Without a US intervention in WWI, what would have happened?

[Arne]

Patrick,

In order to stay in power the communist leadership agreed to pay the bills in Brest -Litovsk to their German sponsors and satisfied the German demands. But the treaty Germans signed with communists were equal to signing treaty with the devil ' cause communists were not going to stick to this treaty and were preparing a communist revolution in Germany.

Best Regards from Russia,

Quite right! (as I sayed above), but don't forget that there where 2 reasons for the Blosheviki to sign anything demanded by the Germans.

First as you say their obligation to the imperial German government.

Second and of higher importance IMO: They had to satisfy the russian peoples demand for peace. By surendering the whole Ukraina to the Germans they could be pretty shure that the population later on would be willing to continue fighting to throw out the Germans.
Without the orderly chasefire (camouflaged as a peace treaty) at Brest-Litowsk the russian soldiers would have stoped fighting anyhow sooner or later.
The Bolsheviki cleverly traded ground for time to rebuild the russian forces.

[Igorn]

Arne,

Bolshevics cheated the Russians peasants by promising them land and piece, which was never given. Instead of land and piece, peasants got civil war, collectivization and bloody purges. But don't forget that it was Germany who exported communism to Russia and who funded Lenin and his criminal party. And don't forget that "fathers" of communism were Germans: Karl Marx and Fridrikh Engels. That means. that Germany was accountable that communists came into power in Russia and flooded Russia in blood. And again, don't mix up between Russian Army and communist formations in 1917-1918.

Best Regards from Russia,

[Nibelung]

And don't forget that "fathers" of communism were Germans: Karl Marx and Fridrikh Engels. That means. that Germany was accountable that communists came into power in Russia and flooded Russia in blood.

That is total nonsence!! Marx wasn't a revolutionary but a philosopher. He saw how his theories could be abused, that's why he said: "I'm not a marxist." I hope you know what I wanted to say. You have to tell the difference beetwen theory (Marx) and the abuse of his theories (Lenin, Stalin and other communists).

that's all, sorry for going astray.

best,
Nibelung

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

Nibelung is right. Marxism is actually an excellent critique of the "tooth and claw" capitalism of the 19th Century. However, it failed to offer a practical alternative when tried in practice in the 20th Century.

Furthermore, Marx did not anticipate Communist revolution in a predominantly agrarian society like Imperial Russia. He was writing essentially of Britain, the archetypal industrialised capitalist society of the times. He thought that the workers' revolution would break out in the UK.

You must ask yourself why Imperial Russia was so vulnerable to a coup by a small number of extreme left wing revolutionaries who were ideologically out of step with every single country in both the Allied and Central Powers camps and whose political philosophy was designed for a completely different society?

The only answer I can think of is that existing Russian society must have been in an advanced state of decay and WWI exposed its vulnerability before liberal economic reforms could redeem it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Arne]

Arne,

Bolshevics cheated the Russians peasants by promising them land and piece, which was never given. Instead of land and piece, peasants got civil war, collectivization and bloody purges.

Thats what I wanted to express.

But don't forget that it was Germany who exported communism to Russia and who funded Lenin and his criminal party. And don't forget that "fathers" of communism were Germans: Karl Marx and Fridrikh Engels.

See the postings of Nibelung and Sid above. That is why I'am talking about BOLSHEVISM and not COMMUNISM. You should not mix up these two terms. Commis (which where labled as SOCIALISTS back in those days) where on the Bolshis deathlists.

That means. that Germany was accountable that communists came into power in Russia and flooded Russia in blood. And again, don't mix up between Russian Army and communist formations in 1917-1918.

The Russian society was (as sid sayed) in state of decay that would have caused a civil war anyhow. With of without Lenin and his bunch of murders. Do you think Kerensky would have been able to end the war for Russia? Never! He was to deeply involved with the western allies. If the fighting on the (russian) western-front had continued through the winter of 1917/18, It would have caused a revolution anyhow. (see the 1905 revolution for comparison)

The Germans High-Command was a bunch of lunatics (see Ludendorffs post war publications...) not the farest able to imagine what kind of threat to themself they set free. If they would have been able to forsee that their deeds would cause a idological epedemia that soon would reach Germany too, they would have killed Lenin and his people by themselfs.

Then please tell me: Did the Bolsheviks Army pop out of thin air by your oppinion?
The Red Army of the early years was just the Imperial Russian Army without 85% of it's officers and a few units under command of officers that where not of the usual corrupt type. (include the cossacks into that group)

I will not deny that the guys around Ludendorff where responsible for bringing bolshevism (not communism!) to russia. But what would have been the alternative? Whom would the russian people would have choosen, when asked, as a replacement for Kerensky?

[Igorn]

Guys,

Don't tell me stories and teach me about difference between bolsheviks and communists. I know history of world & Russian communism "slightly" better than you 'cause I "enjoyed" studying it in USSR.

First of all, Have you read at least single work of Karl Marx (e.g "Capital" or "Manifesto of the Commist Party")? And when Niebelung is telling us that Karl Marx was not a revolutionary but a philosopher and his theory was abused by Russian communists (Lenin and Stalin) I don't rush to agree with him.

Question. If Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Kim Ir Sen, Ho Shi Min, Pol Pota and many other marxists abused Marx theory and didn't understand their genious teacher, which resulted in murdering millions of people for the sake of implementation of Marx theories, don't you think that genious philosopher had to write clearer?

Second point, If one studies the history of the Russian communism, he will know that the predessesor of VKPB (All -Russia Bolshevics Party) was the RSDRP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party), which before first Russian revolution of 1905 split for two fractions: bolshevics and menshevics. Russian social-democrats (e.g. Martov etc.) called themselves "menshevics" and Russian communists called themselves "bolshevics". And the term "bolshevic" is equal to the term of the "Russian Communist". The whole history of the Russian communism was the history of purges and fighting under banner of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Third point, in 1917 Russian bolshevics represented tiny minority of the population and without German money had no chances for success.

Fourth point. Russia in 1917-1918 had an alternative to bolshevics and that was an "Uchreditelnoye Sobraniye" or some sort of Parlament Republic elected by the whole population in 1918. And by the way, bolshevics failed to gain majority in the new parlament and had to disgracefully dissolve it, which led to the civil war. The second alternative, was military rule of General Kornilov or General Denikin.

Fifth point: the fundamental difference between Russian Army and Bolshevis Army was that the Russian Army fought for Russia, their fatherland and defended its country. While bolshevics were fighting for the "world revolution" and "ideals of communisms". Bolshevics recognised no national borders, identities or national idea and their famous motto was "Proletarians of all countries to be united". For bolshevics for example, German or Austrian peasants or workers were comrades but Russian generals, officers or Russian businessmen were enemies to be killed and eliminated.

Best Regards from Russia,

[Nibelung]

First of all, Have you read at least single work of Karl Marx (e.g "Capital" or "Manifesto of the Commist Party")? And when Niebelung is telling us that Karl Marx was not a revolutionary but a philosopher and his theory was abused by Russian communists (Lenin and Stalin) I don't rush to agree with him.

Question. If Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Kim Ir Sen, Ho Shi Min, Pol Pota and many other marxists abused Marx theory and didn't understand their genious teacher, which resulted in murdering millions of people for the sake of implementation of Marx theories, don't you think that genious philosopher had to write clearer?

I've studied the Manifesto of the Commist Party thank you very much! Your statements are...well strange; Is Jesus to blame for what the Church did with his ideas and in the name of his ideas? NO! Just like Marx isn't the one to blame for your bunch of so called "marxists". Murderinf millions isn't really Marx's problem, just like the inqisition isn't Christ's fault.

best,
Nibelung

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

Yup. I had to read the Communist Manifesto at university as the last part of an Enlightenment course.

Nope. Having lived in a Communist state doesn't necessarily make one a greater authority on Communism as a theoretical ideology than one who has not.

We have a saying about "Not being able to see the woods for the trees". In essence this means that one can be so close to a subject that one cannot see the wider picture clearly.

The mere fact the rest of us haven't had the "pleasure" of living in the USSR doesn't necessarily disqualify us from having valid opinions about Communism.

Cheers,

Sid.

[PaulJ]

Just to inject a bit of military history into this thread -- I would argue that the Russians were indeed beaten by the Germans in WWI.

It has been suggested above that the Russians weren't "really" beaten and it was just that the nefarious Bolshevik government conceded everything to the Germans at Brest-Litovsk in order to suit their own narrow partisan political interests. Well ... that glosses over the actual course of events.

What actually happened is this: The Russian (ie Bolshevik) delegation at Brest-Litovsk initially balked at the extreme demands the Germans made. Notwithstanding their promise that they would bring peace to the Russian peoples, even they couldn't stomach the German terms. But neither could they pick up Kerensky's policy of continuing the war, so they announced that they "neither accepted nor rejected" the German terms.

Somewhat bemused, the Germans considered that odd position for a bit, and then simply resumed their advance, more-or-less unopposed. After only a bit of this, the Bolsheviks cried uncle and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, on the Germans terms.

I don't know about you, but I'd call that losing.

[Igorn]

Paul,

Pls. differentiate between Bolshevics and the Russian Army. Yes Bolshevics disgracefully agreed for German terms but not the Russian Army. But tell me who was the Russian in the Bolshevic leadership: Lenin-50% jew (mother), 25% Tartar/25% Russian (father), Trozky (Bronstein) -jew, Kamenev-jew, Zinoviev-jew, Rykov-jew, Bukharin-jew, Stalin-Georgian, Dzerzhinsky -pole jew, Sverdlov-jew, Radek- German jew etc.

The history of the Russian Army participation in the World War I ended in October 1917 with a communist coup. And Russian Army didn't lose on the battlefield but was disintegrated and collapsed by Bolshevics who openly urged solders to arrest their commanders, leave their units/formations and come back home. And don't forget that Bolshevics were funded by Germany and later paid the bill in Brest-Litovsk. Communist were hiding these facts but now these facts became available to public in Russia.

Best Regards from Russia,

[Arne]

The history of the Russian Army participation in the World War I ended in October 1917 with a communist coup. And Russian Army didn't lose on the battlefield but was disintegrated and collapsed by Bolshevics who openly urged solders to arrest their commanders, leave their units/formations and come back home. And don't forget that Bolshevics were funded by Germany and later paid the bill in Brest-Litovsk. Communist were hiding these facts but now these facts became available to public in Russia.

Best Regards from Russia,

I don't want to be picky. But Russian Army participation int WW1 endet on armistice day in the West on Nov. 11, 1918. The Russian expeditionary force in France fought (at least in parts) to the end. (But was subsequently not allowed to join the allied victory parade at Paris).

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

You are sounding like a 1920s Nazi. Everything was the fault of Jews and the heroic "undefeated" Russian Army was stabbed in the back.

Were the entire Russian people such intellectual, moral and spiritual pygmies that they they were like infants, incapable of bearing any responsibility either for their own fate or actions done in their name?

You seem to have a desperately low opinion of the Russian people, portraying them as mere putty in the hands of others. I am sure that is not what you mean, but that is what is coming across to me here.

Cheers,

Sid.

[PaulJ]

Pls. differentiate between Bolshevics and the Russian Army. ... the Russian Army didn't lose on the battlefield but was disintegrated and collapsed by Bolshevics.

Igorn, sorry, but your patriotism has run away with you -- your point is not relevent here. I said "Russia lost" which is the absolute truth.

What you wish to quibble about is why they lost. In that regard you are quite correct that the Russian Army was still in the field when the Bolsheviks siezed power in what was essentially a coup rather than a revolution, and that this was what caused the final collapse of Russian military resistance to the Germans.

But that was precisely my point -- that the Russians did lose.

[Igorn]

PaulJ,

The German Army failed to win the Russian Army in the battlefield in 1914-1917 and by October 1917 the war was a "trench war" and the front line was still in Poland. By that time stratigically Kaizer Germany, who was fighting on two fronts, lost the war already. The last chance for Kaizer on the East front was Lenin with his bolshevic party who were funded and sponsored by Germany. Yes Lenin, using German money, succeeded with his coup and managed to cheat Russian peasants and disintegrated & collapced the Russian Army. Bolshevics paid the bills to Kaizer and satisfied all German requests in Brest in order to stay in power. But this didn't salvage Germany who disgracefully lost the World War I. And as I said earler, to sign a Treaty with Bolshevics and Lenin was equal to sign a treaty with the devil. In reality, bolshevics never respected Brest Treaty and never wanted to stick to its terms. In 1918, Bolshevics agitators actively participated in disintegration of German Army and tried to make a communist coup in Germany.

Best Regards from Russia,

[Igorn]

I said "Russia lost" which is the absolute truth.
What you wish to quibble about is why they lost. In that regard you are quite correct that the Russian Army was still in the field when the Bolsheviks siezed power in what was essentially a coup rather than a revolution, and that this was what caused the final collapse of Russian military resistance to the Germans.But that was precisely my point -- that the Russians did lose.

Paul,

After October 1917 Russian Army as well as Russian Empire did not exist. Russian Army was not defeated but was disintegrated by bolshevic coup. Communists started their bloody purges murdering thousands of people for the sake of "world revolution" and "class' fighting"and the country was on the brink of civil war.

But when you say that Russian Army lost, I would be interested to know about German wins in the battlefield over regular Russian Army in 1917-1918. Can you name me these battles? When they took place? What Russian units were defeated and who were commanders of these units? What were the forces of these units?

And another question: Why Germany failed to defeat the Russia and win the war in 1914-1916 ?

Best Regards from Russia,