The greatest enemy of Communism

[SurlyPIG]

Yes, the same Tsar who brutally repressed his people and had any dissenters tortured and killed. The same Tsar who had millions of his people die in a pointless war, and who lived in luxury while the masses starved. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him.

Take your own advice; "I see you've been taking lessons from Nav on how to completely twist other people's words"

First of all, when did I even slightly indicate any support for Nikolai? I said his FAMILY. You start a revolution and want to kill him? Fine! Maybe it's even acceptable to kill his wife, she had control over Russia while he was commanding the army in WWI. But murdering his five innocent kids just is just sick. DAMN sick. I see no difference between Lenin "wiping the seed" and Stalin's purging. What would you say if the US started killing the families of people in Husseins regime?

Second, WWI was pointles??? ??? Tell that to Belgium...

Third, you don't think Lenin lived in the lap of luxury??? He led the most priveliged life in the country! He had no objection to staying in the palaces formerly occupied by Nikolai II. He was a total hypocrit. Tsarism was a dictatorial regime in which the economy was controlled by a strong central government and people worked for the state. Lenin's Communism was a dictatorial regime in which the economy was controlled by a strong central government and people worked for the state. The only differences were a) foreign policy and b) power was handed through a corrupt beurocracy instead of through a monarch family. Essentially, he lied his arse off saying everything was for the people, for the workers and that the citizens controlled the country while he was fundamentally the same as the last government he forced out. He was just power-hungry.

[Warlord Ripskar]

It is the fate of the White Russians which is most disturbing about the USSR.

[Caid Ivik]

WW1 was a fight of autocratic falling countries, Germany and Austria, against democratical civilisation, which was slowly becoming more and more strong. Well, I wouldn't say it was a pointless. For aggressors it was a fight to death, other way was to reform and lose the face or slowly lose everything in national uprisings. Only Karl I. found the old Austria has no power and would make it like Britain, just it was too late. Caristic Russia tried to start free market and industrialization (i.e. railroads were private), and the process was just slowed, if not disrupted by the greatest man of communism, Vladimir Iljic Uljanov.

[Edric O]

Take your own advice; "I see you've been taking lessons from Nav on how to completely twist other people's words"

First of all, when did I even slightly indicate any support for Nikolai? I said his FAMILY. You start a revolution and want to kill him? Fine! Maybe it's even acceptable to kill his wife, she had control over Russia while he was commanding the army in WWI. But murdering his five innocent kids just is just sick. DAMN sick. I see no difference between Lenin "wiping the seed" and Stalin's purging. What would you say if the US started killing the families of people in Husseins regime?

Hmmmm, I distinctly remember something about "we want Hussein and his sons"... ::) Anyway, getting back to the Romanovs:

You have to understand that this was not some cruel act of bloody vengeance. It was Lenin's way to stay on the safe side. As long as the Tsar's heirs still lived, they could rally support from foreign powers and give them a perfect excuse to invade Russia. Remember, the greatest enemies of the French revolution were the exiled Bourbons. Lenin knew this, and didn't want his revolution to go the same way.

Of course, that doesn't justify murder, but it does give you an accurate view of things.

Second, WWI was pointles??? Tell that to Belgium...

I meant that it was a war in which millions died just to satisfy the personal whims of a handful of deranged monarchs. Have you ever read the letters they sent each other? It's sickening: they were on friendly, personal terms, while their soldiers died in the thousands each day...

Third, you don't think Lenin lived in the lap of luxury??? He led the most priveliged life in the country! He had no objection to staying in the palaces formerly occupied by Nikolai II. He was a total hypocrit.

Ace, you don't really seem to know Lenin. You confuse him with his opponent, Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky was the one who moved in the Tsar's winter palace and lived in the Tsar's luxury... Lenin was known for his hatred of any luxury. He always wore a shabby coat and a worker's hat.

You can call Lenin many things, and he had many flaws. But he was NOT a hypocrite.

Tsarism was a dictatorial regime in which the economy was controlled by a strong central government and people worked for the state. Lenin's Communism was a dictatorial regime in which the economy was controlled by a strong central government and people worked for the state. The only differences were a) foreign policy and b) power was handed through a corrupt beurocracy instead of through a monarch family. Essentially, he lied his arse off saying everything was for the people, for the workers and that the citizens controlled the country while he was fundamentally the same as the last government he forced out. He was just power-hungry.

Actually, that was STALIN. You have just perfectly described Stalin's regime (and those that followed). And you're absolutely right: Stalin was a selfish traitor, a disgrace to the revolution.

Speaking of which, why are we talking about Lenin when this thread is about Stalin? Let's get back on-topic...

[Inoculator9]

Those letters were called the "Nicky/Willy Letters". Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Vilhelm were first cousins, so they were writing each other say "stop the invasions."

-with love, Nicky

They were all related :P

[Caid Ivik]

Your view on WW1 is very strange, EdricO. If I've understood, you think it was like a bloody chess game between the Central Powers and Alliance? All wars, especially these bigger ones, were caused by disharmony of things which date even centuries back. Germans and French made up a hate by their endless conflicts. WW1 was needed as a final clash, where both sides should learn it leads to nothing and try to establish friendly relations - not between their leaders, but to prevent yelling "Franken Raus!" in Saarbruecken inns. Yet the war wasn't enough deadly as we saw. Now, France and Germany are closest allies in Europe.

As said Kissinger, war CAN solve some things. Altough it means SOME wars solve SOME things.

[SurlyPIG]

Hmmmm, I distinctly remember something about "we want Hussein and his sons"... ::)

They've been a direct part of his government for years! The notion that you would compare the romanov CHILDREN to Saddam's adult sons is ridiculous, are you that obsessed with Communism? His sons are guilty of everything he is; torture, murder, opression - everything. Qusay even tortured their soccer team FFS. You compare this to children, four of whom were girls? Give me a break.

You have to understand that this was not some cruel act of bloody vengeance. It was Lenin's way to stay on the safe side. As long as the Tsar's heirs still lived, they could rally support from foreign powers and give them a perfect excuse to invade Russia. Remember, the greatest enemies of the French revolution were the exiled Bourbons. Lenin knew this, and didn't want his revolution to go the same way.

Staying SAFE? Listen to yourself Edric! The US could 'stay on the safe side' and nuke Iraq into a parking lot, just to 'make sure that nobody in Hussein's organization ever regained power'. What would you think of that. There was absolutely no reason to vengefully murder them, they were held in Siberia for more than a year, and nobody from any country sided with them and invaded Russia. If four teenage girls and a hemophiliac boy are a potential political threat, ANYONE is. You think Lenin actually feared an uprising from a fourteen-year-old boy who's greatest fear is a bleeding nose? Bah. Not a chance. It was barbaric vengeance - nothing more, nothing less. Where does it end Edric? What if they were babies when Lenin killed them?

I meant that it was a war in which millions died just to satisfy the personal whims of a handful of deranged monarchs. Have you ever read the letters they sent each other? It's sickening: they were on friendly, personal terms, while their soldiers died in the thousands each day...

In that respect I see your point. But countries were INVADED. For many, it was a war for freedom.

Ace, you don't really seem to know Lenin. You confuse him with his opponent, Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky was the one who moved in the Tsar's winter palace and lived in the Tsar's luxury... Lenin was known for his hatred of any luxury. He always wore a shabby coat and a worker's hat.

I'm well aware of both Kerensky and Lenin. The worker's outfit was a show, just like Stalin kissing babies or Saddam holding rallies. Welcome to propaganda 101.

Actually, that was STALIN. You have just perfectly described Stalin's regime (and those that followed). And you're absolutely right: Stalin was a selfish traitor, a disgrace to the revolution.

My description applies to both of them. I'm well aware of the trivial, quantitative differences between the two. I've heard it put very well, if Lenin is X, Stalin is X cubed. Less extreme, but still an X.

[Edric O]

They've been a direct part of his government for years! The notion that you would compare the romanov CHILDREN to Saddam's adult sons is ridiculous, are you that obsessed with Communism? His sons are guilty of everything he is; torture, murder, opression - everything. Qusay even tortured their soccer team FFS. You compare this to children, four of whom were girls? Give me a break.

I was just pointing out that going after your enemy's family members is something that today's "democracies" do as well. I wasn't talking about guilt or innocence.

(and yes, this comparison IS very far-fetched - that's why I didn't insist on it)

Staying SAFE? Listen to yourself Edric! The US could 'stay on the safe side' and nuke Iraq into a parking lot, just to 'make sure that nobody in Hussein's organization ever regained power'. What would you think of that. There was absolutely no reason to vengefully murder them, they were held in Siberia for more than a year, and nobody from any country sided with them and invaded Russia.

Please don't let your anger and hate against communism cloud your senses like that. I specifically said that Lenin's motives DID NOT justify the murder. You seemed to have overlooked that.

Also, you've got to love the irony: you're telling me that killing someone "just to be on the safe side" is immoral and wrong, yet you support Bush's policy of "pre-emptive war", which is EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

If four teenage girls and a hemophiliac boy are a potential political threat, ANYONE is. You think Lenin actually feared an uprising from a fourteen-year-old boy who's greatest fear is a bleeding nose? Bah. Not a chance. It was barbaric vengeance - nothing more, nothing less.

Teenage boys have a tendency to GROW UP, Ace. That sickly boy would one day be a grown man, and the heir to the throne of the Romanovs. OF COURSE he was a threat. A major one.

Like I said, Lenin did what he did only because he thought it had to be done.

Where does it end Edric? What if they were babies when Lenin killed them?

And what if you had little baby HITLER in your hands, Ace? What would you do?

That being said, however, I don't think Lenin would have killed them if they were babies. As babies, they would have no knowledge of their heritage and could be adopted by a normal family.

In that respect I see your point. But countries were INVADED. For many, it was a war for freedom.

OF COURSE. But I was only talking about the aggressors, and those who entered the war just for vengeance.

I'm well aware of both Kerensky and Lenin. The worker's outfit was a show, just like Stalin kissing babies or Saddam holding rallies. Welcome to propaganda 101.

...or like Bush talking about "the war on terror" and saying "God bless America".

However, this time it WASN'T propaganda, Ace. The worker's outfit could have been just for show, but Lenin's lifestyle proves otherwise. He never accumulated wealth for himself.

My description applies to both of them. I'm well aware of the trivial, quantitative differences between the two. I've heard it put very well, if Lenin is X, Stalin is X cubed. Less extreme, but still an X.

I never expected you to say anything else, Ace. You are living proof that the American propaganda machine is extremely effective, even on very intelligent people.