Race relations in a non-Bolshevik Russia

Post by WolfBear
Had Russia avoided the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 (such as by having both Lenin and Trotsky be killed in two separate pre-1917 accidents--or perhaps even by the Tsarist secret police) and thus made it out of World War I in one piece, what would race relations be like in Russia over the next century (1917-2017)?
For instance, are ethnic minority (Ukrainian, Caucasian, Central Asian, et cetera) parties going to closely cooperate with each other in this TL in order to protect and promote their own interests?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)
In addition, are certain ethnic groups in Russia--Caucasians, Central Asians, et cetera--going to demand things such as affirmative action (in order to compensate them for previous Russian Imperialist rule) in this TL?
Finally, how much ethnic intermarriage are we going to see in Russia in this TL? Would the greater freedom of movement (as in, no propiska system) have resulted in greater inter-ethnic contacts and interactions and thus in more intermarriage in Russia in this TL?
Any thoughts on all of this?

For the record, I am especially curious about Alex Milman's thoughts on this topic.

Alex Milman

2017-09-28 14:53:36 UTC

I'm not sure if there was Tsarist "secret police" routinely engaged in the political assassinations, especially abroad. Probably if it existed at least some problems could be avoided.

Post by WolfBear
and thus made it out of World War I in one piece, what would race relations be like in Russia over the next century (1917-2017)?

Framework defined in the terms that vague is practically meaningless in the terms of any definite predictions. Russia may get out "in one piece" as empire (with or without serious constitutional and economic reforms), a democratic republic with administrative structure similar to one of the Russian Empire, some kind of a federation or union (as the SU), some form of a dictatorship (left-wing, right-wing, centrist) and probably something else. Each of these options will have its own approach to the internal affairs.

Post by WolfBear
For instance, are ethnic minority (Ukrainian, Caucasian, Central Asian, et cetera) parties going to closely cooperate with each other in this TL in order to protect and promote their own interests?

I like "Caucasian" thingy. Do you understand that they were not united by anything, to put in very mildly. For example, there were violent clashes between Azeri and Armenians. Approximately the same goes for "Central Asian": AFAIK, the ethnic relations in some of the "stans" had been rather bloody even recently. I'm not going to get deep into the Ukrainian mess.
There were natural "migrations" within Russian Empire and, as long as the government was not interfering, they did not create noticeable problems. Unlike the government-sponsored mess you are referencing to with well known "by-products" like turning the middle class neighborhoods into the slams, etc.
There are very few things that government can do well and social engineering is not one of them.

Back to the Russian migrations, prior to 1917 there was a noticeable Chinese immigration into the Russian Empire (big enough for the Bolsheviks to use the Chinese mercenaries during the RCW).

Post by WolfBear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)
In addition, are certain ethnic groups in Russia--Caucasians, Central Asians, et cetera--going to demand things such as affirmative action (in order to compensate them for previous Russian Imperialist rule) in this TL?

"Compensation for the previous rule" implies a guilt complex combined with an advanced form of a liberal idiocy. It definitely exists in the US but I'm not sure why and how would it develop in post-Tsarist non-Bolshevik Russia. Of course, level of a prevailing idiocy is rather difficult to predict but, based strictly on the known past, the "guilt" part was hardly a dominant even among the Russian liberals.

Something similar to the affirmative action existed in the SU (not sure if it was or was not borrowed from there) but the basis was totally different: the SU was OFFICIALLY multi-ethnic state so each ethnicity was given a quota in, say, educational institutions to reflect country's ethnic composition. In other words, this had nothing to do with the issues of guilt, oppression, etc.

Post by WolfBear
Finally, how much ethnic intermarriage are we going to see in Russia in this TL?

AFAIK, not too many problems with that even in Tsarist Russia, except for some religious issues that could make things complicated in each specific case.

Post by WolfBear
Would the greater freedom of movement (as in, no propiska system) have resulted in greater inter-ethnic contacts and interactions and thus in more intermarriage in Russia in this TL?

There was no unrestricted freedom of movement in the Empire: traveler required to have some document issued by the local authorities. However, this seemingly did not impact the big migrations and the Russians had been the bigger migrating group. I suspect that the only explicitly restricted group were the Russian Jews but even then there were numerous ways to bypass these restrictions.

As for the "intermarriages", they did exist from the very beginning of the traceable Russian history. Not sure if the Soviet system inhibited or promoted them to any serious degree.

WolfBear

2018-03-06 05:37:10 UTC

I'm not sure if there was Tsarist "secret police" routinely engaged in the political assassinations, especially abroad. Probably if it existed at least some problems could be avoided.

Agreed.

Post by WolfBear
and thus made it out of World War I in one piece, what would race relations be like in Russia over the next century (1917-2017)?

Which of these options do you think is the most likely?

Indians and Pakistanis are also longtime rivals and yet they get lumped in together in the "Asian" category on the U.S. Census. Indeed, the Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Bangladeshis, Cambodians, Laotians, Thais, et cetera are all likewise up into the "Asian" category on the U.S. Census.

Thus, I was thinking of having Russia simplify its censuses by creating meta categories like the U.S. Census has.

Post by Alex Milman
There were natural "migrations" within Russian Empire and, as long as the government was not interfering, they did not create noticeable problems. Unlike the government-sponsored mess you are referencing to with well known "by-products" like turning the middle class neighborhoods into the slams, etc.
There are very few things that government can do well and social engineering is not one of them.

I am unsure that the Great Migration in the U.S. was government-sponsored. After all, life in the Jim Crow South was very bad for African-Americans and new job opportunities emerged for them in the Northern and Western U.S. as a result of the reduction in the flow of European immigrants starting from the 1910s (first due to World War I and then due to the 1921 and 1924 immigration restrictions).

Indeed, would life in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia not be worse than life in central Russia?

Post by Alex Milman
Back to the Russian migrations, prior to 1917 there was a noticeable Chinese immigration into the Russian Empire (big enough for the Bolsheviks to use the Chinese mercenaries during the RCW).

OK.

Doesn't Russia also have social justice warriors (SJWs) nowadays in our TL?

Post by Alex Milman
Something similar to the affirmative action existed in the SU (not sure if it was or was not borrowed from there) but the basis was totally different: the SU was OFFICIALLY multi-ethnic state so each ethnicity was given a quota in, say, educational institutions to reflect country's ethnic composition. In other words, this had nothing to do with the issues of guilt, oppression, etc.

OK.

That said, though, could we see something similar emerge in Russia in this TL?

Post by WolfBear
Finally, how much ethnic intermarriage are we going to see in Russia in this TL?

AFAIK, not too many problems with that even in Tsarist Russia, except for some religious issues that could make things complicated in each specific case.

OK; understood.

OK; understood.

Also, if Russia remains a liberal democracy after 1917, couldn't it abolish these restrictions on movement?

Post by Alex Milman
As for the "intermarriages", they did exist from the very beginning of the traceable Russian history. Not sure if the Soviet system inhibited or promoted them to any serious degree.

OK; understood.

Alex Milman

2018-03-06 23:04:33 UTC

I'm not sure if there was Tsarist "secret police" routinely engaged in the political assassinations, especially abroad. Probably if it existed at least some problems could be avoided.

Agreed.

Post by WolfBear
and thus made it out of World War I in one piece, what would race relations be like in Russia over the next century (1917-2017)?

Which of these options do you think is the most likely?

Any of the above depending on (a) when and how WWI is ended and (b) what happened afterwards. :-)

The only reasonably clear scenario is one in which Russian Empire is preserved - WWI ended up earlier, the Allies are victorious and Russia has something to brag about. Rather fantastic but let's say that Brusilov's offensive (better supplied than in OTL)coincides with a major (and untypically successful) Allied advance on the Western front; A-H capitulates (no German reinforcements) and Germany forced to start peace talks. Then probably the things remain more or less as they were before the war. There could be a more liberal constitution but that's it.

Byproducts of any other scenario (except OTL) are a wild guess.

Well, none of these categories has its own historic territory within the US, which makes situation rather difficult from one that existed/still exist in Russia where nationalities usually "backed up" by some piece of land on which they lived well before they became a part of a greater entity.

There was an attempt to create a Caucasian Federation but it did not quite work out. As I understand, in today's Russia there is a semi-official definition "person of a Caucasian nationality", mostly to simplify police work.

Central Asia is quite similar and, judging by what I heard about the bloody clashes in the post-Soviet "stans", notion of a broad "Asiatic unity" is not quite there. IIRC, there were early Soviet attempts to play with pan-Turkism but they were (AFAIK) mostly for those on the other side of a border.

Post by WolfBear
Thus, I was thinking of having Russia simplify its censuses by creating meta categories like the U.S. Census has.

I'm not sure that the national political parties you were talking about would be based on the census categories defined in such a way.

Post by Alex Milman
There were natural "migrations" within Russian Empire and, as long as the government was not interfering, they did not create noticeable problems. Unlike the government-sponsored mess you are referencing to with well known "by-products" like turning the middle class neighborhoods into the slums, etc.
There are very few things that government can do well and social engineering is not one of them.

I am unsure that the Great Migration in the U.S. was government-sponsored.

Well, one thing I can tell for sure: at some point there was a federal program that was providing housing in Boston area to the Blacks moving from the South. Most of the initial purchases had been done in the traditional Jewish areas and soon after the first "migrants" moved in the former residents flew to the safer places."During the 1940s and 1950s, a major migration from the southern to the northern cities led Roxbury towards becoming the center of the African-American community in Boston." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxbury,_Boston#20th_Century

As you understand, to settle in a densely populated urban area you need money to buy or rent a real estate. Sp, how these impoverished migrants from the South could end in a well-to-do area without governmental help? And who built "the projects"? The "migrants"?

Post by WolfBear
After all, life in the Jim Crow South was very bad for African-Americans and new job opportunities emerged for them in the Northern and Western U.S. as a result of the reduction in the flow of European immigrants starting from the 1910s (first due to World War I and then due to the 1921 and 1924 immigration restrictions).
Indeed, would life in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia not be worse than life in central Russia?

It is almost like to ask (and I was asked this question more than once) "What's Russian climate?" :-)

Life for whom?

OK, historically, an average level of life was higher in Ukraine than in Central Russia (much better agricultural lands, better climate, and some other social considerations).

"Caucasus" really does not make too much sense because (a) there were substantial regional differences and (b) the life styles were quite different from one in Russia.

Don't know enough about the CA to make a meaningful comparison and, again, "Central Asia" varied from nomadic to urban life style with sedentary rural areas in between.

OK.

Doesn't Russia also have social justice warriors (SJWs) nowadays in our TL?

How would I know? I'm not paying too much attention to what is happening in today's Russia but probably it is safe to assume that they have lunatics of all possible types. I was commenting on "guilt complex" strictly within a context of pre-revolutionary Russia.

OK.
That said, though, could we see something similar emerge in Russia in this TL?

Maybe it does exist, I simply have no idea.
[]

Post by WolfBear
Also, if Russia remains a liberal democracy after 1917, couldn't it abolish these restrictions on movement?

Like for the Jews? IIRC, they were abolished by February Revolution.

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-08 05:58:21 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
As you understand, to settle in a densely populated
urban area you need money to buy or rent a real
estate. Sp, how these impoverished migrants from the
South could end in a well-to-do area without
governmental help? And who built "the projects"? The
"migrants"?

Federal housing programs which aided blacks from the
South appear only well after WW II. The "Great Migration"
began during WW I.

As to how the blacks acquired housing in the North -
initially it was by wedging into crowded and often
filthy tenements in areas such as Chicago's "Black
Belt". Yes, they were poor, but they had _some_
income.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Federal money paid for the
construction of "the projects", which were confined
to the existing black neighborhoods; it is generally
accepted that the projects were intended to "warehouse"
blacks in those neighborhoods, and keep them from
moving elsewhere.

However, the pressure of migration from the South
pushed blacks into additional neighborhoods. This
led to practices such as "block-busting", where
unscrupulous real estate operators would engineer
the sale of one house in an all-white working class
block to a black buyer, then spread panic among
other owners.

There was no federal subsidy for blacks to travel
from the South, and (until the 1960s and in some
respects until the 1990s) very limited housing
assistance for blacks. The neighborhoods that "went
black" were often areas that were being abandoned
by their previous residents. For instance, there
were working-class Jewish neighborhoods in Chicago's
West Side in the 1920s and 1930s. But in the 1950s
and 1960s, the next generation of this population
moved up in occupational class, and migrated to
the suburbs.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2018-03-06 23:46:35 UTC

[]

Something went wrong with my answer. Will try again.

Post by WolfBear
and thus made it out of World War I in one piece, what would race relations be like in Russia over the next century (1917-2017)?

Which of these options do you think is the most likely?

The only option with some clarity is an early Allied victory in WWI (say, in 1916), say as a byproduct of the Brusilov's Offensive (better supplied than in OTL) combined with a major successful Allied offensive on the West. Without German help A-H gets out of war and Germany is forced to ask for peace.

The monarchy survives while having at least some "glory". There could be a new somewhat extended constitution but in general the things are more or less the same.

All other alternative scenarios involve too much of a wild guessing.

The fundamental difference should be obvious: unlike the US all these nationalities have their historic territories.

To be fair, for quite a while, all Muslims of Caucasus had been referenced as "Tatars" (but the narrower names still were in use). However, the Georgians and Armenians always were referenced as such. Well,"Georgians" eventually included quite a few minor ethnicities which are probably not exactly "Georgians".

As for the CA, it would be rather difficult to put all these nations under a single umbrella in any meaningful way.

Post by WolfBear
Thus, I was thinking of having Russia simplify its censuses by creating meta categories like the U.S. Census has.

I am unsure that the Great Migration in the U.S. was government-sponsored.

Well, how exactly in your opinion these impoverished people landed in big numbers in, for example, Roxbury, MA which was not exactly the cheapest part of the Boston area? You need money to pay a rent or to buy a property and impoverished migrants from the South simply did not have them (not sure that there were too many jobs waiting for them either). There was a federally-sponsored federal program which had been used to buy the local Jewish properties (with some "persuasion" from the agents) and the rest is history.

Life in Ukraine was traditionally better than in central Russia: better land, better climate and some other factors.

As for the rest, can't tell because the lifestyles were quite different from those in Russia and varied within each of the areas you mentioned.

[]

Post by WolfBear
Doesn't Russia also have social justice warriors (SJWs) nowadays in our TL?

I'm not following the events in nowadays Russia closely but it is probably safe to assume that they "progressed" enough to have all sorts of the lunatics.

OK.
That said, though, could we see something similar emerge in Russia in this TL?

I have no idea.

[]

Post by WolfBear
Also, if Russia remains a liberal democracy after 1917, couldn't it abolish these restrictions on movement?

Those that existed for the Jews? IIRC, they were abolished by the February Revolution.

Rich Rostrom

2017-09-29 02:30:50 UTC

The question is not so much "race" relations, as
"ethnic" relations.

OT1H - Imperial Russia did not make a Big Thing of
race. (Unlike the US South and other areas where
race-based slavery had been the social order.)

Russia (even the core area) swarmed with non-Russian
minorities: Kalmucks, Tatars, Mordvins, Bashkirs,
Votiaks, volksdeutsch, Arctic peoples. Then as Russia
expanded, it added Balts, Finns, Poles, Belarusians,
Ukrainians, Romanians, the various Caucasus peoples,
Mongols, Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks.

I don't really know what the average Russian-Russian's
attitude toward all of these groups was. Many of them
seem to have done quite well in the Empire at some level.
Intermarriage was not unusual. (Perhaps not with the more
exotic groups, like the Moslem Central Asians, but that
might have changed with time.)

OTOH - Pan-Slavism and Russification were both significant
trends in Imperial Russia, and anti-Semitism was present
at a truly poisonous level. One of the few good things
achieved by Soviet Communism was the abolition of anti-
Jewish laws and the end of quasi-official anti-Jewish
propaganda. There was residual anti-Semitism in the USSR,
especially in the 1970s, but even then nothing to compare
to the pogroms and the Black Hundreds.

It would depend very much on what shape the Russian
government takes. A "liberal" regime (in the 19th century
sense) would foster relaxation, relative tolerance. A
hotly Russo-nationalist regime might push ethnic rivalry
as a political engine (think Milosevic in Yugoslavia).

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2017-09-29 16:22:38 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

The question is not so much "race" relations, as
"ethnic" relations.

Indeed. Of course, ethnicity was mostly an issue of a self-identification because AFAIK the only "identifier" in the official documents was religion.
So, for example, a Jew was a Jew only as long as he stuck to Judaism; baptism was making him a 100% kosher Orthodox (like General Grulev or General Geyman). Or, Witte was Russian (see Wiki :-)) because his father, who descended from a Lutheran Baltic family of Dutch origin converted to Russian Orthodoxy to marry his (Orthodox) mother. Actually, in the Russian version of Wiki (where author seemingly has a clue), there is "Religion" (Orthodox) instead of "Nationality" (item that did not exist in the official documents).

Post by Rich Rostrom
OT1H - Imperial Russia did not make a Big Thing of
race. (Unlike the US South and other areas where
race-based slavery had been the social order.)
Russia (even the core area) swarmed with non-Russian
minorities: Kalmucks, Tatars, Mordvins, Bashkirs,
Votiaks, volksdeutsch, Arctic peoples. Then as Russia
expanded, it added Balts, Finns, Poles, Belarusians,
Ukrainians, Romanians, the various Caucasus peoples,
Mongols, Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks.
I don't really know what the average Russian-Russian's
attitude toward all of these groups was.

Keep in mind that most of the Russian top aristocracy and a big part of a nobility had either Lithuanian or Mongolian ancestry (not to mention Rurik who was Scandinavian) and the Baltic Germans became an integral part of the Empire in the early XVIII with the numerous intermarriages to follow. Members of, for example, Wrangel or Yusupov families would be quite surprised if identified as anything but "Russian".

An average person may (or may not) have usual phobias of multi-ethnic society. While being openly anti-Semitic was not 100% popular among the "educated classes" by the end of the XIX, being anti-Polish was OK and so was having a condescending attitude toward the people from the Central Asia, Chinese, etc.

On the lower levels things were worse but they many not even hear about the "exotic" nations.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Many of them
seem to have done quite well in the Empire at some level.

Yeah, like making it into the top ranking aristocracy or holding the highest positions in the imperial administration with much more on the lower levels.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Intermarriage was not unusual. (Perhaps not with the more
exotic groups, like the Moslem Central Asians, but that
might have changed with time.)

Witte was married to a Jewish women (converted into Orthodoxy).
Mannerheim had been married to a Russian heiress.
Felix Yusupov had Mongolian (all the way to Genghis Khan) ancestry on mother's side and (as was rumored) Hohenzollern plus some French and Austrian ancestry
ancestry on father's side (it seems that Wilhelm II recognized validity of the rumors).

Post by Rich Rostrom
OTOH - Pan-Slavism and Russification were both significant
trends in Imperial Russia,

They were but isn't it a little bit ironic (or illustrative) that one of the most prominent figures in the area of Russification was Vyacheslav VON Plehve?
Not to mention that the Russian monarchs were "Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov" (percentage of the "Russian blood" in Nicholas II was negligible).

Post by Rich Rostrom
and anti-Semitism was present
at a truly poisonous level.

Yes.

Post by Rich Rostrom
One of the few good things
achieved by Soviet Communism was the abolition of anti-
Jewish laws and the end of quasi-official anti-Jewish
propaganda.

Don't give too much credit where it is not due. :-)

"On March 20 (April 2 N.S.), 1917, the Pale was abolished by the Provisional Government decree, On abolition of confessional and national restrictions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement

De facto enforcement ended much earlier, with the beginning of the WWI.

Rich Rostrom

2017-10-01 00:51:33 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
One of the few good things
achieved by Soviet Communism was the abolition of anti-
Jewish laws and the end of quasi-official anti-Jewish
propaganda.

Don't give too much credit where it is not due. :-)
"On March 20 (April 2 N.S.), 1917, the Pale was
abolished by the Provisional Government decree, On
abolition of confessional and national restrictions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement
De facto enforcement ended much earlier, with the beginning of the WWI.

Good point - but OTOH, some of the White armies were murderously
anti-semitic; Bolshevik victory insured there would be no reversion
to the old ways.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2017-10-01 11:08:20 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
One of the few good things
achieved by Soviet Communism was the abolition of anti-
Jewish laws and the end of quasi-official anti-Jewish
propaganda.

Don't give too much credit where it is not due. :-)
"On March 20 (April 2 N.S.), 1917, the Pale was
abolished by the Provisional Government decree, On
abolition of confessional and national restrictions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement
De facto enforcement ended much earlier, with the beginning of the WWI.

Good point - but OTOH, some of the White armies were murderously
anti-semitic;

Well, the same goes for some of the Bolshevik troops and the troops of their "associates". The most notorious anti-Semitic had been troops of the Ukrainian nationalists, not to be confused with the "whites". Personally, I never heard about the Volunteer Army being engaged in the pogroms.The best record (no irony), AFAIK, had anarchists of Nestor Makhno.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Bolshevik victory insured there would be no reversion
to the old ways.

I doubt that the White movement was about real return of the "old ways" (none of the leaders was a true monarchist).

David Tenner

2017-10-05 07:04:59 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
Good point - but OTOH, some of the White armies were murderously
anti-semitic;

Well, the same goes for some of the Bolshevik troops and the troops of
their "associates". The most notorious anti-Semitic had been troops of
the Ukrainian nationalists, not to be confused with the "whites".
Personally, I never heard about the Volunteer Army being engaged in the
pogroms.The best record (no irony), AFAIK, had anarchists of Nestor
Makhno.

On the Volunteer Army and pogroms:

"The second half of 1919 was the most tragic period for Ukrainian Jewry. N.
I. Shtif, on the basis of documents collected by a Jewish committee in 1922,
distinguished three phases in the pogroms carried out by the Volunteer Army.
He characterized the first weeks as a period of "quiet pogroms." In June and
July 1919, in regions that had just come under White rule, the Cossacks
attacked individual Jews, looted some villages and here and there raped
women. In August, at a time when the Volunteer Army was advancing most
rapidly, the pogroms turned into a mass phenomenon. Now looting occurred on a
large scale. In this second period many Jews were murdered, but the
attackers' main desire was to take Jewish property. It was still possible to
buy off the murderers. The third period, November and December 1919, was
contemporaneous with the decisive defeats of the Volunteer Army. This was a
time for mass murder: the defeated took revenge on the defenseless..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=T3D7CmSOMfIC&pg=PA298

OTOH, it has been argued that "Most of the White pogroms were committed by
Cossack units attached to the Volunteers, troops over which Denikin had only
very limited control" and that "the core units of the original Volunteer
Army" were largely inoocent of such atrocities.
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7ZHIVhazHUC&pg=PA147 Yet even the author
who writes this acknowledges that "Even so, Denikin and his subordinates
could and should have done more to curb the violence."
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7ZHIVhazHUC&pg=PA148

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net

Alex Milman

2017-10-05 19:29:50 UTC

Post by David Tenner

Post by Rich Rostrom
Good point - but OTOH, some of the White armies were murderously
anti-semitic;

Well, the same goes for some of the Bolshevik troops and the troops of
their "associates". The most notorious anti-Semitic had been troops of
the Ukrainian nationalists, not to be confused with the "whites".
Personally, I never heard about the Volunteer Army being engaged in the
pogroms.The best record (no irony), AFAIK, had anarchists of Nestor
Makhno.

"The second half of 1919 was the most tragic period for Ukrainian Jewry. N.
I. Shtif, on the basis of documents collected by a Jewish committee in 1922,
distinguished three phases in the pogroms carried out by the Volunteer Army.
He characterized the first weeks as a period of "quiet pogroms." In June and
July 1919, in regions that had just come under White rule, the Cossacks

The Cossacks were not a part of the Volunteer Army. They belonged to the Don Army with its own commanders (and government) and were allowed a considerable degree of independence. Strictly speaking, they were "whites" just by a virtue of not being "red": their goals were quite different.

Post by David Tenner
attacked individual Jews, looted some villages and here and there raped
women. In August, at a time when the Volunteer Army was advancing most
rapidly, the pogroms turned into a mass phenomenon. Now looting occurred on a
large scale. In this second period many Jews were murdered, but the
attackers' main desire was to take Jewish property. It was still possible to
buy off the murderers. The third period, November and December 1919, was
contemporaneous with the decisive defeats of the Volunteer Army. This was a
time for mass murder: the defeated took revenge on the defenseless..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=T3D7CmSOMfIC&pg=PA298
OTOH, it has been argued that "Most of the White pogroms were committed by
Cossack units attached to the Volunteers,

Formally, they were allies of a rather peculiar type: Volunteer Army had been using territory formally controlled by the Don government as their base while at the same time acting as some kind of an overlord. However, they did not control mobilization of the Don forces and the issues of subordination were quite vague.

Post by David Tenner
troops over which Denikin had only
very limited control" and that "the core units of the original Volunteer
Army" were largely inoocent of such atrocities.

Exactly.

Post by David Tenner
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7ZHIVhazHUC&pg=PA147 Yet even the author
who writes this acknowledges that "Even so, Denikin and his subordinates
could and should have done more to curb the violence."
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7ZHIVhazHUC&pg=PA148

They probably should but I doubt that they could. See above what you quoted about "very limited control". The Cossacks had been interested in 2 main things: (a) their own regional independence (in practical terms, not giving away they land to the non-Cossacks and not being subjected to the Bolshevik extortions) and (b) loot. The Whites were something of a marriage of convenience with no excessively warm feelings on both sides (except in general Wrangel's proclamations "Mountain eagles!", etc.).

WolfBear

2018-03-06 05:38:20 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
One of the few good things
achieved by Soviet Communism was the abolition of anti-
Jewish laws and the end of quasi-official anti-Jewish
propaganda.

Don't give too much credit where it is not due. :-)
"On March 20 (April 2 N.S.), 1917, the Pale was
abolished by the Provisional Government decree, On
abolition of confessional and national restrictions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement
De facto enforcement ended much earlier, with the beginning of the WWI.

Good point - but OTOH, some of the White armies were murderously
anti-semitic;

Post by Rich Rostrom
Bolshevik victory insured there would be no reversion
to the old ways.

I doubt that the White movement was about real return of the "old ways" (none of the leaders was a true monarchist).

I think that Rich was referring to anti-Semitism here. Indeed, one did not need to be a monarchist to be an anti-Semite.

Alex Milman

2018-03-06 21:46:13 UTC

WolfBear

2018-03-06 22:43:58 UTC

You didn't post anything here, Alex. I mean, you quoted what I wrote but didn't post anything of your own.

Alex Milman

2018-03-06 23:05:37 UTC

You didn't post anything here, Alex. I mean, you quoted what I wrote but didn't post anything of your own.

Some glitch. Just re-posted it.

e***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 12:55:18 UTC