Assassination of Innocents: Are Children Guilty by Association? Have you ever thought about the value of human life? The act of purposely ending the life of an innocent soul is utterly wrong. When is killing children justified? Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov of Russia and her family were victims of unjust assassination. On the night of July 17, 1918, Anastasia and her family were executed in Yekaterunburg, Russia by the Bolsheviks, rebels who despised Anastasia’s father, Tsar Nicholas II (Anastasia Biography). Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov of Russia’s assassination was unjustified because she never did anything wrong to disturb her country; although others believe her family was responsible for generating increasing public hostility during …show more content…
Nicholas II agreed to abdicate the throne in hopes of preventing a Russian civil war (Anastasia Biography). When his father died, he automatically had all of Russia resting in his hands and he had no desire to be the ruler, so he didn’t know what was best for the country. Assassinating him and his whole family was the end of life for an innocent family who hadn’t committed any crimes while ruling. The influence of Rasputin may have led the unprepared Nicholas to make the wrong decisions. For the children to be punished for their father’s lack of experience and good judgement was unfair and …show more content…
In 1895, Nicholas II’s father, the current tsar of Russia, died, so Nicholas II married Alexandra, princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England, and on May 14, 1896, the couple was crowned in a five hour ceremony (Meyer). The day after the coronation, a half a million people rushed to a nearby park to celebrate, but fanned by rumors of shortages of food and drink, a panic swept through the crowd and hundreds died in the ensuing mayhem (Meyer). The decision of the imperial couple to go ahead with the coronation ball despite the tragedy was remembered years later as a sign of the heartlessness of “Bloody Nicholas” and “the German Woman” (Meyer). Later, as Russia’s wartime losses mounted, and hunger and privation became widespread, dislike of the Romanovs intensified accordingly. Nicholas’s misguided attempts to take over the leadership of the military, leaving his wife to manage the affairs of a vast and complex country, further weakened Russia (Meyer). Again, the children of the misguided leader should not have been
Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country. In the Bloody Sunday scene thousands of people were marching to the Winter Palace to request help and protection from the Tsar because he was supposed to be in St Petersburg. However he was not there, he had gone home to tend to his son because he was ill. This resulted in the massacring of approximately 200 people who meant no harm . After his abdication in a conversation with his son Alexi he tells him that he abdicated for him. He tells Alexi, “I didn't want you to pay for my mistakes.” Whether this was the reason for his abdication or not the movie led the viewers to believe that everything he did was for his family. The leader of a country should make decisions that will be better for the country, not their family. He put the wellbeing of his family before the country which shows inadequate leadership that ultimately led to the collapse of the old reg...
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
On July 16, 1918, the Russian imperial family, the Romanovs, were executed in the basement of the Ipatiev House by the Bolshevik political party. While The Kitchen Boy, by Robert Alexander, follows the point of view of the family’s young kitchen boy during this event, along with a different possible ending to history, it also follows the boy through the poor treatment of the royal family long before they were killed. During their stay in the House of Special Purpose under control of the Bolsheviks, the Romanov family endured physical, psychological, and spiritual mistreatments.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
It is indisputable that Nicholas II had a substantial influence on the demise of the dynasty. He had an ardent devotion to his family, he was kind with only benevolent intentions towards his wife and children. It was this devotion that ultimately shifted Nicholas’s priorities, putting his role as a father and husband above his role as a Tsar.
Czar Nicholas’ poor leadership forced him to abdicate and caused the Bolshevik takeover. One of the reasons I say that is because of the way he handled “Bloody Sunday”. “Bloody Sunday” was when troops killed over a thousand people in a peaceful worker assembly. After “Bloody Sunday”, workers all over Russia went on strike, and peasants caused uprisings that were suppressed by Nicholas II’s troops causing tensions to increase. Another reason was his disastrous involvement in World War I. In the beginning of the war, Russia’s armies did not do well. To fix this, Nicholas became the commander. Now under his command, their continued failure reflected the Czar himself, further decreasing his popularity. Lastly, civil unrest grew as food riots, chronic food shortages, and labor strikes continued to proceed. This eventually erupted into open revolt, and Czar Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate. Soon after, the new government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin.
Although the death penalty alone cannot bring back the life of those who have been murdered, it can serve as ultimate justice for the victims and their families. The deterrence of the death penalty can save lives. While opinions abound on both sides of the fence, in the use of the death penalty on juveniles, no one can argue with the fact that the voices of those murdered cannot be heard. Juveniles may not have fully developed brains, as Raeburn argues, but this is not an adequate excuse to dismiss the death penalty. American society cannot afford to babysit murderers, nor can they rehabilitate them. The end of the innocence begins when an innocent life is taken, and the sanctity of life is held defenseless.
The Romanov family story is one that ends in tragedy and mystery. The Romanov dynasty ruled Russia for over 300 years coming to an end with Nicholas II. The book The Family Romanov: Murder, Rebellion, & The Fall of Imperial Russia, written by Candace Fleming, tells the story of Tsar Nicholas II of how he came to become the Tsar and fell trying to protect his family. Fleming tells the story of young Nicholas coming to power when his father, Alexander III, died and how ill-prepared Nicholas was to rule due to his father’s inferior teaching skills. The story goes on to Nicholas meeting his future wife, Alexandra, and how they had four daughters, Olga, Tatiana, Marie and Anastasia. With each daughter came a disappointment of not having an heir
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.
In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in
Nicholas I was the “Iron Tsar” and ruled from 1825-1855. He came to power by crushing the Decembrist Rebellion. He was a military man never meant to be Tsar because he was the youngest of his brothers. He was very intelligent but also narrow-minded, orderly, and precise. Nicholas I was not originally a total reaction. Even though he came to power after crushing a rebellion, he did not become thoroughly reactionary until after the Polish rebellion in 1830-1831. Before the Polish rebellion, he even wanted to abolish serfdom, but afterwards all liberalism stopped and oppression increased. Nicholas II’s beliefs about ruling
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.
Therefore, this scenario exemplifies that there is no distinction between the morality of letting the child die and killing the child, because of the intention of ending the child’s
These people were executed cruelly by capital punishment in countries all over the globe. 970 of these people were women and children. They are all children. The countries allowing this barbaric method of punishment to happen have probably never thought about this scheme of punishment is actually successful in the deterring of crime. I have many reasons for arguing against capital punishment.