Does the World Need A New Decree Of Peace? – Part VI

Dear Readers:

Today we finish reviewing this post by Dmitry Lyskov.  Where we left off, we saw that the new Bolshevik-led government, with its official Decree of Peace, hastened to fulfill a decade-old promise it had made … NOT to the German General Staff, as some anti-Communist ideologues still claim (without any facts to back up this assertion), but to the Second International, and to the world’s “conscious proletariat” represented by that organization.  The Bolshevik delegations to the Congresses of the Second International, especially those meetings of 1907 and 1912, had voted for the peace resolutions and hence obligated themselves to carry them out to the best of their abilities.  Which abilities had improved significantly since taking over the actual government of Russia (one of the warring parties) in October of 1917.

Solzhenitsyn expressed opinions typical of the Great Russian chauvinists.

Next Lyskov deals with still another myth perpetuated by those same Great Russian chauvinist forces, amongst whom one can count such anti-Soviet dissidents as Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  It was the bug-eyed Jew-hating fanatic Solzhenitsyn who popularized to the West, not only the “Gulag” meme (which is not exactly a myth, Stalinism was a real thing, but was greatly exaggerated in his telling of it), but also the myth of Russia’s “Stolen Victory” in World War I.

According to this myth:  Russia was perched on the threshhold of victory against Germany.  Tsar Nicholas II was prepared to fight to the bitter end.  But then the Revolution happened, and prevented Russia from marching triumphantly into Berlin at the head of the Victors Parade.  In which case, according to everybody’s What-If Machines, Russia would have shared the spoils of war with the other Entente victors; Russia would have snagged herself some juicy pieces when the planet was subsequently carved up like a Christmas goose.

Defeated German troops return to Berlin, December 1918

What this theory has going for it, is the actual fact that Germany did lose the war, in the end.  And was forced to pay reparations to the victors.  Hence, it might actually be logical to assume that Russia could have taken her rightful share of the pirates booty.

Aside from that one point, the facts do not support this theory.  One should always remind oneself, that the Tsar abdicated before the Revolution broke out in Petrograd.  Nicky simply quit the game, because he couldn’t deal with the disarray his policies had caused.  The revolution was sparked by the collapse in transport, the lack of food coming into the cities, actual hunger.  The war was lost, not at the front, but at the rear.  No revolutionary agitators, however skilled their oratory, even were they born with a hundred of Cicero’s golden tongues, could not have produced such an effect.

More to the point, the Tsar was forced to abdicate, not by revolutionary firebrands, but by his own General Staff.  I suppose one could say that even Tsarist Russia had something like a Deep State!

Another fact:  Decree #1 of the Petrograd Soviet, which is often cited as a defeatist document, since it ordered the troops to disperse, was technically directed just to the Petrograd garrison, not to the Russian army as a whole.  As it so happened, the decree then got passed from hand to hand over the entire front line, almost at the speed of light.  The men went “yay, we can go home!” and took off for home.  The officers had simply lost control over the soldiers.  There was no command left.  There was no military discipline.  The solid flesh of the Russian army had melted, thawed, and resolved itself into a dew.

Under such conditions, could Russia have possibly continued fighting the war unto the eventual victory?  Lyskov answers his own question.

Building A New Army

At the start of 1918 the Bolshevik government started to build a new army for the nation:  the Red Army.  On the surface this would not seem like a promising project, given that the entirety of Russian manhood had just voted en masse with their feet that they didn’t want to be in the army any more.

And now we see the paradoxical situation which even General Denikin had commented on:  That the same soldiers who kept whining for years that didn’t want to fight, suddenly wanted to fight.  What, oh what, could have changed their minds, what could possibly turn these army sad-sacks and deadbeats into Spartan warriors?  (Maybe the fact that they had just finished partitioning up the landlords estates and then come to find, that they have to take up the gun again, to keep their newly acquired land?)

Having something valuable to fight for, understanding precisely what one is fighting for, does make a difference, oddly enough.   Motivation is an important thing, psychologically speaking.  Still, it was an amazing feat for the Bolshevik government to reunite literally millions of soldiers with their weapons and send them back out there into the fray!  Only this time, not to fight against Germans, but to fight against their former masters and bosses!

Woman! Learn how to read!

How did the Bolsheviks do this?  With threats and cajolings?  Maybe that too.  But primary via the hackneyed and old-fashioned tactic of education.  In the year 1919 alone, the Red Army newspapers reached a circulation of almost 150 million.  In Soviet Russia, 68 million books and brochures were published.  In 1918, the Red Army became the Well-Read Army:  building 3033 libraries for the troops; by 1919 this number had increased to 7500 stationary libraries, and 2400 mobile libraries.  The Army also set up around 6000  “Literacy Schools” for the troops, along with theaters and other forms of education and entertainment.  The written word was, of course, supplemented by the speeches of the professional orators who accompanied the army and engaged the soldiers in political agitation.

All of these means of education served an important function:  They transformed the “dark masses” into enlightened masses; patriots of the new Soviet Republic, who were able to discuss, in a halfway-intelligent fashion, the political needs and interests of their brand-new country.  In this way, a new nation was formed from the lowliest members of the former Russian Empire.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Russian History and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Does the World Need A New Decree Of Peace? – Part VI

  1. nicolaavery says:

    Thank you, this has been a fascinating series – very informative

    Like

  2. Ryan Ward says:

    It’s only a passing mention in the post, but I think the depiction of Solzhenitsyn here is pretty one-sided. There’s a good response to a number of various allegations against Solzhenitsyn here (https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/traducing-solzhenitsyn). In regard to Solzhenitsyn’s work on Jews in Russia (200 Years Together), the author of the article comments,

    A reader of her essay, for example, would never learn about Solzhenitsyn’s condemnation of “scandalous restrictions” against Jews under the Russian old regime, his criticisms of the Russian state for its “unpardonable inaction” in failing to anticipate and respond to brutal anti-Jewish pogroms, his admiration for the great Russian statesman Pyotr Stolypin’s efforts to end the Jewish disabilities, or his criticism of the White forces during the Russian Civil War for their inexcusable toleration of anti-Semitic violence in territories under their control. Nor would one learn about his moving and somber discussion in chapter twenty-one of Two Hundred Years Together of the Holocaust unleashed against Jews on Soviet territory….
    He never attributes “collective guilt” to Jews or any other people. To be sure, he calls on Russians and Jews alike to take “collective responsibility” for their respective sins and omissions. In his view, Russians and Jews must both come to terms with the members of their peoples who acted in complicity with the Communist regime. They should also stop blaming others for all of their misfortunes and discontents. Jews must not pretend that every Jew was a victim, that there were no “revolutionary assassins” in their midst. And Russians must admit that they were the “authors of [their own revolutionary] shipwreck” and resist the deluded inclination “to blame everything on the Jews.”

    As a conspicuous traditionalist in the Russian context, it’s certainly true that a few scattered quotations from Solzhenitsyn can be gathered that reflect where he came from rather than where he was going, intellectually speaking. In different ways, that’s probably true of most writers. But the clear thrust of Solzhenitsyn’s work, particularly when he turned to the history of Jews in Russia specifically, doesn’t fit the picture of a thorough-going anti-Semite.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Okay, so it sounds like Solzhie got a chance to ‘splain himself to his Western critics.

      Lionized initially, he proceeded to lose a lot of friends from the Westie LIberal elite. Who were horrified by his anti-Jew statements. Previously they loved him for the wrong reasons, now they turned against him for the wrong reasons.

      And his core views, by the way, would have been completely understood all along by any Russian, of any political slant. They would have just nodded their heads, “yep, one of those…” If I had to pigeon-hole his entire world-view in 3 words, then I would peg him as a “Great Russian Chauvinist”.

      Anyhow, Solzhie didn’t write this explanatory “pro-Jewish” piece until 2001, so I reckon this was his chance to prove to his Western critics that he was a respectable anti-Communist, and not one of those Black Hundreds type retrogrades who march under those strange-looking banners….

      For what it’s worth, I concede that Solzhie made his ideological point, namely: “I’m not a Jew-hater per se, just a dedicated anti-Communist who roots for the White Guard, and I only wish they had behaved themselves better.” Which ideology fits into the mentality of the current Russian ruling elite, unfortunately….

      But I do have to mention that Solzhenitsyn never was a professional historian, and did not use proper historian techniques, from what I understand. All of his “historical” writings were more in the way of “historical fiction”, in which he liberally combined made-up stuff, some historical facts, and a wallopping dose of his personal dogma.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s