James Harris - The Great Fear: Intelligence and Threat Perception under Lenin and Stalin

Comments · 31

• ОФ

  @офицер-к8й · 7 years ago

  This is amazing, really brings Stalin his rational in perspective.

  8

• 2B

  @2bsirius · 9 years ago

  There is a bit of deja vu between the situation &nbsp;in Russia in the thirties and the one in which we find ourselves today:<br><br>1. The prevalence of conspiracy theories;<br>2. A generalized paranoia;<br>3. A refusal to listen to critical or divergent views;<br>4. A generalized fear of terrorism, exacerbated by the elements already named...<br><br>Yes, there are great difference, but these elements of overlap are also striking.

  8

• GU

  @guntermaier460 · 5 years ago

  Really Great!

• AL

  @alanpennie8013 · 5 years ago

  I don&apos;t think it has ever been doubted that the majority of victims were &quot;ordinary people&quot;

• AL

  @alanpennie8013 · 5 years ago

  Sergei Kirov the wonderful dancer!

• BR

  @brankodrljaca1313 · 3 years ago

  This is controversial view but I view Moscow trials and mass operations as completely different and tied together events. Moscow trials were something that was instigated by or at least had much of direct involvement of Stalin and his inner circle. No doubt that their view of danger was that it was real and that didn&apos;t want to have known opponents alive in case of invasion since they would be a great asset. As of mass operations, I don&apos;t view Stalin as instigator or director of it, rather it was something that was result of same picture painted to Stalin being painted to First Party Secretaries and Central Committee Members in Republics, cities, local Soviets etc. They have maintained their position by using force to make workers and peasants bring 5 years plans to fruition on their backs (at expense of living conditions, loss of rights they had before and even famine) while they drove cars, lived in mansion and had servants. Meanwhile, they have all had their networks of friends and relatives within positions in NKVD, Party, Central Committee and where not, assuring that they can send rosy reports and sweep everything under the rug. However, Stalin took a lot of their power by abolishing NKVD troikas in 1934, by forcing basic stantards of legal procedures in 1933-1936, changes in NKVD structure and by putting forward new Constitution that would also made them accountable to general public by secret voting. This last one made them very afraid since those that they deported and disenfranchised would also vote. They view this not as just dangers to themselves but to Soviet power as well so they ask for their old power back (NKVD passing sentences without due process). Stalin and &nbsp;Jezhov after lot of back and fort accept this since they both view danger as real. However, this only ends up backfiring to Party leaders head since NKVD (not same friends and family of local leaders as before) investigating local party workings and talking to workers on mass meetings suggested that there was lot of things (lying by omission, accidents, misuses of power and funds...) among managers, party workers, directors and other elites that in that atmosphere could be interpreted as treason. And that cost a lot of Party members their lives. Stalin wasn&apos;t directly involved in much of this, except in cases some higher up officials and ended it before the ensuing chaos completely destroyed the remaining support for regime. But the damage was already done, with some 700 000 dead, most of them not being ex-kulaks, priest and ex-criminals of which initial directives for mass operations spoke of. Not to mention that most of them were completely innocents by any standards of civilized world.

  2

• PO

  @poodlesrock6552 · 8 years ago

  Thank you for this upload. It is always interesting to debate lessons of history. It would have great, if the lecturer paid more attention to the purges under Lenin and the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of speeding up the revolution in a feudal state, instead of the expected revolution after capitalism has led to annihilation of the concept of work and worth, and eventually to its collapse. In addition to the idea of proletarian dictatorship (instead of like menshevistic approach or anarchism), combined with national socialism au lieu of international socialism, would ultimately always lead to national socialist, i.e. the fascist administration and through it, as mentioned here: the great fear. Comparisons to any dictatorship and totalitarian governance is evident. Although, early on, Lenin and his comrades pondered the question of autonomy of nations (nations meaning people of same race, religion and language), and thought it good &apos;to allow&apos; areas/regions/countries/ to be autonomic, independent states. Also, discussion of the troika of Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev in ousting Trotsky and thousands of others, would have been relevant to this topic. The fact that so much emphasis was put on Lenin tells us how quickly the Russian revolution turned into dictatorship and admiration, if not deification of the &apos;great leader&apos;. Only one leader, be it the zcar, Lenin, Trotsky or the white revolutionaries. Then again, we recall the foreign manipulations and collusions with both the Lenist/red and the Cossack/white revolutionaries.

  2

• JA

  @jamessmotovlogs3489 · 7 years ago

  ...

  1

• ED

  @ednorton47 · 6 years ago (edited)

  This school has the rudest students that I have seen. &nbsp;Half of them show up late?

  1

• TE

  @tedkijeski339 · 3 years ago

  The speaker has an accent that--dare I say--does not exist in nature. I have never heard an accent like that before--and I am a connoisseur of accents. Does anybody know what the story is?

• TE

  @tenmanX · 4 years ago

  Around <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQzikjZP9a8&amp;t=3480">58:00</a> &quot;... deep-set institutional MISPERCEPTION of the West?&quot; amirite, uhn... no? 😏 😉