Centerfield: Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG)

March 14, 2007

Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG)

WWI was so badly-fought on the Allied side, and saw so much guilt from the retributive terms ending it, that it resulted in an unbelievable amount of dangerous political mythology. These posts are about some of that. This one is about the rise of Communism. I spend less time on Fascism, as that I feel that's better-covered in courses and books.

From our post-Cold-War vantage point, Communism is hard to understand. At this point, it's obviously stupid and wrong. But you run into people even now who still believe in it or have a soft spot from believing in it when they were too young to know better. This post was inspired by this post about an extant Maoist organization. Iraq hawk Hitchens falls in the soft spot category. An interesting clue is his belief that Britain's entry into WWI was an evil act, despite the fact that it was a clear defense of fellow free countries against an evil aggressive tyrant not unlike Mr. Hussein.

Another thing hard for many readers of this blog to really get is a government acting so incompetently that people stop believing in its basic ideas. We've seen the Bush Administration make plenty of mistakes in Iraq, but, except in the minds of its opponents, nothing so bad as to make more than a few fools lose faith in democracy. In WWI, EVERY major Allied government fought stupidly enough for many of their citizens to lose faith. Russia experienced revolution.

While we're speaking of revolution, let's cue over to Communism's start. OK, there's the basic ideas we heard in school: ideas that capitalism causes such evil that it must be replaced with a communal economic system and the Western capitalist democracies are evil and imperialist. OK, the Imperialist bit was still true back in WWI (interesting how you kept hearing the Imperialism accusation decades after the last empire except the Communist one collapsed - but that's because all its street cred comes from WWI), but the rest of it never showed many signs of being true. Nonetheless, a big minority came to believe in it after WWI. So how did so many people come to believe? Well, many people had lost faith in the ways of thinking they were taught. And many of the Commies really were smart (unwise, but smart). And they had explanations for many problems, even if they never could be bothered to back them up with facts.

Back to the democracies fighting. Democracies traditionally fight better than our opponents. First, though we may find it hard to believe, our leaders are usually smarter, and dare have smart people working for them. Second, when mistakes are made, the resulting changing in who's in at least puts pressure on govts to acknowledge mistakes and fight better. I believe that exact dynamic is ongoing in Iraq, where the Administration has changed approach to, oh, yeah, maybe containing even the nasty gangs that don't shoot at us is worthwhile after all. And that happened in WWI, just not enough.

WWI was a rare case in which the antidemocratic forces fought smarter for a long time. They started with better artillery and strategy, and kept that lead long enough to come close to winning, right up until we invented tanks and finally got tank tactics right. Only then did the war turn around (and decisively). We won in the characteristic democratic way of outclevering the opponents, but only after year after year of being stupider. It was a very striking change from behavior shown beforehand.

The Allies also fought in a way that wasted millions of deaths. They sent hordes of soldiers into well-established machine-gun nests, to die. WWI was fought in a military era where the defensive dominated. Just an few hours of entrenching work and a few well-supplied machine guns would tend to result in a halt of the front in that region for much of the war. The Allies had trouble digesting that. They started with superior manpower and started throwing it at the Central Powers. Result: what superior manpower? The trenches budged little in response to the blood spilled in them.

There was even one leader, Churchill, who actually did understand it, but still had his stupid moment and threw men at trenches at Gallipoli. Gallipoli was initially a clever idea, badly executed, until the moment came when Churchy did the same as they were doing on the Western Front. Deep Sigh. Fortunately, Churchill didn't give up, and he ended up being a big patron in power for the tanks that came back and won it. The Al Gore of the Tank.

Again, we have something a little hard for most of us modern Americans to understand. We have the deaths of the few fallen giving their lives in Iraq. We have roughly 120,000 engaged in Iraq. We had millions in Europe in WWI. The other democratic Allies had huge fractions of their total young male populations in there. In Western Europe, a big fraction of the draft-eligible were dead or seriously wounded. Imagine if your son had died, and so had all the men in your next-door neighbors' family, and a tenth of the young men your neighborhood were dead. Imagine if just under half (UK) to 3/4 (France) were wounded or killed. And plenty had the whopping PTSDs, but they didn't know how to cure it and called it shell shock. Tolkien, who served in WWI, might've had it at one point - the fearful calls of his worst monsters, the thoroughly nasty Nazgul, are those of big artillery shells arcing in. We do know that several of his closest friends died in the war. Of course, it was spent in a good cause. But so stupidly! And that was a point that could not be missed.

The result was widespread rebellion. To be sure, for most, the response was like Eric Maria Remarque's, jotted down for the generations in All Quiet on the Western Front, bitterness and distrust of all things military - or like many who saw Vietnam happen, except among an even greater percentage of the population. But there was also a much bigger minority than before inclined to outright rebel against the ideas of democracy, capitalism, and evidence-based civilization that had put them in the horrid trenches. All of Europe and North America saw big, healthy Fascist and Communist movements after the war.

So why the uncharacteristically incompetent democratic fighting? Well, probably no two historians can completely agree on this point. In fact, we'll see that the myth-inspiring features of this war extend to historians for many years to come in the third part of this essay.

My theory is the "previous war" theory, molded to the context of the day. Most of the Allies' recent fights had been in the colonies, where the colonial state had the balance of forces and technology, and the resistance the advantages of guerillas. That's where Britain's high WWI commander, Kitchener, got his spurs. And those wars were won by laying down track, better artillery, machine guns, and cavalry. Though they saw plenty of machine guns in action, they never faced entrenched ones themselves. Except for the Germans, who'd been sporadically making war in Europe for a while.

Before WWI, Communism hadn't been tried anywhere but a few idealistic communes. Lenin was looking forward to WWI, though. He knew Russia's Nicky II would mess things up. And was he ever right. The rest of the Allies were able to supply enough ammo of the right types to their troops, and their generals were only moderately bad. Lenin rightly anticipated that WWI would mean the end of the monarchy, and successfully plotted to overthrow the democratic government that replaced it.

Communism didn't actually work, of course. Lenin became embittered, but of course he didn't let that motivate him to let go of power. Churchill made a nice snarky speech when the rouble was reintroduced (albeit under controls - can't trust that nasty currency stuff, even if it might feed the people...). Much of the history of Communism was figuring out how to feed enough of the right people to stay in power.

Another thing that didn't work was the pacifism that Lenin espoused. Here we have an actual historical case of an attempt to end war with an aggressive monarch by disarming unilaterally. The Germans were delighted. They seized lots of Russian turf, and imposed a harsh peace treaty with plenty of tribute. Lenin gave up and started the Red Army (nothing peaceful about that when I was growing up!).

The Great Depression is often given primary credit for encouring high rates of extremism. Of course, the Great Depression didn't exactly cut down on the numbers of Fascists and Communists, either, but WW1 is how Communists (USSR, during the war), and Fascists (Italy, in '22) first came to power. And very fascist-like groups could be found in Germany, with plenty of sympathizers throughout government. Though, of course, in Germany, clearly something was going on other than resentment at how bad Allied warfighting was.

In summary, we had a situation where Allied warfighting was so bad as to motivate rebellion and widespread mythmaking. In the next bit, we'll see how these made WWII and the Cold War much worse, and I'll wind it up with some skewed historical views of WWI.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of The Phantom, where he goes from WWI doughboy to WWII GI.

Posted by Jon Kay at March 14, 2007 02:32 PM

Comments

"From our post-Cold-War vantage point, Communism is hard to understand. At this point, it's obviously stupid and wrong."

That is quite sweeping. As far as "Soviet-style" communism, it still survives because of the particular "order" it was able to impose on Russian society, historically beset by criminal oligarchies, regional and cultural tensions and the native fear of being encircled by exterior threats. Communism is still seen as having defeated Hitler and many Russians have some fond memories of the USSR. I am quite serious. We have a distorted view of what Moscow was really like in the seventies.

China is still communist. We should consider how effectively Saddam subdued the sectarian extremes that tear up Iraq now. The Chinese leadership is convinced that without high GDP AND authoritarian control by the communist party, all hell will break out. They might be right. Just think of the necessary population controls measures, Americans would be unlikely to accept. Already, China has the largest difference between poor and rich with the largest collective poverty and pollution in the world.

Both above examples of communism are really more examples of fascism to me. I am not sure actual communism could be implemented. That is one reason why I think "hard socialism" might qualify as what some today consider a form of communism despite limited latitude given private ownership and a limited degree of pluralism. Perhaps I am simply wrong about this.

Socialism (Chavez's version) smacks much of communism. Many on the American left simply dress up communism as "anti-war socialism" contending that only strict Marxism is actually communism. Despite minor differences, Catholics and Mormons are still called Christians, yes? So in today's evolving usage of terms, communism/strong or hard socialism (w/ limited "individual property rights") these are not so clearly stupid and wrong. In fact, the number might be rising in support if you grant that hard socialism is functionally close to communism. The differences blur even further, when you add the usual fascists that seize their communist organizations and pervert the "people's" interests.

Your post is interesting and I wonder what parallels you will deduce about today's allied plights. My own take WAS that the Great Depression, the excesses of unregulated capitalism (worker abuses, monopolies etc.), the callousness and blockheadedness of Western leadership towards warfare -all contributed to the rise of communism/socialism.

As far as WW1, certainly the tactics of modern warfare were new and inadequately anticipated (when are they ever?). Strategies were slow in coming. The use of aviation had not been exploited nor had subs been properly defensed (even into early WW2). I believe by 1917 the DOD was still covering up the Custer debacle (Army wouldn't supply Custer better rifles they did not make themselves) and had failed to produce the long guns, accurate mortars, and tactics that would end trench warfare. The world had a great opportunity to observe our Civil War trenches and learn. By WW2 the West hadn't become much smarter.

I have some issues, particularly the notion that Democratic Generals are often smarter. I think Democratic Generals promote unit (and individual) initiative and principles to inspire which fearful Communist/Fascist-controlled Generals could not. Communist Party members figured into ground decisions, where as Democratic Generals had less interference provided they produced results. One tends to defend best, the better quality of life.

I am sure Tully has a sounder view. My information is limited to what is commonly available on internet and what I have read a while back. My Grandfather told me once that he probably survived WW1 BECAUSE the Germans captured him and some of his company from New York after several grisly battles. He spent more than a year in a POW camp. He would have agree with the Stupidity/ Depression reasoning for the rise of communism, but given the spread of Anti-Semitism, a number of Jews and intellectuals immigrated to Russia believing communist promises of a more equal society. Xenophobia and corporate abuses endeared many immigrants and labor unions to the socialist and even communist parties. In my grandfather’s case, this observation made him a Democrat. Remember, people were shot dead on the steps of City Hall here in NYC protesting workers rights in the early 1900s..This reality of course, all contributed to the later Liberal Consensus. Even now, New Yorkers thank Chavez for the cheaper oil he sends to the five boroughs.. The perception of capitalistic excesses still fuels the support for those extreme Left ideologies that oppose such corporate domination. How else could the Left really get a seat at the Anti-War table in the Democrat Party? Simply opposing the War in Iraq?

Anyway, keep on posting……

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 15, 2007 02:21 PM

"He would have agree with the Stupidity/ Depression reasoning for the rise of communism, but given the spread of Anti-Semitism, a number of Jews and intellectuals immigrated to Russia believing communist promises of a more equal society."

I meant to say: He would have agreed with the Stupidity/Depression theory for the rise of communism-sympathy in the West during the twenties and thirties, but given the spread of Anti-Semitism in the West, a number of Jews and minority intellectuals immigrated to Russia after WW1 believing communist promises of a more equal society.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 15, 2007 02:42 PM

P.S. My grandfather was also considering the flu when he made that remark about better surviving as a POW. Just look at how many soldiers died of the flu just deploying to the front. Didn't more soldiers die from the flu than battle? And I suspect the Great Flu did originate in 1916 in Northern France after the Battle of the Somme and then made its way via soldiers to Etaples where it caught on fire via the vector of population density, pigs and chickens. The fact the West was powerless against it contributed to public despair and loss of confidence. In fact, one can reasonably suggest that American soldiers exposed the Germans to the flu as they attacked their defensive tunnels and shortly there after Germany gave up. A WMD successful broke the Germans. How many people recognize this? More than 6 million died from the flu and I think this added greatly to the West's self-doubts about the superiority of their insitutions giving the stupidity you have outlined. Ironically, my grandfather deployed early enough to miss the flu, was held in the German rear away from the flu and was released in such a way as to avoid it upon returning to the US.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 16, 2007 11:15 AM

I have some issues, particularly the notion that Democratic Generals are often smarter.

Tyrants tend not to tolerate good generals. There are two reasons:
(1) They get into arguments with them because tyrants are a tad clueless about battlefields.
(2) A good general is a security threat.
Hitler inherited some truly great generals when he started (part of how he conquered France so easily), and he ended the war with none. Each one fell to one of those considerations. Hitler was unusually successful because he started with a democratic society and was smart enough to take advantage of many of Weimar Germany's innovators for a while.

I didn't think about the flu atall, but I think you're right about it likely being a big factor. After all, the societies who suffered understood that if so many troops hadn't been out there so long, and treated so poorly, that things might've been very different.

That's why I'm not afraid of flu epidemics being big killers in the future - because it took amazingly bad treatment of epidemics and soldiers to make this into what it was. Even if the democracies had that many soldiers in the field again (never gonna happen because of rising effectiveness of individual soldiers), we feed our soldiers much better and have infinitely better medical care for them. And even our homeless are mostly reasonably well-fed by WWI civilian standards.

Posted by: Jon Kay at March 16, 2007 12:50 PM

Just as a note --I'm not trying to hog. Interesting post deserves some response.

I learned a bit from your theory. The stupidity you talked about killed a generation and certainly contributed to the rise of anti-Liberal Democratic forces in the West. Russia was fighting on the Eastern front despite our attempt to influence their government by military force. And what a friggin gory mess WW1 was.. I was unaware of the flu numbers myself until I did a bit of research. The effect on domestic attitudes which lumped war, pestilence and stupidity into one great pot was quite dramatic. Add to that the domestic conflict (unions v monopolies) and there are your rising communist numbers in the US.

My other point about communism is best shown here. Do we still call China a communist country? Do we call Chavez's idea communism? And Castro?

You are right about tyrants and generals. Thank God, Stalin had a few good ones to use (and then kill). Likewise, Ho Chi Min was a great tactician and ended up fighting on the communist side against his former friends. I think your post does alert us to the dangers of domestic dissatisfaction coupled with perceived stupidity regarding war. Many in the world (even our own public) see global Warming today as largely a consequence of Western capitalism. As floods and storms grow and oil dwindles, the opposition will certainly call into question unbridled Western greed. Add to that a real military mess developing and holy crap. We are on a political edge which Islamists suspect is our weakness. Given the apathy and fears, we may simply surrender to fate and call it a day.

I am amazed that so many millions went willingly into the slaughter. I see why the US went on to develop germ warfare. Who would reject the notion that if Hitler had an antidote, he would have unleashed germs on the allies? I am always stunned that after such WW1 stupidity, a lowly germ ended the war in our favor. If the theory behind how these germs are created is true, the world will face new nexuses between war, disease and stupidity. Post on.......I want to see where you go with this. I suspect the thread continues through WW2 and into the present were you to use enough bandwidth. As far as America goes, the Civil War showed some stupidity too that forced many Americans to question the principles of our Constitution process and the soundness of our strategic thinking when using force.

I saw on TV last night that the West suspected the Germans of having introduced the plague-flu on the battlefield. Perhaps the fears of Germany and WMD pushed the West to continue although damp, wet trenches and ships were exactly where the flu thrived. Now there are some parallels to today’s thinking.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 16, 2007 01:56 PM

Why Communism Grew Big

Wheaties. :-)

Communism never grew big. Proto-communist tyranny did. As Marx noted, his own theory calls for communism as the eventual result of long-term societal evolution, not short-term dictatorial imposition. Marx-as-sociologist makes some limited sense. (Marx-as-economist was an idiot.)

Which is quibbling. The growth of the Soviet "communist" state followed the forms for the growth of most post-revolutionary (or post-conquest) tyrannies. Seize power, consolidate control functions, beef up military, viciously supporess dissidence, scapegoat minorities, and starve out potential resistance in the "colonies" before it can get organized and obtain military assets. Stalin was a talented dictator who grasped the crucial roles technology and production and propaganda play in a militaristic state.

None of which really disagrees at all with Jon's thesis. Stalin's minions kept quite busy spreading revolution and discontent, and Jon's aiming more at how the ground for same got so fertile. (Maybe I shoulda said "Mircale-Gro" instead of "Wheaties.")

Posted by: Tully at March 17, 2007 11:09 AM

Yep, and one can see today how various factors still fertilize the ground, even growing the radical Left world-wide. While this ground might sprout claims to a communist path, Chavez, Kimmie and even Huo are more about proto-communist tyranny than anything else. What do you make about China's recent declarations and their new property laws? Does the label communist/fascists still hold true?

This might qualify as the "hard" socialism I mentioned. Although China represent s a very hard form, this seems to be a persistent force in the West, often as a response towards the persistent excesses of capitalism. Is our form of “hard” capitalism facing increasing opposition?

P.S. Last, would you agree that given the power of chance, the 1916-1919 flu was actually the first WMD to end a major war (Truman deploying the second)? That is, if you accept (conditionally) that the Americans introduced this plague into the German's last line of damp defensive tunnels.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 17, 2007 12:56 PM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

March 14, 2007

Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG)