The Reds played a decisive role in the civil war and became the driving mechanism for the creation of the USSR.

With their powerful propaganda they managed to win the loyalty of thousands of people and unite them with the idea of ​​​​creating ideal country workers.

Creation of the Red Army

The Red Army was created by a special decree on January 15, 1918. These were voluntary formations from the worker and peasant part of the population.

However, the principle of voluntariness brought with it disunity and decentralization in army command, from which discipline and combat effectiveness suffered. This forced Lenin to announce universal conscription for men 18-40 years old.

The Bolsheviks created a network of schools to train recruits who studied not only the art of war, but also received political education. Commander training courses were created, for which the most outstanding Red Army soldiers were recruited.

Major victories of the Red Army

The Reds in the civil war mobilized all possible economic and human resources to win. After the annulment of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Soviets began to expel German troops from the occupied areas. Then the most turbulent period of the civil war began.

The Reds managed to defend the Southern Front, despite the considerable efforts that were required to fight the Don Army. Then the Bolsheviks launched a counter-offensive and conquered significant territories. On Eastern Front The situation was very unfavorable for the Reds. Here the offensive was launched by Kolchak’s very large and strong troops.

Alarmed by such events, Lenin resorted to emergency measures, and the White Guards were defeated. The simultaneous anti-Soviet protests and the entry into the struggle of Denikin’s Volunteer Army became a critical moment for the Bolshevik government. However, the immediate mobilization of all possible resources helped the Reds win.

War with Poland and the end of the civil war

In April 1920 Poland decided to enter Kyiv with the intention of liberating Ukraine from illegal Soviet rule and restoring its independence. However, the people perceived this as an attempt to occupy their territory. Soviet commanders took advantage of this mood of the Ukrainians. Troops of the Western and Southwestern Fronts were sent to fight Poland.

Soon Kyiv was liberated from the Polish offensive. This revived hopes for a quick world revolution in Europe. But, having entered the territory of the attackers, the Reds received powerful resistance and their intentions quickly cooled. In light of such events, the Bolsheviks signed a peace treaty with Poland.

Reds in the civil war photo

After this, the Reds concentrated all their attention on the remnants of the White Guards under the command of Wrangel. These fights were incredibly violent and brutal. However, the Reds still forced the Whites to surrender.

Famous Red leaders

• Frunze Mikhail Vasilievich. Under his command, the Reds carried out successful operations against the White Guard troops of Kolchak, defeated Wrangel’s army in the territory of Northern Tavria and Crimea;
• Tukhachevsky Mikhail Nikolaevich. He was the commander of the troops of the Eastern and Caucasian Front, with his army he cleared the Urals and Siberia of the White Guards;
• Voroshilov Kliment Efremovich. He was one of the first marshals of the Soviet Union. Participated in the organization of the Revolutionary Military Council of the 1st Cavalry Army. With his troops he liquidated the Kronstadt rebellion;
• Chapaev Vasily Ivanovich. He commanded the division that liberated Uralsk. When the whites suddenly attacked the reds, they fought bravely. And, having spent all the cartridges, the wounded Chapaev set off running across the Ural River, but was killed;
• Budyonny Semyon Mikhailovich. Creator of the Cavalry Army, which defeated the Whites in the Voronezh-Kastornensky operation. The ideological inspirer of the military-political movement of the Red Cossacks in Russia.

• When the workers' and peasants' army showed its vulnerability, former tsarist commanders who were their enemies began to be recruited into the ranks of the Reds.
• After the assassination attempt on Lenin, the Reds dealt especially cruelly with 500 hostages. On the line between the rear and the front there were barrage detachments that fought against desertion by shooting.

Who are the “Reds” and “Whites”

If we are talking about the Red Army, then the Red Army was created as a real army, not so much by the Bolsheviks, but by those same former gold chasers (former tsarist officers), who were mobilized or voluntarily went to serve the new government.

Some figures can be cited to outline the scale of the myth that has existed and still exists in the public consciousness. After all, the main characters Civil War for the older and middle generations, these are Chapaev, Budyonny, Voroshilov and other “reds”. You are unlikely to find anyone else in our textbooks. Well, also Frunze, perhaps, with Tukhachevsky.

In fact, there were not much fewer officers serving in the Red Army than in the White armies. About 100,000 former officers served in all the White armies combined, from Siberia to the North-West. And in the Red Army there are approximately 70,000-75,000. Moreover, almost all the highest command posts in the Red Army were occupied by former officers and generals of the tsarist army.

This applies to the composition of the field headquarters of the Red Army, which consisted almost entirely of former officers and generals, and to the commanders different levels. For example, 85% of all front commanders were former officers of the tsarist army.

So, in Russia everyone knows about the “reds” and “whites”. From school, and even preschool years. “Reds” and “Whites” is the history of the civil war, these are the events of 1917-1920. Who was good then, who was bad - in this case it does not matter. Estimates change. But the terms remained: “white” versus “red”. On the one hand are the armed forces of the young Soviet state, on the other are the opponents of this state. The Soviets are “red”. The opponents, accordingly, are “white”.

According to official historiography, there were, in fact, many opponents. But the main ones are those who have shoulder straps on their uniforms and cockades of the Russian Tsarist Army on their caps. Recognizable opponents, not to be confused with anyone. Kornilovites, Denikinites, Wrangelites, Kolchakites, etc. They are white". These are the ones the “reds” must defeat first. They are also recognizable: they do not have shoulder straps, and they have red stars on their caps. This is the pictorial series of the civil war.

This is a tradition. It was affirmed by Soviet propaganda for more than seventy years. The propaganda was very effective, the visual range became familiar, thanks to which the very symbolism of the civil war remained beyond comprehension. In particular, questions about the reasons that led to the choice of red and white colors to designate opposing forces remained beyond the scope of comprehension.

As for the “Reds,” the reason seemed obvious. The “Reds” called themselves that. Soviet troops originally called the Red Guard. Then - the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army. The Red Army soldiers swore an oath to the red banner. State flag. Why the red flag was chosen - different explanations were given. For example: it is a symbol of “the blood of freedom fighters.” But in any case, the name “red” corresponded to the color of the banner.

Nothing like this can be said about the so-called “whites”. The opponents of the “reds” did not swear allegiance to the white banner. During the Civil War there was no such banner at all. No one has. Nevertheless, the opponents of the “Reds” adopted the name “Whites”. At least one reason is also obvious: the leaders of the Soviet state called their opponents “white.” First of all - V. Lenin. If we use his terminology, the “reds” defended the “power of workers and peasants,” the power of the “workers’ and peasants’ government,” and the “whites” defended “the power of the tsar, landowners and capitalists.” It was precisely this scheme that was asserted with all the might of Soviet propaganda.

They were called this way in the Soviet press: “White Army”, “Whites” or “White Guards”. However, the reasons for choosing these terms were not explained. Soviet historians also avoided the question of the reasons. They reported something, but at the same time literally dodged a direct answer.

The subterfuges of Soviet historians look rather strange. It would seem that there is no reason to avoid the question of the history of terms. In fact, there was never any secret here. And there was a propaganda scheme, which Soviet ideologists considered inappropriate to explain in reference publications.

This is in Soviet era the terms “red” and “white” were predictably associated with the Russian civil war. And before 1917, the terms “white” and “red” were correlated with a different tradition. Another civil war.

Beginning - The Great French Revolution. Confrontation between monarchists and republicans. Then, indeed, the essence of the confrontation was expressed at the level of the color of the banners. The white banner was originally there. This is the royal banner. Well, the red banner is the banner of the Republicans.

Armed sans-culottes gathered under red flags. It was under the red flag in August 1792 that detachments of sans-culottes, organized by the then city government, stormed the Tuileries. That's when the red flag really became a banner. The banner of uncompromising Republicans. Radicals. The red banner and the white banner became symbols of the warring sides. Republicans and monarchists. Later, as you know, the red banner was no longer so popular. The French tricolor became the national flag of the Republic. During the Napoleonic era, the red banner was almost forgotten. And after the restoration of the monarchy, it - as a symbol - completely lost its relevance.

This symbol was updated in the 1840s. Updated for those who declared themselves heirs of the Jacobins. Then the contrast between “reds” and “whites” became a commonplace in journalism. But the French Revolution of 1848 ended with another restoration of the monarchy. Therefore, the opposition between “red” and “white” has again lost its relevance.

Once again, the “Red” - “White” opposition arose at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. It was finally established from March to May 1871, during the existence of the Paris Commune.

The city-republic of Paris Commune was perceived as the implementation of the most radical ideas. The Paris Commune declared itself the heir to the Jacobin traditions, the heir to the traditions of those sans-culottes who came out under the red banner to defend the “gains of the revolution.” The state flag was also a symbol of continuity. Red. Accordingly, the “reds” are communards. Defenders of the city-republic.

As you know, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, many socialists declared themselves heirs of the communards. And at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bolsheviks called themselves such. Communists. They considered the red flag theirs.

As for the confrontation with the “whites,” there seemed to be no contradictions here. By definition, socialists are opponents of autocracy, therefore, nothing has changed. The “Reds” were still opposed to the “Whites”. Republicans to monarchists.

After the abdication of Nicholas II, the situation changed. The king abdicated in favor of his brother, but the brother did not accept the crown. A Provisional Government was formed, so there was no longer a monarchy, and the opposition of “red” to “white” seemed to have lost its relevance. The new Russian government, as is known, was called “provisional” because it was supposed to prepare the convening of the Constituent Assembly. And the Constituent Assembly, popularly elected, was to determine further forms Russian statehood. Determined democratically. The issue of abolishing the monarchy was considered already resolved.

But the Provisional Government lost power without having time to convene the Constituent Assembly, which was convened by the Council of People's Commissars. It’s hardly worth speculating now about why the Council of People’s Commissars considered it necessary to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. In this case, something else is more important: the majority of opponents of the Soviet regime set the task of reconvening the Constituent Assembly. This was their slogan.

In particular, this was the slogan of the so-called Volunteer Army formed on the Don, which was eventually led by Kornilov. Other military leaders, referred to as “whites” in Soviet periodicals, also fought for the Constituent Assembly. They fought against the Soviet state, and not for the monarchy.

And here we should pay tribute to the talents of Soviet ideologists and the skill of Soviet propagandists. By declaring themselves “Reds,” the Bolsheviks were able to secure the label “Whites” for their opponents. They managed to impose this label despite the facts.

Soviet ideologists declared all their opponents to be supporters of the destroyed regime - autocracy. They were declared “white”. This label was itself a political argument. Every monarchist is “white” by definition. Accordingly, if “white”, it means a monarchist.

The label was used even when its use seemed absurd. For example, “White Czechs”, “White Finns” arose, then “White Poles”, although the Czechs, Finns and Poles who fought with the “Reds” did not intend to recreate the monarchy. Neither in Russia nor abroad. However, most “reds” were accustomed to the label “whites,” which is why the term itself seemed understandable. If they are “white,” it means they are always “for the Tsar.” Opponents of the Soviet government could prove that they - for the most part - are not monarchists at all. But there was nowhere to prove it. Soviet ideologists had the main advantage in information war: in territory controlled by the Soviet government, political events were discussed only in the Soviet press. There was almost no other one. All opposition publications were closed. And Soviet publications were strictly controlled by censorship. The population had practically no other sources of information. On the Don, where Soviet newspapers had not yet been read, the Kornilovites, and then the Denikinites, were called not “whites”, but “volunteers” or “cadets”.

But not all Russian intellectuals, despising Soviet power, rushed to identify with its opponents. With those who were called “whites” in the Soviet press. They were indeed perceived as monarchists, and intellectuals saw monarchists as a danger to democracy. Moreover, the danger is no less than the communists. Still, the “Reds” were perceived as Republicans. Well, the victory of the “whites” implied the restoration of the monarchy. Which was unacceptable for intellectuals. And not only for intellectuals - for the majority of the population of the former Russian Empire. Why did Soviet ideologists affirm the labels “red” and “white” in the public consciousness?

Thanks to these labels, not only Russians, but also many Western public figures interpreted the struggle between supporters and opponents of Soviet power as a struggle between republicans and monarchists. Supporters of the republic and supporters of the restoration of autocracy. And Russian autocracy was considered savagery in Europe, a relic of barbarism.

That is why the support of supporters of autocracy among Western intellectuals provoked a predictable protest. Western intellectuals discredited the actions of their governments. They turned public opinion against them, which governments could not ignore. With all the ensuing grave consequences - for Russian opponents of Soviet power. Therefore, the so-called “whites” lost the propaganda war. Not only in Russia, but also abroad. Yes, it turns out that the so-called “whites” were essentially “red”. But that didn't change anything. The propagandists who sought to help Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel and other opponents of the Soviet regime were not as energetic, talented, and efficient as Soviet propagandists.

Moreover, the tasks solved by Soviet propagandists were much simpler. Soviet propagandists could clearly and briefly explain why and with whom the “Reds” were fighting. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter. The main thing is to be brief and clear. The positive part of the program was obvious. Ahead is the kingdom of equality, justice, where there are no poor and humiliated, where there will always be plenty of everything. The opponents, accordingly, are the rich, fighting for their privileges. “Whites” and allies of “whites”. Because of them all the troubles and hardships. There will be no “whites”, there will be no troubles, no deprivations.

Opponents of the Soviet regime could not clearly and briefly explain why they were fighting. Slogans such as the convening of the Constituent Assembly and the preservation of “united and indivisible Russia” were not and could not be popular. Of course, opponents of the Soviet regime could more or less convincingly explain with whom and why they were fighting. However, the positive part of the program remained unclear. And there was no such general program.

Moreover, in territories not controlled by the Soviet government, opponents of the regime were unable to achieve an information monopoly. This is partly why the results of propaganda were incommensurate with the results of Bolshevik propagandists.

It is difficult to determine whether Soviet ideologists consciously immediately imposed the label “white” on their opponents, or whether they intuitively chose such a move. In any case, they made a good choice, and most importantly, they acted consistently and effectively. Convincing the population that opponents of the Soviet regime are fighting to restore autocracy. Because they are “white”.

Of course, among the so-called “whites” there were also monarchists. Real “whites”. Defended the principles of the autocratic monarchy long before its fall.

But in the Volunteer Army, as in other armies that fought the “Reds,” there were negligibly few monarchists. Why didn't they play any important role?

For the most part, ideological monarchists generally avoided participating in the civil war. This was not their war. They had no one to fight for.

Nicholas II was not forcibly deprived of the throne. The Russian emperor abdicated voluntarily. And he released everyone who swore allegiance to him from the oath. His brother did not accept the crown, so the monarchists did not swear allegiance to the new king. Because there was no new king. There was no one to serve, no one to protect. The monarchy no longer existed.

Undoubtedly, it was not appropriate for a monarchist to fight for the Council of People's Commissars. However, it did not follow from anywhere that a monarchist should - in the absence of a monarch - fight for the Constituent Assembly. Both the Council of People's Commissars and the Constituent Assembly were not legitimate authorities for the monarchist.

For a monarchist, legitimate power is only the power of the God-given monarch to whom the monarchist swore allegiance. Therefore, the war with the “reds” - for the monarchists - became a matter of personal choice, and not of religious duty. For the “white,” if he is truly “white,” those fighting for the Constituent Assembly are “red.” Most monarchists did not want to understand the shades of “red.” I saw no point in fighting together with some “Reds” against other “Reds”.

The tragedy of the Civil War, which according to one version ended in November 1920 in the Crimea, was that it brought together two camps in an irreconcilable battle, each of which was sincerely loyal to Russia, but understood this Russia in its own way. On both sides there were scoundrels who warmed their hands in this war, who organized the Red and White Terror, who unscrupulously tried to profit from other people's goods and who made a career out of horrific examples of bloodthirstiness. But at the same time, on both sides there were people filled with nobility and devotion to the Motherland, who put the well-being of the Fatherland above all else, including personal happiness. Let us recall, for example, “Walking Through Torment” by Alexei Tolstoy.

The “Russian schism” took place in families, dividing loved ones. I will give a Crimean example - the family of one of the first rectors of the Tauride University, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. He, a doctor of sciences, a professor, remains in Crimea, with the Reds, and his son, also a doctor of sciences, professor Georgy Vernadsky, goes into emigration with the whites. Or the Admiral Berens brothers. One is a white admiral, who takes the Russian Black Sea squadron to distant Tunisia, to Bizerte, and the second is a red one, and it is he who will go to this Tunisia in 1924 to return the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to their homeland. Or let us remember how M. Sholokhov describes the split in Cossack families in “Quiet Don”.

And many such examples can be given. The horror of the situation was that in this fierce battle of self-destruction for the amusement of the hostile world around us, we Russians destroyed not each other, but ourselves. At the end of this tragedy, we literally “bombarded” the whole world with Russian brains and talents.

In everyone's history modern country(England, France, Germany, USA, Argentina, Australia) there are examples of scientific progress, outstanding creative achievements associated with the activities of Russian emigrants, including great scientists, military leaders, writers, artists, engineers, inventors, thinkers, and farmers.

Our Sikorsky, a friend of Tupolev, practically created the entire American helicopter industry. Russian emigrants founded a number of leading universities in Slavic countries. Vladimir Nabokov created a new European and a new American novel. Nobel Prize presented to France by Ivan Bunin. Economist Leontiev, physicist Prigogine, biologist Metalnikov and many others became famous throughout the world.

At the first stage of the Civil War of 1917 - 1922/23, two powerful opposing forces took shape - “red” and “white”. The first represented the Bolshevik camp, whose goal was a radical change in the existing system and the construction of a socialist regime, the second - the anti-Bolshevik camp, striving for a return to the order of the pre-revolutionary period.

The period between the February and October revolutions is the time of formation and development of the Bolshevik regime, the stage of accumulation of forces. The main tasks of the Bolsheviks before the outbreak of hostilities in the Civil War: the formation of a social support, transformations in the country that would allow them to gain a foothold at the top of power in the country, and the defense of the achievements of the February Revolution.

The Bolsheviks' methods in strengthening power were effective. First of all, this concerns propaganda among the population - the slogans of the Bolsheviks were relevant and helped to quickly form the social support of the “Reds”.

The first armed detachments of the “Reds” began to appear during the preparatory stage - from March to October 1917. Home driving force such detachments were workers from industrial regions - this was the main force of the Bolsheviks, which helped them come to power during October revolution. At the time of the revolutionary events, the detachment numbered about 200,000 people.

The stage of the establishment of Bolshevik power required the protection of what was achieved during the revolution - for this, at the end of December 1917, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission was created, headed by F. Dzerzhinsky. On January 15, 1918, the Cheka adopted a Decree on the creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, and on January 29, the Red Fleet was created.

Analyzing the actions of the Bolsheviks, historians do not come to a consensus about their goals and motivation:

The most common opinion is that the “Reds” initially planned a large-scale Civil War, which would be a logical continuation of the revolution. Fighting, whose goal was to promote the ideas of revolution, would consolidate the power of the Bolsheviks and spread socialism throughout the world. During the war, the Bolsheviks planned to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class. Thus, based on this, the ultimate goal of the “reds” is world revolution.

V. Galin is considered one of the fans of the second concept. This version is radically different from the first - according to historians, the Bolsheviks had no intention of turning the revolution into a Civil War. The goal of the Bolsheviks was to seize power, which they succeeded in during the revolution. But continuation of hostilities was not included in the plans. Arguments of fans of this concept: the transformations that the “Reds” planned demanded peace in the country; at the first stage of the struggle, the “Reds” were tolerant of other political forces. A turning point regarding political opponents occurred when in 1918 there was a threat of losing power in the state. By 1918, the “Reds” had a strong, professionally trained enemy - the White Army. Its backbone was the military of the Russian Empire. By 1918, the fight against this enemy became purposeful, the army of the “Reds” acquired a pronounced structure.

At the first stage of the war, the actions of the Red Army were not successful. Why?

Recruitment into the army was carried out on a voluntary basis, which led to decentralization and disunity. The army was created spontaneously, without a specific structure - this led to a low level of discipline and problems in managing a large number of volunteers. The chaotic army was characterized by high level combat effectiveness. Only in 1918, when Bolshevik power was under threat, did the “Reds” decide to recruit troops according to the mobilization principle. From June 1918, they began to mobilize the military of the tsarist army.

The second reason is closely related to the first - the chaotic, unprofessional army of the “Reds” was opposed by organized, professional military men who, at the time of the Civil War, participated in more than one battle. The “Whites”, with a high level of patriotism, were united not only by professionalism, but also by an idea - the White movement stood for a united and indivisible Russia, for order in the state.

Most characteristic The Red Army is homogeneous. First of all, this concerns class origin. Unlike the “whites,” whose army included professional soldiers, workers, and peasants, the “reds” accepted only proletarians and peasants into their ranks. The bourgeoisie was subject to destruction, therefore important task was to prevent hostile elements from joining the Red Army.

In parallel with military operations, the Bolsheviks implemented a political and economic program. The Bolsheviks pursued a policy of “red terror” against hostile social classes. In the economic sphere, “war communism” was introduced - a set of measures in domestic policy Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.

The Reds' biggest wins:

• 1918 – 1919 – establishment of Bolshevik power in the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia.
• Beginning of 1919 - The Red Army launches a counteroffensive, defeating Krasnov’s “white” army.
• Spring-summer 1919 - Kolchak’s troops fell under the attacks of the “Reds”.
• Beginning of 1920 - the “Reds” ousted the “Whites” from the northern cities of Russia.
• February-March 1920 - defeat of the remaining forces of Denikin’s Volunteer Army.
• November 1920 - the “Reds” ousted the “Whites” from Crimea.
• By the end of 1920, the “Reds” were opposed by disparate groups of the White Army. The civil war ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks.

1917 divided us into “red” and “white”. Not all of them, really. Actually, there are not so many real “reds” and “whites”. The trouble is that everyone who remained, that is, the majority, caught up in the whirlwind of events, was forced to choose who to follow. And it’s not a simple task to solve: which of them is right? And even today the question: “Who are you for: the Reds or the Whites?” still causes serious difficulties. To solve it, you need to figure out who the “reds” are and who the “whites” are.

At first glance, everything is clear. “Whites” are those who did not accept the seizure of power by the “red” Bolsheviks. But this is a picture of 1918, and a year earlier the political picture was different. Irreconcilable anti-Bolsheviks were equally irreconcilable towards Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. That is, they were revolutionaries, and therefore “red”. Directly and figuratively. Decorated with red bows, they happily breathed in the intoxicating air of freedom. The following months were spent deepening the revolution and consolidating all kinds of freedoms. But, as you know, for every revolution there is a counter-revolution. In the autumn of the same year they were overthrown by the “red” Bolsheviks in alliance with the left Socialist Revolutionaries. Now attention! Question: which main parties made up the coalition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government? Cadets (constitutional democrats), Social Revolutionaries (social revolutionaries), Mensheviks (social democrats) and radical democrats. What coalition came to power? Also social democrats (so-called Bolsheviks) social revolutionaries (socialist revolutionaries). True, without the cadets. It turns out that the “red” coalition of democrats-socialists-revolutionaries was overthrown by an “even redder” coalition of the same combination. But that is not all. A month later, the parties of the overthrown coalition won the elections to the Constituent Assembly. But the coalition that won in October and lost the elections closed the Constituent Assembly after the first day of meetings “for not submitting to the will of the people.” The few demonstrations in defense of the establishment were dispersed. In fact, this was the second force victory over representatives of the Provisional Government. And now the former revolutionaries have become counter-revolutionaries in relation to the “real revolutionaries”. This is the tangled knot that has tightened around Russia’s neck as a result of the “bloodless February revolution" The usual political palette of the civil war was established. The "Reds" are fighting against the "Whites". But not only. Also against their recent allies, the “very red” Left Social Revolutionaries. And also against the “orange” separatists (as well as the “white” ones, however). And against the autocratic “greens”, who in turn fought against everyone. On top of everything else, the invasion of foreign troops began. Let's call them "black". The “Red” Bolsheviks managed to defeat everyone.

"Whites" left their homeland. But even in exile, the civil war continued. Between monarchists and supporters of the Constituent Assembly. Another stumbling block was the attitude towards the Bolsheviks. Far from their native land, emigrants (refugees), having experienced the tragedy of the loss of their homeland, tried to understand the causes of this common misfortune and look for ways out of it. It was then that the formulation “not red and not white - but Russian” was born. A movement to return to the homeland began. Pure “Whites” called all those who sympathized with the Soviets “pink”, and those collaborating with them as “red”.

In Russia itself, the political color scheme did not change outwardly until the mid-1930s, when the destruction of the “very, very red” began. The old guard of the revolution - the Trotskyists - were put to waste (pardon the expression).

The World War again stirred up the political palette. The “Whites” again relied on the “Blacks” and opposed the “Reds”. And again they were defeated. P.N. Krasnov was executed, adding to the list of dead “white” leaders (M.V. Alekseev, L.G. Kornilov). The survivor A.I. Denikin was among those who sympathized with the Red Army’s struggle against the Germans. The “Reds” returned almost all of the Russian lands lost as a result of the revolution and intervention. The persecution of the Church was stopped. In essence, they carried out a “white deed” under a red flag. Nikolai Vasilyevich Ustryalov spoke about this back in the thirties, comparing Soviet Union with radishes - “red on the outside, white on the inside.”

But the struggle for Russia continued. The “very reddest”, defeated in 1937, returned to power. The “Khrushchev thaw” has arrived. “Give the revolution a deepening!” And again persecution of the Church. But the construction is peaceful Soviet life they failed again. The “Red-White” (they can be called “statist-traditionalists”) were able to remove the “very, very red.” This is how the country survived until 1991. Before new revolution. This time, to fight the “red-whites”, ideas inherent in the “pure whites” were brought in. First of all, hatred of everything Soviet, as a Bolshevik legacy. But this was not enough. The enormous resources of the “blacks” were used, who, in fact, were the main customers of the new revolution. Or rather, the “blacks” used for their own purposes the “very, very red” ones, raised on freely convertible currency, and the “whites,” as they say, “in the dark” (pardon the expression again).

The fact that the revolution of 1991 was a direct continuation of the revolution of the 17th is evidenced by the fact that the country was again divided into parts. And these breakaway units were set against Russia. As under the Februaryists, the country went downhill. With the direct participation of “blacks”.

Fortunately, Russia survived. And she began to rise from her knees.

Our “partners” did not expect this. And so... the “very, very reds”, who now call themselves “democrats”, simply “reds” and... “whites”, who consider themselves real patriots, came out to Bolotnaya Square in unison. What a picture!

This time the people did not let themselves be deceived. Now the whiteness that has ripened under the red shell of our native “radish” has already clearly appeared. The idea “not “Reds” and not “Whites” - but Russians”, hard-won in exile, turned out to be saving for us. She is Russian in spirit. This statement restores the unity of the history of our long-suffering Motherland, and therefore the unity of the entire people.

By the beginning of the Civil War, the whites were superior to the reds in almost everything - it seemed that the Bolsheviks were doomed. However, it was the Reds who were destined to emerge victorious from this confrontation. Among the entire huge complex of reasons that led to this, three key ones stand out clearly.

Under the rule of chaos

"...I will immediately point out three reasons for the failure of the white movement:
1) insufficient and untimely,
aid from the allies, guided by narrow selfish considerations,
2) gradual strengthening of reactionary elements within the movement and
3) as a consequence of the second, the disappointment of the masses in the white movement...

P. Milyukov. Report on the white movement.
Newspaper Latest News (Paris), August 6, 1924

To begin with, it is worth stipulating that the definitions of “red” and “white” are largely arbitrary, as is always the case when describing civil unrest. War is chaos, and civil war is chaos raised to an infinite degree. Even now, almost a century later, the question “so who was right?” remains open and difficult to resolve.

At the same time, everything that was happening was perceived as a real end of the world, a time of complete unpredictability and uncertainty. The color of the banners, the declared beliefs - all this existed only “here and now” and in any case did not guarantee anything. Sides and beliefs changed with amazing ease, and this was not considered something abnormal or unnatural. Revolutionaries with many years of experience in the struggle - for example, the Socialist Revolutionaries - became ministers of new governments and were branded by their opponents as counter-revolutionaries. And the Bolsheviks were helped to create an army and counterintelligence by proven personnel of the tsarist regime - including nobles, guards officers, and graduates of the General Staff Academy. People, trying to somehow survive, were thrown from one extreme to another. Or the “extremes” themselves came to them - in the form of an immortal phrase: “The whites came and robbed, the reds came and robbed, so where should the poor peasant go?” Both individuals and entire military units regularly changed sides.

In the best traditions of the 18th century, prisoners could be released on parole, killed in the most savage ways, or placed in their own system. An orderly, harmonious division “these are red, these are white, those over there are green, and these are morally unstable and undecided” took shape only years later.

Therefore, it should always be remembered that when we talk about any side of a civil conflict, we are not talking about the strict ranks of regular formations, but rather “centers of power.” Points of attraction for many groups that were in constant motion and incessant conflicts of everyone with everyone.

But why did the center of power, which we collectively call “red”, win? Why did the “gentlemen” lose to the “comrades”?

Question about the "Red Terror"

"Red Terror" is often used as ultima ratio, a description of the main tool of the Bolsheviks, which allegedly threw a frightened country at their feet. This is wrong. Terror has always gone hand in hand with civil unrest, because it is derived from the extreme ferocity of this kind of conflict, in which the opponents have nowhere to run and nothing to lose. Moreover, opponents could not, in principle, avoid organized terror as a means.

It was said earlier that initially the opponents were small groups surrounded by a sea of ​​anarchist freemen and apolitical peasant masses. White general Mikhail Drozdovsky brought about two thousand people from Romania. Mikhail Alekseev and Lavr Kornilov initially had approximately the same number of volunteers. But the majority simply did not want to fight, including a very significant part of the officers. In Kyiv, officers happened to work as waiters, wearing uniforms and all the awards - “they serve more this way, sir.”

Second Drozdovsky Cavalry Regiment
rusk.ru

In order to win and realize their vision of the future, all participants needed an army (that is, conscripts) and bread. Bread for the city (military production and transport), for the army and for rations for valuable specialists and commanders.

People and bread could only be obtained in the village, from the peasant, who was not going to give either one or the other “for nothing”, and had nothing to pay with. Hence the requisitions and mobilizations, which both the Whites and the Reds (and before them, the Provisional Government) had to resort to with equal zeal. The result is unrest in the village, opposition, and the need to suppress disturbances using the most brutal methods.

Therefore, the notorious and terrible “Red Terror” was not a decisive argument or something that stood out sharply against the general background of the atrocities of the Civil War. Everyone was involved in terrorism and it was not he who brought victory to the Bolsheviks.

1. Unity of command.
2. Organization.
3. Ideology.

Let's consider these points sequentially.

1. Unity of command, or “When there is no agreement among the masters...”.

It should be noted that the Bolsheviks (or, more broadly, “socialist-revolutionaries” in general) initially had very good experience working in conditions of instability and chaos. A situation where there are enemies all around, in our own ranks there are secret police agents and in general" trust no one"- was an ordinary production process for them. With the beginning Civil Bolsheviks in general, they continued what they were doing before, only under more favorable conditions, because now they themselves became one of the main players. They knew how maneuver in conditions of complete confusion and everyday betrayal. But their opponents used the skill “attract an ally and betray him in time before he betrays you” much worse. Therefore, at the peak of the conflict, many white groups fought against the relatively unified (in terms of the presence of one leader) Red camp, and each fought its own war according to own plans and understanding.

Actually, this discord and the slowness of the overall strategy deprived White of victory back in 1918. The Entente desperately needed a Russian front against the Germans and was ready to do a lot just to maintain at least the appearance of it, pulling German troops away from the western front. The Bolsheviks were extremely weak and disorganized, and help could have been demanded at least for partial deliveries of military orders already paid for by the tsarism. But... the Whites preferred to take shells from the Germans through Krasnov for the war against the Reds - thereby creating a corresponding reputation in the eyes of the Entente. The Germans, having lost the war in the West, disappeared. The Bolsheviks steadily created an organized army instead of semi-partisan detachments and tried to establish a military industry. And in 1919, the Entente had already won its war and did not want, and could not, bear large, and most importantly, expenses that did not provide any visible benefit in a distant country. The interventionist forces left the fronts of the Civil War one after another.

White was unable to come to an agreement with any of the limitrophes - as a result, their rear (almost all of it) hung in the air. And, as if this were not enough, each white leader had his own “chieftain” in the rear, poisoning life with all his might. Kolchak has Semenov, Denikin has the Kuban Rada with Kalabukhov and Mamontov, Wrangel has the Oryol war in Crimea, Yudenich has Bermondt-Avalov.

White movement propaganda poster
statehistory.ru

So, although outwardly the Bolsheviks seemed surrounded by enemies and a doomed camp, they were able to concentrate on selected areas, transferring at least some resources along internal transport lines - despite the collapse transport system. Each individual white general could beat the enemy as harshly as he wanted on the battlefield - and the reds admitted these defeats - but these pogroms did not add up to a single boxing combination that would knock out the fighter in the red corner of the ring. The Bolsheviks withstood each individual attack, accumulated strength and struck back.

The year is 1918: Kornilov goes to Yekaterinodar, but other white detachments have already left there. Then the Volunteer Army gets bogged down in battles in the North Caucasus, and at the same time Krasnov’s Cossacks go to Tsaritsyn, where they get theirs from the Reds. In 1919, thanks to foreign assistance (more on this below), Donbass fell, Tsaritsyn was finally taken - but Kolchak in Siberia was already defeated. In the fall, Yudenich marches on Petrograd, having excellent chances to take it - and Denikin in the south of Russia is defeated and retreats. Wrangel, having excellent aviation and tanks, left the Crimea in 1920, the battles were initially successful for the Whites, but the Poles were already making peace with the Reds. And so on. Khachaturian - “Sabre Dance”, only much scarier.

The Whites were fully aware of the seriousness of this problem and even tried to solve it by choosing a single leader (Kolchak) and trying to coordinate actions. But by then it was already too late. Moreover, there was in fact no real coordination as a class.

“The white movement did not end in victory because the white dictatorship did not emerge. And what prevented it from taking shape were centrifugal forces, inflated by the revolution, and all the elements associated with the revolution and not breaking with it... Against the red dictatorship, a white “concentration of power...” was needed.

N. Lvov. "White Movement", 1924.

2. Organization - “the war is won on the home front”

As again stated above, for a long time Whites had clear superiority on the battlefield. It was so tangible that to this day it is a source of pride for supporters of the white movement. Accordingly, all sorts of conspiracy theories are invented to explain why everything ended this way and where did the victories go?.. Hence the legends about the monstrous and unparalleled “Red Terror”.

And the solution is actually simple and, alas, graceless - the Whites won tactically, in battle, but lost the main battle - in their own rear.

“Not one of the [anti-Bolshevik] governments... was able to create a flexible and strong apparatus of power that could quickly and quickly overtake, coerce, act and force others to act. The Bolsheviks also did not capture the people’s soul, they also did not become a national phenomenon, but they were infinitely ahead of us in the pace of their actions, in energy, mobility and ability to coerce. We, with our old techniques, old psychology, old vices of the military and civil bureaucracy, with Peter’s table of ranks, could not keep up with them ... "

In the spring of 1919, the commander of Denikin’s artillery had only two hundred shells a day... For a single gun? No, for the entire army.

England, France and other powers, despite the later curses of the whites against them, provided considerable or even enormous assistance. In the same year, 1919, the British supplied Denikin alone with 74 tanks, one and a half hundred aircraft, hundreds of cars and dozens of tractors, more than five hundred guns, including 6-8-inch howitzers, thousands of machine guns, more than two hundred thousand rifles, hundreds of millions of cartridges and two million shells... These are very decent numbers even on the scale of the just ended Great War; it would not be a shame to cite them in the context of, say, the battle of Ypres or the Somme, describing the situation on a separate section of the front. And for a civil war, forcedly poor and ragged, this is a fabulous amount. Such an armada, concentrated in several “fists,” could by itself tear apart the Red Front like a rotten rag.

A detachment of tanks from the Shock Fire Brigade before being sent to the front
velikoe-sorokoletie.diary.ru

However, this wealth was not united into compact, crushing groups. Moreover, the overwhelming majority did not reach the front at all. Because the logistics supply organization was completely failed. And cargo (ammunition, food, uniforms, equipment...) was either stolen or filled up remote warehouses.

New British howitzers were spoiled by untrained white crews within three weeks, which repeatedly dismayed the British advisers. 1920 - Wrangel, according to the Reds, fired no more than 20 shells per gun on the day of the battle. Some of the batteries had to be moved to the rear.

On all fronts, ragged soldiers and no less ragged officers of the white armies, without food or ammunition, desperately fought Bolshevism. And in the rear...

“Looking at these hosts of scoundrels, at these dressed up ladies with diamonds, at these polished young men, I felt only one thing: I prayed: “Lord, send the Bolsheviks here, at least for a week, so that at least in the midst of the horrors of the Emergency, these animals understand that they do."

Ivan Nazhivin, Russian writer and emigrant

The lack of coordination of actions and the inability to organize, in modern terms, logistics and rear discipline, led to the fact that purely military victories White movement dissolved in smoke. Whites were chronically unable to “put the pressure on” the enemy, while slowly and irreversibly losing their fighting qualities. The White armies at the beginning and end of the Civil War differed fundamentally only in the degree of raggedness and mental breakdown - and not for the better by the end. But the red ones changed...

“Yesterday there was a public lecture by Colonel Kotomin, who fled the Red Army; those present did not understand the bitterness of the lecturer, who pointed out that in the commissar army there is much more order and discipline than ours, and they created a huge scandal, with an attempt to beat the lecturer, one of the most ideological workers of our national Center; They were especially offended when K. noted that in the Red Army a drunken officer is impossible, because any commissar or communist would immediately shoot him.”

Baron Budberg

Budberg somewhat idealized the picture, but appreciated the essence correctly. And not only him. There was an evolution in the nascent Red Army, the Reds fell, received painful blows, but rose and moved on, drawing conclusions from the defeats. And even in tactics, more than once or twice the efforts of the Whites were defeated by the stubborn defense of the Reds - from Ekaterinodar to the Yakut villages. On the contrary, the Whites fail and the front collapses for hundreds of kilometers, often forever.

1918, summer - Taman campaign, for prefabricated Red detachments of 27,000 bayonets and 3,500 sabers - 15 guns, at best from 5 to 10 rounds of ammunition per soldier. There is no food, fodder, convoys or kitchens.

Red Army in 1918.
Drawing by Boris Efimov
http://www.ageod-forum.com

1920, autumn - The shock fire brigade on Kakhovka has a battery of six-inch howitzers, two light batteries, two detachments of armored cars (another detachment of tanks, but it did not have time to take part in battles), more than 180 machine guns for 5.5 thousand people, a flamethrower team, the fighters are dressed to the nines and impress even the enemy with their training; the commanders received leather uniforms.

Red Army in 1921.
Drawing by Boris Efimov
http://www.ageod-forum.com

The red cavalry of Dumenko and Budyonny forced even the enemy to study their tactics. While White most often “shone” with a frontal infantry attack in full height and outflanking the cavalry. When the White army under Wrangel, thanks to the supply of equipment, began to resemble a modern one, it was already too late.

The Reds have a place for career officers - like Kamenev and Vatsetis, and for those making a successful career “from the bottom” of the army - Dumenko and Budyonny, and for nuggets - Frunze.

And among the whites, with all the wealth of choice, one of Kolchak’s armies is commanded by... a former paramedic. Denikin’s decisive attack on Moscow is led by Mai-Maevsky, who stands out for his drinking bouts even against the general background. Grishin-Almazov, a major general, “works” as a courier between Kolchak and Denikin, where he dies. Contempt for others flourishes in almost every part.

3. Ideology - “Vote with your rifle!”

What was the Civil War like for the average citizen, the average person? To paraphrase one of the modern researchers, in essence these turned out to be grandiose democratic elections stretched over several years under the slogan “vote with a rifle!” The man could not choose the time and place where he happened to experience amazing and terrible events historical significance. However, he could - albeit limitedly - choose his place in the present. Or, at worst, your attitude towards him.

Let us remember what was already mentioned above - the opponents were in dire need of armed force and food. People and food could be obtained by force, but not always and not everywhere, multiplying enemies and haters. Ultimately, the winner was not determined by how brutal he was or how many individual battles he could win. And what he can offer to the huge apolitical masses, insanely tired of the hopeless and protracted end of the world. Will it be able to attract new supporters, maintain the loyalty of the former, make neutrals hesitate, and undermine the morale of enemies.

The Bolsheviks succeeded. But their opponents do not.

“What did the Reds want when they went to war? They wanted to defeat the whites and, strengthened by this victory, create from it the foundation for the solid construction of their communist statehood.

What did the whites want? They wanted to defeat the Reds. And then? Then - nothing, because only state babies could not understand that the forces that supported the building of the old statehood were destroyed to the ground, and that there were no opportunities to restore these forces.

Victory for the Reds was a means, for Whites it was a goal, and, moreover, the only one.”

Von Raupach. "Reasons for the failure of the white movement"

Ideology is a tool that is difficult to calculate mathematically, but it also has its weight. In a country where the majority of the population could barely read, it was extremely important to be able to clearly explain why it was proposed to fight and die. The Reds did it. The Whites were unable to even decide among themselves what they were fighting for. On the contrary, they considered it right to postpone ideology “for later.” » , conscious non-predetermination. Even among the whites themselves, the alliance between the "owning classes" » , officers, Cossacks and “revolutionary democracy” » They called it unnatural - how could they convince the hesitant?

« ...We have created a huge blood-sucking bank for sick Russia... The transfer of power from Soviet hands to ours would not have saved Russia. Something new is needed, something hitherto unconscious - then we can hope for a slow revival. But neither the Bolsheviks nor we will be in power, and that’s even better!”

A. Lampe. From the Diary. 1920

A Tale of Losers

In essence, our forcedly brief note became a story about the weaknesses of the Whites and, to a much lesser extent, about the Reds. This is no coincidence. In any civil war, all sides demonstrate an unimaginable, prohibitive level of chaos and disorganization. Naturally, the Bolsheviks and their fellow travelers were no exception. But the whites set an absolute record for what would now be called “gracelessness.”

In essence, it was not the Reds who won the war, they, in general, did what they had done before - fought for power and solved problems that blocked the path to their future.

It was the whites who lost the confrontation, they lost at all levels - from political declarations to tactics and organization of supplies for the active army.

The irony of fate is that the majority of whites did not defend the tsarist regime, or even took an active part in its overthrow. They knew very well and criticized all the ills of tsarism. However, at the same time, they scrupulously repeated all the main mistakes of the previous government, which led to its collapse. Only in a more explicit, even caricatured form.

Finally, I would like to cite words that were originally written in relation to the Civil War in England, but are also perfectly suitable for those terrible and great events that shook Russia almost a hundred years ago...

“They say that these people were caught in a whirlwind of events, but the matter is different. No one was dragging them anywhere, and there were no inexplicable forces or invisible hands. It’s just that every time they were faced with a choice, they made the right decisions from their point of view, but in the end the chain of individually correct intentions led to dark forest... All that remained was to wander in the evil thickets until, finally, the survivors came to light, looking with horror at the road with corpses left behind them. Many have gone through this, but blessed are those who understood their enemy and then did not curse him.”

A. V. Tomsinov “The Blind Children of Kronos”.

Literature:

1. Budberg A. Diary of a White Guard. - Mn.: Harvest, M.: AST, 2001
2. Gul R.B. Ice March (with Kornilov). http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/gul_rb/index.html
3. Drozdovsky M. G. Diary. - Berlin: Otto Kirchner and Ko, 1923.
4. Zaitsov A. A. 1918. Essays on the history of the Russian Civil War. Paris, 1934.
5. Kakurin N. E., Vatsetis I. I. Civil war. 1918–1921. - St. Petersburg: Polygon, 2002.
6. Kakurin N. E. How the revolution fought. 1917–1918. M., Politizdat, 1990.
7. Kovtyukh E.I. “Iron Stream” in a military presentation. Moscow: Gosvoenizdat, 1935
8. Kornatovsky N. A. The struggle for Red Petrograd. - M: ACT, 2004.
9. Essays by E. I. Dostovalov.
10. http://feb-web.ru/feb/rosarc/ra6/ra6–637-.htm
11. Reden. Through the hell of the Russian revolution. Memoirs of a midshipman. 1914–1919. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2007.
12. Wilmson Huddleston. Farewell to Don. The Russian Civil War in the diaries of a British officer. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2007.
13. LiveJournal of Evgenia Durneva http://eugend.livejournal.com - it contains various educational materials, incl. Some issues of red and white terror are considered in relation to the Tambov region and Siberia.