Sinister Cultural Marxist
16th March 2016, 06:36
The story I often hear is that up until the point where the Red Army was defeated in Poland, the plan was to seize that country and use it to "export revolution" to Germany and other countries in Central Europe, in the hope that German industry would rebuild. However, this seems like it could well have been a Quixotic enterprise in the first place.
First, what exactly was the Soviet plan in Poland? Was it to be politically incorporated with the rest of the SSRs, or was the intention merely to occupy it? Either way, it seems like this could have been a tall order for a weakened and impoverished Soviet state.
Second, how exactly did they plan on "exporting revolution" to Germany? Was the hope just that seeing a revolutionary state on their doorstep would inspire the workers who had been recently crushed to make another go for it? Or was the plan to commit the young Soviet state to an act of military adventurism? I doubt Britain and France would have just allowed Germany to fall, and the fledgling Soviet state was weakened by WWI and the Russian Revolution in a way no other European state was. I wonder if it could sustain a war even with a demilitarized Germany, let alone one where France and Britain continued meddling. Long supply lines, a weakened industrial base and an exhausted if experienced and capable military force intervening in the industrial heartland of Europe sounds like a longshot, even if many local German workers and veterans would have supported it.
While it seems like a revolution elsewhere would have been a godsend for the Bolshevik state, I can see why "socialism in one state" may have been the most likely outcome no matter what happened, even if it was not necessarily so, simply because Russia in 1920 seemed less suited for exporting its revolution than France in the 18th Century.
First, what exactly was the Soviet plan in Poland? Was it to be politically incorporated with the rest of the SSRs, or was the intention merely to occupy it? Either way, it seems like this could have been a tall order for a weakened and impoverished Soviet state.
Second, how exactly did they plan on "exporting revolution" to Germany? Was the hope just that seeing a revolutionary state on their doorstep would inspire the workers who had been recently crushed to make another go for it? Or was the plan to commit the young Soviet state to an act of military adventurism? I doubt Britain and France would have just allowed Germany to fall, and the fledgling Soviet state was weakened by WWI and the Russian Revolution in a way no other European state was. I wonder if it could sustain a war even with a demilitarized Germany, let alone one where France and Britain continued meddling. Long supply lines, a weakened industrial base and an exhausted if experienced and capable military force intervening in the industrial heartland of Europe sounds like a longshot, even if many local German workers and veterans would have supported it.
While it seems like a revolution elsewhere would have been a godsend for the Bolshevik state, I can see why "socialism in one state" may have been the most likely outcome no matter what happened, even if it was not necessarily so, simply because Russia in 1920 seemed less suited for exporting its revolution than France in the 18th Century.