Basicly the discussion was mainly about situations or social structures of some countries and why was Russia could be different from them in some aspects. Time frame is 1900 to 1920's even not much mentioned about ww2 timeframe.
Regards,
ERISS wrote:The communists (pro bolshevists) were waiting, during the killings they did nothing, they didn't want to be part of the revolution (and at this time were NOT attacked by freikurps): They wanted to seize the power when the revolution would succeed, but wounded and fragile, as in Russia.
The democrat socialist party did not ordered to attack the real bolsho-communists! The party may have shouted about the so-invading commies, accusing the revolted as being bolshevists, but the party left alone the real known commies! If there were an accusation, it was intended to kill who was standing in the way of the socialist party power.
It have never studied the events in Germany in 1918-19, so can't really comment on the action of German communists.
What is clear though is that at that time, official Russian Communist Party policy was to help bring about a Soviet Republic in Germany. My earlier post that Lenin in 1918 ordered men and supplies to be made ready to support a revolution in Germany and that advisers and funds were sent to Munich come from Soviet archival documents.
One of the more grandiose aim of the 1920 Russo-Polish war was also to establish Soviet Republics in Germany and Poland, although the Red Army turned out to be much too weak at the time.
ERISS wrote:
The german democrat Socialist Party just wanted the power, and its hierarchy used the ultra-right soldiers (in 1920 some went the 1st nazis) to slaughter the revolution. This socialist party might have to kill many of its own militants.
The communists (pro bolshevists) were waiting, during the killings they did nothing, they didn't want to be part of the revolution (and at this time were NOT attacked by freikurps): They wanted to seize the power when the revolution would succeed, but wounded and fragile, as in Russia.
We can say the revolted were the 1st resistance fighters against NAtional soZIalists! (see the swastika on some freikurps helmets in 1920)
Weimar republic was founded on a mass grave.
I have missed that. After edit,
Social Democrats in power in Germany at that time maybe denied even her militants, but even without intervention by using authorities to use Freicorps, Do they believe the revolution will be succesfull in revolted regions?
I didnt make a research but Communists(which did not take part in revolts) had any reliable military power?
Sure there is very much potential about Facism, Those extreme right wing soldiers and leaders should have joined Hitler's cause.
Charles wrote:It have never studied the events in Germany in 1918-19, so can't really comment on the action of German communists.
What is clear though is that at that time, official Russian Communist Party policy was to help bring about a Soviet Republic in Germany. My earlier post that Lenin in 1918 ordered men and supplies to be made ready to support a revolution in Germany and that advisers and funds were sent to Munich come from Soviet archival documents.
One of the more grandiose aim of the 1920 Russo-Polish war was also to establish Soviet Republics in Germany and Poland, although the Red Army turned out to be much too weak at the time.
Charles, Im not convinced about Red army power during 1918's..
In my previous post I wrote that Germany(1918) was very industrilized like 2nd in the world. Germany had very strong "inner state". Even Hitler's armies was succesfull in the ww2. East part of Germany was only forced to be communist end of ww2. After so many fronts of fighting.
Im more interested about Lenin and bolshevik sitution in 1917. I will research more about facts in Russia at that time.
Baris wrote:
Charles, Im not convinced about Red army power during 1918's..
In what sense?
Red Army in 1918 was weak. The Bolsheviks had disbanded the Imperial Russian Army and founded their own army, the Red Army, but in early 1918, they were totally powerless to stop the German Army from advancing all the way to the Ukraine and forcing Russia to accept the very harsh terms of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. In December 1918, the Red Army suffered a major defeat at Perm in the Urals at the hand of White forces.
As late as 1920, the Red Army could only field 35 divisions to invade Poland, in contrast to the 100 divisions the old Imperial Army had fielded on the eastern front in 1914.
no not about that, I first though that ,it was mentioned Bolsheviks(Lenin) had the power to change regime in Germany at that time. in 1920 I guess most of the countries in the world must have supported similar regimes to theirs by giving supplies, weapons and more importantly feeding "comprador" groups. But it is normal.
Rumours were many for Russia like about black sea or Suez. Some can be objective and some can be fiction of course. Maybe "reds" were the source of "evil" at that time.
I believe Germany had very different social structure from Russia. Russian revolution is a very interesting event. More reference needed of course about the social structure should have make it easier for Lenin about achieving victory.(also about his good leadership)
Rumours were many for Russia like about black sea or Suez. Some can be objective and some can be fiction of course. Maybe "reds" were the source of "evil" at that time.
I believe Germany had very different social structure from Russia. Russian revolution is a very interesting event. More reference needed of course about the social structure should have make it easier for Lenin about achieving victory.(also about his good leadership)
Some writings..
"Throughout its history, the Russian population was overwhelmingly agrarian. Even in the late tsarist period, about 80 percent of the population consisted of peasants. Serfdom was abolished only in 1861 as part of the Great Reforms of the 1860s and early 1870s. Even after emancipation, the peasantry of European Russia remained tied by law, custom, and necessity to the village commune. Life for the poverty- stricken Russian peasants was brutal, and the marginal rises in income they experienced in the early twentieth century still left them far poorer than farmers in Western Europe. In addition, notions of social improvement and accumulating wealth through increased efficiency remained foreign to most peasants.
The connections between Russian peasantry and the growing urban working class were strong because of the migration of peasants to urban areas after emancipation. In 1897, 44 percent of the Russian urban population was made up of persons officially of the peasant soslovie (estate), particularly in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the peasant portions of the population were 69 and 70 percent, respectively.
While many peasants were able to find a place in the urban workplace, these new workers were not fully assimilated into life in the city. Many worked in the city only for stretches of time, returning periodically to their villages, where they had family members, land, and responsibilities. Large numbers of urban workers lived in crowded, unsanitary barracks. In these conditions, social dislocation and various forms of asocial activity, such as alcoholism and criminality, were common. In 1914 fully two-thirds of industrial workers maintained ties to the countryside, a situation that impeded the development of a confident urban working class that prized stability as a condition for its success. "
I guess it is from Russian translation . But the last paragraph is very important and looks logical. As it looks during Tzar timeframe(1870's) and in 1914 workers were not assimilated in big cities where there is quick industrilization. They were farmers origin and returning to villages after work.
So there must be some social alienation of workers. They were culturally or traditionally villagers but working in a city. Where they can be more involved in community but at the same time they arent fully convinced about being citizens even they are working in a city. Because of alienation there must be some chaotic situation or questions about "who are we?".
Those questions and quickly changing society(and working conditions) should need some quick answers.Those answers were well analysed I guess by Lenin..
"Throughout its history, the Russian population was overwhelmingly agrarian. Even in the late tsarist period, about 80 percent of the population consisted of peasants. Serfdom was abolished only in 1861 as part of the Great Reforms of the 1860s and early 1870s. Even after emancipation, the peasantry of European Russia remained tied by law, custom, and necessity to the village commune. Life for the poverty- stricken Russian peasants was brutal, and the marginal rises in income they experienced in the early twentieth century still left them far poorer than farmers in Western Europe. In addition, notions of social improvement and accumulating wealth through increased efficiency remained foreign to most peasants.
The connections between Russian peasantry and the growing urban working class were strong because of the migration of peasants to urban areas after emancipation. In 1897, 44 percent of the Russian urban population was made up of persons officially of the peasant soslovie (estate), particularly in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the peasant portions of the population were 69 and 70 percent, respectively.
While many peasants were able to find a place in the urban workplace, these new workers were not fully assimilated into life in the city. Many worked in the city only for stretches of time, returning periodically to their villages, where they had family members, land, and responsibilities. Large numbers of urban workers lived in crowded, unsanitary barracks. In these conditions, social dislocation and various forms of asocial activity, such as alcoholism and criminality, were common. In 1914 fully two-thirds of industrial workers maintained ties to the countryside, a situation that impeded the development of a confident urban working class that prized stability as a condition for its success. "
I guess it is from Russian translation . But the last paragraph is very important and looks logical. As it looks during Tzar timeframe(1870's) and in 1914 workers were not assimilated in big cities where there is quick industrilization. They were farmers origin and returning to villages after work.
So there must be some social alienation of workers. They were culturally or traditionally villagers but working in a city. Where they can be more involved in community but at the same time they arent fully convinced about being citizens even they are working in a city. Because of alienation there must be some chaotic situation or questions about "who are we?".
Those questions and quickly changing society(and working conditions) should need some quick answers.Those answers were well analysed I guess by Lenin..
found an interesting article on Bolshevik economic policy in 1918-1921, the so called "War Communism" and it's effect on the economy:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_5.pdf
In one fell swoop the market was declared illegal. Private trade, the hiring of labor, leasing of land, and all private enterprise and ownership were abolished, at least in theory, and subject to punishment by the state. Property was confiscated from the upper classes. Businesses and factories were nationalized. Surplus crops produced by the peasants were taken by the government to support the Bolshevik civil-war forces and workers in the towns. Labor was conscripted and organized militarily. Consumer goods were rationed at artificially low prices and later at no price at all. Unsurprisingly, special treatment was accorded those with power and influence.
The results were catastrophic. Industrial production by 1920 was 20 per-cent of the pre-war volume. Gross agricultural output fell from more than 69 million tons in the period 1909-1913 to less than 31 million in 1921. Sown area dropped from over 224 million acres in the period 1909-1913 to less than 158 million in 1921. From 1917 to 1922 the population declined by 16 million, not counting war deaths and emigration. Eight million persons left the towns for the villages from 1918 to 1920. In Moscow and Petrograd, the population declined 58.2 percent.'
With industrial production at a near standstill, the towns had little to trade with the peasants for food. With no incentive for the peasants to produce a food surplus, the government turned to confiscation, which further discouraged agricultural production. The peasants resisted the harsh government measures.The peasant was required to deliver everything in excess of his own and his family's needs. Naked requisition from so-called kulaks [the more prosperous peasantry] of arbitrarily determined surpluses provoked the two traditional replies of the peasant: the short-term reply of concealment of stacks and the long-term reply of refusal to sow more land than was necessary to feed his o m family.6
While the Bolshevik assault on the market economy was comprehensive and brutal, it would be a mistake to think it was fully successful. The market impulse dies hard and there was an extensive black market for consumer goods. It has been suggested that the black market and pre-war production are what carried the Russians through the civil war and delayed the total collapse.In 1920, the Reds faced an internal situation verging on catastrophe. Hunger and disease were widespread, and industry and trade were at a virtual standstill.'
http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_5.pdf
Charles wrote:found an interesting article on Bolshevik economic policy in 1918-1921, the so called "War Communism" and it's effect on the economy:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_5.pdf
1) The article is outdated (prior to the fall of the Soviet Union and accessibility of added sources)...
2) The source is very biased (the Ludwig von Mises Institute is right wing libertarian, advocating free market economy and against democracy)...
Accordingly I'd say this article isn't very useful...
Marc aka Caran...
caranorn wrote:1) The article is outdated (prior to the fall of the Soviet Union and accessibility of added sources)...
2) The source is very biased (the Ludwig von Mises Institute is right wing libertarian, advocating free market economy and against democracy)...
Accordingly I'd say this article isn't very useful...
yes, it is old, but similar statistics are available from many other sources. It is also one of the few interesting documents available on the web.
There is little dispute that the original "leap to socialism" and the attendant economic policies were disastrous, leading to peasant rebellions and the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. This was why the Soviet Government adopted its "New Economic Policy" in 1921 which was basically just a return to a free market economy.
edit - this 2006 paper makes the same point, but not as eloquently. Look at table 9 on p.18. In 1918-21, GNP goes down by 45-50%; farming output down by 30-35%; industrial output down by 70-75%; capital investments down 75-85%.
http://www.icer.it/docs/wp2006/ICERwp22-06.pdf
During "war commnunism" there should be loss in industrial and agriculture production output indeed. After a time there was policies to change to "state capitalism" I heard. It should lead to beaurocracy. With government beaurocracy revolutionary left should have formed her own unique elite.
Decline of agriculture output should be related to "Kulak's" . They were wealthy peasants somehow. Should have their unique tradition of farming the land. Early Collectivism should harm the efficiency of farming output. As said difficult to give "value" to the output as there shouldn't be offer-demand society.
I have read Pyotr Stolypin(born in dresden,(1862) and from Russian aristocrat family.) encouriging to form wealthy farmer class like "kulaks"? landowners?(can be different opinions about that) to form conservative or loyal peasants to the system.
What is interesting is that while monarchy is encouraging Kulaks, couple of years later revolutionist refer them as the "enemies of the people" ...
Decline of agriculture output should be related to "Kulak's" . They were wealthy peasants somehow. Should have their unique tradition of farming the land. Early Collectivism should harm the efficiency of farming output. As said difficult to give "value" to the output as there shouldn't be offer-demand society.
I have read Pyotr Stolypin(born in dresden,(1862) and from Russian aristocrat family.) encouriging to form wealthy farmer class like "kulaks"? landowners?(can be different opinions about that) to form conservative or loyal peasants to the system.
What is interesting is that while monarchy is encouraging Kulaks, couple of years later revolutionist refer them as the "enemies of the people" ...
Charles wrote:What is clear though is that at that time, official Russian Communist Party policy was to help bring about a Soviet Republic in Germany.
"official" is the word. They did not help the ongoing german revolution. Bolsheviks never wanted to help any soviet, they want them to control them (then they no longer are soviet), or to destroy them if they can't control.
My earlier post that Lenin in 1918 ordered men and supplies to be made ready to support a revolution in Germany and that advisers and funds were sent to Munich
Bolsheviks support a revolution when they think they can seize it. They did not support the german one, as this revolution despised them, seeing what they were doing with russian one.
come from Soviet archival documents.
You should not agree propaganda (mine too lol, think by yourself).
ERISS wrote:You should not agree propaganda (mine too lol, think by yourself).
very good advice.
but the source I am referring to is the archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1903 to 1991, which was secret until 1991, and was also microfilmed and moved to the west, all 25,000,000 pages of it.
http://www.library.yale.edu/slavic/microform/sovietarchives.html
this contains correspondence between Communist Party leaders in 1917-24+ and is probably the best source for what they were thinking at that time.
On to the main point, your observation is only valid from the late 1920s onward when Stalin was in command.
While Lenin was in control, the situation was more fluid. In 1917, many of the top Bolshevik leaders thought Soviet revolutions were about to break out all over Europe. Lenin wanted to be in place to support the German revolution since he thought Germany was the key and that a successful revolution in Germany would trigger all the rest.
As late as 1920, during the Russo-Polish war, Lenin thought workers in Germany and Poland would rise up to support the Red Army's advance in Poland. There is even correspondance at that time between Stalin and Lenin discussing the future structure of a Federation encompassing Soviet Russia, Poland and Germany. Lenin argued that all would be equal while stalin argued Soviet Germany would want a more pre-eminent status than Poland or Ukraine.
obviously, there was a lot of wishful thinking going on...
As said by Marx "history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class" .
İf we generalize this sentence or looking by more global perspective, history is about power struggle. That power struggle is so dominant that even religion,social class,nationality is losing importance about making choices.
While Lenin or Bolsheviks should have sympathy for communist and communism in Germany, at the same time they were criticizing german "comrades" about trying to find solutions in the "bourgeoisie parlament".
But in the end, even German communists are collaborators(?) or say they came from originally Russia, they would have different path or ideological seperation from bolsheviks, when you consider the power of Germany.
Germany's backyard is eastern europe where she could have more influence than Bolsheviks by being communist.
I suspect Lenin want a strong communist Germany in which he can not control. I think Lenin wanted reliable ally against "imprealists". He should have thought that in the end west will try to counteract . He must have thought that Germany is not a reliable ally but have some problems with the west.
What is interesting is that relatively "reliable ally" was the first to declare war on Russia in ww2...
İf we generalize this sentence or looking by more global perspective, history is about power struggle. That power struggle is so dominant that even religion,social class,nationality is losing importance about making choices.
While Lenin or Bolsheviks should have sympathy for communist and communism in Germany, at the same time they were criticizing german "comrades" about trying to find solutions in the "bourgeoisie parlament".
But in the end, even German communists are collaborators(?) or say they came from originally Russia, they would have different path or ideological seperation from bolsheviks, when you consider the power of Germany.
Germany's backyard is eastern europe where she could have more influence than Bolsheviks by being communist.
I suspect Lenin want a strong communist Germany in which he can not control. I think Lenin wanted reliable ally against "imprealists". He should have thought that in the end west will try to counteract . He must have thought that Germany is not a reliable ally but have some problems with the west.
What is interesting is that relatively "reliable ally" was the first to declare war on Russia in ww2...
Charles wrote: the archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1903 to 1991, which was secret until 1991, and was also microfilmed and moved to the west, all 25,000,000 pages of it.
this contains correspondence between Communist Party leaders in 1917-24+ and is probably the best source for what they were thinking at that time.
Facts better tell than accustomed liars. Lenin was used to tell and write all and its contrary. Bolsheviks are 'strategic': truth has no value for them. They are even worst than our usual politicians.
On to the main point, your observation is only valid from the late 1920s onward when Stalin was in command.
What point? Lenin and Trostky went destroying the soviets before Stalin (obvious exemple: they destroyed the ukrainian ones). When Stalin went in command, there were no longer any soviet in the so called USSR.
Baris wrote:While Lenin or Bolsheviks should have sympathy for communist and communism in Germany, at the same time they were criticizing german "comrades" about trying to find solutions in the "bourgeoisie parlament".
But, Lenin, politician genious, succeded in having his own bourgeois parliament!: He used the soviets! He asked them to do a "suprem soviet", and voilà!: The people no longer decide, the "suprem soviet" was now deciding. And for the bolsheviks, it was far more easy to control a parlament than thousands soviets: Tcheka controlled who was allowed* in the so called suprem soviet. Bolsheviks went the new bourgeoisie, parasite on the people.
* The cheka controlled who was elected in the soviets (using murder, forgery, slanders..), so the soviets had a bolshevik as spokesperson.
Charles wrote:I am sure Lenin would have liked to control a Soviet Germany.
No doubt about that. Not necessary for Germany to be communist.
Archieves can have some "hints" about what may Lenin can think but,there must be many more below the Iceberg. Primary objective should be the control. İf one can not achieve control then why should Germany be communist. It should be about who will benefit from power struggle.[/QUOTE]
ERISS wrote:
But, Lenin, politician genious, succeded in having his own bourgeois parlament!: He used the soviets! He asked them to do a "suprem soviet", and voilà!: The people no longer decide, the "suprem soviet" was now deciding. And for the bolsheviks, it was far more easy to control a parlament than thousands soviets: Tcheka controlled who was allowed* in the so called suprem soviet. Bolsheviks went the new bourgeoisie, parasite on the people.
* The cheka controlled who was elected in the soviets (using murder, forgery, slanders..), so the soviets had a bolshevik as spokesperson.
Should be quite right. Lenin was indeed a good politician. I suspected how did the bolsheviks gain support and control over the soviets in relatively short time. Sure they didnt talk to every village elder or spokesman in every soviet state. Parlament should be good place to start manipulation. I guess revolution lost cause just from the beginning by forming privileged class.
Bolsheviks or other groups criticizing about German communists I have read about was, during German Revolution. While German revolutionarist were eliminated, socialists in the parlament was idle, or doing nothing.
Baris wrote:Bolsheviks or other groups criticizing about German communists I have read about was, during German Revolution. While German revolutionarist were eliminated, socialists in the parlament was idle, or doing nothing.
As I remember from our german history the political landscape changed during the Great War. The Social Democratic Party who had great influence in the workers class supported the War engagement of the Imperial Government.
Because of this the socialist wing of the SPD splitted away and formed the USPD - the Independant Social Democratic Party.
After the Armistice the USPD proclaimed in Berlin the Soviet Republic of Germany parallel to the proclaimation of the democratic German Republic by Philip Schuman the SPD chairmen. So very soon there started a civil war like conflict between the Socialistic Soviets and the Democrats in Germany. The remainder of the german Imperial Wehrmacht took side by the democrats and fought the german Soviets throughout the country.
Even in Bavaria there was a Bavarian Soviet Republic proclaimed in Munich 1919 which was very soon subjugated by conservative military forces and some Bavarian Freikorps which killed most of the members of the Soviets.
At this time were was the socalled Spartakist Revolt in Berlin and some other major cities which was performed by the communist wing of the USPD. Soon after the settlement of this inner conflict the communist party of Germany - the KPD- was formed which become very soon member of the KOMINTERN - the Communist International foundation lead by he Soviet Union.
After the Great War Germany was nearby becoming a Soviet Republic. If the social democratic party SPD had decided to unify again with the USPD and would have supported the proclaimation of the German Soviet Republic all would have changed and Germany not the Soviet Union would have gained most influence about all communist parties and countries because of their economical power.
But it had not happened and during the whole Twenties Germany was often near a Civil War above all as the Nazis gained more and more influence supported by the great economic dynasties like the Thyssen, Krupp and Flick and Quandt which had even much influence after WWII until now because of their financial power.
As I have often seen many US citizens make no difference between Socialdemocratism and Socialism and often think that this all are Communists, but this is very wrong. Without the SPD we had not become a stable democracy nowadays.
During the Russian Civil War many conservative soldiers fought in the socalled Freikorps in the Baltic region to support the foundation of free and democratic republics like Lithuania, Estonia and Lettland. During the first two years of the Civil War german forces occupied most of the Ukrainia and supported nationalistic forces there. Only after the retreat of the Germans the Red Army - the KONARMIA - was able to gain some foothold in the Ukrainia and could slowly occupy more and more of it.
If Germany was not totally defeated at the Westfront and a certain stable peace would have settled on very better terms the Communists would had have no chance to gain such a success during the RCW and the Ukrainia would have become a german satellite.
But with the Versailles Treaty and the great war exhaustion in the allied countries the western intervention had no success in Russia above all there was also the missing of german troops which could have changed the situation for the advantage of the White forces.
Nowadays Russia seems to go a more nationalistic and conservative political way with a strong and influential upper class which seems to become the new aristocracy.
In the days of the Civil War Lenin and Trotsky formed the layer of the upcoming superpower "Soviet Union" which performed very well under the dictatorship of Stalin.
Thats just my kind of reflection towards the Russian Civil War which was a long time unkown to me until some years ago...
greetings
Hohenlohe, who loves military history...
R.I.P. Henry D.
In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...
In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...
Good analysis.
But, Germany then would have to choose, in Ukraine, between the Petliura's directory (and its pogromist army), and the makhnovist soviets. (Maybe they could choose both and separate Ukraine between a north-west directory and a south-east declared first anarchist land in peace?)
And werchmacht could choose the Whites and make a coup d'etat...
For Germany, choosing in Ukraine between the usual "democracy" and the real one, with added a very reluctant german army: that could revive the civil war in Germany..
With the SPD using the freikurps, the nazis in these korps could grow and train (later fighting their SPD boss) as they at first were very usefull for the SPD power. So, the SPD is somewhat responsible of the WW2, which was not a good stable "democratic" time.
Hohenlohe wrote:The Social Democratic Party who had great influence in the workers class supported the War engagement of the Imperial Government.
Because of this the socialist wing of the SPD splitted away and formed the USPD - the Independant Social Democratic Party.
After the Armistice the USPD proclaimed in Berlin the Soviet Republic of Germany parallel to the proclaimation of the democratic German Republic by Philip Schuman the SPD chairmen. So very soon there started a civil war like conflict between the Socialistic Soviets and the Democrats in Germany. The remainder of the german Imperial Wehrmacht took side by the democrats and fought the german Soviets throughout the country.
After the Great War Germany was nearby becoming a Soviet Republic. If the social democratic party SPD had decided to unify again with the USPD and would have supported the proclaimation of the German Soviet Republic all would have changed and Germany not the Soviet Union would have gained most influence about all communist parties and countries because of their economical power.
But, Germany then would have to choose, in Ukraine, between the Petliura's directory (and its pogromist army), and the makhnovist soviets. (Maybe they could choose both and separate Ukraine between a north-west directory and a south-east declared first anarchist land in peace?)
And werchmacht could choose the Whites and make a coup d'etat...
For Germany, choosing in Ukraine between the usual "democracy" and the real one, with added a very reluctant german army: that could revive the civil war in Germany..
As I have often seen many US citizens make no difference between Socialdemocratism and Socialism and often think that this all are Communists, but this is very wrong. Without the SPD we had not become a stable democracy nowadays.
With the SPD using the freikurps, the nazis in these korps could grow and train (later fighting their SPD boss) as they at first were very usefull for the SPD power. So, the SPD is somewhat responsible of the WW2, which was not a good stable "democratic" time.
Originally Posted by Charles
the archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1903 to 1991, which was secret until 1991, and was also microfilmed and moved to the west, all 25,000,000 pages of it.
this contains correspondence between Communist Party leaders in 1917-24+ and is probably the best source for what they were thinking at that time.ERISS wrote:Facts better tell than accustomed liars. Lenin was used to tell and write all and its contrary. Bolsheviks are 'strategic': truth has no value for them. They are even worst than our usual politicians.
so you are saying any document or fact which does not support your theory is a lie or propaganda? that is pretty warped circular logic.
Baris wrote:No doubt about that. Not necessary for Germany to be communist.
It's more complicated than that. You can't analyse the 1917 Bolshevik leaders like ordinary politicians. Ordinary politicians just work within the system to gain power. The Bolsheviks were intellectuals who really believed in Marx's theory and wanted to make it come true. Marx had said that a world wide revolution would precede the transition to communism and that is what they thought was happening. More than that, the Bolsheviks thought that a worldwide revolution was essential to safeguard and ensure the success of the revolution in Russia. Otherwise, the conservative forces could gang up and snuff out the revolution in Russia. This is how they analysed the Civil War.
You see the same thing in economics. They tried to set up a total communist economy with disastrous results (see the quote from the Richman article I linked above).
It is only after a few years that reality started to sink in and the Communist leaders started to realize they could not blindly follow Marx's theories, but had to make more practical choices like ordinary politicians.
The real wake up call was the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion. The sailors in Kronstadt had been the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks in 1917. When they turned against the Communists in 1921, it really shook up the leaders who realized they had to rethink their policies.
Hohenlohe wrote:
But it had not happened and during the whole Twenties Germany was often near a Civil War above all as the Nazis gained more and more influence supported by the great economic dynasties like the Thyssen, Krupp and Flick and Quandt which had even much influence after WWII until now because of their financial power.
As I have often seen many US citizens make no difference between Socialdemocratism and Socialism and often think that this all are Communists, but this is very wrong. Without the SPD we had not become a stable democracy nowadays.
During the Russian Civil War many conservative soldiers fought in the socalled Freikorps in the Baltic region to support the foundation of free and democratic republics like Lithuania, Estonia and Lettland. During the first two years of the Civil War german forces occupied most of the Ukrainia and supported nationalistic forces there. Only after the retreat of the Germans the Red Army - the KONARMIA - was able to gain some foothold in the Ukrainia and could slowly occupy more and more of it.
If Germany was not totally defeated at the Westfront and a certain stable peace would have settled on very better terms the Communists would had have no chance to gain such a success during the RCW and the Ukrainia would have become a german satellite.
But with the Versailles Treaty and the great war exhaustion in the allied countries the western intervention had no success in Russia above all there was also the missing of german troops which could have changed the situation for the advantage of the White forces.
Greetings Hohenlohe,
Good to hear some facts and opinions from German perspective.
I agree about social democracy isn't very respected as it is not promising extreme changes from bourgeois society, it should be treated better in the past.
As written Germany was nearly becoming Soviet but the parlament has prevented it?
There are 2 opinions about Germany not becoming another Soviet State in forum regarding the parlament
The first one is Social democrats leading parlament wanted more power and didn't hesitate to use extreme right soldiers or groups to eliminate them even some of them from their own militants.
Second one is as said they are not socialists, they dont believe extreme changes in society.They are social democrats and didn't like Bolsheviks, so they didn't believe in revolution.
The question is if they wanted more power, why didnt they see the big picture? "Big picture" should be if Germany would be communist then with her good industry and inner system they could be more powerful?More influence to the neighbours? maybe early European Union formed by Germany.? should be what-if senerio
Other thing is why did Nazi's had so much power? Because Hitler is more charismatic? or unlike communists he had more support from "deep state" and bourgeoise.
It looks like even Social democrats in power in favour of bolsheviks or their german counterparts revolting in Germany, Germany had a tradition about being "conservative" and it is maintained by strong aristocracy tradition and trade. I have read somewhere that even %70 industry workers to the population in 1918 "Spartacists" were critisizing about industrial workers unconsciousness about communism.
ERISS wrote:
With the SPD using the freikurps, the nazis in these korps could grow and train (later fighting their SPD boss) as they at first were very usefull for the SPD power. So, the SPD is somewhat responsible of the WW2, which was not a good stable "democratic" time.
No choice for middle road, unlucky for SPD, destiny is inevitable
Either fascism or communism, the choice is made but unintentionally...Charles wrote:It's more complicated than that. You can't analyse the 1917 Bolshevik leaders like ordinary politicians. Ordinary politicians just work within the system to gain power. The Bolsheviks were intellectuals who really believed in Marx's theory and wanted to make it come true. Marx had said that a world wide revolution would precede the transition to communism and that is what they thought was happening. More than that, the Bolsheviks thought that a worldwide revolution was essential to safeguard and ensure the success of the revolution in Russia. Otherwise, the conservative forces could gang up and snuff out the revolution in Russia. This is how they analysed the Civil War.
It is only after a few years that reality started to sink in and the Communist leaders started to realize they could not blindly follow Marx's theories, but had to make more practical choices like ordinary politicians.
.
I have read all the posts. I agree on some points of course. No doubt Lenin is idealist but also intellectual. Regards to plato all "philospher kings" have the same motivation. Motivation is about showing the right path to society. They are not democrats at all. They don't need to. But problem is,would Lenin or bolsheviks will gladly share the power if his foresight about west became communists would be true. That part I mean by power struggle...
Charles wrote:You can't analyse the 1917 Bolshevik leaders like ordinary politicians. Ordinary politicians just work within the system to gain power.
Not Lenin. Lenin was an extraordinary politician, from the beginning he DID work within the soviets system to gain power. After spitting on the soviets, he quickly went singing the soviets when he saw they were about to succeed the revolution without the bolsheviks, and he seduced the people, everybody, to better destroy them.
Marx had said that a world wide revolution would precede the transition to communism and that is what they thought was happening. More than that, the Bolsheviks thought that a worldwide revolution was essential to safeguard and ensure the success of the revolution in Russia.
And the bolsheviks destroyed or let sink the others revolutions (Ukraine, Germany, ). Edit: if they couldn't control them
It is only after a few years that reality started to sink in and the Communist leaders started to realize they could not blindly follow Marx's theories, but had to make more practical choices like ordinary politicians.
Not for Trotski. He was aware from the very beginning.
Trotski, in 1904, 30 years after Bakunin, wrote (in 'Our political tasks') that marxism was leading to the dictatorship of one man (he was aiming Lenin).
But Lenin offered him the army, and Trotsky went corrupt by this power and omit (or agree for his benefit) what he knew about marxism...
The real wake up call was the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion. The sailors in Kronstadt had been the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks in 1917. When they turned against the Communists in 1921, it really shook up the leaders who realized they had to rethink their policies.
And they didn't.
But what shook up them is that this rebellion was internationnaly known, and that was bad for their propaganda. Bolsheviks already had kill many actual revolutionnaries turning against them before Kronstdat, it didn't shook them...
ERISS wrote:
And the bolsheviks destroyed or let sink the others revolutions (Ukraine, Germany, ).
And they didn't.
But what shook up them is that this rebellion was internationnaly known, and that was bad for their propaganda. Bolsheviks already had kill many actual revolutionnaries turning against them before Kronstdat, it didn't shook them...
More vital issue should be about farming or collectivizm in farmlands. As it could halt the whole system. problems with Kulaks must have inherited to Stalin.
I agree fully with Eriss about the ruthless expansion of bolsheviks. Lenin is also part of it about deciding fortune of countries with little mercy.(Even he understood some of his mistakes and try to ease the situation in farmlands.) Ukraine is the main unlucky victim here.
What ever is the reason for it, it shouldn't happen. As it happened there is no point to search similarity between Marxism and bolsheviks...
Baris wrote:More vital issue should be about farming or collectivizm in farmlands. As it could halt the whole system. problems with Kulaks must have inherited to Stalin.
There were no problem with kulaks, as they almost no longer exist in 1917, the revolution already shared the most of their properties. Being "kulak" is a bad charge from the bolsheviks to steal the better farmers lands, or is a false explaination to excuse the incompetence of the bolsheviks. That's the bolsheviks who went the problem as kulaks, as they became the greater land owners.
They even became capitalists as all was becoming the property of the party.
I wonder whether this discussion couldn't be refocused to topics pertinent to the game. The last few days it seems to have drifted ever more...
This game is about the military and to a much lesser degree economic sides of the October Revolution and following Russian Civil War. It is not about Lenin, Trosky, Stalin or anyone else as politicians, the truthfullness of bolshevics or other groups in general. While open discussion can be good, I fear this one will likely turn sour rapidly. It's like having a hypothetical discussion about the pros and cons of slavery under the AACW topic, it's going to become ugly fast...
This game is about the military and to a much lesser degree economic sides of the October Revolution and following Russian Civil War. It is not about Lenin, Trosky, Stalin or anyone else as politicians, the truthfullness of bolshevics or other groups in general. While open discussion can be good, I fear this one will likely turn sour rapidly. It's like having a hypothetical discussion about the pros and cons of slavery under the AACW topic, it's going to become ugly fast...
Marc aka Caran...
ERISS wrote:There were no problem with kulaks, as they almost no longer exist in 1917, the revolution already shared the most of their properties. Being "kulak" is a bad charge from the bolsheviks.
They even became capitalists as all was becoming the property of the party.
In general I imagined "kulaks" as class of aristocracy but with some different and unique class definition. They should be hiring labour(or forcing? in farmland) and some political power they possess,they use it in politics, parlament as pressure? .I tried to find some similarities with the term "kulaks" and some landowners in other parts of the world at that time. It is interesting that whether bolsheviks in Russia or some marxist groups in other parts of the world they were the first to be blamed and attacked. They were attacked also to find supporters from other villagers if they were forced to work.
Other then that bolsheviks during civil war or in some later stages weren't able to orginize about farming output. Because of that other countries especially Ukraine was harshly penalized because of rich and productive farmlands? Thats why there was some harsh resistance against bolsheviks I thought.
caranorn wrote:I wonder whether this discussion couldn't be refocused to topics pertinent to the game. The last few days it seems to have drifted ever more...
This game is about the military and to a much lesser degree economic sides of the October Revolution and following Russian Civil War. It is not about Lenin, Trosky, Stalin or anyone else as politicians, the truthfullness of bolshevics or other groups in general. going to become ugly fast...
Im open to any other discussion about military aspects. It can also benefit the game with some events. But Im too ignorant about that. I was staying in theory as i had no knowlegde about military condition of both forces.
As any one have the knowledge I will be glad to listen as it will be educational for me. Just dive in to discussion.
I have read all the posts in the forum and can summarize all the opinions that are posted. nothing is going "ugly".. for sure
ERISS wrote:And the bolsheviks destroyed or let sink the others revolutions (Ukraine, Germany, ).
you keep posting that, but have yet to post one fact to support your theory that the Soviet governement deliberately sabotaged the 1918-19 german revolution. Why don't you start there?
-"Lenin", (2000), Robert Service, p.315-6 states that immediately after the 1917 October revolution, the new Soviet Governement cabinet thought worker's revolution were about to break all over Europe within hours or days of the Bolshevik takeover.
Not for Trotsky. He was aware from the very beginning.
Trotsky, in 1905, 30 years after Bakunin, wrote that marxism was leading to the dictatorship of one man.
But Lenin offered him the army, and Trotsky went corrupt by this power and omit (or agree for his benefit) what he knew about marxism...
Trotski was as naive as the rest at the beginning. Again "Lenin", op cit, p. 324. Trotski was appointed as foreign minister immediately in 1917. He thought all he had to do was make public the secret treaties
between the Tsar and the Allies and all the workers in europe would rise up, putting an end to WW1.
And they didn't.
But what shook up them is that this rebellion was internationnaly known, and that was bad for their propaganda. Bolsheviks already had kill many actual revolutionnaries turning against them before Kronstdat, it didn't shook them...
I disagree. Hundreds of peasant rebellions had already broken out and been ruthlessly put down without causing a change of policy. The Communist leaders could always convince themselves that the peasants never really supported the revolution.
The Kronstadt rebellion was different. The Kronsdadt sailors were considered loyal allies. If they had lost their support, the Communists realized it meant they had lost almost all support and might be overthrown.
This is what allowed Lenin to push through his "New Economic Policy" at the Party Congress in 1921. This a 180 degre change from before since the NEP basically brought back a free market economy to Russia.
caranorn wrote:I wonder whether this discussion couldn't be refocused to topics pertinent to the game. The last few days it seems to have drifted ever more...
I'm sure it will be once the game comes out. Meanwhile understanding the Bolshevik mindset and policies and the hatred it generated in their opponents in important since this is what drove the ensuing civil war.
On the second point, we are all reasonable adults, I'm sure we can have a mature discussion about what is now ancient history.
Baris wrote:In general I imagined "kulaks" as class of aristocracy but with some different and unique class definition. They should be hiring labour(or forcing? in farmland) and some political power they possess,they use it in politics, parlament as pressure? .I tried to find some similarities with the term "kulaks" and some landowners in other parts of the world at that time. It is interesting that whether bolsheviks in Russia or some marxist groups in other parts of the world they were the first to be blamed and attacked. They were attacked also to find supporters from other villagers if they were forced to work.
"Kulak" means more or less "rich peasant" and was a pejorative term used by the Communists whenever they wanted to paint certain peasants as an "enemy of the Revolution" for political purposes.
Before 1917, farmland in Russia was generally concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy land owners. Lenin initially wanted to nationalize all farmland, but Stalin and others convinced him the smart thing to do was to adopt a policy of transferring all farmlands to the peasants, since: 1) the peasants were taking over the land on their own anyway; and 2) it was a popular policy that would win support for the Bolsheviks.
What drove many of the peasant rebellions during the RCW was the arbitrary "grain requisitioning" policy of the Communists where peasants were forced to give up produce for no payment and which were ruthlessly enforced by the Red Army.
Return to “RUS History club / Discussions historiques sur la Guerre Civile Russe”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests