DNA proves Bolsheviks killed all of Russian czar's children (CNN)

[eppur_se_muova]

(CNN) -- One of the most enduring mysteries of the 20th century has been put to rest: DNA analysis of bone fragments has proven that two of Czar Nicholas' children believed to have escaped were killed with their royal family during the Russian Revolution.

The chemically damaged and burnt remains were found in the Romanov family's makeshift grave outside the city of Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2007.

In 2008, scientists used bone and tooth fragments to identify the remains as those of the two missing children of Czar Nicholas II: 13-year-old Crown Prince Alexei, the emperor's only son and heir to the throne, and his sister Grand Duchess Maria, about 19.

Researchers wanted to confirm their findings by comparing DNA from the remains with that of living Romanov relatives. The results of the DNA analysis were published online Tuesday in the journal PloS One.

The Romanov family, the last Russian monarchy, was executed in 1918 by Bolsheviks in the basement of a home in Yekaterinburg, about 900 miles (1,448 kilometers) east of Moscow. Several of their staff members and servants also were killed.
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/11/czar.children/index.html

[Blaze Diem]

1. Them damned Bolsheviks !!

A truly ghastly & certainly terrifying end.

[readmoreoften]

2. Sad. How many children did Czar Nicholas' army kill?

A lot. War is so hard.

[Thothmes]

3. No bed of roses for the Russian people

but under the Czar capital punishment was illegal. The Reds reinstituted the practice in spades.

[readmoreoften]

4. No he just starved them to death.

Yeah, they were fighting a war. In a civil war, people get killed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Except this wasn't war.

This was murder.

[w4rma]

6. It was a civil war. And this family lead one of the armies.

Whomever executed them realized that to end the war and prevent a war in the future from a new "heir-to-the-throne" then they would have to extinguish the monarch's entire family line.

Too many people believe in a "divine right to rule".

[ddeclue]

12. That's awfully ghoulish of you...

You can depose a monarch without killing one.

The AMERICAN Revolution is the model (or the Indian Revolution if you prefer) NOT the French or Russian Revolutions which turned into total bloodbaths.

Doug D.

[w4rma]

13. Just realistic. If a war has to be fought, I'd rather the fewer leaders die than the larger numbers

of their followers. Remember that our American Revolution didn't depose a monarch. The monarch was left in power (and the monarch's family still has considerable power, if not direct power over the government).

[cobalt1999]

15. Larger numbers? Like the 10's of millions that died in the gulag system?

Once people justify a little murder, it's not much of a leap to justify mass murder.

[w4rma]

16. Obviously Stalin was not an ethical leader. (nt)

[readmoreoften]

32. Yeah, too bad the Bolsheviks weren't Stalinists, but nice try.

Bush is getting up there in numbers. And the US already has more people incarcerated than even Stalin had so...

[Thothmes]

44. Can you prove you point or is this idle chatter.

[TBF]

22. War vs. murder. Funny I don't see such a big difference in those 2

words as some seem to.

[davepc]

7. Czar Nicholas children personally ordered or had a hand in the death of millions

You can tell by the homicidal look in their eyes. Don't let their ages fool you, these kids were killers and deserved everything they got from the glorious freedom fighters of the Revolution.

[AZ Criminal JD]

14. Yes Comrade Stalin! The glorious freedom fighters!

[readmoreoften]

38. Guess you don't know the difference between Stalin and Lenin then...

Sorry, but if we had a revolution in the US, I can't say pissed off families who lost loved ones in Iraq wouldn't take revenge on the Bush family. It sucks, but that's not policy, that's human nature.

[cobalt1999]

51. Obviously, you don't know the history of Lenin

Lets give you a little history quiz.

Who expanded expanded the czar labor camps into the Gulag system? Lenin or Stalin

After the revolution who killed the existing multi-party system, arrested their leaders, and had many killed? Lenin or Stalin

Who created the Cheka secret police? Lenin or Stalin?

[AZ Criminal JD]

56. Oh yeah, I know the party line

Lenin was a good communist and Stalin was a bad communist who messed everything up. It would have been a good system if only Lenin hadn't died. What a total denial of history and a load of crap.

[readmoreoften]

33. Yeah, and if families of dead GIs got together and killed the Bush family you'd be weeping.

It's not right (if it's even true) but I'm sure there was an element of "you killed our children, now see how it feels"

[Thothmes]

11. What was the Bolshevik excuse for capital punishment

after the revolution ended.

[EFerrari]

25. "It's not personal, it's just business"?

[readmoreoften]

35. Oh hey, it's gaggles of freepers trying to overthrow the government for the "glory of Russia"

What's our excuse for having a ridiculously high death penalty and more people imprisoned than anywhere in the world?

[DrCory]

50. The "Carpenter/Bench" Mentality I'd Say. N/T

[Dorian Gray]

47. I didn't realize that it was humane

to kill children. On either side.

[struggle4progress]

55. It is misleading to claim that the death penalty was illegal under Nicholas II

The Duma attempted to abolish it in 1906, at which point Nicholas II dissolved the Duma. Several thousand people were subsequently executed. The death penalty was abolished briefly in 1917 under Kerensky's provisional government

PENALTY OF DEATH ABOLISHED BY DUMA; Russian Lower Chamber's First Bill Adopted Unanimously
LONDON TIMES -- NEW YORK TIMES. Special Cable.
July 3, 1906, Tuesday
Page 4, 424 words
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A04EEDA1E3EE733A25750C0A9619C946797D6CF

Vladimir Nabokov
By Brian Boyd
p 34
http://books.google.com/books?id=1qfhBbklYnIC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=duma+death+penalty+nicholas+ii&source=bl&ots=dHVNygiLQj&sig=2tyOnWWwgsO_UvXlyr4T2EGB6bc&hl=en&ei=5GC5SaaWNIK1-AbUrpHBBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Wednesday, April 4th - Aleksey Nicolaievich related to me yesterday's conversation between Kerensky and the Tsar and Tsarina ... After his departure, the Tsar told us that no sooner were they alone than Kerensky said to him: "You know I've succeeded in getting the death penalty abolished?... I've done this in spite of the fact that a great number of my comrades have died, martyrs to their convictions." Was he trying to make a display of his magnanimity, and insinuating that he was saving the Tsar's life, though the latter had done nothing to deserve it? ...
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/2006pierre/chapter_18.html

[Sugarcoated]

40. There is no justification for the killing or murder of anyone's children

Russian peasants or their innocent children, the Czar's innocent children, or anyone's children. Period.

[14thColony]

46. Thank you for such a definitive statement

I am appalled by the moral relativism being foisted here as justification for the murder of a 13-yr old boy and his not-much-older sisters.

[Sugarcoated]

57. Unfuckingbelievable, isn't it.

[anonymous171]

8. Sic Semper Tyrannis. Oppress the people for a long enough time, and they kill you.

This should serve as warning to the plutocrats of today's world. It is unfortunate that the children had to be murdered. But because of the way the monarchical system worked, leaving them alive was quite dangerous.

[davepc]

9. The death penatly for kids because of who their parents are is a progressive ideal

If your parents are the "right" people they don't even need a trial before they're killed.

[w4rma]

18. Don't start wars. Don't piss off the peasants. (nt)

[Lyric]

24. Yeah, those kids were definitely warmongering peasant abusers.

Especially that little thirteen-year-old Alexei. When he wasn't sick in bed and bleeding thanks to great-grandmama Victoria's crappy DNA, he was SUCH a tyrant!

:eyes:

[w4rma]

31. When they killed him, they likely felt that someone might try to use him to bring back the monarchy.

To start a new society, they did what they felt they had to do. It was war and I don't see you grieving over everyone who died trying to get at the royal family and the ones who died trying to keep the family in power or the ones caught in between.

[davepc]

34. The ends justify the means. Yet another progressive ideal. Even if the means are murder.

Hey, so what thousands of Iraqi civilians died, Bush was just doing what he had to do to start a new society in Iraq.

[readmoreoften]

39. Considering that the Royals rose up and killed 30,000 working class women and children

during the Paris Commune, their decision makes sense. Sorry, but the only model they had to go off of was a "progressive, liberal uprising" than won and signed a peace treaty with their Royals and their Royals turned around and SLAUGHTERED THEM. That was only 40 years earlier. Regicide is a reality.

[cobalt1999]

10. No one oppressed and terrorized the people more than Stalin did.

His regime killed far more than the monarchy did.

[w4rma]

17. Are you advocating a return to monarchy? (nt)

[Diclotican]

26. w4rma

w4rma

The Russians themself, have more or less told the current government that a return of Monarchy is out of the questing.. In the early 1990, when some of the last member of the Romanov Dynasty was in Russia, the bones of the last Tsar and his familiy was been burried in St-Petersburg instead of Yekatatrinburg in the final resting place. The Russian also had the posibility to wote about the future.. Aka a Republic or a Monarcy.. Even with all the help the suporter of an Monarcy in Russia was muster, most russians was telling really clearly, that they was not thinking to hard about return of a monarcy.. The old regime had stil bad reputation along most russians..

Diclotcan

[cobalt1999]

29. Like the only two choices are murdering children or supporting monarchies?

:eyes:

[w4rma]

30. The people who executed these folks felt that was the case. (nt)

[Dorian Gray]

48. I don't believe Stalinists

are still in power, so why would he/she be advocating a return to the monachy?

Are you saying that the Bolshevik revolution DIDN"T lead to one of the most murderous regimes in world history?

[Diclotican]

20. Cobalt1999

Cobalt1999

I have to politely disagree, if you had read the Romanov Dynasty from the first Romanov Prince, to the last Monarch who was Tsar of whole of Russia, you would find many princes and Emperors who was brutal, who murdered thousands of people over more than 500 year.. Of course each monark had not the possibility of killing so many as Josef Stalin did in the 30 year reign he had from 1928 till 1953...But still the Romanov Dynasty had their share of bleeding out of the russian populace who until 1917 was still 99 percent peasants.. And the last emperor, Nicolai 2 of Russia, was a man who was no less bloody when it came to how to treat his enemies than the rest of the Romanov Dynasty have been for more than 500 year..

But, in the end the russian people get enough, they was demonstrating already in 1905, the russian government at the time decided to shot Innocent persons, farmers, and city dwellers down by force... And as a result, the Great Russian Revolution started a couple of year after... Even that from the 1860s, it was clear that Russia was in need of reforms.. But no one in power was really sure how to do it, and they who had all the responsibility to govern believed until few year before the revolution, that the russian peasantry, would never stand up, and revolt...

The 1917 revolution was most of all, revolution to stop the russian war with Germany, who for the russian part had been waged very bad. The russian empire was in no shape to wage a war with the modern Germany. They had not the weapons, not the industry and most of all, not enough able commanders on the ground.. In 1917 most of russia was in shambles. Millions was starwing because the transport sector had almost gone.. Millions of russians was prisoners in Germany, and many russians was displaced and was starwing to death.. The whole country of Imperial Russia was more or less collapsing.. Even as the emperor was partying and outside the Winter Palace a whole City was crumbling by hes feet... And he was NOT interesting in real reform, Not before WW1 and not under WW1.. In fact he believed until he was killed that He was the divine ruler of Russia, and that No one was daring to try to stop him from govern directly from St.Petersburg...

And for the record.. The firs 1917 uprising and revolution was not the same as the Bolsheviks was staging some time after. The first revolution was there to stop the was, send the armies home again, and give the people a Chance to have bread and peace.. Lenin himself was telling the whole Russia, that regardless of the cost, Russia have to make peace with Germany.. And peace they got finally in 1917... But the other Revolution, that was the Bolshevik revolution, the November Revolution, who was disbanding all the other parties, and the civil was who was staring between the "red" and the "white" aka the communist, and the former imperial soldiers was stating.. It was not stooping before 1923, and for many years the scars of both the civil war, and off course the Stalin policy in large parts of Russia was punishing the russian people hard... And as Russia was coming out of the ashes again, and was starting to make progress, even under Stain. A man named Hitler decided to go to war With Soviet Russia.. Because he believed the russians to be inferior, and that Stalin and the whole Soviet experiment was ready to be knocked down...
I guess he was wrong, 4 year after, the russians was knocking on his Berlin doors, and the 3 Reich was dead.... With more than 50 millions dead as an resolt..

And off course we had that little thing named the COLD WAR because the US, the UK, the French, and the Russia's was not going alone after WW 2

Stalin was bad, no doubt about it.. But Tsar Nicolai II of Russia was no good man either. Both was bad, and in any cases, the russians paid a high price for it..

Diclotican

[MadMaddie]

23. Nice historical perspective

Thanks for sharing.

[Diclotican]

28. MadMaddie

MadMaddie

Just trying my best.. After all, I like history;)

Diclotican

[cobalt1999]

27. I'm not defending the rule of the Romanov's.

Both were oppressive regimes, Stalin just took it to a whole new level of conquest and murder that the Romanov's could only dream of.

In fact, I think Stalin learned a valuable lesson from the revolution and the murder of the Romanov's.

He learned that the Romanov's weren't oppressive enough. They let themselves get out of power and got themselves killed for abdicating.

Stalin was never going repeat that mistake and let the population have a chance to kill him. Oppress, terrorize, and randomly kill as many as possible in order to never let what happened to the Romanov's happen to him.

[Diclotican]

52. cobalt1999

cobalt1999

I agree with you, both regimes was oppressive, and both was bad for the russian peopole.. But Stalin took it to a whole new level and was not good in the 30 year he more or less ruled Russia as an Tsar... I for one think of him as the last of the Tsars.. Even that he was not a king...

Stalin learned a lot both from the revolution, and from the killing of the last Romanovs.. But the interesting part is that the russian people after so many year of oppression get their hatered to the Romanovs.. Many who not managed to flee the country, with or withouth the valuables was killed, or at least put into the first camps the soviet was building.. Many was older prison systems from the Romanov dynasty. Stalin was not the first to put pepole in camps, but he was builing them out to something that the old Tsar would never belive it to be....

Wel, Stalin was little paranoid if I might say so. So he would have been a oppressive leader whatever the outcome of the last family to rule Russia as monarcks would have been.. And Stalin was randomly killing, oppresive and terrorize as many as posible just to be on the "safe" side. But you can say so at he wanted to be sure that it never happenend to him, what happend to the Romanov's.. Have never thought about it that way before...

Diclotican

[readmoreoften]

37. There's no evidence anyone ORDERED this killing. It could've been pissed off soldiers who lost their

children. And Stalin has nothing to do with this. It's like blaming W. for Iran-Contra.

[Sugarcoated]

41. I thought it was because the White army was closing in

and the Bolsheviks, if not Lenin himself, gave the order.

[readmoreoften]

42. Who the hell knows. Honestly. I don't care. It's sad. But it's war.

Look at what happened to the sweet little Paris Commune who overthrew their Royals in a velvet revolution, so careful to be kind to them in order to look humane in the eyes of the world. And what happened? The Royals conspired with the PRUSSIAN ARMY INVADERS to slaughter 30K communards despite their non-violence and despite the peace treaty. It's tragic. Perhaps the Tsar's children should've been exiled. But we're really monday morning quarterbacking a situation we didn't live through and there is ZERO doubt in my mind that CNN's goal is red-baiting.

[cali]

45. had to be killed? What a crock.

And what came after Czarist Russia was just as bad.

[14thColony]

53. Well, at least he admits it was murder....

That's some consolation I suppose.

[Raine]

19. THANKS for posting this

I've always found this fascinating, what with the imposters and all.

[Diclotican]

21. eppur_se_muova

eppur_se_muova

Nothing new there.. Have been a "fact" for many, many year this... That the Bolsheviks in early 1920s was killing the last imperial family.. In Yekaterinburg.. But off course it is always interesting to se it by DNA too...

And to point it out.. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia for more than 500 year in 1917,and since the 1850s not been doing to much to reform the empire and the whole way of how the country was ruled..

And in 1917, after a horrible failed war in WW1 the russian people got enough.. And was revolting against their leaders.

Diclotican

[Mudoria]

43. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[eppur_se_muova]

54. Because the two children's bodies were separated from the others,

there was rampant speculation that somehow or other they had escaped the massacre, and "lost heirs" to the Russian throne kept popping up. The DNA tests are the final rebut to the many would-be imposters who have appeared over the years. Even if they had no hope of gaining any kind of political power, many managed to gain the financial support of royalist sympathizers, and lived as "royalty in exile".

see my earlier post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=34598&mesg_id=34598

This has strengthened my opinion expressed in the last paragraph of that post, re the would-be "Alexei".

[readmoreoften]

36. Wow, look at the Russian soldiers he sent to die. I wonder why folks were pissed.

Not that there are family portraits of the babies the Tsar starved to death with his policies.

[mitchum]

49. Good...that's a very effective way of stopping that "restoration of the throne" nonsense