OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:26:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Trotsky's objection and non-Czarist Russia: My questions  (Read 8802 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« on: October 10, 2009, 08:46:21 PM »

My first question is about an objection (or observation, depending on how you look at it) that Leon Trotsky makes in his short piece 'Vodka, the Church, and the Cinema' (published July 12, 1923). He writes

Religiousness among the Russian working class does practically does not exist. It actually never existed. The Orthodox Church was a daily custom and a government institution. It was never successful in penetrating deeply into the consciousness of the masses, not in blending its dogmas and canons with the inner emotions of the people. The reason for this is the same - the uncultured condition of Old Russia, and of her Church. Hence, when awakened for culture, the Russian worker easily throws off his purely external relation to the Church, a relation which grew on him purely by habit. For the peasent, certainly, this becomes harder, not because the peasent has more intimately and profoundly entered the Church teaching - this has, of course, never been the case - but because the inertia and monotony of his life are closely bound up with the inertia and monotony of Church practices.

He goes on to speak of how, though the life and culture of the Russian people, even the proletariat and peasents is bound up with Orthodoxy, he makes the claim that this is purely by habit, and not out of inner faith or love for the Church as a religious body, but as a distraction, with little or no respect for the ritual of the Church, or the clergy.

This is certainly a far cry from the picture of 'Holy Russia' under the Czars. What are your thoughts? Please provide reasons and sources for your opinion.

Secondly, I hear of many Russian saints (St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, etc, not to mention the proposed canonization of the Romanovs) who were killed, and were part of the Czarist establishment. Are there any Russian saints who did not identify themselves with the Czarists, or even were anti-Czarist, perhaps involved in Socialist or other Workers groups?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,828



« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2009, 09:37:29 PM »

Just a few general comments. Trotsky was hardly an objective commentator and what you cited falls nicely in line with the Marxist belief that religion is the opium of the masses. The question then remains: what was the actual piety of the Russian people? I think the answer may be found in Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, among the more accessible sources. Finally, the Romanovs have been canonized, along with thousand other martyrs of the Leninist/Stalinist version of scientific socialism.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2009, 10:14:54 PM »

Just a few general comments. Trotsky was hardly an objective commentator and what you cited falls nicely in line with the Marxist belief that religion is the opium of the masses. The question then remains: what was the actual piety of the Russian people? I think the answer may be found in Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, among the more accessible sources. Finally, the Romanovs have been canonized, along with thousand other martyrs of the Leninist/Stalinist version of scientific socialism.

I agree, this is like looking at a Nazi's assessment of the faith of Christians in Germany.  Probably not the best source.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2009, 10:32:10 PM »

Finally, the Romanovs have been canonized
Well, Tsar Nicholas II and many in his family were canonized, but the whole of the Romanov Dynasty?  That's a bit of a stretch.
Logged
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2009, 05:12:05 PM »

Whoever said he wasn't biased? I was asking if one could agree with this assessment, at least to a certain extent. The two whom you have mentioned are certainly evidence of many who were devoutly Orthodox in Russia. However, this does not mean that the average worker and peasent was as devout from a real, intimate faith, as opposed to Russian culture which they participated in.

I have always found it hard to understand why Tsar Nicholas was consecrated as a passion-bearer. The reason he was executed was because he was the Tsar, and the Bolsheviks saw him as an opresser and enemy of the Revolution. I'm not saying that what they did was right, it was most certainly a brutal capture and murder, I'm just saying that it isn't as if he was executed for his faith.

Also, what about the crimes committed under his reign (the anti-Semitic pogroms and Bloody Sunday, as well as opression of opposition groups). He only allowed certain reforms after it became clear that his autocratic agenda would fail because of public opposition.

And lest I am called a Bolshevik supporter, it isn't as if opposition to the one means acceptance of the other.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2009, 05:57:03 PM »

Pilgrim,

How do you think it would go over if you went to a Jewish message board, quoted Goebbels on the topic of Jewish influence in pre-WWII Europe, and then said, "I know he's a biased source, but would you agree at any point with his assessment?" Or if you found a Cambodian message board and quote Pol Pot on pre-Khmer Rouge regime and then said "I know he's a biased source, but does he maybe have a point about the old rulers?"

Trotsky was an integral cog in the death of millions of Orthodox Christians. As such, I don't care if he was biased or not or how accurate this particular statement may be. Leaders of genocide have no place in discussions with or about their victims.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2009, 06:08:13 PM »

Good point. Let's leave Trotsky out of it.

Then lets just give the question, how deeply faithful do you think the general workers and peasents were? Was it an intimate faith in Christ, or a cultural thing? And do you think that faithfullness contributed one way or the other to the Russian Revolution?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2009, 07:07:30 PM »

I think I do agree with his statement to a certain extent. To understand how enormously far from anything remotedly resembling the "formal" (or "Western") Christianity was the faith of Russian peasants, just read Tolstoy's "War and Peace," the fragments where Pierre Bezouchoff, being captured by the French, talks to his fellow inmate, Platon Karataev. On the other hand, of course, Leon Trotsky (Leib Bronstein) is not in any position to judge about spirituality of the Slavs, about just what is "external" and just what is "internal" in their relationship to the Church. He grew up a Jew, separated from these Russian and Ukrainian peasants by walls and walls and more walls and more walls...

As per your second question - I really do not know. In Ukraine, a number of non-Tzarist or anti-Tzarist priests were canonized by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (notably Vasyl' Lypkivs'kyj, who was executed by the Soviet secret police as a Ukrainian nationalist), but then the UAOC is still, unfortunately, "non-canonical," so go figure. The "canonical" ROC might as well soon canonize Stalin and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (see posts of our own Simkins...)
Logged

Love never fails.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2009, 07:10:40 PM »

I have always found it hard to understand why Tsar Nicholas was consecrated as a passion-bearer. The reason he was executed was because he was the Tsar, and the Bolsheviks saw him as an opresser and enemy of the Revolution. I'm not saying that what they did was right, it was most certainly a brutal capture and murder, I'm just saying that it isn't as if he was executed for his faith.

As stated else where, passion-bearers are not those killed for their faith. That's a martyr. A passion-bearer is saint who when facing death, faced it in a reflection of how Christ faced the Cross. With love, humility, and the acceptance of God's will. It doesn't matter why the Tsar was executed or by whom, or why he was killed. The only thing that matters is how he faced his death.

Quote
Also, what about the crimes committed under his reign (the anti-Semitic pogroms and Bloody Sunday, as well as opression of opposition groups). He only allowed certain reforms after it became clear that his autocratic agenda would fail because of public opposition.

Crimes that in many cases he had no control over?? He didn't order Bloody Sunday, he wasn't even in the city, and he was extremely remorseful.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2009, 07:25:08 PM »

I have always found it hard to understand why Tsar Nicholas was consecrated as a passion-bearer. The reason he was executed was because he was the Tsar, and the Bolsheviks saw him as an opresser and enemy of the Revolution. I'm not saying that what they did was right, it was most certainly a brutal capture and murder, I'm just saying that it isn't as if he was executed for his faith.
That's exactly why Moscow canonized Tsar St. Nicholas a passion-bearer and NOT a martyr.
Logged
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2009, 08:09:23 PM »

Thanks. I didn't know about the difference between the two terms.
I think I do agree with his statement to a certain extent. To understand how enormously far from anything remotedly resembling the "formal" (or "Western") Christianity was the faith of Russian peasants, just read Tolstoy's "War and Peace," the fragments where Pierre Bezouchoff, being captured by the French, talks to his fellow inmate, Platon Karataev. On the other hand, of course, Leon Trotsky (Leib Bronstein) is not in any position to judge about spirituality of the Slavs, about just what is "external" and just what is "internal" in their relationship to the Church. He grew up a Jew, separated from these Russian and Ukrainian peasants by walls and walls and more walls and more walls...

As per your second question - I really do not know. In Ukraine, a number of non-Tzarist or anti-Tzarist priests were canonized by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (notably Vasyl' Lypkivs'kyj, who was executed by the Soviet secret police as a Ukrainian nationalist), but then the UAOC is still, unfortunately, "non-canonical," so go figure. The "canonical" ROC might as well soon canonize Stalin and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (see posts of our own Simkins...)

I hope and pray that such is not the case. The canonization as saints of political leaders is always touchy, but Stalin....could you provide a reference for this? I've not heard about Ms. Kosmodemyanskaya. From wikipedia, I gather she was a brave young woman, and a patriot, but I would support the ROC's hesitation in canonization, for the reasons given.

Many labour organizations, as well as socialists and communists accused clergy of defending those viewed as exploiters, and were viewed as representing the establishment. Do you think that the Russian Church was too involved in politics, and state matters? This is coming from someone who has not intensley studied this subject. Let me give one example, a paragraph out of the Rosa Luxembourg's 'Socialism and the Churches', published by Merlin Press in 1905:

But it is in vain that you put yourselves about, you degenerate servants of Christianity, who have become the servants of Nero. It is in vain that you help our murderers and our killers, in vain that you protect the exploiters of the proletariat under the sign of the cross. Your cruelties and your calumnies in former times could not prevent the victory of the Christian idea, the idea which you have sacrificed to the Golden Calf....

She goes on to describe the Christians as new pagans and Socialism as the new Christianity. I would obviously disagree with this, but my question is the same: do you think the Church became too involved in the politics of the time?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 08:10:00 PM by Pilgrim » Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2009, 08:32:07 PM »

I think I do agree with his statement to a certain extent. To understand how enormously far from anything remotedly resembling the "formal" (or "Western") Christianity was the faith of Russian peasants, just read Tolstoy's "War and Peace," the fragments where Pierre Bezouchoff, being captured by the French, talks to his fellow inmate, Platon Karataev. On the other hand, of course, Leon Trotsky (Leib Bronstein) is not in any position to judge about spirituality of the Slavs, about just what is "external" and just what is "internal" in their relationship to the Church. He grew up a Jew, separated from these Russian and Ukrainian peasants by walls and walls and more walls and more walls...

As per your second question - I really do not know. In Ukraine, a number of non-Tzarist or anti-Tzarist priests were canonized by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (notably Vasyl' Lypkivs'kyj, who was executed by the Soviet secret police as a Ukrainian nationalist), but then the UAOC is still, unfortunately, "non-canonical," so go figure. The "canonical" ROC might as well soon canonize Stalin and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (see posts of our own Simkins...)

Which, if you actually read those threads, shows that there isn't a snow balls chance in..., no chance that the canonical ROC (no quotation marks warranted) will canonize Stalin or Zoya.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2009, 08:37:45 PM »

My first question is about an objection (or observation, depending on how you look at it) that Leon Trotsky makes in his short piece 'Vodka, the Church, and the Cinema' (published July 12, 1923). He writes

Religiousness among the Russian working class does practically does not exist. It actually never existed. The Orthodox Church was a daily custom and a government institution. It was never successful in penetrating deeply into the consciousness of the masses, not in blending its dogmas and canons with the inner emotions of the people. The reason for this is the same - the uncultured condition of Old Russia, and of her Church. Hence, when awakened for culture, the Russian worker easily throws off his purely external relation to the Church, a relation which grew on him purely by habit. For the peasent, certainly, this becomes harder, not because the peasent has more intimately and profoundly entered the Church teaching - this has, of course, never been the case - but because the inertia and monotony of his life are closely bound up with the inertia and monotony of Church practices.

He goes on to speak of how, though the life and culture of the Russian people, even the proletariat and peasents is bound up with Orthodoxy, he makes the claim that this is purely by habit, and not out of inner faith or love for the Church as a religious body, but as a distraction, with little or no respect for the ritual of the Church, or the clergy.

This is certainly a far cry from the picture of 'Holy Russia' under the Czars. What are your thoughts? Please provide reasons and sources for your opinion.

Secondly, I hear of many Russian saints (St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, etc, not to mention the proposed canonization of the Romanovs) who were killed, and were part of the Czarist establishment. Are there any Russian saints who did not identify themselves with the Czarists, or even were anti-Czarist, perhaps involved in Socialist or other Workers groups?

Christ is Risen!

Trotsky is dead.

If he was even remotely accurate, I do say that the Soviets would have had a bigger success in getting rid of the Church.  A related historical fact is that most of Alaska was converted after the Czar sold it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2009, 09:02:38 PM »

I have always found it hard to understand why Tsar Nicholas was consecrated as a passion-bearer. The reason he was executed was because he was the Tsar, and the Bolsheviks saw him as an opresser and enemy of the Revolution. I'm not saying that what they did was right, it was most certainly a brutal capture and murder, I'm just saying that it isn't as if he was executed for his faith.

From what I have read, I understand that the decision to consecrate him was not based solely on his martyrdom in the hands of Shaya Goloshchekin, Jankel Chaimovich Yurovskiy and others, but on his entire life. He was really, truly a devout Orthodox since his childhood and youth. When he was enthroned, he was only 26 years old and a shy, introvert, unassuming young man of (by his own admission) rather limited intellectual abilities. He had always been in the deep shade of his father, the big, loud, robust emperor Alexander III, who died most unexpectedly at the age of only 49. Nicholas II was a complete opposite of his court, which consisted of "libertines" like his uncle, Great Prince Nikolay Nikolayevich, his relative Prince Felix Yusupov (a notorious drunkard, bisexual adventurer and Spiritist-Theosophe), and others of the kind. "Nikki" annoyed many people because in the morning, he would not receive any suitor until he would complete his morning prayers that lasted for about 2 hours, from 8 to 10 a.m. (and he used to go to bed, as V. Shul'gin wrote in his journals, at about 3 a.m., because he was always busy at night reading, writing, talking to his cabinet ministers, etc.). And he especially angered the rising class of Russian capitalists, industrial tycoons like Alexander Guchkov, because he always said, very openly and strongly, that no matter how much he appreciated their insight, it was still he who, as a sovereign of the Russian Empire, had the God-given responsibility for making decisions. So, all in all, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church did, after all, have a point when she initiated the campaign of Nicholas II's consecration - not for any particular achievements, but, rather, for his steady, stubborn, uncompromising WITNESSING of the Orthodox faith in the midst of secular people who did not understand this faith and hated him for sticking to it.

Also, what about the crimes committed under his reign (the anti-Semitic pogroms and Bloody Sunday, as well as opression of opposition groups). He only allowed certain reforms after it became clear that his autocratic agenda would fail because of public opposition.

See above posts about the Bloody Sunday. Nicholas II can certainly not be blamed for it because on that day he was not even physically present in St. Petersburgh and he knew absolutely nothing about the events until after. As for the "anti-Semitic pogroms," a lot is written about them; it seems, all things considered, that the Tzar and the entire royal family knew nothing about them and, moreover, when they were briefed about those sad events, expressed their dismay. Just like the account of the Bloody Sunday, the account of the "pogroms" was colossally twisted by the leftist press of the day. There are objective accounts that say that during the "pogroms," oftentimes the number of the attackers killed by the Jewish "self-defense" militia was far greater than the number of the killed Jews, and sometimes actually no Jews were killed at all while the "Russian" "Orthodox" hoodlums were slaughtered by the Jewish "self-defense" militia. (I will be happy to provide you with references if you like.)

Please note that I, a Ukrainian nationalist, can less of all be accused in any bias against the Romanov dynasty.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2009, 09:02:38 PM »

I hope and pray that such is not the case. The canonization as saints of political leaders is always touchy, but Stalin....could you provide a reference for this?

Just Google:

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/canonize-joseph-stalin/

http://www.revleft.com/vb/saint-stalin-russian-t85836/index.html?s=9837c09aaeafa8a5972a392f9f7b6240&

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=212956&mesg_id=212956

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=printpage;topic=101791.0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2445683/Could-Josef-Stalin-be-made-a-saint.html

There are many other references in Russian, including testimonies from canonically ordained Russian Orthodox priests, in Russian language, about how good and rightful it is to revere Stalin as the head of the truly Russian state against the various "western" and "decadent" and other "enemies." If you are interested, I would be happy to do a search on the Internet and get back to you.

I've not heard about Ms. Kosmodemyanskaya. From wikipedia, I gather she was a brave young woman, and a patriot, but I would support the ROC's hesitation in canonization, for the reasons given.

Just do a quick search on this site, OC.net, entering the name Simkins. He is a young Russian who claims that true Orthodoxy means that God is the emanation of the particular people (like Russian God for Russian people), and that St. Zoya deserves to be canonized. I am sure there are thousands upon thousands of "patriots" like him in Russia today, and I am afraid there is no strong opposition to their activities from ROC. I asked Simkins a while ago, just what does his parish priest think of his writings - but he never answered...
Logged

Love never fails.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2009, 11:01:58 PM »


Religiousness among the Russian working class does practically does not exist. It actually never existed. The Orthodox Church was a daily custom and a government institution. It was never successful in penetrating deeply into the consciousness of the masses, not in blending its dogmas and canons with the inner emotions of the people. The reason for this is the same - the uncultured condition of Old Russia, and of her Church. Hence, when awakened for culture, the Russian worker easily throws off his purely external relation to the Church, a relation which grew on him purely by habit. For the peasent, certainly, this becomes harder, not because the peasent has more intimately and profoundly entered the Church teaching - this has, of course, never been the case - but because the inertia and monotony of his life are closely bound up with the inertia and monotony of Church practices.

He goes on to speak of how, though the life and culture of the Russian people, even the proletariat and peasents is bound up with Orthodoxy, he makes the claim that this is purely by habit, and not out of inner faith or love for the Church as a religious body, but as a distraction, with little or no respect for the ritual of the Church, or the clergy.

This is certainly a far cry from the picture of 'Holy Russia' under the Czars. What are your thoughts? Please provide reasons and sources for your opinion.

Why Trotsky felt a need to insult the peasant workers and their church is unknown.  Possibly this is because his idea of the perfect “state” never came to fruition.   Clearly he believed that his Marxist ideas would save the ignorant peasants but he was booted and prohibited from becoming their “savior”. Trotsky’s  father was prosperous and Jewish and his mother was moderately educated (both very unlike peasant serfs).  He lived outside of Russia for decades starting in his childhood to receive an education. IMO, Trotsky was not exposed to the faith of Russian Orthodox Christian peasants. 

There are half a dozen churches in my area that are filled with the descendants of many poorly educated Russians from Trotsky’s generation.  Most are over 100 years old. They were built by very indigent but faith-filled Russians.  IMO, this is a better testament on the faith of poorly educated Russians from the late 1800s.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 11:08:29 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2009, 11:46:05 AM »

I think I do agree with his statement to a certain extent. To understand how enormously far from anything remotedly resembling the "formal" (or "Western") Christianity was the faith of Russian peasants, just read Tolstoy's "War and Peace," the fragments where Pierre Bezouchoff, being captured by the French, talks to his fellow inmate, Platon Karataev. On the other hand, of course, Leon Trotsky (Leib Bronstein) is not in any position to judge about spirituality of the Slavs, about just what is "external" and just what is "internal" in their relationship to the Church. He grew up a Jew, separated from these Russian and Ukrainian peasants by walls and walls and more walls and more walls...

As per your second question - I really do not know. In Ukraine, a number of non-Tzarist or anti-Tzarist priests were canonized by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (notably Vasyl' Lypkivs'kyj, who was executed by the Soviet secret police as a Ukrainian nationalist), but then the UAOC is still, unfortunately, "non-canonical," so go figure. The "canonical" ROC might as well soon canonize Stalin and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (see posts of our own Simkins...)

Which, if you actually read those threads, shows that there isn't a snow balls chance in..., no chance that the canonical ROC (no quotation marks warranted) will canonize Stalin or Zoya.

We are over exposed to the Westernized version of the Russian Revolution which almost solely focuses on the over turn of economic relations. But in reality, I believe the Russian Revolution was just as much Anti-Christian .

The Communists saw a direct tie between the Church and the backwardness of the population. Rather than seeking material solutions to life's hardships they turned to God.  That is not a good thing in their World View which wanted them to simply be Units of Production and Consumption, not animated spiritual beings.

On a point of history, it was Stalin who had the most to do with the repression of the Church not Lenin or Trotsky. Lenin died in short order after the Revolution and Trotsky was quickly maneuvered out of power by Stalin. That is not to say that Trotsky didn't agree with the standard Marxist analysis of religion so he certainly has a degree of guilt due to his leadership in the Revolution. But it's a stretch to accuse him of genocide. Stalin would be your man in that regard.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2009, 12:22:17 PM »

On a point of history, it was Stalin who had the most to do with the repression of the Church not Lenin or Trotsky. Lenin died in short order after the Revolution and Trotsky was quickly maneuvered out of power by Stalin. That is not to say that Trotsky didn't agree with the standard Marxist analysis of religion so he certainly has a degree of guilt due to his leadership in the Revolution. But it's a stretch to accuse him of genocide. Stalin would be your man in that regard.

Please see the Gulag Archipelago for a most effective dismantling of this post-Stalinist myth. Originally propagated by Kruschev and adopted by many Western Communist sympathizers, it went something like "well, yeah, we have to admit that Stalin was awful, but he hijacked the original purity of the revolution and if Lenin (and his right-hand man Trotsky) had been running things it would have been different".

It's true Lenin's death toll was not as bad as Stalin's, but given that conservative estimates of Stalin start at 10 million, that's not a difficult standard to achieve (Hitler didn't reach Stalin's death toll either).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2009, 01:51:30 PM »

On a point of history, it was Stalin who had the most to do with the repression of the Church not Lenin or Trotsky. Lenin died in short order after the Revolution and Trotsky was quickly maneuvered out of power by Stalin. That is not to say that Trotsky didn't agree with the standard Marxist analysis of religion so he certainly has a degree of guilt due to his leadership in the Revolution. But it's a stretch to accuse him of genocide. Stalin would be your man in that regard.

Please see the Gulag Archipelago for a most effective dismantling of this post-Stalinist myth. Originally propagated by Kruschev and adopted by many Western Communist sympathizers, it went something like "well, yeah, we have to admit that Stalin was awful, but he hijacked the original purity of the revolution and if Lenin (and his right-hand man Trotsky) had been running things it would have been different".

It's true Lenin's death toll was not as bad as Stalin's, but given that conservative estimates of Stalin start at 10 million, that's not a difficult standard to achieve (Hitler didn't reach Stalin's death toll either).

Kruschev was not sympathetic to Trotsky by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Stalist Dictator in the same mold as Stalin himself. The CPSU felt the need to distance themselves from Stalin's obvious barbarity but their political system stayed exactly the same.

Yes, the outcome of the Russian Revolution would have been far different under Lenin and Trotsky.

I knew several members of Trotsky's household while he was in exile in Mexico ( they are all long dead now). I did research for Joseph Hansen who was Trotsky's secretary and body guard. I had access to Trotsky's FBI file which is kept at the US Achieves in Suitland Maryland. I read all of the old hand written reports of his assignation... It was pretty cool.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 01:52:16 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2009, 03:09:15 PM »

Could you elaborate on differences?
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2009, 03:31:02 PM »


Secondly, I hear of many Russian saints (St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, etc, not to mention the proposed canonization of the Romanovs) who were killed, and were part of the Czarist establishment. Are there any Russian saints who did not identify themselves with the Czarists, or even were anti-Czarist, perhaps involved in Socialist or other Workers groups?
There are many saints and iurodstvoi (fool for Christ) that were not “czarist”.  Here are a few examples of  “non- czarists” saints:  St. John of Kronstadt; St.  Kseniya of St Petersburg; and St. Seraphim of Sarov.
St. John of Kronstadt was a member of the group called The Alliance of the Russian People.

(The Russian Orthodox Church also venerates the same saints as all the other “branches” of the Orthodox Church.)
Logged
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2009, 03:36:20 PM »

Thanks!

Although, looking it up, the Alliance seems to me to be Czarist and Nationalist (I assume it was one of the Black Hundreds successors mentioned on wikipedia).
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 03:40:54 PM by Pilgrim » Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2009, 03:45:10 PM »

Could you elaborate on differences?
Between Stalin and Trotsky?  The difference can be measured by Dr. Michael Stone’s Gradations of Evil Scale. IMO, Stalin would be a 21 or 22 and Trotsky is a 10-11.  (I could be a little biased since many of my relatives “disappeared” in Russia or died in forced labor camps.)
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2009, 04:03:24 PM »

Could you elaborate on differences?
Between Stalin and Trotsky?  The difference can be measured by Dr. Michael Stone’s Gradations of Evil Scale. IMO, Stalin would be a 21 or 22 and Trotsky is a 10-11.  (I could be a little biased since many of my relatives “disappeared” in Russia or died in forced labor camps.)

I dont think Trotsky sent anyone to a forced labor camp. In fact, Stalin sent him to Siberia in 1928 and then exiled him from Russia in 1929.. I think he was also sent to Siberia by the Czarist regime.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2009, 04:04:30 PM »

Could you elaborate on differences?

Between who? The Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky if they had stayed in power and Stalin?

Great question.. Let me know if that is what you are asking for.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 04:06:08 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2009, 04:06:46 PM »

I meant how you think things would have been different in the USSR if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2009, 04:57:09 PM »

Could you elaborate on differences?
Between Stalin and Trotsky?  The difference can be measured by Dr. Michael Stone’s Gradations of Evil Scale. IMO, Stalin would be a 21 or 22 and Trotsky is a 10-11.  (I could be a little biased since many of my relatives “disappeared” in Russia or died in forced labor camps.)

I dont think Trotsky sent anyone to a forced labor camp. In fact, Stalin sent him to Siberia in 1928 and then exiled him from Russia in 1929.. I think he was also sent to Siberia by the Czarist regime.

First concentration camps were built in the Communist Russia in 1918-19, when Stalin was yet a rather insignificant figure. I don't have English-language sources at hand, but here:

http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/solouh1/Main.htm

V. Soloukhin gives a verbatim quote from Lenin's letter of August 12, 1918, addressed to Yevgeniya Bosh, where he says, "Необходимо организовать усиленную охрану из отборно надежных людей, провести беспощадный массовый террор... сомнительных запереть в концентрационный лагерь вне города" ("you have to organize armed detachment from selected ultra-loyal people and to carry out merciless mass terror... those in whom you have no trust must be locked into the concentration camp outside of the city"). This letter was published in the 5th edition of Lenin's Complete Works, Gospolitizdat Publishing House, Moscow, 1962.

There are a number of other quotes from Lenin's letters in this book by Soloukhin, where Lenin instructs his henchmen (including Trotsky) to shoot, hang, and deport into concentration camps peasants who are unwilling to give up their bread, workers who strike, etc. (and of course the clergy - by the end of 1919, about 320,000 priests, and many thousands of monks and nuuns were shot, drowned, strangled, burned alive, bayonetted, suffocated in latrines etc.).
Logged

Love never fails.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2009, 05:25:12 PM »

I meant how you think things would have been different in the USSR if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin.
Here are some opinions from the armchairgenerals.  Most believe Trotsky was ruthless and could have brought international suffering.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67100

edit: Make the above say "more international suffering".
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 05:31:01 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2009, 06:05:56 PM »

I meant how you think things would have been different in the USSR if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin.

Trotsky held an internationalist view that saw the world in terms of classes rather than states. He promoted the theory of Permanent Revolution as a way to rationalize a Socialist Revolution in a backward nonindustrial country. Basically it says that workers and peasants form an alliance and keep pushing the Revolution until conditions are more developed. He would have subordinated building Socialism in Russia in support of Workers in industrial countries especially Germany. So in the first place, you may not have had the rise of Fascism and Hitler if Russia had supported the workers in Germany against Hitler..Who knows.

Stalin had an opposing theory, "Socialism in one Country" which meant they would not think so much in international working class terms but rather as a Nation State, building up Socialism in Russia alone and set it as an example...

Second, there would have been a sort of internal democracy within the Communist Party in Russia. There would have been the freedom to speak openly and form factions and oppose the leadership within the Party. Who knows what that would have resulted in.

Third, they would have maintained the actual Soviets, which were standing committees of Workers and Peasants who had a degree of autonomy. Of course there couldn't have been the invasion   by Allied Armies that pressured them to Socialize everything quickly and end such organizations .

And finally there would not have been the the same type of massive repression and purges foisted by Stalin on the Party and the nation.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 06:08:41 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Super Apostolic Bros.
Is St. Andrew Luigi to St. Peter's Mario?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 227



« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2009, 06:51:44 PM »

I personally do not think things would have been "better" under Trotsky than Stalin.

Trotsky pushed for worldwide revolution whereas Stalin pushed "socialism in one country." (World War II upset things slightly). Let's not forget one minor contribution Trotsky had to the USSR... what was it called?... Oh yeah, the RED ARMY.

There were also the neo-Trotskyites, among whom was Irving Kristol, the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. "Hmmm, wage war on foreign soil to spread socialism/"democracy?"

Wonder how well that turned out....
Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2009, 09:56:19 PM »

I think I do agree with his statement to a certain extent. To understand how enormously far from anything remotedly resembling the "formal" (or "Western") Christianity was the faith of Russian peasants, just read Tolstoy's "War and Peace," the fragments where Pierre Bezouchoff, being captured by the French, talks to his fellow inmate, Platon Karataev. On the other hand, of course, Leon Trotsky (Leib Bronstein) is not in any position to judge about spirituality of the Slavs, about just what is "external" and just what is "internal" in their relationship to the Church. He grew up a Jew, separated from these Russian and Ukrainian peasants by walls and walls and more walls and more walls...

As per your second question - I really do not know. In Ukraine, a number of non-Tzarist or anti-Tzarist priests were canonized by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (notably Vasyl' Lypkivs'kyj, who was executed by the Soviet secret police as a Ukrainian nationalist), but then the UAOC is still, unfortunately, "non-canonical," so go figure. The "canonical" ROC might as well soon canonize Stalin and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (see posts of our own Simkins...)

Which, if you actually read those threads, shows that there isn't a snow balls chance in..., no chance that the canonical ROC (no quotation marks warranted) will canonize Stalin or Zoya.
Did you read this today?

http://news.aol.com/article/grandson-yevgeny-dzhugashvili-sues/713555

“The authorities are trying to build a bridge to the Soviet Union over the Yeltsin years to idealize Stalin," said Nikita Petrov, a historian with the Memorial human rights group. "They have decided it was too dangerous to delve into the horrors of our history.
Very sad."

You are correct.  The snowball doesn't have a chance. There are similarities between USA's government/people whitewashing some of our historic horrors.  I could list many that would cause long arguments. I will only mention that the destination of the Trail of Tears was a very unpleasant, open-air gulag.  Very sad.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 09:57:19 PM by ms.hoorah » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2009, 11:08:49 PM »

I personally do not think things would have been "better" under Trotsky than Stalin.

Trotsky pushed for worldwide revolution whereas Stalin pushed "socialism in one country." (World War II upset things slightly). Let's not forget one minor contribution Trotsky had to the USSR... what was it called?... Oh yeah, the RED ARMY.

There were also the neo-Trotskyites, among whom was Irving Kristol, the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. "Hmmm, wage war on foreign soil to spread socialism/"democracy?"

Wonder how well that turned out....

Some people urged Trotsky to use the Red Army which he commanded to overthrow Stalin and win his fight with him. He refused to do so.

The Red Army under Trotsky was hardly the same animal as the modern Red Army...
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2009, 11:26:54 PM »

Good point. Let's leave Trotsky out of it.

Then lets just give the question, how deeply faithful do you think the general workers and peasents were? Was it an intimate faith in Christ, or a cultural thing? And do you think that faithfullness contributed one way or the other to the Russian Revolution?

I would make the simple observation that familiarity breeds contempt. I have noticed this sometimes when I encounter Ethiopians in Atlanta who are not active in the Church. I have never been to Ethiopia, and I have a deep love for my Church. So I automatically assume that the Ethiopians I meet will be interested in the Faith and willing to teach me. But I often find that I know more about our Church than they do. This is not a criticism, because all cultures are like this. It is human nature to take for granted what is common to us. But when we are removed from it, especially by force, then we quickly realize the value of it and our love for it is rekindled. That is why in most large cities in America today you will find an Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Away from their country and their rich Christian heritage, the Ethiopian community has naturally established their Church and worship here (thanks be to Haile Selassie and Abuna Yesehaq!) Just think about your own freedom. We rarely consider what it would be like to be in prison, and so we take our freedom for granted. But if we were to suddenly find ourselves in prison, then we would immediately begin thinking about all the things we would want to do as soon as our freedom were restored to us.

I don't know if that made any sense or not. I hope it contributed to the question.

Selam
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 11:33:32 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2009, 10:16:57 AM »

Some people urged Trotsky to use the Red Army which he commanded to overthrow Stalin and win his fight with him. He refused to do so.

That seems questionable historically. When Trotsky was the People's Comissar of Army and Navy ("Narkomvoenmor") (March 1918-January 1925), there was nothing for Stalin to be "overthrown" from. In those years, Stalin was a very secondary figure - the position of "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party" (Gensek) was created specially for him by Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1922, and he remained at that position throughout the 1920-s (see details here, http://www.hrono.info/biograf/trotski.html). Back then, that position was merely technical: Stalin was indeed a SECRETARY, albeit "glorified" with the adjective "General." His formal responsibilities were, basically, just to keep track of the cadres, sort of like a Human Resources office does it. By creating the Gensek position, Zinoviev and Kamenev were actually trying to put Stalin into a deep shade, themselves keeping much more prestigeous positions and a lot more formal power: Zinoviev was the Chairman of the Communist International (formally the Communist number one in the whole world, the leader of the World Revolution), and Kamenev was the head of the most powerful Moscow Soviet and the Chairman of the People's Economics Council ("Sovnarkhoz").

My grandmother (born in 1909) used to say that when she was a little girl, in 1918-~1922, she and her younger brother used to think that there existed one person with this strange long name, "Leninandtrotsky." Smiley The reason was that these two names were used always together in newspapers and in speeches of various agitators during meetings. So, the kids heard the adults read a newspaper aloud and say, "Leninandtrotsky this," "Leninandtrotsky that." In ~1922=23, however, the name of Trotsky began to disappear from newspapers, controlled by Trotsky's rivals Zinoviev and Kamenev. Yet, Trotsky, as a symbol of the victories of the Red Army in Civil War of 1918-1920, continued to inspire various Bolshevik orators-agitators, and his pictures were everywhere.

The name of Stalin, however, remained absolutely unknown to masses. Again, my grandma said that in December 1929, on Stalin's 50th birthday, newspapers published a greeting and a huge photograph of Stalin on the first page, but many people were wondering, just who in the world was that Georgian with big moustache. Stalin became personally known and popular only in the early 1930-s, especially after the 16th annual Congress of the Communist Party (January 1934), which officially heralded the completion of the first Five-Year Plan. On that Congress, Stalin delivered a speech that contained these very "populistic" words, "comrades, our lives became better, we are now living more merrily."

The Red Army under Trotsky was hardly the same animal as the modern Red Army...

It's really hard to say. Again, in this source, http://www.hrono.info/biograf/trotski.html, there are many examples of Trotsky's bestial, demonic cruelty. He personally shot delegates from workers or soldiers if he thought that they were rebelious; there are numerous documents certifying that Trotsky personally gave orders to burn whole villages together with their inhabitants, etc.
Logged

Love never fails.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2009, 11:36:35 AM »

Some people urged Trotsky to use the Red Army which he commanded to overthrow Stalin and win his fight with him. He refused to do so.

That seems questionable historically. When Trotsky was the People's Comissar of Army and Navy ("Narkomvoenmor") (March 1918-January 1925), there was nothing for Stalin to be "overthrown" from. In those years, Stalin was a very secondary figure - the position of "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party" (Gensek) was created specially for him by Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1922, and he remained at that position throughout the 1920-s (see details here, http://www.hrono.info/biograf/trotski.html). Back then, that position was merely technical: Stalin was indeed a SECRETARY, albeit "glorified" with the adjective "General." His formal responsibilities were, basically, just to keep track of the cadres, sort of like a Human Resources office does it. By creating the Gensek position, Zinoviev and Kamenev were actually trying to put Stalin into a deep shade, themselves keeping much more prestigeous positions and a lot more formal power: Zinoviev was the Chairman of the Communist International (formally the Communist number one in the whole world, the leader of the World Revolution), and Kamenev was the head of the most powerful Moscow Soviet and the Chairman of the People's Economics Council ("Sovnarkhoz").

My grandmother (born in 1909) used to say that when she was a little girl, in 1918-~1922, she and her younger brother used to think that there existed one person with this strange long name, "Leninandtrotsky." Smiley The reason was that these two names were used always together in newspapers and in speeches of various agitators during meetings. So, the kids heard the adults read a newspaper aloud and say, "Leninandtrotsky this," "Leninandtrotsky that." In ~1922=23, however, the name of Trotsky began to disappear from newspapers, controlled by Trotsky's rivals Zinoviev and Kamenev. Yet, Trotsky, as a symbol of the victories of the Red Army in Civil War of 1918-1920, continued to inspire various Bolshevik orators-agitators, and his pictures were everywhere.

The name of Stalin, however, remained absolutely unknown to masses. Again, my grandma said that in December 1929, on Stalin's 50th birthday, newspapers published a greeting and a huge photograph of Stalin on the first page, but many people were wondering, just who in the world was that Georgian with big moustache. Stalin became personally known and popular only in the early 1930-s, especially after the 16th annual Congress of the Communist Party (January 1934), which officially heralded the completion of the first Five-Year Plan. On that Congress, Stalin delivered a speech that contained these very "populistic" words, "comrades, our lives became better, we are now living more merrily."

The Red Army under Trotsky was hardly the same animal as the modern Red Army...

It's really hard to say. Again, in this source, http://www.hrono.info/biograf/trotski.html, there are many examples of Trotsky's bestial, demonic cruelty. He personally shot delegates from workers or soldiers if he thought that they were rebelious; there are numerous documents certifying that Trotsky personally gave orders to burn whole villages together with their inhabitants, etc.

As the founding commander of the Red Army he retained great loyalty within the Army and could have easily called upon them to rise up in a coup de tat. He specifically refused to do so. I believe he talks about it in his book "Revolution Betrayed"

I think there was plenty of bestiality on both sides. The Czar sent his troop into the hellish trenches of WW One, unarmed. They resorted to throwing stones at the Germans until they had enough and killed their own officers and deserted in droves.

Sherman burned whole cities in the South.. War is a bummer, to paraphrase.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 11:37:31 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2013, 12:49:58 PM »

Although dated, this is a very interesting thread and although Trotsky was biased, he did have some valid observations which are given little attention by Orthodox Christians. 

In my opinion, with all respect to Leon Trotsky, he is not the best choice of an example to make the point which 'Pilgrim' was trying to make. 
To his credit, Trotsky was brilliant - mch more so than Lenin whose intellectual analysis was comparatively crude comapred to Trotsky's.  He was also very literate - more than most Bolsheviks.  I actually posess two of his books about Stalin written in the 1930's which are not bad at all and far more discriminating than his earlier stuff.  It seems that Trotsky reaped from Stalin what he sowed with others. 

Trotsky's atheist prejudice leads him astray of the truth when he asserts that Old Russian piety never existed. 
Trotsky's mistake in this is that he assumes and attributes to all of the Orthodox Church and Russia the inconsistencies which he observed. 
What of the Optina monastery?
What about the genuineness of devout peasant Christians throughout Russia? 
It seems that he rather grouped their Christianity in the same class with St Petersburg aristocrats. 
How can he dismiss the Church and culture of Old Russia? 

"Pilgrim" mentioned the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg (co-founder of the Spartacist League and the German communist party), but she actually criticized the Bolshevik revolution and called it a mistake!
Lenin and Stalin's own friend Maxim Gorky wrote a very critical history of the revolution entitled 'Untimely Thoughts!'
It was a Social Revolutionary and not a western agent who shot Lenin after she understood what a hypocrite he was. 
The sailors at Kronstadt were brutalized. 
It was the western non-Orthodox countries who actually bankrolled Trotsky and the Bolshevik government. 
Reference Antony Sutton's 'Wall Street and the Boshevik Revolution' or his three volume 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development.'
The same goes for the anarcho-communist Emma Goldmann who wrote "My Disillusionment with Russia."
The anarchist Peter Kropotkin also dismissed the Bolshevik revolution out of hand as a return to the abusive system which the February revolution had partially expunged.  Anarchist generally have this conclusion.  Noam Chomsky who has been the intellectual backbone of the american left since the 1970's has the same attitude towards the Bolshevik revolution. 

It is interesting how people of such diverse backgrounds can arrive at the same conclusions. 

Both the whites and the reds were anti-tsarist.  The tsar went away with the February revolution and was replaced by Prince Lvov and later by Kerensky.  I have to concede that Kerensky should have stopped the war which was quite stupid and which nobody else wanted.  If he had done differently in that one thing, then he probably would have held onto power and the Bolshevik revolution would not have occurred.  Trotsky may have had a popint in claiming that Kerensky was a British puppet. 

It is sad that older revolutions that were more tied to peasants and Old Believers and generally more connected to the people such as Stenka Razin and Pugachev failed.  It is doubly sad that the tsars which rebels like Pugachev fought against (Catherine II) were much closer to the spirit of Bolshevism than Nicholas II who in my view was an average Orthodox Christian.  I must say that he was killed because he was a king rather than because of his faith.  With all respect, I am not so sure that makes him saint.  I have also seen pictures of Tikhon as an oecumenist concelebrating with heretics which makes me question the legitimacy of claining that he is a saint. 

I do respect both of these (Tikhon and Nicholas II), but Optina was indeed not characteristic of all Russia which is why I believe God permitted people like Leon Trotsky to come to power.  Voloshin said that Peter the Great was the first Bolshevik, and to the extent that the synod established by Peter I was shown to be uncanonical in order that the right way be made known, then we might find good in the runis of evil. 

I fear that Bakunin's assertion that all civilization must first be annihilated before a worthwhile civilization can be erected is ironically in accord with the Byzantine apocalytic tradition.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2013, 01:10:07 PM »

It is sad that older revolutions that were more tied to peasants and Old Believers and generally more connected to the people such as Stenka Razin and Pugachev failed.  It is doubly sad that the tsars which rebels like Pugachev fought against (Catherine II) were much closer to the spirit of Bolshevism than Nicholas II who in my view was an average Orthodox Christian.  I must say that he was killed because he was a king rather than because of his faith.  With all respect, I am not so sure that makes him saint.  I have also seen pictures of Tikhon as an oecumenist concelebrating with heretics which makes me question the legitimacy of claining that he is a saint. 

I do respect both of these (Tikhon and Nicholas II), but Optina was indeed not characteristic of all Russia which is why I believe God permitted people like Leon Trotsky to come to power.  Voloshin said that Peter the Great was the first Bolshevik

This is a link to a photo of Patriarch Tikhon concelebrating with heretics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asdamick/823027206

It seems that Pugachev's rebellion against Catherine in the 1770's was the last Russian rebellion that was not completely manipulated or controlled in some sinister way.  The Decembrists of the 1820's were heavily masonic.  A few years back Paul Avrich wrote a really nice history of Russian rebellions which appreciates this distinction.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2013, 01:23:41 PM »

I personally do not think things would have been "better" under Trotsky than Stalin.

Trotsky pushed for worldwide revolution whereas Stalin pushed "socialism in one country." (World War II upset things slightly). Let's not forget one minor contribution Trotsky had to the USSR... what was it called?... Oh yeah, the RED ARMY.

There were also the neo-Trotskyites, among whom was Irving Kristol, the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. "Hmmm, wage war on foreign soil to spread socialism/"democracy?"

Wonder how well that turned out....

Some people urged Trotsky to use the Red Army which he commanded to overthrow Stalin and win his fight with him. He refused to do so.

The Red Army under Trotsky was hardly the same animal as the modern Red Army...
Yeah, the Red Army doesn't exist.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2013, 01:48:29 PM »

The Red Army under Trotsky was hardly the same animal as the modern Red Army...

It's really hard to say. Again, in this source, http://www.hrono.info/biograf/trotski.html, there are many examples of Trotsky's bestial, demonic cruelty. He personally shot delegates from workers or soldiers if he thought that they were rebelious; there are numerous documents certifying that Trotsky personally gave orders to burn whole villages together with their inhabitants, etc.

I quite agree.  While I think his later writing about Stalin and 1930's issues such as the Spanish civil war are spot on, evidence forced me to change my mind about Trotsky.  I earlier had copy of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution which I dumped in the trash bin in favor of Sukhanov's more objective and informative history of the same event - written by someone who was there.

What changed my mind about Trotsky was his book on literature and revolution in which he mentioned something called the Serapion Society with which I was unfamiliar.  I discovered that the founder was Zamyatin who had been a Bolshevik while the tsar was in power but who joined the Social Revolutionaries during the revolution due to digust with what the Bolsheviks had become.  He became an outstanding critic of Bolshevism and wrote the novel 'We' which was the basis of George Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm' and Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World.'  Zamyatin wrote a personal letter to Stalin circa 1928 that frankly stated his opinions, but he wasa friend of Maxim Gorky who convinced Stalin to let Zamyatin move abroad as being not worth the trouble to liquidate and Zamyatin moved to Paris. 

After researching this, I returned to Trotsky's book on literature and looked up the Serapion Society which was a group of independent Russian writers in the 1920's mostly living inside of Russia.  Trotsky dismissed them as juvenile without explanation, and he talked condescendingly of Zamyatin.  This is when I realized that I needed to take Trotsky off of his pedestal and subject him to the same analysis to which I subjected any other writer, and I realized that he was actually the ruin of the Russian revolution. 

I like Marx's political and social analysis in spite of his atheism, and I have even seen Hierotheos Vlachos quote a pertinent criticism which Marx levelled against religion which he said that we can accept.  I think that Lenin and Trotsky did many things to which Marx would have been opposed.  I think that Marx and Bakunin were closer in spirit than were Marx and Lenin.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2013, 02:04:14 PM »

Wow..And just before Lent too..

There are a few factual errors in the new op posted today but also some good observations IMHO

I'll keep it to just a few points

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"
He was also spot on with his analysis of German Nazism..

In hindsight (for me as a former Trotskist) his central error is the one you pointed out, his Atheism. This blinded him and led him into all kinds errors simply because Atheism is untrue.

The Capitalist oriented West tells us the biggest mistake of the Bolsheviks was their Socialism. That is because Socialism is what threatens them the most. However, what may really be the main thing was their profound Anti-Christianity. The Socialism part actually worked pretty well minus the demonic terror Stalin unleashed after he got rid of Trotsky.

Most of the original Bolsheviks were killed or exiled by Stalin. 

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2013, 02:14:53 PM »

Wow..And just before Lent too..

There are a few factual errors in the new op posted today but also some good observations IMHO

I'll keep it to just a few points

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"
He was also spot on with his analysis of German Nazism..

In hindsight (for me as a former Trotskist) his central error is the one you pointed out, his Atheism. This blinded him and led him into all kinds errors simply because Atheism is untrue.

The Capitalist oriented West tells us the biggest mistake of the Bolsheviks was their Socialism. That is because Socialism is what threatens them the most. However, what may really be the main thing was their profound Anti-Christianity. The Socialism part actually worked pretty well minus the demonic terror Stalin unleashed after he got rid of Trotsky.

Most of the original Bolsheviks were killed or exiled by Stalin.

I concur about Trotsky's analysis of Nazism.  Although I do not posess it, I understand that his book the Revolution Betrayed is a debunking of Stalinist revisionism, but I do have a copy of The Stalin School of Falsification.  I have not read all of your posts, but we might possibly have a different view of the OCtober revolution.  In any case, we concur on the main thing that Trotsky's chief problem was his atheism.  

I second all of your comments here - most significantly the one about where my mind should be at Lent.

EDIT:
God bless you.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 02:16:08 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2013, 03:21:25 PM »

I realized after the fact as to the prohibition of political posts and my apologies. 
However, I think the thread can perhaps be taken as discusson of an historical topic among comrades.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2013, 04:49:10 PM »

This is a link to a photo of Patriarch Tikhon concelebrating with heretics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asdamick/823027206

I see no concelebration.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2013, 06:15:05 PM »

This is a link to a photo of Patriarch Tikhon concelebrating with heretics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asdamick/823027206

I see no concelebration.

The occasion of this event which took place in 1900 A.D. was the consecration of an Episcopal bishop.  Although Bishop Tikhon (later Patriarch of Russia) did not participate in physically laying on ahnds, he did sit through the entire Episcopal service in the place of honour on the bishop's throne as if he were the presiding official, and he was deliberately there by a specific invitation which had accepted.  As far as I am concerned, that goes beyond dialogue into participation in common church services.

'Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Grafton'
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/haskell1967.pdf

Furthermore (this is admittedtly off the topic of Leon Trotsky), Bishop Khrapovitsky insisted that Anglican heretics have a legitimate line of apostolic succession.
'Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders'
By Bishop Antony Khrapovitsky
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

I do not know the position of the ROCOR synod or its derivatves on that, but at least Patr. Tikhon did not do that.  
Patr. Tikhon seems to have been humbler than Metr. Khrapovitsky.   Given Patr. Tikhon's repentance for implemented the Gregorian calendar, and his concelebration with Archimandrite David while Archman. Arch. David led the Name Glorifyers in the early 1920's after having much earlier condemned them at Khrapovitsky's suggestion, Patr. Tikhon seems to be the kind of Christian who learned from and repented of his mistakes.  In that sense, Patr. Tikhon is a good model for lent.

MK was here
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 06:24:41 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2013, 06:22:31 PM »

As a moderator I ask you to adress hierarchs with their proper titles. Ignoring this request will result in official warning.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2013, 06:39:42 PM »

As a moderator I ask you to adress hierarchs with their proper titles.  Ignoring this request will result in official warning.
Sorry about that.  Will do.

I noted your fix to an earlier post and bore that in mind when discussing Arbishop Khrapovitsky.  I think you will note above that I did include attempt an abbreviation of Archimnadrite David's title.  I had so much to say about Patriarch Tikhon, I forgot and slacked on form.  No disrespect intended. My mistake.

EDIT:
When I saw the initial fix, I thought what a nice forum that has that. 
One does not encounter that sophistication of manners often enough these days.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 06:43:45 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2013, 03:51:35 PM »

In hindsight (for me as a former Trotskist) his central error is the one you pointed out, his Atheism. This blinded him and led him into all kinds errors simply because Atheism is untrue.
Speaking of atheism, check this out:

'New Myth, New World:  From Nietzsche to Stalinism'
By Bernice Rosenthal

http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-02218-3.html

Bernice Rosenthal views Stalinist culture as Nietzschean which is the specific form of nineteenth century occultism adopted by the Soviet Union.
I have a history of occultism in nineteenth century Russia by this author.

'The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture'
By Bernice Rosenthal

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-Russian-Soviet-Culture/dp/080148331X

EDIT:
'No Religion Higher than Truth' by Maria Carlson deserves mention because in this context because it is seemingly the only history of Russian theosophy and occultism in english which views this phenomenon negatively.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 03:56:12 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2013, 04:20:34 PM »

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2013, 04:27:25 PM »

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 04:34:10 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2013, 07:20:53 PM »

Antony Sutton's research demonstrating western financial support for Trotsky and the Soviet monstrosity he created demonstrate that he was a pawn of the west being used to destroy a good work in progress that.   Both Wall Street and the German High Command (who sent Lenin to Russia) were in on the destruction of Russian society.

'Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution'
By Antony Sutton

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution

Financial support of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin is comparable to the way that the west has financed Wahhabis like the Taliban, al Qaida, and the Saudi dynasty to the detriment of more benevolent forms of Islam such as Sufism.   I only mention Sufism here deliberately avoiding mention of political Islam to avoid heated political discussion.

In my opinion, Wahhabism is to Islam what protestant fundamentalism is to Orthodoxy.  The Suni religionism has the most colonial legacy within Islam analogous to the crusades and colonialism which sprang from the Frankist papal system.  

Shiism is analogous to Orthodoxy and strongest in places like Iran which have the highest concetration of Sufism which is the part of Islam most influenced by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The Zikr prayer of the Naqsibandis comes particulary close to imitating the Jesus Prayer.  The Sufi Tariqas are modeled on Eastern Christian brotherhoods, and the better Islamic histories themselves state that the history of Sufism is more ancient than Mohammed himself.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 07:22:21 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2013, 10:22:15 PM »

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 

Very interesting... Go to youtube and search on "Stalin Society" which is a British CP outfit that posts various apologies for Stalin. Pretty good stuff actually.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2013, 10:31:06 PM »

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.  I may get the bends trying to remember the details but the "Deformed Workers State" side won the day.

I think the central idea is that the Capitalist Class was fully destroyed and replaced. The Bureaucrats who then ran the economy do not constitute a "Class" but are a different animal. They are better characterized as a "Caste" (of bureaucrats) and not a "Class" that could pass down any sort of ownership to their heirs......... No Capitalist Class = No Capitalism   
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2013, 11:46:40 PM »

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's. 

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war. 

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics. 

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems. 
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2013, 11:26:37 AM »

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's.  

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war.  

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics.  

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems.  

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe. Especially bad was their coziness with North Korea. I knew some WWP folks who went there on an official Party to Party thingy. I personally found it quite distasteful.

From where I sit if you beleive North Korea is a fine example of Socialism, then something is a miss.  Smiley

 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 11:27:39 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2013, 12:04:25 PM »

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2013, 08:54:43 AM »

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?
The article I linked says that some of Solzhenitsyn's fellow prisoners were once planning a revolt and/or escape, and he secretly turned in their names along with minte details of the planned revolt.  They were executed based upon the information which he submitted.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2013, 09:22:43 AM »

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.
I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,909


« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2013, 09:48:50 AM »

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2013, 09:54:53 AM »

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?

I have encountered that same information about Solzhenitsyn from other sources as well.
However, I do think that Kavkazcenter.com is one of the best sources of critical information on Russia to be found on the internet.
Also, I did not say that Tikhon himself was a heretic.

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

The moderators have warned against political discussion probably for a good reason.
In the interests of avoiding political discussion, I will try to avoid getting into the fairly recent Russian Chechnyan wars since recent issues like that are more closely connected to heated political discussion. 

I think it is good for us to respect each other's God given freedom of will and the religious and political choices that others make that free will even if we happen to disagree.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:06:05 AM by Dionysii » Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,909


« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2013, 10:10:19 AM »

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

^^^
(Quote functoin is not working properly for me)

You are correct on this most valid point & I must apologize about that in the spirit of the thread. Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative & I will bow out of this thread.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:13:57 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2013, 10:13:40 AM »

Let me see ... Shiites seem to be cool.... is this some sort of psyop?

For what it's worth, Saint Methodios of Patara and Saint Kosmas of Aetolia have prophecied that the time of Ishmaelite power will end with their division into three parts.  One third will die.  Another third will convert to the Orthodox Church, and a final third will flee to the land of burnt face. 

iF one bothers to read the details of what I wrote about Shiites, I said that I reckon that the prevalence among them of Sufis might be a good thing since Sufism is perhaps more heavily influenced by the Orthodox Church than any other aspect of Islam.

Is your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2013, 10:20:10 AM »

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.
I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,909


« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2013, 10:24:38 AM »

Since I must respond to this quote (in # 60)

, your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?

My negative opinion of this religion is the same negative opinion I have towards a political ideology (also a religion) like communism. It is not directed towards the individuals within them (who are its adherents willingly or unwillingly. I believe in the mercy of God in knowing the heart of any individual no matter what belief system that individual belongs although the Christian has the greater advantage having the truth ( & probably more accountable) but not in personal disposition.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:28:31 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »

Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative
Peace be with you, brother.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2013, 10:33:06 AM »

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive.

You are spot on. 
I was making a generalization compared with the overall domestic experience that Russia had with the Soviet Union.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2013, 09:31:29 PM »

the Romanovs have been canonized
Tsar Nicholas II and many in his family were canonized, but the whole of the Romanov Dynasty?  That's a bit of a stretch.
As per the instruction of Saint Paul to test the spirits to see whether they be of God, I myself would question anything that canonized Nicholas II.
I just picked up two books about late Romanov century Russia.

First, journalist Harrison Salisbury's 'Black Nights, White Snow'.  Classic. 
It takes Russian history from circa 1850 to 1920, but it mainly focuses on the period from 1905 to 1920 by concentrating on Nicholas II and Lenin.  This book is critical of both of them.  It is almost unmitigated against Nicholas II.  For anyone wanting an antidote to ROCOR propaganda about Nicholas II, this is your book. 

Although I prefer David Dallin's books about Stalinism over those of Alexander Solzhentisyn, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Alexander Solzhenistyn did in fact write a book providing evidence that slammed Nicholas II.  Pobedonostsev, the church's procurator until Nicholas was forced to replaced him after the 1905 revolution, was universally viewed as a corrupt autocrat.  Pyotr Stolypin was Russian Prime Minister from 1906 to 1911 - a huge step in the right direction.  "He is considered one of the last major statesmen of Imperial Russia with clearly defined public policies and the determination to undertake major reforms." Stolypin was basically a good egg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin

In 'August 1914', Solzhenitsyn gives a truckload of evidence to the effect that Nicholas II was in on Stolypin's assassination or at the least gave his blessing to it.  Dmitry Bogrov, the assassin, was a member of Nicholas's Okrhana security service from whom he received his gun and did nothing to harm the tsar who was adjacent to him when he shot and killed Stolypin.  Nicholas II then repeatedly begged Stolypin for forgiveness at the hospital only to order the investigation closed as soon as Stolypin died - and failed to attend the funeral!   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1914

Josef Djugashvili (i.e. Koba aka Stalin) was also a member of Nicholas II's Okhrana secret police.  He joined the Bolsheviks because he was an undercover cop - not because he believed in it like Lenin and Trotsky.  Roman Brackman's book on Stalin discusses his membership in the Okhrana in great detail.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin/dp/0714650501

The good part is it is highly critical of both Nicholas II and Lenin.  Salisbury sees the Romanovs as hopelessly corrupt, and the February revolution as a huge step in the right direction.  Peter I's system made the Russian church an arm of the Russian government.  This era dealt a death blow to that system (which ultimately proved to be temporary because Stalin effectively revived the corrupt elements of the tsarist system on so many levels).

Lenin and Trotsky's Octobre revolution destroyed the beneficent effects of the February revolution replacing the ever so brief liberal Russia with a dictatorship that persecuted Orthodox Christians, anarchists, and social revolutionaries (even though the latter won the majority in the January 1918 elections fair and square).   The outspoken Vatican critic Avro Manhattan even showed that the Bolsheviks were supported by the Vatican in Russia from 1917 to about 1925 when they swung their support to fascism.  Although the Vatican actually admired tsarist corruption, it supported Bolshevism because it has long wanted to subjugate the Russian Orthodox Church to itself and supported the overthrow of tsarism only to this end - although fascism is more naturally the Vatican's ally.

'The Vatican in World Politics'
By Avro Manhattan
(page 332 and chapter 17 generally)
http://www.seawaves.us/na/web4/VWP.pdf

Of course, Antony Sutton wrote an excellent series of books first originally published by Stanford's Hoover Institution such as 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' and 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965' (in three volumes)
http://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-1930

'Black Night, White Snow' comes out of a fairly recent but increasingly bygone liberal American generation.  I think the author has a lot of character.   
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Night-White-Snow-Paperback/dp/030680154X
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2013, 09:49:53 PM »

Trotsky was hardly an objective commentator ...

I have to say I basically concur with this.  
In spite of all the anti-communist propaganda, I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.  At least he had a sense of humour.
In an interview with American journalist George Seldes about 1920, Lenin said that a group of British laborers once asked his advice, but at first they couldn't agree on what they all wanted.  Lenin told them to go home and return telling him in unison with simple words.  They returned the following day and said they only wanted two things: world revolution and better toilets.

Lenin was also never in complete control.  He rode the whirlwind to the top.
Trotsky may have been more intelligent, but he was also so narrow minded that he failed to perceive Stalin's cunning.
Reading the part of Trotsky's biography of Stalin that discusses Lenin's death, the information given automatically brought to my mind the real possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  Although hindsight is 20/20, Trotksy's tunnel vision mindset let Stalin get the better of him. We reap what we sow.  

Prince Kropotkin is the best Russian philosopher since the 1700's of which I am aware although I am mostly unread in Old Believer literature.
Frankly, I find his Kropotkin's anarchist books more useful than the Optina literature. Widely respected by everybody, Kropotkin's the man.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkropotkin.htm
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 10:22:06 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2013, 11:01:15 PM »

I just picked up two books about late Romanov century Russia.

The other one is 'Empire of the Czar' by the Marquis de Custine in 1839.  
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_empire_of_the_czar_or_Observations_o.html?id=ksgDAAAAQAAJ

Table of Contents page
http://books.google.com/books?id=ksgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review
"The descriptions of entering the country, St. Petersburg, roads and traveling on them (treatment of horses, skill and attitude of drivers), the portraits of the overly polite short fused aristocracy and the many interesting conversations are very good. There are great descriptions of countryside, the architecture, the market at Ninjni, the plight of the peasants, and the continual plague of insects. There are ruminations on Russian history and comparisons of Russian and French culture, ethics and well being.

The best, though is the author's take on the effects of the autocracy, and how the despotic attitude trickles down. For all his refined manners, the czar meets out swift, frequent and severe punishment. (Siberia and/or torture) and through his auspices, aristocrats and officials feel entitled to perform acts of great cruelty as well. Because those who are not being punished live in fear that they will be, Custine calls the Czar the jailer of 1/3 of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Czar-Marquis-De-Custine/product-reviews/0385249586/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 11:23:36 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,472



« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2013, 11:10:35 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2013, 11:35:20 PM »

Lenin was also never in complete control.  He rode the whirlwind to the top.
Trotsky may have been more intelligent, but he was also so narrow minded that he failed to perceive Stalin's cunning.
Reading the part of Trotsky's biography of Stalin that discusses Lenin's death, the information given automatically brought to my mind the real possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  Although hindsight is 20/20, Trotsky's tunnel vision mindset let Stalin get the better of him. We reap what we sow.  
Dionysii,

You have raised an interesting question, however my reply involves modern day politics, so I have posted in the Politics thread
Inside Job 2010 documentary
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,48803.new.html#new
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 11:36:25 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2013, 12:12:36 AM »


His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 12:13:02 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2013, 01:13:56 AM »


I am finding Brackman's book quite interesting. Although it collects noteworthy evidence suggesting Stalin was illegitimate, looking at the pictures of Stalin's legal father Vissarion, the latter appears to look alot like Stalin and complement the other side of him from his mother. The Egnatashvili brothers, on the other hand, look less like Stalin to me.
Vissarion

Obviously, I do not know the answer, it's just my impression looking at photos. The author has a tendency to make wild guesses (the paternity issue is an educated guess), some of which seem noteworthy, while others are at least annoying.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 01:44:40 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2013, 08:31:50 AM »

Roman Brackman
His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?

I have not considered the idea of the early Israeli state as a Soviet satellite, but it helps explain the attraction of so many Jewish leftists to what I have considered an essentially fascist entity.  Israel's founders were all opponents of Nazism (at least publicly).  

Truman endorsed Israeli statehood against a lot of opposition, and the US did not become pro-Israeli partisans until Lyndon Johnson's presidency from late 1963 onwards.  Therefore, Israel's origin as a colony of the Soviet Union does make sense.

Mike Piper's book 'Final Judgment' finds that the Israeli Mossad arranged the assassination of President Kennedy in order to ensure substantial American support for the state of Israel.  Alan Hart's three volume history of Israel states the same.  

Although Israel has doubtless always maintained connections with Russia, I wonder if "high noon" refers to the Kennedy assassination because that seems to be the point when Israel acquired unquestioned American support. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 08:55:46 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2013, 09:23:11 AM »

I am finding Brackman's book quite interesting. Although it collects noteworthy evidence suggesting Stalin was illegitimate, looking at the pictures of Stalin's legal father Vissarion, the latter appears to look alot like Stalin and complement the other side of him from his mother. The Egnatashvili brothers, on the other hand, look less like Stalin to me.
Obviously, I do not know the answer, it's just my impression looking at photos. The author has a tendency to make wild guesses (the paternity issue is an educated guess), some of which seem noteworthy, while others are at least annoying.

People from the same region normally have similar characteristics due especially to a similar environment and diet among other factors.  

Roman Brackman provides too much evidence to ascribe to him "wild guesses." That is the territory of other less refined authors.
In 'Bloodlines of the Illuminati', Fritz Springmeier says it's common knowledge that Stalin is secretly Jewish and gives no evidence whatsoever.  

I do disagree with at least one thing Brackman writes - albeit of relative significance.
Maintaining that Stalin's family was Georgian, Brackman argues against the claim that Stalin's family was Ossetian.  Upon very close scrutiny to the facts, the evidence Brackman gives consistently points to Stalin's family as Ossetians living in Georgia in spite of his insistence to the contrary.  

I am convinced from the evidence that Vissarion was not Josef's biological father, but Brackman gives no evidence as to the identification of Josef's biological father.  He only states the priest as a suspect.  The identification of his biological father is to be found elsewhere.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 09:30:25 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2013, 09:48:39 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #75 on: June 29, 2013, 10:30:37 AM »

His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?
Stalin supported Russian Jewish immigration to form a Soviet satellite in Palestine before his successors later publicly backed Arab states.

Brackman seems quite sympathetic to the state of Israel.  
The most interesting part of the book is likely the earlier chapters.

According to the book's table of contents, Stalin's connection with Zionism is only a fraction of a book which is devoted to pro-Israeli propaganda:
http://romanbrackman.com/Books-sub3.html
I find Brackman's book on Stalin much better.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 10:46:08 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #76 on: June 29, 2013, 11:09:27 AM »

His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X
What do you think?
I think this short article sums up Stalin's support of Israel:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001808.html
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #77 on: June 29, 2013, 11:10:41 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.

Oh really? Do tell...
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2013, 11:29:50 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.
Oh really? Do tell...

The reason for this is simple.  I came to understand that the Old Orthodox Church is the Church and that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Moscow fell into apostasy about the year 1666 and ceased to be part of the Body of Christ at that time.  This explains the piety of Old Believers, the unmitigated corruption that has pervaded the Russian church and government, and the abundant contradictions within Orthodoxy since that time and is discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25531.msg898181.html#msg898181

I gave details relating specifically to Patriarch Tikhon earlier in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23812.msg898591.html#msg898591
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 11:39:57 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #79 on: June 29, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.
... not a beer named Lenin.
I meant to say I could hang out with Lenin and throw down a few beers.

As far as beer, right now Belgian seems as good as any and definitely better than some of the others.
Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #80 on: June 29, 2013, 01:08:10 PM »


Josef Djugashvili (i.e. Koba aka Stalin) was also a member of Nicholas II's Okhrana secret police.  He joined the Bolsheviks because he was an undercover cop - not because he believed in it like Lenin and Trotsky.  Roman Brackman's book on Stalin discusses his membership in the Okhrana in great detail.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin/dp/0714650501


This was never proven. There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
One of the best biographies of Stalin, based on documents, testimonies from people is the one written by Simon Sebag Montefiore:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400076781

It is based on documents and testimonies.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2013, 12:04:57 AM »

You are right about Trotsky being intelligent, but it's hard to say he was more intelligent than Lenin.

I think what Trotsky and practically everyone else in the USSR did not see up until the Great Purge of the late 1930's was how far Stalin was going to go in securing his own power. Trotsky did do a good job seeing though how Stalin was getting power around himself and Trotsky was one of the first major challenges to that.

Generally, American and Russian historians portray it as if Lenin died naturally, and Trotsky followed that trend without holding out the uncertainty.
Lenin was intelligent, but I think Trotsky's books sometimes delve a bit deeper than Lenin's, but I do not at all agree with everything Trotsky wrote.  
Trotsky was decidedly wrong when he wrote against:
1) anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman
2) the Serapion Society which consisted of the most authentic Russian writers of the 1920's who continued the anti-establishment traditions of writers like Tolstoy and Gorky
3) the Social Revolutionaries who won the national elections outright in January 1918 only to be butchered by the Bolsheviks wall street financed police.  He anticipated Stalin in these things.
4) the ever so brief period of Caucasian independence.  The Bolsheviks continued the oppression the Romanov tsars Nicholas I and Alexander II began when they committed genocide against the Caucasian peoples in the mid-nineteenth century.
5) the Kronstadt Soviet.  

(After Maxim Gorky [who represents the better part of Bolsheviks] requested American food aid for a famine in 1922, I find it amusingly characteristic of Bolshevism generally that when famine became excessive in parts of Eastern Russia that reports of cannibalism of recently dead bodies had surfaced, when Herbert Hoover replied affirmatively and sent his representative Walter Brown to initiate aid from the US, Maxim Litvinov was so suspicious of American treachery that he angrily laid down rules by which Russia would accept millions of dollars of aid to starving people.  When Brown understood and outlined a plan, Litvinov shouted "No, no, no!" Many of Trotsky's words and actions have that same spirit of idiocy.)

Although Bukharin realized the truth about Stalin fairly late in the game, his writings lack the condescending tone that Trotsky often employs. Bukharin's books are great, but I find Trotsky especially boring and wrong when he writes about the Russian revolution.  Trotsky's writing does not become worthwhile until late in his life when he's writing in the 1930's about things like Nazism, British history, America, or the Spanish civil war.

Lenin's books are too dry for me, but he was perhaps more open minded than Trotsky.  Lenin was friends with Kropotkin and had read some of his books.  Lenin even spoke with Kropotkin in person on two occasions after the revolution and listened to the anarchist's criticisms and suggestions even though Kropotkin opposed the Bolshevik revolution.  That is a lot more than I would expect from many people today who have become unforgiving even to tactical enemies who have the same goals.  I am not aware of Trotsky being so inclined.  Lenin's character goes a long way to explain his international popularity far beyond his circle of Bolsheviks.  The same goes for Kropotkin's popularity far beyond his circle of anarchists of the pacifist variety.
 
Lenin was the middle ground of the Bolsheviks between Trotsky on the left and Bukharin on the right.  

As far as assassination goes, I think you have to read the pertinent lines in both Trotsky's and Brackman's biographies of Stalin to appreciate my opinion.  It is the knowledge of facts contained therein that gives me the confidence to assert that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  

There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
If you have already read Roman Brackman's book about Stalin and still believe that, then I would be impressed and interested to hear your refutation - not to refute it, but rather to learn from your understanding.  However, if you are unaware of the facts cited in Brackman's book before making such a denunciation of one of its central themes, then I would say you have a right to your opinion, but I'm not impressed.  

I read several reviews of the Montefiore's biography of Stalin and discerned that it actually avoids Stalin's early years and contains hundreds of pages on trivial details of everyday life of the Soviet elite in the 1930's and 1940's like what Molotov preferred for desert and other useless soap opera rubbish.  

Roman Brackman was born and lived in the Soviet Union while Stalin was in power.  Simon Montefiore, on the other hand, is a British guy born several decades later whose reviews indicate he writes long drawn out ('War and Peace' length) popular books on people like Catherine the Great containing loads of mind numbingly boring, trivial, useless details.  

Thanks for recommending Simon Montefiore, but I'll pass because I don't think he writes the kind of books that I read.
I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I sincerely believe that I would become less intelligent if I took the time to read Montefiore's books.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 12:33:39 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2013, 01:46:16 AM »

SUCCINCT CHRONOLOGY OF STALIN'S POISONING OF LENIN

Lenin saw through Stalin earlier than others and wrote a stern reprimand to Stalin on 5 March 1923.  Lenin planned to remove him from office at the next Party Congress.  Kamenev heard about this from Krupskaya and told Stalin.  Lenin suddenly had a severe stroke on 7 March 1923.  Lenin mostly recovered by July 1923 and continued improving throughout the rest of the year.  
In spite of Lenin's improving health, Stalin ordered all visits to Lenin stopped on 16 Decembre 1923.  

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

Gavril Volkov was Lenin's cook.  While in prison, he told Elizabeth Lermolo how Lenin was poisoned which she repeated in her 1955 book 'Face of a Victim'.  Lenin wrote down a note to his cook Volkov on 21 January 1924 stating:
"Gavrilushka, I have been poisoned ... Go fetch Nadia [Krupskaya] at once ... Tell Trotsky ... Tell everyone you can."
Volkov called Lenin's sister Maria Ulyanov who arrived in time to see him silently crying.  He died that day at 6:50p.m.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 02:05:28 AM by Dionysii » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2013, 01:36:25 PM »

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
One of Trotsky's biographers, Payne, described Trotsky as having a long history of illness. However, the chronological coincidence you describe is noteworthy, and it's remarkable he survived. He should have gone back to Moscow.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2013, 02:53:58 PM »

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
One of Trotsky's biographers, Payne, described Trotsky as having a long history of illness. However, the chronological coincidence you describe is noteworthy, and it's remarkable he survived. He should have gone back to Moscow.

Trotsky recounted this in his biography of Stalin.
Brackman states that Trotsky was naïve at this time to not consider Stalin may have poisoned Lenin.

It reminds me of a comment that Charles Luciano made about Meyer Lansky in his memoirs saying that he finally got wise in his old age to the fact that as the "Caesar" of the mob that Lansky had been Luciano's "Brutus" (i.e. assassin, or undoing).  Luciano's arrest and spending WWII in prison, his postwar deportation to Italy, Dewey's prosecution of mobsters in the 1930's, and the FBI's devastating 1957 sting - Lansky was behind all of it.  Like Trotsky, Luciano got wise to the truth very late in the game.  According to Douglas Valentine's history of the FBN (predecessor of the DEA), Luciano was poisoned in 1962 through medicine he was receiving from the US.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2013, 04:15:33 PM »

You are right about Trotsky being intelligent, but it's hard to say he was more intelligent than Lenin.

I think what Trotsky and practically everyone else in the USSR did not see up until the Great Purge of the late 1930's was how far Stalin was going to go in securing his own power. Trotsky did do a good job seeing though how Stalin was getting power around himself and Trotsky was one of the first major challenges to that.

Generally, American and Russian historians portray it as if Lenin died naturally, and Trotsky followed that trend without holding out the uncertainty.
Lenin was intelligent, but I think Trotsky's books sometimes delve a bit deeper than Lenin's, but I do not at all agree with everything Trotsky wrote.  
Trotsky was decidedly wrong when he wrote against:
1) anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman
2) the Serapion Society which consisted of the most authentic Russian writers of the 1920's who continued the anti-establishment traditions of writers like Tolstoy and Gorky
3) the Social Revolutionaries who won the national elections outright in January 1918 only to be butchered by the Bolsheviks wall street financed police.  He anticipated Stalin in these things.
4) the ever so brief period of Caucasian independence.  The Bolsheviks continued the oppression the Romanov tsars Nicholas I and Alexander II began when they committed genocide against the Caucasian peoples in the mid-nineteenth century.
5) the Kronstadt Soviet.  

(After Maxim Gorky [who represents the better part of Bolsheviks] requested American food aid for a famine in 1922, I find it amusingly characteristic of Bolshevism generally that when famine became excessive in parts of Eastern Russia that reports of cannibalism of recently dead bodies had surfaced, when Herbert Hoover replied affirmatively and sent his representative Walter Brown to initiate aid from the US, Maxim Litvinov was so suspicious of American treachery that he angrily laid down rules by which Russia would accept millions of dollars of aid to starving people.  When Brown understood and outlined a plan, Litvinov shouted "No, no, no!" Many of Trotsky's words and actions have that same spirit of idiocy.)

Although Bukharin realized the truth about Stalin fairly late in the game, his writings lack the condescending tone that Trotsky often employs. Bukharin's books are great, but I find Trotsky especially boring and wrong when he writes about the Russian revolution.  Trotsky's writing does not become worthwhile until late in his life when he's writing in the 1930's about things like Nazism, British history, America, or the Spanish civil war.

Lenin's books are too dry for me, but he was perhaps more open minded than Trotsky.  Lenin was friends with Kropotkin and had read some of his books.  Lenin even spoke with Kropotkin in person on two occasions after the revolution and listened to the anarchist's criticisms and suggestions even though Kropotkin opposed the Bolshevik revolution.  That is a lot more than I would expect from many people today who have become unforgiving even to tactical enemies who have the same goals.  I am not aware of Trotsky being so inclined.  Lenin's character goes a long way to explain his international popularity far beyond his circle of Bolsheviks.  The same goes for Kropotkin's popularity far beyond his circle of anarchists of the pacifist variety.
 
Lenin was the middle ground of the Bolsheviks between Trotsky on the left and Bukharin on the right.  

As far as assassination goes, I think you have to read the pertinent lines in both Trotsky's and Brackman's biographies of Stalin to appreciate my opinion.  It is the knowledge of facts contained therein that gives me the confidence to assert that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  

There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
If you have already read Roman Brackman's book about Stalin and still believe that, then I would be impressed and interested to hear your refutation - not to refute it, but rather to learn from your understanding.  However, if you are unaware of the facts cited in Brackman's book before making such a denunciation of one of its central themes, then I would say you have a right to your opinion, but I'm not impressed.  

I read several reviews of the Montefiore's biography of Stalin and discerned that it actually avoids Stalin's early years and contains hundreds of pages on trivial details of everyday life of the Soviet elite in the 1930's and 1940's like what Molotov preferred for desert and other useless soap opera rubbish.  

Roman Brackman was born and lived in the Soviet Union while Stalin was in power.  Simon Montefiore, on the other hand, is a British guy born several decades later whose reviews indicate he writes long drawn out ('War and Peace' length) popular books on people like Catherine the Great containing loads of mind numbingly boring, trivial, useless details.  

Thanks for recommending Simon Montefiore, but I'll pass because I don't think he writes the kind of books that I read.
I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I sincerely believe that I would become less intelligent if I took the time to read Montefiore's books.


 
Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position
Written by A Kramer Monday, 01 December 2003

http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm

New material that has emerged from the old Soviet archives over the past decade or so have allowed new books to be published on the events surrounding the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. Far from confirming the criticisms of those hostile to the Bolsheviks, the latest sources show that Trotsky's position was correct and totally justified.

For many years the capitalist press, erudite professors and bourgeois analysts have been going on about the "secrets in the Soviet archives". There was much speculation about the "terrible secrets of the communist regime" that would finally confirm the "evil character" of communism.

After the events that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, historians were finally allowed access to the Soviet archives. So one would expect a flow of terribly indicting facts. However the results for the bourgeois historians have been really disappointing. Of course, they did find a large amount of new evidence that confirms the shocking crimes of Stalinism. But we never had any doubt about this. Trotsky and his followers condemned these crimes long before any archives were opened. Trotsky's supporters in Soviet Russia in the 1920 and 1930s had first hand knowledge of these crimes because they were among the first to suffer the consequences of the Stalinist degeneration. Thousands of them died at the hands of Stalin's henchmen.

During the last ten years many new interesting sources about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have been published. Among them are two books about the most tragic act of the Russian Revolution – the so-called Kronstadt rebellion.

It is not necessary to describe here all the aspects of this well-known event. At the beginning of March 1921, in one of the most critical periods of the Soviet Republic's existence, in the naval base of Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at a military coup against the Soviet government. The critical state that the Soviet Union was passing through in that moment meant that Lenin and Trotsky were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 04:17:37 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,845


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2013, 06:24:10 PM »

Good point. Let's leave Trotsky out of it.

Then lets just give the question, how deeply faithful do you think the general workers and peasents were? Was it an intimate faith in Christ, or a cultural thing? And do you think that faithfullness contributed one way or the other to the Russian Revolution?

The ones of whom I have some personal knowledge certainly run the gamut.  Some seem to have been only outwardly Orthodox and threw it off after the Revolution in pursuit of advancement under the new regime.  Others, however, in particular one woman, lived as piously as they could, even though churches were cut off, praying quietly and secretly baptizing their grandchildren.  I sense that there were many, many such people.

Try as they did, the Soviet leadership could never successfully stamp out the faith within their territory, and often had to concede to it. 
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,845


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2013, 06:26:13 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.

Probably not good.  I am reminded of the quote, when the sewage system under the temporary Lenin mausoleum erupted, when Patriarch (now Saint) Tikhon commented:  "The balm accords with the relics."

Also in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2013, 07:29:59 PM »

in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Particularly indicative is the criticism of the Bolshevik's own friends:

Just before the Romanovs were murdered, Maxim Gorky, himself a Bolshevik and personal friend of both Lenin and Stalin, wrote "Everything that I said about the Bolsheviks' savage crudeness, about their cruelty which approaches sadism, about their lack of culture, about their ignorance of the psychology of the Russian people, and the fact that they are performing a disgusting experiment on the people and are destroying the working class - all this, and much more that I said about 'Bolshevism' retains its full force" (from Gorky's book 'Untimely  Thoughts').

"...as the saintly old anarchist Prince P. A. Kropotkin was to declare in a famous letter to Lenin in 1920:
'Really can't there be found around you that such measures [a new terror had just been proclaimed] inevitably return us to the worst times of the Middle Ages and the religious wars - unworthy of people seeking to create a future society on Communist foundations?  Is there really no one amongst you who understands what a hostage is?  That it means that a man is thrust into prison not because he is guilty of any kind of crime but simply in order to threaten your opponents with his death.  *Kill one of ours and we will kill so many of yours.* Don't your comrades really understand that this indifference is nothing but torture for those imprisoned and their relatives?'
It was, alas, too late - and still too early - for Lenin to hear Kropotkin's humanitarian voice."
- 'Black Night, White Snow' by Harrison Salisbury (Chapter LXIII, page 612)
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2013, 08:11:06 PM »

in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Particularly indicative is the criticism of the Bolshevik's own friends:

Just before the Romanovs were murdered, Maxim Gorky, himself a Bolshevik and personal friend of both Lenin and Stalin, wrote "Everything that I said about the Bolsheviks' savage crudeness, about their cruelty which approaches sadism, about their lack of culture, about their ignorance of the psychology of the Russian people, and the fact that they are performing a disgusting experiment on the people and are destroying the working class - all this, and much more that I said about 'Bolshevism' retains its full force" (from Gorky's book 'Untimely  Thoughts').

"...as the saintly old anarchist Prince P. A. Kropotkin was to declare in a famous letter to Lenin in 1920:
'Really can't there be found around you that such measures [a new terror had just been proclaimed] inevitably return us to the worst times of the Middle Ages and the religious wars - unworthy of people seeking to create a future society on Communist foundations?  Is there really no one amongst you who understands what a hostage is?  That it means that a man is thrust into prison not because he is guilty of any kind of crime but simply in order to threaten your opponents with his death.  *Kill one of ours and we will kill so many of yours.* Don't your comrades really understand that this indifference is nothing but torture for those imprisoned and their relatives?'
It was, alas, too late - and still too early - for Lenin to hear Kropotkin's humanitarian voice."
- 'Black Night, White Snow' by Harrison Salisbury (Chapter LXIII, page 612)

How is that unlike the Czar who plunged his country into World War One for no apparent reason other then to keep up with his cousins. Then he sent troops to the front without guns. They often resorted to throwing stones at the Germans. And that's not return to the middle ages?

So the troops deserted en mass and went home.  The rest is well known
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2013, 09:05:11 PM »

How is that unlike the Czar...?
It is indeed like the czar.

Leon Trotsky was to Woodrow Wilson what Osama bin Laden has been to George Bush.
Both were funded and used until they were no longer needed.

I'm not saying Kerensky was perfect, but things under him were steadily improving compared with what Nicholas II and his Romanov predecessors had done.
Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along and blew all that progress away.

The rest is well known
 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 09:19:06 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2013, 09:34:52 PM »

How is that unlike the Czar...?
It is indeed like the czar.

Leon Trotsky was to Woodrow Wilson what Osama bin Laden has been to George Bush.
Both were funded and used until they were no longer needed.

I'm not saying Kerensky was perfect, but things under him were steadily improving compared with what Nicholas II and his Romanov predecessors had done.
Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along and blew all that progress away.

The rest is well known
 

Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along

Excuse me ?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2013, 09:42:42 PM »

Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along
Excuse me ?

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
By Anthony Sutton
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-4.pdf
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2013, 09:48:08 PM »

I think the Republican US Senator William Borah of Idaho was perhaps the best US congressman of the twentieth century.
Borah led the Senate's rejection of the Versailles Treaty and recognized the Soviet Union long before Roosevelt.
Borah put into action the spirit of cooperation that Kropotkin advocated. 
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2013, 09:57:44 PM »

Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along
Excuse me ?

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
By Anthony Sutton
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-4.pdf

Youre very gullible..

This guy was a nut job similar to Lyndon LaRouch seeing arcane ultra complicated international conspiracies to gain World Domination behind every bush.

His pet theories have no credibility what so ever.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 10:00:34 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2013, 10:42:47 PM »

Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position
Written by A Kramer Monday, 01 December 2003

http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm

During the last ten years many new interesting sources about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have been published. Among them are two books about the most tragic act of the Russian Revolution – the so-called Kronstadt rebellion.
"The first book was published under the strange title, "The Unknown Trotsky: the red Bonaparte" (Krasnov V.G., Moscow, 2000). This attempts to describe the role of Trotsky during the Russian civil war. The second book – "Kronstadt 1921" (Moscow, 2001) - is a collection of documents about the Kronstadt rebellion. It is important to stress that neither of the two books have been written by Bolshevik sympathizers."

It appears that these two books were answered in detail by Israel Getzler in 'Kronstadt: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy' (2002)
http://books.google.com/books/about/Kronstadt_1917_1921.html?id=qK3m05CQhT4C
http://www.amazon.com/Kronstadt-1917-1921-Democracy-Cambridge-Post-Soviet/dp/0521894425

A. Kramer, author of the article linked above, apparently chose to ignore Getzler's book and contrary evidence in his article.

The central point of contention seems to be this:
"Defenders of the Bolshevik policy, such as Abbie Bakan, have claimed that the Kronstadt rebels were not the same sailors as those who had been revolutionary heroes in 1917. In response, Israel Getzler presents detailed evidence that the vast majority of the sailors had been in the Navy since 1917."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 10:48:09 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2013, 11:12:33 PM »


Youre very gullible.
This guy was a nut job ...
I read in George Seldes's autobiography that the American Red Cross mission of 1920 to aid Russian famine was legitimate.
However, this book claims that the Red Cross mission of 1918 was a cover to support the revolution - among other claims.  

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and examine the claims in this book case by case compared with other competent books which analyze this from a perspective sympathetic to the Bolsheviks.  That will take time, but that is okay because I find it interesting enough.

In the final analysis, each case is simple.  Either the Bolsheviks did receive funding from a western corporation or they did not.
I feel confident to say that at the very least from 1921 onwards, the Bolsheviks were financed by western capitalists due to the New Economic Policy.
I consider that aspect (1921 onwards) an obvious and foregone conclusion. 

Considering the careers of Armand Hammer and Averell Harriman in procuring financial aid for the Soviet Union, I doubt the evidence of this can be dismissed as fantasy.  At a certain point, that becomes denial of fact. 

Armand Hammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Hammer
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 11:33:56 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2013, 11:50:30 PM »

Youre very gullible..

This guy was a nut job similar to Lyndon LaRouch seeing arcane ultra complicated international conspiracies to gain World Domination behind every bush.

His pet theories have no credibility what so ever.

Would I be correct to perceive that you would automatically dismiss the Sisson documents out of hand as forgeries without any investigation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisson_Documents
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #98 on: July 02, 2013, 12:27:57 AM »

Would I be correct to perceive that you would automatically dismiss the Sisson documents out of hand as forgeries without any investigation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisson_Documents

A lot of known facts (such as Germany's provision of transportation for Lenin) concord with these documents.
If the Sisson documents are not forgeries, then the Bolshevik revolution was a successful operation of Imperial Germany.
Battling both France and England to the west and Russia to the east, Germany certainly had the motivation.
These documents were initially accepted as legitimate by the American press and Sisson described the entire experience of how he came into possession of these documents in his memoirs.  

The Sisson Documents
http://archive.org/details/germanbolshevikc00unit

'Merchant of Revolution: The Life of Alexander Helphand'
By Zbynek Zeman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94994447/Merchant-of-Revolution-Alexander-Israel-Helphand-Parvus

This book does not endorse the Sisson documents, but it does discuss funding of the Bolshevik revolution.

For the record, I consider Jacob Schiff's funding the Japanese military with 200 million dollars circa 1904 for the war against Russia to have been a good thing.  Russia was absolutely corrupt and needed to be humbled.  Accordingly, conditions improved after the 1905 revolution.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:58:11 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #99 on: July 02, 2013, 01:07:39 AM »

"Not only did Lenin come to Russia with the knowledge and consent and at the desire of the German Government, but even in Russia he worked with the mighty financial backing of the enemies of his country, coordinating his attacks against the Provisional Government with the military plans of Ludendorf and Hindenberg."

- Alexander Kerensky
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #100 on: July 02, 2013, 02:31:51 AM »

Funny quote from Brackman's book: "Zinoviev appeared bewildered, as he always was in difficult moments."
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #101 on: July 02, 2013, 10:15:41 AM »

Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position
Written by A Kramer Monday, 01 December 2003

http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm

During the last ten years many new interesting sources about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have been published. Among them are two books about the most tragic act of the Russian Revolution – the so-called Kronstadt rebellion.
"The first book was published under the strange title, "The Unknown Trotsky: the red Bonaparte" (Krasnov V.G., Moscow, 2000). This attempts to describe the role of Trotsky during the Russian civil war. The second book – "Kronstadt 1921" (Moscow, 2001) - is a collection of documents about the Kronstadt rebellion. It is important to stress that neither of the two books have been written by Bolshevik sympathizers."

It appears that these two books were answered in detail by Israel Getzler in 'Kronstadt: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy' (2002)
http://books.google.com/books/about/Kronstadt_1917_1921.html?id=qK3m05CQhT4C
http://www.amazon.com/Kronstadt-1917-1921-Democracy-Cambridge-Post-Soviet/dp/0521894425

A. Kramer, author of the article linked above, apparently chose to ignore Getzler's book and contrary evidence in his article.

The central point of contention seems to be this:
"Defenders of the Bolshevik policy, such as Abbie Bakan, have claimed that the Kronstadt rebels were not the same sailors as those who had been revolutionary heroes in 1917. In response, Israel Getzler presents detailed evidence that the vast majority of the sailors had been in the Navy since 1917."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

I have also heard the claim that the Kronstadt Sailors were not the same as those during the early Revolution. Those details are a little past my knowledge ( or interest ). But I would ask who were their leaders were they the same?

The putting down of the Kronstadt Rebellion is often used as a bludgeon against Trotsky, so I would need to know more. In other words, enemies of the Revolution and enemies of Trotsky love to point to Kronstadt so I am automatically wary.

And the simple fact was that they staged a revolt against the Revolution, so same people, different people half and half, the rebellion had to be put down with extreme prejudiced.... as a great man once said. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #102 on: July 02, 2013, 10:19:37 AM »

"Not only did Lenin come to Russia with the knowledge and consent and at the desire of the German Government, but even in Russia he worked with the mighty financial backing of the enemies of his country, coordinating his attacks against the Provisional Government with the military plans of Ludendorf and Hindenberg."

- Alexander Kerensky

That's not news. Lenin was given safe passage across German lines to re-enter Russia. He planned to take Russia out of a war they had no business being in if he gained the power to do so. That was a simple convergence of interests. But to think Lenin or Trotsky were the puppets of Wall Street or German Industrialist is very far fetched.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #103 on: July 02, 2013, 10:53:32 AM »

Funny quote from Brackman's book: "Zinoviev appeared bewildered, as he always was in difficult moments."
I love Brackman's book.
He also goes into specific details about Germany's financing of Lenin and Malinovsky which used Israel Helphand as a contact.
In spite of being warned multiple times that his pal Malinovsky was a tsarist Okhrana agent, Lenin refused to believe it until it became public after the revolution.

Roman Brackman grew up during Stalin's purge trials of the 1930's and himself spent years in the Siberian gulag in Norilsk prisons during Stalin's time and participated in a 1953 prison revolt.  He was released with the first amnesty after Stalin's death and defected to the US in 1959 where he subsequently
earned a Ph.D.  Although his book 'The Secret File of Josef Stalin' was not released until 2001, he began the research for it while he was still in the gulag.  
It is the work of a lifetime.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 10:58:18 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #104 on: July 02, 2013, 11:41:05 AM »

I would ask who were their leaders were they the same?
The leader of the 1921 revolt was Anatolii Lamanov.  He was chairman of the Kronstadt Soviet in 1917. 

enemies of the Revolution and enemies of Trotsky love to point to Kronstadt so I am automatically wary.
In accordance with non-prejudiced investigation, are you equally suspicious of what Trotsky says?
If Leon Trotsky ever gets into a battle with the truth, then whose side would you be on?
Do I detect a little prejudice?

the simple fact was that they staged a revolt ... the rebellion had to be put down with extreme prejudiced


Well, at least we can compare the details in Israel Getzler's book with the two books referenced in your article.
Those details are a little past my knowledge (or interest).
Roll Eyes
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 02, 2013, 12:05:15 PM »

The author made an interesting point for me that Dzerzhinsky did not finish his speech. So it is hard to know what he would have said.  However, on p. 191 Brackman is mistaken that no autopsy occurred on him. There was an autopsy that was signed by leading medical specialists and printed in the main newspapers. However, this report has been criticized by some researchers. One of the less important criticisms, but one sticking in my mind, was that it said it was of an "old" man. However, Dzerzhinsky was not yet old, but rather middle aged. Furthermore, Brackman asserts that in reality Dzerzhinsky did not get up after falling at the speech and die in a bed, which is what we read in the books. However, Brackman does not cite anything for his novel claim.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:12:13 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #106 on: July 02, 2013, 12:23:18 PM »

The author made an interesting point for me that Dzerzhinsky did not finish his speech. So it is hard to know what he would have said.  However, on p. 191 Brackman is mistaken that no autopsy occurred on him. There was an autopsy that was signed by leading medical specialists and printed in the main newspapers. However, this report has been criticized by some researchers. One of the less important criticisms, but one sticking in my mind, was that it said it was of an "old" man. However, Dzerzhinsky was not yet old, but rather middle aged. Furthermore, Brackman asserts that in reality Dzerzhinsky did not get up after falling at the speech and die in a bed, which is what we read in the books. However, Brackman does not cite anything for his novel claim.
I took a look at this.  Brackman says Dzerzhinsky was cremated to avoid any investigation discovering that he had been poisoned which he had been apparently by the water served to him during the two hour speech.  Dzerzhinsky's acquisition of Stalin's Okhrana file and intent to publicize it consituted Stalin's motivation to poison him.

Since Stalin controlled Pravda since the days before revolution, I would imagine Pravda's account of events surrounding the death of his opponents was generally intended to completely mislead.  Interesting point.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:24:48 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #107 on: July 02, 2013, 12:42:02 PM »

Brackman does not cite anything for his novel claim.
He lists several references in the notes including Arsenii Tishkov's book on Dzershinksy and an interview and letter from I.D. Levine among others.

As to the discovery of Stalin's Okhrana file among what had been Dzershinsky's papers, Brackman cites an article published in 'Life' magazine on 23 April 1956 by Alexander Orlov entitled 'The Sensational Secret Behind the Damnation of Stalin'.   Orlov wrote that Stalin's Okhrana file was discovered in 1936 in Menzhensky's office by the assistant chief of the Secret Political Department I.L. Shtein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Mikhailovich_Orlov

Orlov's article stated that the NKVD officers including Trotsky's General Tukhachevsky were plotting to take down Stalin, and this is also the reason for Tukhachevsky's trial and execution.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:51:05 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #108 on: July 02, 2013, 12:49:03 PM »

I am convinced that Simon Montefiore is the worst biographer of Stalin since Walter Duranty.

Since he is obliged these days to acknowledge many of Stalin's crimes, his biography hides them in a haystack of trivial details. 
Montefiore essentially guards Stalin's reputation against any further damaging research. 
Simon Montefiore is a modern softer, gentler version of Walter Duranty.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #109 on: July 02, 2013, 04:19:49 PM »

I would ask who were their leaders were they the same?
The leader of the 1921 revolt was Anatolii Lamanov.  He was chairman of the Kronstadt Soviet in 1917. 

enemies of the Revolution and enemies of Trotsky love to point to Kronstadt so I am automatically wary.
In accordance with non-prejudiced investigation, are you equally suspicious of what Trotsky says?
If Leon Trotsky ever gets into a battle with the truth, then whose side would you be on?
Do I detect a little prejudice?

the simple fact was that they staged a revolt ... the rebellion had to be put down with extreme prejudiced


Well, at least we can compare the details in Israel Getzler's book with the two books referenced in your article.
Those details are a little past my knowledge (or interest).
Roll Eyes

I would always side with Trotsky if the choice of what is the Truth is between his word and that of someone who either was not there or is carrying water for his enemies or enemies of Socialism in general.

Do you deny that it was a rebellion against the Revolution? What more needs to be known? 

Here is more from the earlier article I linked to before:

http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm

It is not necessary to describe here all the aspects of this well-known event. At the beginning of March 1921, in one of the most critical periods of the Soviet Republic's existence, in the naval base of Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at a military coup against the Soviet government. The critical state that the Soviet Union was passing through in that moment meant that Lenin and Trotsky were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly. After rejecting the government's ultimatum to capitulate, Kronstadt was stormed and captured in the second attack. The rebel leaders escaped to Finland.

At the end of the 1930s a group of former Trotskyists, including Victor Serge, Max Eastman, Souvarine and some others, attacked Trotsky for his behaviour during the rebellion. (In doing this Serge contradicted his own earlier views expressed at the time of the rebellion). They described the Kronstadt events as a workers' and sailors' rebellion against the "Bolshevik dictatorship", and saw the crushing of the rebels as a "first step towards Stalinism". Later on, this criticism was adopted by other anti-Communist ideologues and propagandists. Trotsky answered these people in 1938 in his article "Hue And Cry Over Kronstadt" where he analysed the petit-bourgeois nature of this putsch.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #110 on: July 02, 2013, 04:28:32 PM »

Here is Trotsky's article:

Leon Trotsky
Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt
(January 1938)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm


The play upon the revolutionary authority of Kronstadt is one of the distinguishing features of this truly charlatan campaign. Anarchists, Mensheviks, liberals, reactionaries try to present the matter as if at the beginning of 1921 the Bolsheviks turned their, weapons on those very Kronstadt sailors who guaranteed the victory of the October insurrection. Here is the point of departure for all the subsequent falsehoods. Whoever wishes to unravel these lies should first of all read the article by Comrade J.G. Wright in the New International (February 1938). My problem is another one: I wish to describe the character of the Kronstadt uprising from a more general point of view.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 04:29:01 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #111 on: July 02, 2013, 04:36:04 PM »

Here is the article by John G. Wright that Trotsky recommends for an historical accounting of the facts:

John G. Wright
The Truth about Kronstadt
(February 1938)

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1938/02/kronstadt.htm

The connection between the counterrevolution and Kronstadt can be established not only from the lips of the adversaries of Bolshevism but also on the basis of irrefutable facts.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #112 on: July 02, 2013, 07:53:51 PM »

The author made an interesting point for me that Dzerzhinsky did not finish his speech. So it is hard to know what he would have said.  However, on p. 191 Brackman is mistaken that no autopsy occurred on him. There was an autopsy that was signed by leading medical specialists and printed in the main newspapers. However, this report has been criticized by some researchers. One of the less important criticisms, but one sticking in my mind, was that it said it was of an "old" man. However, Dzerzhinsky was not yet old, but rather middle aged. Furthermore, Brackman asserts that in reality Dzerzhinsky did not get up after falling at the speech and die in a bed, which is what we read in the books. However, Brackman does not cite anything for his novel claim.
I have noticed that Brackman makes a somewhat tenuous case on a couple of occasions using more psychological analysis than evidence such as the chapter on the death of Vissarion.  In spite of that, I deem it the best overall book I have ever encountered on the Soviet Union. 

Brackman's book seems to take Alexander Orlov's 1950's exposes of Stalin as its basis including Orlov's Life magazine article and his book 'The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes'.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #113 on: July 02, 2013, 08:41:37 PM »

Although he died in 1973, Alexander Orlov actually wrote several books including a more recently published detailed autobiography that discusses the documents and history of Stalin's undercover Okhrana work among other things such as the NKVD's undermining of the left in the Spanish civil war.  

Orlov defected to Canada in the late 1930's and held Stalin's Okhrana secret throughout the 1940's.  He blackmailed Stalin with it to prevent his own assassination.  Orlov published his book exposing Stalin's crimes within weeks of Stalin's death in early 1953, although he did not publicize until 1956 his knowledge that Stalin was an undercover tsarist agent who wormed his way to the top of Soviet power.  

To his credit, Alexander Orlov was also the agent who recruited the famous Cambridge five: Burgess, MacLean, Philby, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross with whom I completely sympathize.  Those five were liberals/leftists who believed in what they did.  It wasn't like they spied for the Nazis.  All they did was give vital information to Britain's wartime ally (Russia) about the Nazi military when Russia badly needed it because the Nazi sympathizers who ran the British government were too snotty to do it themselves.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 08:58:21 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #114 on: July 04, 2013, 02:16:16 AM »

Dionysii,

I am finding your book on Stalin to be very interesting. Were you interested in Brackman's book on the Israeli State?

Ramon Brackman is not alone in stating that Stalin was an undercover agent for Nicholas II's Okhrana.  Alexander Orlov wrote an autobiography decades ago entitled 'March of Time' which was just released in 2004 which also discusses Stalin as a member of the Okhrana.  Brackman's work seems to be based on Orlov's.  Other NKVD officers also learned of Stalin's Okhrana service during the 1930's, but Orlov was the one who made it to safety in the west.  Orlov did not publish it and other secrets until after Stalin's death for fear the WWII era US government would not protect him from Stalin's hit men who did kill defector Walter Krivitsky in New York after killing Trotsky in Mexico City.  
In spite of the Simon Montefiore (who is practically Stalin's defender), a comparison of Alexander Orlov's book with Walter Krivitsky's books shows they are consistent and is a testimony to the legitimacy of both.

Orlov's autobiography is sensational.  He was Stalin's head man in Spain from 1936 to 1938. Both anarchists and Trotskyites have written good histories arguing that the reason Franco and Hitler won the Spanish civil war is because the Stalinists undermined the left.  Orlov's autobiography gives all the details because he was the one that did it.  He was assigned to kidnap and execute leaders of non-Stalinist left groups.  Orlov also executed right wing catholic leaders more openly which gave the Stalinist a public show of legitimacy to the left.  Orlov's systematic elimination of the leadership of the Spanish Republic was the reason the Nazi's won the Spanish civil war.  It's almost like Stalin's people had some kind of arrangement with Franco.  

(From the perspective of the Spanish Republicans and their allies (i.e. anarchists, Mensheviks, Trotskyites, and American liberals in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade), Stalin’s strategy in the Spanish civil war might bring to mind the lyrics of Buffalo Springfield's anti-establishment 1960's song 'For What It's Worth' about the revolution "getting so much resistance from behind.")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

(Orlov's actions in the civil war are somewhat similar to the fact that ku klux klan members guilty of the most violence to minorities were the precisely the undercover FBI agents allegedly penetrating the kkk to destroy it - by this means Hoover used the klan as an instrument to do what he could not do openly.)

Anyway, Stalin ordered Orlov to hijack all the gold in the Spanish treasury which amounted to several hundred tons driven to a Spanish port and loaded on Russian ships which took it to Odessa on the Black Sea from where it went to Moscow by train. As soon as it was all locked away, Stalin threw a huge party.  

I have not read Brackman's book on the Israeli state, but I doubt it is as good as his book on Stalin since a glance at the table of contents convinced me that Stalin era Israel is only a fraction of the book. The book might even be worth it for that chapter which would help explain early Zionist leftism, but it appears that much of the book is a defence of the Israeli state.  If you get it, let me know what you think. I am more interested in Orlov's books.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 02:46:24 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #115 on: July 04, 2013, 02:19:01 AM »

I noticed that Marc1152 is with ROCOR which long ago canonized Tsar Nicholas II.  I wonder if he considers him a saint as well.  (I doubt it.)  According to Harrison Salisbury's 'Black Night, White Snow', Nicholas II was a cocaine user among other unbecoming habits, and it is not new information.  Bishop Theophan of Poltava was a major benefactor of Monk Rasputin.  Yet the followers of Metropolitan Khrapovitsky and ROCOR consider him a saint and particularly devout seemingly because he was Tsar Nicholas's confessor.  It seems to me that such people never sufficiently investigate the traditions received from either their parents or the first Orthodox Church they happen upon which recalls Saint Paul's instruction to Timothy to study to show himself approved before God.  ‘Black Night, White Snow’ is focused on the period just before Stalin and brings out a lot of embarrassing facts for people who think of Nicholas II as a saint.  

“Harrison Salisbury, correspondent to the "Second World" of Russia during some of the most dramatic moments of its 20th Century history … and intellectual representative of a bygone (American) liberal elite … had a first-rate mind, was "fair and balanced" in his reportage (meaning he neither knowingly lied about the social horrors of Communist regimes like Walter Duranty nor became an apologist for the West. … He was a good reporter and a gentleman, in the old sense.”
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Night-White-Snow-Paperback/dp/030680154X

If one takes a step back to look around and objectively consider the legitimacy of the pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox Church, any reckoning will be biased and unrealistic which fails to consider the possibility that the nineteenth century Russian Synod was basically a cult led by degenerates.  It was officially an arm of the government under the tsar as it continued to be under Stalin.  The great majority of Russian peasants everywhere hated the monarchy as did the socialists of all stripes including Mensheviks like Alexander Kerensky and the Provisional Government who ousted and ended the Romanov dynasty in February 1917.  The Bolsheviks did not oust the Romanovs and in essence actually revived tyranny in another form.  Most post-revolution Christians in Russia knew the Romanovs to be an evil of bygone days.  Considering that Metropolitan Khrapovitsky had mutlitple heresies including stavroclasm (belief that Christ’s death on the cross did not fully atone for men’s sins), his belief in the apostolic succession of the heretical Anglican protestants,  and his attack on the Name of God which evidenced his ignorance of patristic theology, preference for intemperate language, and horrendous actions in Mount Athos circa 1912.  
'Heresy on Mount Athos'
By Dykstra
http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/english/dykstra/dikstra.htm

  Since the Optina brotherhood existed on the fringes of the highly degenerate Russian Orthodox Church and did not characterize its nature, the Optina monastery was like a diamond in the snout of a pig.  It is analogous to a typical decent mason whose civilized character gives freemasonry a good name and who is yet ignorant of the occult nature of the order.  Since Saint Paul instructs Christians to test all spirits to see whether they be of God, then a reasonable question to consider is whether the synod founded by Metropolitan Khrapovitsky (i.e. Karlovtsi / ROCOR) was genuinely part of the Body of Jesus Christ or a monarchist cult.  Harrison Salisbury’s book is a worthwhile reality check to the history of the nineteenth century Russian Orthodox Church. It puts things in perspective, but cults try to prevent their adepts from acquiring knowledge of truth that would set them free.  
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 02:50:25 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #116 on: July 04, 2013, 03:04:47 AM »

Kronstadt was stormed and captured in the second attack. The rebel leaders escaped to Finland.
For your information, Anatolii Lamanov, the chief Kronstadt leader, was executed by the Bolsheviks shortly after they took control of it.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #117 on: July 04, 2013, 03:46:01 PM »

His pet theories have no credibility what so ever.
Anthony Sutton's book on the Skull and Bones society is his only pet theory of which I am aware.
I find that particular book of Sutton's useless as well, but the important question there is "so what?"  
Anthony Sutton's detailed books on western financial aid to the Bolsheviks including German and American financial aid to Trtosky and Lenin have never been refuted as far as I am aware.  The comments of a couple of famous americans is very interesting:

In his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
"For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton's 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917–1930', which argues that 'Soviet economic development for 1917–1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid', and that 'at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance.'"

Professor Richard Pipes, of Harvard, said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future:
"In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology ... Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

You have so far given no reasons against Sutton other than insults.
Is this because you have no better refutation?

Edgar Sisson documented Germany's financing of Lenin in detail and wrote of his whole experience in his memoirs '100 Days in Russia'.  
Trotsky was a well known mass murderer and a hero to the advance of atheism.  
Trotsky's (lack of) morality, legitimacy, and authority have the same basis as Stalin's.  Power was weak and he seized it.  
The only difference between Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler is that Trotsky was the biggest hypocrite.  

The social revolutionaries won the elections outright in 1918, but they were suppressed violently by Trotsky.
This was Trotsky's fascist coup.  
Do you also ignore Trotsky's mass murder of millions of Christians?  
Seeing all this, the Kronstadt Soviet did not want to be a part of such an evil system and wanted to withdraw.

Trotsky claiming that the city of Kronstadt's Soviet was a threat to the Soviet Union's security is like Dick Cheney claiming that Iraq was a deadly threat to America or a southern slave master claiming that free black americans had to be enslaved because they threatened his security.  

Please don't tell us something we already know.  
I have myself owned and read several of Trotsky's books. Some of his analysis on topics such as Spain, Britain, and Germany I actually like.
However, Trotsky is not an unbiased biographer of himself.  

Don't tell me I am gullible or ignorant.  I have taken the time to read Trotsky and his opponents and compared Trotsky to his enemies like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin.  I had honestly never heard of Kropotkin but find his books much more rewarding than Trotsky's rewriting of history to make himself look good.

Upon reflection, Leon Trotsky's life is in respects like the arguments of Bill Mayer.  
I did not need Bill Maher to understand that George Bush was evil.  I already knew that - thank you very much.  Roll Eyes
However, then comes the poison.  Bill Maher's arrogant and dogmatic infidelity and his attack on our Lord Jesus Christ and his smears of nature and common decency in defense of sodomy.  

Likewise, I do not need Trotsky to know that the Romanovs were evil.  
The Bolsheviks capitalized on the Menshevik's success.  
The Bolsheviks dispensed with Russia's Christian traditions.  The Mensheviks were not guilty of this.  


The Bolshevik dictatorship is a poor example with a horrible track record for anyone wanting to be a Christian protester or leftist.
The Bolsheviks are only a good example of atheism as a path to avoid.  
Shall we follow God or the ways of atheism?

The way of Trotsky is slavery under a dictatorship.  
Call me a nut job, but history is on my side.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 03:47:08 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #118 on: July 04, 2013, 04:28:46 PM »

This guy was a nut ... seeing arcane ultra complicated international conspiracies to gain World Domination

Anthony Sutton, especially his early work up to 1976, simply showed that western business men gave financing to Bolshevism, Roosevelt, and Hitler.
I don't think that's too complicated of a concept. 
Your diatribe would be a more accurate description of certain anti-communist writers like Nesta Webster and the John Birch Society. 
I consider Anthony Sutton's work after 1976 less informative, but you're description of him even then is a bit exaggerated and false.

Anthony Sutton's best work are two trilogies:
'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917 - 1965' (3 volumes)
This published by Stanford University's Hoover Institution which also published informative books by Mensheviks such as Nicolaevsky over the years.

Sutton's second trilogy on Bolshevism, Fascism, and FDR:
'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution'
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-4.pdf

'Wall Street and FDR'
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr.html
(This book is interesting considering that Charles Luciano and Meyer Lansky also financed Roosevelt's election as admitted in Luciano's memoirs as well as the fact the American mafia had a significantly more leftward orientation prior to Kennedy and Hoffa).

'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler'
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avro Manhattan showed that Lenin, Trotsky were supported by the Vatican in his popular 1947 book 'The Vatican and World Politics':
http://www.seawaves.us/na/web4/VWP.pdf
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #119 on: July 04, 2013, 05:29:25 PM »

I found the idea of western Allied financing of the Russian Revolution to be interesting, although I am very skeptical about it, for different reasons.

It makes sense that the Germans might have helped finance, to oppose the Tsar who was on the Allied side. Naturally, that same fact makes it less likely the Allies would have financed it.

Further, the Allied armies invaded Russia with expeditionary forces during the Civil War, so it would not make sense that they were backing the revolt against their forces.

One of the issues which you pointed to is that investors invested in Russian industry after the Civil War. However, this is not necessarily a contradiction if you understand capitalist investing. American companies invest very heavily in China. The motive is economic rather than political. If the capitalists weren't able to take over Russia in the war, they could still profit from it by investing there.

So really the only less certain thing is how much funding Russian revolutionaries got from western Allied sources. One of the challenges with asserting this is that alot of the writing about this seems to come from "conspiracy type" authors. Another problem is that the writing about this could be based on second or fourth hand sources, where one person claims that so and so gave X dollars to the Bolsheviks, and this is repeated and then eventually asserted as a factual statement.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #120 on: July 04, 2013, 06:11:40 PM »

I found the idea of western Allied financing of the Russian Revolution to be interesting, although I am very skeptical about it, for different reasons.

It makes sense that the Germans might have helped finance, to oppose the Tsar who was on the Allied side. Naturally, that same fact makes it less likely the Allies would have financed it.

Further, the Allied armies invaded Russia with expeditionary forces during the Civil War, so it would not make sense that they were backing the revolt against their forces.

One of the issues which you pointed to is that investors invested in Russian industry after the Civil War. However, this is not necessarily a contradiction if you understand capitalist investing. American companies invest very heavily in China. The motive is economic rather than political. If the capitalists weren't able to take over Russia in the war, they could still profit from it by investing there.

So really the only less certain thing is how much funding Russian revolutionaries got from western Allied sources. One of the challenges with asserting this is that alot of the writing about this seems to come from "conspiracy type" authors. Another problem is that the writing about this could be based on second or fourth hand sources, where one person claims that so and so gave X dollars to the Bolsheviks, and this is repeated and then eventually asserted as a factual statement.
I agree with your analysis. 
Prior to 1921, there seems to be quite a bit more evidence of German financing of the Bolsheviks than any other.

You are also correct about the conspiracy minded idiocy which usually tarnishes any investigation into certain aspects of this in the eyes of many on the left.  This applied to left wing Menshevik writers like David Dallin who wrote more detailed analyses of Stalinist Russia in English than any other, but his books were largely ignored by the counterculture era American left which was uncritical of Stalin to its own discredit.  More discerning writers of the Americans left like Noam Chomsky have been critical of the Bolshevik revolution. 

Much of the cold war conspiracy nonsense seems to have been deliberately fostered by James Angleton's allies in the CIA and press and likewise by Peter Wright of MI6.  Their disproportionately influential school of thought seemed to dominate or rather cloud a lot of thinking during the cold war. 
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #121 on: July 04, 2013, 06:43:42 PM »

'One Hundred Days:  A Personal Chronicle of the Bolshevik Revolution'
By Edgar Sisson
http://www.amazon.com/One-Hundred-Red-Days-Revolution/dp/0883554429/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372977142&sr=1-1&keywords=one+hundred+days+sisson

The Sisson Documents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisson_Documents
http://archive.org/details/germanbolshevikc00unit

A couple of leftist writers I like (who are sympathetic to the Bolshevik revolution) dismiss Edgar Sisson's report as a forgery.
This includes W. Coates history of the Russian civil war from the Bolshevik perspective and more recently William Appleman William's school of thought. 
However, they have no refutation of Sisson in their books- only a tame version of Marc 1152's ridicule.
They do not provide the refutation I was looking for.
I think William Appleman Williams is an awesome historian of America - possibly second to none,
but their biased treatment of the Bolshevik revolution places them in the class of the Stalinist apologist Walter Duranty as far as this subject is concerned.
I perceive that what these guys fear about investigating Bolshevik financing is the effect on their leftist reputation when it is learned they condoned to look into something that they know conspiracy idiots on the right jump to likes dogs for ginger snaps. 

I have more respect for leftists like David Dallin and Walter Krivitsky whose first loyalty is to the truth rather than their reputation or whatever political party a man happens to belong to.  The old adage - "Don't judge a book by it's cover."
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #122 on: July 04, 2013, 07:11:12 PM »

Taylor's biography of Duranty complements Ramon Brackman's biography of Stalin.

'Stalin's Apologist:  Walter Duranty, the New York Times Man in Moscow'
By Sally Taylor
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalins-Apologist-Walter-Duranty-Timess/dp/0195057007#reader_0195057007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

Given that this uncomplimentary biography gives evidence that Duranty was an active sodomite in Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis and that both Crowley and other members of his cult such as General J.F.C. Fuller worked with British intelligence, I wonder if that meant any connection of Duranty to British Intelligence.  Tony Cliff's appraisal is that unlike Trotsky, the western intelligence services in the 1920's and 1930's generally viewed Stalin as one with whom they could cooperate.  
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 07:13:44 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,952


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #123 on: July 04, 2013, 07:15:42 PM »

His pet theories have no credibility what so ever.
Anthony Sutton's book on the Skull and Bones society is his only pet theory of which I am aware.
I find that particular book of Sutton's useless as well, but the important question there is "so what?"  
Anthony Sutton's detailed books on western financial aid to the Bolsheviks including German and American financial aid to Trtosky and Lenin have never been refuted as far as I am aware.  The comments of a couple of famous americans is very interesting:

In his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
"For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton's 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917–1930', which argues that 'Soviet economic development for 1917–1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid', and that 'at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance.'"

Professor Richard Pipes, of Harvard, said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future:
"In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology ... Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

You have so far given no reasons against Sutton other than insults.
Is this because you have no better refutation?

Edgar Sisson documented Germany's financing of Lenin in detail and wrote of his whole experience in his memoirs '100 Days in Russia'.  
Trotsky was a well known mass murderer and a hero to the advance of atheism.  
Trotsky's (lack of) morality, legitimacy, and authority have the same basis as Stalin's.  Power was weak and he seized it.  
The only difference between Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler is that Trotsky was the biggest hypocrite.  

The social revolutionaries won the elections outright in 1918, but they were suppressed violently by Trotsky.
This was Trotsky's fascist coup.  
Do you also ignore Trotsky's mass murder of millions of Christians?  
Seeing all this, the Kronstadt Soviet did not want to be a part of such an evil system and wanted to withdraw.

Trotsky claiming that the city of Kronstadt's Soviet was a threat to the Soviet Union's security is like Dick Cheney claiming that Iraq was a deadly threat to America or a southern slave master claiming that free black americans had to be enslaved because they threatened his security.  

Please don't tell us something we already know.  
I have myself owned and read several of Trotsky's books. Some of his analysis on topics such as Spain, Britain, and Germany I actually like.
However, Trotsky is not an unbiased biographer of himself.  

Don't tell me I am gullible or ignorant.  I have taken the time to read Trotsky and his opponents and compared Trotsky to his enemies like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin.  I had honestly never heard of Kropotkin but find his books much more rewarding than Trotsky's rewriting of history to make himself look good.

Upon reflection, Leon Trotsky's life is in respects like the arguments of Bill Mayer.  
I did not need Bill Maher to understand that George Bush was evil.  I already knew that - thank you very much.  Roll Eyes
However, then comes the poison.  Bill Maher's arrogant and dogmatic infidelity and his attack on our Lord Jesus Christ and his smears of nature and common decency in defense of sodomy.  

Likewise, I do not need Trotsky to know that the Romanovs were evil.  
The Bolsheviks capitalized on the Menshevik's success.  
The Bolsheviks dispensed with Russia's Christian traditions.  The Mensheviks were not guilty of this.  


The Bolshevik dictatorship is a poor example with a horrible track record for anyone wanting to be a Christian protester or leftist.
The Bolsheviks are only a good example of atheism as a path to avoid.  
Shall we follow God or the ways of atheism?

The way of Trotsky is slavery under a dictatorship.  
Call me a nut job, but history is on my side.

LOL  Far better then you have tried to take a hack at Trotsky... But thanks for your opinion. You seem to think highly of them.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 07:16:51 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #124 on: July 04, 2013, 07:56:28 PM »

"It's happened at last."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFg1rX1EmGM
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #125 on: July 05, 2013, 01:55:41 AM »

One of the questions that Brackman's book tried to answer, but perhaps did not fully, was what drove Stalin along.

He underwent diseases, which probably were longstanding with him. Another issue was that his father abused him and was a bad role model, and left his family alot. If his left arm got so messed up- limp when walking fast and then in use again- it might not be surprising that his mind was either.

He seems to have gone off the tracks first when he was in seminary. He got his hands on literature against the school's strict religious views, and it looks like he believed it. So when he was in the dissident circles in the school, his dissidence looks sincere. And yet he denounced his classmates to the school and got over 40 of them kicked out. So he was sincere in his dissident belief and yet also trecherous to his friends?

So all along he was sincere about socialism and Lenin, but also treacherous to his colleagues themselves...? And this secret abuse must go back to abuse between his parents?

John Sonne wrote an article claiming that Stalin was an abortion survivor and that this explained his later behavior.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2013, 04:05:24 AM »

I generally find psychological analyses unimpressive at best when used as a basis for argument, and   
it is the only aspect of Brackman's book which I have so far found unimpressive.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #127 on: July 05, 2013, 09:11:09 PM »

My first question is about an objection (or observation, depending on how you look at it) that Leon Trotsky makes in his short piece 'Vodka, the Church, and the Cinema' (published July 12, 1923). He writes

Religiousness among the Russian working class does practically does not exist. It actually never existed. The Orthodox Church was a daily custom and a government institution. It was never successful in penetrating deeply into the consciousness of the masses, not in blending its dogmas and canons with the inner emotions of the people. The reason for this is the same - the uncultured condition of Old Russia, and of her Church. Hence, when awakened for culture, the Russian worker easily throws off his purely external relation to the Church, a relation which grew on him purely by habit. For the peasent, certainly, this becomes harder, not because the peasent has more intimately and profoundly entered the Church teaching - this has, of course, never been the case - but because the inertia and monotony of his life are closely bound up with the inertia and monotony of Church practices.

He goes on to speak of how, though the life and culture of the Russian people, even the proletariat and peasents is bound up with Orthodoxy, he makes the claim that this is purely by habit, and not out of inner faith or love for the Church as a religious body, but as a distraction, with little or no respect for the ritual of the Church, or the clergy.

This is certainly a far cry from the picture of 'Holy Russia' under the Czars. What are your thoughts? Please provide reasons and sources for your opinion.

Secondly, I hear of many Russian saints (St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, etc, not to mention the proposed canonization of the Romanovs) who were killed, and were part of the Czarist establishment. Are there any Russian saints who did not identify themselves with the Czarists, or even were anti-Czarist, perhaps involved in Socialist or other Workers groups?

Reguardless of whether one considers her a saint, the Duchess Nun Elizabeth was clearly one of the more pious members of the Romanov family. 

In saying that religion never existed among the working class, Trotsky was wrong since he was prejudiced against and ignorant of Russian Church history.  It was obvious to most that public piety in Russia had declined significantly under the Romanovs. 
Bolshevism carried this process to its logical conclusion through its attempt to eradicate religion.

I picked up a copy of 'And God Created Lenin' by Paul Gabel and found it be an informative and worthwhile history of the near annihilation of the Nikonian/Romanov Church by the early Bolsheviks which includes information about the living Church and other relevant factors.  Other than the fact that it is contains scant information about the Old Believers, it is a well done book.

Gabel's neglect of the Old Believers is a significant hole in his religious history of that era.  The peasants throughout both European Russia and Siberia were collectively one of the most devout peoples in the world, and they had no love for the tsars which had enslaved them for over 200 years.  The peasants were inclined to the Whites.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #128 on: July 06, 2013, 01:21:05 AM »

So really the only less certain thing is how much funding Russian revolutionaries got from western Allied sources....

Ran across a reference to pre-1921 (i.e. pre-NEP) support of the Bolsheviks by an element within the British government:

While perusing my copy of 'Safe For Democracy: The Anglo-American Response to Revolution: 1913-1923' by Professor Lloyd Gardner, a veteran historian of the leftist William Appleman Williams school who is sympathetic to communism and (as expected) considers the Sisson documents to be forgeries, it did not take long to discern that elements in the British government centered around Lloyd George were much more keen towards friendship with Bolshevism than either Woodrow Wilson or the British king. 

"I'll tell you what to do.  If you don't want to shake hands with the Bolsheviks, you let us do it, and then you shake hands with us."
- David Lloyd George

Kerensky's revolution was bloodless.  He dislodged Nicholas II, but Kerensky did not want to murder him and attempted to arrange transport out of the country.  Alexander Kerensky wrote in his memoirs that the British decision to decline hospitality to Nicholas II was given to him in person by Lloyd George who was crying but who yet declined to give anything in writing.  Gardner's book states that Lloyd George delivered this message to Kerensky on behalf of Lord Balfour!
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #129 on: July 06, 2013, 02:00:07 AM »

"Lenin himself was not stronger than the censorship and the Chekah."

"Many people trembled when the name of the dictator was mentioned.  But in dirty little offices sat little grey bureaucrats who changed Lenin's words when they feared he had spoken too dangerously, and in other dirty little offices sat military political police officials who bragged that they would arrest the man if he acted too dangerously..."

- George Seldes in 'You Can't Print That!' [page 215], a 1929 book of news articles written by Seldes during the 1920's for the Chicago Tribune which the newspaper's owner said were too controversial to print.  (The fact that Seldes lived past a hundred years old brings to mind journalist Alexandre Cockburn's joke that if you want to live past 100, then it helps to have been a communist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes


My impression of Lenin the man in spite of his errors is that of a fairly decent idealist used as a figure head by a western financed mafia.  
If Lenin himself was in fact weaker than the secret police, then who was the Bolshevik revolution really working for?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 02:09:43 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #130 on: July 06, 2013, 04:11:21 AM »

I want to qualify a statement I had posted about Stalin.  I was apparently mistaken to assert that he had never been a sincere Bolshevik.  As it turns out, Stalin's interest in Bolshevism  predates his work with the Okhrana.  He developed an interest in Bolshevism during his time at seminary at the end of the 1890's.

Stalin joined Lenin's Bolshevik group in 1903, but to the best of my knowledge Stalin did not become an informer against them on behalf of the Okhrana police until his arrest in early 1906.  Part of the evidence for his 1906 arrest and subsequent cooperation with the Okhrana comes from a letter discussing Stalin written by an Okhrana officer named Eremin. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 04:31:14 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #131 on: July 06, 2013, 04:22:41 AM »

'Was Stalin arrested in 1906?'

"The first sentence in the letter [by the Okhrana officer Eremin] makes reference to Stalin's 1906 arrest, upon which he turned informer for the Okhrana. Of all the strange aspects of this letter, this is perhaps the strangest.

A brief recounting of what happened in Tiflis in 1906 will make matters clearer.

For several years, the Mensheviks, who dominated the Social Democratic movement in Georgia, had operated a secret printing plant in Avlabar, a suburb of Tiflis. Following the reunification of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, which was decided upon in the euphoria of the 1905 revolution, the Tiflis Mensheviks were compelled to allow Lenin's Georgian supporters to share in the secret of Avlabar. This was in early 1906. It was only at this time that Stalin would have learned the location of the press.

On March 29, 1906, several weeks after Stalin and the Bolsheviks were initiated into the secret of Avlabar, the plant was betrayed to the police. Police reports gave "agent sources" (ot agenturnik istochnikov) as the source of information, without naming the agent. (Recent Russian sources indicate that this may not have been the case. The plant may have been discovered by accident.)

If Stalin was arrested in 1906 in Tiflis, as the Eremin letter asserts, and if he was the source of Okhrana knowledge of the Avlabar plant, then we can reasonably date his arrest to March 29. This is the case because we know that Stalin had enough time to get to Stockholm, where he attended the congress of the Social Democratic Party.

The police waited more than two weeks before moving in on the Avlabar operation. Smith considered it suspicious that the Okhrana would delay at all in making the raid. He saw this as evidence of an effort to protect an agent in place."

- passage from 'The Eremin Letter: Was Stalin an Agent of the Tsarist Okhrana?' by Eric Lee
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/refs/Safari_Scrapbook2/Was%20Stalin%20an%20Agent%20of%20the%20Tsarist%20Okhrana%3F.html
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #132 on: July 10, 2013, 02:17:00 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.
Oh really? Do tell...

The reason for this is simple.  I came to understand that the Old Orthodox Church is the Church ...
also ...
I gave details relating specifically to Patriarch Tikhon earlier in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23812.msg898591.html#msg898591

To answer your question a bit more informatively, the tsarist church begun by Peter the Great ended with the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 which established Metropolitan Tikhon as Patriarch and endorsed and confirmed the heretical doctrine of Name fighting enunciated in the Epistle of the Moscow Council of 1913.   

All Russian-Church Council of 1917-1918
http://orthodoxwiki.org/All-Russian_Church_Council_of_1917-1918

"The name-fighting tempest poisoned our theological schools, our hierarchy, our pastors, and, naturally, it is poisoning the whole society of the Church. The fruits of this poisoning are evident to all. There is no need to explore the depths of Russia – right here, in Moscow, in Russia’s heart. Only a blind man, or somebody who has covered his own eyes, will fail to see the corruption that has entered into our Church and is the fruit of long-standing de facto name-fighting, and which was de jure adopted by the Holy and Patriarchal Synods [1913, 1918]. This protestant principle (which, in its essence, I repeat, is man-worshipping)  of religious relativism is being offered to us on an official level, as a norm of spiritual life. That [Synodal] decree provides the basis for the flowering apostasy of our days."
- Bishop Michael Alexandrovich Novoselov
http://www.thewonderfulname.info/2013/03/letter-written-in-1918-by-michael.html

In my view, this confirms that schism does indeed beget heresy, and I am specifically thinking of the schism of 1666.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #133 on: July 14, 2013, 01:58:21 AM »

Dionysii,

There's an interesting question what Stalin's religion was.

The most obvious answer is atheist, but that might not be true.

I read that Stalin consulted with a sorceress, who recommended that he avoid using his real birth date. Biographers haven't really explained as far as I know, why he changed his birthdate to a year later. There are a few other bits suggesting he had this about him.

On the other hand, I read an atheist website that did a good job showing quotes by and about Stalin suggesting he was religious. For example, he rejected atheist books from his library. One website claims that he had close religious colleagues.
(http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334%3Awere-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists) The best example that comes to mind is Budyonny, who had a vision of the Theotokos, but I don't know of others. Particularly interesting was this account of Stalin going to the Kremlin chapel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBWP7m2WptM

I just think it's interesting. Perhaps he was occult, but the idea of him being religious is hard to square with other things...


Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #134 on: July 14, 2013, 02:05:13 AM »

The vestiges of his interest in the seminary likely explain the recriminalization of sodomy. 
I also understand after he died they discovered that he wore a picture of his son on a pin under his coat. 
Not to excuse his system, but at least he had a few good characteristics.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #135 on: July 14, 2013, 02:27:24 AM »

There's an interesting question what Stalin's religion was.
Lazar Kaganovich was a Jew that persecuted Jews on behalf of Stalin.  It calls to mind Roy Cohn who persecuted Jews on behalf of McCarthy.  
I have a biography entitled 'The Wolf of the Kremlin' that claims Lazar Kaganovich had Stalin poisoned and facilitated Khruschev's rise to power,
although I have not researched it's veracity to the same extent as Stalin's Tsarist era Okhrana work.

The deportation of Russian Jews in the late 1940's and 1950's worked in Zionism's favor in the same basic way that the deportation of comparatively wealthier German Jews worked in Zionism's favor in the 1930's.  It would be interesting to know if the Soviet Union had some kind of agreement with the Zionist movement or the state of Israel facilitating the transference of Russian Jews to Palestine like the Nazis had in fact established back in 1934.  

In that connection, it would also be interesting to see if Soviet relations with Zionism changed any with Khruschev.
They certainly improved with Yugoslavia.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 02:46:25 AM by Dionysii » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,391



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 14, 2013, 06:09:05 PM »

It would be interesting to know if the Soviet Union had some kind of agreement with... the state of Israel facilitating the transference of Russian Jews to Palestine
Pages 13-14 of this article are relevant.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/134987.pdf
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #137 on: July 19, 2013, 09:50:29 PM »

We just received a copy of 'Empire of the Periphery:  Russia and the World System' by Boris Kagarlitsky.  It is a Marxist history of Russia that gives equal space to each period from 1500 to the present.

Kagarlitsky is a Russian historian who has been around a while.  As an activist protesting the Soviet dictatorship, he spent time in prison during the Brezhnev era.  He has many books on Russia, but this one covers all of Russian history from a basically Marxist perspective.  
http://www.tni.org/archives/books_russiaempire

EDIT:
This book gives a long overdue recognition to Russian historian Mikhail Pokrovsky (1866-1934)(colleague of Ukrainian historian Hrushesvky), the father of Marxist Russian history who overturned the tsarist school of imperial/capitalist Russian history but was himself later sidelined by Stalinist history which in many ways revamped capitalist historicism.  Interestingly, Stalin was not alone in his opposition to Pokrovsky.  Trotsky also harshly criticizes Mikhail Pokrovsky in the appendix of his (flawed and prejudiced) history of the Russian revolution.

Mikhail Pokrovsky
(Father of Russian Marxist history)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Pokrovsky

Mikhail Hrushevsky
(Father of Ukrainian Marxist history)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykhailo_Hrushevskyi
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 10:14:09 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #138 on: July 19, 2013, 10:02:36 PM »

Then Wall street funded Trotsky came along
Excuse me ?

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
By Anthony Sutton
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-4.pdf

Youre very gullible..

This guy was a nut job ...

'Germany and Revolution in Russia 1915-1918: Documents From the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry' documents Bolshevik business with the German government throughout World War I.
http://archive.org/details/Germany-and-Revolution-in-Russia-1915-1918
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #139 on: July 24, 2013, 03:30:12 PM »

'You Can't Print That'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmUIcgG9Ko
- muckraker journalist George Seldes on press censorship and his personal interviews with Hindenberg, Lenin, Trotsky, and others


Tell the Truth and Run
http://www.brasscheck.com/seldes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes
- websites about George Seldes
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #140 on: July 24, 2013, 03:53:12 PM »

'You Can't Print That'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmUIcgG9Ko
- muckraker journalist George Seldes on press censorship and his personal interviews with Hindenberg, Lenin, Trotsky, and others

I have several awesome books by George Seldes, but I had not realized that this video discusses Edward Murrow's friend George Polk who was the CBS correspondent for the middle east in the late 1940's that was murdered by Greek fascist pro-British governments of Archbishop Damaskinos and George Papandreou for Polk's attempts to investigate and publish the communist side of the Greek civil war and for whom the George Polk Journalism Award is named.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.536 seconds with 168 queries.