Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
13.8k
Posted bywww.marinamaral.com1 month ago

The Romanov Family - murdered 100 years ago.

1.3k comments
90% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1
1.2k points · 1 month ago

Fascinating read.

The part about the diamonds on their clothing sounds amazing. I knew they were rich, but holy crap, that rich.

Very disturbing, but fascinating.

level 2
985 points · 1 month ago

Nicholas II was insanely wealthy. According to certain accounts, he would would be in the top 10 richest people in history. If you factor in inflation, he was worth between $250-300 billion. Money can't buy you everything.

level 3

It can buy you a coup though

level 4

a coupe too

level 5
59 points · 1 month ago

And a toupe

level 6

and endless soup

level 7
11 points · 1 month ago

Maybe a cantaloupe?

1 more reply

2 more replies

2 more replies

level 4

Since u goin coupe I’m goin 4-door

level 4
17 points · 1 month ago

True but not if you're dead.

2 more replies

level 3
454 points · 1 month ago

While his people were starving and fighting WWI with no shoes

level 4
372 points · 1 month ago

Accurate and a big reason why he and his entire family was executed.

level 5

Also the pogroms he inflicted on his people.

The anti-defamation league considers it "blood libel" now, because Neo Nazis use it to blame the Soviet Union on Jews, but the Bolsheviks who killed the Romonovs were filled with Russian Jews who wanted revenge for all the murderous pogroms committed by people under the Tzar's orders.

level 6
55 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Jews in Russia fared badly under both. Lenin and Stalin executed millions of Jews as well.

level 7

Lennon

Yeah Yoko Ono really brain washed him

level 8

Yeah she turned Lennon into Lenin. How impressive.

level 8

John Lennon was kinda trash in a lot of respects tbh

1 more reply

level 7
8 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Lenin and Stalin executed millions of Jews as well.

The estimates for the death toll of the Great Purge are between 750,000 and 1.5 million. Of all ethnicities and religions. About 15 million Soviet citizens of all ethnicities and religions died in famines caused in significant part by government policy.

To say they executed millions of Jews is an enormous exaggeration. Jews before the Holocaust were about 4% of the population of the USSR.

level 7

Lenin and Stalin executed millions of Jews as well.

source?

level 8
56 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Stalin was absolutely anti-semitic and he had many jews executed, the number of which is obviously unknown. However he hid those beliefs during the Revolution due to the strong Jewish presence/leadership associated with the movement. On top of that, he used pogroms as a direct example of the mistreatment of the common man in order to unite the working class against the Romanovs. However once in power his stance changed, he just kept it in private, particularly after watching the downfall of Hitler. Not gonna go through the sources, but here are some wiki articles which have them in the references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Murdered_Poets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot

As for Lenin, Lenin was Jewish so he's flat out wrong on that end.

4 more replies

level 8

No source because it's not true. There were anti-Semitic policies under Stalin, but there wasn't genocide; European Jews ofted tried to go to the Soviet Union to escape the Holocaust.

level 9

That's what I was thinking. Hitler said a lot of bad shit about Jewish Bolsheviks. I feel like every day I see more and more attempts at people attempting to diminish how bad the nazis were with whataboutisms.

level 10

The statement above is one I can get behind!

2 more replies

1 more reply

level 7

they did not.

7 more replies

level 7
18 points · 1 month ago

Slander.

Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 252-253Translated: George HannaTranscription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert CymbalaCopyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002; Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want; against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital. Hatred towards the Jews persists only in those countries where slavery to the landowners and capitalists has created abysmal ignorance among the workers and peasants. Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.

Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital

8 more replies

4 more replies

level 5
44 points · 1 month ago

Yes how dare those teenage girls exist.

level 6
96 points · 1 month ago

If Crusader Kings 2 has taught me anything, it's that claimants to the throne are dangerous.

level 7

Nah its where you marry the daughter, have a child then imprison her for the rest of the life thus makint your child the claimant.

2 more replies

level 5

Please explain how killing a bunch of little girls gets shoes on soldiers' feet.

level 6

It was wrong to kill her, but just playing devil's advocate here, if you starve me and torture me and spend billions on your mansions and ice skating parties and when I finally rebel against you you refuse to abdicate and your shitty daughter is standing there like "peasant! Don't you know who we are? Go back to your potato field!" yeah she is gonna go too.

level 7

He did abdicate tho

level 8

My bad. I just find it hard to be sad for rich people who literally watch and laugh as millions of their fellow people starve around them. I am sorry, maybe I am a bad person, but LOTS of starving peasant teenage girls died because of the Romanovs being greedy, bad leaders but NO ONE ever mentions those girls. Only the Romanovs. As if they were the only teenage girls to die ever and as if all the peasants should have just buried their own teenage daughters and shut up about it. I feel angry about the whole thing and how everyone reacts to it.

level 9

Yup. Pretty sure that 3 year old wasn't laughing at anyone dying. You can be sad about both. But I mean imagine you being killed for something your parents did. Like just because other teenage girls died doesn't make their death less sad.

level 9

Oh yeah I know Nicholas was pretty awful you don’t get called bloody nick for nothing

level 10

He got killed, because everyone was jealous of his facial hair

level 8

He deserved everything he got and worse. Not his daughters obviously. But he deserved it.

36 more replies

1 more reply

level 3

"Money can't buy happiness, but it's a lot more comforting to cry in a Lamborghini than a Ford Pinto"

3 more replies

level 2

The diamonds weren't part of their underwear by design. They were sewn in there for hiding/safe-keeping as the prisoners were moved around from place to place during their imprisonment.

level 3

Did it make them bullet proof?

level 4

Yes. Temporarily. The executioners were momentarily convinced something supernatural was going on as the bullets bounced off of the diamonds, but they got around that by just stabbing the fuck out of everyone with the bayonettes

level 5

Interesting. So my prototype is expensive but viable. Commence testing phase.

level 6
29 points · 1 month ago

(Jokes aside, the diamonds would shatter.)

level 7

I'm diamonds right now

2 more replies

level 5

I cannot conceive how many diamonds it would take to stop bullets. Obviously diamonds are hard, but I imagine the spaces in between the diamonds giving way to bullets. They must have been densely packed or something. Crazy.

level 6

Haha, I don't think they stopped every bullet, but enough of them bounced off that it created the mentioned effect.

level 5

Holy shit, Minecraft was right

level 5

When I did the romanovs in history in high school I was amazed by how much trouble they had killing people back then. Rasputin was poisoned & then shot repeatedly. He escaped jumped off a bridge & died from drowning.

level 6

He was special though.

1 more reply

2 more replies

level 2
195 points · 1 month ago

They sewed diamondfs into their clothes because they were trying to flee the country and still wanted nice things when they got to wherever they were hoping to go.

level 3
Comment deleted1 month ago
level 4
34 points · 1 month ago

At minimum 18lbs of diamonds on their persons. I think they could afford some nice things

1 more reply

level 4

There is a Russian princess - niece of the last tsar - whose parents and grandparents escaped. She lives modestly in a middle class apartment, a pretty typical British lifestyle. She’s still given the title ‘princess’ as a courtesy by the British monarchy.

9 more replies

level 2
20 points · 1 month ago

Link to said fascinating read?

level 3
5 points · 1 month ago

I am sorry. I meant to write my comment as a reply to Op's comment.

level 2

Weren’t diamonds cheaper back then too?

8 more replies

level 1

Where is the son?

level 2
www.marinamaral.comOriginal Poster707 points · 1 month ago

He's sitting on the table. It was quite normal to dress boys in girls' clothes back then.

Here's a nice read on the subject - http://www.heraldbulletin.com/community/in-history-why-little-boys-wore-dresses/article_8b2c6d1d-265d-5559-90f2-77db21696573.html

level 3
152 points · 1 month ago

That link is blocked in my country because of the EU ://

level 4
335 points · 1 month ago

In History: Why little boys wore dresses

“No, they didn’t!” The group of third-grade students exclaimed.

“Yes, they did. Little boys used to wear dresses,” I said.

The group was touring the Pendleton Historical Museum on a school field trip. I had stopped at a small black-and-white checkered dress with white lace on the collar. The children went silent, and some shook their heads from side to side.

Finally, one boy looked up at me and asked, “WHY would they do that?”

I told him that was a good question and let them come up with some possible reasons why little boys might wear dresses.

Later I did some research into why, for at least a century, little boys wore dresses. I discovered that children’s clothing is a barometer of the concept of childhood and the social roles of children through the few centuries of United States history.

During the 18th century ,childhood mortality was high. Less than 50 percent of infants reached the age of five and only half of those children made it to age 10. Infants were swaddled with strips of linen or wool that were tightly wrapped and crisscrossed around the body. This helped to contain the infant in homes full of dangerous items like open fires and rough flooring. Infants spent most of their time with adults so they could be civilized as soon as possible.

Education began early and a child was dressed as a miniature adult. The goal was to get the child to adulthood as soon as possible because life expectancy was only 30 years. Discipline was often harsh, even violent, in order to force conformity to adult standards.

In the long run this was believed to increase the child’s life span in a risky world because childhood was just too dangerous. Also, for those living in poverty, it could get the child working at age five or so in the local factories to help support the family.

Philosophers and educators had been opposing the standard practices of child rearing for centuries, but Jean-Jacques Rousseau was in the right place at the right time. His writings encouraged children’s rights and age-appropriate methods of child rearing. The Industrial Revolution and Queen Victoria in England helped make Rousseau’s ideas of the purity of childhood more achievable by parents. He saw children as people in their own right to be cherished for the blank slate of their potential.

If at first the new industrialization took advantage of young child workers, the products of that industrialization in the end helped liberate the children from those very factories.

Fashions spread

Queen Victoria ascended to the British throne in 1837 and served as a role model when she dressed her nine children in sailor suits and kilts which allowed a child to be more “natural.” This was a child-friendly way of dressing infants. Her fashion tastes quickly spread to other royal families of Europe.

The rising industrial economies began to create a middle class that emulated her life style and fashion sense. Ready-made factory clothing allowed children all over Europe and the United States to look like the children of the affluent class. This created a social class contest with the affluent class continually upping the ante with more lace and fancy fabrics to distinguish their children from those of the middle class.

Eventually, children’s clothes became very elaborate and easily as confining and uncomfortable as the adult versions they had replaced. Toward the end of the 19th century more informal styles of clothing began to be introduced.

Child-centered items

The factories made something else that was required for the dresses worn by all these children . . . the cloth diaper. By 1887 the cloth diaper was mass-produced. There was already a type of fabric weave known as “diaper.” Since this type of fabric was used, it became the namesake for the final product. Babies were no longer swaddled and their clothing was more liberating.

The Victorian home was full of newly purchased furnishings, rugs, and decorative objects that needed to be protected from the liberated children. Special furniture was also designed to help contain the child and protect them from the house and protect the house from the child. Cribs, high chairs, and playpens are just a few of the new conventions to become part of the new child- centered home.

Within the space of a few decades, child-rearing practices were reversed, formal education was delayed and a return to nature was desired. Children were blank slates and needed play to develop their mind and body. Clothing and homes were adjusted to the child’s body and activities. Industrialization allowed more everyday parents to actually enjoy their infant children and not force them into adult behavior. Parents found this period so delightful they extended it as long as possible. Children were to remain innocent (translate “sexless”) as long as possible. In many old photographs it is difficult to tell boys from girls.

It was very common for children to remain in this state of dress until they entered formal school or even later if the boy was schooled at home. When boys reached this age they were “breeched” meaning dressed in pants. It was an emotional time for many a mother who was losing her “baby.”

The fashion trend of boys in dresses slowly died out as the ready to wear clothing market offered clothing choices that became even more child centered. By the 1920’s, most boys and some girls were dressed in a “romper,” a one-piece jumper pantsuit. Some “child experts” then became concerned that dressing girls in pants would somehow destroy their femininity!

Why did little boys wear dresses? It appears the original decision to place boy infants in a dress was a practical choice to facilitate wearing or not wearing a diaper. Extending the number of years that boys wore dresses is a larger story of societal change, philosophy, industrial and marketing forces, emotional needs and an array of other factors.

Even on a relatively narrow subject like this, when studying history, there is no simple answer.

level 5

Thanks!

level 5
150 points · 1 month ago

Who would win? A series of restrictive and well enforced internet censorship laws, or one Ctrl+V boi?

level 6
40 points · 1 month ago

Copy paste is the greatest human innovation in history.... IMO

level 7

I think the printing press was the best innovation

1 more reply

level 6
Comment deleted1 month ago
level 7
31 points · 1 month ago

Honestly, I just chose the narrative that I thought would get me the most karma. I didn't comment with a meme for the intellectual discussion.

level 8
12 points · 1 month ago

Your honest is saucy and refreshing. Would you be my president?

level 6
3 points · 1 month ago

And a little bit of help of a VPN.

2 more replies

level 5

Education began early and a child was dressed as a miniature adult. The goal was to get the child to adulthood as soon as possible because life expectancy was only 30 years.

Yeah this discredits the entire thing for me because it's such horse shit.

6 more replies

level 5

This was a neat read, thank you!

level 5

So- what was done before the diaper? I understand they had woven cloth, but that would lend itself to dress wearing before the manufactured diapers, right?

level 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)#Unbreeched_boys

Not to call bullshit on the article but It seems that this was not a Victorian trend but much earlier. A dress is easier to manage at bathroom times than breeches basically.

Also for the younger ones they don't grow out of them so fast.

Also side note on life expectancy, I don't buy it at all. The reason it's so low is because it includes childhood deaths. Life expectancy changes throughout life. so anyone who makes 20 is then probably going to also make 60. Have another wiki link if you enjoy your brain hurting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

3 more replies

level 6

I believe, as crazy as it sounds, they would just soil themselves, with parents cleaning up the resulting mess.

Some poorer Asian countries that can't afford diapers and don't have access to enough clean water for cloth diapers still use Longjohn-like leggings, with a butt flap so parents can "aim" their kid over a trash can and pull the flap. Obviously, you can't always catch kids in time if they are infants, so it results in a pretty unhygienic conundrum. But if you can't afford disposables and water is conserved for more important uses, what else can you do?

Think of it this way, why don't we cloth diaper puppies before they're potty-trained? You could say crate-training isn't that unlike the containment methods mentioned in the above link. For those of us that let our pets roam while we're out, until they're old enough, you can put as many puppy pads on the floor as you like, you're still cleaning up a mess when you get home until they're old enough to hold it.

level 5

Well that sucks, life expectancy in Ancient Greece was 40+ (you were not considered to be "in the prime of your life" as a man until you were 40).

What this article is perpetuating is the conflation of infant mortality rate with overall life expectancy data. It is this mis-communication that has led to popular sources taking the figures and running with them, assuming that people in the past led relatively short, disease-ridden lives (because it seems to make sense given the idea that technological progress enhances our lives). So while infant mortality was quite a bit higher, if you survived that, you could live into your seventies, eighties, nineties etc just like today (Socrates committed his forced suicide at about the age of 71).

https://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

3 more replies

level 4
19 points · 1 month ago

Not because of the EU, but because of that company.

level 4

It’s only blocked because the website does not want to adhere to European data protection laws

level 5

Fucking EU... Trying to protect me and shit...

level 4
46 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Because of the EU? Because the website is not interested in European visitors. Blame the right guys.

level 4
33 points · 1 month ago

That's a bit like complaining you can't drive without a seatbelt because of the stupid law trying to protect you

3 more replies

12 more replies

level 3

I figured that might be the answer. Thanks!

level 3

I believe the Who (known for their songs about history) sang a song about this exact subject.

1 more reply

8 more replies

level 1
70 points · 1 month ago

If I’m not mistaken Nicholas II shares/shared a bloodline (Oldenburg) with:

  • Prince Charles, current UK heir

  • Constantine II (last monarch of Greece)

  • Harald V, current king of Norway

  • Margrethe II, current queen of Denmark

Give me meritocracy over titles and lineage any day.

level 2
32 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Not just Nicholas, but Alexandra also shares a bloodline with Queen Elizabeth II, her husband Prince Philip, along with Prince Charles and the rest of their children.

It's the result of them all being descended from Queen Victoria and marrying each other (some super close inbreeding!), which then led to all sorts of relations.

level 3
6 points · 1 month ago

My apologies. I forgot to mention that I only went up the male lines.

Personally I find it astonishing that royal families are still a thing in 2018.

1 more reply

2 more replies

level 1

My sophomore English teacher is a descendent of them, literally an exiled princess of Russia; I believe she is Nicholas’s great grand niece or something like that.

Her name is Heather Munao if you want to look her up

level 2

Any idea how her ancestors got out of Russia, or were they not in Russia at the time?

level 3

I think they heard shit was going down and were just not related enough to get out before they weren’t allowed to get out, but I have no clue honestly.

level 4

There were royal family members who got out before the fall of the family. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/08/26/the_bizarre_true_story_behind_the_this_is_a_work_of_fiction_disclaimer.html

This is actually a really cool story I learned about years ago how members of the royal family are the reason why films have to tell you if they are fiction or based on a true story.

level 3

Many of them, my great grandfather included defected to France.

level 2

My great grandfather's god father was the first cousin of the czar, konstantin konstantinovich

level 1
www.marinamaral.comOriginal Poster962 points · 1 month ago

My book in collaboration with historian Dan Jones will be out in just a few weeks, so please consider pre-ordering it if you can. That's the best way to support my work. Thank you!


Around midnight on 17 July, Yakov Yurovsky, the commandant of The House of Special Purpose, ordered the Romanovs' physician, Dr. Eugene Botkin, to awaken the sleeping family and ask them to put on their clothes, under the pretext that the family would be moved to a safe location due to impending chaos in Yekaterinburg. The Romanovs were then ordered into a 6 m × 5 m (20 ft × 16 ft) semi-basement room. Nicholas asked if Yurovsky could bring two chairs, on which Tsarevich Alexei and Alexandra sat. Yurovsky's assistant Grigory Nikulin remarked to him that the "heir wanted to die in a chair. Very well then, let him have one." The prisoners were told to wait in the cellar room while the truck that would transport them was being brought to the House. A few minutes later, an execution squad of secret police was brought in and Yurovsky read aloud the order given to him by the Ural Executive Committee: "Nikolai Alexandrovich, in view of the fact that your relatives are continuing their attack on Soviet Russia, the Ural Executive Committee has decided to execute you."

Nicholas, facing his family, turned and said "What? What?" Yurovsky quickly repeated the order and the weapons were raised. The Empress and Grand Duchess Olga, according to a guard's reminiscence, had tried to bless themselves but failed amid the shooting. Yurovsky reportedly raised his Colt gun at Nicholas's torso and fired; Nicholas was the target of all of the assembled shooters, and he quickly fell dead, pierced by many bullets. The intoxicated Peter Ermakov, the military commissar for Verkh-Isetsk, shot and killed Alexandra with a bullet wound to the head. He then shot at Maria, who ran for the double doors, hitting her in the thigh. The remaining executioners shot chaotically and over each other's shoulders until the room was so filled with smoke and dust that no one could see anything at all in the darkness nor hear any commands amid the noise. Within minutes, Yurovsky was forced to stop the shooting because of the caustic smoke of burned gunpowder, dust from the plaster ceiling caused by the reverberation of bullets, and the deafening gunshots. When they stopped, the doors were then opened to scatter the smoke. While waiting for the smoke to abate, the killers could hear moans and whimpers inside the room. As it cleared, it became evident that although several of the family's retainers had been killed, all of the Imperial children were alive and furthermore, only Maria was even injured.

The executioners were ordered to proceed with their bayonets, a technique which proved ineffective and meant that the children had to be dispatched by still more gunshots, this time aimed more precisely at their heads. The Tsarevich was the first of the children to be executed. Yurovsky watched in disbelief as Nikulin spent an entire magazine from his Browning gun on Alexei, who was still seated transfixed in his chair; he also had jewels sewn into his undergarment and forage cap. Ermakov shot and stabbed him, and when he failed, Yurovsky shoved him aside and killed the boy with a gunshot to the head. The last to die were Tatiana, Anastasia, and Maria, who were carrying a few pounds (over 1.3 kilograms) of diamonds sewn into their clothing, which had given them a degree of protection from the firing. However, they were speared with bayonets as well. Olga sustained a gunshot wound to the head. Maria and Anastasia were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads in terror until they were shot down. Yurovsky himself killed Tatiana and Alexei. Tatiana died from a single bullet through the back of her head. Alexei received two bullets to the head, right behind the ear. Anna Demidova, Alexandra's maid, survived the initial onslaught but was quickly stabbed to death against the back wall while trying to defend herself with a small pillow which she had carried that was filled with precious gems and jewels. While the bodies were being placed on stretchers, one of the girls cried out and covered her face with her arm. Ermakov grabbed Alexander Strekotin's rifle and bayoneted her in the chest, but when it failed to penetrate he pulled out his revolver and shot her in the head.

While Yurovsky was checking the victims for pulses, Ermakov went back and forth in the room, flailing the bodies with his bayonet. The execution lasted about 20 minutes.

Alexandre Beloborodov sent a coded telegram to Lenin's secretary, Nikolai Gorbunov. It was found by White investigator Nikolai Sokolov and reads: Inform Sverdlov the whole family have shared the same fate as the head. Officially the family will die at the evacuation.

The bodies of the Romanovs and their servants were loaded onto a Fiat truck equipped with a 60 HP engine, with a cargo area 6 × 10 feet in size. Heavily laden, the vehicle struggled for nine miles on boggy road to reach the Koptyaki forest. Yurovsky was furious when he discovered that the drunken Ermakov had brought only one shovel for the burial. About half a mile further on, near crossing no. 185 on the line serving the Verkh-Isetsk works, 25 men working for Ermakov were waiting with horses and light carts. These men were all intoxicated and they were outraged that the prisoners were not brought to them alive. They expected to be part of the lynch mob and were hoping to abuse the women before killing them. Yurovsky maintained control of the situation with great difficulty, eventually getting Ermakov's men to shift some of the bodies from the truck onto the carts. A few of Ermakov's men pawed the female bodies for diamonds hidden in their undergarments, two of whom lifted up Alexandra's skirt and fingered her genitals. Yurovsky ordered them at gunpoint to back off, dismissing the two who had groped the tsarina's corpse and any others he had caught looting. One of the men sniggered that he could "die in peace", having touched the "royal cunt".

The truck was bogged down in an area of marshy ground near the Gorno-Uralsk railway line, during which all the bodies were unloaded onto carts and taken to the disposal site. The sun was up by the time the carts came within sight of the disused mine, which was a large clearing at a place called the 'Four Brothers'. Yurovsky's men first gobbled on hardboiled eggs supplied by the local nuns (food that was meant for the imperial family), while the remainder of Ermakov's men were ordered back to the city as Yurovsky did not trust them and was displeased with their drunkenness.

Yurovsky and five other men laid out the bodies on the grass and undressed them, the clothes piled up and burned while Yurovsky took inventory of their jewellery. Once the bodies were "completely naked" they were dumped into a mineshaft and sprinkled with sulphuric acid to disfigure them beyond recognition. Only then did Yurovsky discover that the pit was less than 3 meters deep and the muddy water below did not fully submerge the corpses as he had expected. He unsuccessfully tried to collapse the mine with hand grenades, after which his men covered it with loose earth and branches. Yurovsky left three men to guard the site while he returned to Ekaterinburg with a bag filled with 18lb of looted diamonds, to report back to Beloborodov and Goloshchyokin. It was decided that the pit was too shallow.

Sergey Chutskaev of the local Soviet told Yurovsky of some deeper copper mines west of Ekaterinburg, the area remote and swampy and a grave there less likely to be discovered. He inspected the site on the evening of 17 July and reported back to the Cheka at the Amerikanskaya Hotel. He ordered additional trucks to be sent out to Koptyaki whilst assigning Pyotr Voykov to obtain barrels of petrol, kerosene and sulphuric acid, and plenty of dry firewood. Yurovsky also seized several horse-drawn carts to be used in the removal of the bodies to the new site. Yurovsky and Goloshchyokin, along with several Cheka agents, returned to the mineshaft at about 4:00am on the morning of 18 July. The sodden corpses were hauled out one by one using ropes tied to their limbs and laid under a tarpaulin. Yurovsky, worried that he might not have enough time to take the bodies to the deeper mine, ordered his men to dig another burial pit then and there, but the ground was too hard. He returned to the Amerikanskaya Hotel to confer with the Cheka. He seized a truck which he had loaded with blocks of concrete for attaching to the bodies before submerging them in the new mineshaft. A second truck carried a detachment of Cheka agents to help move the bodies. Yurovsky returned to the forest at 10:00pm on 18 July. The bodies were again loaded onto the Fiat truck, which by then had been extricated from the mud.

During transportation to the deeper copper mines on the early morning of 19 July, the Fiat truck carrying the bodies got stuck again in mud near Porosenkov Log (Pig's Meadow). With the men exhausted and most refusing to obey orders, Yurovsky decided to bury them under the road where the truck had stalled. They dug a grave that was 6 × 8 ft in size and barely 60 centimeters (2 ft) deep. Alexei Trupp's body was tossed in first, followed by the Tsar's and then the rest. Sulphuric acid was again used to dissolve the bodies, their faces smashed with rifle butts and covered with quicklime. Railroad ties were placed over the grave to disguise it, with the Fiat truck being driven back and forth over the ties to press them into the earth. The burial was completed at 6:00am on 19 July.

The failure of the Tsarist regime to end the war and the subsequent brutal assassination of the family resulted in the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty, which had been ruling over Russia since 1613.

level 2

That’s horrific. I don’t know how anybody could do that to young children.

Question, it says there was a boy who was killed, but I don’t see one in the picture. Was there another child?

level 3
www.marinamaral.comOriginal Poster258 points · 1 month ago

He's sitting on the table. It was quite normal to dress boys in girls' clothes back then.

Edit: Here's a nice read on the subject - http://www.heraldbulletin.com/community/in-history-why-little-boys-wore-dresses/article_8b2c6d1d-265d-5559-90f2-77db21696573.html

level 4
86 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

I am really curious and want to read that link, but holy cow is that site not mobile friendly.

Edit: for those wondering but don’t want to read it, boys and girls wore dresses as the middle class came into reality. It was a way of liberating the child (they used to swaddle them in a bunch of clothing to protect them) as well as a status symbol. Eventually things like the romper and other child clothing became more popular and dresses kind of fell back in children’s fashion. The boys would eventually be dressed in men’s clothing, the dresses were basically to symbolize them being a child not ready to work. Then when they hit the ripe age of 5, off come the dress and into the factory they went.

1 more reply

level 4

FTA

  • The fashion trend of boys in dresses slowly died out as the ready to wear clothing market offered clothing choices that became even more child centered. By the 1920’s, most boys and some girls were dressed in a “romper,” a one-piece jumper pantsuit. Some “child experts” then became concerned that dressing girls in pants would somehow destroy their femininity!

  • Why did little boys wear dresses? It appears the original decision to place boy infants in a dress was a practical choice to facilitate wearing or not wearing a diaper. Extending the number of years that boys wore dresses is a larger story of societal change, philosophy, industrial and marketing forces, emotional needs and an array of other factors.

I heard a podcast discussing this. It also addressed colors -- why girls are pink and boys blue plus other feminine and masculine colors. Long story short, clothing manufacturers wanted to make more money so they started marketing certain colors and designs for girls and certain colors and designs for boys so that it would be more difficult to hand down clothes. If you had a girl and then a boy later, all the girls clothes were useless so the parents bought new clothes.

2 more replies

level 3
19 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

FYI they weren't children and it doesn't make it much better but at their death they were all older than in this picture the youngest daughter being 17. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Russian_Imperial_Family_1913.jpg

level 4

Alexei was 13.

level 3

I don’t know how anybody could do that to young children.

To eliminate the line of succession.

level 4

Strictly from a practical standpoint, there's no reward to letting the children live associated with the future risk that they carry.

level 3

Communism will do that to people.

2 more replies

level 3

can’t have an heir to dispute over power. logically sound.

66 more replies

level 2
217 points · 1 month ago

As brutal and prolonged as their murders were, it was lucky the kids weren't kept alive as it sounds like they would have been tortured, gang raped and then brutally murdered by a drunken mob.

level 2
228 points · 1 month ago

These men were all intoxicated and they were outraged that the prisoners were not brought to them alive. They expected to be part of the lynch mob and were hoping to abuse the women before killing them. Yurovsky maintained control of the situation with great difficulty, eventually getting Ermakov's men to shift some of the bodies from the truck onto the carts. A few of Ermakov's men pawed the female bodies for diamonds hidden in their undergarments, two of whom lifted up Alexandra's skirt and fingered her genitals. Yurovsky ordered them at gunpoint to back off, dismissing the two who had groped the tsarina's corpse and any others he had caught looting. One of the men sniggered that he could "die in peace", having touched the "royal cunt".

So they were mad they couldn't rape/physically abuse a women and her underaged daughters. That's fucking disgusting.

21 more replies

level 2

I don't understand how historians know about the execution in such gruesome detail. Where is this all coming from?

level 3

Maybe first hand stories of those committing the acts in later accounts

1 more reply

level 2

That’s awful, how could you be that bad at executing someone? Would’ve been way more humane to just get it all over with, a bullet for each one. How it lasted 20 minutes with chaos and bayonets getting involved is incredible. And then only bringing one shovel? These guys had no idea what they were doing

level 3

Man, some South American gangs are so bad at killing today that watching those "executions" makes ISIS almost decent people.

level 4
Comment deleted1 month ago

4 more replies

4 more replies

level 3

Yeah, and they had no idea what they were doing when they got in charge too. Things didn’t get much better.

level 2
210 points · 1 month ago

Probably would be hard to conceive of a more brutal end.

The savagery of mankind.

level 3

From the sounds of it, the men waiting to receive them could have extended the torture and abuse quite a bit. Even with them already dead it didn't stop two of the men.

level 4

The Russian revolutionaries were angry, angry people. The Russian empire was a shit place to be a poor person. They probably could have found a better way to express that anger than torturing children though.

28 more replies

level 3

Oh I can think of lots of them

But none of them had people who wanted to read about them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

level 4
10 points · 1 month ago

So the pogroms against the jews perpetrated by the tsarist regime resulted in jews becoming more politically active... especially gaining influence within the Bolshevik movement - which played a decisive role in brutally ending the tsarist regime and resulting in the death of the entire Romanov family and their servants.

That kind of a turn-around almost sounds, dare I say, biblical?

The evil visited on the innocent was mercilessly turned around on them. And they fell on the sword they sharpened. Life can be crazy enough sometimes that you wonder if karma does exist.

36 more replies

level 2
78 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Which presumably shifted Mao Zedong's mind on how to treat the last emperor of China. Unlike the Romanov family, Puyi was later "re-educated" to be an ordinary citizen and died an old age, so as to show some more advanced form of socialism system in Mao's China against Lenin's Russia.

level 3

The situation around the last Emperor and the Tsar was pretty different.

level 4

Username checks out?

level 3

I think it helped that Puyi was a child- he wasn't much of a threat. He wasn't educated and strategizing or anything yet, and he wasnt old enough, perhaps, to fully comprehend the riches lost.

level 4

Puyi was born in 1906, meaning that he would've been in his 40s during the communist take over.

level 5

Oh no! Im thinking of someone else in the Maoist revolution. That's my bad.

level 4
3 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

But he, in his 20s, did (intentionally, while being pretty much aware of the situation) help the Japanese colonize Manchuria before and during WWII as the 'emperor' of a puppet regime. He testified before a military court claiming his innocence and that he's been deluded, but that supposedly wouldn't make a difference on how he'll end.

level 2
33 points · 1 month ago

jesus

71 more replies

level 1

Wasn't the Tsar closely related to other European monarchs? IIRC, one of his cousins (maybe the King of England) expressed regret later on for not letting the royal family seek asylum in his country.

level 2

Most of the European royal families were related and it was said if queen victoria was still alive at the time she wouldn't have allowed the war to happen

5 more replies

level 1

I love the story of this family. Learned about it in Dan Carlin's hardcore history podcast.

I remember seeing they were making a tv show about the family a while back, maybe with Amazon Prime. Does anyone know if it's still happening?

level 2
56 points · 1 month ago

I learned about them from Last Podcast on the Left. Ben Kissel poured out a bit of his bud lite lime in honor of the day.

level 3

His reaction to when they talk about the children not dying right away because of the jewels in their clothes, and the other kids being murdered was the best. "...so thats it then" 😂😂

level 3

Wow that's crazy, I'm surprised he wasted his favorite lime flavored beer!

level 4

Now that he isn’t sponsored by Jos A Bank he should be saving those beers

1 more reply

4 more replies

level 2

+1 for Dan Carlin, love his stuff on the Mongols, Goths and ofc both World Wars.

level 3

Blueprint for Armageddon is amazing

1 more reply

5 more replies

level 1
24 points · 1 month ago

I'm russian and 23 and me says I'm related to him

level 1

I currently work for the DNA lab that helped Russia identify them via mtDNA and nuclear DNA! We have this picture hanging in our hallway.

level 2
www.marinamaral.comOriginal Poster6 points · 1 month ago

So cool!

1 more reply

level 1
12 points · 1 month ago

Wow is that a pre Alexei pic? Edit: dresses on boys pre-five or so years, I forgot! Plus I didn’t realize the hair could contribute to the ‘feminine’ appearance. It suddenly makes a lot more sense that boys felt they needed to differentiate themselves from girls when they were, you know, 10 11 12 years old considering they only just recently stopped dressing and looking like them!

1 more reply

level 1

Can I get a tl;dr ELI5 of why they were murdered and all? I've never heard of this before but it seems really interesting

level 2

They were the royal family of Tsarist Russia during the time of the Soviet revolution/takeover. They were killed by people loyal to the Soviets to prevent pro royal forces from having someone to rally around.

level 3

Isn't it weird how we don't get any posts like this looking for sympathy for the Bourbon family?

level 4

I think it's the kids. They weren't executed in the french revolution, but here they were.
I mean, killing innocent people is always horrible, but in the case of monarchies, they kinda bring it upon themselves when they hold on to power with the explicit premise "If I die, the power will just relocate within my family, probably the kids", puts a big target on your kids.

level 5

Also the fact these Romanovs were killed "only" a hundred years ago, so it's easier to sympathize with them. Especially since we have photos like this, it reminds us that they were actual regular looking people.

2 more replies

level 4

This is so sad, can we execute one Marshal Ney?

1 more reply

2 more replies

level 2
75 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

There's a trend throughout history where if you treat your subjects like shit, eventually they'll rise up and kill you. That's basically what happened here. People got tired of the Tsar and offed him and his family.

Why did they kill the kids? From a political standpoint having heirs to the previous Russian royalty is bad news for anyone trying to forcefully overthrow their government. You're giving the pro-monarchist a good case for putting someone back onto the throne, and that's not what you want. Sure it's bad, no one's arguing that. But back in those days it was just politics.

4 more replies

level 2
127 points · 1 month ago

The Tsar was an idiot and reverted any hopes for change in Russia. The country remained poor while the Romanovs lived in opulence. Not to mention, WWI was a bigger disaster than the Russo-Japanese War in terms of causalities, and people had enough.

level 3

Not to mention the Tsar had thousands of people murdered just because he felt like it and got his people into WW1 and threw waves of human bodies at machine guns and artillery because they weren't ready and he didn't care that they were dying in the hundreds of thousands.

The Russian Revolution is directly Tsar Nicholas II's fault and he deserved every bullet they put into him.

level 4

Not to mention the Tsar had thousands of people murdered just because he felt like it and got his people into WW1 and threw waves of human bodies at machine guns and artillery because they weren't ready and he didn't care that they were dying in the hundreds of thousand

Kinda like Stalin and the Soviet regime eh?

5 more replies

1 more reply

level 2
79 points · 1 month ago

Russian revolution. Just like in the rest of European royalty they were very rich and had an insane amount of wealth while the rest of the country was poor. People had enough and had a revolution.

That is an insane simplification of it. More here

4 more replies

level 2

They were extremely rich. Most of country was extremely poor. Some of the poor peasants and workers got guns and formed an army. They then killed the royal family to take over the country and establish communism.

level 3

That's the takeaway for you?

Not how the Tsar had thousands of his countrymen killed on stupid whims or about how he got his country into WW1 and didn't care that they weren't prepared and died by the hundreds of thousands?

Could any of the deaths have something to do with why people didn't like him? Or was it just because he was rich?

level 4

He asked for a TLDR, I was keeping it simple.

level 3

And the threat of that happening should always be in every governments mind. If you shit on the poor long enough, they will get violent.

2 more replies

level 2

So like the other people said they were extremely rich while poverty was super high. They were also extremely incompetent and kept a crazy guy named Rasputin around who averaged 12 bottles a day of wine and was rumored to be a sort devil priest. He also fucked everything that moved and a lot of commoners believed he was also fucking the royal family. People were fed up and hungry and the royal family legitimately appeared to be a Circus.

level 3
6 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Apparently Rasputin was kept with them on Alexandra's insistence because of her son's ill health. He had a very rare genetic illness and she came to believe Rasputin could cure him through his unusual/devilish methods. That's also one more reason why she was disliked so much.

2 more replies

4 more replies

level 1

Once upon a decemberrrrrrr

level 1

Is the prince in a dress?

level 2

Yes, the little one on the table.

5 more replies

level 1

I feel sorry for the children, but the Tsar had it coming. The only more justified result for him would have been a trial with the same result.

4 more replies

level 1

TIL the romanovs were killed and Nelson Mandela was born within a stretch of 24 hrs...big day for the 20th century

level 1

At almost 113 yrs ago, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia's Imperial Guard fired upon unarmed demonstrators and killed at least 96 and injured 333.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

level 2

Isn't widly belived that casulty and death toll was at least double this. As the Russians were know for miss information at this time?

level 1
262 points · 1 month ago

It's interesting how everyone gets teary eyed over the royal family being massacred. At least they lived good lives. How many peasants and tradesmen and soldiers died in Russia in that era? But some nobody dying of malnutrition isn't exactly worth getting upset about 100 years later.

level 2
238 points · 1 month ago

I think it's got a lot to do with us having access to so much information about them - photographs, letters, etc. Humans attach to stories, and this is the story that's recorded, while so many others died relatively anonymously.

It's like how millions died in the holocaust but Anne Frank is remembered by so many. It's because we have her story.

level 2

TIL it's not possible to get upset over the death of rich people because poorer people died, too.

5 more replies

level 2
168 points · 1 month ago

Have you read anything about the family at all? You can read their letters to each other and see what kind of people they were.

Nobody deserves to die like they did. Especially the young kids.

level 3

Agreed on the kids, but wasn't Tsar Nicholas a pretty shitty guy?

1 more reply

level 3

From everything I've read on the family, the kids were sheltered and not allowed to know anything about politics or what the common people experienced. Until WWI, when Alexandra volunteered as a nurse for wounded soldiers. She had the daughters nursing wounded soldiers to help the war effort, which is a pretty noble thing to do.

The oldest two girls could have survived if they had been married off before Nicholas' abdication, but it never worked out. The girls themselves didn't want to marry foreign princes or their own relatives. They had a habit of developing schoolgirl crushes on common soldiers. I've always been intrigued with the family and the Grand Duchesses especially, because they were good people.

It's so sad, but Daddy's mistakes cost them their lives. :(

level 3

I mean, their father definitely did. He dramatically increased pogroms against Ukranian and Russian Jews. Fiddler on the Roof is partly about the Tzar's pogroms and those pogroms are why Israel was mostly settled by Russians and Ukrainians before the Holocaust.

Tzar Nicholas II got exactly what he deserved, he was a vile piece of shit.

45 more replies

level 2

I think part of the reason people care is that they were a start to something much worse and a start to the millions killed in the Soviet Union. We don't know the names of all the peasants that died in famines or all the prisoners who died in gulags, but we do know a lot about the Romanovs and how the whole family ended up being mercilessly killed.

13 more replies

level 1

I just checked and The Colour of Time will become available in the U.S., via Amazon, on October 1, 2018. I can't wait to read it!

level 1
197 points · 1 month ago

The communists were evil pieces of shit for murdering these children. But the white army that supported the monarchy was no better than the reds. They indiscriminately murdered thousands of innocent people. But here on reddit everyday you get posts mourning the tragedy of the romonovs but not the thousands of families who had a similar fate due to them.

level 2

I think most people are sympathetic towards the children who had nothing to do with it, rather than Nikolai himself. Probably sucks to get bayoneted in the chest as a child, if I had to guess.

level 3

4/10.

level 4

5/10 if you had an itch you couldn't get rid of.

1 more reply

level 3

Just seems a little weird that there are threads and threads for the most privileged, wealthiest children in the country, but none for the deaths of millions of others throughout the same time period.

level 4

The same way it's weird that we aren't inundated every day with pictures of the millions of impoverished, forgotten, murdered people that happen every single day: sympathy-overload.

If we actually took the time to realize how godawful just existing is for a huge portion of the planet, we'd probably keel over in horror. So it's easier for us just to not think about it. I'm as sympathetic for the dead Romanov children as I am for the thousands of Iraqi children that have been murdered or displaced.

level 5

Well said. I think people, whether they like it or not, choose what to feel sympathy towards. Beautiful, photographed Romanov children are much easier to feel bad for than the millions of peasants and regular people who have disappeared from history.

1 more reply

level 4

It's all about popularity. This is a well known family for obvious reasons -- some random child in the farm isn't well known and thus people care less.

8 more replies

level 2

The children can grow up and easily gain support to restore the monarchy. There is a very real reason that the entire royal family is always purged

level 2
20 points · 1 month ago

People care more about famous people because they feel like they know them. For whatever reason most people also still associate wealth and fame, however undeserved, with greater worth as a person.

If the Tsar had murdered Tolstoy for dissent people would know of him and hate him. But all he did was cause the deaths of countless ordinary citizens of the Russian Empire, so nobody really remembers or cares.

level 3

For whatever reason most people also still associate wealth and fame, however undeserved, with greater worth as a person.

That's not really the issue. It's that wealth bring fame, or in this case wealth and power bring fame. Some random family on farm isn't well known.

If you're famous but not wealthy, you'll get the same treatment. It's the fame that matters.

1 more reply

level 2

People are typically raised to be afraid of communism in the west, so it's much easier for them to filter out the bad stuff anti-communists did than the bad stuff communists themselves did.

37 more replies

level 1

Not pictured: the millions murdered at his orders.

level 2

Not pictured: The hundreds of millions killed by the communists in the following years

level 3

Hundreds of millions? Buddy... you don't know how absurd an exaggeration that is.

level 3

Where did you get those numbers?

2 more replies

level 3

That still doesnt excuse their behavior. The Tsars were bad people followed by bad people and the only way the bad people after the Tsar were able to take power is because the Tsar itself was bad.

Stalin was a monster, Lenin was a monster and the autocratic aristocracy of the Tsar were also monsters.

level 4

They were all monsters. Doesn't mean we should resort to "it's okay no big deal to brutally murder these children because millions others were killed".

level 3

40 more replies

8 more replies

level 1

I know everyone always talks about Anastasia but my favorite sister was always Maria from what I’ve read about them.

Maria had the biggest blue eyes (Romanov eyes as they were called by everyone else) out of anyone of the sisters. They were affectionately referred to as “Marie’s Saucers” by the other members of her family.

She was always slightly plump but when she grew up the chubbiness turned to muscle. Alexei would always prefer that Maria carry him if she was around and he was feeling weak. She could lift his full weight with one arm.

May they Rest In Peace.

level 2

She was my favorite too! I loved how she adored soldiers so much but her mother told her she can't crush on them, because 'she's a little Grand Duchess and it wasn't proper.' :)

I like Anastasia as well. She was the comedian of the family, the one who kept their spirits up during their house arrest. She's also credited with being one of the first teenage girls to take a 'selfie' in the earliest decades of the 20th Century.

1 more reply

level 1

I bet Brendan Fletcher could make a fantastic Tsar Nicholas in a period piece

level 1
level 2

Well what did you expect? Funnily enough the monarch in China was better off. He became a gardener and a dedicated communist. There was an interview or report on him somewhere, I'll try to find it

6 more replies

level 1

‘Was a hundred years ago today, comrade Lenin to the squad to play. Royals going in and out of style commies they were guaranteed to rile. So may I introduce to you, an act your gonna know for years; comrade Lenin’s proletariat firing squuuuaaaadddd’

level 1

Executed, not murdered.

level 2
46 points · 1 month ago

Call it moving the goalposts or whatever, but I think it's impossible for a child to be executed. At that age, it's only murder.

level 2

It was an execution to the people doing it and murder for the people it was being done to.

2 more replies

7 more replies

level 1
13 points · 1 month ago

Yeah but they deserved it, not the kids tho

608 more replies

Community Details

395k

Subscribers

120

Online

/r/ColorizedHistory is dedicated to high quality colorizations of historical black and white images, and discussions of a historical nature. We're currently not seeking new contributors, but if you have any specific subjects or commissions, please message the mods.

Create Post
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.