The Instigator
Kylar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Atheist-Independent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,515 times Debate No: 64478
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Kylar

Con

Greetings everyone, it's Kylar. I am an avid history lover, and I am curious about your opinion on this topic. The Romanov's: Czar Nicholas II of Russia and his family are rather infamous. They were overthrown in the Russian Revolution and were executed on July 17th 1918 by bayonets or firing squad. Was this justice? I am adopting the Con viewpoint. I look forward to debating this with you,
Kylar
1st round: acceptance only and opening statements
Atheist-Independent

Pro

I accept this debate. I too am a history lover, and I had no choice but to accept such an interesting topic. Honestly I could debate from either side of this, but I will take the Pro side in this situation.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Kylar

Con

Hi! This should be fun, one history lover to another in a fun debate on a very controversial topic. Thank you for your courtesy first off. Now then with the formalities concluded, my arguments for Round 2 as follows
The Romanov line was not totally innocent of crimes, but they were for the most part naive to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
It was not Justice to kill children, teenagers really, by a Bolshevik firing squad. Prince Alexi, and Princess Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria were innocent of the crimes their parents were charged with. They were naive to what their father Czar Nicholas II was facing, and to my knowledge did not commit crimes worthy of death. The Romanov line was brutally murdered by a Russian firing squad, that in the process bayoneted or shot innocent children. Their execution was unfair and unjust. If it was inevitable, there should have been a fair trial held before a criminal court. They should have had adequate lawyers and a fair judge, not be hastened into a basement and brutally murdered. I rest my case for Round 2, and I really look forward to hearing my opponents argument.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

I'm going to keep my argument short given that I am running out of time, and I have other obligations at the moment.

I am going to be arguing that the offenses of the Czar (or Tsar) were too great and that the seemingly immoral execution of him and his family was for the betterment of the Russian people.

The history of the former Czar of Russia is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world (Dec of Ind. reference :D)

1. The Czar Nicholas II was known amongst his peers as Nicholas the Bloody after several vicious events that were related to his rule. The Khondynka Tragedy is one such event. At this Khondynka Tragedy over 1,000 citizens were stampeded to death at the coronation of Nicholas II. While it is unsure that it is a direct result of the coronation, it is most likely. Another event was the Bloody Sunday which occurred when the Imperial Guard shot upon protesters who were attempting to present a petition to the Czar [1].

2. Nicholas II was also infamous for his anti-semitism. Nicholas II was the initiator of many violent pogroms against Jews resulting in over 4,000 deaths and an additional 10,000 injuries for little reason outside of discriminating against Jews.

Further evidence of his anti-semitism was shown in this quote: "He had a particular animus for the Jews. When Stolypin, the chairman of the Council of Ministers 1906-11, proposed to relax certain restrictions imposed on the Jews in the Pale of Settlement, the tsar replied: ‘In spite of the most convincing arguments in favour of an affirmative decision in this matter, an inner voice ever more insistently confirms that I should not take this decision upon myself. So far my conscience has never deceived me. Therefore in this case also, I intend to follow its dictates.’ Not for nothing did the tsar become a member of the anti-Semitic Union of the Russian People, subscribe to the Union’s funds and receive its president, Dr Dubrovin, on friendly terms. He had no sympathy for the victims of the pogroms that followed the publication of the Manifesto of October 1905. On the contrary, he saw in them a revolt against ‘the impertinence’ of the socialists and revolutionaries" [2].

3. Nicholas II also was infamous for his execution of political opponents, especially the Social Democrats [3].


Now the major concern in this situation is not the assassination/execution of Nicholas II, but the execution of the remainder of his family. If the removal of Nicholas II was for the better of society, it is clear that the removal of the royal family would help the entire country. While admittedly the new Soviet government did not significantly improve the situation, at the moment it would be considered justice to the Russian people.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.marxist.com...

[3] http://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kylar

Con

Hey. Thank you for posting your argument it was very informative, I learned a lot, and I am grateful again for your respect, kindness to me, and willingness to debate this. I had no idea that Nicholas II was Anti-Jewish. That is crazy. Be that as it may, I do not think that killing his entire family was a good idea still. Nicholas II could have been executed for his crimes against Jews, Russians and everyone and that I don't think would have been a huge problem, because it would be for crimes against the state. However, killing his entire family was not good. Who says that all of the family was Anti-Semitic or guilty of the death of the innocents? I believe that Nicholas children and his wife did not or could not know what their father did. They did not deserve to be executed like their father.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

My opponents opening argument was quite brief and direct, therefore my rebuttal shall follow a similar fashion.

My opponent states that Nicholas II had not commited any atrocities worthy of execution in his opening round, however in the third round he clearly states that he was mistaken about this so I have nothing to rebut here.

The primary issue with keeping the Royal Family alive is that they will constantly pose a threat to the newly established Soviet Union. Their will always be the possibility that at least one of the members will rise up in rebellion to claim the throne. Now it is clear that this is not in the best interests of the Soviet Union however what really matters is if this is in the best interests of the people of Russia or not.

To answer this, we must see what percentage of the population supported Lenin as opposed to the Tsar. This is not exactly a set in stone number, however it can be assumed that since the Tsar had been so abusive towards his people the people would be more likely to support Lenin.

While in truth Lenin did not truly have the full support over the Russian people in 1918 when he overthrew the tsar, given that he had only true control over the slice of land between Moscow and the European border, while everything else was essentially under anarchy. However we see that after Lenin destroyed the White Rebelion in 1921 the majority of the people of Russia supported Lenin [1][2].

Appoligies for how short this argument was, however I am running out of time!

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Kylar

Con

No problem on running out of time :), I understand, life is busy and hectic.
For Round 4, I am somewhat at an impasse.
Your points are very valid, and I agree with most of them, like the threat to the throne the children would pose.
However, I think the only reason people supported Lenin is because they were forced to. Communism often forces people to support them (North Korea for instance). The majority of Russia was probably more harassed by the socialists/communists than they were under Czar Nicholas II. I think that the Czar was naive and unable to understand that his throne was at stake. Thus, my argument for Round 4 is: The Romanov family was naive, and while killing them removed a threat to the throne, they should have been allowed a fair trial.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

The point about giving the family a fair trial is valid, however under the new Communist regime it would pose many problems. For one Communism states that every person is to be considered as equal and no privledges are to be granted to anybody. Therefore giving the Romanovs a trial would be incredibly hypocritical given that none of the other Soviet citizens were given any form of a trial.

True, murdering the royal family may seem extreme, however in Lenin's point of view, he had no other option. I have shown that keeping them alive was politically unwise given that their was always the possibility that the Romanovs may rebel against his new and fragile Soviet rule. However by showing them mercy and granting them a trial (one that the Romanovs would most certainly lose mind you) he would be breaking the very fundamentals of Communism. It would either be to grant everyone a fair trial, something Lenin certainly didn't want to do as it lessened the power of the government, or not give the royal family a trial at all.

Appologies again for the short resonse. Procrastination truly is my fatal flaw :P
Debate Round No. 4
Kylar

Con

Hey :). I understand procrastination, believe me. My worthy opened makes very valid points and I agree with most of them. In rebuttal and conclusion of this debate, which I have enjoyed immensely, I would like to close with this.
A fair trial would undermine the value of communism, but at least it would give the children a chance. Some of them, in fact probably all of them did not understand what their father and mother were doing, and for this I pity them. They were brutally executed, and they had no chance to stand trial fairly and justly. Communism would have been shaken, yes, but I think that if the royal family was not well liked V. Lenin would have been able to keep his life and sanity. Also, I concede that most of your arguments have won me over, but the fact remains about the children. Is it possible that the children could have stood trial, or maybe, just maybe, should have been smuggled out to another nation to live in peace?
That is all I have for Round 5, and I would like to thank a fellow history lover for a great debate. I enjoyed it immensely.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

I'm typing this from my iPad, so bear with me.

In no way am I attempting to justify the execution of the Romanov family, and I do not agree with Communist ideals. However, if we are to analyze the options presented to Lenin at the time, the choice was simple. His sole options were:

1) Execute the entire Romanov family so as to eliminate the threat of their existence.

2) Hold a trial while undermining the ideals of his totalitarian system.

Option 1 clearly makes the most sense for Lenin, and that is why I am supporting it in this debate. There are multiple issues with smuggling the children out if the country. One being that it does not eliminate the threat of the royal family rebelling against him as they could grow up to be power hungry royalists. The other being that once again it violates Lenin's new ideals of government. The Soviet Union essentially showed absolutely no mercy towards its subjects, therefore why should it be merciful towards these children? Because they were royal? That goes against the communist ideal that everyone gets equal, yet limited rights.

I believe that the issue that my opponent has is not with merely the executions yet more the actual concept of the Soviet government. In GUIs case I full heatedly agree with him that the government that Lenin established was morally wrong and was terrible for the people of Russia. However, under Soviet rule the execution of the Romanov's was not only justice, yet was preferred.

I would like to thank my opponent for a thought provoking debate on s subject that I was not well educated on before.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Quickly A-I, you're running out of time :O
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
You're going to have to work hard for my vote here A-I ;)
Posted by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
I will be willing to accept this if con accepts Justice as moral correctness.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Think about the things Nicholas did. Were they just?
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
There is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests that Lenin actually carried out that order. I know for sure the Bolsheviks handed the royal family over to many commissars, some of which were Jews. There was an investigation into this case done by the forces that took back the town in which the family was executed. There is no evidence that the central Bolshevik government actually ordered the execution. One of the men who oversaw the firing squad was Jewish (his last name, Yurovsky, and nationality alone suggest he was Jewish; Russian last names ending in -sky are Jewish). Remember the Tsar's endorsement of pogroms...? Yeah.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
james14
I doubt anyone will accept, as the murder of a rather non-dictatorial monarch and his family, including children, is by no means just. Looking for an easy win?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
KylarAtheist-IndependentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A-I did not prove that the killing of the Romanov children was justice. He only proved that it was justified. He did, however, prove that the killing of the Tsar was justice. It is difficult to say whether or not A-I therefore fulfilled his burden. HOWEVER, it isn't difficult to say that A-I had much more convincing arguments than Kylar as Kylar spent most of his argument agreeing with A-I. Kylar's best move was to hold onto the fact that the killing of the Romanov children could not be seen as justice, but unfortunately I do not believe that that earns him convincing argument points as A-I's arguments were more convincing, just, and used sources. A-I also laid out his debates in a more aesthetically pleasing way, but there's no option for that! >:(
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
KylarAtheist-IndependentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro sufficiently proved--and con failed to rebut--that the Romanov was at least guilty, and the royal family could have bought further problems. Thus pro does indeed prove the execution justice. Good job pro.