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

[bore]

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 Hoxha 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.

Normally I wouldn't do this, but this is a pretty great typo.

[The Mikado]

F**k. Enver Pasha, of course.

[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.

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.

Not every war leader is a mass murderer because not every war leader instigates and initiates war. Each power in Europe was, obviously, partially to blame for the world war, but it cannot be said of Nicholas II that he did not hunger for it. Diplomatic negotiations were still underway as the tsar mobilized the army, greatly heightening tensions through intimidation and assuring a German retaliation. The autocrat's incompetence and mismanagement over the course of the war left soldiers without sufficient munitions. Knowing full well the cost, he authorized millions of untrained and ill-supplied men to die in the meat-grinder of the Eastern Front. As previously inferred, this is only a (granted, huge) piece of this puzzle if one is to cite Nicholas II as a mass murderer - which is an appropriate statement imo.

[vanguard96]

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

[smoltchanov]

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

And Stalin?

[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.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[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.

[Lechasseur]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.