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

[smoltchanov]

By Russian standards of that time - no. Compare him with Bolshevicks, for example. Dumb, incompetent, etc - of course. By present day standards - are they applicable here?

[smoltchanov]

Absolutely.

What for? The Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905? The Tsar didn't order that, and he wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time.

The tsar's call for war puts him at blame for Russian casualties pre-1917.
An estimated 25,000-140,000 Germans died during the forced deportation from Volhynia.
The death count is unmeasured for that of POWs held and tortured by the tsar's forces during the war.
The invasion/massacre of Northern & Eastern Turkey was an orchestrated mass murder of Turks and Kurds.
There were countless lives lost as a result of the Czar-encouraged Pogroms.

Nicholas II was an autocratic tyrant and mass murderer if there ever was one.

I repeat my question then - how do you call Bolshevicks then? They killed tens or may be hundreds times people more, including almost all leading members of their own party

[smoltchanov]

Absolutely.

What for? The Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905? The Tsar didn't order that, and he wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time.

The tsar's call for war puts him at blame for Russian casualties pre-1917.
An estimated 25,000-140,000 Germans died during the forced deportation from Volhynia.
The death count is unmeasured for that of POWs held and tortured by the tsar's forces during the war.
The invasion/massacre of Northern & Eastern Turkey was an orchestrated mass murder of Turks and Kurds.
There were countless lives lost as a result of the Czar-encouraged Pogroms.

Nicholas II was an autocratic tyrant and mass murderer if there ever was one.

I repeat my question then - how do you call Bolshevicks then? They killed tens or may be hundreds times people more, including almost all leading members of their own party

The topic is about the tsar, the actions of the Bolsheviks are irrelevant for this discussion.

Everything learned in comparison. And compared to Bolsheviks dumb tsar was pure angel))) Recognize duplicity of "socialist"))))))

[smoltchanov]

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

And Stalin?

[smoltchanov]

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

And Stalin?

In America, the only leaders viewed remotely favorably by most people are Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Khrushchev.

Khrushchev was ex-Stalinist (who, just as all other Soviet leaders of Stalin period) signed orders, condemning innocent people to death. So, in Russia he is considered as an improvement over Stalin, but not really so big one.

[smoltchanov]

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.