my god

Welcome back ianaww

They also killed their chef and their doctor.

I don't really understand the point you are making

I mean my initial guess is you just don't really understand Russian and Soviet history, Luckbox. As such you are just repeating the western anti-communist propaganda line you have heard about Russian royalty.

I mean its of course ridiculous to talk about how a few memebers of the royal family being killed during the Russian Civil War and following WWI is "gratuitous".

During WWI, over 3 million Russians died, half of which were civilians. In the name of Russian imperialism. Under the leadership of Nicholas.

And you are saying its gratuitous that he and his family ended up dead?

Also completely glosses over the fact that there were elements within Russia and without that were working to re-install the Romanovs to power for another 2 decades after the Russian civil war.

on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des œufs

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs

and apparently you can't be a freedom loving humanist without [not even gonna write it]

Has any leftistish movement killed anyone wrongly?

Once again California is leading the way, in this case finding creative solutions to the problem that is capitalism and one more step toward the glorious post-capitalist future that awaits:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/targe...113006396.html

Class enemies from birth
Class enemies 4 LYFE

Saw a map of mayors of big cities across the us. Kinda interesting east usa looked to tend to be dem and usa rep (relatively).

not sure if "wrongly" is the correct paradigm to use

During the French revolution, peasants guillotined and murdered tons of royalty. Yet we celebrate it as a victory for liberty and progress. No one pearl clutches about how executing the royalty was "gratuitous" or whatever.

Asking whether those executions were "right" or "wrong" feels silly doesn't it?

Seems more just a matter of being realistic about how social revolutions happen. They are always violent, and necessarily so.

The only reason in the West that we continually try to drum up sympathy for the Romanovs is because of anti-communist sentiment.

I know most of my Russian history from The Great.

I will agree history was brutal.

Whenever I watch game of thrones or something and some adviser says "we should execute all our enemies and end things quickly" I mostly agree with them. And then the leader doesn't listen and things go horribly.

and birdman

Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Yeah I mean this goes back to this thread's ongoing discussion about the merits of pacifism.

Obviously I think it is a naive idealistic view that oppression can be ended without violence. And I think Luckbox would say that is not what he is saying. But then you get into the territory of monday-morning-quarterbacking specific acts of a much larger movement of the social revolution in Russia.

Like "oh it was ok to kill these people but not these people, and maybe imprison these people" etc.

At the end of the day that seems pretty silly. We are talking about the deaths of a few people amongst a movement in which millions suffered or died. And the reason we care about their deaths is because they are royalty. Which is why it is royalty apology.

sometimes whataboutism is a valid argument

for example the romanovs(and people like them) killing millions, constantly.

sweatshops and prisons and wars are all rich people exploiting poor people for profit. and to a lesser degree all owners/workers and landlords/tenants

and now you can add in climate disasters. rich people exploiting the planet, and poor people dying from climate change

I think people massively overuse "whataboutism". I personally don't see how any of the situations you described are "whataboutism" filthy.

Like I'm not sure if you were suggesting that my observations about the French Revolution was whataboutism, but if you were, I will say this:

The point is not to be like "look here are horrible things the French revolutionaries did during the French Revolution" as a means of distracting from what happened during the Russian Revolution.

My point is to observe historical examples of how social revolution occurs and draw a pragmatic understanding. Westerners correctly accept that violence was necessary to bring about social change in France. And said violence is very hard to control or organize. I don't think anyone is "happy" about tons and tons of people dying (on either side of the affair) but we understand it was in most instances unavoidable and a necessary part of the revolution.

We don't see countless examples of movies, shows, and stories romanticizing the French nobility at the time, and victimizing them and making their deaths or removal from power seem tragic. But we do for the Romanovs. And the reason is that it was communists, rather than liberals, who were behind the Russian revolution.

Not really on topic but one of those recent threads came up about "what will guns do against drone strikes and tanks" which I always thinks understates how difficult it would be to wage war against a population who is against you.

I've also wanted to read or listen to a pod about French resistances during WW2. Heard they were quite diverse in beliefs.

I'm not up to speed too much on the French revolution or the Russia revolution.

But I think it's ok to say that killing children is wrong. Having some moral absolutes is fine otherwise we're just relativists. I'm not trying to claim anything here beyond that and certainly not pearl clutching.

Would you rather they kept them alive till they turn 18 then kill them?