Russia’s Civil War: A Unique Form of Civil War

There are many forms of political violence and the definitions of these forms are frequently debated. In the textbook Comparative Politics, a civil war is defined as following: “Armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities.”[1] In this blog, I plan to test this definition of civil war against the historical example of civil war that occurred in Russia in 1917. I will identify the strengths and weakness of the definition according the Russian Civil War.

            The Russian Civil War is a very intricate and complex example of political violence. It was between the Red Army, led by the Bolsheviks, and the White Army, which consisted of anti-Bolsheviks. The war started in late 1917 amidst very unique circumstances. In order to understand the beginning of the war, we must go back to February of 1917. The February Revolution, which often goes unnoticed because of the October Revolution, delegitimized the tsarist regime that Imperial Russia had used for centuries and set up a Provisional Government until further action could be taken to set up a permanent solution. From February to October of 1917, the Bolshevik party was working underground to plan an overthrow of the Provisional Government and on October 25^th, the second revolution of the year, the October Revolution, occurred. As a result of this revolution, Vladimir Lenin was elected the first chairman of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.[2] Because of the rapid nature of these two revolutions, it is difficult to say who actually controlled Russia at this time. This is important because the definition of civil war states that the parties must be subject to ‘common authority’. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, considered themselves to be in authority, but the Mensheviks, led by the leaders of the Provisional Government, did not recognize the Bolsheviks as authoritative.[3] So we have two different groups who claim to be in authority at the beginning of the conflict.

            Another problem with the definition given by Samuels is that a civil war takes place within the boundaries of the sovereign state. The Russian Civil War took place in many parts of Eastern Europe, including Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and other countries. This is because the war took place during the tail end of World War I and included treaties made with the Central Powers. Because of the constant shifting of political boundaries that was part of WWI, the Russian Civil War took place in several countries. Also, many foreign countries were involved in fighting in the war. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States, among others, aided the White Army (Mensheviks), so we do see some foreign intervention.[4]

            In general, I think that the definition of civil war given by Samuels is accurate. However, it is impossible to say that all wars are the same and are made up of the same dynamics. The preceding revolutions that took place in Russia created a unique situation under which the Russian Civil War began. Because of the uniqueness involved in all civil wars throughout the war, I believe the definition given by Samuels is too distinct. In order for a civil war to take place, I think the only requirement is that the two parties originate from the same sovereign state and are hostile with one another. It doesn’t have to be limited to just those parties, but the two parties that start the war must originate from the same sovereign state.

---

[1] Samuels, D. J. (2013). Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson.

[2] Mawdsley, E. (2007). The Russian Civil War. New York: Pegasus Books.

[3] Ibid.                                                                                                             

[4] Ibid.