The RCW history debate

[Baris]

That's right. Most of the English-language histories of WW1 talk about that battle as a disaster caused by Enver's mistakes and incompetence - but I recently read a new (2008) history of the campaign by E J Erickson which draws on newly-published sources, and argues that Enver's plan was actually a pretty good one - and the Ottomans only lost because Yudenich reacted with unusual speed and skill.

Good details written by Erickson.
But I have some doubts about whether it is the fault of Enver or success of Yudenich, and the outnumbered Ottoman army?

According to Erickson Yudenich reacted with unusual speed and skill?
Some facts or some opinion:

-Enver was known as ultra nationalist. His idea was to unite Turks(who lives in some Russian lands) under the Ottoman(ironically there was no Ottoman in 1914, only name). With his "idea" in mind he marched quickly and unnecessarily fast in winter. Even Yudenich didn't march he waited. As the winter was coming.Ottoman army started to take losses from severe weather.

Enver wasn't a good strategist, lacking foresight. He was responsible for all the losses. I agree with "Most of the English-language histories of WW1 talk about that battle as a disaster caused by Enver's mistakes and incompetence" .

-He marched beyond the capability of the army, lacking crucial winter uniform and supply. Some cavalry groups(other Ethnic tribes) supported Ottoman army by defending mountain passes but with primitive weapons and uniforms.

-90000(depends) Soldiers of Ottoman died without fighting in winter.

-In the battles not only Russia and Ottoman involved. Erzurum and east of Turkey was populated mainly by ortodox armenians. As I wrote in the post above some of them marxist-Leninist and other were nationalists. But ironically marxists and nationalists started to involve in the battle by supporting Russian army. by 1915 and 1916 Ottoman army started to be targetted by both armenian(guerilla) and russian forces like it happened in Balkan wars as Bulgarian militants did. Add to that there was also some battles in west. (dardanelles)

It is little out of topic. But my opinion it is rather easy and not correct to define Yudenich as ww1 hero..

[Narwhal]

The last part of the debate highlights the need of a good game on the Turkish Independance / Civil war

[Rafiki]

"It would be a boring game." I agree. On with VGN or whatever Paradox had decreed it should be called. Why waste time on this turkey? I await the chance to buy VGN!! I'll never buy this unless Pocus says it is necessary for his and Phil's health and safety. tag

[color="Red"]Tagwyn, why watse your time on all these sour grapes? The game is being made and apart from you, everyone seems to be looking forward to it.

If you aren't able to post relevantly to the topics at hand and without trying to derail the discussions, we'll have no choice but to ban you from the RUS forums altogether, which, granted, probably will be a benefit to you anyway.[/color]

[TheDoctorKing]

I have a lot of sympathy for the SR's and the Narodniks before them, but they really weren't going to be successful in a long-term civil war. The only way they could have done anything was to pursue the Maoist strategy of a protracted war in which they would slowly educate and sway the peasants to their side. But Russia was too industrialized for such a strategy to work as it did in China 1927-1949.

BTW, I hope that the supply system in this game is going to reflect the balance of resources that come from urban and rural sources. This is a complaint that I have had about AACW - even in the south, general supply comes from cities. Control of the countryside was key for food production, both to feed armies and the cities, but the cities produce the tools of warfare. This will require some modification of the AACW system, maybe more like VGN's production model.

Just some thoughts. Very excited about this game!

[ERISS]

I have a lot of sympathy for the SR's and the Narodniks before them, but they really weren't going to be successful in a long-term civil war. The only way they could have done anything was to pursue the Maoist strategy of a protracted war in which they would slowly educate and sway the peasants to their side. But Russia was too industrialized for such a strategy to work as it did in China 1927-1949.

The SR did educated the peasants to their side (maybe more than the anarchists did?). But has they were succeding, they went afraid of their success and discovered that what they told to peasants was no longer what the SR wanted(?)! That is the classical socialist party story: They turn they back to people once they have power. Peasants brought them to power, then let them fall.

In the Russian Revolutions, all sides went shifting their mind.
But for the anarchists, has their ideology is various, just based on few principles, they didn't care changing their mind, and let the people do as they want. So all parties were late, compared with Anarchists ideas:
About socialism, anarchists just let down what they helped to build (some rare communists camps), when parties later had to lie to people (SR) or enslave the few communist camps (bolsheviks!, after helping the few already built very poor communists camps) (yes, bolsheviks destroyed the many soviets AND the just-born communism).

[andatiep]

I'll see what I can do...

Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak overthrew the democratically-elected All-Russia Directory in a coup, had many of its members executed (and their mutilated bodies dumped along the banks of a river), and then declared himself Supreme Ruler of Russia. It's not hard to see what his main motivation was.

His main policies were:

• A strong central government untainted by "idle talkers". He gave lip service to the idea of democracy but in practice ruled purely by decree as a dictator in the area under his control.
  
• One Russia, indivisible. Most of the Whites had no patience for attempts by Finns or Poles or the Baltic States to gain independence; they were fighting to restore the Tsar's Empire, after all.
  
• Free trade - the British government backed Kolchak, and British investors had a major stake in the mining resources of the Urals. The idea that the Whites were mere stooges of Western capitalist interests was a major and successful theme of Bolshevik propaganda.
  
• Restriction of workers' rights - strikes were illegal, trade unions were under state control, cossacks were used to massacre workers who went on strike anyway.
  
• Forced grain requisition at artificially low prices to support the war effort. In other words, the Whites were using exactly the same policy the Reds are blamed for! Also, Kolchak's White army was made up of soldiers conscripted at gunpoint and marched out of their villages, often never to see them again. In total contrast, Trotsky's Red Army even offered pensions to the families of soldiers killed in action... another reason why the Reds had more popular support than the Whites.
  
• Confiscation of all the land acquired by peasants from the nobility, Church and Tsar during the Revolution, which would then be rented back to them by the State. Kolchak talked about letting the peasants buy this land, and using the money to compensate the nobility and Church for its loss; but the policies were never put into effect.
  
• When up to 100,000 peasants revolted against White policies of grain confiscation and forced conscription in the Volga region, Kolchak's response was punitive expeditions to burn villages, decimate their population (in the Roman sense) and take hostages.

As for Anton Denikin, he wasn't as megalomaniacal as Kolchak in the title he took for himself: simply General of the Armed Forces of Southern Russia. He never spelled out in detail exactly what he was fighting for, but most of his advisors seem to have favoured a restoration of the monarchy. He certainly restored the old Tsarist system of local government in the areas under his control, with military governors answering only to him, and a lot of corrupt and bureaucratic committees appointed to manage things.

• On land reform, Denikin talked vaguely about letting the peasants keep the land they'd taken from the aristocracy, but like Kolchak he insisted they'd have to pay compensation to the former owners. In the end, Denikin's regime confiscated the peasants' land in the name of the State, and let the peasants continue to farm it as long as they paid over the grain they produced as "rent" to feed Denikin's armies.
  
• Denikin blamed the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution, and his army was instructed to carry out revenge. This started as small-scale murder, rape and burning down Jewish houses, then escalated into full-scale mass executions and genocide. In less than five months Denikin's forces murdered over 100,000 Jews in the areas under their control.
  
• Denikin made some efforts towards labour law reform, but in practice the old pre-war Tsarist management style was reintroduced - including public floggings of workers who broke company rules.

Basically, I think the reason why the Bolsheviks won the Civil War can be summed up like this:

The Reds were the bad guys...
But the Whites were the even worse guys.

And what about the Wrangel case !

Look :
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Nikolayevich_Wrangel
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Nikola%C3%AFevitch_Wrangel

Here we have our military AND politically "skilled" challenger "à la De Gaulle" in the history and in the game which could be a realistic "white victory" alternate history.

The big probleme for the white side is the end of the western support. Till this generals are not able to restablish at least an official and more or less elected parliament and government, the western liberal democracies can't continue to support them during years, especially in the context of the end of the WWI were they have also their own internal social and political problems...

So the sooner such Wrangel could be "promoted" in the game, the more chance the whites have to win, at least in the political aspect of the fight.

[Baris]

I have a lot of sympathy for the SR's and the Narodniks before them, but they really weren't going to be successful in a long-term civil war. The only way they could have done anything was to pursue the Maoist strategy of a protracted war in which they would slowly educate and sway the peasants to their side. But Russia was too industrialized for such a strategy to work as it did in China 1927-1949.

Russia was relatively industrialized compared to China but the numbers of industry workers compared to west were very low. Peasants were a big factor.

Nihilists,populists and some anarchist groups? were mainly citizens(some intellectuals or writers) trying to influence or try to get wisdom from idealised Mujiks(some village commune they practiced maybe?, or other..) about peasant revolution.But if we define Russia as industrialized then even some Marxists were discouraged by the number proletariat in Soviets. Some peasants migrated to big cities to work but some were returning to villages after work.

Groups(Narodniks or other similar) emphasizing peasant revolution main purpose(seen also in Russia's neighbour south of black sea) were I guess to identify their existance or non-existance or meanings in alienated society because of migration of village to big cities in short time because fast growth of industry. Im not sure they had a plan about how will the revolution will happen or some doctine they will practice on soviets.

They should be very confused and distracted to educate peasants or to fight protracted war as China did.(China has geographically some advantages also for protracted war) Other factor can be they were also alienated to peasants which should prevent the influence they wanted to achieve on peasants. On the other hand Lenin were more orginized and a good politician. Did bolsheviks educated peasants I dont know.

Eriss :Very İnteresting.. 50:1 ratio that number should tell the truth about the Bolsheviks and the democracy they wanted. and how they turn back to people when they came to power...
I imagined also they didnt care about the peasants as the main motivation for bolsheviks is to get stronger and stronger. To get stronger they need also more workers and industry. Thats why they should have encouraged workers or workers class. But the main aim of the revolution should't be the power, it should be well being of the people in the soviets..

[ERISS]

Did bolsheviks educated peasants

Peasants were nothing for the bolsheviks:
In the soviet meetings organised by the bolsheviks, 50 peasants woughed the same as 1 factory worker!

Anarchists and SR educated them, mainly with French revolution and Commune de Paris ideologies.
But, as SR didn't keep their word once elected, and as anarchists finally neglected the very poor (they talked slightly, in the very end of soviet meetings), then the bolsheviks did recover the better of this education as bolsheviks played with the words that the low educated peasants hardly understood. In the end, after helping the poor, the bolsheviks did worst than the anarchists: they corrupted the few communism and enslaved the peasant (the poorests) in State farms.

[ERISS]

So the very poor were naïve, they thought, as they were real communists (with in their head the tellings of the intellectuals!), that the bolshevist party, so-said communist, was their party.
At first, the bolsheviks support the very poor, as these poor took the better lands of the gone kulaks, and were working to give their work to bolsheviks.
So, the very poor went thinking the glory time had come to them (even the Whites were at the door).
The numerous other paesants went some jealous, as the poorest now had far more land per person, and better soil than them.
And too they went afraid of the poorests as the very poor had become State lovers! Those communists, through their love for the Bolshevik central power, were a threath for the independance of the soviet of the village.
So, the many remaining paesants dispised those poor actual communists.
As the remaining paesants were by far the more numerous, the bolsheviks, to please them, told off the poor communists! Later with Stalin the bolsheviks even stole the communists land and enslaved them.

[Baris]

Yes,in theory all power to Soviet workers,peasants and soldiers..

Mainly peasants and industry workers are producers and the soldiers are consumer. Producers are representing democracy while the soldier " future bureaucracy" by nature.

It can be said "State and Democracy" used in the same sentence didn't make sense with Bolsheviks interpretion . Or it will never be successfull in practice.

But it was a choice by Lenin and Bolsheviks. Like Bismarck's choice.
After they have gone they left behind a war machine rather than democracy...

[ERISS]

The way I see it, as I mentioned in a post above, is that this was a very bloody war and we could argue that it was in effect caused by Western intervention to stop a Socialist takeover of Russia, because in all effect it became a threat to Democratic nations. The Revolution was caused I believe from the losses on the Eastern Front during WW1 and also the deprivations of the Russian population at the time caused from the war. Misguided? Was it a coup by a few revolutionaries? Did the mass of the Russian population support the Bolsheviks, or was it just a few hundred people in St.Petersburg that caused it?
Endless debate.

People had weapons and were fed up with tsarism.

I think the masters of the so called democracies were afraid of an actual one (i.e. the actual soviet system, not the fake bolshevik one). They would have sent armies to destroy the eastern revolution even the bolsheviks wouldn't have taken the power.
Sure, the 'democracies' were being afraid by the bolsheviks, as the bolshevism was an imperialism the democracies were not friend with.. (nowadays democracies still love many dictatorships, as China and many african countries).

[ERISS]

(nothing, I had not very well understood)
Answer to Rafiki (see 2 posts under): I'm already on too numerous forums.

[barbu]

After 1945, Communists joined short-lived burgeois governments in Eastern Europe for 2 reasons:

1. The Red Army used its uhmm influence to make sure that would happen.
2. Communists could sabotage these governments from within.

Reason no.2 could been part of Bolshevik strategy prior to 1917...

[Rafiki]

Eriss, I don't know if Mehring is a member of these forums, but if you want to discuss this with him, I imagine that (also) replying to his post at Matrix would be a good way to do it?

[ERISS]

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.

Lol, don't you talk about the First "Horse Army".
That's funny how its legend is made when the ennemy is already retreating (here the Germans, later the Denikin's)!!
or when Konarmia fights 50 vs 1 with armored cars against good meat cavalry (makhnovists)..

Later against 40's wechmacht, Budenny will be very bad when the ennemy is not already moving back or already trapped alone!, that's why he could survive to Stalin as he was too bad (edit: I mean not courageous) to make some shadows on him.

Red cavalry was always mocked by makhnovists and whites (but makhnov and whites learned to respect each other in blood, however no mercy nor quarters, EDIT: but few whites told it, and Denikin never wanted to ear this).
Only the reds did respect it...

[ERISS]

The Bolshevik cavalry did not possess exceptional qualities, being itself composed for a large part of Don and Kuban Cossacks: it had success when its adversary lacked tenacity or was completely disorganised. One sees this in the combats which took place in January on the Don and Manych, where the retreating Cossack troops still continued to battle the enemy cavalry who were so proud of their previous exploits:

Budienny’s cavalry crossed the Don near Aksaiskaia stanitsa and directed its offensive at the point where the Don Army joined the Volunteer Corps.
, the concentric attack of the Don and Volunteer troops finished by giving the Budienny group a severe defeat: it was thrown back to the other side of the river. The two enemy corps undertook an attack on the lower course of the Manych, in the combats the Don 4th Cavalry Corps beat that of Dumenko and that of Budienny who lost all their artillery and all their machine-guns: distressed and in panic they fled behind the Don.

1920, Colonel V. Dobrynin, (White) Army of the Don

[ERISS]

About weather losses, same author:

it was necessary to order (14 February) the 4th Don Corps (i.e. White Cossaks) to make a sharp turn to the southeast to destroy the enemy cavalry(...).
As misfortune had it there was a terrible cold at this time (-33°C) which definitively caused the loss of the army.
The Budienny detachment, advancing along the right bank of the Manych and the Velikokniayeskaia to Torgovaia railway, found all along the route large inhabited localities, good for staying overnight, while the Cossacks on the left bank found it completely devastated from the first Red invasion and deprived of any shelter for them. The result was that when the troops arrived at the Torgovaia crossing (18 February) of the 12,000 men of the 4th Don Cavalry Corps only 5,500 were still in the line: the others remained on the route, poor victims of the cold.

From 12,000 to 5,500 in 4 days!!!... (and Budienny was for nothing in it lol. Edit: I'm wrong, I think it's his way of winning battles).
In game 15 days turn scale, that would be only 600 men left on 12,000!

[ERISS]

Makhno's Black Army was a merginal player in the RCW. At its peak, it numbered at most 100,000 in dec. 1919 while the Red Army had 5,500,000 men in 1920.

Yes, marginal but strategical:
Often makhnovists were the spear head of Red Army, they succeed in some weeks with few men where Red army was standing still stopped for months with much more men.
Without the morale and tactical strenght of the makhnovists, and the strategical skill of Makhno, Red army was a big afraid thing that the South Whites were driving.

[ERISS]

i never understood this groups, whatever it is before or now, who called themself anarchist AND communist, since the word "communism" is de facto clearly defined by the 1848 Manifest of Karl Marx, which cleary call for a "unique Party" to lead the proletaria and a "dictatorship of the proletaria" ...so of the Unique Party which is supposed to show him the good way of course, which is absolutely the opposite of the anarchism principles.

No, Marx defines the Communist Party, not communism. We could even say Marx was a bad communist, as he use anti-communist means (bourgeois party, then 'proletarian' dictatorship) to go to communism which is some anarchist society (no State).
"Communism" comes from the Paris Commune (1871), where most of the militants of the International Workers Association died; this First Internationale was born in 1864 and soon was torn to death between marxists ("authoritharian"-communists) and bakuninists (anarchist-communists): this Internationale ended in 1873.
Bolsheviks, using the poorest people language in 1919, succeded in keeping the word for them only (killing all other communists than them, helped too...).
Edit: I already had answered, but adding Paris Commune was important.

[ERISS]

Ho, I missed all that:

the failed revolution in Germany 1918-19:
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.

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.

This is not the reverse, this is like Russia 1916, but with most of army still loyal to government.

Meanwhile, the forces on the right, led by Friedrich Ebert, knew exactly what they wanted, namely to prevent a repeat of the Russian Revolution.

We can see too Ebert as Lenin, both coming from Social-Democrat party, else Ebert was given the government by the imperialists and Lenin had to steal it.
The Freikurps were as the Cheka, killing revolution.
So, Ebhert did not prevent the "Revolution", he used it for his own power like the bolsheviks did kill true soviet power.
Weimar government was a joke like bolshevik 'soviet' one, where people was removed from politics: Hitler easily took power like Stalin did.

There have been discussions that the Soviets sabotaged the efforts of the left in Germany.

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.

Ah? Where is it said that Bolsheviks send these?? (I feel like it's some official communist "History", as Lenin was against Leftists, usable idiots). Or as usual advisors and money was to take control of revolution, not to help.

[Charles]

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.

Ah? Where is it said that Bolsheviks send these?? (I feel like it's some official communist "History", as Lenin was against Leftists, usable idiots). Or as usual advisors and money was to take control of revolution, not to help.

I don't usually dig up old thread, but since you responded to my post from last august (i.e. 7 months old), I will make an exception.

In november 1917, the Bolshevik leaders thought revolution was about to break out all over Europe, especially in Germany and wanted to be able to help by sending advisers and money. This was discussed in Sovnarkom meetings as shown in the minutes. The minutes were kept secret in the Communist Party Archives, but have been available to historians since 1991. Robert Service, the british historian went to moscow, studied the archives and describes the pertinent parts in his biographies of "Lenin", "Stalin" and "Trotsky" which have come out over the past 10 years.

This is an historical "fact" backed up by official documents. If you have anything to back up your claim, other than your usual opinion about what you think history "should" be, by all means bring it up.

[ERISS]

The minutes were kept secret in the Communist Party Archives, but have been available to historians since 1991.

This is an historical "fact" backed up by official documents. If you have anything to back up your claim, other than your usual opinion about what you think history "should" be, by all means bring it up.

We all know (save communists) the 'value' of 'Soviet' Official 'History': always forged in a way or its reverse or other. Russian people were used to this and wonder "tomorrow, what yesterday will be?"...
"That was secret, so, that was the truth." ? lol, hey you talk about Cheka and KGB bosses...
Most truth was a secret, and some truth was propaganda (and this few truth was not believed by people!, lol). Some secret could be the truth or bad faith story first materials, and some secrets was made to be found.

EDIT: I remember some historians, seeing these 'secret' old documents when Berlin wall collapsed, then they concluded (in some 'Communism Black Book') that Makhno allied with the Whites and was the sole pogrommer...

[Charles]

Most truth was a secret, and some truth was propaganda (and this few truth was not believed by people!, lol). Some secret could be the truth or bad faith story first materials, and some secrets was made to be found.

right, so you have no way of proving that the secret Communist Party Archives was "propaganda".

Makhno allied with the Whites and was the sole pogrommer...

I knew it!!!

[Jorje Vidrio]

Civil Wars in soon-to-become superpowers have immense and unknowable consequences.

If the South had won the American Civil War, there would have been no 'United' States to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the Second World War.

If Cromwell and his Republicans had pervailed in the English Civil War, we would have no royal weddings to watch.

If the Whites had defeated the Reds in the Russian Civil War, the consequences would have been just as immense.

Would Russia have been stronger or weaker in the fight against Nazi Germany? Would we all be watching the royal wedding of the Czar's daughter on worldwide TV?

[ERISS]

If the Whites had defeated the Reds in the Russian Civil War, the consequences would have been just as immense.
Would Russia have been stronger or weaker in the fight against Nazi Germany?

Russia would have join Germany as White and Nazi had same pogrom politics*, they both believed in russian Okhrana Zion Protocols book and Whites would have love Mein Kempf same book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

a political weapon used against the Bolshevikis who were depicted as overwhelmingly Jews, allegedly executing the "plan" embodied in The Protocols. The purpose was to discredit the October Revolution, prevent the West from recognizing the Soviet Union, and bring the downfall of Vladimir Lenin's regime.

* Other RCW few main faction politic programs were not antisemit, even they could (as petliourists) do more pogroms than Whites (who had to keep West allied).
* We can even say antisemitism was the only politics the Whites let others know (save their West allied..)! (all other politics were said by the whites to be deal after the war)

EDIT: As strong nationalists, Whites and Nazis would see each other as 'xenophobic' (russians don't like germans, and the reverse), but they would ally against 'democratic' republics.

[Ben Waterhouse]

Russia would have join Germany as White and Nazi had same pogrom politics*, they both believed in russian Okhrana Zion Protocols book and Whites would have love Mein Kempf same book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

* Other RCW few main faction politic programs were not antisemit, even they could (as petliourists) do more pogroms than Whites (who had to keep West allied).
* We can even say antisemitism was the only politics the Whites let others know (save their West allied..)! (all other politics were said by the whites to be deal after the war)

EDIT: As strong nationalists, Whites and Nazis would see each other as 'xenophobic' (russians don't like germans, and the reverse), but they would ally against 'democratic' republics.

No Bolsheviks = No Nazis?

The problem with this sort of counterfactual is that there is an assumption that beyond the major historical change (e.g. Reds losing RCW) nothing else changes; whereas I would suggest that history is a bit like chaos theory - everything would change to one degree or another.

I do think you are overblowing the protocols thing with 20/20 39-45 hindsight.

(he says as an Orthodox White Russian..)

[ERISS]

No Bolsheviks = No Nazis?

What? I don't understand what you mean.
I say that a White Russia would have the same politics than Nazi Germany, so Whites and Nazis would ally with Italy and Japan against the world (even each of them say they are the best to rule the world).
There would be no third Soviet power doing the balance in WW2.

[Verant]

I say that a White Russia would have the same politics than Nazi Germany, so Whites and Nazis would ally with Italy and Japan against the world (even each of them say they are the best to rule the world).
There would be no third Soviet power doing the balance in WW2.

I think that White Russia (if Whites would win RCW) would never allied with Nazi Germany and other Axis countries. There are many reasons.
White Russia (as it seems to me) would tries to make ally with UK and France.

ps. sorry for my bad English

[Cordell]

There is a another point... the consequences of the bolchevic victory in russia for the socialists parties in western europa, especially in Germany and France.(the consequences on the conservatives are known)
The destiny of Socialist there would be totally different (we can imagin tons of ways or tactics), but in the reality the leadership of Moscow drive the european socialist to divison...


If i made a (volontary provocative) shortcut with a (more a less we speak about the pré-october socialists) more unified socialist, maybe the Nazism could not even rising up...

No Bolcheviks, no Nazis ?
I guess probably, but what we would got instead is hard to imagine... (better or not? i don't know but really different for sure)

Btw i agree Rosa Luxembourg when she whrite that october revolution was the more important event of the WW...

[Baris]

I think 'militarism' was a strong factor for being extremist in that era. Not possible to blame only bolsheviks maybe to blame imperialists also
About Japan:


"The Yamato Empire had the concept of the state as led by a powerful singular leader (Emperor). In feudal times, the military caste, which included the bushi and the samurai, were organized as a single headquarters-like structure, the Shogunate, which represented the required civil and political power. In this period, the Shogunate constituted the basic social composition, power structures and the foundation of law. It can be divided into three stages: Kamakura Period (1185–1333), Muromachi Period (1338–1573) and Tokugawa Period (1603–1867).

The military had a strong influence on Japanese society from the Meiji Restoration. Almost all leaders in Japanese society during the Meiji period (whether in the military, politics or business) were ex-samurai or descendants of samurai, and shared a common set of values and outlooks. The early Meiji government viewed Japan as threatened by western imperialism, and one of the prime motivations for the Fukoku Kyohei policy was to strengthen Japan's economic and industrial foundations, so that a strong military could be built to defend Japan against outside powers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism_in_Sh%C5%8Dwa_Japan

But it is not wrong to say bolsheviks did encourage potential fascists. But non-potential ones were also chasing so-called socialists in the streets when there was no danger of the Red army or the socialism... There should be fifty- fifty probability to fire fascism event via bolshevism.