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.
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.
I think that’s a reductionist view of the times.
“It’s reductionist to view the party which kicked off the civil war by couping the democratically elected government as kicking off the civil war 😭😭😭😭😭”
Does boot leather really taste that good?
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?
Did you not fucking read the comment you’re replying to?
By vague platitudes and the promise of power to the Soviets; a promise they immediately reneged on?
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.
lmao. You know that your comments are still up and readable, right?
Your argument quite literally started with “You can’t really blame the Bolsheviks for the civil war, and besides, the government they rebelled against was no saint!”, and when it was pointed out that the Bolsheviks were to blame for the civil war in the most literal, direct sense of causing a civil war, and that the government they actually rebelled against was the provisional government that actually rebelled against the Romanovs, you balk and try to backtrack.
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.
This you, buddy?
“It’s reductionist to view the party which kicked off the civil war by couping the democratically elected government as kicking off the civil war 😭😭😭😭😭”
Does boot leather really taste that good?
Did you not fucking read the comment you’re replying to?
lmao. You know that your comments are still up and readable, right?
Your argument quite literally started with “You can’t really blame the Bolsheviks for the civil war, and besides, the government they rebelled against was no saint!”, and when it was pointed out that the Bolsheviks were to blame for the civil war in the most literal, direct sense of causing a civil war, and that the government they actually rebelled against was the provisional government that actually rebelled against the Romanovs, you balk and try to backtrack.
Fuck off, tankie.