I feel like any effort to fit the Russian Revolution into just fifteen minutes was going to end up frustrating a lot of people. Particularly in the interesting times we're suffering through, I think people of all political stripes look to the revolution as something to learn from. What I'm saying is, we need Crash Course: Soviet History.
That was my initial thought however they did do the same thing for Bolivar, WWI and 1848. If you want a more detailed history the great courses has a good course and the Revolutions podcast is also covering this.
I was looking forward to see how they would cover this, and I do love this channel, but it might be just as well if we Don't get a Crash Course Soviet History, this was pretty... well, not even-handed, anyway.
@@orientalshorthaircats Sorry, I guess I forgot to be alive for a hundred years. Serves me right for trying to learn from educational material instead of having the good sense to be born in the 1890s.
To hold up the statement - "Everyone should use same calendar all the time", I want to add further: "Everyone should use the same metric system all the time"
My notes, as a historian from Russia: 1. "Chekha" is actually ChK (ЧК -- the letter Ч sounds like ch and in abbreviations it's pronounced like che /like in "Che Guevara"/; K sounds like usual K and in abbreviations it is pronounced exactly like English word "car"). It's an abbreviation for Чрезвычайная Комиссия (Chrezvychaynay Komissiya; Emergency Commission). And yep, it is a Bolshevik secret police. 2. Of course, Bolshevik rise to power was a way more complicated story. Basically, it's something like an underdog thing -- the most radical and extremely unpopular group of people gathers support and opportunity to use brutal force to become the ruling party, though still being unpopular. They got their momentum for the first time in the end of spring 1917 and used it as they can and in september 1917 they got their second momentum. And of course, up until spring 1917 they were seen only as marginal radical Marxist theorists living in Western Europe. 3. Though I really hate bolsheviks, it's unfair to say they hated the idea of constitution. They didn't like the constitutionalism as a movement based on separation of powers. They disbanded Constituent Assembly only after the Assembly declined constitution proposed by bolsheviks (I know, it's also undemocratic, but it's not like they got to know they had no majority and disbanded the assembly). And about two months later on one of the regular All-Russian Congress of Soviets (basically a big congress of deputies from each city, from many big rural areas and from the army) the bolshevik constitution was accepted and became the first Constitution in Russian history. 4. Stalin's role in foundation of USSR. There were two plans of forming USSR in 1922: "Lenin's plan" and "Stalin's plan". Stalin was a general secretary of Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) -- it was not an influential position at that time (basically, "the head of party bureaucracy") -- and also a Minister of Ethnic Relations. So, in terms of forming USSR he was a "profile minister". He suggested creating lots of different ethnical autonomies inside the country, which will be somehow self-governed in terms of local economy and preserving local cultures, but really controlled by the government of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Stalin's idea was based on practicality of "socialism in one country", Lenin's -- on the desire of spreading revolution. There were five independent communist states (they were recognised by each other and by Russian SFSR) directly bordering RSFSR: Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Georgian SSR, Armenian SSR and Azerbaijani SSR in the end of 1922. And bolsheviks were eager to make like Hungarian SSR, German SSR, Finnish SSR and so on. The Lenin's idea was to make each of SSRs an equal member of Soviet Union with the secession right (it was needed to say to other communist countries that we are ready to see you as an equal partner in the Union and if you don't like it here, your country may leave anytime it wants), and Stalin's plan was to make those states an autonomy inside RSFSR. In the end... Lenin's plan won, not Stalin's. And later on, Stalin would actually embrace Lenin's plan during his rule, as would any other future Soviet leaders -- de-jure the secession rights will be a thing up until 1990 (when Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova used their secession rights, but only the first three of them officially left the union, 'cause others were not sure if they wanted to leave the Soviet Union, which was democratizing very quickly that year) and December 1991 (when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus used their secession rights and basically informed other Union members that "of course, you can stay in Soviet Union, but without us it has no point"). Though, some of Stalin's ideas were implemented in 1922, the main one was merging of RSFSR government and USSR government. Basically, in 1922-1989 the territory of Russian SFSR was directly rule by a government of authorities from all 15 republics. P.S. I would really recommend a book called "The Empire Must Die" by Mikhail Zygar on this topic. It is a non-fiction book based on memoirs of different members of Emperor's court, artists, businessmen, leaders of different political parties, labor unions and terrorist organizations in 1900-1917. It is a very neutral book without any "this side is bad, this side is worse and this side is good" definitions, it is more a narrative about how a really divided country may split, how many people with different views will have different agendas and different hopes -- and how, in the end, the smallest and most radical party won it all. And, since it's written by a pretty popular in UK Russian journalist, it's really easy to find English version of this book. They even have it on Audible, though I don't think it will be easy for a non-Russian person to remember Russian names in the book while listening to audio version.
Чувак, мне стыдно за твои познания в истории собственной страны. Такую херню нести, да ещё и подавать в качестве "я знаю, потому что русский". 1) Ну да, большевизация советов СОВЕРШЕННО не говорит о популярности большевиков в народе. Причём, большевизация происходила в следствие выборов. 2) Ненавидели идею конституции, а потому в 1918 году создали...конституцию РСФСР. Да, да. Демократическое Учредительное Собрание, в котором победившие (в основном за счёт ранней популярности среди крестьян) Эсеры отказались принимать Советы в качестве политической силы. 3) И сразу ты сел в лужу. И Ленин, и Сталин никогда не отказывались от идеи мировой революции, но оба были за построение социализма в одной стране, при учёте постепенной победы социализма во всех странах. Да, вот только о бюрократизации и нивеллировании права народов на самоопределение писал ещё Ленин (это к слову о кровавом тиране). Тем не менее, курс на централизацию власти продолжился при Сталине. Вот только почему-то забывается, что централизацию диктовала необходимость. Необходимость восстановления хозяйства страны, которое, буквально, лежало в руинах, создание боеспособной армии, чтобы противостоять будущим вторжениям (после интервенции, напомню), борьба против террористов внутри (РОВС и басмачи, к примеру), всё это в условиях постоянного страха перед вторжением (в 1927 году дипломатические отношения с Великобританией были разорваны) при отсутствии союзников на международной арене (за исключением крохотной Монголии и сотрудничества с Веймарской Республикой), а также при условии создания нового, ранее невиданного, типа государства при отсутствии опыта государственного управления. Ага, поэтому МНР так и не была присоединена к СССР, как и Финскую ССР так и не планировали присоединять. И да, не было никакой Германской ССР, была Баварская ССР, которая даже территориально не могла быть присоединена, т.к. находилась слишком далеко, через территории других стран. Ой, бля, столько бреда в одном абзаце. Ну и под конец. Зачем вспоминать, что отсоединение Прибалтики от СССР проходило в рамках буржуазной контрреволюции, и спровоцированно было новой буржуазией и буржуазной политической элитой (вроде компании Ельцина в СССР). В итоге, страны Восточной Европы, как и Россия и бывшие республики СССР, стали буржуазно-олигархическими республиками, в которых государственную власть фактически взяла в руки местная крупная буржуазия. Я не собираюсь отрицать, что процесс развала СССР тесно связан с экономическими (в первую очередь), социальными и политическими ошибками в построении и поддержании социализма, что стало фундаментом для вырождения партии, формирования новой буржуазии и итогового крушения социалистической экономики СССР, но меня вновь и вновь умиляет либеральный восторг от торжества демократии (в капиталистическом понимании) и независимости. Под самый же конец, можно посмеяться над тем, как ты представил большевиков чем - то тоталитарно - монолитным (рабочей оппозиции Шляпникова и Колонтай не было, дискуссий в партии не было, троцкистов и сталинистов не было, борьбы внутри партии при и после Сталина не было, нихрена не было).
I know it not because I'm Russian, but because I'm a professional historian, whose specific field of study is Russian electoral system in the beginning of 20th century. I know very well, how the electoral process happened in November 1917 and how the Constituent Assembly was working (basically, the MINORITY party in the Assembly -- bolsheviks -- gave a full text of new Constitution and asked the Assembly to accept it, but this Constitution was undemocratic /true proletarian dictatorship/ and thus unacceptable to mensheviks, constitutional democrats and the biggest party of the Assembly -- socialist revolutionaries; Assembly voted against bolshevik project and bolshevik representatives left the building, boycotting any further discussion; the only bolsheviks sympathizers, who were still there, were the service stuff and security stuff of the Assembly and also -- all the city services of Petrograd, including law enforcement; it was the first ever democratically elected representative body of Russia and its work was completely jeopardised by bolshevik sympathizers in Petrograd bureaucracy and bolshevik revolutionary militia -- on the second day of the session democratically elected representatives were not allowed in the building by militia; is this how bolsheviks gave Constitution to Russia? no, they just made their own Assembly -- IV All-Russian Congress of Soviets -- consisting of loyal 'proletarian revolution' supporters -- and they voted for the exact same bolshevik constitutional project the Constituent Assembly declined; and yes, Constitution has two meanings -- 1 actual document and 2 a complex of ideas regarding separation of powers; the bolsheviks gave Russia its first legal document officially called Constitution, but Bolshevik party was against separation of power since its secession from RSDRP /it was the reason of secession/ and in terms of separation of power this bolshevik Constitution, as well as all Russian Constitutions up until 1993, were worse than even 1906 edition of Fundamental Laws of Russian Empire). I really like you using old-fashioned cornful idioms like "you sat in the puddle", which are usually used by boomers to show their pseudo-politeness towards people they obviously despise. This method is seen so often in Russian-language discussions of everything related to communism -- and it was a breath of fresh air to see it here.
it's also not true to say that Lenin abandoned his faith in a worldwide revolution, and he did NOT embrace the idea of socialism in one country, or at least certainly not to the extent that Stalin did. Lenin thought that the only way for the revolution to survive was for bigger european countries to become socialist themselves (namely Germany). while he eventually became cognisant that that wasn't going to happen in the short term, he never abandoned his belief in the importance of worldwide revolution, and did everything he could to help build it through institutions like comintern
A few points: 1) Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not oppose democracy, merely the Duma in its current state. They wanted to expand the democratic powers of the soviets in government. 2) Leninism is still Marxism. They did not want an oligarchy but a representative democracy using the soviet system. This is not direct democracy as the anarchists wanted but is still democratic. The soviets were given much power in local government and central planning.
This is the third source I have read or watched on the Russian Revolution and quite frankly it is hard to believe that they are apparently describing the same events. Couple of problems that I have with this video: - the Revolution of course wasn't just fuelled by war, it was also fuelled by factors like the average life expectancy for most people being 35 while the Tsar controlled somethung like 45 billion dollars, and by the failures of previous demands for reform (like the 1905 Revolution) -the Provisional government from what I have read wasn't very democratic at all. They said for example that they were pursuing peace and then got caught doing the opposite when newspapers published government papers. They also made no steps to redistribute land for example. I think 'democracy' is an overused word. If it applies to governments like the Provisional one (or like the ones we have now, actually), of course people aren't going to have faith in it anymore. -
The provisional government didn't have many ideas as to what to do either, and even if they did, where was the bureaucracy to make it happen? John openly said there were monarchists in the provisional government. As for the election that the Bolsheviks did eventually end, the constituent assembly ended up basically being ignored by the Bolshevik. Even if an election did happen under Kerensky, how would it be legitimate enough for the government to survive? This was 14 minutes, and to cover as many things as John did, is hard in 14 minutes, especially with him going slower than he did in the first history series.
The provisional government was much more democratic then what Lenin implemented. Lenin quickly took away power from the soviets (the worker's councils) and centralized it in the communist party which become the sole permitted party, all other political groups, including socialist revolutionaries and anarchists were dissolved and persecuted. His belief in a revolutionary vanguard (which was not present in marxist thought) created the justification for a dictatorship, not of the proletariat, but of a clique, which would then become the dictatorship of a single individual in Stalin's time. My source is the greatest living socialist thinker, Noam Chomsky.
John also entirely sidelined the difference between the Left S-Rs and the Right S-Rs. He doesn't have infinite time, sure, so we can't necessarily expect him to explain it all, but framing it as "The Bolsheviks lost the election so they overthrew democracy" is a *deeply* dishonest way of framing the events. The S-Rs had a split between their left and right wings, the left-wing wanted to ally with the Bolsheviks and other socialists, the right-wing wanted to resist as much change as possible. The right-wing soon purged their left wing from the party and staffed right-wing members into those now-empty positions. The Bolsheviks joined with the Left S-Rs in *demanding a new election* to reflect the fact that masses of people voted for leftist members but were now being represented by conservatives. The Right S-Rs *blocked* this move towards a fresh election. **THAT** is when the Soviets, under Bolshevik leadership, overthrew the provisional government and then eventually locked out the constituent assembly. They were not representative of the will of the voters and resisted all attempts to rectify this. If there was ever any government who "had it coming" it was them.
This is Trotskyist propaganda. "Socialism in one country" was the only viable course of action. What was the alternative? Invade every other nation on Earth?
It'sTankieTime Shut up Stalinist, Lenin saw Russia as simply a wing of the world revolution which would collapse if not carried along with the world revolution. The rise and terror of the Stalin and his counterrevolution are proof Lenin was completely right.
@@itstankietime7114 The revolution was lost once the revolution globally was defeated. Socialism in one country was an inevitable product of the isolation of the revolution. It was a concession and abandonment of principles. The isolation caused the internal degeneration of the revolution and its abandonment of its revolutionary character which opened up the door to the Stalinist counterrevolution. These logically follow each other.
@@AJ-gd9tl there was no counter revolution. Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from the poorest nation in Europe into the second wealthiest in the world, and the first to send humanity into space. Doubled the life expectancy. Industrialised the country. Transformed agriculture from using wooden ploughs to industrial equipment. Stalin's attempt at building socialism in one country was an immense success, and within his lifetime, it expanded to China, Korea, and Eastern Europe.
"There are not enough guns or bullets! One of you will carry a gun, the other one will carry the bullets! When the soldier who carries the gun dies, pick his gun and continue fighting!" It seems that history rhymes.
Soviet Union didn't have enough rifles for their soldiers. "Pick up the rifle of the dead man in front of you and go forward." People who didn't like this idea were shot by their own inhumane officers.
Lenin didn’t break from Marx’s ideas, he developed and extended them. This is why Marxism-Leninism emereged after the Russian revolution and not just Leninism
John, why didn’t you mention that all the other imperialist powers like the UK, US, Japan, etc were actively helping the White Army and invaded after WW1 ended? It seems like that’s a pretty important thing to mention. You get a lot of the nuance right here. Especially pointing out that not all socialists and anarchists were onboard with the Bolsheviks from the start. But you’re really glossing over or just straight up omitting some key context as to why the revolution and subsequent civil war got so bloody on all sides.
@@srobsonscosta8887"We're just a friendly coalition of Tsarists, warlords, proto-fascists, and foreign imperialists concerned for the future of Russia. A grassroots movement of mercenaries, aristocrats, puppets, and old fashioned folks who just like killin'"
In the grand scheme of things, though, the effect of the outside powers on the civil war was really limited. Yes, they supported the Whites, but their actual involvement in the wars was not that big, and they mostly left well before the civil war ended.
John I'm 42, can't even do the math maybe 25 years from highschool now. Your channel is so valuable. I ENJOY learning at my own pace. The force-feeding of History in school didnt work for me, barely remember anything. Please keep up the good work. If possible I would love to see content on Asian and Middle Eastern history also. Thank you so much for this work.
Big fan of the series for a few years but this episode is really problematic... Slight distortion of facts, thin explanation of events and missing other crucial components entirely.
@@gastonzumbo9860 How about saying that the so-called democratic government was not democratic at all? Since none of the members were actually elected; they were oligarchs of different sorts, including former aristocrats, high army officials, in which no one represented the people. Also, the "democratic" won the masses at the slogan to stop the war, since strikes involved millions of works broke out all over Russia protesting the harm war bring including the starvation of millions and the incredibly high casualty rate in the war front. And it was very democratic that the voice of millions remained unheard but the dictatorship of dozens of war-fanatics was this vital.
in the thought bubble it talks about the revolution of October but makes it out to be some sort of coup d'etat, which quite ignores the electoral success the Bolshevik party had seen in the previous months, as they took control of both the petrograd and moscow soviets. it's a little bit dangerous to suggest that the revolution was solely the machinations of the Bolshevik elite, with no real popular support, because that isn't accurate.
The actual revolution that night was an almost bloodless putsch which had no popular support, this would be covered up by the propaganda films of the 1920s and 1930s which portrayed the revolution as a mass uprising like that in Frebruary 1917. It is laughable to suggest that the Bolshevik revolution was popular, nobody participated in it!
@@lecterulyanov3853 the literal seizure of state power through the storming of the winter palace was not a 'popular revolt', that's true. the overall revolution, which involved spreading bolshevik control of the state apparatus throughout the country, was.
I never really liked the translation "Provisional Government". In Russian it's "Временное Правительство" or "Temporary Government". Yeah, similar words, but one describes the main problem with this group a lot better -- it was never meant to be the future government of Russia. It was "temporary". Yet it stayed anyway, well after the point when people wanted it to stay. And, personaly, I think the big reason for this was in the name. You can't call yourself something "temporary" and expect people to take you seriously. It's like calling your film "A temporary waste of time before a superior sequel" -- would you really go see it? You'd probably just wait for the sequel. Or, in the case of the Bolsheviks, make one yourself.
This had a lot to do with our nation Finland's independence and history... The tensions were terrible and had a big part even in our huhely deadly civil war in 1918.
It played the one defining role in most countries in eastern Europe too in their independence and modern borders. Without the revolution, places like Finland would have probably stayed under a brutal russian monarchical thumb and countries like Poland would most likely not exist at all.
You can thank the Germans pumping Finland full of guns and money to organize the counter-revolution, without which the Whites would have been incapable of winning.
@@c0sselburn most guns were taken from russian soldiers and just by looking a map of finland during the civil war it was quite certain who would win were there germans or no germans
@@larrywave You're right about that last part. The Reds controlled pretty much every major population and industrial center. The south of the country, by far the most densely populated section, was totally Red. The Whites were left with the sparsely populated rural areas that lacked pretty much any productive capacity. Such a scenario mirrors Russia during their civil war yet the results were the opposite. German arms, money, and training were indispensable for a White victory without which the Reds easily would have won.
@@c0sselburn let me laugh reds didnt even fully control country side outside those cities, and as i stated most guns and ammunition were confiscated from russian troops garrisoned in finland. There were only 15 thousand germans approximately on white side which isnt that much more than reds had red russians on their side (10 thousand approximately)
I adore your videos, so as hard and old fan I have to make a few points, reminding you to better check info, especially on the next video 1) it’s very important to highlight both sides of conflict, things seen as brutality of 1 particular side usually become different when you see that this is how things are done by both, white terror is extremely unpopular topic in anti-soviet discourse of 20/21 century European history 2) to call duma a democracy is overstatement, just read a few close articles on a topic how it usually was working 3) when talking about bolsheviks resort to violence you should show info on how zarista police and secret police was dealing in same situations I am now even starting on things like extreme rate of child prostitution due to bad social management of late-czar era, but even a hint of this probably will light up some interest on why some people decided it’s no use to wait for everyone to agree while country is dying. And most of them were SR at the start) Love, keep the good work, fight your biases)
If any of you want to know more about the Russian Revolution, Mike Duncan has a multi-part series on his podcast, Revolutions, that's a highly detailed version of this video. If you feel like you've only had a tiny taste of the history being talked about here, it's because you have. I don't want to plug the guy too much, but like this was, like a few other videos in this series, an extremely summarized version, that can't really do the thing justice. It's a good taste, don't get me wrong, but y'all have no idea how batshit the story of the Russian Revolution is.
John definitely has bias in this matter, but reading through comments it's great to see so many educated people who know of John's misrepresentations in this clip and actually know the bigger picture of the Russian revolution. Very nice :)
@@ObliviousPenguin True, but you don't omit essential information for time. And yes, I really think it is essential to know that the russian civil war was also an invasion by several world powers with vested interests to quell (for all they knew at the time) a socialist revolution. It says something important about those countries and it says something important about the nascent Soviet union.
@@orCane totally agreed. however you could always sort of assume that this video would come at things from a classic liberal point of view, the ones sketched in the 60s and 70s during the height of the cold war. that's not necessarily to say that those were bad histories (Ulam's is especially good), but they were always going to be ungenerous towards the Soviet view. the video really didn't do much to stress the importance of popular support for and involvement in the revolution, or the importance of european attempted revolution (e.g. Germany 1919), which Lenin and the Comintern did as much as possible to support.
Lenin hung the Hungarian communists out to dry. And yes, they should have mentioned the international support for the Whites, but discussing the genuinely evil aspects of the Soviet regime under Lenin should not be out of bounds.
@@Cyarrick1 While the civil war in general was not the main focus, they did mention that the favourite pastime of various White generals was hunting Jews, and things like that. Lenin was also arguing for Socialism in One Country after the immediate post-war revolutions had died down (esp. in Germany), he just didn't make a whole doctrine out of it but saw it more as a temporary stage.
It wasn’t even a real platform, it was just an obvious reality once the revolutions were defeated throughout the rest of Europe. I don’t even get why liberals are bothered by this when the alternative to “socialism in one country” was “conquer Europe”
Supperficial episode at best. Manipulative at worst. Some errors: Bolsheviks (and Lenin) didn't break with marxism. They belived that for a worker's revolution to succed, there must be a party coordinating it. They didn't substitude one for the other. Lenin was against "socialism in one country", meaning that a socialist country alone can survie in a capitalist world, which was what Stalin thought. Lenin didn't renounce to the word "socialism" because it was "to democratic". Lenin reasoned that since socialist parties all over the world had supported WWI, being therefore responsable in part for the deaths of thousands of the same workers that they "represented" in the name of their country (against the principle of "proletarian internationalism"), socialism had become a dirty word. Even Lenin said that calling themselves "Communist" wasn't is own idea. Engels suggested the term half a century before, thinking that "socialist" wasn't the best sinnonim to "marxist". There was no anarchist in the goverment. That is just false. The civil war wasn't "bolsheviks v. all". Bolshevisks formed a coalition with the mayority of the Social Revolutionary party and some menshevisks For those interested in the story of the Russian Revolution, just read "10 days that shook the world".
Diego Rodríguez Serantes ywah I noticed some of this sounded weird especially the “anarchist in government” plus the whites also committed the same atrocities (I’m not saying it was okay for the reds but that both sides did)
I assume John has an issue with violent revolutions all together. But, of course, he did commit those not so minor mistakes. Also, he did not emphasize enough the manner in which most russians at the time were living in. Lenin was an internationalist like all true socialists, anarchists and communists were at the time. He did not believe in religion or nations, again, as a true leftist. He knew that the old conservative powers would push back against reform, like many leftists around the globe. Don´t forget the provisional government did repress people in the streets periodically. In any case you could judge him in terms similar to those of John Brown, that´s why he always falls in a grey area for most people. I´ve seen John judge the turks and other nations and faiths according to how progressive they were for their time. Well, most of the things Lenin stood for are seen as intrinsic rights nowadays, and many, like female reproductive rights, are still a struggle. And don´t forget, Jean Jaures was shot down in 1914. In a time of truly massive empires which massacred millions around the globe and oppressed their own people, I doubt anyone would consider a violent revolution other than the only pragmatic option.
Lenin believed in socialism in one country. You can believe I. That and still be an internationalist (like stalin). Socialism in one country is a means to an end
This is very biased. First of all Russian people never really supported provisional government and Bolsheviks knew this, that's why they were successful.
@@m2heavyindustries378 they didn't even remotely imply that Stalin good or west bad. Just the Russians didn't want a provisional government. your echo chamber is strong try and step out of it from time to time.
@@vytah that's because vodka is pronounced vodka. When letter K is in the abbreviation, it is pronounced like in the alphabet, so it's "ka" or "kah" So CheKah is correct pronunciation
Liberty is always a privilege. The only time it isn't is if everyone is equally powerful, which no system on Earth guarantees (about the only political philosophy which does is anarcho-primitivism, by simply breaking society apart).
@@gregorymaus6289 lenin was an internationalist stalin was the one who favoured socialism in one country Lenin merely believed russia should hold out until other revolutions come to Russias aid. The focus on the Red terror and the lack of expansion on the white terror painting the bolsheviks as evil and the whites as good whereas in reality both committed atrocities. Video only focused on the negative side to the Russians rise to power whereas soviet russia dramatically improved medical care, housing, life expectancy, education, job security and the cost of living it was during lenins later years and stalin's rise to power that these achievements were undermined. Idk the video just seems very Americancentric
RicardoJenson Yeah, but Kyle is right. This plays like a hit piece on Lenin, who was NOT the “historical villain” that he has been blown up to be in Western culture. Given his past work over hundreds of videos, I expected more nuance from John Green.
Western Authors are very biased on there works on soviet union, its brith, its leaders its achivements. You could have used at least one eastern european author. Stalin was the only reason the bolsheviks accepted Trotsky into the party. Lenin decriminalized homosexuality, pushed for women equality and preservation of nature. His acction on pereservation of nature made sure that from exploited forests of syberia came new life. His impact on ecological preservation was so big, that in honor of his birthday Planet Earth was to be celibrated. He increased literacy by 470%. Millions of men, women and childern were for the first time able to read for the first time. American policy was always devide and conquer.
You should talk about the Black, and Green armies. Let me explain the importance of these Armies, these armies fundamentally showed that opposition to the binary choices the Bolsheviks (Majority in Russian) and the Menshiviks (Minority in Russian). Both movements where peasant grass roots movements instead of being movements with a central party and both movements opposed both the Soviet Councils and the Duma and it could be argued that this rejection of traditional parties showed the complexity of Ideology, showing that as all things everything is a Spectrum instead of being Binary.
I agree but tbf it’s a crash course video, they did mention anarchists and the Green Army briefly but they probably didn’t have time to fully explain them
I'm a big fan of Crash Course history. It's easy, good fun, and most importantly informative. Tackling the Russian Revolution in anything under 48 hours seems impossible. Props to the writers and editors of this one.
I think one of the critical pieces that they miss here, and is missed in the discussion of almost every socialist or radical revolution or regime is the fact that the revolutionary regime was literally under siege, not only from the White army but from actual British and American troops, as well as the Japanese etc.. Historically, when nations are invaded and governments are existentially threatened they adopt more authoritarian and violent policies to survive. This happened in the French Revolution with the Terror, the American Civil War with the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the increase in executive power, and happened in numerous places in the 20th century where the CIA and the larger U.S. foreign policy apparatus tried to annihilate nascent reformist or revolutionary movements. When entrenched power structures are using violent and coercive acts to try to end your movement it becomes difficult or impossible to persevere in a totally non-problematic way.
@@powdermonkey7697 Oh okay because when you're talking about history you want to ignore context, theory or any type of complicating facts, and just deal in black and white moral absolutes, okay sweet got it.
Thank you for emphasizing the differences in socialists and communists. Those phrases get conflated so much in the US thanks to decades of propaganda. I'm glad both the internet and the Republican's constant calling anything to the left of them "Socialism" has taken away the stigma of the word and we can start picking out the good ideas like much of Europe has.
Doesn't socialism and communism just mean "socialization of the means of production" basically meaning (worker ownership/control of the buisness or dumbing down "workers voting on managers and them all bieng owners") Source wikipedia So like arent they the same thing?
tkdyo you are talking as if communism is inherently bad. It’s just an idea of a classless, stateless and moneyless system. It has been utilised in some horrendous ways but even so, the Soviet Union was never truly communist, as it was a state and it had money. It had classes as well but unofficially.
Not just decades but by now over a century of american far right propaganda that fits a lot of criteria distanced from political, social or economic literacy.
@Ordinary Sessel well communism technically is only democratic worker ownership of buisness (ownership=/= management* so like workers own buisness and elect manager & what not) But im referring to economic rights and decomodication (making stuff for not a profit, the real wild communist stuff) so healthcare could be free you know?
Hi Mr. Green, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have been doing for all of us. This Crash Course intro music will be something nostalgic for me in a few years, and thanks to you, (and Stan, of course) my dream of getting into an American college is becoming (or at least seeming) more and more realistic. You are the man who is helping thousands of people, passing AP and SAT II (including me), history nerds and just people, who are at least slightly interested in this discipline. Thank you.
I can't help but notice that you don't go into any detail about Lenin's theories of power or class struggle in the context that , let alone with the same kind of depth that you did with Marx's. This seems particularly interesting given how quick you are to condemn a lot of the decisions made by the bolshevik government under extremely trying circumstances.
Does he? He even says at one point that non-Bolshevik socialists were democratic. I doubt that he conflates democracy and capitalism, he simply points out, rightly, that the Bolsheviks specifically were against democracy.
How can he ignores how the Soviets were true democracy? How Marxism defends democracy in the workplace against capital despotism? How militarism was necessary in the face of the white army counter revolutionary action, backed by European capitalist states? John liberal and anticommunist bias is obvious in this video.
@@joshuachen5476 the Bolsheviks were for real democracy, not the bourgeois democracy of capitalism where a small few billionaires make all the important decisions amongst themselves before we're involved at all. Lenin fought for a workers democracy, a democracy of the vast majority, rather than the small few. The Bolsheviks won as majority in the two largest councils of workers, soldiers, and peasants, and eventually won a majority in the old provisional parliament in order to disband it. They were the most popular leaders, possibly in history, among their people, and those people fought for the revolution against 21 invading countries of capitalism and the czarist, capitalist, and so-called "socialists" of the time on the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionary Parties, who were all in favor of taking power from the vast majority and handing it over to the tiny capitalist class that had nearly identical interests to the czarist class that had just been overthrown. Yours is lazy and common capitalist propaganda and the Bolsheviks fought for and nearly won the most democratic society in human history.
I've been trying to think of how to phrase this, and I don't know if these ever get read by anyone that has a hand in producing these videos, but i think it would be a good thing for the progress of human knowledge if you all would make an addendum or something to this video addressing the really great things that came out of the revolutions that led to the Soviet Union. This channel is usually really good, so this newest video is disheartening. This video is just really unfair to the people that sacrificed everything to try to make their country liveable for the average working class person or peasant who was the vast majority of that society. Yes, there were big problems, but millions of people were able to climb out of poverty and live with dignity because of these events. And this is all described in this video as if it were some Doctor Evil-esque plot to destroy democracy, rather than a successful attempt by a people to drag their really backward (politically, and economically) region of the world into modernity. The rest of the world owe them a huge debt for their actions and sacrifice in WWII. You can't just sum up this whole period as well there were these bad guys in Eastern Europe. I think it would be fantastic if you would revisit this topic and try to cover it again in a more even handed way.
'Big problems' Millions of people were deported to the east and worked to death because they were the wrong ethnic group, wrong political class, wrong economic class or simply to fill a quota. Millions more died in man made famines or in ethnic cleansing that reshaped the borders of nations, particularly Poles and Germans. To them, there struggles were more than 'big problems'. Any state established on shooting thousands of children in the back of the head is owed NO debt by any free people, which is why Europe CELEBRATES the ending of communism in 1989 and doesn't revel in it.
But those who sacrificed everything to drag their country into the modern world found themselves increasingly sidelined, persecuted, or assimilated by the Bolshevik system. There was a great number of idealists and genuinely well-intentioned reformers and revolutionaries working hard to bring about a better future - in the soviets and zemstvos and the Social Revolutionaries and even the bourgeois parties. And some even in the Bolshevik movement. But the Bolsheviks were not the embodiment of these attempts at reform and modernisation. They didn't "sacrifice everything" themselves, they sacrificed others. Eventually, they did drag Russia into the modern world - but this video covers the revolutionary years, and in those, the power grab was dominant.
Lenin didn't break from Marx on the need for the workers to lead the revolution. Marx recognized the need for communists to lead the workers literally in the second chapter of the manifesto, and the need for leadership was explained in Marxs work on the civil war in france. If your going to analyze something do it right, even academics can take an honest look at the body of work of Marxism and see that this is a caricature.
Btw the bolsheviks, while winning less seats then the Social revolutionaries, did win more then the mensheviks. At the time, a large portion of the social revolutionaries, which would later become the left social revolutionaries as a punctuated faction, did support the bolsheviks
It should also be noted that the October revolution was not a "coup" by the bolsheviks. Lenin, Trotsky and the bolsheviks painstakingly won over the workers and peasants over the course February to October, and the affair itself, the taking of power by the working class with leadership from the bolsheviks, was bloodless as compared to its february counter part. More people died in the making of the film that recounted the October revolution then the actual revolution itself
Lenin did not ever, EVER assert that there had to be socialism in one country. The idea of socialism in one country was a position held by the Mensheviks, which Stalin later adopted WELL after Lenin's death. I understand that Crash Course is a valuable educational asset and that is politically liberal but you could at least take an honest look at the works of Lenin before stepping directly into this disproven drivel.
It should also be noted that "communists" or "cadre" are merely the most advanced layers of the working class. They are not some sort of separate entity that uses the working class to their own whims, but work side by side in day to day struggles of working people but also to advance the slogan of the need for the workers to take power.
I've been an avid fAn of Crash Course for years and you should keep up the good job. In my opinion, the Russian Revolution does not fit in 14 minutes. It is a decent video, but up to a point. Some notes: the Bolshevik's did not diverge from the original Marxist ideals. Firstly, Marx had written about the working class being the revolutionary subject, but had also expressed the need for a Communist Party, i.e. the "revolutionary vanguard", meaning the revolutionaries that constitute that ideological and political forefront for the organisation of the communist movement. Secondly, the term "communism" was not a new, Bolshevik introduced term. In 1848 Marx wrote the Manifesto of the Communist party and uses the term interchangeably with "socialism" in his writings. Admittedly the term "communism" is and was widely adopted by movements and parties (such as the Bolsheviks) in order to differentiate themselves from the so-called socialists of the political center, who advocated for a reformation (instead of overthrow) of the production and exploitation relationship of capitalism. Personal suggestion: Whenever you hear "democracy" in this video - as the assembly's non-Bolshevik members' goal - substitute it with "bourgeois democracy", aka a democracy driven by the wants of the already ruling - and very much still existent even after the abdication of the Tsar - bourgeoisie. The soviet's infrastructure and operation (in the years prior to Stalin's takeover) was described by many participants as well as outside spectators as truly democratic. Also in my opinion, these descriptions do not fit with the "Bolshevik dictatorship" narrative. American journalist, poet and eye witness of the revolution, John Reed has described some of these cases in detail. P.S.: the idea of "socialism in one country" was an idea pushed by Stalin, Lenin was an internationalist. And this is not Trotskyist propaganda as some might say. One can read about internationalist socialism throughout Lenin's writings.
I just thought of it, my great-grandma was born in the Russian Empire in 1910 and died in Florida in 2005. During her lifetime Russia went from absolutist monarchy to soviet dictatorship to shaky oligarchic republic. Gives you perspective of how brief the USSR was
While I find these videos informative, they are a challenge because I often find myself falling asleep. Sometimes I wake up in time to rewind and go back over what I missed, but often I doze so long that when I wake up another video is playing and I'm not sure where I left off. John's rapid fire delivery in that midwestern drone just wears me out.
@@gregorymaus6289 living standards in the ussr were on par with united states and soviet citizens had a higher caloric intake than americans (which even the cia will admit). In fact, living standards plummeted in Russia and Ukraine in the 90s plummeted as a result of the reintroduction of capitalism. Your argument is bunk.
@GrimspySlayer Certainly standards of living improved in the USSR (when you start out in the most backwards monarchy in Europe you can really only go up), but saying the USSR's standards of living were on par with the US seems like quite a claim and I would be intrigued to see your sources. As for 90's Russia and Ukraine, the transition away from communism was handled in an absurdly corrupt and inefficient fashion leading to the rise of the oligarchs, organized crime, and the cronyism that still haunts Eastern Europe today. Capitalism is nice but it can't cure everything.
I'm Russian and I really love my country and it's history. This video left a nasty impression on me because it was blatantly biased, full of historical misconceptions and taking facts out of their historical context. But I was so glad when I checked the comments and found people who won't buy lies like that, people with critical thinking and open mind. Keep it up brothers, don't let propaganda fool you! With love from Russia
This is pretty inaccurate tbh. Lenin didn't murder anyone in cold blood, that's like literally why the NEP was established, rather than violently slaughtering the peasantry, they opened up a basic market to appease the kulaks. The violence really didn't happen until the 21 foreign armies invaded Russia and incited a civil war, spearheaded by the upper strata of peasants that wanted to keep their land and were opposed to democracy of production. I always find it odd that, by the numbers, the American Revolution was considerably more violent than the Bolshevik revolution - and the American civil war oversaw Lincoln suppressing even the first amendment in war time - these are never questioned of course. Generally speaking, actual war, is ubiquitously dealt with by vesting more power than usual to the leaders of the country. Lenin and Trotsky wrote on numerous occasions that they were trying to dismantle the bureaucracy that grew out of "war communism," but by 21 (when Trotsky formally called for the war committee to be dissolved and full democratic rights be restored), the bureaucracy had "taken on a life of its own." (Lenin's words). This period in history was ridiculous though. It's really no wonder that such an economically and culturally backwards country degenerated into bureaucratic totalitarianism after being riddled with civil war, mutinies (like Kronsdadt) and being invaded by literally 13 countries with 21 separate armies. Actually, it's kind of a miracle it "survived" as an independent nation state at all. I'm pretty sure, from everything I've read, that the only thing that stopped the invasion were the revolutions that broke out abroad, most notably Germany's. Lenin argued leadership in the form of parties. Not even just a one party state like what happened, but again, given the context of the country, which had Tsarist brutality, revolution in 1905, skipped over genuine capitalist development, another revolution in February 1917, and then another revolution in October of the same year, it's really no wonder certain positions were taken when they were taken.. and this idea that Lenin held all this power wasn't quite the whole picture. This was an internally democratic situation, Lenin's word was just respected both within his party and among the masses. Overall, decent synopsis, but there's quite a bit more to the story and what you've focused on gives the impression that there's a clear connection between Lenin and Stalin. Have you ever wondered why Stalin suppressed so much of Lenin's writings? We shouldn't just take anyone at their word, but Trotsky described how viciously Lenin struggled against the war committee's bureaucratic selection of Stalin, who flipped the politburo upside down, for the last few years of his life. We also have newer evidence from when the Soviet archives that Lenin directly called for Stalin to be removed from the general secretary post. Love your videos, huge history buff, and I find this period pretty fascinating. It's pretty hard to appreciate the degree of strife the Russian people went through from late Tsarism onward. But, you've definitely misrepresented Lenin here.
As an American, I agree that the content of this video is in the tradition of some of our worse anti-Communist propaganda in a country who's history overflows with such. I would like to point out, however, that Robert Service is British. 😄
@@gorgonzolastan Thank you for your comment. I know that Service is britsh. But he claims to be some kind of authority regarding the Russian Revolution history with his shamefull works about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky. But, even he seems be more well balanced than Crash Course.
Hi, John, one of my critiques about American discussion about Soviet history is that there's always an emphasis on The brutality of communist or socialist government against their own people. It always seems so propagandist. Was the brutality of the Soviet government that much more than the American government against its own minorities? Were the romanovs less brutal against its minorities?
@@Bell_Matt 's ad hominem comment aside, while the US hardly has a perfect record of living up to its ideals, the US federal government never sanctioned mass-murder of its citizens, minority or otherwise.
America has certainly had it share of brutality, but that doesn't negates what the USSR did to it's people. Stalin's regime directly (through executions and gulags) and indirectly (by either misguided or heartless policies) conservatively and based on what soviet documentation records caused over 2 million death, some say as high 20 million. You can certainly compare that to the trail of tears, slavery, etc. in America, but it doesn't make what happened during that time any less horrendous. You might have a point that previous regime in Russia were just as or more awful, but something about communism caused a disproportionate amount of suffering in the 20th century for a system that was meant to be egalitarian and created to elevate suffering. It's probably this disconnect that makes people focus on it.
No, the USA government never developed complex programs of mass-murder of it's citizens or minorities. You can even name some past crimes like the incursions against native americans, the civil war or the segregations, but to this date you can still find native american/minorities descendants and also descendants from confederate soldiers/generals (Btw all proud of their story) while in Russia just recently "survivors", guards and descendands are comming out (And with degrees of guilt and fear) to mention the attrocities. Also i by no means i'm saying one is less guilty than the other. In my mind both were cruel, but even cruelty has levels.
I have an SAQ on the Russian revolution today and I was hoping you made it this far in history and you did and for that I just want to say you’re amazing
It's really a hard topic to cram into such short video. However, I think that since you mentioned how Bolsheviks planed to spread their revolution as far and quick as possible but eventually settled for "socialism in one country", it would be worth to mention that their defeat in 1920 in the Polish-Soviet War played a major role and in this. BTW Mike Duncan is currently covering the Russian Revolution on his Revolution Podcast. It will be the final but also the longest series on this amazing podcast, it's 31 episodes in and only just reached the Russo-Japanese War. :)
No mention of the Black Army? This does not increase the speed of my Tachanka, and Mama Anarchia does not approve. But for real, anarchism played (and plays) a surprisingly significant role in Russia’s history. The Black Army was a major reason the White Army lost to the Reds, and the anarchist thinker Bakunin’s contemporary criticism of Marx and Lenin and their “red bureaucracy” was basically spot on: the communist state didn’t decay, it just became a new, arguably worse elitist tyranny over Russia.
Can we please not conflate Marx with Lenin? Marx was mostly a de facto libertarian socialist (e.g. participating in the Paris Commune alongside anarchists and citing its direct democratic government as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and after the Paris Commune he had some democratic socialist leanings, supporting electoral efforts to seize the state in certain countries. Marx is an ally, don't let Leninists claim him.
Funny part of this comment section is reading comments from people who have no idea what they are saying. If you really want to understand this topic better, pick up a text book on the subject and read it free of any baises to inform yourself. The video is a good starting point and not an alternative. As for those of you misapplying the information in this video, you guys are just so special.
As a lover of the history of Film Theory and Sergei Eisenstein (the first book that got me thinking of giln was his "Film Form") thank you for mentioning how important Battleship Potemkin was.
Wow! I didn’t expect this video to be enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution, but I also didn’t expect it to be so reactionary towards it! Lol I’m kinda baffled! I thought it was going to TRY to walk the middle path, but no… They didn’t even try! hahaha
Wow, John. I usually love your video’s, but this is so unlike your other’s. Your way of approaching history from all points of view is enriching. But this is sooo historically incorrect. I recommend John Reed’s "10 days that shook the world". An American journalist brings an eye witness’s report from the days of the revolution. Very enriching about the situation. The key aspects that you didn’t mention at all: - It wasn’t a struggle for autocracy vs. democracy. It was a struggle for political power between the working classes and the bourgeoisie. The traditional parliament was no longer a representation of popular will with the emergence of the Soviets, which were legitimate worker’s bodies, and in a democratic sense were a lot more participatory, and filled with workers from all ranks and worker’s parties (like the Left Socialst Revolutionaries and Mensjewiks). There was in a sense a double political power with parliament representing a struggling bourgeoisie and the Soviets representing the workers, farmers and soldiers. - It wasn’t as much a civil war as an invasion. I can’t believe that you didn’t mention the fact that the United States was one of the powers that invaded the newly formed USSR, together with the UK, France, Checkoslovakia,... - The October Revolution wasn’t a coup at all. It was a genuine revolution. The Bolsheviks called for the Soviets to take political power completely in their hands. The Bolsheviks themselves stood strongest in Petrograd, Moscow and Baku. And in Petrograd, the seizure of power was extremely easy because of the weakness of the opposing forces. In Moscow, there was a heavy confrontation. In the following days/weeks, the revolution really spread, even to areas where the Bolsheviks weren’t as strong. Mostly because the Soviets had general popular support among the workers, farmers and soldiers. - Immediately after the October Revolution, the 8 hour work day was installed, women got voting rights and equal rights as men on every front, the land was redistributed among the poor farmers. Even LGBTQ+ rights were granted (but revoked due to lack of popular support). - The so-called theory of an elite to take power and usurp power for the masses is in no sense a Bolshevik theory. If you read anything Lenin ever wrote, you’d notice how much he opposed this idea. His policy was: an intellectual has to learn manual labour as much as the worker has to learn to read, study, form him-/herself politically. He did say, however, that the workers need a strong worker’s party to represent them and to organize the most politically trained workers and the most formed intellectuals, together. This theory of an intellectual elite leading the masses is a theory Trotsky later wrote out, but is opposed by most socialist traditions. I don’t even care about what position you would take politically regarding the Russian Revolution, nor would it be a good idea to do so, because I like the way you approach history from the winner’s and loser’s perspective, from the big figure’s point of view or that of the masses, but I am quite dissapointed with this video, which I was really looking forward to actually. Because facts remain facts, regardless of political stance. Kind regards and thank you for all the great work you and the whole team do.
To those critics of "glossing over" content or "leaving out" content. Hers's a thought; Start your own UA-cam history channel so you can include your version of favorite events. I'm sure the masses will too be ready for critique of "your version"
@@coolcool5181 Not quite. I think critique is important but the point I was making was that whom ever creates any content will automatically "gloss" over what doesn't fit their narrative. So anyone can find things missing or left out if that's what your looking for. Cheers
The Russian greens weren't the only green movement around during the first world war there was also a short lived green army in Croatia, and you forgot to mention the black anarchist army all this stuff is on The Great War channel.
You should remember that while the Russians were fighting for power the country's minority's were fighting in poor conditions against Germany on the front to keep Russia safe. Most people who were fighting Germany on the eastern front were nt Russian.
The Tsar was no less brutal. Bloody Sunday for example, those were peaceful protesters, women and children shot down by the Tsars's men. When the Tsar reluctantly established the Duma, it did not bring democracy. The Tsar still retained "Supreme autocratic power" over it. And the provisional government could not be trusted not to go back on everything it promised, see the Kerensky offensive. Also worth mentioning that communist conception of democracy is not a rejection of democracy categorically, but a different conception than that of a liberal capitalist version of democracy. On the other hand many of the counter revolutionary elements or "white army" were in fact categorically against democracy, that's why they wanted to restore the monarchy.
Given the current political climate, It's hard to tell what might be legitimate criticism of CC, and what might otherwise be grandstanding nationalists. I'm sure they have to leave a ton of details out to make a 14 minute video, which might generally upset people. Further complicating matters are what titles all these parties used, and used against each other. Like how Lenin called himself a Socialist...when he was murdering everyone so he can become a despot. Or how Stalin wanted to be called Communist...even though he was murdering everyone so he can become a despot. Or how Putin- I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. The point is, just because someone claims to be of a certain party or mindset doesn't mean they will follow it. And likely, if someone advocates for violence and division first, they usually are a despot.
Oh but don't worry. People in this comment section are so intellectually superior that they think they can do better than Lenin or Stalin and they also think they can creat a real and true "worker's paradise".
“So it was February, sort of, and we were in Petrograd, sort of” sounds like a great opening for a novel.
@Richard Hunt sort of
Its was the best of times, sort of - it was the worst of time, I guess
@@barkingnoise Luke I am your father. Sort of. It is complicated
Benioff's City of Thieves
Sort of.
I feel like any effort to fit the Russian Revolution into just fifteen minutes was going to end up frustrating a lot of people. Particularly in the interesting times we're suffering through, I think people of all political stripes look to the revolution as something to learn from.
What I'm saying is, we need Crash Course: Soviet History.
That was my initial thought however they did do the same thing for Bolivar, WWI and 1848. If you want a more detailed history the great courses has a good course and the Revolutions podcast is also covering this.
In fairness, it's Crash Course, not a complete history. Getting an entire episode dedicated to one (albeit complex) conflict is pretty impressive.
I was looking forward to see how they would cover this, and I do love this channel, but it might be just as well if we Don't get a Crash Course Soviet History, this was pretty... well, not even-handed, anyway.
you had about a 100 years to learn from its mistakes, what could you possibly hope to learn in 14 minutes after that?
@@orientalshorthaircats Sorry, I guess I forgot to be alive for a hundred years. Serves me right for trying to learn from educational material instead of having the good sense to be born in the 1890s.
To hold up the statement - "Everyone should use same calendar all the time", I want to add further: "Everyone should use the same metric system all the time"
As an American, I approve your comment. Good Day
My notes, as a historian from Russia:
1. "Chekha" is actually ChK (ЧК -- the letter Ч sounds like ch and in abbreviations it's pronounced like che /like in "Che Guevara"/; K sounds like usual K and in abbreviations it is pronounced exactly like English word "car"). It's an abbreviation for Чрезвычайная Комиссия (Chrezvychaynay Komissiya; Emergency Commission). And yep, it is a Bolshevik secret police.
2. Of course, Bolshevik rise to power was a way more complicated story. Basically, it's something like an underdog thing -- the most radical and extremely unpopular group of people gathers support and opportunity to use brutal force to become the ruling party, though still being unpopular. They got their momentum for the first time in the end of spring 1917 and used it as they can and in september 1917 they got their second momentum. And of course, up until spring 1917 they were seen only as marginal radical Marxist theorists living in Western Europe.
3. Though I really hate bolsheviks, it's unfair to say they hated the idea of constitution. They didn't like the constitutionalism as a movement based on separation of powers. They disbanded Constituent Assembly only after the Assembly declined constitution proposed by bolsheviks (I know, it's also undemocratic, but it's not like they got to know they had no majority and disbanded the assembly). And about two months later on one of the regular All-Russian Congress of Soviets (basically a big congress of deputies from each city, from many big rural areas and from the army) the bolshevik constitution was accepted and became the first Constitution in Russian history.
4. Stalin's role in foundation of USSR. There were two plans of forming USSR in 1922: "Lenin's plan" and "Stalin's plan". Stalin was a general secretary of Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) -- it was not an influential position at that time (basically, "the head of party bureaucracy") -- and also a Minister of Ethnic Relations. So, in terms of forming USSR he was a "profile minister". He suggested creating lots of different ethnical autonomies inside the country, which will be somehow self-governed in terms of local economy and preserving local cultures, but really controlled by the government of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Stalin's idea was based on practicality of "socialism in one country", Lenin's -- on the desire of spreading revolution. There were five independent communist states (they were recognised by each other and by Russian SFSR) directly bordering RSFSR: Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Georgian SSR, Armenian SSR and Azerbaijani SSR in the end of 1922. And bolsheviks were eager to make like Hungarian SSR, German SSR, Finnish SSR and so on. The Lenin's idea was to make each of SSRs an equal member of Soviet Union with the secession right (it was needed to say to other communist countries that we are ready to see you as an equal partner in the Union and if you don't like it here, your country may leave anytime it wants), and Stalin's plan was to make those states an autonomy inside RSFSR. In the end... Lenin's plan won, not Stalin's. And later on, Stalin would actually embrace Lenin's plan during his rule, as would any other future Soviet leaders -- de-jure the secession rights will be a thing up until 1990 (when Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova used their secession rights, but only the first three of them officially left the union, 'cause others were not sure if they wanted to leave the Soviet Union, which was democratizing very quickly that year) and December 1991 (when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus used their secession rights and basically informed other Union members that "of course, you can stay in Soviet Union, but without us it has no point"). Though, some of Stalin's ideas were implemented in 1922, the main one was merging of RSFSR government and USSR government. Basically, in 1922-1989 the territory of Russian SFSR was directly rule by a government of authorities from all 15 republics.
P.S. I would really recommend a book called "The Empire Must Die" by Mikhail Zygar on this topic. It is a non-fiction book based on memoirs of different members of Emperor's court, artists, businessmen, leaders of different political parties, labor unions and terrorist organizations in 1900-1917. It is a very neutral book without any "this side is bad, this side is worse and this side is good" definitions, it is more a narrative about how a really divided country may split, how many people with different views will have different agendas and different hopes -- and how, in the end, the smallest and most radical party won it all. And, since it's written by a pretty popular in UK Russian journalist, it's really easy to find English version of this book. They even have it on Audible, though I don't think it will be easy for a non-Russian person to remember Russian names in the book while listening to audio version.
Thanks for added insights!
Quality comment! Crash course should pin this.
Jesus all of this for only 63 likes??? (Liked it)
Чувак, мне стыдно за твои познания в истории собственной страны. Такую херню нести, да ещё и подавать в качестве "я знаю, потому что русский".
1) Ну да, большевизация советов СОВЕРШЕННО не говорит о популярности большевиков в народе. Причём, большевизация происходила в следствие выборов.
2) Ненавидели идею конституции, а потому в 1918 году создали...конституцию РСФСР.
Да, да. Демократическое Учредительное Собрание, в котором победившие (в основном за счёт ранней популярности среди крестьян) Эсеры отказались принимать Советы в качестве политической силы.
3) И сразу ты сел в лужу. И Ленин, и Сталин никогда не отказывались от идеи мировой революции, но оба были за построение социализма в одной стране, при учёте постепенной победы социализма во всех странах.
Да, вот только о бюрократизации и нивеллировании права народов на самоопределение писал ещё Ленин (это к слову о кровавом тиране). Тем не менее, курс на централизацию власти продолжился при Сталине. Вот только почему-то забывается, что централизацию диктовала необходимость. Необходимость восстановления хозяйства страны, которое, буквально, лежало в руинах, создание боеспособной армии, чтобы противостоять будущим вторжениям (после интервенции, напомню), борьба против террористов внутри (РОВС и басмачи, к примеру), всё это в условиях постоянного страха перед вторжением (в 1927 году дипломатические отношения с Великобританией были разорваны) при отсутствии союзников на международной арене (за исключением крохотной Монголии и сотрудничества с Веймарской Республикой), а также при условии создания нового, ранее невиданного, типа государства при отсутствии опыта государственного управления.
Ага, поэтому МНР так и не была присоединена к СССР, как и Финскую ССР так и не планировали присоединять. И да, не было никакой Германской ССР, была Баварская ССР, которая даже территориально не могла быть присоединена, т.к. находилась слишком далеко, через территории других стран. Ой, бля, столько бреда в одном абзаце.
Ну и под конец. Зачем вспоминать, что отсоединение Прибалтики от СССР проходило в рамках буржуазной контрреволюции, и спровоцированно было новой буржуазией и буржуазной политической элитой (вроде компании Ельцина в СССР). В итоге, страны Восточной Европы, как и Россия и бывшие республики СССР, стали буржуазно-олигархическими республиками, в которых государственную власть фактически взяла в руки местная крупная буржуазия. Я не собираюсь отрицать, что процесс развала СССР тесно связан с экономическими (в первую очередь), социальными и политическими ошибками в построении и поддержании социализма, что стало фундаментом для вырождения партии, формирования новой буржуазии и итогового крушения социалистической экономики СССР, но меня вновь и вновь умиляет либеральный восторг от торжества демократии (в капиталистическом понимании) и независимости.
Под самый же конец, можно посмеяться над тем, как ты представил большевиков чем - то тоталитарно - монолитным (рабочей оппозиции Шляпникова и Колонтай не было, дискуссий в партии не было, троцкистов и сталинистов не было, борьбы внутри партии при и после Сталина не было, нихрена не было).
I know it not because I'm Russian, but because I'm a professional historian, whose specific field of study is Russian electoral system in the beginning of 20th century. I know very well, how the electoral process happened in November 1917 and how the Constituent Assembly was working (basically, the MINORITY party in the Assembly -- bolsheviks -- gave a full text of new Constitution and asked the Assembly to accept it, but this Constitution was undemocratic /true proletarian dictatorship/ and thus unacceptable to mensheviks, constitutional democrats and the biggest party of the Assembly -- socialist revolutionaries; Assembly voted against bolshevik project and bolshevik representatives left the building, boycotting any further discussion; the only bolsheviks sympathizers, who were still there, were the service stuff and security stuff of the Assembly and also -- all the city services of Petrograd, including law enforcement; it was the first ever democratically elected representative body of Russia and its work was completely jeopardised by bolshevik sympathizers in Petrograd bureaucracy and bolshevik revolutionary militia -- on the second day of the session democratically elected representatives were not allowed in the building by militia; is this how bolsheviks gave Constitution to Russia? no, they just made their own Assembly -- IV All-Russian Congress of Soviets -- consisting of loyal 'proletarian revolution' supporters -- and they voted for the exact same bolshevik constitutional project the Constituent Assembly declined; and yes, Constitution has two meanings -- 1 actual document and 2 a complex of ideas regarding separation of powers; the bolsheviks gave Russia its first legal document officially called Constitution, but Bolshevik party was against separation of power since its secession from RSDRP /it was the reason of secession/ and in terms of separation of power this bolshevik Constitution, as well as all Russian Constitutions up until 1993, were worse than even 1906 edition of Fundamental Laws of Russian Empire).
I really like you using old-fashioned cornful idioms like "you sat in the puddle", which are usually used by boomers to show their pseudo-politeness towards people they obviously despise. This method is seen so often in Russian-language discussions of everything related to communism -- and it was a breath of fresh air to see it here.
it's also not true to say that Lenin abandoned his faith in a worldwide revolution, and he did NOT embrace the idea of socialism in one country, or at least certainly not to the extent that Stalin did. Lenin thought that the only way for the revolution to survive was for bigger european countries to become socialist themselves (namely Germany). while he eventually became cognisant that that wasn't going to happen in the short term, he never abandoned his belief in the importance of worldwide revolution, and did everything he could to help build it through institutions like comintern
A few points: 1) Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not oppose democracy, merely the Duma in its current state. They wanted to expand the democratic powers of the soviets in government. 2) Leninism is still Marxism. They did not want an oligarchy but a representative democracy using the soviet system. This is not direct democracy as the anarchists wanted but is still democratic. The soviets were given much power in local government and central planning.
This is the third source I have read or watched on the Russian Revolution and quite frankly it is hard to believe that they are apparently describing the same events. Couple of problems that I have with this video:
- the Revolution of course wasn't just fuelled by war, it was also fuelled by factors like the average life expectancy for most people being 35 while the Tsar controlled somethung like 45 billion dollars, and by the failures of previous demands for reform (like the 1905 Revolution)
-the Provisional government from what I have read wasn't very democratic at all. They said for example that they were pursuing peace and then got caught doing the opposite when newspapers published government papers. They also made no steps to redistribute land for example. I think 'democracy' is an overused word. If it applies to governments like the Provisional one (or like the ones we have now, actually), of course people aren't going to have faith in it anymore.
-
The provisional government didn't have many ideas as to what to do either, and even if they did, where was the bureaucracy to make it happen? John openly said there were monarchists in the provisional government.
As for the election that the Bolsheviks did eventually end, the constituent assembly ended up basically being ignored by the Bolshevik. Even if an election did happen under Kerensky, how would it be legitimate enough for the government to survive?
This was 14 minutes, and to cover as many things as John did, is hard in 14 minutes, especially with him going slower than he did in the first history series.
The provisional government was much more democratic then what Lenin implemented. Lenin quickly took away power from the soviets (the worker's councils) and centralized it in the communist party which become the sole permitted party, all other political groups, including socialist revolutionaries and anarchists were dissolved and persecuted. His belief in a revolutionary vanguard (which was not present in marxist thought) created the justification for a dictatorship, not of the proletariat, but of a clique, which would then become the dictatorship of a single individual in Stalin's time. My source is the greatest living socialist thinker, Noam Chomsky.
John also entirely sidelined the difference between the Left S-Rs and the Right S-Rs. He doesn't have infinite time, sure, so we can't necessarily expect him to explain it all, but framing it as "The Bolsheviks lost the election so they overthrew democracy" is a *deeply* dishonest way of framing the events. The S-Rs had a split between their left and right wings, the left-wing wanted to ally with the Bolsheviks and other socialists, the right-wing wanted to resist as much change as possible. The right-wing soon purged their left wing from the party and staffed right-wing members into those now-empty positions. The Bolsheviks joined with the Left S-Rs in *demanding a new election* to reflect the fact that masses of people voted for leftist members but were now being represented by conservatives. The Right S-Rs *blocked* this move towards a fresh election. **THAT** is when the Soviets, under Bolshevik leadership, overthrew the provisional government and then eventually locked out the constituent assembly. They were not representative of the will of the voters and resisted all attempts to rectify this. If there was ever any government who "had it coming" it was them.
Watch the Russian serial "trotsky" and you will learn all about revolution that you need to know
@@gnetkuji What is 'S-Rs'?
"Socialism in one country" was Starlin's idea. Lenin was always an internationalist.
This is Trotskyist propaganda. "Socialism in one country" was the only viable course of action. What was the alternative? Invade every other nation on Earth?
It'sTankieTime Shut up Stalinist, Lenin saw Russia as simply a wing of the world revolution which would collapse if not carried along with the world revolution. The rise and terror of the Stalin and his counterrevolution are proof Lenin was completely right.
@@AJ-gd9tl And what was the alternative, once the European revolutions had been defeated? There wasn't one. You Trots live in fantasy land.
@@itstankietime7114 The revolution was lost once the revolution globally was defeated. Socialism in one country was an inevitable product of the isolation of the revolution. It was a concession and abandonment of principles. The isolation caused the internal degeneration of the revolution and its abandonment of its revolutionary character which opened up the door to the Stalinist counterrevolution. These logically follow each other.
@@AJ-gd9tl there was no counter revolution. Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from the poorest nation in Europe into the second wealthiest in the world, and the first to send humanity into space. Doubled the life expectancy. Industrialised the country. Transformed agriculture from using wooden ploughs to industrial equipment. Stalin's attempt at building socialism in one country was an immense success, and within his lifetime, it expanded to China, Korea, and Eastern Europe.
When the country's out of bullets and the Tsar still sends you out to fight
*Blyat*
"There are not enough guns or bullets! One of you will carry a gun, the other one will carry the bullets! When the soldier who carries the gun dies, pick his gun and continue fighting!"
It seems that history rhymes.
ясно, что это понедельник!
Soviet Union didn't have enough rifles for their soldiers.
"Pick up the rifle of the dead man in front of you and go forward."
People who didn't like this idea were shot by their own inhumane officers.
You forgot the SUKA part.
*leeroyski jenkinsov!*
Lenin didn’t break from Marx’s ideas, he developed and extended them. This is why Marxism-Leninism emereged after the Russian revolution and not just Leninism
I can't believe this guy wrote 𝒻𝒶𝓊𝓁𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓈 .
☠︎♏︎♓︎⧫︎♒︎♏︎❒︎ ♍︎♋︎■︎ ♓︎📪︎ ■︎♏︎♓︎⧫︎♒︎♏︎❒︎ ♍︎♋︎■︎ ♓︎📬︎
what
wait a min
That book was disturbing
yoooooo I didn't even put 2 & 2 together (O.O)
John, why didn’t you mention that all the other imperialist powers like the UK, US, Japan, etc were actively helping the White Army and invaded after WW1 ended? It seems like that’s a pretty important thing to mention.
You get a lot of the nuance right here. Especially pointing out that not all socialists and anarchists were onboard with the Bolsheviks from the start. But you’re really glossing over or just straight up omitting some key context as to why the revolution and subsequent civil war got so bloody on all sides.
And they invaded after WW1! They were not neutral parties.
But sure, "imagined" enemies were everywhere.
Doesn't fit his narrative.
I mean, he called the "White Terror" as "White movement". I kind of disaprove this, honestly.
@@srobsonscosta8887"We're just a friendly coalition of Tsarists, warlords, proto-fascists, and foreign imperialists concerned for the future of Russia. A grassroots movement of mercenaries, aristocrats, puppets, and old fashioned folks who just like killin'"
In the grand scheme of things, though, the effect of the outside powers on the civil war was really limited. Yes, they supported the Whites, but their actual involvement in the wars was not that big, and they mostly left well before the civil war ended.
John I'm 42, can't even do the math maybe 25 years from highschool now. Your channel is so valuable. I ENJOY learning at my own pace. The force-feeding of History in school didnt work for me, barely remember anything. Please keep up the good work. If possible I would love to see content on Asian and Middle Eastern history also. Thank you so much for this work.
Big fan of the series for a few years but this episode is really problematic...
Slight distortion of facts, thin explanation of events and missing other crucial components entirely.
Yeah the standards of crash course have really fallen lately.
The bias is oozing from this one
Any examples?
@@gastonzumbo9860 How about saying that the so-called democratic government was not democratic at all? Since none of the members were actually elected; they were oligarchs of different sorts, including former aristocrats, high army officials, in which no one represented the people. Also, the "democratic" won the masses at the slogan to stop the war, since strikes involved millions of works broke out all over Russia protesting the harm war bring including the starvation of millions and the incredibly high casualty rate in the war front. And it was very democratic that the voice of millions remained unheard but the dictatorship of dozens of war-fanatics was this vital.
in the thought bubble it talks about the revolution of October but makes it out to be some sort of coup d'etat, which quite ignores the electoral success the Bolshevik party had seen in the previous months, as they took control of both the petrograd and moscow soviets. it's a little bit dangerous to suggest that the revolution was solely the machinations of the Bolshevik elite, with no real popular support, because that isn't accurate.
The text previous to the thought bubble does imply that they were popular.
The actual revolution that night was an almost bloodless putsch which had no popular support, this would be covered up by the propaganda films of the 1920s and 1930s which portrayed the revolution as a mass uprising like that in Frebruary 1917. It is laughable to suggest that the Bolshevik revolution was popular, nobody participated in it!
@@lecterulyanov3853 the literal seizure of state power through the storming of the winter palace was not a 'popular revolt', that's true. the overall revolution, which involved spreading bolshevik control of the state apparatus throughout the country, was.
@@lecterulyanov3853 ah yes, having 60% of the delegates in the 2nd all Russian Congress of Soviets , is tottaly not popular support/s.
I never really liked the translation "Provisional Government". In Russian it's "Временное Правительство" or "Temporary Government".
Yeah, similar words, but one describes the main problem with this group a lot better -- it was never meant to be the future government of Russia. It was "temporary". Yet it stayed anyway, well after the point when people wanted it to stay. And, personaly, I think the big reason for this was in the name. You can't call yourself something "temporary" and expect people to take you seriously. It's like calling your film "A temporary waste of time before a superior sequel" -- would you really go see it? You'd probably just wait for the sequel. Or, in the case of the Bolsheviks, make one yourself.
We SHOULD all use the same calendar -- the french revolutionary calendar!
Orrrrr, how about the International Fixed Calendar?
@@seeranos sounds to me like you are against our glorious revolution, to the guillotine.
Today, Quartidi 4 ventôse 228 (privet day), I forward your motion.
This had a lot to do with our nation Finland's independence and history... The tensions were terrible and had a big part even in our huhely deadly civil war in 1918.
It played the one defining role in most countries in eastern Europe too in their independence and modern borders. Without the revolution, places like Finland would have probably stayed under a brutal russian monarchical thumb and countries like Poland would most likely not exist at all.
You can thank the Germans pumping Finland full of guns and money to organize the counter-revolution, without which the Whites would have been incapable of winning.
@@c0sselburn most guns were taken from russian soldiers and just by looking a map of finland during the civil war it was quite certain who would win were there germans or no germans
@@larrywave You're right about that last part. The Reds controlled pretty much every major population and industrial center. The south of the country, by far the most densely populated section, was totally Red. The Whites were left with the sparsely populated rural areas that lacked pretty much any productive capacity. Such a scenario mirrors Russia during their civil war yet the results were the opposite. German arms, money, and training were indispensable for a White victory without which the Reds easily would have won.
@@c0sselburn let me laugh reds didnt even fully control country side outside those cities, and as i stated most guns and ammunition were confiscated from russian troops garrisoned in finland. There were only 15 thousand germans approximately on white side which isnt that much more than reds had red russians on their side (10 thousand approximately)
I adore your videos, so as hard and old fan I have to make a few points, reminding you to better check info, especially on the next video
1) it’s very important to highlight both sides of conflict, things seen as brutality of 1 particular side usually become different when you see that this is how things are done by both, white terror is extremely unpopular topic in anti-soviet discourse of 20/21 century European history
2) to call duma a democracy is overstatement, just read a few close articles on a topic how it usually was working
3) when talking about bolsheviks resort to violence you should show info on how zarista police and secret police was dealing in same situations
I am now even starting on things like extreme rate of child prostitution due to bad social management of late-czar era, but even a hint of this probably will light up some interest on why some people decided it’s no use to wait for everyone to agree while country is dying. And most of them were SR at the start)
Love, keep the good work, fight your biases)
And that's how you make a good argument without exagerate. I'm a great fan too, and i agree with you
Reading the pain of some guys around these comments was getting me nuts, thanks for bringing some common sense.
If any of you want to know more about the Russian Revolution, Mike Duncan has a multi-part series on his podcast, Revolutions, that's a highly detailed version of this video. If you feel like you've only had a tiny taste of the history being talked about here, it's because you have.
I don't want to plug the guy too much, but like this was, like a few other videos in this series, an extremely summarized version, that can't really do the thing justice.
It's a good taste, don't get me wrong, but y'all have no idea how batshit the story of the Russian Revolution is.
"Because the memorization of dates is overrated" 👏👏👏⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Wow, all this talk of the provisional government in Russia really takes me back to Indy's Great War.
The Laughing Panda Another liberal propaganda show that intentionally glosses over the conspiracies and crimes of the Western imperialist powers?
John definitely has bias in this matter, but reading through comments it's great to see so many educated people who know of John's misrepresentations in this clip and actually know the bigger picture of the Russian revolution. Very nice :)
Failed to mention (among other things) the international involvement in and support for the White army. This was not your best episode. :/
They can only include so much information in a small video.
@@ObliviousPenguin True, but you don't omit essential information for time. And yes, I really think it is essential to know that the russian civil war was also an invasion by several world powers with vested interests to quell (for all they knew at the time) a socialist revolution. It says something important about those countries and it says something important about the nascent Soviet union.
@@orCane totally agreed. however you could always sort of assume that this video would come at things from a classic liberal point of view, the ones sketched in the 60s and 70s during the height of the cold war. that's not necessarily to say that those were bad histories (Ulam's is especially good), but they were always going to be ungenerous towards the Soviet view. the video really didn't do much to stress the importance of popular support for and involvement in the revolution, or the importance of european attempted revolution (e.g. Germany 1919), which Lenin and the Comintern did as much as possible to support.
Lenin hung the Hungarian communists out to dry. And yes, they should have mentioned the international support for the Whites, but discussing the genuinely evil aspects of the Soviet regime under Lenin should not be out of bounds.
@@ObliviousPenguin They have time to talk about some irrelevant cat callander. They can do better.
Everyone should use the same exact calendar: (Weekday) - date - month - year
YES! THANK YOU!
No thanks
Yes!
I prefer ISO 8601: YYYY-MM-DD
Cringe.
Socialism in One Country was Stalin's platform, not Lenin's.
Wait wait wait, did you guys just also completely forget about the White Terror?
@@Cyarrick1
It was a completely democratic terror, therefore it may not be mentioned.
@@Cyarrick1 While the civil war in general was not the main focus, they did mention that the favourite pastime of various White generals was hunting Jews, and things like that.
Lenin was also arguing for Socialism in One Country after the immediate post-war revolutions had died down (esp. in Germany), he just didn't make a whole doctrine out of it but saw it more as a temporary stage.
Lenin was moving toward that belief, Trotsky advocated world revolution, and Stalin was a One Country man, no?
It wasn’t even a real platform, it was just an obvious reality once the revolutions were defeated throughout the rest of Europe. I don’t even get why liberals are bothered by this when the alternative to “socialism in one country” was “conquer Europe”
Supperficial episode at best. Manipulative at worst.
Some errors:
Bolsheviks (and Lenin) didn't break with marxism. They belived that for a worker's revolution to succed, there must be a party coordinating it. They didn't substitude one for the other.
Lenin was against "socialism in one country", meaning that a socialist country alone can survie in a capitalist world, which was what Stalin thought.
Lenin didn't renounce to the word "socialism" because it was "to democratic". Lenin reasoned that since socialist parties all over the world had supported WWI, being therefore responsable in part for the deaths of thousands of the same workers that they "represented" in the name of their country (against the principle of "proletarian internationalism"), socialism had become a dirty word. Even Lenin said that calling themselves "Communist" wasn't is own idea. Engels suggested the term half a century before, thinking that "socialist" wasn't the best sinnonim to "marxist".
There was no anarchist in the goverment. That is just false.
The civil war wasn't "bolsheviks v. all". Bolshevisks formed a coalition with the mayority of the Social Revolutionary party and some menshevisks
For those interested in the story of the Russian Revolution, just read "10 days that shook the world".
good points, however i'm afraid this video is purposefully misleading, john is showing his liberal bias
Do you have any sources aside from a contemporary book of the time written by a journalist on assignment from a socialist publication?
Diego Rodríguez Serantes ywah I noticed some of this sounded weird especially the “anarchist in government” plus the whites also committed the same atrocities (I’m not saying it was okay for the reds but that both sides did)
I assume John has an issue with violent revolutions all together. But, of course, he did commit those not so minor mistakes. Also, he did not emphasize enough the manner in which most russians at the time were living in.
Lenin was an internationalist like all true socialists, anarchists and communists were at the time. He did not believe in religion or nations, again, as a true leftist. He knew that the old conservative powers would push back against reform, like many leftists around the globe. Don´t forget the provisional government did repress people in the streets periodically.
In any case you could judge him in terms similar to those of John Brown, that´s why he always falls in a grey area for most people. I´ve seen John judge the turks and other nations and faiths according to how progressive they were for their time. Well, most of the things Lenin stood for are seen as intrinsic rights nowadays, and many, like female reproductive rights, are still a struggle. And don´t forget, Jean Jaures was shot down in 1914. In a time of truly massive empires which massacred millions around the globe and oppressed their own people, I doubt anyone would consider a violent revolution other than the only pragmatic option.
Lenin believed in socialism in one country. You can believe I. That and still be an internationalist (like stalin). Socialism in one country is a means to an end
This is very biased. First of all Russian people never really supported provisional government and Bolsheviks knew this, that's why they were successful.
We all know what you mean by this- Stalin good, west baaaaaad, baaaaaaaad. Kindly tell what's biased about this?
@@m2heavyindustries378
No? I do not mean that? What I said in my comment is just how it was during that time.
@@m2heavyindustries378 they didn't even remotely imply that Stalin good or west bad. Just the Russians didn't want a provisional government. your echo chamber is strong try and step out of it from time to time.
10:15 It's Cheka, not Chekha. Cheka is short for Chrezvychaynnaya Kommisiya, or Extraordinary Commission.
Will tell you a secret: it’s neither. The correct answer is «ЧК». So if we’re looking for English transcription, it should be CheKah
@@Strrroke You don't use "ah" when transliterating Russian into English, no one writes "Pravdah", "vodkah", "Samarah", "Nikitah" etc.
@@vytah that's because vodka is pronounced vodka. When letter K is in the abbreviation, it is pronounced like in the alphabet, so it's "ka" or "kah"
So
CheKah is correct pronunciation
So many "y"
@@remmoze чувак, что ты несёшь?
Liberty is just privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
@@LEEboneisDaMan The international ideal, unites the human race!
Liberty is always a privilege. The only time it isn't is if everyone is equally powerful, which no system on Earth guarantees (about the only political philosophy which does is anarcho-primitivism, by simply breaking society apart).
Not entirely accurate glosses over alot of history and make generalisations some of which are wrong or just purposely left out
Such as?
@@gregorymaus6289 lenin was an internationalist stalin was the one who favoured socialism in one country Lenin merely believed russia should hold out until other revolutions come to Russias aid. The focus on the Red terror and the lack of expansion on the white terror painting the bolsheviks as evil and the whites as good whereas in reality both committed atrocities. Video only focused on the negative side to the Russians rise to power whereas soviet russia dramatically improved medical care, housing, life expectancy, education, job security and the cost of living it was during lenins later years and stalin's rise to power that these achievements were undermined. Idk the video just seems very Americancentric
@@kylewalker6737 I agree, a lot of parts from Stalin weren't mentioned.
You know... This video tries to explain the whole civil war in 15 minutes.I think for such a short video being not entirely accurate is a given.
RicardoJenson Yeah, but Kyle is right. This plays like a hit piece on Lenin, who was NOT the “historical villain” that he has been blown up to be in Western culture. Given his past work over hundreds of videos, I expected more nuance from John Green.
Western Authors are very biased on there works on soviet union, its brith, its leaders its achivements. You could have used at least one eastern european author. Stalin was the only reason the bolsheviks accepted Trotsky into the party. Lenin decriminalized homosexuality, pushed for women equality and preservation of nature. His acction on pereservation of nature made sure that from exploited forests of syberia came new life. His impact on ecological preservation was so big, that in honor of his birthday Planet Earth was to be celibrated. He increased literacy by 470%. Millions of men, women and childern were for the first time able to read for the first time. American policy was always devide and conquer.
You should talk about the Black, and Green armies.
Let me explain the importance of these Armies, these armies fundamentally showed that opposition to the binary choices the Bolsheviks (Majority in Russian) and the Menshiviks (Minority in Russian). Both movements where peasant grass roots movements instead of being movements with a central party and both movements opposed both the Soviet Councils and the Duma and it could be argued that this rejection of traditional parties showed the complexity of Ideology, showing that as all things everything is a Spectrum instead of being Binary.
To his credit, he does mention the anarchists. But it'd be nice if there were a greater focus on Makhno.
I agree but tbf it’s a crash course video, they did mention anarchists and the Green Army briefly but they probably didn’t have time to fully explain them
I'm a big fan of Crash Course history. It's easy, good fun, and most importantly informative. Tackling the Russian Revolution in anything under 48 hours seems impossible. Props to the writers and editors of this one.
I think one of the critical pieces that they miss here, and is missed in the discussion of almost every socialist or radical revolution or regime is the fact that the revolutionary regime was literally under siege, not only from the White army but from actual British and American troops, as well as the Japanese etc.. Historically, when nations are invaded and governments are existentially threatened they adopt more authoritarian and violent policies to survive. This happened in the French Revolution with the Terror, the American Civil War with the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the increase in executive power, and happened in numerous places in the 20th century where the CIA and the larger U.S. foreign policy apparatus tried to annihilate nascent reformist or revolutionary movements. When entrenched power structures are using violent and coercive acts to try to end your movement it becomes difficult or impossible to persevere in a totally non-problematic way.
When you are citing the Terror of the French Revolution to excuse mass murder you must really be desperate for excuses. LENIN WAS EVIL, PERIOD.
@@powdermonkey7697 Oh okay because when you're talking about history you want to ignore context, theory or any type of complicating facts, and just deal in black and white moral absolutes, okay sweet got it.
Thank you for emphasizing the differences in socialists and communists. Those phrases get conflated so much in the US thanks to decades of propaganda. I'm glad both the internet and the Republican's constant calling anything to the left of them "Socialism" has taken away the stigma of the word and we can start picking out the good ideas like much of Europe has.
Socialism is still not a good thing. You need to rely on yourself not the government.
@@danielshifron5672 what is libertarian socialism?
Doesn't socialism and communism just mean "socialization of the means of production" basically meaning (worker ownership/control of the buisness or dumbing down "workers voting on managers and them all bieng owners") Source wikipedia
So like arent they the same thing?
tkdyo you are talking as if communism is inherently bad. It’s just an idea of a classless, stateless and moneyless system. It has been utilised in some horrendous ways but even so, the Soviet Union was never truly communist, as it was a state and it had money. It had classes as well but unofficially.
Not just decades but by now over a century of american far right propaganda that fits a lot of criteria distanced from political, social or economic literacy.
I have an exam tomorrow on this exact thing and u published it, u are a saviour
“Russian Revolution” it’s time comrades
Indeed Comrade!
Kim Jong-un No, thank you very much. Last time were very bad
Down with capitalism! I need to not die of my healthcare bill or my boss making me eat dirt, lol!
The people will rise again
@Ordinary Sessel well communism technically is only democratic worker ownership of buisness (ownership=/= management* so like workers own buisness and elect manager & what not)
But im referring to economic rights and decomodication (making stuff for not a profit, the real wild communist stuff) so healthcare could be free you know?
Hi Mr. Green, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have been doing for all of us. This Crash Course intro music will be something nostalgic for me in a few years, and thanks to you, (and Stan, of course) my dream of getting into an American college is becoming (or at least seeming) more and more realistic. You are the man who is helping thousands of people, passing AP and SAT II (including me), history nerds and just people, who are at least slightly interested in this discipline. Thank you.
So are we gonna cover US and British troops intervening in the Russian civil war at some other point?
@@rebikhalifa8375 you don't even know me
I can't help but notice that you don't go into any detail about Lenin's theories of power or class struggle in the context that , let alone with the same kind of depth that you did with Marx's. This seems particularly interesting given how quick you are to condemn a lot of the decisions made by the bolshevik government under extremely trying circumstances.
I just saw your video which was uploaded in 2012 glad you are still uploading history and I like everything from history to literature
why do you say "democracy" is place of "capitalism" so much in this vid?
Or plutocracy, or oligarchy.
Does he? He even says at one point that non-Bolshevik socialists were democratic. I doubt that he conflates democracy and capitalism, he simply points out, rightly, that the Bolsheviks specifically were against democracy.
Capitalism is hardly a democracy
How can he ignores how the Soviets were true democracy? How Marxism defends democracy in the workplace against capital despotism? How militarism was necessary in the face of the white army counter revolutionary action, backed by European capitalist states? John liberal and anticommunist bias is obvious in this video.
@@joshuachen5476 the Bolsheviks were for real democracy, not the bourgeois democracy of capitalism where a small few billionaires make all the important decisions amongst themselves before we're involved at all. Lenin fought for a workers democracy, a democracy of the vast majority, rather than the small few.
The Bolsheviks won as majority in the two largest councils of workers, soldiers, and peasants, and eventually won a majority in the old provisional parliament in order to disband it. They were the most popular leaders, possibly in history, among their people, and those people fought for the revolution against 21 invading countries of capitalism and the czarist, capitalist, and so-called "socialists" of the time on the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionary Parties, who were all in favor of taking power from the vast majority and handing it over to the tiny capitalist class that had nearly identical interests to the czarist class that had just been overthrown.
Yours is lazy and common capitalist propaganda and the Bolsheviks fought for and nearly won the most democratic society in human history.
1:49 Christopher Lee looking down on Czar Nicholas. Get em Saruman!
Sath Animations, I cannot unsee that now
workers of the world, unite!
you have nothing to lose but your chains.
This episode was brought to you by: The US State Department
André Luis Araujo lmao
using popular media to spread propaganda and control the minds
Yes! Haauhahaha
The USSR is dead bro, let the pain go. There's no reason to undermine.
@@ianurbina9777 The USSR is dead. Long live the USSR
Crash course history be like:
- it's my most precious memory, Harry. It is also a lie!
I've been trying to think of how to phrase this, and I don't know if these ever get read by anyone that has a hand in producing these videos, but i think it would be a good thing for the progress of human knowledge if you all would make an addendum or something to this video addressing the really great things that came out of the revolutions that led to the Soviet Union. This channel is usually really good, so this newest video is disheartening. This video is just really unfair to the people that sacrificed everything to try to make their country liveable for the average working class person or peasant who was the vast majority of that society. Yes, there were big problems, but millions of people were able to climb out of poverty and live with dignity because of these events. And this is all described in this video as if it were some Doctor Evil-esque plot to destroy democracy, rather than a successful attempt by a people to drag their really backward (politically, and economically) region of the world into modernity. The rest of the world owe them a huge debt for their actions and sacrifice in WWII. You can't just sum up this whole period as well there were these bad guys in Eastern Europe.
I think it would be fantastic if you would revisit this topic and try to cover it again in a more even handed way.
'Big problems'
Millions of people were deported to the east and worked to death because they were the wrong ethnic group, wrong political class, wrong economic class or simply to fill a quota. Millions more died in man made famines or in ethnic cleansing that reshaped the borders of nations, particularly Poles and Germans. To them, there struggles were more than 'big problems'.
Any state established on shooting thousands of children in the back of the head is owed NO debt by any free people, which is why Europe CELEBRATES the ending of communism in 1989 and doesn't revel in it.
But those who sacrificed everything to drag their country into the modern world found themselves increasingly sidelined, persecuted, or assimilated by the Bolshevik system. There was a great number of idealists and genuinely well-intentioned reformers and revolutionaries working hard to bring about a better future - in the soviets and zemstvos and the Social Revolutionaries and even the bourgeois parties. And some even in the Bolshevik movement.
But the Bolsheviks were not the embodiment of these attempts at reform and modernisation. They didn't "sacrifice everything" themselves, they sacrificed others. Eventually, they did drag Russia into the modern world - but this video covers the revolutionary years, and in those, the power grab was dominant.
Lenin didn't break from Marx on the need for the workers to lead the revolution. Marx recognized the need for communists to lead the workers literally in the second chapter of the manifesto, and the need for leadership was explained in Marxs work on the civil war in france.
If your going to analyze something do it right, even academics can take an honest look at the body of work of Marxism and see that this is a caricature.
Btw the bolsheviks, while winning less seats then the Social revolutionaries, did win more then the mensheviks.
At the time, a large portion of the social revolutionaries, which would later become the left social revolutionaries as a punctuated faction, did support the bolsheviks
It should also be noted that the October revolution was not a "coup" by the bolsheviks. Lenin, Trotsky and the bolsheviks painstakingly won over the workers and peasants over the course February to October, and the affair itself, the taking of power by the working class with leadership from the bolsheviks, was bloodless as compared to its february counter part. More people died in the making of the film that recounted the October revolution then the actual revolution itself
Lenin did not ever, EVER assert that there had to be socialism in one country.
The idea of socialism in one country was a position held by the Mensheviks, which Stalin later adopted WELL after Lenin's death.
I understand that Crash Course is a valuable educational asset and that is politically liberal but you could at least take an honest look at the works of Lenin before stepping directly into this disproven drivel.
It should also be noted that "communists" or "cadre" are merely the most advanced layers of the working class. They are not some sort of separate entity that uses the working class to their own whims, but work side by side in day to day struggles of working people but also to advance the slogan of the need for the workers to take power.
I've been an avid fAn of Crash Course for years and you should keep up the good job.
In my opinion, the Russian Revolution does not fit in 14 minutes. It is a decent video, but up to a point.
Some notes: the Bolshevik's did not diverge from the original Marxist ideals.
Firstly, Marx had written about the working class being the revolutionary subject, but had also expressed the need for a Communist Party, i.e. the "revolutionary vanguard", meaning the revolutionaries that constitute that ideological and political forefront for the organisation of the communist movement.
Secondly, the term "communism" was not a new, Bolshevik introduced term. In 1848 Marx wrote the Manifesto of the Communist party and uses the term interchangeably with "socialism" in his writings. Admittedly the term "communism" is and was widely adopted by movements and parties (such as the Bolsheviks) in order to differentiate themselves from the so-called socialists of the political center, who advocated for a reformation (instead of overthrow) of the production and exploitation relationship of capitalism.
Personal suggestion: Whenever you hear "democracy" in this video - as the assembly's non-Bolshevik members' goal - substitute it with "bourgeois democracy", aka a democracy driven by the wants of the already ruling - and very much still existent even after the abdication of the Tsar - bourgeoisie.
The soviet's infrastructure and operation (in the years prior to Stalin's takeover) was described by many participants as well as outside spectators as truly democratic. Also in my opinion, these descriptions do not fit with the "Bolshevik dictatorship" narrative.
American journalist, poet and eye witness of the revolution, John Reed has described some of these cases in detail.
P.S.: the idea of "socialism in one country" was an idea pushed by Stalin, Lenin was an internationalist.
And this is not Trotskyist propaganda as some might say. One can read about internationalist socialism throughout Lenin's writings.
Alexander Kerensky (1881 - 1970)
Wow! This guy lived through the turn of the 20th century, WW1, WW2, and the start of the Cold War!
And the Great depression
I just thought of it, my great-grandma was born in the Russian Empire in 1910 and died in Florida in 2005. During her lifetime Russia went from absolutist monarchy to soviet dictatorship to shaky oligarchic republic. Gives you perspective of how brief the USSR was
Saying that this video is a massive missrepresentation of the ideas of lenin and the bolsheviks would be an understatement.
very impressive how much you fit into this episode
While I find these videos informative, they are a challenge because I often find myself falling asleep. Sometimes I wake up in time to rewind and go back over what I missed, but often I doze so long that when I wake up another video is playing and I'm not sure where I left off. John's rapid fire delivery in that midwestern drone just wears me out.
Nothing to lose but our chains
A lot of people lost theirs lives...
And the rising standard of living that comes with industrial capitalism.
@@gregorymaus6289 living standards in the ussr were on par with united states and soviet citizens had a higher caloric intake than americans (which even the cia will admit). In fact, living standards plummeted in Russia and Ukraine in the 90s plummeted as a result of the reintroduction of capitalism. Your argument is bunk.
Oh, but the poor workers lost so much more after communism took hold. Not least of all their lives.
@GrimspySlayer Certainly standards of living improved in the USSR (when you start out in the most backwards monarchy in Europe you can really only go up), but saying the USSR's standards of living were on par with the US seems like quite a claim and I would be intrigued to see your sources.
As for 90's Russia and Ukraine, the transition away from communism was handled in an absurdly corrupt and inefficient fashion leading to the rise of the oligarchs, organized crime, and the cronyism that still haunts Eastern Europe today. Capitalism is nice but it can't cure everything.
I'm Russian and I really love my country and it's history. This video left a nasty impression on me because it was blatantly biased, full of historical misconceptions and taking facts out of their historical context. But I was so glad when I checked the comments and found people who won't buy lies like that, people with critical thinking and open mind. Keep it up brothers, don't let propaganda fool you! With love from Russia
Big fan here! John, you got a beard! I remember world history!
This is my favorite thing to study in history! Thanks for the video 🙂
This is pretty inaccurate tbh. Lenin didn't murder anyone in cold blood, that's like literally why the NEP was established, rather than violently slaughtering the peasantry, they opened up a basic market to appease the kulaks. The violence really didn't happen until the 21 foreign armies invaded Russia and incited a civil war, spearheaded by the upper strata of peasants that wanted to keep their land and were opposed to democracy of production.
I always find it odd that, by the numbers, the American Revolution was considerably more violent than the Bolshevik revolution - and the American civil war oversaw Lincoln suppressing even the first amendment in war time - these are never questioned of course. Generally speaking, actual war, is ubiquitously dealt with by vesting more power than usual to the leaders of the country.
Lenin and Trotsky wrote on numerous occasions that they were trying to dismantle the bureaucracy that grew out of "war communism," but by 21 (when Trotsky formally called for the war committee to be dissolved and full democratic rights be restored), the bureaucracy had "taken on a life of its own." (Lenin's words).
This period in history was ridiculous though. It's really no wonder that such an economically and culturally backwards country degenerated into bureaucratic totalitarianism after being riddled with civil war, mutinies (like Kronsdadt) and being invaded by literally 13 countries with 21 separate armies. Actually, it's kind of a miracle it "survived" as an independent nation state at all. I'm pretty sure, from everything I've read, that the only thing that stopped the invasion were the revolutions that broke out abroad, most notably Germany's.
Lenin argued leadership in the form of parties. Not even just a one party state like what happened, but again, given the context of the country, which had Tsarist brutality, revolution in 1905, skipped over genuine capitalist development, another revolution in February 1917, and then another revolution in October of the same year, it's really no wonder certain positions were taken when they were taken.. and this idea that Lenin held all this power wasn't quite the whole picture. This was an internally democratic situation, Lenin's word was just respected both within his party and among the masses.
Overall, decent synopsis, but there's quite a bit more to the story and what you've focused on gives the impression that there's a clear connection between Lenin and Stalin. Have you ever wondered why Stalin suppressed so much of Lenin's writings? We shouldn't just take anyone at their word, but Trotsky described how viciously Lenin struggled against the war committee's bureaucratic selection of Stalin, who flipped the politburo upside down, for the last few years of his life. We also have newer evidence from when the Soviet archives that Lenin directly called for Stalin to be removed from the general secretary post.
Love your videos, huge history buff, and I find this period pretty fascinating. It's pretty hard to appreciate the degree of strife the Russian people went through from late Tsarism onward. But, you've definitely misrepresented Lenin here.
I think this is the most American depiction about the Russian revolution ever... Even Robert Service would not do such a bad job...
Service is such a hack. Loved it when the WSWS ripped him to shreds a few years ago.
As an American, I agree that the content of this video is in the tradition of some of our worse anti-Communist propaganda in a country who's history overflows with such.
I would like to point out, however, that Robert Service is British. 😄
@@gorgonzolastan Thank you for your comment. I know that Service is britsh. But he claims to be some kind of authority regarding the Russian Revolution history with his shamefull works about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky. But, even he seems be more well balanced than Crash Course.
As always, Thanks Crash Course❤
Hi, John, one of my critiques about American discussion about Soviet history is that there's always an emphasis on The brutality of communist or socialist government against their own people. It always seems so propagandist. Was the brutality of the Soviet government that much more than the American government against its own minorities? Were the romanovs less brutal against its minorities?
Yes: dont be mad, accept it, you disgusting commie.
@@Bell_Matt 's ad hominem comment aside, while the US hardly has a perfect record of living up to its ideals, the US federal government never sanctioned mass-murder of its citizens, minority or otherwise.
Classic what-about-ism. The brutality of the Soviets isn't negated by other countries brutality.
America has certainly had it share of brutality, but that doesn't negates what the USSR did to it's people. Stalin's regime directly (through executions and gulags) and indirectly (by either misguided or heartless policies) conservatively and based on what soviet documentation records caused over 2 million death, some say as high 20 million. You can certainly compare that to the trail of tears, slavery, etc. in America, but it doesn't make what happened during that time any less horrendous. You might have a point that previous regime in Russia were just as or more awful, but something about communism caused a disproportionate amount of suffering in the 20th century for a system that was meant to be egalitarian and created to elevate suffering. It's probably this disconnect that makes people focus on it.
No, the USA government never developed complex programs of mass-murder of it's citizens or minorities. You can even name some past crimes like the incursions against native americans, the civil war or the segregations, but to this date you can still find native american/minorities descendants and also descendants from confederate soldiers/generals (Btw all proud of their story) while in Russia just recently "survivors", guards and descendands are comming out (And with degrees of guilt and fear) to mention the attrocities.
Also i by no means i'm saying one is less guilty than the other. In my mind both were cruel, but even cruelty has levels.
This is the best version of UA-cam
This videos got all the tankies out in the comments
and trots
I’m a great grandson of a Lithuanian white army guard in NJ. My great grandpa was very fortunate to leave in 1917.
I have an SAQ on the Russian revolution today and I was hoping you made it this far in history and you did and for that I just want to say you’re amazing
Great video. Thank you
I swear you guys are putting these videos out right behind my class in Global history
Probably for the best; this episode was an embarrassing collapsed omelette of misleading simplifications, glarings omissions, and outright falsehoods.
It's really a hard topic to cram into such short video. However, I think that since you mentioned how Bolsheviks planed to spread their revolution as far and quick as possible but eventually settled for "socialism in one country", it would be worth to mention that their defeat in 1920 in the Polish-Soviet War played a major role and in this.
BTW Mike Duncan is currently covering the Russian Revolution on his Revolution Podcast. It will be the final but also the longest series on this amazing podcast, it's 31 episodes in and only just reached the Russo-Japanese War. :)
No mention of the Black Army? This does not increase the speed of my Tachanka, and Mama Anarchia does not approve.
But for real, anarchism played (and plays) a surprisingly significant role in Russia’s history. The Black Army was a major reason the White Army lost to the Reds, and the anarchist thinker Bakunin’s contemporary criticism of Marx and Lenin and their “red bureaucracy” was basically spot on: the communist state didn’t decay, it just became a new, arguably worse elitist tyranny over Russia.
Can we please not conflate Marx with Lenin? Marx was mostly a de facto libertarian socialist (e.g. participating in the Paris Commune alongside anarchists and citing its direct democratic government as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and after the Paris Commune he had some democratic socialist leanings, supporting electoral efforts to seize the state in certain countries. Marx is an ally, don't let Leninists claim him.
Roles of various sectors and levels of oversight or control. These are important understandings.
Funny part of this comment section is reading comments from people who have no idea what they are saying. If you really want to understand this topic better, pick up a text book on the subject and read it free of any baises to inform yourself. The video is a good starting point and not an alternative. As for those of you misapplying the information in this video, you guys are just so special.
there are a number of parts in the video that are factually wrong. and you can notice them if you read a book about this.
My classes love you John Green!!!!!!!!!!!!!!❤🔥
I had a test on this this morning. Are you kidding me. Why couldn’t this have been uploaded yesterday!
As a lover of the history of Film Theory and Sergei Eisenstein (the first book that got me thinking of giln was his "Film Form") thank you for mentioning how important Battleship Potemkin was.
Wow! I didn’t expect this video to be enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution, but I also didn’t expect it to be so reactionary towards it! Lol I’m kinda baffled! I thought it was going to TRY to walk the middle path, but no… They didn’t even try! hahaha
No mention of Makhno and his Black Army? I thought anarchists on machine gun chariots would get at least a brief mention
A tip John, advertise calendar BEFORE the year statrs 😁
Big fan!!!! Love ur channel!
"Anarchists in the government" you're kidding, right?
Unjustified hierarchy not hierarchy at all
cheers mate, nice vid really helps
There was once a certain man,
In Russia long ago......................
Action and reaction cycles and learning and growth. Such hard lessons too.
очень круто и исторично! ты крутой историк.
Perfect timing as always Crash Course!
Wow, John. I usually love your video’s, but this is so unlike your other’s. Your way of approaching history from all points of view is enriching. But this is sooo historically incorrect. I recommend John Reed’s "10 days that shook the world". An American journalist brings an eye witness’s report from the days of the revolution. Very enriching about the situation.
The key aspects that you didn’t mention at all:
- It wasn’t a struggle for autocracy vs. democracy. It was a struggle for political power between the working classes and the bourgeoisie. The traditional parliament was no longer a representation of popular will with the emergence of the Soviets, which were legitimate worker’s bodies, and in a democratic sense were a lot more participatory, and filled with workers from all ranks and worker’s parties (like the Left Socialst Revolutionaries and Mensjewiks). There was in a sense a double political power with parliament representing a struggling bourgeoisie and the Soviets representing the workers, farmers and soldiers.
- It wasn’t as much a civil war as an invasion. I can’t believe that you didn’t mention the fact that the United States was one of the powers that invaded the newly formed USSR, together with the UK, France, Checkoslovakia,...
- The October Revolution wasn’t a coup at all. It was a genuine revolution. The Bolsheviks called for the Soviets to take political power completely in their hands. The Bolsheviks themselves stood strongest in Petrograd, Moscow and Baku. And in Petrograd, the seizure of power was extremely easy because of the weakness of the opposing forces. In Moscow, there was a heavy confrontation. In the following days/weeks, the revolution really spread, even to areas where the Bolsheviks weren’t as strong. Mostly because the Soviets had general popular support among the workers, farmers and soldiers.
- Immediately after the October Revolution, the 8 hour work day was installed, women got voting rights and equal rights as men on every front, the land was redistributed among the poor farmers. Even LGBTQ+ rights were granted (but revoked due to lack of popular support).
- The so-called theory of an elite to take power and usurp power for the masses is in no sense a Bolshevik theory. If you read anything Lenin ever wrote, you’d notice how much he opposed this idea. His policy was: an intellectual has to learn manual labour as much as the worker has to learn to read, study, form him-/herself politically. He did say, however, that the workers need a strong worker’s party to represent them and to organize the most politically trained workers and the most formed intellectuals, together. This theory of an intellectual elite leading the masses is a theory Trotsky later wrote out, but is opposed by most socialist traditions.
I don’t even care about what position you would take politically regarding the Russian Revolution, nor would it be a good idea to do so, because I like the way you approach history from the winner’s and loser’s perspective, from the big figure’s point of view or that of the masses, but I am quite dissapointed with this video, which I was really looking forward to actually. Because facts remain facts, regardless of political stance.
Kind regards and thank you for all the great work you and the whole team do.
Just in time for My history test
Thank you crash course
To those critics of "glossing over" content or "leaving out" content.
Hers's a thought; Start your own UA-cam history channel so you can include your version of favorite events. I'm sure the masses will too be ready for critique of "your version"
What are you trying to say here? None of their criticism matters because they would be criticized themselves?
@@coolcool5181
Not quite. I think critique is important but the point I was making was that whom ever creates any content will automatically "gloss" over what doesn't fit their narrative. So anyone can find things missing or left out if that's what your looking for. Cheers
ДА!!!!! СПАСИБО!!!!! Я ЛЮБЛЮ ТЕБЯ ГРИИН!
stop suxing
MamMia Less ты тупой 😂
The Russian greens weren't the only green movement around during the first world war there was also a short lived green army in Croatia, and you forgot to mention the black anarchist army all this stuff is on The Great War channel.
I prepare for Russian state exams and a need pass history and English. This video the best combination
You will fail the exam if you will use this video as a source
Is it even Crash Course History if you don't mention the Mongols? So good to have this kind of series back!
Sorry, Roman Von Ugen Sternburg is...too busy enslaving them...
Really great educational video, thank you so much!!
Socialism in One Country was Stalin, not Lenin
What heck is this dang good video
You should remember that while the Russians were fighting for power the country's minority's were fighting in poor conditions against Germany on the front to keep Russia safe. Most people who were fighting Germany on the eastern front were nt Russian.
This ought to be fun. Can't wait for the Romanov response.
The Tsar was no less brutal. Bloody Sunday for example, those were peaceful protesters, women and children shot down by the Tsars's men. When the Tsar reluctantly established the Duma, it did not bring democracy. The Tsar still retained "Supreme autocratic power" over it. And the provisional government could not be trusted not to go back on everything it promised, see the Kerensky offensive. Also worth mentioning that communist conception of democracy is not a rejection of democracy categorically, but a different conception than that of a liberal capitalist version of democracy. On the other hand many of the counter revolutionary elements or "white army" were in fact categorically against democracy, that's why they wanted to restore the monarchy.
Planning on doing anything on Sweden/Scandinavia soon? :)
Given the current political climate, It's hard to tell what might be legitimate criticism of CC, and what might otherwise be grandstanding nationalists. I'm sure they have to leave a ton of details out to make a 14 minute video, which might generally upset people. Further complicating matters are what titles all these parties used, and used against each other. Like how Lenin called himself a Socialist...when he was murdering everyone so he can become a despot. Or how Stalin wanted to be called Communist...even though he was murdering everyone so he can become a despot. Or how Putin- I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
The point is, just because someone claims to be of a certain party or mindset doesn't mean they will follow it. And likely, if someone advocates for violence and division first, they usually are a despot.
Oh but don't worry. People in this comment section are so intellectually superior that they think they can do better than Lenin or Stalin and they also think they can creat a real and true "worker's paradise".
@@Amantducafe I was 100% sure that this video would draw tankies like feces lures flies. Sadly I as not wrong.