SITUATION IN UKRAINE In 1920, characterized by the end of the civil war (Soviet-Polish war, the defeat of Wrangel's army in the Crimea, the Petliura and White Guard troops on the Right Bank of Ukraine), the policy of the Bolsheviks in the field of economics - war communism. The Civil War is the greatest drama of the 20th century. This armed struggle that lasted for several years between various groups of the population, with the active intervention

foreign forces, went through various stages and stages, took various forms, including uprisings, rebellions, scattered clashes, large-scale military operations with the participation of regular armies, the actions of armed detachments in the rear of existing governments and state entities. The war was fought on fronts, the total length of which reached 8 thousand km. The result - economic ruin, famine in cities, paralysis of railways, acute class struggle, revelry

banditry, sabotage, etc. The Soviet-Polish war - the civil war was ending, but at that time a new threat appeared - now from Poland. In the policy of pushing neighboring states to war against the Republic of Soviets by the Entente countries, Poland occupied not the last place. The coalition has repeatedly sought to influence

Poland so that it would provide more active assistance to the White Guard armies, especially during Denikin's campaign against Moscow. With their help, 740 thousand Polish army was armed, which in April 1920 launched an offensive against Ukraine, occupied Zhytomyr and Kyiv. The result - fierce hostilities on the Polish front ended with a peace treaty signed on October 12, 1920. "War Communism" - domestic politics

Soviet state in the conditions of the Civil War. The policy of "War Communism" was aimed at overcoming the economic crisis and was based on theoretical ideas about the possibility of the direct introduction of communism. Main features: nationalization of all large and medium industry and most of the small enterprises; food dictatorship, surplus appropriation, direct product exchange between town and countryside; replacement

private trade in the state distribution of products on a class basis (card system); naturalization of economic relations; universal labor service; equality in wages; military command system for managing the entire life of society. The main elements of "war communism" Centralized management of the nationalized industry. Private property was abolished altogether, and a state monopoly of foreign trade was established.

A strict sectoral system of industrial management was introduced. Violent cooperation. At the direction of the party, individual peasant farms were united into collective farms, and state farms were created. The Decree on Land was actually cancelled. The land fund was transferred not to the working people, but to communes, state farms, and labor artels. The individual peasant could only use the remnants of the land fund.

Equal distribution Naturalization of wages. The Bolsheviks viewed socialism as a commodityless and moneyless society. This led to the abolition of the market and commodity-money relations. Any non-state trade was prohibited. The policy of "war communism" led to the destruction of commodity-money relations. Products and manufactured goods were distributed by the state in the form of natural rations,

which was different for different categories of the population. Equal wages were introduced among workers (an illusion of social equality). As a result, speculation and the "black market" flourished. The depreciation of money led to the fact that the population received free housing, utilities, transport, postal and other services. The militarization of labor. From January 1920, labor armies began to be created by transferring

active armies on the labor position and the association of reserve and reserve troops. Industrial enterprises have increased the length of the working day and introduced a seven-day working week. Enterprises worked according to military laws, and all workers were considered mobilized, for absenteeism or unauthorized leaving of the workplace, people were tried according to the laws of war. Prodrazvyorstka - the obligatory delivery of all surplus food by the peasants to the state on a firm basis.

price. However, in fact it was a confiscation of food: the money was completely devalued; moreover, not only surpluses were confiscated, but often the seed fund, and what the peasant left to feed his family. The authorities also determined the norms for the supply of agricultural products by the village not so much based on the capabilities of the village, but on the needs of the army and the urban population. From the beginning of 1919, the surplus was introduced for bread,

1920 - for potatoes, vegetables, etc. Prodrazverstka was implemented by violent methods with the help of food detachments. Food detachments - food detachments (mostly armed) of workers and poor peasants and fighters of the CHON. Conducted surplus appraisal in the countryside; acted jointly with the committees and local Soviets. They were created by the bodies of the People's Commissariat for Food (they were part of the Prodarmia), trade unions, factory committees, local Soviets (procurement, harvesting and procurement,

harvesting and requisitioning detachments; head of the Military Food Bureau of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions); half of the collected grain was received by the organization that sent the detachment. The policy of "war communism" caused mass discontent among the general population, especially the peasantry. Peasants in entire villages organized detachments to combat sub-detachments. The disarmament of the Red Army detachments by the peasants was not uncommon.

Numerous protests by workers and peasants against the policy of "War Communism" showed its complete collapse, and in 1921 the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. Liberation of the Crimea In the autumn of 1920, all the forces of Red Russia were mobilized against the prosperous White Crimea. But he has become a tough nut to crack. The Russian army consisted of experienced, well-trained soldiers and

officers (there were about 80 thousand of them), it was headed by an authoritative and talented leader, in the Perekop area, albeit not capital, but quite reliable fortifications were built, which were defended by strong artillery. However, more than a million people moved to the Crimea, which included the famous and very effective "flying carts" of the army of N. Makhno, who by this time had concluded a peace treaty with the "Reds" that was beneficial for himself. But as it turned out later, the advice was not going to be carried out, and after

the capture of the Crimea, the "Makhnovists" who participated in this operation were treacherously killed. I will not write about the fierce battles of the Russian army with the Reds in Tavria, about its retreat to the isthmus, an entire literature is devoted to this. But even then, the position of the Crimea remained quite strong ... But then two unexpected events coincided in time - a rather rare cataclysm of nature and an appeal to whites

to the soldiers of General Brusilov, widely distributed by the Bolsheviks in the form of leaflets, which were scattered from the air by thousands of red planes ... First, about the whim of nature. In early November, a strong and steady north wind blew over the peninsula. The sea bays around the Perekop Isthmus began to shallow - the wind drove the water out of them to the south, to the sea. Some bays became so shallow that it was possible to ford them

On the night of November 7-8, the shock group of the 6th Red Army took advantage of this and in three places crossed the "rotten sea" - Sivash. Red Army soldiers carried rifles over their heads. Having made an eight-kilometer transition, the Soviet units reached the northern tip of the Lithuanian Peninsula, broke through the wire barriers, defeated the Kuban brigade of General M.A. Fostikov and cleared almost the entire

Lithuanian peninsula and hit the rear of the Whites. Parts of the 15th and 52nd divisions reached the Perekop isthmus and moved to the Ishun positions. The counterattack launched on the morning of November 8 by the 2nd and 3rd infantry regiments of the Drozdov division was repulsed. The center of the terrible battles of those days was the famous Turkish Wall crossing the isthmus. Here, in front of the Turkish Wall, they lay down in the ground under blows many times

superior enemy, the best, selected units of the Russian army. Here, by the way, the historical regiments of the Imperial Russian Guard, formed back in the times of Peter the Great, ended their combat path. This is how the last battle of historical regiments was described by a participant in this battle, and later an emigrant D.I. Meisner: “... We were attacked by the red cavalry and horse batteries opened fire on us.

The remnants of the historical regiments of the old guard, marching with us, made an attempt to beat off the attack. Officers in fur hats with guard stars on them, with shoulder straps sewn into their overcoats so that there was no temptation to tear them off, tall, outwardly calm and confident, began to build chains of soldiers, giving the command to prepare for battle. These were officers of the once famous regiments - Preobrazhensky, Izmailovsky, Semenovsky ... But by that time, three of these regiments remained

four officers and two or three ensigns with many St. George's crosses ... I saw with my own eyes the last battle of the guards regiments ... ". And a day later, the Red troops broke through the last fortified positions of the Whites on the isthmus and rushed to Dzhankoy. The fate of the Crimea was decided. But the victory of the Soviet troops was won at a heavy price.

Only during the assault on Perekop and Chongar, the troops of the Southern Front lost 10 thousand people killed and wounded. The divisions that distinguished themselves during the assault on the Crimean fortifications were given honorary titles: the 15th - "Sivashskaya", the 30th rifle and 6th cavalry - "Chongarskaya", the 51st - "Perekopskaya". ... The tragedy of the Crimea, and consequently, the White movement can be explained by several reasons.

Firstly, the forces of the Reds were very large, they were incomparable with the forces of the Russian army of Baron Wrangel. Secondly, Russia's allies in the Entente actually refused to help the Whites, fearing to complicate relations with Soviet Russia in the future. Thirdly, in October the Soviet government signed a peace treaty with Poland, which made it possible to transfer well-trained and fired troops from the West to the South.

And finally, General A.A. Brusilov signed a defeatist appeal to the Russian army. It is not for us to judge the illustrious hero of the Great War, the most authoritative commander, whose name is given to the most successful offensive operation of the Russian troops - the Brusilovsky breakthrough ... The servant of God Alexei will answer for his act before the Lord's Court. And he called on the White fighters "to lay down their arms and not shed brotherly blood", promising

create the Crimean Red Army under his command, where they will all be accepted in the same ranks ... This appeal was also supplemented by numerous leaflets signed by Frunze and Lenin, who promised a complete amnesty to all ranks of the Wrangel army who would lay down their arms and remain in their homeland. Needless to say, all these promises turned out to be empty words ... Pyotr Nikolaevich Wrangel Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army, Lieutenant General, Baron

Pyotr Nikolaevich Wrangel Briefly Wrangel Pyotr Nikolaevich, baron (1878 - 1928). Coming from a noble family of Swedish origin, he studies as a mining engineer, then enters the military service, participates in the Russo-Japanese War, and later, already during the First World War, distinguished himself in East Prussia and Galicia. After the October Revolution, refusing to go to the service of the Ukrainian hetman Skoropadsky, who was supported by the Germans, he joined in 1918

Volunteer army. In April 1920, he became Denikin's successor, when he, having retreated to the Crimea, left the command of the White Army. On March 22, 1920, General Wrangel arrived in Sevastopol on the English battleship Emperor of India. The Military Council of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia met. The meeting was short-lived - nineteen of the most prominent generals who headed the formations and headquarters

The White Army, unanimously spoke out: General Baron Wrangel should be the new Commander-in-Chief. Pyotr Nikolayevich himself made an addition to the minutes of the meeting of the Military Council: “I shared the glory of victories with the Army and I cannot refuse to drink the cup of humiliation with it. Drawing strength from the support of my old associates, I agree to accept the position of Commander-in-Chief. Lieutenant General Baron P. Wrangel March 22, 1920

Sevastopol". Having taken command, General Wrangel first of all began to restore discipline and strengthen the morale of the troops. By April 28, 1920, he reorganized them into the Russian Army. And along with the restoration of its combat capability, he began to vigorously rebuild the Crimean economy and social policy in it. Taking care of the troops is the first concern of any commander, but Wrangel was also a senior administrative head in

Crimea. And in this capacity, he showed himself from an unexpected side for his subordinates. The general became a wise administrator, a consistent politician and a diligent business executive. Under his patronage, Wrangel created the civil government of the Crimea and appointed A.V. Krivoshein as its head. General P.N. Wrangel, chairman of the civil government

Kryma A.V. Krivoshein and General P.N. Shatilov. 1920 A.V. Krivoshein was a man of great ability and colossal experience in economic affairs. Once he was a friend of the Minister of Finance of Russia, managed the largest banks, for eight years he was the Chief Manager of Land Management and Agriculture of the Empire. It was Krivoshein that Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin instructed at one time to put into practice the famous

agrarian reform. This is the kind of person General Wrangel appointed Chairman of the Government of the South of Russia. And the South of Russia was then the Crimea. The government of the South of Russia created by him, which is recognized by France, issued a declaration on the national question and proposed to determine the form of government in Russia by "free will" within the framework of a broad federation.

Along with this, the government launched a series of reforms, A.V. Krivoshein and his subordinates knew how to work. In just three weeks, they developed new principles for relations between peasants and landowners, peasants and authorities. The Crimean government clearly benefited from Krivoshein's experience in implementing the Stolypin land reform. Crimea in 1920 became, as it were, a testing ground, on which Stolypin's ideas were fully introduced on a small scale.

principles of reforming Russia. In practice, this meant that the land was not in words, as was the case in Soviet Russia, but in fact was transferred to those who work on it, the peasants, "into eternal and hereditary property", that the big farmers were left only what was in addition to peasant allotments, that the peasant was declared the full owner of what he had grown on his land. The new Crimean government acted decisively and quickly.

Already at the end of April, land was cut into the peasants - plots of fertile Crimean land. And on May 25, 1920, the orders of General Wrangel “On the Land”, “On Volost Zemstvos” that had the force of the Law for the Crimea, were published. The Crimean reform has acquired a legislative basis. The swift actions of the authorities had almost instantaneous effect.

the peasants hurried to take advantage of their new property. At the height of summer, the harvest ripened, and the military authorities began to purchase the amount of bread needed for the army at favorable prices for the peasants. The surplus was freely sold on the market. And what happened then was called the "Crimean miracle" - an abundance of bread, as it were, started the engine of the Crimean economy, small and even medium-sized industries started working on the peninsula, new jobs appeared,

shops opened, goods appeared, markets rustled ... Crimea came to life! Here is what the well-known politician and writer Vasily Vitalyevich Shulgin, who secretly came there from Red Odessa, wrote about those days of Crimea: “... The streets are full of people and what kind of people, the former and even prettier ones, cabbies, cars, announcements of concerts and lectures. But most importantly, shops - they have everything you want ...

I was convinced, for example, that if we measure the earnings of an Odessa and Crimean worker, then the first one can buy two and a half poods of bread in the red country for his wages, and his Crimean comrade - five poods and more ... ". The position of Crimea seemed especially strong after the Russian army, taking advantage of the outbreak of war with Poland, carried out a successful offensive operation against the Bolsheviks and captured part of the Tauride lands adjacent to the peninsula.

In 1920, Crimea was the only territory in Europe that exported bread to the external market - to Constantinople and beyond ... So, under General Wrangel, Crimea became a "showcase of well-being" facing the whole of Russia, became a reproach to the red Kremlin. Such "propaganda by deed" was dangerous for the Bolsheviks. Crimea threatened to become an example of how life can and should be arranged...

That is why a hysterical campaign was launched in Soviet Russia against the White Crimea, against General Wrangel, whom they began to represent as "the main threat to the young republic of soviets." Everything was mobilized, even Mayakovsky, who in those days wrote the scurrilous "Tale of how a woman alone talked about Wrangel without any mind." The armistice between Soviet Russia and Poland changed the situation.

At the end of October, five red armies of the Southern Front (commander M. Frunze), including two cavalry armies (the total number of front troops - over 130 thousand people), attacked the Russian army of Wrangel. In a week they liberated Northern Tavria, and then, breaking through the Perekop fortifications, moved to the Crimea. To Wrangel's credit, he skillfully led the withdrawal of his troops and managed to prepare in advance

to evacuation. Not wanting to leave the Russian army in trouble, Wrangel spent about a year with her in Turkey, maintaining order in the troops and fighting hunger. His subordinates gradually dispersed, about seven thousand deserted and left for Russia. At the end of 1921, the remnants of the army were transferred to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, where many soldiers and officers later settled, others were further drawn by fate.

Instead of the collapsed Russian army, Wrangel founded the Russian All-Military Union (ROVS) in Paris with departments in the countries where there were former officers and members of the White movement. The ROVS was distinguished by its irreconcilable attitude towards Soviet Russia, developed plans for the mobilization of its members at the right time, conducted intelligence work, had a combat department (headed by Kutepov), which prepared armed actions in

THE USSR. Wrangel did not stop fighting the Bolsheviks until his death, which befell him at the age of 49, in 1928 (according to one of the unproven versions, he was poisoned). From Brussels, where he died, his body was transported to Yugoslavia and solemnly buried in one of the Orthodox cathedrals. A procession with wreaths stretched through Belgrade. After the death of Wrangel, two volumes of his "Notes" were published, published in

Berlin. Belgrade. Church of the Holy Trinity, where the second and last grave of P.N. Wrangel List of references Used materials of the book: Kovalevsky N.F. History of Russian Goverment. Biographies of famous military leaders of the 18th - early 20th centuries. M. 1997 Vashchenko P.F. Runov V.A. The revolution is defended: [On the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the troops

Related content Golovna Ruska Rada Western Ukrainian lands within the Austrian monarchy The Dnieper Ukraine in the second half of the 19th century. The brutal national oppression caused the strengthening of the national liberation movement in Western Ukrainian lands. Its manifestation was various socio-political currents that arose in the circles of the Ukrainian clergy, intelligentsia, students and industrialists, a numerous and influential trend in socio-political thought and in the liberation movement of Western Ukraine were “Muscovites” (Moscow Volunteers) or Russophiles or “solid Rusyns”, as they were also called. The social base of the “Muscovites” was the clergy, the intelligentsia, rural and urban entrepreneurs, some of the wealthy peasants who despaired that they could free themselves and make their people free without outside help. government circles of tsarist Russia. They developed a false theory about the existence of an allegedly "single indivisible Russian people" from the Carpathians to Kamchatka, "Moskvophiles" had a sharply negative attitude towards the Ukrainian folk language, considered it vulgar, and they themselves spoke and wrote in the so-called "Russian" or "Pan-Russian" language - with a wild mixture of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Church Slavonic words, the Muscovites disliked the folk language so much that they gladly welcomed the Emsky decree of 1876. By the way, they themselves used the Polish language in everyday life, saying that Ukrainian was a peasant language, and German and Russian they did not know the True opinion about the reunification of the lands of all Ukraine "Muscovites" cancel their flirting with the bloody Russian tsarism. They instilled tsarefil sentiments, praised autocracy as the most suitable state form for the Slavs. In their works, the ideologists of the "Muscophiles" Diditsky, Petrushevich, Mogilnitsky propagandized the reactionary ideas of Russian Slavophiles - A. Khomyak Iakov and S. Aksakov. For some time, the central organ of the “Muscovites,” the Slovo newspaper, was subsidized by the Russian monarchy. In fact, the "Muscovites" were bribed by tsarism. On the one hand, they were guided by the autocracy, and on the other hand, denying the free development of the Ukrainian people, they supported the Austrian reaction, implemented the Caesar's policy. Perhaps the only useful thing they did was the fight against drunkenness and the formation of sobriety fraternity "Moskvophiles" had their own institutions, societies, printed books. periodicals, ancient acts. "Solid Rusyns" took over the oldest Galician Ukrainian institutions - the Stavropegic Institute (former brotherhood), the People's House, the publishing house "Galician-Russian Matytsia", "The Society of them. M. Kachkovsky "and other Russophiles also owned numerous newspapers, published at different times in Galicia, Bukovina and Transcarpathia -" Galicia "," Light "," Bukovina Star "and others. In 1870, to coordinate their work, they founded a political organization - the Russian Rada, which began to express claims to the national wire in Galicia. The advanced Ukrainian youth could not be satisfied with the slogans of "solid Rusyns", they are offended by the neglect of the Ukrainian language, the Ukrainian past. Having the “Basis” as a model, the works of T.G. Shevchenko, P. Kulish, O. Konissky and N. Kostomarov, the progressive activity of communities and Ukrainophiles, Galician students, young priests, born after the revolution of 1848, the intelligentsia abandoned the wire of the “Muscovites” and began to focus not on the Russian tsar, but to look for strength and support among their own Ukrainian people. Hence their pyx i got the name "populists". Initially, the Narodniks carried out extensive educational and cultural work. They founded the Ukrainian theater in Lvov, the Literary Society. T.G. Shevchenko (1873), educational organization "Enlightenment", society "Russian conversation". Narodovtsy issued periodicals, books, magazines. their ideologists were A. Barvinsky, K. Levitsky and others, who gradually turned the populist group into a close alliance with a pronounced national program. Narodovtsy issued the magazines "Vechernitsy", "Meta", "Mermaid". The organs of this direction of the liberation movement were the newspapers Pravda, Delo, Bukovina. Narodovtsy maintained close ties with the Dnieper communities (Ukrainophiles), enjoyed their financial, cultural and spiritual support. The Dnieper writers were published in populist publications, and Antonovich, Kulish and Kostomarov specially traveled to Galicia to establish personal ties with the leaders of the populist movement. But the ideas of M. Drahomanov's socialism were not accepted by the people. Nevertheless, under the influence of the delimitation of the Ukrainian organizations in the Dnieper region, polarization also took place among the populists - a more energetic left wing and a more inert right wing, inclined to agree with the government, stood out. The People's Council, established in 1885, became the authorized representative central body of the populists. In November 1890, the populist leaders Alexander Barvinsky, Kost Levitsky and Yulian Romanchuk, supported by V. Antonovich, concluded an agreement with the Austrian governor in Galicia. According to its terms, the Narodovtsy undertook to support the Austro-Hungarian and Polish authorities in Western Ukraine in return for the opening of three Ukrainian gymnasiums, several departments of Ukrainian studies at Lviv University and the provision of permanent seats in parliament. Although the government did not fully comply with the agreement, a “new era” began in the activities of the populists - an era of peaceful coexistence with the Polish gentry and support for the policy of Vienna. The ideas of M. Dragomanov, who lived at that time in Geneva and was now closer and accessible to the Galician intelligentsia, more began to penetrate into its environment and find adherents. His followers, who sought to carry out a social revolution and, as a result, liberate Ukraine, considered their program the third decisive, or radical way. That is why they called themselves radicals. The most active and consistent supporters of the socialist ideas of M. Drahomanov and his "Hromada" were students of the Lviv University Ivan Franko and Mikhail Pavlyk Ivan Franko (1856-1916) was born in the village of Nahuevichy near Drohobych in a peasant family. Studied at Lviv and Chernivtsi universities. Throughout his life, being engaged in science, literature and living from this work, waging a constant struggle for the national liberation of Ukraine, Franko tried to repay his debts to his native people, who gave him an education. “Being the son of a Ukrainian peasant,” he wrote, “nourished by black peasant bread and the labor of calloused peasant hands, I must pay with the labor of my life for her pennies, which were spent by a peasant’s hand, so that I could climb to the peaks, from where a clear light spills, breath freedom and human ideals ”In 1876, Franko and M. Pavlik began editing the student publication “Friend”, in which they criticize both “Muscovites” and populists for the low level of their literature, for conservatism. Like-minded people are quickly found, forming a small but rather active group of radicals in the Ukrainian national liberation movement. In 1878, when Franko and Pavlik were arrested and tried for subversive activities, Ivan Yakovlevich wrote a poem “To Comrades from Prison”, outlining the program goal of the radicals. one and the same, but the difference between them is purely formal. Either one has the upper hand or the second - there is no benefit for the people » Ivan Franko was imprisoned three times for participating in the national liberation movement, was not allowed to graduate from Lviv University, was not allowed to be elected a deputy of the Austrian parliament and the Galician Sejm, was not allowed to head the department in Lviv University. But he did not leave the struggle. A peculiar manifestation of the national liberation movement was the organization of "Enlightenment" - a cultural and educational institution. The first "Enlightenment" was founded in December 1868 p. y Lvov populists. The basis of the activities of "Enlightenment" was the spread of education among the people in their native language. Subsequently, she began to publish textbooks, works by Ukrainian writers, newspapers, organize choirs, drama circles, libraries, theaters, folk reading rooms, which began to compete with the tavern and the church. Radicals organized sports and fire societies "Sich" and "Sokol", in which peasant youths underwent sports training, learned self-discipline and patriotism. The cooperative movement, which was financed by "Enlightenment" and rich Ukrainians, was widely spread in Galicia and Bukovina. Cooperatives such as "People's Trade", "Farmer", "Vera", the insurance company "Dniester" accustomed Ukrainians to economic activity, ousting Jews from this industry. At the end of the 19th century. political parties from various social movements in Western Ukraine begin to consolidate. In 1890, the left-wing Narodovtsy and radicals, consisting of I. Franko and M. Pavlik, created the first Ukrainian Radical Party with a program for the formation of an independent Ukrainian state. The radicals led the fight against the "Muscovites" and right-wing populists, who made a deal with the Austrian government. They carried out active work among the peasants and the national intelligentsia, demanded political freedoms, the introduction of public ownership of land, and universal suffrage. In 1899 the Radical Party collapsed. 3 it was organized by the National Democratic Party, which included most of the radicals, including Professor of Lviv University Mykhailo Grushevsky and Ivan Franko. In the same 1899 p. In Lvov, a group of left-wing radicals created the Social Democratic Party of Galicia. The party leadership adopted the program of the Austrian Social Democrats. The Galician social democracy was weak and worked chiefly among the peasants. At the same time, the politically biased clergy organized themselves, created a conservative, Vienna-oriented party, the Catholic-Russian Union. By the beginning of the 19th century. Ukrainian national and land symbols were distinguished by decorativeness and diversity. Torn between two predatory empires, deprived of the power of its own statehood, Ukraine has not developed a single unified symbolism. The need for it appeared on the Ukrainian lands in 30-40 pp. 19th century in connection with the revival of the national liberation movement. In addition, it was possible to develop it only in the western Ukrainian lands, since the Russian monarchy did not allow anything like this, keeping the Ukrainian ones in the “black body” 1848 p., when the Galician intelligentsia creates the Main Russian Rada, its leaders, having turned to the Ukrainian military traditions to the historical heritage of the Galicia-Volyn principality and the Russian province, adopted such national symbols of Galicia: coat of arms - a golden lion on a blue background, which was matched by a blue flag with a golden lion An attempt to choose which of the songs to be the Ukrainian anthem also dates back to this time. First, the Galicians sang the patriotic song "God grant, good luck" as an anthem. In 1848, the Main Russian Rada approved as the national anthem of the Galician Ukrainians the poem by T. Gushalevich “Peace to you, brothers, we bring to everyone” 1863 p. The Lvov magazine "Meta" published a poem "Ukraine has not yet died" with the signature - T. Shevchenko. In fact, the author was the Kievan ethnographer P. Chubinsky. In the same year, composer M. Verbitsky wrote music, and poetry became the national Ukrainian anthem At the celebrations of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and Ukrainian social-political formations at the end of the 19th century. next to the performance of the mentioned hymn songs, the yellow-blue flag is increasingly raised. It is also used by the church - Orthodox and Greek Catholic Various political circles, parties, organizations - both in Eastern and Western Ukraine - take national symbols into service in order to emphasize both their national identity and aspirations for national self-determination

Education ZUNR and its activities

Related content Proclamation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR). Connection of the UNR and ZUNR In the autumn of 1918, as a result of deep socio-economic, political, national contradictions, aggravated to the limit by the loss in the First World War, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. New sovereign states appeared on the political map of Europe: the Republic of Austria (November 12), the Western Ukrainian People's Republic (November 13), the Czechoslovak Republic (November 14), the Hungarian Republic (November 16), the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (December 1, since 1929 Yugoslavia) and others. Thus, ZUNR became one of the first state formations that arose on the ruins of the so-called "patchwork" Austro-Hungarian Empire. This was preceded by important events that require at least a brief analysis. On October 18, 1918, representatives of all political Ukrainian forces of the region, the so-called Ukrainian Constituent Assembly (Constituent Assembly), gathered in Lvov. Having realized the people's right to self-determination, the Constituent Assembly proclaimed itself the Ukrainian National Council under the powers of the Parliament. It included 33 Ukrainian ambassadors to the Austrian parliament, 34 deputies of Galicia and 16 - to the Bukovina Regional Seims and 3 representatives from the national democratic, Christian public and social democratic parties and student youth. E. Petrushevich was elected the Chairman of the National Council. On October 19, it was proclaimed the creation of the Ukrainian state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the Ukrainian territories, however, as part of the monarchy, with which the Galician politicians of the older generation did not dare to break the ties. The great illusion of the leading Galician politicians was the opinion that the fate of the Western state was decided in Vienna, to which a delegation of the Ukrainian National Council went. They hoped for a legitimate transfer of power to them by the grace of the emperor. Meanwhile, in Krakow, a Polish liquidation commission was formed, which should arrive in Lvov on November 1 to take power in Galicia into the hands of Poland. Under these conditions, delay on the part of the Ukrainian could turn into a disaster. Therefore, on the night of October 31 to November 1, led by the centurion of the OSS D. Vitovsky, power in Lvov was taken. The operation was carried out with lightning speed and without bloodshed. The governor and the city commandant were arrested, all state institutions, barracks and other important objects were taken under control, a blue-yellow flag was hoisted over the town hall. As part of the Ukrainian military forces, which took power over the two hundred thousandth Lviv, there were only about 2.5 thousand people. Human. On the morning of November 1, the Ukrainian National Council took power into its own hands. The appeal "Ukrainian people" was issued, which spoke about the formation of an independent Ukrainian state, in which "from now on the people are ... the master of their land." On November 9, at a meeting of the Ukrainian National Council, the name of the state was determined as the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR). It covered about 70 thousand km2 with 6 million population (71% Ukrainian, 14% Poles, 13% Jews and others). True, soon Northern Bukovina was captured by Romania, and Transcarpathia - by Czechoslovakia. Thus, ZUNR covered only the territory of Eastern Galicia with 4 million people. On the same day (November 9), a government was formed - the State Secretariat, consisting of 14 state secretaries (ministries). K. Levitsky was elected Chairman (Prime Minister). On November 13, the UNRada adopted the “Temporary Basic Law on the State Independence of the Ukrainian Lands of the Former Austro-Hungarian Empire”, composed of the following articles: name, borders, state sovereignty, state patronage, coat of arms and flag. This law consolidated the supremacy and sovereignty of the people, which must exercise them through their representative bodies, elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct, secret suffrage according to the proportional system. The coat of arms of the ZUNR was a golden lion on a blue field, the flag - blue-yellow, the anthem - the song "Ukraine has already risen" ("Ukraine has not yet died"). Power was easier to win than to keep. The Polish leadership did not accept the formation of the ZUNR. Already from the first days of November, armed clashes broke out on the streets of Lviv between Ukrainian and Polish detachments. The battles were held with varying success, and on the night of November 22, Ukrainian units were forced to leave Lvov. The ZUNR government moved to Ternopil, and from January 1919 to Stanislav. January 22, 1919 in Kyiv on Sophia Square was solemnly proclaimed the Act of the reunification of the ZUNR and the UNR. Unfortunately, a real unification did not happen, because a few days later the Directory was forced to leave Kyiv under the blows of the Red Army advancing from the northeast. At the same time, the army of the ZUNR UGA fought with the Polish army, which prevailed in combat strength and equipment. On July 16-18, 1919, the UGA crossed the city of Zbruch, leaving the whole of Eastern Galicia under Polish occupation. So, the heroic attempt of the Ukrainian people to gain freedom, to build their own state, failed. However, the struggle was not in vain. With constant military devastation, the government ZUNR managed to establish the administration of the region, ensure the functioning of schools, post office, telegraph, railway and adopt a number of laws: "On the provisional administration and organization of courts" (November 16, 1918), "On the state language" (November 15, 1918 ), “On the fulfillment of civil rights and obligations” (April 8, 1919), “On land reform” (April 14, 1919), “Law on elections to the unicameral Seimas of the ZO UNR” (April 16, 1919), “On an eight-hour working day "(April 12, 1919), etc. We should agree with the opinion of the historian I. Lysyak-Rudnitsky that the significance of the ZUNR lies in the fact that "Galicia in 1918-1919 is the only example of the Ukrainian state legal order in recent history"

Politics of "War Communism" (1918 - 1920)

POLICY OF WAR COMMUNISM 1918 - 1920 The Civil War set before the Bolsheviks the task of creating a huge army, the maximum mobilization of all resources, and hence the maximum centralization of power and subordinating it to the control of all spheres of the state's life. At the same time, the tasks of wartime coincided with the ideas of the Bolsheviks about socialism as a non-commodity, non-market centralized society. As a result, the policy of war communism pursued by the Bolsheviks

in 1918-1920, it was built, on the one hand, on the experience of state regulation of economic relations during the First World War in Russia and Germany, on the other hand, on utopian ideas about the possibility of a direct transition to market-free socialism in the face of the expectation of a world revolution, which ultimately led to the acceleration of the pace socio-economic transformations in the country during the Civil War. The main elements of the policy of war communism.

In November 1918, the pro-army was dissolved and by a decree of January 11, 1919. surplus appropriation was carried out. The decree on land was practically canceled. The land fund was transferred not to all the workers, but, first of all, to state farms and communes, and secondly, to labor gangs and partnerships for the joint cultivation of the land, TOZs. Based on the decree of July 28, 1918, by the summer of 1920 up to 80 large and medium enterprises were nationalized. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of July 22, 1918 on speculation prohibited any non-state trade.

By the beginning of 1919, private trading enterprises were completely nationalized or closed. After the end of the Civil War, the transition to the full naturalization of economic relations was completed. During the Civil War, a centralized state and party structure was created. Glavkism became the peak of centralization. In 1920, there were 50 central offices subordinate to the Supreme Economic Council, coordinating related industries and distributing finished products -

Glavtorf, Glavkozha, Glavkrakhmal, etc. Consumer cooperation was also centralized and subordinated to the People's Commissariat for Food. During the period of war communism wasintroduced universal labor service, the militarization of labor. The results of the policy of war communism. As a result of the policy of war communism, social and economic conditions were created for the victory of the Soviet Republic over the interventionists and the Whites. At the same time, the war and the policy of war communism had grave consequences for the country's economy.

By 1920, the national income fell from 11 to 4 billion rubles compared with 1913, the production of large-scale industry was 13 of the pre-war level, including heavy industry - 2-5. The food requisition led to a reduction in the sowing and gross harvest of the main agricultural crops. Agricultural output in 1920 amounted to two-thirds of the pre-war level. In 1920-1921. famine broke out in the country. The unwillingness to endure the surplus appraisal led to the creation of insurgent

foci in the Middle Volga region, on the Don, Kuban. Basmachi did not activate in Turkestan. In February - March 1921, the West Siberian rebelscreated armed formations of several thousand people. On March 1, 1921, a rebellion broke out in Kronstadt, during which political slogans were put forward Power to the Soviets, not to the parties Soviets without Bolsheviks

socialism. After a broad discussion in late 1920 - early 1921, with the X Congress of the RCP on March 6, 1921, the gradual abolition of the policy of military communism began. References1. Gimpelson E. D. War communism M 2. Civil war in the USSR. T. 1-2 M 3. History of the Fatherland people, ideas, decisions. History essays

NEP and features of its implementation in Ukraine

Related content Cultural and Spiritual Life in Ukraine in the 1920s-1930s pp. New economic policy The New Economic Policy (NEP) is a new direction of the domestic policy of the Soviet state, approved by the RCP(b) congress in March 1921. This was a temporary retreat of the Bolsheviks from the general line of the party. The essence of the NEP was the use of market relations and various forms of ownership. The main event of the NEP was the replacement of the surplus tax in kind in the countryside. Contents: 1. Introduction of a new economic policy. 1.1. Reasons for the transition to a new economic policy. 1.2. Introduction of the tax. 1.3. The essence of the NEP. 2. Features of the NEP in Ukraine. 3. Cancellation of the NEP. 3.1. The inconsistency of the new economic policy. 3.2. NEP Crises. 3.3. The attack on the NEP by state bodies. 1. Introduction of a new economic policy. 1.1. Reasons for the transition to a new economic policy. . The main reasons for the transition to a new economic policy were: - deep socio-economic and political crisis of the Bolshevik regime; - total economic ruin, a sharp reduction in industrial and agricultural production; - mass uprisings of peasants, workers, soldiers and sailors; - political and economic isolation of the Bolsheviks in the international arena; - the decline of the world communist movement, not justifying the hopes of the Bolsheviks for a world revolution; - trying to hold on to power by any means. One of the significant factors that prompted the Bolsheviks to change their domestic policy was Kronstadt uprising. The speech of the Baltic sailors showed that the policy of the Bolsheviks began to lose support even among those sections of society that had been the backbone of Soviet power from the very beginning. The Bolsheviks were threatened with a complete loss of control over the country. 1.2. The introduction of a tax in kind. In March 1921, the X Congress of the RCP (b) proclaimed the replacement of the food distribution food tax. This was the first and most important step towards the new economic policy. The New Economic Policy is a new direction in the domestic policy of the Soviet state, approved by the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b). This was a temporary retreat of the Bolsheviks from the general line of the party. The essence of NEP consisted in the use of elements of market relations and various forms of ownership. In fact, the NEP meant the transition from administrative-command to self-supporting socialism. main event NEP was the replacement of the surplus tax in kind in the countryside. 1.3. The essence of the NEP. The X Congress of the RCP (b) approved the resolution "On the replacement of the layout with a tax in kind." The main measures of the NEP were: - replacement of the surplus appraisal with a tax in kind; at the same time, the tax in kind should be less than the surplus appropriation, and its size was reported to the peasants in advance; - Poor peasants were generally exempted from the tax; - after paying the tax, the peasants received the right to freely dispose of the fruits of their labor, to sell them, this contributed to the increase in the material interest of the peasants in the production of agricultural products; - transfer of small and medium enterprises to private owners; - the revival of trade and commodity-money relations, permission for private trade; - elimination of free services; - leasing, concession of a part of small and medium-sized enterprises; - introduction of a system of free employment of labor force, material incentives for employees; - introduction of a stable currency - chervonets; - decentralization of the management system; - development of entrepreneurship; - development of credit, production, marketing cooperation. The rejection of the policy of "war communism", the denationalization of some commercial and industrial enterprises, the permission to create new ones stimulated the economic activity of the population, contributed to the elimination of the commodity shortage, the restoration of industry and transport. With the transition to the New Economic Policy, the control system nationalized industry through its decentralization. Instead of the liquidated central offices, they created self-supporting trusts: Donugol, Yugostal, Mashinotrest, Sakharotrest, etc. In total, 19 of them appeared in Ukraine. entrepreneurship. The so-called Nepmen- tenants, brokers, commission agents, wholesalers, industrialists, etc. The private sector competed with the state not only in trade but also in industry. Nepmen contributed to the country's withdrawal from the crisis and economic ruin. The most significant sign of the NEP in agriculture was the massive cooperative building. Cooperation in agriculture was carried out gradually. In the autumn of 1921, agricultural cooperatives separated from the unified system of consumer cooperatives. Then branch types of agricultural cooperation gradually spread. In March 1922, the All-Ukrainian Union of Agricultural Cooperation was created - "The Farmer", which already in 1923 united 2.5 thousand societies and 65 regional unions. By the end of the 20s. in various forms of cooperation were united more than half of the farms. Handicraft-industrial cooperation began to develop rapidly, uniting small handicraftsmen and urban artisans. A general indicator of the development of agriculture on the rails of the NEP was the rise in grain production. NEP reached its heyday in 1926: at this time, wages in industry increased by 1.6 times (compared to 1924), wages for teachers were increased by 3.6 times, mass construction and major repairs of housing developed, 14-day leave became mandatory for workers in cities, incomes peasants by a third exceeded the pre-war. During 1922-1924. The chervonets, which was equal to 10 tsarist rubles, replaced Soviet banknotes and was exchanged for 6 US dollars. 2. Features of the NEP in Ukraine. Such a sharp turn in politics took place painful enough even in the party environment under the pressure of the realities of economic life. But on March 27, 1921, an emergency session of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee decided to replace the surplus appropriation with a food tax, and already on March 29, the government of the Ukrainian SSR issued a decree on the norms and amount of the tax, which was much less than the surplus appraisal. But NEP was introduced in Ukraine later, than in Russia. In 1921, the situation in Ukraine did not change much. In some provinces, the size of the tax in kind was equal to the gross grain harvest, that is, everything grown was subject to seizure. This was due to the desire of the Soviet leadership to "pump out" from the Ukrainian village as many resources as possible using purely forceful methods, proven during the war years, to use the republic's food resources for as long as possible without any restrictions. The interests of the Ukrainian peasantry were ignored. This is what main feature transition to NEP in Ukraine. Besides, features NEP in Ukraine were also: higher taxes than in other Soviet republics; the introduction of the NEP was accompanied by a struggle against the peasant insurrectionary movement. In reality, the NEP began in Ukraine only at the beginning of 1922 The famine that engulfed the regions of southern Ukraine in 1921-1922 further delayed the normalization of the situation in agriculture. Only on July 26, 1922 VUTsIK legislated private property right on the property of factory, trade and other enterprises. On the ground, there was a massive discontent NEP, because during the years of the civil war the ruling party and millions of citizens developed a strong habit of centralized-distributive methods of economy. Since the October Revolution took place under the slogan social equality, The property stratification under the New Economic Policy caused indignation among some, and disappointment among others. 3. Cancellation of the NEP. 3.1. The inconsistency of the new economic policy. Under the conditions of the establishment of a totalitarian regime, the NEP was doomed: the new economic policy was based on two incompatible elements:- market relations in the economy, pluralism of forms of ownership and economic structure; - the Bolsheviks' monopoly on power, a rigid administrative-command system in the political organization of society. The goal of the Bolsheviks the introduction of the NEP was not providing economic freedom to citizens. They wanted to use the activity of the population to strengthen the economic foundation of their political regime and central government. The NEP provided for the intensification of foreign policy and foreign economic activity, the strengthening of contacts with the outside world, and the political course of the Bolshevik regime was to build socialism in one single country. The need for industrialization, the creation of a powerful military-industrial complex was postponed for indefinite term through the lack of investment in industry from domestic and foreign sources. 3.2. Crises of the NEP. Soon the contradictions that combined the NEP led to a series of crises. The first was price crisis. After the abolition of the brutal control of the state, food prices rose sharply and rose rapidly in comparison with the prices of industrial products. In the summer of 1922, the country was engulfed unemployment. At some enterprises, wages continued to be paid out in food rations, but in terms of market prices. Sometimes the payment was not issued due to the fact that the enterprise could not find cash. 3.3. The attack on the NEP by state bodies. At the XV Congress of the CPSU (b) (December 1927), the leadership of the Communist Party set the task total displacement in the country's private sector economy. For this purpose, taxes from private and rental enterprises, transport tariffs, prices for raw materials, materials, equipment, which private traders bought from state enterprises and organizations, increased. Methods of attack on private enterprises were different. One of them is the breaking of contracts for the lease of state-owned enterprises under any pretext. The process of nationalization of industries revived and rebuilt by private owners began under the pretext of full payment of all taxes and fines. 1930 was the last year in the legal activity of private enterprises. As a result, already in 1930 it was sold significantly less manufactured goods than in previous years. There was a shortage (shortage) of consumer goods, which immediately caused discontent among the general population. The liquidation of private enterprise has led to an increase in the number of unemployed in the country. To justify the deteriorating economic situation, the Soviet leadership began an active search for internal and external "enemies" who were accused of wrecking the national economy. Ultimately, this meant refusal from market relations and transition to directive methods of management.

Ukraine and the formation of the USSR

Our traumatic post-Soviet experience of the restoration of sovereignty has given rise to one curious incidental phenomenon - the demand for revenge, for an attempt to "replay" the Civil War. At one truly terrible moment, the unconscious fermentation of the minds was transformed into a well-known song about intoxicating evenings, and since then it has rushed with all the stops up to the monument to Ataman Krasnov. Of the latest manifestations - the crush around the memorial plaque to Kolchak

Today, when we are celebrating the 96th anniversary of the important and final stage of the civil war - the liberation of Crimea - it is worth talking about the fact that today's society is (for some reason) more divided into “reds” and “whites” than then.

An atypical film about the Civil

To begin with, let's refresh the memory of the participants in the events. In Crimea, the Russian army of Wrangel (about 40 thousand bayonets) holds the defense. They are trying to break through parts of the Red Army under the command of Frunze and Budyonny, superior to Wrangel by about 3-3.5 times. The operation itself was completed in 10 days (November 7-17), and the key to success was a roundabout maneuver through the Sivash and access to the rear of the defenders. However, we are more interested not in the military, but in the social aspect.

It is most convenient to illustrate such situations on the example of already existing casts of the era, which, of course, include the feature film “Two Comrades Were Serving”. Just very successfully describing not so much the series of events of today's anniversary as a slice of the then society.

Separately, it should be mentioned that the film was shot in 1968. And if you think about this time from the standpoint of today, then the first question is: “How did it even come out on the screens?”

So what do we see?

We see a woman commissar with a clearly damaged psyche: indirect suspicions and the unfortunate appearance of one of the heroes are enough to order the execution of the main characters without further proceedings.

We see one of the two main characters - the Red Army soldier Karyakin, who uses dogma instead of brains. Who put this dogma into his head? Most likely, a similar commissioner. Dogma is not of the best quality, since it replaces Karjakin not only with logic, but also allows for the possibility of behaving meanly towards comrades-in-arms. Karyakin was demoted from a company commander to the rank and file for the execution of a military specialist, a former colonel in the tsarist army, who had transferred to the service of the new government. And, judging by the demotion, the execution was unfair. The commissar and the worker who went to the Red Army are not just characters of well-known events, they are sociological casts of the era. It was they who created this very era, they are simply obliged to be infallible .. And suddenly - such a glow of revelations.

Let's take a look at the other side of Perekop, which has not yet been taken by storm. Crimea, the last stronghold of the White movement. "Pursuit to pursuit, entire regiments of officers alone." But instead of the now familiar picture of "... balls, beauties, lackeys, junkers" we see poorly concealed despair. Whatever the character is doing, he does it as if for the last time: he drinks, trades (officers complain about exorbitant prices and would certainly agree that the Cheka's activity to eradicate speculators has its advantages), jokes stupidly. Rare exceptions like Lieutenant Brusentsov, who has the courage not only to fight, but also to look at things sensibly, only emphasize the general mood.

Complicated feeling. On the one hand, you know how everything will end: a throw through the Sivash and an exit to the rear of the Perekop group give a classic chess “fork”, after which the defense of the Crimea is doomed. On the other hand, it is filmed in such a way that it is immediately clear: these are people without a future. Not because the defense has been broken or the last ship is leaving for Constantinople. But because apart from these fortifications, the last one or two airplanes, these people have nothing else. Basically, the project they're fighting for.

Thus, the film is rather atypical for Soviet cinema. And even more so, for such a genre as films about the revolution and the Civil War.

So what is it about? About bad Red Army soldiers and desperate White Guards? No.

End of the war

This is a film about the fact that the October Revolution is not a struggle of workers against the rich. As the Red Army soldier Nekrasov says to his colleague Karyakin: "... There are such miracles: the priest is for the Reds, and the peasant is for Wrangel."

The October Revolution, conceived as a prologue to the world, became in fact a struggle for the preservation of Russia. Not in the narrow sense, ie. for the RSFSR, but for the thousand-year-old Motherland, which for several years was on the verge of falling to pieces. Through the efforts of lovers of balls and French rolls as well. After all, it was not the Bolsheviks who released the national outskirts into free swimming, allowing independent elites of all stripes to grow up there. After all, the Civil War is also a war with them, and not just “reds against whites”.

But it was the Bolsheviks who had to sovietize (establish power based on the Soviets of Workers and Peasants) these territories, so that then, through the establishment of the USSR, in fact, pre-February borders. In the film, we are already witnessing the beginning of the final stage of this process.

After the Crimea, it remains to deal with the Poles and the republics of Central Asia. However, this is already somewhat different: intervention, conventional war, Basmachi under the leadership of Great Britain, who saw a chance to finish the Great Game.

And Crimea is important because November 17 is not only the date of its release, but also the official date of the end of the Civil War.

Few remember that a year after the events shown in the film, an amnesty was announced to the participants of the White movement. AND . Among them was General Slashchev-Krymsky, one of the recent opponents of Karyakin and Nekrasov. At the end of 1921, he returned to Moscow, in the summer of 1922 he was already reading tactics to students of the Shot command school. General Pavel Batov wrote about this in his memoirs: “ taught[Slashchev] brilliant, the lectures were full of people, and the tension in the audience was sometimes like in a battle. Many listener commanders themselves fought against the Wrangelites, including on the outskirts of the Crimea, and the former White Guard general spared neither causticity nor ridicule, analyzing this or that operation of our troops". Surely some prototype of Karjakin also attended these courses.

It is curious that yesterday's opponents, who fought each other for almost three years, were much less aggressive than their today's mummers self-proclaimed "successors". Only two years have passed - they sit in the same audience and do one thing. Today, against the background of persistent attempts to revive the atmosphere of the Civil and rewrite history in their own way, it sounds almost unbelievable.

***

Time to talk about the main lesson of the film. During the dramatic events of 1917-1922. Russia did not split into an elite and a victorious dumb cattle, as the supporters of the modern vulgar “class” approach masquerading as a Marxist (or anti-Marxist) like to claim. Moreover, she did not split at all. She changed the elite, the state system, reduced the borders - it was. And the split is a personal problem (tragedy) of emigrants.

Further. After November 17, 1920, the "Reds" and "Whites" both ceased to exist. Anyway, it's a transitional period. But from the end of 1921, after the amnesty, they definitely stopped, that's all. Trying to take some kind of “revenge” today is just as stupid as trying to repeat the assault on Perekop and defeat the “whites” a second time. For the first time, it worked for the restoration of Russia. It won't work the second time, or it will work exactly the opposite.

At the end of September, Wrangel concentrated almost all of Kutepov's forces (who deployed the 1st and 3rd army corps and Barbovich's corps into the army) in the direction of Aleksandrovsk, took Aleksandrovsk and then Sinelnikovo. Having thus created a zone in front of Aleksandrovsk, he crosses the Dnieper south of Kichkas and undertakes an operation similar to the one that I recommended to him in July, only without support from Ekaterinoslav and without occupying Nikolaev-Voznesensk and attacking from there, that is, something short, like a page , torn from a book, and, like everything incomplete, doomed to failure.

The offensive is going well, captured prisoners, machine guns, guns. In the Balino area on Pokrovskoye, the second crossing of the whites in support of Aleksandrovsk begins. General Artifeksov, who met me on the street (the general for assignments under Wrangel), said to me: "Well, what then? Contrary to your assurances, as you can see, we are winning." I had to agree with him, but at the same time I remarked: "After all, I am in the rear, and you know my opinion about the rear; I am very glad if I was wrong, but I am afraid that in this case I will turn out to be right." Artifeksov waved his hands and, whistling merrily, went on his way.

Meanwhile, Kutepov's troops were advancing from Aleksandrovsk directly to the west into the flank and rear of the Kakhov group. The attack of the red cavalry (only one brigade) first defeated the whites at Pokrovsky, and then the entire 2nd cavalry army in the Sholokhov region broke through the front of Kutepov, crushed Barbovich's cavalry and forced the 3rd corps to flee to the crossings, throwing machine guns and tools. October 14 was the defeat of Kutepov's troops, the most combat-ready units of Wrangel at that time.

This time was again a moment of weakness. I was persuaded to write a letter to Wrangel indicating the depressing impression of failures at the front. Expecting failure from such a command and such conduct of affairs, I was still amazed. I am compelled to confess that I myself had no definite opinion at that moment. Wrangel replied to me in a very nice letter, but with the assurance that everything was going great at the front.

The home front was agitated, accusing me of desertion and that I was deliberately taking advantage of the "French question" in order not to go to the front. It got to the point that they told me this to my face (of course, people who knew me, in the form of a friendly reproach).

Meanwhile, the Reds were developing an offensive in the Taganrog direction - 8,000 bayonets and 2,000 checkers; the group of the head of the division of the 9th Infantry - 4,000 bayonets and 5,500 checkers; Nikopol group - 10,500 bayonets and 9,500 checkers; Kakhovskaya group - 22,500 bayonets and 3,000 drafts; there was also the 1st Cavalry Army consisting of 6000-7000 checkers. In the Aleksandrovsk area - a reserve of about 6,000 bayonets and 500 checkers. A total of 51,000 bayonets and 27,000 drafts. The grouping of forces clearly indicated the main blow towards Perekop. The presence of large masses of cavalry made it possible to simultaneously raid the rear of the Salkovsky direction.

Wrangel opposed this with about 50,000 bayonets and about 25,000 checkers, stretched along the front, mainly in the northeast and east directions.

Forced to fight along internal lines of operations, he, having stretched his troops everywhere, did not leave himself a large reserve, and Kutepov’s units, moreover, had just been defeated on the right bank of the Dnieper. Wrangel's control was lost.

At Kakhovka, the 2nd Corps of Vitkovsky, stretched along the coast, wanting to cover everything, was crushed and ran to Perekop, where there was also the 3rd Corps of Skalon, which, together with the 2nd Corps and the Kuban, made up the 2nd Army of General Dratsenko (the hero of the Kuban defeat of the Whites ).

The Reds, pursuing the infantry of the 2nd Army, threw their cavalry from Kakhovka to Salkovo - to the rear of the 1st Army of Kutepov and the Don Corps of Abramov. And their troops had to run in a race, making their way to the Salkovsky isthmus. What I warned about happened.

I do not know the details of this flight, because everything was heavily hidden in the rear, so that I can only convey the stories of convoy refugees and some fragmentary information from the headquarters. The essence of the matter was that the academically correctly conceived by the Reds maneuver Wrangel made it possible to put it into practice as a conscientious and well-trained designated enemy.

Despite the fact that the plan of the Red Command or its possibility were clear back in August thanks to the stubborn holding and arrangement of the Kakhov bridgehead, Wrangel, who wanted to cover everything in Northern Tavria, as I said, did not leave a reserve. Budyonny brilliantly used the position and cut into the white carts in the Novo-Alekseevka area. True, units of the Donets and Kutepov, who had made their way from the north, made their way back, but for this they had to hastily leave the front, and the cavalry is not good for long-term retention. In a word, the Red horse operation was brilliant. But the Red infantry, and in general all the units pursuing the Whites, would have had to hurry - then no one from the army of Northern Tavria would have left. Immediately, the defeat was mainly moral and convoy.

An interesting incident occurred during my meeting with Wrangel, when, having been called to headquarters and not finding it in Sevastopol, I was sent to Dzhankoy. At my entrance, he rushed around the cabin of his car. Barely having time to say hello, he dragged me to the map, and approximately the following conversation took place. Wrangel: "You know, Budyonny is here" (finger poked at Novo-Alekseevka).

How much?

6-7 thousand.

Where does he come from, from the sky or ... Kakhovka?

Jokes are inappropriate: of course, from Kakhovka.

So my frustrated nerves were right. Unfortunately, they got even more upset. Do you want to know the opinion of upset nerves? If so, they ask for a situation statement.

Kutepov does not talk about his units on the radio from Petrovsky. I think that during the concentric retreat to Salkov they concentrated. Novo-Alekseevka is occupied by an enemy of an unknown force, not by cavalry. Kutepov and the Donets are not being attacked from the north and east. Dratsenko in Perekop, his forces gathered to him, his mood is bad. The Reds occupied Chaplinka. What do you think?

Do you have anyone in Salkovo?

There Dostavalov (Kutepov's chief of staff) with 2,000 Kutepov's bayonets, and I gathered about 1,500 bayonets for him from the rear.

Let me weigh... My frustrated nerves tell me that this is a moment of need for the presence of a senior boss. I would give the order: Dostavalov to attack Novo-Alekseevka, Kutepov to inform about it by radio, and the attack in the direction of Salkovo - at the same time. Budyonny will be forced to retreat, he is left with a loophole to the northeast, we must give it to him - we are too weak to push him to save his units, otherwise he will seriously fight. Gather Donets (mounted) and Barbovich, and with Kutepov and you at the head - to Chaplinka in the flank and rear of the Kakhov group of Reds. After all, it will be about 20,000 checkers. Here is the general plan. Little things: you need to find out where Budyonny will withdraw, where he will put up a barrier. But the Crimea will be saved for the time being, then it will be possible to carry out my plan for its defense and reconciliation with the Reds.

Yes, you are right, I agree with you. It will be a beautiful operation. It will be necessary to order the collection of all reports and orders: it is important for history. I'll talk to Pavlusha (Shatilov) now.

On that we parted. I returned to Sevastopol and was terribly surprised to learn that the commander in chief had also returned there. Kutepov fought his way back together with Abramov. But Wrangel did not dare to undertake an operation and leave ahead of the troops. The Whites were driven behind the isthmuses and settled down in trenches, braided with wire and arranged in a straight line one after the other at a distance of 1-2 versts, without any adaptations for habitation. Frosts came to 16 degrees. There was a situation similar to the beginning of 1920, only there were 60,000 troops (combat units who arrived in Constantinople, and how many more were abandoned in the Crimea). It is difficult to describe what these unfortunate, driven people, who did not know what they were fighting for, experienced. If people like me experienced this, it is right for them: they acted consciously and fought for certain ideas, but those, this mass of soldiers and officers, especially the last one, which itself was often from former soldiers, that is, the same peasants, they- then what about?

This is the question that made me headlong rush ahead of the chains during the first defense of the Crimea and which made me hesitate for so long already when I retired after the Kakhov battle. I am well aware of the harm I have caused by this, I am especially aware now that I have been actively engaged in my political education, but how could I have done otherwise then? I will say one thing: I never backed down from the concept of honor; what I promised, I did, and, having already retired, I worried about others the horrors to which the white leaders condemned them, rushed from one decision to another, now indignant at Wrangel and his associates, now ready to make peace with them, if only avoid disaster.

Finally bewildered, Wrangel decided to regroup for the defense of the isthmuses, that is, to send a larger army of Kutepov to the more accessible Perekop direction, and to plant Dratsenko on the Chongar one; in the course of the retreat, Kutepov was on Chongar, and Dratsenko was on Perekop, and castling began (it works well only in chess). To defend the Crimea, Wrangel wanted to use the units that remained in Poland, and wanted to fuse me there, but this plan of his fell away by itself due to the collapse of the Crimea.

As proof of his final confusion, Wrangel himself remained in the rear, near the courts, and Kutepov was appointed to defend the Crimea and castrate the troops. The Reds did not want to portray the designated enemy and attacked the isthmuses. Some of the people at that time were sitting in the trenches, some were walking from right to left and left to right, but under the onslaught of the Reds they all ran together.

There were individual cases of stubborn resistance, there were individual cases of heroism, but from the bottom; the leaders did not take part in this - they "adjoined" the courts. What was the ordinary defenders of the Crimea to do? Of course, to run as soon as possible to the courts, otherwise they will be betrayed to the victors for reprisal. They were right. And so they did.

On November 11, on the orders of Wrangel, I was at the front to see and report on his condition. The units were in complete retreat, that is, rather, they were not units, but separate small groups; so, for example, on the Perekop direction, 228 people and 28 guns departed to Simferopol, the rest was already near the ports.

The Reds did not press at all, and the retreat in this direction took place in peacetime.

The red cavalry followed the white cavalry to Dzhankoy, from where Kutepov's headquarters immediately left for Sarabuz. In parts, I learned about Wrangel's order, which said that the "allies" did not accept whites, there would be nowhere to live and nothing to live abroad, so let those who are not afraid of the Reds stay. It was at the front. In the rear, a telegram signed by me arrived in Feodosia and Yalta that I had liquidated the Reds' breakthrough and that I commanded the defense of the Crimea and ordered everyone to go to the front and unload from ships. The author of the telegram was later detained: it turned out to be some captain, whose name I do not remember. He explained his action by the desire to reduce the panic and the conviction that I really went to the front to take command. Both in Feodosia and in Yalta they believed this and, remembering the first defense of the Crimea, they unloaded from the ships: because of this, there was a strong confusion, and then many remained, not having time to dive again.

The evacuation proceeded in a nightmarish atmosphere of confusion and panic. Wrangel was the first to set an example of this, he moved from his home to the Kist Hotel near the Grafskaya Pier in order to be able to quickly board the ship, which he soon did, starting cruising through the ports under the guise of checking evacuation. Of course, he could not make any verification from the ship, but he was in complete safety - this was the only thing he aspired to.

When I was driving back on November 13-14, there were demonstrations in favor of the Reds everywhere in the rear, and marauders and the "lumpen-proletariat" smashed shops, just wanting to profit. I was traveling as a private person, and therefore no one paid any attention to my class II compartment, and I could observe pictures of flight and rampant robbery. On the same night, I boarded the Ilya Muromets icebreaker, which had just arrived by the French government and returned to Wrangel.

My telegraph report to Wrangel said that there was essentially no front, that his order "save yourself, whoever can" finally disintegrated it, and if we have nowhere to go, then we need to gather troops at the ports and make a landing to Khorly in order to come to the Crimea with another sides.

True, a place was allotted for my wife on the auxiliary cruiser Almaz, which had already gone to sea by my arrival, but there was no place for me on the ships, and I was placed on the Ilya Muromets on the personal initiative of naval officers.

There I also placed the abandoned remnants of the Life Guards of the Finnish Regiment with the regimental banner, under which I served part of the German war, and left for Constantinople. Arriving in Constantinople, I moved to Almaz, and Kutepov soon arrived there. The latter was terribly indignant at Wrangel and said that we need to somehow respond to this. I had to tell him that he himself should be equally indignant, and my opinion is that the army no longer exists, in my opinion.

Kutepov was indignant at my words and blamed everything on Wrangel. I answered him: “Of course, his fault is greater than yours, but it’s completely indifferent to me: I’m leaving anyway, whether they let me go or not. that I left the army: my 7 wounds (5 in the German and 2 in the civil war) give me the right to do this - you tell Wrangel about this. Then Kutepov said: "Since you are completely disappointed, why don't you write to Wrangel that he needs to leave? You just need to nominate a candidate, at least me, as the eldest of the remaining ones."

Oh, I can do that with pleasure, I answered. “Your name is so unpopular that it will disintegrate the army even faster. - And he wrote a report that Kutepov himself took to Wrangel.

I moved ashore so as not to be on the "territory" of Wrangel, and began to think over the further role of the White Army from the point of view of the "fatherland". My reflections led me to the conclusion that she could only be a hireling of foreigners (of course, it was impossible to shout about it loudly), and therefore I set to work to disintegrate the army. Wrangel betrayed me to the "court of honor", which he established specifically for this, but I was not summoned to this court, because what could be charged against a private person who wants to tell the truth about the army and its goals? The court sentenced me in absentia to exclusion from the service - he could not do more. This gave me an extra trump card, and I could publish the pamphlet "I demand the court of society and publicity." True, it was not I who wrote it, but General Kilenin, but at the time of typing the book, counterintelligence began to intimidate so much that Kilenin was frightened. In addition, the French counterintelligence confiscated all correspondence regarding the role of the French in the Crimean defense. All this led to Kilenin refusing to put his name on the pamphlet, which consisted almost entirely of my documents. Then I, already bound by receiving a deposit and a forfeit, had to urgently put my last name on the book and ask to replace the words "corporate commander" and "Slashchov" with the word "I".

The book turned out to be scanty, obscure, without proper coverage and completeness of the events described, but nevertheless it achieved its goal. Its printing went on with friction - the font fell out, but nevertheless it was printed, and on January 14, 1921 it was published. For finding it with someone in Gallipoli (where Wrangel's army was stationed), they severely punished, but it spread there. I was guided not by a thirst for revenge, but by the full consciousness that this foreign army could only be an enemy of Russia, and I stood on the platform of the "fatherland" and from this, and not yet from the class point of view, saw it as an enemy. Ukrainians addressed me (Markotun organization), I advised them to call the Ukrainians from Wrangel and with their help I arranged a real quarrel between the two "governments". I was no longer bound by the idea of ​​protecting people who had trusted me. Following further the army and the actions of Wrangel and Kutepov in Gallipoli, the negotiations with foreigners about the attack on the RSFSR back in 1921, the sending of people there to raise uprisings, I became more and more convinced of the criminality of the existence of this army. My conversation with Captain Walker of the General Staff, who came to see me from the British counterintelligence, on the same occasion, further strengthened my opinion, and the conversation with a person who had come from Moscow found in me deeply prepared ground for a public break with the Whites and moving to Soviet Russia.

Notes

Assessing the actions of the 1st Cavalry Army, the author, since the case concerned S.M. Budyonny, showed tact, usually not characteristic of him when evaluating other people's unsuccessful operations. On October 18 (31), the shock group of the 1st Army of General A.P. Kutepova as part of the Drozdov division of General A.V. Turkula and three cavalry divisions pushed back the 14th Cavalry Division A.Ya. Parkhomenko from the village of Rozhdestvensky to the west, and the Don Corps near Novo-Alekseevka pushed the 4th Cavalry Division S.K. Timoshenko. Thus, the 1st Cavalry Army, whose divisions showed slowness and indecision, did not comply with the order of the commander of the Southern Front M.V. Frunze to encircle and destroy the Russian army in Northern Tavria, opening the way of retreat to the Crimea, where on October 19-20 (November 1-2) the main forces of the Whites left along the Chongar bridge and the Arabat arrow.

In February 1920, during the evacuation of Odessa, the French fleet seized Russian commercial ships, considering them as compensation for the costs of supporting the VSYUR. Since the summer, the French returned most of the transports to the Crimea.

S.K. Markotun - former personal secretary of the Ukrainian hetman P.P. Skoropadsky. In November 1919, in Paris, he and his supporters formed the "Ukrainian National Committee" to combat the "independent" movement in Ukraine. The main points of the program: 1) Ukraine is included in "federal Russia" with the rights of a self-governing national region, 2) a broad agrarian reform to create a class of "small landowners." The committee supported P.N. Wrangel, his representatives in the Crimea coordinated their activities with the "Government of the South of Russia". P.N. Wrangel, in turn, considered the committee a counterweight to the "independent" S.V. Petlyura, a supporter of the separation of Ukraine from Russia and its union with Poland.

95 years ago - in the autumn of 1920 - after the defeat of Wrangel's army in the Crimea, 150 thousand Russians went to a foreign land. Most of them are forever...

Wake column of transports during the evacuation of the Wrangel army from the Crimea. 1920

The Russian exodus took place, which put an end to the Civil War, opened a significant era of Russian emigration and finally completed the history of the Russian Empire. Thus ended the Civil War in Russia, at least in its open manifestation.

The beginning of this war - "Russian unrest", according to the apt definition of General Anton Denikin - was the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II in February 1917. And a little over three years later, former subjects of Russia, who did not want to become Soviet citizens, fled Crimea. They saved themselves by leaving everything in their homeland that until recently constituted the essence of their completely calm and successful, in any case, worthy life. Home, vocation, property, in the end - the graves of their ancestors ... They no longer had all this. Uncertainty and hope for salvation is, perhaps, all that they had at that time.

Crimea Island

Then, in 1920, the remnants of the volunteer armies, who retreated under the onslaught of the Reds, along with numerous civilian refugees, found their temporary refuge in the Crimea. They hoped for the Crimea as a miracle that could save them and give hope for the preservation of the former Russia here. But the miracle didn't happen...

The ruler and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the South of Russia from April 4, 1920 was Baron Pyotr Nikolaevich Wrangel. One of the most talented and at the same time modest people of his time, he was a practical and realist and was well aware of the situation in Crimea: “It is not by a triumphal procession from the Crimea to Moscow that Russia can be liberated, but by creating at least on a piece of Russian land such an order and such living conditions, who would pull to themselves all the thoughts and forces of the people groaning under the red yoke.

General Wrangel began the development of the peninsula. There was an obvious socio-economic problem: the population of Crimea had become prohibitively large, and it was necessary to feed everyone based on the available resources of the Crimean peninsula. According to the general, he had to "establish a completely disordered industrial apparatus, provide the population with food, using the natural wealth of the region in the widest possible way ..." An agrarian reform was undertaken, launched by Wrangel's special order on land. Trade and entrepreneurship immediately intensified.

In parallel with the solution of economic problems, Wrangel took up issues of public education - from the opening of schools (a school was even created with teaching in the Ukrainian language, at the request of refugees from Little Russia) to the mass production of newspapers, magazines and other publications (of various political persuasion, except for the Bolshevik, of course) . The Society "Russian Book Publishing in Crimea" published 150,000 copies of textbooks alone in six months.
Of course, the "besieged fortress" regime dictated its own laws. But the fundamental feature characteristic of the policy of General Wrangel and the entire White Crimea was that the punishment of individuals did not spill over into terror. Those suspected of sympathizing with Bolshevism were arrested and ... sent to the Reds!

Censorship also worked, which had the right to remove any publication from the press on suspicion of revolutionary propaganda. By the way, several times this censorship refused to publish the materials ... of Pyotr Wrangel himself, considering them "too revolutionary." And the general took it for granted: "The law is the same for all."
And all this Soviet historiography will later call "Wrangel's lawlessness", "the last tyranny of the whites" ...

One to two

A certain weak confidence in the prospect of the existence of Crimea as a separate state was given by its diplomatic recognition by the French Republic. In addition, Wrangel hoped that while the Soviet government was waging war with the Polish imperialist Jozef Pilsudski, The Russian army and the entire Crimea have a temporary reserve - at least until the onset of spring.

UNLIKE THE NAMES OF THE LEADERS OF THE REVOLUTION, the name of Baron Wrangel, an opponent of the Civil War, who saved thousands of people from reprisal, is still not on the map of Russia

And on October 12, unexpectedly for everyone, Poland, led by Pilsudski, signed an armistice agreement with the government of Vladimir Lenin, which allowed the Bolsheviks to throw "all their forces on the Black Baron"! On November 3, 1920, the Red Army came close to Perekop.

The ratio of forces of the Russian army and the Southern Front was as follows: 75,815 bayonets and sabers at the disposal of Wrangel against 188,771 at Frunze; 1404 machine guns and 271 guns against 3000 machine guns and 623 guns respectively. As for the Perekop fortifications, portrayed by Soviet cinema as completely impregnable, they were all unfinished, and they were defended by soldiers and officers who, unlike the Red Army, did not have warm clothes (at the beginning of November in the Crimea there were 15-degree frosts).

Realizing the seriousness of the situation of the army and the population of Crimea and not having excessive hopes regarding the impregnability of the fortifications of Perekop, General Wrangel ordered in advance to provide opportunities for the evacuation of 75 thousand people (as it turned out later, this preparation made it possible to take twice as many people out of the Crimea).

Soviet historiography will later present the advance of the Reds deep into the Crimea as a thoughtful and natural event, and the evacuation of the Russian army of General Wrangel as a series of panic and desperate actions. In fact, however, in order to somehow justify the mediocrity of the assault, which cost the Southern Front too dearly, later it was necessary to compose a legend about the Wrangel army equipped and armed to the teeth by the allies, hiding behind a "complex layered system of long-term defense."

Evacuation of the Russian army of Wrangel. Kerch, 1920

As well as had to hide the true goal of the Frunze operation to capture the Crimea, thwarted by General Wrangel. In fact, the Red Army was tasked not only to penetrate into the Crimea, breaking Wrangel's resistance, but also to prevent the evacuation of the military and civilian population of the peninsula (for which we now know very well). “In the future, both cavalry armies should keep in mind the most energetic pursuit of the enemy, in no case allowing him to board ships,” Frunze ordered. This, however, could not be done by the Reds, who, no matter how eager they were, could not use their numerical advantage. And one and a half hundred thousand Russians were thus saved from the terrible fate that did not escape the rest.

"Surprised by the exorbitant compliance"

Realizing that the rapid defeat of the units of the Russian army was thwarted (the Wrangel troops retreated in a surprisingly organized manner - without contact with the enemy), on November 11, the Soviet army commander sent a “pacifying” radiogram to the commander-in-chief Pyotr Wrangel with the following content:

“In view of the obvious futility of further resistance by your troops, which threatens only with the shedding of unnecessary blood flows, I suggest that you stop resisting and surrender with all the troops of the army and navy, military supplies, equipment, weapons and all kinds of military equipment.

If you accept the above proposal, the Revolutionary Military Council of the armies of the Southern Front, on the basis of the powers granted to it by the central Soviet government, guarantees those who surrender, including persons of the highest command personnel, full forgiveness in respect of all offenses related to the civil strife. All those who do not want to stay and work in socialist Russia will be given the opportunity to travel abroad without hindrance, provided that they renounce on their word of honor from further struggle against workers' and peasants' Russia and Soviet power.

I expect an answer before 24:00 on November 11. Moral responsibility for all possible consequences in case of rejection of an honest offer will fall on you.

Commander of the Southern Front Mikhail Frunze».

Instead of answering, Wrangel ordered all radio stations to be turned off.

Commander of the Southern Front Mikhail Frunze and commander of the Southwestern Front Alexander Yegorov at the military parade after the capture of Perekop. November 1920

Which, by the way, was redundant, since the very next day, November 12, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, Vladimir Lenin, hastened to warn the leadership of the Southern Front against the very possibility of humane treatment of compatriots who had surrendered: “I just learned about your proposal to Wrangel to surrender. Extremely surprised by the exorbitant pliability of the conditions. If the enemy accepts them, then it is necessary to really ensure the capture of the fleet and the non-release of a single ship; if the enemy does not accept these conditions, then, in my opinion, they can no longer be repeated and must be dealt with mercilessly.

On November 11 (October 29, old style), General Wrangel gave his last order for the army and the Crimea.

« ORDER

Ruler of the South of Russia and Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army
Sevastopol, October 29, 1920

Russian people!

Left alone in the fight against the rapists, the Russian army is waging an unequal battle, defending the last piece of Russian land where law and truth exist.
In the consciousness of the responsibility that lies on me, I am obliged to foresee all accidents in advance.

By my order, the evacuation and boarding of ships in the ports of Crimea has already begun for all those who shared the path of the Cross with the Army, the families of military personnel, civil servants with their families and individuals who could be in danger if the enemy came.

The army will cover the landing, bearing in mind that the ships necessary for its evacuation are in full readiness in ports according to the established schedule. To fulfill the duty to the army and the population, everything has been done within the limits of human strength.

Our future paths are full of uncertainty. We have no other land except Crimea. There is no state treasury. Frankly, as always, I warn everyone of what awaits them.

May the Lord send strength and wisdom to all to overcome and survive the Russian hard times.

General Wrangel».

On November 13, the Reds occupied Simferopol. The commander of the 2nd Cavalry Army, Philip Kuzmich Mironov, recalled: “On November 13, the Crimean peninsula in the greatest silence received the Red troops sent to occupy the cities: Evpatoria, Sevastopol, Feodosia, Kerch.”

"We are going to a foreign land"

With a huge number of people willing, with an unrealistically short allotted time (several days), the evacuation proceeded calmly, without panic (contrary to the idea that develops in some Soviet films). “Splendidly carried out” was called by an eyewitness - the French representative to the Crimean government.

On November 14, 1920, General Wrangel left Sevastopol. He left, as befits the commander-in-chief. He traveled around on his boat the ships ready to sail in the bay of Sevastopol and addressed everyone with a short farewell: “We are going to a foreign land, we are not going like beggars with outstretched hands, but with our heads held high, in the consciousness of a duty fulfilled to the end.” Then, making sure that everyone who wished boarded the ships, he made a raid on the cruiser General Kornilov to Yalta, Feodosia and Kerch in order to personally oversee the loading. And only after that he left.

Later, all the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, with the exception of one, arrived in Constantinople.

What awaited the rest? It would be more correct to ask this: what fate befell those who did not save themselves?

Already on the night of November 14, the Red Army occupied all the coastal cities of Crimea. An eyewitness of those events wrote: “Having entered the city, the soldiers attacked the inhabitants, undressed them and right there, on the street, put on the taken away clothes, throwing their tattered soldiers to the unfortunate undressed. Whoever could from the inhabitants hid in basements and secluded places, afraid to catch the eye of the brutalized Red Army soldiers.

The city at that time had a sad look. Everywhere there were corpses of horses, half-eaten by dogs, heaps of garbage ... The windows in the shops were broken, the sidewalks near them were strewn with glass, dirt was everywhere you looked.

The next day, the robbery of liquor stores and the wholesale drunkenness of the Reds began. There was not enough bottled wine, so they began to uncork barrels and drink directly from them. Being already drunk, the soldiers could not use the pump and therefore simply broke the barrels. Wine poured everywhere, flooded the cellars and poured into the streets. The drunkenness continued for a whole week, and with it all kinds of, often the most incredible, violence against the inhabitants.

Soon the whole of Crimea got acquainted with the practical application of the slogan of the Dzhankoy organization of the RCP (b): "Let's nail the coffin of the bourgeoisie already dying, writhing in convulsions!" On November 17, the Krymrevkom, whose chairman was appointed a Hungarian revolutionary Bela Kun, issued order No. 4, which designated groups of persons who were obliged to appear for registration within three days. These are foreign subjects; persons who arrived on the territory of Crimea after the departure of Soviet power in June 1919; as well as all officers, wartime officials, soldiers and former employees of institutions of the volunteer army.

Later, this experience of "voluntary registration" will be successfully applied by the Nazis in relation to the Jews in the occupied territories ...

Honestly

The naivety with which those under orders went to register, the same naivety based on decency of people who surrendered voluntarily and counted on the word of honor of the Frunze Commander, cost them too much. As is known, they were either shot after being tortured to inflict as much torment as possible on the victim, or, without the use of torture, they were sunk alive in the holds of old barges.

Bolshevik leaders Bela Kun and Rozalia Zalkind (Zemlyachka) were at the head of the reprisals against the former. As for the lover of making promises, the red commander Frunze, he was not only aware of what was happening, but also encouraged certain leaders of terror like Efim Evdokimova: “I consider the activities of Comrade. Evdokimov deserving of encouragement. Due to the special nature of this activity, it is not very convenient to carry out the awards in the usual way.

TODAY, 95 YEARS AFTER THE TRAGIC AND BLOODY EVENTS, we have the right to ask ourselves: have we fully learned the historical lesson of revolutions?

Thus, all those evacuated by Wrangel found salvation: hardships and hardships awaited them, but still it was the salvation of life. It can be said without exaggeration that Pyotr Nikolaevich Wrangel gave them a second birth.

Today, 95 years after those tragic and bloody events, we have the right to ask ourselves: have we fully learned the historical lesson of revolutions? Do we understand that a revolution always leads to a fratricidal civil war - a war in which there are no and cannot be winners, since the people fight with themselves? How do you know if you have…

Reds storm Perekop. 1920

Ashes of a sinking barge with living officers Rosalia Salkind rests in the Kremlin wall. A street in Simferopol and a square in Moscow were named after another organizer of the massacres in the Crimea, Bela Kun, and the Military Academy received the name of Frunze. But in honor of Wrangel, the opponent of the Civil War, who saved thousands of people from reprisal, neither streets nor educational institutions are named.

It is time to think about our historical memory, especially on the eve of the centenary of the revolution, because 2017 is just around the corner.

Petr Alexandrov-Derkachenko, State Secretary of the Russian Historical Society Abroad

Russian revolution