Don't forget that (at least Congress) Poland actually lost it's most important market - Russia...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Entente already saw Bolsheviks as very unfriendly - by using German support at first to re-enter Russia, by opposing war and doing separate peace with Germany, by defacto supplying them in the 1918 (this applied to other factions that aligned themselves with Germany too). Many consider them German agents.
Now, it is spring-summer 1918, Germany tries last desperate offensive which may succeed, all fueled by Bolsheviks & others sending tons of materials and relieved military corps from Eastern Europe. And it is worsened by the lack of intel by Entente, with the rumours, suspicions and distrust greatly misportraying situation. The issues aren't a secret, but both sides barely interact due to isolation so the conflict doesn't need to arise.
And then, in tense but slowly normalizing athmosphere Bolsheviks end up trying to attack Czechoslovaks who are bravely fighting for Entente and the corps in Russia intending to do so after the evacuation, respecting the separate peace.
And what is worse, Bolsheviks critically fail with White Russia arising and declaring itself Entente's ally against Bolsheviks that put themselves close to German camp. With huge army similarly having some success liberating Russia from Bolsheviks, largely contributed by Czechoslovaks.
It wasn't a war that Bolsheviks wanted, but they picked up all flags and created an opportunity for Civil War in 1918 out of thin air, right when White Army felt that it had no chances to even start war on Bolsheviks.
And that war, in eyes of Entente, was entirely justified as Bolsheviks were no less appealing to them than Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria or others.
They sided against Entente and by actions rather than declarations or intentions, so they had to lose.
That's the logic of conflict and especially World War with too much on stakes.
In fact, the fact that Bolsheviks and Atatürk got off so easily is pretty lucky for them. WW2 didn't take such chances.
- 1
The Bolsheviks didn't lose though. They won. So did Ataturk.
You are applying a logic where that logic it did not apply.
- 2
@fr-rein Was that something you meant, by saying the Entente being hostile toward Finland, or was it some other incident you were looking for?
Yes, and in general to show that Entente, including early intervention, were even supporting local Red councils just to oppose pro-German factions in such cases - just to deny Germany influence, resources, etc.
A lot of sources in Civil War, especially Soviet, fail to recognise Entente logic in context of ongoing World War, information deprivation and fears.
- 2
The Entente also didn't believe a ridiculous republic made up of squabbling councils of workers and sailors would last a fortnight.
- 1
And they were entirely correct in this... or did comrade Trotski still made a plebiscites whether to attack or not?
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
is a much more befitting quote here.
Also there seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread. Such as who the Bolshevik toppled. Hint: It was not the Tsarists. Not did they fought against them after inevitably purging the guys they coup'ed (I meant the first coup of course. The "Revolution". Altough I guess the other ones count too.)
So the argument that the Communists were a better alternative than the Tsarists is a bit weak considering they never really was a choice between the two. And they certainly were not the only option available for Russia in 1917. It's like choosing between Napoleon and the Ancient Regime. Stuffs had to happened in between y'know?
As for the similarities. I agree that being (at least) two revolutions removed from the Tsar kind of make you differ.
- 1
Check your timeline.
The Reign of Terror did not immediately follow the overthrow of the ancien regime either… France was a Constitutional monarchy when ole slicey was rolled out.
- 2
Why did you choose the reign of Terror in particular? That's interesting, but that's not what Napoleon toppled either. I meant that the revolution had to happened first. And yes the fall of the monarchy was one step toward the Empire. Not the last one, but one nonetheless.
Not quite sure the relevance. Do any armies use plebiscites?
The Entente were very wrong. The republic of soviets did not collapse. Indeed, it lasted quite some time.
Not quite sure the relevance. Do any armies use plebiscites?
The Entente were very wrong. The republic of soviets did not collapse. Indeed, it lasted quite some time.
I mean sure the new organization used the same name because of the brand value.
And with the Whites the Entente bet on the wrong horse. Appaling instead of appealing program an uninspiring, but bickering leaders.
Russian Armies and Navies in 1917-1918 did use that actually. Until they defacto disintegrated.
In case of Trotsky, however, it was an order to the local councils to disarm Czechoslovaks; I don't know how it was discussed by Bolshevik leaders. There wasn't even army but local militia that picked up the fight...
They bet on anti-German and anti-bolshevik factions.
Finland and Estonia because of it weren't really supported by Entente.
Ukraine was out of question, due to working with Germany and being run by socialists.
Poland was supported for anti-German position and for being anti-bolshevik.
But of course, Russian Whites was the go-to choice. Anti-German, anti-Bolshevik and perceived as still an ally by Entente.
Given the awful fog of war, they considered their choice be the only one possible. And could they even make another bet (outside of staying away)?
Not quite sure the relevance. Do any armies use plebiscites?
The Entente were very wrong. The republic of soviets did not collapse. Indeed, it lasted quite some time.
- 1
You mean those millions who died during Great War before Great October Revolution (as it was called all my life in Russia).
That is why population of cities increased more than 4 times since 1914 till 1962? I mean not having passports to move in city? Red line - increasing of urban population in USSR.
"Dirt cheap workforce" in USSR's industrialization was elite of state who had best salary and best possibilities in career.
No one time was better in Russia for "dirt cheap workforce".
They were educated in factories in schools. And also had different places for cultural selfdevelopment. For example, they freely educated as pilots. That was main reserve of pilots during WWII, including woman pilot.
Last edited:
No, those who died because of the Revolution. Much more than in the Great War.
- 2
- 1
You could only move to city if you got a job at factory or study at uni.
Getting job at factory was always a pretty corrupt process - because it often occured because of connections, especially if you were not entitled to it (like, say, a city dweller).
You could also volunteer to move to newly built cities. That is how often USSR built new towns in Central Asia and added new housing districts with international population in Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic states... with quite explicit goal to fully mix nationalities and erase distinction. Latvia is a very showing case where it was attempted but went wrong.
I meant farmers, not factory workers. And your text doesn't apply to farmers.
Farmers as in kolhoz workers ofc, not kulaks.
- 1
As I remember after social communist revolution in Russia all leading capitalistic states invaded with millitary forces in Russia or formed/supported capitalistic local government on lands of former Russian empire. So all responsibility on USSR or military interventionists?
IMHO, Civil war in Russia was started by Chech Corp.
Last edited:
- 1