The six regimes that had been replaced before in Ukraine, and the obvious weakness of all of them, caused an exacerbation among the people in general of those passive-anarchic tendencies that had been embedded in them for ages. They caused disrespect for power in general, regardless of its content. Anarchy and impunity concealed in themselves extremely tempting and profitable prospects, at least for the near future, and the authorities, moreover, of all kinds, set certain constraints and unswervingly demanded bread and recruits. The struggle against power, as such, becomes over time the main stimulus of the Makhnovist movement, overshadowing all other incentives of a socio-economic nature.
Finally, looting was a very important incentive for the insurgency. The rebels plundered cities and villages, bourgeois and working people, each other and neighbors. And at a time when the armed gangs smashed Ovruch, Fastov, Proskurov and other places, one could see hundreds of carts filling the streets of the ill-fated city with peaceful peasants, women and children collecting loot. their actions and not only for operations against the Bolsheviks, but also for gathering booty ... On July 14, 1919, Makhno, having lured Grigoriev to an insurgent congress, killed him with his own hand. The official version of the party anarchists calls this murder the execution of the "enemy of the people" who staged a Jewish pogrom in Elisavetgrad and did not neglect any allies, even the alleged Volunteer Army to fight the Bolsheviks ... Much more correct, however, another version is about two spiders in one jar, about the struggle of two "atamans" for power and influence in the narrow space of the lower Dnieper (73), where their fate and the offensive of the Armed Forces of the South drove them.
Be that as it may, the universal popular slogan of the rebels, carried from Pripyat to the Sea of Azov, sounded menacing and definite: "Death to the Panamas, Jews and Communists!"
The Makhnovists also added "priests" to this list, and the concept of "pan" was extended to all "White Guards", especially to officers.
And when the latter fell into the hands of the Makhnovists, an inevitably fierce death overtook them.
To a much lesser, almost imperceptible degree, political and national (independent) elements were reflected in the insurrection, which were brought into the matter only by the upper classes.
The insurgency did bring the Directory to Kiev, but immediately threw it down when Petliura tried to put an end to the excesses of the gangs. In the spring and summer of 1919, under the Bolshevik regime, the previous contacts of the Directory with some of the detachments were renewed again, but almost exclusively for the sake of supplying them with money, weapons and ammunition, which the Petliura headquarters generously released. The interests coincided, and the joint struggle continued, but the struggle was "against the Bolsheviks," and not "for Petliura." Grigoriev (74) with the Kherson rebels in January 1919 betrayed Petliura and went over to the Bolsheviks, and in April he betrayed the Bolsheviks. And in his "universal", vilifying the hetmanism, and Petliurism and the "Moscow gluttony", he called on the Ukrainian people to "take power into their own hands": "Let there be no dictatorship of either person or party. Long live the dictatorship of the working people! " At the same time, he announced mobilization and explained the vague form of this "people's" dictatorship: "I ask you to fulfill my order, I will do everything else myself ..." He entered the service of the Soviet government for a joint struggle against the Armed Forces of the South and twice, after no need for it, was defeated by the Bolsheviks.
Our Kiev secret organization, on its own initiative, contacted the headquarters of the Green (76) in Tripoli. The officers who arrived there were not allowed to see the chieftain himself; they talked to only two persons of his political entourage, one who identified himself as a former editor of the Ukrainian newspaper Narodnaya Volya, and the other as a former officer of the Izmailovsky Life Guards Regiment, Grudinsky. Both of them stated that they support the point of view of Ukraine's independence. It should be separated from Great Russia by a "cordon", since "now in broad daylight there is a robbery of Ukrainian bread." "We recognize the advice," they said, "but our advice is special ... There must be a Ukrainian Soviet republic." At the same time, the editor and the Izmailovite assured that Zeleny was not in any relationship with Petlyura.
Everywhere in the Zelenyi district, posters of simplified political content were pasted up: “Hai, Vilna, Ukraine! Get out all the way to the full usurper! Get Rakovsky and the Jewish commissars! "(77)
If in the west there was still a certain semblance of Petliura's influence, then in the east it never existed. In general, all the aspirations of both nationalist and party organizations to take possession of the insurrectionary movement and use it in their own interests have not been crowned with success. It remained until the end of the grassroots, popular. His nationalism - from Sagaidachny, anarchism - from Stenka Razin. Ukrainian socialists joined him, but they never led him.
The party of Russian anarchists at first did not dare to identify itself with the Makhnovshchina, declaring that the Makhnovshchina "was not a definite anarchist organization, being broader than it and being a mass social movement of Ukrainian workers." Nevertheless, the anarchists applied their stamp to the movement and now they clothe it with a legend. In the spring of 1919, representatives of anarchist organizations arrived in the Gulyai-Polye region, including the "Nabat" confederation. The anarchists took the "cultural and educational department of the army" into their own hands, began to publish the newspapers "Nabat", "Path to Freedom" and bring the "platform" and ideology to the Makhnovist movement: nationalities, complete self-government of the working people in their localities, the introduction of free labor councils of peasant and workers' organizations ... "The" educational "activities of the apostles of anarchism and the practice of the rebels went, however, on divergent paths. "Powerless forms of government" did not receive any development "due to wartime circumstances." On the contrary, life responded with pogroms, "voluntary" mobilization and self-taxation - according to the type adopted in modern Hungary (78), and "voluntary" discipline - with the death penalty for disobedience ... traces, testifies that the situation there mobilized, who made up half of Makhno's forces, was very difficult: “They did not believe them, they were flogged with whips and were shot for the slightest desire to evade service; in the event of an unsuccessful battle, they were thrown to the mercy of fate. "
The legend also clothe the personality of Makhno - a brave and very popular robber and talented partisan - in the clothes of an "ideological anarchist", although, according to his biographer and apologist, "hard labor was actually the only school where Makhno gained historical and political knowledge that served him enormously. help in his political activities ... ”(79) But Russian anarchism, which gave the world famous theorists Kropotkin and Bakunin, in the practical activities of the party throughout the Russian Troubles represents one continuous tragic farce (80). And it would, of course, be thoughtless not to appropriate the only serious movement and not to canonize Makhno as their leader - such a bright figure of timelessness, albeit with a robber guise ... Moreover, the wheel of history can turn ... This circumstance is also counting on and the Polish government, which showed complacency towards Makhno, who was interned in 1922-1924 in Poland (81), uncharacteristic of Poles. Makhno is considered, apparently, a useful collaborator for the future.
The actions of the insurgent detachments sometimes introduced very serious complications in the strategy of all the fighting sides, weakening alternately one or the other, wreaking havoc in the rear and diverting troops from the front. Objectively, the insurrection was a positive factor for us in the territory occupied by the enemy, and immediately became brightly negative when the territory fell into our hands. Therefore, all three regimes fought against the insurrection - Petliura, Soviet and volunteer. Even the facts of the voluntary transfer of some rebel bands to us were only a heavy burden, discrediting the authorities and the army. “The greatest evil,” General Dragomirov wrote to me (82), “is the chieftains who have come over to our side, like Struk. This is a typical robber, who is undoubtedly destined to be the gallows. To accept them to us and to keep their units is only to discredit our business. I will disband his detachment as soon as possible. " At the same time, General Dragomirov considered it necessary to put the fight against banditry in the foreground, because "it is impossible to talk about any civil law and order until we are able to ensure the most elementary peace and security, personal and property ...".
The atamanism brought with it elements of disorganization and decay; Makhnovshchina, moreover, was the most antagonistic to the idea of the White movement. This point of view subsequently, in the Crimean period, underwent some changes in the eyes of the new command. In June 1920, on the instructions of General Wrangel, an envoy came to Makhno's camp, bringing a letter from the headquarters:
“To the Ataman of the Insurrectionary Troops Makhno.
The Russian army goes exclusively against the communists in order to help the people get rid of the commune and the commissars and to secure the state, landlord and other privately owned lands for the working peasantry. The latter is already being implemented.
Russian soldiers and officers are fighting for the people and their welfare. Everyone who follows the people must walk hand in hand with us. Therefore, now step up your work to fight the communists, attacking their rear, destroying transport and helping us in every possible way in the final defeat of Trotsky's troops. The main command will help you with weapons, equipment, and specialists as much as possible. Send your confidant to the headquarters with information that you especially need for coordinating military operations.
Chief of Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, General Staff, Lieutenant General Shatilov,
Quartermaster General, General Staff Major General Konovalov.
Melitopol ".
At a meeting of the insurgent commanders on the initiative of Makhno, it was decided: "Whatever delegate was sent from Wrangel and generally from the right, he must be executed, and no answers can be given" (83).
The envoy was immediately publicly executed.
I will give a general assessment of the legacy we received from the Bolsheviks, coming from the Menshevik camp hostile to the White movement (84).
“The volunteer army marched, preceded and supported by peasant unrest. Deep shifts were taking place in the country ... Broad strata of the population were captured by national reactionary sentiments. In these days of national psychosis, an explosion of uterine hatred of the revolution, wild massacres of communists and "communists" in the streets, those who were against the Volunteer Army were a narrow and forcedly silent social environment, lonely lost among the rising waves of hostile moods.
Another phenomenon was discovered. The wing of reactionary sentiments also affected the working masses. How could this have happened? This is a deeply interesting and important political and socio-psychological issue. The answer to it lies in the historical material that characterizes the Soviet phase of 1919. In it are the roots of later sentiments ... On the broken, shaken Ukrainian soil, Bolshevik terrorism in this period grew into an anarchic, antisocial phenomenon. Special conditions of place and time created some kind of hypertrophy of "war communism". The declassed elements received more and more freedom of their formation and domination. Thousands of absurdities and crimes were committed. Blood flowed aimlessly as never before. The position of workers' organizations became more and more constrained. The isolation of power from the proletariat was spurred on by rapid steps. Illusions and moods burned out quickly after the "Petliura spring".
A strong spread of disappointment, discontent and often anger on the basis of these general properties of the policy of the previous period (Soviet) and the food crisis was noticed in the proletariat more and more vividly ... "
In the Russian "churchyard" the "weeping and sobbing" at the fresh graves, at the hecatombs erected by the bloody work of Latsis, Peters, Kedrov, Sayenko and others, in the accursed memory of the Chechens, "basements", "ravines", "ships of death" Tsaritsyn, Kharkov, Poltava, Kiev ... The methods of torture and extermination of the Russian people were different, but the system of terror remained unchanged, preached openly with triumphant arrogance. In the Caucasus, the Chekists cut people with blunt swords over a grave dug by those sentenced to death; in Tsaritsyn, they strangled in the dark, stinking hold of a barge, where usually up to 800 people lived, slept, ate for several months and then ... defecated ... In Kharkov they specialized in scalping and removing gloves. Everywhere they were beaten to a pulp, sometimes buried alive. We will never know how many victims the Bolshevik terror took (85). The insane Bolshevik government did not spare either "scarlet" or "black" blood, the earth was dressed in mourning, and the arrival of the liberation army responded as a joyous message in tortured souls.
Sometimes, however, the alarming sounds of the alarm burst into this joyful overflow ... So it was in Yekaterinoslav, Voronezh, Kremenchug, Konotop, Fastov and in other places, where the oncoming wave of Cossack and volunteer troops left dirty dregs in the form of violence, robberies and Jewish pogroms.
There can be no, absolutely no justification for this phenomenon. And not to belittle the guilt and scale of the crimes committed, but to understand the moods and relationships of that time, I will quote the words of a man who plunged into the thick of memories, testimonies and synodicists of a terrible time:
“You cannot shed more human blood than the Bolsheviks did; one cannot imagine a more cynical form than the one in which the Bolshevik terror is clothed. This system, which has found its ideologists, this system of systematic implementation of violence, this is such an open apotheosis of murder, as an instrument of power, to which no other power in the world has ever reached. These are not excesses, which can be found in the psychology of the civil war, one or another explanation.
"White" terror is a phenomenon of a different order. First of all, these are excesses motivated by the unbridled power and revenge. Where and when, in the acts of government policy and even in the journalism of this camp, you will find a theoretical basis for terror as a system of power? Where and when were the voices calling for systematic, official killings sounded? Where and when was it in the government of General Denikin, Admiral Kolchak or Baron Wrangel? ..
No, the weakness of power, excesses, even class revenge and ... the apotheosis of terror are phenomena of different orders. ”(86) white, despite all the perversions and "black pages" of the White movement.
The Bolshevik legacy opened up both enormous positive opportunities and enormous difficulties at the same time. The first - in the general feeling of hatred for the overthrown communist regime and in sympathy for the deliverers; the second - in a terrible disorder of all aspects of the people's state life.
I personally made many gratifying impressions from my trips to the liberated regions soon after their occupation, especially from my visits to Kharkov and Odessa - in their unofficial, unregulated units. The conviction grew stronger that the White movement did not meet with ideological opposition among the people and that its success was undoubted, if only the country's sympathy was translated into active assistance and if the "black pages" did not obscure the White Idea.
And one more "if", perhaps the most important ...
Once in a meeting of Rostov citizens (87), finishing a review of the general policy of the government, I said:
“The revolution has failed hopelessly. Now only two phenomena are possible: evolution or counter-revolution.
I follow the path of evolution, remembering that new extreme utopian experiences would cause new shocks in the country and the inevitable arrival of the blackest reaction.
This evolution leads to the unification and salvation of the country, to the destruction of the old everyday lies, to the creation of conditions under which the life, freedom and work of citizens would be ensured, and finally leads to the possibility of convening an All-Russian Constituent Assembly in a normal, calm atmosphere.
This path is terribly difficult. Like a plow on the wild virgin soil overgrown with thistles, the national idea makes deep furrows across the Russian field, where everything is destroyed, everything is dirty, where seemingly insurmountable obstacles arise from all sides.
But the field will be plowed if. .. I will say in the words of my favorite writer. I read it for a long time. I will convey, perhaps, not literally, but true.
“There are moments when our old Poshekhonskaya leaves me amazed. But such a minute, when my heart would cease to ache for her, I positively will not remember. This poor country, you have to love it. "
It is this pure love of our country for the Motherland that is the guarantee of its salvation and greatness. "
V. Rudnev's review of the first volume of "Sketches of Russian Troubles", which was published in the literary journal of the Russian emigration "Sovremennye zapiski" in 1922, noted the following:
The "Sketches" are conceived very broadly. They include not only the author's personal memories, but also an attempt to illuminate the events of the revolution from some more general point of view. Both of these tasks have not been solved with the same success. Where the author conveys his personally experienced and directly known to him, "Essays" are of exceptional interest; vast knowledge of the environment, along with sincerity and directness of judgment, vivid presentation, vivid and imaginative characteristics make up the indisputable merits of those chapters devoted to the course of the revolution in the army, at the front. On the contrary, Denikin's critical excursions into the political and social relations of the revolutionary era are superficial, unoriginal and unconvincing; betraying second-hand awareness, revealing bias and lack of historical perspective, they are of interest except for the characterization of the author himself.
Of course, Denikin's entire book is a harsh indictment against the so-called. "Revolutionary democracy". She and she alone is responsible for the collapse of the state, for the "corruption and death" of the army. The comparatively restrained tone, by which, by the way, Denikin's work compares favorably with the books of Nazhivin and other accusers of the revolution, does not weaken, but only strengthens the serious nature of the accusation.
A.V. Shubin. The Makhnovist movement: the tragedy of the 19th.
This material was provided by Nikolai Sobolev.
The Makhnovists were included as a brigade in the 1st Zadneprovsk division under the command of P. Dybenko. N. Makhno received weapons and cartridges for peasant replenishment. As a result, the 3rd brigade of the 1st Zadneprovsk division began to grow by leaps and bounds, outstripping both the division and the 2nd Ukrainian Army, in which the 3rd brigade fought later. If in January there were about 400 fighters in the brigade, then at the beginning of March - already 1000, in the middle of March - 5000, and in April up to 20 thousand. Replenished with "voluntary mobilization" the brigade launched an offensive to the south and east. Initially, the Red commanders were skeptical of the Makhnovist formations: "Under Berdyansk is tobacco, Makhno sheds tears and yells for support" (TsGASA). A week later, having fought over 100 km in a month and a half, the Makhnovists broke into Berdyansk, and Denikin's western bastion was liquidated. At the same time, other Makhnovist units pushed the front to the east by the same distance. They sent a train with bread captured from the whites to the starving workers of Moscow and Petrograd ...
But not only this determined the relationship between the two "Soviet authorities". The introduction of the surplus appropriation system, the unrestrained growth of the bureaucratic apparatus that absorbed and squandered a significant part of the grain confiscated from the peasants, the prohibition of parties and organizations that even supported Soviet power, the arbitrariness of the Cheka did not meet the understanding of the peasants of the Azov region.
Here are just a few testimonies of that time: "Frozen potatoes and various vegetables are being transported from the Simbirsk, Samara and Saratov provincial organizations that bought non-rationed products. At the same time, the stations of the Samara-Zlatoustovskaya and Volgo-Bugulma railways are overwhelmed with more than 10 million bread. poods, which, in the absence of a steam locomotive and carriages, the prodorgans cannot bring to the consuming regions and which are already beginning to deteriorate (Pravda, March 1, 1919). by individual workers and at meetings. We heard rude shouts: "Silence!", "I will shoot!" (ibid., March 11, 1919). "You give out daily in large cities a large amount of bread to meet the needs of certain groups of consumers, and there is almost complete confidence that many of these consumers do not receive bread or receive it in less quantity or worse quality" (5, p. 139). "Do not look for indictments in the case; whether he rebelled against the Council with weapons or in words. The first duty we must ask what class he belongs to, what kind of background he is, what education he has and what his profession is. These are the questions that must be resolved. the fate of the accused "(From an article by M. Latsis, one of the leaders of the Cheka, in a magazine with the characteristic title" Red Terror. "quoted from (3, book 1, pp. 224-225)).
The system of "war communism" with its bureaucratization and arbitrary interference in the life of the working people was perceived by them as a single hostile whole, growing behind the backs of the revolutionary workers and peasants.
Already in February 1919, the policy of the RCP (b) was sharply criticized at the Second District Congress of Gulyai-Polye Soviets. The resolution of the congress read: “Political commissars not elected by us, not appointed by the government and various other commissars are watching every step of the local Soviets and mercilessly dealt with those comrades from the peasants and workers who come out in defense of people's freedom against representatives of the central government. , the government of Russia and Ukraine is blindly following the lead of the Communist Bolshevik Party, which, in the narrow interests of their party, are carrying on a vile and implacable persecution of other revolutionary organizations.
Under the cover of the slogan "dictatorship of the proletariat," the Bolshevik communists declared a monopoly on revolution for their party, considering all dissidents to be counter-revolutionaries ... We call on the comrades of workers and peasants not to entrust the liberation of the working people to any party, whatever the central government: the liberation of the working people it is the work of the workers themselves. "
The frankly anti-Bolshevik and, in principle, anti-party nature of the resolutions in February did not arouse any special "complaints" - an alliance with the Makhnovists was just beginning, and their "democratic pranks" were turned a blind eye. Moreover, the brigade was rapidly advancing. But in April, when the front stabilized, a course was taken to eliminate the special situation of the Makhnovsky region.
It soon became clear that this was not an easy task. N. Makhno received the communist commissars and the chief of staff sent by P. Dybenko, the Left Socialist Revolutionary I. Ozerov, but did not admit them to political power. P. Dybenko's attempt to disband part of the Makhnovist detachments caused an outbreak of unrest in Orekhov. Subordinate N. Makhno Batko Pravda threatened the district authorities with rout. The authorities took the threat literally: "There is a fear that the revolt could cover the entire area occupied by Makhno's troops, and Makhno himself might be involved in this adventure against his will," the commander of the group A. Skachko telegraphed (5, p. 46). Soon, however, it became clear that the threats of Batko Pravda did not go beyond the scope of the rally rhetoric, and the incident itself was quickly settled. Subsequently, Antonov-Ovseenko reported to Kh. Rakovsky about the "Orekhovsky revolt": "The story of the attack on Aleksandrovsk - as it turned out from the stories of Dybenko and Makhno, is a curious nonsense ..." (1, vol. 4, p. 117).
Subsequent events, however, did not help reduce tensions. At the end of April, the Third Regional Congress of Soviets was convened in Gulyai-Pole. As expected, the "socialist pluralism" that reigned in "Makhnovia" resulted in formulations directed against the military-communist policy of the CPSU (b): "The congress protests against the reactionary methods of the Bolshevik government, which shoot peasants, workers and insurgents.
The congress requires a correct free electoral start ...
The congress demands the replacement of the existing food policy with the correct system of commodity exchange ...
The congress demands complete freedom of speech, press, assembly, for all politically leftist currents, i.e. parties and citizens, and the inviolability of the personality of party workers, leftist revolutionary organizations and the working people in general ... "(8, pp. 23-24).
It was impossible to expect anything else from the Makhnovists - they did not receive convincing explanations about the positive aspects of the RCP (b) policy. But the military-administrative machine worked traditionally - Divisional Commander P. Dybenko burst out with a telegram: "Any congresses convened on behalf of the military revolutionary headquarters disbanded according to my order are considered clearly counter-revolutionary, and the organizers of such will be subjected to the most repressive measures, up to and including outlawing." (quoted in 2, p. 98).
The congress specifically continued its work to answer the division commander. The fact is that not only the delegates of this commander, but also the higher civilian authorities believed that Dybenko had no right to interfere in the work of the Gulyai-Polsky Congress. Therefore, the answer in spirit resembled a letter from the Cossacks to the Turkish sultan. After long mocking explanations about the history of the movement and its congresses, the delegates write: “You, 'comrade' Dybenko, are apparently young in the revolutionary movement in Ukraine and we have to acquaint you with the very beginning of the revolutionary movement in Ukraine. and you, having met, perhaps correct yourself a little "(ibid., p. 99). Hinting at the weakness of the position of the RCP (b) in the Azov region, the Makhnovists continue: "... If the Bolshevik idea succeeds, then the Military Revolutionary Council, from the point of view of the Bolsheviks, an organization clearly counter-revolutionary, will be replaced by another," more revolutionary "Bolshevik organization. hinder us, do not force us "(ibid., p. 102).
Both white and red leaders treated the rebels in exactly the same way.
“The actions of the insurgent detachments,” wrote Denikin, “sometimes introduced very serious complications in the strategy of all the fighting sides, weakening alternately one or the other, wreaking havoc in the rear and diverting troops from the front. Objectively, the insurrection was a positive factor for us in the territory occupied by the enemy, and immediately became brightly negative when the territory fell into our hands. Therefore, all three regimes fought against the insurrection (in the Ukraine) - Petliura, Soviet and volunteer. Even the facts of the voluntary transfer of some rebel bands to us were only a heavy burden, discrediting the authorities and the army. "
Trotsky expressed the same idea in one of his speeches during the Civil War:
“The volunteers of Makhno, of course, pose a danger to Denikin, since Denikin reigns in Ukraine ... But tomorrow, after the liberation of Ukraine, the Makhnovists will become a mortal danger for the workers 'and peasants' state. Makhnovshchina ... there is a national Ukrainian abscess, and it must be cut once and for all. "
The question of how to finally "cut this abscess" faced the red command in November 1920 after the end of the civil war. All the attention of the communists then focused on a vast area, the center of which was a tiny point of the previously unknown Gulyai-Polye. Makhno became an object of hunting on a national scale. Surrounded by many thousands of red troops, wounded many times, with a shot in the neck below the back of the head, with his right cheek pierced by a bullet, he defended himself with a handful of comrades-in-arms, whom the enemy threatened with a gallows like a hunted beast and continued to stubbornly fight off the advancing enemy. Having passed with continuous battles many hundreds of kilometers from Gulyai-Polye to the Romanian border, breaking through here and there enemy lines, Makhno at the end of August 1921 crossed the Dniester into Romania. From there he ended up in Poland and, after many misadventures, moved from Poland to Paris.
As a result, this strange man with the manners of a notorious bandit turned out to be a Russian political emigrant in France next to Bunin, Merezhkovsky, Aldanov, Berdyaev, Diaghilev, Milyukov, Kerensky, Melgunov, Denikin and many others, whom, in principle, he was ready to cut their throats.
Thrown out of his habitual element of revelry, drunkenness, arbitrariness and constant danger, the semi-literate Makhno found himself in France without money, not knowing the language. From time to time he worked as a painter; with the help of the anarchists, he wanted to write and publish memoirs in order to whitewash himself and give an "ideological character" to his movement. On this basis, he quarreled with his literary colleagues. Lonely, vain, embittered at everyone and everything, he died near Paris in 1935 from pulmonary tuberculosis. Three notebooks of his unfinished memoirs were published after his death in literary processing by Volin (Eichenbaum).
Makhno's pride was hurt by the fact that in the history of the civil war, the Bolsheviks deliberately downplayed the role he played in undermining the white movement in southern Russia.
There is no doubt that later those who studied the methods of guerrilla warfare in Russia drew appropriate conclusions from the methods developed by Father Makhno.
Among them were the future Marshal Tito and Ho Chi Minh, who were trained in the revolutionary craft in the Soviet Union.
23. External relations and internal disagreements
By the early autumn of 1919, the impression was created in Western Europe that the days of Soviet power were numbered. The newspapers of the European capitals reported on the tremendous successes of General Denikin, on the Yudenich's offensive against Petrograd, on the disintegration of the Red troops, on the panic in Moscow.
By that time, government circles in Paris had assessed the degree of blow inflicted on the prestige of France in Russia by the inglorious episode in Odessa, and anxiously thought about the need to mend the deteriorated relations with General Denikin. In those days, the French government was going through an excruciating phase of revising its foreign policy. It watched gloomily the change in American sentiments, which sought to break away from all European complications and withdraw into their internal affairs. It did not trust England too much and thought with fear of its loneliness in the event of the revival of German power. He was frightened by the specter of a possible rapprochement between Germany, which dreamed of revenge, with Russia liberated from the Bolsheviks, hurt in its national pride by the ill-considered policy of France. Therefore, it was necessary to take urgent measures to change the unfavorable situation. And for this purpose, a special mission was sent to the South of Russia, led by the famous and honored General Manzhen. She arrived at General Denikin's Headquarters in early October.
In the history of French relations with General Denikin, Mangin's mission played an insignificant role due to the unforeseen events that soon unfolded in the South of Russia. Nevertheless, the friendly nature of the mission made it possible to smooth out past roughnesses, the history of which was associated not only with Odessa and the Crimea. There were other, no less important reasons that greatly distressed Denikin.
At the end of January 1919, after the Don army recognized Denikin's High Command over itself, the captain of the French General Staff Fouquet, who was then at the head of the French military mission under General Denikin, appeared to the ataman Krasnov. After informing the chieftain that he was acting on behalf of General Franchet d'Esperet, Fouquet told Krasnov that a French division would be immediately sent to help his troops, which were failing at the front. On one condition, however, he suggested that the chieftain Krasnov sign two prepared agreements. The first of them obliged Krasnov, as “the chosen and recognized representative of the Don government, as well as a representative of one of the future parts of great Russia,” to agree to compensation for all losses that French citizens have suffered since the revolution. The second paper, referring to the agreement signed on December 26 1918, according to which Krasnov recognized his subordination to General Denikin, put the Donskoy ataman not only in an ambiguous, but also in an extremely false position. the authority of General Franchet d "Espere" on all "military, political and of the same order ".
Fouquet's act angered Krasnov. As a subordinate, he immediately brought him to the attention of General Denikin. At the headquarters of the latter, this caused an explosion of indignation. General Denikin demanded to recall Fouquet by telegram from February 3 to Franche d "Espere, expressing his confidence that" documents not corresponding to the dignity of the Russian name "could not be sent by the French command, but were the result of an inappropriate personal initiative of Fouquet
Denikin did not receive an answer to his telegram, but Fouquet was immediately recalled and replaced by Colonel Corbeil.
Summing up the episode with Fouquet, Anton Ivanovich wrote that “and he began his career in the South in a strange way - by giving me a praise for his merits to sign for a petition to Franchet d'Esperet for his promotion to the next rank. quite sad. "
While the British military representatives under Denikin were honored generals of the British army and were directly subordinate to Churchill, carrying out his directives, France appointed a captain as her first military representative in southern Russia, subordinated him to her command in Constantinople, who did not understand the Russians well. affairs, emphasizing this in the eyes of Denikin his contempt for the movement he leads.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Colonel Corbeil, who replaced Fouquet, an officer of a completely different caliber, educated and intelligent, was deeply upset by the created atmosphere of tension and mutual distrust.
By the fall of 1919, the government of General Denikin was finally able to settle one of the important points of contention with the French, namely the issue of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the commercial ships captured by the French in Odessa.
this one with tasks of the basic level of difficulty
5.1 According to the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, the supreme power in the country belonged to:
the Bolshevik Party; The Constituent Assembly; The Council of People's Commissars; All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
5.2 in July 1919 he led the White Guard North-Western Army advancing on Petrograd: NN Yudenich; S. S. Kamenev; P. N. Krasnov; Yu Pilsudski?
5.3 Change the first part of the previous task so that the other answer options become correct one by one. Be sure to indicate the number of the correct answer next to each option for the first part.
5.4 Under the terms of the Riga Peace Treaty with Poland (1921):
I to Poland the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus retreated;
I the entire territory of Ukraine was withdrawn to Poland;
I Soviet power was proclaimed in Poland;
I the entire territory of Belarus went to Poland.
5.5 What is surplus allocation:
) fixed tax in kind on peasant farms;) fixed cash tax on peasant farms;
) obligatory delivery by peasants to the state at fixed prices of all surpluses of established norms for personal and economic needs) of grain and other goods;
) market exchange between town and country?
0 Most of the peasants during the Civil War supported the power of the Bolsheviks, as :) The Soviet power did not confiscate bread from the peasants;
) in the event of the victory of the White movement, the restoration of the pre-revolutionary VDKs would take place;
) the Bolsheviks did not mobilize the peasants into the army;
) the leaders of the Bolsheviks by social origin were mainly from the
5.6 Come up with options for answers to the test item. Who was the chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the republic:
2) _
4)_:_
Working with tasks of an increased level of complexity
5.7 Arrange the following events in chronological order:
A) the seizure of Kursk and Orel by the army of Denikin;
B) Soviet Russia annulled the Brest Treaty;
B) the capture of Kiev by the Polish army; D) the revolt of the Czechoslovak corps.
Write down the letters that indicate the events in the correct sequential order! to the table.
5.8 Read the excerpt from the document and write down the month and year when it was accepted.
In the interests of systematic regulation of the national economy in all industrial, commercial, banking, agricultural, transport, cooperative, production partnerships and other enterprises that have hired workers and who give work at home, workers' control over production, purchase and sale of products and raw materials is introduced. materials, storing them, as well as over the financial (ron of the enterprise.
5.9 Which of these provisions characterize the war communis policy Indicate three of the six proposed provisions:
1) the existence of powerful economic incentives to work;
2) curtailment of commodity-money relations;
3) high fees for transport and utilities;
4) the nationalization of industry;
5) surplus allocation;
6) mass unemployment.
5.10 Which of the following commanders fought during the Civil War on the side of Soviet power? List three of the six suggested names.
1) A.I. Egorov;
2) M. V. Alekseev;
3) M. N. Tukhachevsky;
4) A. M. Kaledin;
5) V.O. Kappel;
6) S. S. Kamenev.
Circle the appropriate numbers and write them down in the table.
5.11 Read an excerpt from the memoirs of A. I. Denikin and write down the name of the movement (not mentioned in the passage) in question, as well as the name of one of its major representatives.
The actions of the insurgent detachments sometimes introduced very serious complications in the strategy of all the fighting sides, weakening alternately one or the other, wreaking havoc in the rear and diverting troops from the front. Objectively, the insurrection was a positive factor for us in the territory occupied by the enemy, and immediately became brightly negative when the territory fell into our hands. Therefore, all three regimes fought against the insurrection - Petliura, Soviet and volunteer. Even the facts of the voluntary transfer to us of some rebel gangs were only a heavy burden, discrediting the authorities and the army.
Tasks of a high level of complexity Analysis of a historical document
5.12 Read an excerpt from the 1919 Declaration on the Land Question and answer the questions.
The full resolution of the land issue for the whole country and the compilation of a land law common to the whole immense Russia will belong to legislative institutions, through which the Russian people will express their will.
whether But life does not wait. It is necessary to rid the country of hunger and to take urgent measures that must be implemented immediately. Therefore, a special consultation should now begin to develop and draw up regulations and rules for the areas under the control of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia.
I consider it necessary to indicate the principles that should form the basis of these rules and regulations: ia- 1) Ensuring the interests of the working population.
2) Creation and strengthening of stable small and medium-sized farms at the expense of state and private land.
3) Reservation of the owners of their rights to land. At the same time, in each individual locality, the size of the land that can be retained in the hands of the previous owners must be determined, and the procedure for the transition of the rest of the privately owned land to land-poor must be established. These transfers can be made by voluntary agreements or by compulsory alienation, but always for a fee. For the new owners, land that does not exceed the established size is strengthened as an unshakable property.
4) Cossack lands, allotments, forests, lands of highly productive agricultural enterprises, as well as lands that do not have agricultural purposes, but are the necessary belonging of mining and other industrial enterprises, are not subject to alienation; in the last two cases - in the
d *% enrolled for each area of increased size.
5) All-round assistance to farmers through technical improvements of the land (land reclamation), agronomic assistance, credit, means of production, supply of seeds, live and dead implements, etc.
Without waiting for the final development of the land situation, we must now take measures to facilitate the transition of land to land-poor and raise the productivity of agricultural labor. At the same time, the authorities must prevent met and class enmity, subordinating private interests to the good of the state.
1) Enter the name of the politician on behalf of whom the Declaration was written.
3) Why, in the choice between the "Decree on Land" and this Declaration, did the peasants prefer the "Decree on Land"? Give three reasons.
5.14 Read an excerpt from Leon Trotsky's work and answer the questions.
Where could we and should have started in 1917-1918? The capitalist apparatus - the market, banks, stock exchange - was destroyed. The civil war was in full swing. An economic agreement with the bourgeoisie, or at least with a part of the bourgeoisie, in the sense of granting it certain economic rights, was out of the question. The bourgeois apparatus of economic management was destroyed not only on a national scale, but also at each individual enterprise. This gave rise to the elementary task of life: to create at least a crude temporary apparatus in order to extract the most necessary products for the belligerent army and for the working class from the resulting chaotic industrial legacy. In essence, it was not an economic task in the broad sense of the word, but a military-industrial one. With the assistance of trade unions, the state materially took possession of industrial enterprises and created an extremely cumbersome and clumsy centralized apparatus, which nevertheless made it possible to provide the active army with uniforms and ammunition - in extremely insufficient quantities, but still in such a way that we came out not defeated, but winners from fight.
The policy of withdrawing the surplus from the peasants inevitably led to a reduction and lowering of agricultural production. The policy of equalizing wages inevitably led to a decrease in labor productivity. The policy of centralized bureaucratic management of industry excluded the possibility of a truly centralized and full use of technical equipment and available labor. But all this politics was to us
imposed by the regime of a blocked fortress with a disorganized economy and depleted resources.
You ask, did we not hope to pass from_ to socialism without major economic turns, shocks and retreats, that is, along a more or less straight ascending line? Yes, indeed, at that time we firmly hoped that the revolutionary development in Western Europe would proceed at a faster pace. This is undeniable. And if the proletariat had seized power in Germany, in France, in Europe in general in 1919, then our entire economic development would have taken on a completely different form. Marx wrote in 1883 to Nikolai Danielson, one of the theorists of Russian populism, that if the European proletariat seizes power before the Russian community is finally liquidated by history, then in Russia the community can become the starting point of communist development.
1) Write down the name of this policy.
2) Based on the analysis of the document, determine what the purpose of the introduction of this policy was.
3) Indicate three of its characteristics.
4) What other characteristic features of this policy does not the author of the document write about?
5) What are the consequences of pursuing such a course does L. D. Trotsky indicate?
6) What plans did the Bolsheviks connect with the continuation of the said policy? What, according to the author, are the necessary conditions for their implementation?
5.15 Read an excerpt from the resolution of the IX Council of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party "On the cessation of the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks" (June 1919) and answer the questions.
In the impasse of the Civil War, into which Russia is led, two main forces are fighting with each other, mutually nourishing each other: Bolshevism and restoration. Only a third force, the peasantry, can lead Russia out of this vicious circle ... The task of the socialist revolutionaries is to merge with the laboring masses and unite under their leadership the maturing resistance of the masses ...
Considering the balance of available forces, IX Council p. Sr. approves and approves the decision taken by all competent party bodies to stop the armed struggle against the Bolshevik power at the moment and replace it with an ordinary political struggle, transferring the center of their struggle to the territory of Kolchak, Denikin and others, undermining their cause from within and fighting in the front ranks of the rebel against the political and the social restoration of the people by all the methods that the party used against the autocracy ...
The refusal of the armed struggle against the Bolshevik dictatorship, conditioned at the present time by the entire political situation, should not be interpreted as the adoption, albeit temporary and conditional, of the Bolshevik power, but only as a "decision dictated by the state of affairs ...
[It is impossible to] merge their struggle against attempts at counter-revolution with the struggle (of the Shevik government ...
Avoid ... harmful illusions that the Bolshevik dictatorship can be reborn in a penny by the people ...
1) In what way does the Socialist-Revolutionary Party see its task in the current situation? What kind of tough decision is enshrined in the resolution?
2) Using your knowledge of history, indicate one event that could have served as a reason for this decision.
3) What is the attitude of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party to the Bolsheviks? Give two statements of this passage that support your conclusion.
Generalized characteristics, systematization of historical material
5.16 What three points of view were formed at the end of 1917 - the beginning of 1918 in the Bolshevik Party on the issue of the need to sign a peace treaty with Germany? I was a supporter of each of these points of view? How did their supporters explain the need to take such measures? Write an explanation for one of your points of view.
2)
Explanation
5.17 In what two directions did the Red Army conduct combat operations in 1920? What results have you achieved?
Directions
results
5.18 List the four stages of the Civil War from the spring of 1918 to the fall of 1920. Write down one event for each stage.
Analysis of historical versions and estimates, argumentation
5.19 Below are two points of view on the nature of the power established in the country after October 1917:
In 1917, Soviet power was established in Russia.
After October 1917, the real power in the country was held by the Bolshevik Party.
Which point of view seems more preferable to you? Give no two arguments to support your choice. When arguing the obligation: use historical facts.
2.20 Below are two points of view on the Brest Peace Treaty:
1. The Brest Peace was extremely disadvantageous for Russia.
2. The Brest-Litovsk Peace had positive consequences for the Bolsheviks. Which of the points of view seems to you more preferable? Give i
less than two arguments in support of your choice. When arguing, be sure to use historical facts.
2.21 Below are two points of view on the White movement:
1. “The White movement was started almost by the saints, and it was almost finished by the slaves” (V.V. Shulgin).
2. "The White movement was essentially the same anti-popular force as Bolshevism" (OA Platonov).
Which of the points of view seems to you more preferable? Give less than two arguments to support your choice. Be sure to use historical facts when arguing.
5.22 Below are two points of view on the cause of the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War:
1. The victory of the Bolsheviks was due to the miscalculations and mistakes of the whites.
2. The Bolsheviks won thanks to the effective organization of the army and the rear.
Which of the points of view seems to you more preferable? Give less than two arguments to support your choice. Be sure to use historical facts when arguing.
Analysis of the historical situation
5.23 Analyze the historical situation associated with the entry of the Left SRs into the SNK. Based on the analysis of the situation, draw a conclusion about the reasons for the alliance of the Bolsheviks with the Left SRs.
4) Based on the analysis of the situation, formulate at least two reasons why the Olepoviks agreed to an alliance with the Left SRs.
5) On what issues were there serious disagreements between the Bolshevik Left Socialist-Revolutionaries? List four of them.
5.24 Examine the historical situation associated with the introduction of the food dictatorship by the Bolsheviks. Based on the analysis of the situation, draw a conclusion about the reasons for this.
2) People (or social groups) who were associated with the given situation.
3) Events and phenomena associated with this situation. How were you connected (verbally)?
4) Based on the analysis of the situation, formulate at least two reasons for the introduction of the food dictatorship by the Bolsheviks.
5) What activities were carried out by the Bolsheviks in the framework of the food dictatorship? List three activities.
5.25 Examine the historical situation associated with the beginning of the policy of the Red Terror. Based on the analysis of the situation, draw a conclusion about the reasons for its introduction.
2) People (or social groups) who were associated with the given situation.
3) Events and phenomena associated with this situation. How related (verbally)?
E 4) Based on the analysis of the situation, indicate at least two reasons for the
tiki of red terror.
5) What event was the reason for the start of the policy of the red terror?
Comparison
5.26 Compare the policies of the Bolsheviks towards the peasantry between October 1917 and May 1918 and between May 1918 and March 1921, highlighting two common features and two differences.
Fill out the answer in the form of tables. Formulate the lines of comparison on your own, draw a conclusion.
General:
|
Comparison lines |
Common features |
||
|
* | |||
Differences:
|
Comparison lines |
October 1917 - May 1918 |
May |
1918 - |
March 1921 |
|
|
- | |||||
|
- | |||||
|
_ |
Output |
| |||
G
5.27 Compare the composition of anti-Bolshevik forces before and after November 1918, highlighting two similarities and three differences.
Fill out the answer in the form of tables. Formulate the lines of comparison on your own, draw a conclusion. General:
Output
Working with the map
5.28 Complete tasks for the contour map "Civil War and Foreign Intervention in Russia".
1) Mark the border of the territory occupied by the German-Austrian and Turkish troops by November 1918.
2) Mark the border of the territory of the Soviet Republic in August 1918.
3) Draw a front line:
By the end of April 1919;
By mid-October 1919;
By the end of May 1919;
By the beginning of October 1919
4) Write on the map the names of the leaders of the White movement who acted against the RSFSR in each direction.
5) Show with arrows the actions of the invaders. Sign the names of the countries involved in the intervention in these areas.
6) Indicate the names of the Soviet socialist republics formed in 1917-1921.
Working with statistical and visual information
5.29 Study the data in the table "Losses during the Civil War" and answer the questions.
|
Loss category |
Number (thousand people) |
|
Total killed and died of wounds |
2500 |
|
Red Army |
950 |
|
White and national armies |
650 |
|
Guerrilla units |
900 |
|
Killed by terror |
2000 |
|
Red terror |
1200 |
|
White terror |
300 |
|
Guerrilla terror |
500 |
|
Died of hunger and epidemics |
6000 |
|
Total killed |
10 500 |
|
Emigrated |
2000 |
1) What is the reason for more than half of the country's irrecoverable losses in the years of Citizens
ny war?
2) Compare the death toll from the red and white terror. What conclusion can be drawn about the nature of the red and white terror based on the comparison?
3) Compare the losses of the Red and White armies. Suggest what are the reasons for this ratio.
4) Compare the losses in the Civil War and in the First World War. What are the reasons for this ratio?
5.30 Consider in the textbook (color insert) Soviet propaganda posters and propaganda posters of the White movement and answer the questions.
Read an excerpt from the memoirs of a military leader and politician.
“The actions of the insurgent detachments sometimes introduced very serious complications in the strategy of all the fighting sides, weakening alternately one or the other, wreaking havoc in the rear and diverting troops from the front. Objectively, the insurrection was a positive factor for us in the territory occupied by the enemy, and immediately became brightly negative when the territory fell into our hands. Therefore, all three regimes fought against the insurrection - Petliura, Soviet and volunteer. Even the facts of the voluntary transfer to us of some rebel gangs were only a heavy burden, discrediting the authorities and the army. “The greatest evil,” General Dragomirov wrote to me, “is the chieftains who have come over to our side, like Struk. This is a typical robber, who is undoubtedly destined to be hanged. To accept them to us and keep their troops is only to discredit our cause. the possibility of his detachment will be disbanded. "
At the same time, General Dragomirov considered it necessary to put the fight against banditry in the foreground, because "it is impossible to talk about any civil law and order until we are able to ensure the most elementary peace and security, personal and property ...".
The atamanism brought with it elements of disorganization and decay; Makhnovshchina, moreover, was the most antagonistic to the idea of the White movement. "
Using the passage and knowledge of history, select three correct judgments from the list below. Write down the numbers under which they are indicated.
1) The situation described in the passage may refer to 1917.
3) The Makhnovshchina mentioned in the text is an anarchist movement in Ukraine.
Explanation.
1) The situation described in the passage may refer to 1917 - NO, wrong, the chieftains, the greens appeared with the beginning of the active phase of the Civil War in 1918.
3) The Makhnovism mentioned in the text is an anarchist movement in Ukraine - YES, right.
If in the west there was still a certain semblance of Petliura's influence, then in the east it never existed. In general, all the aspirations of both nationalist and party organizations to take possession of the insurrectionary movement and use it in their own interests have not been crowned with success. It remained until the end of the grassroots, popular. His nationalism - from Sagaidachny, anarchism - from Stenka Razin. Ukrainian socialists joined him, but they never led him.
The party of Russian anarchists at first did not dare to identify itself with the Makhnovshchina, declaring that the Makhnovshchina "was not a definite anarchist organization, being broader than it and being a mass social movement of Ukrainian workers." Nevertheless, the anarchists applied their stamp to the movement and now they clothe it with a legend. In the spring of 1919, representatives of anarchist organizations arrived in the Gulyai-Polye region, including the "Nabat" confederation. "platform" and ideology for the Makhnovist movement: "The denial of the principle of statehood and all power, the unification of the working people of the whole world and all nationalities, the complete self-government of the working people in their localities, the introduction of free labor councils of peasant and workers' organizations ..." "Educational" activities of the apostles anarchism and the practice of the rebels went, however, on divergent paths. "Powerless forms of government" did not receive any development "due to wartime circumstances." voluntary "discipline - with the death penalty for disobedience ... One of the participants in the struggle against the Makhnovists, who According to their investigation, it testifies that the situation there of the mobilized, who made up half of Makhno's forces, was very difficult: “They did not believe them, they were flogged with whips and were shot for the slightest desire to evade service; in the event of an unsuccessful battle, they were thrown to the mercy of fate. "
The legend also clothe the personality of Makhno - a brave and very popular robber and talented partisan - in the clothes of an "ideological anarchist", although, according to his biographer and apologist, "hard labor was actually the only school where Makhno gained historical and political knowledge, which served him enormously. help in his political activities ... ". But Russian anarchism, which gave rise to the world famous theorists Kropotkin and Bakunin, in the practical activities of the party throughout the Russian Time of Troubles represents one continuous tragic farce (24). And it would, of course, be thoughtless not to appropriate the only serious movement and not to canonize Makhno as their leader - such a bright figure of timelessness, albeit with a robber guise ... Moreover, the wheel of history can turn ... This circumstance is also counting on and the Polish government, which showed complacency in relation to Makhno, who was interned in 1922-1924 in Poland, uncharacteristic for Poles. Makhno is considered, apparently, a useful collaborator for the future.
The actions of the insurgent detachments sometimes introduced very serious complications in the strategy of all the fighting sides, weakening alternately one or the other, wreaking havoc in the rear and diverting troops from the front. Objectively, the insurrection was a positive factor for us in the territory occupied by the enemy, and immediately became brightly negative when the territory fell into our hands. Therefore, all three regimes fought against the insurrection - Petliura, Soviet and volunteer. Even the facts of the voluntary transfer of some rebel bands to us were only a heavy burden, discrediting the authorities and the army. “The greatest evil,” General Dragomirov wrote to me, “is the chieftains who have come over to our side, like Struk. This is a typical robber, who is undoubtedly destined to be hanged. To accept them to us and keep their troops is only to discredit our cause. the possibility of his detachment will be disbanded. " At the same time, General Dragomirov considered it necessary to put the fight against banditry in the foreground, because "it is impossible to talk about any civil law and order until we are able to ensure the most elementary peace and security, personal and property ...".
The atamanism brought with it elements of disorganization and decay; Makhnovshchina, moreover, was the most antagonistic to the idea of the White movement. This point of view subsequently, in the Crimean period, underwent some changes in the eyes of the new command. In June 1920, on the instructions of General Wrangel, an envoy came to Makhno's camp, bringing a letter from the headquarters:
| To the Ataman of the Insurrectionary Troops Makhno. The Russian army goes exclusively against the communists in order to help the people get rid of the commune and the commissars and to secure the state, landlord and other privately owned lands for the working peasantry. The latter is already being implemented. Russian soldiers and officers are fighting for the people and their welfare. Everyone who follows the people must walk hand in hand with us. Therefore, now step up your work to fight the communists, attacking their rear, destroying transport and helping us in every possible way in the final defeat of Trotsky's troops. The main command will help you with weapons, equipment, and specialists as much as possible. Send your confidant to the headquarters with information that you especially need for coordinating military operations. Chief of Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, |
At a meeting of the insurgent command staff on the initiative of Makhno, it was decided: "Whatever delegate was sent from Wrangel and generally from the right, he must be executed, and no answers can be given."
The envoy was immediately publicly executed.
I will give a general assessment of the legacy we received from the Bolsheviks emanating from the Menshevik camp hostile to the White movement: "The volunteer army marched, preceded and supported by peasant unrest. Deep shifts took place in the country ... Broad sections of the population were captured by national reactionary sentiments. In these days of national psychosis, an explosion of uterine hatred of revolution, of wild massacres of communists and "communists" in the streets, those who opposed the Volunteer Army represented a narrow and forcedly silent social environment, lonely lost among the rising waves of hostile moods.
Another phenomenon was discovered. The wing of reactionary sentiments also affected the working masses. How could this have happened? This is a deeply interesting and important political and socio-psychological issue. The answer to it lies in the historical material that characterizes the Soviet phase of 1919. In it are the roots of later sentiments ... On the broken, tousled Ukrainian soil, Bolshevik terrorism in this period grew into an anarchic, antisocial phenomenon. The special conditions of place and time created a kind of hypertrophy of "war communism". The declassed elements received more and more freedom of their formation and domination. Thousands of absurdities and crimes were committed. Blood flowed aimlessly as never before. The position of workers' organizations became more and more constrained. The isolation of power from the proletariat was spurred on by rapid steps. Illusions and moods burned out quickly after the "Petliura spring".
A strong spread of disappointment, discontent and often anger on the basis of these general properties of the policy of the previous period (Soviet) and the food crisis was noticed in the proletariat more and more vividly ... ".
In the Russian "churchyard" the "weeping and sobbing" at the fresh graves, at the hecatombs erected by the bloody work of Latsis, Peters, Kedrov, Sayenko and others, in the accursed memory of the Chechens, "basements", "ravines", "ships of death" Tsaritsyn, Kharkov, Poltava, Kiev ... The methods of torture and extermination of the Russian people were different, but the system of terror remained unchanged, preached openly with triumphant arrogance. In the Caucasus, the Chekists cut people with blunt swords over a grave dug by those sentenced to death; in Tsaritsyn, they strangled in the dark, stinking hold of a barge, where usually up to 800 people lived, slept, ate for several months and then ... defecated ... In Kharkov they specialized in scalping and removing "gloves". Everywhere they were beaten to a pulp, sometimes buried alive. We will never know how many victims the Bolshevik terror took. The insane Bolshevik government did not spare either "scarlet" or "black" blood, the earth was dressed in mourning, and the arrival of the liberating army responded as a joyous message in tortured souls.