Antony Beevor Breaks Down the Russian Revolution of 1917 

Actually, he gave them all of the above. They were not lies as Beevor contends. That's why the Russian workers fought so vigorously in defense of their revolution against the "democratic" White Movement and their British/Western sponsors.

@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 these are the first claims I've heard about Lenin's acts or policies following the revolution. No one talks about that here, they skip directly to Stalin.

@patrickstjean7646 "skip directly to Stalin" Another piece of evidence that things are not always as simplistic as scholars like Beevor make them out to be when history is not on their side. Two books I can recommend that give the most transparent version of the Russian ruling are The Days That Shook the World by John Reed and The Bolsheviks Come to Power by Alexander Rabinowitch. Christopher Hill, who wrote an outstanding book on the English Revolution, may have written something too.

@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 Reed was a propagandist, who is buried in the Kremlin. Rabinowitch all but says anyone who opposed Lenin deserved to be shot. His section on the suppression of the democratic Constituent Assembly is specially bad. Could you get a less repulsive avatar?

@HooDatDonDar Reed was a witness to the Revolution from A to Z. He was proven right on WWI prior. Rabinowitch was right on the Constituent Assembly. It was no longer a legitimate institution that served the masses. All the parties save for the Bolsheviks were going to continue the war and opposed Soviet power to the working class. If the German Communists had done the same with the Reichstag, we wouldn't have gotten Hitler.

Which is mentioned in the video.

@@lavrentivs9891 yes, but the title is misleading

@@fredjohnson9833 Why is the title misleading?

@@christopherpetergoodman8994 it looks like an they changed the title. Originally the video was called "how Lenin overthrew the Tsar," which would have been inaccurate

quite so, which makes Lenin's revolution a coup d'Etat ´.

And another one is The Great Fight for Civilization.

I haven't read any book by Antony Beevor that I didn't like.

I agree. I've read four of Beevor's books, but it's pretty clear that Stalingrad stands above the rest of his. That's his magnum opus.@@josephglatz25

That was a great book I read it twice!

just western propaganda

He is a charlatan who writes for an American readership.

Are you kidding he is one of the worst he is rather writer especially on WW2 themes. There are a lot of propaganda in his books and articles

@@ruslankbr5243 such as?

@@ruslankbr5243 I like Stephen Kotkin myself. He's the walking Library of Alexandria about Soviet Russia.

@@eamonwright7488 but he has political agenda too, this became obvious during last years when he blaming only Russia in military expansion totally ignoring that USA provoked this conflict for decades beginning from lie to Gorbachev about NATO expansion. I think historian or expert should explain problem from all points of view and must not became a mainstream voice.

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

@@DmitryTihomirow Do you honestly believe that this is my first exposure to history? I have been reading history for over fifty years. Also, and more importantly, I have known people who have survived Communist Labor Camps. I have also met people who escaped E. Germany while being shot at. I need no sermon about the joys of Communism.

Methinks a major liability for Russia is it is simply too big area-wise

Very interesting.....

We're experiencing something similar now, in the States, where 40% of the people root for putin...insanity R them.

Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution.

Democrats

Based

They’ll be worth a fortune in 50 years

@@joebrown2661 Their value will jump when sir Beevor passes away.

Definitely

Stalingrad is a superb history.

Beevor is a hack.

Примитив.

For you, Anthony Beevor is a fantastic historian, but for us he is a liar. Для вас Энтони Бивор - фантастический историк, а для нас - лжец.

Ohhh! Get you.. 🤣🤣🤣👋

The title doesn’t mention Lenin

@@madswansfan1 it did.

@@charlottehardy822 did they change it?

@@madswansfan1 seems so.

It will be mostly lies that you are listening to. Read Winston Churchill's 1920 article "Zionism vs Bolshevism." Have a look at the British white paper Russia No. 1 1920. Even British MPs got the censored version up until the 1990s.

Expensive

I am too.

Yep, me too. Beevor’s books are always a must.

I keep falling asleep to the audiobook of it by accident (not at all boring, it's just what I do) and having awful nightmares due to the appalling events of the civil war recounted

well said, Schwein Hund :)

Let's hope he never mentions the Jews then and he's home free!

@@DaveSCameron he does indeed mention the jews in the book. But what is your point?

He d top notch

He is a falsifier of history, in spacial of Russia and Spain., British Empire goal has been always to destroy the other civilizations of Europe like the Catholic and the Orthodox, and this guy is just one more cog in the war machine of the protestant British Empire

@@amcespana2150 That's a little strong Sir, perhaps there's been some egos that have played things up but where Beevor is concerned he's simply inconsistent and gets mixed up, he's not the world's propagandist for Perfidious Albion! 🤣 🤣

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

You can choose to be a landlord, you cannot choose to be a slav or a jew... I don't see where's the genocide

De Niro scum sucking enemy of America, Beevor not so much

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

That law only applied to upper class women. The Bolsheviks gave all women the vote.

@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 so? Denmark was first.

@@HooDatDonDar It doesn't count unless all get the vote.

@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917 drivel

Danish women achieved it in 1915

I agree. Nicholas was probably not the most competent leader, but his administration was another story. The Czar was eventually pushed to one side and replaced by the Kerensky government, a structure which the Czar put in place. Lenin overthrew a pseudo parliamentary government under Kerensky, not the Czar. Perhaps the biggest issue with Kerensky was he wanted to continue the war, if Kerensky made peace with the Central powers and Lenin would have had little chance of succeeded in his revolution.

As Leon Trotsky said: "The revolution is not made by hungry people, but by well-fed people who have not been fed for one day".

@@lox000zavr Это верно и мудро - True and Wise words.

The Tsar completely messed up WW 1

No it was a revulsion funded by Wall Street crooks.

They didn't financed him but the Emperor allowed and supported the transport of Lenin via train through Germany. Without that Lenin might never could have left his exile in Switzerland.

The U.S. practically founded & trained Al Qaeda to fight the Russkis in Afghanistan. All actions have reactions. Many have undesired consequences.

New York City and London Jewish financiers (Schiff, Warburg, Rothschild, etc) heavily funded Lev Bronstein (Leon Trotsky, who was originally a Menshevik) and the Bolsheviks. Lenin was more of a figurehead, and while the Germans facilitated Lenin back into Russia, the German state was pretty much destitute by 1916, and it was German Jews living abroad like Schiff and Warburg that bankrolled the operations. Why do you think a supposed "Russian peasant revolutionary" was in New York City for 3 months in 1917 riding around in expensive carriages and eating at the finest restaurants? Think about that for a moment. People seem to forget that there was a SERIOUS rivalry and hatred between Orthodox Christian Russia and Talmudic Judaism that not only goes back to the 1600's (I could even reference Gabriel Of Bialystok here from 1690), but can actually be traced back 2,000 years (Orthodox Christianity didn't officially exist until the schisms with the Roman Catholic's in the 11th century). It's no accident that one of Marxism's and every communist movement's main platform is the abolishment of religion (especially Christianity) and replace it with state atheism, not to mention replacing God and family with the state and its subjects. Whether or not the fact that Karl Marx himself is the descendant of many generations of Talmudic Rabbi's (starting with his grandfather Mordecai and quite possibly linking all the way to Rashi himself) is significant or just coincidence is up to the individual to decide. The ambitions of the Rothschilds and Great Britain to form a united European federation (with the Rothschilds as the central bank of course) was quite prevalent in the 1800's, with Tsar Alexander II (and later Alexander III) heavily resisting the idea (and others like Von Bismark as well), and some say that Great Britain's wars against Russia, including the 1850's Crimean War and even their involvement in the 1905 Russo/Japan war and the internal revolutions there, were linked to this. Russia was primarily simple rural family owned farms and farmers who were avid Orthodox Christians, and they had little connection to the Tsar or Russian government (other than paying the collectors when they came around). When the Bolsheviks took over the cities, most of rural Russia didn't even know about it for months, and when the Civil War hit, and then the Cheka and NKVD started coming around, it was an absolute nightmare and a disaster for them and the country.

​@@robertsansone1680 the us also funded the soviets Trotsky was in New York,Ford was the most read author in the ussr even Stalin loved and said wonderful things about It

Germany didn't want the war in the first place, only started mobilising in response to Russian mobilisation. The whole thing was a terrible mistake and the world is still suffering from its aftermath.

Beevor is great. This interviewer is a bit of a dolt.

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

He may be a splendid person who has read a great deal but what he says isn't necessarily true. Deliberately avoiding the subject? The communist takeover attempt failed at about 1918 in various countries so we should automatically think of an international attempt. In several of those countries they didn't even have a despot ruling but an elected government yet the same tribal soviets committed the same acts in many states across europe. Germany, hungary etc. The 1848 "libreral democratic" revolutions in europe started a month after Marx released his manifesto so the roots of this international conspiracy go back further. The international bankers sponsored Marx, the russo japanese war, and the revolutions. Anyone have any idea why did they do that? What were theyy aiming at? Trocky and Lenin both brought vast amounts of money from wall street and switzerland. Old and new "testaments", communism, socialism, liberal deocracy, islam, cultural marxism etc.... what do they have in common? Try to put the puzzle together.

@SHUTEYECINEMA So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey And these have smaller yet to bite 'em And so proceed ad infinitum

@SHUTEYECINEMA bulgakov despised Communism.

@SHUTEYECINEMA i guess that his books were banned because he loved communism so much :))) tankies are so stupid.

@SHUTEYECINEMA I was born in the USSR. It was a shithole.

A.J.P. Taylor seems to have been too fond of catch-phrases, no doubt on the crucial need in TV programs to catch the attention of the audience asap. It reduces history to a "reductio ad absurdum".

Well, their overreliance on horses also made them a Mickey Mouse army.

@@robertlevine2827 I thought that horses were a main if not the main source of transports well into the period of WW2…no? …though I wouldn’t have thought by the end once all the factories were whirring….

@@markhughes7927 Not into WW2, but actually they were somewhat important in WW1--I was exaggerating for comic effect.

Well, Lenin was born in a society that had only just abolished serfdom and where maybe 80% of common people in the countryside were pretty much illiterate. The differences tied to class were huge and modern industrailization was only just arriving when he was a kid. As someone put it, he's not a boyscout or a democrat, but (I would add) he had a fairly good ability to realistically analyze the challenges facing Russia at the time and in the future. Definitely one of the leading tacticians and strategists of the socialist left of Russia in the early 20th century. I don't admire a lot of his methods, but he did manage to bring the resources of Russia into play for ordinary people in a way that none of the tsars in his lifetime would have been able to achieve. Many western historians and pundits just take it for granted that there was an open road towards a stable,. peaceful "British-style democracy" in Russia around 1917, and then blame Lenin for wrecking that path, but that's really not a safe assumption to make at all.

Lenin was still a rogue, and a despicable one at that!

@@bayerischman Yeah, he wasn't picky about political methods, but the same can be said (to a degree) about many famous "great men" in history, even some of the founding fathers of America or Rome.

@@louise_rose If it had not been for German Imperial Intelligence and The High Command he would have been nowhere.The Kaiser distrusted him,and was against the plan fearing the future. He was right,Ludendorf was one of the plans chief architects(a lunatic prone to fits) Germany still lost the war,and the plan plunged Europe into chaos !

That is how all of history works

I didn't even know there were any Australians in Russia then. Who were they fighting with?

@@hiramhackenbacker9096 Cpl Arthur Sullivan VC and Sgt Samuel Pearse VC. They were part of ~150 Australians who remained in England after the Armistice and signed up for the North Russia Relief Force, fighting against the Bolsheviks. They served in the 45th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, wearing Australian uniform, and were awarded the VC in separate actions in Russia in 1919. That's all I know, like I said there is very little written.

@@ray.shoesmith thanks. That's very interesting and worth some research you would think.

Leave it to Beevor 😂

I think he's a bit shit

@@dougyohooglefrogtownrovers9017 LOL

@@casperdog777 he touched my balls and missgrndered me

Absolutely an amazing author

And the Three Johns, Islington. On the 'must visit' list

It is amazing that you know enough to catch that small mistake. Well done!

Beevor´s book about it is probably really good, didn´t read it though. I recommend Stalin´s biography by Stephen Kotkin, it´s a really good book.

@@patbrown911 thank you!

Revolutionary Russia by Orlando Figes

Watch Juri Lina's doc, The synagogue of Satan, he,LL put you right, 👹💰💸🤮

Trotski's history of the revolution

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

@@DmitryTihomirowThe Communists smuggled Socialism and continued Feudalist dictatorship only replacing aristocracy with party members.

@@cezarstefanseghjucan, first, where did the Communists smuggle socialism into? Secondly, feudalism is a social system based on the feudal lords' ownership of land and other means of production. The peasants working on this land are in serfdom from the feudal lord. Under feudalism, there is a strict division into estates, and a person cannot move from one estate to another. A feudal lord will never become a peasant, and a serf peasant will never be able to become a feudal lord. The peasant's children will also remain peasants. There are no social elevators. But under socialism, there are no classes and estates, social elevators work and anyone can make any career. For example, in the 20-50 years of the 20th century, the profession of a pilot was considered elite. Therefore, during the Second World War, almost all pilots of the Luftwaffe and allied countries (except the USSR) were either representatives of noble families or sons of rich bourgeois. But the Soviet aces are almost 100% the children of workers and peasants. For example, fighter pilot Hero of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian Ivan Kozhedub, is the son of a poor landless and horseless peasant. From the age of 7, he worked as a farmhand for his rich neighbor, kulak. The Soviet government gave Ivan's father land and a horse, and Ivan was able to stop working for a rich man, went to school, and then graduated from flight school and became a fighter pilot, a hero, the elite of the state. The first cosmonaut of the Earth Yuri Gagarin is the son of a peasant, graduated from a vocational school with a degree in milling and worked at a factory. The first female cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova is also from a peasant family, she worked as a weaver in a factory. Stalin is the son of a shoemaker, Khrushchev, Gorbachev are the children of peasants, Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin are the children of workers. You don't understand the topic. Why are you writing nonsense? First, study the issue more deeply before expressing your opinion.

@@cezarstefanseghjucan, во-первых, куда коммунисты протащили социализм контрабандой? Во-вторых, феодализм - это социальная система, основанная на собственности феодалов на землю и другие средства производства. Крестьяне, работающие на этой земле, находятся в крепостной зависимости от феодала. При феодализме существует жёсткое разделение на сословия, и человек не может перейти из одного сословия в другое. Феодал никогда не станет крестьянином, а крепостной крестьянин никогда не сможет стать феодалом. Дети крестьянина также останутся крестьянами. Социальных лифтов нет. А при социализме нет классов и сословий, работают социальные лифты и любой может сделать любую карьеру. Например, в 20-50 годы 20 века профессия лётчика считалась элитарной. Поэтому во время Второй мировой войны почти все пилоты люфтваффе и стран-союзников (кроме СССР) были либо представителями знатных семей, либо сыновьями богатых буржуа. А советские асы - это почти 100% дети рабочих и крестьян. Например летчик-истребитель Герой Советского Союза украинец Иван Кожедуб - сын бедного безземельного и безлошадного крестьянина. С 7 лет он работал батраком на своего богатого соседа-кулака. Советская власть дала отцу Ивана землю и лошадь, а Иван смог перестать работать на богача, пошёл учиться в школу, а потом окончил лётное училище и стал лётчиком-истребителем, героем, элитой государства. Первый космонавт Земли Юрий Гагарин - сын крестьянина, окончил профессиональное училище по специальности фрезеровщик и работал на заводе. Первая женщина-космонавт Валентина Терешкова тоже из крестьянской семьи, она работала ткачихой на фабрике. Сталин - сын сапожника, Хрущев, Горбачев - дети крестьян, Брежнев, Ельцин, Путин - дети рабочих. Вы не разбираетесь в теме. Зачем вы пишете чепуху? Сначала поглубже изучите вопрос, прежде, чем высказывать своё мнение.

@@DmitryTihomirow The commoner had it worse in Communist Russia than under Capitalist USA. All those people complied with party politics are were some of the few people given the chance while the rest waited for food and gas in queues since early morning. Communism wasn’t for everyone, it toppled because it failed to offer comfort to the many and downtrodden. It was a party-first policy that exploited the working class. Communism was never actual Socialism. You nonsense is objectively wrong.

Normalny.

That’s the craziest comment I’ve read in months

If you knew Russian and had access to different points of view, then you would not admire Beevor so much. You would doubt a lot of what he says. He puts noodles on the ears of people who do not have the opportunity to know the opposite opinion. Если бы вы владели русским языком и имели доступ к разным точкам зрения, то вы бы так не восхищались Бивором. Вы бы усомнились во многом, что он говорит. Он вешает лапшу на уши людям, которые не имеют возможности знать противоположное мнение.

@@DmitryTihomirow yeah ok

i believe the major educational institutions in russia were via the church, which only accepted the elite aristocracy to be educated.

Don't worry, some middle class white guy told me it wasn't real communism.

@John Penner in the tsarist Russia, there was a prosecution of non - ortodox-christians and many flew to America even that time. For example, in Canada there was a sect called Molocane, from Russia. People like to put all sins on Bolsheviks. Things are more complex here....

Hear! Hear! My father and mom’s parents experienced the same thing. Ended up in Riga for a year then emigrated to Canada. These damn politician and Marxists have no idea what they are doing. It’s just always about power and control - no matter what the device used.

@@saccount-z3 it is just your opinion, if you feel better with it, then there is no point to bring facts and history.

@@ludmilaivanova1603 thanks for trying to run interference and make false equivalences, Ludmila. We appreciate your status as an evil, hate-filled, Marxist criminal.

The reign of the Tsars was just as bloody and brutal. As far as Russian history is concerned, Lenin was nothing new.

Soviet people who grew up in 20s and 30s were willing to lay down their lives en masse during WW2 to protect their homeland. That should tell you everything you need to know about what they thought of the regime

​​@@dirremoire You spoke bullshit. Lenin kill more people in one day than the infamous interior minister Stolypin did his entire career.

​@@dirremoire No, it wasnt. Russian monarchy wasn't that special compared to European monarchies , and in many cases was even softer. Dissidents speaking against government were exiled to Siberia...where they were free to do almost anything almost without any control or oppression.what happened to dissidents in England? France? Spain? Austria? It's intellectual laziness to project Soviet and modern Russian qualities into Russian history as a whole.

Has blood flowed in Russia for many, many decades?! What decades? Are you crazy? What are you raving about? Кровь лилась в России много-много десятилетий?! Каких десятилетий? Вы сошли с ума? О чём вы бредите?

It was very clear to (most of) the Bolsheviks that the expected World Revolution had failed well before Lenin died. The failure of the Communists in Germany and Hungary to keep their revolutions going, the failure to overcome Poland, and other events made it plain that the world - or at least the industrialized Western countries - were not about to go Marxist. In fact, Stalin championed the concept of "Socialism in One Country" which essentially recognized that it was going to be a somewhat longer struggle to bring the "gift" of Communism to the whole world so that the Soviet Union needed to proceed accordingly.

Boycotted by countries because he was trying to export revolution to them. He was also an advocate of class genocide and countless people died under his watch.

I am not sure it's ignorant or arrogant, it's a good question to ask and one people should ask more often. There is another reason why a government would enforce things, and it's if they are working for human nature and people aren't, and that was of course his view. It's certainly the Marxist view that communism is according to human nature while capitalism is not, or only for a few. Also "human nature" in and of itself is about commonness. So strictly speaking a government that would promote that would in fact stamp out uniqueness when it goes against that nature and that's what all governments will do. It's why they are there. So it's a good question to ask, about that nature, freedom for what? is more challenging than it looks. Basically your answer is already made, which is the individual, but that's because you believe it is human nature to be individualistic, which is contradictory. But let's say it would be possible, then it means no government could exist, or would exist, because it's the only way to be free of everything as an individual. The only free individual is the lone individual ultimately, as soon as he is in society, he is not free, only free to accept that society at best. I don't know anybody that actually promotes this, except one historical person, everybody wants to be protected from other's freedom even the most staunch individualists, so I think it's a good question. At least it's necessary to actually mean anything, because just saying "freedom" is meaningless or just a sociopath type of thinking.

@@OneLine122 Freedom to me means freedom from intrusive government. Ayn Rand understood this.

Freedom from your sort, Vlad.

@@martha3225 As if Corporate Capitalism isn't intrusive and doesn't (essentially) control governments......

Porfirio Diaz was, essentially, a totalitarian in Mexico long before Lenin, and of course Mexico began it's revolution, against Diaz as it happened, in 1910, so several years before the Russian Revolution.

The revolution happened in February of 1917. The Bolsheviks were just socialist gangsters who launched a coup, seized the reins of power and murdered anyone who might resist them. Also, Lenin had destroyed the democratic soviets by 1921. Calling it a "soviet revolution" is like claiming the National Socialists led a pro-Jewish uprising.

Not to mention the number of dead people it produced.

I presume the genocide in this case was just a footnote. Communist and Nazi artwork is monstrous in their stylized depictions of the imaginary and propagandized struggle between “classes”. I find it all anathema to good taste and abhorrent to the most valuable qualities of the human soul. They are soulless, mechanistic and of poor esthetic quality. Balance the art against the 100 million cadavers that communism is categorically responsible for.

As for "the artwork it produced," do you mean the art produced in the early years (Constructivism, etc.) or that beginning around 1928/30 (Social Realism)?

1. In Soviet Russia hair has you! 2. In Soviet Russia housewives near you! 3. In Soviet Russia, revolution takes over you!

GO. SEE. AN. EYE. DOCTOR.

Good catch!

Well let's face it, the academic level that seems to predominate nowadays is pretty abysmal. Ok, so it wasn't aimed at the serious scholar level, more for the current crop of university graduates and internet couch surfers.

Putin's popularity is much higher rating than Joe Biden's in the US.

That’s an absurd comparison

well the question is what happens after he dies

The Jesuits make a quite similar claim....