Rel. Leaders Assume Prominent Role In Reuniting Republics

[mwoerl]

Following is a quote from "The Making of the Georgian Nation," by Ronald Grigor Suny, (publisher info above), p. 84.

Speaking of a revoilt against Russian rule in Kakhetia (part of Georgia), Mr. Suny states:

"The newly appointed chief administrator of the Caucausus, Marquis Filipp Paulucci [a good Russian name if ever I've heard one . . .], led the campaign against the peasants, and somewhat reservedly noted in his report to the minister of police, 'It is certain that the Georgian people do not care for the Russian government at all.' By the end of March, the revolt had been crushed, 1 peasants were hanghed, 520 were killed in the fighting. Among those who were exiled to Siberia, were 62 tavabedi, nobles who had allied with the peasants in the hope of ending Russian rule . . . at the same time the Georgian church, a potential center for national opposition, was brought more completely under Russian control. Catholicos Antoni II, a son of Erekle II, who had been called to St. Petersburgh in 1811, was not permitted to return to Georgia. After 800 years of existence, the autocephaly of the Georgian church was abolished against the will of the Georgian clergy. Briefly, a Georgian Archbishop, Varlaam, served at the pleasure of the tsar as exarch, but in 1817 Varlaam was called to St. Petersburg and replaced by a Russian Archbishop, Feofilakt. The new exarch ordered that services be held in Slavonic in Tiflis's Sioni Cathedral at least three times a week. Plans were made to reform the Georgian liturgy, or to replace it entirely with Slavonic rites . . . less than a decade after the Kakhetian revolt, the complex of grievances against the Russian bureaucracy congealed into another massive uprising, this time in Imereti . . . and soon spread to Guria . . . once again only the most brutal repression could force the Georgians to submit to the Russian authorities . . ."

The years 1811-1820 are being discussed in the above quotation. These Georgians who were revolting against what they clearly felt was Russian "oppression" were indeed NOT the "socialist radicals" of your dreams! I hardly think Georgian nobles and peasants of the decade of 1811-1820 could be described as "socialist radicals" by any stretch of the imagination!

While the Georgian Church may have indeed proclaimed anew their autocephaly after the bolshevik revolt in Russia while Georgia was under, as you describe it, "a bourgeois regime run by British interests," this was obvioulsy not recognized by the Russian Church, and only was recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate when Stalin gave his orders. Which is my point . . . the fact that the Georgian Church had its own liturgical traditions, language, and history is commonly known. The mention of the planned of "reform" of the Georgian liturgy, or simply replacing "it entirely with Slavonic rites" (mentioned in the quote above) does not suggest that the Georgian traditions were "respected," as you insist.

"the fact that ONE Orthodox church was created for one Empire" indeed was not novel, and indeed did have to do with "centralization," as well as with control, power, empire . . . This "fact," also, did not take into consideration, or show "respect" for the Georgian traditions, the Georgian Church, or the Georgian people. And, are you trying to suggest here that being "not novel" is the same thing as "being the right thing to do"? While I realize that there are those who do mourn the passing of the Russian Empire, I certainly do not feel it necessary, or profitable, to mythologize that Empire as something it was not. To state that the Russian Empire benefitted all peoples it came in contact with in its conquest of the lands it controlled is ludicrous.

Your post also makes use of the inescapable and aboslutely required to be mentioned "socialist radicals." And I am glad you do admit they were a "small minority." Which leads me to ask-how did this "small minority," then, gain complete power in Russia? You are aware that this "small minority" received quite a lot of support from the Russian people, are you not? Or, are you of the school that places all blame on the dreaded "foreigners" for the catastrophe that befell Russia?

mwoerl

[Bogatyr]

1). Firstly, one has to deal with different periods in Russian history. The nineteenth century was tumultuous in its changes. Indeed, uprisings were put down, and some of my ancestors did the "putting down", but are they not analogous to such things as the riots in LA a decade ago or the Haymarket riots over a century ago? Or the riots that occured in Washington DC over pay for revolutionary soldiers after the republic was founded? Is it the purpose of an empire to ensure order and stability of its citizenry? It is clear the Georgian opposition did not have the strength to oppose Russian rule or even sustain a movement throughout the nineteenth century. It dwindled away. Why? Prosperity brought to the people of Georgia by the empire. Elevation of the cultural and educational level of Georgia by the empire--one has to remember that prior to their petitioning to become part of the Russian Empire, they had been a tributary state to the persian satraps, who lived very much in the sixth century and increasingly came under islamic fundamentalist influence to islamicize their subjects. By no means did the mahometan undertake this "jihad" peaceably, especially with recalcitrant populations. I would suggest you examine the history of the fez, yes that red, silly hat. Lastly, the Russian government kept Georgia from becoming a turkish harem-janissary producer and assured its subjects of a free way of life. There may have been impositions made, but in the end, the Russian involvement in their nation was the only way to save it.
2). No one endorses the synodal period. It was utterly protestant in governance and resulted in the Church in Russia becoming undynamic and detached and, at times, decadent. The patriarchate was rightly restored and would have rightly been implemented had the tragedy concerning St. Tikhon and his legacy not have occured.
3). Lastly, what Russia was was an Orthodox power which produced greatness and stood for something good. Of course, there were problems/corruption, but the idea of Russia was to the Orthodox ear a fulfillment of what government should be. I would challenge to find your utopia in the liberal democratic American republic and use the same standards in analyzing its history. To address the revolution of 1917, one has to look at the factors involved. Hyperinflation, profiteering industrialists, an inept and wavering Duma, and rampant corruption in the face of a degenerate named raputin wo was only excised from the palace when it was too late. I cringed once when I had a conversation with the son of a General in the Imperial Army, who said he had his Cossack officers SHOT for such offenses at the front as the stealing of a chicken. Some of my ancestors were those same Cossack officers. This overwhelmed the people more than anything else. Whereas, the revolutionaries who carried out the february revolution were social revolutionaries, not bolsheviks or mensheviks. They were in the majority. They were empowered by german and masonic interests. february was a clearcut coupe, but the revolutionaries knew it would not be final. The bolsheviks promoted disunion and preyed on the decadent and stupid provisional government. They influenced it in removing its own guard and were able with a minority to seize the centers of a centralized state. By the time chernov on the Don gave out a call for the White Volunteers, the bolsheviks had taken control of the entire infrastructure, isolated and killed members of the monarchy, and had their red bands and the cheka ruling with an iron hand, implementing the policy of lenin's "war communism", where orders were enforced with hunger, beatings, and a bullet. That's how Russia fell.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[mwoerl]

first, i must comment that i do not find that any "utopias" exist or have existed.

as far as [which bogatyr writes]:

"By the time chernov on the Don gave out a call for the White Volunteers, the bolsheviks had taken control of the entire infrastructure, isolated and killed members of the monarchy, and had their red bands and the cheka ruling with an iron hand, implementing the policy of lenin's "war communism", where orders were enforced with hunger, beatings, and a bullet. That's how Russia fell . . ."

the "red bands" as you call them were not an insignificant or extremely small force. orders were also enforced by the whites with hunger, beatings, and a bullet. that is why the whites did not gain enough popular support to do anything than eventually retreat. perhaps if they had not been so eager to "save" only their positions and power and money, they may have gained the necessary support. and, more than one white general was equally barbarous and sadistic as anything the bolsheviks produced.

you know, on the one hand, you have the story of the itty bitty tiny bolshevik party somehow just takin over russia, all because of foreigners, masons, and jews [who certainly did not supply any troops. . . ] then, on the other hand, you have saint john of shanghai telling us that the russian catstrophe was brought on by the russian people themselves, because of their apostasy, faithlessness, etc.

i do not see how the two coincide.

mwoerl

[Bogatyr]

Whilst not all the whites were no Saints, I would suggest you examine even bolshevik assesments of "war communism". It is true that the Russian themselves betrayed their own country, but to blanket assault the whites is negligent. It is clear from all histories that the bolsheviks were in the minority and imposed tyranny upon the general population and NO WHERE can you find a White equivalent to "war communism".
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovksy