Download
1 / 16
160 likes | 341 Views
Russian Civil War. Who had the Popular Support? Why?. The Reds had the popular support. They occupied the area which controlled the major cities e.g. Moscow and Petrograd- which would have housed many with powerful political opinions.
E N D
Who had the Popular Support? Why? • The Reds had the popular support. • They occupied the area which controlled the major cities e.g. Moscow and Petrograd- which would have housed many with powerful political opinions. • Propaganda in these areas would have been v.imaginative and interesting and would have attracted the attention of the masses. • Lenin- “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” the peasants look down on the bourgeoisie and this shows that the government do also they are more likely to support the Reds than the Whites. • Whites land policy was to return the land to the land owners, whereas Reds did plan to redistribute it after the conflict was over. The working classes thought they would get what they wanted more easily through the Reds than their opposition. • The Reds had leaders and orators e.g. Trotsky, who could inspire a sense of communal patriotism and could raise support as they were seen as the ‘protectors of Russia’. • The Whites could not gain support primarily because they were partly made up of the brutal Don Cossacks, who pillaged many villages and were only looking out for themselves. • Whites lost much support of the peasants because they openly said they would give the land back to land owners. The peasants had gained too much to support the whites.
Did Reds have the Geographical advantage over the Whites? • Factors Supporting • Had control of the cities and hence the money flow, etc and the economy. • Had control of transportation- could deliver goods and troops to the front with relative ease. • Natural defences such as the River. Don and mountains. • Had large peasant numbers under their control. • Allowed effective defensive and offensive positions as all forces in close proximity to each other. • Factors Against • Whites had access to sea- could receive materials from Britain, France, etc later in the war. • Peasant revolts were not uncommon in the Red territory. • Whites controlled land circling around cities- would have been surrounded if Whites could fight. • Whites could fight guerrilla warfare in the challenging battlegrounds around the cities..
How effective was the Red Army? • Troops • Were effective as they were disciplined. Lenin had realised that lack of discipline was a critical failure of the Tsarist regime in the October Revolution. • Were on the whole passionate about the cause and were organised and very able fighters. • However, desertions common in both the Red and the White forces. Death penalty brought in to deal with this, but this possibly hindered the Red war effort as this reminded soldiers of the worst days of the Tsarist regime- a step towards counter-revolution. • Corin and Fiehn: “turned them from a panicky, flabby mass into an effective fighting machine” • Trotsky • Responsible for many of the policies involved in army reform. • Provided vital supplies in his train- weapons, troops, food, etc. • Trotsky lead the advance to protect Petrograd- would have been lost id he hadn’t. • Developed army morale.
Trotsky’s Leadership • Overestimated • Trotsky not the main army strategist, main decisions by others. • Only the leader can make final decisions- Lenin. • Trotsky’s opinions caused Bolshevik splits. • Stalin: “History shows that… Kolchak and Denikin were beaten by our troops in spite of Trotsky’s plans”. • Disastrous foreign and economic policies in early 1920s. • Underestimated • Personality brought passion and organisation to the front- without this lack of morale may have led to Red defeat. • Prevented Petrograd takeover by Yudenich’s army. • Willing to make compromises on Bolshevik policies- limited rate of growth. • Service: “He sped from unit to unit, rousing the troops with his revolutionary zeal… His flair too paid dividends.”
Compromise or Enhance Bolshevik Ideals? • Trotsky compromised because he introduced tsarist officers into the army and so introduced a hierarchical system. (Bolshevism= everyone is equal) compromised the Bolshevik ideology. • Soldiers committees and the election of officers were ended • Trotsky- “It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed.” Meaning there was little freedom in the Bolshevik state which compromises Bolshevik ideals. • He introduced commissars into the red army (often fanatic Bolsheviks) and so kept potential counter-revolutionary officers/ soldiers under control. • His train delivered vital supplies to the front and gave soldiers inspiration- created a sense of camaraderie amongst the ranks equality. • Did new ideals lead to Trotskyism? • Normal Communism= everyone equal, and that society has to go through a progressive series of revolutions. • Trotskyism= same, but calling for immediate world wide revolution (where ideals may be compromised to reach ultimate goal). • The new ideals: Army officers, suppression of peasant revolts and rallies, did sacrifice the fundamental principles of communism and so did create a new political agenda. • In communism all are equal, but with Trotskyism, the masses below the government are equal, but the government has supreme importance and the bourgeoisie have none. (workers given more rations than bourgeoisie). discrimination.
Peasants • Who’s side were they on? • Peasants held no definite opinion. • Many held their views because of who occupied the land they lived on • The Green army shows that they were not collectively supporting Reds or Whites. • They tended to go with whoever would give them what they wanted: Reds wanted to redistribute the land, Whites wanted to return land to owners… Peasants preferred Red policy. • How important were they in the war? • Many peasants featured in both White and red armies, so played a crucial role there. • Had no sound educational base, many did not know what they wanted or did not know how to get what they wanted. • Peasant uprisings in the cities did harm the Red cause and slowed down the efficiency of the Bolshevik regime, demonstrating their distaste for the government. • Nesto Makhno started an effective peasant guerrilla army in the Ukraine which fought red and whites, but in the end became an ally of the Bolsheviks.
Why couldn’t the Whites beat the Reds? • Geography • No control of cities, hence no control of money flow. • Reds had densely populated areas in which to influence and gain support from peasants. • Whites had ineffective communication due to distance, could not coordinate collective attacks. • Leadership • Many white leaders out for own gains- Kolchak in Omsk. • Very brutal, would destroy communities and hence lose support. • Were a collective group full of many of different political objectives, or none at all. • “I can do nothing with my army. I am glad when it carries out my combat orders” (Denikin)
Commitment • Desertions were not uncommon on either fronts. Severely weakened both armies. • Peasant support inconsistent, many realising Bolsheviks had better policies for them. • Foreign Intervention • Foreign supplies were infrequent and usually lacking certain essentials. • Allies not in Russia to support Whites, but to make sure the Reds did not set up a communist state- indirectly helping them. There would be no help to set up a White government if victorious. • Gave Reds propaganda feature- “protectors of the Russian Empire”. • Adrian Gilbert: “To many Russians, the attacks on Communist powers was seen as a foreign invasion”
Only picture we could find of red terror.. Apparently it’s a type of fish. RED TERROR! • The Cheka, set up in December 1917 were the secret police and were allowed to operate as they pleased as long as it related vaguely to helping the Communist state. • Cheka chief= Felix Dzerzhinsky, the Cheka created a mood of fear throughout Russia. This is known as the period of red terror. • Was it essential? • Yes: Eliminated opposition, created a culture of fear which prevented any more opposition. Kept the communists in power. Grain requisitioning important, meant people in the cities would not starve and revolt. • No: Cheka spread the flames of class warfare, thousands of people, not just middle class but peasants, workers are killed. No-one is actually certain who the counter revolutionaries are. Internal and External battles going on at the same time. (capitalism versus communism) • Was Red propaganda effective? • Yes: very imaginative, made Lenin out to be a ‘god-like’ saviour, protecting the Russian empire from foreign intervention (as whites received aid). • However by displaying Lenin as this almighty being, this contradicted with communist ideals of equality. • City graffiti: “Down with Lenin and horsemeat, give us the Tsar and pork”.
War Communism • War Communism= economic measures taken by Lenin in wartime Russia. • Key Features: • 1) Grain requisitioning= soldiers to forcibly take food from peasants • 2) Banning of Private Trade= no selling without profit going to the state. • 3) Nationalisation of Industry= State control of factories, etc, workers no longer controlled wages, hours worked. • 4) Labour Discipline= fines for lateness/absenteeism, internal passports introduced to stop people fleeing the cities to join the counter revolutionaries ,etc. • 5) Rationing= Class based, peasants get the most, middle classes get the least/none. not exactly communism. • Life under War Communism • Black market rife in Russia government could not meet all of the populations demands (rationing).2/3 of all food came from here. • Transportation “choked”-not functioning effectively. • 42% of prostitutes were of bourgeoisie origin, “former classes” forced to sell almost everything they had for bread, not allowed to work. • The red promises of “peace bread and land” non-existent. A. Ransome -”They work on the rough and ready theory, that until every man has one room, no-one has the right to two.” this caused a rise in homelessness since beforehand there was overcrowding.
Example Essay: Was weak opposition key to Bolshevik success?
Introduction . Describe who the opposition were: Whites and Greens. . Whites:- Made up of liberals, former tsarists, nationalists. . Greens:- Made up of peasant armies, fighting to defend their land. . Describe why they were weak: Geographical / communication problems Disunited- no solid political objectives. Lack of public support. Unwilling to make concessions on policies . Other factors apart from weak army that contributed to Bolshevik success e.g. Trotsky’s ability as a leader, Unified Red force, more support of peasants for the Bolsheviks, effective propaganda, geographical.
Main Body • Weak opposition Whites were divided geographically, allowed Bolsheviks to easily crush white opposition, did not have good access to railways, poor communication between the different armies, no access to urban population=less support, away from industrial areas (munitions hard to find). Away from main money flow, however was given £100million worth of supplies from Britain. Whites also divided politically, much internal fighting, made of up of different groups such as Kadets, former tsarists, socialists, no solid political objectives. Many desertions. Admiral Kolchak’s army had power struggles with the SR army therefore weakened each other. White armies very brutal, especially the Don Cossacks who, in their own land practiced “ethnic cleansing” , raping and raiding, removing non Cossacks such as Jews and Russians out of their land, so lost much peasant support. Army commanders corrupt and aggressive which reminded soldiers of the worst aspects of Tsarist life- many turned Red. “I can do nothing with my army. I am glad when it carries out my combat orders” (Denikin) Greens- peasant armies usually just concerned with defending their land, fought both sides, no political aims so greens were weak opposition.
Weak opposition was not the only reason for success. Strong leadership in the form of Trotsky ( brought crucial supplies to the battlefronts in his train), really inspired men to fight and powerful orating skills stirred up patriotism. Trotsky really disciplined the army, no chance of disunity/ desertions, death penalty used often realised the mistakes the Tsar made with an unreliable army. Army turned from a ‘flabby, panicky mass’ into an effective fighting force. Much more support than White armies, due primarily to dominance in densely populated areas. Reds v. imaginative with propaganda: spread an anti-opposition sentiment. Reds displayed themselves as the ‘protectors of Russia against foreign forces’. Bolsheviks had control of Moscow and Petrograd-> main economic centres. Had factories to produce armaments and the old Russian army’s weapons from after the Oct Revolution. However, many of these successful policies were only passed because Lenin agreed to them. Trotsky was in the minority who thought these policies would be effective. The Bolsheviks were lucky in that the opposition was subject to a number of unfavourable situations e.g. Kolchak grip on power in Omsk, Allied materials did not always get through and were inconsistent. Allies only involved to prevent communist uprising- not interest in White politics. Conclusion • Summarise factors supporting/ not supporting case. • Analyse question, which is your final opinion.
