Originally posted by StellarX
I know you want to disagree and make the Russian people 'deserving' of what they got but as you seem to know they majority never supported it and
not even that 25% would have supported the steps the Bolshevik counter-revolutionaries eventually took. Fact is the majority never supports such
violence and that's why people who want to act in such ways have to grab power and lie to the electorate beforehand.
The agitation for change occured and whether or not the eventual outcome was known or not, to me, is irealevant, change was desired and change was
implemented. Despite the Bolsheviks receiving 25% of the vote the majority of the population wanted change. The 40% that backed the Socialists was
still not a country wide mandate and while it does represent a majority it falls short of speaking for the majority of the Russian people. It is
obvious that
none of the political parties of the time appealed to enough of the constituents to be able to claim they spoke for the Russian
people as a whole.
To say that the Bolshiveks would not have supported their leaders actions if known ahead of time is something that I can not address as I do not have
any insight into what they were thinking.
And i have found that people with a formal history education tends to have very low opinions of humans and seem to think human nature leads to
the problems our history books reflects.
I am flattered that you think I have a formal history education but sadly I do not. I am only a person that enjoys exploring it and am for the most
part self taught in this regard. My low or high opinion of my fellow man is soley based on the situation and their actions and not on anyone elses
teachings.
And you would given the way we have been educated to think and believe in our various capitalist societies. To consider what we do in our
various capitalist countries to be 'natural' is to presume that capitalism is not a system set up to favour the opportunistic by giving them the
protection of the state to protect their ill gotten goods. The opportunism of the common man tends to have very real consequences in systems where
people are considered equal but that's not the aim in class orientated capitalist systems.
That protection is available to all and the opportunity is as well. Capitalism may not be perfect but through my own hard work I have achieved much
and feel that this avenue is open to all who apply the same principal. I personally want nothing handed to me and be beholden to anyone.
In my opinion only people with great volumes of power and resources have agenda's with the rest of us being stuck with 'aims'.
Corporations and the like have agenda's and the type of access to centralized power that inspires the creation of 'agenda's' that could not
otherwise be considered.
In my opinion
everyone has an agenda and affects in in their own personal sphere of influence.
But why was 'The Times' anti communist and what did they mean by communism when they later supported fascism in Spain, Germany and
Italy?
The Times was Anti-Communist because their publishers had that view point. The Times is now decidely Liberal as their publishers are now of that view
point. All pulishers promote, in some regard, the platforms they espouse.
Usurped being the appropriate word in this instance as was proven when the social revolutionaries still got a obvious majority even after the
Bolshevik's showed that they were willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims.
In a room full of one hundred people if all voted for a different system exept for two you would still have a majority but no
mandate.
There was fanaticism on both sides but i am not the 'objective' type that refuses to acknowledge who were defending human rights and
democracy against state socialism( Bolshevism) and it's inherent evils. In my opinion we should not lose sight of the fact that the counter
revolutionaries usurped the machinery of the previous monarchy and then employed it to propagandize those who did not know what was going on and fight
and kill those who did and picked the side of humanity.
The Social-Democrats also wanted state Socialism, albiet not to the same degree as the Soviets. While I am aware of the counter-revolutianaries
participation in the Tzar's overthrow they were aided by the Socialists in this endeavor and by such, are both equally culpable for the results.
But you ARE quibbling! Bolshevik support came mainly from representatives who did not represent what their people wanted ( the people had just
revolted against centralized hereditary control) and had to be lied to, misdirected, bought or terrorized into constituting even that 25% of
'support'. Why do you insist arguing that even that 25% represents the true wishes of the people? Why do you still hold on the notion that 25% of
Russians would have , given proper information channels, or did support Bolshivism over their local soviets?
I am not quite sure how you can say that all of the followers of Lenin did so against their will or were blind to Bolshivek ambitions. I can not make
any assumptions of their personal desicion process and what prompted them to side with Lenin, they supported the Party, so I must assume they
supported its actions.
Thin it might be but is it or isn't it true? More importantly how much of that is really 'aid' to people in actual need?
I would hope all of it. Whether or not it actually reaches the intended recipient does not diminish the act itself.
Comparatively smaller European nations give more in foreign aid than the US does and normally, as i understand, with fewer strings
attached.
My initial comment addressed chairtable donations, not United States government foreign aid, these are two very distinct contributions. The other
nations give more foriegn by a factor of Gross National Product but the raw dollar total for the United States is substantially higher.
To mostly American institutions so why should we care about that?
I will address this below.
Americans have much to feel guilty about ( decades of 'their', well not really, government terrorizing the third world ) so it's surprising
that they give so little while their taxes are generously used to build submarines and cruise missiles which are sometimes employed to blow up third
world pharmaceutical plants of , as in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the water and electricity infrastructure.
I can not speak for my fellow Americans so I do not see how you have a particular insight into this. I personally give and donate my time because it
is spiritually rewarding for me; perhaps they feel that way as well? I have never given out of guilt.
Since the 1960's defense spending has plummeted from a high of 50% to the current 10%, it is not nearly as 'generous' as it once was.
Source please and if that is the case why aren't everyone doing much better? Do you realise that that means around 100 USD for a billion
people who so far seems to be surviving on less than a dollar a day?
U.S. Chartiable
Donations
I do realize that, hopefully it helps them in some small way.
Personal disdain of the US national security state and their consistently inhuman foreign policy decisions.
So is it safe to assume that you recognize the genorousity of the United States citizens.
To whom do they donate?
The world's needy.
US government 'aid' does more than negate any good American citizens might have tried to do.
I disagree.
They can work very effectively if they are not understood but unless the foreign players are completely ignorant or working for you there must
always be the threat of actual violence. Hegemonic , economic, activity is very unlikely to succeed without that power lacking the ability to resort
to the use of arms and i think the historic record makes it clear that hegemony's are normally those who can best mobilize their
industrial/economic/population bases to subvert others. I am sure there are 'empires'/hegemony's that were formed in common defense but again that
requires a well organized external hegemony.
My point was that it does not need to be exerted it may be projected with equal effectivness. Two Roman Legion situated in a neighboring province or a
United States Super-Carrier of the coast can exert hedgemonic influence without resorting to militaristic confrontation.
To me your response captures the arrogance of appeals to 'superiority' in equipment and 'training' when history does show that superior
training or equipment is no guarantee in the face of inferior ( but by how much and under what conditions?) equipment to a a larger number of persons
with less training. The Russians proved conclusively in the second world war that German troops were better trained but that even the best trained man
can not walk faster than a 'inferior' tank or hide from 'inferior' artillery shells. You may have the best men in the world but if they are not
enough to protect what must be 'inferior' badly equipped troops is all that will be required against them.
I personally would rather take my chances on the better trained and equipped side than the numerically superior side. I can quote numerous historical
instances were the better trained and equipped army triuphed over a far larger counterpart with numerical superiority. Poor
tactics or command
desicions have nothing to do with equipment or training.
Lenin knew that people everywhere would quickly see that it was not the system for them and would resist to the best of their abilities.
Communism was 'reliant' on taking hold of western Europe , by force as it did in Russia, as Communism was not going to spread by itself.
Once again I can not comment on what people personally thought about something, I can only go by historical and contemporaneous anecdotes. From the
mid-1800's Communisim was growing in popularity, its possibly taking hold in other countries was not at all reliant soley on force but social
displeasure as well.
Not according to the CIA or anyone who were supposed to be able to tell...
The CIA in notoriously bad at predicting anything.
The US economy was stagnating as well and the political discontent resulted in less than half of people actually voting and massive criticism
of the Reagan government! Obviously the US did not collapse and there was about as much reason for the USSR to collapse.
In the mid-1980's the United States was experiencing historically unprecedented growth and the economy was anything but stagnant. Ronald Reagan won,
in his re-election bid-the
largest electoral vote margin in United States history. Are you perhaps refering to a different time frame as you
gave no date? Sadly less than half the voting-age-population votes in
any election so this point is not wholly releavent.
So he knew how to read books and particularly the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn? Smart guy and he certainly knew how to both read data and reach
conclusions that he had the guts to make known! He was spot on when he said the new drug laws would 'cause' a crime wave in the US leading to
hundreds of thousands of 'criminals'.
I can not quite tell if you are being complimentary or sarcastic.
Although I did not agree with the esteemed Senator on every issue I think he was a very well respected and brilliant politician who served his
constituency to the best of his ability. My opinion is shared by many.
Social dissidents can never see how oppressive systems are propagated and that's why some of them are rather useless when it comes to changing
the world for the better. If i had a penny for every claim dissidents claim that 'things would get better' and 'how could it go on this way' i
would be fabously wealthy.
Are you willing to share that wealth?
This one happened to be correct and while I agree that they are wrong quite often their view points should also be taken into account.
Ronald Reagan also believed in UFO's ( presumably Russian one's as he wanted 'star wars' trough the SDI) and 'trickle down' economics so
citing him as authority on something as complex as the possibility or certainty of social/economic revolutions abroad is in my opinion
absurd.
Comparing UFOs to economic reform in my opinion is absurd. To me one is tangible and is still viable and the other is what certain ATS forums are for.
I am obviously not very objective when it comes to Ronald Reagan
Really?
but i don't think he wanted SDI and the 'new army', that would eventually be used in the war crime that was the first gulf war,
Rhetoric and sophistry.
with the aim of crushing tin pot dictators that were in fact under American control .As it was the US almost failed to keep Hussein in Kuwait
long enough to get their 'liberation' going! To suggest that such a army was required to fight third world nations is ludicrous and to presume and
while i would not put it past Ronald and his corporate friends to create foreign enemies from whole cloth ( Saddam Hussein in 1990)
Ronald Reagan left office in January of 1989, the first Gulf War began in 1991. Is any of this releavent or is it all diatribe?
they did not have to in the 80's as it's widely admitted that the USSR were superior in conventional forces but not so widely known that
they were miles ahead on the strategic front as well.
Is this the same underfunded strategic force we spoke of earlier?
Well it was in many instances but rarely implemented in the ways , when at all, that would in my opinion have resulted in strategic
superiority.
Since the United States of America and the Soviet Union never actually engaged in a direct confrontation it is all speculative as to the result of a
non thermo-nuclear encounter. The actions were all by proxy and the results are hard to clearly judge as many of the Soviet proxies were poorly
trained and tactically inferior to the United States proxies.
The USSR did not relinquish at the negotiation table what they did not otherwise wish to replace or get rid of. The USSR's ICBM's were at
that stage far more numerous with more warheads and three or four times as much throw weight and mega tonnage. The fact that the Silo's and mobile
missiles were almost all re loadable is rarely mentioned and for good reason given what that fact entails.
I can not assert why they did relinquish a portion of their nuclear arsenal only speculate. Perhaps the maintainence of older obsolecent weapons were
deemed sacrificable.
As to the reloading capablities and payload does it really matter after the first exchange? I think the end result would be the same.
The article does not address the fact that the US federal debt is growing faster than the economy meaning that the economy is NOT in fact
growing with Japanese investment just being helpful towards ensuring that the entire US debt crisis does not become more obvious than it already
is.
Nor was it meant to, it was to address you question regarding Japanese investment into the United States coinciding with the stock market crash of
1987.
The United States debt is currently retreating at a steady pace and will approach an equalibrium sooner than expected if current trends continue.
How could it make a second war inevitable when the rise of Germany was by no means inevitable?
I disagree and feel the rise of a resurgent Germany was also inevitable. The crushing debt structure and unfavorable parameters made national recovery
nearly impossible on many levels.
Sure the treaty had severe implications for Russian hegemony on the region so why did they accept it at all?
It was a very poor desicion in my opinion.
Maybe because they could not fight both the central powers AND the Russian people?
A very real reason.
How could people who ostensible had the best interest of Russian in mind ever sign such a treaty when the first world war was coming to a close
with or without Russia's participation?
I specualate at that point they only had self preservation on their collective agenda.
Who were these people who sign away so much Russian land?
They were very poor leaders in my opinion.
"In all, the treaty took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines." Would any nationalist
sign such a treaty and why didn't they before?
Do you have any fact to back your speculation that they treaty signers were influenced by the United States?
What public support, they seized Petrograd and Moscow ( and where else did they have support?) , and as i just mentioned they signed away
half of their industrial centers to the central powers!
They did have public support, as we established earlier it was not a majority but it was support none the less.
As I have admitted the treaty was a very unfavorable one for them to sign. Perhaps it was signed with an eye towards consolodating power within the
remainder of the country.
What i am saying is that the west did not support the 'white' Russians but instead supported the Bolshevik 'government' in their attempts
to keep Russia in the war. That is obviously the official excuse used for the various governments interventions but it hardly explains the financial
backing of the Bolshevik movement itself. As the following source would indicate the western presence did much to gain support for the Bolshevik
unification of Russia ( they could now claim to be fighting the imperialist) while it contributed very little if anything to fighting the outnumbered
'red' forces. I am certainly not of the opinion that the west could not have crushed the 'revolution' ( really counter revolution) like it did so
many others in the previous century.
Although the link provided shows Western intervention in Europe it only indicates that American troops were not permitted to engage and were ordered
to stay in port. The most I can garner is that they were guilty of abandoning the Whites, not what one would expect from a friend but not directly
aiding the Bolshiveks with material or financial support as I feel you intimated earlier.
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun
(Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the
reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has
been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld
of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed
masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920
www.guardian.co.uk...
But maybe that page contains enough interesting quotes to enable a easy dismissal of this one.
I am aware of Emma Goldman and her views. She, however, was not a member of the United States government and her influence was countered by many he
felt she was too radical and did not prescribe to her Zionist views.
If i must i think i can show that the Rockefeller interests, and their puppet Wilson, were the main funders of the revolution and that they
gained the most by it.
Please do.
I think i did enough by showing how the western intervention was entirely self interested and on the whole did more for the Bolshevik cause
than for the revolutionary one.
I agree with you, I think we established my opinion on self interest and their relations to governments previously. However, any benefit the
Bolshiveks received was indirect in regards to United States participation, or lack there of and I feel you have yet to prove to me otherwise.
