Russian (Bolshevik-Jewish) Revolution: Recommendations?

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
I'm looking for books or documentaries that tell the true story behind the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution of 1917.

I have read Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, but am particularly interested in why the bankers, freemasons, and Jews were so keen on ending the monarchy.

If you have suggestions, I'd be eager to know them. I don't read Russian, and have only a cursory knowledge of the Russian Revolution, so please don't recommend historically dense material. Thank you.
 
I have downloaded a copy but am yet to read 200 years together by Solzhenitsyn.

Kind of a head scratcher that a feted Nobel laureate released a book that no publishing house will translate into English, but they don t tarnish his name with, that they present very weak arguments against, yet they will not translate nor acknowledge...

Been wanting to read 200 years together forever. I have this thing against reading books digitally, so I will be patiently waiting until there is a hard copy in english.
 

Tactician

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Cool stuff, I'm going thru Sutton's Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution right now.

In addition to MichaelWitcoff's point, I believe an overarching goal of conflict is to have an excuse to develop new technology. This something we see today & will continue to see going forward. As an example, the US military might "lose" a drone, which is then recovered by Iran & reverse engineered. Oh, now we need a better drone to counter that one, & so on.

Sutton would often point out how the US shipped ultra-precise ball bearing manufacturing machinery to the USSR which allowed the commies to build MIRV rockets. Since they now have MIRVs, the US needs new defenses & so on.

Certainly there's a myriad of cultural goals (including a state of fear as people watch "the show"), but an excuse to advance military technology is an overlooked big one. After the conflict is resolved, all the new tech still remains. What does it all build towards?

Would new weapons tech be developed in the absence of conflict? Yeah, probably, but it might've occurred much slower & probably a lot more people would protest it if the world was at peace. Maybe nowadays we just accept the MIC, but people used to protest it a lot during Cold War times.
 

Troller

Pelican
I think they punished both the french royal family and the russian royal family because they´ve supported US against England in the revolutionary war. There´s a story about a russian fleet blocking britain navy. And Rothschilds saying they would take revenge. They were monarchies and were supporting a non monarchic movement. I think russian royal family at the time of the bolshevik believed they were protected by England. Spain also suported US. And nothing happenSo I could be wrong.

another theory its the Nobel brothers were extracting a lot of oil from Baku. And the Rockefellers and Rothschilds were afraid of losing oil monopoly so they teared down all factories and closed their factory through the bolshevik revolution. I think Nobel had created a prize for oil paperworks which is the precusor of Nobel prize.



On 28 April 1920, the Bolsheviks seized power in Baku and Branobel's oil business in Azerbaijan was nationalized. In May 1920, the Nobel family sold almost half the Branobel's shares in its possession to Standard Oil of New Jersey. At the time it was considered uncertain whether the Bolshevik regime would last and the negotiation led by Gustaf Nobel, on one side, and Walter C. Teagle, on the other, proved to be a profitable masterstroke for the Nobel family.[4]
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
^ It sounds like the Nobels got a "consolation deal" that they couldn't refuse as junior partners of the Rockefeller-Rothschilds, who funded and supported the Bolsheviks up to the 1950s-60s when the Soviets turned against Israel.

A couple of recs for the OP:

Dr Mathew Raphael Johnson, an independent orthodox academic and Russia scholar from the Midwest:

This is an excellent presentation of the events and facts around the Russian Revolution, dispelling several myths about pre-revolution Russia:

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson joins Our Interesting Times to discuss his book “A Circle of Betrayal, Cowardice and Deceit” – On the 100th Anniversary of the Ritual Murder of the Russian Royal Family. We discuss how the destruction of the Romanov dynasty in 1918 altered the course of history and resulted in a world dominated by Freemasonic liberalism and Marxism.

More from Matt Johnson here:

1613776448829.png

Jura Lina - Under the Sign of the Scorpion:



 
Last edited:

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
^ It sounds like the Nobels got a "consolation deal" that they couldn't refuse as junior partners of the Rockefeller-Rothschilds, who funded and supported the Bolsheviks up to the 1950s-60s when the Soviets turned against Israel.

A couple of recs for the OP:

Dr Mathew Raphael Johnson, an independent orthodox academic and Russia scholar from the Midwest:

This is an excellent presentation of the events and facts around the Russian Revolution, dispelling several myths about pre-revolution Russia:

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson joins Our Interesting Times to discuss his book “A Circle of Betrayal, Cowardice and Deceit” – On the 100th Anniversary of the Ritual Murder of the Russian Royal Family. We discuss how the destruction of the Romanov dynasty in 1918 altered the course of history and resulted in a world dominated by Freemasonic liberalism and Marxism.

More from Matt Johnson here:

View attachment 29255

Jura Lina - Under the Sign of the Scorpion:




Thank you, this guy seems extraordinarily knowledgeable. This is a useful resource!
 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
I have downloaded a copy but am yet to read 200 years together by Solzhenitsyn.

Kind of a head scratcher that a feted Nobel laureate released a book that no publishing house will translate into English, but they don t tarnish his name with, that they present very weak arguments against, yet they will not translate nor acknowledge...

Where did you find a copy translated into English?
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
“The Blessed Surgeon: The Life of Saint Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol” by Archdeacon Vasiliy Marushchak. Details the life of a saint who while being one of the world's foremost surgeons, also became a bishop of the Russian Church under the Soviet Union. He endured tortures, over a decade of exile in Siberia, displacements, and atheistic bureaucracy. My wife and I just finished reading it. Can't recommend it enough. Also contains a vespers service to him and an akathist service.

 
Where did you find a copy translated into English?
Found it in this thread.

 

The Penitent Man

Kingfisher
Found it in this thread.


Bummer, looks like the link is no longer any good. Just kept popping up with “Nalware Attack” bubbles or redirecting to endless other pages. Guess I’ll just have to start learning Russian.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I found the full english copy and audiobook here:




audiobook:




Interview with Solzhentisyn about "200 Years Together"​

Lydia Chukovskaya​

Moscow News
January 1-7, 2003


With his Dvesti let vmeste, or 200 Years Together, a historical study of the relationship between Russians and Jews in Russia, Alexander Solzhenitsyn calls for a better understanding and mutual empathy between the two nationalities. The second volume of the book, spanning the period from the 1917 Revolution to the mid-1970s, is about to hit the bookstalls. Ahead of the publication the author was interviewed by Moskovskiye Novosti editor Viktor Loshak in his house at Troitse-Lykovo

Chukovskay: We had a meeting shortly before Book 1 came out, and it was clear that Book 2 was on the way and could have been brought out literally within weeks. Nonetheless, 18 months have passed since. Why was the publication delayed for so long?

Solzhenitsyn: It was certainly going to take not weeks, but much longer. Also, Natalya Dmitrievna [the author's wife and the book's editor. - V.L.] decided to double-check all footnotes once again - in a broad context. It required the patience of Job because all source materials had to be checked out and many pages around each quotation read through carefully. That was how she worked. In all, there are 1,500 footnotes. A very large volume. Also, it was not our only work in the past year.

Chukovskay: You have been working on the book for 12 years in all?

Solzhenitsyn: I began in 1990. But there were long breaks. In the 1990s I wrote and published many other things.

Chukovskay: Before passing over to Book 2, I would like to say that our first interview (Burning Question, MN No.25 of June 26, 2001) triggered an extensive response. One typical comment in letters to the editor was this: The appearance of a book on the relationship between Russians and Jews merely fosters anti-Semitism.

Solzhenitsyn: I should say that, indeed, there was plenty of bitterness in early reviews- moreover, judging by the rate of their appearance, you might think that this bitterness was provoked, even before the book was read to the end, by the mere fact that I had taken up the issue at all.

Now, however, looking at the reviews in their entirety, including the latest commentaries, I have good reason to say that many of my readers consider the book useful and interesting. I have received words of gratitude from ordinary Jewish readers: "Thank you for your interesting book - we have learned so much from it." The latest reviews are more reasonable and balanced. Recently, I was happy to read a very profound article by Alexander Eterman, in Vremya iskat, a journal published in Israel.

It is in fact what I was dreaming about - that is to say, my call for mutual understanding was heeded and appreciated. A hand was held out. It isan extremely valuable article, a direct follow-up on my book.

Now, I rule out completely that my book could in any way have incited tension. Quite the contrary, tension has been left behind, and now it is time we calmly discussed the issue.

Chukovskay: In your book, you quote from Dostoevsky's diaries - "the final word on this great tribe has yet to be said." After you finished it, did you get an impression that you had now said this word?

Solzhenitsyn: No, that would be too presumptuous. I do not have this impression. I have said what I could, but the final word, if at all possible, has probably still to be said, not in our lifetime.

Chukovskay: Am I right to understand that in the first chapters of Book 2, devoted to the Revolution, you disclose the Russian noms de guerre of Jewish revolutionaries and count their number in the supreme Revolutionary bodies so as to show in the closing chapters, when talking about the need for nationwide repentance, that Jews have cause not only to resent Soviet power, but also to repent?

Solzhenitsyn: That's right, both.

Chukovskay: You use a specific word characterizing the revolutionary atmosphere at the time; you write that it is not only about the national factor - referring to the Bolsheviks of various nationalities and ethnic groups - but mainly about the non-national. What exactly does this word mean?

Solzhenitsyn: A lack of any national awareness. An international, cosmopolitan worldview.That was the rationale behind Bolshevism for a very long time. It is in fact the absence of any national sentiment. There is just none.

Chukovskay: You have addressed a subject wherein you yourself often invoke such concepts as "spirit," "consciousness," and "historical fate." Were these nebulous notions not an impediment to your well-researched work, based on solid facts?

Solzhenitsyn: Far from being an impediment, they were, to a very large extent, a part of my underlying concept. My book aims to go deep into Jewish thoughts, feelings, ideas, and mentality - that is to say, the realm of the spiritual. In this sense the objective of my book is not, in fact, scientific, but artistic. It is basically an artistic work. Except that there are not two or three characters, but a great many characters, with various, most diverse feelings and ideas. Facts alone are not enough to understand them. Generally speaking, I regard the spirit and consciousness the most substantial elements of history.

Chukovskay: I noticed that in Book 2, an impartial researcher at times gives way to a passionate writer. Say, you write about the Bolsheviks, Stalin, and you bring in plenty of color and hues.

Solzhenitsyn:Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I had to restrain a writer's passion all the time because otherwise I would have broken the rule of using a great number of quotations. My commentaries could not be colored patches: They had to be level, restrained. Language-wise, the book was not entirely free and easy for me, but then I reaped a bountiful psychological harvest.

Chukovskay: It seemed to me that you found the work on Part 2 more exciting.

Solzhenitsyn: More exciting, I agree. It was simply a sense of involvement: After all,this is my era. Book 1 is distant history to which I was not a party. But here I am a party.


full interview here:


r
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Thank you, this guy seems extraordinarily knowledgeable. This is a useful resource!


Matt Johnson also has posted an archive of his podcasts on subjects spanning history, geopolitics, cultural studies and Orthodox theology:


I don't always fully agree with his takes, for example I think he's a bit naive about Dugin (who I believe is a satanist posing as Orthodox) but by and large his points are very well-researched and his coverage of these subjects is excellent.

A few samples:

ton-050620.jpg

1613840734331.png


ton%20101619.jpg

1613840933062.png

dn%20071119.jpg

1613841180433.png
 
Top