Antony Beevor Breaks Down the Russian Revolution of 1917
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.พ. 2023
- 'Antony Beevor Breaks Down the Russian Revolution of 1917'
Host of History Hit podcast 'Warfare' Dr James Rogers sits down with military historian and author of 'Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921', Antony Beevor to discuss the causes and major events of the Russian Revolution.
Listen to the Warfare podcast here: play.acast.com/s/the-world-wars
Speaking in the Three John's pub in Islington, allegedly where Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky met in 1903 and sowed the seeds of one of the most significant revolutions in history, the pair cover the February and October Revolution of 1917, the fall of a weak Tsar Nicholas II, the failure of Kerensky's provisional government and the role of the First World War in creating discontent, providing Vladimir Lenin the opportunity to capitalise on chaos.
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 14 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
And remember, as TH-cam subscribers, you can sign up to History Hit TV today with code TH-cam and enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!
For more history content, subscribe to our History Hit newsletters: www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to...
#historyhit #russianrevolution #lenin
Thank you.
The thumbnail made me think you’d hired Robert DeNiro
Thank you!
Beevor's book about Stalingrad is absolutely one of the best books I've ever read. Glad to know Antony Beevor is still alive.
And another one is The Great Fight for Civilization.
I haven't read any book by Antony Beevor that I didn't like.
I agree. I've read four of Beevor's books, but it's pretty clear that Stalingrad stands above the rest of his. That's his magnum opus.@@josephglatz25
That was a great book I read it twice!
just western propaganda
Well done!
Lenin's Revolution was 8 months after the Tsar was overthrown. Nicholas was ousted in February and Lenin didn't take power until October.
Which is mentioned in the video.
@@lavrentivs9891 yes, but the title is misleading
@@fredjohnson9833 Why is the title misleading?
@@christopherpetergoodman8994 it looks like an they changed the title. Originally the video was called "how Lenin overthrew the Tsar," which would have been inaccurate
quite so, which makes Lenin's revolution a coup d'Etat ´.
Excellent. Very excellent. Thank You
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
@@DmitryTihomirow Do you honestly believe that this is my first exposure to history? I have been reading history for over fifty years. Also, and more importantly, I have known people who have survived Communist Labor Camps. I have also met people who escaped E. Germany while being shot at. I need no sermon about the joys of Communism.
fascinating high quality conversation
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
Sir Antony Beevor is truly one of the very few great historians still living, his books are very well worth reading
He is a charlatan who writes for an American readership.
Are you kidding he is one of the worst he is rather writer especially on WW2 themes. There are a lot of propaganda in his books and articles
@@ruslankbr5243 such as?
@@ruslankbr5243 I like Stephen Kotkin myself. He's the walking Library of Alexandria about Soviet Russia.
@@eamonwright7488 but he has political agenda too, this became obvious during last years when he blaming only Russia in military expansion totally ignoring that USA provoked this conflict for decades beginning from lie to Gorbachev about NATO expansion. I think historian or expert should explain problem from all points of view and must not became a mainstream voice.
Excellent, and no Dan Snow in sight. Perfection. Well excellent that trail at the end. Perfect until that point.
In The leopard - a literature masterpiece about revolution in the south of Italy - there is a great quote: "If we want everything to stay as it is, everything has to change."
And where are we now? War, conscription, revolts. and a Tzar...
Nothing brings the great themes of tragedy to life as the history of Russia.
concise and correct
Antony Beevor is a great historian!
Fabulous.
My favorite history author.
Have two of his books that were signed by Antony Beevor himself.
They’ll be worth a fortune in 50 years
@@joebrown2661 Their value will jump when sir Beevor passes away.
Great story teller.
Bravo! Antony Beevor is one of my favourite historians!
Let's hope he never mentions the Jews then and he's home free!
@@DaveSCameron he does indeed mention the jews in the book. But what is your point?
He d top notch
He is a falsifier of history, in spacial of Russia and Spain., British Empire goal has been always to destroy the other civilizations of Europe like the Catholic and the Orthodox, and this guy is just one more cog in the war machine of the protestant British Empire
@@amcespana2150 That's a little strong Sir, perhaps there's been some egos that have played things up but where Beevor is concerned he's simply inconsistent and gets mixed up, he's not the world's propagandist for Perfidious Albion! 🤣 🤣
I am literally listening to this on Audible at the moment!
It will be mostly lies that you are listening to. Read Winston Churchill's 1920 article "Zionism vs Bolshevism." Have a look at the British white paper Russia No. 1 1920. Even British MPs got the censored version up until the 1990s.
Expensive
I am too.
Yep, me too. Beevor’s books are always a must.
I keep falling asleep to the audiobook of it by accident (not at all boring, it's just what I do) and having awful nightmares due to the appalling events of the civil war recounted
I read Stalingrad and Berlin: wow! Antony Beevor is a fantastic historian!
Definitely
Stalingrad is a superb history.
Beevor is a hack.
Примитив.
For you, Anthony Beevor is a fantastic historian, but for us he is a liar.
Для вас Энтони Бивор - фантастический историк, а для нас - лжец.
Fascinating gentleman.
Brilliant video thank you. That Prof was great. More of him please!
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
I love Antony Beevor!!
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
The first thing you hear about Anthony Beevor was his fantastic and detailed book on Stalingrad and the invasion of Berlin by the Red Army !
Lenins 3 great lies at 13:37
1. Promised the factories to the workers
2. Promised the land to the peasants
3. Promised peace to the Soldiers
Actually, he gave them all of the above. They were not lies as Beevor contends. That's why the Russian workers fought so vigorously in defense of their revolution against the "democratic" White Movement and their British/Western sponsors.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 these are the first claims I've heard about Lenin's acts or policies following the revolution. No one talks about that here, they skip directly to Stalin.
@patrickstjean7646 "skip directly to Stalin"
Another piece of evidence that things are not always as simplistic as scholars like Beevor make them out to be when history is not on their side. Two books I can recommend that give the most transparent version of the Russian ruling are The Days That Shook the World by John Reed and The Bolsheviks Come to Power by Alexander Rabinowitch. Christopher Hill, who wrote an outstanding book on the English Revolution, may have written something too.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 Reed was a propagandist, who is buried in the Kremlin. Rabinowitch all but says anyone who opposed Lenin deserved to be shot. His section on the suppression of the democratic Constituent Assembly is specially bad.
Could you get a less repulsive avatar?
@HooDatDonDar Reed was a witness to the Revolution from A to Z. He was proven right on WWI prior. Rabinowitch was right on the Constituent Assembly. It was no longer a legitimate institution that served the masses. All the parties save for the Bolsheviks were going to continue the war and opposed Soviet power to the working class. If the German Communists had done the same with the Reichstag, we wouldn't have gotten Hitler.
I like how he speedrun the whole history in one question lol
That was great! Thanks! Have you got any more like this? Btw, your questions were perfect as well.
"The total destruction of the past", interesting observation.
Very interesting.....
We're experiencing something similar now, in the States, where 40% of the people root for putin...insanity R them.
Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution.
Democrats
Based
A very sage video
well said, Schwein Hund :)
I love the little facts of history. Politicians never change throughout history. People of today should be aware of this
Beevor…first class. I served in his former regiment.
As he says, Lenin’s revolution came after the revolution that toppled the Tsar. Talk about wrong title.
Ohhh! Get you.. 🤣🤣🤣👋
The title doesn’t mention Lenin
@@madswansfan1 it did.
@@charlottehardy822 did they change it?
@@madswansfan1 seems so.
History hit has great interviewers.
Beevors books are outstanding.
An excellent and balanced historian. His note about class genocide is worth remembering … socialists always slip under the radar when it comes to crime. Saw Beevor live in Melbourne launching his book on Operation Market Garden. And his book on Stalingrad is superb.
Robert De Niro with my mornings history lesson.
De Niro scum sucking enemy of America, Beevor not so much
Antony, has a lovely singing voice.
i love his books.
Can we find A.J.P. Taylor’s televised lectures? I remember a clip where he walked on stage, faced the camera and bluntly stated that the Russian Revolution was due to the Russian army being too dependent on horses.
Horses need fodder. The transport system was organised to get the fodder to the front, leaving inadequate transport for wheat to the cities.
A.J.P. Taylor seems to have been too fond of catch-phrases, no doubt on the crucial need in TV programs to catch the attention of the audience asap. It reduces history to a "reductio ad absurdum".
Well, their overreliance on horses also made them a Mickey Mouse army.
@@robertlevine2827
I thought that horses were a main if not the main source of transports well into the period of WW2…no? …though I wouldn’t have thought by the end once all the factories were whirring….
@@markhughes7927 Not into WW2, but actually they were somewhat important in WW1--I was exaggerating for comic effect.
Well as far as the parading troops, it seems that they still follow that modus operendi
Antony is a super historian - favourite author for me too !
Leave it to Beevor 😂
I think he's a bit shit
@@dougyohooglefrogtownrovers9017 LOL
@@casperdog777 he touched my balls and missgrndered me
Absolutely an amazing author
16:08, that’s right Beevor, Lenin is guilty of genocide-class genocide!
You can choose to be a landlord, you cannot choose to be a slav or a jew... I don't see where's the genocide
What an interesting and smart history professor
Beevor is great. This interviewer is a bit of a dolt.
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
He may be a splendid person who has read a great deal but what he says isn't necessarily true. Deliberately avoiding the subject? The communist takeover attempt failed at about 1918 in various countries so we should automatically think of an international attempt. In several of those countries they didn't even have a despot ruling but an elected government yet the same tribal soviets committed the same acts in many states across europe. Germany, hungary etc. The 1848 "libreral democratic" revolutions in europe started a month after Marx released his manifesto so the roots of this international conspiracy go back further. The international bankers sponsored Marx, the russo japanese war, and the revolutions. Anyone have any idea why did they do that? What were theyy aiming at? Trocky and Lenin both brought vast amounts of money from wall street and switzerland. Old and new "testaments", communism, socialism, liberal deocracy, islam, cultural marxism etc.... what do they have in common? Try to put the puzzle together.
There’s a great scene in the novel The Master and Margarita, involving a talking cat and a theater full of people…always summed it up for me.
@SHUTEYECINEMA
So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea
Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey
And these have smaller yet to bite 'em
And so proceed ad infinitum
@SHUTEYECINEMA bulgakov despised Communism.
@SHUTEYECINEMA i guess that his books were banned because he loved communism so much :))) tankies are so stupid.
@SHUTEYECINEMA I was born in the USSR. It was a shithole.
I recommend the book on Lenin by Alan Woods and Rob Sewell for a non bourgeoise view of history
Who else kinda thought at first that it was Robert De Niro on the thumbnail of this video
5:51 That guy looks really tall!
Data point for 1905: Nicholas, or at least his administration, was not quite as inept at Anthony Beevor seems to think. The largest building in the world in 1905 was the Singer Sewing Machine factory in Siberia -- so perhaps that 1905 "revolution" was a revolution of rising expectations, the unrest that comes with a society moving up from rock bottom.
I agree. Nicholas was probably not the most competent leader, but his administration was another story. The Czar was eventually pushed to one side and replaced by the Kerensky government, a structure which the Czar put in place. Lenin overthrew a pseudo parliamentary government under Kerensky, not the Czar. Perhaps the biggest issue with Kerensky was he wanted to continue the war, if Kerensky made peace with the Central powers and Lenin would have had little chance of succeeded in his revolution.
As Leon Trotsky said: "The revolution is not made by hungry people, but by well-fed people who have not been fed for one day".
@@lox000zavr Это верно и мудро - True and Wise words.
The Tsar completely messed up WW 1
No it was a revulsion funded by Wall Street crooks.
Lenin was obviously a very clever, ruthless politician.
At 9:13 he claims that the women of Russia achieve the right to vote, as the first women in Europe. That is incorrect. Danish women achieved this in 1905.
That law only applied to upper class women. The Bolsheviks gave all women the vote.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 so? Denmark was first.
@@HooDatDonDar It doesn't count unless all get the vote.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 drivel
Danish women achieved it in 1915
Beaver is an amazing wester and historian the best there is!
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
@@DmitryTihomirowThe Communists smuggled Socialism and continued Feudalist dictatorship only replacing aristocracy with party members.
@@cezarstefanseghjucan, first, where did the Communists smuggle socialism into?
Secondly, feudalism is a social system based on the feudal lords' ownership of land and other means of production. The peasants working on this land are in serfdom from the feudal lord.
Under feudalism, there is a strict division into estates, and a person cannot move from one estate to another. A feudal lord will never become a peasant, and a serf peasant will never be able to become a feudal lord. The peasant's children will also remain peasants.
There are no social elevators.
But under socialism, there are no classes and estates, social elevators work and anyone can make any career.
For example, in the 20-50 years of the 20th century, the profession of a pilot was considered elite. Therefore, during the Second World War, almost all pilots of the Luftwaffe and allied countries (except the USSR) were either representatives of noble families or sons of rich bourgeois.
But the Soviet aces are almost 100% the children of workers and peasants.
For example, fighter pilot Hero of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian Ivan Kozhedub, is the son of a poor landless and horseless peasant. From the age of 7, he worked as a farmhand for his rich neighbor, kulak. The Soviet government gave Ivan's father land and a horse, and Ivan was able to stop working for a rich man, went to school, and then graduated from flight school and became a fighter pilot, a hero, the elite of the state.
The first cosmonaut of the Earth
Yuri Gagarin is the son of a peasant, graduated from a vocational school with a degree in milling and worked at a factory.
The first female cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova is also from a peasant family, she worked as a weaver in a factory.
Stalin is the son of a shoemaker, Khrushchev, Gorbachev are the children of peasants, Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin are the children of workers.
You don't understand the topic.
Why are you writing nonsense? First, study the issue more deeply before expressing your opinion.
@@cezarstefanseghjucan, во-первых, куда коммунисты протащили социализм контрабандой?
Во-вторых, феодализм - это социальная система, основанная на собственности феодалов на землю и другие средства производства. Крестьяне, работающие на этой земле, находятся в крепостной зависимости от феодала.
При феодализме существует жёсткое разделение на сословия, и человек не может перейти из одного сословия в другое. Феодал никогда не станет крестьянином, а крепостной крестьянин никогда не сможет стать феодалом. Дети крестьянина также останутся крестьянами.
Социальных лифтов нет.
А при социализме нет классов и сословий, работают социальные лифты и любой может сделать любую карьеру.
Например, в 20-50 годы 20 века профессия лётчика считалась элитарной. Поэтому во время Второй мировой войны почти все пилоты люфтваффе и стран-союзников (кроме СССР) были либо представителями знатных семей, либо сыновьями богатых буржуа.
А советские асы - это почти 100% дети рабочих и крестьян.
Например летчик-истребитель Герой Советского Союза украинец Иван Кожедуб - сын бедного безземельного и безлошадного крестьянина. С 7 лет он работал батраком на своего богатого соседа-кулака. Советская власть дала отцу Ивана землю и лошадь, а Иван смог перестать работать на богача, пошёл учиться в школу, а потом окончил лётное училище и стал лётчиком-истребителем, героем, элитой государства.
Первый космонавт Земли
Юрий Гагарин - сын крестьянина, окончил профессиональное училище по специальности фрезеровщик и работал на заводе.
Первая женщина-космонавт Валентина Терешкова тоже из крестьянской семьи, она работала ткачихой на фабрике.
Сталин - сын сапожника, Хрущев, Горбачев - дети крестьян, Брежнев, Ельцин, Путин - дети рабочих.
Вы не разбираетесь в теме. Зачем вы пишете чепуху? Сначала поглубже изучите вопрос, прежде, чем высказывать своё мнение.
@@DmitryTihomirow The commoner had it worse in Communist Russia than under Capitalist USA. All those people complied with party politics are were some of the few people given the chance while the rest waited for food and gas in queues since early morning.
Communism wasn’t for everyone, it toppled because it failed to offer comfort to the many and downtrodden. It was a party-first policy that exploited the working class. Communism was never actual Socialism.
You nonsense is objectively wrong.
As the Bolshevik revolution succeeded he's now hailed as a significant historical political figure [setting aside partisan prejudices]. In any other other field, or if his revolution had failed, he would be considered a rogue.
Well, Lenin was born in a society that had only just abolished serfdom and where maybe 80% of common people in the countryside were pretty much illiterate. The differences tied to class were huge and modern industrailization was only just arriving when he was a kid. As someone put it, he's not a boyscout or a democrat, but (I would add) he had a fairly good ability to realistically analyze the challenges facing Russia at the time and in the future.
Definitely one of the leading tacticians and strategists of the socialist left of Russia in the early 20th century. I don't admire a lot of his methods, but he did manage to bring the resources of Russia into play for ordinary people in a way that none of the tsars in his lifetime would have been able to achieve. Many western historians and pundits just take it for granted that there was an open road towards a stable,. peaceful "British-style democracy" in Russia around 1917, and then blame Lenin for wrecking that path, but that's really not a safe assumption to make at all.
Lenin was still a rogue, and a despicable one at that!
@@bayerischman Yeah, he wasn't picky about political methods, but the same can be said (to a degree) about many famous "great men" in history, even some of the founding fathers of America or Rome.
@@louise_rose If it had not been for German Imperial Intelligence and The High Command he would have been nowhere.The Kaiser distrusted him,and was against the plan fearing the future.
He was right,Ludendorf was one of the plans chief architects(a lunatic prone to fits) Germany still lost the war,and the plan plunged Europe into chaos !
That is how all of history works
Lad knows his subject matter
"The total destruction of the past" that Lenin and Marxism in general propagates, ensures history's inevitable repitition. One would think that +100 million corpses throughout the globe would be a lesson humanity NEVER forgets, but after bearing witness to what modern (or post-modern) colleges, universities and institutions of higher indoctrination have devolved into, one would be wrong to think any such lesson was learned.
A boast that I have Beevor's Russia 1917 work lined up in its audio book form, just need to work up the stamina to listen to it ...
And the Three Johns, Islington. On the 'must visit' list
I still blame Yoko.
Nicholas II was incompetent. He existed in a world that was totally divorced from reality. He would have made a somewhat decent squire. If he had any sense he would not have antagonised the Germans. If Nicholas had brains he would have concentrated on the modernisation of his country like the Japanese had done after 1878 instead. Of course, along with extending the franchise, he would have had to completely overhaul the decrepit administrative structure of the state, with special emphasis on the armed forces. It would have taken a much stronger personality than Nicholas II to accomplish this Herculean task. He would have also had to share power with the rising middle classes, which would have gone against his desire to perpetuate autocracy in the guise of his own person.
Is there a good book about this that anyone would recommend? I've been looking for a book on the Russian Revolution for a while
Beevor´s book about it is probably really good, didn´t read it though. I recommend Stalin´s biography by Stephen Kotkin, it´s a really good book.
@@patbrown911 thank you!
Revolutionary Russia by Orlando Figes
Watch Juri Lina's doc, The synagogue of Satan, he,LL put you right, 👹💰💸🤮
Trotski's history of the revolution
It's about time.
2 Australians won the Victoria Cross in Russia in 1919. Would love to learn more about their stories but there's very little written.
I didn't even know there were any Australians in Russia then. Who were they fighting with?
@@hiramhackenbacker9096 Cpl Arthur Sullivan VC and Sgt Samuel Pearse VC. They were part of ~150 Australians who remained in England after the Armistice and signed up for the North Russia Relief Force, fighting against the Bolsheviks. They served in the 45th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, wearing Australian uniform, and were awarded the VC in separate actions in Russia in 1919. That's all I know, like I said there is very little written.
@@ray.shoesmith thanks. That's very interesting and worth some research you would think.
comrades, this is vital & keen but would it offend the proletariat to have some better angles, lighting & focus to support such weighty subjects?
Is Beevor a Welsh language name?
You should remember that shoes or boots made out of bark is what they normally wore, so it's not like it was some horrible change for the worse.
at 11.12 Rodziánko* M.V.
It is amazing that you know enough to catch that small mistake. Well done!
Czarism never ended in Russia. It just changed it's clothing.
Bolshevism was an ultra brutal, oppressive and industrialised form of Czarism.
I thought that was wedge antillies
All you people arguing over the finer historical details, whilst i'm just pleased to know the significance of the Finland Station. I assumed the Pet Shop Boys, in their song 'West End Girls', had just made it up as a convenient rhyme. You learn something every day eh?
A missed opportunity for a democratic Russia. Also on the peasant debt, this was because they were required to pay for their freedom that the government bought for them with government bonds for their former owners. These repayments were scrapped in 1907. Also the land the ex-serfs got after Emancipation tended to be worse than the land their ex-feudal lords got, and so didnt generate enough income to pay the debt without the people starving.
Excellent, thank you!
France and Russia were close was their influence from French Revolution?
Let us not forget that Germany helped finance Lenin and his revolution. Germany wanted Russia out of world war 1.
They didn't financed him but the Emperor allowed and supported the transport of Lenin via train through Germany. Without that Lenin might never could have left his exile in Switzerland.
The U.S. practically founded & trained Al Qaeda to fight the Russkis in Afghanistan. All actions have reactions. Many have undesired consequences.
New York City and London Jewish financiers (Schiff, Warburg, Rothschild, etc) heavily funded Lev Bronstein (Leon Trotsky, who was originally a Menshevik) and the Bolsheviks. Lenin was more of a figurehead, and while the Germans facilitated Lenin back into Russia, the German state was pretty much destitute by 1916, and it was German Jews living abroad like Schiff and Warburg that bankrolled the operations. Why do you think a supposed "Russian peasant revolutionary" was in New York City for 3 months in 1917 riding around in expensive carriages and eating at the finest restaurants? Think about that for a moment. People seem to forget that there was a SERIOUS rivalry and hatred between Orthodox Christian Russia and Talmudic Judaism that not only goes back to the 1600's (I could even reference Gabriel Of Bialystok here from 1690), but can actually be traced back 2,000 years (Orthodox Christianity didn't officially exist until the schisms with the Roman Catholic's in the 11th century). It's no accident that one of Marxism's and every communist movement's main platform is the abolishment of religion (especially Christianity) and replace it with state atheism, not to mention replacing God and family with the state and its subjects. Whether or not the fact that Karl Marx himself is the descendant of many generations of Talmudic Rabbi's (starting with his grandfather Mordecai and quite possibly linking all the way to Rashi himself) is significant or just coincidence is up to the individual to decide. The ambitions of the Rothschilds and Great Britain to form a united European federation (with the Rothschilds as the central bank of course) was quite prevalent in the 1800's, with Tsar Alexander II (and later Alexander III) heavily resisting the idea (and others like Von Bismark as well), and some say that Great Britain's wars against Russia, including the 1850's Crimean War and even their involvement in the 1905 Russo/Japan war and the internal revolutions there, were linked to this. Russia was primarily simple rural family owned farms and farmers who were avid Orthodox Christians, and they had little connection to the Tsar or Russian government (other than paying the collectors when they came around). When the Bolsheviks took over the cities, most of rural Russia didn't even know about it for months, and when the Civil War hit, and then the Cheka and NKVD started coming around, it was an absolute nightmare and a disaster for them and the country.
@@robertsansone1680 the us also funded the soviets Trotsky was in New York,Ford was the most read author in the ussr even Stalin loved and said wonderful things about It
Germany didn't want the war in the first place, only started mobilising in response to Russian mobilisation. The whole thing was a terrible mistake and the world is still suffering from its aftermath.
His new book is good. Finally somebody addressing the massive elephant in the room of the 20th century that is the russian civil war instead of churning out yet another D day/stalingrad book.
If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion.
Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.
@@DmitryTihomirow yeah ok
I love all the youtube historians commenting on here
What about the vodka banning by Monarcy, Which resulted in a loss of income for czar.
Remember Kronstadt
"Only 3 lies? Those are rookie numbers, you gotta pump those numbers up" Boris Johnson - at any point in his entire life. Probably.
Wrong. Russian women were not the first to be able to vote in Europe. In neighboring Finland they had had that right for more than a decade. In Norway and Denmark too, they had that right.
Read Baruch Levy letter to Carl Marx .
"The Orthodox Church refused to educate them [the Russian peasants]."
This needs unpacking because there was no ban on education in Tsarist Russia - certainly by the Orthodox Church.
i believe the major educational institutions in russia were via the church, which only accepted the elite aristocracy to be educated.
Each individual is unique and needs to follow the path the path that best suits him... We all should treasure our uniqueness and respect others uniqueness as well.. If people want to live communally that's great. Those whom by nature are more individualistic , that i great too. Lenin once said when discussing freedom" "Freedom,? The freedom to what?" Which is very arrogant ,, authoritarian attitude that's reveals a profound ignorance of what freedom is about.. A form of government that is against human nature has to be enforce d by the bayonet.
I am not sure it's ignorant or arrogant, it's a good question to ask and one people should ask more often. There is another reason why a government would enforce things, and it's if they are working for human nature and people aren't, and that was of course his view. It's certainly the Marxist view that communism is according to human nature while capitalism is not, or only for a few. Also "human nature" in and of itself is about commonness. So strictly speaking a government that would promote that would in fact stamp out uniqueness when it goes against that nature and that's what all governments will do. It's why they are there. So it's a good question to ask, about that nature, freedom for what? is more challenging than it looks.
Basically your answer is already made, which is the individual, but that's because you believe it is human nature to be individualistic, which is contradictory. But let's say it would be possible, then it means no government could exist, or would exist, because it's the only way to be free of everything as an individual. The only free individual is the lone individual ultimately, as soon as he is in society, he is not free, only free to accept that society at best. I don't know anybody that actually promotes this, except one historical person, everybody wants to be protected from other's freedom even the most staunch individualists, so I think it's a good question. At least it's necessary to actually mean anything, because just saying "freedom" is meaningless or just a sociopath type of thinking.
@@OneLine122 Freedom to me means freedom from intrusive government. Ayn Rand understood this.
Freedom from your sort, Vlad.
@@martha3225 As if Corporate Capitalism isn't intrusive and doesn't (essentially) control governments......
They dont laugh at his wit--but otherwise incisive.
Excellent photos as well.
Never ceases to amaze me how people can be riled up by lies and propaganda. Still works today.
That looks like the Cavern Club. I think the host might be talking about the other Lennon.
This is my first experience with Anthony Beever. I see why he annoys so many Russian speaking people who have interest in history. From this short presentation I can tell he is very shallow in his analysis and he reiterates commonly accepted rumors about Rasputin, germans financing Russian revolution, Lenin revenging his older brother, just name a few. Listen to and read Steven Kotkin, he know and understands events in the history of Russia so much deeper
Wallstreet and the Bolsheviks by Antony Sutton.
The picture (2.57) used to show conditions of squalor in tsarist period industry is from about 1960.
Not from the time of the revolution.
Easy to date because of arc welding on the left of the picture. This was most uncommon before WW2 and portable sets (as used here) are certainly post WW2.
GO. SEE. AN. EYE. DOCTOR.
Good catch!
Thank you..Mr Beevor...The battle for Spain ..magnificent...Dublin
First of all, not Lenin, but Ulyanov
So basically, nothing has changed.
Normalny.
That’s the craziest comment I’ve read in months
The peasants were held ransom by the lovely ones that ran the distilleries.
Fascinating analysis by Antony Beevor. But the interviewer's questions are inane.
Well let's face it, the academic level that seems to predominate nowadays is pretty abysmal. Ok, so it wasn't aimed at the serious scholar level, more for the current crop of university graduates and internet couch surfers.
It has been said that: “The error’s of Russia will spread around the world”. I am interested in what those errors area.
1. I have hair
2. People find me desirable
3. I think Stalin should take over
1. In Soviet Russia hair has you! 2. In Soviet Russia housewives near you! 3. In Soviet Russia, revolution takes over you!
9:10 Beevor mistakenly assumes that Russia was the first country in Europe to grant women the vote because of the Provisional Government doing so in July 1917. He's mistaken here. The first country in Europe to grant women the vote was Finland, who did so already back in 1906. Yes, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire back then, but as her own country within the Empire, in a state of personal or real union with Russia, depending on interpretation, though Finland's political status is not even relevant anyway since he's specifically talking of 1917 as being the year women were first granted the vote in Europe, which is wrong.
If Lenin hadn't died within a few years of the Russian Revolution, we would've had a clearer view of where he stood on some never-ending, international civil war. As it stands, his Country was boycotted from all the great trading nations in the World. This was something that only thawed with the growing unrest of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism, after his death and under Stalin.
It was very clear to (most of) the Bolsheviks that the expected World Revolution had failed well before Lenin died. The failure of the Communists in Germany and Hungary to keep their revolutions going, the failure to overcome Poland, and other events made it plain that the world - or at least the industrialized Western countries - were not about to go Marxist. In fact, Stalin championed the concept of "Socialism in One Country" which essentially recognized that it was going to be a somewhat longer struggle to bring the "gift" of Communism to the whole world so that the Soviet Union needed to proceed accordingly.
Boycotted by countries because he was trying to export revolution to them. He was also an advocate of class genocide and countless people died under his watch.
Lenin simply wanted power. Didn't give a toss for the country. Set the scene for that bloodthirsty monster, Stalin.
The idea of a of disciplined conspiratorial minority allowed the Bolsheviks to avoid the mistakes of the French Revloution, the revloutions of 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871 as well the 1905 Russian Revloution which represented the liberal phase of the Russian REVLOUTIONS).That organized ,focused ,and totally ruthless minority by it policy of class genocide prevented any counter revolutionary groups such as happened in the previous revloutions from regaining power.
Where did Trotsky come from ?
He had a lot of gold when he arrived to Russia from
guess what America 😂 the recipe never changed
Gorbachev was right. The February revolution should have continued.
I worry when an academic talks about the desires or mood or attitudes of "the Russian People" as if such a thing exists beyond some common linguistic level. The peasant majority were isolated from the suddenly important structures of a state, a world power contender, industrialization, the military and the bureaucratic state. The telegraph and telephone were only relevant to an elite. There were a few distinct "Russian Peoples" with very different interests. Revolutions are very rarely started by peasant rebellions even while being the "masses".
There would have been a revolution in Russia in 1917 with OR without Lenin.
Lenin's contribution to the course of events is that Lenin made the 1917 revolution SUCCESSFUL.
Without Lenin and the Bolshevik party, the February 1917 revolution would have been crushed.
Lenin's skill was to shepherd the revolutionary wave of February 1917 into a successful revolution.
The czar was not coming back. Some other faction would have come to power. Lenin was needed for nothing.
Nor was his false view of the world.
But everything looks inevitable after it happens.