"Project 1917" - the Russian revolution up close and live

[everywhere and nowhere]

https://project1917.com/

Some people in Russia have created this site which attempts to show the Russian events of 1917 "live" - as it could have looked like if there were social media in 1917. Note that, while Lenin, Tsar Nicholas and others of course didn't use social media, the project uses no fictional content - all entries are based on real records such as public writings or letters of people involved. As a bonus: family tree of European royal families, which shows how closely they were related - for example, British king George V was cousin to both the Tsar and his wife.

A very interesting project, even more because Russian state media are unwilling to touch the subject. Putler never fully let go of communist nostalgia, but like every dictator, he is afraid of revolutions and so state media are commemorating the centenary of the revolution rather quietly.

Myself, I support neither Russian imperialism nor real communism or any other anti-democratic system, so I just regret that the system created between the February and October revolutions - the democratic system, before the bolsheviks came to power - was so short-lived...

Anyway, observing the events this way is both educating and fun. With all the historical baggage it feels strangely funny to observe historical characters put into modern reality of social media...

You can also check for example this text about the project.

[ThaHoward]

Hopefully it won't be too ideological and ahistorical. I.e "we the workers of Russia welcome our liberators" or "the reds are barbarians and go against freedom" etc. If they manage to balance it, it would be interesting. 

 

And yes it is quite interesting how close the European royal families was. It was indeed Queen Victoria who did so, she hoped that making close family ties would prevent a major war and uphold Pax Britannia/Concert of Europe. Unfortunately she was wrong.

[flagsforhippos]

If modern Russian history is your thing Armando Iannucci's "The Death Of Stalin" is in cinemas this week (in U.K.) Looks very interesting.

[everywhere and nowhere]

I've never been to the UK, but I'll have to check out if it's shown in Poland too.

Btw, my father was born on the day Stalin died.

[The Joker]

The provisional government wasn't particularly great either. Honestly, the Bolsheviks were necessary to get Russia industrialized within a single generation. They may not be the best, but they were pretty damned good given the "slower" alternatives to industrialization. All in all, Russia was a complete fucking mess in the early 20th century, and it really only got better after WW2. Someone had to get people on board, and democracy wasn't going to do it at a time where most people were illiterate, and extremely poor, with the country having little industrial infrastructure overall.

[ThaHoward]

17 hours ago, The Joker said:

The provisional government wasn't particularly great either. Honestly, the Bolsheviks were necessary to get Russia industrialized within a single generation. They may not be the best, but they were pretty damned good given the "slower" alternatives to industrialization. All in all, Russia was a complete fucking mess in the early 20th century, and it really only got better after WW2. Someone had to get people on board, and democracy wasn't going to do it at a time where most people were illiterate, and extremely poor, with the country having little industrial infrastructure overall.

Still the question remain if Russia could have become industrilised if it became a liberal democracy. Remember when the democratic revolution happened Russia had been at a very costly war (and still was), and they barely managed to install the government before the middle class led bolsheviks created a civil war. Stalins methods was also very harsh, and the post Stalin investigations did show that it was not necessary, and in many ways hindered progress. So "Russia wouldn't have industrialised" is a poor argument, as we can't know that, but many of the policies of Lenin and Stalin wasn't constructive at all for the population nor economy. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

Perhaps asking whether such methods were required to achieve the goals is misguided from the beginning: Stalin was a psychopath and his true goal was POWER...

[The Joker]

17 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

Still the question remain if Russia could have become industrilised if it became a liberal democracy. Remember when the democratic revolution happened Russia had been at a very costly war (and still was), and they barely managed to install the government before the middle class led bolsheviks created a civil war. Stalins methods was also very harsh, and the post Stalin investigations did show that it was not necessary, and in many ways hindered progress. So "Russia wouldn't have industrialised" is a poor argument, as we can't know that, but many of the policies of Lenin and Stalin wasn't constructive at all for the population nor economy. 

Its more like it would've occurred more slowly. I should've clarified if I didn't. They certainly would've become industrialized, as most nations have gradually done over time.  Its just that it would've taken longer, and given the state they were in, I doubt it would've helped them to prolong the situation just to give democracy its due. Also, the issue with the Nazis was on the horizon too, and industrialization helped the Soviets repel the Nazis.

[The Joker]

15 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Perhaps asking whether such methods were required to achieve the goals is misguided from the beginning: Stalin was a psychopath and his true goal was POWER...

I don't disagree, but I think Stalin had his place. He had good management skills, and that's why Lenin kept him around. Lenin valued professionalism (since he was well read and educated), whilst Stalin was more gangster-like and formed connections in the way traditional Russian men did, with cliques. So Stalin had value despite being a psychopath, and I think he did contribute to the betterment of Russia, while also contributing to the detriment of it at the same time. He made massive mistakes of course, but I think he's still better than any democratic alternatives that Russia or anyone else had to offer their nation at the time. Its really all about circumstances. I'm not advocating dictatorship or glorifying Stalin, I'm just making a statement about how effective he was as a leader, and how he was probably pretty decent for the USSR given the time and situation they were in.