At the end of 1919 the Ukrainian Army was forced by the superior Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik Russian forces to retreat westward where it encountered the Polish Army. Petliura decided it was impossible under these circumstances to continue orthodox warfare without external aid. He felt, however, that the struggle against the invading Russian forces should continue in the form of guerrilla warfare. Part of the army, about fourteen thousand men, was reorganized and, on December 7, 1919, under General Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko, moved far to the rear of the Bolshevik and Denikin forces to fight them and to support the Ukrainian partisans. This “Winter Campaign” continued through the winter of 1919–20.[15]
Petliura realized that Ukraine could not survive in her struggle against the Russian Reds and Whites without assistance from the Entente. Therefore, he tried to come to terms with the Polish government, which, in his judgment, was the bridge to the Entente. At first reluctant, Poland came awake when the erosion of the Ukrainian position threatened to remove the barrier that had protected Poland from the Bolshevik threat since Germany’s defeat. Thus, once the Polish Army attained the desired frontiers, the Zbruch River and western Volyn up to the Styr River, at the expense of Ukraine, the Poles agreed to negotiate. The Directory was obliged to issue a declaration on December 2, 1919, without the consent of its Galician members, accepting this line as the Polish-Ukrainian frontier.
After prolonged negotiations the two governments concluded a treaty, consisting of a political agreement and a military convention. Both governments expressed their profound conviction “that each people possesses the natural right to self-determination and to define its relations with neighboring peoples, and is equally desirous of establishing a basis for concordant and friendly coexistence for the welfare and development of both peoples.”[16] Although the treaty had many weaknesses and was sharply criticized by many on both sides, and in addition it did not achieve the Directory’s hope of winning French or British support, both the Polish and Ukrainian armies, including the participants in the winter campaign, joined in fighting the Red Army. On May 8, 1920, they liberated Kyiv. The Bolshevik counteroffensive, however, forced them to retreat deep into Poland where the Bolsheviks were finally defeated. The Soviet Russian government proposed an armistice and a preliminary peace that the Polish government accepted without consulting the Ukrainian government.
This is from an explicitly pro-anarchist, pro-Makhno source, so this isn’t really controversial. The justification tends to be that Makhnovschina was playing both sides, in order to best secure its position in a chaotic landscape. I didn’t dare being a pro-soviet source as it becomes even more damning, but at the same time would be less likely to be taken seriously.
The Makhnovists didn’t hide their animosity towards the Bolsheviks either, so this shouldn’t be surprising that they would fight:
Military hostilities between the Makhnovist revolutionary insurgents and the Red Army have ceased. Misunderstandings, vagueness and inaccuracies have grown up around this truce: it is said that Makhno has repented of his anti-Bolshevik acts, that he has recognized the soviet authorities, etc. How are we to understand, what construction are we to place upon this peace agreement?
What is very clear already is that no intercourse of ideas, and no collaboration with the soviet authorities and no formal recognition of these has been or can be possible. We have always been irreconcilable enemies, at the level of ideas, of the party of the Bolshevik-communists.
We have never acknowledged any authorities and in the present instance we cannot acknowledge the soviet authorities. So again we remind and yet again we emphasize that, whether deliberately or through misapprehension, there must be no confusion of military intercourse in the wake of the danger threatening the revolution with any crossing-over, ‘fusion’ or recognition of the soviet authorities, which cannot have been and cannot ever be the case.
[Source: Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack by Skirda and Sharkey, pp. 200-201]
The Russian Civil War created strange bedfellows. The idea that Makhnovschina tried to play both sides for its own interests is an extremely charitable reading of how they participated in the civil war. If the Red Army was truly the threat to Makhnovschina the Makhnovists said it was, then it makes perfect sense why they would temporarily form alliances against the Red Army if only to try to stay afloat themselves. And, for what it’s worth, they sided with the Red Army for the majority of the war.
Not everything is an evil communist conspiracy, sometimes Civil Wars are messy and result in strange bedfellows.
After prolonged negotiations the two governments concluded a treaty, consisting of a political agreement and a military convention.
Is that what you are trying to pass off as an “alliance” between Makhno and the Whites? Negotiations between Petliura and Poland?
You do understand that Petliura was not a Makhnovist, right?
The Makhnovists didn’t hide their animosity towards the Bolsheviks either,
Gee… I wonder why.
If the Red Army was truly the threat to Makhnovschina the Makhnovists said it was,
Yeah… the genocidal campaign the Bolsheviks launched against Ukraine must have been just an oopsie, right? Just like the US blundering into Vietnam, right?
they would temporarily form alliances against the Red Arm
Again… you have provided ZERO evidence of any Makhnovist “alliance” against the Bolsheviks.
It’s pretty cut and dry that the Makhnovists worked with other groups against the Red Army at certain times, as I showed. “Alliance” doesn’t mean that the Makhnovists were hardcore Whites or anything, just that, like all factions, they were opportunistic and dealing with an intense crisis. Also, there was never a “genocidal campaign against Ukraine,” so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. The Makhnovists opposed the Marxist formations propped up by the soviets, and tried to build an entirely different structure in Ukraine, which ultimately failed. There were ideological differences between the two groups that could not be reconciled, even if they could temporarily ally, just as they did with other factions during the civil war.
I already showed it, there was a time where the Red Army was fighting both the White and Black Armies. I already said there was no codified alliance, no formal ties, but the constant back and forth between Makhnovschina and the Soviets led them in shaky alliances, temporary conflict, back to a shaky alliance, before ultimately resulting in a final conflict where the Soviets drove out Makhno’s forces. Within this complex web was the ever-present (until the end) White Army.
You can call it goalpost shifting if you like, I can own up to misleading (though unintentional) wording on my part. I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc. Hopefully that’s enough to satisfy you. My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general, even without a codified alliance with the Whites. Policies like accepting all currency, abolishing all local laws, drawing rent for train use, all of these dramatically hurt local economy in an already chaotic time.
No, you absolutely did not. You tried to pass off some of Petliura’s wranglings with Poland as some kind of “alliance” between Petliura (who wasn’t even a part of the White forces) and Makhno and between Makhno and the Whites in general against the Bolsheviks.
It’s typical tankie thumbsucking and little else.
I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc.
No, you tried to indicate that there was some kind of informal co-operation between Makhno and the Whites… and you have thoroughly failed to prove that as well.
My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general,
There’s no need to tell me that… feeling threatened by any leftist that doesn’t fall on their knees to worship your holy party apparatus and the even holier political elites in control of it is exactly what we expect from you lot.
I did not try to pass off anything as an “alliance,” I already stated that there was no such codified alliance. I even accepted that my wording was unintentionally misleading, which is a mistake on my part. My issues with Makhno are not because I feel “threatened” by the Makhnovists, who are a relic of history at this point (like the soviets as well). My issues with Makhno are as I already stated, incredibly poor policy and an over-reliance on the Red Army for supplies, while simultaneously flip-flopping between working with the Red Army and working against them.
The fact that you deliberately left those criticisms of Makhno off, and instead inserted the strawman argument about some holy worship of political figures, is intensely dishonest. I’ve ignored your provocations as well, I don’t intend on getting into a big debate on the merits of Marxism vs. Anarchism here, as I know this is predominantly an anarchist space. That’s why I’m more here to combat those spreading social democrat apologia.
I am a Marxist, so of course I would rather the Marxists win the Russian Civil War than the anarchists. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. None of that reasoning has to do with thinking political parties, or those within them, are “holy,” and such accusations are weak dismissals of the actual reasons why Marxists support the creation of disciplined, proletarian political parties.
Here:
This is from an explicitly pro-anarchist, pro-Makhno source, so this isn’t really controversial. The justification tends to be that Makhnovschina was playing both sides, in order to best secure its position in a chaotic landscape. I didn’t dare being a pro-soviet source as it becomes even more damning, but at the same time would be less likely to be taken seriously.
The Makhnovists didn’t hide their animosity towards the Bolsheviks either, so this shouldn’t be surprising that they would fight:
[Source: Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack by Skirda and Sharkey, pp. 200-201]
The Russian Civil War created strange bedfellows. The idea that Makhnovschina tried to play both sides for its own interests is an extremely charitable reading of how they participated in the civil war. If the Red Army was truly the threat to Makhnovschina the Makhnovists said it was, then it makes perfect sense why they would temporarily form alliances against the Red Army if only to try to stay afloat themselves. And, for what it’s worth, they sided with the Red Army for the majority of the war.
Not everything is an evil communist conspiracy, sometimes Civil Wars are messy and result in strange bedfellows.
Is that what you are trying to pass off as an “alliance” between Makhno and the Whites? Negotiations between Petliura and Poland?
You do understand that Petliura was not a Makhnovist, right?
Gee… I wonder why.
Yeah… the genocidal campaign the Bolsheviks launched against Ukraine must have been just an oopsie, right? Just like the US blundering into Vietnam, right?
Again… you have provided ZERO evidence of any Makhnovist “alliance” against the Bolsheviks.
It’s pretty cut and dry that the Makhnovists worked with other groups against the Red Army at certain times, as I showed. “Alliance” doesn’t mean that the Makhnovists were hardcore Whites or anything, just that, like all factions, they were opportunistic and dealing with an intense crisis. Also, there was never a “genocidal campaign against Ukraine,” so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. The Makhnovists opposed the Marxist formations propped up by the soviets, and tried to build an entirely different structure in Ukraine, which ultimately failed. There were ideological differences between the two groups that could not be reconciled, even if they could temporarily ally, just as they did with other factions during the civil war.
Do I need to remind you off your own claim? Here it is…
You have provided no evidence that such an alliance ever existed. And now…
…you are attempting to modify your claim after the fact.
This conversation goes no further until you admit to your error.
The Makhnovists joined with white forces against the Red Army in 1919, I think you’re trying to word-lawyer over the term “alliance.”
Again… where is your proof, tankie?
I already showed it, there was a time where the Red Army was fighting both the White and Black Armies. I already said there was no codified alliance, no formal ties, but the constant back and forth between Makhnovschina and the Soviets led them in shaky alliances, temporary conflict, back to a shaky alliance, before ultimately resulting in a final conflict where the Soviets drove out Makhno’s forces. Within this complex web was the ever-present (until the end) White Army.
You can call it goalpost shifting if you like, I can own up to misleading (though unintentional) wording on my part. I did not mean to indicate that there was an actual, codified, formal alliance between Makhno and Wrangel, etc. Hopefully that’s enough to satisfy you. My opinion on Makhno is rather negative in general, even without a codified alliance with the Whites. Policies like accepting all currency, abolishing all local laws, drawing rent for train use, all of these dramatically hurt local economy in an already chaotic time.
No, you absolutely did not. You tried to pass off some of Petliura’s wranglings with Poland as some kind of “alliance” between Petliura (who wasn’t even a part of the White forces) and Makhno and between Makhno and the Whites in general against the Bolsheviks.
It’s typical tankie thumbsucking and little else.
No, you tried to indicate that there was some kind of informal co-operation between Makhno and the Whites… and you have thoroughly failed to prove that as well.
There’s no need to tell me that… feeling threatened by any leftist that doesn’t fall on their knees to worship your holy party apparatus and the even holier political elites in control of it is exactly what we expect from you lot.
Just assume we already know, okay?
I did not try to pass off anything as an “alliance,” I already stated that there was no such codified alliance. I even accepted that my wording was unintentionally misleading, which is a mistake on my part. My issues with Makhno are not because I feel “threatened” by the Makhnovists, who are a relic of history at this point (like the soviets as well). My issues with Makhno are as I already stated, incredibly poor policy and an over-reliance on the Red Army for supplies, while simultaneously flip-flopping between working with the Red Army and working against them.
The fact that you deliberately left those criticisms of Makhno off, and instead inserted the strawman argument about some holy worship of political figures, is intensely dishonest. I’ve ignored your provocations as well, I don’t intend on getting into a big debate on the merits of Marxism vs. Anarchism here, as I know this is predominantly an anarchist space. That’s why I’m more here to combat those spreading social democrat apologia.
I am a Marxist, so of course I would rather the Marxists win the Russian Civil War than the anarchists. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. None of that reasoning has to do with thinking political parties, or those within them, are “holy,” and such accusations are weak dismissals of the actual reasons why Marxists support the creation of disciplined, proletarian political parties.