The problems of 1942 – possible causes and solutions – The Red Army

[RedBunny]

Actually I find this very interesting. Off topic, but interesting.

@Mehring, would you mind listing some of your favorite sources that cover the points you've been making regarding Ukraine and the Baltic states?

[PeeDeeAitch]

I thought this thread was about the "I win!!!11" button.

[ComradeP]

The war of Independence was not a war against tyranny for those who hid from their shame at preferring tyranny to putting their lives on the line for Liberty

That's a rather odd way to think about it: everybody who didn't think exactly like the revolutionaries was essentially both in favour of tyranny and of the opinion that they were living under the rule of a tyrant and perfectly willing to do nothing about it because they were ashamed. They were not either happy with British rule or not unhappy enough to start a revolution, no, they were ashamed that they were living under a tyranny.

Just like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, what you view as tyranny was and is simply viewed as a legitimate monarchy by the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.

Oh yes you do, or you will not achieve a revolution, only a change in figurehead. Wasn't it in "The Leopard' someone says "if you want things to stay the same round here, you're going to have to make some changes."

In all honesty, how many revolutions do you think went "according to plan" in the sense that they went exactly along the line of the original intentions? If all things go well, a revolution should be followed by a period of growth and hopefully prosperity, as a more popular system is in place. I don't think the people that started the American, Russian or any other revolution really had an idea what their country would look like at the end of it. They probably had hopes, but they would all have been in for a reality check. There's also something like the long term sustainability of revolutionary ideals to keep the nation unified in troubling times, the failure of which in the case of the US resulted in the civil war and in the Russian/Soviet case in the break-up of the Soviet Union.

[Mehring]

Thanks for your interest Redbunny.
I've drawn much material here from vol 1 of EH Carr's history of the Bolshevik Revolution 1917-23. There is my ASL 1995 Annual (sad but true).

Wikipedia offers confirmation or not of an untold number of half remembered facts, a wonderful resource, as is the internet generally.

@comradeP

Your selective quotation from my last post is either a misunderstanding or a gem of Stalinesque distortion. You will surely see that I give multiple explanations for the positions people might adopt towards a revolution and yet you have picked on one to the exclusion of all others.

As for revolutionary planning, I'm challenged to think of anything of complexity which goes exactly according to plan. That's beside the point and doesn't obviate the need for a plan. Human activity is often unconscious or inadequately conscious of its motives, aims and historical framework to anticipate its consequences and the forces it will be set in motion. For some revolutions that's not such a problem, spontaneity takes over where understanding is inadequate, as long as the foundations of the old regime have been broken and the productive forces are at the necessary level. Other types of revolution require a much more conscious construction and are more demanding of material conditions. Just like some plants grow in anything and others need a more specialised environment and nurture.

You take take far too much for granted for me to deal with in less than a book - the nation united, the confederacy resulting from a loss of revolutionary ideals, the Russian revolution ending at the soviet union's break up ( ya missed it by 50 years +) , but even if I had the time to write it I get the feeling someone wants their thread back.

Another thread, another battle.

[Peltonx]

Dump the 1v1 =2v1

I did a google search and still am unable to find any historical data on it.

I will keep looking.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Dump the 1v1 =2v1

I did a google search and still am unable to find any historical data on it.

I will keep looking.

LOL

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Yes, all the republics had distinct histories and makeups. The Baltic States might have become part of the original voluntary Soviet Union but foreign intervention on behalf of its seperatist faction and Red exhaustion gave them independence. As you say, Klydon, they were occupied. Even if you were to include them as part of the Soviet Union, independence movements in such geographically and economically small areas were of little political or military significance.

The Baltic States were extremely unlikely to join the Soviet Union voluntarily. While the period after WWI was very chaotic with factions fighting for each side and the Baltic peoples were certainly greatly involved in the Russian Revolution on both sides, the strongest faction internally by far was for nationalism and independence. The foreign support was much more significant in terms of sustaining the pro-Soviet and pro-German factions, both of which also included actual foreign troops fighting in the Baltic States.

This thread has wandered way off topic though. I'd suggest starting a new one in the General Discussion forum so that this one can get back to its original topic, which is much more important as far as the game is concerned. Please also stay away from more recent events like Kosovo, or it will almost inevitably end up as a political thread, which means it will be locked.

Regards,

- Erik