Talk:Left SR uprising

This article isn't particularly impartial. As I understand it from Emma Goldman's autobiography, there was quite a bit of discontent among the anarchists or Russia who felt that the Cheka and Communists were betraying the revolution in the years after October. She travelled extensively throughout Russia and suffered an internal battle over the ideals of the revolution and the facts of corruption and extremism in the day to day implementation. She found the Cheka in particular to be perhaps the worst institution of all. In the aftermath, Lenin turned out to be just as bad as any Tsar.

Specifically, the use of "insurrection" and "sabotage" are partial to the Soviets.

Also, the article ends abruptly.

I can not authoratively continue this article yet I would suggest that someone elaborate in an impartial light.

Jfricker 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree: there is no summary of what happened/how it was dealt with!

EvocativeIntrigue 12:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

a series of terrorist attacks do not constitute a revolution. the reason this coup was dealt with so quickly was precisely the lack of support for it among the general populace. nevertheless, if "third russian revolution" is the accepted name for the incident, it would be pretentious to rename it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.91.7 (talk • contribs) .

(The unsigned bit above was added by me, but I forgot to sign off on that...) Supersheep 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is confused. It claims to be about anarchist actions, but concentrates on the Left SR's action in July 1918, then vaguely links it up with a number of anti-Bolshevik actions in 1918-22. PatGallacher 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article totally lacks independent sources. I also agree with the previous section: hardly a series of disconnected skirmishes can be called "Revolution". Yes, the therm "3rd RR" is in use, but the article says nothing about the scope of its verifiable usage, and the whole text smacks OR. `'mikka 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am going to rename this article from "Third Russian Revolution" to "Left SR Revolt" as it is referred to in historical materials other than those produced by anarchists, both because the Left Socialist Revolutionary party were the main leaders of it and because it was a revolt by a minority trying to restart a vastly unpopular war, not a mass popular supported revolution like the February or October Revolutions, which were both attempts to end the war and which the second one succeeded.

The "Third Russian Revolution" is the title of various anarchist books and pamphlets on the subject, but should not be the title of this article.

Notice also the article is in the "anarchism" subseries. Anarchists like to claim responsibility for the Kronstadt mutiny and the Left SR revolt, both of which were primarily led by SRs (The Left SR party for the Left SR revolt and Stepan Petrichenko for the Kronstadt mutiny). There were anarchists playing roles in these events, but they were not primarily anarchist uprisings. It would be more appropriate to have a link to the left sr revolt from a page that describes anarchisms claim to connection with it, or to have relevant information about anarchists specific involvement in this article, rather than to have this page be under the anarchist subject heading.

Also, there is no evidence in the article of this uprising being targeted against the whites. (24.7.78.170 (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

Someday I may get an account, but for now I don't know how to rename articles. Someone please rename it to "Left SR Revolt" or "Left Socialist Revolutionary Revolt", or "Revolt of the Left SRs". I only did some cleaning, there are other "related subjects" that are listed that correspond to the anarchists views of what ideas are connected, but should be reworked. I agree these other subjects are related, but more distantly that they fall under Russia during that general time period. Like what does the left SR uprising have to do with left communists who had divergences with the other bolsheviks but not on suppression of this revolt, and what does it have to do with the left opposition which came into being at a later time. It seems more to be a stream of consciousness of topics that anarchists are interested in that relate to their views against bolsheviks, rather than things that were related at the time.

This article doesnt belong in philosophy, it belongs in history. The philosophy tag is probably related to how the anarchists put it in their anarchism subject heading tag. I also noticed that the Kronstadt page was under the anarchist subject heading a long time ago, and originally was listed as copied from infoshop. There should be pages describing anarchist philosophy, but they should not be confused with pages about historical events. The events and philosophies are related, and can be discussed in each others page but the headings should be more specific.

I am going to add a couple of points from a scholarly source, EH Carr, writer of a 13 volume history of Soviet Russia.

(24.7.78.170 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

It is even incorrect or misleading to label this the "Third Russian Revolution" from an anarchist point of view, as most anarchist references to a "Third Russian Revolution" relate to their views on the Kronstadt Rebellion, not the Left SR Revolt - just look at the external links listed at the bottom of the article. This is a clear cut case of confusion. (24.7.78.170 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

For researchers without the capital to afford or research position to have journal access, this quotation is added so you can follow the references to the claims and refutation about the bolsheviks alleged staging of the events. "Perhaps most important has been his (Ovrutskii's) collaboration with Razgon to refute émigré historian Iurii Georgievich Fel'shtinskii's contention that the Bolshevik-labeled Left SR "revolt" in July 1918 was in fact organized by the Bolsheviks to discredit and eliminate the Left SRs. 12 12 L. M. Ovrutskii and Anatolii Izrailevich Razgon, "Poniatdukh 6 iiulia,' " Otechestvennaia istoriia, no. 3 (1992): 49-60, in response to Iurii Georgievich Fel'shtinskii, "Ne'miatezh,' a provokatsiia," ibid., 20-48. As Ovrutskii and Razgon point out, Fel'shtinskii argued in his earlier monograph that the Left SRs, having "helped" the Bolsheviks seize and retain power and abolish all opposition parties, had served their purpose as far as Bolshevism was concerned; see Fel'shtinskii, Bol'sheviki i levye esery, oktiabr' 1917 -iiul ' 1918 : Na puti k odnopartiinoi diktature (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1985). Fel'shtinskii's claim about the July uprising was previously made by George Katkov; see Katkov's "The Assassination of Count Mirbach," Soviet Affairs 3 (1962): 53-93. -Boniece, Sally A. - link "Don Quixotes of the Revolution"? The Left SRs as a Mass Political Movement. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5.1 (2004) 185-194 (24.7.78.170 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

• • "The Left SR uprising or Left SR revolt was a coup and other assassinations and uprisings..."
  • "Left S.R.s pursued their aim of sabotaging the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and dragging Soviet Russia back into war with Germany..."

There is something odd about the language. I think sorting out the first sentence and finding a non-tendentious way to describe the Left SR war aims in the second might go a ways to giving a framework to this article that isn't inherently provocative.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have been reading Mawdsley's "The Russian Civil War" which is how I wound up here. He deals with what you are calling the Uprising in two pages, 40 and 41, focussing entirely on the assassination and the fighting in Moscow. He gives special attention to the decisive role of the Latvian Rifles in retaking the Kremlin and then the streets of Moscow. The Latvian commander, Colonel Vatsetti, wound up eventually as the "Main Commander in Chief of the whole Red Army." I am not going to add anything to the article myself since those two pages contain everything I know about the unpleasantness in July 1918 OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply