Why reds won civil war

Men flocked to join the Red Army, not necessarily because they believed in what the Reds stood for but because Lenin had ordered that supplies of food went first to soldiers, those living in towns and cities received what was left. Lenin was aware that this would encourage conscription. Many peasants were forced to conscribe, Lenin was aware that they made up the majority of the population.

Urban workers and peasants wanted to protect their gains of , and the Reds offered them a better chance of doing this that the unorganised Whites, who were associated with the unpopular old system of government.

Although neither party had large widespread support, the Reds had the advantage. Due to the location of the Reds, in the central area of Petrograd and Moscow, they were situated near the hub of the railway network, therefore allowing the quick transport of men and munitions to battle when needed. The area also included the main armament factory in Russia; they could therefore produce war materials at a rapid rate. The large population of the area also allowed the Bolsheviks to conscript large numbers to fight.

Therefore Red armies often vastly outnumbered their White opponents. Certain factors that should have benefited the Whites did not, such as the role of other countries that were keen to stop the spread of communism.

Their efforts were half-hearted, and even allowed the Bolsheviks to promote propaganda of protecting Russia from foreign forces. This use of propaganda proved to be important for both sides, the Whites never made full use of the technique, unaware of its value in gaining support.

Whereas the Reds used powerful and imaginative slogans and images degrading the White forces and promoting the communist regime. To conclude, there were many factors that contributed the victory of the Reds in the Civil War. Although the location of their army, the weaknesses of the opposition, the support from the peasants all proved to be important, I feel that the Reds victory relied on the leadership of Trotsky that formed the army into a viscous, organised military force.

This advantage proved to be overwhelming, combining with the many disadvantages that were deep-rooted in the White army. In the end the strong leadership that Trotsky provided the army with contributed to their huge success, defeating their significantly inferior opponents.

Get Full Access Now. See related essays. Through speeches, newspapers and leaflets, the people were continually told that they were now in charge of Russia, through the Soviets - life would be better, the wealth would be distributed more evenly throughout Russia. In addition to this they were also told that the White armies and their leaders. International aid for the Rouge increased substantially, and the great prestige of the popular Sihanouk aided enormously in the recruitment of Khmer Rouge forces within Cambodia, and also gave them international recognition.

The Reds showed themselves as fighting for the workers and peasants - many of their pictures showed visual hints at this such as factories being in the background. As soon as the first units of the Czechs surrendered their weapons, the Red Guards shot them. This was to prove a costly error, as it was obvious that the other men could not trust what Trotsky had promised. The Czech Legion was made up of experienced soldiers with plenty of fighting experience. Their leaders were experienced military commanders; they controlled huge areas of Russia; they had the Bolsheviks surrounded; and they had the active support of foreign countries, which intervened in the Civil War on their behalf.

However, as the Civil War developed, the White Armies began to face major problems and difficulties in organising their campaigns. The Whites did not have much propaganda apart from anti Bolshevik handouts and posters.

The Reds on the other hand had re-education, and manifesto's of what they will promise if they win. By sending leading figures into battle Lenin was able to keep morale up for the men on the front. The level of corruption in the white armies was extraordinary. Denikin a white leader stated, 'I cannot do anything with my army.

I am glad when it carries out my combat orders'. He unlike Trotsky saw the potential danger of becoming dependant on other countries. Should war break out it would be very dangerous for Russia if she was not able to hold her own, be independent and fight back. Stalin wanted to build up Russia's economy so she didn't need to rely on others.

Want to read the rest? Sign up to view the whole essay and download the PDF for anytime access on your computer, tablet or smartphone. Get Full Access Now or Learn more. Ultimately, Soviet victory owed much to the raising of a mass army commanded by former officers, equipped from Imperial stocks, and manned by peasant conscripts.

The acceptance of military reorganization in , under the pressure of the Volga campaign, prepared the Reds for the greater onslaught. Even then, they only won because their forces were so much larger than those of their enemies.

Of course, it was terribly important that the Reds were fighting for a cause and had a big propaganda apparatus, but the Whites themselves showed that a remarkable military effort could be created in Russia without an attractivce ideology — beyond the supposed restoration of order. It must never be forgotten that for the Bolshevik leaders the international dimension was extremely important.

The parallel is clever, but the analysis is wrong in both cases. The stress on world revolution in — had little to do with the Civil War; the causes were Bolshevik utopianism and central European turmoil. World revolution became subordinate to other strands of Soviet policy in the s. This was not because the war emergency had ended, but because events had proved it to be just a dream.

The basic assumptions had been wrong: Europe was not on the brink of revolution in Only in backward Russia could radicals take control. Neither the Komintern nor the Red Army gave Moscow a means of forcing the pace. The revolution could spread only by example, and the Soviet example was — on balance — negative. The Bolsheviks dreamed of turning World War into civil war; in the end only Russia suffered this fate.

Foreign policy was a crucial factor in the Red victory, but not in the way the Bolsheviks originally intended. The greatest single stroke, the event that more than anything else kept the Bolsheviks in power, was the separate peace that unfolded between 25 October and 3 March This was in many ways, as the Bolshevik Left realized, a rejection of full-blooded internationalist principles.

It also had the negative effect of leading to anti-Bolshevik intervention by the Allies and deepening the economic crisis. But it did allow consolidation of the Bolshevik heartland in , and that made victory possible in and After internationalism had the secondary benefit of maintaining Russian morale by putting forward the myth of the imminent European revolution.

As Trotsky pointed out, he took little consistent part in military decision-making at an operational level; he never visited the front and very seldom consulted the high command. As far as he was concerned, he told us openly, it was too late to study military affairs. He was profoundly wrong about issues that were most basic to his beliefs. He was wrong about the ability of the masses to run the state and the economy, his basic economic policies were untenable some of them were tested almost to the point of destruction in the winter of — , and he was wrong about the likelihood of European revolution.

On the other hand his leadership during the October Revolution and the Brest negotiations was of central importance, and he also established a personal control over the party and the state which prevented after March internal instability.

He was sometimes prepared, too, to back off when he met obstacles — as in the use of the regular army and in some aspects of peasant policy. The first is the Soviet view dominant ever since his disgrace in the late s that he played no beneficial role in the Civil War. The truth lies in between the two, but given the state of Western historiography it is perhaps the second myth that deserves the most attention.

Trotsky was, of course, the second best-known Soviet leader. But his career in — was marked by spectacular failures. He made major mistakes in foreign policy in early and in economic policy in Even his career in the Red Army had the bitterness of the summer of Others fought for them because they hated foreign British, American and French armies invading Russia. This motivated the Bolshevik soldiers — they were fervent and enthusiastic.

Most of their enemies were fighting only because they were paid to. Lenin helped the Bolsheviks by introducing War Communism. The Bolsheviks nationalised the factories, and introduced military discipline. Strikes were made illegal. They introduced rationing and forced the peasants to give food to the government. This put the whole nation on a war footing, and gave the Bolshevik armies the supplies they needed. Whereas the whites were disunited, the Bolsheviks maintained absolute unity through Terror.

The Tsar and his family were put to death, which removed a focal point for the whites. The Cheka murdered any Whites they found — more than people were executed, and Red Army generals were kept loyal by taking their families hostage — so the Bolsheviks were united and disciplined towards a single end — winning the war.

Finally, the Bolsheviks had what they needed to win the war. The British, French and American armies were fighting thousands of miles from home, at the end of a long supply line.