ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this video, we go over the rise and fall of the soviet movement from the time of the October Revolution in late 1917 to about the middle of 1918, and how the Bolsheviks ultimately "destroyed" the soviets at the onset of the Civil War.
Timestamps
- 00:00 - Introduction
- 01:09 - Why the Soviets were Important
- 03:49 - Soviet Power on the National Level
- 05:55 - Establishing Soviet Power (Autumn)
- 10:41 - Dissillusion in Soviet Power (Winter)
- 12:57 - Peredyshka (Spring)
- 14:19 - War Against the Soviets
- 24:59 - Rise of the Alternate Soviets
- 28:18 - Why Weren't the Bolsheviks Overthrown?
- 32:01 - Bolshevik Counterarguments
- 35:08 - Conclusion
Visual sources:
- Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library: www.prlib.ru/
- Anniversary of the Revolution (1918), directed by Dziga Vertov
- Colorized photos: klimbim2014.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Sources
- Archives of newspapers: Delo, Delo naroda, Golos Naroda (Tula), Izvestiya, Izvestiya Saratovskogo soveta, Izvestiya Tverskogo soveta, Nash golos, Nashe slovo, Novvy den’, Novvy luch, Novaya zarya, Novaya zhizn’, Partiynyye izvestiya, Petrogradskii golos, Rabochaya gazeta, Rabochiy internatsional, Svobodnaya zhizn’ (Nizhny), Vechernyaya zvezda, Volya i dumy zheleznodorozhnik, Vozrozhdeniye, Vpered, Zaria Rossii, Zhizn’ (Nizhny)
- Bernshtam, M. S., ed. Nezavisimoye Rabocheye Dvizheniye v 1918 Godu. Paris, 1981.
- ---. Ural i Prikam’ye. Paris, 1982.
- Decrees of Soviet Power. Vol. 2. M.: Gosizdat, 1959.
- Erofeev, N. D., ed. Partiya Sotsialistov-Revolyutsionerov Dokumenty i Materialy. M.: House of Political Literature, 2000.
- Jansen, Marc, ed. Partuaya sotsialistov-revolyutsionerov posle oktyabr’skogo perevorota 1917 goda. Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989.
- Lenin, Vladimir. Collected Works. Bernard Isaacs, ed. M.: Prog. Pub., 1964.
- ---. Polnoye Sobraniye Sochineniy. M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1969.
- Makarov, A. S., and M. P. Svintsova, eds. Ustanovleniye sovetskoy vlasti v kostrome. 1957.
- Nicolaevsky Collection at the Hoover Institute
- Plekhanov, Georgi. God Na Rodin. Vol. 2. Paris, 1921.
- Pokrovsky, M. N., and Yakovlev, Y. A., eds. Vtoroy Vserossiyskiy s"yezd Sovetov. M.: Gosizdat, 1928.
- Protokoly...VTSIK 4-Go Sozyva. M.: Gosizdat, 1920.
- Saveliev, M. A., ed. Protokoly TsK RSDRP. M.: Gosizdat, 1929.
- “Statistika Truda,” no. 2-3 (1918).
- Sukhanov, N. N. The Russian Revolution 1917. Joel Carmichael, ed. Princeton Uni. Press, 1984.
- Trotsky, Leon, ed. Stalinskaya Shkola Fal’sifikatsiy. Berlin: Granit, 1932.
- Ustanovleniye Sovetskoy Vlasti v Kaluzhskoy Gubernii. 1957.
- Velikorechin, I., Seleznev, K. G., eds. Pobeda Oktyabr’skaya sotsialisticheskoi revolyutsii v Nizhegorodskoi guberni. 1957.
Secondary Sources
- Astrakhan, Kh. M. Bol’sheviki i ikh politicheskiye protivniki v 1917 godu. L.: Lenizdat, 1973.
- Badcock, Sarah. Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia. Cam. Uni. Press, 2007.
- Brovkin, Vladimir. The Mensheviks After October. Ithaca: Cornell Uni. Press, 1987.
- ---. “The Mensheviks’ Political Comeback.” The Russian Review 42, no. 1 (1983): 1-50.
- ---. “Workers‘ Unrest and the Bolsheviks‘ Response in 1919.” Slavic Review 49, no. 3 (1990): 350-373.
- Daniels, Robert V. Red October. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
- Drobchenko, V. A., et al. “S"yezdy, Konferentsii i Soveshchaniya Razlichnykh Sotsial’no-Klassovykh Sil v Tomskoy Gubernii.” SibScript, no. 2-6 (2015): 248-55.
- Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy. London: The Bodley Head, 2017.
- Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 4th ed. Ox. Uni. Press, 2017.
- Galili, Ziva. The Menshevik Leaders in the Russian Revolution. Princeton Uni. Press, 1989.
- Leonov, S. V. “Sovetskaya Gosudarstvennost.” Voprosy Istorii, no. 12 (1990): 29-46.
- Melancon, Michael. “The Left Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolshevik Uprising.” In The Bolsheviks in Russian Society (BRS), ed. Vladimir Brovkin, 59-82. Yale Uni. Press, 1997.
- Mints, I. I. Istoriya Velikogo Oktyabrya. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. M.: Nauka, 1979.
- Orlovsky, Daniel, ed. A Companion to the Russian Revolution. Hoboken: Wiley, 2020.
- Rabinowitch, Alexander. The Bolsheviks in Power. Bloomington: Indiana Uni. Press, 2007.
- Rosenberg, William G. “Russian Labor and Bolshevik Power After October.” Slavic Review 44, no. 2 (1985): 213-238.
- Smith, Scott. “The Socialists-Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Civil War.” In BRS, 83-104.
- Smith, Scott B. Captives of Revolution. Uni. of Pittsburgh Press, 2011.
- Sofinov, P. G. Ocherki istorii Vecheka. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960.
- Spirin, L. M. Klassy i partii v grazhdanskoy voyne v Rossii. M.: Mysl’, 1968.
- Vladimirova, Vera. God sluzhby sotsialistov kapitalistam. M.: Gosizdat, 1927.
- Volobuev, Scott. “The Mensheviks in the Fall of 1917.” In BRS, 43-58.
------------------------------------------------------------
#history #sovietunion
I like how you always use that picture of Martov sitting down, it makes him look like Professor Xavier zipping around in a wheelchair
"When an individual acquires great power, the use or misuse of that power is everything" - Professor Xavier in Xmen the Last Stand (and Martov, probably)
Today, we think of this period as being a special and unique thing, but all the guys behind it were looking back at the French Revolution non-stop to to figure out what to do next. Thermidor and Bonapartism lived in these guys heads rent free 24/7
Yes this is something I've thought about making a video for. The French Revolution(s) were the big revolutions prior to Russia that people could look to, as a source of both inspiration and premonition. In some cases this was an apt comparison, in others it led to hilariously strange results (such as the multiple people who styled themselves as Russia's Napoleon).
Please do a video on this, its going to live in my head rent free until you do lol @@nojrants
The Paris Commune as well, which is weird considering Marx's own criticisms of its socialist character
@@nojrants That would be awesome! I'd love to see a video on that!
@@mukaburrah292 His criticisms were far outweighed by his praises of the Commune though, even if he did stop short of actually calling it an ideal-type system
Very well done video on an extremely interesting period. While it's easy to criticise the inaction of the mensheviks and srs, the truth is I could see myself making the exact same judgement calls as Markov, chernov, and kerensky in these tense situations. Of all my reading on the period, I'm always shocked at how quickly and cynically bolsheviks resort to violence and ruling by decree. It's always this phase of the soviet period that sours me to the bolsheviks.
Thank you! And I agree, it's easy to critique them after the fact, but they weren't operating with the same knowledge we have, nor were these easy decisions to make.
You have to imagine at this time the want for (most) everyone is to cooperate; resorting to violence inevitably splits support for the new government.
Always why I see the US Consitution as a great moment in revolutionary history, we were able to stay united and appease different factions to build trust within and about the new system. So I imagine the choice to directly oppose a group with large support was a hard one.
Commenting for engagement. So glad this video is getting great traction it deserves it, keep up the excellent work Noj.
Thank you! I appreciate the support
I love how you cite your sources in the video. Its very professional and I always appreciate someone who is thorough
i found your channel a week and a half ago and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite channels at the moment. the research and presentation is absolutely fantastic and i can't get enough of it. keep up the great work!!
Thank you! Welcome to the channel, and I appreciate the support
The editing on this is great, love the 80s aesthetic
Thank you!
This channel is soooo underrated !
Thank you!
true
What's with the idiotic voice-over/narration?
This video is excellent. It gives a depth to things I had only heard in passing (like Getzler's biography of Martov briefly mentions city soviets voting for the Mensheviks and being suppressed by undemocratic tactics, but gives no account of rebellions, divisions among local and central Bolsheviks, etc... )and it provides a lot of insight on the revolution which is vital for democratic socialist, anarchist, et al. perspectives on it. A lot of Martov's arguments on the impossibility of the immediate Bolshevik project bear out. If I have a small complaint it is only towards the end, where it almost seems to advocate for an alliance between dissident leftists and moderate Whites - it would be worth having another video on how the Whites repressed their own left-wing, for instance with Kolchak's coup against the Komuch, and how that drove a lot of groups into the arms of the Bolsheviks, which were the lesser evil - at least they wouldn't restore landowner privileges or support anti-semitic pogroms!
A much more local question - how much continuity was there between the groups involved in the struggle of the Tambov city Soviet against Bolshevik impositions and the largely rural peasant army that fought the Tambov Rebellion against the Bolsheviks?
Well said. Also nice to see people reading Getzler. His book about Kronstadt is excellent for understanding how the Soviets functioned day to day and his biography of Martov is also great.
@@DmitriPolkovnik I have read his biography of Martov and am halfway through that of Sukhanov - will definitely check out the book on Kronstadt!
Thank you! I'm familiar with Getzler's work (namely his book on Kronstadt), but I may have to check out that biography on Martov next.
Toward the end of the video, the point I was hoping to make was more so that the Bolshevik narrative of calling everyone simply and equally "counterrevolutionary" papers over the details and nuances, but it is precisely these nuances that help us understand how the Bolshevik victory actually came about. In actuality, these supposed "counterrevolutionaries" cared enough about the Revolution that they didn't want to harm it, even when they despised the Bolsehvik actions. They were essentially naive and unassertive, unlike the counterevolutionary bogeymen the Bolsheviks claimed they were.
To be clear, I don't think I would advocate for the moderate socialists allying with the Whites, as after all we saw how Kolchak betrayed them in the end. Maybe you could make the argument that if the moderate socialists had rebelled more firmly/sooner, they could have prevented or preempted Kolchak's coup, or at least survived it, but we can't really say for sure. Nonetheless, there were a number of ways in which the moderate socialists could have more firmly resisted, before it even came to such an alliance with the Whites.
A video on the White Movement should probably be coming soon. I hope to make it clear that while critiquing the Bolsehviks, that isn't an endorsement of the Whites either. As you mentioned, the Whites were just as bad if not worse in many ways, and actively terrorized and destroyed their own supportbase.
Your last question is a great one, although I might have to check the archives and get back to you on that (perhaps when doing a full video on the Tambov Rebellion). My intuition would be that these were primarily separate groups. The present video discusses the crack-down in Tambov City, which dispersed the urban soviet, and was primarily carried out by the Cheka. The later Tambov Rebellion was more so a rebellion of small towns/villages in Tambov Province (not the titular city), which was then crushed primarily by outside Red Army forces. If I remember correctly, the city of Tambov itself remained secured by the Bolsheviks, so it was essentially two different demographics. Although it may be the case that some of the people who joined the rebellion or defected from the Tambov garrison were also involved in the 1918 battle.
How'd I miss this upload?! This looks like it's going to be a great watch. Thank you!
Your channels thoroughness in research is something to be held in high regard
Thank you!
Handling such a controversial topic with such sharp honesty is really refreshing
"Sharp" when the video missed to explain how the Bolshevik elite made themselves into a ruling class of the economy, only answering to themselves? This was deleted by the moderator: "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗸 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 - "𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆" 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶-𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽, 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 - 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 - 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀.
In December 1917 did the Bolshevik party - after having sidelined all soviet democracy after October - establish a state institution for short named Vesenka with its industrial branches Glavki. In this political and economic process did the working class population loose all class momentum which is crucial in a revolution. They masses were by this split with no common power for a real class transfer."
Very well made, you really keep the interest sustained and have done a tonne of research. A sub from me. Reminds me of Nerrell for some reason.
Also, 29:30 is a fantastic way of putting it. I hear that a lot too and its just so grating after a while.
Thank you! I appreciate the support. I think there are a lot of fallacious arguments that get thrown around this topic (to be fair there's poor arguments all over the political spectrum, but here they're quite repetitive). I may make a video in the future just responding to miscellaneous talking points/arguments/myths.
@@nojrants Just don't do Kronstadt yet, I've dibs it. ;)
@@BadMouseProductions Yo, so when's that Kronstadt video coming?
Excellent, I have always had a particular fascination with the Russian Revolution and early Soviet history and this channel is perfect for me. The video had me gripped the whole way through.
A critical presentation of Lenin that is not polemically anti-left in general is refreshing as well. You are navigating the subject superbly.
Thank you, I really appreciate hearing that. Ultimately my goal is to not be vitriolic against any party, but to try to keep to a neutral assessment of the current scholarship. It's becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy everyone, since a lot of people have heated opinions for and against the Soviets (as the rest of the comment section attests), but I'm glad to hear people are getting value out of this series and enjoying it.
@@nojrants It's fine, the tankie rage is obviously incoherent and amusing to watch. I think it's really funny how over a hundred years after the events, people are still fighting these battles using contemporary terms and propaganda.
My favorite small history channel. Obviously there are plenty of good books of this subject but I’d also like to highly recommend the Revolutions podcast, which has season on the Russian Revolution to anyone interested.
Thank you! Personally I'm not much of a podcast person, but I've heard good things about that Revolutions podcast, so I might have to check it out
With such an interesting and important time in history it’s great to see an accurate rep of what was going on, great editing and presentation man 👍
Thank you! I appreciate the support
@@nojrants You ask for support but also ask for censorship on the comments criticizing the weakness of the video. That the Bolshevik party made itself to a ruling state-capitalist class is fundamentally forgotten. Deleted: "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗸 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 - "𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆" 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗹𝘂𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶-𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽, 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 - 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 - 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀.
In December 1917 did the Bolshevik party - after having sidelined all soviet democracy after October - establish a state institution for short named Vesenka with its industrial branches Glavki. In this political and economic process did the working class population loose all class momentum which is crucial in a revolution. They masses were by this split with no common power for a real class transfer."
Your visual humor accompanying the top-notch professional narration really puts the cherry on top. I am constantly pausing the video to catch all the jokes.
Thank you! Glad to hear you enjoyed it, it's always a challenge making sure there's a good balance of information and visual entertainment.
Your channel is a gem.
Thank you! I appreciate the support
I really recommend Getzler's books to anyone who hasn't read or heard of them. He wrote an excellent biography of Martov and a book about Kronshtadt during the Revolution that goes into great detail about the day to day functions and make up of the Soviets and the debates they had.
Yes I've read Getzler's book on Kronstadt before and it was quite good. It'll likely come into play when we get a few more videos in.
Its really refreshing to watch your videos! Especially when a large chunk of the activists near me are extremely idealistic about the bolsheviks, vanguards and lenninism. Its hard to have a real critical conversation with anyone about what actually happened!
New video, get hyped!
The incredible depth of this video astounds me greatly! I can't imagine the time it must have taken to complie all the seperate uprisings and rebellions (as well as the money for all those books). I hope you gain the views you deserve!
Thank you, I appreciate the support! This is something I've researched for a number of years, so I had a lot of material built up, and I'm also grateful to have access to some great libraries with Russian archives.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. Thanks for the reply!
@@nojrantsmay i ask which libraries? Would love to follow up on some sources but they seem hard to find
@@Omniraptorr For me it was primarily the Hoover Institution Library, the Library of Congress, Stanford University libraries, and the University of California libraries, but other universities often have subscriptions to access them too. Several of the more popular newspapers can also be found by subscription on the website East View.
Finally, someone who actual sources his claims
Great video! You can clearky see an amount of effort given into reaserch, animation and script. I can not stand waiting for another magnificant documentary like this.
Thank you! I appreciate it
To answer the questions at the end: No I hadn't heard about this at all! Actually, the opposite. I would always hear a talking point from Marxist-Leninists that the Bolsheviks were heavily supported, and I remember I saw a video once where someone even said "it's not like they ever lost the support of the soviets" so now I know how ironic that claim is. Yes they had some support, but as you pointed out it's far more complicated than that. Honestly I don't even know what to do if I was the opposition, because it seems so far gone at this point. Maybe take the threat seriously of the Bolsheviks sooner? I can sympathize with people like Martov: I wouldn't want to support the Whites or aid them even indirectly, nor be violent against the Bolsheviks, but what else can you really do? Anyway, great video, I can't wait for more
I have to applaud the level of research and thoroughness. As always this has way more than would be expected of a youtube video. Personally I had never really heard of any of this, so this was very interesting. Even in my world history class, when we covered Russian history we indeed said the Civil War came right after the Revolution, and I never really thought about how there's all that time in between. Awesome work!
Thank you! Glad to hear you enjoyed it
Echoing everyone elses comments this is such high quality. Such an interesting part of history that I haven't seen looked at in depth at all.
Thank you! Glad to hear you found it interesting
This is the greatest history channel on youtube, love the style and research you did.
But how do you research/work with your sources for the videos. I started to read John Reeds 10 days that shook the world and got the feeling that Im reading it the same way I would read a fiction book.
Greetings from Germany
Thank you! If I'm understanding your question correctly, you're wondering how to treat sources while reading them? I would say before starting any work, consider the perspective/bias and context behind the work. Questions such as: How did the work come about? Who is writing it and why? Personally I also try to take notes on each work as I read. John Reed's account is quite gripping, so I think I understand what you mean that it reads like a fiction book. There are a number of great memoirs from this period that are highly entertaining.
great video mate! keep it up.
Thank you! I appreciate it
Thanks for these videos. I really love the history you cover. Surprised you dont have more subscribers. I totally think that if you keep it up you'll get big. Looking forward to it. Just remember all of us from early days when that happens ;)
Thank you, I greatly appreciate the support! I hope you're right haha. And don't worry, I won't forget about the early people - you guys are what made all this possible
Excellent video, as always. I am curious, how long did it take to compile all of these sources and make a coherent video out of it?
Thank you! This is a topic I've researched for years, so many of the sources I already had saved. But the process of compiling and making the video began at around the beginning of the year, so about two and a half months.
Ultra uderrated channel. These videos are awesome
Thank you!
These videos are so interesting and in depth. Very well researched and engaging to a history nerd like me. Thank you for making such great content!
Glad to hear you enjoyed it!
The Mensheviks seemed pretty stupid in hindsight.
Yeah I agree, although at the time no one knew just what would happen. People like Martov thought the Bolsheviks, while a little radical, were still "one of them". It was all a gradual process.
Great video, I'm leaving a comment to support your channel. Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
Incredible video!!As always
Thank you!
I am sincerely grateful that you are doing many a favor in exploring and artfully depicting the struggles of the Russian Empire and its transformation into the Soviet Union through the elections in its history. Its a unique method.
If possible, I would love the series to continue to the modern day, because I can imagine that even recent elections in the past 20 years are little covered outside of Russia itself. By creating this series, I think you are informing people of the complexity of Russian history just by covering its elections--which themselves are complex and rich in political issues and ideologies.
Thank you! I greatly appreciate the comment. My goal is to continue the election series all the way to the present, with spin-off videos along the way, it'll just take a while to get there haha. And I agree, viewing the history of the Revolution and beyond through its elections is an angle not usually considered, but it gives a unique insight into what was going on.
incredible quality. subbed
Thank you!
Great stuff!!
Thank you!
10 minutes in, subbed already. Great channel!
Thank you!
Another absolute banger! Love this era of Soviet history, give me the chaos. I always have mixed feelings. A part of always wants to give the Bolsheviks the benefit of the doubt, but in the end they were blinded by their arrogance and the conditions of the revolution did not help. Always makes me wonder what if a Trotsky/Martov coalition came out on top.
Would be cool to see some profile videos of important figures, curious to see what you have to say about different elements.
Any chance of a video on how the White movement came to be? would be a cool counter video
Would be neat to see a Bolshevik-Menshevik-Left SR coalition government, with a Constituent Assembly helmed by Spiridonova drafting a constitution while acknowledging the supremacy of the Soviet as a democratic organ, and free and open Soviet elections. I would presume Kamenev is heading the Soviet Executive and the Bolshevik party in this timeline, with Lenin a left-wing oppositionist within the party pushing it to act faster to secure socialism. Trotsky would certainly play a key role, as would Martov as Menshevik leader.
Thank you! It's really hard to say what would have happened - in some ways it could end up worse for all we know - but I tend to think the Soviets would have been in a stronger position overall had things like a coalition been established. Namely, it seems to me that less people would have been pushed away from the Bolsheviks and more readily willing to cooperate with them. While the Bolsheviks ultimately won the Civil War anyway, it certainly could have been a less destructive and less painful win.
I've considered profile videos, although my only worry is that the major figures have already been done to death. I was actually thinking about a video on some of the "unknown heroes" of the revolution, as there are a handful of people (usually working-class people outside of the parties) who had a surprisingly large impact on the Revlution and are mostly forgetten about today. I'm definitely open to a video on the White Movement as well, and they will be covered a bit in the next election videos too.
I don't think any party leaders have been done to death besides Lenin, Kerensky, and Milyukov honestly. Especially Martov and Spiridonova, but also Chernov and Chkheidze to an extent, are like, criminally underrated. Maybe not academically, but like - take Jacobin, which frequently writes articles covering Marxists of the past (even a lot of less well known ones) and engaging with their ideas - they still have no article on Martov! They also have no articles on the left SR party, or on Georgian Menshevism. Those are not very popular figures, and the result is Menshevism in the minds of most people is "these guys who were too dogmatic so they didn't think Russia was ripe for a revolution." Which was a part of it, but like...@@nojrants
@nojrants maybe out of obligation people like Lenin, Trotsky, Kerensky, Martov, Kamenev can be done at some point. Especially since despite the fact they are big names, most YT content isn't that multifaceted and nuanced on who they actually were. But I love your idea of the unknown profiles. That sounds like an excellent companion series and something I and many others who study this period may learn something new from. Even something as simple as everyday life vignettes of different people's lives during the revolution/civil war could be another dynamic that would breathe some life into this period.
Anyway, thanks for the replies and the content. Hopefully, you enjoy making them!
@nojrants Please make the video about the unknown heroes that sounds really cool, and also a video on Martov would be good there's really not a good bio about him on youtube yet (mostly just Lenin, Stalin, etc are covered)
Your editing and content is fire, I hope you gain a lot more views you definetly deserve it
Thank you! I appreciate the support
I'll join in the chorus of praise because wow this video was well-done, better even than your already fantastic Gesell video. Thanks for the banger, and here's hoping you feel encouraged to keep making many more!
The evolution and development of the 80s aesthetic to compliment your exhaustive research and humor is phenomenal. Excited to see where your channel goes!
As per questions about the upcoming civil war, do you think the Whites could have won had things gone differently? From all the counter-factuals about other modern wars I've seen, almost always it's unreasonable to think the eventual winning side could lose because of the inherent advantages that led them to win in the first place.
Depending on how much of the original scenario you are willing to change, it's theoretically possible, but overall the White Movement was in a very poor position that made victory unlikely. Although in the videos so far I've critiqued the decisions of the Bolsheviks, it can't be understated that the Whites had many of the same problems if not worse. Primarily they suffered from disorganization and disunity, and were just as self-sabotatng as the Bolsheviks. I will probably make a video on this in the future explaining in more detail, but personally I believe that the Whites had a temporarily inflated sense of success only because of the problems the Bolsheviks inflicted upon themselves. As the Whites enacted terror and made similar mistakes, that early advantage quickly eroded.
So well explained, fascinating video and story. Thank you
Thank you! Glad to hear you enjoyed it.
This is eerily similar to how Hitler destroyed German democracy
I hope you go over the White Movement aswell and the inner politics happening within them. Your Russia Vids are very high quality
Yes I hope to touch on that a bit going forward in the election series, and I may have to make a full spin-off video like this one going over the White Movement politics more. The division within the White camp is a very interesting topic and ultimately a big part of their collapse. Thank you for your support!
As a radical marxist bolshevik-lover myself, i am genuenly dismayed at the whole situation with the soviets. Complete distrust towards each other and abdolute reluctance to cooperate led to the bloody years long civil war, and possibly even the rise of Stalin and 1937 purge. I wonder, what could happen if Lenin agreed to form a coalition with other internationalist leftists and provide stable governance until the situation stabilize, and only then attempt at building socialism? Something to ponder about.
I agree, that is quite an interesting thing to consider. It's impossible to say, but I tend to think it likely would have improved the situation. Throughout this period we see the Bolsheviks making a number of actions, which while small, eroded trust and efficiency within the government. Following through with the coalition would have been a gesture basically showing good faith, and it would have disarmed a lot of the anti-Bolshevik rhetoric/support.
Form a coalition? What do you mean?; what do you have in mind?
Only then (when things stabilise) attempt at building socialism? - That's what NEP was about.
@@stuartwray6175 A coalition is when multiple parties or entities join together to form a single government, in a power-sharing agreement or to jointly rule. Usually in times of crises (such as major wars), countries will form what's called a national unity government, where all the major leaders come together and govern by consensus to get the country through the emergency.
During the October Revolution, the Second Congress of Soviets voted to form such a coalition government and tasked the Bolsheviks with forming it, but they did not do so. The decision to not carry out the Soviet's decree, however much the Bolsheviks may have justified it, led to instability in their government and discontent; it communicated that the Bolsheviks were uncooperative, pushing people away from them at a time when unity was crucial. I'm not talking about "building socialism" or the NEP here (which is many years away), I'm just talking about the matter of weathering the crises of 1917-18.
I mean it was a point of trial, error and experimentation building a government from scratch, while simultaneously defending against german invaders, tsarist and allied intervention
best channel uploaded
Thank you!
The apathy of the broad population is terrifying and fascinating. I wonder how they would act if they knew what was coming.
You can't fight aggresive violence with hopes for peace, you will get rolled. So many local tragedies precipitated one of the most destructive empires in history.
From my readings, I had come to the conclusion that the October 'revolution' was a legitimizing misnomer to cover what could be more accurately called a paramilitary coup. The fact that there actually was such widespread revolutionary soviet activity in western Russia that was essentilaly immediately strangled in the crib just floored me. Lenin and the Bolsheviks pretty much destroyed the revolutionary majoritarian poetenitial of not 1 but 2 revolutions in the span of less than a year!
To answer the question posed at the end, no, I've never really heard this aspect of the russian civil war (so tanks a lot for the video!), but it doesn't really surprise me, as no revolution is ever "clean" so to say, and I would even go so far as to say that it is more than natural (unfortunately) for such things to happen. When there arises a power-vacuum, what follows is a power-stuggle to end up as the legitimate state, and amongst the chaos corruption and other foul things committed by the bolsheviks doesn't seem so strange; there are many opportunists, and a general chaos, so checking on who's doing what must have been a pain.
As for what I would do/support I am not able to say, becaues injustices were commited by everyone, I would like to think I'd be with the bolsheviks, but it all really depends in my experience with them. Most likely I'd be for the party who gave me bread!
I am not in their shoes, but it must have been a monumental and uncertain task and ultimately I think they made the right choice in taking the power by force, it was class-war, and during any war you can't afford to have any opposition, the goal is taking total control, at all costs anything else would be idealism. And I think that is something more leftist should be aware of, and not romanticize any revolution really, just like war shouldn't be romanticized: for example WWII, yes the Soviets where the "good guys", but that doesn't hinder them from committing crimes, as any other army, a nuanced picture is what is required.
The bolsheviks understood what was so poetically later said by Mao: "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" and they won the struggle. Everyone has dirty hands, some less than others, and what the Soviet union would later give the working class, I would say more then compensate their infractions, not that they should be committed, nor repeat, they are a reality, and to deny it is idealism. One must take both the bad and good in history, so thanks again for making this video.
(For anyone reading this: yes, I am indeed a filthy communist)
Thank you for the insightful and respectful comment, and I appreciate that you gave the video a chance. I agree with what you said about taking both the good and the bad in history; even if you believe the Bolshevik actions were justified or worked out in the end, I think it's important to be able to acknowledge and discuss decisions, problems, and the realities along the way.
Great video! Whats the name of the background music?
Thank you! I create/improvise all the music for these videos so most of the music isn't really named. Although in this video I did a couple of interpolations/covers: at the beginning I roughly played "Computer Love" by Kraftwerk, at the Peredyshka section it's the same chords as "Stone in Focus" by Aphex Twin, and at about 26:30 I'm playing "Lotus Flower" by Radiohead. In the future I'm probably going to put the music out for people to download.
@@nojrants I see, i really like the way you use music in this video and for example the wikipedia video. The way the background music sounds is fitting too
@@nojrants I love your version of Computer Love, I'd definately listen to it independently
Great video. Will you be continuing this conflict in the election series? I also second the idea that you should cover the Whites' politics as well
Thank you! And yes this will all serve as a basis for the next few election videos. I had started working on them and I realized I needed this standalone video to explain the overarching changes to the soviets, as otherwise the elections won't really make sense going forward. I will be sure to touch on the Whites as well.
What archive(s) did you use for the newspapers?
Primarily the collections available at the Hoover Institution. They house the Nicolaevsky Collection, which is a treasure trove of documents from this period, as well as archives of most major newspapers. Other sources were found at the Stanford libraries, the UCLA Library, and the Library of Congress. A handful of documents, namely from the newspaper Izvestiya if I remember correctly, were found on East View. Some of the collections and books in the description also contain republished copies.
All of this sounds similar to the Cultural Revolution in China, would you do a video on that?
I wouldn't be opposed. There's a few topics regarding China that I've considered, although the Soviet Union is more so my area of expertise.
Eres uno de los mejores canales, que buen video
Gracias!
(Sorry for my Bad English)First of all i must say ,your videos are a god-sent. I'm currently doing a tabletop rpg taking place during that time, and I was struggling to find source who talked about this political struggle on a local level. and even on the broader picture .All the political part between 1905 and 1917 is generally put aside (except fun rasputin stuff) .And the fact you're really going in depht makes it even better.
The fact that this series got as few view as that is very sad .Especially because i see that your wikipedia videos clearly outperformed it ,these videos are also good but we clearly see the difference in term of work ,reading all of the bibliography must have taken a lot of times !
I see that this is your only "history serie" on this channel .I would like to know if you are planning to do other series like that, and if that's the case i would also like to know if you're planning to stay on the subject of russia or the stay in the XIX-XX century period.
Hello, thank you for the support on the video, and good luck on your RPG! Yes, the less serious videos tend to do better, but ultimately I enjoy making the highly-researched videos as well and will continue to make them. I plan to continue the elections series to the present day, covering both Soviet and Russian Federation elections. Along the way I will be making spin-off videos (like this one) going more in-depth into particular topics, as well as videos on just whatever I find interesting. I primarily focus on Soviet history since that's what I specialize in, but I'm open to whatever. If you have any topic suggestions feel free to let me know and I'll consider them!
@@nojrants Thanks for the reply .For other subject i feel could be interesting for you ,for the "Russian part" Talking about all those strange political entity of the Russian civil war and what happened there could be interesting (far eastern republic orthe many separatist nations ) .For the "election" part I would clearly a serie like this about french election from the revolution of 1789 to this very day .Especially the part between napoleon the first and the third republic which is overlooked too many times .
The channel Anark made a video on this topic. The bolsheviks basically jumped in the drivers seat of the revolution after all the hard work was done and subverted it.
I'm not familiar with that channel, but thanks I'll check it out
Driver yes, subverted ???
Fantastic video
Thank you!
vladimir brovkin is such a good resource on this, i’m glad you used his work. maurice brinton is also really good on this topic, would recommend checking him out! great video comrade
Really good video. Fun fact: "Soviet" comes from "sovet / совет" meaning advice or council
*Chef's kiss*
Nice video
Thank you!
i've taken multiple classes about soviet history in my history studies, and this aspect of the period was mostly glossed over, or other aspects of it is highlighted. It makes me unsure of the exact importance and relevancy of the thesis of this video, but also unsure if the historiography shouldve perhaps focused on this more.
Part of the reason why this is obscure is due to how Soviet historiography developed after. Of course Soviet historians didn't/couldn't really discuss these events for much of the Soviet Union's existence, significantly downplaying any notion of widespread opposition to the Bolsheviks. Additionally, much of this video relies on information found/confirmed in the Soviet archives, which only began to be available in the final decade of the Soviet Union. Therefore, these events were relatively unknown until the 1980s, when historians began to piece together these events from archival evidence. At the very least, this makes the history very new and thus not as popularized, although it also has to compete with the previous, more widely known narratives. I think a lot of people also gloss over these events, since in the end the Bolsheviks still succeeded. Thus for some (although I disagree), these events might not be viewed as particularly relevant to the overall trajectory of Soviet history.
@@nojrants yeah from what I've seen, this seems to be the correct analysis. especially what you said at the end, this is sometimes seen as tangential
the war of all against all
Which of the sources in the description provides the best one volume overview of the Bolsheviks sidelining of the Soviets?
A good source for the Bolshevik government overall in the first year is Alexander Rabinowitch's book "The Bolsheviks in Power". For just the "war against the soviets" part, I would recommend Vladimir Brovkin's "Mensheviks After October", which essentially outlines the same points as here. Brovkin was among the first to uncover much of this evidence in the 1980s/90s, so he's a great source on the topic.
What was the song at the beginning?
The song at the very beginning is called "Time, Forward!" It was the opening theme for a 1980s Soviet television program called "Vremya", which the introduction is parodying. If you're talking about after 0:17, that's me doing a cover of "Computer Love" by Kraftwerk.
Marx: Workers should take power and govern themselves
Lenin: Ogey
*Steals power from the people and directs a campaign of terror against them*
Lenin: How did I do
Marx: How could you possibly believe thats what I meant
Lenin: Another day Another banger
When the workers are the counterrevolutionaries 😎
How could you possibly believe that this isn’t what Marx meant. Marx wrote at length about seizing power by any means necessary, and of suppressing individual will and autonomy, always in favour of the nebulous “people” or “collective” but always in the end defined as the will of communist leadership in the aim of seizing power.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography "Marx wrote about suppressing individual will" ...hmmm
excellent video definitely subbin after this one
Thank you! I appreciate it
this is amazing and well-researched, thanks for all the effort you put in to educate us! this period of what can only be called a deep betrayal of the Soviets has always fascinsted me in a grotesque way. Parading the name of the Soviets for decades after is like some kind of serial killer with the skin mask of its victims...
From your research, what do you think was the motivation of the Bolsheviks here? Especially in this period. From Lenin's own writings on the absolute primacy of the vanguard and professional revolutionaries and so forth, was this inevitable given the way he organised and taught his party?
Thank you for your support on the video! It's difficult to answer what the motivations were, but I'll try to give one brief theory. For one thing, many people assume that if the Bolsheviks weren't genuine then they must have been power hungry (there's even some comments here accusing me of thinking that). But actually, I don't think that's the answer. Yes, some of those opportunistic people who signed-up after the Revolution, hoping to get some of the plunder, a position of power, etc, they can be described as power hungry. But it's hard to square these dedicated revolutionaries, who often lived in squalor, exile, and gave up conventional lifes and opportunities, as just motivated by power. People like Lenin, in my opinion, can be better explained by a extremely determined belief in his goal, and the consequential ends of communism justifying the means. If you firmly believe that your end result will be the best possible outcome for all humanity (and that it's even proven scientifically), of course you must make it come about-it would be outrageous not to. Therefore, and especially if you believe you have the best way to make that happen, those disagreeing with you are also ridiculous, maybe even nefarious.
As for the organization of the party, this dips a bit into Lenin's psychology (trying to evaluate the personality of long-ago dead people is always a precarious task) as well as my own personal beliefs. I think a strong case can be made that vanguardism reflected this sort of consequentialist outlook, as well as Lenin's personality some what. Although it's hard to argue that the early party organization inevitably led to the post-revolution order. For one thing, the Bolsheviks rapidly transformed in 1917-18. There was a flood of new members, many of whom far from being "professional revolutionaries". The functions of the party was rapidly changing, from an underground cell into a quasi-government. And as we saw, there were numerous intra-party disputes which threatened Lenin's centralist principles. So for now I'd say that no it was not inevitable. There was a number of conscious decisions during this period, as well as failure/inactivity/poor leadership on the other end, which solidifed the Bolsheviks in this direction, but it didn't necessarily have to be this way.
@@nojrants thanks for the response, very enlightening. Especially on the idea that it's not as simple as "either you're genuine or you've been a snake the whole time." I suppose to Lenin, concentrating power into a form he can 100% control to bring about the Most Important Goal (communism) *is* the genuine and even moral thing to do- even if it means lying to people, or in some cases having to treat disagreement as outright opposition, as you said. I also like what you sai nat the end there, there's a lot to be said about the connection between a consequentialist outlook and a specific way of party organisation. The personal is political and all that. Thanks again for your work on the video!
But if no soviets why socialist Soviet republic, Hmmmmmmm🤔
This topic of internal conflict has truly awed me of learning this incomprehensible tragedy, for the spirit of revolution then and there is truly the haunting specter of terror and disorder in the name of retaining power alone to the radical and violent revolutionaries.
Had I been in the shoes of a Bolshevik based in the solid metropole capitals of Russia, it would be sad to see and these policies of terror and authority by the means of silencing regional elections & separate local governments. It would be best for someone in these shoes to investigate and document these atrocities to, through cunning and law, punish surviving Bolshevik warlords and their associated thugs in upcoming show trials punishing and denouncing these past un-Soviet activities (and ironically at the same time celebrate the popular successes of the Oct/Nov 1917 Revolution). After all, this is the perspective of a despairing Soviet official trying to survive these increasingly harsher times.
Had I been in any of these opposing local councils and dumas, it's best that one in these tired soles of broken boots must mount a defense of popular principles against Red Hundreds and rely on local advantages. Otherwise, I'd board in the same transports with the Czech legions or the White movement's navies docked in the Black Sea and be a migrant exile in the West.
Truly, the USSR should rather cut down their acronyms of four into three
In anarchism the story is very know
Would you like a script regarding a political scandal event that I have intimate knowledge on in soviet history that hasn't been extensively covered in the english language. It occurred in 1935, if you ever plan to get that far with this series. I'm also working on the wikipedia page for it, but there are few publications on it, even then there are a few accurate ones.
Sure, I'd be interested in checking it out. I likely would not use someone else's script verbatim, simply because I enjoy the process of writing things in my own style, but I'm curious to see what you're referring to. Maybe it'll spark me to research the topic as well, in which case I'll credit you for the idea. Feel free to send it to me at the email address listed in the channel about section, or you can message me on discord (my username is @nojrants).
@@nojrants It's the "Kremlin Affair," mostly used as an off hand remark or example of the great purges. It's interesting and representative of the NKVD considering it was Nikolai Yezhov's imperative under Yagoda's NKVD, and Stalin was very interested and close to the investigation. It has relatively few victims, enough to cover them all and why they were interrogated (along with recorded interrogations) If you want the very incomplete wikipedia page, its under the (wrongly translated) title of "Kremlin Plot"
Where do you learn all of this???
The direct answer is it was learned from the sources in the description, but the indirect answer is it was learned over the course of the last several years from working in this field.
@@nojrants how long have you studied Russian history?
@@unpluggedlamp1Since he was born
bro hit us with the jason unruhe intro.
And then they called the USSR's rubberstamp national legislature...
THE SUPREME SOVIET (Oh, the sick irony)
Equally ironic is that the lower house of the Federal Assembly (Russia's current legislature) is called the State Duma and it's even more toothless than its namesake!
What were the socialist opposition against the Bolsheviks advocating for that they would gain majorities in Soviets? Was it mostly a case of the Bolsheviks in charge of the local government being corrupt or horrible implementation of policy? Were there any key differences in policies that attracted people to the Right SRs/Mensheviks outside of the warlord bandits? You mention that in some areas the Bolsheviks were able to form a proper local government, how come these areas didn't have opposition? How were things in Moscow/Petrograd? Did the apathy of the populace in some areas come from a disillusionment of 'both sides'?
It is also quite hilarious in how brutally honest Lenin is.
Thank you for the great questions!
I think given how bad the situation was, many people likely flocked to the Opposition simply because they wanted anything but the Bolsheviks. But additionally, the Mensheviks and SRs also had their own platforms and alternative ideas, which attracted genuine support. To give a few examples, during the Bagmen crisis the Mensheviks created a plan which combined economic incentives, taxation, and procurement agencies to phase the Bagmen out of business, as an alternative to the more heavy-handed requisitioning. They also generally proposed temporary cooperation with industrialists (in a way sort of like China in the 1950s) and a state capitalist phase (which Lenin ended up coopting). All the parties generally proposed increased worker rights (e.g. restoring the eight-work day, creating minimum wage, social insurance), lessening censorship, and the restoration of universal suffrage (usually they wanted to restore dumas as augmentary to soviets). They advised reform of the governmental structure as well as a unity coalition of the parties, and often rallied around the idea of reviving the constituent assembly.
RE: "being corrupt or horrible implementation of policy?"
It's really a combination of factors and varies by town. In some cases, I think the policy itself was likely ill-advised regardless of implementation, but there was certainly exacerbation from poor implementation, local chaos, or factors out of their control entirely. The local corruption and violence was breaking out regardless and grew out of the control of the Bolshevik central leadership. But on the other hand, it was also enabled and encouraged by the Bolsehviks in the first place. In a sense, the local chaos was itself a policy at first.
RE: "how come these areas didn't have opposition?"
The opposition existed pretty much everywhere, just like the Bolsheviks, with varying degrees of strength. Initially, there was a sort of "normal" political landscape, with political parties campaigning across the country, recruiting members, and being stronger or weaker in certain areas or among different cleavages. With the gradual seizure of power, a wide array of conflicts broke out all across the country (some big and some small). Although I highlighted only key provincial capitals, struggles were occuring in virtually every town.
RE: "How were things in Moscow/Petrograd?"
These cities suffered greatly during this period, being hit hard by unemployment and food shortages. Petrograd's population would fall something like 70% by the end of the decade as a result of deaths and migrations back into the countryside (it did not recover until the 1930s). If you're curious about those cities being the only two won by the Bolsheviks on the map, that mainly has to do with the high degree of control the Bolsheviks maintained in those cities. There was actually a very lively opposition in Petrograd and a fierce election campaign, which is probably the most well documented/studied of the bunch. The Bolsheviks essentially cheated heavily to "win" the election through manipulation of the rules and procedures (as well as the obvious suppression going on).
RE: "Did the apathy of the populace in some areas come from a disillusionment of 'both sides'?"
Yes you could say that. There were certainly cases of believing "they're all the same" and giving up on all the parties. Many people had only just recently become politically active for the first time, and so turned away as before (i.e. believing the whole thing's a waste). Another one of the more popular beliefs among the masses was that party politics was just petty squabbling, and so they waited for the parties to stop messing around and come together.
@@nojrants Thank you very much!
As someone whose brain has been pretty much ruined by TNO, I listened to the intro and thought "IS THAT FUCKING SAKHAROV?"
Huh interesting, I'm not too familiar with TNO but it sounds like they use the same song. It was the theme song for the Soviet TV program Vremya in the 80s, which the intro here is parodying.
@@nojrants It is often used for the technocratic Sakharov, a potential unifier for Russia should you choose him.
Then they destroyed the unions as well, so remove that part too
Whatever the cost, the Bolsheviks fulfilled their promise of immediate land redistribution, industrial nationalization, and an end to war. Yet the cost turned out to be too much for everyone...
Thanks for covering this topic. Few people know what bolsheviks actually did
Yes I was surprised to learn that this topic is very rarely discussed, at least on the English side of the internet. The alternative assemblies don't even have a mention on Wikipedia.
@@nojrants KOMUCH has a page and it doesn't seem socialist like you claim
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Members_of_the_Constituent_Assembly
@@TheReaperKinlord If this channel has taught me anything, it's to not trust a wikipedia page! Especially a stub with only a few paragraphs and a couple sources.
this is such a good video, please do more russian revolution and civil war history
Thank you! I have plans for similar videos currently in the works.
what a masterpiece as always! loved this vid! makes me even less sure of which side of the upcoming civil war i would support to be frank?
what could’ve changed the circumstances as to make the world a better place in the year 2024? would a white victory have been a victory for wellbeing of humanity eventually? just love thinking about this stuff, keep up the good work
Thank you! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it. This might sound surprising given I've railed on the Bolsehviks a lot so far, but this shouldn't be construed as support for the Whites either. As I will explore in future videos, the Whites were just as bad if not worse in many ways. Ultimately we have no idea how things would have turned out if this or that group had won, so it's hard to answer if the world in 2024 would be a better place (also depends on how we define "better"), but my intuition would be that a White victory may likely end up worse for the Russian people. In my personal opinion, a better outcome would have been achieved by a more egalitarian Red victory, i.e. a coalition government with greater cooperation between the Left. I feel as though many of the shortcomings of the Bolshevik regime can be traced to these uncooperative actions in 1917. For example, the Bolshevik disregard for some of the rules in late 1917 caused dissatisfaction within the governmental administration, which caused protests and shut-downs, which caused firings and crackdowns, which caused a more dysfunctional administration during the Civil War. This also comes down a lot to my personal political beliefs/preferences, which maybe I will flesh out in a future video. But in general I think some of these Bolshevik actions, while admittedly still allowing for a victory in the end, increased human suffering to an extent beyond what was necessary.
@@nojrants You didnt bothered to mention this in video, nice job but kinda slightly it might be may be not it possibly could be misleading, could it be?
@@nojrantswhat do you think about the white movement would have done under piotr wrangl
@@user-pq1di2sk7n I mean it's a video on a specific topic, not a full overview of the entire civil war. The Whites are barely mentioned here, and when they are it's as a looming threat, not a good thing
clicked immediately
It seems your channel focuses on Russia. Is there any interest in examining other nations, too?
Yes I'd be open to that, I'm willing to make videos about anything I find interesting. I've mostly focused on Russian/Soviet history so far simply because that's what my expertise is in.
Please consider adding a Spanish language voice over if possible. Or at least captions. This video deserves to go viral.
The War against the Soviets was vile because basically the Bolsheviks who claimed to represent their interests became their worst enemies. While in Lenin's mind he didn't actually want true democracy if it means losing power, he wanted to enact his communist utopia no matter what and at any "short term" cost. And the opposition should've allied with the Whites, at least like in Finland it would've lead to a chance for a republic or constitutional monarchy since nobody wanted to restore the old Tsarist regime.
Not fighting back was the opposition doom, the bolsheviks had no problem using violence to stay in power.
Amazing video regardless, you are one of the few people covering this less known part of russian history and i appreciate thr effort.
If I had to choose between the bolsheviks and the whites I would choose the bolsheviks everytime. The Bolsheviks empowered many Jews and the soviets were influenced by Jewish Bundists. The whites were comprised of many groups, many anti-Jewish groups, and some international forces that were indifferent to the Jewish plight. I don't believe in a theoretical white/soviet victory that my people would achieve any sort of autonomy. It is true that nobody meaningful in the whites wanted the same Tsarist regime, but a constitutional monarchy would still suck. The All-Rus ideology would still suck. Under the Lenin Bolshevik control, many many people died, but Jews from the Pale, those that weren't killed by whites and anti jewish peasants, gained their first positions of power in Soviet and Bolshevik governance
@@valerieblackwell5765 I agree. The Reds could have been better, but the Whites were worse. Especially if we're talking about treatment of Jews. There was antisemitism in the USSR, but the Whites would have been SUPER antisemitic. Especially if it was a full tsarist victory
"And the opposition should've allied with the Whites, at least like in Finland it would've lead to a chance for a republic or constitutional monarchy since nobody wanted to restore the old Tsarist regime." -> You said it all. It was either a bolshevik victory or the tsarist generals getting back in power under a liberal facade. Long live the bolsheviks and the october revolution!
23:49 AHHHHHHHHHH
This is Horrifying!
Tankies: nothing to see here, well actually the soviet union was the first country to go to space, but they defeated the germans, nooooo you're a fash
It's a mixed bag. After studying the anarchist point of view, i can't side with the Bolshevicks on this one. I hope some MLs/Lenin defenders like Hakim do a from-the-bottom-of-the-heart cover of this topic. If i am the government, then yea, I want to straighten the government, but i thought the whole point of the revolution is to decentralize and give the power to the soviets. Sometimes, the soviets are not a hivemind, material conditions influence our decisions and a Nizhny Novgorod soviet maybe doesn't agree with the Moscow soviet. A left leaning democracy would search for a concensual agreement, not a state/paramilitary enforced proposition.
What chanches would the whites have if the Bolsh didn't undermine the popular support, destroy industrial output in military equipment cities and split the socialist body? Yet the excuse given is that the white army is going to attack and that the Bolshevicks need(NEED) to centralize and dictate. To me it seems that almost everyone was against the Tsar regime coming back, is it impossible to think that cooperation between soviets would work as well if not better than forced coersion?
I hate to put myself in other people's shoes, that's why i am a communist/anarchists(still working on it), i do not dream of being a capitalist tyrant or Jeff Bezos, and so, in the theme of the video, i don't like to put myself in the shoes of the Bolshevik government. I would have been a worker terrorized by the Bolsheviks because of local autonomy and democracy, and i am completely against it.
this is what the video claims was 'autonomous govt' tho
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Members_of_the_Constituent_Assembly
I don't know where to stay on this topic really, studying the German revolution of 1918 I came to the conclusion that a strong unified party was needed...
@@DanielGarcia-kw4ep If you are going for state control, yes. If you are going for workers liberation? Do you need the state? Look at Free territory of Ukraine. Logistics, militia, secret service, all done without the state, without the race for the monopoly of force. If not for the Bolshevik attack, they seemed fine. But even the most centralized and unified party structure would not save them from the external threat.
I feel like Bolsheviks , in this time period, favored the power grab actions over the anti-Tsarist, anti-capitalist, and communist actions when the revolution may not have needed it.
It's a tough one, but i would assume that a more lax and cooperative stance could lead to more favorable politics at the time, instead of the Bolshevik actions. But that's history, we don't how it would change. In modern times these Bolshevik crimes could not go under the radar like they did then, so the centralization would need to go a different route.
@djordjetosic4553, thank you for the comment. Usually the response of Marxist-Leninists is that these actions (and "War Communism" as a whole) were regrettable but necessary, as otherwise the whole revolution would have been lost. Sometimes this is extended to essentially a post hoc fallacy, where it's said victory was only possible because of these actions. While I can understand this line of thinking - the Bolsheviks certainly did win in the end after all - what these arguments miss is that this was not necessarily the only/best victorious outcome. Perhaps the Bolsheviks could have been better off by not doing these actions, or perhaps they only barely won in spite of them. And at least for some of their actions, my assessment is indeed that they hurt more than helped. The second problem with the argument (which is what Rosa Luxemburg warned of), is that "temporary measures" have a habit of becoming permanent.
I will likely explain this in a full video, but if we consider the Whites close to victory, they had been pushed most of the way there by the Bolsheviks. The rapid White successes in 1919 almost perfectly correspond to the areas ravaged in this present video by the Bolsheviks, suggesting that if those areas hadn't been weakened and disillusioned through the war against the soviets, the Whites would have not had nearly as much success. As we'll see in a future election video, there were various less coercive proposals as part of the "New Course" which could have been chosen. But it became a sort of "when all you have is a hammer..." situation.
As I've explained in another comment, I believe Comrade ReaperKinlord is mistaken here, as the video does not claim Komuch was the "autonomous government" alternative. The autonomous option if anything would have been to not suppress the soviets in the first place, which in all probability would have caused Komuch to not exist at all. Governmentally, Komuch had many of the same problems as the Bolsheviks if not worse.
@@nojrants I would like to know why you think the Gsrman revolution failed, as I simply saw it the lack of a strong unified party
I'd like to see some Breadtubers respond to this, in light of their feneral support for Marxism-Leninism
Funny that leninists accuse anarchists of wanting chaos went the guy they are championing was doing exactly that
I may not be a Marxist, hell, I am a fervent Anti-Marxist, but I adore these kinds of videos, very nice, detailed. I might have commented on your Silvio Gesell video, which I pointed out Gesell sometimes going to the DNSAP congresses in Austria.
The inferiority of Leftism particularly of the Russian flavour is so apparent and well-explained here. Thanks for the video.
own a farm. own a lot of guns and ammo. lesson learned.
nope. landowners got killed by the workers who actually worked the land.
@@JohnDoe-mp1yn that's your interpretation. not every farm needs workers and not everyone hated farmers.
@@uh3287 the moderate position in the Russian revolution still included the overthrow of the "petite bourgeois" which included land owners who expressly didn't hire workers. it was clear the land owners wouldn't join any socialist faction and that they saw themselves as autonomous from the greater socialist project, and would obviously back the tsarist/bourgeouis counter revolution. a farmer who only had himself to protect their domain was an easy target, and would logically support counter revolution.
I'm an italian leftcom (pro-Lenin) but this is a good video, I still think it was justified, revolutions are bloody an plenty of mistakes are made.
I actually don't disagree with you that in a revolution there is inevitably going to be violence as well as mistakes made, and I would by no means expect the Bolsheviks to be perfect either.
But for one thing, I think a large number of communists today legitimately believe there were no mistakes made. This video attempts to dispel that idea and explain the pros and cons of different actions, showing that the Bolsheviks weren't infalliable after all. If anything, I would think it would be empowering to know Lenin was a human too, like me and you. Even if you believe the Bolsheviks were completely justified, I think that this is valuable information to have, especially if your goal as a communist is to learn from these mistakes and do better in the future.
Additionally, I think there were a number of actions and policies that the Bolsheviks chose, and which almost certainly hurt more than they helped. So it's not a matter of just throwing up your hands and saying "revolutions are bloody, nothing you can do". Even if we accept there is going to be bloodshed, we can look for ways to mitigate the bloodshed such that it isn't more than necessary. Even if we accept there are going to be mistakes, we can look for ways to keep the mistakes to a minimum.
@@nojrants thankfully capitalism has developed a lot and peasants do not exist anymore, so we aren't in the need of a dual revolution like the bolsheviks were forced to do, in the end, the failure of the german revolution doomed the soviet experiment.
What is your ideology?
He's a Council Communist
He's a Marxist-Leninist
@@justren-mn8br No
This is one of many reasons why I am *not* a Marxist-Leninist, by any means. Democratic centralism, for one, is just not my 'cup of tea', as far as 'democracy' is concerned (esp. since, so often, it just seems like a way for the "dictatorial-minded" folks to 'have our cake and eat it, too', while pretending to be "super democratic"), esp. with regard to the way nations run by this system *keep going off the rails* (with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 of such states? I think Burkina Faso under Sankara, maybe? ..or so I hear). Not to mention the 'overly-dogmatic' way they approach history, politics, economics, etc., particularly when it comes to "being a good socialist." They have so many fucking 'rules' on "how to be a good communist", that it seems like they 'lose sight' of what's REALLY important- doing right by the people and truly taking their concerns and will into consideration (not just paternalistically doing stuff you "know is good for them"). Like... how'm I supposed to "take seriously" an ideology/movement that claims it's an "immortal science"?! Who FUCKING SAYS THAT?! Even Randians don't call their Objectivist bullshit "a science", I think?
Granted, there are, perhaps, some "good" MLs out there who *realize* just how authoritarian and "bourgeois" the ML parties eventually become/became, but... seems hard af to find 'em, esp. online! Like... 99% of MLs, from what I've observed, just seem to make excuse after excuse for the behavior of Bolsheviks, Stalin, Mao, CCP, etc.
esp. the insidious notion that the Holodomor was nothing more than a "Ukrainian Nazi lie meant to make the USSR LOOK BAD", and then, when they could no longer *refuse to admit that it happened*, they turned around and said that, "While it DID happen... folks calling it 'genocide' are just buying into 'Ukrainian-Nazi' propaganda." lol
Yes... a bunch of 'well-dressed' "Nazis" from and, allied with, Ukraine, from the 30s til now, lobbied the UN, various allied nations, et al, to... "get them to acknowledge" Holodomor "as genocide", in various conferences, meetings, etc. Supposedly these "Ukrainian Nazis" 'infiltrated'- albeit at very-low numbers, like barely 3,000 Ukrainian immigrants to Canada right after the war, I think- Western states to "spread the lie"
...even though Holodomor had been talked about throughout the West and First World for over a decade prior to the end of WW2, at that?
WOW! What 'well-behaved, weak Nazis', lmfao
Also... if it was a "Nazi lie" to call Holodomor genocide, how do tankies square that with, say, the fact that, if memory serves, the ACTUAL Nazis themselves barely "seized upon", for propaganda purposes, the Holodomor disaster?? Like, I'm sure they made 'reference' to it in a few speeches and propaganda here n there, but... did the German ruling class ever, like, "use" it to "help encourage more Ukrainians to fight the Soviets", or some shit?
...seems like a weird "missed opportunity" for them, if we accept the lie that Holodomor-as-genocide was merely a "Ukrainian Nazi myth."
Of course, it's fair to debate to "what extent" we can, verbiage-wise, call Holodomor "genocide", as well as to 'what extent' it was "man-made"- though, certainly, a lot of terrible decisions made by Stalin and his ilk definitely led to it- but the INSIDIOUS LIE that Holodomor "was made-up by Nazis from Ukraine just to make the USSR look bad" is so despicable and an OBVIOUS ATTEMPT to absolve Stalin and the CPSU of guilt!
also... it's interesting to note that OTHER, similar famines nearby aren't being referred to as "Nazi-created", by tankies, such as that of Kazakhstan, I believe?
Surely, if Holodomor was "made-up by Ukrainian Nazis", then *other* tales of famine nearby, at that time, were "also made up by Nazis"
...or are we to believe, according to tankies, that ONLY Ukraine did it this way?
Frankly, it's almost as sick and pathetic as tankies who *deny* Pol Pot's and Khmer Rouge's massacre/genocide.
Lastly... if Holodomor was "so obviously a Nazi talking point", how is it that, to this day, tankies can't refer to ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT OR "SPEECH", for starters, "from" such a "Ukrainian propagandist" about "making up" Holodomor for "anti-Soviet purposes"?
hahahaha
guess they FORGOT that part (though I guess it's just good for them that so many 'Western Communists', for one, buy into their bullshit and don't "demand" REAL, hard evidence for such claims)
Your logic goes like this: if the Judo-bolshevik conspiracy wasn't real, how is that nobody can reference a nazi official who admits they cooked it up.