Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
Lenin was the guy who said that revolution is perhaps the most authoritarian mode and praised the French revolution. So it's not like Stalin was this insane spin-off from his model
@@notthefbi7015 they were even worse. they were the ones who overthrew the soviet democracy (which wasn't that great anyway but still) and made russia into a one party dictatorship and made it normal to prosecute and kill other socialists even though they were all supposed to be on the same side. stalin just did what they did but to his own party.
Though he spoke with the old South side Dublin accent. Edward Said spoke with a similar accent : ua-cam.com/video/P8Ay8PYOiFo/v-deo.htmlsi=uwNL5RD79PZ7ZBnf
oh trotsky being the voice of reason ooof man it sure would be awkward if Trotsky had agreed with all of Stalin's actions but added "but i would've done it better" in his memoirs
It's also weird he's making Trotsky a moralist that is complaining about the soviet secret police when...well Trostsky justified the red terror and used secret police religiously.
@@REDACTED9494the man that taught lenin English had an Irish accent so when lenin spoke English he had an Irish accent as that is what he was taught by his teacher, I hope you understand.
I'm from Spain and my English accent is very much spanish, but as I learn English from USA teachers and media, my accent is clearly different from other Spaniards that learned English from UK teachers and media. To USA people I sound Spaniard. To UK people I sound American. Accents are not a black and white thing
.. Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
Correct, 1922 was the first stroke and he died 2 years later, I had an uncorrected brain fart and punched in the wrong number. This will join the time I said 1492 instead of 1452 in the fall of Constantinople video in the collection of blunders my brain randomly decides to remind me of
Oh absolutely not, whoever told you that was lying. Forced labor camps were an old idea when the revolution happened. Lenin, stalin, and Trotsky all spent times in the camps. Dostoyevsky spent time there too and wrote about it in Crime and Punishment. The Soviet Union did some bad shit, and the gulags were one of those, but they absolutely did not invent them
It always blows my mind how Stalin was so unprepared for war with Germany given he'd been collaborating with them in practically every sector of the economy AND military for TWENTY YEARS.
That's the greatest irony of the NDSAP's great struggle against the USSR. Weimar Germany tested new weapons, equipment, and military tactics in Russia under a veil of secrecy for years to avoid the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles... even in the early days of the party when Austrian painter was chancellor, Germany STILL cooperated with Russia under the table. By all means, Germany helped to refine Soviet military doctrine, but then they act surprised when they invade and the Russians actually manage to hold their own? Bruh.
Consider Stalins point of view. In 1941, he has had a good thing going with the Germans for 20 years. Sure, the Reich is under new management now, and said new management has raved about destroying communism for… living rooms? Eh, silly ramblings, in his younger years Stalin has also rambled about world revolution, but hey, realpolitik. Mr. h has also been very accommodating in carving up the East, and has selflessly taken the blame! Besides, Germany and the West are currently bleeding themselves dry in a silly rerun of the western front… oh wait, they’re already done? Oh nuts.
Stallin was a dumbass right to the very end, shipping off the doctors to Gulags who could saved his life. The only reason I can think of him ending up in charge of the USSR, is because the Bolsheviks distrusted one another to the point that only a usefull idiot could be trusted to be the secretary general. Stallin of course did the most obvious thing ever once he got that position and just hired thugs who were loyal to him. He them use the most brute force means of holding on to power by just killing everyone who opose him, instead of playing the Bolshevik political game. Nothing about the rise of Stallin was suttle or clever, just the worst human being possible been on the right position at the right time.
Just as unprepared as the massive army assembled in offensive formations on the German border. (it takes a tankie or someone even more retarded to not acknowledge that Stalin was planning on invading Europe and simply got surprised by the Germans striking first while still at war with Britain)
Slight correction. The Bolsheviks didn't win the parliamentary election. The social democratic party, the SRP (party of socialist revolutionaries) won with over 17 million votes, while the Bolsheviks only managed over 10 million. Lenin and his party respected the will of the people by storming the assembly, declaring it void, and setting him and his cohorts up as the leading party.
A lot of corrections: 1) the soviet government wasn't funded by bank robberies, it was the RSDRP back when it was an underground party. Mensheviks were in this party and also benefitted from what little money could be used. 2) why Mensheviks and not SRs mentioned? Mensheviks were miniscule in October 1917 compared to either Bolsheviks or SRs. 3) Moscow? Excuse me? It was Petrograd where the October Revolution took place. 4) I feel this white washes Trotsky for a simpler narrative, primarily for comedy. Just to clarify, Trotsky was... Complicated. 5) Lenin died in 1924, not 1922, wtf, this is Googlable. 6) Stalin didn't, in fact, design the first five uear plan to catch up to the west while they were down with the Great Depression. This is anarchronistic, 1928 is when the first five year olan started. Again, tells a better story, but doesn't tell the actual story. 6) By "27 million on the Russian side akone", I think you mean "on the Soviet side alone". Millions of those people were Jews, Ukranians and Belarusians, and hundreds of thousands of others, come on! Overall, I actually did like the video. But, come on, look over at your scripts! At least to the point you get Lenin's death date correct!
6) offial soviet and russian sources say "russian losses" / "Losses of the soviet people". Or are you telling me that putin is lying when he says "over 25 million dead russians due to the nazi invasion" in every interview for the past 10 years? there is no "ukraine/Jew/Belarus" and so on in the soviet union. YOu speak russian as your russian leaders do, and if you are lucky you might be allowed to list another ethicity behind "soviet/russian" and if really lucky you might even learn your language as a second language
One big thing left out of this was the actual rebrand, not just the reconstitution. Stalin rebranded the USSR internationally as more moderate and liberal with the Stalin Constitution of 1936, which was on paper much more closely aligned with the West than the original constitution. This is a huge part of why the West was able to pivot away from their anti-communist stance during WW2. Stalin was seen as a moderate voice who had wrangled power away from the extremists of Lenin and Trotsky
I mean in terms of foreign policy wasn't he genuinely more moderate I mean didn't Lenin and Trotsky want worldwide revolution while Stalin preached "socialism in one country"
@@Patrickballhater The socialist agenda at it's core is international, yes: the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in the hopes that the Communist revolution would afterwards take hold in Europe, most especially Germany, and that failed spectacularly. How exactly? Through the purposeful hunting down & murdering in 1919 of Germany's labor militants (which I'll use as a catch-all term for *socialists and Communists,* bcuz to say that over and over'll be a _mouthful)_ by right-wing *_Friekorps_* paramilitaries comprising veteran WWI troops as organized by the right-wing of Germany's own Socialist Party (Social Democratic Party) such had taken power within the newly established Weimar Republic. Amongst those murdered was Polish-Jew German communist Rosa Luxemburg as well as Karl Liebknecht, son of iirc co-founder of the SDP Wilhelm Liebknecht. A number of those Friekorps troops would in later years fill in the ranks of the NSDAP's SA and SS paramilitaries.
Dude, look at the post ww2 map and see how much territory they controlled. He said one thing but did another thing. I mean hell just look up the spy games that happened during the Cold War or the Spanish civil war.
@@Patrickballhaterpretty much. Just don't let anyone tell you that Trotsky wanted to do so at bayonet-point, thats a fabrication amd smth he even said hed criticise if the soviet buerocracy did so post ww2 (land seizure and top-down socialism through occupation)
An important correction: the death toll of 27 million in WWII was on the Soviet side, not just Russian. A huge chunk of that 27 mil was other ethnic groups.
im surprised you skipped over the great purge the main reason the USSR sucked in the war Like the purge removed three of five marshals, 13 of 15 army commanders, eight of nine admirals 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. I'm surprised any officers were left
@@joaovilaca1436 No,clipping the red army so much that even the small finish civilian army given it a very hard time and causing millions of casualties in the first months of the war didn't ensured it wan. It's only thanks to Zhukov, Vasilevsky, Konev and Rokossovsky who managed to salvage and rebuild the Red army in it's darkest hour and finish Tukhachevsky work. The way you can see the outcome as good is that the reds didn't dominate Europe completely.
@@Woody_FloridaPartly that, some of it just the NKVD legitimately hating the Red Army. Interservice rivalry still plays a role in how purges like these happen...
@@Woody_Florida Serfdom has already been abolished for more than 70 years. The problem with the execution of orders - the army was controlled by the NKVD-OGPU, it was difficult to start any kind of conspiracy here.
Ehhhhhhh slight nitpick: Communism (in its final state) doesn't agitate for the abolition of the state per se, that there's *no* government, just that things become so collectivised that the state becomes irrelevant. Or as Engels put it: "the state is not 'abolished', it withers away". That's in contrast to anarchism, where the aim *is* the total absence of a government and state.
No, government and state are not the same thing. State is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence. A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community. A government is something a state can have, but a state is not needed for a government to exist, as was the case for most of human history. To make it as simple as possible once communism is reached there are no classes and therefore no need for a state to violently enforce the class distinctions and private property (meaning capital and the means of production, not toothbrushes), only for a government. You could even say that it would be a "state" run by workers (again, in this case that means everyone), for the workers, of the workers. So in essence pure and total democracy. Anarchism does *not* aim for the absence of a government. Anarchism and communism both aim to achieve the same thing: a stateless, classless and moneyless society. The main difference is the way in which it is achieved. Communists want socialism as an intermediate period/system in whichever particular way they happen to like while anarchists generally want to immedaitely abolish the state etc. The distinctions become a little muddy at this level.
Fun fact, Trotsky is not quiet the Communist purist as he’s portrayed. He, not Stalin, was the one who instituted the Officer corp, and re-established discipline in the Army. He was more in favour of War Communism then NEP (New Economic Policy), despite you know, the 600,000-2 million deaths it caused. Furthermore the Grain Requisitions he was also heavily in favour for, as it supplied the army with much needed rations. So comparing him to Napoleon, with whole betrayal of the ideas of Revolution, for a stronger revolution is pretty spot on, he was also a key General, pretty good at his job so that also works. He was also in favour of the Red Terror, which is where Stalin got his ideas for the Great Terror. Think of it like, Lenins is Coke Classic, Stalins is Raspberry Coke (because it’s tasteless and detestable) and Trotsky is Coke Zero, supposedly better for you, until you do a quick google on what aspartame does to you.
This video is full of inaccuracies. 1.Bolseviks didnt get elected into parlament, they got elected into a "constituent assembly" - a gathering that wouls determine how the new Russian republic would be governed, but not an actual legislative body, that would be Duma 2.They didnt "have to share power with menchiviks", neither they nor Menchiviks had a majority or even plurality, another socialist party, "Sovialist Revlolutionary Party" had the majority. 3.It did not happen on Moskow, but jn Petrograd, which was the capital of the Russian state at the time.
It also makes Trotsky look like a "sensible man", which is insane. He was one of the architects of the Red Army, responsible for much of the attrocities of the Red Terror and "wartime communism", including forced requisition of grain which you had talked ablut for all of 30 seconds.
@@taan1424 I think the sensible Trotsky was an artistic choice, to have a familiar face butting heads with Stalin. It might also be a hangover from the "Trotsky and Lenin were alright, it was Stalin who was mad" way of thinking, that used to be very popular in the western internet about a decade ago - look at Lenin's portrayal in Epic Rap Battles of History's "Stalin vs Rasputin". Not gonna lie, I liked this video and I understand why Rackam did it, but it was bugging me as well, because it is spreading a false narrative by accident.
@@taan1424Yeah the most sensible were probably the liberal cadets. The mensheviks could be pretty alright too. In the way they disagreed with the Bolsheviks. As in the importance of a bourgeoise state before turning to communism. And alot of them didn't like Lenin accepting of violent and downright amoral people. There was one affair when some guy had an affair with a girl backtalked her, ruined her life and she ended herself. People were outraged. But Lenin found him useful. And didn't kick him out. That was part of the split.
Okay, overall, I agree with the thesis of this video. The Soviet Union was more or less, just a giant company town....That being said, there were some really big and small errors made in this video that do need to be addressed. -1. By 1919, The mensheviks were basically irrelevant in politics, as I think they only got like 10% of the vote in that Assembly. It was actually the social revolutionaries who had won the majority vote in that election, which put the Bolsheviks in a minority government. And instead of giving up power, they closed the The assembly, said that the vote was rigged, and then formed the all Bolshevik Assembly. -2. While the Bolsheviks did take over multiple buildings, this wasn't in 1919. This was actually during the October Revolution of 1917. When the vote for the 1919 assembly was happening, the Bolsheviks were kind of the de facto rulers, but they wanted an election to legitimize their power. However, when they lost the election, coming in second out of all the parties, then they just closed the assembly. So they already were in control of everything. -3. As much as I like. George Orwell, George Orwell did us a great disservice by painting Trotsky as the voice of reason. He wasn't. He agreed with everything that Stalin did, just tried to frame it that it would have had better results if he was the one who was in charge doing it. Even the 5-year plan was trotsky's plan, which I think was trying to be hinted at in the video, but I think the joke would have been better if Stalin's PowerPoint had "By Leon Trotsky" But then trotsky's names was crossed out and in red had Stalin's name in there. -4. The banning and de-powering of labor unions in the Soviet Union, actually happened during the Russian civil War, while Lenin was still alive. This was done under the guise of "War Communism", or the idea that you can't have anybody arguing against the state, while the state fights to preserve itself. I hate Stalin, but Lenin was the one to ban labor unions. -5. Trotsky and Stalin weren't the only potential successors to Lenin. in fact, if I remember correctly, neither of them were even the first choice. The reason why Stalin came to power once Lenin died, had to do with his position as general secretary. He was in charge of all communications amongst the Bolsheviks, and use that power to create a coalition behind him, while alienating his opponents through misinformation, missing information, And other tomfoolery. Such as Lenin's last will and testament mysteriously disappearing, but you could trust Stalin, Stalin knew what Lenin wanted ;) -6: part of the reason Trotsky never got into power, was because everyone saw Trotsky as an outsider. Trotsky was a menshevik before he joined Bolsheviks. Trotsky even had entire speeches on how Lenin was dangerous to Russian democracy and communism before he eventually saw where the tides were going, and change sides. People saw him as an opportunist, And a Weasley one at that. And as much as people didn't like Stalin, Stalin had at least been there from the beginning. Again, on the Grand strokes of the video, the thesis is correct. The Soviet Union was not communist, it was just state capitalism, But there were In my opinion, too many simplifications that lead to a misunderstanding of the times and the events.
Other smaller gripes - Most of the Mensheviks didn't join the white army (though some did), as it was mostly filled with Monarchists and Liberals. We have a perception of the Russian civil war as just "Red vs White" when in reality it was more like "Red army vs White army vs Anarchists vs SR's vs Mensheviks vs Soviets (Soviet literally translates to Worker's councils) vs Towns outside Moscow vs Navy vs other Bolsheviks that rose up against Lenin"....I get why the oversimplification, as it doesn't pertain to Stalin, more the Civil war as a whole. - as far as we know, Neither Lenin nor Trotsky did Bank Heists, as the former was leader of the party, and the later was still a Menshevik at the time. -not one photo of Handsome young Stalin used? Missed comedic potential. -this was touched on, but there really should of been more air on Stalin's "Communism in one country" Philosophy. It was a Major departure from most "Communist", Socialist, Anarchists and even Marxist philosophy at the time. As much as Trotsky's "World-Revolution" would have bankrupted the U.S.S.R., it was more true to Marx than Stalin was. -mentioned prior, but a Soviet was actually a word for Worker's Council, which makes it ironic they still kept calling themselves the Soviet Union when they banned the Soviets back during the Civil War. _________ Edit - I get Trotsky here is mostly being used as a narrative device to show how hypocritical The Bolsheviks were being, but Trotsky being against burning a random villages is kind of laughable considering as a General, he was in charge for the slaughter of the anarchists.
Fun but perhaps little known fact about George Orwell; seeing as you mention him: He was actually pro- the idea of a constitutional monarchy (not in a absolute sense, but as a bulwark against dictatorship), believe it or not. Or at least, had come to that conclusion after the Second World War, anyway. Not...that unusual amongst some (not all, but some) leftists in the UK to be honest.
From what I understand Lenin wanted Trotsky to be his successor but Trotsky said no because many within and outside the party were very antisemetic. Either way Trotsky would've probably been as bad as Stalin.
@@Hideyoshi1991 It might be possible, but we're getting into speculations. Especially with the supposed Lenin's testament, which it's s authenticity is debatable, Even if personally, if the letter itself isn't true, I think many of the contents inside probably were, maybe just not explicitly written down by Lenin himself. Honestly, I don't think Trotsky had a chance. But I'm not even entirely sure Lenin would have wanted Trotsky in. There was the anti-Semitism, but as I said prior, Trotsky was a menshevik who changed sides just in time for the February Revolution. He was weasley, And Was elitist, especially with his aligning amongst intellectuals compared to the rest of the party. Trotsky would have been just as bad. He probably wouldn't have committed war crimes against the Jewish people, but he was much smarter than Stalin, And probably could have wrote much more convincing propaganda for the war crimes of the Soviet Union.
It does if you've never read anything by anyone who's lived there. Where has there ever been a company town where it was easier for the workers to fire their manager than the other way around? None of this is based on contemporary historical scholarship based on the Soviet Archives or by the experiences of people who lived there which begs the question of where your idea of what the Soviet Union was like comes from? Robert Conquest? The Black Book of Communism? There's a reason there's no sources for this video and none of the people commenting can even tell you where their ideas of what the USSR was like come from. It's just pop culture knowledge based on Cold War narratives that don't stand up to scrutiny. Even liberal anti-communist historians have abandoned the "totalitarian model" of understand the Soviet system.
Pretty accurate, but by definition all socialism is and always will be a monopoly by the proletarian and the state (controlled by the proletarian). Basically, yeah read Austrian economics
UM ACTUALLY, Leon Trotsky was as down with militaristic totalitarianism as Lenin and Stalin were - he just didn't want Stalin to be the one in charge of it.
@@mattism.7594Trotsky's works both during the revolution and after his exile are pretty clear about his views on the matter, being fully in support with single-party dictatorship. In fact, he was the original architect of what would become Stalin's five year plans. His main criticism of Stalin's implementation of the plans were the party not rellying enough on technical experts on certain matters and that Stalin would not follow his vision precisely (which is politician for "it should have been me"). The myth of Trotsky being Lenin's real heir or being a real alternative to Stalin is that, a myth. Trotsky was seen even by fellow party members as a megalomaniac militarist, which is why it was so easy for Stalin (someone who had been a bolshevik from the begining and who had worked in the nuts and bolts of civil government instead of the military) to oust him from the party.
@@ismaelismael8543 I am sorry, but i have heard to this point all kind of stories about trotzky being an dictatoral maniac to the point of being a soviet democrat, when you please give me a source like some book, video (pls not from TikHistory, this guy has no idea what fascism ot socialism is), or some articel. This request is really not meant to be offensive, i am just not sure what i should think about Trotzky.
@@mattism.7594No offense taken. I'm actually happy to find someone critical of internet info for a change. I would recomend Trotsky - Downfall of a Revolutionary for a dissection of Trotsky's character in particular. Also, there's Great Rivals of History, which has a chapter focusing on Trotsky and Stalin's rivalry in particular. While the latter isn't as in depth as i would like, it offers a glimpse of why Stalin was able to win in their power struggle for control. Also, i would try to find primary sources, such as Trotsky's personal writtings both during the events and after his exile. I read them back when i had access to institue library and files, but i'm sure they could be found in the internet (though i would obviously be cautious in terms of how factual they are, their translation and the historical context in which they would have been written)
Your animation have improved so much. Used to just listen to your stuff while multitasking because the writing was already funny, the added little body acting of your characters helps it a lot and I find myself stopping what im doing to watch it.
Also Stalin: >Restores, or perhaps rather introduces ranks to the Red Army (they had been abolished in 1917) in 1935. >Restores/introduces Tsarist-style shoulder boards and parade uniforms for the red army, as well as the Rank of Marshal. >Created a whole host of awards (eg the Order of Alexander Nevsky, the Order of Ushakov, etc) that harked back to the Tsarist and Russian past. >Stopped persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church at the outbreak (and for the duration) of the war in order to let them support the war effort, and let them open seminaries and elect a new Patriarch.
Also Stalin: Was a paranoid asshat such that you would not *_believe,_* that he Commenced in 1937 with a rather infamous purging of the officer's corps within the army and navy; apparently some 1+ million Soviet troops such were held in Germany as POWs returned home to that Stalin, suspecting them to be compromised during their tenure being held captive in Germany, saw half of them put on mock trial and... sent to the gulag; his idiot self famously died in 1953 that he'd recently engaged with a purging of the USSR's Jewish populace as comprised many of the country's most highly-skilled and trained physicians, that any actually _adequate_ doctors/nurses who *could've/would've* seen to him such that he suffered a heart attack (?) that day were by and large slaving away in the prison labor camps. T_T
Not to mention: >Favorably compared himself to Ivan the Terrible- you know, one of those "very bourgeois" (and bloodthirsty, if memory serves) *tsars* the Bolsheviks supposedly "hated so much." Like, did anyone even *previously mention* Ivan during the conversations and/or speeches where Stalin brought up Ivan, or did he just bring Ivan up "at random" sometimes to compare himself to the man? Cuz if the latter, that's extremely sus, ngl
@@Whoo711 the Tsars/Emperors would have been by definition members of the upper class (ie, aristocracy) rather than middle class (bourgeois), but yeah, pretty much
@@Whoo711 "Do you know who I am like, comrades?" "No-let me guess Comrade Stalin-a great reformer like Alexander I or Catherine the Great? A liberator like Alexander II? A great warlord like Peter the Great? A visionary like our beloved Lenin? Another founder of the state, like Vladimir the Great?" "No; I was thinking more 'Russian Caligula'."
@@jonathanwebster7091Bourgeous in marxist thinking refers to the class which controls the means of production. There's no middle class or a distinction between an aristocrat and a factory owner, because you either own a means to production or you don't. In that context, a Tzar would be a bourgeous, as he would own lands, farms, etc.
Lenin insulted Trotsky more than Stalin, Trotsky burned down more villages than Stalin and was more cruel but was a total nerd jealous of Stalins competency and popularity.
I think Trotsky was a terrible person and most of the time he was just popular because he managed to convince Western European leftists... How can one "export the revolution" if one struggles to defend against an invasion with over 2 decades of prep time? The USSR wasn't in a place to do that. Also Stalin didn't use human wave tactics, the war was literally the largest frontline in human history against an enemy bent on commiting genocide, which made it a bloody and costly affair for all parties. Soviet tacticians and strategists after the intial setback in 1941 were quite skilled and cared a lot about not wasting lives as much as you couldnin such a situation.
I think Trostky often gets really favorable treatment in histories of the Russian Revolution because we know what happened with Stalin, and it's hard to imagine anything worse, but it's worth pointing out that Trotsky was totally down with the Red Terror and many of the collectivist policies that killed so many under Stalin were actually originally Trotsky's idea.
2:43: "Who wants to talk about communism. This will make you so much more fun at job interviews." "I think this company should be nationalized." While you can have Socialism with all assets being controlled by a *democratic* state, you can also have it by employees controlling their company. It just requires workers controlling the means of production. Do note that I'm talking aboot Socialism in a Marxist political-theory sense, not in the sense of what "Communist" countries did. Much in the way North Korea calling itself a "Democracy" doesn't make it so. *Nerdily adjusts nonexistent glasses*
Worker co-ops make up 44% of China's agriculture sector and even more in Vietnam. This Western assumption that workplace democracy has never existed in socialist countries is typical American historical illiteracy. Workplace committees are a thing in the constitution of the DPRK. How that works out in practice I will admit is hard to tell. Unlike most in the West I don't assume I'm an expert on countries based solely on what the media in the West says about them. Hell the Soviet Archives are mostly public now. You can read the minutes on meetings where managers were elected and fired by the workers. There's really no excuse at this point for historically illiterate Americans who fancy themselves "socialists" to be thoughtlessly parroting the words of Cold War propagandists who have been largely debunked in academia.
@@DinoCism- Hard to tell? It works out horribly, that is like the easiest thing to see if you have any historical literacy. Furthermore, why would you want socialism when capitalism gives you total freedom to start a company and give every worker an equal share and an equal vote? Why would you trade freedom for a strict model which doesn’t work? Oh ya, because socialists can’t do anything well so they want to steal other people’s stuff, they were, are, and will always be a joke.
Stalin lived happily ever after...Except for the long lingering painful death that might have been prevented if anyone was brave enough to enter the room (or he was poisoned by his staff, no one really knows).
Stalin wasn't blindsided by the war, just on the specific date it happened as the union had planned for the war to start in 1942. But by 1941 they had already enmassed enough preparation to lead to the victory against the nazis (considering they had more tanks than all the western powers combined for instance) Also worth noting that after the civil war, life for the average Joe dramatically improved up until WW2 so the people had good reason to be cooperative with the new government (even when it ended up being a one step forward two steps back kind of deal, such as the mass industrialization of Siberia)
I think it’s important to note that communist system (and by extension economic system) under Stalin was very much system built on fear. During Stalin’s reign before WW2, USSR’s industrialization rates were absolutely insane (think 4-5% GDP growth and 8-10% industrial output growth per year during Great Depression). During the same time, average joe’s standard of living began to decrease rapidly. Mid level management length of service on gov enterprises was on average a 18-26mo long, people were literally dying of overwork. The culture of Soviet economics at that time was to put responsibility on mid level management - these guys would just as often die from natural causes as they would perish from gov executions, or get sent to Labor Camps. In any case, everything has a price and Stalin was just a terrible person.
Fun fact: the symbol on the wall (on the left) at 5:44 circulates around the net as the supposed symbol of the Mensheviks, but it's not accurate. It's clearly inspired by the real emblem of the Republic of Udmurtia though. I remember that a couple of years ago I saw it in some other video, and I think I've traced it to someone's alternative history project on DeviantArt.
elaborate. It is widely know and proven that Lenin did not want Stalin to take over. Such statements where not made about trotsky. Hence Stalin was 100%below Trotskz on Lenins list. That does not mean he was high up either.
@@AlphaHorst In Lenin's life he wrote many more times about the errors of Trotsky in relation to Stalin, this idea that it was Stalin who was the more critized one only became prominent after Trotsky was ran away from the USSR to the west. And even if it was the other way around, the Soviet Union wasn't an appointed monarchy, the party had elections to put people in charge, and in those elections the Trotskyist factions in the aftermath of Lenin's death, lost hard, while Stalin's group gained power by having the most supported ideas in the party. I can look up the sources later on if you wish.
@pedroalexandredillemburg3751 oh I am not arguing that Trotsky was disliked/liked in the party, especially after his supporters got gulaged after his grandiose "no peace no war" initiative. It's just that we know that Lenin did not want stalin to succeed him so trotsky is on top by default. The idea that stalin was voted in any way into power is however not one I would support. He placed his supporters into the voting powers and almost all of his critics got sent to the gulag or simply vanished. So Stalin very much changed the odds to be in his absolute favourm
Considering Jack Rackam‘s track record, I’m very shocked he didn’t mention the fact that Stalin tried to start a second holocaust on the Jews in Russia and the eastern bloc, and the only reason he never fully implemented it was because he died.
@@Woody_Florida Communism and ironically fascism Commie tears not withstanding, but they've been calling everything that isn't communist fascist as official party doctrine since the 1940s
as someone who consideres himself somewhere on the left, i find stalinist very funny. "Nono guys, if the state is allowed to do capitalism its ok, the workers arent tho. True equality "
Lenin: "We proudly take one step backwards to Capitalism". roflmao. Every citizen was trapped. A time when complete alcoholism ended up being the correct life choice, because all effort was punished w more tasks.
I came across your channel this morning at around 8:00. I've been watching none stop.It's 18:27. Really great channel! It is entertaining and your scripts are accurate. You've got yourself a new fan!
The Socialist Revolutionary Party always gets left out of the story of Russia, and it shouldn't. They were the primary ones getting beaten by the Czar while the future Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were saying 'minor reforms' like destroying the extant, oppressive, hyper-centralized state in favor of democratic, checked, and federalized civil government would "never work." They also successfully won the revolution and every fair election thereafter, and they did hold fair elections, twice, before the new prime minister tried to arrest Lenin and he and his loyalists launched a second civil war.
4:44 Actually it was Trotsky who organized the takeover and was more in favor of "organization and discipline." He was the one who abolished the soldier councils and replaced it with a proffessional army, he even enlisted former tsarist officers to join something that Stalin was against.
The high casualties were more due to German genocidal actions against civilians in occupied regions. The Soviets initially didn't clarify this until after the fall of the soviet union when records of USSR performence in the second world war were initially opened before being sealed again by Putin. It wasn't because, "use more men" as the soviets didn't use human wave tactics, in fact a lot of the lost land early in operation barbarossa was due to various tactical withdrawls as part of the deep defense doctrine combined with unpreparedness due to the purges and ongoing reorganization of high command. Ultimately though the soviets still saw the highest casualties among their army compared to the UK and the US, it is nowhere near to the sheer overwhelming extent long believed by many as that sheer extent was soviet propaganda taking civilian losses and adding it to military losses. The eastern front was the most brutal and russia did lose a lot of soldiers...but their losses militarily were probably closer to Germany's own military casualties on the front during the latter half of the war. Suffice it to say the trope of, "use more men" while funny, is highly innacurate
Well said, though if you understand the communist ideology, and how the USSR recognized its people and labor, a farmer was awarded medals like a soldier, a factory worker too, all people of the Soviet Union were fighting in this war, whether from the front or the back. But yes, Soviet military doctrine and even modern Russian doctrine (Russia =/= USSR btw) are not "human wave" tactics, that's western propaganda to de-humanize these people, makes it easier for people to be bloodthirsty ghouls about it all.
@@jamieevans4317 Less western and more remaining nazi propaganda popularized by nazis who were captured by the US and their memoirs spread propaganda about the USSR that was believed during the cold war and still hasn't fully left popular outlook on the USSR and Modern Russia.
Thank you for using pictures of Trotsky. Usually people always mess up and they add one picture of Kamenev in there. Or the other guy with a goatee. Good on you.
Great video as always :))) Only complaint is portraying the Soviet victory as just throwing people into a meat grinder rather than German incompetence or actual Soviet skill on a strategic level.
A small but important correction: A lot of times in this video, you say "Russian" when you should be saying "Soviet". Like when discussing the death toll of the lands that were invaded by the Germans. Ukrainians and Belarussians suffered a lot as did the other ethnic minorities of the USSR (making up about half of the overall Soviet death toll due to the war). In terms of percentage death toll relative to the pre-war population, Belarus lost 25% of it's population and Ukraine lost about 16, Russia lost about 13. And the Soviet lands that the Germans occupied and brutalized were mostly Ukrainian, Belarussian, and Polish lands
It's commonplace to refer to the USSR as "Russia" or "Russian" because that part of the country was in charge. Just how the British Empire is called "Britain" despite most of its population (and a lot of its soldiers in WW2) were in fact not British. I agree that it's more correct to say Soviet, but Russian isn't too far from the truth.
PLEASE tell me you did Lenin with an Irish accent because of the story about him learning his English accent from the Irish immigrants he met in Clerkenwell when he was doing translation work.
Fun Fact: Georgy Zhukov said that Stalin's one military talent was as a Military Economist. Or in other words he knew how to reserve lots of soldiers for this or that battle that needed to be fough.
@JackRackam thanks Jack, super interested. I would have signed up for this one but I own a firework stand in June/July. Thanks again for all the great content and for teaching us history in a very entertaining way over the years!
@@neighborhoodmusicsnob5517 no, it was a deliberate genocide by iosif stalin and the communist party, of ukrainians and other minorities in the sssr that killed over 3 million people
In the description it states that it is from “Suno” called “Red Mist” (it’s the same song in the advertisement). Suno is probably the AI music software, so this song is probably a AI song. Which means that this song is probably not findable (unless you know how to). Which is unfortunate, because I like the song too.
Modern Socialists: "Trosky was such a chill dude and the USSR would have been much better with him in charge" Trosky himself: "All Baltic states are fictional, why is the red army so weak! I want violent insurrections all over the world"
I'm pretty disappointed in this video. I understand it is entertainment, but when covering real world history it is pretty important to not present an idea that is straight up wrong. The first issue is pretty minor, but I think indicative of the low factuality of this video. 7:55 Lenin didn't die in 1922, he died in 1924. The video presents Lenin as opposed to democracy entirely, in line with Stalin throughout 1917. This is absolutely wrong. He was opposed to parliamentary democracy, but not out of some abstract idealism, but because a much more democratic organ was in existence, that could take over the role of state from the Duma and Provisional Government: The soviets/worker and soldier councils. These were local organs of power, where rank-and-file workers and soldiers met to elect deputies as local leaders, and delegates to regional and national meetings of all the soviets. Where workers had the power of recall over their delegates at any time, without having to wait 4-5 years for the next official election. This new state was seen by Lenin and Trotsky as being the foundation of the workers state. In fact, for most of 1917, Lenin's position wasn't that the Bolsheviks should overthrow the Provisional Government themselves (he at multiple times attempted to talk down the working people of Petrograd), because he understood that the masses still had illusions in the Mensheviks and SRs. His slogan of "All power to the soviets" was explicitly declared to be aimed at urging the Mensheviks and SRs to complete the revolution in a peaceful way, since they had the majority both in the parliament and the soviets. Yes, you read that right: Lenin argued for peaceful transfer of power to the soviets, at a time when they were in the minority in what would then become the new state. Their aim wasn't power for the Bolsheviks alone, but a successful revolution. Lenin explained this in the text On Slogans: > "Apparently, not all the supporters of the slogan “All Power Must Be Transferred to the Soviets” have given adequate thought to the fact that it was a slogan for peaceful progress of the revolution-peaceful not only in the sense that nobody, no class, no force of any importance, would then (between February 27 and July 4) have been able to resist and prevent the transfer of power to the Soviets. That is not all. Peaceful development would then have been possible, even in the sense that the struggle of classes and parties within the Soviets could have assumed a most peaceful and painless form, provided full state power had passed to the Soviets in good time." When they finally overthrew the provisional government, that was after they had achieved a majority in the soviets, and after an attempted coup almost instilled a military dictatorship, had the Bolsheviks not intervened. Even after the revolution, the new Soviet government wasn't made up entirely of Bolsheviks, but the Left SRs who had split from the SRs joined, as a separate party. Lenin saw the tendency towards a one-party state as a dangerous development, because it mean foreign class interests would rise up in a hidden way within the party, instead of in the open between parties. Additionally, the video presents Lenin and Stalin as being of one mind. This is completely off the mark. Stalin played no major role in the course of 1917 itself (the number of times his name is mentioned in the eye witness account Ten Days That Shook the World can be counted on one hand). At the beginning of 1917, he was in charge of the party paper, and consistently censored or refused to publish Lenin's letters and theses he sent from afar, because he saw them as too radical. Before Lenin arrived back in Russia, he had entered into talks of merging with the Mensheviks! Whereas Lenin and Trotsky both argued for the need for overthrowing the provisional government, Stalin consistently struggled against this. As I stated, I understand that the video is entertainment. And edu-tainment is always a difficult balance to strike. But I feel like this video leans too heavily on the end of being entertainment at the expense of reduced factuality.
you should have told lenin that he considers the "local soviets" as superiour forms of democracy before he shut almost every single one down starting in 1918 whenever they disagreed with him
What is the name of the outro song (12:36)? I know the songs are credited in the description, but I don’t think this song has (Contredanse has many songs, so I don’t think it’s called Contredanse). I’ve now noticed that the song is also in 1:20 under the name “Suno - Red Mist”, but I can’t find the song anywhere.
All this does is make me think how people want to call Russia a communist when it obviously wasn’t. It was a monarchy with extra steps and a new name. Besides the fact the only reason the USSR survived ww2 was because of US intervention. Germany would not have been able to take over, but the loss of man power after a couple more years of fighting would have caused the government of Russia to collapse.
Well, monarchies can be democratic too-I mean, that's literally what constitutional monarchies;where the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead, and the democratically elected government runs the country(like Britain and Denmark, etc.) are. Unless you mean an absolute monarchy (where the monarch has complete power), ehhh kind of, but then Stalin didn't give power to any of his children (which is why North Korea could be considered a *de facto* hereditary absolute monarchy, even if its a republic on paper).
Also the Soviet Union wasn't communist-in the sense that communism was the *end result* of what the world revolution was supposed to achieve, where all property was owned by everyone in kind, and the state, while not being abolished, stopped being relevant (and 'withers away'). In the sense that it or any other communist state ever achieved that, it wasn't communist in that sense.
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video & for the free product! Head to keeps.com/jackrackam to get a special offer. Individual results may vary.
Hey Jack!
Lenin died in 1924, not 1922
Is Keeps fine with Stalin as their spokesman?
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
Nice to see your video's again Jack. Hope you have a nice day or night wherever you are.
"Lenin was too worried about Trotsky becoming a second Napoleon, and failed to see Stalin becoming the original Stalin"
Lenin was the guy who said that revolution is perhaps the most authoritarian mode and praised the French revolution. So it's not like Stalin was this insane spin-off from his model
Stalin was chief of birocracy. Nothing could stop him after revolution.
@@cyberninjazero5659honestly Trotsky and Lenin were very very similar to Stalin.
Stalin was too worried about Tukhachevsky becoming a second Napoleon, and failed to see Hitler becoming the original Hitler.
@@notthefbi7015 they were even worse. they were the ones who overthrew the soviet democracy (which wasn't that great anyway but still) and made russia into a one party dictatorship and made it normal to prosecute and kill other socialists even though they were all supposed to be on the same side. stalin just did what they did but to his own party.
I like how Lenin has an Irish accent. He learned English from an Irishman. It's a nice little detail.
Agreed
*"First name Mario Sta last name Lin Mario"*
Thought I was the only one who noticed that attention to detail!
Though he spoke with the old South side Dublin accent. Edward Said spoke with a similar accent :
ua-cam.com/video/P8Ay8PYOiFo/v-deo.htmlsi=uwNL5RD79PZ7ZBnf
oh trotsky being the voice of reason ooof man it sure would be awkward if Trotsky had agreed with all of Stalin's actions but added "but i would've done it better" in his memoirs
It's also weird he's making Trotsky a moralist that is complaining about the soviet secret police when...well Trostsky justified the red terror and used secret police religiously.
@@wrightkaneradio4918 Yeah Trotsky was like the most brutal Bolshevik during the Civil War
@@wrightkaneradio4918I mean that was something Trosky would do
Yeah Trotsky's only real problem with Stalin was that Uncle Joe was in charge instead of We Have Colonel Sanders At Home
The guy who created this video is truly an example of being educated but still stupid. Or he knows he's lying. Probably a big Leftist extremist.
I love that you gave Lenin the Irish accent that his Irish born english teacher gave him.
That's not how accents work. He was Russian. So he would've spoken english with a Russian accent.
@@REDACTED9494the man that taught lenin English had an Irish accent so when lenin spoke English he had an Irish accent as that is what he was taught by his teacher, I hope you understand.
@@REDACTED9494 a russian accent isnt genetic you ding dong.
I'm from Spain and my English accent is very much spanish, but as I learn English from USA teachers and media, my accent is clearly different from other Spaniards that learned English from UK teachers and media. To USA people I sound Spaniard. To UK people I sound American. Accents are not a black and white thing
..
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
The inclusion of Lenin's Irish accent (which borders towards Scottish) is the cherry on the State owned cake.
*First name Mario Sta last name Lin Mario*
Lenin died in 1924, not 1922. That makes a big difference.
Correct, 1922 was the first stroke and he died 2 years later, I had an uncorrected brain fart and punched in the wrong number. This will join the time I said 1492 instead of 1452 in the fall of Constantinople video in the collection of blunders my brain randomly decides to remind me of
Came down to the comments looking for this. I would have made this comment if you didn't do it first.
@@JackRackamnot everyone is perfect.
@@JackRackamConstantinople fell in 1453
@@goldenfiberwheat238 Was talking about one of the preceding events lol
Fun fact, one of the only things Stalin agreed on with Trotsky was the gulag. That was Trotsky’s big idea.
not really
not to mention Stalin used terror in a VERY different way to Trotsky
@@zygoatindustriesStalin was a fan of terrorizing his own country, if it were up to Trotsky, he would have terrorized the rest of the world.
>And the use of terror to achieve what you want.
>the use of secret police
>And the utilisation of questionable facial hair choices.
@@jonathanwebster7091Stalins beard is good
Oh absolutely not, whoever told you that was lying.
Forced labor camps were an old idea when the revolution happened. Lenin, stalin, and Trotsky all spent times in the camps. Dostoyevsky spent time there too and wrote about it in Crime and Punishment. The Soviet Union did some bad shit, and the gulags were one of those, but they absolutely did not invent them
It always blows my mind how Stalin was so unprepared for war with Germany given he'd been collaborating with them in practically every sector of the economy AND military for TWENTY YEARS.
That's the greatest irony of the NDSAP's great struggle against the USSR. Weimar Germany tested new weapons, equipment, and military tactics in Russia under a veil of secrecy for years to avoid the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles... even in the early days of the party when Austrian painter was chancellor, Germany STILL cooperated with Russia under the table. By all means, Germany helped to refine Soviet military doctrine, but then they act surprised when they invade and the Russians actually manage to hold their own? Bruh.
Consider Stalins point of view. In 1941, he has had a good thing going with the Germans for 20 years. Sure, the Reich is under new management now, and said new management has raved about destroying communism for… living rooms? Eh, silly ramblings, in his younger years Stalin has also rambled about world revolution, but hey, realpolitik. Mr. h has also been very accommodating in carving up the East, and has selflessly taken the blame! Besides, Germany and the West are currently bleeding themselves dry in a silly rerun of the western front… oh wait, they’re already done? Oh nuts.
Well, he wasn't the smartest bulb in the hallway, nor the best manager
Stallin was a dumbass right to the very end, shipping off the doctors to Gulags who could saved his life. The only reason I can think of him ending up in charge of the USSR, is because the Bolsheviks distrusted one another to the point that only a usefull idiot could be trusted to be the secretary general. Stallin of course did the most obvious thing ever once he got that position and just hired thugs who were loyal to him. He them use the most brute force means of holding on to power by just killing everyone who opose him, instead of playing the Bolshevik political game. Nothing about the rise of Stallin was suttle or clever, just the worst human being possible been on the right position at the right time.
Just as unprepared as the massive army assembled in offensive formations on the German border.
(it takes a tankie or someone even more retarded to not acknowledge that Stalin was planning on invading Europe and simply got surprised by the Germans striking first while still at war with Britain)
Slight correction. The Bolsheviks didn't win the parliamentary election. The social democratic party, the SRP (party of socialist revolutionaries) won with over 17 million votes, while the Bolsheviks only managed over 10 million. Lenin and his party respected the will of the people by storming the assembly, declaring it void, and setting him and his cohorts up as the leading party.
also they never worked with the mensheviks i don't even know where they got that from
vanguard party goes brr
The chart at 5:18 shows the SRP in ascendance
SRs are not social democrats. Social Democrats are Mensheviks, and SRs are agrarian socialists with a patriotic bent.
@@wilsonscott2370 Ah so it was a joke. Apologies. I had it playing for background noise.
Stalin selling hair treatment
Tbf that hair sure be looking thick
Finally the second famous mustache man
Mario Stalin Mario?!?!
Failed Art Student ?!???
@@aleksandarvil5718 he’s in first place
A lot of corrections:
1) the soviet government wasn't funded by bank robberies, it was the RSDRP back when it was an underground party. Mensheviks were in this party and also benefitted from what little money could be used.
2) why Mensheviks and not SRs mentioned? Mensheviks were miniscule in October 1917 compared to either Bolsheviks or SRs.
3) Moscow? Excuse me? It was Petrograd where the October Revolution took place.
4) I feel this white washes Trotsky for a simpler narrative, primarily for comedy. Just to clarify, Trotsky was... Complicated.
5) Lenin died in 1924, not 1922, wtf, this is Googlable.
6) Stalin didn't, in fact, design the first five uear plan to catch up to the west while they were down with the Great Depression. This is anarchronistic, 1928 is when the first five year olan started. Again, tells a better story, but doesn't tell the actual story.
6) By "27 million on the Russian side akone", I think you mean "on the Soviet side alone". Millions of those people were Jews, Ukranians and Belarusians, and hundreds of thousands of others, come on!
Overall, I actually did like the video. But, come on, look over at your scripts! At least to the point you get Lenin's death date correct!
Good list
6) offial soviet and russian sources say "russian losses" / "Losses of the soviet people". Or are you telling me that putin is lying when he says "over 25 million dead russians due to the nazi invasion" in every interview for the past 10 years?
there is no "ukraine/Jew/Belarus" and so on in the soviet union. YOu speak russian as your russian leaders do, and if you are lucky you might be allowed to list another ethicity behind "soviet/russian" and if really lucky you might even learn your language as a second language
this.
You could argue that "X's side" includes X and all allies and subjects of X.
Showing Trotsky not being a fan of harsh discipline made me have a spit take.
One big thing left out of this was the actual rebrand, not just the reconstitution. Stalin rebranded the USSR internationally as more moderate and liberal with the Stalin Constitution of 1936, which was on paper much more closely aligned with the West than the original constitution. This is a huge part of why the West was able to pivot away from their anti-communist stance during WW2. Stalin was seen as a moderate voice who had wrangled power away from the extremists of Lenin and Trotsky
I mean in terms of foreign policy wasn't he genuinely more moderate I mean didn't Lenin and Trotsky want worldwide revolution while Stalin preached "socialism in one country"
@@Patrickballhater
The socialist agenda at it's core is international, yes: the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in the hopes that the Communist revolution would afterwards take hold in Europe, most especially Germany, and that failed spectacularly. How exactly? Through the purposeful hunting down & murdering in 1919 of Germany's labor militants (which I'll use as a catch-all term for *socialists and Communists,* bcuz to say that over and over'll be a _mouthful)_ by right-wing *_Friekorps_* paramilitaries comprising veteran WWI troops as organized by the right-wing of Germany's own Socialist Party (Social Democratic Party) such had taken power within the newly established Weimar Republic. Amongst those murdered was Polish-Jew German communist Rosa Luxemburg as well as Karl Liebknecht, son of iirc co-founder of the SDP Wilhelm Liebknecht.
A number of those Friekorps troops would in later years fill in the ranks of the NSDAP's SA and SS paramilitaries.
Dude, look at the post ww2 map and see how much territory they controlled. He said one thing but did another thing. I mean hell just look up the spy games that happened during the Cold War or the Spanish civil war.
@@Patrickballhaterpretty much. Just don't let anyone tell you that Trotsky wanted to do so at bayonet-point, thats a fabrication amd smth he even said hed criticise if the soviet buerocracy did so post ww2 (land seizure and top-down socialism through occupation)
@@ambasutori9053 and how else was that supposed to happen?
I love how you kept in mind that Lenin famously spoke English with a thick Irish accent
Did Trotsky write the script for this video
If Trotsky did it would end like
"...Aaaaand that's why Stalin was terrible and Trotsky would've done all of that 1000 times better"
An important correction: the death toll of 27 million in WWII was on the Soviet side, not just Russian. A huge chunk of that 27 mil was other ethnic groups.
“You’ve been ✨radicalized ✨”
you know, nobody ever tried *REAL* communism. Now where is my pitchfork...
im surprised you skipped over the great purge the main reason the USSR sucked in the war
Like the purge removed three of five marshals, 13 of 15 army commanders, eight of nine admirals 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. I'm surprised any officers were left
Why did anyone follow his orders? No wait, I know the answer, "centuries of serfdom."
It is also the reason they won it.
@@joaovilaca1436
No,clipping the red army so much that even the small finish civilian army given it a very hard time and causing millions of casualties in the first months of the war didn't ensured it wan. It's only thanks to Zhukov, Vasilevsky, Konev and Rokossovsky who managed to salvage and rebuild the Red army in it's darkest hour and finish Tukhachevsky work. The way you can see the outcome as good is that the reds didn't dominate Europe completely.
@@Woody_FloridaPartly that, some of it just the NKVD legitimately hating the Red Army. Interservice rivalry still plays a role in how purges like these happen...
@@Woody_Florida Serfdom has already been abolished for more than 70 years. The problem with the execution of orders - the army was controlled by the NKVD-OGPU, it was difficult to start any kind of conspiracy here.
Ahhhh Finally a video dedicated to Cursed Russian Mario
Ehhhhhhh slight nitpick:
Communism (in its final state) doesn't agitate for the abolition of the state per se, that there's *no* government, just that things become so collectivised that the state becomes irrelevant.
Or as Engels put it: "the state is not 'abolished', it withers away".
That's in contrast to anarchism, where the aim *is* the total absence of a government and state.
That's one drop in an ocean of inaccuracies and idiocy presented in this video.
@DinoCism None more idiotic than being a communist in 2024. Like bro, it's s dead ideology and for good reason. Go try fascism or anarchism ig
No, government and state are not the same thing. State is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence. A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community. A government is something a state can have, but a state is not needed for a government to exist, as was the case for most of human history. To make it as simple as possible once communism is reached there are no classes and therefore no need for a state to violently enforce the class distinctions and private property (meaning capital and the means of production, not toothbrushes), only for a government. You could even say that it would be a "state" run by workers (again, in this case that means everyone), for the workers, of the workers. So in essence pure and total democracy.
Anarchism does *not* aim for the absence of a government. Anarchism and communism both aim to achieve the same thing: a stateless, classless and moneyless society. The main difference is the way in which it is achieved. Communists want socialism as an intermediate period/system in whichever particular way they happen to like while anarchists generally want to immedaitely abolish the state etc. The distinctions become a little muddy at this level.
Imagine giant nomenclature needed for planned economy being like: I guess u don't need me anymore, bye
Fun fact, Trotsky is not quiet the Communist purist as he’s portrayed. He, not Stalin, was the one who instituted the Officer corp, and re-established discipline in the Army. He was more in favour of War Communism then NEP (New Economic Policy), despite you know, the 600,000-2 million deaths it caused. Furthermore the Grain Requisitions he was also heavily in favour for, as it supplied the army with much needed rations. So comparing him to Napoleon, with whole betrayal of the ideas of Revolution, for a stronger revolution is pretty spot on, he was also a key General, pretty good at his job so that also works. He was also in favour of the Red Terror, which is where Stalin got his ideas for the Great Terror. Think of it like, Lenins is Coke Classic, Stalins is Raspberry Coke (because it’s tasteless and detestable) and Trotsky is Coke Zero, supposedly better for you, until you do a quick google on what aspartame does to you.
This video is full of inaccuracies.
1.Bolseviks didnt get elected into parlament, they got elected into a "constituent assembly" - a gathering that wouls determine how the new Russian republic would be governed, but not an actual legislative body, that would be Duma
2.They didnt "have to share power with menchiviks", neither they nor Menchiviks had a majority or even plurality, another socialist party, "Sovialist Revlolutionary Party" had the majority.
3.It did not happen on Moskow, but jn Petrograd, which was the capital of the Russian state at the time.
It also makes Trotsky look like a "sensible man", which is insane. He was one of the architects of the Red Army, responsible for much of the attrocities of the Red Terror and "wartime communism", including forced requisition of grain which you had talked ablut for all of 30 seconds.
@@taan1424 I think the sensible Trotsky was an artistic choice, to have a familiar face butting heads with Stalin. It might also be a hangover from the "Trotsky and Lenin were alright, it was Stalin who was mad" way of thinking, that used to be very popular in the western internet about a decade ago - look at Lenin's portrayal in Epic Rap Battles of History's "Stalin vs Rasputin".
Not gonna lie, I liked this video and I understand why Rackam did it, but it was bugging me as well, because it is spreading a false narrative by accident.
@@taan1424Yeah the most sensible were probably the liberal cadets. The mensheviks could be pretty alright too. In the way they disagreed with the Bolsheviks. As in the importance of a bourgeoise state before turning to communism. And alot of them didn't like Lenin accepting of violent and downright amoral people. There was one affair when some guy had an affair with a girl backtalked her, ruined her life and she ended herself. People were outraged. But Lenin found him useful. And didn't kick him out. That was part of the split.
Jack actually uses the correct composition figure at 5:20, with the SRs overwhelmingly dominant
@@martinmortyry7444 it's not accident at all, it's deliberate misinformation
Okay, overall, I agree with the thesis of this video. The Soviet Union was more or less, just a giant company town....That being said, there were some really big and small errors made in this video that do need to be addressed.
-1. By 1919, The mensheviks were basically irrelevant in politics, as I think they only got like 10% of the vote in that Assembly. It was actually the social revolutionaries who had won the majority vote in that election, which put the Bolsheviks in a minority government. And instead of giving up power, they closed the The assembly, said that the vote was rigged, and then formed the all Bolshevik Assembly.
-2. While the Bolsheviks did take over multiple buildings, this wasn't in 1919. This was actually during the October Revolution of 1917. When the vote for the 1919 assembly was happening, the Bolsheviks were kind of the de facto rulers, but they wanted an election to legitimize their power. However, when they lost the election, coming in second out of all the parties, then they just closed the assembly. So they already were in control of everything.
-3. As much as I like. George Orwell, George Orwell did us a great disservice by painting Trotsky as the voice of reason. He wasn't. He agreed with everything that Stalin did, just tried to frame it that it would have had better results if he was the one who was in charge doing it. Even the 5-year plan was trotsky's plan, which I think was trying to be hinted at in the video, but I think the joke would have been better if Stalin's PowerPoint had "By Leon Trotsky" But then trotsky's names was crossed out and in red had Stalin's name in there.
-4. The banning and de-powering of labor unions in the Soviet Union, actually happened during the Russian civil War, while Lenin was still alive. This was done under the guise of "War Communism", or the idea that you can't have anybody arguing against the state, while the state fights to preserve itself. I hate Stalin, but Lenin was the one to ban labor unions.
-5. Trotsky and Stalin weren't the only potential successors to Lenin. in fact, if I remember correctly, neither of them were even the first choice. The reason why Stalin came to power once Lenin died, had to do with his position as general secretary. He was in charge of all communications amongst the Bolsheviks, and use that power to create a coalition behind him, while alienating his opponents through misinformation, missing information, And other tomfoolery. Such as Lenin's last will and testament mysteriously disappearing, but you could trust Stalin, Stalin knew what Lenin wanted ;)
-6: part of the reason Trotsky never got into power, was because everyone saw Trotsky as an outsider. Trotsky was a menshevik before he joined Bolsheviks. Trotsky even had entire speeches on how Lenin was dangerous to Russian democracy and communism before he eventually saw where the tides were going, and change sides. People saw him as an opportunist, And a Weasley one at that. And as much as people didn't like Stalin, Stalin had at least been there from the beginning.
Again, on the Grand strokes of the video, the thesis is correct. The Soviet Union was not communist, it was just state capitalism, But there were In my opinion, too many simplifications that lead to a misunderstanding of the times and the events.
Other smaller gripes
- Most of the Mensheviks didn't join the white army (though some did), as it was mostly filled with Monarchists and Liberals. We have a perception of the Russian civil war as just "Red vs White" when in reality it was more like "Red army vs White army vs Anarchists vs SR's vs Mensheviks vs Soviets (Soviet literally translates to Worker's councils) vs Towns outside Moscow vs Navy vs other Bolsheviks that rose up against Lenin"....I get why the oversimplification, as it doesn't pertain to Stalin, more the Civil war as a whole.
- as far as we know, Neither Lenin nor Trotsky did Bank Heists, as the former was leader of the party, and the later was still a Menshevik at the time.
-not one photo of Handsome young Stalin used? Missed comedic potential.
-this was touched on, but there really should of been more air on Stalin's "Communism in one country" Philosophy. It was a Major departure from most "Communist", Socialist, Anarchists and even Marxist philosophy at the time. As much as Trotsky's "World-Revolution" would have bankrupted the U.S.S.R., it was more true to Marx than Stalin was.
-mentioned prior, but a Soviet was actually a word for Worker's Council, which makes it ironic they still kept calling themselves the Soviet Union when they banned the Soviets back during the Civil War.
_________
Edit
- I get Trotsky here is mostly being used as a narrative device to show how hypocritical The Bolsheviks were being, but Trotsky being against burning a random villages is kind of laughable considering as a General, he was in charge for the slaughter of the anarchists.
Seconded
Fun but perhaps little known fact about George Orwell; seeing as you mention him:
He was actually pro- the idea of a constitutional monarchy (not in a absolute sense, but as a bulwark against dictatorship), believe it or not.
Or at least, had come to that conclusion after the Second World War, anyway.
Not...that unusual amongst some (not all, but some) leftists in the UK to be honest.
From what I understand Lenin wanted Trotsky to be his successor but Trotsky said no because many within and outside the party were very antisemetic. Either way Trotsky would've probably been as bad as Stalin.
@@Hideyoshi1991 It might be possible, but we're getting into speculations. Especially with the supposed Lenin's testament, which it's s authenticity is debatable, Even if personally, if the letter itself isn't true, I think many of the contents inside probably were, maybe just not explicitly written down by Lenin himself.
Honestly, I don't think Trotsky had a chance. But I'm not even entirely sure Lenin would have wanted Trotsky in.
There was the anti-Semitism, but as I said prior, Trotsky was a menshevik who changed sides just in time for the February Revolution. He was weasley, And Was elitist, especially with his aligning amongst intellectuals compared to the rest of the party.
Trotsky would have been just as bad. He probably wouldn't have committed war crimes against the Jewish people, but he was much smarter than Stalin, And probably could have wrote much more convincing propaganda for the war crimes of the Soviet Union.
Describing Soviet economics as “one giant company town” is something I had never even slightly considered but fuck it’s pretty dam accurate actually
You are on the good path. May I sugest the Austrian School of conomic thought
It does if you've never read anything by anyone who's lived there. Where has there ever been a company town where it was easier for the workers to fire their manager than the other way around? None of this is based on contemporary historical scholarship based on the Soviet Archives or by the experiences of people who lived there which begs the question of where your idea of what the Soviet Union was like comes from? Robert Conquest? The Black Book of Communism? There's a reason there's no sources for this video and none of the people commenting can even tell you where their ideas of what the USSR was like come from. It's just pop culture knowledge based on Cold War narratives that don't stand up to scrutiny. Even liberal anti-communist historians have abandoned the "totalitarian model" of understand the Soviet system.
Pretty accurate, but by definition all socialism is and always will be a monopoly by the proletarian and the state (controlled by the proletarian). Basically, yeah read Austrian economics
@@lietenantstorks2789 Indeed. Socialism is when government does stuff. When government does all the stuff it turns into communism!
@@lietenantstorks2789why, when socialism is quite literally described that way by Marx?
UM ACTUALLY, Leon Trotsky was as down with militaristic totalitarianism as Lenin and Stalin were - he just didn't want Stalin to be the one in charge of it.
@@randombritishperson.uh bro, all capitalism leads here.
Can you prove this by some sources?
@@mattism.7594Trotsky's works both during the revolution and after his exile are pretty clear about his views on the matter, being fully in support with single-party dictatorship. In fact, he was the original architect of what would become Stalin's five year plans.
His main criticism of Stalin's implementation of the plans were the party not rellying enough on technical experts on certain matters and that Stalin would not follow his vision precisely (which is politician for "it should have been me").
The myth of Trotsky being Lenin's real heir or being a real alternative to Stalin is that, a myth. Trotsky was seen even by fellow party members as a megalomaniac militarist, which is why it was so easy for Stalin (someone who had been a bolshevik from the begining and who had worked in the nuts and bolts of civil government instead of the military) to oust him from the party.
@@ismaelismael8543 I am sorry, but i have heard to this point all kind of stories about trotzky being an dictatoral maniac to the point of being a soviet democrat, when you please give me a source like some book, video (pls not from TikHistory, this guy has no idea what fascism ot socialism is), or some articel. This request is really not meant to be offensive, i am just not sure what i should think about Trotzky.
@@mattism.7594No offense taken. I'm actually happy to find someone critical of internet info for a change. I would recomend Trotsky - Downfall of a Revolutionary for a dissection of Trotsky's character in particular. Also, there's Great Rivals of History, which has a chapter focusing on Trotsky and Stalin's rivalry in particular. While the latter isn't as in depth as i would like, it offers a glimpse of why Stalin was able to win in their power struggle for control. Also, i would try to find primary sources, such as Trotsky's personal writtings both during the events and after his exile. I read them back when i had access to institue library and files, but i'm sure they could be found in the internet (though i would obviously be cautious in terms of how factual they are, their translation and the historical context in which they would have been written)
Your animation have improved so much. Used to just listen to your stuff while multitasking because the writing was already funny, the added little body acting of your characters helps it a lot and I find myself stopping what im doing to watch it.
Also Stalin:
>Restores, or perhaps rather introduces ranks to the Red Army (they had been abolished in 1917) in 1935.
>Restores/introduces Tsarist-style shoulder boards and parade uniforms for the red army, as well as the Rank of Marshal.
>Created a whole host of awards (eg the Order of Alexander Nevsky, the Order of Ushakov, etc) that harked back to the Tsarist and Russian past.
>Stopped persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church at the outbreak (and for the duration) of the war in order to let them support the war effort, and let them open seminaries and elect a new Patriarch.
Also Stalin: Was a paranoid asshat such that you would not *_believe,_* that he
Commenced in 1937 with a rather infamous purging of the officer's corps within the army and navy; apparently some 1+ million Soviet troops such were held in Germany as POWs returned home to that Stalin, suspecting them to be compromised during their tenure being held captive in Germany, saw half of them put on mock trial and... sent to the gulag; his idiot self famously died in 1953 that he'd recently engaged with a purging of the USSR's Jewish populace as comprised many of the country's most highly-skilled and trained physicians, that any actually _adequate_ doctors/nurses who *could've/would've* seen to him such that he suffered a heart attack (?) that day were by and large slaving away in the prison labor camps. T_T
Not to mention:
>Favorably compared himself to Ivan the Terrible- you know, one of those "very bourgeois" (and bloodthirsty, if memory serves) *tsars* the Bolsheviks supposedly "hated so much." Like, did anyone even *previously mention* Ivan during the conversations and/or speeches where Stalin brought up Ivan, or did he just bring Ivan up "at random" sometimes to compare himself to the man? Cuz if the latter, that's extremely sus, ngl
@@Whoo711 the Tsars/Emperors would have been by definition members of the upper class (ie, aristocracy) rather than middle class (bourgeois), but yeah, pretty much
@@Whoo711 "Do you know who I am like, comrades?"
"No-let me guess Comrade Stalin-a great reformer like Alexander I or Catherine the Great? A liberator like Alexander II? A great warlord like Peter the Great? A visionary like our beloved Lenin? Another founder of the state, like Vladimir the Great?"
"No; I was thinking more 'Russian Caligula'."
@@jonathanwebster7091Bourgeous in marxist thinking refers to the class which controls the means of production. There's no middle class or a distinction between an aristocrat and a factory owner, because you either own a means to production or you don't. In that context, a Tzar would be a bourgeous, as he would own lands, farms, etc.
Fun fact: in her early years he studied to be a priest and was writing poems.
So glad he never became one. I can't imagine him being someone's Spiritual Father or doing Divine Liturgy.
Her?
@@OGrandomunknownpersonwhat is she funny or something?
@@CripplingDuality OP used the wrong pronoun (I think), Joseph Stalin was not a girl
Chairman Mao was also a poet.
Good video, but Lenin actually died in 1924 not 1922. Just saying.
Yup I was about to point that out .
7:58 in case
anyone is wondering
@@ryanatallah345 Me too!
He was just Stalin for time.
Lenin insulted Trotsky more than Stalin, Trotsky burned down more villages than Stalin and was more cruel but was a total nerd jealous of Stalins competency and popularity.
I think Trotsky was a terrible person and most of the time he was just popular because he managed to convince Western European leftists... How can one "export the revolution" if one struggles to defend against an invasion with over 2 decades of prep time? The USSR wasn't in a place to do that.
Also Stalin didn't use human wave tactics, the war was literally the largest frontline in human history against an enemy bent on commiting genocide, which made it a bloody and costly affair for all parties.
Soviet tacticians and strategists after the intial setback in 1941 were quite skilled and cared a lot about not wasting lives as much as you couldnin such a situation.
Yeah Jack is just straight making shit up
"Interns in the gulags" ouch!
I think Trostky often gets really favorable treatment in histories of the Russian Revolution because we know what happened with Stalin, and it's hard to imagine anything worse, but it's worth pointing out that Trotsky was totally down with the Red Terror and many of the collectivist policies that killed so many under Stalin were actually originally Trotsky's idea.
2:43: "Who wants to talk about communism. This will make you so much more fun at job interviews." "I think this company should be nationalized."
While you can have Socialism with all assets being controlled by a *democratic* state, you can also have it by employees controlling their company. It just requires workers controlling the means of production.
Do note that I'm talking aboot Socialism in a Marxist political-theory sense, not in the sense of what "Communist" countries did. Much in the way North Korea calling itself a "Democracy" doesn't make it so.
*Nerdily adjusts nonexistent glasses*
Worker co-ops make up 44% of China's agriculture sector and even more in Vietnam. This Western assumption that workplace democracy has never existed in socialist countries is typical American historical illiteracy. Workplace committees are a thing in the constitution of the DPRK. How that works out in practice I will admit is hard to tell. Unlike most in the West I don't assume I'm an expert on countries based solely on what the media in the West says about them. Hell the Soviet Archives are mostly public now. You can read the minutes on meetings where managers were elected and fired by the workers. There's really no excuse at this point for historically illiterate Americans who fancy themselves "socialists" to be thoughtlessly parroting the words of Cold War propagandists who have been largely debunked in academia.
@@DinoCism ok tankie
@@DinoCism- Hard to tell? It works out horribly, that is like the easiest thing to see if you have any historical literacy. Furthermore, why would you want socialism when capitalism gives you total freedom to start a company and give every worker an equal share and an equal vote? Why would you trade freedom for a strict model which doesn’t work? Oh ya, because socialists can’t do anything well so they want to steal other people’s stuff, they were, are, and will always be a joke.
Stalin lived happily ever after...Except for the long lingering painful death that might have been prevented if anyone was brave enough to enter the room (or he was poisoned by his staff, no one really knows).
Stalin wasn't blindsided by the war, just on the specific date it happened as the union had planned for the war to start in 1942. But by 1941 they had already enmassed enough preparation to lead to the victory against the nazis (considering they had more tanks than all the western powers combined for instance)
Also worth noting that after the civil war, life for the average Joe dramatically improved up until WW2 so the people had good reason to be cooperative with the new government (even when it ended up being a one step forward two steps back kind of deal, such as the mass industrialization of Siberia)
You're trying to bring actual history into a vibes-based circle jerk of Americans with wikipedia level knowledge of the subject.
01:20 using Stalin to promote an product, that's good
I think it’s important to note that communist system (and by extension economic system) under Stalin was very much system built on fear. During Stalin’s reign before WW2, USSR’s industrialization rates were absolutely insane (think 4-5% GDP growth and 8-10% industrial output growth per year during Great Depression). During the same time, average joe’s standard of living began to decrease rapidly. Mid level management length of service on gov enterprises was on average a 18-26mo long, people were literally dying of overwork. The culture of Soviet economics at that time was to put responsibility on mid level management - these guys would just as often die from natural causes as they would perish from gov executions, or get sent to Labor Camps.
In any case, everything has a price and Stalin was just a terrible person.
There is a small error in the video. The Civil War ended in 1922, and Lenin died two years later, in 1924.
Fun fact: the symbol on the wall (on the left) at 5:44 circulates around the net as the supposed symbol of the Mensheviks, but it's not accurate. It's clearly inspired by the real emblem of the Republic of Udmurtia though.
I remember that a couple of years ago I saw it in some other video, and I think I've traced it to someone's alternative history project on DeviantArt.
Stalin in hairloss ad. Gorbachev would be so proud.
I love the small detail that Lenin speaks with an Irish accent, yeab Lenin a Russian man spoke english with a irish accent in real life
5:31
I'm pretty sure all this happened in Petrograd first, which was the capital of Russia
8:27 Ah yes, the classic "pulling things out of my ass" source for things that aren't true.
elaborate. It is widely know and proven that Lenin did not want Stalin to take over. Such statements where not made about trotsky. Hence Stalin was 100%below Trotskz on Lenins list. That does not mean he was high up either.
@@AlphaHorst In Lenin's life he wrote many more times about the errors of Trotsky in relation to Stalin, this idea that it was Stalin who was the more critized one only became prominent after Trotsky was ran away from the USSR to the west. And even if it was the other way around, the Soviet Union wasn't an appointed monarchy, the party had elections to put people in charge, and in those elections the Trotskyist factions in the aftermath of Lenin's death, lost hard, while Stalin's group gained power by having the most supported ideas in the party.
I can look up the sources later on if you wish.
@pedroalexandredillemburg3751 oh I am not arguing that Trotsky was disliked/liked in the party, especially after his supporters got gulaged after his grandiose "no peace no war" initiative.
It's just that we know that Lenin did not want stalin to succeed him so trotsky is on top by default.
The idea that stalin was voted in any way into power is however not one I would support.
He placed his supporters into the voting powers and almost all of his critics got sent to the gulag or simply vanished. So Stalin very much changed the odds to be in his absolute favourm
Considering Jack Rackam‘s track record, I’m very shocked he didn’t mention the fact that Stalin tried to start a second holocaust on the Jews in Russia and the eastern bloc, and the only reason he never fully implemented it was because he died.
Nice detail to give lenin an irish accent since he actually had one when he spoke english
Suggestion jack: Fransisco Franco. The man who took charge of spain.
"Fransisco Franco the patriot who saved Spain from communism."
@@Woody_FloridaFranco literally helped take down the democratically elected Spanish government
@@Woody_Florida
Communism and ironically fascism
Commie tears not withstanding, but they've been calling everything that isn't communist fascist as official party doctrine since the 1940s
Francisco Franco: The Man who Ruined Spain
Ah, yes, Franco and the Spanish Civil War. That comment section will be hillarious!
as someone who consideres himself somewhere on the left, i find stalinist very funny. "Nono guys, if the state is allowed to do capitalism its ok, the workers arent tho. True equality "
Lenin: "We proudly take one step backwards to Capitalism". roflmao. Every citizen was trapped. A time when complete alcoholism ended up being the correct life choice, because all effort was punished w more tasks.
Alcoholism was not widespread in the Russian Empire; the problem only worsened with the collapse of the Soviet regime.
Yeah this is a recent problem.
Making Stalin do your advertising for you is probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while lol
I came across your channel this morning at around 8:00. I've been watching none stop.It's 18:27. Really great channel! It is entertaining and your scripts are accurate. You've got yourself a new fan!
9:19 My guy just gave tankies a source for "real communism has never been tried".
Tankies don't say that you poor soul. Liberal social democrats do.
"Tankies" never say that shit.
It is AnCom type shit tankies say that it was and somehow was good
“You can’t own a business and you can’t own land” Welp, that perfectly explains where the USSR went wrong, nobody owned any already
Monopoly by the state or monopoly by a private corporation. Which is worse?
The Socialist Revolutionary Party always gets left out of the story of Russia, and it shouldn't. They were the primary ones getting beaten by the Czar while the future Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were saying 'minor reforms' like destroying the extant, oppressive, hyper-centralized state in favor of democratic, checked, and federalized civil government would "never work." They also successfully won the revolution and every fair election thereafter, and they did hold fair elections, twice, before the new prime minister tried to arrest Lenin and he and his loyalists launched a second civil war.
4:44 Actually it was Trotsky who organized the takeover and was more in favor of "organization and discipline." He was the one who abolished the soldier councils and replaced it with a proffessional army, he even enlisted former tsarist officers to join something that Stalin was against.
The high casualties were more due to German genocidal actions against civilians in occupied regions. The Soviets initially didn't clarify this until after the fall of the soviet union when records of USSR performence in the second world war were initially opened before being sealed again by Putin. It wasn't because, "use more men" as the soviets didn't use human wave tactics, in fact a lot of the lost land early in operation barbarossa was due to various tactical withdrawls as part of the deep defense doctrine combined with unpreparedness due to the purges and ongoing reorganization of high command. Ultimately though the soviets still saw the highest casualties among their army compared to the UK and the US, it is nowhere near to the sheer overwhelming extent long believed by many as that sheer extent was soviet propaganda taking civilian losses and adding it to military losses. The eastern front was the most brutal and russia did lose a lot of soldiers...but their losses militarily were probably closer to Germany's own military casualties on the front during the latter half of the war. Suffice it to say the trope of, "use more men" while funny, is highly innacurate
Well said, though if you understand the communist ideology, and how the USSR recognized its people and labor, a farmer was awarded medals like a soldier, a factory worker too, all people of the Soviet Union were fighting in this war, whether from the front or the back. But yes, Soviet military doctrine and even modern Russian doctrine (Russia =/= USSR btw) are not "human wave" tactics, that's western propaganda to de-humanize these people, makes it easier for people to be bloodthirsty ghouls about it all.
@@jamieevans4317 Less western and more remaining nazi propaganda popularized by nazis who were captured by the US and their memoirs spread propaganda about the USSR that was believed during the cold war and still hasn't fully left popular outlook on the USSR and Modern Russia.
Thank you for using pictures of Trotsky. Usually people always mess up and they add one picture of Kamenev in there. Or the other guy with a goatee. Good on you.
It's so ironic that the impression of Stalin is making an advertisment.
Video starts at 2:34
You forgot about the quota on the secret police. Literally a quota on death
Great video as always :)))
Only complaint is portraying the Soviet victory as just throwing people into a meat grinder rather than German incompetence or actual Soviet skill on a strategic level.
The Soviet army was quite efficient and the Nazi military has been glorified excessively. They were actually not that good at stuff.
I guess its already been said but Trotsky def not a voice of reason
7:58
Lenin died in 1924, not 22
A small but important correction: A lot of times in this video, you say "Russian" when you should be saying "Soviet". Like when discussing the death toll of the lands that were invaded by the Germans. Ukrainians and Belarussians suffered a lot as did the other ethnic minorities of the USSR (making up about half of the overall Soviet death toll due to the war). In terms of percentage death toll relative to the pre-war population, Belarus lost 25% of it's population and Ukraine lost about 16, Russia lost about 13. And the Soviet lands that the Germans occupied and brutalized were mostly Ukrainian, Belarussian, and Polish lands
It's commonplace to refer to the USSR as "Russia" or "Russian" because that part of the country was in charge. Just how the British Empire is called "Britain" despite most of its population (and a lot of its soldiers in WW2) were in fact not British. I agree that it's more correct to say Soviet, but Russian isn't too far from the truth.
PLEASE tell me you did Lenin with an Irish accent because of the story about him learning his English accent from the Irish immigrants he met in Clerkenwell when he was doing translation work.
Fun Fact: Georgy Zhukov said that Stalin's one military talent was as a Military Economist. Or in other words he knew how to reserve lots of soldiers for this or that battle that needed to be fough.
Bukharin is too much forgotten despite being the Golden Boy
Ah, another Bukharin enjoyer.
So Jack Rackam and Alternate History Hub release a video about the USSR on the same day… what’s going on?!
to be fair, most of AHH's recent videos related to Russia, so I imagine he's on a Russian history research quest. :P
The fabric of space time is collapsing in on itself. We have limited time too reach the core of the sun!
Either that or its coincidence
The lazy research work is happening
Im getting very big early-years Jib-Jab vibes from the animation, damn jack you managed to unearth some nostalgia within your animating!
Can we just sit here and bask in the glory that is capitalism getting to use a communist figure to promote capitalism. Just beautiful
Happy May Day comrades!
Everyone gangsta until the king abdicates
Very nice touch giving Lenin an Irish accent, not many know that detail about him
There's a irony to Joseph Stalin giving a speech about a sponsor
i mean the west basically sponsored Stalins war against Germany through lendlease
All communist ideas are communist. But some communist ideas are more communist than others
that ad is glorious comrad
Well done Jack you finally improved the animation!
I am the lizard king
Quite epic indeed
That title goes to Mark Zuckerberg
Lenin had an Irish English tutor so his accent is correct. I love it
I am so early the Tsar hasn't been overthrown yet.
Not gonna lie your new animation style for your characters reminds me how the game rock of ages animates there characters
I am once again asking for you to make your trip for next year any month buy june/July. Thanks for another video Jack!
Already in talks about what a future trip might look like; glad to know you're interested!
@JackRackam thanks Jack, super interested. I would have signed up for this one but I own a firework stand in June/July. Thanks again for all the great content and for teaching us history in a very entertaining way over the years!
Fun fact:
Bolshevik means majority.
Menshevik means minority.
But the Bolsheviks were the minority party.
Animation on point this episode
Why is this being sympathetic to Trotsky? Not the best look
i would suggest making a dedicated video about it, to make up for brushing by the holodomor like that
It was a famine. What more do you need?
@@neighborhoodmusicsnob5517 no, it was a deliberate genocide by iosif stalin and the communist party, of ukrainians and other minorities in the sssr that killed over 3 million people
Music at 13:20?
In the description it states that it is from “Suno” called “Red Mist” (it’s the same song in the advertisement). Suno is probably the AI music software, so this song is probably a AI song. Which means that this song is probably not findable (unless you know how to). Which is unfortunate, because I like the song too.
Modern Socialists: "Trosky was such a chill dude and the USSR would have been much better with him in charge"
Trosky himself: "All Baltic states are fictional, why is the red army so weak! I want violent insurrections all over the world"
Sometimes I think it gets lost how much of a scar ww2 left on Russia/ussr in the west
I'm pretty disappointed in this video. I understand it is entertainment, but when covering real world history it is pretty important to not present an idea that is straight up wrong.
The first issue is pretty minor, but I think indicative of the low factuality of this video.
7:55 Lenin didn't die in 1922, he died in 1924.
The video presents Lenin as opposed to democracy entirely, in line with Stalin throughout 1917. This is absolutely wrong. He was opposed to parliamentary democracy, but not out of some abstract idealism, but because a much more democratic organ was in existence, that could take over the role of state from the Duma and Provisional Government: The soviets/worker and soldier councils. These were local organs of power, where rank-and-file workers and soldiers met to elect deputies as local leaders, and delegates to regional and national meetings of all the soviets. Where workers had the power of recall over their delegates at any time, without having to wait 4-5 years for the next official election. This new state was seen by Lenin and Trotsky as being the foundation of the workers state.
In fact, for most of 1917, Lenin's position wasn't that the Bolsheviks should overthrow the Provisional Government themselves (he at multiple times attempted to talk down the working people of Petrograd), because he understood that the masses still had illusions in the Mensheviks and SRs. His slogan of "All power to the soviets" was explicitly declared to be aimed at urging the Mensheviks and SRs to complete the revolution in a peaceful way, since they had the majority both in the parliament and the soviets. Yes, you read that right: Lenin argued for peaceful transfer of power to the soviets, at a time when they were in the minority in what would then become the new state. Their aim wasn't power for the Bolsheviks alone, but a successful revolution. Lenin explained this in the text On Slogans:
> "Apparently, not all the supporters of the slogan “All Power Must Be Transferred to the Soviets” have given adequate thought to the fact that it was a slogan for peaceful progress of the revolution-peaceful not only in the sense that nobody, no class, no force of any importance, would then (between February 27 and July 4) have been able to resist and prevent the transfer of power to the Soviets. That is not all. Peaceful development would then have been possible, even in the sense that the struggle of classes and parties within the Soviets could have assumed a most peaceful and painless form, provided full state power had passed to the Soviets in good time."
When they finally overthrew the provisional government, that was after they had achieved a majority in the soviets, and after an attempted coup almost instilled a military dictatorship, had the Bolsheviks not intervened. Even after the revolution, the new Soviet government wasn't made up entirely of Bolsheviks, but the Left SRs who had split from the SRs joined, as a separate party. Lenin saw the tendency towards a one-party state as a dangerous development, because it mean foreign class interests would rise up in a hidden way within the party, instead of in the open between parties.
Additionally, the video presents Lenin and Stalin as being of one mind. This is completely off the mark. Stalin played no major role in the course of 1917 itself (the number of times his name is mentioned in the eye witness account Ten Days That Shook the World can be counted on one hand). At the beginning of 1917, he was in charge of the party paper, and consistently censored or refused to publish Lenin's letters and theses he sent from afar, because he saw them as too radical. Before Lenin arrived back in Russia, he had entered into talks of merging with the Mensheviks! Whereas Lenin and Trotsky both argued for the need for overthrowing the provisional government, Stalin consistently struggled against this.
As I stated, I understand that the video is entertainment. And edu-tainment is always a difficult balance to strike. But I feel like this video leans too heavily on the end of being entertainment at the expense of reduced factuality.
you should have told lenin that he considers the "local soviets" as superiour forms of democracy before he shut almost every single one down starting in 1918 whenever they disagreed with him
Gods i love this channel.
I love your Stalin impersonation 😂😂
Edit: Also, why does Lenin have an Irish accent?
That 80 percent of Industrial output loss make me giggle somehow
Im not even interested in Economics!
Lenin "A revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is." (State and revolution)
*Stalin Loved that
one of your finest work, jack
What is the name of the outro song (12:36)? I know the songs are credited in the description, but I don’t think this song has (Contredanse has many songs, so I don’t think it’s called Contredanse). I’ve now noticed that the song is also in 1:20 under the name “Suno - Red Mist”, but I can’t find the song anywhere.
Wait, I have now realized that Suno is AI that creates music, was this song created by AI? If so then I will be sad, because I like the music.
Stalins mom who was extremely religious told him to his face he should have became a Priest. Which personally i think would have been horrible.
All this does is make me think how people want to call Russia a communist when it obviously wasn’t. It was a monarchy with extra steps and a new name. Besides the fact the only reason the USSR survived ww2 was because of US intervention. Germany would not have been able to take over, but the loss of man power after a couple more years of fighting would have caused the government of Russia to collapse.
Well, monarchies can be democratic too-I mean, that's literally what constitutional monarchies;where the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead, and the democratically elected government runs the country(like Britain and Denmark, etc.) are.
Unless you mean an absolute monarchy (where the monarch has complete power), ehhh kind of, but then Stalin didn't give power to any of his children (which is why North Korea could be considered a *de facto* hereditary absolute monarchy, even if its a republic on paper).
Also the Soviet Union wasn't communist-in the sense that communism was the *end result* of what the world revolution was supposed to achieve, where all property was owned by everyone in kind, and the state, while not being abolished, stopped being relevant (and 'withers away').
In the sense that it or any other communist state ever achieved that, it wasn't communist in that sense.
It went from an absolute monarchy to dictatorship with it’s dictator arguably having more power than any Tsar ever had in history
Industrialization was not Trotsky’s idea. Trotsky wanted light industrialization and was anti-peasant.