Red Army, Post Civil War

[Rusty Shackleford]

Somewhere, i think here on Revleft, i head read about how Trotsky wanted to invade europe after the civil war to further the revolution. is this true?

i definitely understand why that DIDNT happen if it was discussed. The young SU needed to work on its own revolution and recouperate after the bloody years before.

I also have a question that is somewhat related. Had the Soviet Union actually engaged in an aggressive war in the 20s, would it be justifiable?

an argument that would partially justify it would be that workers are not bound to political borders, they are bound to class. and secondly, for revolution to occur, the advanced sector of the working class would have to guide its brethren(to an extent). Since the working class is not national, the soviet working class, through the red army, and the proletarian state, would be assisting the working class in the rest of Europe and abroad.

for some reason i have a feeling of deja vu posting this. :blushing:

[mykittyhasaboner]

I also have a question that is somewhat related. Had the Soviet Union actually engaged in an aggressive war in the 20s, would it be justifiable?

No because it would have probably been a total failure. The Soviet Union's armed forces were never really capable of aggressive wars or intended for expeditionary conflict, contrary to imperialist militaries.

In theory, the Soviet Union waging war against the powers who invaded their territories during the civil war is not "unjustified" per say, but just near impossible and not feasible in any practical way. The SU may have possibly assisted the armies of other worker's states in Europe, but no such states succeeded.

[ComradeOm]

Somewhere, i think here on Revleft, i head read about how Trotsky wanted to invade europe after the civil war to further the revolution. is this true?Not that I know of. There was talk of exporting revolution "on the bayonets of the Red Army" (ie a revolutionary war modelled on the French experience) during the early stages of the Civil War but Trotsky was opposed to the left communist position in 1918. After this any hopes of moving west, however impractical or fantastical, were ended with the loss at Warsaw in 1920

[Rusty Shackleford]

Not that I know of. There was talk of exporting revolution "on the bayonets of the Red Army" (ie a revolutionary war modelled on the French experience) during the early stages of the Civil War but Trotsky was opposed to the left communist position in 1918. After this any hopes of moving west, however impractical or fantastical, were ended with the loss at Warsaw in 1920

So, the loss at Warsaw, as in Poland? did this lead to the creation of poland? ill get back to this later, i dont remember if the russian empire extended into poland.

[Red Commissar]

Poland had already existed been created the time of their war with the soviets. While their independence was threatened by the Soviet advance, the war was really more of the two attempting to assert themselves over the new Eastern Europe.

Before WW I, much of what would later become east Poland was under the control of the Russian empire. When the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk they secede away much of the empire's old western holdings to Germany. Poles started an uprising against Germany and succeeded, so the Entente agreed to recognize Poland, out from what had formerly been German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian territories, during the Treaty of Versailles.

The new Polish state and Soviet Russia both had ambitions to solidify their positions in Eastern Europe and that inevitably led to conflict between the two as Soviet Russia moved in to take the short-lived Ukrainian state, which Poland had interests in too. Soviets hoped that by defeating the Poles, they would open the way to support socialists in Germany and beyond to France, Italy, and elsewhere. The Poles in turn hoped to become a regional power by forming a bloc of nations to fend off advances from either side.

One thing led to another and the Soviets ultimately had their advance halted at the Battle for Warsaw. The Poles however, while achieving this victory, were themselves exhausted and ultimately the two agreed to a peace. Ukrainian forces who had been aiding the Poles would attempt to continue driving into Ukraine from Poland, but they were repulsed by Soviet Russia. As such the Soviets would later end up annexing Ukraine, and chose to look inwards to consolidate their gains.

What Trotsky's reasoning was that they should aid the revolutions that would spring up in Germany, France, and Italy, all of which were going through a lot of instability and civil strife, and more or less bring much of Europe into revolution. I recall even Hungary had its own uprising that succeeded but was crushed by neighboring Romania who jumped into the chaos to gain Transylvania.

What Trotksy's point was though is that he was opposed to the concept of Socialism in One Country, and felt that the Soviet Union should have been helping socialist revolutions by any means to ultimately protect its own revolution. I don't think this could have translated into a full blown invasion though, as ComradeOm said the Soviets failure against the new Polish state ended their ambitions to try and drive westwards to take advantage of the post-war instabilities. Most of the Soviet authorities, especially following the Polish-Soviet War, wanted to focus on securing the revolution and consolidating their victory at home before moving on, and thus were reluctant to invite foreign attention by openly backing socialist uprisings.