Thoughts on the Russian Revolution (feat. Sean Chick)

[@patrickmccarron2817]

One theory on Rasputin’s effect on Alexei that I think is pretty compelling, is that the Romanovs had been giving the boy aspirin (which is the worst thing you can give to a hemophiliac) and Rasputin cut it off. They couldn’t have known that it was a blood thinner back then, and Rasputin probably cut it off because he didn’t like modern medicine, but the theory is that he kind of stumbled on a treatment, which strengthened the Romanovs’ (and possibly himself) belief in his “holy healing powers”.

[@alanpennie8013]

Trotsky had studied war a lot. He was a real expert on The Balkan Wars (1912 - 13) and did some excellent reporting of them for a Kiev newspaper who made him their war correspondent.

[@Brandon-yg7mw]

Love these deep dives great to listen too while gaming

[@blazodeolireta]

14:00 very important on enabling Serbia (thus starting the 2 Balcan war) was their ambassador, Hartwig. He basically run his own foreign policy around 45:00 there is a beautiful ytb video on that "Quantifying the Soviet Economic & Social Crisis of 1920: Food Supply, Rail Transport, Etc." 1:14:14 yep they even gave Lenin a lot of funding (there were also a lot of gold on that train): the greatest success of German and AustroHungarian military secret services (Abteilung-Evidenzbureau) 1:20:00 there is also a rumor(?) that Stalin sabotaged Tukashevsky campaign and that he 1:28:00 didn't send Trotszky the invitation? 3:41:00 he got a lot of funding initially from industrial owners to beat down workers (occupation of industries/ strikes) 4:11:40 can't suggest enough "origin of totalitarism" by Arendt. PS: love (and hate) that you know/use Berlusconi. EDIT: can't hear again, just finished reading (thus strongly suggest) Gerwarth "The vanquished"

[@floridaman3823]

"Goddamnit Sean."

[@MarkVrem]

Just a little add.. Puyi didn't get overthrown by the PRC. Google says it's Sun Yat-sen and his Republican revolution. BUT IT WAS REALLY! Puyi's top general/bodyguard, Yuan Shikai. YUAN SHIKAI then went about to make himself Emperor. YUAN SHIKAI was Emperor for 83 days before abdicating due to popular unrest. He also created the YUAN SHIKAI DOLLAR. Still in circulation today as the Yuan. So obviously a man of culture.

[@alanpennie8013]

So he gave his name to China's currency. Quite an impressive legacy.

[@papageitaucher618]

I never realized how much of an important figure Hindenburg was for the 20th century

[@tacocruiser4238]

The Bolsheviks executed the Tsar for the same reason that Henry Bolingbroke executed Richard II of England. Richard II was a lightning rod for rebellion against the Lancastrians. Executing him made perfect sense. Same with Tsar Nicholas II. Even after Richard II was dead, his supporters continued to plot against Henry IV. There were constantly rumors going around that Richard II was still alive. This created headaches for Henry IV for the majority of his reign.

[@sauromatae9728]

Actually, russian emperor had little support. Most of the whites weren't monarchists. And even monarchist thought of him as a weak ruler. His death was mostly a result of public hatred

[@danielwallace1759]

Lmao poor Sean talking to himself and inadvertently over others about 2 and a half hours in

[@jackfromm]

Sean was schmacked

[@vladimirskala]

To add to the discussion on the Soviet curse brought by the murder of the royal family, there's a Chinese parallel that you can compare against. The last legitimate Qing emperor, used by the Japanese as a puppet ruler in Manchuria, Puyi, was arrested after WW2, imprisoned and later released and lived out his life as a citizen of Communist China. Seems the Chinese regime was much smarter in dealing with its royal. Although granted the Qing had been removed from power decades before the communists had assumed power.

[@Μπρο]

They are saints because they are recognised as Passion Bearers. Originally as martyrs however people objected that the main reason for their deaths wasn't their faith so they were recognised as Passion Bearers.

[@deeznoots6241]

I’d disagree with the idea that Nicholas II didn’t have firm ideological convictions, he was 100% committed to autocracy all the time, and his ‘flip-flopping’ was mostly the revolution of 1905 forcing the Duma on him and so he has to at least pretend that it was his idea and not forced on him by popular unrest, in his personal letters he is always committed to autocracy and he would always go out of his way to undermine the Duma in order to disband it which is why before the February revolution the Duma largely achieves nothing but technically exist(arguably while Stolypin is still around it does some stuff but most of that is just Stolypin forcing reforms through rather than the Duma generating legislature organically)

[@deeznoots6241]

Tbh I’d say the biggest problem with Nicholas II is that his positive qualities are always crippled by combination with his negative qualities. For example his sense of duty and devotion to hard work resulted in him personally managing a lot of stuff, but combined with his general incompetence this just results in poor management. His general friendliness and love of his family results in his wife having a lot of influence, both bringing in Rasputin, and when he leaves Petrograd to become commander in chief she effectively controls the government in his stead and largely appoints new ministers depending on her personal favouritism.

[@charlieblack20wolfpack]

Can you guys do thoughts on the Nazi rise to power?

[@cohomologygroup]

Monarchs exist to mediate the squabbles of the nobility. A noble's dignity would not allow him to submit to another noble, but they could all agree to work together under the majesty of a monarch. The rise of the middle class and bureaucratic government, and the destruction of traditional aristocratic power bases, made putting that unifying power in the hands of a monarch unnecessary. Hereditary political power is naturally unstable, while a president or prime minister serves the same purpose and can be chosen on merit. I think it's deceptive to say the collapse happened all at once during the world wars. The tension between parliament and monarchy can be traced all the way back to Charles II and the English Civil War, but more recently to the Revolutions of 1848, which hit all over Europe and were fundamentally about a rejection of absolutist government in favor of constitutional government. I think the rest of the 19th century was moving from 1848's liberals who wanted constitutional monarchies, to a realization that the monarchs would have to be removed completely. I think the destruction of monarchy is a story that spans the entire 19th century starting from the French Revolution. It was not sudden at all.

[@YiannissB.]

Awesome. Could you also cover the other two revolutions, the French and the wave of 1848?

[@genericyoutubeaccount579]

I hope they do 1848 in France. Louis Felipe saw himself as a Citizen King or a humanitarian Monarch who was unwilling to send in the army to crush the liberals. But when the liberals take power they are absolutely going to use the army to defend themselves against the socialists just 3 months later.

[@martinkupp9544]

Oh yes please! The 1848 revolution in Europe and its ramifications for the US back then would be very interesting!

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

In regard to the murder of the Tsar - keep in mind the Bolsheviks aren't a monolith at that time. The rural Bolsheviks follow the party line but there's local pressures that are more immediate they focus on. The murder of the Tsar didn't occur without Lenin's (and MAYBE Trotsky's) acquiesence, but you have to be cognizant of the local conditions for those particular bolsheviks. EDIT: kudos to Thersites for the Vercengoiterex(sp?) rejoinder.

[@bandygamy5898]

Regarding Sainthood for the Romanovs. Elements of the Church are proposing SAINTHOOD FOR STALIN. This is just what they do with legendary leaders.

[@theLetterDoubleYou]

I would love to see Michael on the streams more often, I think he brings a lot of balance to Sean's historical interpretations.

[@maxturner3344]

Michael is just a sheep Sean is smart

[@darrynmurphy2038]

As much as I appreciate comrade Thersites and comrade Sean, Michael was far and away the real MVP of this stream, get the man's name on the feat title

[@samuelclayton08]

really? i found his approach really unappealing and annoying, definately imo a tier or two below Thersites & Sean

[@alexanderryan1176]

are you yourself a communist?

[@alanpennie8013]

Oof. Some errors here. The Romanovs were in power for 300 years. They celebrated their Tricentennial in 1913. And Kerensky wasn't a Cadet but a Trudovik ( a vaguely socialist Duma faction). The Cadets held a low opinion of him. It's amusing that Kerensky's family were friends and neighbors of Lenin's when both families (of provincial civil servants) lived at Simbirsk on The Volga.

[@toniwilson6210]

Excellent

[@CoolCommenter-YesIndeed]

Really enjoyed having Michael join this one

[@thomasmcenchroe293]

Where’s that link Sean?

[@kingusernamelxixthemagnificent]

They're taking the hobbits to Stalingrad!

[@KRISTIANITY_]

I read somewhere that Anastasia had only passed out and survived the shooting in the basement, but then woke up among the pile of her family's corpses while they were being trucked to the grave dump, and started screaming, so they shot her again. Of all the sick shit in history that I've read, I think this is very near the top.

[@charlieblack20wolfpack]

If Lincoln had lived I think that the aura of victory in the war and his second election would have given him the gravitas to be effective reconstructionist. Plus his political skills and lawyering would be a huge asset. But if Lincoln was assassinate but William Rosecrans had been his vice-president I think it would have an easier transition for all sides. A proven general, brave and loved by many of the north, fairly honest and very smart. And still a democrat who didn’t play the political system by race or pettiness alone. Andrew Johnson only took Lincoln’s “light reconstruction” and his own personal views to push the south (whites) back into the Union w/o real consequences.

[@AoE2Replays]

wouldve loved to hear you guys bring up the Kronstadt rebellion!! damn. still great stuff though

[@australopithecusafarensis5386]

They did at 1:23:00

[@corylarsen5788]

Was the russian revolution the real reason communists only gained power through violent revolutions (as a template)? Indonesia and Chile stand in showed that democratic attempts towards socialism would be violently put down

[@hankolijo]

Not related to the topic here, but is there any chance you'll do avideo specifically about Metellus Scipio? Your videos on the figures in Caesar's civil war have been great listening material at work as I am working on a paper about the loyalties of those involved.

[@ThersitestheHistorian]

Most definitely. That is something I plan to do.

[@BrutusAlbion]

Seems the revolution a case of the ''1% yearly chance of successful revolt'' and the player being like ''pfff that's nothing, I'm good''. **Revolt happens** **You've been deposed** **Surprise Pikachu Face**

[@MarkVrem]

Kinda liek Trump gettign elected with the slogan "Make America Great Again".. Lenin was just "Something, Land, Bread"... Only difference, instead of voting, they grabbed rifles.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

@@MarkVrem "Only difference, instead of voting, they grabbed rifles." - I see you were never near open grave, gamer...

[@MarkVrem]

@@OkurkaBinLadin Well if they had a voting system back then maybe it would have been different. But nope they had a backward system. When you have a backward system, then only extremists will get rewarded trying to fight it. Cause it will have to come to that to topple it.

[@bfcalixis2478]

I knew from the get go that I'd disagree with a lot of your opinions (being an anarchist academic it was sort of a given), but I really enjoyed listening. It's always interesting to hear different points of view. And you should definitely have Michael on more often!

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

On the Trotsky in power counter-factual - I think it would have been better for people within the Soviet Union, but worse for its neighboring states. And I think that Trotsky was such a grating personality, he would eventually either be deposed or sidelined within the Soviet leadership. I do not think Trotsky had the temperent of a singular, cult-of-personality autocratic leader. I also have an inkling notion that a Trotsky-led Soviet regime would have inadvertantly made anti-semitism in Europe even worse somehow. Though I lack the understanding of people of the time and place to make that judgement confidently.

[@vaughnyboy8]

1:34:45 "Here's your rewards, go ahead and count them up:🖕🖕"

[@darrynmurphy2038]

The executions of the Romanovs really wasn't anything morally unusual, especially in the context of WW1 and the civil war. A dozen people being brutally murdered in a basement was tame in comparison to the hell that Europe found itself in, partly as a result of Nicholas II's actions. Yes the children were innocent, but name me a war in which innocents aren't killed en masse? The entire world already condemned the rump Bolshevik state of Sovdepia, and were keen on destroying them, so international condemnation made little difference apart from fueling anti-communist propaganda. The Bolsheviks throughout 1918 were on the brink of collapse, as even Lenin himself admitted later that he believed they wouldn't have survived the year. The month before the execution, the Left SRs tried to overthrow them and were only foiled by a bluff by the Latvian rifle garrisons. The month after, Lenin was almost killed. The White Army besieged Petrograd for months, and there was a popular belief that Bolsheviks were on their way out. Lenin and the Bolsheviks wanted power in order to enact their ideology, and cutting Russia off from its monarchist past was the reason behind it more than any personal feeling. The people who venerate the 'martryed' Romanovs today are the ideological descendants of the White Army, and to the Bolsheviks such people would always exist, and exist solely to be fought against.

[@nicholasmaniccia1005]

So it's not bad because it happened in other places too? Everyone gets the real political reality. Still it is a barbaric action to do in the 20th century, we still condemn genocide and that was also par for the course. It's not that bad because it wasn't uncommon is a dull brained excuse to sound like some detached enlightened perspective, but you aren't saying anything we aren't aware of, but hey you keep thinking being unimpressed by violence makes someone smart.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@nicholasmaniccia1005 Nothing comparable happened anywhere else. The closest parallel is the massacre of the Serbian royal family in 1903, which was viewed across Europe as a shocking act of barbarity. But at least no children were killed by the lynch mob of Serbian officers.

[@darrynmurphy2038]

@@nicholasmaniccia1005 Did you intentionally misread my comment? It was a horrible act, but it's no where near the type of horror that Sean and others have argued. The Romanovs themselves had a habit of self inflicted regicide, just look at both Peter I and Catherine. Killing innocents is wrong, and war by definition will always involve the killing of innocents for strategic gain. It bothers me that the deaths of the Romanovs are set above the countless deaths ordinary people in that period suffered, since on the whole their deaths were only part of a much larger cataclysm

[@nicholasmaniccia1005]

@@darrynmurphy2038 You expect an autocrat to autocrat, you don't expect an "enlightened" revolution to murder children. It chips away at any facade that it was controlled revolution and not just a national mania that they didn't snap out of for like 80 years. It was just violence breeding more violence, it's not a competition for what is the most atrocious, it was in an age where people knew without a doubt this was wrong and did it anyway. It's like understanding your average Nazi was a bit a of victim of his own society yet it's obvious that what he partook in was horrendous, nobody gets a pass to do bad shit just because bad shit happened to them. Wrong = Wrong and more importantly these people knew this.

[@nicholasmaniccia1005]

@@alanpennie8013 I was conceding that average people and children were murdered due to the Czar or other parties, not that killing Autocrats and their families was a common occurrence.

[@Sparticulous]

Anastasia is as dead as maurice’s son theodosius.

[@doesntmatter964]

The 2:50:00 part about the Russians letting the central Asian states to self determine is a joke, Stalin had one of the worst holodomors in kazahstan, where about 25% of Kazakhstans died of hunger or in concentration camps, in Uzbekistan and kazahstan the elites were all sent to gulags and exterminated, in kokkand and with the Tajiks is still not sure due to their lack of transparency, but tajik historians are really working on finding the remains of about 100k of their compatriots that were killed during the Stalin rules, and those are the ones that they knew that they existed Most of the details can be found in discussions with local historians, in Russian of course. It boggles me that people just eat what westerners write at face value, same westerners that never steps a foot in even Astana or even speak the local lingua franca

[@doesntmatter964]

And related to Trotsky, he was a good chief of staff, but a overrated general. Most of the lifting during the civil was was actually done by Mihai frunze, who was one of the worst genocidal maniacs east of the rural and in the Caucasus. Still, most of the info you can find In declassified kgb data, where the reports are the most honest one from the urss period, where the writers would simply say what happend during an event,but again, you need to speak Russian to understand them

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

The Chinese Communists turned Emperor Puyi into a gardener and he (or Chinese propaganda) announced later on how happy he was to be a gardener.

[@carlosmarquez5901]

1:15:22 .... oh boy.....you guys should check out the videos fron TIK on that regard

[@alexanderryan1176]

TIK would smoke these guys in any debate.

[@bandygamy5898]

I didn't know Ostrogoths did the same thing with the last Emperor of (west) Rome that Mao did with the last Emperor of China

[@markanthonybowen9419]

Here's Stephen Kotkin (a conservative)'s take on Lenin's so called "testament"- kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYnYpZpqbKeqe7c Also this Sean guy is incredibly fucking naive jfc

[@adamfrisk956]

Will watch now, but just in case you don't mention it, I'll say that the communist revolution had severed the cultural progression cord and (with USSR collapsing) modern Russia emerged in the 90s as an absolute social hodgepodge with no national identity, idea, middle class, economic backbone or even palpable traditions to speak of. Should have stopped at the 1st revolution in 1917.

[@MarkVrem]

Tank expert on KZbin The Chieftan had an interesting take (I think it was him). He suggests that the rapid industrialization and focus, in only 20 years. It could only have been achieved by a government like The Communists in power, which is what saved those people later against Hitler.

[@adamfrisk956]

​@@MarkVrem It certainly did, however one must to consider: 1. Hitler's hatred of jewish bolshevism in the East that spurred his war effort. There's an argument to be made where if there's no USSR, Germany doesn't go all out that early on if at all. Also the Winter war didn't help Red Army's image, and it might not have taken place at all with another regime in charge. 2. The only reason Stalin had to go rapid industrialization route is because the soviets had to fight a civil war that ruined the economy so badly they had literally no other choice (considering their ideological isolationism). They had to catch up or die. However the will was definitely there, to sacrifice some people to achieve the national goal. The tsar or the republic might not have had it in them.

[@MarkVrem]

@@adamfrisk956 Just about all the Jews in Europe lived in Poland. He was going east no matter what. On point 2. Remember Karl Marx wrote his book based on an Industrialized society. So for Stalin to make communism work, he needed industrialization as soon as possible. Same thing later with MAO and China's industrialization. The whole concept of communism depended on it. That drive is what kept the party unified, besides fear. On the flipside, the Germans had this constant fear that Russia would industrialize prior to WW1. Then that fear seems to really be kicked into high gear with Hitler dealing with Soviet industrialization. He probably saw the Jews in Poland/Hungary as the bankers financing Soviet industrialization... SO financiers + Communists = INDUSTRIALIZED USSR.

[@MarkVrem]

@@adamfrisk956 You made me think about the role of the Jews in Europe at the time. It is an interesting one. In a way, it is like the Mamluks in Egypt or the Eunuchs in Imperial China. By being servants and having fewer rights, all three of these focused their talents on what was available to them. Rising up in society to be viewed by others enviously.

[@hashkangaroo]

@Marko Uremovic And someone else left this in retort. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6KWiKeFqrd2g9k

[@jcrass2361]

Damn, wish I hadn’t missed this one.

[@johnmurdoch8534]

Che was awesome for all the reason the modern left would hate him. He was determined and fanatical and not interested in sjw nonesense.

[@Rokiriko]

Serbia the Somalia of Europe in 1914? WoW... WoW... the astounding ignorance and dismissiveness. I think you either don't know much about Serbia in 1914 or Somalia of 2011, or both that you can even slightly compare them.

[@MilanTheMan69]

WTF I did't yet have time to listen it, but I'm Serbian and I can't wait to hear what did they say...

[@MarkVrem]

As a Croat, I should probably stay out of this conversation. Especially since the Serb who assassinated Franz was a Knin Serb, who Croats might have ethnically moved out of their Croatian Serb homeland in the 1990s. People in general usually imagine him being out of Belgrade or something. When it was very complicated as they were Serbs living on the border of Bosnia and what was Austria(Croatia) back then. They weren't treated very well within Austrian Croatia, and then, Austria fully annexed Bosnia.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@MarkVrem A journalist tracked down Princip's kin, who still live in his ancestral village. See Tim Butcher, The Trigger (2015).

[@coryfritz9198]

I can't listen to guys on my tv or in car cause the one guy with a girly voice talks soooo loud, and you guys usually talk pretty quietly

[@contasemperfil]

I know less than u guys, and, for the demise of my person, eveyone around me knows squat about world history, and, furthermore, they cant even understand any of you saying the question 'what'd you do?' Im a man in an island; kinda Lex Luther in Smalville after the plane crash in season 3 I guess

[@simplicius11]

"The intervention strengthen the Bolsheviks"...really? There would be no civil war in Russia without an intervention, that actually started with the Czechs that were under the direct French command. And that everlasting myth about Germany financing the Bolsheviks. Germany financed Parvus but Lenin nor any other socialist didn't want any contact with him, he embezzled the party money and was blacklisted in socialist circles.

[@johnmurdoch8534]

I cant abide my man Brezhnev being bashed, Brezhnev was the best.

[@OndrejSc]

Linen > Lenin

[@lauri3610]

How interesting. You know, I usually avoid this subject because European historians get so weird, stiff, boring and political when it's brought up.

[@TomSeliman99]

Both of the historians have a obvious left wing bias on this channel

[@favourites4]

I don't think they would deny this, people are allowed to have biases so long as they are upfront with them which both of these guys are

[@MarkVrem]

Yeah, I find it easy to work around it. In a way, it's a good balance between them and like TIK for example. TIK type is good core stuff and fundamentals. But in any social setting outside the bar, Thersites offers a softer touch lol.

[@theLetterDoubleYou]

I don't know about that. The things they talk about as "left" on this channel seem to be almost entirely exclusive to democratic enfranchisement for labor organizations. I have yet to hear either of them actually explain the history of markets, opting to explain the effects market changes have had on historical development. For instance I've heard both of them promote Keynesian solutions but never heard them explain how those solutions would actually work, as they would have to also explain that instant communication technology has rendered the Keynesian approach obsolete. I think they have an historical bias for sure but I don't think they represent leftism as a whole right now, more a reflection of academic leftism.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

@@theLetterDoubleYou Great answer.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

They are honest about it AND its interesting for me as conservative too, since these guys take time to dissect WHY certain rebellions failed badly, instead of glossing over it like so many armchair commies. This is something, that conservatives normally ignore. We just assume (sometimes correctly), that the others are wrong without taking into account crisis management, our own weak spots etc.

[@rastamandela981]

Jewish revolution

[@tewekdenahom485]

this talk was too anti-tankie

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

Comment section is full of LARPers and likely Incesls. What a letdown.