The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

To a question of agrarian views of the Siberian cadets during revolution and Civil war



UDK 94 (47).084

V.G. Handorin

To the QUESTION OF AGRARIAN VIEWS of the SIBERIAN CADETS during REVOLUTION AND CIVIL WAR

The analysis of evolution of program positions of cadet party in Siberia on an agrarian question during revolution and Civil war and attempts of their implementation is given. On materials of congresses and conferences of party, cadet periodicals and archival documents reveal the compromise content of agrarian policy of cadets during the surveyed period, its motives, the impact on a course of the government of A.V. Kolchak and the reasons of final failure.

Changes of ideological and program installations of the Siberian cadets during the revolution concerned also a question of the earth. It is known that the pre-revolutionary agrarian program of cadet party came down to investment of peasants with the earth to the minimum consumer norm and to alienation for repayment over the maximum labor standard of surplus of landowners' estates (at the same time the model farms and sites occupied with the enterprises were not subject to alienation at all) [1]. In minority there were Tomsk and Minusinsk cadets supporting investment of peasants with the earth to labor norm, but, according to the estimates of economists, for this purpose there would not be enough lands across all Russia [2].

At the same time and before and after revolution the cadets supported progressive decrease in prices for surplus of the alienated lands in process of their increase - by the principle "wholesale cheaper". Besides, they defended alienation of specific, kabinetsky and monastery lands.

The specifics of the Siberian village which was not knowing landowner land tenure consisted first of all in more free (in comparison with the European Russia) and at the beginning of the 20th century dynamic development of agriculture, cattle breeding and in particular butter manufacture, higher standard of living of the radical Siberian peasantry (though land possession of peasants in Siberia were limited to 15 tithes on men's soul of the population). According to L.M. Spirin, it was possible to call 60% of the Siberian peasants prosperous [3, page 145]. In the weight the Cossacks of the Transbaikal and Siberian Cossack troops who on average had 32 tithes of the earth per capita were exclusively prosperous (for comparison: on average in Russia the Cossacks had 6 tithes, including the most numerous - Don - on 14 tithes, Kuban - on 8, that and others - it is less, than even the Siberian peasants; security with the earth of peasants of the European Russia was still much lower) [4, page 27]. In process of construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway the export of grain from Siberia increased from 110 thousand tons in 1901 up to 1 million tons in 1910, production

oils - from 7 t in 1894 up to 102 t in 1913, giving arrived more, than gold (in 1913 - 60 million rubles against 28). In 1913 85% of the Siberian grain went for export [5, page 11-12, 16].

Thus, in Siberia the agrarian question was not particularly acute so, as in the European Russia. The main feature was the fact that, unlike the Cossacks owning the earth as community, peasants, as a rule, rented it at the state. So-called kabinetsky lands were the first in quality. Professor of the Tomsk university cadet M.N. Sobolev noted also such features as, on the one hand, independence of radical Siberian peasants owing to lack of the serfdom and the lordly guardianship coming from it, with another - redundancy of guardianship bureaucratic, in the European Russia softened with zemstvoes (in their Siberia before revolution was not) [2].

The Siberian cadets believed that as in Siberia there is no private land tenure to start it there is nothing and therefore criticized P.A. Stolypin's reform, idealizing, like Social Revolutionaries, country community that gave a reason to F.A. Seleznyov [6] to speak about influence of former liberal populists on the agrarian program of cadets (unlike the Octobrists who in general were supporting Stolypin's reform, but considering excessively active his resettlement policy). Paradoxically, but in this regard Stolypin proved more consecutive liberal, and at cadets in the matter visibly looked through a print of socialist views.

The first 7th congress of cadet party which already took place after the February revolution in March, 1917 formed the commission for revision of the agrarian program taking into account the shift which happened in the country "to the left" and growth of social requirements of the peasantry. In general, however, installations of a congress came down to approval of bases of the pre-revolutionary program.

Commenting on them, the Omsk cadet newspaper "Sibirskaya Rech" wrote that "if to give to landless peasants 10 tithes on the yard and to finish vlade-

a niya land-poor to the same norm, on a share of other peasants it is possible to add no more than 2 tithes on the yard", besides surplus is distributed "unevenly on provinces and counties". Therefore, authors of article concluded, it is necessary to continue policy of resettlement land-poor to Siberia, but also then "The constituent assembly will not find the earth for all" [7].

The theses accepted by the 7th congress the Siberian regional conference supported at the beginning of May parties (according to V.N. Rubchevsky's report) [7]. The leader of the Tomsk cadets professor N.N. Kravchenko optimistically said: "In the European Russia the peasants expect the earth, in Siberia the earth expects peasants. In four provinces of Western Siberia - the Tomsk, Tobolsk, Yenisei and Akmola region - of 50 million tithes for a plot". At the same time he noted: "In Siberia more than 1 billion tithes of the wood to which the state in the future only can also pay the public debt which arose during the war: it is impossible to count at payment of a debt on bread because bread will be necessary to all population. As the only fund for payment of a debt, the wood cannot be subject to alienation and have to remain state ownership. As for the earth, nationalization of the earth with allocation from it cultural farms" has to be carried out [7].

The conference charged to develop drafts of the detailed program to local party committees.

The updated program for an agrarian question adopted by a May 8th congress included full alienation in favor of the state of lands specific, kabinetsky, monastic, church and belonging to Country and Noble banks. Privately owned (first of all landowner) lands were subject to alienation only over "labor" norm, and in territories where there is no lack of lands, - over the "extreme" norm significantly exceeding labor. Assessment of the earth was determined by its profitability and was assigned to local institutions. To the former owners land tax was defined by a source of the state compensation. Were not subject to alienation in any degree "cultural" farms with technical improvements, the lands occupied under factories and the plants, municipal and communal lands. Especially protection of the rights of country communities violated in the years of Stolypin reform [8] made a reservation.

In essence, it was the same pre-revolutionary program, but with some specification. It did not undergo any democratization. Moreover, specification of rather "extreme" norm spoke about strengthening conservative ten-

the dention in the party program directed to protection of interests of landowners. The question of development of specific programs for the Cossack lands, Siberia and the national outskirts charged a congress to specially created commission. But the 9th and 10th party congresses which followed in the same 1917 practically did not solve it, though discussed between times.

The fact that under the influence of the former Octobrists the cadets (though with reservations) more and more inclined to a Stolypin course was new, specifying that "at a capitalist system decomposition of land community and replacement with its private land property - business inevitable" [9].

Provisional government, postponing a solution until the Constituent assembly, until then it was limited to the announcement state ownership of the former kabinetsky lands.

At the Siberian congress of agronomists which opened on June 29, 1917 in Omsk from party of cadets the program report was made by N.N. Digo. In the report it was emphasized: not the smaller value, than investment with the earth (which stocks would not be enough for providing all peasants even to "labor norm"), in the conditions of Russia have continuation of Stolypin resettlement policy and development of an agrikultura as the territorial values of further extensive development, in essence, are exhausted.

It was noted also that the eserovsky program of leveling "black repartition" adopted by the 1st All-Russian country congress in May, 1917 means "robbery" not only of landowners, but also the former state peasants (as provided much) in favor of the former landowner peasants [10]. Cadets suggested to postpone the solution of a question until the end of war, reasonably reasoning with the fact that it is impossible to make it without the peasants mobilized in soldiers and accounting of their interests [11].

The Siberian cadets paid special attention to preservation in inviolability for their owners of herds of the fine-fleece sheep making exclusive richness of Siberia. In the conditions of reduction of their livestock in the European Russia they considered this problem nation-wide as smashing of cultural "sheep latifundiya" between small owners could lead to their death [10].

It is represented to us that the emphasis on development of an agrikultura and refusal of recognition of alienation of the earth in the main way of the solution of an agrarian question can be considered not as "shift to the right" in comparison with the pre-revolutionary cadet program - as they did not refuse alienation, - but as disposal of the hope borrowed "left" on a repartition method as a panacea. In this regard cadet experts of the Volga Military District -

Dili figures (though they in places differ from other sources), according to which of 395 million tithes of the earth used in economy the greatest massif - 145 million made state lands, further on decreasing - the earth of country communities (133 million), only on the 3rd place - landowner (75 million), on the 4th - country privately owned, acquired on Stolypin reform (25 million), and closed the list of 10 million tithes belonging to various legal entities and 7 million tithes of the former specific lands (the deposed imperial surname) [12]. It is obvious that the partition of the landowners' estates making less than 1/5 in total amount could resolve only partially an issue of "land hunger", especially at rapid growth of number of the country population. Meanwhile development of a technical agrikultura, increase in productivity could become much more effective and long-term measures. Further this trend in the program of cadets gradually amplifies, and, in our opinion, it is necessary to recognize her as quite pragmatic and more answering to the classical principles of liberalism in economy.

At the same time a part of the Siberian peasants (namely - the Stolypin immigrants living much more poorly than "old residents") apprehended the eserovsky slogan of leveling repartition in own way: unauthorized occupations of the earth began with summer of 1917, as well as in the European Russia.

Some of the first in matters the Krasnoyarsk cadets spoke. Protecting first of all the interests of local peasants old residents, they from pre-revolutionary positions criticized hasty Stolypin policy of resettlement: "The broad land lands of the Siberian peasant - the old resident were narrowed", saying that at the same time "the land narrowness in the European Russia remained as before" and that "resettlement laws broke foundations of the Siberian village, the community was robbed, antiquated arable lands on branch turned into use of new settlers... and eventually it became also nasty to starozhilchesky and foreign population of Siberia to live, as well as to the peasant of the European Russia" [13]. Certainly, these statements contained a big share of exaggeration.

The sharp rebuff from the Siberian cadets was caused by the stage-by-stage implementation of the program of the party begun meanwhile by the eserovsky leader and the minister of agriculture V.M. Chernov to the Constituent assembly. The Irkutsk cadet newspaper "Svobodny Kray" wrote: "Confiscation of the earth is impracticable without catastrophic shock of all national economy". The huge mortgage debt of landowners, by holders of the prices - was given as one of arguments

on which ny papers representatives of the widest groups of urban and country people were. "At confiscation, - wrote "Free edge", - all these papers would undergo depreciation". Opposing it the cadet project of redemption of "surplus" and emphasizing unwillingness of party to charge with all cargo of this repayment peasants, the newspaper noted that it has to be made "at the expense of nation-wide means" [14], i.e. all taxpayers. "Confiscation (alienation without repayment), - the newspaper concluded, - directed by the edge against a landowner class. actually concerns it a little as almost its all earth is put in banks. Confiscation will strike holders of mortgage sheets - to business enterprises" [15].

Criticizing the eserovsky program, the Tobolsk and Biysk cadets specified that replacement private on the earth rent at the state will dispossess peasants of the right freely to dispose of it and will lower an incentive to work, and the fact of free transfer of landowners' estates to use of peasants will depreciate it in their eyes, will lead to the negligent relation [16, 17].

at the request of a May Siberian party conference local party committees of cadets were engaged in

in Development of agrarian projects, but till October the Krasnoyarsk organization which approved the project at a meeting on October 22 finished only it. According to D. Lappo's report, the earth of radical Russian peasants were assigned to community. It was offered to let to them immigrants only after satisfaction of needs of local community, but not as it became at P.A. Stolypin. Land-poor and landless peasants were allocated at the expense of free and natsionaliziruyemy lands. Preferential terms were defined for Cossacks of recently formed Yenisei Cossack army: considering big spaces of its lands, it was supposed to determine by it norm in 30 tithes on family plus 10 tithes of a stock, filling shortage of the arable land at the expense of trade grounds; at the same time the Cossack lands remained army property [18, 19]. The position of Krasnoyarsk citizens was supported by cadets of Minusinsk [20, 21].

The Omsk cadets were limited to declaration of a private property as "sacred and indivisible" a basis of the political system and the requirement of compensation for alienation of landowners' estates [10].

The Tobolsk cadets considered the main thing for Siberia streamlining of the rent relations by creation of conciliatory cameras, rewards of tenants for the made improvements in a rent transfer case to other person, legislative regulation of the amount of the rent, a ledge -

whether for distribution on agricultural workers of social insurance and for establishment for this purpose agricultural inspection [22]. They considered the most acceptable the program of professor A.A. Kauffman supporting priority ensuring interests of the Siberian krest-yan-old residents and radical foreigners and the temporary termination of Stolypin resettlement policy [23, page 17-18]. In this question they in general met with the Krasnoyarsk cadets.

Residents of Tomsk did not contribute significantly to development of a question, being limited to replication and promotion of the all-party program adopted by the 8th congress.

The Barnaul cadets supported providing local peasants with the earth on norm of 15 tithes on soul of male population, expansion of territorial self-government and restriction of resettlement [24]. Generally they made common cause with the Krasnoyarsk and Tobolsk cadets.

Significantly the position of the Irkutsk cadets differed. Low population density in the Irkutsk province allowed them, contrary to the others, to support a Stolypin course of resettlement on condition of the help of the state [12, 14].

Till October the development of the new agrarian party program was not complete. the 10th party congress of cadets in October, 1917 complemented only it with resolutions on inviolability of army Cossack lands and on need of the agronomical help of the state to peasants [25].

Its development and adjustment continued during Civil war. The agrarian program of cadets in general was adopted by A.V. Kolchak's government. the 3rd Eastern Conference of cadet party in the resolution on an agrarian question of May 27, 1919 approved the following reference points: 1) definition of ways of implementation of the program of the government, "without calling for its revision"; 2) recognition that "return to an old land system cannot be"; 3) until convocation of the National Assembly - "the legislation of transitional time" taking into account food needs of the country; 4) assistance to development of country land tenure on the basis of a private property; 5) specification and implementation of the plans which are been the basis for the temporary law on crops (under which the harvest belonged to the one who cultivated the land), and the bill of transition of the lands occupied during the revolution to the temporary order of the state [26].

It is characteristic that in the resolution adopted almost unanimously the conference, first, put forward only the general reference points without concrete development and, secondly, showed final transition of cadets to oktyabristsky

(to be exact, Stolypin) positions concerning support private (but not communal) country land tenure (whereas before revolution the cadets held the opinion on uselessness of destruction of community). Making common cause with them and carrying on Stolypin's tradition, A.V. Kolchak's government restored the right of purchase and sale of the earth suspended by Provisional government of Kerensky [27].

Understanding the value of the peasantry which sharply increased after the revolution, "The free region" wrote the same: "Revolution and social reforms, having enhanced economic power of the peasantry, destroyed at the same time the material force of those population groups which make a necessary link in the course of capitalist development. The commerce and industry class as one of driving forces of capitalist economy, was given on a stream and plunder. The peasantry as the producer of products of prime necessity, becomes a master of the situation". At the same time it was specified that in the conditions of ruin in the industry "for the kres-tyanina-grain-grower there are no incentive incentives to work for the city" [28].

The Kolchakovsky government in an agrarian question was solidary with cadets. In February, 1919 the admiral A.V. Kolchak said: "The government costs on the point of view of strengthening and development of small land property due to large land tenure" [29, page 304]. This thesis was developed by it in a performance before territorial figures in Omsk on April 4, 1919: "The small-scale country land enterprise is a basis of economic wellbeing of the country. The peasantry making 85% of the population of the state has the right for primary cares of the government about it" [30].

Here is how the Chita cadet newspaper "Zabaykalskaya Nov" commented on these statements: "Leaving of lands in hands of the peasantry which received them is dictated not only impossibility of return to their landowners. the interests of the state demand improvement of material living conditions of the most numerous class in Russia - the peasantry" with the reservation, traditional for cadets: "Of course, landowners have to be rewarded for the lost lands, and then the principle of a private property will not be broken" [31]. Thus, cadets looked for in this difficult situation ideological justification from positions of liberalism of the seeming irreversible actual expropriation.

In Siberia "combustible" weight was made by numerous and rather poor Stolypin immigrants of the European Russia ("new settlers"), 3 million which had considerable specific weight in the 10-million population of Siberia.

The strongest support "white" in the village was made by the prosperous Cossacks. Considering it, Kolchak in special "The diploma of the Russian government" of May 1, 1919 guaranteed to the Cossack troops inviolability "land life of Cossacks, an image of their service, tenor of life, management military and civil, developing for centuries" [32].

One of the reasons of weak support of Kolchak's regime representing the cadet program from the Siberian peasants was that circumstance that the Soviet power before the falling existed in Siberia rather not for long and did not manage to show the weight fully. According to the member of the kolchakovsky government G.K. Gins, "the indigenous people of Siberia was unaffected by the land question, and the agrarian demagogy did not tell him anything. But the Siberian peasantry did not test also any oppression of the new mode. Food groups did not get into Siberia as the condition of transport did not allow to take out from it and those stocks which were prepared even earlier yet" [29, page 27]. As the same author stated, "Siberia in the bulk was not infected with the Bolshevism... But Siberia did not manage to like also sufficient consciousness of unfitness for it a Bolshevist system" [29, page 51].

Cadets, as well as the kolchakovsky government, continued to adhere in general to the line of a compromise between the peasantry and landowners - as showed life, lines deeply wrong. On the one hand, under their influence Council of ministers, moving towards wishes of the peasantry of the European Russia, after the entry of army of Kolchak on its territory on April 5, 1919 repealed the resolution of the Provisional Siberian government of July 6, 1918 on return of the taken land grounds to former owners [33, l. 36-37] (focused only on Siberia in which there were no landowners) and on April 8, 1919 published "The declaration on the earth" [33, l. 41-41 about.], supplemented with "Rules about an order of production and collecting crops" [33, l. 38-39 about.]. Postponing the final decision of a question until a victory over Bolsheviks and convocation of the National Assembly, it only allowed until then peasants harvesting from the occupied lands and use of it and encouraged that in the future behind them that part of the former landowner fund which belonged to lands of "unearned use" [34] will remain.

In principle both cadets, and the kolchakovsky government considered numerous country farms more perspective form of land tenure, than single large landowner a latifundium, and this confidence was promoted by the fact that in the years of war due to work German and

the Austrian prisoners of war in Siberia the plowing of the earth and harvesting increased. But they did not hurry with the final decision of a question and undertook insufficiently vigorous measures to its advance what they testify the document which remained in personal archive of the prime minister P.V. Vologodsky under the name "Bases of Agrarian Policy of the Government" dated March, 1919 to [33, l. 33-34 about.], and the laws drafted with its account. In February, 1919 the law on transfer of state lands for long-term rent to provincial zemstvoes or - according to their recommendations - peasants was adopted [27]. The former landowners' estates under the bill of the ministry were temporarily transferred to the economic jurisdiction of the state with the right of transfer to rent to peasants, and the privately owned woods - to the order of provincial zemstvoes [33, l. 1-7]. Such compromise did not satisfy either peasants, or landowners: for the first it meant (despite rent) the inventory and withdrawal of the occupied lands by the state, for the second - especially as for them these lands were "blood".

According to the project of the ministry of agriculture, the model farms and lands occupied with the technical institutions constructed by them - from factories to simple mills were subject to return to landowners the estate and the earth of "labor use" (processed by forces of owners and their families) and also. But also this moderate bill sparked sharp criticism at the left and on the right and was sent back for revision. From liberals in the government unambiguously restoration of landowner land tenure in any form was opposed only by G.K. Gins [29, page 321].

The position of the government was proved in the report at the State economic meeting on June 23, 1919. In it it was said that the low performance of country farms and impossibility of their fast intensification compels to expansion of their areas due to "unearned" land tenure what the state will pay landowners for repayment which sum peasants will gradually compensate (as it was at an abolition of serfdom) [35]. At the same time the government believed that the price of repayment has to be defined by agreements between landowners and peasants. It is clear, that at such order the landowners would try to receive a maximum from peasants.

The position of the government of A.I. Denikin was similar - with that difference that if Kolchak gave to peasants all harvest, then Denikin withdrew 1/3 in favor of landowners whom was much in the European Russia. In unison to the kolchakovsky and Siberian cadet program agrarian problems of the state by cadets denikin-were formulated

sky South. They left final permission of a question to "future legislative assembly" too while "in the conditions of the transitional moment. the power has to come to the aid of country people for elimination of land narrowness" [36, page 317].

Really in positive sense for peasants - besides the right of harvesting and rent of state lands - the issue of investment in the property of small sites of free land fund to soldiers - participants of war (under the law of March 14, 1919) was resolved [37]. First of all they allocated gentlemen of St. George, disabled veterans and families of the dead. Such sites were allocated also due to confiscation of the earth at deserters and insurgents (in this case Kolchak's government broke the principle of security of property by which lawfully acquired property will not be confiscated even from the gravest criminals and in case of their execution passes to families and successors).

Most of cadets considered these statements and measures quite sufficient, believing that they "will cause feeling of full satisfaction in all at whom the mind is not obscured by socialist utopias" [38].

The Irkutsk cadets, as well as earlier, placed emphasis not on expansion of country land tenure, and on improvement of an agrikultura: "To the Siberian agriculture, - they wrote, - it is necessary to go still a long way of an intensification to satisfy the own markets and when it is reached, in order to avoid their glut, in view of impossibility of broad export, it is necessary to expand these domestic markets with creation of the local industry where there could be agriculture products in their raw, crude look" [39]. Moving towards such wishes, the government ordered large consignments of farm vehicles in the USA.

Thus, in general agrarian installations Siberian (as well as Russian) cadets did not undergo during the revolution to radical changes.

On the one hand, partly under the influence of the representatives of the broken-up Union who joined the structure of party on October 17, they underwent evolution from the liberal narodnicheskoy of support of country community to a course towards promotion of private country land tenure. At the same time the Siberian cadets who were not pressure from landowner circles moved towards the interests of peasants more consistently. During Civil war, being in the structure of the White Guard governments, they had significant effect on their agrarian program - moreover, it practically did not disperse from their views.

At the same time, showing excessive care and postponing the final decision of urgent problems until the end of war, being limited to generally private measures, they proved hostages of the idea of a compromise and formal legitimacy. Such tactics was constructive before revolution, but did not meet requirements of revolutionary time. Only when defeats began at the front, Kolchak began to make more strong statements, like it: "We consider fair and necessary to give all earth to the working people" (from the address to peasants of July 29, 1919) [40]. But also these overdue statements were not supported with real laws. And not only because of underestimation of a question by white leaders. Most of the professional liberal politicians accompanying them continued to remain in captivity of the idea of compensation to landowners and to tighten the solution of a question. The fidelity to the principles prevailed over tactical reasons of the moment. Meanwhile from a position of the peasantry making (without Cossacks) 2/3 population of Russia, eventually the result of Civil war depended. The compromise did not promise prospects as the nobility as a class, in essence, quitted the historical stage. It is thought, it is lawful to claim that misunderstanding of it became one of the decisive reasons of defeat "white".

List of references and sources

1. N.G. Dumova. Cadet party during World War I and the February revolution. M.: Science, 1988. 246 pages
2. Harus O.A. Liberalizm in Siberia the beginnings of the XX century: yew.... Dr.s east. sciences. Part 1. Tomsk, 1998. 460 l.
3. L.M. Spirin. Classes and parties in the civil war in Russia. M.: Thought, 1968. 438 pages
4. The population and land tenure of Russia on provinces and comparative data on some European to the states. Issue 1. SPb.,
1906.
5. Pereira N. Sibir: policy and society in Civil war. M.: Ying t of the history of RAS, 1996. 200 pages
6. F.A. Seleznyov. Constitutional democrats and bourgeoisie (1905-1917). Nizhny Novgorod: The Nizhny Novgorod state. un-t, 2006. 228 pages
7. Siberian speech (Omsk). 1917. May 21.
8. In the same place. May 24.
9. In the same place. July 2.
10. Siberian speech. 1917. July 14.
11. National freedom (Irkutsk). 1917. May 3.
12. Free region (Irkutsk). 1917. On Oct. 5
13. Free Siberia (Krasnoyarsk). 1917. On Apr. 2
14. Free edge. 1917. On Oct. 18
15. In the same place. 1 noyab.
16. National freedom (Tobolsk). 1917. On Sep. 17
17. Altai (Biysk). 1917. On Sep. 24
18. Free Siberia. 1917. On Oct. 26
19. In the same place. On Oct. 30
20. Appeal (Minusinsk). 1917. 1 noyab.
21. Appeal. 1917. 4 noyab.
22. Resident of Tobolsk voter. 1917. July 6.
23. A.A. Kauffman. About the earth. Pg., 1917.
24. National freedom (Barnaul). 1917. On Oct. 10
25. Free edge. 1917. 5 noyab.
26. Siberian speech. 1919. May 29.
27. Yu.G. Lonchakov. Agrarian policy of temporary public entities of Siberia in 1918-1919: avtoref. yew.... edging. east. sciences. Omsk, 1997. 15 pages
28. Free edge. 1919. On Jan. 12
29. Gins G.K. Sibir, allies and Kolchak. M.: Ayres press, 2008. 672 pages
30. Siberian speech. 1919. On Apr. 10
31. Transbaikal nov (Chita). 1919. On Feb. 28
32. Free edge. 1919. May 5.
33. State archive of the Russian Federation. F. R-193 (Vologda P.V.). Op. 1. 42.
34. Siberian life (Tomsk). 1919. On Apr. 12
35. In the same place. June 25.
36. N.G. Dumova. Cadet counterrevolution and its defeat. M.: Science, 1982. 416 pages
37. Official gazette (Omsk). 1919. March 15.
38. Free edge. 1919. March 18.
39. In the same place. March 23.
40. Siberian life. 1919. On Aug. 3

V. Handorin., candidate of historical sciences, associate professor.

Tomsk Polytechnic University.

Lenin Ave., 30, Tomsk, Tomsk region, Russia, 634050.

E-mail: khandorin@mail.ru

Material came to edition 04.06.2010.

V G. Khandorin

ON THE AGRARIAN VIEWS OF SIBERIAN CONSTRUCTIONAL DEMOCRATS DURING THE REVOLUTION AND CIVIL WAR

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Siberian Constructional Democrats' program positions evolution on the agrarian issue during the revolution and Civil War and the attempts of their practical achievements. Compromise content of the agrarian policy of the Constructional Democrats in the reviewed period, its motives, influence on the policy of A. V. Kolchak government and the reasons for the final failure was revealed on the materials of the Constructional Democrats party congresses and conferences, Constructional Democrats periodical press and the archival documents.

Tomsk Polytechnic University.

Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Tomsk region, Russian, 634050.

E-mail: khandorin@mail.ru

Janssen Femke
Other scientific works: