Why the Reds WON the Russian Civil War against the Whites

The Russian Civil War occured after the Russian Revolution (February Revolution and the October Revolution). In this conflict the Reds fought against the Whites. Also many nationalist factions as well as armed peasants were involved. The Reds were led by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, the latter founded the Red Army. The White leaders acted largely independently from each other: Admiral Alexander Kolchak in the east; General Nikolay Yudenich and Colonel Pavel Bermondt-Avalov in the north-west; General Anton Denikin in the North Caucasus and the Don region; General Pyotr Wrangel in the Crimea; warlords or ‘Atamans’ like Grigory Semenov or Roman von Ungern-Sternberg in Siberia and southern Russia.
This video answer the question: Why the Reds WON the Russian Civil War against the Whites.
SUPPORT ME ON PATREON ► / historyhustler
SUPPORT ME ON PAYPAL ► www.paypal.com...
SUBSCRIBE ► / @historyhustle
INSTAGRAM ► / historyhustle
FACEBOOK ► / historyhustler
TWITTER ► / hustlehistory
SOURCES
- Russia in Flames. War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914 - 1921 (Laura Engelstein).
- A People's Tragedy. A History of the Russian Revolution (Orlando Figes).
- The Vanquished. Why the First World War Failed to End, 1917-1923 (Robert Gerwarth).
- • Why did the Bolshevik'... (19-01-2023).
IMAGES
Images from commons.wikimedia.org.
MUSIC
"Prelude and Action" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
"Crusade" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
"Crossing the Chasm" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
"Evil March" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
"Devastation and Revenge" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
"Lost Frontier" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
SOUNDS
Freesound.org.
E-MAIL
historyhustle[at]gmail.com

[@HistoryHustle]

Check out the PLAYLIST of Revolutionary Russia: kzbin.info/aero/PL_bcNuRxKtpHU_1zyN5Mf1lluyJ1okewt

[@adamradziwill]

do you think that "Russian Civil " term is badly misleading and terrible outdated ?

[@marcoskehl]

✅ 👍

[@HistoryHustle]

@@adamradziwill feel free to explain.

[@armyman-ig7qs]

@@HistoryHustlecould you do a segment on the green armies in the future

[@HistoryHustle]

@@armyman-ig7qs yes, one day I will.

[@stephenwood6663]

von Ungern Steinberg is one of those people who you'd think was a fictional character if there wasn't good historical evidence claiming otherwise. He was kicked out of the Cossack cavalry for being too violent, spent most of WW1 doing brave-but-rash cavalry charges against the Germans, and, during the Civil War, tried to recreate the empire of Ghengis Khan. The Dalai Lama called him the incarnation of the god of war.

[@heijimikata7181]

Zhang Zongchang is basically the ultimate Chinese meme.

[@hiredmurderer6228]

That mf was too hardcore to die

[@itsblitz4437]

Damn but I have heard he was pretty brutal and killed hundreds of his own people and was pretty hated though.

[@felixnimo]

* von Ungern-Sternberg

[@something1600]

That's why the mad Barron is one of Kaiserreich's best leaders.

[@j.leonardo260]

Makhno's role is often understated. The Whites were supposed to get reinforcements from the French in Odessa. The Black Army cut them off from reaching the port at the battle of Peregonovka. After that battle, the seige of Moscow was lifted, and the White army's hope for victory was over.

[@HistoryHustle]

More on that here kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4jadqF3ncp9qbM

[@kerryannegarnick1846]

Yes but let’s not pretend that the Reds would have lost if not for Makhno. It’s a lot more complicated. They probably still would have won.

[@j.leonardo260]

@kerryannegarnick1846 Moscow would have Been captured. This is the conclusion modern historians are coming to with all the varying sources on the internet and not being suppressed by the USSR. Bolsheviks downplayed the anarchists role to "banditry." The Reds stabbed them in the back. Makhno's treaty with Trotsky said if they helped them defeat the Whites, Ukrainian Free Territories would be autonomous. And Had the Reds not been so concerned with attacking other revolutionaries, they'd have been able to reclaim Poland.

[@kerryannegarnick1846]

@@j.leonardo260 but even if they were going to lose Moscow, the Bolsheviks would have just moved the capital back to Petrograd. Remember the most important city is Petrograd at this time, not Moscow. Although losing Moscow would have been huge, it wouldn't have been fatal.

[@kerryannegarnick1846]

@@j.leonardo260 I don't think they stabbed them in the back. They never really were going to accept anarchists because they simply had contradicting views of a revolution. So they stabbed them in the front. And frankly I'm on the side of the Bolsheviks because the Soviet Union lasted almost a century, brought the territory of the Russian Empire from a feudal backwater to a space-faring, industrial super power capable of beating the Nazis almost single-handedly, and drastically improved standards of living for the Soviet people. We are seeing now the massive consequences of the end of the Soviet Union in all of those states. Anarchists have always failed to accomplish anything of note for any length of time because their ideology doesn't acknowledge the contradictions within society and thus doesn't accept the need to suppress the enemies of the revolution.

[@TravisTaylor-dn6ui]

The Reds had a coherent ideology that offered more than a return to a failed autocracy. They also could offer minorities their own republics in which they could have their own limited cultural, political and linguistic independence, something the tsarist state never had. This is why the Latvian Rifles were a thing.

[@charlieclark5838]

A very good 18.49 minutes worth Stefan ! You put these facts better than some books I've read. The Reds, we promise land, bread and peace. The Whites we promise a return to how things were in 1914, that and a fragmented leadership and aims meant it was hardly surprising the Reds won. There are some strong parallels there with the modern Afghanistan tragedy too. I look forward to your next offering.

[@HistoryHustle]

Many thanks for your reply!

[@dachavanderlinovo413]

Whites themselves were hardly divided ideologically, even at the level of regiments, while Whties on the South were mostly Republicans and Democrats, North-West and most of the East Whites were Monarchists, some Divisions of the Eastern Army were also Republicans and even 2 of them were Socialists (Izhevsk and Votkinsk divisions) + Whites never had any development in Political and Socio-Economical spheres in their regions. Simply it could be explained - "Way of Russia will be decided after the Defeat of Bolshevism", because plan was that The Constituent Assembly after the war had to decide whether to remain a Monarchy or switch to something new

[@pagodebregaeforro2803]

Imo the theoretical idea and intention of the red was kinda good to break with the establishment of the super rich, but with so much money and power on the side of the whites (world burgeoise) they had to be tuff with a lethal grip on what they had conquered, any weakness would ruin everything (the same applies to current Cuba), but this resulted in a criminal and murderous regime in the URSS. I wish for more equilibrium on the world.

[@alfaeco15]

Neither peace, nor bread, nor land.

[@alfaeco15]

Imagine if Zatistv Russia had held the Eastern front until the allied victory.

[@ab9840]

One reason the reds won is because they made "PM M1910" machine guns mobile by putting them on carriages. In Russian its called "Tachanka". They could be used easily by anyone. The reds would drive these carriages to battle sites and machine gunned there enemies when they made charges. Todays version are the Toyota pickups which are mounted with heavy machine guns/anti-air guns used in certain nations in war and which is said to be highly effective. The following clip from a Russian movie shows how they did it - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ7QgoNuepaXjrM

[@tobyalder42]

Actually it were the rebels of southern Ukraine who invented them (Nestor Makhno)

[@cannabislife1688]

It’s been rather hard for me to find good videos on the Russian civil war, this is by far the most informative. Thank you

[@HistoryHustle]

Great to read. Thanks!

[@mikefay5698]

@@HistoryHustle Relief maybe!

[@mikefay5698]

You'll be glad to know that there is a News Blackout of Seymour Hersh's opinion that the USA and Norway did it. Blew up the German Gas line! Who can now say Biden is senile?!

[@CARL_093]

Thanks bro this topic is highlighted so people can undetstand things with facts

[@icecoffee1361]

A war within a war within a war started by a war 👊🏻 another Excellent episode Stefan 💙

[@HistoryHustle]

Thanks for replying!

[@mikefay5698]

Civil War in the Ukraine still going on. Stefan won't report on that because of the Biden ban on news. Try Mr Ritter, Jimmy Dore or the excellent Duran Greeks and McGregor!

[@daviddunkelheit9952]

Wow this was a great presentation. Good flow and continuity. I have a theory about the Bolsheviks and Germany. Germany’s great influence operation or regime change was the release of Bolsheviks on Russia after their development in Germany. Germany couldn’t sustain or win a two front war. The Revolution took place and the Russian Army collapsed. They shifted their resources to the West and nearly defeated the English and French.

[@daviddunkelheit9952]

@@yellowwasprakija2869 yes and so did Karl Marx. I believe that the reason why Nazi Germany was so fervently opposed to the Soviet Union was because they felt they were responsible for its creation.

[@rjames3981]

I believe Lenin was based in Switzerland during the first years of WW1. The German High Command transported the Bolsheviks from Switzerland to Russia (via Germany, Baltic Sea to neutral Sweden and to Russian controlled Finland). They hoped Lenin would remove Russia from WW1, which he did. However after the big German spring 1918 offensive in the West failed, revolutionary activity started to spread from Russia to Germany. This, combined with the arrival of the USA in the war forced Germany to sue for peace.

[@daviddunkelheit9952]

@@rjames3981 well the Germans didn’t sue for peace but realized that they couldn’t win in 1918 and it would be at least another year of war. They liked Wilson’s 14 points and wanted to negotiate. However the Americans did not take part in treaty negotiations and Wilson died campaigning for the League of Nations which wasn’t ratified by US Congress so the US wasn’t really part of it either. The Germans felt they were betrayed and saddled with war guilt and reparations when they were pragmatists. Bolshevism was starting to spread in Europe (and they felt that was their responsibility to contain)

[@rjames3981]

@David - ‘The actual terms, which were largely written by Foch, included the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front, the withdrawal of German forces from west of the Rhine, Allied occupation of the Rhineland and bridgeheads further east, the preservation of infrastructure, the surrender of aircraft, warships, and military materiel, the release of Allied prisoners of war and interned civilians, eventual reparations, no release of German prisoners and no relaxation of the naval blockade of Germany. The armistice was extended three times while negotiations continued on a peace treaty. The Treaty of Versailles, which was officially signed on 28 June 1919, took effect on 10 January 1920’

[@daviddunkelheit9952]

@@rjames3981 small wonder why Germany embraced extreme nationalism and war with France and UK in the 1930s.

[@billmccormick874]

Great presentation

[@HistoryHustle]

👍👍👍

[@badgerden7080]

The Reds won because they had superior hitting and pitching.

[@DrCruel]

Better leadership, better organization, central position, much better liars, utterly ruthless, never for one moment believed their own bullshit, sought victory over everything else. Were not afraid to force reluctant peasants into suicidal battles or exterminate their own people by the millions if it would give them an advantage. They also had "Budenyy's Luck."

[@zidorovichburblyatya2862]

@@DrCruel Whites that wanted to continue the WW1: Am I joke to you???

[@zidorovichburblyatya2862]

@@DrCruel You also forgot that Soviet communists believe their ideology so much they wonder why whilst giving their gold reserves to the Americans (in international trade with them) to avoid full pledge capitalism and made the decline of the Soviet Union inevitable and wonder why in the end why all that happened lol (even the higher ups too).

[@mikefay5698]

@@zidorovichburblyatya2862 Apparently!

[@DrCruel]

@@zidorovichburblyatya2862 You mean the Bolsheviks looted the country and lived the high life while their own people struggle in squalor? Isn't that what socialism is all about?

[@helloicanseeu2]

ty for this good look at another obscure but important history of an important country.

[@HistoryHustle]

Thanks for your reply.

[@jiritichy7967]

It is amazing how many great historic events are decided by small armies due to poor coordination, poor support or poor political decisions. I'll mention just one from a relatively rcent history: loss of American possessions by France following a battle of Quebec, barely won by a 5 000 (?) English army.

[@SplendidFactor]

From a Colonial perspective, 5000-man army is alot... The New World wasn't fielding armies the size of those in the Old World.

[@pj_ytmt-123]

@17:26 Ding! Despite being a strong supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church, I still cannot understand why Nicholas II was made a saint. His tsarina and the royal brood were pious and compassionate (by all accounts) but Russia suffered enormously under his misguided and oppressive rule.

[@mikefay5698]

For Womens Magazine's!

[@LectionesInterbellum]

Big-elephant-in-the-room question: Why were so many high positioned bolshevik functionaries and party members of Jewish descent? I have nothing against Jews, I have met a few jewish people and they were helpful and kind. Today, quite the contrary, we can actually see many Jews supporting right-wing nationalist parties in Israel. I do believe it’s sinful and a pity that many of the original tribes rejected Christ’s beautiful message. However, apart from any value judgements: why did many theorists and politicians connect judaism to bolshevism? How much of this is true (for the Jews at the time, not today!)? Did they maybe lack any national affiliation and not feel connected with the Russian state? Maybe it’s worth the time and effort to make a video about this difficult but definitely important subject. Thank you for all your work on your channel. Greets!

[@HistoryHustle]

I get this comment a lot. I quote Orlando Figes (A People's Tragedy): "It must never be forgotten that while many revolutionaries were Jews, relatively few Jews were revolutionaries. It was a myth of the anti-Semites that all the Jews were Bolsheviks."

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Mainly because Jews were historically ostracized from participating in society and were barred from entering conservative and christian political parties so most Jews just joined the socialist and communists that openly accepted them and since Jews are some of the most studious people their knowledge gained them great merit in their respective parties. In the case of Tsarist Russia the monarchy regularly sponsored anti Jewish pogroms centuries leading up to and during the Civil War so it made sense for Jews to side with the Reds that weren't trying to exterminate them like the whites were trying to do.

[@sto1238]

Because the reds were one of the few people that weren’t openly genocidal towards them

[@mikefay5698]

Sweet Jesus was a Jew. Jews say he was a Rabbi called Yehudi Ben Abraham. If he existed at all!

[@LectionesInterbellum]

@@HistoryHustle Okey, clear enough, thank you for your reply. I read somewhere that after the fall of the iron curtain, many jews migrated from the (post-)USSR to Israel, and this caused Israeli rightwing, nationalistic parties to surge in the ballots. Can you confirm this? If this is the case it’s obviously quite telling.

[@horrifyinggelatinousblob]

Pyotr Wrangel's memoir "always with honour" is an amazing account of the barbarity and lunacy of the Reds. One of the greatest tragedies inflicted on Mankind was the germans putting Lenin on that train. Without that, there would be no Holodomor, nor Mao and his "great leap forward"

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Nah the greatest barbarity against mankind was Hitler since he killed way more people in 12 years than the USSRs entire existence. Including western monarchism that killed 165 million indians in 40 years in just India alone nevermind the rest of British rule of India much less the rest of their colonies and the colonies of the French Belgian Spanish Portuguese Dutch and Italians. Plus the west gave mankind 2 world wars.

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 most killings under hitler happened in 4 years from 1941-1945, and he managed to kill more than all soviet leaders combined in the decades that the ussr existed

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@NBrioDaZueraRules indeed

[@mikefay5698]

Trotsky wasn't on the train! He carried out the October Revolution Lenin was in Finland!

[@nikhtose]

Your take, like many, never explains how the Bolsheviks, isolated and hobbled by war-wrought economic collapse and facing opponents on multiple fronts, armed and supplied by the Big Powers, were able to build the Red Army from scratch and systematically win everywhere. The reason is political. The Bolsheviks' land-to-the-tiller agrarian reform won mass poor-peasant support, while the Whites' deeply reactionary nature revealed itself wherever they went, despite a frisson of left allies (Kerensky, right-SR's). War-communism requisitions provoked some anti-Bolshevik revolts, but these did not spread. With the New Economic Policy in 1921, the Bolsheviks politically neutralized even these.

[@johnkilmartin5101]

You do realize they lost Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland i.e. the most economically advanced parts of pre- revolutionary Russia?

[@johnkilmartin5101]

Like they stole a car without an engine.

[@nikhtose]

@@johnkilmartin5101 The Bolsheviks didn't "lose" those countries. They were forced to cede them to Germany by the Brest-Litovsk treaty to get out of the war. The West then used them to stage invasions of Soviet Russia. All were beaten back.

[@johnkilmartin5101]

@@nikhtose Finland declared itself independent and only received German assistance after being unable to push out Bolshevik forces on their own. Once the Bolsheviks were pushed out the Germans left. It was never occupied by the Germans. All of which occurred after Brest Litovsk.

[@nikhtose]

@@johnkilmartin5101 The Finnish workers took power, were crushed and mass-slaughtered by a military coup armed by Germany. This gang “declared independence.” Your use of euphemism to excuse rightist violence while outraged at Bolshevik countermeasures is revealing.

[@SKCCP]

Tzar factions were not liked by peasant Russians, and Bolsheviks lies sounded really good.

[@victorperfecto7472]

Key victory can be attributed to trotsky’s leadership and tenacity

[@HistoryHustle]

Sure played a large part.

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

Now this is a very interesting vid! Gained a lot of new insights here👍 Groet'n oet Grun', T.

[@HistoryHustle]

Awesome, thanks T.!

[@AJ-et3vf]

Awesome video. Thank you

[@HistoryHustle]

You're welcome!

[@DRFelGood]

Interesting Content Stefan ❤ Thank you for sharing!!!

[@HistoryHustle]

👍👍👍

[@issigonis975]

The Bolsheviks had the centre as said, a clear ideology and would bend the truth to suit the needs (bread, peace, land). The opposition was fragmented with fractional governments made up of monarchist, right wing, SRs, left SRs, Kadets. The opposition failed to realise they could not put the old empire back together too late. They alienated Ukrainians, Baltic states, Poland in particular. They failed to compromise on land reform which considering how the Bolsheviks robbed the peasants was a huge mistake. There was no serious coordination with in particular Kolchak and Denikin. The maximum expanse of Kolchak was too early to meet up with the Southern Front. Early on it was all about WW1 and the Allies vs the Germans but then became about the internal issues and the spread of Bolshevism The Bolsheviks were both chaotic and ruthless but so were the Whites. Both sides murdered civilians in huge numbers in especially brutal ways. The moderates were drowned out so whatever way it went there was going to be massive retribution whoever won. The key moment to stop it was March 1917 when they should just have pulled out of the war and repaired the country. The Bolsheviks exploited this but the death they brought would end up being greater. They implemented non of the slogans peace, bread, land. They brought war, famine and collectivisation. Turned the peasants back into serfs, replaced the Okhrana with and even more ruthless Cheka and turned exile to Siberia into the Gulags. Lenin became the new Tsar.

[@mikefay5698]

Well at least today the USA Britain and all the EU even Japan are all mates against Russia and agree that cutting of the German Gas line and Blockading Russia will ensure peace Democracy Human rights except for Julian Assange and Bidens rule based order and no more Chinese Balloons!

[@urarti7049]

Только "Кровавый Совок" способен строить сотни городов на чистом поле, ради великого жестокого бога -ГУЛАГа, где на алтарях в жертву приносились миллионы убитых лично Сталиным сторонников либертарианства)))

[@sirdarklust]

Ding Dong at 8:49. HAHA! You think you can trick me? Anyway, one thing that I have heard was that Makhno's troops took the city (Dneipro?) where much of Denikens artillery shells where located, causing a shortage on the front line. Not sure if this is true, but I'd like to know more. You did a great job of giving a concise history of an immensely interesting, but very complex, historical subject. Take it Ding Dong easy.

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

Besides Reds and Whites, there were also the Blacks. Anarchist forces in the Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno

[@AlexandreAlezzia]

Best video from the topic I ever seen

[@HistoryHustle]

Awesome 😁

[@christopherjcarson]

Very helpful talk!

[@HistoryHustle]

Thanks for watching.

[@justanapple8510]

Interesting subject!

[@HistoryHustle]

👍

[@DavidGS66]

How? Communists murdered 6 of my Volga German (Saratov) Grandmother's uncles (cossacks) in Russia Civil War & scaled murder up to 25? million. My family came to Canada as refugees.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Nice

[@jamesbodnarchuk3322]

I am ethnic Ukrainian this was an important battle against the reds.

[@HistoryHustle]

I understand.

[@LCCWPresents]

Honestly 100 years later and it’s effects (while resolved in general) has a large impact on the modern world at least in modern political/geography borders.

[@paultunstall3509]

Good video I am always interested as to why a certain side won a war.

[@Thiago.Acquati]

Very interesting to think that if had the White moviment have a better political structure it would have won the war. Maybe if they organized in a facism like regim and centralized anti bolshevik factions they would have faced sucess. Very good vídeo, thanks for sharing and im very excited for the Chezch-slovak milítias video !!

[@rjames3981]

The Whites wanted to continue WW1. Lenin wanted to end it. That was decisive, not just in Russia, but also in ultimately encouraging rebellions in Germany which forced Germany and other Central European powers to sue for peace.

[@ComboMuster]

I only watched 1 minute of the video because here is the answer: It is indeed easy to explain and the reds will always win (can apply to ANY country). Landlords or Boyars (russian aristocracy) imposed heavy taxes on peasants and those taxes were collected by some other scumbags who pocketed double of what there was due. Therefore peasants were starving in the best scenario. With the event of World War l MORE taxes were required to support the war effort. Now with Bolsheviks uprising a salvation was on the horizon for 90% of the starving population, so the Red Wave was absolutely unstoppable no matter how much military support from USA, England, Germany and others was given for the White faction. HUNGER is a very powerful incentive. Everything else trying to explain whys and wheres of White faction defeat is just technicalities and curiosities. Very simple to explain the Bolshevik revolution.

[@tonikthezikotras5865]

Some informations are uncorrect, Wrangel begun his offensive on Kuban. The main offensive by Denikin was only one, Wrangel wanted to connect the fronts on Don, Donetsk oblast, Kuban and to help Kolchak. Another point - White or volunteer army in southern Russia and Don had a unified statement on the begining, when Kornilov founded the army in Novocherkassk. The main part of the army was mix of old school officers, revolutionary officers, junkers and some cossacks. The main statement/Constitution made by Alexejev and Kornilov in October 1918. it was statement where they agreed on military resolve until the russia is free, they even had a detail for different nationalities, that they supported autonomy. On Siberia begun the KOMUČ - coalition of red Esers, Kadets, czechoslovak legionaries etc.. From the group of leaders you spoke about here, just Krasnov, Bermond, perhaps Kolchak were more supportive of tsarist russia. - my main sourse is book redited by Andrej B. Zubov - History of Russia in 20th century. Collection of works of russian historians.

[@Albert-Arthur-Wison225]

Fascinating, too, in the context of the Russian Civil War, to think of the religious contexts. From Old Believers who fled even further into the depths of the northern Urals and Siberia ( and even Bolivia ), some of whom lived in virtual seclusion, undetected, until the 1990s ! And the pious Muslims of Central Asia, led, of all people, by Ataturk’s bitter rival, Enver Pasha.

[@alfaeco15]

They promised all, gave nothing and took everything

[@HistoryHustle]

Pretty much..

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

They promised, they gave it all and took everything from the landlords, capitalists monarchs nobility and the liberals. Thank goodness.

[@rursus8354]

At that time the Labourers' state the Soviet Union was a good cause performed by disciplined organizers, considering that the opposing side was as cruel and violent as the Communists, but the Leninist interpretation of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (which was originally Marx's irony against the forces opposing universal suffrage) was one of the major system flaws that indirectly led to Stalins red terror.

[@tjitse3916]

Curious about the analysis, I wrote a paper on this. 😅 Have memory loss though, so wondering to see what it was like, not scrutineering. 😂

[@HistoryHustle]

👍

[@alansewell7810]

Thank you for opening a window on yet another pivotal event of European history that remains obscure to Americans. It seems that Communists, being a party that operates with unity, always has an advantage over anti-communist forces that fight as independent factions. People in the middle will tend to side with the party that is unified. Also I'm noticing how strange the words "THE Ukraine" sound to modern ears. Since we've been hearing so much about it in the news, it is just "Ukraine" to most of us, whereas as few years that word used without "THE" would have sounded strange.

[@HistoryHustle]

Thanks for watching.

[@Whatt787]

The Red Army promised 15,000 of the White Army they wouldn't be harmed if they surrendered, instead Lenin had all 15,000 immediately executed

[@davesblasting7457]

What about Vladivostok in the east ?

[@HistoryHustle]

Yes, I would like to focus on that in the future. Thing is, these were pitched battles and by far not as important as the ones mentioned in the video.

[@alandesouzacruz5124]

Make a vídeo about portuguese🇵🇹expeditionary forçe in ww1

[@pipeinxx]

is difficult for you because you don't like what the reds represent for you. Contemplate presenting apple pies recipes (I supose you like apple, is so german).

[@jamesbodnarchuk3322]

Question Petrograd -St Petersburg?

[@Vic-on5ic]

Yes.

[@Ramiobomb]

Kolchak wasn't captured by the Reds, he was betrayed by the Czechoslovak Legion when they told him he can cross their territory in Irkutsk to Britain but instead they handed him over to the Bolsheviks.

[@normanbraslow7902]

The story can be described in one name: Leon Davidovitch Bronstein, better known as Leon Trotsky.

[@cjthebeesknees]

Sounds Jewish.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Great General but overall bad for the survival of the communist cause at the time. Widely discarded by the socialist world

[@theodorossarafis7370]

It uis amazing how the whites lost since they had more and better supply and more battlehardened officers. Especially at the beguning of the creation of the reds it is weird that thecwhites did not take action. I would like to learn why the communists created the nation of belarusians white russians?

[@BodyTrust]

Very informative and entertaining. I knew you were Dutch when every "th" became a "d". 🙂

[@HistoryHustle]

🇳🇱👍

[@mikefay5698]

He might have been Irish?

[@jokodihaynes419]

hope you do the story of the Czech legion during their time in Russia is a tale worth to be told

[@rjames3981]

You beat me to it. Great idea 💡

[@JohnSmith-ry7wh]

God bless the Czar, his family and all those martyred in this war ☦️☦️☦️

[@HistoryHustle]

The tsar wasn't the best ruler. Sad his whole family was slaughtered though. Made a video on location: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYa3kn57q7proqc

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

they all deserved it, god won't bless the tsar because he doesn't exist

[@mikefay5698]

They were shot because they caused the death of 4M Russian Soldiers in a war he declared to become popular after the 1905 Close Revolution and shooting dead protestors 200? upwards!

[@nigelfletcher1064]

Missing out the Makhnovites? And the Greens?

[@HistoryHustle]

Covered in another video.

[@andreypolovinko1244]

Probably this is the best analysis of the situation of several turbulent years contained in 18 minutes. How true about ideology. It was the socialist ideology of the Bolsheviks that made it possible to break the caste system, unite all nationalities and estates and create an incredible power for the first time. Of course, the number of mistakes and crimes was huge. However, now, watching the United States, you see that imperialism and oligarchies lead to the complete end of humanity. The future, if it happens, is still behind the ideology of socialism, taking into account previous mistakes. Спасибо.

[@quintenbruggink1595]

It is bro , i'm Marxist Leninist myself and we have to acknowledge the bad things (and crimes that happened ) and remain critical of ourselves and policies

[@victorstock86]

@@quintenbruggink1595 so do you recognise that the policies of Lenin regarding collective farming in Ukraine led to the Holomodor (8-10 million dead)

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@victorstock86 I acknowledge the material conditions of the era including the incompetence of the local command structure in accurately reporting to Moscow and the western powers trying to strangle the new socialist state by funding 15 armies against them, attempting to isolate them, and forbidding international trade by not accepting gold as payment and forbidding the diffusion of modern technologies and techniques into the agricultural and industrial fields of the USSR led to the culmination of the famine of Ukraine which btw is not a genocide simply because it was a nationwide occurrence and all the severely areas affected were Russian majority areas of the USSR with even ardent anti communist scholars that had every incentive to speculate as they had previously confirming the opposite with the famine being alleviated once Moscow fully addressed the extent of the disaster and no famines in Ukraine or the rest of the USSR after the 1940s.

[@schroder1972utrecht]

About 10min in you sayd the Donbas hold the coalmines isn't that exactly what the current govnerment from russia wants to hold on to? That and a second harbour into the blacksea

[@Poctyk]

Russia in its international borders already holds 1/2 of Donbass coal. And it's all closed down as closed mines 500-800 meters cannot compete (unless they are barely payed and completely disregard any safety) with open pits of Kuzbass. As for second port - just build it. It's literally cheaper, than to try to rewrite international boundaries. The real reason, once again, is existence of Ukraine. Russia, as a dying empire (that should have died in 1917) simply cannot comprehend that former colonies can exist outside empire.

[@Newoak]

The reds promised the Ukrainians and the Estonians indapendence, but they did not grant them. Or they reconcured them quickly in ww2. In God I trust.

[@HistoryteacherAlex]

I'm Russian, who graduated from the department of History, and can say that the video is really great. Not too many details, but on the whole it's a good explanation of the Red Army victory.

[@mikefay5698]

If you thought Stefan's deliberate slant then you're History department must have been part of the CIA!

[@HistoryteacherAlex]

@@mikefay5698 I didn't notice any deliberate slant in this video. I think it's quite unbiased.

[@HistoryHustle]

Hi Alexey, thanks for your reply. Just wondering: how is the Russian Civil War remembered today in Russia? I guess it got overshadowed by WW2, but is there a way how it is being told?

[@HistoryteacherAlex]

@@HistoryHustle Definitely. Most of common people don't know or care who won WW1. As for the Civil War they just know that the Reds won without much details. Young people can mix up Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. I was born in the USSR and remember that the Revolution and Lenin were the main topics for discussion at the History lessons at school, but the situation has changed after collapsing the Soviet Union. It's completely different talking about WW2. I think common people talk about it and celebrate the Victory day (May, 9) even more than they did in the Soviet time. Of course, I talk mostly about average people.

[@mikefay5698]

@@HistoryteacherAlex You are naive all Historians on U Tube are anti Working Class or face being demonetised!

[@TolKOZAK]

A friend who was born in the USSR in 1926 and lived there until 1942 summed up the situation this way. "For 70 years communist Russia was insane." Not too much has changed.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Yes someone born that didn't witness the insanity serfdom and cyclical famines of the Tsarist age and growing up and enjoying the fruits of a burgeoning society departing from the dark ages and leaving before wars end to avoid seeing one of their own countrymen fly to space and ushering a 2nd 40 year peace with no major conflict in Europe which is largely unheard of in European history and giving the third world the tools to ward off the western powers trying to restore the pre WWI order saying nothing had changed is comical.

[@TolKOZAK]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 The insanity did not go away.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@TolKOZAK thanks for rethinking your post

[@TolKOZAK]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 I said, "Not too much has changed." How is that rethinking? Russia is still insane.

[@Ломпадкасветлая]

@@TolKOZAK An ordinary bourgeois state, even somewhat puny compared to America or France.

[@aidankitson7877]

Excellent piece Stefan, thank you. Please come to IRELAND we have such a tumultuous history

[@thomasmitchell7645]

Forty years ago I was doing a BA in Israel and took a course on the Russian Revolution and post-WWI revolutions. The professor said half seriously that the Reds won the civil war because they drank (or were drunk) less than the Whites. Maybe that is what you mean by greater discipline.

[@jokodihaynes419]

be careful what you wish for is the moral of the story

[@TheAndertejker]

@History Hustle, what did Stalin do at the time? It seems like Trotzky was pretty much the hero of the reds.

[@HistoryHustle]

Very good question! Hope to cover that in a separate video.

[@royale7620]

Can you make a video on Romania's monarchist dictatorship 1938-1940? Almost no English speaking History channel talks about it, its a pretty interesting period for Romania and the interwar period, it was an attempt at corporatization styled after Portugal and Italy. Also Carol II almost married into the Romanov's, can you imagine had the Russian revolution not happened and Romania's throne aligned with Russia? just wow.

[@Basedlocation]

Millions of dollars from international bankers

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Yup the whites got all that money and still lost 🤣

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

this is what the white army got, i hate using the word "projecting" because it's a 4chayym slang, but that's what you and other white army defenders were doing, saying that the west and international bankers funded the red army, when they were funding the white army

[@gnomuka]

Krasnov my great grandfather!

[@HistoryHustle]

Very interesting!

[@GUNROCKS1990]

Interesting on history American Civil War 1860-1865 Russian Civil War 1917-1922 Chinese Civil War 1927-1949 Spanish Civil War 1936-1939

[@HistoryHustle]

Thanks for sharing.

[@mikefay5698]

Every land has had Civil Wars!

[@Jonhistorymodel]

I reckon you could turn it down to a seven.

[@HistoryHustle]

Seven minutes?

[@Jonhistorymodel]

@@HistoryHustle I remember doing a school subject on the Russian civil war. The Mensheviks and Bolseviks

[@Jonhistorymodel]

@@HistoryHustle spinal tap play with their amps at 11 but that’s to loud. 7 is enough.

[@tommy-er6hh]

well, since you asked, here is what i have about the Russian Civil war in the Ukraine: Time line 1917-1920 Ukraine WWI -October revolution 1917 -Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) on 20 November 1917 -Bolsheviks countered by proclaiming their own Ukrainian government based in Kharkiv on 25 December -Crimean People's Republic December 1917. Muslin/tartar secular republic -December 16, 1917, Bolsheviks captured Sevastopol, January 14, 1918, the Bolsheviks captured Simferopol, end January capture all Crimea. -Ukraine - On 25 December that 30,000-strong Bolshevik army, led by Volodymyr Antonov-Ovsiienko, set off in four groups from Homel and toward Chernihiv-Bakhmach, Hlukhiv-Konotop, and Kharkiv-Poltava-Lozova. -occupied Kharkiv (26 December), Lozova and Katerynoslav (now Dnipropetrovske, 9 January 1918), Oleksandrivske (now Zaporizhia, 15 January), and (20 January), Konotop (16 January) and Hlukhiv (19 January), 27 January the Bolshevik army groups converged on Bakhmach. January 29, 1918 Battle of Kruty Bolsheviks won. Then followed by infighting between factions, no gov't until 19 March. -29 January and continued until 4 February attempted revolt by Bolsheviks in Kiev defeated, 9 February Bolsheviks take city. Next they take Volhynia (led by the former Russian Seventh Army), where they took Proskuriv (now Khmelnytskyi), Zhmerynka, Koziatyn, Berdychiv, Rivne, and Shepetivka and forced the Ukrainians back to a Zhytomyr-Korosten-Sarny defensive line. -9 February 1918 Ukraine make peace with Central Powers at Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, on 3 March 1918 Russia signed with Ukraine. UNR was replaced by cossack Hetman ruler Russia and Ukraine out of WWI, Ukraine occupation by “allied” Germans - Ukraine Hetmanate cossack & Germans captured Zhytomyr, Berdychiv, Koziatyn, and Bucha, before regaining Kyiv on 1 March from Bolsheviks. Through March and April the German and Austrian armies took control of Left-Bank Ukraine, and the troops of Petro Bolbochan and Volodymyr Sikevych took the Crimea and the . Alarmed by the changed military situation, Vladimir Lenin ordered his representative in , Grigorii Ordzhonikidze, to "Ukrainize" (at least ostensibly) the predominantly Russian forces of Volodymyr Antonov-Ovsiienko and Mikhail Muravev in a bid for more popular support. The maneuver proved unsuccessful. Continuing military setbacks gave Soviet Russia little choice but to comply with the articles of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and to sign a preliminary peace with the Ukrainian government on 12 June 1918. - 8 June thru end July 1918 Tarashcha uprising in southern Kiev district by peasants, took 2 occupying German infantry and one cavalry division to put down. - July 1918 Revolutionary Insurrectionist Army of Ukraine, or Anarchist Black Army vs Bolsheviks and Hetmanate in the E Ukraine/Don river basin north of Don Republic. It ran a guerrilla war trying to set up a lawless no government “Free State”. It was defeated in 1921 by Bolsheviks. - 19 and 21 March 1918 in Crimea Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic (Bolshevik) started. By 25 April 1918 Germans and Cossack Hetmanate Ukraine re-conquered the area. 25 June 1918 tartar first Crimean Regional Government formed under German control. Non-Bolshevik Russian Second Crimean Regional Government formed 25 November 1918 as German support withdrew - on Apr. 9-14, 1918, in Rostov-on-Don, the Don Soviet Republic declared itself until, May 18, 1918 the (white) Don Cossacks form the Don Republic along the S Don river which replaced the Bolshevik Don Soviet Republic. - January 28, 1918 (Caucasus Cossack) Kuban People's Republic formed in the Caucasus plains SE of Don R. March 1918 Kornilov's Volunteer Army, rid the Kuban of the Bolsheviks, until 1919. - after 11 November 1918 WWI Armistice German-supported Hetman government fell to the Directory of the Ukrainian National Republic in a short civil war/coup in 14 December. WWI over! Russian Civil war & Russian/Polish war. On to the civil or uncivil war proper:

[@tommy-er6hh]

Ukraine Independence war 1917-1921 aka Part of the Russian Civil war continued: - Non Bolshevik Russian Second Crimean Regional Government formed 25 November 1918, ended in 2 April 1919 when the Bolsheviks formed the state Crimean Soviet Socialist Republic, until 23-26 June when Whites retook Crimea, (June 1919 to Jan 1920 White military occupation) , July, 1919 40,000 red army soldier ex-crimea quit to join Anarchist Black Army, In February 1920 formation of the white South Russian Government with Ukraine territory. By March 1920 the Whites had failed and Bolsheviks won. - 1 November 1918 West Ukrainian National Republic formed in area of Lvov. 21 November the polish natives forced them to abandon Lvov. April 1919 100,000 pole army arried, by 16-18 July 1919 the Poles had succeeded in driving the West Ukrainians out, - The second phase of the Ukrainian-Soviet War began 20 November 1918 by bosheviks forming a Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government of Ukraine, a military advance into in December, resulting in Directory of the Ukrainian National Republic declare war against Russia on 16 January 1919. Bolsheviks captured Left-Bank Ukraine, and on 5 February 1919 they closed in on Kyiv, The Soviet attack proceeded on several fronts. A northern group moved along a Mozyr-Korosten and Lunynets-Sarny-Rivne line in an attempt to cut off the Army of the Ukrainian National Republic from the Ukrainian Galician Army (UHA) to the west. A southern group proceeded from the Kremenchuk-Katerynoslav region through Znamianka toward the Birzula-Koziatyn-Zhmerynka line in an effort to cut off the UNR troops from possible reinforcement by Entente forces. At a critical moment Otaman Nykyfor Hryhoriv threw his support behind them. The third Bolshevik army group proceeded from Kyiv to the Berdychiv-Koziatyn-Zhmerynka line in an effort to keep the northern and southern wings of the UNR Army divided. - 18 December 1918, a month after the armistice, the French occupied Odessa, and later Sevastopol until April 1919 - side note - 21 March to 1 August 1919 the communist Hungarian Soviet Republic ruled Hungary until forced to surrender to Romania; the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Czechoslovakia. - The Ukraine UNR army launched a counteroffensive in March, in which it defeated the Soviet forces along the Berdychiv-Koziatyn line and advanced almost to Kyiv, thereby effectively cutting off any possibility that the Soviets might march through Romania to Hungary in order to aid the Bolshevik Béla Kun regime. But in April 1919 the UNR army was pushed back to a small parcel of territory approx 40-50 km wide in the Dubno-Brody region of southwestern Volhynia, and the southern portion of the army was defeated, and forced to retreat in Romania - where it was disarmed before transport to rejoin the northern half. In July the fighting went back and forth before the August UNR advance and almost retook Kiev - by the White army got it first. - September 25, 1919 Anarchist Black Army stopped fighting the Bolsheviks, and turned west to fight the White army. They broke thru and captured Aleksandrovsk, to the Black Army was followed by Pologi, Gulyai-Polye, Berdyansk, Melitopol', and Mariupol - cutting the white supply so they had to turn back from Moscow. But by April-June 1920, the Bolsheviks returned to fighting with the Black Army. - the Kuban People's Republic dissolved 7 November 1919 in the caucas plains SE of Don R. In November 1919 after defeats of the White armies, the Republic was overthrown in a coup by the White army for separately dealing with Bolsheviks. In April 1920 the Bolsheviks took over the area. - December 1919- March 1920 the Ukriane UNR army went guerrilla vs the Bolsheviks. the UNR government concluded the Treaty of Warsaw on 22 April, and then launched a joint offensive with Polish troops against the Bolsheviks. By 7 May a Ukrainian division under the command of Marko Bezruchko entered Kyiv. A Red Army counteroffensive led by Semen Budenny pushed the combined forces back across the and past Zamość toward . After the decisive battle of 15 September the Polish-Ukrainian forces threw the Bolshevik contingent back as far as the Sharhorod-Bar-Lityn line in Podilia. The Poles concluded a separate peace with the Soviets on 18 October. The 23,000-strong UNR force continued fighting until 21 October, when its position became untenable. The UNR Army crossed the into Polish-controlled , where they were disarmed and placed in internment camps. - March 1920 with the defeat of White army by the Bolsheviks Don Republic dissolved. By April 1920 it was under occupation by the Bolsheviks. -October 15, 1920 Bolsheviks made alliance again with anarchist Black guerrilla army, to clear white Cossacks out of Crimea. Last Whites evacuated from Sevastopol by the British Navy on November 14, 1920. November 26, 1920 Bolsheviks once again attacked the Black Army. By August 21, 1921 it had ceased to be an army, last guerrillas were taken in 1922. ----Other "Ukrainians" in the uncivil war: -Raspbarry Ukraine = (Circassia) Kuban Rada later the Kuban Peoples Republic January 28, 1917 during the Revolution until November 6, 1919 when it was occupied by the White army of Denikin. It tried to unite with Ukraine and Georgia, but was unable to. Cossacks migrants from Ukraine were 55% of the Kuban, Russification and Genocide/Holodomor has reduced the Pop of Ukraninian heritage to 1%. -Yellow Ukraine = Cossacks migrants from Ukraine aound the Volga River from Ashkatan to Samara. Never formed a political group. - Grey Ukraine = Cosssacks migrants from Ukraine around the area of Omsk/north Kazakhstan. These did form political group Main Ukrainian Council of Siberia July 1917 which often changed name/joined others such as Provisional Siberian Government and New Provisional Siberian Government then the Provisional All-Russian Government until some cossacks led a coup which resulted in Kolchak and the White army taking charge. - Green Ukraine = Cossacks migrants from Ukraine in Far Siberia/trans-Amur formed the republic of Green Ukraine trying to unite with Ukraine also but failed from June 1917 to January 1918, when it merged (although its congress stayed until 1922) into the Far Eastern Republic/Chita Repubic under the White army of Kolchak until Oct 25, 1922.

[@HistoryHustle]

Here is my video about Green Ukraine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5S7iWBppsiKoZI

[@tommy-er6hh]

@@HistoryHustle Great, i saw it, good job!

[@M98-j9k]

Now, talk about the regret

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

None to be found except from liberals whites and trotskites. Russia went from a feudal backwater that missed the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century only to witness it in the 1930s that would catapult it to defeating the Nazis, ending the cyclical famines of the early 20th century and centuries prior and becoming a space faring nuclear super power in 40 years.

[@tompilling4154]

We are reliving Dr Zhivago all over again

[@HistoryHustle]

Good movie.

[@teddyjackson1902]

Because they had the support of western finance.

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

no they didn't, the west funded the white army

[@teddyjackson1902]

@@NBrioDaZueraRules the white army were a mix of democrats and monarchists. Learn your history b

[@NBrioDaZueraRules]

@@teddyjackson1902 and the west funded them

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@teddyjackson1902 west funded the whites to protect their investments and still lost despite all the money and 14 other armies fighting the red with them

[@jamesbodnarchuk3322]

Dr Zhivago type stuff

[@marcoskehl]

1:26 "Forced requisitions" are unacceptable for anarcho-capitalists. I share the peasants rage. I feel the same paying taxes for the brazilian state. Of course I prefer the peaceful way to avoid the confrontation, by simply civil disobedience and mockery. Obrigado, Stefan! (͡◕ ͜ʖ ͡◕)ﾉ 🍀 🇧🇷

[@giuseppedanieli7878]

In Ukraina the hard work was done by Nestor Makhno and his Anarchist Army...but they was crippled by the bolshevist.

[@daddyreeeco]

I hate history before, now i love it

[@HistoryHustle]

Great!

[@aakashboom]

And also why non russians failed to become independent

[@HistoryHustle]

Sure to be covered in others videos. Here is already one on Ukraine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJiXoGajfrGKl9E

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

Most Dutch people seem to speak good English

[@mikefay5698]

Because that's where the English Anglo Saxons came from.Germans and Danes too!

[@tancreddehauteville764]

The allied powers failed to support the whites adequately - this was the key issue.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Every major western power except Germany for obvious reasons of losing supported the whites and the other 14 armies adequately. The main factor was that the white army and other tsar loyalist commanders were still the same useless commanders that were tactically idiotic during WWI and never learned from their mistakes.

[@GunslingerLv]

Let's not forget the blacks

[@robertnortan87]

They sure matter.

[@GunslingerLv]

@Robert NORTAN there was black militia , not black people tho

[@HistoryHustle]

Covered here kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4jadqF3ncp9qbM

[@GunslingerLv]

@@HistoryHustle thanks bro

[@muhammadibnmusaal-chorezmi7240]

You forgot Whites vs Nationalists, Whites vs Peasants, Nationalists vs Nationalists, Nationalists vs Peasants

[@HistoryHustle]

I mention in the video that my focus is on Reds vs Whites. In other vids I deal with the rest. Pay attention please.

[@muhammadibnmusaal-chorezmi7240]

@@HistoryHustle cool

[@hussar843]

just like the origin of Rus, Russia, Soviets everyone fights for power over peasents 🤣🤣🤣

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Difference is the power hungry whites chose the powerful old aristocracy and foreign elites to clinch on to power while the Reds were the powerless majority that banded together and became powerful and come out the winners.

[@hussar843]

​@@ernestkhalimov1007 became powerful??? are you kidding??!!! everything they have is a copy of the achievements of other cultures: FACT

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@hussar843 sounds like every country throughout history.

[@Poctyk]

>85% of population is peasentry >wtf why people try to appeal to them? Why indeed

[@michaelslater8773]

Not here in the United States they didn’t

[@HistoryHustle]

During the Red Scare and the Cold War communism didn't get a foothold in the US.

[@nicomendoza6586]

There aren't many videos that actually describe the warfare of the Russian civil war! Largely only about the revolution itself, skipping from 1918 to 1922. Thanks for making it, very informative. Excited to see future episodes about this topic, it was so complex because alongside the Russian civil war there was the allied interventions, the various wars of independence, the Finnish civil war to the north, conquest of the territories like the Caucasus/Ukraine, and interstate wars like the polish-soviet war. Can't wait to see what you choose to focus on next.

[@maxsportsman2416]

I totally agree! The Russian civil war itself cost the lives of millions of civilians and contributed to major food shortages which always leads to mass starvation

[@scrooge1374]

I recommend you listen to the Revolutions Podcast from Mike Duncan, he just finished the Russian Revolution (among many others he did)

[@verihimthered2418]

Gotta looking into Japanese history to find more interesting enough

[@hiredmurderer6228]

@@maxsportsman2416 For people its always easier to ignore that part and say "its communism/tzars/blah blah fault" than have some common sense and think of this.

[@marcelrenes2435]

This was indeed a good topic to learn about.

[@toriidawdy8456]

Eagerly awaiting the story the Czech battalion ! This answered questions I have had for years ,i.e ... Effect of allied forces , Trotsky's effectiveness and popular support . Awesome vid ! Thanks for this community and your attention to my favorite avocation.

[@theobolt250]

The overall denominator in this story is that the Russian military from the start, so 1914 and before, was in every aspect not up to par. They had the basics but not the finesse to be a decisive force. I think that that stems from an upper class cultural 'believe' in what leadership entails. An outdated romantic notion of nobility or something like that. The Bolsheviks were a very UNromantic practical bunch, hell bend on "Result Whatever The Costs". Their leadership system was effectuated by those pesky political commissars, who were ideological well orientated, power hungry and very hands on. Did what was needed to be done, sans merci. So, cultural outdated believes v nihilistic (nothing can disappoint me or rob me from my believes because I lost them already) pragmatism.

[@daveanderson3805]

Your students are very lucky to be able to learn more about subjects such as the revolution and the civil war. At my school, admittedly many moons ago, history was centered on British history and somewhat sketchy.

[@jimbor8774]

Couldn't agree more. American history was shoved down my throat, where every other county was only viewed from our eyes. I really didn't know anything until I got to college and took Russian History, which is one of the most interesting classes I've ever taken. And that only opened the door. I feel like in highschool what I learned was barely a grain on a whole continental beach. There's such a density of information out there, and I'm still in awe.

[@JohnSmith-ry7wh]

Shit nowadays in the west all they do is flogging the white people of history as racist colonialists blah blah blah....no reality just critical _____ theory.

[@mikefay5698]

I too was a victim of British History. Mind you all lands lie or don't teach it at all. Even correctly taught as Stefan illustrates. Napoleon was correct when he noted, "All History is lies that everyone agrees upon"!!

[@tankumaat]

British history where all nasty stuff is left out like buying massive amounts of slave labour timber from Soviet union, government at that time knew about it and just ignored it.

[@Pikkabuu]

The thing is that schools have limited time to go through the history of a country. So is there really need to go through a thing like the Russian Civil War if you live in the former British Empire. I'm a history teacher in Finland and as much as the Russian Revolution has a part in our history and happened right next door there still is much more important events to study than the Russian Revolution.

[@mammuchan8923]

Russian history, always compelling and mysterious, I love it.

[@GunslingerLv]

Move to Russia, they are making history right now

[@mammuchan8923]

@@GunslingerLv fascinating from afar rather

[@PavelAVasilevich]

@@GunslingerLv BOT

[@GunslingerLv]

@@PavelAVasilevich shill

[@LaudianoHeathen]

Only kept mysterious by Western govts in order to better propagandize Russia

[@NothingEverHappensLol]

Tldr, cause the bankers and ceos supported them

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

The Russian Civil War, In my learning the theme is that it was complex due to all the factions, and in part that is why the reds won in the end, because the factions just did not get on/support each other. Then you have the greens (nationalists like at least 2 of the Ukraine factions!). Then you have oddities like the Baltic Landwehr (at its height, a divisional sized unit made up of ethic Germans from the Baltic states and nothing to do with the German Army that armed and supplied them honest guvnor!) who seemed to have a go at everyone around them!

[@joemammon6149]

the conflict has strong similarities with the Syrian Civil War where the Assad regime is unified against the many rebel groups that fought each other as much as they fought Assad. the West supported the Syrian rebels just as they supported the Whites, but the fragmented pro-Western forces were no match for strong unified forces with ideological system.

[@АндрейПашук-ь1ф]

Greens were anrchists and they actually fought reds, whites and UPR.

[@DrCruel]

The Bolsheviks succeeded because their disciplined fascism was more effective than White diversity. Thus why Bolsheviks always try to convince their enemies that "diversity is their strength" and then try to sow social chaos to create revolutionary conditions.

[@LEFT4BASS]

My understand one too is that the whites were primarily defeated by their own corruption. They had more experienced troops, allied support, and the support of locals terrorized by the reds. But wherever they went they alienated locals leaving hostile populations to their rear. Supplies sent to them by allies were lost to corruption and wouldn’t make it to the frontlines. It didn’t take long before the people turned against the whites and the allies realized they were a lost cause.

[@DrCruel]

@@LEFT4BASS It was exactly the opposite. The Whites were too disorganized when it came to recruiting troops, depending on the Russian patriotic spirit. The Bolsheviks did not worry about such bourgeois concerns, ruthlessly conscripting whatever manpower they could get their hands on, herding peasants into battle and forcing them forward with blocking detachments. Incompetent or unlucky officers were shot. Experienced officers had their families held hostage, who were shot if betrayal was suspected. The White Army was not a negligible force. Most of it was made up of experienced officers, and the force depended on quality for their successes. At its peak it had a million men with about a third in reserve. The Bolshevik army peaked in 1920 at five million men, mostly peasant levies, with about half in reserve. Much of it was regularly trying to desert, save for elite formations like the Latvian riflemen, were always reluctant to engage in combat, and depended on force of numbers for whatever success they enjoyed. The Bolshevik apparatchiks were at least as corrupt as the Whites, if not more so, but the Whites were always badly outnumbered. The Whites simply were not nearly as ruthless and as vicious as the Bolsheviks, and the peasants were not nearly as afraid of them as they were of the Reds. Eventually the Whites were simply overwhelmed.

[@npalmi88]

Russia is freaking huge

[@HistoryHustle]

It is.

[@brandonshafer5388]

Because they had Johnny Bench, Ray Knight, Dave Concepcion, Ken Griffey, and Pete Rose. Damn, nearly anyone would win with that lineup.

[@HistoryHustle]

?

[@billybob5337]

@@HistoryHustle its a joke. Hes alluding to the Cincinnatti Reds

[@Nebiros21]

Few people on KZbin talk about the final battle of the Russian civil war that being the fall of Ayan in the far east in June of 1923. Maybe you could cover that in a future episode. Most talk about the Russian civil war stops in 1921 or 1922 when really there was still spillover into 1923.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

The civil war fighting actually stopped in 1935 when the Basmachi faction in central Asia ceased hostility

[@Nebiros21]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 Good point, but Wikipedia is saying the movement ended in 1934 while the last major battle was in late 1933.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@Nebiros21 thank you for that bit of information as well 👍

[@mikefay5698]

It didn't totally end until 1926 and continues today thanks to the Neo Cons!

[@Nebiros21]

@@mikefay5698 The part of about Neo Cons makes no sense.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The biggest reason I've seen for the Reds winning - was that they had the Moscow Rail Hub and Interior Lines. Trotsky could organize a force large enough to defeat one of the White Russian Armies - then head out the rail lines that Army was traveling along to supply themselves. His force would outnumber the Whites locally and defeat them. Then - that force - could be sent through the Moscow Rail Hub to hit another White Army and defeat it. This is a problem for any Superior Force that has surrounded a Smaller Force. They may outnumber the smaller force over all - but - they have to travel around the enemy force they are surrounding to link up with each other. The smaller force that is surrounded - merely needs to cut across their own _"Interior Lines"_ and they can achieve local superiority over part of the larger surrounding force. .

[@mikefay5698]

His brilliance was in recruiting White Tsarist Officers and keeping their familys hostage in case they flipped. Earning the everlasting hatred of Voroshilov and Stalin who wanted a Militia run by NCO's. Trotsky won because he wanted a professional Red Army which was essential for victory. Some Officers did try to turn and were shot. Political Commisars checked these Officers out for treachery!

[@alth000]

Yes, it was and remains the biggest issue - transport infrastructure hypercentralization in Moscow. The one controlling it controls whole central Russia.

[@fungunsun1]

Straight up from Napoleon playbook

[@mikefay5698]

Trotsky loved his Armored Train!

[@mikefay5698]

@@fungunsun1 At that time a Napoleonic Victory would have freed the Serfs from Feudalism and be progressive! And united all of Europe which the USA fears most of all!

[@stephanottawa7890]

Yes, Stefan, it is certainly complicated. You or rather I need a chart to distinguis who is who and where are they and where are they going. It is particularly confusing for me to understand the presence of White Russian forces on the territories of the newly revived nations such as Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. I would be very interested in learning more about the interplay between theses forces. Also, I would be interested in the interplay (that might sound like an all too kind word) between the White forces and the various Ukrainian government or attempts at government that arose at the same time as the civil war. Even the word civil war sounds a bit stange as it was anything but civil, but I cannot offer a better suggestion at this time. Thanks again....Stephan

[@andrejmucic5003]

Figgs' description of Trotsky as The Man on the Horse, Bonapartist, just doesn't square with the 1000 books and account I've read on this event? Is Figgs your only source? You might have seen documents I have not, doubt it, and I would love to see them, primary sources please, not from Orlando Figgs, he is not a primary source. A kitchen table author at best.

[@HistoryHustle]

See sources below the video.

[@mikefay5698]

But he Figes is a good Bourgeois hack Historian beloved by the hack media!

[@SpicyTake]

I know battle reviews are interesting to some, but a more interesting video for me would be an in depth look at what types of people supported each faction and why.

[@horrifyinggelatinousblob]

Read Pyotr Wrangel's memoir "always with honour" it's honestly amazing.

[@SpicyTake]

@@horrifyinggelatinousblob Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look him up. I am probably more pro-revolutionary but it is important to know what the other side was thinking.

[@heileopold6122]

The reds also promised farmers to get their own land, which was quickly taken back when they have won.

[@HistoryHustle]

Indeed.

[@Tonyx.yt.]

and farmers cant believed and tought: wait, they cant Be the same bolschevicks as 1918 when they give us the land...

[@caiolima5016]

No

[@RedProg]

W Bruce Lincoln wrote several books on Russia. WW1 and Civil War. I recommend them

[@HistoryHustle]

👍

[@hillarious2393]

As russian i am interesting to hear about history of revolution in 1917. Because today officials in russia are trying to rewrite this history, and return the prerevolution "old good times" with unequality and official slavery provided by Czar goverment.

[@hunterpayne6167]

They started trying to rewrite its history as soon as the Russian Civil War was over. First the Communists rewrote it. Now its tankie historians that do it. Seriously, he is dressed as Lenin. He glosses over anything that makes the reds look bad. He focused on the monarchists on the white site (the least popular of at least a half dozen factions). He talks about the war being ideological when most soldiers on both sides were conscripts. And even though large parts of the war took place in Ukraine and there were Ukrainian independence forces involved, he doesn't even mention this at all. Not one single word. That docudrama about Trotsky that might as well have been made by Stalin was more accurate. This is like watching the big game on TV and the broadcast crew is all wearing uniforms of one specific team.

[@mikefay5698]

Putin yearns for Orthodoxy and Gilt Palaces saluting toy soldiers and Nationalism and Solzhenitsyn instead of Bolshevism!

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Reds had more support from the general masses. So many promises they would soon break. I still remember reading horror stories from the 1920s and 30s on how horrible working conditions were in the Soviet Union. One story in particular, an American college kid went there as a welder all hyped up he was going to be part of something great. He ended up working in the ass end of no where helping build a factory. Conditions were terrible, everyone lived in tents, it was the middle of winter. Workers were dying as a result. He discovered that many were even there by force, had no choice, bayonet and the gun was their motivation, when those ones died the others made jokes like "They were only a Kulak." I doubt that is what those people fought for, an supported.

[@nikhtose]

You're talking about the counter-revolution led by Stalin after Lenin's death, made possible by the devastation and isolation resulting from the Civil War. He murdered the entire Bolshevik leadership, most of its honest cadre, while keeping the name.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

@@nikhtose And Lenin's policies led to a famine that made Stalin's two famines look not so bad. Lenin's war on the Kulaks lead to the destruction of entire villages, arrest and murder of untold numbers. This lead to the largest famine in known history within the former Russian Empire. In fact it's the primary reason Lenin "Liberalized" agriculture, ie gave farmers some Private Incentives, and stepped away from the ore Socialist style of agriculture Stalin would later impose. Yes Lenin pushed for a Liberal Economic style of Agricultural system to repair the damage that was done to their agriculture during civil unrest, and his handling of the peasant revolts. ie he allowed Farmers to be Capitalist. This more "Liberal" approach was the primary divide between Stalin and Trotsky as well. I mean liberal not in the 1930s style modern liberalism, but just general liberalism ie individualism. But to be blunt. Under Line, hundreds of thousands of Cossacks were killed, a few hundred thousand peasants were killed. We know that around 50,000 or so White Russian supporters were murdered. Between 4-8 million died through famine. All that with a shorter lived regime than Stalin or Hitler. Let alone the fact that Lenin's movement was the Counter Revolutionary movement, which by armed force Leninist crushed the Mensheviks which was the ruling Socialist party at the time in 1917. So ironically those who opposed Lenin were counter revolutionaries against an already existing counter revolution.

[@nikhtose]

@@Alte.Kameraden So many lies. The famine resulted from the World War breakdown, followed by the civil war, worsened by hoarding by better-off peasants, not any Soviet policy. The Bolsheviks won majorities in the Soviets in October for taking full power for peace, bread, and land, which they delivered, to the horror of the Mensheviks. Again, no way they could have won without broad support, which historians ignore. And the Red Terror was provoked by broad sabotage, assassination by pro-White forces, which carried out gross mass murder of peasants, workers, and pogroms against Jews. No revolution is won by polite votes.

[@rjames3981]

Caleb Maupin, Jackson Hinkle and US Professor Steven Kotkin give alternative views of events

[@nickyman5557]

Standards of living were much higher in the 30s what are you talking about

[@rjames3981]

Very interesting. Would be good to hear more about the Latvian Rifles and their role with the Red Army. There’s still a large memorial to them in Riga I remember.

[@ryangriffin5990]

Latvians also staffed a lot of the political and police positions (Cheka, nkvd). Later fueled Stalin’s paranoia as they were seen as potentially collaborating with Germany.

[@mikefay5698]

Probably been torn down by the Fascists running Latvia. The Lettish rifles were Lenin's most trusted bodyguard!

[@mikefay5698]

@@ryangriffin5990 Well they certainly do these days with the EU which was based on Heinrich Himmlers SS. He was in charge of all the occupation Zones. During that period of occupation they gathered all the Jews in the centre of Riga and clubbed them to death. Making the SS sick!

[@what8562]

@@ryangriffin5990 True. Their, ahem, "role" in the purges is even more fun. First they killed shitload of people. Then they were eliminated, occasionally with relatives and kiddies. The Russian-language expression is "за что боролись, на то и напоролись". Look it up.