Find me the only full blooded russian of the "leaders of the proletarian revolution" postcard

So then all the people in the OP are Russian?

What are those people?

First Red Russian govt:
Only Trotsky's a Jew.

>Russian Empire argument
I disagree. People under the yoke of an Empire are not necessarily all of a sudden the same ethnicity as their imperial overlords.

When the British Empire controlled Pakistan and India, did all Hindus suddenly become English or British?
Obviously not.

>Communism is an internationalist ideology
there, I agree with you. Communism by its nature destroys all national borders (part of the reason it's so retarded). So by its own terms it would be justified for revolutionaries to travel to other countries and start revolutions. However pretty much everyone else considers race, region, ethnicity, nationality, religion, and other categories when looking at events like these.

For example the U.S. intervening in Chile to back a coup removing their Communist President Allende and installing Pinochet as the leader of the new Junta government, would pretty widely be considered outside influence by everyone, even though the central figure was a native Chilean.

So I guess my point is that the Commies are not necessarily being hypocritical (although that's debatable as well since they claim that the proletariat workers themselves will spontaneously erupt in revolution on their own without outside influence), they're at least seen as foreign meddlers by everyone else's standards when foreigners start a revolution in others' lands.

No I am saying that Jews can have Russian blood, or really any blood since they are a religion and not a race no matter how much they may claim to be. Besides like I said, who cares about muh blood?

>I disagree. People under the yoke of an Empire are not necessarily all of a sudden the same ethnicity as their imperial overlords.

>When the British Empire controlled Pakistan and India, did all Hindus suddenly become English or British?

youre missing the point and are comparing two different things. The reason the revolution had so many non-ethnic russians in it is because the Russian Empire was this huge thing that had multiple ethnicities and backrounds in it. Even in mainland Russia, there is a lot of diversity in ethnic groups. If youre asking why the Russian revolution had so many non ethnic russians, then thats why. And despite their genetics, they were all still considered Russian subject.

And they arent comparable to the British Empire since that was just an island with imperial holdings around the world, where as the Russian Empire was all one huge big country, so they actually would interact with all of these different people as opposed to a british person and and indian person being on the other side of the world.

>So I guess my point is that the Commies are not necessarily being hypocritical (although that's debatable as well since they claim that the proletariat workers themselves will spontaneously erupt in revolution on their own without outside influence), they're at least seen as foreign meddlers by everyone else's standards when foreigners start a revolution in others' lands.

this is where Stalins "socialism in one country" comes from. He realized that by supporting all these ragtag rebells across the world, he would only piss off everyone, and eventually create a world alliance against him. A modern day equivalent would be if a country was blatantly supporting terrorist groups, like Afghanistan was doing under the Taliban rule. Trotsky knew all of this, but wanted to keep supporting those revolutions anyway AND also wanted to just invade Europe wholesale. Communism is a very violent, bloody, and revolutionary ideology.

>who cares about muh blood?
I would say most people care about ancestry, ethnicity, or race to some degree. If they don't care much about others, almost everyone cares about it concerning themselves. People care about that stuff, because it puts their own lives in context. No one is an island, spontaneously arising from the ether. We all have a past, and cannot exist outside the context of and without a family, race, ethnicity, nation, etc. however it gets defined.

>Jews can have Russian blood
obviously. I don't think anyone would disagree.

>since they are a religion and not a race no matter how much they may claim to be
i think the data doesn't really back you up there. Ethnic Jews have very distinctive genetic markers, such that (depending on how you define race) you could call them a race. Everyone agrees and accepts that their is a religion called Judaism and also an ethnicity of people who were a tribe which practiced Judaism and thus known as Jews. Both can exist simultaneously and separately, even though they are known by the same name. There can be Atheist Jews(ethnicity) and there are Asian Jews(religion).

Council of People's Commissars:
>1. Uritzki
>2. Bronstein-Trotzki
>3. Swerdloff
>4. Apfelbaum-Sinowjew
>5. Feuermann

Find me the non-existent russian-blooded revolutionary

>Protip: All of them are jewish

>all of them have (((German))) names
realy makes you think

...

those that got purged

apart from dzerzhinsky (useful goy for mass murdering) and lenin, none of those goys played any serious role in the jewish bolshevik revolution.

t. brainlet

unlike Wilhelm II and Muttendorf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background

On August 18, 1917, the top Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, set up a political bureau – known first as Narrow composition and, after October 23, 1917, as Political bureau – specifically to direct the October Revolution, with only seven members
>(Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov), ...

The 8th Congress of the 8th Party Congress in 1919 formalized this reality and re-established what would later on become the true center of political power in the Soviet Union. It ordered the Central Committee to appoint a five-member Politburo to decide on questions too urgent to await full Central Committee deliberation. The original members of the Politburo were
>Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev and Nikolai Krestinsky.

>Bubnov (irrelevant), Stalin (almost irrelavant), Lenin the only goys here

>they were all still considered Russian subject
Sure I agree with you. Russian subjects, just not Russian. That's why it's called an Empire, because it is an ethnic group (overlords) projecting power or control over other ethnic groups (subjects).

>And they arent comparable to the British Empire since that was just an island with imperial holdings around the world, where as the Russian Empire was all one huge big country, so they actually would interact with all of these different people as opposed to a british person and and indian person being on the other side of the world.
I agree that Britain is a different case in some ways, but the same in others. The same in the way that matters in this context, but different in the way you mentioned which lessens the degree.

>when Stalin gets accurately described as the lesser of two evils
weird.

Just wondering where people get the conception that the Bolsheviks were disproportianately made up of or controlled by Jews.
I know I've seen some graphics posted before which cites really high numbers of Jews among the commissariat and other high ranks.
Is there any truth to that?

>when you only have a less than 40% chance of surviving your own party
lmao

its partly true, but they were later mostly purged, for example on Siberia wast majority of Red army commanders (and even members of the Red guards) were Germans, which is quite suspicious dont you think?

>Just wondering where people get the conception that the Bolsheviks were disproportianately made up of or controlled by Jews.
shitty infographs on /pol/

How do /pol/tards live thinking about how the big powerful jews are cucking them all day every day?