Comments by "Horizon" (@Horizon344) on ""Boris Johnson is a disreputable wretch" | George Galloway" video.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
You said "they didn't rule themselves", the Government in Moscow was Russian to the core, just because you don't like its constitution doesn't mean it's not Russia ruling itself. ("That's a false statement that you have been allowed to make upon my programme").
The Whites formed to stop the Bolshevik Revolution, not to pull Russia out of the war. ("That's a second false statement that you've been allowed to make over the air on my programme").
The Bolsheviks had they're own agenda for revolution - to seize power for themselves, & enact Marxist ideology in government, they didn't stage a revolution to withdraw Russia from the war, that was a by-product, but they rode the coat-tails of war-weariness in their ascent to power certainly.
What you describe as an "Imperialist meat grinder" stopped Russia being militarily conquered by the II Reich, & its people being yoked as little more than German serfs.
If you examine the numbers in that "Allied invasion force" you'll see what a small effort it was, & it was designed to prop up the Eastern front from collapse, not to seriously oppose the Bolshevik revolution. The Whites failed because they had lost the support of the majority of the people, & the Bolsheviks saw their chance & took it.
When I hear Marxist ideologues talking about "the working class of the world" I pity their lack of understanding of how truly massively diverse this world & mankind is, trying to take thinking that societally applies to the 1st World's civilization & project it everywhere in a "Rights of man" sense is hopelessly ignorant, & has led to societal disasters repeatedly throughout the 20th Century.
1
-
There's so much confused nonsense coming from you now I'm going to have to precis the response:
Para 1. That's a matter for the Russians to decide, not external invading nations, as the II Reich attempted to do in 1914.
2. The Whites appeared after the Reds at the end of 1917, not before.
3. You're trying to re-write history & present the Bolsheviks as some sort of "peace party" which formed to save the Russian people from the war with no ulterior agenda of their own, if that's the case why was Stalin arrested in 1903, Trotsky in 1898 & Lenin in 1897 for fomenting Marxist revolution against the Russian state? The facts don't fit your narrative do they. The Bolsheviks weren't pacifists, when they were in power they were extremely violent & imperialistic - they used WW1 war weariness in the Russian people as a ploy for power.
4. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in the 1860's, and before WW1 the Russian Government had introduced land reform programmes to give the poor land, and had brought in constitutional reforms to increase the powers of the Russian Parliament in the governance of the nation in 1906. The II Reich if it had succeeded in its imperial attack on Russia would have reversed its domestic laws & rights into the Medieval for the Russian people. If you want a list of internal societal crimes & injustices within Russia, you'll find a lot committed by the Bolsheviks & their successors, but you don't seem to have any interest in that.
5. Cliches are cliches because they are true (& you forgot to mention Pol Pot).
1
-
1. Your statement about the Allied "invasion" of Russia in 1918 (not '17) being the same as the II Reich's assault in 1914 upon it is ideologically unhistorical in every way, it is driven solely by ideology not historical fact. The II Reich attacked Russia with literally millions of men, the allied force was less than 200 000 men, aimed at trying to support the Whites to prop up the Eastern Front in the war. It had no agenda beyond that to involve itself in internal Russian politics.
2. These "social revolutionaries" appear to exist in your imagination, the "Whites" you referred to appeared in 1918. Why are you fixated on "White terror", but ignore the greater depredations of the "Red terror"?
3. You implied that the Bolsheviks were a peace party, which they weren't, & they weren't anti-imperialist either.
4. You said the Russians under the Russian Crown's government were "serfs", & the facts that you now acknowledge belie that statement. "Czarism", i.e. the governing system that existed before October 1917 in Russia wasn't an ideology as you suggest, it was a constitutional arrangement. Everything in life is not ideological as you Marxists daftly believe. The suggestion that the II Reich capturing Russia in WW1 would have made no difference to the lives of the average Russian is ridiculous, all the reforms you now acknowledge would have been abolished & Russians civic governing life would have been reversed for generations to the Medieval, by a foreign ruling class that had no kinship or cultural affiliation with the people it was ruling, increasing its severity of its handling of them. That's why millions of Russians died on the Eastern Front opposing the II Reich's attack.
5. Your suggestion that Pol Pot wasn't a Communist is farcical. Why is it that the ideology that you follow continually produces Stalins, Mao's, Pol Pots, & a rash of mini-me's like them, & governmentally creates cultural torpid swamps & economic ruin, whenever it's put into action? Want to know the reason - read 'Animal Farm', m8.
1
-
1