The principle of staffing the Armed Forces of the South of Russia as the reason for their victories and defeats

A poster advertising the "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution," which provided an opportunity to revisit the topic of the Civil War.

Where the capital is, there is power

"The Chronicles of the Russian Revolution" is another unique look at the Russian history A.S. Konchalovsky, which drew well-reasoned criticism from experts, including historian Yury V. Yemelyanov. Yet the master had every opportunity to produce a solid historical series.

However, but - this is a reason to once again touch upon the topic of the Civil War, which, as the remarkable and, alas, now deceased historian A. N. Bokhanov told me: “Relevant forever.”

This article will discuss one of the reasons for the Bolshevik victory, some of which have already been discussed in previous materials. Let me recap the main ones: the Reds controlled both capitals and, accordingly, were perceived as the legitimate government by the majority of the population, regardless of their attitude toward Bolshevik ideology and its proponents.

Therefore, Admiral A.V. Kolchak could proclaim himself Supreme Ruler of Russia three times over, but his capital was Omsk, whose location was only vaguely known to a significant portion of the illiterate peasantry. This is not the least of the reasons why Kolchak, if we consider the peasant worldview, was not seen as a true tsar.

A.V. Kolchak is one of the most tragic figures of the White movement.

The admiral's legitimate authority was contested even in his rear, which was largely Socialist Revolutionary. The military, having placed the burden of power on Kolchak's weak shoulders, short-sightedly fell out with the Socialist Revolutionaries, thereby digging the grave of their protege.

Even his subordinates were in no hurry to carry out his orders – the well-known conflict between the admiral and the ataman G.M. Semenov, not to mention the Czechs and other “brothers”.

But let's not talk about squabbles within the government. They're typical: the conflict between L.D. Trotsky and I.V. Stalin in 1918; or Lieutenant Generals A.I. Denikin and P.N. Wrangel.

However, the allies were also in no hurry to see Kolchak and his Council of Ministers as the legal successors of the Provisional Government, although three days after the November coup, the admiral acknowledged Russia's foreign debts, which, according to historian V. G. Khandorin, exceeded 12 billion rubles by the end of 1917.

N.D. Avksentyev is one of the leaders of the Socialist Revolutionaries and the head of the Provisional All-Russian Government, in which Kolchak held the post of Minister of War before the coup.

Even the experienced diplomat S.D. Sazonov's advocacy of White interests abroad was of no avail. However, official recognition by the Allies of Kolchak or Denikin—I note that the admiral did not transfer the position of Supreme Ruler to Anton Ivanovich—would not have changed the outcome of the Civil War for a more important reason.

The Whites created a military, with a touch of statehood, education, with weak central authority in the regions.

A special meeting under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of South Russia, which performed the functions of a government, but it is difficult to call this body a government in the full sense of the word.

The Bolsheviks, however, were building a full-fledged state with the corresponding institutions and, above all, with an apparatus of violence capable of suppressing any anti-government uprising.

Learn martial arts the real way

Yes, the Civil War left its mark on its functioning, including the development of the Red Army. But even a poorly organized regular army would sooner or later crush any rebel forces, even if they were initially successful.

However, if the rebels don't begin to build their armed forces on a regular basis, they will lose. They can only be saved by the excessive corruption and weakness of the official authorities fighting them—a scenario like Afghanistan in 2022 or last year's Syrian one. In both cases, it wasn't so much the rebels who won, but rather the authorities, rotten to the core, who self-destructed.

The Bolsheviks weren't corrupt, and their will was in perfect order. And already in the winter of 1918, they began creating a regular army. True, the process didn't go smoothly.

Twenty years ago, the Independent Military Review published my article, “My hut is on the edge, I don’t know anything...” written based on documents I introduced into scientific circulation from the headquarters of the Southern Front of the Red Army for the autumn of 1918, stored in the Russian State Military Archive (RGVA).

The article cites materials from the Operations Department (correspondence on the combat readiness of units, cases of failure to comply with combat orders), the Intelligence Department (captured enemy papers, White Guard newspapers, etc., questionnaires of Red Army soldiers who escaped from captivity), the Political Department, the Special Department, and the Revolutionary Tribunal of the aforementioned headquarters. These are highly interesting documents. The article is available online.

Nevertheless, despite all the difficulties, the Bolsheviks built a regular army, attracting, and even conscripting, military specialists. It's no secret that the Red Army's senior command staff was better trained than the White Army's.

P.P. Lebedev

For example, Major General P.P. Lebedev, Chief of the Republic's Field Headquarters, began World War I as the head of the Quartermaster General's office at the Southwestern Front headquarters. Incidentally, Lebedev, like the Svechins and Makhrovs, also had a classic background: his brother, Sergei Pavlovich, a major general, served with the Whites.

In this sense, the combat experience of the most successful White Guard commander, Denikin, looked more modest: he showed himself brilliantly as a division commander – perhaps the best in the Imperial Army on the fields of the First World War – and deservedly received a corps, but commanded it for only six months.

This was insufficient time to gain full combat experience. His subsequent career advancement was determined by political factors: Anton Ivanovich nominally commanded the Western and Southwestern Fronts amid the army's collapse.

A.I. Denikin

In the summer of 1919, Denikin had to command, in essence, a front, coordinating the offensive of three armies, not counting the operation of the troops of the Trans-Caspian region.

But there was another component to the Whites' defeat: the principle of volunteerism, which formed the basis for the formation of the Volunteer Army, incidentally, in April 1919, after the death of Infantry General L.G. Kornilov, literally saved from annihilation by Denikin. Anton Ivanovich, I repeat, was a brilliant tactician.

After the unification of the Volunteer and Don armies and the creation of the Armed Forces of South Russia in January 1919, volunteerism as the principle underlying the formation of the armed forces was formally abandoned; more precisely, Denikin did so earlier:

In August 1918, when a call-up of military conscripts of 1916, 1917, and 1918 (born in 1895, 1896, and 1897) was announced in the Stavropol and Black Sea provinces, writes historian V.Zh. Tsvetkov. By Order No. 31 of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of South Russia dated January 5, 1919, conscription into the Volunteer Army was extended to include those liable for military service in the 1910-13 drafts (born in 1889-1892).

His political opponent, Cavalry General P.N. Krasnov, having become the ataman of the Great Don Army by order No. 4 of May 5, announced the formation of the Young Army.

However, the common truth is that any decree issued requires a mechanism for its implementation. Taganrog and Novocherkassk have encountered problems with this. We'll discuss Novocherkassk next time; this article will focus on the Armed Forces of South Russia.

When mobilization fails

In a civil war, a key component of any army's victory is a well-functioning mobilization mechanism capable of quickly replacing losses. The Bolsheviks, as noted above, solved this problem; their opponents did not.

Historian R.G. Gagkuev cites the following reasons why, even during the days of military success, Denikin's forces experienced disruptions in recruiting their army:

Mobilization capabilities (of the Armed Forces of South Russia command – I.Kh.) were limited primarily to officer cadres and students. As for the working population, conscription was undesirable for two reasons: first, the miners' political sympathies were not clearly on the White side and therefore were unreliable. Second, mobilizing workers would immediately reduce coal production. The peasantry, seeing the small number of volunteer troops, shied away from military service and, apparently, bided their time.

I note that the problem of unreliability among some and the deviation of others were addressed by strict, and if necessary, brutal, measures to control those mobilized. Such measures require an appropriate apparatus, primarily commissars. The Whites did not create such an institution.

Officers of the Armed Forces of South Russia

Accordingly, the Volunteer Army commanders had no choice but to replace the high losses in their ranks with prisoners—a practice common on both sides. But for the Whites, facing a shortage of volunteers, this was more pressing due to the smaller numbers of their troops, who were forced to operate across a broad front with extremely limited reserves, which were also being diverted to the domestic front against N.I. Makhno.

The deployment of prisoners yielded varying results. For example, the Samur Regiment, formed from former Red Army rank-and-file soldiers, performed well in battle, as did Captain P. Ivanov's company, composed of rank-and-file prisoners, vividly described by Major General A. V. Turkul in his book "The Drozdovites on Fire."

It should be taken into account that prisoners were, as a rule, natives of the regions where they were mobilized and, consequently, captured. And since the bulk of the rank and file consisted of peasants, their horizons did not extend beyond their native village, or at most, the province.

Red Army soldiers

They often fought bravely, but, as Wrangel recalled when he took command of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Volunteer Army in August 1918:

As the region (we are talking about Kuban and, presumably, the non-resident population – I.Kh.) was cleared of the Reds and our troops advanced, some of these reinforcements, having liberated their native village or farmstead, tried in every way to avoid further service.

According to V. Zh. Tsvetkov, one of the categories of prisoners of war:

Those who surrendered voluntarily following a failed military operation, indifferent to both the Whites and the Reds. These "professional prisoners" served on one side or the other of the front several times. They were usually natives of the areas where the fighting took place, and for them, the primary desire was to return to their farms, abandoned upon mobilization into the Red Army, to preserve their lives, and also to cope with war fatigue.

From Lords to Comrades and Back, or the Fate of Captured Officers

As for officers who had previously served in the Red Army—either captured or defected to the Whites—their treatment depended directly on the commanders of the Volunteer Army's regiments and battalions. After all, they were essentially akin to field commanders and enjoyed extensive autonomy, including the de facto right to judge and pardon.

It is enough to recall the story of the execution by the Kornilovites of the commander of the 55th Division of the 13th Army, Major General A. V. Stankevich, whom they captured near Mtsensk – a story that is spiced up to this day with the tale that is circulated about his refusal to shake hands with Denikin, who was not in Orel.

A.V. Stankevich

But Stankevich, who voluntarily joined the Red Army, was a high-ranking officer. A significant portion of junior and mid-level officers were mobilized into the Red Army and, at times, experienced negative attitudes from the soldier masses or excessive patronage from commissars.

Finding themselves in the ranks of the Whites, many of them fought not out of fear, but out of conscience. Here's an example from the memoirs of Major General (in 1919, Colonel) B.A. Shteifon, commander of the Belozersk Regiment of the Volunteer Army:

During the fighting near Kursk (August 1919 – I.Kh.), I was heading with Second Lieutenant Globa to one of the regiment's sections. Along the way, we encountered a group of prisoners. When I asked if there were any officers among them, I heard the answer: "I am an officer, Colonel." A short, stocky man of about 33-35 years of age stood before me, saluting.

"What's your last name?" "Lieutenant Trokhimchuk." "Where did you serve before?" "In peacetime, I was an extended-enlistment soldier in the N-th regiment, and during the war, I was promoted to officer." "How could you not be ashamed to fight against us?" "That's just the way things worked out, Colonel." Trokhimchuk's voice wavered at these words. Something good and honest was heard in the prisoner's answers.

"Would you like to serve with us?" "Yes, indeed, I do." Lieutenant Trokhimchuk was assigned to one of the companies, but not the one that had captured him. During the two weeks of fighting, I inquired several times about Trokhimchuk's conduct, and the company commander always described him as an exemplary officer.

One day, I had to hold a crossing leading to the flank of our position at all costs. By then, the regiment had suffered heavy losses. Almost all the company commanders and many officers were killed. It was yet another crisis, when the lack of manpower and the shortcomings of the army's organization were compensated for with bloodshed. Only half a company, extremely weak in numbers and equipped with machine guns, could be allocated to the crossing. An officer reliable in every way was needed. I remembered Lieutenant Trokhimchuk and, upon learning that he was unharmed, summoned him.

"Lieutenant Trokhimchuk, I need to hold such-and-such a crossing, and only a half-company with two machine guns can be allocated for its defense. I wish to appoint you commander of this half-company." "Thank you very much, Colonel." "Keep in mind that if the Bolsheviks defeat you, the regiment's position will be grave." "I understand." "Look, Lieutenant Trokhimchuk, hold on. I trust you." "Of course, I served with the Bolsheviks... And I can't tell you anything, but you'll see for yourself, Colonel..."

Lieutenant Trokhimchuk truly fulfilled his promise. Despite the difficult situation, he held the crossing, losing more than half of his detachment killed and wounded. At the end of the battle, when the situation had already been consolidated, he was killed. Many years have passed since then, but I always remember this honorable officer with emotion.

I turned to such an extensive quote, including to illustrate a problem that was essential for the Whites: the lack of normal organization of troops cost them a lot of blood, and sometimes the situation was saved by the tactical skill and fortitude of individual officers.

Incidentally, Shteifon described P.V. Makarov, His Excellency's adjutant, in detail in his memoirs. The image he painted contrasts with that created by Yu.V. Solomin.

Plus there was another problem, directly related to the recruitment of troops and the quality of their composition, caused by the Whites themselves.

Drozdovtsy

Let me once again refer to Shteifon’s memoirs:

One day, I promised the commander of the Samur Regiment to hand over the telephone equipment I had in my possession. The commander promised to send an inspector. That evening, I was informed that a soldier wanted to see me. The door opened, and a commanding figure in a soldier's greatcoat with non-commissioned officer's stripes appeared on the threshold with the question, "May I come in?" I immediately recognized the non-commissioned officer as former Lieutenant General L. M. Bolkhovitinov. During the Great War, he had been Chief of Staff of the Caucasian Front, and for me, then a captain on the General Staff, he was an extremely senior official. He knew me well, as I had served at army headquarters. Coming toward me, "Non-commissioned Officer Bolkhovitinov" was, of course, aware of whom he would meet, but for me, his appearance was unnerving. "Do you recognize him?" "Of course I do! Hello, Leonid Mitrofanovich." We sat down and for a while forgot about the telephone equipment. It turned out that General Bolkhovitinov had served for a time with the Bolsheviks and then transferred to the Volunteer Army. According to the regulations of the time, he had been convicted, demoted, and sent to the front as a private. Being "well-educated," he was assigned to a team of telephone operators.

Note that Bolkhovitinov himself defected to the Whites, yet he was distrusted, although Denikin saw this incident as an exception to the rule, emphasizing the White Guard officers' equanimity toward the Red commanders who had defected. According to him, those captured by the Drozdovites "were mostly pardoned, while some were subjected to a worse fate—execution. There were cases of captured officers defecting back to the Reds."

Turkul also wrote about the leniency towards prisoners, which was denied only to commissars.

I noted above: the captured Red Army commanders who found themselves among the volunteers fought not out of fear, but out of conscience. This is also confirmed by the data cited by V. Zh. Tsvetkov:

Most of them (up to 70%) fought well. Ten percent took advantage of the first battles to defect to the Bolsheviks, and the remaining 20% ​​avoided combat under various pretexts.

However, as they fell out of action by the autumn of 1919, the situation for the Whites took a turn for the worse. And the enemy grew stronger.

Markov captain V. Larionov recalled the battles of the second half of October and early November:

"You see," said the young commander of one of the Markov battalions, "yesterday we were swimming in Sosna... We went on the offensive. The Reds came forward. We shouted, 'Hurrah! Charge your bayonets!' Previously, they would have run, but not now. They shouted, 'Hurrah!' and also charged, and there were four times as many of them.

By the late autumn of 1919, the scales were tipping in favor of the Reds, and fewer and fewer people were willing to serve the Whites. Desertion among captured Red Army soldiers who had been placed in line was on the rise, and their capture rates were also falling.

But the Whites never created a more or less well-functioning mechanism for replenishing troops.

The First Hikers, or the Whites' Requiem for a Dream

In conclusion, I consider it important to draw attention to another problem that some of the White officers faced, and not only the prisoners who were put into service.

We are talking about the role played in the Volunteer Army by the officers who led the first expedition, that is, the participants of the 1st Kuban – Ice – expedition.

They were the first to oppose the Bolsheviks in the South of Russia in what seemed to be a hopeless situation at the end of February 1918; they fought without a rearguard, against a numerically superior, albeit poorly organized, enemy.

Kornilovites, probably the 1st Kuban Ice March

M. Tsvetaeva wrote about them in 1918 with the pathos characteristic of her “White Guard Cycle,” but accurately conveying the atmosphere of the Ice March:

Waves and youth are illegal!
The Don has moved. We are perishing. We are drowning.
We trust the wind of centuries to carry away
Bad news for the grandchildren:
Yes! The Don block has broken through!
The White Guard – yes! – perished.
But, leaving children and wives,
But leaving for the Don,
Flying in a white flock to the chopping block,
We were dying for one thing: huts!
Having crossed myself at the last temple,
The White Guard army – for centuries.

Young and not so young, selfless, brave and uncompromising, including those who joined the army when it began to win.

It was precisely the pioneers of the campaign who were promoted to key positions, sometimes regardless of rank or ability. Even Wrangel, who had joined Denikin during the Second Kuban Campaign, was initially distrusted:

The news of my appointment (as brigade commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in August 1918 – I.Kh.) caused great surprise among the staff officers I knew, the baron recalled. At headquarters, they strictly adhered to the principle of promoting only "first-timers" to command positions, those who had served the longest in the Volunteer Army. An exception was made for me, presumably due to the lack of cavalry commanders.

Denikin understood the abnormality of this situation, but he could do nothing about it. This principle of advance, beginning sometime in May 1919—the beginning of the Armed Forces of South Russia's counteroffensive in the Tsaritsyn and Kharkov directions—had a negative impact on the command staff.

As an example: the pioneer of the campaign, Lieutenant General A.P. Kutepov, commanding the 1st Army Corps of the Volunteer Army advancing in the main Oryol direction, failed to cope with the tasks assigned to him in October-November 1919.

The pioneers' peculiar ideas about subordination—and not only theirs: in their relations with Denikin, Wrangel went beyond it—also had a negative impact on discipline in the army.

The same Kutepov in February 1920 – Tsaritsyn and Rostov-on-Don had already been abandoned, the Whites were rolling back to Yekaterinodar – allowed himself to actually issue an ultimatum to the Commander-in-Chief, which was impossible in a regular army.

I won't recount the content, what's important is Denikin's reaction to it:

The mood that made such an appeal from volunteers to their commander-in-chief psychologically possible predetermined the course of events: on that day, I decided to irrevocably leave my post.

But the psychological possibility of such treatment existed in the Volunteer Army from the first day of its existence; it found expression in the aforementioned promotion of pioneers to command positions and in the attitude towards prisoners, determined not by unquestioning adherence to the order of the Commander-in-Chief on this matter, but by the will of the commanders on the ground.

Already in the silence of emigration, Denikin, analyzing the reasons for the defeat of the White cause, wrote:

Due to the prevailing recruitment conditions, the army harbored a profound organic flaw in its very inception, acquiring a class character. It didn't matter that its leaders came from the people, or that the officer corps was largely democratic.

In fact, democracy was partly the foundation of the army's formation and its treatment of prisoners. This had its advantages in the initial stages of the White movement and its disadvantages when, as Anton Ivanovich wrote, it entered "the broad Moscow road."

A.I. Denikin was among the last to leave Novorossiysk, March 1920

References
Venkov A.V. Ataman Krasnov and the Don Army. 1918 – Moscow, Veche, 2008
Volkov S.V. The tragedy of Russian officers. – M., 1993
Wrangel P.N. Notes. (November 1916 - November 1920) Book 1 - Mn., Harvest, 2002
Gagkuev R. G. The White Movement in the South of Russia. Military Development, Recruitment Sources, Social Composition. 1917–1920. Moscow: Posev Commonwealth, 2012
Denikin A.I. Campaign on Moscow ("Essays on the Russian Time of Troubles") - M.: Voenzidat, 1989
Historian Yuri Yemelyanov in Pravda on the series "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution": another act of sabotage against Russian history
"Historical forgery!" What does Spitsyn have to do with Konchalovsky's series "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution"??
Larionov V. The Last Junkers Frankfurt am Main. Sowing. 1984
Khandorin, V. G., Admiral Kolchak. Truth and Myths. — Tomsk: Tomsk University Publishing House, 2007
Khodakov I.M. Civil War: Forgotten Victors
Tsvetaeva M. Don (White Guard, your path is high...)
Tsvetkov V.Zh. White armies of the South of Russia. (Recruitment, social composition of the Volunteer Armed Forces of the South of Russia, the Russian army). Moscow: Posev, 2000
Tsvetkov V.Zh. Agriculture in the White South of Russia. Implementation of legislative acts of the White Guard governments. Cooperation and zemstvo self-government in the White South of Russia in 1919–20.
Shteifon B.A. The Crisis of Volunteering. – Belgrade, 1928

Comments

[andrewkor]

Civil war, wherever it occurs, in the USA, Spain, Russia, is a great grief for all participants.

[kromer]

Quote: andrewkor

, a great grief for all participants.

And for the civilian population not participating in the civil war as well.
This is a difficult test for all the people of the country.

[7 feet under keel]

"In civil wars, everything is a misfortune. But nothing is more miserable than victory itself."
© Marcus Tullius Cicero

And here and there between the rows
The same voice sounds:
“Whoever is not for us is against us.
There are no indifferent ones: the truth is with us."
And I stand alone between them
In roaring flames and smoke
And with all their strength
I pray for those and for others.

[Civil]

Are the whites in power again, what do you think?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Civil

Are the whites in power again, what do you think?

It's not the whites who are in power; they wanted to overthrow the illegitimate government and restore the Russian empire. A conglomerate of liberals, democrats, and oligarchs is in power.

[tatra]

What do you call a legitimate government? And what kind of Russian Empire did the "Whites"—the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people who seized the USSR under the cowardly chant "It's not our fault, it's all the communists' fault"—want to restore? Whom should they install as monarch?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: tatra

What do you call a legitimate government? And what kind of Russian Empire did the "Whites"—the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people who seized the USSR under the cowardly chant "It's not our fault, it's all the communists' fault"—want to restore? Whom should they install as monarch?

A legitimate government is one that is voted for by the entire country or another authorized body, if you didn't know that

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

A legitimate government is one that is voted for by the entire country or another authorized body, if you didn't know that

How should people vote? By putting pluses on the ballot or by taking up arms and fighting for the new government? Again.

Quote: Panin (Michman)

A legitimate government is one that the entire country votes for.

Is the Tsar-Emperor then legitimate, having been appointed his successor by his father, without the entire country voting? Or is the father's authorized body sufficient in this situation? Then it turns out that one member overrides all decisions of the population, "voting its own body" of all members of the country.

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

A legitimate government is one that is voted for by the entire country or another authorized body, if you didn't know that

How should people vote? By putting pluses on the ballot or by taking up arms and fighting for the new government? Again.

Quote: Panin (Michman)

A legitimate government is one that the entire country votes for.

Is the Tsar-Emperor then legitimate, having been appointed his successor by his father, without the entire country voting? Or is the father's authorized body sufficient in this situation? Then it turns out that one member overrides all decisions of the population, "voting its own body" of all members of the country.

During the monarchy, the transfer of power by inheritance was enshrined in law. After the abdication of the Tsar, his son, and his close relatives, power passed to the Provisional Government until the convening of the Constituent Assembly. The Provisional Government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, who held no elections other than their own party congresses.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

After the abdication of the Tsar, his son and close relatives, power passed to the provisional government, BEFORE the convening of the constituent assembly.

Did the Tsar himself transfer power to the Provisional Government, or did it appoint itself?

[tatra]

Ha, what nonsense is this? Who did they vote for under the Romanovs and the Provisional Government? And this anti-Soviet government was imposed on us by you, enemies of the USSR, who were a minority in the RSFSR presidential elections in June 1991.

[Fitter65]

Quote: tatra

Ha, what nonsense is this? Who did they vote for under the Romanovs and the Provisional Government? And this anti-Soviet government was imposed on us by you, enemies of the USSR, who were a minority in the RSFSR presidential elections in June 1991.

HA-HA three times. Who imposed the anti-Soviet regime on you "defenders of the USSR," who supposedly were in the majority? Why be like Navalny and other Tikhanovskys—like, if they didn't vote the way I wanted, it means they lied and played along... You yourself probably supported Yeltsin in your youth and "drove the wrong way." And now—I want to go back to the USSR.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Quote: Civil

Are the whites in power again, what do you think?

It's not the whites who are in power; they wanted to overthrow the illegitimate government and restore the Russian empire. A conglomerate of liberals, democrats, and oligarchs is in power.

How legitimate can the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty ruling in the Russian Empire be considered after a series of palace coups following the death of Peter I?

With the exception of the transfer of power from Anna Ioannovna to Ivan VI (under the regency first of E. Biron, then of Anna Leopoldovna) in 1740, from Elizabeth Petrovna to Peter III in 1761, and from Catherine II to her son Paul I in 1796, in all other cases during the first century of the Russian Empire, power was transferred by the use of threat or force, namely:

1725 – Menshikov's party enthroned Catherine I
May 1727 – The Supreme Privy Council transfers the throne to Peter II, bypassing other contenders.
September 1727 – the overthrow of Menshikov
1730 - the throne was transferred to Anna Ioannovna on the condition that she sign conditions limiting her autocracy
1740 – Biron's overthrow by Minich's group
1741 – accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna, dethronement of Ivan VI and his regent Anna Leopoldovna
1762 – accession to the throne of Catherine II and assassination of Peter III.

And during the reign of Catherine the Great, who was in charge of the strange bed? The one who lay on the "great" bed at night, or the one who laid him there? It's certainly an interesting question.

The end of the era can be considered the coup of 1801, during which Emperor Paul I was killed and power passed to his son Alexander I.

So, here too, there's some doubt about the legitimacy of his rise to power... So, a big question arises about the legitimacy of power after the death of Peter I, although, as we remember, Peter wasn't supposed to rule the country alone. So, here too, the question is: how legitimate is he?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Quote: Civil

Are the whites in power again, what do you think?

It's not the whites who are in power; they wanted to overthrow the illegitimate government and restore the Russian empire. A conglomerate of liberals, democrats, and oligarchs is in power.

How legitimate can the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty ruling in the Russian Empire be considered after a series of palace coups following the death of Peter I?

With the exception of the transfer of power from Anna Ioannovna to Ivan VI (under the regency first of E. Biron, then of Anna Leopoldovna) in 1740, from Elizabeth Petrovna to Peter III in 1761, and from Catherine II to her son Paul I in 1796, in all other cases during the first century of the Russian Empire, power was transferred by the use of threat or force, namely:

1725 – Menshikov's party enthroned Catherine I
May 1727 – The Supreme Privy Council transfers the throne to Peter II, bypassing other contenders.
September 1727 – the overthrow of Menshikov
1730 - the throne was transferred to Anna Ioannovna on the condition that she sign conditions limiting her autocracy
1740 – Biron's overthrow by Minich's group
1741 – accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna, dethronement of Ivan VI and his regent Anna Leopoldovna
1762 – accession to the throne of Catherine II and assassination of Peter III.

And during the reign of Catherine the Great, who was in charge of the strange bed? The one who lay on the "great" bed at night, or the one who laid him there? It's certainly an interesting question.

The end of the era can be considered the coup of 1801, during which Emperor Paul I was killed and power passed to his son Alexander I.

So, here too, there's some doubt about the legitimacy of his rise to power... So, a big question arises about the legitimacy of power after the death of Peter I, although, as we remember, Peter wasn't supposed to rule the country alone. So, here too, the question is: how legitimate is he?

Palace coups did not change the form of government, and de jure, a relative was recognized as the heir. Catherine did not ascend the throne by right of inheritance, but her children had a de jure right to do so, as did their grandchildren.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Catherine did not take the throne by right of inheritance, but her children de Jure had the right to do so, as did her grandchildren.

So it's no longer legal.

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Quote: Civil

Are the whites in power again, what do you think?

It's not the whites who are in power; they wanted to overthrow the illegitimate government and restore the Russian empire. A conglomerate of liberals, democrats, and oligarchs is in power.

How legitimate can the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty ruling in the Russian Empire be considered after a series of palace coups following the death of Peter I?

With the exception of the transfer of power from Anna Ioannovna to Ivan VI (under the regency first of E. Biron, then of Anna Leopoldovna) in 1740, from Elizabeth Petrovna to Peter III in 1761, and from Catherine II to her son Paul I in 1796, in all other cases during the first century of the Russian Empire, power was transferred by the use of threat or force, namely:

1725 – Menshikov's party enthroned Catherine I
May 1727 – The Supreme Privy Council transfers the throne to Peter II, bypassing other contenders.
September 1727 – the overthrow of Menshikov
1730 - the throne was transferred to Anna Ioannovna on the condition that she sign conditions limiting her autocracy
1740 – Biron's overthrow by Minich's group
1741 – accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna, dethronement of Ivan VI and his regent Anna Leopoldovna
1762 – accession to the throne of Catherine II and assassination of Peter III.

And during the reign of Catherine the Great, who was in charge of the strange bed? The one who lay on the "great" bed at night, or the one who laid him there? It's certainly an interesting question.

The end of the era can be considered the coup of 1801, during which Emperor Paul I was killed and power passed to his son Alexander I.

That is, here too there seems to be some doubt about the legitimacy of the rise to power...

No one has proven that Peter III was killed on the orders of Catherine, and Paul on the orders of Alexander

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

No one has proven that Peter III was killed on the orders of Catherine, and Paul on the orders of Alexander

But they killed her? They killed her! Who signed the decree appointing Catherine Empress of All Rus'? Peter III officially handed over power to her. Is there a decree to that effect?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

No one has proven that Peter III was killed on the orders of Catherine, and Paul on the orders of Alexander

But they killed her? They killed her! Who signed the decree appointing Catherine Empress of All Rus'? Peter III officially handed over power to her. Is there a decree to that effect?

The Senate recognized her, and this is the highest state body.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

The Senate recognized her, and this is the highest state body.

The Governing Senate of the Russian Empire is the highest body of state power, subordinate to the emperor. And given

Peter III, upon ascending the throne on December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762), abolished the conference, but on May 18 (29), 1762, he established a council, to which the Senate was placed in a subordinate position. The Senate's importance was further diminished by the fact that the military and naval boards were again removed from its jurisdiction. The Senate's freedom of action in the area of ​​internal governance was severely curtailed by the prohibition "to issue decrees that serve to amend or confirm previous laws" (1762).

After Peter III's wife usurped power, the Senate, of course, recognized her, especially considering how many "goodies" the Senate received for it. And let's not forget the guards units that stood behind Catherine...

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

The Senate recognized her, and this is the highest state body.

The Governing Senate of the Russian Empire is the highest body of state power, subordinate to the emperor. And given

Peter III, upon ascending the throne on December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762), abolished the conference, but on May 18 (29), 1762, he established a council, to which the Senate was placed in a subordinate position. The Senate's importance was further diminished by the fact that the military and naval boards were again removed from its jurisdiction. The Senate's freedom of action in the area of ​​internal governance was severely curtailed by the prohibition "to issue decrees that serve to amend or confirm previous laws" (1762).

After Peter III's wife usurped power, the Senate, of course, recognized her, especially considering how many "goodies" the Senate received for it. And let's not forget the guards units that stood behind Catherine...

You see, no one cares who stood behind whom. There are purely legal questions of accession to the throne.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

There are purely legal issues regarding accession to the throne.

And what legal right did Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst have to ascend the Russian throne? That the Orlov brothers had?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

No one has proven that Peter III was killed on the orders of Catherine, and Paul on the orders of Alexander

But they killed her? They killed her! Who signed the decree appointing Catherine Empress of All Rus'? Peter III officially handed over power to her. Is there a decree to that effect?

Peter officially abdicated

[Fitter65]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Peter officially abdicated

Just like his descendant, with the Publication of the Manifesto, and with the indication that he transfers all power to his wife?

Here is how A. S. Mylnikov describes the events of 1762: “On the afternoon of June 28, 1762, in the capital’s Kazan Cathedral, in front of the public and the highest clergy, in the presence of Catherine, the manifesto on her accession to the autocratic throne was read out. Meanwhile, Peter III was entertaining his courtiers in Oranienbaum, and that morning he headed to Peterhof, hoping to find his wife there—a solemn celebration of the day of Peter and Paul was planned for the following day. LOnly a few hours late, by chance and second-hand, he learned that, so to speak, he had been deprived of the Russian throne in absentia. The former autocrat was arrested and escorted by convoy to Ropsha."

When did Peter officially abdicate—before he learned he was no longer tsar, or immediately after his wife was declared empress? So, there's a lot of interesting information here about the life of Karl Peter Ulrich von Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf, who would become Peter III Feodorovich.

On Christmas Day, December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762), at three o'clock in the afternoon, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna died. Peter ascended the throne of the Russian Empire. Following in the footsteps of Frederick II, Peter did not have his crowning ceremony, but planned to do so after the campaign against Denmark. Ultimately, Peter III was crowned posthumously by Paul I in 1796.

He ascended the throne but was not crowned... You have an interesting conflict here, Karl...

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Fitter65

Quote: Panin (Michman)

Peter officially abdicated

Just like his descendant, with the Publication of the Manifesto, and with the indication that he transfers all power to his wife?

Here is how A. S. Mylnikov describes the events of 1762: “On the afternoon of June 28, 1762, in the capital’s Kazan Cathedral, in front of the public and the highest clergy, in the presence of Catherine, the manifesto on her accession to the autocratic throne was read out. Meanwhile, Peter III was entertaining his courtiers in Oranienbaum, and that morning he headed to Peterhof, hoping to find his wife there—a solemn celebration of the day of Peter and Paul was planned for the following day. LOnly a few hours late, by chance and second-hand, he learned that, so to speak, he had been deprived of the Russian throne in absentia. The former autocrat was arrested and escorted by convoy to Ropsha."

When did Peter officially abdicate—before he learned he was no longer tsar, or immediately after his wife was declared empress? So, there's a lot of interesting information here about the life of Karl Peter Ulrich von Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf, who would become Peter III Feodorovich.

On Christmas Day, December 25, 1761 (January 5, 1762), at three o'clock in the afternoon, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna died. Peter ascended the throne of the Russian Empire. Following in the footsteps of Frederick II, Peter did not have his crowning ceremony, but planned to do so after the campaign against Denmark. Ultimately, Peter III was crowned posthumously by Paul I in 1796.

He ascended the throne but was not crowned... You have an interesting conflict here, Karl...

The fact that he wasn't crowned doesn't really matter. He de facto ascended the throne, the Senate swore allegiance to him, and then officially abdicated. In other countries, coronations weren't carried out immediately either.
such as the coronation of Nicholas II, which was postponed for a year and a half due to mourning and lavish preparations in Moscow.
Charles III formally ascended the throne immediately following the death of his mother, Elizabeth, last fall, meaning he is now a full-fledged king. However, the monarch still faces the lavish anointing ceremony on May 6, which is more symbolic than legal.

[Panin (midshipman)]

Elizabeth 2 was also crowned a year and a half later

[odisey3000]

Why did they forget that there were a huge number of communists and Komsomol members in power back then? I won't mention their names; they were already on everyone's lips back then.

[Same lech]

Hmm ... A most interesting article.
My head is spinning all the time...
Chok-chok-chok!
Knocking, knocking hooves.
Choo-choo-choo!
The machine gun hit.
The White Guard
Head smashed
And the Red Army
Nobody will break!
People from one country, from one territory, clashed in a mortal battle over political views, and a change of power without bloodshed did not take place... ah, the 20th century.

[north 2]

At the beginning of the article, the Konchalovsky series mentioned should in no way be considered a historical film or a film about history. It's a film about Konchalovsky's successful embezzlement of the money of modern oligarchs, represented by Usmanov, so that the victorious counterrevolution of 1991 would celebrate not only at oligarch gatherings and corporate events, but also, so to speak, reach the "masses," in cinema and on television.
Speaking of money, one of the leitmotifs of Konchalovsky's series is the falsehood that revolutionaries allegedly carried out their actions with money from abroad. Konchalovsky is clearly judging by his own experience here, that anything can be done with money. Therefore, this series is not about history at all, but simply an anti-Russian falsity that distorts Russian history, because the caricatured depiction of Lenin and the entire revolution allegedly financed by money from abroad sets the series' goal to create an image of a "good tsar" and "bad revolutionaries." Incidentally, Konchalovsky is incapable of creating a truthful film not only about the revolution in Russia and the beginning of Soviet power in the USSR—he wasn't an eyewitness then—but he is also incapable of creating films about life in the USSR during his own lifetime. Because Konchalovsky didn't live in the Soviet Union. He lived in the Mikhalkov family—and those are two vast and incomparable differences.

[Konnick]

The series "Chronicles..." needs to have the credits changed...script by Usmanov, director by Usmanov, figurehead director by Konchalovsky, commissioned by the presidential administration's committee for decommunization and deception of the population.

[your1970]

Quote: north 2

Because the caricatured depiction of Lenin and the entire revolution, allegedly financed from abroad, sets the goal in the series to create an image of a "good tsar" and "bad revolutionaries."

Is this a caricature? Are you denying that any revolution requires money, and big money at that?
Don't you see in the world around you that without money any attempt to overthrow the government ends very quickly?
Do you deny expropriations in the Russian Empire?
Do you deny the need for money in emigration?
Do you deny the financing of revolutions from abroad? Deny the obvious—something the Bolsheviks acknowledged? Trotsky wrote quite openly that he brought $10,000 from the US—a fairly large sum at the time; a Ford Focus cost $350.
You were quite openly shown in Soviet-era movies: "Printed a newspaper (what was the cost of renting a printing press?), bribed a gendarme, brought in weapons, rented an apartment, hired a cab driver, lives in Zurich, works in a library," and so on—all of this requires money. Regular money....
All this is for their goal - the overthrow of the government - this is completely normal and decent.

"Politics is a dirty business" (c)

[Cartalon]

Interesting article, it seems the situation among whites was similar to the situation among southerners in the American Civil War, with the best personnel being replaced by the worst.

[Songwolf]

Well, there you have it! At least I got to see and read an article without Soviet ideological cliches and a malicious grin.
The ability to present the material calmly and without tearing your shirt is worth a lot.
With great respect to the Author!

[parusnik]

A.V. Kolchak is one of the most tragic figures of the White movement.

Just like Yudenich, Denikin, Miller, Wrangel, Krasnov, etc., they got involved with hooliganism... with the interventionists... If not for the latter, the civil war would have ended much earlier... And what is characteristic, those subsequently mentioned ended up there and continued to faithfully serve their masters, like the same Shteifon mentioned in the article, Kolchak, but the masters were unlucky enough to hand him over so that they themselves could escape.

The Bolsheviks, however, were building a full-fledged state with the corresponding institutions and, above all, with an apparatus of violence capable of suppressing any anti-government uprising.

The Whites, naive as they were, never established any state institutions in the territories they occupied, much less any apparatus of violence. And, in general, bourgeois states never had an apparatus of violence capable of suppressing any anti-government uprising.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: parusnik

the same Shteifon mentioned in the article

And the aforementioned Turkul was also there.

[parusnik]

Shteifon, Turkul, and others like them should have monuments erected in their homeland; they were, after all, "knights" of the White movement; we remember, we love, and we will not forget. Ilyin, the ideologist of the ROVS, already has one. By the way, this is how it all started in Ukraine, first with Mazepa, then Petliura, etc.

[Olgovich]

The author is right - the Bolsheviks seized the STATE with all its attributes - apparatus, bases, army, conscription, etc.


The Belkhs had NOTHING.

Nurse Nesterovich collected pennies from Moscow bourgeois, bought felt boots and quilted jackets in Moscow and sent them to the Don.the volunteers had nothing to wear into battleThey had nothing but valor and youth.

That was the beginning. Whites always had fewer resources.

[Alekc]

Of course, they had no resources, no apparatus, all the crimes against the people were the work of isolated thugs; the Whites had nothing to do with it. And if they had reached Moscow and St. Petersburg, Holy Rus' would have lived as before. The West, after all, is kind and selflessly helped its former ally! Hmm, sir? Doesn't the experience of today's Ukraine hint at anything to you? Or perhaps you're a quiet supporter of the Ukrainian junta, which is so happy in the hands of the West?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Aleks

All crimes against the people are the work of individual thugs; whites have nothing to do with it.

Crimes against the people are the work of the red state machine—up to a million Cossacks, women and children, were killed in the Don alone, as well as the Terek, Ural, and others.

Quote: Aleks

And if they reached Moscow and St. Petersburg, Holy Rus' would begin to live,

Of course, the NEP showed it clearly.

Quote: Aleks

Or perhaps you are a quiet supporter of the Ukrainian junta, which is so happy in the hands of the West?

[Songwolf]

Regarding the film "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution," I haven't seen it. I haven't seen other historical films by contemporary directors. It always feels like serious consultants aren't invited to film shoots, and if they are, they're being coerced into keeping them out of the way. "This is how I see it," reigns supreme.
There's no doubt that the money used to undermine the foundations of the Russian Estate came from abroad. This has always been the case. It was particularly prevalent during the Russo-Japanese War. All revolutionary organizations benefited from it to one degree or another. The Bolsheviks were no exception. Furthermore, these fighters "for the oppressed masses" also mobilized funds through sabotage, hostage-taking, terrorism, forgery, underground literature, arms importation, and the creation of bandit groups called "workers' detachments"... In short, a whole host of criminal offenses that can still be classified as punishable today.
That's why I believe we shouldn't consider it the Great October Revolution, but rather the Great Criminal Coup! And every thief in law or authority figure should reverently hang a portrait of Lenin, Trotsky, or Sverdlov on their wall.
Even History, with a feminine sly smile, said: “The Great October Revolution is a THIEF!”

[Alekc]

I'm always amazed by the confusion in the minds of commentators denouncing the Bolsheviks, who were left to clean up the mess of February's chaos perpetrated by capitalists and the military. It would seem that in February, only a few knew about the Bolsheviks, and no one considered them a force to be reckoned with. But no—let's blame everything on them, just because Lenin once shouted, "There is such a party!"

[Doctor]

Stogov Nikolay Nikolaevich, Lieutenant General of the RIA.
He began the Civil War as Chief of the General Staff of the Reds and ended as commandant of Sevastopol of the Whites.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Arzt

He began the Civil War as Chief of the General Staff of the Reds and ended as commandant of Sevastopol of the Whites.

That's why he lived for almost 90 years.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Arzt

He began the Civil War as Chief of the General Staff of the Reds and ended as commandant of Sevastopol of the Whites.

That's why he lived for almost 90 years.

[Alexey RA]

The news of my appointment (as brigade commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in August 1918 – I.Kh.) caused great surprise among the staff officers I knew, the baron recalled. At headquarters, they strictly adhered to the principle of promoting only "first-timers" to command positions, those who had served the longest in the Volunteer Army. An exception was made for me, presumably due to the lack of cavalry commanders.

Comrade Budyonny and the first-grade soldiers smile knowingly.

The Red Army began to get rid of the cult of the Civil War only after the results of the SFV.

How do we evaluate command staff? Did you take part in the civil war? No, I didn't. Get lost. Did that other guy take part? He did. Bring him in, he's got a lot of experience and all that.
I must say, of course, the experience of the civil war is very valuable, the traditions of the civil war are also valuable, but they are completely insufficient.

© the best friend of athletes

[your1970]

Quote: Alexey RA

The news of my appointment (as brigade commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in August 1918 – I.Kh.) caused great surprise among the staff officers I knew, the baron recalled. At headquarters, they strictly adhered to the principle of promoting only "first-timers" to command positions, those who had served the longest in the Volunteer Army. An exception was made for me, presumably due to the lack of cavalry commanders.

Comrade Budyonny and the first-grade soldiers smile knowingly.

The Red Army began to get rid of the cult of the Civil War only after the results of the SFV.

How do we evaluate command staff? Did you take part in the civil war? No, I didn't. Get lost. Did that other guy take part? He did. Bring him in, he's got a lot of experience and all that.
I must say, of course, the experience of the civil war is very valuable, the traditions of the civil war are also valuable, but they are completely insufficient.

© the best friend of athletes

And then there's the 1937 meeting—when they tell Stalin about the First Cavalry, the Red Cavalry, and the regular cavalry units. And for some, serving in the others is, to put it mildly, a pain...

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

How do we evaluate command staff? Did you take part in the civil war? No, I didn't. Get lost. Did that other guy take part? He did. Bring him in, he's got a lot of experience and all that.

And what changed after this speech, besides Voroshilov’s translation?

At the top of the army are the same participants in the defense of Tsaritsyn, along with a friend of the physical education teachers (no one was even repressed)

Stern also managed to rebuild

-shot

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Olgovich

And what changed after this speech, besides Voroshilov’s translation?

At the top of the army are the same participants in the defense of Tsaritsyn, along with a friend of the physical education teachers (no one was even repressed)

So, for the senior command staff, there were technically no other options - purely based on length of service and age, the generals were obliged to participate in the Civil War.
Below, a new approach to promotion to positions was voiced by Comrade Mekhlis. At a meeting on ideological work in the army and navy on May 13, 1940, he not only criticized but publicly condemned the principle of prioritizing participation in the Civil War when promoting a Red Army commander.

Blind admiration for the experience of the civil war hinders the advancement of young, capable commanders who understand the conditions of modern combat and are proficient in military technology and military art. The policy of promoting and appointing to the highest positions only participants in the civil war must be condemned. Finally, we mustn't forget that the longer we go, the narrower our choice of civil war veterans becomes. Talented young people, who, as Comrade Stalin put it, are guilty only of being born after the Civil War, must be boldly promoted to leadership positions.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Alexey RA

but for the senior command staff there were technically no other options - purely based on length of service and age, the generals were obliged to participate in the Civil War

Rychagov, Pavlov, etc.?

Quote: Alexey RA

voiced by comrade Mekhlis

Mekhlis repeated Stalin with his butt.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Olgovich

Rychagov, Pavlov, etc.?

Pavlov is a participant in the Civil War, a cavalryman and a Red Cossack.
So, all that remains is Rychagov, with his spectacular rise and fall. However, this is the Air Force—they simply didn't have time to accumulate veteran personnel with Civil War experience. Although they even recruited from outside—the same former quartermaster general of the Western Front army headquarters, General Samoilo, became deputy chief of the operations department of the Air Force Main Directorate in 1940.

[tatra]

For the 108 years since the October Revolution, the Bolshevik-Communist enemies in the USSR have always had and continue to have only a dull, spiteful "AGAINST." Those who unleashed the Civil War against the Bolsheviks were unable to explain WHY they did it, what they planned to do to the country and the people after their victory, and their followers, who seized the USSR and praised them, justifying all their crimes, have, in the 40 years since their Perestroika, still failed to explain WHY they seized the USSR.

[Bersaglieri]

"Brother against brother", yes...the most terrible of wars.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Quote: Panin (Michman)

A legitimate government is one that is voted for by the entire country or another authorized body, if you didn't know that

Legitimate power is power that you not only seized but also managed to hold onto! Anything else is just fairy tales for suckers.

[futurohunter]

Afftar is clearly on the White side. Therefore, you can read the article only up to about halfway through—then it begins to bow to the Whites, describing them as "soft, fluffy, and democratic," while the Reds are described as "cruel." Afftar prefers to ignore the fact that cruelty was universal in the Civil War. And by many accounts, the Whites were the more brutal. For example, the Whites routinely inflicted brutal corporal punishment on both soldiers and the local population—just like under the Tsarist regime. Mass executions of civilians, torture of prisoners, and other atrocities were also the norm for the Whites, but not for the Reds. Yes, the Reds did carry out mass executions, but not on the same scale as the Whites, and these were the result of the arbitrary actions of certain "field commanders." Nothing is known about the torture of captured White Guards.
Due to this bias on the part of afftar, the article, which initially presents genuinely interesting opinions and facts, subsequently loses its value and raises doubts. In particular, the assertions about "professional prisoners" are highly questionable. I've never come across anything about this before. Defectors exist in every war. But regular defectors—that's highly questionable. Not to mention their combat capabilities. Typically, those who defected twice or more were harshly punished by the warring parties (after interrogation for intelligence). Perhaps the Soviet government was attempting to work with those who "waver."

[nivander]

Denikin was an excellent divisional commander, a decent corps commander, a skilled intriguer, and a very mediocre frontline commander. Look at his "Moscow Directive" (three diverging directions), and the depth of his knowledge of tactics and strategy immediately becomes clear. And by the way, when the highest imperial military leaders who lived in Moscow and Petrograd after the revolution were ordered to provide performance evaluations of Denikin, Kutepov, Drozdovsky, and Vitkovsky, they didn't immediately understand who was being discussed.