Lenin is responsible for a huge amount of deaths during the revolution, during the civil war and after
I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. Some kind of revolution was going to happen in Russia, and just reducing all the blame on Lenin ignores the context of the actual fractious nature of the revolution.
This whole story of “Lenin was good and then Stalin corrupted the revolution” is actually rooted in the propaganda of Khrushchevs destalinisation.
Again, I didn’t say he was a nice guy. My claim was that it’s straight up ahistorical to claim he murdered 9 million people.
if you read a good biography of Lenin, you will find out that was totally fine with all the political murders
What is a revolution if not a collection of political murders? Again, we have to view the revolution with context and measure them against their contemporaries. It’s not as if the revolution happened to a ruling government that was unfamiliar with political murders themselves.
I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. Some kind of revolution was going to happen in Russia, and just reducing all the blame on Lenin ignores the context of the actual fractious nature of the revolution.
Would you like to remind me what kind of mass violence there was between February and October in 1917
It’s not as if the revolution happened to a ruling government that was unfamiliar with political murders themselves.
Would you like to remind me what provisional government and elected legislature the Bolsheviks actually performed their revolution against?
Would you like to remind me what kind of mass violence there was between February and October in 1917
My claim didn’t say that the Bolsheviks didn’t engage in mass violence… Are you claiming that the Russian revolution can be boiled down to between February and October in 1917?
Would you like to remind me what provisional government and elected legislature the Bolsheviks actually performed their revolution against?
I was more referring to the Romanov history of utilizing secret police to do horrific amounts of violence.
My claim didn’t say that the Bolsheviks didn’t engage in mass violence…… Are you claiming that the Russian revolution can be boiled down to between February and October in 1917?
No, your claim was that it wasn’t the Bolsheviks who caused mass violence, despite the Bolsheviks being the entirely-unprompted trigger for the actual civil war after Russians had seemed content to decide things through democratic elections.
I was more referring to the Romanov history of utilizing secret police to do horrific amounts of violence.
Okay, but the problem is that the Bolsheviks didn’t revolt against the Tsar, but against the provisional government.
No, your claim was that it wasn’t the Bolsheviks who caused mass violence, despite the Bolsheviks being the entirely-unprompted trigger for the actual civil war after Russians had seemed content to decide things through democratic elections.
"I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. "
Okay, but the problem is that the Bolsheviks didn’t revolt against the Tsar, but against the provisional government.
The Bolsheviks anger didn’t build in a vacuum, nor did it happen in 6 odd months the provisional government exists. That’s ignoring over a hundred years of context.
“I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. "
Yeah. Again, would you like to remind me what power the Romanovs had when the Bolsheviks decided to start a civil war against a democratic government?
When the Bolsheviks triggered the civil war, what was the Romanov role in that? Existing while under house arrest?
The Bolsheviks anger didn’t build in a vacuum, nor did it happen in 6 odd months the provisional government exists. That’s ignoring over a hundred years of context.
I’m sure you have GREAT context for rebelling against a government that was born in a revolution and existed for a few months before the Bolsheviks decided they preferred to take power by force and dismiss democratically elected socialist legislators.
Yeah. Again, would you like to remind me what power the Romanovs had when the Bolsheviks decided to start a civil war against a democratic government?
Again… 6 months does not wipe away over a hundred years of history. The general public’s lives did not significantly improve in less than a year.
Are you arguing that the Romanov family are completely disconnected from the Bolsheviks revolution?
what was the Romanov role in that? Existing while under house arrest?
Creating the environment in which it happened…?
I’m sure you have GREAT context for rebelling against a government that was born in a revolution and existed for a few months before the Bolsheviks decided they preferred to take power by force and dismiss democratically elected socialist legislators.
Why did the Bolsheviks exist in the first place? How did they gather soo much support in such a small amount of time? Why were people still so angry…?
Again…… 6 months does not wipe away over a hundred years of history. The general public’s lives did not significantly improve in less than a year.
Oh, of course, thus making it completely understandable to coup a democratic government and start a civil war.
Are you arguing that the Romanov family are completely disconnected from the Bolsheviks revolution?
I’m arguing that the Bolshevik decision to start a civil fucking war with the government which replaced the Romanovs has very fucking little to do with the Romanovs, yes.
Why did the Bolsheviks exist in the first place?
Because they believed in a narrow vanguard party that could be easily controlled by a small elite which would TOTALLY work for the people?
How did they gather soo much support in such a small amount of time?
By vague platitudes and the promise of power to the Soviets; a promise they immediately reneged on?
Why were people still so angry….?
Because their lives hadn’t improved in six months, as you said?
, of course, thus making it completely understandable to coup a democratic government and start a civil war.
When did I claim it was?
arguing that the Bolshevik decision to start a civil fucking war with the government which replaced the Romanovs has very fucking little to do with the Romanovs, yes.
I think that’s a reductionist view of the times.
Because they believed in a narrow vanguard party that could be easily controlled by a small elite which would TOTALLY work for the people?
They didn’t majic their way into power… They had an awful lot of miserable people with generations of anger behind them. Why did those people support the Bolsheviks?
I don’t really think we’re getting anywhere, especially when you are busy tilting at strawman arguments. I never said I supported the Bolsheviks revolution against the provincial government, just that I understand how it could happen, and that the environment created by generations of Romanov rule is largely to blame.
The simple fact that you aren’t willing to acknowledge that is too far of a stretch for me to really validate engaging with you in any kind of reasonable debate.
Maybe just do not try to downplay soviet crimes? They were not nice guys, they murdered a lot ot people and we really should not discuss about how many millions were slaughtered. Lenin was not a good man.
I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. Some kind of revolution was going to happen in Russia, and just reducing all the blame on Lenin ignores the context of the actual fractious nature of the revolution.
Again, I didn’t say he was a nice guy. My claim was that it’s straight up ahistorical to claim he murdered 9 million people.
What is a revolution if not a collection of political murders? Again, we have to view the revolution with context and measure them against their contemporaries. It’s not as if the revolution happened to a ruling government that was unfamiliar with political murders themselves.
Would you like to remind me what kind of mass violence there was between February and October in 1917
Would you like to remind me what provisional government and elected legislature the Bolsheviks actually performed their revolution against?
My claim didn’t say that the Bolsheviks didn’t engage in mass violence… Are you claiming that the Russian revolution can be boiled down to between February and October in 1917?
I was more referring to the Romanov history of utilizing secret police to do horrific amounts of violence.
No, your claim was that it wasn’t the Bolsheviks who caused mass violence, despite the Bolsheviks being the entirely-unprompted trigger for the actual civil war after Russians had seemed content to decide things through democratic elections.
Okay, but the problem is that the Bolsheviks didn’t revolt against the Tsar, but against the provisional government.
"I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. "
The Bolsheviks anger didn’t build in a vacuum, nor did it happen in 6 odd months the provisional government exists. That’s ignoring over a hundred years of context.
Yeah. Again, would you like to remind me what power the Romanovs had when the Bolsheviks decided to start a civil war against a democratic government?
When the Bolsheviks triggered the civil war, what was the Romanov role in that? Existing while under house arrest?
I’m sure you have GREAT context for rebelling against a government that was born in a revolution and existed for a few months before the Bolsheviks decided they preferred to take power by force and dismiss democratically elected socialist legislators.
Again… 6 months does not wipe away over a hundred years of history. The general public’s lives did not significantly improve in less than a year.
Are you arguing that the Romanov family are completely disconnected from the Bolsheviks revolution?
Creating the environment in which it happened…?
Why did the Bolsheviks exist in the first place? How did they gather soo much support in such a small amount of time? Why were people still so angry…?
Oh, of course, thus making it completely understandable to coup a democratic government and start a civil war.
I’m arguing that the Bolshevik decision to start a civil fucking war with the government which replaced the Romanovs has very fucking little to do with the Romanovs, yes.
Because they believed in a narrow vanguard party that could be easily controlled by a small elite which would TOTALLY work for the people?
By vague platitudes and the promise of power to the Soviets; a promise they immediately reneged on?
Because their lives hadn’t improved in six months, as you said?
When did I claim it was?
I think that’s a reductionist view of the times.
They didn’t majic their way into power… They had an awful lot of miserable people with generations of anger behind them. Why did those people support the Bolsheviks?
I don’t really think we’re getting anywhere, especially when you are busy tilting at strawman arguments. I never said I supported the Bolsheviks revolution against the provincial government, just that I understand how it could happen, and that the environment created by generations of Romanov rule is largely to blame.
The simple fact that you aren’t willing to acknowledge that is too far of a stretch for me to really validate engaging with you in any kind of reasonable debate.
Have a good one.
Maybe just do not try to downplay soviet crimes? They were not nice guys, they murdered a lot ot people and we really should not discuss about how many millions were slaughtered. Lenin was not a good man.