Would you classify Czar Nicholas II of Russia as a mass murderer?

[Lincoln Republican]

Because of certain actions taken by the Czar, would you classify Czar Nicholas II of Russia as a mass murderer?

Please discuss.

[Lincoln Republican]

The reason for my question is because of such things as Bloody Sunday and the Russo-Japanese War.

Bloody Sunday, Russians were demonstrating peacefully, they had very little food, and the Czar ordered in the army to crush the demonstration at gun point.

Over 90 of the demonstrators were killed and over 200 were wounded. 

The demonstrators consisted of men, women, and even children.  Even though there were children in the crowd, the Czar still ordered the army to take ruthless action.

Another example, the Russo-Japanese War, where it became clearly early on that this was a suicide mission for Russia, the Czar was advised not to continue the war, and even trusted government officials and family pleaded with him to get out of the war.  Nicholas, however, insisted on continuing the war, ending in 40,000 - 70,000 Russian soldiers dead.

My point is, Czar Nicholas II lived in obscene luxury, while most Russians did not even have enough to eat, and he sent Russian soldiers into battle ill-prepared and fighting against tremendous odds.

These are simply two examples of how this Czar cost the lives of innocent Russians.   

[Lincoln Republican]

Yes, I would
Lenin is far worse than him though.

And Stalin?

Stalin was one of the biggest mass murderers in the history of the world.

[Lincoln Republican]

Obviously his policies led to the death of millions (even if the revolution had never happened) but I wouldn't describe him as a mass murderer, no. I think that requires intent to kill, and I don't think Nicholas had that.

Agreed, I don't think he meant ill, he was just outrageously incompetant and had no clue what he was doing.

He absolutely had to abdicate for it, it's just a shame that neither his brother nor the provisional government could hold power and avoid a Bolshevik takeover.

Yes, because Russians needed  another three hundred years of autocratic rule by the Romanovs, who lived in obscene luxury and really cared nothing for the welfare for the Russian peasant class who had little to eat and lived in squalor.

[Lincoln Republican]

Obviously his policies led to the death of millions (even if the revolution had never happened) but I wouldn't describe him as a mass murderer, no. I think that requires intent to kill, and I don't think Nicholas had that.

Agreed, I don't think he meant ill, he was just outrageously incompetant and had no clue what he was doing.

He absolutely had to abdicate for it, it's just a shame that neither his brother nor the provisional government could hold power and avoid a Bolshevik takeover.

Yes, because Russians needed  another three hundred years of autocratic rule by the Romanovs, who lived in obscene luxury and really cared nothing for the welfare for the Russian peasant class who had little to eat and lived in squalor.

Russians didn't really needed Romanovs. But Duma's parties were very weak too. As a result - there was a sort of political vacuum. Lenin and Bolsheviks in general brilliantly used this takeover possibility. As much as i hate him in general - he was excellent political tactician.

You are correct, of course.  The Romanovs were useless in addressing social ills, there was a huge void to fill, as you said, and Lenin stepped in.  The rest, as they say, is history.