Reds and Whites: The Finnish "Civil War"?

David Samuels, in a demonstration of his own seemingly politically sound  views on political violence, defines a civil war as “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities” (Samuels 259).  The definition seems logical, though it is difficult to determine whether it could be insufficient or excessive without first analyzing an instance of a civil war.

The war known as Finland’s “civil war” began as conflict in neighboring Russia spilled over the border into the population of Finland. Before any conflict arose, the disputing parties (the working class, or “reds,” and the middle class, or “whites”) were technically subject to the same sovereign authority (countrystudies.us), however this is where the situation gets a bit messy. Finland’s civil war is mixed in with its gaining of independence from Russia. The red and white disputes had already been tending towards armed conflict for months when the country gained independence in 1917, and the governing body that took the place of Russia’s provisional government was made up of leaders from the whites who made no effort to concede to any of the working class’s demands (Princeton.edu). Also, considering that this government was only in power for about 2 months before organized, armed conflict erupted, it can be a bit difficult to identify to which government both parties were subject before the technical “start” of the civil war – Russia’s provisional leadership (which was largely despised on both the red and white fronts) or the white government that took its place (which was only in power long enough to irk its opponents to the point of war).

Ultimately from both perspectives it seems fair to say that both the reds and the whites shared a common authority at the beginning of the war, regardless of how hated or weak it may have been. This does also seem important to the definition in this case since the absence of a united government would probably have resulted in the creation of two separate states because the parties were divided geographically as well as politically with reds in the south and larger cities and whites in the north and rural areas.

Samuels’ definition includes this important point of common government, but also includes a specific reference to the conflict’s remaining within state borders. In the case of Finland, it can seem unclear at first whether this is the case or whether this is important to classifying the conflict as a civil war. The initial difficulty stems from the participation of both German and Russian forces in the conflict, but even more so that the same conflict was underway in Russia itself. The violence began, however, independent of participation of outside forces, and was only supported by them (countrystudies.us), so it does not seem too necessary as a fundamental part of civil war. Furthermore, while the exact same red vs. white conflict raged in Russia, the fighting never crossed borders, meaning that Finnish reds or whites never engaged in conflict against the opposing party in Russia, nor did Russia in Finland with the exception of minor and largely unsuccessful support lent to Finnish reds. This does seem rather important to the definition of civil war, since the point of the conflict is to affect political change in a certain state. Had the conflict proceeded independent of borders it would seem appropriate to give it a different title (perhaps some sort of crusade or other ideologically defined effort with higher aspirations than political reform).

Now, as a final note, Samuels explicitly states that civil wars should last “at least a year,” (Samuels 259) which is not the case here since this conflict lasted only about 5 months. The specific time duration does not seem important to defining the conflict as a civil war, but from the elements discussed here Samuels’ basic definition seems to be a good and accurate one: civil war is “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities” (Samuels 259).