How to avoid civil war. Was it possible to avoid the Civil War in Russia after the Bolsheviks came to power? Lesson type: research lesson

The point of no return in Ukraine has been passed. There is an assault on administrative buildings. A compromise between the opposition and the authorities was not reached. The people will not back down. This is already obvious.

The forces of law and order remain hostage in this situation. They believe that the law is on their side. However, the law has long been on the side of the people to whom they swore allegiance. The key point in understanding this was the adoption by the Rada of a package of anti-constitutional dictatorial laws. Now, by the way, a decision is being made to cancel them.

The authorities demonstrate their complete buoyancy and indecisiveness. Many sympathize with Berkut, who is being “watered” with stones and Molotov cocktails. However, many people use a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the situation. Some people claim that Berkut is fighting radicals paid by the West and Europe.

There is no need to look for a conspiracy theory in a situation where everything is obvious before your eyes. By putting Berkut face to face with protesters embittered by the December crackdown on students, as well as news of beatings in the forest, the authorities simply made them a target.

You can see how, after Yanukovych offered opposition leaders to head key positions in Parliament, many wrote: - Yanukovych is a rag. No, my dears, Yanukovych is not a wimp. He is either a very indecisive politician, which cannot be said about him, or he represents the interests of a third party who is interested in stoning Berkut.

In this situation, any sane leader with even the slightest bit of analytical thinking should understand: either you give the order to disperse, or you resign. Yanukovych is to blame for the fact that the first victims appeared. It is impossible not to understand that when you keep the situation in limbo, the radicalization of protest and the aggression of the police, who are forced to stand and endure, are inevitable.

Hence, I have a question for all those who like to present this protest in terms convenient for themselves: who does Yanukovych himself work for?

This power is already doomed, and it does not even represent a “patriotic usurpation”, as some imagine. The authorities in Ukraine have shown their complete unsuitability: failing to come to an agreement with peaceful protesters and exposing the forces of law and order to fire, which led to bloodshed.

The point of no return has now been passed. The dispersal of Maidan will lead to even more blood, and, possibly, a full-fledged civil war.

Now we are no longer talking about European integration, people are speaking out against this government and its actions/inactions. Moreover, even those who initially supported it are now speaking out.

It is necessary to stop the bloodshed and stabilize the situation in the country. Now only Yanukovych can do this. He must resign. He no longer has any other choice. His tenure as president has long since ended. He has one last chance: to kneel in front of the entire Ukrainian people and ask for forgiveness. Everyone: protesters, Berkut, fathers, mothers...

Is it right or wrong? Whether someone likes it or not. But this is the only way to stop the war in Ukraine. This is the only way to atone for your guilt before the people, at least partially, and not be written down in the pages of history with blood alone.

Personality of Charles Curtis

Charles Curtis in our world was an American politician, member of the House of Representatives and senator from Kansas (1907-1913, 1915-1929), 31st Vice President of the United States (1929-1933).

He was born January 25, 1860 in Topeka, Kansas, the son of Orren Curtis and Ellen Papin. On his mother's side, Curtis was descendant of the leader Kansa Indian Tribe. Charles's mother taught him French. Riding horses since childhood, he was excellent jockey. After the death of his mother, he was raised by his grandparents, who influenced him great influence. It was his grandmother who insisted that Curtis be educated at Topeka High School. After leaving school, Charles studied law while working part-time. In 1881 he was accepted to the Bar Association. From 1885 to 1889 he practiced in Topeka as prosecutor Shawnee County, Kansas.

Later chosen Republicans to the House of Representatives, he was re-elected in subsequent six terms. While serving in Congress, Charles Curtis helped pass provisions that included provision of land Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma. He believed that Indians will be able to benefit, being educated, assimilating and joining civilized society. The government tried to convince them to accept European-American culture. When performing this task, some administrators gone too far, threatening and destroying families.

In 1907 Curtis was elected to the US Senate by the Kansas legislature. In 1912, the Democrats won the elections to the state parliament and elected their representative to the Senate instead of Curtis.

In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted, providing for the direct election of senators by popular vote. In 1914, voters elected Curtis as a senator. He remained in this position until his election vice president. Leader of the Senate Majority from 1925 to 1929.
In 1928, Curtis was elected vice president. Soon after the start Great Depression he approved five day work week no salary reduction.
Charles Curtis died February 8, 1936 from acute heart attack myocardium, but in the universe Kaiserreich he was destined for a great goal - to save the United States from Second Civil War!

Fate of USA Curtis in Kaiserreich

Charles Curtis doesn't die from a heart attack and continues his work in the president's office Herbert Hoover.
The situation in the country is heating up. The Great Depression had a detrimental effect on stability states, causing protests and strikes. People grow different kinds radical moods.

Since the American Civil War ended in the 1860s, the United States government has operated under a two-party political system Democrats and Republicans. However, following the New York stock market crash of 1925 and the government's failure to help the country recover, far left And far right sense of organization.
In the so-called "Red Belt", consisting of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and most other states bordering the Great Lakes, a movement has emerged "United Syndicates of America". They became quite popular and even conquered the so-called Empire Street. The OCA is a coalition of various American unions initiated by an international labor organization "Industrial Working World" with her leader John Jack Reed. They managed to unite left radicals and work with other socialist and communist parties.

In the region Deep South Louisiana senator and prominent populist Huey Long organized radical right movement, so-called "America First". Long's Wealth program gained notoriety even beyond his home state, and he planned to run for president in 1936.

Both United Syndicates and America First have enormous potential for uprisings and organize paramilitaries and militias throughout the country, and if one of the leaders of their movements is not elected, they are ready take power by force, if necessary.

31st President of the USA Herbert Hoover could not stabilize the situation, so the only hope to preserve the power of the Republicans and stability in the country it became precisely Charles Curtis.

How was Curtis able to avoid the Civil War?

By the end of 1936, the United States began elections to become the 32nd President of the United States. The people's favorite wins in them Charles Curtis. Although sick, he takes up the fight against the destruction of the United States.
The United Syndicates and America First accuse him of fight of votes and demand re-elections. Begin mass riots, workers do not go to factories. Curtis remains sit down at the negotiating table with Jack Reed.

Early 1937 Curtis and Reed meet in Chicago. Also requires an audience Huey Long, but Curtis refuses and negotiates only with Reed. As a result, the United Syndicates put forward their demands, one of which is introduction of a 40-hour work week. After considering these proposals, Curtis agrees to some of them and begins preparations Reform package. Negotiation were successful, a consensus was found.

Unfortunately, the aggressiveness of the movement Huey Long continued to grow rapidly and destabilize the situation in the country. Charles Curtis decides on radical solution to the problem. He arranges a secret meeting with a respected commander, field marshal and general of the US Army Douglas MacArthur, in which he receives an offer eliminate Huey Long, as he is the only strong pillar of the "America First" movement. Charles Curtis understands what it is a bold decision will prevent the Civil War and agrees...

After some time Huey Long dies, shot by an unknown shooter. Pogroms and indignation of his supporters begin, but it is too late, without the leader of “America First” loses its influence.

Charles Curtis prevents Second American Civil War. Implementation begins some of Reed's reforms, why politics Republicans becomes social democratic, and Curtis joins the ranks Progressive wing of the Republicans.

Conducted active economic reforms and the USA gradually emerges from the economic crisis, times of prosperity and new ambitions are coming...

Todd the time traveler is a cool dude, and he's decided to use his powers forever, or rather, he wants to prevent the American Civil War from happening. His powers act like the time travelers from the Butterfly Effect movies; The time traveler is protected from paradoxes; he remembers everything about alternative histories. The key difference is

1. He can go back in time one year ago (for example, if he goes back to 1812, he can never go back there again) and will go back to his time after that year is over;
2. He can only go back in time by reading (or viewing) information about the past; Pictures, newspapers, historical texts, etc.

Some details about Todd

• He served as a medic for the Turkish Army for 16 years and has extensive experience in medicine.
• Other than his military service and experience, he is an average white male.

Using his modern medical knowledge, can Todd stop the American Civil War?

Count Iblis

Everything that happened in the past includes all the effects of time travelers. Nothing will change if you end up going back in time to do something, then everything that happened in the past already includes what you end up doing. Any paradoxes in this regard involve the concept of free will allowing you to consciously do something other than what actually happened in the past, but resolving this paradox in a universe that allows time travel involves recognizing that humans are just machines obeying laws. In physics there is no such thing as free will.

celtschk

Considering that it was the Civil War that ultimately ended slavery in the US, I'm not sure that preventing it would actually lead to using its powers forever.

Frostfire

@celtschk The Civil War was fought because the north and south disagreed over slavery. If slavery had not been part of the culture from the beginning, this conflict could have been avoided. All he has to do is go back and confront Social Darwinism before it leads to widespread slavery.

AndyD273

@Azor-Ahai Maybe he'll go back 12 months, and after that he'll never be able to go back to those 12 months again.

Answers

AndyD273

I know the Civil War wasn't just about slavery, but it was definitely a major factor.

To defuse this part of the conflict, he must go back to the very foundation of the nation.
Thomas Jefferson tried to get an anti-slavery clause in the Declaration of Independence, and I remember from history that the issue was raised so many times that some other members of Congress actually banned the issue.

So armed with a large war chest (or at least a way to make a lot of money, perhaps by traveling to earlier times to lay the groundwork) and plans for several Industrial Revolution technologies, Todd must wage a huge social, political and economic lobbying campaign. aimed at converting the population against slavery, convincing the Continental Congress that slavery was wrong, and convincing businessmen of the time that importing slaves would be against their long-term interests.

By removing bondage from the root, the rest of the plant avoids the poison.

Ironically, by stopping the importation of slaves, we are keeping them out of our history, meaning all the progress, discoveries, and contributions that their descendants have made to our country would not have happened.
Some of these Africans may have immigrated to a free US on their own, but not in the same numbers or in the same way, and so these descendants would not have happened.
Additionally, most of these enslaved people were enslaved by other African tribes as a result of war, and if they could not be captured and sold to slave traders, they could be killed instead.

Additionally, peanut butter may not have been detected.

EDIT: I think peanut butter would have been discovered, but George Washington Carver invented over 300 other uses and made peanuts popular.

LSD

Interesting, although I personally think it would be hard to say that some of these things wouldn't have been invented/discovered by other people. Did it have to be the slave (or former slave, or descendant of a slave) who did it, or were they simply in the right place at the right time, which could have happened to someone else?

Pere

Enslavement in Africa was fueled by demand from Africa, so banning slavery in the US would have resulted in fewer African people being enslaved and transported. However, the importation of slaves into the United States was banned in 1807, so a ban in 1776 would have avoided a couple of decades of transatlantic trade. Additionally, it could have forced the southern colonies to side with the British side in the American Revolution—possibly causing the revolution to stall.

AndyD273

@Good information about the import ban. I'm not suggesting that they imported slaves in 1776, but slavery in its entirety. In 1776 it was not a North-South issue, since the North had as many slaves as the South. This is why Thomas Jefferson became somewhat unpopular on this issue, because he was one of the few in Congress trying to repeal it. A big reason the South wanted slaves in CW was because their economy depended on cheap labor. If this dependency could be eliminated early on, it would be much easier. By 1861 it was deep.

AndyD273

@KeithMorrison I was mainly working to avoid sweeping generalizations, and because there were two sides to the war. The South went to war and wanted to secede from the union because of slavery. The North went to war to prevent the South from leaving. President Lincoln was against slavery, but felt that unionization was more important than freeing the slaves. My chief agrees with you that none of the other complaints would be important enough to start the war over again.

PCSgtL

Todd would have found it easier to end the war sooner or later for one side or the other. It can also delay the start of war. However, it is unlikely that with just one trip he will be able to completely stop the civil war. The main problems dividing the country have reached depths and have already led to bloodshed between North and South.

Todd can stop the formation of the Republican Party or even rig the election so that Abraham Lincoln loses the election. But some other abolitionist party would have formed, and another abolitionist president would have been elected, and the south would have left the union.

The best hope for a peaceful settlement would be to lead the formation of an abolitionist party and elect an abolitionist president (perhaps himself) who would allow the southern states to yield without starting any northern leaden conflict. It might even stop the cession of states in the early 7. Perhaps a later Mexican/Confederate War with Mexican success might cause some of the states to join the Union. But other political developments could also lead to more countries leaving the Union. There's too much in the air.

PCSgtL

I have. This again ends the war early rather than avoiding it.

Marshall Tiger

I didn't mention this as an answer to the question, just thought you might like your thought process :)

user11599

He could have stopped Eli Whitney from inventing cotton gin. 60% of slaves worked on cotton plantations and 2/3 of US exports were cotton, so there is no short main cotton, no cotton belt. Although he may have to keep coming back to stop the "next" cotton gin discovery. :)

Marshall Tiger

He couldn't prevent the war because there were many reasons for the civil war that I won't go into here (there are plenty of documentaries and resources if you're really interested in that). It's unlikely that he could solve all these problems without some subset of states revolting in civil war at some time, it's really just a matter of when and how serious it was.

However, he could change the nature of the war so that it would no longer be considered a civil war. Perhaps it prevents the formation of the United States and allows states to exist more like Europe, as a collection of individual nations that sometimes cooperate. In this case, it will be a war between countries, not a civil war.

It may also prevent the discovery of the New World for some time, with later colonization of the New World resulting in a completely different landscape where civil war cannot occur.

Using his medical knowledge, he could create the conditions for a terrible plague to sweep through the United States many years before the Civil War, which would reduce the workforce to the point that Civil War is not a prospect that either the North or South or fight effectively.

It could also create a kind of “Pearl Harbor” effect, with the US inclined to violence against a common enemy.

He could also go back to the first people, kill them all and prevent the development of the human race.

In all these respects, it doesn't actually solve the problem of civil war or make the world a better place, so to speak, but it does technically stop civil war.

Martin Schroeder

Or he could have prevented the genocide of Native Americans.

Gary Walker

Look at how other countries solved the slave problem. Britain, for example, abolished slavery in the empire by paying restitution to slaves in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. The cost of this was about 5% of their annual GDP.

The direct financial cost of the American Civil War alone exceeded 200% of annual GDP, it also killed about 4% of the male population, caused much more damage, and saddled the country with decades of large costs for reconstruction, veterans' benefits, etc.

By providing convincing evidence of the ultimate costs of slavery at the time of the founding of countries, one could convince others that slavery should be abolished and that all people should be free. The country could raise funds to compensate existing slave owners, even if it was difficult, the government could sell assets, sell bonds, etc. to make this happen.

It is clear that this has nothing to do with the traveler's medical knowledge, but this is not entirely unexpected. Preventing war requires political changes, not new medical techniques. In fact, improved medical knowledge has the opposite effect, since keeping soldiers alive reduces the costs of fighting a war.

green

Yes, he could... or, if not, he would radically change the nature of the conflict

By all accounts, the American Civil War began because the federal government had the power to dictate whether slavery would be allowed in Western territories or not. The North said it did. South said no.

It is interesting to note that the issue of slavery was widely discussed in the 1770s and 1780s when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. During this debate, the Founding Fathers answered the question and made a compromise.

Pay them or die

Suppose our time traveler returned to the climactic discussion where a compromise was reached and the stage was set for a bloody conflict in the 1860s. Behind those closed doors, he would be able to make the case for ending slavery in some sort of do-or-die scenario. Southern delegates to the convention have a choice: gracefully succumb to the slave system in the South (1780s or 1790s) or forcefully abolish it in the 1860s. (Perhaps leave out the dates, because if the delegates don't agree, they'll go home and use your information to arm the South).

Make as many economic and political arguments as necessary. Remember that the delegates at these meetings are incredibly smart people, so the arguments must be strong. Presenting a modern moral argument would likely not work, since many Southerners did not consider slaves (or blacks in general) to be human, and therefore did not deserve humane treatment or any kind of autonomy. (Reading their excuses is absolutely terrifying for modern readers.)

"To the Southern Gentlemen of the Conference,

It falls to you to prove that slavery must and will end in these United States. Whether it is a bloody conflict or a peaceful settlement is up to them to decide. If they decide to keep their slaves, know that they keep them with the best blood of their children or children's children. Are they ready to pay with hundreds of thousands of dead on both sides? Will they pay with the complete destruction of their greatest cities and the starvation of tens of thousands who usually live in abundance? Will they tolerate the absolute destruction of the way of life they claim to hold so dear? "

Thucydides

Slaverui was part of human society as far as we can tell from records, so the actions of abolitionists in England and the northern states in the 1700s were virtually unprecedented. If you're looking for counterfeits, it might be easier to assume that slavery was never abolished in the first place and continues to this day (as is the case in places like Sudan).

The place to stop slavery must be before the founding of the United States, so your hero may have to go back in time to the 1600s to ensure that future slave owners are not given the opportunity to come to America, find a way to ensure so that economic activities that do not involve slave ownership can take precedence over economic activities that require slave ownership (thus the trade in sugar, tobacco and cotton must be suppressed in some way), or at the extreme sit offshore and drown all without exception slavery. who do it across the Atlantic.

Extreme measures will be necessary, as the benefits of Chattel slavery in a pre-mechanized age generally outweigh the disadvantages (as ancient societies from Egypt can attest). Economic gain is a powerful incentive, so any benefits that can be gained will be claimed, accumulated, and social and political structures will be developed to quantify and maintain those benefits. It was the attempt to maintain these advantages that led to the divergence between North and South and created the political tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War.

Keith Morrison

This is very wrong. Slavery was abolished in Lithuania in 1588. Japan banned it in 1590 (except as a punishment for criminals). Russia abolished slavery in 1723 (but retained serfdom). Portugal banned the import of slaves in 1761, and abolition began in 1773. France abolished slavery in all of its territories in 1793 (a stab at Napoleon that brought him back to the sugar cane colonies). And so on.

Thucydides

True, but it doesn't matter. The problem is that the American colonists create a society and economy using chattel slavery as the driving factor, rather than some other economic system that does not depend on slavery.

M.A. Golding

If a time traveler wanted to kill or enslave hundreds or thousands of people to prevent the horrors of slavery and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Civil War, he could go back to colonial times to prevent the adoption of slavery in the colonies.

Many histories of early America imply that the Pilgrims at Plymouth were the founders of the colonies, although the Jamestown setters were the very first, a distortion caused in part by hostility to slavery.

So he could go back in time to 1608 Jamestown and destroy the colony there. But this disaster may derail the 1620 settlement of Plymouth. So perhaps he should wait until the end of the Plymouth settlement in 1620 and then destroy the Virginia colony.

Fortunately, the Virginia Colony was still small in the 1620s. in 1622, just two years after settling Plymouth, Powhatan's Confederacy launched a surprise attack on the Virginia settlements, killing three or four hundred men, women, and children, about a quarter to a third of the entire colony.

The Powhatans then waited for the English to surrender or sail back to England. But instead, the settlers fought back in a war that lasted for years.

So the time traveler could have found a way to enhance Powhatan's attack.

He could have gone to Spain, hired some ships and hired some Spanish mercenaries to attack the English in Virginia at the same time that they attacked the Powhatans. Since the Spanish government claimed all of North America and considered all English settlers to be criminals, the Spanish government may not condemn the expedition.

Perhaps he could also have organized a French and/or Barbara pirate attack on the Jamestown colony. There is nothing like multiple attacks at once to force survivors to abandon their colony.

He could have gone to the Powhatan leaders and convinced them to make a stronger attack and continue it after the first day. He might have advised them to form an alliance with the powerful Iroquois to the north. They might agree to become subordinate to the Iroquois in exchange for being reinforced by hundreds of Iroquois to make a surprise attack even more devastating. And perhaps he could persuade or bribe the Dutch traders at Albany to send one or more ships armed with cannon to break the stockade at Jamestown and capture it, leaving the English colonists without a safe fortress during the attack on Powhatan.

He could provide the Powhatans with a lot of weapons and a lot of ammunition.

Thus, he can destroy the Virginia colony and prevent it from developing a slave economy, while maintaining the Plymouth colony.

And he will probably have to repeat this again and again as they try to create new colonies in the southern United States. He must inoculate the South Indian tribes against Old World diseases and other medical aids - thus saving many thousands of lives even if his plan fails - so that they will have more warriors, arm them with weapons and ammunition, and whenever the new southern colony attempted to bribe a broad coalition of tribes with trade goods to attack and destroy the colony before it could develop a slave economy.

Thus, he could delay the settlement of the South and the development of a slavery-based economy there for generations or centuries, and greatly reduce the population of the South in the 1860s, if it exists at all, and facilitate slavery in the same peaceful way to be abolished throughout the US , as was the case in the northern states.

OhkaBaka

This may be an interesting test, but an interesting experiment... but even at that time the south insisted that the north didn't care about slavery, it was just using it to galvanize its people into action.

Assuming slavery was NOT as important as independence/taxes/commerce as they claimed there was a step they were not pursuing.

The South can preemptively abolish slavery... Sorts. They could replace it (as our species does) with something that was almost the same thing (like a company store creating debt slavery). Their “property” becomes “free”, but they have no choice but to continue working for virtually nothing, knocking the northern arguments out from under them.

It would be much more difficult to rally people to fight and die to regulate interstate commerce.

Of course, this does NOTHING to fix the moral problems associated with the conflict... in fact, it probably creates structures that will take much longer to deconstruct... but it may stop the war itself.

Todd...if he could use his skills to become important and valuable enough to the confederacy, he could eventually gain the ears of those who could hear the logic and be guided by those decisions.

Marcus

I'm going to go with no for one reason, and that's the argument made in Quantum Break. You cannot change the past, and by trying, you will only cause the event you are trying to change. Here's an example given in the game: Let's say you have an egg sitting on your table. You leave the room for a second, and when you return, the egg breaks. Say that the egg is really important to you, so you go back in time, burst into the room after the past has passed, and you crash into the table, knocking the egg over and breaking it. You caused what you tried to prevent.

Ghotir

This is one possible idea of ​​time travel, but by no means the only idea of ​​time travel. You could just as easily envision a butterfly effect, where a simple backward movement changes the air currents, which changes the [insert whole long list of coincidences here] that changes the event. Until someone actually develops time travel (if it's even possible), it's just speculation.

Joshua

@Ghotir: My understanding is equivalent to "you cannot change the past you have observed" proven in General Relativity even with active time travel, but the question suggests otherwise. The corresponding proof is not available in Quantum SR (Quantum GR is not available).

Ghotir

My degree is in general relativity... but it's been longer than I care to admit since I've done any work or research in that field. However, I am firmly of the opinion that so far we do not have any verifiable time travel hypotheses... "anything goes" is the best answer to the supposed author. Just be internally consistent!

N2ition

There is an incredibly high probability that he will be able to change the existence of the American Civil War, acting in countless ways as some excellent examples of the choices already made.

Another example if you want to benefit from a character's medical education is to speed up communication during a time when citrus fruits and teas made from certain pine needles cure scurvy. At that time, this vitamin C deficiency disease was still widespread and treatments were just beginning to become known. The scurvy has certainly led to the death or slowdown of progress for another set of VIPs from overseas who have developed... (could branch out into as many plot twists here as you can imagine) ... a massive plan to infiltrate the colonial government to achieve your political goal (choose one). Alas, the crew of their ship had not yet learned the secret of the other capital "C" and still succumbed to scurvy. While the upper class conspirators were fine with their sweet dried fruits tipping them over, none had a clue how to navigate the ocean. They ended up in the Bahamas, fell in love with the place and stayed there.

For more than 20 years of liberal lies, the people have been stubbornly and persistently fed and are being fed the completely false idea that the civil war is some kind of evil into which the Bolsheviks plunged the entire country. And if it weren’t for a handful of these scoundrels, the country would live in peace and prosperity.

In reality, such a statement is a priori false and leads away from the class essence of the issue itself.
After all, what is a civil war? Civil war is nothing more than a concentrated expression of class struggle. In other words, this is a struggle for power between the exploited class, that is, the proletarians, and the exploiting class, that is, those who were in power recently, lost it and would like to regain it.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote: “Whoever recognizes the class struggle cannot help but recognize civil wars, which in any class society represent a natural, under certain circumstances, inevitable continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle.” (MILITARY PROGRAM OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION).

Could this intense struggle not have happened? No, it could not, because the proletarians - workers, peasants and soldiers - tried to retain and defend the power they had won in October 1917. And a pitiful bunch of rich people, without strong support within the country, naturally tried to rely on foreign interventionists and their bayonets, who did not fail to rush to plunder Russian wealth. Fortunately, the White Guard, not without pleasure, sold out their own country to them wholesale and retail, not being too ashamed of their actions and not noticeably sad about the prosperity of Mother Russia.
So, let's fix that the civil war was a war or struggle for power between a handful of rich people, i.e. minority, and the working majority, or proletarians.

Does this mean that “brother went against brother” or, in other words, that the crack of discord ran, so to speak, right through families?

Let's just say that this phrase cannot be taken literally. Of course, there were isolated cases when one brother was in the white camp and the other in the red camp. However, such a situation could arise only due to delusion and misunderstanding by individual proletarians of their class interests due to political illiteracy.

It is significant how Demyan Bedny wrote about this at that time, addressing the lost proletarians who stood up to defend the interests of their exploiter masters, the tsarist guardsmen and the fat-bellied bourgeoisie:

But I feel sorry for the real sufferers - the poor,
I feel sorry for those who, trembling in difficult moments,
I am ready to put on my old shackles,
He himself asks for prisons and shackles,
He himself offers the former “owners” their shoulders...

Let me note that before the Great October Revolution, the so-called “brothers” who stood on the other side of the barricades did not hesitate to rob the common people blind and gnaw them to the bones, without even thinking about some kind of “mythical brotherhood.”

Therefore, to the civilian the oppressed stood up against the oppressor, and not “brother” against “brother”, only one way and not the other, and it was impossible to avoid this, except by once again bending one’s neck under the yoke and whip of the exploiter.

Thus, those who cry today that civil war is evil are far from concerned with the desire for peace and non-shedding of blood, but with the abandonment of the struggle in general for power in favor of the bourgeoisie and landowners, who were removed from it by the will of the people in October 1917 year. And this position of theirs, by definition, is deeply anti-people.

Lenin wrote in his “Response to P. Kievsky (Yu. Pyatakov)”: “The goal of the civil war is the conquest of banks, factories, mills and other things (in favor of the proletarians), the destruction of any possibility of resistance to the bourgeoisie, the extermination of its troops.”

It is clear that such goals could not please those who until recently were fattening at the expense of the oppressed majority. It was this clash of interests that became the cause of a fierce struggle - a civil war, the refusal of which would be tantamount to capitulation to the bourgeoisie and those fragments of tsarism that, unfortunately, still survived.

For more than 20 years of liberal lies, the people have been stubbornly and persistently fed and are being fed the completely false idea that the civil war is some kind of evil into which the Bolsheviks plunged the entire country. And if it weren’t for a handful of these scoundrels, the country would live in peace and prosperity.

In reality, such a statement is a priori false and leads away from the class essence of the issue itself.

After all, what is a civil war? Civil war is nothing more than a concentrated expression of class struggle. In other words, this is a struggle for power between the exploited class, that is, the proletarians, and the exploiting class, that is, those who were in power recently, lost it and would like to regain it.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote: “Whoever recognizes the class struggle cannot help but recognize civil wars, which in any class society represent a natural, under certain circumstances, inevitable continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle.” (MILITARY PROGRAM OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION).

Could this intense struggle not have happened? No, it could not, because the proletarians - workers, peasants and soldiers - tried to retain and defend the power they had won in October 1917. And a pitiful bunch of rich people, without strong support within the country, naturally tried to rely on foreign interventionists and their bayonets, who did not fail to rush to plunder Russian wealth. Fortunately, the White Guard, not without pleasure, sold out their own country to them wholesale and retail, not being too ashamed of their actions and not noticeably sad about the prosperity of Mother Russia.

So, let's fix that the civil war was a war or struggle for power between a handful of rich people, i.e. minority, and the working majority, or proletarians.

Does this mean that “brother went against brother” or, in other words, that the crack of discord ran, so to speak, right through families?

Let's just say that this phrase cannot be taken literally. Of course, there were isolated cases when one brother was in the white camp and the other in the red camp. However, such a situation could arise only due to delusion and misunderstanding by individual proletarians of their class interests due to political illiteracy.

It is significant how Demyan Bedny wrote about this at that time, addressing the lost proletarians who stood up to defend the interests of their exploiter masters, the tsarist guardsmen and the fat-bellied bourgeoisie:

But I feel sorry for the real sufferers - the poor,

I feel sorry for those who, trembling in difficult moments,

I am ready to put on my old shackles,

He himself asks for prisons and shackles,

He himself offers the former “owners” their shoulders...

Let me note that before the Great October Revolution, the so-called “brothers” who stood on the other side of the barricades did not hesitate to rob the common people blind and gnaw them to the bones, without even thinking about some kind of “mythical brotherhood.”

Therefore, to the civilian the oppressed stood up against the oppressor, and not “brother” against “brother”, only one way and not the other, and it was impossible to avoid this, except by once again bending one’s neck under the yoke and whip of the exploiter.

Thus, those who cry today that civil war is evil are far from concerned with the desire for peace and non-shedding of blood, but with the abandonment of the struggle in general for power in favor of the bourgeoisie and landowners, who were removed from it by the will of the people in October 1917 year. And this position of theirs, by definition, is deeply anti-people.

Lenin wrote in his “Response to P. Kievsky (Yu. Pyatakov)”: “The goal of the civil war is the conquest of banks, factories, mills and other things (in favor of the proletarians), the destruction of any possibility of resistance to the bourgeoisie, the extermination of its troops.”

It is clear that such goals could not please those who until recently were fattening at the expense of the oppressed majority. It was this clash of interests that became the cause of a fierce struggle - a civil war, the refusal of which would be tantamount to capitulation to the bourgeoisie and those fragments of tsarism that, unfortunately, still survived.