PugJesusParty like it's 1922
https://piefed.social/c/historymemes/p/1829077/party-like-it-s-1922
SatansMaggotyCumFartLow estimates are nine million dead and the high estimates are that he killed thirty million of his citizens.
Oh never mind Stalin was nine to thirty million dead Lenin was only four to fourteen million.
I keep confusing these mass murdering communist heads of state.
His number is forty to seventy million dead.
High score so far.
MinnesotaGoddamdid someone mention Deng Xiaoping?
But Lenin has a fancy sarcophagus so he gets a free pass.
It’s not that fancy though. I found it deeply unimpressive honestly.
It’s ironic that you say “sarcophagus” because the only reason Lenin was mummified was that King Tut’s tomb had been discovered just before his death. Pravda had covered the discovery extensively and the Bolsheviks decided to capitalize on Tut’s popularity by preserving Lenin’s corpse – in hilariously amateurish fashion, since mummification was not something regularly done in Russia.
wonderingwandererPsh, Ho Chi Minh’s is better
Bro, I mix them up too. Don’t worry. I know that Lenin came first and that he didn’t want Stalin to take over after him because he was too radical or something. But saying no to Stalin is like saying no to Putin. The word doesn’t exist to them. But when it comes to numbers and statistics of who did what, I fuck it up constantly. I’m also not at all super knowledgeable about Russian history. Had a brief obsession with the Romanov dynasty, which is its own can of fucked up worms, but when it comes to communism, it’s just so uniquely awful and demotivating to hear and read about that I tune out. Communism to my brain, is the gray apartment blocks where everything looks the same and there is no life and beauty anywhere.
real_squidsNitpicking but Gulag is singular and it’s the division in control of the camps, where you’d be sent. It’s like saying to the Pentagon with you
What are you referencing? Even in the most anti communist historical interpretations the vast amount of deaths are usually attributed to Stalin, not Lenin.
If we’re talking about the holodomor… That began in 1932, roughly 8 years after Lenin had already died.
I’m not claiming that there aren’t any valid criticisms of the Russian revolution, however I think attributing all that criticism to Lenin is just historically inaccurate.
We also have to view history within the context of their own time when evaluating things like social morality. Was the Soviet revolution devoid of crimes against humanity, no. But I think it would be hard to argue that it wasn’t a vast improvement compared to the literal tyrannical rule of the Romanov family.
The minute Lenin took power there was a food crisis in Russia and arranged for every scrap of grain taken from Ukraine. A series events unfolded over the coming years that would ultimately lead to the Holodomor under Stalin much later. It’s a long and complex tale that I’m sure some believe is fake news.
The Russian famine of 1921 was largely due to a drought combined with the aftermath of WW1 and the Russian revolution. You could argue that Lenin’s policies didn’t effectively combat the famine, but I think it would be hard to argue that he instigated it. Also, I think you are misremembering the timeline of the soviet’s impact on Ukraine.
JensSpahnpastaLenin is responsible for a huge amount of deaths during the revolution, during the civil war and after. This whole story of “Lenin was good and then Stalin corrupted the revolution” is actually rooted in the propaganda of Khrushchevs destalinisation. But if you read a good biography of Lenin, you will find out that was totally fine with all the political murders
Lenin is responsible for a huge amount of deaths during the revolution, during the civil war and after
I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. Some kind of revolution was going to happen in Russia, and just reducing all the blame on Lenin ignores the context of the actual fractious nature of the revolution.
This whole story of “Lenin was good and then Stalin corrupted the revolution” is actually rooted in the propaganda of Khrushchevs destalinisation.
Again, I didn’t say he was a nice guy. My claim was that it’s straight up ahistorical to claim he murdered 9 million people.
if you read a good biography of Lenin, you will find out that was totally fine with all the political murders
What is a revolution if not a collection of political murders? Again, we have to view the revolution with context and measure them against their contemporaries. It’s not as if the revolution happened to a ruling government that was unfamiliar with political murders themselves.
I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. Some kind of revolution was going to happen in Russia, and just reducing all the blame on Lenin ignores the context of the actual fractious nature of the revolution.
Would you like to remind me what kind of mass violence there was between February and October in 1917
It’s not as if the revolution happened to a ruling government that was unfamiliar with political murders themselves.
Would you like to remind me what provisional government and elected legislature the Bolsheviks actually performed their revolution against?
Would you like to remind me what kind of mass violence there was between February and October in 1917
My claim didn’t say that the Bolsheviks didn’t engage in mass violence… Are you claiming that the Russian revolution can be boiled down to between February and October in 1917?
Would you like to remind me what provisional government and elected legislature the Bolsheviks actually performed their revolution against?
I was more referring to the Romanov history of utilizing secret police to do horrific amounts of violence.
My claim didn’t say that the Bolsheviks didn’t engage in mass violence….. Are you claiming that the Russian revolution can be boiled down to between February and October in 1917?
No, your claim was that it wasn’t the Bolsheviks who caused mass violence, despite the Bolsheviks being the entirely-unprompted trigger for the actual civil war after Russians had seemed content to decide things through democratic elections.
I was more referring to the Romanov history of utilizing secret police to do horrific amounts of violence.
Okay, but the problem is that the Bolsheviks didn’t revolt against the Tsar, but against the provisional government.
No, your claim was that it wasn’t the Bolsheviks who caused mass violence, despite the Bolsheviks being the entirely-unprompted trigger for the actual civil war after Russians had seemed content to decide things through democratic elections.
"I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. "
Okay, but the problem is that the Bolsheviks didn’t revolt against the Tsar, but against the provisional government.
The Bolsheviks anger didn’t build in a vacuum, nor did it happen in 6 odd months the provisional government exists. That’s ignoring over a hundred years of context.
“I would say that the Romanov are the party who are largely responsible for the deaths during the revolution. "
Yeah. Again, would you like to remind me what power the Romanovs had when the Bolsheviks decided to start a civil war against a democratic government?
When the Bolsheviks triggered the civil war, what was the Romanov role in that? Existing while under house arrest?
The Bolsheviks anger didn’t build in a vacuum, nor did it happen in 6 odd months the provisional government exists. That’s ignoring over a hundred years of context.
I’m sure you have GREAT context for rebelling against a government that was born in a revolution and existed for a few months before the Bolsheviks decided they preferred to take power by force and dismiss democratically elected socialist legislators.
Yeah. Again, would you like to remind me what power the Romanovs had when the Bolsheviks decided to start a civil war against a democratic government?
Again… 6 months does not wipe away over a hundred years of history. The general public’s lives did not significantly improve in less than a year.
Are you arguing that the Romanov family are completely disconnected from the Bolsheviks revolution?
what was the Romanov role in that? Existing while under house arrest?
Creating the environment in which it happened…?
I’m sure you have GREAT context for rebelling against a government that was born in a revolution and existed for a few months before the Bolsheviks decided they preferred to take power by force and dismiss democratically elected socialist legislators.
Why did the Bolsheviks exist in the first place? How did they gather soo much support in such a small amount of time? Why were people still so angry…?
Again….. 6 months does not wipe away over a hundred years of history. The general public’s lives did not significantly improve in less than a year.
Oh, of course, thus making it completely understandable to coup a democratic government and start a civil war.
Are you arguing that the Romanov family are completely disconnected from the Bolsheviks revolution?
I’m arguing that the Bolshevik decision to start a civil fucking war with the government which replaced the Romanovs has very fucking little to do with the Romanovs, yes.
Why did the Bolsheviks exist in the first place?
Because they believed in a narrow vanguard party that could be easily controlled by a small elite which would TOTALLY work for the people?
How did they gather soo much support in such a small amount of time?
By vague platitudes and the promise of power to the Soviets; a promise they immediately reneged on?
Why were people still so angry….?
Because their lives hadn’t improved in six months, as you said?
, of course, thus making it completely understandable to coup a democratic government and start a civil war.
When did I claim it was?
arguing that the Bolshevik decision to start a civil fucking war with the government which replaced the Romanovs has very fucking little to do with the Romanovs, yes.
I think that’s a reductionist view of the times.
Because they believed in a narrow vanguard party that could be easily controlled by a small elite which would TOTALLY work for the people?
They didn’t majic their way into power… They had an awful lot of miserable people with generations of anger behind them. Why did those people support the Bolsheviks?
I don’t really think we’re getting anywhere, especially when you are busy tilting at strawman arguments. I never said I supported the Bolsheviks revolution against the provincial government, just that I understand how it could happen, and that the environment created by generations of Romanov rule is largely to blame.
The simple fact that you aren’t willing to acknowledge that is too far of a stretch for me to really validate engaging with you in any kind of reasonable debate.
Have a good one.
Maybe just do not try to downplay soviet crimes? They were not nice guys, they murdered a lot ot people and we really should not discuss about how many millions were slaughtered. Lenin was not a good man.
Churchill starved 4 million Bengali to death.
And the high estimates of excessive deaths in British occupied India is 100 mil?
So because British imperialism was bad, mass death in the Soviet Union was okay?
It seems like you’re learning the wrong lessons from history…
It’s that same style whataboutism that Trumpers love to do: “what about Biden?” It’s fucking annoying and I hate Joe Biden. When you’re only argument is pointing to what someone else did, you don’t really have an argument.
MulligrubsPrimus~ “You shot my wife! You bastard”
Secundus~ “But she murdered an entire city block, she’s a monster!”
Primus~ “Whataboutism! You are just like a Trumper.”
Secundus~ “You got me, I apologize.”
Yes, it is forgotten in the history books nowadays, but the real ones remember: The soviets mass-murdered their own people in order to punish Churchill.
So because British imperialism was bad, mass death in the Soviet Union was okay
If that’s what you read then your reading comprehency is just wow.
If that’s not what you were suggesting, then how was it relevant to this thread?
Cyrus DraegurSounds like we all agree that IMPERIALISM BAD. Glad that’s been cleared up
Cool. The first one still happened.