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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Good read there Vendor.

Glad to see you read stuff other than foxnews.

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

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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

[tater]

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

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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.

[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. There's a great documentary about this same theme, called: "The Russia that we lost."

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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.