6 ms·
If you read the New York Times articles of 1917, 1918, 1919, they talk about how the Bolshevik government would be collapsing any day now...eventually it happen
by obrero 11y ago
If you read the New York Times articles of 1917, 1918, 1919, they talk about how the Bolshevik government would be collapsing any day now...eventually it happened seventy years later - because leaders of the communist party decided to.
When the leaders of Russia's communist party decided to reorganize their government in 1991, what governments in continental Europe from 1917 still existed in the same form, uninterrupted? Not Germany, not France, not Italy. Not Spain, not Portugal, not Holland. The only country I can think of is Switzerland, although perhaps one or more slip my mind. Some "failure" - when you've outlived everyone else and are done away with by the leaders of the party that was in charge seventy years before decides to throw in the towel. While in the meantime surviving numerous major wars, and, under Stalin, having enormous economic growth, at a time when the rest of the world was stagnating economically.
Russia was a backwards country in 1917. Lenin said Russia would not be a leader among countries, but the opportunity availed itself and so socialists would hold out in Russia while the rest of the world went on with its processes. This was followed by invasion by every country (including the US in places like Arkhangelsk), then 25 years later being invaded by a coalition of most of continental Europe, followed by a Cold War against a military alliance of all the world's industrialized nations. What magic pixie dust would the Russians have to combat all this? It's a miracle they made it to 1991, in the process launching the first satellites, man in space etc., before deciding themselves to close up shop in 1991.
It's a strange triumphalism - exaggerate a threat beyond all proportions, then crow how you defeated it. 1917 US (and allies) against 1917 Russia is like an NFL team against a Pee-wee league. This is the case for triumphalism? It's a miracle the Russians did as well as they did - they even beat Nazi Germany. It shows there must have been something to what they were doing.
- mercurial 11y agoYou may them sound like victims. They were quite happy playing the game of thrones themselves, allying with Nazi Germany, invading countries left and right and starting to carve up Eastern Europe, then fighting a covert war with the West for decades, with neither side particularly caring about who would get crushed in the process.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago"Russia was a backwards country in 1917" Russia has lost a war in 1917. It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread. Surely, it lacked in some areas, but it was already industrializing fast, building ships, cars, planes, railroads and stuff. Then came soviets and took credit for all aforementioned.
- ivan_gammel 11y agoIt was, but not because it did not industrialize. It did build the railroads and factories, of course, and it was at the peak of economical power by 1913, we all know that. It was a backwards country because of 99% of population still living in extreme poverty (the level of social and political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept), corruption and incompetence, which lead to defeat in war with Japan 10 years ago, and backwards political system, unable to solve challenges of the time. The Empire was doomed, and noone should cry about it.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoCitation needed. Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty". Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured themselves out. "the level of... political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept" is especially fun to read for a citizen of Putinist post-Soviet Russia. I not only understand political inequality but also experience levels of it that exceed what 1914 had to offer. For example, they had real Duma with real parties! That didn't always vote the same! Hundred years passed and yet today we are far worse off.
- mercurial 11y agoI found this paper [1] which tends to show that pre-Soviet Russia wasn't that bad off. However, it's only based on data from St Petersburg and Moscow, so it's difficult to say how representative the conclusions are compared to the rest of Europe at the same time period. As for the Tsarist Duma, come on. It was only established after the revolution of 1905, and after 1907, the electoral laws were engineered to favour the ruling class and the pro-Tsarist currents, and the Tsar retained most of his authority. 1: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b425c6ef3.pdf http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b4...
- douche 11y agoEnormous economic growth, especially for those millions of Soviet citizens that were starved[1], executed, or imprisoned[2] during collectivization. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization
- maus42 11y ago> What magic pixie dust would the Russians have to combat all this? Totalitarianism, imperialistic colonialism in their immediate neighbourhood, and total disrespect for their subjects' dignity, environment and life? Disappearance of Stasi and getting rid of KGB in most of the ex-SSRs (if not in Russia main) is always case for triumphalism. Anyway, government never is equal to the people it governs, especially when it's doing its utmost to claim so. Speaking of governmental continuity, you forgot Sweden. And about the only part of the old Russian empire Soviets (more or less by sheer luck on our part) didn't manage to re-invade, Finland (merely politically subjugate post-WW2). Depending on how one counts these things, especially the revolution/civil war period of 1917/18, our parliamentary and wider governmental system could be viewed as a direct continuation of the czars' local regime. Yay for outliving? Of course, even if one accepts this weird 'race of continuity' viewpoint, the 'uninterrupted' is quite nice technicality. Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands are still quite recognizable as the about same governmental and national entities both before and after WW2. Even France, with all its constitutional changes since Napoleon III, didn't try such large changes at the societal level.
- blfr 11y agoThey only beat the Nazi Germany after allying with them[1], starting the war, and letting Germans bleed out across Europe. Even then, despite massive difference in size and population (~100M people that Stalin hasn't murdered yet), barely. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
- Confusion 11y agoIt's generally agreed upon that Germany started the war with Russia and that they lost because of the resources their Eastern front required.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago"letting Germans bleed out across Europe" How much exactly did they "bleed" before starting war with the USSR? AFAIK they mostly took countries intact with low to none losses.
- rangibaby 11y agoThey took 50-90% (depending on the source) of their total losses fighting the Soviets.
- olavk 11y agoThe USSR didn't "ally" with Germany. They signed a non-aggression treaty, which basically meant they agreed to not attack each other while partitioning weaker states. Which is similar to what the western powers did together with Germany at the Munich agreement (which didn't include the USSR).
- powera 11y ago"Continental Europe" is cherry-picking. Great Britain has effectively the same government. Post-Ataturk Turkey has effectively the same government. And Russia is no more in Continental Europe than either of those are. (the fact that one of Britain/USA, Nazi Germany, or Russia invaded basically all of Europe in the post-1917 period doesn't help)