Did Britain try to assassinate Lenin?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[nikimcbee]

man google make research easy:

Here's who I'm talking about

Stolypin, Piotr Arkadevich

Stolypin, Piotr Arkadevich (pyô'tur urkä'dyivich stuli'pin) [key], 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), 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, 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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

man google make research easy:

Here's who I'm talking about



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

Good,

[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/Le...ssia_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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.