Once again, let's return to the history of almost a century ago. On the topic of why the Reds won in the Civil War of the period 1917-1921, many works have been written, a huge number of dissertations have been defended. I decided to give the most common answers for you in the form of a list. Well, after this list, we will consider a couple of reasons that most researchers have not paid much attention to.

Civil war: why the Reds won

These are the reasons that appear in scientific papers and in popular science articles on history most often:

• the people were strongly oppressed under the tsarist regime;
• the dream of communism fully corresponded to the people's dream of paradise;
• the Reds were subsidized by Western Jews and Freemasons who dreamed of weakening Russia;
• red had strategic advantage, which consisted in a higher mobility of troops, and the actions of the whites were not coordinated;
• the Bolsheviks managed to mobilize through violent methods several times more people, and whites recruited only volunteers.

One can agree or argue with all these arguments, but the researchers, as a rule, did not take into account a number of factors, which were also very important for understanding why the Reds won the war. So, almost nothing is said in studies about the cruel tribal hatred of peasants and workers for the nobility, especially for the aristocracy, including the very royal dynasty... If the aristocrats were not liked even by the poor nobles, what can we say about the rest of the estates.

Two important reasons for the Red victory

In Russia at that time, there were, in fact, three classes. The first is the aristocracy, the wealthy nobility and the big bourgeoisie. The second is the petty nobility (with and without estates), kulaks (wealthy peasants), the middle class, the intelligentsia, small and medium merchants (as they would say now, small and medium businesses) and civil servants. And the third is the workers and peasants. And the problem of the aristocracy was that not only the middle class (in fact, as a whole) opposed it, but also many representatives of the second class, sympathetic to the third. This is one of the reasons. And only a few indicate the second reason, but meanwhile, it lies on the surface, since this reason is ideological. You can talk a lot about the "tribal" hatred of workers and peasants for the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, but to understand why the majority of people went over to the side of the Reds, this is not enough. But what's the matter? Look at the ideology of whites and reds. What did the red people offer:

• destroy the whites;
• to increase the importance and status of the working class and peasant class;
• to create a "paradise on earth", that is, communism with excellent conditions for life.

And now about what the whites have suggested:

• destroy the red;
• everything, since the rest of the details of the program were formulated so vaguely that not only the workers and peasants, but also some representatives of the second estate could not understand them.

That is, the whites simply did not know what they would do next, their main task there was a victory over the Reds, and then, as they say, "after us, even a flood." Of the two ideologies offered to you, which would the majority prefer? That's right, the first, because the whites, in fact, had no ideology at all. In addition, the king's abdication from the throne severely broke their fighting spirit. Bottom line: the victory of the Reds was a foregone conclusion for many reasons, and there was not a single factor in favor of the Whites. For these wise thoughts I would like to thank my history teacher - the late candidate of historical sciences Yu.V. Tikhomirov, a man who taught us to understand our native history and think critically.

L. Kamenev bypasses the front of the Red Army. Moscow, 1920.

I remember school lessons stories. All these "remember the dates, and now we will write down the reasons for the war, then move on to the conclusions, write down the points: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ...". It is boring and does not explain anything. And the inquisitive student had a lot of questions, it was just thought then that the teacher knew better and, probably, some stupid questions. Since then, for example, it was not clear to me why the white armies lost the Civil War, because, it would seem, there were a lot of them, the professionalism of cadre officers and the Cossacks was on their side, they surrounded the Soviet Republic, attacking from all sides. The Bolsheviks, it seems, were complete dilettantes from the workers and peasants. Moreover, the whites were also helped by foreign invaders. At the same time, the Germans captured a large territory from the Reds, while they had a complete collapse of the army. If we add to this the Bolshevik measures unpopular among the people, such as the surplus appropriation system and the mass murders organized by the Cheka, it becomes completely incomprehensible how they managed not only to survive and stay in power, but also to consolidate most of the former Russian Empire. In addition, questions arose about the Constituent Assembly. It seemed that almost all parties were running around with this idea, and then the Bolsheviks dispersed the meeting, angering all their opponents. Well, where is it, this meeting and the forces that supported it, disappeared into thin air? Why didn't they organize resistance and kicked out the Bolsheviks?

Parade of Red Army units in Omsk, 1921

V recent times(probably memorable dates played a role) I decided to thoroughly understand the history of the Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Much has been read. But if a huge amount of literature has been written about revolutions and about various political and military leaders, then about the history of the Civil War there is not enough balanced, serious narratives in which an attempt would be made to understand the essence of events, and not to defend the correctness of one of the parties involved.

Tank in the Drozdovskaya division of the Volunteer Army

And it was then that I came across a book by the leading Russian historian Ganin "Seven Why of the Russian Civil War." The author, in my opinion, managed to save neutral tone narration. He reasonably and extensively answered all the questions that remained with me after reading other books and articles. As the saying goes, "the puzzle has taken shape." The only disadvantages of the book are verbosity. Sometimes the author repeats his thought several times. Sometimes it overloads with redundant parts. But, in general, it is easy to read. The book has many advantages - these are photographs of those times on the inserts, and the most interesting memoirs of white officers found by the author, introduced into scientific circulation, and a deep immersion in each of the seven proposed topics. The most important thing is correct setting questions. After all, the seven questions discussed in the book are what is necessary and sufficient to understand the nature of the conflict. Next, I will try to give a thesis answer to the questions that I posed back in school. Something I could misinterpret, something came from reading other sources, but in general, the basic information was gleaned from the specified book.

So, here's what you need to understand in order to answer those very naive children's questions:

Bonch-Bruevich - the first general of the tsarist army, who went over to the side of the Bolsheviks

The cadre officers were not at all for the whites, a comparable number of former tsarist and republican officers joined the red and white. At the same time, a fairly large part of the regular military and completely hid from service for any of the parties to the conflict. Some of the officers emigrated or joined the newly formed national armies (for example, in Poland, Finland or Armenia). The Reds attracted officers with stable earnings (especially with regard to a huge number of conformists, many of whom remained even in their pre-revolutionary positions), the opportunity to serve the Motherland under a strong government (some of the officers wanted to restore the state under the red banners and fight external enemies; there were also such who hoped to preserve the army by working with the Reds so that when the Reds were overthrown, the army would continue to exist as a reliable structure). Some officers joined the revolutionaries for ideological reasons (especially junior ranks and officers of the "wartime" - called up and trained during the world war). Others sought to accelerate career growth (those who previously could not reach the next ranks could easily do this in combat conditions in the Red Army due to staff shortages and the scale of military operations). The inertia of most of the rear officers (they are ready to serve any government, as long as they pay and provide the conditions of service) led to the fact that during the offensive the number of those wishing to serve increased, therefore, at the last stage of the war, there were general transitions from white armies to red armies. Finally, the territory originally occupied by the Reds was full of officers - Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev and other large cities in the center of the country were literally packed with officers and military schools. The Reds were largely helped by their energy, administrative talent and high motivation - conscription events gave a huge number of officers to the army. Also, the Reds successfully combined the conscription of the old officers and the training of new, "proletarian" cadres, as well as the promotion of particularly distinguished non-commissioned officers to officer positions.

Caucasian Cavalry Unit of the III Don Corps on St. George's Day, parade, Novocherkassk 04/23/1919

The Cossacks, being one of the repressive forces in tsarist Russia, lost their function after the revolution. First, they were hated by the general population precisely because of their pre-revolutionary image. Secondly, after returning from the war to their native villages, ordinary Cossacks did not at all seek to fight, becoming once again pawns in the hands of politicians. Thirdly, even the Cossack officers (as well as officers in general) were divided in views. Most of the Cossacks were ready to fight, directly defending their Cossack territory, but they did not consider it acceptable to transfer hostilities to neighboring lands. Among the officers, the so-called. “Atamanschina” - senior officers loved personal power and did not seek to obey the orders of any “center”, especially since the legitimacy of this “center” also raised doubts among them. In general, the Cossacks were an absolutely unreliable force. In the South of Russia, trouble was caused by the fact that the Don Cossack army initially focused on Germany, while the AFYUR (the Armed Forces of the South of Russia, which consisted mostly of career officers) - on the Entente. In the East, the atamanschina reached a particular scale, there entire regions were in fact not subordinate to anyone, except for local semi-partisan formations and odious leaders.

The Armed Forces of the South of Russia (ARSUR) under the command of Denikin. Heavy armored train Ioann Kalita - Belgorod, August 1919

Clashes constantly occurred between different forces of the "white" camp against the background of complete misunderstanding. Even considering that the enemy was common, different forces could not unite. White consisted of dissimilar elements. The political spectrum included everyone from socialist revolutionaries to ardent monarchists, liberals to nationalists. It is significant that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in the east, Kolchak, opposed the democratic Socialist-Revolutionary government, overthrowing it. The Socialist-Revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries) at one time, when retreating, preferred that the richest property from military warehouses and factories went to the Bolsheviks, but not to Kolchak - this largely determined the failures of Kolchak's troops. Cossacks in the east of the country did not participate at all in regular hostilities at the front, reducing their activities to guerrilla warfare and looting. local population... The offensive of the Eastern Front of the Whites began inconsistently - the commander of each army led his army in the direction in which he considered advantageous, not agreeing with the general plan - as a result, holes appeared on the front for more than 100 km, and no reserves were allocated at all. In the south of the country, the Cossacks attacked separately from the rest of the army - as a result, the most advantageous directions of the strike remained unclaimed. In the south of Russia there was an excess of officers, and in the east there was an acute shortage of them, but there was no interaction on the personnel issue. Theft, nepotism and arbitrariness - these are the labels that could generally be given to the white armies. Often, unit commanders made a decision to advance in one direction or another, guided not by operational considerations, but by the location in which it would be more convenient to get more fame in the newspapers or property for plunder. With discipline and personnel issues in the white troops, everything was very bad. The Reds were able to solve these issues, and by the middle of 1919 they had no problems in either one or the other.

Siberian partisans

Politically and economically, whites were unable to offer anything to the population. Neither the question of land, nor the question of peace were resolved by them. Accordingly, the motivation for ordinary people there was no one to join their ranks. Hence the frequent desertion, sometimes in whole units. In the occupied territories, the whites were unable to provide either a reliable transport infrastructure, or the supply of the population with basic necessities, or effective governing bodies, or even convincing propaganda, yielding in everything to the Bolsheviks. The historical apoliticality of most of the officers also affected - they simply could not understand the situation and did not have administrative and political talents. Misunderstanding of the political conditions also led to the alienation of the national borderlands. The postponement of decisions on the recognition of autonomy or independence of such territories as Finland, the Baltic States or the Transcaucasus led to the fact that the inhabitants of these lands either pursued an independent policy or sympathized with the Bolsheviks as guarantors of their sovereignty (they very quickly found their way in the alignment of forces). For example, the Finnish or Estonian army did not cost anything to take Petrograd, knocking out the Bolsheviks from there, but instead the Finnish and Baltic units were in the service of the latter, moreover, they were a reliable core of the Red Army, seeing in it the guarantor of their independence. It's the same with the peasants. Without promising them anything, but only by imposing the burden of supplying the troops with food, to attract
the peasantry on their side, the whites could not, which means that it was not possible to carry out successful mobilization either among the peasantry or among national minorities. It is significant that some of the most reliable units in the east of Russia were units consisting of factory workers who organized an uprising against the Bolsheviks.

Soldiers from the workers of the Izhevsk plant in the army of Kolchak

So what happened to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who were the most popular party, and then also won the democratic elections to the Constituent Assembly, designed to decide the fate of the whole country? It turned out that the Socialist-Revolutionary leaders were excellent demagogues and dreamers, underground workers and educators, but bad organizers and diplomats. After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, the most active part of the dissatisfied deputies moved to the Volga region, where they organized new republic... The location was not bad - an abundance of resources and personnel, military factories and warehouses, a strategically advantageous location at the intersection of transport routes. But the Socialist-Revolutionaries did not manage to create an efficient army (they aroused contempt and hatred among most officers), or infecting the population with their ideas, or carrying out the promised reforms, or even agreeing with their neighbors on joint actions against the Bolsheviks. In fact, they quarreled with everyone and sabotaged even their own evacuation. It is not surprising that such clumsy administrators were able to defeat all their opponents - both Kolchak and the Bolsheviks. Later, the remnants of their party were rather a negative factor in the east of the country, adding another element of instability to the already turbulent atmosphere.

One of the parts of Kolchak's army in 1919

Why, then, the Bolsheviks could not or did not want to defeat the Germans, British, Japanese and other foreigners? There is no simple answer. The answer is complex. For example, the Germans in bargaining with Lenin were able to more or less satisfy their appetites, although they did not keep all their eggs in one basket, while simultaneously supplying the Finnish army, the Baltic states and the Don Cossack army with the recognition of the Bolsheviks. The British, French, Italians, Greeks simply fizzled out. In 1918 World War was still going on, and therefore there was no strength to transfer the troops that were so necessary at the front to Russia, moreover, the prospects for the return of its rapidly crumbling army to the ranks were very doubtful. Then, with the release of resources due to the defeat of Germany, the geopolitical alignment changed - the Bolsheviks began to win, having managed to put together a massive combat-ready army, and inside the capitalist countries the population was tired of fighting. If Britain or France declared war on the Bolsheviks, their own population would not have accepted this decision, and the revolution could well have spread to these countries as well - politicians could not take such a risk, all the more, as it turned out, on many issues with the Bolsheviks it is possible agree - they have shown that they are capable of fighting anarchy. At the same time, no one wanted to strengthen their neighbors at the expense of tsarist Russia. And if the formation of Poland, Finland and the Baltic states was more or less into the hands of all European countries (a buffer from the red threat from the east), as well as the weakening of the Soviets in Central Asia and Transcaucasia (especially this plays into the hands of England in its fear for India), then the fragmentation of Soviet territory into small states with unpredictable policies or "biting off" part of the territory by other countries and their strengthening due to this could be perceived by the establishment as excessively risky actions that violate fragile balance of power. Therefore, for example, US pressure and European countries did not allow Japan to deploy in full force on Far East... China at the time was weak enough and busy solving its own problems to intervene actively. As already mentioned, the Bolsheviks successfully "appeased" Finland and the Baltic states, for the time being they also did not conflict with the newly formed states of the Transcaucasus. Turkey and Germany were defeated. With Poland, the Soviet authorities tried to enter into a conflict over territory, but the war showed that both sides, on the one hand, perfectly prepared their armies, on the other, were exhausted by a huge number of unresolved internal problems. So, we parted ways without a final victory.

Australian volunteers in the Russian north

Cossack chieftain Ivan Pavlovich Kalmykov with American officers Karl Akerman and Bernstein in front of his Cossacks

At the same time, the intervention apparently played its negative role in the history of our country. I do not mean those killed in clashes with Japanese, British or Czech troops - yet this number was not the largest in this whirlwind of events. Nor do I mean the "robbery" of Russia - nevertheless, the exported property was not so great in comparison with the total losses of the economy during the conflict. The most important negative consequence was the protraction of the war and, as a consequence, the bitterness of the parties and the destruction of the economy. After all, had it not been for the support of the Don troops by the Germans, the ARSUR would hardly have been able to gain a foothold in the Cossack lands and effectively advance from the south. If it were not for the mutiny of the Czechoslovak corps, which took control of the entire Trans-Siberian Railway, most likely, Kolchak's detachments would have found it difficult to resist the Bolshevik onslaught and the partisan movement in the rear. Removing the threat of the capture of Petrograd by the interventionists and the whites they supported from the north would also have allowed the Bolsheviks to free up significant forces for the struggle in other sectors. The most important thing is that without material and technical supplies, the white armies would very quickly experience all the delights of shell and cartridge hunger and lack of equipment - after all, there were practically no large military enterprises in the white-occupied territory, as well as large military warehouses (the Reds got the military property of several fronts, as well as most of the military enterprises and schools). Finally, the Far East and Crimea would have quickly passed to the Bolsheviks, if not for the foreign contingents stationed there. These contingents played the role of a shield covering the formation of the white armies and the work of their administrative organs. I think, in the absence of intervention, the Civil War would have ended much faster.

Penza group of Czechoslovak legionnaires. Orlik armored train. Ufa, July 1918.

The Reds had many shortcomings: intimidation and alienation of the population by extortions and inept reforms, lack of legitimacy (as a result: peasant wars, uprisings of workers in military factories, desertion, widespread sabotage in enterprises and government bodies, the transition of a large part of the officers to the service of the enemy, low loyalty of soldiers and the population, shortcomings of the organization due to the low qualifications of "new personnel", etc.). However, when compared with their opponents, the following can be noted. The Reds managed to deploy a propaganda machine, attracting a large number of supporters to their side. There were enough talented administrators among the red politicians. They skillfully combined ideological influence on the population and reforms with a pragmatic approach - adopting the experience of enemies, attracting specialists to serve in various fields, turning a blind eye to the past and their political views. The "firm hand" policy was combined with the democratization of some technical areas and a technocratic approach to governance. The Reds managed to mobilize over a large territory, build an army from scratch based on strict discipline, attract and control a large number of specialists from the “former”, streamline logistics, improve labor discipline at key enterprises, suppress sabotage in government, carry out reforms in harmony with its ideology, attract a significant part of the population with these reforms and promises of future reforms, organize a massive partisan movement in the territories occupied by whites, prevent the destruction of the state both by military measures and by cunning diplomatic maneuvers. The same applies to the relatively successful breakthrough of the diplomatic and economic blockade. In summary, we can say that the Red leaders had an advantage over the Whites in discipline, negotiability, stability and flexibility of ideology, pragmatism, motivation, efficiency and administrative skills. They also came in handy with the vast accumulated experience of working in the underground - knowledge of society "from the inside", an understanding of the principles of society and the methods of struggle of their opponents.

First parade of the Red Army, May 1, 1918

For reasons not related to the qualities of leaders, one can note the successful initial location and quality of the territory controlled by the Reds: a large population density, many officers and specialists, an abundance of factories and military warehouses left over from the fronts of the First World War, the development of transport routes, the ability to act on internal operational lines, quickly transferring reserves from one threatened sector of the front to another. Populist ideology and population fatigue from war and political squabbles played an important role. Also an important factor was the social and political disunity of the opponents of the Bolsheviks.

Chinese battalion of the Red Army before being sent to the front. Ukraine

Of course, these are not all the reasons for the victory of the Reds. In general, the course of history demonstrated the most convincing advantage of Reds over White.

Latvian riflemen in the trenches near Izhevsk

History lesson grade 11

Lesson plan:

1. Introductory part of the lesson. (3 min.)

1.1 Updating knowledge

2. Motivation for a new topic.

2.1. Statement of a problematic task. The problem-cognitive task is to determine why the “red” won a victory over the “white”.

3. Studying a new topic. (35 min.)

3.1. Causes of the Civil War. Consideration of the issue based on previous topics, student knowledge.

3.2. Feature of the Civil War.

3.5. The reasons for the victory of the “red” and the defeat of the “white” in the armed confrontation.

4. Homework... (2 minutes.)

Work on concepts: Civil War - this is an armed clash of various political forces, social and ethnic groups, individuals defending their demands under the banners of various colors and shades.

Intervention - violent interference of one or several states in the internal affairs of another state.

Terror - a form of political intimidation, intimidation using extremely brutal methods up to the physical destruction of the enemy.

1. Introductory part of the lesson. (3 min.)

1 .1. Knowledge update.

2. Motivation for a new topic.

Today we are talking about a fratricidal war, unprecedented in world history in terms of the intensity and scale of class battles, the depth and fierceness of human passions. War in itself is terrible, terrible for a person, and even more so if it is a civil war. 90 years later, looking back, we ask ourselves the question: what do we know about it, about civil. Not much, it turns out. There are still many unknown pages in history.

2.1. Formulation of a problematic task.

The purpose of our lesson - to identify the causes of the civil war, its peculiarities, participants, to highlight the stages and solve the problem-cognitive task - to find out the reasons for the victory of the “red” and the defeat of the “white”.

3. Learning new material. (35 min.)

3.1. Causes of the Civil War.

The teacher asks the question: Guys, what do you think is a civil war?

students assume:

– civil war is a way of resolving conflicts between the parties with the help of the armed forces;

– opposition of classes and social groups;

– a period of acute class contradictions.

Now let's find out what are the causes of the civil war? students talk about those events that they know:

– October Revolution,

– Land decree,

– the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks,

– Peace of Brest.

Add to this the deep national crisis in Russia at the beginning of 1917 and the attempts of the landowners and the bourgeoisie to restore the pre-revolutionary order. Thus, we formulatecauses of the civil war:

The October Revolution of 1917, the seizure of power by the Bolshevik Party;

Nationalization of all land, confiscation of landowners' lands;

Attempts by the landowners and the bourgeoisie to restore the pre-revolutionary order;

Dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks;

A deep national crisis in Russia by the beginning of 1917.

3.2. Feature of the civil war

Teacher question: What was the peculiarity of the Civil War manifested in?

What is intervention?

And, in your opinion, what could have been the goals of the intervention? Remember, the first world war was going on.

3.3. The main opposing forces.

Now let's talk about the main opposing forces. students call: "red", "white".

Supporters of the "red"

-Workers

-Low-income peasantry

White supporters

-Lands, capitalists, merchants

-Office

-Prosperous peasantry

-Quality

-Representatives of different parties - from right-wing socialists to monarchists.

What are the main ideas of the opposing forces?

Key ideas:

“red " "Whites"

Protection of conquests revival of the “great,

October revolution of indivisible Russia "

restoration of combat-ready

armies to repel Bolshevism.

The teacher adds that there were still "green", what kind of power? (I propose to answer the students, paying attention to page 131 of the textbook).

3.4. Stages of the Civil War.

Historians are still arguing about the time of the beginning of the Civil War in Russia. Some formidable lightning flashes of the Civil War were seen in the February street battles of 1917, others speak of the middle of 1918.

And I ask you to pay attention to how the author of the textbook NV Zagladin defines the stages of the civil war (§ 12-13). Students work with the textbook and highlight stages of the civil war:

October 1917 - Spring 1918

late 1920-1922

Let's consider them and give a brief description.

Stage 1. October 1917 - Spring 1918 - the local nature of the war. the beginning of a civil confrontation.

In the first months after October 1917, separate centers of resistance to the Bolsheviks and the development of the White movement arose. The largest of them was formed in the Don and Kuban.

Why do you think?

The students answer: most of the Cossacks were well-to-do, and the Soviet government was engaged in depletion, an equalizing redistribution of land.

On the Don, at the head of the anti-Bolshevik movement was the military chieftain A.M. Kaledin. November 1917 - the beginning of the formation of the Volunteer Army, which marked the beginning of the white movement. The army was led by Kornilov, then A. I. Denikin. Ukraine, Transcaucasia - anti-Bolshevik forces were in power here. Krasnov poses a threat to Petrograd. Dutov's Cossacks operate in the South Urals. In Transbaikalia - Ataman Semyonov. As you can see, the situation was very difficult for the Bolsheviks.

Stage 2. May 1918 - March 1919 - the beginning of a full-scale Civil War: The Soviet Republic found itself in a ring of fronts.

May 27, 1918 - the mutiny of the Czechoslovak corps.Working with the textbook, answer the question: who did the corpus consist of?

Students answer: prisoners of war, Czechs, Slovaks.

Echelons of Czechoslovakians stretched from Samara to Vladivostok. The performance of the Czechs led to the fall of Soviet power in the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia and the Far East. By the fall, the Czechs inflicted a series of defeats on the Red Army and reached the Volga. Krasnov's troops besieged Tsaritsyn. Yudenich increased his influence in the North. Kolchak is at the head of the Ufa Directory. Denikin - entrenched in the Don. Landings of the Entente (200 thousand people). Behind these parsimonious words - fierce battles of two hostile forces, not for life, but for death, when relatives were on opposite sides of the barricades - son against father, brother against brother. This is the terrible tragedy of the Civil War.

Question: Why do you think there were many military specialists who went over to the side of the Bolsheviks.

(Military experts served in front-line units, prepared new replenishment, taught in academies and military schools.)

Answer to the question:

– The rapid growth of the army made it possible for young people to advance;

– adjoined those who believed that in the old army they did not realize their professional abilities.

Speaking of the Civil War, we cannot fail to mention terror.What is “terror”? Responding to peasant revolts, the intensification of the hostile underground, failures at the fronts, in September 1918 the Decree “On the Red Terror” was adopted. But terror was both red and white. I offer students the table "Terror".

Students answer: "Terror" is a form of political intimidation, intimidation using extremely brutal methods, up to and including physical destruction .

Red terror

White terror

Firing squad royal family

Attempt on Lenin's life

I invite students to finalize the table at home.

Students work with the textbook (pp. 122–124), drawing up a table.

The defeat of the main forces of the whites. Evacuation of the main forces of foreign troops.

The teacher invites students to independently consider the main events of the stage, working with the textbook p. 122-124 and compiling a table:

“Decisive victories of the Reds ”

date

Event

Front

May 1919

The Red Army under the command of S.S. Kamenev stopped the forces of Kolchak's army near Ufa and launched a counteroffensive.

Eastern front

July – August 1919

The Red Army under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky defeated the whites and captured the Urals (Zlatoust and Chelyabinsk operations)

Eastern front

October 1919

The cavalry of S.M. Budyonny broke through the white front near Voronezh and Kastornaya and went into the rear of Denikin's troops.

Southern front

March 1920

The troops of the Red Army under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky, using the combat capabilities of the First Cavalry Army, completed the rout of Denikin's troops.

Caucasian front

Teacher's story: Main events of the stage:

The war with Poland - but for the Bolsheviks, who strove for a world revolution, it was unsuccessful. Its result: a peace treaty, according to which the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus were transferred to Poland.

The struggle of the Red Army against the army of General Wrangel, who was entrenched in the Crimea.

In November 1920, the troops of the Southern Front under the command of MV Frunze seized the fortifications at Perekop and Chongar by storm, and crossed the Sivash Bay. The armed clash ended in victory for the Reds.

5 final stage the teacher asks the students to sort it out as homework.

Teacher: Guys, the most difficult question in the history of the civil war is the question of the place and role of the peasant movement. Describe the behavior of the peasants during the civil war: Why ultimately the peasantry supported the Reds?

Students answer: The most important factor that determined the outcome of the war was the position of the peasantry. By ending the war and transferring the land to the peasants, the Bolsheviks secured their support for themselves. But with the advent of kombeds, the attitude of the peasants to Soviet power began to deteriorate sharply. The peasants were waiting for the arrival of the white armies. But this aroused the fears of the peasants that in the event of the victory of the white movement, the rights of the landowners would be restored, which was what happened. And the hesitation of the peasants shifted towards the Bolsheviks.

3.5. The reasons for the victory of the “red” and the defeat of the “white” in the armed confrontation.

So, none of the forces involved in the Civil War had an undeniable chance of success. All the same, the Bolsheviks won.Let's find out why?

Reasons for the victory of the “red”:

The creation by the Bolsheviks of a powerful state apparatus, mobilization of the population, terror.

Propaganda work among the masses.

Populist slogans and policies supported by the poor.

Finding the industrial base of the country in the hands of the Bolsheviks.

Why was the white movement defeated?

Reasons for the defeat of “whites”:

Lack of unity in the ranks of the white movement.

Absence social connection white movement with the majority of the population.

Lack of a unified command between the white armies and the troops of the interventionists.

Let us now consider the results of the civil war.

Students determine the totals.

Results of the civil war:

The power of the Bolsheviks withstood military tests and was strengthened.

The Bolsheviks retained the sovereignty of Russia.

The damage to the national economy exceeded 50 billion rubles.

Production decreased by 7 times.

The loss of life was about 13 million people.

The public consciousness was deformed under the influence of unprecedented cruelty.

About 2 million people emigrated.

4. Homework. (2 min.) § 12-13. Table "Terror". Messages on the topic.

Why did the Reds beat the Whites

From time immemorial, a warrior could not have entered the battlefield in any clothes. Military uniforms were prepared lovingly and carefully, spending a lot of money on it and trying to flaunt their appearance even in a bloody battle. Armor itself different kind and kind covered the mighty bodies of our ancestors.

When in direct one-on-one combat it was decided who would win, it was even more important to show yourself, so that your valor was manifested even before the fight - in jewelry, weapons, clothes.

The enemy involuntarily felt his own vulnerability, felt uncertainty and fear. Symbols also had great importance in military affairs of any scale, this was especially evident in Russia during the Civil War ...

Red Army men in Bersaglia!

White troops since 1917 for six years fought a fierce armed struggle with the Red Army, but in the end they were defeated. Every student knows this. And although there were quite a few reasons for the victory of the Reds, it is obvious that it happened not so much because of the correct policy of the latter, but because of the successful application of ... PR technologies, albeit at a purely intuitive level! No wonder, apparently, the white general A.A. von Lampe believed that the Whites could defeat the Reds if they themselves, in their methods, in their activities ... became Reds too. "

The outbreak of the Civil War on both sides was marked by an unprecedented surge of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. As for the uniforms, at first they fought, for the most part, who in what. In 1919, the Reds found and plundered warehouses in which there was a uniform, developed back in 1916 by the artist Vasnetsov: a headdress of the type of a hero's helmet and multi-colored chest clasps for various types of troops.

So the Red Army, just like the White Guards, wore the uniform of the tsarist army, only the Reds received a new uniform, sewed a star on the helmet (this was later called Budennovka, the original name was bogatyrka) - and order!

By 1919, the process of stabilizing the political power of whites on the outskirts of Russia, and the reds in its center, began, this led to some certainty in appearance fighters, but what is even more significant - both have their own specific symbols.

It was important for whites to emphasize their loyalty to Orthodoxy and the national unity of Russia. The main motive of the Reds is the destruction of everything old and the construction of a communist paradise on its ruins "for the proletariat and, first of all, for themselves.

At the II All-Russian meeting of domestic organizers, which was held on June 12, 1920 in Moscow, Lenin noted: -There are now trains with excellent English equipment approaching us one by one, Russian Red Army men are often met, whole divisions dressed in magnificent English clothes ... and Italian bersaglia "(Bersaglier - equipment for Italian motorcyclists).

"Adam's head" against the star and ... the swastika!

Naturally, the whites tried to preserve all their previous symbols and uniforms with minimal additions to the new ones that appeared during the struggle against the Bolsheviks. It was precisely the unwillingness to reckon with the realities of the time that became a fatal mistake for the White Army! Because the Reds, on the contrary, were able to reflect in their symbolism the idea of ​​absolute faith in the future, and in this they clearly succeeded. After all, life before 1917 did not seem beautiful to the people, but the hope for the best lives in people always.

If on the sleeves of the White Guards they wore St. George's ribbons, personifying valor, bravery and courage - the attitude towards the fighters for the "white idea" was loyal. But as for the symbolism of the Adam's head ”(a skull with crossed bones) and the often accompanying black uniform, then the look at the White Guards was different: the whites bear death, they are the executioners of the working people. In addition, the "Adam's head" could decorate their uniforms in three or four places: on a helmet, on shoulder straps, on a sleeve patch, which all the more repelled people.

The fighters of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army had sleeve insignia with scarlet five-pointed star, under which were located the badges of the official position. On the stars were a crossed hammer and sickle (as opposed to a skull with bones), which declared the protection of the interests of workers and peasants.

It is curious that on the sleeve patches and flags of the soldiers of the Red Army of the South-Eastern Front was depicted ... a yellow swastika, framed by a wreath of ears and the letters of the RSFSR. "

A small star shone over the wreath. This emblem was invented by the military specialist V.I. Shorin, a former colonel in the tsarist army and a great connoisseur of Slavic military traditions (shot in 1938). In various parts of the Red Army, in particular, in a number of national eastern units, this sign remained until 1923, when, at the request of the People's Commissar for Military Affairs L. Trotsky, it was finally replaced with a five-pointed red star. So, surprisingly enough. Hitler was by no means the first to use the swastika as a symbol in the 20th century.

As for the badge and badge-cockade on the headdress, this is. as we know, there was also a star (order dated April 19, 1918). Only the hammer and sickle crossed on it were not the hammer and sickle, as in the beginning, but the hammer and plow! Apparently, the red sickle was then considered too archaic a symbol, but then they nevertheless returned to it, since the images of the plow and the hammer did not go well together. Many Red Army men wore red chevrons with an upward angle, which meant moving forward. "

The uniforms of the White Guards also had such chevrons, however, they were frightened by the same Adam's head, ”imposed on crossed swords and crowned with a laurel wreath. On the right sleeve of his uniform, a black and red chevron looked down at an angle. In Denikin's Volunteer Army, there was another variation of it - a white-blue-red chevron - the colors of the Russian flag. But by 1919, perhaps realizing that a downward-pointing triangle means “backward movement”, White turned the chevron down, reducing it in size and placing it just above the elbow.

Ditties about ... uniforms!

All this splendor, of course, was complemented by various forms their own propaganda and agitation, in which the Bolsheviks showed themselves to be unsurpassed masters. In Russia, propaganda trains and agitation steamers ply everywhere, leaflets, brochures and newspapers were printed in millions of copies, spreading communist ideas.

City streets were decorated with red flags and banners, posters and monuments to revolutionaries of all stripes (for example, as part of the anti-religious campaign in August 1918, a monument was erected in Sviyazhsk ... to Judas Iscariot!), Theatrical performances and rallies were organized. At the same time, the enemy's uniform often became the object of amateur ditties:

Who is painted as a poster?
That is a Kornilov soldier!

At the same time, the very appearance of a Red Army soldier in a Budennovka helmet, the appearance of an ancient Russian hero, a man of the people, was very difficult to ridicule. White did not try to do this, but
tried to present the Red Army soldiers as servants of the Antichrist: they say, “you just have to turn their star over, and the horns will climb ...” Meanwhile, a Spanish proverb of the 15th century says: “The king's ax cuts, priests are burned, but street songs kill faster!”

"Red is a dangerous man!"

It is known that a person dressed in bright red not only attracts everyone's attention, but also serves as a sign of danger for many. It is not for nothing that all modern glamorous women's magazines do not recommend that girls wear red lingerie for their first intimate date.

It is possible that subconsciously wishing to intimidate the enemy, many commanders of the Red Army ordered to dress their soldiers in red, which, it would seem. contradicted all the rules of disguise. For example, red shirts were worn in the 51st Infantry Division, and in 1919 in Sumy the commandant's patrol had not only red bands on caps, but also red caftans and breeches. Special units of the Crimean Cheka in the same 1919 were in red from head to toe. on which they, however, were wearing high white leggings.

According to diplomat G.N. Mikhailovsky, the Chekists looked not so much like Red Army men as like Red Indians "from a novel or from a film. Both reds and whites wore “red revolutionary trousers” - breeches and half breeches.

So it turns out that the White Guards' underestimation of the emblems of their movement did not have the best effect on their conduct of hostilities against the Reds. Russia suffered as a result.

Viacheslav SHPAKOVSKY

25. Reasons for the victory of the Red Army in the Civil War

Reasons for winning:

1) the population of Russia mainly consisted of peasants, the position of this particular class determined the winner in civil war... The Bolsheviks managed to win over to their side most of the country's population, since during the offensive of the white troops, the rural population was able to compare. And this was not in favor of the whites, who wanted to return pre-revolutionary Russia. The advantage of the Reds was also in the fact that they took only food, while the Whites took both grain and land from the peasants in their territory;

2) the Bolsheviks carried out mass propaganda work. The peasants were told about the temporary nature of the emergency measures and promised to repay their debts after the war. The peasants chose the least evil and preferred to serve the red;

3) shortly after the start of the war, the Reds create a strong and regular army, which is recruited with the help of general conscription. Because of this, there is an advantage in favor of the Reds;

4) attracting a huge number of military specialists who have made the army professional;

5) the Reds had no problems with ammunition, as they used concentrated in central Russia, reserves of tsarist times. A dense network railways helped the army to be very mobile and always ready;

6) the policy of war communism also contributed to the victory of the Bolsheviks. The red terror was the way to neutralize the opponents;

7) national policies the Bolsheviks attracted to their side the population of the national outskirts of the empire. White's slogan "one and indivisible Russia" deprived him of this support.

26. Carrying out a policy of "war communism" in Soviet Russia

The socio-economic policy of the Bolshevik government during the war years, which had as its goal the concentration of all labor and material resources in the hands of the state, led to the formation of a kind of system of war communism. It was characterized by the following main features:

1.nationalization of industrial enterprises included the transfer to martial law of defense plants and useful transport

2. over-centralization of industrial management, which did not allow any kind of economic independence at the local level.

3. further development of the principles of the kinship of the dictatorship and the complete formal prohibition of free trade. In January 1919, the surplus appropriation system was introduced, according to which the state actually took away all surplus grain from the peasants for free. In 1920, the distribution extended to potatoes and vegetables.

4.naturalization of economic relations in conditions of almost complete depreciation of money, the issuance of food and industrial rations to workers and employees, along with the lost value of money salary, free use of housing, transport

5. the introduction of universal labor service, the creation of "labor armies" (sending military units to the "economic front": for logging, restoration of factories, roads)

In some ways, War Communism, which developed mainly under the pressure of the emergency situation of the Civil War, resembled that classless society of the future, free from commodity-money relations, which the Bolsheviks considered their ideal, hence its name.

The 8th Congress of the RCP (b) approved a new party program, main goal she proclaimed the building of a socialist society in Russia on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

27. Carrying out a new economic policy in Soviet Russia and the USSR

The Lenin crisis was all-round in nature: economic devastation, inactive transport.

All this was complemented by a social catastrophe: falling living standards, hunger. A terrible warning was the uprising of the peasants of the Tambov province, the Antonovshchina and the uprising of sailors, soldiers, workers in Kronstadt under the slogans of political freedoms, the transformation of the soviets, the removal of the Bolsheviks from power. The crisis was not only a consequence of the war, it testified to the collapse of "war communism" as an attempt at a rapid, violent transition from communism. In the spring of 1921, at the 10th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), a new economic policy for the NEP was announced. New because it recognized the need for maneuver, allowing some freedom economic activity, trade, commodity-money relations, concessions to the peasantry and private capital. Fundamentally, the goals did not change - the transition to communism remained the program of the task of the parties and the state, but the methods of this transition were reconsidered from happiness.

The NEP included a number of measures:

1.replacement of surplus appropriation by tax in kind

2.admission of free trade in agricultural products

3. the unification of large enterprises into trusts, operating on the basis of cost accounting and subordinate to higher officials to the Council of the National Economy.

4.Allowing the freedom of private capital of industry in agriculture, trade, in the service sector

5.admission of foreign capital, re-establishment of banks and the tax system

6.conducting monetary reform based on emission limits

The achievement of the NEP is significant. By 1925, the pre-war level of industry was basically reached and Agriculture, inflation has been stopped, the financial system has been stabilized. At the same time, the successes of the NEP should not be exaggerated. It was characterized by serious contradictions, which led to a whole series of crises: the sale of industrial goods (autumn 1923), a shortage of industrial goods (autumn 1924-1925), grain procurements (winter 1927-1928), gave rise to a sharp struggle in the leadership of the party and the state ...

Peculiarities historical development Russia and the problems of its modernization in the middle of the 19th century 1.1 Russia on the way to an industrial society The history of our country is part of the world and cannot be considered outside its context. Russia is a unique civilizational phenomenon, the center of the formation and development of one of the youngest local civilizations, which has its own specifics. Problem...

The phenomena that they observed (and are observing) in our country, where democracy, in their opinion, resulted in anarchy, rampant crime, lack of law and order - "disorder, banditry, no laws - democracy in Russia", the collapse of the country and the impoverishment of the people ... Some spoke extremely harshly about the Russian democrats - "the democrats are our kulaks, boors who have no conscience." Each...

Demanding obedience from the feudal lower classes. From the second half of XVIII v. the crisis of the feudal-serf system of Russia began. Characteristic feature Russian statehood, in addition to the tough political regime of power, is an unusually strong development of its economic and economic functions. The state machine was forced to speed up the process of social division of labor, and ...

Even now, reliance on the state, state responsibility and assistance (although in life they are sharply weakened) are one of the leitmotifs of the propaganda of their heirs. The rootedness of these centuries-old features of the socio-economic genotype (SEG) 1 is a guarantee of the strength of the current structure of Russian power and the "naturalness" of its ideology. Of course, the ratio changes over time, " specific gravity", the very appearance ...