Russia during the early 20th century

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Re: Knowing Germany

Yes, they seem to work in gangs, or at least, it appears so. Include Khodorkovsky as well.

The truth, however, is that a majority of Jews are not part of this gang (because there is no evidence indicating that). It is the other way around. A majority of this gang are Jews. They care for nothing but money. William Shakespeare said that in his times. People say that, in intimate discourse, even today.

And how does this relate to Russia of the early 20th Century? While 6 million Jews died, 26 million Russians also died. Why is the west, and their demagogue media refusing to put everything on an equal perspective?
Yes. I'm not even sure if you can label them as jews. But it is true as you said: "A majority of this gang" seem to have some jewish elements.

Also I do not believe jews faced any extraordinary discrimination in Europe and Russia until the mid to late 1930s.

That was some interesting information.
In return: I recently compiled some info on Lenin from various sources, which I have tried my best to verify for authenticity. Interesting stuff.

Lenin's real name: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
Chose the name Lenin during his exile in Siberia, probably referring to the Lena river.

List of ancestors/relatives:

Lenin's wife Nadezhda Konstantinovna "Nadya" Krupskaya. (from wiki)
Nadya's father, Konstantin Ignat'evich Krupski was educated and given a commission as an infantry officer in the Russian Army. Just before leaving for his assignment in Poland he married Nadya's Jewish mother. After six years of service, Krupski lost favor with his supervisors and was charged with "un-Russian activities." He may have been suspected of being involved with revolutionaries.

Lenin's elder brother Alexander Ilyich Ulyanov, was arrested in March 1887 for participating in a bombing plot against the throne (by attempting to assassinate tzar Alexander III), and hanged in May.
Later Lenin would accomplish the task during the October revolution by ordering the Red army to execute the Romanov's.

F= Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov (was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir and therefore a heriditary nobleman.)
M= Maria Alexandrovna Blank (daugther of Alexander Dmitrievich Blank whose real name is Srul Blanc)

FF=Nikolay Vasilyevich Ulyanov <- Ulyanin (was from Astrakhan; was a tailor earned money and married late in life, a bride 20 years junior; original last name Ulyanin modified to Ulyanov.)
FM=Anna Alexeyevna Smirnova (was a baptized Kalmyk= a Turkic-Mogol ethnic group)

FFF=Vasily Nikitich Ulyanin (was a serf; some sources say had Chuvash (Turkic) ethnicity= unverified)
FFM=Anna Semyonovna NN
FMF=Aleksey Lukyanovich Smirnov
FMM=Alexandra Ulyanova NN

MF=Srul Moishevich Blank (was a Ukrainian jew from Zhitomir, Ukraine. Srul is the Yiddish form of the name "Israel". Later he changed his name to Alexander Dmitrievich Blank and is said to have converted to Orthodoxy; note Blanc family)
MM=Anna Ivanovna Grosschopff (was of German (father)- Swedish(mother) descent)

MFF= Moshko Itskovich Blank
MFM=Mariam Froimovich
MMF=Johann Gottlieb Grosschopff
MMM= Anna Beata Östedt

Note: FF= Father's father and so on.

During the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution there was a popular idea among the masses that the Bolshevik revolution was jewish in nature.
This isn't surprising because many prominent Bolsheviks were jews.
Examples: Grigory Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, Leon Trotsky; and also because even at the infancy of the revolution, there were rumors that Lenin had personally ordered the execution of the entire family of the Tsar (which was seen as a symbol of orthodoxy.)

If the masses knew Lenin, the designer of the revolution was also jewish, it would cause major problems.
The Bolsheviks and Lenin denied Lenin's jewish ancestry and also that he had ordered the execution.
If these facts were let out in the open, it would have caused major problems, as the people, who were mostly Orthodox would see it as a jewish overtake of an orthodox people.

But much later it was revealed that not only was Lenin part Jewish but he also admired the Jews.
1. Quote by lenin
"An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins." Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 352.
2. Letter from Lenin's sister to Stalin.
In a letter to Stalin in 1932 Lenin's older sister, Anna Ulyanova, wrote that their maternal grandfather "came from a poor Jewish family and was, according to his baptismal certificate, the son of Moses Blank." Ulyanova said her brother "had always thought highly of Jews." (link)
In this letter Anna is urging Stalin to let the people know about Lenin's jewsih ancestry. Stalin who was busy purging jews from the Higher ranks of the Politburo and elsewhere replied, "Not one word about it."

I guess there was a general notion in those days and before that jews sticked with each other and worked in gangs.
For example: Here an officer of the London Police says that the witness was jewish and refused to testify against a fellow jew. This pertains to the investigations of the "Jack the Ripper' murders. link

Aaron Kosminski (born Aron Mordke Kozminski; 11 September 1865 – 24 March 1919) was a Polish Jew who was admitted to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum in 1891.[19] "Kosminski" (without a forename) was named as a suspect by Sir Melville Macnaghten in his 1894 memorandum[20] and by former Chief Inspector Donald Swanson in handwritten comments in the margin of his copy of Assistant Commissioner Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs.[21] Anderson wrote that a Polish Jew had been identified as the Ripper but that no prosecution was possible because the witness was also Jewish and refused to testify against a fellow Jew.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Lenin's elder brother was executed on the day he had an examination at the Kazan University in Tatarstan.

The Romanov family was to a great extent un-Russians. You should investigate their lineage, including the Tsarina.

Moishevich means the son of Moses.

Lenin was far from a Russophile. I doubt whether he had any desire to denounce Orthodoxy or had anything against Christianity, but looking at those days, there was not much difference between the Tsardom and the Church.

Good compilation, and it appears religion might play a role in the current Eastern European societal upheavals, although it could be purely emotional and irrational.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
You probably can excuse the cruelty, personally I think most of the killings were inexcusable, unleashed by the Bolsheviks in 1917 and their consolidation phase. But by the time Stalin took power the revolutionary chaos was long gone. Instead of revolutionary violence what you had there was a vicious power struggle within the Communist party for control. The murders during Stalin were largely a result of his rampage to mute opposition to his power.

A lot more Russians and people from the other Soviet Republics died from doomed policies of the Soviet Government in both the reigns of Lenin and Stalin.
Most events that changed history of a Nation is full of cruelty.

If one takes cruelty as a base denominator, then no country can claim an moral precedence.

And there was many who perished in the most inhuman way under Hitler, be the Jews, Roma or Communists.

Let us not forget the Armenian being subjected to Genocide by the Turks.

Or what happened to the Aborigines in Australia, the subjugation of Africa, the injustice and killings to/of the Red Indians, the millions who died in the slave trade to the Americas. Mao in the Cultural Revolution, the Partition of India and so on.

It is endless - the pain and killings.
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Lenin's elder brother was executed on the day he had an examination at the Kazan University in Tatarstan.

The Romanov family was to a great extent un-Russians. You should investigate their lineage, including the Tsarina.
Yes, but then a lot of European Royal families were closely related.

Moishevich means the son of Moses.
Yes the father's name is Moshko Itskovich Blank. Moshko is probably a Ukr version of Mosha/Moshe (i.e. Moses)

Lenin was far from a Russophile. I doubt whether he had any desire to denounce Orthodoxy or had anything against Christianity, but looking at those days, there was not much difference between the Tsardom and the Church.
I find it funny when people say Soviet leaders were very pro-Russian and blah blah, when it was the time Russians lost most territory and prominence. :lol:
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Yes, but then a lot of European Royal families were closely related.


Yes the father's name is Moshko Itskovich Blank. Moshko is probably a Ukr version of Mosha/Moshe (i.e. Moses)



I find it funny when people say Soviet leaders were very pro-Russian and blah blah, when it was the time Russians lost most territory and prominence. :lol:
Some of our members, keeping with the NATO line, equate USSR with Russia. Now don't get me started with those Iranian ICBMs. :lol:

Ignorance is not a fault. Blind faith, and the consequent stubborn refusal to re-examine one's beliefs is a misfortune.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
That's a lie/disinformation.

Soviet papers released information about the pact almost immediately.
But certain parts of the pact were secret.

I should have been more specific, what I was referring to was the secret accord between Hitler and Stalin to carve out Poland and neighboring states between them. This was kept secret until 1989.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Re: Knowing Germany

Just look at that figure from wikipedia you have quoted :pound:
The estimates range wildly from 3-60 million.
Just look at the fluctuation of that 3-60 million value. Are you kiddin' me ? That shows they have no idea what the number is and are making wild guesses.
Let me turn this into a metaphor, to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of this chicanery from some people:

So, a conversation with such a man, say Mr. X, wold go like this, wouldn't it?

Q: How old are you?
Mr. X: I am between 3 to 60 years old.

Q: When does your train from Nizamuddin to Howrah leave and reach the destination?
Mr. X: My train leaves Nizamuddin on the night of August 14, 2014, and will reach Howrah in the morning of August 15, 2014, or August 15, 2071, or sometime in between.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Re: Knowing Germany

While 6 million Jews died, 26 million Russians also died. Why is the west, and their demagogue media refusing to put everything on an equal perspective?
This was the thing I wanted to prove to Razor.
Anyway on topic, Lenin and his Revolution.

Was Lenin a foreign funded agent to break up Russia???

Chapter III: LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow base of their party.

Von Kühlmann, minister of foreign affairs, to the kaiser, December 3, 1917


In April 1917 Lenin and a party of 32 Russian revolutionaries, mostly Bolsheviks, journeyed by train from Switzerland across Germany through Sweden to Petrograd, Russia. They were on their way to join Leon Trotsky to "complete the revolution." Their trans-Germany transit was approved, facilitated, and financed by the German General Staff. Lenin's transit to Russia was part of a plan approved by the German Supreme Command, apparently not immediately known to the kaiser, to aid in the disintegration of the Russian army and so eliminate Russia from World War I. The possibility that the Bolsheviks might be turned against Germany and Europe did not occur to the German General Staff. Major General Hoffman has written, "We neither knew nor foresaw the danger to humanity from the consequences of this journey of the Bolsheviks to Russia."1

At the highest level the German political officer who approved Lenin's journey to Russia was Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, a descendant of the Frankfurt banking family Bethmann, which achieved great prosperity in the nineteenth century. Bethmann-Hollweg was appointed chancellor in 1909 and in November 1913 became the subject of the first vote of censure ever passed by the German Reichstag on a chancellor. It was Bethmann-Hollweg who in 1914 told the world that the German guarantee to Belgium was a mere "scrap of paper." Yet on other war matters — such as the use of unrestricted submarine warfare — Bethmann-Hollweg was ambivalent; in January 1917 he told the kaiser, "I can give Your Majesty neither my assent to the unrestricted submarine warfare nor my refusal." By 1917 Bethmann-Hollweg had lost the Reichstag's support and resigned — but not before approving transit of Bolshevik revolutionaries to Russia. The transit instructions from Bethmann-Hollweg went through the state secretary Arthur Zimmermann — who was immediately under Bethmann-Hollweg and who handled day-to-day operational details with the German ministers in both Bern and Copenhagen — to the German minister to Bern in early April 1917. The kaiser himself was not aware of the revolutionary movement until after Lenin had passed into Russia.

While Lenin himself did not know the precise source of the assistance, he certainly knew that the German government was providing some funding. There were, however, intermediate links between the German foreign ministry and Lenin, as the following shows:

LENIN'S TRANSFER TO RUSSIA IN APRIL 1917

Final decision BETHMANN-HOLLWEG
(Chancellor)
Intermediary I ARTHUR ZIMMERMANN
(State Secretary)
Intermediary II BROCKDORFF-RANTZAU
(German Minister in Copenhagen)
Intermediary III ALEXANDER ISRAEL HELPHAND
(alias PARVUS)
Intermediary IV JACOB FURSTENBERG (alias GANETSKY)
LENIN, in Switzerland
From Berlin Zimmermann and Bethmann-Hollweg communicated with the German minister in Copenhagen, Brockdorff-Rantzau. In turn, Brockdorff-Rantzau was in touch with Alexander Israel Helphand (more commonly known by his alias, Parvus), who was located in Copenhagen.2 Parvus was the connection to Jacob Furstenberg, a Pole descended from a wealthy family but better known by his alias, Ganetsky. And Jacob Furstenberg was the immediate link to Lenin.

Although Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was the final authority for Lenin's transfer, and although Lenin was probably aware of the German origins of the assistance, Lenin cannot be termed a German agent. The German Foreign Ministry assessed Lenin's probable actions in Russia as being consistent with their own objectives in the dissolution of the existing power structure in Russia. Yet both parties also had hidden objectives: Germany wanted priority access to the postwar markets in Russia, and Lenin intended to establish a Marxist dictatorship.

The idea of using Russian revolutionaries in this way can be traced back to 1915. On August 14 of that year, Brockdorff-Rantzau wrote the German state undersecretary about a conversation with Helphand (Parvus), and made a strong recommendation to employ Helphand, "an extraordinarily important man whose unusual powers I feel we must employ for duration of the war .... "3 Included in the report was a warning: "It might perhaps be risky to want to use the powers ranged behind Helphand, but it would certainly be an admission of our own weakness if we were to refuse their services out of fear of not being able to direct them."4

Brockdorff-Rantzau's ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. It was J.P. Morgan and the American International Corporation that attempted to control both domestic and foreign revolutionaries in the United States for their own purposes.

A subsequent document outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed "Russian troops to move into India"; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program.
Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 1916, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia.6

Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter. Several months later they were followed by almost 200 Mensheviks, including Martov and Axelrod.

It is worth noting that Trotsky, at that time in New York, also had funds traceable to German sources. Further, Von Kuhlmann alludes to Lenin's inability to broaden the base of his Bolshevik party until the Germans supplied funds. Trotsky was a Menshevik who turned Bolshevik only in 1917. This suggests that German funds were perhaps related to Trotsky's change of party label.


THE SISSON DOCUMENTS

In early 1918 Edgar Sisson, the Petrograd representative of the U.S. Committee on Public Information, bought a batch of Russian documents purporting to prove that Trotsky, Lenin, and the other Bolshevik revolutionaries were not only in the pay of, but also agents of, the German government.

These documents, later dubbed the "Sisson Documents," were shipped to the United States in great haste and secrecy. In Washington, D.C. they were submitted to the National Board for Historical Service for authentication. Two prominent historians, J. Franklin Jameson and Samuel N. Harper, testified to their genuineness. These historians divided the Sisson papers into three groups. Regarding Group I, they concluded:

We have subjected them with great care to all the applicable tests to which historical students are accustomed and . . . upon the basis of these investigations, we have no hesitation in declaring that we see no reason to doubt the genuineness or authenticity of these fifty-three documents.7

The historians were less confident about material in Group II. This group was not rejected as. outright forgeries, but it was suggested that they were copies of original documents. Although the historians made "no confident declaration" on Group III, they were not prepared to reject the documents as outright forgeries.

The Sisson Documents were published by the Committee on Public Information, whose chairman was George Creel, a former contributor to the pro-Bolshevik Masses. The American press in general accepted the documents as authentic. The notable exception was the New York Evening Post, at that time owned by Thomas W. Lamont, a partner in the Morgan firm. When only a few installments had been published, the Post challenged the authenticity of all the documents.8

We now know that the Sisson Documents were almost all forgeries: only one or two of the minor German circulars were genuine. Even casual examination of the German letterhead suggests that the forgers were unusually careless forgers perhaps working for the gullible American market. The German text was strewn with terms verging on the ridiculous: for example, Bureau instead of the German word Büro; Central for the German Zentral; etc.

That the documents are forgeries is the conclusion of an exhaustive study by George Kennan9 and of studies made in the 1920s by the British government. Some documents were based on authentic information and, as Kennan observes, those who forged them certainly had access to some unusually good information. For example, Documents 1, 54, 61, and 67 mention that the Nya Banken in Stockholm served as the conduit for Bolshevik funds from Germany. This conduit has been confirmed in more reliable sources. Documents 54, 63, and 64 mention Furstenberg as the banker-intermediary between the Germans and the Bolshevists; Furstenberg's name appears elsewhere in authentic documents. Sisson's Document 54 mentions Olof Aschberg, and Olof Aschberg by his own statements was the "Bolshevik Banker." Aschberg in 1917 was the director of Nya Banken. Other documents in the Sisson series list names and institutions, such as the German Naptha-Industrial Bank, the Disconto Gesellschaft, and Max Warburg, the Hamburg banker, but hard supportive evidence is more elusive. In general, the Sisson Documents, while themselves outright forgeries, are nonetheless based partly on generally authentic information.

One puzzling aspect in the light of the story in this book is that the documents came to Edgar Sisson from Alexander Gumberg (alias Berg, real name Michael Gruzenberg), the Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia and later a confidential assistant to Chase National Bank and Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation. The Bolshevists, on the other hand, stridently repudiated the Sisson material. So did John Reed, the American representative on the executive of the Third International and whose paycheck came from Metropolitan magazine, which was owned by J.P. Morgan interests.10 So did Thomas Lamont, the Morgan partner who owned the New York Evening Post. There are several possible explanations. Probably the connections between the Morgan interests in New York and such agents as John Reed and Alexander Gumberg were highly flexible. This could have been a Gumberg maneuver to discredit Sisson and Creel by planting forged documents; or perhaps Gumberg was working in his own interest.

The Sisson Documents "prove" exclusive German involvement with the Bolsheviks. They also have been used to "prove" a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory along the lines of that of the Protocols of Zion. In 1918 the U.S. government wanted to unite American opinion behind an unpopular war with Germany, and the Sisson Documents dramatically "proved" the exclusive complicity of Germany with the Bolshevists. The documents also provided a smoke screen against public knowledge of the events to be described in this book.


THE TUG-OF-WAR IN WASHINGTON11

A review of documents in the State Department Decimal File suggests that the State Department and Ambassador Francis in Petrograd were quite well informed about the intentions and progress of the Bolshevik movement. In the summer of 1917, for example, the State Department wanted to stop the departure from the U.S. of "injurious persons" (that is, returning Russian revolutionaries) but was unable to do so because they were using new Russian and American passports. The preparations for the Bolshevik Revolution itself were well known at least six weeks before it came about. One report in the State Department files states, in regard to the Kerensky forces, that it was "doubtful whether government . . . [can] suppress outbreak." Disintegration of the Kerensky government was reported throughout September and October as were Bolshevik preparations for a coup. The British government warned British residents in Russia to leave at least six weeks before the Bolshevik phase of the revolution.

The first full report of the events of early November reached Washington on December 9, 1917. This report described the low-key nature of the revolution itself, mentioned that General William V. Judson had made an unauthorized visit to Trotsky, and pointed out the presence of Germans in Smolny — the Soviet headquarters.

On November 28, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson ordered no interference with the Bolshevik Revolution. This instruction was apparently in response to a request by Ambassador Francis for an Allied conference, to which Britain had already agreed. The State Department argued that such a conference was impractical. There were discussions in Paris between the Allies and Colonel Edward M. House, who reported these to Woodrow Wilson as "long and frequent discussions on Russia." Regarding such a conference, House stated that England was "passively willing," France "indifferently against," and Italy "actively so." Woodrow Wilson, shortly thereafter, approved a cable authored by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, which provided financial assistance for the Kaledin movement (December 12, 1917). There were also rumors filtering into Washington that "monarchists working with the Bolsheviks and same supported by various occurrences and circumstances"; that the Smolny government was absolutely under control of the German General Staff; and rumors elsewhere that "many or most of them [that is, Bolshevists] are from America."

In December, General Judson again visited Trotsky; this was looked upon as a step towards recognition by the U.S., although a report dated February 5, 1918, from Ambassador Francis to Washington, recommended against recognition. A memorandum originating with Basil Miles in Washington argued that "we should deal with all authorities in Russia including Bolsheviks." And on February 15, 1918, the State Department cabled Ambassador Francis in Petrograd, stating that the "department desires you gradually to keep in somewhat closer and informal touch with the Bolshevik authorities using such channels as will avoid any official recognition."

The next day Secretary of State Lansing conveyed the following to the French ambassador J. J. Jusserand in Washington: "It is considered inadvisable to take any action which will antagonize at this time any of the various elements of the people which now control the power in Russia .... "12

On February 20, Ambassador Francis cabled Washington to report the approaching end of the Bolshevik government. Two weeks later, on March 7, 1918, Arthur Bullard reported to Colonel House that German money was subsidizing the Bolsheviks and that this subsidy was more substantial than previously thought. Arthur Bullard (of the U.S. Committee on Public Information) argued: "we ought to be ready to help any honest national government. But men or money or equipment sent to the present rulers of Russia will be used against Russians at least as much as against Germans."13

This was followed by another message from Bullard to Colonel House: "I strongly advise against giving material help to the present Russian government. Sinister elements in Soviets seem to be gaining control."

But there were influential counterforces at work. As early as November 28, 1917, Colonel House cabled President Woodrow Wilson from Paris that it was "exceedingly important" that U.S. newspaper comments advocating that "Russia should be treated as an enemy" be "suppressed." Then next month William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of the Morgan-controlled American International Corporation and a friend of the previously mentioned Basil Miles, submitted a memorandum that described Lenin and Trotsky as appealing to the masses and that urged the U.S. to recognize Russia. Even American socialist Walling complained to the Department of State about the pro-Soviet attitude of George Creel (of the U.S. Committee on Public Information), Herbert Swope, and William Boyce Thompson (of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

On December 17, 1917, there appeared in a Moscow newspaper an attack on Red Cross colonel Raymond Robins and Thompson, alleging a link between the Russian Revolution and American bankers:

Why are they so interested in enlightenment? Why was the money given the socialist revolutionaries and not to the constitutional democrats? One would suppose the latter nearer and dearer to hearts of bankers.

The article goes on to argue that this was because American capital viewed Russia as a future market and thus wanted to get a firm foothold. The money was given to the revolutionaries because

the backward working men and peasants trust the social revolutionaries. At the time when the money was passed the social revolutionaries were in power and it was supposed they would remain in control in Russia for some time.

Another report, dated December 12, 1917, and relating to Raymond Robins, details "negotiation with a group of American bankers of the American Red Cross Mission"; the "negotiation" related to a payment of two million dollars. On January 22, 1918, Robert L Owen, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking and Currency and linked to Wall Street interests, sent a letter to Woodrow Wilson recommending de facto recognition of Russia, permission for a shipload of goods urgently needed in Russia, the appointment of representatives to Russia to offset German influence, and the establishment of a career-service group in Russia.

This approach was consistently aided by Raymond Robins in Russia. For example, on February 15, 1918, a cable from Robins in Petrograd to Davison in the Red Cross in Washington (and to be forwarded to William Boyce Thompson) argued that support be given to the Bolshevik authority for as long as possible, and that the new revolutionary Russia will turn to the United States as it has "broken with the German imperialism." According to Robins, the Bolsheviks wanted United States assistance and cooperation together with railroad reorganization, because "by generous assistance and technical advice in reorganizing commerce and industry America may entirely exclude German commerce during balance of war."

In brief, the tug-of-war in Washington reflected a struggle between, on one side, old-line diplomats (such as Ambassador Francis) and lower-level departmental officials, and, on the other, financiers like Robins, Thompson, and Sands with allies such as Lansing and Miles in the State Department and Senator Owen in the Congress.
One should not forget that after Lenin came to power he accepted defeat and signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and gave away many provinces to the Triple Alliance. Even now the province of Kars,Aradhan and Batum are in Turkish hands.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Please elaborate.
He is talking about the territory that was lost after WWI. That was when Lenin was the leader. A lot of territories that were part of Russia during the times of the Tsars, were lost. Some were given away. Finland was part of Russia. Lenin told them to become independent. Part of the reason could be the Finnish ruling gentry being loyal to the White Russians and not quite willing to acquiesce to the new authorities.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Please elaborate.
Sir,
Check out the above post about the German-British and American funded Lenin. Lenin gave away many of the Russian empire territories to Turkey,Poland,Finland,Lithuania etc. In fact many of the slavic countries have extended borders and areas due to Lenin.
 
Last edited:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Re: Knowing Germany

Let me turn this into a metaphor, to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of this chicanery from some people:

So, a conversation with such a man, say Mr. X, wold go like this, wouldn't it?

Q: How old are you?
Mr. X: I am between 3 to 60 years old.

Q: When does your train from Nizamuddin to Howrah leave and reach the destination?
Mr. X: My train leaves Nizamuddin on the night of August 14, 2014, and will reach Howrah in the morning of August 15, 2014, or August 15, 2071, or sometime in between.
Sir, @Razor cannot read that I have mentioned 3 million IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES. Also he was asking for methodology, I have found a an online article about the census of Ukraine/Russia after the Stalinist regime(1920-1940).I do not want to derail the thread so I am not posting it here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Most events that changed history of a Nation is full of cruelty.

If one takes cruelty as a base denominator, then no country can claim an moral precedence.
This is supposed to be an academic discussion on Russia's experiences in the first half of the 20th century. If you mute the discussion by dismissive statements as "it's pretty natural" in epochal changes of countries then this thread loses its purpose.

But I beg to disagree to your finding. The brutal nature in how the last Tsar, Lenin and Stalin put down opposition to their powers within their own countries I think has very few parallels in the 20th century. In fact, based on readily available literature/data Stalin seems to have caused more deaths than Hitler.

People in Stalin period were not only killed by the guns. One of the most vicious was the starvation of Ukrainians in the early 1930's resulting in millions of deaths.


And there was many who perished in the most inhuman way under Hitler, be the Jews, Roma or Communists.
No doubt about that.


Let us not forget the Armenian being subjected to Genocide by the Turks.

Or what happened to the Aborigines in Australia, the subjugation of Africa, the injustice and killings to/of the Red Indians, the millions who died in the slave trade to the Americas. Mao in the Cultural Revolution, the Partition of India and so on.

It is endless - the pain and killings.
Please let's not veer to far from the topic.

I still believe that the thread is too broad. There are simply a lot of events, policies, incidents in Russia and the USSR during the first half of the 20th century that is worthy of discussion. Like could the Great Famine of 1921 been prevented by the Bolshivek's?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Re: Knowing Germany

Sir, @Razor cannot read that I have mentioned 3 million IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES. Also he was asking for methodology, I have found a an online article about the census of Ukraine/Russia after the Stalinist regime(1920-1940).I do not want to derail the thread so I am not posting it here.
It was not directed against you, but whoever wrote that Wikipedia article, where I believe it was taken from, which again refers to a whole bunch of guesstimates?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
I should have been more specific, what I was referring to was the secret accord between Hitler and Stalin to carve out Poland and neighboring states between them. This was kept secret until 1989.
Then you re right.

But then as I had mentioned in my earlier post there was a secret pact between the US-Japan involving nuke weaponry.
And If I remember correct, there is even now a pact between US-Japan, parts of which are secret. I forget it's name. Will post if I find it.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
In fact, based on readily available literature/data Stalin seems to have caused more deaths than Hitler.
I think you should read the first post of this thread. I clearly mentioned that unsupported claims should not be made more than once. Including posts by @Peter and you, we have had plenty of such claims.

@Razor asked how those numbers were arrived at, and we are looking at a range of 3-60 million, with an error-delta of 57 million.

I don't care whether it is a fact that literature is readily available. I care about whether the content in that literature is a fact or guesstimate.

If you can, answer the question asked by @Razor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Re: Knowing Germany

This was the thing I wanted to prove to Razor.
Anyway on topic, Lenin and his Revolution.

Was Lenin a foreign funded agent to break up Russia???

Chapter III: LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION



One should not forget that after Lenin came to power he accepted defeat and signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and gave away many provinces to the Triple Alliance. Even now the province of Kars,Aradhan and Batum are in Turkish hands.
Actually that 26 million figure that @pmaitra is referring to is not the figure you are talking.
Pmaitra is referring to the number of dead Soviet soldiers in WW2.

Up until recently, maybe 4 months back, I had decent opinion about Lenin. Things have changed.
But then up until recently, maybe 4 years back, I had stellar opinion about the US and its government. Things have changed.
Change alone is unchangeable, I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Please elaborate.
Refer below:
He is talking about the territory that was lost after WWI. That was when Lenin was the leader. A lot of territories that were part of Russia during the times of the Tsars, were lost. Some were given away. Finland was part of Russia. Lenin told them to become independent. Part of the reason could be the Finnish ruling gentry being loyal to the White Russians and not quite willing to acquiesce to the new authorities.
And also:
The Soviets compartmentalized the Russian Empire assigning a certain area to the Russian, to the Ukros, etc.
When the SU disintegrated, large number of Russians numbering in excess of 10 million have been stranded in various parts. So a net result would mean that from 23 M sq. km. Russian land got reduced to 17 M sq.km.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
I think you should read the first post of this thread. I clearly mentioned that unsupported claims should not be made more than once. Including posts by @Peter and you, we have had plenty of such claims.

@Razor asked how those numbers were arrived at, and we are looking at a range of 3-60 million, with an error-delta of 57 million.

I don't care whether it is a fact that literature is readily available. I care about whether the content in that literature is a fact or guesstimate.

If you can, answer the question asked by @Razor.
It is not unsupported. The part Razor mentions about 3-60 million is not in Wikipedia. Raor was only saying about the upper limit mentioned in other sources. I have mentioned the accounts of Russian historians and one can check the change in population from census data. Also a Russian NGO by name of Memorial had done research and verified the numbers. Putin himself accepted Stalin`s cruelty.

Strangely some people are not accepting the methodology used and asking for more concrete evidence which I cannot provide. I would not comment further on that and derail the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_the_Soviet_Union
( One can check the Wiki sources(ie the sources referred as 1,2,etc) mentioned in the page for further info on the Stalinist murders. However that would be way off topic).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
It is not unsupported. The part Razor mentions about 3-60 million is not in Wikipedia. Raor was only saying about the upper limit mentioned in other sources. I have mentioned the accounts of Russian historians and one can check the change in population from census data. Also a Russian NGO by name of Memorial had done research and verified the numbers. Putin himself accepted Stalin`s cruelty.

Strangely some people are not accepting the methodology used and asking for more concrete evidence which I cannot provide. I would not comment further on that and derail the thread.
Ok, let me summarize:

Question: What was the methodology used to arrive at the number 20 million (actually, selecting a random number multiplied by a million makes sense here)?
Answer: The methodology used was, accounts of Russians historians, population census, Russian NGO named Memorial, and Putin accepted Stalin's cruelty.

Voila! QED. Proven that Stalin killed <insert random number here> million people.

Did you read @Razor's counter argument? Did you read about that "lost interest" part?

Much of what you have said here has already been countered, here. What is new in your comment?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top