|
Typo posted:imperial russia 1900s had modern day chinese rates of economic growth and industrialization until the civil war blew it all up I guess the Bolsheviks just weren't putting the 3 million dead from WW1 in the right perspective.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Typo posted:
yet that change had a massive cost, in terms of the english civil war. cromwell had to execute a royal before it could have happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:2nd hot take: republicanism doesn't require the execution of children. It LITERALLY does when the monarchists are a week away from capturing the city they're in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
If you had to massacre all the Romanovs, but you got a mil- RA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KA-KOW!!!! Sorry, was I gonna get something for this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:doesn't matter - they would still have been politically useful to the Whites, and so long as they were, they were a threat. I think there's a lot of problems with just taking a simplistic utilitarian view of the problem. Like if we let doctors do medical experiments on prisoners or infect people at random with syphilis, it very well might save net lives. However generally we want to live in a world in which we can trust that our doctors won't just kill us arbitrarily for some greater good. Similarly wiping out the Imperial family surely was convenient. However it can be seen as a part of a larger institutionalization of arbitrary violence in the emerging Soviet State. The Romanov children were just a few of the many victims of the Russian Civil war and their fate was not particularly unique. However I think all Russians would have been much better off if the state wasn't so willing to resort to violence whensoever it was convenient, especially by Stalin's day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:imperial russia 1900s had modern day chinese rates of economic growth and industrialization until the civil war blew it all up imperial russia was propped up by the french after 1905 because they wanted them as a bulwark against germany, who had beaten them and taken away alsace-lorraine in 1870. as soon as france stopped sending russia money, their economy stagnated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
The Bolsheviks didn’t exactly have the luxury of being reluctant to commit violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
a civil war is never clean. you can't compare a civil war to normal civil society. and at any rate, the bolsheviks were often the victims of massive, widespread and indiscriminate violence at the hands of the tsarist secret police and supporters. if anyone was responsible for the atmosphere that legitimized institutionalized violence, it was the romanovs themselves. that they ended up becoming victims of it themselves is chickens coming home to roost. rudatron has issued a correction as of 06:54 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:sic semper tyrannis bitch yeah theres 2000+ years of history backing the fact that tyrannicide is legal and just in a proper republic
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I think there's a lot of problems with just taking a simplistic utilitarian view of the problem. Like if we let doctors do medical experiments on prisoners or infect people at random with syphilis, it very well might save net lives. However generally we want to live in a world in which we can trust that our doctors won't just kill us arbitrarily for some greater good. Every single attempt at suggesting putting down the Romanovs was bad has to brutally amputate their deaths from the situation in which they occured and transplant them into a vacuum where, as in this example, they were killed because it was less hassle than keeping them around and that's bad because their executioners didn't look out the window and see Stalin going 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
lol that the executioner was so sloshed he didn't even hit the children the first time around
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:lol that the executioner was so sloshed he didn't even hit the children the first time around if you had to execute children, wouldnt you want to be blackout drunk first?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Hostess Snack Cake posted:if you had to execute children, wouldnt you want to be blackout drunk first?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
murdering children to own the
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
they were willing to put up with the inconvenience of keeping the Romanovs in detention. the problem was that they feared their liberation by the Czech Legion. what was really inconvenient is that little Nikolaevich injured himself, which combined with his hemophilia made it too difficult to move them all. if they really wanted to kill the Romanovs they wouldn’t have kept the executions secret until 1925.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Like the whole point of Game of Thrones is you can't be all "killing children is bad" in a system where all change depends on a handful of people living or dying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
lol at taking your position on child murder from a loving fantasy book. Pener Kropoopkin posted:they were willing to put up with the inconvenience of keeping the Romanovs in detention. the problem was that they feared their liberation by the Czech Legion. what was really inconvenient is that little Nikolaevich injured himself, which combined with his hemophilia made it too difficult to move them all. Again, being reluctant in your execution of child prisoners does not justify child murder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
the significant threat their very existence posed to the survival of the revolution and the liberation of millions, however, does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:lol at taking your position on child murder from a loving fantasy book once again you misunderstand they were attempting to communicate in terms your child brain could comprehend
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
all loving nobles must die, regardless of whether they are children or not. pretty soon we're going to move on to labor aristocrats and thats going to be awesome tbqh
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:imperial russia was propped up by the french after 1905 because they wanted them as a bulwark against germany, who had beaten them and taken away alsace-lorraine in 1870. This. The majority of Russia's 20th century industrial expansion prior to the revolution resulted from foreign investment and subsidies which, surprise! resulted in the majority of their benefits flowing back of the country again and the emerging proletariat suffering even worse than usual exploitation at the hands of capital without most of the meager material improvements their equivalents in, say, Germany or Britain could point to as palliatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:lol at taking your position on child murder from a loving fantasy book. The fact that the divine right of kings is inalienable and inseparable does not come from a fantasy book. If you leave only one option for lasting political change, people will take it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
anyone got a good book recommendation on the Russian revolutions and, as a follow up, on Stalin and the transition of power after his death? I'm fine with something academic, I never got to take any Russian history courses
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:anyone got a good book recommendation on the Russian revolutions and, as a follow up, on Stalin and the transition of power after his death? I'm fine with something academic, I never got to take any Russian history courses as mentioned earlier, october by china mieville is a good overview of the russian revolution from 1905 to the end of the october revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
As long as a royal childs body can be propped up on a horse theyre dangerous, it was the right move tactically to quietly execute them and destroy the remains it just so happens that its also justified by the rights of free men
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Lol that anyone in cspam is making the universal morality case for loving royalty
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Lol if you can sit through the months of royal wedding/baby coverage and not want to exterminate all royalty
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
I remember that sometime around 2012 (still in the middle of the recession) the queen had this PSA that detailed little "tips" for ordinary people to save money. Shortly thereafter she had her diamond jubilee, which royal asskissers assured me was more for the people than for her. Those people, I concluded, were fuckwits who should probably have all their teeth knocked out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
I emphasize with the decision but do not condone or excuse it. It`s understandable that the Bolshevik leadership in a time of famine and civil war and foreign invasion by the entente allies would take no chances, and at that they at that point had no time for, or even the emotional capacity for mercy. But it was not rigth. I simply refuse to accept that killing children because it politically necessary is morally acceptable under any circumstances. It set the tone for what the Soviet Union would become; a tyranny propped up by slave labour, executions and terror, a sad mockery of the utopia promised ( at first earnestly) by the Bolsheviks. Of course if Lenin had asked me for advice i would have said" Why haven`t we killed them already?" So i have no right to judge them, i too would have wanted to win by whatever means necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
I agree that killing royal children is a kind of tragic event, like having to put down your pet dog when it gets rabies. The individual in question didnt choose to be incredibly dangerous but the fact of the matter is they are dangerous and even from a Benthamist utilitarian standpoint baby guillotines are necessary
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
The rules of succession are there: if the kids are all that remains, power passes to them. That's not a rule of Communism. If the Tsar had (instead of "abdicating" to his cousin or whatever) dissolved the monarchy instead, there would have been no reason to kill them. They could have been comfortably exiled forever. But the little caesar had to puff himself up and act like his station was real, god-given and immutable. Nicholas II killed his children. Simple, end of story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
The only real moral calculus during war time is to engage in whatever brings it to the swiftest and most decisive conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The only real moral calculus during war time is to engage in whatever brings it to the swiftest and most decisive conclusion.  the us has committed war crimes in every war since ww1, and I just can't think of one they did there. if you can come up with one that means the streak goes all the way back to at least the acw (sherman did nothing wrong)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:
We entered WW1 way too late to really get down into some war crimes, but you should read up on all the Filipinos we mass murdered for wanting to be an independent republic and not an American colony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:We entered WW1 way too late to really get down into some war crimes, but you should read up on all the Filipinos we mass murdered for wanting to be an independent republic and not an American colony. The us before the Spanish American war: reconcentration camps are bad American Indians: 👀👀👀👀
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:We entered WW1 way too late to really get down into some war crimes, but you should read up on all the Filipinos we mass murdered for wanting to be an independent republic and not an American colony. all marines are war criminals/rapists
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:
Having got into the action so late I can't really think of any major US war crimes comparable to, say, the burning of Louvain or the Armenian genocide, but the US was complicit in Britain extending the blockade of Germany after the armistice to force compliance with it and the eventual peace terms, which resulted in mass civilian starvation (though of how many precisely there's considerable disagreement) Captain_Maclaine has issued a correction as of 21:04 on Jul 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
If anything the more recent American wars were more morally executed than the previous ones because they started out as naked imperialism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and moved to a comparatively much more human brutal total war. Well at least until you get into the modern days endless police actions. I'm not sure what the gently caress to call that but I'd say it's worse than war with a goal in mind
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 09:28
|
|