... on Russian Revolution

Video quote:

50:15 "in their totalitarian aspirations, Sauron and Saruman bear a startling resemblance to Hitler and Mussolini"

Hans Georg Lundahl

Well, what about Lenin, Trotski, Stalin?

Or even more, the Pharaos or Sennacherib III?

THAT is totalitarian. Even Lenin and Stalin tried to give some resemblance to freedoms, though very unequally between Christians and Jews, in disfavour or Christians in the one case and in disfavour of both (except briefly Christians) in the other.

But to call Mussolini totalitarian, while he started off rescuing Italy from a Lenin-like totalitarianism and only slowly degenerated into a very shadowy resemblance of what he had started fighting - he's more comparable to Denethor. And to Denethor's failure, when he fails.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, stop your capitalistic propaganda, Stalin yes, Trotski and Lenin were not dictators or totalitarian. I think you'd could set any US president as Saruman, started of with the right ideas but in the end corrupted by power and busy destroying the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Trotski not totalitarian?

Massive killings of priests not totalitarian?

Lenin not totalitarian? Forcing ALL to school among chioldren and populace, but forcing away ALL monks and priests from teaching positions, somehow that is not totalitarrian?

Stealing land and forcing all (both landless and former land owners) to collective farms (and Stalin for some time ameliorated this by NEP) is in your book NOT totalitarian?

Well, I think it is.

That said, I am not a fan of most US Presidents, Ronald Reagan excepted.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the clergy and nobility were the totalitarians in those days Lenin and Trotsky freed the people from the serfdom they were in, saved the poor farmers (as 90 percent of the populace was) from dying from hunger and extortion by their rulers.

the land they stole, was land from nobility who were keeping the populace enslaved.

Eastern Europe never really came out of feudalism until Lenin and Trotsky toppled the Czars, Clergy and Nobility.

The Priest and monks you talk about are mostly from Nobel and Rich Blood, Divine Rulers with power and force.

Ever heard of absolutism, the ultimate way of totalitarianism but with a medieval flavor. because that is the system Lenin saved the people from.

so you could say Lenin is Like Gandalf in freeing Edoras from Sarumans influence. and deposing/breaking the power of Saruman from Isengard and returning it to the people (in this case the Ents and the Forrest).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the clergy and nobility were the totalitarians in those days"

Not agreed.

They were the rulers, but less totalitarian, i e interfering less with the lives of people, than Communism has done after them.

"Lenin and Trotsky freed the people from the serfdom they were in"

Not agreed, Czar Nicolas had abolished serfdom.

"saved the poor farmers (as 90 percent of the populace was) from dying from hunger and extortion by their rulers."

Not likely that was the situation all over Russia prior to revolution, it is possible it was so inn localities, in East Ukraine (back then Russian) Makhnov may have had some such excuse.

The Green Army - i e the farmer's army - in practise divided by joining three different armies. White = Czarist. Red = Trotski. Black = Makhnov.

Then Makhnov (black) helped Trotski (red) to eliminate the army of Denikin (white, Czarist). As thanks for that help, Trotski then eliminated Makhnov.

"In the aftermath of the defeat of the White Army (Volunteer Army) in the region in November 1920, the Bolsheviks initiated a military campaign against Makhno, which concluded with his escape across the Romanian border in August 1921."

Wickipeejuh : Nestor Makhno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Note, not just reds, but ALL FOUR were eliminating starvation among farmers.

Denikin was a Czarist, but one who knew what had malfunctioned and put people off under the late Czar.

So Red Army beats the White Army that was helping farmers, and the parts of Green Army who had gone White Army, then beats the Black Army that was helping farmers, and the parts of Green Army that had joined Black Army, then takes sole credit for helping farmers. No, Lenin was not a Gandalf. Edoras was as much of a monarchy as Denikinchinska (the territories under Denikin).

"the land they stole, was land from nobility who were keeping the populace enslaved."

No longer serfs, no, Czar Nicolas had abolished that.

They ALSO stole land from free individual enterprise farmers (Kulaks), which there were since the Czar had abolished serfdom.

"Eastern Europe never really came out of feudalism until Lenin and Trotsky toppled the Czars, Clergy and Nobility."

Never came out of feudalism - what do you mean by feudalism?

Gondor was feudalist.

Perhaps you mean manorial, as in large landowners keeping most as serfs. Well, the manorial system was varied, and I think most of Eastern Europe it was tolerable. West Ukraine never took Makhnov's stance against landowners - probably because West Ukraine was freer than East Ukraine, or better off materially or both.

"The Priest and monks you talk about are mostly from Nobel and Rich Blood, Divine Rulers with power and force."

Mostly?

So you mean young Stalin was very atypical:

"His father was Besarion Jughashvili, a cobbler, while his mother was Ketevan Geladze, a housemaid. As a child, Ioseb was plagued with numerous health issues. He was born with two adjoined toes on his left foot.[13] His face was permanently scarred by smallpox at the age of 7. At age 12, he injured his left arm in an accident involving a horse-drawn carriage, rendering it shorter and stiffer than its counterpart."

"Ioseb's father slid into alcoholism, which made him abusive to his family and caused his business to fail. When Ioseb's mother enrolled him into a Greek Orthodox priesthood school against her husband's wishes, Ioseb's enraged father went on a drunken rampage. He was banished from Gori after assaulting the police chief. Besarion moved to Tiflis, leaving his wife and son behind in Gori."

"When Ioseb was sixteen, he received a scholarship to attend the Tiflis Spiritual Seminary, the leading Russian Orthodox seminary in Tiflis; the language of instruction was Russian. Despite being trained as a priest, he became an atheist in his first year."

Wickipeejuh : Joseph Stalin : Early life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Early_life

Giuseppe Sarto was also from modest background, his father a postman and his mother a seamstress. He became Pope of Rome and a Saint (not necessarily in that order) and was beatified and canonised as a saint too.

Pius X is his Papal name, and now we speak of Saint Pius X.

Noble? No.

"Ever heard of absolutism, the ultimate way of totalitarianism but with a medieval flavor. because that is the system Lenin saved the people from."

Absolute monarchy, for one thing is not Medieval, but Early Modern (late 15th to 17th C., though first stages were in fact still Middle Ages), for another thing is not same thing as totalitarianism.

Absolutism is against "freedom of vote" and participation by vote in central power.

There was more voting in the Middle Ages than under Louis XIV.

Totalitarianism is against personal and religious and family freedoms.

And that is what Lenin foisted on people.

No, the old élites were not so Modernist as Saruman in his speech to Gandalf, the one related at start of The Two Towers, if I recall correctly. The new élites are, the ones that in Russia Lenin put into power.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It was not the will of Lenin that Stalin and such took power and control.

and yes a large portion of the Czardom lived under bad circumstances and it is true the Communists improved the living standard, something people tend to disregard.

And of course for a revolution or change of system their are going to be victims, no revolution ever has gone without.

It is speculated that the reason why socialism became and is still very popular in Eastern Europe because of the fact western Europe in the 17th and 18th century became far more mercantile and thus creating a middle income group outgrowing the nobility and creating a new individualistic way of thinking. In West Europe suddenly the common farmer who struck gold could get governmental positions, Church positions and the same rights as some nobles.

In eastern Europe (Polish-Lithuania, ((east) Prussia and Russia) were no major law changes and a lot less to no rights for the common man, power stayed in control of the divine few by bloodline. (same goes for the Russian Orthodox Church)

and then back to the Russian revolution with influences of freedom in the west of Europe and loads of other revolution and after years of being extorted by most of the landlords the Russian people together with the marines went to get ''bread'' and a talk with the Czar, the Czar send in the military to gun down the civilians. Thus giving the people all they needed to grab the flag of freedom for the people (as communism in essence wants to be).

For Russians Lenin was a savior from the Evil Czars and dukes and bishops owning everything and not giving enough.

Without this man everything would've fallen into chaos and despair. Someone needs to rule the masses.

Stalin is sadly seen as hero for some, i consider him a fool who raped communism.

only good thing about him is he kept Capitalism from taking over all the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It was not the will of Lenin that Stalin and such took power and control."

That does not change the facts about the Czarist Russia in which Stalin grew up.

Being a priest or a monk did NOT depend on being a noble.

Also, it does NOT change the fact that Stalin's brief experiment in NEP was momentarily better than what Lenin had done. I regret that Stalin reverted to the Lenin model, which Tito did not. Yugoslavian Communism, was economically speaking NEP, not Leninism, and that was what was good about it.

Also, it does NOT change the fact that Lenin took control of matters that needed none, like introducing compulsory school. And that one, on top of it, with monks and priests and nuns expelled from teaching positions.

"and yes a large portion of the Czardom lived under bad circumstances and it is true the Communists improved the living standard, something people tend to disregard."

Partly by doing what was already done under Czars. Partly by robbing Ukraine of the food it produced and killing off millions of Ukraineans. And this was because part of the better living standard was due to spoils immediately on revolution, when these were spent, they were poorer again, which happened under Stalin.

"And of course for a revolution or change of system their are going to be victims, no revolution ever has gone without."

The problem is first of all, if so, why revolutionise? And second, the number of innocent victims. I can live with a revolt making victims among the guilty, as Franco's did, making victims among Communist anticlericals.

"It is speculated that the reason why socialism became and is still very popular in Eastern Europe because of the fact western Europe in the 17th and 18th century became far more mercantile and thus creating a middle income group outgrowing the nobility and creating a new individualistic way of thinking. In West Europe suddenly the common farmer who struck gold could get governmental positions, Church positions and the same rights as some nobles."

Actually false, commoners could climb into both high clergy and nobility very much earlier than 17th and 18th Centuries. Or perhaps you refer to doing so without leaving bourgeoisie, there you have a point, but the bourgeoisie was well off in Western European countries like France, England, at least North Germanies (while South Germanies might have been more of a farmers' and miners' paradise).

Though the higher Church positions were reserved for men showing certain virtues and these being akin to the military ones of nobility, a commoner who had the same could get upwards in the Church. Not denying most Popes before St Pius X and after year 900 or earlier were nobles, but it was not a theoretical requirement.

"In eastern Europe (Polish-Lithuania, ((east) Prussia and Russia) were no major law changes and a lot less to no rights for the common man, power stayed in control of the divine few by bloodline. (same goes for the Russian Orthodox Church)"

[I found his blunder about East Prussia too unimportant for subject of Russian Revolution, perhaps I was wrong. East Prussia, West Prussia, Brandenburg, other possessions of Prussian kingdom had same laws and same law changes. These being in the general way "progressive" as one thought was one reason Prussia became a popular - in certain circles - alternative to traditional Bavarian or Austrian laws and powers within the German "Bund". Very possibly, what upset peasants in Russia was not only, perhaps not even as much, their actual situation, but comparison to those in Prussia. Especially as the situation of those driven off the land by its modernisation was left out of the picture among Prussophiles.]

False, as for Church I gave you example of Stalin's background.

There were law changes, and in Lithuania the system that was used in Medieval Manors in Western Europe, the open field system, which was dividing each field into strips, was INTRODUCED during the 18th C. by an Enlightenment Reformer.

In Russia, but not Ukraine, freedoms were being curbed extremely due to the Tatar influence. In Medieval Russia a farmer was relatively freer than in Medieval France. By 1800 or even 1700 the roles were very much reversed. Law changes HAVE turned things to the worse, and Lenin was doing so again.

"and then back to the Russian revolution with influences of freedom in the west of Europe and loads of other revolution and after years of being extorted by most of the landlords the Russian people together with the marines went to get ''bread'' and a talk with the Czar, the Czar send in the military to gun down the civilians."

You are speaking about the Black Sunday. As far as I have heard, it was not the Czar who gave orders to shoot. [Or, if he did, he had been misinformed.]

"For Russians Lenin was a savior from the Evil Czars and dukes and bishops owning everything and not giving enough."

Or good or half decent Czars and Bishops giving enough, while some of the Boyars were indeed bad - but these came to control the Revolution and the Cheka. Okhrana, you know.

"Without this man everything would've fallen into chaos and despair. Someone needs to rule the masses."

Well, that is the general argument for any monarchy, including monarchy by Divine Right. Without Czar Nicolas II, everything FELL into chaos and despair, and Lenin and Trotski made it worse.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl dude, history is not a simple process as the 10 years before the revolution. i was talking about a process that takes hundreds of years for a system and mindset to develop.

Besides the fact did you know the Czars were the wealthiest of monarchies in Europe at their fall. And the people were the poorest.

Lenin and Trotsky made it better for the common man. The Czars were terrible for the masses(except Catherina and Pjotr the great). on average the masses got better living standards after the revolution.

(it was a revolution from the people, not from anyone else, the people took down their leaders and replaced them with people they chose themselves)

Stalin made it worse no arguments there mate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not your mate, since you're a Commie.

Czars were wealthiest, perhaps, unless British Crown was, because vastness of Empire.

People were poorest especially in the Russian parts of Russia (not in West Ukraine, Poland, not in the Baltic or in Finland), because of an attitude of forced collaboration and getting ruled, which Lenin and Trotski made worse, which Nicolas II and for a brief moment Stalin were making better. By introducing Kulaks.

Now, killing Kulaks may or may not have improved conditions for those farm workers who never were Kulaks, but it did not improve living conditions for the Kulaks. Same thing with forcing them off their land or with keeping them on it only if they agree to be team members of a Sovkhos or Kolkhos.

Whether it improved living conditions for the rest or not, it was not morally right to do it that way.

Former Kulaks, as well as devout Christians, were simply being persecuted, sometimes singled out for worse treatment than everyone else, while the pretence was "all are equal".

This is NOT what I call improving living conditions. And for the record, not even for those agreeing to become Atheists, since they were loosing the very meaning of human life, the chance of getting to Paradise. Also, they were giving in to bullies, which is NOT my definition of improved living conditions, whatever the material gains.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Romanov's were the Richest.

[Was I disuputing that?]

Second I'm not Communist I am a western schooled Historian.

You are being subjective and focused only on the negatives. For an objective view you must look at the bigger picture in an objective way.

Fact remains living standards for all the population grew after the chaos of the revolution. But remained in the hand of a small group of powerful/influential persons, this is so because the eastern European culture is like this because of their long history of peoples serving under a few nobles.

About your religious squabbling[sic!], officially it was illegal to practice but many in the USSR remained religious and still are. ever been there? I have.

Learn your broader History and stop being subjective and look at the facts.

(and who are Westerners to talk about freedom anyway, we've got an oligarchic system with rich corporations making law not the people, Indirect democracy is not a direct democracy).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Western schooled historian?

My History and English teacher in IB Preparatory year, a Welshman, was that too, and he was a Marxist.

Not a far cry from Communist.

"About your religious squabbling, officially it was illegal to practice but many in the USSR remained religious and still are."

Yes, persecutions are not always successful.

Also, posing as an Atheist, while being Christian at heart, is not legal in Heaven. [Matthew 10:32,33]

It was most active in open bloodshed during Lenin and Trotski era. The persecution, that is.

"But remained in the hand of a small group of powerful/influential persons, this is so because the eastern European culture is like this because of their long history of peoples serving under a few nobles."

You are still missing out that exactly Enlightenment Period TIGHTENED the grip of nobles on commoners.

Swedish Baltic Provinces hardly ever had its peasantry as impoverished as East Ukraine, after Petr I took over, BUT, the Balt German nobility shifted sides in the war between him and Charles XII, precisely because Russia gave them MORE power over commoners than Sweden had done.

I studied in Lund, last full term halftime Polish and halftime Baltic History. My teacher (professor or whatever degree) was Estonian.

If this surprises you, think of how Voltaire thought of commoners.

Tripserpentine

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Karl Marx has as much to do with the Soviets as Jesus was the inspiration for the inquisition.

True under Peter thing became better, bet the later Czars were not as friendly and social. Ask yourself why would an entire people depose their ruler?

The big difference between east and west was always that in the west a random trader could become richer then the duke or king, and even could get the same governmental positions as the blue blooded lot. (this already as early as the 16th century.

This did not happen and was not possible in eastern Europe under the Czars, the power remained with the nobility and foremost the Czar.

and after a period of social revolutions the Russians were the last to follow.

It's called a social revolution because it was a revolution from the people for the people.

the people chose to follow Lenin and Trotsky. You know Stalin deposed of Trotsky because he was popular among the people because he did good. Why else was Stalin afraid of him. with Trotsky, Stalin could never have been the Dictator he became Or the Fallen Elf who became Sauron. (we must stay semi on topic).

But ask yourself why would Historians chose socialism as a viable option. The persons educated in historical facts tend to choose social democracy as the way to go why?

And nowadays much of our image of the Soviet Union is being adjusted, the negative way of portraying is being adjusted because of objective facts, no longer subjective to economical and political influences as countries like Cuba and Vietnam prove that communism most certainly is a viable and practical way to govern a country.

The debt crisis and many wars in the Western world is showing that Capitalism is not the good system as always thought it was.

My friend, always keep your eyes open to other opinions, it broadens your Horizon and Life. ( I am adjusting my opinion everyday)

On thing is for sure Tolkien was a great writer,

And i Think if we'd lived in Middle Earth we'd be fighting together to destroy the forces of Sauron. and later drink some pints of brandywine and smoke some Pipes.

A Elbereth Gilthoniel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"True under Peter thing became better, bet the later Czars were not as friendly and social."

I never said it did.

The peasants in Estonia, Livonia and Curonia had been better off under Charles XII than under Peter.

That is why their overlords, the Balt German nobles, shifted loyalty to Peter and betrayed Charles XII.

"Ask yourself why would an entire people depose their ruler?"

• 1) Czar Nicolas was the social and friendly one;
  
  
• 2) he had been misrepresented by his palace guards in 1905, Black Sunday, who had shot at people without informing him or after misinforming him about event;
  
  
• 3) he was NOT deposed by all of his people, but by the Bolshevik tyrants, Lenin and Trotski.

"It's called a social revolution because it was a revolution from the people for the people. the people chose to follow Lenin and Trotsky. You know Stalin deposed of Trotsky because he was popular among the people because he did good. Why else was Stalin afraid of him. with Trotsky, Stalin could never have been the Dictator he became Or the Fallen Elf who became Sauron. (we must stay semi on topic)."

Stalin was as afraid of Lenin's abnd Trotski's poularity, as Lenin and Trotski had been of that of the Czar, Nicolas II.

With Czar Nicolas II, Lenin and Trotski could never have been the tyrants they became.

And Sauron was not "a fallen elf", but a fallen maia. Your Tolkien lore needs refreshing, if you are interested.

"My friend, always keep your eyes open to other opinions, it broadens your Horizon and Life. ( I am adjusting my opinion everyday)"

You have not been adjusting your opinions in this case.

I suppose Tolkien had got the same advice.

He did not follow it, fortunately.

"You couldn't influence Tolkien, you might as well try to influence a bandersnatch."

CSL on his friend.

"But ask yourself why would Historians chose socialism as a viable option. The persons educated in historical facts tend to choose social democracy as the way to go why?"

Because they have been trained by History Professors who were also Marxist.

Plus, it depends on what Historians.

The good things of S[ocial] D[emocracy] were there in Franco and Mussolini and Perón too.

You seem NOT so very well trained in Historic facts, as far as Eastern Europe is concerned.

At least I got a fresher more recent training in them than you, since I have been able to correct you more than once.

Historians, "in professorial sense" are also trained in other things than historic facts. ome of which are bad attitudes about how to ascertain them. Like the guys who deny historic existence of Arthur or Odin.

"And nowadays much of our image of the Soviet Union is being adjusted, the negative way of portraying is being adjusted because of objective facts, no longer subjective to economical and political influences as countries like Cuba and Vietnam prove that communism most certainly is a viable and practical way to govern a country."

Except that Cuba and Vietnam are like Mordor or at least Isengard in tyranny.

"The debt crisis and many wars in the Western world is showing that Capitalism is not the good system as always thought it was."

I am not pro-Capitalist.

Denikin was no Capitalist.

Franco was not the one [or not purely one, or always as much of one as his later years], and governements after him, not least S D were the ones i[n]curring the public debt which has put Spain in a crisis.

"some pints of brandywine"

Some pints of brandy?

Some pints of Cognac or Armagnac?

I don't drink pints of those!

[OK, not pints at a time.]

Updates

may follow.