The Kronstadt Rebellion: Pre-planned?

[RedGrunt]

I've read elsewhere that the Kronstadt rebellion during the Russian Civil War was actually mentioned two weeks prior to its occurrence in a French/Paris Newspaper. Is there any validation to this? Or is this just propaganda?

[PhoenixAsh]

Where did you read that?

[Sasha]

from wiki:


The anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman), who was in Petrograd at the time of the rebellion, mentions in her account that "the news in the Paris Press about the Kronstadt uprising two weeks before it happened had been stressed in the campaign against the sailors as proof positive that they had been tools of the Imperialist gang and that rebellion had actually been hatched in Paris. It was too obvious that this yarn was used only to discredit the Kronstadters in the eyes of the workers."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#cite_note-goldman-11) Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin)'s claim of an international conspiracy linked up with the Kronstadt events is claimed by marxist Abbie Bakan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Bakan) to be supported by the discovery[when? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29# Chronological_items)][by whom? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] of a handwritten memorandum preserved in the Russian Archive of Columbia University, dated 1921 and marked 'Top Secret'. The document is titled Memorandum on the Question of Organizing an Uprising in Kronstadt, and includes information about the Kronstadt rebellion. It also details plans regarding White army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_army) and French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) government support for the "Kronstadt sailors' March rebellion".[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#cite_note-12)
The memorandum was part of a collection of documents written by National Centre, which originated first in 1918 as a self-claimed 'underground organisation formed in Russia for the struggle against the Bolsheviks'. After suffering military defeat and the arrest of many of its central members, the group reconstituted itself in exile by late 1920. General Wrangel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Wrangel), with his trained army of tens of thousands ready and waiting, was their principal military base of support. This memorandum was probably written between January and early February 1921 by an agent of the National Centre in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#cite_note-13)
However, reading the document quickly shows that Kronstadt was not a product of a White conspiracy but rather that the White "National Centre" aimed to try and use a spontaneous "uprising" it thought was likely to "erupt there in the coming spring" for its own ends. The report notes that "among the sailors, numerous and unmistakable signs of mass dissatisfaction with the existing order can be noticed." Indeed, the "Memorandum" states that "one must not forget that even if the French Command and the Russian anti-Bolshevik organisations do not take part in the preparation and direction of the uprising, a revolt in Kronstadt will take place all the same during the coming spring, but after a brief period of success it will be doomed to failure." [quoted by Avrich, Kronstadt 1921, p. 235 and p. 240] Avrich rejects the idea that the "Memorandum" explains the revolt:
Nothing has come to light to show that the Secret Memorandum was ever put into practice or that any links had existed between the emigres and the sailors before the revolt. On the contrary, the rising bore the earmarks of spontaneity... there was little in the behaviour of the rebels to suggest any careful advance preparation. Had there been a prearranged plan, surely the sailors would have waited a few weeks longer for the ice to melt... The rebels, moreover, allowed Kalinin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kalinin) (a leading Communist) to return to Petrograd, though he would have made a valuable hostage. Further, no attempt was made to take the offensive... Significant too, is the large number of Communists who took part in the movement.(...) The Sailors needed no outside encouragement to raise the banner of insurrection... Kronstadt was clearly ripe for a rebellion. What set it off was not the machination of emigre conspirators and foreign intelligence agents but the wave of peasant risings throughout the country and the labour disturbances in neighboring Petrograd. And as the revolt unfolded, it followed the pattern of earlier outbursts against the central government from 1905 through the Civil War." [Op. Cit., pp. 111–2] Moreover, whether the Memorandum played a part in the revolt can be seen from the reactions of the White "National Centre" to the uprising. Firstly, they failed to deliver aid to the rebels or to get French aid to them. Secondly, Professor Grimm, the chief agent of the National Centre in Helsingfors and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, stated to a colleague after the revolt had been crushed that if a new outbreak should occur then their group must not be caught unawares again. Avrich also notes that the revolt "caught the emigres off balance" and that "nothing . . . had been done to implement the Secret Memorandum, and the warnings of the author were fully borne out." [Paul Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 212 and p. 123][15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#cite_note-14) US Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senator) Joseph I. France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_I._France) was the first US politician to visit Russia after the Revolution and an advocate of cordial relations with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union); he had spent time in Russia negotiating with Lenin and other Russian officials to secure the release of Marguerite Harrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Harrison), a US spy. He attracted controversy by accusing Colonel Edward W. Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_W._Ryan&action=edit&redlink=1) of the American Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross) of fomenting the Kronstadt rebellion.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#cite_note-15)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#International_reaction_to_the_ rebellion

[Iron Felix]

What I love about the Kronsdadt Rebellion is the irony. Tukachevsky and Trotsky were executed and assassinated by Stalin for their service in suppressing it, and one mustn't forget that had it not been suppressed, it would have lead to a chain of events leading to the defeat of the Bolsheviks.

[A Marxist Historian]

from wiki:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#International_reaction_to_the_ rebellion

The perfect example of why Wikipedia is usually crap.

What a wretched bunch of lawyer's arguments trying to hide the by now very well known and documented White role in the Kronstadt rebellion.

Since the collapse of the USSR, documentary revelations have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Kronstadt affair was studied comprehensively once all the secret Soviet archives wre opened, and a huge documentary compilation was published by Russian scholars in 1999.

Ironically, the study was originally sponsored by Kronstadt enthusiast Boris Yeltsin, who wanted them to produce a denunciation of Bolshevik tyranny. Unfortunately for him, the scholars given the job took their jobs seriously. Here's the whole story:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

-M.H.-

[RedGrunt]

--one mustn't forget that had it not been suppressed, it would have lead to a chain of events leading to the defeat of the Bolsheviks.



How so? Militarily?

Care to elaborate, anyone?


Thanks ahead.

[Sasha]

The perfect example of why Wikipedia is usually crap.

What a wretched bunch of lawyer's arguments trying to hide the by now very well known and documented White role in the Kronstadt rebellion.

Since the collapse of the USSR, documentary revelations have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Kronstadt affair was studied comprehensively once all the secret Soviet archives wre opened, and a huge documentary compilation was published by Russian scholars in 1999.

Ironically, the study was originally sponsored by Kronstadt enthusiast Boris Yeltsin, who wanted them to produce a denunciation of Bolshevik tyranny. Unfortunately for him, the scholars given the job took their jobs seriously. Here's the whole story:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

-M.H.-

"all power to the soviets!" Sounds like a very white demand indeed...
Just as all the other demands in the kronstad declaration btw.

[PhoenixAsh]

O wauw. How very surprising. A trotskyist organisation trying to white wash the slate.

That whole article comes down to: OMGZ they wanted the party not to controll everything and dictate everyday live!!! Reactionary!!!

And in glancing passing beautifully illustrates Trotskies betrayal...

[syndicat]

What a wretched bunch of lawyer's arguments trying to hide the by now very well known and documented White role in the Kronstadt rebellion.in fact there was no such thing.

the Kronstadt strike was a solidarity strike...solidarity with the general strike in St Petersburg. the ideology of the Kronstadt strike has its origins in the Kronstadt of 1917. the leading elaborator of the perspective of the strike, in the articles in their Izvestia, was Anatoly Lamonov, a maximalist who was president of the Kronstadt soviet in 1917.

the most comprehensive history of Kronstadt from the revolution of 1917 to the rebellion in 1921 is Israel Getzler's "Kronstadt, 1917-1921." What Getzler shows is the continuity in people and ideas between the revolutionary Kronstadt of 1917 and the Kronstadt of the rebellion of 1921.

as to "white" aid, Victor Chernov, head of the exiled conservative leadership of the Right SRs sent a communication to the Kronstadt rebels saying he could provide material aid, but only if they came out for the constituent assembly...and the Kronstadt rebels refused this aid because they were for soviet power. that is what they were fighting for.

meanwhile Lenin and Trotsky were for the "dictatorship of the party".

[A Marxist Historian]

"all power to the soviets!" Sounds like a very white demand indeed...
Just as all the other demands in the kronstad declaration btw.

Everybody was using rhetoric like that in Russia in those days.

In Ukraine, you had Ataman Grigoriev, calling for all power to the soviets but with no communists and "no more than 10% Jews." What those words covered was his troops murdering every Jew they could get their hands on, but raping the women first. Even Makhno couldn't stand him, and put a bullet into him.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

in fact there was no such thing.

the Kronstadt strike was a solidarity strike...solidarity with the general strike in St Petersburg. the ideology of the Kronstadt strike has its origins in the Kronstadt of 1917. the leading elaborator of the perspective of the strike, in the articles in their Izvestia, was Anatoly Lamonov, a maximalist who was president of the Kronstadt soviet in 1917.

the most comprehensive history of Kronstadt from the revolution of 1917 to the rebellion in 1921 is Israel Getzler's "Kronstadt, 1917-1921." What Getzler shows is the continuity in people and ideas between the revolutionary Kronstadt of 1917 and the Kronstadt of the rebellion of 1921.

as to "white" aid, Victor Chernov, head of the exiled conservative leadership of the Right SRs sent a communication to the Kronstadt rebels saying he could provide material aid, but only if they came out for the constituent assembly...and the Kronstadt rebels refused this aid because they were for soviet power. that is what they were fighting for.

meanwhile Lenin and Trotsky were for the "dictatorship of the party".

Yeah, it was billed as a solidarity strike, but the second the rebelion happened the strikes in Petrograd came to an abrupt end, as the workers knew what was really going on at Kronstadt.

Getzler's book, inferior to Paul Avrich's much more objective account, which at least recognized that there was White involvement though he tried to downplay it, is old hat now. The Getzler book was written before all the post-Soviet documentary revelations, so it's no longer worth reading.

The Kronstadt rebels may have turned down aid from Chernov with his "constituent assembly" mantra, but they accepted aid from the outright Whites in Finland enthusiastically, not least being as you had former White officers like Kozlovsky playing important roles in commanding the rebel fleet. And as far as the Whites were concerned, the sailors could call it anything they liked as long as the Bolsheviks and Jews were all killed.

Actually, the rebellion was a continuation of the previous mutiny among the sailors in the summer of 1919, when a couple of ships revolted on behalf of White general Yudenich, then advancing from Estonia towards Petrograd. There was no nonsense about anarchism that time, it was just a plain ordinary White counterrevolutionary rebellion.

What made this all possible was the Baltic fleet being drained of all its best revolutionary elements, anarchist, Bolshevik and otherwise. They all went off to fight the Whites, being as the Baltic fleet was totally idle during the Civil War, sitting there and doing nothing to prevent the British Fleet from landing.

Which is exactly what would have happened in 1921 if the Bolsheviks had not managed to suppress the mutiny before the ice melted. They only beat the melting of the ice by about a week.

Which is how, to answer the question somebody else raised, the victory of the Kronstadt sailors would have led to White victory, with the British Fleet landing Wrangel's troops and watching them storm Petrograd.

-M.H.-

[syndicat]

What made this all possible was the Baltic fleet being drained of all its best revolutionary elements, anarchist, Bolshevik and otherwise. They all went off to fight the Whites, being as the Baltic fleet was totally idle during the Civil War, sitting there and doing nothing to prevent the British Fleet from landing.except that the vast majority of the sailors on the main ships in the rebellion had been there in 1917. they had joined the navy before the 1917 revolution.

the ships required certain skills to be able to operate and maintain them. there was no effort during the civil war to train replacements for them.


not least being as you had former White officers like Kozlovsky playing important roles in commanding the rebel fleet. more bullshit. Kozlovsky was an artillery officer appointed by the Bolsheviks. he was not "commander" of the fleet.

despite your blahblah about "new revelations" all you do is warm over the old standard propaganda. the article you cite is just highly distorted and biased statements piled one on top of the other. no objective factual account is provided. an example of this is the absurd statement that attributes the strike in St. Petersburg to "Menshevik agitators"...as if the workers couldn't think for themselves and had no objective beefs. that's how state authorities and police officials think.

[A Marxist Historian]

except that the vast majority of the sailors on the main ships in the rebellion had been there in 1917. they had joined the navy before the 1917 revolution.

the ships required certain skills to be able to operate and maintain them. there was no effort during the civil war to train replacements for them.

That is simply false. Yes, the ships required certain skills to operate and maintain them, so if the British had ever actually tried to launch a naval assault, the results might have been unfortunate. There was zero ship to ship combat going on during the Civil War, and there are reasons for that.

The revolutionaries simply didn't have the luxury of staffing the Baltic Fleet properly. All the revolutionary elements went off to fight at the front, and played huge roles in avoiding the military disasters that loomed over the Red forces during the entire civil war. That is a big part of how the Kronstadt sailor became the revolutionary symbol, as whenever there was a critical battle during the Civil War, sailors rushed to the rescue.

And left all the nonrevolutionary "Mr. Blocks" behind to keep the fleet running, or at least make it look to the British like the fleet was running.

Any other course on the part of the Red forces would have been crazy and suicidal and resulted in White conquest.

And yes, there were sailors recruited to fill in, mostly peasants from Ukraine according to Trotsky.

Getzler plays numbers games to try to prove differently. Being a Menshevik admirer himself, he doesn't really think in military terms, the Mensheviks being a very civilian party.


more bullshit. Kozlovsky was an artillery officer appointed by the Bolsheviks. he was not "commander" of the fleet.

despite your blahblah about "new revelations" all you do is warm over the old standard propaganda. the article you cite is just highly distorted and biased statements piled one on top of the other. no objective factual account is provided. an example of this is the absurd statement that attributes the strike in St. Petersburg to "Menshevik agitators"...as if the workers couldn't think for themselves and had no objective beefs. that's how state authorities and police officials think.

Even Avrich, himself an anarchist, admits that Kozlovsky played a big role, as the military "spetsy" running things on a practical basis. And yes, he had links with the Whites in Finland, that's been thoroughly documented now, and acted as one of the main conduits for White involvement, facilitating the White delegation under the "Russian Red Cross" cover that visited Kronstadt during the rebellion and was welcomed with open arms.

And yes, the strikes in St. Petersburg were led by Menshevik agitators. That is simply historical fact. It is true of course that this was only possible due to general working class dissatisfaction with the ultra-left "war communism" policies that were leading to economic collapse.

The workers were right to want a certain degree of retreat to capitalism, and the concessions to capitalism the Bolsheviks adopted in the immediate aftermath of Kronstadt were wise and necessary, and smoothed out much working class dissatisfaction.

But the workers in Petrograd *did not* want the Whites back, and they knew that that was what the Kronstadt mutiny would lead to if successful. So they supported its suppression and stopped striking.

-M.H.-

[Susurrus]

How do you explain all the first hand accounts of leftism and revolution? Lies?

[agnixie]

Everybody was using rhetoric like that in Russia in those days.

In Ukraine, you had Ataman Grigoriev, calling for all power to the soviets but with no communists and "no more than 10% Jews." What those words covered was his troops murdering every Jew they could get their hands on, but raping the women first. Even Makhno couldn't stand him, and put a bullet into him.

-M.H.-

So your example of everybody is a man who tried to do entryism in the ukrainian anarchists. Amazing. :thumbup1:


Would that study you linked be the one that claims there was large rotations of people in Kronstadt (when it was false and over 3/4 of the people on the Kronstadt rosters at the time of the revolt were already serving at the base in 1917).

Why does it have to always be between the gravediggers of the revolutions and the imperialists?



How do you explain all the first hand accounts of leftism and revolution? Lies?

Bad Vodka ;)

[A Marxist Historian]

How do you explain all the first hand accounts of leftism and revolution? Lies?

Not at all. That was the atmosphere of the times. Everybody was talking left and making revolutionary noises. Especially after the defeat of the Whites. The Kadet Party, the main political party of counterrevolution in Russia, actually *endorsed* the slogan of "Soviets without Bolsheviks," not precisely what they advocated in Kronstadt but close, as a tactical maneuver to aid in the overthrow of the Bolsheviks.

What matters is what people do, not what they say.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So your example of everybody is a man who tried to do entryism in the ukrainian anarchists. Amazing. :thumbup1:


Would that study you linked be the one that claims there was large rotations of people in Kronstadt (when it was false and over 3/4 of the people on the Kronstadt rosters at the time of the revolt were already serving at the base in 1917).

No, that was Trotsky's claim, which Getzler disputes. An interesting side issue, not decisive, as it could conceivably be that only about a quarter of the Kronstadt sailors were the true heroes of 1917, and most of the rank and file were just going with the flow. As anarchists used to say back when they were revolutionary, it's always the "militant minority" who do the job. The review I posted doesn't touch on that.

The answer to the question would be found in that study however, all three four thousand pages of it in Russian. One of these days I'll check that out.

What everybody who knows anything about the Russian Civil War knows, and anybody who disputes that is simply a fool, is that all the revolutionaries in the fleet went elsewhere to fight the Civil War. Why? Because they were revolutionaries. Anybody who voluntarily spent the entire Civil War twiddling his thumbs in Kronstadt where absolutely nothing was happening wasn't a revolutionary.

-M.H.-



Why does it have to always be between the gravediggers of the revolutions and the imperialists?



Bad Vodka ;)

[A Marxist Historian]

So your example of everybody is a man who tried to do entryism in the ukrainian anarchists. Amazing. :thumbup1:

...
Bad Vodka ;)

How 'bout the Kadet Party, are they a good enough example of "everybody"?

Dismissing Grigoriev as just some lone fool trying to do entry work(!) shows you don't know a hell of a lot about Ukraine. His movement when he rebelled was *stronger* than Makhno's if anything. As Red Army Commander, he took Odessa from the Whites, one of the big Red military victories of the war.

He left a bloodstained trail through the Ukrainian Jewish communities not forgotten to this day, as one of the very worst Jewish pogromists.

If anything, it was Makhno doing entry work in his movement, a very successful piece of entry work I must say. It was after Makhno signed up the vast majority of Grigoriev's pogromists after blowing the sucker away that his army became a really important military force.

-M.H.-

[PhoenixAsh]

Dismissing Grigoriev as just some lone fool trying to do entry work(!) shows you don't know a hell of a lot about Ukraine. His movement when he rebelled was *stronger* than Makhno's if anything. As Red Army Commander, he took Odessa from the Whites, one of the big Red military victories of the war.




If anything, it was Makhno doing entry work in his movement, a very successful piece of entry work I must say. It was after Makhno signed up the vast majority of Grigoriev's pogromists after blowing the sucker away that his army became a really important military force.

-M.H.-

And then he was pushed out of his own territory by the red army. Interestingly enough...he fled to Mahkno's territory...which he still held.

Then he was shot 3 weeks later.


So yeah...nice spin there.

[syndicat]

If anything, it was Makhno doing entry work in his movement, a very successful piece of entry work I must say. It was after Makhno signed up the vast majority of Grigoriev's pogromists after blowing the sucker away that his army became a really important military force.Makhno destroyed Grigoriev's army by intent. they camped with them. and then when Makhno & Grigoriev were on the same platform before the troops, Makhno called him out for his anti-Jewish pogroms. Grigoriev then went for this pistol and one of Makhno's officers shot him.

then Makhno gave a fraction of Grigoriev's troops chance to prove themselves. when they were later caught engagingin a progrom, they were surrounded by Makhno's troops and forcibly disarmed and told to go home.

so it was Makhno's forces who destroyed, demobilized Grigoriev's army.

[x359594]

...Even Avrich, himself an anarchist...

Avrich was not an anarchist. He was an historian of anarchism. I knew him slightly in the 1970s and 80s and while he had many friends who were anarchists he himself did not share their ideology.

[syndicat]

this is correct. if you read Avrich's works on Russian anarchism carefully, he clearly does not share their views.

[Tim Finnegan]

Everybody was using rhetoric like that in Russia in those days.

In Ukraine, you had Ataman Grigoriev, calling for all power to the soviets but with no communists and "no more than 10% Jews." What those words covered was his troops murdering every Jew they could get their hands on, but raping the women first. Even Makhno couldn't stand him, and put a bullet into him.
Do you have an example of major formations to the right of 1917's "Left Bloc", i.e. the Bolsheviks, Left-SRs, Menshevik Internationalists and anarchists, making such a demand? The Revolutionary Defencists had always opposed it explicitly during 1917, and I know of no turns towards it in the following years, while the liberals and conservatives were pretty much by definition anti-Soviet. A few peripheral anti-semites in the provinces hardly constitutes evidence of adoption of pro-soviet politics by reactionary elements on a national scale, as you seem to be suggesting.

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you have an example of major formations to the right of 1917's "Left Bloc", i.e. the Bolsheviks, Left-SRs, Menshevik Internationalists and anarchists, making such a demand? The Revolutionary Defencists had always opposed it explicitly during 1917, and I know of no turns towards it in the following years, while the liberals and conservatives were pretty much by definition anti-Soviet. A few peripheral anti-semites in the provinces hardly constitutes evidence of adoption of pro-soviet politics by reactionary elements on a national scale, as you seem to be suggesting.

As I mentioned before, Milyukov and the Kadets were advocating soviets without communists in 1921 as their conception more or less of a "transitional demand."

Certainly a major formation, indeed the major political force in the White camp.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Makhno destroyed Grigoriev's army by intent. they camped with them. and then when Makhno & Grigoriev were on the same platform before the troops, Makhno called him out for his anti-Jewish pogroms. Grigoriev then went for this pistol and one of Makhno's officers shot him.

then Makhno gave a fraction of Grigoriev's troops chance to prove themselves. when they were later caught engagingin a progrom, they were surrounded by Makhno's troops and forcibly disarmed and told to go home.

so it was Makhno's forces who destroyed, demobilized Grigoriev's army.

Now that's a clever spin job. Fraction? How about nine tenths? I guess that's a fraction.

Makhno doubled his forces through that maneuver.

-M.H.-

[syndicat]

Makhno doubled his forces through that maneuver.i doubt it. but it was only temporary as they wouldn't give up their old practices. and by the way the mutual encampment was at Grigoriev's invitation. Makhno's army used this as an opportunity to destroy Grigoriev's army.

[Susurrus]

Not at all. That was the atmosphere of the times. Everybody was talking left and making revolutionary noises. Especially after the defeat of the Whites. The Kadet Party, the main political party of counterrevolution in Russia, actually *endorsed* the slogan of "Soviets without Bolsheviks," not precisely what they advocated in Kronstadt but close, as a tactical maneuver to aid in the overthrow of the Bolsheviks.

What matters is what people do, not what they say.

-M.H.-

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the accounts of the people who went to Kronstadt, and saw no counter-revolutionary presence.

[Tim Finnegan]

As I mentioned before, Milyukov and the Kadets were advocating soviets without communists in 1921 as their conception more or less of a "transitional demand."

Certainly a major formation, indeed the major political force in the White camp.

-M.H.-
"Soviets without communists" was not, as I understand it, a demand for soviet power- what was a "communist", in that era, but someone who advocated soviet power?- but an attempt to shore up the model of dual power, the so called "February System", in which the soviets acts as both a basis of popular support for and popular supervision of the government. That's something altogether distinct from the soviet as the primary institution of government.

[Jose Gracchus]

Oh Tim, no Spart distortion is too audacious for "The" "Marxist" "Historian". Of course White-aligned liberals pushed for soviets with a straight face, and 1917's Red sailors are obviously up Miliyukov's alley.

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh Tim, no Spart distortion is too audacious for "The" "Marxist" "Historian". Of course White-aligned liberals pushed for soviets with a straight face, and 1917's Red sailors are obviously up Miliyukov's alley.

Hey, look it up. Milyukov was a very smart politician. Explains it all in his autobio, as some of the other Whites were dubious.

Check for yourself. Do I have to do all the work around here?

-M.H.-