Suhwan Seo
Poli Sci 150
Professor Hawkins
November 9, 2012
Blog 8
The Russian Civil War took place
after the Brest-Litovsk peace agreement was signed between Germany and
Communist Russia which was violently opposed by the Bolshevik government. The
White army rose up as an opposing group to the Bolshevik regime and eventually
escalated into a full out war between the White and Red army of Russia
(Graham). The war finally ended with the Bolshevik regime crushing the White
army and reinstituting political authority over Russia. Although the Russian
Civil War is accepted by many as a civil war, there are many other factors with
the war that makes it difficult to define that it was a civil war.
According to Samuels, civil war is
defined as “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between
parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostility”
(Samuels 259). The Russian Civil War was technically was an armed battle between
two parties in Russia. So basing it off just this information, Samuel’s
definition is true. But the Russian Civil War was not just fought between these
two parties. For one, the Russian Civil War had many small scale revolts, often
started by the peasants. The peasant army, also known as the green army, let
small scale revolts that often used guerilla tactic throughout the war. There
were 344 known peasant revolts that attempted to overthrow the regime (Graham).
Furthermore, the there were many foreign countries that fought the war as well.
For example, Britain and France invaded Murmanks and Archangel to help
establish the White government in these areas. In addition to Britain and
France, United States, Canada, and Japan also took part in fighting against the
Red Bolshevik regime. So when considering these outside influences and small
peasant revolts, the Russian Civil War has characteristics of interstate
warfare which is “the use of violence by states against other states” and
guerilla war which are “wars in which small groups of insurgents use irregular
military tactics” (Samuels).
In addition to these different
factors, some territories of Russia managed to become independent and became
sovereign states as a result of the war. For example, in 1920, Poland waged war
on Russia to set up an independent country. In addition to Poland, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia, and Finland also gained their sovereignty from Russia as a
result of the civil war (“The Russian Civil War”). But each of these “countries”
fought and took park in the war against Russia to gain their independence;
however, they were not able to completely overthrow the Bolshevik regime. And
Samuels defined revolution as an “armed conflict within a sovereign state
between insurgents and the state; […] the authority over the state is forcibly
transferred from the state to the insurgents” (Samuel 269). So based off this
definition, the first segment is true. The individual territories were
insurgents who fought against the state; however, even though they managed to
set up their own sovereign state, they were not able to completely overthrow
the state rule.
In conclusion, it would be
difficult to flat out define the Russian Civil War as civil war because there
were so many aspects of it that would fit under a different act of political
violence. Furthermore, some events are difficult to place under one of the
terms defined by Samuels. So it seems like a good starting point in trying to
define political violence, but the definition does not seem adequate enough to
cover every war. These definitions could work for some wars, but for most
conflicts, it’s more complex and difficult because like the Russian Civil War,
there are a lot of factors that influence a war.
Works Cited
Graham,
James. "The Russian Civil War." Today in History, Birthdays &
History Articles. History Orb, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.historyorb.com/russia/civil_war.php>.
"The
Russian Civil War." The Russian Civil War. History Learning Site,
n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russian_civil_war1.htm>.
Samuels,
David. Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013. Print.
You did a good job staying focused on the point of proving/disproving the definition and it was interesting to read because the Soviets played a large part in the civil war I wrote about. You might read through again just to edit because there were a few grammatical errors, but some good points!
ReplyDeleteAs Lynette pointed out before me, you really stayed on topic! I like how you described the flaw in Samuels's definition of Civil War by pointing out how other groups, such as pesants, were also present in the conflict. You made some great points.
ReplyDelete