What side would you support in the Russian Revolution?

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes, but the only thing they are important for is opposing the war they didn't actually fight in. They we're really a "side" in the Revolutions or Civil War since they specifically existed to be the Marxist anti-war group.

Highly debatable, considering they literally controlled a country that the USSR was at war with.

This was only after it became impossible to oppose war practically, because the war had already started. What they are really famous for were being the Orthodox Marxist, anti-revolution group.

[Arglorand]

Highly debatable, considering they literally controlled a country that the USSR was at war with.

This was only after it became impossible to oppose war practically, because the war had already started. What they are really famous for were being the Orthodox Marxist, anti-revolution group.

Yeah, if we're talking about fame for fame's sake. But denying that they were a side in the Revolutions and Civil War is at the very least slightly exaggerated.

[Buse]

Боже, Царя храни!
Сильный, державный,
Царствуй на славу, на славу нам!
Царствуй на страх врагам,
Царь православный!
Боже, Царя храни!

Just to add the actual song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC52cUP2PVo

[Prumia]

It really comes down to how you define the word "socialism."

That word has a definition. It's "a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Hitler's party advocated "national socialism," the complete control of the state over the country as a whole.

Wrong. Hitler essentially partnered/nationalized major corporations to plan their war economy.

That is what socialism is: the control of the state.

What the hell do you think social anarchism is? You're definition is simply wrong, and only specifies state socialism.

Hitler may have allowed private ownership, but it was all regulated by the government. If a government can snap their fingers and take all your property, I ask you: do you really own it?

Are you an anarcho-capitalist? If not, please don't make this point.

What Hitler opposed was "communism" and socialism as it was defined by the U.S.S.R.

Yes, he opposed socialism entirely, and most specifically Marxism. At his time, they hadn't really clarified that corporatist economics were actually Third Way rather than left-wing.

at the time: their version of communism and socialism; neither of which fit with what either of them actually advocated.

What are you blabbering about?

Very well then. We probably should not be having this discussion here as it is not directly related to this topic. If you actually care enough to discuss this - civilly - than we may continue this through telegrams and off this forum topic. As for this topic, suffice it to say we disagree and leave it at that.

[Greater Weselton]

Didn't he fire someone for publishing anti-Semitic literature?

Who? It's the first time I hear Nikki firing anyone.

He fired a regional governor.

[Lyttenburg]

There is also one "elephant in the room" that prevents me from supporting Bolsheviks - the Germans.

One of the first acts of Bolsheviks was to order the release of German and Austro-Hungarian POWs. In his memoirs, famous SR Boris Savinkov (who nearly miraclously escaped from bolshevik-taken Petrograd to Don, already held by Whites) mentions that "streets of Petrograd are full of former German prisioners who were issued shining new uniform and they behave as victors in captured capital". Some of these freed POWs served as instructors for the fledgling Red Army (which in late 1917 was actually a "Red Guard" militia). And bolsheviks at first had to rely on foreigners to form their armed forces, like Latvian Riflers, Red Finns and even Chinese.

Also. Germans supplied airplanes and poisonous gas to Bolsheviks (during the suppresion of Antonov's peasant uprising Bolsheviks used gas undiscriminately). Probably this fact, this "treachery" forced many officers to rebel against the Bolsheviks and kick-start the White movement. This, and Czechoslovakian legion's revolt, of course.

Granted, the White movement from the very start wasn't united. Krasnov's cossacs were supported (and supplied) by Germany, while Kolchak was supported by the Entente countries.

And by the way - German communists were opposed to Brest-Litovsk treaty probably even more then the White generals. For them the fact that first communistic revolution happened not in their highly industrialized (and all around better) country, but in some Russia was insulting enough. But in case of peace between Russia and Germany their own hopes of Revolution would be much reduced.

[Elsa the Snow Queen]

Queen Elsa would support the Tsar of course

[Benuty]

Queen Elsa would support the Tsar of course

Monarchy is so pre-enlightenment.

[Grozyarus]

Bolsheviks

[Corumm]

I'd support good o'l uncle joe

[The Archregimancy]

Option 4:

Support the Russian Constituent Assembly of January 1918 as the legitimate expression of the will of the Russian people.

Option 5:

Any attempt at a Russian military defence of the Front collapses; the Central Powers occupy European Russia and impose a solution on a prostrate Russian state.

There are multiple scenarios here, but the two most likely are:

A) the revolutions so destabilise what's left of the Russian state that none of the competing factions can mount anything resembling a coherent defence of the Front, or claim to speak for what's left of either the army or the state.

B) Trotsky's hilariously inept unilateral cessation of hostilities following the collapse of the first set of negotiations with the Germans, under his "no war — no peace" policy, leads to the total collapse of the incipient Soviet government and the rapid occupation of Russia's two historic capitals (or at least of St Petersburg)


This 'solution' would perhaps have looked much like Brest-Litovsk anyway, though with the Germans probably trying to install some form of pro-German friendly government in St Petersburg in preference to letting the Russians fight it out for themselves and risking a pro-revolutionary government taking control of the Russian state given the potential political consequences of the latter for Germany.

[Lyttenburg]

Option 4:

Support the Russian Constituent Assembly of January 1918 as the legitimate expression of the will of the Russian people.

Option 5:

Any attempt at a Russian military defence of the Front collapses; the Central Powers occupy European Russia and impose a solution on a prostrate Russian state.

There are multiple scenarios here, but the two most likely are:

A) the revolutions so destabilise what's left of the Russian state that none of the competing factions can mount anything resembling a coherent defence of the Front, or claim to speak for what's left of either the army or the state.

B) Trotsky's hilariously inept unilateral cessation of hostilities following the collapse of the first set of negotiations with the Germans, under his "no war — no peace" policy, leads to the total collapse of the incipient Soviet government and the rapid occupation of Russia's two historic capitals (or at least of St Petersburg)


This 'solution' would perhaps have looked much like Brest-Litovsk anyway, though with the Germans probably trying to install some form of pro-German friendly government in St Petersburg in preference to letting the Russians fight it out for themselves and risking a pro-revolutionary government taking control of the Russian state given the potential political consequences of the latter for Germany.

Any German soldier still kept in the former Eastern front is the soldier not sent to still "hot" Western Front in 1918. Germans had trouble of controlling occupied Ukraine even with Hetman as their figure-head - Makhno started as anti-Austrian partisan, btw. Entente soldiers occupied key ports of Russia originally under the pretext of "defending" them from the Central Powers.

[The Archregimancy]

Option 5:

Any attempt at a Russian military defence of the Front collapses; the Central Powers occupy European Russia and impose a solution on a prostrate Russian state.

There are multiple scenarios here, but the two most likely are:

A) the revolutions so destabilise what's left of the Russian state that none of the competing factions can mount anything resembling a coherent defence of the Front, or claim to speak for what's left of either the army or the state.

B) Trotsky's hilariously inept unilateral cessation of hostilities following the collapse of the first set of negotiations with the Germans, under his "no war — no peace" policy, leads to the total collapse of the incipient Soviet government and the rapid occupation of Russia's two historic capitals (or at least of St Petersburg)


This 'solution' would perhaps have looked much like Brest-Litovsk anyway, though with the Germans probably trying to install some form of pro-German friendly government in St Petersburg in preference to letting the Russians fight it out for themselves and risking a pro-revolutionary government taking control of the Russian state given the potential political consequences of the latter for Germany.

Any German soldier still kept in the former Eastern front is the soldier not sent to still "hot" Western Front in 1918. Germans had trouble of controlling occupied Ukraine even with Hetman as their figure-head - Makhno started as anti-Austrian partisan, btw. Entente soldiers occupied key ports of Russia originally under the pretext of "defending" them from the Central Powers.

All points freely conceded, but we're talking about a scenario where a total collapse of authority in Russia leads to a power vacuum that the Germans feel compelled to fill.

I'm not envisioning a large-scale occupation given the Western Front issues (I should have been clearer on that point), but rather short-term occupation of key strategic points and an attempt to impose a government that the Germans would plan to support more strongly once (if) Germany is victorious on the Western Front.

And note that I don't claim that attempt would necessarily be successful. Only that it provides an alternative scenario to the ones in the poll.

In that sense I'm hypothesising a scenario not dissimilar to the German attempts to place the Count of Wurttemburg on the Lithuanian throne and the Prince of Hesse on the Finnish throne in 1918. Those attempts failed upon Germany's defeat later that year, but certainly Germany made the attempt to form pro-German client states in both cases. Had Germany felt it necessary to attempt the same in Russia proper, the impact on the course of the Revolution might have been significant - if ultimately unpredictable.

[Greater Weselton]

Queen Elsa would support the Tsar of course

I am very glad about that. Glad to see that you can portray Elsa as an anti-socialist. That goes away from your portrayal of Elsa in the NSG Senate. Good for you.

[Sebastianbourg]

I would support the Provisional Government and the restoration of the monarchy (after the stabilisation of Russia) under a monarch other than Nicholas II.

[Anglo-California]

The intervening Western forces.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The intervening Western forces.

The only people the typical Russian would've hated more than the Whites and Reds. Brilliant.

[Insaeldor]

I would support the Russian Republic.