"Red" and "white": why the main opponents of the Civil War were called these colors. Who are the Reds? Whites and Reds in the Civil War

Every Russian knows that in the Civil War 1917-1922 years opposed two movements - "Red and White". But among historians there is still no consensus on how it began. Someone believes that the reason was Krasnov's March on the Russian capital (October 25); others believe that the war began when, in the near future, the commander of the Volunteer Army, Alekseev, arrived on the Don (November 2); it is also believed that the war began with the fact that Milyukov proclaimed the “Declaration of the Volunteer Army, delivering a speech at the ceremony, called the Don (December 27). Another popular opinion, which is far from unfounded, is the opinion that the Civil War began immediately after the February Revolution, when the whole society split into supporters and opponents of the Romanov monarchy.

"White" movement in Russia

"Red" movement

Results of the Civil War

Where did the terms "red" and "white" come from? The Civil War also knew the "greens", "cadets", "SRs" and other formations. What is their fundamental difference?

In this article, we will answer not only these questions, but also get acquainted briefly with the history of formation in the country. Let's talk about the confrontation between the White Guard and the Red Army.

Origin of the terms "red" and "white"

Today, the history of the Fatherland is less and less concerned with young people. According to polls, many do not even have an idea, what can we say about Patriotic war 1812...

However, such words and phrases as "red" and "white", "Civil War" and "October Revolution" are still well known. Most, however, do not know the details, but they have heard the terms.

Let's take a closer look at this issue. We should start with where the two opposing camps came from - "white" and "red" in the Civil War. In principle, it was just an ideological move by Soviet propagandists and nothing more. Now you will understand this riddle yourself.

If you turn to the textbooks and reference books of the Soviet Union, it explains that the “whites” are the White Guards, supporters of the tsar and enemies of the “reds”, the Bolsheviks.

It seems that everything was like that. But in fact, this is another enemy that the Soviets fought.

After all, the country has lived for seventy years in opposition to fictitious opponents. These were the "whites", the kulaks, the decaying West, the capitalists. Very often, such a vague definition of the enemy served as the foundation for slander and terror.

Next, we will discuss the causes of the Civil War. The "Whites", according to the Bolshevik ideology, were monarchists. But here's the catch, there were practically no monarchists in the war. They had no one to fight for, and honor did not suffer from this. Nicholas II abdicated the throne, but his brother did not accept the crown. So everything royal officers were free from the oath.

Where, then, did this “color” difference come from? If the Bolsheviks did have a red flag, then their opponents never had a white one. The answer lies in the history of a century and a half ago.

The Great French Revolution gave the world two opposing camps. The royal troops wore a white banner, a sign of the dynasty of the French rulers. Their opponents, after the seizure of power, hung a red canvas in the window of the city hall as a sign of the introduction of wartime. On such days, any gathering of people was dispersed by soldiers.

The Bolsheviks were opposed not by monarchists, but by supporters of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly (Constitutional Democrats, Cadets), anarchists (Makhnovists), "Green Army" (fought against the "Reds", "Whites", interventionists) and those who wanted to separate their territory into a free state .

Thus, the term "whites" has been cleverly used by ideologues to define a common enemy. His winning position turned out to be that any Red Army soldier could explain in a nutshell what he was fighting for, unlike all the other rebels. It attracted ordinary people on the side of the Bolsheviks and made it possible for the latter to win the Civil War.

Background of the war

When the Civil War is studied in the classroom, the table is simply necessary for a good assimilation of the material. Below are the stages of this military conflict, which will help you better navigate not only in the article, but also in this period of the history of the Fatherland.

Now that we have decided who the “reds” and “whites” are, the Civil War, or rather its stages, will be more understandable. You can proceed to a deeper study of them. Let's start with the prerequisites.

So, the main reason for such a heat of passion, which subsequently resulted in a five-year Civil War, was the accumulated contradictions and problems.

First, participation Russian Empire in World War I destroyed the economy and depleted resources in the country. The bulk of the male population was in the army, agriculture and urban industry fell into decline. The soldiers were tired of fighting for other people's ideals when there were hungry families at home.

The second reason was agrarian and industrial issues. There were too many peasants and workers who lived below the poverty line and destitution. The Bolsheviks took full advantage of this.

In order to turn participation in the world war into an interclass struggle, certain steps were taken.

First, the first wave of nationalization of enterprises, banks, and lands took place. Then the Brest Treaty was signed, which plunged Russia into the abyss of complete ruin. Against the background of the general devastation, the Red Army men staged a terror in order to stay in power.

To justify their behavior, they built an ideology of struggle against the White Guards and interventionists.

background

Let's take a closer look at why the Civil War began. The table we cited earlier illustrates the stages of conflict. But we will start with the events that took place before the Great October Revolution.

Weakened by participation in the First World War, the Russian Empire is in decline. Nicholas II abdicates the throne. More importantly, he does not have a successor. In the light of such events, two new forces are being formed simultaneously - the Provisional Government and the Soviet of Workers' Deputies.

The first begin to deal with the social and political spheres crisis, the Bolsheviks concentrated on increasing their influence in the army. This path led them subsequently to the opportunity to become the only ruling force in the country.
It was the confusion in the administration of the state that led to the formation of "red" and "white". The civil war was only the apotheosis of their differences. Which is to be expected.

October Revolution

In fact, the tragedy of the Civil War begins with the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks were gaining strength and more confidently went to power. In mid-October 1917, a very tense situation began to develop in Petrograd.

October 25 Alexander Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government, leaves Petrograd for Pskov for help. He personally assesses the events in the city as an uprising.

In Pskov, he asks to help him with troops. Kerensky seems to receive support from the Cossacks, but suddenly from regular army Cadets come out. Now the Constitutional Democrats refuse to support the head of government.

Not finding proper support in Pskov, Alexander Fedorovich travels to the city of Ostrov, where he meets with General Krasnov. At the same time, the Winter Palace was stormed in Petrograd. IN Soviet history this event is presented as a key event. But in fact, it happened without resistance from the deputies.

After a blank shot from the Aurora cruiser, the sailors, soldiers and workers approached the palace and arrested all the members of the Provisional Government who were present there. In addition, a number of major declarations were adopted and executions at the front were abolished.

In view of the coup, Krasnov decides to help Alexander Kerensky. On October 26, a cavalry detachment of seven hundred people leaves in the direction of Petrograd. It was assumed that in the city itself they would be supported by the uprising of the Junkers. But it was suppressed by the Bolsheviks.

In the current situation, it became clear that the Provisional Government no longer had power. Kerensky fled, General Krasnov bargained with the Bolsheviks for the opportunity to return to Ostrov with the detachment without hindrance.

Meanwhile, the Socialist-Revolutionaries begin a radical struggle against the Bolsheviks, who, in their opinion, have gained more power. The answer to the murders of some "red" leaders was the terror of the Bolsheviks, and the Civil War began (1917-1922). We now consider further developments.

Establishment of "red" power

As we said above, the tragedy of the Civil War began long before the October Revolution. The common people, soldiers, workers and peasants were dissatisfied with the current situation. If in the central regions many paramilitary detachments were under the tight control of the Headquarters, then completely different moods reigned in the eastern detachments.

Precisely the presence a large number reserve troops and their unwillingness to go to war with Germany helped the Bolsheviks quickly and bloodlessly gain the support of almost two-thirds of the army. Only 15 large cities resisted the "red" government, while 84, on their own initiative, passed into their hands.

An unexpected surprise for the Bolsheviks in the form of amazing support from the confused and tired soldiers was announced by the "Reds" as a "triumphal march of the Soviets."

The civil war (1917-1922) only worsened after the signing of the ruinous for Russia. According to the terms of the agreement, former empire lost more than a million square kilometers of territory. These included: the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Romania, the Don territories. In addition, they had to pay Germany six billion marks indemnity.

This decision provoked protest both within the country and from the side of the Entente. Simultaneously with the intensification of various local conflicts, the military intervention of Western states on the territory of Russia begins.

The entry of the Entente troops in Siberia was reinforced by a revolt of the Kuban Cossacks led by General Krasnov. The defeated detachments of the White Guards and some interventionists went to Central Asia and continued the struggle against Soviet power for many more years.

Second period of the Civil War

It was at this stage that the White Guard Heroes of the Civil War were the most active. History has preserved such names as Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, Yuzefovich, Miller and others.

Each of these commanders had his own vision of the future for the state. Some tried to interact with the troops of the Entente in order to overthrow the Bolshevik government and still convene the Constituent Assembly. Others wanted to become local princelings. This includes such as Makhno, Grigoriev and others.

The complexity of this period lies in the fact that as soon as the First World War, German troops were to leave the territory of Russia only after the arrival of the Entente. But according to a secret agreement, they left earlier, handing over the cities to the Bolsheviks.

As history shows us, it is after such a turn of events that the Civil War enters a phase of particular cruelty and bloodshed. The failure of the commanders, who were guided by Western governments, was aggravated by the fact that they were sorely lacking in qualified officers. So, the armies of Miller, Yudenich and some other formations disintegrated only because, with a lack of middle-level commanders, the main influx of forces came from captured Red Army soldiers.

Newspaper reports of this period are characterized by headlines of this type: "Two thousand servicemen with three guns went over to the side of the Red Army."

The final stage

Historians tend to associate the beginning of the last period of the war of 1917-1922 with the Polish War. With the help of his western neighbors, Piłsudski wanted to create a confederation with territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea. But his aspirations were not destined to come true. The armies of the Civil War, led by Yegorov and Tukhachevsky, fought their way deep into Western Ukraine and reached the Polish border.

The victory over this enemy was to rouse the workers in Europe to the struggle. But all the plans of the Red Army leaders failed after a devastating defeat in the battle, which has been preserved under the name "Miracle on the Vistula."

After the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Soviets and Poland, disagreements begin in the Entente camp. As a result, the financing of the "white" movement decreased, and the Civil War in Russia began to decline.

In the early 1920s, similar changes in the foreign policy of Western states led to the fact that Soviet Union recognized by most countries.

The heroes of the Civil War of the final period fought against Wrangel in Ukraine, the interventionists in the Caucasus and Central Asia, in Siberia. Among the particularly distinguished commanders, Tukhachevsky, Blucher, Frunze and some others should be noted.

Thus, as a result of five years of bloody battles, a new state was formed on the territory of the Russian Empire. Subsequently, it became the second superpower, the only rival of which was the United States.

Reasons for victory

Let's see why the "whites" were defeated in the Civil War. We will compare the assessments of the opposing camps and try to come to a common conclusion.

Soviet historians saw the main reason for their victory in the fact that they received massive support from the oppressed sections of society. Particular emphasis was placed on those who suffered as a result of the 1905 revolution. Because they unconditionally went over to the side of the Bolsheviks.

"Whites", on the contrary, complained about the lack of human and material resources. In the occupied territories with a million people, they could not even carry out a minimal mobilization to replenish the ranks.

Of particular interest are the statistics provided by the Civil War. The "Reds", "Whites" (table below) suffered particularly from desertion. Unbearable living conditions, as well as the lack of clear goals, made themselves felt. The data relates only to the Bolshevik forces, since the White Guard records did not save intelligible figures.

The main point noted by modern historians was the conflict.

The White Guards, firstly, did not have a centralized command and minimal cooperation between units. They fought locally, each for their own interests. The second feature was the absence of political workers and a clear program. These moments were often assigned to officers who only knew how to fight, but not to conduct diplomatic negotiations.

The Red Army soldiers created a powerful ideological network. A clear system of concepts was developed, which were hammered into the heads of workers and soldiers. The slogans made it possible for even the most downtrodden peasant to understand what he was going to fight for.

It was this policy that allowed the Bolsheviks to get the maximum support of the population.

Consequences

The victory of the "Reds" in the Civil War was given to the state very dearly. The economy was completely destroyed. The country has lost territories with a population of more than 135 million people.

Agriculture and productivity, food production have decreased by 40-50 percent. Prodrazverstka and "red-white" terror in different regions led to the death of a huge number of people from starvation, torture and execution.

Industry, according to experts, has sunk to the level of the Russian Empire during the reign of Peter the Great. According to the researchers, production figures have fallen to 20 percent of the volume in 1913, and in some areas up to 4 percent.

As a result, a mass exodus of workers from cities to villages began. Since there was at least some hope not to die of hunger.

The "whites" in the Civil War reflected the desire of the nobility and higher ranks to return to their former living conditions. But their isolation from the real moods that prevailed among the common people led to the total defeat of the old order.

Reflection in culture

The leaders of the Civil War have been immortalized in thousands of different works - from cinema to paintings, from stories to sculptures and songs.

For example, such productions as "Days of the Turbins", "Running", "Optimistic Tragedy" immersed people in the tense atmosphere of wartime.

The films "Chapaev", "Red Devils", "We are from Kronstadt" showed the efforts that the "Reds" made in the Civil War to win their ideals.

The literary work of Babel, Bulgakov, Gaidar, Pasternak, Ostrovsky illustrates the life of representatives of different strata of society in those difficult days.

You can give examples almost endlessly, because the social catastrophe that resulted in the Civil War found a powerful response in the hearts of hundreds of artists.

Thus, today we have learned not only the origin of the concepts of "white" and "red", but also briefly got acquainted with the course of events of the Civil War.

Remember that any crisis contains the seed of future changes for the better.

Who are the "Reds" and "Whites"

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

Some figures can be given to describe the extent of the myth that existed and still exists in public consciousness. After all, the main characters of the Civil War for the older and middle generation are Chapaev, Budyonny, Voroshilov and other "Reds". You will hardly find anyone else in our textbooks. Well, even Frunze, perhaps with Tukhachevsky.

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

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

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

According to official historiography, there were actually many opponents. But the main ones are those who have shoulder straps on their uniforms, and cockades of the Russian tsarist army on their caps. Recognizable opponents, not to be confused with anyone. Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, etc. They are white". First of all, they should be defeated by the “Reds”. They are also recognizable: they have no shoulder straps, and red stars on their caps. Such is the pictorial series of the civil war.

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

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

You can't say anything about the so-called "whites". Opponents of the "Reds" did not swear allegiance to the white banner. During the Civil War, there was no such banner at all. Nobody. Nevertheless, the name “White” was established behind the opponents of the “Reds”. At least one reason is also obvious here: the leaders of the Soviet state called their opponents "white". First of all - V. Lenin. To use his terminology, the "Reds" defended "the power of the workers and peasants", the power of the "workers' and peasants' government", and the "Whites" defended "the power of the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists". It was this scheme that was affirmed by all the might of Soviet propaganda.

They were called so in the Soviet press: "White Army", "White" or "White Guards". However, the reasons for choosing these terms were not explained. The question of the reasons was also avoided by Soviet historians. They reported something, but at the same time they literally evaded a direct answer.

The evasions of Soviet historians look rather strange. There would seem to be no reason to avoid the question of the history of terms. In fact, there was never any mystery here. But there was a propaganda scheme, which Soviet ideologists considered inappropriate to explain in reference publications.

It's in Soviet era the terms "red" and "white" were predictably associated with the civil war in Russia. And before 1917, the terms "white" and "red" were correlated with another tradition. Another civil war.

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

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

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

Again, the opposition "Reds" - "Whites" arose at the end of the Franco-Prussian war. Finally, it was established from March to May 1871, during the existence of the Paris Commune.

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

As you know, at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, many socialists declared themselves the heirs of the Communards. And at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bolsheviks called themselves such. Communists. It was they who considered the red banner to be theirs.

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

After the abdication of Nicholas II, the situation changed. The king abdicated in favor of his brother, but his brother did not accept the crown. The Provisional Government was formed, so that the monarchy was no more, and the opposition of “reds” to “whites” seemed to have lost its relevance. The new Russian government, as you know, was called “provisional” for this reason, because it was supposed to prepare the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. And the Constituent Assembly, popularly elected, was to determine further forms Russian statehood. Determine democratically. The question of the abolition of the monarchy was considered already resolved.

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

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

And here we should pay tribute to the talents of Soviet ideologists, the skill of Soviet propagandists. By declaring themselves "Red", the Bolsheviks were able to attach the label of "White" to their opponents. Managed to impose this label contrary to the facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opponents of the Soviet regime could not clearly and briefly explain what they were fighting for. Such slogans as the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the preservation of "one and indivisible Russia" were not and could not be popular. Of course, the opponents of the Soviet regime could more or less convincingly explain with whom and why they were fighting. However, the positive part of the program remained unclear. And there was no such general program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a monarchist, legitimate power is only the power of the God-given monarch to whom the monarchist swore allegiance. Therefore, the war with the "Reds" - for the monarchists - became a matter of personal choice, and not of religious duty. For a “white”, if he is really “white”, those fighting for the Constituent Assembly are “reds”. Most monarchists did not want to understand the shades of "red". It did not see the point in fighting against other “Reds” together with some “Reds”.

The tragedy of the Civil War, which, according to one version, ended in November 1920 in the Crimea, was that it brought two camps together in an irreconcilable battle, each of which was sincerely devoted to Russia, but understood this Russia in its own way. On both sides there were scoundrels who warmed their hands in this war, who organized the red and white terror, who unscrupulously tried to cash in on other people's property and who made a career on horrific examples of bloodthirstiness. But at the same time, on both sides, there were people full of nobility, devotion to the Motherland, who put the well-being of the Fatherland above all else, including personal happiness. Recall at least "Walking through the torments" by Alexei Tolstoy.

The "Russian split" went through families, dividing native people. Let me give you a Crimean example - the family of one of the first rectors of the Taurida University, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. He, Doctor of Science, professor, remains in the Crimea, with the Reds, and his son, also Doctor of Science, Professor Georgy Vernadsky, goes into exile with the Whites. Or brothers Admirals Berens. One is a white admiral who takes the Russian Black Sea squadron to distant Tunisia, to Bizerte, and the second is a red one, and it is he who will go to this Tunisia in 1924 to return the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to their homeland. Or remember how he describes the split in Cossack families in " Quiet Don» M. Sholokhov.

And there are many such examples. The horror of the situation was that in this fierce battle for self-destruction for the amusement of the world around us, hostile to us, we Russians did not destroy each other, but ourselves. At the end of this tragedy, we literally "threw" the whole world with Russian brains and talents.

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

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

1917 divided us into "reds" and "whites". Not all, really. Actually, there are not so many real “reds” and “whites”. The whole trouble is that all those who remained, that is, the majority, captured by the whirlwind of events, were forced to choose who to follow. And to solve not a simple problem: which of them is right? And even today the question: “Who are you for: for the “Reds” or for the “Whites”?” Still causes serious difficulties. To solve it, you need to figure out who are the “reds” and who are the “whites”.

At first glance, everything is clear. "Whites" are those who did not accept the seizure of power by the "Red" Bolsheviks. But this is a picture of 1918, and a year earlier the political picture was different. Irreconcilable anti-Bolsheviks were just as implacable towards Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. That is, they were revolutionaries, and therefore "red". In the literal and figurative sense. Decorated with red bows, they happily inhaled the intoxicating air of freedom. The following months were spent in deepening the revolution, in securing all sorts of freedoms. But, as you know, for every revolution there is a counter-revolution. In the autumn of the same year, they were overthrown by the "Red" Bolsheviks in alliance with the Left SRs. And now attention! Question: what main parties made up the coalition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government? Cadets (Constitutional Democrats), Social Revolutionaries (Social Revolutionaries), Mensheviks (Social Democrats) and Radical Democrats. What coalition came to power? Also social democrats (the so-called Bolsheviks) social revolutionaries (SRs). True, without the Cadets. It turns out that the “red” coalition of democrats-socialists-revolutionaries was overthrown by an “even redder” coalition of the same combination. But that is not all. A month later, the parties of the overthrown coalition won the elections to the Constituent Assembly. But the coalition that won in October and lost in the elections closed the Constituent Assembly after the first day of meetings "for not obeying the will of the people." The few speeches in defense of the Constituent Assembly were dispersed. In fact, this was the second military victory over representatives of the Provisional Government. And now the former revolutionaries have become counter-revolutionaries in relation to the "real revolutionaries." Here is such a tangled knot dragged on the neck of Russia as a result of the "bloodless February Revolution". The usual political palette of the civil war was established. The Reds are fighting the Whites. But not only. Also against their recent allies, the "very red" Left SRs. And also against the "orange" separatists (as well as the "whites", by the way). And against the autocratic "greens", who, in turn, fought against everyone. In addition, the invasion of foreign troops began. Let's call them "black". The "Red" Bolsheviks managed to defeat everyone.

"Whites" left their homeland. But even in exile, the civil war continued. Between monarchists and supporters of the Constituent Assembly. Another stumbling block was the attitude towards the Bolsheviks. Far from their native land, emigrants (refugees), having experienced the tragedy of losing their homeland, tried to understand the causes of this common misfortune and look for ways out of it. It was then that the phrase "not red and not white - but Russian" was born. A movement to return to the motherland began. Pure "Whites" called all those who sympathized with the Soviets "pink", and those who collaborated with them - "red".

In Russia itself, the political color scheme did not change outwardly until the mid-1930s, when the destruction of the “most red ones” began. The old guard of the revolution - the Trotskyists were put "at the expense" (forgive the expression).

The World War again stirred up the political palette. The "Whites" again relied on the "Blacks" and opposed the "Reds". And they were broken again. P.N. Krasnov was executed, adding to the list of dead “white” leaders (M.V. Alekseev, L.G. Kornilov). Survivor A.I.Denikin was among the sympathizers of the struggle of the Red Army against the Germans. The "Reds" returned almost all the Russian lands lost as a result of the revolution and intervention. The persecution of the Church was suspended. In fact, they performed a "white cause" under a red flag. Nikolai Vasilyevich Ustryalov spoke about this back in the thirties, comparing the Soviet Union with a radish - "outside is red, but inside is white."

But the struggle for Russia continued. The “most-reddest”, defeated in 1937, returned to power. The "Khrushchev thaw" has come. "Give the revolution a deepening!" And again the persecution of the Church. But they again failed to build a peaceful Soviet life. The “Red-Whites” (they can be called “traditional statesmen”) were able to remove the “very-very reds”. So the country lived until 1991. Until the next revolution. This time, ideas inherent in the “pure whites” were involved in the fight against the “red-whites”. First of all, hatred for everything Soviet, as a Bolshevik legacy. But that wasn't enough. Huge resources of the “blacks” went into action, which, in fact, were the main customers of the new revolution. Rather, the “blacks” used for their own purposes the “very red ones”, fed on freely convertible currency, and the “whites”, as they say, “blindly” (again, forgive the expression).

The fact that the revolution of 1991 was a direct continuation of the revolution of the 17th is evidenced by the fact that the country was again divided into parts. And these breakaway units were set against Russia. As under the Februaryists, the country went downhill. With the direct participation of "blacks".

Fortunately, Russia resisted. And she began to rise from her knees.

Our "partners" did not expect this at all. And so, on Bolotnaya Square, the “very reds”, who now call themselves “democrats”, simply “reds” and ... “whites”, who consider themselves real patriots, came out together. What a picture!

This time the people did not let themselves be deceived. Now the whiteness that has ripened under the red shell of our native “radish” has already clearly manifested itself. The idea “not 'Reds' and not 'Whites', but Russians”, gained through suffering in exile, turned out to be saving for us. She is Russian in spirit. This statement restores the unity of the history of our long-suffering Motherland, and hence the unity of the entire people.

The civil war in Russia had a number of distinctive features with internal confrontations that took place in other states during this period. The civil war began almost immediately after the establishment of the power of the Bolsheviks and lasted for five years.

Features of the civil war in Russia

Military battles brought the peoples of Russia not only psychological suffering, but also large-scale human losses. The theater of military operations did not go beyond the borders of the Russian state, and there was also no front line in the civil confrontation.

The cruelty of the Civil War lay in the fact that the warring parties did not seek a compromise solution, but the complete physical destruction of each other. There were no prisoners in this confrontation: the captured opponents immediately succumbed to execution.

The number of victims of the fratricidal war was several times higher than the number of Russian soldiers who died on the fronts of the First World War. The peoples of Russia were actually in two warring camps, one of which supported the communist ideology, the second tried to eliminate the Bolsheviks and recreate the monarchy.

Both sides did not tolerate the political neutrality of people who refused to take part in hostilities, they were sent to the front by force, and those who were especially principled were shot.

Composition of the anti-Bolshevik White Army

The main driving force of the white army was retired officers of the imperial army, who had previously taken an oath of allegiance to the imperial house and could not go against their own honor, recognizing the Bolshevik power. The ideology of socialist equality was also alien to the wealthy sections of the population, who foresaw the future predatory policy of the Bolsheviks.

The big, middle bourgeoisie and landowners became the main source of income for the activities of the anti-Bolshevik army. Representatives of the clergy also joined the rightists, who could not accept the fact of the unpunished murder of the "God's anointed", Nicholas II.

With the introduction of war communism, the ranks of the whites were replenished by peasants and workers dissatisfied with state policy, who had previously supported the Bolsheviks.

At the beginning of the revolution, the white army had a high chance of overthrowing the Bolshevik communists: close relations with large industrialists, rich experience in suppressing revolutionary uprisings and undeniable influence on the people of the church were impressive virtues of the monarchists.

The defeat of the White Guards is still quite understandable. The officers and commanders-in-chief made the main bet on the professional army, not speeding up the mobilization of the peasants and workers, who were eventually "intercepted" by the Red Army, thus increasing their numbers.

Composition of the Red Guards

Unlike the White Guards, the Red Army did not arise randomly, but as a result of many years of development by the Bolsheviks. It was based on the class principle, the access of the nobility to the ranks of the Reds was closed, the commanders were elected among ordinary workers, who represented the majority in the Red Army.

Initially, the army of the left forces was staffed by volunteer soldiers who took part in the First World War, the poorest representatives of peasants and workers. There were no professional commanders in the ranks of the Red Army, so the Bolsheviks created special military courses that trained future leadership personnel.

Thanks to this, the army was replenished with the most talented commissars and generals S. Budyonny, V. Blucher, G. Zhukov, I. Konev. The former generals of the tsarist army V. Egoriev, D. Parsky, P. Sytin also went over to the side of the Reds.