Dyukov on Lenin

A.R. Dyukov, known on Telegram under the modest nickname “Historian Dyukov,” decided to continue his denunciations of Vladimir Lenin and came up with the following:

“I can’t help once again admiring Lenin’s genius.

On February 26, 1921, when the country was already in a deep economic disaster and people were supposedly dying of hunger:

‘The Russian Soviet Government, in accordance with its proclaimed rejection of the colonial policies of capitalism, which have caused and continue to cause countless calamities and bloodshed, renounces the use of the financial enterprises of Tsarist Russia that were intended to economically subjugate Persia. It therefore transfers into the full ownership of the Persian people all funds, valuables, and generally all assets and liabilities of the Persian Loan and Discount Bank, as well as the movable and immovable property of the said bank located in Persia.’

And this was in addition to forgiving loans and handing over enormous amounts of real estate.

To take at least the money and use it in the interests of Soviet Russia—for fighting famine, for example—how could that even be considered? After all, anti-colonialism comes first!

Four months later, on July 7, 1921, the Politburo had to allocate 4 million silver rubles to purchase grain in northeastern Persia.”

What an idiot Lenin was, and how brilliant Dyukov is! How easily he outclassed Ilyich! An “Austro-Hungarian spy”—what else could one expect?

However, the biased “historian” omitted several extremely important facts.

First, the famine in the Volga region began in the autumn of 1921. Therefore, the “little people,” as Dyukov crudely put it, were not yet “dying in droves” in February 1921 when the treaty was signed. The agreement with Persia was, however, necessary.

Which brings us to the second point: why did the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic make a deal with Persia in the first place?

The answer is very simple, though apparently beyond the comprehension of this thick-headed “historian”—or rather, something he simply does not wish to understand.

After the 1917 Revolution, United Kingdom had effectively occupied Persia and used its territory as a base for supporting the White forces and for intervention in the Caucasus and Central Asia. It was vital for Moscow to secure its southern borders. By signing the treaty, the Soviet government undermined British influence and turned Persia into a neutral buffer state.

What is so geopolitically difficult or unclear about that? It seems obvious even to a fool.

Dyukov also overlooked the fact that, while breaking through its economic isolation in February–March 1921, Moscow signed not only a treaty with Persia but also agreements with Afghanistan and Turkey, as well as a trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

As for the purchase of grain, the explanation is simple—“Elementary, Historian Dyukov!”

Persia was a neighboring country connected by convenient transport routes across the Caspian Sea.

Buying grain from Persia became one of the measures used to overcome the food crisis. Soviet trade organizations purchased grain and other agricultural products to supply the population and the regions most affected by shortages.

So what exactly is wrong with that, armchair historian?

To any reasonable person, it is perfectly logical. Only someone seeking attention or compensating for personal insecurities could publish such nonsense in their journal.