The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union- historical narrative discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Assassination

So 20 years go by after the serfs are freed. Reforms are taking place all over Russia, as I described, but not fast enough for the intellectuals. This was a time in history when assassination was considered a legitimate means to bring about change in government- at least in theory. All sorts of political leaders during the next 50 years were assassinated by revolutionary terrorists, including two US Presidents. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is considered to be one of the most pivotal events in world history, but the murder of Alexander II in 1881 might have been nearly as important.

By 1881 there had already been 5 separate attempts on Alexander's life. As a result, he never traveled anywhere except in a closed carriage, with bullet proof doors, surrounded by Cossack guards. On Sunday, March 13, the Tsar traveled in his well protected carriage across Pevchevsky Bridge in St. Petersburg, on his way to a military roll call. As usual, passersby waved and bowed. One of them, a member of the Narodnicki, Nikolai Rysokov, was holding a large white handkerchief which he flung at the carriage. It was a bomb. There was an explosion, but the bullet proofed carriage, a gift from Napoleon III in France, was only dented. A Cossack was killed and another wounded, but the Tsar was unhurt. Rysokov was quickly captured. Alexander then exited the damaged carriage, surrounded by his guards...

Which was a mistake. There was a second assassin hanging out with yet another bomb. According to legend, he yelled, " \It is too early to thank God!" and threw his bomb at the emperor's feet. Another explosion, and this time Alexander was ripped to his pieces. With his guts hanging out, he was carried back to the Winter Palace, where it took him another 15 minutes to die. 20 other Russians were killed in the explosion.

The bomb didn't just kill Alexander; it also killed any hope of a liberal 20th century Russia. Because only a few months before this assassination, Alexander had decided to give in to some of his more far-seeing advisors and announce the establishment of a Duma (Parliament.) In fact, he had signed the order for the Duma which was to be proclaimed to the public within the next few weeks. Alexander's son, Alexander III, found the order among his father's papers the next day and quickly destroyed them; he had a far different idea for the governing of Russia which I will get to shortly.

I can't emphasize enough how much this assassination affected the history of Russia and how things might have been different if it hadn't happened. The establishment of a Duma, with real power, in the early 1880s would have paved the way for a Russian constitution, and ultimately a constitutional monarchy along the lines of England and France. There would have been no revolution or Soviet takeover. Russian history, and world history for that matter, for the 20th century would have been entirely different. But it was not to be.

 

[timschochet]

Alexander III

Alexander III was not supposed to be Tsar. He was the younger brother of the Tsarevich (heir) Nicholas, a dapper liberally minded man who admired his father and might have taken Russia in a very different direction by continuing his father's reforms. But Nicholas died suddenly in 1865, which left the quiet, resentful Alexander both his title as heir and his fiancé, Princess Dagmar of Denmark (who, in the tradition of the time, became Maria Federovna upon marrying Alexander.) It is not known if Alexander hated his father, but he certainly despised his father's politics. He believed that Alexander II had stupidly instituted reforms that were a threat to autocratic rule and the Russian empire. Alexander III saw his father's assassination as the inevitable result of such reforms, which he did not distinguish: all of it, all of the liberalism and talk of democracy could only lead to one thing: anarchy! And here, his father's death, was proof.

Alexander III was strengthened in these beliefs by his foremost advisor, Count Konstantin Pobedonostev, one of the most important and influential Russians of the 19th century. He held the chief position in the Russian Orthodox church, and his views were wholly reactionary. A highly intelligent, brilliant statesman, he was an "easterner", determined to remove all vestiges of western liberalism from the Russian state. This meant, first, utter subjugation of all of the minorities, in particular the Jews whom he saw as the greatest threat to Russian ethnic purity (much like Hitler later saw them in Germany), and sought to eliminate as a race. Second, suppression of all free speech, all democratic ideas.

We shall next take a close look at how Alexander III and Pobedonostev carried these plans out, and the effect that it had on Russia as it tragically groaned its way into the 20th century...

 

[lardonastick]

Good stuff here Tim.

 

[timschochet]

Aftermath

In the years following the assassination of Alexander II, hundreds of thousands of Russians were arrested or murdered outright. The Tsar's inner security force reorganized itself as the Okhrana, the secret police forerunner of the 20th century's NKVD, KGB, and Gestapo. The Okhrana spread terror throughout Russia, as anyone caught speaking against the Tsar or even questioning the Tsar's authority on any issue could be arrested or shot. The absolute authority of the aristocracy was returned to what it had been in the days prior to the reforms.

The worst of these actions befell the Jews. Since it was Pobedonostev's aim to eradicate them, he devised a plan to do so: one third would leave by emigration because their treatment would be so terrible. One third would be murdered. And one third would be converted. The last part never did happen, but the Count did his best to push for the first two parts: a series of horrible pogroms now occurred, not witnessed since the 17th century. Cossacks and Russian peasants alike, paid for by the state, rushed into Jewish villages in the Pale and burned them, killing young and old alike, raping and stealing. There was no police protection. However, there were far too many Jews and some had influence at court; the result was that the progroms would run rampant for a few months, then taper off, then rampant again. Pobedonostev was never able to achieve the organized effort he wanted.

The result, however, within a few years, was a mass exodus of millions of Jews from Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine. The vast majority of these ended up in the United States, forming the bulk of Jewish immigration at the turn of the 20th century. A small portion of idealists went to Palestine and were the pioneers of the Zionist movement that would create the state of Israel 60 years later. But Pobedonostev never got his one third to emigrate- it was only about 10%. Eventually the Nazis would end up finishing off many of the rest.

One result of Alexander III's crackdown is that it radicalized the Narodnicki even more. Having successfully taken out his father, new plans were made to assassinate him. However, the Narodnicks were not too original; their "new" plan involved throwing bombs at the Tsar's carriage! It was very easy for the Okhrana to sniff this plan out, and in 1887, six years after the last assassination, to arrest the young ringleaders. All of them were college students; they were led by a young radical idealist and terrorist named Aleksandr Ulanov. He was 21 when he arrested. His brother, Vladimir, was 17. We'll get to him shortly.

 

[Don Quixote]

Also, Montefiore's The Romanovs: 1613-1918 is a pretty good read on the history of the Romanovs. 

 

[Redwes25]

Nice.  I look forward to this.  I was lucky to have studied International Relations in Europe in 88-89, right as the Soviet Union began to fall.  I was also fortunate to spend some time in Moscow and Leningrad, even making a personal trip to the American Embassy (and being followed all the way back to the hotel, not so discretely either).

I have some great memories of my time in Russia.  It was so surreal.  I saw some of the most bizarre sights I've ever seen in my life - things that are still so vivid in my mind to this day.  The long lines - outdoors in -20 degree weather - and what were they waiting for?  Ice cream.  The saddest sight was the WWII memorial.  The names on the walls - millions upon millions of names.  It went on and on in underground caverns for what seemed like miles.  Just staggering.  And then there was the challenge we gave each other to find a man older than 60.  Old women everywhere - no old men.  It was unbelievable.  The supermarket we went into in the middle of Moscow - all the shelves empty save for a canned food item here and there.  I remember the meat section - totally disgusting stuff.  I remember a giant pig's head alone in a huge empty showcase.  ???

The people were great.  The young Russian kids would follow the tours and try to talk with us on the sly.  There were state monitors everywhere.  We met a group of college age kids who seemed cool - told us to meet them at the WWII memorial that night for some trading.  We met them there and then decided to go to their apartment.  It was so surreal - a concrete jungle of ugly apartment buildings that all looked exactly the same - and went on for miles and miles.  Their apartments had the bare essentials, a bed, coach, kitchen, and real cheap furniture.  In the bedroom the kid had painted a huge dollar bill on the wall.  They loved America.  They wanted to know everything about it.  They listened to us like little children hearing a fairy tale, smiling the whole time.  Thennnnnnn they brought out the vodka.  Oh boy.  I never saw anyone drink vodka straight up like that.  Bottle after bottle.  They were drinking it like water.  We all got absolutely plastered beyond belief.  I vaguely remember a lot of singing, dancing, throwing up.... At one point I went outside to get some air and when I came back in everyone had changed clothes - and we had one girl in our group and they had all guys.     it was hysterical.  All I can remember is one of the guys was named Garig.  We all called him Louuuuuuuuuu.  He had no idea what it was about but he loved it.  I brought about 4 pairs of jeans with me and I came back with an incredible haul - a Soviet flag, an incredible collection of Soviet military pins going back to WWII, a very cool military coat and hat from Afghanistan.

So many other stories to tell.  Just an amazing time and place in history.  The people and the culture were both amazing.  Fell in love with the place actually.

I lived in Russia for a summer through an exchange program in 1993 and this is something that really struck me.  There were basically no men my grandfathers age but so many elderly poor women.  The losses the Soviet Union had in WWII were just staggering on paper but I think you actually got the feel of it 40 years after the war.  It is something I will never forget and to be honest the whole world owes the Russian people a debt for that war.  

 

[Redwes25]

A little background II

Beyond the 3 giants of Russian history which I mentioned (and which I will be returning to later), there is a pivotal event in Russian history in the 19th century that affected everything that happened since: Napoleon's invasion.

You can read about it in War and Peace. You can hear about it in the War of 1812 Overture. But essentially, Napoleon Bonaparte, having conquered most of Europe for France, decided to take on Russia. He led his Grande Armee on a straight line to Moscow, destroying everything in it's path. The Russian troops abandoned Moscow and then surrounded it. Between that and the cold weather, Napoleon was forced to flee. His line of supply was too thin and his troops were cut off. (Over 100 years later, the Germans would attempt to rectify this problem by dividing their troops and attack north, center, and south at the same time. But as a result they were stopped outside of Moscow. It really isn't that easy to invade Russia...)

Don't know if you are going to touch on this later but one result of this victory was that Russia was considered a great power and viewed and treated as such by other European nations when in fact it was not as it was economically and militarily backward.  The Crimean War proved this fact and part of the modernization efforts by Alexander II was driven to strengthen Russia after Russia's defeat in the first year of his reign.  

However, even with that defeat in the Crimean War, the belief that Russia was an premier military power remained conventional wisdom for the next 60 years and would impact leaders planning and diplomacy for the great war to come. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I did my Thesis on the aftermath of the Soviet Union in the Eastern European and Central Asian Republics.  I have not read it since I presented but I do have great interest in the time period from around 1970 to 2000.  Reading some of the Russia-specific stuff is interesting to me, especially how the Soviet Union came to be but my interest lies more in the waning years and what led to its downfall.  The sheer volume of corruption was what I found most astounding, especially by those who truly believed in the system.  The path to an oligarchy was easy for those who pulled the strings of the means of production for that last 20 years, and the fallout for those not in the inner circle was devastating. 

In the republics some have fared well because of the resources they have, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in particular, but in the case of the latter the social and personal freedom reforms have never come.  In other republics like Moldova and Tajikistan, their relative size and internal mechanisms have failed them since the fall of the wall.  While the satellite Eastern European nations have prospered for the most part (especially those that reformed early like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary), the former republics still largely depend on Mother Russia. 

The Russian presence in Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Belarus have been divisive and crippling to any real reform.  Organized crime is so deeply entrenched, some of it a carryover from the Soviet days, that governments function only in theory at times.  When reforms come they are slow to be implemented, and often quick to leave.  I think only on the economic front have some Soviet Republics been able to gain some independence, but the tax they pay to Russia is felt at the individual level.  The elderly, those who were part of the Soviet system are those most impacted, and the devastation to that segment of the population is palpable. 

 

[timschochet]

Don't know if you are going to touch on this later but one result of this victory was that Russia was considered a great power and viewed and treated as such by other European nations when in fact it was not as it was economically and militarily backward.  The Crimean War proved this fact and part of the modernization efforts by Alexander II was driven to strengthen Russia after Russia's defeat in the first year of his reign.  

However, even with that defeat in the Crimean War, the belief that Russia was an premier military power remained conventional wisdom for the next 60 years and would impact leaders planning and diplomacy for the great war to come. 

It certainly had an impact leading into World War I. 

But in the years after 1917, the western powers actually underestimated Russia's military strength, with grave consequences for them, especially in 1939. 

 

[timschochet]

I did my Thesis on the aftermath of the Soviet Union in the Eastern European and Central Asian Republics.  I have not read it since I presented but I do have great interest in the time period from around 1970 to 2000.  Reading some of the Russia-specific stuff is interesting to me, especially how the Soviet Union came to be but my interest lies more in the waning years and what led to its downfall.  The sheer volume of corruption was what I found most astounding, especially by those who truly believed in the system.  The path to an oligarchy was easy for those who pulled the strings of the means of production for that last 20 years, and the fallout for those not in the inner circle was devastating. 

In the republics some have fared well because of the resources they have, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in particular, but in the case of the latter the social and personal freedom reforms have never come.  In other republics like Moldova and Tajikistan, their relative size and internal mechanisms have failed them since the fall of the wall.  While the satellite Eastern European nations have prospered for the most part (especially those that reformed early like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary), the former republics still largely depend on Mother Russia. 

The Russian presence in Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Belarus have been divisive and crippling to any real reform.  Organized crime is so deeply entrenched, some of it a carryover from the Soviet days, that governments function only in theory at times.  When reforms come they are slow to be implemented, and often quick to leave.  I think only on the economic front have some Soviet Republics been able to gain some independence, but the tax they pay to Russia is felt at the individual level.  The elderly, those who were part of the Soviet system are those most impacted, and the devastation to that segment of the population is palpable. 

This is fascinating stuff DD. Hopefully when we get to the more modern years you'll come in and provide some detail (though you're welcome even now!)

 

[Redwes25]

It certainly had an impact leading into World War I. 

But in the years after 1917, the western powers actually underestimated Russia's military strength, with grave consequences for them, especially in 1939. 

Don't think they really underestimated the Soviet Union as Poland did not demonstrate the strength of Russia but of Germany.  Also, the Winter War showed a backward military, which Stalin reformed after that disaster.  

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This is fascinating stuff DD. Hopefully when we get to the more modern years you'll come in and provide some detail (though you're welcome even now!)

Yeah sure. I know little about anything pre revolution so what you've been discussing thus far is interesting. I can talk some Trotsky  when we get that far, he's always been the most fascinating character in this play. 

Oh and I have some cool soviet era memorabilia, I'll load some pics along the way. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Don't think they really underestimated the Soviet Union as Poland did not demonstrate the strength of Russia but of Germany.  Also, the Winter War showed a backward military, which Stalin reformed after that disaster.  

Yeah I don't think the Germans underestimated the Russians, but they should have invaded in March not July and they got too far away from their supply hubs. More to it than that but I think the Germans just made some serious tactical errors. 

 

[timschochet]

Yeah sure. I know little about anything pre revolution so what you've been discussing thus far is interesting. I can talk some Trotsky  when we get that far, he's always been the most fascinating character in this play. 

Oh and I have some cool soviet era memorabilia, I'll load some pics along the way. 

Talking Trotsky is the name of my Jam cover band. 

 

[timschochet]

Don't think they really underestimated the Soviet Union as Poland did not demonstrate the strength of Russia but of Germany.  Also, the Winter War showed a backward military, which Stalin reformed after that disaster.  

Here's what I mean, though I'll go into more detail on this later on: in early 1939 Russia tried to get England and France to join in a military alliance against Germany. The western powers were incredibly, stupidly, reluctant. General Gamelin (truly an imbecile) went so far as to assert to his government that Poland was a greater military power than Russia and that there was no value to an alliance with the Russians. Rebuffed, Stalin turned to Hitler...

 

[rockaction]

This is all great stuff.

 

[timschochet]

The Ulyanovs

Ilya Ulyanov, the father of Aleksandr and Vladimir, (and also two daughters, Anna and Olga) was an example of the reforms that Tsar Alexander II brought about. From a peasant background, he studied physics and math at a major Russian university, married the half Jewish daughter of a wealthy surgeon, and became an important director of public schools and a nobleman. He was a devout member of the Orthodox church, liberal, and a fan of the modernization of Russia. He disapproved of Alexander III's clampdown, but shunned all violence. He died of a brain tumor when Vladimir was 16. Had Ilya lived, who knows how he might have influenced Vladimir's life? Vladimir responded to the death by becoming moody and rude to most people he met (a trait he would continue through the rest of his life.) Only a year later Aleksandr was arrested in St. Petersburg.

Aleksandr had been influenced by the writings of leftists, both Russian, and European (in particular, Karl Marx). At his trial, he gave a speech calling for the overthrow of the Tsar, startling at the time, and the creation of a "people's government." Vladimir watched as his older brother was sentenced and hung. His mother warned him not to get involved with his brother's friends, but Vladimir ignored her. Entering college, he also became a radical after reading Marx's Das Kapital. Vladimir obtained a law degree at the University of St. Petersburg and at the same time became a lawyer.

Though Vladimir was a radical, he was also establishing a bourgeois career as a quiet St. Petersburg attorney. He met and became friends with the Social Democratic Jew Julius Martov, and a female Marxist schoolteacher, Nadya Krupskaya who he ended up marrying. But none of these people or their movement were in any way a threat to the Russian government. If not for the paranoid nature of that government, and as a result some dramatic events I am about to describe, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov might have continued his life as a prosperous, quiet attorney...instead of becoming the most famous revolutionary of all time: Lenin.

 

[shadrap]

When you go make sure to see the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg.  Unbelievable place.

Hey - any good books you can recommend?  Nothing too technical - looking for a good page turner perhaps on WWII or the Revolution.  Thanks. 

The Forgotten Soldier, by Guy Sajer.  True account of a young German soldier going 2000 miles to the Russian front & being crushed all the way back to Germany by Ivan.  Lot's of info on Russia.  Best war book I've ever read.   Feels like you are in the foxhole with him when he orders his fellow soldier to shoot him.   Just brutal & a great read.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/59053.Guy_Sajer

 

[timschochet]

Let me add a comment about Das Kapital, since it was this book, and not the more famous Communist Manifesto, that had the greatest influence on the young Russian revolutionaries of the late 19th century. Das Kapital had been published in Russia as early as 1872. It was the book's first foreign publication, just 5 years after the original German edition and 15 years before it would appear in English. The tsarist censors had passed it by mistake, assuming that very few people in Russia would read the heavy tome of political economy, and even fewer understand it. Contrary to expectations, Marx's critique of the capitalist system would lead to revolution earlier in Russia than in any of the Western societies to which it had been addressed.

This last point is one of the greatest ironies of world history. Russia was an agrarian society without a large middle class. Marx's book was written about Germany, France and England, and he assumed that a workers' revolution would take place in those developed countries, and not in a backwards place like Russia. The Russian revolutionaries assumed this too. They were drawn, however, to Marxism by it's "scientific" nature- it was seen as  path of reason offering objective solutions to the misery of poverty.

 

[Redwes25]

Here's what I mean, though I'll go into more detail on this later on: in early 1939 Russia tried to get England and France to join in a military alliance against Germany. The western powers were incredibly, stupidly, reluctant. General Gamelin (truly an imbecile) went so far as to assert to his government that Poland was a greater military power than Russia and that there was no value to an alliance with the Russians. Rebuffed, Stalin turned to Hitler...

Looking forward to the discussion but I think Stalin was a bit of a realist and knew war was coming and wanted an iron clad deal with the West.  Unfortunately, the west (especially Britain) still hoped it could be avoided and did not plan accordingly.    

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looking forward to the discussion but I think Stalin was a bit of a realist and knew war was coming and wanted an iron clad deal with the West.  Unfortunately, the west (especially Britain) still hoped it could be avoided and did not plan accordingly.    

Eh, Stalin wanted to crush Polish nationalism and was cutting that cake alongside Hitler. I'll give no quarter to Stalin here. What you say doesn't mesh with what happened at Katyn not to mention devastation of several Polish towns and cities as the Red Army marched through. Later Stalin also took and held Koeigsberg/East Prussia and Russia has never let go if it.

 

[wikkidpissah]

What a buncha commies! hadda be said.....

cant wait to call someone a Narodnik, though. good stuff, guy(s) -

 

[Redwes25]

Eh, Stalin wanted to crush Polish nationalism and was cutting that cake alongside Hitler. I'll give no quarter to Stalin here. What you say doesn't mesh with what happened at Katyn not to mention devastation of several Polish towns and cities as the Red Army marched through. Later Stalin also took and held Koeigsberg/East Prussia and Russia has never let go if it.

Stalin knew war was coming and being the brutal dictator he was he was going to try and fight it on his best terms he could get.  I think if he got what he requested from Britain and France (a full mutual defense treaty) he might not have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.  The fact he didn't get it and Germany offered him half of eastern Europe and large portions of Finland he took the better deal from his perspective.  He did not care at all about anyone other than himself and was putting himself in the best possible position.  I agree he couldn't care less about the fate of the people Poland, France, England or anywhere else.  On the other hand, the west was still in the Appeasement stage which was wrong and thought there was no way Russia would sign a treaty with Germany which was also wrong so were reluctant to deal with Stalin's terms.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Stalin knew war was coming and being the brutal dictator he was he was going to try and fight it on his best terms he could get.  I think if he got what he requested from Britain and France (a full mutual defense treaty) he might not have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.  The fact he didn't get it and Germany offered him half of eastern Europe and large portions of Finland he took the better deal from his perspective.  He did not care at all about anyone other than himself and was putting himself in the best possible position.  I agree he couldn't care less about the fate of the people Poland, France, England or anywhere else.  On the other hand, the west was still in the Appeasement stage which was wrong and thought there was no way Russia would sign a treaty with Germany which was also wrong so were reluctant to deal with Stalin's terms.

So what happened at Katyn then? 

 

[Redwes25]

So what happened at Katyn then? 

The soviets massacred people.  Much like they did many times before and after.  As I said, he didn't care about anyone but himself and was a brutal dictator (possibly the worst the world has seen).  He was also a realist in the position of Soviet Union and looking for the best deal he could get and having a subservient half of Poland as a buffer between him and Germany made sense combined with a peace deal with Germany if the West wasn't going to give him the deal he wanted.   

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The soviets massacred people.  Much like they did many times before and after.  As I said, he didn't care about anyone but himself and was a brutal dictator (possibly the worst the world has seen).  He was also a realist in the position of Soviet Union and looking for the best deal he could get and having a subservient half of Poland as a buffer between him and Germany made sense combined with a peace deal with Germany if the West wasn't going to give him the deal he wanted.   

You're talking two sides of the same coin. Stalin wanted Polish territory just as much and for the same reasons Hitler wanted. No putting bloom on that black rose.

 

[Redwes25]

You're talking two sides of the same coin. Stalin wanted Polish territory just as much and for the same reasons Hitler wanted. No putting bloom on that black rose.

What bloom am I putting on it?  He signed a deal that gave him half of Eastern Europe to strengthen his position.  If the west hadn't been tied to a policy of avoiding a war  maybe we get a different result.  

Interesting article on the topic - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

Of course if such a deal were signed does the west ever get Stalin out of Poland?  Probably not but WWII would look a lot different if Molotov-Ribbentrop had never been signed.  

Also, this conversation all started around Tim's post that the West underestimated Soviet strength.  I think it had more to do with Britain and France trying to avoid a repeat of WWI.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What bloom am I putting on it?  He signed a deal that gave him half of Eastern Europe to strengthen his position.  If the west hadn't been tied to a policy of avoiding a war  maybe we get a different result.  

Interesting article on the topic - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

Of course if such a deal were signed does the west ever get Stalin out of Poland?  Probably not but WWII would look a lot different if Molotov-Ribbentrop had never been signed.  

Also, this conversation all started around Tim's post that the West underestimated Soviet strength.  I think it had more to do with Britain and France trying to avoid a repeat of WWI.  

The bloom is in framing it as 'self-preservation' for Stalin rather than the same territorial hunger and ethnic cleansing (in some places) that Hitler engaged in. 

ETA - if the West underestimated anything it was Stalin's motives, as now apparently still occurs.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, it's possible to perceive Stalin as the worst mass murderer who ever lived, with no good motives whatsoever, and at the same time discuss how his various actions may have benefited Russia and the west. In fact I plan to do both later on. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, it's possible to perceive Stalin as the worst mass murderer who ever lived, with no good motives whatsoever, and at the same time discuss how his various actions may have benefited Russia and the west. In fact I plan to do both later on. 

Totally different and unrelated issue, but yes of course.

 

[Redwes25]

Totally different and unrelated issue, but yes of course.

You are criticizing me for doing exactly that.  His motives are the best deal for himself only (as I have posted before) and he got that deal from Hitler as the west wouldn't give him the deal he wanted.   

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, before we discuss monster Stalin to any great degree, we first need to discuss monsters Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinionev, Bukharin, etc, which we're just starting to begin to in the narrative. 

This is crucially important IMO, because ever since 1953 (the death of Stalin), many leftists have attempted to give us the following historical falsehood about the Soviet Union: it was a good idea, started by noble people, and one evil man (Stalin) ruined everything. 

In fact I intend to show that it was a terrible idea, started by terrible people, and that Stalin was only a greater monster than the people he defeated because he defeated them- in motivation they were just as bad as he was. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You are criticizing me for doing exactly that.  His motives are the best deal for himself only (as I have posted before) and he got that deal from Hitler as the west wouldn't give him the deal he wanted.   

I think we're very much of the same POV. I'm getting worked up over language.

I think you're ignoring some important post war points which reflect on Stalin's pre war motives. To my POV he was hand in hand partners with Hitler pre war, no 'best deal available' couching of it. He sliced the pie with the total intent to swallow and enjoy it.

It's an old argument but I can't tell you how much I enjoy the discussion. Much appreciation and I look forward to more. 

 

[timschochet]

An example of what I'm talking about, from the early 1980s- Reds, written, directed, and starring Warren Beatty. Nicknamed "Commie Dearest", Beatty plays journalist John Reed, who witnessed the October Revolution and fell in love with the players. Lenin and Trotsky are romanticized as great heroes; too bad they were defeated by that bad bad man later on. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anyhow, before we discuss monster Stalin to any great degree, we first need to discuss monsters Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinionev, Bukharin, etc, which we're just starting to begin to in the narrative. 

This is crucially important IMO, because ever since 1953 (the death of Stalin), many leftists have attempted to give us the following historical falsehood about the Soviet Union: it was a good idea, started by noble people, and one evil man (Stalin) ruined everything. 

In fact I intend to show that it was a terrible idea, started by terrible people, and that Stalin was only a greater monster than the people he defeated because he defeated them- in motivation they were just as bad as he was. 

Fwiw the struggle between Stolypin, Witte and Plehve in and around 1905-14 is pretty much the tale of Russian politics in a nutshell. Reform tearing against repression, they're always ebbing back and forth.

 

[Uwe Blab]

An example of what I'm talking about, from the early 1980s- Reds, written, directed, and starring Warren Beatty. Nicknamed "Commie Dearest", Beatty plays journalist John Reed, who witnessed the October Revolution and fell in love with the players. Lenin and Trotsky are romanticized as great heroes; too bad they were defeated by that bad bad man later on. 

"Commie Dearest"  lolz.  Funny, I just read some article a few days ago talking about Reds and I thought "I need to add to that to my list".  Ditch it?

 

[timschochet]

"Commie Dearest"  lolz.  Funny, I just read some article a few days ago talking about Reds and I thought "I need to add to that to my list".  Ditch it?

It's a good film at times

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

An example of what I'm talking about, from the early 1980s- Reds, written, directed, and starring Warren Beatty. Nicknamed "Commie Dearest", Beatty plays journalist John Reed, who witnessed the October Revolution and fell in love with the players. Lenin and Trotsky are romanticized as great heroes; too bad they were defeated by that bad bad man later on. 

Well you can put Duranty next to Reed. Reed is buried in the Kremlin wall iirc. That tells you how highly they (the powers that be) value propaganda.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

@Redwes25 knows his stuff. 

 

[Redwes25]

@Redwes25 knows his stuff. 

thank you

 

[timschochet]

Alexander the Wise

There was another side to Alexander III which needs to be examined before we move on with the narrative. As I wrote, Alexander halted his father's reforms and created the tyranny that would make his son's rule impossible and lead to the eventual triumph of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). But when it came to foreign policy, Alexander was a different man, maybe a great man. Continually refusing to heed the advice of his hawkish ministers, Alexander kept Russia out of war for the 13 years of his reign. He ignored provocations from Japan, Germany, and England, provocations which his weaker son would be unable to deal with. In so doing, Alexander did more to maintain Russia's power and prosperity than perhaps any other Tsar. For this he is known in Russian history as "The Great Peacemaker."

This being said, a momentous change in Russian foreign policy had it's fruition during Alexander's reign: during most of the 19th century, Russia was allied with the German states against France and also against England. There were many reasons for this: the enmity with France, of course, dated back to Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia in 1812. Russia competed with England in Afghanistan ("The Great Game") and India, and believed that the British Empire was inhibiting Russia's attempts to gain warm water ports in Turkey through the Dardenelles strait. The German states (then Prussia and Austria) were useful allies because (1) they also opposed France and England and (2) they were not, at this time, looking eastward or southward for land; that would come later.

But beginning with Austria's absorption of Hungary and subjugation of the Balkans, (which, if absorbed, would threaten Russian security), along with Otto Von Bismarck's talk of German expansion eastward (which every German leader would repeat until Adolf Hitler attempted to implement it), Russia began to feel threatened by central Europe. Though Alexander was close to the Kaiser (they were cousins by marriage) he slowly allowed Russian foreign policy to become allied with England and France as a means to counter German ambitions.

The result of this change would lead to the configuration that led to World War I and shaped the history of the 20th century.

 

[timschochet]

Principal Characters

Alexander III died in 1894, having ruled for 13 years. It's time now to look at our long list of principal characters who will be vital to this narrative and see what they were up to at this point in history:

Nicholas Romanov, the Tsarevich, was 26. He was vain and stupid and easily swayed, though not a bad man. Up to this point he had spent his entire life as a pawn to his father, and he would pretty much spend the rest of it as a pawn to his wife, or his counselors, or whoever else caught his ear. Alexander thought little of his son, and had given him no training as Tsar- "Time enough for that," Alexander told his friends, "when Nicholas is 30 and matured." Unfortunately for Alexander, Nicholas, Russia, and the world, this training never did happen. Nicholas was terrified of being assassinated like his grandfather. While on the "grand tour" that young noblemen took in those days, a Japanese terrorist had attempted to shoot him in Tokyo. This caused Nicky (as he was known, both affectionately and derisively,) to dislike Japan intensely, with momentous consequences. Nicholas had carried on an affair as a young man with the brilliant ballerina, Mathilde Kschessinka, considered one of the greatest dancers of the Classic era- this was a time when Russia ruled in music: Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Rachmaninov, among others, wrote and conducted ballets and concertos in St. Petersburg for the nobility. The love affair was short lived, for Nicholas was soon to fall in love with a German girl...

Alix of Hesse was 22, the granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England. She was unlike Nicholas in every way: smart, strong-willed, passionate. She set out to marry Nicholas but Alexander did not approve, fearing a backlash by the Russian public against Germany (in retrospect, a pretty wise calculation.) But the two young lovers were adamant, and when Alexander's health failed, he gave way. Alix became Alexandra Feodorovna, the Empress Consort of Russia. She converted from her early Lutheranism to the Russian Orthodox Church, and never looked back. She believed absolutely in the rule of kings, and, against the will of the time, that Russia and her native Germany were natural allies. Unknown to her, she was a carrier of hemophilia, with tragic consequences for her son and for Russian history.

Pyotr Stolypin was 32, a German born child of Russian nobility who studied agriculture at St. Petersburg University but then quickly went on to his calling, serving the government. From a young age his brilliance showed and he moved higher and higher in government circles, always marked for a future high position: foreign minister, or perhaps even prime minister. Stolypin believed in the Tsar and Russia but wanted both to move into the 20th century as a constitutional monarchy and a pacific world power. He would become the last best hope for the waning dreams of Alexander II.

Grigori Rasputin was 25. He was a peasant, born in Siberia, and at this time he already had a wife and 3 children, along with many girlfriends and likely countless illegitimate children. A heavy drinker and partier, at age 23 he abandoned his wife and kids, left his village, and went to live in a monastery, where supposedly he gave up drinking (though he continued to drink heavily by all accounts during his abstinence.) Rasputin began to mutter to himself and make strange predictions, somewhat like a modern psychic. Though not ordained, he began to call himself "Father Gregori". Most of his "predictions" were designed to get women to take their clothes off in front of him: he, Father Gregori, would absolve them by committing sin with them. Somehow this worked, and Rasputin had astonishing success traveling around Siberia drinking and carousing and sleeping with married women. He was considered a "holy man."

More to come...

 

[drummer]

I'm just waiting until this thread gets to the Timo Hardy years

 

[timschochet]

The future revolutionaries:

Alexander Kerensky was 13. Born in Simbirsk (the same large village as the Ulyanovs; the families knew each other), his father was an inspector of public schools. As a young man he would study law in St. Petersburg and join the Narodniks (at a time when this group was being weaned out in favor of more radical groups). Kerensky believed in the Russian legal system and that all problems with the Russian state could be resolved peacefully and through the courts.

Vladimir Ulyanov, whom we have already met, was 24. He was becoming more and more radical, supporting strikes and rebellions against the Russian state. He was a firm Marxist and wrote several articles about the applicability of Marx's ideas within Russia. Right around this time Vladimir and 40 others were arrested and charged with sedition (which he was certainly guilty of.) Ulyanov denied all charges but spent a year in prison before his trial. During this time he began to think deeply about revolution.

Lev Bronstein was 15. Born in the Ukraine, he was the 5th child of wealthy Jewish farmers. Sent to Odessa for his education, he almost immediately became a radical- first as a Narodnik, then quickly as a Marxist. His brilliance and leadership were evident even as a teenager, writing and publishing pamphlets, giving speeches. Soon he also would be arrested.

Josef Dugashvili was 16. He was born in Georgia, the son of a lowly cobbler. Josef had many health problems; he suffered from smallpox (and would have facial scars for the rest of his life) and two adjoined toes on his left foot. Josef was not thought to be brilliant; in fact, he was considered a dull and stupid boy who said little. At this time he was accepted into a seminary; his parents decided that he might as well be a priest since the boy had no social skills and there was no hope for him otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

By the time Nicholas II became Tsar in 1894, the Romanovs had been ruling Russia for nearly 300 years. Their reign began with the child Michael Romanov, great nephew of Ivan the Terrible, whose ascent to the throne stabilized the country and saved it from Polish and Swedish invasion during the "Time of Troubles". Since Michael, 20 Tsars and Tsarinas, including Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, had accounted for the most stable dynasty in modern world history. They had survived famine, invasion, civil war, and social unrest.

There was no reason for anyone to believe that it was all about to end.

 

[Don Quixote]

While I think the point that you are making is about the stability of the Romanov family itself, I think it is worth mentioning it wasn't all that bloodless at the top.  In between Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were a series of palace coups.  Catherine the Great's son, Paul I, was also killed in a coup (his change to the succession laws before he died helped stop the frequent coups though).

Paul I is an interesting figure as a despotic liberal.

Given the east-west discussion earlier, it is also probably worth mentioning that the two tsars who idolized Frederick the Great the most (Peter III and Paul I) were both assassinated.

 

[RokNRole]

It fell because communism lies by telling citizens everyone is equal.

In the same way capitalism lies by telling citizens they all have an equal chance at success.

 

[timschochet]

While I think the point that you are making is about the stability of the Romanov family itself, I think it is worth mentioning it wasn't all that bloodless at the top.  In between Peter the Great and Catherine the Great were a series of palace coups.  Catherine the Great's son, Paul I, was also killed in a coup (his change to the succession laws before he died helped stop the frequent coups though).

Paul I is an interesting figure as a despotic liberal.

Given the east-west discussion earlier, it is also probably worth mentioning that the two tsars who idolized Frederick the Great the most (Peter III and Paul I) were both assassinated.

Right. The entire history of the Romanovs is blood-splattered and with more palace coups than Game of Thrones. But the point I was making was that throughout all of that, it was reasonably stable (compared to other despotic regimes) and there was no inkling that the 20th century would bring about its fall.

I probably should stress the point right here that I don't believe in the inevitability of history. All major historical events have a lot of accident to them. The Marxists and Soviets have spent the last 100 years trying to tell us that the Russian Revolution was inevitable. IMO, it was the result of a series of unlikely events. Tolstoy argued in War and Peace that Napoleon took advantage of forces he didn't understand, and I think there is a lot of truth to this. 

 

[timschochet]

It fell because communism lies by telling citizens everyone is equal.

In the same way capitalism lies by telling citizens they all have an equal chance at success.

This is a very simplistic and false explanation as to why the Soviet Union fell, but we're a long way from that subject in the discussion. 

 

[Sabertooth]

Thread title change?   Rise, Fall, and Rise of the Soviet Union?