Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see your point. However modern actors can't blame their malfeasance on ancient figures. I meant to vote both Germany and Russia in my poll. With the French Revolution being a drop-down choice. All three caused needless human suffering.
But ancient figures and the actions taken during those times still deem the course of current events - Julies Ceaser, Genghis Kahn, Alexander, Qin Shi Huang - they all drew the maps for the modern world and in one way, shape, or form we live in the world that they created
They essentially destroyed the portions of the world during their time and rebuilt it, and the borders, the languages, the cultures, and the histories, are still with us today. Stalin, Hitler, etc. are mere blips in history.
I just finished reading Stalin: The Career Of A Fanatic by Essad Bey. A real page turner written while Stalin turned out to be in the early stages of his depredations. The book was written while Stalin's reign as Soviet dictator was still young. Russia and the rest of the world blew many chances to dispatch this man. Basically, his stock in trade was first brutality and then Communism. He frankly had little idea, even after seven years as unquestioned rule, what Communism was about. To be fair, the book states that he was avidly reading to learn about the subject. This was a doctrine that caused a lot of needless human misery.
I suggest you first read books on Russia history; what led to revolution; what revolution govt wanted and planned; i.e. what were the circumstances in general. Then you'd probably realize that Stalin was quite possibly the best option for Russia in those years and that circumstances.
Just to give a head start:
1) Prior to revolution, Russian economy was deep in the hole. Most concessions were outsourced to foreign banks (think France); they were not bringing a dime to Russia.
2) Poverty was beyond any measures. As for health care: only one of five children survived past 5 years old. Yeah, you read that right.
3) Religion was overwhelming. Church owned about 20% of land. Citizens were required to go to service at least once a week.
4) Catastrophic lack of any rights for most of the population. It was a law prohibiting non-aristocrats to go to colleges and universities.
5) Working conditions were just outrageous - minimum 12 hours a day (but most places 14 hours) with just Sunday off; child labor; workers were not paid actual money, but instead were paid "company certs" that they could use only in "company store" with artificially inflated prices. 4 families living in one room were a norm.
6) Army conditions were not any better. Too many items to list here.
7) Due to bad (none) education of farmers and lack of any machinery there was never enough food reserves, and global hunger stroked Russia every 3-4 years.
Then it was February revolution (which many dismiss and barely know off). That's when actually system was changed and tsar went to exile. But, alas, newly formed govt didn't know what to do with the ongoing war - economy was just not holding it. Everything kept to fall down.
Only then October revolution came. Communists actually took the power because nobody else wanted it at that moment.
Then it was a civil war - at far greater extent than you think of. Actually, it was not even a civil war - Russia was attacked by ~14 countries at once (including USA) directly or indirectly. And yet it stood up. I still don't get how it was even theoretically possible.
Then note, that main thesis of communists was "revolution will happen in most industrially advanced country". Now, they had a country in their hands where over 90% of population was a sole farmers that literally didn't need or want anything city industry could offer them. These days you would call such people "downshifters". Now imagine whole country of downshifters; your country isolated; your industry is down; other countries feed your neighbor so he can attack and destroy you; your govt consists of people who don't care about people they govern and instead want a "world revolution". Your actions?
That war was a total cataclysm that destroyed the culture of Europe, setting into motion the Russian Revolution, the rise of Nazism, the rise of Fascism, the economic dislocation that would ultimately result in the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and the endless conflicts centered around the establishment of Israel.
About the only positive from World War I was the weakening of the grip European colonial powers had around the world. However, I'd offer that it would happened anyway, and certainly in a far less chaotic fashion.
WW I was definitely a catastrophe. About the only thing good that happened was the eventual establishment of the State of Israel and perhaps the detachment of states such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, et. al. from their various empires. Other than that it was a purposeless bloodbath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
A lot of the misery in the developing world over the past 60 years can be laid squarely at the wholesale failure of Europeans to prepare their former colonies for independence.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Almost all of the recently freed colonies, Israel and Singapore being shining exceptions and India and Barbados being partial exceptions were, at no time in their histories, then or now particularly good places in which to live. The U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand were populated by people with an Enlightenment mentality. Pakistan, Chad, Niger, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not so much. I don't think WW I had much to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
The inclusion of the American Revolution is a rather odd choice, however.
I included that for the sake of contrast. Same with England's Glorious Revolution.
I suggest you first read books on Russia history; what led to revolution; what revolution govt wanted and planned; i.e. what were the circumstances in general. Then you'd probably realize that Stalin was quite possibly the best option for Russia in those years and that circumstances.
Just to give a head start:
1) Prior to revolution, Russian economy was deep in the hole. Most concessions were outsourced to foreign banks (think France); they were not bringing a dime to Russia.
2) Poverty was beyond any measures. As for health: only one of five children survived past 5 years old. Yeah, you read that right.
3) Religion was overwhelming. Church owned about 20% of land. Citizens were required to go to service at least once a week.
4) Catastrophic lack of any rights for most of the population. It was a law prohibiting non-aristocrats to go to colleges and universities.
5) Working conditions were just outrageous - minimum 12 hours a day (but most places 14 hours) with just Sunday off; child labor; workers were not paid actual money, but instead were paid "company certs" that they could use only in "company store" with artificially inflated prices. 4 families living in one room were a norm.
6) Army conditions were not any better. Too many items to list here.
7) Due to bad (none) education of farmers and lack of any machinery there was never enough food reserves, and global hunger stroked Russia every 3-4 years.
Then it was February revolution (which many dismiss and barely know off). That's when actually system was changed and tsar went to exile. But, alas, newly formed govt didn't know what to do with the ongoing war - economy was just not holding it. Everything kept to fall down.
Only then October revolution came. Communists actually took the power because nobody else wanted it at that moment.
Then it was a civil war - at far greater extent than in any country. Actually, it was not even a civil war - Russia was attacked by ~14 countries at once (including USA) directly or indirectly. And yet it stood up. I still don't get how it was even theoretically possible.
Then note, that main thesis of communists was "revolution will happen in most industrially advanced country". Now, they had a country in their hands where over 90% of population was a sole farmers that literally didn't need anything city industry could offer them. These days you would call such people "downshifters". Now imagine whole country of downshifters; your country isolated; your industry down; other countries feed your neighbor so he can attack and destroy you; your govt consist of people who don't care about people they govern and instead want a "world revolution". Your actions?
I would have to disagree with many of your points, but to respond to a few:
Never read anywhere that weekly church attendance was mandatory, or only aristocrats
permitted to attend college.
The February/March 1917 Revolution led to the Czar 's eventual imprisonment, followed
by the execution of his family, and most relatives in 1918. He was not exiled.
The weak Provisional Govt., under the hopeless Alexander Kerensky, had many opportunities
to stifle the Bolsheviks, before and after Lenin arrived in a sealed train, courtesy of the German
Govt. This led to the seizure of power both the more dedicated, organized, and ruthless
Bolsheviks in November, 1917.
None of the many Allied powers that invaded Russia post WWI, and only on the periphery at
locations like Archangel ,the Crimea, and Vladivostok, had any serious commitment to assisting
the Whites during the Civil War.
The November Revolution and subsequent Civil War was a vast tragedy for Russia and her long suffering population, who would continue to suffer under the murderous, despicable Soviet regime.
with the former Georgian bank robber Stalin the worst of all.
WW I was definitely a catastrophe. About the only thing good that happened was the eventual establishment of the State of Israel and perhaps the detachment of states such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, et. al. from their various empires. Other than that it was a purposeless bloodbath.
I would offer that the establishment of the State of Israel is not an unqualified good, chiefly because the Balfour Declaration essentially took lands that belonged to the Palestinians and gave it to Zionists. And I say that as someone who isn't hostile to the State of Israel as it exists today. But an objective reading of Israel's founding leaves one with a belief that the Palestinians and the Arab peoples as a whole did indeed get screwed by the West. If there had been no World War I, the Ottoman Empire would have likely disintegrated on its own.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Almost all of the recently freed colonies, Israel and Singapore being shining exceptions and India and Barbados being partial exceptions were, at no time in their histories, then or now particularly good places in which to live. The U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand were populated by people with an Enlightenment mentality. Pakistan, Chad, Niger, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not so much. I don't think WW I had much to do with it.
I would disagree on that point, chiefly because World War I weakened the colonial powers a great deal and World War II pretty much finished them off. Had World War I never occurred, there likely would have never been a World War II to so quickly doom the colonial experiment. The other aspect of this is that World Wars I and II heightened an understanding among the colonized people that perhaps they should gain their independence. Independence was an absolute eventuality. But the shattered economies of Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands likely accelerated the process to the point that no real enlightened transfer of power could take place. It was essentially a suave qui put, leaving mostly chaos as the aftermath.
I included that for the sake of contrast. Same with England's Glorious Revolution.
I would have to disagree with many of your points, but to respond to a few:
Never read anywhere that weekly church attendance was mandatory, or only aristocrats
permitted to attend college.
The February/March 1917 Revolution led to the Czar 's eventual imprisonment, followed
by the execution of his family, and most relatives in 1918. He was not exiled.
The weak Provisional Govt., under the hopeless Alexander Kerensky, had many opportunities
to stifle the Bolsheviks, before and after Lenin arrived in a sealed train, courtesy of the German
Govt. This led to the seizure of power both the more dedicated, organized, and ruthless
Bolsheviks in November, 1917.
None of the many Allied powers that invaded Russia post WWI, and only on the periphery at
locations like Archangel ,the Crimea, and Vladivostok, had any serious commitment to assisting
the Whites during the Civil War.
The November Revolution and subsequent Civil War was a vast tragedy for Russia and her long suffering population, who would continue to suffer under the murderous, despicable Soviet regime.
with the former Georgian bank robber Stalin the worst of all.
For mandatory attendance I cannot find reference, but I did read about it like ~20 years ago.
"None of the many Allied powers that invaded Russia post WWI, and only on the periphery at locations like Archangel ,the Crimea, and Vladivostok, had any serious commitment to assisting
the Whites during the Civil War."
It's hard to tell now what were the intentions and how far commitment did go. Remember, WWI just finished, soldiers didn't want to fight, so going too deep to Russia might had an opposite effect, or at least Allied powers were afraid of that.
The Civil War was a tragedy - when brothers were literally fighting each other. But subsequent rise of SU was more a blessing to Russian population. Just look at the economy numbers, and ask average Russian of that time (although it would be hard to find sane 100-110 year old).
For example, take collectivization efforts in villages. Here is the context:
in 1928/9 govt was debating whether or not to start collectivization. Stalin was opposing that effort, claiming that party promised land to peasants, and should not take it back. Yeap, I was surprised myself, but that is historical fact. At the same time govt started to prepare to possible crop failures - they were still happen very often. And they realized (to their surprise) that in tzarist Russia the main suppliers of food were ... big landlords (sort of farms these days). Basically, average peasant did not bother to produce any more crop that was needed for him and his family to survive, and may be occasionally buy something in the city. That's it. As I said, "downshifters". It was totally not enough food to feed the cities and workers. That's how downshifting ends, basically. Only after that report Stalin changed his mind and started to push govt to start collectivization. The idea was twofold - to increase productivity of newly organized "farms" and to move those who didn't fit the process to cities to increase number of workers. Absolutely same process happened in UK in 16-17th century (just UK process was way more cruel).
You see, there are a lot of myths about that time, and facts are totally hidden under propaganda narrative. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Do you call Hoover, Patton, Eisenhower and MacArthur - who easily killed many their fellow citizens that did nothing wrong - a "bloody killers"? No? Why?
I would offer that the establishment of the State of Israel is not an unqualified good, chiefly because the Balfour Declaration essentially took lands that belonged to the Palestinians and gave it to Zionists. And I say that as someone who isn't hostile to the State of Israel as it exists today. But an objective reading of Israel's founding leaves one with a belief that the Palestinians and the Arab peoples as a whole did indeed get screwed by the West. If there had been no World War I, the Ottoman Empire would have likely disintegrated on its own.
This thread is not really about Israel, but that land "belonged" to the Ottoman Turks from a political point of view. The Zionists purchased much of the land in modern-day Israel, fair and square. The Arabs screwed themselves by never bargaining for their fair share. Their demands were 100%, "my way or the highway." Under those circumstances, the more primitive peoples lose out.
Returning to the topic, as it went in the U.S.S.R., where Stalin distributed the relatively advanced Russian people amid all the other minorities, including within his own Georgia. Yet we don't see Georgians, Azerbaijanis, and even Ukrainians constantly stirring up trouble. Only the Chechens really do, and they are dealt with quite severely, with little "world opinion" standing up for them.Stalin's atrocities have received little mention in the lists of world slaughters.
The events of the French revolution caused future destruction of Europe. French revolution caused the carlist wars in Spain which would culminate at the end of the Spanish Civil War. French revolution lead to the beginnings of Germany, French revolution led to British global domination and the rise of Russia. French revolution led to the unification of Italy. French revolution led to additional other revolutions in France which questioned the authority of the monarchy. It's not only napoleon but thr after affects of the French revolution impacted the European continent well into the 20th century.
Arguably the greatest tragedy in history is the failure of Alexander's military-political heirs to get along, instead of decades and centuries of petty infighting, which also entailed the Seleukid's neglect, then occasional malignant intervention, in the general area that you mention.
But none of these questions are relevant to history which should focus sharply and exclusively on what very little hard evidence we have to piece together a bare outline of what may have actually happened.
In the event, however, humans tend to indulge in petty infighting, flinging themselves full force but ill-fitted with the flimsiest of evidence and calling it "fact" for nefarious purposes and masquerading them as "truth".
правда!
The death of Alexander the great was one fo the greatest tragedies in western history. As soon as Alexander the great died. Alexander left two sons and an cousin as heirs which all would be killed. Perdicas, eumenes, Cassander, ptlomey, selecus, antigonid and Demetrius fought all over the middle east in the name to be Alexander successor. All of the Greek in fighting led to divide and conquer and eventual conquest of a rising power from thr west. Rome itself. If Alexander thr great did not die, Alexander would have conquered arch enemy Carthage, and a netruel Rome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the French Revolution being a drop-down choice. All three caused needless human suffering.
