The third force in the civil war was. Personal rivalry between leaders who were poorly coordinated
Civil War- This is a period of acute class clashes within the state between different social groups. In Russia, it began in 1918 and was a consequence of the nationalization of all land, the liquidation of landownership, and the transfer of factories and plants into the hands of the working people. In addition, in October 1917, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established.
In Russia, war was aggravated by military intervention.
The main participants in the war.
In November-December 1917, a Volunteer Army was created on the Don. This is how it was formed white movement. White color symbolized law and order. The tasks of the white movement: the fight against the Bolsheviks and the restoration of a united and indivisible Russia. The volunteer army was led by General Kornilov, and after his death in the battle near Yekaterinodar, General A.I. Denikin took command.
Created in January 1918 Bolshevik Red Army. At first it was built on the principles of voluntariness and on the basis of a class approach - only from workers. But after a series of serious defeats, the Bolsheviks returned to the traditional, “bourgeois” principles of army formation on the basis of universal conscription and unity of command.
The third force was " Greens rebels,” or “green army men” (also “green partisans,” “Green movement,” “third force”) is a general name for irregular, predominantly peasant and Cossack armed formations that opposed foreign invaders, the Bolsheviks and the White Guards. They had national-democratic, anarchist, and also, sometimes, goals close to early Bolshevism. The first demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly, others were supporters of anarchy and free Soviets. In everyday life there were the concepts of “red-green” (more gravitating towards red) and “white-green”. Green and black, or a combination of both, were often used as the colors of the rebel banners. The specific options depended on the political orientation - anarchists, socialists, etc., just a semblance of “self-defense units” without expressed political predilections.
Main stages of the war:
spring - autumn 1918 g. - rebellion of the White Czechs; the first foreign landings in Murmansk and the Far East; the campaign of P. N. Krasnov’s army against Tsaritsyn; the creation by the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks of the Committee of the Constituent Assembly in the Volga region; uprisings of the Social Revolutionaries in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Rybinsk; strengthening of “red” and “white” terror; the creation of the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense in November 1918 (V.I. Lenin) and the Revolutionary Military Council (L.D. Trotsky); proclamation of the republic as a single military camp;
autumn 1918 - spring 1919 d. - increased foreign intervention in connection with the end of the world war; annulment of the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Peace in connection with the revolution in Germany;
spring 1919 - spring 1920 g. - performance of the armies of white generals: campaigns of A.V. Kolchak (spring-summer 1919), A.I. Denikin (summer 1919 - spring 1920), two campaigns of N.N. Yudenich to Petrograd;
April - November 1920 g. - Soviet-Polish war and the fight against P. N. Wrangel. With the liberation of Crimea by the end of 1920, the main military operations ended.
In 1922 the Far East was liberated. The country began to transition to a peaceful life.
Both the “white” and “red” camps were heterogeneous. Thus, the Bolsheviks defended socialism, some of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were for Soviets without the Bolsheviks. Among the whites there were monarchists and republicans (liberals); anarchists (N.I. Makhno) spoke first on one side and then on the other.
From the very beginning of the Civil War, military conflicts affected almost all national outskirts, and centrifugal tendencies intensified in the country.
The Bolshevik victory in the Civil War was due to:
concentration of all forces (which was facilitated by the policy of “war communism”);
the transformation of the Red Army into a real military force led by a number of talented military leaders (through the use of professional military specialists from among former tsarist officers);
targeted use of all economic resources of the central part of European Russia remaining in their hands;
support for the national outskirts and Russian peasants, deceived by the Bolshevik slogan “Land to the peasants”;
lack of overall command among whites,
support for Soviet Russia from labor movements and communist parties of other countries.
Results and consequences of the Civil War. The Bolsheviks won a military-political victory: the resistance of the White Army was suppressed, Soviet power was established throughout the country, including in most national regions, conditions were created for strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat and the implementation of socialist transformations. The price of this victory was huge human losses (more than 15 million people killed, died of hunger and disease), mass emigration (more than 2.5 million people), economic devastation, the tragedy of entire social groups (officers, Cossacks, intelligentsia, nobility, clergy and etc.), society’s addiction to violence and terror, the rupture of historical and spiritual traditions, the split into reds and whites.
The successes and failures of opponents at the fronts were decisively determined by the strength of the situation in the front-line territories and in the rear, and depended on the attitude of the bulk of the population - the peasantry - to the authorities. The peasants who received the land, not wanting to participate in the Civil War, were drawn into it against their will by the active actions of the Whites and Reds. This gave birth to the green movement. This was the name of the peasant rebels who fought against food requisitions, mobilizations into the army, arbitrariness and violence of both the white and red authorities. In scale and numbers, the movement significantly exceeded the white movement. The “Greens” did not have regular armies; they united in small detachments, often consisting of several dozen, less often hundreds of people. The rebels operated primarily in their areas of residence, but the movement itself covered the entire territory of Russia. It is no coincidence that Lenin considered the “petty-bourgeois counter-revolution” more dangerous than Kolchak and Denikin “taken together.”
The development of this mass peasant protest took place in the summer-autumn of 1918. The implementation of the “food dictatorship” meant the confiscation of “surplus” food from the middle and wealthy peasantry, i.e. majority of the rural population; “the transition from the democratic to the socialist” stage of the revolution in the countryside, within which the offensive against the “kulaks” began; dispersal of democratically elected and “Bolshevization” of rural Soviets; the forced establishment of collective farms - all this caused sharp protests among the peasantry. The introduction of the food dictatorship coincided with the beginning of the “front-line” Civil War and the expansion of the use of “red terror” as the most important means of solving political and economic problems.
The forced confiscation of food and forced mobilizations into the Red Army agitated the village. As a result, the bulk of the villagers recoiled from Soviet power, which manifested itself in massive peasant uprisings, of which there were more than 400 in 1918. To suppress them, punitive detachments, hostage-taking, artillery shelling and storming of villages were used. All this strengthened anti-Bolshevik sentiments and weakened the rear of the Reds, in connection with which the Bolsheviks were forced to make some economic and political concessions. In December 1918, they liquidated the hostile committees, and in January 1919, instead of a food dictatorship, they introduced food appropriation. (Its main purpose is the regulation of food procurement.) In March 1919, a course towards an alliance with the middle peasants was proclaimed, who previously, as “grain holders,” were actually united with the kulaks in one category.
The peak of resistance of the “greens” in the rear of the red troops occurred in the spring - summer of 1919. In March - May, uprisings swept Bryansk, Samara, Simbirsk, Yaroslavl, Pskov and other provinces of Central Russia. The scale of the insurgency in the South: Don, Kuban and Ukraine was especially significant. Events developed dramatically in the Cossack regions of Russia. The participation of Cossacks in the anti-Bolshevik struggle on the side of the white armies in 1918 became the cause of mass repressions, including against the civilian population of the Kuban and Don in January 1919. This again stirred up the Cossacks. In March 1919, on the Upper Don and then on the Middle Don, they raised an uprising under the slogan: “For Soviet power, but against the commune, executions and robberies.” The Cossacks actively supported Denikin's offensive in June - July 1919.
The interaction of red, white, “green” and national forces in Ukraine was complex and contradictory. After the departure of German and Austrian troops from its territory, the restoration of Soviet power here was accompanied by the widespread use of terror by various revolutionary committees and “cherekas”. In the spring and summer of 1919, local peasants experienced the food policy of the proletarian dictatorship, which also caused sharp protests. As a result, both small detachments of “greens” and fairly massive armed formations operated on the territory of Ukraine. The most famous of them were the movements of N. A. Grigoriev and N. I. Makhno.
Former staff captain of the Russian army Grigoriev in 1917-1918. served in the troops of the Central Rada, under Hetman Skoropadsky, joined the Petliurists, and after their defeat in early February 1919, he went over to the side of the Red Army. As a brigade commander and then a division commander, he took part in battles against the interventionists. But on May 7, 1919, refusing to transfer his troops to the aid of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, he withdrew them from the front zone and started a mutiny in the rear of the Red Army, which was fighting against Denikin. Grigoriev's military forces amounted to 20 thousand people, over 50 guns, 700 machine guns, 6 armored trains. The main slogans are “Power to the Soviets of Ukraine without communists”; "Ukraine for Ukrainians"; "Free trade in bread." In May - June 1919, the Grigorievites controlled vast lands in the Black Sea region. However, in June their main forces were defeated, and the remnants went to Makhno.
A convinced anarchist, Makhno created a detachment in April 1918 and became famous for its partisan struggle against the Germans; opposed the hetman regime and parts of Petliura. By the beginning of 1919, the size of his army exceeded 20 thousand and included divisions, regiments, and had its own headquarters and Revolutionary Military Council. In February 1919, when Denikin's troops invaded the territory of Ukraine, Makhno's units became part of the Red Army. However, politically the Makhnovists were far from the Bolsheviks. In May, Makhno wrote to one of the Soviet leaders: “I and my front remain invariably faithful to the workers’ and peasants’ revolution, but not to the institution of violence in the person of your commissars and Chekas, who commit tyranny over the working population.” The Makhnovists advocated for a “powerless state” and “free Soviets”; their main slogan was: “To defend Ukraine from Denikin, against the whites, against the reds, against everyone attacking Ukraine.” Makhno refused to cooperate with Wrangel against the Bolsheviks, but three times signed agreements with the Reds on a joint struggle against the Whites. Its units made a great contribution to the defeat of Denikin and Wrangel. However, after solving common problems, Makhno refused to submit to Soviet power and was eventually declared an outlaw. Nevertheless, its movement was not local in nature, but covered a vast territory from the Dniester to the Don. The “Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine,” numbering 50 thousand people in 1920, included motley elements that did not shy away from robberies and pogroms, which was also a characteristic feature of the movement.
After the defeat of the main white forces at the end of 1919 - beginning of 1920, the peasant war in European Russia flared up with renewed vigor and, as many historians believe, the bloodiest phase of the Civil War began. The internal front for the Red Army became the main one. 1920 - the first half of 1921 is called the period of the “green flood”, as it was the time of the bloodiest massacres, the burning of villages and hamlets, and mass deportations of the population. The basis of peasant discontent was the policy of “war communism”: the war ended, and emergency measures in economic policy were not only preserved, but also strengthened. The peasants opposed surplus appropriation, military, horse, horse-drawn and other duties, failure to comply with which resulted in arrest, confiscation of property, taking hostages, and execution on the spot. Desertion became widespread, reaching 20 or even 35% of military units in some units. Most of the deserters joined the “green” units, which were called “gangs” in the official Soviet language. In Ukraine, Kuban, Tambov region, the Lower Volga region and Siberia, peasant resistance had the character of a real cross-country war. In each province there were groups of rebels who hid in the forests, attacked punitive detachments, took hostages and shot them. Regular units of the Red Army were sent against the “greens,” led by military leaders who had already become famous in the fight against the whites: M. N. Tukhachevsky, M. V. Frunze, S. M. Budyonny, G. I. Kotovsky, I. E. Yakir , I. P. Uborevich et al.
One of the most large-scale and organized was the peasant uprising that began on August 15, 1920 in the Tambov province, which received the name “Antonovshchina” after the name of its leader. Here, the provincial Congress of the Labor Peasantry, not without the influence of the Social Revolutionaries, adopted a program that included: the overthrow of the Bolshevik government, the convening of the Constituent Assembly, the formation of a provisional government from opposition parties, the abolition of the tax in kind and the introduction of free trade. In January 1921, the number of “bandits” reached 50 thousand. Their “Main Operational Headquarters” had two armies (consisting of 21 regiments) and one separate brigade at its disposal. The South-Eastern Railway was cut, which disrupted the supply of grain to the central regions, about 60 state farms were plundered, and over two thousand party and Soviet workers were killed. Artillery, aviation, and armored vehicles were used against the rebels. Tukhachevsky, who led the suppression of the rebellion, wrote that the troops had to fight “an entire occupation war.” In June 1921, the main forces were defeated, and only in July the uprising was finally suppressed.
In October 1920, there was an uprising in the garrison of Nizhny Novgorod. The Red Army soldiers - mobilized peasants - at a non-party conference adopted a resolution demanding improved nutrition, free elections to the Soviets and the permission of free trade. It also condemned commanders and commissars who did not share the hardships of a soldier's life. When the conference leaders were arrested, a rebellion broke out in response. It reflected the sentiments that had become widespread in the army and navy, and was the predecessor of the Kronstadt mutiny.
Perhaps the most tragic on the internal front in 1920-1921. there were events in the Don and Kuban. After the Whites left in March-April 1920, the Bolsheviks established a regime of strict control here, treating the local population like victors in a conquered hostile country. In response to the Don and Kuban, in September 1920, the insurrectionary movement began again, in which 8 thousand people took part. Its suppression marked the Bolsheviks' transition to a policy of mass terror against the entire population of the region. The territory was divided into sectors, and three representatives of the Cheka were sent to each. They had the authority to shoot on the spot anyone found to have connections with whites. The scope for their activities was great: in certain periods, up to 70% of the Cossacks fought against the Bolsheviks. In addition, concentration camps were created for family members of active fighters against Soviet power, and the number of “enemies of the people” included old people, women, and children, many of whom were doomed to death.
The inability to consolidate anti-Bolshevik forces, restore order in their rear, organize reinforcements and organize food supplies for army units was the main reason for the military failures of the Whites in the 1919-1920s. Initially, the peasantry, as well as the urban population, who experienced the food dictatorship and the terror of the Red Cheka, greeted the whites as liberators. And they won the most high-profile victories when their armies were several times smaller in number than Soviet units. So, in January 1919, in the Perm region, 40 thousand Kolchakites captured 20 thousand Red Army soldiers. The admiral’s troops included 30 thousand Vyatka and Izhevsk workers who fought staunchly at the front. At the end of May 1919, when Kolchak's power extended from the Volga to the Pacific Ocean, and Denikin controlled vast areas in the south of Russia, their armies numbered hundreds of thousands of people, and aid from the allies was regularly received.
However, already in July 1919 in the East, from the Kolchak front, the decline of the White movement began. Both the whites and the reds represented their enemies well. For the Bolsheviks, these were the bourgeoisie, landowners, officers, cadets, Cossacks, kulaks, nationalists; for the whites, they were communists, commissars, internationalists, Bolshevik sympathizers, socialists, Jews, separatists. However, if the Bolsheviks put forward slogans that were understandable to the masses and spoke on behalf of the working people, the situation was different for the Whites. The White movement was based on the ideology of “non-predecision”, according to which the choice of the form of political structure and the determination of the socio-economic order should have been carried out only after the victory over the Soviets. It seemed to the generals that rejection of the Bolsheviks alone was enough to unite their disparate opponents into one fist. And since the main task of the moment was the military defeat of the enemy, in which the main role was assigned to the white armies, they established a military dictatorship in all their territories, which either sharply suppressed (Kolchak) or pushed organized political forces into the background (Denikin). And although the whites argued that “the army is outside of politics,” they themselves were faced with the need to solve pressing political problems.
This is precisely the character that the agrarian question acquired. Kolchak and Wrangel postponed his decision “for later,” brutally suppressing land seizures by peasants. In Denikin's territories, their lands were returned to the previous owners, and peasants were often dealt with for the fears and robberies they had endured in 1917-1918. Confiscated enterprises also passed into the hands of their former owners, and workers' protests in defense of their rights were suppressed. In the sphere of socio-economic relations, there has largely been a throwback to the pre-February situation, which, in fact, led to the revolution.
Standing in the position of “united and indivisible Russia,” the military suppressed any attempts at autonomous isolation within the country, thereby pushing away national movements, primarily the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia; There were not isolated manifestations of xenophobia, especially anti-Semitism. The reluctance to meet the Cossacks halfway and recognize their rights to autonomy and self-government led to a rift between the whites and their loyal allies - the Kuban and Don people. (Whites even called them “half-Bolsheviks” and “separatists.”) This policy turned their natural anti-Bolshevik allies into their own enemies. Being honest officers and sincere patriots, the White Guard generals turned out to be worthless politicians. In all these matters the Bolsheviks showed much greater flexibility.
The logic of the war forced the whites to pursue policies similar to those of the Bolsheviks on their territories. Attempts to mobilize into the army provoked the growth of the insurgent movement, peasant uprisings, to suppress which punitive detachments and expeditions were sent. This was accompanied by violence and robberies of civilians. Desertion became widespread. Even more repulsive were the economic practices of the white administrations. The basis of the administrative apparatus were former officials who reproduced red tape, bureaucracy, and corruption. “Entrepreneurs close to the authorities” profited from supplies to the army, but normal supplies to the troops were never established. As a result, the army was forced to resort to self-supply. In the fall of 1919, an American observer characterized this situation as follows: “... the supply system was so unsecured and became so ineffective that the troops had no other choice but to supply themselves from the local population. The official permission that legitimized this practice quickly degenerated into permissiveness, and the troops are held accountable for all sorts of excesses.”
The White Terror was as merciless as the Red Terror. The only difference between them was that the Red Terror was organized and consciously directed against class-hostile elements, while the White Terror was more spontaneous, spontaneous: it was dominated by motives of revenge, suspicions of disloyalty and hostility. As a result, arbitrariness was established in the white-controlled territories, anarchy and permissiveness of those who had power and weapons triumphed. All this had a negative impact on morale and reduced the combat effectiveness of the army.
The attitude of the population towards whites was negatively influenced by their connections with the allies. Without their help, it was impossible to establish powerful armed resistance to the Reds. But the frank desire of the French, British, Americans, Japanese to take possession of Russian property, using the weakness of the state; The large-scale export of food and raw materials caused discontent among the population. The Whites found themselves in an ambiguous position: in the struggle for the liberation of Russia from the Bolsheviks, they received the support of those who viewed the territory of our country as an object of economic expansion. This also worked for the Soviet government, which objectively acted as a patriotic force.
Name
The name can be derived from the color of the forests in which the green ones were grouped and hidden. The name “greens” entered the official vocabulary and office documents of both red and white authorities. The “green” theme was played out in propaganda activities, fiction and journalistic literature.
Characteristic
Greens are often understood to mean almost all irregular, rebel-guerrilla formations that, to one degree or another, opposed the Reds and Whites, or at least existed autonomously from them. In this interpretation, prominent representatives of the Greens turn out to be, for example, A. Antonov. However, such a broad interpretation seems incorrect and exists mainly in historical and journalistic works.
In a narrower sense, the green movement is one of the ways of self-organization of the broad masses of the peasantry in the Civil War, focused on protecting local resources and non-participation in a war, the causes and goals of which remained unclear or alien. The green movement was not only an armed side of a general civil conflict, but also a way of building a parallel existence under conditions of state pressure.
Peak of the green movement
The year of the classic green movement is 1919, from spring to autumn (May - September), territorial coverage - mainly central industrial, northern and western provinces. These are territories that were under Bolshevik rule for most of the Civil War.
In 1920, the “green” name moved to the east, green formations appeared in the southern Urals.
The Bolsheviks, who came to power under the slogan of social emancipation and the end of the war, already in the summer of 1918 began to selectively use conscription into the newly created Red Army. In the fall of 1918, the first big call followed, causing a wave of uprisings and mass evasion.
The calls continued, and the peasantry continued to respond with absenteeism or resistance. The Soviet state created an infrastructure for “pumping out” deserters from the village. These are the Central, provincial, district and in some places volost commissions to combat desertion, revolutionary military tribunals, a system of propaganda events, and the operation of periodic amnesties for deserters. In June 1919, it was decided not to carry out further mobilizations, but to focus on removing deserters from the village. The efforts of the Soviet state in this direction provoked relatively organized resistance from the peasantry, which resulted in the Green Rebellion of June - July 1919.
The mass base of the green movement was the equally massive desertion from the Red Army, as well as from some white armies. Deserters in the RSFSR were divided into “malicious” and “due to weakness of will.” With millions of cases of desertion (including frequent repeated desertions), about 200,000 malicious deserters formed the base of the active green and other insurgency.
In the center of the country
In mid-May 1919, a powerful insurgent wave called “Zelenovshchina” began from the Novokhopersky district of the Voronezh province. It covered adjacent districts of the Voronezh, Saratov and Tambov provinces. The Greens disorganized the rear of the retreating Red 9th and 8th armies of the Southern Front and caused the flight of local natives from the ranks of the Red Army. The main objects of hatred of the rebels were local communists and Soviet workers. Villages, often under pressure from neighbors who had already rebelled, joined the movement, formed detachments, headquarters, and appointed commandants. Deserter detachments became more active in neighboring non-rebellious districts. The vigorous punitive measures of the Reds and the changing situation at the front relatively quickly extinguished the green movement in the region. A small part of the most active rebels joined the AFSR troops, forming two “people’s” regiments under the Don Army.
In the central provinces, a mass movement swept through the Tver, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl provinces. Numerous desertions in June - July turned into an active anti-Bolshevik armed movement. It had an enclave character. Several significant outbreaks arose in the Tver province. The largest was the Yasenovo uprising. In the Yaroslavl and Kostroma provinces, three largest outbreaks were identified: Uglich, Myshkin and Mologsky districts; Poshekhonsky district and adjacent areas of Rybinsk and Tutaevsky districts with further distribution to adjacent districts of the Vologda province; Lyubimsky, partially Danilovsky districts with transition to Kostroma districts.
In the Kostroma province, the remote Urensky region also stood out (five volosts of the Varnavinsky district, now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), which gave a long struggle, until 1922.
The Green Army, led by the Social Revolutionaries, arose at the same time in the south of the Nizhny Novgorod province. Its headquarters were located in the forest near the Surovatikha station. The headquarters structures of the “army” were destroyed by security officers in the fall of 1919.
North and North-West
In the north, in conditions of bread shortages and hunger, the village was unable to support the greens with resources. Therefore, armed peasant detachments on the front line turned into white or red partisans, while showing readiness to change the flag when the front line moved to their native places. In the rear of the Soviet Northern Front, there were green ones in the districts of the North Dvina, Vologda, Olonets, and Arkhangelsk provinces.
An active green movement developed in the summer of 1919 in Pskov, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk and other western provinces. Many greens of the Pskov region interacted with the white North-Western Army and partially joined its ranks. It was the Pskov Greens who became the basis for the “partisan” formations of S.N. Bulak-Balakhovich with specific concepts of discipline and production.
There was no structured white movement on the territory of the Belarusian provinces; power (Soviet, occupation German, Polish), state and administrative borders and names changed repeatedly. Under these conditions, the peasant retreat into the green forests was supported by the efforts of the local intelligentsia to build national Belarusian power structures. Part of the activists of the Socialist Revolutionary Party planned a coup in the Red Army units, which left some organizational traces. As a result, in the Western region, structures of resistance to Soviet power existed until the mid-1920s. They accumulated within the framework of the Belarusian organization “Green Oak”, Savinkov’s People’s Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom, the Bulak-Balakhovich structure, with support from the second department of the General Staff of the Polish Army. The mass basis of these organizations were the professionalized green cadres of 1919. In the Smolensk province, brothers and officers A., V. and K. Zhigalov played a significant role in the formation and organization of the green partisan movement.
Crimea, Kuban, Black Sea region
In the white rear, peasants who were hiding from mobilizations and engaged in robbery were called greens. This is the Taganrog district of the Department of Internal Affairs, the most peasant in composition, the Black Sea province, from the autumn of 1919 onwards until the collapse of the All-Soviet Socialist Republic - Kuban, and the mountains of the Southern Crimea. The Soviet underground and military leadership sought to organize and politicize them, turning them into “red-greens.”
After the establishment of Soviet power in the Crimea, the Kuban, and the Black Sea region, a white-green movement developed, although it included not only and not so much peasant deserter elements, but fragments of white formations, officers in hiding, and in the Kuban - Cossacks who again rose up against the policies of the military communism.
Defection and the green movement
Desertion from the Red Army was equally developed in all provinces, but the name “greens” was not used everywhere. It is unknown in Siberia and the Far East, in the Middle Urals, and is not widespread in the black earth provinces, in the middle Volga region, and in Ukraine. Similar names in different regions were “partisans”, “rebels”, “rebel troops”, names focused on the figure of the leader, such as “Makhnovists”, “Grigorievites”, “Antonovites”, “Vakulintsy”. This seems to be no coincidence. The green movement was localized mainly in the Great Russian non-agricultural provinces. This observation creates space for studying it as a form of self-organization of Great Russians in conditions of crisis and government pressure. People's Socialist S.S. Maslov assessed the green movement as one of the ways of social maturation of the Russian people, an attempt to organize from below.
The green movement is also associated with the ideology and practice of the “third force” in the Civil War. However, it cannot be considered as such. The AKP tried to implement the position of a third force, but without political results. The green movement was primarily self-defensive, retaliatory, an attempt to organize existence in conditions of state aggression. Green grassroots movements had powerful power but weak organizational capacity.
“Green” cadres tried to use political forces: socialist revolutionaries, whites and reds in armed struggle. The Social Revolutionary leadership of the insurrection in the Black Sea province created in the fall of 1919 the Committee for the Liberation of the Black Sea Province. However, reaching the political level very quickly led to the subordination of the Committee’s armed forces to the Bolsheviks and the local militia losing their Black Sea face. In 1920 - 1922 He nurtured the idea of a peasant war against the Bolsheviks, counting, in particular, on numerous cadres from the green western provinces. However, militarily the plan turned out to be fantastic. The Belarusian Green Oak Party was forced to increasingly focus on Poland, trying to continue the anti-Bolshevik struggle in 1921 - 1922. and further. The more a green movement organized itself and came under external political leadership, the less “green” it became.
The most classic phenomena in the field of the green movement combine the external name - by ordinary people, white and red military authorities - and the self-name of the rebels themselves.
Leaders
Military leaders of the Greens were, as a rule, local natives who gained combat experience during the Great War. Most of them were chief officers or non-commissioned officers. We can single out two bright leaders who commanded small organized formations after the end of the powerful wave of green protests in the spring - summer of 1919. These are Sergei Nikushin in the Ryazhsky district of the Ryazan province and Georgy Pashkov in the Lyubimsky district of the Yaroslavl province, on the border with Kostroma. Both of them reflected on their situation and their struggle and kept diaries, which have now been published.
The green movement inevitably came into contact with other more or less mass actions and movements of the Civil War period: bagmen, criminals, movements in defense of the church, etc. It is known that the greens often fundamentally separated themselves from the criminals.
Militarily, the Greens from the RSFSR were opposed, in addition to structures to combat desertion, by party and other volunteer detachments, local formations (guards, etc.); The most organized force was the VOKhR troops, later the VNUS, as well as the regular units of the Red Army.
During the suppression of the Green uprisings by the Reds, cruelty was manifested in the form of extrajudicial killings, burning of populated areas (the village of Samet in the Kostroma province, Malinovka in the Saratov province, etc.)
The green movement is difficult to study due to its weak structure and paucity of internal documentation. At the moment, there is a general outline of this movement, as well as a number of developed regional subjects: the Tver, Yaroslavl-Kostroma, Olonets, Prikhoper “Zelenovshchina”, and a number of modern studies on the problems of combating desertion from the Red Army during the Civil War.
Folklore
The Greens gave birth to their own folklore, mostly ditties. Whites and Red Greens were portrayed pejoratively in the press and in campaigning. The deserter and the green as a dark, confused worker are a constant character in Soviet propaganda literature. This topic was touched upon in their work, for example, by and.
During the Civil War, “greens” were originally the name given to people who evaded military service and hid in the forests (hence the name). This phenomenon became widespread in the summer of 1918, when forced mobilization of the population was launched. Then this name was assigned to irregular armed formations, consisting mainly of peasants, who equally opposed both the Reds and the Whites, or could temporarily support one of the sides, waging a guerrilla war.
Some Greens fought under their own banners - green, black-green, red-green or black. The flag of Nestor Makhno's anarchists was a black banner with a skull and crossbones and the slogan: “Freedom or death.”
Among the green detachments there could be peasants driven from their places by the Reds or Whites and evading mobilization, ordinary bandits, and anarchists. The leaders of the largest green association, the so-called Greens, adhered to anarchist ideology. Insurgent Army of Ukraine. And it was with anarchism that this movement was most closely connected.
Currents in Russian anarchism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries
By the time of the first (1905) Russian revolution, three main directions were clearly defined in anarchism: anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-individualism, with each of them having smaller factions.
On the eve of the 1905 revolution, most anarchists were adherents of anarcho-communism. Their main organization was "Bread and Freedom" with headquarters in Geneva. The main ideologist of the Khlebovoltsy was P. A. Kropotkin. Their program highlighted the following points:
The goal of the anarchists was declared to be “social revolution,” i.e., the complete destruction of capitalism and the state and replacing them with anarchist communism.
The beginning of the revolution was supposed to be a “general strike of the dispossessed both in cities and villages.”
The main methods of struggle in Russia were proclaimed to be “uprising and direct attack, both mass and personal, on the oppressors and exploiters.” The question of the use of personal terrorist attacks was to be decided only by local residents, depending on the specific situation.
The form of organization of anarchists was supposed to be “a voluntary agreement of individuals in groups and groups among themselves.
Anarchists rejected the possibility of their entry into any governing bodies (the State Duma or the Constituent Assembly), as well as the possibility of anarchists collaborating with other political parties or movements.
Essential for the Khlebovolites was the question of a future society created according to the model of anarcho-communism. Kropotkin's supporters imagined the future society as a union or federation of free communities, united by a free contract, where the individual, freed from the tutelage of the state, would receive unlimited opportunities for development. For the systematic development of the economy, Kropotkin proposed decentralizing industry. On the agrarian issue, Kropotkin and his comrades considered it necessary to transfer all the land seized as a result of the uprising to the people, to those who cultivate it themselves, but not into personal ownership, but to the community.
In the conditions of the revolution of 1905-07. Several more movements emerged in Russian anarcho-communism:
Beznachaltsy . This movement was based on the preaching of terror and robbery as methods of fighting the autocracy and the denial of all moral principles of society. They wanted to destroy the autocracy through “bloody popular reprisals” against those in power.
In the autumn of 1905 they took shape Black Banners (named after the color of the banners). In the revolution of 1905-07. this trend played one of the leading roles. The social base of the Black Banners consisted of individual representatives of the intelligentsia, part of the proletariat and artisan workers. They considered their main task to be the creation of a broad mass anarchist movement and the establishment of connections with all directions of anarchism. During the fighting at the end of 1905, the Black Banners split into “motiveless” terrorists and anarchist communists. The former considered the main goal to be the organization of “motiveless anti-bourgeois terror,” while the anarchist-communists advocated combining an anti-bourgeois war with a series of partial uprisings.
Anarcho-syndicalists . The syndicalists considered the main goal of their activities to be the complete, comprehensive liberation of labor from all forms of exploitation and the creation of free professional associations of workers as the main and highest form of their organization.
Of all types of struggle, syndicalists recognized only the direct struggle of workers with capital, as well as boycotts, strikes, destruction of property (sabotage) and violence against capitalists.
Following these ideals led the syndicalists to the idea of a “non-party workers’ congress,” as well as to agitation for the creation of an all-Russian workers’ party of “proletarians, regardless of existing party divisions and views.” Some of these ideas were adopted by the Mensheviks from the syndicalists.
In Russia, at the beginning of the first Russian revolution, there also exists anarcho-individualism (individualist anarchism), which took as a basis absolute freedom of the individual “as the starting point and final ideal.”
Varieties of individualist anarchism also took shape:
Mystical Anarchism is a movement aimed not at social transformation, but at “a special kind of spirituality.” Mystic-anarchists were based on Gnostic teachings (or rather, on their own understanding of them), they rejected the institutions of the church, and preached a single path to God.
Association anarchism. He was represented in Russia in the person of Lev Chernov (pseudonym of P. D. Turchaninov), who took as a basis the works of Stirner, Proudhon and the American anarchist V. R. Thacker. Turchaninov advocated the creation of a political association of producers. He considered systematic terror to be the main method of struggle.
Mahaevtsy (Makhaevists). The Mahaevites expressed a hostile attitude towards the intelligentsia, government and capital. The creator and theorist of the movement was the Polish revolutionary J. V. Makhaisky.
In the wake of the rising revolution, anarchists began to take more active action. Seeking to expand their influence on the masses, they organized printing houses and published brochures and leaflets. In an effort to tear the working class away from the Marxists, the anarchists made all sorts of attacks on the Bolsheviks. Denying the need for any power at all, the anarchists opposed the Bolshevik demands for the creation of a provisional revolutionary government.
On the pages of the anarchist press, the tactics of anarchism were characterized as a constant rebellion, a continuous uprising against the existing social and state system. Anarchists often called on the people to prepare for an armed uprising. Anarchist fighting squads carried out so-called “motiveless” terror. On December 17, 1905, anarchists in Odessa threw 5 bombs at Libman's cafe. Terrorist acts were committed by anarchists in Moscow, the Urals, and Central Asia. Ekaterinoslav anarchists were especially active (about 70 acts). During the years of the first Russian revolution, the anarchists' tactics of political and economic terror often resulted in robbery. Using them, some anarchist groups created so-called “battle funds”, from which part of the money was given to the workers. In 1905-07. Many criminal elements joined anarchism, trying to cover up their activities.
Anarchist ideologists hoped that the expansion of the network of anarchist organizations in 1905-07. will accelerate the introduction into the consciousness of the masses (and primarily the working class) of the ideas of anarchism.
Anarchists in the February Revolution of 1917
In 1914, the First World War broke out. It caused a split among anarchists into social patriots (led by Kropotkin) and internationalists. Kropotkin abandoned his views and founded a group of “anarcho-trenchers.” Anarchists who disagreed with him formed an international movement, but there were too few of them to have a serious influence on the masses. In the years between the two revolutions, the syndicalists became more active, publishing leaflets and verbally calling on citizens to open struggle.
Anarcho-communists in the period 1905-1917. experienced several splits. The so-called anarcho-cooperators separated from the orthodox supporters of anarcho-communism. They considered it possible to transition from capitalism to communism immediately, bypassing any transitional stages.
The Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups became the center for gathering forces of anarcho-communists. The most important thing during the revolution was the First Congress of Anarcho-Communists.
The anarcho-syndicalists acted more energetically than other trends. Unlike the anarcho-communists, the syndicalists constantly moved in the working environment and knew better the demands and needs of the working people. In their opinion, the day after the social revolution, state and political power should be destroyed and a new society created under the leadership of a federation of syndicates, responsible for organizing production and distribution.
In 1918, the so-called anarcho-federalists separated from the syndicalists. They considered themselves adherents of “pure syndicalism” and, in their opinion, social life after a social revolution should be organized by uniting individuals on the basis of a contract or agreement into communes.
In addition to those listed above, there were also many small, scattered groups of individualist anarchists.
Immediately after the February events (March 1, 1917), anarchists published a number of leaflets in which they expressed their opinions on the events that took place. Below are excerpts from the text of a leaflet of the United Organization of Petrograd Anarchists:
“Through the heroic efforts of soldiers and people, the power of Tsar Nicholas Romanov and his guardsmen was overthrown. The centuries-old shackles that tormented the soul and body of the people have been broken.
We, comrades, are faced with a great task: to create a new wonderful life on the principles of freedom and equality […].
We, anarchists and maximalists, say that the masses of the people, organizing themselves into unions, will be able to take the matter of production and distribution into their own hands and establish an order that ensures real freedom, that workers do not need any power, they do not need courts, prisons, or police.
But, indicating our goals, we, anarchists, in view of the exceptional conditions of the moment, ... will go together with the revolutionary government in its struggle against the old government until our enemy is crushed ...
Long live the social revolution."
Subsequently, anarchists began to sharply criticize the Provisional Government and other authorities.
The political activity of anarchists between the February and October revolutions mainly boiled down to an attempt to speed up the course of events - to carry out an immediate social revolution. This is what basically distinguished their program from the programs of other social democratic parties.
The anarchists launched their propaganda in Petrograd, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov and other cities. Clubs were created that became centers of propaganda. Anarchist leaders gave lectures at industrial enterprises, in military units and on ships, recruiting sailors and soldiers into members of their organizations. Anarchists organized rallies on city streets. These groups were mostly small in number, but noticeable.
In March 1917, the anarchists of Petrograd held 3 meetings. It was decided to conduct active propaganda, but not take any action.
The second meeting of Petrograd anarchists took place on March 2. The following requirements were adopted:
“Anarchists say:
1. All adherents of the old government must be immediately removed from their places.
2. All orders of the new reactionary government that pose a danger to freedom are canceled.
3. Immediate reprisal against the ministers of the old government.
4. Exercise of valid freedom of speech and press.
5. Issuance of weapons and ammunition to all combat groups and organizations.
6. Material support for our comrades released from prison.”
At the third meeting, held on March 4, 1917, reports were heard on the activities of anarchist groups in Petrograd. Requirements adjusted and approved:
The right of representation from the anarchist organization in Petrograd in the Workers' Council and Soldiers' Deputies;
Freedom of the press for all anarchist publications;
Immediate support for those released from prison;
The right to carry and generally have all kinds of weapons.
On tactical issues, the anarchists after February were divided into two camps - anarcho-rebels (the majority of anarchists) and “peaceful” anarchists. The rebels proposed to immediately raise an armed uprising, overthrow the Provisional Government and immediately establish a powerless society. However, the people for the most part did not support them. “Peaceful” anarchists persuaded workers not to take up arms, proposing to leave the existing order for now. P. Kropotkin also joined them.
It is interesting that if practically no one supported the rebels, the views of the “peaceful” anarchists were shared by other political parties and movements. Even the Cadets Party quoted some of P. A. Kropotkin’s sayings in their leaflets.
Anarchists participated in all major rallies, and often served as their initiators. On April 20, Petrograd workers spontaneously took to the streets to protest against the imperialist policies of the Provisional Government. Rallies took place in all city squares. On Theater Square there was an anarchist tribune, decorated with black flags. The anarchists demanded the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government.
Back in March 1917, anarchists began to take active steps to free their brothers from prison. But together with political prisoners they were released from prisons
so do criminals. The anarchist press did not ignore this:
“We see that the death penalty has been abolished for crowned and titled criminals: the king, ministers, generals, and criminals can be dealt with like mad dogs without any ceremony called a trial. … Real criminals, slaves of the old government, receive amnesties, are restored to their rights, take the oath to the new government and receive appointments […].
The most inveterate villain and criminal did not do even a hundredth part of the harm that the former arbiters of Russia’s destinies brought […].
We must come to the aid of criminals and fraternally extend a hand to them, as victims of social injustice.”
In April, a declaration of anarchist groups was adopted in Moscow, which was published not only in Moscow, but also in print media in many Russian cities:
1. Anarchist socialism fights to replace the power of class rule with an international union of free and equal workers, with the aim of organizing world production.
2. In order to strengthen anarchist organizations and develop anarcho-socialist thought, continue the struggle for political freedoms.
3. Conducting anarchist propaganda and organizing the revolutionary masses.
4. Consider the world war as imperialist; anarchist socialism strives to end it through the labors of the proletariat.
5. Anarchist socialism calls on the masses to abstain from participation in non-proletarian organizations - trade unions, councils of workers' and soldiers' deputies.
6. Relying only on the revolutionary initiative of the masses, anarchist socialism puts forward a general strike of workers and a general strike of soldiers as a transitional stage to the direct seizure of the instruments and means of government by the organized proletariat.
7. Anarchist socialism calls on the masses to organize anarchist groups in industrial and transport enterprises in order to form an anarchist international […].
In May, anarchists staged two armed demonstrations. Their speakers called for terror and anarchy. Taking advantage of the workers' dissatisfaction with the policies of the Provisional Government, the anarchist leaders took military action to provoke armed uprisings.
In June 1917, anarchists seized all the premises of the newspaper “Russian Will” - the office, the editorial office, and the printing house. The Provisional Government sent a military detachment. After long negotiations, the anarchists surrendered. Most of them were subsequently found innocent and released.
On June 7, in response to the seizure of the printing house, the Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government N.P. Pereverzev gave the order to clear the Durnovo dacha, where, in addition to the anarchists, the Prosvet workers' club and the board of trade unions of the Vyborg side were located. A wave of indignation and protest arose. On the same day, four enterprises on the Vyborg side began strikes, and by June 8th their number increased to 28 factories. The provisional government retreated.
On June 9, at the Durnovo dacha, the anarchists convened a conference, which was attended by representatives of 95 factories and military units in Petrograd. At the initiative of the organizers, a “Provisional Revolutionary Committee” was created, which included representatives of some factories and military units. The anarchists decided on June 10 to seize several printing houses and premises. They were supported by separate groups of workers. But the Bolsheviks' cancellation of the demonstration scheduled for that day thwarted their plans.
But the anarchists still took part in the demonstration that took place on June 18. By one o'clock in the afternoon, the anarchists approached the Champ de Mars, carrying several black banners with anarchist slogans. During the demonstration, the anarchists raided the Kresty prison, where their like-minded people were imprisoned. A group of 50-75 people raided the prison. The raiders freed 7 people: anarchists Khaustov (former editor of the newspaper “Okopnaya Pravda”), Muller, Gusev, Strelchenko and several criminals. Along with the anarchists, the Bolshevik Party was also accused of the raid on the “Crosses”.
The situation around Durnovo's dacha has again deteriorated sharply. On June 19, a Cossack hundred and an infantry battalion with an armored vehicle, led by Minister of Justice P. Pereverzev, Prosecutor R. Karinsky and General P. Polovtsev, headed to the dacha, demanding the extradition of those released from prison. The anarchists at the dacha tried to resist. They threw a grenade, but it did not explode. As a result of a clash with troops, the anarchist Asin was killed (possibly committed suicide), and 59 people were arrested. To the greatest regret of the authorities, they did not find the Bolsheviks there. The news of the pogrom at Durnovo's dacha raised the entire Vyborg side to its feet. On the same day, workers at four factories went on strike. The meetings were quite stormy, but the workers soon calmed down.
As a sign of protest against the pogrom, the anarchists tried to bring the 1st machine gun regiment into the streets. But the soldiers refused the anarchists: “We do not share the views or actions of anarchists and are not inclined to support them, but at the same time we do not approve of the authorities’ reprisals against anarchists and are ready to defend freedom from an internal enemy.”.
In July 1917, the political situation in Petrograd became very tense. Messages arrived in Petrograd about the failure of the Russian army's offensive at the front. This caused a government crisis. All cadet ministers of the Provisional Government resigned.
The anarchists, assessing the current situation, decided to act. On July 2, at the Durnovo dacha, the leaders of the Petrograd Federation of Anarchist-Communists held a secret meeting at which they decided to mobilize their forces and call on the people to an armed uprising under the slogans: “Down with the Provisional Government!”, “Anarchy and self-organization!” Active propaganda among the population was launched.
The main support of the anarchists was the 1st Machine Gun Regiment. The regiment's barracks were located not far from Durnovo, and the anarchists there had great influence. On July 2, a rally was held at the People's House under the leadership of the Bolshevik G.I. Petrovsky. The anarchists sought to win over the soldiers to their side. On the afternoon of July 3, on the initiative of soldier Golovin, who was a supporter of the anarchists, a regimental meeting was opened against the will of the regimental committee. Blaichman spoke on behalf of the anarchists at the meeting. He called for “to go out today, July 3rd, into the streets with arms in hand for a demonstration to overthrow ten capitalist ministers.” Other anarchists also spoke, posing as representatives of the workers of the Putilov plant, Kronstadt sailors and soldiers from the front. They didn't have any specific plan. “The street will show the goal,” they said. The anarchists also said that other factories were already ready to take action. The Bolsheviks tried to stop the crowd, but the indignant soldiers did not listen to them. At the meeting, a decision was made: to immediately go out into the street with weapons in hand.
The machine gunners decided to drag the sailors of Kronstadt into the armed uprising and sent a delegation to them, which included the anarchist Pavlov. In the fortress, the delegation attended a meeting of the executive committee of the Council and asked for the support of the sailors in an armed uprising, but was refused. Then the delegates decided to appeal directly to the sailors, where at that time the anarchist E. Yarchuk was giving a lecture on war and peace in front of a small audience (about 50 people). Having arrived there, the anarchists called for an immediate uprising. “Blood is already shed there, and the Kronstadters are sitting and lecturing,” they said. These performances caused unrest among the sailors. Soon 8-10 thousand people gathered on Anchor Square. The anarchists reported that the goal of their uprising was to overthrow the Provisional Government. The excited crowd was eagerly awaiting the performance. The Bolsheviks tried to stop the sailors from sailing to Petrograd, but they only managed to delay it.
Delegations of machine gunners, sent to many plants and factories, as well as to military units in Petrograd, called for an armed uprising of workers and soldiers. The machine gun regiment began to erect barricades. The machine gunners were followed by the Grenadier, Moscow and other regiments. By 9 pm on July 3, seven regiments had already left the barracks. They all moved to the Kshesinskaya mansion, where the Central Committee and PC of the Bolshevik Party were located. Delegations from factories also flocked there. The Putilovites and workers from the Vyborg side came out.
The entire demonstration headed to the Tauride Palace. Among the slogans of the strikers were both Bolshevik slogans (“All power to the “Councils of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies””) on red banners, and anarchist ones (“Down with the Provisional Government,” “Long live anarchy!”). Nevsky Prospekt was filled with workers and revolutionary soldiers. Shooting rang out and lasted no more than 10 minutes.
On July 4, revolutionaries took to the streets again. At 12 noon they were joined by Kronstadt sailors. At least 500 thousand people took to the streets. They all rushed to the Tauride Palace. Government troops on Nevsky Prospekt opened fire. They also shot on Liteiny Prospekt, near the Tauride Palace and in other places. The dead and wounded began to appear. The demonstration began to wane.
The uprising of July 3-4, 17 ended in failure. Until October 1917, the anarchists fell silent, while continuing to conduct propaganda among the population.
Anarchists after October 1917
On the eve of October 1917, the Bolsheviks did not fail to use the anarchists as a destructive force and provided them with assistance with weapons, food, and ammunition. Anarchists, plunging into their native element of destruction and struggle, participated in armed clashes in Petrograd, Moscow, Irkutsk and other cities.
After the October events, some anarchists partially changed their previous views and went over to the side of the Bolsheviks. Among them are such famous people as Chapaev, Anatoly Zheleznyakov, who dispersed the constituent assembly, Dmitry Furmanov and Grigory Kotovsky. Some anarchists were members of the main Bolshevik revolutionary organizations: the Petrograd Soviet, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets.
However, the Bolsheviks' rise to power was met with hostility by many anarchists. Literally from the first hours, the anarchists began to have disagreements with the Bolsheviks. Having previously advocated for the Soviets, the anarchists hastened to disassociate themselves from this organizational form of power. Others, recognizing Soviet power, were against the creation of a centralized government.
Anarchists still advocated the continuation of the revolution. They were not satisfied with the results of the October Revolution, which overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie, but established the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the view of anarchists, the transition from capitalism to communism, and then to anarchy should not be a long process, it only takes a few days. The transition was thought of as an “explosion,” one “big leap.” Based on this project, the anarchists proclaimed a course towards the transition to communism. “The struggle for the communist system must begin immediately,” wrote A. Ge.
Anarchists put forward the slogan of a “third revolution.” In their opinion, the following came out: the February Revolution overthrew the autocracy, the power of the landowners; Oktyabrskaya - Provisional Government, the power of the bourgeoisie; and the new, “third” must overthrow the Soviet government, the power of the working class and eliminate the state in general, that is, eliminate the state of the proletarian dictatorship.
Anarchists also opposed the ratification of the Brest Peace Treaty. They declared disagreement with the Bolsheviks, while in every possible way emphasizing the difference between their position and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik ones. The anarchists’ resolution proposed rejecting the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty “as an act of conciliation, and... practically and fundamentally incompatible with the dignity and interests of the Russian and world revolution.” Brest divided the anarchists even more deeply into supporters and opponents of the October Revolution. Some recognized the need for the measures taken by the Bolsheviks to save the revolution and took the path of cooperation with the Soviet government. Others, on the contrary, were preparing to fight against Soviet power, creating detachments of the “Black Guard”.
In the winter of 1917-1918, the Federation of Anarchist Groups of Moscow seized several dozen merchant mansions, which were turned into “Houses of Anarchy” - clubs, lecture halls, libraries, printing houses were set up there, and “Black Guard” detachments numbering three to four thousand fighters were based there. The Union of Anarchist Propaganda and rapidly growing youth anarchist organizations and unions launched extensive propaganda activities.
In the front-line cities of Kursk, Voronezh, and Yekaterinoslav, anarchists took up arms. Raids and expropriations of mansions have become more frequent in Moscow. Although the leaders of the anarchists repeatedly stated that “no actions against the Soviets would be allowed,” the threat of action by the “Black Guard” detachments was obvious.
Anarchists fought against the dictatorship of the proletariat for such ideals of the revolution as the transfer of land to peasants and factories to workers (and not to the state), the creation of free non-party Soviets (not hierarchical authorities, but based on the principle of delegation of bodies of people's self-government), universal arming of the people, etc. . Therefore, the anarchists very resolutely opposed the “white” counter-revolution.
Many criminals infiltrated the anarchist milieu with an extremely vulgar understanding of the ideas of anarchism. Spontaneous anarchism also arose, engulfing some of the soldiers and sailors of the decaying old army, who sometimes turned into ordinary bandit groups operating under the flag of anarchism.
Since mid-1918, the Russian anarchist movement has gone through a period of splits, interspersed with temporary unifications of individual groups.
The Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups was dissolved in April 1918. On its basis, the Union of Anarchist-Syndicalist Communists, the Union of Moscow Anarchists and the so-called First Central Sociotechnical School arose. The program of activity of the anarchists, regardless of their shades, increasingly took on anti-Bolshevik content and forms. The main criticism was directed against the construction of the Soviet state. Some anarchists, having recognized the idea of a transition period in the form of a Republic of Soviets, put stateless content into it. “The Free Voice of Labor,” an organ of anarchist-syndicalists, defined the task as follows: “...The Republic of Soviets, that is, the dispersion of power among local Soviets, communities (urban and rural communes), the organization of free Soviet cities and villages, their federation through the Soviets - that’s the task of the anarcho-syndicalists in the coming communal revolution." The anarchists considered the organization of management generally necessary: with this they associated the electoral principle, but not in the form of representation, which they considered a bourgeois creation, but in the form of delegation - “free councils”, which establish connections on the principles of federation, without any centralizing principle .
The slogan of the “third revolution” - against the “party of stagnation and reaction” (as they dubbed the Bolshevik Party) - increasingly captured members of anarchist organizations. Like the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, they accused the Bolsheviks of “dividing the working people into two hostile camps” and “inciting the workers to a crusade in the countryside.”
Anarchist-communists took an active part in developing the economic transformation of society. What they had in common was the thesis about the economic insolvency of the Bolsheviks due to their adherence to methods of political violence and the exclusion of workers from production management. Anarchist-communists substantiated their own concept of an “economic labor revolution” as a counterweight to the workers’ control of the Bolsheviks, the concept of socialization instead of Bolshevik nationalization.
At the same time, not all anarchist leaders had such an unambiguous attitude towards the Bolshevik policies.
At the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets, anarchist representatives assessed the food policy of the Council of People's Commissars as an attempt to “get closer to the peasant poor... to awaken their independence and organize them.” This group of “Soviet anarchists” began to help the Bolsheviks in building a socialist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat was supported by some anarchist-syndicalists.
Throughout 1918 – 1919. Anarchists sought to organize their forces and expand their social base. They tried to achieve this by diametrically opposed means. On the one hand, cooperation, albeit inconsistent, with the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, in March 1919, they, together with the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, tried to provoke worker strikes. At the end of March 1919, the Central Committee of the RCP(b) decided on measures to combat such activities: a number of anarchist publications were closed, and some of their leaders were arrested. On June 13, at a meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), it was decided to allow the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee to personally release those arrested in some cases. Anarchist leaders were also released on bail. Most of the anarchists switched to positions of “active terror” and armed struggle against Soviet power.
Anarchist movement in Ukraine. Nestor Makhno.
The most striking episode of the civil war in Russia associated with the anarchist movement, of course, was the activity of the Insurgent Army led by N.I. Makhno.
The peasant movement in Ukraine was broader than anarchism itself, although the leaders of the movement used anarchist ideology.
Nestor Ivanovich Makhno (Mikhnenko) was born into a family of peasants in the Ukrainian village of Gulyai-Polye, Zaporozhye region, in 1888. He graduated from Gulyai-Polye primary school (1897). From 1903 he worked at the M. Kerner iron foundry in Gulyai-Polye. From the end of August to the beginning of September 1906, he was a member of the “Youth Circle of the Ukrainian Group of Anarchist-Communist Grain Growers,” which operated in Gulyai-Polye. Participated in several robberies on behalf of anarchist communists. He was arrested several times, spent time in prison, and in 1908 he was sentenced to death, which was later replaced by indefinite hard labor. The following year he was transferred to the convict department of Butyrka prison in Moscow. In his cell, Makhno met the famous anarchist activist, former Bolshevik Pyotr Arshinov, who in the future would become a significant figure in the history of the Makhnovshchina. Arshinov took up the ideological preparation of Makhno.
After the February Revolution, Makhno, like many other prisoners, both political and criminal, was released early from prison and returned to Gulyai-Polye. There he was elected fellow chairman of the volost zemstvo. Soon he created the Black Guard group, and with its help established a personal dictatorship in the village. Makhno considered dictatorship a necessary form of government for the final victory of the revolution and stated that “if possible, we need to throw out the bourgeoisie and take up positions with our people”.
In March 1917, Makhno became chairman of the Gulyai-Polye Peasant Union. He advocated immediate radical revolutionary changes before the convening of the Constituent Assembly. In June 1917, on Makhno’s initiative, workers’ control was established at the enterprises of the village; in July, with the support of Makhno’s supporters, he dispersed the previous composition of the zemstvo, held new elections, became the chairman of the zemstvo and at the same time declared himself commissar of the Gulyai-Polye region. In August 1917, on Makhno’s initiative, a committee of farm laborers was created under the Gulyai-Polye Council of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, whose activities were directed against local landowners; in the same month he was elected as a delegate to the provincial congress of the Peasant Union in Yekaterinoslav.
In the summer of 1917, Makhno headed the “committee to save the revolution” and disarmed the landowners and bourgeoisie in the region. At the regional Congress of Soviets (mid-August 1917) he was elected chairman and, together with other anarchists, called on the peasants to ignore the orders of the Provisional Government and the Central Rada, proposed “immediately take away church and landowner land and organize a free agricultural commune on the estates, if possible with the participation of the landowners and kulaks themselves in these communes”.
On September 25, 1917, Makhno signed a decree of the district council on the nationalization of land and its division among peasants. From December 1 to December 5, 1917 in Yekaterinoslav, Makhno took part in the work of the provincial congress of Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers' deputies, as a delegate from the Gulyai-Polye Soviet; supported the demand of the majority of delegates to convene the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets; elected to the judicial commission of the Aleksandrovsky Revolutionary Committee to consider cases of persons arrested by the Soviet government. Soon after the arrests of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, he began to express dissatisfaction with the actions of the judicial commission and proposed blowing up the city prison and releasing those arrested. He had a negative attitude towards the elections to the Constituent Assembly and called the emerging situation a “card game”: “The parties will not serve the people, but the people will serve the parties. Already now... in the affairs of the people only their name is mentioned, and the affairs of the party are decided.”. Having received no support from the Revolutionary Committee, he resigned from its membership. After the capture of Yekaterinoslav by the forces of the Central Rada (December 1917), he initiated an emergency congress of Soviets of the Gulyai-Polye region, which passed a resolution demanding the “death of the Central Rada” and spoke out for the organization of forces opposing it. On January 4, 1918, he resigned from the post of Chairman of the Council and decided to take an active position in the fight against opponents of the revolution. He welcomed the victory of the revolutionary forces in Yekaterinoslav. Soon he headed the Gulyai-Polye Revolutionary Committee, created from representatives of anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries and Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries.
The anarchist influence on Makhno's rebel movement increased significantly due to the appearance of visiting anarchists of various directions among the rebels. The highest command positions in Makhno's rebel army were occupied by the most prominent anarchists. V.M. Volin headed the RVS, P.A. Arshinov headed the cultural and educational department and edited the Makhnovist newspapers. V.M. Volin, one might say, was the main theoretician, and Arshinov was the political leader of the Makhnovshchina. Influencing Makhno's views, they determined the goals and objectives of the insurgency. Nestor Makhno himself, more than other anarchists, was susceptible to the idea of anarchy and never deviated from it. They viewed an alliance with the Bolsheviks as a tactical necessity. The agreement concluded with the Bolsheviks of Yekaterinoslav on a joint fight against the Petliurists in December 1918 was carried out very inconsistently. Having driven the Petliurites out of the city, the Makhnovist army showed itself in all its anarchist “brilliance”. Prominent anarchists in Makhno’s army did not hesitate to use their “official” position for the purpose of personal enrichment.
In July 1918, Makhno met with Lenin and Sverdlov. To the latter, Makhno introduced himself as an anarchist-communist of the Bakunin-Kropotkin persuasion. Makhno later recalled that Lenin, pointing out the fanaticism and short-sightedness of the anarchists, noted at the same time that he considered Makhno himself “a man of reality and ebullience of the day” and if there were at least one third of such anarchist-communists in Russia, then the communists ready to work with them. According to Makhno, Lenin tried to convince him that the Bolshevik attitude towards the anarchists was not so hostile and was largely due to the behavior of the anarchists themselves. “I felt that I was beginning to revere Lenin, whom I had recently confidently considered to be the culprit of the destruction of anarchist organizations in Moscow,” writes Makhno. In the end, both came to the conclusion that it was impossible to fight the enemies of the revolution without sufficient organization of the masses and firm discipline.
However, immediately after this conversation, Makhno called on his comrades in Gulyai-Polye to “destroy the slave system,” to live freely and “independently of the state and its officials, even the Red ones.” Thus, in case of any hesitation, Makhno, as a rule, sided with anarchism. Makhno came close to the Bolsheviks and was ready to completely merge with them, but the influence of anarchism on his worldview and psychology remained predominant.
In January-February 1919, Makhno organized a series of pogroms against German colonists in the Gulyai-Polye region and interfered with the measures of the Soviet government aimed at creating a class split in the countryside (“committees of the poor”, surplus appropriation); called on the peasants to put into practice the idea of “equal land use based on their own labor.”
In February 1919, Makhno convened the 2nd District Congress of Soviets of Gulyai-Polye. The resolution of the congress assessed the White Guards, imperialists, Soviet power, Petliurists and Bolsheviks, accused of compromising with imperialism, equally.
The Makhnovist detachments united heterogeneous elements, including a small percentage of workers. Under the influence, first of all, of anarchism, the Makhnovshchina was a politically loose movement. Essentially, it was a movement of peasant revolutionism. The Makhnovists’ position on the land issue was quite definite: the 2nd District Congress of Soviets spoke out against state farms decreed by the Ukrainian Soviet government and demanded the transfer of land to peasants on an egalitarian principle. Nestor Makhno called himself a peasant leader.
In the context of the offensive of the troops of General A.I. Denikin in Ukraine in mid-February 1919, Makhno entered into a military agreement with the command of the Red Army and on February 21, 1919, became the commander of the 3rd brigade of the 1st Trans-Dnieper division, which fought against Denikin’s troops on the Mariupol line. Volnovakha.
For the raid on Mariupol on March 27, 1919, which slowed down the White advance on Moscow, brigade commander Makhno was awarded the Order of the Red Banner number 4.
Nestor Ivanovich repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the emergency policy of Soviet power in the liberated areas. On April 10, 1919, at the 3rd regional congress of Soviets of the Gulyai-Polye region, he was elected honorary chairman; in his speech he stated that the Soviet government had betrayed the “October principles”, and the Communist Party legitimized power and “protected itself with extraordinary events.” Makhno signed a resolution of the congress, which expressed disapproval of the decisions of the 3rd All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets (March 1919) on the land issue (on the nationalization of land), a protest against the Cheka and the policies of the Bolsheviks, and a demand for the removal of all persons appointed by the Bolsheviks from military and civilian posts; at the same time, the Makhnovists demanded the “socialization” of land, factories and factories; food policy changes; freedom of speech, press and assembly to all left-wing parties and groups; personal integrity; rejection of the dictatorship of the Communist Party; freedom of elections to the Soviets of working peasants and workers.
From April 15, 1919, Makhno led a brigade as part of the 1st Ukrainian Soviet Army. After the start of the mutiny of the Red Army commander N.A. Grigoriev (May 7), Makhno took a wait-and-see attitude, then took the side of the Red Army and personally shot Grigoriev. In May 1919, at a meeting of rebel commanders in Mariupol, Makhno supported the initiative to create a separate rebel army.
The population supported Makhno because he fought for things that were understandable to every peasant: for land and freedom, for people's self-government based on a federation of non-party Soviets.
Makhno did not allow Jewish pogroms on his territory (which were then common in territories controlled by Petliurists or Grigorievites), brutally punished looters and, relying on the bulk of the peasantry, was harsh with the landowners and kulaks. The Makhnovsky district was a relatively free place: political agitation of all socialist parties and groups was allowed in it: from the Bolsheviks to the socialist revolutionaries. The Makhnovsky district was perhaps the most “free economic zone”, where there were various forms of land use (of course, except for landowners) - communes, cooperatives, and private peasant farms (without the use of farm laborers).
In the literature one can find vivid characteristics of anarchist leaders. Before us appear very colorful figures of prominent anarchists.
For example, as A. Vetlugin describes, A. L. Gordin - “a little lame man... surpassed both Martov and Bukharin, the first in ugliness, the second in anger.” A.A. said something deadly apt about him. Borovoy: “Gordin, of course, is a Russian Marat, but he is not afraid of Charlotte Corday, because he never takes a bath!..” He spat on everyone and everything. Kropotkin and Lenin, Longuet and Brusilov, allied ambassadors and Swiss socialists, owners of printing houses and General Mannerheim. Money was needed - and Gordin, without hesitating for a minute, organized raids on private apartments...
The most impromptu, the most conscious, internally justified, perhaps, ennobled was the anarchism of Lev Cherny. In his younger years, he was close to the Marxists... Disillusioned with the socialist idea, Cherny did not believe in the goodness of any power, but anarchy did not deceive him in its idealism. Sometimes it seemed that first of all he wanted to persuade himself... Gordin is the commander-in-chief; Barmash - tribune; Leo Black - conscience. Wisdom and erudition were represented by the pupil of the old world, Alexei Solonovich, at the age of twenty - a novice of the Svyatogorsk Monastery, at twenty-six - a private assistant professor at Moscow University in the department of mathematics.”
Thus, during the Civil War, anarchism experienced a painful process of demarcation and, as a consequence, organizational splits, which led to a change in political orientation: a transition to pro-Bolshevik positions or departure to the camp of anti-Bolshevik forces with all the ensuing consequences.
The civil war in Russia became a tragedy for the entire population of the country. The confrontation gripped all segments of the population and entered every home. Kuban was no exception, where the confrontation involved the Cossack and nonresident population. The first battles took place in early January 1918 near the city of Yekaterinodar and ended in the defeat of Bolshevik supporters. January 2018 will mark 100 years since the start of this tragedy.
I do not pretend to provide a detailed examination of all aspects related to those distant events, but I will try to consider the preparedness of the military units of the warring parties at the initial stage of the confrontation. It should be noted that at this period of time, the confrontation involved the masses of soldiers, who stood mainly on the side of the Bolsheviks, and Cossack formations, who tried to resist the aspirations of the Bolshevik leaders. The Kuban Cossacks did not yet understand the threats that arose before them as one of the classes subject to liquidation, and tried to defend their traditional rights. Unfortunately, this came at a high price.
The Black Sea region was the first to fall under Bolshevik rule. In this regard, the Kuban Regional Food Committee refused to send trains with grain to Novorossiysk, which served to strengthen anti-Cossack sentiments, although the committee was not Cossack in composition.
The Bolsheviks, guided by the decisions made at the first conference of party organizations of the Kuban and Black Sea region, held on November 25-26, 1917 in Novorossiysk, focused on the formation of Red Guard detachments and strengthening work in military units returning from the front. The leader of the Bolsheviks A.A. Yakovlev proposed to go to Trebizond for troops in order to immediately move to Kuban. This decision was made unanimously.
At the end of December 1917, meetings of military workers were held in the villages of Krymskaya and Primorsko-Akhtarskaya. They make decisions on the transition to an active fight against the regional government. By the end of 1917, the power of the Kuban government extended only to Ekaterinodar and the villages closest to it.
The events of 1917-1918 showed the inability of the democratic forces in the region to resolve economic and political issues peacefully. Passions boiled over the issue of land, but it was resolved only in favor of the Cossack part of the population, which meant attempts to establish a dictatorship. Speculation in land rentals deepened the divide in society. The intensity of political passions led to the fact that the majority of political parties and movements saw the possibility of their existence only in support on an armed basis. The process of militarization of parties began. The parties moved from local clashes to a large-scale civil war.
On January 12, 1918, in the village of Krymskaya, the Bolsheviks made a decision to storm Ekaterinodar. Their forces, according to Ataman Vyacheslav Naumenko, amounted to up to 4,000 people. The regional government could oppose them with about 600 fighters with four guns.
The opposing side did not sit idly by. I will give an assessment by historian D.E. Skobtseva: “N.M., a member of the government for military affairs, finally arrived from the Caucasian Front. Uspensky and set about putting together units of Kuban volunteers. He hastily passed through the Government Council a regulation on service in the Kuban volunteer detachments. A decent salary was determined for the volunteers, the military regulations were adapted, the regulations on rank production, discipline, revolutionary field courts, etc. were revised.”
The phase of active formation of the first units has begun. The above-mentioned author noted: “By the end of Christmastide, there were already several Kuban volunteer detachments that took the name of their commanders: military foreman Golaev, Colonel Demenik and others. The initiative and popularity of the bosses were of great importance.”
At the end of January 1918, near Enem and Georgie Afipska, the struggle became widespread. Skobtsev noted: “... three directions of the Bolshevik offensive on Yekaterinodar were determined: Caucasian, Tikhoretsk and Novorossiysk - along the main railway lines. At first, Novorossiysk turned out to be the most stormy - led by the “Minister of War of the Novorossiysk Republic,” Ensign Seradze. The battle began at the very approach to Ekaterinodar, at the Enem crossing. Galaev and Pokrovsky spoke out against Seradze.
In the first battle near the Enem station, the Bolsheviks suffered a serious defeat. During the battle, military sergeant major P.A. Galaev shot the commander of the Red Guard, cadet Alexander Yakovlev, and was immediately killed himself. An interesting fact is that during the First World War Yakovlev served as a supplier of uniforms for the needs of the army and was not a professional commander. During one of the trips near the town of Molodechko, a grenade flew into the window of the carriage where he was, the cadet was wounded, after which he underwent treatment on the Black Sea coast. After the events of 1917, he was sent by the Bolsheviks to Novorossiysk.
The second battle was also unsuccessful. The left Socialist Revolutionary ensign Seradze, who was appointed instead of Yakovlev, was captured and died from his wounds in a military hospital.
In Novorossiysk, several armored trains were prepared for the attack on the capital of Kuban. The number of Red Army soldiers, according to Soviet and emigrant experts, was about 4,000 people. Supporters of the regional government sent no more than 600 Cossacks against this group. Cossack cavalry and several guns were thrown against the armored trains.
The result of this operation is impressive. The Red Guard on armored trains with artillery was defeated, and most of its participants fled: “The Bolsheviks fled, leaving numerous trophies and their mortally wounded commander-in-chief Seridze on the battlefield. Here, in a battle near the Enem crossing, a girl, warrant officer Barkhash, died. Pokrovsky was given a triumph similar to Caesar’s.”
Thus, it turned out that the Cossacks were more prepared for combat operations, and the Cossacks had a much higher motive for defending their land. In addition, the level of commander training among Bolshevik leaders was highly questionable.
The population of Kuban reacted negatively to the Bolshevik performance. A gathering of residents of the village of Pashkovskaya condemned this action. Cossacks from the villages of Voronezh, Platnirovskaya, Novotitarovskaya and others spoke out in support of the regional government. The villagers of Kushchevskaya refused to submit to the power of the soviets.
The first attempt by Bolshevik supporters to seize power in the Kuban capital failed. A new stage of escalation of the civil war has begun. To replenish supplies, the Novorossiysk executive committee continued to disarm the units of the Caucasian front passing through the city.
An attempt to agitate among seven thousand soldiers in the capital of the Black Sea province about a repeat performance led to a split in their ranks. Soldiers of the 22nd Varnavinsky Regiment and the 41st Artillery Division agreed to participate in the fight against the regional government. Sailors of the Black Sea Fleet played an active role. At the request of the Novorossiysk Bolshevik Committee, a detachment of F.M. arrived from Crimea. Karnau-Grushevsky.
The Kuban-Black Sea Military Revolutionary Committee received weapons from the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Caucasian Army, the Central Executive Committee of the Military Fleet from Kerch, Sevastopol, Odessa. Contact was established with Armavir and Tikhoretskaya to form a new front against Ekaterinodar.
A base of armed resources for a new assault on the Kuban capital was created. Moreover, support was provided in all directions. Supporters of the Cossacks did not have such a wide base; the industrial regions of Russia came under the control of the Bolsheviks. There was no ammunition, small arms, cartridges, military equipment and ammunition.
On the one hand, we see excellent command cadres among the opponents of the Bolsheviks, and on the other, the lack of material support for military operations.
The situation among Bolshevik supporters was completely opposite. And time was not long in coming; the next stage of the armed confrontation began, which ended in the spring of 1918 with the defeat of the anti-Bolshevik coalition in the Kuban. The process of accumulation of forces began again, which grew into confrontation in the summer of 1918, when the Volunteer Army, together with units of the Kuban Cossacks, took full control of the territory of the former Kuban region.
"White-green" 20s
The majority of Kuban residents, tired of the war, supported the Bolsheviks in the spring of 1920. Peasants and workers joyfully greeted the Red Army, and the Cossacks maintained a benevolent neutrality. Pilyuk and Savitsky, the leaders of the “green army” who rebelled against Denikin, hoped for moderation by the Bolsheviks, an agreement between the socialist parties, and the granting of autonomy to the Cossack regions. It seemed to them that the Bolsheviks would not introduce the system of military communism in the Kuban. A peculiar situation arose in the Sochi and Tuapse districts, where the Black Sea Liberation Committee, led by the Socialist-Revolutionary Voronovich, created the Black Sea Peasant Republic, fighting against both the Volunteer and Red Army.
In the spring of 1920, only a few continued to fight against the Bolsheviks. But by May 1920, the introduction of labor duties and surplus appropriation, the redistribution of Cossack lands and lawless reprisals, and the ban on the participation of kulaks in elections heated the atmosphere. At the end of April, the 14th Cavalry Division of the 1st Cavalry Army, formed mainly from former whites, rebelled. Knowing about the direction against Wrangel, the division started a riot in the village of Umanskaya with the call “Down with the war, down with the commune!” Near the village of Kushchevskaya, the rebels, led by Colonel Sukhenko, were defeated and scattered.
The anti-Bolshevik movement represented a wide range of forces. Agents of foreign states and criminals acted; the protracted war demoralized many and devalued life. But it is wrong to neglect the heterogeneity and complex balance of forces of the rebels. The opinion of political commissar of the 1st Cavalry Army Stroilo gives cause for thought: “Pure banditry is a property of very few small detachments that have nothing in common with large political organizations.”
The social composition of the “white-greens” was complex. Usually the detachments were led by officers or Cossacks; there were many former soldiers of the Volunteer Army, refugees from Central Russia. When the villages were captured, all Cossacks of military age were subject to mobilization. Relations between the “white-green” groups are contradictory; they were united by hatred of the Soviet regime.
An accurate estimate of the number of rebels, their deployment and equipment is difficult. The special department of the Caucasian Front believed that the number of large detachments of “white-greens” from June to July 6, 1920 grew in the south from 5,400 to 13,100 people in 36 detachments with 50 machine guns and 12 guns. The historian Stepanenko summarized the data, according to which in August 1920 the counter-revolutionary forces on the Don, Kuban and Terek reached 30,000 people. Military operations had a seasonal rhythm, dying down during sowing and harvesting, flaring up in autumn and early spring. The next peak of protests occurred in February-March 1921, a period of worsening food crisis and a turning point in the policy of the RCP (b).
The main centers of the insurgency were the Trans-Kuban region (the deployment of the Russian Renaissance Army), the Azov region (Wrangel's landings), and the Sochi district.
In mid-April 1920, General Fostikov began to create a Plastun regiment and a cavalry brigade near Maikop. In July, a spontaneous riot caused by surplus appropriation and the seizure of ¾ of the hay reserves engulfed the villages of the Labinsk department. On July 18, Colonel Shevtsov with a detachment of 600 sabers captured the Prochnookopskaya village and announced the mobilization of the Cossacks. The total forces of the “white-green” Labinsky, Batalpashinsky and Maikop departments reached 11,400 people with 55 machine guns and 6 guns in mid-July.
On July 23, military foreman Fartukov restored ataman rule in the mountainous zone of the Maikop department.
Growing rebellions forced requests for military assistance. On August 1, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Cheka received a telegram from the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee: “The entire Kuban is engulfed in uprisings. There are detachments led by a single hand - Wrangel's agents. The green detachments grow and expand significantly with the end of the busy season of field work - around August 15. If Wrangel is not liquidated within a short time, we risk temporarily losing the North Caucasus.”
The authorities took strict measures. On July 29, 1920, order No. 1247 was issued for the troops of the Caucasian Front, signed by Trifonov and Gittis. By August 15, residents were required to surrender their weapons under pain of confiscation of property and execution on the spot. The same punishment was established for joining gangs, assisting the “greens” or harboring them. The rebel villages were subject to pacification "with the most decisive and merciless measures, up to their complete ruin and destruction."