#Finnish Bolshevik

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Because Finns predominated on the far left of the labour movement, their shared cultural and political ties could mitigate the antagonisms between rival organizations and leaders. The relationship between the OBU [One Big Union] and the IWW [Industrial Workers of the World] was not always antagonistic largely because the Finns predominated in both organizations. The IWW’s General Executive Board (GEB) kept track of the spread of organizations referring to themselves as the “One Big Union” throughout the world and reported their success in the various Wobbly papers. Space was also set aside in the IWW organ, the One Big Union Monthly, to list “the most important resolutions [of the meetings in Calgary], as a matter of record, and to allow of comparison with our own movement and similar movements in other countries.” It was suggested that the resolutions, in their entirety, would meet with a good response in the United States and provide an example of the success that industrial unionism could have.

Still, the GEB also advanced some criticisms of the OBU. The program of the Canadian One Big Union, it argued, was “sufficiently like the IWW program to make us forget the small differences.” A core principle of the IWW remained its resistance to political action. The Canadian (and Australian) adoption of political activism was seen as a characteristic of their newborn status. The GEB believed that over time this political focus would be abandoned, as it had been in the United States, “to save [their] life as an industrial organization.” Until that day, the OBU in Canada and Australia, having “both declared for industrial unions by means of which to take over the means of production and distribution,” could be regarded as allies.

Wobblies viewed Bolshevism as a great popular uprising against the upper class of the Old World. They looked to the continuing fight in Russia, as well as events in Germany and Eastern Europe, as inspirations for the fight in North America. They argued, however, that the Bolshevik revolution was still a political revolution and the culmination of political socialism. The method by which power had been obtained in Russia – the capture of the government and the replacement of tsarist officials with socialists – still fell within “the institutions we call ‘the state.’” The GEB argued that although the Bolsheviks and the IWW used the same expressions – “the abolition of classes,” “the abolition of capitalism,” “the socialization of the means of production,” “the establishment of the socialist republic” – they did not actually use them to mean the same things.

Even the Soviets, the central pillars of the new system in Russia, were viewed as “hasty” and, as a result, unable to properly take over the means of production. The growing tendency of the ruling party to resort to cooperative movements and direct state control was, the IWW argued, the root of the problems in Russia. “In short,” the GEB argued, “the Bolshevik revolution in Russia has not resulted in Industrial Democracy, but in a makeshift or temporary arrangement without stability, without any pretense of a final solution.”

The Bolshevik revolution did serve as an opportunity for the IWW to argue that

economic reconstruction of society cannot be accomplished by a government trying to order things with a high hand through laws and regulations, but has to be an organic outgrowth from the bottom, through the industrial organization of the workers at the place of work.

“Bolshevism,” it contended, “is the fire that clears off the old vegetation, ‘the brush.’ To plow, sow, reap among the charred stumps will be the immense task they will bequeath to us, the industrial organizers, the builders of the One Big Union.” Understandably, supporters of the Bolsheviks in the United States viewed the IWW as essentially revolutionary, yet “starting at the wrong end.” Their position was that the “revolutionary proletariat must first seize the power of the state.” The IWW countered by arguing that it would rather see “a gradual transition than a ‘revolutionary’ shock.” The IWW evidently believed that “as industrial evolution progresses the parliamentary state will become more and more inadequate for handling the problems of society.” The apparatus established by the IWW would assume control of these functions. Other left organizations in the United States, oriented more to the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, advanced very different analyses.

Contradicting its prewar policy, most postwar intellectuals of the IWW viewed the “shocks of revolution” as

undesirable, because they cause bloodshed and suffering. On the other hand, we do not consider it advisable to destroy social organs, before we have the new organ ready which is to take its place. We think it is about time that men disabuse their minds of the idea that violence is absolutely necessary or desirable for social change.

Public consent, these Wobblies argued, would be the necessary precondition of radical change – and not vanguard-orchestrated mass action “à la Bolshevik.” Socialists and workers, it was argued, need only look to Canada and Australia and to the fifteen unions the IWW had organized “over the last 12 years” to see success. In addition, where were the revolutionists to come from? Did any plans exist concerning how the revolution would progress and what the next step would be for power to be obtained? “Social changes are not made,” the GEB argued, “in the wink of an eye, like changing your shirt.”"

- Michel S. Beaulieu, Labour at the Lakehead: Ethnicity, Socialism, and Politics, 1900-35. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2011. p. 77-78.

[workingclasshistory]

On this day, 27 January 1918, revolution broke out in Finland as workers took over Helsinki with many of the country’s other large towns following in the next few days. Victor Serge recounted that: "the Red Flag was hoisted over the Workers' House at Helsinki. The city was rapidly captured, and the Senate and government fled to Vaasa. In a few days, almost without resistance, the Reds took over the largest towns, Abo, Viipuri and Tammerfors, and the whole of southern Finland… They introduced workers' control over production, which was relatively simple given the marked concentration of key industries: wood, paper and textiles. They were successful too in stopping sabotage on the part of the banks. Public life and production very soon resumed a practically normal existence." The ‘People’s Republic of Finland’ instituted numerous far-reaching reforms, including women’s suffrage, workers’ control, a maximum eight-hour working day, abolition of the death penalty, abolition of the old mode of land distribution and the emancipation of domestic servants and farmhands. However, to end conflict with the Central Powers in World War I, Finland, along with other territories, was surrendered to Germany by the Russian Bolshevik government in the March 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The following month counterrevolutionary White forces drowned the revolution in blood, slaughtering thousands of workers and socialists, and throwing tens of thousands more into concentration camps. According to Serge, for the rich the White terror was "a historical necessity. The victorious propertied classes are perfectly aware that they can only ensure their own domination in the aftermath of a social battle by inflicting on the working class a bloodbath savage enough to enfeeble it for tens of years afterwards. And since the class in question is far more numerous than the wealthy classes, the number of victims must be very great." Pictured: Finnish Red guards, 1918 https://www.facebook.com/workingclasshistory/photos/a.296224173896073/2195681690616969/?type=3

[metamatar]

On the one side were the nation-builders, led by Lenin and Stalin; on the other side were the internationalists, led by Georgii Piatakov and Nikolai Bukharin. At the Eighth Party Congress in March 1919, the two sides clashed over the question of the right of national self-determination.3 Piatakov argued that “during a sufficiently large and torturous experience in the borderlands, the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has shown itself in practice, during the social revolution, as a slogan uniting all counterrevolutionary forces.”4 Once the proletariat had seized power, Piatakov maintained, national self-determination became irrelevant: “It’s just a diplomatic game, or worse than a game if we take it seriously.”5 Piatakov was supported by Bukharin, who argued that the right to self-determination could only be invested in the proletariat, not in “some fictitious so-called ‘national will.’ ”6

Lenin had clashed with Piatakov and others on this issue before and during the revolution.7 He now answered this renewed challenge with characteristic vigor. Nationalism had united all counterrevolutionary forces, Lenin readily agreed, but it had also attracted the Bolsheviks’ class allies. The Finnish bourgeoisie had successfully “deceived the working masses that the Muscovites [Moskvaly], chauvinists, Great Russians want[ed] to oppress the Finns.” Arguments such as Piatakov’s served to increase that fear and therefore strengthen national resistance. It was only “thanks to our acknowledgement of [the Finns’] right to self-determination, that the process of [class] differentiation was eased there.” Nationalism was fueled by historic distrust: “The working masses of other nations are full of distrust [nedoverie] towards Great Russia, as a kulak and oppressor nation.” Only the right to self-determination could overcome that distrust, Lenin argued, but Piatakov’s policy would instead make the party the heir to Tsarist chauvinism: “Scratch any Communist and you find a Great Russian chauvinist. . . . He sits in many of us and we must fight him.”8

Chapter 1 of The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 (Cornell University Press, 2001) by Terry Martin

[workersolidarity]

Watch "History of the Hungarian People's Republic PLAYLIST" on YouTube

Fantastic work by our comrade The Finnish Bolshevik. It is a series on the History of Socialist Hungary.

If you'd prefer reading the series, you can find it here:

Western Historians would have you believe an "Imperialist" Soviet Russia just went around at the end of WWII invading Eastern and Central Europe and setting up Soviet "authoritarian dictatorships" under Russian control.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will try to put together each part into seperate posts throughout the day or over the next few days, but I can't be sure I'll find the time to do that with all 10 or 11 parts.

Each part is not that long, roughly 30-40 minutes, and makes for easy viewing in chunks.

In the videos, The Finnish Bolshevik deep dives into the history of the Hungarian State, how Western Imperialist Powers installed a Fascist Dictatorship, the impact of World Wars 1 and 2 and their aftermath, Hungary's Socialist Revolution, and Hungary's transformation into a Socialist State becoming a satellite of the Soviet Union and much more.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 5.3 (before 1940)

752 – Mayan king Bird Jaguar IV of Yaxchilan in modern-day Chiapas, Mexico, assumes the throne. 1481 – The largest of three earthquakes strikes the island of Rhodes and causes an estimated 30,000 casualties. 1491 – Kongo monarch Nkuwu Nzinga is baptised by Portuguese missionaries, adopting the baptismal name of João I. 1568 – Angered by the brutal onslaught of Spanish troops at Fort Caroline, a French force burns the San Mateo fort and massacres hundreds of Spaniards. 1616 – Treaty of Loudun ends a French civil war. 1715 – A total solar eclipse is visible across northern Europe and northern Asia, as predicted by Edmond Halley to within four minutes accuracy. 1791 – The Constitution of May 3 (the first modern constitution in Europe) is proclaimed by the Sejm of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. 1802 – Washington, D.C. is incorporated as a city after Congress abolishes the Board of Commissioners, the District's founding government. The "City of Washington" is given a mayor-council form of government. 1808 – Finnish War: Sweden loses the fortress of Sveaborg to Russia. 1808 – Peninsular War: The Madrid rebels who rose up on May 2 are executed near Príncipe Pío hill. 1815 – Neapolitan War: Joachim Murat, King of Naples, is defeated by the Austrians at the Battle of Tolentino, the decisive engagement of the war. 1830 – The Canterbury and Whitstable Railway is opened; it is the first steam-hauled passenger railway to issue season tickets and include a tunnel. 1837 – The University of Athens is founded in Athens, Greece. 1848 – The boar-crested Anglo-Saxon Benty Grange helmet is discovered in a barrow on the Benty Grange farm in Derbyshire. 1849 – The May Uprising in Dresden begins: The last of the German revolutions of 1848–49. 1855 – American adventurer William Walker departs from San Francisco with about 60 men to conquer Nicaragua. 1901 – The Great Fire of 1901 begins in Jacksonville, Florida. 1913 – Raja Harishchandra, the first full-length Indian feature film, is released, marking the beginning of the Indian film industry. 1920 – A Bolshevik coup fails in the Democratic Republic of Georgia. 1921 – Ireland is partitioned under British law by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, creating Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. 1921 – West Virginia becomes the first state to legislate a broad sales tax, but does not implement it until a number of years later due to enforcement issues. 1928 – The Jinan incident begins with the deaths of twelve Japanese civilians by Chinese forces in Jinan, China, which leads to Japanese retaliation and the deaths of over 2,000 Chinese civilians in the following days. 1939 – The All India Forward Bloc is formed by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

[torillatavataan]

The Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic (FSWR), more commonly referred to as Red Finland, was a self-proclaimed socialist state in Finland during the Finnish Civil War from January to May 1918. Red Finland/FSWR was an attempt to establish a socialist state, based on the legacy of Scandinavian-Finnish culture, socialist ideas originating from Central Europe, including plans to expand the Finnish territory. Their political visions included principles of democracy, but as Red Finland was primarily the formation of revolution and civil war, the acts of violence and warfare were emphasized in the policy. The Red Guards included a minor faction of Finnish Bolsheviks who supported association of FSWR to Soviet Russia. FSWR/Red Finland never gained a true status and form of state and republic as the Reds lost the Civil War on 5 May 1918. (x)

The Finnish borders on the map are incorrect.

Like Uhtua, North Ingria was right beside the Finnish border.

Map of states existing during penultimate collapse of Russia

[ntumun23hcc]

We Are Finnished 

11 November 1924

Comrades, it is unfortunate that this conflict has escalated to such a scale. The Karelian Forest Guerrillas have arrived in our territory and started a massive forest fire. Thankfully, the forest fires are occurring a distance away from us, giving us ample time to prepare ourselves. 

However, there have been reports that they are planning to execute anyone who is suspected of being a Bolshevik. This is no laughing matter. We have to settle this problem or we are truly finnished.

[russiancivilwarmunch]

Reds on the Run

The Bucharest Times, July 4, 1920

The Russian Civil War’s Civil War

The two Red states in Russia have now officially declared war on each other. Trotsky’s Union of Soviet Republics (USR) and Lenin & Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) have formed a frontline about 70 miles south of the Baltic Sea. An offensive by 50,000 USSR troops in April pushed back Trotsky’s 40,000 USR troops, and with help from volunteers of the Latvian Rifles, the USSR took Novgorod and is threatening Petrograd from the south. This does not bode well for the Bolshevik cause, as they are now decisively losing the civil war.

Kolchak’s Second Summer Offensive

In May, Kolchak and the Czech Legion launched a massive offensive against Lenin and Stalin’s forces on the Eastern Front. It was a massive success, and despite taking heavy casualties, the Whites were able to capture the crucial city of Gorky, just a few hundred miles from Moscow. There are now only 10,000 troops standing between Kolchak and the Kremlin. Will Moscow fall by Christmas?

The invasion succeeded because dissention in the Bolshevik ranks has reached a critical point. Stalin allegedly authorized troop movements to attack his arch-rival, Trotsky, without the approval of Vladimir Lenin. While his attack succeeded, it also severely weakened the front line, allowing Kolchak’s planned summer offensive to overwhelm the undermanned USSR trench lines. 

The Largest Eviction Notice in History- Nobody’s Home?

The entire nation of Poland is empty! Josef Pilsudski has ordered that every single citizen of Poland be moved to the caucuses. As such, literally nobody is home in Poland- the cities have been deserted, the countryside is empty, and all Poles have been put on trains and are being resettled in Georgia. Violent skirmishes have broken out between the remnants of the Polish army and Enver Pasha’s Army of Islam, as millions of Poles have begun settling in Pasha’s Turania. It is unclear if this mass migration or de facto invasion of Turania was authorized by Pasha.

For I Come from Dnipro with a .50 cal on my Knee

A white offensive in June has taken back almost all of Ukraine, though administration has not been turned over to the White Ukraine government- was the French Memo true? Petrovsky’s rag-tag army has been pushed back to a pocket around L’viv (formerly Lemburg) near the ? border. The whites may be planning to attack the USSR from the south, but this would be a direct act of war from France and Japan on the USSR.

Also, Mannerheim was freed from captivity and has returned to Finland, resuming command of the White Finnish forces. As he did not escape himself, he must have reached some agreement with Stalin, though the nature of this agreement is not clear.

[german-unification-munch-xxii]

🎵I’ve Been Working on the Trans-Siberian Railroad🎵

The Bucharest Times, April 16, 1919

Traitors are everywhere! The Czech Legion, while initially allying with the White Movement, have turned on their comrades and allied themselves with the Bolsheviks!

First, a new development. Poland, France, Estonia, White Ukraine, Japan, and Krasnov’s White Southern Russian forces have put their differences aside and banded together to form an anti-Bolshevik White Alliance! Kolchak, while not present for any official talks, has indicated that he will join the alliance and form a united front against the reds. Though Poland and Ukraine are now fighting together against the Bolsheviks (more on that later), it is unclear whether France has officially declared war on the Bolsheviks. 

The Czech Legion had also initially joined the White Alliance. However, the Czechs chose an inopportune time to turn on their allies. After receiving word of their defection, Kolchak’s army stopped the Czech Legion at a train station in the city of Omsk, a few hundred miles east of the Eastern Front. After Kolchak’s forces attempted to arrest Tomas Masaryk, fighting broke out in the station, and now the Czechs are engaged in a full-scale uprising behind White lines. Kolchak had been preparing for a summer offensive against the Bolsheviks, but he now has to divert troops from the Eastern front to put down the insurrection. The Czechs are currently fighting for their lives, as they are surrounded by White Forces to their East and West. Their only chance of escaping intact is to try and push eastwards until they can break through to Red lines east of the city of Yekaterinburg.

Things are not Fine in Finland. Mannerheim’s forces retook the city of Tampere from Red Finland, pushing the reds out of the city. Ali Aantonen’s forces were taken completely by surprise and have fallen back to a line outside of the city of Helsinki. It is unclear if they plan to counterattack, but Mannerheim’s blow has given the White Finns a decisive advantage in the Finnish Civil War.

War has finally reached Poland! 45,000 Soviet troops poured across the Soviet-Polish border, penetrating 30 miles towards the city of Pinsk. Though the Poles have begun mobilizing, only 30,000 troops were ready to meet them, and they fell back and formed a defensive front against the Red onslaught. 50,000 troops are currently being mobilized across the country, and the Pilsudski is doing everything he can to rush these unprepared troops to the front.

[lightdancer1]

The USSR was literally setting up a Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. The actual reason for the Winter War was rebuilding the 1914 borders of the Russian Empire, which is why they invaded Finland and partitioned Poland and annexed the Baltic states. There is literally no non-imperialist reason for the USSR to want anything to do with Finland. The reason stems from Alexander I annexing Finland and castrating Sweden by removing its balls.

Lenin did not let Finland dissociate itself, the Finns defeated the attempt of Red Finland to re-establish the Soviet Russian version of the old Tsarist province in a very bloody war and the Bolsheviks had enough sense to not try to annex a province full of very well-armed people who could have squelched their regime before it started if they really felt like it.

The presentation of Soviet demands for Finland also neglects that there was a span of a few months where the USSR 'merely' deported everyone it disliked in the Baltic states to fucking Kazakhstan (which is why more than a few Jews in the Baltic states avoided the Shoah...for the Gulag) and quietly abolished the armies and replaced them with Red Army garrisons and then a formal annexation. That would have been the same salami slice approach used in Finland.

In short, if your 'leftism' is Karamzin style 'Holy Russia one and indivisible and blessed autocracy' you're as much a Leftist as some Black Hundred putz slaughtering Jewish people and raping the women before he shoots them in the head.

gee i wonder what's gonna come up when i google lotta svard

hm. that doesn't look good. wonder who this guy is

oh. no correlation with nazis though. i'm sure this was just a coincidence. wonder if finland did anything in world war 2

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"...the activities of both the OBU [One Big Union] and the IWW [Industrial Workers of the World] in the Lakehead region did lead to increased surveillance by federal, provincial, and municipal authorities. The existence of the Monthly and other publications in the declassified files of American and Canadian archives indicates that authorities in both countries watched both organizations carefully. The RCMP and OPP [Ontario provincial police] were keenly aware that the IWW was indifferent to borders. Minnesota was an IWW stronghold in the United States. The Lakehead Finns, especially, were suspected of being influenced by cross-border radicalism. Suspected agitators were often arrested on both sides of the border. Worried about a possible repeat of Winnipeg in Northwestern Ontario, authorities identified the Lakehead as the centre of any potential problems and began to clamp down on the activities of all groups. Anything and anyone even remotely suspected of being revolutionary fell under surveillance. Suspected agitators were often arrested. The OPP in Northwestern Ontario worked closely with its American and RCMP counterparts in investigations involving the OBU and IWW. The proposed strike of January 1920, for example, saw RCMP, regional OPP, and District Intelligence Officers from St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth all working together. Officials shared intelligence and coordinated their activities in an attempt to disrupt these organizations and arrest workers. The OPP concluded that the OBU and IWW were the same (even if they were in fact two separate bodies). They noted that most of the OBU organizers in the region had come from British Columbia and Minnesota. According to a plan adopted on both sides of the Minnesota-Ontario border, if a strike did occur, lumber companies would shut down and “try, and starve the strikers out.” Canadian and American authorities also worked together to stem the flow of socialist material between the two countries and to deport to Europe suspected Wobblies.

Following a tip from American authorities, the RCMP, for example, arrested William Salo of Fort William for possessing “socialist” literature. His Winnipeg lawyer, E.J. McMurray, described Salo’s actions as merely

stepping outside of the iron band that the government proposed to put around his mind, and desired to find out what was being done in the outside world, which the government endeavours to keep hidden from the eyes of the people of this country.

For McMurray, this was an issue of liberty and freedom from the growing intolerance of the Canadian government, which he compared to pre-revolutionary Russia. The case against Salo, he argued, was

a case of brainless police court jurisdiction, a performance by an immature mind on the magisterial bench that has made the justice of this land in many cases an object of contempt and enmity rather than a respected institution.

McMurray was also involved in the deportation case involving Sava W. Zura, a leading member of the Ukrainian League formed in April 1919. A resident of the Lakehead for over seven years, Zura’s bakeshop had been searched in late September and, after being apprehended by police at the border, he had been arrested and convicted for possessing “Bolsheviki” and IWW literature. Police in Fort William considered him the “main promoter” of “prohibited literature among the foreign element.” Workers in both cities rallied behind Zura, with Harry Bryan being the most notable voice. Despite the absence of prior transgressions and the testimony by many local residents as to his good character, Zura was sentenced to two years in Stony Mountain Penitentiary in Manitoba. Mrs. Zura was later apprehended by Immigration Department agents in Winnipeg, and was also interrogated concerning the evidence."

- Michel S. Beaulieu, Labour at the Lakehead: Ethnicity, Socialism, and Politics, 1900-35. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2011. p. 79-81.

[sensiblephilosophy]

Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism

This is a pretty good (long) conversation/debate.

[today-in-wwi]

Finnish Independence Recognized

The Bolshevik recognition of Finnish independence, concluded on December 31 (December 18 in the Julian calendar, as indicated at top left).

January 4 1918, Helsinki--In the aftermath of the revolutions in Russia, many of Russia’s ethnic minorities began to agitate for self-determination, with many of them declaring independence from Petrograd.  As early as July, Finland had tried to declare its autonomy unilaterally, though this was swiftly suppressed by Kerensky.  After the Bolshevik takeover, they declared their full independence in early December.  Unlike other states within Russia that had done so, this proved to be a relatively uncontroversial move, despite Finland’s proximity to Petrograd.  The Finnish people did not have exceptionally close ties to Russia, and Germany neither occupied the country nor had territorial ambitions on it.  On December 31, the Bolsheviks recognized Finland’s independence.  As news of this move spread overseas, other countries followed suit; on January 4, Germany, France, and Sweden all recognized Finnish independence as well.

Both the Germans and the Bolsheviks were hopeful that an independent Finland could be an important ally.  The Germans hoped trade with Finland would help alleviate the Allied blockade of Germany, and that a German presence in Finland might deter any possible Allied intervention in northern Russia.  As for the Bolsheviks, socialist parties were strong in Finland (although they had been narrowly defeated in October elections called by Kerensky), and Lenin hoped the revolution in Russia would soon spread (or be spread) there, and worked actively to support his allies there.

Today in 1917: Russian Battleship Sinks Off Egypt Today in 1916: Untappable “Fullerphone” Ordered for British Army Today in 1915: Battle of Sarikamish Ends Disastrously for Turks

Sources include: Prit Buttar, The Splintered Empires.

[warsofasoiaf]

Lenin’s actions in the Baltics can’t really be explained as “supporting authentic domestic revolutionary movements” because the actual revolutionary movements within these areas were very hostile to Soviet actions in setting up their puppet states. Modern historians have debunked the claim that the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic established itself in Vilnus as Soviet historians claim, rather that this government was imported into Lithuania following the Red Army. As this weak puppet state failed, the Soviet Union was promoting the idea of a Lithuiana-Belorussian Federation, which the native Lithuanians of all stripes roundly rejected. Nor was it acceptable to the Belorussians, who had established their own Belorussian People’s Republic but it’s own native leaders were kicked out by the advancing Red Army. In the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia, the Bolsheviks supported the Estonian Maapäev general elections until they lost, after which they invaded to establish the Commune of the Working Peoples of Estonia contrary to the clearly established desires of the population. In all of these cases, we see the wishes of those people stamped out and suppressed, so these actions are better contextualized as setting up pliant puppet states and dispensing with any leader that was insufficiently loyal rather than the support of any authentic domestic group or movement. This is further proven by later Soviet action in Eastern Europe with the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the Prague Spring in 1968, insufficient fealty is considered justification for intervention, which sounds awfully similar to Western European colonial revolts of earlier centuries.

Nor can these actions be explained in the context of continuing the Russian Civil War, either against the Russian whites or against any intervention by foreign powers. In Finland, for example, the Germans intervened only in March 1918, fully halfway through the Finnish Civil War and well after the USSR had already intervened in February with soldiers and generals sent into the country. Lenin himself signed off on the Finnish independence as proposed by the Vasa Senate (which was supported overwhelmingly in Finland even by the native socialists) in 1917, only to backpedal and intervene two months later. The Baltic States have similar stories - the Russians intervene well before the Germans in every case. Only in Latvia in the Baltics were White Russian-aligned forces, the West Russian Volunteer Force, present as an organized armed force. 

In both of your examples, the exceptions outnumber the rules to the point to the point where Lenin and the Bolsheviks cannot “pretty consistently” be anti-imperialism. I mean, I’m the first one to say that actions cannot always match ideology as a concession to operating within reality, but this goes far beyond “actions don’t always match ideology.“ The exceptions so outnumber the rule that I’m going so far as to say that the actions, more often than not, stood in direct contrast to ideology. Soviet support for various liberation movements can be explained more coherently as power politics against the West in the greater context of the Cold War, many of whom held colonial possessions (and it neatly explains the weird Nigeria-Biafra war, where the Soviets and the UK supported Nigeria while the French and Chinese supported the Biafran separatist state). Chinese accusations of “social imperialism” could be explained as a rhetorical technique, an appeal to gain moral leadership of the International in the greater context of the Sino-Soviet split. This isn’t even unique to imperialism or colonialism. Lenin wrote at length espousing self-determination but brutally suppressed it both within these earlier examples and at home, dissolving the 1917 All-Russian Constituent Assembly and banning elections after he and the Bolsheviks lost.

I’m not saying that Lenin didn’t couch those actions with the reasons you highlight, I’m just saying that the historical record doesn’t match up - they’re just rhetoric to clothe these actions in a greater sense of moral legitimacy than the naked expressions of imperialism that they were. Given how consistently he went against his professed beliefs across multiple fields, I’d say he had no sincere commitment to anti-imperialism as a concept but was quite happy to oppose Western imperialism in pursuit of power. But sadly, no one can ever really know what someone truly thinks.

-SLAL

As a Social Democrat, what would you say has been its historical tendencies towards colonialism and upliftment of developing nations? Why is that Communism, despite some acknowledged failures (Afghanistan, Tibet, Xinjiang), is seen as more anti-colonialist by comparison?

That's a really interesting question. Honestly, when it comes to social democracy's record on de-colonization, it's something of a mixed bag. One of Eduard Bernstein's major flaws, his feet of clay, is that he was pro-imperialism - although to be fair, the SPD as a whole was pretty consistently anti-colonialist between the 1890s and 1914. On the other hand, the British Labour Party did very little about empire and was arguably pro-empire up until 1945. Clement Attlee, however, had a personal interest in decolonization and was a committed supporter of Indian self-governance since the 1930s, and negotiated the independence of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. On the other hand, Attlee wasn't entirely consistent on this point - he rather mis-handled the British Mandate in Palestine, African colonies were bypassed for de-colonization, and the Attlee government began the counter-insurgency in Malaysia. So something of a mixed bag, as I said.

Attlee's policies did have a long-term effect on the Labour Party - it opposed British involvement in the Suez Crisis on a united basis despite its divisions on other issues, for example. Likewise, the Harold Wilson government was characterized by broad sympathies to the cause of decolonization but a relatively weak commitment to accepting much risk. For example, Wilson refused to send British ground troops to Vietnam but did provide intelligence and jungle warfare training and wouldn't publicly denounce the war.

He did remove British troops from Singapore, Malaysia, and the Persian Gulf and supported de-colonization in Africa, but he rather screwed up in Rhodesia where after insisting on black suffrage in return for Rhodesian independence, he refused to send the British military to "fight our kith and kin" when Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence for his apartheid state, delaying liberation for many years.

By contrast, the Soviet Union and China could more straightforwardly support anti-colonial insurgencies (that often blended nationalist and communist ideologies) in no small part because the Bolsheviks had been anti-WWI and anti-imperialism pretty consistently thanks to Lenin's influence.

And if you were an anti-colonial insurgency, would you prefer the folks who might give you a thumbs up or the folks who would give you weapons?

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 8.4 (after 1900)

1914 – World War I: In response to the German invasion of Belgium, Belgium and the British Empire declare war on Germany. The United States declares its neutrality. 1915 – World War I: The German 12th Army occupies Warsaw during the Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive and the Great Retreat of 1915. 1921 – Bolshevik–Makhnovist conflict: Mikhail Frunze declares victory over the Makhnovshchina. 1924 – Diplomatic relations between Mexico and the Soviet Union are established. 1936 – Prime Minister of Greece Ioannis Metaxas suspends parliament and the Constitution and establishes the 4th of August Regime. 1944 – The Holocaust: A tip from a Dutch informer leads the Gestapo to a sealed-off area in an Amsterdam warehouse, where they find and arrest Jewish diarist Anne Frank, her family, and four others. 1944 – Under the state of emergency law, the Finnish Parliament elects Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim as the President of Finland to replace the resigned Risto Ryti. 1946 – An earthquake of magnitude 8.0 hits northern Dominican Republic. One hundred are killed and 20,000 are left homeless. 1947 – The Supreme Court of Japan is established. 1964 – Civil rights movement: Civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney are found dead in Mississippi after disappearing on June 21. 1964 – Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident: U.S. destroyers USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy mistakenly report coming under attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. 1965 – The Constitution of the Cook Islands comes into force, giving the Cook Islands self-governing status within New Zealand. 1969 – Vietnam War: At the apartment of French intermediary Jean Sainteny in Paris, American representative Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese representative Xuân Thuỷ begin secret peace negotiations. The negotiations will eventually fail. 1972 – Ugandan President Idi Amin announces that Uganda is no longer responsible for the care of British subjects of Asian origin, beginning the expulsions of Ugandan Asians. 1974 – A bomb explodes in the Italicus Express train at San Benedetto Val di Sambro, Italy, killing 12 people and wounding 22. 1975 – The Japanese Red Army takes more than 50 hostages at the AIA Building housing several embassies in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The hostages include the U.S. consul and the Swedish Chargé d'affaires. The gunmen win the release of five imprisoned comrades and fly with them to Libya. 1977 – U.S. President Jimmy Carter signs legislation creating the United States Department of Energy. 1983 – Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo, president of the military government of Upper Volta, is ousted from power in a coup d'état led by Captain Thomas Sankara. 1984 – The Republic of Upper Volta changes its name to Burkina Faso. 1987 – The Federal Communications Commission rescinds the Fairness Doctrine which had required radio and television stations to present controversial issues "fairly". 1995 – Operation Storm begins in Croatia. 2006 – A massacre is carried out by Sri Lankan government forces, killing 17 employees of the French INGO Action Against Hunger (known internationally as Action Contre la Faim, or ACF). 2007 – NASA's Phoenix spacecraft is launched. 2018 – Syrian civil war: The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) expel the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from the Iraq–Syria border, concluding the second phase of the Deir ez-Zor campaign. 2019 – Nine people are killed and 26 injured in a shooting in Dayton, Ohio. This comes only 13 hours after another mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, where 23 people were killed. 2020 – Beirut Port explosion: At least 220 people are killed and over 5,000 are wounded when 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate explodes in Beirut, Lebanon.

[nanshe-of-nina]

I saw a post yesterday about how a lot of Western people don't every know about Russification policies of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. This is pretty much true, as most history classes in history rarely focus on anything east of the Danube.

So, I’ve uploaded a bunch of academic articles relevant to such subjects. Be warned that this can include discussion of ethnic cleansing.

RUSSIAN EMPIRE

Between Russification and Divide and Rule: Russian Nationality Policy in the Western Borderlands in mid-19th Century

Between Subversion and Submission: The Integration of the Crimean Khanate Into the Russian Empire, 1783–1853

Circassians and the Politics of Genocide Recognition

Civilization and Russification in Tsarist Central Asia, 1860–1917

A Colonial Experiment in Cleansing: The Russian Conquest of Western Caucasus, 1856–65

The “Doubling of Hallelujah” for the “Bastard Tongue”: The Ukrainian Language Question in Russian Ukraine, 1905-1916

The Formation of the Finnish Polity within the Russian Empire: Language, Representation, and the Construction of Popular Political Platforms, 1863-1906

Identity and Geopolitics: Ukraine’s Grappling with Imperial Legacies

Imperialism in Slavic and East European History

Land Hunger and Nationalism in the Ukraine, 1905-1917

Linguistic Russification in the Russian Empire: Peasants into Russians?

Of Christianity, Enlightenment, and Colonialism: Russia in the North Caucasus, 1550–1800

Orientalism, Nationalism, and Ethnic Diversity in Late Imperial Russia

Poles, Jews, and Tartars: Religion, Ethnicity, and Social Structure in Tsarist Nationality Policies

Russian Armenia. A Century of Tsarist Rule

Russian Imperialism: Popular, Emblematic, Ambiguous

Russian Imperialism in Asia. Its Origin, Evolution and Character

Russian Settlements in Iran in the Early Twentieth Century: Initial Phase of Colonization

Russification and the Lithuanians, 1863-1905

The Russification of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and Arts in the Eighteenth Century

Russification: Word and Practice, 1863–1914

Ukraine or Little Russia? Revisiting an Early Nineteenth-Century Debate

Volga Tatars, Russians and the Russian State at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: Relationships and Perceptions

SOVIET UNION

Bolshevik Language Policy as a Reflection of the Ideas and Practice of Communist Construction, 1919-1933

Class War or Ethnic Cleansing? Soviet Deportations of Polish Citizens from the Eastern Provinces of Poland, 1939–1941

An Empire of Substitutions: The Language Factor in the Russian Revolution

Ethnic Issues in the Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine

Ethnic Politics and Ethnic Conflict in the USSR and the Post-Soviet States

Equality, Efficiency, and Politics in Soviet Bilingual Education Policy, 1934-1980

Expanding the Use of Russian or Russification? Some Critical Thoughts on Russian As a Lingua Franca and the “Language of Friendship and Cooperation of the Peoples of the USSR”

The Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing

The ‘Polish Operation’ of the NKVD: The Climax of the Terror Against the Polish Minority in the Soviet Union

The Polish Terror: Spy Mania and Ethnic Cleansing in the Great Terror

Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges

The Rehabilitation of Mykola Skrypnyk

(Review) Beyond Memory: The Crimean Tatars’ Deportation and Return 

The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as Imperial Polities

The Russification of the RSFSR

Social Mobilization and the Russification of Soviet Nationalities

Soviet Apartheid: Stalin’s Ethnic Deportations, Special Settlement Restrictions, and the Labor Army: The Case of the Ethnic Germans in the USSR

The Soviet Deported Nationalities: A Summary and an Update

Soviet Nationalities and Dissidents: A Persistent Problem

Soviet Nationalities Policy and Dissent in the Ukraine

The Soviet Regime’s National Operations in Ukraine, 1929—1934

The Soviet War against ‘Fifth Columnists’: The Case of Chechnya, 1942-4