Talk: Russian Revolution of 1917
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Which calendar is used here ? Gregorian or Julian ? I sugest double dates plus a note about calendar problems. --Taw
Good idea -- both should be used, and a link to an explanation of the difference should be put in also. People can wonder why the October Revolution took place in November. -- Blain
The invention of the assmebly line is the most important event in the 20th century. Of course, rather than argue about this we could simply try stick to NPOV ;)
A serious question (well, I am serious about the Assembly Line) -- why Bolshevik and not Russian revolution? I know that the revolution affected a lot of non-Russians, but it also involved many non-Bolsheviks. What is at stake here? SR
The February revolution, in (of course) March. It was non-Bolshevik (although they took part): perhaps there should be links to "February Revolution" and "Bolshevik Revolution" or "October Revolution".
Tens of millions of non-Russians were of course affected by the Revolution(s), Civil War and subsequent Sovietisation, but until March 1917 the whole country was called the Russian Empire (excluding Finland and, I think, Poland), hence "Russian Revolution".
PS. I prefer new-style dates only, with a note to deduct 13 days in the 20th century (12 in the 19th) for OS (1917 Nov. 7 - 13 = Oct. 25).
The the role of the provisional government and the duma also deserve some attention. After all, there was at least a chance for a russian democracy to develop. Anybody care to write some mor about this?
Comment on October Revolution: I see the outline is done. Where's the article? Ortolan88 19:32 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
I removed the following item:
Does anybody know what's this about in relation to Russia? Mikkalai 20:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I cut the phrase:
seized power from the Provisional Government that had been put in place by the liberals
- Imprecise/undefined cliche "liberal" removed: e.g., Kerensky himself was eser (i.e., revolutionary), not liberal. The statement had its merits: in a sense it tried to say that the ProGov were neither monarchists nor radicals like bolsheviks, but it better be elaborated in the Russian Provisional Government, 1917 itself first. Mikkalai 00:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Abdication
This sentence was inserted by an anon editor at the end of the article, after the bibliography: Nikolai signed a letter stating less than abdication. Can anyone confirmed that and, if yes, explain it in more detail? Andris 15:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think that had the Provisional Government been able to maintain stability and hold power, it may have put Russia on the faster track toward Western-style democracy.
However, even if the October Revolution would have reversed and the Provisional Government returned to power, there would still be a lot of variables. Democracy, after all, entails "what do the people want?" and if the Bolsheviks would have managed to get more people riled up with propaganda and perhaps some intimidation, then the elections to a Constituent Assembly might well have turned out in favor of the Bolsheviks rather than the less radical parties, and this Assembly would have probably made the revolution within the government and transformed it into what the Soviet Union became.
On the other hand, if the Russian elections to the Assembly would still have been in favor of the moderate-left parties, then it would have potentially put Bolsheviks out of a position to gain power altogether.
