versailles was too harsh

> versailles was too harsh
> but brest-litovsk was totally okay
What are some other cases of historical hypocrisy?

Brest-Litovsk was reversed within a year, no shit it isn't considered as significant as Versailles. Also, Communists are subhuman filth who deserved to be utterly annihilated, not just to lose a bit of clay.

The Eternal Kraut has the mental facilities of a spoiled rotten child. He is entitled to everything but responsible for nothing. In victory he takes all he can without regard for the interests of others or even himself, in defeat he cries that he is being victimized.

Versailles was amazingly lax given what Germany had just put the continent through. The Congress of Vienna was far harsher and every German state was supportive of that.

Did Russia loose any colonies oversea?

Brest-Litovsk had nothing to do with fighting communism. Quite the opposite, it was a huge boon to the Bolsheviks and turned the tide of the Russian Civil War in their favor. If the Germans wanted to, they could have marched on Petrograd and handed it to the Whites of Yudenich who were quite close to the city. This would have been extremely decisive and a disastrous defeat for the Bolsheviks at a time when the Whites were making gains. Instead, they agreed to halt operations against the Bolsheviks and Lenin was now allowed to send the bulk of his forces against the Whites. The territorial "losses" of the agreement were juvenile, nobody who knew anything of the era expected German-backed monarchies to last more than a year or so regardless of the result of the greater war. The Bolsheviks knew this, and they very much saw the land concessions as a temporary farce in exchange for peace. Only the Germans were dumb enough to think they accomplished anything besides giving Lenin victory.

The only foreign power that cooperated better with the Soviets were the Turks, and at least they had the excuse of having to throw off an Allied occupation

Germany were the ones who installed communism in Russia, ensured its victory, then cried like babies about it for the next 30 years

russia didn't have any colonies overseas

But the rise of Bolshevism in the long run did undo Russia, since Russia lost all the western provinces upon the fall of the Soviet Union. Had the whites won, they probably would have kept a stronger nationalistic leash on the outlying territories, rather than this ephemeral "Union."

Your argument might have held weight in the 40s or 50s, but now that we can look upon the whole century in retrospect, it wasn't the treaty necessarily, but the rise of Bolshevism itself that undid Russia. The gains made by the Soviets in Eastern and Central Europe turned out to be non-permanent, and the entire European communist bloc has ceased to exist.

It seems that communism was just one of those flavor of the century movements, that contemporaries freak out about much more than later historians. It goes into the pile of spectacular and now safely quaint empires, such as the Timurids, or the empire of Alexander. Honestly you can stop beating this dead horse.

Had the whites won, Russia would have remained an irrelevant backwater, and perhaps would be simply torn apart by nationalist movements.

But we can only judge events based on what did happen, not what did not happen.

>"Had the whites won, they probably would have kept a stronger nationalistic leash on the outlying territories, rather than this ephemeral "Union.""
Two posts later:
>"But we can only judge events based on what did happen, not what did not happen."