Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Life in the USSR  (Read 30947 times)
Sunfire
Guest
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2018, 06:47:49 am »

Will you deny that without this intervention Russian Civil War would have ended much earlier and with much less victims (on both sides)? Those countries wished to snatch a cut/part of falling empire and weaken (Soviet) Russia - and they succeed in that goal - despite the ongoing/subsequent humanitarian disaster and economical collapse. So aiding the White Army and opposing 'the communist plague' looks merely like an excuses. They just took advantage of the situation and 'saved' the neighborhood goods from neighborhood burning house, so that the neighbor f@cked up rebuilding it again.
Both combat and non-combat losses from the Allied Intervention were 111,730 people (fixed by Allied Intervention Victims Assistance Society before June 1st, 1927).
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 07:16:17 am by Sunfire » Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2018, 07:46:55 am »

Will you deny that without this intervention Russian Civil War would have ended much earlier and with much less victims (on both sides)?
Yes but that's not the point. Any war would have ended sooner and done less damage if one side had fewer or no allies.

When you start a revolt, you can't or at least shouldn't complain that the other side keeps fighting you and brings in allies. Why? Because you are the one who started this shit in the first place. Would you deny that without the October Revolution, there'd be no intervention, no civil war, and no victims?

Quote
Those countries wished to snatch a cut/part of falling empire and weaken (Soviet) Russia - and they succeed in that goal - despite the ongoing/subsequent humanitarian disaster and economical collapse.
Again, there was no Soviet Russia at that point. There was a bloody civil war between the forces loyal to the overthrown government and the radical revolutionaries. As for snatching parts of the falling empire, ironically, nobody did as well as Germany which benefited the most from the bolshevik's revolution and was well-rewarded for their assistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Logged
menyalin
Artisan

Posts: 502


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2018, 07:50:05 am »

Will you deny that without this intervention Russian Civil War would have ended much earlier and with much less victims (on both sides)?
Ironically, intervention actually could speed up the end of war: it was great incentive to unite against a common external enemy and very good basis for bolsheviks propaganda. Who knows how the history could turn out in another situation...

Those countries wished to snatch a cut/part of falling empire and weaken (Soviet) Russia - and they succeed in that goal - despite the ongoing/subsequent humanitarian disaster and economical collapse. So aiding the White Army and opposing 'the communist plague' looks merely like an excuses. They just took advantage of the situation and 'saved' the neighborhood goods from neighborhood burning house, so that the neighbor f@cked up rebuilding it again.
Yep, like on all the way of human history. And not without help from some of our fellow countrymen, unfortunately. And not to forget about Russian Empire's obligations in WW1 too.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 07:53:54 am by menyalin » Logged
Sunfire
Guest
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2018, 09:47:33 am »

Yes but that's not the point. Any war would have ended sooner and done less damage if one side had fewer or no allies.
Point is that Allies strengthened the losing side, prolonging the conflict deliberately. Their special services' activities, which, acting in the mainstream of the foreign policy of their governments aimed at dismembering and weakening Russia, were engaged not so much in gathering purely military information about the White Army as in studying the natural riches and material values of Russia. (by N.S.Kirmel)

When you start a revolt, you can't or at least shouldn't complain that the other side keeps fighting you and brings in allies. Why? Because you are the one who started this shit in the first place. Would you deny that without the October Revolution, there'd be no intervention, no civil war, and no victims?
The October Revolution wasn't the cause for all of this, but an evolution and continuation of the series of events that started long before it - the February Revolution of 1917, the Russian Revolution of 1905 - after which the civil war became imminent.

Ironically, intervention actually could speed up the end of war: it was great incentive to unite against a common external enemy and very good basis for bolsheviks propaganda. Who knows how the history could turn out in another situation...
If that propaganda worked it had a steady basis upon it, not only the lie.

Yep, like on all the way of human history. And not without help from some of our fellow countrymen, unfortunately. And not to forget about Russian Empire's obligations in WW1 too.
Exactly.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 09:52:38 am by Sunfire » Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2018, 11:08:55 am »

Yes but that's not the point. Any war would have ended sooner and done less damage if one side had fewer or no allies.
Point is that Allies strengthened the losing side, prolonging the conflict deliberately. Their special services' activities, which, acting in the mainstream of the foreign policy of their governments aimed at dismembering and weakening Russia, were engaged not so much in gathering purely military information about the White Army as in studying the natural riches and material values of Russia. (by N.S.Kirmel)
I don't blame the Allies for looking after their own interests. I blame Lenin for starting the revolution that led to it. I've always felt that the Civil War was a horrible tragedy that split the country (father against son, brother against brother, not good Soviet people vs evil foreign invaders) and caused irreparable damage by killing or forcing out people who subscribed to different beliefs.

Look at it this way. Let's say the American socialists would reach a critical mass in 15-20 years and rise up against the government, aiming to abolish private property, profit, capitalism, etc (the slogans you see today). Naturally, the US government would ask its allies for help and they'd come because nobody wants to see this shit spreading. They'd have other reasons too, of course, but if they could end the revolt, they would, which would be good for the country. Of course, they could fail, in which case their intervention would prolong the conflict and cause more suffering, which doesn't mean that they shouldn't try. And if they fail, they'd try to weaken the new regime, which is understandable.

You're looking at it from the Soviet perspective, not from the perspective of the Russian Empire. As the winner the Soviets were right to view the intervention as a hostile action, but the Russia Empire had every right to ask for it and can't be blamed for not accepting the bolsheviks as the rightful rulers.

Quote
The October Revolution wasn't the cause for all of this, but an evolution and continuation of the series of events that started long before it - the February Revolution of 1917, the Russian Revolution of 1905 - after which the civil war became imminent.
The October revolution was a power grab, plain and simple, not an evolution. Lenin saw an opportunity and took it. Like any revolutionary, he cared more about seizing power and doing things his way (turned out his way sucked) than about the price because it's usually the other people who have to pay it.
Logged
menyalin
Artisan

Posts: 502


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2018, 03:23:54 pm »

Lenin saw an opportunity and took it. Like any revolutionary, he cared more about seizing power and doing things his way (turned out his way sucked) than about the price because it's usually the other people who have to pay it.
Maybe it wasn't so simple too. From Lenin's letters, articles and speeches (especially when there was polemics about what to do next) it quite likely that they really took power when there was almost no one else to do this and at least him was completely aware of how badly all that marxism stuff was suited to current situation in country. Trotskiy was completely different story with his idea to burn Russia for starting true worldwide revolution and your description is much more.suitable to him.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 03:25:53 pm by menyalin » Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2018, 04:50:38 pm »

Maybe it wasn't so simple too. From Lenin's letters, articles and speeches (especially when there was polemics about what to do next) it quite likely that they really took power when there was almost no one else to do this ...
Sounds like a justification to me. "We did it because really there was no one else, otherwise we'd never!"

Quote
... and at least him was completely aware of how badly all that marxism stuff was suited to current situation in country.
Didn't stop him from issuing Marxist decrees right away to run the economy into the ground. Eventually, Lenin admitted his incompetence (not in so many words) and backpedaled to NEP, giving back many businesses to the original owners - yesterday's 'exploitators' of the proletariat became today's saviors, letting business-savvy people hire employees (up to 100), and renting out recently "liberated" farmlands.

Of course, Lenin wrote all kinds of proclamations (the one thing he was really good at), justifying it after the fact to avoid looking like a fool who doesn't know what he's doing, but it was clearly a significant step-back.
Logged
Wrath of Dagon
Colonist
*
Posts: 3273



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2018, 08:22:50 pm »

None of that would've happened if it wasn't for WWI. WWII wouldn't have happened either. So we need to get to the bottom of who's responsible for that.
Logged

Don't graze me bro!

4 8 10 10 4 4
menyalin
Artisan

Posts: 502


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2018, 02:10:14 am »

Maybe it wasn't so simple too. From Lenin's letters, articles and speeches (especially when there was polemics about what to do next) it quite likely that they really took power when there was almost no one else to do this ...
Sounds like a justification to me. "We did it because really there was no one else, otherwise we'd never!"
And it really was, but not only justification. They participated in breaking of Empire and all other bad stuff like defeatism in army, but their role hardly was main until october revolution. First who betraied the Empire were Empire's elites and "owners of capital". Turned out that they wasn't so good in dealing with all that shit in country and then bolsheviks got advantage. Also, it wasn't just grabbing the power - Provisional Government (where bolsheviks weren't main power) really failed in almost everything the people wanted from them. There wouldn't be october revolution and even USSR itseff, if Provisional Government perfomed significally better, don't you think so?

Quote
... and at least him was completely aware of how badly all that marxism stuff was suited to current situation in country.
Didn't stop him from issuing Marxist decrees right away to run the economy into the ground. Eventually, Lenin admitted his incompetence (not in so many words) and backpedaled to NEP, giving back many businesses to the original owners - yesterday's 'exploitators' of the proletariat became today's saviors, letting business-savvy people hire employees (up to 100), and renting out recently "liberated" farmlands.
True again, but judging by some letters he was mostly aware of risks and also he was one of most pragmatic men in soviet governance, but he couldn't just do everything he wanted in situation. Also there was much more fanatic and blind marxists then Lenin with not so little influence. Lenin was comletly aware that marxism methods and transition to a planned economy was for fully industrially developed countries and that Russia was nothing like that. But you can't just speak such things loudly in those times and keep support. One of the main causes of his conflict with Trotsky, who was more radical marxist, was NEP itself, which Lenin supported, but Trotsky not. I'd say Lenin performed quite good in that situation taking into account the circumstances and the lack of suitable practical experience in world history. Unfortunatly, great mistakes was made, national politics turned out to longterm disaster for example (but who knows whould it be possible tu build the USSR without such decisions?).

Of course, Lenin wrote all kinds of proclamations (the one thing he was really good at), justifying it after the fact to avoid looking like a fool who doesn't know what he's doing, but it was clearly a significant step-back.
Proclamations are not very good source of information about Lenin himself, but rather about his environment. They was for gaining support from different groups and full of compromises, promises, exposures, pledging loyalty to marxism ideology, etc. Actually he wasn't so ideological and simple as he was portraied by soviet history. Ironically a bit.

I hope you still don't cry with blood from my english and this mess understandable enough.  Smile
Logged
menyalin
Artisan

Posts: 502


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2018, 02:17:28 am »

None of that would've happened if it wasn't for WWI. WWII wouldn't have happened either. So we need to get to the bottom of who's responsible for that.
Looks like both wars were inevitable - old colonial world and spheres of influnece should have been redistributed. What scares me out is that the current situation is getting closer and closer to those days. Really looks like USA will not stand for anything to keep the power (USA will just collapse without it, almost no other variants and Trump could be their last hope), and many other major powers just completely sick of Washington's world order for a lot of reasons.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 02:24:49 am by menyalin » Logged
Astorius
Craftsman

Posts: 395



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2018, 04:40:25 pm »

Such a juicy post and no wind of Vahhabyte? What happened? Is he well?
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2018, 09:56:07 am »

And it really was, but not only justification. They participated in breaking of Empire and all other bad stuff like defeatism in army, but their role hardly was main until october revolution.
Nobody spends 25 years actively plotting against the regime only to let someone else take control. So either Lenin was dumb, which he wasn't, or he planned to seize power from day one and waited for the right moment.

Quote
Also, it wasn't just grabbing the power - Provisional Government (where bolsheviks weren't main power) really failed in almost everything the people wanted from them. There wouldn't be october revolution and even USSR itseff, if Provisional Government perfomed significally better, don't you think so?
I agree, of course, but:

- that's where all that scheming and agitating come into play. Lenin seeded the ground so well that nobody would accept anything less than that imaginary paradise where workers and farmers enjoy the fruits of their labor. Essentially, he stack the deck against the Provisional Government.

- it's worth noting that Lenin's Russia didn't deliver said paradise either; what they delivered was the total economic collapse brought by the idiotic decrees (no different from collapse and chaos brought by the US decrees in Iraq) and the Red Terror, which wiped out the opposition, ensuring that the October revolution would be the last.

Quote
True again, but judging by some letters he was mostly aware of risks and also he was one of most pragmatic men in soviet governance, but he couldn't just do everything he wanted in situation.
So he did the worst, most destructive thing possible (instant transition to fully blown socialism) because he couldn't do what he actually wanted to do? Even though he did it (capitalism on a limited scale creatively called The New Economic Policy) a few years later?
Logged
menyalin
Artisan

Posts: 502


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: August 19, 2018, 03:38:38 pm »

Nobody spends 25 years actively plotting against the regime only to let someone else take control. So either Lenin was dumb, which he wasn't, or he planned to seize power from day one and waited for the right moment.
They just weren't alone in plotting, but yes, you have a point. All that plotting and world revolution stuff weren't for nothing, can't disagree.

Quote
Also, it wasn't just grabbing the power - Provisional Government (where bolsheviks weren't main power) really failed in almost everything the people wanted from them. There wouldn't be october revolution and even USSR itseff, if Provisional Government perfomed significally better, don't you think so?
I agree, of course, but:

- that's where all that scheming and agitating come into play. Lenin seeded the ground so well that nobody would accept anything less than that imaginary paradise where workers and farmers enjoy the fruits of their labor. Essentially, he stack the deck against the Provisional Government.
Fair enough. He for sure undermined it for gaining additional influence, but the guilt of being so week and incopetent really on the Provisional Government. Lenin was prepeared to take the power from weakened opponent, but it is not him, who brought country to such collapse at first.

- it's worth noting that Lenin's Russia didn't deliver said paradise either; what they delivered was the total economic collapse brought by the idiotic decrees (no different from collapse and chaos brought by the US decrees in Iraq) and the Red Terror, which wiped out the opposition, ensuring that the October revolution would be the last.
Sad by true, but they tried, and that wasn't competely their fault - they had not that big control over the country during the first years, you know. Red Terror wasn't just to wipe out opposition, it was about establishing control too. Also, they didn't failed in everything: they made educatoin more widely available quite fast and with at lest acceptable efficiency, for example. And after first disastreous years they performed better and actually built quite strong economy and provided some of promised social guarantees, no?

Quote
True again, but judging by some letters he was mostly aware of risks and also he was one of most pragmatic men in soviet governance, but he couldn't just do everything he wanted in situation.
So he did the worst, most destructive thing possible (instant transition to fully blown socialism) because he couldn't do what he actually wanted to do? Even though he did it (capitalism on a limited scale creatively called The New Economic Policy) a few years later?
Well, something like that, but more complex, i think. I sure, you familiar with the works of Marx and Engels. Proletarian revolution and transition to socialism should occur in industrial country with total dominance of proletariat in population - it can't be stated more clear in books. And Russia was mostly agrarian country with mostly peasant population. So many their decisions was really bad, but first, it is after-knowledge now, and second, there was quite hard pressure of circumstances: full-scale crisis (really bad start), civil war, treat of another intervention, internal more radical opposition, dreaming of a world revolution and not giving a shit about Russia itself - all that stuff. It clearly was "no pain - no gain" situation. I don't say that bolsheviks were angels or geniuses, but neither they was fools or villains. And all that idea of socialism and communsim wasn't that bad at all, especially in those days, when modern social guarantees were almost absent even in most developed countries, don't you think so? Now we know, that economical and social part (well, all the idea, really) needed great rework and upgrade, if it really possible at all, but then? Who knew about it for sure in early 20th century? At least they (obvioulsy not all) really believed in their ideals and tried their best - it wasn't just grabbing the power for themselves.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 03:42:36 pm by menyalin » Logged
Wrath of Dagon
Colonist
*
Posts: 3273



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2018, 05:04:47 pm »

- it's worth noting that Lenin's Russia didn't deliver said paradise either; what they delivered was the total economic collapse brought by the idiotic decrees (no different from collapse and chaos brought by the US decrees in Iraq) and the Red Terror, which wiped out the opposition, ensuring that the October revolution would be the last.
Don't forget the periods of mass starvation, that was the worst consequence of all.
Logged

Don't graze me bro!

4 8 10 10 4 4
vallraffs
Neophyte

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2018, 05:36:01 am »

Saying that the Russian Social Democrats and later the Bolsheviks planned the overthrow of the imperial government for a long time is of course true, and they didn't want that work to be for nothing. Simultaneously, they weren't very optimistic about the chances of it happening soon. Lenin was never someone who was certain that the russian proletariat would rise up and take power in his life time. There's the classic story of how he was saying in 1916 that he would not live to see the revolution and it would be up to future generations to see it through. There was nothing inevitable about things ending up with the bolsheviks in power, from their perspective.

Also, saying that the october revolution was some kind of power grab is pretty schewed. It was a mass movement of the russian people to topple the provisional government, brought about by it's total failure to leave the war or enact any of the reforms that the people wanted. Planning was done by the bolsheviks, of course, as they were the ones who had seen the uprising against the government coming and had the foresight to prepare for it as best they could. But it was not their plotting that sparked revolution in Russia, that was always likely result of decades of oppression and exploitation under landlords and emperors.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to: