During the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks turned towards terror as a means of accomplishing their objectives. Leon Trotsky noted that “intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy.” He further noted “The revolution…kills individuals, and intimidates thousands.”
In describing Vladimir Lenin Victor Sebestyen wrote: “He battered opponents into submission with the deliberate use of violent language which he acknowledged was ‘calculated to evoke hatred, aversion, contempt…not to convince, not to correct the mistakes of the opponent but to destroy him, to wipe him and his organization of the face of the earth.’”
If Lenin could intimidate his opponents into silence he would be able to pursue his agenda. After seeing success in his personal debates it is not surprising that Lenin would include such tactics in his national political policy. In 1918 a Pravda article noted “The anthem of the working class will be a song of hatred and revenge!” You were with Lenin or you deserved to be destroyed. Using terror as a tool of intimidation allowed Lenin to secure power. Could a constitutional monarchy or a democracy have been created if the majority of people stood up and rejected Lenin and his intimidating campaign of terror?
It is not surprising that the Soviet Union devolved into a totalitarian nightmare. When governance is based on intimidation and force subjugation of a nation will surely follow. If you allow yourself to be censored due to fear of political opponents you risk losing your personal and national sovereignty.
Thomas Aquinas is credited as one of the greatest proponents of natural law. During his time in Cologne he was taught by Albertus Magnus. Magnus used the teachings of Aristotle in his mentorship of Thomas Aquinas.
Samuel Adams believed in American Independence from Great Britain. He is one of the most well know Son's of Liberty. On August 1, 1776 he gave a speech to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.
“In my view, the composer, just as the poet, the sculptor or the painter, is in duty bound to serve Man, the people. He must beautify life and defend it. He must be a citizen first and foremost, so that his art might consciously extol human life and lead man to a radiant future.”
Sergei Prokofiev
Was Nevsky’s cooperation with the Golden Horde a wise act of political realism, or a betrayal of Novgorod‘s independence?
The wolves were on the move. The hunt for land and wealth created an insatiable desire for action. The principalities of Russia had proved to be an easy feeding ground. Riazan, Moscow, Vladimir had all fallen. Kiev would be taken in 1240. The Golden Horde marched west and conquered at will. They were the enemy from the east.
Novgorod was a strategically important city. It was located along the major trade routes of the day. This also made it a wealthy city. Batu as leader of the Golden Horde would clearly like to add its wealth to his conquest.
The Swedes to the west also desired to conquer the city. Surrounded by enemies on both sides this was a precarious time for Novgorod.
Alexander was the prince of Novgorod and the fate of the city rested on his shoulders. His leadership qualities would be put to the test. The Golden Horde wanted tribute. The Swedes wanted to take the land and impose their values and their brand of Christianity on the region. Both enemies would take slaves and ruthlessly murder ...
