Murder case of Tsar Nicholas II & family closed

[TithonusSyndrome]

Russia Today reports

DNA confirms Tsar’s family remains

DNA results have confirmed that remains found near Ekaterinburg a year ago belong to Prince Aleksey and Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna of the Romanov family. The announcement comes on the 90th anniversary of the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his family by Bolsheviks.

On Wednesday, church services are being held across Russia to remember the tragic event.

The last Tsar of Russia and his family were shot in the early hours of July 17 1918, less than two years after the abdication of Nicholas II, in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg.

The bodies of the Royal Family were stripped and burned. After a failed attempt to conceal them in a mineshaft, they were taken to a nearby field, drenched in acid and buried.

“This was one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity. This was not just an attempt to kill a family, but destroy Russia itself, and Russia paid the price with its subsequent history, because the Bolsheviks had acted without legitimacy,” said historian Pyotr Multatuli.

This is the most common account of the death of Nicholas II and his wife and five children. But many facts in this story are contested.

The death of the Royal Family was the start of a 90-year mystery that has spawned hundreds of alleged survivors – only in Europe 147 people claimed to be survived ‘children’ of Nicholas II. There were dozens of archaeological digs and many theories, some well researched, others wildly speculative.

Within a year after the death, those claiming to be the slain Tsar's children cropped up. The most famous is Anna Anderson, who spent her life in a legal battle to prove she was in fact Princess Anastasia.

The Soviet authorities covered up the executioners accounts. The house where the family was killed was pulled down.

Amateur archaeologist and historian Aleksandr Avdonin, who’s been piecing together information with his team, claims they recovered the bodies of Nicholas II and others in 1979. But they would be arrested if anyone found out, and they then reburied them.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the team returned to the site, and this time the remains were submitted for DNA testing. While most experts said the bones belong to the royals, the Russian Orthodox Church and many historians remained unconvinced.

A year ago further remains supposedly belonging to Crown Prince Aleksey and his sister were recovered just yards from the first site. But the now solved mystery of their authenticity is not the most important thing.

“We must recognise and accept what happened here. And the Russian authorities must make every effort to condemn this slaughter, if it sees itself not just as the heir to the USSR, but to the regimes before it,” believes Petr Multatuli.

It took long enough, but I guess it's good to finally put an official close to it, not to mention to shut up any conspiracy loons who believe that the Princess Anastasia escaped alive.

What will White Russians living abroad do now?

[Kanastrous]

Murder is murder, but somehow killing the people responsible for so much suffering on the parts of their subjects doesn't exactly seem like "one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity."

[Ekiqa]

Murder is murder, but somehow killing the people responsible for so much suffering on the parts of their subjects doesn't exactly seem like "one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity."

So you do not condemn the execution of young children?
The only one killed who was responsible in any way was the Tsar, his family: wife, children, had no role in the suffering of peasants.

[Kanastrous]

That's mostly true, although I don't think that the Tsarina escapes culpability.

[Samuel]

“This was one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity. This was not just an attempt to kill a family, but destroy Russia itself, and Russia paid the price with its subsequent history, because the Bolsheviks had acted without legitimacy,” said historian Pyotr Multatuli.

And their claim to power was legitimate... because they seized it in the past! Remember- you can commit crimes or you can inherent, but I recommend having your parents commit the crime then inherit.

So you do not condemn the execution of young children?
The only one killed who was responsible in any way was the Tsar, his family: wife, children, had no role in the suffering of peasants.

It is premeditated murder, not "the greatest crime ever".

“We must recognize and accept what happened here. And the Russian authorities must make every effort to condemn this slaughter, if it sees itself not just as the heir to the USSR, but to the regimes before it,” believes Petr Multatuli.

Stas, what the hell is going on in Russia? Please tell me that this is just another nut who got air time, not a common view.

[Zixinus]

I wouldn't be surprised if a surprising number of people held this view.

Here in Hungary, you can still find people that want to promote medieval values, because that was the last time Hungary was "free".

[Darth Raptor]

Considering the Romanovs are considered saints and martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church, I'd say yes.

[Knife]

Murder is murder, but somehow killing the people responsible for so much suffering on the parts of their subjects doesn't exactly seem like "one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity."

Was it Nicoli's father or grandfather, Alexander who freed the peasants of serfdom? Anyway, as far as 'responsible for so much suffereing', I was under the impression that the last Tsar was more or less considered an average or place holder type, not remarkable in any way other than being the last guy in the office.

[montypython]

Murder is murder, but somehow killing the people responsible for so much suffering on the parts of their subjects doesn't exactly seem like "one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity."

Was it Nicoli's father or grandfather, Alexander who freed the peasants of serfdom? Anyway, as far as 'responsible for so much suffereing', I was under the impression that the last Tsar was more or less considered an average or place holder type, not remarkable in any way other than being the last guy in the office.

Alexander II, Nicholas's grandfather was the one who abolished serfdom; Nicholas was often said by commentators to be good as an British-style monarch, but not the type of person who could be an effective autocrat.

[Kanastrous]

Presence in the office = responsibility for decisions made while in that office.

I don't believe that absolute monarchs (or monarchs close to it) get a pass, for much of anything concerning misuse of their power.

[Knife]

Presence in the office = responsibility for decisions made while in that office.

I don't believe that absolute monarchs (or monarchs close to it) get a pass, for much of anything concerning misuse of their power.

I both agree and disagree. As I understand it, Nicoli was not really all that game to be heir. He was forced to do so, though I guess you could say he could abdicate it. Anyway, he was a place holder and while you can subscribe responsibility to him since he didn't abdicate; there was the Court and all the behind the scenes power mongers who were continuing the ruthless suppression of the peasants. Though, like I said, props to his grandpa for freeing them from serfdom.

BTW, thanks Monty. Knew it was pretty close to father or grandfather.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't know who is this Mulatatuli. Maybe one of the ROC "historians" (they do have their share of time, preaching Orthodoxy). I don't really know why modern Russia (a republic) would want see itself as a heir to the Russian Empire, and not, at least, the provisional government of the Russian Republic of 1917.

So you do not condemn the execution of young children? The only one killed who was responsible in any way was the Tsar, his family: wife, children, had no role in the suffering of peasants.

To be fair, when has rebellion been fair to it's opponents? In 1857, the Indian rebellion in the British Empire had people cutting down entire families, with kids, of British officials and European civils and officials. As a retaliation, the British murdered the family of the king, as well as many civilians including children, without any remorse, and he himself was trialled and executed.

I have not heard this going as the "greatest crimes in the history of humanity" - maybe perhaps because Leningrad and Pnom Penh, or Auschwitz and Treblinka would beg to differ.

[Falkenhayn]

Was it Nicoli's father or grandfather, Alexander who freed the peasants of serfdom? Anyway, as far as 'responsible for so much suffereing', I was under the impression that the last Tsar was more or less considered an average or place holder type, not remarkable in any way other than being the last guy in the office.

To be fair, "Tsar liberator" had just received an asswhooping in the Crimea, and was smart enough to realize that you can't create a regular-and-reserve military system from enserfed conscripts. So the terms of the emancipation stipulated that all peasants remained serfs for two years after the emancipation, so they could be counted. He then mandated that they purchase their landholdings from their former masters with 50 year mortgages.

[Knife]

Was it Nicoli's father or grandfather, Alexander who freed the peasants of serfdom? Anyway, as far as 'responsible for so much suffereing', I was under the impression that the last Tsar was more or less considered an average or place holder type, not remarkable in any way other than being the last guy in the office.

To be fair, "Tsar liberator" had just received an asswhooping in the Crimea, and was smart enough to realize that you can't create a regular-and-reserve military system from enserfed conscripts. So the terms of the emancipation stipulated that all peasants remained serfs for two years after the emancipation, so they could be counted. He then mandated that they purchase their landholdings from their former masters with 50 year mortgages.

Well yeah, but not that much different than 40 acre and a mule. You take it in baby steps, Alexander was hardly an innovator in that.

[Akhlut]

So, really, who is surprised by this development?

“This was one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity. This was not just an attempt to kill a family, but destroy Russia itself, and Russia paid the price with its subsequent history, because the Bolsheviks had acted without legitimacy,” said historian Pyotr Multatuli.

Methinks Pyotr might not understand that the Soviets were attempting to utterly obliterate the Russian monarchy so as to prevent their resurgence and to maintain a Communist state.


Question for Stas: how is Tsar Nicholas II and his family viewed in Russia these days? I know that he and his family were canonized by the Church, but how does that translate to the regular people, especially given the popularity of Lenin and Stalin in recent polls of "best Russians" ?

[K. A. Pital]

Question for Stas: how is Tsar Nicholas II and his family viewed in Russia these days? I know that he and his family were canonized by the Church, but how does that translate to the regular people, especially given the popularity of Lenin and Stalin in recent polls of "best Russians" ?

Recently the archiery of the ROC took the decision to canonize the last Russian tsar Nicholas II.

The poll has shown that 64% of Russians know about this event. The respondents were asked about how they see this event. 21% have approved of the canonization, 21% were indifferent, and 17% were disapproving.

In total, the canonization did not impact the Russian public opinion in any fashion - the constancy of the public opinion is manifested through that 75%, and 78% of those informed, accordingly reported that their attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church or Nicholas the II has not been changed by the canonization.

Nicholas II is popular among the monarchists, but outside of that segment - not so much.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I wouldn't be surprised if a surprising number of people held this view.

Here in Hungary, you can still find people that want to promote medieval values, because that was the last time Hungary was "free".

Free of what? Isn't it free now?

[Samuel]

I wouldn't be surprised if a surprising number of people held this view.

Here in Hungary, you can still find people that want to promote medieval values, because that was the last time Hungary was "free".

Free of what? Isn't it free now?

Free to opress its neighbors.

[B5B7]

“This was one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity. This was not just an attempt to kill a family, but destroy Russia itself, and Russia paid the price with its subsequent history, because the Bolsheviks had acted without legitimacy,” said historian Pyotr Multatuli.

How can this guy call himself an historian with a view like that? :wtf
Russia was a primitive society, and who decides what has legitimacy?
It was a political act, of a type that has occurred throughout history, and practised by monarchies themselves frequently when they seize power from a previous monarchic regime.

[K. A. Pital]

How can this guy call himself an historian with a view like that?

Actually most people who aren't historians call themselves such however. Including for example holocaust deniers, moonhoaxers and others of the sort. A lack of credentials and basic logic never prevented a person from being a "historian".

[CJvR]

This was one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity...

Hardly the greatest, although for a nostalgic royalist perhaps it might seem so.
Although it was a part of one of the greatest crimes in human history for sure.

[folti78]

I wouldn't be surprised if a surprising number of people held this view.

Here in Hungary, you can still find people that want to promote medieval values, because that was the last time Hungary was "free".

Free of what? Isn't it free now?

On paper yes, but Hungary was also free as a bird under the communist regime too.
It's more of the issue of nostalgia for the times when the country was a regional power not a yet-another-north-balkan-banana-republic (without the banana) as it is perceived now.

Free to opress its neighbors.

<sarcasm>
Oh, come on... In the middle ages to reneissance*, it was only oppression when you taxed one group of your subjects more than the rest. Or wanted to enact religion change...
</sarcasm>
* EDIT: at least here in central europe, which was ~50 years removed from the west in cultural development

[Steve]

Eh, I've long regarded the executions of Nicholas II and his Czarina to be a harsh but somewhat karmic fate for a couple that, through their vapidity and incompetence, destroyed the very system that sustained them and doomed the nation their duty demanded they preserve to bloody war and a bloodier successor regime.

OTOH, their children were innocent and were the victims of cold-blooded murder by the Reds, who were a bunch of bastards. They have become very prominent victims of the Communists, if hardly the only ones, and IMHO can be mourned in the fashion that one could, say, mourn Anne Frank.

[Samuel]

Eh, I've long regarded the executions of Nicholas II and his Czarina to be a harsh but somewhat karmic fate for a couple that, through their vapidity and incompetence, destroyed the very system that sustained them and doomed the nation their duty demanded they preserve to bloody war and a bloodier successor regime.

OTOH, their children were innocent and were the victims of cold-blooded murder by the Reds, who were a bunch of bastards. They have become very prominent victims of the Communists, if hardly the only ones, and IMHO can be mourned in the fashion that one could, say, mourn Anne Frank.

Yeah, they looked like sweet kids and were innocent even if they were brats. Personally, I think the Reds should have tried to convert them- it would have been a big propaganda coup.

[K. A. Pital]

Nostalgic royalists should tell me whether the Indian rebellion of 1857 where officials were murdered with their families was the "greatest crime" in history.

If you think Russia was more civilizied than India in 1917, think again. You are wrong. Maybe a bit more, but not to the extent collective murder in armed struggle was not possible.