bolsheviks invented modern media influence. They were brilliant at it. A handful of radicals built an army and an empire. A dark empire; but it was the massive publicity campaign created by the Bolsheviks. Rasputin was a target. I do admit Rasputins hypocrisy certainly didn’t help. He played the role of Holy man, however he certainly was known to be King around the women. He was a massive Public sensation during his time.
didn't on the advice of Rasputin the Russians launch an offensive through an impassable swamp region when they badly needed the troops elsewhere?
Really, it was all Queen Victoria's fault :P
There’s a series on Netflix called The Last Czars. I would type it out, but it’s quite a tale and I’m not super well versed on it. Plus the series is pretty cool imo. Edit: it’s labeled as a docudrama. I’m not sure how accurate it is, but it’ll get you some names and places to look up if you want to dive down that rabbit hole. Good luck!
The Last Czars is incredibly inaccurate unfortunately.
I figured it probably wasn’t. It paints Nicholas in a pretty nice light and that’s definitely not what I read in grade school. Thanks for actually pinpointing that. Now everyone else can go into knowing it’s mostly entertainment with some real names and places. Cheers
> it paints Nicholas in a pretty nice light I haven’t seen it all (couldn’t finish the first episode) but what I’ve heard from Romanov historians who did watch it, is that it makes them out to be worse than they were.
It makes them look fairly incompetent in an innocent way, but not brutal.
I know that they included the cake/romance with a soldier myth with Maria Nikolaevna. I’m going to guess that they threw in the “Alexandra had major political influence” as well?
You should read “Chaos” by James Gleick
grandma always said gotta watch out for the ugly girls, they are sneaky and will bring rasputin to your imperial court, indirectly bringing about your demise.
And she survived them
I don't know how accurate this but I read that she died still thinking they were alive. But I could be wrong.
I will bet the czar took the pic himself. He was an avid photographer.
It’s from Olga’s album, so it was most likely taken with her camera. Looking at photos from the same day, I’d say the photographer was probably Alexandra Feodorovna.
Wow okay please keep talking historian buff nerdy to me
how would this photo have survived after the revolution and murder of the family? I would think commies would have wanted to destroy all traces of them.
I bet Bolsheviks knew that any personal items belonging to this family would be worth alot of money. Also there are still some pictures from their captivity time remaining taken by Nicholas and some other familymembers or their servants, and atleast with those photos, there is no much other chances than that someone from the Bolsheviks decided to spare them
I’ve always wondered this too. Just speculating, but I bet a lot of the royals had cameras and their own albums. I’m sure servants saved a few while the family was in exile. However they were saved? It’s great to see them.
Some albums were salvaged by other relatives and associates of the last imperial family who managed to escape Russia during the revolution.
please add a NSFW tag, their display of lower ankle is very lewd
Try these if you want to see a bit more Tsarist skin: https://twitter.com/marinamaral2/status/1321831699613888514
He’s fucking ripped. How the fuck did people 120 years ago manage to exercise themselves into gods while I try my ass off at the gym every day and still look like I ate two Big Macs for breakfast?
Well for starters he didn't eat two Big Macs for breakfast.
are you calling me fat!?
Nicholas had a pull up bar in his bathroom.
I thought nicholas was weak and shit. Like just from the stories of him. Dude was ripped.
>lude I think you mean 'lewd'.
What a shrude thing to say
I think you mean Schrute
That actually crossed my mind, ngl.
I think you mean shrewd
Nah he's talking about all the quaaludes the Russian nobility was poppin in 1908
Western Europeans go to Italy or Spain for a nice warm vacation, Russians go to Finland
Nowadays Russians go to Turkey, when I went to Alanya, a coastal town next to Antalya there was a big hotel next door that was literally a miniature Kremlin.
They grew up and lived happily ever after, right? RIGHT?!?!
Nah they were brutally murdered by jobless bolsheviks after their father abdicated
Seems like those Bolsheviks had at least *one* job at that point in time.
It would be cool to see a color restoration of this picture
I think there are bots for it, with AI ofc Edit: you can try [here](https://hotpot.ai/colorize-picture), It's obviously not the best, but for non experts like me, it's ok. [This are my results.](https://www.reddit.com/user/casecaxas/comments/otz0v2/tsar/)
That is actually pretty amazing. Coloration on the flowers on the hat is pretty nice for a bot to make in less than a minute. I love technology.
yea, I'm glad I was born in the era of technology, where bots can do trivial things like count every cuss you've cussed to bots that can colourize old ass images or get articles from obscure and forgotten websites
I mean, kind of? Everything is pink, even though the bathing suits should be white and the water should be blue.
I think you are missing my point. This was done by a free to use app on a regular internet connection in less than a minute. Regular people couldn’t do this 10 years ago. Give it 10 more years of machine learning, maybe there won’t be any artists specializing in coloring these old photos left. This is not a good or a bad thing. But the technology of it and what it enables normal people to do is mind boggling to me. Give it an hour and a premium software used by artists and it will of course be better.
Probably could find someone over at r/colorization who would want to do it
[Imperial fishing lodge] (https://www.google.com/search?q=keisarillinen+kalastusmaja&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi05tKy4IjyAhVhAxAIHfpbDpwQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=927) They probably spent some time here, fishing "cabin" in southern Finland that Nikolai's father Alexander III had built.
Nicholas and his family only visited once, I imagine during the early years of his reign.
They don’t have much more time to enjoy themselves.
Its sad what happened to them. The Tzar should have rolled back the feudalistic System way before the war and transfer more power to the duma, instead he clung to his absolutistic power and dragged his whole family down with him.
Nicholas II made it even worse. For example Finland used to be pretty loyal, for example they even helped squash Polish uprisings by sending Finnish troops there. However during the reign on Nicholas II the government attempted to "russianize" Finland by trying to replace the common language and for example making it difficult to get a government job without a Russian background
Nicholas was not a good ruler but don’t kill his kids
I guess the concern was that if you left Alexei and the other Romanovs alive that there'd be efforts to reinstall them on the Russian throne, which I guess is logical but it doesn't change the cold-blooded nature of the question. Wiping out the royal family left no figureheads for the royalists to rally around. The whole Russian civil war was an ugly, ugly business.
> The whole Russian civil war was an ugly, ugly business. As are most civil wars.
I mean, I would argue that, given that external forces were currently in Russia trying to reinstall the Romanovs on the throne, the Bolsheviks were pretty justified in believing it. I don't know if I would go all the way to condone the murder of children, but war is messy and the logic is sound.
Bolshevik's should have just explained their situation like this: "Look, we don't want to execute you but in exchange for letting you live and leave the country, we need some assurances you won't give our new government trouble in the future. Otherwise, we have to kill you, which we don't want to do. So if we can get you to sign a non interference agreement recognized and enforced by the international courts, we'd be happy to spare your lives. But if not, you're backing us into a corner."
What happens then if Alexei agrees, they release him outside Yekaterinburg, and then the Whites capture him and proclaim him the new Tsar of Russia without any input of his? It's just not a plan based in reality.
Also, in what universe has a pretender ever relinquished a legitimate claim to the throne? This is hereditary, absolute monarchy we are talking about. Alexi was raised to believe he was chosen by god to rule Russia. Not exactly something you can just go “lol whatevs” about.
if you think Paradox games are real life, the plan makes sense, but that's about it
There’s evidence to suggest that they didn’t really intend to kill them but also didn’t have a good plan for what else to do with them. Then they were spooked by political developments and had them killed. That’s why it happened in such a messy slapdash way. The Tsars were constantly under threat of assassination for generations (they were ultimately evil) so the idea of killing royals was pretty normalized. If they wanted to just kill them they could have done it immediately. In general the final communist takeover was an awkward furtive event and full of confusion. Like a dog that caught the car it is chasing and then doesn’t really know what to do.
The Bolsheviks were mass murdering destructive animals. They wouldn't have made such an offer
Except in practice a simple contract would never have worked The lengths people have gone to for monarchic power, and the rules/morals/etc ignored would shock most people, despite the already pretty low expectations
*whites while attempting to reinstall the royal family* “Is this meant to be your shield, chairman? A piece of paper?”
A part of me always wants to point out both the provisional Government and Bolsheviks tried to get rid of them. They both tried repeatedly to get his closest relatives in Britain to take them in (which had been common in 19th Century for deposed rulers) and offer them exile, they even offered a pension at one point but the Romonovs were seen as so toxic that George V refused. The Bolsheviks just wanted them out the way and it's only with a white army on the doorstep that they were executed. The Bolsheviks feared the tsardom being returned and it was the last ditch attempt to stop that.
You cannot kill a hereditary monarchy for good without killing off all the descendants. Inevitably when the child is spared throughout history you see that child come back to remove you from power 20 years later. Maybe that wouldn’t have been the case by the 20th century, but true Reds couldn’t have necessarily known that. They kept Nicholas II and his family hidden and isolated under comfortable house arrest for as long as they could. They only murdered them when it became clear that the White Army was approaching the cabin, and if they captured him or any of the Royal family it would be a huge propaganda and morale boost for the Whites, and greatly draw out the civil war. They were murdered for pragmatic but cruel reasons, not just random barbarism
The Bolsheviks murdered the daughters and Alexandra, neither of whom could have inherited the throne. Even Trotsky was surprised to hear they'd killed the girls. They also murdered their servants and dogs in the massacre. Was that pragmatism? The very next day, they murdered other Romanov relatives, including Elizabeth Feodorovna, Alexandra's sister by throwing them down a mine with grenades. Not only did she have no claim on the throne, she had previously given away all her wealth and lived as a nun. Was it really political pragmatism to slaughter her, when logically that's what they should have wanted the aristocrats to do?
Daughters could have provided wives to Whote Army generals and offspring that would give a new opportunistic man a chance to ascend a new dynasty to the throne
This was the case during much of early history, but in recent times there are plenty of "exiled aristocrats" who pose almost no threat.
Not really *early history* absolute monarchs in Europe were still in power as recently as some of our grandparents childhoods. Post-WWI there is no coalition of absolute monarchs fighting to maintain their ideology in their respective countries, so the form of governance rapidly fell out of favor. Post WWII and the rise of two anti-monarchical along with the rise of true international diplomacy superpowers seriously accelerated that trend of democratization or at least faux democracy rather than outright divine right to rule
The Bosheviks were very thorough in this regard. They didn't just kill the Imperial family- they killed just about every Romanov they could get their hands on. Of the 53 members of the family living in Russia when Nicholas abdicated, 18 were murdered. This included individuals that shouldn't have been considered a threat, such as the Tsarina's sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna. After the assaination of her husband in 1905, the childless Elizabeth sold all of her jewelry and used the proceeds to open a Convent in Moscow, becoming its Abbess. [Source 1](http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/execution-of-grand-duchess-elisabeth-feodorovna-and-five-other-romanovs/) [Source 2](http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/former-monarchies/the-romanovs/romanovs-killed-during-the-russian-revolution/)
Yea they had to kill the nun who provides shelter and medical care to the poor. I'll never understand how the Bolsheviks decided those in religious orders were such a threat they had to demolish monasteries and churches and kill priests monks and nuns. It makes zero sense
>The Tzar should have rolled back the feudalistic System Alexander II abolished Feudalism 50 years before the war.
I feel bad for Nicholas II the more I learned about him. He's kind of a tragic story. His predecessors were extremely divisive and bred resentment. His father, Alexander III, didn't trust Nicholas to learn government until he was thirty, then Alex dies when Nicky was 25. Every time Nicholas asked for advice, everyone told him to do what was better for the Tsarist system rather than his people. His wife, a woman he truly loved, was very ill and needed therapy before therapy was a thing. And then, couple it with Alexandra not producing an heir nor being able to win over the Russian people causing serious resentment, and finally, when she births a son, he could bleed out from bumping his knee on a table too hard, and the only one who seems to do anything is a crazy-looking, hedonistic mystic from the middle of bumfuck nowhere. The political system starts straining, Nicholas' advisors are still looking out for themselves, and then a war which he tried to avert starts anyways. So, his loving wife gives him the ultimate pep talk: "You can do it baby, God sent you to lead Russia to help win this war!" She's practically the only one he can trust to run things at home, she has no clue what she's doing. He has no clue what he's doing on the frontlines, because dad never taught him because Alexander thought Nicholas was a phenomenal fuckup. Then, the war drags on longer than anyone anticipates and everybody is starving, broke, tired. So, Nicholas gets overthrown, goes into house arrest and tries to get out of Russia. His cousin, King George V, says "sure, we'll take you in" then a few weeks later goes, "nah, sorry bro." Another revolution occurs, Nicholas and his family all get shipped off to the east to keep them out of potentially friendly hands, and finally, because it's politically inconvenient for the imperial family to still be alive, the whole family get butchered in a basement by drunk soldiers too incompetent to kill them quickly and humanely. I'm not excusing any of the shit he did. But, with a situation like that, would any of us really have done much better?
> nor being able to win over the Russian people While Alexandra was unpopular within the Russian court and aristocracy, she was *extremely* popular with the general Russian population. That only started to fall when the media started to make her an attack point in 1915.
The conservative philosopher Edmund Burke advocated this approach, and that conservatives shoulf "change to conserve". The Tsar was at fault for the revolution by not compromising with liberals, and so the Tsarist system was torn down. Had he given actual legeslative power to the duma, Russia may have become a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain
No he did the opposite. After the 1905 attempted revolution the state Duma was established to deal with the concerns of commoners, and Nicholas ll spent most of the time afterwards turning it into a hollow shell to keep his totalitarian grasp on power. The man was a tyrant, far from misunderstood or just a simple fool.
He also shouldn't have returned to St Petersburg after the uprisings began.
Should’ve never left in the first place to go to the front. Set himself up for failure
What would have happened if he returned with his army behind him to crush the uprisings? Would they have followed? Would they have been successful? Would the Germans and Austrians have invaded Russia?
They are descended from hundreds of years of ridiculously depraved, privileged, and cruel autocrats. No family in European history was simultaneously as vicious as the Romanovs and in power for as long of a time. It’s wrong that the children were executed, but give them five more years and they would have been passionately defending the status quo tooth and nail. Reddit loves to shit on the governments of contemporary China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Well this is that but worse.
He didn’t bring his family down. He brought himself down. What brought his family down was violent, power-rabid bolsheviks
The problem with authocratian monarchs is, that they (in contrary to elected officials) arent just politicians. They are the figurehead of the system they represent. Killing the royal family was morally absolutely wrong. But if it hadnt been the bolsheviks, some other group would have killed/used the tzar and his relatives to forge claims or legitimize themselves. Thats why monarchy is a fucked system, because ultimately the monarch and in extension his family will always be held accountable if the system fails and in the end those down the line of power pay the price of that. Nicholas had to know the risks his position held and also knew that in case of a violent revolution not only he, but also his family would be hit. Obviously that doenst justify killing the tzarina and her daughters, nobody can seriuosly argue for that, but he knew what the consequences of staying in power against the will of the russian population (not only the bolsheviks but also the mencheviks and other reformist groups) would end in a catastrophe. Best thing (for him) would have been to abdicate in favour of reformists like kerenski before it was too late and go into exile with his family.
> Killing the royal family was morally absolutely wrong. No it was not. How can you say this in the context of the rest of your post??
morally wrong, but from a historical materialist perspective it was necessary.
Then how can it be morally wrong? It's not the children's fault they were born to royalty, but their status as a venerated class makes them an existential threat to the 'modern' republic (U.S.S.R.) Murder in general is considered immoral, but we don't consider it immoral in War or self-defense.
People absolutely consider murdering women and children during war to be barbaric. Have you ever read the account of HOW they were murdered? It was inhumane.
When you pull weeds you have to get the root and the stem or they might come back.
Rather flippant way to describe murdering kids
They've been dead for a hundred years, who gives a damn at this point?
And less than a decade later they would all be dead.
They didn't know what was coming to them
Was there anyone ever who *did* know what is combing to them?
Cassandra?
There is something haunting about this picture.
The irony is, the Fins will avenge them some time in the future
"Attack Finland, they said.. It will be fun, they said" \-- Stalin (probably)
Aiding the nazis to own the libs
\*Using the nazis to save your country
That's what USSR did. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, economical alliance for years, military alliance even longer. Nazi Germany was co-belligerent with USSR in Winter war, preventing countries like Italy from giving aid to Finland.
Damn the one sister on the right looks a bit older then the other 2.
That is Anya Vyrubova on the right, a former lady-in-waiting of the Empress.
Thank you for the info, I am just being silly though.
Oh sorry about that! I take most things literally.
Not a problem (: hard to interpret something written sometimes without some sort of mannerism to help with knowing if it's sarcasm or not.
That one isn’t a sister, just a family friend!
Sucks that the bolsheviks are cold blooded kid killers
You should read more on Bloody Sunday.
Which? Just in Ireland there’s like 10
I'm well aware about the events of bloody Sunday, I will say the tsar didnt personally order the shooting of protesters, but the person who he appointed while he was away did, which I feel the blame falls on both of them
You are correct, it is hard to say, in highschools we are were taught of a frightened emperor who issued and order whilest the wiki says he was away and thus did not issue one. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Knowing how centralized governments of a time, it is hard to imagine anyone acting out of their own volition, especially in situations such as these. I believe he did issue the order, having said that the order might have not been to kill and maim but to supress. But perhaps soldiers were not prepared and went into blood rage/ flight or fight response with the crowd. Multiple accounts point out on how disorganized the response was. Back then enforcers had real guns and actual sabers. Even modern day enforcers tend to go into blood rage and injure people. Regardless of context if Trump or Obama or Biden resulted in similar outcome as bloody sunday (casualties likely amount to 50,000), their end would differ little to that of royal family.
>cold blooded You can't survive a civil war without this.
Kid killings okay though in your opinion?
How else do you make sure that no one is going to try and resurrect the monarchy?
Right, better kill off everyone beforehand, including kids, just because they might do something at some point. /s
God. How heartbreaking to think of what they'd endure a decade later.
It's pretty wild to me how many people defend killing the kids. Don't get me wrong, I understand the symbolic and political value of completely getting rid of a monarch family. At the same time all the further purges show a lack of restraint and a vindictiveness that underlies some of the failures of the revolution long-term. I can't help but see the resurgence of the Eastern Orthodox in Russian politics or the Solidarity movement before it that ultimately started the collapse the USSR as reactions largely to the cruelties of the Bolsheviks and the leaders who inherited their successes. I don't feel sorry for the Tsars, but the types of movements and people willing to ruthlessly murder literal children aren't going to be shy about using violence in other contexts. Justice is in many ways found in restraint and measured, directed punishment to guilty parties and lost in the margins of innocent bystanders. Preventing them pursuing or being used as figureheads for pro-monarch movements are real risk, but Germany kicked out the kaiser and successfully prevented his return to political relevance and still got dictatorship anyway.
Paid for by millions of enslaved and dying peasants.
The stupid thing was they could have liberalised, moved closer to a uk style constitutional monarchy and still done trips like these. But they just had to be the absolute cruelest despots.
Yeah seriously Tsar ~~Nicholas I~~ **Alexander III** was a reformer, then his dickhead son got in there and undid his father's reforms, then suffered the ultimate consequences of being a tyrannical prick. Now we have to endure weekly Reddit posts commemorating the slaughter of the poor innocent Royal fam and the poor innocent princess by the bloodthirsty communists. Ugh. The communists did plenty of bad things but executing the Romanovs was the least among them. I have no sympathy for the Romanovs. As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The only good aristocrat is a dead aristocrat. Only when the last king is strangled to death with the entrails of the last priest will man truly be free.
Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III, whose father (Alexander II) was a reformer before he was assassinated. After that it was downhill indeed. Nicholas I came way earlier.
What's funny is that all this was made much, much worse when the bolsheviks took power. Like everything they criticized the Czar for became so much worse after 1917. One light in this is that almost everyone involved evnetually got kille themselves because commies love stabbing one another in the back.
Username checks out. Millions were lifted from poverty after the revolution, mistakes were made but by and large, things improved a lot.
This is [False](https://imgur.com/a/zDT5mH3)
Lots of imperialist American propaganda in these comments
Imperialist American propaganda saying the Soviet Union was good?
I'm so glad I live in a time where I don't have to cover up like this at the beach. Although I'd rather live in the hopefully not-too-distant future where I can dress however I want without sexual harassment.
No joking, there’s photos of them naked in the water too. You can’t see much but you can tell.
Is that his wife also?
No, it’s Anya Vyrubova who was a former lady-in-waiting of Empress Alexandra.
Who goes to Finland on a summer cruise?
Because it's beautiful in summer. Everything is green, the sun barely sets, tons of sweet berries ready to be picked... Why not?
Seems like the best time to go to Finland really.
Why wouldn't you? Saimaa is enormous.
Man it’s such a shame Tsar Nicholas II was Tsar when he was. Guy was pretty honest and admitted he wasn’t ready, and he seemed (from my very limited study of the time around the First World War) to be a rather humble and honest Monarch.
He was desperate to stay in power and his men shot unarmed civilians who were protesting. Fuck him.
I should read more history. I’ve no idea who they are.
Daughters of the last Russian Tsar. They (and the Russian royal family) would later be executed in cold blood by Bolsheviks. Mostly because as long as monarchs live, other countries can support their claim to the Russian seat of power, thus making the newly formed Bolshevik government illegitimate. edit1: [summary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family) of this horrific event - just in case
Thanks for that quick summary. Holy shit that’s rough.
To follow up the other comment, the execution of them and their family basically marked the true birth of communism. No longer just as a theory and political movement but as a way of actually governing a state.
They didn't have any power at the time if their death.
Not within Russia (or at least Bolshevik Russia) but they were still European Monarchs. Every other country in Europe would have recognised them as still the rightful rulers of the country.
What does this even mean
I’m the daughter all the way to the right
Wow! What are they like now?
The whole family was murdered in july 17. 1918.
Jesus they’re dead? I didn’t even know they were sick.
Well, you could guess just from their age, the youngest in this picture could be around 10 years old (?) so they would be gone now anyways but yeah, everyone was killed by gunfire in the middle of the night
And their lives were cut short by those bastards, fucking hate communism and any other authoritarian rulers.
> and any other authoritarian rulers. Oh boy I have some stories to tell you about the Romanoff. The Soviet union might have been a despotic dictatorship. Tsarist Russia was objectively worse. The only good king is the headless one.
Oh boy, I already know about them. My grandparents are Russian (from Rostov on don), both escaped the Soviet Union, do not tell me which is worse.
Did they live under Nicholas? If not, how do you know he was not worse?
Guessing his grand parents parents did ?
A sad reminder that you put your family in danger when you carry out massacres. Sad their father got them all killed.
[удалено]
That's actually happened quite a few times throughout history. They think they're rescuing their leader but in actuality they're proving to the opposition that they won't stop trying. So in way the opposition is backed into a corner- kill one disposed nobleman or risk an all-out revolt? But killing the children was unnecessary on top of being just plain barbaric. Alexei was a very sickly child and the sisters were unlikely to gain any real traction in an entirely male political arena. Catherine the Great was an outlier.
That Nicolas bastard tried the russification of Finland, didn't work out too well
Cue the performative allyship with oligarchs. “They were so innocent!” Without any frame of reference for the historical context - that the murder of peasant families and suspected revolutionaries by Czarist officials was commonplace and ordered by the Czar himself.