Does /his/ like the Russian Civil War? Did the Whites lose because

File: 1412857579989.png (40KB, 756x760px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 756x760px

They lost because the inexorable laws of history were against them you goddamn reactionary.

File: communism vs tsarism.jpg (117KB, 660x460px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 660x460px

>>64083
The Whites had no internal unity. It was a very loose coalition of warlords, Tsarists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Democratic Socialists etc. They found it hard to co-operate. Compare this to the Bolsheviks who had a very authoritarian and centralised system making it quite easy to organise. They also had the benefit of having no obvious foreign sponsors, so they looked like patriots in comparison to the whites who had support from many foreign powers.

Have a propaganda poster from the civil war.

>dicks

>>64083

Too may social movements in the whites.

>>64137

Has it down.

I'd like to take up a more intensive study of the war sometime because of the oddity in the way it was waged. Armored trains, Czech legions, invasions by and of Poland, and Barons both Mad and Black make it all p fucking interesting

>>64257
Don't forget the Green Army, which was just a peasant army which wanted its people to be left alone by both sides.

>>64284
I just did some cursory mentions. Of course I'd never forget the Green Army (and especially not Makhno's Black Army)

>>64083
Here's a Russian movie about the conflict. Aside from glorifying Kolchak a little bit in some aspects and overdoing the romantic subplot, it's actually a decent movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRckaEkuRAo

>>64106
this desu

>>64083
>Did the Whites lose because they were that corrupt and unorganized? (well, more so than the Reds).

actually, that's pretty much the reason they lost. also, they were really stretched out while the Reds held the core of Russia, namely Petrograd and Moscow.

>>64137
>>64175
That, and that fact that Whites were too stuck up about "muh united and undivided Russia". Poles, Finns or Ukrainians (since, say, Hetman Skoropadsky used to be a Russian general and never actually opposed Russians per se) would be glad to help against Bolsheviks - except apparently it was better to be divided and conquered by communists completely.

Also Whites using Entente's help didn't work well with the notoriously xenophobic Russian population.

They lost because the JudeoBolsheviks captured the large cities

>>64284
There was no Green Army, it's just an umbrella term for various smaller groups of people fighting against everyone.

Hell, the name is generally referred to Antonov's peasant rebels but the term itself comes from one of the Ukrainian officers, otaman Zelenyj (literally "Green").

>>64371
>There was no Green Army, it's just an umbrella term for various smaller groups of people fighting against everyone.
You could make the same argument for the whites. They are grouped together because they have common traits.

>>64137
Wasnt Lenin sponsored by germans themselves, at least in the first years?

Tho then again, i have no idea how "obvious" this sponsorship was compared to whites who had national leaders publicly state support for that or the other thing.

File: Tachanka_in_Huliaipole_Museum.jpg (680KB, 2288x1712px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 2288x1712px

>you will never drive a tachanka

>>64391
Yes, Lenin was backed by Germany. It was just a lot less obvious as the sponsorship was covert rather than the overt support the entente gave to the whites, it included things such as financial transfers and transportation of leaders out of exile.

>>64382
Yes, but at least Whites shared some common goals and sometimes worked together. Green rebels didn't have even that.

>>64424
>It was just a lot less obvious

are you trolling? he literally came to petrograd in an armored german train

>>64516
Yes, and it was covert. Very few people knew he was being helped by the Germans.

>>64524
No, it was a well known rumour that the Bolsheviks were backed by the Germans. What the Germans really guaranteed to the Bolsheviks was the ability for the emegres to return to Russia. Especially since the Bolsheviks were the only political organization in Russia to be resolute against the War.

To say that the Bolsheviks were backed by the Germans, however, is misleading. Why would the Germans support Communists who, in turn, gave support to their own local Communists? The German Communist Party and the Bolsheviks had close political and ideological ties, especially during the German Revolution of 1918.

File: Nickythe2nd.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>64083
His great-grand daddy would have slapped the shit out of this pussy for giving it up so easily to the serfs.

File: shwing.jpg (8KB, 182x120px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 182x120px

>>64393
>dat chain gun tho

File: blowback.png (171KB, 960x689px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 960x689px

>>64586
>To say that the Bolsheviks were backed by the Germans, however, is misleading.
No, it is an accurate description of what occurred.

>Why would the Germans support Communists who, in turn, gave support to their own local Communists? The German Communist Party and the Bolsheviks had close political and ideological ties, especially during the German Revolution of 1918.
Why would the United States support Saudi Arabia when Saudi Arabia gives its support to terrorist organisations which the USA opposes? These things happen.

>No, it was a well known rumour that the Bolsheviks were backed by the Germans.
It was regarded as a conspiracy theory and of course both the Bolsheviks and Germans denied it.

>>64597
>Sinking the whole fleet because it sucked so much and then building a monument to it
I don't think he'd be in any better position here.

>>64627
the reason that germaby supported lenin was because he destableised russia and stated that he wanted to end the war. most socialism and leftism you see today is based on the social justice standers (not sjw, 1900s social justice) of marxism-leninism, one of the tenants being "no war but the class war"

>>64671
>most socialism and leftism you see today is based on the social justice standers (not sjw, 1900s social justice) of marxism-leninism, one of the tenants being "no war but the class war"
Not really relevant to the conversation.

>the reason that germaby supported lenin was because he destableised russia and stated that he wanted to end the war.
Yes I agree with you on why they supported the Bolsheviks. The German command were not secret Bolsheviks after all.

>>64586
>To say that the Bolsheviks were backed by the Germans, however, is misleading. Why would the Germans support Communists who, in turn, gave support to their own local Communists?

of course germans hated commies. but supporting russian commies would help them end Bismark's nightmare (namely the two-front war)

>>64597
Serfdom was abolished by Tsar Nicholas's grandfather. The Tsar was overthrown by industrial workers from a rebellion in the predominantly Bolshevik Vyborg district in Petrograd, not by peasants. Everyone loathed the Tsar. By that I mean everyone. Almost the entieriety, with but a small minority, hated Tsarism. The Tsar himself, Nicholas, was incompetent, and the system underneath him a corrupt and failing repressive police state.

>>64627
Conspiracy theories were taken far more seriously back then then they are now. Probably because conspiracy was something that was done all the time within politics, and the idea of grand conspiracy hadn't popularized yet. I said it was misleading because it plays into the fallacy that the Bolsheviks were just puppets to German imperialism.

>>64696
Wrong anon

>>64707
>I said it was misleading because it plays into the fallacy that the Bolsheviks were just puppets to German imperialism.
This is just you projecting your own views onto the situation and taking issues with things you find "problematic". You are not debating anything of substance.

Yes the Bolsheviks were supported by the Germans.

>Wrong anon
Nope. I am very much correct.

>>64707
>The Tsar was overthrown by industrial workers from a rebellion in the predominantly Bolshevik Vyborg district in Petrograd, not by peasants
The Tsar was overthrown in the February revolution. The Bolsheviks overthrew the Democratic Kerensky government.

>>64696
i said that thing about ML to further the point of why lenin didnt want to be in the war.

>>64745
Yes, I know, but the rebellion that sparked the Febuarary revolution was committed by the industrial workers in the Vyborg district, who were predominantly Bolshevik.

>>64106
comrade the laws of history and class struggle only influences trends not battles

why are communists so adverse to the idea that revolutions, even our own, can be supported by non revolutionary parties for non revolutionary reasons?

>>64784
Wait, I think I'm confusing two working class districts in Petrograd. One was Bolshevik and one was Menshevik, I forgot which was which. The Bolshevik one sparked the February Revolution, but it, if I can remember, it was mostly the SRs and the Mensheviks that operated with the initial intelligentsia leadership positions until the Provisional Government discredited themselves by continuing the war.

>>64784
February Revolution started due to bread shortage in one of the gians queues that appeared everywhere, actually.

>>64846
>February Revolution started due to bread shortage in one of the gians queues that appeared everywhere, actually.

lel

fucking slavs and their bread queues

>>64863
Only America avoided rationing during the wars.

>>64869
no i was referring to the fact that russians always seem to have problems with bread. same shit happened at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

>>64885
Food shortages often cause regime collapse, it happened in Germany in 1918 as well.

>>64846
Yes, added with wage-depression from the war. Organized labour opposition was dominated by the Social-Democrats, with the Bolsheviks holding the majority of the Social-democrat rank-and-file.

>>64833
No, they aren't. The Bolsheviks actually critically supported the liberal and SR opposition to the Tsar, and after the overthrow of the Tsar, many supported the Provisional Goverment. Stalin, for instance, was known for supporting the Provisional Government before Lenin arrived advocating another revolution. Prominent members of the Bolshevik Central Committee, with Zinoviev first coming to mind, actually denounced Lenin for advocating for overthrowing the Tsar and Lenin was only able to do what he had in mind by going over to the grassroots labour organizations.

>>64918
The February Revolution happened before the October Revolution.

>>65001
*overthrowing the Provisional Government

>>64083
As Slovak, I like Russian civil war because of involment of Czechoslovak Legion, they fought on Eastern Front with Russians, but after revolution they became undesirable and they had to fight their way to Vladyvostok where they could embark on Allies' ships and then they went to Italian Front. They quitte literaly traveled across the world.

>>65437
And they may or may not have taken Tsar's gold with them.

>>64784
>Vyborg district

I'll doubt that. Vyborg wasn't exactly part of Russia at that time. It was part of Finland, that was autonomous part of Russia.

>>65549
Vyborg city district of Saint Petersburg, not town of Viipuri itself. North-Northwestern part of city.

>>65618
>Vyborg city district of Saint Petersburg, not town of Viipuri itself. North-Northwestern part of city.

Thanks for clarification.