Military Review

Member of the Civil War in Russia - who is he?

58
Member of the Civil War in Russia - who is he?



The civil war, the beginning of which is officially considered to be the 1918 year, is still one of the worst and bloodiest pages in stories our country. Perhaps, in some ways, it is even worse than the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, as this conflict suggested an incredible chaos in the country and the complete absence of the front line. Simply put, a member of the Civil War could not be sure even of his close relatives. It happened that whole families destroyed themselves because of the fundamental differences in their political views.

The history of those events is still full of secrets and mysteries, but the average man in the street rarely thinks about them. Much more interesting is the other - who was the ordinary participant in the Civil War? Is propaganda of those times right, and red is an animal-like peasant, dressed almost in the skin, white is an ideological “Mr. officer” with the views of an idealist, and green is a sort of anarchist anarchist Makhno?

Of course, everything is much more complicated, since such a division exists only on the pages of the most radical historical books, which now, unfortunately, still continue to be used to desecrate the history of our country. So of all the most difficult periods, the Civil War continues to be the most obscure. The causes, participants and consequences of this conflict continue to be studied by venerable scientists, and they still make many interesting discoveries in the field of history of that period.

The first period of the war



Perhaps the most homogeneous was the composition of the troops, except in the very first period of the war, the bright prerequisites of which began to manifest as early as 1917. During the February Revolution, a huge number of soldiers turned out to be on the streets, who simply did not want to go to the front, and therefore were ready to overthrow the king, and make peace with the German.

The war deeply oppressed everyone. The devilish attitude of the tsarist generals, theft, illness, the lack of everything most necessary — all this pushed more and more soldiers to revolutionary ideas.

Paradoxes of the prewar period



The beginning of the Soviet period, when Lenin promised peace to the soldiers, could have been marked by a complete cessation of the influx of veteran front-line soldiers into the Red Army troops, but ... On the contrary, the entire 1918 year all parties to the conflict regularly received a massive influx of new soldiers, almost 70% of whom had previously fought on the Russian fronts -German war. Why did this happen? Why did a member of the Civil War, who barely escaped from the hateful trenches, again wanted to take up a rifle?

Why, wanting peace, did the soldiers go to war again?

There is nothing complicated. Many of the experienced soldiers were in the army for 5, 7, 10 years ... During this time, they simply relieved themselves of the vicissitudes of peaceful life. In particular, the soldiers have become accustomed to, that they have no problems with food (they, of course, were, but rations were almost always given out), that all questions were simple and clear. Disappointed in the peaceful life, they again and eagerly took up weapon. In general, this paradox was known long before the Civil War in our country.

The original core of the Red Army and the White Guard formations



As the participants of the Civil War in Russia later recalled (regardless of their political views), almost all the major formations of the Red and White armies began in the same way: a certain armed group of people gradually assembled, to which the commanders later joined (or left their own environment).

Very often, large military formations were obtained from self-defense detachments or certain groups of military service, seconded by the Tsarist officers, to guard some railway stations, warehouses, etc. Former soldiers were the backbone, noncommissioned officers, and sometimes " full-fledged "officers, for one reason or another, were separated from those units that they commanded initially.

The most interesting thing was if the participant in the Civil War was a Cossack. There are many cases where the village for a long time lived exclusively raids, terrorizing the central regions of the country. Cossacks most often deeply despised the "uncouth men", reproaching them with their "inability to stand up for themselves." When these "men" were finally brought to "condition," they also took up arms and recalled all the insults to the Cossacks. So began the second phase of the conflict.

Confusion

During this period, the participants in the Civil War in Russia became increasingly heterogeneous. Previously, former royal soldiers were the backbone of various gangs or “official” military formations, but now a real “vinaigrette” was rolling along the roads of the countries. The standard of living has finally dropped, and therefore all without exception were taken for weapons.



The “special” participants of the Civil War of 1917-1922 belong to the same period. We are talking about the so-called "green". In fact, they were classical bandits and anarchists, who have a golden time. True, they were very disliked by both the red and the white, and therefore they were shot immediately and on the spot.

Independence and pride

A separate category is the various national minorities and the former outskirts of the Russian Empire. There, the list of participants was almost always extremely homogeneous: this is the local population, deeply hostile to the Russians, regardless of their color. With the same gangsters in Turkmenistan, the Soviet government dealt with almost until the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Basmachi were stubborn, received financial and "gun" feed from the British, and therefore did not particularly misery. Participants in the Civil War 1917-1922 on the territory of present-day Ukraine, they were also very diverse, and they had very different goals. In most cases, it all boiled down to attempts to form their own state, but such a confusion reigned in their ranks that nothing sensible in the end came out. The most successful were Poland and Finland, which nevertheless became independent countries, having received their statehood only after the collapse of the Empire. The Finns, by the way, again differed in the extreme rejection of all Russians, not much behind the Turkmen.

Peasants come

It must be said that around this period there were many peasants in the ranks of all the armies of the Civil War. Initially, this social stratum did not participate in hostilities at all. The participants of the civil war (red or white - no difference) recalled that the initial centers of armed clashes were reminiscent of tiny dots, surrounded on all sides by the “peasant sea”. What forced the peasants to take up arms? In many ways, this result has led to a permanent drop in living standards. Against the background of the strongest depletion of the peasants, more and more people were willing to “requisition” the last grain or cattle. Naturally, such a state of affairs could not persist for a long time, and therefore initially inert peasantry also entered the war eagerly. Who were these participants in the Civil War - white or red? In general, it is difficult to say. Peasants were rarely puzzled by some difficult questions from the field of political science, and therefore often acted on the principle "against all". They wanted all participants in the war just to leave them alone, finally ceasing to requisition food.

End of conflict

Again, at the end of this confusion, the people who formed the backbone of the armies also became more homogeneous. They, like the participants of the Civil War 1917, were soldiers. Only this has already been people who have gone through the harsh school of civil conflict. They became the basis of the developing Red Army, many talented commanders emerged from their ranks, who subsequently stopped the terrible breakthrough of the fascists in the summer of 1941.

It remains only to sympathize with the participants of the Civil War, since many of them, having begun to fight as early as World War I, never saw a peaceful sky over their entire lives. It would be desirable to hope that our country will not recognize the upheavals like this war. All countries whose population fought with each other in certain periods of history have come to similar conclusions.
Author:
Originator:
http://fb.ru/article/229545/uchastnik-grajdanskoy-voynyi-v-rossii---kto-on
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 21 February 2016 07: 57
    +5
    I can say for my own ... Great-grandfather, on the paternal side of wealthy Siberian peasants, red partisans ... On the maternal side, the family is also quite wealthy, five grandmother brothers fought for the Reds, grandfather worked for great-grandfather, grandmother’s husband, also reds fought ..
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 February 2016 09: 53
      +4
      If your ancestors fought for the whites, you would hardly talk to us now.
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 21 February 2016 12: 36
        +7
        My grandmother’s 2 brothers fought in Kolchak’s army before it was defeated (they were mobilized). After its defeat, they switched to the service of the Reds. Nobody repressed them, there were many such examples. Only photographs in the form of the Kolchak army were not displayed.
        1. tundra
          tundra 21 February 2016 16: 20
          +8
          The maternal grandfather was mobilized by Kolchakites, fought for a year, then when typhus came to life around were already red, they handed the rifle and forward. Until the end of the civilian, then Finnish, then domestic, Smolensk battle and disability. That was such a life.
  2. igorra
    igorra 21 February 2016 08: 55
    28
    There were no white and fluffy then, or rather, there were white, but far from fluffy. I think it is necessary to stop the division into right and wrong, in the civil war there are no right, all are to blame. God then deprived the mind of the Russians and we gulped grief for the most I do not want, but this memory kept us in the 91st year from chaos. The time has come to erect a great monument to all those who died in the civil war or a temple, then God will lay it down.
    1. Villon
      Villon 21 February 2016 09: 25
      +3
      Quote: igorra
      this memory kept us in the 91st year from chaos

      There was chaos, there was devastation. But people said "if only there was no war." Why? Because the then existing government persuaded, promised and threatened with all the means at its disposal that if a hand was raised against it, it would unleash a war. So they justified the illegal government with such words. And the war came anyway.
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 21 February 2016 10: 11
        0
        You mean what kind of war that came?
      2. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 21 February 2016 10: 21
        +6
        Quote: Nikolai K
        If your ancestors fought for the whites, you would hardly talk to us now.

        Quote: igorra
        There were no white and fluffy then, or rather, there were white, but far from fluffy. I think it is necessary to stop the division into right and wrong, in the civil war there are no right, all are to blame. God then deprived the mind of the Russians and we gulped grief for the most I do not want, but this memory kept us in the 91st year from chaos. The time has come to erect a great monument to all those who died in the civil war or a temple, then God will lay it down.



        My great-great-grandfather was killed in St. Petersburg ... by rebellious sailors. Or what other bandits. And to whom he interfered ... he was rather poor, he just knew how to read, but washed his neck. But the authorities forbade recalling this to the Sov. It was dangerous to health.
        1. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 21 February 2016 12: 58
          +2
          maybe Finns or Latvians, or "Odessa citizens" from local
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 21 February 2016 09: 36
      +6
      Quote: igorra
      There were no white and fluffy then, or rather, there were white, but far from fluffy. I think it is necessary to stop the division into right and wrong, in the civil war there are no right, all are to blame. God then deprived the mind of the Russians and we gulped grief for the most I do not want, but this memory kept us in the 91st year from chaos. The time has come to erect a great monument to all those who died in the civil war or a temple, then God will lay it down.

      This is a very crafty position.
      It seems like everyone is to blame - which means no one is to blame.
      But someone did start this confusion.
      Someone prepared the society, wrote subversive articles, campaigned at the front for peace with the enemy (and the enemy was the same as in 41), organized demonstrations and strikes in the rear of the belligerent country ... In just some 20 years this phenomenon will find a name and these people will be called "enemies of the people", on the eve of a new war, understanding people will resolve the issue radically in "10 years without the right to correspond."
      1. xorgi
        xorgi 21 February 2016 11: 59
        +1
        Cap.Morgan But "someone started this confusion" - only one person is to blame - Nicholas II. Only he is to blame for everything that happened, it was "thanks to" him that the revolution took place, and then, naturally, the Civil War began. Only he is to blame for the fact that the country has reached such a state. Agree that the beginning of the Great Patriotic War was much worse for us than the First World War, but the authorities have found a solution. Cruel? Yes! But the country survived. And in 1917, the government did not take such a step and the country collapsed, the consequences of their cruelty were much worse.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 21 February 2016 12: 26
          +5
          xorgi ....the only one person to blame is Nicholas II.
          As you’ve got everything simple, it’s hard to understand why you hate him so much. You even behave decently, because you’re impudently call names, and they’ll call them shy.
          1. xorgi
            xorgi 21 February 2016 14: 23
            +3
            bober1982 Figuratively: if a person caught HIV from a girl of easy virtue and was killed by Staphylococcus aureus, it is not the bacterium with the virus that is to blame, and not even that girl, but the man himself.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 21 February 2016 14: 39
              +1
              xorgi: You are too confused and complicated to put it.
              1. xorgi
                xorgi 21 February 2016 14: 56
                +3
                bober1982, in my opinion everything is very clear Nicholas II, by his reign, admitted that Russia came to war and revolution, and the true reason for the outbreak of war and the actions of revolutionaries is absolutely not important - these are destructive elements, they were, are and always will be, and Nicholas II, possessing all by the fullness of power in the country, he could not create a system that would counteract them, therefore only he is to blame.
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 21 February 2016 16: 16
                  +4
                  xorgi: The king was doomed, like the country, no one and nothing would have saved. He had no full power, he was betrayed by all.
                  1. xorgi
                    xorgi 21 February 2016 16: 42
                    +2
                    bober1982 I mean, until 1917, the tsar was unable to create a workable system, for several years he was not involved in the administration of the state, succumbed to the influence of the family and various adventurers, had no political will - all this led to a revolution and then to a civil war
                    1. bober1982
                      bober1982 21 February 2016 18: 32
                      +1
                      The system (as you said) was created 300 years before his reign, and by the time of his reign it was completely rotten. Moreover, not even the Imperial Russia (i.e., in your words, the system) is rotten as much as the people themselves. By the people, I mean : nobles, peasants, soldiers and generals, proletarians, officials, writers, etc.
                      Dostoevsky said it well (novel "The Demons")
                      Or, lines from Maximilian Voloshin: The devils were dancing
                      Across and across Russia

                      And you're talking about some kind of influence of the family, Rasputin and the like nonsense.
                      1. xorgi
                        xorgi 21 February 2016 19: 07
                        0
                        bober1982, I agree that the system is rotten, what did Nicholas II do to improve it?
                      2. bober1982
                        bober1982 21 February 2016 19: 18
                        -4
                        And he could not do anything, everything was rotten.
                        This (impending catastrophe) was well said not only by some writers.
                        Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov and many others. But I would not want to develop further in this direction, you still won’t understand, or it will cause irritation in you.
      2. Rastas
        Rastas 21 February 2016 12: 47
        +5
        Not true, the whole system is to blame. The PMV did not solve the tasks - agrarian (parasitic landlord property was retained during the destruction of the community, peasant labor was still manual, industrial development was carried out by monetarist methods in the spirit of modern liberals through the sale of assets to foreign corporations, and in fact on the bones of the people through social population degradation, the level of education was one of the lowest in Europe - only in Spain and Portugal are lower). And it’s wrong to blame one Nicholas, you’ll repeat the estimates of many Russian emigrants who attributed their mistakes to one person.
        1. xorgi
          xorgi 21 February 2016 14: 06
          +4
          Rastas is the current rulers can nod to the system, they must reckon with it, but the autocrat could solve any issues on his own, I remind Nikolai II delayed the start of the war by his decision, this is an example of his authority.
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 21 February 2016 18: 53
            +1
            The autocrat is still within certain limits, one can recall, for example, palace coups, where the autocrats had to rely on the guards and then reckon with their interests. The tsar still had to reckon with both the nobility and the new capitalists. he was not completely independent.
            1. xorgi
              xorgi 21 February 2016 19: 13
              +3
              Rastas, you must admit that Peter I, Stalin and a number of other rulers were in more difficult conditions, but at the same time they were able to keep power and the country from collapse
              1. Rastas
                Rastas 21 February 2016 20: 03
                0
                Stalin and Peter possessed their own cohort of revolutionaries or their own "chicks, that is, associates who carried out their ideas and reforms. Nikolai did not possess such leaders, and he sent those that existed away from himself.
                1. xorgi
                  xorgi 21 February 2016 20: 21
                  +2
                  Rastas That's it, he is to blame!
      3. Generalissimo
        Generalissimo 21 February 2016 12: 59
        0
        and not thanks to those who arrived in a sealed carriage?
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 21 February 2016 12: 43
      +1
      Stop writing your propaganda here. Who set up the demonstrations, you ask? Probably Martians. At least the Natsik monarchists believe in precisely this way that the damned Bolsheviks flew into Mars Russia from Russia and shot five hundred thousand million people. You are our dear man, for what interests did the Russian peasant fight in the 14th? English and French capital from German defended? You will like the prospect of being cannon fodder for the sake of not understanding what? Probably, not. So why was this prospect supposed to please the peasants in the 14th? Unsubscribe here - do not sit in the trenches.
  3. atos_kin
    atos_kin 21 February 2016 10: 55
    +4
    Quote: igorra
    in the civil war there are no right, all are to blame

    Here in Ukraine there is a civil war that has been ripening since the age of 91. But to recognize the residents of Donbass as guilty, the language does not turn. Any war has a guilty party with specific surnames.
  4. RUSS
    RUSS 21 February 2016 11: 10
    +9
    Quote: igorra
    . It's time to erect a great monument to all those who died in the civil war

    There is a monument of reconciliation and harmony in Novocherkassk, a monument to the fallen red and white Cossacks in the Civil War.
    1. xorgi
      xorgi 21 February 2016 11: 48
      +1
      This is not a monument to ALL the dead, but a monument to the dead Cossacks, agree this is a big difference.
  5. Rastas
    Rastas 21 February 2016 12: 56
    +1
    Detochkin, of course, is to blame, but he is not to blame. To prevent such events from happening again, you need to understand why they happened. But this is not the case in today's Russia, for 25 years there have not appeared serious historical works accessible to the majority of the population explaining why the 17th revolution happened, why it happened, and not otherwise. There are some works by Buzgalin, Shubin, Lyskov, Kolganov but they are unknown to the masses. And so the usual articles about blood, horror, conspiracies. But they do not clarify anything. We must not cry over the lost Russia and not clap our hands on the liquidation of the monarchy, but understand why this was a logical result.
  • xorgi
    xorgi 21 February 2016 09: 22
    +6
    "There are many cases when the village for a long time lived exclusively on raids, terrorizing the central regions of the country. Cossacks most often deeply despised the" uncouth men ", reproaching them for their" inability to stand up for themselves. "When these" men "were finally brought up" to condition ", They also took up arms and recalled all the insults to the Cossacks." - Thank God, the first truth about the Cossacks, about who they are and how they lived. Bravo to the author!
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 21 February 2016 10: 53
      +2
      Quote: xorgi
      Cossacks most often deeply despised "uncouth men"

      Of course, in the era of the estate state, class belonging at the household level meant enough - you can even draw an analogy with the segregation of blacks in the same USA, we certainly were more cultured, at least in spite of social differences, there were also compatriots and one blood, but I think the analogy is correct.
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 21 February 2016 13: 03
      +3
      The Cossacks were also a heterogeneous mass. Among them there was a well-to-do stratum with conservative and rather nationalistic Cossack views, but there was also a low-income group, many of which went to the Reds. As in "Quiet Don" Father Gregory says: "Stinking Russia should not rule here"
  • bober1982
    bober1982 21 February 2016 10: 36
    +2
    Kolchak and Trotsky, Alekseev and Tukhachevsky were on different sides of the conflict, and all the executioners of the Russian people.
    I agree with those who say that everyone is to blame for the civil war, and there are no right-wingers.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 21 February 2016 10: 49
      +4
      Transfer your ideas to our present day. Take Ukraine. There is a mess and a "revolution", but no one is to blame. Rather, everyone is to blame. Those who killed are to blame. But those who were killed are also to blame. Those who were burned in Odessa, who died in the Donbas from shelling, are to blame.
      These are your ideas, sorry, demagoguery.
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 21 February 2016 11: 07
    0
    Fools. Just fools.
  • partizan86
    partizan86 21 February 2016 11: 34
    +4
    My grandfather fought in the First World War, then in the civil war for the Reds, then the Second World War. I met the end of the Second World War in the Baltics. A couple of times he was dispossessed, but did not complain. The mother gave the medals (it was probably so in those days.) To the school museum, where they "safely" disappeared. I never saw my grandfather live.
  • varangian
    varangian 21 February 2016 15: 24
    +5
    blaming one king for everything is so stupid ...
    The author seems to be calling for an adequate look at many things during this period, but apparently the wound is so deep that even in comments, people are irreconcilable.
    There were no right and wrong, all were sons of their land and died, killing their brothers.
    Many great people perished both on one side and the other.
  • Faust
    Faust 21 February 2016 17: 31
    +1
    I don’t know about whites, but the red army was conscripted. According to numerous recollections, nobles, princes, clergy, etc. were called up for military service, among others. Who was hiding lived illegally.
  • rustyle_nvrsk
    rustyle_nvrsk 21 February 2016 19: 38
    -7
    Even here, the descendants of the red-bellied ball-shaped ones carry the heresy about the Russian-Savets war of 1918-45, and then whine about the "history", which is understood only as the Savets one. Ugh!
  • vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 21 February 2016 19: 53
    +3
    The civil war is indeed the greatest tragedy of the Russian people. How many people were killed because the reforms were not carried out in a timely manner. I believe that the tsar and the Russian elite are to blame and they have no forgiveness. We have now become what we are. Our history, including the period of Soviet power, left its mark on us all. But we remained the same Russians who lived on this land for many centuries. It seems to me that we have not changed in our essence. God grant us in the future, not to forget about what may lead to not taken timely measures to "improve" the country and the people.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 22 February 2016 14: 07
    0
    Quote: RUSNAC
    In 1915 Ulyanov (Lenin) honestly said: "the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war."

    Yes, he said. But...
    Unlike his political opponents from among the orthodox Marxists, Lenin never clung to slogans that had ceased to correspond to the real historical moment.

    In 1915, he saw no other way for the Bolsheviks to gain power except as a result of the civil war. But in October 1917, everything changed and the Bolsheviks gained power as a result of the revolution. After which the civil war was no longer needed for them, moreover, it was extremely unprofitable and dangerous, because as a result of it they could lose this power.
    But his political opponents, who lost in the struggle for power by other methods, were interested in starting a civil war.

    Hence the conclusion: the Bolsheviks were the last on the list of those who were interested in the outbreak of the war. Accordingly, blaming them at its beginning is at least incorrect.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 23 February 2016 14: 53
    0
    Quote: RUSNAC
    Who would allow him to leave the collective farm ?! They didn’t give a passport, but they would catch a court and a prison camp without a passport. The Soviet collective farmers were forced laborers. Relaxed, you, my friend, without Dzhugashvili’s grandfather - I’ll go wherever I want and I won’t even get permission from Comrade Major!

    You do not know the history of the USSR well.
    1. In the first five-year period alone, 18 million peasants moved from the village to the cities for permanent residence. Yes, the same for the second five-year period.
    2. Passports were issued not on the collective farm and not in the village council, in the city police passport office. On the collective farm issued certificates of identity, especially for trips to the city. Moreover, back in 1930, a government decree was issued, according to which the chairmen of collective farms and village councils who refused to issue certificates could be prosecuted.
    3. No certificate or passport was required to exit the collective farm. It was enough to write a statement. After which he will receive a certificate from the village council and not from the chairman of the collective farm (these are different positions), get a passport from her and go to the city or to another collective farm. That is exactly what my two grandmothers did - my own sisters, who in the 1934 years left for St. Petersburg at a weaving factory from their collective farm near Nyandoma.
    4. And the last one. During the first 7 years of certification of the population of the USSR from 1933 to 1940, 179 million passports, passport books and identity cards were issued. With a population of about 195 million people. It is not difficult to understand that the USSR population did not have any particular problems with obtaining passports.