|
Tuesday, 03 October 2006 17:54 |
| David Forbes
|
The Russian Civil War, which lasted from 1918-1921 and ended with the creation of the Soviet Union, is often overlooked as a historical footnote or sideshow.
Thatës a shame because, as W. Bruce Lincolnës vividly written history "Red Victory" shows, it offers many important lessons about revolution, dictatorship and conflict ÇƒÓ lessons with implications for all times, including our own.
Sick of World War I and the autocratic rule of the czar, the people of Russia rise en masse. In the chaos that follows, the parliament and democratic leaders who take over for the czar prove unable to give the radical reforms and decisive leadership needed. From the rubble, one faction emerges with the most narrow of grips on powerÇƒÓ the Bolsheviks, hardline communists of the most ruthless sort, whose leaders (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin) would soon become infamous.
They
are not alone ÇƒÓ with so many ex-soldiers and weapons running around,
almost every political faction has an army of its own. Russia quickly
splits into a patchwork of quasi-states, each spoiling for a fight.
Other nations, including the United States, become involved. The civil
war begins.
Chronicling such
a brutal and chaotic war, with so many players, is a daunting task, but
Lincoln, a late and noted historian of Russia, handles it well.
A handy "central
characters" section at the beginning serves as a useful reference, but
this is aided by Lincolnës knack for description. He manages to quickly
paint the lives, motivations and even quirks of the legions of
cossacks, revolutionaries, generals, average people and politicians
moving through this bloody period quite well.
For example, in
a few paragraphs about the dashing anarchist commander Nestor Makhno,
who fought both the Bolsheviks and their opponents, the Whites, we
learn about his upbringing, his habit of being ridiculously well-armed
(two pistols, a shotgun, a rifle and a sword) and how he actually made
the oxymoronic concept of an anarchist military effective.
Lincoln is aided
by the fact that for all that it has been seemingly forgotten, the
Russian Civil War lends itself to cinematic prose. From huge armored
trains dueling over the tundra to the Bolsheviksë Red Guards getting
blasted through the ice while trying to crush an uprising by rebellious
sailors and the bizarre Cubist propaganda posters that artists put up
around Moscow, thereës enough material here for several movies.
But this book is
not without its flaws. While Lincoln generally lets the facts and
statistics form a useful backdrop to the story, a middle section on the
conditions in Russia gets bogged down in a multitude of figures.
Putting more of the tragic personal stories, such as one about a
university professor dragging his wifeës coffin to an already-full
graveyard, in this section would have allowed the book to retain more
of its momentum.
Another great strength is that Lincoln also periodically steps back to let the larger lessons of the conflict shine through.
As he rightly
points out, the Bolsheviksë victory was far from the certainty many
later historians would treat it as. From the beginning, they had a
multitude of opponents, among both liberals and conservatives. When
they took power, many within their own realm doubted them, while
outside their territory, 28 separate governments, with the backing of
many of the worldës most powerful nation-states, lined up to take them
down.
How did they win? "Spin," organization and ruthlessness.
Lincoln reveals
in detail how the Bolsheviksë cunning propaganda machine worked. While
their opponents often dithered and argued, they always offered an
answer. That many of these answers were outright lies or empty promises
made little difference ÇƒÓ in a time of chaos, it gained them vital
support. They also became masters of coupling exaggerated threats with
calls for more power and harsher restrictions on freedom.
They quickly
drafted artists and writers to make sure their side of the story got
out first. Some of their other techniques, such as a set list of
"talking points" about an event or battle, seem disturbingly modern.
When Poland miraculously defeated their invasion in 1920, the
Bolsheviks claimed a victory because, the official line went, they had
stopped Poland from invading Russia.
Their propaganda was so effective that even some American troops who had landed in Northern Russia became sympathetic.
Tight discipline
also helped. Several uprisings against them by the more popular and
democratic socialists who had once been their allies caused problems,
but were quickly suppressed because of a lack of planning and
organization.
However, the
largest group of their opponents, the Whites, in some ways lost the war
as much as the Bolsheviks won it. At one point in 1919, buoyed by
better tactics and growing dissatisfaction with the Reds, the Whites
closed in on Moscow from all sides. But their own brutality, corruption
and lack of unity caused them to quickly lose the ground they had
gained.
Lincoln is quick
to point out that this war offers a clear lesson in the importance of
ideals and organization in the triumph of any political movement, from
the most noble to the most evil.
He also points
to another, darker lesson. This would not be the last time that an
authoritarian party would take power by the slimmest of margins, hold
it through fear, propaganda and repression and, in the end, devour not
only its enemies but even those who had once blindly been its allies.
It happened again in Italy, in Germany, in Iran and many other spots
around the globe. It can still happen today. Read this book.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
