Did Britain try to assassinate Lenin?

[Gerald]

Nearly a century ago, Britain was accused of masterminding a failed plot to kill Lenin and overthrow his fledgling Bolshevik regime. The British government dismissed the story as mere Soviet propaganda - but new evidence suggests it might be true.

For decades what became known as the "Lockhart plot" has been etched in the annals of the Soviet archives, taught in schools and even illustrated in films.

In early 1918, in the final months of World War I, Russia's new Bolshevik government was negotiating a peace deal with Germany and withdrawing its exhausted troops from the front.

This did not please London. The move would enable Berlin - which had been fighting a war on two fronts - to reinforce its forces in the West.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12785695

Note: 19 March 2011 Last updated at 23:59 GMT

[Gargamel]

Good read there Vendor.

Glad to see you read stuff other than foxnews. :O:

[Betonov]

Makes sense.
Without Lenin the Russians would have continued the war. Maybe the hundred day offensive would be more succesfull without the German reinforcements from the east (IIRC the 100day offensive was after Russia pulled out of the war).

[Gerald]

Good read there Vendor.

Glad to see you read stuff other than foxnews. :O: Thank you! Fox may have advantages sometimes, like any other supplier,and news will provide me many times before they even exist in the media :yep:

[Raptor1]

Makes sense.
Without Lenin the Russians would have continued the war. Maybe the hundred day offensive would be more succesfull without the German reinforcements from the east (IIRC the 100day offensive was after Russia pulled out of the war).

More likely the German Spring Offensive would not have taken place, or would have followed a much more limited plan. Ironically, this might have actually meant the German position at the time the Hundred Days' Offensive actually begun might have been significantly stronger, since it would have meant the German army's best troops would not have taken the disproportionate casualties they suffered as part of Shock trooper units during the Spring Offensive.

[Betonov]

More likely the German Spring Offensive would not have taken place, or would have followed a much more limited plan. Ironically, this might have actually meant the German position at the time the Hundred Days' Offensive actually begun might have been significantly stronger, since it would have meant the German army's best troops would not have taken the disproportionate casualties they suffered as part of Shock trooper units during the Spring Offensive.

Also posible. But then again, the hundred day offensive might have been executed along with the russians with equall success in the east braking Germanys back.
Aaaahhh the posibilites of a ''what if'' scenario :DL

[tater]

Might've saved the lives of ~60 million future Soviets, too (30M if you prefer lowball estimates of Soviet democide).

[Freiwillige]

Might've saved the lives of ~60 million future Soviets, too (30M if you prefer lowball estimates of Soviet democide).

Possibly more if you look at how that could have changed WWII and Germany's view of the Bolsheviks.

But again on could argue the opposite as well I guess.

[Betonov]

Possibly more if you look at how that could have changed WWII and Germany's view of the Bolsheviks.

But again on could argue the opposite as well I guess.

Russia would have been invaded anyway if Hitler was in power. Lebensraum and all that jazz. But maybe the Russians would have put up a better defence, since no purges would have been made and there would be more better armed soldiers.... but then again, maybe Russia would have fallen to the third reich without the iron will of Stalin

[STEED]

If the Whites and Greens along with the Blacks and Western powers united as one the the Reds may have been stopped cold. :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

The Mensheviks may have taken over? I don't remember who their leader was. There was that brief window of time when Russia could have been a democracy, but that leader was assasinated (Karensky) I believe. but I need to look that up.

Amagine how history would have bee different, if Russia was a democratic/ capitalist society back then. With all of those natural resources, and an efficient economic model, they could be the big dog in the world today.:hmmm: There's a great documentary about this same theme, called: "The Russia that we lost."

[TLAM Strike]

The Mensheviks may have taken over? I don't remember who their leader was. There was that brief window of time when Russia could have been a democracy, but that leader was assasinated (Karensky) I believe. but I need to look that up.

Julius Martov was the leader of the Mensheviks. he died in exile in Germany in 1923. Alexander Kerensky was the leader of the Russian provisional government, he died in exile in the USA in 1970.

[Raptor1]

Also posible. But then again, the hundred day offensive might have been executed along with the russians with equall success in the east braking Germanys back.
Aaaahhh the posibilites of a ''what if'' scenario :DL

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Even if Russia stayed in the war, the Russian Army at this point was in a very poor state. It had some spectacular successes earlier in the war, of course, but it would be just too fragile for major offensive operations if it continued operating until 1918.

[Randomizer]

I really doubt the assassination of Lenin would have made any significant difference to WW1. The timeline in the article is too late, by late summer 1918 the German Army was teetering on the edge of rout in the West. With several million troops still in the Ukraine and Western Russia imposing the Brest-Litovsk treaty provisions, it's unlikely that the fledgling Red Army would have abandoned the fight against the Whites that was just getting into stride. Even a total collapse of the Bolsheviks and replacement by the Whites would not have allowed the new regime to act militarily against Germany before the latter asked for an Armistice from the Allies and American's.

As for the Civil war, by late 1918 Lenin was already ill and there was a certain Georgian revolutionary waiting in the wings to take power. You could probably bet that the removal of Lenin would have opened the door to a struggle between People's Commissar for Defence, Trotsky and Commissar for Nationalities Stalin with his military croney's Voroshilov and Budenny (sp?).

Stalin was more ruthless than Lenin when it came to imposing Party dogma and defence of the Revolution but placed his acquisition and maintenence of power above everything else. It's difficult but not impossible to see the Civil War turning out differently had he been in charge from the start.

It is nice to see though that British foriegn policy is finally getting a warts and all assessment since for too long English language histories have tried to paint it as being shiny clean and totally honourable.

[TLAM Strike]

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Even if Russia stayed in the war, the Russian Army at this point was in a very poor state. It had some spectacular successes earlier in the war, of course, but it would be just too fragile for major offensive operations if it continued operating until 1918.
Just having the Germans being forced to occupy such a massive amount of territory would be a drain on them. Plus the deeper they drive in to Russia the more territory up north (The Baltic) they need to defend from an Anbhip attack like Adm Fisher wanted to do.

[nikimcbee]

Julius Martov was the leader of the Mensheviks. he died in exile in Germany in 1923. Alexander Kerensky was the leader of the Russian provisional government, he died in exile in the USA in 1970.

I need to dig my history book out. The guy I'm thinking of was the economist that was an advisor to Niki the II. The Tsar saw him as a threat, because he was becoming more popular, and I think he was later killed. His name aludes me at the moment.:06::dead:

[nikimcbee]

man google make research easy::know:

Here's who I'm talking about


Stolypin, Piotr Arkadevich

Stolypin, Piotr Arkadevich (pyô'tur urkä'dyivich stuli'pin) [key (http://www.subsim.com/encyclopedia/ce6pron.html)], 1862–1911, Russian premier and minister of the interior (1906–11) for Czar Nicholas II. He sought to fight the revolutionary movement with both severe repression and social reform. He instituted a regime of courts-martial to suppress revolutionary terrorism and peasant disorders, and hundreds were executed in 1906 and 1907. To stem peasant unrest Stolypin attempted to create a class of peasant landowners that would be conservative and loyal to the czar. The roots of unrest lay partly in the Edict of Emancipation of 1861 (see Emancipation, Edict of (http://www.subsim.com/ce6/history/A0817228.html)), which had given land to the village communes, instead of individually to the newly freed serfs. The commune usually distributed scattered strips to provide families with generally equal allotments. Stolypin's land reforms of 1906 gave the peasant communes the right to dissolve themselves, entitled each peasant to own and consolidate the strips given him by the commune, and provided financial aid to peasants who wished to buy more land. The land reform was designed to transform the peasants gradually into landowners without hurting the interests of the large landowners. At the same time it enabled peasants to seek industrial employment in the cities if they wished to leave the land. It was opposed by the leftist majority in the first duma (http://www.subsim.com/ce6/history/A0816289.html), which favored extensive expropriation of the land. The first and second Dumas were dissolved, and Stolypin made sure of a conservative majority in the third Duma by altering (1907) the election laws. Some of Stolypin's measures were opposed by the Socialists and liberals, others by the extreme reactionaries. His agrarian reform came too late to conciliate the peasantry as a body. When the Russian Revolution of 1917 broke out, the number of small holdings had increased but not sufficiently to create a conservative peasant class. His attempt to extend the government's policy of Russification to Finland, where he restricted (1910) the authority of the diet, met with wide opposition. While his secret police continued their repressive activities, the government took no action against the anti-Jewish pogroms organized by extreme reactionary societies. Stolypin was assassinated by a revolutionary terrorist who was also a police agent.


source:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/people/A0846802.html

[Raptor1]

Just having the Germans being forced to occupy such a massive amount of territory would be a drain on them. Plus the deeper they drive in to Russia the more territory up north (The Baltic) they need to defend from an Anbhip attack like Adm Fisher wanted to do.

The Central Powers had to keep massive forces tied up on the Eastern Front even after Russia surrendered anyway, in order to occupy their gains. And an Allied amphibious attack at this point would most likely be highly disastrous, especially considering the German fleet was still around to contest its landing and/or the necessary and constant supply and reinforcement convoys.

I'm not saying that the German position would have been better on its own, but Russia staying in the war might have kept it from making some of the more disastrous decisions which contributed to Germany's defeat.

[ryanglavin]

Russia would have been invaded anyway if Hitler was in power. Lebensraum and all that jazz. But maybe the Russians would have put up a better defence, since no purges would have been made and there would be more better armed soldiers.... but then again, maybe Russia would have fallen to the third reich without the iron will of Stalin

On another note, the Germans would have defeated the Russians if they had arrived as liberators instead of conquerors.

[Gerald]

man google make research easy::know:

Here's who I'm talking about



source:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/people/A0846802.html Good, :up:

[Dan D]

Lenin's return to Russia with help of the German High Command to end the war on the Eastern front to allow Germany to concentrate on defeating the Western allies:

"On 9 April 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin returns to Russia from Switzerland with 30 other revolutionaries. The trip by train has logistical and financial support from Germany. Germany’s leaders hope that, with Lenin’s support, revolutionary events in Russia will be spurred on, and a Russian military defeat can be expedited.

These expectations are not disappointed. A few months later the „October Revolution“ begins in Russia. The country, shaken by civil war, is forced to take up peace negotiations with Berlin, and in March of 1918 the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is concluded."
http://www.bwbs.de/bwbs_biografie/Lenin_s_return_to_Russia_B694.html

As always, good planning by the Germans but the execution fails.
This event has changed world history.

A dead Lenin would have been to the interest of Britain, yes.

[Catfish]

It's often forgotten how Churchill pressed on against the new Russia right after WW1, and parallel to the german Freikorps also fighting on there.
As "unknown" as some US, german and british pilots flying for Finland under the (finnish) swastika, against Russia before WW2.
Some of those soldiers remained where they were when WW2 broke out, and kept fighting against Russia, even joined the foreign SS groups.
And after the war the OSS (later CIA) helped those and other SS staff to escape to South America, if they were not jus re-installed in their former positions, in Germany.
Hard to believe ..

Greetings,
Catfish

[UnderseaLcpl]

Just having the Germans being forced to occupy such a massive amount of territory would be a drain on them. Plus the deeper they drive in to Russia the more territory up north (The Baltic) they need to defend from an Anbhip attack like Adm Fisher wanted to do.

Correct. Germany had no plans to occupy Russian territory beyond the limited gains they made under Falkenstein (sp?) in 1915-16. They could well have advanced deep into the Ukraine in an attempt to secure resources or attempted a pincer maneuver with Austrian forces to trap the retreating Russians after the recapture of Przmysl, but Falk opted out because he knew the garrison drain would be tremendous and he didn't want to humiliate the Russians or threaten the Russians with occupation, thus galvanizing resistance in what he rightly judged to be a nation on the verge of making a separate peace. His only miscalculation was the Russian willingness to persist in order to secure some territory in the Balkans and Constantinople, which has been promised to Russia by the western allies. Once Serbia had been secured and the expeditionary forces sent to the Baltic region routed, however, Russia's popular and political resolve quickly dissipated.