People seem to forget that ~18 million people died and >20 million people were wounded in that conflict - understandably since we have far more footage of WW2 and subsequent conflicts compared to a rather hazy conception of trench warfare and primitive tanks for WW1. Compared to this the Russian revolutions of 1917 were near-bloodless affairs. High estimates for the Red Terror in the lead up to the Russian Civil War are about 200,000 (100k is more common), a small number in that historical context, but worse because of the number and nature of the atrocities committed.
On the other hand, the White Terror to which it was a response claimed some 300,000 lives but nobody seems to care about that, which is a pretty weird double standard if you ask me. Perhaps this is because people conflate the Red Terror with the later events of the Stalinist period rather than looking at it in its contemporary context.
Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.
On this I completely agree, but I have to note that the West's response to the emergence of a somewhat free and democratic Russia after the collapse of the USSR was to set it up with a rudimentary market economy and milk it for profit, while keeping defense budgets in the West at about the same levels (until the early 2000s, when they almost doubled). I think Putin's rise is a direct result of our failure to invest in helping Russia to build democratic institutions.
Tambov uprising alone had 11 thousands people directly dead, many more indirectly due to hunger, etc. And that's just a tiny episode.
My point is not to downplay it but to say it should be considered in the context of everything else that was going on at that time. By all means question the historical estimates if you disagree with them, but I think you should be equally concerned by the death attributable to the anti-communist forces, no?
unfortunately, Russians who could see past that little trick were either exterminated or emigrated long ago.
Nobody has a problem with it though since the government is eager to listen to the West so it's a proper "democracy" and things are fine.
Reasons your text is a poor attempt:
Kremlin propaganda about "democracy = subjugation" predates Ukrainian situation by at least a few decades if not a century; and then Ukraine is not the only "young democracy" Russians could check out as an example, so why do you even bring it out here? especially since attacking Ukraine themselves definitely taints "the analysis of the benefits of democracy".
Even if we take a bait with "Ukraine is a reason why Russians don't want democracy":
Ukrainian history in your post is (on purpose?) not told exactly right and some important elephants in the room (like Crimea and Russian military involvement) are conveniently ignored; subjective statement about corruption levels is thrown, what's your measurement methodology?
again, other "young democracies" might have a better situation with everything, why Russians don't look at those?
I indeed believe that you are sincere and find that because Ukraine is failing and still labeled a democracy then Russia is never going to be democratic, but it's tragic that such a shaky views are just blindly adopted by Russians.
Because it's easy to verify. Btw, I am not sure what are you even arguing here, my point and the point to the post you replied to is that "Russia will never be considered a democracy by the West" not the strawman you are so eager to burn here.
Russia can and will be labeled free and democratic by outside organizations when it's not ruled by a dictator. The US did not chose Putin, though Putin might like to choose who leads the US.
The Tsarists weren't much better, sure. Much of that history is covered here:
https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/046...
Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.