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.

[CatoMinor]

If nothing else, for his part (along with all the other guilty leaders in Europe) in bringing on the First World War, yes.

Though his Bolshevik successors were even more so.

[Kingpoleon]

My client pleads not guilty of all charges, excepted insofar as they may be judged under his gross incompetence and mental instability.

[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.   

[Lumine]

Yes, of course. There were worse monarchs at the time (Leopold and his treatment of Congo to give an example) and I wouldn't exactly characterize Nicholas II as bloodthirsty, but yes.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

In the way almost every absolute monarch would be qualified as one under today's standards, yeah.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, of course. There were worse monarchs at the time (Leopold and his treatment of Congo to give an example) and I wouldn't exactly characterize Nicholas II as bloodthirsty, but yes.

This is just me, but a mass murderer typically has some degree of competence. Also, Nicholas II was very benevolent to the Poles.

[Babeuf]

Of course he was.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes (Not alt-right)

[Dr. MB]

In the way almost every absolute monarch would be qualified as one under today's standards, yeah.

[kelestian]

If Queen Victoria, Vilghelm II and king Franz were mass murders are mass murders, so Nicolai probably also can be called. But historically he was one of the most peaceful Russian ruler.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

By the standards of Russia over 100 years ago, he wasn't particularly terrible, but yes to that question.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

His terrible leadership during the WWI resulted in such a massive loss of life he can be considered for this reason alone.

If Queen Victoria, Vilghelm II and king Franz were mass murders are mass murders, so Nicolai probably also can be called. But historically he was one of the most peaceful Russian ruler.

Victoria had no such powers.

And who the hell is "King Franz"?

[mvd10]

His terrible leadership during the WWI resulted in such a massive loss of life he can be considered for this reason alone.

If Queen Victoria, Vilghelm II and king Franz were mass murders are mass murders, so Nicolai probably also can be called. But historically he was one of the most peaceful Russian ruler.

Victoria had no such powers.

And who the hell is "King Franz"?

He was referring to this Emperor

[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?

[kelestian]

His terrible leadership during the WWI resulted in such a massive loss of life he can be considered for this reason alone.

If Queen Victoria, Vilghelm II and king Franz were mass murders are mass murders, so Nicolai probably also can be called. But historically he was one of the most peaceful Russian ruler.

Victoria had no such powers.

And who the hell is "King Franz"?

Which powers? Nikolai had boundaries: for example, he wanted alliance with Germany, but Russian and French elites didn't allowed it.

[bore]

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.

[The Mikado]

Any definition that calls him a mass murderer would have to call basically any ruler who ever led his nation to war a mass murderer. I could see the case for doing so, but it'd be a pretty worthless definition.

[Pyro]

Absolutely.

[The Mikado]

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.

[Pyro]

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.

[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

[Pyro]

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.

[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"))))))

[The Mikado]

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.

That logic would make every wartime leader in history a mass murderer. "Mass murder" as a charge works best as intentionally killing civilians, especially in peacetime.

An example of a mass murderer during World War I would be Enver Pasha intentionally trying to wipe out every man, woman, and child of Armenian heritage on the premise that the entire ethnic group was a Russian fifth column.

Edit: Fixed typo.