It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
The Soviets inflicted approximately 50% more casualties on the Nazis (though a roughly equivalent number of total losses due to Nazis being more willing to surrender to Western forces), but suffered roughly ten times the number of casualties as Western forces, or five times if PoW deaths are excluded.
It doesn’t have to be human wave tactics to be a staggering display of incompetence that nearly lost them the war.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
Sure, the provisional government was democratic, to the extent it could be in such a short time. I never said the Bolsheviks were cool, so that’s not really relevant.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America? If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
“They tried to make their own reign stable” isn’t really an argument against them creating a power vacuum, no more than the Tsarist obsession with autocracy as a means of stability counts against the Tsar’s incompetence leading to a power vacuum.
Almost a year passed, in which Russia remained cohesive enough to maintain participation in WW1 and have radical, nationwide elections.
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America?
Fighting very separate polities.
If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
‘Independently expanded to it’ is a funny way of saying “Invading within two weeks of each other, causing the sudden dissolution of the Polish war plan, then meeting in the middle and having a joint victory parade”.
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
And without Britain staying in the fight, the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all. And without Britain staying in the fight, a massive amount of air power would have been available for Operation Barbarossa.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
Yes, WWII was a joint effort. I probably should have said “the most decisive contribution”. I’m sorry, my bad.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
The previous coup attempt against the provisional government failed because there was no mass appetite in the population for a coup from the right, and the Bolshevik coup only succeeded at the cost of - again - sparking a civil war. The Mensheviks and SRs were both onboard with the provisional government; neither of them were likely to attempt a coup. Most of the right-wing elements had been stripped of power, and the military refused to follow a right-wing putsch attempt. If Lenin had stayed home, so to speak… what faction does that leave to attempt a coup?
It hardly seems ridiculous to think that the legislature that everything since the overthrow of the Tsar had been working towards - complete with arguments and concessions with competing factions - finally assembling after the long-awaited elections might have forged something lasting had the Bolsheviks not closed it down by military force, yes.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
The Soviets inflicted approximately 50% more casualties on the Nazis (though a roughly equivalent number of total losses due to Nazis being more willing to surrender to Western forces), but suffered roughly ten times the number of casualties as Western forces, or five times if PoW deaths are excluded.
It doesn’t have to be human wave tactics to be a staggering display of incompetence that nearly lost them the war.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
Sure, the provisional government was democratic, to the extent it could be in such a short time. I never said the Bolsheviks were cool, so that’s not really relevant.
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America? If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
“They tried to make their own reign stable” isn’t really an argument against them creating a power vacuum, no more than the Tsarist obsession with autocracy as a means of stability counts against the Tsar’s incompetence leading to a power vacuum.
Almost a year passed, in which Russia remained cohesive enough to maintain participation in WW1 and have radical, nationwide elections.
Fighting very separate polities.
‘Independently expanded to it’ is a funny way of saying “Invading within two weeks of each other, causing the sudden dissolution of the Polish war plan, then meeting in the middle and having a joint victory parade”.
And without Britain staying in the fight, the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all. And without Britain staying in the fight, a massive amount of air power would have been available for Operation Barbarossa.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
Yes, WWII was a joint effort. I probably should have said “the most decisive contribution”. I’m sorry, my bad.
The previous coup attempt against the provisional government failed because there was no mass appetite in the population for a coup from the right, and the Bolshevik coup only succeeded at the cost of - again - sparking a civil war. The Mensheviks and SRs were both onboard with the provisional government; neither of them were likely to attempt a coup. Most of the right-wing elements had been stripped of power, and the military refused to follow a right-wing putsch attempt. If Lenin had stayed home, so to speak… what faction does that leave to attempt a coup?
It hardly seems ridiculous to think that the legislature that everything since the overthrow of the Tsar had been working towards - complete with arguments and concessions with competing factions - finally assembling after the long-awaited elections might have forged something lasting had the Bolsheviks not closed it down by military force, yes.