Comments on: A trip back in time: Bakhtiar and the Revolution (Part II)

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:23:55 +0000

To armchair pessimist:
Rumors of pro-German sympaties of Czar’s spouse were widespread, but they were only rumors. And there was growing opposition to incompetence of Nikolay II and his small clique in practically all circles of society, from liberals to monarchists, and in military too. These were generals in Central Headquarters who insisted on abdication of Nikolay. At the end of war Czar and his regime became very unpopular, they lost all public support. War casualties were awfull, discipline in troops ruined. In one day regime collapsed, having no defenders.
But Provisional Government and its leader Kerensky were nationalists, and, with their strong pro-British sympaties, tried to keep front and even organize offensive. Their fatal error was fear of right wing conspiracy and underestimation of ultra-left menace. One battalion would be sufficient to quell Red Guard Bolshevik mutiny, but there was none!

By: nyomythus

nyomythus — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:59:38 +0000

Aside A New Blogger

By: jgr

jgr — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:53:47 +0000

In the time of turmoil that must follow the Democrats achieving political majority (2006/later), can anyone see a slightly similar situation to Russia/1917 developing?

That is, the Left will shut down/change the war on terror posthaste once it has gained majority power, which will see the conflict explode.

During the calamities that follow, the Left will seize more power, ostensibly to solve that ruin it will blame on Bush. The Dems will be free to rally a shattered country to their goals.

Just speculation from your discussions here.
Still it is a ONE political explanation for the Left’s strange tolerance of the threat of Islamic fascism.

By: armchair pessimist

armchair pessimist — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:45:01 +0000

Sergey,

Double-thanks!

Am I correct that the immediate cause of the Romanov’s fall was the defection of the Russian elites, who believed the Czar’s government was too corrupt and incompetent to fight the war to victory?
More specifically, wasn’t it widely believed that the Czarina plotted to make a separate peace with the Germans? Was this ever verified?

Certainly it was the obstinate prosecution by these good ‘liberals’ of a bloody and pointless war that lead to their prompt overthrow in the October revolution. A cautionary note to us all, I think.

Speaking from the vantage point of nearly 100 years later, I’d have to comment that if Czarina really did try to take Russia out of the war, then the only people in all Russia who knew what in hell they were doing were the monster Lenin and the” imbecile” royal family.

But I suppose we’ll never know the answer to that one.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:06:46 +0000

Sergey,
Thanks for the correction on Romanov and Kerensky.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:59:42 +0000

As our archives show, Kornilov did not attempted coup-de-etat. He simply wanted to replace non-reliable troops and deserters by his own, still loyal to discipline and personally to him. But Kornilov was very popular in military circles, and leftist liberal Kerensky was not. And Kerensky became paranoid about wast right-wing conspiracy and accused Kornilov in mutiny. It was a fatal blunder, just as his refusal to arrest Lenin and Trotzky.

By: Senescent Wasp

Senescent Wasp — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:36:10 +0000

Sergey, I had an opportunity to ask Mr. Kerensky a similar question at a short colloquium given at Stanford in the early 60's. What we then received was his personal timeline. I now longer have my notes but I should imagine that somewhere in the archives of the Hoover Institute is the tape of the event. From my memory I can recall that he perceived a threat of a possible rightist/military coup along with the Bolshevik threat led by Lenin who was offering a unilateral pull out of Russia from the war. Soon after, the Bolsheviks staged their coup and Kerensky had to flee. The account he gave is very similar to that given in this link. I can only imagine the chaos of the period. Lenin had only one goal and a clear mission; Kerensky had several and was trying to do the near impossible.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:13:43 +0000

Since hindsight operates so effectively in determining hinge points in history, regardless of whether they are perceived as such at the time, here’s another question: Do we learn from our ability to interpret the past? Historians (both professional and amateur) have long been able to identify critical moments based on the events that proceeded from them. Are we (collectively, not necessarily individually) capable of not only learning the appropriate lesson, and then, more importantly, applying it to the present?

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:06:24 +0000

More lessons from two revolutions – Iranian and Russian. Never give government power to liberals at times of crisis, they are soft not only with national security, but with internal enemy as well. They cannot stop facsists of any stripe – left, right or any other kind. The only good example of stopped revolution in failed state is history of Chile. Pinochet did what neither Bakhtiar, nor Kerensky achived: stopped communists with rather modest bloodshed, successfully modernized country and opened way to real democracy.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:47:22 +0000

To Weary G:
Your account of Bolsheviks seizure of power is not accurate. It was not Czar who we ought to blame, he lost power at the time when Lenin returned to Russia. It was fatal blindness of Kerensky, close match to Bakhtiar, western-educated barrister, lider of anti-Czarist democratic opposition, head of Provisional Government, who declared that “to the left of us we have no enemies”, refused to arrest Bolsheviks and did not allowed General Kornilov to establish military rule in Petrograd. It makes historical parallel with Iranian revolution even more close.