100 Years since the Russian Revolution

[Zippyjuan]

There were actually two revolutions in 1917. The October is the more famous (it actually was in November according to our calendars). The other was in February. Russia seems to be downplaying the events.

http://www.history.com/topics/russian-revolution

In 1917, two revolutions swept through Russia, ending centuries of imperial rule and setting into motion political and social changes that would lead to the formation of the Soviet Union. While the two revolutionary events took place within a few short months, social unrest in Russia had been simmering for decades.

In the early 1900s, Russia was one of the most impoverished countries in Europe with an enormous peasantry and a growing minority of poor industrial workers.

Much of Western Europe viewed Russia as an undeveloped, backwards society. The Russian Empire practiced serfdom—a form of feudalism in which landless peasants were forced to serve the land-owning nobility—well into the nineteenth century. In contrast, the practice had disappeared in most of Western Europe by the end of the Middle Ages.

FEBRUARY REVOLUTION
The February Revolution (known as such because of Russia’s use of the Julian calendar until February 1918) began on March 8, 2017 (February 23 on the Julian calendar).

Demonstrators clamoring for bread took to the streets of Petrograd. Supported by huge crowds of striking industrial workers, the protesters clashed with police but refused to leave the streets.

On March 11, the troops of the Petrograd army garrison were called out to quell the uprising. In some encounters, the regiments opened fire, killing demonstrators, but the protesters kept to the streets and the troops began to waver.

The Duma formed a provisional government on March 12. A few days later, Czar Nicholas abdicated the throne, ending centuries of Russian Romanov rule.

The leaders of the provisional government, including young Russian lawyer Alexander Kerensky, established a liberal program of rights such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the right of unions to organize and strike. They opposed violent social revolution.

As minister of war, Kerensky continued the Russian war effort, even though Russian involvement in World War I was enormously unpopular. This further exacerbated Russia’s food supply problems. Unrest continued to grow as peasants looted farms and food riots erupted in the cities.

BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
On November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar, which is why the event is often referred to as the October Revolution), leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the Duma’s provisional government.

The provisional government had been assembled by a group of leaders from Russia’s bourgeois capitalist class. Lenin instead called for a Soviet government that would be ruled directly by councils of soldiers, peasants and workers.

The Bolsheviks and their allies occupied government buildings and other strategic locations in Petrograd, and soon formed a new government with Lenin as its head. Lenin became the dictator of the world’s first communist state.

RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR
Civil War broke out in Russia in late 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution. The warring factions included the Red and White Armies.

The Red Army fought for the Lenin’s Bolshevik government. The White Army represented a large group of loosely allied forces, including monarchists, capitalists and supporters of democratic socialism.

The Russian Civil War ended in 1923 with Lenin’s Red Army claiming victory and establishing the Soviet Union.

Estimates are that some nine million died from various causes (war, famine, diseases).

[Zippyjuan]

http://theconversation.com/why-putin...volution-74394

Why Putin is shy about celebrating the centenary of the Russian revolution


This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution. It began in February 1917 and reached a climax eight months later in October when the Bolsheviks seized power. A year of enormous significance in the nation’s history, it has so far received little attention in 2017.

It seems to be proving difficult for the current Russian government to decide how to commemorate or celebrate what happened 100 years ago. Revolution as a concept is something that Vladimir Putin has been attacking for years, ever since the “colour” revolutions first emerged on Russia’s doorstep in Georgia in late 2003.

The nation, in his view, has had enough of revolutions. For him, they disrupt people’s lives, causing harsh material deprivations, with a negative impact on the prosperity and power of states. And while Putin accepts that some countries do require serious political and economic reform, he believes evolution to be a better route. This is the path he wants Russia itself to take. Since the Arab Spring and subsequent civil wars in the Middle East, Putin has equated revolution with instability, extremism and terrorism.

It has also proved very difficult for Putin and his government to fit 1917 into the positive, patriotic and unifying version of Russian history they have been writing since 2000. Like the leaders of the USSR, Putin has used history to try to galvanise and unite Russian society behind his leadership – starting with schoolchildren.

In June 2004, the minister for education declared that school history textbooks should be rewritten to exclude “pseudo-liberalism, aimed at misinterpreting our history”. He suggested that certain textbooks were damaging Russia’s social cohesion and national pride.

A more “positive” way of viewing history was demonstrated prominently in 2012 when Russia marked the bicentenary of Napoleon’s invasion with unabashed patriotic celebrations. Putin was fighting an election campaign and delivered a rousing speech in which he talked of the “battle for Russia”, patriotism, national unity and self-sacrifice. He described his supporters as the natural successors of the 1812 generation, and his opponents as the foreign invaders.

The revolution, however, is difficult to fit into a positive, unifying vision. Many elements of the imperial power of Russia before 1917 are amenable to the current regime, so celebrating the February revolution is awkward. Even more so when you consider that attempts to build a Western-style liberal democracy are clearly out of sync with Putin’s authoritarian style of democratic politics.

Equally, Putin recently condemned the violence deployed against the clergy and other social groups after the October revolution. He blamed the Bolsheviks for Russia’s loss in the First World War. The creation of new socialist republics in the early 1920s had led to the dispersal of Russians outside of Russia and, in Putin’s view, laid the foundations for the collapse of the Soviet Union. In reclaiming Crimea and intervening in Eastern Ukraine, so the official line goes, Russia is only righting the wrongs caused by the revolution and bringing ethnic Russians back home.

[oyarde]

I would not celebrate the bolsheviks , even if I was an old KGB guy like Putin .

[Swordsmyth]

I would not celebrate the bolsheviks , even if I was an old KGB guy like Putin .

It puts him one up on the French, they still celebrate the Jacobins.

[Danke]

Thanks to the NY Jewish bankers.

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks to the NY Jewish bankers.

And German military intelligence.

[Firestarter]

Thanks to the NY Jewish bankers.

Antony Sutton – Wall Street and the Bolshevik revolution (1974): http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/S...volution-3.pdf
Ashkenazi is not the same as Jewish...

[Swordsmyth]

Antony Sutton – Wall Street and the Bolshevik revolution (1974): http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/S...volution-3.pdf
Ashkenazi is not the same as Jewish...

But it may be the same as NAZI

[Firestarter]

But it may be the same as NAZI

Have you ever heard of the Sanhedrin???

The Sanhedrin, who have (or had) full authority over the people of Israel, is a real historic fact.

Before 191 BC the High Priest was the head of the Sanhedrin, but starting in 191 BC, the office of Nasi was created (the acting president of the Great Sanhedrin). In 425 AD, the title of Nasi was outlawed by Theodosius II.
The "Grand Sanhedrin" was a Jewish high court convened by Napoleon I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

There is also a persistent rumour of a very ugly letter from the Grand Sanhedrin in 1489.
That was reportedly published in 1889 in the Revue des estudes Juives (financed by James de Rothschild): http://theshamecampaign.com/2014/05/...ews-in-france/

I've been trying in vain to find confirmation that the 1489 letter (and being published in 1889) is real or fake.
I believe that "Nazi" is just another spelling of "Nasi"...

[Swordsmyth]

Have you ever heard of the Sanhedrin???

The Sanhedrin, who have (or had) full authority over the people of Israel, is a real historic fact.

Before 191 BC the High Priest was the head of the Sanhedrin, but starting in 191 BC, the office of Nasi was created (the acting president of the Great Sanhedrin). In 425 AD, the title of Nasi was outlawed by Theodosius II.
The "Grand Sanhedrin" was a Jewish high court convened by Napoleon I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

There is also a persistent rumour of a very ugly letter from the Grand Sanhedrin in 1489.
That was reportedly published in 1889 in the Revue des estudes Juives (financed by James de Rothschild): http://theshamecampaign.com/2014/05/...ews-in-france/

I've been trying in vain to find confirmation that the 1489 letter (and being published in 1889) is real or fake.
I believe that "Nazi" is just another spelling of "Nasi"...

True or not some of them certainly adopted those tactics.