Vladimir Lenin: A Monster or a Product of His Time and Circumstances?

[wellwisher]

^This. A sick psychopath responsible for an ocean of blood. I spit on his memory. They need to chuck that gross husk of his in Red Square into the garbage.

The American revolution was in 1776, while Lenin and Stalin is more early 1900's. The change from monarchy rule to a more free society was not new, by the time of Lenin and Stalin. All Lenin and Stalin became, were the changing of the monarchy guard, into a new type of atheist monarchy, instead of a new way.

The modern Left in America is still looking for guidelines, from Lenin and Stalin, for a changing of the guard back to a Lefty led monarchy of dual standards, injustice, and prison camps; Jan 6. Ronald Reagan, would cause a transformation of Russia, in a more sportsman like way, that caused the Imperialist Soviet Union to dismantle, all without war, chaos and civilian casualties. The Left still hates Reagan for that, since they still find inspiration through the atrocities of Lenin and Stalin; power without brains or hearts, that allows the even dumbest and cruelest leaders to rule, while propaganda sycophants buff it up.

In America, the Democrats party is trying to purge America of the Confederate symbols to the Old Democrat party, while trying to detach themselves from what they still are. They should do the same for Lenin and Stalin instead of glorify them for outdated views that prove to be lures back to monarchy rule.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lenin is also considered a monster and anti-christ by feudalist lords and capitalists around the world for reducing their abundant profits and ultra-luxurious lifestyle in favor....

Lenin never harmed my profits.
Belief he had a good cause is forgivable, but it's
no excuse for human rights violations. Monster.

 

[Stevicus]

In 1918 the Ottomans and Germany were already on their knees.
I don't think they would have ever prevented the czar and his family from fleeing from Russia.
I think they couldn't care less.

Let's face the truth: the Leninist murderous complex did prevent them from quitting Russia, they incarcerated them in Siberia and then murdered them.

In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and agreed to terms which were extremely unfavorable to Russia. The Germans still occupied a large portion of Russia at the time, and many were still there at the time of the Russian Civil War. Germany and Turkey may have been on their knees, but Russia was lying prone on the ground.

The Tsar was overthrown in March 1917 but wasn't sent to Siberia until August 1917. He was sent by the Provisional Government, not the Bolsheviks, who didn't get until power until November 1917. The Tsar and his family were transferred from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg in April 1918. There was obviously a certain point where leaving Russia was no longer an option, but they did have a chance for quite some time before that door was finally closed. It wasn't that "no one allowed them to leave," but that no one would accept them. You said that Elena of Montenegro offered to take them in, which is why I was asking for details.

I'm not disputing the fact that they were murdered by the Bolsheviks, though there apparently was a great deal of discussion among them before the decision was actually reached. It wasn't something they did impulsively or arbitrarily, although I'm not suggesting that makes it right.

As I mentioned earlier, it probably would have been better to put Nicholas on trial. It's all history now.

If it's any consolation, Lenin didn't last long after liquidating the Romanovs.

 

[Eddi]

Vladimir Lenin: A Monster or a Product of His Time and Circumstances?​

Both?

 

[Estro Felino]

In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and agreed to terms which were extremely unfavorable to Russia. The Germans still occupied a large portion of Russia at the time, and many were still there at the time of the Russian Civil War. Germany and Turkey may have been on their knees, but Russia was lying prone on the ground.

The Tsar was overthrown in March 1917 but wasn't sent to Siberia until August 1917. He was sent by the Provisional Government, not the Bolsheviks, who didn't get until power until November 1917. The Tsar and his family were transferred from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg in April 1918. There was obviously a certain point where leaving Russia was no longer an option, but they did have a chance for quite some time before that door was finally closed. It wasn't that "no one allowed them to leave," but that no one would accept them. You said that Elena of Montenegro offered to take them in, which is why I was asking for details.

From Carskoe Selo to Tobolsk they were political prisoners.
A political prisoner cannot leave the country.
In no moment they were free to leave the country.
I had told you to watch that movie...it explains it all.

I'm not disputing the fact that they were murdered by the Bolsheviks, though there apparently was a great deal of discussion among them before the decision was actually reached. It wasn't something they did impulsively or arbitrarily, although I'm not suggesting that makes it right.

As I mentioned earlier, it probably would have been better to put Nicholas on trial. It's all history now.

Killing Aleksei who was doomed to die young for hemophilia,...well...reveals their demonic nature.
I don't think the four Archduchesses had done anything wrong in their lives.

If it's any consolation, Lenin didn't last long after liquidating the Romanovs.

Godly Justice operated to punish evil.

 

[Stevicus]

From Carskoe Selo to Tobolsk they were political prisoners.
A political prisoner cannot leave the country.
In no moment they were free to leave the country.
I had told you to watch that movie...it explains it all.

As for the movie, I haven't had time. I was just asking a few questions which you could have answered in a few lines: What date was the offer of asylum made and what was the response?

However, it's simply not correct when you say "in no moment they were free to leave the country":

Nicholas II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Possibility of exile​

Both the Provisional Government and Nicholas wanted the royal family to go into exile following his abdication, with the United Kingdom being the preferred option.[116] The British government reluctantly offered the family asylum on 19 March 1917, although it was suggested that it would be better for the Romanovs to go to a neutral country. News of the offer provoked uproar from the Labour Party and many Liberals, and the British ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, advised the government that the extreme left would use the ex-tsar's presence "as an excuse for rousing public opinion against us".[117] The Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, preferred that the family went to a neutral country, and wanted the offer to be announced as at the request of the Russian government.[118] The offer of asylum was withdrawn in April following objections by King George V, who, acting on the advice of his secretary, Lord Stamfordham, was worried that Nicholas's presence might provoke an uprising like the previous year's Easter Rising in Ireland. However, later the king defied his secretary and went to the Romanov memorial service at the Russian Church in London.[119] In the early summer of 1917, the Russian government approached the British government on the issue of asylum and was informed the offer had been withdrawn due to the considerations of British internal politics.[120]

The French government declined to accept the Romanovs in view of increasing unrest on the Western Front and on the home front as a result of the ongoing war with Germany.[121][122] The British ambassador in Paris, Lord Bertie, advised the Foreign Secretary that the Romanovs would be unwelcome in France as the ex-empress was regarded as pro-German.[117]

Even if an offer of asylum had been forthcoming, there would have been other obstacles to be overcome. The Provisional Government only remained in power through an uneasy alliance with the Petrograd Soviet, an arrangement known as "The Dual power". An initial plan to send the imperial family to the northern port of Murmansk had to be abandoned when it was realised that the railway workers and the soldiers guarding them were loyal to the Petrograd Soviet, which opposed the escape of the tsar; a later proposal to send the Romanovs to a neutral port in the Baltic Sea via the Grand Duchy of Finland faced similar difficulties.[123]

Kerensky wanted to get them out and was more than willing to let them leave, but it wasn't possible. That's why I wanted to know when the offer from Elena of Montenegro was made, whether it was before or after the fall of the Kerensky government.

Killing Aleksei who was doomed to die young for hemophilia,...well...reveals their demonic nature.
I don't think the four Archduchesses had done anything wrong in their lives.

I agree, but their fear was that one of the heirs to the throne might restore the monarchy, which is what happened in Britain after their civil war in the 17th century, and it happened in France after the French Revolution, when the House of Bourbon was restored in 1830. If monarchs didn't keep trying to restore the monarchy, then they probably could have been saved.

They thought they had royal blood (which is supposedly different from ordinary human blood). They also seemed to believe that the monarch was chosen by God. To me, such presumptions could be considered even more demonic.

Godly Justice operated to punish evil.

The monarchs who led the world into the Great War were practicing evil. They didn't have to do that, but because of their arrogance, intransigence, and greed, they chose to embark on a reckless course which brought their dynasties and wrecked their nations. Tsar Nicholas was just as responsible as anyone else for the rise of Lenin (and by extension, Stalin). Likewise, Kaiser Wilhelm was just as responsible for the rise of Hitler as anyone else. If God chose them to rule, then God chose badly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lenin is also considered a monster and anti-christ by feudalist lords and capitalists around the world for reducing their abundant profits and ultra-luxurious lifestyle in favor of better worker and peasant wages and conditions, and forcing them to get off their high horses to behave in a more humane, caring and charitable manner to the 'despicable' lower classes so as to prevent an outbreak of revolution in their respective regions.

What a bunch of nonsense! Care to try your hand at making Pol Pot sound like a kind, compassionate ruler next?!

 

[Debater Slayer]

What a bunch of nonsense! Care to try your hand at making Pol Pot sound like a kind, compassionate ruler next?!

Noam Chomsky initially denied the genocide committed by Pol Pot before more evidence came out confirming that Pol Pot was indeed a genocidal despot.

I actually sympathize with many of the anti-imperialist and pro-worker sentiments that are common among communist and other far-left circles (even though I don't subscribe to any far-left ideologies myself), but unfortunately, some leftists overcompensate and hyper-correct to the point of swinging their pendulum way too far in one direction. I find this to be most noticeable in some leftists' defense of the policies of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., which were egregiously inhumane, murderous, and, at least in Stalin's case, imperialist in their own way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Noam Chomsky initially denied the genocide committed by Pol Pot before more evidence came out confirming that Pol Pot was indeed a genocidal despot.

I actually sympathize with many of the anti-imperialist and pro-worker sentiments that are common among communist and other far-left circles (even though I don't subscribe to any far-left ideologies myself), but unfortunately, some leftists overcompensate and hyper-correct to the point of swinging their pendulum way too far in one direction. I find this to be most noticeable in some leftists' defense of the policies of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., which were egregiously inhumane, murderous, and, at least in Stalin's case, imperialist in their own way.

I was an active Maoist working my way through the complete works of Lenin in the late 60's -- a fact which is more than a little embarrassing.