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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far were White weaknesses responsible for Red victory in the Russian Civil War? White weaknesses were vital in the Reds' road to victory. The Whites lacked political unity, with squabbles emerging among the various political groups within the Whites, and represented a class that was unpopular with the majority-workers and peasants. This, together with the lack of strategy and cooperation on the part of White generals, also affected them on a military level. Moreover, the Allied help that was offered to the Whites was unenthusiastic and ineffective, thus contributing to their defeat. However, had it not been for Trotsky's serious involvement in reorganising the Red Army, completely revitalising it and making it superior to that of the Whites, the Reds may have never been able to take advantage of the White weaknesses. Likewise, Lenin made sure that war communism and effective propaganda constituted solid Red strengths that would lead them to success. The Whites were made up of sections of the Russian population alienated by the Bolshevik government but with no unity in their aims or motives. Liberals, former tsarists, nationalists and separatists, SRs and other moderate socialists could not agree if they were fighting for monarchism, republicanism or the Constituent Assembly. Their disagreement went so far that that the power struggles between Kolchak, a Rightist, and the SRs actually undermined the White advance at Kazan and Samara. Furthermore, the Whites failed to effectively cooperate with each other in some of the areas they controlled, as there was a fundamental clash between the beliefs of the liberals and those of various national groups that were under the Whites and fought for them. ...read more.

Middle

The reformation of the army was now based on hierarchy again, which meant that Trotsky put aside communist ideals. However, it proved to be highly effective as he was unwilling to have an army based on "a game of chance, by allowing each unit to decide for itself whether it would agree to advance or to remain on the defensive" like the Whites did. Moreover, each leading figure knew his job, as commanders were in charge of military leadership and commissars concentrated on political and educational work of the army making sure that the army always had the Red objective of the continuity of the revolution in mind, as opposed to the Whites, where the generals had a universal role and thus it was easy for them to lose sight of various aspects. Trotsky even introduced cavalry to the Red Army, as he saw the Whites' cavalry as a possible strength and "after only a few months, our cavalry could stand comparison with the enemy's, and subsequently it seized the initiative once and for all." Trotsky acted as the person in overall charge, holding things together and making the organisation work effectively. He was actively involved in the process through which the army was going, however leaving key military decisions to experts as he admitted he did not have experience in the field, and he seemed to inspire men in a way that other leaders, especially the second class White generals, could not. Therefore, he was the one who motivated the men to fight and save Petrograd from Yudenich's army when Lenin thought that they would have to give it up. Nonetheless, although Lenin did not play an important role in influencing the Red Army, he consolidated the Bolshevik state, making sure that the ...read more.

Conclusion

second rate generals who failed to determine their men and to create unity amongst them, would have propagated even an incapable enemy army to victory. However, in my opinion, Trotsky's central role in the reformation of the Red Army cannot be underestimated. He established discipline and hierarchical values that, as opposed to the Whites who had various squabbling generals, gave the army an organised structure. Moreover, he clearly understood the importance of propaganda and took advantage of it, thus consolidating the communist purpose behind the Bolsheviks' actions and determining the army and the rest of the population under the Reds that they were fighting and working for a firm aim. Therefore, the reforms were a crucial aspect of Red victory; War Communism automated Red Russia towards the war effort and its short term success proved to be essential in making sure that the army was supplied, whilst Whites had to rely on foreign support. Hence, without their own strengths, the Reds may have never been able to rise themselves to being superior to the Whites and thus their own abilities played a key role in their success to a great extent. Nonetheless, despite the short term success of War Communism, it proved to be disastrous for the economy and the people of Russia so much that Lenin decided to replace it with a New Economic Policy after the Reds won the Civil War; it was not only War Communism that affected Russia but the burden of the Civil War itself. During the War, central authority disappeared and local areas were left to fend for themselves, while workers' wages were 2% of their 1913 ones, meaning that standards of living during the Civil War had seriously declined. ?? ?? ?? ?? Raluca Petre 6.11.2006 1 ...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. UNIT 6: PAPER 6b: THE SOVIET UNION AFTER LENIN

    * Bukharin argued the price paid to peasants must be increased, industrialisation therefore being slower, but based on solid economic foundations. * Stalin now seemed to change his mind - some Historians argue cynically, as a way to attack the Right.

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

    However, the credibility of the extract from Trotsky's diary is questionable as he would have known that this would have been seen after his death but Moynahan does provide support for the evidence to establish that it was a victory which was needed to secure consolidate power.

  1. Nothing short of war could have any effect on the Russian system of government- ...

    However, war when carried out swiftly and with success can have positive benefits for the popularity of a ruler. Bismarck's foreign policy showed this. But the wars in which Russia was involved in only served to weaken the resolve of the people, and the power of the Tsar.

  2. While surfing the channels on TV you might hear a lot of news about ...

    But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else, it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not there. Not the national territory. I tried to interview my American relatives or friends. They didn't really wanted to answer my questions, as they are so deeply touched.

  1. From rebellion through rivalries to reformation

    Skinheads began to call themselves "Nationalists," which tended to de-emphasize differences in approaches and build unity. Slogans, pins and Internet offerings heralded the slogan Skinhead Unity and Skins United in a bid to march forward in lock-step. Then, all of a sudden, "Skinheads" began to emerge in ways which were totally unexpected.

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

    Another huge disadvantage was that they lost the support of their foreign allies. All British, French and American troops left during 1919. Japan only stayed on longer as they wanted more power in the Far East. The Reds created an effective army led by Trotsky.

  1. Was the civil warinevitable?

    Thus in the eyes of nineteenth century politicians, armed conflict, would have been seen as an inevitable step in order to advance their political ideology once an opportunity arose. In the case of the American civil war, Southern secession was the opportunity seized upon by the North.

  2. Did The League of Nations Have any chance of long Term Success?

    be a member of the international community and, therefore, she was not invited to join. This was a great blow to Germany but it also meant that the League could not use whatever strength Germany had to support its campaign against aggressor nations.

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