• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far do you agree with the proposition that the outcome of the civil war was more to do with why the Whites lost than the factors leading to the victory of the Reds?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far do you agree with the proposition that the outcome of the civil war was more to do with why the Whites lost than the factors leading to the victory of the Reds? In my opinion the outcome of the civil war was equally to do with why the Whites lost and the factors leading to the victory of the Reds. I think that a Red victory was a foregone conclusion because of the Whites failure to co-ordinate and impose clear strategies and ideals but also because of fortunate advantages that the Bolsheviks gained through know skill of their own. For me the question isn't why the Whites lost but why they did so well for so long against an enemy technically superior in almost all aspects even if it is because of the geography of the Russia. The Brest-Litovsk peace agreement between Germany and communist Russia incited significant proportions of Russia's population to violently oppose the Bolshevik Government. Out of this strong opposition evolved the Whites, who became the main threat to the Bolshevik regime. ...read more.

Middle

The Whites gained a large amount of their support from ethnic minorities. Support was often given in the hope of gaining some form of independence in the future. White leaders however believed in a 'Russia, one and indivisible'. This created much internal bickering in the White organisation with ethnic groups like the Cossacks often refusing to fight, which didn't help the already outnumbered White army. Despite having the help of no less than eleven countries during the civil war the Whites failed to co-ordinate each country's activities and each county ended up just following their own localised objectives. The Reds also created there own advantages. The effective leadership of the Bolsheviks by Lenin proved influential. The Red army had someone to organise them and someone to create clear objectives for them to follow. Lenin laid down the Bolsheviks purposes and made their intentions and morals clear for the population to see. This helped them to drum up increasing support, especially from the peasants who were presented with the choice of Reds or Whites. ...read more.

Conclusion

Luckily for the Bolsheviks however, Russia is a very large country and they were able to let the Whites gain ground until they could send in troops from other fronts and repel the attack. What if the Reds weren't privileged with the use of the railway network? Then the troops wouldn't have been able to get to Orel so quickly or easily and repel the attack and once again the Whites may have been able to implement an attack on Moscow. Other factors to consider are things such as the Reds having control of weapon producing factories and whether they would have been so effective in these battles without the factories or if the communications network broke down how they would co-ordinate these attacks/defences, all these advantages were gained because of the geography of Russia which is through no tactical brilliance of the Reds but just pure chance. Because of this I think its fair to say that the outcome of the civil war was as much to do with the factors leading to a Red victory as it is to do with why the Whites lost. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. How far were White weaknesses responsible for Red success in Russian Civil War?

    army and factory workers were supplied and able to stimulate the war effort by initiating a tough policy known as War Communism. Lenin took charge of the day-to-day business of the Sovnarkom and decided to take control of the means of production due to the rapid deterioration of the economy in the spring of 1918.

  2. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    the LAA was completely marginalised, as was the role of Ahmad al-Khatib (Syrian authorities detained Khatib on 18 January 1977). Tal al-Zaatar With the joint Muslim-Palestinian advance halted in Beirut and in the mountain, the Lebanese Front could focus more attention on Palestinian camps in the Christian areas.

  1. To what extent was the Civil War the main factor in the Bolshevik

    Litovsk agreement which further infuriated them as it was perceived as showing weakness but the Bolsheviks believed it was the quick solution to the war. And the Greens had an influence on the Bolsheviks, especially in their Red Army as ill-discipline did occur and the Greens tried to use this

  2. How important was Stalins Leadership in relation to other factors, in accounting for the ...

    provided the USSR with essential war supplies - $11.3 billion worth of goods were sent throughout the war. Without these the army would have been less effectively supplied and progress may have been slower, particularly one the offensive move towards Berlin, which may have given the enemy more time to re-organise and build defenses.

  1. Why did the Reds win the civil war

    Their bases were separated by long distances and scattered in the sparsely populated areas on the edges of the central area. This meant communication was difficult, which meant organisation was again complicated. The civil war was fought in three main stages.

  2. How were the reds able to defeat the whites in the Russian civil war

    'War Communism' was basically trying to control all industries and food supplies. The workers were kept under the strictest of rules. They could not go on strike and give surplus products and food to the government. They were not allowed to sell anything for a profit.

  1. Was the civil warinevitable?

    still had the constant opportunity for conflict because they were bound together by one government. The case for the war being an avoidable conflict stresses that Americans had lived with the issues which eventually led to the outbreak of war, for generations.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    aspects of Russia are not reformed equally, disdain for a condition which is improved, is displaced onto another condition that is less developed: consequently leading to possible anarchy. These persistent long-term problems had to be assessed equally with other pivotal reforms, in order for the state to progress; this is apparent in the rule of Nicholas II.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work