The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
The Real Lenin: Traitor, Parasite, Failure
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

lenin

There is a general consensus that Stalin was a sadistic tyrant. But the ghost of his predecessor remains “handshakeworthy” on the left hand side of the political spectrum. The SWPLy bobos of Seattle, who would not have been long for the Communist world, erected a statue to him in the city center. The New York Times “celebrated” the centenary of the Russian Revolution with odes to the Bolsheviks’ progressivism on the environment, sex, and race (not that Terell J. Starr with his strange ideas of how the USSR “centered the Russian slav” would appreciate it).

Westerners, at least, have a good excuse for subscribing to the self-serving Trotskyite belief that Stalin “betrayed” Lenin’s revolution – after all, the bacillus that Germany unleashed upon Russia during its moment of weakness and disarray did more than anyone else to derail De Tocqueville’s prophesy and ensure that the 20th century would be an exclusively American one.

And yet, as of the centenary of Red October, 56% of Russians – up from 40% in 2006 – maintained a positive view of the grandfather of this dismal experiment. To this day, Lenin’s pyramid-like tomb occupies the center of Moscow, the heart of Russia, as if he was a Pharaoh of old – though perhaps that is ironically appropriate, in light of his zealous drive to drag Russia into the Communist future instead depositing it in a world with the ethical norms of the 3rd millennium BC.

There is thus no better and no more urgent time to consign the “Communist fable of a Lenin supposedly gentler than Stalin” (as Stephen Kotkin put it) to its well-deserved place in the dustbin of history.

Who was Lenin?

The brother of a terrorist. In the totalitarian state that he built, which operated by blood guilt, this would have been as good as a death sentence. Fortunately for Lenin, he lived in the Russian Empire, not the USSR.

Lenin’s “administrative exile” to Siberia – a rite of passage for Russian revolutionaries – might as well have been a holiday. He brought along his mother, wife, and even hired a maid to keep house (how bourgeois). He whiled away his time in Siberia fishing, hunting, and corresponding with other revolutionaries. Needless to say, consequent Siberian vacations would not be near as fun for the 3,777,380 people convicted under the Soviet “counter-revolutionary” articles implemented under Lenin and his successors from 1921-53.

A student who never finished university, a lawyer who never plied his trade. After Siberia, he would spend most of the next seventeen years in European exile, writing articles for low-circulation journals that alternated between rehashing Marx and Engels, engaging in disputes with fellow Marxists who were famous in narrow circles, and penning bromides against “reactionary” Russia from the comfort of London and Geneva, much like latter day liberal Bolsheviks such as Garry Karparov and Ilya Ponomarev today.

Supported and inspired terrorist attacks on Russian police and state bureaucrats. Around 4,500 Tsarist officials were murdered just in 1905-1907. Bolshevik propaganda about “Bloody Nikolashka” aside, only around 6,321 people were executed for all offenses (including purely criminal ones, like murder) in the Russian Empire from 1825-1917. The Red Terror that Lenin would unleash in response to the assassination of just one Bolshevik functionary would claim two orders of magnitude more lives.

Zealotry aside, Lenin wouldn’t be Lenin without a side dish in treason.

Supported Japan in the Russo-Japanese at the 3rd Congress of the RSDRP.

From an article in January 1905:

The proletariat is hostile to the bourgeoisie and all aspects of the bourgeois order, but his hostility does not absolve him from the duty of differentiating between historically progressive and reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie. It is entirely understandable that the more consistent and decisive representatives of international revolutionary Social Democracy, Jules Guesde in France and Hyndman in England, expressed without reservation their sympathies towards Japan, for its role in destroying Russian autocracy.

On the outbreak of World War I, Lenin happened to be in Krakow, where he was arrested by the Austro-Hungarian authorities as an “enemy alien.” Fortunately, an Austrian socialist leader was there to vouch for him, assuring them that he was no spy, but a “bitter enemy” of Russia and a proponent of Ukrainian separatism. He was dispatched to Switzerland in early September, where he would continue scribbling away.

Letter to Shlyapnikov, 1914:

For us Russians, from the point of view of the laboring masses and the working class of Russia, there can be absolutely no doubt that the lesser evil would be the defeat of Tsarism in this war. For Tsarism is 100 times worse than Kaiserism.

Article in “Social Democrat,” March 1915:

The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the present imperialist war into a civil war. This transformation flows from all the objective conditions of the current military disaster, and only by systematically propagandising and agitating in that direction can the workers’ parties fulfil the obligations they undertook at Basle. That is the only kind of tactics that will be truly revolutionary working-class tactics, corresponding to the conditions of the new historical epoch.

Article in “Social Democrat”, November 1916:

Whatever the outcome of this war, it is those who say that the only possible socialist way out of it is through a civil war of the proletariat for socialism, who will be proven right. It is those Russian Social Democrats, who said that the defeat of Tsarism and its complete military destruction is the lesser evil.

Letter to Suvarin, December 1916:

Our party has rejected Tolstoy’s teachings, and pacifism, by proclaiming that socialists must work to turn the current war into a civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

But he was growing despondent: In January 1917, he told a socialist gathering that “we old-timers may not live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution.”

Fortunately for Lenin, he got a big break with the February Revolution, the elite led coup against the Tsarist regime. Soon after, the Germans arranged for him, along with other Bolshevik activists, to be transported to Russia in a “sealed train” (actually sealed in propaganda only; in practice, there were plenty of stop-overs). It is worth noting that the guy who arranged this, the German Communist Fritz Platten, also tried to enlist Socialist Revolutionary exiles for the purpose of destabilizing Russian. To their credit, none of them accepted, not wishing to be associated with Lenin’s overt treason.

Once he was in Russia, Lenin began to implement his program of “revolutionary defeatism.” First proposed at the Zimmerwald Peace Conference in 1915, publication of the doctrine was squashed by the German Foreign Office, on the fear that its contents would let the Okhrana justify mass arrests of Russian socialists. This didn’t sway Lenin from repeating it in his April Theses, whose slogan “down with the war” and call for the abolition of the Russian Army was so radical than even the Bolsheviks’ newspaper, Pravda, initially refused to print it.

All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency). This helped fund the Bolshevik printing presses, and there are numerous accounts of money being handed out for protests against the Provisional Government throughout 1917 (all standard features of modern color revolutions). This was all done with the firm knowledge that the Bolsheviks served the interests of Germany. Parvus, aka Israel Gelfand, said in a meeting with the German ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1915, “The interests of the German Imperial Government are identical with those of the Russian revolutionaries.” The second key intermediary, Alexander Kesküla, was a one-time socialist who had become a hardcore Estonian nationalist; his motivations for working with Germany were, in his words, simple: “Hatred of Russia.”

To Lenin belongs the dubious honor of carrying out the world’s first color revolution, and its color was red.

map-russia-constituent-assembly-election-1917

Source: @welections
Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917: Brown = Social Revolutionaries; Red = Bolsheviks; Green = Regional SR’s; Yellow = Local parties.

Rejected the results of the last democratic election in Russian history until 1990 because he didn’t like that the Bolsheviks only won 24.5% of the vote.

Any direct or indirect attempt to consider the Constituent Assembly from a formally legalistic point of view, from within the framework of bourgeois democracy, without taking into account the class struggle or civil war, is treason against the proletariat and a defection to the worldview of the bourgeoisie. It is the duty of revolutionary Social Democracy to warn everybody against this error, which a considerable number of Bolshevik leaders are prone to, apparently unable to properly assess the October Revolution and the tasks before the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Even Rosa Luxemburg, criticizing Lenin for his ultra-liberal attitudes towards small nationalisms, pointed out the irony:

One is immediately struck with the obstinacy and rigid consistency with which Lenin and his comrades struck to this slogan, a slogan which is in sharp contradiction to their otherwise outspoken centralism in politics as well as to the attitude they have assumed towards other democratic principles. While they showed a quite cool contempt for the Constituent Assembly, universal suffrage, freedom of press and assemblage, in short, for the whole apparatus of the basic democratic liberties of the people which, taken all together, constituted the “right of self-determination” inside Russia, they treated the right of self-determination of peoples as a jewel of democratic policy for the sake of which all practical considerations of real criticism had to be stilled. While they did not permit themselves to be imposed upon in the slightest by the plebiscite for the Constituent Assembly in Russia, a plebiscite on the basis of the most democratic suffrage in the world, carried out in the full freedom of a popular republic, and while they simply declared this plebiscite null and void on the basis of a very sober evaluation of its results, still they championed the “popular vote” of the foreign nationalities of Russia on the question of which land they wanted to belong to, as the true palladium of all freedom and democracy, the unadulterated quintessence of the will of the peoples and as the court of last resort in questions of the political fate of nations.

In other words, a German Communist revolutionary, in practice, cared more for Russia’s territorial integrity and the democratic viewpoints of the Russian people than the man whose statues still dot the expanses of the Russian Federation.

In effect capitulated to Germany at Brest-Litovsk, ceded massive territories without military need, and betrayed Russia’s war allies.

map-russia-plans-ww1

What could have been: Map of the “Future Europe” (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)

As Winston Churchill wrote in his book The World Crisis (1916-1918):

Surely to no nation has Fate been more malignant than to Russia. Her ship went down in sight of port. She had actually weathered the storm when all was cast away. Every sacrifice had been made; the toil was achieved. Despair and Treachery usurped command at the very moment when the task was done.

Talk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In December 1917, set up the Cheka. At the outset, they were predominantly staffed by non-Russians – mostly Latvians – headed by the Pole Felix Dzerzhinsky.

Anecdote about Dzerzhinsky: Before the war, he managed to get beaten up by Polish factory workers, whom he had tried to agitate against the Tsar. There must be some kind of achievement trophy for that level of fail.

But the Cheka was another matter, and no laughing matter.

In August 1918, the Cheka’s Petrograd head Moisei Uritsky was assassinated. The killer, incidentally, was one of history’s forgotten heroes, Leonid Kannegisser, who explained his motives thus:

I am a Jew. I killed a Jewish vampire, who drank Russian blood. I wanted to show the Russian people that to Uritsky wasn’t a Jew to us. He was a renegade. I killed him in the hopes of redeeming the good name of Russian Jews.

One successful assassination and one attempted assasination against Lenin was enough to kickstart the Red Terror.

The famous August 11, 1918 cable to the Communists in Penza:

Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because ‘the last decisive battle’ with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.

  1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
  2. Publish their names.
  3. Seize all their grain from them.
  4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.

Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: “they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks”.

Telegraph receipt and implementation.

Yours, Lenin.

Find some truly hard people

Whereas previously, mass shootings had numbered in the dozens at most, they would now climb into the thousands, once Sovnarkom authorized mass terror on September 5th. The repressions would now directly affect even other leftist groups. Local Soviets were to arrest all Social Revolutionaries, take hostages from the families of Tsarist officers, and summarily execute anyone suspected of involvement in White Guard activities.

Though statistics are much harder to come by than in the better documented Stalinist period, it is plausible that around one million Russians were killed in the Red Terror – two orders of magnitude more than what the Russian Empire was responsible in the preceeding century, and entirely comparable to the victims of Stalinism.

With zero economic education outside regurgitating Marx and Engels, Lenin implemented war communism.

Within a year, an Empire with one of the world’s highest economic growth rates became a desert, where those who could, fled, and those who could not, died of hunger and typhus. Even amidst the instability of two revolutions, industrial production had remained at 80% during 1917 relative to 1913 figures; it plummeted to around 10% by 1920, as the Bolsheviks confiscated everything from banks and factories to ordinary people’s windmills, workshops, apartments, and private savings. You have a complaint? Justice system now consists of black-leather jacketed thugs that operate on hostage taking and mass shootings. Good luck suing them.

Despite not performing a single day’s worth of “productive” work in his life, Lenin loved to call all sorts of people parasites. For instance, those well-known exploiters, peasants.

From a speech in November 1919:

Peasants do not all understand that free trade in bread is a state crime. “I made bread, this is my product, and I have the right to trade with them,” the peasant argues, out of antiquated habit. But we say that this is a state crime. Free trade in grain means enrichment thanks to this bread – this is a return to old capitalism, we will not allow this, we will fight this at any price.

The death toll of war communism: 5-10 million deaths, a number that is once again entirely comparable to the Stalinist famines of the early 1930s (5-7 million) and 1946-47 (1 million), and again, an order of magnitude worse than the worst famine of the Russian Empire in 1891-92 (500,000 victims).

The ruthless grain requisitions (prodrazvyorstka) provoked the Tambov uprising, which the Bolsheviks crushed with the use of poison gas and concentration camps. Upwards of 200,000 deaths.

Finally, it would be amiss to speak of Lenin’s legacy without mentioning his attitude towards Russia and Russians in the widest sense of the word.

Although formally Russian, Lenin was in reality the métis par excellence: Around 1/4 German-Swedish, 1/4 Jewish, 1/4 Russian, and 1/4 token ethnic minority (Kalmyk).

Come to think of it – remarkably representative of 20th century Communism.

In that respect, it is perhaps of little surprise that the state he founded was based on a rather pecular mixture of socialist and nationalist principles.

From On the Question of the Nationalities, 1922:

Therefore internationalism on the part of the oppressing or so-called “great” nation (although it is great only in violence, great only as a gendarme is) must consist not only in observing formal equality of nations but also in such inequality as would be compensation by the oppressing nation, the big nation, for that inequality which actually takes shape in life. …

In these circumstances it is very natural that the “freedom to leave the union,” with which we justify ourselves, will prove to be just a piece of paper incapable of protecting people of other nationalities from the incursion of that the true Russian, the Great Russian, the chauvinist, in essence, the scoundrel and despoiler which the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There can be no doubt that the insignificant percentage of Soviet and Sovietized workers will drown in this sea of chauvinistic, Great Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.

The result: An Affirmative Action Empire, as Terry Martin styled it:

A third and final premise asserted that non-Russian nationalism was primarily a response to Tsarist oppression and was motivated by a historically justifiable distrust (nedoverie) of the Great Russians. This argument was pressed most forcefully by Lenin, who already in 1914 had attacked Rosa Luxemburg’s denial of the right of self-determination as “objectively aiding the Black Hundred Great Russians… Absorbed by the fight with nationalism in Poland, Rosa Luxemburg forgot about the nationalism of the Great Russians, though it is exactly this nationalism that is the most dangerous of all.” The nationalism of the oppressed, Lenin maintained, had a “democratic content” that must be supported, whereas the nationalism of the oppressor had no redeeming value. He ended with the slogan “Fight against all nationalisms and, first of all, against Great Russian nationalism.”

What polemicists against the Stalinist USSR’s destruction of national intellentsias in the Ukraine or the Baltics leave out is that the Bolsheviks started out with Russia’s.

Just one example: There was a Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists operating from 1908, a tea club of conservative intellectuals who promoted the theory of the triune Russian nation, which saw Malorossiyans (Ukrainians) as one branch of the Russian people. It is conceivable that in a surviving Russian Empire or Republic, these intellectuals would have helped foster the growth of a Malorossiyan identity subsumed to an overarching Russian one, as in Bavaria with respect to Germany, or even subsumed them entirely, as with the Occitans with respect to France. A fascinating what if. But this was not to be. The Bolsheviks got a list of their members on capturing Kiev in January 1919, and all 68 of their members were rounded up and shot.

odessa-ukrainization

The 1920s were to be a period of aggressive Ukranization, which Stalin cemented with the Holodomor.

Needless to say, Bolshevik reprisals against the Russian intelligentsia were not aimed exclusively at its overtly nationalist elements.

At the very top, there was, of course, the execution of the Romanov family (the French revolutionaries, at least, had the decency to spare Louis XVI’s children, and the last Chinese Emperor lived out his twilight days as an ordinary citizen of Maoist China).

The cream of Russia’s intellectual elites left the country. There would be no Sikorsky Airlines, no Zworykin TVs, no Dobzhansky Institutes. Just the “philosopher’s ship” carried away names like Sergey Bulgakov, Nikolay Berdyaev, and Ivan Ilyin.

A large percentage of those who stayed out of patriotic considerations would be killed by Stalin in the late 1930s, or forced to work as cognitive slaves in sharashkas.

Those who left, a “White emigration” numbering 2-3 millions, would instead enrich other countries.

russian-success-usa

In the early 1970s, Russian-Americans had the highest median family income, highest % of college graduates (26% vs. 12% US average), highest percentage of white-collar workers relative to all other European ethnic groups in the United States.

There was an aggressive campaign against Orthodox priests, who were conflated with nationalists.

Lenin in a March 1922 letter to the Politburo:

I come to the conclusion that we must precisely now smash the Black Hundreds clergy most decisively and ruthlessly and put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades.

Lenin had an exceedingly poor opinion of the great classics of the Russian Silver Age. His learned thoughts on Tolstoy and Dostoevsky:

On this topic, Lenin’s judgments were made confidentaly, said directly and sharply, without equivocation. Lev Tolstoy: On the one hand: “A mirror of the Russian revolution,” a “spirited man” who “unmasked everyone and everything,” but on the other hand, he was also a “worn-out, hysterical slave to power,” preaching non-resistance to evil. Fedor Dostoevsky: “Vomit-inducing moralization,” “penitent hysteria” (on Crime and Punishment), an “odorous work” (on The Brothers Karamazov and Demons), “clearly reactionary filth… I read it and threw it at the wall” (on Demons).

Even the Cyrillic alphabet was an expression of Great Russian privilege. As Lenin told Anatoly Lunacharsky, the Soviet Minister of Education: “I am under no doubt that there will come a time when the Russian alphabet is Latinized… when we gather enough energy for this, all of this will be trivially easy.” This moment seemed to arrive in 1929, when a commission on the matter officially proclaimed that “the imminent transition of Russian to a single international alphabet is inevitable.”

Their arguments are too “powerful” not to cite in full:

The Russian civil alphabet is a relic of the class structure of the 18th-19th century of the Russian feudal landowerners and bourgeoisie – the structures of autocratic oppression, missionary propaganda, Great Russian chauvinism, coercive Russification, and the expansion of Russian Tsarism abroad… To this day it ties the Russian-reading population with the national-bourgeois traditions of Russian pre-revolutionary culture.

In the hands of the Soviet proletariat, a unified Latin alphabet will serve as a means of propagating the cultural revolution in the Soviet East on the basis of the socialist reconstruction of the national economy. This is why it will constitute the alphabet of the proletarian revolution in the Soviet East and a weapon of class war here, on the front of the cultural revolution. See the words of Lenin: “Latinization is the great revolution of the East).

Transition to the Latin alphabet will free the laboring masses of the Russian people from the influence of bourgeois-nationalist and religious pre-revolutionary texts. Of course, artistically and scientifically valuable literature from that period should be republished in the new alphabet.

It was none other than Stalin, who had been criticized as a Great Russian chauvinist by Lenin – and I suppose he was, at least by Lenin’s standards, if not by any other one – who put an abrupt stop to this project: “Tell [them] to stop work on the Latinization of the Russian alphabet.”

Incidentally, at this point you might be getting an inkling of the real reason why Western intellectuals like Lenin a lot more than Stalin.

It is also worth emphasizing that Lenin’s famous Testament on Stalin’s unfitness for office, contrary to its presentation as a premonition of Stalin’s capacity for tyranny – hardly a matter of concern to either man – actually arose as a result of a dispute between the two men on the nationalities policy.

Once again citing Affirmative Action Empire:

His anger climaxed during the notorious Georgian affair of 1922, when he denounced Dzerzhinskii, Stalin, and Ordzhonikidze as Great Russian chauvinists (russified natives, he maintained, were often the worst chauvinists). Such Bolshevik chauvinism inspired Lenin to coin the term rusotiapstvo (mindless Russian chauvinism), which then entered the Bolshevik lexicon and became an invaluable weapon in the rhetorical arsenals of the national republics. …

Lenin’s extreme formulation of this principle led to one of his two differences of opinion with Stalin over nationalities policy in late 1922. Stalin had supported the greatest-danger principle before 1922-1923, reiterated his support in 1923, and from April 1923 to December 1932 supervised a nationalities policy based on that principle. Nevertheless, Stalin was uncomfortable with the insistence that all local nationalism could be explained as a response to great-power chauvinism. Based on his experience in Georgia, Stalin insisted that Georgian nationalism was also characterized by great-power exploitation of their Ossetine and Abkhaz minorities. Stalin therefore always paired his attacks on Great Russian chauvinism with a complementary attack on the lesser danger of local nationalism. … Despite these differences in emphasis, Stalin consistently supported the greatest-danger principle.

Ultimately, it was Lenin’s nationality policy that more than anything else doomed his creation.

Once the socialist system – what Lenin and Co. saw as revealed truth – ran into terminal epistemic and economic failure, the Soviet carapace fell away, revealing the petty nationalisms they had nurtured all that while, and, married to the unleashed appetites of the nomenklatura, the resultant centrifugal forces blew the whole artificial contraption apart. And (Great) Russian (chauvinists), the only ethnicity without a place of their own in the Soviet communal apartment (in Yuri Slezkine’s metaphor), had no good incentives to try to keep it together.

As Vladimir Putin himself remarked in 2016:

It is right to steer the stream of thought, only we need this thought to lead to the right results, unlike in the case of Vladimir Ilyich. Because, eventually, this thought led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, that’s what it led to. There were many such thoughts: autonomation, and so on. They planted an atomic bomb underneath the building called Russia, later it blew up. Nor did we need the global revolution either. There was this thought there, too

This brings me to the final point I wish to make about Lenin: The state he built as a failure.

By extension, Lenin was not just a sadist, a Russophobe, and a tyrant.

He was also a failure.

The slogan “Land, Bread, Peace” turned into a lie as soon as it was implemented. In the end, Russia got two much bloodier wars, the Civil War and World War II, for the price of one – the one that it had as good as won by 1917, with Austria-Hungary and Turkey as good as knocked out the war. Nor was there much bread. The Civil War resulted in a famine ten times worse than than anything seen in the ancien regime, and the populations of Petrograd and Moscow declined by around 70% and 50%, respectively, as civilization went into literal reverse. And what had been an increasingly prosperous peasantry thanks to Stolypin’s reforms and the construction of a mass schooling system in the last two decades of the Empire was soon deprived of both its lands and rights under collectivization; Soviet peasants only gained the right to a passport in 1974.

The world that Lenin and his successors built was a world based on lies; lies with aggressive, impudent, and often deadly pretensions to truth, as lampooned from Koestler to Kundera.

This was a world where the fictive dictatorship of the proletariat was almost immediately replaced by an all too real dictatorship of the nomenklatura based on renewed class privileges, judicial “telephone law,” no division of powers, and but a lame parody of an electoral process.

There would be no world revolution. Apart from military conquest in Eastern Europe, and China setting off down its own demented Maoist experiment, the only other Communist takeovers would only happen in irrelevant parts of the Third World, which would quickly fall apart though not before consuming dollops of Soviet foreign aid, which it generously parcelled out even as it gained the dubious distinction of being the first industrialized country to see a sustained rise in infant mortality during peacetime. The last surviving relicts of that world, Cuba and North Korea, stand as testaments to total failure.

communism-failure

Even a robot realizes this.

A world that by the 1970s was a vast expanse of unproductive rustbelts, unable to compete with the capitalist world and kept afloat by an oil windfall that would peter out by the late 1980s.

A world whose own citizens abandoned it for the promise of a pair of jeans, and whose own masters ended up selling it for real estate in Monaco and Miami.

This is the world that Lenin built and which collapsed during the 1990s.

“The intelligentsia is not the brains of the nation, but its shit.” It’s as if he was talking about himself.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Bolshevik Revolution, Communism, Lenin, Soviet Union 
Hide 423 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. AP says:

    Overall, brilliant and comprehensive article about a truly loathsome man. I can’t think of anyone else who, through his own efforts and will, has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Maybe muhammad (disgrace be upon him).
    , @Joe Wong
    Let’s face the fact, the Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Without the Europeans particular their offshoot the American humanity will not have gone through two world wars, one on the edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon.

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.

    If one could look at the events objectively, all of the above violence were a self rejuvenating effort to get rid of a cancer that was crippling the society, while comparing to the violence led by the Western imperialists including the USA and Japan against rest of the world during their imperial expansions, the crimes against humanity and peace and war crimes they committed only can be classified as criminal of the greedies, all were destructive and nothing good came out of it. One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia while the Western imperialist expansion, colonization and invasion are murders and has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/lenin/#comment-2068682
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Randal says:

    Magnificent polemic. Should be compulsorily published in the Guardian and all the other nests of SJW Lenin apologists around the US sphere.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Agree. My Russian history is thin, but I've read off and on that mass killings under Lenin began very quickly after a few failed experiments at worker-run factories. Likewise, my understanding is that only Western salon intellectuals and tenured university professors still buy into the "good Lenin/bad Stalin" boogie-woogie for the usual self-serving reasons, not the least of which is how to judge Hitler's excesses by comparison.

    "If Lenin (or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Mao) is your solution, what in hell was your problem again?" I recall that quip from years ago, and it seems to fit here. Still, many of our Western politicians seem to have not learned that solutions devised to fit an abstract, ideological agenda are likely to be freighted by unreality and "puritanical utopianism".
    , @Joe Wong
    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?
    , @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Twinkie says:

    Two quibbles. The Lenin statue in Seattle is not in the “city center.” It is in the Fremont neighborhood, which is known for “alternative lifestyles” (the whole city is really alternative by normal standards, but Fremont is really extra fruitcake).

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight. Although the Brusilov Offensive was operationally very successful, it bled the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians, not the Germans, and the overall strategic situation for Russia looked pretty grim. Sure, if Russia could have held out another year or so – in retrospect – it might have won, but that might have also led to other contingencies (e.g. Germans going defensive on the Western Front and re-concentrating on the East) with unpredictable results.

    But, theses are minor quibbles. The overall essay was quite readable and convincing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight.
     
    Yes. It's like doing 8 repetitions of a weight, and saying that after 6 reps you're basically done. No, the last two are the most difficult.

    I also don't quite like to think about how Russia or Europe would've looked like after Russia and her Western allies having won the Great War. I think Russia was already large enough (in fact, too large) by 1914, it didn't need much territorial expansion (to the contrary, it probably needed to shed areas like Poland). I don't quite think that Germany should've been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate). Hungary's borders were planned to be better than they actually got, but I'm not sure I could be rooting for those either.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia's chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they're hatched...

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. PapayaSF says:

    Very good piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Sounds good. But I'm sure he must've had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?

    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?
     
    NEP? Nah. To me NEP is a clear example of his pragmatism, his tactical genius (which is what this is all about). 100% goal-oriented, pragmatic, non-ideological. Very much a western (modern western CEO-like) quality.

    Here's what China Mieville writes in his recent book:

    As for Lenin, all who meet him are mesmerised. As often as not, it seems, they feel driven to write about him: libraries’ worth of such books exist. He is a man easily mythologised, idolised, demonised. To his enemies he is a cold, mass-murdering monster; to his worshippers, a godlike genius; to his comrades and friends, a shy, quick-laughing lover of children and cats. Capable of occasional verbal ogees and lumbering metaphors, he is a plain rather than a sparkling wordsmith. Yet he compels, even transfixes, in print and speech, by his sheer intensity and focus. Throughout his life, opponents and friends will excoriate him for the brutality of his takedowns, his flint and ruthlessness. All agree that his is a prodigious force of will. To an extent unusual even among that ilk who live and die for politics, Lenin’s blood and marrow are nothing else.
    What particularly distinguishes him is his sense of the political moment, of fracture and traction. To his comrade Lunacharsky, he ‘raise[s] opportunism to the level of genius, by which I mean the kind of opportunism which can seize on the precise moment and which always knows how to exploit it for the unvarying objective of the revolution’.
    Not that Lenin never makes mistakes. He has, however, an acutely developed sense of when and where to push, how, and how hard.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. 5371 says:

    If Lenin had been run over and killed shortly before November 7 1917, Russia still would have faced imminent disintegration, hyperinflation, famine, defeat and civil war. Not taking that fact on board is a serious weakness of this spirited piece.
    The events of 1917 have very little in common with a colour revolution. An elemental social cataclysm is not at all like a political soap opera in which a farcical imitation of the masses makes an occasional appearance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The point is that the civil war was particularly bloody because it was impossible for anybody to compromise with the Bolsheviks, and so the stakes were ultrahigh. On the other hand, I'm not sure how unavoidable the civil war was. For example Stalin and a number of Bolsheviks (maybe Molotov, too? I'm not sure) wanted to vote for war in 1914 (because Stalin considered it kinda unpatriotic to start a revolution during a major war with Germany), and then again in 1917 (when the first revolution had already won) Stalin was slow to understand Lenin's radicalism in that respect (because Stalin clearly understood that by fomenting revolution at home, they're essentially doing the bidding of an enemy government). So I'm not sure there would've been a civil war without Lenin, because even the rest of the Bolsheviks had to be prodded into the revolution and then the Red Terror by Lenin.

    Regarding the famine, I think you don't quite appreciate the unprecedented dimensions (in modern Russian history) of the Bolshevik famines, nor the anthropogenic nature of those famines. For example in 1921 the Sovnarkom noticed that wherever there was a huge famine, the peasants stopped their rebellion, so they deliberately sent requisitioning brigades to the villages to take away all grain in order to make the peasants starve (and thus to stop them from fighting a guerrilla war).
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    hyperinflation
     
    All the combatant countries faced mounting inflation problems as the war dragged on. I don't recall the exact figures, but as I recall Russia's were less severe than Germany's, even as of November 1917. Maybe someone can dig up more details.

    famine
     
    There's a book on agricultural production that reconstructed historical harvest statistics since 1896: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G---Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/

    http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G---Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/1366288694_c9db.jpg

    yield of cereals in 1795-2007, c / g

    Table for Russia here: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G---Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/6

    For Russia and other countries: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G---Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/2

    Average of 7.2 c/g in 1916 and 6.4 c/g in 1917, which was bad relative to the traditional baseline bumper harvest of 1913, but not awfully so.

    The harvest averaged around 5.9 c/g during the crisis period of 1905-7, but there was no famine during that time.

    The main problem, of course, was not so much the below average harvest but the partial breakdown of the railway system, which badly affected prices in the cities. But again, comparison is key. Russia did not face a blockade, and its soldiers even in 1917 were better fed than their German equivalents.

    As reiner Tor points out, it was indeed manmade in the Soviet case.

    imminent disintegration... defeat and civil war.
     
    Possibly, but there was absolutely no certainty about any of that.
    , @Alden
    It's difficult to know what exactly what was going on in Russia from January 1916 to the revolution due to the incessant propaganda about its problems and dis function. If the Germans and other capitalist countries had not poured all the money into the communist revolution and Lenin and his paid mobs there probably would have been a coup.

    The Czar would have abdicated under severe pressure. One of his many male relatives would have taken the throne. There would have been a propaganda blast about the new and better Czar. A lot of food and welfare would have been distributed to the people. The clergy critters would have been bribed to preach about the new and better Czar and the bright future. The newspapers and magazines would have treated the new czar as our media treated the demi God Obama.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Very good, although I hate to find myself agreeing with 5371 that Russia was disintegrating. The Left SR’s would have done for Kerensky if there had been no Trotsky. Would they have been better rulers? Who knows? Would they have fought to take Ukraine?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. I was reading on some blogs the happenings and times of the Soviet Union. Why did the Soviet Union seem to constantly have such food insecurity, especially outside of Moscow? It didn’t seem like such a large population to support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    There's very little (and irregular) precipitation, so agriculture in Russia is a little bit tricky. Not very tricky, to be sure: both Czarist Russia and the modern Russian Federation managed to figure it out, but not the USSR.

    The same wonders happened in China: under Maoism, they couldn't figure out how to feed the population (it was greater, but with enough labor input, rice fields usually yield more), and then in the 1980s they suddenly figured it out.

    I mean, communism as an economic system is shit, especially with agriculture, for a number of reasons.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    I was reading on some blogs the happenings and times of the Soviet Union. Why did the Soviet Union seem to constantly have such food insecurity, especially outside of Moscow? It didn’t seem like such a large population to support.
     
    My understanding is that the new government was excessively centralized, and the communist leaders knew nothing about agriculture. They were constantly railing against the kulaks for hoarding grain. With the agricultural techniques of the day about 10 percent of the harvest had to be held back for next year´s seed. They confiscated seed grain, and this led to poor harvests the following years. Plus the chaos and lack of motivation caused by the sudden collectivization of agriculture. Plus the desire to finance industrialization by exporting grain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. AP says:

    Those who left, a “White emigration” numbering 2-3 millions, would instead enrich other countries

    A note about them – with the onset of World War I many of them held a lot of assets abroad but for patriotic reasons liquidated them and brought their money home to Russia. This, of course, meant that when the Revolution occurred and everything in Russia was stolen from them they were left largely penniless.

    Quibble:

    There was a Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists operating from 1908, a tea club of conservative intellectuals who promoted the theory of the triune Russian nation, which saw Malorossiyans (Ukrainians) as one branch of the Russian people. It is conceivable that in a surviving Russian Empire or Republic, these intellectuals would have helped foster the growth of a Malorossiyan identity subsumed to an overarching Russian one,

    Doubtful. Ukrainian parties won the 1917 election in Ukraine, and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause – the various bands were all Ukrainian nationalist, anarchists and few pro-communists. Russian nationalism was an idea with no local popular support among ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians in what is now Ukraine, in the Russian Empire. This idea was viable a couple generations earlier, the 1850s.

    Ironically there was pro-Russian military unit from Ukraine, made up of Transcarpatian Russophile POWs, led by a Galician Russophile. They fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    There is thus no better and no more urgent time to consign the “Communist fable of a Lenin supposedly gentler than Stalin” (as Stephen Kotkin put it) to its well-deserved place in the dustbin of history.
     
    It's ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it's time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the 'dustbin of history' he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a 'triune Russian nation' with a melancholic and unrealistic tune, that will not be revived with his incessant and inept marketing scheme lackluster here and elsewhere. Anatoly, give it up already:

    Let my people go!
     
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    They could probably have been fobbed off with concessions on autonomy so long as the Russian Republic existed. (This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).

    After this, I imagine that two other factors would come into play:

    (1) 1917-18 was a centrifugal extreme in Russian politics; all sorts of natural as well as not so natural polities popped up (Green Ukraine would be a good example).

    This does occur during times of crises. For instance, Bavarian separatism was strong during the early 1920s. It tends to fade away once said crises have been resolved.

    (2) People naturally like the strong horse as our good friend OBL pointed out. Had Russia ended up on the winning side in WW1, its prestige would have grown.

    This is actually the converse of (1).
    , @Logan
    Not my area at all, but my understanding is that Great Russians promoted the tripartite Russia idea, while the two "little brothers" of the meme had little enthusiasm for it, for fairly obvious reasons.

    Given enough time, a common Russian identity could have probably grown up. Examples include not only those of France and Germany.

    In Spain all regional nationalism but the Catalans and Basques became generic Spaniards, though we shouldn't forget the Portuguese, who took their resistance to becoming Spanish to the next level.

    Italy similarly had/have significant problems with regional nationalisms, though they are seldom remembered outside Italy.

    With the exception of the Irish, at least until recently, the Brits seemed to get it right. Welsh and Scots didn't become English, retaining their national identity but within the greater umbrella of Britishness.

    OTOH, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia illustrate the two ends of the spectrum for dealing with intransigent nationalisms.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @5371
    If Lenin had been run over and killed shortly before November 7 1917, Russia still would have faced imminent disintegration, hyperinflation, famine, defeat and civil war. Not taking that fact on board is a serious weakness of this spirited piece.
    The events of 1917 have very little in common with a colour revolution. An elemental social cataclysm is not at all like a political soap opera in which a farcical imitation of the masses makes an occasional appearance.

    The point is that the civil war was particularly bloody because it was impossible for anybody to compromise with the Bolsheviks, and so the stakes were ultrahigh. On the other hand, I’m not sure how unavoidable the civil war was. For example Stalin and a number of Bolsheviks (maybe Molotov, too? I’m not sure) wanted to vote for war in 1914 (because Stalin considered it kinda unpatriotic to start a revolution during a major war with Germany), and then again in 1917 (when the first revolution had already won) Stalin was slow to understand Lenin’s radicalism in that respect (because Stalin clearly understood that by fomenting revolution at home, they’re essentially doing the bidding of an enemy government). So I’m not sure there would’ve been a civil war without Lenin, because even the rest of the Bolsheviks had to be prodded into the revolution and then the Red Terror by Lenin.

    Regarding the famine, I think you don’t quite appreciate the unprecedented dimensions (in modern Russian history) of the Bolshevik famines, nor the anthropogenic nature of those famines. For example in 1921 the Sovnarkom noticed that wherever there was a huge famine, the peasants stopped their rebellion, so they deliberately sent requisitioning brigades to the villages to take away all grain in order to make the peasants starve (and thus to stop them from fighting a guerrilla war).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Daniel Chieh
    I was reading on some blogs the happenings and times of the Soviet Union. Why did the Soviet Union seem to constantly have such food insecurity, especially outside of Moscow? It didn't seem like such a large population to support.

    There’s very little (and irregular) precipitation, so agriculture in Russia is a little bit tricky. Not very tricky, to be sure: both Czarist Russia and the modern Russian Federation managed to figure it out, but not the USSR.

    The same wonders happened in China: under Maoism, they couldn’t figure out how to feed the population (it was greater, but with enough labor input, rice fields usually yield more), and then in the 1980s they suddenly figured it out.

    I mean, communism as an economic system is shit, especially with agriculture, for a number of reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Maoism included such an epic campaign of retardation of a scale that is difficult to quantify, and even entailed the active destruction of well-known realities of farming for the "new scientific measures."

    Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agricultural expert who in 1958 drafted an eight-point agricultural ‘constitution’ for China, which every farmer had to follow
     
    - Changes under Mao - III: Agriculture 1950-62

    The famous Trofim Lysenko. Lysenkoism was bad for everyone, to put it lightly. The rural/city divide made things even worse and eventually to the millions perishing in famines.

    Great joy.

    , @Joe Wong
    China has been self sufficient in food since its existence. Chinese agriculture technology has been superior to the West except in the last couple hundreds due to Western imperialism and colonialism destructive interference. Without stealing Chinese agriculture technology the West will not have industrial revolution and they would still live in the backward medieval serfdom era.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Twinkie
    Two quibbles. The Lenin statue in Seattle is not in the “city center.” It is in the Fremont neighborhood, which is known for “alternative lifestyles” (the whole city is really alternative by normal standards, but Fremont is really extra fruitcake).

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight. Although the Brusilov Offensive was operationally very successful, it bled the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians, not the Germans, and the overall strategic situation for Russia looked pretty grim. Sure, if Russia could have held out another year or so - in retrospect - it might have won, but that might have also led to other contingencies (e.g. Germans going defensive on the Western Front and re-concentrating on the East) with unpredictable results.

    But, theses are minor quibbles. The overall essay was quite readable and convincing.

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight.

    Yes. It’s like doing 8 repetitions of a weight, and saying that after 6 reps you’re basically done. No, the last two are the most difficult.

    I also don’t quite like to think about how Russia or Europe would’ve looked like after Russia and her Western allies having won the Great War. I think Russia was already large enough (in fact, too large) by 1914, it didn’t need much territorial expansion (to the contrary, it probably needed to shed areas like Poland). I don’t quite think that Germany should’ve been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate). Hungary’s borders were planned to be better than they actually got, but I’m not sure I could be rooting for those either.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I don’t quite think that Germany should’ve been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate).
     
    I found that map rather creepy for exactly those reasons and googled it...apparently it's merely a propaganda piece, not some serious official document for post-war planning:
    http://expositions.nlr.ru/eng/ex_map/worldwar1/agit.php
    Am in agreement with you about the larger point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @reiner Tor
    There's very little (and irregular) precipitation, so agriculture in Russia is a little bit tricky. Not very tricky, to be sure: both Czarist Russia and the modern Russian Federation managed to figure it out, but not the USSR.

    The same wonders happened in China: under Maoism, they couldn't figure out how to feed the population (it was greater, but with enough labor input, rice fields usually yield more), and then in the 1980s they suddenly figured it out.

    I mean, communism as an economic system is shit, especially with agriculture, for a number of reasons.

    Maoism included such an epic campaign of retardation of a scale that is difficult to quantify, and even entailed the active destruction of well-known realities of farming for the “new scientific measures.”

    Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agricultural expert who in 1958 drafted an eight-point agricultural ‘constitution’ for China, which every farmer had to follow

    – Changes under Mao – III: Agriculture 1950-62

    The famous Trofim Lysenko. Lysenkoism was bad for everyone, to put it lightly. The rural/city divide made things even worse and eventually to the millions perishing in famines.

    Great joy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No, I think the Lysenkoist experiments only lasted a few years during the Great Leap Forward. But China had to resort to importing food and/or underfeeding its people basically throughout Maoism, so much so that in the 1970s when the "reforms" started, it was basically just that since the people's communes were unable to feed their members, some of them allowed the peasants to toil small parcels themselves in exchange for some grain or rice requisitioning. The peasants miraculously managed to fulfill their requisitioning quotas and even accumulate a surplus for themselves already in the first year, so the experiment spread to other provinces. The central leadership (then already under Deng Xiaoping) discovered it a couple years later (by that time it was already spreading like wildfire in the provinces), and first decided to shut it down, but then a few months later realized that here's an opportunity to increase agricultural production, and pragmatically enough reversed course and spread the experiment to the whole country.

    I think communism's main problem with agriculture is basically that during the agricultural season it requires a lot of dedicated work on behalf of the peasants, and it's very difficult to centrally control or supervise. This means that when the land is collectivized, peasants lose their incentives, and no amount of coercion or promises can stop them from cheating and not working hard enough. The result will be a chronically low harvest year in and year out.

    Once you re-privatize the land, the incentives return, and the harvest magically increases - due to the very hard and dedicated work of the peasants. In the USSR it was complicated by the fact that by the 1990s kolkhozniks were two generations removed from working for themselves, and not only got used to being lazy, but never even had childhood memories of how to toil the land for themselves. So it took a couple decades for Russian agriculture to regain productivity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Hupa says:

    Russians are to be blamed for this. Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski, he even made boyars cut their beards because otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed to come to the Kremlin, he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power, like in Protestant nations, and soon in France. Traditional russian monks protested against him and thought that he himself is a protestant. For a brief period of time during Peter 3rd’s rule, the russian army even wore prussian uniforms and orthodox priests wore protestant robes

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia. Russians conformed to occidentalist and anti-russian attitudes of the russian elite, they lost faith in russian tradition too and became indifferent to what happens with the country, became indifferent to Orthodox faith which became a puppet in the hands of the monarch

    Once the Tsarate was destroyed in the war by the Germans, nobody had any vision for future Russia in this whole vaccuum, people were apathetic and indifferent. And the bolsheviks stepped in, as the only convinced and passionate people

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Finally, a sane comment.

    Peter I and the demented system he built are the real criminals. The bolsheviks were also demented, but they were a bumbling, painful step towards fixing what Peter I broke.
    , @melanf

    Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski
     
    No. Zemsky Sobor ceased to operate before Peter. After Peter (18th century) gathered a meeting of elected representatives of the estates (but the name of the Zemsky Sobor was not used)

    he even made boyars cut their beards
     
    Similar measures were undertaken in Japan and Turkey (two other examples of successful modernization). So, probably, these measures made sense.

    he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power
     
    The Church before of Peter was subordinated to the state. And it's good

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia.
     
    Why not the 16th century? Or 13 century? Or 11th century?
    , @nickels
    Do you know any books that give this topic worthy treatment?
    I am interested in the failed westernization of P I; my Russian Orthodox friend states it just as you have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. iffen says:

    Some people just don’t like omelets; heck, they probably don’t even like eggs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    Those who left, a “White emigration” numbering 2-3 millions, would instead enrich other countries
     
    A note about them - with the onset of World War I many of them held a lot of assets abroad but for patriotic reasons liquidated them and brought their money home to Russia. This, of course, meant that when the Revolution occurred and everything in Russia was stolen from them they were left largely penniless.

    Quibble:


    There was a Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists operating from 1908, a tea club of conservative intellectuals who promoted the theory of the triune Russian nation, which saw Malorossiyans (Ukrainians) as one branch of the Russian people. It is conceivable that in a surviving Russian Empire or Republic, these intellectuals would have helped foster the growth of a Malorossiyan identity subsumed to an overarching Russian one,
     
    Doubtful. Ukrainian parties won the 1917 election in Ukraine, and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause - the various bands were all Ukrainian nationalist, anarchists and few pro-communists. Russian nationalism was an idea with no local popular support among ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians in what is now Ukraine, in the Russian Empire. This idea was viable a couple generations earlier, the 1850s.

    Ironically there was pro-Russian military unit from Ukraine, made up of Transcarpatian Russophile POWs, led by a Galician Russophile. They fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    There is thus no better and no more urgent time to consign the “Communist fable of a Lenin supposedly gentler than Stalin” (as Stephen Kotkin put it) to its well-deserved place in the dustbin of history.

    It’s ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it’s time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the ‘dustbin of history’ he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a ‘triune Russian nation’ with a melancholic and unrealistic tune, that will not be revived with his incessant and inept marketing scheme lackluster here and elsewhere. Anatoly, give it up already:

    Let my people go!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    It’s ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it’s time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the ‘dustbin of history’ he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a ‘triune Russian nation’ with a melancholic and unrealistic tune
     
    I am not as negative about the triune idea as you are. It is not an evil idea, as was Bolshevism. Also, as a myth, it isn't terribly unrealistic and was once popular among Ukrainians themselves. Indeed, the very people who standardized the Ukrainian language, such as Kulish, were adherents of this idea while they were doing their work, referring to it as the Little Russian language. Their vision was that there would be one Rus under the Tsar, but with a Little Russia and Great Russia, each with its own languages, schools, customs, etc. The analogy would not be to Bavaria within Germany (Bavarians learn standard German after all) but perhaps more like with the different Chinese peoples. The local Russian governors supported these Little Russians, but Saint Petersburg bureaucrats opposed them. The latter won, the project was repressed, Little Russian banned, and Little Russians were to be assimilated into Great Russians. The backlash was inevitable, assimilation didn't happen, and the former Little Russians, now Ukrainians, pushed towards full independence.

    Had the different faction won with respect to Russian government policy towards Ukraine, history could have turned out very differently.

    By 1917 it was already too late. We are even further from that now. But I wouldn't compare this idea to Bolshevism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @reiner Tor

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight.
     
    Yes. It's like doing 8 repetitions of a weight, and saying that after 6 reps you're basically done. No, the last two are the most difficult.

    I also don't quite like to think about how Russia or Europe would've looked like after Russia and her Western allies having won the Great War. I think Russia was already large enough (in fact, too large) by 1914, it didn't need much territorial expansion (to the contrary, it probably needed to shed areas like Poland). I don't quite think that Germany should've been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate). Hungary's borders were planned to be better than they actually got, but I'm not sure I could be rooting for those either.

    I don’t quite think that Germany should’ve been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate).

    I found that map rather creepy for exactly those reasons and googled it…apparently it’s merely a propaganda piece, not some serious official document for post-war planning:

    http://expositions.nlr.ru/eng/ex_map/worldwar1/agit.php

    Am in agreement with you about the larger point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, exactly.

    Besides, the patriotic press of all the major combatant countries made fantasy post-victory maps.

    I mean, Russia's is preferably to France's (for Germany):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @5371
    If Lenin had been run over and killed shortly before November 7 1917, Russia still would have faced imminent disintegration, hyperinflation, famine, defeat and civil war. Not taking that fact on board is a serious weakness of this spirited piece.
    The events of 1917 have very little in common with a colour revolution. An elemental social cataclysm is not at all like a political soap opera in which a farcical imitation of the masses makes an occasional appearance.

    hyperinflation

    All the combatant countries faced mounting inflation problems as the war dragged on. I don’t recall the exact figures, but as I recall Russia’s were less severe than Germany’s, even as of November 1917. Maybe someone can dig up more details.

    famine

    There’s a book on agricultural production that reconstructed historical harvest statistics since 1896: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G—Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/

    yield of cereals in 1795-2007, c / g

    Table for Russia here: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G—Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/6

    For Russia and other countries: http://statehistory.ru/books/Rastyannikov-V-G—Deryugina-I-V-_Urozhaynost-khlebov-v-Rossii/2

    Average of 7.2 c/g in 1916 and 6.4 c/g in 1917, which was bad relative to the traditional baseline bumper harvest of 1913, but not awfully so.

    The harvest averaged around 5.9 c/g during the crisis period of 1905-7, but there was no famine during that time.

    The main problem, of course, was not so much the below average harvest but the partial breakdown of the railway system, which badly affected prices in the cities. But again, comparison is key. Russia did not face a blockade, and its soldiers even in 1917 were better fed than their German equivalents.

    As reiner Tor points out, it was indeed manmade in the Soviet case.

    imminent disintegration… defeat and civil war.

    Possibly, but there was absolutely no certainty about any of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Talha says:

    Is it me – or does homeboy look a lot like Charles Manson in that photo?

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @German_reader

    I don’t quite think that Germany should’ve been smaller than it was in 1922 (and the maps clearly show the annexation of areas with essentially 100% German or pro-German populations like East Prussia or the Saarland and the Palatinate).
     
    I found that map rather creepy for exactly those reasons and googled it...apparently it's merely a propaganda piece, not some serious official document for post-war planning:
    http://expositions.nlr.ru/eng/ex_map/worldwar1/agit.php
    Am in agreement with you about the larger point.

    Yes, exactly.

    Besides, the patriotic press of all the major combatant countries made fantasy post-victory maps.

    I mean, Russia’s is preferably to France’s (for Germany):

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @AP

    Those who left, a “White emigration” numbering 2-3 millions, would instead enrich other countries
     
    A note about them - with the onset of World War I many of them held a lot of assets abroad but for patriotic reasons liquidated them and brought their money home to Russia. This, of course, meant that when the Revolution occurred and everything in Russia was stolen from them they were left largely penniless.

    Quibble:


    There was a Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists operating from 1908, a tea club of conservative intellectuals who promoted the theory of the triune Russian nation, which saw Malorossiyans (Ukrainians) as one branch of the Russian people. It is conceivable that in a surviving Russian Empire or Republic, these intellectuals would have helped foster the growth of a Malorossiyan identity subsumed to an overarching Russian one,
     
    Doubtful. Ukrainian parties won the 1917 election in Ukraine, and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause - the various bands were all Ukrainian nationalist, anarchists and few pro-communists. Russian nationalism was an idea with no local popular support among ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians in what is now Ukraine, in the Russian Empire. This idea was viable a couple generations earlier, the 1850s.

    Ironically there was pro-Russian military unit from Ukraine, made up of Transcarpatian Russophile POWs, led by a Galician Russophile. They fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    They could probably have been fobbed off with concessions on autonomy so long as the Russian Republic existed. (This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).

    After this, I imagine that two other factors would come into play:

    (1) 1917-18 was a centrifugal extreme in Russian politics; all sorts of natural as well as not so natural polities popped up (Green Ukraine would be a good example).

    This does occur during times of crises. For instance, Bavarian separatism was strong during the early 1920s. It tends to fade away once said crises have been resolved.

    (2) People naturally like the strong horse as our good friend OBL pointed out. Had Russia ended up on the winning side in WW1, its prestige would have grown.

    This is actually the converse of (1).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).
     
    As has every other historic movement of importance in Ukraine since 1917. Time to move on and deal with reality Anatoly, not delude yourself somehow that Ukraine will end up being a part of a greater Russia, including your laconic cry of an acceptable 'autonomy'. :-(
    , @AP
    Generally agree. However unlike in the case of Bavaria, the Ukrainians already had a different, standardized language, schoolbooks, etc. as well as a national mythology contradictory to ultimate union, and this was a central concern of theirs (IIRC thousands of schools were already being set up prior to the Bolsheviks seizing power).

    So at best, from the perspective of unity, it would have been a Catalonia situation, rather than a Bavaria one. However, in Ukraine the Ukrainian parties had something like 70% support rather than 52% for such parties in Catalonia; with such an easy margin it would be likely that demands would be made for increasing autonomy until full independence were achieved. The only way this would be stopped would be if Russia, being on the winning side, enjoyed the support of the entire world in demanding unity (and so, Catalonia again).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Twinkie
    Two quibbles. The Lenin statue in Seattle is not in the “city center.” It is in the Fremont neighborhood, which is known for “alternative lifestyles” (the whole city is really alternative by normal standards, but Fremont is really extra fruitcake).

    Also, the war being as good as won in 1917 for the Russians is hyperbole, particularly without the benefit of hindsight. Although the Brusilov Offensive was operationally very successful, it bled the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians, not the Germans, and the overall strategic situation for Russia looked pretty grim. Sure, if Russia could have held out another year or so - in retrospect - it might have won, but that might have also led to other contingencies (e.g. Germans going defensive on the Western Front and re-concentrating on the East) with unpredictable results.

    But, theses are minor quibbles. The overall essay was quite readable and convincing.

    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia’s chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they’re hatched…

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).

    Read More
    • Replies: @random rand
    I'm one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I'm quite ignorant about Russia. I'm just wondering, if Russia was in a relatively good position, how did the uprising even succeed in the first place? Surely it would have been easy to put down? Or is this just a case of Tocqueville's observation where governments collapse when everything is getting better?
    , @5371
    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.
    The collapse of a whole social fabric doesn't happen often in history, let alone over an area and involving a population like Russia's. But happen it did in 1917, and it's important not to attribute a process of this magnitude to any individual, let alone one who wasn't even in power.
    , @Twinkie

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too
     
    "Moral is to material as three is to one."

    Yes, Russia may have been in a better material condition for war than Germany as of early 1917 (though that, too, one can debate). But what was the state of its state? What was the state of its social cohesion, its morale?

    I mentioned this before, but even in a war dubbed materialschlacht, the outcome of war is not always dependent on "correlations of forces" as the Soviets were fond of framing. That is to say, war is not a video game, in which the side with more food and munitions always wins. There are critical social factors that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to quantify (especially until AFTER the fact) and yet play decisive roles in the outcomes of wars.

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the "bacillus" that the German unleashed have been so devastating?
    , @stalin
    once again proves americans (Twinkie) know little about essential history, the german and austro-hungarians eastern front did not end with the russian capitulation but it needed 6 months agains the second smaller nation, the kingdom of Romania which took them 6 months of concentrated effort to take out (after austrian failure, the germans accomplished it with bulgarian help too), it is reasonable that it would have taken years for Germans and austro-hungarians to take out Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Romania if they could
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. alex34 says:

    wonderful and powerful article
    maybe translate it into Russian to spread in Runet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    maybe translate it into Russian to spread in Runet?
     
    Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think there's much point, for two reasons.

    1. Practicality. 4,000 words is a lot of work.

    2. There is no shortage of other good "take downs" of Lenin in Russian (just the extended Sputnik i Pogrom ecosystem and the genby blog come to mind), which brings us to the key problem: It's not there is an absence of such criticisms, but of a sizable audience for them.

    Russian liberals have succeeded in setting the terms of the debate and adoration of Lenin, Communism, the USSR, and especially Stalin is now for all intents and purposes a tribal identifier for the "patriotic" camp. In the same way that, say, denial of climate change and other retarded positions has become a tribal identifier for conservatives in the United States. This is very bad, very sad, and it's not obvious how to get out of here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia's chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they're hatched...

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).

    I’m one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I’m quite ignorant about Russia. I’m just wondering, if Russia was in a relatively good position, how did the uprising even succeed in the first place? Surely it would have been easy to put down? Or is this just a case of Tocqueville’s observation where governments collapse when everything is getting better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    It's down to Tocqueville, though I would modify that proposition - governments collapse when the proles are given scraps of bread (aka some slight growth and betterment, as happened under Nicholas, but not radical change), after which they hunger for more. Enter the Bolsheviks, who promised utopia and much more. The keyword is "relatively", at any rate.
    , @jacques sheete

    I’m one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I’m quite ignorant about Russia.
     
    I feel your pain. I've been hard at work for decades trying to make sense of all this, and all I know is some American history, I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another, and that American "knowledge" about Germany is about the exact opposite as one can get, but I know next to nothing about Russian or Chinese history.

    It's interesting that Churchill wrote mourning a Russia that went down when the Brits were, in fact, a significant part of its sinking. But then I suppose he would rather have preferred to have Russia and Germany keeping each other occupied.



    I found the article informative and worth studying, but I feel handicapped by not knowing anything more than "tourist level" Russian, and I have a few quibbles.

    A student who never finished university, a lawyer who never plied his trade. After Siberia, he would spend most of the next seventeen years in European exile, writing articles for low-circulation journals that alternated between rehashing Marx and Engels, engaging in disputes with fellow Marxists who were famous in narrow circles…
     
    While meant as criticisms, they are weak. I especially had to smile at “writing articles for low-circulation journals.” It’s pretty obvious that the level of circulation should mean nothing regarding quality; after all, UR itself is probably very low “circulation” and it free, yet it’s better than anything with a wide circulation that people actually pay for.

    I’ve long had a question about this, but have yet to have the time to research an more specific answer.

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money.
     
    Does anyone know precisely who or what were the precise sources of the money?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @AP
    Overall, brilliant and comprehensive article about a truly loathsome man. I can't think of anyone else who, through his own efforts and will, has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    Maybe muhammad (disgrace be upon him).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Good point. So a Lenin is a once in a thousand years or so type of monster.
    , @druid
    Never let it be said that you aren't an asshole!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Maybe muhammad (disgrace be upon him).

    Good point. So a Lenin is a once in a thousand years or so type of monster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. ussr andy says:

    what’s the place of October 1917 in the general European context? I mean it wasn’t just the Russian Empire that fell following WW1.

    ———————–

    Russians are to be blamed for this.

    Joos agree (albeit for different reasons)

    people were apathetic and indifferent.

    nope, the spirit of progress was genuine. An apathetic nation doesn’t produce a Mayakovsky, say. It doesn’t consume tons and tons of pop-sci literature.

    narodniks, zapadniks, pochvenniks, Russians had more by way of genuine politics than the West does today where everything is just different flavors of liberal POZ.

    the sad truth is it doesn’t take that much to turn a place into a Hobbesian jungle if one makes it one’s purpose. Arabs and/or Muzzies are about as culturally confident as it gets and yet what’s the death toll in Iraq so far?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    The IRA for example. Rather more successful than the Bavarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack

    There is thus no better and no more urgent time to consign the “Communist fable of a Lenin supposedly gentler than Stalin” (as Stephen Kotkin put it) to its well-deserved place in the dustbin of history.
     
    It's ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it's time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the 'dustbin of history' he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a 'triune Russian nation' with a melancholic and unrealistic tune, that will not be revived with his incessant and inept marketing scheme lackluster here and elsewhere. Anatoly, give it up already:

    Let my people go!
     

    It’s ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it’s time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the ‘dustbin of history’ he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a ‘triune Russian nation’ with a melancholic and unrealistic tune

    I am not as negative about the triune idea as you are. It is not an evil idea, as was Bolshevism. Also, as a myth, it isn’t terribly unrealistic and was once popular among Ukrainians themselves. Indeed, the very people who standardized the Ukrainian language, such as Kulish, were adherents of this idea while they were doing their work, referring to it as the Little Russian language. Their vision was that there would be one Rus under the Tsar, but with a Little Russia and Great Russia, each with its own languages, schools, customs, etc. The analogy would not be to Bavaria within Germany (Bavarians learn standard German after all) but perhaps more like with the different Chinese peoples. The local Russian governors supported these Little Russians, but Saint Petersburg bureaucrats opposed them. The latter won, the project was repressed, Little Russian banned, and Little Russians were to be assimilated into Great Russians. The backlash was inevitable, assimilation didn’t happen, and the former Little Russians, now Ukrainians, pushed towards full independence.

    Had the different faction won with respect to Russian government policy towards Ukraine, history could have turned out very differently.

    By 1917 it was already too late. We are even further from that now. But I wouldn’t compare this idea to Bolshevism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Who’s comparing the triune idea with bolshevism? I was only pointing out, by way of analogy, that the triune idea’s time has come and gone, as I see you’ve permitted yourself to do. At least since Hrushevsky’s time, whose ideas and scholarship have soundly been lauded by historians around the world, this idea has undergone serious challenge, if not outright discreditation. I think that you’d agree that to cling to this outdated idea today, is to show little respect for Ukraine’s standing and right to pursue and independent political course of its own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    They could probably have been fobbed off with concessions on autonomy so long as the Russian Republic existed. (This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).

    After this, I imagine that two other factors would come into play:

    (1) 1917-18 was a centrifugal extreme in Russian politics; all sorts of natural as well as not so natural polities popped up (Green Ukraine would be a good example).

    This does occur during times of crises. For instance, Bavarian separatism was strong during the early 1920s. It tends to fade away once said crises have been resolved.

    (2) People naturally like the strong horse as our good friend OBL pointed out. Had Russia ended up on the winning side in WW1, its prestige would have grown.

    This is actually the converse of (1).

    This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).

    As has every other historic movement of importance in Ukraine since 1917. Time to move on and deal with reality Anatoly, not delude yourself somehow that Ukraine will end up being a part of a greater Russia, including your laconic cry of an acceptable ‘autonomy’. :-(

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    It’s ironic that although Karlin is astute enough to suggest that it’s time to put the myth of a nobler, gentler Lenin into the ‘dustbin of history’ he still manages to play the equally outdated and mythical idea of a ‘triune Russian nation’ with a melancholic and unrealistic tune
     
    I am not as negative about the triune idea as you are. It is not an evil idea, as was Bolshevism. Also, as a myth, it isn't terribly unrealistic and was once popular among Ukrainians themselves. Indeed, the very people who standardized the Ukrainian language, such as Kulish, were adherents of this idea while they were doing their work, referring to it as the Little Russian language. Their vision was that there would be one Rus under the Tsar, but with a Little Russia and Great Russia, each with its own languages, schools, customs, etc. The analogy would not be to Bavaria within Germany (Bavarians learn standard German after all) but perhaps more like with the different Chinese peoples. The local Russian governors supported these Little Russians, but Saint Petersburg bureaucrats opposed them. The latter won, the project was repressed, Little Russian banned, and Little Russians were to be assimilated into Great Russians. The backlash was inevitable, assimilation didn't happen, and the former Little Russians, now Ukrainians, pushed towards full independence.

    Had the different faction won with respect to Russian government policy towards Ukraine, history could have turned out very differently.

    By 1917 it was already too late. We are even further from that now. But I wouldn't compare this idea to Bolshevism.

    Who’s comparing the triune idea with bolshevism? I was only pointing out, by way of analogy, that the triune idea’s time has come and gone, as I see you’ve permitted yourself to do. At least since Hrushevsky’s time, whose ideas and scholarship have soundly been lauded by historians around the world, this idea has undergone serious challenge, if not outright discreditation. I think that you’d agree that to cling to this outdated idea today, is to show little respect for Ukraine’s standing and right to pursue and independent political course of its own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    They could probably have been fobbed off with concessions on autonomy so long as the Russian Republic existed. (This was within the spectrum of acceptable of acceptable outcomes for the Ukrainian Social Revolutionaries, though AFAIK their preferred option in 1917 was eventual independence).

    After this, I imagine that two other factors would come into play:

    (1) 1917-18 was a centrifugal extreme in Russian politics; all sorts of natural as well as not so natural polities popped up (Green Ukraine would be a good example).

    This does occur during times of crises. For instance, Bavarian separatism was strong during the early 1920s. It tends to fade away once said crises have been resolved.

    (2) People naturally like the strong horse as our good friend OBL pointed out. Had Russia ended up on the winning side in WW1, its prestige would have grown.

    This is actually the converse of (1).

    Generally agree. However unlike in the case of Bavaria, the Ukrainians already had a different, standardized language, schoolbooks, etc. as well as a national mythology contradictory to ultimate union, and this was a central concern of theirs (IIRC thousands of schools were already being set up prior to the Bolsheviks seizing power).

    So at best, from the perspective of unity, it would have been a Catalonia situation, rather than a Bavaria one. However, in Ukraine the Ukrainian parties had something like 70% support rather than 52% for such parties in Catalonia; with such an easy margin it would be likely that demands would be made for increasing autonomy until full independence were achieved. The only way this would be stopped would be if Russia, being on the winning side, enjoyed the support of the entire world in demanding unity (and so, Catalonia again).

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Disordered
    Autonomism is usually stopped by material progress and propaganda tying said progress to the whole of the nation as opposed of only to the region.
    I think it would have been not like Catalonia, but more like the Spanish Crown before the Bourbons, or the British Isles before the Acts of Union, Ukraine and others being independent kingdoms united in the Tsar's crown. That may have worked in the long-run - or at least, would have allowed for less violence. All water under the bridge, anyway.
    I do agree with Mr. Karlin in that Lenin was sneaky - he criticized Tsarist Russian irredentism, only for it to be replaced with the Internationalist Soviet kind that him and Trotsky spoused. Stalin may have brutishly Russified the hell out of the other republics, but he was right in that without such control the other republics would have fallen prey to their own little elites - as happened after the wall fell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Jason M says:

    I know this was about Lenin mostly however this guy, Andrei Fursov, believes the USSR was a great achievement under Stalin. He does believe that Lenin did not care for Russia. Here is a video link in which he describes the possibility of the USSR surpassing the US if it wasn’t for the Nomenklatura: https://youtu.be/cXfkEUe-axo

    Would like to know what you think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. 5371 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia's chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they're hatched...

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).

    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.
    The collapse of a whole social fabric doesn’t happen often in history, let alone over an area and involving a population like Russia’s. But happen it did in 1917, and it’s important not to attribute a process of this magnitude to any individual, let alone one who wasn’t even in power.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It needed the incompetence of the government and person of Nicholas II, with a competent ruler Tsarism would've easily survived. (Probably it wouldn't have started the war in the first place.) Unfortunately in a monarchy with a strong monarch, a lot depends on the person of that monarch. So that was the flaw of the system.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.
     
    Sarcasm on: Please stop operating with facts and historic knowledge. Also, stop using this horrible thing called causality. You are not hip, cool and most likely color-blind to understand all those graphs;-) Most likely you have low IQ, as most well-versed and erudite historians do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Anatoly Karlin
    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?

    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?

    NEP? Nah. To me NEP is a clear example of his pragmatism, his tactical genius (which is what this is all about). 100% goal-oriented, pragmatic, non-ideological. Very much a western (modern western CEO-like) quality.

    Here’s what China Mieville writes in his recent book:

    As for Lenin, all who meet him are mesmerised. As often as not, it seems, they feel driven to write about him: libraries’ worth of such books exist. He is a man easily mythologised, idolised, demonised. To his enemies he is a cold, mass-murdering monster; to his worshippers, a godlike genius; to his comrades and friends, a shy, quick-laughing lover of children and cats. Capable of occasional verbal ogees and lumbering metaphors, he is a plain rather than a sparkling wordsmith. Yet he compels, even transfixes, in print and speech, by his sheer intensity and focus. Throughout his life, opponents and friends will excoriate him for the brutality of his takedowns, his flint and ruthlessness. All agree that his is a prodigious force of will. To an extent unusual even among that ilk who live and die for politics, Lenin’s blood and marrow are nothing else.
    What particularly distinguishes him is his sense of the political moment, of fracture and traction. To his comrade Lunacharsky, he ‘raise[s] opportunism to the level of genius, by which I mean the kind of opportunism which can seize on the precise moment and which always knows how to exploit it for the unvarying objective of the revolution’.
    Not that Lenin never makes mistakes. He has, however, an acutely developed sense of when and where to push, how, and how hard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Wow, you made a comment that I completely agree with. And this contradicts the idea that the Revolution and Russia's destruction were inevitable events, rather than the work of a strong-willed, farsighted, charismatic, malignant genius.

    I saved a comment by a commentator, "Bardon Kaldian", on another forum:

    ...it was Lenin, an ethnic Russian with marginal Jewish ancestry (a converted mother's father Moishko Blank, himself an anti-Semite) he wasn't aware of, and later didn't care about, who has created & led the successful global socio-political transformation called Communism. Lenin designed & built Bolshevik party as a highly militarized, disciplined & ideologically dogmatic sect, a universal machine for transformation of all resentments (social, national, religious, personal, ethnic, “racial”, cultural, economic,..) into a “laser beam” of focused, almost inevitably violent determination for possession of total power and creation of a new, Communist utopia.

    Both ideas and actions in the crucual periods from 1903. to 1922. were his, frequently opposed by more cautious Russian & ethnically non-Russian Bolshevik leadership. The most prominent Bolshevik rulers during the revolution and civil war, of Jewish origin, had been: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Trotsky. Sverdlov was perhaps the most influential among Bolshevik Jews in the earliest stage, but he died (or was killed) too early. He himself never developed any idea, nor had been the central figure in any significant event- except the execution of Russian royal family. Trotsky, who had been a Menshevik but switched his loyalties to Lenin, played the central role in organization of the Red Army, but his vanity & verbal excesses have alienated him from many other top Bolsheviks who feared his influence: so “Jewish” Zinoviev and Kamenev formed an alliance with the Georgian Stalin (and his lapdogs) to isolate & destroy Trotsky.... One person, Lenin, totally dominated the party & the Revolution (the foundation of the Bolshevik ideology, the central strategy and tactics in post-February days, the planning and execution of the October coup d'etat, formation of the Cheka, the decision to switch to War Communism, the tactical withdrawal in the humiliating Brest-Litovsk treaty, crucial political/economic “retreat” embodied in the New Economic policy, …).

    On many occasions Bolsheviks of Jewish extraction had tried- unsuccessfully- to counter Lenin's unique combination of radicalism & pragmatism, but inevitably failed: they've been frequently too radical, but not realistic enough; in other instances like the October coup, they were mostly too cautious and afraid to move (so was Stalin). In all critical moments, as Kolakowski has graphically described, Lenin virtually raped the party- and won.
     
    , @Disordered
    None of what you say disproves the fact that NEP was revisionism.
    And temporary, at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Hupa
    Russians are to be blamed for this. Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski, he even made boyars cut their beards because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to come to the Kremlin, he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power, like in Protestant nations, and soon in France. Traditional russian monks protested against him and thought that he himself is a protestant. For a brief period of time during Peter 3rd's rule, the russian army even wore prussian uniforms and orthodox priests wore protestant robes

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia. Russians conformed to occidentalist and anti-russian attitudes of the russian elite, they lost faith in russian tradition too and became indifferent to what happens with the country, became indifferent to Orthodox faith which became a puppet in the hands of the monarch

    Once the Tsarate was destroyed in the war by the Germans, nobody had any vision for future Russia in this whole vaccuum, people were apathetic and indifferent. And the bolsheviks stepped in, as the only convinced and passionate people

    Finally, a sane comment.

    Peter I and the demented system he built are the real criminals. The bolsheviks were also demented, but they were a bumbling, painful step towards fixing what Peter I broke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    May you end up in such "fixing" times someday. Experience all the fixing, you know, for the betterment of the backwards social order where not everybody is in gulag all time errytime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Bravo, Anatoly Karlin!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Twinkie says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia's chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they're hatched...

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too

    “Moral is to material as three is to one.”

    Yes, Russia may have been in a better material condition for war than Germany as of early 1917 (though that, too, one can debate). But what was the state of its state? What was the state of its social cohesion, its morale?

    I mentioned this before, but even in a war dubbed materialschlacht, the outcome of war is not always dependent on “correlations of forces” as the Soviets were fond of framing. That is to say, war is not a video game, in which the side with more food and munitions always wins. There are critical social factors that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to quantify (especially until AFTER the fact) and yet play decisive roles in the outcomes of wars.

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the “bacillus” that the German unleashed have been so devastating?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the “bacillus” that the German unleashed have been so devastating?
     
    See my answer to 5371, the Tsar himself was incompetent.
    , @theTzar
    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania, it is likely if the Russian Empire had not capitulated they would have needed far more than 6 months to win against the russian empire and the kingdom of romania or perhaps they would not have wan the eastern front at all, so karlin is right, you know little history, maybe enough for a US or Western Leninist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. JackOH says:
    @Randal
    Magnificent polemic. Should be compulsorily published in the Guardian and all the other nests of SJW Lenin apologists around the US sphere.

    Agree. My Russian history is thin, but I’ve read off and on that mass killings under Lenin began very quickly after a few failed experiments at worker-run factories. Likewise, my understanding is that only Western salon intellectuals and tenured university professors still buy into the “good Lenin/bad Stalin” boogie-woogie for the usual self-serving reasons, not the least of which is how to judge Hitler’s excesses by comparison.

    “If Lenin (or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Mao) is your solution, what in hell was your problem again?” I recall that quip from years ago, and it seems to fit here. Still, many of our Western politicians seem to have not learned that solutions devised to fit an abstract, ideological agenda are likely to be freighted by unreality and “puritanical utopianism”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @5371
    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.
    The collapse of a whole social fabric doesn't happen often in history, let alone over an area and involving a population like Russia's. But happen it did in 1917, and it's important not to attribute a process of this magnitude to any individual, let alone one who wasn't even in power.

    It needed the incompetence of the government and person of Nicholas II, with a competent ruler Tsarism would’ve easily survived. (Probably it wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.) Unfortunately in a monarchy with a strong monarch, a lot depends on the person of that monarch. So that was the flaw of the system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I would blame those who had overthrown Nicholas and were themselves in power or passed for being so, myself. The western allies also had a lot to do with the February revolution. But in the end, all or almost all were guilty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Twinkie

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too
     
    "Moral is to material as three is to one."

    Yes, Russia may have been in a better material condition for war than Germany as of early 1917 (though that, too, one can debate). But what was the state of its state? What was the state of its social cohesion, its morale?

    I mentioned this before, but even in a war dubbed materialschlacht, the outcome of war is not always dependent on "correlations of forces" as the Soviets were fond of framing. That is to say, war is not a video game, in which the side with more food and munitions always wins. There are critical social factors that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to quantify (especially until AFTER the fact) and yet play decisive roles in the outcomes of wars.

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the "bacillus" that the German unleashed have been so devastating?

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the “bacillus” that the German unleashed have been so devastating?

    See my answer to 5371, the Tsar himself was incompetent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. stalin says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, fair enough, that might be somewhat overestimating Russia's chances.

    But I would still say they were way above 50% (relative to Germany).

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too, preparations in place for an amphibious assault on Turkey and the final knockout blow against AH. The Tsarist regime was at any rate confident of victory at that point, unlike in 1915. The Budyonovka (now synonymous with the Red Army) was originally designed for the Berlin victory parade. Talk of counting your chickens before they're hatched...

    The chaos around the February Revolution hurt it a great deal, but order to the armies had been restored just prior to the Kornilov affair. Most importantly, the US had by then entered the war, a critical development (though ofc more evident in hindsight).

    once again proves americans (Twinkie) know little about essential history, the german and austro-hungarians eastern front did not end with the russian capitulation but it needed 6 months agains the second smaller nation, the kingdom of Romania which took them 6 months of concentrated effort to take out (after austrian failure, the germans accomplished it with bulgarian help too), it is reasonable that it would have taken years for Germans and austro-hungarians to take out Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Romania if they could

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. melanf says:
    @Hupa
    Russians are to be blamed for this. Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski, he even made boyars cut their beards because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to come to the Kremlin, he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power, like in Protestant nations, and soon in France. Traditional russian monks protested against him and thought that he himself is a protestant. For a brief period of time during Peter 3rd's rule, the russian army even wore prussian uniforms and orthodox priests wore protestant robes

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia. Russians conformed to occidentalist and anti-russian attitudes of the russian elite, they lost faith in russian tradition too and became indifferent to what happens with the country, became indifferent to Orthodox faith which became a puppet in the hands of the monarch

    Once the Tsarate was destroyed in the war by the Germans, nobody had any vision for future Russia in this whole vaccuum, people were apathetic and indifferent. And the bolsheviks stepped in, as the only convinced and passionate people

    Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski

    No. Zemsky Sobor ceased to operate before Peter. After Peter (18th century) gathered a meeting of elected representatives of the estates (but the name of the Zemsky Sobor was not used)

    he even made boyars cut their beards

    Similar measures were undertaken in Japan and Turkey (two other examples of successful modernization). So, probably, these measures made sense.

    he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power

    The Church before of Peter was subordinated to the state. And it’s good

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia.

    Why not the 16th century? Or 13 century? Or 11th century?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    I agree with you, though Hupa does have a point - the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people, ergo when it failed it lacked for defenders (the Whites being mostly anti-Bolsheviks and faithful Orthodox more than commited Tsarists). There is a reason why the Tsar's office was not rehabilitated by Yeltsin, yet Spain did bring their king back.

    Then again, as others have said, Nicholas was very incompetent. Sometimes we focus too much on the systems and ideologies, when in reality the actions and failures of some individuals have the strongest consequences. For all the glories of the Roman Republic, we would have never known them if it was not for Caesar's personal desire for military conquest, and those who followed in his footsteps.
    , @Hupa
    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized

    You're right about Turkey, Ataturk is a kind of Peter the Great but for the Turks. If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you're hyperactive

    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity. Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary and as I wrote, it showed the extent to which the russian elites disliked russian tradition, it marked the beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse, this is why they were so sloppy in fighting Bolsheviks

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. theTzar says:
    @Twinkie

    Russia was in a strong position as of February 1917: Soldiers well supplied with food and now munitions too
     
    "Moral is to material as three is to one."

    Yes, Russia may have been in a better material condition for war than Germany as of early 1917 (though that, too, one can debate). But what was the state of its state? What was the state of its social cohesion, its morale?

    I mentioned this before, but even in a war dubbed materialschlacht, the outcome of war is not always dependent on "correlations of forces" as the Soviets were fond of framing. That is to say, war is not a video game, in which the side with more food and munitions always wins. There are critical social factors that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to quantify (especially until AFTER the fact) and yet play decisive roles in the outcomes of wars.

    Indeed, if Russia had been so healthy and strong, would the "bacillus" that the German unleashed have been so devastating?

    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania, it is likely if the Russian Empire had not capitulated they would have needed far more than 6 months to win against the russian empire and the kingdom of romania or perhaps they would not have wan the eastern front at all, so karlin is right, you know little history, maybe enough for a US or Western Leninist

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania,
     
    Are you suggesting they put forth maximum effort to remove this minor adversary?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. AP says:
    @theTzar
    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania, it is likely if the Russian Empire had not capitulated they would have needed far more than 6 months to win against the russian empire and the kingdom of romania or perhaps they would not have wan the eastern front at all, so karlin is right, you know little history, maybe enough for a US or Western Leninist

    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania,

    Are you suggesting they put forth maximum effort to remove this minor adversary?

    Read More
    • Replies: @correctHistory
    correct would be to know that it took more than one and a half years to defeat the small kingdon of romania on the eastern front (see wikipedia for example) so german empire and austro-hungarian empire were not that strong and would have lost or taken a lot more time to defeat the russian empire and romanian kingdom even if they had that time and resources, if the russian empire had not collapsed . the russian empire had about 20 times the population of the romanian kingdom and a lot more space of defense . yes, resources were diverted from the western front and the austrians were not capable initially to win therefore germans needed to send resources. You overestimate the central powers for certain, the central powers had also setbacks and defeats on their way to Bucharest. After the russian capitulation some of their soldiers even changed sides . If you read the views of the german marechal hindeburg you will see that was true, they felt vulnerable

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_I

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. 5371 says:
    @reiner Tor
    It needed the incompetence of the government and person of Nicholas II, with a competent ruler Tsarism would've easily survived. (Probably it wouldn't have started the war in the first place.) Unfortunately in a monarchy with a strong monarch, a lot depends on the person of that monarch. So that was the flaw of the system.

    I would blame those who had overthrown Nicholas and were themselves in power or passed for being so, myself. The western allies also had a lot to do with the February revolution. But in the end, all or almost all were guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Tsar was not guilty by my standards, just incompetent. The revolutionaries and all who encouraged the revolution were guilty. It still remains a fact that had the Tsar been competent, he could easily have prevented the situation from getting out of control.

    I would say the Tsar himself was a tragic figure, because he probably knew well how incompetent and unfit to be Tsar he was, but out of a sense of duty he decided to sacrifice his life by devoting himself to public duty and working as hard as possible (and making stupid decisions all along). He paid with his and his family's life for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @AP

    The German and Austro-Hungarians needed 6 month to take out the second, smaller adversary on the Eastern Front, the Kingdom of Romania,
     
    Are you suggesting they put forth maximum effort to remove this minor adversary?

    correct would be to know that it took more than one and a half years to defeat the small kingdon of romania on the eastern front (see wikipedia for example) so german empire and austro-hungarian empire were not that strong and would have lost or taken a lot more time to defeat the russian empire and romanian kingdom even if they had that time and resources, if the russian empire had not collapsed . the russian empire had about 20 times the population of the romanian kingdom and a lot more space of defense . yes, resources were diverted from the western front and the austrians were not capable initially to win therefore germans needed to send resources. You overestimate the central powers for certain, the central powers had also setbacks and defeats on their way to Bucharest. After the russian capitulation some of their soldiers even changed sides . If you read the views of the german marechal hindeburg you will see that was true, they felt vulnerable

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_I

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The Germans never captured all of Belgian territory.

    Are you suggesting they were too weak to take all of Belgium?

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front. Germans and Austrian combined used 750,000 troops in Romania. The Romanians had about 60% more casualties than their opponents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Daniel Chieh
    Maoism included such an epic campaign of retardation of a scale that is difficult to quantify, and even entailed the active destruction of well-known realities of farming for the "new scientific measures."

    Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agricultural expert who in 1958 drafted an eight-point agricultural ‘constitution’ for China, which every farmer had to follow
     
    - Changes under Mao - III: Agriculture 1950-62

    The famous Trofim Lysenko. Lysenkoism was bad for everyone, to put it lightly. The rural/city divide made things even worse and eventually to the millions perishing in famines.

    Great joy.

    No, I think the Lysenkoist experiments only lasted a few years during the Great Leap Forward. But China had to resort to importing food and/or underfeeding its people basically throughout Maoism, so much so that in the 1970s when the “reforms” started, it was basically just that since the people’s communes were unable to feed their members, some of them allowed the peasants to toil small parcels themselves in exchange for some grain or rice requisitioning. The peasants miraculously managed to fulfill their requisitioning quotas and even accumulate a surplus for themselves already in the first year, so the experiment spread to other provinces. The central leadership (then already under Deng Xiaoping) discovered it a couple years later (by that time it was already spreading like wildfire in the provinces), and first decided to shut it down, but then a few months later realized that here’s an opportunity to increase agricultural production, and pragmatically enough reversed course and spread the experiment to the whole country.

    I think communism’s main problem with agriculture is basically that during the agricultural season it requires a lot of dedicated work on behalf of the peasants, and it’s very difficult to centrally control or supervise. This means that when the land is collectivized, peasants lose their incentives, and no amount of coercion or promises can stop them from cheating and not working hard enough. The result will be a chronically low harvest year in and year out.

    Once you re-privatize the land, the incentives return, and the harvest magically increases – due to the very hard and dedicated work of the peasants. In the USSR it was complicated by the fact that by the 1990s kolkhozniks were two generations removed from working for themselves, and not only got used to being lazy, but never even had childhood memories of how to toil the land for themselves. So it took a couple decades for Russian agriculture to regain productivity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Bukharin understood this but sadly no one listened.
    , @Joe Wong
    The West under the American leadership were imposing full spectrum sanctions and embargo against China before 1980, where would China import food from? The American and their lackeys were as helpful to China as before 1941, they were financing and supplying war materials and technology to the beastly Japanese to wage barbaric wars to cripple China.

    If you do not understand farming or anything about other nation, please stop trolling a distorted imagine about others from a mindset brain washed by the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitors' in the Washington and London from cradle to grave and reinforced by excessive flag saluting. The self righteous attitude permeated in your comment make you a perfect gear in the USSR central planning machinery, creating mayhem based on half baked truth or bigotry imagination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @5371
    I would blame those who had overthrown Nicholas and were themselves in power or passed for being so, myself. The western allies also had a lot to do with the February revolution. But in the end, all or almost all were guilty.

    The Tsar was not guilty by my standards, just incompetent. The revolutionaries and all who encouraged the revolution were guilty. It still remains a fact that had the Tsar been competent, he could easily have prevented the situation from getting out of control.

    I would say the Tsar himself was a tragic figure, because he probably knew well how incompetent and unfit to be Tsar he was, but out of a sense of duty he decided to sacrifice his life by devoting himself to public duty and working as hard as possible (and making stupid decisions all along). He paid with his and his family’s life for it.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @AP
    I would say that the Tsar was not a complete incompetent - Russia did improve in many ways under his rule, thanks in part to people he had brought in, such as Stolypin. But he made the huge mistake of getting Russia into the war, and wasn't competent enough to steer it successfully through this. Nevertheless, without Lenin's genius it is likely that Russia would have made it to 1918.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?
     
    NEP? Nah. To me NEP is a clear example of his pragmatism, his tactical genius (which is what this is all about). 100% goal-oriented, pragmatic, non-ideological. Very much a western (modern western CEO-like) quality.

    Here's what China Mieville writes in his recent book:

    As for Lenin, all who meet him are mesmerised. As often as not, it seems, they feel driven to write about him: libraries’ worth of such books exist. He is a man easily mythologised, idolised, demonised. To his enemies he is a cold, mass-murdering monster; to his worshippers, a godlike genius; to his comrades and friends, a shy, quick-laughing lover of children and cats. Capable of occasional verbal ogees and lumbering metaphors, he is a plain rather than a sparkling wordsmith. Yet he compels, even transfixes, in print and speech, by his sheer intensity and focus. Throughout his life, opponents and friends will excoriate him for the brutality of his takedowns, his flint and ruthlessness. All agree that his is a prodigious force of will. To an extent unusual even among that ilk who live and die for politics, Lenin’s blood and marrow are nothing else.
    What particularly distinguishes him is his sense of the political moment, of fracture and traction. To his comrade Lunacharsky, he ‘raise[s] opportunism to the level of genius, by which I mean the kind of opportunism which can seize on the precise moment and which always knows how to exploit it for the unvarying objective of the revolution’.
    Not that Lenin never makes mistakes. He has, however, an acutely developed sense of when and where to push, how, and how hard.
     

    Wow, you made a comment that I completely agree with. And this contradicts the idea that the Revolution and Russia’s destruction were inevitable events, rather than the work of a strong-willed, farsighted, charismatic, malignant genius.

    I saved a comment by a commentator, “Bardon Kaldian”, on another forum:

    …it was Lenin, an ethnic Russian with marginal Jewish ancestry (a converted mother’s father Moishko Blank, himself an anti-Semite) he wasn’t aware of, and later didn’t care about, who has created & led the successful global socio-political transformation called Communism. Lenin designed & built Bolshevik party as a highly militarized, disciplined & ideologically dogmatic sect, a universal machine for transformation of all resentments (social, national, religious, personal, ethnic, “racial”, cultural, economic,..) into a “laser beam” of focused, almost inevitably violent determination for possession of total power and creation of a new, Communist utopia.

    Both ideas and actions in the crucual periods from 1903. to 1922. were his, frequently opposed by more cautious Russian & ethnically non-Russian Bolshevik leadership. The most prominent Bolshevik rulers during the revolution and civil war, of Jewish origin, had been: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Trotsky. Sverdlov was perhaps the most influential among Bolshevik Jews in the earliest stage, but he died (or was killed) too early. He himself never developed any idea, nor had been the central figure in any significant event- except the execution of Russian royal family. Trotsky, who had been a Menshevik but switched his loyalties to Lenin, played the central role in organization of the Red Army, but his vanity & verbal excesses have alienated him from many other top Bolsheviks who feared his influence: so “Jewish” Zinoviev and Kamenev formed an alliance with the Georgian Stalin (and his lapdogs) to isolate & destroy Trotsky…. One person, Lenin, totally dominated the party & the Revolution (the foundation of the Bolshevik ideology, the central strategy and tactics in post-February days, the planning and execution of the October coup d’etat, formation of the Cheka, the decision to switch to War Communism, the tactical withdrawal in the humiliating Brest-Litovsk treaty, crucial political/economic “retreat” embodied in the New Economic policy, …).

    On many occasions Bolsheviks of Jewish extraction had tried- unsuccessfully- to counter Lenin’s unique combination of radicalism & pragmatism, but inevitably failed: they’ve been frequently too radical, but not realistic enough; in other instances like the October coup, they were mostly too cautious and afraid to move (so was Stalin). In all critical moments, as Kolakowski has graphically described, Lenin virtually raped the party- and won.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @alex34
    wonderful and powerful article
    maybe translate it into Russian to spread in Runet?

    maybe translate it into Russian to spread in Runet?

    Thanks for the suggestion. I don’t think there’s much point, for two reasons.

    1. Practicality. 4,000 words is a lot of work.

    2. There is no shortage of other good “take downs” of Lenin in Russian (just the extended Sputnik i Pogrom ecosystem and the genby blog come to mind), which brings us to the key problem: It’s not there is an absence of such criticisms, but of a sizable audience for them.

    Russian liberals have succeeded in setting the terms of the debate and adoration of Lenin, Communism, the USSR, and especially Stalin is now for all intents and purposes a tribal identifier for the “patriotic” camp. In the same way that, say, denial of climate change and other retarded positions has become a tribal identifier for conservatives in the United States. This is very bad, very sad, and it’s not obvious how to get out of here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    I disagree here. Maybe with the older generations it is, but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, and red myth doesn't take much to dismantle anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. AP says:
    @correctHistory
    correct would be to know that it took more than one and a half years to defeat the small kingdon of romania on the eastern front (see wikipedia for example) so german empire and austro-hungarian empire were not that strong and would have lost or taken a lot more time to defeat the russian empire and romanian kingdom even if they had that time and resources, if the russian empire had not collapsed . the russian empire had about 20 times the population of the romanian kingdom and a lot more space of defense . yes, resources were diverted from the western front and the austrians were not capable initially to win therefore germans needed to send resources. You overestimate the central powers for certain, the central powers had also setbacks and defeats on their way to Bucharest. After the russian capitulation some of their soldiers even changed sides . If you read the views of the german marechal hindeburg you will see that was true, they felt vulnerable

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_I

    The Germans never captured all of Belgian territory.

    Are you suggesting they were too weak to take all of Belgium?

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front. Germans and Austrian combined used 750,000 troops in Romania. The Romanians had about 60% more casualties than their opponents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front.
     
    It is obviously impossible figures
    , @correcthistory2
    of course they had much less than 13 millions on the western front, actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest of being used against the kingdom of romania and the adversary USSR had an army and reserves of manpower 30-50 time greater than the Romanian kingdom had in ww1, so the figure is significant, so they use much greater manpower in proportion to the adversary number and space against romanian kingdom compared to the invasion of USSR later. Of course that would have been far less than needed if the russian empire had not collapsed. 750k was a forece that could have changed the odds of any battle on western front. adjusted to adversary size 750k was a much greater force than that used to invade USSR in ww2, obviously you are too pro central powers but even so , even if this is due to weakness, karlin is right that the russian empire was near victory
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. melanf says:
    @AP
    The Germans never captured all of Belgian territory.

    Are you suggesting they were too weak to take all of Belgium?

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front. Germans and Austrian combined used 750,000 troops in Romania. The Romanians had about 60% more casualties than their opponents.

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front.

    It is obviously impossible figures

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Sorry - that was total military strength, per wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)

    At any rate, the point that Romania was not a central concern and this, rather than the fact that the central powers were to weak to handle it, explains why it took so long for Romania to be defeated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. AP says:
    @reiner Tor
    The Tsar was not guilty by my standards, just incompetent. The revolutionaries and all who encouraged the revolution were guilty. It still remains a fact that had the Tsar been competent, he could easily have prevented the situation from getting out of control.

    I would say the Tsar himself was a tragic figure, because he probably knew well how incompetent and unfit to be Tsar he was, but out of a sense of duty he decided to sacrifice his life by devoting himself to public duty and working as hard as possible (and making stupid decisions all along). He paid with his and his family's life for it.

    I would say that the Tsar was not a complete incompetent – Russia did improve in many ways under his rule, thanks in part to people he had brought in, such as Stolypin. But he made the huge mistake of getting Russia into the war, and wasn’t competent enough to steer it successfully through this. Nevertheless, without Lenin’s genius it is likely that Russia would have made it to 1918.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    We won't have a corect understanding of the revoultion as long as we repeat the mantra of the Tsar involving Russia inWW1.
    The war was imposed on Russia (and actually that was the hidden reason of the War, with the ultimate goal of provoking the revolution and the dismemberment of Russia).
    Russia was not loosing the war in 1917.
    Lenin and his gang did exactly what his sponsors demanded from them: taking Russia out of the war, dismembering the Empire, opening it to the economic exploitation of the "imperialists"
    That was the reason of the NEP.
    , @Sean
    The development of pre WW1 Russia was due to French loans to build railroads, which were primarily for military purposes. (ie so Russia could fight Germany).In the run up to WW1 Alsatian Raymond Poincare (cousin of the superbrain physicist) got the Czar to commit to a war against Germany. Although Germany had missed its chance (in 1905) it was just too strong to be easily beaten. The French Revolution* happens largely because of Austrian victories and the 1905 Revolution happened because of Japanese victory . Once Russia went to war, the 1918 revolution was quite predictable. but if they hadn't went to war alongside France, Russia would have been alone and faced with a victorious Germany too powerful to be beaten.

    (*Apart from The Czarina and Marie Antoinette both being accused of being a foreign spy, there are many other parallels. For example, the affair of the necklace and Rasputin.).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @5371
    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.
    The collapse of a whole social fabric doesn't happen often in history, let alone over an area and involving a population like Russia's. But happen it did in 1917, and it's important not to attribute a process of this magnitude to any individual, let alone one who wasn't even in power.

    No, there was certainly no knockout blow against the Dual Monarchy imminent. Even big breakthroughs were extraordinarily hard to exploit at that stage, as the fate of the 1916 offensive showed. Since then, the Austro-Hungarian armies had been thoroughly stiffened with German units and even NCOs.

    Sarcasm on: Please stop operating with facts and historic knowledge. Also, stop using this horrible thing called causality. You are not hip, cool and most likely color-blind to understand all those graphs;-) Most likely you have low IQ, as most well-versed and erudite historians do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. AP says:
    @melanf

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front.
     
    It is obviously impossible figures

    Sorry – that was total military strength, per wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)

    At any rate, the point that Romania was not a central concern and this, rather than the fact that the central powers were to weak to handle it, explains why it took so long for Romania to be defeated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Hi,

    What about demographics? Pre-WW1 Youth Bulge?

    As far as I understood Russia was growing/modernizing, but as usual many Young Men (TM) are not quite content with their place in the New Era(TM). Was Russia growing fast enough?

    Without the Youth Bulge where did the different Civil War-faction would get their cannon-fodder from?

    Looking back in the last 40 years only China/India/South-East-Asia seemed to be able to bring population-growth under control FAST and fired up an agressive economic boom, which makes the overwhelming majority of Young Men (TM) satisfied.

    Arabs/African/Central-American nations failed to do so. Now they have to deal with Jihadists, Rebel-Groups and MS-13 & Co. Foreign Meddling (TM) would only be the cherry-topping.

    Is Lenin the early 20th Century Russian-variant of the contemporary Jihadist Moroccan hate-preacher in Mollenbeek, Belgium, who lives off Social Welfare and runs a Youtube-blog?

    Cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    You may have a point; do have to look at the data to back that up, but would not be surprised if there was a Youth Bulge.
    At any rate, culture also matters. The Asian regions you mention have a longer history of cultures emphasizing discipline and learning, as well as a stronger sense of identity (they tend to be countries bigger in population and not short of historical tragedies and rebirths). Therefore, in those countries it was possible to implement those changes with less blood and more progress.
    Geography also has something to do with it, but always related with demography.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. jtgw says:

    Anatoly, you have a way of asserting very surprising and counter-intuitive claims without much comment or support. An earlier example I’m familiar with was when you claimed that the opening of the Soviet archives revealed that anti-communist polemicists like Conquest systematically overestimated the number of victims of Stalin, whereas I had always thought they had the opposite effect, i.e. confirming that Stalin was indeed a mass-murderer of millions, rather than the petty dictator of leftist imagination who was responsible for at most a few thousand deaths.

    Now you’re saying that the Holodomor was an instrument of Ukrainization, rather than the “normie” understanding of it as a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians. You might be right but you can’t just say that without adding explanation (and a Russian-only link doesn’t count!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Don't think I said or even implied that, the idea was that Ukrainization helped cement the Ukrainian nation as something discrete from the Russian one, while the Holodomor helped estrange it from Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @AP
    The Germans never captured all of Belgian territory.

    Are you suggesting they were too weak to take all of Belgium?

    The Germans had over 13 million men on the Western Front. Germans and Austrian combined used 750,000 troops in Romania. The Romanians had about 60% more casualties than their opponents.

    of course they had much less than 13 millions on the western front, actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest of being used against the kingdom of romania and the adversary USSR had an army and reserves of manpower 30-50 time greater than the Romanian kingdom had in ww1, so the figure is significant, so they use much greater manpower in proportion to the adversary number and space against romanian kingdom compared to the invasion of USSR later. Of course that would have been far less than needed if the russian empire had not collapsed. 750k was a forece that could have changed the odds of any battle on western front. adjusted to adversary size 750k was a much greater force than that used to invade USSR in ww2, obviously you are too pro central powers but even so , even if this is due to weakness, karlin is right that the russian empire was near victory

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest
     
    entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR - about 5 millions
    , @Disordered
    I would not say Russia was near-victory, but definitely could have pursued better terms if it had waited a few more months. Just look at what the other Entente members got awarded in Versailles.

    Then again, as others have mentioned, the Tsar was not popular nor too good at keeping the people on his side, and people wanted to speed up change in a forceful way. The Bolsheviks took advantage.

    Just like Brexit was more about principle and ideals for the future than responding to actual present conditions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. melanf says:
    @correcthistory2
    of course they had much less than 13 millions on the western front, actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest of being used against the kingdom of romania and the adversary USSR had an army and reserves of manpower 30-50 time greater than the Romanian kingdom had in ww1, so the figure is significant, so they use much greater manpower in proportion to the adversary number and space against romanian kingdom compared to the invasion of USSR later. Of course that would have been far less than needed if the russian empire had not collapsed. 750k was a forece that could have changed the odds of any battle on western front. adjusted to adversary size 750k was a much greater force than that used to invade USSR in ww2, obviously you are too pro central powers but even so , even if this is due to weakness, karlin is right that the russian empire was near victory

    actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest

    entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR – about 5 millions

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @jtgw
    Anatoly, you have a way of asserting very surprising and counter-intuitive claims without much comment or support. An earlier example I'm familiar with was when you claimed that the opening of the Soviet archives revealed that anti-communist polemicists like Conquest systematically overestimated the number of victims of Stalin, whereas I had always thought they had the opposite effect, i.e. confirming that Stalin was indeed a mass-murderer of millions, rather than the petty dictator of leftist imagination who was responsible for at most a few thousand deaths.

    Now you're saying that the Holodomor was an instrument of Ukrainization, rather than the "normie" understanding of it as a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians. You might be right but you can't just say that without adding explanation (and a Russian-only link doesn't count!).

    Don’t think I said or even implied that, the idea was that Ukrainization helped cement the Ukrainian nation as something discrete from the Russian one, while the Holodomor helped estrange it from Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    OK, your clarification makes sense, but your original wording was misleading. You said that Stalin cemented Ukrainization through the Holodomor, which sounds like the Holodomor was part of the same policy of Ukrainization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. jtgw says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Don't think I said or even implied that, the idea was that Ukrainization helped cement the Ukrainian nation as something discrete from the Russian one, while the Holodomor helped estrange it from Russia.

    OK, your clarification makes sense, but your original wording was misleading. You said that Stalin cemented Ukrainization through the Holodomor, which sounds like the Holodomor was part of the same policy of Ukrainization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    One cannot avoid the idea that the Holodomor had an intimate relation with the project of a Jewish autonomous republic in Crimea and Ukraine.
    , @Seraphim
    One cannot avoid the idea that the Holodomor had an intimate relation with the project of a Jewish autonomous republic in Crimea and Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Seraphim says:
    @AP
    I would say that the Tsar was not a complete incompetent - Russia did improve in many ways under his rule, thanks in part to people he had brought in, such as Stolypin. But he made the huge mistake of getting Russia into the war, and wasn't competent enough to steer it successfully through this. Nevertheless, without Lenin's genius it is likely that Russia would have made it to 1918.

    We won’t have a corect understanding of the revoultion as long as we repeat the mantra of the Tsar involving Russia inWW1.
    The war was imposed on Russia (and actually that was the hidden reason of the War, with the ultimate goal of provoking the revolution and the dismemberment of Russia).
    Russia was not loosing the war in 1917.
    Lenin and his gang did exactly what his sponsors demanded from them: taking Russia out of the war, dismembering the Empire, opening it to the economic exploitation of the “imperialists”
    That was the reason of the NEP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The war was imposed on Russia...
     
    I do not disagree, but would you care to elaborate beyond what you already said? Your comment makes sense to me, but I'm curious about the details. What sources would you recommend for fleshing out your claims?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Seraphim says:
    @jtgw
    OK, your clarification makes sense, but your original wording was misleading. You said that Stalin cemented Ukrainization through the Holodomor, which sounds like the Holodomor was part of the same policy of Ukrainization.

    One cannot avoid the idea that the Holodomor had an intimate relation with the project of a Jewish autonomous republic in Crimea and Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Seraphim says:
    @jtgw
    OK, your clarification makes sense, but your original wording was misleading. You said that Stalin cemented Ukrainization through the Holodomor, which sounds like the Holodomor was part of the same policy of Ukrainization.

    One cannot avoid the idea that the Holodomor had an intimate relation with the project of a Jewish autonomous republic in Crimea and Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Who is a traitor? The russian generals forced the Czar to abdicate to please Woodrow Wilson and receive American money. Kerensky was a british agent, according to his own memories.
    Lenin’s followers at least fought for their own interests, not those of the English and French governments.

    https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/was-1917-russian-revolution-an-early-maidan-russian-analyst-nikolay-starikov-on-armenia-maidan-and-greece/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    What you mean is Lenin was fighting for German interests. The Germans had paid him after all to do what he did. And it nearly worked. The Germans nearly won WWI as a result.
    Lenin was a traitor. But a dimwit like you fails to grasp this.
    , @Alden
    Lenin and his followers fought for their sponsors and pay master, the German government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. …. Well the USSR did give us the greatest national anthem of all time.

    A real work of art of the 20th century.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mikel
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Home of the free" go the lyrics. Funny how everyone, even communists, claim something that science sees as determined by the interaction of evolved algorithms. Surely they can't actually believe in free will !
    , @Verymuchalive
    Not a patch on the old Russian Imperial Anthem, or even the Finnish Anthem (I'm sure Rusty Mannerheim will back me up on this ! )
    Priss Factor, you really are taking the Piss Factor !
    , @Disordered
    Agreed, though it is based on very non-Soviet older musical motifs. Orthodox choral music is usually amazing.

    For this reason, even Putin rehabilitated the music, albeit with changed lyrics of course.
    , @Vinteuil
    "...the USSR did give us the greatest national anthem of all time..."

    Heh.

    The birth of that "battleship of a song" (as Stalin dubbed it), Alexandrov's anthem, is described, hilariously, in D. D. Shostakovich's memoirs.:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/07/archives/improvising-under-stalins-baton.html

    Possibly the single funniest story in a book full of funny stories

    "...The atmosphere was appropriate to a sacred rite, and it seemed that a miracle was about to occur —for instance, Stalin would give birth. The expectation of a miracle was on every toady's face..."

    , @Vinteuil
    P.S. - the "greatest national anthem of all time," words & music, is, of course, Parry's setting of Blake, *Jerusalem.*

    Unfortunately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Lenin’s genius was exploiting the stupidity of great powers.
    And great powers were really stupid in WWI. All of them.

    WWI also made Mussolini.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The only stupid great power was Germany and its stupidity was in not attacking Russia in 1905.
    , @Che Guava
    Evening, Priss.

    I see that you are posting on TOO, different u-name, but instantly recognisable.

    Not that I am disliking your posts. Sometimes informative, entertaining, if a little repetitive.

    Interesting that you are to choose a Slavonic u-name there.

    Also interestingly, Rehmat has stopped posting here many months ago, but is quite the regular on TOO now.

    From my reading, and I have read much from Mussolini and other fascists, original texts in translation, the formative years were his 'missing years' in Switzerland, where he would have been associating with mainly Jewish exiled Zionists and RSDLP peopke. That, not WWI, was the time that was to forming his later ideas.

    As for the Bolshevik coup d'etat, even i am surprised by the extent of Japanese govt. support for the 1905 uprising, I knew from propaganda among Russian POWs that was going much further. That propaganda was made to order from Noo Yawk Jews.

    However, before, too. Japanese Imperial Govt was having many interventions in Russia.

    Point is, the German sealed train containing Lenin, and many mainly Jewish Bolsheviks, was inspired by the tactics of Japan 13 years earlier, even if at the time, Japan was ally of Britain, not Germany.

    Our old govt's activities, except the existence of a fake Commmunist Party in 1920s, are secret to us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Sean says:
    @Priss Factor
    .... Well the USSR did give us the greatest national anthem of all time.

    A real work of art of the 20th century.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-ARytZKgQ

    “Home of the free” go the lyrics. Funny how everyone, even communists, claim something that science sees as determined by the interaction of evolved algorithms. Surely they can’t actually believe in free will !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Surely they can’t actually believe in free will !
     
    I don't remember "home of the free" in there. Free republics, free fatherland, but no "home of the free", so nothing to worry about. Communist ideology is certainly more deterministic that liberalism; socioeconomic formations change like geologic periods, the base determines the superstructure.

    As for free will, believing in it doesn't make any difference. Those destined to believe in free will have no choice but to believe in it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Sean says:
    @Priss Factor
    Lenin's genius was exploiting the stupidity of great powers.
    And great powers were really stupid in WWI. All of them.

    WWI also made Mussolini.

    The only stupid great power was Germany and its stupidity was in not attacking Russia in 1905.

    Read More
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The greatest stupidity of Germany was that it attacked Russia at all. And that against the advice of her greatest statesmen (Bismarck). Bismarck warned the hotheads of the General Staff that a victory in a war against Russia is impossible due to the vastness of the Russian space, of her huge population and of her 'Greek-Orthodox relgion' which would always unite the Russians. He recommended to adopt a defensive stance and let the internal contradictions of the Russian society to play their role. In other words to incite a revolution in Russia.
    Bismarck was prophetic. What won the war against 'fascist invasion' was the appeal of Stalin to the Orthodox feelings of the Russians, to the acknowledgement that all the 'war against God' of the Lenin-Trotsky gang had failed.
    , @Disordered
    I see what you mean; the thing is, the Kaiser and the Heer were bigger Francophobes than Russophobes. Then again, all-out war on Russia is hard to win (ask Napoleon), but a status-quo settlement was never out of reach. Brest-Litovsk proved that.

    WWI should have never been anything more than Franco-Prussian War II, as these countries were the only willing ones to go to total war. On the East, a short Austro-Hungarian-Russian War without any other parties involved would have led to a better border settlement over the eternally troubled Eastern European peoples (I don't include the Ottomans, they were collapsing harder than the Tsar's empire) than the idiotic Wilsonian plan of supporting a myriad little republics ready to be fought over in a future war. (A plan enabled by the earlier idiotic French idea of cordon sanitaire, just as idiotic as the Maginot Line).

    It was the stupid alliances and geopolitical ambitions of everyone (including the victors), that dragged everyone into an unnecessary mess, and created a much deadlier second part as well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Sean says:
    @AP
    I would say that the Tsar was not a complete incompetent - Russia did improve in many ways under his rule, thanks in part to people he had brought in, such as Stolypin. But he made the huge mistake of getting Russia into the war, and wasn't competent enough to steer it successfully through this. Nevertheless, without Lenin's genius it is likely that Russia would have made it to 1918.

    The development of pre WW1 Russia was due to French loans to build railroads, which were primarily for military purposes. (ie so Russia could fight Germany).In the run up to WW1 Alsatian Raymond Poincare (cousin of the superbrain physicist) got the Czar to commit to a war against Germany. Although Germany had missed its chance (in 1905) it was just too strong to be easily beaten. The French Revolution* happens largely because of Austrian victories and the 1905 Revolution happened because of Japanese victory . Once Russia went to war, the 1918 revolution was quite predictable. but if they hadn’t went to war alongside France, Russia would have been alone and faced with a victorious Germany too powerful to be beaten.

    (*Apart from The Czarina and Marie Antoinette both being accused of being a foreign spy, there are many other parallels. For example, the affair of the necklace and Rasputin.).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @anon
    Who is a traitor? The russian generals forced the Czar to abdicate to please Woodrow Wilson and receive American money. Kerensky was a british agent, according to his own memories.
    Lenin's followers at least fought for their own interests, not those of the English and French governments.

    https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/was-1917-russian-revolution-an-early-maidan-russian-analyst-nikolay-starikov-on-armenia-maidan-and-greece/

    What you mean is Lenin was fighting for German interests. The Germans had paid him after all to do what he did. And it nearly worked. The Germans nearly won WWI as a result.
    Lenin was a traitor. But a dimwit like you fails to grasp this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Priss Factor
    .... Well the USSR did give us the greatest national anthem of all time.

    A real work of art of the 20th century.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-ARytZKgQ

    Not a patch on the old Russian Imperial Anthem, or even the Finnish Anthem (I’m sure Rusty Mannerheim will back me up on this ! )
    Priss Factor, you really are taking the Piss Factor !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Sean
    "Home of the free" go the lyrics. Funny how everyone, even communists, claim something that science sees as determined by the interaction of evolved algorithms. Surely they can't actually believe in free will !

    Surely they can’t actually believe in free will !

    I don’t remember “home of the free” in there. Free republics, free fatherland, but no “home of the free”, so nothing to worry about. Communist ideology is certainly more deterministic that liberalism; socioeconomic formations change like geologic periods, the base determines the superstructure.

    As for free will, believing in it doesn’t make any difference. Those destined to believe in free will have no choice but to believe in it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    A lot of Calvinism there for a commie.
    Though I agree that the base determines a lot, structural change usually needs a trigger, the "vanguard" in your parlance. And said vanguard can, with enough manipulation, move the base enough. It's a feedback loop, to be sure, but societal movement does not necessarily begin with base-to-vanguard-to-power to create the structure, as the base does not always find a trigger to set off the revolution - heck, the powerful might be smart enough to change things over time, as has happened in the West. Plus, every revolution has always needed some disgruntled financier that needs help with ulterior motives, whether at home or abroad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @random rand
    I'm one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I'm quite ignorant about Russia. I'm just wondering, if Russia was in a relatively good position, how did the uprising even succeed in the first place? Surely it would have been easy to put down? Or is this just a case of Tocqueville's observation where governments collapse when everything is getting better?

    It’s down to Tocqueville, though I would modify that proposition – governments collapse when the proles are given scraps of bread (aka some slight growth and betterment, as happened under Nicholas, but not radical change), after which they hunger for more. Enter the Bolsheviks, who promised utopia and much more. The keyword is “relatively”, at any rate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The NEP was unforgiveable revisionism?
     
    NEP? Nah. To me NEP is a clear example of his pragmatism, his tactical genius (which is what this is all about). 100% goal-oriented, pragmatic, non-ideological. Very much a western (modern western CEO-like) quality.

    Here's what China Mieville writes in his recent book:

    As for Lenin, all who meet him are mesmerised. As often as not, it seems, they feel driven to write about him: libraries’ worth of such books exist. He is a man easily mythologised, idolised, demonised. To his enemies he is a cold, mass-murdering monster; to his worshippers, a godlike genius; to his comrades and friends, a shy, quick-laughing lover of children and cats. Capable of occasional verbal ogees and lumbering metaphors, he is a plain rather than a sparkling wordsmith. Yet he compels, even transfixes, in print and speech, by his sheer intensity and focus. Throughout his life, opponents and friends will excoriate him for the brutality of his takedowns, his flint and ruthlessness. All agree that his is a prodigious force of will. To an extent unusual even among that ilk who live and die for politics, Lenin’s blood and marrow are nothing else.
    What particularly distinguishes him is his sense of the political moment, of fracture and traction. To his comrade Lunacharsky, he ‘raise[s] opportunism to the level of genius, by which I mean the kind of opportunism which can seize on the precise moment and which always knows how to exploit it for the unvarying objective of the revolution’.
    Not that Lenin never makes mistakes. He has, however, an acutely developed sense of when and where to push, how, and how hard.
     

    None of what you say disproves the fact that NEP was revisionism.
    And temporary, at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    You may want to read the conversation more carefully before barging into it. It wasn't about NEP.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Surely they can’t actually believe in free will !
     
    I don't remember "home of the free" in there. Free republics, free fatherland, but no "home of the free", so nothing to worry about. Communist ideology is certainly more deterministic that liberalism; socioeconomic formations change like geologic periods, the base determines the superstructure.

    As for free will, believing in it doesn't make any difference. Those destined to believe in free will have no choice but to believe in it.

    A lot of Calvinism there for a commie.
    Though I agree that the base determines a lot, structural change usually needs a trigger, the “vanguard” in your parlance. And said vanguard can, with enough manipulation, move the base enough. It’s a feedback loop, to be sure, but societal movement does not necessarily begin with base-to-vanguard-to-power to create the structure, as the base does not always find a trigger to set off the revolution – heck, the powerful might be smart enough to change things over time, as has happened in the West. Plus, every revolution has always needed some disgruntled financier that needs help with ulterior motives, whether at home or abroad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Seraphim says:
    @Sean
    The only stupid great power was Germany and its stupidity was in not attacking Russia in 1905.

    The greatest stupidity of Germany was that it attacked Russia at all. And that against the advice of her greatest statesmen (Bismarck). Bismarck warned the hotheads of the General Staff that a victory in a war against Russia is impossible due to the vastness of the Russian space, of her huge population and of her ‘Greek-Orthodox relgion’ which would always unite the Russians. He recommended to adopt a defensive stance and let the internal contradictions of the Russian society to play their role. In other words to incite a revolution in Russia.
    Bismarck was prophetic. What won the war against ‘fascist invasion’ was the appeal of Stalin to the Orthodox feelings of the Russians, to the acknowledgement that all the ‘war against God’ of the Lenin-Trotsky gang had failed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. JackOH says:

    Anyone think there’d be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler

    Is that really needed?

    What is the size of the academic and intellectual ideological forbearance of Hitler as opposed to Lenin?

    There must be tens of thousands of Lenin groupies for every Hitler one.

    , @German_reader
    That seems rather pointless given that only the most deranged Neonazis would defend Hitler.
    Even if you don't care about the criminal character of his enterprise and what it meant for Jews, Slavs etc., the war he started had ruinous consequences for Germany itself and ended in utter defeat. That's very different from Lenin and Stalin who at least in a superficial sense were very successful.
    , @jacques sheete

    Anyone think there’d be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?
     
    `

    It seems to me that enough crap has been spread about the man already. It's way past due for Americans to unlearn the propaganda in fact, and it doesn't take a Nazi sympathizer to understand it.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
    Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

     


    … the Germans were morally right…


    -Murray N. Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J .P. Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962).
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Disordered
    None of what you say disproves the fact that NEP was revisionism.
    And temporary, at that.

    You may want to read the conversation more carefully before barging into it. It wasn’t about NEP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    It was about Lenin's shortcomings and failures, of which NEP was one of the few exceptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Sean
    The only stupid great power was Germany and its stupidity was in not attacking Russia in 1905.

    I see what you mean; the thing is, the Kaiser and the Heer were bigger Francophobes than Russophobes. Then again, all-out war on Russia is hard to win (ask Napoleon), but a status-quo settlement was never out of reach. Brest-Litovsk proved that.

    WWI should have never been anything more than Franco-Prussian War II, as these countries were the only willing ones to go to total war. On the East, a short Austro-Hungarian-Russian War without any other parties involved would have led to a better border settlement over the eternally troubled Eastern European peoples (I don’t include the Ottomans, they were collapsing harder than the Tsar’s empire) than the idiotic Wilsonian plan of supporting a myriad little republics ready to be fought over in a future war. (A plan enabled by the earlier idiotic French idea of cordon sanitaire, just as idiotic as the Maginot Line).

    It was the stupid alliances and geopolitical ambitions of everyone (including the victors), that dragged everyone into an unnecessary mess, and created a much deadlier second part as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Szopen
    Agree completely! It was stupid to leave exusting Germany. It should be divided between France and a new Slavic-ruled central European federation, instead if leaving small German republic which wet to war without having chance to win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Priss Factor
    .... Well the USSR did give us the greatest national anthem of all time.

    A real work of art of the 20th century.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-ARytZKgQ

    Agreed, though it is based on very non-Soviet older musical motifs. Orthodox choral music is usually amazing.

    For this reason, even Putin rehabilitated the music, albeit with changed lyrics of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. iffen says:
    @JackOH
    Anyone think there'd be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?

    Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler

    Is that really needed?

    What is the size of the academic and intellectual ideological forbearance of Hitler as opposed to Lenin?

    There must be tens of thousands of Lenin groupies for every Hitler one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @JackOH
    Anyone think there'd be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?

    That seems rather pointless given that only the most deranged Neonazis would defend Hitler.
    Even if you don’t care about the criminal character of his enterprise and what it meant for Jews, Slavs etc., the war he started had ruinous consequences for Germany itself and ended in utter defeat. That’s very different from Lenin and Stalin who at least in a superficial sense were very successful.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @JackOH
    GR, I was thinking, roughly, of a takedown written for Hitler's detractors, those who've made of him a "psychopathic god", and, I think, in the process, have made of themselves as way too virtuous.

    What about an interpretation of Hitler as an overreaching fuck-up? I don't want to relitigate WWII, but there certainly must be some published thinking by German nationalist or conservative types that the demands on Poland may have been met peacefully with time to allow the Czech crisis to heal, steady diplomatic pressure, and economic incentives.

    Likewise, there must be some thinking, again by German nationalist or conservative types, that Hitler's anti-Jewish policies ought to be regarded as, very roughly, anti-German, because they alienated talented Jews with strong attachments to Germany and had those same Jews working for team America.

    Seems to me there's way too much credit given to Hitler and the Nazis for the 1933-1939 economic uplift in Germany, at a time when there were a whole lot of folks in the ministries who were republicans, monarchists, plain old conservatives, probably a German liberal or two, adherents of that Rhenish Catholic party, and so on.

    I admit to not being a 100% sure of what I'm getting, but I hope I helped a little.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @correcthistory2
    of course they had much less than 13 millions on the western front, actually the entire force in ww2 that invaded USSR was 2-3 times the 750k figure you suggest of being used against the kingdom of romania and the adversary USSR had an army and reserves of manpower 30-50 time greater than the Romanian kingdom had in ww1, so the figure is significant, so they use much greater manpower in proportion to the adversary number and space against romanian kingdom compared to the invasion of USSR later. Of course that would have been far less than needed if the russian empire had not collapsed. 750k was a forece that could have changed the odds of any battle on western front. adjusted to adversary size 750k was a much greater force than that used to invade USSR in ww2, obviously you are too pro central powers but even so , even if this is due to weakness, karlin is right that the russian empire was near victory

    I would not say Russia was near-victory, but definitely could have pursued better terms if it had waited a few more months. Just look at what the other Entente members got awarded in Versailles.

    Then again, as others have mentioned, the Tsar was not popular nor too good at keeping the people on his side, and people wanted to speed up change in a forceful way. The Bolsheviks took advantage.

    Just like Brexit was more about principle and ideals for the future than responding to actual present conditions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ha ha
    those principles of the future Britain will be made by the future inhabitants of uk, projected to be from indian subcontinent as a majority and commonwealth not by the English, brexit changes nothing. realities are stronger than ideals, ideals are often delusional . you mean that the pursue of the ideals of communism was worth the human loss and the genocidal destruction of russian society from which it never recovered and may never recover
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @AP
    Generally agree. However unlike in the case of Bavaria, the Ukrainians already had a different, standardized language, schoolbooks, etc. as well as a national mythology contradictory to ultimate union, and this was a central concern of theirs (IIRC thousands of schools were already being set up prior to the Bolsheviks seizing power).

    So at best, from the perspective of unity, it would have been a Catalonia situation, rather than a Bavaria one. However, in Ukraine the Ukrainian parties had something like 70% support rather than 52% for such parties in Catalonia; with such an easy margin it would be likely that demands would be made for increasing autonomy until full independence were achieved. The only way this would be stopped would be if Russia, being on the winning side, enjoyed the support of the entire world in demanding unity (and so, Catalonia again).

    Autonomism is usually stopped by material progress and propaganda tying said progress to the whole of the nation as opposed of only to the region.
    I think it would have been not like Catalonia, but more like the Spanish Crown before the Bourbons, or the British Isles before the Acts of Union, Ukraine and others being independent kingdoms united in the Tsar’s crown. That may have worked in the long-run – or at least, would have allowed for less violence. All water under the bridge, anyway.
    I do agree with Mr. Karlin in that Lenin was sneaky – he criticized Tsarist Russian irredentism, only for it to be replaced with the Internationalist Soviet kind that him and Trotsky spoused. Stalin may have brutishly Russified the hell out of the other republics, but he was right in that without such control the other republics would have fallen prey to their own little elites – as happened after the wall fell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @melanf

    Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski
     
    No. Zemsky Sobor ceased to operate before Peter. After Peter (18th century) gathered a meeting of elected representatives of the estates (but the name of the Zemsky Sobor was not used)

    he even made boyars cut their beards
     
    Similar measures were undertaken in Japan and Turkey (two other examples of successful modernization). So, probably, these measures made sense.

    he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power
     
    The Church before of Peter was subordinated to the state. And it's good

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia.
     
    Why not the 16th century? Or 13 century? Or 11th century?

    I agree with you, though Hupa does have a point – the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people, ergo when it failed it lacked for defenders (the Whites being mostly anti-Bolsheviks and faithful Orthodox more than commited Tsarists). There is a reason why the Tsar’s office was not rehabilitated by Yeltsin, yet Spain did bring their king back.

    Then again, as others have said, Nicholas was very incompetent. Sometimes we focus too much on the systems and ideologies, when in reality the actions and failures of some individuals have the strongest consequences. For all the glories of the Roman Republic, we would have never known them if it was not for Caesar’s personal desire for military conquest, and those who followed in his footsteps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people
     
    And for that the Russian people fiercely fought against Charles XII under Peter , and against Napoleon, after Peter?

    About the culture in General strange statement - what is called the "Russian culture", 99% of the post-Petrine phenomenon. But then it's not Russian culture? Russian do not like Pushkin and Briullov? And for this rebelled in 1917?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Mao Cheng Ji
    You may want to read the conversation more carefully before barging into it. It wasn't about NEP.

    It was about Lenin’s shortcomings and failures, of which NEP was one of the few exceptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Another German Reader
    Hi,


    What about demographics? Pre-WW1 Youth Bulge?

    As far as I understood Russia was growing/modernizing, but as usual many Young Men (TM) are not quite content with their place in the New Era(TM). Was Russia growing fast enough?

    Without the Youth Bulge where did the different Civil War-faction would get their cannon-fodder from?

    Looking back in the last 40 years only China/India/South-East-Asia seemed to be able to bring population-growth under control FAST and fired up an agressive economic boom, which makes the overwhelming majority of Young Men (TM) satisfied.

    Arabs/African/Central-American nations failed to do so. Now they have to deal with Jihadists, Rebel-Groups and MS-13 & Co. Foreign Meddling (TM) would only be the cherry-topping.

    Is Lenin the early 20th Century Russian-variant of the contemporary Jihadist Moroccan hate-preacher in Mollenbeek, Belgium, who lives off Social Welfare and runs a Youtube-blog?

    Cheers

    You may have a point; do have to look at the data to back that up, but would not be surprised if there was a Youth Bulge.
    At any rate, culture also matters. The Asian regions you mention have a longer history of cultures emphasizing discipline and learning, as well as a stronger sense of identity (they tend to be countries bigger in population and not short of historical tragedies and rebirths). Therefore, in those countries it was possible to implement those changes with less blood and more progress.
    Geography also has something to do with it, but always related with demography.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. JackOH says:
    @German_reader
    That seems rather pointless given that only the most deranged Neonazis would defend Hitler.
    Even if you don't care about the criminal character of his enterprise and what it meant for Jews, Slavs etc., the war he started had ruinous consequences for Germany itself and ended in utter defeat. That's very different from Lenin and Stalin who at least in a superficial sense were very successful.

    GR, I was thinking, roughly, of a takedown written for Hitler’s detractors, those who’ve made of him a “psychopathic god”, and, I think, in the process, have made of themselves as way too virtuous.

    What about an interpretation of Hitler as an overreaching fuck-up? I don’t want to relitigate WWII, but there certainly must be some published thinking by German nationalist or conservative types that the demands on Poland may have been met peacefully with time to allow the Czech crisis to heal, steady diplomatic pressure, and economic incentives.

    Likewise, there must be some thinking, again by German nationalist or conservative types, that Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies ought to be regarded as, very roughly, anti-German, because they alienated talented Jews with strong attachments to Germany and had those same Jews working for team America.

    Seems to me there’s way too much credit given to Hitler and the Nazis for the 1933-1939 economic uplift in Germany, at a time when there were a whole lot of folks in the ministries who were republicans, monarchists, plain old conservatives, probably a German liberal or two, adherents of that Rhenish Catholic party, and so on.

    I admit to not being a 100% sure of what I’m getting, but I hope I helped a little.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Well yes, but most of those points are pretty obvious, I'd think. Unless one's a hardcore revisionist ("Hitler didn't want war, the Poles made him do it") or thinks aggressive wars to create a Germanic racial empire are justified, there's really no way to defend Hitler, and hardly anybody does today.
    It's obviously different with Lenin, both because his vision for humanity apparently has much more appeal to many than Hitler's narrow Germanic racism and because the system whose foundations he laid lasted 70 years and wasn't as clearly a spectacular failure as Hitler's 1000-year Reich.
    , @Anon
    Agree, I'd like a balanced piece on Hitler, not just as military leader either. Particularly the pre-1939 economic policy, including in credit availability from international sources. Whether he was covertly egged on to invade as Saddam in Kuwait. A concise explanation of his jewish policy particularly in relation to other enemies of state. Differences and similarities with Spain and Italy that allowed for fascism to rise. There's room for understanding. It's like he's untouchable to sensible people. Or uninteresting. He should be neither.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Hupa says:
    @melanf

    Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski
     
    No. Zemsky Sobor ceased to operate before Peter. After Peter (18th century) gathered a meeting of elected representatives of the estates (but the name of the Zemsky Sobor was not used)

    he even made boyars cut their beards
     
    Similar measures were undertaken in Japan and Turkey (two other examples of successful modernization). So, probably, these measures made sense.

    he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power
     
    The Church before of Peter was subordinated to the state. And it's good

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia.
     
    Why not the 16th century? Or 13 century? Or 11th century?

    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized

    You’re right about Turkey, Ataturk is a kind of Peter the Great but for the Turks. If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you’re hyperactive

    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity. Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary and as I wrote, it showed the extent to which the russian elites disliked russian tradition, it marked the beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse, this is why they were so sloppy in fighting Bolsheviks

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized
     
    This statement is just wrong. A meeting of elected representatives from the estates was expected to raise in 1730, and later (under the Empress Elizaveta) elected representatives from cities and the nobility participated in the drafting of laws. Then Catherine II convened a meeting of elected representatives from estates.
    Peter himself introduced a number of elected posts (for example if previously, the city was ruled by a tsars appointed officials, Peter created the elective municipal government)

    If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you’re hyperactive
     
    It's not me, so people thought in the 17th and 18th centuries. In particular, the decrees on dress and hairstyles have published Peter's father, Alexei Mikhailovich.

    Much later the same thought the Meiji reformers in Japan, and the Turkish sultans reformers (later Ataturk). I don't think they were fools


    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity.
     
    "The schism is, perhaps, the most tragic part of the legacy inherited by Peter, and for the split in any case he is not responsible. The situation extremely aggravated in the reign of Sophia. In the lent 1685г. were taken 12 notorious articles against the believers. The death penalty, whip, in the very best link —here is the meaning of this unheard of cruelty of the decree. Moreover, the decree has received meticulous and rigorous execution: according to reliable estimates, up to Easter in Moscow was burned about a hundred people. And immediately, the country erupted into a religious conflict....the attitude to the old believers is softened immediately after Sverre& tion of Sophia**. The government is a compromise policy that refuses "pravdivaya" Raskolnikov. The number of self-immolations sharply. Some of the fugitives returned from abroad. Blooms Vigo-Lakinskoe settlement (old believers ). When 1702г. the Peter on the road from Arkhangelsk is in Vigo, there was prepared to flee, and to "fiery death", but Peter promised the old believers sort of confessional autonomy—and kept his word."
    А.М.Панченко Начало Петровсой реформы: идейная подоплека

    The Church was forced, instead of Auto-da-fé to build schools and to train missionaries. It was right


    Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church
     
    That had no consequences Only indignation of historians "intelligents" in the 20th century

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary
     
    ????

    And XVIII century....russian elites disliked russian tradition
     
    In for this in the 18th century (by Peter decrees) were taken under the protection of the monuments medieval age, began the study of mediaeval Chronicles, was published the first written national history, etc.?

    beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse
     
    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age - a universal process
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @JackOH
    GR, I was thinking, roughly, of a takedown written for Hitler's detractors, those who've made of him a "psychopathic god", and, I think, in the process, have made of themselves as way too virtuous.

    What about an interpretation of Hitler as an overreaching fuck-up? I don't want to relitigate WWII, but there certainly must be some published thinking by German nationalist or conservative types that the demands on Poland may have been met peacefully with time to allow the Czech crisis to heal, steady diplomatic pressure, and economic incentives.

    Likewise, there must be some thinking, again by German nationalist or conservative types, that Hitler's anti-Jewish policies ought to be regarded as, very roughly, anti-German, because they alienated talented Jews with strong attachments to Germany and had those same Jews working for team America.

    Seems to me there's way too much credit given to Hitler and the Nazis for the 1933-1939 economic uplift in Germany, at a time when there were a whole lot of folks in the ministries who were republicans, monarchists, plain old conservatives, probably a German liberal or two, adherents of that Rhenish Catholic party, and so on.

    I admit to not being a 100% sure of what I'm getting, but I hope I helped a little.

    Well yes, but most of those points are pretty obvious, I’d think. Unless one’s a hardcore revisionist (“Hitler didn’t want war, the Poles made him do it”) or thinks aggressive wars to create a Germanic racial empire are justified, there’s really no way to defend Hitler, and hardly anybody does today.
    It’s obviously different with Lenin, both because his vision for humanity apparently has much more appeal to many than Hitler’s narrow Germanic racism and because the system whose foundations he laid lasted 70 years and wasn’t as clearly a spectacular failure as Hitler’s 1000-year Reich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I do not wish in any way to slight the anguish of the loss of human life in WWII, but Germany has bounced back remarkable well, hasn’t it?

    Millions of Turks and North Africans can’t all be wrong. 

    , @JackOH
    GR, you're in Germany, right? In the States, it's a commonplace to conflate Hitler, Nazis, Prussian-style conservatism, and God knows what-all into an undifferentiated mess of "bad German". My points are not obvious at all to Americans whose WWII began December 1941.

    Granted, Lenin probably enjoys a quiet respectability of sorts among Western intellectuals for the reasons you mention. Yet, anti-Germanism does also enjoy quiet respectability. See Paul Gottfried, for example. Perhaps an essay title, "Hitler: Opportunist, Credit-Grabber, Traitor", may sort of suggest the tone of what I'm getting at. For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis, you'd need actual evidence, of course.

    What I think I'm getting at is cutting Hitler down to size. Thanks for your comment.
    , @neutral
    You are basing your thinking on the near endless propaganda assault by the jews for the last 70 years, Germany of all places has had such a severe anti Hitler narrative that it makes the personality cults of North Korea look mundane. If you can accept the fact that jews are detrimental to not just whites, but ultimately to almost everyone else then you will also see that Hitler was not the worst leader.

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion. You might dismiss this as merely uninformed cosplay, but the way I see it, it does show that people that have not been droned into their minds since birth about how Hitler is the devil don't see it your way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    Well yes, but most of those points are pretty obvious, I'd think. Unless one's a hardcore revisionist ("Hitler didn't want war, the Poles made him do it") or thinks aggressive wars to create a Germanic racial empire are justified, there's really no way to defend Hitler, and hardly anybody does today.
    It's obviously different with Lenin, both because his vision for humanity apparently has much more appeal to many than Hitler's narrow Germanic racism and because the system whose foundations he laid lasted 70 years and wasn't as clearly a spectacular failure as Hitler's 1000-year Reich.

    I do not wish in any way to slight the anguish of the loss of human life in WWII, but Germany has bounced back remarkable well, hasn’t it?

    Millions of Turks and North Africans can’t all be wrong. 

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I do not wish in any way to slight the anguish of the loss of human life in WWII, but Germany has bounced back remarkable well, hasn’t it?
     
    Compared to what it was before 1914 (or even in some ways in the 1920s) it's a bad joke (though I suppose you can say that for other European countries as well).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. JackOH says:
    @German_reader
    Well yes, but most of those points are pretty obvious, I'd think. Unless one's a hardcore revisionist ("Hitler didn't want war, the Poles made him do it") or thinks aggressive wars to create a Germanic racial empire are justified, there's really no way to defend Hitler, and hardly anybody does today.
    It's obviously different with Lenin, both because his vision for humanity apparently has much more appeal to many than Hitler's narrow Germanic racism and because the system whose foundations he laid lasted 70 years and wasn't as clearly a spectacular failure as Hitler's 1000-year Reich.

    GR, you’re in Germany, right? In the States, it’s a commonplace to conflate Hitler, Nazis, Prussian-style conservatism, and God knows what-all into an undifferentiated mess of “bad German”. My points are not obvious at all to Americans whose WWII began December 1941.

    Granted, Lenin probably enjoys a quiet respectability of sorts among Western intellectuals for the reasons you mention. Yet, anti-Germanism does also enjoy quiet respectability. See Paul Gottfried, for example. Perhaps an essay title, “Hitler: Opportunist, Credit-Grabber, Traitor”, may sort of suggest the tone of what I’m getting at. For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis, you’d need actual evidence, of course.

    What I think I’m getting at is cutting Hitler down to size. Thanks for your comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis
     
    I'm not sure there still are any positive assessments of Nazi economic policy in the 1930s, isn't the general consensus that it would have been unsustainable for much longer and only made sense as a preparatory phase for the war Hitler had planned all along? Granted, I don't know much about economics, and haven't gotten around to reading that book by Tooze ("Wages of destruction") which supposedly is quite good about those issues.
    Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @iffen
    I do not wish in any way to slight the anguish of the loss of human life in WWII, but Germany has bounced back remarkable well, hasn’t it?

    Millions of Turks and North Africans can’t all be wrong. 

    I do not wish in any way to slight the anguish of the loss of human life in WWII, but Germany has bounced back remarkable well, hasn’t it?

    Compared to what it was before 1914 (or even in some ways in the 1920s) it’s a bad joke (though I suppose you can say that for other European countries as well).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Sounds good. But I'm sure he must've had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?

    “Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?”

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    he *was* a bit of a ghoul, though.
    and it's unkown what Russia would be like and would have achieved w/o Communism (certainly not space, as that was a function of the space race between the two systems, but still)
    tl;dr: she would probably not be "great", as in first-human-in-space kind of "great", but she would be "okay."
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Basically is about kicking dead lion.
     
    The fact that after all those years there's still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question.

    What's interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might've been mostly justified. 100 years passed - and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing...
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    While I do appreciate there is a certain irony about a proud NEET such as myself making fun of Lenin for spending most of his life writing articles for marginal journals financed by wealthy sponsors, the difference is that I don't rant about fat cat peasant and bourgeois parasites.

    ... which achieved superpowerdom
     
    Was inevitable in the 20th century, and would have otherwise lasted from approximately 1920-2050+ (maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then), instead of 1945-1991.

    ... became world premier economic power
     
    LOL.

    ... sent man to space
     
    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn't have happened otherwise. And maybe sooner: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-iq-of-peoples/#comment-1903539
    , @dcite

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseating. Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.
     
    A lion? More like a jackal. And a liar. And a hypocrite. And a sociopath. Just out for power like all dictators. This article just described millions of people who had no control over Lenin's demons, being murdered, destroyed economically, labeled parasites while doing all the work that provided anything good, like food, clothing, shelter and education. Communism was responsible for mega-deaths. Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo; because he was, morally. Sickness alone doesn't give that expression.
    It boils down to this: Lenin caused more horror and bloodshed than would have happened if he'd just got out of Dodge and let it alone. Russia was "progressing" just fine without him. He is one of those many people the world would have been better off without.
    , @5371
    In fairness, Russia's status from 1772-1855 particularly was very, very high.
    , @CalDre

    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom,
     
    Yes, imprisoned German scientists and treasonous Jewish-spy technology transfers, but, let's face it, even Houthis could build nuclear weapons under those circumstances.

    became world premier economic power,
     
    Now that's a good day's humor.

    sent man to space
     
    What was I saying about imprisoned German scientists? Well, threatening to kill their entire families did pay some dividends.

    achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve
     
    Oh, right, so when the first Tsar took power in ... oh, Ivan the Great in 1460s, or, more officially, Ivan the Terrible in 1547. Now, let's look at Russia's size and prosperity in 1470 vs. 1547 vs. 1917? Surely you must credit the Tsars with some progress, no?

    and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.
     
    LOL, yeah, sure they were. Everyone was "equal". Except the pigs. They were more equal than the others. And got to kill them by the millions if they disagreed. Particularly if you disagreed enough to kill one of the pigs. Tell me, in Russia, was the punishment the same for killing a Bolshevik official and a kulak or priest? Or maybe they weren't "equal"?

    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.
     
    You wouldn't be complaining of a bad picture of Hitler, who, through and through, was a far better man than Lenin. Of course, Lenin's is an almost impossible depth to sink deeper from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @JackOH
    GR, you're in Germany, right? In the States, it's a commonplace to conflate Hitler, Nazis, Prussian-style conservatism, and God knows what-all into an undifferentiated mess of "bad German". My points are not obvious at all to Americans whose WWII began December 1941.

    Granted, Lenin probably enjoys a quiet respectability of sorts among Western intellectuals for the reasons you mention. Yet, anti-Germanism does also enjoy quiet respectability. See Paul Gottfried, for example. Perhaps an essay title, "Hitler: Opportunist, Credit-Grabber, Traitor", may sort of suggest the tone of what I'm getting at. For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis, you'd need actual evidence, of course.

    What I think I'm getting at is cutting Hitler down to size. Thanks for your comment.

    For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis

    I’m not sure there still are any positive assessments of Nazi economic policy in the 1930s, isn’t the general consensus that it would have been unsustainable for much longer and only made sense as a preparatory phase for the war Hitler had planned all along? Granted, I don’t know much about economics, and haven’t gotten around to reading that book by Tooze (“Wages of destruction”) which supposedly is quite good about those issues.
    Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy."

    Yep, GR, I think that's what I'm sort of stumbling toward. For many American observers, including in my opinion educated people who really ought to know better, there's an "essentialist" Russia in which Tsarism and Bolshevism go undifferentiated, and, likewise, an "essentialist" Germany in which Kaiser and Fuehrer go undifferentiated. That just bugs the living daylights out of me, and one reason is that it gives American policies of all sorts way too much unearned virtue.

    A Karlinesque hit piece directed against Herr Hitler and published in the States? It would be necessarily tendentious, one-sided, but I think it would also be productive if written by a German with some conservative or nationalist credibility, and supported by sufficient evidence.

    Thanks for your comments.
    , @5371
    Economists' talk of things "not being sustainable" is always guesswork, and almost always completely wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Not Raul says:

    Thank you for this post, AK. It should be required reading in high school history classes.

    You have done your bit to give the light of justice to the victims of “St. Lenin”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @JackOH
    GR, I was thinking, roughly, of a takedown written for Hitler's detractors, those who've made of him a "psychopathic god", and, I think, in the process, have made of themselves as way too virtuous.

    What about an interpretation of Hitler as an overreaching fuck-up? I don't want to relitigate WWII, but there certainly must be some published thinking by German nationalist or conservative types that the demands on Poland may have been met peacefully with time to allow the Czech crisis to heal, steady diplomatic pressure, and economic incentives.

    Likewise, there must be some thinking, again by German nationalist or conservative types, that Hitler's anti-Jewish policies ought to be regarded as, very roughly, anti-German, because they alienated talented Jews with strong attachments to Germany and had those same Jews working for team America.

    Seems to me there's way too much credit given to Hitler and the Nazis for the 1933-1939 economic uplift in Germany, at a time when there were a whole lot of folks in the ministries who were republicans, monarchists, plain old conservatives, probably a German liberal or two, adherents of that Rhenish Catholic party, and so on.

    I admit to not being a 100% sure of what I'm getting, but I hope I helped a little.

    Agree, I’d like a balanced piece on Hitler, not just as military leader either. Particularly the pre-1939 economic policy, including in credit availability from international sources. Whether he was covertly egged on to invade as Saddam in Kuwait. A concise explanation of his jewish policy particularly in relation to other enemies of state. Differences and similarities with Spain and Italy that allowed for fascism to rise. There’s room for understanding. It’s like he’s untouchable to sensible people. Or uninteresting. He should be neither.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. neutral says:
    @German_reader
    Well yes, but most of those points are pretty obvious, I'd think. Unless one's a hardcore revisionist ("Hitler didn't want war, the Poles made him do it") or thinks aggressive wars to create a Germanic racial empire are justified, there's really no way to defend Hitler, and hardly anybody does today.
    It's obviously different with Lenin, both because his vision for humanity apparently has much more appeal to many than Hitler's narrow Germanic racism and because the system whose foundations he laid lasted 70 years and wasn't as clearly a spectacular failure as Hitler's 1000-year Reich.

    You are basing your thinking on the near endless propaganda assault by the jews for the last 70 years, Germany of all places has had such a severe anti Hitler narrative that it makes the personality cults of North Korea look mundane. If you can accept the fact that jews are detrimental to not just whites, but ultimately to almost everyone else then you will also see that Hitler was not the worst leader.

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion. You might dismiss this as merely uninformed cosplay, but the way I see it, it does show that people that have not been droned into their minds since birth about how Hitler is the devil don’t see it your way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion.
     
    I don't see how that's relevant, people there probably just like the aesthetic or have some vague admiration for "strong" leaders (especially one whose forces fought against the British empire and contributed to its end).
    Anyway, I disagree with your argument, but I don't think we should derail this fine thread any further. It's about Lenin, not Hitler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @neutral
    You are basing your thinking on the near endless propaganda assault by the jews for the last 70 years, Germany of all places has had such a severe anti Hitler narrative that it makes the personality cults of North Korea look mundane. If you can accept the fact that jews are detrimental to not just whites, but ultimately to almost everyone else then you will also see that Hitler was not the worst leader.

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion. You might dismiss this as merely uninformed cosplay, but the way I see it, it does show that people that have not been droned into their minds since birth about how Hitler is the devil don't see it your way.

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant, people there probably just like the aesthetic or have some vague admiration for “strong” leaders (especially one whose forces fought against the British empire and contributed to its end).
    Anyway, I disagree with your argument, but I don’t think we should derail this fine thread any further. It’s about Lenin, not Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Hugo Boss was a really good designer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. I don’t know nearly the amount of Russian or WWI history as most of the commenters one here, but I am glad to have learned from both this good article and the comments. I had known there were millions killed in the Russian civil war caused by Lenin, but not about how many were ordered killed by him during this time.

    This doesn’t let Stalin off the hook, and Mao built up an even bigger toll, depending on whether you count pure stupidity (the early 1960′s famine caused by him directly) as just as bad as orders of execution. To me, dead is dead, and the fact that one man with great power is responsible for one’s death without any decision-making on one’s own part involved makes all those deaths equally horrible.

    There are articles on the very site right now that espouse Communism and “Central Planning”. The stupidity goes on down through the centuries unabated, but it will reach a local maximum in this country as the SHTF – coming soon – Peak Stupidity.

    Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Karlin

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Just one little comment on the 'civil war' (more like foreign invasion). From wikipedia:

    Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:

    Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.
     
    You can find general Graves' book here:
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/graves/1931/siberian-adventure/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Mr. XYZ says:

    Excellent post, Anatoly! :)

    Indeed, I completely agree that Vladimir Lenin was a total piece of shit who deserves to burn in Hell! :( In fact, it would have been much better had the Russian Provisional Government jailed or even shot and killed him and his Bolshevik friends (for promoting defeatism and, in July 1917, for attempting to seize power). Of course, the Russian Provisional Government should have also avoided launching any offensives until after large numbers of U.S. troops were already in France.

    Frankly, one of the very few positive things about Lenin is his nominal support for national self-determination. Of course, even then, it would have certainly been much better for the whole edifice to come crashing down in the late 1910s or even early 1920s than to have various people–including the Great Russians, of course–suffer under the hands of the Bolsheviks for seven decades! :( Ultimately, I wonder if it would have been better for Germany to win World War I and then overthrow the Bolsheviks right afterwards. Indeed, this would have spared us some of the 20th century’s worst horrors.

    Also, I do think that, with the exception of Poland and *perhaps* Finland, a surviving Russian Republic (*not* Russian Empire) would have been able to hold together reasonably well up to the present-day. After all, even the Bolsheviks managed to create a type of Sovok identity among the Soviet population (as evidenced by the results of the March 1991 referendum in most of the Soviet Union). Indeed, in a surviving Russian Republic, there would have been various ethnic groups who would have had their own languages, cultures, and often autonomy but who might have also very well embraced a Russian national identity (rossiyane–not russkiye). Also, the much greater prosperity of a surviving Russian Republic–in comparison to the Soviet Union, of course–would have probably kept ethnic separatist sentiments inside of Russia relatively low and small.

    Indeed, Russia had an excellent future in late 1917 before the Bolsheviks seized power there. After all, the excesses of Tsarist Russia–such as the anti-Semitic Pale of Settlement and the lack of genuine democracy and basic liberties–were abolished and, with the U.S. already in World War I, the Entente stood an excellent chance of winning this war. Plus, even with the lower-IQ Central Asians (whom there weren’t that any of back then), the IQ potential of Russia was certainly very high–indeed, probably slightly lower than Italy’s, Spain’s, or Portugal’s full potential. In turn, this fact combined with Russia’s large amounts of natural resources meant that a surviving Russian Republic would have almost certainly become a developed, extremely prosperous country by the end of the 20th century. Plus, Russia’s large Ashkenazi Jewish population–assuming that a large part of them wouldn’t have emigrated in this scenario–would have certainly helped a surviving Russian Republic with scientific research, technological development, innovation, et cetera.

    Also, there’s one more thing that I want to mention. In a scenario where Lenin and the Bolsheviks fail to seize power in Russia, I expect the Bolsheviks’ multikult successors (who will be a part of Russia’s liberal scene in this scenario) to push for large-scale non-White immigration to Russia in this scenario. Indeed, if “open borders” Russian liberals and various ethnic minorities (especially Muslim ones) in a surviving Russian Republic would have eventually teamed up, you could certainly see Russia have an enormous Muslim minority today. After all, in addition to the growing Muslim population in Azerbaijan and especially Central Asia, there would be an extremely huge Muslim “migration reservoir” in Afghanistan, Iran, and South Asia in this scenario. Thus, had the Russian Republic survived, I could certainly see Russian nationalists and alt-righters being legitimately scared of a looming Islamization of Russia!

    Ultimately, though, a Russia with an extremely huge Muslim population–indeed, possibly above 35-40% in the long(er)-run depending on just how much Muslim immigration from countries to the south it will get–is still an extremely small price to pay for preventing the Lenin and Bolsheviks from coming to power in Russia!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Ultimately, I wonder if it would have been better for Germany to win World War I and then overthrow the Bolsheviks right afterwards.
     
    Yes, in retrospect, that's probably right.

    Also, I do think that, with the exception of Poland and *perhaps* Finland, a surviving Russian Republic (*not* Russian Empire) would have been able to hold together reasonably well up to the present-day
     
    .

    No Poland, sure, but that's feature, not bug. There was no significant separatism in Finland.

    Indeed, if “open borders” Russian liberals and various ethnic minorities (especially Muslim ones) in a surviving Russian Republic would have eventually teamed up, you could certainly see Russia have an enormous Muslim minority today.
     
    Yes, I posited as much in this post from a few weeks back: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/progressive-russian-empire/

    Of course it would be partially offset by a much larger Slavic population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. inertial says:

    In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd

    Are there any documents to prove this? As I said before, if any documents that showed German money transfers to Lenin or Bolsheviks existed in Berlin archives, a subsequent German government (e.g. Hitler) would certainly use them for propaganda. But they didn’t. Occam’s razor tells us that no such documents exist.

    Tambov uprising, which the Bolsheviks crushed with the use of poison gas and concentration camps.

    Both Reds and Whites used chemical weapons against each other on several occasions. Additionally, the Romanian Army used poison gas to suppress a Communist uprising in Bessarabia in 1919.

    1/4 token ethnic minority (Kalmyk)

    Some say that Lenin’s Kalmyk origin was invented out of whole cloth by Marietta Shaginyan.

    In the early 1970s, Russian-Americans had the highest median family income, etc.

    Great majority of these “Russian-Americans” were Jews who had fled that shining paradise of pre-revolutionary Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. Mr. XYZ says:

    : The fact that 70% of Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian parties doesn’t necessarily mean that 70% of Ukrainians wanted to secede from Russia, though. Similarly, just because a Muslim in British India voted for the Muslim League (and thus for the creation of Pakistan) does not necessarily mean that he would have personally been willing to move to Pakistan.

    To my knowledge, Ukrainian nationalists only began demanding independence *after* the Bolshevik revolution occurred. Before that, they would have probably been content with sufficient autonomy and land reform. Thus, I certainly don’t see why exactly a South Tyrol-style solution would have been unacceptable for the Ukrainians in this scenario. Indeed, even in our TL, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (over 70%, if I recall correctly) voted to preserve the Soviet Union in some form in March 1991! They could have voted No in this referendum just like the overwhelming majority of people in Galicia did, but they instead voted in favor of keeping the Union in some form!

    Given that a surviving Russian Republic would have almost certainly been *much* more economically successful than Bolshevik Russia was, and given the fact that, in spite of 70 years of Soviet oppression and stagnation, over 70% of Ukrainians still wanted a Union of some form in 1991, I certainly think that most Ukrainian nationalists would have been satisfied with sufficient autonomy plus land reform in this scenario. Of course, the big wild card that I could see in regards to this is if large numbers of Central Asians and other Muslims began moving en masse to Ukraine. In such a case–and especially if these Muslims will bring backwards attitudes and whatnot with them to Ukraine–I could certainly see Ukrainian separatism getting a shot in the arm. Of course, in such a scenario, Russia will probably be more resistant than ever at letting Ukraine secede considering that letting Ukraine secede might very well accelerate the Islamization of Russia in this scenario! (Indeed, please remember that, in additional to Central Asia, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia, Afghanistan, and Iran! If even a small fraction of them move to Russia, they will certainly significantly change Russia’s demographics.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The fact that 70% of Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian parties doesn’t necessarily mean that 70% of Ukrainians wanted to secede from Russia, though. Similarly, just because a Muslim in British India voted for the Muslim League (and thus for the creation of Pakistan) does not necessarily mean that he would have personally been willing to move to Pakistan.
     
    I would compare it to voting for the Catalan Parties, the Scottish National Party, or the Parti Quebecois. I suppose not every voter for these parties wants independence, but most do. If the party were to barely get 50% support, perhaps under 50% of the population would actually want independence; but with 70% support, it would be easily over 50% favoring independence.

    To my knowledge, Ukrainian nationalists only began demanding independence *after* the Bolshevik revolution occurred. Before that, they would have probably been content with sufficient autonomy and land reform.
     
    Correct. It was incremental. In June 1917 Ukraine declared broad autonomy (including for its own separate military); the Provisional Government objected to some aspects of this (particularly the military), negotiations ensured and a modified Autonomy was declared in July 1917. Ukraine was to have its own parliament, its own Ukrainian-language schools, land reforms, etc. Full independence was declared after the Bolshevik invasion in January 1918.

    Indeed, even in our TL, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (over 70%, if I recall correctly) voted to preserve the Soviet Union in some form in March 1991! They could have voted No in this referendum just like the overwhelming majority of people in Galicia did
     
    This is a a semi-myth often used by pro-Russians.

    There was no independence option on the all-Republic referendum. This question was asked on the oblast level in the Galicia provinces (where 88% voted for).

    The entire USSR had this question:

    ""Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"

    71% were for.

    Ukrainian SSR had this additional question:

    ""Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of a Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?"

    81% were for.

    This declaration meant Ukraine would have run its own affairs, including having its own army. De facto independent.

    I certainly think that most Ukrainian nationalists would have been satisfied with sufficient autonomy plus land reform in this scenario.
     
    Their initial demands were for local autonomy, schools, and military units. So it would have been a little like Austria-Hungary, Ukraine being Hungary to Russia's Austria. In such a scenario eventual independence would have been likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Mr. XYZ says:

    : “and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause”

    Actually, if we want to get technical about this, Pavlo Skoropadsky was a military man who supported the unity of a future non-Bolshevik Russia and Ukraine in a federation. Indeed, he announced this position shortly after Germany’s defeat in World War I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause”

    Actually, if we want to get technical about this, Pavlo Skoropadsky was a military man who supported the unity of a future non-Bolshevik Russia and Ukraine in a federation. Indeed, he announced this position shortly after Germany’s defeat in World War I.
     
    A brief tactical move, because without German support Ukraine needed an ally during the Bolshevik invasion and he would have taken autonomy within Russia (with hios own army, laws and schools) over a Soviet takeover. This was not his position prior to the German withdrawal, and not his position in exile. But this position had no popular support, and neither he nor his followers actually fought for such as union with Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. The article is total garbage. The quotes maybe genuine but then maybe not.
    Car did loose respect totally. Japanese destroyed Russian eastern fleet.
    There were two peasant uprising before Lenin. They were defeated and thousands of peasants executed.
    Russian army was defeated continuously. Four million casualties. Kerensky deposed Car, but he continued failing policies of the Car. All complete regiments were deserting. Leaving the front and going home with weapons. Lenin and other communists went to welcome them and convinced them to join the revolution when the time comes. Lenin or no Lenin country was ripe for revolution.
    And Lenin delivered.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. JackOH says:
    @German_reader

    For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis
     
    I'm not sure there still are any positive assessments of Nazi economic policy in the 1930s, isn't the general consensus that it would have been unsustainable for much longer and only made sense as a preparatory phase for the war Hitler had planned all along? Granted, I don't know much about economics, and haven't gotten around to reading that book by Tooze ("Wages of destruction") which supposedly is quite good about those issues.
    Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy.

    “Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy.”

    Yep, GR, I think that’s what I’m sort of stumbling toward. For many American observers, including in my opinion educated people who really ought to know better, there’s an “essentialist” Russia in which Tsarism and Bolshevism go undifferentiated, and, likewise, an “essentialist” Germany in which Kaiser and Fuehrer go undifferentiated. That just bugs the living daylights out of me, and one reason is that it gives American policies of all sorts way too much unearned virtue.

    A Karlinesque hit piece directed against Herr Hitler and published in the States? It would be necessarily tendentious, one-sided, but I think it would also be productive if written by a German with some conservative or nationalist credibility, and supported by sufficient evidence.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe German_reader can also be that German_writer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Based on
    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York
    Solschenizyn, ‘Lenin in Zürich, Die entscheidende Jahre zur Vorbereitung der Oktoberrevolution’, 1975, 1980, Hamburg
    I must disagree.
    The tzarist regime was horrible, forgot in which book the son of a GB diplomat, stationed in St Petersburg, visited his father each summer, the family had not moved there, and found the Russian aristocracy repugnant.
    Lenin lived in poverty in Zurich.
    So, being a terrorist in the tzarist regime, understandable.
    That communism failed, socially and economically, yes.
    Socially, one group of aristocrats was replaced by another, even more brutal.
    Economically, a centrally governed economy is unable to produce those consumer goods the consumer want, just the profit motive accomplishes this, as even China now knows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Lenin lived in poverty in Zurich
     
    Not just in Zürich, but several other cities, too. He didn't work, but due to money sent to him by his sisters (he was a landed nobleman, and his land was enough to provide a comfortable living for someone who didn't work), he had a comfortable living by the standards of the time (including a maid), for example an apartment with a couple of clean rooms, the ability to hang around idly in cafes, or traveling extensively around Europe. In general his living standards were probably better than like 95% (or perhaps 98 or 99%) of the Russian population, it was better than most non-Russian Europeans had at the time. Maybe his living standards were lower than most university educated people at the time, but then again, Lenin refused to do any even remotely productive work, and made little effort to make money other than the money sent to him by his sisters.

    Maybe in Zürich his living standards were lower than elsewhere, but don't forget that for the vast majority of Europe's population at the time, the most horrible war in several generations was just going on, and so basically everybody was living in poverty. I think even the Swiss were living temporarily worse, because imports (particularly of important commodities like coal or foodstuffs) were getting more expensive (although they could export to the rest of Europe at good prices, so that after the end of the war they were better off as all other countries became indebted to them).

    It's funny to see that some of our resident holocaust-deniers also peddle in communism-relativization. (Though at least you acknowledge that the communists were definitely more brutal than the Czarist regime.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. ussr andy says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    he *was* a bit of a ghoul, though.
    and it’s unkown what Russia would be like and would have achieved w/o Communism (certainly not space, as that was a function of the space race between the two systems, but still)
    tl;dr: she would probably not be “great”, as in first-human-in-space kind of “great”, but she would be “okay.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm sure Russia would've gone on developing military technologies regardless of space race and communism or not, so for example just like France or the UK or China, it would've built nukes and ICBMs and would've had a space program, if for no other reason, then out of prestige. To be honest, it's so difficult to imagine the alternate timeline (too many questions, like would Hitler have come to power in Germany in such a case? would he have been able to conquer most of Europe in a few years time? would cultural Marxism have become influential by the mid-20th century and the quasi official religion by the early 21st century?), that this is getting meaningless. The only meaningful comparisons with the real timeline is perhaps through 1939, and only in terms of internal development.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    "tl;dr: she would probably not be “great”, as in first-human-in-space kind of “great”, but she would be “okay.”"
    Probabilities are that without Lenin, Russia would have been OK aka dead. It was disintegrating already before Lenin came to power and there was no one to stop Russia being torn to pieces. Nevertheless, there still would have been job for Anatolii writing about Russia we lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Szopen says:
    @Disordered
    I see what you mean; the thing is, the Kaiser and the Heer were bigger Francophobes than Russophobes. Then again, all-out war on Russia is hard to win (ask Napoleon), but a status-quo settlement was never out of reach. Brest-Litovsk proved that.

    WWI should have never been anything more than Franco-Prussian War II, as these countries were the only willing ones to go to total war. On the East, a short Austro-Hungarian-Russian War without any other parties involved would have led to a better border settlement over the eternally troubled Eastern European peoples (I don't include the Ottomans, they were collapsing harder than the Tsar's empire) than the idiotic Wilsonian plan of supporting a myriad little republics ready to be fought over in a future war. (A plan enabled by the earlier idiotic French idea of cordon sanitaire, just as idiotic as the Maginot Line).

    It was the stupid alliances and geopolitical ambitions of everyone (including the victors), that dragged everyone into an unnecessary mess, and created a much deadlier second part as well.

    Agree completely! It was stupid to leave exusting Germany. It should be divided between France and a new Slavic-ruled central European federation, instead if leaving small German republic which wet to war without having chance to win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Central European federation is probably unworkable, even the smaller entities like the USSR (of the similar Eastern Slavic nations) or Czechoslovakia (of the industrialized Czechs and rural Slovaks, both of whom speak basically mutually understandable dialects) fell apart, not to mention Yugoslavia.

    I think that after Poland won much of the land ruled and settled by Germans for nearly a millennia, it'd be magnanimous to acknowledge that in the 1920s the Polish-German border was mostly fair (with a few legitimate grievances on both sides), or that dividing a large and culturally developed nation between neighbors like some African colonies would only lead to further bloodshed. Maybe less than WW2, but WW2 needed a lot of highly unfortunate contingent circumstances (like Hitler's personality etc.), so it's something like "would you murder baby Hitler?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion.

    The fact that after all those years there’s still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question.

    What’s interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "The fact that after all those years there’s still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question. "

    Those who want to make away with loot from Soviet people need to completely discredit every single aspect of Soviet life and obviously founding fathers of the soviet Union Lenin and Stalin. They use outright lies like German money, taken out of contest and artificially glued together quotes form Lenin and Stalin, outright lying about who deposed Tsar and so forth so on . They obviously understand that few would go and read the whole history and all of 55 Lenin's issues to confront them.
    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population, cause divide and thus allowing him to keep his yacht and soccer club with other nice things. We obviously do not have a proof but it is even more reasonable by the outcome than Lenin taking German money and then doing everything opposite to what his supposed paymasters paid for. Anatolii on the other hand is doing everything that he would have been supposed to do were he paid by said Abramovich. All in all, Great October Socialist revolution first time showed that led by talented devoted people who have interests exploited in their heart it is possible to take power away form bloodsuckers and it is possible to build state that takes care of all people not just few. For that Lenin and Stalin are hated.

    "What’s interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…"

    Exactly. You can imagine to what length enemies would go 80 years ago. I was not sitting and making research in opened archives. The picture is still not clear to me. I understand that Stalin was not all powerful as it has been promoted by liberals and there was intense fight within party different
    sections. Anyway, at the time it was already obvious what outcomes of wrong choices would have been. Soviet Russia death as in 30's Hitler was already in power and his intentions were obvious for all to see. Imagine strong Communist core in CPSU in 80's realizing where Gorbachev was taking the country and taking drastic measures. Look how many people were surrounding Gorbachev and Yeltsin and who after the fact were people enemies as we see it. Imagine they would take decisive measures and prevailed. I suspect there would have been trials and many people would be condemned to long terms in jails and death. It would have been reasonable and it would have saved millions upon millions lives that were lost including completely destroyed demography and industry and torn apart country.
    , @AP
    Do you feel the same way about hatred towards the Nazis, so many years later, by Slavs and Jews?
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…
     
    Yeah, people hate it when they get put on lists to be later shot in the head and pushed into a ditch. Others hate being sent to work to death in freezing-ass cold Siberia. Some other people hate it when they haven't eaten for a week solid because their dear leader had some kind of stupid plan to make steel on the farms and it was up to him what everyone does with his time. People even hate the young bloggers that don't know squat about Communism and other evils. This explains why even over the centuries, it seems like humans don't learn very much about how to avoid past horrible mistakes.

    You, Sergey here, James Petrak, Godfrey Roberts, and others are hated for this same reason. The hell with all of you Commies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @jilles dykstra
    Based on
    Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Lenin’, 1998, 2001, New York
    Solschenizyn, ‘Lenin in Zürich, Die entscheidende Jahre zur Vorbereitung der Oktoberrevolution’, 1975, 1980, Hamburg
    I must disagree.
    The tzarist regime was horrible, forgot in which book the son of a GB diplomat, stationed in St Petersburg, visited his father each summer, the family had not moved there, and found the Russian aristocracy repugnant.
    Lenin lived in poverty in Zurich.
    So, being a terrorist in the tzarist regime, understandable.
    That communism failed, socially and economically, yes.
    Socially, one group of aristocrats was replaced by another, even more brutal.
    Economically, a centrally governed economy is unable to produce those consumer goods the consumer want, just the profit motive accomplishes this, as even China now knows.

    Lenin lived in poverty in Zurich

    Not just in Zürich, but several other cities, too. He didn’t work, but due to money sent to him by his sisters (he was a landed nobleman, and his land was enough to provide a comfortable living for someone who didn’t work), he had a comfortable living by the standards of the time (including a maid), for example an apartment with a couple of clean rooms, the ability to hang around idly in cafes, or traveling extensively around Europe. In general his living standards were probably better than like 95% (or perhaps 98 or 99%) of the Russian population, it was better than most non-Russian Europeans had at the time. Maybe his living standards were lower than most university educated people at the time, but then again, Lenin refused to do any even remotely productive work, and made little effort to make money other than the money sent to him by his sisters.

    Maybe in Zürich his living standards were lower than elsewhere, but don’t forget that for the vast majority of Europe’s population at the time, the most horrible war in several generations was just going on, and so basically everybody was living in poverty. I think even the Swiss were living temporarily worse, because imports (particularly of important commodities like coal or foodstuffs) were getting more expensive (although they could export to the rest of Europe at good prices, so that after the end of the war they were better off as all other countries became indebted to them).

    It’s funny to see that some of our resident holocaust-deniers also peddle in communism-relativization. (Though at least you acknowledge that the communists were definitely more brutal than the Czarist regime.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I just have the books to go on, a picture of poverty, as with most Russian exiles.
    None of them were able to find decent work.
    William Somerset Maugham's novel A Christmas Holiday is about a British aristocrat who meets in a Paris dancing a Russian princess, earning her living as a topless dancer.
    That Lenin lived better than a Russian peasant is probably true.
    We Dutch did not live in poverty in WWI, not even my grandmother, whose husband was conscripted into the army for four years.
    How the business was continued, my grandfather was a baker, my father never could tell me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @ussr andy
    he *was* a bit of a ghoul, though.
    and it's unkown what Russia would be like and would have achieved w/o Communism (certainly not space, as that was a function of the space race between the two systems, but still)
    tl;dr: she would probably not be "great", as in first-human-in-space kind of "great", but she would be "okay."

    I’m sure Russia would’ve gone on developing military technologies regardless of space race and communism or not, so for example just like France or the UK or China, it would’ve built nukes and ICBMs and would’ve had a space program, if for no other reason, then out of prestige. To be honest, it’s so difficult to imagine the alternate timeline (too many questions, like would Hitler have come to power in Germany in such a case? would he have been able to conquer most of Europe in a few years time? would cultural Marxism have become influential by the mid-20th century and the quasi official religion by the early 21st century?), that this is getting meaningless. The only meaningful comparisons with the real timeline is perhaps through 1939, and only in terms of internal development.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Kemerd says:

    Shame on you Karlin! you piss on the graves of founding fathers of modern Russia. No wonder people like you don’t have any influence in Russia

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    founding fathers of modern Russia
     
    Well, that's Yeltsin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know nearly the amount of Russian or WWI history as most of the commenters one here, but I am glad to have learned from both this good article and the comments. I had known there were millions killed in the Russian civil war caused by Lenin, but not about how many were ordered killed by him during this time.

    This doesn't let Stalin off the hook, and Mao built up an even bigger toll, depending on whether you count pure stupidity (the early 1960's famine caused by him directly) as just as bad as orders of execution. To me, dead is dead, and the fact that one man with great power is responsible for one's death without any decision-making on one's own part involved makes all those deaths equally horrible.

    There are articles on the very site right now that espouse Communism and "Central Planning". The stupidity goes on down through the centuries unabated, but it will reach a local maximum in this country as the SHTF - coming soon - Peak Stupidity.

    Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Karlin

    Just one little comment on the ‘civil war’ (more like foreign invasion). From wikipedia:

    Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:

    Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.

    You can find general Graves’ book here:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/graves/1931/siberian-adventure/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Just one little comment on the ‘civil war’ (more like foreign invasion). From wikipedia:

    Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:

    Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.

    You can find general Graves’ book here:

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/graves/1931/siberian-adventure/

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Is it not anti-Japanese propaganda, though?

    In general it's well established that whites also got radicalized as time went on, and committed stupid atrocities, but were dwarfed by the Red Terror, if only because the Reds controlled a larger population throughout the civil war and were victorious in the end, and so had more chances of mass murdering people. They committed the occasional mass murder well into the 1940s, while the previous Czarist regime (of whose former partisans the whites drew most of their support) never committed anything on that scale, so it's not unreasonable to think that the escalation of violence was more driven by the Reds than by the Whites.
    , @5371
    "Really a foreign invasion" - unless it refers to Poland's, that was a real invasion - is one of the weakest and silliest pro-Bolshevik takes on the civil war. Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.
    , @Alden
    Wikepedia????? Really, I thought you were an intelligent person. Wikepedia, like academia the media and the American government is very left wing. It is only useful for dates timelines and names.

    Only leftists and the incredibly naive believe anything in wikepedia. Therefore you are a naive leftist.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Szopen
    Agree completely! It was stupid to leave exusting Germany. It should be divided between France and a new Slavic-ruled central European federation, instead if leaving small German republic which wet to war without having chance to win.

    The Central European federation is probably unworkable, even the smaller entities like the USSR (of the similar Eastern Slavic nations) or Czechoslovakia (of the industrialized Czechs and rural Slovaks, both of whom speak basically mutually understandable dialects) fell apart, not to mention Yugoslavia.

    I think that after Poland won much of the land ruled and settled by Germans for nearly a millennia, it’d be magnanimous to acknowledge that in the 1920s the Polish-German border was mostly fair (with a few legitimate grievances on both sides), or that dividing a large and culturally developed nation between neighbors like some African colonies would only lead to further bloodshed. Maybe less than WW2, but WW2 needed a lot of highly unfortunate contingent circumstances (like Hitler’s personality etc.), so it’s something like “would you murder baby Hitler?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Kemerd
    Shame on you Karlin! you piss on the graves of founding fathers of modern Russia. No wonder people like you don't have any influence in Russia

    founding fathers of modern Russia

    Well, that’s Yeltsin.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Yeltsin is modern Grishka Otrepiev that succeeded. By their deeds you will know them. Alexander Zinoviev put it well calling what's left of Russia horned rabbit. New Russia is being lucky to preserve at least part of soviet foundation that still keeps this ramp afloat and secure. The only hope for Russia to rise again lies in preserving and further developing that foundation.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I bet around 2100 the descendants of these people will be condemning critics of Yeltsin for hating their own country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Just one little comment on the 'civil war' (more like foreign invasion). From wikipedia:

    Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:

    Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.
     
    You can find general Graves' book here:
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/graves/1931/siberian-adventure/

    Is it not anti-Japanese propaganda, though?

    In general it’s well established that whites also got radicalized as time went on, and committed stupid atrocities, but were dwarfed by the Red Terror, if only because the Reds controlled a larger population throughout the civil war and were victorious in the end, and so had more chances of mass murdering people. They committed the occasional mass murder well into the 1940s, while the previous Czarist regime (of whose former partisans the whites drew most of their support) never committed anything on that scale, so it’s not unreasonable to think that the escalation of violence was more driven by the Reds than by the Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Is it not anti-Japanese propaganda, though?
     
    I've read the book and I don't think so. Why would it be anti-Japanese propaganda, anyway? They were allies in Siberia.

    In general it’s well established that whites also got radicalized as time went on, and committed stupid atrocities, but were dwarfed by the Red Terror
     
    Well, that's the official anti-communist narrative. One can accept it as "well established", or be skeptical, or reject it altogether.

    Reading Graves' memoirs (that I linked above) would certainly affect one's attitude towards the anti-communist civil war narrative; after all he was there, he was well-informed, he definitely wasn't a commie symp, and he says that in that particular area the White Terror was responsible for at least 100 times more murders/atrocities than the Red Terror. Read the quote again.

    , @Alden
    Mao Cheng Ji's a commie propagandist. Don't even bother refuting him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @ussr andy
    he *was* a bit of a ghoul, though.
    and it's unkown what Russia would be like and would have achieved w/o Communism (certainly not space, as that was a function of the space race between the two systems, but still)
    tl;dr: she would probably not be "great", as in first-human-in-space kind of "great", but she would be "okay."

    “tl;dr: she would probably not be “great”, as in first-human-in-space kind of “great”, but she would be “okay.””
    Probabilities are that without Lenin, Russia would have been OK aka dead. It was disintegrating already before Lenin came to power and there was no one to stop Russia being torn to pieces. Nevertheless, there still would have been job for Anatolii writing about Russia we lost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. ha ha says:
    @Disordered
    I would not say Russia was near-victory, but definitely could have pursued better terms if it had waited a few more months. Just look at what the other Entente members got awarded in Versailles.

    Then again, as others have mentioned, the Tsar was not popular nor too good at keeping the people on his side, and people wanted to speed up change in a forceful way. The Bolsheviks took advantage.

    Just like Brexit was more about principle and ideals for the future than responding to actual present conditions.

    those principles of the future Britain will be made by the future inhabitants of uk, projected to be from indian subcontinent as a majority and commonwealth not by the English, brexit changes nothing. realities are stronger than ideals, ideals are often delusional . you mean that the pursue of the ideals of communism was worth the human loss and the genocidal destruction of russian society from which it never recovered and may never recover

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Basically is about kicking dead lion.
     
    The fact that after all those years there's still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question.

    What's interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might've been mostly justified. 100 years passed - and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing...

    “The fact that after all those years there’s still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question. ”

    Those who want to make away with loot from Soviet people need to completely discredit every single aspect of Soviet life and obviously founding fathers of the soviet Union Lenin and Stalin. They use outright lies like German money, taken out of contest and artificially glued together quotes form Lenin and Stalin, outright lying about who deposed Tsar and so forth so on . They obviously understand that few would go and read the whole history and all of 55 Lenin’s issues to confront them.
    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population, cause divide and thus allowing him to keep his yacht and soccer club with other nice things. We obviously do not have a proof but it is even more reasonable by the outcome than Lenin taking German money and then doing everything opposite to what his supposed paymasters paid for. Anatolii on the other hand is doing everything that he would have been supposed to do were he paid by said Abramovich. All in all, Great October Socialist revolution first time showed that led by talented devoted people who have interests exploited in their heart it is possible to take power away form bloodsuckers and it is possible to build state that takes care of all people not just few. For that Lenin and Stalin are hated.

    “What’s interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…”

    Exactly. You can imagine to what length enemies would go 80 years ago. I was not sitting and making research in opened archives. The picture is still not clear to me. I understand that Stalin was not all powerful as it has been promoted by liberals and there was intense fight within party different
    sections. Anyway, at the time it was already obvious what outcomes of wrong choices would have been. Soviet Russia death as in 30′s Hitler was already in power and his intentions were obvious for all to see. Imagine strong Communist core in CPSU in 80′s realizing where Gorbachev was taking the country and taking drastic measures. Look how many people were surrounding Gorbachev and Yeltsin and who after the fact were people enemies as we see it. Imagine they would take decisive measures and prevailed. I suspect there would have been trials and many people would be condemned to long terms in jails and death. It would have been reasonable and it would have saved millions upon millions lives that were lost including completely destroyed demography and industry and torn apart country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
     
    This topic interests me. Where can I find that side of the story? Thanks.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population...
     
    Who am I not getting paid by?

    But thanks, adding this to my "powerful takes" folder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. WHAT says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    maybe translate it into Russian to spread in Runet?
     
    Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think there's much point, for two reasons.

    1. Practicality. 4,000 words is a lot of work.

    2. There is no shortage of other good "take downs" of Lenin in Russian (just the extended Sputnik i Pogrom ecosystem and the genby blog come to mind), which brings us to the key problem: It's not there is an absence of such criticisms, but of a sizable audience for them.

    Russian liberals have succeeded in setting the terms of the debate and adoration of Lenin, Communism, the USSR, and especially Stalin is now for all intents and purposes a tribal identifier for the "patriotic" camp. In the same way that, say, denial of climate change and other retarded positions has become a tribal identifier for conservatives in the United States. This is very bad, very sad, and it's not obvious how to get out of here.

    I disagree here. Maybe with the older generations it is, but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, and red myth doesn’t take much to dismantle anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    " but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, "

    That should be expected considering amount of liberal and other BS thrown at them since their birth.
    But you cannot expect great things from them either. You cannot even expect from them enough babies to keep Russian population at least stable to allow time for better generations to come forward. I do not feel uplifted by cynics who believe in nothing but this $$$.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I do agree with that, but still, as it stands, there are plenty of people Red Myth dismantling without my input.

    Latest Kholmogorov: https://vz.ru/columns/2017/11/8/894324.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @WHAT
    I disagree here. Maybe with the older generations it is, but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, and red myth doesn't take much to dismantle anyway.

    ” but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, ”

    That should be expected considering amount of liberal and other BS thrown at them since their birth.
    But you cannot expect great things from them either. You cannot even expect from them enough babies to keep Russian population at least stable to allow time for better generations to come forward. I do not feel uplifted by cynics who believe in nothing but this $$$.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Replacement level question is, well, questionable. With the low process standards of two recent pop count attempts current russian government itself can't claim that precise numbers are known.

    What a sad irony it would be if the centasians brought in with the low pop(and old "them subhumans will do jerbs russians won't" bullshit) as sole justification were completely unneeded in reality, setting Russia up for another series of interethnic conflicts. Hell, they are unneeded even in their own homelands!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @reiner Tor
    Is it not anti-Japanese propaganda, though?

    In general it's well established that whites also got radicalized as time went on, and committed stupid atrocities, but were dwarfed by the Red Terror, if only because the Reds controlled a larger population throughout the civil war and were victorious in the end, and so had more chances of mass murdering people. They committed the occasional mass murder well into the 1940s, while the previous Czarist regime (of whose former partisans the whites drew most of their support) never committed anything on that scale, so it's not unreasonable to think that the escalation of violence was more driven by the Reds than by the Whites.

    Is it not anti-Japanese propaganda, though?

    I’ve read the book and I don’t think so. Why would it be anti-Japanese propaganda, anyway? They were allies in Siberia.

    In general it’s well established that whites also got radicalized as time went on, and committed stupid atrocities, but were dwarfed by the Red Terror

    Well, that’s the official anti-communist narrative. One can accept it as “well established”, or be skeptical, or reject it altogether.

    Reading Graves’ memoirs (that I linked above) would certainly affect one’s attitude towards the anti-communist civil war narrative; after all he was there, he was well-informed, he definitely wasn’t a commie symp, and he says that in that particular area the White Terror was responsible for at least 100 times more murders/atrocities than the Red Terror. Read the quote again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @random rand
    I'm one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I'm quite ignorant about Russia. I'm just wondering, if Russia was in a relatively good position, how did the uprising even succeed in the first place? Surely it would have been easy to put down? Or is this just a case of Tocqueville's observation where governments collapse when everything is getting better?

    I’m one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I’m quite ignorant about Russia.

    I feel your pain. I’ve been hard at work for decades trying to make sense of all this, and all I know is some American history, I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another, and that American “knowledge” about Germany is about the exact opposite as one can get, but I know next to nothing about Russian or Chinese history.

    It’s interesting that Churchill wrote mourning a Russia that went down when the Brits were, in fact, a significant part of its sinking. But then I suppose he would rather have preferred to have Russia and Germany keeping each other occupied.

    I found the article informative and worth studying, but I feel handicapped by not knowing anything more than “tourist level” Russian, and I have a few quibbles.

    A student who never finished university, a lawyer who never plied his trade. After Siberia, he would spend most of the next seventeen years in European exile, writing articles for low-circulation journals that alternated between rehashing Marx and Engels, engaging in disputes with fellow Marxists who were famous in narrow circles…

    While meant as criticisms, they are weak. I especially had to smile at “writing articles for low-circulation journals.” It’s pretty obvious that the level of circulation should mean nothing regarding quality; after all, UR itself is probably very low “circulation” and it free, yet it’s better than anything with a wide circulation that people actually pay for.

    I’ve long had a question about this, but have yet to have the time to research an more specific answer.

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money.

    Does anyone know precisely who or what were the precise sources of the money?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    "I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another."

    I've just finished reading Nikolai Starikov's two books that have been translated into English; "Who Set Hitler Against Stalin", and "Rouble Nationalization". His main thesis is that most of the troubles of the 20th century, including the troubles of Germany and Russia and the World Wars, was precisely from the Brits and the Bankers deliberately trying to do exactly what you said, especially to stir up Germany and Russia against each other to insure British Hegemony over both potential competitors. He indulges in a lot of speculation and conjecture, but his claims seem to make a lot of sense to explain a lot of things that otherwise don't make sense.

    Starikov's take on Lenin and Stalin is that they acted as stooges for the Brits in order to get power, and were bad when they were too obedient to their British masters in weakening Russia, but did good when they would rebel against British control to strengthen Russia after coming to power. Trotsky was, according to Starikov, evil all the way, as he was too loyal to his British handlers, and Stalin was right to get rid of him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Logan says:
    @AP

    Those who left, a “White emigration” numbering 2-3 millions, would instead enrich other countries
     
    A note about them - with the onset of World War I many of them held a lot of assets abroad but for patriotic reasons liquidated them and brought their money home to Russia. This, of course, meant that when the Revolution occurred and everything in Russia was stolen from them they were left largely penniless.

    Quibble:


    There was a Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists operating from 1908, a tea club of conservative intellectuals who promoted the theory of the triune Russian nation, which saw Malorossiyans (Ukrainians) as one branch of the Russian people. It is conceivable that in a surviving Russian Empire or Republic, these intellectuals would have helped foster the growth of a Malorossiyan identity subsumed to an overarching Russian one,
     
    Doubtful. Ukrainian parties won the 1917 election in Ukraine, and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause - the various bands were all Ukrainian nationalist, anarchists and few pro-communists. Russian nationalism was an idea with no local popular support among ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians in what is now Ukraine, in the Russian Empire. This idea was viable a couple generations earlier, the 1850s.

    Ironically there was pro-Russian military unit from Ukraine, made up of Transcarpatian Russophile POWs, led by a Galician Russophile. They fought for Kolchak in Siberia.

    Not my area at all, but my understanding is that Great Russians promoted the tripartite Russia idea, while the two “little brothers” of the meme had little enthusiasm for it, for fairly obvious reasons.

    Given enough time, a common Russian identity could have probably grown up. Examples include not only those of France and Germany.

    In Spain all regional nationalism but the Catalans and Basques became generic Spaniards, though we shouldn’t forget the Portuguese, who took their resistance to becoming Spanish to the next level.

    Italy similarly had/have significant problems with regional nationalisms, though they are seldom remembered outside Italy.

    With the exception of the Irish, at least until recently, the Brits seemed to get it right. Welsh and Scots didn’t become English, retaining their national identity but within the greater umbrella of Britishness.

    OTOH, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia illustrate the two ends of the spectrum for dealing with intransigent nationalisms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Not my area at all, but my understanding is that Great Russians promoted the tripartite Russia idea, while the two “little brothers” of the meme had little enthusiasm for it, for fairly obvious reasons.
     
    It depends on when. In the 1840s-1860s this idea was popular among Ukrainians/Little Russians who considered themselves a sort of Rus nationalists. The ideas were generally that there was ne Rus people with two coequal branches, Little And Great Russians, each with their own languages and local history. Poles and Jews were seen as enemies of the Rus people, who must be removed from Rus territory and their lands divided among Rus peasants; the Tsar was the savior. As such, Russian nationalism may have been more popular in Ukraine than in Russia itself.

    The Russian government was initially divided in its approach towards this movement. Conservatives didn't care about Rus nationalism and wanted to preserve the traditional rights of landowners against peasants, nevermind if Polish Catholic landowners oppressed Rus Orthodox peasants. After the Polish uprisings things changed. The local Russian officials supported Little Russians against the Poles, but the central authorities worried that eventually the Little Russians might end up like Poles, and so they pursued a policy of rigid centralization and assimilation, repressing the Little Russian movement and trying to turn Little Russians into Great Russians. This produced a backlash - the Little Russians now turned into Ukrainians and wanted to leave Russia. Maybe the centralizers were right all along, but it might very well have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    In Spain all regional nationalism but the Catalans and Basques became generic Spaniards, though we shouldn’t forget the Portuguese, who took their resistance to becoming Spanish to the next level.
     
    Ukraine joined Russia much later than Catalonia joined Castille.

    Italy similarly had/have significant problems with regional nationalisms, though they are seldom remembered outside Italy
     
    The linguistic differences between Ukrainian and Russian are greater than between Italian dialects. They are similar to the differences between Spanish and Italian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Seraphim
    We won't have a corect understanding of the revoultion as long as we repeat the mantra of the Tsar involving Russia inWW1.
    The war was imposed on Russia (and actually that was the hidden reason of the War, with the ultimate goal of provoking the revolution and the dismemberment of Russia).
    Russia was not loosing the war in 1917.
    Lenin and his gang did exactly what his sponsors demanded from them: taking Russia out of the war, dismembering the Empire, opening it to the economic exploitation of the "imperialists"
    That was the reason of the NEP.

    The war was imposed on Russia…

    I do not disagree, but would you care to elaborate beyond what you already said? Your comment makes sense to me, but I’m curious about the details. What sources would you recommend for fleshing out your claims?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    Nikolai Starikov offers his answers in his books and articles, mostly in Russian (which I don't read) but two of his books are available in English translation; "Who set Hitler Against Stalin" and "Rouble Nationalization". As a lot of what he says appears to be his own conjecture; I'm not sure how reliable his thesis is, but it does seem to make sense.

    Also, you can look for some of Starikov's articles in English at orientalreview.org.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @reiner Tor

    founding fathers of modern Russia
     
    Well, that's Yeltsin.

    Yeltsin is modern Grishka Otrepiev that succeeded. By their deeds you will know them. Alexander Zinoviev put it well calling what’s left of Russia horned rabbit. New Russia is being lucky to preserve at least part of soviet foundation that still keeps this ramp afloat and secure. The only hope for Russia to rise again lies in preserving and further developing that foundation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @JackOH
    Anyone think there'd be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?

    Anyone think there’d be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?

    `

    It seems to me that enough crap has been spread about the man already. It’s way past due for Americans to unlearn the propaganda in fact, and it doesn’t take a Nazi sympathizer to understand it.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
    Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    … the Germans were morally right…

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J .P. Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962).

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    js, okay, I'll back off. Let me close by saying we've got folks today who for psychological and political reasons want Hitler limned larger than life and always on center stage under the hot lights. That seems to me just plain wrong and distracts us from solving today's problems. "Good war", "axis of evil", and so on. How long are we going to allow this guy to cloud our thinking? That's why my suggestion. Thanks for your comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    While I do appreciate there is a certain irony about a proud NEET such as myself making fun of Lenin for spending most of his life writing articles for marginal journals financed by wealthy sponsors, the difference is that I don’t rant about fat cat peasant and bourgeois parasites.

    … which achieved superpowerdom

    Was inevitable in the 20th century, and would have otherwise lasted from approximately 1920-2050+ (maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then), instead of 1945-1991.

    … became world premier economic power

    LOL.

    … sent man to space

    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn’t have happened otherwise. And maybe sooner: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-iq-of-peoples/#comment-1903539

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Anatoli, your reanimator like attempt to reanimated that cadaver of long dead Tsarist Russia, put a lot of maep and lipstick on that long dead pig are laughable. It died of the deceased that while originally was curable eventually turned incurable due to neglect and bad life style choices. New Soviet Russia achieved in reality what older Russia could not have achieved even in your optimistic extrapolations. The proof is on the pudding so to speak.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
     
    Everything good that happened, it would've happened anyway.
    Everything bad that happened, it would've been avoided.

    Not exactly the kind of intellectual reasoning one would expect from extremely high-IQ individuals. More like a declaration of faith.
    , @S3
    "maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then"

    Under what scenarios do you think India could have done so? I am curious because you are known to have a quite pessimistic attitude towards that country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Mr. XYZ
    Excellent post, Anatoly! :)

    Indeed, I completely agree that Vladimir Lenin was a total piece of shit who deserves to burn in Hell! :( In fact, it would have been much better had the Russian Provisional Government jailed or even shot and killed him and his Bolshevik friends (for promoting defeatism and, in July 1917, for attempting to seize power). Of course, the Russian Provisional Government should have also avoided launching any offensives until after large numbers of U.S. troops were already in France.

    Frankly, one of the very few positive things about Lenin is his nominal support for national self-determination. Of course, even then, it would have certainly been much better for the whole edifice to come crashing down in the late 1910s or even early 1920s than to have various people--including the Great Russians, of course--suffer under the hands of the Bolsheviks for seven decades! :( Ultimately, I wonder if it would have been better for Germany to win World War I and then overthrow the Bolsheviks right afterwards. Indeed, this would have spared us some of the 20th century's worst horrors.

    Also, I do think that, with the exception of Poland and *perhaps* Finland, a surviving Russian Republic (*not* Russian Empire) would have been able to hold together reasonably well up to the present-day. After all, even the Bolsheviks managed to create a type of Sovok identity among the Soviet population (as evidenced by the results of the March 1991 referendum in most of the Soviet Union). Indeed, in a surviving Russian Republic, there would have been various ethnic groups who would have had their own languages, cultures, and often autonomy but who might have also very well embraced a Russian national identity (rossiyane--not russkiye). Also, the much greater prosperity of a surviving Russian Republic--in comparison to the Soviet Union, of course--would have probably kept ethnic separatist sentiments inside of Russia relatively low and small.

    Indeed, Russia had an excellent future in late 1917 before the Bolsheviks seized power there. After all, the excesses of Tsarist Russia--such as the anti-Semitic Pale of Settlement and the lack of genuine democracy and basic liberties--were abolished and, with the U.S. already in World War I, the Entente stood an excellent chance of winning this war. Plus, even with the lower-IQ Central Asians (whom there weren't that any of back then), the IQ potential of Russia was certainly very high--indeed, probably slightly lower than Italy's, Spain's, or Portugal's full potential. In turn, this fact combined with Russia's large amounts of natural resources meant that a surviving Russian Republic would have almost certainly become a developed, extremely prosperous country by the end of the 20th century. Plus, Russia's large Ashkenazi Jewish population--assuming that a large part of them wouldn't have emigrated in this scenario--would have certainly helped a surviving Russian Republic with scientific research, technological development, innovation, et cetera.

    Also, there's one more thing that I want to mention. In a scenario where Lenin and the Bolsheviks fail to seize power in Russia, I expect the Bolsheviks' multikult successors (who will be a part of Russia's liberal scene in this scenario) to push for large-scale non-White immigration to Russia in this scenario. Indeed, if "open borders" Russian liberals and various ethnic minorities (especially Muslim ones) in a surviving Russian Republic would have eventually teamed up, you could certainly see Russia have an enormous Muslim minority today. After all, in addition to the growing Muslim population in Azerbaijan and especially Central Asia, there would be an extremely huge Muslim "migration reservoir" in Afghanistan, Iran, and South Asia in this scenario. Thus, had the Russian Republic survived, I could certainly see Russian nationalists and alt-righters being legitimately scared of a looming Islamization of Russia!

    Ultimately, though, a Russia with an extremely huge Muslim population--indeed, possibly above 35-40% in the long(er)-run depending on just how much Muslim immigration from countries to the south it will get--is still an extremely small price to pay for preventing the Lenin and Bolsheviks from coming to power in Russia!

    Ultimately, I wonder if it would have been better for Germany to win World War I and then overthrow the Bolsheviks right afterwards.

    Yes, in retrospect, that’s probably right.

    Also, I do think that, with the exception of Poland and *perhaps* Finland, a surviving Russian Republic (*not* Russian Empire) would have been able to hold together reasonably well up to the present-day

    .

    No Poland, sure, but that’s feature, not bug. There was no significant separatism in Finland.

    Indeed, if “open borders” Russian liberals and various ethnic minorities (especially Muslim ones) in a surviving Russian Republic would have eventually teamed up, you could certainly see Russia have an enormous Muslim minority today.

    Yes, I posited as much in this post from a few weeks back: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/progressive-russian-empire/

    Of course it would be partially offset by a much larger Slavic population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    This entire opus is such a collection of lies, half-truths, distortions, opinions based on exactly nothing, it's astonishing, in a way. The complexities of the epoch and the situation are reduced to a simple thesis: Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody's guess.

    He introduced "war communism" - the fact that there was a war going on at the time does not deserve mentioning. Or that it was the very same Lenin who introduced the new economic policy (NEP) after the war ended. "Red terror" - there was also "White terror", hardly any more pleasant - have you ever heard of that? If we are in the business of "would've-could've-should've", why not consider the possibility (just as an example of that kind of thinking) that if our European friends had not taken such a kin and active interest in the Russians affairs, perhaps, the Civil War would not've been so long, cruel and devastating to the country, with all the inevitable consequences?

    Lenin founded a country that became the most powerful Russian state that ever existed. The Russians still live a country that Lenin designed, for better or for worse. If this is failure, I wonder what success looks like?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Sergey Krieger
    "The fact that after all those years there’s still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question. "

    Those who want to make away with loot from Soviet people need to completely discredit every single aspect of Soviet life and obviously founding fathers of the soviet Union Lenin and Stalin. They use outright lies like German money, taken out of contest and artificially glued together quotes form Lenin and Stalin, outright lying about who deposed Tsar and so forth so on . They obviously understand that few would go and read the whole history and all of 55 Lenin's issues to confront them.
    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population, cause divide and thus allowing him to keep his yacht and soccer club with other nice things. We obviously do not have a proof but it is even more reasonable by the outcome than Lenin taking German money and then doing everything opposite to what his supposed paymasters paid for. Anatolii on the other hand is doing everything that he would have been supposed to do were he paid by said Abramovich. All in all, Great October Socialist revolution first time showed that led by talented devoted people who have interests exploited in their heart it is possible to take power away form bloodsuckers and it is possible to build state that takes care of all people not just few. For that Lenin and Stalin are hated.

    "What’s interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…"

    Exactly. You can imagine to what length enemies would go 80 years ago. I was not sitting and making research in opened archives. The picture is still not clear to me. I understand that Stalin was not all powerful as it has been promoted by liberals and there was intense fight within party different
    sections. Anyway, at the time it was already obvious what outcomes of wrong choices would have been. Soviet Russia death as in 30's Hitler was already in power and his intentions were obvious for all to see. Imagine strong Communist core in CPSU in 80's realizing where Gorbachev was taking the country and taking drastic measures. Look how many people were surrounding Gorbachev and Yeltsin and who after the fact were people enemies as we see it. Imagine they would take decisive measures and prevailed. I suspect there would have been trials and many people would be condemned to long terms in jails and death. It would have been reasonable and it would have saved millions upon millions lives that were lost including completely destroyed demography and industry and torn apart country.

    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.

    This topic interests me. Where can I find that side of the story? Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Life on Venus is of great interest to me as well. I want life to be on Venus. It is other matter if there is life there at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @reiner Tor

    founding fathers of modern Russia
     
    Well, that's Yeltsin.

    I bet around 2100 the descendants of these people will be condemning critics of Yeltsin for hating their own country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    This stuff does seem to repeat itself in century-or-so long intervals. Have you read "The Fourth Turning"? It's partially bullshit and the authors are statists, but the concept is very interesting. Strauss and Howe, the authors, applied their concept of cyclical history only to the English/American world, but who knows? People just refuse to learn, as is is evidence right here on unz this very hour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @WHAT
    I disagree here. Maybe with the older generations it is, but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, and red myth doesn't take much to dismantle anyway.

    I do agree with that, but still, as it stands, there are plenty of people Red Myth dismantling without my input.

    Latest Kholmogorov: https://vz.ru/columns/2017/11/8/894324.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    I love me some holmie after supper, thanks.
    Translating it here seems to be pretty redundant after your own piece got published, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @jacques sheete

    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
     
    This topic interests me. Where can I find that side of the story? Thanks.

    Life on Venus is of great interest to me as well. I want life to be on Venus. It is other matter if there is life there at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Sergey Krieger
    "The fact that after all those years there’s still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question. "

    Those who want to make away with loot from Soviet people need to completely discredit every single aspect of Soviet life and obviously founding fathers of the soviet Union Lenin and Stalin. They use outright lies like German money, taken out of contest and artificially glued together quotes form Lenin and Stalin, outright lying about who deposed Tsar and so forth so on . They obviously understand that few would go and read the whole history and all of 55 Lenin's issues to confront them.
    Here Anatolii brings again German money label which was proven long time ago to be lie and fraud.
    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population, cause divide and thus allowing him to keep his yacht and soccer club with other nice things. We obviously do not have a proof but it is even more reasonable by the outcome than Lenin taking German money and then doing everything opposite to what his supposed paymasters paid for. Anatolii on the other hand is doing everything that he would have been supposed to do were he paid by said Abramovich. All in all, Great October Socialist revolution first time showed that led by talented devoted people who have interests exploited in their heart it is possible to take power away form bloodsuckers and it is possible to build state that takes care of all people not just few. For that Lenin and Stalin are hated.

    "What’s interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…"

    Exactly. You can imagine to what length enemies would go 80 years ago. I was not sitting and making research in opened archives. The picture is still not clear to me. I understand that Stalin was not all powerful as it has been promoted by liberals and there was intense fight within party different
    sections. Anyway, at the time it was already obvious what outcomes of wrong choices would have been. Soviet Russia death as in 30's Hitler was already in power and his intentions were obvious for all to see. Imagine strong Communist core in CPSU in 80's realizing where Gorbachev was taking the country and taking drastic measures. Look how many people were surrounding Gorbachev and Yeltsin and who after the fact were people enemies as we see it. Imagine they would take decisive measures and prevailed. I suspect there would have been trials and many people would be condemned to long terms in jails and death. It would have been reasonable and it would have saved millions upon millions lives that were lost including completely destroyed demography and industry and torn apart country.

    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population…

    Who am I not getting paid by?

    But thanks, adding this to my “powerful takes” folder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    You must know better than me. Did you ever ask Lenin personally if he was paid and he responded or you can only beat upon long dead people by repeating lies that were proven lies long time ago like German money and some unknown mecenats ? Basically I wonder what you people have to offer Russian people ? So far I see nothing but paleocrap hunting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. WHAT says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    " but russian zyklon b gen core is not tainted by the red bullshit to such extent. If anything, they are cynical beyond belief, "

    That should be expected considering amount of liberal and other BS thrown at them since their birth.
    But you cannot expect great things from them either. You cannot even expect from them enough babies to keep Russian population at least stable to allow time for better generations to come forward. I do not feel uplifted by cynics who believe in nothing but this $$$.

    Replacement level question is, well, questionable. With the low process standards of two recent pop count attempts current russian government itself can’t claim that precise numbers are known.

    What a sad irony it would be if the centasians brought in with the low pop(and old “them subhumans will do jerbs russians won’t” bullshit) as sole justification were completely unneeded in reality, setting Russia up for another series of interethnic conflicts. Hell, they are unneeded even in their own homelands!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. WHAT says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I do agree with that, but still, as it stands, there are plenty of people Red Myth dismantling without my input.

    Latest Kholmogorov: https://vz.ru/columns/2017/11/8/894324.html

    I love me some holmie after supper, thanks.
    Translating it here seems to be pretty redundant after your own piece got published, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. JackOH says:
    @jacques sheete

    Anyone think there’d be good value in having a German with the right credibility do a Karlinesque takedown of Adolf Hitler?
     
    `

    It seems to me that enough crap has been spread about the man already. It's way past due for Americans to unlearn the propaganda in fact, and it doesn't take a Nazi sympathizer to understand it.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
    Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

     


    … the Germans were morally right…


    -Murray N. Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J .P. Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962).
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/

     

    js, okay, I’ll back off. Let me close by saying we’ve got folks today who for psychological and political reasons want Hitler limned larger than life and always on center stage under the hot lights. That seems to me just plain wrong and distracts us from solving today’s problems. “Good war”, “axis of evil”, and so on. How long are we going to allow this guy to cloud our thinking? That’s why my suggestion. Thanks for your comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    That seems to me just plain wrong and distracts us from solving today’s problems.

    “Good war”, “axis of evil”, and so on.
     

    Amen to that.

    How long are we going to allow this guy to cloud our thinking?
     
    I'd put it this way. how long are we going to allow really old, tired propaganda to cloud our thinking?

    I would've guessed that by now everyone should be on board with the fact that most of what we hear is utter garbage. A lot of what we've been trained to believe is the exact opposite of the truth, a fact that you seem to appreciate.

    Thanks for your comments, and I thank the author of this piece as well.

    Now, about the specific sources of Lenin's gold...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. Hrw-500 says:

    Add one more piece to that puzzle, a Swedish banker named Olof Aschberg helped to finance the bolshevicks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg I think there’s more than meet the eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Speaking of Aschberg, I wonder if McFadden was talking about him here.:

    These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children.
    -Louis T. McFadden, Speech In the House of Representatives,10 June 1932

    http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Anatoly Karlin

    Meanwhile it is very reasonable that Abramovich pays Anatolii and same minded people to write similar opuses to brainwash population...
     
    Who am I not getting paid by?

    But thanks, adding this to my "powerful takes" folder.

    You must know better than me. Did you ever ask Lenin personally if he was paid and he responded or you can only beat upon long dead people by repeating lies that were proven lies long time ago like German money and some unknown mecenats ? Basically I wonder what you people have to offer Russian people ? So far I see nothing but paleocrap hunting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    : The fact that 70% of Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian parties doesn't necessarily mean that 70% of Ukrainians wanted to secede from Russia, though. Similarly, just because a Muslim in British India voted for the Muslim League (and thus for the creation of Pakistan) does not necessarily mean that he would have personally been willing to move to Pakistan.

    To my knowledge, Ukrainian nationalists only began demanding independence *after* the Bolshevik revolution occurred. Before that, they would have probably been content with sufficient autonomy and land reform. Thus, I certainly don't see why exactly a South Tyrol-style solution would have been unacceptable for the Ukrainians in this scenario. Indeed, even in our TL, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (over 70%, if I recall correctly) voted to preserve the Soviet Union in some form in March 1991! They could have voted No in this referendum just like the overwhelming majority of people in Galicia did, but they instead voted in favor of keeping the Union in some form!

    Given that a surviving Russian Republic would have almost certainly been *much* more economically successful than Bolshevik Russia was, and given the fact that, in spite of 70 years of Soviet oppression and stagnation, over 70% of Ukrainians still wanted a Union of some form in 1991, I certainly think that most Ukrainian nationalists would have been satisfied with sufficient autonomy plus land reform in this scenario. Of course, the big wild card that I could see in regards to this is if large numbers of Central Asians and other Muslims began moving en masse to Ukraine. In such a case--and especially if these Muslims will bring backwards attitudes and whatnot with them to Ukraine--I could certainly see Ukrainian separatism getting a shot in the arm. Of course, in such a scenario, Russia will probably be more resistant than ever at letting Ukraine secede considering that letting Ukraine secede might very well accelerate the Islamization of Russia in this scenario! (Indeed, please remember that, in additional to Central Asia, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia, Afghanistan, and Iran! If even a small fraction of them move to Russia, they will certainly significantly change Russia's demographics.)

    The fact that 70% of Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian parties doesn’t necessarily mean that 70% of Ukrainians wanted to secede from Russia, though. Similarly, just because a Muslim in British India voted for the Muslim League (and thus for the creation of Pakistan) does not necessarily mean that he would have personally been willing to move to Pakistan.

    I would compare it to voting for the Catalan Parties, the Scottish National Party, or the Parti Quebecois. I suppose not every voter for these parties wants independence, but most do. If the party were to barely get 50% support, perhaps under 50% of the population would actually want independence; but with 70% support, it would be easily over 50% favoring independence.

    To my knowledge, Ukrainian nationalists only began demanding independence *after* the Bolshevik revolution occurred. Before that, they would have probably been content with sufficient autonomy and land reform.

    Correct. It was incremental. In June 1917 Ukraine declared broad autonomy (including for its own separate military); the Provisional Government objected to some aspects of this (particularly the military), negotiations ensured and a modified Autonomy was declared in July 1917. Ukraine was to have its own parliament, its own Ukrainian-language schools, land reforms, etc. Full independence was declared after the Bolshevik invasion in January 1918.

    Indeed, even in our TL, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (over 70%, if I recall correctly) voted to preserve the Soviet Union in some form in March 1991! They could have voted No in this referendum just like the overwhelming majority of people in Galicia did

    This is a a semi-myth often used by pro-Russians.

    There was no independence option on the all-Republic referendum. This question was asked on the oblast level in the Galicia provinces (where 88% voted for).

    The entire USSR had this question:

    “”Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”

    71% were for.

    Ukrainian SSR had this additional question:

    “”Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of a Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?”

    81% were for.

    This declaration meant Ukraine would have run its own affairs, including having its own army. De facto independent.

    I certainly think that most Ukrainian nationalists would have been satisfied with sufficient autonomy plus land reform in this scenario.

    Their initial demands were for local autonomy, schools, and military units. So it would have been a little like Austria-Hungary, Ukraine being Hungary to Russia’s Austria. In such a scenario eventual independence would have been likely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    : "and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause"

    Actually, if we want to get technical about this, Pavlo Skoropadsky was a military man who supported the unity of a future non-Bolshevik Russia and Ukraine in a federation. Indeed, he announced this position shortly after Germany's defeat in World War I.

    “and during the Civil War there were no ethnic Ukrainian (or Little Russian, as they would have called themselves) military leaders or units from Russian Ukraine who supported a Russian cause”

    Actually, if we want to get technical about this, Pavlo Skoropadsky was a military man who supported the unity of a future non-Bolshevik Russia and Ukraine in a federation. Indeed, he announced this position shortly after Germany’s defeat in World War I.

    A brief tactical move, because without German support Ukraine needed an ally during the Bolshevik invasion and he would have taken autonomy within Russia (with hios own army, laws and schools) over a Soviet takeover. This was not his position prior to the German withdrawal, and not his position in exile. But this position had no popular support, and neither he nor his followers actually fought for such as union with Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Basically is about kicking dead lion.
     
    The fact that after all those years there's still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question.

    What's interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might've been mostly justified. 100 years passed - and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing...

    Do you feel the same way about hatred towards the Nazis, so many years later, by Slavs and Jews?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Anatoly Karlin
    While I do appreciate there is a certain irony about a proud NEET such as myself making fun of Lenin for spending most of his life writing articles for marginal journals financed by wealthy sponsors, the difference is that I don't rant about fat cat peasant and bourgeois parasites.

    ... which achieved superpowerdom
     
    Was inevitable in the 20th century, and would have otherwise lasted from approximately 1920-2050+ (maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then), instead of 1945-1991.

    ... became world premier economic power
     
    LOL.

    ... sent man to space
     
    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn't have happened otherwise. And maybe sooner: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-iq-of-peoples/#comment-1903539

    Anatoli, your reanimator like attempt to reanimated that cadaver of long dead Tsarist Russia, put a lot of maep and lipstick on that long dead pig are laughable. It died of the deceased that while originally was curable eventually turned incurable due to neglect and bad life style choices. New Soviet Russia achieved in reality what older Russia could not have achieved even in your optimistic extrapolations. The proof is on the pudding so to speak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    BS.
    , @Philip Owen
    Kerensky could have done better than Lenin. German gold made the difference. All those print workers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor
    Lenin's genius was exploiting the stupidity of great powers.
    And great powers were really stupid in WWI. All of them.

    WWI also made Mussolini.

    Evening, Priss.

    I see that you are posting on TOO, different u-name, but instantly recognisable.

    Not that I am disliking your posts. Sometimes informative, entertaining, if a little repetitive.

    Interesting that you are to choose a Slavonic u-name there.

    Also interestingly, Rehmat has stopped posting here many months ago, but is quite the regular on TOO now.

    From my reading, and I have read much from Mussolini and other fascists, original texts in translation, the formative years were his ‘missing years’ in Switzerland, where he would have been associating with mainly Jewish exiled Zionists and RSDLP peopke. That, not WWI, was the time that was to forming his later ideas.

    As for the Bolshevik coup d’etat, even i am surprised by the extent of Japanese govt. support for the 1905 uprising, I knew from propaganda among Russian POWs that was going much further. That propaganda was made to order from Noo Yawk Jews.

    However, before, too. Japanese Imperial Govt was having many interventions in Russia.

    Point is, the German sealed train containing Lenin, and many mainly Jewish Bolsheviks, was inspired by the tactics of Japan 13 years earlier, even if at the time, Japan was ally of Britain, not Germany.

    Our old govt’s activities, except the existence of a fake Commmunist Party in 1920s, are secret to us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Che Guava says:

    Nice that you are using a photo of incapacitated and drooling Lenin. Hating to seeing anyone in that state, but thinking he may have been deserving it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. Small point: Fritz Platten was Swiss, not German. It would be nice to think that Putin, or moe importantly, the gangsters behind him, had learned the lesson. There’s no sign of that, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. TG says:

    OK Lenin was not a nice man (though far from a Stalin or Mao).

    But you left one thing out. At the very end, when it became apparent that orthodox communism was a failure, Lenin realized this. He instituted the “New Economic Policy” (NEP) that was the sort of pragmatic state-regulated capitalism that has lately been so successful in China. The economy progressed, until by some metrics it became better than under the Tsars. Then Stalin came along…

    Stalin did not ‘betray’ communism. Lenin did! Stalin ‘saved’ that bloody fiasco.

    So I repeat: at the end Lenin got it. He understood that orthodox communism was destined to fail, and he acted on that. Does this forgive his other many sins? No. But surely worthy of mention.

    Winston Churchill once said of Russia that its greatest catastrophe was that Lenin was born, and the second greatest is that he died when he did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency).

    Makes that Facebag/Tweeter/etc. “Russian Meddling in the US Elections” look like a piker’s game.

    What seriously pissed the Never Trumpers off was the fact that hundreds of millions of production and ad-buy dollars didn’t run through their grubby paws: They would have been wholly on board if Trump had actually been buying their wares.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. dcite says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseating. Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    A lion? More like a jackal. And a liar. And a hypocrite. And a sociopath. Just out for power like all dictators. This article just described millions of people who had no control over Lenin’s demons, being murdered, destroyed economically, labeled parasites while doing all the work that provided anything good, like food, clothing, shelter and education. Communism was responsible for mega-deaths. Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo; because he was, morally. Sickness alone doesn’t give that expression.
    It boils down to this: Lenin caused more horror and bloodshed than would have happened if he’d just got out of Dodge and let it alone. Russia was “progressing” just fine without him. He is one of those many people the world would have been better off without.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo
     
    Looks a little like school shooter Adam Lanza:

    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130328102411-adam-lanza-mug-story-top.jpg

    A diagnostic sign:

    Lenin's wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, in her "Memoirs", published in Moscow in 1932, described how Lenin once rowed a boat out to a little island in the Yenisei River where many rabbits had migrated during the winter. He clubbed so many rabbits to death with the butt of his rifle that the boat sank under the weight of all the dead bodies.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    If he were mere jackal you and the like would not assemble here in great numbers to houl over his dead body. There would have been no meat. Like nobody care about dead jackal Yeltsin. There is no meat on the bone so to speak. I also wonder, if you ever suffer two strokes of the same severity God forbids, would you ask your doctor taking pictures to compare. The whole comments line of yours and many others truly belong to jackals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. AP says:
    @dcite

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseating. Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.
     
    A lion? More like a jackal. And a liar. And a hypocrite. And a sociopath. Just out for power like all dictators. This article just described millions of people who had no control over Lenin's demons, being murdered, destroyed economically, labeled parasites while doing all the work that provided anything good, like food, clothing, shelter and education. Communism was responsible for mega-deaths. Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo; because he was, morally. Sickness alone doesn't give that expression.
    It boils down to this: Lenin caused more horror and bloodshed than would have happened if he'd just got out of Dodge and let it alone. Russia was "progressing" just fine without him. He is one of those many people the world would have been better off without.

    Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo

    Looks a little like school shooter Adam Lanza:

    A diagnostic sign:

    Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, in her “Memoirs”, published in Moscow in 1932, described how Lenin once rowed a boat out to a little island in the Yenisei River where many rabbits had migrated during the winter. He clubbed so many rabbits to death with the butt of his rifle that the boat sank under the weight of all the dead bodies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    "He [Lenin] clubbed so many rabbits to death with the butt of his rifle that the boat sank under the weight of all the dead bodies."
    I'm not surprised. Only a psychopath can perpetrate so deliberately, so much death and mayhem, and then get worshiped by people who never knew him because he -- did what exactly? Millions of people would have lived had Lenin never been, and also countless rabbits, murdered not for meat or fur, but because Lenin just wanted to. Shelley's poetic observation on these monstrous egos:
    I met a traveler from an antique land,
    Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
    And on the pedestal, these words appear:
    My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
    Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. 5371 says:
    @German_reader

    For my assertion that the economic successes of the peacetime Reich have been improperly credited to Hitler and the Nazis
     
    I'm not sure there still are any positive assessments of Nazi economic policy in the 1930s, isn't the general consensus that it would have been unsustainable for much longer and only made sense as a preparatory phase for the war Hitler had planned all along? Granted, I don't know much about economics, and haven't gotten around to reading that book by Tooze ("Wages of destruction") which supposedly is quite good about those issues.
    Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy.

    Economists’ talk of things “not being sustainable” is always guesswork, and almost always completely wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I was reading on some blogs the happenings and times of the Soviet Union. Why did the Soviet Union seem to constantly have such food insecurity, especially outside of Moscow? It didn't seem like such a large population to support.

    I was reading on some blogs the happenings and times of the Soviet Union. Why did the Soviet Union seem to constantly have such food insecurity, especially outside of Moscow? It didn’t seem like such a large population to support.

    My understanding is that the new government was excessively centralized, and the communist leaders knew nothing about agriculture. They were constantly railing against the kulaks for hoarding grain. With the agricultural techniques of the day about 10 percent of the harvest had to be held back for next year´s seed. They confiscated seed grain, and this led to poor harvests the following years. Plus the chaos and lack of motivation caused by the sudden collectivization of agriculture. Plus the desire to finance industrialization by exporting grain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. 5371 says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    "Sounds good. But I’m sure he must’ve had some shortcomings and failures too; are you going to address them in the next post?"

    LoL. This was astute.
    I also do not fail to notice that many here at UNZ , including Anatolii, are doing basically what Lenin was doing albeit without much effect outside of this blog.
    I would also find it peculiarly strange to call a failure the man who founded Soviet Union which achieved superpowerdom, became world premier economic power, sent man to space achieved status Russia under Tsars simply was not able to achieve and created first state in the history that actually was working in the interests of all people, not just elites.

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseatic.
    Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.

    In fairness, Russia’s status from 1772-1855 particularly was very, very high.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    My favorite period is that of 18 th century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Thea says:
    @reiner Tor
    No, I think the Lysenkoist experiments only lasted a few years during the Great Leap Forward. But China had to resort to importing food and/or underfeeding its people basically throughout Maoism, so much so that in the 1970s when the "reforms" started, it was basically just that since the people's communes were unable to feed their members, some of them allowed the peasants to toil small parcels themselves in exchange for some grain or rice requisitioning. The peasants miraculously managed to fulfill their requisitioning quotas and even accumulate a surplus for themselves already in the first year, so the experiment spread to other provinces. The central leadership (then already under Deng Xiaoping) discovered it a couple years later (by that time it was already spreading like wildfire in the provinces), and first decided to shut it down, but then a few months later realized that here's an opportunity to increase agricultural production, and pragmatically enough reversed course and spread the experiment to the whole country.

    I think communism's main problem with agriculture is basically that during the agricultural season it requires a lot of dedicated work on behalf of the peasants, and it's very difficult to centrally control or supervise. This means that when the land is collectivized, peasants lose their incentives, and no amount of coercion or promises can stop them from cheating and not working hard enough. The result will be a chronically low harvest year in and year out.

    Once you re-privatize the land, the incentives return, and the harvest magically increases - due to the very hard and dedicated work of the peasants. In the USSR it was complicated by the fact that by the 1990s kolkhozniks were two generations removed from working for themselves, and not only got used to being lazy, but never even had childhood memories of how to toil the land for themselves. So it took a couple decades for Russian agriculture to regain productivity.

    Bukharin understood this but sadly no one listened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. nickels says:
    @Hupa
    Russians are to be blamed for this. Peter the Great started the process of destroying the russian tradition, he wanted to create Western Europe in the East, he centralized power by eliminating Sobór Ziemski, he even made boyars cut their beards because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to come to the Kremlin, he made the Orthodox Church subordinate to secular power, like in Protestant nations, and soon in France. Traditional russian monks protested against him and thought that he himself is a protestant. For a brief period of time during Peter 3rd's rule, the russian army even wore prussian uniforms and orthodox priests wore protestant robes

    XVIII century Russia already marked the beginning of the revolutionary process in Russia. Russians conformed to occidentalist and anti-russian attitudes of the russian elite, they lost faith in russian tradition too and became indifferent to what happens with the country, became indifferent to Orthodox faith which became a puppet in the hands of the monarch

    Once the Tsarate was destroyed in the war by the Germans, nobody had any vision for future Russia in this whole vaccuum, people were apathetic and indifferent. And the bolsheviks stepped in, as the only convinced and passionate people

    Do you know any books that give this topic worthy treatment?
    I am interested in the failed westernization of P I; my Russian Orthodox friend states it just as you have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hupa
    https://besboshnik.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-two-faces-of-russia-essay-by-oswald-spengler/ this for instance. The other literature I read in polish (because I am polish...), I doubt it's translated to english
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @JackOH
    js, okay, I'll back off. Let me close by saying we've got folks today who for psychological and political reasons want Hitler limned larger than life and always on center stage under the hot lights. That seems to me just plain wrong and distracts us from solving today's problems. "Good war", "axis of evil", and so on. How long are we going to allow this guy to cloud our thinking? That's why my suggestion. Thanks for your comment.

    That seems to me just plain wrong and distracts us from solving today’s problems.

    “Good war”, “axis of evil”, and so on.

    Amen to that.

    How long are we going to allow this guy to cloud our thinking?

    I’d put it this way. how long are we going to allow really old, tired propaganda to cloud our thinking?

    I would’ve guessed that by now everyone should be on board with the fact that most of what we hear is utter garbage. A lot of what we’ve been trained to believe is the exact opposite of the truth, a fact that you seem to appreciate.

    Thanks for your comments, and I thank the author of this piece as well.

    Now, about the specific sources of Lenin’s gold…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Anatoly Karlin
    While I do appreciate there is a certain irony about a proud NEET such as myself making fun of Lenin for spending most of his life writing articles for marginal journals financed by wealthy sponsors, the difference is that I don't rant about fat cat peasant and bourgeois parasites.

    ... which achieved superpowerdom
     
    Was inevitable in the 20th century, and would have otherwise lasted from approximately 1920-2050+ (maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then), instead of 1945-1991.

    ... became world premier economic power
     
    LOL.

    ... sent man to space
     
    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn't have happened otherwise. And maybe sooner: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-iq-of-peoples/#comment-1903539

    As reiner Tor said, no reason to think it wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

    Everything good that happened, it would’ve happened anyway.
    Everything bad that happened, it would’ve been avoided.

    Not exactly the kind of intellectual reasoning one would expect from extremely high-IQ individuals. More like a declaration of faith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    True, but what else is there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. WHAT says:
    @anonymous coward
    Finally, a sane comment.

    Peter I and the demented system he built are the real criminals. The bolsheviks were also demented, but they were a bumbling, painful step towards fixing what Peter I broke.

    May you end up in such “fixing” times someday. Experience all the fixing, you know, for the betterment of the backwards social order where not everybody is in gulag all time errytime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. TheJester says:

    Anatoly,

    A brilliant piece.

    Your main point, I think, is that Lenin was an irrational bullshitter. Indeed, the whole theory of Leninism is based on vacuous abstraction, which allowed Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks to rationalize doing whatever they thought they needed to do to gain and keep power. And since there was allegedly a dialectic at play, he and his chums could, at least in their own minds, contradict themselves the next day in either theory, policy, or execution … without the onus of contradiction. In short, they could do as they pleased without any justification at all. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) has baskets of comorbid psychological disorders set aside for these kinds of people.

    First, German money and, later, Jewish money from Wall Street kept Lenin in power. His success had nothing to do with his theories or his policies. It was brute power … the willingness to put hundreds of thousands of people in front of firing squads or, when given the opportunity, save the cost of bullets and starve them to death. In short, Lenin succeeded because he “out brutalized” the opposition, doing evil things that they dare not imagine.

    Perhaps we should go the root cause of Lenin’s vacuous abstractions and put the concept of the dialectic on the table for destructive criticism. Marx, Lenin, Stalin (and the mobs of Cultural Marxists currently contaminating Western Civilization) all believed it is okay to believe inconsistent things. It’s the dialectic, you know, which makes it okay to assert that what is true today is false tomorrow.

    Perhaps a route to sanity in today’s troubled world is to reappreciate the import of the Law of Noncontradiction to better identify the world that does exist from all possible worlds that could exist. So Cultural Marxists, please, no more hiding behind an appeal to dialectics and other flights of vacuous abstraction. Simple assertions about what is true and what is false will better determine what is real and unreal as well as what is good and evil in this world.

    It’s the first step in our de-Stalinization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    So Cultural Marxists, please, no more hiding behind an appeal to dialectics and other flights of vacuous abstraction. Simple assertions about what is true and what is false will better determine what is real and unreal as well as what is good and evil in this world.

    It’s the first step in our de-Stalinization.
     
    It may be the first step in our evolution from nonage as well, but it could take a while. The ancients were on to the oracular bullshitters such as those at Dodona and the fume inhalers at Delphi millennia ago, but we, the masses, have yet to get a grip on the concept.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @reiner Tor

    Lenin lived in poverty in Zurich
     
    Not just in Zürich, but several other cities, too. He didn't work, but due to money sent to him by his sisters (he was a landed nobleman, and his land was enough to provide a comfortable living for someone who didn't work), he had a comfortable living by the standards of the time (including a maid), for example an apartment with a couple of clean rooms, the ability to hang around idly in cafes, or traveling extensively around Europe. In general his living standards were probably better than like 95% (or perhaps 98 or 99%) of the Russian population, it was better than most non-Russian Europeans had at the time. Maybe his living standards were lower than most university educated people at the time, but then again, Lenin refused to do any even remotely productive work, and made little effort to make money other than the money sent to him by his sisters.

    Maybe in Zürich his living standards were lower than elsewhere, but don't forget that for the vast majority of Europe's population at the time, the most horrible war in several generations was just going on, and so basically everybody was living in poverty. I think even the Swiss were living temporarily worse, because imports (particularly of important commodities like coal or foodstuffs) were getting more expensive (although they could export to the rest of Europe at good prices, so that after the end of the war they were better off as all other countries became indebted to them).

    It's funny to see that some of our resident holocaust-deniers also peddle in communism-relativization. (Though at least you acknowledge that the communists were definitely more brutal than the Czarist regime.)

    I just have the books to go on, a picture of poverty, as with most Russian exiles.
    None of them were able to find decent work.
    William Somerset Maugham’s novel A Christmas Holiday is about a British aristocrat who meets in a Paris dancing a Russian princess, earning her living as a topless dancer.
    That Lenin lived better than a Russian peasant is probably true.
    We Dutch did not live in poverty in WWI, not even my grandmother, whose husband was conscripted into the army for four years.
    How the business was continued, my grandfather was a baker, my father never could tell me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Thea says:

    Great reading! One minor typo I spotted: “beaten up Polish factory workers, whom he had tried to agitate against the ” needs the word ‘by’ between up & Polish.

    I’m currently reading Montefiore’s Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar. I’m struck by the notion of who else could have beaten the Third Reich? Would a USSR under Trotsky or Kirov have won?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. 5371 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Just one little comment on the 'civil war' (more like foreign invasion). From wikipedia:

    Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:

    Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.
     
    You can find general Graves' book here:
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/graves/1931/siberian-adventure/

    “Really a foreign invasion” – unless it refers to Poland’s, that was a real invasion – is one of the weakest and silliest pro-Bolshevik takes on the civil war. Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    unless it refers to Poland’s, that was a real invasion
     
    Nah. Poland was part of the Russian Empire, so it can be interpreted as an internal police action, squashing a rebellion.

    Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.
     
    Uhm, I dunno. A dozen of foreign countries invaded and occupied substantial territories. French troops occupied Odessa, for example. Japan and others, most of Siberia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. AP says:
    @Logan
    Not my area at all, but my understanding is that Great Russians promoted the tripartite Russia idea, while the two "little brothers" of the meme had little enthusiasm for it, for fairly obvious reasons.

    Given enough time, a common Russian identity could have probably grown up. Examples include not only those of France and Germany.

    In Spain all regional nationalism but the Catalans and Basques became generic Spaniards, though we shouldn't forget the Portuguese, who took their resistance to becoming Spanish to the next level.

    Italy similarly had/have significant problems with regional nationalisms, though they are seldom remembered outside Italy.

    With the exception of the Irish, at least until recently, the Brits seemed to get it right. Welsh and Scots didn't become English, retaining their national identity but within the greater umbrella of Britishness.

    OTOH, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia illustrate the two ends of the spectrum for dealing with intransigent nationalisms.

    Not my area at all, but my understanding is that Great Russians promoted the tripartite Russia idea, while the two “little brothers” of the meme had little enthusiasm for it, for fairly obvious reasons.

    It depends on when. In the 1840s-1860s this idea was popular among Ukrainians/Little Russians who considered themselves a sort of Rus nationalists. The ideas were generally that there was ne Rus people with two coequal branches, Little And Great Russians, each with their own languages and local history. Poles and Jews were seen as enemies of the Rus people, who must be removed from Rus territory and their lands divided among Rus peasants; the Tsar was the savior. As such, Russian nationalism may have been more popular in Ukraine than in Russia itself.

    The Russian government was initially divided in its approach towards this movement. Conservatives didn’t care about Rus nationalism and wanted to preserve the traditional rights of landowners against peasants, nevermind if Polish Catholic landowners oppressed Rus Orthodox peasants. After the Polish uprisings things changed. The local Russian officials supported Little Russians against the Poles, but the central authorities worried that eventually the Little Russians might end up like Poles, and so they pursued a policy of rigid centralization and assimilation, repressing the Little Russian movement and trying to turn Little Russians into Great Russians. This produced a backlash – the Little Russians now turned into Ukrainians and wanted to leave Russia. Maybe the centralizers were right all along, but it might very well have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    In Spain all regional nationalism but the Catalans and Basques became generic Spaniards, though we shouldn’t forget the Portuguese, who took their resistance to becoming Spanish to the next level.

    Ukraine joined Russia much later than Catalonia joined Castille.

    Italy similarly had/have significant problems with regional nationalisms, though they are seldom remembered outside Italy

    The linguistic differences between Ukrainian and Russian are greater than between Italian dialects. They are similar to the differences between Spanish and Italian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Ukraine joined Russia much later than Catalonia joined Castille.

    Depends, of course, on the two dates you assign.

    One logical date for the end of Catalan autonomy is the end of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714. The Catalans were on the losing side in this international/civil war and their considerable autonomy was stripped away as Spain began its centralization.


    So when did Ukraine "join" Russia? I don't think it's reasonable to say it was "much later." It was also definitely a gradual process, so a hard date is pretty tough to determine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Basically is about kicking dead lion.
     
    The fact that after all those years there's still so much hatred, and the hatred is so intense, is a testimony to the historical significance of the events in question.

    What's interesting, it also goes a long way to explain the extent of political repressions in the USSR during the period. I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might've been mostly justified. 100 years passed - and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing...

    I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…

    Yeah, people hate it when they get put on lists to be later shot in the head and pushed into a ditch. Others hate being sent to work to death in freezing-ass cold Siberia. Some other people hate it when they haven’t eaten for a week solid because their dear leader had some kind of stupid plan to make steel on the farms and it was up to him what everyone does with his time. People even hate the young bloggers that don’t know squat about Communism and other evils. This explains why even over the centuries, it seems like humans don’t learn very much about how to avoid past horrible mistakes.

    You, Sergey here, James Petrak, Godfrey Roberts, and others are hated for this same reason. The hell with all of you Commies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Cut out the sanctimony, will ya? Times of great upheaval and great transformations are accompanied by violence. That's just the law of nature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @5371
    In fairness, Russia's status from 1772-1855 particularly was very, very high.

    My favorite period is that of 18 th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @dcite

    Basically is about kicking dead lion. Some find this article brilliant. I find it nauseating. Posting photo of a very sick man at the end of his life is pretty low in my opinion.
     
    A lion? More like a jackal. And a liar. And a hypocrite. And a sociopath. Just out for power like all dictators. This article just described millions of people who had no control over Lenin's demons, being murdered, destroyed economically, labeled parasites while doing all the work that provided anything good, like food, clothing, shelter and education. Communism was responsible for mega-deaths. Lenin looks haunted and insane in that photo; because he was, morally. Sickness alone doesn't give that expression.
    It boils down to this: Lenin caused more horror and bloodshed than would have happened if he'd just got out of Dodge and let it alone. Russia was "progressing" just fine without him. He is one of those many people the world would have been better off without.

    If he were mere jackal you and the like would not assemble here in great numbers to houl over his dead body. There would have been no meat. Like nobody care about dead jackal Yeltsin. There is no meat on the bone so to speak. I also wonder, if you ever suffer two strokes of the same severity God forbids, would you ask your doctor taking pictures to compare. The whole comments line of yours and many others truly belong to jackals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Do you feel similarly about people howling about Hitler after all these years? Also a lion?
    , @dcite
    We're only "howling" over his one corpse. He howled over millions. There's difference.
    And anyway, he started it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @5371
    "Really a foreign invasion" - unless it refers to Poland's, that was a real invasion - is one of the weakest and silliest pro-Bolshevik takes on the civil war. Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.

    unless it refers to Poland’s, that was a real invasion

    Nah. Poland was part of the Russian Empire, so it can be interpreted as an internal police action, squashing a rebellion.

    Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.

    Uhm, I dunno. A dozen of foreign countries invaded and occupied substantial territories. French troops occupied Odessa, for example. Japan and others, most of Siberia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I mean the Polish invasion of the Ukraine in 1920.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Joe Wong says:
    @AP
    Overall, brilliant and comprehensive article about a truly loathsome man. I can't think of anyone else who, through his own efforts and will, has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    Let’s face the fact, the Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Without the Europeans particular their offshoot the American humanity will not have gone through two world wars, one on the edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon.

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.

    If one could look at the events objectively, all of the above violence were a self rejuvenating effort to get rid of a cancer that was crippling the society, while comparing to the violence led by the Western imperialists including the USA and Japan against rest of the world during their imperial expansions, the crimes against humanity and peace and war crimes they committed only can be classified as criminal of the greedies, all were destructive and nothing good came out of it. One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia while the Western imperialist expansion, colonization and invasion are murders and has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    ... and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.
     
    Hey, I actually agree with you somewhat here. I'm no fan of Mr. Lincoln. However, although ignoring the US Constitution by starting the war to begin with and waiving habeas corpus, etc. in the North, this guy didn't make up lists of people to purge. Once war starts, all bets are off.

    Your heroes are the kind of guys who make lists of people to be shot in mass, and bulldozed into big ditches. Well, everyone has got to have a role model, I guess. It's better than just drifting through life ... I think ...

    .
    .

    BTW, something like the US Constitution, or the English Magna Carta of centuries back, could not have even been thought of, much less implemented in almost all other societies. Maybe the Chinese could have copied one from us, but the people are too corrupt for it to ever actually work.

    , @AP

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War
     
    So, Europe is far away for you, it all seems the same?

    French Revolution (Lenin admired Robespierre) - about 400,000 victims IIRC.

    Not much, compared to Lenin.

    One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia
     
    Would you also consider leprosy to be a self-healing event, if the victim is someone you don't like?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Achmed E. Newman

    I always felt that the scale of repressions was grotesquely unreasonable, but reading comments here it seems that they might’ve been mostly justified. 100 years passed – and yet the hatred is palpable. Amazing…
     
    Yeah, people hate it when they get put on lists to be later shot in the head and pushed into a ditch. Others hate being sent to work to death in freezing-ass cold Siberia. Some other people hate it when they haven't eaten for a week solid because their dear leader had some kind of stupid plan to make steel on the farms and it was up to him what everyone does with his time. People even hate the young bloggers that don't know squat about Communism and other evils. This explains why even over the centuries, it seems like humans don't learn very much about how to avoid past horrible mistakes.

    You, Sergey here, James Petrak, Godfrey Roberts, and others are hated for this same reason. The hell with all of you Commies.

    Cut out the sanctimony, will ya? Times of great upheaval and great transformations are accompanied by violence. That’s just the law of nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I've heard y'all's expression before about needing to crack eggs to make an omelet ... all that stuff... you'd better hope you and yours aren't the ones to get scrambled next time, or scrambled, smothered and covered, more like (heh, "Waffle House does Communism"). All your talk and writing won't mean a hill of beans when another Pol Pot or Mao gets going.

    One can't argue with a Commie too long before the violence starts. Be aware that this time around, you are dealing with a population that is heavily armed and most are well-regulated.*

    * "Regulated" here means the same as in Amendment II of the US Constitution - "in practice", for the Chinese / Russian / American commies who have not studied American history, like yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Hupa says:
    @nickels
    Do you know any books that give this topic worthy treatment?
    I am interested in the failed westernization of P I; my Russian Orthodox friend states it just as you have.

    https://besboshnik.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-two-faces-of-russia-essay-by-oswald-spengler/ this for instance. The other literature I read in polish (because I am polish…), I doubt it’s translated to english

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Prophetic essay, thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @German_reader

    You will find that the places that the jews have least managed to penetrate with their narratives (India, Mongolia, South East Asia) have some people dressing up as SS officers or other such Reich fashion.
     
    I don't see how that's relevant, people there probably just like the aesthetic or have some vague admiration for "strong" leaders (especially one whose forces fought against the British empire and contributed to its end).
    Anyway, I disagree with your argument, but I don't think we should derail this fine thread any further. It's about Lenin, not Hitler.

    Hugo Boss was a really good designer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Hrw-500
    Add one more piece to that puzzle, a Swedish banker named Olof Aschberg helped to finance the bolshevicks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg I think there's more than meet the eyes.

    Speaking of Aschberg, I wonder if McFadden was talking about him here.:

    These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children.
    -Louis T. McFadden, Speech In the House of Representatives,10 June 1932

    http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JackOH
    "Yes, there is a tendency to consider imperial Germany as just a proto-Nazi empire, which despite its undoubted and quite severe flaws (militarism, atrocities in the colonies and Belgium) is unjustified imo. Similar imo to the myth that Bolshevist tyranny was just a continuation of Tsarist autocracy."

    Yep, GR, I think that's what I'm sort of stumbling toward. For many American observers, including in my opinion educated people who really ought to know better, there's an "essentialist" Russia in which Tsarism and Bolshevism go undifferentiated, and, likewise, an "essentialist" Germany in which Kaiser and Fuehrer go undifferentiated. That just bugs the living daylights out of me, and one reason is that it gives American policies of all sorts way too much unearned virtue.

    A Karlinesque hit piece directed against Herr Hitler and published in the States? It would be necessarily tendentious, one-sided, but I think it would also be productive if written by a German with some conservative or nationalist credibility, and supported by sufficient evidence.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Maybe German_reader can also be that German_writer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Well, sure, or any other German who finds value in the idea. It doesn't take much intellectual mojo to state that Hitler's anti-Jewish policies were a betrayal of early 19th century Prussian liberalization, or that Hitler's diplomacy spit on Bismarckian prudence in the conduct of foreign affairs. C'mon, you want to build a goddamned freeway to Koenigsberg, so you unleash a war to get it? Any writer would need to prep himself, find supporting evidence that's at least plausible, but, as with Anatoly's Lenin piece here, I think the result would be productive of good debate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Joe Wong says:
    @Randal
    Magnificent polemic. Should be compulsorily published in the Guardian and all the other nests of SJW Lenin apologists around the US sphere.

    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Very good job regurgitating English Composition 101 at generic State U. talking points. Your blue haired TA would be proud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. AP says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    If he were mere jackal you and the like would not assemble here in great numbers to houl over his dead body. There would have been no meat. Like nobody care about dead jackal Yeltsin. There is no meat on the bone so to speak. I also wonder, if you ever suffer two strokes of the same severity God forbids, would you ask your doctor taking pictures to compare. The whole comments line of yours and many others truly belong to jackals.

    Do you feel similarly about people howling about Hitler after all these years? Also a lion?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @TheJester
    Anatoly,

    A brilliant piece.

    Your main point, I think, is that Lenin was an irrational bullshitter. Indeed, the whole theory of Leninism is based on vacuous abstraction, which allowed Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks to rationalize doing whatever they thought they needed to do to gain and keep power. And since there was allegedly a dialectic at play, he and his chums could, at least in their own minds, contradict themselves the next day in either theory, policy, or execution ... without the onus of contradiction. In short, they could do as they pleased without any justification at all. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) has baskets of comorbid psychological disorders set aside for these kinds of people.

    First, German money and, later, Jewish money from Wall Street kept Lenin in power. His success had nothing to do with his theories or his policies. It was brute power ... the willingness to put hundreds of thousands of people in front of firing squads or, when given the opportunity, save the cost of bullets and starve them to death. In short, Lenin succeeded because he "out brutalized" the opposition, doing evil things that they dare not imagine.

    Perhaps we should go the root cause of Lenin's vacuous abstractions and put the concept of the dialectic on the table for destructive criticism. Marx, Lenin, Stalin (and the mobs of Cultural Marxists currently contaminating Western Civilization) all believed it is okay to believe inconsistent things. It's the dialectic, you know, which makes it okay to assert that what is true today is false tomorrow.

    Perhaps a route to sanity in today's troubled world is to reappreciate the import of the Law of Noncontradiction to better identify the world that does exist from all possible worlds that could exist. So Cultural Marxists, please, no more hiding behind an appeal to dialectics and other flights of vacuous abstraction. Simple assertions about what is true and what is false will better determine what is real and unreal as well as what is good and evil in this world.

    It's the first step in our de-Stalinization.

    So Cultural Marxists, please, no more hiding behind an appeal to dialectics and other flights of vacuous abstraction. Simple assertions about what is true and what is false will better determine what is real and unreal as well as what is good and evil in this world.

    It’s the first step in our de-Stalinization.

    It may be the first step in our evolution from nonage as well, but it could take a while. The ancients were on to the oracular bullshitters such as those at Dodona and the fume inhalers at Delphi millennia ago, but we, the masses, have yet to get a grip on the concept.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. utu says:

    around 6,321 people were executed for all offenses (including purely criminal ones, like murder) in the Russian Empire from 1825-1917

    This number seems to me to be too high. What do we know about components of this number?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    around 6,321 people were executed

    For comparison England and Wales statistics

    1800-1827 2,340
    1828-1836 408
    1837-1868 350
    1868-1899 454

    Scottland

    1800-1868 273
    1868-1899 17

    Population of UK 1827-27 millions 1901- 38 millions

    Population of Russia? Is it 3 or 4 times larger than UK in 19c?

    c. 2.5 times more executions per capita in UK than in Russia in 19c.

    I still suspect that the number 6,321 given by Karlin is way too large. Perhaps this is a number of death sentences given but not actual executions?
    , @utu
    For comparison the US

    1800-1824 602
    1825-1849 894
    1850-1874 1,364
    1875-1899 2,521
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Joe Wong says:
    @reiner Tor
    There's very little (and irregular) precipitation, so agriculture in Russia is a little bit tricky. Not very tricky, to be sure: both Czarist Russia and the modern Russian Federation managed to figure it out, but not the USSR.

    The same wonders happened in China: under Maoism, they couldn't figure out how to feed the population (it was greater, but with enough labor input, rice fields usually yield more), and then in the 1980s they suddenly figured it out.

    I mean, communism as an economic system is shit, especially with agriculture, for a number of reasons.

    China has been self sufficient in food since its existence. Chinese agriculture technology has been superior to the West except in the last couple hundreds due to Western imperialism and colonialism destructive interference. Without stealing Chinese agriculture technology the West will not have industrial revolution and they would still live in the backward medieval serfdom era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, it was all that Western interference, that's the ticket. We've had our own problems with the Russians spending THOUSANDS of dollars interfering in the entire presidential election process via pintrest and facebook. I feel for you, bro, I mean, Joe.

    .
    .
    .

    Literally, THOUSANDS!

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I am curious if you ever read a book called "The Man who Loved China"?

    It is a book about a prolific English author who was pretty much a Commie after he started an affair with s Chinese visiting student to England. This guy spent lots of time there and wrote 17 volumes about how the Chinese invented this, that, and the other (yeah, the airplane too!). Well, I wish I could remember the author of the 17 volumes' name (the guy written about in "The Man who Loved China"), but he apparently always wondered how the country was such a damn shithole (not his exact words, as I recall) with all those smart people discovering stuff way before the West.

    Could the economic systems down through the millenia have had anything to do with it? Man, wouldn't you put any thought into that? This guy didn't - he went to his death bed wondering, "hey, how come we Westerners made all the guns? Hmmm?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Cut out the sanctimony, will ya? Times of great upheaval and great transformations are accompanied by violence. That's just the law of nature.

    Yeah, I’ve heard y’all’s expression before about needing to crack eggs to make an omelet … all that stuff… you’d better hope you and yours aren’t the ones to get scrambled next time, or scrambled, smothered and covered, more like (heh, “Waffle House does Communism”). All your talk and writing won’t mean a hill of beans when another Pol Pot or Mao gets going.

    One can’t argue with a Commie too long before the violence starts. Be aware that this time around, you are dealing with a population that is heavily armed and most are well-regulated.*

    * “Regulated” here means the same as in Amendment II of the US Constitution – “in practice”, for the Chinese / Russian / American commies who have not studied American history, like yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Joe Wong
    China has been self sufficient in food since its existence. Chinese agriculture technology has been superior to the West except in the last couple hundreds due to Western imperialism and colonialism destructive interference. Without stealing Chinese agriculture technology the West will not have industrial revolution and they would still live in the backward medieval serfdom era.

    Yeah, it was all that Western interference, that’s the ticket. We’ve had our own problems with the Russians spending THOUSANDS of dollars interfering in the entire presidential election process via pintrest and facebook. I feel for you, bro, I mean, Joe.

    .
    .
    .

    Literally, THOUSANDS!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Joe Wong
    Let’s face the fact, the Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Without the Europeans particular their offshoot the American humanity will not have gone through two world wars, one on the edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon.

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.

    If one could look at the events objectively, all of the above violence were a self rejuvenating effort to get rid of a cancer that was crippling the society, while comparing to the violence led by the Western imperialists including the USA and Japan against rest of the world during their imperial expansions, the crimes against humanity and peace and war crimes they committed only can be classified as criminal of the greedies, all were destructive and nothing good came out of it. One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia while the Western imperialist expansion, colonization and invasion are murders and has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    … and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.

    Hey, I actually agree with you somewhat here. I’m no fan of Mr. Lincoln. However, although ignoring the US Constitution by starting the war to begin with and waiving habeas corpus, etc. in the North, this guy didn’t make up lists of people to purge. Once war starts, all bets are off.

    Your heroes are the kind of guys who make lists of people to be shot in mass, and bulldozed into big ditches. Well, everyone has got to have a role model, I guess. It’s better than just drifting through life … I think …

    .
    .

    BTW, something like the US Constitution, or the English Magna Carta of centuries back, could not have even been thought of, much less implemented in almost all other societies. Maybe the Chinese could have copied one from us, but the people are too corrupt for it to ever actually work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Chinese invented republic and democracy thousands years ago, but some unscrupulous guys out maneuver the decent ones and got into authoritarian afterwards. But even that the ruler must rule in according to the mandate from the heaven which is taking care of the well-being of the ruled, otherwise anybody can overthrow the ruler with moral authority from the heaven too.

    US Constitution or the English Magna Carta are copycat of Chinese republic and democracy invented thousands years ago with modifications as human beings accumulate wisdom with time. Besides neither the English Magna Carta nor US Constitution were aimed at the masses, they were drafted to protect the interests of the selected few, the oligarchies, they were contracts of power sharing among the oligarchies. There is a clear distinction between taking care of the masses and taking care of the selected few in terms of substance in democracy and human rights in case you don't know.

    When CCP won the civil war there was feeling of reborn among the Chinese, they felt finally they had kicked the Chinese compradors out and freed from the Western and Japanese imperialist yokes to rebuild their nation from rubble caused by the hundred years of inhumane unequal treaty destruction and exploitation. But the imperial parasites did not want to lose the host, China, their overt and covert destabilizing operations against the new regime provoked the new vulnerable regime to react violently against anyone suspected not welcoming the new regime. Perhaps without the Western Imperialists' interference, there won't be something bad for the West to portray China as a role model of Orientalism perpetually.

    Regarding role model, nobody can beat the Anglo in hypocrisy, double think and brutality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. 5371 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    unless it refers to Poland’s, that was a real invasion
     
    Nah. Poland was part of the Russian Empire, so it can be interpreted as an internal police action, squashing a rebellion.

    Funny sort of invasion which involves so little fighting on the part of the invaders.
     
    Uhm, I dunno. A dozen of foreign countries invaded and occupied substantial territories. French troops occupied Odessa, for example. Japan and others, most of Siberia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

    I mean the Polish invasion of the Ukraine in 1920.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Joe Wong
    China has been self sufficient in food since its existence. Chinese agriculture technology has been superior to the West except in the last couple hundreds due to Western imperialism and colonialism destructive interference. Without stealing Chinese agriculture technology the West will not have industrial revolution and they would still live in the backward medieval serfdom era.

    I am curious if you ever read a book called “The Man who Loved China”?

    It is a book about a prolific English author who was pretty much a Commie after he started an affair with s Chinese visiting student to England. This guy spent lots of time there and wrote 17 volumes about how the Chinese invented this, that, and the other (yeah, the airplane too!). Well, I wish I could remember the author of the 17 volumes’ name (the guy written about in “The Man who Loved China”), but he apparently always wondered how the country was such a damn shithole (not his exact words, as I recall) with all those smart people discovering stuff way before the West.

    Could the economic systems down through the millenia have had anything to do with it? Man, wouldn’t you put any thought into that? This guy didn’t – he went to his death bed wondering, “hey, how come we Westerners made all the guns? Hmmm?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Joseph Needham is his name; he came up with various theories as to why Song China didn't industrialize. I'll check out this book on him, thanks.

    It is interesting that the Chinese tended not to keep their inventions. Someone might build an air conditioning system of fans powered by waterwheels for a rich patron, but it just gets treated as a eccentricity rather than becoming an idea to build from. The economic system definitely had something to do with it.

    A similar case could have been made for late Rome, which also had machinery but capital investment in machinery appears to have been noncompetitive against human labor.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Joseph Needham. His ideology regardless, his books are comprehensive and very highly regarded by the relevant experts.
    , @Philip Owen
    Needham was Mrs Thatcher's favourite author. She had an order for each edition as it came out.

    China had poor protection for merchant property rights. Inventors were seldom awarded monopolies such as patents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. AP says:
    @Joe Wong
    Let’s face the fact, the Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Without the Europeans particular their offshoot the American humanity will not have gone through two world wars, one on the edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon.

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.

    If one could look at the events objectively, all of the above violence were a self rejuvenating effort to get rid of a cancer that was crippling the society, while comparing to the violence led by the Western imperialists including the USA and Japan against rest of the world during their imperial expansions, the crimes against humanity and peace and war crimes they committed only can be classified as criminal of the greedies, all were destructive and nothing good came out of it. One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia while the Western imperialist expansion, colonization and invasion are murders and has forced so much destruction onto the world.

    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War

    So, Europe is far away for you, it all seems the same?

    French Revolution (Lenin admired Robespierre) – about 400,000 victims IIRC.

    Not much, compared to Lenin.

    One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia

    Would you also consider leprosy to be a self-healing event, if the victim is someone you don’t like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Shall we take the West's words as given truth? Providing the amount of fake news the West is fabricating it is hard to know which bloodletting is more barbaric, France Revolution, English Civil War, American Civil War or Russian Revolution.

    Leprosy is a disease like a cancer or like compradores and oligarchs to a nation, if the patient takes action to get ride of the disease, won't you say it is self-healing? The same logic applies to getting ride of compradores or oligarchs in a revolution is self-healing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. BTW, something like the US Constitution, or the English Magna Carta of centuries back, could not have even been thought of, much less implemented in almost all other societies. Maybe the Chinese could have copied one from us, but the people are too corrupt for it to ever actually work.

    Ouch!

    It was corruption that crammed the constitution down our throats. It was a huge link in the chain around our necks. (But not for the bankers and their buds.)

    Nock and the anti-federalists were correct.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]

    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I'm not saying it was for sure a guide to a better system than that under the Confederation, but had some of the various states been invaded by a foreign power, the Constitution would have been sorely missed. The point was mostly to have a common defense.

    Yes, the central banking stuff is part of the reason for the ruin now, but it was more the last 5 to 10 decades (depending on which parts you think are more important) of this document being ignored and figuratively shredded that made America what it is today. Come to think of it, the central banking stuff IS unconstitutional, at least something like the Federal Reserve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Anatoly Karlin
    I bet around 2100 the descendants of these people will be condemning critics of Yeltsin for hating their own country.

    This stuff does seem to repeat itself in century-or-so long intervals. Have you read “The Fourth Turning”? It’s partially bullshit and the authors are statists, but the concept is very interesting. Strauss and Howe, the authors, applied their concept of cyclical history only to the English/American world, but who knows? People just refuse to learn, as is is evidence right here on unz this very hour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    This stuff does seem to repeat itself in century-or-so long intervals. Have you read “The Fourth Turning”? It’s partially bullshit and the authors are statists, but the concept is very interesting.
     
    They say that we are in Winter, covering the approximate period of 2005- 2025. As in nature, each season has its possibilities and they identify Crisis (Winter) as a time for societal survival, demanding a genuine gathering together in unselfish common action.

    Each generation supposedly defines itself in opposition to its parents with "Boomer" children looking for societal order and stability rather than the counter -cultural revolution that was forced onto them. It may be true that Millennials are tiring of the old Hippies.

    https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510438535&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Fourth+Turning
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Achmed E. Newman
    I am curious if you ever read a book called "The Man who Loved China"?

    It is a book about a prolific English author who was pretty much a Commie after he started an affair with s Chinese visiting student to England. This guy spent lots of time there and wrote 17 volumes about how the Chinese invented this, that, and the other (yeah, the airplane too!). Well, I wish I could remember the author of the 17 volumes' name (the guy written about in "The Man who Loved China"), but he apparently always wondered how the country was such a damn shithole (not his exact words, as I recall) with all those smart people discovering stuff way before the West.

    Could the economic systems down through the millenia have had anything to do with it? Man, wouldn't you put any thought into that? This guy didn't - he went to his death bed wondering, "hey, how come we Westerners made all the guns? Hmmm?"

    Joseph Needham is his name; he came up with various theories as to why Song China didn’t industrialize. I’ll check out this book on him, thanks.

    It is interesting that the Chinese tended not to keep their inventions. Someone might build an air conditioning system of fans powered by waterwheels for a rich patron, but it just gets treated as a eccentricity rather than becoming an idea to build from. The economic system definitely had something to do with it.

    A similar case could have been made for late Rome, which also had machinery but capital investment in machinery appears to have been noncompetitive against human labor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, the book is good - I wouldn't be able to read the 17 volumes that Joseph Needham wrote, even if I could find them. Oh ... just found it on the shelf - Simon Winchester is the author of "The Man who Loved China".

    Dang, man, I am now able to post in real time, at least right here. This is bad ... very bad... for me, as I'm not gonna get stuff done, and for the idiot Commies on here who are going to have to get educated even though that pains the shit out of them. They may eventually have to get to class... wymyn's studies has a lot of tough, very rigorous requirements.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, the economic system AND rule of law (maybe they can't be separated) is the point. Why would you work hard on any cool new idea if you would not make money out of it and maybe even not get any recognition (with it being stolen legally by your "betters")?

    I wouldn't just say that the Chinese couldn't KEEP their inventions, but also they had no follow-through to make the inventions workable. Things have to be engineered at some point - made to work optimally, reliably, and cheap enough to make money on. I doubt there was much of that in any of the Chinese systems back through the past.

    It's different now there, and this is something that the Commies on here get exactly backwards. China has only come this far in these last 35 years or so because the free-market for small business was left alone to a big degree since Mr. Deng started that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @jacques sheete

    BTW, something like the US Constitution, or the English Magna Carta of centuries back, could not have even been thought of, much less implemented in almost all other societies. Maybe the Chinese could have copied one from us, but the people are too corrupt for it to ever actually work.
     
    Ouch!

    It was corruption that crammed the constitution down our throats. It was a huge link in the chain around our necks. (But not for the bankers and their buds.)

    Nock and the anti-federalists were correct.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]
    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

     

    I’m not saying it was for sure a guide to a better system than that under the Confederation, but had some of the various states been invaded by a foreign power, the Constitution would have been sorely missed. The point was mostly to have a common defense.

    Yes, the central banking stuff is part of the reason for the ruin now, but it was more the last 5 to 10 decades (depending on which parts you think are more important) of this document being ignored and figuratively shredded that made America what it is today. Come to think of it, the central banking stuff IS unconstitutional, at least something like the Federal Reserve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Achmed E. Newman
    I am curious if you ever read a book called "The Man who Loved China"?

    It is a book about a prolific English author who was pretty much a Commie after he started an affair with s Chinese visiting student to England. This guy spent lots of time there and wrote 17 volumes about how the Chinese invented this, that, and the other (yeah, the airplane too!). Well, I wish I could remember the author of the 17 volumes' name (the guy written about in "The Man who Loved China"), but he apparently always wondered how the country was such a damn shithole (not his exact words, as I recall) with all those smart people discovering stuff way before the West.

    Could the economic systems down through the millenia have had anything to do with it? Man, wouldn't you put any thought into that? This guy didn't - he went to his death bed wondering, "hey, how come we Westerners made all the guns? Hmmm?"

    Joseph Needham. His ideology regardless, his books are comprehensive and very highly regarded by the relevant experts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks, Mr. Karlin... just got the info from Daniel Chieh first. Great post here.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Sorry, for both of you guys, I wrote kind of quickly first and hadn't comprehended all. (I had first thought you meant Winchester.) Yeah, I don't doubt that Needham did his research, and that's really what the Winchester book is about, along with the rest of Needham's life story. However, as erudite as the man was, why he couldn't see past his research to the big world around him and figure out why all of these myriad Chinese inventions/discoveries didn't go far is beyond me. It's partly because of his ideology that he could not see, or did not want to. I notice this all the time, like say, today, under this post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. whahae says:

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency).

    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein))) who had a lot of reasons to want to make the Second Reich look bad and never gave any source.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein)))
     
    Can you direct me to a source for that? What do you think of Rep McFadden's claim?:

    Those bankers took money out of this country [USA] to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up ...

    -Louis T. McFadden, Speech In the House of Representatives,10 June 1932
     
    I guess the author of the article has no credible source to offer. Too bad.
    , @jacques sheete
    Is this info credible?


    Lenin, while crossing German territory, had with him on board of his train some ten million dollars in gold, thanks to German chief banker Max Warburg, whose brother Paul strangely enough, in 1913, was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve System, the central bank of the United States.

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Sealed_Train
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    There is a general consensus that Stalin was a sadistic tyrant

    Stalin > Lenin. Always.
    Lenin destroyed an empire. Stalin created one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Stalin just put the Humpty Dumpty toghether again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Daniel Chieh
    Joseph Needham is his name; he came up with various theories as to why Song China didn't industrialize. I'll check out this book on him, thanks.

    It is interesting that the Chinese tended not to keep their inventions. Someone might build an air conditioning system of fans powered by waterwheels for a rich patron, but it just gets treated as a eccentricity rather than becoming an idea to build from. The economic system definitely had something to do with it.

    A similar case could have been made for late Rome, which also had machinery but capital investment in machinery appears to have been noncompetitive against human labor.

    Yeah, the book is good – I wouldn’t be able to read the 17 volumes that Joseph Needham wrote, even if I could find them. Oh … just found it on the shelf – Simon Winchester is the author of “The Man who Loved China”.

    Dang, man, I am now able to post in real time, at least right here. This is bad … very bad… for me, as I’m not gonna get stuff done, and for the idiot Commies on here who are going to have to get educated even though that pains the shit out of them. They may eventually have to get to class… wymyn’s studies has a lot of tough, very rigorous requirements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Thea says:
    @Joe Wong
    This article is a drop in the bucket the West’s continuous effort to rewrite other people’s history for the others, so that they can white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace they have been committing since Columbus time.

    Very good job regurgitating English Composition 101 at generic State U. talking points. Your blue haired TA would be proud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Anatoly Karlin
    Joseph Needham. His ideology regardless, his books are comprehensive and very highly regarded by the relevant experts.

    Thanks, Mr. Karlin… just got the info from Daniel Chieh first. Great post here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. utu says:
    @utu
    around 6,321 people were executed for all offenses (including purely criminal ones, like murder) in the Russian Empire from 1825-1917

    This number seems to me to be too high. What do we know about components of this number?

    around 6,321 people were executed

    For comparison England and Wales statistics

    1800-1827 2,340
    1828-1836 408
    1837-1868 350
    1868-1899 454

    Scottland

    1800-1868 273
    1868-1899 17

    Population of UK 1827-27 millions 1901- 38 millions

    Population of Russia? Is it 3 or 4 times larger than UK in 19c?

    c. 2.5 times more executions per capita in UK than in Russia in 19c.

    I still suspect that the number 6,321 given by Karlin is way too large. Perhaps this is a number of death sentences given but not actual executions?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. utu says:
    @utu
    around 6,321 people were executed for all offenses (including purely criminal ones, like murder) in the Russian Empire from 1825-1917

    This number seems to me to be too high. What do we know about components of this number?

    For comparison the US

    1800-1824 602
    1825-1849 894
    1850-1874 1,364
    1875-1899 2,521

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. melanf says:
    @Disordered
    I agree with you, though Hupa does have a point - the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people, ergo when it failed it lacked for defenders (the Whites being mostly anti-Bolsheviks and faithful Orthodox more than commited Tsarists). There is a reason why the Tsar's office was not rehabilitated by Yeltsin, yet Spain did bring their king back.

    Then again, as others have said, Nicholas was very incompetent. Sometimes we focus too much on the systems and ideologies, when in reality the actions and failures of some individuals have the strongest consequences. For all the glories of the Roman Republic, we would have never known them if it was not for Caesar's personal desire for military conquest, and those who followed in his footsteps.

    the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people

    And for that the Russian people fiercely fought against Charles XII under Peter , and against Napoleon, after Peter?

    About the culture in General strange statement – what is called the “Russian culture”, 99% of the post-Petrine phenomenon. But then it’s not Russian culture? Russian do not like Pushkin and Briullov? And for this rebelled in 1917?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's a foundational meme of Eurasianists that the Russian Empire was some kind of "Germanic yoke" and the October Revolution was the liberation of the "real" Asiatic Russia and ultimate triumph of Muscovy over St Petersburg.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Daniel Chieh
    Joseph Needham is his name; he came up with various theories as to why Song China didn't industrialize. I'll check out this book on him, thanks.

    It is interesting that the Chinese tended not to keep their inventions. Someone might build an air conditioning system of fans powered by waterwheels for a rich patron, but it just gets treated as a eccentricity rather than becoming an idea to build from. The economic system definitely had something to do with it.

    A similar case could have been made for late Rome, which also had machinery but capital investment in machinery appears to have been noncompetitive against human labor.

    Yes, the economic system AND rule of law (maybe they can’t be separated) is the point. Why would you work hard on any cool new idea if you would not make money out of it and maybe even not get any recognition (with it being stolen legally by your “betters”)?

    I wouldn’t just say that the Chinese couldn’t KEEP their inventions, but also they had no follow-through to make the inventions workable. Things have to be engineered at some point – made to work optimally, reliably, and cheap enough to make money on. I doubt there was much of that in any of the Chinese systems back through the past.

    It’s different now there, and this is something that the Commies on here get exactly backwards. China has only come this far in these last 35 years or so because the free-market for small business was left alone to a big degree since Mr. Deng started that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Anatoly Karlin
    Joseph Needham. His ideology regardless, his books are comprehensive and very highly regarded by the relevant experts.

    Sorry, for both of you guys, I wrote kind of quickly first and hadn’t comprehended all. (I had first thought you meant Winchester.) Yeah, I don’t doubt that Needham did his research, and that’s really what the Winchester book is about, along with the rest of Needham’s life story. However, as erudite as the man was, why he couldn’t see past his research to the big world around him and figure out why all of these myriad Chinese inventions/discoveries didn’t go far is beyond me. It’s partly because of his ideology that he could not see, or did not want to. I notice this all the time, like say, today, under this post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Needham was focused n the history of technology rather than politics and economics. But Chinese stagnation is simple. There were no secure private property rights for merchants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @whahae

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency).
     
    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein))) who had a lot of reasons to want to make the Second Reich look bad and never gave any source.

    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein)))

    Can you direct me to a source for that? What do you think of Rep McFadden’s claim?:

    Those bankers took money out of this country [USA] to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up …

    -Louis T. McFadden, Speech In the House of Representatives,10 June 1932

    I guess the author of the article has no credible source to offer. Too bad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody’s guess.
     
    He was personally very successful. Few people in history have forced their vision upon the world, and have been so destructive. He was just a failure for Russia and civilization.

    As someone else mentioned, Mohammand and what he did to much of the world was an analogue.

    “Red terror” – there was also “White terror”, hardly any more pleasant
     
    Reactive and on a smaller scale of brutality. This argument is like equating Soviet army rapes to what the Germans had been doing durng the war.

    Lenin founded a country that became the most powerful Russian state that ever existed.
     
    It was clearly heading in that direction anyway. But the monster that Lenin created was self-destructive and fell apart after only a few decades.

    The Russians still live a country that Lenin designed, for better or for worse. If this is failure, I wonder what success looks like
     
    USA. A country that doesn't fall apart on its own after 70 years. Hell, pretty much any other industrialized nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. EugeneGur says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Ultimately, I wonder if it would have been better for Germany to win World War I and then overthrow the Bolsheviks right afterwards.
     
    Yes, in retrospect, that's probably right.

    Also, I do think that, with the exception of Poland and *perhaps* Finland, a surviving Russian Republic (*not* Russian Empire) would have been able to hold together reasonably well up to the present-day
     
    .

    No Poland, sure, but that's feature, not bug. There was no significant separatism in Finland.

    Indeed, if “open borders” Russian liberals and various ethnic minorities (especially Muslim ones) in a surviving Russian Republic would have eventually teamed up, you could certainly see Russia have an enormous Muslim minority today.
     
    Yes, I posited as much in this post from a few weeks back: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/progressive-russian-empire/

    Of course it would be partially offset by a much larger Slavic population.

    This entire opus is such a collection of lies, half-truths, distortions, opinions based on exactly nothing, it’s astonishing, in a way. The complexities of the epoch and the situation are reduced to a simple thesis: Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody’s guess.

    He introduced “war communism” – the fact that there was a war going on at the time does not deserve mentioning. Or that it was the very same Lenin who introduced the new economic policy (NEP) after the war ended. “Red terror” – there was also “White terror”, hardly any more pleasant – have you ever heard of that? If we are in the business of “would’ve-could’ve-should’ve”, why not consider the possibility (just as an example of that kind of thinking) that if our European friends had not taken such a kin and active interest in the Russians affairs, perhaps, the Civil War would not’ve been so long, cruel and devastating to the country, with all the inevitable consequences?

    Lenin founded a country that became the most powerful Russian state that ever existed. The Russians still live a country that Lenin designed, for better or for worse. If this is failure, I wonder what success looks like?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @whahae

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money. In 1917, a grand total of around 50 million gold marks were transferred to Lenin’s party in Petrograd (this translates to an amzing $1 billion in today’s currency).
     
    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein))) who had a lot of reasons to want to make the Second Reich look bad and never gave any source.

    Is this info credible?

    Lenin, while crossing German territory, had with him on board of his train some ten million dollars in gold, thanks to German chief banker Max Warburg, whose brother Paul strangely enough, in 1913, was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve System, the central bank of the United States.

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Sealed_Train

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. melanf says:
    @Hupa
    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized

    You're right about Turkey, Ataturk is a kind of Peter the Great but for the Turks. If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you're hyperactive

    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity. Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary and as I wrote, it showed the extent to which the russian elites disliked russian tradition, it marked the beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse, this is why they were so sloppy in fighting Bolsheviks

    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized

    This statement is just wrong. A meeting of elected representatives from the estates was expected to raise in 1730, and later (under the Empress Elizaveta) elected representatives from cities and the nobility participated in the drafting of laws. Then Catherine II convened a meeting of elected representatives from estates.
    Peter himself introduced a number of elected posts (for example if previously, the city was ruled by a tsars appointed officials, Peter created the elective municipal government)

    If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you’re hyperactive

    It’s not me, so people thought in the 17th and 18th centuries. In particular, the decrees on dress and hairstyles have published Peter’s father, Alexei Mikhailovich.

    Much later the same thought the Meiji reformers in Japan, and the Turkish sultans reformers (later Ataturk). I don’t think they were fools

    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity.

    The schism is, perhaps, the most tragic part of the legacy inherited by Peter, and for the split in any case he is not responsible. The situation extremely aggravated in the reign of Sophia. In the lent 1685г. were taken 12 notorious articles against the believers. The death penalty, whip, in the very best link —here is the meaning of this unheard of cruelty of the decree. Moreover, the decree has received meticulous and rigorous execution: according to reliable estimates, up to Easter in Moscow was burned about a hundred people. And immediately, the country erupted into a religious conflict….the attitude to the old believers is softened immediately after Sverre& tion of Sophia**. The government is a compromise policy that refuses “pravdivaya” Raskolnikov. The number of self-immolations sharply. Some of the fugitives returned from abroad. Blooms Vigo-Lakinskoe settlement (old believers ). When 1702г. the Peter on the road from Arkhangelsk is in Vigo, there was prepared to flee, and to “fiery death”, but Peter promised the old believers sort of confessional autonomy—and kept his word.”
    А.М.Панченко Начало Петровсой реформы: идейная подоплека

    The Church was forced, instead of Auto-da-fé to build schools and to train missionaries. It was right

    Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church

    That had no consequences Only indignation of historians “intelligents” in the 20th century

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary

    ????

    And XVIII century….russian elites disliked russian tradition

    In for this in the 18th century (by Peter decrees) were taken under the protection of the monuments medieval age, began the study of mediaeval Chronicles, was published the first written national history, etc.?

    beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse

    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age – a universal process

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.
    , @Hupa
    I see you're very stubborn and you try to disprove what I claim by pointing to some minor traits that existed in Russia (and in any country in the world - which doesn't make all countries the same), even though I'm clearly talking about proportions, I don't care whether you had a collective body, because, hell, even North Korea has collective bodies

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma's functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
     
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor. France during absolutism also had local governments, but that doesn't change the fact that the king liquidated the General Estates

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn't change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake

    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age – a universal process
     
    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process. I don't think this argument should be decisive
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. By affirmative action, one can only assume that you mean enslaving a quarter or more of the population and depriving them of opportunities given to the other 75 once it was divied up among the class structures.

    I agree that is some serious affirmative action. A tad more severe, than red lining, pigeon holing, freezing, separate but unequal, etc, FDR’ new deal for whites, segregated military, (if one could get in based on the standards being raised) . . . among the occasional lynching to drive the point home.

    I agree in some ways, our country does in act harbor some similar policies favoring some and denying others and then blaming the denied. That sounds very much like communist thinking revolutionary thinking. Doling out goodies for those who played along as loyal and good comrades.

    Your a brave man to make that observation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. MarkinPNW says:
    @jacques sheete

    I’m one of those plebs who basically got all my Russian history from Western textbooks when I was young so I’m quite ignorant about Russia.
     
    I feel your pain. I've been hard at work for decades trying to make sense of all this, and all I know is some American history, I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another, and that American "knowledge" about Germany is about the exact opposite as one can get, but I know next to nothing about Russian or Chinese history.

    It's interesting that Churchill wrote mourning a Russia that went down when the Brits were, in fact, a significant part of its sinking. But then I suppose he would rather have preferred to have Russia and Germany keeping each other occupied.



    I found the article informative and worth studying, but I feel handicapped by not knowing anything more than "tourist level" Russian, and I have a few quibbles.

    A student who never finished university, a lawyer who never plied his trade. After Siberia, he would spend most of the next seventeen years in European exile, writing articles for low-circulation journals that alternated between rehashing Marx and Engels, engaging in disputes with fellow Marxists who were famous in narrow circles…
     
    While meant as criticisms, they are weak. I especially had to smile at “writing articles for low-circulation journals.” It’s pretty obvious that the level of circulation should mean nothing regarding quality; after all, UR itself is probably very low “circulation” and it free, yet it’s better than anything with a wide circulation that people actually pay for.

    I’ve long had a question about this, but have yet to have the time to research an more specific answer.

    All this was sustained in large part thanks to German money.
     
    Does anyone know precisely who or what were the precise sources of the money?

    “I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another.”

    I’ve just finished reading Nikolai Starikov’s two books that have been translated into English; “Who Set Hitler Against Stalin”, and “Rouble Nationalization”. His main thesis is that most of the troubles of the 20th century, including the troubles of Germany and Russia and the World Wars, was precisely from the Brits and the Bankers deliberately trying to do exactly what you said, especially to stir up Germany and Russia against each other to insure British Hegemony over both potential competitors. He indulges in a lot of speculation and conjecture, but his claims seem to make a lot of sense to explain a lot of things that otherwise don’t make sense.

    Starikov’s take on Lenin and Stalin is that they acted as stooges for the Brits in order to get power, and were bad when they were too obedient to their British masters in weakening Russia, but did good when they would rebel against British control to strengthen Russia after coming to power. Trotsky was, according to Starikov, evil all the way, as he was too loyal to his British handlers, and Stalin was right to get rid of him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Correction! Trotsky was loyal to his Jewish-German-American handlers. Lenin too.
    , @jacques sheete

    Starikov’s take on Lenin and Stalin is that they acted as stooges for the Brits ...
     
    You know, the more I read, the more I'm beginning to think that the key leaders of the time were set up by certain banking "elite" and then they were pit against one another, so I'd add Hitler to the list. They remind me of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, to name two prominent ones of recent vintage.

    Getting back to Brit manipulation of others, their craftiness was on full display, for instance, in the Agadir Crisis and the way they played their cards in East Africa They were sharp. Evil but hard to beat in gamesmanship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. druid says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Maybe muhammad (disgrace be upon him).

    Never let it be said that you aren’t an asshole!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Joe Wong says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    ... and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War.
     
    Hey, I actually agree with you somewhat here. I'm no fan of Mr. Lincoln. However, although ignoring the US Constitution by starting the war to begin with and waiving habeas corpus, etc. in the North, this guy didn't make up lists of people to purge. Once war starts, all bets are off.

    Your heroes are the kind of guys who make lists of people to be shot in mass, and bulldozed into big ditches. Well, everyone has got to have a role model, I guess. It's better than just drifting through life ... I think ...

    .
    .

    BTW, something like the US Constitution, or the English Magna Carta of centuries back, could not have even been thought of, much less implemented in almost all other societies. Maybe the Chinese could have copied one from us, but the people are too corrupt for it to ever actually work.

    Chinese invented republic and democracy thousands years ago, but some unscrupulous guys out maneuver the decent ones and got into authoritarian afterwards. But even that the ruler must rule in according to the mandate from the heaven which is taking care of the well-being of the ruled, otherwise anybody can overthrow the ruler with moral authority from the heaven too.

    US Constitution or the English Magna Carta are copycat of Chinese republic and democracy invented thousands years ago with modifications as human beings accumulate wisdom with time. Besides neither the English Magna Carta nor US Constitution were aimed at the masses, they were drafted to protect the interests of the selected few, the oligarchies, they were contracts of power sharing among the oligarchies. There is a clear distinction between taking care of the masses and taking care of the selected few in terms of substance in democracy and human rights in case you don’t know.

    When CCP won the civil war there was feeling of reborn among the Chinese, they felt finally they had kicked the Chinese compradors out and freed from the Western and Japanese imperialist yokes to rebuild their nation from rubble caused by the hundred years of inhumane unequal treaty destruction and exploitation. But the imperial parasites did not want to lose the host, China, their overt and covert destabilizing operations against the new regime provoked the new vulnerable regime to react violently against anyone suspected not welcoming the new regime. Perhaps without the Western Imperialists’ interference, there won’t be something bad for the West to portray China as a role model of Orientalism perpetually.

    Regarding role model, nobody can beat the Anglo in hypocrisy, double think and brutality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Chinese invented republic and democracy thousands years ago, but some unscrupulous guys out maneuver the decent ones and got into authoritarian afterwards.
     
    Sure, they did, and it was those damn unscrupulous guys again, yeah... they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling mandarins.

    US Constitution or the English Magna Carta are copycat of Chinese republic and democracy invented thousands years ago with modifications as human beings accumulate wisdom with time.
     
    Yes, we're the ones that copied everything, like the turbojet engines ... copied from China... the internet ... copied from China... latex paint ... copied from China... toilets you can sit on ... copied from ... wait a minute! What?

    Besides neither the English Magna Carta nor US Constitution were aimed at the masses, they were drafted to protect the interests of the selected few, the oligarchies, they were contracts of power sharing among the oligarchies.
     
    Yes, the right to bear arms was made for the oligarchs - why I still have my guns is a wonder... hell, maybe I've been an oligarch and never knew it. Damn, I'd have picked up a lot more women at the bars if they knew I was an oligarch. Yeah, I guess I have seen a lot of oligarchs in small claims court too, now that you mention it. Hmmm... I am learning so much from you, Joe Wrong.

    When CCP won the civil war there was feeling of reborn among the Chinese, they felt finally they had kicked the Chinese compradors out and freed from the Western and Japanese imperialist yokes to rebuild their nation from rubble caused by the hundred years of inhumane unequal treaty destruction and exploitation.
     
    You people were reborn, ehh? How come nobody has ANY religious beliefs in modern-day China? Are you perhaps "born-again atheists" Does one have to get dunked in any water for that, cause you know that Chinese people mostly can't swim and the water tastes like ass. Maybe it's faked like the fake money burned on Tomb-Sweeping Day. Hey, listen, Chinamen (AND women), if you're trying to get this money to your dead ancestors, they are going to have no use for that monopoly money - I'd suggest greenbacks until the dollar dies, then 100-Yuan notes, you cheap-asses.

    I did hear about the whole country getting rebuilt during the Mao era from rubble. The problem, as with a lot of Cheap China-made Crap (see also here, here, and here.), you don't build stuff with rubble. You've got to start with decent materials and use decent tools. You should know all this, Mr. Wrong, as remember, we copied all these ideas from the Middle Kingdom way back during the Poontang Dynasty.

    The big reason you're able to even write this on a computer not made out of wood and beads, is that Bill Clinton wanted to get laid and collect a few bucks, so he sold out American manufacturing might. (Can't blame it all on him though, lots of Globalist elites were involved.)

    Your Commie lies might get you through graduate school, but this is unz, baby. You're gonna need to grow up, Joe. Write me back in a decade, after you have had some time to reflect on your Commie stupidity. I will expect you under a new pseudonym, Joe White.
    , @Alden
    I think a computer wrote this latest comment by the program that calls itself Joe Wong.

    Just what does China have to do with the article about Lenin anyway?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. MarkinPNW says:
    @jacques sheete

    The war was imposed on Russia...
     
    I do not disagree, but would you care to elaborate beyond what you already said? Your comment makes sense to me, but I'm curious about the details. What sources would you recommend for fleshing out your claims?

    Nikolai Starikov offers his answers in his books and articles, mostly in Russian (which I don’t read) but two of his books are available in English translation; “Who set Hitler Against Stalin” and “Rouble Nationalization”. As a lot of what he says appears to be his own conjecture; I’m not sure how reliable his thesis is, but it does seem to make sense.

    Also, you can look for some of Starikov’s articles in English at orientalreview.org.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thanks a lot!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Seraphim says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Anatoli, your reanimator like attempt to reanimated that cadaver of long dead Tsarist Russia, put a lot of maep and lipstick on that long dead pig are laughable. It died of the deceased that while originally was curable eventually turned incurable due to neglect and bad life style choices. New Soviet Russia achieved in reality what older Russia could not have achieved even in your optimistic extrapolations. The proof is on the pudding so to speak.

    BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Seraphim says:
    @MarkinPNW
    "I have figured out that the Brits and bankers were masters at stirring up problems and setting their competitors against one another."

    I've just finished reading Nikolai Starikov's two books that have been translated into English; "Who Set Hitler Against Stalin", and "Rouble Nationalization". His main thesis is that most of the troubles of the 20th century, including the troubles of Germany and Russia and the World Wars, was precisely from the Brits and the Bankers deliberately trying to do exactly what you said, especially to stir up Germany and Russia against each other to insure British Hegemony over both potential competitors. He indulges in a lot of speculation and conjecture, but his claims seem to make a lot of sense to explain a lot of things that otherwise don't make sense.

    Starikov's take on Lenin and Stalin is that they acted as stooges for the Brits in order to get power, and were bad when they were too obedient to their British masters in weakening Russia, but did good when they would rebel against British control to strengthen Russia after coming to power. Trotsky was, according to Starikov, evil all the way, as he was too loyal to his British handlers, and Stalin was right to get rid of him.

    Correction! Trotsky was loyal to his Jewish-German-American handlers. Lenin too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. AP says:
    @jacques sheete

    The 50 million gold mark figure comes from German Social Democratic politician (((Eduard Bernstein)))
     
    Can you direct me to a source for that? What do you think of Rep McFadden's claim?:

    Those bankers took money out of this country [USA] to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up ...

    -Louis T. McFadden, Speech In the House of Representatives,10 June 1932
     
    I guess the author of the article has no credible source to offer. Too bad.

    Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody’s guess.

    He was personally very successful. Few people in history have forced their vision upon the world, and have been so destructive. He was just a failure for Russia and civilization.

    As someone else mentioned, Mohammand and what he did to much of the world was an analogue.

    “Red terror” – there was also “White terror”, hardly any more pleasant

    Reactive and on a smaller scale of brutality. This argument is like equating Soviet army rapes to what the Germans had been doing durng the war.

    Lenin founded a country that became the most powerful Russian state that ever existed.

    It was clearly heading in that direction anyway. But the monster that Lenin created was self-destructive and fell apart after only a few decades.

    The Russians still live a country that Lenin designed, for better or for worse. If this is failure, I wonder what success looks like

    USA. A country that doesn’t fall apart on its own after 70 years. Hell, pretty much any other industrialized nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "He was just a failure for Russia and civilization."

    You seem to have everything covered. So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically tet a tet and providing population with top notch education, healthcare, 8 hours working day, guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement, basically free shelter and many other things. You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.
    Note that he and Stalin managed to do so starting from extremely low point and without any help from outside. you also must be very wealthy person to ignore significance of what Lenin did for working people not just in Russia / USSR but world wide.
    , @jacques sheete
    Sir, I think you may be replying to the wrong person.

    Anyway, as for Lenin being a success, no doubt it was due to the backing he likely had from powerful bankers. It appears to me that national "leaders" get nowhere unless vetted by the big money boys. Once they've outlived their usefulness, they get tossed under the bus in one way or another.

    One sees this in the case of the Shrub, Bill Clinton, and O-bomb-a, who were nobodies until some money bag fool thought they'd be useful.
    , @EugeneGur

    Reactive and on a smaller scale of brutality.
     
    This is a popular misconception in the West but is factually incorrect. The white terror was no more reactive than the red terror was reactive to, say, an attempt on Lenin's life. As to the scope and brutality, Bolsheviks had nothing on the noblemen of the White Army. Kolchak, the ruler of Siberia, for example, was notorious for his cruelty towards the locals. And he wasn't the only one. This, by the way, was one of the reasons why Bolsheviks ultimately prevailed in the Civil War.

    But the monster that Lenin created was self-destructive and fell apart after only a few decades.
     
    There is nothing monstrous about the Soviet Union - nothing more than about any "industrialized nation". In spite of the difficult periods, the Soviet Union was, and still is, a powerful project that unleashed enormous creative forces not just in Russia but all over the world. To reduce it to such primitive descriptions as "evil", "destructive", monstrous" is - trying to be polite - silly.

    One American writer (don't remember who) once remarked: "Why are we rejoicing that the only attempt to build a society based on the best human qualities failed, whereas our society built on the most primitive basal human traits such as greed and cruelty to other is thriving?" This is BTW is the definition of your "success". Sad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. I am exausted of “details” and “facts” and all of the events, names, surrounding this bombastic theme, so my arrived at final extraction thus being : Who is vulnerable, attracted to the communist idea, in light of it’s repeated murderous failures : none other than ignorant, stupid or crazy individuals, basta.

    The lunatic credo of each new generation of reds: ” They, the Russians, the Cubans, the eastern Europeans, were the wrong ones, and we are the right ones and we will get it right this time” : this mindset is revealing of psychosis beyond redemption.

    I have spent time visiting several east block countries long before the fall of the wall, and I will never forget the morgue-like atmosphere of the cities and the dead eyes of the hopeless natives.

    In Germany the insane gift which never stops giving, there is in every town or city of size a “Karl Marx Strasse” , and natives, when confronted with this phenomena, will always come up with the amazing deranged explanation therefore of : “He was a great philospher”, regardless of the rivers of blood resulting from his “philosophy”

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. Seraphim says:
    @melanf

    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized
     
    This statement is just wrong. A meeting of elected representatives from the estates was expected to raise in 1730, and later (under the Empress Elizaveta) elected representatives from cities and the nobility participated in the drafting of laws. Then Catherine II convened a meeting of elected representatives from estates.
    Peter himself introduced a number of elected posts (for example if previously, the city was ruled by a tsars appointed officials, Peter created the elective municipal government)

    If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you’re hyperactive
     
    It's not me, so people thought in the 17th and 18th centuries. In particular, the decrees on dress and hairstyles have published Peter's father, Alexei Mikhailovich.

    Much later the same thought the Meiji reformers in Japan, and the Turkish sultans reformers (later Ataturk). I don't think they were fools


    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity.
     
    "The schism is, perhaps, the most tragic part of the legacy inherited by Peter, and for the split in any case he is not responsible. The situation extremely aggravated in the reign of Sophia. In the lent 1685г. were taken 12 notorious articles against the believers. The death penalty, whip, in the very best link —here is the meaning of this unheard of cruelty of the decree. Moreover, the decree has received meticulous and rigorous execution: according to reliable estimates, up to Easter in Moscow was burned about a hundred people. And immediately, the country erupted into a religious conflict....the attitude to the old believers is softened immediately after Sverre& tion of Sophia**. The government is a compromise policy that refuses "pravdivaya" Raskolnikov. The number of self-immolations sharply. Some of the fugitives returned from abroad. Blooms Vigo-Lakinskoe settlement (old believers ). When 1702г. the Peter on the road from Arkhangelsk is in Vigo, there was prepared to flee, and to "fiery death", but Peter promised the old believers sort of confessional autonomy—and kept his word."
    А.М.Панченко Начало Петровсой реформы: идейная подоплека

    The Church was forced, instead of Auto-da-fé to build schools and to train missionaries. It was right


    Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church
     
    That had no consequences Only indignation of historians "intelligents" in the 20th century

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary
     
    ????

    And XVIII century....russian elites disliked russian tradition
     
    In for this in the 18th century (by Peter decrees) were taken under the protection of the monuments medieval age, began the study of mediaeval Chronicles, was published the first written national history, etc.?

    beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse
     
    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age - a universal process

    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hupa
    And it destroyed continuity of tradition in Russia, which created good grounds for revolutionism and bolshevism
    , @melanf

    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.
     
    Any preceding century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Hupa says:
    @melanf

    Well fine, I meant that since Peter the idea that such thing as Sobor Ziemski could gather again, was unthinkable, because Russia became so drastically centralized
     
    This statement is just wrong. A meeting of elected representatives from the estates was expected to raise in 1730, and later (under the Empress Elizaveta) elected representatives from cities and the nobility participated in the drafting of laws. Then Catherine II convened a meeting of elected representatives from estates.
    Peter himself introduced a number of elected posts (for example if previously, the city was ruled by a tsars appointed officials, Peter created the elective municipal government)

    If you think that the state should make laws regarding beards of people, then you’re hyperactive
     
    It's not me, so people thought in the 17th and 18th centuries. In particular, the decrees on dress and hairstyles have published Peter's father, Alexei Mikhailovich.

    Much later the same thought the Meiji reformers in Japan, and the Turkish sultans reformers (later Ataturk). I don't think they were fools


    Subordination of the Church to the state makes no sense, because the Church can conduct its mission only as a separate entity.
     
    "The schism is, perhaps, the most tragic part of the legacy inherited by Peter, and for the split in any case he is not responsible. The situation extremely aggravated in the reign of Sophia. In the lent 1685г. were taken 12 notorious articles against the believers. The death penalty, whip, in the very best link —here is the meaning of this unheard of cruelty of the decree. Moreover, the decree has received meticulous and rigorous execution: according to reliable estimates, up to Easter in Moscow was burned about a hundred people. And immediately, the country erupted into a religious conflict....the attitude to the old believers is softened immediately after Sverre& tion of Sophia**. The government is a compromise policy that refuses "pravdivaya" Raskolnikov. The number of self-immolations sharply. Some of the fugitives returned from abroad. Blooms Vigo-Lakinskoe settlement (old believers ). When 1702г. the Peter on the road from Arkhangelsk is in Vigo, there was prepared to flee, and to "fiery death", but Peter promised the old believers sort of confessional autonomy—and kept his word."
    А.М.Панченко Начало Петровсой реформы: идейная подоплека

    The Church was forced, instead of Auto-da-fé to build schools and to train missionaries. It was right


    Oh and in XVIII Russia they also abolished the secret of confession in the Church
     
    That had no consequences Only indignation of historians "intelligents" in the 20th century

    And XVIII century is important in Russia because it was revolutionary
     
    ????

    And XVIII century....russian elites disliked russian tradition
     
    In for this in the 18th century (by Peter decrees) were taken under the protection of the monuments medieval age, began the study of mediaeval Chronicles, was published the first written national history, etc.?

    beginning of the process of the abandonment of russian and christian tradition by the Russians en masse
     
    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age - a universal process

    I see you’re very stubborn and you try to disprove what I claim by pointing to some minor traits that existed in Russia (and in any country in the world – which doesn’t make all countries the same), even though I’m clearly talking about proportions, I don’t care whether you had a collective body, because, hell, even North Korea has collective bodies

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma’s functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma

    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor. France during absolutism also had local governments, but that doesn’t change the fact that the king liquidated the General Estates

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn’t change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake

    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age – a universal process

    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process. I don’t think this argument should be decisive

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma’s functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor.
     
    Boyar Duma (whose members were appointed by tsar) is not the Zemsky Sobor. Peter did not destroy the Zemsky Sobor (this is the Zemsky Sobor ceased to function for 40 years, until the reign of Peter). It's not a small detail - it makes your argument meaningless.

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn’t change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake
     
    The Church itself has made their teaching a fake. This would not have happened if priests carried out the decrees of Peter (and other emperors) on the need to educate ordinary people and to spend the Church's wealth to charity.

    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process.
     
    In Europe no doubt. Here without variants
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Hupa says:
    @Seraphim
    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.

    And it destroyed continuity of tradition in Russia, which created good grounds for revolutionism and bolshevism

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Well, he didn't. Please stop regurgitating Bolshie propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Joe Wong says:
    @AP

    Though the violence led by Lenin in Bolsheviks Revolution was horrible and a crimes against humanity, but it is no worse than the crimes against humanity committed by Maximilien Robespierre in French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell in the English Civil War and Abraham Lincoln in American Civil War
     
    So, Europe is far away for you, it all seems the same?

    French Revolution (Lenin admired Robespierre) - about 400,000 victims IIRC.

    Not much, compared to Lenin.

    One even can say the Bolsheviks Revolution is self healing event within Russia
     
    Would you also consider leprosy to be a self-healing event, if the victim is someone you don't like?

    Shall we take the West’s words as given truth? Providing the amount of fake news the West is fabricating it is hard to know which bloodletting is more barbaric, France Revolution, English Civil War, American Civil War or Russian Revolution.

    Leprosy is a disease like a cancer or like compradores and oligarchs to a nation, if the patient takes action to get ride of the disease, won’t you say it is self-healing? The same logic applies to getting ride of compradores or oligarchs in a revolution is self-healing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    How about self-decapitation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. melanf says:
    @Seraphim
    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.

    The XVIIIth Century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.

    Any preceding century was important in Russia because it made Russia of today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Joe Wong says:
    @reiner Tor
    No, I think the Lysenkoist experiments only lasted a few years during the Great Leap Forward. But China had to resort to importing food and/or underfeeding its people basically throughout Maoism, so much so that in the 1970s when the "reforms" started, it was basically just that since the people's communes were unable to feed their members, some of them allowed the peasants to toil small parcels themselves in exchange for some grain or rice requisitioning. The peasants miraculously managed to fulfill their requisitioning quotas and even accumulate a surplus for themselves already in the first year, so the experiment spread to other provinces. The central leadership (then already under Deng Xiaoping) discovered it a couple years later (by that time it was already spreading like wildfire in the provinces), and first decided to shut it down, but then a few months later realized that here's an opportunity to increase agricultural production, and pragmatically enough reversed course and spread the experiment to the whole country.

    I think communism's main problem with agriculture is basically that during the agricultural season it requires a lot of dedicated work on behalf of the peasants, and it's very difficult to centrally control or supervise. This means that when the land is collectivized, peasants lose their incentives, and no amount of coercion or promises can stop them from cheating and not working hard enough. The result will be a chronically low harvest year in and year out.

    Once you re-privatize the land, the incentives return, and the harvest magically increases - due to the very hard and dedicated work of the peasants. In the USSR it was complicated by the fact that by the 1990s kolkhozniks were two generations removed from working for themselves, and not only got used to being lazy, but never even had childhood memories of how to toil the land for themselves. So it took a couple decades for Russian agriculture to regain productivity.

    The West under the American leadership were imposing full spectrum sanctions and embargo against China before 1980, where would China import food from? The American and their lackeys were as helpful to China as before 1941, they were financing and supplying war materials and technology to the beastly Japanese to wage barbaric wars to cripple China.

    If you do not understand farming or anything about other nation, please stop trolling a distorted imagine about others from a mindset brain washed by the ‘god-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘inquisitors’ in the Washington and London from cradle to grave and reinforced by excessive flag saluting. The self righteous attitude permeated in your comment make you a perfect gear in the USSR central planning machinery, creating mayhem based on half baked truth or bigotry imagination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Seraphim says:
    @Anon

    There is a general consensus that Stalin was a sadistic tyrant
     
    Stalin > Lenin. Always.
    Lenin destroyed an empire. Stalin created one.

    Stalin just put the Humpty Dumpty toghether again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @AP

    Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody’s guess.
     
    He was personally very successful. Few people in history have forced their vision upon the world, and have been so destructive. He was just a failure for Russia and civilization.

    As someone else mentioned, Mohammand and what he did to much of the world was an analogue.

    “Red terror” – there was also “White terror”, hardly any more pleasant
     
    Reactive and on a smaller scale of brutality. This argument is like equating Soviet army rapes to what the Germans had been doing durng the war.

    Lenin founded a country that became the most powerful Russian state that ever existed.
     
    It was clearly heading in that direction anyway. But the monster that Lenin created was self-destructive and fell apart after only a few decades.

    The Russians still live a country that Lenin designed, for better or for worse. If this is failure, I wonder what success looks like
     
    USA. A country that doesn't fall apart on its own after 70 years. Hell, pretty much any other industrialized nation.

    “He was just a failure for Russia and civilization.”

    You seem to have everything covered. So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically tet a tet and providing population with top notch education, healthcare, 8 hours working day, guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement, basically free shelter and many other things. You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.
    Note that he and Stalin managed to do so starting from extremely low point and without any help from outside. you also must be very wealthy person to ignore significance of what Lenin did for working people not just in Russia / USSR but world wide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically
     
    60% higher population than Germany, almost lost to it, after losing 20+ million killed.

    top notch education
     
    Good education. Still not the best though.

    healthcare
     
    Only industrialized country with a rising infant mortality rate. Low life expectancy.

    guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement
     
    Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.

    If you like a generous safety net in exchange for lower standard of living by wealthy people, western Europe did it much better.

    basically free shelter
     
    Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But - for free!

    You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.
     
    If not for the mass deaths, Soviet Union would have been funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. melanf says:
    @Hupa
    I see you're very stubborn and you try to disprove what I claim by pointing to some minor traits that existed in Russia (and in any country in the world - which doesn't make all countries the same), even though I'm clearly talking about proportions, I don't care whether you had a collective body, because, hell, even North Korea has collective bodies

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma's functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
     
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor. France during absolutism also had local governments, but that doesn't change the fact that the king liquidated the General Estates

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn't change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake

    the end of the middle ages and the transition to a Modern Age – a universal process
     
    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process. I don't think this argument should be decisive

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma’s functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor.

    Boyar Duma (whose members were appointed by tsar) is not the Zemsky Sobor. Peter did not destroy the Zemsky Sobor (this is the Zemsky Sobor ceased to function for 40 years, until the reign of Peter). It’s not a small detail – it makes your argument meaningless.

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn’t change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake

    The Church itself has made their teaching a fake. This would not have happened if priests carried out the decrees of Peter (and other emperors) on the need to educate ordinary people and to spend the Church’s wealth to charity.

    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process.

    In Europe no doubt. Here without variants

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hupa
    You're running out of arguments, so you cling to lacks in my arguments, because I'm trying not to create walls of text. Duma was a part of Zemsky Sobor, which was even bigger than Duma alone and it even further supports my argument as to how revolutionary and destructive Peter the Great and his reforms were to russian tradition and its "natural constitution"

    Maybe the Church made itself its teachings fake, maybe Peter was right at some time, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea of the Church makes sense only when it's a separate, autonomous body, not when its under such control by the state authority, because then it becomes simply another government official, so there's no need for another state official if we have the original one already
    , @Hupa
    One more thing - if Peter's changes were so great, then why was there a Church Council in 1917-1918?


    The 1917-1918 Council was the first council of the Russian Church since the one of 1681-1682, and also the first since Peter I deposed the Patriarch and introduced his reforms including the establishment of the Holy Synod under a civil procurator as the senior authority of the Church
     
    Maybe perhaps the Orthodox Church didn't really like what Peter introduced and wanted to overthrow those changes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @ussr andy
    what's the place of October 1917 in the general European context? I mean it wasn't just the Russian Empire that fell following WW1.

    -----------------------


    Russians are to be blamed for this.
     
    Joos agree (albeit for different reasons)

    people were apathetic and indifferent.
     
    nope, the spirit of progress was genuine. An apathetic nation doesn't produce a Mayakovsky, say. It doesn't consume tons and tons of pop-sci literature.

    narodniks, zapadniks, pochvenniks, Russians had more by way of genuine politics than the West does today where everything is just different flavors of liberal POZ.

    the sad truth is it doesn't take that much to turn a place into a Hobbesian jungle if one makes it one's purpose. Arabs and/or Muzzies are about as culturally confident as it gets and yet what's the death toll in Iraq so far?

    The IRA for example. Rather more successful than the Bavarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @melanf

    the post-Peter Occidental Russian state was not popular nor culturally close to the Russian people
     
    And for that the Russian people fiercely fought against Charles XII under Peter , and against Napoleon, after Peter?

    About the culture in General strange statement - what is called the "Russian culture", 99% of the post-Petrine phenomenon. But then it's not Russian culture? Russian do not like Pushkin and Briullov? And for this rebelled in 1917?

    It’s a foundational meme of Eurasianists that the Russian Empire was some kind of “Germanic yoke” and the October Revolution was the liberation of the “real” Asiatic Russia and ultimate triumph of Muscovy over St Petersburg.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hupa
    I don't mean that Bolsheviks represented real Russia, I only meant that when XVIII century Russia dissolved its tradition, then Bolsheviks had it easier to introduce their own vision. Although obviously Bolsheviks represented a trait of russian, radical, savage, romantic, maximalist thinking
    , @melanf

    It’s a foundational meme of Eurasianists that the Russian Empire was some kind of “Germanic yoke” and the October Revolution was the liberation of the “real” Asiatic Russia and ultimate triumph of Muscovy over St Petersburg.
     
    This is a very strange point of view. Lenin was a follower of the German ultranationalist Friedrich Engels

    "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples ( Slavs). And that, too, is a progress."

    Engels, "the Magyar Struggle" [Kampf Der Magyarische] 13.01.1849
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. “Lenin was stupid, cruel, and a failure. How he ever managed to hold on to the power and win the Civil War agains impossible odds is anybody’s guess. ”

    It is like piece of cr^^^p wrapped in enigma and spiced with mystery. I wonder how long did it take to produce this outstanding piece of thought?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. Seraphim says:
    @Hupa
    And it destroyed continuity of tradition in Russia, which created good grounds for revolutionism and bolshevism

    Well, he didn’t. Please stop regurgitating Bolshie propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. AP says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    "He was just a failure for Russia and civilization."

    You seem to have everything covered. So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically tet a tet and providing population with top notch education, healthcare, 8 hours working day, guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement, basically free shelter and many other things. You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.
    Note that he and Stalin managed to do so starting from extremely low point and without any help from outside. you also must be very wealthy person to ignore significance of what Lenin did for working people not just in Russia / USSR but world wide.

    So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically

    60% higher population than Germany, almost lost to it, after losing 20+ million killed.

    top notch education

    Good education. Still not the best though.

    healthcare

    Only industrialized country with a rising infant mortality rate. Low life expectancy.

    guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement

    Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.

    If you like a generous safety net in exchange for lower standard of living by wealthy people, western Europe did it much better.

    basically free shelter

    Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But – for free!

    You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.

    If not for the mass deaths, Soviet Union would have been funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "60% higher population than Germany, almost lost to it, after losing 20+ million killed."

    All of Europe was was working for Germany. Germany occupied territory with 80 million Soviet population making it unavailable to Soviet military effort until 1943-1944. It means that USSR was actually fighting and winning war with mere 110 million also managing to out manufacture the whole of Europe.
    You seem to have answer on any question. But those are not good answers.

    "Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But – for free!"

    Such idiotic comment only American can make. Ever experienced half a country ruined to the ground with people living in dugouts? No. Then obviously you have no clue that firstly people had to be provided with basic shelter, whole cities rebuilt. Then it was about comfort and apartments were getting better with time. You also do not appreciate being free of debt because most probably you are up to your nostrils in it. Are you aware of statistics how many Americans are on antidepressants? I knew of no such thing back in Soviet days. Apartments built in 70-80's were increasingly of larger size and improved quality. I also wonder how much space people need? Being free of mortgage beats your 4000 sq feet any day.
    Do you know what mortgage means? "Death pledge".

    "Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you."
    This happens everywhere but you miss the point completely because it is who you are.
    The point is, good, educated man or woman , could graduate without any debt, get guaranteed employment at occupation they studied and subsequently get shelter also free. Moreover, if one was talented there was no limits to growth. Worker could become director of the factory and even minister.
    If you enjoy being constantly in debt that's your problem.
    Americans are hopeless individualists but that until US$ status allow you to live beyond your means.
    When this is over you will get what I mean.

    , @Miro23


    healthcare
     
    Only industrialized country with a rising infant mortality rate. Low life expectancy.

     



    guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement
     
    Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.
    If you like a generous safety net in exchange for lower standard of living by wealthy people, western Europe did it much better.
     


    basically free shelter
     
    Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But – for free!
     
    It's true that during the life and death struggle of WW2, Russia and Germany needed ruthless centralization and a total commitment to war production - and Stalin was better at this than Hitler. The Russians more effectively used their resources for war production than the Germans.

    But, looking at the post WW2 Soviet planned economy, what works in the emergency of wartime is very dysfunctional in peacetime. Outside of a national emergency, private ownership and free markets work better, and the proof was that Russians aspired to a Western lifestyle, not vice-versa, and the Berlin Wall was there to keep East Germans in, rather than to keep West Germans out.

    It's also true that there's nostalgia for Soviet Russia, but it's not framed in its historic period, it's rather a comparison between now and then, focusing on the loss of community of a more predictable egalitarian society that could get fine results in culture and education. Current Russian plutocratic capitalism is just as ugly as the US version.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Excellent work, Gospodin Karlin!! “Spacebo!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  234. AP says:
    @Joe Wong
    Shall we take the West's words as given truth? Providing the amount of fake news the West is fabricating it is hard to know which bloodletting is more barbaric, France Revolution, English Civil War, American Civil War or Russian Revolution.

    Leprosy is a disease like a cancer or like compradores and oligarchs to a nation, if the patient takes action to get ride of the disease, won't you say it is self-healing? The same logic applies to getting ride of compradores or oligarchs in a revolution is self-healing.

    How about self-decapitation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Hupa says:
    @Anon
    It's a foundational meme of Eurasianists that the Russian Empire was some kind of "Germanic yoke" and the October Revolution was the liberation of the "real" Asiatic Russia and ultimate triumph of Muscovy over St Petersburg.

    I don’t mean that Bolsheviks represented real Russia, I only meant that when XVIII century Russia dissolved its tradition, then Bolsheviks had it easier to introduce their own vision. Although obviously Bolsheviks represented a trait of russian, radical, savage, romantic, maximalist thinking

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Hupa says:
    @melanf

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma’s functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor.
     
    Boyar Duma (whose members were appointed by tsar) is not the Zemsky Sobor. Peter did not destroy the Zemsky Sobor (this is the Zemsky Sobor ceased to function for 40 years, until the reign of Peter). It's not a small detail - it makes your argument meaningless.

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn’t change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake
     
    The Church itself has made their teaching a fake. This would not have happened if priests carried out the decrees of Peter (and other emperors) on the need to educate ordinary people and to spend the Church's wealth to charity.

    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process.
     
    In Europe no doubt. Here without variants

    You’re running out of arguments, so you cling to lacks in my arguments, because I’m trying not to create walls of text. Duma was a part of Zemsky Sobor, which was even bigger than Duma alone and it even further supports my argument as to how revolutionary and destructive Peter the Great and his reforms were to russian tradition and its “natural constitution”

    Maybe the Church made itself its teachings fake, maybe Peter was right at some time, but that doesn’t change the fact that the idea of the Church makes sense only when it’s a separate, autonomous body, not when its under such control by the state authority, because then it becomes simply another government official, so there’s no need for another state official if we have the original one already

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    You’re running out of arguments, so you cling to lacks in my arguments
     
    Your argument (Peter destroyed the Zemsky Sobor) is meaningless because Peter did not destroy the Zemsky Sobor.
    If the answer to your argument "generally" - without a radical modernization of medieval Russia, Russia would simply disappear from the face of the earth. Of course in this case there would be no revolution in 1917 (as there would be no Russia)

    the Church makes sense only when it’s a separate, autonomous body, not when its under such control by the state authority
     
    Protestant countries (where the Church was completely subordinated to the state) had more success than the Catholics.
    But in any case the Church in Russia is subordinated to the state since the 15th century.

    Maybe perhaps the Orthodox Church didn’t really like what Peter introduced and wanted to overthrow those changes?
     
    And the Islamists hate Ataturk and wanted to overthrow those changes. Further evidence that religious zeal deprives people of reason
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. nickels says:
    @Hupa
    https://besboshnik.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-two-faces-of-russia-essay-by-oswald-spengler/ this for instance. The other literature I read in polish (because I am polish...), I doubt it's translated to english

    Prophetic essay, thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @Joe Wong
    Chinese invented republic and democracy thousands years ago, but some unscrupulous guys out maneuver the decent ones and got into authoritarian afterwards. But even that the ruler must rule in according to the mandate from the heaven which is taking care of the well-being of the ruled, otherwise anybody can overthrow the ruler with moral authority from the heaven too.

    US Constitution or the English Magna Carta are copycat of Chinese republic and democracy invented thousands years ago with modifications as human beings accumulate wisdom with time. Besides neither the English Magna Carta nor US Constitution were aimed at the masses, they were drafted to protect the interests of the selected few, the oligarchies, they were contracts of power sharing among the oligarchies. There is a clear distinction between taking care of the masses and taking care of the selected few in terms of substance in democracy and human rights in case you don't know.

    When CCP won the civil war there was feeling of reborn among the Chinese, they felt finally they had kicked the Chinese compradors out and freed from the Western and Japanese imperialist yokes to rebuild their nation from rubble caused by the hundred years of inhumane unequal treaty destruction and exploitation. But the imperial parasites did not want to lose the host, China, their overt and covert destabilizing operations against the new regime provoked the new vulnerable regime to react violently against anyone suspected not welcoming the new regime. Perhaps without the Western Imperialists' interference, there won't be something bad for the West to portray China as a role model of Orientalism perpetually.

    Regarding role model, nobody can beat the Anglo in hypocrisy, double think and brutality.

    Chinese invented republic and democracy thousands years ago, but some unscrupulous guys out maneuver the decent ones and got into authoritarian afterwards.

    Sure, they did, and it was those damn unscrupulous guys again, yeah… they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling mandarins.

    US Constitution or the English Magna Carta are copycat of Chinese republic and democracy invented thousands years ago with modifications as human beings accumulate wisdom with time.

    Yes, we’re the ones that copied everything, like the turbojet engines … copied from China… the internet … copied from China… latex paint … copied from China… toilets you can sit on … copied from … wait a minute! What?

    Besides neither the English Magna Carta nor US Constitution were aimed at the masses, they were drafted to protect the interests of the selected few, the oligarchies, they were contracts of power sharing among the oligarchies.

    Yes, the right to bear arms was made for the oligarchs – why I still have my guns is a wonder… hell, maybe I’ve been an oligarch and never knew it. Damn, I’d have picked up a lot more women at the bars if they knew I was an oligarch. Yeah, I guess I have seen a lot of oligarchs in small claims court too, now that you mention it. Hmmm… I am learning so much from you, Joe Wrong.

    When CCP won the civil war there was feeling of reborn among the Chinese, they felt finally they had kicked the Chinese compradors out and freed from the Western and Japanese imperialist yokes to rebuild their nation from rubble caused by the hundred years of inhumane unequal treaty destruction and exploitation.

    You people were reborn, ehh? How come nobody has ANY religious beliefs in modern-day China? Are you perhaps “born-again atheists” Does one have to get dunked in any water for that, cause you know that Chinese people mostly can’t swim and the water tastes like ass. Maybe it’s faked like the fake money burned on Tomb-Sweeping Day. Hey, listen, Chinamen (AND women), if you’re trying to get this money to your dead ancestors, they are going to have no use for that monopoly money – I’d suggest greenbacks until the dollar dies, then 100-Yuan notes, you cheap-asses.

    I did hear about the whole country getting rebuilt during the Mao era from rubble. The problem, as with a lot of Cheap China-made Crap (see also here, here, and here.), you don’t build stuff with rubble. You’ve got to start with decent materials and use decent tools. You should know all this, Mr. Wrong, as remember, we copied all these ideas from the Middle Kingdom way back during the Poontang Dynasty.

    The big reason you’re able to even write this on a computer not made out of wood and beads, is that Bill Clinton wanted to get laid and collect a few bucks, so he sold out American manufacturing might. (Can’t blame it all on him though, lots of Globalist elites were involved.)

    Your Commie lies might get you through graduate school, but this is unz, baby. You’re gonna need to grow up, Joe. Write me back in a decade, after you have had some time to reflect on your Commie stupidity. I will expect you under a new pseudonym, Joe White.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Your upset is understandable, your outrage is typical to the Eurocentralists when their fabricated world history which put themselves on pedestal undeservedly by claiming credit where credit is not due get exposed.

    But your bitching is unwarranted, I merely told you the other part of the history you don't know, I did not do anything like the West by smearing others in order to glorify themselves.

    Anyhow you may cling on the old days of Eurocentralist world history, but it is fake and provincial in the real world history. As the global economy grows, the real world history will prevail over the fabricated Eurocentralist world history which will be reduced to as peripheral and an eccentric fantasy imaged by a minoriy in the past.

    , @Joe Wong
    Your upset is understandable, your outrage is typical to the Eurocentralists when their fabricated world history which put themselves on pedestal undeservedly by claiming credit where credit is not due get exposed.

    But your bitching is unwarranted, I merely told you the other part of the history you don't know, I did not do anything like the West by smearing others in order to glorify themselves.

    Anyhow you may cling on the old days of Eurocentralist world history, but it is fake and provincial in the real world history. As the global economy grows, the real world history will prevail over the fabricated Eurocentralist world history which will be reduced to as peripheral and an eccentric fantasy imaged by a minority in the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @AP

    So, if founding state which would become powerful enough to beat the whole of Europe combined forces basically
     
    60% higher population than Germany, almost lost to it, after losing 20+ million killed.

    top notch education
     
    Good education. Still not the best though.

    healthcare
     
    Only industrialized country with a rising infant mortality rate. Low life expectancy.

    guaranteed employment and subsequent retirement
     
    Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.

    If you like a generous safety net in exchange for lower standard of living by wealthy people, western Europe did it much better.

    basically free shelter
     
    Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But - for free!

    You seem to have peculiar sense of humor.
     
    If not for the mass deaths, Soviet Union would have been funny.

    “60% higher population than Germany, almost lost to it, after losing 20+ million killed.”

    All of Europe was was working for Germany. Germany occupied territory with 80 million Soviet population making it unavailable to Soviet military effort until 1943-1944. It means that USSR was actually fighting and winning war with mere 110 million also managing to out manufacture the whole of Europe.
    You seem to have answer on any question. But those are not good answers.

    “Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But – for free!”

    Such idiotic comment only American can make. Ever experienced half a country ruined to the ground with people living in dugouts? No. Then obviously you have no clue that firstly people had to be provided with basic shelter, whole cities rebuilt. Then it was about comfort and apartments were getting better with time. You also do not appreciate being free of debt because most probably you are up to your nostrils in it. Are you aware of statistics how many Americans are on antidepressants? I knew of no such thing back in Soviet days. Apartments built in 70-80′s were increasingly of larger size and improved quality. I also wonder how much space people need? Being free of mortgage beats your 4000 sq feet any day.
    Do you know what mortgage means? “Death pledge”.

    “Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.”
    This happens everywhere but you miss the point completely because it is who you are.
    The point is, good, educated man or woman , could graduate without any debt, get guaranteed employment at occupation they studied and subsequently get shelter also free. Moreover, if one was talented there was no limits to growth. Worker could become director of the factory and even minister.
    If you enjoy being constantly in debt that’s your problem.
    Americans are hopeless individualists but that until US$ status allow you to live beyond your means.
    When this is over you will get what I mean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    All of Europe was was working for Germany.
     
    So, country with 60% of Soviet population, was also busy occupying all of Europe, was also fighting on another front, and still USSR almost lost.

    Rather pathetic performance; tragic from the perspective of the tens of millions of lives needlessly lost.


    Germany occupied territory with 80 million Soviet population
     
    Exactly.

    “Soviet middle class living like poor African-Americans in public housing projects. But – for free!”

    Such idiotic comment only American can make.
     

    But it is true. You can't even deny it - instead you have to make excuses, about the war.

    You also do not appreciate being free of debt because most probably you are up to your nostrils in it. Are you aware of statistics how many Americans are on antidepressants?
     
    Are you aware of how many Soviets were self-medicating with alcohol?

    You think binge drinking is better than taking antidepressants?


    I knew of no such thing back in Soviet days.
     
    No, you just had an African life expectancy due to chronic alcohol.

    I knew of no such thing back in Soviet days. Apartments built in 70-80′s were increasingly of larger size and improved quality
     
    So housing projects were improving a little?

    Being free of mortgage beats your 4000 sq feet any day.
     
    Poor African-Americans living on housing projects are free of mortgage. You would celebrate that.

    Do you know what mortgage means? “Death pledge”.
     
    It means living in a house all along while you pay it off, rather than living in a small place for 20-30 years while accumulating capital to get a house.

    Obviously you can live in an apartment instead, and not have a mortgage.


    “Translation: can show up to work drunk and not get fired. Can go on zapoy for a week and the job will still be waiting for you.”

    This happens everywhere
     

    LOL.

    The point is, good, educated man or woman , could graduate without any debt, get guaranteed employment at occupation they studied and subsequently get shelter also free.
     
    Good, educated man in an industrialized country not under Communism get get a good job and afford to live much better than one under Communism - the latter would live like a poor, uneducated Western man for free.

    Moreover, if one was talented there was no limits to growth. Worker could become director of the factory and even minister.
     
    Like Andrew Carnegie? How inspiring!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Hupa says:
    @melanf

    In 1721, Peter the Great transferred Duma’s functions to the Governing Senate. The number of senators was first set at nine and, in 1712, increased to ten. In 1676 the number of boyars was increased to 50 and was by then constituted only a third of the duma
    The thing is that Peter changed totally the idea and tasks compared to Zemsky Sobor.
     
    Boyar Duma (whose members were appointed by tsar) is not the Zemsky Sobor. Peter did not destroy the Zemsky Sobor (this is the Zemsky Sobor ceased to function for 40 years, until the reign of Peter). It's not a small detail - it makes your argument meaningless.

    Maybe Peter had some good grounds for subordinating the Church, but first off, then it shows the Orthodox Church in a bad light and secondly, doesn’t change the fact that what followed was that the Church became fake
     
    The Church itself has made their teaching a fake. This would not have happened if priests carried out the decrees of Peter (and other emperors) on the need to educate ordinary people and to spend the Church's wealth to charity.

    People of the Middle Ages could say that people abandoning paganism and choosing christianity instead, was also a universal process.
     
    In Europe no doubt. Here without variants

    One more thing – if Peter’s changes were so great, then why was there a Church Council in 1917-1918?

    The 1917-1918 Council was the first council of the Russian Church since the one of 1681-1682, and also the first since Peter I deposed the Patriarch and introduced his reforms including the establishment of the Holy Synod under a civil procurator as the senior authority of the Church

    Maybe perhaps the Orthodox Church didn’t really like what Peter introduced and wanted to overthrow those changes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Interesting that you're Polish, good to have another point of view in this sometimes very Russified site. And good question. Cesaropapism can't be good, but Russia did have good monastic religious life. I think it had to do with the Russian Church's position to the revolutionary government's ascension to power and repression, and whether to leave Russia, but I'd appreciate some of the Orthodox commenters' input.
    , @Anon
    Interesting that you're Polish, good to have another point of view in this sometimes very Russified site. And good question. Cesaropapism can't be good, but Russia did have good monastic religious life. I think it had to do with the Russian Church's position to the revolutionary government's ascension to power and repression, and whether to leave Russia, but I'd appreciate some of the Orthodox commenters' input.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. communism would never work as it goes directly against human nature : selfishness. No idea how long it will take for humans to rise above it, if ever.

    it completely gets rid of the carrot that dangles in front of people, that compels them to work harder, smarter, for personal gain. a system like capitalism creates the illusion of a carrot, but it still works better than communism, as alot of people will buy the illusion.

    capitalism didn’t win over it, communism defeated it self. it works as an idea, but will never work in practice. not with current and past HDI, and extremely limited “beyond kin altruism”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    communism would never work
     
    It was dead for all practical purposes by late 1920s. Some kind of mix between social state and state capitalism, and capitalism may emerge eventually.

    against human nature : selfishness. No idea how long it will take for humans to rise above it, if ever.
     
    Yes and no. In the end (or beginning, depends of POV) even Jesus Christ died for humanity's sins. So, the idea is not novel and it will stick around (granted we survive as species) for a while too. But your point is correct. Time will tell.
    , @Miro23

    Communism would never work as it goes directly against human nature : selfishness. No idea how long it will take for humans to rise above it, if ever.
     
    From my POV Western capitalism (until recently) was controlled selfishness, rather like a football game with rules and a good referee, obviously more successful than the Communist game of dictating every player move.

    The current mess probably comes from Special Interests taking over the capitalist game and changing the rules to suit themselves (and fixing referee decisions).

    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Communism would never work as it goes directly against human nature : selfishness.
     
    First of all, selfishness (what you probably mean here is 'greed') is only one part of human nature, along with empathy, generosity, and so on.

    And second, all kinds of 'human nature' elements have been overcome by civilization. A vast majority of humans don't rob, rape, or kill each other these days. Saying that something "goes directly against human nature" is not saying much. Where it's human nature vs social conditioning, social conditioning wins when applied efficiently and persistently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter