You are here

Buried history: How the spread of the Russian Revolution to Germany could have stopped Hitler

The Russian revolution of 7 November 1917, one hundred years ago today, was a profound political upheaval which put in power political leaders resolved to remove poverty, exploitation, unemployment, economic chaos, and war from Russia and the rest of the world. The Russian revolution and sympathetic revolts in Germany in 1918 helped finally bring to an end the First World War, in which 18,000,000 died.

Had the revolution spread to Germany, Hitler's Nazi Party could not have seized power in 1933 and the Second World War, in which an estimated 60 million died, would have most likely been prevented.

Title previously was: How the Second World War almost didn't happen

The Russian revolution of 7 November 1917, one hundred years ago today, was a profound political upheaval which put in power political leaders resolved to remove poverty, exploitation, unemployment, economic chaos, and war from Russia and the rest of the world. The Russian revolution and sympathetic revolts in Germany in 1918 helped finally bring to an end the First World War, in which 18,000,000 died.

Had the revolution spread to Germany, Hitler's Nazi Party could not have seized power in 1933 and the Second World War, in which an estimated 60 million died, would have most likely been prevented.

In fact, the Russian Revolution almost did spread to Germany. In 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1923 there were political upheavals which could have led to the German Communist Party (KPD) becoming the governing party in Germany. [1]

In the political upheaval of 1923, the Reichswehr [2] invaded[3] the state of Saxony on 21 October to overthrow the elected government of Premier Erich Zeigner, a left Social Democrat and to disarm workers' defence militias that the KPD was helping to organise. All over Germany, trade union councils, consisting of Social Democrats, Communists and others, had called for nationwide general strikes in solidarity with the government of Saxony against this invasion. Many trade unionists had armed themselves in order to fight the Reichswehr, the police, and Nazi militias.[4]

A conference of various local worker organisations had been called by the Government of Saxony to be held in the city of Chemnitz on the very day the invasion began. At that conference, as the invasion was proceeding, Graupe, a Social Democrat Minister of the state of Saxony, threatened that all the Social Democrat delegates would walk out if a motion to call for a nationwide general strike to defend his government was put.

Then KPD leader Heinrich Brandler lost his nerve and did not put that motion. The Federal Germany Army invasion of Saxony proceeded and Premier Erich Zeigner was arrested and imprisoned and a right-wing Social Democrat was installed as premier.

In his previous visit to Moscow on 8 October 1923 Heinrich Brandler had appealed to the Communist Party politbureau to allow Leon Trotsky to come to Germany to give him guidance.

Leon Trotsky had led the Bolshevik insurrection of 7 November 1917, had founded the Red Army and led it in the Russian Civil War against the White Russians and foreign invaders, and was a fluent German speaker. Almost certainly his presence in Saxony on 21 October would have made the decisive difference. As Isaac Deutscer wrote in "The Prophet Unarmed - Trotsky: 1921-1929" (1959) the second volume in his three volume biography of Trotsky


[Trotsky] asked to be sent abroad "as a soldier of the revolution" to help the German Communists to prepare revolution. The idea had not come out of the blue. The leader of the German party, Heinrich Brandler, had just arrived in Moscow; and doubting his own and his comrades' capacity to lead an insurrection, had inquired in all earnestness from Trotsky and Zinoviev whether Trotsky could not come incongnito to Berlin or Saxony to take charge of revolutionary operations. The idea stired Trotsky; and the danger of the mission excited his courage. ... he asked for the assignment.

The triumvirs (Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamanev) could not let him go. ... If he went, succeeded, and returned in triumph, he would have dwarfed them as he acknowledged leader of both the Russian and German revolutions.

So, driven by petty personal envy, Stalin, Kamanev and Zinoviev refused to let Trotsky go. Then, on 21 October 1923, as Heinrich Brandler had warned in Moscow on 8 October, the German revolution, without guidance from a leader of Trotsky's calibre, was defeated.

18 years later on 22 June 1941, the Soviet Union was invaded by the Nazi Germany made possible by the 1923 debacle and 25 million Soviet citizens were lose their lives defeating that invasion.


[1] See "The Lost Revolution - Germany 1918 to 1983" (1983) by Chris Harman

[2] The Federal German Army

[3] The Federal German Government had not been given permission by the elected government of Saxony to send its army into Saxony.

[4] op cit p288

Image icon Trotsky-vs-Hitler.jpg5.99 KB
Image icon buried-hx-tiny.jpg6.33 KB


The man who stopped the general strike that could have saved the world was Georg Graupe and Pierre Broué mentions that he was the Minister for Labor in Saxony. What as Graupe's motive? Who influenced him? Do we know? What became of him during the war?

(Ref: Pierre Broué, The German Revolution, p.808-809.

Georg Braupe was the supposedly 'left' Social Democrat Minister in the State government of Saxony who managed to dissuade the assembled grass-root committee delegates assembled in Chemnitz, from taking effective action against the invasion of Saxony by the Federal German Army.

I can only assume that Braupe proclaimed himself to be left-wing in order to maintain his credibility as Social Democrat workers, who had previously stayed loyal to the Social Democrat leaders against the Communists in the crises of 1918, 1919 and 1920 and, prior to that, during the First World War that was supported by the Social Democrat Parliamentary deputies, became radicalised as they lost their jobs or saw their real wages drop during the economic crisis of 1923.

The following two comments were posted beneath the article 'Russians Are Sh*theads!' - Grandpa Lenin in His Own Words (23/11/17) by Michael Bateman | Russia Insider:

[Candobetter editor: To find the originals of the comments below, please load the page linked to above into your browser and then commnce to scoll down. This will eventually cause all comments, including these comments, to be loaded . Direct links to the original comments have not been provided, because we have found that clicking on a direct link to the comment, instead of just to the article itself, will usually cause problems. ]

First Comment

This and similar pieces, on the otherwise insightful and informative "Russia Insider" exceed the worst deceit that I can recall reading in recent years in the presstitute media about Syria, Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, Flight MH17, JFK, the US Presidential elections or whatever. What is the basis for such astonishing allegations against a man still loved by most Russians (see Majority of Russians Fond of Lenin and Regret Soviet Collapse (19/4/17) by Damien Shakrov |Newswek?)

What are the original sources for all the claims in this article? None other than a speech in the Russian Duma by Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Nowhere else on the web can I find the sources for Zhiriniovsky's claims.

So, in all probability, Zirinovsky fabricated these quotes and the author Michael Bateman is, at best, a useful idiot for Zhirinovsky and whatever interests Zhirinovsky serves.

Had it occurred to the author and the editors that the Russian Revolution - which occurred near the end of one pointless war in which 18 million died - and its extension to Germany and elsewhere, just might have been humanity's best hope to prevent another, even more terrible war in which an estimated 60 miillion died, barely 20 years later?

Second Comment

Had Lenin lived a few years longer, Stalin could not have become Secretary-General of the Communist Party (CPSU) as shown in Lenin's Last Testament of December 1922:

"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution."

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead ..." (See also "Lenin's Last Struggle" (1969) by Moshe Lewin for more elaboration.)

Had Lenin remained sufficiently healthy, even for just a few more months, many of the terrible calamities that the Soviet peoples were to endure over the next 23 years, as a conequence of Stalin's scheming and misjudgement, could have been avoided. Even if the worst of those calamities, the war against Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945, in which an estimated 25 million Soviet citizens died, could not have been prevented, then at at least its terrible consquences would have been greatly mitigated.

Third Comment (by another contributor)

"Michael, you intellectual piece of garbage. Provide sources and do not rip sentences from overall content. Also, mentioning Zhirik as popular one is akin mentioning very popular clown. The guy is smart but is complete disgrace. It was nice to see his backside ripped by old Prokhanov at Soloviev show. This sort of garbage cannot be posted in serious editions. Also, I hear people like Michael never mentioning the words of Gaidar followers about millions of Russians who disappeared due to their experimentation that those who died off did not adjust to market conditions. Why so intense intent to smear 100 years ago history that led to Russia becoming super it is clear who pays michael and the like to do this. power and no mentioning and investigation to events of 20-25 years ago that led to collapse and death of millions? It is clear who pays michael and the like to do this. Those who are afraid of the truth and who are behind everything that is being done to common people now."

I attempted to post the following beneath the article Massive new Stalin biography outdoes everything written before (25/11/17) | Russia Insider by Jacob Heilbrunn. The comment appears to have vanished. I will attempt to post it again. - James

As of 10:41AM. it is now at It's better to go to the top of the page, then scroll down to the comments. - James

As of 11:39AM, I am advised: "Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Russia Insider."

Kjeli Hasthi wrote, "Maybe 8 mill was killed (one source stated that). Remaining died in other ways, like lack of hospitals."

ecald12 wrote, "That Soviet losses were extremely high was inevitable as Germany was more industrialized and its human capital and organizational resources significantly greater than the USSR's, at that time."

The Russians produced the T-34 tank, recognised as superior to anything that Germany produced at the time. The MIG-1, Yak-1 fighters, which were first produced in 1940, could hold their own against German fighters and the Katyusha rocket launchers were superior to anything the Germans had.

The 25 million who died between 1941 and 1945, whether through combat, starvation or disease, died as consequence of the Nazi German invasion and Stalin's criminal scheming and misjudgement. This facilitated the Wehrmacht's early success and the terrible cost to the Red Army of driving it back into Germany.

In comparison, the United States, which fought against both Nazi Germany and Japan, lost 407,300 lives, whilst all the countries of the British Commonwealth lost about 500,000 lives.

As terrible as those losses were, they totalled only a fraction of the Soviet Union's losses. They give a better idea what it should have cost the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler had it been led by a more capable leader.

ecald12 wrote "The feeling in the German General Staff was that a war with the USSR was unnecessary and would present a tremendous economic and military drain on German resources."

Had Nazi Germany defeated the Soviet Union, which, it seems to me, would have occurred had Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), one of the two 'peace' candidates of the 1940 Presidential elections, not persuaded America to join the war against Nazi Germany, it would have had access to the vast natural resources of all the republics of the Soviet Union and would have become the dominant global superpower. Eastern Europe and much of Russia would have been depopulated to make lebensraum for the German master race.

escal12 wrote. "Stalin's policy was to delay what he fully recognized would be an inevitable confrontation with Nazi Germany. He was hoping to forestall such a war until 1942. By that time he felt the USSR would be adequately industrialized and modernized. His rearmament and crash industrialization programs enabled the Soviet Union to survive the war with Germany."

Stalin 'prepared' for invasion, by ignoring warnings from the British, Americans and his own spies, that Nazi Germany was going to invade the Soviet Unin in the Summer of 1941. In the meantime, he continued to send to Nazi Germmany the vital raw materials it needed both to continue its war against Btitain and to prepare for its coming invasion eastwards.

One of the spies, who warned Stalin of the invasion was German communist Richard Sorge, who worked in Germany's Tokyo embassy. Sorge was subsequently discovered, arrested and eventually executed by the Japanese, after Stalin refused offers from Japan to have him returned. Clearly Stalin did not want others in the Soviet Union to learn of how he ignored Sorge's warnings. In 1961, Nikita Kruschev subsequently posthumously awarded Sorge the title of a "Hero of the Soviet Union".

As of 12:54pm, I have learnt that my post which was 'under moderation' is no longer there. Presumably, it has been deleted!

This begs the question: "What have the editors of Russia Insider to fear from the above post? If I am wrong, then surely they or somebody else can show other readers where I am wrong? If they cannot show where I am wrong, then quite posssibly what I have written is correct. So, how does the stifling of dissenting opinions, which appear to be backed up by evidence and logic, help Russia Insider fight against Washington's plans for global hegemony agenda in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, the Black Sea, Eastern Europe, the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Ocean, Afghanistan, Korea, the South China Sea and elsewhere?

Whilst, as I have said before, Russia Insider is informative on many critical issues - Ukraine, Syria, Crimea, Flight MH17, ... - being seen to be covering up up for one of the worst tyrants in history, whilst, bizarrely, condemning Lenin and the Russian Revolution that Stalin claimed to uphold - The Bolshevik Revolution - a Russian Tragedy, Examining the Rotten Roots of Russian Redstalgia, Famous Syphilitic Psychopath Vladimir Lenin Celebrated at St. Petersburg Conference, Why Didn't the British King Save His Russian Cousin, Nicholas II After the Revolution?, The Real Lenin: Traitor, Parasite, Failure and 'Russians Are Sh*theads!' - Grandpa Lenin in His Own Words - can only undermine the global movement against the lying corporate newsmwdia and war.

The following was posted in response to the article Iran protests: Reply to the WSWS response to my critique (7/1/18) | The Saker by Ramin Mazaheri. It is currently awaiting moderation.

Whilst the WSWS analysis of the United-States-engineered colour revolution in Iran is clearly flawed and potentially harmful, just over one hundred years ago, after the criminal slaughter in which 18 million died, humanity's best hope of preventing a recurrence of that war lay with others who would have proudly worn the label 'Trotskyist' or 'communist'.

Several times before August 1914, socialists prevented the outbreak of war by organising mass protests. In 1905, Swedish socialist Zeth Höglund prevented a war to stop Norway's secession from Sweden. Popular protests organised by socialists prevented the 1911 Agadir crisis triggering a war. Popular protests organised by socialists also prevented the Balkan wars of 1912-13 from becoming a wider European war.

Whilst they were unable to prevent war starting in August 1914, they succeeded in November 1917 overthrowing one of the perpetrators of that war, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.

On a number of occasions between November 1918 and November 1923 German communists attempted to emulate the example of the Russian Revolution. Had they succeeded, Hitler would have become a small footnote in history.

Instead, humanity paid for their failure with the rise of Hitler, the Jewish Holocaust and the Second World War in which an estimated 60 million died, the theft of Palestine, all the wars started by Israel, the Korean war, the Vietnam War, the Iraq Wars, the invasion of Libya, the war against Syria, etc.

Also James, consider what has become of the Trotskyist movement under any of its names - and of just about every communist or socialist organisation today. The elites learned their lesson from a near miss and they simply infiltrated the entire movement, with paid organisers who recruit youth and then teach them to go round in circles, until they grow up figuring that revolt is not possible. One thing I don't understand is how the 'cell' concept failed to prevent this. Any ideas?

The following was posted as a comment beneath Putin: Russia's young scientists build world's most powerful arms system in 7 years
See more at (26/4/2018) | Pravda:

So, for how much longer will Russia's current advance in military technology give humanity a respite from those culpable for starting all the wars since 1945 - in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, ... ?

A century ago, Russia's leadership - so much demonised now in April 2018, even amongst much of the otherwise informative alternative newsmedia - understood the peril humanity faced, should it allow those criminals, who, in July 1914, had started the supposed 'war to end all wars' and caused 18 million to die, to continue to wield power.

Despite their best efforts the leaders of the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) failed, most notably in Germany, in October 1923. Those who ruled in July 1914 remained in power across most of the planet, and, as a consequence, humanity got German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Japanese colonial militarism, the Spanish Civil War and a total of 60 million deaths in the Second World War, including 25 million Soviet citizens.

Unless today's Russian leaders believe those now running America, Israel and their allies are any less criminal than those in charge in July 1914, then how can they presume that humanity's future prospects are any better than they were back then?

If humanity does not properly hold to account those reponsible for millions of deaths since 1945, then I fear humanity could face a future even more bleak than it had to face between 1939 and 1945.

I posted the comment below beneath the article The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime - Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism (1/7/1994) by Mark Weber -even though the article was first published 24 years ago, it now features on the front page of the Unz Review.

Thank you Israel Shamir, for speaking up for the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was humanity's best hope for ending the criminal slaughter of 1914-1918 in which 18 million died and for preventing of the even more terrible Second World War in which, according to Wikipedia, between 70,000,000 and 85,000,000 died. [1]

It seems to have become fashionable on otherwise informative websites such as this website - the Unz Review, Veterans Today, The Duran, Russia Insider and others, to condemn the Russian Revolution and its leaders, [2] whilst omitting mention of the criminal actions by the rulers of Russia and its Western allies - France, The United Kingdom and Australia, that helped start the First World War. [3] Had the Russian Revolution spread to Germany, as it almost did between November 1918 and October 1923, Hitler's seizure of power and all the terrible consequences would have been prevented. See:

"Buried history: How the spread of the Russian Revolution to Germany could have stopped Hitler" (7/11/2017) at (the article above)

… where I will also be posting this comment.


[1] See . I had previously thought that the figure was 60,000,000, which is horrific enough.

[2] As examples of the vilification of the Russian Revolution, see . I could have included more, but I feared that the comment management software might prevent this.

[3] See "The Darkest Days - the Truth behind Britain's Rush to War, 1914" (2014) "Hell-Bent - Australia's leap into the Great War" (2014) both by Douglas Newton.

This was also posted to the article mentioned above:

Wizard of Oz,

Firstly, Thank you for having shown some interest in the Australian author Douglas Newton. I understand that, in spite the quality of the two books I have referred to Douglas Newton, unlike me, does not see the 1917 Russian Revolution as having been beneficial for humankind

You wrote: "However the substantial problem is in the idea that the “Russian Revolution was humanity’s best hope of ending the criminal slaughter of 1914-1918″. It just doesn’t make sense. America was in the war, guaranteeing German defeat. So, if Russia had struggled on after the November 1917 revolution it would have made Germany’s March offensive on the Western Front impossible or at least much weaker and it would have meant Russia ended up much less weakened than it was by the Brest-Litovsk Treaty." (

Please explain how the German victory in 1918 would have been any less a setback for humanity than the defeat of "Germany's March offensive on the Western Front" and the consequent 1919 Treaty of Versailles?

It seems to me that by holding Germany solely responsible for the outbreak of war and imposing huge reparations on Germany, the victorious Entente made more likely the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of another war.

You continued: "Obviously a Red Revolution in Germany might have stopped Hitler’s rise unless it was itself overthrown by counter revolution which brought Nazis to power earlier or more viciously."

Clearly capitalism failed in Germany in the years prior to 1933. Why are you presuming that the socialist policies of a KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) government in Germany could not have worked?

In fact, history has given one example where socialism has worked: Cuba since 1959. Cuba has Universal free health, education, health care and other government services in spite of the United States' blockade, subversion and invasion threats since 1959. Cuban doctors have also been providing great services elsewhere in to many countries in Africa and South America.

Compare that to the United States where tertiary education requires life-long indebtedness and the medical system is a shambles.

I The comment below is my response to a further comment in the debate beneath the article The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime -
Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism (1/7/1994) by Mark Weber -even thhough it was first published 24 years ago, it now features on the fronm page of the Unz Review. It is now awaiting moderation.

Colin Wright,

I note you haven't responded to my point about how socialist Cuba's health and education systems compare with the shambles in the supposedly most powerful and richest nation in the world just north of Cuba.

Would you care to cite where you read that "Castro murdered twenty five thousand people or so over the course of his rule"?

Contrary to assurances given to President Kennedy by the CIA, Cubans failed to rise up against the supposed "communist tyranny" when the CIA-sponsored 'liberators' landed at the Bay of Pigs on 17 April 1961. Instead Cubans rallied behind the government and drove the invaders back into the sea.

Colin Wright wrote, "Cuba was also massively subsidized by the Soviet Union." However, even after Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, Cuba was able to run without the cheap oil imports. See "The Power of Community How Cuba Survived Peak Oil Documentary" (2010 2:08 hours) at .

Given the constant threat of invasion from, and the economic blockade by the global United States bully just up north, it seems to me that, even when Cuba was receiving subsidised oil, its socialist economy was performing remarkably well.

Given the United States' constant meddling in the affairs of other countries since 1945 - Chile, Greece, Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, etc,, it seems to me that the United States' rulers are as confident as you are that socialism cannot succeed.

So, if socialism is not a way to prevent more wars like in Irag, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Vietnam, Indonesia, Korea, etc., what do you see as the solution or do you prefer that human history continues as it has for the last 120 years?