Brother to brother

Brother to brother



Causes of the Civil War 1917 – 1922 in Russia

Having taken power in their hands during the armed uprising in October of 1917, the Bolsheviks were well aware that they were dragging out “not peace, but the sword” to society. In the paper “War and Russian Social Democracy,” published by Lenin as early as September 1914 of the year, several months after the start of the First World Future Leader of the Proletarian Revolution, noted: “The transformation of the modern imperialist war into civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan, indicated by the experience of the Commune, outlined by the Basel resolution and arising from all the conditions of an imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries. " Echoing Lenin, Nikolai Bukharin in his work “The Theory of Proletarian Dictatorship” writes: “The proletarian revolution is, however, the rupture of civil peace is a civil war.” And Leon Trotsky clarifies: "The Soviet government is an organized civil war against the landowners, the bourgeoisie and the kulaks." The Bolsheviks had no doubt that the proletarian state would have to fight against the "exploiting class", enraged by the very first decrees of Soviet power. In addition, despite the low popularity of the Provisional Government, many citizens of the country viewed it as legitimate, overthrown in a coup. In other words, it would be strange to expect that peace would follow the October revolution and civil consensus would prevail.

Who are the authorities?


However, it would be wrong to reduce the causes of the Civil War to the actions of the Bolsheviks. This is recognized even by many of the prominent figures of the White movement. Thus, General Denikin, telling in the Outlines of the Russian Distemper about the meeting in Gatchina, in which representatives of political movements and parties dissatisfied with October, decided to go to St. Petersburg to overthrow the Bolsheviks, paints a vivid picture of the contradictions between the new allies: "Gatchina gathered everything. Kerensky is preserving the outward signs of military power, but already abandoned by all, in essence, not a prisoner, not a hostage, who has given himself at the mercy of the “Tsarist General” Krasnov, whom he “congratulates” on appointing an army commander ... Savinkov, who is two a month ago, with such fervor, he condemned the “rebellion” of General Kornilov, now arousing the officers of the Gatchina garrison against Kerensky and offering Krasnov to overthrow Kerensky and himself becoming the head of the movement ... And among this color of revolutionary democracy is monarchical The second figure of General Krasnov, who with all his feelings and motives is deeply alien and hostile to the entire political complex ... A truly tragic situation ... What political goals does the upcoming struggle pursue in practical, applied sense? The overthrow of Lenin and Trotsky and the restoration of Kerensky, Avksentiev, Chernov? This tragic perplexity of the officers of the detachment was especially painful; it was hateful of “Kerenshchyna” and if in a conscious or unconscious understanding of the need to fight against the Bolsheviks, it was still striving for Petrograd, it was not able to convey to the soldiers a rush, enthusiasm, or even just a sensible goal of the movement. For the Motherland and the salvation of statehood? It was too abstract, inaccessible to soldiers' understanding. For the Provisional Government and Kerensky? This provoked an evil feeling, the cries of “Down!” And the demand that Kerensky be extradited to the Bolsheviks. ”


White movement, Talab regiment. Photo: warphoto.ru

In other words, society was split long before the October Revolution: the three crises experienced by the Provisional Government from February to October are the best confirmation of this. The actions of the Bolsheviks only emphasized the absence of any political force that really had the support of the majority of the population. Among the workers and soldiers of the revolutionary troops, propaganda of the RSDLP (b) was the most popular; in the village, the appeals of the Social Revolutionaries and the sympathies of the bourgeoisie, which was threatened with nationalization, were distributed among a wide range of political parties, from constitutional democrats and Octobrists to supporters of the restoration of the monarchy. When the rebellion of Kerensky-Krasnov was suppressed, the last illusion that any “legal authority” could be restored was lost: the opponents of the new regime no longer had any consensus about what this legal authority should be.

It is important to emphasize that the White movement actually began even before the October events. Thus, in May 1917, at the officer congress in Mogilev, General Mikhail Alekseev abandoned the slogan “Save the Fatherland!”, Calling for the opposition of the socialist parties to restore a strong state (constitutional monarchy or democracy depending on the political views of specific participants of the congress) and discipline the army, seriously undermined by the infamous Order No. 1, according to which military units now obeyed not the officers, but the elected committees and the Petrograd Soviet. The October Revolution only contributed to the consolidation of the White movement, since many of its decrees conflicted with the political worldview of whites: for example, the Land Decree and the policy of nationalizing land, natural wealth and private enterprises contradicted the respect for private property experienced by most of the White movement participants. Exactly the same slap in the face of strong supporters of Russia was the disintegration of the empire into a number of practically independent territories, with the connivance of the Bolsheviks. The “obscene” Brest Peace also became a serious blow to the ego of patriots: agreeing to the loss of Ukraine, Poland, part of Belarus, the Baltic territories, Finland and Transcaucasia, Lenin saved the power of the Bolsheviks, but even more strongly opposed patriotic forces.

Further aggravation of resistance to the Bolsheviks is connected with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. As is known, the Provisional Government was slow in convening this representative body, which the broad masses perceived as genuinely popular, expressing the interests of all sectors of society. The Bolsheviks could not refuse the idea of ​​elections to the Constituent Assembly, knowing that this would cause an explosion of discontent. Immediately after the October Revolution, the Council of People's Commissars published, signed by Lenin, a decree on the conduct of elections on November 12. However, the Electoral Commission, formed by the Provisional Government and headed by the cadet Andrei Avin, from the very beginning entered into a conflict with the Bolsheviks, declaring that the October uprising was illegal and did not recognize the power of the Council of People's Commissars. When the elections were held, it turned out that the Bolsheviks received only about a quarter of the votes, and the strongest positions in the new representative body of the Social Revolutionaries (40% of votes). It became obvious that the Constituent Assembly would hardly be able to find a common language with the Soviet authorities. At the first and only meeting of the Constituent Assembly 5 in January 1918, the Central Executive Committee Chairman Jacob Sverdlov suggested that the meeting should accept the draft Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People, which declared Russia the “Republic of Soviets of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants Deputies” written by Lenin. However, a majority meeting of 237 votes against 146 simply refused to discuss the Bolshevik declaration.

Forcibly preventing participants from gathering for the second time and decreeing the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on January 6 by dissolving the meeting, the Bolsheviks went to break with the other socialist parties. This prompted the Social Revolutionaries and representatives of other parties who sympathized with them to the idea of ​​creating their own government bodies that would lead an armed struggle against Soviet power. Thanks to the support of the insurgent Czechoslovak Corps (White Czechs), by the summer of 1918, a number of governments created by the Socialist-Revolutionaries appeared in the vast expanses of the Volga region and Siberia. Many of the members of the Constituent Assembly, headed by Viktor Chernov, move to Samara, where the Committee of members of the Constituent Assembly (Komuch) is established. Another group of deputies forms a committee in Omsk. Later, these regional governments will unite in the All-Russian Directory, proclaiming the restoration of the Constituent Assembly in Russia.

Perekuem screaming on swords


A separate cause of the Civil War was the tangle of contradictions in the countryside, which became even more complicated thanks to the policy of military communism, and above all to the surplus. The food policy of the new government caused a deaf murmur in the peasant environment, which - perhaps for the first time in centuries - ceased to be a passive hostage and observer of political events, and turned into an active participant in them. It was no longer the village where the peasants, reluctantly, submitted to the sovereign will, accepting reforms emanating from the capital. The village was replenished by the First World Soldiers returning from the fronts, who had seen a lot and could have taught their fellow villagers how to defend their interests won during the revolution. The peasants were actively sharing the fund of landlords' land and were not going to give the fruits of their labor from this land to anyone. It is not for nothing that the village in 1918 began to seethe during the harvest period.


Sending foodstuffs from Moscow to the village. Photo: retromap.ru

Thanks to the deserters from the front in the village there were many weaponsand this created the prerequisites for the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. According to the materials of the Cheka, referenced by historians Peter Aleshkin and Yuri Vasilyev, 20 uprisings took place in the 245 gubernias of Russia this year. In Central Russia, in the summer months of 1918, peasant resistance resulted in 130 speaking out against local councils, 154 self-defense act against food detachments, 73 uprising; plus mass refusals of non-commissioned officers of a number of provinces (Oryol, Kursk, Voronezh) from appearing at conscription points.

Lenin and other Bolshevik theorists in their attitude to the village relied on the ideology of the peasant poor as the support of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The creation of the committees of the poor (kombedov) was a step that followed from this ideology. However, the fighters not only did not help to withdraw the bread, but also aroused protest moods in the village. The village very soon became displeased with the actions of the new government - it was not going to drag the burden of military expenses caused by the Civil War on its own shoulders, or feed the city within the framework of the food dictatorship of the Soviet government. The acute rejection of the peasants caused the collection of an extraordinary revolutionary tax, requisition of grain, horses for the needs of the front and mobilization of young people (mostly poor) in the Red Army. By November 1918, virtually the entire territory of Russia, controlled by the Bolsheviks, was embraced by the peasant movement.

Thanks to the forced mobilization of only one December 1918, the number of the Red Army grew by almost a quarter. However, the poor, supported by the middle peasantry, in many villages were revolting mobilized, driven by experienced front-line soldiers. The movement quickly became widespread: for example, in the Mikhailovsky district of the Ryazan province protests against mobilization were covered by the 20 volosts, in the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk gubernia — 19 volosts, in the Vereisk district of the Moscow gubernia — 18 volosts with 10 thousands of participants, in Medynsky district of the Kaluga province — in the Moscow district, with NNXX thousands of participants; with 17 – 7 by thousands of rebels. The rebels captured the city of Kasimov in Ryazan Province, in Tambov - Shatsk, in Smolensk - Dukhovshchina, Gzhatsk, Porechye, in Kaluga - several settlements and railway stations. Just a year later, peasant desertion would create a specific form of resistance to the Bolsheviks — the so-called green movement (the name itself arose from the fact that the “greens” were usually hiding in the forests near the villages from which they received food and help), consisting of deserters and people evading service in the armies of the opposing sides, both in the Red and in parts of the White movement. It is curious that many of the draft dodgers had mobilization certificates issued by both the Reds and the Whites: both sides viewed them forcibly recruited as an important component of their troops.

A special factor was the surplus: the activities of the Bolshevik prodotryad sharply aggravated the opposition of the peasants to the Bolsheviks. It is worth noting, however, that the village did not protest against the surplus as such, but against the imperfections of this system, the lack of planning - the size of the grain requisitions differed poorly depending on the fertility of specific lands. And it was no wonder that peasants more often rose up in the provinces where the lands did not differ in fertility (and, accordingly, it was much more difficult for people to collect the amount of grain assigned by the state).


The opposition of the peasants to the Bolsheviks. Photo: Historical War Museum

In the ring of enemies

Another reason for the citizenry was the reaction of the Entente countries to Russia's withdrawal from the war and the refusal of the Bolsheviks from the international obligations of previous governments. 3 December 1917 of the year at a special conference, which was attended by England, France, the United States and a number of their allies, it was decided to delimit the zones of interest in the territories of the former Russian Empire. The allies, who did not recognize the Bolshevik government, decided to establish contacts with regional governments. The zones of influence were divided as follows: England could act in the Caucasus and in the regions of southern Russia, France in the Ukraine and the Crimea. In addition, Japan also took advantage of the weakness of the Soviet government, which 1 of January introduced 1918 of the year to the port of Vladivostok military ships under the pretext of protecting the citizens of their power. It should be mentioned that one of the most important reasons for the intervention was that the Western states were afraid of the “spread of the revolution”: having heard of the successes of the proletariat in Russia, workers in their own countries could rebel.

In addition, the lost empire, which had a huge territory, a vast population and a mass of natural wealth, caused clear interest. Since the spring of 1918, the intervention, in which not only the mentioned powers, but also Germany, Poland, Romania, etc., has become one of the most important factors of the Civil War: representatives of the White movement and other fighters with Soviet power received from - beyond the borders of financial and military-political support.

The political, social and economic contradictions that have torn the country have forced society to pay a terrible price: during the years of the Civil War at the front, as well as hunger, disease and terror of the opposing sides, 8 million people will die, and 2 million will also have to leave Russia to save themselves from power, which they will not be able to win.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. prosto_rgb 12 September 2015 05: 48 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Civil war - this is a complete JO .., regardless of its causes.
  2. sherp2015 12 September 2015 06: 19 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    A terrible catastrophe befell Russia through the entire mess organized by the Anglo-Saxons
    1. Nikolay K 12 September 2015 08: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Lenin and Denikin Anglo-Saxons? This is a civil war. Stop blaming external enemies for all the troubles, they only use our stupidity and weakness. Be smarter and stronger.
      1. Russian Uzbek 12 September 2015 08: 46 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        but it all started not with Lenin and Denikin! is such a name for you - does Prince Lvov say anything? But these people "made a revolution"! (Prince, Karl !!! what are the Bolsheviks)))
        1. Ross_ulair 12 September 2015 15: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You can still recall the murder of Paul I and the "Decembrists", from the dispersal of which Nicholas I began his reign very correctly.

          The Englishwoman, as she has always spoiled Russia, continues to spoil - nothing changes in this world.
    2. Bibliographer 13 September 2015 00: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      More precisely, the disaster that befell Russia was provoked and arranged thanks to the "ingenious" rule of the "holy martyr" Nicholas Romanov. Absolutely weak-willed, stupid and cowardly little man
  3. Basil50 12 September 2015 06: 55 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    Strange, they threw off the tsar and arrested, unleashed a civil war, those whom they later called * white *, and blame: for the intervention, the civil war itself, gangs walking around RUSSIA, put on Bolsheviks. Why's that? And they also talk about * equal * responsibility * of all * participants. It turns out the robbery’s guilt that he didn’t give in advance everything that was later taken from the murdered. The tsar was removed by his neighbors and industrialists and, of course, the generals, the temporary ones destroyed the state of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, and prepared its dismemberment. The Bolsheviks threw off the temporary and began to assemble a single state. Perhaps this is precisely what * democrats * cannot forgive the people of RUSSIA and the Bolsheviks for. It was so * well * planned everything, even a deposit was received from the interventionists, but they * were not understood *.
    1. Nikolay K 12 September 2015 08: 41 New
      • -8
      • 0
      -8
      The tsar was overthrown not by whites, but by a motley mass of revolutionaries and others who were not happy. As recently on the Ukrainian Maidan. And only then the Bolsheviks seized power. Imagine if now Tyagnibok and Yarosh arrange a coup and seize power in Ukraine. I am sure that some of those who were on the Maidan will oppose them. The author just describes in detail the disunity of the white movement, which led to the defeat
    2. Sling cutter 12 September 2015 12: 34 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Vasily50
      Basil50

      They wrote everything correctly.
      And after all, the followers of those Judahs in the counter-revolutionary coup 91g dismembered Russia-USSR.
      Now we are waiting for 2017, we will restore again.
  4. Mangel olys 12 September 2015 07: 06 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    "By the end of the civil war, 76% of the posts in the command and administrative apparatus of the Red Army were occupied by former officers of the tsarist army and only 13% were graduates of the first Soviet command courses and schools. In 1918-1920, 75 thousand military specialists from among Former officers, including white officers who were captured and went over to the side of the Soviet government. Of the 20, the commanders of the 17 fronts were old military specialists. Of the 100, the commanders of the 82 armies were former generals and officers. armament of the Republic forces was a former Colonel Vatsetis II, he was replaced by a former colonel of the General Staff Sergey Kamenev. "
    Source: http://www.great-country.ru/content/letopis/1918_1922.php

    Were they all traitors to their Fatherland? No, they believed the Bolsheviks, believed in the revival of the Fatherland and a bright idea.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. kalibr 12 September 2015 07: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In 1991, 18 million communists did not go to the barricades, but supported Yeltsin and the "western course." Did they all be traitors to their homeland? No, they believed in reformers, believed in the rebirth of the Fatherland and a bright idea.
      1. BMW
        BMW 12 September 2015 09: 17 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: kalibr
        No, they believed the reformers, they believed in the revival of the Fatherland and a bright idea.


        Did you laugh now?
        What an idea?
        People have a powdered brain - time.
        Inside the belief in the correctness of the communist idea was undermined - two.
        Everyone took a wait-and-see attitude - three.
        Just nobody knew what to do and how to be. This is all the events of 1991 and must be explained. They didn’t really believe Yeltsin, but he turned out to be the most active of all. This ensured his victory, against the background of the rest of the elderly.
        The big mistake was in trying to remove Gorbachev with the help of the Emergency Committee, which served as an impetus for the collapse.
    3. Nikolay K 12 September 2015 08: 49 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Is the author talking about the betrayal of officers? It was a civil war and among the officers there were people with different views. It is no secret that most of the red commanders left the tsarist non-commissioned officers, many of whom were commoners or natives of the peasants. The Bolsheviks did not really trust classically wrong officers, although they were forced to use their services. In general, the statistics cited only show that by the end of the civil war the Bolsheviks realized that the army should be led not by professional revolutionaries, but by professional military men.
    4. Nagaibak 12 September 2015 12: 52 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Mangel Olys "Were they all traitors to their Fatherland? No, they believed the Bolsheviks, they believed in the revival of the Fatherland and a bright idea."
      You forgot to indicate that they fought only out of fear.))) They have hostages in relatives, and they were afraid and fought, fought and were afraid and won.)))))
      1. victor 12 September 2015 17: 55 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Nagaybak ... Shaw all ??? One by one? And they won out of fear ??? And those who fought without fear lost only because they were not afraid for their relatives ??? And you will also justify the reasons for the victory in the Great Patriotic War (by the way, the number of prisoners). Pliz
        1. Nagaibak 12 September 2015 20: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          victor "Nagaybak ... Shaw all ??? One by one? And they won out of fear ???"
          Viktoooooorchik dear ... it was sarcasm.)))))) Reread more carefully.))))) Pliz.)))))
      2. MrK
        MrK 13 September 2015 22: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nagaibak
        They have relatives in hostages, and they were afraid and fought, fought and feared and won.


        At least four former tsarist generals are known who, having been captured by the white, refused to change the oath of red, and were shot for this: von Taube, Nikolaev, Vostrosablin, Stankevich.
        Well, so what about hostages with small children, gentlemen of criticism?
        A huge role at the time was played by the appeal of a group of former tsarist generals, who called in 1920 for officers to go over to the Reds. The appeal was signed by famous and respected people in the old army: generals Polivanov, Zayonchkovsky, Klembovsky, Parsky, Baluyev, Akimov, Admiral Gutor. The first was the name of the most authoritative military commander, General A. Brusilov.
        And this appeal, by the way, was a huge success. After it appeared, another twenty thousand former tsarist officers came to the Red Army.
  5. wei
    wei 12 September 2015 07: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    inspired by the article
    1. revnagan 12 September 2015 11: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Please tell me which movie is slicing?
    2. kotvov 12 September 2015 20: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      inspired by the article ,,
      grandfather told, although not willingly, he was a Don Cossack.
  6. Monster_Fat 12 September 2015 08: 16 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    In fact, in the civil war in Russia, few soldiers died on the fronts, approximately the same on both sides, 250-300 thousand people each. The main losses were suffered by the population from epidemics of diseases: typhoid, Spaniards, etc. from them, according to various estimates, died, then from 800 to 1 million 200 thousand people, but from starvation ... yes, people died of hunger ... but thanks to extremely the clever step of the Bolsheviks, “war communism” and “food surplus appropriation” during the civil war, just managed to avoid just a catastrophic famine in the cities. Just "food surplus" and saved the population of cities from starvation. In a poor village, they survived poorly, despite the seizure of part of the food by the "CHON" and "COMBEDA" units. The famine came on 21-23 (the highest mortality from starvation in 1921), in some provinces, for example in the Volga region, when there, as a result of an unprecedented drought for several years, all plantings died. According to various estimates, 2 to 5 million people died. This forced the Bolsheviks to look for food purchases abroad, and loans for this, but our "eternal" friends there, such as Poincare and others, put forward the slogan: "No Soviet Soviet loans! Food, cars, and more, just for gold!" That forced the Bolsheviks to start seizing church values ​​and sell part of the national treasures of the Hermitage, the grandear chamber, etc. And they, the Bolsheviks received gold, having opuped from such a turn, our western "sworn friends" then banned trade with Soviet Russia even for gold .. . But that's another story...
    1. TWR
      TWR 13 September 2015 00: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      and loans for this, but our "eternal" friends there, such as Poincare and others, put forward the slogan: "No loans to Soviet Russia! Food, cars, etc. only for gold!"

      Why lie? For 2 years (1921-22), the purchase of food by the RSFSR in the United States amounted to 13 million of those dollars. During the same time period, only the ARA (American Assistance Administration) delivered $ 78 million worth of food. Of these, 13 million - with the money of the RSFSR, 28 million - with the money of the US government, the rest (37 million), with private donations.
      In addition to the ARA, in the RSFSR there were still many charitable organizations: the American Quaker Society, the Save the Children Alliance International Alliance, the Nansen Committee, the Swedish Red Cross, the German Red Cross, the British trade unions, international labor assistance, etc.
      But the "Yugoslav brothers" refused to help. And they didn’t give a penny. Moreover, they proposed through the League of Nations to ban the assistance of the RSFSR. This is a note to all “soviet brother-seekers”.
      1. Monster_Fat 13 September 2015 08: 11 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Dude, we're talking about EUROPE. Poincaré, Foch, Deladier are all frogs who then, on the euphoria of "victory" over Germany, actually dictated the whole of European politics. The Americans had a slightly different alignment, but it was the dollars that were important for the Americans, and in order to get them the Bolsheviks had to trade gold at low prices, compared to world prices ... Do not flatter yourself about "help". As you write, it was mainly “private donations”, not government loans. But in Russia they remember Fritf Nansen, they remember very well.
  7. Russian Uzbek 12 September 2015 08: 43 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    the most interesting thing is that neither white nor red are to blame at the beginning of the Civil War! somehow everyone forgot about our dear liberal Westerners with whose easy hands and a bloody mess started under the name of "Russian Revolution" and which red and white shot with equal hatred ...
    Denikin called these people: "lousy lawyers" ...
    Lenin: "liberal bastard" ...
  8. kvs207 12 September 2015 09: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai K
    It was a civil war and there were people with different views among the officers

    And of different origin. By 1917, cadre officers made up a very small part, and this was mainly among the headquarters officers and generals.
  9. ALEA IACTA EST 12 September 2015 09: 49 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    And why was fighting? We would agree and live in peace ...
    1. MrK
      MrK 13 September 2015 22: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      And why was fighting? We would agree and live in peace ...


      Why was fighting? Let us give the floor to the most valuable witness, Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), who held rather large posts: “bishop of the army and navy” under Denikin, member of the “Council of Ministers” under Wrangel.
      “What principles guided the white movement? ... I confess that we did not have not only a detailed political and social program, but even the most basic principles were not clear from the positive side. Even now I do not remember any bright slogans: how could I forget them if they were? And what I remember, it was not strong, not carried away. We can say that our movement was guided more by negative, protesting motives than by its clear, positive objectives. We fought against the Bolsheviks - this is our common goal and psychology ... As for the political system, it was unclear, not predetermined: if only the Bolsheviks were finished, then everything would work out. How? Again the Constituent Assembly, formerly dispersed by Zheleznyakov? Not! The Constituent Assembly was not mentioned. What? Monarchy with the Romanov dynasty? And this was not said, rather they feared it, because the masses would hardly have returned to the old. Constitution? Yes, that is most likely. But what, who, how - was unknown ...
      What are the socio-economic challenges? It was clear here: restoration of owners and property. Under General Denikin, nothing new was heard ...
      1. TWR
        TWR 13 September 2015 23: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mrark
        How? Again the Constituent Assembly, formerly dispersed by Zheleznyakov? No! The Constituent Assembly was not mentioned.

        Mentioned. In fact, the White movement self-organized in protest against the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks. Against the armed usurpation of power in the country in January 1918. How is this the most important reason “not even mentioned”? Rave.
  10. parusnik 12 September 2015 10: 00 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    and first of all the food service surplus. The food course of the new government caused a muffled murmur among the peasant... There is nothing, to blame the Bolsheviks, the Bolsheviks continued the policy begun by the tsarist government .. and continued by the Provisional .. the front was hungry by 1916 .. the same writes A.I. Denikin and others ... And the real course of the new the power was that he gave land to the people ... that's when they began to divide the land .. that's where the interests of land and landless and clashed ..
    1. Rastas 12 September 2015 10: 14 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      I agree. The peasantry is inherently quite selfish environment. Therefore, the Bolsheviks relied on the working class, which was more conscious and developed.
  11. rkkasa xnumx 12 September 2015 11: 27 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "Soviet power is an organized civil war against the landlords, the bourgeoisie and the kulaks." (C)

    In this case, it is difficult to disagree with Trotsky. All right said.
    Bourgeois and landowners will never voluntarily agree to give power to the working people.
    1. kotvov 12 September 2015 20: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Bourgeois and landowners will never voluntarily agree to give power to the working people. ,,
      Yes, not only power, but also factories, allotments, but also steamboats.
      1. rkkasa xnumx 12 September 2015 21: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: kotvov
        Yes, not only power, but also factories, allotments, but also steamboats.

        Actually for this they need power to have factories, allotments, steamers wink
  12. revnagan 12 September 2015 11: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In fairness, it should be noted that the detachments and the extra-detachment appeared back in 1916, under the tsar. The Bolsheviks simply took advantage of this experience. And the Reds were still right. And people felt this, as they say, from the inside. Therefore, they won.
  13. Nagaibak 12 September 2015 12: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Photo where the peasants with a pitchfork generally funny. I saw a similar (not exactly this) photo in one book under the designation Siberian partisan peasants against Kolchak’s troops.))) Now the guys will appear and vividly explain to us how a bunch of traitors to the Motherland seized power in our prosperous country and won war with whites and interventionists.)))