The Romanov Family.

AllthingsCP

Just doing some research into the Romanov family and i was just wondering is their still surviving members of that family or were all killed, Was the downfall of the Tsar he's own fault was Nicholas inexperience to handle such a large empire with zero military or political training and such a large population and land mass that would have made even the most harden states man tremble, Doing some research i found that really Nicholas was not that bad sure he inherited a failing government but overall he himself was not a supporter of cruelty.

Also the end that faced that family was it really justified to be so cruel or were the Bolshevik just scum, If history was different and the Romanov family were not killed how would Europe and the rest of the world look today, How would this affect ww2 without the Red Army driving the Germany Army back to Berlin,

Without the Cold War and the state of fear that spread across the would from the treat of nuclear war, The Russian involvement in Afghan and Vietnam countered by the USA.

One acted nearly 100 years ago is still impacting on us today.But how different could it all have been?

tac foley

AllthingsCP wrote: »

But how different could it all have been?

Very.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Very.

tac

Not nessesary tac. If you have something constructive to add then fine. If not then refrain.
Moderator.

tac foley

Sorry, but the ramifications of a Russia with a surviving Romanoff family are global in their extent, at least, IMO, until the Bolsheviks finally got the Revolution started. That much was inevitable, given the combination of circumstances within the Russias at the time. The involvement of Imperial Russia in WW1 only sealed the intentions of the Bolsheviks, who saw the war in the west as a needless sacrifice of proletariat lives that could have been better sacrificed within Russia itself on behalf of the much-needed Revolution. One argument, that the Romanoff family should have been allowed to go into exile in a neutral state, was mooted at the time, but such a figurehead as Nicholas, and such a living icon was he to many Russians, that HIS murder, at least, was not only inevitable but necessary to the Revolution.

IMO, the long-term survival of the Romanoffs was always going to be in doubt, and if they did not die in 1917, then 1918 would probably been their last year alive.

tac

pinkypinky

There are surviving Romanov family members, they come from children of Nikolai's siblings. It's even disputed which of them has the best claim (arising from a younger sister having a son vs an older sister having a daughter). I think it would undoubtedly have had massive implications for the 20th century had they survived. Nikolai was a terrible leader, poorly prepared for the role he was born to. In 1905, there was talk of changing the laws to allow a daughter (Olga was the eldest) to inherit, when it looked like there might not be a son. This too could have had massive ramifications. Something else which might have had an impact would be if the British royal family (both Nikolai and his wife were directly related to Queen Victoria) had allowed them refuge in England after the abdication.

Their deaths seemed to have been a hasty impulse on the part of the Smolensk Bolsheviks when they heard the White Army was on the way...if they'd managed to take the Tsar & his family who knows what would have happened.

jonniebgood1

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Was the downfall of the Tsar he's own fault was Nicholas inexperience to handle such a large empire with zero military or political training and such a large population and land mass that would have made even the most harden states man tremble, Doing some research i found that really Nicholas was not that bad sure he inherited a failing government but overall he himself was not a supporter of cruelty.

Also the end that faced that family was it really justified to be so cruel or were the Bolshevik just scum, ...

What research showed him to be 'not that bad'?

He may have inherited an empire that was not developing as fast as it should have but he simply continued that path. He lived a pampered life becoming more and more enriched personally while unable to give Russia a firm direction to progress alongside other industrialising nations. Despite this inability to lead he prevented all but the most meaningless concessions that could have allowed more capable people become involved in government. This was the case when after the disastorous war with Japan in 1904, a result of amongst other things the way he had developed the military, he had no choice but to allow the creation of a parliamentary house. Having done this he did not allow it to do its job. There are many facets to this but having looked into this period of Russian history previously I think his end is probably justifiable in most terms. The most surprising thing was that it did not happen before 1917.

Manach

My view, that Russia is a prisoner of its geography. I enjoy reading Peter Hopkins, especially those on the theme of the "Great Game", the battle for supremency in Asia between the Western powers and Russia. So the same geopolitical realities would be in play no matter who was in power.
My own reading of the last Tsar, a man of some flaws but also some talent and could inspire loyality to him - who did his best to maintain a system that was outdated even as assumed the throne but was overbourne by a catastrophic war and the wolves in human form that were the Bolsheviks.

jonniebgood1

Manach wrote: »

My view, that Russia is a prisoner of its geography. I enjoy reading Peter Hopkins, especially those on the theme of the "Great Game", the battle for supremency in Asia between the Western powers and Russia. So the same geopolitical realities would be in play no matter who was in power.
My own reading of the last Tsar, a man of some flaws but also some talent and could inspire loyality to him - who did his best to maintain a system that was outdated even as assumed the throne but was overbourne by a catastrophic war and the wolves in human form that were the Bolsheviks.

The talents, were they leadership talents or interpersonal ?
I would argue that the war was catastrophic due to his leadership also. The Russian army was a shambles in 1904 and he did not address this before ww1. If the bolsheviks had not taken control then the mensheviks would have or some other revolutionary group such was the mood in russia leading up to 1917.

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Doing some research i found that really Nicholas was not that bad sure he inherited a failing government but overall he himself was not a supporter of cruelty

You're aware that his nickname amongst the Russian workers prior to 1917 was 'Nicholas the Bloody'?

The best that can be said of Nicholas II is that the Tsardom, certainly as an autocracy, was probably doomed anyway. It would have taken a much better Tsar, and indeed a better political class, to avoid the disaster of 1917. But that does not excuse Nicholas of being a stupid, weak and grossly incompetent ruler

Manach wrote:

My own reading of the last Tsar, a man of some flaws but also some talent and could inspire loyality to him

And yet by 1916 plans for a palace coup had spread to even the more conservative of his ministers. By Feb 1917 rumours of a coup were rife and Guchkov and Tereshchenko later claimed to have planned one for mid-March. Even if the February Revolution* not occurred then it's unlikely that Nicholas would have survived that year

*Something that the Bolsheviks were not responsible for. It has to be stressed that they did not "get the Revolution started"

Amused051

There are most definitely surviving members of the Romanov family. After reading the Romanov prophecy I thought it would be very interesting to see who would win out if Russia were ever to reinstate the Romanovs as a monarchy.

I always found Nicholas to be a very interesting character, ultimately extremely unprepared for the job he was given, so under the influence of his wife, who herself seemed very easily led. One wonders what might have been had there been major reform much earlier. Could the romanovs have survived in a way similar to other European monarchies today? Certainly the tide of change was happening for such a long time had the ruling elite embraced it fully it might not have ended so disastrously for them. Nearly a whole century of history would be rewritten and it would be interesting to see the level of true democracy in Russia today.

I always find it interesting that royal families so closely connected can turn their backs on cousins and relations so quickly, George, Nicholas and Wilhelm all had very interesting relationships with each other and instead of working together to survive they all turned on each other. It's interesting to note that the only one who retained their throne after wwII was the constitutional monarch. George could also have offered his cousin Nicholas asylum and his family wouldn't have suffered such a horrific, violent end. It's interesting to explore these intricate and complicated relationships, and quite amazing that they all lead back to queen Victoria.

Also has anyone ever seen how closely prince Michael of Kent resembles Nicholas II?

laoch na mona

AllthingsCP wrote: »

were the Bolshevik just scum

no the leaders may have been cruel but most were just people who wanted to make the world a more equal place. Later in the revolution many turned against Lenin's dictatorship such as the sailors at Kronstadt. and Stalin in his time purged the party of members loyal to Lenin.

considering such a narrow minded statement I would be very sceptical of any conclusions you may come to

AllthingsCP

laoch na mona wrote: »

no the leaders may have been cruel but most were just people who wanted to make the world a more equal place. Later in the revolution many turned against Lenin's dictatorship such as the sailors at Kronstadt. and Stalin in his time purged the party of members loyal to Lenin.

considering such a narrow minded statement I would be very sceptical of any conclusions you may come to

When i say Bolshevik i mean the core Party itself not the people that follow it, Your reference to Stalin comes across as if your are trying to say he was better then Lenin? Both men have countless death toll's.

Whats so narrow minded what good came from the Revolution? What did come was millions dead, nearly a century of oppression of the Russian people and other country's. Sure the Communist helped beat Hitlers Germany but Stalin's acts of terror matches Hitler's. Eastern Europe is still rebuilding after USSR, We have conflicts that the USSR help to fabric still threaten to rip the world apart, Korea, Afgan, Cuban Missile Crisis to name just three. USA and USSR mass stockpile of Nuclear weapons. USSR started or had a huge influence on nearly ever conflict from 1950's to its fall and we are still today and for many years will be dealing with what they left behind.

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Sure the Communist helped beat Hitlers Germany but Stalin's acts of terror matches Hitler's

Something that is qualitatively and quantifiably false

When i say Bolshevik i mean the core Party itself not the people that follow it...

How do you make that distinction? What of those countless workers who joined Bolshevik organisations, voted for Bolshevik programmes and embraced the creation of the Soviet state? All because it promised relief from the crushing hardship and cruelty of the Tsardom

AllthingsCP

Reekwind wrote: »

Something that is qualitatively and quantifiably false

How? Please Specify.

Reekwind

I should have thought that it was obvious: in no measure (whether qualitative or quantitative) did the Soviet Union match the depths of Nazi Germany. That is to say, 'Stalin's acts of terror do not match Hitler's'. Whether you want to go via sheer numbers (even excluding the military dead, Nazi Germany killed many millions more than the USSR) or the means in which they died (there was never anything resembling a Soviet Auschwitz) the comparison simply falls flat

If you can provide them then I'll be happy to debunk in more detail any outlandish claims or figures that you think support your assertion

AllthingsCP

Reekwind wrote: »

I should have thought that it was obvious: in no measure (whether qualitative or quantitative) did the Soviet Union match the depths of Nazi Germany. That is to say, 'Stalin's acts of terror do not match Hitler's'. Whether you want to go via sheer numbers (even excluding the military dead, Nazi Germany killed many millions more than the USSR) or the means in which they died (there was never anything resembling a Soviet Auschwitz) the comparison simply falls flat

If you can provide them then I'll be happy to debunk in more detail any outlandish claims or figures that you think support your assertion

''Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.'' Argumenti i Fakti

Just under 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 8 to 10 million peasants forced off their lands and another 1 to 2 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; One million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953

Add it up thats about 1500 murders a say over his rule.

These numbers are the lower end of the bar really we will never know the real number.

What the Nazi's did was cruel evil and wrong on so many stages, But to say Hitler and Stalin were not of the same cut is madness, Both men committed crime's that can never be forgiving they just had their own method of murder.

Hilters Tally

''5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews
1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)
500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000–200,000 Freemasons [23]
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
Raul Hilberg, in the third edition of his ground-breaking three-volume work, The Destruction of the European Jews, estimates that 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust. This figure includes "over 800,000" who died from "Ghettoization and general privation;" 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings;" and "up to 2,900,000" who perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000."[2''

Regard to Tito for putting the information into writing.

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

These numbers are the lower end of the bar really we will never know the real number

No, they're not. 20m deaths is very much at the higher range of historical estimates. And frankly it's been decades since anyone has taken such fantastic numbers seriously

The most sensible ranges available today (ie drawing on archive data available since the fall of the USSR) puts the number of Soviet dead during Stalin's reign, excluding the war, at 8-12m

Of these deaths the vast majority are famine deaths, something that no serious historian would today accept as "artificial". Even Robert Conquest, who did so much to popularise the disaster in the West, no longer accepts that this was genocide; against the contrast with the Nazi 'Hunger Plan' is useful. What should be clear is that the Soviet Gulag system did not function on anywhere near the scale as the Nazi murder machine

For references, see Davies, Ellman, Getty, Wheatcroft, etc. The Economic Transformation of the USSR is a good starting point with The Years of Hunger the current definitive account of the 1930s famine

Some of your post is simply silly. To wit:

''Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.'' Argumenti i Fakti

So wait, you're blaming Stalin for the deaths of millions the Soviet civilians killed at the hands of Nazi soldiers? And deliberately omitting them from "Hitler's Tally"?

Just under 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 8 to 10 million peasants forced off their lands and another 1 to 2 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; One million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953

Add it up thats about 1500 murders a say over his rule.

This is just throwing random numbers together and calling the result "murder". Given that many of the actual figures are roughly correct, I'm guessing that it's your interpretation that has let you down

I mean, I have to ask: you are aware of the difference between "arrest" and "execution", right? Or "exiled" and "execution"? Or "relocated" and "execution"? And so on. The Soviet Gulag was not akin to Nazi death camps; arrest was not an automatic death sentence. Some 18m Soviet citizens passed through the Gulag system during the Stalin years and the vast majority served relatively short sentences before being released: there was a high turnover rate. So "1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929" does not mean 1m deaths during that period

Similarly, while the mass deportations had horrific attrition rates, they were not automatic death sentences. Millions survived exile into the interior and, as 'special settlers', lived out lives under the NKVD's jurisdiction without being worked to death. Not something the Nazis were known for, incidentally

What the Nazi's did was cruel evil and wrong on so many stages, But to say Hitler and Stalin were not of the same cut is madness, Both men committed crime's that can never be forgiving they just had their own method of murder.

Who mentioned anything about forgiving? Both were monstrous regimes and should be remembered as such. But there are degrees of crimes and what you are trying to do - suggesting that one was as bad or worse as the other - is both bad history and deeply morally comprising

Again I come back to the basic fact that nothing in the Soviet Union compared to the depths of the Nazi war crimes. The fact that the Soviets won and somehow didn't liquidate 70% of the population in Eastern Europe (as the Nazis had planned to) should be evidence enough for that. So you'll have to find another reason for to trumpet your anti-communism

AllthingsCP

Reekwind wrote: »

No, they're not. 20m deaths is very much at the higher range of historical estimates. And frankly it's been decades since anyone has taken such fantastic numbers seriously

The most sensible ranges available today (ie drawing on archive data available since the fall of the USSR) puts the number of Soviet dead during Stalin's reign, excluding the war, at 8-12m

Of these deaths the vast majority are famine deaths, something that no serious historian would today accept as "artificial". Even Robert Conquest, who did so much to popularise the disaster in the West, no longer accepts that this was genocide; against the contrast with the Nazi 'Hunger Plan' is useful. What should be clear is that the Soviet Gulag system did not function on anywhere near the scale as the Nazi murder machine

For references, see Davies, Ellman, Getty, Wheatcroft, etc. The Economic Transformation of the USSR is a good starting point with The Years of Hunger the current definitive account of the 1930s famine

Some of your post is simply silly. To wit:
So wait, you're blaming Stalin for the deaths of millions the Soviet civilians killed at the hands of Nazi soldiers? And deliberately omitting them from "Hitler's Tally"?

This is just throwing random numbers together and calling the result "murder". Given that many of the actual figures are roughly correct, I'm guessing that it's your interpretation that has let you down

I mean, I have to ask: you are aware of the difference between "arrest" and "execution", right? Or "exiled" and "execution"? Or "relocated" and "execution"? And so on. The Soviet Gulag was not akin to Nazi death camps; arrest was not an automatic death sentence. Some 18m Soviet citizens passed through the Gulag system during the Stalin years and the vast majority served relatively short sentences before being released: there was a high turnover rate. So "1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929" does not mean 1m deaths during that period

Similarly, while the mass deportations had horrific attrition rates, they were not automatic death sentences. Millions survived exile into the interior and, as 'special settlers', lived out lives under the NKVD's jurisdiction without being worked to death. Not something the Nazis were known for, incidentally

Who mentioned anything about forgiving? Both were monstrous regimes and should be remembered as such. But there are degrees of crimes and what you are trying to do - suggesting that one was as bad or worse as the other - is both bad history and deeply morally comprising

Again I come back to the basic fact that nothing in the Soviet Union compared to the depths of the Nazi war crimes. The fact that the Soviets won and somehow didn't liquidate 70% of the population in Eastern Europe (as the Nazis had planned to) should be evidence enough for that. So you'll have to find another reason for to trumpet your anti-communism

90 percent of people that were arrested died in prison.

Those are not random numbers they stats released by the USSR one year before the fall of the USSR, Google it!.

If i was Anti-Communist would i not bring up Cuba,People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong,Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. Total Tally for all theses totals at nearly 80million and 40 million on a lower scale.

laoch na mona

AllthingsCP wrote: »

When i say Bolshevik i mean the core Party itself not the people that follow it, Your reference to Stalin comes across as if your are trying to say he was better then Lenin? Both men have countless death toll's.

Whats so narrow minded what good came from the Revolution? What did come was millions dead, nearly a century of oppression of the Russian people and other country's. Sure the Communist helped beat Hitlers Germany but Stalin's acts of terror matches Hitler's. Eastern Europe is still rebuilding after USSR, We have conflicts that the USSR help to fabric still threaten to rip the world apart, Korea, Afgan, Cuban Missile Crisis to name just three. USA and USSR mass stockpile of Nuclear weapons. USSR started or had a huge influence on nearly ever conflict from 1950's to its fall and we are still today and for many years will be dealing with what they left behind.

I would never defend Stalin you misinterpreted

your post shows how you confused Stalin's Dictatorship with what the revolution aimed for. Lenin was bad Stalin was like Hitler but the revolution din not bring Stalin to power nor did Lenin want him in power. America is as if not more responsible for all those conflicts and always had more nuclear weapons then Russia and was cruel enough to use them.

If you were to say that Stalinism was a counter revolutionary step which ruined the soviet unions potential then I would agree but it is wrong to say that the revolution was wrong from the start. Indeed the civil war and the wests opposition to the revolution pushed it into being more revolutionary

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

90 percent of people that were arrested died in prison.

Those are not random numbers they stats released by the USSR one year before the fall of the USSR, Google it!

I don't have to use Google, I have the figures in question right here. And yes, the archival data does directly contradict your claim

According to Getty (Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years) the mortality rate of the Soviet labour camps* reached a peak of 20-27% during the year of 1943. This was a spike, caused by diversion of resources to the front, and the typical camp mortality rate was around 3-8% annually. Even if we include the outliers of war years then the average rate from 1930-1947 was 7-10%. Higher than the non-prison population, certainly but still nowhere near the figures that you are suggesting or those of Nazi death camps

Which, given that over 80% of sentences were for less than five years imprisonment, well, your 90% figure is nonsense. Or we could simply look at the actual figures (Getty again) which show that every single year the Gulag system released significantly more inmates than it killed. Far from being a death sentence, the Gulag imprisoned large numbers of people for relatively short periods of time before releasing them back into society

*And only the camps, not the colonies or places of special settlement. Both of which were less brutal and had lower mortality rates

AllthingsCP

laoch na mona wrote: »

I would never defend Stalin you misinterpreted That was not in response to you but Reekwind

your post shows how you confused Stalin's Dictatorship with what the revolution aimed for. Lenin was bad Stalin was like Hitler but the revolution din not bring Stalin to power nor did Lenin want him in power. America is as if not more responsible for all those conflicts and always had more nuclear weapons then Russia and was cruel enough to use them.

If you were to say that Stalinism was a counter revolutionary step which ruined the soviet unions potential then I would agree but it is wrong to say that the revolution was wrong from the start. Indeed the civil war and the wests opposition to the revolution pushed it into being more revolutionary

I pointed out that USA played its part but i just didn't go into its as we were discussing USSR and did not want to go off the topic that we already changed from the OP.

Second its wrong to say that USA is or stated as the aggressor when its not true USSR held expansion views well before USA, Forcing the USA trying to stop the spread of Communist government. This happened in Greece Afgan North Korea and so on. Two big fish in a small pond will never work i am just glad the better of the two evils won.

AllthingsCP

Reekwind wrote: »

I don't have to use Google, I have the figures in question right here. And yes, the archival data does directly contradict your claim

According to Getty (Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years) the mortality rate of the Soviet labour camps* reached a peak of 20-27% during the year of 1943. This was a spike, caused by diversion of resources to the front, and the typical camp mortality rate was around 3-8% annually. Even if we include the outliers of war years then the average rate from 1930-1947 was 7-10%. Higher than the non-prison population, certainly but still nowhere near the figures that you are suggesting or those of Nazi death camps

Which, given that over 80% of sentences were for less than five years imprisonment, well, your 90% figure is nonsense. Or we could simply look at the actual figures (Getty again) which show that every single year the Gulag system released significantly more inmates than it killed. Far from being a death sentence, the Gulag imprisoned large numbers of people for relatively short periods of time before releasing them back into society

*And only the camps, not the colonies or places of special settlement. Both of which were less brutal and had lower mortality rates

What a silly statement was that a failed attempt at making yourself superiority.

http://www.cercec.fr/materiaux/doc_membres/Gabor%20RITTERSPORN/Victims%20of%20the%20Gulag.pdf

Pages 5-6-7 are interesting just because 80percent of the Murders are not Document dose not mean the estimates are false, this is a first attempt to archiving the slaughtering and is expected to lack a lot of the information to document the numbers killed in these camps and those murder outside also.

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

What a silly statement was that a failed attempt at making yourself superiority.

http://www.cercec.fr/materiaux/doc_membres/Gabor%20RITTERSPORN/Victims%20of%20the%20Gulag.pdf

Pages 5-6-7 are interesting just because 80percent of the Murders are not Document dose not mean the estimates are false, this is a first attempt to archiving the slaughtering and is expected to lack a lot of the information to document the numbers killed in these camps and those murder outside also.

I'm sorry, you have the later numbers that build on Getty's work? Those would be the ones that show how the archive numbers that he presented understated the scale of the deaths by up to 80%. And indeed demonstrate that the entire conception of the Gulag, as presented there, is false

AllthingsCP

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm sorry, you have the later numbers that build on Getty's work? Those would be the ones that show how the archive numbers that he presented understated the scale of the deaths by up to 80%. And indeed demonstrate that the entire conception of the Gulag, as presented there, is false

Look rather then this dragging on just because you seem fit to insult those that where murdered by a cruel and evil regime and seem to think that a life Hitler stole is worth more the one that Stalin stole just so you can support an ideology that has proven time and time to be cruel and ineffective. The number's have been showing by the very document that you quoted from, Everyone know's that's countless others lost their life's that will never appear on paper because they never existed on paper. Stalin and Hitler in the end where very similar in regards to the pure evil of their Government, Hitler chose his victims Stalin just killed everyone that crossed him or opposed him.

laoch na mona

AllthingsCP wrote: »

I pointed out that USA played its part but i just didn't go into its as we were discussing USSR and did not want to go off the topic that we already changed from the OP.

Second its wrong to say that USA is or stated as the aggressor when its not true USSR held expansion views well before USA, Forcing the USA trying to stop the spread of Communist government. This happened in Greece Afgan North Korea and so on. Two big fish in a small pond will never work i am just glad the better of the two evils won.

yes the soviet union under stalinism was **** but that is not to say Bolshevism was **** I won't get bogged down in america v USSR as it would be off topic

Reekwind

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Look rather then this dragging on just because you seem fit to insult those that where murdered by a cruel and evil regime and seem to think that a life Hitler stole is worth more the one that Stalin stole...

And where in my above posts have I either insulted the dead or suggested that the life of a Nazi victim is worth more than that of a Soviet victim? My words are there for all to see

Correcting your misconceptions does not equate to dismissing the horrors of either regime... but then nor does accepting that these were Very Bad People mean that we should ignore reality and automatically equate their sins. All regimes look equally terrible to their victims but, thankfully, we are in a position to take a more nuanced view

The number's have been showing by the very document that you quoted from, Everyone know's that's countless others lost their life's that will never appear on paper because they never existed on paper

Then it should be very easy for you to answer my above question. Where does Getty suggest that he has underestimated the numbers of deaths by 80% or thereabouts? Or that, contrary to what the numbers show, some 90% of the inmates actually died? And how to square that with statements like "[The Gulag was] a particularly harsh, cruel and arbitrary [penal system], to be sure, but not necessarily a one-way ticket to oblivion for the majority of inmates"?

You've got the paper there, you've apparently done some research so let's have a coherent case from you

jocmilt

AllthingsCP wrote: »

When i say Bolshevik i mean the core Party itself not the people that follow it, Your reference to Stalin comes across as if your are trying to say he was better then Lenin? Both men have countless death toll's

That is correct. Totalitarian Collectivism always ends the same way as the many tens of millions of victims of Mao and Pol Pot also prove. Characters like Gengrikh Yagoda who had at least 10 million people killed will operate within such systems no matter which First Comrade's fat behind is sat in the Glorious Leader's chair.

Yogoda and his secret police made sure there were no Romanov's left.

Reekwind

jocmilt wrote: »

Characters like Gengrikh Yagoda who had at least 10 million people killed...

Again, such numbers are simply nonsense and entirely unsustainable today. They're pulled from thin air