Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:59 pm

Yes Charles, your opinion is correct good writing. :)

Early industrialism and trade(by bourgeoisie or strong aristocrat families ) should have maintained these "good moves" of monarchies of some countries. Step by step and and slowly, by looking at demands and analyzing situation.

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:03 pm

Charles wrote: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.

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. :)


Actually, I think there's a fair argument that Russia 1905-1914 was making some political progress, if nothing else because defeat by the Japanese in 1905 had had some salutary impact. Certainly, Russian wartime performance 1914-1916 must be viewed 'glass half-full' or 'glass half-empty' rather than as a sign of complete social or political bankruptcy. Remember that both Russia and France were on the verge of collapse by 1916, but France could call upon Anglo-American military and financial support in a way that Russia could not.

A larger, related point:

The RCW and the October/November Revolutions were epic events, and well worth a game. As historical events, I would tend to lump them, as well as Hitler's rise to power, as a part of the larger European collapse of the 20th century.

Russia's upheaval and -- arguably -- the slow-burn German murder/suicide (geno-suicide?) (1914-1945) flow out of the failures of European governance in the last half of the 19th century. Neither Hitler nor Stalin would have come to power without the massive social upheavals precipitated by the Great War.

As to the post-war era, perhaps this blog post at Foreign Policy is a better venue for debate:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/25/what_i_learned_from_jared_diamond

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:12 pm

Carrington wrote:Actually, I think there's a fair argument that Russia 1905-1914 was making some political progress, if nothing else because defeat by the Japanese in 1905 had had some salutary impact. Certainly, Russian wartime performance 1914-1916 must be viewed 'glass half-full' or 'glass half-empty' rather than as a sign of complete social or political bankruptcy. Remember that both Russia and France were on the verge of collapse by 1916, but France could call upon Anglo-American military and financial support in a way that Russia could not.



Agreed. I was summarising a very complex reality to try to explain a theory of why some countries erupt in a Revolution while other don't, something which depends on a host of factors and can't really be reduced to a simple, one size fits all theory.

Certainly the situation in Russia was infinitely more complex than my very simple summary. My first university degree was in political science and I used to be a hardline Marxist-Leninist, but that was eons ago before I had a mortgage to pay. :) and I have forgotten most of it. Interesting to dust if off though. :D

Another factor to consider was the resiliency of institutions. In say France, the UK and Germany, you had developped and resilient institutions, local governments, police, army, news media, local notables (farmers, businessmen) who were loyal to the existing system and actively participated in squashing any potential communist uprising. In Russia, for a variety of reasons, those institutions were weaker and thinner on the ground and were not able to provide the same level of support.

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:49 pm

Charles wrote:Another factor to consider was the resiliency of institutions. In say France, the UK and Germany, you had developped and resilient institutions, local governments, police, army, news media, local notables (farmers, businessmen) who were loyal to the existing system and actively participated in squashing any potential communist uprising. In Russia, for a variety of reasons, those institutions were weaker and thinner on the ground and were not able to provide the same level of support.


Absolutely... though one problem for Westerners --and Russians as well -- is that the record and documents from the Russian front in WWI are so fragmentary. The result is that our view of the Russian Front (1914-1916) is even more distorted than our view of the Russian Front (1941-1945). (I might even tease you that your Marxist-Leninist-(Trotskyist) stripe is showing through)

One thing that is clear -- the Tsar's army manages to hold together in the face of repeated disaster far more than one might expect. Notably Ludendorff is only able to pull troops back West in late 1917-early 1918. (Perhaps unfortunately: Western Europe might perhaps have been better off with German troops marching through Paris in 1917 rather than 1940).

David Glantz did yeoman historical work on the East Front in World War II. One of the historiographical take-aways was the degree to which the Germans distorted the military history of the WWII East Front and systematically diminished the efforts of the Russians themselves. (...and don't let me get started on Churchill's work of historical fiction). I don't know of comparable work on WWI, but I expect the challenge would be even greater, not least because the Bolsheviks had little reason to celebrate Tsarist military history.

In both cases, historical truth is buried under several cross-cutting layers of 'interest' amongst the people telling the stories. In World War II, e.g. neither Zhukov's opponents nor his boss were particularly interested to emphasize his military competence. Similarly, both the Germans/Austrians and the Bolsheviks have reason to distort the record of Russia in WWI, exaggerating clumsiness and diminishing resilience.

(FWIW, lacking Russian-language primary sources from the war itself, I suspect the best resources on 1914-1916 Russian capabilities would be pre-war German and Austrian assessements).

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:26 pm

I agree that our view of Russian history has been heavily influenced by Soviet propaganda. It's only since 1991 that western historians have had freer access to the Soviet archives and most of the research has been devoted to WW2 and the cold war.

However, even with the information we have now, we can postulate certain broad based explanations for the success of the Revolution. I see two possible theories, either:

#1 - social conditions were the same in Russia, Germany, UK and France; in which case it was a matter of luck that the Revolution succeeded in Russia while it failed elsewhere; or

#2 - social conditions were different in Russia than elsewhere; in which case it was a particular set of objective conditions existing in Russia which allowed the Revolution to succeed.

I tend to favour theory #2 since if you examine all the countries where a home grown communist revolution has succeeded (Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba), you see a roughly similar pattern: weak government with little popular support, rural/semi-industrialised economy, poor standard of living, etc.

If you look at the initial Bolshevik coup of oct. 25, 1917, a handful of party members seized key government buildings in Petrograd and Moscow. At that time, the Russian Army still had millions of troops in the field. It would have been a simple matter to bring back a few regiments and establish order. It is hard to see the same stunt succeeding in London or Berlin.

The fact that the Bolsheviks were left in place and allowed to consolidate power shows that they had a certain level of popular support. Partly, of course, this is due to the fact that Lenin and the boys were very adept at crafting their policies to match public opinion, but the overall objectives of the Party at that time did match the popular mood in many segments of the Russian society.

One telling anecdote was the failure of the Kornilov coup in july 1917. Kornilov was a Russian general who, for a variety of reasons, resolved to depose the Kerensky government and take-over himself. Kornilov shipped a division to Petrograd. Kerensky got wind of the plan and enlisted the help of the socialists and Bolsheviks who, at the time, were supporting Kerensky for tactical reasons. As the trains filled with troops arrived at the Petrograd train stations, they were met by socialist agitators who convinced the ordinary soldiers not to carry out their orders. Kerensky survived and it was Kornilov that was arrested.

Now, no doubt that episode was embellished by Soviet propaganda, but it is hard to see the same thing happening in London or Berlin. :)

Carrington wrote: (I might even tease you that your Marxist-Leninist-(Trotskyist) stripe is showing through)



it's like being a catholic, it never entirely rubs off. ;)

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:52 pm

Charles wrote:
#2 - social conditions were different in Russia than elsewhere; in which case it was a particular set of objective conditions existing in Russia which allowed the Revolution to succeed.

I tend to favour theory #2 since if you examine all the countries where a home grown communist revolution has succeeded (Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba), you see a roughly similar pattern: weak government with little popular support, rural/semi-industrialised economy, poor standard of living, etc.

If you look at the initial Bolshevik coup of oct. 25, 1917, a handful of party members seized key government buildings in Petrograd and Moscow. At that time, the Russian Army still had millions of troops in the field. It would have been a simple matter to bring back a few regiments and establish order. It is hard to see the same stunt succeeding in London or Berlin.

The fact that the Bolsheviks were left in place and allowed to consolidate power shows that they had a certain level of popular support. Partly, of course, this is due to the fact that Lenin and the boys were very adept at crafting their policies to match public opinion, but the overall objectives of the Party at that time did match the popular mood in many segments of the Russian society.



Now, no doubt that episode was embellished by Soviet propaganda, but it is hard to see the same thing happening in London or Berlin. :)





So we need another theory or question based on second assumption. As Marx oversight was wrong about the first communist states will be the from industrialized countries.(unlike industry workers, peasants was a factor in revolution in most communists nations) And as said developed countries have better police force or laws or democratic freedom.. strong government why is that?

Were Those monarchies were more "clever?" in the past? About right desicions? or what is the Sociology reason behind "good moves"?

And Lenin was adapt for sure but if there was no Lenin it won't be any revolution? History or situations may be can produce enough leaders in that time frame, Because most of the famous leaders for most countries are from that time period in the world. is it coincidence? :)

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:42 pm

Charles wrote:#2 - social conditions were different in Russia than elsewhere; in which case it was a particular set of objective conditions existing in Russia which allowed the Revolution to succeed.

...

it's like being a catholic, it never entirely rubs off. ;)


:-)

A very interesting post: nice analysis. I agree that it comes down to differing 'social conditions' in Russia, but I'd tend to view 'social conditions' more broadly: especially in the case of War and Revolution, the social conditions defined by 'means of production' take a back seat to the wartime trinity -- the relations between People, Government, and Army. (In short, I tend to think Clausewitz is a better 'social theorist' than Marx -- not least because the latter thinker actually did engineer a form of in-state revolution to build the new model Prussian army).

One thing I notice is that Liberals and Marxians share a blind spot when examining social conditions. In general, they neglect to consider war and its aftermath as a crucial 'social condition' for revolution... this despite the fact that, empirically, failed war seems a necessary (though probably not sufficient) condition for revolution within a great power.

Within that context, I'd argue that the particularities of war become very important: vis. the failure of revolution in Germany (1919) has almost everything to do with the fact that the Armistice left German state structures (and the German military) threadbare but essentially intact. The Tsarist state, by contrast, had shredded itself in its supreme effort to withstand the German onslaught. The question was not whether the state would topple, but rather who could fill the vacuum

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:23 pm

Carrington wrote:One thing I notice is that Liberals and Marxians share a blind spot when examining social conditions. In general, they neglect to consider war and its aftermath as a crucial 'social condition' for revolution... this despite the fact that, empirically, failed war seems a necessary (though probably not sufficient) condition for revolution within a great power.

Within that context, I'd argue that the particularities of war become very important: vis. the failure of revolution in Germany (1919) has almost everything to do with the fact that the Armistice left German state structures (and the German military) threadbare but essentially intact. The Tsarist state, by contrast, had shredded itself in its supreme effort to withstand the German onslaught. The question was not whether the state would topple, but rather who could fill the vacuum


I would also agree. It is doubtful the Bolsheviks could have come to power if WW1 had not occured with the attendant disruption of the home front, massive loss of life and drop in support for the existing regime.

In fact, if you look at the commmunist states I listed above (Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, Cuba), in four cases, the takeover occurred immediately after a major war, Russia:WW1, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam: WW2.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:38 pm

Revolutions because of "wars" as main factor? Maybe but ..what is the national unity of Russian empire in 1897? With that many ethic groups and languages how can be "conservative" like west. Maybe China can be second example..
Armies loyalty can change sides quickly in internal conflicts or civil wars.

Some translated sources as ethnic groups and religions in Russian Empire in 1897.

http://translate.google.com.tr/translate?hl=tr&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdemoscope.ru%2Fweekly%2Fssp%2Frus_lan_97.php

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:12 pm

no, not because of wars, but the war causes a series of internal disruptions which further weakens an already unstable regime, making it easier for opponents to topple it.

In all Revolutions, you have a series of economic, social, political factors which can help expalin why it occurred. Marxist explanations tend to be too simplistic since they focus too much on economic factors. You really have to analyse it from a classical historical perspective.

Marx's theory on when and where communist revolutions would occur was wrong, but to be fair, this was a very small aspect of his work. He was basically an economist trying to debunk classical liberal economists like Adam Smith. His central theory, that capital increasingly tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small elite and of a growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of the population has turned out to be remarkably prescient.

It was left up to politicians like Lenin to try to apply his theories to real life problems.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:26 pm

We agreed on about Marx's wrong predictions, not only by us but also historians disagreed,

My aim was by asking questions just to get good answers ,like aiming a good cross and striker finishing the job. :) but it went to sidelines sometimes :)

Basicly Engels was the person Marx was inspired from, he was idealist(he was owning factory I have read, interesting person about love and his social life) maybe more than Marx, but their predictions or assumptions about revolutions were mostly from observing industrialised countries.Not Russia. but in the end It was also good inspiration for Russian revolution in their own style or way, ,performed by Lenin.

So my questions were..

-as I said big communist countries as Yugoslavia,China,Russia what they have in common?
partially answered- less industrialized more farming areas, many ethnic groups and low national unity?

-What prevented Europe(west or central) to become communist?

-what is the meaning to be "conservative"?

-Why western monarchies were succesfull and carefull about people demands and act "wisely" that there are still symbolic monarchies in Europe today? Because they were more "clever"? made good desicions?

These answers should be all in theory of course but sure they have logical answers. About leader and generals and historical situation at that time there is some need of privilege about secret archieves. so better to stay in theory :)

User avatar
Raptor1
Private
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:28 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:40 pm

How would you explain Hungary in 1919, then? Hungary was fairly developed and used to be the seat of one of the most powerful monarchies in history, yet it became a Soviet Republic, which, unlike the others in Germany, only fell when the Romanian army marched into Budapest. The main difference was that, beside the Republican government having little support, the Communists held all the guns.

EDIT: Ah, wait, think I misunderstood... :bonk:

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:40 pm

Main reason like I wrote before, was stronger Social Democratic parties, they soaked up alot of the potentials. They also had longer time to build up their base support.

Another reason was of course that the extreme blodshed in Russia made it harder to recruit those on the fence .

My money is still on Germany (or at least state side), going Communist had not the Bolshevik takeover succeeded.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:03 pm

Raptor1 wrote:How would you explain Hungary in 1919, then? Hungary was fairly developed and used to be the seat of one of the most powerful monarchies in history, yet it became a Soviet Republic, which, unlike the others in Germany, only fell when the Romanian army marched into Budapest. The main difference was that, beside the Republican government having little support, the Communists held all the guns.


Hungary indeed unlucky country historically, could be more stronger they were also from central asia, part of Ottoman Empire then Austrian empire.

Well what I say is ofcourse it is not all black and white. Just opinions some internal or mostly external factors involved I guess. Good monarchy also needs good army. Maybe scared from external threats?

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:16 pm

marcusjm wrote:Main reason like I wrote before, was stronger Social Democratic parties, they soaked up alot of the potentials. They also had longer time to build up their base support.

Another reason was of course that the extreme blodshed in Russia made it harder to recruit those on the fence .

My money is still on Germany (or at least state side), going Communist had not the Bolshevik takeover succeeded.


I agree about strong social parties but why in historically Russia was more extreme about social policies. Social democracy must be more for a citizen at that time. Poor people and poverty of the state must be a good factor for extreme policies. But in Germany Hitler rised, in Russia Lenin..
Was there a possibility for Russia to be a facist? Consider different culture and religion groups in Russia at that time.

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:50 pm

My best guess is that it was harder to do political activism in Russia during the Czar regime.

Interesting that the political climate fairly open in Finland which also belonged to Russia. Finland had some it's best progress during the 19th century, which ironically allowed it to detach itself completelly from it's strong neighbour. Social Democracy was quite strong in Finland but weakned a bit since many went over to the red side during the Civil War.

I certainly think Russia could have gone the facist route with the right leadership, even today it is in the risc zone of going that way. This just shows how important individuals are in shaping the history. One man(or woman) can make all the difference.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:16 pm

What can be said about Hungary can be said again I think for Finland, While those countries have good monarchy or development, some external factors effected their foreign policy or their government structure.

So Marx was wrong again about human behaviour about only economic, there must be some more superstructural relations. About government,tradition,aristocracy or choices..

Today maybe correct about autocracy in R..... :)
But I believe it was not possible for Russia to became Fascist like Germany became communist at that time even with correct leaders. Because they were 2 strong countries that can have little effect from external threats. Germany has strong aristocracy(conservative) and national unity, While Russia has lesser national unity from different nations and languages. What gave national unity to Russia is Communism..

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:42 pm

Well maybe not Facist in the Mussolini sense (there was no predecessor after all). I was thinking more authortarian/nationalistic type of country, why would it be far away for Russia? Few people are as nationalistic and patriotic. The problem was that there was no charismatic leader to carry such a programme. Using the patriotism card worked fairly well for Stalin after all ;) .

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:04 pm

Mussolini is a very interesting man.. :) he was referring as himself infront of peasants as half naked :) 3rd Roman Empire.

How could Russia be more Nationalist? It must be Beaurocracy :) You know better but Nikita Khrushchev denied his policies. Without giving tolerance or not treating equally Soviet Union must have no choice other than collapse.

They are nationalist of course just like other countries.

marcusjm
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Gothenburg/Sweden

Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:11 pm

And one of the ways he did it, was by emphasising his non-russian background ;) .

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:21 pm

But they destroyed that statue nowadays in Geor....

hmm. I have missed some internal politics. :) well interesting then, what was the reaction after emphasising that background in Soviets? :)

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:18 am

Baris wrote:Cooperatives without state should be the latest stages of "Utopia" :) , according to Marx. It wasn't possible in under developed Russia.

Maybe Ukraine was more developed than Russia, as real federated soviets were possible, in the freed makhnovist area. They managed the common life and met to solve big problems.
Those ukrainians went directly at the latest stage, as the so previous stages were useless and even very dangerous (bolshevist state->cheka,etc).

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:40 am

ERISS wrote:Maybe Ukraine was more developed than Russia, as real federated soviets were possible, in the freed makhnovist area. They managed the common life and met to solve big problems.
Those ukrainians went directly at the latest stage, as the so previous stages were useless and even very dangerous (bolshevist state->cheka,etc).


maybe :) they decided to go to latest stage? interesting, I will be happy to read more about Ukranian Makhnovism. and ideas about "Nestor Makhno" if more reference available by you
regards,

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:25 pm

I was looking at the wiki entry for the failed revolution in Germany 1918-19:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

(ps- I can't vouch for its accuracy, but did not see any obvious errors).

There is a question whether the revolution could have succeeded in any case. According to modern german historians, the old imperial institutions were too strong.

However, you also see the revolutionary left commited many tactical mistakes. The revolution started in late october 1918 with the sailor's mutiny and ended with the repression of the january 1919 revolt. The forces on the left were disorganized, diffuse, without a coherent plan. Meanwhile, the forces on the right, led by Friedrich Ebert, knew exactly what they wanted, namely to prevent a repeat of the Russian Revolution.

This is the inverse of the situation in Russia where the Bolsheviks were organized and knew exactly what they wanted (i.e. seize power) while the forces on the right were divided and unsure of their goals.

There have been discussions that the Soviets sabotaged the efforts of the left in Germany. There were intense discussions at that time within the Russian Communist Party on whether they should promote revolutions in every country or just concentrate on building a socialist society in the USSR, with valid arguments on either side and no firm decisions taken.

Lenin wanted to interven, if possible, since he thought a Revolution in Germany had a good chance of succeeding. Before november 1918, he had given order to assemble conscripts and grain to be able to intervene in Germany, if the situation arose. When a Bavarian Soviet Republic was declared in november 1918, the Bolsheviks sent advisers and money. The Red Army, however, was unable to intervene since Russia was in the middle of a civil war.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:20 pm

Im not convinced about the reasons in failure of revolution in Germany(1900..) is about being disorginized or mistakes by leaders(left).

I agree about the old imperial institutions was very strong in Germany.As Otto von Bismarck was very succesfull of uniting Germany. He got very much support from landowners and industrialists or bourgeoisie because of his good policies. Germany was very succesfull about trade at that time.

So he should help Germany to have strong "deep state". Which means independent from leaders,there must be some "inner system" or control from other people in background. This "deep state" should also some loyal military units. These irregular military units can be called "Freikorps".(first established by Frederick). Loyal to the system of monarchy or German Elite. These irregular military units should be designed to fight with the internal threats?..... Maybe Communists... ;)

Freikorps harshly prevented the riot by "Spartakusbund"(marxist organizaiton) and killed Rosa Luxemburg.


Lenin should have helped some communists in Germany, But was it enough for Germany to change the way water flows?

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:08 pm

Charles wrote:I was looking at the wiki entry for the failed revolution in Germany 1918-19
I can't vouch for its accuracy, but did not see any obvious errors.

This revolution started in 1917 during the war (when deserters came back home to remove the empire), and its very end was in 1921 at the last slaughter in a revolted village.
There was about 50 rebel cities/villages. Five were in France (a Strasburg street is named with the date when the French army entered the town to pacificaly, not like in Germany, calm the revolt).

That was an ultra-left (almost anarchist) revolution (the bavarian republic was the more "succesfull"), they were against Lenin and its Bolshevists.
The "right wing" of this revolt was the more known of this revolution, and the less numerous!: the spartakists.

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. EDIT: No, in Germany they tried to control it before its (bad) end.

The democrat socialist party did not ordered to attack the actual 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.

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.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:41 pm

ERISS wrote:
That was an anarchist/ultra-left revolution (the bavarian republic was the more "succesfull"), they were against Lenin and its Bolshevists.
The "right wing" of this revolt was the more known of this revolution, and the less numerous!: the spartakists.

The german 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 had to kill many of its own militants.

.



Interesting.

I was suspicous about the name. But Spartakists and mostly Rosa Luxemburg was against Bolsheviks for sure but right wing?Social democrats? You mean they were not anarchists?

For sure Fascists units must reacted harshly to communists, and they must have joined to Nazi's units after some time.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:08 am

Baris wrote:will be happy to read more about Ukranian Makhnovism. and ideas about "Nestor Makhno"

"Nestor Makhno, Le Cosaque libertaire, 1888-1934 (La Guerre Civile en Ukraine, 1917-1921)", Alexandre Skirda, Les Editions de Paris, 21€ (I add it in the biblio thread)
In English I don't know, but all books where Alexandre Skirda is involved are very good, if you can find them translated. Edit: It is!: http://books.google.com/books?id=pMji9s9WOlwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have some other books, but they are all french, and about Ukraine they are less objective.
Baris wrote:Spartakists and Rosa Luxemburg was right wing? Social democrats? You mean they were not anarchists?

The "right wing" of this revolt: The other revolted were more to their left!

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:16 am

ERISS wrote:"Nestor Makhno, Le Cosaque libertaire, 1888-1934 (La Guerre Civile en Ukraine, 1917-1921)", Alexandre Skirda, Les Editions de Paris, 21€
In English I don't know, but, if translated, all books where Alexandre Skirda is involved are very good.

The "right wing" of this revolt: The other revolted were more to the left! (yes it can be lol)



Thanks I will read those,I hope I will find some english writing.

I made a huge mistake in writing about Spartakists.. :) (about some facts)

They were more favouring relatively status quo(right wing) Bolshevik stage as I understand about "Spartakists" ,They were more famous because of luxemburg I think, or better and logical explanation can be this was made on purpose. By not telling about anarcho-socialists groups revolting in Bavaria, They have used Spartakists as for justice for killing. Because they were supporting Russian Revolution and Lenin unlike anarchists.

Freicorps bring peace they say but(ironically)... big questions about them and their motives(financed by good Imperial Authority). "deep state" character, as seen also in current time frame in most parts of the world.

Note: "in 1918 Germany was very industlized, and many industry workers but lacking interest in communism(even with 65% proletarian scaled to population). . Spartakists maybe forming minority in society".
"http://libcom.org/history/spartakism-national-bolshevism-kpd-1918-24-solidarity " some links.

İt must be very different from Russian society.

Edit: "http://books.google.com/books?id=pMj...page&q&f=false " Thanks for the link.

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:04 am

[color="Blue"]It's an interesting discussion you have going here. However, several of you have been touching recent and present-day subjects and I'd hate to shut the discussion down because you aren't able to stick to history (as in WW2 or earlier).[/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

Return to “RUS History club / Discussions historiques sur la Guerre Civile Russe”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest