Why it was right to execute Charles I, Tsar Nicholas, and The King and Queen of France.

Why it was right to execute the tsar and kings

Why it was right to execute King OF France In 1792 and Marie Antoinette, Tsar Nicholas and family, and King Charles and Mussolini, or at least punish,

It is right to punish criminals,

They were criminals

The king of France of 1792, deserved the punishment of the time, because, he was a traitor. Not only was he a dictator who held back reforms, and led a regime which shot protesters against his regime, and took loads of cash corruptly for himself. In huge amounts. Indeed more money was taken by the state via tax off the people for himselves, than on the poor, in a year of famine.

The reason for his execution was that he was a horrific version of a traitor. (not that traitors should always be executed). He believed in feudalism and slavery, and all sorts of things that were genuinely satanic. And when a regime ousted this, and started abolishing those things, he asked Prussia, And Austria, to invade France and re make him absolute dictator of France. This request caused a war of millions of deaths. The French Revolution saw peasants rebel against a terrible system that caused millions of deaths a decade as of famine. They did not rebel to fight a war aainst Prussia, or Austria, The king then decided that he would cause a war to keep the serfs and feudal system, and intense poverty. Prussian tropps started marching into France, and were preepared to do in France what they had done on numerous occasions earlier. I.E oust a pro democracy regime, and install a ancien anti democarcy pro slavery regime. They had earlier done this in the Netherlands and other places very recently. And were in 1790s completing the splitting up of Polamnd, with Russia and Austria,. The king was the cause if this conflict, and so needed to be punished, he wanted his own people to die for his own installation of leader, he wanted foreign troops, foreign troops, for a man who had declatared war on man y foreign lands for France's imperial needs, foreign troops to marching into his capitl and beat his opponents. So he deserved execution. As dud his wife as she said they should invade too. Just like Ceasecu, who lets face it was executed for people less corrupt, and nowhere near as treasonous.

The reason for Charles I execution was also correct.. He was a man that in the mid 1620stookover the country., His first acts as authorities then as king, were to accept the elite elected parliament's wishes for more action against Spain, Both were failed procedures, with massive corruption,. The French escapade was worst of all. Where the king saw parliament have allot of horror at the terrible actions by the French King in La Rochelle. Where most of the population of a town of over 20,000 people died in a siege to crush the Hugenouts. In this the king finally accepted he would send help there. In return for the acceptance by parliament to give him cash, on condition he helped the Protestants. But when he sent help he did this, he sent ships to La Rochelle, but half way through against parliament's wishes stopped spending the money, So the army sent to help the people of La Rochelle, did not have enough equipment and had lacking of ladders and loads of lacking. The reason was that the king decided to send a large lump on a painting for himself. Added to this in Southern England militia law was established with unconstitutional acts of executions and murders by the army. This helped cause anger.
The king stopped finding it easy to realize taxes, as of his increasingly unpopularity. Like being married to a Catholic, and bad foreign policy mistakes, IN Spain, and France, where both were mismanaged terribly by his own advisors, who he had selected. This got him unpopular.
Added to this then, he decided he decided to ignore the parliaments, As the parliament of the French war had become so much against him, and his issues.
So she decided he would rule without parliaments, Parliament since before the 1530s had been seen as a important part of society, and input, as of the way it helped taxation be limited to ways the tax payers wanted. But now the king just started to have arbitrary taxes that were allowed to him, via other laws. From the past. And used them to such a extnet, that if some people did not use their knightoods he would fine them. Almost everything he did was to raise money, partly for state purposes, but partly for his own treasury greed, and Own bling. His policy upset large portuions of the upper class, and middle class. He also upset the lower classes by keepung feudalism, inmtactm, something most lower class people opposed.
Added to this in the 1630s he stopped the fairly open minded attitide to different Protestantism, his father had, not that he was actually open mionded he wanted all people to believ what he did. Well what happened was he attacked the Puritans,
Catholics had always been killed and executed sincve the 1530s by the state ion low numbers now, 1 jesuit very decade, or so, And Elizabeth I had let some Dutch Protestants die in her jails, in very unfair ways.
In the 1630-42 era, 10s of people were jailed for unfair political reasons, or mutilated, Some for critising the King's family, and some for different beliefs, Lilburne the great Leveller, had to march
100s were jailed or massively fined in 1630s for religious reasons,
andf many sacked, and such, or bullied,
With many's olwn way of worshipping onoffesnively banned,
So
100s more arrested for refusing what were seen really as illegal, taxes, which is high, for a not that mnay taxed society,
As the poor were so unfree, and unpowerful they were too poor to be taxed,
This does not include arrests for witches, it's an interesting little mentioned, fact, that some witches were just fined for being witches, and some were burned
And gays, etc. were also punished at times though, but they were less well known a subject,
There were also monopolies holding back trade,
It is fair to say the monopolies upped in the 1630s, and these were unfair on the lower class untaxed people most, As they were always to get cash for the king, And the king would say you must make sure you pay me, a big sum, and also make sure the cost of the item goes down, and the quality up, actually almost always cost went up, quality down, and his money up, So goods from soap to bricks in many parts of England and Wales were monopoly, A big example was how when Cornwall's tin mine monopoly ended in the 1650s, the tin industry boomed, And wages went up,
Or how soap on the monopoly was more expensive chafed people's hands.
This was what made him lose allot of lower class support, aswell as his links with Catholicism, and attacks on popular propagandizing Puritans, of which
So . 20/27,000Puritan Protestants, exiled/banished by intolerance, in England
The state caused in 1625-42 via this deaths from many Puritans on ships leaving, and in prisons, so at least 100s of deaths. The intolerent king and his archbishop's attacks on Puritans even caused riots in the Channels Islands, and much misery.
He carried on the colonising of Ireland, what his father had started, where many people were pushed. So chucking Irish people off many areas. But has to be said he did slow this down a bit, But he did have a leader there, who opposed Irish people on the whole, agai8nst English people. And was still evicting Irish people from certain places. Added to this it was his father who started the colonisation, following the failed colonisations of Elizabeth, though she had brutally conquerred Ireland in a disgusting evil way that all decent people should be ashamed of,.
The king's regime whipped Lilburne through the streets of London, to a populace shocked at this, and gagged him at court as of his contrary beliefs to the king's regime
As walking he handed equivalents of leaflets to pedestrians, , suppoting his ideas. He was a republican.
Added to this the worst thing the king diod was in Scotland. Where he tried to make a genuinly independant country change it';s religon, He rarely visited the land where eh was born in, and almost certainoly did not consider himself very Scottish,. When he saw the Presbyterian sermons, he decidced he did not like then, so he tried to make the Scogts do his prayer book not Scotland's..l This bigoted arrogant acta provoked a rebellion in Dscotland by e3ssentially the whole poipulace. The king then did something he had arrogantly been ignoring for long. He called a parliament this parliament opposed the raising of a army ion many ways, to invade, and many opposed the king's plea for tacx jt to invade Scotland to install his religious beliefs. The money given saw the arjmy fail, and Scotland actually took North Eastern England, Then the English Cicil war started between Parliament whioch was for a fairer society, backed by much of the people, and anti monopoly, pro religious toleration, and sadly anti Catholic interests. This then saw the war see the parliament constantly call for peace, and deals, of wanting some kind of deal, and the king wanting to just crush his enemies. At the startr hthe king was winningm, but thehn London cash and a alliance with the Scottish armty saw the Parliament win. Parliament tried to make a deal with the king, very good for him, which even his supporters liked, But insetas the king went to war AGAIN, So in the first place he had caused so much harm, then started another war. Many of those Proestants in Ultser, were Scots who left Scotland, as of his regime, attackin thei religon, and as of attacks on the border reivers. And he and his fanily had a histiory of colonising parts of Scotland evicting some people with other clans,
The most amazing things I this, James VI had the Irish Proestants as his allies, and cerrtain chieffs of Protestants noble hierracy tops, but not the Covenanter church hierrarchy , as his allies, in Scotland and Ireland, but in the war these were the 2 people he provoked to be his enemies. While his only true desperate allies were Irish catholics, who his dynasty had oppressed for most of it;s rule, and in the end he betrayed them.
The king actually declared war on Scotkland 3 times, against their will,
First of all in the late 1630s and ally, doing his wants sent an attack on Scotland on the Western Isles, To test. Then in 1639 he invaded and was defeated, both timje firing first.
Then in the early 1640s, Scotland attacked him, allying to the parliament winning the war, But only after huge eveidence that England was agains asking a noble in Ireland, to invade Scotland, This same noble who was preparing an attack, did attack, and caused a war across Scotland massacring Scots from the South West too North East.
Then when parliament was planning another peace move and deal, the king tried to make another war, by trying to make Scotland attack,. Later his son, did that trick. Anyway so he desrrved beiong executed as corrupt, and causing a war, And also his armies comitted miles more massacres thanh the parliamentarians, as of in Scotland and England. And the parliamentarians massacres were mostkly just revenge by Irish Protestants against the understandable massacres against them in Ulster. So he was rrogantly a cause of war opposing freedom, and not willing to deral so needed execution,.

The Tsar Nicholas was right to be executed. Because he was a evil leader. He was dictator who executed many of his people. . He was a anti semite who had a copy of the elders of zion in his room. He crushed the 1905 rebellion when Russian people rebelled against his rule. By executions, and such. He opposed democracy, and destroyed the chamber created to make deal on that issue., ending it's power, when it was a chamber that had been created as a deal to stop the revolution of 1905. If the 1905 revolution had succeeded then ww1 would not have happened, as war the political situation in Europe would be so different. The Tsars greatest evil was to impose slavery on the people of Central Asia half wat WW1, which caused a revolt of 1 million deaths.
The final good reason for his execution was he was a threat to security of the Communist Peoples state. The fact was if he had not been executed he could have been rescused and repout on his evil Throne, then rulinmg as abolsute dictator or fleeing. If he had fled it is very likely he would have allied to the Nazis in WW2. Or would have ousted the Great People's Republic, If he had led 1920s Russia, then Hitker is leikley still tou have come to power in 1930s Germany, and still to have wanted to annex a still weak and poor Russia,. And probabaly defeated it.
So they had to execute this thredat to the security iof the Russian people,.

Mussolini always said war and murder and tough stiff so maybe it kind to kill him, He was the kind of person who said the slityhyly true slightly umture statemenst of better to be a lion for a day than a rabbitr for a life, in a way it is true, but only of the rabbit is caged and oppressed and bullied, otherwise it is better to be a free rabit for a life than a free lion for a day

The Romanian dictator of the 1980s, well I suppose it was as he was e vil oppressor,
But it is wrong to pretend people should not be killed as they will become martyrs, or as they are kings. Surely kings, and well loved leaders, need puinishment too, For natural justice.

So that is why it was right even when right wingers call them martyrs, when they were murderers and bullies..
So loads of Right Wingers say these royals and other far right dictators were Missunderstood, thats no excuse they were terrioble right wing dictators.

Here are some more sites, there are books and articles on the subjects in many internet places, or internet book shops, bookstores, at the bottom, are lists of which were the worst regimes of the past few centuries.