The White Generals: An Account of the White Movement and the Russian Civil War

by Richard Luckett

This book should be of interest to general readers and military historians.

Genres: History, Russia, Military History, Russian History, Nonfiction, War

413 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 1971

Reviews

[A.L. Sowards · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a solid account of the Russian Civil War. Its focus was more on the opposition than on the Bolsheviks, but because so many books are the other way around, I enjoyed that aspect. The writing is readable and the organization chronological by theater. A good choice if you’re interested in the subject.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

The worst that can be said about The White Generals, Richard Luckett's 1971 study of the failed Russian counterrevolution, is that it reflects the prejudices of its time. Hence his depiction of WWI-era Russia, the Revolution itself and especially the Bolsheviks vacillates between simplistic and caricatured. Fortunately, the balance of his book depicts the White leadership, showing them in layered though unflattering terms. Luckett's perceptive showing the factors that led the Whites to defeat: lack of a unified political vision or command structure, feuds among the Generals themselves, mishandling of Finnish/Polish/Ukranian independence movements who might have made willing allies against Bolshevism, the ambivalence of intervening powers and the Reds' superior resources and leadership. Unlike many Western writers, he doesn't view a White victory as a deliverance forsaken: their reactionary, authoritarian tendencies and erratic personalities (Kolchak and Denikin come under particular criticism here) undercuts any notion of them as heroic freedom fighters. Only Baron Wrangel comes off reasonably well, and he came to prominence far too late to make much of an impact. We wonder less how the Whites failed than that they came so close to victory as they ultimately did.

[Natalie K · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really excellent, pro-White account of the Russian Civil War. Not really intended for the casual reader. Trust me, this book requires a ton of familiarity with Russian and Soviet history. It fills a needed gap in the historiography concerning both the Whites and the Civil War. Oh, and did I mention it's pro-White?! One of the few books I've seen to be so, which is impressive considering it was written in 1971, when the Soviet Union was pumping out anti-White propaganda. Long live the White Movement!

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any time we deal with the past there is the question of the inevitability of the past.  In retrospect, we know that the Reds won and it is clear that they had some advantages that they used to their benefit, such as interior lines and a political agenda that they were able to disguise in order to avoid antagonizing unnecessary enemies until they consolidated power and it scarcely mattered.  What the author does is present the Russian Civil War from the point of view of the Whites, and for those of us have that strong counter-revolutionary inclinations in revolutionary times, it offers some object lessons that can be used in tandem with a study of other revolutions so as to note how it is that counter-revolutions succeed and how it is that they fail.  And the Russian Civil War provides plenty of object lessons into how it is that future anti-Communist forces can do better, as it could have been possible for the Whites to win had they not made some very serious and very (in retrospect and at the time) lamentable mistakes.

This book is almost 400 pages long and is divided into eighteen chapters and organized in a chronological fashion.  The book begins with a preface and discusses the first white general and then discusses the origins of the counter-revolution in 1917 with a look at the Imperial Russian army before 1917 (1), the abdication of the czar (2), the army and its relationship with Karensky's provisional government (3), the Kornilov movement (4), and the headquarters on the Don (5).  After that the author examines the time of troubles in 1918 with a discussion of the campaign through the ice (6), the Finnish victory under Mannerheim (7), the relationship between the Germans, Czechs, Cossacks, and allies (8), the conquest of the Kuban by Deniken (9), the Northern diversion caused by British intervention (10), and the struggle to define the supreme ruler of all the Russians (11).  After that the author discusses 1919 in a seasonal view starting with the view from the center (12), then the spring (13), summer (14), autumn and winter (15).  After that the author discusses the failure of the White army in 1920 with defeat (16), Wrangel's Crimean bastion (17), and the last stand of the whites (18), after which there is a conclusion of the reckoning as well as a bibliography and index.

In reading this particular book it is clear that a lot of mistakes could be learned by future (present) counter-revolutionaries, and it is worth spelling them out.  For one, counter revolutionary efforts need to be united, as they were in Finland and Spain, and not disastrously divided as they were here.  Likewise, it is not worth alienating potential allies by making one's post-revolutionary plans obvious; instead, build a victorious coalition and decide the postwar picture after one has won the civil war in the present.  Likewise, being able to take advantage of external support while not becoming grifters, and making sure to avoid no purposeless violence (although counter-revolutionary terror may be necessary to clean up corrupt populations one has conquered) are vital lessons.  When one is fighting an enemy with interior lines and that has superior numbers, one has to be able to know that one has secure bases that one has established rule in so that one can make gains and use one's advantages to the best benefit.  The White Russians appear to have frittered away their early advantages in discipline and failed to unify or build a solid political program in many areas (except Finland) and found themselves overwhelmed when the Red armies were able to knock them out individually while they were unable to properly coordinate with each other.  That is to be lamented, but also learned from.

[Davy Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Have you read the Bloody White Baron by James Palmer?

Great, but harsh true story of a White leader out East. Mainly in Mongolia. German stock, from Estonia, fought for Russia. Sternberg Ungern.
Interesting stuff on the Dalai Lama, much different take than the Beatles.

I started this one years ago but it seemed dry, so I just skimmed and re-booted.

[Daryl Walsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a forgotten period of history. The barbarity of civil war Is something hard to imagine. I learned a lot about how the Bolsheviks were really on the right place at the right time. They were not some sort of irresistible mass of humanity. If the transitional government after Brest- Litovsk has possessed any cohesion, the course of history would have been changed.

[James Rooney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Accounts of the White Russian side in the Russian Civil War are, unfortunately in English, few and far between. This book goes a long way towards filling in that gap.

The focus of the book is that the White Movement was by no means very strongly united or very clear in its purpose. The various generals and soldiers were motivated by a shared hostility to Bolshevism, but they were vague in their plans to replace it. Should there be a Russian republic? Should the Tsar be restored? What about the non-Russian peoples of the empire, should they be given their own states, or brought back under Russian rule?

The leaders of the White Movement were unable to definitively answer these and other questions, which goes a long way towards explaining why they failed to mobilise the Russian people to the same extent as the Bolsheviks.

Compounding this difficulty was the fact that the various disparate White leaders were geographically distant and communication between them was poor. To Bolshevik propaganda it seemed that they were surrounded by menacing 'imperialists,' especially once the Allies became involved, but in reality these were all disjointed and feeble movements that the Bolshevik core in West-Central Russia could strike down one by one.

Of particular interest to me was the fate of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the last remnants of the Whites under Wrangel. The Bolsheviks were able to cut Wrangel's army with a brilliant offensive from the Dnieper to the Sea of Azov, which isolated the Crimea and doomed the last of White Russia's armies.

As a lost cause the Whites were never given much attention in the West, and to fit the needs of Soviet narratives they were greatly exaggerated in their actual strength, and in their supposed treachery and collusion with the Western Powers. This book places the movements and the men who led them in their proper context and gives them their fair due.

[Bill V · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a bad book. I prefer Red Victory by Bruce Lincoln. This book has some interesting details not covered in the Lincoln book, but as far as I remember, the two books don't differ in any material aspects. I would consider this more of a supplemental title to Red Victory.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad, but I found the writing style to be a little dry.