Why were Latvians so influental in the Bolshevik movement?

I find this ironic, Jews using non-Russians to manage the Russians. They would later condemn the Germans of doing the same with the Poles and Ukrainians later on during WW2. Maybe Germany's concentration camp system was karma.

>Lenin and Stalin were pawns of Jews
>Bolsheviks prevented nationalistic sentiments
>Rudzutaks, Stučka or Peters "were merely regional administrators"

wow, so this is the power of /pol/ish intelectuals...

>Lenin and Stalin were pawns of Jews
Lenin was a collaborator, I literally used the term"collaborationists" and made note that they were not Russian.
>Bolsheviks prevented nationalistic sentiments
Pre-WW2, quit trying to disseminate focus disingenuously referring to a time not applicable to the era in discussion
>Rudzutaks, Stučka or Peters "were merely regional administrators"
Peters post-1920 was a regional administrator of the Northern Caucasus.
Stučka lost face in Latvia betraying the nation and spent the rest of his life expounding law. Ironic you should mention him, he replaced the Jew Isaac Nachman Steinberg in the People's Commissar for Justice, Steinberg left because he desired to see the Bolsheviks destroy Germany but was angered instead the leadership signed a peace treaty.
Rudzutaks was a mere Politburo member who held a token position over the railways handed to him by Lenin whom he was on friendly terms with.

Want to discuss Jewish power in the early Bolsheviks?

>The replacement of Litvinov
Just wanted to insert Litvinov was a Jew, he held the office of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, in other words he had dictated foreign policy, which unlike your examples is real power and not some managerial position.
>with Molotov significantly increased Stalin's freedom to maneuver in foreign policy.[18] The dismissal of Litvinov, whose Jewish ethnicity was viewed disfavorably by Nazi Germany, removed an obstacle to negotiations with Germany.[19] Stalin immediately directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews."[16][20] Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented, "Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good."[20]

This is why Jews like Hannah Arendt despise Stalin, not because of freedom or totalitarianism but because he turned on his masters once achieving mastery.

>Lenin
>a mix
Not even according to Nazi laws would Lenin be considered a Jew.

I said he was a mix not a Jew. Quit putting words in my mouth.

There's no such thing as a "mixed Jew". Mischlings act just like Jews. Lenin was a Jew.

Red riflemen mostly.

He did act Jewish, in fact he is newrly discrrnable from his Jewish comrades.
>Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good.
kek, that isn't something most people will ever hear or know.
>mfw this thread
Usually by now the Jews and commies have already come out in full force to denounce everything.

>I literally used the term"collaborationists"
And I pointed it out as a an evidence to your retardation
>Pre-WW2
What is Korenizatsiya?
>Litvinov
Ironic that you mentioned him, as he was one of the Jews that dodged Stalin's anti-semitic purges.
>Rudzutaks was a mere Politburo member
Lenin wanted him to be more, but Stalin crushed him.
>Steinberg left because he desired to see the Bolsheviks destroy Germany
Oh boy, those Jews surely had absolute power!
>once achieving mastery
On when exactely are you even claiming that? 1924-1925?

>And I pointed it out as a an evidence to your retardation
No, you switched terms stating I implied they were "pawns", controlled, when I stated they were "collaborationists". I later poster a quote from Molotov himself regarding Stalin's purge of the Jews- which proves Stalin was up until that time a silent collaborator and the Jews a powerful base.
>Ironic that you mentioned him, as he was one of the Jews that dodged Stalin's anti-semitic purges.
How is that ironic? I stated here I was discussing pre-Stalinist USSR, and then I explained why Jews like Arendt really hate Stalin- he cut them out.
>Lenin wanted him to be more, but Stalin crushed him.
I'm glad you know Lenin's secret thoughts amd intentions
>On when exactely are you even claiming that? 1924-1925?
We've already discussed this. Hint, I mentioned it in this post.

>The Jews a powerful base.
If that was true, Stalin would've never acquired absolute power. Or how did he do this magic trick? Did he had to cut his foreskin and pretend he's a Jew?
>How is that ironic?
If he was part of "le Jewish conspiracy" he would end with cranial lead injection.
>I'm glad you know Lenin's secret thoughts amd intentions
Some dude from armenian told me so.
>Hint, I mentioned it in this post
1917-1925? So even during the times when a Russian/Kalmyk was in absolute power?

>s Stalin was up until that time a silent collaborator
>Toв. Cтaлин, cдeлaвшиcь Glossarгeнceкoм, cocpeдoтoчил в cвoих pyкaх нeoбъятнyю влacть, и я нe yвepeн, cyмeeт ли oн вceгдa дocтaтoчнo ocтopoжнo пoльзoвaтьcя этoй влacтью. C дpyгoй cтopoны, тoв. Tpoцкий, кaк дoкaзaлa yжe eгo бopьбa пpoтив Ц.К. в cвязи c вoпpocoм o GlossarHКПC, oтличaeтcя нe тoлькo выдaющимиcя cпocoбнocтями. Личнo, oн, пoжaлyй, caмый cпocoбный чeлoвeк в нacтoящeм Ц.К., нo и чpeзмepнo хвaтaющий caмoyвepeннocтью и чpeзмepным yвлeчeниeм чиcтo aдминиcтpaтивнoй cтopoнoй дeлa
t. Ulyanov; 1922
What a "silent collaborator" you have there...

>All those Latvians and Lithuanians were merely regional administrators.

I thought they were mostly mercenaries working for all the money that was stolen by commies from Russian nobility

There was a saying that the USSR was built on Jewish brains, Latvian bayonettes and Russian fools.

Though if anyone wants an honest answer, that is similar to why Jews were so prevalent:

High level of education, history of discrimination and predisposition towards social change.

Latvian self-government, economic power and upwards social mobility had all been constrained by the German landed gentry that the Tsar allowed maintain power.

Having already tried once in 1905 (with considerable collaboration between Latvian Social Democrats and the Jewish Bund), the wounds were fresh and the grievances still unaddressed.

Lenin promised autonomy - a lot of Latvians were looking for a way to break the current system. They were also educated (near universal literacy), and Latvian armed formations did not disintegrate after the ceasefire, due to both high morale and being relocated to Russia where they stuck together in an alien environment).

Thus Latvians had the motivation to side with the Reds, and Lenin had reason enough to accept them - they were motivated, educated and organized.

And if someone is keeping a list, make sure to include:

Jukums Vācietis - first commander in chief of the RKKA
Eduards Kusiņš - first commander of Red cavalry (1st Konnaya)

You seem to have randomly cherrypicked all jews and left out all non jews, what an unfortunate coincidence!

Not falling for da joos XD meme but, Lenin and the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the Russian state, they were anti nationalists.

You really don't know much about early Bolshevism.

Also - Imperial Russia was a monarchy populated, incidentally, by Russians. The Tsarina was German, the nobility was French - the Tsar was an autocrat and the state was centered around him and the Orthodox church, nationalism did not figure into it.

That's not really controversial. Although he supported socialism in one country.

*spoke French

Hmmm who should I trust, nobel prize winning historians such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and actual quotes from Molotov and Stalin or totally not a tankie or jew user.

Oh look - hardly any actual contributions on topic before it devolves into a Jewhunting shitfest.

Stop watching the great war channel, it's made by a bunch of liberal germanophobic morons heavily based towards all things bolshevism and against traditional european societies/the order they represented

What does that have to do with anything.

For the same reasons the Czechs were for the whites - they were one of the few functional pre revolutionary military formations in the region that hadn't been annihilated by combat and desertion. They also had the big plus of not having any positive emotional connection to the various ethnicity that make up Russia.

>nobel prize winning
>historians
>Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Only valid combination is (1)+(3).

>actual quotes
Basing one's historical knowledge on quotes is sign of brainlet with twitter-tier attention span.

>germanophobic
Spotted the nazi sympathizer

>For the same reasons the Czechs were for the whites
Czechs joined whites, because Trotskij was an idiot and antagonized them.

Also a lot (10-12k) of Czechs joined reds. Most famous of them was humorist J. Hašek.

Kolchak would probably take issue with the Czechoslovak legion being called pro-White. If anything, they were pro-we-have-no-business-in-Russia.

They neither had a direct quarrel with the Reds (before they figured "hey, let's disarm these foreigners who are suspicious of everyone in a strange land"), nor with the Whites as such - they had no dog in the race.

The Latvians, in contrary, were historically against the prevalent social and political order.

If anything, the Czechoslovak legion is comparable with the Finnish Jaegers in motivation and formation - leave country X to liberate homeland from country Z that X is at war with.

>Kolchak
In his diplomatical genius managed to antagonize them too.

>If anything, they were pro-we-have-no-business-in-Russia
That was the prevalent sentiment amongst troops. But there were plans to use the legion as sort of elite spearhead for potential intervention.

Their fate is somewhat mirrored by that of the later-Civil war White Latvian formations (Troitsk and Imanta regiments) in the far east - created to fight for independence, but missed it due to being on the other half of the planet.

Yeah, it isn't fair that it switched from a Latvian hunting shitfest

That was at least on point.

It is also my fetish to be hunted.

>It is also my fetish to be hunted.
Why are you Jews so damn weird when it comes to sexuality.

Not Jewish. Hence the complaint.

When I meant "for the whites" I was talking more about them being an effective fighting force of foreigners.

>Kolchak would probably take issue with the Czechoslovak legion being called pro-White. If anything, they were pro-we-have-no-business-in-Russia.

Kolchak took issue with almost everyone white or otherwise.

>The Latvians, in contrary, were historically against the prevalent social and political order.

Yeah it was imperfect but for people new to the issue/conflict I think its important to stress the military and logistical disarray and how this made so-so military units really stand out

The Latvians Rifles were hardly a so-so military formation, though, if you look at their previous WWI performance.

You are right, of course, in the general sense that any unit that maintained both discipline and effective command was extremely valuable in the upcoming Civil war.

This also has a lot to do with the internal organization of the Latvians rifles - there was much less of a divide between the officers and the enlisted men, and as such, say, the 5th Zemgale regiment joined the Reds with most officers still in command.

Compare that to most ethnic Russian formations where the men often lynched officers, and, if not, at least elected new commanders from amongst themselves (with dubious results at best). Thus the Whites took the majority of officers.

There was a huge difference between the officer/enlisted divide that existed in the Russian units - the officers were aristocrats (though that changed later in the war - but they were still perceived as such), while the enlisted were illiterate peasants or disgruntled and still illiterate factory workers.

In contrast the Latvian Rifles had Latvian officers - but there was no Latvian aristocracy, and the enlisted were nearly universally literate and with some education. Thus the relationship was a lot more amicable, and generally did not mirror the overall class rumblings - they had more in common than not.

agreed