It seems to me that Krautophobes like to distort the support the Germans gave to the Bolsheviks during ww1...

Lenin wouldn't have won if the other left wing parties didn't suppourt war
That's how angry the hungry peasants had become

Plus the occupying sourpreuß armies defeated the communards

and you reminder to me and the 1905 failure was also a good lessons, especially for Trotsky, who realizes that failed because it lacked the support of the armed forces.

Lenin was an avid reader of Marx writings about the 1871 failure, and cited parts of it in his political pamphlet "what has to be done?"

i would suggest everyone interested in the Leninists tactis to search for this book, most of the October revolution success is writted there

But most of the Mensheviks supported and fought in the White movement

That wouldn't have been enough - they won in large part because the Whites behaved like they could do whatever retarded thing they thought of and still it'd all work out (because God was with them, I guess?).

Lose largely anti-Communist national minorities by not promising them anything (independence, autonomy)? Sure!

Fail to unite the faction and pursue joint strategy because each army commander has political ambitions? Sure!

The Reds were outnumbered, and most of the officers (a Latvian colonel was their first commander in chief) had gone White - they should have lost.

By take control of the industrial cities (Petrograd, Moscow) they already had the sheer numbers and the resources that the whites, located in mostly remoted areas, couldnt have.

So they had to ask for supplies and military help from foreing powers, empowering the Bolshevik propaganda about and international reactionary alliance against both revolutionaries and national minorities looking for indipendence.

>resistance from minorities
The red army successfully pursued the Muslim Cental Asian Turks who resisted the Reds (and whites to some extend) with the Basmachi movement. The resistance continued until Stalin began his crackdowns and purges. When the reds had the upper hand they ruthlessly pursued the newly independent countries like Finland, Armenia, Poland, and others.

The fact that Germans are the indirect (but necessary) authors of the Bolshevik Revolution is quite funny considering that /pol/ loves to blame international movement on one particular nation (you know which) even misuinderstanding a briliant quote from Solzhenitsyn. And that place is full of Americans who pretend to be advocates for 19th century German land claims.

Old boy:

The German Empire absolutely triumphed over the Russians in WW1, communist or tsarist, the absolute defeat of the Russian forces in the east was assured by the treaty of Brest Litvosk, which awarded a catastrophic amount of land to the German Empire.

Had the Allies not succeeded in the Western Front, at the behest of their French masters, the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. and all of the other assembled elements from other countries that the Anglos needed just to secure a victory over the Germans (and even then, one that was not, in any way, decisive and still based off of attrition). then the Bolshevik menace would have been contained, another Tsar sponsored, and eventually civility returned to the Russian provinces.

The support of the German Empire to the communists in Russia was only a masterstroke of politics that assured the political defeat of the Tsarist regime, which was already assured a military defeat due to its poor policies, lack of industrialization, aging feudal structure, and just a general poor geographic position as it sat between the Ottomans, Austrians, and Germans simultaneously.

When we contrast this to the Anglo expedition to Russia after the cessation of German hostilities in WW1, and their absolute lack of a plan and subsequent failure, we can see clearly that the German Empire, had it been a victor, would have been far superior to anything the Anglo-French hegemony, in all of their blundering idiocy, would have produced.

Indeed, I daresay Bolshevik rule would have been more preferable for the continent than the absolutely destitute situation the Anglo-French had placed upon the continent in the upcoming postwar years. The blood of multiple generations is upon the signatories of the Treaty of Paris.

>The problem was that Lenin and his comrades studied that event during they underground militancy and leart from the mistakes the Parisians did.

Do you have a source for that, not saying you are wrong, just want to read further

>The support of the German Empire to the communists in Russia was only a masterstroke of politics that assured the political defeat of the Tsarist regime.

The Germans didn't start supporting the Bolsheviks until after the monarchy had already been forced out of power.

>Literally roll Lenin and other prominent Bolshevik leaders into USSR
>"It's a distortion".

>Germans were masters of planning, unlike those blundering anglos!
>All of their puppet states in Eastern Europe collapse into a clusterfuck that ensures Bolshevik victory

rly makes met hink

Not him but he's right. One of the things that made Lenin special is that he understood that any uprising would be pointless unless the army was supporting the uprising. Whereas most socialist groups were against the military and wanted to interfere with army recruitment as much as possible. They would organize resistance to drafts, and try to get civilian workers to go on strike in opposition to the war. Lenin said that rather than doing that stuff, socialists should deliberately join the military and then work to promote "class consciousness" within the ranks. Then, when the uprising happens, the army will be on the side of the revolution.

>assured the political defeat

Key word being assured, there was still very much a chance of the Kolchak government, in a victory scenario, of reinstating the Tsar or one of his relatives in some position of authority. Many figures from the old Imperial government were essential in the White Army.

>the army will be on the side of the revolution
The NCOs and the enlisted, not the officers - which went back and bit them in the arse once in the Civil War (as it turns out, deciding who command a regiment by a fucking vote does not result in competent leadership), and again in 1941 - turns out you need officers to actually command the military to win a war against a prepared opponent. Who knew, right?

Oh, sure, they came back to mop up the national minorities that had escaped - most in the 1920s, the rest in 1940 - as any promises made to capitalist reactionaries they considered not worth the paper they were written on.

However, had the Whites promised independence, say, to Poles, Balts and Finland, maybe Georgians/Armenians, and autonomy to Ukrainians, Belarusians and the Central Asians, they could have formed a broad Anti-Communist coalition, and crushed them permanently.

Instead they opted for "Shut it, disloyal subjects! When we're done with these Red fellows, everything goes back to the way it was before 1917".

The Mensheviks joined the prov gov and thus were seen as pro War by the peasants who just wanted it to end

In the context of the first world war, Lenin was the single most powerful weapon delivered in the entire war. It was a WMD that the krauts didnt even realize. It knocked a great power out, secured the east and allowed a million veteran german troops to transfer to the west.

Theres no reason to believe a White Russian Republic would be any friendlier to the nazis. But no one would have been planning that far into the future.

Dumbass, had the Whites been successful there wouldn’t have been a Communist revolution in Germany either. A lot of the propaganda against Russia was directed against the Jewish communists who ruled there USSR. Hitler said the killing of the Tsar and his family was the worst thing to happen that century.

>illegally invading
yeah, they could've at least legally pillaged!1!!111!!!!!