Amateurs Unravel Russia’s Last Royal Mystery

[DesertFox]

YEKATERINBURG, Russia — On the outskirts of this burly industrial center, off a road like any other, on a nowhere scrap of land — here unfolded the final act of one of the last century’s most momentous events.

The new remains were 70 yards from the first burial site.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/25/world/25czar.600.jpg

Czar Nicholas II of Russia, his wife, Alexandra, wearing crown, and their children in 1914, four years before they were killed. There is no truth to the rumor that Wolfcounsel lived in the basement. He actually lived in the storm cellar.

A short way through a clearing, toward a cluster of birch trees, the killers deposited their victims’ bodies, which had been mutilated, burned and doused with acid to mask their origins. It would be 73 more years, in 1991, before the remains would be reclaimed and the announcement would ring out: the grave of the last Russian czar, Nicholas II, and his family had been found.

But the story does not end there. ...

“This brings closure to a very sad chapter in Russian history,” said Peter Sarandinaki, an American of Russian descent who started an organization to help find the remains and had conducted several searches here. “It is because their murder symbolizes the start of a diabolic era in world history. And now that has all come to an end.”

More (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/world/europe/25czar.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=todayspaper)

[Wolfcounsel]

I would have executed only the persons responsible for any murders of any innocents. I don't see how the children had earned execution. May Lenin burn in Hell forever trapped in that stinking, embalmed body.

[aaron11]

Sick sumbitches...

[ThomasMore]

Anyone who thinks the Commies got nasty because it was the only way to achieve their goals, should look at this.

The mindset that believes that people can be reshaped at will, and who have the arrogance to believe that they are the ones to do the reshaping, are usually sociopathic enough to kill small children. This was present at the beginning of Communism.

---

Although this is somewhat off topic, perhaps Nicholas II could have prevented his own destruction. In 1914, Peter N. Durnovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Nikolayevich_Durnovo), a politician and lawyer, wrote a now-famous memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II, warning him that war between England and Germany was brewing, and that if Russia chose sides, it should side with Germany -- siding with England would cause Russia's destruction.

Here are excerpts of P.N. Durnovo's remarkable Memorandum to the Tsar (http://www.stetson.edu/%7Epsteeves/classes/durnovo.html):

The central factor of the period of world history through which we are now passing is the rivalry between England and Germany. This rivalry must inevitably lead to an armed struggle between them, the issue of which will, in all probability, prove fatal to the vanquished side. The interests of these two powers are far too incompatible, and their simultaneous existence as world powers will sooner or later prove impossible. On the one hand, there is an insular State, whose world importance rests upon its domination of the sea, its world trade, and its innumerable colonies. On the other, there is a powerful continental empire, whose limited territory is insufficient for an increased population. It has therefore openly and candidly declared that its future is on the seas. It has, with fabulous speed, developed an enormous world commerce, built for its protection a formidable navy, and, with its famous trademark, "Made in Germany," created a mortal danger to the industrial and economic prosperity of its rival. Naturally, England cannot yield without a fight, and between her and Germany a struggle for life or death is inevitable.

...

the future Anglo-German war will undoubtedly be transformed into an armed conflict between two groups of powers, one with a German, the other with an English orientation.

...

From the time of the reign of Emperor Alexander III, Russia had a defensive alliance with France, so firm as to assure common action by both powers in the event of attack upon either, but, at the same time, not so close as to obligate either to support unfailingly, with armed force, all political actions and claims of the ally. At the same time, the Russian Court maintained the traditional friendly relations, based upon ties of blood, with the Court of Berlin. Owing precisely to this conjuncture, peace among the great powers was not disturbed in the course of a great many years, in spite of the presence of abundant combustible material in Europe. France, by her alliance with Russia, was guaranteed against attack by Germany; the latter was safe, thanks to the tried pacifism and friendship of Russia, from revanche [revenge] ambitions on the part of France; and Russia was secured, thanks to Germany's need of maintaining amicable relations with her, against excessive intrigues by Austria-Hungary in the Balkan peninsula. Lastly, England, isolated and held in check by her rivalry with Russia in Persia, by her diplomats' traditional fear of our advance on India, and by strained relations with France...

As we know, all through the Russo-Japanese War, England and America observed benevolent neutrality toward Japan, while we enjoyed a similar benevolent neutrality from France and Germany. Here, it would seem, should have been the inception of the most natural political combination for us. But after the war, our diplomacy faced abruptly about and definitely entered upon the road toward rapprochement with England. France was drawn into the orbit of British policy; there was formed a group of powers of the Triple Entente, with England playing the dominant part; and a clash, sooner or later, with the powers grouping themselves around Germany became inevitable.

...

[T]he Anglo-Russian accord has brought us nothing of practical value up to this time, while for the future, it threatens us with an inevitable armed clash with Germany.The fundamental groupings in a future war are self-evident: Russia, France, and England, on the one side, with Germany, Austria, and Turkey, on the other. It is more than likely that other powers, too, will participate in that war, depending upon circumstances as they may exist at the war's outbreak. But, whether the immediate cause for the war is furnished by another clash of conflicting interests in the Balkans, or by a colonial incident, such as that of Algeciras, the fundamental alignment will remain unchanged....

The main burden of the war will undoubtedly fall on us, since England is hardly capable of taking a considerable part in a continental war, while France, poor in man power, will probably adhere to strictly defensive tactics, in view of the enormous losses by which war will be attended under present conditions of military technique. The part of a battering ram, making a breach in the very thick of the German defense, will be ours, with many factors against us to which we shall have to devote great effort and attention.


From the sum of these unfavorable factors we should deduct the Far East. Both America and Japan—the former fundamentally, and the latter by virtue of her present political orientation—are hostile to Germany, and there is no reason to expect them to act on the German side. Further more, the war, regardless of its issue, will weaken Russia and divert her attention to the West, a fact which, of course, serves both Japanese and American interests.

...

Are we prepared for so stubborn a war as the future war of the European nations will undoubtedly become? This question we must answer, without evasion, in the negative.

...

[O]ur young legislative institutions...have taken a dilettante interest in our defenses, but are far from grasping the seriousness of the political situation arising from the new orientation...[Our defense preparation] is quite inadequate considering the unprecedented scale on which a future war will inevitably be fought... Another circumstance unfavorable to our defense is its far too great dependence, generally speaking, upon foreign industry...The network of strategic railways is inadequate...Every previous war has invariably been followed by something new in the realm of military technique, but the technical backwardness of our industries does not create favorable conditions for our adoption of the new inventions.

...

The vital interests of Russia and Germany do not conflict. There are fundamental grounds for a peaceable existence of these two States. Germany's future lies on the sea, that is, in a realm where Russia, essentially the most continental of the great powers, has no interests whatever. We have no overseas colonies, and shall probably never have them, and communication between the various parts of our empire is easier overland than by water. No surplus population demanding territorial expansion is visible, but, even from the viewpoint of new conquests, what can we gain from a victory over Germany, Posen, or East Prussia? But why do we need these regions...?More HERE (http://www.stetson.edu/%7Epsteeves/classes/durnovo.html)

[DesertFox]

The Commies got nasty because they were murderous sons of bitches. Their sanguinary history wasn't necessary, but reflected a simple pathological urge to kill people. That urge didn't let up until Stalin died, and then it took another 35 years for the rotting edifice to crumble to the good earth.

Murder isn't a good base on which to build for the future.

[Venus de Smilo]

Fascinating.

[PaulRevere]

Russia's interest was in protecting Serbia against Austria-Hungary and eclispsing the latter's hegemony over the Balkans. I'm sure that Czar Nicky was well aware that nothing was to be gained from war with Germany.

PS: Mao had over a million landowners murdered so that he could buld communes, and Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and Gypsies. Leftist sociopaths are all about murdering innocents. That's why the left is all for abortion and against the death penalty.