Lenin´s Hitler style plans for Europe, the truth behind Moscow Bolshevik Marxist attack on Poland , Lithuania and Belarus
Lenin was convinced that the revolution should not only target Germany,
but also the countries in south-west Europe. Six days after the decisive 17 July meeting he
The situation in the Comintern is splendid. Zinoviev, Bukharin, and I, too,
think that revolution in Italy should be spurred on immediately. My personal
opinion is that to this end, Hungary should be sovietised, and perhaps also
Czechia and Romania."
shocking for many info, I know, question how close was Moscow Bolshevik gang from conquering Europe in 20s, - 80s?
To this day, Moscow horde is terrifying for it’s renditions and pantomime. But we all know kleptocracy is unsustainable without War....
the Poles destroyed Moscow Marxist Horde and saved the Europe from Moscow oriental despotism
You're making Lenin and the Bolsheviks sound downright *bourgeois* and *imperialist*, when in fact the Bolshevik Revolution *wasn't* geopolitical or territory-hungry as we're used to seeing with nationalist inter-imperialist (world) warfare.
Also Lenin was just reflecting actual mass *support* for revolution, with his formalizing leadership -- he was *not* the crazy-eyed power-mad carcicature that you're employing here.
I'll note that the Russian people had previously *overthrown* the tsar and feudal relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
), paving the way for not just a modern nation-state (like England, the U.S., and France), but even *further*, to actual *workers democracy* over how industrialized workplaces were to be run -- a *proletarian* revolution.
You're conflating Bolshevism with subsequent counter-factional Stalinist nationalist consolidation and even *post-USSR* capitalist restoration -- kleptocracy.
You're doing a *disservice* to history with your out-of-history contextualizations, demonizations, and slandering.
As the tsar fell, the bourgeois forces behind the provisional government were pushing in one direction, while the masses who made the revolution were pushing in the opposite direction. The gap between them grew wider with every week that passed.
Russia’s capitalists were determined to continue with the very policies which had driven the workers of Petrograd to rise and the soldiers to back the rising. Tsarism had thrown backward, semi-medieval Russia into a war with Germany, the second most advanced capitalism in the world. The result was bound to be economic dislocation on a massive scale, enormous losses at the front, a breakdown in food deliveries to the cities and impoverishment of the urban workforce. Yet the new government was as determined to persist with the war as the old, since Russia’s capitalists were just as keen on expanding the empire across the Black Sea to Istanbul and the Mediterranean as any tsarist general. Their great industries were monopolies run in conjunction with the state, their national markets restricted by the backwardness of agriculture and the poverty of the peasants. What better way to expand those markets than by expanding the borders of the state? They could see no logic but the logic of imperialist war, whatever degree of dislocation it caused. The provisional government continued to accept this, even when it was restructured to give ministerial posts to the ‘moderate’ socialist parties, with Kerensky as prime minister. ‘Even many left wing members of the provisional government secretly agreed with…[the] aims’ of carving out a new empire, including the Dardanelles and ‘satellite’ states in Eastern Europe.65
Continuity in military policy was matched by continuity in policy towards the empire’s non-Russian speaking peoples—more than half the total population. There were traditions of rebellion in Poland, Finland, parts of the Caucasus and, to a lesser degree, the Ukraine. The tsars had used repression and enforced Russification to try and stamp out any movement for self determination. The new government, fearful of losing markets and supplies of raw materials, continued this approach.
Tsarism had given the great landowners half the country’s land, and the old regime had used the full force of the state against any attempt to divide the large estates. The capitalist interests entrenched in the new government were just as hard-headed. Ministers might make speeches about eventual reform, but they insisted that the peasantry must wait in the meantime.
Their policies meant discontent would grow, with or without the Bolsheviks. No one had given the order for the February rising. In the same way, no one ordered the peasants to attack the houses of the great landowners and divide up the land throughout the summer. No one gave orders to the Finns, the Ukrainians, or the peoples of the Caucasus and the Baltic to demand states of their own. And no one told millions of peasants in uniform to desert the front. People who had seen protests topple a 500 year old monarchy did not need anyone to tell them they should try to solve other grievances, especially when many of them guns and had been trained to use them.
Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 416-417