who heres likes the russian Revolution

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, your comment jimservo is way too long to quote, however, I can agree with you about how the nature of communism would be too difficult to put in place on a grand scale without authoritarian measures. To control the economic aspect of a man is still a great amount of control, and I believe that economist Friedrich Hayek wrote a polemic called "The Road to Serfdom" in the 40s or 50s about how the nature of a controlled economy over a society must end up being somewhat authoritarian. Hayek spent a good deal of his life arguing that communism was untenable from an economic standpoint due to the nature of the market process and how governments cannot deal with economic calculation as efficiently as individuals.

I know that Stalin was responsible for the fact of many milions of people.
Where did i say i wasn't aware of that.
So why are you defending Lenin than ?
Did you know that under Lenin Orthodox Christians were being murdered and most of theyr churches were burnt to the ground ?
And i'm not talking about small numbers either.
Ten thousends of churches including many of theyr preachers.
The Romanov family was also assasinated under his rule.
Maybe you should be the one educating YOURSELF?
Just a friendly suggestion before you start defending mass murderers

Quote-
Bart21: Have you any idea how many native americans where killed by the colonists; 8 million if i remember right.

I think history in general is very interesting and shadowstate; please ignore bart21, he has no right to tell you what you can or can't be interested in. Human is history is filled with death, slavery and rape. All our hands are dirty. Now; i believe that the change from a monarchy to communism did very little to change the basic political landscape. People where still being opressed. My knowledge ends mostly ends here.
Quote-

I don't really see how this is relevant to the current topic.
I'm not from America so i don't know a huge deal about it's history.

I also never said he wasn't allowed to have his opinion.
I merely showed how disgusted i was with what has happened in the name of communism.
It's basicly the same as posting pictures of Hitler and discussing the "great" things he did.
Both were revolutionairy in theyr own ways, but they killed milions none the less.

Which do you mean?
1905?
Feb 1917?
Oct 1917?
1918-22?
Glasnost?

I have a "gut feel" that no war every achieved anything (in the long run). After WW2, Paton wanted to contiue the war, fighting the Russians. If he had, there would be McDonalds and Coca Cola in Moscow sooner than there was. Would Moscow today be any different? I think not. Would 1950's war against Russia have any benefit 50 years on?

Had there not been a 1917 Russian revolution, would a Russian serf/feudal system have survived ? I think not. There would have been an economic revolution that would have made social and political changes.

Hitler was a criminal whose rise to power was accomplished by the murder of legitimate officers of state on his way, as well as capturing the imaginations of the poor and downtrodden of the country. By feeding their pride and bringing them (false) hope, as well as blaming everything on "non-pure" Germans, he could do no wrong and got away with his criminal rise to power.

Lenin rose to lead a revolution that the people were already committed to. His intelligence and dedication to the revolution that was already started by the people themselves led them to follow him. He was a part of a movement that was necessary and long overdue.

Hitler created a revolution to bring him self to power. The differences are immense.

Also, Hitler set out to, and decided personally, to have all Jews executed.

Besides, you blame Lenin for the order to execute Nicholas and his family. This was never proved. I quote;
"During the night of 16–17 July, Nicholas, Alexandra, their children, their physician, and three servants were taken into the basement and executed. Whether this was on direct orders from Vladimir Lenin in Moscow (as many believe, though we lack hard evidence), or an option approved in Moscow should White troops approach Yekaterinburg, or at the initiative of local Bolsheviks, remains in dispute, as does whether the order (if there was an order) was for the execution of Nicholas alone or the entire family."

I don't know of anybody who thinks the family should have been executed. Nicholas had it coming. He started the war and threw millions of soldiers (conscripts, no less) to their deaths in a vain attempt to hold on to power;
"One of Nicholas's reasons for going to war in 1914 was his desire to restore the prestige that Russia had lost during the Russo-Japanese war. Nicholas also wanted to galvanize the diverse people in his empire under a single banner by directing military force at a common enemy, namely Germany and the Central Powers. A common assumption among his critics is that he believed that by doing so he could also distract the people from the ongoing issues of poverty, inequality, and poor working conditions that were sources of discontent.By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1.6 and 1.8 million soldiers, with an additional two million prisoners of war and one million missing for a total of nearly five million men."

As far as the many deaths in the revolution, rarely is a revolution bloodless (if ever; even the so-called Bloodless Revolution saw many deaths in fighting). Are you certain Lenin called for the murder of the priests that you cite? Nicholas II had used the church as an excuse for his poor leadership for his entire reign. People had had it. Again, I remind you that Lenin led the revolution, but he didn't start it; the people did, and they were looking for people to blame for their incredible suffering and misery.

Vin Diesel once played Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun... and won.

but the movie-going public lost

You guys ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? It was written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? He was a prisoner himself. He not only talked about his experiences with Gulags, as well as their horrid conditions and inhuman practices, but also the entire political framework of the Soviet Union. For one, he stated that right from the start, the government of the Soviet Union was oppressive and that the purges started shortly after the Russian Revolution. Of all of those, the show trials of the 30's are the most well known. Pretty much, he states that the whole oppressive system began with Lenin, and Stalin's paranoia only amplified the atrocities. Another thing that it stated was that the entire economy, and hence their industrial strength, would have been impossible to maintain if it wasn't for the GULag system set up by the Soviet Union. Creepy thing was, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of his claims were proven to be true when they examined many of the now open documents dating from Stalin's time. In some cases, the truth was even more outrageous than his claims.

I'm not defending Stalin. That guy was worse than Hitler (in the amount of people murdered). I'm saying that Stalin and his initial movement were necessary in a time of oppression and despair, and that Lenin was not comperable to Hitler as far as villainy and wrongdoing.

Didn't Stalin create a time of oppression and despair?

What was more necessary was Russia adopting a UK type monarchy with power given to parliament. Social and economic change would happen regardless of who held power. If there had not been changes, Russia would have slipped even further behind its neighbouring countries in terms of wealth and power. A divergence of wealth and power between countries would have been a catalyst for change if nothing else.

Current political and economic change in China is a good example of this process.

I took an exam on Russia in Revolution last week. Currently studying Stalin and yes it is a very 'interesting' area, although most of the interest for me is how he got there, he had such a clear lack of abilities compared to others.