Philosophy Now Forum

A friend of mine told me, with evidence he had gathered, that Western bankers had instigated the Russian Revolution by financing opponents of the Tsar. He went on to say that it is a myth that the revolution was the product of a popular uprising against the ruling class.

Any views on the subject?

kill the farmers first

-Imp

imp,

I should have expected that you and your one liners would be the first to respond.

spike wrote:A friend of mine told me, with evidence he had gathered, that Western bankers had instigated the Russian Revolution by financing opponents of the Tsar. He went on to say that it is a myth that the revolution was the product of a popular uprising against the ruling class.

Any views on the subject?

Yes.

That is correct.

The evidence is still here in the world banking structure.

Find out the list of people who have control over the Special Drawing Rights and you have the list of Special people who control the world. Correct?

Special drawing rights (SDRs) are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Not a currency, SDRs instead represent a claim to currency held by IMF member countries for which they may be exchanged.[1] As they can only be exchanged for euros, Japanese yen, pounds sterling, or US dollars,[imf 1] SDRs may actually represent a potential claim on IMF member countries' nongold foreign exchange reserve assets, which are usually held in those currencies. While they may appear to have a far more important part to play or, perhaps, an important future role, being the unit of account for the IMF has long been the main function of the SDR.[Williamson


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights

spike wrote:Quite a gullible person, me thinks!

Oh yeah?


OK

If it was not western banks what other kind of banks could of financed a project on that scale?

What sayest thou? (What say you?)

I don't doubt that Western bankers did finance the overthrow of the Tsar, bankers who were Jewish and hated the Tsar for what he had done to Jews. But I don't think they were interested in a full blown revolution that would also destroy the bourgeois and their money making capabilities, which was an unintended consequence of their meddling.

For a full blown revolution like the Russian one you need grass roots support. You need the angst of the citizenry. For instance, the French Revolution started with the peasantry. Without the support of the peasantry the Russian Revolution could have easily been quashed. There was something in the air or water in Russia at the time that was ripe for the picking and receptive to a revolution.

I watched a documentary on the building of the Trans-Siberian railroad and how it was accomplished even though it seemed crazy and impossible. The Tsar really pushed for it to be finished, for the glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building the railroad the Tsar sowed the seeds of his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult or impossible for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of a total revolution to bear. The railroad was a network that played right into the hands of revolutionaries. Also, the Tsar had spent so much money on the railroad that there was no money left for social programs, programs that could have prevented a restlessness among the citizenry and thus a revolution.

spike wrote:Hjarloprillar,

If you are not going to stay on topic, go away!

That's what's wrong with this forum, people who are off topic and ramble on about NOTHING. pointing to exit

No need to get irate. [tho it worked]
As mil historian [in broadest sense. which effectively IS history]
I suggest that there is
to me no reason for western bankers to pay for instability in Russia at that time.

Stability and monarchy is far more profitable than paying for war that may gain no net profit.
thus the events were driven not by western money. but by the proletariat stamping on the sons of bitches that
had ground their faces into the dirt once to often.

Prill

--------------------------
people who are off topic and ramble on

agree, im trying to fix that. be patient please

spike wrote:I don't doubt that Western bankers did finance the overthrow of the Tsar, bankers who were Jewish and hated the Tsar for what he had done to Jews. But I don't think they were interested in a full blown revolution that would also destroy the bourgeois and their money making capabilities, which was an unintended consequence of their meddling.

For a full blown revolution like the Russian one you need grass roots support. You need the angst of the citizenry. For instance, the French Revolution started with the peasantry. Without the support of the peasantry the Russian Revolution could have easily been quashed. There was something in the air or water in Russia at the time that was ripe for the picking and receptive to a revolution.

I watched a documentary on the building of the Trans-Siberian railroad and how it was accomplished even though it seemed crazy and impossible. The Tsar really pushed for it to be finished, for the glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building the railroad the Tsar sowed the seeds of his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult or impossible for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of a total revolution to bear. The railroad was a network that played right into the hands of revolutionaries. Also, the Tsar had spent so much money on the railroad that there was no money left for social programs, programs that could have prevented a restlessness among the citizenry and thus a revolution.

Yes, there must have been something in the air just like there is now. That something is the tension between Race, Ethnicity, Nature and Nurture.


The railroad theory is an interesting point of view.
Do you think Britain is in danger of this with their plan for HS2?

Do you think Britain is in danger of this with their plan for HS2?

Ha Ha! You're taking the mickey out of me, aren't you. Anyway, I say NO WAY!

spike wrote:

Do you think Britain is in danger of this with their plan for HS2?

Ha Ha! You're taking the mickey out of me, aren't you. Anyway, I say NO WAY!

What makes you so confident that the scenario you described could not happen in Britain?

Brit Dems wrote:

spike wrote:I don't doubt that Western bankers did finance the overthrow of the Tsar, bankers who were Jewish and hated the Tsar for what he had done to Jews. But I don't think they were interested in a full blown revolution that would also destroy the bourgeois and their money making capabilities, which was an unintended consequence of their meddling.

For a full blown revolution like the Russian one you need grass roots support. You need the angst of the citizenry. For instance, the French Revolution started with the peasantry. Without the support of the peasantry the Russian Revolution could have easily been quashed. There was something in the air or water in Russia at the time that was ripe for the picking and receptive to a revolution.

I watched a documentary on the building of the Trans-Siberian railroad and how it was accomplished even though it seemed crazy and impossible. The Tsar really pushed for it to be finished, for the glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building the railroad the Tsar sowed the seeds of his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult or impossible for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of a total revolution to bear. The railroad was a network that played right into the hands of revolutionaries. Also, the Tsar had spent so much money on the railroad that there was no money left for social programs, programs that could have prevented a restlessness among the citizenry and thus a revolution.

Yes, there must have been something in the air just like there is now. That something is the tension between Race, Ethnicity, Nature and Nurture.
The railroad theory is an interesting point of view.
Do you think Britain is in danger of this with their plan for HS2?

To fill in some

The war:

"was not the result of a calculated plan, nor even of hasty last-minute decisions made under stress. It was the consequence of more than two years of fatal blundering in slow-motion by inept statesmen who had months to reflect upon the actions they took. It arose from Napoleon's search for prestige; Nicholas’s quest for control over the Straits; his naïve miscalculation of the probable reactions of the European powers; the failure of those powers to make their positions clear; and the pressure of public opinion in Britain and Constantinople at crucial moments."
Russia and the Ottoman Empire went to war in October 1853 over Russia's rights to protect Orthodox Christians. Russia gained the upper hand after destroying the Ottoman fleet at the Black Sea port of Sinope; to stop Russia's conquest France and Britain entered in March 1854. Most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula in southern Russia.[ home of the 'charge of light brigade' and 'the thin red line a reference to brit line clad in red holding at inkerman'..into the valley of death rode the 600] The Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year. After it fell, peace became possible, and was arranged at Paris in March 1856. The religion issue had already been resolved. The main results were that the Black Sea was neutralised—Russia would not have any warships there—and the two provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent under nominal Ottoman rule.

There were smaller campaigns in eastern Anatolia, Caucasus, the Baltic Sea, the Pacific Ocean and the White Sea. In Russia, this war is also known as the "Eastern War" (Russian: Восточная война, Vostochnaya Voina).

The war transformed the region. Because of battles, population exchanges, and nationalist movements incited by the war, the present-day states of Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and regions such as Crimea and the Caucasus all changed in small or large ways due to this conflict.

I think West never forgave or forgot. It learned one thing. this place is a sinkhole
Did it finance the events of 1917?.... no and so "not" doing any thing in 1917 allowed rise of USSR. The best thing in strategic terms the US could have hoped for in 50's to 80's
one mans disaster is anothers joy

My opinion.


Prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:

Brit Dems wrote:

spike wrote:I don't doubt that Western bankers did finance the overthrow of the Tsar, bankers who were Jewish and hated the Tsar for what he had done to Jews. But I don't think they were interested in a full blown revolution that would also destroy the bourgeois and their money making capabilities, which was an unintended consequence of their meddling.

For a full blown revolution like the Russian one you need grass roots support. You need the angst of the citizenry. For instance, the French Revolution started with the peasantry. Without the support of the peasantry the Russian Revolution could have easily been quashed. There was something in the air or water in Russia at the time that was ripe for the picking and receptive to a revolution.

I watched a documentary on the building of the Trans-Siberian railroad and how it was accomplished even though it seemed crazy and impossible. The Tsar really pushed for it to be finished, for the glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building the railroad the Tsar sowed the seeds of his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult or impossible for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of a total revolution to bear. The railroad was a network that played right into the hands of revolutionaries. Also, the Tsar had spent so much money on the railroad that there was no money left for social programs, programs that could have prevented a restlessness among the citizenry and thus a revolution.

Yes, there must have been something in the air just like there is now. That something is the tension between Race, Ethnicity, Nature and Nurture.
The railroad theory is an interesting point of view.
Do you think Britain is in danger of this with their plan for HS2?

To fill in some

The war:

"was not the result of a calculated plan, nor even of hasty last-minute decisions made under stress. It was the consequence of more than two years of fatal blundering in slow-motion by inept statesmen who had months to reflect upon the actions they took. It arose from Napoleon's search for prestige; Nicholas’s quest for control over the Straits; his naïve miscalculation of the probable reactions of the European powers; the failure of those powers to make their positions clear; and the pressure of public opinion in Britain and Constantinople at crucial moments."
Russia and the Ottoman Empire went to war in October 1853 over Russia's rights to protect Orthodox Christians. Russia gained the upper hand after destroying the Ottoman fleet at the Black Sea port of Sinope; to stop Russia's conquest France and Britain entered in March 1854. Most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula in southern Russia.[ home of the 'charge of light brigade' and 'the thin red line a reference to brit line clad in red holding at inkerman'..into the valley of death rode the 600] The Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year. After it fell, peace became possible, and was arranged at Paris in March 1856. The religion issue had already been resolved. The main results were that the Black Sea was neutralised—Russia would not have any warships there—and the two provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent under nominal Ottoman rule.

There were smaller campaigns in eastern Anatolia, Caucasus, the Baltic Sea, the Pacific Ocean and the White Sea. In Russia, this war is also known as the "Eastern War" (Russian: Восточная война, Vostochnaya Voina).

The war transformed the region. Because of battles, population exchanges, and nationalist movements incited by the war, the present-day states of Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and regions such as Crimea and the Caucasus all changed in small or large ways due to this conflict.

I think West never forgave or forgot. It learned one thing. this place is a sinkhole
Did it finance the events of 1917?.... no and so "not" doing any thing in 1917 allowed rise of USSR. The best thing in strategic terms the US could have hoped for in 50's to 80's
one mans disaster is anothers joy

My opinion.


Prill

Very interesting.

The west may try again coming from the north.

Brit Dems

Your recoloring in red of specific words/lines within quotes is excellent procedure. [re: above post]
Especially in stacked quotes
It makes replies so much easier and streamlines flow of thought .

Thats all i wanted to say. Credit where it is due.

well done

Prill

Brit Dems wrote: Very interesting.
The west may try again coming from the north.

Coming in through Saint Petersburg and Moskva. The hubs.

In cold war 3% of US gnp over 3 decades was spent on strategic counterforce.
40 thousand nukes, dozens of SLBM's whole fields of missiles[actually called fields] the bombers. the B2 stealth being last great incarnation.
In todays money. thats many trillion $.
Use that now for a remake of 1854 crimea war.
Russia could fall [into state of vassal to US] the middle ages returns to our world.

And why not. It worked in middle ages.
Now the king
weilds a military that weilds the king. a military that spans the earth and cannot be defeated if it has its way. THE superpower.

the russian revolution.. the USSR were in hindsight steps on road to global domination by west. embodied by US.
Not planned. thats 'conspiracy'
but certainly not opposed in any meaningful way.
China and Europa have declared a commercial status. They will not war with US global military high position. it would be a disaster.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Prill