|
WHY DID THE REDS WIN? Tatyana Shvetsova Map: The Penguin Atlas of World History / 1995 |
||
|
By the
end of 1920 the Civil war in So, why
did Soviet power win and how can we explain the defeat of its numerous
enemies? Doctor
of History, Professor of Murmansk Pedagogical Institute Alexei Voronin
insists that ‘the Bolsheviks won not so much due to their own strength, but
rather due to the weakness of their enemies’. “Almost
every war changes the social setup of the warring sides, bringing it closer
to the military-socialist type,” Alexei Voronin elaborates. “In such a society
the degree of the authorities’ interference in the life of its citizens is
unlimited. This society is characterized by total centralization, ruling out
the very existence of private property. The entire organization of such a
society, right down to the psychological portrait of its members is oriented
to war and is permeated with militarism. In other words, war creates the most
conducive conditions for ‘socialization of society’. Yet, the question is:
who and how makes use of these conditions. Do they accept these conditions
out of forced necessity, or do they regard them as an imperative precondition
for exercising their policy? Obviously,
the Bolsheviks, if we can say so, coincide maximally with the conditions of
the war period. They felt perfectly at ease in the conditions of war –
something that quite possibly serves as one of the reasons for their ultimate
success. As for
their enemies, quite the opposite, they tended to find oppressive those
‘military-socialist’ measures they were also forced to apply. In other words,
they conducted the same policy less consistently, with less austerity, and as
a result – to less effect. The
success of the Bolsheviks was achieved in conditions of approximate equality
of the opposing sides in many respects, first and foremost – the military.
So, it is important to understand where exactly lies the reason for their
victory. One could, in all likelihood, define it in the following way: the
Bolsheviks scored a victory not so much due to their own strength, as due to
the weakness of their enemies. The
Civil war of 1917 – 1921 was a de facto implementation of a radical
alternative. This alternative was victorious because the solutions to
outstanding contradictions in the life of Russian society, offered by the
conservatives and liberals, were deficient. It was the failures of the
conservatives and liberals that predetermined the success of the Bolsheviks.”
Doctor
of History Professor Olshtynsky believes that, “the main factor that
determined the victory of the Bolsheviks was the union of workers and
peasants that supported the Soviet power. The second reason lies in the
ideals of national-liberation, pursued by the Civil war. The fusion of
counterrevolution and foreign intervention turned the actions of Soviet authorities
into a struggle for The third
reason can be found in the extremely well-organized and welded leading
political force of Soviet power – the party of Bolsheviks. It was through its
efforts the many-million–strong, battle-worthy Red Army was founded. The
Soviet state managed to transform the country into one cohesive military
camp, where all of society’s forces were mobilized for armed struggle. Finally
– a factor that contributed to victory was the support of the International
working class. The workers’ movement “Hands off Soviet Russia” and the
upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the armies of the foreign
intervention forced the Entente to withdraw its armed forces from Vladimir
Lenin announced after the victory in the Civil war: “Nobody
will ever conquer a people whose workers and peasants in their majority
have experienced, seen and felt that they are …fighting for a cause, victory
in which will enable their children to avail themselves of all the
boons of culture, the fruit of man’s labour.” He also
said: “Firstly, we won over from the Entente its workers and peasants;
secondly, we have enlisted the neutrality of those small peoples, who are its
slaves; thirdly, we have started attracting to our side in the countries of
the Entente their educated petite bourgeoisie…This is our third large victory.
It became a victory not only on a Russian, but on an international-historical
scale.” A
historian from the town of Saratov, an expert in the sphere of conflictology,
Assistant Professor at the Civil Service Academy of the Volga district, Anton
Posadsky, is convinced: “…most decisive was the fact that in the case of the
Bolsheviks the scale of their actions was quite different from that of the
‘whites’. For the ‘reds’ the whole of The
‘whites’ didn’t dare to uncompromisingly destroy what was theirs, so dear to
them. The ‘reds’ were stronger in their instrumental approach to what was
formally their own country. They succeeded in finding the most painful spots
in the system and making use of them, never tormented by any moral doubts or
historical considerations.” Historian
Sergey Sbortsev from the capital of Byelorussia Minsk says: “The
main reason for the victory of the Bolsheviks lies in the fact the ‘white’
movement couldn’t find broad support inside the country. It placed its bet
with the privileged classes and failed to enlist the support of the broad
sections of the working population by gaining their interest with their
economic program. The Bolsheviks, quite the opposite, could fall back on the
greatest support of the population, particularly the poorest sections of it.
The tactical strength of the Bolsheviks lay in the fact they spoke on behalf
of the people - something that came to play a decisive role and brought them
in their victory in the Civil war.” Politologist
of left-wing views Sergey Kara-Murza insists that the Bolsheviks won because:
“…the turned out to be the only political force, that could save One of
the factors that was conducive to bringing about the victory of the
Bolsheviks in the Civil war was the significant number of professional
military exerts from the former Czarist army that went over to their side.
Making a note of this, well-known Russian publicist Vadim Kozhinov cited
information published by the magazine ‘Voprosy Istorii’ (or ‘History
Issues’). It was said there that “the overall number of cadre officers, who
participated in the Civil war within the ranks of the Red Army was double the
number that took part in the war action of the side of the ‘whites’.
Commenting this data, the publicist reflects: “…one should first and foremost
realize that whilst serving within the ranks of the Red Army (at times
occupying high and most responsible posts), these officers and generals never
became ‘red’ themselves. There was but the occasional Bolshevik party member
among them. The Revolutionary military Council of the Republic noted in 1918
that “the higher the rank, the less communists one could find among them”. All this
testifies to the fact that the Russian officers and generals who ‘opted for
the Red Army’, were thus choosing the lesser of the two evils. These were
people who, quite obviously, were well-familiar with their colleagues in
military service from the White Guards. They could see that standing at its
head were ‘unrepentant children of the February revolution’. While the
February revolution was a destructive force for the Russian state and, first
and foremost, for the army.” As for
the reasons why the ‘whites’ suffered a defeat, there are quite a lot of
them. There is the obvious egotism of the higher social circles, the
treachery of the ‘allies’ in the Entente, who favored the Bolsheviks. British
Premiere Lloyd George openly admitted in his memoirs that the allies “had
done everything possible to support the Bolsheviks”. They acknowledged that
the Bolsheviks were de facto the ruling force on the territory of the former
Russian Empire. They certainly had no intention of lifting a finger to help
topple the Bolsheviks. All the “allies” needed while World War One was still
raging was for the Bolsheviks not to destroy the “White Guard” officers who
were prepared to fight alongside the Entente against Well-known
Russian publicist and historian Mikhail Nazarov wrote: “The white movement
didn’t score a victory primarily because it relied on force of weapons, and
underestimated the spiritual reasons for the Russian catastrophe…” And the
main reason for this catastrophe, writes Mikhail Nazarov, was a rejection of
God and the Orthodox Faith. To substantiate this opinion he quotes from the
memoirs of a participant of the White movement baron Meller-Zakomelsky: “…We
realized too late that socialism-communism was a religious phenomenon, and
victory over it was possible only through a religious upsurge of the
Christian Faith. Humbly deploring our infirmity, in utter compassion and
repentance, in love for our errant brethren, we shall seek the true road to
recovery. It is not a sword forged in hatred and vengeance, but the Cross -
Christ’s pure token – that will lend us the strength needed for victory.” Only in
emigration, writes Mikhail Nazarov, did the White idea acquire completeness –
after its proponents realized their own mistakes and assessed the world
alignment of forces. On a political level this became a denunciation of the
united global front of destroyers of the Orthodox Russia. On this front the
communist-Bolsheviks and the liberals, who had masterminded the February
revolution, were enemies only outwardly. In essence, though, they were
allies, since both forces sought to destroy the Orthodox Russian state. The
difference between them lay only in WHAT STATE EXACTLY EACH OF THEM SOUGHT TO
BUILD IN PLACE OF THE DESTROYED ORTHODOX RUSSIAN EMPIRE. The
outcome of the Civil war was terrifying, indeed. In the words of historian
Oleg Platonov: “…the overall number of casualties in the war comprised no
less than 18,7 million people… Out of
this number we should single out those who died of starvation, illness,
epidemics, or were forced to flee from In the
years of the Civil war some 20 to 25 million people suffered in epidemics.
The typhus epidemic claimed the greatest number of victims. As for
those who died of starvation, the number is estimated at 10,1 million. It was
the large cities that suffered the most. Thus, in the years of the Civil war
the population of A
direct outcome of the Civil war was the vast stream of emigration. Some 2
million people left It was
the Russian population that suffered the most in the Civil war. Its quota in
the overall population of the Soviet Russia dropped by three percent. The
country had lost the crème de la crème of the Russian nation, its golden gene
pool. Representatives of the national elite were either totally wiped out or
forced to flee abroad. The entire Russian national and intellectual
infrastructure was destroyed. Thus, around 40 percent of the Russian
professorate and doctors had died.” However,
In the
words of Byelorussian historian Sergey Sbortsev, “the losses that the people
of The
Civil war with its red and white terror became a tragedy for all peoples
living in Doctor
of History, Professor of Murmansk Pedagogical Institute Alexei Voronin wrote:
“The political success of the Bolsheviks turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
Political effectiveness resulted in economic ineffectiveness. This, in turn,
questioned the political victory itself. Objective requirements for the
advance of the economy came into obvious conflict with the aims pursued by
the communists. Quite naturally, this cast doubt on the possibility of their
retaining power. This threat manifested itself in the anti-Soviet and
antibolshevist protests that were widespread across all of Copyright © 2006 The Voice of Originally
published at http://www.vor.ru/English/homeland/home_034.html 01/30/2006 |
|
|