Skip to main content

Was it justified for the Bolsheviks to kill the children of Emperor Nicholas II?

Was it justified for the Bolsheviks to kill the children of Emperor Nicholas II?

From a moral standpoint, there was no reason at all. The Bolsheviks could, perhaps, try to justify killing the Tsar, charging him of crimes against the Russian people, or anything like that, but his children couldn’t possibly be blamed of anything. Alexei, for instance, was a sick boy who was not even 14 years old yet.

It is so difficult to justify those killings that the Soviets announced the Tsar’s death but tried to hide the information about the children for years.

However, if by “justified” you mean from a practical, not a moral standpoint, than it is probably correct to say they had to kill the children. Machiavelli explains this in his book The Prince.

Machiavelli says that, if you take a country ruled by an absolute monarch, one step to keep this conquest is to extinguish all the bloodline of the king. If you don’t, than whoever wants to rise against you may take the surviving prince as a unified banner to call others to attack. Even if the prince is just a child and even if he is your prisoner. It doesn’t matter, an attack is made in name of that prince with the ostensive objective to install him in power, even if the real objective is to use him as a puppet. If such princes don’t exist, it is much more difficult to form a cohesive attack against the new rulers, as the attackers would need a different motive and may struggle among themselves instead of uniting against you, due to divergences about who should rule in your place.

This concept was applied to several different instances in History when a monarch was displaced. It is a brutal concept, so there were many ways the new rulers had tried to make sure the bloodline was extinguished without having the blame on them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself.......

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point. Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react. They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you. There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side. Maturity is...
Post a Comment
Read more

The battle against caste: Phule and Periyar's indomitable legacy

In the annals of India's social reform, two luminaries stand preeminent: Jotirao Phule and E.V. Ramasamy, colloquially known as Periyar. Their endeavours, ensconced in the 19th and 20th centuries, continue to sculpt the contemporary struggle against the entrenched caste system. Phule's educational renaissance Phule, born in 1827, was an intellectual vanguard who perceived education as the ultimate equaliser. He inaugurated the inaugural school for girls from lower castes in Pune, subverting the Brahminical hegemony that had long monopolized erudition. His Satyashodhak Samaj endeavoured to obliterate caste hierarchies through radical social reform. His magnum opus, "Gulamgiri" (Slavery), delineated poignant parallels between India's caste system and the subjugation of African-Americans, igniting a discourse on caste as an apparatus of servitude. Periyar's rationalist odyssey Periyar, born in 1879, assumed the mantle of social reform through the Dravidian moveme...
Post a Comment
Read more

India needs a Second National Capital

Metta Ramarao, IRS (VRS) India needs a Second National Capital till a green field New National Capital is built in the geographical centre of India. Dr B R Ambedkar in his book "Thoughts on Linguistic States" published in 1955 has written a full Chaper on "Second Capital for India" While discussing at length justfying the need to go for a second capital has clearly preferred Hyderabad over Kolkata and Mumbai. He did not consider Nagpur. Main reason he brought out in his book is the need to bridge north and south of the country. He recommended Hyderabad as second capital of India. Why we should consider Dr Ambedkar's recommendation: Delhi was central to British India. After partition, Delhi is situated at one corner of India. People from South find it daunting to visit due to distance, weather, language, culture, etc. If Hyderabad is made second capital, it will embrace all southern states. People of South India can come for work easily. Further, if Supreme Court...
Post a Comment
Read more