Yes but a couple of points:

Ok I take your point that the numbers of Foreign interventionist troops 'on the ground' in were relatively small ; But the White Armies also had logistical support from many of the victorious Allies.

Also again: Millions of civilians died ; You point to Zinoviev's statement ; If he meant literal murder of 10% of the population yes that would be appalling. But without knowing Zinoviev's intention communists aimed to annihilate the bourgeoisie *as a class* but not individually as human beings ; That is - to dissolve class social relations - not to annihilate human beings. To interpret it as annihilating human beings - would be a gross distortion of Marx's intentions.

And also so again: Most of the civilians who died did so out of exposure to the elements and starvation. This happened as a consequence of the First World War, and of the Civil War that followed. But 'it takes two to Tango'.

Whether the White Armies could have put up the resistance they did without Foreign Intervention and logistical support - I'm not certain of the extent of it... But the Russian economy was already falling apart at the seams in 1917.

The Bolsheviks tried to re-establish order to prevent starvation and exposure to the elements. Measures that I personally am profoundly uncomfortable with - eg: labour militarisation - were justified like this... But it was a horrific situation. You can blame it partly on the Whites; Partly on intervention and Western logistical support for the Whites ; But yes you can blame it partly on the Bolsheviks... In the sense that they had the opportunity to try and consolidate the Democratic forces in the Constituent Assembly - hopefully under conditions of Dual Power ; with the maintenance of the Red Army... But they chose 'to go it on their own'. That possibly made everything worse.

Tristan,

I find that your version of history and events differs radically from most historical records.

I also bothers me that you can dismiss so lightly millions of people under the control of the Bolsheviks being shot or starved to death after their food is stolen at gunpoint by the bolsheviks. Given that this occurred after Lenin declared the "terror", It stretches credibility to claim that most of this was not the deliberate fault of the Bolsheviks.

I'm not dismissing it lightly at all ; I agree the Bolsheviks can be seen as sharing the blame ; because a compromise on the Constituent Assembly may have mitigated the Civil War ; and that may have moderated the collapse. Of course the defence of the Bolsheviks is that it may have made the Civil War worse by giving their enemies a chance to organise... But we will never know now... What we DO know it that Bolshevism as it was led to Stalinism. But it was not Lenin's or Trotsky's intention.

But to suggest they were deliberately starving millions to death is wrong. Those were the very reasons Trotsky used to justify labour militarisation. (ie the alternative was social and economic collapse ; starvation and death by exposure to the elements)

My argument is that labour militarisation might have been avoided on the basis of a democratic compromise.

The histories you're referring to may not be 100% unbiased either. My sympathy is with the Left wing Mensheviks. Like Martov ; But also Kautsky (a German Social Democrat... well - actually born a Czech) Martov and Kautsky had some of the most telling critiques of the Bolsheviks - from a socialist perspective. Rosa Luxemburg also wrote some excellent critiques before she was murdered.

Also if the Bolsheviks had not 'stolen' grain at gunpoint - and had turned the other way on hoarding - many more people would have died. As I said - the Bolsheviks had options in other ways... Which might have got the Constitutional Democrats and Mensheviks onside... But I ask you to consider what you would do if farmers were 'hoarding' - and hundreds of thousands faced starvation in other parts of the country.

Tristan,

Documented conversations of the Bolshevik leaders and the vastly disproportionate treatment of the Kulaks including the mass public executions and the looting of nearly all their food so that 100 000s starved makes it clear that other than obtaining their food, that the exercise was largely to force their submission in a similar way that Hitler used subsequently, and ranks as one of the greatest violation of Human rights in history.

To claim that the Bolsheviks were only obliquely responsible for this genocide stretches credibility to the breaking point and beyond.

Well it was Stalin who decided to 'liquidate' the Kulaks ; and took this to the point of literalism. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. Whether the Communist Party under Stalin still deserved the name 'Bolsheviks' is VERY questionable. Almost every member of the 1917 Central Committee had been killed by Stalin by the 1930s.

I don't make any 'apologies' for Stalin. But 'Terror' is always a dreadful thing whether you're talking about the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, or Thiers exacting revenge of the French Communards. That's one reason I prefer gradualism ; perhaps with 'watershed' moments of significant social democratic advance. What Karl Kautsky called 'war of attrition ; or Otto Bauer's 'slow revolution'. (ie: preferably qualitative change via democracy)

Re: any 'deliberate policy of starvation' - if you can show where this happened under Lenin I'd be interested to see. (can you give a URL to a reputable website?) I'm open minded about it. But it was my impression it happened under Stalin.

In any case I don't consider myself a Bolshevik.