Conscription in Fatal Years 1.09

Posted: September 11, 2013 in Rus Mod

Let’s begin with an historical map first:

densite

 

This map displays at glance a well know fact, ie the Central régions and Ukraine were far more populated than the peripherical ones, especially Siberia.

 

The main way to recruit in RUS and FY has been the Conscriptions Regional decisions. However, for many reasons too long to explain, the FY system has never been beyond  a slight bonus for Reds in recruit efforts. The main cause was my inability to solve the trouble rising if Whites invade Central regions and/or use the Reform options. In this case, they should get more men than in reality.

 

After my last pause, my second take on this point is marked once again by the terrific process of simplification Human mind may perform when the long time needed is available.

 

Indeed, if Whites fulfill these better conditions, there’s no need to use regional decisions to recruit more men. This surplus may be introduced by events triggered by the possession of Central area or succesful enforcement of reform. Penalties in NM aren’t needed, as Whites are on the verge of victory or more popular among peasants.

 

So, if this outcome may  receive a treatment by events, there’s no more need to maintain the White conscription to a high level. By lowering them to about 25% of a Red Conscription, we may really balance the game by cancelling too large White Armies in the historical situation.

Simple, natural, and much more efficient than the complex ideas I was drawing a few months ago.

 

 

Comments
  1. lexxsvarg says:

    Thoughts about Land reform for the Soviet and the White movement.

    Different political system of these parties should be expressed in varying costs for the solution of a problem

    For the White Movement to Land reform should be paid for the fall NM because the decision was contrary to the interests of active supporters, further consequence-increase of loyalty, and more recruits from entry into the central region.

    For the Soviet Government’s Land reform is welcome event, but problem lies in the implementation of the project. It is logical if the payment reform are used of the EP .

    More accessible the historic decision on the establishment of committees of poor peasants, the landlords ‘ land set aside for the establishment of the “collective farms”. This will not lead to the fall of the NM (or to a lesser extent), but in the future will cause a strong loyalty, reduced growth of the rebellion and the reduction in the number of conscripts.

    The second phase of the deal will cost less EP, but the total inconvenience and costs will be high enough.

    Not historic, an alternative solution-go directly to the “second phase” of the historic land reform – from all available land among peasants with less radical struggle against wealthy peasants and a slow transition to a “collective households”.
    This method will result in falling NM (due to the large number of radicalized administrators) and higher expenses than in the historic decision of the EP, but it gives the deferred benefits – greater loyalty, growth recovery NM and a larger number of recruits in the future.

    • Clovis says:

      Interesting ideas indeed, but I differ on one key point : the Bolshevik final aim was to collectivize agriculture. Lenin of course twice took the opposite way, the latter being the NEP in 1921. However, they were tactical compromises that never were conceived as permanent. Even during Civil War, Bolsheviks implemented collective farms ( with pitiful results) and remained strongly favouring the end of private property as much it was possible.

      Reforms in FY are for Reds the equivalent of the NEP. If lenin succeeded in enforcing this Policy, opposition remained very strong and once Stalin got full control over the Party, the first crisis led to the collectivization of the whole agriculture ( with the same pitiful results). Most of the cadres of the Communist Party were strongly favouring collectivization, just because the simplified version of Marxism they had learnt and the legacy of War Communism were converging to present collectivization as the shortest way to realize the Communist Utopy. That’s why in FY NM are used for Reds too.

      • lexxsvarg says:

        Collectivization of peasants is not the ultimate goal, the interim stage of the industrialization of Russia. Collectivisation led to World War II get the preponderance of urban dwellers to rural people, eradicate hunger in Russia, create industry sufficient for victory in the second world war. The pitiful results.

        Large farm has an advantage in the production of corn before the fine — so the land consolidation would happen at any time after the end of the civil war. From this point of view, the collectivization was not a mistake, mistakes were made towards collectivization.

        The games are limited, so it is logical to start from the situation and relations of the civil war period. Therefore, due to the fact that the majority of party members were for the collectivization of illogical that this decision will cause a reduction in NM.
        A subsequent decision — tactically correct land equally among the peasants — should be expressed by the fall in NM because of opposition from the party of administrators, but a significant public support.

        Historically, this decision was made on the basis of the outcome of the first redistribution of land when landowners ‘ land has been reserved for the creation of collective farms. This caused the loss of support of the peasants, so the second solution-land equally-caused no protest party.
        So if this “historic” decision — it comes second after the “total collectivization” is a weak fall NM, need EP, restores the loyalty. The overall cost of the historical path: rebellion, Green squad and fewer conscripts.

        An alternative path is the decision from the start split the field of earth — but we should fight with the Party (reduction, NM). This decision is not impossible.
        An analogy can be drawn with the national question: White movement stood for “Unified Russia” — and national elites did not support the White out of a sense of self-preservation. The Soviet gave national autonomy and separatism later destroyed by creating and supporting the National Soviet forces. An indirect way, as is the land issue.

      • Clovis says:

        You will not convince me about the success of collectivization for Russian agriculture. The same for the link between peasantry and industrialization.They were other options to extract the needed capital for industrialization from peasants than the forced collectivization. Maybe they wouldn’t have worked at all and I agree with you on the point fast industrialization in the ’30 has saved Russia during WW2. Anyway, it was a necessary consequence of the obligation to build socialism in one country the fail of World Revolution created.

        However, the question isn’t a pure rational one, and not even an episode of the ancestral fight between Central power and peasants in Russia since the Tzar. If, at the end of his life, Marx hinted at the promise of large peasant revolutionary movements, Russian Bolsheviks never got beyond a simplified and wrong appraisal of a peasant world divided between poor and landless peasants and rich ones, allied to Urban capitalists; the most they did was to add a ill defined middle peasants class, whose definition varied with the nuances of the tactical needs of Policy. In the end, they wanted to suppress private property as they had nationalized plants and banks. If during the Nep they tolerated private industry and agriculture, it was never more than a provisional truce. Lenin seems to have considered NEP would maybe have a rather long duration, Stalin decided to fight a war against peasantry. 2 ways toward communism.

        The most ironical but instructive fact comes from the Chinese experience: Mao built communism in rural zones, and applied collectivization after his victory. Beyond all tactics, communism remains a exacerbated form of the XIXth Century trend: the destruction of traditional peasantry in order to build an urban and industrialized society. Liberalism did the same, with its own ways, that aren’t more lenient, as rural exode, yesterday in Europe, today in Asia and Africa, is built upon misery and sweat shop exploitation.

  2. lexxsvarg says:

    I very much doubt that a person can be persuaded against the ideas system. It is a complex body of knowledge, and not all of the important details can be read in the books.
    To talk about success to determine the criteria by which we evaluate success, otherwise we will be comparing the meters and kilograms.

    In any case, the conversation goes beyond the period of the civil war, but talk about the ideological preferences of leaders of the Communist Party and perpetual underestimated the peasant world – to doubt this statement makes support for the peasants of southern Russia Soviet at the end of the civil war that was achieved by policy decisions

    About Chinese village say I won’t (I didn’t live in China), but I can say about the Russian village – standard of living in collective farms was higher than before the revolution, people began to live a better life and they had a lot more opportunities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s