Red Movement during the Civil War. "White" and "Red" movement in the Civil War

At the first stage of the Civil War of 1917 - 1922/23, two powerful opposing forces took shape - "red" and "white". The first represented the Bolshevik camp, whose goal was a radical change in the existing system and the construction of a socialist regime, the second - the anti-Bolshevik camp, striving to return the order of the pre-revolutionary period.

The period between the February and October revolutions is the time of the formation and development of the Bolshevik regime, the stage of accumulation of forces. The main tasks of the Bolsheviks before the outbreak of the Civil War were: the formation of a social support, transformations in the country that would allow them to gain a foothold at the top of power in the country, and protect the achievements of the February Revolution.

The methods of the Bolsheviks in strengthening power were effective. First of all, this concerns propaganda among the population - the slogans of the Bolsheviks were relevant and helped to quickly form the social support of the "Reds".

The first armed detachments of the "Reds" began to appear at the preparatory stage - from March to October 1917. The main driving force behind such detachments were workers from industrial regions - this was the main force of the Bolsheviks, which helped them come to power during the October Revolution. At the time of the revolutionary events, the detachment numbered about 200,000 people.

The stage of formation of the power of the Bolsheviks required the protection of what was achieved during the revolution - for this, at the end of December 1917, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission was created, headed by F. Dzerzhinsky. On January 15, 1918, the Cheka adopted a Decree on the creation of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army, and on January 29, the Red Fleet was created.

Analyzing the actions of the Bolsheviks, historians do not come to a consensus about their goals and motivations:

The most common opinion is that the “Reds” initially planned a large-scale Civil War, which would be a logical continuation of the revolution. The fighting, the purpose of which was to promote the ideas of the revolution, would consolidate the power of the Bolsheviks and spread socialism throughout the world. During the war, the Bolsheviks planned to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class. Thus, based on this, the ultimate goal of the "Reds" is a world revolution.

One of the admirers of the second concept is V. Galin. This version is fundamentally different from the first - according to historians, the Bolsheviks had no intention of turning the revolution into a Civil War. The goal of the Bolsheviks was to seize power, which they succeeded in the course of the revolution. But the continuation of hostilities was not included in the plans. The arguments of the fans of this concept: the transformations planned by the "Reds" demanded peace in the country, at the first stage of the struggle, the "Reds" were tolerant of other political forces. A turning point regarding political opponents occurred when in 1918 there was a threat to lose power in the state. By 1918, the "Reds" had a strong, professionally trained enemy - the White Army. Its backbone was the military times of the Russian Empire. By 1918, the fight against this enemy became purposeful, the army of the "Reds" acquired a pronounced structure.

At the first stage of the war, the actions of the Red Army were not successful. Why?

Recruitment to the army was carried out on a voluntary basis, which led to decentralization and disunity. The army was created spontaneously, without a specific structure - this led to a low level of discipline, problems in managing a large number of volunteers. The chaotic army was not characterized by a high level of combat capability. Only since 1918, when the Bolshevik power was under threat, did the "Reds" decide to recruit troops according to the mobilization principle. From June 1918, they began to mobilize the military of the tsarist army.

The second reason is closely related to the first - against the chaotic, non-professional army of the "Reds" were organized, professional military, which at the time of the Civil War, participated in more than one battle. The "Whites" with a high level of patriotism were united not only by professionalism, but also by the idea - the White movement stood for a united and indivisible Russia, for order in the state.

The most characteristic feature of the Red Army is uniformity. First of all, it concerns the class origin. Unlike the "whites", whose army included professional soldiers, workers, and peasants, the "reds" accepted only proletarians and peasants into their ranks. The bourgeoisie was to be destroyed, so an important task was to prevent hostile elements from entering the Red Army.

In parallel with the hostilities, the Bolsheviks were implementing a political and economic program. The Bolsheviks pursued a policy of "red terror" against hostile social classes. In the economic sphere, "war communism" was introduced - a set of measures in the domestic policy of the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.

Biggest victories for the Reds:

• 1918 - 1919 - the establishment of Bolshevik power on the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia.
• The beginning of 1919 - the Red Army goes on the counteroffensive, defeating the "white" army of Krasnov.
• Spring-summer 1919 - Kolchak's troops fell under the blows of the "Reds".
• The beginning of 1920 - the "Reds" ousted the "Whites" from the northern cities of Russia.
• February-March 1920 - the defeat of the rest of the forces of Denikin's Volunteer Army.
• November 1920 - the "Reds" ousted the "Whites" from the Crimea.
• By the end of 1920, the "Reds" were opposed by scattered groups of the White Army. The civil war ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks.

It is very difficult to reconcile the “whites” and “reds” in our history. Every position has its own truth. After all, only 100 years ago they fought for it. The struggle was fierce, brother went to brother, father to son. For some, the heroes of Budennov will be the First Cavalry, for others, the volunteers of Kappel. Only those who, hiding behind their position on the Civil War, are wrong, they are trying to erase a whole piece of Russian history from the past. Whoever draws too far-reaching conclusions about the "anti-people character" of the Bolshevik government, denies the entire Soviet era, all its accomplishments, and in the end slides into outright Russophobia.

***
Civil war in Russia - armed confrontation in 1917-1922. between various political, ethnic, social groups and state formations on the territory of the former Russian Empire, which followed the coming to power of the Bolsheviks as a result of the October Revolution of 1917. The Civil War was the result of a revolutionary crisis that struck Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, which began with the revolution of 1905-1907, aggravated during the World War, economic ruin, and a deep social, national, political and ideological split in Russian society. The apogee of this split was a fierce war on a national scale between the Soviet and anti-Bolshevik armed forces. The civil war ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks.

The main struggle for power during the Civil War was carried out between the armed formations of the Bolsheviks and their supporters (Red Guard and Red Army) on the one hand and the armed formations of the White Movement (White Army) on the other, which was reflected in the stable naming of the main parties to the conflict "Red ' and 'white'.

For the Bolsheviks, who relied primarily on the organized industrial proletariat, the suppression of the resistance of their opponents was the only way to maintain power in a peasant country. For many participants in the White movement - the officers, the Cossacks, the intelligentsia, the landowners, the bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy and the clergy - the armed resistance to the Bolsheviks was aimed at returning the lost power and restoring their socio-economic rights and privileges. All these groups were the pinnacle of the counter-revolution, its organizers and inspirers. Officers and the rural bourgeoisie created the first cadres of white troops.

The decisive factor in the course of the Civil War was the position of the peasantry, which accounted for more than 80% of the population, which ranged from passive waiting to active armed struggle. The fluctuations of the peasantry, reacting in this way to the policy of the Bolshevik government and the dictatorships of the white generals, radically changed the balance of power and, ultimately, predetermined the outcome of the war. First of all, we are certainly talking about the middle peasantry. In some areas (the Volga region, Siberia), these fluctuations raised the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to power, and sometimes contributed to the advancement of the White Guards deep into Soviet territory. However, with the course of the Civil War, the middle peasantry leaned towards Soviet power. The middle peasants saw from experience that the transfer of power to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks inevitably leads to an undisguised general dictatorship, which, in turn, inevitably leads to the return of the landowners and the restoration of pre-revolutionary relations. The strength of the swings of the middle peasants in the direction of Soviet power was especially manifested in the combat readiness of the White and Red armies. White armies were essentially combat-ready only as long as they were more or less homogeneous in terms of class. When, as the front expanded and moved forward, the White Guards resorted to mobilizing the peasantry, they inevitably lost their combat capability and fell apart. And vice versa, the Red Army was constantly strengthened, and the mobilized middle peasant masses of the countryside staunchly defended Soviet power from the counter-revolution.

The basis of the counter-revolution in the countryside was the kulaks, especially after the organization of the Kombeds and the beginning of a decisive struggle for grain. The kulaks were only interested in liquidating large landlord farms as competitors in the exploitation of the poor and middle peasants, whose departure opened wide prospects for the kulaks. The struggle of the kulaks against the proletarian revolution took place both in the form of participation in the White Guard armies, and in the form of organizing their own detachments, and in the form of a broad insurrectionary movement in the rear of the revolution under various national, class, religious, up to anarchist, slogans. A characteristic feature of the Civil War was the willingness of all its participants to widely use violence to achieve their political goals (see "Red Terror" and "White Terror")

An integral part of the Civil War was the armed struggle of the national outskirts of the former Russian Empire for their independence and the insurrectionary movement of the general population against the troops of the main warring parties - the "red" and "white". Attempts to declare independence were rebuffed both by the "whites", who fought for a "united and indivisible Russia", and by the "reds", who saw the growth of nationalism as a threat to the gains of the revolution.

The civil war unfolded under conditions of foreign military intervention and was accompanied by military operations on the territory of the former Russian Empire, both by the troops of the countries of the Quadruple Alliance and the troops of the Entente countries. The motives for the active intervention of the leading Western powers were the realization of their own economic and political interests in Russia and assistance to the whites in order to eliminate the Bolshevik power. Although the possibilities of the interventionists were limited by the socio-economic crisis and political struggle in the Western countries themselves, the intervention and material assistance to the white armies significantly influenced the course of the war.

The civil war was fought not only on the territory of the former Russian Empire, but also on the territory of neighboring states - Iran (Anzelian operation), Mongolia and China.

Arrest of the emperor and his family. Nicholas II with his wife in Alexander Park. Tsarskoye Selo. May 1917

Arrest of the emperor and his family. Daughters of Nicholas II and his son Alexei. May 1917

Dinner of the Red Army at the fire. 1919

Armored train of the Red Army. 1918

Bulla Viktor Karlovich

Civil War refugees
1919

Distribution of bread for 38 wounded Red Army soldiers. 1918

Red squad. 1919

Ukrainian front.

Exhibition of trophies of the Civil War near the Kremlin, dedicated to the II Congress of the Communist International

Civil War. Eastern front. Armored train of the 6th regiment of the Czechoslovak Corps. Attack on Maryanovka. June 1918

Steinberg Yakov Vladimirovich

Red commanders of the regiment of the rural poor. 1918

Soldiers of the First Cavalry Army of Budyonny at a rally
January 1920

Otsup Petr Adolfovich

Funeral of victims of the February Revolution
March 1917

July events in Petrograd. Soldiers of the Scooter Regiment, who arrived from the front to suppress the rebellion. July 1917

Work on the site of a train wreck after an anarchist attack. January 1920

Red commander in the new office. January 1920

Commander-in-Chief Lavr Kornilov. 1917

Chairman of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky. 1917

Commander of the 25th Rifle Division of the Red Army Vasily Chapaev (right) and commander Sergei Zakharov. 1918

Sound recording of Vladimir Lenin's speech in the Kremlin. 1919

Vladimir Lenin in Smolny at a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars. January 1918

February Revolution. Checking documents on Nevsky Prospekt
February 1917

Fraternization of the soldiers of General Lavr Kornilov with the troops of the Provisional Government. 1 - 30 August 1917

Steinberg Yakov Vladimirovich

Military intervention in Soviet Russia. The command structure of the White Army units with representatives of foreign troops

Station in Yekaterinburg after the capture of the city by parts of the Siberian army and the Czechoslovak corps. 1918

Demolition of the monument to Alexander III near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior

Political workers at the staff car. Western front. Voronezh direction

Military portrait

Date of shooting: 1917 - 1919

In the hospital laundry. 1919

Ukrainian front.

Sisters of mercy of the Kashirin partisan detachment. Evdokia Aleksandrovna Davydova and Taisiya Petrovna Kuznetsova. 1919

Detachments of the Red Cossacks Nikolai and Ivan Kashirin in the summer of 1918 became part of the consolidated South Ural partisan detachment of Vasily Blucher, who raided the mountains of the Southern Urals. Having united near Kungur in September 1918 with units of the Red Army, the partisans fought as part of the troops of the 3rd Army of the Eastern Front. After the reorganization in January 1920, these troops became known as the Army of Labor, the purpose of which was to restore the national economy of the Chelyabinsk province.

Red commander Anton Boliznyuk, wounded thirteen times

Mikhail Tukhachevsky

Grigory Kotovsky
1919

At the entrance to the building of the Smolny Institute - the headquarters of the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution. 1917

Medical examination of workers mobilized into the Red Army. 1918

On the boat "Voronezh"

Red Army soldiers in the city liberated from the whites. 1919

Overcoats of the 1918 model, which came into use during the civil war, originally in the army of Budyonny, were preserved with minor changes until the military reform of 1939. The machine gun "Maxim" is mounted on the cart.

July events in Petrograd. The funeral of the Cossacks who died during the suppression of the rebellion. 1917

Pavel Dybenko and Nestor Makhno. November - December 1918

Employees of the supply department of the Red Army

Koba / Joseph Stalin. 1918

On May 29, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR appointed Joseph Stalin in charge in the south of Russia and sent him as an extraordinary representative of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee for the procurement of grain from the North Caucasus to industrial centers.

The defense of Tsaritsyn is a military campaign of the "red" troops against the "white" troops for control of the city of Tsaritsyn during the Russian Civil War.

People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs of the RSFSR Lev Trotsky greets soldiers near Petrograd
1919

Commander of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia, General Anton Denikin and Ataman of the Great Don Army Afrikan Bogaevsky at a solemn prayer service on the occasion of the liberation of the Don from the troops of the Red Army
June - August 1919

General Radola Gaida and Admiral Alexander Kolchak (left to right) with officers of the White Army
1919

Alexander Ilyich Dutov - ataman of the Orenburg Cossack army

In 1918, Alexander Dutov (1864-1921) declared the new government criminal and illegal, organized armed Cossack squads, which became the base of the Orenburg (southwestern) army. Most of the White Cossacks were in this army. For the first time the name of Dutov became known in August 1917, when he was an active participant in the Kornilov rebellion. After that, Dutov was sent by the Provisional Government to the Orenburg province, where in the fall he fortified himself in Troitsk and Verkhneuralsk. His power lasted until April 1918.

homeless children
1920s

Soshalsky Georgy Nikolaevich

Homeless children transport the city archive. 1920s

In Russia, everyone knows about the “reds” and “whites”. From school, and even preschool years. "Reds" and "Whites" - this is the history of the civil war, these are the events of 1917-1920.

Who was then good, who is bad - in this case it does not matter. Ratings are changing. But the terms remained: “white” versus “red”. On the one hand - the armed forces of the Soviet state, on the other - the opponents of the Soviet state. Soviet - "red". Opponents, respectively, are “white”.

According to official historiography, there were many opponents. But the main ones are those who have shoulder straps on their uniforms, and cockades of the Russian army on their caps. Recognizable opponents, not to be confused with anyone. Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, etc. They are white". First of all, they should be overcome by the “reds”. They are also recognizable: they have no shoulder straps, and red stars on their caps. Such is the pictorial series of the civil war.

This is a tradition. It was approved by Soviet propaganda for more than seventy years. Propaganda was very effective, the graphic series became familiar, thanks to which the very symbolism of the civil war remained beyond comprehension. In particular, the questions about the reasons that led to the choice of red and white colors to designate the opposing forces remained beyond comprehension.

As for the “reds”, the reason was, it seems, obvious. The Reds called themselves that.

Soviet troops were originally called the Red Guard. Then - the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army. The Red Army soldiers swore allegiance to the red banner. State flag. Why the flag was chosen red - explanations were given different. For example: it is a symbol of the “blood of freedom fighters”. But in any case, the name “red” corresponded to the color of the banner.

You can't say anything about the so-called "whites". Opponents of the "Reds" did not swear allegiance to the white banner. During the Civil War, there was no such banner at all. Nobody.

Nevertheless, the name “White” was established behind the opponents of the “Reds”.

At least one reason is also obvious here: the leaders of the Soviet state called their opponents "white". First of all - V. Lenin.

To use his terminology, the "Reds" defended "the power of the workers and peasants", the power of the "workers' and peasants' government", and the "Whites" defended "the power of the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists". Such a scheme was approved by all the might of Soviet propaganda. On posters, in newspapers, and finally in songs:

White army black baron

Again they prepare the royal throne for us,

But from the taiga to the British seas

The Red Army is the strongest of all!

It was written in 1920. Lyrics by P. Grigoriev, music by S. Pokrass. One of the most popular army marches of the time. Here everything is clearly defined, here it is clear why the “Reds” are against the “Whites”, commanded by the “Black Baron”.

But so - in the Soviet song. In life, as usual, otherwise.

The notorious "black baron" - P. Wrangel. "Black" he was called by the Soviet poet. It must be assumed that it was clear: this Wrangel is very bad. The characterization here is emotional, not political. But from the point of view of propaganda, it is successful: the “White Army” is commanded by a bad person. "Black".

In this case, it doesn't matter if it's bad or good. It is important that Wrangel was Baron, but he never commanded the White Army. Because there wasn't one. There was the Volunteer Army, the Armed Forces of the South of Russia, the Russian Army, etc. But there was no “White Army” during the years of the civil war.

From April 1920, Wrangel took the post of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia, then - commander-in-chief of the Russian army. These are the official titles of his positions. At the same time, Wrangel did not call himself “white”. And he did not call his troops the “White Army”.

By the way, A. Denikin, whom Wrangel replaced as commander, also did not use the term “White Army”. And L. Kornilov, who created and led the Volunteer Army in 1918, did not call his associates “whites”.

They were called that in the Soviet press. "White Army", "White" or "White Guards". However, the reasons for the choice of terms were not explained.

The question of the reasons was also avoided by Soviet historians. Delicately bypassed. Not that they were completely silent, no. They reported something, but at the same time they literally evaded a direct answer. Always dodged.

A classic example is the reference book “Civil War and Military Intervention in the USSR”, published in 1983 by the Moscow publishing house “Soviet Encyclopedia”. The concept of "White Army" is not described there at all. But there is an article about the "White Guard". By opening the corresponding page, the reader could find out that the "White Guard" -

the unofficial name of the military formations (White Guards) who fought for the restoration of the bourgeois-landlord system in Russia. The origin of the term “White Guard” is associated with the traditional symbolism of white as the color of supporters of the “legal” law and order, as opposed to red - the color of the insurgent people, the color of revolution.

That's all.

There seems to be an explanation, but nothing has become clearer.

It is not clear, firstly, how to understand the turnover “informal name”. Who is it “unofficial” for? In the Soviet state, it was official. What can be seen, in particular, in other articles of the same directory. Where official documents and materials of Soviet periodicals are quoted. It can, of course, be understood that one of the military leaders of that time unofficially called his troops “white”. Here the author of the article would clarify who it was. However, there are no details. Understand as you wish.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand from the article where and when that same “traditional symbolism of white color” first appeared, what kind of legal order the author of the article calls “legal”, why the word “legal” is enclosed in quotes by the author of the article, finally, why “red color - the color of the rebellious people. Again, as you wish, so understand.

Approximately in the same vein, the information in other Soviet reference publications, from the first to the last, is sustained. This is not to say that the necessary materials cannot be found there at all. It is possible if they have already been obtained from other sources, and therefore the seeker knows which articles should contain at least bits of information that must be collected and put together in order to then get a kind of mosaic.

The evasions of Soviet historians look rather strange. There would seem to be no reason to avoid the question of the history of terms.

In fact, there was never any mystery here. But there was a propaganda scheme, which Soviet ideologists considered inappropriate to explain in reference publications.

It was in the Soviet era that the terms “red” and “white” were predictably associated with the civil war in Russia. And before 1917, the terms "white" and "red" were correlated with another tradition. Another civil war.

Beginning - the Great French Revolution. Confrontation between monarchists and republicans. Then, indeed, the essence of the confrontation was expressed at the level of the colors of the banners.

The white banner was originally. This is the royal banner. Well, the red banner, the banner of the Republicans, did not appear immediately.

As you know, in July 1789, the French king ceded power to a new government that called itself revolutionary. The king after that was not declared an enemy of the revolution. On the contrary, he was proclaimed the guarantor of her conquests. It was also possible to preserve the monarchy, albeit limited, constitutional. The king then still had enough supporters in Paris. But, on the other hand, there were even more radicals who demanded further transformations.

That is why on October 21, 1789, the "Law of Martial Law" was passed. The new law described the actions of the Parisian municipality. Actions required in emergency situations fraught with uprisings. Or street riots that threaten the revolutionary government.

Article 1 of the new law read:

In the event of a threat to public peace, the members of the municipality, by virtue of the duties entrusted to them by the commune, must declare that military force is immediately necessary to restore peace.

The desired signal was described in article 2. It read:

This announcement is made in such a way that a red banner is hung out of the main window of the town hall and in the streets.

What followed was determined by Article 3:

When the red banner is hoisted, all gatherings of the people, armed or unarmed, are recognized as criminal and dispersed by military force.

It can be noted that in this case the “red banner” is, in fact, not yet a banner. So far, just a sign. Danger signal given by a red flag. A sign of a threat to the new order. To what was called revolutionary. A signal calling for the protection of order on the streets.

But the red flag did not remain a signal for long, calling for the protection of at least some order. Soon desperate radicals began to dominate the city government of Paris. Principled and consistent opponents of the monarchy. Even a constitutional monarchy. Thanks to their efforts, the red flag has acquired a new meaning.

Hanging out red flags, the city government gathered its supporters to carry out violent actions. Actions that were supposed to intimidate the supporters of the king and everyone who was against radical changes.

Armed sans-culottes gathered under red flags. It was under the red flag in August 1792 that the sans-culottes, organized by the then city government, marched to storm the Tuileries. That's when the red flag really became a banner. The banner of uncompromising Republicans. Radicals. The red banner and the white banner became symbols of the opposing sides. Republicans and monarchists.

Later, as you know, the red banner was no longer so popular. The French tricolor became the national flag of the Republic. In the Napoleonic era, the red banner was almost forgotten. And after the restoration of the monarchy, it - as a symbol - completely lost its relevance.

This symbol was updated in the 1840s. Updated for those who declared themselves the heirs of the Jacobins. Then the opposition of “reds” and “whites” became a common place in journalism.

But the French Revolution of 1848 ended with yet another restoration of the monarchy. Therefore, the opposition of “reds” and “whites” has again lost its relevance.

Once again, the "Red"/"White" opposition arose at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Finally, it was established from March to May 1871, during the existence of the Paris Commune.

City-Republic The Paris Commune was perceived as the realization of the most radical ideas. The Paris Commune declared itself the heir to the Jacobin traditions, the heir to the traditions of those sans-culottes who came out under the red banner to defend the “gains of the revolution”.

The state flag was also a symbol of continuity. Red. Accordingly, the “reds” are the Communards. Defenders of the City-Republic.

As you know, at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, many socialists declared themselves the heirs of the Communards. And at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bolsheviks first of all called themselves such. Communists. They considered the red flag as their own.

As for the confrontation with the “whites”, there seemed to be no contradictions here. By definition, socialists are opponents of the autocracy, therefore, nothing has changed.

The "Reds" were still opposed to the "Whites". Republicans - monarchists.

After the abdication of Nicholas II, the situation changed.

The tsar abdicated in favor of his brother, but his brother did not accept the crown, a Provisional Government was formed, so that the monarchy no longer existed, and the opposition of “reds” to “whites” seemed to have lost its relevance. The new Russian government, as you know, was called “provisional” for this reason, because it was supposed to prepare the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. And the Constituent Assembly, popularly elected, was to determine the further forms of Russian statehood. Determine democratically. The question of the abolition of the monarchy was considered already resolved.

But the Provisional Government lost power without having time to convene the Constituent Assembly, which was convened by the Council of People's Commissars. It is hardly worth discussing why the Council of People's Commissars considered it necessary to dissolve the Constituent Assembly now. In this case, something else is more important: most of the opponents of Soviet power set the task of convening the Constituent Assembly again. This was their slogan.

In particular, it was the slogan of the so-called Volunteer Army formed on the Don, which was eventually led by Kornilov. Other military leaders also fought for the Constituent Assembly, referred to in Soviet periodicals as “whites”. They fought against Soviet state, not per monarchy.

And here we should pay tribute to the talents of Soviet ideologists. We should pay tribute to the skill of Soviet propagandists. By declaring themselves "Red", the Bolsheviks were able to attach the label of "White" to their opponents. Managed to impose this label - contrary to the facts.

Soviet ideologists declared all their opponents to be supporters of the destroyed regime - autocracy. They were declared "white". This label was itself a political argument. Every monarchist is “white” by definition. Accordingly, if “white”, then a monarchist. For any more or less educated person.

The label was used even when it seemed ridiculous to use it. For example, “White Czechs”, “White Finns”, then “White Poles” arose, although the Czechs, Finns and Poles who fought with the “Reds” were not going to recreate the monarchy. Neither in Russia nor abroad. However, the label “white” was familiar to most of the “reds”, which is why the term itself seemed understandable. If “white”, then always “for the king”.

Opponents of the Soviet government could prove that they - for the most part - are not monarchists at all. But there was no way to prove it.

Soviet ideologists had a major advantage in the information war: in the territory controlled by the Soviet government, political events were discussed only in the Soviet press. There was almost no other. All opposition publications were closed. Yes, and Soviet publications were tightly controlled by censorship. The population practically had no other sources of information.

That is why many Russian intellectuals really considered the opponents of Soviet power to be monarchists. The term “whites” emphasized this once again. If they are “white”, then they are monarchists.

It is worth emphasizing that the propaganda scheme imposed by Soviet ideologists was very effective. M. Tsvetaeva, for example, was convinced by Soviet propagandists.

As you know, her husband - S. Efron - fought in the Kornilov Volunteer Army. Tsvetaeva lived in Moscow and in 1918 wrote a poetic cycle dedicated to the Kornilovites - “The Swan Camp”.

She then despised and hated the Soviet regime, the heroes for her were those who fought with the “reds”. Tsvetaeva was convinced by Soviet propaganda only that the Kornilovites were “white”. According to Soviet propaganda, the “whites” set mercantile goals. With Tsvetaeva, everything is fundamentally different. The "whites" sacrificed themselves disinterestedly, without demanding anything in return.

White Guard, your path is high:

Black barrel - chest and temple ...

For Soviet propagandists, "whites" are, of course, enemies, executioners. And for Tsvetaeva, the enemies of the “Reds” are martyr warriors who selflessly oppose the forces of evil. What she formulated with the utmost clarity -

holy White Guard army...

What is common in Soviet propaganda texts and Tsvetaeva's poems is that the enemies of the "Reds" are certainly "Whites".

Tsvetaeva interpreted the Russian civil war in terms of the French Revolution. In terms of the French Civil War. Kornilov formed the Volunteer Army on the Don. Because Don for Tsvetaeva - the legendary Vendée, where the French peasants remained faithful to traditions, loyalty to the king, did not recognize the revolutionary government, fought with the republican troops. Kornilovites - Vendeans. What is directly stated in the same poem:

The old world's last dream:

Youth, valor, Vendée, Don...

The label imposed by Bolshevik propaganda became a real banner for Tsvetaeva. The logic of tradition.

The Kornilovites are at war with the "Reds", with the troops of the Soviet Republic. In the newspapers, the Kornilovites, and then the Denikinists, are called “whites”. They are called monarchists. For Tsvetaeva, there is no contradiction here. “Whites” are monarchists by definition. Tsvetaeva hates the “Reds”, her husband is with the “Whites”, which means she is a monarchist.

For a monarchist, the king is God's anointed. He is the only legitimate ruler. Legitimate precisely because of its divine destiny. What Tsvetaeva wrote about:

The king from heaven to the throne is raised:

It is pure as snow and sleep.

The king will ascend the throne again.

It's holy as blood and sweat...

In the logical scheme adopted by Tsvetaeva, there is only one defect, but it is significant. The volunteer army has never been "white". It is in the traditional interpretation of the term. In particular, on the Don, where Soviet newspapers were not yet read, Kornilovites, and then Denikinites, were called not “whites”, but “volunteers” or “cadets”.

For the local population, the defining feature was either the official name of the army, or the name of the party that sought to convene the Constituent Assembly. The Constitutional-Democratic Party, which everyone called - according to the officially adopted abbreviation “k.-d.” - cadet. Neither Kornilov, nor Denikin, nor Wrangel "tsar's throne", contrary to the assertion of the Soviet poet, "prepared".

Tsvetaeva did not know about this at the time. After a few years, she, according to her, became disillusioned with those whom she considered “white”. But the poems - evidence of the effectiveness of the Soviet propaganda scheme - remained.

Not all Russian intellectuals, despising the Soviet regime, were in a hurry to join forces with its opponents. With those who were called “whites” in the Soviet press. They were indeed perceived as monarchists, and intellectuals saw the monarchists as a danger to democracy. Moreover, the danger is no less than the communists. Still, the “Reds” were perceived as Republicans. Well, the victory of the “whites” meant the restoration of the monarchy. Which was unacceptable for intellectuals. And not only for intellectuals - for the majority of the population of the former Russian Empire. Why did Soviet ideologists affirm the labels “red” and “white” in the public mind.

Thanks to these labels, not only Russians, but also many Western public figures comprehended the struggle between supporters and opponents of Soviet power as a struggle between republicans and monarchists. Supporters of the republic and supporters of the restoration of autocracy. And the Russian autocracy was considered in Europe as savagery, a relic of barbarism.

Therefore, the support of supporters of autocracy among Western intellectuals caused a predictable protest. Western intellectuals have discredited the actions of their governments. They set public opinion against them, which governments could not ignore. With all the ensuing grave consequences - for the Russian opponents of Soviet power. Why did the so-called “whites” lose the propaganda war. Not only in Russia, but also abroad.

Yes, the so-called “whites” were essentially “reds”. Only it didn't change anything. The propagandists who sought to help Kornilov, Denikin, Wrangel and other opponents of the Soviet regime were not as energetic, talented, and efficient as the Soviet propagandists.

Moreover, the tasks solved by Soviet propagandists were much simpler.

Soviet propagandists could clearly and concisely explain for what and with whom the Reds are fighting. True, no, it doesn't matter. The main thing is to be brief and clear. The positive part of the program was obvious. Ahead is the kingdom of equality, justice, where there are no poor and humiliated, where there will always be plenty of everything. Opponents, respectively, the rich, fighting for their privileges. "Whites" and allies of "whites". Because of them, all the troubles and hardships. There will be no “whites”, there will be no troubles, no hardships.

Opponents of the Soviet regime could not clearly and briefly explain for what they are fighting. Such slogans as the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the preservation of "one and indivisible Russia" were not and could not be popular. Of course, opponents of the Soviet regime could more or less convincingly explain with whom and why they are fighting. However, the positive part of the program remained unclear. And there was no common program.

In addition, in the territories not controlled by the Soviet government, opponents of the regime failed to achieve an information monopoly. This is partly why the results of the propaganda were incommensurable with the results of the Bolshevik propagandists.

It is difficult to determine whether the Soviet ideologists consciously immediately imposed the label of “whites” on their opponents, whether they intuitively chose such a move. In any case, they made a good choice, and most importantly, they acted consistently and efficiently. Convincing the population that the opponents of the Soviet regime are fighting for the restoration of autocracy. Because they are "white".

Of course, there were monarchists among the so-called “whites”. The real whites. Defended the principles of autocratic monarchy long before its fall.

For example, V. Shulgin and V. Purishkevich called themselves monarchists. They really talked about the “holy white cause”, tried to organize propaganda for the restoration of the autocracy. Denikin later wrote about them:

For Shulgin and his associates, monarchism was not a form of government, but a religion. In a fit of enthusiasm for the idea, they took their faith for knowledge, their desires for real facts, their moods for the people ...

Here Denikin is quite accurate. A republican can be an atheist, but there is no real monarchism outside of religion.

The monarchist serves the monarch not because he considers the monarchy the best “state system”, here political considerations are secondary, if at all relevant. For a true monarchist, service to a monarch is a religious duty. As Tsvetaeva claimed.

But in the Volunteer Army, as in other armies that fought the "Reds", there were negligibly few monarchists. Why didn't they play any important role.

For the most part, ideological monarchists generally avoided participation in the civil war. This was not their war. Them for no one was to fight.

Nicholas II was not forcibly deprived of the throne. The Russian emperor abdicated voluntarily. And released from the oath all those who swore to him. His brother did not accept the crown, so the monarchists did not swear allegiance to the new king. Because there was no new king. There was no one to serve, no one to protect. The monarchy no longer existed.

Undoubtedly, it was not fitting for a monarchist to fight for the Council of People's Commissars. However, it did not follow from anywhere that a monarchist should - in the absence of a monarch - fight for the Constituent Assembly. Both the Council of People's Commissars and the Constituent Assembly were not legitimate authorities for the monarchist.

For a monarchist, legitimate power is only the power of the God-given monarch to whom the monarchist swore allegiance. Therefore, the war with the "Reds" - for the monarchists - became a matter of personal choice, and not of religious duty. For a “white”, if he is really “white”, those fighting for the Constituent Assembly are “reds”. Most monarchists did not want to understand the shades of "red". It did not see the point in fighting against other “Reds” together with some “Reds”.

As you know, N. Gumilyov declared himself a monarchist, having returned to Petrograd from abroad at the end of April 1918.

The civil war has already become commonplace. The volunteer army fought its way to the Kuban. In September, the Soviet government officially declared the “Red Terror”. Mass arrests and executions of hostages have become commonplace. The "Reds" suffered defeats, won victories, and Gumilyov worked in Soviet publishing houses, lectured in literary studios, led the "Workshop of Poets", etc. But he defiantly “was baptized in the church” and never renounced what was said about his monarchical convictions.

A nobleman, a former officer who called himself a monarchist in the Bolshevik Petrograd - it looked too shocking. A few years later, this was interpreted as an absurd bravado, a senseless game with death. A manifestation of the strangeness inherent in poetic natures in general and Gumilyov in particular. A demonstrative disregard for danger, a propensity for risk were, in the opinion of many of Gumilyov's acquaintances, always characteristic of him.

However, the strangeness of the poetic nature, the propensity for risk, almost pathological, can explain anything. In fact, such an explanation is hardly acceptable. Yes, Gumilyov took risks, desperately took risks, and yet there was logic in his behavior. What he himself had to say.

For example, he argued, somewhat ironically, that the Bolsheviks strive for certainty, but everything is clear with him. In terms of the Soviet propaganda context, there is no clarity here. Given the context then implied, everything is indeed clear. If a monarchist, it means that he did not want to be among the "Cadets", supporters of the Constituent Assembly. A monarchist - in the absence of a monarch - is neither a supporter nor an opponent of the Soviet government. He does not fight for the “Reds”, he does not fight against the “Reds” either. He has no one to fight for.

Such a position of an intellectual, a writer, although not approved by the Soviet government, was not considered dangerous then. For the time being, there was enough willingness to cooperate.

Gumilyov did not need to explain to the Chekists why he did not get into the Volunteer Army or other formations that fought with the “Reds”. Other manifestations of loyalty were also enough: work in Soviet publishing houses, Proletkult, etc. Explanations awaited acquaintances, friends, admirers.

Of course, Gumilyov is not the only writer who became an officer and refused to participate in the civil war on anyone's side. But in this case, the most important role was played by literary reputation.

It was necessary to survive in hungry Petrograd, and in order to survive, compromises had to be made. Work for those who served the government that declared the “Red Terror”. Many acquaintances of Gumilev habitually identified Gumilev's lyrical hero with the author. Compromises were easily forgiven to anyone, but not to a poet who praised desperate courage and contempt for death. For Gumilyov, no matter how ironically he treated public opinion, it was in this case that the task of correlating everyday life and literary reputation was relevant.

He has dealt with similar issues before. He wrote about travelers and warriors, dreamed of becoming a traveler, a warrior, a famous poet. And he became a traveler, moreover, not just an amateur, but an ethnographer working for the Academy of Sciences. He went to war as a volunteer, was twice awarded for bravery, promoted to officer, and gained fame as a military journalist. He also became a famous poet. By 1918, as they say, he proved everything to everyone. And he was going to return to what he considered the main thing. Literature was the main thing. What did he do in Petrograd.

But when there is a war, a warrior is supposed to fight. The former reputation contradicted everyday life, and the reference to monarchical convictions partly removed the contradiction. A monarchist - in the absence of a monarch - has the right to take any power for granted, agreeing with the choice of the majority.

Whether he was a monarchist or not, one can argue. Before the outbreak of the World War and during the years of the World War, Gumilev's monarchism, as they say, was not evident. And Gumilev's religiosity too. But in Soviet Petrograd, Gumilyov spoke about monarchism, and even defiantly “baptized himself on the church.” It is understandable: if a monarchist, then religious.

It seems that Gumilyov consciously chose a kind of game of monarchism. A game that made it possible to explain why the nobleman and officer, not being a supporter of the Soviet government, evaded participation in the civil war. Yes, the choice was risky, but - for the time being - not suicidal.

About his real choice, not about the game, he said quite clearly:

You know that I'm not red

But not white - I'm a poet!

Gumilyov did not declare allegiance to the Soviet regime. He ignored the regime, was fundamentally apolitical. Accordingly, he formulated his tasks:

In our difficult and terrible time, the salvation of the spiritual culture of the country is possible only through the work of each in the area that he chose before.

He did exactly what he promised. Perhaps he sympathized with those who fought with the “reds”. Among the opponents of the "Reds" were Gumilyov fellow soldiers. However, there is no reliable information about Gumilev's desire to participate in the civil war. Together with some compatriots, Gumilev did not begin to fight against other compatriots.

It seems that Gumilev considered the Soviet regime a reality that could not be changed in the foreseeable future. What he said in a comic impromptu addressed to the wife of A. Remizov:

At the gates of Jerusalem

An angel is waiting for my soul

I'm here and, Seraphim

Pavlovna, I sing you.

I'm not ashamed before an angel

How long do we have to endure

Kiss us for a long time, apparently

We are a scourging whip.

But you, almighty angel,

I am guilty because

That the broken Wrangel fled

And the Bolsheviks in the Crimea.

It is clear that the irony was bitter. It is also clear that Gumilyov again tried to explain why he was not “Red”, although he was not and never intended to be with those who defended Crimea from the “Reds” in 1920.

Gumilyov was officially recognized as "white" after his death.

He was arrested on August 3, 1921. The troubles of acquaintances and colleagues turned out to be useless, and no one really knew why he was arrested. The security officers, as was customary initially, did not give explanations during the investigation. It was, as usual, short-lived.

On September 1, 1921, Petrogradskaya Pravda published a lengthy report by the Petrograd Provincial Extraordinary Commission -

About the disclosure in Petrograd of a conspiracy against the Soviet power.

Judging by the newspaper, the conspirators united in the so-called Petrograd Combat Organization, or, for short, PBO. And cooked

restoration of bourgeois-landlord power with a dictator-general at the head.

According to the Chekists, the generals of the Russian army, as well as foreign intelligence services, led the PBO from abroad -

Finnish General Staff, American, English.

The scale of the conspiracy was constantly emphasized. The Chekists claimed that the PBO not only prepared terrorist acts, but also planned to capture five settlements at once:

Simultaneously with the active action in Petrograd, uprisings were to take place in Rybinsk, Bologoye, St. Rousse and at st. Bottom with the aim of cutting off Petrograd from Moscow.

The newspaper also cited a list of "active participants" who were shot in accordance with the decision of the Presidium of the Petrograd Provincial Cheka of August 24, 1921. Gumilyov is thirtieth on the list. Among former officers, well-known scientists, teachers, sisters of mercy, etc.

It is said about him:

Member of the Petrograd Combat Organization, actively contributed to the drafting of proclamations of counter-revolutionary content, promised to associate with the organization a group of intellectuals who would actively take part in the uprising, received money from the organization for technical needs.

Few of Gumilev's acquaintances believed in the conspiracy. With a minimally critical attitude towards the Soviet press and the presence of at least superficial military knowledge, it was impossible not to notice that the tasks of the PBO described by the Chekists were unsolvable. This is first. Secondly, what was said about Gumilyov looked absurd. It was known that he did not participate in the civil war, on the contrary, for three years he declared apathy. And suddenly - not a fight, an open fight, not even emigration, but a conspiracy, an underground. Not only the risk that, under other circumstances, Gumilev's reputation would not contradict, but also deceit, treachery. Somehow it didn’t look like Gumilev.

However, Soviet citizens in 1921 did not have the opportunity to refute information about the conspiracy in the Soviet press. The emigrants argued, sometimes frankly mocking the KGB version.

It is possible that the “PBO case” would not have received such publicity abroad if the all-Russian famous poet, whose fame was growing rapidly, had not been on the list of the executed, or if everything had happened a year earlier. And in September 1921 it was a scandal at the international level.

The Soviet government has already announced the transition to the so-called "new economic policy". In Soviet periodicals, it was emphasized that the “Red Terror” was no longer needed, KGB executions were also recognized as an excessive measure. A new task was officially promoted - to end the isolation of the Soviet state. The execution of Petrograd scientists and writers, a typical KGB execution, as was the case in the era of the "Red Terror", discredited the government.

The reasons that led to the action of the Petrograd province
Extraordinary Commission, have not been explained so far. Their analysis is beyond the scope of this work. It is only obvious that the Chekists soon tried to somehow change the scandalous situation.

Information about the deal, the official agreement allegedly signed by the leader of the PBO and the Chekist investigator, was intensively disseminated among the emigrants: the arrested leader of the conspirators, the famous Petrograd scientist V. Tagantsev, reveals the plans of the PBO, names the accomplices, and the Chekist leadership guarantees that everyone will be saved life. And it turned out that the conspiracy existed, but the leader of the conspirators showed cowardice, and the Chekists broke their promise.

It was, of course, an "export" option, designed for foreigners or emigrants who did not know or had time to forget the Soviet legal specifics. Yes, the very idea of ​​a deal was not new at that time in European and not only European countries, yes, deals of this kind were not always fully observed, which was also not news. However, the agreement signed by the investigator and the accused in Soviet Russia is absurd. Here, unlike in a number of other countries, there was no legal mechanism that would allow such transactions to be officially concluded. It was not in 1921, it was not before, it was not later.

Note that the security officers have solved their problem, at least in part. Abroad, though not all, but some admitted that if there was a traitor, then there was a conspiracy. And the faster the details of newspaper reports were forgotten, the faster the specifics, the plans of the conspirators described by the Chekists, were forgotten, the easier it was to believe that there were some plans and Gumilyov intended to help implement them. Which is why he died. Over the years, the number of believers has increased.

Gumilyov's literary reputation again played the most important role here. According to most of his admirers, the poet-warrior was not destined to die naturally - from old age, illness, etc. He himself wrote:

And I will not die in bed

With a notary and a doctor ...

It was taken as a prophecy. G. Ivanov, summing up, argued:

In essence, for a biography of Gumilyov, such a biography as he wanted for himself, it is difficult to imagine a more brilliant end.

Ivanov was not interested in political specifics in this case. Predestination is important, the ideal completeness of a poetic biography, it is important that the poet and the lyrical hero have the same fate.

Many others wrote about Gumilyov in a similar way. Therefore, the memoirs of writers, directly or indirectly confirming that Gumilyov was a conspirator, are hardly appropriate to accept as evidence. Firstly, they appeared quite late, and secondly, with rare exceptions, the stories of writers about themselves and other writers are also literature. Artistic.

The execution became the main argument in creating the political characterization of the poet. In the 1920s - through the efforts of Soviet propagandists - the civil war was universally understood as a war of "reds" and "whites". After the end of the war with the label "whites" one way or another agreed with those who, fighting with the "reds", remained opponents of the restoration of the monarchy. The term has lost its former meaning, another tradition of word usage has appeared. And Gumilyov called himself a monarchist, he was recognized as a conspirator who intended to participate in an uprising against the “Reds”. Accordingly, he should have been recognized as "white". In a new sense of the term.

In Gumilyov's homeland, attempts to prove that he was not a conspirator were made back in the second half of the 1950s - after the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

There was no search for truth here. The goal was to remove the censorship ban. As you know, the “White Guards”, especially those convicted and executed, were not supposed to have mass circulations. First rehabilitation, then circulation.

However, in this case, the 20th Congress of the CPSU did not change anything. Because Gumilyov was shot when Stalin had not yet come to power. The “PBO case” could not be attributed to the notorious “cult of personality”. The era was undeniably Leninist, for the Soviet press the official communication was prepared by subordinates of F. Dzerzhinsky. And the discrediting of this “knight of the revolution” was not part of the plans of Soviet ideologists. The “PBO case” still remained beyond critical reflection.

Attempts to lift the censorship ban intensified almost thirty years later: in the second half of the 1980s, the collapse of the Soviet ideological system became apparent. Censorship pressure was rapidly weakening, as was the state power. Gumilyov's popularity, despite all the censorship restrictions, was constantly growing, which Soviet ideologists had to reckon with. In this situation, it would be expedient to remove the restrictions, but to remove them, so to speak, without losing face. Not just to allow mass circulation of the books of the “White Guard”, although such a solution would be the simplest, and not to rehabilitate the poet, officially confirming that the PBO was invented by the Chekists, but to find a kind of compromise: without calling into question “the disclosure in Petrograd of a conspiracy against Soviet power ”, to admit that Gumilyov was not a conspirator.

To solve such a difficult task, various versions were created - not without the participation of "competent authorities". Created and very actively discussed in periodicals.

The first is the version of “involvement, but not complicity”: Gumilyov, according to secret archival materials, was not a conspirator, he only knew about the conspiracy, did not want to inform on the conspirators, the punishment was excessively severe, and allegedly for this reason the issue of rehabilitation was practically resolved.

In the legal aspect, the version is, of course, absurd, but it also had a much more serious drawback. It contradicted the official publications of 1921. Gumilyov was convicted and shot among the "active participants", he was charged with specific actions, specific plans. There were no reports of "misreporting" in the newspapers.

Finally, emboldened historians and philologists demanded that they, too, be allowed access to archival materials, and this could already end in the exposure of “Dzerzhinsky’s associates.” So no compromise was reached. The version of “involvement, but not complicity” had to be forgotten.

The second compromise version was put forward already at the end of the 1980s: there was a conspiracy, but the materials of the investigation do not contain sufficient evidence of the crimes that Gumilyov was accused of, which means that only the Chekist investigator is guilty of the death of the poet, only one investigator, due to negligence or personal hostility literally brought Gumilyov under execution.

From a legal point of view, the second compromise version is also absurd, which was easily seen by comparing the materials of the “Gumilyov case” published at the end of the 1980s with the publications of 1921. The authors of the new version unwittingly contradicted themselves.

However, the disputes dragged on, which did not contribute to the growth of the authority of the “competent authorities”. Some decision had to be made.

In August 1991, the CPSU finally lost influence, and in September the Board of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, having considered the protest of the USSR Prosecutor General against the decision of the Presidium of the Petrograd Provincial Cheka, canceled the sentence against Gumilyov. The poet was rehabilitated, the proceedings were terminated "for lack of corpus delicti".

This decision was as absurd as the versions that prompted him to take it. It turned out that an anti-Soviet conspiracy existed, Gumilyov was a conspirator, but participation in an anti-Soviet conspiracy was not a crime. The tragedy ended in a farce seventy years later. The logical result of attempts to save the authority of the Cheka, to save at all costs.

The farce was discontinued a year later. The Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation has officially admitted that the entire “PBO case” is a falsification.

It is worth emphasizing once again: the description of the reasons due to which the “PBO case” was falsified by the Chekists is beyond the scope of this work. The role of terminological factors is interesting here.

Unlike Tsvetaeva, Gumilyov initially saw and emphasized the terminological contradiction: those whom Soviet propaganda called “whites” were not “whites”. Were not "white" in the traditional interpretation of the term. They were imaginary “whites”, because they did not fight for the monarch. Using a terminological contradiction, Gumilyov built a concept that made it possible to explain why he did not participate in the civil war. The declared monarchism was - for Gumilyov - a convincing justification for apoliticality. But in the summer of 1921, the Petrograd Chekists, hastily choosing candidates for “active participants” in the PBO, hastily invented on the instructions of the party leadership, also chose Gumilyov. In particular, and because Soviet propaganda determined: monarchism and apoliticality are incompatible. This means that Gumilyov's participation in the conspiracy must have seemed quite motivated. The facts here did not matter, because the task set by the party leadership was being solved.

Thirty-five years later, when the question of rehabilitation arose, the monarchism declared by Gumilyov again became almost the only argument that somehow confirmed the shaky Chekist version. The facts were again ignored. If a monarchist, then he was not apolitical. "White" is not supposed to be apolitical, "White" is supposed to participate in anti-Soviet conspiracies.

Thirty years later there were no other arguments either. And those who insisted on the rehabilitation of Gumilyov still diligently avoided the question of monarchism. They talked about the bravado inherent in the poet, about the propensity to take risks, about anything, but not about the original terminological contradiction. The Soviet terminological construction was still effective.

Meanwhile, the concept used by Gumilev to justify refusal to participate in the civil war was known not only to Gumilev's acquaintances. Because it was used not only by Gumilyov.

It is described, for example, by M. Bulgakov: the heroes of the novel The White Guard, who call themselves monarchists, at the end of 1918 do not at all intend to participate in the flaring civil war, and they do not see any contradiction here. He is not. The monarch has renounced, there is no one to serve. For the sake of food, you can serve at least the Ukrainian hetman, or you can not serve at all when there are other sources of income. Now, if the monarch appeared, if he called upon the monarchists to serve him, which is mentioned more than once in the novel, service would be obligatory, and he would have to fight.

True, the heroes of the novel still cannot get away from the civil war, but an analysis of the specific circumstances that led to a new choice, as well as consideration of the question of the truth of their monarchical convictions, are not included in the task of this work. It is significant that Bulgakov calls his heroes, who justified their refusal to participate in the civil war by reference to monarchical convictions, the “white guard”. Proves that they really are the best. Because they are really “white”. They, and not at all those who fight against Council of People's Commissars or per Constituent Assembly.

In the late 1960s, not to mention the 1980s, Bulgakov's novel was well-known. But the concept, which was based on the traditional interpretation of the term "whites", the very terminological game described by Bulgakov and understood by many of his contemporaries, was usually not recognized by readers decades later. Exceptions were rare. Readers no longer saw the tragic irony in the title of the novel. Just as they did not see the terminological game in Gumilev's arguments about monarchism and apoliticality, they did not understand the connection between religiosity and monarchism in Tsvetaeva's poems about the "White Guard".

There are many examples of this kind. These examples relate primarily to the history of ideas expressed in current and/or de-actualized political terms.

Civil war and intervention

Civil war is an organized armed struggle for state power between social groups of one country. It cannot be fair on either side, it weakens the international position of the country, its material and intellectual resources.

Causes of the Russian Civil War

1. Economic crisis.
2. The tension of social relations.
3. Exacerbation of all existing contradictions in society.
4. Proclamation by the Bolsheviks of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
5. Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.
6. Intolerance of representatives of the majority of parties to opponents.
7. The signing of the Brest peace, which offended the patriotic feelings of the population, especially the officers and the intelligentsia.
8. The economic policy of the Bolsheviks (nationalization, the elimination of landownership, surplus appropriation).
9. Bolshevik abuse of power.
10. Intervention of the Entente and the Austro-German bloc in the internal affairs of Soviet Russia.

Social forces after the victory of the October Revolution

1. Those who supported the Soviet government: the industrial and rural proletariat, the poor, the lower ranks of the officers, part of the intelligentsia - the "Reds".
2. Opposing Soviet power: the big bourgeoisie, landowners, a significant part of the officers, the former police and gendarmerie, part of the intelligentsia - "whites".
3. The vacillators, who periodically joined either the “Reds” or the “Whites”: the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, part of the proletariat, part of the officers, a significant part of the intelligentsia.

The decisive force in the Civil War was the peasantry, the largest stratum of the population.

By concluding the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the government of the Russian Republic was able to concentrate forces to defeat internal opponents. In April 1918, compulsory military training for workers was introduced, and tsarist officers and generals began to be recruited for military service. In September 1918, by the decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the country was turned into a military camp, domestic policy was subordinated to one task - victory in the Civil War. The highest body of military power was created - the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic (RVC) under the chairmanship of L. D. Trotsky. In November 1918, under the chairmanship of V. I. Lenin, the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense was formed, which was granted unlimited rights in the matter of mobilizing the country's forces and means in the interests of the war.

In May 1918, the Czechoslovak Corps and the White Guard formations captured the Trans-Siberian Railway. Soviet power in the occupied areas was overthrown. With the establishment of control over Siberia, the Supreme Council of the Entente in July 1918 decided to start intervention in Russia.

In the summer of 1918, anti-Bolshevik uprisings swept through the Southern Urals, the North Caucasus, Turkestan and other regions. Siberia, the Urals, part of the Volga region and the North Caucasus, the European North passed into the hands of the interventionists and the White Guards.

In August 1918, in Petrograd, left socialist-revolutionaries killed the chairman of the Petrograd Cheka, M. S. Uritsky, and V. I. Lenin was wounded in Moscow. These acts were used by the Council of People's Commissars to carry out mass terror. The reasons for the "white" and "red" terror were: the desire of both sides for dictatorship, the lack of democratic traditions, the depreciation of human life.

In the spring of 1918, the Volunteer Army was formed in the Kuban under the command of General L. G. Kornilov. After his death (April 1918), A. I. Denikin became the commander. In the second half of 1918, the Volunteer Army occupied the entire North Caucasus.

In May 1918, an uprising of Cossacks against Soviet power broke out on the Don. P. N. Krasnov was elected ataman, who occupied the Don region, joined the Voronezh and Saratov provinces.

In February 1918 the German army invaded Ukraine. In February 1919, the Entente troops landed in the southern ports of Ukraine. In 1918 - early 1919, Soviet power was eliminated on 75% of the country's territory. However, the anti-Soviet forces were politically fragmented, they lacked a unified program of struggle and a unified plan of combat operations.

In the middle of 1919, the White movement merged with the Entente, which relied on A. I. Denikin. The Volunteer and Don armies merged into the Armed Forces of the South of Russia. In May 1919, the troops of A. I. Denikin occupied the Don region, Donbass, part of Ukraine.

In September, the Volunteer Army captured Kursk, and the Don Army captured Voronezh. V. I. Lenin wrote an appeal “Everyone to fight Denikin!”, An additional mobilization into the Red Army was carried out. Having received reinforcements, the Soviet troops in October-November 1919 launched a counteroffensive. Kursk, Donbass were liberated, in January 1920 - Tsaritsyn, Novocherkassk, Rostov-on-Don. In the winter of 1919-1920. The Red Army liberated the Right-Bank Ukraine and occupied Odessa.

The Caucasian front of the Red Army in January-April 1920 advanced to the borders of the Azerbaijan and Georgian republics. In April 1920, Denikin handed over command of the remnants of his troops to General P.N. Wrangel, who began to fortify himself in the Crimea and form the "Russian Army".

The counter-revolution in Siberia was led by Admiral A. V. Kolchak. In November 1918, he carried out a military coup in Omsk and established his own dictatorship. The troops of A. I. Kolchak began hostilities in the region of Perm, Vyatka, Kotlas. In March 1919, Kolchak's troops took Ufa, and in April, Izhevsk. However, due to the extremely tough policy, discontent in the rear of Kolchak increased. In March 1919, to fight A.V. Kolchak in the Red Army, the Northern (commander V.I. Shorin) and Southern (commander M.V. Frunze) groups of troops were created. In May-June 1919, they captured Ufa and pushed Kolchak's troops back to the foothills of the Urals. During the capture of Ufa, the 25th Rifle Division, led by the division commander V. I. Chapaev, especially distinguished itself.

In October 1919, the troops captured Petropavlovsk and Ishim, and in January 1920 they completed the defeat of Kolchak's army. With access to Lake Baikal, Soviet troops suspended further advance to the east in order to avoid a war with Japan, which occupied part of the territory of Siberia.

In the midst of the struggle of the Soviet Republic against A. V. Kolchak, the offensive against Petrograd of the troops of General N. N. Yudenich began. In May 1919, they took Gdov, Yamburg and Pskov, but the Red Army managed to push N. N. Yudenich back from Petrograd. In October 1919, he made another attempt to capture Petrograd, but this time his troops were defeated.

By the spring of 1920, the main forces of the Entente were evacuated from the territory of Russia - from the Transcaucasus, from the Far East, from the North. The Red Army won decisive victories over large formations of the White Guards.

In April 1920, the offensive of the Polish troops on Russia and Ukraine began. The Poles managed to capture Kyiv and push the Soviet troops back to the left bank of the Dnieper. The Polish Front was urgently created. In May 1920, the Soviet troops of the Southwestern Front under the command of A. I. Yegorov went on the offensive. It was a serious strategic miscalculation of the Soviet command. The troops, having traveled 500 km, broke away from their reserves and rear lines. On the outskirts of Warsaw, they were stopped and, under the threat of encirclement, were forced to retreat with heavy losses from the territory not only of Poland, but also of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. The result of the war was a peace treaty signed in Riga in March 1921. According to it, a territory with a population of 15 million people retreated to Poland. The western border of Soviet Russia now ran 30 km from Minsk. The Soviet-Polish war undermined the confidence of the Poles in the communists and contributed to the deterioration of Soviet-Polish relations.

By the beginning of June 1920, P. N. Wrangel entrenched himself in the Northern Black Sea region. The Southern Front was formed against the Wrangelites under the command of M.V. Frunze. A major battle between the troops of P. N. Wrangel and units of the Red Army took place on the Kakhovka bridgehead.

The troops of P. N. Wrangel retreated to the Crimea and occupied the fortifications on the Perekop Isthmus and at the crossings across the Sivash Strait. The main line of defense ran along the Turkish Wall, 8 meters high and 15 meters wide at the base. Two attempts to take the Turkish Wall were unsuccessful for the Soviet troops. Then a crossing over the Sivash was undertaken, which was carried out on the night of November 8 at 12-degree frost. The fighters walked for 4 hours in icy water. On the night of November 9, the assault on Perekop began, which was taken by evening. On November 11, the troops of P. N. Wrangel began to evacuate from the Crimea. Several thousand White Guards who surrendered were treacherously shot under the leadership of B. Kun and R. Zemlyachka.

In 1920 Soviet Russia signed peace treaties with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. In 1920, the Bolsheviks achieved the formation of the Khorezm and Bukhara People's Soviet Republics. Relying on communist organizations in Transcaucasia, the Red Army entered Baku in April 1920, Yerevan in November, and Tiflis (Tbilisi) in February 1921. The Soviet republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were created here.

By the beginning of 1921, the Red Army had established control over a significant part of the territory of the former Russian Empire, with the exception of Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, and Bessarabia. The main fronts of the Civil War were eliminated. Until the end of 1922, hostilities continued in the Far East and until the mid-20s. in Central Asia.

Results of the Civil War

1. The death of about 12-13 million people.
2. Loss of Moldova, Bessarabia, Western Ukraine and Belarus.
3. The collapse of the economy.
4. The division of society into "us" and "them".
5. Devaluation of human life.
6. The death of the best part of the nation.
7. The fall of the international prestige of the state.

"War Communism"

In 1918-1919. the socio-economic policy of the Soviet government was determined, which was called "war communism". The main goal of the introduction of "war communism" was to subjugate all the resources of the country and use them to win the Civil War.

The main elements of the policy of "war communism"

1. food dictatorship.
2. Prodrazverstka.
3. Prohibition of free trade.
4. Nationalization of the whole industry and its management through the main boards.
5. General labor service.
6. Militarization of labor, formation of labor armies (since 1920).
7. Card system of distribution of products and goods.

The food dictatorship is a system of emergency measures taken by the Soviet state against the peasants. It was introduced in March 1918 and included the centralized procurement and distribution of food, the establishment of a state monopoly on the grain trade, and the forced seizure of bread.

Prodrazverstka was a system of procurement of agricultural products in the Soviet state in 1919-1921, which provided for the mandatory delivery by peasants of all surpluses (in excess of the established norms for personal and household needs) of bread and other products at fixed prices. Often, not only surpluses, but also necessary reserves were selected.

Where did the terms "red" and "white" come from? The Civil War also knew the "greens", "cadets", "SRs" and other formations. What is their fundamental difference?

In this article, we will answer not only these questions, but also get acquainted briefly with the history of formation in the country. Let's talk about the confrontation between the White Guard and the Red Army.

Origin of the terms "red" and "white"

Today, the history of the Fatherland is less and less concerned with young people. According to polls, many do not even have an idea, what can we say about the Patriotic War of 1812...

However, such words and phrases as "red" and "white", "Civil War" and "October Revolution" are still well known. Most, however, do not know the details, but they have heard the terms.

Let's take a closer look at this issue. We should start with where the two opposing camps came from - "white" and "red" in the Civil War. In principle, it was just an ideological move by Soviet propagandists and nothing more. Now you will understand this riddle yourself.

If you turn to the textbooks and reference books of the Soviet Union, it explains that the “whites” are the White Guards, supporters of the tsar and enemies of the “reds”, the Bolsheviks.

It seems that everything was like that. But in fact, this is another enemy that the Soviets fought.

After all, the country has lived for seventy years in opposition to fictitious opponents. These were the "whites", the kulaks, the decaying West, the capitalists. Very often, such a vague definition of the enemy served as the foundation for slander and terror.

Next, we will discuss the causes of the Civil War. The "Whites", according to the Bolshevik ideology, were monarchists. But here's the catch, there were practically no monarchists in the war. They had no one to fight for, and honor did not suffer from this. Nicholas II abdicated the throne, but his brother did not accept the crown. Thus, all the royal officers were free from the oath.

Where, then, did this “color” difference come from? If the Bolsheviks did have a red flag, then their opponents never had a white one. The answer lies in the history of a century and a half ago.

The Great French Revolution gave the world two opposing camps. The royal troops wore a white banner, a sign of the dynasty of the French rulers. Their opponents, after the seizure of power, hung a red canvas in the window of the city hall as a sign of the introduction of wartime. On such days, any gathering of people was dispersed by soldiers.

The Bolsheviks were opposed not by monarchists, but by supporters of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly (Constitutional Democrats, Cadets), anarchists (Makhnovists), "Green Army" (fought against the "Reds", "Whites", interventionists) and those who wanted to separate their territory into a free state .

Thus, the term "whites" has been cleverly used by ideologues to define a common enemy. His winning position turned out to be that any Red Army soldier could explain in a nutshell what he was fighting for, unlike all the other rebels. This attracted ordinary people to the side of the Bolsheviks and made it possible for the latter to win the Civil War.

Background of the war

When the Civil War is studied in the classroom, the table is simply necessary for a good assimilation of the material. Below are the stages of this military conflict, which will help you better navigate not only in the article, but also in this period of the history of the Fatherland.

Now that we have decided who the “reds” and “whites” are, the Civil War, or rather its stages, will be more understandable. You can proceed to a deeper study of them. Let's start with the prerequisites.

So, the main reason for such a heat of passion, which subsequently resulted in a five-year Civil War, was the accumulated contradictions and problems.

First, the participation of the Russian Empire in the First World War destroyed the economy and drained resources in the country. The bulk of the male population was in the army, agriculture and urban industry fell into decline. The soldiers were tired of fighting for other people's ideals when there were hungry families at home.

The second reason was agrarian and industrial issues. There were too many peasants and workers who lived below the poverty line and destitution. The Bolsheviks took full advantage of this.

In order to turn participation in the world war into an interclass struggle, certain steps were taken.

First, the first wave of nationalization of enterprises, banks, and lands took place. Then the Brest Treaty was signed, which plunged Russia into the abyss of complete ruin. Against the background of the general devastation, the Red Army men staged a terror in order to stay in power.

To justify their behavior, they built an ideology of struggle against the White Guards and interventionists.

background

Let's take a closer look at why the Civil War began. The table we cited earlier illustrates the stages of conflict. But we will start with the events that took place before the Great October Revolution.

Weakened by participation in the First World War, the Russian Empire is in decline. Nicholas II abdicates the throne. More importantly, he does not have a successor. In the light of such events, two new forces are being formed simultaneously - the Provisional Government and the Soviet of Workers' Deputies.

The former begin to deal with the social and political spheres of the crisis, while the Bolsheviks concentrated on increasing their influence in the army. This path led them subsequently to the opportunity to become the only ruling force in the country.
It was the confusion in the administration of the state that led to the formation of "red" and "white". The civil war was only the apotheosis of their differences. Which is to be expected.

October Revolution

In fact, the tragedy of the Civil War begins with the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks were gaining strength and more confidently went to power. In mid-October 1917, a very tense situation began to develop in Petrograd.

October 25 Alexander Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government, leaves Petrograd for Pskov for help. He personally assesses the events in the city as an uprising.

In Pskov, he asks to help him with troops. Kerensky seems to be getting support from the Cossacks, but suddenly the Cadets leave the regular army. Now the Constitutional Democrats refuse to support the head of government.

Not finding proper support in Pskov, Alexander Fedorovich travels to the city of Ostrov, where he meets with General Krasnov. At the same time, the Winter Palace was stormed in Petrograd. In Soviet history, this event is presented as a key one. But in fact, it happened without resistance from the deputies.

After a blank shot from the Aurora cruiser, the sailors, soldiers and workers approached the palace and arrested all the members of the Provisional Government who were present there. In addition, the Second Congress of Soviets took place, where a number of basic declarations were adopted and executions at the front were abolished.

In view of the coup, Krasnov decides to help Alexander Kerensky. On October 26, a cavalry detachment of seven hundred people leaves in the direction of Petrograd. It was assumed that in the city itself they would be supported by the uprising of the Junkers. But it was suppressed by the Bolsheviks.

In the current situation, it became clear that the Provisional Government no longer had power. Kerensky fled, General Krasnov bargained with the Bolsheviks for the opportunity to return to Ostrov with the detachment without hindrance.

Meanwhile, the Socialist-Revolutionaries begin a radical struggle against the Bolsheviks, who, in their opinion, have gained more power. The answer to the murders of some "red" leaders was the terror of the Bolsheviks, and the Civil War began (1917-1922). We now consider further developments.

Establishment of "red" power

As we said above, the tragedy of the Civil War began long before the October Revolution. The common people, soldiers, workers and peasants were dissatisfied with the current situation. If in the central regions many paramilitary detachments were under the tight control of the Headquarters, then completely different moods reigned in the eastern detachments.

It was the presence of a large number of reserve troops and their unwillingness to enter the war with Germany that helped the Bolsheviks quickly and bloodlessly gain the support of almost two-thirds of the army. Only 15 large cities resisted the "red" government, while 84, on their own initiative, passed into their hands.

An unexpected surprise for the Bolsheviks in the form of amazing support from the confused and tired soldiers was announced by the "Reds" as a "triumphal march of the Soviets."

The civil war (1917-1922) only worsened after the signing of the devastating for Russia Under the terms of the agreement, the former empire was losing more than a million square kilometers of territory. These included: the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Romania, the Don territories. In addition, they had to pay Germany six billion marks indemnity.

This decision provoked protest both within the country and from the side of the Entente. Simultaneously with the intensification of various local conflicts, the military intervention of Western states on the territory of Russia begins.

The entry of the Entente troops in Siberia was reinforced by a revolt of the Kuban Cossacks led by General Krasnov. The defeated detachments of the White Guards and some interventionists went to Central Asia and continued the struggle against Soviet power for many more years.

Second period of the Civil War

It was at this stage that the White Guard Heroes of the Civil War were the most active. History has preserved such names as Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, Yuzefovich, Miller and others.

Each of these commanders had his own vision of the future for the state. Some tried to interact with the troops of the Entente in order to overthrow the Bolshevik government and still convene the Constituent Assembly. Others wanted to become local princelings. This includes such as Makhno, Grigoriev and others.

The complexity of this period lies in the fact that as soon as the First World War was completed, the German troops had to leave the territory of Russia only after the arrival of the Entente. But according to a secret agreement, they left earlier, handing over the cities to the Bolsheviks.

As history shows us, it is after such a turn of events that the Civil War enters a phase of particular cruelty and bloodshed. The failure of the commanders, who were guided by Western governments, was aggravated by the fact that they were sorely lacking in qualified officers. So, the armies of Miller, Yudenich and some other formations disintegrated only because, with a lack of middle-level commanders, the main influx of forces came from captured Red Army soldiers.

Newspaper reports of this period are characterized by headlines of this type: "Two thousand servicemen with three guns went over to the side of the Red Army."

The final stage

Historians tend to associate the beginning of the last period of the war of 1917-1922 with the Polish War. With the help of his western neighbors, Piłsudski wanted to create a confederation with territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea. But his aspirations were not destined to come true. The armies of the Civil War, led by Yegorov and Tukhachevsky, fought their way deep into Western Ukraine and reached the Polish border.

The victory over this enemy was to rouse the workers in Europe to the struggle. But all the plans of the Red Army leaders failed after a devastating defeat in the battle, which has been preserved under the name "Miracle on the Vistula."

After the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Soviets and Poland, disagreements begin in the Entente camp. As a result, the financing of the "white" movement decreased, and the Civil War in Russia began to decline.

In the early 1920s, similar changes in the foreign policy of Western states led to the fact that the Soviet Union was recognized by most countries.

The heroes of the Civil War of the final period fought against Wrangel in Ukraine, the interventionists in the Caucasus and Central Asia, in Siberia. Among the particularly distinguished commanders, Tukhachevsky, Blucher, Frunze and some others should be noted.

Thus, as a result of five years of bloody battles, a new state was formed on the territory of the Russian Empire. Subsequently, it became the second superpower, the only rival of which was the United States.

Reasons for victory

Let's see why the "whites" were defeated in the Civil War. We will compare the assessments of the opposing camps and try to come to a common conclusion.

Soviet historians saw the main reason for their victory in the fact that they received massive support from the oppressed sections of society. Particular emphasis was placed on those who suffered as a result of the 1905 revolution. Because they unconditionally went over to the side of the Bolsheviks.

"Whites", on the contrary, complained about the lack of human and material resources. In the occupied territories with a million people, they could not even carry out a minimal mobilization to replenish the ranks.

Of particular interest are the statistics provided by the Civil War. The "Reds", "Whites" (table below) suffered particularly from desertion. Unbearable living conditions, as well as the lack of clear goals, made themselves felt. The data relates only to the Bolshevik forces, since the White Guard records did not save intelligible figures.

The main point noted by modern historians was the conflict.

The White Guards, firstly, did not have a centralized command and minimal cooperation between units. They fought locally, each for their own interests. The second feature was the absence of political workers and a clear program. These moments were often assigned to officers who only knew how to fight, but not to conduct diplomatic negotiations.

The Red Army soldiers created a powerful ideological network. A clear system of concepts was developed, which were hammered into the heads of workers and soldiers. The slogans made it possible for even the most downtrodden peasant to understand what he was going to fight for.

It was this policy that allowed the Bolsheviks to get the maximum support of the population.

Effects

The victory of the "Reds" in the Civil War was given to the state very dearly. The economy was completely destroyed. The country has lost territories with a population of more than 135 million people.

Agriculture and productivity, food production have decreased by 40-50 percent. Prodrazverstka and "red-white" terror in different regions led to the death of a huge number of people from starvation, torture and execution.

Industry, according to experts, has sunk to the level of the Russian Empire during the reign of Peter the Great. According to the researchers, production figures have fallen to 20 percent of the volume in 1913, and in some areas up to 4 percent.

As a result, a mass exodus of workers from cities to villages began. Since there was at least some hope not to die of hunger.

The "whites" in the Civil War reflected the desire of the nobility and higher ranks to return to their former living conditions. But their isolation from the real moods that prevailed among the common people led to the total defeat of the old order.

Reflection in culture

The leaders of the Civil War have been immortalized in thousands of different works - from cinema to paintings, from stories to sculptures and songs.

For example, such productions as "Days of the Turbins", "Running", "Optimistic Tragedy" immersed people in the tense atmosphere of wartime.

The films "Chapaev", "Red Devils", "We are from Kronstadt" showed the efforts that the "Reds" made in the Civil War to win their ideals.

The literary work of Babel, Bulgakov, Gaidar, Pasternak, Ostrovsky illustrates the life of representatives of different strata of society in those difficult days.

You can give examples almost endlessly, because the social catastrophe that resulted in the Civil War found a powerful response in the hearts of hundreds of artists.

Thus, today we have learned not only the origin of the concepts of "white" and "red", but also briefly got acquainted with the course of events of the Civil War.

Remember that any crisis contains the seed of future changes for the better.