The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Civil war in Russia (1917 1922)

a. B. Danilin, E.N. Evseeva, S.V. Karpenko

CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA (1917 - 1922)

Unlike traditional statement in textbooks and manuals of history of Civil war when the reasons and the beginning of war, the politician of "military communism", the international relations, military operations, etc. separately are considered, in the offered lecture all events and processes are stated in interrelations with each other in the hrononologichesky periods. It allows to understand better regularities of the course of war and factors which defined it results. Also short review of history of studying Civil war is given. In the text the major dates, proper names, historical concepts, etc. making that minimum which pupils have to know are allocated. In interlinear notes it is specified on the most characteristic mistakes of pupils, terms are explained, biographic and other additional data are reported. The basic abstract and tests facilitating independent studying a subject are attached to a lecture.

The civil war in Russia was a natural result of the revolutionary crisis which struck the country at the beginning of the 20th century. A chain of events - revolution of 1905, incomplete reforms, world war, falling of the monarchy, economic ruin, disintegration of the country and the power, seizure of power by Bolsheviks - led the Russian society to deep social, national, political and ideological split. Fierce war in scales of the whole country between armed forces of the Bolshevist mode and the anti-Bolshevist authorities from summer of 1918 to fall of 1920

became apogee of this split

For Bolsheviks the suppression of resistance of their opponents was the only opportunity to hold the power in the country country for the purpose of transformation it in base of the international socialist revolution. As a matter of experience the Commune of Paris, V.I. Lenin [1] considered the main reason of her death inability to suppress resistance of the overthrown exploiters. Bolsheviks were absolutely sure of historical justification and justice of application of ruthless violence against the enemies and "exploiters" in general and also coercions in relation to the fluctuating center of the city and the village, first of all - to the peasantry.

For many participants of the White movement - officers, the Cossacks, the intellectuals, landowners, the bourgeoisie, bureaucracy and clergy - armed resistance to Bolsheviks was the only means of fight for return to the lost power and recovery of in the former social and economic rights and privileges. Throughout all war the meaning of existence of the White movement, the leading force of the anti-Bolshevist camp, consisted in attempts on a part of the territory of the former empire to recreate army and the office of civil management, to restore the rights of a sobstvnnnost and freedom of trade, to mobilize all possible human and economic resources with the purpose to create the mass and supplied with all necessary army, to provide it support from most of the population and to overthrow the power of Bolsheviks. On the party white there were an experience of public administration, knowledge of military science, the saved-up money and material richness and also close ties with the countries of the West. Hatred, bitterness, sharp thirst of class punishment were added to it. All this combined considerably compensated their numerical minority and allowed within nearly three years of a message large-scale armed struggle against Bolsheviks.

The position of the peasantry making more than 80% of the population which fluctuated from passive waiting before active armed struggle against "red" and "white" was the factor, a decisive image influencing the war course. Fluctuations of the peasantry which were reaction to the policy of the Bolshevist power and dictatorships of white generals

radically changed a ratio of forces between red and white and, finally, predetermined the result of war.

Consolidation of the power of Bolsheviks both their domestic and foreign policy, disintegration of the Russian Empire and origin of the White movement caused active intervention of the leading western powers in the Civil war in Russia. Motives of this intervention were: fight against Germany, realization of own economic and political interests in Russia and assistance white for the purpose of liquidation of the Bolshevist power. Though their opportunities were limited to social and economic crisis and political struggle in the countries of the West, intervention and financial support to white armies significantly affected the war course.

Many people living in the territory of the Russian Empire during the revolution and war restored or for the first time found the state independence, having chosen the path of democratic development. Advocating the national interests, the governments of these states and state "new growths" the policy promoted weakening of the anti-Bolshevist camp, sometimes their armed forces acted against white troops, but on the other hand - significantly limited to Bolsheviks of a possibility of export of revolution. The most significant role in events of Civil war was played by Poland, Finland, Estonia and Georgia.

Modern scientific ideas of the Civil war in Russia are based on results of its study (or a mythologization) several generations of domestic and foreign researchers.

In the 20th. Civil war was considered as direct continuation of revolutionary events of 1917. Reckoning Civil war from the October revolution as a result of which Bolsheviks came to the power, historians among whom there were many its participants looked for the reasons of defeats and victories of the Red Army in the ratio of class forces in Russia and out of it. At such approach, despite narrowness of istochnikovy base and ideological irreconcilability to the broken opponent, not only construction of the Soviet state and the leading role of Bolshevik party, the social and economic policy of the government of Lenin and the history of the Red Army, but also the history of the white governments, their domestic and foreign policy, activity of monarchist, liberal and democratic parties, formation and operations of white armies were studied.

Historians of the 20th managed to reveal in the main interdependence between domestic policy of the governments existing in the territory of Russia, political moods and activity of the main groups of the population, periodic aggravations of war in different regions of the country and relocations of lines of red-white fronts (in particular, between "excesses" in actions of the Bolshevist authorities, the Cossack and country revolts and progress of white troops). One of the main conclusions to which they came was that to the White movement, in 1918 - 1920, inconsistent support of the fluctuating mass of the peasantry and the Cossacks and also intervention and financial support of Germany and the countries of the Entente which pursued first of all the own mercenary aims gave to the most serious opponent of Bolsheviks temporary and very unreliable force, and military and financial support to white was rendered only so far as it was equitable to their interests.

In the 30th in the conditions of "approach of socialism on all front" the first scientific practices on the history of Civil war were crossed out by ideology and the retaliatory policy of the individual power of I.V. Stalin [2]. Communication between seizure of power of Bolsheviks and Civil war was broken off: the period from November, 1917 to February, 1918 became

it to be represented in literature by "a triumphal procession of the Soviet power" (Lenin's expression), certain "end" of the October revolution in scales of the whole country, and the beginning of actually Civil war began to contact a revolt of the Czechoslovak case in May, 1918. It allowed to accuse of unleashing of Civil war only the Entente and "belobandit", having hidden main, internal, the reasons of sharp aggravation of already going war: dispersal by Bolsheviks of the Constituent assembly and establishment

one-party dictatorship, the conclusion them the Brest world with Germany, nationalization of banks and industrial enterprises, introduction of a proddiktatura.

Many economic, social, political and ideological and moral processes were simplified or emasculated. The history of Civil war came down to victories of the Red Army on fronts where Stalin worked (at the same time others merits were attributed to him and his mistakes were suppressed); on the other hand, events in which the crucial role was played by the famous party workers and military leaders repressed in the late thirties were deleted from it. Civil war was adjusted to the primitive Stalin scheme of the "three integrated and combined campaigns of the Entente" crushed by the Red Army "under the wise management of companion Stalin". In scientific literature in the relation of internal and external opponents of Bolsheviks expressions and labels of Stalin agitprop ("belobandita", "agents of the Entente", "predators of a world imperialism", etc.) were approved in what the aspiration "to break" them again was shown: not only in the battlefield, but also in historical memory of society.

Such retaliatory and ideological approach to the past war was dictated by the aspiration to strengthen the Stalin mode, to introduce in consciousness of people conviction in efficiency and salutariness of violence and the right of Bolsheviks for violence and also to create from "White Russians" an image of irreconcilable and dangerous external threat, the ally of "the international imperialism" and the helper of "enemies of the people" in the USSR. This approach and also classification as documents of the Bolshevist management and main command of the Red Army, and trophy documents of the white governments and armies, excluded truly scientific and objective studying Civil war, especially - the White movement and other forces which showed resistance to the dictatorial power and policy of Bolsheviks.

"Cold War" focused attention of the Soviet historians to interventions, stimulirovav not so much its study, how many formation of myths according to the Stalin scheme of "three campaigns". The aspiration to prove that "the international imperialism" led by the USA was the main responsible for unleashing of Civil war in Russia, led to new rough misrepresentations and the essence of war when, on the one hand, intervention of Great Britain and France began to be characterized as result of dictatorship of the USA, and with another - in a number of editions the period of 1918 - 1920 was called "Patriotic war of the Soviet people against interventionists and White Guards".

During de-Stalinization of the middle of the 50th - the middle of the 60th chanting of the leading Stalin's role was replaced with praise of "inspiring and organizing" a role of party led by Lenin, on pages of historical works names and affairs of repressed military leaders returned.

The subsequent strengthening at L.I. Brezhnev of "Stalinism without Stalin" and sharp ideological confrontation with the West in the period of "discharge" provided exclusive survivability of Stalin myths and labels in literature on Civil war. In particular, during the period from November, 1917 to February, 1918 was still considered as the "end" of the October revolution which is not concerning "big" Civil war. If in 30e - the 40th this point of view was guided by the Stalin scheme of "three campaigns of the Entente", then in 50e - the 70th she received a reinforcement from tendentiously lit allegedly

"peaceful development" of socialist revolutions in countries of Eastern Europe. The anti-Bolshevist camp was still drawn in the form of one-color-black, faceless force - the hired and antinational, and therefore fatally doomed to defeat despite generous financial and military aid Entente. Names of white generals still remained only symbolical signs designating fronts and territories in which the Red Army gained victories.

In parallel in the 60th the foreign researchers, first of all American and English, began to study actively Civil war to Russia, trying to find "recipes" how to avoid repetition in different parts of the world of what occurred in Russia in 1917 - 1920. Therefore they first of all were interested in formation and consolidation of Bolshevist dictatorship, its domestic and foreign policy, its ideology and promotion, allied intervention and financial support of the Entente white, ideology and domestic policy of the anti-Bolshevist governments. Developing the ideas of emigrant authors of the 20th, they proved that the Bolsheviks seeking to establish the dictatorship in the backward country country and with its help to the story Russia and the whole world by socialism and that during war the Bolsheviks created basic elements of future mode of a personal authority of Stalin were the main responsible for "fratricidal" war. At the same time the western authors captiously investigated "mistakes" of white leaders, seeing in them the main reason of defeat of the White movement.

In the Soviet historical science the trend concrete and rather objective as far as it was possible within the dominating communistic ideology, studying Civil war arose in the second half of the 70th. Increase of crisis of the Soviet society and detection of scandalous primitiveness of "historical experience of the CPSU" in comparison with real problems and defeats of "world revolutionary process" became the reasons of it. Refusing the former myths disproved by the concrete facts of the past and the present some Soviet historians, in particular, resumed studying events of the end of 1917 - the beginning of 1918 and the anti-Bolshevist camp.

In the late eighties - the 90th in connection with the deep changes happening in the USSR and independent Russia and also sharpening of the political, social and national tension developing at weakness of the power into armed conflicts the scientific and public requirement of study and new judgment of tragic events of 1917 - 1922 considerably amplified. On the other hand, crash of one-party political system and communistic ideology and also declassification of documents of the Bolshevist management and the white authorities, created necessary conditions for their truly scientific research and the free creative analysis from various points of view. Modern historians pay special attention to ideology and policy of the Bolshevism as to the main factors of emergence and aggravation of Civil war, formation in the years of war of bases of future Stalin mode.

Mass reprinting of memoirs and research works of emigrants about the White movement became striking trait of these years that allowed to fill quickly an acute shortage of the facts, estimates and the ideas. On the basis of the documents of the white governments and their armies which became public the concrete studying the White movement, however, limited to still political, military and spiritual aspects, ideology and biographies of leaders began.

In works of many modern Russian writers still it is possible to meet old, though a little modernized and exempted from Lenin quotes, views of Civil war (and the corresponding approaches to its study) as rather isolated period of national history from May, 1918 to November, 1920 when as a result of intervention "armed struggle became the main cure

political affairs". The "totalitarian" concept alternative to these views divided and developed by others comes down to the fact that Civil war began the October revolution and, therefore, was direct result of exclusively Bolshevist aspiration to autocracy and became, respectively, the main prerequisite and a decisive step to establishment of the Stalin mode.

But the most fruitful the objective and system view on Civil war as natural generation of national revolutionary crisis and deep split of society, the many-sided and contradictory public change which had multidimensional long-term consequences for development of our country is and not only

New researches of the experienced and beginning historians, discussions on "round tables" and a conference show: both at illumination of the actual party of events, and at clarification of prerequisites, character, features and results of war there is a set of unresolved and controversial issues. Especially heated debate raises a question of time of the beginning and the end of Civil war as any given its decision predetermines assessment of the reasons, the nature and consequences of war.

In our opinion to understand regularities of the course of Civil war, in the seeming chaos of events to reveal the leading trends and to open factors of a victory of Bolshevist dictatorship and defeat of the White movement, it is necessary to be turning points when owing to many reasons the ratio of forces of the fighting parties sharply changed the basis for a periodization.

The first such turning point was violent

capture of the government by Bolsheviks on October 25 - 26, 1917

about [4], the given decisive impetus to the beginning of the White movement. And further victories and defeats of warring armies on fronts (irrespective of

the number of troops and extent of fronts) were defined

ratio of military forces red and white, which directly

depended on their economic resources, on mass character

a social support, from the help from foreign allies.

The first period of Civil war (November, 1917 - February, 1918) differed in relative speed and ease of establishment of the power of Bolsheviks and elimination of armed resistance of their opponents (near Petrograd, in Moscow, in Ukraine, Don, Kuban, etc.).

First of all presence of a wide social support at Bolsheviks was characteristic of this period: they resolutely liquidated landowner, and in general private, land tenure gave the earth to the order of peasants, started a country conclusion from world war, introduced working control in the industry, recognized the right of the people of the former empire for finding of the state independence therefore the bulk of the population supported them. This mass support compensated numerical and organizational weakness of the armed strength of Bolsheviks (groups of Red guard [5], revolutionary sailors and soldiers of old army).

Anti-Bolsheviks in the first postoctober months (voluntary officers, Cossacks

rear parts, the cadet [6]) had no little considerable social support therefore their attempts to organize resistance at the front and in the Cossack areas were rather feeble. The Don ataman A.M. Kaledin [7] did not manage to stir Cossack veterans to action against the Bolshevist power: the Cossack parts, returning from the front, went home as the Cossacks tired of war did not want to fight with the Bolsheviks who stopped military operations against Germany. For the same reason to generals M.V. Alekseev [8] and L.G. Kornilov [9] for December, 1917 - January, 1918 was not succeeded to create to Dona numerous numerous army from volunteers. The Volunteer army was joined by only about 5 thousand officers, cadets and pupils of high school. Without having kept to Dona, the Volunteer army in February moved to a campaign into Kuban, expecting to get support of the Kuban Cossacks, however and these calculations did not come true: the Kuban Cossacks, as well as Don, did not want to be at war against the new power. The volunteers who were in a hostile environment of the local country community and the revolutionary parts of old army which returned from the front had to wage in Kuban heavy guerrilla war on survival.

At the end of 1917 - the beginning of 1918 the Bolshevist power was protected from intervention. The armed struggle of the Entente [10] and Fourfold union [11] which escalated to a limit on the Western front, and on the other hand - underestimation of danger of the Bolshevism in government circles of Great Britain, France and the USA, did not allow them to give support to anti-Bolshevist forces in Russia immediately.

Bolsheviks, in return, for the first time carried out export of revolution to formed in November, 1917. The Ukrainian people's republic which supreme authority Central I became glad, made of representatives of the Ukrainian Socialist Party (Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, etc.). Central I am glad refused to recognize Council of People's Commissars [12] and headed for separation of Ukraine from Russia. Then the guide of Bolsheviks in December, 1917 held the 1st All-Ukrainian congress of Councils which proclaimed Ukraine the republic of Councils in Kharkiv, outlawed the Central Rada and created the government generally from Bolsheviks. The Russian Bolshevist government rendered assistance to Ukrainian in formation of troops, having directed to their strengthening groups of Red guard, soldiers and sailors from Russia. Using the armed workers' protests organized by Bolsheviks in the Ukrainian cities, the Soviet troops overthrew the power Central are glad on the most part of the territory of Ukraine (Kiev was taken on January 26). Result of the armed "Sovietization" of Ukraine became declaration of the Central glad independence of the Ukrainian people's republic (on January 11) and the conclusion it the world with Germany and its allies in Brest (on January 27) according to which the germanoaustrian troops occupied Ukraine.

The first months of Civil war dispelled pre-October illusions of Bolsheviks about impossibility of persistent and organized resistance of "the overthrown exploiters" and ambulance from the European proletariat, having shown severe need of creation of the centralized retaliatory device and regular army. In December, 1917 the All-Russian extraordinary commission on fight against a krontrrevolyution, speculation and sabotage [13] (Cheka) was organized. In January, 1918 SNK adopted the decree about creation of the Workers and Peasants Red Army (WPRA) completed on a voluntary basis from workers and peasants. Fighting qualities of the volunteer Red Army were poor as it was formed of absolutely diverse elements - parts of old army, groups of Red Guards and sailors, country militias - and guerrilla warfare of a worst type (selectivity of commanders, collective command and meeting management when fighters discussed issues of carrying out operations at meetings) reigned in it. Nevertheless the first parts of the Red Army due to support of the population, an overwhelming superiority in strength and good supply with ammunition from warehouses of old army managed to suppress the centers of anti-Bolshevist resistance, in particular - to establish

The Soviet power on Don and Kuban to hold Ekaterinodar who the Volunteer army tried to take. On April 13, at storm of the city, the first commander of Volunteer army general Kornilov [14] died and command was entered by the general

A.I. Denikin [15].

Elimination of the first centers of resistance and anti-Bolshevist armed forces cost to Bolsheviks of the considerable victims, but was not finished because of bad work still of weak bodies of the Soviet power and low fighting capacity of krasnogvardeysky groups and parts of the Red Army. In the cities of the Volga region, Siberia and other areas there were one by one underground officer organizations. The volunteer army managed to survive and keep the main officer shots. During this period the White movement endured some kind of underground and guerrilla period of formation when ideological, organizational, personnel and material bases of future white governments and their armies were put.

The second period (March - November, 1918) is characterized by basic change of a ratio of social forces within the country that was result of the policy of the government of Lenin.

On January 5, 1918 in Petrograd there began work the Constituent assembly [16]. Socialists led by Social Revolutionaries and the non-party deputies who supported them, without having reconciled with usurpation

[17] the authorities Bolsheviks, intended to create the new government instead of Council of People's Commissars in which all democratic forces would be presented and there would be no leaders of Bolsheviks Lenin and Trotsky [18]. Therefore on January 6 according to Lenin's decision the Bolsheviks dispersed the Constituent assembly and began repressions against the former companions on fight against autocracy: socialist parties were announced

counterrevolutionary, their newspapers were closed, their leaders and activists were arrested. The left Social Revolutionaries [19] whose representatives in December received three seats in Council of People's Commissars were the only party which supported dispersal of the Constituent assembly. Dispersal of in public elected Constituent assembly under the pretext of its "counterrevolutionism" brightly found aspiration of party of Lenin in any ways to hold the seized power and that shook sympathies for Bolsheviks among peasants and a part of workers, caused growth of hostility to them among the intellectuals, the petty and average city bourgeoisie.

Even stronger the conclusion with Germany and its allies of the Brest peace treaty under which under control of Germany the Baltics, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine were transferred worsened on March 3 the attitude of different groups of the population towards Bolsheviks. Lenin's government was forced to accept these conditions shown in a categorical form after successful approach of the German troops which took on February 24 Pskov when it became clear that the Red Army is not able to protect Petrograd, as well as Russia in general. The aspiration at any cost to keep the power over Russia for the purpose of transformation it in base of the international revolution was the main motive of acceptance of these humiliating conditions. But population bulk, having even been tired from burdens of almost four years' war to death and demanding the world, could not reconcile the patriotic feelings with international calculations of Bolsheviks. The conclusion of separate peace [20] with Germany, a concession it the considerable territory and payment of big sums of money were apprehended as failure to follow by Bolsheviks of their promises to make "the universal democratic peace without annexations and contributions" [21] and as treachery of national interests of Russia. The Brest world was nicknamed in the people by "obscene".

But the sharpest growth of hostility to Bolsheviks among the country population caused their turn in food policy. Having received landowners' estates, peasants, first of all zernoproizvodyashchy provinces (Ukrainian and South Russian), considered unfair maintaining the state grain monopoly entered by Provisional government [22].

Low prices at which the state bought up grain in the conditions of depreciation of paper rubles and increase in prices (inflation) did not allow the peasants having surplus of bread not only to get profit on its sale and to buy sharply necessary and constantly growing in the price manufactured goods, but even to pay back costs of its production. The prosperous top of the village ("fists" [23]) and middling persons [24] evading in 1917 from sale of grain at low prices and that broken grain monopoly, waited from Bolsheviks of permission of free trade and at the same time sold it on the high speculative purposes, profiting on hunger of the population of the cities and zernopotreblyayushchy provinces.

Meanwhile occupation in February - March the German-Austrian troops of Ukraine and advance them on the territory of the Don region was led to the termination of supply of grain to the central provinces of Russia from Ukraine and narrowed possibilities of its delivery from Don and Kuban. Sale of bread in the cities was sharply reduced, turns grew, panic moods rose. On the cities the spontaneous hungry revolts directed against local bodies of the Soviet power swept. Opponents of Bolsheviks tried to use spontaneous discontent of the population and fear of the approaching hunger, proving that hunger began result of inability of the new power to solve economic problems. Widely the slogan extended: "Down with grain monopoly and together about it Soviet


For the solution of sharply aggravated food problem in May, 1918. The national commissariat on food (Narkomprod) was given unlimited emergency powers on purchase of bread at low state prices, free trade was forbidden and punitive measures against the persons hiding grain "surplus" [25] and refusing to sell grain to the state at the low prices established to them were entered. Thereby Lenin's government took the plunge in the direction absolutely opposite to aspirations and the interests of peasants: it entered

food dictatorship.

In May the workers of the large cities which are most suffering from hunger on own to an initiative began to form the armed food groups (prodotryad) and to send them to villages behind food. Lenin's government supported this movement.

In June when as a result of a revolt of the Czechoslovak case the supply of bread from Siberia and some Areas of Volga region was stopped, the food situation even more became aggravated. The wave of spontaneous revolts rose above and above, threatening to sweep away the power of Bolsheviks. In these conditions the maintaining grain monopoly and dictatorial methods of its carrying out were the only way of rescue of the population of the cities and the main part of country people of the consuming provinces for hunger.

However resistance of the prosperous peasantry of grain monopoly grew and it became obvious to Lenin's government: one military force for carrying out it in life insufficiently and therefore needs to be found in the village a social support. The poor, economically and politically dependent on a prosperous part of the village were such only social support of Bolsheviks in the village. In June Lenin's government started to the organization of committees of the poor (poor committees) which became extraordinary authorities in the village. With their help the Bolsheviks tried to organize the poorest peasants and farm laborers [26], to provide them the support including armed, from workers and to direct against the prosperous peasants having the grain intended for sale. At the same time were considered and used as century hatred of the poor to prosperous fellows villager ("exploiters" [27]), and her interest in receiving a part of the confiscated bread and redistribution of the former landowners' estates which best and most part was taken by "fists".

During the summer the poor committees though only those which were constantly helped by prodotryada and bread of a part of the Red Army involved in collecting actively worked, collected enough "surplus" to support half-starved existence of the cities and the consuming provinces. At the same time they confiscated a part of the earth, the cattle and stock from "fists", having distributed them between poor people. Lenin called it "socialist revolution in the village".

However, having removed sharpness of a food problem, poor committees pushed away from the Bolshevist power of middling persons who in violent measures against a prosperous top saw threat to own interests and aspirations of small owners - to be beaten out in large agricultural producers.

As a result middling persons supported a kulachestvo in its fight against Bolsheviks and in zernoproizvodyashchy provinces the bulk of country people was stirred to action against the Bolshevist power. Bolsheviks were opposed by the most active force - the former veterans who supported them in October, 1917. At the same time the popularity of the left Social Revolutionaries who opposed both the Brest world, and confiscations, prodotryad and poor committees grew.

Expressing the sharp growth of discontent of peasants with policy of Bolsheviks, the left Social Revolutionaries on July 6

1918 killed the German ambassador count V. Mirbakh and excited an armed revolt in Moscow, trying to overthrow Lenin Council of People's Commissars and to break off the contractual relations between Germany and RSFSR[28]. Having suppressed a revolt, Bolsheviks brought down repressions against the left Social Revolutionaries, bringing their representatives out of bodies of the Soviet power. Final establishment of one-party dictatorship of Bolshevik Party became result. At the same time, in process of growth of number of revolts and plots the Bolsheviks strengthened repressions, arresting and shooting the real and possible opponents. Among many on July 17 in Yekaterinburg (nowadays - Sverdlovsk) the former emperor Nicholas II who was contained there under arrest with family was shot.

In parallel, during the spring - summer of 1918, seeking to destroy completely an economic basis of the opponents, Bolsheviks led approach to the city bourgeoisie. As owners of the enterprises, as a rule, resisted working control of production and distribution, sought to close the enterprises and to leave workers without earnings, Lenin's government started in April nationalization of [29] some industries, in June the decree about nationalization of all large-scale industry was adopted. Management of the nationalized industry and transport was concentrated in the Supreme Soviet of the National Economy (SSNE) [30].

In September the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (ARCEC) [31] made the decision on transformation of RSFSR into "the uniform military camp". The centralized supply of the Red Army with food was entered. In response to acts of terrorism of Social Revolutionaries against Bolshevist heads, in particular, the attempt at Lenin on August 30 made by an eserka Kaplan in September red terror was announced. Cheka and its local bodies arrested and declared hostages of the famous political and public figures, generals and officers, representatives of the nobility, the bourgeoisie, the intellectuals and clergy who then were shot. Besides on sentences of Cheka and its local bodies those who not only business, but also a word, fought against the Soviet power were ruthlessly shot, and the fate of arrested was decided not so much depending on actually perfect how many from its social origin. At last, the organization of camps for "class enemies" (by the end of 1920 more than 100 camps which held about 75 thousand people were created) began. Red terror became a mass stredstvo of destruction of all "klassovo alien elements" and intimidations of all population. Gradually in activity of government of Bolsheviks the disordered emergency measures were forced out

the centralized dictatorial methods of management and organized terror against all social groups and individuals anyway resisting the new power.

The turn of the Cossacks and a considerable part of the peasantry against Bolsheviks allowed the White movement to receive a social support and an economic basis in zernoproizvodyashchy regions of the South and East of the country.

In the south, having stirred to armed struggle against Councils, the Don Cossacks in May restored the atamansky power. The general P.N. Krasnov [32] elected the ataman started formation from the Cossack groups of the Don army, using assistance of the German troops and having adjusted with them exchange of grain for arms and ammunition. It saved from death Volunteer army of Denikin which became stronger in the south of the Don region. It was entered by not only hundreds of officers, but also thousands of Kuban Cossacks, after collums stirred to action against Councils.

On May 25 Bolsheviks were opposed by the Czechoslovak case (up to 45 thousand fighters). Created in Ukraine by the Russian command from captured Czechs and Slovaks, the former officers and soldiers of the Austrian army, the case after the conclusion of the Brest world was announced by a part of the French army and under the agreement with Lenin's government began advance in echelons to Penza, and from it on the Trans-Siberian railway line to Vladivostok for the subsequent transfer by sea to the Western front. Having acted in response to attempt of Bolsheviks to disarm them, parts of the building occupied the large cities along the highway from Penza to Vladivostok (7 thousand km.) that gave the chance to leave an underground and to start active fight to the numerous officer organizations. Withdrawal of the peasantry of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia from support of Bolsheviks allowed them to create from officers, the intellectuals and peasants anti-Bolshevist armies at short notice.

Near Middle Volga the National army was created (a lump?

Loreen Marilynn
Other scientific works: