Do i really need to get all conspiratorial given the Brest-Litovsk treaty and the fact that the Socialist revolutionary party ( the true organizers of the original DEMOCRATIC revolution) joined the fight after their political activities were outlawed?

Why did the Bolshevik minority win and why , with so many foreign powers intervening, could the majority not retain power?

Who did Japan, Czechoslovakia, Greece, the United States, Canada, Serbia, Romania, UK, France really support and if so how did that side 'lose'. Is that not on the face of if a good enough reason to lend credence to all the books and discussions that have suggested , and in my opinion validated the notion, that the Bolshevik counter-revolution ( as they clearly espoused and worked towards counter revolutionary goals) were in fact sponsored into power from the outside?

I have not so far put together what i consider sufficient online sources/information to 'prove' what i believe from all my reading. I am not even sure that i have to prove who were in fact responsible but maybe i will take a stab at it if you wish to insist that the Russian people 'got what they wanted' when that is clearly not bourne out by what is normally considered reputable sources.

Social dissident Andrei Amalrik wondered if it would survivie until 1984....this was in in 1970.

There are many more but my final example at this time is Ronald Reagan's address of British Parliment in 1982. I feel he is a 'primary' enough source for me.

I never postulated that the Soviet Union did not have certain advantages in the military sphere.I only stated that overall United States technology was superior.

I would be willing to debate this with you further if you can direct me to the proper forum.

Are you refering to the Fon-2? This system was deemed impractical to defeat a United States first strike.

Or did you mean the IS-MU which was launched untested?

I honestly feel the United States program was never going to make it into production and was used a political tool to leverage the Soviet Union to relinquish part of its massive ICBM force at the bargaining table.

Here is a good article encompassing what I stated. If you need further articles I would be happy to provide them.
Japanese investments and United States growth

In this regard no. The Treaty had severely unfavorable terms for Russia to accept and in my opinion garunteed a second war as being inevitable.

The Socialists can not be faulted for confronting the Bolshiveks militarily as they were the majority vote receivers in prior election. This treaty however was not negotiated in any way by the United States.

If I were to make an educated guess it would be that the Bolshiveks controlled the industrial centers which were the foundations of their public support.

Depsite the Socialists receiving a larger percentage in the election their powerbase was concentrated in the rural areas. Conversely the Bolshiveks dominated the city centers which would lead me to believe that equipping and supplying their soldiers would be a far easier task then their enemies would face.

Are you implying that because the United States supported the anti-communist White Army, who suffered defeat against the Red Army, means that the United States in reality desired a Bolshivek victory? If so I have a difficult time accepting that as a valid arguement.

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...

Personal disdain of the US national security state and their consistently inhuman foreign policy decisions.

To whom do they donate?

US government 'aid' does more than negate any good American citizens might have tried to do.

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.

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.

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.

Not according to the CIA or anyone who were supposed to be able to tell...

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.

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'.

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.

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.

I am obviously not very objective when it comes to Ronald Reagan

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,

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

How could it make a second war inevitable when the rise of Germany was by no means inevitable?

Sure the treaty had severe implications for Russian hegemony on the region so why did they accept it at all?

Maybe because they could not fight both the central powers AND the Russian people?

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?

Who were these people who sign away so much Russian land?

"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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.