MovieChat Forums > Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) Discussion > The Diseased Twentieth Century

The Diseased Twentieth Century

posted 14 years ago by HijodelCid
8 replies | jump to latest

What will historians of future centuries make of an era as SCHIZOPHRENIC as the 20th century?
Artistically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: among other accomplishments, it developed a new art: moving pictures.
Medically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: many diseases that had gone for centuries without a cure were finally curable.
Scientifically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: humanity took the first steps for the exploration and conquest of the universe.
Regarding human rights, such rights as equality of the sexes and equality of the races finally came into their own.
Politically, however...
Why did politics have such a bleak grisly career during the 20th century? More people died because of political violence in the 20th century than in all the recorded previous centuries put together. Even someone as notoriously bloodthirsty as Ivan the Terrible was outdone infinite times over by his greatest admirer of the 20th century: Stalin!

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] Stevicus-2 14 years ago

What will historians of future centuries make of an era as SCHIZOPHRENIC as the 20th century?
Artistically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: among other accomplishments, it developed a new art: moving pictures.
Medically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: many diseases that had gone for centuries without a cure were finally curable.
Scientifically, the 20th century was a Golden Age: humanity took the first steps for the exploration and conquest of the universe.
Regarding human rights, such rights as equality of the sexes and equality of the races finally came into their own.
Politically, however...
Why did politics have such a bleak grisly career during the 20th century? More people died because of political violence in the 20th century than in all the recorded previous centuries put together. Even someone as notoriously bloodthirsty as Ivan the Terrible was outdone infinite times over by his greatest admirer of the 20th century: Stalin!

Well, in terms of war, I would say that military technology made a huge difference in the body count. The politics leading up to World War I seemed basically the same as they were during the 19th century, but industrialism and military technology were vastly improved.

Also, due to the medical and scientific advancements you mentioned, the population of the world rose to a level it had never seen before, so there were more people anyway.

It might have been a culmination of cumulative resentments built up over centuries, much like a passive individual who gets crapped on all his life suddenly snapping and going berserk. Even in the film, Nicholas seems to recognize this when he says something to the effect of, "If they're full of hate, it's because we made them that way." Both Hitler and Stalin were abused as children and grew up angry at the whole world. No doubt that millions of their followers had similar backgrounds and were essentially saying, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

[–] HijodelCid 14 years ago

Thanks for your response, which is indeed very perceptive.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] HijodelCid 13 years ago

I picture the Three Martyrs of WWI--HH Pope Pius X, Emperor-Czar Nicholas II, and Emperor-King Charles I-IV--discussing the following questions:
When will the misbegotten God-forsaken 20th century REALLY end?
Will the world ever recover from WWI?

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] Strausszek 13 years ago

You do realize that democracy, in the sense of full and equal right to vote and run for office, and the substantial influence of the wide swathes of people in a country on the running of the nation, was only at its dawn in 1910? The First World War and the revolutions and social seizures at the end of it paved the way for democracy throughout much of Europe. The old order did look prettier and more graceful on the surface but it rested on hundreds of millions of people living in squalor, diseases, hunger and illiteracy and without much of a chance to get anywhere except occasionally by emigration (democracy in the US was quite restricted at the time, too, though they did have equal suffrage for white males).

If one buys into the idea that Nicholas and other monarchs had a divine right to rule and to send millions to the battlefield on badly stitched-up plans, then democracy is not an issue within that particular perspective, but if you're looking at it from a democratic or liberal point of view I think one should realize that most people in 1900 had next to no contact with what we think of as "the good old days" and that there was barely a single parliament in the world voted by equal suffrage of all the people and with a powerful ability to guide the political future.

The paradox is: the Russian Revolution and Lenin's coup ("the October revolution") led to autocracy and heinous crimes in Russia, but at the same time it helped push through democracy in many places in Western adn Central Europe (and also facilitated the birth of a number of states that are still on the map today: Poland, Finland, the Baltic republics). Many of the baronets and diehard conservatives realized that the only way they might stick to the old order was to risk revolution and lengthy civil war, and being bulldozed by a superior adversary, so most of them gave in and accepted that there had to be some sort of shift to a democratic order. This is not widely recognized by mainstream liberals today but it's a fact.

Mr.Hitler has made life very difficult for Shakespearian companies.

[–] HijodelCid 13 years ago

I'm afraid that Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would disagree with any suggestion that the Russians-Soviets ,,gave'' them their independence.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] Strausszek 13 years ago

"I'm afraid that Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would disagree with any suggestion that the Russians-Soviets ,,gave'' them their independenc"

They all effectively depended on the peace of Brest-Litovsk in early 1918 and the previous, consistent drive by the Bolsheviks to end the involvement of Russia in the Great War. Most of the other parties opposed to the Tsar in 1916-17 still saw the war as necessary because Russia "had to stick to her promises" as a member of trhe Entente, had to take vengeance on the Germans who had already killed so many Russians on the battlefield and had to defend the status of the country as a great power. Kerensky or anyone else would not have accepted a separate peace with the Kaiser or even a gradual pull-down of the war, nor would the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were effectively the only party to say the war had to come to an end soon, and the only ones who didn't feel committed to keep up the pre-war borders of the old Russian empire. So they let Finland, Poland and the Baltic nations go. The fact that those countries were ideologically at odds with the USSR from the start doesn't mean that Soviet Russia made attempts to take them back or to make vassal states of them. That only happened in 1939/40 when the situation was completely different.

Ironically, both Lenin and the Germans bargained on that the other side would soon collapse and would not be around to reap its harvest. Lenin figured that the German Empire would be dead within a year, the German diplomats thought the same of the new Russia, or any Russian state. Lenin won the chicken race, but we're only discussing the situation around 1917-19 and some years after, not in the 1940s.

Lenin easily gave Finland and the Baltic republics their independence (Poland was already out of reach, it had long since been lost to the German troops) even though the Kremlin knew it would be "bourgeoisie" governments taking over. When workers and native red wedges rebelled in Finland in the spring of 1918, it did mean a bloodstained civil war that tore up the nation, but the Russian military involvement was minimal. No Red Army units were sent in (there were a few that were still in Finland at the time and who supported the red rebel government, acting on their own accord, but no drive from the top to interfere) and there was no assistance from the heavily pro-communist Russian marine. They could easily have sent some ships to assist the "workers' government" in Helsinki or to make landings on the Finnish coast but they kept to the principle that Finland would take care of her own business. A liberal government in Petersburg would never have acted that way.

And yes, I know some of those states were formally put on the map through the treaty of Versailles, but for that to mean anything, the recognition by the Russians and their consent not to move in was essential.

Mr.Hitler has made life very difficult for Shakespearian companies.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

1914 was the disastrous year If the two world wars had been avoided the world would be better in every way.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16180) a year ago

Very erotic. Very violent.