Why White Russian lose in civil war ??
I belive that you have all more or less listed the many reasons why the whites lost. Adding to this, Lenin was no stupid man, he understood that the peasantry did not want to see the russian nobility reinstated, they wanted to be owners of their own plots, true that serfdom ended in the 1860s but in reality due to the high by-back price of nobilityowned land, the peasantry was in fact still more or less serfs. The whites was seen in the eyes of the peasants as wanting to reinstate the old regime and laws. Lenin issued his decrees, and among them the decree on land, abolishing private ownership of land and a distribution of land among the peasantry, thus in effect he pacified the peasantry.
-
Chinaski1917
- Member
- Posts: 451
- Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 14:51
They weren't merely "seen" as such, they actually were.Moreover the Whites were backed by foreigners (Germans British French Czechs etc) leading to a disenchantment according to national criteria. Furthermore the Whites didn't have a cohesive draft or policy in terms of nationalities.The whites was seen in the eyes of the peasants as wanting to reinstate the old regime and laws.
Take into consideration that a lot of peasants changed sides when the Whites came in.
-
paratatruc
- Member
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 20:24
- Location: Paris
Quote:
They weren't merely "seen" as such, they actually were.Moreover the Whites were backed by foreigners (Germans British French Czechs etc) leading to a disenchantment according to national criteria. Furthermore the Whites didn't have a cohesive draft or policy in terms of nationalities.
Take into consideration that a lot of peasants changed sides when the Whites came in.
This is rubbish.All the white leaders were conviced that deep reforms were necessery.None of the white generals fought to restore its old privelege.And which privelege?Denikin was a son of a serf who was sold to the army.Kornilov was the son of a poor peasant.Koltchak, although from a middle class family, was a self made man throught the navy.Had Wrangel -in fact all the balt germans serving in the white army- wanted to get back his property, he would have joined the "iron division" of major Bishof in Kurland, or the Freikorps of Latvia.
"The whites was seen in the eyes of the peasants as wanting to reinstate the old regime and laws. "
They weren't merely "seen" as such, they actually were.Moreover the Whites were backed by foreigners (Germans British French Czechs etc) leading to a disenchantment according to national criteria. Furthermore the Whites didn't have a cohesive draft or policy in terms of nationalities.
Take into consideration that a lot of peasants changed sides when the Whites came in.
This is rubbish.All the white leaders were conviced that deep reforms were necessery.None of the white generals fought to restore its old privelege.And which privelege?Denikin was a son of a serf who was sold to the army.Kornilov was the son of a poor peasant.Koltchak, although from a middle class family, was a self made man throught the navy.Had Wrangel -in fact all the balt germans serving in the white army- wanted to get back his property, he would have joined the "iron division" of major Bishof in Kurland, or the Freikorps of Latvia.
-
Chinaski1917
- Member
- Posts: 451
- Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 14:51
Is it?Maybe you can read again what I quoted about Kolchak from EH Carr. Maybe he is rubbish too.This is rubbish
And another thing , the social background of some leaders doesn't say much about which classes interests they were for and who actually in the end supported them. You can't judge power relations by a leader's movement profession. That's silly, Lenin was a lawyer . So ? What do you make out of that ? Was he supported by lawyers ? or workers ?. !!!
For instance one can be a "plain old poor serf" and still be a major supporter of Tsarism or whatever. It is of course more common for men of a certain class to support parties and movements who are in favor of them. But that's not to be taken mechanically 100% .
I'm sure you wouldn't find much Kolchak or Yudenich supporters in Russian factories, however you would find a lot of Bolshevik supporters and other socialist parties.
It's clear that many Whites were not as moderate as Denikin or Wrangel. Quite a few were outright monarchists, for a start.
Most Whites would have struggled to have land reform in which the original land-owners lost their land without compensation. They would have seen that as progressive and liberal, and that was, taken from the situation in 1914. But the peasants were no longer interested in compensation by 1919: they wanted the land outright for free. So a White victory, even if the moderates had managed to hold off the reactionary (a big if) would still have left them at odds with the peasants.
That need not have been fatal though. The peasants were interested in the land under their ownership for personal gain. They fought back bitterly against Lenin's vision of land ownership by the state and no private enterprise.
Most Whites would have struggled to have land reform in which the original land-owners lost their land without compensation. They would have seen that as progressive and liberal, and that was, taken from the situation in 1914. But the peasants were no longer interested in compensation by 1919: they wanted the land outright for free. So a White victory, even if the moderates had managed to hold off the reactionary (a big if) would still have left them at odds with the peasants.
That need not have been fatal though. The peasants were interested in the land under their ownership for personal gain. They fought back bitterly against Lenin's vision of land ownership by the state and no private enterprise.
-
Chinaski1917
- Member
- Posts: 451
- Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 14:51
V.I. Lenin states these reasons for the Whites loss:
-the inner-imperialist antagonism
-the international workers and communists movement support (either by their effort to assume power or through indirect help)
-the dying character of capitalism
-the worker-peasant coalition
-the socialization of the work in cities as a helping hand for the poor peasantry
-the workers participation in the ruling of Soviet Russia
-the peasants ability to choose and discern who is in favor of a worker-peasant coalition and who is for the old landowners
-the heroism of soviet citizens and soldiers.
-the inner-imperialist antagonism
-the international workers and communists movement support (either by their effort to assume power or through indirect help)
-the dying character of capitalism
-the worker-peasant coalition
-the socialization of the work in cities as a helping hand for the poor peasantry
-the workers participation in the ruling of Soviet Russia
-the peasants ability to choose and discern who is in favor of a worker-peasant coalition and who is for the old landowners
-the heroism of soviet citizens and soldiers.
Yeah, but Mr V. I. Lenin could not have been more wrong about #3 could he? And the inter-Imperialist issues only matter if the Entente had been serious about finishing off the Soviets, which they weren't.
Sure, he could not have known about the future or the inner-workings of foreign governments, really, but the "Worker-Peasant coalition" is a joke too. As he well knew, the "greens" kept up the fighting long after the "whites" were gone. (That the peasants didn't like the Whites does not mean that they liked the Reds.)
Basically, those are propaganda reasons: he wasn't going to blab about many of the real ones -- the sterling work of the ChEKa -- the commissar system to keep an eye on the "military specialists" -- the lies he told in order to get temporary alliances (such as with the Socialist-Revolutionaries) -- or the fact that the Reds got lucky and Mannerheim and Pilsudski chose not to make the decisive drive to finish off the Reds when they had the chance.
Sure, he could not have known about the future or the inner-workings of foreign governments, really, but the "Worker-Peasant coalition" is a joke too. As he well knew, the "greens" kept up the fighting long after the "whites" were gone. (That the peasants didn't like the Whites does not mean that they liked the Reds.)
Basically, those are propaganda reasons: he wasn't going to blab about many of the real ones -- the sterling work of the ChEKa -- the commissar system to keep an eye on the "military specialists" -- the lies he told in order to get temporary alliances (such as with the Socialist-Revolutionaries) -- or the fact that the Reds got lucky and Mannerheim and Pilsudski chose not to make the decisive drive to finish off the Reds when they had the chance.
-
Chinaski1917
- Member
- Posts: 451
- Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 14:51
Yes he couldn't it was soooo difficult to get a grip of it !!! After all WWI never happened ! And it broke out in the name of love ! It wasn't about re-fixing and acquiring lands ! Even a 12year child knows about inner-imperialist rivalry. And another fact (I hope you know that!!!) Lenin lived up to 1924, the civil war and the Allied intervention had ended by then he was perfectly capable of knowing and judging what had happened.Sure, he could not have known about the future or the inner-workings of foreign governments
Well it maybe a joke for you and people who've only read about Soviet Union through Pipes,Conquest, Figes. The coalition was gradual firstly it included the poor peasantry and after 1921 with NEP the middle peasantry too. That doesn't mean that there weren't problems and shortcomings in the first years of the revolution.but the "Worker-Peasant coalition" is a joke too.
The "greens" ? !! And where the "greens" the millions of peasantry in Russia ?As he well knew, the "greens" kept up the fighting long after the "whites" were gone.
Did the "greens" threw out the old landowners ? !!! Where do you get all this ?
How could it be else ? This is Lenin we are speaking ! On the other hand Winston Churchill was speaking the truth,we are better off listening to what he had to say ! After all he and all other political forces foreign or domestic were struggling for democracy there !Basically, those are propaganda reasons
Lenin was the bad guy !!! He was full of propaganda ! All the other leaders were propaganda-free !
May I ask you a question ? Have you ever read a single sentence by Lenin ? Or do you rely on what Figes (add whoever else you like) and the TV documentaries say about Lenin and the October revolution ?
Reading EH Carr will be a huge step , then you might try to read Lenin too...
Cold War never ended !the sterling work of the ChEKa -- the commissar system to keep an eye on the "military specialists" -- the lies he told in order to get temporary alliances (such as with the Socialist-Revolutionaries) -- or the fact that the Reds got lucky and Mannerheim and Pilsudski chose not to make the decisive drive to finish off the Reds when they had the chance.
What do we make of the October revolution and the Civil war ?
It was all about :
a.Cheka
b.the commisar system to keep an eye on the "military specialists"
c.lies in order to get temporary alliances (such as with the Socialist-Revolutionaries)
and
d.sheer luck .
a. Did you ever bother to read why Red terror was enacted ? And the Cheka established ? Can you by any chance try to imagine what civil war means ? It's not 2007 France or Greece.
b. Glad they did that, how could they do anything else, we are talking about Tsarist officers. But you happen to miss a fact here. The Red Army wasn't all specialists. Where did they get the Army from ? Let me guess, they terrorized workers and peasants with Cheka. In comparison the White armies were the democratic forces , struggling the dictator Lenin!!!
c.Well this just shows how much credit we can put in your last post.
First of all it was the left SRs who sided with Bolsheviks, did you ever bother to find out how the alliance ended?
Well there are 2 options either you do and you're just writing whatever you fancy , or you really don't know.
Let me help : You can start by reading about Brest-Litovsk and the Soviet Congress afterwards. Then you chec what happened in the summer of 1918 by the left SR's. Poor old innocent left SR's , they were deceived by that bad guy Lenin !
There is a chance that you are not talking about the Left SR's but the SR before October and the Kornilov incident and the Constituent Assembly. Well let us hear you what you have to say about that,I guess it will be as much interesting as it has been up to now . And then I'll answer on that too.
d. Bingo !!!
Actually, WWI wasn't mostly about acquiring land, but of economic power and influence.It wasn't about re-fixing and acquiring lands ! Even a 12year child knows about inner-imperialist rivalry
And we're talking about rivalry between the Entente here (Britain, France, US mainly), since they were the ones in a position to influence the Russian Civil War -- the Central Powers were already out of commission. Lenin was speculating wildly about rivalry between those countries -- who have since been in steady alliance for 100 years (and several wars) now. Lenin's idea of Capitalism being a system of rivalry was based on orthodox Marxism, not the truth (which is that economic rivals can be firm political friends -- something Lenin never grasped).
Who the hell else were they? The greens weren't the proletarians, nor the bourgoisie, which pretty much leaves them being the peasants.The "greens" ? !! And where the "greens" the millions of peasantry in Russia ?
At the end of the traditional civil war, the Reds had to put down tremendous rebellions in the Ukraine, Tambov, the Volga and Siberia. The peasants fought tooth and nail to avoid the encroaching power of the Soviet state. Only lack of direction prevented the peasants from destroying the Soviet state -- and the Bolsheviks knew that at the time.
In the end the NEP was instituted because the Soviet system was breaking down -- the peasants were refusing to produce for the cities. Lenin realised that without some free enterprise, his government was doomed.
Lenin, and the other Bolsheviks, never really liked the peasants, as their pre-revolutionary writings make clear. And with good reason, since peasants are almost always resistant to change. Their Bolshevik revolution was based on the Marxist idea that the way forward was proletarian power.
Stalin later was to break the power of the peasants with collectivisation -- but not without a great deal of cost, since the farmers didn't take kindly to losing their plots.
So for Lenin to say that his side won because of some Worker-Peasant alliance is a joke. The peasants were revolutionary, and determined to get rid of the nobles, but were never Bolsheviks. When asked their opinion when voting for the Constitutional Assembly, the peasants voted overwhelmingly for SRs, both left and right.
And I know why the Red Terror was enacted -- because the Bolsheviks weren't very popular. If they had been truly popular, they would never have needed it. Popular governments don't need to institute mass killings of "class enemies" on the basis that the other side are not lily white either. (While I don't like him and his system, Castro's revolt shows that a government can be otherthrown by Communists without the need for the excesses of the ChEKa, provided that they are actually genuinely popular.)
Last edited by RCW Mark on 23 Nov 2007, 11:34, edited 1 time in total.
That depends upon the degree of loyalty of the oppositional groups rather than on whether they represent majority or minority of the population. In case of the extremely acute conflict inside society no democratic procedure will help since the minority will never agree with the will of majority. If you want the democratic procedure to work then I must guarantee the interest of the groups loosing the elections - if they loose they don't have to loose all. That is in my opinion the key to understanding to the bolsheviks' theoretical idea of the dictatorship of the majority over minority - the idea that must seem rather wierd to the modern reader.RCW Mark wrote: If they had been truly popular, they would never have needed it. Popular governments don't need to institute mass killings of "class enemies" on the basis that the other side are not lily white either.
Yes, I see your point Art: if a minority are opposed, come what may, then the majority must use "extraordinary" measures to combat them.
However, the ChEKa took their methods to extremes. Not just the worrisome opponents, but also pretty much anyone associated with them were subject to the Red Terror. And in pratice they tended to shoot first and ask questions afterwards. That went beyond the bounds to what was required to suppress opposition.
But then Lenin never intended the Red Terror to be merely about stopping opposition -- and he was quite open about it. The revolution was to have its revenge on the former rulers -- who needed only to be born into the wrong class to be guilty -- and it was about installing a new way of thinking.
However, the ChEKa took their methods to extremes. Not just the worrisome opponents, but also pretty much anyone associated with them were subject to the Red Terror. And in pratice they tended to shoot first and ask questions afterwards. That went beyond the bounds to what was required to suppress opposition.
But then Lenin never intended the Red Terror to be merely about stopping opposition -- and he was quite open about it. The revolution was to have its revenge on the former rulers -- who needed only to be born into the wrong class to be guilty -- and it was about installing a new way of thinking.
-
Chinaski1917
- Member
- Posts: 451
- Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 14:51
COLD WAR, AND THE DAMAGE DONE
1. Terrorism wasn't an "invention" of the Bolsheviks or Cheka. I'm amazed on some people's strange amnesia of the use of Terror by French Revolutionaries and American ones in the 18th century. Do I have to quote Jefferson or Robespierre, that might strike as a "bit out of date" and a bit "undemocratic" by your criteria ? In a strange way however those revolutions are celebrated every year(with fireworks and all) , there's no evil there no propaganda no "really bad people" tricking the poor masses for their own benefit. I guess they are excused, just as long its a bourgeois revolution (and one of the reasons modern France and modern USA exist) it's ok to use terror.
2.Please before trying to explain marxism take some time to study it. It's not very helpful for people who don't know anything about it , if people pretend they know and write whatever they fancy.
1. Terrorism wasn't an "invention" of the Bolsheviks or Cheka. I'm amazed on some people's strange amnesia of the use of Terror by French Revolutionaries and American ones in the 18th century. Do I have to quote Jefferson or Robespierre, that might strike as a "bit out of date" and a bit "undemocratic" by your criteria ? In a strange way however those revolutions are celebrated every year(with fireworks and all) , there's no evil there no propaganda no "really bad people" tricking the poor masses for their own benefit. I guess they are excused, just as long its a bourgeois revolution (and one of the reasons modern France and modern USA exist) it's ok to use terror.
2.Please before trying to explain marxism take some time to study it. It's not very helpful for people who don't know anything about it , if people pretend they know and write whatever they fancy.
No-one's "explaining" Marxism. In any case, since Lenin's version differed from Marx's, what is "Marxism" in this case? You are too sensitive.
And no-one said that that Reds invented terrorism. But they used it with glee -- they positively revelled in it -- and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Quoting other examples of inappropriate use of terror hardly makes any point at all.
Nor do the French celebrate the French Revolutionary Terror -- they celebrate Bastille day, which represents the overthrow of the corrupt government by the people. No-one pretends the guillotine never happened, nor do they accept that it was inevitable.
It is like the difference between celebrating the February Revolution of 1917 -- which is a good idea IMO -- and trying to justify the killing that followed the subsequent coup by a minority.
And no-one said that that Reds invented terrorism. But they used it with glee -- they positively revelled in it -- and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Quoting other examples of inappropriate use of terror hardly makes any point at all.
Nor do the French celebrate the French Revolutionary Terror -- they celebrate Bastille day, which represents the overthrow of the corrupt government by the people. No-one pretends the guillotine never happened, nor do they accept that it was inevitable.
It is like the difference between celebrating the February Revolution of 1917 -- which is a good idea IMO -- and trying to justify the killing that followed the subsequent coup by a minority.