The RCW history debate

[marcusjm]

Becides, if you take large population centers like NYC, then you will in fact find quite many who have a living memory of this (if you count all the subsequent consequences as well). Not forgetting the sizeable Jewish community where many have ties to these areas. Unlike what some claimed, many Jews also had to flee from Red terror, it struck against all ethnic groups.

I am quite sure that all ACW veterans are dead by now .

[Baris]

Becides, if you take large population centers like NYC, then you will in fact find quite many who have a living memory of this (if you count all the subsequent consequences as well). Not forgetting the sizeable Jewish community where many have ties to these areas. Unlike what some claimehttp://www.ageod-forum.com/newrep ... &p=185499d, many Jews also had to flee from Red terror, it struck against all ethnic groups.

I am quite sure that all ACW veterans are dead by now .

Chomsky talks about the jewish commnunity migrated to Usa during the early 1900's. They were mostly from Russia or baltic states.
Sure they bring some memories with them.

He also adds they were the most intellectual and orginised worker class. Like they were reading Dosteyevksi.. and some literature and music.

[Charles]

I have a different viewpoint on the Russian Revolution.

The Communists under Stalin enforced an iron discipline over the Party and the people which allowed them to carry out the brutal industrialization of the USSR in the 20s and 30s. This transformed the USSR from a backwards rural nation in 1917 to a semi-industrialized state in 1941.

This, plus the sheer pigheadedness of Stalin and the rest of the communist party is the only thing which prevented the collapse of the USSR in 1941-42 and averted a Nazi victory.

A victory of the White counter-revolutionaries would ensure that Russia was about as developped and prepared as Poland in 1939. Russia would have collapsed like a house of card in 1941 and Hitler would have been able to turn the full power of the Wehrmacht against the western allies, thereby possibly winning ww2.

So historically, the victory of the Soviet Communist Party turned out to be the lesser of two evils.

[marcusjm]

Charles, your post missed the key thing here. With a White victory there would never have been an invasion of Poland 1939. Hitlers would have stayed a failed painter instead of becoming a leader of Germany.

The problem is that this turnover was based on massive military investments, the Soviets cared nothing for real long term prosperity, it all went to armaments.

Compare this to the Nordic Countries. A similar transformation took place during the same period. The difference was that this all took place without millions having to suffer terribly, our countries are still considered among the best countries on Earth to live in (according to UN and me personally). Finland even managed to take the top spot this year, even though they had to suffer some of Stalins "fantastic progress". They are still somewhat behind Norway and Sweden when it comes to general living standards.

Soviet Union was like those North Korean propaganda buildings, they looked nice on the front but backside was like those Wild West film towns. If you wan't a great example, visit some of those flotilla bases they had in Latvia. There you can see how they looked after CCCP left and how they look now. Think depressive gray garbage turned into livable araes .

[Charles]

I dont see how what you base yourself to reason that the Nazis would never have existed if the Soviets had not come to power.

The Nazi party was born out of a frustation over the very harsh terms of the Versailles treaty, the economic instability of the 20s and 30s and the weakness of the postwar German democratic government.

Even without a Soviet victory in the RCW, Hitler would almost probably have come to power and wanted to expand into the East to gain lebensraum.

[Baris]

Yes that "progress" was only on the surface and many people have suffered during armament or modernizing the army. Russians by compare to europe, most of them were farmers at that time. And farming with underdeveloped techniques,

Even in "what if scenerio" main reason for Hitler's failure in east Front isnt because the strong Soviet army. It was mostly winter and attrition. Even with Atrition Hitler was very succesfull against Soviets.

What was devastating for "Hitler and Nazi" is about Hitler not listening to Albert Speer's proposal about foreign workers in occupied territories. maybe if they are treated well about staying in their own lands(countries)not brought to Germany. It was tought again in 1944 but the resistant already started in occupied terrotories. It was too late. in "what if scenerio"European Union will be formed more quickly without Usa getting that strong after the war as I have read.

Note: Nazi coming to power in Germany isnt related to Soviets.

This is off topic

[marcusjm]

I dont see how what you base yourself to reason that the Nazis would never have existed if the Soviets had not come to power.

The Nazi party was born out of a frustation over the very harsh terms of the Versailles treaty, the economic instability of the 20s and 30s and the weakness of the postwar German democratic government.

Even without a Soviet victory in the RCW, Hitler would almost probably have come to power and wanted to expand into the East to gain lebensraum.

First : The topic was "What role did this revolution/war play". We can safely conclude that it is one of the key events in the 20th century.

Maybe if you believe in fate . If you however followed the election campaigns then you would know that the existence of Communism was the ONLY reason they gained power. They would never have gained any votes whatsoever without it.

If anything it would have increased the chance of a Communist takeover in Germany. They were quite powerful. They had even more to gain from the depression (the loss at Versaille really didn't mean that much in %). In fact, had not Stalin meddled in this conflict between Social Democrats, Trotskists and Communists. then they probably would have stopped Hitler from gaining any commanding lead.

Rosa Luxemburg was incredibly influential in German communism.

[Charles]

The Nazis received very few votes until the great depression started in 1929, they were then able to hammer home the message about the failure of capitalism, the weakness of democratic government and the need for a strong leader.

The presence or not of a Soviet government in another country was a non factor. People choose governments because of internal domestic issues, not because of who may or may not be in power in another country.

Left leaning governments were still elected in western democracies during the height of the cold war. According to your theory of the predominance of the external threat, it should only be right leaning conservative governments.

[Baris]

As said it was bacause of the harsh Treaty of Versailles. Other major countries agree on Hitler's claims on other German spaking lands.Hitler used it very well for elections or in foreign policy. Depression and inflation is the main factor also.

As Marx said human behaviour is economical behavior, politic behaviour of man is the secondary. If there was no poverty in Germany, choices will be different. Reaction about poverty from masses diverted to nationalists ideas. You can not gain elections by using nationalism to a wealthy class. So economical depression must be the primary cause of the rise of Hitler.

Mussolini adress himself as 3rd Roman Empire. Nationalism was more popular at that time frame so they all used it as well.
But Hitler have gone too far . thats another topic.

But the topic was why RCW didnt get much attention(I disagree with that). It is the most important event in last century, and every country affected with the results of the war, just like French Revolution.

[marcusjm]

The Nazis received very few votes until the great depression started in 1929, they were then able to hammer home the message about the failure of capitalism, the weakness of democratic government and the need for a strong leader.

The presence or not of a Soviet government in another country was a non factor. People choose governments because of internal domestic issues, not because of who may or may not be in power in another country.

Left leaning governments were still elected in western democracies during the height of the cold war. According to your theory of the predominance of the external threat, it should only be right leaning conservative governments.

What I am trying to explain, is that the Communist Party was in fact stronger in Germany than Russia. Without a bad precedent then a Communist takeover was FAR more likely. You can read up on this from many good sources of analysis.

You can read just about any analysis you can find and it all leads to the same conclusion. NSDAP took power because of fear of Bolsheviks, all the other factors were less important. Just about the whole Mein Kampf is about how bad Communism is and how the Jews manipulate everything and so forth.

How could he have written any of that without a Russian revolution? Look at WHEN this book was written. Good timing if you wan't maximum effect.

Just so this doesn't go on forever can we all at least agree on this and then go on to other things? Let's face it, what if:s are hard to prove or measure. The famed Buttefly effect doesn't come close to the historical nudge this would have meant.


- Can we all agree that the 20th century would have looked radically different had the outcome of the Russian revolution been different? Hitler or no Hitler.

- Can we also agree that the event itself was epic in proportions and had a huge impact? Remember that this topic came forth due to some claiming that this was some obscure event, hardly ,

At least the Cold War would have been damn hard to repeat .

[Raptor1]

Im not so sure about this "obscure" period in history only known by wargamers or eastern europeans. As well as said Paris Commune(I forget it:bonk and some interpretation of social democracy by northern europe plus some political parties influenced by social democracy or marx's studies, it looks it has wider influence and knowledge in Europa.

Michael More made a film about "capitalism". It was mainly critizing capitalism and some faults on the system in Usa. But in the end he was telling that unlike Italy or Germany, by ignoring social democracy resulted some bad social problems in Usa like health care or education. His opinion ofcourse.
But it looks like N. America knows better about ACW than RCW, some government cencor involved I guess.

I have read before about some research been made by Oxford University about capitalism and communism. Research was concluding that these mixtures of different system was forming another system called "social democracy". I hope it is more known than ACW.

Of course it had extensive influence, but being influential and obscure are not mutually exclusive. Do note that I'm not saying the Revolution itself is an obscure topic, just the Civil War that followed it.

In either case, the Russian Civil War is certainly obscure when it comes to computer wargaming, as there hasn't really been a single game that depicted it so far.

[marcusjm]

Of course it had extensive influence, but being influential and obscure are not mutually exclusive. Do note that I'm not saying the Revolution itself is an obscure topic, just the Civil War that followed it.

In either case, the Russian Civil War is certainly obscure when it comes to computer wargaming, as there hasn't really been a single game that depicted it so far.

Well some would claim that the war was part of the revolution, the revolution itself wouldn't be very fun I agree .

There has however been a very good boardgame dedicated to this matter, I think the reason there hasn't been many computer wargames, is simply because making complex computer wargames is a rare thing. We are lucky that there are companies like Paradox, Matrixgames, AGEOD and some others who risc this making some wargames off the beaten path. Making a game about this conflict is a daunting task due to all the factors involved.

With more and more Indians and Chinese getting into wargaming I think we are up for even more exotic conflicts in the future .

[Baris]

Of course it had extensive influence, but being influential and obscure are not mutually exclusive. Do note that I'm not saying the Revolution itself is an obscure topic, just the Civil War that followed it.

In either case, the Russian Civil War is certainly obscure when it comes to computer wargaming, as there hasn't really been a single game that depicted it so far.

Yes you are correct. I dont remember any other wargame or any game about RCW. I hope it will be very good like ACW(it became a classic),with extensive work about this important period of last century,It will get the value by AGEOD. Im looking forward to it.


Marcusjm, Im sorry I replied before Charles but, Nazi means "Nationalist Socialist workers party." So there is some references about socialism. In Germany and maybe other parts of Europe communist parties were stronger but in the end why the Fascist came to power? and Not in Russia.

My explanation is as I said Russia's population was mostly farmers and Germany was not. And peasents or farmers are less likely to be effected by nationalist ideas like the citizens. Because they live in faraway lands with the less knowledge about foreign politics. They have their own life style. This is also a sociology fact.

Hitler not came to power because burning of the parliement and blame Communists. It was not possible also for communist coming to power because of society structure. Main target was jews and capitalists secondly the socialists. But why in other parts of Europa there was no communist practices? I wonder why in Russia?

[Raptor1]

But why in other parts of Europa there was no communist practices? I wonder why in Russia?

There was, in fact, sort of. After WWI Soviet Republics cropped up all over Europe, in places such as Alsace, Bavaria, Hungary and Slovakia. All of these were eventually put down by anti-communists or by foreign intervantion (Such as the Hungarian Soviet Republic being dismantled by Romania).

[marcusjm]

-Because the Socialists in Germany were fractioned, mainly because 1) Stalin did his best to ensure they were fractioned 2) Some were pro Moscow and some not.

-NSDAP used the Bolshevik scare to good effect

Make no mistake Germany were the very center of Socialism in Europe. Social Democracy as well as numerous other directions were strongest in Germany. Social Democracy is still very strong in Germany.

The German state of Bavaria was taken over by Communist revolutionaries on November 7, 1918, just four days before the Armistice which ended World War I was signed on November 11, 1918.

There was also the November revolution in 1918 where Social Democrats took over power.

So certainly communism and socialism was very strong in Germany. This all started to change when the realities of the bloody Russian Revolution came up.

[Baris]

There was, in fact, sort of. After WWI Soviet Republics cropped up all over Europe, in places such as Alsace, Bavaria, Hungary and Slovakia. All of these were eventually put down by anti-communists or by foreign intervantion (Such as the Hungarian Soviet Republic being dismantled by Romania).

Are they developed regions of Europe? their industry? and ratio of farmers,citizens and so on..

Nationalism started golden age after railroad and communication.


Bavaria(It was a region about landlords I think,good place to practice communism ) example is very good marcusjm, I have read also socialism is strong in Germany but Social democracy is a system inside "liberalism or capitalism" Command economy is different. In the end it was prevented by foreigns or by internal factors it wasnt practiced or maybe by society?
Of course more books to be read in German

[marcusjm]

Hungary and Chechoslovakia were and are very developed. The Laser was after all invented in Hungary . The Chech industry was top of the line in Europe.

I do not know the politics of those areas though.

But one can always play Hearts of Iron to get an idea .

As for Germany, my personal recommendation would be to read about Rosa Luxemburg, or even see the movie if you can find it. I should add that while Communists and Socialists were and are strong Germany in general has always been fairly conservative but these were extreme times and benefitted extreme parties.

[caranorn]

Hungary and Chechoslovakia were and are very developed. The Laser was after all invented in Hungary . The Chech industry was top of the line in Europe.

I do not know the politics of those areas though.

But one can always play Hearts of Iron to get an idea .

As for Germany, my personal recommendation would be to read about Rosa Luxemburg, or even see the movie if you can find it. I should add that while Communists and Socialists were and are strong Germany in general has always been fairly conservative but these were extreme times and benefitted extreme parties.

But the Revolution(s) in Germany were put down before the Russian Civil War. And I don't think the Russian revolution per-se (February or October) was a large enough scare to affect the German Revolution. By the start of the RCW Luxemburg, Liebknecht and many Spartakists were long dead...

But I do agree with you in part that errors from the Russian Revolution, Civil War and subsequent purges and otehr crimes seriously weakened the german Socialists and Communists. I'm not sure eitehr or both parties could have come to power, but without Stalin they might well have prevented Hitler from seizing power. But, the main reason why Hitler eventually gained such massive support in Germany was indeed Versailles, economic decline and scapegoating (against Jews, communists, socialists, anarchists, labour unionists, gays, any kind of foreigners etc.)...

[marcusjm]

You are correct and I always meant that the events were tightly connected and dependend on each others outcomes (even that seemingly unimportant Latvian event I posted further down). I am however certain that Facism would have drawn the shortest stick if liberals and social democrats had been the main opposition, not communists. Even if Facism would have won I think it would be more like the Italian flavour (which is basically what they were before a certain Austrian came in).

It got lost a bit but my main thing was that as fun it is to speculate alternate history it is of course impossible to predict BUT, these events had giant effects on 20th century history, nobody can ever deny that. It has forged not only Europe but the rest of the World in dramatic ways.

The word Insignificant would be heavily devalued if used on these events .

AGEOD should be commended for making wargames like these, it allows people to learn totally new things. Sceptics should see this an opportunity to find out new things.

[Raptor1]

But the Revolution(s) in Germany were put down before the Russian Civil War. And I don't think the Russian revolution per-se (February or October) was a large enough scare to affect the German Revolution. By the start of the RCW Luxemburg, Liebknecht and many Spartakists were long dead...

Put down before the Russian Civil War? The RCW is generally said to have started in 1917; The Spartacist uprising happened in January, 1919, the Bavarian Soviet Republic was dissolved in May of the same year. The revolutions in Germany were put down at the time when the RCW was at it's height, not before it.

[marcusjm]

I think the discussion itself here shows just how much there is to learn and understand about these events. We have only scratched the surface.

I would love to see some alternate history scenarios based on what we just discusesed.

[Baris]

as the wind more calm I can ask more questions

About Germany becoming a Communist regime, or preventing from it?
A good Aristocracy?

With the exception of Checkoslovakia, was Marx's foresight was wrong? about the industrialized nations as London or Paris will be the first communist nations?

China,Russia,Yugoslavia(regards to Tito)Korea and lastly Cuba, what they have in common?

There was a documentary about "Fears" in BBC. It was mainly talking about communism Fear which is unnecessary for some western society. maybe there is more gain from it

[Charles]

What I am trying to explain, is that the Communist Party was in fact stronger in Germany than Russia. Without a bad precedent then a Communist takeover was FAR more likely. You can read up on this from many good sources of analysis.

Agreed. Under classical Marxist theory, the revolution was supposed to start in the most advanced capitalist societies and Germany was considered a probable suspect. No one thought backwards Tsarist Russia to be a likely candidate. However Lenin, Trotsky and the others approached the problem from the point of view of practical power politics.

You can read just about any analysis you can find and it all leads to the same conclusion. NSDAP took power because of fear of Bolsheviks, all the other factors were less important. Just about the whole Mein Kampf is about how bad Communism is and how the Jews manipulate everything and so forth.

How could he have written any of that without a Russian revolution? Look at WHEN this book was written. Good timing if you wan't maximum effect.

Yes, but they were worried about the internal communist threat, not the possible outside Soviet threat. Hitler was backed by a motley coalition, businessmen, landed gentry and army officers who were worried about social unrest and wanted a strong man to impose some order; and conservative working and lower middle class voters who were fed up with the economic conditions and the existing parties.

Just so this doesn't go on forever can we all at least agree on this and then go on to other things? Let's face it, what if:s are hard to prove or measure. The famed Buttefly effect doesn't come close to the historical nudge this would have meant.

Agreed. We are in what ifs of what ifs and seriously off-topic. We wil have to agree to disagree.

- Can we all agree that the 20th century would have looked radically different had the outcome of the Russian revolution been different? Hitler or no Hitler.

A failed Russian Revolution would not have spelled the end of communism. The successful takeover of China and Vietnam by their respective communist parties would probably still have occured since they developped independently of Moscow. You might still have strong communist parties in western europe since you would not have had the collapse of the USSR to show the failure of communism.

- Can we also agree that the event itself was epic in proportions and had a huge impact? Remember that this topic came forth due to some claiming that this was some obscure event, hardly ,

At least the Cold War would have been damn hard to repeat .

I think the point posters are making is that it is a niche subject for a wargame and may have limited appeal, which I tend to agree with, but time will tell.

I guess you will be playing mostly as Whites? I am looking forward to playing as a Red commander...

[Charles]

as the wind more calm I can ask more questions

About Germany becoming a Communist regime, or preventing from it?
A good Aristocracy?

With the exception of Checkoslovakia, was Marx's foresight was wrong? about the industrialized nations as London or Paris will be the first communist nations?

China,Russia,Yugoslavia(regards to Tito)Korea and lastly Cuba, what they have in common?

There was a documentary about "Fears" in BBC. It was mainly talking about communism Fear which is unnecessary for some western society. maybe there is more gain from it

Wherever Communists took power, Russia, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Cuba, it was because they were better organised and armed than their opponents. It was more of a coup than a Revolution. In Eastern Europe and North Korea, the regime was installed by the Red Army.

In Germany, the plotters were too weak and the Army too strong.

Marx's theories are not a practical guide to communist revolutions, it is a critique of capitalist society. It is flawed since he based himself on conditions as they existed in the mid 19th century which he extrapolated to its logical conclusions. He failed to realize that capitalist governments would offer a counter-weight in the form of social programs which would prevent conditions from ever reaching Marx's conclusions.

[Baris]

Wherever Communists took power, Russia, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Cuba, it was because they were better organised and armed than their opponents. It was more of a coup than a Revolution. In Eastern Europe and North Korea, the regime was installed by the Red Army.

In Germany, the plotters were too weak and the Army too strong.

Marx's theories are not a practical guide to communist revolutions, it is a critique of capitalist society. It is flawed since he based himself on conditions as they existed in the mid 19th century which he extrapolated to its logical conclusions. He failed to realize that capitalist governments would offer a counter-weight in the form of social programs which would prevent conditions from ever reaching Marx's conclusions.

I agree about why Marx was wrong but the history(dialectic) all about influence and reaction, why did the western democracies didn't get the "effect" as those countries I mentioned?Yogoslavia needs more respect I guess with tito.
The other countries aren't armed better. Because of social classes or lack of aristocracy? My thought is strong Aristocracy class prevented Germany to become communist even they were near to Russian revolution(Geographically) .Other countries became communists were lacking that "tradition". By government or aristocracy.

[ERISS]

It's easy to forget that Russia had their own home grown ideologes, namely Bakunin and Kropotkin. Both were more Anarcho Socialists but they inspired things like the first attempts at Communes in St.Petersburg. There are those who can give more detaile explanation.

Yes: "No power above the soviet", the revolution was at first anarchist. It was cooperatives without State. That was not marxist.
Then came the Bolshevists, hating the soviets, and they changed as "All power to the soviets". Then with their cheka they controled or destroyed the soviets. The Reds went destroying the revolution to be the new tsars. They were the power over the false soviets.

[marcusjm]

I still thinnk it's right to explore new events, look at Paradox, most wargame publishers can only dream of having their sales and they have yet to touch a Bulge topic .

It's better to reach out to new markets rather than the same old group. There are after all far more history interested people than hardcore wargamers around.

[Baris]

Cooperatives without state should be the latest stages of "Utopia" , according to Marx. It wasn't possible in under developed Russia. as ideology "Anarchism" lacking many reasonable thought.

It reminds me "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. "All animals are equal but some more equal after a while

[Charles]

I agree about why Marx was wrong but the history(dialectic) all about influence and reaction, why did the western democracies didn't get the "effect" as those countries I mentioned?Yogoslavia needs more respect I guess with tito.
The other countries aren't armed better. Because of social classes or lack of aristocracy? My thought is strong Aristocracy class prevented Germany to become communist even they were near to Russian revolution(Geographically) .Other countries became communists were lacking that "tradition". By government or aristocracy.

There you are getting into a problem which has interested theorists for years without coming up with a definitive answer, namely what causes a Revolution?

A sitting government, with access to an army, police, courts and prisons is usually well placed to divide, marginalise and suppress its enemies.

Yet we have all seen governements fall literally overnight, the best example being the collapse of all the communist states in eastern europe in 1989.

At its most basic level, a government can only exist with the support of the population. When it loses that support, it will fall.

Yet you have extremely repressive regimes, like North Korea, which last for decades.

According to the most prevalent theory, revolutions occur when the expectations of the population are rising faster than the government can meet them.

Look at a country like the UK where there has been no internal strife since the civil war in the 17th century. Why do people in 2010 accept a system out of the middle ages with a Queen and nobles with large estates and historic privileges?

Looking at English history, you see that the governemnt has always evolved in a more democratic direction, gradually granting increasing democratic freedoms, civic liberties, social programs, social legislation, social mobility and an increasing standard of living which convinced citizens they had more to gain by working within the rules of the system. In other words, the governement has evolved to meet the gradually rising expectations of the population.

If you look at Tsarist Russia in 1917, the government of Nicholas II had been in a state of immobility for years. Russia was developping, industrialising, developping a business class, but the government had granted very few democratic freedoms or needed legal and social reforms. The mass of the population in the country was still living in primitive conditions under archaic laws. The Tsarist governement had a very thin layer of support (nobles, army officers, rich businessmen). Nicholas II himself was a very poor statesman unable to understand or cope with the situation. With the large loss of life and poor results of WW1, he lost what little support he had left and abdicated in early 1917.

At that point, total anarchy broke out, Russia went from a country where nothing was permitted to where everything was permitted. Workers, peasants, soldiers started making all sorts of pie-in-the-sky demands, as a result, the bureaucracy and the economy collapsed. In other words, the liberal Kerensky governement was completely unable to meet the suddenly enormous expectations of the population. That anarchic situation is what allowed the Bolsheviks the opportunity to seize power, basically by getting in front of the crowd.

of course, that is just one theory.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Guys, stay clear of present-day and recent politics. Rule of thumb: anything post-WW2 is off limits; discussions involving such have a bad possibility of quickly and with little warning turning into cans of worms[/color]