Worst Political Blunders and Bravest Political Sacrifices

[joak]

To be fair, and leaving aside more general concepts of pan-Slavicism entirely, I do not believe he had much choice in the defense of Serbia by 1914.

This is of course literally false. They had a choice, as do all governments. Beyond that, with hindsight it's 100% clear that backing down would have been much better for the monarchy than getting involved in a war that would destroy the empire and get the Czar killed in just 3 years time.

Domestically, the Foreign Minister Izvolsky had to be thrown to the wolves afterwards (a convenient target, since he really was responsible for the disaster), and Russian opinion was hardened against Vienna.

Well, right--the Russian Foreign Minister did a deal with Austria, thinking their neutrality was enough to get them access through the straights. The Czar knew about negotations but the rest of the government didn't. When they realized they weren't actually going to benefit from it, Russia "needed" to back down because otherwise the negotiations would be made public. From the point of view of the Russian government and people, it was reasonable to view themselves as victims. From the point of view of the Austrians, though, same thing.

More broadly years of brinksmanship had got everyone to the point where they all suspected they had just not firm enough.

 

[Calad]

Nicholas had only one policy : to preserve autocracy by any means necessary, like his father. However in Nicholas' case this includied by no means at all, or by too little means too late. Alexander III overestimating his own longetivity and holding his son and heir in such contempt for so long would be a critical political blunder by itself.

I wouldn't blame him for that reactionary policy; after all the last time a Czar attempted significant social reform he was thanked for all his effort and hard work by being literally torn into pieces by an anarchist bomb device. Why bother with reforms, then?

Thats a good conclusion. Back then Russia was extreamly volatile nation. Revolution of 1905 had paralyzed nation and there were true nihilistic moments (bolsheviks) who desired nothing else than total destruction of everything.

What he decied was to do nothing new which is the most disastrous decision person can make. He could have made Imperial Russia into totalist nation or give up power and make an autocratic constitution. Instead he maintained status quo and did not solve any old problems and new problems kept coming in.

 

[trybald]

Nicholas II never wanted to be emperor so he didn't have a lot of motivation to be good at it.

If he really did he was free to abdicate at any moment. There were plenty of suitable candidates within the well-branched imperial family, including his own two younger brothers. Especially prince Michael was mentally capable to become the figure that Russia badly needed at the time.

Revolution of 1905 had paralyzed nation and there were true nihilistic moments (bolsheviks) who desired nothing else than total destruction of everything.

There was Stolypin who managed to pass through some crucial reforms despite the tsar who happened to be an idiot. Had he more support from the throne, Russia could have been saved.

Also, Bolsheviks were a tiny group of radicals, insignificant even comparable to other socialists. Bolsheviks' support among the population was minimal. Not that they cared about it. Quite contrary, the lack of support made Lenin to develop his history of passive masses who need a "push" from a group of dedicated leaders.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

That's anything thing to add into here then. Germany sending Lenin to Russia was an absolutely stupid mistake that lead to among other things a massive civil war, famine and the murder of the Tsar and his family.

Whatever people think of the Tsar and his wife there was no excuse for killing their children.

 

[Amallric]

That's anything thing to add into here then. Germany sending Lenin to Russia was an absolutely stupid mistake that lead to among other things a massive civil war, famine and the murder of the Tsar and his family.

Erm...just as planned? They weren't exactly sending Lenin to help Russia to remain strong and valliant.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Erm...just as planned? They weren't exactly sending Lenin to help Russia to remain strong and valliant.

It ended up biting then and the rest of the world on ass in the end though so I'd say it counts as a blunder.

 

[Calad]

Also, Bolsheviks were a tiny group of radicals, insignificant even comparable to other socialists. Bolsheviks' support among the population was minimal. Not that they cared about it. Quite contrary, the lack of support made Lenin to develop his history of passive masses who need a "push" from a group of dedicated leaders.

I know, I just wanted to but one example.

Sending Lenin into Russia most likely was one of Worst Political Blunders ever. To defend Germans they had no idea he would be able to rise on power and establish USSR. In the end Lenin was able to win civil war despite horrible communist ideology by promising utopia (support and desire for utopia was very popular in Russia during that time), control of industrial facilities, ruthlessness and suppression, all major powers were tired of war and exhausted, failure of provisional goverment and extreamly opportunistic power grabing.

 

[trybald]

I believe to the contrary. Sending in Lenin (in a plombed train) was a masterstroke that gave the Germans more than they could hope for. They likely thought that Lenin would cause some stir and unrest, while in fact this knocked Russia entirely out of war. Moreover, it created another pariah state that the interwar Germany could so easily identify and cooperate with. There was no downside. Even the German revolution of 1918 was an unrelated affair with its leaders (especially Róża Luxemburg) deeply despising the Bolsheviks. The very first time that the whole idea actually backfired was after 1941, but that was due to some other guy's horrible blunders.

 

[Eusebio]

Even the German revolution of 1918 was an unrelated affair with its leaders (especially Róża Luxemburg) deeply despising the Bolsheviks.

What? :rofl:

 

[trybald]

As Marxist Paul Mattick said:
In the It may be stated here in advance that on many essential points the conceptions of Luxemburg differ from those of Lenin as day from night, or – the same thing – as the problems of the bourgeois revolution from those of the proletarian. All attempts of inconsistent Leninists, from political considerations, to reconcile Lenin with Luxemburg now that both are dead and to erase the opposition between them, in order to derive advantage from both of them, is merely a silly falsification of history which serves no one but the falsifiers and them only temporarily.

This disagreement was not only on ideologal level. Luxemburg was horrified on the news on how the Bolsheviks used (or rather misused) their power.

 

[Eusebio]

As Marxist Paul Mattick said:
In the It may be stated here in advance that on many essential points the conceptions of Luxemburg differ from those of Lenin as day from night, or – the same thing – as the problems of the bourgeois revolution from those of the proletarian. All attempts of inconsistent Leninists, from political considerations, to reconcile Lenin with Luxemburg now that both are dead and to erase the opposition between them, in order to derive advantage from both of them, is merely a silly falsification of history which serves no one but the falsifiers and them only temporarily.

This disagreement was not only on ideologal level. Luxemburg was horrified on the news on how the Bolsheviks used (or rather misused) their power.

Do you know the first thing about Paul Mattick or the context of that passage? :rofl:

Here's a quote from Luxemburg herself, apparent 'despiser' of the Bolsheviks:

Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”

Claiming the German Revolution was unrelated to the Bolsheviks is akin to claiming that the North Africa campaign in WW2 was unrelated to the United States because Churchill hated America. Russian soldiers took part in the defence of the Bavarian Räterepublik for God's sake...

 

[makif130289]

I know, I just wanted to but one example.

Sending Lenin into Russia most likely was one of Worst Political Blunders ever. To defend Germans they had no idea he would be able to rise on power and establish USSR. In the end Lenin was able to win civil war despite horrible communist ideology by promising utopia (support and desire for utopia was very popular in Russia during that time), control of industrial facilities, ruthlessness and suppression, all major powers were tired of war and exhausted, failure of provisional goverment and extreamly opportunistic power grabing.

In my opinion, the best thing during World War I would have been being a communist. They rejected stupid imperalist war and desired the collapse of all nation-states including theirs. Bolsheviks announcing all secret-dirty agreement of the Allies to the world was one of the greatest acts in history.

While millions were dying in the trenches for a meaningless war, communists honestly desired to set up a state that would end poverty of masses and imperialism. Their ideal was superior to European imperialist states who only fought for military and economical hegemony over each other.

If i lived in that timeframe, i would have certainly become a Bolshevik. Imperialist states of Europe sent their youngsters to meaningless death and ruined entire European economy. Lenin desired to set up a new humane order among the chaos nation-states brought.

 

[Calad]

In my opinion, the best thing during World War I would have been being a communist. They rejected stupid imperalist war and desired the collapse of all nation-states including theirs. Bolsheviks announcing all secret-dirty agreement of the Allies to the world was one of the greatest acts in history.

While millions were dying in the trenches for a meaningless war, communists honestly desired to set up a state that would end poverty of masses and imperialism. Their ideal was superior to European imperialist states who only fought for military and economical hegemony over each other.

If i lived in that timeframe, i would have certainly become a Bolshevik. Imperialist states of Europe sent their youngsters to meaningless death and ruined entire European economy. Lenin desired to set up a new humane order among the chaos nation-states brought.

I think you are a bit too romantic of this. Bolsheviks were only one political party in Europe. There were various communist movents and they were most succesfull. Communism was and still sounds good but has producted bad results. Uniting states of Europe is communist imperialism in the end. Communist in the end were as racist as everybody else. Of former USSR all stans and Caucasus nations are much less developed than Russia, despite of 70 years of building.

 

[makif130289]

I think you are a bit too romantic of this. Bolsheviks were only one political party in Europe. There were various communist movents and they were most succesfull. Communism was and still sounds good but has producted bad results. Uniting states of Europe is communist imperialism in the end. Communist in the end were as racist as everybody else. Of former USSR all stans and Caucasus nations are much less developed than Russia, despite of 70 years of building.

You are right about "Bolshevik" part. What i meant was true communists who didn't approve world war I as so-called socialists did in their parliaments. These communists sympathized with Bolsheviks and desired for defeat of their countries like them.

I am commenting in the context of that time. During that time, Bolshevik victory in Russia was the only thing that could have given hope to common men and women. In fact, Russian revolution was celebrated by worker movements around the globe, even in United States there were many Bolshevik supporters. Their motto was "Peace, Land and Bread"; the best ideal around in that time. Bolsheviks believed that the world revolution was imminent. They were jubilant that oppressed working men would finally destroy the old system and create a system that would end poverty, ignorance and wars.

I always think October Revolution was shadowed by later Stalinist era. October Revolution gave millions of workers hope in 1917 and the following years. Working men didn't see October Revolution as "Red Terror" during these years. In fact, on the contrary, the world saw all capitalist and reactinary states actively helping Whites to suppress October Revolution.

Communism may have failed in the end but that doesn't mean its beginning was some kind of "blunder" as it was the only good thing around in 1917.

 

[Bonafide]

It ended up biting then and the rest of the world on ass in the end though so I'd say it counts as a blunder.

lol talk about hindsight is 20/20 by the way.