[WS:] You have a real knack for making semantic arguments, Shane. What I meant is "no longer/not participating in war operations" rather than "legally demobilized" - as you seem to interpret it. But whatever term we use to describe the state of the respective military forces, you seem to agree that their taking side either with or against a revolution was a key element in that revolution's success or defeat.
Wojtek
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>
>> One of those less salient factors was the
>> mobilization of the demobilized WW1 military for the political cause.
>
> On the contrary, the Freikorps was the original form and heart and soul of
> Hitler's Nazism *whose figurehead was von Ludendorff*.
>
>> The Bolsheviks did it and won the revolution.
>
> The Russian soldiers were never demobilized: they made the revolution during
> the war by going home and taking the land.
>
>> The Italian fascists did it and successfully grabbed power.
>
> correct for once
>>
>> Ditto for Spanish fascists.
>
> Spain was neutral in the war so nobody was demobilized. The dual cores of
> Spanish fascism (phalangism) were the Church and the colonial army in
> Morocco that had been beaten by Abd-el-Krim (until the French saved their
> bacon) but never demobilized.
>
> Shane Mage
>
>
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/