History

Hard Lessons From the Russian Civil War

|

The official 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, which birthed the world's first Communist state, came and went two years ago. But the revolution actually played out over five horrific years known as the Russian Civil War. A century ago this summer, the anti-Bolshevik White forces were running a fully functional government in northern Russia. Their "Supreme Ruler," Admiral Alexander Kolchak, was internationally recognized as the head of state, and their army was crushing the Bolsheviks in the South. By November 1919, the tide had turned. By the time the war was over, between 7 and 12 million were dead, and the Communists were victorious.

The Soviets' civil war mythology presented the conflict as a heroic story about workers and peasants defeating the combined forces of upper-class Russian reactionaries and Western interventionists. The Russian émigré mythology treated it as a heroic story of idealistic patriots crushed by the forces of darkness. But the real Russian Civil War was far more complicated than either of those narratives.

Besides the Reds and the Whites, there was the roughly 100,000-strong Black Army led by anarchist and Ukrainian independence fighter Nestor Makhno, who started out in the Bolshevik camp before going his own way. There were also the nationalist forces of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the little-known Green Armies—peasant and Cossack militias and guerrilla units that may have been more than 70,000 strong at their peak. The Greens, thought to have gotten the name either from living in the woods or from having green banners, despised all the other factions, and their machine-gun carts sported the motto "Beat the Whites till they turn red, beat the Reds till they turn white."

As befits a Hobbesian war of all against all, this one was marked by exceptional brutality. The Bolsheviks visited horrific reprisals on villages in rebellious regions: "The shooting of dozens, even hundreds, of peasants for every dead communist was often threatened and sometimes practiced," wrote Italian historian Andrea Graziosi in his 1996 book The Great Soviet Peasant War. They also requisitioned grain and other supplies under a policy of pillage known as "War Communism," using torture to extract hoarded food. Peasants were forcibly recruited into the Red Army; so were former Tsarist military officers, their families often held hostage to ensure compliance. This cohort made up as much as 75 percent of the Reds' officer corps, a detail omitted from Soviet narratives of Red heroics.

The White Army also practiced forced conscription and often carried out punitive measures such as mass floggings, though Bolsheviks led the field in wanton slaughter. In the 2004 monograph Population Losses in the 20th Century, Russian historian Vadim Ehrlichman estimates the toll of Red terror at 1.2 million. That compares to some 300,000 for White terror and about 500,000 combined for other factions and guerrilla units (many of which, Ehrlichman notes, were little more than bandit gangs). Anti-Semitic pogroms—mostly by Ukrainian nationalists, Greens, and parts of the White Army, but sometimes also by Reds who targeted the Jewish bourgeoisie—took as many as 150,000 lives.

While many of the White movement's leaders ostensibly espoused liberal ideas, it is safe to say that freedom had no real friends in the Russian Civil War. Still, it's a virtual certainty that Russia—and most likely the world—would have been better off if the Whites had won.

They didn't, for many reasons. They were just as unpopular as the Bolsheviks and more divided. Their leaders clung to Russia's "great power" status and were adamantly opposed to Ukrainian independence or autonomy for other regions, which forced them to fight both the Bolsheviks and the separatists. The Bolsheviks, meanwhile, were not only more unified but more unscrupulous in their strategic alliances: They joined forces with Makhno's anarchists only to turn on them the moment the White Army was no longer a threat.

A hundred years later, Russian Communism is gone; in its place is an authoritarian regime that promotes Soviet nostalgia—a sentiment shared by too many in the West—but also glorifies White Guard leaders such as Kolchak and Anton Denikin (whose remains were returned from the U.S. in 2005 and reburied at Vladimir Putin's personal expense) as true patriots. The most trenchant lesson for the modern age is one that also seems increasingly relevant to the West: When political adversaries are no longer fellow citizens to live with but rather enemies to be crushed, we all lose.

NEXT: Brickbat: Urine Trouble Now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “When political adversaries are no longer fellow citizens to live with but rather enemies to be crushed, we all lose.”

    Good summary! Too many of us have lost sight of this!

    It also applies to trade wars and border wars. “America first” says to other nations, “Y’all are 2nd class, and we will treat you as such”.

    It is NOT a pro-peace attitude! It does NOT make friends for us, and there WILL be prices to pay!

    1. “America first” says to other nations, “Y’all are 2nd class, and we will treat you as such”.

      What nonsense. Every country looks after itself first and every country understands and accepts that.

      1. And that’s why we have wars… Trade wars and shooting wars. We have nukes now! We will NOT last for another thousand years if we don’t grow up and tame our animal impulses!

        1. And that’s why we have wars…

          Sure it is.

    2. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour on net. he has been job less for six months.
      However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Immediately join from the source……HERE:::::>>>> http://www.workatthehome.com

  2. “The Bolsheviks, meanwhile, were not only more unified but more unscrupulous in their strategic alliances: They joined forces with Makhno’s anarchists only to turn on them the moment the White Army was no longer a threat.”

    THIS is also a central lesson to be learned here!!! So many of us fantasize that our support of those who we think is (or will be) the “winner” will earn us the support of the “winners” and their spoils.

    See “the night of the long knives” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives … Ernst Röhm (head brownshirt, street brawler, for Hitler) thought his support of Hitler would leave him sitting pretty. So sorry, Ernst Röhm, Hitler had another thing coming for you…

    Right here on Reason.com comments, we see the same thing. The “brownshirts” of the commentary (Shitsy, Nards) try to brownshirt their enemies off of the comments board, tell their enemies to commit suicide, and other “street fighting”. They, I suspect, expect payback (war spoils) from “winning” Orange Hitler, just as Ernst Röhm did from “winning” Hitler.

    They and their ilk, too, have another thing coming… Orange Hitler will throw them under the bus, the VERY first instant that Orange Hilter finds it to be convenient to him… Just as Shitler-Hitler threw Ernst Röhm under the bus!

    1. It’s not that you’re going to get thrown under the bus when Dear Leader finds it convenient – your usefulness to Dear Leader lies in the fact that you’re going to get thrown under the bus. See, Dear Leader had no idea that his shock troops were doing such horrible things and as soon as he found out he got rid of them. Dear Leader wasn’t responsible for the bad things that were done in his name, Dear Leader is in fact responsible for getting rid of those bad people who were doing the bad things.

    2. “‘The “brownshirts” of the commentary (Shitsy, Nards) try to brownshirt their enemies off of the comments board, tell their enemies to commit suicide, and other “street fighting.”‘

      + +

      1. Meanwhile actual Lefties who are Socialists, Nazis, and Communists have actually killed tens of millions over the last 102 years.

        1. You’d have been in the “Make Germany Great Again” crowd crowing about foreigners and international globalist conspiracies against the innocent Germans and no doubt in the “I had no idea our brave soldiers were gassing people in those camps” crowd. You’re just too stupid to realize (or just a liar it’s hard to tell these days among your type) your entire complaint is just another version of the story spun by the fascists of Germany 80 years ago.

          1. ^^ Check out this dipshit troll.

            So hilarious!

    3. Unfortunately for Makhno, he believed the oft-stated (and often false) saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

  3. Marx and Engels both supported the extermination of all Slavic people to make way for “the German worker”. They supported the extermination of all practicing Jews. When socialist Hitler declared how important Marx was to him he wasn’t kidding. If your belief system includes the extermination of an entire religion or race I don’t think appeasement is the way to go. The number one enemy of all socialists is free market capitalists. There are various forms of socialism just as in religion, but they often co-operate for their common interests. Take for example, when Hitler and Stalin allied.

    ‘National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary’. – George Orwell
    Hitler ‘the greatest socialist of our times’ – Der verratene Sozialismus (‘Socialism Betrayed’) by Karl Albrecht
    “It is justifiable and necessary for the proletariat to use any method, and to take any action, that would help it towards victory over its class enemies’ – G.D.H. Cole, The New Statesman
    ‘internally Germany has a good deal in common with a socialist state’, and Hitler will go down in history as ‘the man who made the City of London laugh on the wrong side of its face’ – George Orwell
    ‘The Russian invasion of eastern Poland, has been the occasion for a social revolution. The peasants are seizing the great manors … burning the manor houses; they are killing the lords and ladies of the manors or turning them over for trial to the newly constituted village soviets.’ – The New Republic
    Do I have to remind you that Swedish Social Democrats practiced euthanasia into the 1960’s to create a pure socialist race?
    When the people of Hong Kong were being beaten down Bernie praised the Communists.
    AOC’s campaign manager wears a tshirt with a man who believed fascism and socialism should unite. As they have before.
    It is not libertarians who are banning free speech, destroying art, attacking people for wearing a hat, destroying monuments. But don’t make the mistake Chamberlain made. Appeasement is not the solution.

    1. “Do I have to remind you that Swedish Social Democrats practiced euthanasia into the 1960’s to create a pure socialist race?”

      We also tend to forget that Lenin, had Swedish blood thanks to his mother’s side.

      “when Hitler and Stalin allied.”

      Sorry Mike, a non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Try again.

      1. “Sorry Mike, a non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Try again.”

        Sorry mtrueman, it is. But even if it wasn’t, that one little line doesn’t negate anything he said. The Nazis were socialists and socialism is dangerous, and your irrelevant little distraction doesn’t change that. Try again.

        1. “The Nazis were socialists ”

          So what? Hitler was the fuehrer and he was a rightist. The Nazis marched to Hitler’s orders, not the other way around.

          “But even if it wasn’t”

          It wasn’t and it isn’t still. A non aggression pact is not an alliance, Who told you otherwise?

          1. More distractions. Nothing you’ve said negates Mikes comment. Keep trying.

              1. Yeah. Nuthin’ you’ve said negates Mike…s comment.

                1. ” Hitler declared how important Marx was to him he wasn’t kidding.”

                  Groucho Marx. And he was kidding. My sources tell me that Chico Marx was more important to him.

                  1. Your sources are zero.
                    Fuck off and die, asshole.

                    1. “Your sources are zero.”

                      Yes, but he was kidding anyway.

          2. Hitler was the fuehrer and he was a rightist.

            What’s a “rightist” ? Obviously, if Hitler was one, a rightist is not :

            – an enthusiast for free markets
            – a fundamentalist Christian (or any other kind of religious type)
            – a defender of tradition and the established order
            – a despiser of public works projects
            – a homeschooler
            – a no sex outside marriage tub thumper
            – a believer in the rights of the individual
            – a firm believer in the rule of law
            – a balanced budget nut
            – a keep the government out of people’s private lives merchant

            His only plausible claims to being a “rightist” were that :

            1. he was racist and, er, that’s about it (and even that requires granting that racism is exclusively “rightist”.) In reality, racism was ubiquitous across the political spectrum in the first few decades of the 20th century (and before.)

            His other main claims to fame – big on mass murder, militarist bully, loathing for the Churches, businessmen, the military class – were shared with the Communists. (Or are they rightists too ?)

            The reality is that Hitler was exactly what it says on the tin, a National Socialist. He believed in the Volk against foreigners – but within the Volk he was an egalitarian (except that everyone needed to folow the Fuehrer, of course.) He loathed businessmen and their disgusting, demeaning profit motive, just as he loathed the German hereditary military caste. But he was prepared to use both of them, so long as they were useful to him and followed orders.

            He was a heretic socialist – it’s a creed that breeds heresy – but you don’t have to scratch the surface very much, or even at all, to find a resentful little man, burning with hatred for the established order, and just as keen on looking through the individual to assign you into your class category as the most rancid Bolshie.

      2. a non-agression pact is always an alliance. don’t you watch Survivor?

      3. A non-aggression pact doesn’t divvy up territory of third parties who don’t even know they are being eliminated.

        1. Desire for recovering parts of Poland the empire lost is a no brainer. All the better that valuable resources conquered by the Wehrmacht were turned over to the Soviets. The Soviets had been casting about the great powers for some similar agreement (without the Polish conniving) since they came to power. The Soviets and the Germans were allied in their carving up on Poland but otherwise never shared any common goals. They both knew they were only a step away from war with each other. You can’t build an alliance on such a foundation.

          1. mtrueman
            September.2.2019 at 8:07 pm
            “…You can’t build an alliance on such a foundation.”

            And yet they did, which means you are full of shit.

            1. “And yet they did”

              They didn’t. They were at each other’s throats in summer 1941.

              1. Hitler was at Stalin’s throat. Stalin wasn’t expecting the attack, and he refused to believe the many warnings he got about Barbarossa.

                Which gives the lie to the idea that the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact was an emergency defensive measure on the part of Stalin. In reality it was a deal to divide the spoils from a joint predation. Hitler got Western Poland, Stalin got Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Finland (except that he couldn’t beat Finland.)

      4. “Sorry Mike, a non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Try again.”

        Sorry, shitbag, it most certainly is.
        Try to find a brain-cell, you pathetic piece of shit.

        1. Frederick Engels, Karl Marx’s partner, on the need for ethnic cleansing: “These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties but also entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. And that too would be progress.” This quote was removed from Communist and Socialist books after WW 2. Engels also said:

          To the sentimentalist slogans of brotherhood which are here offered us in the name of the counterrevolutionary nations of Europe [including the Slavs], we reply that hatred of Russia was and still is the first revolutionary passion of the Germans; that since the Revolution [of 1848], hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to it, and that we, along with the Poles [= good Slavs] and Magyars [= Hungarians], will only be able to secure the Revolution through the most determined terror against these Slavic peoples. . .

          Then it’s war. “A ceaseless fight to the death” [quoting the pan-Slavist Bakunin] with Slavdom, which betrays the Revolution, a battle of annihilation and ruthless terrorism — not in the interests of Germany , but of the Revolution. [p84]”Democratic Panslavism,”

          The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

          “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.

          Note that Marx wanted to “emancipate” (free) mankind from Jewry (“Judentum” in Marx’s original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx’s essay in German was “Zur Judenfrage” — which is exactly the same expression (“Jewish question”) that Hitler used in his famous phrase “Endloesung der Judenfrage” (“Final solution of the Jewish question”). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily “dissolve” itself, the word he uses in German is “aufloesen”, which is a close relative of Hitler’s word “Endloesung” (“final solution”). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times.

          Marx’s original German for confirming the translation above is given below:

          Zur Judenfrage

          “Welches ist der weltliche Grund des Judentums? Das praktische Bedürfnis, der Eigennutz. Welches ist der weltliche Kultus des Juden? Der Schacher. Welches ist sein weltlicher Gott? Das Geld. Nun wohl! Die Emanzipation vom Schacher und vom Geld, also vom praktischen, realen Judentum wäre die Selbstemanzipation unsrer Zeit…. Wir erkennen also im Judentum ein allgemeines gegenwärtiges antisoziales Element, welches durch die geschichtliche Entwicklung, an welcher die Juden in dieser schlechten Beziehung eifrig mitgearbeitet, auf seine jetzige Höhe getrieben wurde, auf eine Höhe, auf welcher es sich notwendig auflösen muß. Die Judenemanzipation in ihrer letzten Bedeutung ist die Emanzipation der Menschheit vom Judentum.”

          (MEW a.a.O. 1, 372 f.)

          A typical Hitler rant: “True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?” But it was not Hitler who said it. It was written in 1841 by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx’s co-author.

          The original German of the above quote is: “…Allerdings ist es eine fixe Idee bei den Franzosen, dass der Rhein ihr Eigentum sei, aber die einzige des deutschen Volkes wuerdige Antwort auf diese anmassende Forderung ist das Arndtsche ‘Heraus mit dem Elsass und Lothringen!’ Denn ich bin – vielleicht im Gegensatz zu vielen, deren Standpunkt ich sonst teile – allerdings der Ansicht, dass die Wiedereroberung der deutschsprechenden linken Rheinseite eine nationale Ehrensache, die Germanisierung des abtruennig gewordenen Hollands und Belgiens eine politische Notwendigkeit fuer uns ist. Sollen wir in jenen Laendern die deutsche Nationalitaet vollends unterdruecken lassen, waehrend im Osten sich das Slawentum immer maechtiger erhebt?” Nazism was Marxist!

      5. Hitler and Stalin did ally to invade and divide Poland. That was a secret clause in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and it had more effect than the “non-aggression” clauses.

        The question for historians is, did Stalin actually expect the pact to protect the Soviet Union, even after eliminating the buffer states between the Russians and Germans, or did Hitler merely double-cross Stalin _first_? The first theory is supported by the complete lack of preparations by the Soviet Army, but makes Stalin out to be incredibly stupid in this case. Or perhaps Stalin wanted a partially successful German invasion for domestic political reasons, but seriously underestimated the Nazi war machine. (Or maybe not: Stalin and “General Winter” did win eventually, at a terrible cost to the Soviet soldiers and civilians, but the war strengthened his power within the Soviet Union at no personal cost…)

  4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Heres what I’ve been doing… ,,,

    CLICK HERE►► ONLINE WORK

  5. You know, Russia’s communist years would make a great drama on television.

  6. It will be different this time. We have the right Top Men.

    1. “We have the right Top Men.”

      America seems to have had better Top Men. Coolidge and Hoover were level headed and not given to war mongering. They had character and convictions. The top men of today are a different breed.

      1. it’s been a rough go since then though

      2. But of those two only Coolidge had read and understood the constitution. Hoover was prototypical of every president since.

        1. ” Hoover was prototypical of every president since.”

          Hoover was also a liberal and a progressive. He was an engineer so I can’t fault him for not being familiar with legal documents.

  7. The Bolsheviks, meanwhile, were not only more unified but more unscrupulous in their strategic alliances: They joined forces with Makhno’s anarchists only to turn on them the moment the White Army was no longer a threat.

    Anarchists are too scared to pool their wealth (Che Guevara T-shits, “A” logos, etc) and buy some land to start Anarchyland somewhere outside the USA. Its great for them how that 1st Amendment protects their freedom to speak about how they hate the US Constitution.

    1. Google “libertarian” in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian–or any of a dozen other languages and you fill find Faecebuke and Youchoob communist sockpuppets in Guy Fawkes masks urging everyone to hurl rocks and bombs and assist the communists in building a “libertarian” society. Communists (and religious fascisti) impersonating libertarians on foreign social media outnumber NAP-respecting libertarians by a large margin.

  8. Did you know that 1000s of Americans fought (and lost) in the Russian civil war? Largely out of pique at the Bolsheviks and the Germans coming to terms. Just another hard lesson of the Russian civil war.

    1. Great article! Thanks Cathy! That bolshie backstabbing was still in vogue in 1937, when wounded Comrade Blair (Orwell) and his Marxist Unification Workers’ Party buddies were hunted by communist torturers. The clear fact that anarchism and violent communism were synonyms until June of 1972 will doubtless be overlooked by anarcho-communist infiltrators. These are the “volunteers” seeking to rewrite the LP platform so as to cause the public to look upon libertarians and see Antifa thugs instead.

    2. “mtrueman
      September.2.2019 at 1:04 pm
      “Did you know that 1000s of Americans fought (and lost) in the Russian civil war? Largely out of pique at the Bolsheviks and the Germans coming to terms. Just another hard lesson of the Russian civil war.”

      Did you know that fucking ignoramus trueman has yet to offer one bit of evidence for his bullshit?
      You might ask for some evidence of this bullshit; you’ll get none. Trueman is a bullshitter who posts bullshit.
      Fuck off and die, bullshitter.

  9. I had someone in Ukraine recently tell me that America had a revolution just like the Soviets. I explained that the big difference was we didn’t want war but were forced into it. The communists started the war.

    “The Revolution” is not the creation of a workers’ paradise. It is nothing but violence, oppression and murder and then it gets worse from there. It can never be anything but that. Even in the States.

    Let’s supposed AOC does get all of her socialist wishes because 51% of the people back her. How many of the other 49% will readily allow the government to take their homes, businesses and freedoms? The government will be ready with sufficient force to make sure that they do.

    1. “The communists started the war.”

      The communists, Lenin more correctly, ended the war with Germany. The Monarchists, the rightists, the followers of Kerensky, even many Bolsheviks like Trotsky opposed Lenin on his plans to end the war. It was this policy that lead the Bolsheviks to successfully gain power, attracting the support of many disaffected soldiers.

      ““The Revolution” is not the creation of a workers’ paradise. It is nothing but violence, oppression and murder and then it gets worse from there. It can never be anything but that. ”

      Are you a Monarchist? These are the kind of war mongering inbred miscreants who are responsible for terrible suffering.

      1. I was a poli-sci major in the early 80’s with a focus in Soviet communism and now I live in an ex-Soviet state where I can hear the stories of communism first hand and see the results daily. I don’t have to critique everything that the communists did to point out that it was a murderous system of oppression and corruption.

        The Ukrainians were happy to see the Germans invade their country in ’41 thinking they were going to save them from the horrible programs that killed millions of people through starvation and other means. It’s pretty bad when you see Nazis as the kinder, gentler oppressive forces.

        1. “I was a poli-sci major in the early 80’s with a focus in Soviet communism and now I live in an ex-Soviet state where I can hear the stories of communism first hand and see the results daily.”

          Where I grew up there were monuments to those who died in the senseless carnage of WWI. Even in the smallest of towns. The Tsar and his western counterparts have just as much blood on their hands. Others wanted it to continue, but Lenin, almost single handedly, brought the war to a stop. That’s about the best thing he did,

          “It’s pretty bad when you see Nazis as the kinder, gentler oppressive forces.”

          There were also Jews in Poland who chose to flee to the German held side when it was carved up. Whatever the Soviets did to the Ukranians, they did to the Poles, only faster,

          1. Poland had no equivalent of Holodomor. More people died in one year from forced starvation in Ukraine than the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust. Of course, I won’t defend the tsars or any monarch but monarchy and socialism weren’t the only two options for a government system in the early 1900’s.

            1. Trueman is an ignoramus; ask for a cite and see what you get.
              Trueman? Do us all a favor: Fuck off and die.

            2. “Poland had no equivalent of Holodomor.”

              I never claimed they did. Nor did Ukraine have an equal to the Katyn massacre. They both suffered under the Bolsheviks, and I’m not interested in who can claim to be the greater victim.

              I’m not sure what other options you are talking about. In 1917, Lenin was talking about ending the war. Everyone else was for continuing it. Even Trotsky and many of Lenin’s closest associates.

          2. “Where I grew up there were monuments to those who died in the senseless carnage of WWI. Even in the smallest of towns. The Tsar and his western counterparts have just as much blood on their hands. Others wanted it to continue, but Lenin, almost single handedly, brought the war to a stop. That’s about the best thing he did, ”
            Wrong war, you pathetic piece of shit.
            You seem to have grown up where idiocy is a result of something in the water.
            Make the world a better place: Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

      2. “The communists, Lenin more correctly, ended the war with Germany. The Monarchists, the rightists, the followers of Kerensky, even many Bolsheviks like Trotsky opposed Lenin on his plans to end the war. It was this policy that lead the Bolsheviks to successfully gain power, attracting the support of many disaffected soldiers.”
        Wrong “war”, you pathetic piece of shit.

        1. “Wrong “war”

          What is it good for?

      3. The Mensheviks (moderate socialists) overthrew the Tsarist tyranny and moved to scale back Russia’s participation in the war, but listened to the British and French and did not end it entirely. (That is, Germany had to keep troops on the eastern front, but few of them were dying.) Then a few months later, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Mensheviks, introduced a new and worse tyranny, and stopped the war with Germany because they needed the troops to fight wars with every other faction in Russia.

        Neither of them ended war. The Bolsheviks only ended one war, after starting several others.

    2. The American Revolution was closer to a separatist movement than an actual revolution. We already had functioning legislatures, governors, judicial systems, etc. and didn’t need a complete overhaul of both the systems and the ruling class. We also had Canada up north to send the ‘losers’ of the civil war to.

  10. the worst of humanity, and a lesson the wannabe commies in the Democrat party want people to forget about

      1. I’m kinda nostalgic for the days of the USSR, too. At least, maybe, so many gibbering idiots wouldn’t think socialism was cool.

        1. There’s more than a bit of nostalgia…
          Once the USSR collapsed, there was no longer a polar opposite, meaning scumbags like Bernie and the rest could campaign on an assumption of the ignorance of those who did not watch and applaud the demise of the mass murderers.
          Commie-kid was posting here (and yet well may be), claiming to be an ‘enlightened’ follower of Marx and Lenin, as if anyone could be an ‘enlightened’ follower of Hitler (who was a piker by comparison)

  11. War Is Not Solution Of Problems.

    You can see the ind – pak situation

    Pak is saying that he will do war on india by nuclear.

    But this is not a solution.

    So plz. Make peace in countries.

  12. “But how can we cooperate with them when they’re EVIL?” – millions of people on both sides.

  13. I was actually just reading up on this stuff the other night, I feel like its an overlooked part of history. Read the wiki on Kolchak, it paints him in a very unflattering light. He gets a large part of the blame for why the whites lost (failure to unite and work with other white factions, failure to recognize ethnic minorities wanting more autonomy, over-reliance on foreign aid, etc) and is pictured as basically someone who was easily controlled by his underlings.

Please to post comments