He knew the risks of trying to rush the revolution, he knew the risks of not having socialists at peace talks, he knew the fear it would cause, and he knew the concentration of power could have bad consequences with future leaders, and he knew that he was destroying left unity.
This momo is missing at least three big things:
1.) Tsarist Russia was getting rolled by the Germans. The Russian people unequivocally wanted out of the war; this was part of the appeal of the Bolsheviks. This person seems to think Lenin had any ability at all to stay in the war. "Peace" was literally the first word in "Peace, Land, and Bread". If the Bolsheviks wanted to stay in the war the Russian people would not have supported them.
2.) There is no way on god's green earth the capitalist Entente powers would have given Communists a seat at the table. None. Laughable assumption.
3.) UK and France didn't push excessive reparations on Germany for shits and giggles. They were deeply in debt to the war-profiteering US and the US was insisting on getting paid back in full. Keynes even said it was a terrible idea to make Germany pay these reparations because trying to pay back the US without giving the Germans a way to earn back USD via exports to the US (which the US wasn't allowing) was a recipe for disaster. Keynes was right and this is exactly what happened. But assuming the person tweeting here is American, maybe they can be forgiven some for not knowing this because this fact is conveniently left out of US history class because gee, that sure makes it seem that the US has some culpability in the rise of the Nazis, huh?
I think Michael Hudson talks about it in Superimperialism
Edit: btw some googling says that the total war debts owed to the US was well over $200 billion in today's dollars. The Entente wanted the US to cancel the debt as their war contribution (you know, given how the UK and France lost millions of people and the US was relatively unscathed). But the US said no and only let up some during the depths of the Great Depression.
Russian people unequivocally wanted out of the war; this was part of the appeal of the Bolsheviks. This person seems to think Lenin had any ability at all to stay in the war. “Peace” was literally the first word in “Peace, Land, and Bread”. If the Bolsheviks wanted to stay in the war the Russian people would not have supported them.
When we're talking about who "destroyed left unity" let us remember that when the Bolsheviks did try to negotiate an end to the war, the other major left party, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, literally tried to assassinate both Lenin and the German ambassador in order to accomplish... more destruction? pretty ballsy move tbh but very stupid
and don't even get me started on the Right "Socialist Revolutionaries" who would rather collaborate with a straight up military dictatorship rather than the working class. The Bolsheviks had plenty of reason to be skeptical of other left parties
Fun fact: in 1916 the Germans were winning the war and the Americans only entered to save their bankers from ruin. If the French lost, you think the Germans were going to pay back those loans? Source: Smedley Butler.
I mean sorta. They Germans made a breakthrough late in the war, but it stalled out because if lack of logistical capacity. The general consensus is that Germany would have lost anyway without American direcy intervention, it would have just taken longer. That being said, this is all in retrospect, the us did declare war to protect their bankers because it did appear at the time like the allies might lose.
They go on to explain:
This momo is missing at least three big things:
1.) Tsarist Russia was getting rolled by the Germans. The Russian people unequivocally wanted out of the war; this was part of the appeal of the Bolsheviks. This person seems to think Lenin had any ability at all to stay in the war. "Peace" was literally the first word in "Peace, Land, and Bread". If the Bolsheviks wanted to stay in the war the Russian people would not have supported them.
2.) There is no way on god's green earth the capitalist Entente powers would have given Communists a seat at the table. None. Laughable assumption.
3.) UK and France didn't push excessive reparations on Germany for shits and giggles. They were deeply in debt to the war-profiteering US and the US was insisting on getting paid back in full. Keynes even said it was a terrible idea to make Germany pay these reparations because trying to pay back the US without giving the Germans a way to earn back USD via exports to the US (which the US wasn't allowing) was a recipe for disaster. Keynes was right and this is exactly what happened. But assuming the person tweeting here is American, maybe they can be forgiven some for not knowing this because this fact is conveniently left out of US history class because gee, that sure makes it seem that the US has some culpability in the rise of the Nazis, huh?
I sure as shit didn't know no.3! Where might I read more about it?
Superimperialism
oh yeah, that
I think Michael Hudson talks about it in Superimperialism
Edit: btw some googling says that the total war debts owed to the US was well over $200 billion in today's dollars. The Entente wanted the US to cancel the debt as their war contribution (you know, given how the UK and France lost millions of people and the US was relatively unscathed). But the US said no and only let up some during the depths of the Great Depression.
When we're talking about who "destroyed left unity" let us remember that when the Bolsheviks did try to negotiate an end to the war, the other major left party, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, literally tried to assassinate both Lenin and the German ambassador in order to accomplish... more destruction? pretty ballsy move tbh but very stupid
and don't even get me started on the Right "Socialist Revolutionaries" who would rather collaborate with a straight up military dictatorship rather than the working class. The Bolsheviks had plenty of reason to be skeptical of other left parties
Fun fact: in 1916 the Germans were winning the war and the Americans only entered to save their bankers from ruin. If the French lost, you think the Germans were going to pay back those loans? Source: Smedley Butler.
I mean sorta. They Germans made a breakthrough late in the war, but it stalled out because if lack of logistical capacity. The general consensus is that Germany would have lost anyway without American direcy intervention, it would have just taken longer. That being said, this is all in retrospect, the us did declare war to protect their bankers because it did appear at the time like the allies might lose.