The hype for the civil war is real. Pretty much everything between France and Japan was a chaotic meltdown for a few years from 1918 to 1921 or so, and it's almost impossible to make sense of it by just reading about any particular country, so I wish there was a narrative account of the whole scope of the situation beyond just Russia, but I know that's asking for a lot. The territory of the Russian Empire should at least cover the bulk of it, though I wish stuff like Hungary vs Romania could be covered like this as well. We need a Noj Rants for every country
Thank you! I agree, the Civil War and surrounding fallout is all extremely complicated yet fascinating. I hope to overview much of it in this series (at least the sociopolitical side of it), and will likely create a standalone video on the White Movement as a whole soon. I have a couple other ideas of strange events during this time, and I could look into a video on the Hungarian Revolution if people are interested, since that had some effect on the situation in Soviet Russia.
I am always amazed to see the complexity of Soviet politics in the early stages of the revolution with actually different political camps ranging from almost normal social democrats to hardline Communists. There were actually different opinions on different topics and even some direct opposition in other matters to the majority approach. It still was highly repressive but compared to the later Soviet Union, especially after Stalins rise, scenes like this right here seem almost incredibly liberal and open minded. Thanks for your incredible videos on these topics.
Thank you for the comment! I agree, the complexicity and pluralism within politics at this time was really interesting. In the next video I'll be introducing even more dimensions, as in addition to the general Left and Right wings of the Communist Party, there were several other factions and axes dividing the Party on specific issues. To see how these factions would have developed in a hypothetical multi-party situation would have been fascinating.
Just wanted to thank you for the kind of videos you’re doing. I was personally doing research on Kerensky, and just finding any information on the Dumas or early Soviet era was nigh impossible. All of your videos seem very well researched, are high quality, and easy to understand. Thanks for the information you’re providing to the internet and keep up the good work!
I generally think your videos are excellent and manage to explain such a complex period in an accessible way. You've inspiried me to try and do the same for somali history from 1910s to the 2000s as its also very hard to get into for some and most just dont bother. Can i request that you do a later video specifally about the books and sources you use for this series? Most of the arguments ive seen in the comments of this series are from people taking issue with your sources and even i would like you to use trotskys "my life" or other Bolshevik sources which give valueable insight at some point since your two primary sources "peoples tragedy" & "mensheiviks after October" are focusing not very much on the specifics of many indivduals in the Bolsheviks Great vids regardless
Thank you! Glad to hear the series inspired you, and I look forward to seeing your videos on Somalia. Sure, I could make a video on sources and research in Soviet history later on. In general I will say that I am not opposed to using Bolshevik works in these videos, and do cite them. The perspectives of Lenin, Trotsky, etc tend to be better known and integrated into secondary sources, whereas some of the perspectives of the minor parties are less common, which is why I have to use "Mensheviks After October" frequently to fill that shortcoming. I have read Trotsky's "My Life" and some of his other works, and actually cited him in some other videos, but the thing is when I cite him a lot of people opposed to Trotsky get upset as well. When it comes to Soviet history, there are going to be people who complain about the sourcing almost no matter what, but ultimately my goal above all else is to be as accurate as possible and use the best sources of information I can find for the job.
@@nojrants thanks for the response and compliments! I think when it comes to such a polarizing topic as pre-stalin ussr that quality will probably be sacrificed when it comes to trying to appease all camps, i think youve done a good job and im still someone who is very positive on lenin and trotsky myself. I'll probably make the somalia series next year and on another channel as i rarely use this one anymore, thanks anyway and keep up the good work
I love your series here! It's one of the best historical RU-vid channels out there. I have noticed that you haven't posted for a month and I hope your doing okay? Perhaps you're taking a break, which is completely understandable. I just hope you haven't burnt yourself out on making this series, as you are making high quality videos and it would be a shame to see the channel abandoned
Thank you, I appreciate the concern. Not to worry, the reason I haven't posted in a while is I've been working on a really large video. It ended up taking way longer than expected, but it's pretty close to finished now and I'm aiming to release it next Friday. After that I should be back with more regular videos, including the 5th Soviet Congress video.
How was the offensive the germans fid to force the bolsheviks to sign peave called again? I have heard it was called the winter march (in reference to how little figthing they did while capturing the territory), but I haven't found reliable sources about it.
It was officially called "Operation Faustschlag", but it's sometimes also nicknamed the "Eleven Days' War" due to its length, or the "Railway War" (Eisenbahnfeldzug), due to how the Germans rapidly captured territory by sending soldiers down the railroads.
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding Are you perhaps thinking of the "Ice March"? That was the name of the Volunteer Army's retreat from the Don in February 1918. It's possible Faustschlag was called the Winter March somewhere, but I don't think I've seen that.
@@nojrants No, I knew that the ice march was the retreat of the whites on the southern front (that was the rethreat that took place after their offensive planned to reached Moscow failed, right?)
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding The Ice March was the retreat after being repulsed from Rostov in February 1918 (at 0:40 in this video). It would become the mythologized "baptism by fire" for the White Movement.
Hi I don't know if you read comments but you're my favorite youtuber atm and basically got me into Russian history, I just finished (and loved) Ronald Grigor Suny's biography of Stalin and I was wondering what further reading you'd reccomend for the 1900-1930ish period, specifically a good biography of Lenin and a book on the Russian civil war, preferably from a more analytical and less narrativized standpoint like Suny takes. I was also wondering about your opinion on Kotkin's biography as a further history on Stalin's life and the rest of the revolution since Suny's cutoff at 1917 leaves me wanting more. Also thanks for the amazing videos!
Hey, thank you so much for the comment! I'm really glad to hear that the videos helped pique your interest in Russian history. Personally I very much enjoyed Kotkin's two volumes (hopefully soon to be three) on Stalin. In addition to providing a good biography on Stalin himself, in my opinion Kotkin gives an immense amount of detail into the events and politics of the time in general, making the books surprisingly helpful for the history of the early Soviet Union beyond just Stalin. For a biography on Lenin, I personally enjoyed Rolf H. W. Theen's "Lenin: Genesis and Development of a Revolutionary". It's a quick read, although admittedly it largely trails off after the Revolution as it's primarily on Lenin's early life, and the book is also pretty old at this point. A more recent and comprehensive work that I thought was good was Robert Service's "Lenin: A Biography" (and plus he has a three volume series on Lenin that came out prior to that). I also recently read (for an uncoming video) "Reconstructing Lenin: An Intellectual Biography" by Tamás Krausz which I'll mention, although this is less a straightforward biography and more discussing the development and legacy of his major ideas over time. Usually my go-to for general details on the early Soviet period is Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy". Particularly I like how it examines the revolutionary period as a connected process from about the 1890s to 1920s, and how it includes the perspectives of a diverse number of everyday people in discussing major events. That might be a good place to start for general history. For a far shorter but good overview, I also usually recommend Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution", if you want just a quick read on the Revolution and first ~15 years after. For good books on the civil war there are a lot of options. In my experience, the pair of books by Peter Kenez ("Civil War in South Russia"), are still held in high esteem regarding the southern half. Another good book is William Chamberlin's "The Russian Revolution, 1918-1921: From the Civil War to the Consolidation of Power". A good, short overview is David Bullock's "The Russian Civil War, 1918-22". Some more niche books on the civil war I enjoyed are Donald Raleigh's "Experiencing Russia's Civil War" (which details the civil war from the perspective of one mostly rural province), Novikova & Bernstein's "An Anti-Bolshevik Alternative" (mostly focusing on the northern towns), and Vladimir Brovkin's "Behind the Front Lines" and "Dear Comrades" (which are about the civil war from the perspective of socialist parties and other minor movements at the time). If you enjoy memoirs, one of my favorites is "Yashka" by Maria Bochkareva. She was a woman who enlisted in the Russian army, became an officer, and witnessed the civil war as it was breaking out, which makes for a very entertaining read. You can also check out David Arans' "How We Lost the Civil War", which is just an annotated bibliography of hundreds of memoirs to find more. If you're curious about any individual topic within that period let me know, as I may have a more specific recommendation. Otherwise I hope that helps haha. And thanks again for the great comment and your support on these videos!
How does the outcome of this vote relate to the “War against the Soviets” video? Was the result of the elections to the Congress already heavily influenced by the Bolshevik violence/suppression/vote-rigging against local opposition-controlled Soviets?
By the time of this election, there was already erosion of election norms in the central provinces (e.g. limiting of recalls, guaranteed seats, disenfranchisement), as well as significant abuse of the uncodified mores of the delegate system (namely a lack of proportionality and the inflation of delegate counts), although it's difficult to quantify just how strong these influences were on the result. What I can say though is that voter suppression and violence significantly ramped up after this election, with most of the outbreaks of violence discussed in the "War Against the Soviets" video occuring just after this (from March to June). Reason being, the ratification of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (and its effects) was one of the main catalysts/final straws for the regional and local soviets, sparking major opposition gains, and thus a heightened interest in cracking down on opposition. As a result, it'll be the 5th Congress that displays the full results of the "War Against the Soviets".
i know nothing about the early days of russia democracy but if all of nojrant videos are even 50% accurate then Lenin was really fuckin sucks at almost everything that he does for his country. thanks nojrant for sharing these info with us. you earned a new subscriber!
Hey Noj anychance on a video about the Besprizornost'? Would love to see you showcase the very progressive and forward idea the Soviets had (Anton Makarenko) despite the crippling conditions and the inability for them to treat the tragedy. I think it would be a good topic to shed light on and to showcase on the ground what life was like and how decimated the country was
Thank you for the suggestion! Sure, I wouldn't be opposed. In general I definitely want to do some videos on cultural topics and developments around the revolutionary era, including the very progressive ideas of some early Soviet citizens and leaders.
This is a complicated question, as there are a lot of different things to keep in mind when looking through sources. In general though, before reading a book you should do brief research on the author/publisher and determine their reputability. Perhaps read a few reviews and see what other experts say about it. Once you start to get deep into a topic, you start to notice the same names come up often, and will start to get a feel for the state of scholarship on the topic. Always ask questions like "who is the author, and why are they writing this?" Keep track of their potential biases, where they get their information from, and why they say what they say. Often a good way to jump into a topic is to determine a book that gives a general overview. Then as you read, notice who the author is citing and read the sources that they cite, in order to go increasingly deeper into the topic. Each speciality has their own techniques and common sources (e.g. if you're a medievalist you may have to rely on medieval chronicles, which have their own quarks and problems). For Soviet studies, this often means Soviet/Russian state archives, newspapers, and memoirs. There's actually a book called "A Researcher's Guide to Sources on Soviet Social History in the 1930s" by Sheila Fitzpatrick and Lynne Viola which can give more specific tips. In general, any type of source can be useful if treated appropriately (contextualized and understood for what it is). If you have a research topic in mind I may be able to give more specific advice or recommendations, but for now I hope that helps!
@@nojrants Many thanks for your precise answer, and that you took the time to make it! Ill read it through.Currently there is no specific research im making, I just found you to be very good in handling sources, and as such I asked.
Best of luck! Another thing I just thought to add: be sure to stay organized. About a year ago I switched to using these two free programs called Zotero and Obsidian, which I definitely recommend. The former is a tool for saving and organizing all your various books, articles, etc, and will automatically generate citations for you, while the latter is a customizeable note-taking program. Both speed up the process of research a lot. I try to read something every day and take notes as I go on important sources. Over the years this has built up, so now when I make these videos I already have annotated versions of some books and can make connections between books easily.
Lots of questions incoming: Do you know any good books on the development of the red guards from its antedecets to the fundation of the red army? How they came to be, how were theh organized, etc. . . Also, do you know if the bolcheviks still engaged in mass work by this point? Are there any writen cronichel on thw regular functions and workings of a soviet before 1917? Like a worker explaining what was talk on a meeting, for example.
A good book to check out for the emergence of the Red Guards is "Red Guards and Workers' Militias in the Russian Revolution" by Rex A. Wade. Allan Wildman also has a two-volume work that might be helpful, called "The End of the Russian Imperial Army". The second volume in particular talks about the early formation of the Red Guards. Yes the Bolsheviks engaged in mass work heavily in this period, spearheaded by the party's growing propaganda department. As for chronicles about the Revolution and the inner-workings of a soviet, one of my favorite accounts is Nikolai Sukhanov's "The Russian Revolution", although it gives more of a top-down view since Sukhanov became a leader in the Soviet Congress. There's a memoir by Nikolai Podviosky called "God 1917 [Year 1917]" which might be helpful for the formation as the Red Army as well, since Podviosky was an early Soviet military leader, although I'm not sure if it's been translated into English. You might also find interesting "A Sentimental Journey" by Viktor Shklovsky, who was a soldiers' deputy to the Petrograd Soviet. Thank you for the questions, I hope that helps!
If possible, could you provide a quick opinion on the recent video by TheFinnishBolshevik? It contradicts what I assume was one of your main sources for this video. keep up the good work.
I haven't seen any video, although I did skim through a transcript/source document that someone sent me, which I believe was from this creator (calling Vladimir Brovkin an "anti-communist propagandist"). As it turns out, I actually talked about this with Dr. Brovkin himself recently and he found it pretty funny. I don't agree with Brovkin on a lot of things, nor would I rely on him (or anyone) as a sole source necessarily (usually in these election videos I'm using his "Mensheviks After October" to catch up on the Menshevik perspective), but the accusations against him here are way over the top. The way in which FinnishBolshevik analyzes and presents information is epistemically flawed, and as such the argument largely falls apart. I could watch the video and explain every last inaccuracy, but at the end of the day I don't think it was intended as a good faith attempt to advance our understanding in the first place. It seems he approached Brovkin with the express purpose of "debunking" him and his personal character, painting him as an "anti-communist" hack regardless of if the claims were accurate or not. There are/were actual anti-communist writers in the world no doubt. But here the accusation is being wielded more to poison the well and dismiss legitimate work and evidence. Usually in these cases the goalposts will expand as needed, such that I don't think FinnishBolshevik would ever be satisfied short of Brovkin parroting the official party line (Brovkin disagees? Must be an anti-communist propagandist. Brovkin uses Soviet sources? Well those were Brezhnev fabrications. He used Bolshevik sources from 1918? Well the author's cousin's babysitter became a Bukharinite traitor, etc). Point is, I don't hold my breath that someone literally calling themselves a "Bolshevik" will be satisfied or amenable to evidence critical of the Bolsheviks. All I can do is continue to critically evaluate each source myself with appropriate skepticism (Brovkin included), and try my best to make the most accurate videos I can make.
Honestly your series came in clutch in trying to find info on how a parliamentary Russia could have worked by using the early Duma elections. (Obviously it would be different but it’s a good enough estimate). Tried using Wikipedia but too cumbersome and poorly written
If they had an official or associated color I'll try to use that (although that no longer works well at this point in the series, since virtually everybody uses red). I'll also consider the general rules of associating certain colors with ideologies (blue for conservatism, green for agrarian parties, etc). Then I adjust as needed to ensure the colors are different enough and somewhat aesthetically pleasing (e.g. making the Mensheviks different shades of red/orange so there's a gradient).
@@rocknrollmilitant I've considered that (as well as editing the Wikipedia election pages in general), but it seems to me like it's difficult to get such things accepted on there. The seat counts for all these early Soviet elections are pretty loose, and Wikipedia tends to not accept seat charts for elections unless the counts are strongly substantiated/agreed upon.
I've never really looked into reading russian history, It seemed too depressing. Now I can get my bleak history in small digestible bites! :p Commenting for the algorithm gods.
Video is a banger! I am just wondering what is your opinion on Antony Beevor’s book on the Russian Revolution, like whether the facts they display are as informational as it gets or it is not the case. Thanks!
Thank you! Unfortunately I haven't read his 2022 book yet, but perhaps I'll give it a read and get back to you. I tend to use Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy" most frequently in these videos, since it has a good amount of information especially on social developments and popular attitudes. Depending on where your interest lies, that might be a good book to check out as well.
Not sure which effect you are referring to, but it's recorded through a fairly standard vocal chain (some compression, eq, etc), and then I add a little reverb and very subtle ADT (automatic double tracking) to add some space.
The video is helpful in showing that difference existed within the Bolshevik party and were discussed. So either: - the Soviet government had a separate peace treaty with Germany and faced intervention from the Russia Empires' former allies to overthrow the government OR - try to continue a disastrous and hated war where there was a threat of total collapse at the front. It is refreshing to hear "Lenin now argued the revolution had to consolidate itself as a means of surviving until the World Revolution". You don't say that Lenin had call for the founding of a new International in 1915 and this happened in 1919. How exactly did Bukharin and the Left Communists expect to "keep pressure on the imperialist camp" 3:08? Lenin's policy was also based on a "sense of duty" to the international working class. The alternative to the 1917 October Revolution was to passively wait for a another attempted coup and counter revolution. (Kornilov, who led the August 1917 coup attempt against the Provisional Government AND the Soviets, is rightly mentioned in this video. The threat had not gone away.) Rosa Luxemburg said “The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities… What is necessary is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescences in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!” [From her pamphlet "The Russian Revolution", first published in 1922.] Once the German High Command realised they faced defeat in WWI they made the decision to allow the SPD to form a government so they could take the blame. Leader of the SPD Friedrich Ebert willingly participated. In October 1918 he told Chancellor Maximilian “I hate the revolution like sin". The SPD had supported the war throughout on the claim of defending the perspective of socialism through parliamentary reform. In November 1918 a rebellion of German sailors against their orders started to spread to a revolution. Luxemburg and her comrade Karl Liebknecht were executed by the Freikorps on the orders of the German Social-Democrats SPD during the 1919 Spartacist Uprising in Germany. German capitalism has learned from the "mistake" of Kerensky and others in not killing Lenin and Trotsky. I am yet to see anyone who condemns the actions of the Bolsheviks who also condemns the slaughter of WWI.
@@jonasastrom7422 My statement was "I am yet to see anyone who condemns the actions of the Bolsheviks who also condemns the slaughter of WWI." I didn't say it hasn't happened but I haven't seen it. Please post the example you know.
@@johnwilsonwsws No your statement is so ridiculous I don't feel the need to look up an example. Like please do elaborate because I have a hard time believing you actually think that
Yeah I'm pretty sure condemning the slaughter of WW1, if not the actions of the Bolsheviks also, is the mainstream, default position. Are there people who champion the slaughter of WW1 in this day and age?
Hi John, thanks again for another detailed comment. I should note I actually mention Lenin's call for a new international in episode five (with the April Theses), and will likely mention it again when it actually occurs in a future video. I of course agree that both sides believed in a sense of duty and internationalism, and when I mention the Left Coms had a particular argument based on duty, it's not to say the other side had no sense of duty themselves. When it comes to these intraparty disagreements, both sides believed in the same broad ideals more or less, but they had disagreement on how best to realize them. In this case, the Left Coms argued it would serve the international proletariat best if they continued to tie up Germany's forces in the east through war, whereas the opposing side argued they could serve better by consolidating a base for the revolution through a peace. You mention the October Revolution, which likewise was a debate around how best to realize their goal, although there the sides were reversed-generally Lenin aligned with the left-wing of the party against the moderate right in launching October, and with the right-wing against the more radical Left Coms in his campaign against revolutionary war. Yes, although not really relevant to the present video, the politics of Germany were also quite interesting at this time, and perhaps I will cover them in a future video. As other users have noted, I think it's fairly easy to condemn the slaughter of WW1, and I doubt there are many critics of the Bolsheviks who wouldn't criticize that war also. Or are you referring specifically to at the time? In which case sure, there were many who tolerated or accepted the war, although I wouldn't say they were enthused about the "slaughter". The Kadet Pavel Milyukov is a good example, as although he was a defencist (stood by Russia insofar as it was "defending itself") and defended the necessity of continued war for Russia, he was quite critical of the Imperial war effort and how the state was going about it. In virtually all the left parties of the revolutionary era (Mensheviks, SRs, etc), there were at least minority wings which entirely condemned the war. As just one example, take Maria Spirdonova (Left SR leader) who personally supported signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, although she later went along with the dominant current of the Left SRs in attacking the Bolsheviks for it (as we'll see next episode); she tended to float between the wings of the party in that she prioritized party unity and such.
If Noj has a million dislikes I am one of them. If he has a 1000 dislikes im still one of them. If he has 1 dislike it is me. If Noj has 0 dislikes it means I have left this world. If the world is against Nojs distortion then I am with the world.
What makes you think this video is biased or propagandist? He covers something never actually discussed in great detail on RU-vid. The internal divisions of the early Soviet regime were present and true. Lenin did twist the rules in his own favour as the uncompromising idealist that he was. He, alongside his inner circle, were foolish utopists who actually believed that every worker was oppressed and that every capitalist was a ruthless enslaver. They did believe that every worker produced war equipment out of fear and desperation, not genuine imperialist nationalism (which was the case for most). The reason why Germany got sweeped by revolution isn't because of an international socialist idea, but simply because the British had starved the German populace into violance. The reason why the Army refused to fight on the western front isn't because of a revolutionary sentiment to overthrow the aristocrats, but because Uncle Sam had smashed Trench Guns in their heads for the last few months and they became extremely exhausted. Had Germany handled the blockade better, they might've won. Lenin was sent to Russia by the Germans, hoping he would destabilise it so much that they would win on the Eastern Front, which he did, then sign a peace with them. This is why they got mad at the Soviets dragging their feet at Brest-Litovsk and smashed into the Soviet heartland. In his uncompromising mind, he thought he could cheat his own masters.
@@iGamezRo Wow, now I see, Lenin was an idiot! So according to you: Revolutions can either be for ideals (rarely) or for material want/extreme exhaustion (more commonly). However, worker in arms factories produced weapons for those ideals (commonly) or for pay (rarely). Never mind the possibility of BOTH being true, I can tell you most VOLUNTARY SOLDIERS wouldn't do it out of patriotism alone. Also very impressive exercise in impartiality, Mr. 'foolish utopists', 'uncompromising idealists'. You really show an unbiased, unpropagandized view.
