AGEOD Forums

On the website, in the end of History, the title should be "The victory (of the red state) over the soviets" instead of "The victory of the soviets", as the fall of Cronstadt signs the end of the soviets:
Soviets are democracy. The soviet of Cronstadt was revolting against the bolsheviks (who were controling the elections for being elected; elections cheated by tcheka if needed).

ERISS wrote:On the website, in the end of History, the title should be "The victory (of the red state) over the soviets" instead of "The victory of the soviets", as the fall of Cronstadt signs the end of the soviets:
Soviets are democracy. The soviet of Cronstadt was revolting against the bolsheviks (who were controling the elections for being elected; elections cheated by tcheka if needed).

This is more of you stating your personal beliefs to shape history as to how you want it seen. It is apparent you don't like Bolsheviks, which is OK. But you see the term soviet was used by everyone. But after 1918 constitution name of "The Red State" was 'Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика' (Russian Soviet Fedrative Socialist Republic), the superlative for people from RSFSR was also made 'Soviet' So wording is correct. Just because you do not like people and their use of term, does not mean that they did not use that, were not called that and it isn't correct superlative for people and nation. It was official name. it seems you want this game to twist history just to your interpretation.

Maybe you can just enjoy the game instead of trying to insert your personal political beliefs into every part of it?

[color="Blue"]Guys, this discussion is going nowhere, and it is starting to detract from discussions that actually deal with the game and the playing of it.

Eriss, you are, of course, entitled to your opinions about the time period and how the game portrays it, but you need to get a better sense of where to raise the issues you seemingly are alone in having. "RUS History Club" is a good place for discussing the RCW, what happened during it, and the context of it all.[/color]

Right, sorry. I deleted and transfered to History club.
But I keep the post above, as it is really about the website.

В wrote:after 1918 constitution name of "The Red State" was 'Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика' (Russian Soviet Fedrative Socialist Republic), the superlative for people from RSFSR was also made 'Soviet' So wording is correct. Just because you do not like people and their use of term, does not mean that they did not use that, were not called that and it isn't correct superlative for people and nation. It was official name.

I don't think the official truth is always the truth.
To try knowing about the news, "Soviet" people were used to translate what the Pravda was telling.
That's why "soviet" should be the word for actual ones (those destroyed by the bolsheviks), and "Soviet" the word for the official ones (those stolen by bolsheviks).

ERISS wrote:I don't think the official truth is always the truth.
To try knowing about the news, "Soviet" people were used to translate what the Pravda was telling.
That's why "soviet" should be the word for actual ones (those destroyed by the bolsheviks), and "Soviet" the word for the official ones (those stolen by bolsheviks).

The truth is the name of the country included Soviet and the superlative was "Soviet" whether you like it or not, no matter who used what word in what manner, no matter how bitter you are over things that happened well before you were born.

You want a game to bend history to tell it how you feel it should be, you are the only person that is having a problem with any of this things. It is like the person who goes on forums about American civil war and try to reshape the telling of history to make their side look more noble.

Also, you know the word 'soviet' means 'council' right? and it was in use long before and revolutionaries started to use it. The advisers to the tsar since Peter First were know as 'soviet'. So I guess those revolutionaries just stole words from tsar! So I guess if any one has a claim to that term it is not the revolutionaries, right?

I don;t mind this subject to be discussed, in the Historical context (no modern politics please), as long as you keep it civil.

Cat

As I stated in other thread, soviet is word for council, tsar had soviets - his council of advisers and ministers were called the soviet. The Bolshevik constitution had named country the Russian Soviet Federalist Republic in 1918. All revolutionaries were calling themselves 'soviet' no faction had monopoly on the term. All revolutionary factions considered themselves the 'true' soviet. The Bolsheviks were calling themselves Soviets, they won, so indeed it was a Soviet victory.

В wrote:As I stated in other thread, soviet is word for council, tsar had soviets - his council of advisers and ministers were called the soviet.

Yes, we have nowadays many such state soviets in France.

Bolsheviks winning soviets are not the people soviets they want everybody believe (tsarist soviets are not people ones too).
Bolsheviks always spit on soviets (i.e. people ones) before soviets were gainning power. Lenin was since long for "All the power to the state bolshevik Party over the soviets", and suddenly changed his mind and went shouting "All the power to the soviets"!
("All the power to the soviets" was not the original people shout of the soviets, it was "No power over the soviets"...)
We see the bolsheviks use the word "soviet" for "people soviet", but in reality they mean "bolshevik controlled soviet". They cheated people.
Yes, people took the soviet word from tsarists, but that are people who make langage. Bolsheviks compelled people to the bolshevik twist of the word, so ok for now the word "soviet" is sucessfully torn to "bolshevik controlled soviet".
I think the "soviet" word must return to the people wanted meaning, what they had fought for before the bolsheviks took power.

ERISS wrote:Yes, we have nowadays many such state soviets in France.

Bolsheviks winning soviets are not the people soviets they want everybody believe (tsarist soviets are not people ones too).
Bolsheviks always spit on soviets (i.e. people ones) before soviets were gainning power. Lenin was since long for "All the power to the state bolshevik Party over the soviets", and suddenly changed his mind and went shouting "All the power to the soviets"!
("All the power to the soviets" was not the original people shout of the soviets, it was "No power over the soviets"...)
We see the bolsheviks use the word "soviet" for "people soviet", but in reality they mean "bolshevik controlled soviet". They cheated people.
Yes, people took the soviet word from tsarists, but that are people who make langage. Bolsheviks compelled people to the bolshevik twist of the word, so ok for now the word "soviet" is sucessfully torn to "bolshevik controlled soviet".
I think the "soviet" word must return to the people wanted meaning, what they had fought for before the bolsheviks.

Well we have many royalists here in Russia and they want the word 'soviet' returned to its original use (but actually in everyday life it is still used as the word 'council') The point is I don't understand why foreign people care how our language is used. It is our language and culture, why should French (or what ever nationality) communists tell us how we should use words in our own language and how we should tell our history?

Truth be told I could care less about any of my Soviet government except for Gorbachev who destroyed our nation and Yeltsin who made it even worse.. but that is beyond the scope of this forum.

В wrote: I don't understand why foreign people care how our language is used. It is our language and culture, why should French (or what ever nationality) communists tell us how we should use words in our own language and how we should tell our history?

For soviet has become an international word, like "Communist" comes from the 'Commune de Paris' french word, and its meaning was mainly forged in 1919 (yes it existed long before) by russian and ukrainian poor people in how they understood the word.

Voline (Волин was russian (born in Воронеж, 1882), and told mainly what I write in this forum, specialy about the soviets.

В wrote:Truth be told I could care less about any of my Soviet government except for Gorbachev who destroyed our nation and Yeltsin who made it even worse..

No man is a prophet in his own country : Gorbachev is seen in western countries as the leader who was able to end the cold war without blood bath and as the destroyer of the country in ex-USSR.

Mickey3D wrote:No man is a prophet in his own country : Gorbachev is seen in western countries as the leader who was able to end the cold war without blood bath and as the destroyer of the country in ex-USSR.

Well, it definitely is a perception issue, but by time Gorbachev started restructuring, Cold War was going to stayy bloodless.

В wrote:.. but that is beyond the scope of this forum.

[color="Blue"]Indeed. Stick to history in the historical discussions. Anything post-WW2 is not relevant to the time period covered by RUS (or any other AGEOD games, for that matter)[/color]

(I deleted. Cat quoted it)

Voline (I summarize):
The first workers' soviet was created in January 1905 in St-Petersbourg. The workers choose Nossar, an intellectual as president, and gave him a false labourer papers with a false name, Khroustaleff, as he was not a "worker"! (Voline had declined /disclaimed(?) the offer, as intellectual he felt not the right to.)
Some months later, a social-democrat named Trotski went secretary, and president when Nossar was put in jail.
End 1905, the tsarism destroyed this soviet, which reappeared (town named as Petrograd) in February 1917.

ERISS wrote:The 2 posts above should go here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19206,
between posts #2 and #6
(or you can use/edit my post #4, and the #6 Василеостровск's one, with).

Done, but I cannot change the dates, so they are a bit intermingled.

Cat

В wrote:Well, it definitely is a perception issue, but by time Gorbachev started restructuring, Cold War was going to stayy bloodless.

Well my post was not clear : I'm always suprised that the communist system fell without much blood poured by his supporters.

But I stop here as this is not the purpose of this thread...

ERISS wrote:[..]
That's why "soviet" should be the word for actual ones (those destroyed by the bolsheviks), and "Soviet" the word for the official ones (those stolen by bolsheviks).

I'm not sure that this little "tipo" will make it more clear for the readers...

Most of the historians discribed the RCW as a double Bolchevik Victory OVER the Soviets (which means over the peaseants and the urbans workers) and OVER the Whites.

But the game let you play here only with the Bolcheviks and the Whites, not with the forces really based on the decentralized and locally organized regional council, communal/village assemblies or Syndicats/factory council... even if they were as dangerous as the Whites for the Bolcheviks, especially because they could fast control the war & food supply and because they fought them under the Red flag all over Russia with slogans calling "All the power to the Soviets, NOT to the Bolcheviks !"

That should be say in the Historical ressources of the game, because we should explain what are the objective of this forces and events which pop up and handicap the Bolchevik player, but you can't avoid the fact that the bolchevik side should use the term too, finally because millions of bolcheviks also fought under the slogan "All the power to the soviets!", even if it was a fiction...

Playing the Bolcheviks in the game means you use their colours and their words they used during the RCW, even if the red flag and the Soviets are symbols and organizations they didn't created but used and corrupted.

В wrote:The Bolsheviks were calling themselves Soviets, they won, so indeed it was a Soviet victory.

This is a fact and the word "Soviet" is probably now corrupted for any later political use for all the History of the Humanity...
But it doesn't means that historians and historical games should not use the word as it was used and understand by the different RCW factions UNTILL the Bolcheviks' victory.

В wrote:Also, you know the word 'soviet' means 'council' right? and it was in use long before and revolutionaries started to use it.
The advisers to the tsar since Peter First were know as 'soviet'.

Yes. I've heard that "hammer" and "sickle" was also used before, incredible isn't it ? ...
In French too, "Soviet" means "Conseil" when "advisors" are "conseillers"...
Words have always original and various sens, that's not the topic...

We are speaking about the historical meaning of the Soviets as a "local assembly gathering almost all the community members of a commune, a village or a factory and having the last word to decide almost everythings".

В wrote:As I stated in other thread, soviet is word for council, tsar had soviets - his council of advisers and ministers were called the soviet.

I believed the Tsar never gathered its advisors and Ministres together in a Council so that they don't organize coalitions against him.
That was his old absolute way of autocratical managment.

There were the Douma (which had no power), they were already local assembly which had much more power like the Zemstvo (regional council) and the Skhod (village assembly), but not "Soviets".
Probably the word "council" appeared somewhere for some tsarist institutions and bureaucracy, but nobody never saw it as a political force, since the Tsar hated and sabotaged its own bureaucracy.

В wrote:All revolutionaries were calling themselves 'soviet' no faction had monopoly on the term. All revolutionary factions considered themselves the 'true' soviet.

Not really.
The only 3 main factions which pretent that their legitimity came from the Soviets are :
- The left Mensheviks and SR (who are later called socialists).
- The bolcheviks (who are later called communists)
- The revolutionary Peasants (who nobody called them later...) fighting for their local political autonomy and freedom (volia concept) based on the village community assembly (Skhod), later renamed and organized as Peasant Soviets. Whatever flag they used - Red, Black or "Green" - Peasants revolts had all the same objective of local absolute autonomy as a warranty of their annexion of nobility's rural territories. And the control or neutralization of this "faction" which ruled most of the country side is the key of the civil war for Reds & Whites. From october 1917 the Bolcheviks won the political urban "coup" over the urban factory workers' Soviets (true, it is not really a game feature, you can see it as a secondary aspect of the game), and they finally won the civil war OVER the revolted peasants' Soviets till end 1921 (it is (or it should be, i just start to play now) a feature and a major aspect of the game which allow or not the Reds & Whites to supply).

About the other factions :
- The remaining Kerenski government followers and the Komoutch (with the right Mensheviks and SR (what is later called social-democrats), the intelligensia and all the Liberals, the Kadets as well as most of the other Whites military factions were all claiming their legitimity came from the 1917 Constitutionnal Assembly (except the Royalists and later Kolchak when he took the dictatorship and dismiss the Legislative power...)
- Ukrainian, Finlandish, Baltic, Caucasians Nationalists factions had their own National Assemblies (Rada, etc.)

В wrote:The point is I don't understand why foreign people care how our language is used. It is our language and culture, why should French (or what ever nationality) communists tell us how we should use words in our own language and how we should tell our history?

Sorry, Vasileostrovsk, in the Western countries, "communists" is not an injury (maybe it should). But i know that in the eastern countries, it is... and i feel offended by this words.
Why are you such angry ? Does any ugly bad Bolchevik called you "Bourjooi" here ?

Why do you say that all the people which care about (and love, as i do) russian language and culture are French (or whatever nationality) communists (!?) as soon as they speak about "your" History or the historical political meanings and use of "Soviet" russian word ?

The 1905-1921 "Soviet" concept and word are now universal, as many words. Can you imagine if you had to ask to foreigners each time you use in Russia all the words which came from the French/English/Swedish/Turkish/German languages ? To avoid using them, you would probably only speak about agriculture and nature, which is not a shame, but a fact.

Once they discuss and write History, Historians have no nations...

This is not YOUR History but OUR History, simply because since the early begining of the XX century, the world is one and what touch a "Nation" touch an another "Nation".

The Russian History is "my" History, because it is "thanks" to the alliance of the French "patriotic" government and the Russian absolute creazy autocracy that started the WWI slaughter and that both our ancestors have such nice times in the trenches. German imperialism are not the only bad guys here.

Finally, the Russian History is also "my" History, because we both won't be here to speak about without this : Russian people had 10 millions died in the RCW to get into a strong totalitaristic USSR, which add millions losses more with Stalin's purges, famines and forced industrialization. The big Paradox is that it is probably thanks to this kind of government that Russia (painfully centralized and industrialized) was just strong enough to win the WWII, although an another cost of 22 millions deads.
Since the WWII could certainly not be won without the Russian's people sacrifices since 1917 (and believe me it's a hard job for the historians to educate people about this fact in the Western countries, who mostly still believe that the USA saved the planet with only 500 000 losses), i would say again, Yes, "your" Russian History with its so called primitive peasants did saved the Humanity as a civilization, ...and thus it's also "my" History.

Historical games have at least 2 purposes (which are in this words) : playing AND learning History.
I don't think anybody is telling you what words you should use or not at home. We only try to draw a historical picture of Russia which is the most close to the true as possible and which is understandable by all the peoples, thanks to all our point of vue and cultural backgrounds.

I'm sorry if this first looks out of the original topic, but any historical threads would - indeed - lead to nowhere or simply lead to forumers' self-censorship if it ever becames obvious here or elsewhere that only Russians can speak about Russia, only French can speak about France and only Papou can speak about Papouasia.

First thing of all, I was speaking directly to ERISS over 1 week ago in specific context, not general context, we understood each others and we have since come to understanding and have moved on and had agreeable discussions since, you long tirade post was a little late in coming I thinks.

I say what I said in this context because too often foreign communistic, socialistic, anarchistic thinking people have such romantic feelings about this time place in history and try to interject whatever faction of politic's propaganda filled version of events as exact truth. Each faction thinks their view were the 'real' idea and tries to make that known. This is same for all factions, counter revolutionary too.

As for 'my history' if you truly understand Russian mindset you know why i say this and why i believe this and why most Russian mindset is like this, and you understood this is not any ill will to anyone.

I am not angry, and i am not stupid, I know Bolsheviks were only faction that could win and keep country together, despite all bad things and most of my family probably dying while my close family was force relocated I know it was the best outcome of war in long run.

For most of my life until few years ago, i need not go to books to get tales of revolutionary times and civil war i just needed to go to next room. I get tales of this and 900 day siege of Leningrad and fight at Narva bridgehead and siege of Koinsburg. This is why I say this is my history.

In any case this discussion was over one week ago and all parties had moved on.

В wrote:First thing of all, I was speaking directly to ERISS over 1 week ago in specific context, [...]
In any case this discussion was over one week ago and all parties had moved on.

A forum is not a Chat, everything you said is not a direct speech to ERISS ...and it stay online for the next generations ...so you can't say all the parties moved on because each new reader coming is a party...
I just feel it need an answer here to your public point which could limit non-russian to speak freely on Russian History (even if we say bullsh...).
But i see you are not that type of guy which see History only within its borders and i please you to accept all my respect and excuses for the disagreements, if any,
A.

Then all is agreeable

В wrote: too often foreign communistic, socialistic, anarchistic thinking people have such romantic feelings about this time place in history and try to interject whatever faction of politic's propaganda filled version of events as exact truth. Each faction thinks their view were the 'real' idea and tries to make that known. This is same for all factions, counter revolutionary too.

Yes, but that is true too about the russian people of these factions. This is not exclusive to the foreign ones.

Bolsheviks were only faction that could win and keep country together, despite all bad things and most of my family probably dying while my close family was force relocated I know it was the best outcome of war in long run.

I think we would never know. Once History is made, that's easy to say we are in the best possible world.
I'm sad that bolsheviks won your mind. If that is to protect your hearth, that is not a good way, as you will always be mourning.

For most of my life until few years ago, i need not go to books to get tales of revolutionary times and civil war i just needed to go to next room. This is why I say this is my history.

Ok. But many russian histories were translated, at least in french. Many already in the 20s (even, some text were directly written in French by exhiled, and are translated in russian nowadays), others in 70s, and 90s. About French anarchists they translated Voline, Makhno, Archinov, many leaflets of unknown russian anarchists, or soviet resolutions.
What happened is debated, in hoping the History won't repeat, in Russia or the foreign version elsewhere.
Ok, I think there are still a huge documentation to be translated. But the russians can hardly read it too.

In any case this discussion was over one week ago and all parties had moved on.

But we are on a forum. After a week it's not really necroposting

I don't see how the Bolsheviks won my mind. I have no love of them, i am orthodox, i give money for memorials to victims of Bolsheviks, but if they were defeated all other factions would be fighting for years to come. Bolsheviks were the only strong enough to eventually control all. Which is of course what they wanted - the the split amongst the Bolsheviks after civil war made things even worse.

В wrote:if they were defeated all other factions would be fighting for years to come.

How so? If whites had won early, a Kadet and SR government would have been elected, as it was before the war. If whites had won late, a firm right-wing dictatorship would have been the most likely outcome. Anyway, the internal conflicts among the whites were no way strong enough to provoke an armed conflict, so I do not see any serious threats to post-war peace except a minor bolshevik uprising or two. There is, of course, a question of Cossack and Ukranian independence, but given cooperation during the war and general liberalism of the left whites (or realism of the right whites) in would probably be resolved by giving a wide autonomy to Don and Kiev.

Rasputin's Own Bear wrote:How so? If whites had won early, a Kadet and SR government would have been elected, as it was before the war. If whites had won late, a firm right-wing dictatorship would have been the most likely outcome. Anyway, the internal conflicts among the whites were no way strong enough to provoke an armed conflict, so I do not see any serious threats to post-war peace except a minor bolshevik uprising or two. There is, of course, a question of Cossack and Ukranian independence, but given cooperation during the war and general liberalism of the left whites (or realism of the right whites) in would probably be resolved by giving a wide autonomy to Don and Kiev.

My reasoning is, an early white victory would lead to the same type of government that came from febuary revolution, with greater problems and less resources - along with political rivalries amongst the leaders of different white factions and no real consensus on how to govern the country.

A late victory, would certainly lead to a reactionary dictatorship, who would it have been? That is a great debate, but I do not see it being strong, as at least with reds, there was the farce of belief that the government was for the people which gave hope. There would be no farce with a reactionary dictatorship.

I think to keep power the government would have to grant autonomy to the Kossaks perhaps even complete independence, though I think autonomy would be the better of two.

But by late war, red influence was so strong I not sure if decisive military victory and control of Piter and Moscow would secure power with majority of people seeing as new tsardom.

В wrote:My reasoning is, an early white victory would lead to the same type of government that came from febuary revolution, with greater problems and less resources - along with political rivalries amongst the leaders of different white factions and no real consensus on how to govern the country.

In short: a democracy. Sooner or later it would have started working - civil war was a hard and painful lesson.

В wrote:...who would it have been?

Wrangel, no doubt. During his short rule over Crimea he showed himself a very capable ruler. Provided that he could start similar reforms while in control of not some tiny piece of land but all of Russia, he would have enjoyed immense support from the people. He was able and ready to do what bolsheviks could only dream about - win the hearts and minds of the silent peasant majority. In fact, this could be most popular regime Russia ever had.

The Bolshevik electorate, lumpenised workers and soldiers, was tiny compared to huge peasant population. And peasants cared little for red propaganda: for them communism meant only requisitions and more requisitions to feed the ever-hungry cities.

So, Wrangel's rule and "a strong bonapartism with a firm peasant base" could be a very possible (and even desireable) outcome. And mind you, I'm quoting Trotsky here

Agree with Rasputin ( ) here...Wrangel would have formed a conservative pro-peasant constitutional monarchy.
They already had the core of their political ideas formed and they had plenty of talented civilian administrators.
Check out that web site...interesting and summarize well what could have been in Russia if the Whites had won.

http://www.rovs.narod.ru/

Ivan Ilyin was one of their most famous theorician, he was reburied in Moscow with Denikin last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin

Rasputin's Own Bear wrote:The Bolshevik electorate, lumpenised workers and soldiers, was tiny compared to huge peasant population. And peasants cared little for red propaganda: for them communism meant only requisitions and more requisitions to feed the ever-hungry cities.
So, Wrangel's rule and "a strong bonapartism with a firm peasant base" could be a very possible (and even desireable) outcome. And mind you, I'm quoting Trotsky here

The difference between Red and Whites for the peasants, is that they knew the Whites for long and didn't want to be under tsarism rule again (why the coming-back Whites finally destroyed the however welcoming paesant villages too, like the Red destroyed them for the peasants didn't want to be commissarized).
The Reds were new, and illusions about the future could be. I think that was an advantage why the Red terror was more "agreed" than the Whites one (which was however smaller).