The Benefits of Defeat: The Case of 1917
Where does the panicky fear of defeat that some now spread come from? "The only thing worse than a war is a lost war" - in fact, the opposite is true. Victory means strengthening the existing system (since it led to victory). Whereas a loss is an occasion for reassessment and reforms. The lost Crimean War was followed by the reforms of Alexander II, after the lost Russo-Japanese War, the revolution of 1905 followed, the manifesto of October 17 - the Russians received political rights for the first time in history. However, when you talk today about the benefits of defeat, you inevitably come across comparisons with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. And Lenin-this is bad (because Lenin came up with Ukraine). But the joke is that Russia was then pushed into the arms of the Bolsheviks by those who wanted to continue the war at any cost.
What is the First World War for the Russian Empire? It began with a patriotic upsurge. However, in the first five months, 400 thousand soldiers were lost killed and about a million wounded. 15 million people were mobilized. All this led to a shortage of food and growing inflation, the workers who remained in the rear were forced to work to ensure the war for a penny. In February 1917, war weariness led to mass demonstrations (which, by the way, began with workers from textile factories). The soldiers began to go over to the side of the rebels. As a result, the Russian elites supported the transit of power in order to ... continue the war. The General Staff forced Tsar Nicholas 2 to abdicate, counting on the fact that after the removal of the unpopular leader, it would be possible to continue fighting.
Two alternative centers of power were formed: the Provisional Government, which had the support of the elites and supported the war until victory. And the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which opposed the war. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks supported the "defensive war". The Bolsheviks and the radical part of the Socialist-Revolutionaries with the Mensheviks are for immediate peace. In the summer, Kerensky announced a new offensive, prompting new protests. The authority of the Provisional Government fell rapidly - already in August they had to turn to the left to protect themselves from the Kornilov revolt. But plans to send new soldiers to the front were still not abandoned. It all ended with the fact that during the October coup, only the junkers and the women's battalion defended the Winter from the Bolsheviks. Not a single soldier came forward in support of the Provisional Government.
Meanwhile, in Germany in 1916-17. there were also mass protests. However, it was only in 1918 that this led to the flight of the Kaiser and the establishment of the power of the Social Democratic Party. Further, it seemed to continue according to the Russian scenario: radicals separated from the social democrats, who began to create "councils of workers' deputies." The growing contradictions ended in December 1918 with the uprising of the Spartak Union, which was ... suppressed by the army and volunteers (freikors) loyal to the government. Why? Mainly because this government concluded the Compiègne truce and began demobilization, which satisfied the anti-war request.
Thus, the end of the war, both in Russia and in Germany, was the request of society. In Germany, this request was granted by the government itself, knocking the ground out from under the radical left. Whereas in Russia the elites continued to drive the soldier to the front, the soldier in response preferred literally anyone, even a bald one (on an armored car). If the Provisional Government had not insisted on war, no Bolsheviks would have been able to seize power. Hence the moral: admit defeat, make peace and move on to reforms should be early. The more you delay, the worse will be the bastard who will eventually take advantage of it.
Mihail Pojarsky 2022-04-23
