For a United Russia? The White Movement’s Rejection of National Self‐Determination, 1918–20

Oliver Rowe
{"title":"For a United Russia? The White Movement’s Rejection of National Self‐Determination, 1918–20","authors":"Oliver Rowe","doi":"10.1111/russ.12668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For obvious reasons, the White Movement rarely features in works concerning national self‐determination in the aftermath of the First World War. Beyond the looming shadows of Woodrow Wilson and V. I. Lenin, the “governments” of White generals that swore allegiance to A. V. Kolchak made no secret of their desire for a Russia “one and indivisible.” Those responsible for drafting Omsk’s edicts were suspicious of self‐determination’s apparent Germano‐Bolshevik origins. Analyzing the so‐called Russian state’s resistance to both the term and concept of national self‐determination—and its relatively novel association with secession—highlights the self‐defeating nature of Kolchak’s policies on the matter. Moreover, and most significantly for wider discussions on national self‐determination during the period, the White Movement’s rejection of federalism in any form, coupled with the stalling progress of White armies, the conclusion of the Paris Peace Conference, and the consolidation of Soviet Russia made statehood for Russia’s neighbor nations more realistic, logical, and justifiable. The political failures of the White Movement contributed to the feasibility of small states in the eyes of both the Allies and the national peoples themselves, and this warrants attention.","PeriodicalId":508484,"journal":{"name":"The Russian Review","volume":"43 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Russian Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/russ.12668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For obvious reasons, the White Movement rarely features in works concerning national self‐determination in the aftermath of the First World War. Beyond the looming shadows of Woodrow Wilson and V. I. Lenin, the “governments” of White generals that swore allegiance to A. V. Kolchak made no secret of their desire for a Russia “one and indivisible.” Those responsible for drafting Omsk’s edicts were suspicious of self‐determination’s apparent Germano‐Bolshevik origins. Analyzing the so‐called Russian state’s resistance to both the term and concept of national self‐determination—and its relatively novel association with secession—highlights the self‐defeating nature of Kolchak’s policies on the matter. Moreover, and most significantly for wider discussions on national self‐determination during the period, the White Movement’s rejection of federalism in any form, coupled with the stalling progress of White armies, the conclusion of the Paris Peace Conference, and the consolidation of Soviet Russia made statehood for Russia’s neighbor nations more realistic, logical, and justifiable. The political failures of the White Movement contributed to the feasibility of small states in the eyes of both the Allies and the national peoples themselves, and this warrants attention.
为了统一的俄罗斯?白人运动拒绝民族自决,1918-20 年
由于显而易见的原因,白人运动很少出现在第一次世界大战后有关民族自决的作品中。除了伍德罗-威尔逊和维-伊-列宁的阴影之外,宣誓效忠阿-瓦-科尔察克的白军将领们的 "政府 "毫不掩饰他们对 "统一而不可分割 "的俄罗斯的渴望。负责起草鄂木斯克敕令的人对自决的明显的日耳曼-布尔什维克渊源表示怀疑。分析所谓的俄罗斯国家对民族自决这一术语和概念的抵制--以及它与分离的相对新颖的联系--凸显了科尔察克在这一问题上的政策的自我挫败性。此外,对这一时期关于民族自决的更广泛讨论而言,最重要的是,白人运动拒绝任何形式的联邦制,再加上白军的停滞不前、巴黎和会的结束以及苏维埃俄国的巩固,使得俄罗斯周边国家的建国变得更加现实、合乎逻辑和合理。白军运动在政治上的失败使得小国在协约国和各国人民眼中都变得可行,这一点值得关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信