Ataman of the Great Don Don Afrika Petrovich Bogayevsky
- Why are whites called white exactly?
- In 1917 and even earlier, in the period of the first Russian
revolution, white color was perceived in the political spectrum as the
color of legitimism and was associated with the monarchy.
This was partly due to the history of France, where the royal emblem of
the Bourbons was white lily, and the white color during the Great
French Revolution became the color of the French royalists.
- That is, this term comes from France, and they used to designate supporters of the “old regime”?
- Mostly yes. And in Russia, the negative context of this epithet, emanating from the left, revolutionary journalism, was often used. But the participants of the White movement did not see anything wrong in this color. On the contrary, they thought that they could be proud of. But there is an important detail. When the civil war in Russia was going on, the term “White movement” was almost never used by the “whites” themselves. But in Soviet journalism it was used quite widely.
Whites considered themselves to be representatives and advocates of the legitimate Russian authorities.
"White" identified themselves as representatives and defenders of the legitimate Russian authorities. For example, the Supreme Ruler of Russia, Admiral Kolchak. He was not called the Supreme ruler of the White movement. Or the name of the region in which the military and political structures were located was used. For example, the Ruler of the South of Russia, General Wrangel in 1920. Denikin commanded the Armed Forces of southern Russia.
And the last white government in Russia - the Amur region of the Zemsky
Krai in the Far East - headed General Diterikhs as ruler. That is, here the decisive role in the title had a regional aspect.
In foreign countries, everything was different.
The participants of the White movement began to define themselves as
“white” more from a psychological, sociocultural position, and not from a
military-political and territorial one. And it was very important. Because they were in a foreign land, in another country.
We had to save ourselves not just as Russian people, but as supporters
of a certain value system, for which they gave their lives during the
civil war. And the definition of "white", this "color component" became relevant here.
There are a few more interpretations of the “white” context. White is the color of moral, spiritual purity. Remember: white clothes, white robes, white, light angels. In the physical sense, white is the spectrum of colors.
And therefore, under the "white" could be summarized a variety of
political, military forces that represented the opponents of the
Bolsheviks in the broad sense of the word.
But still, in the context of a hundred years old word usage, this
combination was used primarily by the Whites' opponents, the Bolsheviks,
as an analogue of the reaction and restoration of the monarchy.
Premium gilded white enamel cross with identical sides (39 mm), along both sides of which there is an inscription in golden Slavonic script: May 13, 1919
True, the word "white" was used during the civil war in the North-West to refer to the fighters of the North-Western Army Yudenich. One of the tanks that participated in the “march to Petrograd” was, for example, called the “White Soldier”. The white cross of the north-westerners was sewn on the left sleeve of the overcoat or jacket. This can be explained by the fact that Yudenich’s army was considered a kind of analogue of the “White Guard”, which was in Finland and fought with the Finnish “Red Guard” in 1918. There was another interpretation: “Baltic Cross”, equally-terminal, white.
The phrase "white guard" was used during the Moscow battles of 1917, but only to refer to irregular military units. They were not junkers, officers or cadets, but high-school students, students and female students, officials. It was a "civilian" youth, speaking out against the Bolsheviks. Looks like a militia.
But rarely where else in the political context did the adjective “white” be used. When this term is simply called all those who spoke out against the Bolsheviks, there is a very large proportion of conventionality and schematism in it. This greatly simplifies the picture of the then confrontation.
- I would venture to say that, in principle, it is clear why whites have little called themselves white. After all, the red color is more vivid, energetic, warlike. And the white color is a bit out of this world. And calling yourself white is like putting yourself in a losing position energetically.
- You're right. I should add that we must also understand the following. When there was a civil war on the territory of Russia, the White movement assumed itself as a real alternative to Soviet Russia, the power of the Bolsheviks. And this alternative should have the appropriate name. And not psychological, metaphysical, but quite concrete: the legitimate Russian government.
Five signs of White movement
- What united those whom we call white? Was it anyway a single movement, or did it consist of completely dissimilar forces?
“When I was working on my doctoral thesis, and even earlier, in the late 1990s, when I wrote articles to Questions History and the Great Russian Encyclopedia (White Movement), I tried to identify five distinctive features.
The first is an irreconcilable standoff with the Soviet authorities. After all, if we are talking, for example, about Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, then they are against the Bolsheviks, but under certain conditions. Sometimes they even made alliances with them. In particular, when the Left Social Revolutionaries joined the Council of People's Commissars in November 1917, or when they, together with the Bolsheviks, opposed Kolchak and raised revolts in Siberia.
Whites were always against the Bolsheviks and never compromised with them during the civil war.
- That is, the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks do not fall into the whites?
- They rather fall under the definition of "anti-Bolshevik forces" or "anti-Bolshevik movement." The terms "counter-revolution" and "anti-Bolshevik movement" are much broader than the concept of "white". The fact that they were all called "white", "enemies of the people", it largely went from V.I. Lenin. For him, everyone who is not with the Bolsheviks, or "fellow travelers", or "enemies". How easier to call them? All have become “white”, “counter-revolutionaries”, although this is a strong simplification.
The second sign, also very important, is the priority of military power, military dictatorship. These whites also differed from anti-Bolsheviks in general. Because for the anti-Bolshevik-socialists military dictatorship was unacceptable. Take the position of Kerensky in 1917, when he did not agree on an alliance with Kornilov. We see the same thing in 1918 in the Ufa directory, which was replaced by Kolchak. There were Democrats, anti-Bolsheviks, but not supporters of the military dictatorship. They were supporters of collegial power, a broad coalition of all those against the Bolsheviks, including the military.
Whites recognized the superiority of one-man rule, dictatorship personified as a military leader.
And whites clearly recognized the superiority of one-man rule, a dictatorship personified as a military leader. It could be Kornilov, Wrangel, Yudenich, Denikin, Kolchak. Why is it important? Because there is a war. And since there is a war, then there must be a priority of military authority over civilian.
But here I want to make an important clarification. Now completely wrong conclusions are often made that since White had a military dictatorship, it means that it was an analogue of the fascist regimes. The thesis of the supposedly "total dependence" of whites from foreign states is given. And then on these completely contrived grounds are made statements about the identity of Kolchak, General Vlasov, or, for example, Franco or Pinochet regimes. But in Chile there was no civil war, except for the battles in Santiago. Franco, having won the Spanish Civil War, remained a dictator. Vlasov never proclaimed his continuity from the White movement. And White’s position was as follows: a military dictatorship is needed only for a period of military actions. As soon as the war ends, the military should, conditionally speaking, “step aside”, ensure the elections to the National Assembly, give way to politicians.
But military dictatorship is only necessary for the period of hostilities.
And here we come to another distinctive feature of the concept of "white." It can be defined as the all-Russian scale of the political program. This was expressed in the recognition of Kolchak the Supreme ruler of Russia. He appointed Yudenich and Miller as his subordinates. Denikin also recognized him, becoming his deputy. And even then, when the whites found themselves on the “last inch of the Russian land” (as Wrangel called Crimea), they still continued to proclaim the All-Russian character of their power. Not now, in the future.
And the proclaimed All-Russian status made inevitable the centripetal nature of the military operations of the White armies. Were planned and carried out a "campaign against Moscow" and "a campaign against Petrograd." Both Wrangel, Dieterichs, and Baron Ungern spoke about the march to the “heart of Russia”, although their position was very far geographically from the central provinces.
The fourth line is the commonality of the proclaimed political programs. It is sometimes said that the military dictatorship made any political programs unnecessary. Say, the military - people are limited, only know how to command. But, first, it is unfair to the then military. These were people with a broad outlook and a large amount of knowledge. Let us recall at least Kolchak, who was a prominent polar scientist, or Denikin, a famous writer and public figure.
Next to the generals were politicians: the Cadets — the “warring party” in those years.
Next to the generals were politicians. Among them, the cadet party should be particularly noted. The Cadets, like the Bolsheviks, were the “belligerent party” in those years. The Cadet intelligentsia worked in almost all white governments, in the white underground. Many died. This party was almost immediately after the Bolsheviks came to power, banned, declared the party "enemies of the people." And in this situation, they had to get close to the military. They gave them political support and slogans. Whites have all the programmatic issues, if we look closely: agricultural, worker, national — everywhere we will find a strong Cadet influence.
The Cadets in many ways created the commonality of the White movement. And although the white fronts had almost no territorial contact (they came from different places: from Siberia, from the North, North-West, and South), but there was a common ideological, spiritual community.
And the fifth sign: whites almost always used Russian national symbolism as state. These were our white-blue-red tricolor and double-headed eagle. True, the variations of the double-headed eagle could be different: it could have been without crowns, under an Orthodox cross, with a sword, with outspread wings, with wings lowered ... But still, this symbolism remained common: the double-headed eagle and tricolor.
The anniversary of the February Revolution was a holiday in Soviet Russia
- What other significant political factions were among the whites, except for the cadets? How were the monarchists represented? There is a widespread opinion that there were few monarchists in the white movement.
- This is not true. I agree that among the ministers of the white governments there were few former ministers of the Imperial government, the white leadership did not include the bright leaders of the Union of the Russian People or the Union of Michael the Archangel. For some reason, it is believed that these two organizations were 100% monarchists. However, there is evidence, and not a single one, that many ordinary members of the Union of the Russian people even found themselves in the Bolshevik Party. Many, alas, lived on the principle of "where the wind blows." Previously, the Emperor was supported, and the Bolsheviks became profitable - they went to them. V.I. Lenin, when he declared that many old bureaucrats and officials had penetrated into the Bolshevik party and that the party had to be cleansed of such "members." And I think Lenin was absolutely right. Such "members" will not give any party strength. This is a party "ballast", not a real force.
As for the Cadets, it should be noted that they very quickly evolved to the right. By the end of 1917, many people declared the restoration of the monarchy and renounced their republican, "post-February" views. Many Cadets again spoke about the advantages of a constitutional monarchy or proclaimed a “non-denial” position. The implication was that the White movement did not determine the form of government - a monarchy or a republic. This will make a new, elected National Assembly.
Diterikhs proclaimed the restoration of the monarchy through the All-Russian Zemsky Sobor, through the period of military dictatorship. The only question that could not be answered was the question of the person: who will be the monarch. Many did not believe in the death of Nicholas II, Mikhail Alexandrovich and Alexei Nikolaevich. After all, their bodies were not found.
In the white press, for example, February 1917 cursed without embarrassment. Only the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were proud of him, as were the Bolsheviks. This, too, must be remembered. The anniversary of the February Revolution was a holiday in Soviet Russia, it was celebrated every year as a celebration of the “Overthrow of the autocracy”.
Or take another vivid example: the composition of the guards regiments of whites. Not Markovtsev or Kornilov’s - it was the so-called “young guard”, but those regiments of the Imperial Guard, whose revival Denikin approved in southern Russia. If you take the "White movement" biographical reference book of historian S.V. Volkova, we will find in it representatives of almost all of our noble families. There and Obolensky, and Golitsyn, and Trubetskoy, and other famous noble families. Together with Denikin they went to Moscow. How then to say that the monarchists did not participate in the White movement? And where were they? In emigration immediately left? Many have not had much money after all the “confiscations”. Or "shoe polish cooked," as Colonel Tetykin in "Walking around the agony"? Of course, participated in the White movement. In this sense, Lenin was again right when he defined many whites as monarchists. On all Soviet leaflets and posters, whites were presented as bearing the restoration of the “tsarist regime.” This was a grain of truth.
- So, you agree with the opinion that if White won, the monarchy would be restored?
- With a very high probability. The monarchy was not excluded as a final decision for the future National Assembly. Especially considering that the Bolsheviks, anarchists and leftist Socialist-Revolutionaries would not have the right to participate in the elections.
The National Assembly was supposed to restore the monarchy - a constitutional
Another thing, what monarchy? Of course, this would not have been autocracy, but a monarchy constitutional, with parliament. But this parliament could “get better”.
- What do you think, what white armies had chances to win?
- Purely theoretically, those who were closer to our three, relatively speaking, capitals, had a chance to win. Kiev took Denikin, his army approached Moscow, and officers of Yudenich’s army, as is known, saw the dome of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in Petrograd. Since they recognized Kolchak, the admiral reasonably believed that they were performing a common cause. True, he himself from Siberia could not help in any way, if only he pulled over part of the forces of the Red Army. But if Moscow and Petrograd were taken, he would become the complete Supreme Ruler. And then it was supposed to convene a new National Constituent Assembly, which would take major decisions on the political and economic structure of Russia.
But in the warfare, whites had another problem. It's one thing to get as close to the capitals as possible, and another thing to take them and hold there. There was a risk of simply dying on the outskirts or during street battles. With high probability it could be assumed in relation to the small North-Western army. Under the leadership of the head of the Petersburg City Party Committee G.Ye. Zinoviev and LD Trotsky on the streets of Petrograd created several lines of defense, built pillboxes, put armor towers, built systems of cross machine-gun fire, etc.
By the autumn of 1919, the Red Army was already well formed and strengthened, including ideologically
We must not forget that by the autumn of 1919 the Red Army had been fairly well mobilized and concentrated. The shelves had a “communist frame”. In September-October 1919, mass party mobilizations were held. Lenin was not going to "flee" from Moscow. He was sure, and Trotsky, Stalin and many military experts convinced him that even if they temporarily had to retreat, White would still not be able to win the final military victory.
- So it would be a Pyrrhic victory?
- Yes.It would have been a big loss win. It is noteworthy that the whites themselves believed that they were closest to victory in the autumn of 1919. But Lenin believed that the opponents of the Soviet regime had more chances in 1918. The Red Army was then still weak, the red rear was also weak. Lenin feared more intervention than the whites, believed that a tenth of the Entente's armies in early 1919 would be enough to destroy the Soviet power. And by the end of 1919, there were almost 1.5 million people in the Red Army, and whites had half a million at best. Already from this alone we can conclude that it was very difficult for them to achieve a complete, final victory.
It was considered, however, another version of the mass surrender of Red Army soldiers under the blows of Denikin and Yudenich, an option in which the Red Army falls apart, despite its large number. But the Red Army at that time was strengthened by the commissars, the party composition was strengthened. Therefore, hoping that it would simply fall apart so simply was not very realistic.
- And who was more cruel to the civilian - white or red? Or was cruelty shown equally?
- There is an opinion that was substantiated, in particular, in the work of P. Sorokin “The Sociology of Revolution” in the works of other sociologists who compared our revolution with foreign analogues: the more agrarian a country has, the more violent the civil war becomes. And vice versa. By the beginning of our civil war, cruelty had become the norm. The value of human life has fallen. This happened since the First World War. Murder is no longer considered a mortal sin. Justified by the fact that for the sake of "higher purpose" you can kill, commit a mortal sin, and nothing special will happen. Add to this hundreds and thousands of rifles, revolvers, machine guns, which were in the hands of the population after the spontaneous "demobilization" of the tsarist army. This is also an important factor.
nother important aspect is the degree of central authority control over local authorities. For example, Ya.M. Sverdlov actively supported the policy of “red terror”, disclosure. But he was the author of dozens of directives, which talked about the arbitrariness of local security officers. Sverdlov turned to Dzerzhinsky, and he also tried to fight it. And the local Cheka, in particular Kiev or the infamous Kharkov, created everything they wanted. The Ural Regional Council independently made a decision on the execution of the Tsar Family. Gave Sverdlov this written instruction or did not, they were not particularly interested.
The same with whites. The central government had little leverage over local chieftains, for example. Kolchak issued repeated orders about the need to restore the legal system, introduced prosecutorial oversight. But who kept all these directives? The local chieftain, the local counterintelligence, using the law on martial law, carried out repression.
The most brutal was the "green" terror - the mayhem of rebel groups and armies
I would also add terror by the rebels, the so-called. "Green". He was probably the most brutal. Worse than white and red, because whites and reds sought to create rule of law. And the rebels, by definition, had no legitimacy. Lawlessness, in the language of the 90s of the last century. How dad decides, so do. At the same time, the cartridges were saved, could have been buried alive in the ground, stabbed, crucified, stabbed with forks.
- A white terror, then, too?
- There was no legal concept of “white terror” then. I can conditionally call the “white terror” a system of repressive measures that were applied by white governments, including in the conditions of declaration of martial law. In relation to the rank and file members of the Bolshevik Party, a multi-year exile was suggested. The death penalty was allowed only to the party leadership.
“Can we then say that the white terror was less cruel than the red one, or not?”
- We do not know the exact extent of terror. The question of who killed how many is a question of the degree of licentiousness of the local bodies that dealt with this terror. An example is the Crimea, where the exact death toll is still unknown with the sanction of R. Zemlyachka and Bela Kun. It is noteworthy that they were convicted in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets. In the summer of 1921, a commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee arrived in the Crimea and stated that arbitrariness and impunity of the Cheka’s organs were going on there. True, it was too late.
The weakness of the central government is one of the features of any revolution. On the one hand, the government wants to strengthen, trying to position itself as a government that is reckoned with. But she lacks real opportunities to do this, because the device is disassembled, the “drive belts” do not work. The center gives a general guideline. And on the ground, this directive is brought to the point of absurdity or to the direct opposite of what was decided in the center.
- What role in civil played a national or, as it was sometimes said then, non-ethnic factor?
- For the Reds, he did not play the main role, because for them the notion of “foreigner” was a relic of tsarism. They considered it important to encourage the nomination of people to leadership positions not from the titular nation, be it in the Caucasus, Turkestan, Ukraine, etc.
Whites considered it important to rely on the local, national elite, the local nobility: princes, pans, emirs, etc. It was believed that they can enter into contracts, to cooperate. Lenin was also right here in principle when he said that “the exploiters without distinction of nationalities” united against the Soviet power. But if the local elite was categorically separatist, then the whites, speaking from the standpoint of the revival of "United, indivisible Russia", did not succeed with them.
- Can we say that this war was fratricidal? In Denikin's memoirs there is an episode when his army storms a city, and the Reds fight it off fiercely and skillfully. And one white officer says to another officer: “Well, what do you want, there Russians are fighting”. And then they fell silent, kneading the topic.
- Yes of course. Any civil war is a fratricidal war.
“Sometimes they say that they are foreigners, the Jews have seduced our people.” In the red were mostly the same Russian?
- It was a fratricidal war: brother to brother. Jews were in the red and white armies and authorities.
Don Army, 1918 Prayer of the Ataman regiment
I would like to note one more thing: when working on materials about terror during the civil war, I encountered the facts, especially among the so-called. "Green terror", about the killings of Orthodox priests. Many of them need additional study, and perhaps we will witness a new canonization.
In general, the history of the White movement is far from complete.
Source