Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Wars and Conflicts  permalink

Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  In the year of 1917, the communists in Russia made their famous 'red revolution' and rose to power and stabilised by conducting wars against the remaining 'whites' - supporters of the older Imperial regime.
  
  So far so good, but there are a lot of questions considering who were those communists, and how were they financed, how did they manage it?
  
  As Carl Marx said, Russia most probably would be the last european country to become communist: a vast empire, full of farmers, with little or no industry, with no other social classes than 'mouziks' (poor farmers), 'kozaks' (guerrila cowboys in the service of the king) and medieval-kind landowners and 'aristocrats'. The communist ideal could be only successful in an industrialised society.
  
  However from 1880 and onwards there was an increasing 'communist propaganda' in Russia that obviously, as a theory, came from abroad (communism was not born in Russia!), a propaganda conducted with religious fanatiscism that spread in many parts of the empire, usually the south western ones. Despite the fact that the Tsar had in his service the infamous Ohrana (KGB-style!) he could not fight what was happening in his country, the one failure would bring the other and right before the WW1 the Red Revolution occured.
  
  Now we know that there are many kinds of revolutions, revolts, social unrest but for that revolution it is more than clear that there was a systematic effort of well designed and prepared propaganda for more than 30 years!!!
  
  In case it was any type of revolution like the greek against the turks I would understand: rich greeks financed the greek revolution and prepared the populations and it was not much of a secret: it was a whole nations' aspiration. If it was like the French revolution again I would understand: rich people would eventually turn against the traditional aristocracy by using the common people's national pride and anger against the regime's attitudes towards commoners.
  
  But in Russia, a country fully agricultural, where many people were almost illiterate, and were the communistic ideal could not be understood to become an idea against the overruling powerful Tsar... well ... one would need SERIOUS FINANCING to support a propaganda and prepare a revolution for 30 years.
  
  Now, who of the Russians had the means to finance such a revolution... and afterall for what reason?? Would it be an investment? No!! Then what?? Who?

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  Hi, Where did Carl Marx spend a lot of time before the revolution, where is he buried and why?
  Regards
  Spike

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 20th August 2005

  Marx was a German of Jewish origins, he was friend with his compatrior Hengels, he worked in Germany then he moved to England were he wrote the Capital (or de he write it in Germany? I do not remember). Marx worked for the communistic '3rd International', but he died in England as far as I know, very poor and without having participated directly in any revolution.
  
  I am not sure to what extend he had to do something with the revolution in Russia. Do you know anything I do not?
  
  I am very suspicious of US and UK. Of course, these two traditional capitalist countries would not like a successful communistic regime anywhere in the world, but is it like that? Cos in politics you need friends, you need enemies also to rule better your friends, if you know what I mean!
  
  We know that Britain sent some allied army (even Greeks sent as allies, my grandfather was 20 years old in 1917 and he was sent in Russia to fight for the white army!!!). That does not mean necessarily that Britain's plan was to help, maybe it was to ensure the defeat of the white army.
  
  Many people will think, this 'Nikolaos' guy is far too conspirationalist! Indeed but what can I say... there is a question: how did the communists financed their revolution in such a country against such a regime and there is none who dares answer...

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Saturday, 20th August 2005

  hi nik,
  i'm not too sure about the whole revolution, but i do know that when the germans sneaked lenin back in, they also paid for printing presses and other means to further his cause/there cause

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 20th August 2005

  ... just to give you some hints:
  
  When you invest in a company you want it to be the first not the second, thus you make everything possible that its competitors are left behind. Now it is well known that US being a vast country with unlimited ressources and potential to increase 10fold its population, it attracted the majority of investments worldwide.
  
  Russia had not enjoyed the development of US at the time but everything was on their side: An even bigger country than US with unlimited ressources, a bigger population at the time...imagine that Stalin managed to kill 60.000.000 people in 20 years, that means that today Russia would have a healthy population all over Russia and Siberia of around 400.000.000 making Russia sooner or later the biggest power of the world.
  
  Thus if you invested big in US you would want to make sure that Russia would be left behind, thus why not help a communist revolution and give them trouble forever?
  
  I am not implying that everything was pre-planned perfectly. But on the other hand, you only need to put on the rails and the train will move your direction faster or slower but your direction.
  
  I know I do not have a complete theory here, but then I would like to hear somebody trying to explain to me this:
  
  how did communists managed to finance their preparations for 20-30 years? Was it the poor 'mouziks', was it rich Russians? Who?
  
  PS: For example, we know that the Orange revolution in Ukraine last year was financed directly from the west and even billionaires like George Soros proudly admitted they gave large sums, we know also that the opposition was financed from Russia.
  
  PS: Another example on communists, it is well established that in my country, Greece, communists grew from an almost zero power up to 35% from 1941 to 1943 (thus leading to the civil war which started in 1943 contrary to what greeks are told about 1945), all during the German occupation and due to the fact that English preffered to help more the communists rather than the right wing resistance groups. As a famous communist,Aris Velouhiotis, had said 'these English are more dangerous than the Germans, they are going to make us fight brother against brother, you will see'. It sounds strange but as I have said repeatedly, in diplomacy things are more complex than people think

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Revolutionaries don't have to be well financed, just organised and patient. Over and above the train fares that ferried the various Bolsheviks back to Russia after the February Revolution what financial or material assistance could the Central Powers have given? Come the end of 1918 I'm sure they would have been more inclined to support the Whites now that peace had been achieved. I think you misunderstand the fact that Russia had numerous revolutionary groups from the 1880s onwards with differing ideas of how to achieve progress in the face of an inreasingly autocratic regime. Mind you that security was good for British investors who dominated the financing of Russian industrialisation up to World War One. In 1905 at the Odessa uprising the Bolshevics were a minority in comparison to the Menshavics.
  
  Have you considered the radicalising effect taking large numbers of people from a largely rural society and placing them cheek by jowl in military units. Surely that would create conditions similar to those witnessed by Marx and Engels in Manchester, the crew of the Potemkin were consciously aware of the difference in food quality between the officers and the crew.

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Polwanderer (U1734477) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  As part of the Civil War didn't a small force of British and US troops land in Russia?
  
  France certainly provided aid to Poland in the 1920 war.

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  re: message 7.
  
  Polish Wanderer,
  
  welcome back and on the new boards.
  
  Kind regards.

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Re: message 6.
  
  Lol,
  
  how happy to see you more and more again on the new boards. I have to agree you only jumped in on the old boards too if it was important. And perhaps if you were interested in the subject? (small smile)
  
  But each time as you jumped in it was with competence and in depth.
  
  The same again on this subject. I thought about it and wanted to send a reply along the same lines as you, but now you explained it that much better and in that better English than mine.
  
  Thank you very much and with esteem and I hope that you stay as long over here as on the old boards.
  
  Kind regards.

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Lolbeeble thanks for the answer,
  
  Indeed I did a quick googling on the menshevic and found a site linking all names known and unknown about the Red Revolution, thus I refreshed my knowledge a bit, but then what I saw makes me even more sceptical.
  
  You are right saying that the Bolsheviks were just one of the many revolutionary groups as many of the leading figures had their personal views on what should happen. These were strange times for the Russian empire, full of espionage and anti-espionage and not even the ‘very capable’ Tsarist Ohrana (security – it was the predecessor of KGB) could anymore do anything. Yes, common people were called up from their peasant backgrounds to go fight in the WW1 and that soon aggravated the already grave social problems, yes these people were food and fuel for the revolutionary groups.
  
  However, I bear in mind that in the recent Orange Revolution, a revolution which occurred in Ukraine only last year, billionaire investor George Soros participated with 20.000.000 dollars as himself proudly admits, guess then what US has given on top of that so as to ensure that party wins, (of course Russia supported financially Kuchma’s party). I bear also in mind that in the French Revolution it was not the common people but the higher ‘bourgeois’ social classes that organised and financed the revolution in order to tear down the obsolete aristocratic social system, of course by employing the peoples’ anger against the contemporary political situation.
  
  Russia is by far bigger than these countries, it is not easy to organise a rebellion and take like that the power, not even ‘among the fuss and confusion’; the Red Revolution was obviously the culmination of whatever preparations were made by any sort of groups for more than 20 years. If Ukraine’s Orange Revolution required such a generous aid, then at those times in such an empire there were spent much more – but from where?
  
  It is not of secondary importance that most leaders of the Revolution were moving in-out of Russia several times, and were heading to Switzerland…..ah….yes Switzerland, the crossroad of nameless funds, that even ‘wannabe-world-rulers’ do not dare touch. These people were obviously employed full-time as revolutionaries but that escapes the notice of the majority of books on the issue (not to mention about the ‘roots’ of many of the leaders – and that in full knowledge that later the (perhaps accidental) result of all that effort, i.e. Stalin, hunted down these ‘roots’, i.e. an effort that backlashed).
  
  Personally I do not think there was anything internal in Russia that pushed for the Red Revolution – people were indeed disillusioned but any kind of revolution could be understandable and natural (e.g. democrats, socialists, nationalists) but not a Red Revolution. Bearing then in mind the well-known to me fact that Greek communists (a party co-founded by foreigners, like in most smaller countries) rose in power in 1941-1943 (from around 3% to 35%) due to English preference (that abruptly stopped and turned to right-wing groups in 1945 thus leading to a 5 year civil war that perfectly fitted US/UK plans) I am obliged to put on the table the ‘UK-US’ conspiracy theory (and it is not UFOlogy!) described above that explains more in comparison to what we read in most of the books.
  

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by _A_J_A_ (U1908577) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  Nikolaos
  
  It wasn't just the British(over 1100) and the US(4,500 troops) who sent troops to Russia to fight the 'Reds' in 1918, but French(1000), Italians, Czechs(60,000), Romanians, Serbs, Japanese(12,000), Latvian, Finnish, Baltic Germans, anti-Red Russians and Russian Cossacks.
  
  From May 23rd 1918, British troops were sent to Archangel & Murmansk, the other nations did likewise to various ports until Lloyd-George's ultimatum(Aug 4th 1920) of war to Red emissaries in London, if they continued advancing on warsaw(Poland). They did but 200,000 Red Russians were beaten by 140,000 Poles, and the Bolsheviks sought an armistice on Oct 1920.

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 26th August 2005

  Come on Nick, chances are the shadows on the back of the cave are all there is to it. I’m not sure we were too keen on socialist revolution taking hold lest it inspire our own soldiers and workers to run up the red flag themselves. Moreover the British were primarily concerned with securing strategic areas heading straight for the Oil fields of Baku.
  
  Would you care to look at 1905 in more detail, certainly the Bolshevics spent the next decade doing so. In the space of a year the Tsar managed to lose both military prestige with the defeat in the Russo Japanese War and the belief that he stood for justice and compassion when the intentions of the crowd lead by Father Gapon to the gates of winter Palace were misread and the army opened fire. Neither of these events could have been expected and though they generated much unrest, the uprisings that followed were more sporadic localised affairs. With the exception of the Potemkin the military remained loyal. Well alright they appear to have been more in favour of taking the opportunity to vent spleen against the Jews who they considered must have caused the Russian defeat. How else could a European power have lost to an Asian nation? The terms line of supply and critical fire spring to mind but never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
  
  As for the October revolution, yes, you are correct that the Bolshevics were still a minority and their ascendancy was not assured but then one cannot help noticing that they were the only group after the February revolution that suggested renouncing their international obligations by seeking peace with the Central Powers to concentrate on domestic issues. Karensky’s government had few supporters by autumn 1917 except for the Western allies and their goodwill could not reverse the mutinies and desertions. It is true that the Meshavics and Socialist Revolutionaries were more numerous when they joined the revolution but they were sidelined as the Soviet, dominated by bolshevics supplanted the Constitutional assemblies favoured by the other revolutionary groups as the focus of state apparatus. Think of the Gracchi declaring the tribune of the centuries took precedence over the Senate. Mind you once they had seized power they were not exactly popular as food became even scarcer.
  
  If you want to know who did much of the fundraising on behalf of many Socialist groups in Russia, have you considered looking up Gorky?

  Link to this forum: Financing of the 1917 Red Revolution

  Report message12

Back to top