How did the Whites LOSE the Russian Civil War?

[@KingHedgehogYT]

What would you guys like to see next?

[@davidfoarde558]

Maybe the majestic hedgehog could give his thoughts on the Spanish civil war? Or some detailed looks at different aspects or events of the Russian civil war. I find the white army specifically interesting - you don’t hear about them as much as the Reds and the communists for obvious reasons.

[@davidfoarde558]

I heard a story that took place in the end of WW2 that involved some nazi units teaming up with allied soldiers to fight off an SS unit and rescue a bunch of Austrian horses…now that story alone was wild but I remember a detail that a band of roaming (possibly Ukrainian?) hussars that were sort of leftover white army fighters ended up joining this ragtag group in the fight as well. Forgive me because I’m sure many of those facts are wrong but that’s the gist I remember - my thought is it would be interesting to dig into if there really were leftover factions of the white army who survived into ww2 and allied themselves with the Germans or just what were they up to? I believe outlaws like Frank and Jessie James who ended up in the American west in the later part of the 19th century were sort of confederates who never gave up the fight. A Russian version of that would very interesting if it happened. Cheers!

[@boi4055]

@@davidfoarde558the story about the horses was part of operation cowboy where Patton teamed up with the German army to fight against the ss to save white horses, it was one of 2 incidents in the war where America teamed up with the Germans against the ss

[@melvinbrotherofthejoker436]

France after Franco-Prussian war and how it led them into WW1

[@zayedbinimran957]

This is just pure bolshevik propaganda

[@syourke3]

The Red Army had a single unified command under Trotsky, who was absolutely brilliant in his chosen role. The Whits were divided into three separate armies that never effectively coordinated among themselves.

[@poil8351]

pretty much sums it up although they had other factions in the white forces and the western forces also kind of made it more difficult for the whites to win, plus the japanese tried to annex siberia before finally withdrawing. the reds did have issues internally with stalin basically doing his own thing and behaving like a thug which was the start of the stalin trostky split.

[@noeltlalka6476]

While this was one of the major factors, there was also rampant corruption among the factions and certain generals who set up warlord regions, stealing equipment that was being delivered by the West. Also the fact that Soviets simply had larger resources in every aspect at their disposal, more men, more industry, more peasant support (at least at the start because the proletariat realized pretty soon that the bolsheviks were simply another dictatorship)

[@cristosl]

There was no broad popular support for the whites, without outside support they had nothing. The Bolsheviks took over by tapping in to the popular desire to sweep away the moribund suffocating edifice of the Tzar. The whites just wanted the same old with a different figurehead, that’s why they lost

[@johnbradbury8610]

when four million soldiers leave thats isn't brilliance.

[@syourke3]

@@johnbradbury8610 He beat the forces trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks, didn’t he?

[@andrewcamden]

Wow! As someone with a degree in this area of history, I have to say that I am favorably impressed by your ability to concisely sum it up and do so without sliding into gross oversimplifications or ideological drivel. Subscribed!

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you! That's incredibly kind!

[@GuyCollins-o6n]

Anti-Ruussia propaganda. ...."Russians so dumb the only reason they defeated these foreign powers was that the foreign powers couldn't cooperate. The truth is that the whites lost because the people of Russia rejected them because they were brutal foreign mercenaries. AMERICAN troops fought there...he left that out. Say whatever about the Bolsheviks, but they liberated a people from tyranny with promises of hope and equality. Of course people chose the reds over the whites. The whites wanted to establish the monarchy....now who's good and who's bad here?

[@andrewcamden]

@@stuartwray6175thanks for catching that. "As someone with a degree..."

[@nikasamwkusvili9345]

lost ther comofloge when the snow melted

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Rough!

[@Mahatmajenkins]

those 3 months a year

[@freddiethompson58]

And Quiet Flows the Don is a novel in four volumes by Russian writer Mikhail Sholokhov, that explains the best why the White Army lose to the Bolsheviks.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you! I'll check it out!

[@spenceramey406]

I've seen the movie version of it, really compelling film!

[@Griboslaw]

It is excellent, I read it many times. I also recommend it. Excellent summary Mr. ​@@KingHedgehogYT It is difficult period and you did fine work here.

[@vikasjogi6108]

It was partly communist propaganda as well i think, Mikhail Sholokhov was awarded by the state. But its an absolutely brilliant book no doubt.

[@marksheen4873]

Excellent video, good to see quality content coming up from an up and coming Channel

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Much appreciated!

[@davidfoarde558]

This was great. Always been interested in this topic, I feel it often gets overshadowed by the revolution that led to it and all of the more global conflicts that came in the following decades. Also, it’s not an easy “this side V that side” narrative…reminds me a bit of the Spanish civil war in that sense and with the divided inner factions. Fascinating, would love more on this subject or whatever you find interesting!

[@schweinhund7966]

Impressive video… excellent video clips of the era and commendable narrative! Having focused upon Russian/Soviet Area Studies (history, government, economics and geography) in college in 1978-80, and written on the US North Russia campaign vicinity Archangel… you did a super job! I am now a subscriber!

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you!

[@tdubya75]

This is a fantastic and informative video! A subject I was always curious about but never understood. I hope your future content is just as good. Subscribed

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Glad it was helpful!

[@havocrecords5397]

Not mentioned, but the Reds also had the advantage of internal lines of supply and a transit system that radiated from the major cities they retained (Moscow, Petersburg). The foreign support the Whites recived was too difficult to bring to bear at the sharp end due to the lack of logistics from the supply ports on the Empire perfifery. I think the video somewhat over emphasises the adverse affects of White disunity and over emphasises the personal role of Trotsky. Though those were certainly both important factors. Just probably not decisive. To my mind the best book on this subject remains Evan Mawdsley's "Russian Civil War".

[@metehan5745]

Great job 👏

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Big thanks

[@tiredgrove]

Can you please list your sources in the next video, and (possibly) add the ones you used for this one in the description? If you are going to produce more content on the Russian Civil War, I'd recommend former Ambassador George Kennan's two book series on it. "Russia leaves the War" and "The Decision to Intervene." Both of them cover the Civil War from the American/Western Allied perspective and they were a interesting read.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

I'm going to be hopping around topics for a little while, but I'll be sure to check out both of those books! I'm terrible with citations, and will definitely have them posted for the next video!

[@d.m.collins1501]

​@@KingHedgehogYT okay, so you just did an AMAZING video about an important but often neglected facet of one of modern history's most pivotal moments... I really like your channel and expect great things of you in future! I should probably leave it at that. But I want you to know, now and right away, your one glaring flaw that I think you need to take care of. And I figure the best time to give it to you is now, while you're still a young channel, and no one will see this comment except other fans who think very highly of you and are rooting for you (and probably are thinking the same things I am saying). Let me talk to you of conclusions. Until about timestamp 7:39, everything is perfect. And I mean that. You made your points so well in the video before that, in fact, that I think you could have just peaced out right then and concluded the video there as-is, or maybe with a little thank-you-goodbye (or used that extra time to delve even deeper and share even more interesting, yet somehow crucial, facts we've never heard before!) But instead you decided you needed tie a bow on this thing. And you KEPT tying bows... Like, literally, you have ten concluding sentences that all say basically the same thing. And here they are, in order, all at the end: 1. The preeminent factor leading to the Bolshevik victory in the civil war was undeniably the profound weaknesses and disunity within the White Forces. 2. Rather than presenting a formidable front, the White Army, soon after it's inception, descended into one of the most dysfunctional military entities in modern history. 3. Refusal among generals to collaborate and a glaring lack of cohesion within their ranks epitomized the disarray that plagued the White forces. 4. Foreign intervention, while a potential turning point, exemplified how victory could have been achievable for the Whites, despite possessing numerical superiority, military experience, and external backing, the White armies succumbed to mismanagement, squandering the opportunities presented by limited support. 5. The disunity among various factions within the Whites proved to be a formidable impediment, overshadowing their collective capabilities. 6. In conclusion, the unraveling of the White Army during the Russian Civil War exposes a narrative of squandered potential and internal discord. 7. While foreign intervention and individual leadership such as Trotsky's played roles in shaping the conflict's course, it is the White Army's internal fractures and their inability to forge a cohesive front against the common adversary that stand out as the linchpin of their downfall. 8. The myriad of ideological and personal divisions, mistrust among generals, and a failure to unite under a shared purpose all converge to sap the strength of the White forces. 9. In essence, the disorganization within their ranks emerges as a pivotal factor, eclipsing their numerical advantage and military experience. 10. As we delve into the annals of history, it becomes apparent that teh White Army's internal disunity rather than external factors prove to be the defining catalyst for their ultimate defeat in the tumultuous landscape of the Russian Civil War. ... and here is what, I think, your audience is actually hearing. Doesn't it sound a bit grating? 1. The Bolsheviks won due to the White Army's lack of unity. 2. Rather than being unified, the White Army had a lack of unity. 3. The generals didn't cooperate. Hence, a lack of unity. 4. Foreign intervention could have been a potential turning point, but the White Army had a lack of unity. 5. There was a lack of unity. 6. IN CONCLUSION, the White Army lacked unity. 7. Foreign intervention and Trotsky didn't exactly help the White Army, sure. But do you know why they lost? Well, I'll TELL you! You'll never guess! Are you ready? Here goes.... it was ... a LACK of UNITY! 8. The myriad of something something, lack of unity. 9. IN ESSENCE, LACK OF UNITY. 10. Let's conclude now! Lack of unity! 11. In summary, a LACK of unity. 12. But what REALLY happened was a LACK of UNITY! 13. Sixteen men on a dead man's chest, yo ho ho, and a LACK of UNITY. 14. The preeminent factor leading to the Bolshevik victory in the civil war was undeniably a lack of unity. 15. Lack of UNITY! 16. Lack. Of.... U-NI-TEE!! 17. LACK. 18. LACK OF. 19. LACK OF UNITY!!! 20. Thank you for taking the time to watch my video. 21. Lack of unity. Anyway, sorry for the teasing. But I've been in your shoes (in the print medium, anyway) and made the same mistake. It's my hope that this brutal example will help you learn to cut it out immediately! If it helps you to be more concise in your videos, remember that you can make INFINITE numbers of videos! You will get future chances to speak your peace. Don't be afraid that there might be some idea or turn of phrase that you REALLY want to use and didn't get the chance to use right now. If it's important, it will NOT go unsaid for long! So don't add it to an already-finished product. SAVE it for the NEXT one! You'll get the benefit, and your audience won't click away too soon!

[@d.m.collins1501]

... but sirsly your video was very good. I learned a whole bunch of new stuff I had not heard before... like the Mensheviks fought with the White Army? There were socialists fighting WITH the Whites AGAINST the Reds? Trotsky hired back tons of Tsarist officers? That is important context that is just far too often left on the cutting room floor of other history KZbinrs. Well done. VERY well. Thank you for helping my mind grow tonight!

[@ekesandras1481]

The Bolsheviks made a proclamation, that the agricultural land in the villages will be redistributed before the planting season 1918 and whoever is not at his home village at the given date, will get nothing. Within days the whole army desintegrated, millions of soldiers, who where already fed up with the war, urgently rushed to their home villages only to find out, that on the given date no state official would come to their village to redistribute the land in an orderly way. They than went on and did it on their own, burned down the local aristocrats manor, plundered the wine cellar, lynched his family and took everything they could get. From that moment on, they knew they had blood on their hands and had unintentionally become complices of the Bolsheviks. They could never go back to the old rule, because than they would all be arrested or even shot. They maybe didn't want the Bolsheviks to win the struggle, but they also couldn't allow the old aristocrats to ever come back to power. Lenin had planned this move all in advance in a ingenious but also demonic way.

[@alessiodecarolis]

Pratically the inverse happened in Spanish Civil war, when the nationalists under Franco had a strong, centralized command, when the republicans where divided also in their goals and methods, with the communists gaining more power than other factions.

[@Ymirson999]

Great narration. Very succinct and to the point. You pick out the major points in ways either a laymen or a scholar can easily grasp.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you! I've tried really hard to ensure that anyone can get interested in history!

[@Ymirson999]

Not an easy thing to do. History is a big town. It's easy for a layman to lose interest due to just how much of it there really is. Undoubtedly that's why so many historically based movies don't do well. The creators fail to keep it simple, it's a bit overwhelming and people just lose interest. Take care and I'll check out more of your work soon. @@KingHedgehogYT

[@recondo886]

civil conflicts are never simple.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Very true

[@TheVigilantEye77]

Great footage

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you kindly

[@cliffgaither]

​@KingHedgehogYT :: Thank you for this fascinating, historical video❕️ I always wondered "Y" the Whites were defeated by the Reds. The Whites had military support from France, Japan, Britain and the United States. They should have kicked azz❕️ The Whites were not as professional as I thought. They had a great deal to lose and should have unified for their greater good. They were also heavily-burdened with too many self-congratulatory medals and well-fed stomachs weighing them down and late for important meetings on strategy. I didn't know Trotsky was a military strategist. He was not just some hot-headed, crazy Marxist Revolutionary. Those times must have been extremely hard for everyone, judging from the film-footage ; especially for the peasants, as usual. No matter❕️ The Bolshevics saved their Revolution. The United States, Britain, Japan and France had to back-off. It is so difficult to defeat the Russians. The Japanese, in their one-on-one war-victory with Tzarist Russia must have had a lot of luck. Where Napoleon failed. Where Hitler failed. Where the "Allied" Forces failed in 1918. None of them, combined, had Japan's luck. Now, Russia has to prove again that She cannot be defeated. Poor Ukraine must take Her place with the other losers. When will the world learn ? Russians live in freezing temperatures for a reason. Just as nature helps animals adjust to the harshest environments. Long Live Russia and the Russian People❕️

[@cratchoo9300]

Good video. Thanks👏

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Glad you liked it!

[@arthur-yq4ic]

if the peasants knew....

[@tbone450r]

USSR was better than imperial Russia

[@noeltlalka6476]

This is why we should learn from history. The proletariat is simply mass of people that's going to blindly follow any leadership if they promise something. The peasants realized pretty quickly that the bolsheviks will not give them the utopia they promised, and it's simply another dictatorship with a hammer and sickle instead of a tsar.

[@ryansquires5098]

I recently just read "With the Die Hards of Siberia" by Col. John Ward. It's a first person account of a British officer during this time. I encourage you all to read it!

[@nccamsc]

Dawn Region? It’s Don, named after the river Don.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you, haha, I use an autosubtitler, and it seems to have made more than one mistake that I've missed. Luckily, I do know it's the Don region.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@KingHedgehogYT I'd not be using that in the future if I were you. .

[@KingHedgehogYT]

@@BobSmith-dk8nw Saves me hours of work, I think I'll keep using it haha.

[@anicemahoganywoodtable7486]

The reds got a lot of gold

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Wish I had that much gold.

[@Mahatmajenkins]

they flew a white flag, never planning to surrender

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

It is an interesting word choice, pairing "lynchpin" with "downfall," when a lynchpin is an object that would hold things together.

[@rejvaik00]

It's also used as an expression of the single unifier that when broke causes what's being held together to crumble

[@stuartwray6175]

8:51 - "the linchpin of their downfall" - yeah, it doesn't sound right.

[@rejvaik00]

@@stuartwray6175 no it does, the expression is based on the fact that if you sever the joint of attachment the remaining pieces fall apart

[@stuartwray6175]

​​​@@rejvaik00 'the lynchpin of their downfall' doesn't sound right. The primary cause; chief reason - 'the basis' (background/cause) of their downfall, perhaps?

[@rejvaik00]

@@stuartwray6175 it's being correctly used the problem why it doesn't sound right is because it's an older term that isn't used very often But yes when something is joined with another object the joint is the weakest point between those two objects

[@forcelightningcable9639]

Gotta love a lack of intro, a bad mic, and a monotone delivery. It means to me that all the effort was spent of research and scholarship, and it shows.

[@DoriansPortrait]

Nice! Playing Katyusha.

[@JohnDoe-in2gk]

what song in the background? good vid

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

Admiral Kolchak looks like Bela Lugosi in Dracula

[@masterstacker2833]

Very informative.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Glad you liked it

[@Astrid_1701]

I know that during the Russian Civil War, my great-grandfather was for the White Army and was captured by the Bolsheviks.

[@7swordsinc909]

such an amazing video, you deserve an applause! 1+ like and a new subscriber :)

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Wow, thank you! That's very kind!

[@Ariel-q7n]

Diversity is not anyones strength ever. Unity supported by various abilities & experiences held by people of charater is the way to go. Good leadership from someone who has people skills & expertise is a part of that.

[@remittanceman4685]

A very top heavy organisation geared to the needs of the elite rather than the main body. No clear strategy. Disunited command. Conflicts between personal interests and the collective interest. Need I go on? As an aside I work for an organisation structured in a very similar way. I am very glad I am retiring soon.

[@billrosenstein]

The reds cousins in NY financed it

[@shawnv123]

i don’t think no one financed the october revolution/russian civil war

[@dennettshane1929]

Why don't you go ahead and say what you really mean

[@billrosenstein]

@@dennettshane1929 because I didn't want my comment to be deleted. You must be new to the internet.

[@dennettshane1929]

@@billrosenstein well you must be stupid because I asked you an obviously rhetorical question. Which makes sense on account of your cowardly ass nazi larping opinions. Say what you really mean weasel

[@khrystleooo6994]

American bankers loaded $1 billion in gold on a train for Vladimir Lenin, and shipped it to him.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

The famous NYC to Moscow Trans-Atlantic trainline lmfao

[@andrewcarpenter687]

What about the 250 million dollar loan given to the provisional government to stay in the war preceeding the October revolution...germans gladly loaded Lenin on a train to russia...its all ugly...we are dealing with despotic crime families running the world for profit...you know their names...tc

[@texaswunderkind]

@@KingHedgehogYT The train takes a shortcut through the moon and is run by unicorns.

[@michaelthomson1560]

Any evidence?

[@AlexCab_49]

The Russian civil war is very interesting to me considering how messy it was and people forget it wasn't just the Whites and Reds fighting, there were also the makhnovists in Ukraine and the Kronstadt mutiny

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Very true! It's an incredibly interesting conflict. Would you like me to do a video diving into some of the lesser known factions?

[@rankoorovic7904]

Relying on foreign help and refusal to work together

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Very true!

[@roc7880]

it was not any unified White Army, but a separate network of several groups. practically, they were competent but lacked a leader as Lenin to umify them. plus, they did not have enough support from Europe in fighting Reds.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you for the comment, I believe I touched on this in the video. Support from abroad was largely squandered, and lack of central leadership was incredibly detrimental.

[@Dulcimertunes]

The Whites arrived at Ekaterinburg a mere 8 days after the Tsar and family were murdered

[@KingHedgehogYT]

A tragedy, truly.

[@Historical_events]

Wonderful video, Christ bless.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

God Bless

[@williamgill_esq.6487]

Another factor was the fact that a very large part of the war was fought on historic Ukrainian territory - and the Ukrainians had a half dozen factions all fighting for an independent Ukraine free of the Russian Empire - whether Red Bolsheviks or White monarchist.

[@mikesvenson5156]

Stupid Ukrainians actions to attack White Russian army, they automatically support Reds, as a result, Ukrainians will mass suffer under the Bolshevik regime

[@abdelrakhman]

Skoropadskij and Petlyura didn't have big armies. Forget about Armies of Ukraine

[@tempejkl]

Come on the Bolsheviks. Havent watched the whole video, ill finish it later, but i like the way it uses real footage

[@KingHedgehogYT]

I think the Bolsheviks might win!

[@user-iw1nw4du8x8]

Historic Russia died with Evacuation of the Crimea in 1920

[@bman6065]

Well since it's 2024 and this is KZbin I'm gonna blame it all on Wilson.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Wilson!!!!

[@Fauxstus]

this guy knows what he's talking about

[@KingHedgehogYT]

So true!

[@phillipboone2005]

From October 1917 until now, Russia has been in political upheaval because the will of the majority has been ignored.

[@ryanh4775]

Wasn't the head of the Russian Orthodox Church running the show for the white army for a little bit or am I confusing that with something else?

[@KingHedgehogYT]

The Russian Orthodox Church definitely played a large part in the White Movement, as the Reds were largely promoting athiesm

[@DoIoannToKnow]

The Church in Russia had no functional role, but many patriarchs voiced support for the White movement overall, but would usually disavow uncalled for extremism After the loss of the White army, any priest that did not disown the Church was imprisoned

[@warmonger8799]

[@panoskatrin4910]

In three words central scientific planning.The logistical capabilities that central planning offered the early soviet union was due to the quality diffrence between the socialist and capitalist state.When the whole economy state and army can be coordinated without the limitations that arise from a state whose policies and goals are to serve a war economy of large monopolies that can profit from war That is the main reason why the bolsheviks won.The whites had no industry no way to supply themselves they were an army that had to rely on external support while the communists had the soviets(worker unions) on their side.All the big economic centers of the country were controlled by the workers who took manners in their own hands.The soviets werent brilliant strategists or military commanders they were the ones who made the weapons the bullets the clothes and tanks and they had the poor peasants at their side when it came to producing food. Its crazy people think that the whites could have won.The only possible way for a victory for the whites would be to have their allies commit to a larger scale of invasion but at the time the end ww1 the instability in their own countries and the creation of new markets elsewhere made it less profitable for large european and american monopolies to invest and make money out of the russian civil war

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Interesting way to look at it! Generally speaking, the side with the better industry has an immense advantage! I don't know if anyone genuinely believes the Whites had a genuine chance of victory without completely reworking how they worked. Essentially, the only way the Whites won is a weird alternate history scenario where EVERYTHING goes perfectly for them. Good summary, thanks for the comment.

[@DoIoannToKnow]

Both the timing and outcomes of the first world war and Russian civil war are very heavily connected. These two events really should be matched together and looked at as the same event - the most impactful event of the 20th century: if you can understand why, then the entire narrative of the rest of the 20th century into today makes perfectly clear sense. World war 1 is usually taught very poorly, and the Russian civil war almost not at all - and the theorist part of me thinks thats very much on purpose

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The Red's won because Moscow had the Rail Hub for Russia and Trotsky used it to shift troops and supplies back and forth. The Whites were each coming up a rail line the were getting their supplies on. Trotsky - using interior lines and the rail hub was able to concentrate first against one White Army and then against the next. In WWII - the Moscow Rail Hub was still critical - and - speculation is - that had the Germans Captured it - they might have been able to win as the Soviets would not be able to move supplies and troops around from one place to another. Since they didn't capture it - we can't know how much difference it would have made if they had. France had a similar Administrative and Logistical Center in Paris - which made their Capital very important to them. Other countries - that did not have such Centralized Rail Hubs - were not as vulnerable. .

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Certainly an important part of every conflict, the logistics

[@billwilson3665]

I read Belarus meant 'white Russia' is there any significance to the historic white Russians?

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Funnily enough, this term actually comes from before the concept of a unified Russia, so it led to some confusion during the civil war, and the post-war USSR

[@bambukouk]

it's bit more complicated... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ruthenia

[@madbro7163]

overall the white army was about 1,023,000. on the other hand the red was about 3.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Ten billion white army soldiers........

[@madbro7163]

actually 271k@@KingHedgehogYT

[@musicilya6674]

ten billion???!!!@@KingHedgehogYT

[@Mahatmajenkins]

6 million obviously@@musicilya6674

[@duongthienbao8782]

​@@KingHedgehogYT not so a lot of soldiers of the white army in that time

[@genx7006]

The Whites came very close to winning in 1919. They lost the initiative at Orel under Mai-Maevskii. To be honest, the elite formations of the Southern forces did a fantastic job. If the British had contributed a handful more of the Mark IV or Mark V tanks, the Whites would have easily taken Moscow and won the war. There were many reasons why the White army collapsed overall, but imagine trying to win a war with just the Marines. You would make some progress, but you can't hold your position. Also, the other sectors (North, Northwest, East) did not attack simultaneously. Aside from the South, perhaps the Northwest provided the best troops. There was poor coordination amongst the different sectors, if any. For what the Whites accomplished in the South, it was nothing short of miraculous. There was a point where they were totally bottled up in the Crimea, and then managed to break out again. The elite forces had an unbeatable elan. Unfortunately, you can't win a war by yourself. Others have to chip in to secure the victory. That never happened.

[@007romryan]

Good video. My great, great, Grandfather was a Russian Army officer with the Czarist forces.

[@GuyCollins-o6n]

You're proud of that....because the Romanovs were good rulers? ....they weren't. I'd be proud of a man that fought for the people...not the absolute imbeciles that the Romanovs most certainly were. Sorry..not sorry

[@bold810]

I bought my Canyonero from Don Cossacks Chevrolet. 😐

[@KingHedgehogYT]

12 yard long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride

[@vadimanreev4585]

An agreement between Wrangel and the French government. August 30, 1920 // "Entente and Wrangel". M.-P., 1923. Collection of articles, issue 1, pp. 25-26. Type of material historical document (327190) Author of the document Wrangel (2) French government (4) The title of the document is the Agreement between Wrangel and the French government. August 30, 1920 (1) Document date 1920 (12897) Code b/w (106678) Archive b/a (109257) Information about the publication of the Entente and Wrangel. M.-P., 1923. Collection of articles, issue 1, pp. 25-26. (1) Names of Wrangel (167) Geography of France (4101) Dates 1920 (13047) Organizations French Government (39) Subject Civil War -- The Third United campaign of the Entente against Soviet Russia (83) Types of documents Treaty (531) Document source From the history of the Civil War in the USSR. 1918-1922: Collection of documents. and materials in 3 volumes. 3. February 1920-October 1922. - Moscow: Soviet Russia, 1961. (720) The author of the entry 2020-03-14 / Bobrov Vadim (720)

[@vadimanreev4585]

THE TREATY BETWEEN WRANGEL AND THE FRENCH BY THE GOVERNMENT on August 30, 1920 Wrangel undertakes to: 1. To recognize all obligations of Russia and its cities in relation to France with priority and payment of interest on interest. 2. France will restructure all Russian debts and a new b/y interest-bearing loan, with partial annual repayment, for 35 years. 3. The payment of interest and annual repayment is guaranteed: a) the transfer to France of the right to operate all railways of European Russia for a certain period of time; b) the transfer to France of the right to levy customs and port duties in all ports of the Black and Azov Seas; c) by placing at the disposal of France the surplus of bread in Ukraine and in the Kuban region for a certain number of years, and pre-war exports are taken as the starting point; d) by placing at the disposal of France three quarters of oil and gasoline production for a certain period of time, and pre-war production is based on; e) the transfer of a fourth part of the mined coal in the Donetsk region for a certain number of years. The specified period will be set by a special agreement that has not yet been worked out. Points "b", "c" and "d" come into force immediately after the occupation of the gen. Wrangel of the respective territories. The amounts earned through the export of raw materials can be used to pay interest on old debts. 4. In the future, official French financial and commercial offices will be established under the Russian Ministries of Finance, Trade and Industry, the rights of which must be established by a special agreement. 5. France undertakes the task of restoring Russian weapons and shell factories, and first of all, a new army is being armed. France and Russia conclude an offensive and defensive alliance for a period of 20 years.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thank you, incredibly interesting

[@ferdinandsiegel4470]

The reason, arrogance and refusal to work together. Same thing happened to the American Indians.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

I should look more into the topic and maybe do a video on it at some point!

[@Mahatmajenkins]

what about the scalpers? Just so we're clear, all those tribes were people that escaped from the mexican teca death cults, but in actuality were not much better

[@cat_city2009]

No, American indigenous people were very small in number and had a massive material disadvantage against the US. How were a few tens of thousands of pastoralists with no industrial base supposed to defeat an industrialized country of millions?

[@Mahatmajenkins]

they died of disease, not an evil empire. It was the natives that raped and murdered the pioneers, usually small groups of families. @@cat_city2009

[@CSUnger]

Hope we learn the lesson here. I fear we may need it ourselves in the near future.

[@nj2mddude205]

My maternal grandfather was a Don Cossack. He fought against the Germans and the Bolsheviks. My father's side were Don Cossacks as well. I hate to say it, but I'm glad the Whites lost. I couldn't imgaine not being an American.

[@ABPHistory]

1:48 Kadets were liberals

[@KingHedgehogYT]

The Kadets attracted a base ranging from moderate conservatives to mild socialists.

[@stuartwray6175]

​@@KingHedgehogYTTo me as an English person, that sounds like the definition of a Liberal.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

@@stuartwray6175 Sounds like a whole political party consisting of everything from moderate conservatives to socialists! Haha.

[@stuartwray6175]

@@KingHedgehogYTI was thinking 'Moderate Conservatives to mild Socialists' = the third way/triangulation of Blairism. Blair endorsed the UK's Liberal/Conservative coalition government (2015). Alistair Campbell (Blair's advisor) advised France's Macron.

[@peterosmanski7466]

Ah, so diversity is not a universal strength? Have we been lied to?😊

[@Brian-----]

Thank you for covering this history. Several points sometimes get lost in this history (not that the author of the video misses anything, I am just commenting in general): 1) In November ("October") 1917, the Bolsheviks overthrew a Republic of nine months' tenure, as the Tsar already had abdicated, so the only unifying White principle was opposition to the Reds (despite many actual Tsarists among the Whites), while the Reds had a unifying principle (communism). Russia for most of 1917 had been a genuinely free country (though losing at a massive war, so partly unfree for that reason), but the free regime was not stable. 2) The White side represented gross and corrupt malmanagement of a[nother; see Japan] disastrous war, a war which was extremely unpopular for very good reasons; whatever the Reds' sins of Brest-Litovsk or ideology were, the Reds in fact had not been the losers of the war, while the Whites had. 3) The Reds controlled the center and most developed part of Russia mainly because their supporters were the empire's most productive workers who also had direct access to the most productive industries. 4) There were no heroes and both sides to some degree were the bad guys. The Red future of the Soviet Union was not known at the time, but the bad, near-term White history was. Also, the Red future soon changed significantly from Lenin to Stalin (both of whom were bad, but very different kinds of bad). 5) Today in Russia we have under Putin plausibly some modern flavor of what a Kolchak regime might have been like. And of course, the Putin regime is not good! The upshot is that the Whites beating the Reds would not necessarily have led to good, or freedom and peace for Russia and its periphery and neighbors, and probably would have led to just a different kind of bad outcome - maybe somewhat better bad, but maybe also somewhat worse bad.

[@skullsaintdead]

Well said and condensed, much obliged!

[@conradlohutko4930]

BS. The Red Army was defeated by my great grandfather. Unfortunately, he died in two weeks of cancer before being crowned Tsar. My great grandfather was the Archduke of Lithuania.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Interesting!

[@cat_city2009]

RIP bozos.

[@JakobPonomareff]

Novemberrevolution*

[@KingHedgehogYT]

The Russian Civil War was caused by the November Revolution, but they were separate events.

[@coffeeconscript]

Hype

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Thanks, good to hear that from you 🥰

[@guccipucci3941]

Because the Red army is the strongest, next question

[@KingHedgehogYT]

Haha, not stronger than the Polish Army apparently!

[@noeltlalka6476]

​@@KingHedgehogYTwe aren't going to let them beat us when we finally have a chance to be free after 123 under Russian boot 😮

[@cat_city2009]

From the taiga to the British sea.

[@texaswunderkind]

Not as strong as the Afghan army, apparently. #ASSKICKED

[@brndnwilks]

If only the White Army had utilized their diversity in a more inclusive manner, they might have done better. 😐

[@duongthienbao8782]

They were a bunch of idiots and incompetent like the Russian tsarist army in World War I, so they couldn't win against the Red Army.

[@TheWaveGoodbye-Music]

they were fighting for an Empire not a better life or ideas. Also a communist state is an oxymoron, it was the worlds first socialist state.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

The outcome of the conflict had a lot more to do with logistical problems than it did the idealized version of the society that would follow.

[@jdools4744]

Lmao what’s it like living as a knuckle dragging retard?

[@Mahatmajenkins]

the graduated income tax (in the manifesto) passed in 1913 made the US an earlier example of such an idea

[@junzhang2087]

Could you turn off the music? It’s very annoying

[@parallax9084]

This video is extremely inaccurate/surface level. You basically said the Whites wouldve won if they were Bolsheviks. Which is a stupid statement

[@KingHedgehogYT]

This is intended as an entry level explanation of the causes that led to the defeat of the White Army - nothing I said was false, and the reasons had far more depth than you suggest. Thank you for the criticism.

[@parallax9084]

@@KingHedgehogYT you called the Kadets a "socialist party", young man dont pretend as if youre not reading this video from wikipedia. Hell if you read from wikipedia it wouldve been better.

[@KingHedgehogYT]

"The amalgamation of former Tsarists, progressives, and diverse socialist factions like the Kadets and Mensheviks..." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Democratic_Party The Kadet Party included a large mild-socialist wing and were heavily influenced by their socialist representatives. Feel free to argue, but don't resort to personal insults. I wrote my script, and I read up on my topics. Be kind and be fair.

[@parallax9084]

@@KingHedgehogYT the kadets were not socialist whatsoever

[@NoSuffix]

Can we say that authoritarian regimes or dictatorships often work more efficiently than a democratic system which has to be built on slow and even chaotic negotiations and compromises especially when facing a sudden crisis? That's both worrisome and sad.