Why White Russian lose in civil war ??

[Interdact]

Hello, new to this forum.

Why the White Russian lose in the civil war ??

[Alex Yeliseenko]

"White" - artificial term. It both monarchists, and democrats, both anarchists, and socialists and even communists. They had no general idea. Their purposes were very foggy. They had no chances.

[Interdact]

"White" - artificial term. It both monarchists, and democrats, both anarchists, and socialists and even communists. They had no general idea. Their purposes were very foggy. They had no chances.

Why they had no chance, i heard the allies were helping the whites side.

[Alex Yeliseenko]

The help of allies was limited. Moreover, the part of the population considered allies as invaders. Red skilfully used it. They actually named themselves liberators from interventionists.

[Interdact]

So what is the most important event that lead to the white downfall ??

[Alex Yeliseenko]

Dissociation. Absence of the general idea and prospects of the future of Russia.

[Matasso]

I agree with Alex,

Even between factions they more or less fought eachother with absolutely no sense of unity whatsoever; No coordination, no common goal, nothing linked Koltchak with Denikine for example except for a very difuse hatred of the bolsheviks. No political program to fight with and so the Red Army was able to more or less defeat them piecemeal shifting from a threat to the other without danger of attacks from other places; Besides the western aid was very limited, the british in Murmansk, the french at Odessa and the americans at Arkhangelsk were never too keen on entering a real war and kept themselves busy with a so-called occupation of small areas around the places they occupied without any though of real action. Besides the western troops sent there were tired of war and wanted home. See the french case in Odessa.

Mat

[James A Pratt III]

Add to this incompetance, corruption, infighting, lack of organization, ect.all bad beyond belief.

[RCW Mark]

"White" - artificial term. It both monarchists, and democrats, both anarchists, and socialists and even communists.

This is true, but the biggest division was between those who supported a united Russia along the lines of the Imperial Russia and those who supported independent (or at least federated) states.

Thus while Denikin's army was divided between outright monarchists, democrats and even Socialists, they could get along enough to provide at least a threat to the Reds.

Meanwhile the Ukrainian nationalists were largely Socialists, but also contained other elements, but were always deadly enemies of Denikin, who refused to recognise a separate Ukraine in any sense.

Then the Poles were a separate group of Socialists, democrats etc, but they also fought the Ukrainians, much of which they thought should be Polish.

If the Poles and Denikin Whites had co-operated in 1919 (and left the Ukrainians to themsevles for a while) the Reds would have stood no chance of success. But Pilsudski recognised that the Whites were a greater threat to independent Poland than the Reds were. And Denikin probably would have supported a Red Russia including Poland, the Ukraine etc over a White Russia without them (certainly many of his supporters did).

Denikin could not even get along with his Cossack allies, and all they wanted was a federal system. Similarly Kolchak could not work with the Bashkirs and Ural Cossacks, because he would not recognise any power outside St Petersburg (either the Duma or the Tsar). Politically the Whites were too naive to ever make allies and gain enough strength to win.

They also tended to refuse to recognise the new situation regarding land in the villages, which meant that they struggled to feed their armies. If the peasants had felt that the Whites were more likely to give them land, they would have supported the Whites, since the Reds had other negative connotations (atheist, too Jewish, too urban).

[Comrade Iosif]

The whites lost because they did not have the people on there side, The Bolshevik Revolution took hold and beat back the armies of The Allies and Czar, Those who betrayed the Bolsheviks ran from them. In the newly created Free Soviet Union

[Chinaski1917]

a.Kolchak :

"At west, Kolchak did have some victories, but in the end, due to his cruel behavior towards his political opponents and his savage attempts for reappraisals in which he endeavored all the Russian parties turned against him except the ultra-right wing ones."

EH. Carr , translation from the Greek version , vol.1 p.465.



Chapter: "people at the eastern borders"

"At the same time there was a change of stance of the people in the eastern borders. At the areas of these people civil war (in which the White forces were backed by foreigners) resulted in the prestige and glory of the russian Soviet government getting more strong. In both Russian and non-Russian territories , the will of the the White Generals was to bring back the old system of land-owning and industrial property which had as a consequence that the Soviet regime was wining the support of a hesitating majority of the peasants and workers. Especially in the non-Russian territories , the aim of the Generals to bring back the unity of the Russian Empire and preserve the tradition of the political and cultural submission of the non-russian elements was in explicit contradiction with the promises of the Soviet regime for self-determination regardless if that right had to meet certain social and political requirements. In 1918 and 1919 Muslim populations distrusted the Soviet power. Their experience however when they came under the harsh yoke of the Whites was one of the factors that contributed to the shift of the stance of these people towards the Soviet regime after 1920."

EH. Carr, History of the Soviet Union vol1. p.431 translation from Greek version.

[paratatruc]

The white lost mainly because they began from remote part of Russia-Siberia with less then 8 millions inhabitants in 1919 and the far-south,while the Bolshevik had the control of the heart of russia, its industry and almost all its ressource.
That's the main reason of their defeat.
The passivity of the russians, who were exhausted after 3 years of useless war , and woke up only when it was too late and the white movement was already crushed-after 1920 is an another reason.Until this year the majority of those who fought the Bolsheviks were higly unreliable Cossak units who fought bravely only to liberate their territory and became commun criminals as soon as they left it-for example the outrageous behavour of the bands of Mamontov,Shkouro,Dutov,Semenov,Kalmykov...-.
The second largest group of white soldiers were the officiers,who were overrepresented in the southern front-a fact that partly explains the lack of authority of the main commanders- and non existant in the Ural-Siberia front-Koltchak administration and army had to rely on corrupted and incompetent staffs, untill Koltchak himself became no more then a cruel and inefficient nevropath.
And the third largest group were the conscripted peasant who show no more combativeness than tose who had to fight whithin the red army-I pretty sure that had they known what would happen to them 10 years latter, they would have been much more aggressive-.

Denikin-like, unfortunately, so many other- thought that he a soft attitude toward plunderer, independent Atamans and commanders was the necessity of the moment.He didn't realize that this intolerable tolerance only weakened the army.Kornilov and latter Wrangel understood that the chaos could be stopped only by harsh measures.
The first died too soon, the second came too late.

[paratatruc]

Hi Mark,
you wrote


the Poles and Denikin Whites had co-operated in 1919 (and left the Ukrainians to themsevles for a while) the Reds would have stood no chance of success. But Pilsudski recognised that the Whites were a greater threat to independent Poland than the Reds were. And Denikin probably would have supported a Red Russia including Poland, the Ukraine etc over a White Russia without them (certainly many of his supporters did).


Denikin wanted both to link with Koltchak army in the east and reach Moscow.His fatal decision to conquer Ukraina is an enigm I had like to resolve.Maybe he did it for strategic reasons, maybe for supply reason, if anybody can give me his reason I will be grateful.
As for poland,-Idon't remember exactly where, but you can find more information on this subject on a previous very informative thread- Denikin, who was himself half polish, reconized its independence, but only in its ethnical border,whithout western Bielorussia and Ukraina.

[RCW Mark]

Denikin was half-Polish and 100% Russian. The Imperial Russian tendency in him completely overwhelmed the fact of his origins. (Stalin was another like that -- born Georgian, but 100% Russian chauvanist by the end.)

Denikin did not consider the Ukraine to be a separate part of Russia. He conquered it for the same reasons that Abraham Lincoln went to war with the Confederate states -- to not do so would have been unthinkable. (Even today, I believe most Russians feel that the Ukraine and Belorus are naturally part of Russia, in a way that Armenia, Latvia etc are not.)

The issue is why Denikin took on the Ukrainian armies when he needed all his strength to face the Soviets, and the reason for that is that he failed to restrain his men. He allowed the left flank of his army to enter into combat with the Ukrainians because he was unable to restrain them properly. He needed to sign an official truce or at least set a totally firm line to avoid this -- shooting those that broke his orders, like Lenin would have done -- and he didn't.

Almost all Denikin's failings were of this type: his regime lost ground every time he failed to prevent anti-Semitic pogroms, to prevent former land-owners taking revenge on peasants who occupied their land, to prevent looting, and to prevent revenge killing of communist sympathisers. He was a general who -- because he gave low regard to politics -- allowed his followers to set his political program for him. Nothing could be more fatal in a civil war.

[paratatruc]

Hi Mark,
I perfectly agree with all what you said.
I just want to say that Denikin was not the only leaders who didn't control his men-at this time,russians soldiers were not motivated by any cause and had an anarchical mood... including the red soldiers(before Trotsky's bloody reforms).
After the failing of the social revolutionnary putch in Moscow, the latvians ,oftenly considered to be the most reliable red soldiers,claimed that their "very tired" and refused to pursue the S.R

Are you sure that the decision to enter in kiev(and thus entering in conflict with the Haidamak- was'nt his decision?