How Poland stopped invasion of Europe by Bolsheviks in 1919-1920, and how this influenced Hitler and united German society

Dir

Joined Nov 2015
2,358 Posts | 541+
Kyiv
I'm afraid that I don't understand. Especially the part "... France miscalculated. The Russians did not return her money ... ": what are You referring to ?

When I wrote these lines, I knew that the economic boom in the Russian Empire which began in the second half of the 19th century was largely financed by foreign loans and borrowings. And when Bolshevism triumphed in Russia many creditors - European companies and individuals - hoped that this country would reckon with external debts in the same way as the Russian Empire did. In particular, the holders of the "billion frank Russian loan" in France also hoped for this. In many ways, this determined the policy of France both in relation to Soviet Russia and in relation to the Ukrainian People's Republic as good as to the other attempts to create non-Russian national states on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

Your question made me dive deeper into the topic. Here's what I found out today.

The Russian empire widely resorted to foreign loans. For a long time they could not be accommodated, although the first attempts were made back in the 17th century, when Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich sent an embassy for this to England and Holland. But the Moscow state was unable to borrow money abroad either then or later.

The first successful foreign loans were under Catherine II. At the beginning of the 20th century the Russian Empire had the largest external debt in the world. And in terms of the total amount of public debt, it ranked second in the world after France. Up to 400 million rubles were spent annually on servicing the external debt.

It must be said that in the world only two independent countries had external debt by 1914 - Russia and Japan. The rest of these debtors were colonial or dependent countries. For example, India had a huge external debt to the British Empire. But the Russian external debt was 2.6 times higher than the Indian one.

The sale of Russian Alaska to the States in 1867 for $ 7.2 billion significantly improved the state of Russia's foreign debt in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the large-scale railway construction in Russia and the industrial boom demanded more and more money. And Russia began to place more and more loans in Europe. Since the 1890s, the foreign debt of the Russian Empire also began to grow rapidly. Russian loans were very interesting for Europeans, since the annual interest on them was up to 10-14%. In addition, they were all guaranteed by the gold of the Russian treasury. At the same time, 30 years before the start of WWI the gold reserve of the Russian Empire increased 5 times and reached 1.74 billion rubles by the middle of 1914. By its size RE ranked first in Europe

The largest foreign loan of the Russian Empire was so called Russian loan in France, which I already mentioned earlier. From 1888 to 1910, French citizens invested in it. He was encouraged in those years by the French government. It was considered very reliable as it was backed by Russian gold.

More than 1.5 million French people signed up for Russian loan, which amounted to 15 billion gold francs, in modern currency - more than 53 billion euros. To buy Russian bonds with high yields, the French often sold houses and family jewels.

This amount represented exclusively the funds of individuals, and not investments of French companies and banks which also actively invested in the Russian economy. On the eve of the First World War, thousands of kilometers of railways including the Trans-Siberian Railway, as well as factories, ports and mines were being built in Russia with the money of French investors.

At the same time, Russia carried out aggressive marketing in Europe to promote its loans. In 1904 alone, she spent 3.3 million gold francs to bribe the European press, officials, trade unionists, etc.

The main creditors of the Russian Empire were England (about 47% of the RE external debt) and France (about 35%). Next came Germany, Holland and the States. The rest of the countries accounted for 2-4% of Russia's external debt.

The WWI dramatically increased Russia's external debt. By the time the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, it totaled about 12.5 billion rubles.
On January 21, 1918 the authorities of Soviet Russia, or rather, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee canceled all external loans of the Russian Empire. In fact, this became the first Russia's default on foreign debts in the 20th century.

Accordingly, France believed that only an United and Indivisible Russian state would ensure the payment of the external debt to France and the French. Therefore, France actively supported the White movement and obstructed any attempts by the non-Russian peoples of the former Russian Empire to create their own national states. Including the independent Ukrainian state.

As a result, Soviet Russia will never pay the French the Russian loan. Moreover, in 1939 the Russians will provide the Third Reich with powerful political and economic support in the WWII. And with a Russian friend in the rear, Hitler will be confident that there will be no risks in the east during his invasion of France in 1940. On June 17, 1940, Molotov invited German Ambassador Schulenburg to his office in the Kremlin and conveyed to him the warmest congratulations of the Soviet government on the brilliant success of the German army. The defeat of France.

Links

Новость столетней давности: как рождаются сенсации в российских СМИ

Внешние займы и долги царской России: история и современная ситуация
 
Joined Oct 2013
24,148 Posts | 6,119+
Europix
Last edited:
When I wrote these lines, I knew that the economic boom in the Russian Empire which began in the second half of the 19th century was largely financed by foreign loans and borrowings. And when Bolshevism triumphed in Russia many creditors - European companies and individuals - hoped that this country would reckon with external debts in the same way as the Russian Empire did. In particular, the holders of the "billion frank Russian loan" in France also hoped for this. In many ways, this determined the policy of France both in relation to Soviet Russia and in relation to the Ukrainian People's Republic as good as to the other attempts to create non-Russian national states on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

Your question made me dive deeper into the topic. Here's what I found out today.

The Russian empire widely resorted to foreign loans. For a long time they could not be accommodated, although the first attempts were made back in the 17th century, when Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich sent an embassy for this to England and Holland. But the Moscow state was unable to borrow money abroad either then or later.

The first successful foreign loans were under Catherine II. At the beginning of the 20th century the Russian Empire had the largest external debt in the world. And in terms of the total amount of public debt, it ranked second in the world after France. Up to 400 million rubles were spent annually on servicing the external debt.

It must be said that in the world only two independent countries had external debt by 1914 - Russia and Japan. The rest of these debtors were colonial or dependent countries. For example, India had a huge external debt to the British Empire. But the Russian external debt was 2.6 times higher than the Indian one.

The sale of Russian Alaska to the States in 1867 for $ 7.2 billion significantly improved the state of Russia's foreign debt in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the large-scale railway construction in Russia and the industrial boom demanded more and more money. And Russia began to place more and more loans in Europe. Since the 1890s, the foreign debt of the Russian Empire also began to grow rapidly. Russian loans were very interesting for Europeans, since the annual interest on them was up to 10-14%. In addition, they were all guaranteed by the gold of the Russian treasury. At the same time, 30 years before the start of WWI the gold reserve of the Russian Empire increased 5 times and reached 1.74 billion rubles by the middle of 1914. By its size RE ranked first in Europe

The largest foreign loan of the Russian Empire was so called Russian loan in France, which I already mentioned earlier. From 1888 to 1910, French citizens invested in it. He was encouraged in those years by the French government. It was considered very reliable as it was backed by Russian gold.

More than 1.5 million French people signed up for Russian loan, which amounted to 15 billion gold francs, in modern currency - more than 53 billion euros. To buy Russian bonds with high yields, the French often sold houses and family jewels.

This amount represented exclusively the funds of individuals, and not investments of French companies and banks which also actively invested in the Russian economy. On the eve of the First World War, thousands of kilometers of railways including the Trans-Siberian Railway, as well as factories, ports and mines were being built in Russia with the money of French investors.

At the same time, Russia carried out aggressive marketing in Europe to promote its loans. In 1904 alone, she spent 3.3 million gold francs to bribe the European press, officials, trade unionists, etc.

The main creditors of the Russian Empire were England (about 47% of the RE external debt) and France (about 35%). Next came Germany, Holland and the States. The rest of the countries accounted for 2-4% of Russia's external debt.

The WWI dramatically increased Russia's external debt. By the time the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, it totaled about 12.5 billion rubles.
On January 21, 1918 the authorities of Soviet Russia, or rather, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee canceled all external loans of the Russian Empire. In fact, this became the first Russia's default on foreign debts in the 20th century.

Accordingly, France believed that only an United and Indivisible Russian state would ensure the payment of the external debt to France and the French. Therefore, France actively supported the White movement and obstructed any attempts by the non-Russian peoples of the former Russian Empire to create their own national states. Including the independent Ukrainian state.

As a result, Soviet Russia will never pay the French the Russian loan. Moreover, in 1939 the Russians will provide the Third Reich with powerful political and economic support in the WWII. And with a Russian friend in the rear, Hitler will be confident that there will be no risks in the east during his invasion of France in 1940. On June 17, 1940, Molotov invited German Ambassador Schulenburg to his office in the Kremlin and conveyed to him the warmest congratulations of the Soviet government on the brilliant success of the German army. The defeat of France.

Links

Новость столетней давности: как рождаются сенсации в российских СМИ

Внешние займы и долги царской России: история и современная ситуация

Thank You.

I will try to check Your links (a couple of points in Your post doesn't exactly match what I know on the matter).

Besides that, back to my difficulty to understand the "... France miscalculated. The Russians did not return her money ... " part.

You used "Russians" in a context that it's inappropriate, and it leads to confusion.

France did not offered Russians loans but Russian Empire. It's not the same thing.

Russian Empire disappeared, and it was replaced by another state (= Soviet Union), a new state that had the latitude to accept to take over or not the payments of the deceased state (=Russian Empire). For "recuperating" its money, France chosed to reinstate the state that took the lone.

In conclusion, French didn't "miscalculated": France simply failed, as the Soviet Union defeated the Russian Empire reinstating attempt, remained in place and did not endorsed the previous state's debt(s).

Nothing to do with "Russians not returning the money".
 
Joined Jun 2020
1,496 Posts | 752+
Kazakhstan
You see - even prominent Soviet physiologists were worried that the Kremlin was paved the way for German Nazism ))

I see that you should address this to Holoow. I provided Molotov's response which is self sufficient
 
Joined Oct 2013
24,148 Posts | 6,119+
Europix
6. The Entente as a whole stood for the restoration of a United and indivisible Russia. Единая и неделимая Россия. France seems to play a key role in this. She hoped that Russia restored within the borders of 1914 would be able to return a billion-frank Russian loan and other debts of tsarist Russia to the French


Your formulation (and later Your conclusions) are suggesting that Allies are somehow directly responsible of/contributed to the disparition of the Ukrainian state, as they sacrificed them for recuperating the loans.

Only that "Единая и неделимая Россия" was the slogan of the White movement.

Can You please furnish something sustaining that "The Entente as a whole stood for the restoration of a United and indivisible Russia. Единая и неделимая Россия. "?

IMO, You are making some awfully big shortcuts there.
 

Dir

Joined Nov 2015
2,358 Posts | 541+
Kyiv
Last edited:
Besides that, back to my difficulty to understand the "... France miscalculated. The Russians did not return her money ... " part.

You used "Russians" in a context that it's inappropriate, and it leads to confusion.

France did not offered Russians loans but Russian Empire. It's not the same thing.

Russian Empire disappeared, and it was replaced by another state (= Soviet Union), a new state that had the latitude to accept to take over or not the payments of the deceased state (=Russian Empire). For "recuperating" its money, France chosed to reinstate the state that took the lone.

In conclusion, French didn't "miscalculated": France simply failed, as the Soviet Union defeated the Russian Empire reinstating attempt, remained in place and did not endorsed the previous state's debt(s).

Nothing to do with "Russians not returning the money".
[/QUOTE]

-
The West provided loans not only to the Russian Empire. The link I gave says -

The government began to provide guarantees for loans issued by private railway companies.

That is, the borrower in these cases was not the Russian Empire, but private Russian railway companies. And RE was only a guarantor of these private Russian loans - and this is a different role. It is also indicated there that the government of RE also issued state loans.

Moreover, the article under the link indicates that Russian cities and zemstvo (local self-government bodies in Russian provinces) began to place their own city and zemstvo loans in Europe. Including in Berlin (22 loans), Hamburg (19), Brussels (17), Paris (9), Amsterdam (7), London (6), etc. These are not government loans from the Russian Empire. In many cases RE was not an external borrower, but only a guarantor of external loans, including loans from Russian private companies abroad.

And I want to remind you that the Soviet Union was created by Russia in 1922. And she renounced foreign loans in January 1918 - 4 years before the renaming of Soviet Russia and the territories of the former RE she captured and annexed in 1918-1920 to the USSR. F On July 17, 1918, Russia will adopt a new constitution, which will give it the name of the RSFSR. Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic. It was an official name of the Russian state until it created the USSR in 1922.

Prior to that, Russia was officially called the Russian Republic - from September 14, 1917, according to a decree of the Provisional Government. I mean - till the July 1918 Russia did not change her name officially. So the Russian Republic officially renounced the royal debtsm not the USSR.

Again - as far as I understand your logic - is it enough to rename the state to remove from it all responsibility for its huge external debts? Or have I misunderstood you? Or maybe bolshevik Russia officially abandoned the Trans-Siberian Railway, other railways, factories, ports and everything else that was built before 1917 for the money of Western borrowers? No, she used it all further. Maybe the Russians have ceased to be the titular ethnic group of the RSFSR? No, they still declare that this is their state. The role of the titular nation as an ethnos responsible for the acts of its state is a separate issue.

Many various sources when very often write the Americans instead of the United States, the Germans instead of Germany, the French instead of France - and the Russians instead of the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire, or the Russian Federation it comes to the actions of a country. This is a common practice, not my gag
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isleifson

Dir

Joined Nov 2015
2,358 Posts | 541+
Kyiv
Your link is not a really reputable source...

Besides, the responsibility for the Polish-Soviet War also lies in Polish aggression.

I don't remember any Polish aggression against Soviet Russia. It seems to me that the fighting took place on the territory of Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus at that time already occupied by the RSFSR, and then on the territory of Poland. The beginning of a military clash between the armies of the two countries did not take place at all on the territory of the RSFSR, but far to the west of the RSFSR - under the town of Mosty near Grodno in Belarus on February 14, 1919. And since April 26, the troops of the Ukrainian People's Republic fought together with Polish troops against the Russian Red Army in the military union (Warsaw Pact from that date). Poland recognized the sovereignty of the Ukrainian People's Republic then. By the way, before that, the RSFSR also recognized sovereignty, Ukrainian People's Republic - in particular, in the Brest Treaty. The RSFSR fought on foreign territory, so there was no Polish aggression against Russia during that war.
 
Joined Apr 2012
533 Posts | 99+
Augusta GA USA
Your link is not a really reputable source...

Besides, the responsibility for the Polish-Soviet War also lies in Polish aggression.
Lenine and Trotsky attempted to invade Poland in order to create a "bridge" that would connect the Red Army with the other Communist insurgents that were active in Germany and Hungary, while Pilsudski wanted to take advantage of the chaos in Russia to expand Poland's borders as far east as possible in order to create a "Greater Poland" that would be capable of facing both German and Russian imperialist ambitions in Central Europe.
I never realized that if I travelled to Eastern Europe that I could actually view a shining line on the ground dividing Poland and Russia. Wow.

For the most part I thought that Poland was an abstract concept of whatever bit of land that Russia, Germany or Austria had not apportioned for themselves. In fact was there not a time in the late 1800's that there was not such a thing a the country of Poland. If you bought a map anywhere in the world, Poland in fact would not appear on it.

Over the centuries there were many times that the idea of a Germany would appear to be a fantasy and Poland a great country.

But as to the main thesis of this forum. How different would WWII have been had Hitler been forced to begin his assault against the Soviets from the Oder and not the Vistula. If all of East Germany not been lost to him from Sept 39 on. If his initial advance
not stalled in the middle of Belarus instead of the gates of Moscow. Assuming the US is drawn into the conflict anyway, would a final peace have seen the Soviets all the way to the Rhine. Would all of Scandinavia been under there rule. Would the Balkans including Greece have been theirs. Possibly even Turkey a Soviet puppet. If it even came into being would this alternative NATO been merely the US, GB, Spain, and possibly part of France. How do you think that world would have evolved.
 
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
I don't remember any Polish aggression against Soviet Russia. It seems to me that the fighting took place on the territory of Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus at that time already occupied by the RSFSR, and then on the territory of Poland.

The fighting took place on the territory of Ukraine and what was supposed to be Belarus (the Belarusian state that formed proved stillborn, it collapsed shortly after it was declared and didn't exist as an independent state for any meaningful length of time) that was occupied by the Russian SSR and their other socialist allies, including the Ukrainian SSR. The hostilities between Russia and Poland started when Poland launched an offensive to take as much territory in the east as possible and weaken Russia, they ended up getting to Minsk. The Polish-Soviet War proper is considered to have started in May 1920, when Poland launched an offensive to take Kiev. Russia had plans to advance over Poland towards Germany and Hungary, but Poland also had their own imperial ambitions and initiated military hostilities first.

The beginning of a military clash between the armies of the two countries did not take place at all on the territory of the RSFSR, but far to the west of the RSFSR - under the town of Mosty near Grodno in Belarus on February 14, 1919.

This happened in Belarus with Poland launching an offensive against the Russian army in an attempt to expand its borders as far east as possible. Just because it didn't take place in Russia proper doesn't mean that Poland was not the one to initiate hostilities.

I also like how you ignore the fact that the first battles Poland fought occurred in November 1918 with the Ukrainians attacking Lwow, a city with a Polish majority defended by Polish militias.


And since April 26, the troops of the Ukrainian People's Republic fought together with Polish troops against the Russian Red Army in the military union (Warsaw Pact from that date).

Before the the Ukrainian-Polish military alliance, Ukrainian forces fought the Poles and were the first to initiate hostilities against them. Western Ukraine (in Galicia) attacked Poland, but was overrun and conquered. Ukrainian People's Republic, the state ruled by Simon Petliura, primarily fought against the Bolsheviks. This state was too weak to survive by itself and lost much of its territory and forces in the fighting. It concluded an alliance with Poland only after the last remnants of its army were broken by a typhus epidemic.

Poland recognized the sovereignty of the Ukrainian People's Republic then. By the way, before that, the RSFSR also recognized sovereignty, Ukrainian People's Republic - in particular, in the Brest Treaty.

Poland's aims included the creation of an Intermarium, a state envisioned as a federation of Eastern European states under Polish leadership. They did attempt to restore the Ukrainian People's Republic, but as their puppet state. The Ukrainian forces were fully dependent on Polish support to keep fighting and would have collapsed without it. They had no power to act by themselves at that point.

The RSFSR fought on foreign territory, so there was no Polish aggression against Russia during that war.

Poland attacked Russian forces first, the battles not being on the territory of Russia proper does not change that fact. This is just a bizarre leap in logic used to advance a naked agenda.
 
Joined Jul 2012
885 Posts | 144+
Australia
The Polish Soviet War followed the lack of processes in Versailles to determine boundaries in the east after the end of WW1 hostilities. There were competing claims - Soviet SSR, Independent Ukrainian, Independent Belarussian, Lithuanian and Polish. It meant the emerging countries could only claim whatever territory they could physically hold - so eventually there would be armed conflict.

The first provocation was Lenin annulling the Brest Litovsk Pact that took Tsarist Russia out of WW1, and intending to reclaim former Tsarist territories for the Soviet Union. However the Civil War meant that Lenin could not pursue these matters for the time being. The Ukrainians and Belarussians on the German side of the Brest Litovsk border agreement were looking for indpendence and not reincorporation with a new Russian state.

In this time Poland was asserting its version of the eastern border that resulted in much of Belarus and significant regions of Lithuania included inside Poland. A war broke out with the West Ukrainian Peoples Republic for control over the territories of the old Austrian Galicia in which the Poles were eventually successful.

Independence of Central Ukraine came under attack (1920) once the Red forces were gaining against the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Eventually Petlura had to turn to Poland for support. Pilsudski adopted the policy that Poland's interests were best served by attacking the Soviets now. Kiev was taken but soon-after a Soviet counter offensive had the Poles and Ukrainians withdrawing and their alliance fell apart. The Soviets continued their advance until checked decisively at Warsaw in August 1920.

Talking about any side being the aggressor in a situation of competing claims is tricky and fraught with misconceptions.
 
Joined Jan 2017
11,739 Posts | 5,015+
Sydney
the territorial details on states and borders seems somewhat moot
there were no states , no borders only claims upheld by forces ...Regum ultima ratio
once the fighting was ( mostly ) done treaties were signed by the survivors entities who called themselves whatever they choose
as for the politics of post WW1 Ukraine , it went from a german imperial creation to a variety of movements including armies or militias of very dubious allegiance and even more problematic alliances

there is only few who can understand them fully and of those most are mad
 
Joined Mar 2022
88 Posts | 28+
Cairo, Egypt
The way I see it, Karl Marx described Russia as his best choice for revolution. I recall some of his words saying that Russia is the place to release the darkest forces and to drown its people in blood. He described the induction of destructive forces in Russia. His know-how was used by several revolutionary groups.
According to "The Principals of Communism" by Fredrick Engels, either Germany or France (probably Germany) were likely going to be the first communist states, then the UK, US, Eastern Europe, and Russia, and then the world.
 
Joined Apr 2012
533 Posts | 99+
Augusta GA USA
According to "The Principals of Communism" by Fredrick Engels, either Germany or France (probably Germany) were likely going to be the first communist states, then the UK, US, Eastern Europe, and Russia, and then the world.
Unless you want to suggest deepest darkest Africa, Congo, Mali, Zambia or Paraguay or the depths of the Amazonian rain forest as possibilities for the workers paradise, then nothing in the world could have been a worst possibility for the workers revolution than Russia. Why not, you may ask. Well to have a workers revolution you have to have workers. Remember according to Marx "workers" are not people who simply work, they are people who work in INDUSTRIAL jobs, something few and far between in 1917 Russia. In fact had it not been for the inspired leadership of the German General Staff who deliberately smuggled Lenin into Russia, there would have been no people's revolution, no dictatorship of the proleteriat and today you would need a strong magnifying glass to find Marx's name in a very obscure footnote.
 
Joined Jan 2017
11,739 Posts | 5,015+
Sydney
There were many industrial workers in Czarist Russia , from Serfs sold to industrial concerns during the 18th century ,to masses of workers in St Petersburg , Moscow , Tula fctories
they were treated so badly that it would be a stretch to imagine worst fate ,
they were enthusiastic followers of a radical change ,
also the Soldiers had received a pretty steep lesson of reality when taken from their villages ,
shooting officers often seemed a sensible first step toward progress
 
Joined Jun 2020
1,496 Posts | 752+
Kazakhstan
Unless you want to suggest deepest darkest Africa, Congo, Mali, Zambia or Paraguay or the depths of the Amazonian rain forest as possibilities for the workers paradise, then nothing in the world could have been a worst possibility for the workers revolution than Russia. Why not, you may ask. Well to have a workers revolution you have to have workers. Remember according to Marx "workers" are not people who simply work, they are people who work in INDUSTRIAL jobs, something few and far between in 1917 Russia. In fact had it not been for the inspired leadership of the German General Staff who deliberately smuggled Lenin into Russia, there would have been no people's revolution, no dictatorship of the proleteriat and today you would need a strong magnifying glass to find Marx's name in a very obscure footnote.

Russia is not Narnia and appearance of Prince Caspian Lenin itself could not lead to the successful revolution. Bolsheviks relied on 3 millions workers working on industrial jobs + hundreds of thousands soldiers + millions farm laborers who had no ownership of the means of production. In other words proletariat.
 
Joined Nov 2020
226 Posts | 149+
Brooklyn
There is much of note in this thread, but as a latecomer I've not been able to read it all, so if I've overlooked anyone's contribution, my apologies in advance.

. . . . . Bolsheviks released massive Red Terror. I am studying what the commissars (ChK) actually did in different parts of Russia. The horrors of sadistic butchery and the scale of killing of the most educated people in the Russian empire are too graphic to be presented here. One may want to look up the reports written by investigators of Denikin (White) Army. These reports were published. One example is “KHARKOV REVIVING FROM RED TERROR... By Harold Williams. Copyright, 1919, by the New York Times Company. Special Cable To the New York Times. . . . .


I grew up with the "Veterans of Denikin and Wrangel" (was an actual organization) who met in the "House of Free Russia" (was an actual place -- but alas the veterans died off, and the House was sold off -- but I digress.) Suffice to say, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the planet more anticommunist than I. That being said, while it's plenty true that the Reds deliberately sowed terror as a matter of policy during the Russian Civil War, it can't be ignored that there were no shortage of Whites, and even Greens, who did their best to equal the Reds in savagery. One US Army officer charged with securing arms in Vladivostok wrote that some of the Whites that he had encountered were absolutely beneath contempt, or words to that effect.

With the dissolution of the Russian Empire, all manner of questionable characters who had axes to grind, scores to settle, and ambitions to satisfy, rose to positions of prominence, both within the Empire and along her periphery. Gen Pilsudski appears to have been one of them. That being said, we know that the Bolsheviks invested significant RSFSR state resources into cultivating revolution within Germany: Radek didn't show up in Germany empty-handed: had he his credibility would have been zero. With that in mind, whatever his other failings, Pilsudski can not be view as paranoid, or at least he can't be viewed as being overly paranoid. (Old counterintelligence saw: "I know I'm paranoid -- but am I paranoid enough.") Yet as effective as the Polish defense was, it was aided greatly by infighting among leading Bolsheviks, primarily Trotsky and Stalin: their lack of unified command hobbled the Soviet offensive.

There's a lot in this thread, but time does not allow me to address it all as it deserves, so please be patient with me. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Oct 2010
17,025 Posts | 4,448+
There were many industrial workers in Czarist Russia , from Serfs sold to industrial concerns during the 18th century ,to masses of workers in St Petersburg , Moscow , Tula fctories
they were treated so badly that it would be a stretch to imagine worst fate ,
they were enthusiastic followers of a radical change ,
also the Soldiers had received a pretty steep lesson of reality when taken from their villages ,
shooting officers often seemed a sensible first step toward progress

Many. As percentage of the population? No,.
 
Joined Jun 2020
1,496 Posts | 752+
Kazakhstan
Many. As percentage of the population? No,.

A revolution is not an election. Follower percentage is not the only factor.
Lenin introduced such a concept as a "revolutionary situation", when not only the oppressed do not want to live in the old way, but also the exploiters cannot preserve the old order. And he proved it in practice.
 
Joined Mar 2022
88 Posts | 28+
Cairo, Egypt
Unless you want to suggest deepest darkest Africa, Congo, Mali, Zambia or Paraguay or the depths of the Amazonian rain forest as possibilities for the workers paradise, then nothing in the world could have been a worst possibility for the workers revolution than Russia. Why not, you may ask. Well to have a workers revolution you have to have workers. Remember according to Marx "workers" are not people who simply work, they are people who work in INDUSTRIAL jobs, something few and far between in 1917 Russia. In fact had it not been for the inspired leadership of the German General Staff who deliberately smuggled Lenin into Russia, there would have been no people's revolution, no dictatorship of the proleteriat and today you would need a strong magnifying glass to find Marx's name in a very obscure footnote.
This is all my point exactly. Did you see who I was replying to?
 

Trending History Discussions

Top