Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VaporLockBox t1_j28pdvq wrote

Lenin ordered the violent annexation of Ukraine into the USSR in order to steal their grain and energy resources to help pay for his New Economic Policy. This time the terrorist invaders will be crushed.

99

gmil3548 t1_j2aiehn wrote

Yeah Lenin was incredible at his job as a revolutionary leader. He was however horribly ruthless in his methods (which is why he was effective) and after he was able to take power that ruthlessness didn’t tone down enough and he was a tyrant - tho not nearly as bad of one as Stalin.

3

Gravelord-_Nito t1_j2cmp6y wrote

This is very easy for modern liberals to moralize about from the position of incredibly cossetted and, frankly, delusional modern attitudes that don't have to stand up to the rigors of reality. This all happened IMMEDIATELY after WW1. Any mask or veil of civility or high minded political sophistry was ripped entirely off a long time ago, and the reality was very apparent for every political actor of the time: The only thing that matters is power. And if you don't use it, your enemies will, at your violent expense. Churchill literally immediately gave all the help he could to the Whites in the civil war to 'strangle Bolshevism in it's cradle', this was the USSR's welcome party to global politics and their relationship with the West only got worse from then on.

I'd like to see any modern liberal lead the nascent USSR under all these threats while maintaining these fanciful modern attitudes that are essentially just performances of personal virtue projected onto politics.

8

gmil3548 t1_j2cq03t wrote

Eh, I mean this is just overreaching the other way. Even Lenin’s contemporaries outside of hardcore Bolsheviks thought he was extreme. He had to be, I will grant that but he did take it too far at times like the Cheka.

Also, the whites never got much western support so to say anyone threw all the help they could’ve behind them it would’ve probably stopped the Revolution. The thing was that coming out of WW1 no one really wanted to get tangled into what looked like it could easily be a part 2. The Bolsheviks thought it would happen (which is why hindsight does admittedly look worse, since they truly believed the entire west would back and aid the whites).

I’m fairly socialist (I don’t think anyone can be really into learning early modern period history like I am and not end up that way) so I’m not attacking the ideas. It’s just that it’s naive to say it wasn’t carried out by a ruthless guy then overtaken by one of the most ruthless and paranoid dictators ever, resulting in something even more oppressive and worse than what came before. If for no other reason than the Cheka/KGB was WAY better at their job than the Okhrana which was often underfunded and undermotivated to truly shut down the left opposition the way the Soviets were able to shut down any dissenters.

4