/marx/ - Marxism

>>2590

Let's not forget that both areas were far from "Paradises" as Anarchists make them out to be. Both were resource-starved famine-threatened agrarian shitholes.

>>2594

All of Russia, and Catalonia too probably were on the verge of famine or in the middle of famine throughout their respective civil wars.

Holy shit Anarchokiddies are having a meltdown here.

>>2593

>Spain

>Heavily industrialized

Uh, you might want to look up some of the causes of the spanish civil war bud.

>>2606

Sorry for just making a bunch of separate posts, but I will add one more thing.

Wrangel was not a serious threat at all. Trotsky was having an autistic meltdown because he didn't want to have a winter campaign. The Bolsheviks already outnumbered Wrangel roughly 4:1 and had hundreds of thousands of troops to spare as soon as peace was made with the Poles.

Makhno was by no means integral to the defeat of Wrangel, at best he sped things up a little bit. Wrangel was actually driving Makhno to the defensive before Bolshevik reinforcements arrived.

>>2608

Red Victory: A history of the Russian Civil War.

>>2612

"...[Wrangel's] Army consisted of 25,000 foot soldiers and 6,000 cavalry to defend a front nearly 500 kilometers long." was up against the full force of The Red Army "With an estimated 350,000 men available if they were no longer needed and occupied with the poles."

"By the end of September, Much of Makhno's home territory... was effectively in Wrangel's hands"

This is from pages 418 and 419 of the OP's PDF.

If you want to know about famine looming during the war, use common sense or google. Famine had begun even before the civil war in the spring of 1917, and in 1921 immediately after the wars end another famine struck across Russia due to poor rain n the past years.

Unless Makhno can make rain fall from the sky I do not think he would have been spared. Lack of food and resources is simply a fact of wartime conditions, especially ones that have continued for 6 and a half years. I am not speaking against Makhno politically here, but against the Anarchokiddies on Leftypol have claimed that the Free Territory was a paradise.

>>2614

"Stimulated by [the Allies'] support, Wrangel launched a sweeping offensive along the left bank of the Dniepr that August. Despite heavy losses - every one of the officers commanding battalions and companies of the Whites' First Army Corps was rendered hors de combat - Wrangel's troops pushed the 13th Red Army back on to the right bank of the Dniepr and drove the front back as far as the AJexandrovsk-Berdyansk line. For the Reds, this was 'Black August,' as all their counter-offensives were smashed one by one. However, the balance of numbers was still tilted in their favor: they lined up 250,000 men, a third of them in the front line, against 125,000 Whites of whom 5,000-30,000 were in the front line. The latter made up for numerical inferiority with the courage of their fighting men and above all with the inspired deployment of some 25 aircraft, 100 tanks and the armored trains at their disposal. Their greatest problem was the question of reserves: they were desperately short of the manpower needed if they were to develop their offensive further. True, there were the· thousands of captured Red troops and officers - upwards of 30,000 captured during August - who volun­tarily enlisted in their ranks until, towards the end, they accounted for nearly 90 percent of the Whites' manpower."

"...every time [the Makhnovists] tried to move up to the [White's] front, they were attacked from behind by Red troops."

Pages 192, 193 and 194 of the "Cossack" PDF.

Other than that, I should not have to point out that smug remarks are not a substitute for sources. Unless you can make a convincing case (with sources) that there were famines in the Makhnovia, then I'm not really interested in your speculations.

>>2613

"Our agrarian commune was at once the economic and political vital centre of our social system. These communities were not based on individual egoism but rested on principles of communal, local and regional solidarity. In the same way that the members of a community felt solidarity among themselves, the communities were federated with each other . . . It is said against our system that in the Ukraine, that it was able to last because it was based only on peasant foundations. It isn't true. Our communities were mixed, agricultural-industrial, and, even, some of them were only industrial. We were all fighters and workers. The popular assembly made the decisions. In military life it was the War Committee composed of delegates of all the guerrilla detachments which acted. To sum up, everyone took part in the collective work, to prevent the birth of a managing class which would monopolise power. And we were successful." [Makhno quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 88-9]

Let's see some sources, yes?

>>2615

Im calling bullshit on this one. The White's only had some 30,000 men under Wrangel, according the the Russian Civil War Volume one. "The Only way to overcome this was to move rapidly, striking at the Red Units seperately."

Even if the whites made temporary victories, it was impossible for them to actually sustain any victories as was quickly seen once Frunze drove him back to Crimea.

Famine in Russia: the hidden horrors of 1921 is my source for the famine. It mostly affected Russia, but it appears portions of Ukraine were too. I also never claimed that famine was happening in Anarchist Territories, merely that food shortages and famine was looming. Makhno can't make it rain. Food Shortages, as well as shortages of pretty much everything in Catalonia, come from Homage to Catalonia.

>>2617

My bad, the full title of the book I was citing was The Russian Civil War 1918-22 and the volume was volume 2.

>>2620

>I'm calling bullshit on this one because my source says something different from your source

I did have a supporting quotation. I have three sources confirming that Wrangel only have 30,000 men, and as far as I can tell yours is the only one that claims there was 125,000 white troops.

>more speculation without sources

Im speculating by extrapolating from existing information. Even if Wrangel did have only 125,000 men he did not have enough resources or manpower to successfuly defeat the full force of the Red Army. Your criticism is about as effective as saying that I am only speculating if I think 3 men can't defeat 10 highly trained and equiped soldiers in a head on battle. Is there a chance the disadvantaged side could win? Yes. Is it likely? Absolutely not.

My claims about the Famine are not speculation. The 1921 famine is common knowledge, there is even Wikipedia article if you like. I have provided citations on it too. Makhno would not have been able to prevent a famine because the famine was a natural disaster. Unless you think Makhno is a god who can call water from the sky then Ukraine was not a fucking paradise at the time. No Warzone is.

Also, if you'd read Homage to Catalonia you would recall the long passages dedicated to the meat and "Tobacco Famines" for shortages of all kinds of goods.

>Making blatantly false criticisms proving you didn't even read the argument

Anarchists why am I not surprised.

>>2622

>I did have a supporting quotation.

So did I. We have reached an impasse.

>I have three sources confirming that Wrangel only have 30,000 men

You allegedly have two, and you would only provide citations from one (OP's PDF). I'm waiting for concrete citations from The Russian Civil War book.

>as far as I can tell yours is the only one that claims there was 125,000 white troops.

So it's one v one.

>Even if Wrangel did have only 125,000 men he did not have enough resources or manpower to successfuly defeat the full force of the Red Army.

This is a bold claim that once again comes with no sources to back it up. Meanwhile, my source will inform you that "Black August" marked a series of continual victories of the whites over the red army.

>I am only speculating if I think 3 men can't defeat 10 highly trained and equiped soldiers in a head on battle.

False analogy.

>I have provided citations on it too.

Naming a book can barely pass for a citation in this context. I would like to see a quote.

>Ukraine was not a fucking paradise at the time. No Warzone is.

Never made such claims. The projections are all on you, comr8.

>Also, if you'd read Homage to Catalonia you would recall the long passages dedicated to the meat and "Tobacco Famines" for shortages of all kinds of goods.

You said famines. Trying to twist it now to imply that you were referring to tobacco shortages is plainly dishonest. A shortage of blankets does not imply that people were starving to death, which is the definition of famine.

>Making blatantly false criticisms proving you didn't even read the argument

Is this projection? I ask because you are making false criticism proving you didn't read the argument (or, well, my snide remark).

The only quotations you've provided are from OP's PDF, referring to Wrangel's military force. I provided a source to counter your claims. That's it as far as citations go.

Again, I'd like to see a quote from these books supporting your claims.

>>2623

I've provided a fucking quote. The quote was the numbers of men, which was from 2 Russian Civil war books and the PDF, And one book I quoted directly in how Wrangel was making early gains

>""The Only way to overcome this was to move rapidly, striking at the Red Units seperately."

>Never made such claims. The projections are all on you, comr8.

Then why did you continue arguing with me when I specifically stated this was the purpose of me arguing earlier? Because you haven't read a word I've said

>>2623

It's 3 v 1 bud. All 3 of my books give the numbers 30,000 for Wrangel. The PDF is a dissertation and if he had gotten something like that so horrifyingly wrong then he probably wouldn't have passed, instead of going on to become a professor and retiring to South Africa.

Naming a book can barely pass for a citation in this context. I would like to see a quote.

I've provided quotes from multiple books and the pdf at this point, as well as brought out numbers from the books. If it really helps you the quotes were roughly "Wrangel Had [Numbers].

>You said famines. Trying to twist it now to imply that you were referring to tobacco shortages is plainly dishonest. A shortage of blankets does not imply that people were starving to death, which is the definition of famine.

I've never claimed there was a famine. I was saying shortages of many goods were happening and famine was on the horizon. At no point have I said famines were happening, merely that they were inevitable in the case of Makhno, or possible in the case of Catalonia.

>

False analogy.

1. Naming a fallacy is not an argument.

2. It is a fallacy in itself to simply name fallacies in place of arguments, The Fallacy Fallacy

3. It's not even a false analogy because all I have done is scale the numbers down. The Red Army was an organized and battle-hardened military force by the time it was fighting Wrangel, albeit they were exhausted forces. Wrangel's forces were in poor condition and mostly made up of hostile conscripts.

>I am only speculating if I think 3 men can't defeat 10 highly trained and equiped soldiers in a head on battle

I fucked up writing this. I meant to say that I am *Not* only speculating if I say that.

>Meanwhile, my source will inform you that "Black August" marked a series of continual victories of the whites over the red army.

There is a difference between winning battles and winning the war. Guess who won the war? The Red Army.

>>2624

>I've provided a fucking quote.

Good, you've learned to count now. A quote.

>The quote was the numbers of men, which was from 2 Russian Civil war books and the PDF

You've only provided the PDF quote though. I'm still waiting for quotes from the Russian Civil war books.

>And one book I quoted directly in how Wrangel was making early gains

Which was also from that same PDF which is the only thing you have quoted.

So far, you only have one concrete source. The rest remains unprovided.

>Then why did you continue arguing with me when I specifically stated this was the purpose of me arguing earlier?

You said that the Free Territory was a famine-threatened shithole. Apparently pointing out that there weren't famines means that suddenly it was a paradise, because, of course, only shithole and paradise are the available options. Since you are so big on fallacies, that's called "false dichotomy".

Jeez, I expected your argumentation tricks to be better.

>Because you haven't read a word I've said

Insisting on this accusation hints to me that you are projecting.

>It's 3 v 1 bud.

Nope. It's your Darch PDF vs Skirda's Cossack. As I pointed out, you've failed to provide quotes from the other books you allegedly cite. Until you do, it's just your word. Which, in case it needs explication, doesn't count for shit.

>The PDF is a dissertation and if he had gotten something like that so horrifyingly wrong then he probably wouldn't have passed

I'd like to hear you stick to that line when dissertations that talk about the 66 gorillion that Stalin deliberately killed gets posted.

Dissertations contain error all the time. This is no secret. A history dissertation is about how well you can defend your narrative, which is often a (or the) big point about history academy.

>I've provided quotes from multiple books and the pdf at this point

You provided quotes from the PDF. That's pretty much it other than a quote allegedly from the Russian Civil War that mentions that the reds were attacked separately.

>It's not even a false analogy because all I have done is scale the numbers down.

...do you really think that's how this works? Do you know that quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes? Can you even into dialectics? You cannot just divide up the number of soldiers in a war and equate it to a single fight between a few people, that's just insane.

>There is a difference between winning battles and winning the war. Guess who won the war? The Red Army.

The Black Army won the war against the Whites. Then Reds attacked the weakened forces and terrorized the people to subvert the movement.

If you are gonna look at the war outcome, hey, I guess the US won the Cold War. So much for that.

>>2625

>TIL Makhno singlehandedly defeated the entire white army and captured Admiral Kolchack showing him the true power of Communism.

>>2625

The whole point of my argument is against anarchists who claim the free territory was a paradise. The whole argument started off with

"Let's not forget that both areas were far from "Paradises" as Anarchists make them out to be. Both were resource-starved famine-threatened agrarian shitholes."

Your reading comprehension is also nill because I've provided two quotes, one from the book and one from the PDF. Your reading comprehension is nil.

>I'd like to hear you stick to that line when dissertations that talk about the 66 gorillion that Stalin deliberately killed gets posted.

Dissertations contain error all the time. This is no secret. A history dissertation is about how well you can defend your narrative, which is often a (or the) big point about history academy.

This is different because there is little reason someone would deflate the number of troops that the anarchists and red troops had to face when there are hundreds of reason someone would inflate Stalin deaths. If this person had a political agenda he would have made the troop counts larger like yours to prove the Red army was even more powerful than it was.

To satisfy your fetish for quotes I've dug out my copy of one of these books finally. It states Frunze had some "188,771 men, supported by 300 machine guns, over 600 field guns, and twenty three armored trains, to attack 26,0000 white regulars and 16,000 ill armed reserves..."

This is on pages 444 and 445 if you want to go wrench this from your history professor's secure archives.

>>2627

I'll add that this book is the "Red Victory" Book by Bruce Lincoln, and has a 26 page biography in small print (If I can find a PDF version I'll be happy to post it) and "25 years of research" behind it.

>>2627

>Both were resource-starved famine-threatened agrarian shitholes.

You are not really making your case for having a consideration that can stand between "paradise" and "shithole". Just because it wasn't a paradise, it doesn't mean it was a "shithole". Apparently nuance isn't one of the qualities of the /marx/ brigade.

>Your reading comprehension is also nill because I've provided two quotes, one from the book and one from the PDF. Your reading comprehension is nil.

"Your reading comprehension is nill" written two times one after the other. Myeah, it may be anxious projection.

Your second quote is fucking nothing. The whites attacked the reds separately. It says nothing of the matter at hand.

But good, at least you went down to two from the "multiple" books you allegedly sources just by naming them.

>This is different because there is little reason someone would deflate the number of troops that the anarchists and red troops had to face when there are hundreds of reason someone would inflate Stalin deaths.

Special pleading. And before you call the "fallacy fallacy", I have nothing to argue, you haven't provided an argument, you just made an assertion.

>If this person had a political agenda he would have made the troop counts larger like yours to prove the Red army was even more powerful than it was.

Not if it was the Black Army who took care of them.

Also, in case this needs clarification, Darch is a marxist. He has an ideological stake in this.

>to attack 26,0000 white regulars

That's nearly double the number I provided.

>>2628

>and has a 26 page biography in small print

I'm not very interested in the life of the author.

P.S. Skirda's biography of Makhno and the Ukrainian revolution spanned a research of 18 years, which is likewise a most considerable effort.

>>2629

> against 125,000 Whites

>Nearly double the number I provided

What? Did you fail math class? Frunze was the commander of the Red Forces against Wrangel, facing the 25,000 white regulars and the militia.

The reason I didn't provide the numbers with the quote is it would have been awkward to put them in because it's mixed in with stuff about the Poles. I'll try and edit it to this.

"[At The] Wrangel front [there was] roughly 30,000 men"

Now I have 3 quotes.

>Special pleading. And before you call the "fallacy fallacy", I have nothing to argue, you haven't provided an argument, you just made an assertion.

Eh fair point here, but necessary given that multiple sources are in agreement now.

>>2629

And Uh, I meant to say bibliography but my writing skills are rapidly falling apart as it gets more and more late.

>>2630

>What? Did you fail math class?

Is this more unwarranted projection?

Quoting you:

>"188,771 men, supported by 300 machine guns, over 600 field guns, and twenty three armored trains, to attack 26,0000 white regulars and 16,000 ill armed reserves..."

260000 is nearly double the 125000 I posted.

>The reason I didn't provide the numbers with the quote is it would have been awkward to put them in because it's mixed in with stuff about the Poles.

Let's see it. I'm interested.

>>2632

I pressed an extra zero my apoligies, but the comma plus my earlier statements and the fact that I claim this to be supporting me should have given away it was a typo. I was transcribing this from a book so typo's were to be expected. This is my bad.

I've provided a version that makes sense because I turned it into a sentence, all it is doing is listing some numbers.

Also, Wrangel himself was not aiming for victory and according to line 5 page 472 of this document

https://books.google.com/books?id=NAZm2EdxKqkC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=crimean+front+1921+troop+counts&source=bl&ots=ElT3PVgDc9&sig=TtSftCWWulbA8IyyPHeisGj5q0E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tRiKVcjVIYzs-QHJwLrgDA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=wrangel&f=false

He only agreed to command once he signed a waiver with his fellow generals that his objective was not victory but extraction of the army.

>>2633

Oh, by the way, I have another source, ''The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921" by Micheal Palij.

"Wrangel...his army of 70,000... the Poles later permitted about ten thousand of General Bredov's troops to transfer to the Crimea and join Wrangel." So that's 80.000. Still far larger army than you try to contend.

Also, I cannot see your book. What are you trying to say? That Wrangel was organizing a retreat? At what point?

>>2634

Wrangel only took command under the agreement that he was not attempting to defeat the red army but organize an evacuation of Crimea, which he did. The attacks on souther Ukraine were an attempt to buy time and secure harvests.

>>2635

Okay, but that was by the end of the civil war. You fail to mention, for instance, Wrangel's charge and advance into Moscow of september 1919, and had projected victory by december, which was halted by the attack of the Black Army.

>>2636

I should have said "towards Moscow", the White Army didn't quite get there.

>>2636

I should have said "towards Moscow", the White Army didn't quite get there.

>>2636

That Was Denikin, and they only made it to Tula, roughly 100 miles from Moscow. While it is true the Black Army was essential to preventing a Battle for Moscow, I chalk it more up to the tactical blunder by Denikin, although he was in a difficult spot already. He had a gigantic salient focused at Tuva, and had barely any forces on his flanks, which allowed Makhnos' attack into his supply lines, grinding the assault to a halt and then forcing him to send valuable troops to deal with Makhno which gave the Reds time to do a pincer attack and force a retreat. We can only speculate on how things would have gone without a Black Army attack. I personally think that there is a chance that Moscow could have been taken, but at the time there were still extensive bolshevik territories, and the nature of Denikin's attack meant that It could not go on forever without consolidating his gains and bringing his flanks up to bear with the front, in which time the same pincer attack would still be possible.

If the Reds had lost, Makhno certainly would have lost too. He never faced the full force of the White Army at their strongest. If the Soviets were completely crushed, then the Whites would have direct control over the industrial heartland of Russia, and also would be able to focus their entire forces on Makhno. Mkahno was a good general, I will give him that, but he would not be able to completely defeat a force that was even stronger than the Red Army.

In fact, Makhno could not even get long-term victories over the whites at their weakest. I have not found the direct quote yet and will provide it when I locate it, but Makhno was on the retreat when he signed the second alliance with the Bolsheviks, although he had managed to halt the advance of the White's into his territory temporarily, then Frunze arrived and it began pushing back. I may be wrong about this part though as Im recalling mainly from memory and trying to find the passage.

>>2637

Good Catch. It was also Denikin not Wrangel.

>>2639

Can I add that I am glad to have a civilized discussion on a Bhutanese flipboook imageboard about this topic? Despite my various insults I am glad that some Anarchists are actually willing to discuss with some rigour about the Civil War rather than post memes or moralize. I am quite interested in the RCW, it's always overlooked in military history but it was such a key event.

Fun Fact: Denikin recieved command of the Southern Whites because his senior officers had been struck by artillery, just minutes after Denikin had suggested they move headquarters. They refused to move headquarters, and Denikin left (I don't recall why) and came back to find rubble in place of the headquarters.

>>2639

>It was Denikin not Wrangel

Yep my bad.

>Whites had barely any forces on his flanks

They did have significant forces, in fact Makhno and his troops were being persued by superior White forces at the time of the counterattack that crushed the backbone of the White advance.

>>2643

Then lets agree on some things.

1. Makhno's contribution to keeping Moscow from being captured was significant but it's pure speculation to say what would have happened otherwise

2. Makhno was not essential to the defeat of Wrangel.

>>2651

>1. Makhno's contribution to keeping Moscow from being captured was significant but it's pure speculation to say what would have happened otherwise

It's always speculation.

>2. Makhno was not essential to the defeat of Wrangel.

This is speculation as well. Certainly, the Red Army did consider the Black Army important if they were willing to make political concessions to the anarchists just to get Makhno to agree to a military alliance.

>>2652

On point 2. They wanted to avoid a winter campaign and they wanted to drive Wrangel out before he collected harvest. Wrangel wasn't aiming for a victory and unless he could suddenly materialize two hundred thousand Men a victory was impossible.

>>2653

You should bare in mind that Wrangel had the Poles' support, who were also waging war against the Soviets at the time. The situation was very tight, and there was a real possibility that if military pressure was not relieved in Ukraine to transfer forces to the Pole front then Poles could break the Soviet resistance. There were serious implications to wanting to "avoid a winter campaign", as you say.

A White and Pole joint front would have been a serious pain in the ass, I can tell you that. Maybe even fatal.

>>2654

Wrangel didn't have enough men to make it to Poland and it wasn't an objective of his either. He was barely able to keep up a 500 mile front, and extending it to Poland would have added a few hundred more miles to that front. Poland was almost defeated at Warsaw and peace negotiations had begun the previous year. An armstice was signed before 1920 was over, and the war officially ended at 1921. Army units were on the polish border in case conflict flared up again, not because they were still engaged in large scale combat.

>>2655

>Wrangel didn't have enough men to make it to Poland and it wasn't an objective of his either.

"Wrangel's strategic plan consisted of attempting to develop his offensive in two directions: in the West, towards Poland, so as to ease the pressure from the Red Army - this at the beginning of August - and reach the 45,000 men of the Third Russian army of General Bredov in internment in Poland: and in the East, to reach the Don territory to join up with remnants of the Cossack armies of the Caucasus who were fighting on against the Bolsheviks. He also made provision for disembar­ kation in the Kuban of a 5000-strong Cossack contingent commanded by General Ulagai. Mounted at the start of August, this landing at first took the enemy unawares: Ulagai met with success after success as he marched towards Ekaterinodar, but made the mistake of dallying somewhat along the way, affording the Red Army time to regroup it's forces and halt his offensive. Three weeks later Ulagai hoarded ship again for the Crimea along with his reinforced army of 10,000, which had grown to that size despite the heavy losses sustained. On the other hand, the thrust eastwards was making headway and by September the Whites had reached Ekaterinoslav, Mariupol and the borders of the Don."

"...they were aware of the rout inflicted

on the Reds by the Poles and believed a complete collapse of the Red front against

Wrangel to be imminent..."