discussions

Home page » discussions
| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — K. V. Godunov. DEBATES ON CIVIL WAR DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR

This article examines how the debates that took place during the First World War influenced the dissemination of the concept of “civil war” and the impact this had on the political situation of the time. Particular attention is paid to discussions within the radical socialist milieu. It is demonstrated that the proponents of the slogan advocating the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war — first and foremost, V. I. Lenin and his supporters — acted within a specific historical and ideological context. They took into account the earlier discursive articulations of civil war as well as the experiences of socialists in other countries, particularly the rhetoric of Karl Liebknecht. Drawing on the views of prominent Bolsheviks such as A. G. Shlyapnikov, A. M. Kollontai, and N. I. Bukharin, the study shows that not all members of the party unequivocally supported Lenin’s call for civil war. Even among Lenin’s prominent allies, interpretations of the slogan varied, with differing views expressed regarding its meaning and practical implementation. Debates about the means of ending the global conflict and about the prospects for revolution and civil war were significant in several respects. During the First World War, the Bolsheviks acquired the reputation of being the “party of civil war”. This image played a major role in various anti-Bolshevik propaganda campaigns in 1917, even though in reality, not all members of the party fully endorsed Lenin’s position. Disputes surrounding the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war contributed to the cultural preparation for internal conflict. The notion of “civil war” gained renewed momentum and expanded its reach; its articulation during the crises of the First World War contributed to the radicalisation of the political situation. These debates among socialists led party activists at various levels — regardless of their agreement or disagreement with the necessity of civil war — to engage with the idea and to participate in the development of a political language centred around violence.