The author is overestimating Lenin. He was not a Fu Manchu. The events of 1917, by their proportion, can not be credited to the simple action of an evil genius. The big problem was that the social order collapsed after the February / March revolution, and could only be restored by violence. The conservative / liberal elements of Russia did not have the means and the credibility to do so, they themselves had been careful to demoralize. The Bolsheviks won because they proposed to destroy an old order that had been delegitimized by itself.

On the whole, the local Sultan, Rajah or Chief preferred the British over a local rival. “Freedom” didn’t mean anything to anyone else. Under Migabeism, you voted Once, For Ever. Not much freedom there.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, the Shining Path, Mugabe. The Kim’s, Moral. Yeah. Right.

and reiner Tor

Committed revolutionaries do not often have children (except by accident): that would be too egotistically bourgeois.
Nadezhda Krupskaya was invariably called “Lenin’s life comrade” to the puzzlement of millions of childer indoctrinated in the USSR amd Soviet block schools (they did not dare ask “why not “wife?”). She was devoted to Lenin all her life, and lived in companionable revolutionary (but not erotic) ardor, with Nadezhda’s mother as their servant for many years.
It was only when Lenin was exiled to Siberia that they were hastily married so she would be allowed to accompany him. She was a tireless activist, distributing pamphlets to the workers they planned to ‘liberate’ but her most notable contribution after the bolsheviks took power was the legalization of  abortion, which the Bolshevik Party accomplished ” largely because of the intellectual influence and political pressure placed on them by Krupskaya”, as communists proudly note.
There is a huge bronze statue (socialist realism school of art) of Nadezhda that I saw in a park in central Moscow, which represents her as a beautiful (and strong!) woman although in life she looked more like Golda Meir (she was not, however, Jewish).

So, no, no Lenin offspring, although he had an affair with Inessa Armand (Jewish and fertile–she had had 4 children with her husband). In his private as well as in his political life Lenin overtly preferred Jews and despised the Russian “duraks.” The JPost mentions Inessa Armand among Lenin’s band who accompanied him in the infamous “sealed train” and gleefully calls them (all Jews) “Russians” (in quotation marks):

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Was-the-Russian-Revolution-Jewish-514323

I read I think in Robert Service’s biography that he (and his wife) desperately wanted children but his wife was unable to conceive. The medical knowledge of the time was not enough to tell why. But he loved children and took great delight in the offspring of his associates and family members.

A diligent effort to de-jewify the Bolshevik revolution: Cheka’s leadership were mostly Estonians… Germany gave (the equivalent of) $1 billion to the Bolsheviks (who? the Kaiser?) and Rosa Luxemberg was a temperate revolutionary concerned about “nations,” etc, etc. Pity that Mr Karlin ignores entirely the data in “Two Hundred Years Together.”

Let Lenin sleep, he was nothing than patsy.

See the original footage, suppressed for 100 years, that proves it was Marauder-class robot who let the workers and peasants to victory!

http://historum.com/speculative-history/49556-robot-led-russian-revolution.html

Laugh all you want Mao. Objective enough people see a significant difference between Roosevelt and Stalin.

Considering the interest of this blog with biodiversity and so forth, it would appear to be a glaring omission that the failure of Lenin to personally participate in the primary purpose of life, i.e., its continuation, has been unmentioned.

with Stalin being worse than him on human rights

Lol. Yes, Mikhail, I really did l o l. Laughing in the morning brightens the whole day, thanks.

And Roosevelt was terrible on the dictatorship of the proletariat and eliminating exploiting classes.

FYI, Kolchak didn’t have the clout of Denikin and later Wrangel.

Kerensky didn’t endorse the Whites and vice-versa.

Lenin was a murdering elitist bastard, with Stalin being worse than him on human rights.

A calamity of some sort seems likely to happen before India can get their shit together (and off the streets). As the red october showed us, things don’t always retain a predictable trajectory.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks bequeathed to the world a society with healthier moral values ​​than that of the West

As the 90s clearly demonstrate.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks bequeathed to the world a society with healthier moral values ​​than that of the West. If the protofascist regime of the Kerensky demagogue and Kolchak’s brutalism had prevailed, Russia would have been smashed much earlier and would be like the present Federal Republic of Germany, a political and moral vacuum parasitized by the United States.

“The’re merely regurgitating the talking points of liberal US media though”

Yes and no, as they themselves, in tune with the infamous german megalomania, actually hold these nutty viewpoints and they apparently think that being a german “Dichter und Denker”, entitles them to inform the crude, stupid Americans as to how they should vote, run their country and that they most certainly should not be allowed to arm themselves as according to the US constitution.

“Meldepflicht” a horrible law who’s roots may be traced back to leibeigenschaft and the “Fürstenzeiten” and then forward to the NASPD, represents the epitome of “big brother” and the Germans accept this abberation of legality without questioning.

Sometime back in the seventies, while submitting my “Meldeantrag”, I said to the official : “Ich habe Ihnen meine Addresse gegeben , jetzt geben Sie mir Ihre” causing him almost fall from his chair in shock and astonishment, and the reaction of the people behind me being of pure amazement, evoking such remarks as “Er hat doch recht”.

I have a very good German friend who informed me , fifty years ago, that he simply hated this law and that he was moving to the US when possible, and he has been there for thirty-plus years.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” quzalified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

Lebed was incompetent as leader, and as manager.

JRL can be a lousy parameter of judging quality Russia related analysis, as evidenced by some of the sources getting propped there, unlike some others.

i wonder what a yemeni thinks of lenin.

im sure they would be very disturb by a russian leader a hundred years ago deliberately causing a famine.

and im sure they would also point out that the west is vastly superior in morals to such inhuman monsters who would use famine as a weapon.

that or he might ask you for some bread and beg your free western capitalist society to stop imposing famine on his country?

You are really reading me wrong as I harbor no “anti-German” sentiments whatsoever, however I am totally pissed regarding the know-it-all german leftist “Besserwisser” who are waging an underhanded media war against DT, and they are demanding that he be removed from office

They’re merely regurgitating the talking points of liberal US media though.
I agree with your point about gun laws…these are internal matters of the US and shouldn’t be of concern to foreigners.
As for Meldepflicht, haha, really bad joke given that a government that enforces something like this then lets more than a million foreigners whose identity is often unknown into the country. Just shows what a bizarre country Germany has become.
And yes, you’re right, German lefties are indeed absolutely insufferable.

But in any case, the “red menace” is the result of the 1917 revolution, but not a personal “achievement” of Stalin.

It’s not even that “the “red menace” is the result of the 1917 revolution”. It would make more sense to say that the Russian revolution was one manifestation of “red menace” among many; revolutions/uprising in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Finland, Mexico, etc. Not to forget the Paris commune (that served as the model) a bit earlier and the Spanish republic a bit later.

That was the zeitgeist.

And, obviously, it caused a reaction, the elites desperately looking for ways to hang on to power. A wide range of efforts, from nazism to ‘social democracy’.

” His frequent anti-German statements”

You are really reading me wrong as I harbor no “anti-German” sentiments whatsoever, however I am totally pissed regarding the know-it-all german leftist “Besserwisser” who are waging an underhanded media war against DT, and they are demanding that he be removed from office as if they, these german leftist nut-cases are entitled to meddle, to intrude upon internal US politics.

Aside from this, they, said german leftist lunatics, have been demanding that that US alter their gun ownership laws to comply with the oppressive german codes, and one gets the impression that they, these leftist german crazies think somehow that they rule the entire planet, and that they are entitled to determine what each and every nation should do or not do, as according to their leftist “Gutmenschen” mindset.

And I must say that I have always held doubt regarding the sanity and rationality of a people which has no problems and even accepts and welcomes such draconian, big-brother laws such as the german “Meldepflicht/Meldegesetze” , laws which would evoke a societal crisis in a typical anglo-saxon country.

Aside from these viewpoint I realize hiow much poorer the world would be without the manifold and magnificent contributions to world culture, starting with JS Bach, L V Beethoven, W A Mozart, Shiller, Goethe, etc, etc.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this. The more traditional German right failed utterly and through its irresponsible behaviour paved the way for Nazism coming to power. But it could well have gone differently, possibly even at the end of 1932 if there had been an authoritarian regime under von Schleicher that would have cracked down on both communists and Nazis. By 1932 the reparations issue which had been exploited by Nazi propaganda had been mostly solved and the economy was probably set to recover at least to some degree, so the political situation might have stabilized again. Of course the Nazis’ coming to power wasn’t just an accident or due to luck – it was the strongest party in the 1932 elections after all – but it wasn’t inevitable either.

I’ll offer you the hypothesis that the course of events over the period running from 1938 to 1945 was crucially dependent on Hitler being a lunatic. That he was in a position to implement his lunacies was in turn was dependent on a series of contingencies breaking the right way over the period running from 1929 to 1934. A currency devaluation in 1931 might have been tonic enough for the German economy to stifle the Nazis. Or, imagine the appearance of a political figure ca. 1929 who could rally the more civilized and circumspect elements of the German right to challenge the floundering parliamentary parties. See the course of events in Finland over the period running from 1928 to 1936 when formerly sidelined grandees emerged and first co-opted the local fascist movement, then in office placed it under legal restrictions and gelded it. Various figures which come to mine – Hindenburg, Ludendorff, von Westarp, Hugenburg, von Kahr, Schacht simply did not fill the bill.

The Nazis were a fad movement derived from acute economic stress and wartime humiliations. There is no indication they manifested an abiding aspect of the German political spectrum.

That view of Pinochet has a good deal of support among post-Soviet Russians, including the late Alexander Lebed and some former Soviets in the US.

Russia was disintegrating from the fall of the Tsar. The most likely outcome was a right-wing dictatorship. Similar things had already happened in Portugal and Latin America.

Russia would have been much better off with a Pinochet than with a Lenin or a Stalin. Pinochet did not kill millions of Chileans and Chile after Pinochet was a fairly prosperous, decent country – compare to Russia after Communism, in the 1990s.

This is a very controversial statement.

Certainly, it’s counter-factual history, we can’t know for sure what would have happened if things had been different.
You’re of course right regarding the dangers of excessive personalization in history and ignoring larger social forces (though I think a focus on Stalin’s person isn’t entirely unjustified; at the very least he was an object of extreme personality cult after all).

“maybe China and India would have displaced it and the US by then”

Under what scenarios do you think India could have done so? I am curious because you are known to have a quite pessimistic attitude towards that country.

A nice example of a very common trend on the left. People who achieve anything are wicked, because they maliciously did less than they claimed to want, and brutally caused suffering that was quite un-needed.

Russia was disintegrating from the fall of the Tsar. The most likely outcome was a right-wing dictatorship. Similar things had already happened in Portugal and Latin America.

Without Lenin or Stalin, who was likely to make a better job of things?

Outside of Russia, some conventional regimes did emerge from 1917. And when Hitler came to power in 1933, every one of them apart from Czechoslovakia was a right-wing dictatorship. This includes Poland, created by Pilsudsky on a Moderate-Socialist basis. Guilty also of anti-Semitism, though it would at least accept Jews who would convert.

It’s pre-Soviet Russia which has been regularly smeared by the likes of yourself.

Lenin and Stalin inherited a country that was a world power, predicted for even greater things. The Bolshes subverted Russia’s WW I effort.

Your reference to that war and the Russo-Japanese War are overly simplistic. The US lost in Vietnam and the Brits lost to the pro-secessionist American colonists. Yet, America remained a great power after its Vietnam experience. Ditto Britain after the American Revolutionary War.

Strong countries lose wars for a variety of reasons. The Japanese launched a surprise attack with geography on its side. Russia rebounded relatively well from that war, to the point that many saw it as a major world power destine for further greatness.

In WW I, Russia did well against the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman forces. It attacked Germany much to sooner from when its was ready. Historian Max Hastings said that had WW I started two years later, Russia might very well have succeeded, meaning no Bolshes.

there were some few Polish peasants on the lands of Polish Kingdom

That is, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Moskovskuyu province you missed. As well as the fact that in the”Belarus” was not Polish but Belarusian peasantry.

Really? And I thought that Tripolie and medieval practices of agriculture had something, really small, almost imperceptible to do with namely land-owners, serfdom and the complex or rather lack thereof of skills required to cultivate and work land in accordance to modern practices.

This is obviously a ridiculous argument. The ex-serfs and “hereditary” free peasants (the largest part of the peasantry in Russia) were the same in respect of a “medieval practices of agriculture “. This completely destroys the entire liberal nonsense about serfdom as the main cause for backwardness.

On the contrary, advanced methods of agriculture were used primarily on the landlords ‘ fields. If (hypothetically) imagine “alternative” Russia, where all land belonged to the landowners and the all peasants – serfs (after emancipation, ex – serfs), then most likely such a Russia would develop more successfully and would have avoided many problems.

Again, most likely you are some kind of Russian young urbanite

No doubt. It would be strange to communicate via UNZ with the Russian peasant

He was only right because the Nazis came to power in Germany, and arguably Stalin/German communists (which were closely linked to the Soviet Union) contributed to that outcome by destabilizing the Weimar republic. It’s also possible (if impossible to prove) that Nazism would have had much less appeal if there hadn’t been the Soviet system and communist movements inspired by it which led to strong fear and paranoia among the (petite) bourgeoisie.

This is a very controversial statement. But in any case, the “red menace” is the result of the 1917 revolution, but not a personal “achievement” of Stalin.

While Mr. Karlin essay and the photograph are quite good but there’s a bit of deception in his article by leaving out very pertinent facts. He makes a great deal of the German subsidies to Lenin while not mentioning at all the massive support by the Jewish Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff. Not only that he crops the picture of Lenin and guess who seems to be right beside him in the photo. The very same Jacob Schiff, Even more mysterious the photo was taken after Jacob Schiff was said to be dead. Just one good look and I think it’s reasonable that this was a lie and that he was there right next to Lenin. That guy next to him must be Schiff.

Jacob Schiff

Lenin and Schiff in Russia after Schiff supposedly died.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170824221130/https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1923/007.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20161115071202/http://rarehistoricalphotos.com:80/vladimir-lenin-last-photo-1923/

To begin with I did not call anyone a moron or equivalent neither in German nor in English.

When it comes to accusing others of what the Germans call Besserwisserei and it being unbearable a look at the mirror or at one’s previous comments, their authoritative tone in particular, would be a good idea.

Had you bothered to read my comment with comprehension you would have noticed that I did not silly romanticize communist medical profession into an altruistic , humanistic endeavor but merely stated that this what would be MDs in the east were preached during their studies (this perching having in most cases limited effectiveness such as preaching lofty stuff usually has I might add). Hence there is indeed nothing to comment on in this regard.

Also calling me leftist zealot ignors most of the content of my previous comment. In particular those parts pointing out higher material standards of almost everything in the west. It would appear that a reply at least requires to read what one retorts to.

I have also medical professionals as relatives & family members. This is not so unique among educated people.

Closing I have to say that one’s views are shaped by one’s experiences – you have yours and I have mine.

No the depression only really ended post WWII although there were ups and downs in the period.

You would do well to examine production and income statistics and digest what they mean.

” Someone claiming to be Mensa should be more intelligent when making his points”

Ist ja klar dass ein Deutscher “Dichter und Poet” sich “intelligenter” als irgend ein amerikanisher Cretin, auszudrücken vermag.
Diese, Ihre, arrogante, penetrante deutsche Besserwisserei ist weltbekannt und einfach unerträglich, basta.

As I stated in my original post : I was married to a german MD, a surgeon, for several years, secondly my brother-in-law is a retired MD an internist , and my niece and her husband are both surgeons, she treating blood vessel afflictions and he joints, knee, feet etc.
So I am more than versed in the particulars of this complicated field.

Your silly romantization of the communist medical profession into an altruistic , humanistic endeavor, ist beyond comment being nothing more than the opinion of a typical leftist zealot.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

For this reason the idea of an someone from east Germany being anti-western in general or anti-American in particular seems dubious.

No, that really exists. Germans in general are often somewhat anti-American (though there are also tons who go the other extreme and absolutely love America), and the East German propaganda about American imperialism (e.g. the Vietnam war, racial discrimination; sometimes also mixed in were specifically German, vaguely nationalist appeals, like making a big deal of the bombing of Dresden and attributing it to the US, even if that was mostly the work of the British) was effective to some degree.
Authenticjazzman exaggerates imo in his frequent anti-German statements, but to some extent they do have a basis in reality. The German Besserwisser and the strident anti-American are both types that exist in large numbers in Germany.

No the depression only really ended post WWII although there were ups and downs in the period.

Well, obviously, military keynesianism plus large armies during the war relieved the symptoms.
But yeah, like I said, in the end it was the destruction of excess capacity and physical assets. And so after the war the new cycle started.

Yes. There is a very good book called “Russia”. It is free on Amazon in electronic form. The author was Donald Mackenzie Wallace who spent about 20 years in Russia after the Crimean war. He then returned briefly, 1903-1905 as I recall, when he wrote a 2nd edition describing the 1905 war against Japan and the political tension of the time. The book was written when the Russian fleet was still afloat, so he was too early for the 1905 revolution. He doesn’t use one word if ten will do but it is easy reading. His description of peasant life explains much about collectivisation and modern landownership in Russia.

What you read was actually the second half of my comment. The first part was for some reason cut out. For this reason I will repost all of my reply to “Mr Mensa”

Ehm … the smell of fake is hanging in the air.

Admitted I am not from any former SU country and not from the former East Germany either but from one other former Eastern Bloc.

I have a few relatives who are medical doctors and while during ‘communism’ the opportunity to visit their professional colleagues in the west was limited it is not like there was none at all. Obviously now it is not a problem.

Their impression form that time were not at all flattering for their western counterparts especially general practitioners. These western ‘doctors’ were mostly clueless and were practicing something that can be called symptoms treatment medicine – in other words the idea was to treat the symptoms, charge the individual or his medical insurance provider and move on to the next patient. Only if the alignment persisted or the condition was serious to begin with was the patient send to a specialist or a hospital. What many eastern doctors also found shocking (at least at the beginning) was the openness with which their western host would admit their ‘we are here to charge the patient’ attitude because in the east it was preached to medical students that what they are about to do is a great service to the society as a whole and to individual human beings and similar lofty stuff.
It was similar in hospitals. Even specialists were sometimes hapless when confronted with something else then an obvious case but what made a huge difference, in fact all the difference was the availability of specialist diagnostic equipment and a plethora of drugs.

While a doctor in eastern Europe frequently had only his knowledge, experience and not much more than for example a stethoscope to diagnose the patient and had to treat the man with whatever was available which was usually not much his western counterpart had diagnostic equipment & various medications that were seldom if at all available in the east. The resulting difference in treatment quality is obvious.

In addition the conditions in hospitals eastern vs. western hospital were like earth and heaven. Comfortable beds, much better food, even ventilation in the west was better.

The end result was that anybody having a choice would obviously pick a western hospital over an eastern one but that had very little to do with the competence of eastern vs. western doctors.

The above does not of course exclude that there were in fact some very competent western doctors who had individual experiences with their incompetent professional counterparts from the east.

But what really makes me smell a fake is the idea that an East German doctor was infected with anti-American propaganda. That is either a gigantic pile of bull crap or an exception confirming the rule.

Most people in the east were because of all the goodies and obviously higher living standards fond of the west sometimes to the point of idolizing. At the same time official propaganda was considered just that propaganda – crude, stupid and totally unconvincing blah, blah of the communists.

This was no different in East Germany, perhaps even more so because they could see the better west literally over the fence.

For this reason the idea of an someone from east Germany being anti-western in general or anti-American in particular seems dubious.

Oh – lest I forget someone claiming to be a MENSA member should be more intelligent when making his points. There are people who had lived there, had heard it, seen it, experienced it and hence have a low threshold for BS.

I don’t know about ventilation, but I suspect that communist countries, on average, probably had better physicians than the western ones.

In the west, people often choose the medical field because it’s lucrative. It’s (typically) a purely materialistic ‘carrier choice’ to them, a way to make a bunch of money. Not the best motivation for becoming a ‘healer’…

No the depression only really ended post WWII although there were ups and downs in the period.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/15/world-war-ii-didnt-end-the-great-depression/

In addition the conditions in hospitals eastern vs. western hospital were like earth and heaven. Comfortable beds, much better food, even ventilation in the west was better.

The end result was that anybody having a choice would obviously pick a western hospital over an eastern one but that had very little to do with the competence of eastern vs. western doctors.

The above does not of course exclude that there were in fact some very competent western doctors who had individual experiences with their incompetent professional counterparts from the east.

But what really makes me smell a fake is the idea that an East German doctor was infected with anti-American propaganda. That is either a gigantic pile of bull crap or an exception confirming the rule.

Most people in the east were because of all the goodies and obviously higher living standards fond of the west sometimes to the point of idolizing. At the same time official propaganda was considered just that propaganda – crude, stupid and totally unconvincing blah, blah of the communists.

This was no different in East Germany, perhaps even more so because they could see the better west literally over the fence.

For this reason the idea of an someone from east Germany being anti-western in general or anti-American in particular seems dubious.

Oh – lest I forget someone claiming to be a MENSA member should be more intelligent when making his points. There are people who had lived there, had heard it, seen it, experienced it and hence have a low threshold for BS.

” Well don’t leave us hanging. What did the West Germans do about that dilema”

Nothing, as the wall came down and the majority of east German medicos moved to the western portion of Germany, and were absorbed by the huge German medical field, with all of their flaws intact.

I can vividly recall that one of my wife’s medico colleagues was consumed with a rabid hatred for Americans and all thing American, even though he had grown up in east Germany and had no contact with Americans whatsoever, of course this being the result of the incessant anti-American propaganda
imposed upon the east German populous.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, Airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro jazz msuician.

“What happened in the skies over Korea?”

Good question. Some interesting material on this:

Black Tuesday Over Namsi: B-29s vs MiGs – The Forgotten Air Battle of the Korean War, 23 October 1951

Paperback – December 3, 2013
by Earl McGill

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Tuesday-Over-Namsi-Forgotten/dp/1909384380/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

FWIW:

MiG Alley: How the air war over Korea became a bloodbath for the West

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/03/23/mig-alley-how-air-war-over-korea-became-bloodbath-west-725501

Korean War: How the MiG-15 put an end to American mastery over the skies

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/04/27/korean-war-how-mig-15-put-end-american-mastery-over-skies-751633

well if you are so negative about everything , communist,atleast his revolution has endured for 3 generations larger than many kingdoms

Yeltsin was about upping his stature, along with his having found like minded folks seeking to do the same in their respective domain.

Gorbachev was trying to keep the SU together. Yeltsin was the architect of Russian independence.

No analogy is 100% precise because no two situations are exactly identical.

That said, some analogies are more accurate than others. The WaPo, NYT, JRL Affirmative Action, Russophobe Tyrell Starr, said the Russians treat the Ukrainians like the Blacks have been treated by Whites in the US. A better analogy likens the Russo-Ukrainian relationship to the Scots and English. Of course, that analogy isn’t exactly precise.

There’s value in answering some of the commentary that has been put out here and other venues. A number of folks are either suspect, but not knowing of the other perspective, or get duped by continuously one-sided commentary, without knowing there’s a valid other side.

This stuff does seem to repeat itself in century-or-so long intervals. Have you read “The Fourth Turning”? It’s partially bullshit and the authors are statists, but the concept is very interesting.

They say that we are in Winter, covering the approximate period of 2005- 2025. As in nature, each season has its possibilities and they identify Crisis (Winter) as a time for societal survival, demanding a genuine gathering together in unselfish common action.

Each generation supposedly defines itself in opposition to its parents with “Boomer” children looking for societal order and stability rather than the counter -cultural revolution that was forced onto them. It may be true that Millennials are tiring of the old Hippies.

https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510438535&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Fourth+Turning

Stalin, as we know was absolutely right.

He was only right because the Nazis came to power in Germany, and arguably Stalin/German communists (which were closely linked to the Soviet Union) contributed to that outcome by destabilizing the Weimar republic. It’s also possible (if impossible to prove) that Nazism would have had much less appeal if there hadn’t been the Soviet system and communist movements inspired by it which led to strong fear and paranoia among the (petite) bourgeoisie.
Apart from that, what external threats would the Soviet Union have faced? Maybe Japan, but that was relatively backwards itself. The idea that any western, democratic power or an authoritarian regime like Poland would have attacked the Soviet Union was just ideology-induced fantasy.
Admittedly Stalin probably wasn’t totally incompetent and some credit certainly has to go to him for Soviet victory in WW2, so I can understand to some degree why he’s popular in Russia.

The war ended the great depression. I don’t think this is controversial. Look at the unemployment rate.

Whether it is ‘controversial’ or not, it is simply wrong. Production levels and production per capita had returned to pre-Depressionary norms all over the occidental world. Unemployment rates remained elevated in the United States but were lower than their 1933 peak. (Unemployment levels in Britain had by 1939 returned to pre-Depressionary levels).

You’re retailing Marxist rubbish about ‘the surplus’.

The war ended the great depression. I don’t think this is controversial. Look at the unemployment rate.

You are wasting you breath and time arguing with AP’s. You might have noticed that all their arguments are of the ‘what about’ type, the diversionary tactic of changing the subject of discussion. From Ukraine we jump to Brazil and take the example of Brazil as the norm for Ukraine (a sheer fallacy by any logical rules – Aristotle called it ‘ignoratio elenchi’). BTW, ‘Brazilians’ and Portugese were the same people and that’s why a member of the Portugese royal family could become the Emperor of Brazil.

Global economic collapse following the 1929 stock market crash in the US isn’t called ‘the great’ depression for nothing. A world war – centered in Europe, to destroy civilian industrial overcapacity – was the only way to overcome it.

Rubbish. The only occidental countries of note for which the per capita product in 1939 was lower than it had been in 1929 were the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Canada, the United States, Argentina, and Chile. Spain’s problems are attributable to the Civil War therein. Per capita product in the United States and Canada exceeded 1929 levels by 1940.

Angus Maddison’s Project estimated the ratio of Tsarist Russia’s gdp per capita to those of contemporary occidental states to be as follows in 1913:

France: 0.41
Germany: 0.39
Great Britain: 0.29
Italy, central and north: 0.61
Spain: 0.69
Australia: 0.27
United States: 0.27

Comparable figures for 2010, comparing Russia in its constrained boundaries with the others are as follows:

France: 0.40
Germany: 0.42
Great Britain: 0.36
Italy, central and north: 0.47
Spain: 0.52
Australia: 0.34
United States: 0.28

hahahaha. hey you, you have been exploited for the last 499 years, but look, you are free now. thank us! now we will just exploited you in a different way thank us again!

We have such short memories.

Germans are still alive who shot and killed other Germans for simply trying to leave the country.

The Whites also showed signs of improving their ability to govern. Wrangel in particular has been credited for such. Hence, their victory arguably might very well have led to a more humane and prosperous Russia. To a degree, a number of Russians in the post-Soviet era don’t consider this thought to be so off the mark.

” Life expectancy is 79.7 years, not bad for a dirt poor country”

Look if you choose to believe any or all of the absurd communist propaganda pertaining to health care, coming out of Cuba, be my guest, period.

Aside from this I am aware of the “real” facts and truth surrounding the issues of health care in the communist world, as I was married, in west Germany, from the late seventies to the mid eighties, to a German MD, a surgeon, and at least two of her east-German trained MD co-workers constituted a huge problem for the hospital as they revealed themselves as completely incompetent and clueless, and were subjected to daily on-the-job remedial training, and not were detailed to the operating room for more than trivial issues.

The west German gov at one point came to the conclusion that the training of medical doctors, of medical personal in the DDR was far below western standards, and they were faced with the dilema of what to do, as the recognition of east-German medical degrees was an element of the detante’ , the “Ost-Politik” initiated by Willy Brandt, and they were most certainly not going to reverse any of the aspects of this concept.

As regarding Chavez : This is but one example of the tremendously “superior” communist medical expertise, and I would wager that one could, with sufficient research uncover thousands of such cases.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

If you read more into the subject, you’d know that Lloyd George’s mindset to not support the Whites prevailed over Churchill’s preference on the basis of the quote in question. This was previously noted at this thread.

You must be kidding about the photos said to show foreign forces in Russia (in non-fighting instances). Show me photos and detailed accounts of noticeable Western fighting against the Bolshes in support of the Whites.

If anything, the then secret Polish-Red agreement is somewhat akin to what some accuse the Red Army of doing during the Warsaw Uprising, or for that matter the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There’s your foreign collusion during the Russian Civil War, along with the German and assorted Western left support for the Bolshes.

Putin has spoken negatively of Lenin, while being comparatively mixed on Stalin. The latter was an extreme brute – something that Putin hasn’t contradicted.

IMO, Stalin’s foreign policy took into consideration Russia’s legit interests – more so than Lenin.

I suspect that a good number of White Russians view the Soviet-Finnish War and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as necessary acts to better secure Russia.

Cuba, Philippines… don’t border Spain and were never key to it along the lines of the Novgorod to Kiev to Moscow ties. The Rome point goes way further back in history, when things were considerably more different. The Roman Empire encompassed numerous different peoples with noticeably different languages and ethnic makeups.

On your other points:

What was California at the time of the American Revolution and for that matter American Civil War?

Poland doesn’t see itself as part of the Rus legacy for obvious reasons. Poland is a classic example of the occupier becoming occupied.

The Ivan the Terrible and Michael Romanov references to the Rurik dynastic line show a clear relationship with the Rus entity prior to the Mongol subjugation period.

Elena Krupnikova in her book about Golodomor also touched American depression and population losses from it. Basically the West likes to hide own skeletons while concentrating on others. Naive aboriginals are of great help to them.

One finds it not infrequently brought up on the communist parts of Runet.

Yeah, I saw it too.

While the practice of counting/comparing ‘victims’ – while deliberately ignoring (or misconstruing) historical context – is, of course, utterly idiotic, it is indeed interesting that the western narrative refuses to acknowledge a single starvation death during the great depression and the dust bowl. They admit ‘malnutrition’, but that’s it. It feels like straight common sense rather than ‘conspiracy theory’ to assume that the great depression/dust bowl narrative has been just as thoroughly constructed and politicized as one of the stalinist atrocities… No?

As I stated, defeat was self inflicted. If such moron or an agent was capable to destroy great country unaposed with the rest of elites and population not only doing nothing to remove him but actually engaging in smearing of own country and history and later in tearing own country apart… make your conclusion. Self smearing still continues. Soviet union did not have structural issues which would cause collapse. The case of kings destroying own country via sheer stupidity is widespread in history. China was in far worse position then ussr and nothing happened. Elites are important factor.

Thank you.

I was posting a quick and good dumping on Lev Bronstein, but vanishing, sure by my own error, a shame, it was a little entertaining and very damning.

Maybe trying the replication tomorrow.

Excellent points. I am afraid that it took centuries for currest state of affairs and human capitalistic behavioral norms to get established and entrenched. Soviet was the first time that attempt was made to build society as you said based upon best humanity traits. Obviously there was a lot premature optimism and rush. There was also other issues especially at the very top which were caused by basal human qualities and allowed personalities of the lowest possible denomination to get and stay theŕe like Krushev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The question of how and why is complex and includes also such things as lack of understanding of basic human needs and wants at the very top level. Basically too much to write in current format. Discussion like this would require lots of space and time. But yes. USA basically was built and prospered by calling to what is the worst in humanity basal instincts which is obvious now, while Ussr was making attempt to improve human condition via virtues. The path of din is always easier than the path of virtue.

It is not an answer to a specific comment but rather is aimed at comments made by some in which they refer to the Ukraine as having such or other tendencies in the 19th and early 20th century.

Before it is even possible to address them first one has to ask: what exactly do they mean by the Ukraine? It could be the geographic area of one of the following: the historic borderland of the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth, Ukrainian National Republic, West Ukrainian People’s Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (before the war, after the war, before or after Khrushchev gave it Crimea?), the current independent state of Ukraine, Malorossiya, Galicia, Cossack Hetmanate, Ruthenia, Volhynia all of the above, some of the above, some of the above plus something else – keep in mind that while all these overleap to some extend (sometimes to a considerable extend) they are not one and the same.

That Is not all.

Parts of what could be with justification considered “the Ukraine” where not even in the same countries (states). Thus when one says there were certain tendencies, views or opinions in 19th century Ukraine it should be kept in mind that it could mean popular talking points in Lviv’s cafes or matters that dominated village talk in the Poltava Governorate. Either could be justifiably considered Ukrainian opinions.

It is also really baffling to read that there was no Ukrainian part to the Russian civil war. All the Bolshevik Ukrainians do not count? What about all the white forces in southern Russia – oh I get it southern RUSSIA and thus can’t be considered Ukraine. Good to know because it cuts a large chunk out of what could be considered the Ukraine.

Moving on, the “let’s stay in the USSR” vote in Ukraine does not really count because it was one heavily qualified with additional conditions. The same thing could be said about many other votes because most are heavily contextualized, dependent on a lot of ‘small print stuff’ etc.

Many more points to be maid but sorry – this should suffice to make my points while I have to get back top work.

Im happy that Putin made that statement
about the crimes of Soviets and millions of victims

From my observations Putin seems anti Lenin
and fairly in the middle on Stalin (someone can correct me here).

{ Under tricolor Russia lost both war with Japan and WWI. Not exactly inspiring. This whole return is a sign of strategic defeat. While USA clearly did not defeat ussr defeat was self inflicted and the loss of the status is quite obvious.}

1. Isn’t it true that Gorbachev, nominally a communist, is the one who – either because he was vain+stupid or a deep penetration agent of the West/Globalists – voluntarily dismantled the USSR and like an idiot (or a traitor) gave up all that had been accomplished against an empty promise? (instead of demanding and getting tangible ‘goods’ from the West/Globalists in return for withdrawing from East Europe?)

Because of (Communist) Gorbachev’s stupidity and gullibility Putin has to deal with NATO on Russia’s borders, which West/Globalists promised Gorby would never happen?

2. Isn’t it true that Communist Khrushchev illegally gifted Crimea, which was part of Russia SSR to Ukraine SSR, and which was returned to Russia by Putin and now flying the Russian tricolor?

{By the virtue of winning WW2 Soviet Russia should have been ruling Europe for centuries}

Well, Soviet Union did dominate Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact) for 70 years, and people in those countries didn’t seem to be too happy. I mean, German people were trying to escape from East Germany to West Germany, and East Germans had to build a wall to keep their people in: doesn’t speak too well of a form of government that has to _force_ people to live under its rule.

Now, as I have said in other threads, one side benefit of being under Soviet rule is that only those European countries that were kept away from Globalist infestation – e.g. Hungary, Poland,….. – are the ones resisting suicidal edicts from Brussels to open the floodgates and allow unlimited Islamist invasion, like they are doing in West Europe today.

So it’s not Soviet “all good” and Russia “all bad”: it’s a mixed bag (….from what I can see as a non-Russian not living in Russia). Soviets accomplished a lot. A superb education system, for example. But their mismanagement of the economy and inability to adapt and change until too late, left USSR structurally vulnerable.

Given its inherent structural issues, SU probably could not last, quote, ‘centuries’.
But the winding down could have been accomplished in an orderly fashion.
Tens of millions of Soviet citizens lost everything when SU broke up so suddenly: jobs, security, accumulated pensions under the Soviet system/ruble,….. People who worked all their lives and contributed when they were working are destitute old people today with no pension and no jobs (in all 15 former SSRs).

And Gorbachev is still running around and giving advice left and right, instead of being in jail.

Hey, did I see you in the guardian a couple of year ago? Did they ban you eventually?

The white terror was no more reactive than the red terror was reactive to, say, an attempt on Lenin’s life.

So slaughrering 10,000s in response ot assassination attempt on Lenin is comparable to slaughtering 10,000s in response to the slaughtering of 10,000s. Go it.

Maybe by your logic Nazi atrocities were also reactive to anti-Nazi resistence?

There is nothing monstrous about the Soviet Union – nothing more than about any “industrialized nation”.

A don’t recall the millions of starved-to-death Americans, Frenchmen, Italians, etc.

In terms of the military historical aspect, not much is known of that war. Instead, sovoks posting photos of foreign forces in the former Russian Empire. Wow! Quite convincing.

Surely far more convincing than a trivial quote from some British politician’s speech, don’t you think?

All I got from you so far is that you:
– have an opinion, and
– are openly contemptuous of those who don’t share it.

It’s all fine, but on these internets that’s the most common case. Not very interesting.
What can I say? Okay: your opinion is noted.

It’s a “mythology” to pretend that modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus don’t share a common past with Rus

Of course they do. And Cuba, the Philippines, and Peru have a common past with Spain. And Romania, France, etc, have a common past with Rome. Sweden, Denmark and Norway have common pasts. So?

Prior to the Mongol subjugation, it was becoming pretty clear that Moscow was gaining in stature.

You mean the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal. Moscow itself was nothing much until the end of the 13th century.

The last principality to conquer Kiev prior to the Mongol invasion was the Galician one.

It emerged from the Mongol subjugation as the freest (from foreign domination) and most powerful of Rus land.

Depends on what one means by “foreign domination.” A Rus prince once gained the Polish throne, after all.

Ivan the Terrible was a Rurik prince, with Michael Romanov having Rurik ties

Descent. So do thousands of other people.

The Emperor of Brazil belonged to the Portuguese royal family. So – one people?

Moscow province – Polish peasants?

Лифляндская, Курляндская, Эстляндская и губернии Царства Польского (c) I don’t know, I kinda read по слогам but sure as hell, as the last several hundred years testify–there were some few Polish peasants on the lands of Polish Kingdom. I omit here the issue of Belarus, you know, where Adam Miskiewics was born (wink, wink) to avoid a possible shitstorm here. But it seems you either really do not express you point properly and merely copy and paste all kinds of snippets, including from dubious “history”, such as Davydov’s (it is expected from a man with Ph.D. Thesis titled “Production of Sugar in Russian Empire”–that surely qualifies him to speak out on WWI) or you simply in it for the hell of it.

The peasants of course were super retarded, but for reasons in no way connects back with serfdom and landlords.

Really? And I thought that Tripolie and medieval practices of agriculture had something, really small, almost imperceptible to do with namely land-owners, serfdom and the complex or rather lack thereof of skills required to cultivate and work land in accordance to modern practices. Have you ever worked on any manufacturing or in any other productive field, especially dealing with machinery? “Retardation” of peasants has everything to do with that. Or, using more “scientific” terminology–a Method of Production, which is defined by Productive Forces and Productive Relations which derive from those forces.

Your statement on Pochvinechestvo I will leave without any response–you simply have no idea what are you talking about. Again, most likely you are some kind of Russian young urbanite.

Reactive and on a smaller scale of brutality.

This is a popular misconception in the West but is factually incorrect. The white terror was no more reactive than the red terror was reactive to, say, an attempt on Lenin’s life. As to the scope and brutality, Bolsheviks had nothing on the noblemen of the White Army. Kolchak, the ruler of Siberia, for example, was notorious for his cruelty towards the locals. And he wasn’t the only one. This, by the way, was one of the reasons why Bolsheviks ultimately prevailed in the Civil War.

But the monster that Lenin created was self-destructive and fell apart after only a few decades.

There is nothing monstrous about the Soviet Union – nothing more than about any “industrialized nation”. In spite of the difficult periods, the Soviet Union was, and still is, a powerful project that unleashed enormous creative forces not just in Russia but all over the world. To reduce it to such primitive descriptions as “evil”, “destructive”, monstrous” is – trying to be polite – silly.

One American writer (don’t remember who) once remarked: “Why are we rejoicing that the only attempt to build a society based on the best human qualities failed, whereas our society built on the most primitive basal human traits such as greed and cruelty to other is thriving?” This is BTW is the definition of your “success”. Sad.

Putin quite frankly despite his obvious contribution and intelligence is not even on same page as Lenin and even Stalin. While facing his own challenges he has still got foundation left to him by critisized by you Soviet union. Imagine him having to start and deal what Lenin and Stalin had to.

It would have been ridiculous for Ruusia to have red banner ad red banner represented certain things values and challenge. It also represented eventually status of the Soviet Russia which modern Russia does not have anymore. Meanwhile color of the victory is Red and not of Georgievskoi stripe. Under tricolor Russia lost both war with Japan and WWI. Not exactly inspiring. This whole return is a sign of strategic defeat. While USA clearly did not defeat ussr defeat was self inflicted and the loss of the status is quite obvious. By the virtue of winning WW2 Soviet Russia should have been ruling Europe for centuries. Instead it has to defend herself along her own borders within former Soviet Russia space. I have no idea why you feel proud of this and continue smearing Soviet history when Russia truly attained greatness.even now Russia still have whatever left of previous standing due to Soviet legacy.

that’s Saïd-type stuff.

Sure, with one difference–Russia is not Arab satrapy and has the ability to wipe anyone off he map. So, it is one thing applying Said’s (false) Orientalism parallels to some backwater shitholes totally another doing the same to Russia. So, why don’t you read Sir Bernard Pares’ conclusion. But yes, you just confirmed the whole shallowness and superficiality of the “humanities” field ping-pong with a huge number of “concepts” practically none of which has any relation to real world. Per your:

Russia not getting the world(c). Sure, the world really made sure of that. But in general, you driveled a classic platitude.

About Vera Tolz I find this on Amazon:
“Out of the ferment of revolution and war, a group of scholars in St. Petersburg articulated fresh ideas about the relationship between power and knowledge, and about Europe and Asia as mere political and cultural constructs. Their ideas anticipated the work of Edward Said and post-colonial scholarship by half a century. The similarities between the two groups were, in fact, genealogical. Said was indebted, via Arab intellectuals of the 1960s who studied in the Soviet Union, to the revisionist ideas of Russian Orientologists of the fin de siecle.”
I won’t comment on that other than that you promised fun. I hope that Tolz is good at telling jokes in reverse, because the payoff is out in the open now, I guess.

A great article Anatoly. Thank you!
From my experience having been around Russians for 35 years, Ukrainians for 25 and having lived in Russia for most of the time since 2003 I would say that by far the most important factor in the general inability to assess information and facts about Russian history especially Lenin, Nicholas 2nd and the so called Russian Revolution is the extreme effectiveness of Soviet brainwashing from early infancy onwards.
Even some of the most learned, intelligent and objective of people who were brought up in the USSR can suddenly transform into raving idiots when confronted with the subjects and personages mentioned above. Since 2003 I have seen endless docs on Russian TV that try to get the facts about pre revolutionary Russia and the Bolsheviks out there but have so far failed to penetrate the fortress of cognitive dissonance built up by “Soviet education”.
I had hoped that the effects of this brainwashing were fading but some recent, very shocking (for me) examples among Russian friends including some of our mutual friends on FB have shown me that these effects are as strong as ever leading to Jekyll and Hyde type split personalities.
I am beginning to arrive at the conclusion that The Russian government should instigate anti brain washing, detoxification classes and that these should even be compulsory. I do not see how Russia will survive the coming attack otherwise!

Another great post by Karlin. He has very impressive judgement and seems shockingly sober in dishing out red pills no matter to all groups. Still can’t quite figure where he might have a blind spot. Although as Razib Khan has warned being without a tribe intellectually these days is a sure way to be isolated and marginal.

Re: USSR vs Nazi counterfactual
It seems quite reasonable to assume that without the bloody Russian revolution and its aftermath there wouldn’t have been a strong right wing reaction in the form of first fascism and then Nazism. As Paul Gottfried has noted fascism+Nazism was only possible because of a scared bourgeoisie that were horrified at the violence of the communist and unsatisfied with their limp-wristed liberal leaders.
Would any of the agitating communist parties/groups have been as motivated without having the great guiding light(and presumably ressources) of the USSR?
It’s inconceivable how Russia wouldn’t have been better off without the revolution except possibly if it was in a pre-Mao China like condition of continual conflict.

What does Karlin think of the theory peddled in conspiracy circles(Antony Sutton+G Edward Griffen,etc.) that the Russian revolution couldn’t have occurred without support from Western ressources.

In his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press;1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:

“For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton’s Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917–1930, which argues that ‘Soviet economic development for 1917–1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid’ (p.283), and that ‘at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance.’ (p. 348).
Professor Richard Pipes, of Harvard, said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America’s Future (Simon & Schuster;1984):

In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology … Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as ‘extreme’ or, more often, simply ignored. (p. 290)”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

I’m glad to see the popular Russian President Putin speak negatively/accurately about Lenin, while giving the Whites respect.

The two headed eagle and tri-color are actively back in Russia, with the Rusisan Empire having lasted considerably longer than the Soviet Union.

It’s a “mythology” to pretend that modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus don’t share a common past with Rus, with the Moscow based Russia being a legit heir to the Kiev based Rus.

Prior to the Mongol subjugation, it was becoming pretty clear that Moscow was gaining in stature. It emerged from the Mongol subjugation as the freest (from foreign domination) and most powerful of Rus land.

Ivan the Terrible was a Rurik prince, with Michael Romanov having Rurik ties.

Some filibustering on your part.

The foreign forces there weren’t supporting the Whites so much as protecting their nationals and biz interests, while keeping tags on the other powers.

You duck the fact that the foreign forces in question played a very small role (virtually none) in the actual Russian Civil War fighting. Once again noting the then secret Pilsudskiite-Red agreement, which saw the Bolshes not support the Whites, while agreeing to give Rus land to the Poles.

In terms of the military historical aspect, not much is known of that war. Instead, sovoks posting photos of foreign forces in the former Russian Empire. Wow! Quite convincing.

What great battles did these foreign forces engage in against the Bolshes?

What’s with “great battles”? Was something unclear or incorrect in my comment you’re replying to: “holding/securing large territories in the rears liberates the equal amount of combat troops to participate in fighting“?

What was the actual degree of material support given to the Whites?

Significant, as per common knowledge. When you’re challenging common knowledge – nothing’s wrong with it, of course, but nevertheless: the burden of proof is on you.

You’re apparently unaware of Lloyd George’s argument against arming the Whites.

Indeed, I was unaware. As well, I’m unaware of a million other random irrelevant quotations of millions of others. And what of it?

Undeniably seventy years of Commie brainwashing resulted in a leveling of the cerebral convolutions. No wonder that many behave like a broken record.

What great battles did these foreign forces engage in against the Bolshes?

What was the actual degree of material support given to the Whites?

You’re apparently unaware of Lloyd George’s argument against arming the Whites.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/23032017-reexamining-russias-past-analysis/

Excerpt –

In his memoirs, Alexander Kerensky quotes British Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s basis for Britain’s non-support to the Russian Civil War era Whites. Kerensky references this excerpt from Lloyd George’s September 17, 1919 House of Commons speech:

“Denikin and Kolchak are fighting for two main objects. The first is the destruction of Bolshevism and the restoration of good government in Russia. Upon that, they could get complete unanimity among all the forces, but the second is that they are fighting for a reunited Russia. Well, it is not for me to say whether that this is a policy which suits the British Empire. There was a very great statesman…Lord Beaconsfield, who regarded a great, gigantic, colossal, growing Russia rolling onwards towards Persia and the borders of Afghanistan and India as the greatest menace the British Empire could be confronted with.”

*****

Churchill unsuccessfully argued to the contrary. Specifically, that the Bolshes would be an even greater threat.

Dontsov had a position in Skoro’s government. That alone didn’t make him a close ally of Skoropadsky. Compare Nikki Haley’s comments on Russia to that of Trump. Skoros’s government had that dynamic as well.

FYI, the Whites developed a policy of a single unitary Russian language, in conjunction with agreeing to use of Ukrainian on a regional level.

BTW, when the Germans left, Skoro was overthrown at a time when the Whites didn’t have a good base established in Ukraine. Skoro’s time in exile didn’t exclude good ties with anti-Communist Russian patriots.

As previously noted, the not so pro-Russian academic Mark von Hagen has noted that Skoro favored Russo-Ukrainian togetherness even when he depended on the Germans.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the withdrawal of one of the two successful “catch up” economies of the first half of the 20th C, the other being Japan, was a withdrawal of demand that might have lessened the effect of the Crash.

But in fact the USSR did help, buying industrial supplies and even accepting a part of western unemployed labor force as immigrants (from Germany, Finland, and even many Americans). Had it been, instead, Russian empire, integrated into capitalist world economy, I suspect it would’ve had a colossal collapse. In any capitalist crisis, peripheral economies typically suffer most.

And I think there’s an important difference between Napoleon’s wars, horrible as they were, and Stalin’s projects of repression like collectivization and the Great Terror (which happened in peacetime, basically amounted to a war against his own society).

Would vote in favor of Stalin. Stalin was preparing for war.

“We are lagging behind the advanced countries in 50-100 years. We must pass this distance in ten years. Either we do it or they crush us”
Joseph Stalin, speech on 4 February 1931

Stalin, as we know was absolutely right. He needed to create in the shortest possible time the industrial economy (after the economic disaster which Lenin did), and for this purpose it was necessary to ruthlessly (really ruthlessly , very very ruthlessly) exploit the peasantry. Since in the Russian peasantry was considered something like the sacred cows, to suppress the resistance to the plunder and destruction of the village, it was only possible through brainwashing and terror.

No doubt Stalin in this way went too far, but for all that, he really saved the country. Lenin for Russia, it is chemically pure evil, but to Stalin’s formula can be used 70% good, 30% evil.

Per the rest–Soviet and contemporary Russian literature have a major school called Pochvinechestvo

Look at the shelves of bookstores shows that the number of people willing to masturbate on peasants (the carriers of spiritual values, according to the pochvennichestvo, in contrast to the immoral citizens) is very negligible.

But the “Orcs vs elves” is a really popular modern Russian literature. And it’s good that people are reading normal recreational reading, not a dull nagging on “social” topics

This thread includes a blend of svidomite and sovok views that severely distort history.

And what’s the pejorative slur for your kind? Y’know, just make it fair, so that we can communicate on equal footing.

The matter of an Allied intervention in Russia to support the Whites is grossly exaggerated BS. [...] The degree of fighting that their forces did during the Russian Civil War was quite minimal

Not ‘allied’, foreign. Including Czechs, Polaks, Japanese, etc. All together they probably had a couple of hundred thousand of troops in Russia. Holding/securing large territories in the rears liberates the equal amount of combat troops to participate in fighting. Material support wasn’t insignificant either. Surely exaggerating isn’t a greater sin than understating?

Solzhenitsyn told us the origin of such evil men. this is what we get when men forget God. judging by how many have forgotten now, the future looks gloomy. shame on lenin; but shame on all of us who forget our God Who fashioned and sustained us from our mothers’ wombs, giving us life, strength and intellect. He gave everything to us when we are not worthy to get anything, but then we quickly turn around and deny or forget Him. shame on all of us.

‘Rus’ was not (later) Russia, but Russia was nevertheless ‘Rus’. What is the meaning of “All Russias”? Of the notion of ‘triedetni russki narod’?

Imperial mythology for the purpose of uniting these lands.

Why the ‘Ukrainians’, before inventing their separate ‘identity’, called themselves (and were called as such by all neighbouring peoples), Ruski, Rusyni, Rutsensi, Malorosy?

For similar reasons there are Romanians in the Balkans, Romansch in Switzerland and Romans in Italy. I suspect if one of these groups tried to take over and assimilate the others there might have been some name changes.

How many Russians get race? Not many, given that Russian propaganda efforts are still in that 60′s “you’re lynching negroes” mode.

The reason is not propaganda, but the futility of the American racial divide for Russia. The black population in Russia is absent, and a few true “Asian” (I don’t mean migrants from Uzbekistan, but native Russian “Asian”) do not differ from “whites” in anything (except the appearance). This population is divided not on racial, but on other criteria.

I don’t see much contradiction. After the German sponsors left, Skoropadsky turned to an alliance with Russian Whites (who also enjoyed the support of the Entente), all the while insisting on Ukrainian-language policies, military and other trappings of an independent state. After the war ended and the Whites couldn’t offer him anything anymore, he went back to being a Ukrainian nationalist.

You know, there was a Hetmanite monarchist movement within the Ukrainian diaspora.

Skoropadsky also worked with hardcore Russophobe Dmytro Dontsov, the ideologue who inspired Banderism. Dontsov was Skoropadsky’s press secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_Dontsov

The alliance with Russian Whites was probably not a bad idea, given that the Bolsheviks were far more evil and fighting everyone all at once had little chance of success. The problem is that this idea had no widespread support among the Ukrainian masses. Moreover, I’m not sure how much the Whites themselves would have approved of Skoropadsky’s terms.