That's a wrap for Epic History TV's series. Should I do the Oversimplified videos on the Russian Revolution as well? Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Discord & Patreon: ❤ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true 🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ 🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT ⚽ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742 🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608 💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2 🖖 My Star Trek Podcast: www.tribblespodcast.com/
Gracias por otro buen video SoGal 👍y en compañia de la adorable Scarlett.😍 Siiiii , Oversimplified videos son divertidos de ver y ofrecen muchos muchos datos históricos válidos pero muy superficialmente. después de todo es """Oversimplified"""😁
Thanks for another good video SoGal👍😊 and in the company of the lovely Scarlett😍. Yessss, Oversimplified videos are fun to watch and offer a lot of valid, but very superficial historical data. after all it is ""Oversimplified""😁
The oversimplified videos will go into more depth about the actions and situations that surrounds the revolutions. This Epic History video was very very brief and oversimplified.
Small thing just as a response to what you said at the end there. The fall of the USSR was a disaster for normal russians, to be in Russia in the 90's was extremly scary with gangsters and criminals being let loose and running the entire country not to mention the countries national resources were pillaged by oligarchs. Just look at the economic retraction the country faced during this time and youll see.
As a person living in Russia, it annoys me that most foreigners think that Putin is the reason. You must understand that it is not a matter of a particular person, but of the capitalist system. This system works in all countries in the same way, the difference is only in scale. Until you understand this, until we understand this, humanity is doomed to endless world wars.
Mr Smith You are absolutely right, sometimes I get the impression, when an American Individuals wants to study this subject. She or he wants to take shortcuts. History does not look kindly on Shortcuts, if you want to build a foundation of knowledge on it. SoGal makes a cardinal mistake here, of drawing conclusions. Conclusions she might has to life with, for the remainder of her studies, never knowing what will rattle her in the future.
It's astonishing how many Americans think lives are better after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I mean, the collapse of the USSR literally led to the greatest catastrophic dropped in life expectancy ever in history. The Russian economy was dysfunctional throughout the 90s, child prostitution was widespread, and life was reduced to mere survival. This is the reason why many in Russia today still are nostalgic for the Soviet time; it was precisely because life was better during that time.
I will admit that we are largely ignorant about what life is like in Russia. I hope that changes now that we have things like UA-cam, and Russians can show us first-hand what's happening in their country.
@@SoGal_YT Now we live very well, despite the sanctions. But we remember the 90s with horror. Salaries were not paid for several months, the majority had no work at all, there was nothing to eat, the crime was horrific. In our entrance on each floor there were syringes lying around because of drug addicts, people drank alcohol in incredible quantities, but since there was no money for normal alcohol, some drank substances that contained alcohol, for example, windshield wipers. Because of this, many people died. There were often contract killings. There was a nightclub near our house. At night, the car of a visitor to this club was blown up; he was connected with crime. A friend of our family was shot, but he was also involved in crime. In addition to all this, there was also a huge number of terrorist attacks (house bombings, seizure of a hospital), in the early 00s there were also terrorist attacks (hostage-taking in a theater center, the terrorist attack in Beslan (this terrorist attack is a pain in the heart for the entire people), but then there were fewer of them . And people began to live better. Salaries were paid consistently, there was plenty of food, there were no problems going on vacation at the seaside. Life has gotten better.
@@SoGal_YT Many people remember the Soviet Union with nostalgia. There were also bad moments (many commentators like to remember camps a la gulag, but this was in the 30s and 40s, so adults born in the USSR simply could not face this). And my family did not encounter any camps. My great-grandmother had 10 children (now 6 out of 10 are alive). She did not have time for any actions that could lead to ending up in the camp. I don’t justify the camps, I’m very sorry for the victims. But I tell the story of my family and most others, because many at that time had similar stories. Grandmother was born in 1933, but she also always spoke well of the USSR. She was born during the famine that happened in the Volga region (there are terrible photographs of those years). But she noted bad times in childhood due to hunger, due to war and then in the 90s. And everyone remembers about the Union that medicine was absolutely free, education was free, children could go to the sea for free, they gave vouchers to sanatoriums from work, also free. And there was natural food! The products were of very high quality, without any harmful additives. Many people miss this.
Regarding the comment towards the end about things getting better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union: Russia was initially suffering from economic collaps and it was a turbulent time. There was no know-how how to transform the nation into a market economy, and corruption allowed for a few well-connected persons to gain immense wealth when former public assets were privatized ridicously cheap. This was the rise of the oligarchs. The times were uncertain for ordinary people and inflation sky-high. President Yeltsin was also a problematic figure suffering from alcoholism. Eventhough freedom of speech was getting better, it was a painful transition. There is a reason why not so few Russians look back with nostalgia on the Soviet Union. Things were getting more stable around the time when Putin became president, which adds to his popularity. Some speculate, that if the west had given Russia more active support during the 1990s, rather than rejoicing over the fall of an old enemy, things could have developed differently.
Thanks - I guess I don't have a very good grasp of life post-Soviet Union. I was really too young to be aware of what was happening, and was under the impression that during Putin's term things were trending more towards the west, and Russia was prospering more. Maybe I was mistaken. I need to learn more about it, obviously.
@@SoGal_YT and still Soviet Union collapsed on itself, because of non existent democracy, terror, national revendication and economic flaws like collectivisation, mass industrialisation of the country and shortage of manpower for the factory. over-allthe Russian Empire was doing fine until the 1st world war which make it explode, if it wasn't for the archduke, German Army officers had evaluated that Russia in 1917 would have crushed them because they would have been at the height of their industrial capabilities and building of train tracks. it is all hypothesis but if the Revolution ould not have happened the Russian Empire would have been the number one in terms of military and economic power. I doubt it because the US have an over-all better country (geograficaly) but it is a legitimate hypothesis. and a good question to study.
@@valentinlageot4101 I think that hypothesis ignores some of the important factors. The war clearly increased the tensions inside the empire’s society and contributed to them bursting out in successive revolutions but the roots were a lot deeper. In most countries the industrial revolution was a brutal process that was accompanied by mass impoverishment, mass displacement of populations and the destruction of century old social bonds. Just look at some examples in Europe: The transition from a feudal to a bourgeois society in the UK took centuries, started with civil war and was later accompanied by incremental changes in society and government. The latter kept the constitutional monarchy quite stable. The last phase of the break with the remains of feudalism in continental Europe started with the French Revolution that was accompanied by a major war and transitioned into the continent wide wars of the coalitions. The whole 19th century saw uprisings and revolutions sweeping over Europe. Even the American civil war, aside from the subjective moral interpretation, can only be fully understood in the context of the industrial revolution. Bismarck is often seen as some “great guy” but he was a diehard reactionary who understood that he had to adapt to the new reality so that the ideas of liberalism, humanism and the workers movement won’t become dominant against Prussian authoritarianism. Many instead see the creation of a unified Germany through war against external forces as a contributing factor to Germany’s internal divisions and tendency to unity through aggression later on. Now imagine that the Russian empire would have had to go through the industrial revolution in a decade while still having feudal structures left and being governed by an absolutist autocracy. It was doomed to explode in revolutions.
@@harrypadarri6349 the hypothesis take into account the date of the war so in a way how many year can russwia not enter a war with an economic equal as an ennemy.
@@SoGal_YT You think that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union life in Russia was better. 25% of people lost their jobs. they lost 50% of GDP, thousands of scientists fled to the United States. from a superpower to a country full of mafia. from the beginning the 1 richest people controlled 10% of the economy (because there was a wealth restriction in the USSR) to the richest 1% the oligarchs controlled it 90% of the economy of public transportation and health collapsed due to lack of funds and the government agencies that took care of the apartments disappeared in an instant and people lived in great places. the damaged one. Russia's 1990 economic crisis Greater than the United States the Great Depression. Shut up you white imperialism bastard
22:53 Hell no, if you ask most Russians who were alive then, things did *not* get better when the Soviet Union fell, things infact got much worse, probably still worse than it is today. Life expectancy for the average Russian collapsed during the 1990's, the economy was in shambles (and almost defaulted in 1998), state corruption was everywhere (maybe even worse than it is now if you can believe that), there was a deadly war in Chechnya, organized crime skyrocketed, there were near constant terrorist attacks due to the conflict in Chechnya and the Russian President was an embarrassing drunk who towards the end could barely even put together a coherent sentence and had an approval rating of 4% when he left office. One could even argue that whatever "democracy" (if you wanna call it that) Russia was trying to attempt in the 1990's got destroyed (and Putin became popular) because things were *so bad* in the 90's, it really was Russia's Weimar Germany moment. For your average Russian at the time it really felt like Russia was the world's punching bag, and that the world as they knew it was pretty much ending. Putin, for as evil and tyrranical as he is, brought some degree of stability during his first two terms (2000-2008), which is why he's still so popular in Russia today, because people associate democracy, or a post-Putin Russia with the complete shitshow that was the 1990's.
I was a kid in the 90s, so I wasn't aware of all that. My perception of post-Soviet Russia comes from the 2000s where it did seem Russia was more stable. So I guess I need to learn more about the 90s era to fully understand.
@@SoGal_YT Don't worry about it, it's something most people in the west overlook. During the 1990's we were kind of on a victory parade because we had "won the cold war" and "Russia was our friend now". So many people didn't really care about or follow Russia as much by then. It was just kind of assumed that Russia was no longer going to be an important country and that it would eventually transition into full democracy. This attitude only made things worse in Russia, and contributed to people having a mistrust of the west. Russia did get a little more democratic in some areas...but like, what good are some new freedoms if the economy is in shambles and there's crime/corruption everywhere?
@@SoGal_YT The 90's Russia was the " EL DORADO" for western corporations, to plunder a perceived defeated country. It was the time, where Russian Oligarch's, with the help of their collective western handlers, shamelessly exploited Russia's resources. It was Putin who put an end to it. Putin having reacted nationalistic, hit the accord with many Russian people who resented the humiliation of the chaotic 90"s.
The foreign support for the Whites included military intervention by the US, UK, France and Japan. Stalin never forgot this and it influenced his attitude to the western powers in WW 2.
That's rigth and Churchill said the goal of this western intervention was to « strangle bolchevism in its cradle » ... the idea of liberty and democracy for workers and poor is a threat for the capitalist even now ... especially in USA ...
It is difficult to transform a large country with its rich history into a liberal state. We tried, history documented everything. It doesn't take root with us, because the background is completely different. We are distrustful, but loyal. Loyal to their families, friends and principles. Russians are a proud people who create their own history and do not allow anyone from outside to interfere in it. There is an interesting feature of Russia: only a Russian person can criticize political decisions and the government. But if someone from outside starts doing the same thing, we "cut throats". "I can, I'm Russian, but you can't, you don't know what you're talking about, you and your families haven't lived our history."
You’re too delusional about Russian people. One thing that we definitely can’t stand is when someone BS about our country, history and values, simply based on propaganda.
After minute 11:00 of your video, you aligned Tzar Nicolaus to the elected leader Vladimir Putin, and speculated about a modern Regime Change. The Tzar never enjoyed approval rates like Putin , who even during his worsted's times, maintained at least 55 %. The Tzar was living in a different reality and acted accordingly. Putin never enjoyed Absolute power like the Tzar, but real support by his constituency. Now it is at 83 %. If you need my sources, please look up Scott Ritter and Patrick Lancaster.
How credible can polls be given now, when certain words can lead to fines or even imprisonment? Of course the answer has to be supportive, people become cautious
@@Maria-js9ou Your quote: "How credible can polls be given now, " It depends on how it is conducted. It was the Indian media in Russia, who conducted this poll.
@@ernstwiltmann3918 In my opinion, in this case, the unreliability of the polls does not reside in who makes them, whether international media or not, but in the answers that people give. Given the current situation, quote "people become CAUTIOUS", and show support, either out of lack of real knowledge, or out of caution
@@Maria-js9ou I`m a regular viewer of India today, I noticed how they conduct polls. Critical voices are only being heard, not seen on screen, if they interviewee wishes. India today broadcast`s a lot of their doc`s and reports in English or with English subtitles. Much more informative and educated than our collective Western Main Stream Media. Try it !
22:52 no no no no no. The early 90´s were horrible for russia and pretty much everyone who lived in the USSR ( it was only better for the people who lived under the iron curtain ) and also pretty much everyone i talked to who lived in the soviet union said that back then life was simpler and not as modern as today but almost everything was better and they were happier back in the day
Well the Baltics also probably had it better after the Soviets fell, despite some hiccups here and there in the 90's. But yeah, for pretty much every other Soviet Socialist Republic it was a complete shitshow, especially for Russia, Armenia and Tajikistan.
I'm realizing that I don't have an accurate picture of post-Soviet Russia. I was a kid in the 90s, so I only started paying attention to politics in the 2000s. By then it seemed Russia was more stable, so that's just what I assumed it had been like.
@@marvelfannumber1 yeah the baltics as well but they were reluctant to the soviets from the beginning so its kind of obvious why they liked the fall of the USSR
@@SoGal_YT yeah to be honest a lot of the problems of the USSR didnt really change in places like russia and belarus. They are still authoritarian they still have a struggeling economy and freedom of press and stuff like that is still not there. Back in the day everyone at least had a common goal to help and improve the country by doing there part in the working system of the USSR and people were much more connected to each other because they all said: We are workers and we work together towards the common goal of absolute communism and freedom of the common Proletarian. Now russia is still poorer then it needs to be its still authoritarian and the only thing that changed is just that people dont trust each other anymore and there is no more common goal for the people to aim towards and everyone is selfish and has no hope. ( If that sounds depressing well thats kind of the whole point why people miss the USSR and want it back )
There isn't just the Nobel peace prize, there are 5 prizes, in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace. The first four are for serious work, whereas the last one is entirely political and in the opinion of many a bit of a joke.
There are now six Nobel prizes, Economics was added in the late sixties. All of them except peace are awarded from Stockholm peace is awarded from Oslo.
@@stephenparker6362 Technically, the economic prize is not a Nobel prize, but "The Swedish Central Bank's prize in memory of Alfred Nobel". Has nothing to do with the will of Alfred Nobel. (I know that you know this, but I just want to emphasize that it is not a proper Nobel prize.) Regarding the validity of the peace prize, there for sure have been many controversial awardees, but it also helps giving the prize public recognition and arguably helps raising the awareness of the other prizes. Had it been a purely scientific prize, it would probably be less well-known.
@@staffan- Hi, Steffan you are absolutely correct in what you say about the Economics Prize it was not instituted as a result of a bequest in Nobel's will but in memory of him by the Swedish National Bank, i think to celebrate an anniversary, although it is often referred to now as the Nobel Prize for Economics and I think is presented at the same ceremony as the others in Sweden. Regarding the Peace Prize, I think this was bound to be more controversial because of its very nature but you are right, it keeps the prizes in the public eye and is probably the best known of them.
The West wasn't always in favour of representative democracy. This version of government most western countries have is fairly recent. The quote from Nicholas II is basically the essence of the "divine right to rule" many monarchs thought they had.
In Britain, we executed the last monarch to claim divine right - in 1649, a full 144 years before the French did the same to theirs and 268 years before Nicholas II. They say that if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. Seems Nicholas II skipped his history lessons.
@@ΑρχοντήςΒαϊτσάκης Our current queen still has limited powers. In my opinion, one of the reasons Charles I's trial and execution was important was becuase it helped move the monarch's source of legitimacy from divine right and more towards consent by the governed. But, we never entirely got rid of that religious aspect: the queen is still the head of the church of england, defender of the faith and all that.
@@brandonatchison4769 Head of the Church was a claim by Henry VIII. The split role/s between Monarchs. Preists and Judges always sits uneasy in total world history
Stop talking about Putin. The lies that your media tell you are annoying, to put it mildly. War is always bad, but each of them has its own reasons, which you should understand before putting labels on. Перестаньте говорить о Путине. Ложь, которую вам сообщают ваши СМИ, мягко говоря, раздражает. Война - это всегда плохо, но у каждой из них есть свои причины, которые вы должны понять, прежде чем навешивать ярлыки.
Putin's acceptance rate, rose to 70% in Russia, because his people realize he is resisting US intervention against them. On the other side only 22% of the Americans think Bided is doing a good job. The slight thing overlooked in regime changes is what comes next, like it is shown in the video.
Kind of hard to say how reliable those statistics are though, considering that you can get arrested for calling the war a war, or for criticizing the government/war. I'm sure it's still high, but I am very skeptical it's really at 70%,
@@marvelfannumber1 Well the first victim in any war is the truth. Fake atrocity stories have been used so many times they become boring: ua-cam.com/video/YJ2qb7UcdOE/v-deo.html
@@DenDez3000 Yeah, and those all come from the same survey by Levada. Now Levada is acknowledged as an independent and fairly legitimate research institute, but the problem is that from a sociological perspective, I don't know how you could conduct accurate polling in Russia's current climate. If I was a person living in Russia that was anti-Putin, if someone called me on my phone and asked if I liked Putin, I would probably either hang up or lie. Given that even the mildest criticism of the government right now (including even BLANK posters!) can get you arrested and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. Not to mention that Putin has openly called people who don't support the war a "fifth column"...so yeah, I think it's probably gone up, but I am very skeptical of polling coming out of Russia right now for a bunch of reasons.
I live in Russia and 70 percent is a very high figure. All youth against Putin. Only the older generation supports him because he saved the country from the horror of the 90s
An important point that the video failed to mention is that the Tsarist Russia kept serfdom until 1892 (people were property of the aristocrats) and after that those ex-serfs had to pay most of their income to the nobles that ruled them until 1907 (making them serfs de facto until then)
@@ГеоргийШереметьев in 1862 was abolished for most places of Russia, but other places that were then part of Russia, like Georgia and Kalmikia kept it, meaning it wasn't completelly abolished, until 1892 when it was abolished on the last place, Kalmikia.
The remains of Tzar Nicolas 2nd & his family were only found in 1979, sixty-one years after the event (by amature historians) but the discovery was only revealed in 1991, in 2007 remains of two more bodies were found , belived to be the two remaining children.
Russia's problem is that the West sees it as a threat and therefore wants to keep it in poverty. In the 1990s, when the CIA led Russia and taught it the market economy, Russia was failing. No wonder, because in the 1990s, the United States adopted Wolfowitz's doctrine of preventing Russia from developing because it could threaten American dominance in the world. When Putin came to power, Russia began to develop very quickly and already caught Latvia after development, but this was not to the liking of the West and they began to wage a propaganda war against Russia and sanctions. In countries where the Russian minority lives, they have supported the Russophobes, who threaten the Russian threat to justify their persecution of the Russian minority. In the Baltic states, they have even stripped Russian minorities of their citizenship so that they cannot vote, and that is democracy for the West. As if depriving blacks of their citizenship in the United States so that they could not vote, on the pretext that they are not American enough. Russians suffer terrible suffering because of Russophobia.
This is a very slanted and not very accurate telling of events. The west was indeed concerned to some extent about a new powerful Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but they largely took steps to try and integrate Russia into western institutions to create some degree of cordial relations. Russia was let into the G8, they were let into the Council of Europe, European governments invested heavily in Russia and made lucrative trade deals, Russia joined the partnership for Peace with NATO and Russia was allowed to take part in training exercises with NATO. The west didn't want Russia to become a threat, but they largely sought to avoid this by integrating them into global markets and institutions, the idea being that doing so would make a future revanchist Russia less likely to start conflicts (which turned out to be wrong). All this stuff I mentioned ended in 2014 and 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. At that point it became impossible for western countries to justify further cooperation with Russia. Some countries like Germany tried to maintain a special relationship with Russia even after 2014, but the events of 2022 have made even that impossible. There is some blame to be put on the west for this, but Russia also has a ton of blame, arguably more. To say they don't is to argue that Russia does not have any agency, which is a sentiment I would heavily disagree with.
@@marvelfannumber1 Russia was never accepted into the G8, it was just an observer. And the possibility of Russia joining NATO and the EU was rejected. Germany was just manipulating Russia to get financial benefits. When the opportunity arose to oppose the killing of the Russian minority in Ukraine, she was silent and instead of defending the Minsk agreement, which regulated everything, she played a dual role and made Russia think there was a way to sort things out, but when she spoke to the US and Ukraine spoke quite the opposite. If Germany had made as much effort to resolve the pre-war situation as it is now trying to spread Russophobia and fascist propaganda, there would have been no war.
@@kosarkosar7683 Russia joining NATO was never a serious discussion on both sides. Yeltsin very briefly suggested it in 1992 and didn't pursue it beyond that. Putin revived it briefly, but he also didn't pursue it very seriously, wanting Russia to join NATO without a formal application process because he believed Russia deserved special treatment if it were to join. However NATO maintained friendly relations with Russia in spite of this. Like I said, Russia was allowed to join NATO in exercises, during the War on Terror Russia shared their intel on the Taliban with the US, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace and NATO did not put nukes or troops east of Germany to appease Russia. Russia joining the EU was never rejected, I don't know where you got that from. They were thrown a bone by being allowed into the Council of Europe (which they remained a member of until this year) and the EU never showed any more opposition to Russia joining than any other former SSRs during the 90's. Also, Germany was very amicable towards Russia until this year. Germany was one of the main proponents of the Minsk agreement that, if implemented would have pretty much stripped Ukraine of its sovereignty. Germany vetoed stronger sanctions on Russia in 2014, former Chancellor Schroeder even has a seat at Gazprom, is a personal friend of Putin and still tries to sell himself as a "Putin understander". Russia and the west both made mistakes, I think you'd have to be dishonest to deny that. But there was no conspiracy by the west to ruin Russia, Russia have done that by themselves, they didn't need any help.
@@marvelfannumber1 Read the Wolfovitz doctrine and everything will be clear to you. And Russia did not want any special place in NATO, but to join, because then it would have a say in decisions about its security. The EU has also set clear boundaries of where it is willing to expand, and they have now given Ukraine there just to encourage Ukrainians to anti-Russian rhetoric, just as they misled Turks just to obey them. Germany only brought the Ukrainians to the negotiating table where they agreed on the Minsk agreement, when the Ukrainian army was defeated in the Donbass and would conquer the entire Donbass area pro-Russian forces, and with the agreement Germany misled the pro-Russian forces not to continue the liberation struggle from the Nazis. The Minsk agreement gave less power to the Donbass than the German states in Germany, nor did they have the right to stop joining NATO. However, in Ukraine, the law is that the president calls elections so many times until those he nominates are elected, and only then can the nationalists win, apart from the abolition of the opposition and their media. In Ukraine, about half of the people speak Russian and 40 percent support Putin, so in eight years, Ukrainians have driven 1.5 million Russians from their homes to change the area's demographics. The Baltic states are in the EU and no one is persecuting them for not having democracy, for depriving Russian minorities of their citizenship so that they cannot vote, and so Russia is to blame for enduring the humiliation and dehumanization of Russians all these years. The West is carrying too high and forgetting that they can no longer do this around the world as they have done for centuries with their violent behavior and propaganda.
Unfortunately (?) for you and your shared birthday with the October coup, Russia was using a different calender back then (the Julian calender), so the 25th October was the 7th November in our current calender (the Gregorian).
Thats a good point although called the February and October revolutions, thats by the Julian calender then used in Russia, according to our calender, the Gregorian they took place in March and November of the same year.
What a coincidence! I'm watching your reaction to the Russia's Revolution on 25 October. Happy birthday tovAhrish! Greetings from Kazakhstan communists❤✊ Truly a big fan of your videos
Honestly, Tzar Nicholas II was considered really dumb by all his contemporaries. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (his own cousin, and not really a genius himself, either) once said that he'd make a great turnip farmer, and nothing more than that. So, any statement of his regarding politics should take that into account. The fact that he saw representative forms of government as harmful to the people is just another example of how painfully out of touch with reality he really was. He was, without any shadow of a doubt, the primary beneficiary of Russia's non-representative form of government at the time, and he was simply too clueless to even realize that.
6:49 Oposite of what we think here in the West. Maybe in the US but in Europe at the time it was the mainstream and the only "correct" way to do the things. Those who defied the "rule of god" (entrusted to the monarchs) of course were dealt with severity. Kind of like they did with Napoleon...
It was also mainstream in US to be honest. Frane and the US are a bit of outliers due to the republican revolutions, but even the US had the elites decide who to run the show until after the Civil War where the 1842 revolutions were mainstream anyway.
In earlier times certainly, but, by the late 19th/early 20th century the Divine Right of Kings had rather gone out of fashion. Republics with some form of representative government (but not yet universal suffrage) were becoming more and more common and most monarchies had realised that they had to work in some kind of partnership with those elected by the people, even if they thought of themselves as the senior partner. For instance, in the UK, no monarch had refused to sign laws passed by Parliament for about 150 years and when King Haakon of Norway was crowned in 1905, he had to swear to uphold the Constitution of the country
@@YekouriGaming Yes i know who the US was not really so "Democratic" as it likes to portray themselves but at least their claim was and still being the "Democracy number 1" so maybe there is no much point to argue about, we know who it is far from a total democracy, but that is another topic
@@wellingboroughanddistrictu3a Yes but again we are speaking of late XIX century and early XX century, who is when those things actually happened, and you saw how figurative the "power sharing", actually was. And that was because the French Revolution was so strong who the Monarchist couldn't twist the clocks back to their times, but it was not ilogic for a monarch to think like Nicholas II,
1) My name is Dennis in english :) 2) The Soviet Union was established by four republics: the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR and the Transcaucasian SFSR (Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan). Prior to that, they were de facto separate states since 1917/1918, where the Bolsheviks seized power from local authorities (like in Russia during the Revolution and Civil war). And other 11 republics (which are independent states since 1991) will appear lately...
This is not meant to touch on any current events in any country that might be relevant. This is also not meant as a disparagement of democracy. But consider: it is "representative" form of government. And as such, it suffers from two, or even three, main problems. One: the people chosen to represent may be fools. They might be incapable or uninterested or selfish... not interested or not able to represent the interests of their community. Two: the people who _choose_ the representatives may be fools. Biased, myopic, selfish or just plain ignorant. Three: both of the above together. Democracy has the best chances of getting good results. overall. But it also needs more effort to achive these results.
It is a huge failure in political philosophy that everyone gets schooled into parliamentary democracy. Of course you need to know how it operates so you can participate, but most people dont even question that is is not the be all end all and actually has the flaws you describe. There are multiple situations where you want a strong leader instead of a rule by idiots, which is why democratic leaders tends to get additional powers during crisis.
@Cu6upckuû The direct democracy of Ancient Greece is large described as the rule of the plebs/idiots. Heavily despised by Plato and ended up voting to kill Socrates. Also recommend this video on Africa ua-cam.com/video/TW46xDXNO3Q/v-deo.html No Africa is not "held" in democracy so they can be kept poor.
In Russia, democracy in Russian: 1)-a strong and respected President in many countries (in which country the President answers questions from citizens from each region-regions of the country live on the air -these answers to questions-answers for many hours, as well as direct press conferences and journalists for 2-3 hours, all the answers are not on paper prompters), 2)-A strong Parliament (Duma and Supreme Council),3) - A strong army -1.5 million people (in Ukraine it is a small expeditionary army of 400 thousand against 750 thousand Ukrainian soldiers, 50 thousand Polish soldiers (under a false flag with Ukrainian chevrons), 2 thousand American and British special forces, under under the leadership of NATO officers in command positions from generals to junior officers of platoons, companies, battalions, regiments. 40 European countries and the USA are actually fighting against Russia. 4)- strong economy(5 world economy)(Russia is a self-sufficient country:from products to goods produces, 5) freedom of speech, freedom of choice and religion.
7:00 Basically it's a similar Mindset to the Thought behind a quote attributed to Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" TLDR: The people are stupid, let the experts rule. Who are the experts in this case? Well, the people that say that the people are stupid. Definitely no ulterior motices here.
I don't want to offend anyone, but I will tell you my vision as a Russian woman living in Moscow and growing up in Donetsk. An interesting fact is that since the beginning of the special military operation in Moscow and throughout Russia, there has not been a single protest where people would be dispersed. The president's recognition only got stronger. And the point here is the Russian mentality. People remember what happened in the 90s in Russia before Putin (poverty, inflation, high crime rate), remember how the whole country was reborn and learned to live anew. Everyone watches the news, but they don't talk to real people, which is sad. After all, 90% of Americans still believe that we live in poverty, we buy food on coupons, but this is not so. The purpose of the special operation is the liberation of Russians from captivity in the Donbas. No more. Where, 20 years later, people still live in poverty and fear, as Russia lived in the 90s. No one can understand this, because Russians have been experiencing these shocks for generations. No one will allow Russia to return to the 90s again. It was a terrible time for the people.
Какой вы бред про русских несете, в России 80% поддерживают Путина.Вы абсолютно не имеете представления как сейчас люди живут в России.Разве у вас есть цензура ?Так если нет ,то посмотрите обзоры о России.У нас магазины луче чем в Штатах.Как можно делать обзоры о стране о которой не имеете никакого представления!
Don't talk nonsense, with all due respect. Putin has a real rating of the population-more than 80%. From 1990 to 2000, Russia was a backward country, a poor population, mafia showdowns, there was a civil war on the territory of Russia, terrorists blew up houses, American and British oligarchs ruled from the Kremlin under a puppet government, the American embassy paid the salaries of Russian deputies, the wealth of Russia was brazenly exported to the USA and Europe, the best students of Russia were taken there also, there was a war on the streets among gangster groups, every business owner paid racketeers from gangs, it was life-threatening to go out at night, drug addicts' syringes were lying on the streets, girls on the street were abducted for "work" as prostitutes in brothels, and young people went to gangster clans, there was poverty everywhere, and people were dying of hunger., The IMF put Russia on multibillion-dollar debts For 20 years of Putin's rule - since 2000-all this has stopped. According to the IMF, Russia has become the 5th economy of the world
The US Federalist Papers reminded people of the quote "Democracy can survive only as long as the people do not discover that they can vote themselves the treasury" today they know not only can they vote themselves the treasury, they can tax people for being successful.
It was not the invention of dynamite that Nobel felt guilty about. His death was erroneously reported in a newspaper and his obituary was printed. It was not flattering and condemned him for profiting from way. The invention of dynamite is generally seen as a good thing. It is really just a way to use an explosive chemical that already existed, nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerine, in it's explosive form is very hard to handle because it can be set off by just slight jarring or the application of a small amount of heat. By soaking the nitroglycerine into a solid, organic medium like sawdust the chemical loses it's sensitivity to jarring, requiring a quite sharp blow to set off but it retains it's power when it does explode. It is normally set off with a blasting cap which is basically a really big, more powerful firecracker. In the 60's and 70's, before more strict regulations prevented it, sometimes kids would get them and blow their hands off. There is a really funny PSA with a well known baseball player telling kids not to play with blasting caps. ua-cam.com/video/skfZQ9fRpf4/v-deo.html
During Putin's rule, Russia has become the 5th economy in the world according to the IMF report for 2023, multibillion-dollar IMF debts at extortionate interest have been paid, including the Paris Club of Creditors, the unemployment rate is the lowest in history, taxes in Russia are 13%, which is the lowest of the world's leading economies, Russia is among the top five in construction housing,industrial buildings and social facilities, ranks 1st in the world in the cultivation and export of grain- overtaking the United States. So Russia has no debts and has accumulated reserves of billions in dollars, euros, yuan and other cash in two funds, unlike the United States, which has accumulated debts of $ 30 trillion. In Russia, the streets are clean, beautiful and safe day and night. The Russian economy is growing despite the "sanctions". Thanks to the sanctions, store shelves are full of Russian products (they are not hemomodified, but natural) and Russian goods, Russian business has raised its head and is growing.
And middle of all this hassle Finland declare independence. And Russian say OK here you go. in Next 20 year inside Kreml walls -- "OK who idiot did this, what did they think - no harm - Sh**t "
6:30 Keep in mind, the Czar was highly biased and extremely argent. I mean, listen to what he says here, "I am the one who God has entrusted to care for (the people of Russia) Of course the government they formed was no more representative than the autocratic Czar. They just didn't claim to be appointed by God.
Lots of docudramas and biopics have been made concerning the Russian Revolutions. Some of the more popular/ accessible ones in English include: "Doctor Zhivago" (1965) based on the novel by Boris Pasternak "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) a UK productions about the fall of the Romanoff Dynasty culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family. "Reds" (1981) American biopic starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton based on the lives of John Reed and Louise Bryant who both covered the Revolutions @ first hand. Reed himself wrote "10 Days That Shook The World" about his eye witness account of the Russian Revolutions. A couple of UA-cam videos are available which dramatized Lenin's historic train ride from his exile in Switzerland to his historic arrival in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) Russia, all courtesy of the German government.
This will probably be hard for anyone to understand who doesn't know what marxism actually is but Lenin nor Stalin were not dictators in the meaning that is often implied. The CIA themselves have admitted that the Soviet Union practiced a cooperative leadership where the top leadership was divided among a couple of different people with varying ideas of how to build socialism. The Soviet Union indeed only had 1 party which was the Communist Party. But only having 1 party doesn't determine whether or not a state is democratic. The US has 2 different parties who are pretty much the same for that matter. Both of those parties are controlled by the rich and have always only represented the rich. The communist party represented the combined forces of the working class and the peasantry. To truly understand how the USSR worked, one would have to forget earlier understandings of "liberal democracy" and what a marxist would call "bourgeoisie democracy", and whether what we have in the West is truly democracy. Do we, the people who are doing all the work truly have political and economical power? Or are our societies run in the favor of a wealthy elite that convinces us that they care about us? In the Soviet Union, the PEOPLE held political and economic power, instead of a wealthy few as we have it in western countries. People will try to tell you otherwise, that power was concentrated in the hands of a few people in the USSR, but there just isn't anything that proves that claim. If these so called "dictators" truly were just that, don't you think that they would have enriched themselves? But the truth is that when Lenin died, he had barely any money and didn't own any private mansions or anything like that. When he was healthy he lived mainly in a small apartment. When Stalin died he also had barely a dollar to his name. He didnt own any property or any mansions, infact he lived almost his entire political career together with his good friend Molotov in a small apartment, similar to those that the average urban worker would live in. It just doesn't add up. Some people will tell you that Stalin simply put was a power hungry egotistical maniac who didn't care about money but only that he had political power. That would be a fair claim, if there was any substancial sources for it, but there aren't. The Soviet Union was for all intents and purposes a "dictatorship of the proletariat". What does that mean you ask? It's a marxist term meaning that political and economic power is in the hands of the proletariat (the industrial workers and the peasantry), as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" where political and economic power lies in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or rather the capitalist class/ the rich/ the wealthy / the 1% etc.
Nicholas II and his father Alexander III became staunch conservatives following the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 over such reforms. To Nicholas, he was the Tsar, ordained by God to rule and while he was certainly out of touch with the plights of his people, he took that God-ordained duty seriously. As for the Duma, duma is the Russian word for assembly, derived from dumat (meaning "to consider/think"). There had been dumas at the town level under Alexander II, but the Imperial State Duma was new to Nicholas II and was the lower house of the Russian Governing Senate. The upper house, the State Council, goes back traditionally to Peter the Great. To the point of the video, Nicholas II refused to share his power with the Duma, preferring to continue to rule as an absolute monarch (the last one in Europe besides the Pope).
I disagree with your comments. As an outsider, you may not fully understand the complexities of my country's history.Please refrain from making such comments in the future. As for your recommendations on the political structure of my country, I decline.
Sadly, there's no thorough English video on Russian Civil war, because it's too complicated and with tonns of events happening simultaneously. Imagine this enourmous swath of land with, all the peoples on, it violently convulsing for around 6 years, while also affected with epidemics and hunger, to get a metaphorical picture of the event. 20th century was brutal. It went from Bloody Sunday and bloody punishing raids of tzars troops across the countryside of the Central Russia, to WWI, to Civil War, Red Terror, 20's hunger and epidemies, to Great Famine in 30's, then the Purges and the Great Terror, then WWII, and after a brief breathing space, ended in the humiliating and painful collapse of the nation in the 90's, as the result of the Cold War overspending, regional nationalism, poverty and western "containment" policies such as sanctions and embargoes.
Russians will not rebel against Putin, not because we can't, but because we don't want to. Like, why? The country is developing, the opposition discredited itself during the war, we are independent in all aspects.
Extra Credits has a little series of short videos about Rasputin, if you still want to know, why he is considered to be a dark figure. Extra Credits started as a channel about computers and games, but now they have videos on literature and history, too. The videos about the 30 Years War, the ones about Admiral Ji and those about the Emu War in Australia will perhaps fit your interest for military history. The 30 Years War series concentrates on the consequences for ordinary people.
Why would you want Putin out of power economy is great and Russia is stronger then it has ever been in the world….. wish we had a Putin type in USA economy would be way better
October 25, according to the old style (Julian calendar), according to the new (Gregorian) it was November 7. After the revolution, the Gregorian calendar was introduced, but in history the revolution remained as the "October". In the video, everything is told very briefly, in fact, a lot of things happened there.
Russian society basically collapsed in 1917 and the provisional government with a president in the new republic was not capable of restoring order and civilization. The communists of all the various parties were pretty capable in restoring society from the ground up, kind of like how families take care of eachother in crisis the entire communities in the big cities took are of eachother. After the October Revolution by the Bolshevik's they actually held an election that had been promised by the provisional government, and they lost to the Menschevik's but the communist parties combined were by far in the majority of votes. Lenin deemed the election to be irrelevant and influenced by the capitalists, so they stayed in power and it basically became the spark of the Russian Civil War. However you slice it, Communism would have taken over Russia, just like it would do in Hungary. IWith very strong communist movements in Germany, Austria, Romania, Italy and Frace in the immediate WW1 aftermath, with some failed coup attempts. Meanwhile Spain would see a military coup and later a coalition of Socialists and Communist elected government sparking a civil war. It was the piling of horrors during the Russian Civil War that would eventually kill off the communist surge in Europe, as while people might agree on Communism they did not want such a horrific civil war, and the existing governments cracked down very hard to prevent such a revolution known as the Red Scare. The communist ideas did not die of because Communism was bad, it died of because Civil War after a huge World War is bad.
The Bolsheviks "lost" that "election" not to the Mensheviks, but only to the Socialist Revolutionaries, which were in the essence two opposing party factions that could not agree with each other at all, and found themselves on the different sides during the Civil War. Moreover, the role of that election is greatly overexaggerated by anti-communists, it was indeed irrelevant. It did not decide anything, the Bolsheviks already had all the executive power they needed in the country. The Bolsheviks were the only strong and unified party capable of restoring the country, which is why they emerged victorious.
@@MalleusImperiorum Yes the election was irrelevant, but the response to it made it clear to some that the Bolsheviks were not gonna give up their power. The White Army started to mobilize into the civil war. Meanwhile the ones from the larger cities joined the Red Army. but yes the election is more symbolic than meaningful.
That was very interesting, Russia has little history of democracy it went virtually straight from the Tsars to Lenin and his successors in a very short time.
The story of that Baltic fleet is a gem in itself. For a light-hearted telling of their epic journey, I recommend this: ua-cam.com/video/yzGqp3R4Mx4/v-deo.html
Its weird how different opinions of former Soviet citizens are. Some loved it and dream of the return of Communism, others are traumatised by it, and some will decry Communism... while employing the worst of Stalinism for their own gain.
Only 2 types of people are traumatized by this: 1. Individuals washed by Western propaganda who know history at the level of myth-making in the 1990s. 2. Natural enemies of the Soviet government and their families. And these are White Guards, Cossacks, Nazis, usurers, landowners convicted of criminal articles and their families. And also Nazi bedding in the person of Stepan Bandera (Ukraine puts monuments to him), the Baltic "Forest Brothers", the traitor General Andrei Vlasov (And he was given a memorial in the Czech Republic) and the organizations they created Oddly enough, there are more of the former in Russia.
The was a belief held by many that Democracy was a bad idea because poorly educated people might vote for a popular candidate rather than a good candidate.
2:37 Это неправда! Ни к каким Немцам он отношения не имеет. (Это миф, чтобы очернить его личность). Ленин величина мировой истории, которой нет равной и по сей день. Лучше вам его не касаться, голову сломаете. Он запустил такие перемены в мире, что трудно и представить. Нужно очень много прочесть скучных книг чтобы это понять. Многие современные люди не могут прочитать даже статью, их максимум, это заголовок статьи. И по этим заголовкам они судят о мире🙈 5:29 !? Две? ))) Откройте энциклопедический словарь, и дайте определение ...революция. И так у Вас во всём, вы используете слова, значения которых не понимаете. 11:36 Есть конечно и недовольные, мы огромная страна, Но их Меньшинство! У нас проходят выборы и референдумы. У нас спрашивают народ а не политиков. Страны противопоставляющие себя России, никогда не расскажут вам правды. Они боятся потерять влияния на ваши умы. Вы не пытаетесь понять события с точки зрения Россиян, вы ищите подтверждения словам ваших сми и политиков. Вам ненужно альтернативная точка зрения. Вы уже сделали выводы, нужно лишь утвердиться в нём. Как думаете, вами легко манипулировать? 11:05 по 11:56 Находясь в демократической стране, всё то что вы сказали про Путина. Замените слово Путин, на Байден. Через сколько к Вам прилетит страйк от Ютуба? 🤔 С вами всё понятно, вас уже не исправить. Хуже всего то, что вас посмотрит неокрепший ум и примет вашу сторону. Молодцы, продолжайте в том же духе и WWIII нам Всем обеспечена, вопрос времени!👍😱
Вообще каждый западный ролик(да и почти любой из тех что делают у нас для тв и ютуба) о истории(какой ни возьми) это тупорогая либеральная пропаганда! Поскреби либерала, и наскребешь фашиста. Ни дать ни взять.
@@sheliakslagnesh311 ну да, я понял. Чел в порыве изливания своей токсичности собрал всё и всех подряд в коменте на русском языке под видео обычной американки..
So why the demand Czar to abdicate ? what happened next is much worse than that. just absolute nightmare Btw many countries like Uk, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan and so on .. still have their Kings. it's a Constitutional Monarcy and its fine
Hello SoGal and Roger. I thought the Czar's quote that you questioned was from the year before the Duma was set up by the first revolutionary movement after the defeat by Japan. The autocracy and this defeat by Asians meant the rest of the European powers saw the country as a joke. This same superior attitude later annoyed the Japanese at the negotiations for The Treaty of Versailles. I had hoped you might revisit WW1 in a shorter version than the one you had looked at previously to see some more on such topics as are in this video. P.S. I was surprised you had difficulty with cyrillic script, after you rattled off the Greek alphabet in a video about Ancient Greek. I recently watched a UA-cam video to help me with cyrillic, but from using Greek letters in maths and science, I can sometimes read and work out Russian sentences, with words similar to English, French or German, which I learned in school.
@@SoGal_YT I guess I learned to make sense of the letters as words from painting Alexandrian and Napoleonic wargames figures and looking at pictures of unit standards. I was painting "little green men" (Russian infantry) long before the more recent Crimea version.
To my knowledge the 90s weren’t that great for Russia either. I know that’s when a lot of gangs started to take over and basically ran everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s still the case today. Also yes please do the Oversimplified videos. I think it is a lot of the same information if I remember so you don’t have to do them right away. Maybe wait a while and then you can come back to the topic and see what you remember.
В 90-е в России абсолютная смертность была ~1000000 человек. Это был ужас. Для россиян 90-е и вся нищета, бандитизм при демократии стало начало нынешнего отношения к демократии. В России, разговоры интеллигенции о демократии для простых граждан - это плевок в лицо. Никто в демократию теперь не верит.
Lenin came from Shvetsaria, representatives of different parties were traveling on the same train. And yet - if there was an opportunity, I myself would have volunteered for the execution of the former royal family. This family was flooded with workers' and peasants' blood to the very top of their heads. a lot of arbitrary executions by the Tsarist guard, peasants and workers, in 1905, are worth something.
Scarlet says, "That not people. That's just a camera. I don't know what cameras doing, but they are boring, so I don't care about them. "I like people, but I love you the most."
The only revoltion in Russia was the one which overthrew the Tsar. Lenin's seizure of power was not a revolution but a miltary coup. When the Bolshievs lost the only general election Lenin simply closed down the parliament
What this doesn't mention is 1918 is also the beginning of the war for independence for the baltic countries, plus the Polish-Soviet war in 1919. So plenty more content about that period and region to check if youre interested. For example ua-cam.com/video/eUO8XmTr46g/v-deo.html
King's and Tsars believed they were appointed by God and were crowned 👑 by the clergy. So not to be led by Kings was as monarchs saw it, not in God's eyes correct.
You should look at the Baltic Naval War that occoured in 1918-1919 between the UK and the Soviets, where the British were helping the Blatic states to break free from the Soviets.
I think what the Tsar meant by reform or revolution being harmful to the people was his paternal oversight would be removed and the peasants would be ruthlessly exploited by the middle classes and landowners taking power. A similar situation arose in the English civil war when the king, Charles I, was pitted against a parliament of merchants and traders, who wouldn't have the best interests of the ordinary people at heart. The little kid in the army uniform was the Tsarovitch, Tsar Nicolas's son and heir. It was a fashion at the time to dress children in sailor suits and military gear.
Вы не верно поняли его. Он говорил, что он - император - и есть власть - власть от бога (так было ещё с Ivan IV) и его слово - это слова наместника на земле божьего.
Sorry for the second comment but just saw what you said at 23:25. Oversimplified definately does a lot more than just "rehash" this video. They offer a lot more information and context in the fun and informative way that only Oversimplified can (kind of like how their Napoleon video added so much information to the Epic History Napoleon series you watched in an easy to understand way). Would definitely love to see you react to it.
oversimplified is very american bias and a bad historian in general especially in his cold war video he love to mention the soviet wrong doing but ignore all the american and the west wrong doing not even mention all the coup in latin america and the middle east. He try ti paint the us is the democracy savior but be opposite is true in real life and no the name oversimplified is not the excuse to be bias and lazy
Probably won't be any better, revolutions rarely make life easier for the majority of people. I suspect the military would have still taken over as the Czar refused to relinquish power because he had the belief that it was his God given duty to rule.
лучше своего дедушку поменяйте. хотя вам этого тоталитарный диктаторский строй не даст этого сделать. недавняя осада капитолия всё показала. как вы стреляете по безоружным людям
20:20 Can you imagine what it must be like to, as a child, realize you are going to be killed not for something you did, but simply because you are a threat to someone's political power. I can't imagine what those Romanov children went through as they descended into that cellar, knowing they would not come out again.
Well, that was what the French revolution took care to never do, kill the childrens, however as they grow they become a rallying cry for extremists. Here the Soviets did the most pragmatic thing, Kill them all, so they will never rule again!
@@SoGal_YT You don't need to do a special thing for me. But thanks. I'll just enjoy what content I can access. Maybe things will change in the future and I can buy an account.
Google tranlated from Hunter One: "The monarchy is authoritarianism, as is the presidency. While in the USSR there was a social democratic regime." I happen to agree with this assessment.
After the Soviet Union disolved a "democratic elected" drunked man plunged Russia into a dictatorship, then bombed his own parliament, started wars in some regions of the former Union, and his corruption was so hughe who he appointed a KGB superstar, to save him from consequences and continue his "legacy". Hint: He still the leader of Russia right now.
@@marvelfannumber1 Yes he was democratically elected, but he shelled the parliament, and become a dictator, his 1996 election was more fraudulent thant in the third world countries of one family dinasty. But well, if someone said something or impeached him, you will get the tanks shelling you.
@@omarbradley6807 I didn't dispute that. I only said that his first election was by and large legitimate, and in hindsight probably the only free election in modern Russian history.
the idea that the king was absolute goes back at least to King David. when the idea that the king was only answerable to god and ruled with God's authority if this was a good king a servant of the people ok but if as they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely it is not good defiantly not good
The authors of the video are overly critical of tsarist times in Russia. Yes, all the cons they talk about are mostly true, but they completely omit the pros. For example, a significant moment is that in 1914 most of the people went out into the streets with support for the war and posters "God Save the Tsar" and all that. The Tsar himself was not a bad person at all, but very strange. Many contemporaries compared him to a child, although he was already at a venerable age. Also, little is said about the white movement, which united not only all the rightists, from liberals to monarchists, but even almost all socialists - joined It. It is not said that this movement in 1919 controlled approximately 80 percent of the country's territory, but the propaganda among the population of the Bolsheviks was much better and thanks to this they were able to win. Most of the Bolsheviks - craved only power, and their elite was very smart. They turned the life of the entire population of the country, especially the peasants, into a real hell for the coming decades. The white movement, too, cannot be called heroes, there were also not uncommon cases of absolute cruelty, but its leaders - were not so smart, but absolutely definitely - wanted the best for the country. But due to strange war tactics, they lost. I hope in the next videos it will be said about all the horrors that surrounded the country, well, at least for the next 35 years. If the white movement had won then, and he had every chance, then I am convinced that now there would be no Putin. There would not have been 25-40 million victims in World War II. There would not have been tens of millions of victims of Stalin's political repressions and millions of victims of hunger in the country. Now almost certainly our country would be something like Canada. And Hitler would have been strangled even earlier, because the right-wing government would obviously not sign agreements with Germany on the division of Poland, but immediately declared war on him. But unfortunately, now they will obviously bombard me with answers about how everything in the USSR was beautiful and "stable". This is a different era of the USSR, but oh well. In the end, and the war with Ukraine now support 80% of the people. And Stalin's approval rating is even higher than Putin's(todat, really). He is associated with justice. Although it was during his reign that our country was the most Injustice for life
People will simply bombard you with facts about the increase in life expectancy, about the industrial boom that the past rulers could not do, about the educational program, about the program of restoring dying cultures (such as Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR), about the fact that workers who rented a corner before the Bolsheviks (literally a corner. A bed and a bedside table) could allow you to get at least a room in a communal apartment. About mass electrification, about the military-industrial complex recreated from scratch. About how the USSR tried to hinder the strengthening of the Reich, but all the time it stumbled upon the west's buchtege towards the USSR. About unemployment disappearing for a couple of days (Literally the only such case in the world). About the lowest index of social stratification. About the new working conditions introduced by the Bolsheviks (8-hour working day, paid holidays, sick leave. Free kindergartens and schools. Free medicine and housing). Well, and so on according to the list. The Whites did not guarantee even a hundredth part of this, and did not remove the prodrazverstku, although the RSFSR already introduced a prodnalog at that time. And, of course, about the victory of the USSR over the Reich. Do not forget that those 27 million are not military losses. These are all losses. And most of them (15 million people) are civilians. And the ratio of losses is 1:1.3, with a strong error in the direction of the Wehrmacht. Why? Yes, because the Reich has unknown losses of the Volkssturm with the Hitler Youth, and the losses of the USSR recorded all traitors and killed prisoners of war, of whom less than half rushed home. For example: the USSR returned 89% of all captured Germans to their homeland. Feel the difference.
Tsar Nicholas' quote of not giving the assembly a right to speak out was because back then monarchy was justified by "god-given right" to rule over their country and their people. Maybe even not just a right but a duty to do so. Russia was and still is deeply religious so that's why it was the longest lasting absolute monarchies in Europe. Few interesting things aswell that Estonia got it's independence during that civil war in 1918 when the republic was declared. Together with the Whites Petrograd was almost conquered and to this day some historians say that maybe if we had sent more help to the push then it might have been a serious blow to the revolution and maybe even enough to stop it. After the war ended in 1920, Soviet Union and Estonia both recognized each other with the peace treaty with both being the first country for each to recognize them as a sovereign state. In that peace treaty there is a point about Russia renouncing all it's claims on Estonia forever. I'm bringing this out as an important part of the current state of NATO as during the WWII, Soviet Union still annexed Estonia and illegally at that after it had declared neutrality in the war. When SU collapsed, Russia declared itself as a direct inheritor just as it's using that same reasoning in Ukraine. In Estonia, after 1991, the motto of the country has become "Never alone again" because of what was done in the past. So what I'm trying to say with this is that any point about NATO being a threat to Russia is unfounded because Russia is a danger to all of it's neighbours. That's why everyone is joining it, especially former Warsaw Pact members.
Russia would not have gone anywhere if one overseas state had stopped sponsoring color revolutions right at the borders of this giant country. And even if those same neighbors stopped discriminating against the Russian-speaking population and finally stopped glorifying Nazi scum. In the same Ukraine, almost everything repeats Hitler's Germany. From propaganda ("Muscovites to knives" - Ukrainians shouted so in 2014, and legends about "the Russians stole everything from them" became a separate meme in Russia) to slogans ("Ukraine above all" is almost a literal copyright from the Nazi "Germany above all"). And this country also glorifies the traitor and Nazi accomplice Stepan Bandera. There were even torchlight processions and marches of the SS "Galicia".
Germany, during WW1, sent Lenin back to Russian with some money too to get whatever Lenin was good at started. That's what I heard anyway. Alexei, Nicholas' only son and heir, had a blood disorder, if I'm not mistaken, and this was the main reason Rasputin managed to influence the Tsar and his family. PS. A question to Sarah: What is the terminal velocity of an unladen swallow? It's okay if you don't know the answer, but I hope you know the reference. 🤣🤣
The man abolished free elections after his party ended up losing, I'd say that's pretty dictatorial behavior. Lenin was a committed 'means to an end' kind of guy. He may have had noble goals, but he used dictatorial means to achieve them.
yeah, he was just a psycho who wanted his revolution by any means. surrender in world war and lost the land, civil war with 2 million casualties, famine with over 9 million civilians deaths - does not matter
Please don't BBC It!! The history of any nation shouldn't be compared to the acts from the past to their deeds now! Else I'm sure plenty Both Brit & American could be placed on the chopping block there! Good content just the timing other than that Slava Ukraini !!!
That's a wrap for Epic History TV's series. Should I do the Oversimplified videos on the Russian Revolution as well? Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media, and join my Discord & Patreon:
❤ Patreon: www.patreon.com/sogal_yt?fan_landing=true
🐕 Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
🏀 Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
⚽ Facebook Page: facebook.com/SoGal-104043461744742
🏖 Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/238616921241608
💥 Discord: discord.gg/amWWc6jcC2
🖖 My Star Trek Podcast: www.tribblespodcast.com/
Gracias por otro buen video SoGal 👍y en compañia de la adorable Scarlett.😍 Siiiii , Oversimplified videos son divertidos de ver y ofrecen muchos muchos datos históricos válidos pero muy superficialmente. después de todo es """Oversimplified"""😁
Thanks for another good video SoGal👍😊 and in the company of the lovely Scarlett😍. Yessss, Oversimplified videos are fun to watch and offer a lot of valid, but very superficial historical data. after all it is ""Oversimplified""😁
Yes do the oversimplified ones! There are amazing as always and they go further in the some things then these series.
The oversimplified videos will go into more depth about the actions and situations that surrounds the revolutions.
This Epic History video was very very brief and oversimplified.
Yes, Oversimplified does a great job and watching a different take on it so soon will help you remember details.
Small thing just as a response to what you said at the end there. The fall of the USSR was a disaster for normal russians, to be in Russia in the 90's was extremly scary with gangsters and criminals being let loose and running the entire country not to mention the countries national resources were pillaged by oligarchs. Just look at the economic retraction the country faced during this time and youll see.
As a person living in Russia, it annoys me that most foreigners think that Putin is the reason. You must understand that it is not a matter of a particular person, but of the capitalist system. This system works in all countries in the same way, the difference is only in scale. Until you understand this, until we understand this, humanity is doomed to endless world wars.
Mr Smith
You are absolutely right, sometimes I get the impression, when an American Individuals wants to study this subject. She or he wants to take shortcuts. History
does not look kindly on Shortcuts, if you want to build a foundation of knowledge on it. SoGal makes a cardinal mistake here, of drawing conclusions. Conclusions she might has to life with, for the remainder of her studies, never knowing what will rattle her in the future.
It's astonishing how many Americans think lives are better after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I mean, the collapse of the USSR literally led to the greatest catastrophic dropped in life expectancy ever in history. The Russian economy was dysfunctional throughout the 90s, child prostitution was widespread, and life was reduced to mere survival. This is the reason why many in Russia today still are nostalgic for the Soviet time; it was precisely because life was better during that time.
I will admit that we are largely ignorant about what life is like in Russia. I hope that changes now that we have things like UA-cam, and Russians can show us first-hand what's happening in their country.
@@SoGal_YT Now we live very well, despite the sanctions. But we remember the 90s with horror. Salaries were not paid for several months, the majority had no work at all, there was nothing to eat, the crime was horrific. In our entrance on each floor there were syringes lying around because of drug addicts, people drank alcohol in incredible quantities, but since there was no money for normal alcohol, some drank substances that contained alcohol, for example, windshield wipers. Because of this, many people died. There were often contract killings. There was a nightclub near our house. At night, the car of a visitor to this club was blown up; he was connected with crime. A friend of our family was shot, but he was also involved in crime. In addition to all this, there was also a huge number of terrorist attacks (house bombings, seizure of a hospital), in the early 00s there were also terrorist attacks (hostage-taking in a theater center, the terrorist attack in Beslan (this terrorist attack is a pain in the heart for the entire people), but then there were fewer of them . And people began to live better. Salaries were paid consistently, there was plenty of food, there were no problems going on vacation at the seaside. Life has gotten better.
@@SoGal_YT Many people remember the Soviet Union with nostalgia. There were also bad moments (many commentators like to remember camps a la gulag, but this was in the 30s and 40s, so adults born in the USSR simply could not face this). And my family did not encounter any camps. My great-grandmother had 10 children (now 6 out of 10 are alive). She did not have time for any actions that could lead to ending up in the camp. I don’t justify the camps, I’m very sorry for the victims. But I tell the story of my family and most others, because many at that time had similar stories. Grandmother was born in 1933, but she also always spoke well of the USSR. She was born during the famine that happened in the Volga region (there are terrible photographs of those years). But she noted bad times in childhood due to hunger, due to war and then in the 90s. And everyone remembers about the Union that medicine was absolutely free, education was free, children could go to the sea for free, they gave vouchers to sanatoriums from work, also free. And there was natural food! The products were of very high quality, without any harmful additives. Many people miss this.
Regarding the comment towards the end about things getting better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union: Russia was initially suffering from economic collaps and it was a turbulent time. There was no know-how how to transform the nation into a market economy, and corruption allowed for a few well-connected persons to gain immense wealth when former public assets were privatized ridicously cheap. This was the rise of the oligarchs. The times were uncertain for ordinary people and inflation sky-high. President Yeltsin was also a problematic figure suffering from alcoholism. Eventhough freedom of speech was getting better, it was a painful transition. There is a reason why not so few Russians look back with nostalgia on the Soviet Union. Things were getting more stable around the time when Putin became president, which adds to his popularity.
Some speculate, that if the west had given Russia more active support during the 1990s, rather than rejoicing over the fall of an old enemy, things could have developed differently.
Thanks - I guess I don't have a very good grasp of life post-Soviet Union. I was really too young to be aware of what was happening, and was under the impression that during Putin's term things were trending more towards the west, and Russia was prospering more. Maybe I was mistaken. I need to learn more about it, obviously.
@@SoGal_YT and still Soviet Union collapsed on itself, because of non existent democracy, terror, national revendication and economic flaws like collectivisation, mass industrialisation of the country and shortage of manpower for the factory.
over-allthe Russian Empire was doing fine until the 1st world war which make it explode, if it wasn't for the archduke, German Army officers had evaluated that Russia in 1917 would have crushed them because they would have been at the height of their industrial capabilities and building of train tracks.
it is all hypothesis but if the Revolution ould not have happened the Russian Empire would have been the number one in terms of military and economic power.
I doubt it because the US have an over-all better country (geograficaly) but it is a legitimate hypothesis. and a good question to study.
@@valentinlageot4101 I think that hypothesis ignores some of the important factors. The war clearly increased the tensions inside the empire’s society and contributed to them bursting out in successive revolutions but the roots were a lot deeper.
In most countries the industrial revolution was a brutal process that was accompanied by mass impoverishment, mass displacement of populations and the destruction of century old social bonds. Just look at some examples in Europe: The transition from a feudal to a bourgeois society in the UK took centuries, started with civil war and was later accompanied by incremental changes in society and government. The latter kept the constitutional monarchy quite stable. The last phase of the break with the remains of feudalism in continental Europe started with the French Revolution that was accompanied by a major war and transitioned into the continent wide wars of the coalitions. The whole 19th century saw uprisings and revolutions sweeping over Europe.
Even the American civil war, aside from the subjective moral interpretation, can only be fully understood in the context of the industrial revolution.
Bismarck is often seen as some “great guy” but he was a diehard reactionary who understood that he had to adapt to the new reality so that the ideas of liberalism, humanism and the workers movement won’t become dominant against Prussian authoritarianism. Many instead see the creation of a unified Germany through war against external forces as a contributing factor to Germany’s internal divisions and tendency to unity through aggression later on.
Now imagine that the Russian empire would have had to go through the industrial revolution in a decade while still having feudal structures left and being governed by an absolutist autocracy. It was doomed to explode in revolutions.
@@harrypadarri6349 the hypothesis take into account the date of the war so in a way how many year can russwia not enter a war with an economic equal as an ennemy.
@@SoGal_YT You think that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union life in Russia was better. 25% of people lost their jobs. they lost 50% of GDP, thousands of scientists fled to the United States. from a superpower to a country full of mafia. from the beginning the 1 richest people controlled 10% of the economy (because there was a wealth restriction in the USSR) to the richest 1% the oligarchs controlled it 90% of the economy of public transportation and health collapsed due to lack of funds and the government agencies that took care of the apartments disappeared in an instant and people lived in great places. the damaged one. Russia's 1990 economic crisis Greater than the United States the Great Depression. Shut up you white imperialism bastard
Russian 90's were very aweful. You have no idea what are you talking about.
22:53
Hell no, if you ask most Russians who were alive then, things did *not* get better when the Soviet Union fell, things infact got much worse, probably still worse than it is today.
Life expectancy for the average Russian collapsed during the 1990's, the economy was in shambles (and almost defaulted in 1998), state corruption was everywhere (maybe even worse than it is now if you can believe that), there was a deadly war in Chechnya, organized crime skyrocketed, there were near constant terrorist attacks due to the conflict in Chechnya and the Russian President was an embarrassing drunk who towards the end could barely even put together a coherent sentence and had an approval rating of 4% when he left office.
One could even argue that whatever "democracy" (if you wanna call it that) Russia was trying to attempt in the 1990's got destroyed (and Putin became popular) because things were *so bad* in the 90's, it really was Russia's Weimar Germany moment. For your average Russian at the time it really felt like Russia was the world's punching bag, and that the world as they knew it was pretty much ending. Putin, for as evil and tyrranical as he is, brought some degree of stability during his first two terms (2000-2008), which is why he's still so popular in Russia today, because people associate democracy, or a post-Putin Russia with the complete shitshow that was the 1990's.
I was a kid in the 90s, so I wasn't aware of all that. My perception of post-Soviet Russia comes from the 2000s where it did seem Russia was more stable. So I guess I need to learn more about the 90s era to fully understand.
@@SoGal_YT
Don't worry about it, it's something most people in the west overlook. During the 1990's we were kind of on a victory parade because we had "won the cold war" and "Russia was our friend now".
So many people didn't really care about or follow Russia as much by then. It was just kind of assumed that Russia was no longer going to be an important country and that it would eventually transition into full democracy.
This attitude only made things worse in Russia, and contributed to people having a mistrust of the west.
Russia did get a little more democratic in some areas...but like, what good are some new freedoms if the economy is in shambles and there's crime/corruption everywhere?
@@SoGal_YT The 90's Russia was the " EL DORADO" for western corporations, to plunder a perceived defeated country. It was the time, where Russian Oligarch's, with the help of their collective western handlers, shamelessly exploited Russia's resources. It was Putin who put an end to it. Putin having reacted nationalistic, hit the accord with many Russian people who resented the humiliation of the chaotic 90"s.
The foreign support for the Whites included military intervention by the US, UK, France and Japan. Stalin never forgot this and it influenced his attitude to the western powers in WW 2.
Yes, not forget Japan either, they remained in Russia until mid 1920s
@@omarbradley6807 Poland more
That's rigth and Churchill said the goal of this western intervention was to « strangle bolchevism in its cradle » ... the idea of liberty and democracy for workers and poor is a threat for the capitalist even now ... especially in USA ...
It is difficult to transform a large country with its rich history into a liberal state. We tried, history documented everything. It doesn't take root with us, because the background is completely different. We are distrustful, but loyal. Loyal to their families, friends and principles. Russians are a proud people who create their own history and do not allow anyone from outside to interfere in it. There is an interesting feature of Russia: only a Russian person can criticize political decisions and the government. But if someone from outside starts doing the same thing, we "cut throats".
"I can, I'm Russian, but you can't, you don't know what you're talking about, you and your families haven't lived our history."
Fact
You’re too delusional about Russian people. One thing that we definitely can’t stand is when someone BS about our country, history and values, simply based on propaganda.
"No one hates Russia and Russians as much as the Russians themselves"
or else
"There is no greater Russophobe than a Russian"
After minute 11:00 of your video, you aligned Tzar Nicolaus to the elected leader Vladimir Putin, and speculated about a modern Regime Change. The Tzar never enjoyed approval rates like Putin , who even during his worsted's times, maintained at least 55 %. The Tzar was living in a different reality and acted accordingly. Putin never enjoyed Absolute power like the Tzar, but real support by his constituency. Now it is at 83 %.
If you need my sources, please look up Scott Ritter and Patrick Lancaster.
How credible can polls be given now, when certain words can lead to fines or even imprisonment? Of course the answer has to be supportive, people become cautious
@@Maria-js9ou Your quote: "How credible can polls be given now, "
It depends on how it is conducted.
It was the Indian media in Russia, who conducted this poll.
@@ernstwiltmann3918 In my opinion, in this case, the unreliability of the polls does not reside in who makes them, whether international media or not, but in the answers that people give. Given the current situation, quote "people become CAUTIOUS", and show support, either out of lack of real knowledge, or out of caution
@@Maria-js9ou I`m a regular viewer of India today, I noticed how they conduct polls. Critical voices are only being heard, not seen on screen, if they
interviewee wishes. India today broadcast`s a lot of their doc`s and reports in English or with English subtitles. Much more informative and educated than our collective Western Main Stream Media. Try it !
22:52 no no no no no. The early 90´s were horrible for russia and pretty much everyone who lived in the USSR ( it was only better for the people who lived under the iron curtain ) and also pretty much everyone i talked to who lived in the soviet union said that back then life was simpler and not as modern as today but almost everything was better and they were happier back in the day
As a former inhabitant of Soviet Union I must confess that you are right!
Well the Baltics also probably had it better after the Soviets fell, despite some hiccups here and there in the 90's.
But yeah, for pretty much every other Soviet Socialist Republic it was a complete shitshow, especially for Russia, Armenia and Tajikistan.
I'm realizing that I don't have an accurate picture of post-Soviet Russia. I was a kid in the 90s, so I only started paying attention to politics in the 2000s. By then it seemed Russia was more stable, so that's just what I assumed it had been like.
@@marvelfannumber1 yeah the baltics as well but they were reluctant to the soviets from the beginning so its kind of obvious why they liked the fall of the USSR
@@SoGal_YT yeah to be honest a lot of the problems of the USSR didnt really change in places like russia and belarus. They are still authoritarian they still have a struggeling economy and freedom of press and stuff like that is still not there. Back in the day everyone at least had a common goal to help and improve the country by doing there part in the working system of the USSR and people were much more connected to each other because they all said: We are workers and we work together towards the common goal of absolute communism and freedom of the common Proletarian. Now russia is still poorer then it needs to be its still authoritarian and the only thing that changed is just that people dont trust each other anymore and there is no more common goal for the people to aim towards and everyone is selfish and has no hope.
( If that sounds depressing well thats kind of the whole point why people miss the USSR and want it back )
There isn't just the Nobel peace prize, there are 5 prizes, in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace. The first four are for serious work, whereas the last one is entirely political and in the opinion of many a bit of a joke.
Yep the Peace Price is a joke. Kind like giving it to Kissinger after sabotaging the peace talks in Vietnam carried by LBJ.
There are now six Nobel prizes, Economics was added in the late sixties. All of them except peace are awarded from Stockholm peace is awarded from Oslo.
@@stephenparker6362 Technically, the economic prize is not a Nobel prize, but "The Swedish Central Bank's prize in memory of Alfred Nobel". Has nothing to do with the will of Alfred Nobel. (I know that you know this, but I just want to emphasize that it is not a proper Nobel prize.)
Regarding the validity of the peace prize, there for sure have been many controversial awardees, but it also helps giving the prize public recognition and arguably helps raising the awareness of the other prizes. Had it been a purely scientific prize, it would probably be less well-known.
@@staffan- Hi, Steffan you are absolutely correct in what you say about the Economics Prize it was not instituted as a result of a bequest in Nobel's will but in memory of him by the Swedish National Bank, i think to celebrate an anniversary, although it is often referred to now as the Nobel Prize for Economics and I think is presented at the same ceremony as the others in Sweden.
Regarding the Peace Prize, I think this was bound to be more controversial because of its very nature but you are right, it keeps the prizes in the public eye and is probably the best known of them.
To be fair, the topic of peace is political in it of itself.
The West wasn't always in favour of representative democracy. This version of government most western countries have is fairly recent. The quote from Nicholas II is basically the essence of the "divine right to rule" many monarchs thought they had.
In Britain, we executed the last monarch to claim divine right - in 1649, a full 144 years before the French did the same to theirs and 268 years before Nicholas II. They say that if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. Seems Nicholas II skipped his history lessons.
@@davidhyams2769 yes but the monarchs right up to Victoria still held some very limited powers( Hannoverians if I am not mistaken).
@@ΑρχοντήςΒαϊτσάκης Our current queen still has limited powers. In my opinion, one of the reasons Charles I's trial and execution was important was becuase it helped move the monarch's source of legitimacy from divine right and more towards consent by the governed. But, we never entirely got rid of that religious aspect: the queen is still the head of the church of england, defender of the faith and all that.
@@davidhyams2769 Executed more by the ruling general classes in England, rather than peasants movements.
@@brandonatchison4769 Head of the Church was a claim by Henry VIII. The split role/s between Monarchs. Preists and Judges always sits uneasy in total world history
Stop talking about Putin. The lies that your media tell you are annoying, to put it mildly. War is always bad, but each of them has its own reasons, which you should understand before putting labels on.
Перестаньте говорить о Путине. Ложь, которую вам сообщают ваши СМИ, мягко говоря, раздражает. Война - это всегда плохо, но у каждой из них есть свои причины, которые вы должны понять, прежде чем навешивать ярлыки.
Putin's acceptance rate, rose to 70% in Russia, because his people realize he is resisting US intervention against them. On the other side only 22% of the Americans think Bided is doing a good job. The slight thing overlooked in regime changes is what comes next, like it is shown in the video.
Kind of hard to say how reliable those statistics are though, considering that you can get arrested for calling the war a war, or for criticizing the government/war.
I'm sure it's still high, but I am very skeptical it's really at 70%,
@@marvelfannumber1 , I have seen some reports (in Western media) that his approval rating has reached 80%.
@@marvelfannumber1 Well the first victim in any war is the truth. Fake atrocity stories have been used so many times they become boring:
ua-cam.com/video/YJ2qb7UcdOE/v-deo.html
@@DenDez3000
Yeah, and those all come from the same survey by Levada. Now Levada is acknowledged as an independent and fairly legitimate research institute, but the problem is that from a sociological perspective, I don't know how you could conduct accurate polling in Russia's current climate.
If I was a person living in Russia that was anti-Putin, if someone called me on my phone and asked if I liked Putin, I would probably either hang up or lie. Given that even the mildest criticism of the government right now (including even BLANK posters!) can get you arrested and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. Not to mention that Putin has openly called people who don't support the war a "fifth column"...so yeah, I think it's probably gone up, but I am very skeptical of polling coming out of Russia right now for a bunch of reasons.
I live in Russia and 70 percent is a very high figure. All youth against Putin. Only the older generation supports him because he saved the country from the horror of the 90s
An important point that the video failed to mention is that the Tsarist Russia kept serfdom until 1892 (people were property of the aristocrats) and after that those ex-serfs had to pay most of their income to the nobles that ruled them until 1907 (making them serfs de facto until then)
*1862
@@ГеоргийШереметьев in 1862 was abolished for most places of Russia, but other places that were then part of Russia, like Georgia and Kalmikia kept it, meaning it wasn't completelly abolished, until 1892 when it was abolished on the last place, Kalmikia.
The remains of Tzar Nicolas 2nd & his family were only found in 1979, sixty-one years after the event (by amature historians) but the discovery was only revealed in 1991, in 2007 remains of two more bodies were found , belived to be the two remaining children.
Russia's problem is that the West sees it as a threat and therefore wants to keep it in poverty. In the 1990s, when the CIA led Russia and taught it the market economy, Russia was failing. No wonder, because in the 1990s, the United States adopted Wolfowitz's doctrine of preventing Russia from developing because it could threaten American dominance in the world. When Putin came to power, Russia began to develop very quickly and already caught Latvia after development, but this was not to the liking of the West and they began to wage a propaganda war against Russia and sanctions. In countries where the Russian minority lives, they have supported the Russophobes, who threaten the Russian threat to justify their persecution of the Russian minority. In the Baltic states, they have even stripped Russian minorities of their citizenship so that they cannot vote, and that is democracy for the West. As if depriving blacks of their citizenship in the United States so that they could not vote, on the pretext that they are not American enough. Russians suffer terrible suffering because of Russophobia.
I am completely agree with you!
This is a very slanted and not very accurate telling of events. The west was indeed concerned to some extent about a new powerful Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but they largely took steps to try and integrate Russia into western institutions to create some degree of cordial relations.
Russia was let into the G8, they were let into the Council of Europe, European governments invested heavily in Russia and made lucrative trade deals, Russia joined the partnership for Peace with NATO and Russia was allowed to take part in training exercises with NATO.
The west didn't want Russia to become a threat, but they largely sought to avoid this by integrating them into global markets and institutions, the idea being that doing so would make a future revanchist Russia less likely to start conflicts (which turned out to be wrong).
All this stuff I mentioned ended in 2014 and 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. At that point it became impossible for western countries to justify further cooperation with Russia. Some countries like Germany tried to maintain a special relationship with Russia even after 2014, but the events of 2022 have made even that impossible.
There is some blame to be put on the west for this, but Russia also has a ton of blame, arguably more. To say they don't is to argue that Russia does not have any agency, which is a sentiment I would heavily disagree with.
@@marvelfannumber1 Russia was never accepted into the G8, it was just an observer. And the possibility of Russia joining NATO and the EU was rejected. Germany was just manipulating Russia to get financial benefits. When the opportunity arose to oppose the killing of the Russian minority in Ukraine, she was silent and instead of defending the Minsk agreement, which regulated everything, she played a dual role and made Russia think there was a way to sort things out, but when she spoke to the US and Ukraine spoke quite the opposite. If Germany had made as much effort to resolve the pre-war situation as it is now trying to spread Russophobia and fascist propaganda, there would have been no war.
@@kosarkosar7683
Russia joining NATO was never a serious discussion on both sides. Yeltsin very briefly suggested it in 1992 and didn't pursue it beyond that. Putin revived it briefly, but he also didn't pursue it very seriously, wanting Russia to join NATO without a formal application process because he believed Russia deserved special treatment if it were to join. However NATO maintained friendly relations with Russia in spite of this. Like I said, Russia was allowed to join NATO in exercises, during the War on Terror Russia shared their intel on the Taliban with the US, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace and NATO did not put nukes or troops east of Germany to appease Russia.
Russia joining the EU was never rejected, I don't know where you got that from. They were thrown a bone by being allowed into the Council of Europe (which they remained a member of until this year) and the EU never showed any more opposition to Russia joining than any other former SSRs during the 90's.
Also, Germany was very amicable towards Russia until this year. Germany was one of the main proponents of the Minsk agreement that, if implemented would have pretty much stripped Ukraine of its sovereignty. Germany vetoed stronger sanctions on Russia in 2014, former Chancellor Schroeder even has a seat at Gazprom, is a personal friend of Putin and still tries to sell himself as a "Putin understander".
Russia and the west both made mistakes, I think you'd have to be dishonest to deny that. But there was no conspiracy by the west to ruin Russia, Russia have done that by themselves, they didn't need any help.
@@marvelfannumber1 Read the Wolfovitz doctrine and everything will be clear to you. And Russia did not want any special place in NATO, but to join, because then it would have a say in decisions about its security. The EU has also set clear boundaries of where it is willing to expand, and they have now given Ukraine there just to encourage Ukrainians to anti-Russian rhetoric, just as they misled Turks just to obey them. Germany only brought the Ukrainians to the negotiating table where they agreed on the Minsk agreement, when the Ukrainian army was defeated in the Donbass and would conquer the entire Donbass area pro-Russian forces, and with the agreement Germany misled the pro-Russian forces not to continue the liberation struggle from the Nazis. The Minsk agreement gave less power to the Donbass than the German states in Germany, nor did they have the right to stop joining NATO. However, in Ukraine, the law is that the president calls elections so many times until those he nominates are elected, and only then can the nationalists win, apart from the abolition of the opposition and their media. In Ukraine, about half of the people speak Russian and 40 percent support Putin, so in eight years, Ukrainians have driven 1.5 million Russians from their homes to change the area's demographics. The Baltic states are in the EU and no one is persecuting them for not having democracy, for depriving Russian minorities of their citizenship so that they cannot vote, and so Russia is to blame for enduring the humiliation and dehumanization of Russians all these years. The West is carrying too high and forgetting that they can no longer do this around the world as they have done for centuries with their violent behavior and propaganda.
Unfortunately (?) for you and your shared birthday with the October coup, Russia was using a different calender back then (the Julian calender), so the 25th October was the 7th November in our current calender (the Gregorian).
Thats a good point although called the February and October revolutions, thats by the Julian calender then used in Russia, according to our calender, the Gregorian they took place in March and November of the same year.
Now I understand why Christmas falls in January for the Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@tonys1636 And why is that ?
@@sarunasjuonys4220 Eastern Orthodox stuck to the Julian Calendar, other Christian churches adopted the Gregorian.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
What a coincidence! I'm watching your reaction to the Russia's Revolution on 25 October. Happy birthday tovAhrish! Greetings from Kazakhstan communists❤✊ Truly a big fan of your videos
Honestly, Tzar Nicholas II was considered really dumb by all his contemporaries. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (his own cousin, and not really a genius himself, either) once said that he'd make a great turnip farmer, and nothing more than that.
So, any statement of his regarding politics should take that into account. The fact that he saw representative forms of government as harmful to the people is just another example of how painfully out of touch with reality he really was. He was, without any shadow of a doubt, the primary beneficiary of Russia's non-representative form of government at the time, and he was simply too clueless to even realize that.
I would not say dumb, I would say "full of himself and the dynasty."
6:49 Oposite of what we think here in the West. Maybe in the US but in Europe at the time it was the mainstream and the only "correct" way to do the things. Those who defied the "rule of god" (entrusted to the monarchs) of course were dealt with severity. Kind of like they did with Napoleon...
It was also mainstream in US to be honest. Frane and the US are a bit of outliers due to the republican revolutions, but even the US had the elites decide who to run the show until after the Civil War where the 1842 revolutions were mainstream anyway.
In earlier times certainly, but, by the late 19th/early 20th century the Divine Right of Kings had rather gone out of fashion. Republics with some form of representative government (but not yet universal suffrage) were becoming more and more common and most monarchies had realised that they had to work in some kind of partnership with those elected by the people, even if they thought of themselves as the senior partner.
For instance, in the UK, no monarch had refused to sign laws passed by Parliament for about 150 years and when King Haakon of Norway was crowned in 1905, he had to swear to uphold the Constitution of the country
@@YekouriGaming Yes i know who the US was not really so "Democratic" as it likes to portray themselves but at least their claim was and still being the "Democracy number 1" so maybe there is no much point to argue about, we know who it is far from a total democracy, but that is another topic
@@wellingboroughanddistrictu3a Yes but again we are speaking of late XIX century and early XX century, who is when those things actually happened, and you saw how figurative the "power sharing", actually was. And that was because the French Revolution was so strong who the Monarchist couldn't twist the clocks back to their times, but it was not ilogic for a monarch to think like Nicholas II,
1) My name is Dennis in english :)
2) The Soviet Union was established by four republics: the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR and the Transcaucasian SFSR (Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan). Prior to that, they were de facto separate states since 1917/1918, where the Bolsheviks seized power from local authorities (like in Russia during the Revolution and Civil war). And other 11 republics (which are independent states since 1991) will appear lately...
Какие какие появятся ещё республики?) можно поподробнее
Western imperialist propaganda
Нихрена ты не поняла.Потому что это американская история России
Maybe you should react Something on the Russian Civil war
i think if you speak to lot of older russians, things didnt get better with the end of the USSR
This is not meant to touch on any current events in any country that might be relevant. This is also not meant as a disparagement of democracy.
But consider: it is "representative" form of government. And as such, it suffers from two, or even three, main problems.
One: the people chosen to represent may be fools. They might be incapable or uninterested or selfish... not interested or not able to represent the interests of their community.
Two: the people who _choose_ the representatives may be fools. Biased, myopic, selfish or just plain ignorant.
Three: both of the above together.
Democracy has the best chances of getting good results. overall. But it also needs more effort to achive these results.
“One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” ― John F. Kennedy
Democracy isn't perfect but its the best we've got.
@@samuel10125 We don't do things because their easy, we do them because they are hard, and they strengthen us along it's course
It is a huge failure in political philosophy that everyone gets schooled into parliamentary democracy. Of course you need to know how it operates so you can participate, but most people dont even question that is is not the be all end all and actually has the flaws you describe.
There are multiple situations where you want a strong leader instead of a rule by idiots, which is why democratic leaders tends to get additional powers during crisis.
@Cu6upckuû The direct democracy of Ancient Greece is large described as the rule of the plebs/idiots. Heavily despised by Plato and ended up voting to kill Socrates.
Also recommend this video on Africa ua-cam.com/video/TW46xDXNO3Q/v-deo.html
No Africa is not "held" in democracy so they can be kept poor.
In Russia, democracy in Russian: 1)-a strong and respected President in many countries (in which country the President answers questions from citizens from each region-regions of the country live on the air -these answers to questions-answers for many hours, as well as direct press conferences and journalists for 2-3 hours, all the answers are not on paper prompters), 2)-A strong Parliament (Duma and Supreme Council),3) - A strong army -1.5 million people (in Ukraine it is a small expeditionary army of 400 thousand against 750 thousand Ukrainian soldiers, 50 thousand Polish soldiers (under a false flag with Ukrainian chevrons), 2 thousand American and British special forces, under under the leadership of NATO officers in command positions from generals to junior officers of platoons, companies, battalions, regiments. 40 European countries and the USA are actually fighting against Russia. 4)- strong economy(5 world economy)(Russia is a self-sufficient country:from products to goods produces, 5) freedom of speech, freedom of choice and religion.
7:00 Basically it's a similar Mindset to the Thought behind a quote attributed to Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"
TLDR: The people are stupid, let the experts rule. Who are the experts in this case? Well, the people that say that the people are stupid. Definitely no ulterior motices here.
“democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.” - Also Churchill
There are many humans who adore Scarlet... but there's only one human who is adored by her. And that's the way it should be!
Как русскому, всегда интересно, что пишут про мою страну, вдруг где-то привирают, изменяют или вообще, узнать что-то новое
Перевирают конечно, в лучшем случае недоговаривают. Что про историю, что про современное время.
I don't want to offend anyone, but I will tell you my vision as a Russian woman living in Moscow and growing up in Donetsk.
An interesting fact is that since the beginning of the special military operation in Moscow and throughout Russia, there has not been a single protest where people would be dispersed. The president's recognition only got stronger. And the point here is the Russian mentality. People remember what happened in the 90s in Russia before Putin (poverty, inflation, high crime rate), remember how the whole country was reborn and learned to live anew. Everyone watches the news, but they don't talk to real people, which is sad. After all, 90% of Americans still believe that we live in poverty, we buy food on coupons, but this is not so. The purpose of the special operation is the liberation of Russians from captivity in the Donbas. No more. Where, 20 years later, people still live in poverty and fear, as Russia lived in the 90s. No one can understand this, because Russians have been experiencing these shocks for generations. No one will allow Russia to return to the 90s again. It was a terrible time for the people.
Какой вы бред про русских несете, в России 80% поддерживают Путина.Вы абсолютно не имеете представления как сейчас люди живут в России.Разве у вас есть цензура ?Так если нет ,то посмотрите обзоры о России.У нас магазины луче чем в Штатах.Как можно делать обзоры о стране о которой не имеете никакого представления!
Don't talk nonsense, with all due respect. Putin has a real rating of the population-more than 80%. From 1990 to 2000, Russia was a backward country, a poor population, mafia showdowns, there was a civil war on the territory of Russia, terrorists blew up houses, American and British oligarchs ruled from the Kremlin under a puppet government, the American embassy paid the salaries of Russian deputies, the wealth of Russia was brazenly exported to the USA and Europe, the best students of Russia were taken there also, there was a war on the streets among gangster groups, every business owner paid racketeers from gangs, it was life-threatening to go out at night, drug addicts' syringes were lying on the streets, girls on the street were abducted for "work" as prostitutes in brothels, and young people went to gangster clans, there was poverty everywhere, and people were dying of hunger., The IMF put Russia on multibillion-dollar debts For 20 years of Putin's rule - since 2000-all this has stopped. According to the IMF, Russia has become the 5th economy of the world
It was Lenin who actually gave parts of Russia to today's Eastern Ukraine.
The US Federalist Papers reminded people of the quote "Democracy can survive only as long as the people do not discover that they can vote themselves the treasury" today they know not only can they vote themselves the treasury, they can tax people for being successful.
You wrong - Putin supported by people
For Eastern Europe, the bloodletting started in 1914 and didn't really end until 1945. The first half of their 20th Century really was a horror show.
I think they're ready for another one now.
Умом Россию не понять...тем более иностранцам
это вы хотите Путина убрать. а нас он устраивает. нам другого не надо
That ending sure sounded like some propaganda
It was not the invention of dynamite that Nobel felt guilty about.
His death was erroneously reported in a newspaper and his obituary was printed. It was not flattering and condemned him for profiting from way.
The invention of dynamite is generally seen as a good thing. It is really just a way to use an explosive chemical that already existed, nitroglycerin.
Nitroglycerine, in it's explosive form is very hard to handle because it can be set off by just slight jarring or the application of a small amount of heat.
By soaking the nitroglycerine into a solid, organic medium like sawdust the chemical loses it's sensitivity to jarring, requiring a quite sharp blow to set off but it retains it's power when it does explode.
It is normally set off with a blasting cap which is basically a really big, more powerful firecracker.
In the 60's and 70's, before more strict regulations prevented it, sometimes kids would get them and blow their hands off.
There is a really funny PSA with a well known baseball player telling kids not to play with blasting caps.
ua-cam.com/video/skfZQ9fRpf4/v-deo.html
During Putin's rule, Russia has become the 5th economy in the world according to the IMF report for 2023, multibillion-dollar IMF debts at extortionate interest have been paid, including the Paris Club of Creditors, the unemployment rate is the lowest in history, taxes in Russia are 13%, which is the lowest of the world's leading economies, Russia is among the top five in construction housing,industrial buildings and social facilities, ranks 1st in the world in the cultivation and export of grain- overtaking the United States. So Russia has no debts and has accumulated reserves of billions in dollars, euros, yuan and other cash in two funds, unlike the United States, which has accumulated debts of $ 30 trillion. In Russia, the streets are clean, beautiful and safe day and night. The Russian economy is growing despite the "sanctions". Thanks to the sanctions, store shelves are full of Russian products (they are not hemomodified, but natural) and Russian goods, Russian business has raised its head and is growing.
And middle of all this hassle Finland declare independence. And Russian say OK here you go.
in Next 20 year inside Kreml walls -- "OK who idiot did this, what did they think - no harm - Sh**t "
6:30 Keep in mind, the Czar was highly biased and extremely argent. I mean, listen to what he says here, "I am the one who God has entrusted to care for (the people of Russia)
Of course the government they formed was no more representative than the autocratic Czar. They just didn't claim to be appointed by God.
Lots of docudramas and biopics have been made concerning the Russian Revolutions.
Some of the more popular/ accessible ones in English include:
"Doctor Zhivago" (1965) based on the novel by Boris Pasternak
"Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) a UK productions about the fall of the Romanoff Dynasty culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family.
"Reds" (1981) American biopic starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton based on the lives of John Reed and Louise Bryant who both covered the
Revolutions @ first hand. Reed himself wrote "10 Days That Shook The World" about his eye witness account of the Russian Revolutions.
A couple of UA-cam videos are available which dramatized Lenin's historic train ride from his exile in Switzerland to his historic
arrival in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) Russia, all courtesy of the German government.
This will probably be hard for anyone to understand who doesn't know what marxism actually is but Lenin nor Stalin were not dictators in the meaning that is often implied. The CIA themselves have admitted that the Soviet Union practiced a cooperative leadership where the top leadership was divided among a couple of different people with varying ideas of how to build socialism. The Soviet Union indeed only had 1 party which was the Communist Party. But only having 1 party doesn't determine whether or not a state is democratic. The US has 2 different parties who are pretty much the same for that matter. Both of those parties are controlled by the rich and have always only represented the rich. The communist party represented the combined forces of the working class and the peasantry. To truly understand how the USSR worked, one would have to forget earlier understandings of "liberal democracy" and what a marxist would call "bourgeoisie democracy", and whether what we have in the West is truly democracy. Do we, the people who are doing all the work truly have political and economical power? Or are our societies run in the favor of a wealthy elite that convinces us that they care about us?
In the Soviet Union, the PEOPLE held political and economic power, instead of a wealthy few as we have it in western countries. People will try to tell you otherwise, that power was concentrated in the hands of a few people in the USSR, but there just isn't anything that proves that claim. If these so called "dictators" truly were just that, don't you think that they would have enriched themselves? But the truth is that when Lenin died, he had barely any money and didn't own any private mansions or anything like that. When he was healthy he lived mainly in a small apartment.
When Stalin died he also had barely a dollar to his name. He didnt own any property or any mansions, infact he lived almost his entire political career together with his good friend Molotov in a small apartment, similar to those that the average urban worker would live in. It just doesn't add up. Some people will tell you that Stalin simply put was a power hungry egotistical maniac who didn't care about money but only that he had political power. That would be a fair claim, if there was any substancial sources for it, but there aren't.
The Soviet Union was for all intents and purposes a "dictatorship of the proletariat". What does that mean you ask? It's a marxist term meaning that political and economic power is in the hands of the proletariat (the industrial workers and the peasantry), as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" where political and economic power lies in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or rather the capitalist class/ the rich/ the wealthy / the 1% etc.
Nicholas II and his father Alexander III became staunch conservatives following the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 over such reforms. To Nicholas, he was the Tsar, ordained by God to rule and while he was certainly out of touch with the plights of his people, he took that God-ordained duty seriously.
As for the Duma, duma is the Russian word for assembly, derived from dumat (meaning "to consider/think"). There had been dumas at the town level under Alexander II, but the Imperial State Duma was new to Nicholas II and was the lower house of the Russian Governing Senate. The upper house, the State Council, goes back traditionally to Peter the Great. To the point of the video, Nicholas II refused to share his power with the Duma, preferring to continue to rule as an absolute monarch (the last one in Europe besides the Pope).
I disagree with your comments. As an outsider, you may not fully understand the complexities of my country's history.Please refrain from making such comments in the future. As for your recommendations on the political structure of my country, I decline.
Sadly, there's no thorough English video on Russian Civil war, because it's too complicated and with tonns of events happening simultaneously. Imagine this enourmous swath of land with, all the peoples on, it violently convulsing for around 6 years, while also affected with epidemics and hunger, to get a metaphorical picture of the event.
20th century was brutal. It went from Bloody Sunday and bloody punishing raids of tzars troops across the countryside of the Central Russia, to WWI, to Civil War, Red Terror, 20's hunger and epidemies, to Great Famine in 30's, then the Purges and the Great Terror, then WWII, and after a brief breathing space, ended in the humiliating and painful collapse of the nation in the 90's, as the result of the Cold War overspending, regional nationalism, poverty and western "containment" policies such as sanctions and embargoes.
check out channel the great war they cover the russian civil war in dept pretty good
Russians will not rebel against Putin, not because we can't, but because we don't want to. Like, why? The country is developing, the opposition discredited itself during the war, we are independent in all aspects.
Extra Credits has a little series of short videos about Rasputin, if you still want to know, why he is considered to be a dark figure. Extra Credits started as a channel about computers and games, but now they have videos on literature and history, too. The videos about the 30 Years War, the ones about Admiral Ji and those about the Emu War in Australia will perhaps fit your interest for military history. The 30 Years War series concentrates on the consequences for ordinary people.
It was ALFRED Nobel who invented dynamite, and came up with the peace prize.
Why would you want Putin out of power economy is great and Russia is stronger then it has ever been in the world….. wish we had a Putin type in USA economy would be way better
October 25, according to the old style (Julian calendar), according to the new (Gregorian) it was November 7. After the revolution, the Gregorian calendar was introduced, but in history the revolution remained as the "October". In the video, everything is told very briefly, in fact, a lot of things happened there.
Russian society basically collapsed in 1917 and the provisional government with a president in the new republic was not capable of restoring order and civilization. The communists of all the various parties were pretty capable in restoring society from the ground up, kind of like how families take care of eachother in crisis the entire communities in the big cities took are of eachother.
After the October Revolution by the Bolshevik's they actually held an election that had been promised by the provisional government, and they lost to the Menschevik's but the communist parties combined were by far in the majority of votes. Lenin deemed the election to be irrelevant and influenced by the capitalists, so they stayed in power and it basically became the spark of the Russian Civil War.
However you slice it, Communism would have taken over Russia, just like it would do in Hungary. IWith very strong communist movements in Germany, Austria, Romania, Italy and Frace in the immediate WW1 aftermath, with some failed coup attempts. Meanwhile Spain would see a military coup and later a coalition of Socialists and Communist elected government sparking a civil war.
It was the piling of horrors during the Russian Civil War that would eventually kill off the communist surge in Europe, as while people might agree on Communism they did not want such a horrific civil war, and the existing governments cracked down very hard to prevent such a revolution known as the Red Scare.
The communist ideas did not die of because Communism was bad, it died of because Civil War after a huge World War is bad.
The Bolsheviks "lost" that "election" not to the Mensheviks, but only to the Socialist Revolutionaries, which were in the essence two opposing party factions that could not agree with each other at all, and found themselves on the different sides during the Civil War. Moreover, the role of that election is greatly overexaggerated by anti-communists, it was indeed irrelevant. It did not decide anything, the Bolsheviks already had all the executive power they needed in the country. The Bolsheviks were the only strong and unified party capable of restoring the country, which is why they emerged victorious.
@@MalleusImperiorum Yes the election was irrelevant, but the response to it made it clear to some that the Bolsheviks were not gonna give up their power.
The White Army started to mobilize into the civil war. Meanwhile the ones from the larger cities joined the Red Army. but yes the election is more symbolic than meaningful.
Я считаю, что Путин не плохой политик, но я бы искоренил взятки и коррупции.
Володю не трож
That was very interesting, Russia has little history of democracy it went virtually straight from the Tsars to Lenin and his successors in a very short time.
And after the fall of the Soviet Union Russia had a single corrupt president before Putin came into power and remained in charge ever since.
The story of that Baltic fleet is a gem in itself. For a light-hearted telling of their epic journey, I recommend this:
ua-cam.com/video/yzGqp3R4Mx4/v-deo.html
Its weird how different opinions of former Soviet citizens are. Some loved it and dream of the return of Communism, others are traumatised by it, and some will decry Communism... while employing the worst of Stalinism for their own gain.
Only 2 types of people are traumatized by this:
1. Individuals washed by Western propaganda who know history at the level of myth-making in the 1990s.
2. Natural enemies of the Soviet government and their families. And these are White Guards, Cossacks, Nazis, usurers, landowners convicted of criminal articles and their families. And also Nazi bedding in the person of Stepan Bandera (Ukraine puts monuments to him), the Baltic "Forest Brothers", the traitor General Andrei Vlasov (And he was given a memorial in the Czech Republic) and the organizations they created
Oddly enough, there are more of the former in Russia.
The was a belief held by many that Democracy was a bad idea because poorly educated people might vote for a popular candidate rather than a good candidate.
When you think about it a "GOOD" candidate is subjective.
Well, that happened a few years ago in the USA, didn't it?
2:37 Это неправда! Ни к каким Немцам он отношения не имеет. (Это миф, чтобы очернить его личность). Ленин величина мировой истории, которой нет равной и по сей день. Лучше вам его не касаться, голову сломаете. Он запустил такие перемены в мире, что трудно и представить. Нужно очень много прочесть скучных книг чтобы это понять. Многие современные люди не могут прочитать даже статью, их максимум, это заголовок статьи. И по этим заголовкам они судят о мире🙈
5:29 !? Две? ))) Откройте энциклопедический словарь, и дайте определение ...революция.
И так у Вас во всём, вы используете слова, значения которых не понимаете.
11:36 Есть конечно и недовольные, мы огромная страна, Но их Меньшинство! У нас проходят выборы и референдумы. У нас спрашивают народ а не политиков.
Страны противопоставляющие себя России, никогда не расскажут вам правды. Они боятся потерять влияния на ваши умы.
Вы не пытаетесь понять события с точки зрения Россиян, вы ищите подтверждения словам ваших сми и политиков. Вам ненужно альтернативная точка зрения. Вы уже сделали выводы, нужно лишь утвердиться в нём.
Как думаете, вами легко манипулировать?
11:05 по 11:56 Находясь в демократической стране, всё то что вы сказали про Путина. Замените слово Путин, на Байден. Через сколько к Вам прилетит страйк от Ютуба? 🤔
С вами всё понятно, вас уже не исправить. Хуже всего то, что вас посмотрит неокрепший ум и примет вашу сторону. Молодцы, продолжайте в том же духе и WWIII нам Всем обеспечена, вопрос времени!👍😱
Вообще каждый западный ролик(да и почти любой из тех что делают у нас для тв и ютуба) о истории(какой ни возьми) это тупорогая либеральная пропаганда!
Поскреби либерала, и наскребешь фашиста. Ни дать ни взять.
Мда ну и каша
@@applehead2004mj можно подумать ты хоть что-то понял. ХВ
@@sheliakslagnesh311 ну да, я понял. Чел в порыве изливания своей токсичности собрал всё и всех подряд в коменте на русском языке под видео обычной американки..
@@applehead2004mj ответил бы Сергею в чем он врет или не прав. мне тоже интересно.
So why the demand Czar to abdicate ? what happened next is much worse than that. just absolute nightmare
Btw many countries like Uk, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan and so on .. still have their Kings. it's a Constitutional Monarcy and its fine
also Russia has a fastest growing economy in Europe before ww1. Bolsheviks it's a devastating
Hello SoGal and Roger. I thought the Czar's quote that you questioned was from the year before the Duma was set up by the first revolutionary movement after the defeat by Japan. The autocracy and this defeat by Asians meant the rest of the European powers saw the country as a joke. This same superior attitude later annoyed the Japanese at the negotiations for The Treaty of Versailles.
I had hoped you might revisit WW1 in a shorter version than the one you had looked at previously to see some more on such topics as are in this video.
P.S. I was surprised you had difficulty with cyrillic script, after you rattled off the Greek alphabet in a video about Ancient Greek. I recently watched a UA-cam video to help me with cyrillic, but from using Greek letters in maths and science, I can sometimes read and work out Russian sentences, with words similar to English, French or German, which I learned in school.
I learned the Greek alphabet, but that's about it. I don't really know how to read it. I'll try to get back to WW1 soon.
@@SoGal_YT I guess I learned to make sense of the letters as words from painting Alexandrian and Napoleonic wargames figures and looking at pictures of unit standards. I was painting "little green men" (Russian infantry) long before the more recent Crimea version.
To my knowledge the 90s weren’t that great for Russia either. I know that’s when a lot of gangs started to take over and basically ran everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s still the case today.
Also yes please do the Oversimplified videos. I think it is a lot of the same information if I remember so you don’t have to do them right away. Maybe wait a while and then you can come back to the topic and see what you remember.
В 90-е в России абсолютная смертность была ~1000000 человек. Это был ужас.
Для россиян 90-е и вся нищета, бандитизм при демократии стало начало нынешнего отношения к демократии.
В России, разговоры интеллигенции о демократии для простых граждан - это плевок в лицо. Никто в демократию теперь не верит.
Hi, Sarah, that was very interesting, I would definitely say do the Oversimplified version, all their work is good.
I say do the Oversimplifed videos, though; I think most have seen them, I think it''s surely worth the time to do so.
The Decembrists - Who Were Russia's First Revolutionaries? part 1
The Decembrists: Revolt Against the Tsar Part 2
by Epic historyTV
:)
Lenin came from Shvetsaria, representatives of different parties were traveling on the same train.
And yet - if there was an opportunity, I myself would have volunteered for the execution of the former royal family. This family was flooded with workers' and peasants' blood to the very top of their heads. a lot of arbitrary executions by the Tsarist guard, peasants and workers, in 1905, are worth something.
Scarlet says, "That not people. That's just a camera. I don't know what cameras doing, but they are boring, so I don't care about them.
"I like people, but I love you the most."
The only revoltion in Russia was the one which overthrew the Tsar. Lenin's seizure of power was not a revolution but a miltary coup. When the Bolshievs lost the only general election Lenin simply closed down the parliament
What this doesn't mention is 1918 is also the beginning of the war for independence for the baltic countries, plus the Polish-Soviet war in 1919. So plenty more content about that period and region to check if youre interested. For example ua-cam.com/video/eUO8XmTr46g/v-deo.html
King's and Tsars believed they were appointed by God and were crowned 👑 by the clergy. So not to be led by Kings was as monarchs saw it, not in God's eyes correct.
Because comments are turned off on Caden's / Kaden's reaction to "JC", just wanted to say here that he did really well as a new reactor.
You should look at the Baltic Naval War that occoured in 1918-1919 between the UK and the Soviets, where the British were helping the Blatic states to break free from the Soviets.
I’m checking out your podcast!
I think what the Tsar meant by reform or revolution being harmful to the people was his paternal oversight would be removed and the peasants would be ruthlessly exploited by the middle classes and landowners taking power. A similar situation arose in the English civil war when the king, Charles I, was pitted against a parliament of merchants and traders, who wouldn't have the best interests of the ordinary people at heart.
The little kid in the army uniform was the Tsarovitch, Tsar Nicolas's son and heir. It was a fashion at the time to dress children in sailor suits and military gear.
Вы не верно поняли его.
Он говорил, что он - император - и есть власть - власть от бога (так было ещё с Ivan IV) и его слово - это слова наместника на земле божьего.
I am voting for oversimplified video, but you probably should wait a couple of weeks.
Just a comment
Putin 💯👍in Russia
Sorry for the second comment but just saw what you said at 23:25. Oversimplified definately does a lot more than just "rehash" this video. They offer a lot more information and context in the fun and informative way that only Oversimplified can (kind of like how their Napoleon video added so much information to the Epic History Napoleon series you watched in an easy to understand way). Would definitely love to see you react to it.
I plan to :)
oversimplified is very american bias and a bad historian in general especially in his cold war video he love to mention the soviet wrong doing but ignore all the american and the west wrong doing not even mention all the coup in latin america and the middle east. He try ti paint the us is the democracy savior but be opposite is true in real life and no the name oversimplified is not the excuse to be bias and lazy
I always wonder what would have happened to Russia in the intervening 105 years if those two revolutions hadn’t taken place.
A feudal state on the XX century
Probably won't be any better, revolutions rarely make life easier for the majority of people. I suspect the military would have still taken over as the Czar refused to relinquish power because he had the belief that it was his God given duty to rule.
лучше своего дедушку поменяйте. хотя вам этого тоталитарный диктаторский строй не даст этого сделать. недавняя осада капитолия всё показала. как вы стреляете по безоружным людям
20:20 Can you imagine what it must be like to, as a child, realize you are going to be killed not for something you did, but simply because you are a threat to someone's political power.
I can't imagine what those Romanov children went through as they descended into that cellar, knowing they would not come out again.
Well, that was what the French revolution took care to never do, kill the childrens, however as they grow they become a rallying cry for extremists. Here the Soviets did the most pragmatic thing, Kill them all, so they will never rule again!
Николай сам идиот. Для людей он что сделал ? Да ничего, а кризис первой мировой войны окончательно разгневал простых людей. Вот и результат.
I would like to see your react to the 1965 version of Dr. Zhivago. It takes place in the RR and, though it is fictional, I think you'd like it.
I've seen bits of that movie, but it might be a good one to do on Patreon for movie night.
@@SoGal_YT I can't afford to do Patrion.
Eric Taylor
The newer version of 2004 is so much better, if you do not mind reading subtitles.
I can maybe do an edited version for UA-cam, but it will likely get blocked if I put up the whole thing.
@@SoGal_YT You don't need to do a special thing for me. But thanks.
I'll just enjoy what content I can access. Maybe things will change in the future and I can buy an account.
Монархия это и есть авторитаризм, как и президентство. В то время как в СССР был социал-демократический режим.
Google tranlated from Hunter One:
"The monarchy is authoritarianism, as is the presidency. While in the USSR there was a social democratic regime."
I happen to agree with this assessment.
I always enjoy when you do the “Over simplified “ reactions. I always enjoy your candid and honest reactions to so much in history. Thank you!
Kent Barnes Yes, but if it you do not strive for more questions, history will leave you behind.
After the Soviet Union disolved a "democratic elected" drunked man plunged Russia into a dictatorship, then bombed his own parliament, started wars in some regions of the former Union, and his corruption was so hughe who he appointed a KGB superstar, to save him from consequences and continue his "legacy". Hint: He still the leader of Russia right now.
Well, Yeltsin was democratically elected the first time in 1991, to be fair. It was his bid for a 2nd term in 1996 that was a complete sham election.
@@marvelfannumber1 Yes he was democratically elected, but he shelled the parliament, and become a dictator, his 1996 election was more fraudulent thant in the third world countries of one family dinasty. But well, if someone said something or impeached him, you will get the tanks shelling you.
@@omarbradley6807
I didn't dispute that. I only said that his first election was by and large legitimate, and in hindsight probably the only free election in modern Russian history.
"Democracy is the system of government, where 2 drunkets can outvote 1 professor. "
the idea that the king was absolute goes back at least to King David. when the idea that the king was only answerable to god and ruled with God's authority if this was a good king a servant of the people ok but if as they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely it is not good defiantly not good
Oversimplified's Russian Revolution is worth a watch for sure. As usual they condense it in a fun and informative way
The authors of the video are overly critical of tsarist times in Russia. Yes, all the cons they talk about are mostly true, but they completely omit the pros. For example, a significant moment is that in 1914 most of the people went out into the streets with support for the war and posters "God Save the Tsar" and all that. The Tsar himself was not a bad person at all, but very strange. Many contemporaries compared him to a child, although he was already at a venerable age. Also, little is said about the white movement, which united not only all the rightists, from liberals to monarchists, but even almost all socialists - joined It. It is not said that this movement in 1919 controlled approximately 80 percent of the country's territory, but the propaganda among the population of the Bolsheviks was much better and thanks to this they were able to win. Most of the Bolsheviks - craved only power, and their elite was very smart. They turned the life of the entire population of the country, especially the peasants, into a real hell for the coming decades. The white movement, too, cannot be called heroes, there were also not uncommon cases of absolute cruelty, but its leaders - were not so smart, but absolutely definitely - wanted the best for the country. But due to strange war tactics, they lost. I hope in the next videos it will be said about all the horrors that surrounded the country, well, at least for the next 35 years. If the white movement had won then, and he had every chance, then I am convinced that now there would be no Putin. There would not have been 25-40 million victims in World War II. There would not have been tens of millions of victims of Stalin's political repressions and millions of victims of hunger in the country. Now almost certainly our country would be something like Canada. And Hitler would have been strangled even earlier, because the right-wing government would obviously not sign agreements with Germany on the division of Poland, but immediately declared war on him.
But unfortunately, now they will obviously bombard me with answers about how everything in the USSR was beautiful and "stable". This is a different era of the USSR, but oh well.
In the end, and the war with Ukraine now support 80% of the people. And Stalin's approval rating is even higher than Putin's(todat, really). He is associated with justice. Although it was during his reign that our country was the most Injustice for life
People will simply bombard you with facts about the increase in life expectancy, about the industrial boom that the past rulers could not do, about the educational program, about the program of restoring dying cultures (such as Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR), about the fact that workers who rented a corner before the Bolsheviks (literally a corner. A bed and a bedside table) could allow you to get at least a room in a communal apartment. About mass electrification, about the military-industrial complex recreated from scratch. About how the USSR tried to hinder the strengthening of the Reich, but all the time it stumbled upon the west's buchtege towards the USSR. About unemployment disappearing for a couple of days (Literally the only such case in the world). About the lowest index of social stratification. About the new working conditions introduced by the Bolsheviks (8-hour working day, paid holidays, sick leave. Free kindergartens and schools. Free medicine and housing). Well, and so on according to the list. The Whites did not guarantee even a hundredth part of this, and did not remove the prodrazverstku, although the RSFSR already introduced a prodnalog at that time. And, of course, about the victory of the USSR over the Reich. Do not forget that those 27 million are not military losses. These are all losses. And most of them (15 million people) are civilians. And the ratio of losses is 1:1.3, with a strong error in the direction of the Wehrmacht. Why? Yes, because the Reich has unknown losses of the Volkssturm with the Hitler Youth, and the losses of the USSR recorded all traitors and killed prisoners of war, of whom less than half rushed home. For example: the USSR returned 89% of all captured Germans to their homeland. Feel the difference.
Tsar Nicholas' quote of not giving the assembly a right to speak out was because back then monarchy was justified by "god-given right" to rule over their country and their people. Maybe even not just a right but a duty to do so. Russia was and still is deeply religious so that's why it was the longest lasting absolute monarchies in Europe.
Few interesting things aswell that Estonia got it's independence during that civil war in 1918 when the republic was declared. Together with the Whites Petrograd was almost conquered and to this day some historians say that maybe if we had sent more help to the push then it might have been a serious blow to the revolution and maybe even enough to stop it. After the war ended in 1920, Soviet Union and Estonia both recognized each other with the peace treaty with both being the first country for each to recognize them as a sovereign state. In that peace treaty there is a point about Russia renouncing all it's claims on Estonia forever. I'm bringing this out as an important part of the current state of NATO as during the WWII, Soviet Union still annexed Estonia and illegally at that after it had declared neutrality in the war. When SU collapsed, Russia declared itself as a direct inheritor just as it's using that same reasoning in Ukraine. In Estonia, after 1991, the motto of the country has become "Never alone again" because of what was done in the past. So what I'm trying to say with this is that any point about NATO being a threat to Russia is unfounded because Russia is a danger to all of it's neighbours. That's why everyone is joining it, especially former Warsaw Pact members.
Russia would not have gone anywhere if one overseas state had stopped sponsoring color revolutions right at the borders of this giant country. And even if those same neighbors stopped discriminating against the Russian-speaking population and finally stopped glorifying Nazi scum. In the same Ukraine, almost everything repeats Hitler's Germany. From propaganda ("Muscovites to knives" - Ukrainians shouted so in 2014, and legends about "the Russians stole everything from them" became a separate meme in Russia) to slogans ("Ukraine above all" is almost a literal copyright from the Nazi "Germany above all"). And this country also glorifies the traitor and Nazi accomplice Stepan Bandera. There were even torchlight processions and marches of the SS "Galicia".
Loss of 11 million persons seems an empty victory.
Spoken like a true accountant. Not a leader.
Germany, during WW1, sent Lenin back to Russian with some money too to get whatever Lenin was good at started. That's what I heard anyway.
Alexei, Nicholas' only son and heir, had a blood disorder, if I'm not mistaken, and this was the main reason Rasputin managed to influence the Tsar and his family.
PS. A question to Sarah: What is the terminal velocity of an unladen swallow?
It's okay if you don't know the answer, but I hope you know the reference. 🤣🤣
Why, 11 meters per second, of course :)
@@SoGal_YT Is that European or African swallow?
Calling Lenin a dictator is debatable.
The man abolished free elections after his party ended up losing, I'd say that's pretty dictatorial behavior. Lenin was a committed 'means to an end' kind of guy. He may have had noble goals, but he used dictatorial means to achieve them.
@@marvelfannumber1 but he never rule alone and always working with other fellow soviet
yeah, he was just a psycho who wanted his revolution by any means. surrender in world war and lost the land, civil war with 2 million casualties, famine with over 9 million civilians deaths - does not matter
@@quanghuyvo6112
No dictator rules alone.
@@marvelfannumber1 Who knows what would've been had over than a dozen other countries not invaded Russia in 1918 to support counter-revolutionaries.
Please don't BBC It!! The history of any nation shouldn't be compared to the acts from the past to their deeds now! Else I'm sure plenty Both Brit & American could be placed on the chopping block there!
Good content just the timing other than that Slava Ukraini !!!
Nothing wrong with the timing ... education shouldn't / doesn't stop because of ongoing events.