Hacker News Reader

Comment by avodonosov | Hacker News Reader

In case of USSR the people were choosing sides of the civil war and fighting voluntarily - a more serious commitment than simply casting a ballot.

View on HN

If it was anything like the Spanish Civil War, lots of people just happened to live in an area that was controlled by one or another side. Those who were committed to their cause probably did their best to escape or take arms. Most were simply recruited and complied to avoid further trouble. Both my grandfathers happened to live on the side they disagreed with when hostilities started, so they had no choice.

In vast many cases they were either forcefully conscripted by whomever was holding power in the particular area, or were simply choosing to enter armies because they were very young people who lost everything and did not have many options. Do not also discount that during the post-revolution civil war, food shortages were the norm, and the place to eat is army.

I mean that the side winning a civil war probably needs to have a sufficient degree of public support. If enough people went as far as fighting voluntarily, then there was also a significant number who supported this side more passively.

I am not a historian, but I think the society turned this way, in a sense. It's not like some external force coerced them, when everyone was against it.

Hashek is an example. He was not forcefully conscripted, it was his choice.

I've just recently listened to Kerensky's interview (the chairman of the Provisional Government that was ousted by the October Revolution in 1917). He was unable to gather any forces, no-one defended him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA225DBywU4&t=4842s (the interview is in Russian)

Most of the people were not involved in fight. They were busy growing food for example. But sure the ones that actually fought did choose their sides voluntarily. Sometimes they flipped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com