Germany's ex-royals want their riches back

[Cordel One]

Citation needed for that second claim

I don't think NS moderation would let me get away with quoting the book itself given the description is graphic, but The Many Deaths of Tsar Nicholas II: Relics, Remains and the Romanovs (page 9) gets into one of the instances where the Tsarina's body was desecrated.

I don't need (or want) any graphic descriptions, just a credible source.

[Atheris]

Pretty much the whole thing was based on real events.

Yeah, but the Beria scene I mean not even Khrushchev could put Beria on trial for rape, because it would make more than a few folks in the party apparatus a bit uneasy. It's a feel-good moment that shouldn't be, even if it's a comedy.

No, that actually happened.

Months after Stalin's death, mind you, but it happened nonetheless.

A coup d'état by Nikita Khrushchev, with help from Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov in June 1953, removed Beria from power. He was arrested on charges of 357 counts of rape and treason. He was sentenced to death and was executed on 23 December 1953[...]

[...]Beria and the others were tried by a "special session" (специальное судебное присутствие) of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union on 23 December 1953 with no defence counsel and no right of appeal. Marshal of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.[citation needed]

Beria was found guilty of:

1. Treason. It was alleged that he had maintained secret connections with foreign intelligence services. In particular, attempts to initiate peace talks with Hitler in 1941 through the ambassador of the Kingdom of Bulgaria were classified as treason, though Beria had been acting on the orders of Stalin and Molotov. It was also alleged that Beria, who in 1942 helped organise the defence of the North Caucasus, tried to let the Germans occupy the Caucasus. Beria's suggestion to his assistants that to improve foreign relations it was reasonable to transfer the Kaliningrad Oblast to Germany, part of Karelia to Finland, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic to Romania and the Kuril Islands to Japan also formed part of the allegations against him.

2. Terrorism. Beria's participation in the Purge of the Red Army in 1941 was classified as an act of terrorism.

3. Counter-revolutionary activity during the Russian Civil War. In 1919 Beria worked in the security service of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Beria maintained that he was assigned to that work by the Hummet party, which subsequently merged with the Adalat Party, the Ahrar Party, and the Baku Bolsheviks to establish the Azerbaijan Communist Party.

Beria and all the other defendants were sentenced to death on 23 December 1953, the day of the trial. The other six defendants were shot immediately after the trial ended.[55] Beria was executed separately; he allegedly pleaded on his knees before collapsing to the floor wailing.[56] He was shot through the forehead by General Pavel Batitsky.[57]

[Kubra]

Yeah, but the Beria scene I mean not even Khrushchev could put Beria on trial for rape, because it would make more than a few folks in the party apparatus a bit uneasy. It's a feel-good moment that shouldn't be, even if it's a comedy.

No, that was accurate.

I know he was charged with counter-revolutionary activity and treason, a very meaningless "I don't like this person" charges that was supremely easy to apply, but I don't recall him being charged with rape in rl.
I mean, everyone knew what he did, but the NKVD was big, armed, and finding a rap sheet on any of them would have been a matter of naming a heinous crime at random and charging them with it, as it would probably be true and relatively easy to prove even in a real court. Better to let Beria and a few others take the fall without riling the whole lot up.

[Punished UMN]

An eye for an eye and the world goes blind. Plus, whatever came after killed many more people than the Tsars ever did.

None of this justifies the actions of the Tsars.

That's not the point of it though, the point is that the level of retribution against the Russian imperial family rises well-above the level of justice. One could potentially justify the execution of Nicholas for the consequences of his leadership, and even against the Empress for her actions as regent during the First World War (though imo the lack of malice and aforethought to those crimes should exclude execution), but the murder of the Romanov children and the servants was clearly not motivated by any attempt at justice and betrays the actual purpose of the execution, which was to ensure the status quo could never be restored. It was politically, rather than judicially motivated. I do not understand communists (mainly of the online variety) who take pride in this, certainly it was not something that the Bolsheviks themselves took pride in (it was not even admitted for several years) or that the Communist movement internationally took pride in (Mao Zedong thought it showed a failure of Russian communists), so that many online tankies meme about it shows that these online tankies are not serious about communist thought and are too focused on the shock value of embracing the excesses of revolutionary atrocities, even if the people who committed these atrocities themselves may have viewed them as excessive or only regrettably necessary.

[Ifreann]

What was unjust about the seizure?

Greed and Death has pretty much covered this already, but to reiterate, the private property of the House of Hohenzollern was seized without due cause by a totalitarian regime of somewhat dubious legal legitimacy,

The Potsdam agreement wasn't legal?

and the current German government refuses to return their property despite having returned the property of other families in similar situations on the grounds that one member of the family previously gave "substantial support" to the Nazis. This is unfair because Crown Prince Wilhelm was only one member of the family and other members of the family were openly opposed to the Nazi regime,

And it was Crown Prince Wilhelm's property that was taken and is not being returned. For all the talk of what has been taken from the family, I'm not aware of there being any such entity in law as the House of Hohenzollern which owns property and has rights pertaining to that property that could have been violated.

many other Germans whose ancestors supported or participated in the Nazi Party (and its totalitarian socialist successor in East Germany) have not lost their family's inherited properties as a consequence of it, and although Wilhelm's support for the Nazis is certainly distasteful he was doing nothing illegal by supporting them at the time.

I'm sure it wasn't illegal to support the Nazis during their rise to power and the early days of their regime. I imagine it also wasn't illegal for property to be expropriated under the GDR. Seems like it also isn't illegal for the modern German state not to return such expropriated properties in certain circumstances.

It might be different if there was evidence that Wilhelm had actually participated in some way in crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis, but all he is accused of doing is supporting them during their rise to power. The Hohenzollerns and likely many other families in comparable situations are being held to an unreasonable standard.

The Prinz von Preußen family isn't being held to any standard at all. That they don't get Crown Prince Wilhelm's stuff isn't any kind of judgement on them. Though it's certainly not a good look for Georg Friedrich to be trying to take these cultural treasures into his own private ownership.

Rather, it is the notion that their blood is royal and not just the same heart juice as anyone else that we object to.

If that were really the case then people would not have repeatedly attacked the Hohenzollerns specifically on the basis of their royal status in this thread, but argued purely about the legality of seizing their property and then failing to return it as they would if the litigants were anyone else. As it stands, it is fairly clear that people in this thread largely do not believe that formerly reigning royal families should be treated like anyone else, but rather that they ought to be subject to special punitive measures simply because of their descent. You might not have made such an argument yourself, but don't pretend that other posters have not.

People shittalking the remnants of Germany's monarchy aren't seriously proposing to punish them for the crime of having the wrong parents. People might well want royalty to lose all their palaces and treasures, but that's not really a punishment, that's a correction of a historical injustice.

---

^This to be honest. To the point of absurdity and being unhinged. "They should be lucky they are alive or allowed to live in the countries that got rid of them" is also just lmfao.

some people have an irrational hatred of people who were victims of communists.

cant understand why.

How is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen the victim of communists? He was born in West Germany in the 70s, are we to believe that the KGB bullied him in school or something?

[No State Here]

None of this justifies the actions of the Tsars.

That's not the point of it though, the point is that the level of retribution against the Russian imperial family rises well-above the level of justice. One could potentially justify the execution of Nicholas for the consequences of his leadership, and even against the Empress for her actions as regent during the First World War (though imo the lack of malice and aforethought to those crimes should exclude execution), but the murder of the Romanov children and the servants was clearly not motivated by any attempt at justice and betrays the actual purpose of the execution, which was to ensure the status quo could never be restored. It was politically, rather than judicially motivated. I do not understand communists (mainly of the online variety) who take pride in this, certainly it was not something that the Bolsheviks themselves took pride in (it was not even admitted for several years) or that the Communist movement internationally took pride in (Mao Zedong thought it showed a failure of Russian communists), so that many online tankies meme about it shows that these online tankies are not serious about communist thought and are too focused on the shock value of embracing the excesses of revolutionary atrocities, even if the people who committed these atrocities themselves may have viewed them as excessive or only regrettably necessary.

IIRC Mao wanted to embrace Puyi and turn him communist to show the world that his brand of communism could even turn the last monarchs, specifically as a way to "own" the Soviets

[Kubra]

That's not the point of it though, the point is that the level of retribution against the Russian imperial family rises well-above the level of justice. One could potentially justify the execution of Nicholas for the consequences of his leadership, and even against the Empress for her actions as regent during the First World War (though imo the lack of malice and aforethought to those crimes should exclude execution), but the murder of the Romanov children and the servants was clearly not motivated by any attempt at justice and betrays the actual purpose of the execution, which was to ensure the status quo could never be restored. It was politically, rather than judicially motivated. I do not understand communists (mainly of the online variety) who take pride in this, certainly it was not something that the Bolsheviks themselves took pride in (it was not even admitted for several years) or that the Communist movement internationally took pride in (Mao Zedong thought it showed a failure of Russian communists), so that many online tankies meme about it shows that these online tankies are not serious about communist thought and are too focused on the shock value of embracing the excesses of revolutionary atrocities, even if the people who committed these atrocities themselves may have viewed them as excessive or only regrettably necessary.

IIRC Mao wanted to embrace Puyi and turn him communist to show the world that his brand of communism could even turn the last monarchs, specifically as a way to "own" the Soviets

That was kind of a chinese thing tho, setting up the outgoing dynasty with someplace comfy but powerless legitimised the power of the incoming one. Er, so I'm told.

[The Marlborough]

^This to be honest. To the point of absurdity and being unhinged. "They should be lucky they are alive or allowed to live in the countries that got rid of them" is also just lmfao.

They're lucky they didn't get Romamnov'd. These people are in no way entitled to any of these riches, but maybe if they beg they can get an heirloom or two.

Kind of hilarious coming from the guy claiming his politics stems from a sense of empathy lmao. The politics of envy has a tendency to result in this kinds of unhinged hot takes however. *insert shame emoji meme here*

[The Marlborough]

That's not the point of it though, the point is that the level of retribution against the Russian imperial family rises well-above the level of justice. One could potentially justify the execution of Nicholas for the consequences of his leadership, and even against the Empress for her actions as regent during the First World War (though imo the lack of malice and aforethought to those crimes should exclude execution), but the murder of the Romanov children and the servants was clearly not motivated by any attempt at justice and betrays the actual purpose of the execution, which was to ensure the status quo could never be restored. It was politically, rather than judicially motivated. I do not understand communists (mainly of the online variety) who take pride in this, certainly it was not something that the Bolsheviks themselves took pride in (it was not even admitted for several years) or that the Communist movement internationally took pride in (Mao Zedong thought it showed a failure of Russian communists), so that many online tankies meme about it shows that these online tankies are not serious about communist thought and are too focused on the shock value of embracing the excesses of revolutionary atrocities, even if the people who committed these atrocities themselves may have viewed them as excessive or only regrettably necessary.

IIRC Mao wanted to embrace Puyi and turn him communist to show the world that his brand of communism could even turn the last monarchs, specifically as a way to "own" the Soviets

Mao in general preferred this over executing people. Kind of sad that Mao arguably has a much better moral character than a lot of online communists, especially ITT.

[Cordel One]

They're lucky they didn't get Romamnov'd. These people are in no way entitled to any of these riches, but maybe if they beg they can get an heirloom or two.

Kind of hilarious coming from the guy claiming his politics stems from a sense of empathy lmao. The politics of envy has a tendency to result in this kinds of unhinged hot takes however. *insert shame emoji meme here*

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

[Loben III]

Kind of hilarious coming from the guy claiming his politics stems from a sense of empathy lmao. The politics of envy has a tendency to result in this kinds of unhinged hot takes however. *insert shame emoji meme here*

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

even if they were communists?

[Cordel One]

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

even if they were communists?

Communists don't selfishly cause mass suffering, counterrevolutionary opportunists do.

[Loben III]

even if they were communists?

Communists don't selfishly cause mass suffering, counterrevolutionary opportunists do.

ok so just making this clear for everyone else in the thread, your arguments shouldnt be taken seriously in this thread.

would that be a fair assessment?

[Kubra]

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

even if they were communists?

I really don't want to join the whole "let's see how close we can get to advocating death before the mods step in" schtick going on and also show trials are generally bad.
but I don't think anyone would object that Beria got what was coming to him.

[Cordel One]

Communists don't selfishly cause mass suffering, counterrevolutionary opportunists do.

ok so just making this clear for everyone else in the thread, your arguments shouldnt be taken seriously in this thread.

would that be a fair assessment?

The only thing that assessment would truly say is that you have no idea what communism is.

even if they were communists?

I really don't want to join the whole "let's see how close we can get to advocating death before the mods step in" schtick going on and also show trials are generally bad.
but I don't think anyone would object that Beria got what was coming to him.

Show trials and the Soviet oligarchs were definitely bad.

[Loben III]

even if they were communists?

I really don't want to join the whole "let's see how close we can get to advocating death before the mods step in" schtick going on and also show trials are generally bad.
but I don't think anyone would object that Beria got what was coming to him.

of course he did, but Cordel said that he supports the death penalty for those who Selfishly cause mass suffering.

i was trying to see how consistent he is.

[Loben III]

ok so just making this clear for everyone else in the thread, your arguments shouldnt be taken seriously in this thread.

would that be a fair assessment?

The only thing that assessment would truly say is that you have no idea what communism is.

probably a firmer grasp on the practicality of it then most first time readers of Das Kapital.

[Cordel One]

The only thing that assessment would truly say is that you have no idea what communism is.

probably a firmer grasp on the practicality of it then most first time readers of Das Kapital.

It takes a real ignorance of both history and ideology to maintain that "firm grasp" of yours.

[Loben III]

probably a firmer grasp on the practicality of it then most first time readers of Das Kapital.

It takes a real ignorance of both history and ideology to maintain that "firm grasp" of yours.

ok.

[Kubra]

ok fellas calm your jets, this is a bit of a dangerous digression from the topic.

[Loben III]

ok fellas calm your jets, this is a bit of a dangerous digression from the topic.

and i truly believe that the Hohenzollerns should get their property back from the thieves who stole it from them under dubious pretenses.

[Cordel One]

ok fellas calm your jets, this is a bit of a dangerous digression from the topic.

You're right, we should probably go back to discussing the royals.

[Punished UMN]

Kind of hilarious coming from the guy claiming his politics stems from a sense of empathy lmao. The politics of envy has a tendency to result in this kinds of unhinged hot takes however. *insert shame emoji meme here*

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

The problem with this applied to politics though is that, without an intimate knowledge of a political figure, it's difficult to ascertain what is selfish, malicious, or just incompetence or neglect. And then you have to take into account social conditioning and how that can affect people's character.

[Cordel One]

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

The problem with this applied to politics though is that, without an intimate knowledge of a political figure, it's difficult to ascertain what is selfish, malicious, or just incompetence or neglect. And then you have to take into account social conditioning and how that can affect people's character.

That is true.

[Loben III]

I do support the death penalty for those who selfishly caused mass suffering.

The problem with this applied to politics though is that, without an intimate knowledge of a political figure, it's difficult to ascertain what is selfish, malicious, or just incompetence or neglect. And then you have to take into account social conditioning and how that can affect people's character.

would you say that the Tsar was merely incompetent?