Lenin and oppressed slavs - was he right?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The Army was desitegrating before he took power. Even if the Russian army had not tried to take the offensive the Germans would have beaten them in the field. As I said, 1917 was too late.

My impression is that the disintegration accelerated considerably after the summer offensive and the abortive right wing coup.

The bolsheviks had the support of the left SRs, and used the conditions of war, including the disinclination of the Petrograd garrison to go to the front, and its preference for revolution as opposed to front line service, to achieve their revolution. The events leading up to November include numerous miscalculations on the part of Kerensky, the right, and the allies, making me dubious that things couldnt have gone differently

[q]Things could have gone differently, in terms of the Kerensky government meeting some other end instead of a Bolshevik take-over. I seriously doubt that Kerensky or any right-SR leadership could have kept the situation afloat. After all, for example, could kerensky have offered the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison to make them want to continue the war?[q/]

A believable promise that they wouldnt go to the front - they supported the Bolsheviks in part due to a rumor that Kerensky was sending them to the front.

And land reform? Do you think the landlords would have just stepped aside?

Depends how big the reform would have been. Youd try to limit it to certain regions, and certain categories of land, to limit the resistance to manageable. This of course would not eliminate peasant resentment, but it might take the edge off of it.

A Bolshevik takeover was not assured, but a Kerensky government that in reality had to share power with the Soviets was not a viable government.

Not in the long term. But if they can get through to the end of the war (IOTL november 1918, in this TL, perhaps several months earlier) the whole situation changes.

You mean a right wing authoritarian. IOTL an authoritarian DID put the country back together

What the hell is IOTL?

"In our time line" as opposed to an alternative time line.
Its a standard abbreviation in alternate history/historical what-if discussions.

IOTL several disunited, squabbling right wing authoritarians came surprisingly close to defeating the bolshevik state.

You said it correctly, attacks from several fronts, against a group that began as a minority and also took it upon itself to purge the left. And without foreign support none of them would have done half as well.

And had someone launched an attempt in 1917, it would still have faced a group that began as a minority, and if this right winger had pulled off a coup, the new govt would certainly have received foreign support, and with far greater enthusiasm than the OTL right wingers did.

Support from whom? Thye Army that had deserted? An discredited aristocracy?

The aristocracy you earlier insisted was strong enough to defeat land reform had Kerensky tried it. And again, Im not convinced that the events of summer 1917 didnt play a significant role in army desertions. Also of course the other elements who were disillusioned with left, the bourgeois and bureaucrats.

There is a reason there never was a sinlge leader of the whites, and given that history shows us not one single military leader in Russia was even able to unit the anti-bolshevik forces after the revolution, what on earth makes you think these same men could have taken the reigns of power? And with what tools exactly?

while there is dispute over whether this was a coup attempt, it illustrates what some of the possibilities were

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kornilov_Affair

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And land reform? most of the men who lead the Whites were old fashioned autocrats who wanted a return to the old days.

IIUC there was SOME land reform implemented under Wrangel, and Denikin, at least, was not nearly as right wing as the whites in exile were to become. There were also elements of Cadet and even some menshevik support for whites in some times and places, which was forgotten afterwards by both whites and social dems, who found it too embarrassing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



IIUC there was SOME land reform implemented under Wrangel, and Denikin, at least, was not nearly as right wing as the whites in exile were to become. There were also elements of Cadet and even some menshevik support for whites in some times and places, which was forgotten afterwards by both whites and social dems, who found it too embarrassing.

these men were acting AFTER the Bolshevisk had taken over large parts of the country - your scenerios assume no BOlshevik revolution, and therefore no vast exile of the aristocracy, no?

And since I get sick of percel posting:

1. On the war situation:
The Russians had been broken by the time the Czar had to step down. They were not going to really stop a continuing German offensive, and given that the failure of 1917 showed the army's inability to act offensively, what makes you think they could have held against the germans, who were employing new tactics against them?

As for the Petrograd garrison, if Russia continued fighting, even if only defensively, eventually units like them would have to have been thrown in the fire given the poor military condition of the army.

Finally, I am at a loss to think why you keep positing that the war would have ended sooner if Russia had stayed in it. Germany's collapse had more to do with in their internal situation and with the failure of the 1918 offensive than anything dealing with Russia. Hell, maybe if Russia had stayed in the war the germans take a more defensive stance in the West and they never try their big gamble, and the war lasts even longer. Obviously we will never know.

2. The internal political situation:
You yourself said it, the right did not support Kerensky, but the masses were as socialist if not more than him. The man was stuck in an untenable middle. Any move towards minor reform would have been too much for the right, far too little for many others.

You mentioned the Kornilov situation - I don;t think there was anything Kornilov could have done to restamp "order" on Russia - again, the Soviets had formed themselves 'organically' - would the Army have moved against their fellow soldiers following calls of continuing a war that was deeply unpopular? I seriously doubt so. Even if we buy the idea that Kerensky was at fault in the affair, that only shows us the weakness he felt, without saying anything about the right being able to gain any traction.

[onodera]

Actually, having Trotsky instead of Stalin would've been worse for the USSR.
Spreading world revolution is a much more honest and likeable activity than violently bootstrapping a single country, but it wouldn't work, would it?
With Trotsky, Russia would've remained a poor, but violent cesspool of revolutionaries, something like red Al'Qaeda.
Under Stalin (who brutally purged all the Old Bolsheviks, warmongers by nature) the USSR mananged to create a world-class industrial system, survive the onslaught of Wehrmacht and become a superpower.
I'm not saying Stalin was a Christ incarnate or anything, but he was much better than Trotsky.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

these men were acting AFTER the Bolshevisk had taken over large parts of the country - your scenerios assume no BOlshevik revolution, and therefore no vast exile of the aristocracy, no?

Thats true, I was simply showing that these guys werent ideologically commited to no land reform.

1. On the war situation:
The Russians had been broken by the time the Czar had to step down. They were not going to really stop a continuing German offensive, and given that the failure of 1917 showed the army's inability to act offensively, what makes you think they could have held against the germans, who were employing new tactics against them?

Simply because offensive actions in general were so costly in WW1. Giving up the Kerensky offensive is at least going to delay collapse. Im also not sure the army was broken by March 1917. ISTR from Keegan that there was a burst of patriotic enthusiasm in the army right after the March revolution, even as the changes undermined discipline.

As for the Petrograd garrison, if Russia continued fighting, even if only defensively, eventually units like them would have to have been thrown in the fire given the poor military condition of the army.

The key is eventually. IOTL they hadnt been thrown in by November 1917.

Finally, I am at a loss to think why you keep positing that the war would have ended sooner if Russia had stayed in it. Germany's collapse had more to do with in their internal situation and with the failure of the 1918 offensive than anything dealing with Russia. Hell, maybe if Russia had stayed in the war the germans take a more defensive stance in the West and they never try their big gamble, and the war lasts even longer. Obviously we will never know.

Simply because there are less German troops available, and the Americans are still coming. Im assuming the cost to the Germans of keeping fighting forces in the east will be higher than their losses due to the spring offensive. Youre correct we will never know, but it doesnt seem farfetched to me.

2. The internal political situation:
You yourself said it, the right did not support Kerensky,

but that was in part because they saw the army dissolving under him, which itself is in part due to the Kerensky offensive. Im positing no offensive, slower army dissolution, slower alienation of the right, maybe no Kornilov affair, and lesser alienation by the non-Bolshevik left.

but the masses were as socialist if not more than him. The man was stuck in an untenable middle. Any move towards minor reform would have been too much for the right, far too little for many others.

And many would have been very unhappy. The question, however, is could they have pulled off a succesful coup/revolution?

You mentioned the Kornilov situation - I don;t think there was anything Kornilov could have done to restamp "order" on Russia - again, the Soviets had formed themselves 'organically' - would the Army have moved against their fellow soldiers following calls of continuing a war that was deeply unpopular?

I dont expect that Kerensky could resolve the dual government situation while the war is on. But in scenario he doesnt have to - he just has to muddle on till the war ends.