From An Angry Reader:
This was the worst piece of historical analysis I’ve ever read in any halfway respectable publication. Please ask your alma mater for a refund on all degrees earned. There isnt (sic) enough time in the day to go through all the stupidity you posted, but I will point out what is perhaps the biggest error – your hot take on Brest-Litovsk. There was no sense of internationalism or any ideological factor that caused the reds to sign that treaty – it was the simple fact that they were fighting a civil war and did not need to fight Germany, AH and the Whites.
Craig Johnson
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Dear Angry Reader Craig Johnson,
Why all the ad hominem invective? Let your argument speak for itself without the resort to slurs and smears. The tired rhetoric trope that “there is not enough time to list all the errors” usually means there are no errors. You confirm that fact when you list only one—and the supposed “biggest”—which unfortunately reveals your own historical ignorance.
You write:
“There was no sense of internationalism or any ideological factor that caused the reds to sign that treaty – it was the simple fact that they were fighting a civil war and did not need to fight Germany, AH and the Whites.”
My take is not “hot,” whatever that silly usage means, but is historically accurate and, in fact, non-controversial. Ideology—specifically the naive Marxist idea of an anticipated global and internationalist communism making the European nation state irrelevant—most certainly was the chief factor in the Bolsheviks’ disastrous signing of such an otherwise humiliating peace—one that was immediately seen as an abject betrayal of their Western allies and allowed the transference of at least 500,000 troops to the Western front.
Many in the nascent Soviet originally and vainly felt that they might at least drag out the humiliating negotiations for weeks in some pathetic expectation that their war-weary Western European “comrades” might in the meantime likewise revolt when learning that the war was ending in the East and a communist revolution was ascendant, and thereby force an end to the war in the West as well and join a communist continental take-over.
A desperate Lenin, a zealot beholden to Marxist ideology, had demanded of the Central Committee that it sign the “humiliating” peace in order to save the “world revolution.”
Your point about the communists’ need to be free to concentrate on the whites and not lose more blood and treasure to Germany and Austria-Hungary is banal and yet of course has the force of nullifying your own adolescent argument: Lenin and the communists were not nationalists, but ideologues, and global ones at that. And they felt confident in the future of a world communist revolution—but only if ensured by its beginning in a viable Soviet Union relieved of conflict, a surrender judged far more important to the international communist agenda than any worry about the individual fate of the old nation-state of Russia. Your own use of “reds” for Soviet communists is itself an internationalist ideological term and concedes that the Russian negotiators saw themselves in 1918 first as committed communist comrades and second, if at all, as Russian nationalists.
Ignorance when coupled with arrogant vitriol is a regrettable.
Victor Hanson
Discussion (11)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
Dear Mr. Hanson, ignore all the meanies who write you those nasty emails. You, along with niall ferguson, are among the top intellectuals alive. Your depth of knowledge and your historical perspective is priceless. There are always idiots who disagree with you, but don't even bother responding to them, waste of your time. A Fan from Canada Sia Sanati
I read your thorough and historically sound response to "Angry Reader" with a smile. I always appreciate your well thought out commentary on everything from military history to our current illegal immigration issues. I was also glad that you called this person out for using venom to cover up the lack of a reasonable argument. There is way too much of that nowadays. Thank you!
Am curious of your take on the theories of Oswald Spengler.
Interesting ardor over a historical issue. They must be doing scholarship a bit differently these days. I think that Lenin and his band of criminals were so elated to have pulled off the greatest heist of their careers, actually able to steal a state treasury and inflict their sociopathic tendencies upon a captive populace, that they didn't care at all about foreign policy, but were far more interested in solidifying their hold on their ill-gotten gains than any more thoughtful reason. It was also with much German help that the arch-fiend Lenin was able to pull off his dread coup, so there is no reason to believe he had any animosity towards the people who had assisted him in the swindle. Additionally, he was certainly no Russian patriot. On the contrary, he fully intended to destroy all aspects of Russian culture systematically in order to enslave the people he referred to disdainfully as "the masses." He had already stabbed his nation's allies in the back. As did Stalin in 1939 to his former allies when he joined the Nazis in starting the Second World War.
Had he applied no ad hominem invective, he'd have likely received no reply at all.
Congratulations Professor, your reply was one of logic, character, and fact. Debate has devolved in our current society, but you have given me optimism
A thoroughly satisfying dispatch Mr. Hanson. May Mr. Johnson repose in peace.
Most of your "Angry Readers" have never read "Cyrano de Bergerac".
It is clear from the angry readers attacks that he is more about taking the "easy road of smearing" that using real facts to prove his case. As a scholar Dr. Hanson is correct is providing a rebuttal that points out this obvious fact. Too many today hold on to false Ponzi scheme notes about views of history when the simple use of logic plus facts could open their eyes and avoid looking the fool by equating smears with reasoned analysis.
Ok VDH, I've figured out how to get you to respond; I write a derisive comment. Better Git Ready!!
Too funny! Ignorance is always noisy.