|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 21, 2018 21:05:58 GMT
How does it happen? Without the war, there's no February Revolution to overthrow the Tsar, no feeling that the system isn't providing basic things like food to rally support behind the Bolshevik faction, and no reason the reds would be able to initiate - let alone win - the inevitable civil war. The chaos, instability, and grievances that immediately caused the two 1917 revolutions simply don't happen without the war. It requires some other major national crisis to make the overthrow of the Tsarist regime even possible. Revolutions have needed a certain economic security. When people were totally absorbed by a fight for economical survival, it ended in not more than spontaneous and thus failed rebellions. Russia in 1917 was anything but economically secure. There is a reason why the Bolsheviks were promising "peace, bread, and land". Both February and October revolutions were triggered by economic privations which were a direct result of the war. Much as the overthrow of the Kaiser in Germany in 1918 and the failed Spartacist uprising in 1919 were triggered by the privations Germany suffered. Revolutions require a major grievance to act as a trigger. But even if there had been such a trigger in Russia without the war, the fate of such a revolution would likely have been the same as the fate of the 1905 Revolution (i.e. complete failure). What motivation would young officers have had to initiate a coup? Pre-WW1 PanSlavism saw the Tsar as the leader of the Slav peoples, making it unlikely to trigger any kind of coup. And, in any case, there are no plausible circumstances in which a military coup would have led to an ideologically Marxist state, with the various economic interventions that transformed Russia from feudal backwater to industrial powerhouse. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jul 24, 2018 13:07:08 GMT
Revolutions have needed a certain economic security. When people were totally absorbed by a fight for economical survival, it ended in not more than spontaneous and thus failed rebellions. Russia in 1917 was anything but economically secure. There is a reason why the Bolsheviks were promising "peace, bread, and land". Both February and October revolutions were triggered by economic privations which were a direct result of the war. Much as the overthrow of the Kaiser in Germany in 1918 and the failed Spartacist uprising in 1919 were triggered by the privations Germany suffered. Revolutions require a major grievance to act as a trigger. But even if there had been such a trigger in Russia without the war, the fate of such a revolution would likely have been the same as the fate of the 1905 Revolution (i.e. complete failure). What motivation would young officers have had to initiate a coup? Pre-WW1 PanSlavism saw the Tsar as the leader of the Slav peoples, making it unlikely to trigger any kind of coup. And, in any case, there are no plausible circumstances in which a military coup would have led to an ideologically Marxist state, with the various economic interventions that transformed Russia from feudal backwater to industrial powerhouse. At least the Bolshevist one and those in Germany were no real revolutions, more a coup (Russia) and a result of the militarical defeat (Entente forcing the abdication of the 2 Kaiser). Russia suffered an economical deterioration during war, right; but after a boom in the years before (although one overrated by foreign visitors), which had created a MiddleClass. Revolutions have never been made by the (really poor) "LumpenProletariat", only by a petitebourgeois "klassenbewusstes Proletariat" (=class-conscious prol.). Most military have had a preference for "socialism" (=StateCapitalism): a perennial WarEconomy with the goal of autarky - Sparta and Prussia are excellent examples. But the Russian inclinition to mysticism would have favoured communism anyway. As written above, communism was the necessary second pole to the American atomism, both based on materialism. And Eurasia was its natural home. By the way: A ~communistic Russia was foreseen by an intellectual prophet like DOSTOEVSKI. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 24, 2018 14:28:48 GMT
Russia in 1917 was anything but economically secure. There is a reason why the Bolsheviks were promising "peace, bread, and land". Both February and October revolutions were triggered by economic privations which were a direct result of the war. Much as the overthrow of the Kaiser in Germany in 1918 and the failed Spartacist uprising in 1919 were triggered by the privations Germany suffered. Revolutions require a major grievance to act as a trigger. But even if there had been such a trigger in Russia without the war, the fate of such a revolution would likely have been the same as the fate of the 1905 Revolution (i.e. complete failure). What motivation would young officers have had to initiate a coup? Pre-WW1 PanSlavism saw the Tsar as the leader of the Slav peoples, making it unlikely to trigger any kind of coup. And, in any case, there are no plausible circumstances in which a military coup would have led to an ideologically Marxist state, with the various economic interventions that transformed Russia from feudal backwater to industrial powerhouse. At least the Bolshevist one and those in Germany were no real revolutions, more a coup (Russia) and a result of the militarical defeat (Entente forcing the abdication of the 2 Kaiser). Russia suffered an economical deterioration during war, right; but after a boom in the years before (although one overrated by foreign visitors), which had created a MiddleClass. Revolutions have never been made by the (really poor) "LumpenProletariat", only by a petitebourgeois "klassenbewusstes Proletariat" (=class-conscious prol.). Most military have had a preference for "socialism" (=StateCapitalism): a perennial WarEconomy with the goal of autarky - Sparta and Prussia are excellent examples. But the Russian inclinition to mysticism would have favoured communism anyway. As written above, communism was the necessary second pole to the American atomism, both based on materialism. And Eurasia was its natural home. By the way: A ~communistic Russia was foreseen by an intellectual prophet like DOSTOEVSKI. Russia had a fairly small middle class by European standards. Without the crisis of the Great War, it was a less natural place for an attempted revolution than pretty much anywhere else in Europe. In order to establish your theory that something along the lines of Soviet Russia was inevitable, you have to establish far more than a vague feeling that military desires control over industry, and a vague point about Russia being inclined to mysticism. Yes, it is possible (though by no means certain) that some other crisis could have led to an overthrow of the Tsarist regime. Is it possible that the military could have overthrown the Tsar? Maybe, but they most likely would have simply replaced him with a puppet from elsewhere in the family, and kept the system intact. But very few of these scenarios include the complete reorganisation of the economy from a mostly-feudal one to an industrial powerhouse that wasn't at all affected by the Great Depression, and which was ultimately able to rival the United States in terms of military output. |
|
