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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
Done, but I cannot change the dates, so they are a bit intermingled.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).
В wrote:Well, it definitely is a perception issue, but by time Gorbachev started restructuring, Cold War was going to stayy bloodless.
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).
В wrote:The Bolsheviks were calling themselves Soviets, they won, so indeed it was a Soviet 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'.
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.
В wrote:All revolutionaries were calling themselves 'soviet' no faction had monopoly on the term. All revolutionary factions considered themselves the 'true' soviet.
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?
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.
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.
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. 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:if they were defeated all other factions would be fighting for years to come.
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.
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.
В wrote:...who would it have been?
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
Return to “RUS History club / Discussions historiques sur la Guerre Civile Russe”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests