Where are the “reds” and where are the “whites”? Soviet historians portrayed the Russian Civil War as an attempt by the White Guards to overthrow the “young republic of workers and peasants” and put the Tsar back on the throne, returning the power of the capitalists and landowners. In fact, everything was much

At the first stage of the Civil War of 1917 - 1922/23, two powerful opposing forces took shape - “red” and “white”. The first represented the Bolshevik camp, whose goal was a radical change in the existing system and the construction of a socialist regime, the second - the anti-Bolshevik camp, striving for a return to the order of the pre-revolutionary period.

The period between the February and October revolutions is the time of formation and development of the Bolshevik regime, the stage of accumulation of forces. The main tasks of the Bolsheviks before the outbreak of hostilities in the Civil War: the formation of a social support, transformations in the country that would allow them to gain a foothold at the top of power in the country, and the defense of the achievements of the February Revolution.

The Bolsheviks' methods in strengthening power were effective. First of all, this concerns propaganda among the population - the slogans of the Bolsheviks were relevant and helped to quickly form the social support of the “Reds”.

The first armed detachments of the “Reds” began to appear during the preparatory stage - from March to October 1917. The main driving force of such detachments were workers from industrial regions - this was the main force of the Bolsheviks, which helped them come to power during the October Revolution. At the time of the revolutionary events, the detachment numbered about 200,000 people.

The stage of the establishment of Bolshevik power required the protection of what was achieved during the revolution - for this, at the end of December 1917, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission was created, headed by F. Dzerzhinsky. On January 15, 1918, the Cheka adopted a Decree on the creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, and on January 29, the Red Fleet was created.

Analyzing the actions of the Bolsheviks, historians do not come to a consensus about their goals and motivation:

The most common opinion is that the “Reds” initially planned a large-scale Civil War, which would be a logical continuation of the revolution. The fighting, the purpose of which was to promote the ideas of the revolution, would consolidate the power of the Bolsheviks and spread socialism throughout the world. During the war, the Bolsheviks planned to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class. Thus, based on this, the ultimate goal of the “reds” is world revolution.

V. Galin is considered one of the fans of the second concept. This version is radically different from the first - according to historians, the Bolsheviks had no intention of turning the revolution into a Civil War. The goal of the Bolsheviks was to seize power, which they succeeded in during the revolution. But continuation of hostilities was not included in the plans. Arguments of fans of this concept: the transformations that the “Reds” planned demanded peace in the country; at the first stage of the struggle, the “Reds” were tolerant of other political forces. A turning point regarding political opponents occurred when in 1918 there was a threat of losing power in the state. By 1918, the “Reds” had a strong, professionally trained enemy - the White Army. Its backbone was the military of the Russian Empire. By 1918, the fight against this enemy became purposeful, the army of the “Reds” acquired a pronounced structure.

At the first stage of the war, the actions of the Red Army were not successful. Why?

Recruitment into the army was carried out on a voluntary basis, which led to decentralization and disunity. The army was created spontaneously, without a specific structure - this led to a low level of discipline and problems in managing a large number of volunteers. The chaotic army was not characterized by a high level of combat effectiveness. Only in 1918, when Bolshevik power was under threat, did the “Reds” decide to recruit troops according to the mobilization principle. From June 1918, they began to mobilize the military of the tsarist army.

The second reason is closely related to the first - the chaotic, unprofessional army of the “Reds” was opposed by organized, professional military men who, at the time of the Civil War, participated in more than one battle. The “Whites”, with a high level of patriotism, were united not only by professionalism, but also by an idea - the White movement stood for a united and indivisible Russia, for order in the state.

The most characteristic feature of the Red Army is homogeneity. First of all, this concerns class origin. Unlike the “whites,” whose army included professional soldiers, workers, and peasants, the “reds” accepted only proletarians and peasants into their ranks. The bourgeoisie was subject to destruction, so an important task was to prevent hostile elements from joining the Red Army.

In parallel with military operations, the Bolsheviks implemented a political and economic program. The Bolsheviks pursued a policy of “red terror” against hostile social classes. In the economic sphere, “war communism” was introduced - a set of measures in the internal policy of the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.

The Reds' biggest wins:

• 1918 – 1919 – establishment of Bolshevik power in the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia.
• Beginning of 1919 - The Red Army launches a counteroffensive, defeating Krasnov’s “white” army.
• Spring-summer 1919 - Kolchak’s troops fell under the attacks of the “Reds”.
• Beginning of 1920 - the “Reds” ousted the “Whites” from the northern cities of Russia.
• February-March 1920 - defeat of the remaining forces of Denikin’s Volunteer Army.
• November 1920 - the “Reds” ousted the “Whites” from Crimea.
• By the end of 1920, the “Reds” were opposed by disparate groups of the White Army. The civil war ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks.

The Reds played a decisive role in the civil war and became the driving mechanism for the creation of the USSR.

With their powerful propaganda they managed to win the loyalty of thousands of people and unite them with the idea of ​​​​creating an ideal country of workers.

Creation of the Red Army

The Red Army was created by a special decree on January 15, 1918. These were voluntary formations from the worker and peasant part of the population.

However, the principle of voluntariness brought with it disunity and decentralization in army command, from which discipline and combat effectiveness suffered. This forced Lenin to announce universal conscription for men 18-40 years old.

The Bolsheviks created a network of schools to train recruits, who studied not only the art of war, but also received political education. Commander training courses were created, for which the most outstanding Red Army soldiers were recruited.

Major victories of the Red Army

The Reds in the civil war mobilized all possible economic and human resources to win. After the annulment of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Soviets began to expel German troops from the occupied areas. Then the most turbulent period of the civil war began.

The Reds managed to defend the Southern Front, despite the considerable efforts that were required to fight the Don Army. Then the Bolsheviks launched a counter-offensive and conquered significant territories. The situation on the Eastern Front was very unfavorable for the Reds. Here the offensive was launched by Kolchak’s very large and strong troops.

Alarmed by such events, Lenin resorted to emergency measures, and the White Guards were defeated. The simultaneous anti-Soviet protests and the entry into the struggle of Denikin’s Volunteer Army became a critical moment for the Bolshevik government. However, the immediate mobilization of all possible resources helped the Reds win.

War with Poland and the end of the civil war

In April 1920 Poland decided to enter Kyiv with the intention of liberating Ukraine from illegal Soviet rule and restoring its independence. However, the people perceived this as an attempt to occupy their territory. Soviet commanders took advantage of this mood of the Ukrainians. Troops of the Western and Southwestern Fronts were sent to fight Poland.

Soon Kyiv was liberated from the Polish offensive. This revived hopes for a quick world revolution in Europe. But, having entered the territory of the attackers, the Reds received powerful resistance and their intentions quickly cooled. In light of such events, the Bolsheviks signed a peace treaty with Poland.

Reds in the civil war photo

After this, the Reds concentrated all their attention on the remnants of the White Guards under the command of Wrangel. These fights were incredibly violent and brutal. However, the Reds still forced the Whites to surrender.

Famous Red leaders

• Frunze Mikhail Vasilievich. Under his command, the Reds carried out successful operations against the White Guard troops of Kolchak, defeated Wrangel’s army in the territory of Northern Tavria and Crimea;
• Tukhachevsky Mikhail Nikolaevich. He was the commander of the troops of the Eastern and Caucasian Front, with his army he cleared the Urals and Siberia of the White Guards;
• Voroshilov Kliment Efremovich. He was one of the first marshals of the Soviet Union. Participated in the organization of the Revolutionary Military Council of the 1st Cavalry Army. With his troops he liquidated the Kronstadt rebellion;
• Chapaev Vasily Ivanovich. He commanded the division that liberated Uralsk. When the whites suddenly attacked the reds, they fought bravely. And, having spent all the cartridges, the wounded Chapaev set off running across the Ural River, but was killed;
• Budyonny Semyon Mikhailovich. Creator of the Cavalry Army, which defeated the Whites in the Voronezh-Kastornensky operation. The ideological inspirer of the military-political movement of the Red Cossacks in Russia.

• When the workers' and peasants' army showed its vulnerability, former tsarist commanders who were their enemies began to be recruited into the ranks of the Reds.
• After the assassination attempt on Lenin, the Reds dealt especially cruelly with 500 hostages. On the line between the rear and the front there were barrage detachments that fought against desertion by shooting.

Who are the “Reds” and “Whites”

If we are talking about the Red Army, then the Red Army was created as a real army, not so much by the Bolsheviks, but by those same former gold chasers (former tsarist officers) who were mobilized or voluntarily went to serve the new government.

Some figures can be cited to outline the scale of the myth that has existed and still exists in the public consciousness. After all, the main heroes of the Civil War for the older and middle generations are Chapaev, Budyonny, Voroshilov and other “Reds”. You are unlikely to find anyone else in our textbooks. Well, also Frunze, perhaps, with Tukhachevsky.

In fact, there were not much fewer officers serving in the Red Army than in the White armies. About 100,000 former officers served in all the White armies combined, from Siberia to the North-West. And in the Red Army there are approximately 70,000-75,000. Moreover, almost all the highest command posts in the Red Army were occupied by former officers and generals of the tsarist army.

This also applies to the composition of the field headquarters of the Red Army, which consisted almost entirely of former officers and generals, and to commanders at various levels. For example, 85% of all front commanders were former officers of the tsarist army.

So, in Russia everyone knows about the “reds” and “whites”. From school, and even preschool years. “Reds” and “Whites” is the history of the civil war, these are the events of 1917-1920. Who was good then, who was bad - in this case it does not matter. Estimates change. But the terms remained: “white” versus “red”. On the one hand are the armed forces of the young Soviet state, on the other are the opponents of this state. The Soviets are “red”. The opponents, accordingly, are “white”.

According to official historiography, there were, in fact, many opponents. But the main ones are those who have shoulder straps on their uniforms and cockades of the Russian Tsarist Army on their caps. Recognizable opponents, not to be confused with anyone. Kornilovites, Denikinites, Wrangelites, Kolchakites, etc. They are white". These are the ones the “reds” must defeat first. They are also recognizable: they do not have shoulder straps, and they have red stars on their caps. This is the pictorial series of the civil war.

This is a tradition. It was affirmed by Soviet propaganda for more than seventy years. The propaganda was very effective, the visual range became familiar, thanks to which the very symbolism of the civil war remained beyond comprehension. In particular, questions about the reasons that led to the choice of red and white colors to designate opposing forces remained beyond the scope of comprehension.

As for the “Reds,” the reason seemed obvious. The “Reds” called themselves that. Soviet troops were originally called the Red Guard. Then - the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army. The Red Army soldiers swore an oath to the red banner. State flag. Why the red flag was chosen - different explanations were given. For example: it is a symbol of “the blood of freedom fighters.” But in any case, the name “red” corresponded to the color of the banner.

Nothing like this can be said about the so-called “whites”. The opponents of the “reds” did not swear allegiance to the white banner. During the Civil War there was no such banner at all. No one has. Nevertheless, the opponents of the “Reds” adopted the name “Whites”. At least one reason is also obvious: the leaders of the Soviet state called their opponents “white.” First of all - V. Lenin. If we use his terminology, the “reds” defended the “power of workers and peasants,” the power of the “workers’ and peasants’ government,” and the “whites” defended “the power of the tsar, landowners and capitalists.” It was precisely this scheme that was asserted with all the might of Soviet propaganda.

They were called this way in the Soviet press: “White Army”, “Whites” or “White Guards”. However, the reasons for choosing these terms were not explained. Soviet historians also avoided the question of the reasons. They reported something, but at the same time literally dodged a direct answer.

The subterfuges of Soviet historians look rather strange. It would seem that there is no reason to avoid the question of the history of terms. In fact, there was never any secret here. And there was a propaganda scheme, which Soviet ideologists considered inappropriate to explain in reference publications.

It was during the Soviet era that the terms “red” and “white” were predictably associated with the Russian civil war. And before 1917, the terms “white” and “red” were correlated with a different tradition. Another civil war.

Beginning - The Great French Revolution. Confrontation between monarchists and republicans. Then, indeed, the essence of the confrontation was expressed at the level of the color of the banners. The white banner was originally there. This is the royal banner. Well, the red banner is the banner of the Republicans.

Armed sans-culottes gathered under red flags. It was under the red flag in August 1792 that detachments of sans-culottes, organized by the then city government, stormed the Tuileries. That's when the red flag really became a banner. The banner of uncompromising Republicans. Radicals. The red banner and the white banner became symbols of the warring sides. Republicans and monarchists. Later, as you know, the red banner was no longer so popular. The French tricolor became the national flag of the Republic. During the Napoleonic era, the red banner was almost forgotten. And after the restoration of the monarchy, it - as a symbol - completely lost its relevance.

This symbol was updated in the 1840s. Updated for those who declared themselves heirs of the Jacobins. Then the contrast between “reds” and “whites” became a commonplace in journalism. But the French Revolution of 1848 ended with another restoration of the monarchy. Therefore, the opposition between “red” and “white” has again lost its relevance.

Once again, the “Red” - “White” opposition arose at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. It was finally established from March to May 1871, during the existence of the Paris Commune.

The city-republic of Paris Commune was perceived as the implementation of the most radical ideas. The Paris Commune declared itself the heir to the Jacobin traditions, the heir to the traditions of those sans-culottes who came out under the red banner to defend the “gains of the revolution.” The state flag was also a symbol of continuity. Red. Accordingly, the “reds” are communards. Defenders of the city-republic.

As you know, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, many socialists declared themselves heirs of the communards. And at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bolsheviks called themselves such. Communists. They considered the red flag theirs.

As for the confrontation with the “whites,” there seemed to be no contradictions here. By definition, socialists are opponents of autocracy, therefore, nothing has changed. The “Reds” were still opposed to the “Whites”. Republicans to monarchists.

After the abdication of Nicholas II, the situation changed. The king abdicated in favor of his brother, but the brother did not accept the crown. A Provisional Government was formed, so there was no longer a monarchy, and the opposition of “red” to “white” seemed to have lost its relevance. The new Russian government, as is known, was called “provisional” because it was supposed to prepare the convening of the Constituent Assembly. And the Constituent Assembly, popularly elected, was to determine further forms of Russian statehood. Determined democratically. The issue of abolishing the monarchy was considered already resolved.

But the Provisional Government lost power without having time to convene the Constituent Assembly, which was convened by the Council of People's Commissars. It’s hardly worth speculating now about why the Council of People’s Commissars considered it necessary to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. In this case, something else is more important: the majority of opponents of the Soviet regime set the task of reconvening the Constituent Assembly. This was their slogan.

In particular, this was the slogan of the so-called Volunteer Army formed on the Don, which was eventually led by Kornilov. Other military leaders, referred to as “whites” in Soviet periodicals, also fought for the Constituent Assembly. They fought against the Soviet state, and not for the monarchy.

And here we should pay tribute to the talents of Soviet ideologists and the skill of Soviet propagandists. By declaring themselves “Reds,” the Bolsheviks were able to secure the label “Whites” for their opponents. They managed to impose this label despite the facts.

Soviet ideologists declared all their opponents to be supporters of the destroyed regime - autocracy. They were declared “white”. This label was itself a political argument. Every monarchist is “white” by definition. Accordingly, if “white”, it means a monarchist.

The label was used even when its use seemed absurd. For example, “White Czechs”, “White Finns” arose, then “White Poles”, although the Czechs, Finns and Poles who fought with the “Reds” did not intend to recreate the monarchy. Neither in Russia nor abroad. However, most “reds” were accustomed to the label “whites,” which is why the term itself seemed understandable. If they are “white,” it means they are always “for the Tsar.” Opponents of the Soviet government could prove that they - for the most part - are not monarchists at all. But there was nowhere to prove it. Soviet ideologists had a major advantage in the information war: in the territory controlled by the Soviet government, political events were discussed only in the Soviet press. There was almost no other one. All opposition publications were closed. And Soviet publications were strictly controlled by censorship. The population had virtually no other sources of information. On the Don, where Soviet newspapers had not yet been read, the Kornilovites, and then the Denikinites, were called not “whites”, but “volunteers” or “cadets”.

But not all Russian intellectuals, despising Soviet power, rushed to identify with its opponents. With those who were called “whites” in the Soviet press. They were indeed perceived as monarchists, and intellectuals saw monarchists as a danger to democracy. Moreover, the danger is no less than the communists. Still, the “Reds” were perceived as Republicans. Well, the victory of the “whites” implied the restoration of the monarchy. Which was unacceptable for intellectuals. And not only for intellectuals - for the majority of the population of the former Russian Empire. Why did Soviet ideologists affirm the labels “red” and “white” in the public consciousness?

Thanks to these labels, not only Russians, but also many Western public figures interpreted the struggle of supporters and opponents of Soviet power as a struggle of republicans and monarchists. Supporters of the republic and supporters of the restoration of autocracy. And Russian autocracy was considered savagery in Europe, a relic of barbarism.

That is why the support of supporters of autocracy among Western intellectuals provoked a predictable protest. Western intellectuals discredited the actions of their governments. They turned public opinion against them, which governments could not ignore. With all the ensuing grave consequences - for Russian opponents of Soviet power. Therefore, the so-called “whites” lost the propaganda war. Not only in Russia, but also abroad. Yes, it turns out that the so-called “whites” were essentially “red”. But that didn't change anything. The propagandists who sought to help Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel and other opponents of the Soviet regime were not as energetic, talented, and efficient as Soviet propagandists.

Moreover, the tasks solved by Soviet propagandists were much simpler. Soviet propagandists could clearly and briefly explain why and with whom the “Reds” were fighting. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter. The main thing is to be brief and clear. The positive part of the program was obvious. Ahead is the kingdom of equality, justice, where there are no poor and humiliated, where there will always be plenty of everything. The opponents, accordingly, are the rich, fighting for their privileges. “Whites” and allies of “whites”. Because of them all the troubles and hardships. There will be no “whites”, there will be no troubles, no deprivations.

Opponents of the Soviet regime could not clearly and briefly explain why they were fighting. Slogans such as the convening of the Constituent Assembly and the preservation of “united and indivisible Russia” were not and could not be popular. Of course, opponents of the Soviet regime could more or less convincingly explain with whom and why they were fighting. However, the positive part of the program remained unclear. And there was no such general program.

Moreover, in territories not controlled by the Soviet government, opponents of the regime were unable to achieve an information monopoly. This is partly why the results of propaganda were incommensurate with the results of Bolshevik propagandists.

It is difficult to determine whether Soviet ideologists consciously immediately imposed the label “white” on their opponents, or whether they intuitively chose such a move. In any case, they made a good choice, and most importantly, they acted consistently and effectively. Convincing the population that opponents of the Soviet regime are fighting to restore autocracy. Because they are “white”.

Of course, among the so-called “whites” there were also monarchists. Real “whites”. Defended the principles of the autocratic monarchy long before its fall.

But in the Volunteer Army, as in other armies that fought the “Reds,” there were negligibly few monarchists. Why didn't they play any important role?

For the most part, ideological monarchists generally avoided participating in the civil war. This was not their war. They had no one to fight for.

Nicholas II was not forcibly deprived of the throne. The Russian emperor abdicated voluntarily. And he released everyone who swore allegiance to him from the oath. His brother did not accept the crown, so the monarchists did not swear allegiance to the new king. Because there was no new king. There was no one to serve, no one to protect. The monarchy no longer existed.

Undoubtedly, it was not appropriate for a monarchist to fight for the Council of People's Commissars. However, it did not follow from anywhere that a monarchist should - in the absence of a monarch - fight for the Constituent Assembly. Both the Council of People's Commissars and the Constituent Assembly were not legitimate authorities for the monarchist.

For a monarchist, legitimate power is only the power of the God-given monarch to whom the monarchist swore allegiance. Therefore, the war with the “reds” - for the monarchists - became a matter of personal choice, and not of religious duty. For the “white,” if he is truly “white,” those fighting for the Constituent Assembly are “red.” Most monarchists did not want to understand the shades of “red.” I saw no point in fighting together with some “Reds” against other “Reds”.

The tragedy of the Civil War, which according to one version ended in November 1920 in the Crimea, was that it brought together two camps in an irreconcilable battle, each of which was sincerely loyal to Russia, but understood this Russia in its own way. On both sides there were scoundrels who warmed their hands in this war, who organized the Red and White Terror, who unscrupulously tried to profit from other people's goods and who made a career out of horrific examples of bloodthirstiness. But at the same time, on both sides there were people filled with nobility, devotion to the Motherland, who put the well-being of the Fatherland above all else, including personal happiness. Let us recall, for example, “Walking Through Torment” by Alexei Tolstoy.

The “Russian schism” took place in families, dividing loved ones. I will give a Crimean example - the family of one of the first rectors of the Tauride University, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. He, a doctor of sciences, a professor, remains in Crimea, with the Reds, and his son, also a doctor of sciences, professor Georgy Vernadsky, goes into emigration with the whites. Or the Admiral Berens brothers. One is a white admiral, who takes the Russian Black Sea squadron to distant Tunisia, to Bizerte, and the second is a red one, and it is he who will go to this Tunisia in 1924 to return the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to their homeland. Or let us remember how M. Sholokhov describes the split in Cossack families in “Quiet Don”.

And many such examples can be given. The horror of the situation was that in this fierce battle of self-destruction for the amusement of the hostile world around us, we Russians destroyed not each other, but ourselves. At the end of this tragedy, we literally “bombarded” the whole world with Russian brains and talents.

In the history of every modern country (England, France, Germany, USA, Argentina, Australia) there are examples of scientific progress, outstanding creative achievements associated with the activities of Russian emigrants, including great scientists, military leaders, writers, artists, engineers, inventors, thinkers, farmers.

Our Sikorsky, a friend of Tupolev, practically created the entire American helicopter industry. Russian emigrants founded a number of leading universities in Slavic countries. Vladimir Nabokov created a new European and a new American novel. The Nobel Prize was presented to France by Ivan Bunin. Economist Leontiev, physicist Prigogine, biologist Metalnikov and many others became famous throughout the world.