So many historical clichés. I like how the narrator said "The Czar abdicated and Lenin took the upper hand in the Revolution". As there was nothing in between. Simple as that. Not a word that the Czar was overthrown in the bourgeois revolution to which the Bolsheviks had absolutely no relation. At that time the Bolshevik party counted not more than 3000 members (for the whole Empire, remember!) and most of their leaders like Lenin were in exile. So why the Bolsheviks won in the end? As simple as that: all consecutive bourgeois governments (they called themselves Provisional government) repeatedly failed to deliver their promises. By the way, that was the key reason why the Bolsheviks won in the end: it was the strategy of so called "непредрешенчество" - literally, "let's not decide anything now", let's organize "the founding assembly" some time (in indefinite future) later, and it will decide all long outstanding issues. That was a deeply losing strategy, the masses demanded solutions here and now - and only the Bolsheviks promised that.
Thanks. You saved me from watching this. Honestly I don’t even like to watch made for tv history any more. Independent content creators are more interesting.
I never seen it before . I liked it . Once you see something it should never be shown again? My girlFriend never seen the movie Jaws before and liked it . I seen it 5 times .
And last but not least. There were forces capable to defeat the Bolsheviks. These were the Poles of Pilsudskiy (which again - surprise, surprise! - were armed and equipped by the French) and the Finns of Mannergeim. By the way, why the Bolsheviks lost Baltic states. Not because of their bravery. In fact, it was German troops in both cases - the Baltics and Finnland. Both Poles and Finns simply craved to participate in the war along the Whites. But they demanded a pay for this: recognition of their independence. But every White General and their Supreme leader Admiral Kolchak stood firmly: United and Undivided Russia (in the 1913 borders) So absolutely no independent Poland and no independent Finnland, that's nonsense. And both of them had to withstand from the war. They both unleash their own wars in the 1920 - exactly at the time when Whites had lost any chance to win the war but they weren't defeated fully yet: they still had the last stronghold in the Crimean peninsula under Baron Wrangel. But that's a different story.
"Lenin was an autocrat who really didn't want anyone to succeed him" - a specious assertion. In the aftermath of the civil war, Lenin was essential in steering the ship of state. With him out of the picture everything went pear-shaped.
He"d been warned by Churchill himself😂😂 and Stalin is like: who is this comrade Churchill? An old sworn enemy of communism, presently desperate under a massive German air and submarine onslaught, tries to set us against Germany?
It was an informative documentary about Society's regime organization upon the provisional regime failures before Bulshavics gained power....thanks for sharing
Second, about the Civil War The narrator is telling about that completely and comfortably forgetting what was the immediate trigger for starting it. I will disappoint you: it wasn't actions of the former officers of the Czar's Army or nationalists themselves. They all were very weak to resist. But there was one very significant force at that time: the Chechoslovak Corps which was formed from Austro-Hungarian POWs by the French, on French money, and was armed and equipped by the French. And its overall command was given to a French General. And this Corps raised a mutiny. The French deceived the soldiers proclaiming that the Bolsheviks wanted to hinder them from returning home. By the way, here in Russia there is a widespread hostility to Britain because it always caused harm to Russia and surprisingly indifferent attitude to France (maybe because of De Galle). But in the fomenting of the Civil War in Russia it was France which had a decisive role, not Britain. And exactly because of Chechoslovaks' mutiny the enemies of the Bolsheviks could organize and form their armies - which again - surprise, surprise! - we're fully armed by the French and the British. The problem for the latter was they couldn't send large troop contingents to Russia. And not because this strengthened Red Army soldiers, absolutely not. The true reason was that after the prolonged and very bloody WW1 nobody in their countries would agree to starting another serious war with unclear perspectives. And not because the Reds were exceptionally strong: in fact, their armies were rather small, counting at any given time tens of thousands at best, they were armed with small arms and light field artillery. The problem was occupation. The occupation of such a vast country in which there is no order but there are a big number of roaming bands is a huge task. There was one notable exception from this situation: Japan. The Japanese participated in WW1 only symbolically and for them there wasn't any difficulty to send the large occupying army into Russian Far East and Siberia. But that outcome was absolutely unacceptable for the USA. And Americans thwarted this very effectively.
Robert conquest covered it brilliantly, by the way there is audiobook on you tube brilliantly read in Russian , of course there is an English ve4cion as well
Before molotov ribbentrop pact USSR tried several times for defensive alliences with european nations against Nazi germany. They all declined and continiued appeasement policy in the hopes that Nazis would clash with USSR. It was in their interest to see USSR gone as they funded the white army during the civil war. Also in the meantime, USSR was fighting against Japanese expansionism in siberia and by signing molotov ribbentrop pact, Imperial Japanese-Nazi collaboration suffered greatly, which in turn may have changed the turn of the ww2
Yikes talk about reactionary cliches! "A scar across history"??? Do these knuckleheads know who beat the Nazis? Maybe it got better, but I could only endure a little of this "history" show.
Nonsense, those Polish soldiers surrendered amd laid down arms. Stalin had them interrogated, each and very one was interviewed ad asked will they help fight the nazis and they all said NO! So the soviets had potential belligerents on their hands that they had to feed and they were for all intents and purposes NAZIS and that is why Stalin had them strategically expelled.
I can't imagine living in Russia with no free speech, you can't own a firearm to protect yourself, and corruption is the rule instead of the exception. Your business and private property can be taken at any moment. Poor people.
I enjoyed this video, but at minute 24, Diane communicates a known falsehood that russia didn't try to destroy Ukrainian nationalism by taking steps to ensure the famine in Ukraine was more severe than other parts of russia... Come on Diane...
We tried it in the 1860s. The Confederates lost the war, and the Union abolished slavery. It didn't work out well then, and today's insurrectionist would be quickly put down.
@@JesseWRIGHT-th8mwNo, we’re talking about the liberals trying to expand the government in to every facet of American’s lives. Liberals and communists are so incompetent they need the government to act like their father.
So many historical clichés. I like how the narrator said "The Czar abdicated and Lenin took the upper hand in the Revolution". As there was nothing in between. Simple as that. Not a word that the Czar was overthrown in the bourgeois revolution to which the Bolsheviks had absolutely no relation. At that time the Bolshevik party counted not more than 3000 members (for the whole Empire, remember!) and most of their leaders like Lenin were in exile. So why the Bolsheviks won in the end? As simple as that: all consecutive bourgeois governments (they called themselves Provisional government) repeatedly failed to deliver their promises. By the way, that was the key reason why the Bolsheviks won in the end: it was the strategy of so called "непредрешенчество" - literally, "let's not decide anything now", let's organize "the founding assembly" some time (in indefinite future) later, and it will decide all long outstanding issues. That was a deeply losing strategy, the masses demanded solutions here and now - and only the Bolsheviks promised that.
Thanks. You saved me from watching this. Honestly I don’t even like to watch made for tv history any more. Independent content creators are more interesting.
Then open your own channel to your specs and do the heavy lifting yourself. Or pay a subscription elsewhere, this here is free.
Dam you need a channel. Scholar. Lol
Bruh please make videos
Exceptional production!
Fantastic detailed content!
How many times will this old series get presented as a new series?
I never seen it before .
I liked it . Once you see something it should never be shown again?
My girlFriend never seen the movie Jaws before and liked it . I seen it 5 times .
@@Crashed131963she play in it 🤪
What ya trying to say ???
You aint seen nothin', yet! Hold onto your hat!
And last but not least. There were forces capable to defeat the Bolsheviks. These were the Poles of Pilsudskiy (which again - surprise, surprise! - were armed and equipped by the French) and the Finns of Mannergeim. By the way, why the Bolsheviks lost Baltic states. Not because of their bravery. In fact, it was German troops in both cases - the Baltics and Finnland. Both Poles and Finns simply craved to participate in the war along the Whites. But they demanded a pay for this: recognition of their independence. But every White General and their Supreme leader Admiral Kolchak stood firmly: United and Undivided Russia (in the 1913 borders) So absolutely no independent Poland and no independent Finnland, that's nonsense. And both of them had to withstand from the war. They both unleash their own wars in the 1920 - exactly at the time when Whites had lost any chance to win the war but they weren't defeated fully yet: they still had the last stronghold in the Crimean peninsula under Baron Wrangel. But that's a different story.
Why pay to go to college when you have these amazing professors teach great history! Great vid!
There's no substitution for a university education.
@@JesseWRIGHT-th8mwexcept an education from hard knocks
@@Lezcho Let a doctor from the school of hard knocks operate on you.
@@JesseWRIGHT-th8mw I bet.
"Lenin was an autocrat who really didn't want anyone to succeed him" - a specious assertion.
In the aftermath of the civil war, Lenin was essential in steering the ship of state. With him out of the picture everything went pear-shaped.
He"d been warned by Churchill himself😂😂 and Stalin is like: who is this comrade Churchill? An old sworn enemy of communism, presently desperate under a massive German air and submarine onslaught, tries to set us against Germany?
Thank you for this video ,really cool !!!
It was an informative documentary about Society's regime organization upon the provisional regime failures before Bulshavics gained power....thanks for sharing
A strong Nation with deep history and always prepared to defend their lands and rights. Defend being the operative word
Turns out today's russian army is anything but strong lol. After a mobilization of their entire country they can't even take 15% of Ukraine lol
Second, about the Civil War The narrator is telling about that completely and comfortably forgetting what was the immediate trigger for starting it. I will disappoint you: it wasn't actions of the former officers of the Czar's Army or nationalists themselves. They all were very weak to resist. But there was one very significant force at that time: the Chechoslovak Corps which was formed from Austro-Hungarian POWs by the French, on French money, and was armed and equipped by the French. And its overall command was given to a French General. And this Corps raised a mutiny. The French deceived the soldiers proclaiming that the Bolsheviks wanted to hinder them from returning home. By the way, here in Russia there is a widespread hostility to Britain because it always caused harm to Russia and surprisingly indifferent attitude to France (maybe because of De Galle). But in the fomenting of the Civil War in Russia it was France which had a decisive role, not Britain. And exactly because of Chechoslovaks' mutiny the enemies of the Bolsheviks could organize and form their armies - which again - surprise, surprise! - we're fully armed by the French and the British. The problem for the latter was they couldn't send large troop contingents to Russia. And not because this strengthened Red Army soldiers, absolutely not. The true reason was that after the prolonged and very bloody WW1 nobody in their countries would agree to starting another serious war with unclear perspectives. And not because the Reds were exceptionally strong: in fact, their armies were rather small, counting at any given time tens of thousands at best, they were armed with small arms and light field artillery. The problem was occupation. The occupation of such a vast country in which there is no order but there are a big number of roaming bands is a huge task. There was one notable exception from this situation: Japan. The Japanese participated in WW1 only symbolically and for them there wasn't any difficulty to send the large occupying army into Russian Far East and Siberia. But that outcome was absolutely unacceptable for the USA. And Americans thwarted this very effectively.
The series is to cover the Soviet Union not how the Soviet Union came to be .
At 3:00 the Pre-Soviet Union civil war was covered enough for me .
100 %
As a Russian historian I can only agree with all your points.
Lies . What triggered the war was brutality of the Bolsheviks
Robert conquest covered it brilliantly, by the way there is audiobook on you tube brilliantly read in Russian , of course there is an English ve4cion as well
"Germany had no army" (after 1919). BS. They had a 100,000 man army.
They didnt mean literally, Timmy. 🤡
was lenin slowly poisoned?
Probably. By Dzerzhinsky and Stalin. And guess who was Lenin's chef before he became Stalin's chef? Vladimir Putin's grandfather...
Stalin refused to give him poison, so....
Anyone know the name of the music from the intro?
We need Soviet Union again. They are real superpowers
Before molotov ribbentrop pact USSR tried several times for defensive alliences with european nations against Nazi germany. They all declined and continiued appeasement policy in the hopes that Nazis would clash with USSR. It was in their interest to see USSR gone as they funded the white army during the civil war. Also in the meantime, USSR was fighting against Japanese expansionism in siberia and by signing molotov ribbentrop pact, Imperial Japanese-Nazi collaboration suffered greatly, which in turn may have changed the turn of the ww2
38:25i thought someone was shirtless!
Wow
Yikes talk about reactionary cliches! "A scar across history"??? Do these knuckleheads know who beat the Nazis? Maybe it got better, but I could only endure a little of this "history" show.
Inaccuracy and falsehood abound with this. Wall Street academia.
You had me until you said the Holodomor wasn't deliberately done......
Nonsense, those Polish soldiers surrendered amd laid down arms. Stalin had them interrogated, each and very one was interviewed ad asked will they help fight the nazis and they all said NO! So the soviets had potential belligerents on their hands that they had to feed and they were for all intents and purposes NAZIS and that is why Stalin had them strategically expelled.
I love russian one day I wanna to learn language rusian
I can't imagine living in Russia with no free speech, you can't own a firearm to protect yourself, and corruption is the rule instead of the exception.
Your business and private property can be taken at any moment.
Poor people.
USSR
Why no cc's? Don't watch this,dislike.
I enjoyed this video, but at minute 24, Diane communicates a known falsehood that russia didn't try to destroy Ukrainian nationalism by taking steps to ensure the famine in Ukraine was more severe than other parts of russia... Come on Diane...
Marxist historians, sad!
???????
I don't think it's sad to be aware of history.
@@Ben-uw5jb but if what they teach you is wrong, it's not very helpful.
They aren't Marxist historians; they've studied and written about the Russian Revolution. Two different things.
Didn't work? Well, lets try in the United States...
We tried it in the 1860s. The Confederates lost the war, and the Union abolished slavery. It didn't work out well then, and today's insurrectionist would be quickly put down.
@@JesseWRIGHT-th8mw Talking about Communism here sweet heart.
@@1bskemp It sounded more like pro-civil war.
@@JesseWRIGHT-th8mwNo, we’re talking about the liberals trying to expand the government in to every facet of American’s lives. Liberals and communists are so incompetent they need the government to act like their father.
garbage