Yeah I plan to make a video talking about the "succession" in more detail at some point. In actuality, there was no set "heir", given we're talking about an informal succession process. But I think you could make a good case that if Lenin did die in 1918 or 1919, Sverdlov was in the best position out of any person to succeed him (in the sense of how we typically think of Stalin "succeeding" Lenin). Of course, no one was expecting Lenin to die at the time (asside from the assassination scare), or for a sole leadership role to develop necessarily.
it highlight the hypocritical bolshevik's position who acted like they were a party of comrade where everybody was equal and refused to admit that they were a strict hierarchy with vicious court politics. This remind me of the Roman Empire who also had a similar problem with successions
@@hugodelphan8638 oh yeah exactly like the Roman empire. Those Soviet devils, I can't believe they made sure all their people had; 1. Universal EQUAL standard of healthcare in ALL republics 2. Universal education at ANY age 3. Guaranteed work with holidays 4. Overtime pay 5. 8 hour work day 6. Guaranteed housing 7. Cheap bills (electric, food, clothes, transport, ect) 8. Extremely low crime rate And they made sure all their allies in the Warsaw pact all had the same thing WITHOUT exploiting them. Funny we don't even have the same thing in the west yet we use sweatshops all across the third world. Hmmm I donnu, maybe my boss really DOES need another mansion...
It is also interesting that his elder brother, Zinovy Peshkov, was adopted by Maxim Gorky, went off to fight in the French army at the outset of the WWI, lost an arm there, came back to Russia to throw his lot with Kolchak and the whites, and returned to France to eventually become a Gaullist diplomat.
Yes that's right! I ended up cutting out most of the family section from the script, but there's quite a lot of interesting characters in Sverdlov's family.
@@ernestokrapfoh it that so why he popular in mediaand why stalin want assassinate even though he living mexico and his ideology called troskism first spread communism in world
I really like your channel, your focus on early Soviet history feels like stumbling into a treasure trove deep in some abandoned mine. All the things in those fateful young years would go on to explain everything that played out for the next 70 years. Soo many lessons to learn here to prevent the same cycles from playing out again.
Thank you! I'm glad to hear you enjoy the videos, and I really appreciate the Super-Thanks. If you have any ideas you'd like to see me cover in future videos, let me know.
I wonder if in response to the slander about Sverdlov being the "Jewish puppetmaster", communists overcorrected in the other direction, downplaying his importance entirely, and that became another reason why he's not well known. Anyway, really nice video!
Sure that may be part of it. Given how pernicious the "Judeo-Bolshevism" myth is, I wouldn't be surprised if Soviet supporters deemphasized Sverdlov just to shut that idea down even more easily. On the other hand, people still remember Trotsky, so I think other factors must also be in play to make Sverdlov as forgotten as he is today.
@@nojrants yeah, even as criticized as Trotsky was in the Stalin era, his role and works are still heavily discussed within communist circles. I mean you even have Trotskyists who spun off from Lenin, that will show just how influential he was. I think Trotsky being a former Bolshevik turned critic of the USSR probably boosted his popularity in the West, with publishers pushing a "safe" socialist who's criticizing the biggest socialist country atm, as well as readers who were turned off from news coming from the USSR and wanted an alternative socialist state, Trotsky helped serve as a guide. It's a shame Sverdlov didn't get acclaim or support though, he reminds me of Andropov. Brilliant minds and leaders, but eventually were overshadowed by their successors (In Andropov's case, dying after 2 years in charge before Gorbachev took power was just an unfortunate set of circumstances for the guy)
@@nojrantsIt’s not a myth, they were over represented in the elite of the Soviet party. Ofc the ML incel doesn’t realise he would’ve been a slave to Jews that hate him and his country lol.
How is it a myth when the majority of every council and position of leadership was yews? Like nailing jelly to the walls with you disingenuious neanderthals.
True. There's also not really many that take an actual in-depth look at specific subjects in specific periods. Its always either "the russian civil war, the war of extremes" [15.38] or the 8 billionth "Stalins rise to power" [10:28]
It's unique that you included a link to footnotes/bibliography, something very few youtubers do. Really appreciated it and gave me a lot more to chew on, as well as making the video seem a lot more credible when I saw the breadth of what went into the video. This definitely wasn't some wikipedia rewrite, and for that I want to give my thanks as you clearly spent many hours on this.
Astonishing! I knew of Sverdlovsk, but not of the man behind the name. Perhaps even Kalinin is more famous... Thank you for the video and the footnotes provided. An absolutely astonishing amount of historical scrutiny for a TH-cam video.
I just want to say how much I appreciate the amount of rigor and effort you put into your videos. I was introduced by your video on debunking the Tatar Yoke narrative of Russian authoritarianism, and I was blown away by the professionalism of it, the amount of research and how clearly you cited all your sources, which is unfortunately rare among even educational TH-camrs.
Thank you! Glad to hear you'r enjoying the videos and the research. And I agree it's unfortunate that proper citations aren't always done with educational youtube. Hopefully these videos push the community a little more in the right direction.
Very interesting. Western historiography (or pop history, more like) in regards to early soviet history, has often been plagued with glossing over some causalities, so I'm happy to see it get presented like this.
Genuinely one of my favourite channels. I find myself regularly checking you for new videos. Great work as always and thank you. A video perhaps taking about/debunking the whole ‘Judeo-Bolshevik’ theory would be interesting and useful for many.
Prior to this video, I had no clue who Sverdlov was! Now that I know a bit more about him, I definitely think he should be better known amongst those people who are interested in Soviet history. Can't really make heads-or-tails on his policies though.
Thank you for the comment! Yeah whether or not his policies would have been preferable is another matter entirely, but I'm definitely surprised he's not more well known, at least among Soviet supporters and history fans.
@@ernestokrapf He ordered the Red Terror to begin after the assassination attempt on Lenin, he (probably) gave the go-ahead for the execution of the Tsar's family, he began the decossackization
Great video as always, small pronunciation note at 0:40 the zh (ж) in Nizhny is pronounced like the j in the French pronunciation of Jean or a j in English without the initial /d/ sound.
Right good point. I always wonder how much I should lean into the Russian pronounciation for proper names like that, versus just saying the English version (like with Yekaterinburg). Plus I'm still working on my pronounciation in general haha.
i think sverdlov would do well as the leader of the soviet union. considering in his operating years he was irreplaceable and extremely important to seeing the transition from russia to the soviet union. im sure people like stalin wouldnt like seeing that power be filled but if sverdlov didnt die then stalin wouldnt of even gotten the general secretary position and his path to power would be completely different, if not impossible without sverdlov dying. i wonder what they would use to paint sverdlov in a negative light if he survived long enough to be a victim of the infighting.
Thank you for the comment! There's quite a few different possibilities. For one, I could imagine a world in which Sverdlov becomes the paramount leader, and Stalin occupies a position as a lieutenant of his (similar to how say Molotov was a subordinate of Stalin in our world). In that case, you kind of get the best of both worlds, since you'd have two very competent leaders at your disposal. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Sverdlov actually discarded Stalin over time. During that brief period in 1918 when Sverdlov was preparing to probably succeed Lenin, there was actually some tension between Sverdlov and Stalin, indicating the latter was not very secure in his position. The two men seemed to be cordial but not really allies; they had completely different client networks, so Sverdlov would have likely muscled Stalin's people out and replaced them with his own guys. Stalin in 1918 was in a pretty precarious position: he didn't have a very important office yet to fall back on, controversy was arising over his handling of the Tsaritsyn front, he wasn't that well known in the Party, or in much of a position to contest a Sverdlov or a Trotsky yet. His main resource at the time was his close relationship to Lenin, but with Lenin gone Stalin loses his leverage there. Perhaps Stalin in his pragmatism and skill would have been able to navigate the situation and remain near the top, or even supplant Sverdlov by some other means, but perhaps not. Now if Stalin did manage to do a takedown of Sverdlov, I would expect Sverdlov to end up similarly to Trotsky in our world (this actually raises the question of if Sverdlov would replace Trotsky as the number-one enemy, with Trotsky remaining in the Soviet government for many more years). Stalin would likely lean into/create conspiracy theories that Sverdlov "tried to kill Lenin" back in 1918, similar to how other purged leaders were linked to the killing of Sergei Kirov.
maybe but there's two huge issues with sverdlov actually being the leader of the soviets. first he's jewish which would be a huge mark against him being the leader given the time and place he lived in, second if stalin is still alive i don't see how he could remain as leader without killing him or potentially any other competitors because again he's jewish and stalin isn't which really by itself is enough reason to replace him with stalin especially as the party starts leaning into forming cults of personality around the leader and using their image as the central propaganda figure of the nation. it would have been impossible to sell sverdlov as the single leader of the nation the same way they did with stalin irl so really any bolsheviks that would have desired that type one man dictatorship to come about would have supported stalin as leader over sverdlov and have him replaced just like eventually happened irl. which is ultimately why if sverdlov doesn't kill stalin he's fucked.
@@Tupadre97 I agree that Sverdlov's Jewishness would be an obstacle, but I actually don't think it's disqualifying. Yes, a number of people at this time were anti-Semitic or hesitant to support Jewish leaders, but at the end of the day if Sverdlov managed to consolidate control around himself, the rest of the Party would likely fall in line and learn to accept it (and from there force the population to accept it too). After all, if you told your average Bolshevik that a Georgian would one day rule Russia, that would sound ridiculous too. Later on, it was Trotsky who claimed the idea of Jewish leadership would be too unpalatable for the country - citing it as one of the reasons for his failure to become leader - but as I'll explain in another video, I find that to be a largely unconvincing excuse on Trotsky's part, deflecting from the much more significant reasons for his failure.
First video from the channel and found me just at the begginig of my study of the events of the Revolution/Civil war/early politics of the Soviet Union. Gotta say that althought i had heard of Kalinin i had never hear of him. Fascinating. Great video all and all. Loved alot of it but especially the fact i cannot tell your politics wich gives an impression of unbiased reading of the events, exatcly what i wanted.
This has been mindblowing, except when I do remember his name being familiarly responsible for the fate of the Tsar and his family. Had he at least compiled his thoughts and memoirs into texts before his untimely demise, the world would've been blursed with a notion of Sverdlovism!
Thanks for the detailed intro to Sverdlov, Tovarish .. great Historical Situational Awareness perspectives, love the accompanying art too!! Remember: "Uneven and Combined Development..." = BRICS++
Yeah I'm definitely not opposed. In the long run I want to make a video going over the politics of the White Movement, it's just that I have so many ideas I'm working on right now haha.
@@nojrantsyou said in other comments that you were looking for new ideas for videos. Is a video on the early Bolshevik education and healthcare policies in the works?
Yes I definitely want to continue the series. I actually have the next episode partially done, and the one after that mostly written. At the moment I just have so many other ideas I'm working on haha. I'm also trying to have a couple videos prepared beforehand so that I can start releasing on a more regular basis, so the next election video will probably come out soon after the next big video I'm working on.
The historical memory was my favorite section. It builds on and compliments the Tatar yoke video with its ideas of myth making and revisionism in the "story" of the revolution. It really does show that propaganda is a strong tool to define your regime or ideology.
I really appreciate seeing a video about Sverdlov because he is so often overlooked as an early Russian Communist leader. On the basis of Sverdlov's approval of the massacre of the Tsar and his family and servants, as well as his involvement in the Red Terror, I conclude that Sverdlov would not necessarily have been any less ruthless than Stalin was if Sverdlov had survived and become the successor to Lenin in 1924.
No the election series will still continue. I have the next episode written and much of the one after that, I just wanted to work through some other videos first.
I only really knew about this Sverdlov due to him being a minor part in the life of Nestor Makno (I think I spelled that wrong) in how Sverdlov and him talked while Makno was in Russia for a bit before going back to Ukraine
11:50 he didnt die of a fever, he had his brains bashed in with a hammer by a random factory worker when he was doing an official factory tour. Chance of a lifetime
Great video. Read a lot about Sverdlov in Rabiowitch's book-it's clear he was pretty much the 2nd (or at least top 3) most important guy in the coming of the October Revolution. Crazy how the quirks of history-Sverdlov just happening to die of illness so young while others survived-have such a huge butterfly effect. Not to "great man theory" things of course-the USSR would've encountered many of the same economic contradictions and issues it did in the 70s-80s no matter what-but you have to wonder what would've happened otherwise.
Stalin’s pure capacity for taking on loads upon loads of work was extraordinary and one of the only reasons he could take on the monumental task of managing the Party. He was a true believer and ultimate bureaucrat while also being the greatest “in fighter” in history. A truly cold blooded calculated and paranoid person.
5:25 - 17:49 I love how Yakov pushing a designated speaker aside, and deciding to just call the shots over them, and dictate over the rest of the assembly, even going so far to rip the bell from their own hand is basically regarded (at least by the bolsheviks anyway) as entirely "respectable", "confident" or otherwise "badass" rather than incredibly obstructive, narcissistic, and domineering. I highly doubt it wouldn't be seen as such if it was the bolsheviks on the receiving end by any opposition, or pro-establishment party who would ever possibly do such a thing.
They were having a revolution, not a tea party. The Bolsheviks received much worse during the tsarist period and the attempt by the Right-SRs and Mensheviks to co-opt the revolutionary energy of the masses into a bourgeois "democratic"-republic. It was this experience which instilled in the Bolsheviks practices which you regard as anti-democratic and over-centralistic
@@ADHDisYippeeeeeeeeee How does a video about a misconception about a 50s CIA's assessment of Stalin's power debunk my claim of the origin of the Bolsheviks focus on iron discipline and ignoring procedural democracy. Lenin in "Left-wing" Communism: An infantile disorder where he lays out his point of view in the history of the RSDLP. There he claims that the whole period from the origin of the Bolsheviks to the October revolution served to educate the Bolsheviks on their method: " that absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline in the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie." You can notice that that period is before they came to power. When the tsarist government sent in police-spies and agents provocateurs, an modern example is the COINTELPRO-style operations deployed by the FBI, the secret police of the USA. This experience, I reiterate, is what caused the worldview of Bolshevism. How does the previous video refute this? Does it claim that the Bolsheviks were not repressed as happed to everyone left of the Black Hundreds to some degree? No. My claim is not that the Bolsheviks were "democrats", even if it was in their name. In their theory "true"-democracy does not exist and can not exist because every democracy is a dictatorship of a specific class(See ...the Renegade Kautsky by Lenin). It was the most advanced sections of the working class (represented by the Bolshevik Party) who lead the other less advanced masses (peasants as represented in some part by the SR's) into the what will be democracy to the proletariat and dictatorship to the bourgeoise. On the other hand the "moderate" left had the power in the previous provisional government (Menshevik and SR ministers) yet they continued the imperialist war and kept the same tsarist state apparatus. The masses were sick of this policy and that is how the October revolution happened. The Mensheviks and SR wanted to use the soviets to end the soviets and go back to the bourgeois constitutional assembly and dumas (we can see a similar process which was successful in the German revolution when MSPD and USPD created a parliamentary and not a working body(the National Assembly) following the Congress of the Councils). The actions of the SRs and Mensheviks although perfectly legal according to democratic procedure would have ended the proletarian democracy which existed. Hence why Sverdlov's actions are considered as confident and respectable. He was actually saving the proletarian dictatorship from the bourgeois agents. Also when you say "I highly doubt it wouldn't be seen as such if it was the Bolsheviks on the receiving end by any opposition, or pro-establishment party who would ever possibly do such a thing." I will now give an example. In 1915 the Bolshevik members of the Duma were arrested due to their anti-war activities (while the majority of the Mensheviks and SRs supported the war). This was by the way illegal due to the representatives having parliamentary immunity). An act which you would agree is several orders of magnitude worse than Sverdlov's conduct. This action causes Lenin to describe the resistance of one of the representatives as bold: "The tsarist government threatened the accused with capital punishment. Owing to this, not all of them behaved at the actual trial as bravely as Comrade Muranov"(Socialism and War by Lenin and Zinoviev). So why is it ok to disregard democratic procedure in one case and see this as an courageous and respectful act, yet if the same happens to you then you lionize your people who are victims of the same act? The Bolsheviks will answer yes to that question since the anti-Bolsheviks(whether it be tsarists or their allies the Mensheviks and the SR's) deployed these anti-procedural methods and the only way the revolution to succeed is to return in kind. The class enemy in class struggle isn't limited by some moralist conception of actions and so should not we.
@@RMWATPST There's a lot to take in here, so to give a quick clarification to make sure we're on the same page, the video in question I was referring to was a couple made by Noj, more specifically videos such as Lenin's war against the soviets, NOT "was Stalin a dictator"
You just filled a massive itch. For a long ass time there hardly has been much of anything on the guy who uncontroversially was what kept the party together in the early days, as well as such a notable administrator. It really confuses me that most sights end up in trotsky and other people like that and people like sverdlov, lev kamenev, zinoviev and mikhail kalinin end up mostly neglected, except i guess the second and third are at least known due to hoi4 mod memes (a fate worse than oblivion). I feel like a lot of the intraparty debates, other members and stuff are also glossed over for the sake of maintaining the succession narrative regardless of how much sense it made at any specific point.
I think its also because theres less of a market to sell to the average person a russian they havent heard of before instead of a really really famous one like lenin or stalin, many would pass the section on amazon or a book store thats a book on the life of Kolchak or Radek. The most useful secondary sources ive seen generally about this period is very broad secondary lit like A People's Tragedy, which is both by no means unbiased (as basically no good history books are) and also extremely broad in its scope. Kind of just a tragedy of mutliple annoying factors collapsing in on themselves
@vintheguy ~factors also known as capitalism~ That aside, really sucks we dont have that much on Radek too other than stalin era stuff about how he was a rat or smth. I think in the end what pisses the most off is how the lack of widespread accurate sources means 60 to 80 yol narratives and propaganda get passed on as information in their stead, like what happened to sverdlov himself.
At first, the thumbnail caught me off guard and think to myself "Is that someone else that is similar to Trotsky or someone cosplaying as him?" I just realized when I watched the video, it's an entirely different person.
great video as usual - i’ve gotten pretty interested in late imperial and early soviet history as a result of your channel! i understand it’s a very broad topic but do you have any particular recommended reading in terms of books/writers that you’ve enjoyed that focuses on the time period your videos usually cover? (anything at all is fine!)
There is a link to his sources in video description. It seems like the guy just reads everything related. By the way, is there a name for Marisa with a glass of wine on your profile picture? I've seen this image several times now but never learned the source of it.
@@Tk-mj1clyeah i’ve taken a look at the footnotes but it’s a bit overwhelming for a beginner to the topic lol. as for the pfp, the base pfp i honestly don’t remember where i got it from lol, sorry. i remember years ago manually putting the irish flag over it though. tried to find it again now but i genuinely can’t
Orlando figes: "a people's tragedy" Sheila fritz patrick: basically all her work Wendy Z goldman: all her work too Barbara C. Allen: "life of an old Bolshevik' Robert William Davies: "from tsarism to the new economic policy" and Alen ball: "Russias last capitalists: the nepmen" if your specifically interested in the NEP period which is unfortunately glossed over by many Be warned that the last two were published before end of the ussr and so before the opening of the Soviet archives. Its a good rule of thumb not to read books about the ussr published while it still existed for both obvious and non obvious reasons
Sure I can give recommendations. Is there something more specific you're interested in, or are you just looking for a good all-around history? Typically my go-to recommendation for a general history is "A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Figes. I especially like how it covers the Revolution as a process unfolding from the 1890s to the 1920s, and so there's quite a lot of detail on the late Imperial Era and how it led into the Revolution. It also shines a light on the perspective of more everyday people and underappreciated voices, which I find really helpful. If you want a less daunting, quick read rather than a massive book, I usually recommend "The Russian Revolution" by Sheila Fitzpatrick (specifically the Fourth Edition, which came out in 2017). It hits many of the key points in a more digestible manner. If you want a granular look at the early Bolshevik government specifically, there's a pair of books by Alexander Rabinowitch called "Bolsheviks Come to Power" and "Bolsheviks in Power", basically focusing on 1917 and 1918 respectively. Hope that helps, and if you need any more recommendations let me know!
Hello Dear Noj Rants, I hope you are doing well. I enjoyed the crisp style of the video and for me shone some light on Sverdlov's life that I didn't know of before. I think that one issue with this video, is that it lacks details regarding when Sverdlov became head of the Soviet Union, after Lenin was nearly assassinated and was incapacitated. Then, he was closest to power. Sverdlov headed decossackization, the Kremlin guard and had control over Cheka investigations. Fanny Kaplan was the friend of Sverdlov's sister. On the same day before Lenin's assassination attempt, Uritsky was assassinated by lone shooter Kannegiesser, with people warning Lenin to not go on any meetings. Sverdlov was the one who pushed Lenin to continue the speech event. Grigory Ivanovich Semyonov, a worker Red Army Intelligence, specialized in assassinations and subterfuge and formal chekist had confessed responsibility for organizing Lenin's assassination along with Kaplan, Konopleva(chekist) and others in his brochures and was found guilty in June 1922. Lenin miraculously lives, with the bullet wound in his neck. Soon after he recuperates Sverdlov mysteriously dies and all his subordinates are either disposed off or demoted. Historian Valery Shambarov and others bring such independant facts together for the thesis that Sverdlov organized the assassination attempt on Lenin. Sverdlov pushed Dzerzhinsky to investigate the clear cut case of Uritsky, while himself taking over the investigation around Lenin.
The video was a little brief in that area, but that's also because I plan to do full videos at some point on both the Lenin assassination attempt and de-Cossackization in the near future. In the fomer, we'll go over all the various theories about who may have been involved in the shooting (I'm familiar with Shambarov's argument, and while I think there's some plausible points to it, personally I'm not entirely sold).
Stalin, when he took over promoted the concept of Communism in one country. Had Sverdlov been at the reigns they might have been more international. I’m thinking about more support for communists in Germany and Spain in the 20s and 30s.
Yeah I don't blame people for mixing them up, but it is a little funny when self-proclaimed Bolshevik supporters make the mistake (especially when they're usually accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about at the same time haha).
@@danielalvarez-galan3702 I get that it's a comment on his Ukraine pfp, but the current Russian regime is pro-Russian and sympathetic to the tsar, which the Bolsheviks definitely weren't
I'd like to learn about Sverdlov's foreign policy, because I think that WW2 was hugely influenced by Stalin's specific personality. just spitballing but I'd imagine no war with Finland, also probably would not have had quite as devastating purges, which would have left the USSR in much better shape economically and militarily against the Germans. Also I imagine there would have been more compotent and less insularly-focused foreign policy.
Espero con ansias los otros de videos que tendras preparado sobre la historia de la union sovietica. Solo queria decir que aqui en latinoamerica tambien hay canales que se dedican sobre su historia y lo que significo, como este : th-cam.com/video/CbsGcj0MFqs/w-d-xo.html Talves puedas comentar un poco sobre como abarca este documental.
I must thrust the age old question onto you. In general how do you believe Lenin would have governed differently from Stalin if he lived longer? The narrative of a much nicer Stalin, that gained significant ground during De-Stalinization seems to be the most prevalent, which I'm still tentatively inclined to believe. However I've recently come across decent arguments that Lenin would have been just as brutal if not more so. I'm particularly curious with how he would have handled the imperative to industrialize in a timely manner and whether or not he would have viewed the exacerbation of the1930-1933 famine as a worthy trade-off as Stalin did. I lean towards him simply being a NEPman of the same vain as Bukharin, with little certainty I doubt the great purge would have been as excessive under him.
Certainly a tough question. To begin, I think the idea that Stalin was some major divergence from Lenin is definitely exaggerated. I understand the temptation for anti-Stalinists to argue that there was a better, more pure Soviet foundation under Lenin, which Stalin then corrupted-it's a way of salvaging the Soviet experiment while still acknowledging the problems with Stalin (Trotskyists for example tend to hold this position, with the implication being Trotsky wouldn't have ruined the situation like Stalin did). But in actuality, Lenin and Stalin had pretty similar beliefs, leadership styles, goals, etc (as we would expect given Stalin closely based himself off of Lenin). Lenin was certainly no stranger to terror for example, and like Stalin (maybe even more so) held a consequentialist, teleological view that such things were justifiable if necessary to achieve a higher end goal. On the other hand, while Lenin was not against doing the same types of things, maybe they would not have had to occur under him to the same extent (or at least would have occurred differently). For example, the Great Purge was arguably a way of Stalin consolidating control around himself, in order to reach the same level of indisputably that Lenin had. So if Lenin was still alive, we would expect such a purge to not be necessary. Although to be fair, the purges were exacerbated by a number of bottom-up factors as well, such that some sort of outburst of violence was probably inevitable (maybe in the vein of Mao's Cultural Revolution). Off the top of my head, I could see Lenin not doing Stalin's forced relocations or ethnic policies, and a number of Stalin-specific actions (e.g. the Doctor's Plot) would almost certainly not happen. But such differences would primarily be from the situation being changed, from Lenin having different methods, etc, not from Lenin necessarily having a principled opposition to such tactics. On the subject of industrialization, my intuition is that Lenin would actually have been similar. While NEP was Lenin's brandchild, he viewed it as a temporary expedient (more or less everyone did). All the Bolsheviks broadly agreed that in the long run they would need to do some kind of mass collectivization and industrialization, seeing it not only as an economic imperative, but a political one. There may have been some slight adjustment under Lenin - of him starting collectization a little later let's say - and again, as a result of the situation being different, Lenin being more skilled at this or that, etc, the colletivization may have gone a little differently, but almost certainly he would have done the same thing overall. Historically, Lenin was certainly not put off by famines (he wrote about such "trade-offs" during the 1891 and 1921 famines for example), so I would expect him to stay the course like Stalin did.
@@nojrants In regards to the purges I do find myself aligned with the revisionist school in considering it a moment in which the central governing apparatus completely lost the plot and control to bottom up vendettas and dealing streaks. While Stalin might've used the event in his favor I think that started to occur a bit later than the start itself of the purges. In a similar way to how the Cultural Revolution after two years was hijacked by the military.
Trotsky i feel effectively argued that stalinism was entirely a reaction to the failure of socialism in western europe, arabia and the americas and that even if he had beaten Stalin it was likely that he would've enacted a lot of the same measures given that what stalin did was keep the revolution alive by any means nessecary even it meant degenerating the workers state. The same easily applies to lenin if he lived and decided to stay and/or was not overthrown internally like bukarhin Khrushchev (not at all the same contexts but just using them as hyper ultra rough examples)
if lenin lived he'd basically have just been like mao. he likely would have supported collectivization the same as stalin did but unlike stalin he wouldn't use it as a tool to intentionally kill off the population of potentially troublesome member states like ukraine and promote russian colonization and imperialism. the policy of korenizatsiia was literally lenin's idea so something like the holodomor couldn't have gone as far as it did had lenin been in charge. that being said had he been in charge there'd likely still be a famine due to the difficult position the bolsheviks were in and their inevitable poor management of an attempted forced collectivization but really i think it'd be more like mao's great leap forward where lenin would publicly acknowledge his failure and slightly take a step back from politics. whether or not this would turn out well for the ussr at that point would be unclear though since lenin likely wouldn't go as hard on the industrialization and collectivization as stalin did so would it work as well? its hard to know. and as for the purges i severely doubt lenin would ever have any great purges like lenin did simply because he was not as paranoid as stalin really has no reason to be. the only scenario i can think of where a great purge type event might happen is if anyone tried to replace lenin as leader causing lenin to cause some type of purge the same way mao launched the cultural revolution to fight back against his own party who was shutting him out of politics. but even then i doubt it would have ever have been as murderous as stalin's purges or even mao's cultural revolution. since lenin's ussr would likely be in a far more precarious state than either of them and likely wouldn't be able to afford or even desire the level of chaos those purges brought with them.
@Tupadre97 With Lenin not targeting the Ukrainians with discriminately large quotas, do you believe the difference in grain collected would have been made up for with higher quotas on non-Ukrainian farmers thus leaving the body count roughly the same as in our timeline?
Great video, excited to watch your channel grow! Edit- to respond to your end questions, I didn't know him and have researched this time period several times! I bet he's well known in Russia. Not sure there are supporters of the USSR anymore. It's amazing how much there is to learn.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
80% of people seeing the thumbnail and title 'Bro it must be Trotsky thats basically pop culture nowdays'
Yeah pop culture based on bullshit by a very salty Menshivics
i thought it was martov and was about to be very confused
Of course it was Sverdlov.
Actually Lenin’s successor would have been the little-known Yvgeny Bulgolyubov, or as some people call him, “buff frog”
Erm, i actually knew he was gonna talk about Sverdlov
Always so excited to watch these.
Same
Right!
Suprise Tigerstar cameo
Well, now Noj Rants is peer-reviewed.
Sverdlov was my first academic fascination at university, arguably one of the biggest what ifs
Whats the fascination with messianic semites with gentile bloodlust?
@@ChaadFairservice20022the gentile bloodlust he shares with him
What if they could have killed more than 80 million soviets 🧐
let's be serous here, nobody really knew who will succeed lenin, iam pretty sure that lenin didn't knew it either
Yeah I plan to make a video talking about the "succession" in more detail at some point. In actuality, there was no set "heir", given we're talking about an informal succession process. But I think you could make a good case that if Lenin did die in 1918 or 1919, Sverdlov was in the best position out of any person to succeed him (in the sense of how we typically think of Stalin "succeeding" Lenin). Of course, no one was expecting Lenin to die at the time (asside from the assassination scare), or for a sole leadership role to develop necessarily.
that is the problem for all dictatorship.
it highlight the hypocritical bolshevik's position who acted like they were a party of comrade where everybody was equal and refused to admit that they were a strict hierarchy with vicious court politics. This remind me of the Roman Empire who also had a similar problem with successions
@@hugodelphan8638 oh yeah exactly like the Roman empire.
Those Soviet devils, I can't believe they made sure all their people had;
1. Universal EQUAL standard of healthcare in ALL republics
2. Universal education at ANY age
3. Guaranteed work with holidays
4. Overtime pay
5. 8 hour work day
6. Guaranteed housing
7. Cheap bills (electric, food, clothes, transport, ect)
8. Extremely low crime rate
And they made sure all their allies in the Warsaw pact all had the same thing WITHOUT exploiting them.
Funny we don't even have the same thing in the west yet we use sweatshops all across the third world.
Hmmm I donnu, maybe my boss really DOES need another mansion...
@@hugodelphan8638In this world there are power hungry folks everywhere
It is also interesting that his elder brother, Zinovy Peshkov, was adopted by Maxim Gorky, went off to fight in the French army at the outset of the WWI, lost an arm there, came back to Russia to throw his lot with Kolchak and the whites, and returned to France to eventually become a Gaullist diplomat.
Yes that's right! I ended up cutting out most of the family section from the script, but there's quite a lot of interesting characters in Sverdlov's family.
I had not heard of Sverdlov at all before this video (and yes, at the start of the video I was like "is that Trotsky?"). Great video, thanks!
Thank you! Glad to hear you found it informative then haha
They both got that look. You know the one.
Thought it would be trotzky but this is even more interesting.
:)))
It could never be Trotsky.
Both him and Lenin hated each other
Trotsky is only considered because of how stalin demonised him + his influence on the western left.
nah, Trotsky was never that popular among the bolsheviks
@@ernestokrapfoh it that so why he popular in mediaand why stalin want assassinate even though he living mexico and his ideology called troskism first spread communism in world
11:48 It’s insane how even slightly more than a century ago dying from infections was still so common and had so many ripple effects on history
And at the time, the Flu was new. It was like COVID in 2020 - people hadn’t yet had time to build up immunity.
I really like your channel, your focus on early Soviet history feels like stumbling into a treasure trove deep in some abandoned mine. All the things in those fateful young years would go on to explain everything that played out for the next 70 years. Soo many lessons to learn here to prevent the same cycles from playing out again.
Thank you! I'm glad to hear you enjoy the videos, and I really appreciate the Super-Thanks. If you have any ideas you'd like to see me cover in future videos, let me know.
Don't worry, people like me will make sure you lot don't get the chance to repeat those "mistakes" that cost millions of lives again.
@@titanomachy2217 trying to be edgy and cryptic when it's obvious you're just a neo nazi
I wonder if in response to the slander about Sverdlov being the "Jewish puppetmaster", communists overcorrected in the other direction, downplaying his importance entirely, and that became another reason why he's not well known. Anyway, really nice video!
Sure that may be part of it. Given how pernicious the "Judeo-Bolshevism" myth is, I wouldn't be surprised if Soviet supporters deemphasized Sverdlov just to shut that idea down even more easily. On the other hand, people still remember Trotsky, so I think other factors must also be in play to make Sverdlov as forgotten as he is today.
@@nojrants yeah, even as criticized as Trotsky was in the Stalin era, his role and works are still heavily discussed within communist circles. I mean you even have Trotskyists who spun off from Lenin, that will show just how influential he was. I think Trotsky being a former Bolshevik turned critic of the USSR probably boosted his popularity in the West, with publishers pushing a "safe" socialist who's criticizing the biggest socialist country atm, as well as readers who were turned off from news coming from the USSR and wanted an alternative socialist state, Trotsky helped serve as a guide.
It's a shame Sverdlov didn't get acclaim or support though, he reminds me of Andropov. Brilliant minds and leaders, but eventually were overshadowed by their successors (In Andropov's case, dying after 2 years in charge before Gorbachev took power was just an unfortunate set of circumstances for the guy)
@@ishand.7728Yes, similarly one much wonder what if Malenkov sided with Beria in 1953
@@nojrantsIt’s not a myth, they were over represented in the elite of the Soviet party. Ofc the ML incel doesn’t realise he would’ve been a slave to Jews that hate him and his country lol.
How is it a myth when the majority of every council and position of leadership was yews?
Like nailing jelly to the walls with you disingenuious neanderthals.
Arguably the best channel on Soviet history, and subsequently my favorite history youtuber.
Thank you! I appreciate the support
Definitely
@@nojrants
It's the least I could do, hope to see your 100k subs video one day
True. There's also not really many that take an actual in-depth look at specific subjects in specific periods. Its always either "the russian civil war, the war of extremes" [15.38] or the 8 billionth "Stalins rise to power" [10:28]
It's unique that you included a link to footnotes/bibliography, something very few youtubers do. Really appreciated it and gave me a lot more to chew on, as well as making the video seem a lot more credible when I saw the breadth of what went into the video. This definitely wasn't some wikipedia rewrite, and for that I want to give my thanks as you clearly spent many hours on this.
Tfw you have to go on a whole other website to check citations instead of having them in the video
Astonishing! I knew of Sverdlovsk, but not of the man behind the name. Perhaps even Kalinin is more famous...
Thank you for the video and the footnotes provided. An absolutely astonishing amount of historical scrutiny for a TH-cam video.
Excellent. This guy was in the mix along with a few others. Thanks for bringing him to the fore, he earned it.
I just want to say how much I appreciate the amount of rigor and effort you put into your videos.
I was introduced by your video on debunking the Tatar Yoke narrative of Russian authoritarianism, and I was blown away by the professionalism of it, the amount of research and how clearly you cited all your sources, which is unfortunately rare among even educational TH-camrs.
Thank you! Glad to hear you'r enjoying the videos and the research. And I agree it's unfortunate that proper citations aren't always done with educational youtube. Hopefully these videos push the community a little more in the right direction.
Same here Noj You’re awesome
his old citation method was better tho :(
SUSSY PTERE GRIFFITH?
I LOVE YOU NOJ RANTS
Very interesting. Western historiography (or pop history, more like) in regards to early soviet history, has often been plagued with glossing over some causalities, so I'm happy to see it get presented like this.
Genuinely one of my favourite channels. I find myself regularly checking you for new videos. Great work as always and thank you.
A video perhaps taking about/debunking the whole ‘Judeo-Bolshevik’ theory would be interesting and useful for many.
Yeh it also reason hitler use conspiracy theory of judeo communism to suppressed
Prior to this video, I had no clue who Sverdlov was! Now that I know a bit more about him, I definitely think he should be better known amongst those people who are interested in Soviet history. Can't really make heads-or-tails on his policies though.
Thank you for the comment! Yeah whether or not his policies would have been preferable is another matter entirely, but I'm definitely surprised he's not more well known, at least among Soviet supporters and history fans.
That's right Moo Deng will be Supreme Leader
"mom, can we have trotsky?"
"we have trotsky at home."
trotsky at home:
Sverdol is actually scarier than both Stalin and Trotsky. More charismatic than Trosky and more "cruel" than Stalin
Should be the other way around
more like trotsky is sverdlov at home
@@TieBoxRex ?????? Sverdlov was hardly in power, he died way too soon to even prove to be "more cruel" than Stalin
@@ernestokrapf He ordered the Red Terror to begin after the assassination attempt on Lenin, he (probably) gave the go-ahead for the execution of the Tsar's family, he began the decossackization
Great video as always, small pronunciation note at 0:40 the zh (ж) in Nizhny is pronounced like the j in the French pronunciation of Jean or a j in English without the initial /d/ sound.
Right good point. I always wonder how much I should lean into the Russian pronounciation for proper names like that, versus just saying the English version (like with Yekaterinburg). Plus I'm still working on my pronounciation in general haha.
i think sverdlov would do well as the leader of the soviet union. considering in his operating years he was irreplaceable and extremely important to seeing the transition from russia to the soviet union. im sure people like stalin wouldnt like seeing that power be filled but if sverdlov didnt die then stalin wouldnt of even gotten the general secretary position and his path to power would be completely different, if not impossible without sverdlov dying. i wonder what they would use to paint sverdlov in a negative light if he survived long enough to be a victim of the infighting.
For your last question, he would probably be called some kind of revisionist.
Thank you for the comment! There's quite a few different possibilities.
For one, I could imagine a world in which Sverdlov becomes the paramount leader, and Stalin occupies a position as a lieutenant of his (similar to how say Molotov was a subordinate of Stalin in our world). In that case, you kind of get the best of both worlds, since you'd have two very competent leaders at your disposal.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Sverdlov actually discarded Stalin over time. During that brief period in 1918 when Sverdlov was preparing to probably succeed Lenin, there was actually some tension between Sverdlov and Stalin, indicating the latter was not very secure in his position. The two men seemed to be cordial but not really allies; they had completely different client networks, so Sverdlov would have likely muscled Stalin's people out and replaced them with his own guys. Stalin in 1918 was in a pretty precarious position: he didn't have a very important office yet to fall back on, controversy was arising over his handling of the Tsaritsyn front, he wasn't that well known in the Party, or in much of a position to contest a Sverdlov or a Trotsky yet. His main resource at the time was his close relationship to Lenin, but with Lenin gone Stalin loses his leverage there. Perhaps Stalin in his pragmatism and skill would have been able to navigate the situation and remain near the top, or even supplant Sverdlov by some other means, but perhaps not.
Now if Stalin did manage to do a takedown of Sverdlov, I would expect Sverdlov to end up similarly to Trotsky in our world (this actually raises the question of if Sverdlov would replace Trotsky as the number-one enemy, with Trotsky remaining in the Soviet government for many more years). Stalin would likely lean into/create conspiracy theories that Sverdlov "tried to kill Lenin" back in 1918, similar to how other purged leaders were linked to the killing of Sergei Kirov.
Why leader of majority orthodox country should be judeo?
maybe but there's two huge issues with sverdlov actually being the leader of the soviets. first he's jewish which would be a huge mark against him being the leader given the time and place he lived in, second if stalin is still alive i don't see how he could remain as leader without killing him or potentially any other competitors because again he's jewish and stalin isn't which really by itself is enough reason to replace him with stalin especially as the party starts leaning into forming cults of personality around the leader and using their image as the central propaganda figure of the nation. it would have been impossible to sell sverdlov as the single leader of the nation the same way they did with stalin irl so really any bolsheviks that would have desired that type one man dictatorship to come about would have supported stalin as leader over sverdlov and have him replaced just like eventually happened irl. which is ultimately why if sverdlov doesn't kill stalin he's fucked.
@@Tupadre97 I agree that Sverdlov's Jewishness would be an obstacle, but I actually don't think it's disqualifying. Yes, a number of people at this time were anti-Semitic or hesitant to support Jewish leaders, but at the end of the day if Sverdlov managed to consolidate control around himself, the rest of the Party would likely fall in line and learn to accept it (and from there force the population to accept it too). After all, if you told your average Bolshevik that a Georgian would one day rule Russia, that would sound ridiculous too. Later on, it was Trotsky who claimed the idea of Jewish leadership would be too unpalatable for the country - citing it as one of the reasons for his failure to become leader - but as I'll explain in another video, I find that to be a largely unconvincing excuse on Trotsky's part, deflecting from the much more significant reasons for his failure.
A great way to do this kind of video
Outstanding. Your argument is compelling indeed.
Thank you! Glad to hear you enjoyed it
@nojrants Please keep up the good work, because in the new USSR there were weeks where decades happened.
First video from the channel and found me just at the begginig of my study of the events of the Revolution/Civil war/early politics of the Soviet Union. Gotta say that althought i had heard of Kalinin i had never hear of him. Fascinating.
Great video all and all. Loved alot of it but especially the fact i cannot tell your politics wich gives an impression of unbiased reading of the events, exatcly what i wanted.
Your videos are always great! Keep going
Thank you!
This has been mindblowing, except when I do remember his name being familiarly responsible for the fate of the Tsar and his family. Had he at least compiled his thoughts and memoirs into texts before his untimely demise, the world would've been blursed with a notion of Sverdlovism!
Great video! sad to see people getting the wrong idea about your video, but keep it!
Thanks for the detailed intro to Sverdlov, Tovarish .. great Historical Situational Awareness perspectives, love the accompanying art too!!
Remember: "Uneven and Combined Development..." = BRICS++
17:54 The Virgin SR vs the Chad Sverdlov 😎
Very high effort video as always.
Thank you!
May the algorithm shine for you.
Comment for promotion! Great video as usual
I've probably heard about Sverdlov then promptly forgot about him several times.
Awesome stuff as usual. Do you have any plans to make deep dives into other sides of the civil war? Such as the white army or the black army
Yeah I'm definitely not opposed. In the long run I want to make a video going over the politics of the White Movement, it's just that I have so many ideas I'm working on right now haha.
What about pink army
Fantastic works as always.
Thank you!
@@nojrantsyou said in other comments that you were looking for new ideas for videos. Is a video on the early Bolshevik education and healthcare policies in the works?
Ofc another fire video from Noj Rants. Someone should do a HOI4 mod about this. What if Sverdlov didn't die young?
Thank you! I definitely agree this could make for an interesting alternate history scenario.
Brilliant video, I can add Svierdlov was very interested in occultism. Can you do video about Black Hundreds (Sotnias) please?
Any chance we get back to the election videos? I know they don't do as well as some of the others but still :p
Yes I definitely want to continue the series. I actually have the next episode partially done, and the one after that mostly written. At the moment I just have so many other ideas I'm working on haha. I'm also trying to have a couple videos prepared beforehand so that I can start releasing on a more regular basis, so the next election video will probably come out soon after the next big video I'm working on.
@@nojrants Honestly, this has been an important detour of a video detailing the life and departure of a potential leader of the Soviet Union!
Fascinating as always!!❤
Thank you!
Thank you for your service, comrade
Just found this channel and its an amazing breath of fresh air new fav ❤
Thank you! Glad to hear it
Another month another banger
top notch research as usual
Thank you!
Fantastic video. I was completely unfamiliar with Sverdlov.
The historical memory was my favorite section. It builds on and compliments the Tatar yoke video with its ideas of myth making and revisionism in the "story" of the revolution. It really does show that propaganda is a strong tool to define your regime or ideology.
YESS YES YES NOJ RANTS VIDEO!!!
Repeat after me: "Sverdlov, not Trotski. Sverdlov, not Trotski. Sverdlov, not Trotski."
I can’t be the only one who thought it was Trotsky
18:46 just reminded me of that one CLASSIC MEME
"Friendship with Yakov Sverdlov has ended!
Sergei Kirov is now my BEST FRIEND!"😏
I really appreciate seeing a video about Sverdlov because he is so often overlooked as an early Russian Communist leader. On the basis of Sverdlov's approval of the massacre of the Tsar and his family and servants, as well as his involvement in the Red Terror, I conclude that Sverdlov would not necessarily have been any less ruthless than Stalin was if Sverdlov had survived and become the successor to Lenin in 1924.
Ah, the Coinflip of History is on full display here.
fantastic video
Thank you!
Amazing youtube documentary.
14:00 huh that is THE Molotov
The GOAT
Actually good video
So is the Russian elections series dead or still in the works? I really enjoyed those. Keep up the good work.
No the election series will still continue. I have the next episode written and much of the one after that, I just wanted to work through some other videos first.
Always a banger
I only really knew about this Sverdlov due to him being a minor part in the life of Nestor Makno (I think I spelled that wrong) in how Sverdlov and him talked while Makno was in Russia for a bit before going back to Ukraine
11:50 he didnt die of a fever, he had his brains bashed in with a hammer by a random factory worker when he was doing an official factory tour. Chance of a lifetime
Yeah I mention this in the source document, that's one of the many rumors surrounding his death.
great video, thank you!
Great video. Read a lot about Sverdlov in Rabiowitch's book-it's clear he was pretty much the 2nd (or at least top 3) most important guy in the coming of the October Revolution. Crazy how the quirks of history-Sverdlov just happening to die of illness so young while others survived-have such a huge butterfly effect. Not to "great man theory" things of course-the USSR would've encountered many of the same economic contradictions and issues it did in the 70s-80s no matter what-but you have to wonder what would've happened otherwise.
Is sverdlov portrait as a hero or a villain? Thx!
@@ingridglerum8017 Neither.
I love your vids
Thank you!
NOJ POSTED A NEW VIDEO, EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING!
Stalin’s pure capacity for taking on loads upon loads of work was extraordinary and one of the only reasons he could take on the monumental task of managing the Party. He was a true believer and ultimate bureaucrat while also being the greatest “in fighter” in history. A truly cold blooded calculated and paranoid person.
5:25 - 17:49 I love how Yakov pushing a designated speaker aside, and deciding to just call the shots over them, and dictate over the rest of the assembly, even going so far to rip the bell from their own hand is basically regarded (at least by the bolsheviks anyway) as entirely "respectable", "confident" or otherwise "badass" rather than incredibly obstructive, narcissistic, and domineering.
I highly doubt it wouldn't be seen as such if it was the bolsheviks on the receiving end by any opposition, or pro-establishment party who would ever possibly do such a thing.
They were having a revolution, not a tea party.
The Bolsheviks received much worse during the tsarist period and the attempt by the Right-SRs and Mensheviks to co-opt the revolutionary energy of the masses into a bourgeois "democratic"-republic.
It was this experience which instilled in the Bolsheviks practices which you regard as anti-democratic and over-centralistic
@@RMWATPST I think Noj already debunked a fair bit of the claims you make in a previous video.
@@ADHDisYippeeeeeeeeee How does a video about a misconception about a 50s CIA's assessment of Stalin's power debunk my claim of the origin of the Bolsheviks focus on iron discipline and ignoring procedural democracy.
Lenin in "Left-wing" Communism: An infantile disorder where he lays out his point of view in the history of the RSDLP. There he claims that the whole period from the origin of the Bolsheviks to the October revolution served to educate the Bolsheviks on their method:
" that absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline in the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie."
You can notice that that period is before they came to power. When the tsarist government sent in police-spies and agents provocateurs, an modern example is the COINTELPRO-style operations deployed by the FBI, the secret police of the USA.
This experience, I reiterate, is what caused the worldview of Bolshevism. How does the previous video refute this?
Does it claim that the Bolsheviks were not repressed as happed to everyone left of the Black Hundreds to some degree? No.
My claim is not that the Bolsheviks were "democrats", even if it was in their name. In their theory "true"-democracy does not exist and can not exist because every democracy is a dictatorship of a specific class(See ...the Renegade Kautsky by Lenin). It was the most advanced sections of the working class (represented by the Bolshevik Party) who lead the other less advanced masses (peasants as represented in some part by the SR's) into the what will be democracy to the proletariat and dictatorship to the bourgeoise.
On the other hand the "moderate" left had the power in the previous provisional government (Menshevik and SR ministers) yet they continued the imperialist war and kept the same tsarist state apparatus. The masses were sick of this policy and that is how the October revolution happened.
The Mensheviks and SR wanted to use the soviets to end the soviets and go back to the bourgeois constitutional assembly and dumas (we can see a similar process which was successful in the German revolution when MSPD and USPD created a parliamentary and not a working body(the National Assembly) following the Congress of the Councils).
The actions of the SRs and Mensheviks although perfectly legal according to democratic procedure would have ended the proletarian democracy which existed. Hence why Sverdlov's actions are considered as confident and respectable. He was actually saving the proletarian dictatorship from the bourgeois agents.
Also when you say "I highly doubt it wouldn't be seen as such if it was the Bolsheviks on the receiving end by any opposition, or pro-establishment party who would ever possibly do such a thing." I will now give an example.
In 1915 the Bolshevik members of the Duma were arrested due to their anti-war activities (while the majority of the Mensheviks and SRs supported the war). This was by the way illegal due to the representatives having parliamentary immunity). An act which you would agree is several orders of magnitude worse than Sverdlov's conduct.
This action causes Lenin to describe the resistance of one of the representatives as bold:
"The tsarist government threatened the accused with capital punishment. Owing to this, not all of them behaved at the actual trial as bravely as Comrade Muranov"(Socialism and War by Lenin and Zinoviev).
So why is it ok to disregard democratic procedure in one case and see this as an courageous and respectful act, yet if the same happens to you then you lionize your people who are victims of the same act?
The Bolsheviks will answer yes to that question since the anti-Bolsheviks(whether it be tsarists or their allies the Mensheviks and the SR's) deployed these anti-procedural methods and the only way the revolution to succeed is to return in kind. The class enemy in class struggle isn't limited by some moralist conception of actions and so should not we.
@@RMWATPST There's a lot to take in here, so to give a quick clarification to make sure we're on the same page, the video in question I was referring to was a couple made by Noj, more specifically videos such as Lenin's war against the soviets, NOT "was Stalin a dictator"
@@ADHDisYippeeeeeeeeee Well can you enlighten me how my claim contradicts that video?
0:20 as a trotskyist, i feel offended
both wouldve been done better than stalin
@@julian0306bvb it likely wouldn't make much of a difference
Literallyyy
Cope Menshevik
Thought it was gonna be Bukharin for a sec. Interesting when learning about Soviet history in America, Sverdlov was rarely if ever mentioned
You just filled a massive itch. For a long ass time there hardly has been much of anything on the guy who uncontroversially was what kept the party together in the early days, as well as such a notable administrator. It really confuses me that most sights end up in trotsky and other people like that and people like sverdlov, lev kamenev, zinoviev and mikhail kalinin end up mostly neglected, except i guess the second and third are at least known due to hoi4 mod memes (a fate worse than oblivion).
I feel like a lot of the intraparty debates, other members and stuff are also glossed over for the sake of maintaining the succession narrative regardless of how much sense it made at any specific point.
I think its also because theres less of a market to sell to the average person a russian they havent heard of before instead of a really really famous one like lenin or stalin, many would pass the section on amazon or a book store thats a book on the life of Kolchak or Radek. The most useful secondary sources ive seen generally about this period is very broad secondary lit like A People's Tragedy, which is both by no means unbiased (as basically no good history books are) and also extremely broad in its scope.
Kind of just a tragedy of mutliple annoying factors collapsing in on themselves
@vintheguy ~factors also known as capitalism~
That aside, really sucks we dont have that much on Radek too other than stalin era stuff about how he was a rat or smth. I think in the end what pisses the most off is how the lack of widespread accurate sources means 60 to 80 yol narratives and propaganda get passed on as information in their stead, like what happened to sverdlov himself.
At first, the thumbnail caught me off guard and think to myself "Is that someone else that is similar to Trotsky or someone cosplaying as him?" I just realized when I watched the video, it's an entirely different person.
His sudden death spared him being purged by Stalin, that was perhaps the lesser of two evils.
He couldn’t have been purged by stalin because he held the position that stalin needed to hold in order to gain power
great video as usual - i’ve gotten pretty interested in late imperial and early soviet history as a result of your channel! i understand it’s a very broad topic but do you have any particular recommended reading in terms of books/writers that you’ve enjoyed that focuses on the time period your videos usually cover? (anything at all is fine!)
There is a link to his sources in video description. It seems like the guy just reads everything related.
By the way, is there a name for Marisa with a glass of wine on your profile picture? I've seen this image several times now but never learned the source of it.
@@Tk-mj1clyeah i’ve taken a look at the footnotes but it’s a bit overwhelming for a beginner to the topic lol.
as for the pfp, the base pfp i honestly don’t remember where i got it from lol, sorry. i remember years ago manually putting the irish flag over it though. tried to find it again now but i genuinely can’t
Orlando figes: "a people's tragedy"
Sheila fritz patrick: basically all her work
Wendy Z goldman: all her work too
Barbara C. Allen: "life of an old Bolshevik'
Robert William Davies: "from tsarism to the new economic policy" and Alen ball: "Russias last capitalists: the nepmen" if your specifically interested in the NEP period which is unfortunately glossed over by many
Be warned that the last two were published before end of the ussr and so before the opening of the Soviet archives. Its a good rule of thumb not to read books about the ussr published while it still existed for both obvious and non obvious reasons
@@vintheguythank you so much! will take a look at these :)
Sure I can give recommendations. Is there something more specific you're interested in, or are you just looking for a good all-around history?
Typically my go-to recommendation for a general history is "A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Figes. I especially like how it covers the Revolution as a process unfolding from the 1890s to the 1920s, and so there's quite a lot of detail on the late Imperial Era and how it led into the Revolution. It also shines a light on the perspective of more everyday people and underappreciated voices, which I find really helpful.
If you want a less daunting, quick read rather than a massive book, I usually recommend "The Russian Revolution" by Sheila Fitzpatrick (specifically the Fourth Edition, which came out in 2017). It hits many of the key points in a more digestible manner.
If you want a granular look at the early Bolshevik government specifically, there's a pair of books by Alexander Rabinowitch called "Bolsheviks Come to Power" and "Bolsheviks in Power", basically focusing on 1917 and 1918 respectively.
Hope that helps, and if you need any more recommendations let me know!
Hello Dear Noj Rants, I hope you are doing well. I enjoyed the crisp style of the video and for me shone some light on Sverdlov's life that I didn't know of before. I think that one issue with this video, is that it lacks details regarding when Sverdlov became head of the Soviet Union, after Lenin was nearly assassinated and was incapacitated. Then, he was closest to power. Sverdlov headed decossackization, the Kremlin guard and had control over Cheka investigations. Fanny Kaplan was the friend of Sverdlov's sister. On the same day before Lenin's assassination attempt, Uritsky was assassinated by lone shooter Kannegiesser, with people warning Lenin to not go on any meetings. Sverdlov was the one who pushed Lenin to continue the speech event. Grigory Ivanovich Semyonov, a worker Red Army Intelligence, specialized in assassinations and subterfuge and formal chekist had confessed responsibility for organizing Lenin's assassination along with Kaplan, Konopleva(chekist) and others in his brochures and was found guilty in June 1922. Lenin miraculously lives, with the bullet wound in his neck. Soon after he recuperates Sverdlov mysteriously dies and all his subordinates are either disposed off or demoted. Historian Valery Shambarov and others bring such independant facts together for the thesis that Sverdlov organized the assassination attempt on Lenin. Sverdlov pushed Dzerzhinsky to investigate the clear cut case of Uritsky, while himself taking over the investigation around Lenin.
The video was a little brief in that area, but that's also because I plan to do full videos at some point on both the Lenin assassination attempt and de-Cossackization in the near future. In the fomer, we'll go over all the various theories about who may have been involved in the shooting (I'm familiar with Shambarov's argument, and while I think there's some plausible points to it, personally I'm not entirely sold).
Sounds like he was Lenin's Grey Eminence
16:15 What?
Trotsky: "IT SHOULDVE BEEN ME! NOT HIM! IT ISNT FAIR!"
I love your videos, I am very interested in this period of Russian history.
15:28 lol Stalin got Nikolai Yezhov'd
ah one of my favorite niche (ish) historical figures :3
Lenin's first hair? Wait wh- HOLD UP haha
Stalin, when he took over promoted the concept of Communism in one country. Had Sverdlov been at the reigns they might have been more international. I’m thinking about more support for communists in Germany and Spain in the 20s and 30s.
Советская история на английском? Повод подписаться
Soviet history in English? A reason to subscribe
holy shit, just found this channel, fuckin heck ya buddy.
Calling it out before he says it: Sverdlov
Told ye
new video alert!
have my babies noj
RIP Martov
Rest in piss
Very interesting.
damn, well this guy was impressive huh
I played as him in kaiserreich lol "true heir of lenin" Trait
honestly from your other videos i thought martin and sverdlov was the same guy
they look very similar
Yeah I don't blame people for mixing them up, but it is a little funny when self-proclaimed Bolshevik supporters make the mistake (especially when they're usually accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about at the same time haha).
Not bad. Do Cienfuegos in Cuba now!
He was the cousin of my great-grandpa, who was also called Yakov Sverdlov
How the mighty have fallen.
@danielalvarez-galan3702 In what way have "the mighty fallen", and who are the mighty?
@@danielalvarez-galan3702 I get that it's a comment on his Ukraine pfp, but the current Russian regime is pro-Russian and sympathetic to the tsar, which the Bolsheviks definitely weren't
@@Vrangelrip - The mighty are the Bolsheviks, you are the fallen with your nazi double banner.
What would be his opinion on Israel be?
I know this man because he’s a ancestor of Dan Swerdlove from the h3 podcast
I'd like to learn about Sverdlov's foreign policy, because I think that WW2 was hugely influenced by Stalin's specific personality. just spitballing but I'd imagine no war with Finland, also probably would not have had quite as devastating purges, which would have left the USSR in much better shape economically and militarily against the Germans. Also I imagine there would have been more compotent and less insularly-focused foreign policy.
Espero con ansias los otros de videos que tendras preparado sobre la historia de la union sovietica. Solo queria decir que aqui en latinoamerica tambien hay canales que se dedican sobre su historia y lo que significo, como este :
th-cam.com/video/CbsGcj0MFqs/w-d-xo.html
Talves puedas comentar un poco sobre como abarca este documental.
I must thrust the age old question onto you. In general how do you believe Lenin would have governed differently from Stalin if he lived longer?
The narrative of a much nicer Stalin, that gained significant ground during De-Stalinization seems to be the most prevalent, which I'm still tentatively inclined to believe. However I've recently come across decent arguments that Lenin would have been just as brutal if not more so.
I'm particularly curious with how he would have handled the imperative to industrialize in a timely manner and whether or not he would have viewed the exacerbation of the1930-1933 famine as a worthy trade-off as Stalin did.
I lean towards him simply being a NEPman of the same vain as Bukharin, with little certainty
I doubt the great purge would have been as excessive under him.
Certainly a tough question. To begin, I think the idea that Stalin was some major divergence from Lenin is definitely exaggerated. I understand the temptation for anti-Stalinists to argue that there was a better, more pure Soviet foundation under Lenin, which Stalin then corrupted-it's a way of salvaging the Soviet experiment while still acknowledging the problems with Stalin (Trotskyists for example tend to hold this position, with the implication being Trotsky wouldn't have ruined the situation like Stalin did). But in actuality, Lenin and Stalin had pretty similar beliefs, leadership styles, goals, etc (as we would expect given Stalin closely based himself off of Lenin). Lenin was certainly no stranger to terror for example, and like Stalin (maybe even more so) held a consequentialist, teleological view that such things were justifiable if necessary to achieve a higher end goal.
On the other hand, while Lenin was not against doing the same types of things, maybe they would not have had to occur under him to the same extent (or at least would have occurred differently). For example, the Great Purge was arguably a way of Stalin consolidating control around himself, in order to reach the same level of indisputably that Lenin had. So if Lenin was still alive, we would expect such a purge to not be necessary. Although to be fair, the purges were exacerbated by a number of bottom-up factors as well, such that some sort of outburst of violence was probably inevitable (maybe in the vein of Mao's Cultural Revolution). Off the top of my head, I could see Lenin not doing Stalin's forced relocations or ethnic policies, and a number of Stalin-specific actions (e.g. the Doctor's Plot) would almost certainly not happen. But such differences would primarily be from the situation being changed, from Lenin having different methods, etc, not from Lenin necessarily having a principled opposition to such tactics.
On the subject of industrialization, my intuition is that Lenin would actually have been similar. While NEP was Lenin's brandchild, he viewed it as a temporary expedient (more or less everyone did). All the Bolsheviks broadly agreed that in the long run they would need to do some kind of mass collectivization and industrialization, seeing it not only as an economic imperative, but a political one. There may have been some slight adjustment under Lenin - of him starting collectization a little later let's say - and again, as a result of the situation being different, Lenin being more skilled at this or that, etc, the colletivization may have gone a little differently, but almost certainly he would have done the same thing overall. Historically, Lenin was certainly not put off by famines (he wrote about such "trade-offs" during the 1891 and 1921 famines for example), so I would expect him to stay the course like Stalin did.
@@nojrants In regards to the purges I do find myself aligned with the revisionist school in considering it a moment in which the central governing apparatus completely lost the plot and control to bottom up vendettas and dealing streaks. While Stalin might've used the event in his favor I think that started to occur a bit later than the start itself of the purges. In a similar way to how the Cultural Revolution after two years was hijacked by the military.
Trotsky i feel effectively argued that stalinism was entirely a reaction to the failure of socialism in western europe, arabia and the americas and that even if he had beaten Stalin it was likely that he would've enacted a lot of the same measures given that what stalin did was keep the revolution alive by any means nessecary even it meant degenerating the workers state. The same easily applies to lenin if he lived and decided to stay and/or was not overthrown internally like bukarhin Khrushchev (not at all the same contexts but just using them as hyper ultra rough examples)
if lenin lived he'd basically have just been like mao. he likely would have supported collectivization the same as stalin did but unlike stalin he wouldn't use it as a tool to intentionally kill off the population of potentially troublesome member states like ukraine and promote russian colonization and imperialism. the policy of korenizatsiia was literally lenin's idea so something like the holodomor couldn't have gone as far as it did had lenin been in charge. that being said had he been in charge there'd likely still be a famine due to the difficult position the bolsheviks were in and their inevitable poor management of an attempted forced collectivization but really i think it'd be more like mao's great leap forward where lenin would publicly acknowledge his failure and slightly take a step back from politics.
whether or not this would turn out well for the ussr at that point would be unclear though since lenin likely wouldn't go as hard on the industrialization and collectivization as stalin did so would it work as well? its hard to know. and as for the purges i severely doubt lenin would ever have any great purges like lenin did simply because he was not as paranoid as stalin really has no reason to be. the only scenario i can think of where a great purge type event might happen is if anyone tried to replace lenin as leader causing lenin to cause some type of purge the same way mao launched the cultural revolution to fight back against his own party who was shutting him out of politics. but even then i doubt it would have ever have been as murderous as stalin's purges or even mao's cultural revolution. since lenin's ussr would likely be in a far more precarious state than either of them and likely wouldn't be able to afford or even desire the level of chaos those purges brought with them.
@Tupadre97 With Lenin not targeting the Ukrainians with discriminately large quotas, do you believe the difference in grain collected would have been made up for with higher quotas on non-Ukrainian farmers thus leaving the body count roughly the same as in our timeline?
Great video, excited to watch your channel grow!
Edit- to respond to your end questions, I didn't know him and have researched this time period several times! I bet he's well known in Russia. Not sure there are supporters of the USSR anymore. It's amazing how much there is to learn.