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.
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.
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.
Baris wrote:
Charles, Im not convinced about Red army power during 1918's..
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.'
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
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...
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.
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.
ERISS wrote:You should not agree propaganda (mine too lol, think by yourself).
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.
On to the main point, your observation is only valid from the late 1920s onward when Stalin was in command.
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".
Charles wrote:I am sure Lenin would have liked to control a Soviet Germany.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Baris wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
.
Charles wrote:You can't analyse the 1917 Bolshevik leaders like ordinary politicians. Ordinary politicians just work within the system to gain power.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
ERISS wrote:And the bolsheviks destroyed or let sink the others revolutions (Ukraine, Germany, ).
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...
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...
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...
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.
Return to “RUS History club / Discussions historiques sur la Guerre Civile Russe”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests