Pershing Lecture Series: The Russian Revolution - Sean N. Kalic and Gates Brown
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2024
- 1917 was a monumental year in Russian history and politics. Join Sean N. Kalic and Gates Brown, co-editors of the recently published The Russian Revolution 1917: The Essential Reference Guide as they discuss how social, economic, and political forces transformed Russia in the early 20th century.
The John J. Pershing Great War Centennial Series is presented in partnership with the Command and General Staff College Foundation.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org
[3:56] lecture starts
Thanks 👍
God bless
If you are ever feeling depressed, take a course in Russian history. I did many years ago and even though I was a military cold-warrior at the time I came away with respect for the hardiness of the Russian people. There are those who say the Chinese lost more people in the 20th Century but the Russian casualty figures from 1900 to 1945 are something that's hard to get your head around. I'm not sure there was any way to prevent the Bolsheviks from wreaking the havoc they did during their terrible reign but the provisional government may have had a chance if they had pulled out of the war instead of continuing to fight. Of course if that happens, the Germans are able to send their forces to the Western Front sooner, limiting the influence of the American Army whose numbers would have been significantly smaller. If Germany wins the war, all bets are off as far as where things go from there. Interesting lecture. Thanks for posting.
This speaker is the only historian I have ever read or heard that describes Alexander III as a reformer. Mainstream historians have always described him as an extreme reactionary.
Yes, indeed. I had always read of Alexander III as an extreme reactionary.
Leftists usually like to reframe unsavory figures from the past as extreme reactionaries no matter their actual political bent
If you call limiting the workhours for pregnant factory workers to anytime before midnight reform, yes...
Alexander III was a "reformer" in the sense that he realized that Russia needed to modernize and catch up with the rest of Europe and the world, and he surround himself with capable bureaucrats (rather than simple yes-men). He was also very very cagey about the use of Russia's power, and after the Crimean War, he sought to incrementally expand/reinforce Russia's position and stability...but he WAS adamant about maintaining the Romanovs' power...had he been alive, he most likely would NOT have allowed Russia to come to blows with Germany over Serbia, but unfortunately was not nearly as capable.
Every russian leader after 1830 realized that Russia needs to modernize and be reformed, but they always did it in a very russian way
It's always refreshing to get a full spectrum view of such an historical and world changing event in Human Relations and Power ...
Nicholas didn’t ask the advice of his generals. They held him as a prisoner until he agreed to sign the abdication document.
They should do a podcast on this so there’s more time to cover the topic.
Too short. I could listen to a 10 hour lecture xD
I recommend the podcast "Revolutions" by Mike Duncan. Russian Revolution has 100 episodes 30minutes apiece
For a better presentation see "The February Revolution in Russia by Dominic Lieven who has some book on Russia including "Nicholas II" a fine bio of him
Alexander II The Last Great Tsar Eduard Radzinsky who also has a bio of Nicholas II called "The Last Tsar"
Alexander III His Life and Reign good bio of him by Margarita Nelpa who also has books Killing Rasputin on Rasputin and his murder and "The Last Imperial Heir" on Nicholas II son Alexei
The Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes is good but slightly dated account of this even
post 1991 archives have been"' opened'' to research....and a new history is emerging on the russian history of that era ...read the versions as in this youtube presentation....now reading prof sean mcmeekin's book ''the russian revolution a new history''.....many radically different insights have emerged.....
I think this presentation is useful for the general US audience. It is detailed and is not compressed in time unlike school textbooks do. Although it may not be absolutely accurate and may have biases, it shows that the Russian revolution unfolded not in an instant (the army revolting and instantly Lenin seizing the government and instituting a Communist regime--like in the movie Zhivago) but gradually. This is something the public should understand.
Interesting
I'm not sure about the point of speaking about 1st Amendment (to the US constitution) rights in relation to Tsarist Russia.
''the world-famous bread shortages of petrograd in winter 1917 likewise turn out ,on closer inspection,to be mostly mythical''...Ref:Sean Mc Meekin "the russian revolution...A new history'',page xiv.
5:46 this was common only giving votes to landowners. America did it though was one of the first to allow all to vote I believe. Uk did it like most empires. Only giving votes to the poor when women could vote. 1918 for the UK. So it was ruled by the middle class+ before that. Though often our history classes only talk about the women's right to vote to make it seem sexist. When it wasn't. It was about property. To put it simply paid property tax you could vote. Didn't pay property tax you couldn't vote.
Happy Birthday for Julian Assange!
great lecture
why were Lenins Bolsheviks part of the social democratic faction? It seems to me they fitted better with the SR's
"They've already taken down Nicholas II, who used to be bizarre!"
"That's 'the tsar.'"
- Blackadder goes Forth
odd audio
Begins at 13:19
No. It does not
I didn't realize until recently that almost all of the Bolsheviks were Jews, with Stalin being a notable exception.
Uploaded take this down and re edit the video. Terrible introduction timing going on
All revolutions are "little r" unless accompanied by their defining terms
A bit too simplistic superficial there are better terms than good guy etc,
This guy is so subjective
Most of history is subjective. You could almost argue all of it.
Is this a presentation for high schoolers? I'm actually serious it sees rather dumbed down for adults.
A little less condescension on the conditions under Alex 3 would be appropriate - his changes represented better conditions than the USA at the same time
At no point in history have conditions in Russia ever been better than conditions in the US, especially not under Alex the third. As if unofficial serfdom and pogroms weren’t rife in Russia while nothing comparable to either happened to in the US during that period.
Kerensky. In the end, the Mexicans picked him out of a lineup.
I'll let myself out through Potemkin's poop deck.
Kerensky lived long after Trotski.
Probably the best, most comprehensive and well articulated historical overview of the Russia revolution, which morphed into the first communist revolution I ever heard.
The speaker’s effort to represent Alexander III as a reforming tsar is ridiculous. He never even mentions the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1881, which were encouraged by the tsar and his ministers. This caused a well-educated middle class group to be attracted to the revolutionary movement. This provided the workers and peasants with a group of educated leaders, making a successful revolution possible
Why would the people be against his anti Jewish pogroms?
Exactly !! Alexander III was a violent despot , y started a violent russification in the Baltics, creating the most efficient and cultured Bolsheviks, the Latvian bolcheviks, as the official antisemitism created the Jewish bolcheviks. It´s imposible to understand 1917 without to take in account the Baltic Question and the Jewish Question. It´s difficult for a westerner the dark opression in Tsarist Latvia. Children were beaten if they dared to talk in their own lenguaje, Latvian. With this kind of Monarchist propaganda, we are losing the understanding concerning what happened between 1917 and 1920.
That was because of Judaism. Russian Empie was Eastern Orthodoxy. Which never liked other religions going back to the Byzantine empire. That got rid of the pagans. Russia if you know history has ties to the empire. Empire even the title of Tzar is Caesar.
@@rafaelsanz3441 Jewish Question relates to Marx who hated the Jews. And this was continued by all socialist and communist societies. As Jewish people could give loans. They were seen as capitalists. Tzar's problem with Jews is they weren't Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy has issues with Roman Catholics. Communism hated all religions. Outlawing them all with force. So the two are not related at all.
@@rafaelsanz3441 th-cam.com/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/w-d-xo.html this will make you understand the communist anti-semitism.
US Libertarians... Ron Paul, etc, would have been extremely irked by reformist Alexander III.
Disappointing that this professor does not know the Russian language. He refers to the zemstvos as "zemstovos" and does not correctly pronounce that consonant cluster, "mstv". Zem-stvo.
Um ok spasiba he was probp
Ly busy
lmao, whoever thinks this speaker is portraying the Czar as a reformer can't understand sarcasm.
"the police are shooting at peaceful protesters in the streets because the radicals have started behaving provocatively and this is a Russian, Soviet thing" Funny, I always thought it was an American thing: May 4 1886 in Chicago, September 10 1897 in Ludlow, August 28-31 1921 at Mount Blair, March 7 1932 in Detroit, May 30 1937 in Chicago. BTW, It's not the police, it's actually the army shooting on January 22 1905. Does this guy really know the specifics of what he's talking about, or is he just nervous and confused? So, the US police like to shoot at their citizens, and the Russian army likes to shoot at their own.
This guy got off to a bad start, pretending the Tzar was progressive. He wasn't, he was forced to give power to the Duma. He took over control of the army during the war, something he was not qualified to do. The peasants had very little control. It is as if he is trying to be funny. I cannot watch this much longer he keeps repeating the Claim he wants progress but slowly as if he is defending an appalling system.
Eric it’s true though
That revolution was not Russian. Lenin, Trotsky, heads of NKVD, Gulags were not Russian, nor Orthodox.
They sure spoke Russian fairly well for not being Russian
@@teacopemStalin spoke with strong Georgian accent.
Yes but it happened in Russia. What could be more Russian than that?
@jezalb2710 well, still he was россиянин. Also, if the version that he was Abkhaz is correct, calling his accent"Georgian" is kinda racist lol
What's the difference lol? Albert Einstein is a Jew, not a German. Karl Marx is a Jew, not a German. Adolf (!!!) - Austrian, not German
this guy knows nothing about the RSDLP lmao
" Their kingdom and their tyranny is coming,"
"The unlimited despotism of their ideology is now only beginning. Under this tyranny human kindness and neighbourliness as well as the longing for justice will fade away; all Christian and patriotic ideals will perish for ever!"
- Fyodor Dostoevsky
Alexander Solzhenitsyn declared:
"The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, Hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental, or marginal, to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."
The more interesting part is that Communism never yielded any great discoveries. The bomb, assault rifle, Sputnik, first space flight, etc all comes from them stealing ideas or scientists from Germany or the US. The lack of religion and embracing of science failed them. I can't speak much to China either, they stole most of their innovations and have yet to produce anything of their own of note.
who cares
@@darthbigred22 Thats a hilariously biased approach to looking at it. All human discovery is essentially improvements on past innovations, the germans and the Americans stole from the English and that what the communists did to us. They made it to space, they made Russia go from a backwards empire to a global super power, and helped to end colonialism around the world.
Why is hatred of God a central driving force of marxism?
@@darthbigred22 why would embracing science NOT lead to innovation?