“The transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan, indicated by the experience of the Commune, outlined by the Basel (1912) resolution and arising from all the conditions of the imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries. No matter how great the difficulties of such a transformation may seem at one moment or another , socialists will never give up systematic, persistent, steady preparatory work in this direction, once war has become a fact" (Lenin, article "War and Russian Social Democracy", September 1914)
Here we need to stop and pay attention to a very important feature of Lenin’s plan. Ilyich had no intention of saving Russians from the horrors of war; he only wanted to redirect the cannons and machine guns so that the war would go against part of his own people. But it was easier to achieve this transformation of the war “wrong” into “right” - so that brother against brother and son against father - when “one’s” government was defeated. This defeat weakened him and made the path to revolution easier. And Lenin points out: “A revolution during war is a civil war, and the transformation of a war of governments into a civil war, on the one hand, is facilitated by the military failures (defeat) of governments, and on the other hand, it is impossible to actually strive for such a transformation without facilitating those defeat itself... The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot help but desire the defeat of its government..." (article "On the defeat of its government in the imperialist war"). In principle, Lenin proclaimed the slogan of defeat not only the tsarist, but also all other governments participating in the First World War. However, he cared little whether the socialists of Germany, Austria-Hungary, England and France would support his call with their practical actions. In addition, only one of the warring parties can suffer defeat in a war. Therefore, the defeat of Russia in practice means a military victory for Germany and the strengthening of the Kaiser's government. But Lenin is in no way embarrassed by this circumstance and he insists that the initiative for defeatism should come precisely from the Russian Social Democrats: “... The last consideration is especially important for Russia, because this is the most backward country in which a socialist revolution is directly impossible That is why the Russian Social Democrats had to be the first to come up with the theory and practice of the slogan of defeat" (Lenin, "On the defeat of their government in the imperialist war").
Admire the following quotes from the leader of the world proletariat, every letter and punctuation mark in them is saturated with complete Russophobia: “Down with priestly sentimental and stupid sighs for peace at all costs! Let us raise the banner of civil war...” (Lenin, “Situation and Tasks” socialist international"). “The slogan of peace, in my opinion, is wrong at the moment. It is a philistine, priestly slogan. The proletarian slogan should be: civil war...” (Lenin, “Letter to Shlyapnikov 10/17/14”) “For us Russians, from the point of view interests of the working masses and the working class of Russia, there cannot be the slightest, absolutely no doubt that the least evil would be now and immediately - the defeat of tsarism in this war. For tsarism is a hundred times worse than Kaiserism..." (Lenin, "Letter to Shlyapnikov 10/17/14".) Stunning statements of cynicism! And it’s not just “losing the war”, but turning it into a civil war - this is already a double betrayal! Lenin demands, furiously insists on the need for civil war! It is a pity that the tsarist government did not think of sending a messenger to Europe with an ice ax for Mr. Ulyanov, who wrote his Russophobic libels in European coffee houses. Look, the fate of Russia in the twentieth century would have been much less tragic.
And another very important point: we look at the dates of Lenin’s statements. The leader of Bolshevism put forward the tasks of the defeat of Russia and the need for a civil war immediately and unambiguously, when no one yet knew the upcoming course of the war. N. Bukharin, who was with him in Switzerland, said in the Moscow Izvestia in 1934 that the very first propaganda slogan that Lenin wanted to put forward was a slogan to the soldiers of all the warring armies: “Shoot your officers!” But something confused Ilyich and he preferred the less specific formula “transforming the imperialist war into a civil war.” There had not yet been any serious problems at the front: no heavy losses, no shortage of weapons and ammunition, no retreat, and the Bolsheviks, according to Lenin’s plan, had already launched a fierce struggle to reduce the country’s defense capability. They created illegal party organizations at the front, conducting anti-war propaganda; issued anti-government leaflets and appeals; carried out strikes and demonstrations in the rear; organized and supported any mass protests that weakened the front. That is, they acted like a classic “5th column”.
Anti-war rally in a military unit 
A.A. Brusilov writes in his memoirs: “When I was commander-in-chief of the Southwestern Front during the German war, the Bolsheviks, both before and after the February coup, strongly agitated in the ranks of the army. During the time of Kerensky, they had especially many attempts to penetrate the army... I remember one incident ... My chief of staff, General Sukhomlin, reported to me the following: several Bolsheviks arrived at headquarters in my absence. They told him that they wanted to infiltrate the army for propaganda. Sukhomlin, obviously, was confused and allowed them to go. I, of course, did not approved and ordered them to be returned back. Arriving in Kamenets-Podolsk, they came to me, and I told them that under no circumstances could I allow them into the army, since they want peace at all costs, and the Provisional Government demands war until there is a general peace together with all our allies. And then I expelled them from the borders under my control."
Anton Ivanovich Denikin testifies: “Bolshevism spoke most definitely of all. As we know, he came to the army with a direct invitation - to refuse obedience to his superiors and stop the war, finding grateful soil in the spontaneous sense of self-preservation that gripped the mass of soldiers. Delegates sent from all fronts to the Petrograd Soviet with inquiries, requests, demands, threats, there they sometimes heard from the few representatives of the defencist bloc reproaches and requests to be patient, but they found complete sympathy in the Bolshevik faction of the Council, taking with them into the dirty and cold trenches the conviction that peace negotiations would not begin until all power passes to the Bolshevik soviets."
The tsarist regime had many shortcomings, but it was not at all “rotten,” as Soviet propaganda so hard tried to convince us. The Black and Baltic seas were controlled by the Russian fleet, industry sharply increased the production of ammunition and weapons. The front has stabilized in the western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. Losses? In total, Russia irretrievably lost less than 1 million people in the First World War, compare with the gigantic multimillion-dollar losses in the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars. But where the autocracy has fallen very short is in countering people of different political colors who are conducting subversive anti-state activities, including the so-called liberals. February revolution 1917 was a strong blow to the country's defense capability. From the memoirs of the so-called “old Bolshevik” V.E. Vasiliev “And our spirit is young,” the active role of the Bolsheviks in organizing the February revolution is clearly visible: “Late in the evening, the Putilovite Grigory Samoded came to our company. He brought an appeal from the St. Petersburg Committee of the Bolsheviks, in which , in particular, it said: “Remember, comrade soldiers, that only the fraternal alliance of the working class and the revolutionary army will bring liberation to the dying oppressed people and put an end to the fratricidal and senseless war. Down with the royal monarchy! Long live the fraternal alliance of the revolutionary army with the people!" We immediately went to all the Izmailovo barracks to raise soldiers. Samoded went with us to the 1st battalion. Already in the morning of February 25, rallies began in the barracks. Officers, among whom Colonel Verkhovtsev was in charge , captains Luchinin and Dzhavrov, tried to interrupt the speeches. But the soldiers refused to obey the officers and began to act together with the revolutionary companies. At rallies, the soldiers called for decisive action - arming the workers, dispersing and disarming the police, policemen... Izmailovsky and Petrogradsky regiments, leaving the barracks , joined the work columns. All the streets and alleys on the Peterhof highway were reliably guarded by armed workers and our companies. That evening, leaflets of the St. Petersburg Bolshevik Committee were passed from hand to hand, calling for decisive action: “Call everyone to fight. It’s better to die a glorious death fighting for the workers’ cause than to lay down your life for the profits of capital at the front or to wither away from hunger and backbreaking work... We stopped one of the cars. Let's go to the barracks. We shot the officers who offered desperate resistance."
Street fighting in Petrograd in February 1917 
We read further the curious memoirs of V.E. Vasiliev especially carefully: “On March 1, 1917, an event of enormous importance occurred. A joint meeting of the workers’ and soldiers’ sections of the Council, with the participation of the Bolsheviks, developed (this was a major victory for our party) order number 1 of the Petrograd Council, mandatory for all units of the garrison. I remember well this order, which in the post-February days blocked the path of reaction and counter-revolutionary elements to weapons. The order ordered the troops to obey only the Petrograd Soviet and their regimental committees. Weapons from now on were to be at the disposal of the soldiers' committees and were not subject to issue to officers even on their requirement. Soldiers were granted civil rights, which they could use outside of service and formation. Order 1 (the soldiers understood perfectly well who was its initiator) raised the authority of the Bolsheviks even higher. The nascent connection grew stronger. In early March, under the St. Petersburg Committee, a party was created headed by N I. Podvoisky, one of the most experienced organizers of military and combat work, the Military Commission is the core of the future “Voyenka”. At the end of March, a meeting of the Bolsheviks of the garrison took place (97 representatives from 48 military units). It established, instead of the Military Commission, a permanent apparatus - the Military Organization - with the goal of "unifying all party forces of the garrison and mobilizing the masses of soldiers to fight under the banner of the Bolsheviks."
So who actually inspired the adoption of the infamous order No. 1 - again, these were the Bolsheviks! The situation in Petrograd was critical, huge crowds of armed soldiers rushed around the city, starting fierce battles with cadets and gendarmes; In Kronstadt, massacres of officers by sailors took place. Formal anarchy! In such a situation, it would have cost nothing to push any, even the most anti-Russian, resolution through the new authorities, just to calm the raging “defenders of the Fatherland.” And for some reason we still blame the so-called “liberals” for the collapse of the army. General A.S. Lukomsky noted that the order of the 1st Petrosovet “undermined discipline, depriving the officer command staff of power over the soldiers.” With the adoption of this order in the army, the principle of unity of command, fundamental to any army, was violated, as a result there was a sharp decline in discipline. All weapons came under the control of soldiers' committees. But this was to the benefit of the Bolsheviks, and during this period they became the most active defenders of the so-called “army democracy.” The order to the delegates to the Minsk Council, drawn up by the Bolshevik A.F. Myasnikov, said: “Considering it correct... the destruction of standing armies... we see the need to create more democratic orders in the army.” Among the new Bolshevik slogans is “arming the people.” It is interesting that when the Bolsheviks began to create their own - truly combat-ready Red Army - they completely forgot about order number 1 of the Petrograd Soviet, and about “army democracy”, and about “arming the people” too. In the army led by Trotsky, without any sentimentality they shot their soldiers even for minor offenses, achieving the strictest discipline. Thus, in August 1918, Trotsky used decimation to punish the 2nd Petrograd Regiment of the Red Army, which had left its combat positions without permission.
The memoirs of another “old Bolshevik” - F.P. Khaustov - date back to April and May 1917: “District Bolshevik committees are elected. This makes the regiment united... The committee establishes connections with neighboring regiments and the same work is also carried out there, according to elections of Bolshevik committees. The matter is expanding, and in mid-March the entire 43rd Corps was already organized on the Bolshevik program. A corps committee was elected. The Bolshevik committee of the 436th Novoladozhsky Regiment almost entirely became part of the corps committee, replenished with representatives from other regiments. From the very At the very beginning, the Bolshevik committee of the 436th Novoladoga Regiment established contact with the Central and St. Petersburg Bolshevik Committees through Comrade A. Vasilyev and received literature and leadership from there. At the same time, a living connection was established with the Kronstadt sailors, and the regiment committee became part of the Petrograd military organization under Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party In early March, the committee organized, contrary to the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Front, fraternization with the Germans over an area of at least 40 versts. At this time I was the chairman of the Bolshevik corps committee. The fraternization took place in an organized manner.... The result of the fraternization was the actual cessation of hostilities in the corps sector."
So, the tsarist government was unable to keep the situation in the country under control. Instead of reliably isolating or eliminating the organizers of anti-state activities, law enforcement agencies exiled them to well-fed Siberia, where they gained strength, fed themselves, freely communicated with each other, building revolutionary plans. If necessary, revolutionaries easily escaped from exile. During the war, the fight against subversive activities was also insufficiently active and did not correspond to reality. After the attempted Kornilov rebellion, the Military Revolutionary Committees (MRC), under the control of the Bolsheviks, seized into their hands all command and administrative power in the regiments, divisions, corps and armies of the Western Front. The Provisional Government, like the tsarist government, was unable to promptly and firmly stop the subversive activities of the Leninists. For the sake of truth, let us recall once again that it itself did a lot to destabilize the army with ill-conceived resolutions and orders. But one should not attribute too much to the Kerensky government; despite serious mistakes, it had no intention of surrendering the country to the Germans. From January to September 1917, about 1.9 million people joined the active army from the rear garrisons, which significantly blocked the increasing flow of desertion. In the summer, Germany continued to maintain significant forces on the Eastern Front: 127 divisions. Although their number dropped to 80 in the fall, this was still a third of Germany's total ground forces. In June 1917, Kornilov's army with a decisive assault broke through the positions of the 3rd Austrian Army of Kirchbach west of the city of Stanislav. During the further offensive, about 10 thousand enemy soldiers and 150 officers were captured, and approximately 100 guns were captured. However, the subsequent breakthrough of the Germans on the front of the 11th Army, which fled before the Germans (despite its superiority in numbers) due to moral decay, neutralized the initial successes of the Russian troops. This is how supporters of Russia’s defeat stabbed their own country in the back.
Of course, the defeatist activities of the Russian revolutionaries were received with great enthusiasm by the Germans. The German General Staff organized a large-scale campaign to support the subversive efforts of the Bolsheviks. Special offices were engaged in agitation among Russian prisoners of war. German intelligence financed the Bolsheviks with large sums through the left-wing political adventurer Parvus (real name Gelfand). He settled in Stockholm, which became an outpost of German intelligence to control events in Russia. On March 2, 1917, the German representative office in Stockholm received the following instruction 7443 of the German Reichsbank: “You are hereby notified that demands will be received from Finland for funds to promote peace in Russia. The demands will come from the following persons: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sumenson, Kozlovsky, Kollontai, Sivers or Merkalin. Current accounts are opened for these persons in branches of private German banks in Sweden, Norway and Switzerland in accordance with our order 2754. These requirements must be accompanied by one or two of the following signatures: "Dirschau "or "Milkenberg". Requests endorsed by one of the above-mentioned persons must be executed without delay." After the war, Erich von Ludendorff (Quartermaster General, the de facto head of the German General Staff) recalled: “... Our government, having sent Lenin to Russia, took on enormous responsibility! This trip was justified from a military point of view: it was necessary for Russia to fall ...". And one more thing: “By November, the degree of disintegration of the Russian army by the Bolsheviks had reached such a level that the OKH was seriously thinking about using a number of units from the Eastern Front to strengthen its positions in the West. At that time we had 80 divisions in the East - a third of all available forces.”
Erich von Ludendorff: "...Our government, having sent Lenin to Russia, took on enormous responsibility! This trip was justified from a military point of view: it was necessary for Russia to fall" 
After the October revolution, the first thing the Bolsheviks did was publish Lenin’s decree on peace. This treacherous step became the most powerful and decisive impetus for the complete collapse of the front, it practically ceased to exist. The soldiers went home in huge crowds. At the same time, a mass exodus of officers began from the army, who did not agree with the new conditions of service, with the new government and who reasonably feared for their lives. Murders and suicides of officers were not uncommon. The guards assigned to guard the warehouses fled, which is why a lot of property was stolen or perished in the open air. Due to the massive loss of horsepower, the artillery was completely paralyzed. In January 1918, 150 thousand people remained on the entire Western Front; for comparison, in mid-1916 it consisted of more than 5 million people.
General Brusilov testifies again: “I remember a case when in my presence it was reported to the Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Front that one of the divisions, having expelled its superiors, wanted to go home entirely. I ordered to let them know that I would come to them the next morning to talk with them "I was dissuaded from going to this division because it was in extreme brutality and that I would hardly get out of them alive. I, however, ordered an announcement that I would come to them and that they should wait for me. I was met by a huge crowd of soldiers, raging and not aware of her actions. I drove into this crowd in a car... and, standing up to my full height, asked them what they wanted. They shouted: “We want to go home!”. I told them what to say "I can't talk to the crowd, but let them choose several people with whom I will speak in their presence. With some difficulty, but still, representatives of this crazy crowd were chosen. When I asked which party they belonged to, they answered me that They used to be social revolutionaries, but now they have become Bolsheviks. "What is your teaching?" - I asked. “Land and freedom!” they shouted... “But what do you want now?” They frankly declared that they no longer wanted to fight and wanted to go home in order to divide the land, taking it away from the landowners, and live freely, not bearing any hardships. To my question: “What will happen to Mother Russia then, if no one thinks about her, and each of you cares only about himself?” To this they told me that it was not their business to discuss , what will happen to the state, and that they firmly decided to live at home calmly and happily. “That is, gnawing seeds and playing the accordion?!” “Exactly like that!” - the nearest rows burst out laughing...” “I also met my 17th Infantry Division, which was once in my 14th Corps, which greeted me enthusiastically. But in response to my exhortations to go against the enemy, they answered me that they themselves would have gone, but other troops adjacent to them, they will leave and will not fight, and therefore they do not agree to die uselessly. And all the units that I just saw, to a greater or lesser extent, declared the same thing: “they don’t want to fight,” and everyone considered themselves Bolsheviks.. "
Lenin, in his speech at the All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on June 9 (22), 1917, said: “When they say that we strive for a separate peace, this is not true... We do not recognize any separate peace with the German capitalists and We won’t enter into any negotiations with them.” It sounded patriotic, but Ilyich blatantly lied and resorted to any tricks to come to power. Already at the end of 1917. The Bolsheviks entered into negotiations with Germany, and in March 1918. they signed a separate peace on fantastically enslaving terms. Under its terms, a territory of 780 thousand square meters was torn away from the country. km. with a population of 56 million people (a third of the total population); Russia pledged to recognize the independence of Ukraine (UNR); indemnity in gold (about 90 tons) was transported by the Bolsheviks to Germany, etc. Now the Leninists had a free hand for the long-awaited war with their own people. By 1921, Russia was literally in ruins. It was under the Bolsheviks that the territories of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Western Ukraine and Belarus, the Kara region (in Armenia), Bessarabia, etc. seceded from the former Russian Empire. During the Civil War, from hunger, disease, terror and battles (according to various sources), from 8 to 13 million people died. Up to 2 million people emigrated from the country. In 1921, there were many millions of street children in Russia. Industrial production fell to 20% of 1913 levels.
It was a real national disaster.
And the October Revolution. But its lessons do not become less relevant. Moreover, their relevance is increasing.
The reason is simple: firstly, the contradictions that the world communist revolution, begun by the Russian October Revolution, but strangled by world capitalism, its three main forces, fascism, Stalinism and bourgeois democracy, have not been resolved; secondly, a new period of the rise of capitalism has come to an end, when the features of its new general crisis are taking shape, when the question of “who will win” will again arise. No matter how distant the experience of this first worldwide attempt to overthrow capital, it remains, if not the only one, then, in any case, the main one. And returning to it is a necessary condition for a new attempt to be crowned with success. Therefore, on the eve of future revolutionary storms, celebrating the next anniversary of the leader of the October Revolution, we will draw attention to the main feature of Leninism, its internationalism.
Internationalism, of course, was understood by the Bolsheviks not in the philistine sense such as “there are no bad nations”, “all people are brothers”, etc. Like all Marxists, Russian revolutionary social democrats of the early twentieth century understood it in the sense that the overthrow of the world capitalist system is the common cause of the entire world working class.
Already in the program adopted at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, from which Bolshevism originated, it was said:
“The development of exchange has established such a close connection between all the peoples of the civilized world that the great liberation movement of the proletariat should have become, and has long since become, international.
Considering itself one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, Russian Social Democracy pursues the same ultimate goal to which the Social Democrats of all other countries strive.”(“CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee”, 8th edition, publishing house of political literature, M. 1970, vol. 1, p. 60).
That is, as can be seen from the first sentence of the above quote, it was not at all about fidelity to a beautiful but abstract idea, but about a completely practical understanding of the fact that the overthrow of capitalism, which has become a world system, is just as impossible within national borders as it was impossible in a single city block. The situation with the understanding of this fact was extremely confused by the efforts of Stalin’s agitprop, which, for the sake of preserving the power of the Stalinist bureaucracy and for the sake of giving it (for the stated purpose) a “socialist” image, pulled quotes from Lenin taken from the international context in order to attribute to him the non-existent theory of “socialism in one country."
At the same time, the statements of the same Lenin in these same articles, or in works of the same time, which directly stated the impossibility of national socialism, were completely ignored. We will dwell on these elementary Marxist truths of that era, presented in Lenin’s works.
The Russian Revolution turned out to be the intersection of two historical processes, national and global, a reflection of which are all disputes about the nature of both the revolution itself and the society that emerged from it. By 1917, Russian society had long been ripe and overripe for a bourgeois revolution. At the same time, the general crisis of capitalism, which found its expression in the world war, raised the historical question of the exhaustion of the capitalist stage in the life of mankind, simultaneously creating objective conditions for the proletarian revolution with the goal of overthrowing capitalism and beginning the transition to communism. This intersection was superimposed by the fact that, frightened by the scale of the labor movement, the Russian bourgeoisie did not want to carry out its own revolution. And this task also had to be taken on by the working class. But, given the global crisis of the entire capitalist system, the Russian working class naturally had reason to hope that the workers of advanced countries, in turn, would make their own revolution and help the workers of more backward countries, incl. and Russia, begin to build socialism, without stopping at the long stage of capitalist development.
Based on this Lenin and sets the following tasks in the fall of 1915: “The task of the Russian proletariat is to complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia in order to ignite the socialist revolution in Europe. This second task has now come extremely close to the first, but it still remains a special and second task, for we are talking about different classes collaborating with the proletariat of Russia, for the first task the collaborator is the petty-bourgeois peasantry of Russia, for the second - the proletariat of other countries.”(V.I. Lenin, PSS, t.27, pp.49-50).
Already here lies the turn that came as a surprise to the “old Bolsheviks,” who, after the February revolution, still thought in the categories of 1905 and were going to establish a “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” to carry out a bourgeois revolution. Lenin, like Trotsky, saw in the global crisis associated with the war an opportunity to combine, thanks to the help of the international proletariat, the tasks of the national bourgeois and international socialist revolution. Before leaving for Russia in early April 1917, Lenin writes "Farewell letter to Swiss workers". He notes:
“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward European countries. Socialism cannot immediately win in it. But the peasant character of the country, with the enormous remaining land fund of the noble landowners, based on the experience of 1905, can give enormous scope to the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prologue to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it.”(V.I. Lenin, PSS, vol. 31, pp. 91-92).
In his short speech at the opening of the April Conference, Lenin states: “The Russian proletariat has the great honor of starting, but it must not forget that its movement and revolution constitute only part of the worldwide revolutionary proletarian movement, which, for example, in Germany is growing stronger and stronger every day. Only from this angle can we determine our tasks.”(ibid., p. 341). On the same day, in the Current Situation Report, he justifies his “bias” on a global scale: “...we are now connected with all other countries, and it is impossible to break out of this tangle: either the proletariat will break out as a whole, or it will be strangled”(ibid., p. 354). Concluding his report, which is mainly devoted to the necessary steps of the revolution, he emphasizes: “The complete success of these steps is possible only with a world revolution, if the revolution strangles the war, and if the workers in all countries support it, therefore taking power is the only concrete measure, this is the only way out.”(ibid., p. 358).
The understanding of the impossibility of winning even a socialist revolution, not to mention building a socialist society in a single country, especially one as backward as Russia, runs through all of Lenin’s works, right down to the very last - "Less is better". Not sure that he will be able to return to active work, he writes about what worries him: “Thus, we are now faced with the question: will we be able to hold out with our small and minute peasant production, with our ruin, until the Western European capitalist countries complete their development towards socialism?”(ibid., vol. 45, p. 402).
No illusions! And the same alarm sounds in him "Letter to the Congress" where he is concerned about one issue: the stability of the party leadership, the need to avoid its split during the period of painful anticipation of revolution in developed countries. And the fact that if the revolution is delayed, a split is inevitable due to the internal development of the country, Lenin understands perfectly:
“Our party relies on two classes and therefore its instability is possible and its fall is inevitable if an agreement could not take place between these two classes. In this case, it is useless to take certain measures or even talk about the stability of our Central Committee. No measures in this case will be able to prevent a split » (ibid., p. 344).
Only impenetrable dogmatism and reluctance to give up illusions force today’s Stalinists to again and again bring to light Lenin’s words about “building socialism”, completely ignoring those quotes of his where he directly speaks about the victory of the international revolution, like necessary condition of this “construction”.
But this condition was reflected not just in his speeches, but directly in the program of the RCP (b), adopted in the spring of 1919. Those. in the main official party document, where every word is carefully weighed. This is not a speech at a rally, where, for the sake of inspiring listeners, one can shout about “building socialism” without specifying when and under what conditions it is possible. The program speaks of the social revolution as “upcoming,” and Lenin defended this description against Podbelsky’s attacks, pointing out that “in our program we are talking about social revolution on a global scale” (ibid., v. 38, p.175). In a programme Russian communists, i.e. Bolsheviks, speech about national The social revolution is not even underway!
In the Political Report of the Central Committee to the Seventh Congress of the RCP (b), Lenin said: “International imperialism, with all the might of its capital, with its highly organized military equipment, which represents the real strength, the real fortress of international capital, could in no case, under any conditions, coexist next to the Soviet Republic, both in its objective position and in the economic interests of that the capitalist class, which was embodied in it, could not due to trade ties and international financial relations. Here conflict is inevitable. Here is the greatest difficulty of the Russian revolution, its greatest historical problem: the need to solve international problems, the need to cause an international revolution, to make this transition from our revolution, as a narrowly national one, to a world one.”(ibid., v. 36, p.8). And a little further: “If you look at the world-historical scale, there is no doubt that the final victory of the revolution, if it had remained alone, if there had been no revolutionary movement in other countries, would have been hopeless... Our salvation from all these difficulties - I repeat - in the pan-European revolution"(ibid., vol. 36 p.11).”
“Salvation... of the pan-European revolution” did not come, the split that Lenin feared occurred, and the party of the proletariat was destroyed. There was only one thing he was wrong about. The gravedigger party of the proletarian power turned out to be not the party of the peasants, but the party of the bureaucracy, whose bourgeois nature inevitably resulted from the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution, which failed to fulfill the task of developing into a world socialist revolution.
The ability to face the truth, not to create the illusion that a revolution can be won without something fundamentally important, is an absolutely necessary thing for a Marxist if he wants to achieve results. And we still need to learn this skill for a long time from Lenin.
The October Revolution occurred in the midst of a world war, when the internationalism of most parties of the Second International was abandoned for the sake of “defense of the fatherland.” Therefore, along with the concept of the impossibility of national socialism in the internationalist approach Lenin The most important issue is occupied by the issue of revolutionary defeatism, which is a particular but extremely important example of the preservation of the class independence of the proletariat in relation to the bourgeoisie.
The tactics of revolutionary defeatism, the tactics of transforming an imperialist war into a civil war, were directly derived both from the general necessary condition for the class independence of the proletariat and from the specific decisions of the congresses of the Second International:
“The opportunists thwarted the decisions of the Stuttgart, Copenhagen and Basel congresses, which obligated socialists of all countries to fight against chauvinism under any and all conditions, obliging socialists to respond to any war started by the bourgeoisie and governments by intensified preaching of civil war and social revolution.”(ibid., vol. 26, p. 20), proclaims the Manifesto of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) written by Lenin. "War and Russian Social Democracy".
And further: “The transformation of the modern imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan, indicated by the experience of the Commune, outlined by the Basel (1912) resolution and arising from all the conditions of the imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries”(ibid., p. 22).
This is the meaning of revolutionary defeatism: to use the defeat of your government to turn the mass mutual beating of each other by the working people on the fronts of the imperialist war, into a war of these working people against their bourgeois governments, for their overthrow and the establishment of the power of the working people themselves, which will put an end to all wars and capitalist exploitation.
Of course, we are not talking, and never have been, about somehow helping the military enemy for the sake of defeatism. And bourgeois propaganda often interprets this issue exactly this way, presenting the Bolsheviks as “German spies.” Just like in Germany, “Russian spies” were considered Karl Liebknecht And Rosa Luxemburg. Such an accusation is absurd, since the principle of revolutionary defeatism comes from the reactionary nature of all the warring parties and, therefore, it makes no sense to help another imperialist state in return for “our own.”
And, by the way, it was precisely this parody of revolutionary defeatism that, shortly before Germany’s attack on the USSR, the Stalinist regime imposed on the French Communist Party. Communist deputies were forced, under the conditions of fascist occupation, to switch to a legal position and begin receiving voters. They were all shot after June 22, 1941! As well as the party activists who communicated with them. There was also a request for permission to legally publish L'Humanite. Fortunately for the PCF, the fascists did not agree to this. But it is Stalin’s followers who will be ready to tear me to pieces for the position of defeatism in the Second World War, which will be discussed below.
In fact, we are talking about exposing in every possible way the jingoistic propaganda that justified the war on its part as “just.”
The point is to continue and strengthen the workers’ struggle for their rights and, ultimately, for their power, despite the accusations of patriots that by doing so they are “weakening the front” and “contributing” to military defeat. Yes, they contribute, but precisely through this struggle, and nothing else! Lenin explains these points quite clearly: “The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot help but desire the defeat of its government. ... “Revolutionary struggle against war” is an empty and meaningless exclamation, to which such masters are the heroes of the Second International, if by it we do not mean revolutionary actions against their government and during the war. It only takes a little thought to understand this. And revolutionary actions during the war against one’s government, undoubtedly, indisputably, mean not only the desire for defeat, but in fact also assistance in such defeat. (For the “astute reader”: this does not mean at all that it is necessary to “blow up bridges”, organize unsuccessful military strikes and generally help the government defeat the revolutionaries)”(ibid., p. 286). With these words Lenin, in his article "On the defeat of one's government in the imperialist war", pounces on the initially half-hearted position Trotsky.
The point is to corrupt the army of “your” imperialist power with your propaganda (and this is a condition for revolutionaries of all (!) countries), proving the senselessness and criminality of this war from all sides. The most complete result of such propaganda was the fraternization of soldiers of the armies at war with each other.
“The proletarian can neither inflict a class blow on his government, nor extend (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of a “foreign” country at war with “us,” without committing “high treason,” without contributing to defeat, without helping the disintegration of “his own.” imperialist "great" power"(ibid., p. 290).
The most striking example of the effectiveness of the latter was Bolshevik propaganda in relation to the German army. In Russia the German army seemed to be the victor, but it was here that the revolutionary example of Russian workers and soldiers had the greatest effect. The units transferred from Russia to the western front turned out to be completely ineffective, accelerating Germany’s defeat in the war and the revolution in it.
Revolutionary defeatism is not just a revolutionary phrase. This is a practical position, without which it is impossible (impossible!) to separate the working class from the ideological and political influence of “their” bourgeoisie: “ Supporters of the slogan “no victories, no defeats” actually stand on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, “not believing” in the possibility of international revolutionary actions of the working class against their governments, not wanting to help the development of such actions - a task that is undoubtedly not easy, but the only one worthy of the proletarian , the only socialist task. It was the proletariat of the most backward of the warring great powers that had, especially in the face of the shameful betrayal of the German and French Social Democrats, in the person of its party, to come out with revolutionary tactics, which are absolutely impossible without “contributing to the defeat” of their government, but which alone leads to European revolution, to the lasting peace of socialism, to the deliverance of humanity from the horrors, disasters, savagery, bestiality that reigns today"(ibid., p. 291).
It was the transition “in practice” to the policy of defeatism, “promoting” it, that led to revolutions in Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. But the absence of a political force to defend it turned out to be a disaster for the world proletariat during the Second World War. The chauvinistic, jingoistic frenzy contributed to the start of both the first and second world wars. It is very difficult to reverse it, especially for a revolutionary minority operating underground. However, when, taught by the bitter experience of war, the working people, both in the rear and at the front, themselves over time begin to intuitively realize the correctness of this approach, then without a revolutionary vanguard they can fall into the hands of completely different ideologists and practitioners. 2 million citizens of the USSR, a state-capitalist imperialist power, during the Second World War, if they did not fight on the side of Nazi Germany, then, in any case, were listed in collaborationist military units. And far (very far!) not everyone was anti-communists and enemies of socialism. Many bought into the “socialist” phraseology of General Vlasov. The same thing happened in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. And how many soldiers, workers and peasants of the USSR were there who would have been happy to oppose the Stalinist regime, but who had enough understanding that it was pointless to do this under the flag of fascism?!
The potential for the tactics of revolutionary defeatism in our country was very great, but there was no political force - the Bolshevik Party was wiped out almost completely. Worse, few among her understood the capitalist nature of the USSR. Indicative in this regard is the example of the Trotskyists, the only, at least relatively numerous, anti-Stalinist political force in the labor movement. Operating in Europe, it also had the human potential for revolutionary propaganda to transform the imperialist war into a civil war. In particular, in France and Italy. Here, even many ordinary Stalinists, even participating in a completely patriotic resistance movement, hoped that after the end of the war they would be able to use their organization and authority for the socialist revolution. Not so! Thorez, Tolyatti and Co., who arrived from Moscow, quickly put everything “in place,” imposing the continuation of the policy of the anti-fascist Popular Fronts even after the defeat of fascism.
And if some part of the working class still had revolutionary sentiments, the Trotskyists helped overcome them with their slogan of “unconditional defense of the USSR.” If the USSR is a workers' state, then it is necessary to protect both it and its allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. This logic finally gave way to hopes for a new revolutionary wave as a response to the second world imperialist war. The world working class found itself subordinate to the tasks of its national capitalist detachments. Only a few representatives of the Trotskyist Fourth International, as well as representatives of the Italian communist Left, took revolutionary positions, but remained practically isolated. Without revolutionary defeatism, as well as without the defeat of Stalinism, the continuation of the world revolution begun in October 1917 was impossible.
“The “unconditional defense of the USSR” turns out to be incompatible with the defense of the world revolution. The defense of Russia must be left as a matter of special urgency, since it binds our entire movement, puts pressure on our theoretical development and gives us a Stalinized physiognomy in the eyes of the masses. It is impossible to defend the world revolution and Russia at the same time. Either one or the other. We stand for world revolution, against the defense of Russia, and we call on you to speak out in the same direction [...] in order to remain faithful to the revolutionary tradition of the Fourth International, we must abandon the Trotskyist theory of defense of the USSR; We are thus carrying out in the International the ideological revolution necessary for the success of the world revolution.” These are quotes from the "Open Letter to the Internationalist Communist Party" dated June 1947. The party operated in France, affiliated with the Fourth Trotskyist International and included both those who shared the Trotskyist theory of a “deformed workers’ state” and those who already understood the capitalist nature of the USSR. Among the latter were the authors of this letter - Grandiso Muniz, Benjamin Pere And Natalia Sedova-Trotskaya, widow Leon Trotsky.
However, it was already too late. Taking advantage of its victory in the Second World War, capitalism completed the redistribution of the world, united most of the world market under the auspices of the United States and a smaller part of the USSR, thereby providing the conditions for the collapse of the world colonial system and the inclusion of its countries in the system of the world capitalist market. In short, capitalism created the conditions for its transition to a higher stage of its development, which lasted 60 years, and which begins to burst at the seams again, preparing new big and small wars. This was a period of prolonged counter-revolution on all fronts. But the growing crisis, economic, military, political, ideological, again requires revolutionary leadership. And this leadership must be formed fully armed with the entire revolutionary experience of the past, and the experience of Bolshevism in the first place. And the center of this experience has been and will be the emphasis on the world socialist revolution and the political class independence of the proletariat, the most integral part of which is the categorical rejection of any form of patriotism and revolutionary defeatism. 10.08.2019
Lenin on the Civil War
Anyone who claims there is a civil war
in Russia there is no conscious cause of the Bolsheviks
either he’s lying or doesn’t know his history
V. I. LENIN, VOLUME 26, July 1914 ~ August 1915, PUBLISHING HOUSE OF POLITICAL LITERATURE MOSCOW. 1969
ABOUT THE DEFEAT OF HIS GOVERNMENT IN THE IMPERIALIST WAR
The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot help but desire the defeat of its government.
This is an axiom.
Revolution during war is civil war, and the transformation of a government war into a civil war, on the one hand, is facilitated by military failures (“defeat”) of governments, and on the other hand, it is impossible to actually strive for such a transformation without thereby contributing to defeat.
ABOUT THE SLOGAN OF TRANSFORMING THE IMPERIALIST WAR INTO A CIVIL WAR
The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the modern imperialist war into a civil war. It is precisely this transformation that follows from all the objective conditions of the modern military catastrophe, and only by systematically promoting and agitating in this direction can workers’ parties fulfill the obligations they assumed in Basel.
Only such tactics will be truly revolutionary tactics of the working class, corresponding to the conditions of the new historical era.
VOLUME 26, PREFACE.
Based on the imperialist nature of the war, Lenin determined the party’s position in relation to it. He put forward the slogan: turn the imperialist war into a civil war.“Revolution during war is civil war,” Lenin pointed out. Therefore, the Bolsheviks fought for the revolution in the conditions of a world imperialist war under the slogan of turning it into a civil war. This slogan flowed from all the conditions of the war, from the fact that it created a revolutionary situation in most European countries.
Of course, Lenin wrote, it is impossible to know in advance whether this revolutionary situation will lead to a revolution, or when exactly the revolution will occur. But it is certainly the duty of all socialists to work systematically, steadily in this direction, to reveal to the masses the reality of the revolutionary situation, to awaken the revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary determination of the proletariat, to help it move to revolutionary action. The slogan summarizing and directing this work was the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war.
The civil war to which revolutionary social democracy was calling at that time, meant, as Lenin pointed out, the struggle of the proletariat with arms in hand for the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie in developed capitalist countries, for a democratic revolution in Russia, for a republic in backward monarchical countries, etc. As the first steps towards turning the imperialist war into a war Civil Lenin outlined the following measures: an unconditional refusal to vote for military loans and withdrawal from bourgeois ministries, a complete break with the policy of “national peace”; creation of an illegal organization; support for the fraternization of soldiers of warring countries; support for all kinds of revolutionary mass actions of the proletariat.
Along with the slogan of civil war, Lenin, in opposition to the bourgeois and social-chauvinist policy of supporting “his” government and “defending the fatherland,” put forward the slogan of the defeat of “his” government in the imperialist war. “In every country,” wrote Lenin, “the struggle against its government, which is waging an imperialist war, should not stop at the possibility of the defeat of that country as a result of revolutionary agitation. The defeat of a government army weakens that government, facilitates the liberation of the peoples it has enslaved, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes” (p. 166). Lenin’s article “On the Defeat of His Government in the Imperialist War” is devoted to explaining the meaning of this slogan. In it, Lenin put forward an important principle that “The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot help but desire the defeat of its government.” He emphasized that in the conditions of the world imperialist war in all imperialist countries, the proletariat must desire the defeat of “their” government and contribute to such a defeat, without this it is impossible to transform the imperialist war into a civil war.
The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot help but desire the defeat of its government.
This is an axiom. And it is challenged only by conscious supporters or helpless servants of social chauvinists. Among the first is, for example, Semkovsky from the OK (No. 2 of his Izvestia). Among the second are Trotsky and Bukvoed, and in Germany Kautsky. The desire for the defeat of Russia, writes Trotsky, is “an unprovoked and unjustified concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which replaces the revolutionary struggle against war and the conditions that gave rise to it, with an extremely arbitrary orientation in the given conditions along the line of the least evil” (No. 105 “Our Word”).
Here is an example of inflated phrases with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. “Revolutionary struggle against war” is an empty and meaningless exclamation, to which such masters, heroes of the Second International, If it does not mean revolutionary actions against his government and during the war. It only takes a little thought to understand this. And revolutionary actions during the war against one’s government, undoubtedly, indisputably, mean not only the desire for defeat, but in fact also assistance in such defeat. (For the “astute reader”: this does not mean at all that it is necessary to “blow up bridges”, organize unsuccessful military strikes and generally help the government defeat the revolutionaries.)
Escaping with phrases, Trotsky became entangled in three pines. It seems to him that wishing Russia’s defeat Means to wish victory for Germany (Bukvoed and Semkovsky more directly express this common “thought” with Trotsky, or rather thoughtlessness). And in this Trotsky sees the “methodology of social patriotism”! To help people who can't think. The Berne resolution (No. 40 of Social-Democrat) explained: in everyone In the imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of their government. The book-eater and Trotsky preferred to bypass this truth, and Semkovsky (an opportunist who brings the most benefit to the working class with an openly naive repetition of bourgeois wisdom), Semkovsky “blurted out nicely”: this is nonsense, because either Germany or Russia can win (No. 2 of Izvestia ).
Take the example of the Commune. Germany defeated France, and Bismarck and Thiers defeated the workers!! If Bukvoed and Trotsky had thought, they would have seen that They stand on the point of view of war governments and bourgeoisie, that is, they subservient to the “political methodology of social-patriotism,” to use Trotsky’s fanciful language.
A revolution during a war is a civil war, and transformation wars of governments in a civil war, on the one hand, are facilitated by military failures (“defeat”) of governments, and on the other hand, impossible in fact, strive for such a transformation without thereby contributing to defeat.
The chauvinists (with the OK, with the Chkheidze faction) disown the “slogan” of defeat because this slogan only one means a consistent call for revolutionary action against one's government during a war. And without such actions, millions of the most revolutionary phrases about war against “war and conditions, etc.” not worth a penny.
Anyone who seriously wanted to refute the “slogan” of the defeat of their government in the imperialist war would have to prove one of three things: either 1) that the war of 1914-1915. not reactionary; or 2) that revolution in connection with it is impossible, or 3) that it is impossible for revolutionary movements to correspond and promote each other in everyone warring countries. The last consideration is especially important for Russia, because it is the most backward country in which a socialist revolution is directly impossible. That is why the Russian Social Democrats had to be the first to come out with the “theory and practice” of the “slogan” of defeat. And the tsarist government was quite right that the agitation of the RSDRF faction - the only one an example in the International of not just parliamentary opposition, but of truly revolutionary agitation among the masses against their government - that this agitation weakened the “military power” of Russia and contributed to its defeat. It is a fact. It's not smart to hide from him.
Opponents of the slogan of defeat are simply afraid of themselves, unwilling to look directly at the most obvious fact of the inextricable connection between revolutionary agitation against the government and assistance in its defeat.
Is it possible for there to be a correspondence and assistance between a revolutionary movement in the bourgeois-democratic sense in Russia and a socialist movement in the West? Not a single publicly speaking socialist has doubted this over the past 10 years, and the movement in the Austrian proletariat after October 17, 1905 1 actually proved this possibility.
Ask anyone who calls himself an internationalist social democrat: does he sympathize with the agreement of the social democrats of the different warring countries on joint revolutionary actions against all the warring governments? Many will answer that it is impossible, as Kautsky answered (“Neue Zeit”, October 2, 1914), by this fully proving its social chauvinism. For, on the one hand, this is a deliberate, blatant untruth that flies in the face of generally known facts and the Basel Manifesto. On the other hand, if it were true, then the opportunists would be right in many respects!
Many will answer that they sympathize. And then we will say: if this sympathy is not hypocritical, then it is ridiculous to think that in war and for war an agreement “in form” is required: choosing representatives, meeting, signing an agreement, setting the day and hour! Only the Semkovskys are able to think like that. Agreement on revolutionary action even in one country, not to mention a number of countries, is feasible only by force example serious revolutionary actions, attack to them, development their. And such an attack is again impossible without the desire for defeat and without contributing to defeat. The transformation of an imperialist war into a civil war cannot be “done”, just as a revolution cannot be “done” - it grows up from a whole range of diverse phenomena, sides, features, properties, consequences of the imperialist war. And such growing up impossible without a series of military failures and defeats of those governments that are being attacked their own oppressed classes.
To refuse the slogan of defeat means to turn your revolutionary spirit into an empty phrase or mere hypocrisy.
And what do they propose to replace the “slogan” of defeat with? The slogan “no victories, no defeats” (Semkovsky in Izvestia No. 2. The same all OK at #1). But this is nothing more than a paraphrase of the slogan “defense of the fatherland”! This is precisely the transfer of the issue to the plane of war between governments (which, according to the content of the slogan, should stay in the old position, “maintain their positions”), and not struggle oppressed classes against their government! This is an excuse for chauvinism everyone imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisies are always ready to say - and they tell the people, that they are “only” fighting “against defeat.” “The meaning of our vote on August 4th: not for war, but against defeat I,” writes the leader of the opportunists E. David in his book. “Okists”, together with Bukvoed and Trotsky, quite take the footsteps of David, defending the slogan: no victory, no defeat!
This slogan, if you think about it, means “civil peace,” the renunciation of the class struggle of the oppressed class in all warring countries, because the class struggle is impossible without striking “your” bourgeoisie and “your” government, and striking your own government during a war There is high treason (note to Bukvoed!), There is contributing to the defeat of his country. Whoever recognizes the slogan “no victories, no defeats” can only hypocritically stand for the class struggle, for “breaking the civil peace”, he in practice renounces independent, proletarian politics, subordinating the proletariat of all warring countries to the task quite bourgeois: protect these imperialist governments from defeat. The only policy of real, not verbal, rupture of the “civil peace”, recognition of the class struggle, is the policy use proletariat difficulties his government and his bourgeoisie for their overthrow. And this cannot be achieved, to this you can't strive not wanting defeat for his government, not contributing to such a defeat.
When the Italian Social Democrats before the war raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie answered them - absolutely everything is correct. e point of view: this will be treason, and you will be treated as traitors. This is true, just as it is true that fraternization in the trenches is high treason. Whoever writes against “high treason,” like Bukvoed, or against the “collapse of Russia,” like Semkovsky, takes a bourgeois, not a proletarian, point of view. Proletarian can not neither inflict a class blow on your government, nor extend (in fact) a hand to your brother, the proletarian of a “foreign” country at war with “us”, without committing"high treason" without contributing defeat without helping disintegration“their” imperialist “great” power.
Whoever stands for the slogan “no victories, no defeats” is a conscious or unconscious chauvinist, at best a conciliatory petty bourgeois, but in any case enemy proletarian politics, supporter of the current governments, the current ruling classes.
Let's look at the question from one more angle. War cannot but evoke the most violent feelings among the masses, disturbing the usual state of the sleepy psyche. And without matching these new, stormy feelings impossible revolutionary tactics.
What are the main currents of these violent feelings? 1) Horror and despair. Hence the strengthening of religion. The churches began to fill up again, the reactionaries rejoiced. “Where there is suffering, there is religion,” says the arch-reactionary Barres. And he's right. 2) Hatred for the “enemy” is a feeling specifically fueled by the bourgeoisie (not so much the priests) and beneficial only for her economically and politically. 3) Hatred to his government and to his bourgeoisie - the feeling of all class-conscious workers who, on the one hand, understand that war is a “continuation of the policy” of imperialism, and respond to it with a “continuation” of their hatred of their class enemy, and on the other hand, understand that “war on war” there is a vulgar phrase without a revolution against his government. You cannot incite hatred towards your government and your bourgeoisie without wishing them defeat - and you cannot be an unhypocritical opponent of “civil (=class) peace” without inciting hatred towards your government and your bourgeoisie!!
Supporters of the slogan “no victories, no defeats” actually stand on the side of the bourgeoisie and opportunists, “not believing” in the possibility of international revolutionary actions of the working class against their governments, unwilling to help develop such actions - a task, undoubtedly, not an easy one, but the only one worthy of the proletarian, the only socialist task. It was the proletariat of the most backward of the warring great powers that had, especially in the face of the shameful betrayal of the German and French Social Democrats, in the person of its party, to come out with revolutionary tactics, which are absolutely impossible without “contributing to the defeat” of their government, but which alone leads to European revolution, to the lasting peace of socialism, to the deliverance of humanity from the horrors, disasters, savagery, bestiality that reigns today.
“Sotsial-Demokrat” No. 43
Published according to the text of the newspaper “Sotsial-Demokrat”
________________________
1 This refers to the tsar’s manifesto published on October 17 (30), 1905, which contained promises to provide “civil liberties” and the convening of a “legislative Duma.” The Manifesto was a concession wrested from tsarism by the revolutionary struggle, but this concession did not at all decide the fate of the revolution, as the liberals and Mensheviks claimed. The Bolsheviks exposed the falsity of the tsar's manifesto and called for the continuation of the struggle, for the overthrow of the autocracy.
The First Russian Revolution had a great revolutionizing influence on the labor movement in other countries, in particular in Austria-Hungary. The news that the Russian Tsar was forced to make a concession and issue a manifesto with the promise of “freedoms” played, as Lenin pointed out, “a decisive role in the final victory of universal suffrage in Austria” (Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 244). Powerful demonstrations took place in Vienna and other industrial cities of Austria-Hungary. Barricades appeared in Prague. As a result, universal suffrage was introduced in Austria.
A few questions to ask:
How many Russian citizens died during the First World War (1914-1918)?
How many citizens of Russia and the USSR died during the Civil War (1917-1923)?
Losses during the First World War (1914-1918)
The losses of the armed forces of all powers participating in the world war amounted to about 10 million people. There is still no generalized data on civilian casualties from the effects of military weapons. Famine and epidemics caused by the war caused the death of at least 20 million people*.
Combat losses of the Russian army killed in battles (according to various estimates from 775 to 911 thousand people) corresponded to those losses of the Central Bloc as 1:1 (Germany lost approximately 303 thousand people on the Russian front, Austria-Hungary - 451 thousand and Turkey - approximately 151 thousand). Russia waged the war with much less effort than its opponents and allies... Even taking into account significant sanitary losses and those who died in captivity, the overall losses were incomparably less sensitive for Russia than for other countries...
Famine and other disasters caused by the war led to an increase in mortality and a decrease in the birth rate. The population decline for these reasons in only 12 warring states amounted to over 20 million people, including 5 million people in Russia., in Austria-Hungary 4.4 million people, in Germany 4.2 million people**.
Losses during the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) ***
From 1917 to 1922, the population of Russia decreased by 13-16 million people, while most died from hunger and epidemics. Taking into account the decrease in population growth compared to peacetime, the loss of the Russian population amounted to 25 million people ****.
Brief summary:
Russia's human losses during the Civil War were approx. 3 times higher than during WWII...