History of Russian Empire Thread

Firebird wrote:I see Vann is managing to post ever more nonsense.
Apparently he knows better than most of Russia.. even tho he never lived in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For the record, Russia was extremly backward and the later "tsars", even by the standards of the era were vicious, evil tyrants. While other European countries were building advanced civilisations and spreading across the whole world, the Tsars were sitting on their arses in splendour while the serfs toiled on land or starved in a medieval manner.

The "tsars" alienated the rest of the Slavic world, and if it wasn't for Stalin/Lenin, Russia probably would have been smashed to pieces in the 20th century.

If he thinks Medvedev/Yeltsin licked Western Europe's arses, he should check out Nick the Prick 2, or Catherine le Frog. They were cousin marrying, German-French mongrels, about as Russian as Bathhouse Barry Obama.

If Russia had a revolution earlier, ie MUCH earlier it would have industrialised, become civilised and would have been the epicentre of the WHOLE Slavic world, in one Union. Then it would have a huge influence extending South thro Asia and across seas and even oceans. Alaska would not have been sold off.

Russian would prob have the status of the English language today. Russian legal and commercial systems would be predominant, even financial systems around the globe. With the choice between "imperial paternal partnerships" Russia might have had a huge influence in the 3rd world even today, without the resentment that is had towards European colonials like France and England.

A tiny little country like England managed all this. Its ridiculous that the Tsars got away with squandering Russia's much greater inate position of power.

The tsars were the epitomy of the corrupt class "system". They were cowards. Afraid of change and progess, because people would realise how pathetic they were. Even Britain allowed SOME relaxation of the class structure... and it benefited hugely. And Spain dwindled into insignificance (after being a superpower) because it refused to reform its own ridiculously antiquated class system.

As soon as the Soviets dragged Russia into modern times, it became a superpower. AND the life of its citizens improved.

But hey, dont let the facts get in the way of anything.
Cue rant about "da jooz" and "commies"/ misspellings of Bolshevik etc...

Haha... that is exactly the opposite. While Russia was among the first true civilisations with united state and form with laws and a functioning state organs to keep the country in stable form, rest of this so called civilized Europe were invading each other or just fighting with their own like we germans Saxons, Hessens, Preussen, same with French, UK never left this state they still are uncivilized and the rest of europe were genociding native people across the entire planet. So don't talk about civilisation, you won't find it in the west.

GarryB wrote:Meh... the Faberge eggs are not much different from Model T Fords... will the US government stump up the money to buy all the surviving running examples... I mean it would be easier for the US government... they just have to print more money....

Russia needs to return to the Tsarist times like it needs polio and AIDS.

The faberge Eggs were special unique gifts of the Royal Tsar family..
This was the people that weather we like them or not.. created Russia
and made it a super power ,way before the soviet union existed. and such important
jewelry in the history of Russia belongs to Russia.. not to Dictators in the middle east
that have nothing to do with them..  or American dirty bankers.  And the Tourism value of
such unique jewelry in the world is priceless . I think Garry you know much more than that.

Werewolf wrote:Haha... that is exactly the opposite. While Russia was among the first true civilisations with united state and form with laws and a functioning state organs to keep the country in stable form, rest of this so called civilized Europe were invading each other or just fighting with their own like we germans Saxons, Hessens, Preussen, same with French, UK never left this state they still are uncivilized and the rest of europe were genociding native people across the entire planet. So don't talk about civilisation, you won't find it in the west.

Uncivilized. Russia did not even have a single proper university until 18th century, only some religious schools where nothing was taught except Bible. All Russian contributions to the world in form of science/literature/philosophy took place after westernization under Peter and Catherine the Great. There was only one significant Russian contribution made before 18th century - and that was Ruska Pravda, a codification of law that was the most advanced at it's time.

Being civilized has nothing to do with waging wars or conquring peoples. General Lothar von Trotha (whom I have in my avatar) kicked asses of Namibians who never planned to invade Germany - but I consider Imperial Germany to be thousands of times more civilized than them. We had repeating rifles, artillery, electricity, railroads and general relativity. They had bows ans believed that dancing around a campfire can cause rain - so who was more civilized? It does not even make sense to ask.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Being civilized has nothing to do with waging wars or conquring peoples. General Lothar von Trotha (whom I have in my avatar) kicked asses of Namibians who never planned to invade Germany - but I consider Imperial Germany to be thousands of times more civilized than them. We had repeating rifles, artillery, electricity, railroads and general relativity. They had bows ans believed that dancing around a campfire can cause rain - so who was more civilized? It does not even make sense to ask.

Indeed it does since the concept of civilisation is related to social advance not to technological advantage and that's why a sophisticated agrarian society are considered civilised while other societies that use firearms are not.

Some right wing Americans criticize the Russian Communist Revolution and defend the Tsarist government that existed before.  I want to know what was the Tsarist government really like? Many libertarians criticize the Revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba but are silent about the oppressive social, political, and economic conditions that existed before? From what I have read on the internet, Russia was close to modern Brazil back then; a large rural and extremely poor working class that lived in shantytowns and a rich elite. There was virtually no middle class.  If that was the case; I can see the appeal of Communism.

Moreover, how many support the rhetoric of Marxism about the conditions of the poor and wanting to improve their conditions but reject the application of Communism as a vehicle to improve it? Do any of you all support a free enterprise with sensible regulations and a safety net for the poor? I think that is much better. Of course even if someone supports a more moderate form of capitalism here in the west; One often hears the criticisms of "you are a socialist or you are a communist" rhetoric among far right wingers. I think such opinions are stupid.

But anyway would like a good assessment of Russia before 1917 under the tsars.

andalusia wrote:Some right wing Americans criticize the Russian Communist Revolution and defend the Tsarist government that existed before.  I want to know what was the Tsarist government really like? Many libertarians criticize the Revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba but are silent about the oppressive social, political, and economic conditions that existed before? From what I have read on the internet, Russia was close to modern Brazil back then; a large rural and extremely poor working class that lived in shantytowns and a rich elite. There was virtually no middle class.  If that was the case; I can see the appeal of Communism.

Moreover, how many support the rhetoric of Marxism about the conditions of the poor and wanting to improve their conditions but reject the application of Communism as a vehicle to improve it? Do any of you all support a free enterprise with sensible regulations and a safety net for the poor? I think that is much better. Of course even if someone supports a more moderate form of capitalism here in the west; One often hears the criticisms of "you are a socialist or you are a communist" rhetoric among far right wingers. I think such opinions are stupid.

But anyway would like a good assessment of Russia before 1917 under the tsars.

It was a mostly rural, peasant country for sure, but with the fastest industrial growth in the world in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Serfdom was abolished around 1860, and this improved the conditions of many peasants. Most peasants were very poor compared to Western Europeans, but anyway there were a few who were rich, others who could be considered middle class (small landowners), and literacy was also growing fast among peasants and workers. I know a woman whose parents were Byelorussians (Russian-speaking) and moved to Argentina in the 1920's - they were peasants, literate and owned their land, and had good cultural and material life conditions before the revolution. The reforms put in practice by prime-minister Stolypin in the early 20th century gave arable lands in Southern Siberia and low-interest credits for peasants, which also improved their condition. Revolutionaries were so afraid of Stolypin reforms because, if successful, it would delay or simply abort the revolution they were fighting for (revolutionaries, either liberal or socialist, are evil because they necessarily need the conditions of the people to be extremely bad, otherwise no revolution will ever occur), and he was assassinated by an anarchist in Kiev. Last, there was a thriving middle class in cities, consisting of traders, doctors, professors, lawyers, etc.
Does this mean that everything was perfect in Russia, that everyone was happy before the Revolution? Of course not, there was a lot of injustices, inequalities and oppression, from which revolutionary feelings bred. But the Bolsheviks, striving for a "perfect" society, only made things worse, and a terrible terror regime under Lenin and Stalin came upon Russia that caused dozens of millions to die, many of the brightest people to emigrate, a situation much worse than anything the previous tsars and emperors had ever done, even those considered the bloodiest ones, like Ivan IV. Russia is nowadays in a current difficult demographic situation mostly due to the Bolsheviks - not only the terror from 1917-1953, but also legal abortion and low birth rate have decimated Russian population. Before the Revolution, Russia had a very fast growing population.

Here is some more context. The revolutionaries who were basically engaged in terror in Russia during the late 1800s where
exiled to Siberia but not to concentration camps under the Czar's "regime". Dostoyevsky was one such trouble maker. During
the Red Terror which lasted until basically the middle 1950s millions were sent to the gulags merely for having different views
from the regime. They were not engaged in terrorism and killings. So the "oppression" of the Czar's "regime" was like a slap
on the wrist, but Soviet oppression meant death. And death in the millions.

Right now Russia is experiencing the best conditions it has had in its history in terms of freedom and democracy. It really
is an epic renaissance considering the toilet it was in for so long. The demonization of Russia's duly elected leadership and
the brazen lies about Russian life and politics in the west are 1984 level.

kvs wrote:Dostoyevsky was one such trouble maker.

True. But he repented and became a good Orthodox and monarchist. Most of his works are about the psychology of Russian revolutionaries in the 19th century, especially "The Demons" (Бесы), and this allowed him to prophetize many of the terrible events of Bolshevism. Reading his books gives a tremendous, though also terrible, insight on the bloody mishaps of Russia in the first half of the 20th century.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

kvs wrote:Dostoyevsky was one such trouble maker.

True. But he repented and became a good Orthodox and monarchist. Most of his works are about the psychology of Russian revolutionaries in the 19th century, especially "The Demons" (Бесы), and this allowed him to prophetize many of the terrible events of Bolshevism. Reading his books gives a tremendous, though also terrible, insight on the bloody mishaps of Russia in the first half of the 20th century.

I just noted his name as an example. Thanks for the additional background. Under the Soviets he would have not gotten his
life back.

Under the Soviets he would have not gotten his
life back.

See, now this is a huge part of the problem... the actions of Stalin are considered Soviet and Gorbachev and other later leaders are ignored.... yet they were all Soviet leaders...

there were dozens if not hundreds of Soviet Dissidents that were not killed, though some did go into exile they were hardly working in salt mines...

GarryB wrote:
See, now this is a huge part of the problem... the actions of Stalin are considered Soviet and Gorbachev and other later leaders are ignored.... yet they were all Soviet leaders...

there were dozens if not hundreds of Soviet Dissidents that were not killed, though some did go into exile they were hardly working in salt mines...

It is true and I won't deny it, after Stalin, and especially after Khrushchev's thaw, the Soviet Union became a more normal country. It was an oppressive dictatorship, far from being the free and fair country that the revolutionaries had promised, but at least there was no terror and people knew that, if they followed the party line and behaved well nothing would happen to them. Also, most dissidents were not assassinated or tortured, some were allowed to emigrate (like Solzhenitsyn), and even those who were sent to prison didn't have to face horrible conditions as those in the Gulag during Stalin's era.

Between the 18th century and 1917 the Russian Empire was essentially a German-run semi-colony; the empire was dominated by a small parasitic ethnic German element.


It is the Bolsheviks who ended it and made Russia into a superpower.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:

Between the 18th century and 1917 the Russian Empire was essentially a German-run semi-colony; the empire was dominated by a small parasitic ethnic German element.


It is the Bolsheviks who ended it and made Russia into a superpower.

Bolshevics are the responsible scum that started with the Terror and genocide.

Werewolf wrote:

Odin of Ossetia wrote:

Between the 18th century and 1917 the Russian Empire was essentially a German-run semi-colony; the empire was dominated by a small parasitic ethnic German element.


It is the Bolsheviks who ended it and made Russia into a superpower.

Bolshevics are the responsible scum that started with the Terror and genocide.

Says who?

http://asaland.proboards.com/thread/38/german-crimes-soviet-pows-poland

Svyatoslavich wrote:

andalusia wrote:Some right wing Americans criticize the Russian Communist Revolution and defend the Tsarist government that existed before.  I want to know what was the Tsarist government really like? Many libertarians criticize the Revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba but are silent about the oppressive social, political, and economic conditions that existed before? From what I have read on the internet, Russia was close to modern Brazil back then; a large rural and extremely poor working class that lived in shantytowns and a rich elite. There was virtually no middle class.  If that was the case; I can see the appeal of Communism.

Moreover, how many support the rhetoric of Marxism about the conditions of the poor and wanting to improve their conditions but reject the application of Communism as a vehicle to improve it? Do any of you all support a free enterprise with sensible regulations and a safety net for the poor? I think that is much better. Of course even if someone supports a more moderate form of capitalism here in the west; One often hears the criticisms of "you are a socialist or you are a communist" rhetoric among far right wingers. I think such opinions are stupid.

But anyway would like a good assessment of Russia before 1917 under the tsars.

It was a mostly rural, peasant country for sure, but with the fastest industrial growth in the world in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Serfdom was abolished around 1860, and this improved the conditions of many peasants. Most peasants were very poor compared to Western Europeans, but anyway there were a few who were rich, others who could be considered middle class (small landowners), and literacy was also growing fast among peasants and workers. I know a woman whose parents were Byelorussians (Russian-speaking) and moved to Argentina in the 1920's - they were peasants, literate and owned their land, and had good cultural and material life conditions before the revolution. The reforms put in practice by prime-minister Stolypin in the early 20th century gave arable lands in Southern Siberia and low-interest credits for peasants, which also improved their condition. Revolutionaries were so afraid of Stolypin reforms because, if successful, it would delay or simply abort the revolution they were fighting for (revolutionaries, either liberal or socialist, are evil because they necessarily need the conditions of the people to be extremely bad, otherwise no revolution will ever occur), and he was assassinated by an anarchist in Kiev. Last, there was a thriving middle class in cities, consisting of traders, doctors, professors, lawyers, etc.
Does this mean that everything was perfect in Russia, that everyone was happy before the Revolution? Of course not, there was a lot of injustices, inequalities and oppression, from which revolutionary feelings bred. But the Bolsheviks, striving for a "perfect" society, only made things worse, and a terrible terror regime under Lenin and Stalin came upon Russia that caused dozens of millions to die, many of the brightest people to emigrate, a situation much worse than anything the previous tsars and emperors had ever done, even those considered the bloodiest ones, like Ivan IV. Russia is nowadays in a current difficult demographic situation mostly due to the Bolsheviks - not only the terror from 1917-1953, but also legal abortion and low birth rate have decimated Russian population. Before the Revolution, Russia had a very fast growing population.

Is it wrong to say that assassination of Stolypin was the worst thing that happened to Russia before WWI? Everything that I have read about him say that he was very capable and pragmatic national leader, and his competence kept Nikolai II:s stupidity in check. Once the Bolsheviks assassinated him the country was set back and taken over by less capable leaders.

If Stolypin had lived longer is it possible that Russia would have avoided joining the WWI and the Bolshevik revolution altogether? In this alternative history Russia would be a totally different place today.

kvs wrote:Here is some more context.   The revolutionaries who were basically engaged in terror in Russia during the late 1800s where
exiled to Siberia but not to concentration camps under the Czar's "regime".  Dostoyevsky was one such trouble maker.  During
the Red Terror which lasted until basically the middle 1950s millions were sent to the gulags merely for having different views
from the regime.   They were not engaged in terrorism and killings.   So the "oppression" of the Czar's "regime" was like a slap
on the wrist, but Soviet oppression meant death.   And death in the millions.

Right now Russia is experiencing the best conditions it has had in its history in terms of freedom and democracy.   It really
is an epic renaissance considering the toilet it was in for so long.   The demonization of Russia's duly elected leadership and
the brazen lies about Russian life and politics in the west are 1984 level.

One thing to remember is that if the current Fifth Column in Russia by some miracle would rise to power they would so no leniency to it's opponents. Probably millions of Russians would be imprisoned or killed by them. The best Russian people would either die or go to exile and Russia would be taken back by a century. It would be a similar catastrophe that was the WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution was a hundred years ago.

These people are guided and controlled by the West and the West would make sure that they inflict the maximum damage to Russia.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

kvs wrote:Dostoyevsky was one such trouble maker.

True. But he repented and became a good Orthodox and monarchist. Most of his works are about the psychology of Russian revolutionaries in the 19th century, especially "The Demons" (Бесы), and this allowed him to prophetize many of the terrible events of Bolshevism. Reading his books gives a tremendous, though also terrible, insight on the bloody mishaps of Russia in the first half of the 20th century.

Didn't Dostoyevsky predict the Bolshevik Revolution and the horrible things that Russia would go through because of it?

Some people call him a "prophet" because of it.

For the people really interested about the history of Russia..
this is probably the best of the best detailed information of the real origins of Russia
and what happened ,how it developed.. and it even explain ,about the main sources
of Russia history ,from where all historians get their main info of What is Russia or how it developed.

Is a really good historical revisit of Russia and very interesting analysis ,that helps to explain
things like..

1) how Russia became to exist ?
2) The origins of Ukraine  ( the most likely ,probable origins)
3)the Role of Jews in Russia empire.. (highly controversial ,must see ...will put you to think a lot
to understand  Judeo Phobia ,when it began..and why..)  they gave troubles to Russia TSAR romanovs.. (alexander II and Nicholas II both murdered by Revolutionary Jews for example.
Alexander was murdered by a suicide bomber that happened to be a jew from a radical jewish organization. .)
4)The role of farmers /Serfs in Russia in Russian laws.. they gave troubles to the Russian empire too.
5) Explain the Huge Contradictions with Ukrainians identity.. ie.. they praise in their currency
    Russian Heroes and many statues in Ukraine ,still honor them.. although they fought for
   Russia.
6) and How sameRussian families ended fighting in opposites sides of Polish -Ruso war.
   Father against son.. and the role of womens in dividing them.  
7)and last video explain the biggest controversies about Jews ,that you maybe never heard off.
and how Catherine the great and any following Russian Tzar never allowed jews to live near moscow and only allowed them to live at the borders of Russia with Europe.. today zone is called not Russia but Ukraine ..and perhaps Belarus and Crimea too.


The history of Russia is worth of a holywood movie no kidding..
the history revisit comes from a famous Russian Girl in youtube that have a channel and
answer questions to anyone seeking to know more about Russia. ,that even though she speak in Spanish , the substitles are in english..at times in Russian too. ,She explain Russia history using video references edited by her and sometimes with humor .so it never gets boring..she is really smart girl and likes history.. you should subscribe to her channel , also explain the issue of Gays in Russia and Corruption in Russia. and other issues too.

Is a Two part video.. the second video ,she revisit a few mistakes she made about Ukraine..
so you need to see both parts to really get a very decent guesstimate of Russia history.
Because as she explain , many of the books of early Russia history of the Romanov and earlier have been destroyed by the Bolsehvicks when took power in 1920's ,who wanted to get rid of
Russia Imperial past.





In another video in her channel she explain why Jews had problems in Russia.
but also in all Europe.. so it was not just a Hitler thing..as we were told. and the banking
Industry and media they controlled ,just like today they do..was one of the major reasons.
but there was others too.

Why Discrimination of Jews in Imperial Russia..

Thank you all for your comments.

http://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/russia/

When a corrupt and incompetent regime is removed, they don't just shrug their shoulders and say: 'well, it was good while it lasted'. All the people and organisations who prospered under them also want to protect their positions.

The Civil War which followed the Revolution was largely fought between Bolsheviks and communists or 'white Russians'. Western countries sent forces, and they were not interested in building a nice, fair system that would bring prosperity to Russia- they would have simply re-installed the monarchy.

It was simply too risky to keep them around.

I dont like monarchy. What the f...k mean royalty anyway?

So the German-controlled Czarist regime stole ancient Terving Gothic treasures from Poland, and then, mis-labelled these archaeological findings as "from Kiev."


"KAZANSKI: ...the collection of Zamostie [=Zamosc, Poland] in the Hermitage [in Russia] was published as coming from Kiev. In the report of the Archaeological Commission they believe that count Bobzinski correctly stated that it did not come from Kiev, it came from Bobzinski Zamostie. On the maps of the Russian Empire [published at that time] this is called Zamostie."




https://books.google.ca/books?id=M0WnZ2vDfEkC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Zamosc+Gothic+Treasures&source=bl&ots=a375hMkVoH&sig=hEfkZB5Y3zdolESaIKX5UwqWwtA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwA2oVChMIzMX2qbC4xwIVBJSICh2y8g1W#v=onepage&q=Zamosc%20Gothic%20Treasures&f=false



Rather ironic considering the present situation between Russia and Ukraine.


What was the point of enriching "your own" history at someone's expense?


Will Russia return these mis-labelled treasures?

Odin of Ossetia wrote:

So the German-controlled Czarist regime stole ancient Gothic treasures from Poland, and then, mis-labelled these archaeological findings as "from Kiev."


"KAZANSKI: ...the collection of Zamostie [=Zamosc, Poland] in the Hermitage [in Russia] was published as coming from Kiev. In the report of the Archaeological Commission they believe that count Bobzinski correctly stated that it did not come from Kiev, it came from Bobzinski Zamostie. On the maps of the Russian Empire [published at that time] this is called Zamostie."



https://books.google.ca/books?id=M0WnZ2vDfEkC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Zamosc+Gothic+Treasures&source=bl&ots=a375hMkVoH&sig=hEfkZB5Y3zdolESaIKX5UwqWwtA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwA2oVChMIzMX2qbC4xwIVBJSICh2y8g1W#v=onepage&q=Zamosc%20Gothic%20Treasures&f=false



Rather ironic considering the present situation between Russia and Ukraine.


What was the point of enriching "your own" history at someone's expense?


Will Russia return these mis-labelled treasures?

Case closed, eh?

People find some book that tells them what they want to hear and that is all they need.

Here is more information on the Gothic Treasure of Zamosc here (in Polish):

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/pl/thesaurus/stanowiska/zamosc-


The treasure was found in 1839 in Zamosc, Poland (at that time part of the Russian Empire).



As for the "case closed" part, Russia returned during the 1990's old treasures to such countries like Germany and Hungary.

Meanwhile Germany is not returning anything to Poland. Is this fair?

What has fair to do with it?

the British museum has lots of treasures from around the world that it refuses to return because it claims only it can look after them properly...

The lesson is that if you steal something, just put it in a nice display case and you wont have to give it back...