Support Blitz of the Reich. Check out our online store! Get $3 off at teespring by typing in promo code: spicyblitz teespring.com/stores/blitzs-obshchina Did you know that unsurprisingly Alexander III reinstated the Cadet corps? Thank you all for watching this video. If you want to support the future of this channel then be sure to check my patreon page at www.patreon.com/blitzofthereich and paypal at www.paypal.me/blitzofthereich
Thanks, but I´m not into the whole thing, only my own research. By the way, it would be useful if you reviewed some of your other videos, especially that of South West France.
@@BlitzOfTheReich he made the Diet of Finland a regularly convening body which helped us to modernize the country and more autonomous from russia and compared to his grandson Tsar Nicholas II who tried to turn us russian he was good.
Traditional Finnish star singers procession has a short song praises Alex II, though it's otherwise biblical. There's a statue of him in the center of Senate Square in Helsinki. He's always considered as the good tsar around here.
What an excellent, vivid, although concise, video. I come here from Kenneth Bartlett’s lectures on European Cicilization, thinking I’d pause a bit and get to know more about the reformer, or Liberator. I checked out several videos on UA-cam. Yours is the best, by far!
On a smaller note, Nicholas I also contributed to Germany’s pain. Nicholas I was an educated engineer. He had knowledge of locomotive advancements in Europe, America and the UK. During his reign, he built the first rail lines. The thing that thorned the Germans in WW2, was that the gauge was different than the ones commonly seen in Europe. Thus, Germany had to convert or capture locomotives to supply their troops far in the Russian heartlands. Nicholas knew that in case of another war on deep in Russian soil, the rail lines couldn’t be used that efficiently or not at all.
Ey my favorite guy is here. Nicholas may have been good but only one rail line between Moscow and St Petersburg existed during his reign. Also yes I get it. The rail gauges were different but that doesn't 100% explain things. Did you mean to comment this in my other video?
nope... In contrast to serfdom in Germany and Russia, the Finnish peasant was typically a freeholder who owned and controlled his small plot of land. There was no serfdom in which peasants were permanently attached to specific lands, and were ruled by the owners of that land. In Finland (and Sweden) the peasants formed one of the four estates and were represented in the parliament. Outside the political sphere, however, the peasants were considered at the bottom of the social order-just above vagabonds. The upper classes looked down on them as excessively prone to drunkenness and laziness, as clannish and untrustworthy, and especially as lacking honor and a sense of national spirit. This disdain dramatically changed in the 19th century when everyone idealised the peasant as the true carrier of Finnishness and the national ethos, as opposed to the Swedish-speaking elites. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Peasants
Interesting. I studied a lot of Russian history and I notice there's a lot of parallels between the USA and Russia in the post-American Revolution and 19th century: Catherine the Great of Russia was known as an "Enlightened Despot" (i.e. an autocratic monarch who ruled based on Enlightenment principles, Frederick II of the German state of Prussia, and King Louis 16th of France were also known as "Enlightened Despots"). And Catherine held a huge respect for the American Framers and Founding Fathers. In fact, the Decembrist Uprising of 1825 was in part inspired by the American Revolution of 1776. Both nations were based on agrarian explorer ideals: the US on the Yeoman ideal and Russia on the Promyshlenniki ideal. Both nations abolished unjust systems at about the same time - there's actually a connection between Russia's abolishing of Serfdom in 1861 and the US's abolishing of chattel slavery in the Confederate South with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (see here: www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html , as well as other sources relating to this). And both nations constructed vast railroad systems at around the same time - Russia was influenced to construct the Trans-Siberian Railroad after our (America's) construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, they were even constructed in a similar manner to one another (with the railroads being built on the east and west sides and eventually connecting in the middle). It's interesting too, because during the American Civil War, negotiations for the American purchase of Alaska (my home state) were in progress. By a Union military officer by the name of Jefferson C. Davis (not Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President). The friendly and similar relations between the USA and Russia allowed for the eventual purchase of Alaska in 1867 (which gained statehood in 1959).
How come Russo-Turkish War of 77-78 was a diplomatic failure? The victory brought Russia back to play European geopolitics with big boys again since defeat of Crimean War.
It was a military success in terms of Russia's ability to beat the Ottomans although it took around 10 months, but the other powers were very alarmed at the balance of power. Thus even though the Russians formed a Bulgarian state along Thrace with the Ottomans, they had to retract it in the Congress of Berlin which signaled a sign of weakness. No doubt Russia was still improving its standing but it wasn't there yet.
Russia was essentially isolated since 1856, the war of 1877-78 brought that isolation to an end. Plus Russia regained it's positions at Black Sea which was kinda the reason to start the war. Trading Bulgaria for the ability to once again have fleet at Black Sea doesn't sound like diplomatic failure to me.
Russia was essentially isolated since 1856, the war of 1877-78 brought that isolation to an end. Plus Russia regained it's positions at Black Sea which was kinda the reason to start the war. Trading Bulgaria for the ability to once again have fleet at Black Sea doesn't sound like diplomatic failure to me.
It was defo from the perspective of pan slavs, because it is in relation to how much the victory cost them. They got a bit of territory on the Danube and the Caucasus and not much else. The blocking of Bulgaria's growth pretty much stopped Russia's influence growth in the Balkans for a while. It is from this realpolitik perspective that the war was a failure. In the original treaty Bulgaria would have gotten Macedonia and Thrace which would have seriously threatened the Ottomans and curbed European influence in the area. Russia was essentially playing a diplomatic war with Germany and they kind of lost. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Bulgaria-SanStefano_-%281878%29-byTodorBozhinov.png Look at all the territory in the original treaty. And that would have been a Russian ally.
What diplomatic war with Germany? Russia was in good relationship with Bismark because Russia helped him in his wars for unification and in return Bismark helped Russia to win the war of 77-78 in the first place. Like, Russia stayed negatively neutral towards Austria and assured Bismark to not get involved as an ally of France. In return Bismark stayed positively neutral towards Russia in 1877-78 to keep France and Austria occupied with hesitation while UK was not ready to jeandarm naughty Russia alone. So you essentially think that Russia started the war to gain new territory? Well that's her default behavior but definitely not the prime reason. To give independence to Bulgaria and strenghten positions at Balkans? Pan slavs sure wanted it but Russia is not only pan slavs, there are sane people also wink wink. Besides, what influence over Balkans are we talking about if Russia is denied of access at Black Sea in the first place? The defeat of 1856 was humiliating and destructive to the positions at Black Sea region. So the primary objectie was to restore what was lost i.e. ability to do business with great powers on par and have a military fleet at Black Sea. Again. Bulgaria was a nice addition to primary objectives. I don't say that nobody minded having Bulgarian independance postponed. But! But. Giving up Bulgaria for the sake of restoring positions of 1853 was acceptable. I would even say desiriable. So without a doubt Germany played a role at ripping Bulgaria from the hands of Russian victory. But it was not a diplomatic warfare provided Germany helped Russia to get back in business in the first place. I mean, right afrer we have an Alliance of Three Emperors which would be kinda soon for a recent diplomatic defeat.
All those reforms were stopped after his assassination. Even the Ukase (imperial decree) to end serfdom was shelved and remained "de iure" but not "de facto". That is: approved but not implemented. Konstantin Pobedonototev, tutor of the last two tsars and head of the Holy See made things make a U turn...Back to square one.
@@BlitzOfTheReich True, but the economic impact of Russia and eastern Europe's failure to industrialise sooner played a significant roll in the events that unfolded.
1:16 well he liberated bulgarians so to us he gets to keep that title well earned and loved we have his statue in Sofia :D - i miss those russians at that time that where like brothers to us. the ones that come after are jerks :D to say the least.
Hi. You are doing a good job. I´m just following the lectures ''A History of Russia From Peter the Great to Gorbachev'' by Professor Mark Steinberg. Unlike you, he focuses not only on the czars but also on the Russian Intelligentsia (интеллигенция), and their evolution: nihilism, populism, marxism.
'What is to Be Done' is a pamphlet by Lenin, late in the process. Lenin is not a member of the Intelligentsia, that developed from early XIX century. I was not referring to late stage of Marxism, but to the integilgentsia : educated and high social class nationals that shaped the Russian thought. Herzen, A. Belinski, even the Tolstoians and Pushkin. It is about understanding how the traditional Russian soul was, about a sociological view on how Russians conceived their land and the revolution they had in mind. Not about a scientific approach to revolution as in Marx, who wasn´t focused on Russia´s particular mindset. Lenin also thought as Germany as needed for revolution. Nothing to do with Russian people dealing with their particular future revolution from their particular history. Either as totally apart from the west (slavophiles) of taking just examples from the western advances but completely avoiding its capitalism and soul (westernizers). From early nihilists, to Populist (Narodniki), liberals, the radical branches of their parties from the 1860s reforms and ther split ( Black Partition) after 'People´s Will' (Narodnia Volia) killed the czar in 1881 after many attempts (a czar that was backing out of his own reforms). Sorry, we were thinking of different goals.
I mean the whole mindset of that part of the world. Something I ignored before. Something that is helping me even to unravel the why of present Russia. Although not really to share those ideas, which are alien both to my own culture and to most others .
Hey mate, I saw your post on yttalk and I just wanted to congrat you for the now 2k subs. A word of advise would be to change your channel trailer is of almost one year ago and the quality is not as high as your videos are right now. So new visistors might not subcribe thinking that all your videos have that quality. Anyway PEACE
Thanks for the suggestion! I've been meaning to get that done but most subscriptions have been through viral videos. Anyway thank you for your suggestion.
Hi Blitz, love your channel. I'm also really interested in XIX century Russian history and Id like you to tell me about some books which would be useful for me in order to lear about the time period (also a nice website to read them free would be nice indeed)
Well thank you so much. I do not have a book specifically on the 19th century but I use various books. In reality I am more versed in 20th century Russian history however 'Russia A History' by Gregory Freeze is a good overall book on Russian History. Same with 'Russia and the Russians' by Geoffrey Hosking. Both offer enough specificity and nuance when approaching the 19th century and are where I took most of the information of this video from. However I would like to ask you a big favor if you do decide to purchase them. I do not make any money on this channel (ad-free) and would like to ask if you do decide to buy them, could I give you an affiliate link? Also I am in the process of planning a Udemy course on Soviet History however I've been wanting to make a website on Russia for a while (obviously free). If you don't have the money I completely get you, and would have been happy to give you a pdf copy of my books, but I have them on paperback.
Blitz Of The Reich thanks you! I would look for those books! I guess I will try to get them in my university and town library but finding books in English about an specific period of Russian history living in Spain is quite hard to say the least. And on the internet most sites where you can actually read them are not free and the benefits don't even go to the author. I think culture should be a universal right, specially nowadays with the possibilities of the internet. That's why I do really appreciate the hard work of people like you. I eagerly ask you to keep up with it, and if I can't manage to find them don't worry, I will ask you in order to help you with that link!
Kinda late to the party, but you might try "The Fragile Empire" by Alexander Chubarov. It focuses more on what was happening in the country rather than getting bogged down in the lives of the Tsars. The analysis of the various revolutions is enlightening.
Hi, I have one question: in terms of the temporary regulations of 1865, did this reduce censorship? It’s just because I thought he lifted censorship from 1858, and that the temporary regulations were under Alexander III with tighter restrictions. (I might be completely wrong though).
I would have to re-check but I would presume so. The reason is that the dictatorship of the heart didn't take place until 1880 and also Alexander didn't survive his first assassination attempt until 1866. So I would presume that his 1865 temporary regulations would help.
I'm pretty sure there was a russification of poland, for example, the polish weren't really allowed to speak polish, the schools changed from teaching polish to russian, many people were exiled to siberia. In fact, one of the main reasons for the January Uprising was the forced conscription of many young poles into the russian army.
Actually, Alexander II reforms was a reason for permanent famine in the late XIX-early XX century in the Russia."Holodomor" was a last cause of such events, Stalin ctually stopped it, develeping his state from agrarian to the industrialised country.
haha yep but to be honest a lot of those videos came before Eastory exploded in popularity, so I don't know exactly what he's up to. Maybe he'll respond. ;)
Yes 6 months is indeed a little long. For the last two weeks I have been non stop working on the Soviet plan video and it will be ready to be uploaded within a week. Hope you like snow and the destruction of Army Group Center… :)
Through the centuries, both with the Czars and even during the Soviet/Communist Era, even after Glasnost & Perestrokia, spearheaded by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian people have always seemed to have wanted and needed strong leadership, even in the form of dictatorships - this seems to have been the common thread running through Russian history and later on, that of Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain, especially during the Soviet era
Thanks for the video :) I know that ppl tend to say the Emancipation of the Serfs, however, in this context, can we interchangeably use serfs and peasants- I have a coursework question on lives of peasants (1855-1955). Given that the impacts of the Emancipation would’ve been somewhat interchangeable between serfs and peasants, I’m assuming one could comment on what happened to the serfs as what happened to the peasants. I’d appreciate any ideas :) thx
Serfs were peasants. Of course, last I recall, not all peasants were serfs (there were free peasants), but serfdom definitely impacted the peasant class. You should also mention the ideological fervour in the 1860s-70s where a lot of young people and revolutionaries from the cities went to the countryside to try to get reacquainted with the peasant lifestyle.
I really want to ask you... do you think that his reforms were genuine? can you tell me specifically which ones and why? Because, I think that of them are genuine, but I just want another opinion.
sure thing! I do think his reforms were genuine in the sense that he had an almost paternalistic view of his rule. He was not necessarily a very liberal guy and did oversee atrocities like the genocide of the Circassians, but for the time period I do view him with a degree of approval. The most important reforms were those based on social class alleviation, like Church reforms on priests, the education system, and movement rights for Jews.
Yo i got this in class written essay tomorrow if the emancipation of the serfs was the only genuine reform, do u think educational reforms and emancipation were quite genuine?
I think most reforms were genuine in that Tzar Alexander II had the very real paternalistic idea that he was the father of the nation and trying to protect its interests. He wasn't very liberal minded though.
1886:Rothschild banking company, a transnational financial institution, formed Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Co. and the Russian Nobel Brothers Company worked in close financial association with the Paris-based Rothschild banking company. The oil or petroleum epoch with its great transnational industrial companies and financial and banking institutions, was upon all who would play the Great Game Petroleum was the energy basis and the organizational paradigm in "the second industrial revolution"
This is where liberalism kinda started..as a ideology ..both conservatives and liberals Europe historically was a nightmare,...1000 years of carnage and wars...so I totally understand the Russian incredible free spirit and reluctance to join the eu, Around the time of Bismark and Aleksander.....Europe was a continent In radical transformation
Was just about to watch this video until the narrator pronounced the word innovative as in-ah-vative. That indicates 2 things. The narrator does not surround himself with intelligent people, doesn't know how to read properly, didn't birthda bother to take the time to edit, and probably conducted his research on Wikipedia. Sorry dude. Don't mean to be harsh but sometimes it's the little things that make all the difference.
This is in context to autocracy which was lacking in Kievan Rus. My next video is on Kievan Rus so no, I don't think Russian history started after the Mongol occupation.
I´m quite calm... truth is that it is not a funny one... see you are one of the few who actually do some interesting stuff helping me to refresh and keep my knoweledge... sad how these days onyl way how to make joke is to insult others...
Alexander II was a horrible person both in person and in his reign. The very existence of this distinction works against him. The only thing we can be grateful for is that he serves as a demonstration to the innate Liberalism of Absolutism.
Blitz Of The Reich Russia has had no truly good Tsar after Peter the Apostate. The exception goes to St. Nicholas II but his sainthood isn't based on his statesmanship but on his martyrdom. The abolition of Serfdom did the same thing as Maria-Theresa's reforms in Austria did, it created an exodus of country-people to the city, who now free from the Lord's control on their fertility had extremely large and destitute families, raising crime and lowering living standards. The entire history of Petrine Russia is a great fight against the wave of Liberalism and trying to fight it with purely Petrine means, not realizing that it was Petrine conditions that brought about these problems. It's frustrating, cause political salvation is so close yet beyond the pale. As for him as a person, his notorious affair while his wife was dying from disease speaks for itself. The only good thing Anarchists ever did was his regicide.
Blitz Of The Reich St. Nicholas II and the entire Romanov family have been canonized by the Orthodox Church en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_the_Romanovs
Blitz Of The Reich He dont have nickname in our history books. For us he bad ruler, because he two times baned ukrainian language in literature and in religion.
@@bi-shop1803 interesting. Of course when I use the term liberator I don't excuse all his actions. Like I said in the video, the Russians under his regime slaughtered Northwestern Caucasians.
in order to know the past of the so-called Russians, you need to know that until 1922 the so-called Russians did not have their own state.I am ready to prove my case in open and serious discussions with other users.who is not afraid to know the truth about the past - I am waiting for your questions.there is something to discuss
Support Blitz of the Reich. Check out our online store!
Get $3 off at teespring by typing in promo code: spicyblitz
teespring.com/stores/blitzs-obshchina
Did you know that unsurprisingly Alexander III reinstated the Cadet corps? Thank you all for watching this video. If you want to support the future of this channel then be sure to check my patreon page at www.patreon.com/blitzofthereich and paypal at www.paypal.me/blitzofthereich
Thanks, but I´m not into the whole thing, only my own research. By the way, it would be useful if you reviewed some of your other videos, especially that of South West France.
@@spanixtanspanixtan8757 sorry for such a late reply, but what do you mean by review?
I know Im kinda randomly asking but does anybody know a good website to watch new movies online?
@Emmitt Jesse flixportal :D
@Sage Darwin Thanks, signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there =) Appreciate it !!
Ivan iv, the edgy tsar
Peter the great, the dank tsar
Aleksander ii, the wholesome tsar
And NIKOLAI II, THE FKING NORMIE TSAR
bruh this got me chuckling.
I thought this comment was made in 2016 but the fact this was made AT THE FURTHEST in 2019 is saddening
In Finland, there is a statue of Alexander the 2nd.
I think it is well-deserved. What do you think?
@@BlitzOfTheReich he made the Diet of Finland a regularly convening body which helped us to modernize the country and more autonomous from russia and compared to his grandson Tsar Nicholas II who tried to turn us russian he was good.
Lots of juicy detail here. Thanks for your hard work.
thank you. please considering subscribing.
Traditional Finnish star singers procession has a short song praises Alex II, though it's otherwise biblical. There's a statue of him in the center of Senate Square in Helsinki. He's always considered as the good tsar around here.
Well he treated you all quite well. The Caucasians... that's another story.
What an excellent, vivid, although concise, video. I come here from Kenneth Bartlett’s lectures on European Cicilization, thinking I’d pause a bit and get to know more about the reformer, or Liberator. I checked out several videos on UA-cam. Yours is the best, by far!
On a smaller note, Nicholas I also contributed to Germany’s pain.
Nicholas I was an educated engineer. He had knowledge of locomotive advancements in Europe, America and the UK. During his reign, he built the first rail lines.
The thing that thorned the Germans in WW2, was that the gauge was different than the ones commonly seen in Europe. Thus, Germany had to convert or capture locomotives to supply their troops far in the Russian heartlands. Nicholas knew that in case of another war on deep in Russian soil, the rail lines couldn’t be used that efficiently or not at all.
Ey my favorite guy is here. Nicholas may have been good but only one rail line between Moscow and St Petersburg existed during his reign. Also yes I get it. The rail gauges were different but that doesn't 100% explain things. Did you mean to comment this in my other video?
Blitz Of The Reich Woops.. wrong vid. Haha.
Yea I was puzzled by the relations. Passion often blinds.
I love that Hosking was used as a source. I was able to pull out my textbook and flip directly to the page!
I hope I did well! I like Hosking a lot.
Russia, so far behind.. Still she always manages to rise again. A truly great nation.
not so much the autocracy, but the people.
Great Background Music choises for this video. Not a common feature on UA-cam channels
Interesting to mention that Russia allowed parliaments and local laws in Poland(until polish uprising) and Finland unlikely in Russia itself.
he released the serfs in Finland & there is a statue to him.
that's very interesting. I hope this video expanded the context of that. you may also be interested in my video series about Finland and Russia.
nope... In contrast to serfdom in Germany and Russia, the Finnish peasant was typically a freeholder who owned and controlled his small plot of land. There was no serfdom in which peasants were permanently attached to specific lands, and were ruled by the owners of that land. In Finland (and Sweden) the peasants formed one of the four estates and were represented in the parliament. Outside the political sphere, however, the peasants were considered at the bottom of the social order-just above vagabonds. The upper classes looked down on them as excessively prone to drunkenness and laziness, as clannish and untrustworthy, and especially as lacking honor and a sense of national spirit. This disdain dramatically changed in the 19th century when everyone idealised the peasant as the true carrier of Finnishness and the national ethos, as opposed to the Swedish-speaking elites. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Peasants
Interesting. I studied a lot of Russian history and I notice there's a lot of parallels between the USA and Russia in the post-American Revolution and 19th century: Catherine the Great of Russia was known as an "Enlightened Despot" (i.e. an autocratic monarch who ruled based on Enlightenment principles, Frederick II of the German state of Prussia, and King Louis 16th of France were also known as "Enlightened Despots"). And Catherine held a huge respect for the American Framers and Founding Fathers. In fact, the Decembrist Uprising of 1825 was in part inspired by the American Revolution of 1776. Both nations were based on agrarian explorer ideals: the US on the Yeoman ideal and Russia on the Promyshlenniki ideal. Both nations abolished unjust systems at about the same time - there's actually a connection between Russia's abolishing of Serfdom in 1861 and the US's abolishing of chattel slavery in the Confederate South with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (see here: www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html , as well as other sources relating to this). And both nations constructed vast railroad systems at around the same time - Russia was influenced to construct the Trans-Siberian Railroad after our (America's) construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, they were even constructed in a similar manner to one another (with the railroads being built on the east and west sides and eventually connecting in the middle).
It's interesting too, because during the American Civil War, negotiations for the American purchase of Alaska (my home state) were in progress. By a Union military officer by the name of Jefferson C. Davis (not Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President). The friendly and similar relations between the USA and Russia allowed for the eventual purchase of Alaska in 1867 (which gained statehood in 1959).
How come Russo-Turkish War of 77-78 was a diplomatic failure? The victory brought Russia back to play European geopolitics with big boys again since defeat of Crimean War.
It was a military success in terms of Russia's ability to beat the Ottomans although it took around 10 months, but the other powers were very alarmed at the balance of power. Thus even though the Russians formed a Bulgarian state along Thrace with the Ottomans, they had to retract it in the Congress of Berlin which signaled a sign of weakness. No doubt Russia was still improving its standing but it wasn't there yet.
Russia was essentially isolated since 1856, the war of 1877-78 brought that isolation to an end. Plus Russia regained it's positions at Black Sea which was kinda the reason to start the war. Trading Bulgaria for the ability to once again have fleet at Black Sea doesn't sound like diplomatic failure to me.
Russia was essentially isolated since 1856, the war of 1877-78 brought that isolation to an end. Plus Russia regained it's positions at Black Sea which was kinda the reason to start the war. Trading Bulgaria for the ability to once again have fleet at Black Sea doesn't sound like diplomatic failure to me.
It was defo from the perspective of pan slavs, because it is in relation to how much the victory cost them. They got a bit of territory on the Danube and the Caucasus and not much else. The blocking of Bulgaria's growth pretty much stopped Russia's influence growth in the Balkans for a while. It is from this realpolitik perspective that the war was a failure. In the original treaty Bulgaria would have gotten Macedonia and Thrace which would have seriously threatened the Ottomans and curbed European influence in the area. Russia was essentially playing a diplomatic war with Germany and they kind of lost. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Bulgaria-SanStefano_-%281878%29-byTodorBozhinov.png
Look at all the territory in the original treaty. And that would have been a Russian ally.
What diplomatic war with Germany? Russia was in good relationship with Bismark because Russia helped him in his wars for unification and in return Bismark helped Russia to win the war of 77-78 in the first place. Like, Russia stayed negatively neutral towards Austria and assured Bismark to not get involved as an ally of France. In return Bismark stayed positively neutral towards Russia in 1877-78 to keep France and Austria occupied with hesitation while UK was not ready to jeandarm naughty Russia alone.
So you essentially think that Russia started the war to gain new territory? Well that's her default behavior but definitely not the prime reason. To give independence to Bulgaria and strenghten positions at Balkans? Pan slavs sure wanted it but Russia is not only pan slavs, there are sane people also wink wink. Besides, what influence over Balkans are we talking about if Russia is denied of access at Black Sea in the first place? The defeat of 1856 was humiliating and destructive to the positions at Black Sea region. So the primary objectie was to restore what was lost i.e. ability to do business with great powers on par and have a military fleet at Black Sea. Again.
Bulgaria was a nice addition to primary objectives. I don't say that nobody minded having Bulgarian independance postponed. But! But. Giving up Bulgaria for the sake of restoring positions of 1853 was acceptable. I would even say desiriable. So without a doubt Germany played a role at ripping Bulgaria from the hands of Russian victory. But it was not a diplomatic warfare provided Germany helped Russia to get back in business in the first place. I mean, right afrer we have an Alliance of Three Emperors which would be kinda soon for a recent diplomatic defeat.
All those reforms were stopped after his assassination. Even the Ukase (imperial decree) to end serfdom was shelved and remained "de iure" but not "de facto". That is: approved but not implemented.
Konstantin Pobedonototev, tutor of the last two tsars and head of the Holy See made things make a U turn...Back to square one.
Very succinct, and beautifully written!
If you consider 14 minutes to be 'succinct' then please watch my other videos! :D
Great vid hun, thanks!😁
thanks for this! have an exam tomorrow on Russian history from 1855-1964, absolutely bricking it!
university or high school?
@@BlitzOfTheReich high school! i'm doing A Levels in the UK, need an A* in these exams to get into my uni
@@nefertiti7129 I hope you get what you want. Please tell me how it goes.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Sadly, he didn't told you how it gone
@@minjajovanovic6501 yep :(
It's very odd to me that the impact and influence of the industrial revolution wasn't mentioned at all. Kind of an important factor.
Of course, it was important, but Russia's 'golden age' of industrialization was more toward the end of the 19th century.
@@BlitzOfTheReich True, but the economic impact of Russia and eastern Europe's failure to industrialise sooner played a significant roll in the events that unfolded.
1:16 well he liberated bulgarians so to us he gets to keep that title well earned and loved we have his statue in Sofia :D - i miss those russians at that time that where like brothers to us. the ones that come after are jerks :D to say the least.
Hmmm interesting analysis but I didn't cover the Russo-Turkish war enough. Glad though.
Great video!!
Thank you so much!
Very good documentary thanks 😊👍
thank you so much! Be sure to share it with your friends.
Hi. You are doing a good job.
I´m just following the lectures ''A History of Russia From Peter the Great to Gorbachev'' by Professor Mark Steinberg. Unlike you, he focuses not only on the czars but also on the Russian Intelligentsia (интеллигенция), and their evolution: nihilism, populism, marxism.
I've been wanting to do a video on the emergence of the intelligensia but I can't fit it all. Which is why I mentioned the book 'what is to be done'.
'What is to Be Done' is a pamphlet by Lenin, late in the process. Lenin is not a member of the Intelligentsia, that developed from early XIX century.
I was not referring to late stage of Marxism, but to the integilgentsia : educated and high social class nationals that shaped the Russian thought. Herzen, A. Belinski, even the Tolstoians and Pushkin. It is about understanding how the traditional Russian soul was, about a sociological view on how Russians conceived their land and the revolution they had in mind.
Not about a scientific approach to revolution as in Marx, who wasn´t focused on Russia´s particular mindset.
Lenin also thought as Germany as needed for revolution. Nothing to do with Russian people dealing with their particular future revolution from their particular history. Either as totally apart from the west (slavophiles) of taking just examples from the western advances but completely avoiding its capitalism and soul (westernizers).
From early nihilists, to Populist (Narodniki), liberals, the radical branches of their parties from the 1860s reforms and ther split ( Black Partition) after 'People´s Will' (Narodnia Volia) killed the czar in 1881 after many attempts (a czar that was backing out of his own reforms).
Sorry, we were thinking of different goals.
I meant the novel by Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
I mean the whole mindset of that part of the world. Something I ignored before. Something that is helping me even to unravel the why of present Russia. Although not really to share those ideas, which are alien both to my own culture and to most others .
Glad your site popped up. I read lots of 19th century lit but know little of Russian history or the Orthodox Church.
no problem. Glad you are enjoying it.
Hey mate, I saw your post on yttalk and I just wanted to congrat you for the now 2k subs. A word of advise would be to change your channel trailer is of almost one year ago and the quality is not as high as your videos are right now. So new visistors might not subcribe thinking that all your videos have that quality. Anyway PEACE
Thanks for the suggestion! I've been meaning to get that done but most subscriptions have been through viral videos. Anyway thank you for your suggestion.
Hi Blitz, love your channel. I'm also really interested in XIX century Russian history and Id like you to tell me about some books which would be useful for me in order to lear about the time period (also a nice website to read them free would be nice indeed)
Well thank you so much. I do not have a book specifically on the 19th century but I use various books. In reality I am more versed in 20th century Russian history however 'Russia A History' by Gregory Freeze is a good overall book on Russian History. Same with 'Russia and the Russians' by Geoffrey Hosking. Both offer enough specificity and nuance when approaching the 19th century and are where I took most of the information of this video from.
However I would like to ask you a big favor if you do decide to purchase them. I do not make any money on this channel (ad-free) and would like to ask if you do decide to buy them, could I give you an affiliate link?
Also I am in the process of planning a Udemy course on Soviet History however I've been wanting to make a website on Russia for a while (obviously free). If you don't have the money I completely get you, and would have been happy to give you a pdf copy of my books, but I have them on paperback.
Blitz Of The Reich thanks you! I would look for those books! I guess I will try to get them in my university and town library but finding books in English about an specific period of Russian history living in Spain is quite hard to say the least. And on the internet most sites where you can actually read them are not free and the benefits don't even go to the author. I think culture should be a universal right, specially nowadays with the possibilities of the internet. That's why I do really appreciate the hard work of people like you. I eagerly ask you to keep up with it, and if I can't manage to find them don't worry, I will ask you in order to help you with that link!
Aprecio tu sinceridad. :)
Kinda late to the party, but you might try "The Fragile Empire" by Alexander Chubarov. It focuses more on what was happening in the country rather than getting bogged down in the lives of the Tsars. The analysis of the various revolutions is enlightening.
Nice vid, don't hear many things said about Czars other than Ivan or Peter
Alex II is defo pretty awesome. So many people know Ivan for the wrong reasons just because they played AOE. :P
@Kyle S. or the dead tsar
Hi, I have one question: in terms of the temporary regulations of 1865, did this reduce censorship? It’s just because I thought he lifted censorship from 1858, and that the temporary regulations were under Alexander III with tighter restrictions. (I might be completely wrong though).
I would have to re-check but I would presume so. The reason is that the dictatorship of the heart didn't take place until 1880 and also Alexander didn't survive his first assassination attempt until 1866. So I would presume that his 1865 temporary regulations would help.
I'm pretty sure there was a russification of poland, for example, the polish weren't really allowed to speak polish, the schools changed from teaching polish to russian, many people were exiled to siberia. In fact, one of the main reasons for the January Uprising was the forced conscription of many young poles into the russian army.
Better than Stalin and his evil holodomor
aye
Actually, Alexander II reforms was a reason for permanent famine in the late XIX-early XX century in the Russia."Holodomor" was a last cause of such events, Stalin ctually stopped it, develeping his state from agrarian to the industrialised country.
First like
Smash that like button you saucy boi ;)
As me, he takes his time to make videos. Popularity won't factor into quality. ;)
haha yep but to be honest a lot of those videos came before Eastory exploded in popularity, so I don't know exactly what he's up to. Maybe he'll respond. ;)
plus I'd take twice as long if I had a full time job, if not more.
Yes 6 months is indeed a little long. For the last two weeks I have been non stop working on the Soviet plan video and it will be ready to be uploaded within a week. Hope you like snow and the destruction of Army Group Center… :)
Through the centuries, both with the Czars and even during the Soviet/Communist Era, even after Glasnost & Perestrokia, spearheaded by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian people have always seemed to have wanted and needed strong leadership, even in the form of dictatorships - this seems to have been the common thread running through Russian history and later on, that of Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain, especially during the Soviet era
good channel you got going here
Thank you!
Thanks for the video :) I know that ppl tend to say the Emancipation of the Serfs, however, in this context, can we interchangeably use serfs and peasants- I have a coursework question on lives of peasants (1855-1955). Given that the impacts of the Emancipation would’ve been somewhat interchangeable between serfs and peasants, I’m assuming one could comment on what happened to the serfs as what happened to the peasants. I’d appreciate any ideas :) thx
Serfs were peasants. Of course, last I recall, not all peasants were serfs (there were free peasants), but serfdom definitely impacted the peasant class. You should also mention the ideological fervour in the 1860s-70s where a lot of young people and revolutionaries from the cities went to the countryside to try to get reacquainted with the peasant lifestyle.
I am more offended for you put Turkey into Mongolia rather than calling Alexander Liberator.
I put every country outside of Russia in the same color coat if that's what you are referring to.
Blitz Of The Reich ok np then. By the way we took back southwest caucasia 40 years later. I am from there.
Of course I had to generalize. Are you referring to the Russo Turkish war of 1877-78?
Blitz Of The Reich uh yes. :D
The borders in that period are always fuzzy to me.
I really want to ask you... do you think that his reforms were genuine? can you tell me specifically which ones and why? Because, I think that of them are genuine, but I just want another opinion.
sure thing! I do think his reforms were genuine in the sense that he had an almost paternalistic view of his rule. He was not necessarily a very liberal guy and did oversee atrocities like the genocide of the Circassians, but for the time period I do view him with a degree of approval. The most important reforms were those based on social class alleviation, like Church reforms on priests, the education system, and movement rights for Jews.
Would you say that the empancipation was the only genuine reform though?
that's hard to say Benjamin
pretty solid vid W
Yo i got this in class written essay tomorrow if the emancipation of the serfs was the only genuine reform, do u think educational reforms and emancipation were quite genuine?
I think most reforms were genuine in that Tzar Alexander II had the very real paternalistic idea that he was the father of the nation and trying to protect its interests. He wasn't very liberal minded though.
at 6.09 i have no idea what the point being made actually is?!?!?! HELP
Alexander II pretty much wanted to kick someone out of the 'Senate' yet he chose not to because it would violate a law he put into place.
Greetings from Brazil.
Greetings! Hope you enjoyed!
@@BlitzOfTheReich Your videos are unique. I'm gonna check all your videos I can watch.
@@Supersup.campos thank you very much !
12:10 is a painting of Finns which were no serfs
I come here from reading Anna Karenina
Would you say that the empancipation was the only genuine reform though?
I don't think so
1886:Rothschild banking company, a transnational financial institution, formed Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Co. and the Russian Nobel Brothers Company worked in close financial association with the Paris-based Rothschild banking company. The oil or petroleum epoch with its great transnational industrial companies and financial and banking institutions, was upon all who would play the Great Game
Petroleum was the energy basis and the organizational paradigm in "the second industrial revolution"
Where are your sources?
song
Alexander II was the last great czar
OMG the mis-pronunciations within the first minute.......
Heard about him from a freind and my friend didn't say a nice thing about him probably because he is a Circassian.
Most likely and it is understandable. He did cause a genocide there.
This is where liberalism kinda started..as a ideology ..both conservatives and liberals
Europe historically was a nightmare,...1000 years of carnage and wars...so I totally understand the Russian incredible free spirit and reluctance to join the eu,
Around the time of Bismark and Aleksander.....Europe was a continent In radical transformation
2:45
Does the Russian royalty still exist?
yes, but they are scattered.
Beautiful eyes
🎂Alexander II 04-29-2022
ohhhhhhhhhhh I did not know.
Very few American You tubers seem to upload with anything other than a whining California accent.
Well, I hope this is a compliment since I am not from California.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Good and gentle reply, well done. May I please know your accent?
@@elrjames7799 Florida
@@elrjames7799 with minor Scottish influence
Was just about to watch this video until the narrator pronounced the word innovative as in-ah-vative. That indicates 2 things. The narrator does not surround himself with intelligent people, doesn't know how to read properly, didn't birthda bother to take the time to edit, and probably conducted his research on Wikipedia. Sorry dude. Don't mean to be harsh but sometimes it's the little things that make all the difference.
Please don’t waste my time.
Great...are you Russian??
No why?
Blitz Of The Reich as you made most of the videos on Russia and those are nearly unbaised..just curious.. great going....
Oh thank you very very much. I try not to be biased.
0:18 this is a simple test. If guy use word "moscovia" or think that russian history started after mongol's occupation he is 100% not russian.
This is in context to autocracy which was lacking in Kievan Rus. My next video is on Kievan Rus so no, I don't think Russian history started after the Mongol occupation.
Alexander III is better long-lived monarchy
ew
hey, nice videos, but pls. abstain from calling me uneducated swine...
Don't be mad though
not mad, just please mind your manners...
that´s all
it's a joke calm down
I´m quite calm...
truth is that it is not a funny one...
see you are one of the few who actually do some interesting stuff helping me to refresh and keep my knoweledge...
sad how these days onyl way how to make joke is to insult others...
you obviously don't seem calm
Alexander II was a horrible person both in person and in his reign. The very existence of this distinction works against him.
The only thing we can be grateful for is that he serves as a demonstration to the innate Liberalism of Absolutism.
but how horrible was he in respect to other Czars?
Blitz Of The Reich
Russia has had no truly good Tsar after Peter the Apostate.
The exception goes to St. Nicholas II but his sainthood isn't based on his statesmanship but on his martyrdom.
The abolition of Serfdom did the same thing as Maria-Theresa's reforms in Austria did, it created an exodus of country-people to the city, who now free from the Lord's control on their fertility had extremely large and destitute families, raising crime and lowering living standards.
The entire history of Petrine Russia is a great fight against the wave of Liberalism and trying to fight it with purely Petrine means, not realizing that it was Petrine conditions that brought about these problems. It's frustrating, cause political salvation is so close yet beyond the pale.
As for him as a person, his notorious affair while his wife was dying from disease speaks for itself.
The only good thing Anarchists ever did was his regicide.
It is apparent though, we both dislike him.
I dislike him for being progressive, you for not being progressive enough.
lol St Nicholas bwaahaha
Blitz Of The Reich
St. Nicholas II and the entire Romanov family have been canonized by the Orthodox Church
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_the_Romanovs
You forget mention that in Ukraine we also dont call him the Liberator(just for more historic complecity)
what do you call him?
Blitz Of The Reich He dont have nickname in our history books. For us he bad ruler, because he two times baned ukrainian language in literature and in religion.
@@bi-shop1803 interesting. Of course when I use the term liberator I don't excuse all his actions. Like I said in the video, the Russians under his regime slaughtered Northwestern Caucasians.
long name lol
his name or my name? lol
in order to know the past of the so-called Russians, you need to know that until 1922 the so-called Russians did not have their own state.I am ready to prove my case in open and serious discussions with other users.who is not afraid to know the truth about the past - I am waiting for your questions.there is something to discuss
You sound like you're reading from a book man. What happens if you do that is the narration becomes monotonous (read boring)
Tubo Mite well I’m not. It’s dense material.
The devil is always in the details, young man. Don't watch so much TV.