Poland vs. Russia 1920

I had briefly – and incorrectly – touched upon this in my Russian Civil War blog.  Warsaw 1920: Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe, by Adam Zamoyski, set me straight.  In April 1920, Polish leader, General Pilsudski, decided to take advantage of the chaos in the Ukraine as a result of the civil war to invade, mostly to maximize the amount of territory Poland would keep once its borders were established.  They made it as far as – and captured – Kiev, before being thrown back into Poland. 

             Now it was the Poles’ turn to sweat, as the Reds invaded Poland and besieged Warsaw.  Whereas Pilsudski’s plans and scope were limited to Polish interests, Lenin took a wider view.  Poland was the gateway to Germany, which was stewing in its own post-war revolutionary chaos.  If the Reds could reach Germany, they could kickstart the German revolution and possibly engulf Western Europe in Bolshevism.

             But the Poles kept their cool, regrouped, and took advantage of bad planning and coordination between the Red commanders to strike back.  This threw the Reds back into the Ukraine, almost wiping out the armies they had sent in.  Certainly it was game over for Lenin’s plans to conquer Poland and Germany.  Lenin quickly signed peace terms with Pilsudski, which freed up his remaining forces from this debacle to handle his White enemies in the Ukraine.  For its part, Poland was left alone until 1939.  Pilsudski himself took power in Poland by a coup in 1926, and acted as dictator until his death in 1935.

Russian Civil War

Anyone who has endured the endless (zzz) epic, “Dr. Zhivago”, should have some idea of what this was.  Not to be confused with the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), US Civil War (1861-65), or English Civil War (1641-51).  This occurred immediately after World War I (1917), which the Soviets refer to as “The Imperialist War”, as opposed to WWII which they call “The Great Patriotic War”. 

 November 1917.  The Bolsheviks (aka “Bolo” or “Reds”) had just taken power in Petrograd (St. Petersburg).  Antonov-Ovseenko simply walked into the HQ room at the Winter Palace and took over: total casualties, 6.  World War I was still going on, and Germans were still in Poland and the Ukraine.  In January 1918, Trotsky negotiated the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which took the Russians out of WWI.  Not everyone – in Russia or abroad - was thrilled with the Bolsheviks, so simply having taken Petrograd and Moscow did not settle the matter.  A civil war broke out that lasted the next two years – with more fighting at the periphery continuing well into the 30s.

 Red Army.  The Red Army of Peasants and Workers was formed by Trotsky from the Red Guards, mostly workers from Petrograd and Moscow.  For most, if not all, of the war, the Reds had the advantage in numbers.  Their top, elite unit was the Latvian Rifle Division – crucial in the first year of the war.  Moreover, none of the White attacks on Petrograd (Udenich) or Moscow were successful, so the Reds managed to hold on to these centers of population and industry, fighting in the Ukraine, north up near Estonia, east over by the Urals, and south near Tsaritsyn (better known as Stalingrad, now known as Volgograd), eventually defeating each enemy in turn. 

            The defining characteristic of the Red uniform was the budenovka, the pointy hat with earflaps, usually with a cloth red star on the front (see Stalin, above left).  The gymnasterka, peasant blouse, was worn by both sides.  The top Red leaders were Trotsky – who was a genius at military organization despite no military experience, Frunze (who they named their military academy after), Budenny (cavalry commander, source of the name “budenovka”), Voroshilov, Tukachevsky, and Chapeav.

  Before the hammer & sickle, there was the hammer & plough - considerably more complicated and equally less aesthetically pleasing.  The sickle replaced the plough around 1922.

 Cheka. In addition to the Red Army itself, the Reds used Cheka, the first form of its secret police, although at this point it was very much in the open.  Its agents wore leather jackets, a mark of distinction and authority which continued with its successor, the NKVD.  Cheka hired criminals, murderers, all sorts of violent scum - with colorful names and personalities: “Johnson”, Maslova, “The Remover" - and set up prisons and camps.  It engaged in torture, murder, scalping, impaling, all sorts of nasty atrocities that horrified even the Reds themselves.  The terror had already begun. 

 War Communism.  In a related vein, the Reds took over any and all businesses within their sphere of influence, killing any managers or owners who were late in escaping abroad.  Industrial productivity, as can be imagined, fell to a fraction of pre-war capacity.  They also requisitioned all surplus grain of the peasants AND forcibly conscripted them into the Red Army.  Needless to say, these policies were not popular.  Peasant revolts (e.g. the Antonov uprising) were a constant issue for the Reds well into the 20s.  Actual famines certainly didn’t help any. 

            Soon after the war, when the situation cooled down somewhat, Lenin instituted a crash course in capitalism, the New Economic Policy (NEP), recognizing that the proletarian revolution had occurred in a country – Russia – which had barely emerged from feudalism (serfs only emancipated in 1863) and had not developed full and true capitalism.  The prevailing wisdom among the socialists at the turn of the century was that the US and Western Europe were the countries ripe for socialist revolution, not backwards countries like Russia.  In Spain during the Spanish Civil War, it was the “communist” party line that Spain had to go through capitalism before arriving at socialism, so the idea was to back up and support a bourgeois capitalist regime and oppose not only the reactionary Fascists but also the anarchists who wanted “true communism” too soon.  In Russia, “war communism” became the name for the horrendously unpopular and draconian policies undertaken during the civil war, justified as being wartime expedients – even though many of these policies would be reinstated after the NEP was over, with no civil war to justify them at that time. 

 White Army.   These were mainly anti-Bolshevik, but they could not agree on what they wanted to replace the Reds with – especially since the Romanovs were murdered in July 1918 in Sverdlovsk.  They typically wore Russian WWI uniforms and carried icons into battle.  Some units were composed entirely of officers.  Kappel’s unit (part of Kolchak’s forces) had the impressive skull and crossbones and black uniforms.

            The top White leaders: Kornilov – his Shock Division was one of the best units in the White Army, and came closest to taking Moscow, he looked like Tim Allen with a mustache; Alexeyev: charismatic and popular general; Denikin: a very charismatic and popular General who won medals in the Russo-Japanese War and WWI; Kolchak:  An admiral, he set up a republic in the east, supported by the British and based at Omsk, but never succeeded at hooking up with any forces to the west – Graves had lots of nasty things to say about Semonov and Kalmikov, Kolchak’s ruthless local commanders in Siberia; Wrangel: he took over from Denikin, and was the last white commander – his forces tried to evacuate at the Black Sea in late 1920; Yudenich: he fought up north, an unsuccessful attempt to capture Petrograd; as well as Kutepov and Markov.

 Black Army.  Entire anarchist (!) armies raised by Nestor Makhno (above right).  They wore long hair and carried lots of guns.  The anarchists had a bad habit of attacking everyone.  After being used by the Reds to beat the Whites, they were wiped out in turn by the Reds.

 Ukrainians.  They wanted their independence from Russia, but the various factions fought the Reds, Whites, and each other and were defeated in turn.  The Ukraine was one of the most contested areas of the war: Kiev changed hands 19 times.

 Cossacks.  These are the famous cavalry of Russia.  There were various different “tribes”, some of whom joined the Whites, others joined the Reds.  As cavalry played a major role in the war, the Cossacks were in big demand by both sides.  There were even horse-drawn machine gun carts.

 Germans.  After Brest-Litovsk in January 1918, the Germans were able to pull out substantial forces from the East and transfer them to the West, in an attempt to defeat the Allies before US troops could arrive.  Germans didn’t play an active role in the war as a military force, although they did supply some factions with weapons, uniforms and helmets.  Some individual Germans of pro-Marxist persuasion did join the Red Army.  On November 11, 1918, the Germans called it quits, so their forces withdrew, ending whatever role or involvement they had.

 Austrians & Hungarians.  In the course of WWI, the Russians captured Austrians and Hungarians (whose armies rivalled the Russians’ for incompetence).  Many of these POWs had Marxist persuasion and joined the Red Army.  There were some Hungarian units, and an Austrian cavalry squadron.

 Czechs.  They had a whole legion stranded in Russia.  They wound up in Siberia (see my blog “Doughboys in Russia”).  They were mildly anti-Bolshevik but, like many other factions in the war, looking out for their own best interests.  Their uniforms were pretty much Russian Tsarist WWI with some minor Czech insignia.

 Polish.  Taking advantage of the chaos in Russia, the Poles invaded, arriving at Kiev.  The Reds threw them back into Poland, besieging Warsaw.  The Poles broke the siege, threw the Reds back into the Ukraine, and both sides called it even.  This  allowed the Poles to finally keep their country (at least until 1939…).

 Green Armies.  Not environmental, but rather bandit armies with no loyalties or allegiances, either mobs of demobilized soldiers, nationalists, or Social Revolutionaries – pretty much a catch-all to cover any forces which can’t be labeled Red, White, Black, Ukrainian, etc.    

Peasant Armies.  Lenin had no use for workers or peasants in his government.  Moreover, not all the peasants were poor, or particularly disposed to favor the Bolsheviks (see “war communism” above).  In 1920-21, an entire army – with units, ranks, hierarchy – was raised by Antonov, and opposed by the Reds’ best generals…and defeated.

Allied Intervention.  I already mentioned the US forces sent to Siberia and North Russia.  The French sent troops to Odessa, and the British came in at Baku – their main angle was protecting their oil interests in that sector.  The Brits sent lots of supplies to the Whites and equipped a fair amount of white armies.  They also sent numbers of Mark IV and V tanks.  They set up a training area in Novorossisk – tanks, planes, etc.  The major problem the British and French had was that they had just finished WWI and no one really wanted to pour substantial forces into a brand new war. 

Tanks, Armored Cars, and Trains.  Tanks didn’t have much of a role.  The British provided some Mark IV and V tanks, some of which fought up on the Petrograd front.  Armored cars (equipped with machine guns) and armored trains, with machine guns and artillery, played a much more substantial role in the war.

The major years were 1918, 1919, and 1920.  By November 1920, Wrangel was evacuating the Crimea, ending the last major White operations.   The Antonov (peasant) rebellion was crushed in 1921.  Further east, various isolated groups held out, each to be dealt with in turn.  By 1922 the Reds had conquered the East, and the whole situation stabilized sufficiently that the country could be formed: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). 

The Vladimir Ilyich Code

Recently I caught “The Da Vinci Code” on DVD at last, followed up immediately by seeing “Angels & Demons” in the movie theater.  Having seen “National Treasure” (both of them) earlier, the similarities were striking.  I suppose you could call “The Da Vinci Code” the Catholic version of “National Treasure”, or “National Treasure” the American version of “The Da Vinci Code”.

 Maybe expand the franchise to include a communist version, the “Vladimir Ilyich Code”.  Putin has been murdered, and to solve the crime, the Moscow Militia calls in veteran Kremlinologist – but non-communist – Richard London.  If anyone can get to the bottom of this crime, it’s him!  No one knows more obscure communist mythology, trivia, and minutiae than this man – even veteran Politburo members can’t remember half the stuff this man has forgotten!  Plied with vintage Stolichnaya and some rare Lenin pamphlets, he agrees to take the case.

 He starts in Moscow, but wait – he has to borrow Lenin’s embalmed body to find a crucial clue…

 Which leads him to St. Petersburg, formerly Leningrad, where some Rasputin-oriented clue leads him to….

 Sverdlovsk, formerly Ekaterinburg, where the Romanovs were murdered by Ermakov and his henchmen, which leads him to…

 London!  To Karl Marx’s grave, and the tombstone provides the obscure and counterintuitive hint to another clue in…

 Beijing!  It turns out something to do with Chairman Mao – oops, can we borrow his embalmed corpse for a bit? – will lead us closer to the answer, in…

 Hanoi! Something Ho Chi Minh wrote way back when, before he died in 1969, will tell us to go to…

 Paris!  Where he helped form the French Communist Party in 1920, but wait, his clue leads us back to….

 Moscow!  And the killer is….

Communism vs. National Socialism vs. Capitalism

This is NOT a rehash of my GULAG v. HOLOCAUST blog, nor is it an attempt to apologize for or glorify National Socialism, but more of an overall discussion on a wider topic, authoritarianism vs. totalitarianism vs. capitalism.

Authoritarian regimes are typically the right-wing dictatorships and juntas, such as Brazil’s military from 1964-85, Marcos, Pinochet, Salazar, Batista, the various South Vietnamese governments from 1955-75, etc.  Really you just have a thug or general who wants power for its own sake, little excuse beyond that, and all he cares about it making sure he gets his “piece of the action” and enough pussy (or whatever his particular vice happens to be).  He has no grand vision, no big plans, no grandiose scheme or desire to micromanage the entire country down to the last molecule – and no pretensions thereof.

Totalitarian regimes are what we think of like 1984, where the state encompasses the entire society and attempts to control literally everything.  With the exception of Nazi Germany, they are invariably communist regimes: Soviet Russia, Red China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea.  From cradle to grave, the regime seeks to modify not merely our behavior but our very thoughts.  Unlike authoritarian regimes, which rarely bother to justify their existences, power, or authority, totalitarian regimes cloak their actions in the veneer of ideology and moral superiority.  “We represent the PEOPLE – if you oppose us, you oppose the people, and must be struck down.”

Class.  According to Marxist doctrine, there are three classes: the aristocracy (kings, queens, nobles), the bourgeois (merchants and capitalists), and the proletariat (workers and peasants).  Under feudalism, the aristocracy rules, with a small but growing bourgeois class.  Eventually the bourgeois overthrows the aristocracy and institutes capitalism, then sets about exploiting the proletariat until it too is eventually overthrown in a proletarian revolution - and we get socialism.  Eventually the state withers away to a point of anarchy called communism, and we all live happily ever after.  “Communist” regimes are actually socialist, as true communism has never been achieved in any country – nor is it ever likely.

Under a socialist dictatorship, the state is supposedly the legal representative of the proletariat.  The bourgeois are dispossessed and thrown into re-education camps to be rehabilitated into socialist society.  Without any class besides proletariat, such a society is, theoretically, classless.  By comparison, under the fascist/National Socialist dictatorship, all three classes are subjugated to the state, which represents the people.  Worker, farmer, businessman, industrialist, all are enslaved to the state.  For this reason, fascists and communists ostensibly hate each other and oppose each other vigorously, yet the reality is that they have far more in common than the theoretical ideological deviations would suggest.

In many countries in Western Europe, the socialist party has taken power, yet without installing the dreaded dictatorship of the proletariat.  Instead, they maintain the market system, individual rights, and otherwise a capitalist democracy, though with 90% taxes, free health care, free education, 40 hour work week, pensions, etc.  These are essentially capitalist countries with substantial doses of socialism added.

Stalin v. Trotsky.  Neither had much of any ideological differences with the other: Trotsky was merely the loser of the power struggle.

Cult of personality.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Ceaucescu.  Despite being about “the people”, communist regimes oddly focused on strong single personalities, individual leaders.  The reality was, none of these leaders cared about the people: they simply cared about power for its own sake, and were predictably brutal and ruthless about suppressing revolt even from within the proletariat.  Lenin dismissed reports of cannibalism among Ukrainian peasants by laughing that this meant they were too weak to oppose him.  The rare examples of sincere patriots inevitably became the first victims of the purges, in which the revolution weeds out the idealists in favor of the pragmatists - who are the only ones devious and ruthless enough to survive or prosper under such regimes.

1984 & Animal Farm.  George Orwell’s pair of books, each explaining these concepts in a different way.  1984 examines the nature of the state itself, which ultimately exists for its own sake, against its own people.  Ayn Rand once defined “dictatorship” as a war between the government and its own, legally disarmed, people.  And this is explained in even more detail in the book Winston reads, provided to him by O’Brien, who is pretending to be part of the resistance but is in fact an officer of the secret police.  Odd, though:  O'Brien turns out to be more of a source of information to Winston than the other way around, and the torture Winston endures is not to extract information - he knows far less than O'Brien does, and little of value - but to corrupt him, force him to betray his lover, and destroy him as a person and an individual.  Indeed, the movie "The Lives of Others", concerning a Stasi agent in East Berlin in the mid 80s, shows that the quality of life of the secret police really wasn't that much better than that of the poets, playwrights, actors, etc. who were the victims of the police state.  It was all one big  dark, depressing prison for everyone concerned.

            Animal Farm works on several different levels.  The animals sincerely want liberation from their human master, and were reasonable in following the pigs’ revolution.  But you can also see how the worker – Boxer, the horse – is ultimately exploited by the same revolution, and how the pigs eventually took over the same role as the human farmer.  Even the vicious, snarling, dogs act as the enforcers for the pigs.

Nazi Germany.  The notable exception, the only totalitarian regime which was not communist.  The Nazis had an ideology, a Final Solution, the SS, the Gestapo, and the will to carry it out.  Hitler had a master plan, as described (vaguely) in Mein Kampf, for anyone patient enough to read it.  Cloaked in German nationalism and anti-semitism, the Nazis terrorized not only the Jews and subject occupied nations, but their own people, as willing victims, co-conspirators in mass insanity as they may have been.  But while the world is fairly unanimous in challenging and condemning this form of totalitarianism, equally oppressive and evil forms – especially Soviet Russia – found no shortage of “useful idiots” apologizing for, or even supporting, their ideologies.  Tom Morello, I’m talking to you...

Statism vs. capitalism.  For all its faults, capitalism remains the ideal form of economic system.  Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (Nazi and socialist) can be collectively referred to as statist or collectivist.  They boil down to the priority: individual vs. collective, the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.  The cruel irony of collectivist regimes is that in their rampant and fanatic devotion to “the people”, “society”, “the collective”, etc. they completely negate the individual, yet society is, ultimately, nothing more than an aggregate of individuals.  The ultimate minority is, of course, the individual, who is the ultimate victim, the sacrificial offering to the sacred collective.  By destroying the individual as a person with any rights or importance per se, the collectivists ultimately destroy themselves.  Without freedom for the individual, there is no freedom for anyone.

The response to this, from most socialists, is that left to its own devices, capitalism produces various market failures: poverty, hunger, economic injustice, inequality of wealth and income.  Politics and economics, the distribution of scarce, limited and finite resources, is too important to be left up to the whims, caprices, and apparently random vicissitudes of at best an impersonal market and at worst an aggregate of sometimes monopolistic and oligopolistic markets.  Why leave this to chance, when there are highly intelligent planners who can redistribute wealth and income, and micromanage the entire country, far better?  If we need to do this by a brutal dictatorship, well, so be it – better than being run by Big Business, right?  Raise the spectre of a country run by GM, IBM, Ford, or Bill Gates to scare us into the arms of Big Brother.  (Comrade Moore & Comrade Nader will be happy to oblige).

Who are these geniuses?  They’re the socialists themselves.  Have we ever met an avowed socialist who was not highly intelligent AND fully confident in his or her intelligence and wisdom (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Christopher Hitchens).  The one problem with their “brain the size of a planet” issue is that no two socialists can ever agree on anything (see “Life of Brian” for this symptom of continually splitting socialist factions).  Fortunately for us, that is.  But there were no shortage of highly intelligent opponents to collectivism, including, but not limited to, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.  Bottom line is that for all its faults, capitalism keeps us free – which is far more than can be said for its alternatives.