More or less what it says on the tin, I'm curious about the plausibility of, in the aftermath of the Kerensky offensive and the July Days, a Kadet-backed coup (a la Kornilov affair, perhaps with Kornilov) during the tail end of July 1917. At the time of the July Days another revolt was happening in Ukraine that just failed to replace the autonomists in the Central Rada, I was thinking that if it succeeds, it could trigger an earlier Russian Civil War. I made an earlier post about that specific incident, but it isn't well known even among academic circles and outside of Ukraine so I'm not surprised it failed to elicit any interest.

Essentially, I was imagining a situation in which Kerensky would be forced to try and compromise further with the Ukrainians, which would convince the Kadets to back a military takeover, perhaps simply to replace Kerensky within a Kadet-based civilian government. At the time 1.7 million soldiers had been Ukrainianized. Immediately after the attempted putsch, their representatives gathered in Kyiv for the 2nd Military Congress, which backed the 1st Universal and denounced the 2nd Univeral, which was a compromise w/ Kerensky. The 2nd Universal and its acceptance by Kerensky was what triggered the Kadets to leave the government. If Kerensky seeks further compromise with the Ukrainians, as a last-ditch effort to keep them in the war I imagined this could trigger the Kadets to make a move. While he would not be happy compromising, the situation at the front is already a disaster, and giving 1.7 million soldiers (there were 4 million total Ukrainians but the rest were still outside of specific Ukrainian units) the excuse to go over to the Germans, or more likely, simply desert, would certainly have a catastrophic effect on the rest of the army. The soldiers were already disobeying their officers' orders to attack the Germans, having Ukrainian officers against the government would exacerbate the situation greatly. Having left the government it would be their only recourse to influence the situation. I'm not as knowledgeable on the Russian side of the events of 1917, so I wanted to ask AH what they think.

At the end of July, there were large funeral processions for some Cossacks killed during the fighting earlier in the month with the pro-Bolshevik rioters, and I think this could be the inciting incident. Apparently many conservative and imperialistic elements were there in force IOTL and with further reason to despise Kerensky perhaps they make their move then.

I also should clarify somethings on the Ukrainian position, since I intend to write a TL on this I won't spoil it but to say that due to certain different circumstances arising from my POD to allow the putsch to succeed, independence shifts from being the immediate objective so there is a brief period when there is space for dialogue between Kyiv and Petrograd. This is the trigger for the Kadets' putsch.

Who do y'all think would lead the Kadets, and what would be the reactions of the SRs or the Soviets? Even the Right SRs I imagine would resist the new government, if a coup succeeds, but would they do so violently? At this point, the Bolsheviks have been recently sent into hiding and discredited as working for the Germans so I think they would not immediately play an important role. Although that would probably change. Kornilov has just replaced Brusilov at this point, so I wonder how willing he'd be to go against Kerensky, or how he'd respond if actions happened in Petrograd w/out his knowledge or consent at the initiative of local officers and the Kadets.
 
So you're just proposing a slightly earlier version of the Kornilov coup? (Whether Kornilov originally intended a coup or thought he had Kerensky's support is irrelevant here.) It fails for the same reason Kornilov's OTL coup did--you just can't get the soldiers to support it, whatever their officers may have wished.

As for Kadet civilian politicians, the June municipal elections showed how unpopular they were even in Moscow and Petrograd which of course had the largest middle class in Russia:

Clipboard01.jpg


 
Last edited:

Thanks for the reply! I was hoping you would see this thread since you know your stuff on this period.

I can certainly see why the Kadets are in a terrible position, whether they succeed in their coup or not.

Assuming they could get enough armed men to arrest Kerensky and "take" Petrograd for a couple of days, what would be the reaction of the SRs and Soviets? I have no doubts this government would collapse, the soldiers won't obey the Generals on the front, so I imagine they'd be happy to turn on their officers at home. My question is more about the repercussions of such open conflict in Petrograd, in the military, and in the future politics of the Russian State. So soon after the July Days, the Bolsheviks probably won't be called on in the same way they were during IOTL's Kornilov affair right? If the Left-SRs and Mensheviks are more in control of the Sovietsthan they were in October, could this cause some sort of reconciliation between the Soviets and Provisional Government? I'm not sure about that, but it seems like it could significantly alter the relationship between the two at least.

I'm not sure about including this idea in my TL draft, as I said, the Russian side of things is not my specialty. I just imagined that the Kadets would be desperate enough to try something radical and the potential had me interested since this isn't a question I've encountered earlier.
 
You might want to take a look at the excellent alternate history timeline A Day In July, which deals very heavily with the July Days and a successful Kornilov coup in its opening stages.
 
Kerensky's government was full of Kadets. Why would they coup themselves?
In July all of the Kadets resigned. They also supported Kornilov IOTL in his coup attempt. After they left Kerensky's cabinet had Right SRs and non-affiliated socialists, like Tereschenko.
 

Adeimantus

Banned
Kornilov is the only man of enough influence, power and respect that could lead a coup from the right. If what you say happens it would be OTL Kornilov affair just with more support and therefore it would succeed with the backing of the kadets who didnt support it in our timeline. If that occurs then the position of Russia would be greatly improved upon because discipline would be inforced and soldiers committee likely broken up.
 
Kornilov is the only man of enough influence, power and respect that could lead a coup from the right. If what you say happens it would be OTL Kornilov affair just with more support and therefore it would succeed with the backing of the kadets who didnt support it in our timeline. If that occurs then the position of Russia would be greatly improved upon because discipline would be inforced and soldiers committee likely broken up.

I am doubtful any Government from the right can survive at all, especially after the Kerensky offensive, drastic action from the right is going to just push support to at worst the Bolsheviks and at best the left-SRs, either way you're pushing the empire towards civil conflict in which most of the advantages are in the hands of the Soviets.

I don't think after July you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. The rank and file aren't interested in taking orders from the same officers who led them during the Kerensky offensive, and I think attempting to reinstate the death penalty, as the officers wished, is only going to backfire. When you have a situation, like the French did, where the soldiers were in trenches close to the home/capital and by and large did not want the war to end in defeat, you can compromise and regain the faith of the army. When you're in Kerensky's situation, and the morale is deteriorating so rapidly and the soldiers are deserting en masse, which wasn't an issue for the French, you're in deep shit. I think attempting to violently restore discipline is going to lead to mutinies. After July the Russian Army is no longer capable of offensive action. The armies which fought the civil war were much smaller, most people simply went home and stayed home. The VA and the Red Army, as well as the armies of the non-Russian nation states had to be built anew, from veterans, but generally not from existing military formations. There are, of course, exceptions, but it seems to me that the front more or less disintegrated after October. I don't think that process is necessarily reversible, perhaps you could stop it by improving the material situation of the soldiers and halting offensive action, but Bolshevik agitators and the allure of simply melting into the vast countryside is going to cost hundreds of thousands of men, if not millions.

The soldiers are not going to be happy about fighting for Kornilov. By this point they know what's going on at home, they know that there is change, change that the soldiers desire and have participated in achieving. Kornilov may have been a popular war-hero but he was no politician and if political power goes to the Kadets, or to generals like Wrangel or Denikin, the soldiers, and especially the nationalities, are going to decide they've had enough. As I believe I said above, of the Ukrainians alone there were ~1.7 million "Ukrainianized" soldiers by July, many behind the front lines, these men would be happier handing their guns to the Austrians or Germans then fighting for Kornilov or the Kadets. Among the Baltic troops, Finns, Caucasians, and Central Asians likewise the Kadets will be unpopular. Kornilov himself was happy to let the nationalities decide their fates (if they stayed in the war) but he will probably be politically outmaneuvered or hand over power. If he holds power and promises freedom for continuing the fight, then things become different, but if he promised that, how long before he himself is removed? As for the Russian soldiers, they don't care about national self determination, and the slowed progress of social reforms and the continuing of the war probably are just going to make them very unhappy. Death penalty or no, there are fewer officers than enlisted men and controlling them in the long term is a fool's errand.
 
In July all of the Kadets resigned. They also supported Kornilov IOTL in his coup attempt. After they left Kerensky's cabinet had Right SRs and non-affiliated socialists, like Tereschenko.
1.) Yurenev and Oldenburg stayed on as Kadets. Nekrasov and Efremov also certainly were no socialists, and I'dsay as much about Tereshchenko.

2.) The OP asked about a July KD coup. Weird to resign, just to coup yourself Back.

Some KD leaders really were acting like beheaded hens, but couping so fast woukd be even beyond them
 

Adeimantus

Banned
I am doubtful any Government from the right can survive at all, especially after the Kerensky offensive, drastic action from the right is going to just push support to at worst the Bolsheviks and at best the left-SRs, either way you're pushing the empire towards civil conflict in which most of the advantages are in the hands of the Soviets.

I don't think after July you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. The rank and file aren't interested in taking orders from the same officers who led them during the Kerensky offensive, and I think attempting to reinstate the death penalty, as the officers wished, is only going to backfire. When you have a situation, like the French did, where the soldiers were in trenches close to the home/capital and by and large did not want the war to end in defeat, you can compromise and regain the faith of the army. When you're in Kerensky's situation, and the morale is deteriorating so rapidly and the soldiers are deserting en masse, which wasn't an issue for the French, you're in deep shit. I think attempting to violently restore discipline is going to lead to mutinies. After July the Russian Army is no longer capable of offensive action. The armies which fought the civil war were much smaller, most people simply went home and stayed home. The VA and the Red Army, as well as the armies of the non-Russian nation states had to be built anew, from veterans, but generally not from existing military formations. There are, of course, exceptions, but it seems to me that the front more or less disintegrated after October. I don't think that process is necessarily reversible, perhaps you could stop it by improving the material situation of the soldiers and halting offensive action, but Bolshevik agitators and the allure of simply melting into the vast countryside is going to cost hundreds of thousands of men, if not millions.

The soldiers are not going to be happy about fighting for Kornilov. By this point they know what's going on at home, they know that there is change, change that the soldiers desire and have participated in achieving. Kornilov may have been a popular war-hero but he was no politician and if political power goes to the Kadets, or to generals like Wrangel or Denikin, the soldiers, and especially the nationalities, are going to decide they've had enough. As I believe I said above, of the Ukrainians alone there were ~1.7 million "Ukrainianized" soldiers by July, many behind the front lines, these men would be happier handing their guns to the Austrians or Germans then fighting for Kornilov or the Kadets. Among the Baltic troops, Finns, Caucasians, and Central Asians likewise the Kadets will be unpopular. Kornilov himself was happy to let the nationalities decide their fates (if they stayed in the war) but he will probably be politically outmaneuvered or hand over power. If he holds power and promises freedom for continuing the fight, then things become different, but if he promised that, how long before he himself is removed? As for the Russian soldiers, they don't care about national self determination, and the slowed progress of social reforms and the continuing of the war probably are just going to make them very unhappy. Death penalty or no, there are fewer officers than enlisted men and controlling them in the long term is a fool's errand.
Kornilov was loved by the army, really really well respected, more than denikin or broussiloff. It was only the political officers who wouldn't support him. The army would rally behind him, especially with the backing of the kadets. You have to understand that the bolsheviks only kept gaining support IOTL because of the lack of backbone in the Kerensky leadership AND Kerensky's toleration of the soviet. The soviets could have been crushed many times but for Kerensky preventing this happining in the ludicrous hope that the soviets would remain his ally. With the charade of Kerensky over all thsi would change. Yes the Russians would still retreat along the front, but the nation likely wouldn't collapse, neither Petrograd captured by Bolshevik's as Kornilov would make sure the capital would be occupied by loyal soldiers and he would have the backbone to resist the bolsheviks IF they rose up unlike Kerensky.

Perhaps a civil war would still occur but with a kore coherent "right" and a loved leader like Kornilov the bolsheviks would be much less successful great Russia than they were IOTL. Add to this the fact that Kornilov is not a Monarchist, broadening his appeal. Thats just my two cents.
 
Kornilov is the only man of enough influence, power and respect that could lead a coup from the right. If what you say happens it would be OTL Kornilov affair just with more support and therefore it would succeed with the backing of the kadets who didnt support it in our timeline. If that occurs then the position of Russia would be greatly improved upon because discipline would be inforced and soldiers committee likely broken up.
Would denkin back this coup? What form would this new government take?
 

Adeimantus

Banned
Would denkin back this coup? What form would this new government take?
Yes Denikin would certainly back a Kornilov coup, he never wanted leadership as seen during the civil war when he turned down offers from Kolchak, he wasn't as charismatic and able to rouse the soldiers as were men like Kornilov and Wrangel. Most of the white civil war leaders were mere patriot soldiers, bot adepth in politics, and so would likely form some sort of provisional military government while recognising the legitimacy of elections until either the end of ww1 or the civil war depending on how the author's world will be. Afterwards they would reinstitute a provisional government and most likely chaos(political in nature) would ensue from there although I can't tell.
 
Kornilov was loved by the army, really really well respected, more than denikin or broussiloff. It was only the political officers who wouldn't support him. The army would rally behind him, especially with the backing of the kadets. You have to understand that the bolsheviks only kept gaining support IOTL because of the lack of backbone in the Kerensky leadership AND Kerensky's toleration of the soviet.

If he was really as loved and respected by the average Imperial infantryman as you claim, then why did his command utterly fall apart in his attempt to take power from the Provisional Government? IOTL soldiers deserted from him en masse when he tried to seize political power and put down the workers soviets.

Afterwards they would reinstitute a provisional government

Also, from all that I have read on the White movement, I think this is very wishful thinking. Among Denikin’s officer class and political establishment (who were quite conservative or reactionary even by Russian standards), there was a real hatred for not just the October Revolution but the February Revolution as well. You can’t hardly argue they’d restore a genuine Provisional Government either because historically the White movement was unable to adapt to political realities of Russia and insisted on enforcing policies that most Russian peasants and workers were diametrically opposed to such as land restoration. I find it difficult to believe anything other than some variation of a stratocracy would persist in Russia for quite some time in order to root out ‘the Bolshevik threat’
 

Adeimantus

Banned
If he was really as loved and respected by the average Imperial infantryman as you claim, then why did his command utterly fall apart in his attempt to take power from the Provisional Government? IOTL soldiers deserted from him en masse when he tried to seize political power and put down the workers soviets.
I think you are forgetting that Kornilov wasn't trying to seize power from the PG, he was acting on the false assumption that Kerensky had offered him dictatorial powers. Vladimir Nikolaevich Lvov had gone to Kornilov not under the authority or with the permission of Kerensky, falsely claiming to be a representative of the PG, and then falsely giving a list of 3 proposals to Kornilov, telling Kornilov that the proposals were Kerensky's and not just his. Kornilov accepted to assume dictatorial powers under the assumption that Kerensky agreed, and Lvov then forwarded Kornilov's choice to Kerensky(who knew nothing about Lvov's scheme) upon which he went paranoid and (somewhat rightly) believed Kornilov was attempting a coup. Thats when he went full on attack mode against Kornilov accusing him of counterrevolutionary motive, which turned a larhe proportion of the political and officer class against him or simply put them in a state of confusion. The soldiers loved Kornilov, exactly why Kerensky viewed him as such a threat.
Also, from all that I have read on the White movement, I think this is very wishful thinking. Among Denikin’s officer class and political establishment (who were quite conservative or reactionary even by Russian standards), there was a real hatred for not just the October Revolution but the February Revolution as well. You can’t hardly argue they’d restore a genuine Provisional Government either because historically the White movement was unable to adapt to political realities of Russia and insisted on enforcing policies that most Russian peasants and workers were diametrically opposed to such as land restoration. I find it difficult to believe anything other than some variation of a stratocracy would persist in Russia for quite some time in order to root out ‘the Bolshevik threat’
You dont understand why they hated the February revolution. It wasnt the political ramifications they hated, but the military. What they witnessed on the eastern front was a collapse from reletive competence and slow prrogress into total anarchy after the revolution. They wanted someone who could lead Russia to victory. The vast majority were simple army men with little political care. Kornilov especially didn't like the old regime and said as much that he didnt want to go back. All he cared for were the interests of the Russian nation. If you read much into the personalities behind the white movement, you'd realise that whenever hostilities finished, they would simply go home to their families or continue military service. They reason they were "unable to adapt to political realities" was exactly that: they were apolitical. All they stood for was order and patriotism.
 
I think you are forgetting that Kornilov wasn't trying to seize power from the PG, he was acting on the false assumption that Kerensky had offered him dictatorial powers. Vladimir Nikolaevich Lvov had gone to Kornilov not under the authority or with the permission of Kerensky, falsely claiming to be a representative of the PG, and then falsely giving a list of 3 proposals to Kornilov, telling Kornilov that the proposals were Kerensky's and not just his. Kornilov accepted to assume dictatorial powers under the assumption that Kerensky agreed, and Lvov then forwarded Kornilov's choice to Kerensky(who knew nothing about Lvov's scheme) upon which he went paranoid and (somewhat rightly) believed Kornilov was attempting a coup. Thats when he went full on attack mode against Kornilov accusing him of counterrevolutionary motive, which turned a larhe proportion of the political and officer class against him or simply put them in a state of confusion. The soldiers loved Kornilov, exactly why Kerensky viewed him as such a threat.
I am aware of this, none of this information really contradicts what I said - even when interpreting the Kornilov Affair as a series of miscommunications and blunders between Kornilov, Kerensky, and Lvov, the ultimate intention of Kornilov was still to take dictatorial power and smash the power of the Petrograd Soviet. The issue of whether or not he believes he was taking of power against the Provisional Government or with their consent does not contradict what I said.

You also didn’t address why Kornilov’s putsch collapsed among the rank and file of his army. You just explained to me background information and then proceeded to reiterate your claim that his troops loved and respected him. This claim really flies in the face of the fact that his army dissolved around him without any direct confrontation - if the soldiers loved him they would not have deserted his movement.

If you read much into the personalities behind the white movement, you'd realise that whenever hostilities finished, they would simply go home to their families or continue military service. They reason they were "unable to adapt to political realities" was exactly that: they were apolitical. All they stood for was order and patriotism.

You mean an apolitics that, during the Civil War, prescribed death for known or suspected sympathizers of not just the Bolsheviks, but also the Social Revolutionaries and other broad left wing organizations? An apolitics that also was utterly unable to pass any measure of meaningful land reform because it was sabotaged by conservative and land-owning interests in its bureaucracy and essentially resulted in former landowners coming in on the heels of the Volunteer Army and taking revenge on the peasantry? An apolitics that fueled virulent anti-semitism which led to a good deal of pogroms? I’ve mainly studied the Volunteer Army of Southern Russia, but I think describing them as soldierly apolitical is correct only in the sense that they did not attempt to replicate the tactics and rhetoric of politicians and thought of themselves as austere soldiers above politics, but that does not mean they did not have an ideology as such. You’d be hard pressed to tell me that figures like Kornilov and Vrangel did not have a deeply conservative worldview that clashes with the realities of the collapsing Russian Empire...

Unfortunately I can’t offer a fully sourced rebuttal to your claims here right now as I’m bogged down with university, but I’ll get around to it when I have the chance. I think you are mistakenly equating their worldview of being ‘above politics’ with them not having political leanings... Just as aristocratic officers of the Wehrmacht may have believed the army should be above politics in the Prussian tradition, they were still rabidly anti-communist and strongly conservative in their personal politics and it showed. The same applies to the vast majority of the officers in the White movement.
 
Last edited:

Adeimantus

Banned
the ultimate intention of Kornilov was still to take dictatorial power
This isn't true. His ultimate intention can be summarized as saving Russia, which he would do by destroying the soviets and communist agitation at the front.
You also didn’t address why Kornilov’s putsch collapsed among the rank and file of his army. You just explained to me background information and then proceeded to reiterate your claim that his troops loved and respected him. This claim really flies in the face of the fact that his army dissolved around him without any direct confrontation - if the soldiers loved him they would not have deserted his movement.
The soldiers and other officers abandoned him because they genuinely believed he had attempted a coup, which is in no way patriotic, which confused everyone. Add to this the prospect of being labled a counterrevolutionary and his support fizzled away. Quite sad in a way, especially the case of Krymov committing suicide "because I love Russia too much". You can almost feel the sense of betrayal and disappointment when reading the accounts.
You mean an apolitics that, during the Civil War, prescribed death for known or suspected sympathizers of not just the Bolsheviks, but also the Social Revolutionaries and other broad left wing organizations?
The death penalty has always been used for traitors in war, which from the perspective of the Whites was applicable to the Bolsheviks. As to the SRs and "left wing organisations " being targeted for execution, I am unaware. Most unnecessary killing done in the war was done by cossacks who were under less tight of a leash under the supreme command than the regulars were, and who were generally a savage bunch.
An apolitics that also was utterly unable to pass any measure of meaningful land reform because it was sabotaged by conservative and land-owning interests in its bureaucracy and essentially resulted in former landowners coming in on the heels of the Volunteer Army and taking revenge on the peasantry?
I am not aware of any revenge being taken out on peasantry by landlords. If this did happen then they were probably peasants who had showed violence and wrought destruction under the watch of the bolsheviks and happened on a small scale. I am however aware of the mass terrorizing of the peasantry by the bolshevik red army.
An apolitics that fueled virulent anti-semitism which led to a good deal of pogroms?
None of the Volunteer Army command made any orders or declarations against the Jews, and punished where possible unnecessary violence, however it was impossible for them to stop the pogroms mostly perpetrated by cossacks who didnt really even know what Jews were. You can in no way shape or form blame the White leadership for these atrocities any more than one can blame the Bolshevik leadership for the pogroms that occured on their side against Jews.
You’d be hard pressed to tell me that figures like Kornilov and Vrangel did not have a deeply conservative worldview that clashes with the realities of the collapsing Russian Empire...
They had the same worldview as the average peasant in their village or soldier fighting the germans. He was fighting against a group of Bolsheviks who literally wanted to upend every aspect of Russian society and destroy in their eyes Russian national honour. They also witnessed the reds immediately start commiting gruesome acts of violence against their own population, which is a great way to anger patriotic army men who had spent their lives serving the nation only to see it all come crashing down in a matter of months.
I think you are mistakenly equating their worldview of being ‘above politics’ with them not having political leanings... Just as aristocratic officers of the Wehrmacht may have believed the army should be above politics in the Prussian tradition, they were still rabidly anti-communist and strongly conservative in their personal politics and it showed. The same applies to the vast majority of the officers in the White movement.
I dont understand why anti communist amd apolitical are oxymorons. They were soldiers, who witnessed the entire national effort collapse because of this particular group, so they decided to take up arms against this group that was murdering Russian civilians left and right. Their is not much political ideology involved here, just anger, betrayal and a desire to resurrect the nation.
 
This isn't true. His ultimate intention can be summarized as saving Russia, which he would do by destroying the soviets and communist agitation at the front.
His intention was to 'save Russia' by assuming dictatorial power though, as you yourself stated earlier.
The soldiers and other officers abandoned him because they genuinely believed he had attempted a coup, which is in no way patriotic, which confused everyone. Add to this the prospect of being labled a counterrevolutionary and his support fizzled away. Quite sad in a way, especially the case of Krymov committing suicide "because I love Russia too much". You can almost feel the sense of betrayal and disappointment when reading the accounts.
But Kornilov was not necessarily the victim of a tragic misunderstanding with Kerensky - he was planning on marching to liquidate the Petrograd Soviet whether or not the Provisional Government approved the move or not. There merely became confusion when Kornilov was persuaded that he had the support of Kerensky and his cabinet after talking to B. Savinkov:

"Was there a Kornilov revolt? The answer is yes. As we have seen, Kornilov was prepared to march against the Bolsheviks without the support of the Provisional Government. His plans were drawn up in the third week in August, and preparations were completed by September 6. But after his conversation with Savinkov, Kornilov was convinced this operation had the government's blessing. He was especially pleased at the request to send a corps to Petrograd, since this relieved him of the onus of doing so illegally. Lvov's visit further persuaded him of Kerensky's readiness to surrender power, and the latter's willingness to come to Stavka, as transmitted by telegraph, confirmed this impression. But Kornilov was always prepared to act on his own if need be, and in disobeying Kerensky's order of dismissal on September 9, he was merely returning to his original plan."

(Asher, Harvey. “The Kornilov Affair: A Reinterpretation.” The Russian Review, vol. 29, no. 3, 1970, pp. 286–300. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/127537. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

Kornilov was genuinely attempting a coup d'etat, whether legal or not, and it was counterrevolutionary because its goal was to liquidate the Petrograd Soviet and enforce an emergency autocratic dictatorship which would restore order and roll back revolutionary measures and institutions. This is why his support collapsed, because the revolution was popular and Kornilov's personal loyalty from his troops was not enough to save his movement.

The death penalty has always been used for traitors in war, which from the perspective of the Whites was applicable to the Bolsheviks. As to the SRs and "left wing organisations " being targeted for execution, I am unaware. Most unnecessary killing done in the war was done by cossacks who were under less tight of a leash under the supreme command than the regulars were, and who were generally a savage bunch.
"In November 1919 the Special Council granted extraordinary authority to the cities to collect funds for reinforcing measures against robberies and to organize local self-defense units. The chiefs of uezda were empowered to organize special units (consisting of up to four hundred members) to fight against "banditism" and to form uezd state-security reserves, consisting of mounted and infantry units, to combat gangsterism.33 That same month the Special Council decided to increase the severity of punishment for offenses specified in the laws of 22 July 1919. The death penalty was henceforth imposed for "membership in the Bolshevik/Communist parties, Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasant deputies, or other similar organizations which participated in the grab for power by the Soviets, or persons who supported the policies of this power." Similarly, the death penalty was specified for ordinary members of the Bolshevik party, as well as for members of the Central Committee and the Sovnarkom. According to the letter of this law, members of the Socialist-Revolutionary, Menshevik and the People's Socialist parties were also subject to the death penalty since, as was well known, these parties had collaborated in the grab for power during the February Revolution. Most peculiar in this respect was the fact that some prominent members of these parties were loyal members of the Denikin administration; they were active in various political institutions, the press and the zemstvo and city councils in the White south"

(Bortnevski, Viktor G. “White Administration and White Terror (The Denikin Period).” The Russian Review, vol. 52, no. 3, 1993, pp. 354–366. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/130735. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

You can also argue that they viewed these people as traitors, but passing decrees calling for the death penalty for members of all parties on the left because the parties had taken part in the February Revolution does not seem to be within the scope of an 'apolitical battle against traitors' but rather a political struggle against the left for the domination of the right.

I am not aware of any revenge being taken out on peasantry by landlords. If this did happen then they were probably peasants who had showed violence and wrought destruction under the watch of the bolsheviks and happened on a small scale. I am however aware of the mass terrorizing of the peasantry by the bolshevik red army.
"Peter Kenez was right in noting that "the Whites failed to organize well- functioning local administrations, because they were unable to find reliable and competent administrators." Instead they were forced to rely either on pre-revolutionary functionaries with outdated psychologies, or on military officers with monarchistic inclinations.20 This is confirmed by a variety of sources of Red as well as White origin. Combining civilian and military administrations led to massive abuses of power, the theft of state property, unjustified brutality, and acts of restoration, all which contradicted the official policies of the Volunteer Army"

(Bortnevski, Viktor G. “White Administration and White Terror (The Denikin Period).” The Russian Review, vol. 52, no. 3, 1993, pp. 354–366. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/130735. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

"In the first and crucial year of its existence, the Volunteer Army offered nothing to the majority of the Russian people, the peasants. The issue which concerned the peasants most was the great social issue of the day, land reform. In the course of 1917 and 1918 the poor illegally occupied the land of their landlords. The Bolsheviks, in a crucial compromise, acquiesced in this development, though it meant the strengthening of private-property consciousness and therefore a step away from the goal of socialism. The Whites were in a much more difficult position. On the one hand the more far-sighted among them realized that it was necessary to give the peasants what they most wanted, on the other, the movement drew its social support from landowners whose views could not be lightly disregarded. The Whites' strategy was procrastination. At first they assumed that the Civil War would be short and such issues as land reform and much else could simply be postponed until final victory. They argued that a difficult and complex problem could be resolved only after the re-establishment of order. They further maintained that only a Constituent Assembly or a legally constituted government had the right to make crucial decisions for the Russian people. As a theoretical position these arguments might have made sense; however, inaction had disastrous political consequences. What the peasants experienced was that in the wake of the White Army appeared landowners who reclaimed their land and punished them for having dared to occupy it. It is hardly surprising under the circumstances that the peasants' hostility to the landlords was extended to the White soldiers."

(Kenez, Peter. “The Ideology of the White Movement.” Soviet Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 1980, pp. 58–83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/150391. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

I can go on quoting but both sides terrorized the peasantry during the Civil War, it was not just the Bolshevik forces. While the official laws of the Volunteer Army and other White forces might have proscribed peace to the peasantry and only death to the 'Reds', in reality the legal system did not attempt to deal with the issue which resulted in terror in the countryside, and the bureaucracy was staffed with very conservative former-Tsarist officials and military officials who abused their positions and committed extra-judicial killings and acts of brutality as well. For some reason, you don't know the circumstances of White terror to the peasantry, but you just assume they have a valid reason to do so?

None of the Volunteer Army command made any orders or declarations against the Jews, and punished where possible unnecessary violence, however it was impossible for them to stop the pogroms mostly perpetrated by cossacks who didnt really even know what Jews were. You can in no way shape or form blame the White leadership for these atrocities any more than one can blame the Bolshevik leadership for the pogroms that occured on their side against Jews.
I'm going to quote from a long passage on this one because it is just blatantly untrue and whitewashing the anti-semitism of the White movement...

"The historian reading the internal correspondence of the White movement cannot but be struck by the almost pathologically intense anti- Semitism. The officers described Jews as microbes and blamed them for all sorts of misfortunes, from military defeat to inflation and lack of foreign support. These men attributed almost magical powers to the Jews. In their fantasy Jews could corrupt the virtuous and destroy empires. On White-held territories hysterical priests denounced Jews as Christ-killers and called for a holy crusade against Jewish Bolshevism.

The consequence of White propaganda was a series of pogroms in the Ukraine in 1919 which claimed approximately a hundred thousand victims. The Headquarters, of course, did not organize the pogroms and disclaimed responsibility for them. However, it was clear that the generals were not interested in stopping the murders. The Cossacks, soldiers and peasants well understood their superiors.

The anti-Semitism of the leaders varied according to their decency and intelligence. The brutal marauder General Shkuro, a future soldier under Hitler, himself organized massacres. Ataman Krasnov, another future Nazi collaborator, argued for the genuineness of the Protocols of Zion. To him, every Jew was a member of a vast conspiracy against Russia. General Mamontov, another marauder Cossack, issued proclamations such as 'Arm yourself and rise against the common enemy of our Russian land, against the Jewish Bolshevik Communists ... The evil force which lives in the hearts of Jew-Communists will be eliminated.' By contrast General Denikin appears as a moderate. He confessed to a Jewish delegation which asked for protection that he did not like Jews and he took various steps against Jewish economic interests. Most importantly, he did far too little to stop the pogroms. On the other hand he deplored mass violence because he believed that it spoiled the image of his Army abroad and undermined the discipline of the soldiers.

The officers' anti-Semitism was expressed by a powerful and vicious metaphor, often used by them. They imagined Russia to be ill. The Jews were the bacilli which brought the disease. What was necessary obviously followed: the bacilli must be exterminated for the patient to recover. This explanation permitted them to avoid facing real problems and developing plans for a more just and attractive society. The fact that the White movement's anti-Semitism was full of paranoid delusions which clouded the leaders' judgement, preventing a realistic evaluation of their tasks and problems, did not mean that anti- Semitism was not politically beneficial. No aspect of White ideology found as fertile soil in the Russian, and particularly among the Ukrainian, peasants as this one. The successful identification of Jews and Bolsheviks, greatly emphasized by White propaganda, did a great deal of damage to both.
"

(Kenez, Peter. “The Ideology of the White Movement.” Soviet Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 1980, pp. 58–83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/150391. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

Anti-semitism in the White movement was pervasive and widely accepted. White propaganda emphasized the Bolshevik correlation with Jews in Russia and many leaders of the White movement, while maybe personally not being super anti-semitic or not liking pogroms, did not take necessary measures to actually try and stop them. I cannot find the quote now, but I read that many of those soldiers participating in pogroms in the Volunteer Army were either never punished or officially convicted by a tribunal but received a pardon or the sentence was not carried out in the end.

It should also be worth noting that Kornilov's 'Savage Division' committed anti-semitic pogroms during their time at the front and this was tolerated by Kornilov. I don't know why you are insisting that White command was entirely innocent of anti-semitism and cracked down on it every chance they could when this is just completely untrue. Also perplexed by your comment about Cossacks 'not knowing what Jews were'?

They had the same worldview as the average peasant in their village or soldier fighting the germans. He was fighting against a group of Bolsheviks who literally wanted to upend every aspect of Russian society and destroy in their eyes Russian national honour. They also witnessed the reds immediately start commiting gruesome acts of violence against their own population, which is a great way to anger patriotic army men who had spent their lives serving the nation only to see it all come crashing down in a matter of months. I dont understand why anti communist and apolitical are oxymorons. They were soldiers, who witnessed the entire national effort collapse because of this particular group, so they decided to take up arms against this group that was murdering Russian civilians left and right. Their is not much political ideology involved here, just anger, betrayal and a desire to resurrect the nation.
I almost feel as if you could say this exact same thing about the men that made up the NSDAP in 1932: "They were angry at being stabbed in the back by the reds and were patriots fighting for the national honor to resurrect their humiliated nation."

You can essentially justify any atrocity this way. I can do the same exact argument for the Bolsheviks if I wished to: "They witnessed the incompetent Tsarist regime drag Russia into a pointless war in which millions of its bright young folks were killed over petty imperial politics and now the rich and their aristocratic brothers who oppress us and give us no rights are trying to attack innocent workers and peasants." Cheerleading one side of the conflict and trying to make it look rosy and honorable is not really good historical practice.
 

Adeimantus

Banned
His intention was to 'save Russia' by assuming dictatorial power though, as you yourself stated earlier.
Only because he believed he had the consent of the PG, so not a coup.
But Kornilov was not necessarily the victim of a tragic misunderstanding with Kerensky - he was planning on marching to liquidate the Petrograd Soviet whether or not the Provisional Government approved the move or not. There merely became confusion when Kornilov was persuaded that he had the support of Kerensky and his cabinet after talking to B. Savinkov:

"Was there a Kornilov revolt? The answer is yes. As we have seen, Kornilov was prepared to march against the Bolsheviks without the support of the Provisional Government. His plans were drawn up in the third week in August, and preparations were completed by September 6. But after his conversation with Savinkov, Kornilov was convinced this operation had the government's blessing. He was especially pleased at the request to send a corps to Petrograd, since this relieved him of the onus of doing so illegally. Lvov's visit further persuaded him of Kerensky's readiness to surrender power, and the latter's willingness to come to Stavka, as transmitted by telegraph, confirmed this impression. But Kornilov was always prepared to act on his own if need be, and in disobeying Kerensky's order of dismissal on September 9, he was merely returning to his original plan."

(Asher, Harvey. “The Kornilov Affair: A Reinterpretation.” The Russian Review, vol. 29, no. 3, 1970, pp. 286–300. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/127537. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.)

Kornilov was genuinely attempting a coup d'etat, whether legal or not, and it was counterrevolutionary because its goal was to liquidate the Petrograd Soviet and enforce an emergency autocratic dictatorship which would restore order and roll back revolutionary measures and institutions. This is why his support collapsed, because the revolution was popular and Kornilov's personal loyalty from his troops was not enough to save his movement.
He wasn't genuinely planning a coup, he was planning on accepting an invitation by Kerensky to become Russia's dictator. Kerensky was the leader at this time. Putting down the soviet is not a coup as the soviet was not Russia's government. No one can argue that the soviet wasnt hampering Russia's war effort, so you can't fault Kornilov for this at all.
You can also argue that they viewed these people as traitors, but passing decrees calling for the death penalty for members of all parties on the left because the parties had taken part in the February Revolution does not seem to be within the scope of an 'apolitical battle against traitors' but rather a political struggle against the left for the domination of the right.
Ummmm.. it kind of does mean it was a struggle against traitors.. At least there is a lot more evidence for this than there is for the claim the whites had some well thought out far right ideology governing their motives.. Equating Kornilov or Denikin with Mussolini or Hitler is honestly laughable. They were literally just soldiers. They didnt run newspapers or right books. As for the OP's origional question, a Kornilov coup would devolve back into civilian gov after the end of war.
What the peasants experienced was that in the wake of the White Army appeared landowners who reclaimed their land and punished them for having dared to occupy it. It is hardly surprising under the circumstances that the peasants' hostility to the landlords was extended to the White soldiers.
Are you seriously claiming the peasants faired worse under the whites than the reds? Do you know what happened in the red terror? Literally hundreds of thousands of people were shot for the most minor things. The peasants inmost of the white controlled lands were overjoyed when the whites came, a facr that seems to be missing from your authers rather biased portrayal.
can go on quoting but both sides terrorized the peasantry during the Civil War, it was not just the Bolshevik forces. While the official laws of the Volunteer Army and other White forces might have proscribed peace to the peasantry and only death to the 'Reds', in reality the legal system did not attempt to deal with the issue which resulted in terror in the countryside, and the bureaucracy was staffed with very conservative former-Tsarist officials and military officials who abused their positions and committed extra-judicial killings and acts of brutality as well. For some reason, you don't know the circumstances of White terror to the peasantry, bu
The Bolsheviks terrorized the population FAR far more that the whites. Thats why they had constant rebellions by peasants in their territory for so long until the war communism ended. You are being quite dishonest as to the extent of the white terror.
I almost feel as if you could say this exact same thing about the men that made up the NSDAP in 1932: "They were angry at being stabbed in the back by the reds and were patriots fighting for the national honor to resurrect their humiliated nation."
But the difference is, you actually CAN say that for the Whites. They were literally stabbed in the back by unpatriotic bolsheviks who crushed the war effort. It is undeniable. The nazis on the other hand had 0 evidence.
You can essentially justify any atrocity this way. I can do the same exact argument for the Bolsheviks if I wished to: "They witnessed the incompetent Tsarist regime drag Russia into a pointless war in which millions of its bright young folks were killed over petty imperial politics and now the rich and their aristocratic brothers who oppress us and give us no rights are trying to attack innocent workers and peasants." Cheerleading one side of the conflict and trying to make it look rosy and honorable is not really good historical practice.
As far as I know only a out 1 million Russians died in ww1. The Bolsheviks caused a slaughter ten times and more, but you target the Whites when you know full well that it was the reds that caused the tens of millions of deaths. I don't recall massive peasant rebellions in white held territory. I never wanted to make the whites look rosy, just articulate how they were literally 10x better than the Bolsheviks in terms of the well being of the populous. What you are doing is unfairly disparaging a pretty noble movement as if it was worse than the disaster that was the Bolsheviks and war communism. Yes there were antisemites but there were also antisemites among the Bolsheviks.
 
Literally all you are doing is engaging in whataboutism so whenever I point out that you are lying when you claim the Whites engages in only minor acts of terror and did so only justifiably, you immediately just turn and claim the Reds did worse. Like okay? The Reds did do worse, what’s your point? I’m not interested in what the Bolsheviks did in this conversation, we are not discussing them, I am debunking your glorification of the Whites. You are genuinely calling academic papers from the foremost english speaking scholar on the Volunteer Army (Peter Kenez) biased because he discusses issues that make you uncomfortable: specifically the lack of peasant support for the White armies due to their conduct.

You can’t claim you aren’t glorifying them and then call them “pretty noble” and consistently try and claim the best intentions for them and explain away any atrocities or failures as either minor or excusable given the circumstances.

I used sources to point out that multiple claims in your last post were blatantly false and whitewashing the White army and in your response you don’t acknowledge any, you just claim they were simple soldiers just following orders with no ideology and that the Bolsheviks were worse so it’s actually okay.

Can you at least provide some credible research or sources to back up some of your claims, like that Kornilov was deeply loved by his troops and was only abandoned because he was portrayed unpatriotically, or that ‘peasants in general’ loved the advance of White troops? It honestly sounds to me you don’t really understand a whole lot about the class dynamics of the Russian Civil War and the reasons for the variety of peasant motives, reactions, and rebellions throughout the Civil War.

He wasn't genuinely planning a coup, he was planning on accepting an invitation by Kerensky to become Russia's dictator. Kerensky was the leader at this time. Putting down the soviet is not a coup as the soviet was not Russia's government. No one can argue that the soviet wasnt hampering Russia's war effort, so you can't fault Kornilov for this at all.

The evidence seemingly contradicts your claims, Kornilov was planning a putsch to assume dictatorial power whether or not the Provisional Government accepted him legally, Savinkov just created the misunderstanding that it would be legitimate. And I’m not trying to ‘fault Kornilov’ or out to get him, I’m explaining the realities.

Are you seriously claiming the peasants faired worse under the whites than the reds?

Nothing in here was about the Reds though, you read an academic piece about White terror and peasant reactions and immediately go on the defensive and argue the Reds were worse. They were, but that doesn’t really apply to this argument and my disproving of your previous claims.

Ummmm.. it kind of does mean it was a struggle against traitors.. At least there is a lot more evidence for this than there is for the claim the whites had some well thought out far right ideology governing their motives..

At first it was “they only executed Bolsheviks, never heard evidence for the rest” and now the argument from you is that this was justified because they were all traitors to Russia?? Please stop cheerleading the Whites.

What you are doing is unfairly disparaging a pretty noble movement as if it was worse than the disaster that was the Bolsheviks and war communism. Yes there were antisemites but there were also antisemites among the Bolsheviks.

And now I showed you that you were wrong and that a lot of the White movement was pretty anti-semitic in its worldview and was involved in pogroms to a large extent, and you just turn around and say that it’s excusable because every side had anti-semites?? Your claims on the White leadership not being anti-semitic and trying to stop pogroms whenever they could is probably the most laughable of your claims. It’s pure and simple whitewashing of a movement that was pretty rabidly anti-semitic among both its officer class and rank-and-file. If you don’t believe me, we can have our own discussion on this issue and I can pull a variety of documentary sources to show you this...

I’m not “disparaging” anyone or trying to play atrocity-olympics with you. I’m pointing out to you that you are painting the White movement with a very hagiographic brush and trying to justify everything they did and talk about how dashing and noble and simply patriotic their leaders were. It sounds to me as if you are more interested in reading about good deeds and nobility of people like Denikin rather than trying to understand why the White movement failed or the dynamics it’s armies played in 1917-1921... It certainly strikes me as idealizing them. That’s why I’m trying to show you that you hold mistaken views.
 
Last edited:
Top