Soviet-Polish War 1919-1921

[redguard2009]

While reading this book, On A Field Of Red by Athony Brown and Charles MacDonald (two decidedly anti-Soviet and anti-communist writers) accounting Soviet international politics between the period of the Bolshevik Revolution to the start of the Cold War, reference is made to the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921.

It is a short reference but interesting nonetheless. In the book mention is made of western resolve which felt that the Soviet-Polish War was one of extreme importance; a Soviet victory could have led Communist soldiers to the border with Germany and could very well have deeply affected the outcome of the failed German revolution during the 20s.

So I thought it interesting to discuss this possibility.

In short, the war was started soon after the armistice officially ending the First World War wherein Polish and Ukrainian nationals sought to extend their territory eastwards into Russia and Soviet Russia sought to regain control of these territories in an effort to spread the revolution. After initial Polish gains the war shifted, culminating in the Battle of Warsaw which saw the Poles mount an effective defense and drive the Soviets back out of Poland and force ceasefire negotiations.

Of particular interest is the role a Soviet-controlled Poland could have played in the German revolutionary movement during the 1920s. Would a direct border with Soviet-controlled territory helped German communists? What sort of support were German activists receiving from the Soviet Union and how could this have improved with a direct border? Should Lenin and Stalin have urged continued effort to defeat the nationalists and force their control over Poland? Did the Soviet Union have any "right" to intervene in Poland's affairs?

[Chapaev]

The Polish-Soviet War of 1920 broke out as a result of Poland's policies of military aggression and territorial expansion against soviet territory. The Russian Republic had always shown its willigness to establish normal relations with Poland. The Polish regime had rejected Russia's offers of peace prior to the outbreak of the war, seeing them proof of Russia's weakness.

In the struggle against Russia the interests of the French and Polish regimes coincided. Poland received active support and material aid from France. When the condition of Poland became critical, France and England rushed to its aid. France increased military supplies and sent a military mission headed by General Wegand. British Prime Minister Lloyd George threatened to start a war against Russia.

Polish forces unleashed aggression against the Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR, seizing Vilno in April 1919 and Minsk in August. In late 1919 and early 1920 the Polish regime began preparations for a major offensive against Russia, with the help of American, French, and British imperialists.

In April 1920 the Polish regime concluded an alliance with Petliura’s counterrevolutionary group. Poland recognized the “independence” of the Ukraine, while Petliura’s followers agreed to Poland’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. The Polish, outnumbering the Russians 5 to 1 on the Southwestern Front, invaded on April 25, capturing Zhitomir, followed by Kiev on May 6.

Russia was victorious in the conflict because Poland accepted borders 50 to 100 kilometers farther west of the line proposed by the Russian Government in the spring of 1920.

[Comrade Hector]

The Polish-Soviet War of 1920 broke out as a result of Poland's policies of military aggression and territorial expansion against soviet territory. The Russian Republic had always shown its willigness to establish normal relations with Poland. The Polish regime had rejected Russia's offers of peace prior to the outbreak of the war, seeing them proof of Russia's weakness.

In the struggle against Russia the interests of the French and Polish regimes coincided. Poland received active support and material aid from France. When the condition of Poland became critical, France and England rushed to its aid. France increased military supplies and sent a military mission headed by General Wegand. British Prime Minister Lloyd George threatened to start a war against Russia.

Polish forces unleashed aggression against the Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR, seizing Vilno in April 1919 and Minsk in August. In late 1919 and early 1920 the Polish regime began preparations for a major offensive against Russia, with the help of American, French, and British imperialists.

In April 1920 the Polish regime concluded an alliance with Petliura’s counterrevolutionary group. Poland recognized the “independence” of the Ukraine, while Petliura’s followers agreed to Poland’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. The Polish, outnumbering the Russians 5 to 1 on the Southwestern Front, invaded on April 25, capturing Zhitomir, followed by Kiev on May 6.

Russia was victorious in the conflict because Poland accepted borders 50 to 100 kilometers farther west of the line proposed by the Russian Government in the spring of 1920.

That is exactly right. I've debated this war with numeros Polish right-wingers who maintain this was Pilsudski's victory, and that he "saved" Europe of the Red Army. The Bolsheviks were victorious not only for this reason; but mainly because they were able to repel Pilsudski's thuggish army from Soviet territory, who's primary goals were to seize western Ukraine, expand Poland's borders thoughout the Baltics; but above all destroy the Soviet states. Pilsudski failed in both.

[Killfacer]

The Polish-Soviet War of 1920 broke out as a result of Poland's policies of military aggression and territorial expansion against soviet territory. The Russian Republic had always shown its willigness to establish normal relations with Poland. The Polish regime had rejected Russia's offers of peace prior to the outbreak of the war, seeing them proof of Russia's weakness.

In the struggle against Russia the interests of the French and Polish regimes coincided. Poland received active support and material aid from France. When the condition of Poland became critical, France and England rushed to its aid. France increased military supplies and sent a military mission headed by General Wegand. British Prime Minister Lloyd George threatened to start a war against Russia.

Polish forces unleashed aggression against the Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR, seizing Vilno in April 1919 and Minsk in August. In late 1919 and early 1920 the Polish regime began preparations for a major offensive against Russia, with the help of American, French, and British imperialists.

In April 1920 the Polish regime concluded an alliance with Petliura’s counterrevolutionary group. Poland recognized the “independence” of the Ukraine, while Petliura’s followers agreed to Poland’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. The Polish, outnumbering the Russians 5 to 1 on the Southwestern Front, invaded on April 25, capturing Zhitomir, followed by Kiev on May 6.

Russia was victorious in the conflict because Poland accepted borders 50 to 100 kilometers farther west of the line proposed by the Russian Government in the spring of 1920.

Can you source some of this, because i find it hard to beleive that a relatively weak state would make war with a powerhouse like the Soviet union.

[Killfacer]

That is exactly right. I've debated this war with numeros Polish right-wingers who maintain this was Pilsudski's victory, and that he "saved" Europe of the Red Army. The Bolsheviks were victorious not only for this reason; but mainly because they were able to repel Pilsudski's thuggish army from Soviet territory, who's primary goals were to seize western Ukraine, expand Poland's borders thoughout the Baltics; but above all destroy the Soviet states. Pilsudski failed in both.

Thuggish army? Thats the kind of pathetic none historical attitude which make your claims seem far fetched. If you are correct then why use stupid terms like this?

[Comrade Hector]

Thuggish army? Thats the kind of pathetic none historical attitude which make your claims seem far fetched. If you are correct then why use stupid terms like this?

Because it accurately describes Pilsudski and his assistance to White Terror. If I am wrong, why then did Pilsudski start a war with Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine? You're right about one thing: a weak imperialist lackey like Poland couldn't possibly do harm to Soviet Russia single handedly. That is why Pilsudski joined the imperialist crusade of 16 other armies trying to destroy the Bolsheviks and bring back the Russian Empire. Simple.

[Killfacer]

Because it accurately describes Pilsudski and his assistance to White Terror. If I am wrong, why then did Pilsudski start a war with Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine? You're right about one thing: a weak imperialist lackey like Poland couldn't possibly do harm to Soviet Russia single handedly. That is why Pilsudski joined the imperialist crusade of 16 other armies trying to destroy the Bolsheviks and bring back the Russian Empire. Simple.

Still a distinct lack of sources but even more emotive words like "crusade". This is called the history forum not the baseless propaganda forum. I don't think the poles were the only ones who can be accused of being "thuggish". Just about every army around at the point could be accused of being "thuggish". Don't label the sides, you just illustrate how biased you are.

If the US, the UK or any of the other "imperialist" crusaders has really attempted to wipe out the bolsheviks, they could have. Do you think that the newly formed, under armed and ill trained red army, even after Trotsky had done his magic, would have been able to content with all these countries? Clearly not.

[PRC-UTE]

If the US, the UK or any of the other "imperialist" crusaders has really attempted to wipe out the bolsheviks, they could have. Do you think that the newly formed, under armed and ill trained red army, even after Trotsky had done his magic, would have been able to content with all these countries? Clearly not.

Why do you put imperialist in quotes? I could be getting this wrong but it sounds like you don't believe that sixteen or so imperialist nations invaded.

The early Red Army was able to content(sic) with the imperialist onslaught because they basically retreated to a small portion of Eurasia and had the benefit of moving their forces across rails (a huge advantage in a country without modern roads). they had to move their armies back and forth between fronts at some points. They also won to their side some pretty good troops like the Czechs and some leftover officers from the Tsarist military, some of whom were better than any on the White's side. The Red Army also had some brilliant commanders like Tukachevsky.

if you want sources, see Sheila Fitzpatrick's history of the USSR or the history of the Red Army called When Titans Clashed, which is one of the best works on the Red Army I've come across.

[ComradeOm]

If the US, the UK or any of the other "imperialist" crusaders has really attempted to wipe out the bolsheviks, they could haveYou are of course aware that well over 100K foreign soldiers intervened on behalf of the Whites during the Russian Civil War? And that extensive material aid was provided to the various White armies by Western (and Japanese) governments?


if you want sources, see Sheila Fitzpatrick's history of the USSR or the history of the Red Army called When Titans Clashed, which is one of the best works on the Red Army I've come across.What's Glantz's work like? I've seen excellent reviews, and many summaries, of his studies of the Eastern Front but I've also heard that he can be a very poor writer who produces dense and overly detailed histories that focus solely on military operations

Edit: Also, how much time does Glantz spend on the pre-war preparation and evolution of the Red Army?

[PRC-UTE]

What's Glantz's work like? I've seen excellent reviews, and many summaries, of his studies of the Eastern Front but I've also heard that he can be a very poor writer who produces dense and overly detailed histories that focus solely on military operations

Edit: Also, how much time does Glantz spend on the pre-war preparation and evolution of the Red Army?

that's a pretty accurate description, especially re his poor, sometimes dense writing (it can put the reader to sleep at some points) However he's very good at penetrating through stereotypes and accurately portraying what the players at the time actually knew and were expecting. he avoids judging historical figures with the conclusions made in hindsight. it's one of the best explanations I've seen in print on why Stalin "missed" Barbarossa.

he does focus mostly on operations, but it was something I enjoyed. I think it's a good balance to the multitude of writers that had little understanding of Soviet tactics. I didn't realise that a lot of the Soviet setbacks and failures were the result of trying to implement advanced offensive tactics without the adequate equipment. [EDIT: and their counter offensives in the winter of 41-42 were also the result of failing to build organisation and command structures to deploy their forces effectively, which was developed after costly mistakes.]

he delves into the pre-war preparation a bit- he gives it a small entry in the beginning, but there are many references to it later as well. there's more attentioned paid to the evolution of the Red Army. he describes its development in doctrine and tactics throughout, more so than any other book I've read.

[ComradeOm]

Cheers PRC-UTE. I've been meaning to try out Glantz for a while now - even though I much prefer my economic/social history to the military variety - and I might as well take the plunge with this work

[Killfacer]

What i am trying to say is that if the Allied imperialist powers had made a genuine effort to wipe out the Bolsheviks they could have. Would the red army, which struggled to fight off the white army, really have been able to destroy the Americans, French, Japanese and the UK? No.

[ComradeOm]

What i am trying to say is that if the Allied imperialist powers had made a genuine effort to wipe out the Bolsheviks they could haveWhich promptly leads to two obvious questions:

1) Why then did the imperialist powers, after going to considerable lengths to support the various White armies, chose not to simply crush the Bolsheviks? After all they had gone to some expense (100K plus soldiers is nothing to sneeze at) to equip and prop up various warlords across a vast expanse of territory. Now you claim that this historical intervention was half-hearted but why did the West not simply go for the jugular and "strangle at birth the Bolshevik State"? Certainly, as that quote implies, we know that the rabid hatred/fear of communism was already well established in Western governments

2) How you propose that the various Allied powers overcome the host of practical difficulties in transporting, supplying, and maintaining millions of men throughout Russia? I mean, this is at a time when an entire generation lies dead in Northern France; the British and French economies are on the brink of collapse and their governments effectively broke; virtually all of Europe east of the Rhine remains in a state of war or revolution; starvation and disease are claiming millions (including a particularly lethal influenza); and there are immediate and intense calls for the demobilisation of the huge numbers of men still in uniform. This is at the point that propose that the Allied powers launch an invasion of Russia comparable to those of Napoleon or Hitler?

After all the mighty Wehrmacht found itself at the very end of its logistical tether before even reaching Moscow... and this was a far more impressive operation than anything the Allies might have put together in WWI

[Killfacer]

Which promptly leads to two obvious questions:

1) Why then did the imperialist powers, after going to considerable lengths to support the various White armies, chose not to simply crush the Bolsheviks? After all they had gone to some expense (100K plus soldiers is nothing to sneeze at) to equip and prop up various warlords across a vast expanse of territory. Now you claim that this historical intervention was half-hearted but why did the West not simply go for the jugular and "strangle at birth the Bolshevik State"? Certainly, as that quote implies, we know that the rabid hatred/fear of communism was already well established in Western governments

2) How you propose that the various Allied powers overcome the host of practical difficulties in transporting, supplying, and maintaining millions of men throughout Russia? I mean, this is at a time when an entire generation lies dead in Northern France; the British and French economies are on the brink of collapse and their governments effectively broke; virtually all of Europe east of the Rhine remains in a state of war or revolution; starvation and disease are claiming millions (including a particularly lethal influenza); and there are immediate and intense calls for the demobilisation of the huge numbers of men still in uniform. This is at the point that propose that the Allied powers launch an invasion of Russia comparable to those of Napoleon or Hitler?

After all the mighty Wehrmacht found itself at the very end of its logistical tether before even reaching Moscow... and this was a far more impressive operation than anything the Allies might have put together in WWI


You seem incredulous at the idea of the western powers invading, despite the fact that you agree that they had already partially invaded. When you consider the difficulty the Red Army had, initially anyway, in destroying minor rebellions such as the Tambov uprising, i find it hard to beleive that they would have been able to defeat the combined power of the US, UK and france.

Like you say, the logistical difficulties are many. However, i am sure that if the Czech Legion managed to get all the way to the atlantic coast, then the US army would have had little difficulty in attack the Red army.

I don't understand where you are coming from. Do you believe that the the anti bolshevik western countries invested millions, tried to destory Bolshevism and, after serious attempts, failed? Because in reality that just isn't the case. Yes they funded the white army and no doubt armed other right wing causes but they made no serious military attempt to wipe out bolshevism.

[ComradeOm]

You seem incredulous at the idea of the western powers invading, despite the fact that you agree that they had already partially invaded. When you consider the difficulty the Red Army had, initially anyway, in destroying minor rebellions such as the Tambov uprising, i find it hard to beleive that they would have been able to defeat the combined power of the US, UK and franceAgain, you fail to understand. This is not a matter of saying that the Allies had X million soldiers and the Bolsheviks Y million. You can't simply compare such numbers and then proclaim that one side would win. There is the immense economic cost of sustaining such a campaign and the equally challenging logistical considerations that make invading Russia a perilous undertaking at the best of times

For example, as a single challenge, how do you propose that millions of Allied soldiers first be transported to Russia and then provided with the logistical framework to carry out operations through the countryside? You can't go overland, what with Central and Eastern Europe still a warzone, and there are severe limitations as to the capacity of ports. How will enough rolling stock be supplied? What about food in a country wracked with famine? What of the effects of Bolshevik propaganda (historically there were numerous mutinies amongst the Allied soldiers in Russia, particularly the French and Greeks)? How will you provide the manpower to police a hostile population? These are just a selection of the practical concerns that have thwarted far more capable and ambitious commanders than those of the Allies in 1918


Like you say, the logistical difficulties are many. However, i am sure that if the Czech Legion managed to get all the way to the atlantic coast, then the US army would have had little difficulty in attack the Red armyIts far easier to feed and supply 50K men than 500K. The Czechs also had the tremendous advantage in that they had a definite objective (Vladivostok) and had no need to move from the logistically crucial Trans-Siberian railway


I don't understand where you are coming from. Do you believe that the the anti bolshevik western countries invested millions, tried to destory Bolshevism and, after serious attempts, failed? Because in reality that just isn't the case. Yes they funded the white army and no doubt armed other right wing causes but they made no serious military attempt to wipe out bolshevism.So 100K men across several fronts in a multi-national operation that cost millions is not a "serious military attempt"?

What happened historically is that the Allied governments extended considerable military aid (including seizing several ports) to the White armies in the expectation that this would be enough to finish off Bolshevikism. Obviously it wasn't. The Western capitals were then faced with the choice of either severely escalating their involvement in Russia - to the point of involving millions of men - or withdrawing entirely. The will was there for the former, especially amongst the likes of Churchill, but it was not feasible to emulate Napoleon or pre-empt Hitler. After years of war they were simply too drained, militarily and economically, to take on the myriad challenges of invading Russia. So yes, in short they failed "to wipe out bolshevism". Obviously

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The Soviets won the war, but this didn't have serious consequences for thye rest of Europe, sice it were the Polish who invaded Russia.
The Bolsheviks succeeded in driving them back, but it was a very tough battle.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't understand where you are coming from. Do you believe that the the anti bolshevik western countries invested millions, tried to destory Bolshevism and, after serious attempts, failed? Because in reality that just isn't the case. Yes they funded the white army and no doubt armed other right wing causes but they made no serious military attempt to wipe out bolshevism.

I realise this comment was directed to COM, but I wanted to respond to it.

Yes, they intended to destroy the Bolsheviks. However I don't think any military power would have been capable of wiping out the Bolsheviks, which would have required not only invading put probably continually occupying much of European Russia's deepest interior, where it's industries were based at the time. Remember that the British were compelled to negotiate with a much smaller, even more shoddily equipped Republican Army in nearby Ireland.

Instead they contented themselves with strangling the spread of the revolution by surrounding it and occupying many of Russia's ports. That worked pretty well in stopping the internationalist goals of the revolution.

[redguard2009]

This seems kind of... strange. Why are we arguing this point? The fact is, the western powers did send tens of thousands of troops and tons of material support for the Whites during the Russian Civil War. The Soviet Union was indeed attacked by forces from Poland, Britain, France, Germany, the United States, and Japan, in a short but violent attempt to impede the Bolshevik revolution. It isn't talked about much, but it did happen, and quite obviously Russia was not crushed. You have to keep in mind this occured after 4 years of the Great War; all of the above nations and their armies were quite exhausted by that point and public support for continuing hostilities was low. The Reds, on the other hand, had massive support and were fighting on home turf. It's actually quite impressive that they won.

[ComradeOm]

This seems kind of... strange. Why are we arguing this point? The fact is, the western powers did send tens of thousands of troops and tons of material support for the Whites during the Russian Civil War. The Soviet Union was indeed attacked by forces from Poland, Britain, France, Germany, the United States, and Japan, in a short but violent attempt to impede the Bolshevik revolution. It isn't talked about much, but it did happen, and quite obviously Russia was not crushedYes, that's been discussed above. The contention was that the Western powers could have strangled the revolution had they desired so. As you point out yourself, this was not practical or economically feasible