What side would you support in the Russian Revolution?

[The Liberated Territories]

The whites, despite their rampant nationalism.

[Benuty]

The whites, despite their rampant nationalism.

So...proto-tsarism basically?

[Benuty]

Yep In the American Civil War.

I like to call it the Southern Rebellion

We had Yankees Northerners etc etc

While we Had Southerns, and Confederates.

Just too have this post be meaningful too the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

Read up.

I'm aware, I was making a humorous remark about the Red Army, the White Army (and the Black Baron, are trying to restore the Imperial throne, but from the Taiga to the British Sea, our Red Army is Strongest of All!), Green Army, etc.

Wait...this Black Baron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann

[Conserative Morality]

Provisional government, no question.

and what do you call "provisional government"?

Kerensky and co.

[Bojikami]

I'm aware, I was making a humorous remark about the Red Army, the White Army (and the Black Baron, are trying to restore the Imperial throne, but from the Taiga to the British Sea, our Red Army is Strongest of All!), Green Army, etc.

Wait...this Black Baron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann

No. Wrangel.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm aware, I was making a humorous remark about the Red Army, the White Army (and the Black Baron, are trying to restore the Imperial throne, but from the Taiga to the British Sea, our Red Army is Strongest of All!), Green Army, etc.

Wait...this Black Baron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Nikolayevich_Wrangel

He is referenced in this song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army,_Black_Baron

[The Liberated Territories]

The whites, despite their rampant nationalism.

So...proto-tsarism basically?

Eh. I dunno.

Or maybe I'd just support the Russian Republicans (provisional), although they weren't exactly angels either. It's kind of difficult.

[Arkiasis]

The Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democratic Party.

[Benuty]

Wait...this Black Baron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann

No. Wrangel.

I was about to say...it would be interesting to see a 5 year old lead a band of troops lol.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The whites, despite their rampant nationalism.

So...proto-tsarism basically?

The Whites weren't strictly monarchists, you know. They included several pro-provisional government rulers and at least one socialist that I can recall. Part of the reason they lost was that, despite having numerical superiority and logistical aid from the allies, there wasn't any sort of command structure between the armies. They managed to get all the way to St. Petersburg once, but had to give up on taking the city because they couldn't decide who would be in charge.

[Brydog]

Makhno's Black Army, because I want to see how long their anarchist society would have lasted had the Red Army not destroyed them.

This

[Lyttenburg]

The Russian Revolution was a major turning point in history. You had the hardcore socialist Bolsheviks against the moderate socialists in the Provisional Government. They were both against the Tsar. Which side would you support? I would support the Tsar.

Are the OP asking about Russian RevolutionS of 1917, or about the Civil War? Did the OP (and other NSGers) even know, that there were 2 Revolutions in 1917?

As for the available options:

1) Czar. Inefficient, always doubting, yet incredibly pig-headed at times, ill suited for ruling the Empire man. Anton Pavlovitch Chehov wrote about him: "They tell that he is sick, stupid, wicked - but he is just your ordinary leib-guard officer". By the time of the February Revolution he lost practically all respect (the fact that he appointed himself Commander in chief and messed the situation on the front lines didn't help the issue). So - no, never. Even die-hard monarchist would be ashamed of him.

2) Provisional government. Stumbled from one political crises to another, while sharing the power with Petrograd's Soviet. After each consequent crisis the % of liberals in PG decreased, but this didn't help the matter (Kerensky was EsEr - so what?). While the power of Soviets after each said crises only increased. The provisional government failed to deliver the main demand of the February revolution - to sign the peace with Germany and its allies. Instead, the Provisional Government:

a) Ruined the army by allowing to the soldiers to have their own Soviets (which decided, should or should not they go into attack, among other things), and antagonized the officers (whom some soldiers started to kill at wanton, not suffering any punishment for that)

b) Confirmed its desire to "fight to the victory" and listened to Russia's so called "Allies", by launching a disastrous Summer offensive of 1917 (which, unsurprisingly, lead to another crisis).

In the end it left Kerensky facing the Kornilov's uprising. Arguably, it would be better for Russia if Kornilov would won. But it would be even better, if the Provisional government signed a peace with Germany in early 1917, while Russia still had functioning army, fleet and more land under its control. That alone would've prevented the German occupation of the Ukraine and all Pribaltica, would have kept Caucasus intact. etc.

3) Bolsheviks. I would have supported them, BUT:

- Their early actions, when they were giving away independence to just about anyone were not appreciated by the newly independent states. In fact, said new countries would attack them at the first opportunity. So, that was an ideologically driven epic fail.
- The forceful dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1918. By denying their opponents the political representation as a way to fight for power, they left only one option - war. In mid 1918, after the assassination attempt on Lenin and declaring of Left EsErs the enemies of Revolution, they made it crystal clear that they want only "the Dictatorship of Proletariat" with them at the top. In short, instead of 1 Revolution, Bolsheviks also staged a coup d’état a bit later.

Soooo... none of the above. If there was an option of Constituent Assembly, I'd voted for that.

[Solaray]

Probably the Provisional Government. Maybe the Whites. Definitely not the Bolsheviks though.

[Lyttenburg]

So...proto-tsarism basically?

The Whites weren't strictly monarchists, you know. They included several pro-provisional government rulers and at least one socialist that I can recall. .

Boris Savinkov?

I've wrote a "thesis" about him several years ago in Uni - about his role in the Civil War.

He met Winston Churchill a couple of times. While in his memoirs Churchill goes to a great lengths, how Sovinkov was formidable dude, Savinkov in his auto-biographicall warks recall Churchill as smug self centered bastard upon which, unfortunately, depended the supply of Denikin's White Army.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I've always felt bad for poor Nicky. Reading up on him, there's always this sense that he really didn't WANT to be the emperor, but that his father (and probably everybody else around him,) was constantly saying "remember Constantine!" and implying that he would create another succession crises if he refused. To add to the problem, Alexander III intentionally kept him out of politics until he was relatively old to start out, and then went and died before hitting 50. So poor Nicholas, the guy who didn't want the job and didn't get the training, suddenly found himself with a crown on his head and no idea what to do with it. Add in a combination of being both stubborn AND weak willed and you've got a recipe for trouble where the people who actually cause the trouble don't get any of the blame.

And his reign also wound up with some of the most extraordinary bad luck cropping up in the worst places. Khodynka and Bloody Sunday were certainly not his fault, although his response to both events was certainly poor, but nonetheless he gets full blame for them.

By most personal accounts, he was a pleasant, if somewhat dull, generally kind fellow who deeply cared for his family and his country. He just didn't have a goddamn clue how to run the country. That's not to say he didn't have bad points, of course, permitting the pogroms to go on without serious intervention as he did, for instance.

I do, however, maintain that his murder, along with his family, their servants and their dog was a terrible crime, even if it had been conducted competently rather than by a drunk firing squad who realized they hadn't done the job right and came back to finish the survivors off with bayonets ten minutes after leaving them bleeding on the floor.

[Solaray]

I've always felt bad for poor Nicky. Reading up on him, there's always this sense that he really didn't WANT to be the emperor, but that his father (and probably everybody else around him,) was constantly saying "remember Constantine!" and implying that he would create another succession crises if he refused. To add to the problem, Alexander III intentionally kept him out of politics until he was relatively old to start out, and then went and died before hitting 50. So poor Nicholas, the guy who didn't want the job and didn't get the training, suddenly found himself with a crown on his head and no idea what to do with it. Add in a combination of being both stubborn AND weak willed and you've got a recipe for trouble where the people who actually cause the trouble don't get any of the blame.

And his reign also wound up with some of the most extraordinary bad luck cropping up in the worst places. Khodynka and Bloody Sunday were certainly not his fault, although his response to both events was certainly poor, but nonetheless he gets full blame for them.

By most personal accounts, he was a pleasant, if somewhat dull, generally kind fellow who deeply cared for his family and his country. He just didn't have a goddamn clue how to run the country. That's not to say he didn't have bad points, of course, permitting the pogroms to go on without serious intervention as he did, for instance.

I do, however, maintain that his murder, along with his family, their servants and their dog was a terrible crime, even if it had been conducted competently rather than by a drunk firing squad who realized they hadn't done the job right and came back to finish the survivors off with bayonets ten minutes after leaving them bleeding on the floor.

Exactly, which is why it always disgusts me when people celebrate his death, as though he was a malevolent tyrant.

[The New Sea Territory]

I state again.

The poll, if it were accurate, should include all of the following:

The Red Army (Bolsheviks)
The Provisional Government
The Armed Forces of South Russia
The Army of the Don Republic
The Komuch
Kuban People's Republic
The Alash Autonomous State
Ukrainian People's Republic
The Mountain Republic
The People's Republic of Azerbaijan
The First Armenian Republic
The Democratic Republic of Georgia
The Black Army/Free Territory of Ukraine
The Black Hundreds
The Crimean People's Republic
The Green Army
The Anti-Bolshevik Left SR Uprising
The Soviet Baltic Fleet Mutiny/Armed Citizens of Kronstadt/Kronstadt Commune
The Basmachi Movement
The Western Intervention
West Russian Volunteer Army and other German Interventions

I really, really, really hate it when people believe all civil wars are as simple as the American Civil War, where there were two sides, one lost and one bent the loser over and sodomized them, and it's that simple. Nothing about history is THAT simple. There are also dozens of various uprisings and de facto states that are lost due to the poor Soviet records that existed in the Far East, supported by Chinese volunteers or representing various ethnic minorities. So, for the sake of historical accuracy but at the same time being practical, simplify it to: White Movement, Provisional Government, Anarchists, SR Uprisings, Ukrainian Nationalists, Russian Nationalists, Islamic Rebels or "other".

[Lyttenburg]

I state again.

The poll, if it were accurate, should include all of the following:

The Red Army (Bolsheviks)
The Provisional Government
The Armed Forces of South Russia
The Army of the Don Republic
The Komuch
Kuban People's Republic
The Alash Autonomous State
Ukrainian People's Republic
The Mountain Republic
The People's Republic of Azerbaijan
The First Armenian Republic
The Democratic Republic of Georgia
The Black Army/Free Territory of Ukraine
The Black Hundreds
The Crimean People's Republic
The Green Army
The Anti-Bolshevik Left SR Uprising
The Soviet Baltic Fleet Mutiny/Armed Citizens of Kronstadt/Kronstadt Commune
The Basmachi Movement
The Western Intervention
West Russian Volunteer Army and other German Interventions

I really, really, really hate it when people believe all civil wars are as simple as the American Civil War, where there were two sides, one lost and one bent the loser over and sodomized them, and it's that simple. Nothing about history is THAT simple. There are also dozens of various uprisings and de facto states that are lost due to the poor Soviet records that existed in the Far East, supported by Chinese volunteers or representing various ethnic minorities. So, for the sake of historical accuracy but at the same time being practical, simplify it to: White Movement, Provisional Government, Anarchists, SR Uprisings, Ukrainian Nationalists, Russian Nationalists, Islamic Rebels or "other".

Only the OP is asking about "Russian Revolution". I'm afraid, it's too late to ask him to clarify - which one.

[The New Sea Territory]

I state again.

Only the OP is asking about "Russian Revolution". I'm afraid, it's too late to ask him to clarify - which one.

Well....all those technically fought during the "Third Revolution" which was mostly the socialist, anarchist and nationalist rebellions.

[Constantinopolis]

This poll is strangely ahistorical. There was no point in the Russian Revolution when there was a 3-way choice between the Tsar, the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks. For one thing, the Tsar pretty much stopped being an option as soon as the revolution began, and after that no pro-Tsarist faction ever gained any significant support again (unless you want to consider the various White military strongmen pro-Tsarist, which is debatable).

1. From the February Revolution of 1917 until at least August (if not September), the Tsar was no longer relevant in politics, and no one even imagined that the Bolsheviks could take power on their own. The choice was between the Provisional Government or some sort of military dictatorship (for example, one led by Kornilov).

2. Then there was a very brief struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, culminating in the October Revolution.

3. After October/November 1917, Kerensky fled and the Provisional Government ceased to exist. For the next few months the choice was between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist factions, most notably the SRs (Social-Revolutionary Party).

3. Finally, during the Russian Civil War that started in 1918, the choice was between the "Reds" (the Bolsheviks and their allies) and the "Whites" (various reactionary forces, mainly led by former Tsarist generals, most of whom wanted some sort of monarchy, but usually with themselves in charge, as opposed to restoring the Romanovs to the throne).

So, for most of the Russian revolutionary period, both the Tsar's monarchy and the Provisional Government were dead and gone. After October 1917 neither of them were realistic options any more.

[The New Sea Territory]

This poll is strangely ahistorical. There was no point in the Russian Revolution when there was a 3-way choice between the Tsar, the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks. For one thing, the Tsar pretty much stopped being an option as soon as the revolution began, and after that no pro-Tsarist faction ever gained any significant support again (unless you want to consider the various White military strongmen pro-Tsarist, which is debatable).

1. From the February Revolution of 1917 until at least August (if not September), the Tsar was no longer relevant in politics, and no one even imagined that the Bolsheviks could take power on their own. The choice was between the Provisional Government or some sort of military dictatorship (for example, one led by Kornilov).

2. Then there was a very brief struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, culminating in the October Revolution.

3. After October/November 1917, Kerensky fled and the Provisional Government ceased to exist. For the next few months the choice was between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist factions, most notably the SRs (Social-Revolutionary Party).

3. Finally, during the Russian Civil War that started in 1918, the choice was between the "Reds" (the Bolsheviks and their allies) and the "Whites" (various reactionary forces, mainly led by former Tsarist generals, most of whom wanted some sort of monarchy, but usually with themselves in charge, as opposed to restoring the Romanovs to the throne).

So, for most of the Russian revolutionary period, both the Tsar's monarchy and the Provisional Government were dead and gone. After October 1917 neither of them were realistic options any more.

The Russian Civil War was much more complicated than the Red-White scuffle American History Textbooks speak of.

[Solaray]

This poll is strangely ahistorical. There was no point in the Russian Revolution when there was a 3-way choice between the Tsar, the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks. For one thing, the Tsar pretty much stopped being an option as soon as the revolution began, and after that no pro-Tsarist faction ever gained any significant support again (unless you want to consider the various White military strongmen pro-Tsarist, which is debatable).

1. From the February Revolution of 1917 until at least August (if not September), the Tsar was no longer relevant in politics, and no one even imagined that the Bolsheviks could take power on their own. The choice was between the Provisional Government or some sort of military dictatorship (for example, one led by Kornilov).

2. Then there was a very brief struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, culminating in the October Revolution.

3. After October/November 1917, Kerensky fled and the Provisional Government ceased to exist. For the next few months the choice was between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist factions, most notably the SRs (Social-Revolutionary Party).

3. Finally, during the Russian Civil War that started in 1918, the choice was between the "Reds" (the Bolsheviks and their allies) and the "Whites" (various reactionary forces, mainly led by former Tsarist generals, most of whom wanted some sort of monarchy, but usually with themselves in charge, as opposed to restoring the Romanovs to the throne).

So, for most of the Russian revolutionary period, both the Tsar's monarchy and the Provisional Government were dead and gone. After October 1917 neither of them were realistic options any more.

So what, does that mean the Bolsheviks are the only option?

Well that sucks. I guess I'd support one of them dinky little counter-revolutionary groups then.

[Constantinopolis]

Only the OP is asking about "Russian Revolution". I'm afraid, it's too late to ask him to clarify - which one.

I'm assuming he means the entire period from 1917 to 1922.

After all, even though the term "Russian Revolution" is typically used to refer to events in 1917, most of the actual fighting occurred in the years after that. And it was those years after 1917 that decided what kind of government Russia was going to have after the fighting stopped.

[United Marxist Nations]

This poll is strangely ahistorical. There was no point in the Russian Revolution when there was a 3-way choice between the Tsar, the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks. For one thing, the Tsar pretty much stopped being an option as soon as the revolution began, and after that no pro-Tsarist faction ever gained any significant support again (unless you want to consider the various White military strongmen pro-Tsarist, which is debatable).

1. From the February Revolution of 1917 until at least August (if not September), the Tsar was no longer relevant in politics, and no one even imagined that the Bolsheviks could take power on their own. The choice was between the Provisional Government or some sort of military dictatorship (for example, one led by Kornilov).

2. Then there was a very brief struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, culminating in the October Revolution.

3. After October/November 1917, Kerensky fled and the Provisional Government ceased to exist. For the next few months the choice was between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist factions, most notably the SRs (Social-Revolutionary Party).

3. Finally, during the Russian Civil War that started in 1918, the choice was between the "Reds" (the Bolsheviks and their allies) and the "Whites" (various reactionary forces, mainly led by former Tsarist generals, most of whom wanted some sort of monarchy, but usually with themselves in charge, as opposed to restoring the Romanovs to the throne).

So, for most of the Russian revolutionary period, both the Tsar's monarchy and the Provisional Government were dead and gone. After October 1917 neither of them were realistic options any more.

The Russian Civil War was much more complicated than the Red-White scuffle American History Textbooks speak of.

He's from the Eastern Bloc, so he knows that, but the only major factions were the Reds and Whites.

[Constantinopolis]

The Russian Civil War was much more complicated than the Red-White scuffle American History Textbooks speak of.

I know. But the Reds and the Whites were the only sides that stood any chance of winning after late 1918.

So what, does that mean the Bolsheviks are the only option?

No, it means that your range of options depends entirely on which particular moment in time we're talking about. Many factions rose and fell within a matter of months.

But the Bolsheviks were the only faction that lasted through the entire thing, yes - which is one of the reasons why they won.