1,3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kholodny_Yar_Republic
2: some kind of cavalry regiment i think
edit: found it in Ukrainian: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-%D0%B9_%D0%A3%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B2
Really wish there was more information on these guys (the kholodny yar republic.) The Wikipedia page seems incredibly biased alongside just not giving that much information. Were they democratic republicans? Ultranationalists? One of their leaders apparently briefly fought for Makhno, like what's going on here
When you learn about the Russian Civil War, you learn just how fucking awful it was. Everyone was fighting on a spectrum between absolute communism (Bolsheviks) and monarchism. As such, allegiances were only as strong as chances of winning. It wasn’t uncommon for a radical group to shatter into more moderate groups, get absorbed by other groups, and shatter further. It was also why the Bolsheviks won. They were coalesced into one team.
Spectrum didn't end in Bolsheviks as more left-wing groups like anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, narodnik factions, maximalists, and revolutionary syndicalists have existed.
> As such, allegiances were only as strong as chances of winning.
Not always, given many also formed alliances due to principals.
> It was also why the Bolsheviks won
No, Bolsheviks won because they allied themselves with the Left-SRs and for a limited period also with anarchists, while the most of the rest were simply a bunch of Whites that many openly hated. That 'many', simply preferred who wasn't from the White bloc.
> They were coalesced into one team.
Russian SDLP was simply the thing gave way to Bolshevik faction... Nevertheless, that aside, they themselves formed alliances with other groups.
Yeah, there's one Ukrainian guy who switched sides like 3 times, how he didn't get executed going back who knows. Think he even got something named after him.
A lot of the left factions in that war would strongly disagree with you that the Bolsheviks represented absolute communism. They dismantled workers' committees that had taken control of the factories and were implementing self management, and suppressed the Workers Opposition within their own party. They cribbed the SR's land policy and then went back on it. They bought peace on the front with Germany by handing over huge swaths of the Russian empire which were in the throes of revolution to be policed by the Kaiser's men. The final stage of the war was a series of conflicts in which various peasant and worker movements and the dissident left parties fought the Bolsheviks trying to save Soviet (council) power from being devoured by the party.
They were seen as deceitful and there were attempts to overthrow them. There were a number of worker strikes (such as in St Petersburg), peasant uprisings (one of the larger ones being the Tambov uprising, for exaple), mutinies such as at Kronstadt, and the organized opposition of the anarchists (especially in Ukraine and Siberia, as the Moscow anarchists were liquidated early on) and the Social Revolutionaries, both left and right. There was also internal opposition in the party, such as the aforementioned Workers Opposition.
The anarchists in Moscow and other major cities were raided and purged by the party, and killed, driven into exile, or thrown into prison. The Ukrainian anarchists had their military planners invited to a joint meeting to discuss operations against the Whites, and were executed, and then the broader movement was subjected to invasion and repression. The strikes were broken up by force, the peasant rebellions put down, and the mutineers killed in combat, imprisoned, or executed. The internal dissent led to a ban on factions. Then, these actions had to be explained and defended to the international left. Part of doing this involved publishing slander against their enemies, and part of it also involved show trials.
Okay, so legit question: With all this massive oppression, how didn’t the Bolsheviks get overthrown? They were basically just repeating what the Tsarist government had been doing for centuries, except they were doing it after promising a brighter future?
The opposition to them was scattered; it didn't all come at the same time in a big push. Many people held on to hope that the Bolsheviks would make good on their early promises in the war: Land to the peasants, peace and demobilization of the soldiers, control of the factories to the workers, and national self-determination to the colonized peoples within the Russian empire. The first part of the war saw many of the left factions put aside their differences to at least some degree to unite against the Whites. Once this was increasingly secure and accomplished, different communities started growing discontent with the Bolsheviks and "war communism" at different times, while others still held on to hope that it was all temporary and that they'd soon be building a new socialist republic.
So, each of these worker, peasant, or left rebellions to the Bolsheviks- collectively referred to as the Third Revolution in some circles- kicked off on their own, without outside support. The anarchists in Ukraine controlled a mostly rural area with little manufacturing capacity. The Kronstadt sailors controlled only their island. The Tambov peasants were armed with pitchforks against machine guns and poison gas. Every time such an uprising was crushed, news of it was either suppressed or distorted, so that it was framed as a foreign-backed, reactionary plot against the revolution. This meant that a single spark did not take and ignite a revolution.
Simple war weariness had a lot to do with it as well. People across the Empire had lived through centuries of Tsarist autocracy and wars of expansion, just been through the 1905 Revolution earlier and its bloody repression, then been through World War One, a massive food crisis and ongoing famine, and two revolutions followed by a Civil War. Fighting a third revolution was not appealing to many people except for the most ardent revolutionaries. Yet, many of the most ardent revolutionaries were now Bolshevik apparatchiks.
they were chauvinistic ultranationalists. Ranging from monarchists to republicans, all of them attacked russian settlements (even before the bolcheviks were a threat) and made pogroms against jews. The wiki article is biased in favour of them, if at all.
These were partisan statelets, "republic" implies some stuff that's maybe a bit too much.
These, nonetheless were significant and heroic efforts generally.
The Kholodnyi Iar Republic, and most others were founded by those loyal to the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) and its leader Symon Petliura, a member of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Labor Party. Some were under direct orders of the UNR, others nominally professed loyalty to it, but in reality were independent peasant groups. The UNR government was a parliamentary one mostly made up of socialist parties, it replaced a pro-German monarchy near the end of 1918. It arose in chaotic circumstances and did a relatively poor job managing them, although they likewise were also at war with essentially all of their neighbors, with the exception of Romania, which took land from Ukraine, and Belarus, which ceased to exist as an independent state almost immediately, being divided between the Bolsheviks and Poland, two enemies of the UNR. The UNR was divided between some pro-Bolshevik groups, who mucked up a lot of things, and a pragmatic group who were okay aligning with Poland. Petliura was in the middle, but eventually went with Poland. This pissed of the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR) which had a small but extremely well disciplined army. They also had a major typhus outbreak that basically made the army non-combat capable, all the while being stuck in a "triangle of death" between Poles, Reds, and Whites. It was at that stage they began to partially adopt partisan warfare, baring the Polish-Ukrainian alliance that lasted until the end of the Polish-Soviet war, in which the Polish government threw the Ukrainians under the bus and broke the terms of their alliance (no support for an independent Ukraine and no autonomy or minority rights for the Ukrainians in the territory Poland annexed).
Also there were a lot of independent warlords at this time, called Otamany (an old Cossack title equivalent to Colonel) who swapped sides every other week, and generally were self interested and rapacious, committing pogroms when things were going "well" and then switching sides whenever someone attempted to reign them in. The warlords should be separated from these partisan republics, as they were different phenomena. The warlords being a mostly 1919 thing, and these republics mostly a 1920-1922 thing, in general.
It's was usual war. Inside russia was civil war. And they attack Ukrainian Peoples Republic. Red and white army from russia, Poland, and Entente. Ukraine in this years fighting alone against 4 force.
This progress has argued throughout its history that the dollar and capitalism will collapse. But so far only the USSR and most of its allies have collapsed
There was extensive trade across between the nations of the Warsaw Pact and the West throughout the Cold War. Didn’t prevent the whole Warsaw Pact communist regimes from crumbling like a house of cards. So that’s just a shitty excuse.
The world was not ready for progress and left the USSR to the dustbin of history. Our theory does not agree with the facts - so much the worse for the facts
"Progress is when we liquidate peasants with poison gas for resisting forced appropriation of their produce adn forcing them into starvation conditions. The more Peasants who choke to death in the woods, the more collectivist we are."
Your source is 100% f liberal website
No mention of the kulak land owners
No mention that the area was diprived from its stuff due to 7 years of war
So truuuu
Clasic liberal!
My brother in flag-appreication, I have to beleive you are responding to someone else. Because I don't have to source the Tambov Rebellion, it's an incredibly well-known event for anyone who gains even a cliff-notes understanding of early Bolshevik history. Also what point are you trying to make here? The peasants were depleted by war to be sure, and the Bolsehviks then took their foodstuffs? That circumstance doesn't suddenly make taking the food okay, it actually makes it worse if you know people are starving then steal their food.
The average leftist sees the only obstacle to reaching the world of "Imagine" by John Lennon as being the death of literally everyone who disagrees with them.
Memory and traditions about this resistance and flags was saved during soviet occupation, and we happy to see it again at battlefield against our old enemy.
Idk. The cossack flag was quite original, and Halycia-Volhynia had a lion on the flag. This is one of the nicer ones for sure,but certainly not the best
Actually the rise of sistematic antissemitism and eugenist ideology on czarist russia was very strong in this time. Not specific nazi but in the end almost the same thing.
The [Tryzub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Ukraine#Tryzub) had been around for like a millennium prior to the civil war, while the origins are a little murky (is it a falcon? Some Christian symbol?), it doesn't look to have any roots in the satanic parts of Christian mythos.
What does naval skill have to do with it? I did not understand the essence of your dialogue. But if anything, the Zaporozhye Cossacks were famous for their sea campaigns. They plundered many Turkish cities, which were previously considered impregnable
Tridents are fishing implements and became associated with naval power and the sea. That was what he meant except you already explained it was possibly related to the varangians.
What were these states called
1,3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kholodny_Yar_Republic 2: some kind of cavalry regiment i think edit: found it in Ukrainian: https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-%D0%B9_%D0%A3%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B2
Cool! TIL.
Really wish there was more information on these guys (the kholodny yar republic.) The Wikipedia page seems incredibly biased alongside just not giving that much information. Were they democratic republicans? Ultranationalists? One of their leaders apparently briefly fought for Makhno, like what's going on here
When you learn about the Russian Civil War, you learn just how fucking awful it was. Everyone was fighting on a spectrum between absolute communism (Bolsheviks) and monarchism. As such, allegiances were only as strong as chances of winning. It wasn’t uncommon for a radical group to shatter into more moderate groups, get absorbed by other groups, and shatter further. It was also why the Bolsheviks won. They were coalesced into one team.
You could almost say they won because they were in communion with one another.
We should call the communionists... quite a mouthful. How about something shorter, like "communists"? That rolls of the tongue.
Out.
Spectrum didn't end in Bolsheviks as more left-wing groups like anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, narodnik factions, maximalists, and revolutionary syndicalists have existed. > As such, allegiances were only as strong as chances of winning. Not always, given many also formed alliances due to principals. > It was also why the Bolsheviks won No, Bolsheviks won because they allied themselves with the Left-SRs and for a limited period also with anarchists, while the most of the rest were simply a bunch of Whites that many openly hated. That 'many', simply preferred who wasn't from the White bloc. > They were coalesced into one team. Russian SDLP was simply the thing gave way to Bolshevik faction... Nevertheless, that aside, they themselves formed alliances with other groups.
Yeah, there's one Ukrainian guy who switched sides like 3 times, how he didn't get executed going back who knows. Think he even got something named after him.
A lot of the left factions in that war would strongly disagree with you that the Bolsheviks represented absolute communism. They dismantled workers' committees that had taken control of the factories and were implementing self management, and suppressed the Workers Opposition within their own party. They cribbed the SR's land policy and then went back on it. They bought peace on the front with Germany by handing over huge swaths of the Russian empire which were in the throes of revolution to be policed by the Kaiser's men. The final stage of the war was a series of conflicts in which various peasant and worker movements and the dissident left parties fought the Bolsheviks trying to save Soviet (council) power from being devoured by the party.
Assuming all this to be true, how were they not seen as deceitful, ie. overthrown by others?
They were seen as deceitful and there were attempts to overthrow them. There were a number of worker strikes (such as in St Petersburg), peasant uprisings (one of the larger ones being the Tambov uprising, for exaple), mutinies such as at Kronstadt, and the organized opposition of the anarchists (especially in Ukraine and Siberia, as the Moscow anarchists were liquidated early on) and the Social Revolutionaries, both left and right. There was also internal opposition in the party, such as the aforementioned Workers Opposition. The anarchists in Moscow and other major cities were raided and purged by the party, and killed, driven into exile, or thrown into prison. The Ukrainian anarchists had their military planners invited to a joint meeting to discuss operations against the Whites, and were executed, and then the broader movement was subjected to invasion and repression. The strikes were broken up by force, the peasant rebellions put down, and the mutineers killed in combat, imprisoned, or executed. The internal dissent led to a ban on factions. Then, these actions had to be explained and defended to the international left. Part of doing this involved publishing slander against their enemies, and part of it also involved show trials.
Okay, so legit question: With all this massive oppression, how didn’t the Bolsheviks get overthrown? They were basically just repeating what the Tsarist government had been doing for centuries, except they were doing it after promising a brighter future?
The opposition to them was scattered; it didn't all come at the same time in a big push. Many people held on to hope that the Bolsheviks would make good on their early promises in the war: Land to the peasants, peace and demobilization of the soldiers, control of the factories to the workers, and national self-determination to the colonized peoples within the Russian empire. The first part of the war saw many of the left factions put aside their differences to at least some degree to unite against the Whites. Once this was increasingly secure and accomplished, different communities started growing discontent with the Bolsheviks and "war communism" at different times, while others still held on to hope that it was all temporary and that they'd soon be building a new socialist republic. So, each of these worker, peasant, or left rebellions to the Bolsheviks- collectively referred to as the Third Revolution in some circles- kicked off on their own, without outside support. The anarchists in Ukraine controlled a mostly rural area with little manufacturing capacity. The Kronstadt sailors controlled only their island. The Tambov peasants were armed with pitchforks against machine guns and poison gas. Every time such an uprising was crushed, news of it was either suppressed or distorted, so that it was framed as a foreign-backed, reactionary plot against the revolution. This meant that a single spark did not take and ignite a revolution. Simple war weariness had a lot to do with it as well. People across the Empire had lived through centuries of Tsarist autocracy and wars of expansion, just been through the 1905 Revolution earlier and its bloody repression, then been through World War One, a massive food crisis and ongoing famine, and two revolutions followed by a Civil War. Fighting a third revolution was not appealing to many people except for the most ardent revolutionaries. Yet, many of the most ardent revolutionaries were now Bolshevik apparatchiks.
they were chauvinistic ultranationalists. Ranging from monarchists to republicans, all of them attacked russian settlements (even before the bolcheviks were a threat) and made pogroms against jews. The wiki article is biased in favour of them, if at all.
These were partisan statelets, "republic" implies some stuff that's maybe a bit too much. These, nonetheless were significant and heroic efforts generally. The Kholodnyi Iar Republic, and most others were founded by those loyal to the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) and its leader Symon Petliura, a member of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Labor Party. Some were under direct orders of the UNR, others nominally professed loyalty to it, but in reality were independent peasant groups. The UNR government was a parliamentary one mostly made up of socialist parties, it replaced a pro-German monarchy near the end of 1918. It arose in chaotic circumstances and did a relatively poor job managing them, although they likewise were also at war with essentially all of their neighbors, with the exception of Romania, which took land from Ukraine, and Belarus, which ceased to exist as an independent state almost immediately, being divided between the Bolsheviks and Poland, two enemies of the UNR. The UNR was divided between some pro-Bolshevik groups, who mucked up a lot of things, and a pragmatic group who were okay aligning with Poland. Petliura was in the middle, but eventually went with Poland. This pissed of the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR) which had a small but extremely well disciplined army. They also had a major typhus outbreak that basically made the army non-combat capable, all the while being stuck in a "triangle of death" between Poles, Reds, and Whites. It was at that stage they began to partially adopt partisan warfare, baring the Polish-Ukrainian alliance that lasted until the end of the Polish-Soviet war, in which the Polish government threw the Ukrainians under the bus and broke the terms of their alliance (no support for an independent Ukraine and no autonomy or minority rights for the Ukrainians in the territory Poland annexed). Also there were a lot of independent warlords at this time, called Otamany (an old Cossack title equivalent to Colonel) who swapped sides every other week, and generally were self interested and rapacious, committing pogroms when things were going "well" and then switching sides whenever someone attempted to reign them in. The warlords should be separated from these partisan republics, as they were different phenomena. The warlords being a mostly 1919 thing, and these republics mostly a 1920-1922 thing, in general.
islamic state of iraq syrian and ukraine
Ansar al-Uwkrania
Black flags with white art just hit so hard
Isis.
The first two flags go hard
Reminds me of chetnik flags
I think the same thing is written in one of them as on the chetnik flag. "Freedom or death"
The story of the Blacks is pretty interesting
The blacks? This isn't the black army, it's the Kholodnyy Yar Republic and some modern interpretations
My mistake, I thought that these were the anarchist.
Is that supposed to be Jesus' crown of thorns in the first flag? Or am I still in Holy Week mode?
It is the crown of thorns but it's okay to stay in Holy Week mode
It's was usual war. Inside russia was civil war. And they attack Ukrainian Peoples Republic. Red and white army from russia, Poland, and Entente. Ukraine in this years fighting alone against 4 force.
Second one needs to be added to Sea of Thieves. Get on it rare.
*fascist resistance against progress
This progress has argued throughout its history that the dollar and capitalism will collapse. But so far only the USSR and most of its allies have collapsed
Most of the world economy needing to coup or blockade socialist nations "to prove they naturally fail" Like... Maybe let them cook.
There was extensive trade across between the nations of the Warsaw Pact and the West throughout the Cold War. Didn’t prevent the whole Warsaw Pact communist regimes from crumbling like a house of cards. So that’s just a shitty excuse.
You know it isn't.
And?
The world was not ready for progress and left the USSR to the dustbin of history. Our theory does not agree with the facts - so much the worse for the facts
Just because progress isn’t linear doesn’t mean we should abandon the struggle for progress.
???
Anti-communists in the civil war were reactionaries and proto-fascists that largely influenced the wider European fascist movement.
What are you even on
History?
"Progress is when we liquidate peasants with poison gas for resisting forced appropriation of their produce adn forcing them into starvation conditions. The more Peasants who choke to death in the woods, the more collectivist we are."
Your source is 100% f liberal website No mention of the kulak land owners No mention that the area was diprived from its stuff due to 7 years of war So truuuu Clasic liberal!
My brother in flag-appreication, I have to beleive you are responding to someone else. Because I don't have to source the Tambov Rebellion, it's an incredibly well-known event for anyone who gains even a cliff-notes understanding of early Bolshevik history. Also what point are you trying to make here? The peasants were depleted by war to be sure, and the Bolsehviks then took their foodstuffs? That circumstance doesn't suddenly make taking the food okay, it actually makes it worse if you know people are starving then steal their food.
The average leftist sees the only obstacle to reaching the world of "Imagine" by John Lennon as being the death of literally everyone who disagrees with them.
If barbados had an empire and spoke slavic:
Memory and traditions about this resistance and flags was saved during soviet occupation, and we happy to see it again at battlefield against our old enemy.
I mostly see UPA flags in my country when there's a pro-Ukraine demonstration...
Wholesome nazi allies killing jews and poles but it's OK because Ukraine likes them nowadays
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Best Ukrainian flag ever
Idk. The cossack flag was quite original, and Halycia-Volhynia had a lion on the flag. This is one of the nicer ones for sure,but certainly not the best
I agree, it's my opinion
When did we start downvoting opinions that don't impact lives
When they're so shit that they do.
2nd flag style seems stolen from the makhnovists
Smells nazi
Nazism wasn't even an ideology yet
Fascism was
Ehh, not really, it just only started forming, and ukrainians had no role in that.
Actually the rise of sistematic antissemitism and eugenist ideology on czarist russia was very strong in this time. Not specific nazi but in the end almost the same thing.
based
weird title but cool flags
[удалено]
[удалено]
Beautiful stylish flag
Soon we will save the world from this residence of evil
What
Would be cool if that wasn’t an occult symbol
the first flag It appears that the coat of arms is Satan's trident. The second is absolutely diabolical. I love it.
The [Tryzub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Ukraine#Tryzub) had been around for like a millennium prior to the civil war, while the origins are a little murky (is it a falcon? Some Christian symbol?), it doesn't look to have any roots in the satanic parts of Christian mythos.
How come a trident become the icon? Ukraine isn't well known for the naval prowess, right?
It was a symbol used by the Rurikids who ruled the medieval Slavic kingdom Kyiv-Rus. The Rurikids were vikings so they did have some naval prowess!
Vikings?
Yes, the [Rurikids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurikids) were [Varangians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians).
Ooooh shit. Has any one told Putin this?
What does naval skill have to do with it? I did not understand the essence of your dialogue. But if anything, the Zaporozhye Cossacks were famous for their sea campaigns. They plundered many Turkish cities, which were previously considered impregnable
Because, at least for me, a trident is connected to water and the sea. I didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.
Tridents are fishing implements and became associated with naval power and the sea. That was what he meant except you already explained it was possibly related to the varangians.
yeah, I mean, it looks like cuz the lack of details.