In Defense of WWII: Part 3 of 5

Now you're closer to a position I can agree with.

Yes, Lenin and Trotsky laid the groundwork for Stalin, they gave him the insitutions and theories for brutal domination just as the Tsars and Eastern Church bequeathed a population used to totalitarian rule.

And I don't really know whether the social repression was "necessary" for Bolshevik rule. It was an effective means of consolidating rule, I doubt they would have won with more democratic measures--which is why its an awful system.

Once again, why would the Nazis need to examine the Bolsheviks when their church had been repressing groups for about 1500 years?

When Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church it quickly devolved into a sort of social revolution. Roving bands of Lutherans attacked Catholics, Jews, Gypsies, and intellectuals. They advanced their agenda by intimidating, beating, and killing their opposition, just as the church had done for a thousand years before.

The Bolsheviks really weren't that new.

Stalin both expanded and limited that repression, and likewise only did so as a natural development of Marxist-Leninist theories. Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin were self-serving and indeed hypocritical, as he literally laid the groudwork and justification for what Stalin would later do.

And the Bolsheviks murdering their allies and terrorizing the public was not "necessary", no more so than it was for the Nazis. It was simply a self-serving means to absolute power.

The application of the scientific method to both repression and the justifications for it was a Bolshevik innovation. They became a spur and a model for radical groups throughout Europe. Trotsky's "permanent revolution" adage was made manifest by agents of sedition (and later, their competitors) in a worldwide orgy of violence that would eventually culminate in WW II.

What the Nazis drew from the Bolsheviks was not anti-Semitism, but the methods by which repression could be efficiently run.

Ok, that's almost true. But what's your point? By 1919 their opposition had made serious military advancements. Then they pushed back.

You're pretending like the Bolsheviks invented violence in the region, which is shockingly naive or just deceitful.

And why would the Nazis need to look to the Bolsheviks? Violent repression of Jews had been taking place in Germany for a thousand years, led by the Catholic Church, an organization that celebrated Hitler's birthday as a holliday.

Now you're moving closer to something resembling actual discussion. Yes, Trotsky was an eager participant in the revolution and the civil war. He helped create institutions that became awesomely destructive. That is why his ideology is a failure, despite his professed desire for social justice.

But what he "admits" to in his writing is using violence out of necessity, which is true. The Bolsheviks could not have existed without significant violence.

Stalin took it to an unprecedented level

Now you're just randomly moving from issue to issue. No one was uniquely to "blame" for the violence of the Russian Civil War. If the Bolsheviks had adopted a peaceful revolution, they would have been decimated by their opponents. Hell, they never would have gotten past the brutal Tsars.

That doesn't excuse the violence on either side, but you're pretending like the Bolsheviks were these stunningly brutal people in an otherwise peaceful world.

You haven't quoted anything useful.

Blame is entirely relevant. The Bolsheviks deserve the bulk of it, and Trotsky is certainly no exception. Indeed, during the worst actions of the Russian Civil War and the period prior to Lenin's death, Trotsky was responsible for much of it.

As for rambling, quasi-factual diatribes, I assume you're commenting on the wrtings of Trotsky I've quoted for you.

You can either deny Trotsky's atrocities on the basis of ignorance or deliberate deception. Which is it?

When the Bolsheviks were weak, they were conciliatory to the Russian people - but still brutalized people they expected might not support them - merchants, ethnic minorities, monarchists but also democrats. After solidifying their power they brutalized the Russian people themselves.

Throughout, Trotsky was an active participant. He admitted to his actions in his numerous writings, equivocating but never apologizing for his actions.

The Bolsheviks were "pushed back from the west" because of their failed invasion of Poland. They were pushed back from the south because they had felt their Ukranian anarchist allies had outlived their usefulness, and had tried to disposed of them (they would solidify their south by "making up" with Makhno, then turn on him again once the danger had passed).

The Bolsheviks were generally unpopular from October 1917, when they overthrew the elected government of Kerensky.