đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș ben-annis-makhno-the-makhnovshchina.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:52:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Makhno & The Makhnovshchina Author: Ben Annis Date: April 2002 Language: en Topics: Nestor Makhno, Makhnovists, Ukraine, Russian Revolution, myths Source: Retrieved on 1st August 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20021003182933/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1346/Makintro.htm
What would you do if you came across a photograph of a fictional
character?. I mean a character not an actor in the role of that
character but the actual individual who you believed was purely the
invention of an author, It happened to me. The author Michael Moorcock
used Nestor Ivanovich Makhno as a fictional supporting character in his
fantasy âThe Entropy Tangoâ. Makhno is portrayed as a romantic
revolutionary active in 1940âs Canada and as an old man in 1970âs
Scotland. A couple of years after reading âThe Entropy Tangoâ, I was
reading through âRed Empireâ, a book about the history of the Soviet
Union, and âBANGâ, a photograph of Makhno smiling at the camera. There
was no real mention of Makhno in the book other than the caption to the
photograph, indeed there is usually little on Makhno in bookâs written
about the Russian Civil war other than a paragraph or two. For a writer
researching a work on the Civil war they have to rely on sources that
are usually either propaganda or based on propaganda from either
Bolshevik or White Russian sources, both Whites and Reds had reasons to
slander Makhno and his Makhnovshchina. Voline writing in the Preface for
Peter Arshinovâs âHistory of the Makhnovist Movementâ, (both men having
been involved in the movement) describes the Makhnovshchina as;
âan event of extraordinary breadth, grandeur and importance, which
unfolded with exceptional force and played a colossal and extremely
complicated role in the destiny of the revolution, undergoing a titanic
struggle against all types of reaction, more than once saving the
revolution from disasterâ.
Words you would perhaps expect from someone involved in the movement but
no less true for that. Politically Makhno was an Anarchist and he has
become a sort of saint to some Anarchists, while his detractors, the
political inheritors of the Bolsheviks and Ukrainian nationalists still
portray him as a bandit, as in many things the truth lies somewhere
in-between these two extremes.
What do I hope to achieve?. The Makhnovist movement left little evidence
and few traces and no monuments to its existence, most were destroyed
along with much of the Ukrainian peasantry by the Bolsheviks, famine and
war. The history of the movement has either been written by Bolshevik
historians seeking to justify its destruction or by Makhnovist exiles,
who sought to counter the âofficialâ, version of events in the Ukraine
coming from Soviet Russia. I want to show how and why different
interpretations and myths about the Makhnovists and Makhno came about.
The Makhnovists have been portrayed as little more than ignorant Kulak
bandits yet they fought as a division in the Red Army. Allegations of
Anti-Semitism have commonly been levelled at the Makhnovists yet many
Jews were involved in the movement. The Makhnovists Anarchism has also
been questioned not just by White Russians who claimed it was simply
justification for banditry but also by Russian Anarchists. Nestor Makhno
himself as the most potent and colourful symbol of the movement that
bears his name has been a target for attack and for works of fiction. I
hope to draw some conclusions on these issues. Volineâs Preface to
Arshinovâs history asks the reader to consider the following of the book
which can be applied equally to this project;
âis it a serious and conscientious analysis, or a fantastic and
irresponsible fabrication? Can the reader have confidence in the author,
at least with respect to the events, the facts and the materials? Is the
author sufficiently impartial, or does he distort the truth in order to
justify his own ideas and refute those of his opponents?â.
The Makhnovist Movement grew out of the traditions of the peasantry of
the South East Ukraine, a tradition of freedom and autonomy that had
been suppressed by over two hundred years of foreign rule from Russia
but had not been destroyed. The driving force behind the movement was
born into this tradition and it shaped his life as he shaped the
movement that bears his name. During three years of constant military
campaigns the Makhnovist army was not defeated, it was destroyed by the
collapse of its support due to exhaustion and war-weariness and the
overwhelming power of the massive Bolshevik Armies.
To understand the Makhnovist movement it is necessary to first look at
its origins. The movement grew in the South Eastern Ukraine an area that
had a tradition of peasant independence and rebellion. The Southern area
of the Ukraine comprised almost a third of the Ukraine, and has a
tradition different to that of the rest of the country, and a history of
independence. The Cossack republic of the Zaporozhian Sich existed in
the area until it was destroyed in 1775, the Sich was a self governed
community of Cossacks (run-away serfs and their descendants) who raided
the Turkish communities along the Azov, Crimea and north Black sea
coasts for centuries. This independent area was destroyed by the
Imperial Russian army, its lands distributed among the Russian nobility
and incoming settlers, and as in the rest of Ukraine its language and
culture suppressed. When the Russians came they attempted to impose
Serfdom upon the Ukrainian peasantry however the traditions of the Sich
remained strong and the system of Serfdom was not as widespread or as
exploitative as in the rest of the Ukraine. Even before the 1861
Reformâs banning Serfdom most peasants paid their landlords with money
rather than with labour. While the majority of peasants in the South
East remained Ukrainian, settlers from Germany, Greece and many Russian
Jews started agricultural colonies encouraged by the Russian government
to settle in this vast under exploited region. Newly raised industrial
towns attracted many ethnic Russians to the Ukraine in the late 19^(th)
century. During this period a line was drawn in the popular mind of the
Ukrainian peasant between the Ukrainian village, economically and
nationally oppressed, and the non Ukrainian town as the agent of that
oppression.
For the Ukrainian peasant of the South East the traditions of the
Zaporozhian Sich and the Cossacks remained strong. Land and the freedom
to be left alone to order their own affairs were important issues in
which sides they offered support to in the Civil War, as was a mistrust
of outsiders and a hatred of foreign invaders. The Makhnovists Anarchism
appealed to these sentiments, land was distributed when it was taken and
the movement was home-grown rather than imposed. The peasant supporters
of Makhno were not Anarchists, rather they recognised that the
Anarchists would give them what they wanted namely an end to outside
interference and land.
Nestor Ivanovich Mikhenko (Makhno) was born on 27 October 1889 the
fourth son of a peasant family just outside the large village of
Gulyai-Pole in the province of Ekaterynoslav. His father died when he
was less than a year old, and he was raised by his mother. Between seven
and thirteen he attended school during the winter and drove oxen carts
during the summer. On leaving school he first worked herding cattle,
then at seventeen as a cart painter and then later as a labourer in an
iron foundry. While in the foundry he joined a local Anarchist group
that was involved in local propaganda funded by criminal activities. In
1908 the group robbed a post office cart carrying money to the railway
station five miles outside of Gulyai-Pole, during the robbery a police
guard was killed and the group went underground. Makhno was arrested in
August 1908 and kept in prison until his trial in 1910 before a Court
Martial of the Odessa military district. Condemned along with fifteen
other Anarchists to death for various crimes, Makhnoâs sentence was
commuted to life in prison due to being under twenty at the time of the
offences. Makhno was sent to Butyrki prison in Moscow and it was his
prison experience that shaped his later activities. Here he met Peter
Arshinov a former metal worker and revolutionary Anarchist who gave
Makhno what formal education and Anarchist theory he had. Long periods
in solitary confinement also led to Pulmonary Tuberculosis that would
eventually kill him. Following the February revolution of 1917 Makhno
and Arshinov were released under a general amnesty for political
prisoners and Makhno returned to Gulyai-Pole.
Back in Gulyai-Pole he helped organise a peasants union with himself as
chairman, this organisation was the power base from which he built his
influence. The peasant union forcibly removed the land from the local
landowners and distributed it among the peasants, in open defiance of
the orders of the Russian Provisional Government who had failed to
establish control in the Ukraine as did its Bolshevik successor, leaving
the way for the Ukrainian Central Rada (a grouping of various
nationalist parties and organisations) to declare independence from
Russia in January 1918. To defend themselves from the Bolsheviks the
Rada called in the Central Powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) to
prevent the Bolsheviks conquering the Ukraine. In the face of the
Central powers who occupied Gulyai-Pole, Makhno escaped to Bolshevik
controlled Ukraine and then Moscow. While in Moscow he met with both
Lenin and Peter Kropotkin. By the time he had returned to Gulyai-Pole in
July 1918 the Bolsheviks had signed the Brest Litovsk treaty with the
Central Powers, giving Germany and Austro-Hungary control over the
Ukraine and they had replaced the Central Rada with Hetman Skoropadsky;
âthe Central Rada was dispersed by a German Lieutenant and its place
taken by the Ataman of the free Cossacks, General Skoropadski. His
Highness, of course was subject to the will of the Lieutenants and
carried out all their ordersâ.
Makhno organised partisan groups round Gulyai-Pole to fight the Hetmanâs
forces and his German and Austrian allies. In October 1918 after an
attack on the garrison in Gulyai-Pole Makhno and 50 partisans fled to
Dibrivki forest closely followed by a large force of Austrian infantry,
cavalry and artillery. Hopelessly outnumbered Makhno and his men charged
head on at the Austrians as they camped in the church square of the
village of Velyka Mykhailivka routing the enemy in panic. This battle
made Makhno a local hero. Makhnoâs support among the peasants was not
total however one Austrian officer reported talking to peasants in
Gulyai-Pole reported a peasant saying;
âOh, he should die this Makhno, so much trouble and misfortune he has
brought us, but he also is defending us from plunderers, Bolsheviks and
all other rascalsâ.
With the Armistice and the end of World War One the Central Powers
withdrew from the Ukraine and the Hetmanâs regime collapsed.
Following the collapse of the Hetman there was a power vacuum in the
Ukraine, in the South East the Makhnovist insurgents moved unopposed
into the villages and towns while in the rest of the Ukraine Petliuraâs
Nationalist Directory seized power. In January 1919 the Bolshevik Red
army captured the capital Kiev and the Nationalist forces fled to
Western Ukraine and the Bolsheviks increased their control over Ukraine.
The Makhnovists signed an alliance with the Bolsheviks becoming a
Brigade in the Red Army to fight General Denikinâs White Army who were
advancing from the Caucasus. The Bolsheviks were short of troops to
fight the Whites so they were forced to allow Makhno and other Atamanâs
a degree of autonomy in return for their support. The Makhnovists were
aware of the threat the Communist authorities posed towards their
regional autonomy but they hoped that as Arshinov sayâs;
âthat the struggle with the Bolsheviks could be confined to the realm of
ideasâ.
In May 1919 another allied insurgent leader Hyrhorâiv revolted against
the Bolsheviks and the Red army had to withdraw troops from the Southern
front to deal with him. This withdrawl weakened the Bolsheviks front and
led to Denikin advancing into the Ukraine. The Makhnovists had been
acting as the anchor for the Red Armyâs left flank and were pushed back
by the Whites retreating 23 miles in one day. The Bolsheviks took this
opportunity to order the arrest of the Makhnovist leadership under
Trotskyâs notorious order 1824, banning the Makhnovists fourth peasant
conference. Makhno ordered his troops to continue to fight with the Red
Army against the Whites and with his personal bodyguard the âBlack
Sotniaâ, fled to an area of the Ukraine controlled by Hyrhorâiv.
Hyrhorâiv a former Czarist officer wanted an alliance with Makhno, but
the Makhnovists were uneasy due to Hyrhorâivâs Anti-Semitism (many of
Makhnoâs senior staff and insurgents were Jewish). Due to the
circumstances however an agreement was signed. On 27^(th) July 1919 in
the village of Sentovo a congress of insurgents and peasants was called,
attended by nearly 20,000 people, Hyrhorâiv spoke first calling for an
alliance with Denikin against the Communists, the next speaker one of
Makhnoâs lieutenants Chubenko argued violently with Hyrhorâiv during
which Hyrhorâiv was shoot dead. With the death of their leader many of
Hyrhorâvâs men joined Makhno who soon after recalled his troops from the
Red Army, by August he had an estimated 15,000 soldiers including
several Brigades of Red infantry who arrested their staff officers and
commissars and defected to the Makhnovists. Makhno was now fighting the
retreating Bolsheviks and Denikinâs advancing Whites (his army avoided
confrontation with the Nationalists). The Makhnovists had to retreat 400
miles in four months in what Voline described as âa Kingdom on Wheelsâ.
By late September they were camped in the villages of Perehonivka and
Tekucha surrounded by White troops who attacked on the 25^(th) of
September before dawn, the insurgents fell back after bitter fighting
and prepared to fight to the last man, then at 9.00am Makhno and the
insurgents cavalry managed to attack the White infantry from the rear
scattering the enemy in confusion, completely destroying the Whites
1^(st) Simferopol and 2^(nd) Labzinski Regiments. This was a major
victory for the Makhnovists and led to a general advance into the Whites
rear. Denikin was advancing on Moscow and seriously threatened the
Bolsheviks position, Makhnoâs campaign in his rear threatened Denikinâs
line of supply. On the 10^(th) of October 1919 they captured the port of
Berdyansk, Denikinâs main artillery dump. The Whites had to send troops
from the Moscow front to deal with the Makhnovists and this and the
disruption in supplies gave the Red Army the time to organise a counter
attack;
âIt is certain that Denikinâs defeat owed more to the peasant
insurrection under the black Makhnovist banner than to the successes of
Trotskyâs regular army. The Makhnovist bands tipped the scales in favour
of the Reds, and if Moscow may now want to forget the fact, impartial
history will remember itâ.
With the Whiteâs retreating towards Crimea and the Redâs advancing
across the Ukraine the Makhnovists had to withdraw from most of the
Ukraine to the region surrounding Gulyai-Pole. During this retreat the
Makhnovist army was ravaged by a Typhus epidemic effecting half of the
Makhnovist troops, and continuously fighting both Reds and Whites.
During early 1920 the Makhnovists engaged in Guerrilla warfare against
the Bolshevik civil authorities, Red Army and the White Army now
commanded by Baron Wrangel. In the summer of 1920 the Whites began to
gain the upper hand threatening the entire Donets Basin. In October the
Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists signed an agreement guaranteeing autonomy
for the area controlled by the Makhnovists in return for their help in
the defeat of the White army. The Makhnovists were attached to the Red
fourth Army and helped drive the Whites back to their prepared defences
lines protecting the Crimea peninsula. In November the Makhnovists
re-enforced the Red units penetrating the Whites defences across the
Gulf of Sivash, with the White army evacuating the last of their
strongholds the Bolsheviks prepared to destroy the Makhnovist movement
who had outlived their usefulness. On the 26^(th) November the
Makhnovists were outlawed by the Bolsheviks who sent three armies
including the elite 1^(st) and 2^(nd) Cavalry armies to the
Ekaterinoslav region to deal with the insurgents with orders to shoot
any Makhnovist prisoners. At 11am on the 26^(th) the Red army launched
simultaneous attacks on the Makhnovists in Gulyai-Pole and those still
fighting alongside them in the Crimea of who only 250 of the 1500
cavalry escaped. The Red Army swept into the Makhnovist region and
pursued the insurgents relentlessly, The Makhnovists manoeuvred across
South Ukraine slowly being worn down by Red attacks. For ten months
operating in small detachments the Makhnovists fought a Guerrilla war
against the Red army who began garrisoning villages with infantry to
stop the peasants from giving the insurgents support or supplies.
Without supplies from the villages the insurgents could not operate
effectively and the Red army hunted down those insurgents not forced to
surrender by starvation or forced into exile. On the 28^(th) of August
1921 Makhno, his wife and fifty of his cavalry bodyguard crossed the
river Dniester into Rumania, the Makhnovist movement was at an end.
Makhno was first interned by the Rumanians and then expelled into Poland
in 1922, the Poles immediately arrested Makhno worried that he may cause
trouble among the Ukrainian minority in recently acquired Eastern
Galicia. Imprisoned, tried and acquitted on treason charges, Makhno left
Poland in 1924 and arrived in Paris via Berlin where he was to spend the
rest of his life in poverty, dying of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in July
1934, his ashes interred in Pere-Lachaise Cemetery (Cemetery of the
Paris Commune).
The Makhnovist movement flourished in the Ukraine at a time of
disruption and instability caused by foreign invasion and almost
constant warfare, the nationalists who had been suppressed under Russian
rule failed to gather the support of the Southern peasants, instead they
rallied behind the banner of Anarchism flown not by intellectuals but by
peasant activists. The activities of the Hetmanâs regime in attempting
to re-impose the power of the gentry, supported by foreign troops
created the conditions for a vigorous partisan movement that continued
to operate on a much larger and more permanent footing in opposition to
other outside forces. The activities of the Bolshevik food detachments
who robbed the peasants of grain and livestock to feed the cities and
the excesses of the Cheka caused huge resentment in the countryside and
prevented the Bolsheviks from winning over Makhnoâs body of supporters
the peasants. Instead they had to destroy the Makhnovists because they
were a threat to the Bolshevik governmentâs domination of the Ukraine.
The Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine has been maligned by its enemies,
the Bolsheviks have dismissed it as âAnarcho-Kulak Debaucheryâ, while
the Whites labelled the Makhnovists as drunken bandits;
âdeserters from both sides wearing bandoleers over womenâs fur coats and
reeking of vodka and onionsâ.
The Makhnovists were peasants and their failure to understand the needs
of urban workers, and to expand their support further from their home
region contributed to the failure of the movement to survive. The
Makhnovist movement was Anarchist, it opposed any kind of state which
was regarded, what ever its political colour as a form of oppression and
sought self governing communities who would cooperate with each other
without the need for external interference. A Makhnovist proclamation of
1920 called for the peasants to ignore all Communist decrees that
conflicted with the interests of the peasants, redistribute the land
each peasant having as much as he could work with his own labour,
workers to directly run the factories, the creation of free Soviets
without representatives of political organisations involved, total
freedom of speech, assembly and press, the abolition of the military and
the police and free exchange of goods and products. Another proclamation
of June 1920 aimed at members of the Red Army summed up the movements
aims;
âOur frank ideal is the achievement of a non-authoritarian laborersâ
society without parasites and without commissar-bureaucrats. Our
immediate goal is the establishment of a free soviet order, without the
authority of the Bolsheviks, without pressure from any party
whatsoeverâ.
But this anarchism was based more on a natural peasant instinct for
freedom and independence rather than on any deeply thought out political
platform. The Makhnovists redistributed the land to the peasantry and
attempted a similar redistribution of wealth in urban areas but with
less success. Makhno was nicknamed âBatkoâ, meaning âlittle fatherâ, a
term of respect given to him for his military skills. It is also a term
indicating traditional social hierarchy, given to a dominant figure, and
Makhno sometimes succumbed to the dictatorial antics of a warrior chief,
forgetting his egalitarian beliefs in the difficult circumstances of
Civil War and making arbitrary decisions without consulting the
movements supreme decision making body the âRegional Congress of
Peasants, Workers and Insurgentsâ. He was no mere bandit but a guerrilla
leader who successfully fought off attempts to defeat his movement until
the Bolshevik Red Army could concentrate all its time to his destruction
in 1921.
For most of the period of activity the Makhnovists operated as partisan
groups against their many foes, raiding small enemy targets in their
home area of Ekaterinoslav. These partisan units of up to 100 would
disappear into the general peasant population when not fighting;
âIn the villages it is absolutely impossible to distinguish the bandits
and their horses from peaceful peasants and theirsâ.
The partisan unit of the village of Zhmerinka was set up by the locals
following the occupation of the Central Powers and operated
independently of the Makhnovists until the retreat of 1920 . The
Partisans often relied on stealth to attack superior forces, using enemy
uniforms to gain entrance to defended buildings and springing ambushes
on numerically larger forces. Makhno also operated at night or in bad
weather when the enemy would not be expecting an attack.
As the civil war progressed the different armies uniforms became almost
indistinguishable from each other, infantry dressed in ragged greatcoats
and what ever else they could get from civilian or military supplies of
ally or enemy. Add to this the fact that by April 1919 there were as
many as 93 separate groups operating in the Ukraine against the
Bolsheviks and the situation was ripe for confusion. In these conditions
Makhnoâs insurgents used a Red flag or a revolutionary song to gain
contact with the Bolshevik enemy. For most of the Civil War the
Makhnovists were mainly a cavalry based force, recruited from the local
peasantry in the Gulyai-Pole area, using a system of horse exchange in
the local villages the Makhnovists could mass and disperse troops
quickly for operations. One of the most important elements of the
Makhnovist tactics was the use of the Tachanka, these peasant carts had
four sprung wheels and were pulled by two horses, the Makhnovists either
used them to carry infantry who could support the cavalry in battle or
Machine guns, giving the Makhnovists manoeuvrable fire power. The use of
horses and Tachanka gave the Makhnovists the speed to outpace Advancing
enemies and avoid encirclement by cavalry. While the rifle was the main
weapon of all the armies in the Civil War, Makhnoâs insurgent Army made
the Machine gun the hallmark of their attacks. In the Autumn of 1919 the
Makhnovists had some 1000 Machine guns, mainly mounted on Tachanka and
the Makhnovist forces in the Crimean campaign had machine guns in a
ratio of 1:24, compared to 1:67 for the Red Army units involved. This
firepower gave the Makhnovists an advantage over larger forces, though
they had to rely on captured weapons and equipment as they had no
regular supplies from outside their home area. The Red Army supplied the
insurgents with a few thousand Italian rifles during their time as a Red
Army formation, but ammunition was almost impossible to come by for
these weapons. During 1919 when they Makhnovists fought along side the
Red Army and operated behind Denikinâs lines a number of Red Army
infantry Regiments fought under and then as part of the Makhnovists
forces. These infantry units made up a significant part of the
insurgents forces, until the Bolsheviks final campaign against the
Makhnovists, when again they became a mainly cavalry then partisan force
recruited from their home region. The use of four captured armoured
trains, four armoured cars, forty eight pieces of field artillery and a
captured aeroplane (used to foil an attempted Bolshevik coup in April
1919) shows that the Makhnovists had a level of technical and military
expertise far higher than any of the other âGreen forcesâ, active in the
Ukraine. The Makhnovists were certainly a proletarian organisation but
were more than the drunken bandits or debauched kulaks of White and Red
propaganda. Though the Makhnovists did their share of drinking, and
looting as all armies in the Ukraine did.
When looking at the Makhnovists it is difficult to estimate the size of
their military forces. At the start of the movement against the
Skoropadsky regime and his German, Austrian and Hungarian allies Nestor
Makhno had 100 to 200 men, at the movements height in Autumn 1919 the
âRevolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine (Makhnovist)â, had
under its command between 14,000 to 6,000 cavalry and 40,000 to 15,000
infantry, some estimates are higher but the higher figures quoted here
are reasonable considering the size of the area controlled by the
Makhnovists. By the time Makhno crossed into Rumania in 1921 he was left
with between 50â250 of his personal bodyguard. For the most part the
Makhnovists were recruited locally from the Ekaterinoslav region
especially Gulyai-Pole, only from Autumn 1919 did outsiders from the Red
Army and Hryhoriyivâs partisans change the local character of the
insurgents. After the start of the Bolshevik campaign in 1920 the
movement reverted to its local support due to military losses and
disease.
Makhno led his army from the front but he also ran it with few
concessions to his political beliefs, discipline was harsh and often
terminal. The Makhnovist military forces were commanded directly by
Makhno and his staff with only lip service paid to the âRegional
Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgentsâ, who theoretically
controlled them. Makhnoâs General staff were chosen by him and were
mainly Gulyai-Pole men that he new and trusted, this group despite its
lack of trained career officers was the backbone of the Insurgent Army.
So successful was Makhnoâs tactics and organisation that the Whiteâs
believed he had a professional staff pressganged from captured officers,
rumours spread that Makhno was advised by Colonel Kleist a member of the
German General Staff. In reality the Makhnovists had no professional
officers among their army, captured officers and NCO,s were shot and the
ordinary soldiers either joined the Makhnovists or were disarmed and
released after being distributed Makhnovist propaganda. Though the Staff
officers were appointed by Makhno, on a Regimental level officers were
elected by the men from their own ranks and were mostly ex-soldiers. As
to Makhnovist order of battle it is confusing, certainly troops were
organised into regiments, but it is unknown if they were all of the same
size or organisational structure. Specialised units included eight
Machine gun regiments of 300 men each, and two Artillery divisions.
Former Red army infantry Regiments fighting with the Makhnovists would
be of between 400 to 1,000 men. Regiments seem to have been quite large
and when fighting on the front organised into Corps of six regiments.
The confusion over the Makhnovists order of battle probably has more to
do with the destruction of almost all of the records of the insurgent
Army and the deaths of most of its commanders than with any problems of
organisation. As well as the fighting forces the Makhnovists had their
own intelligence service the Kontrazvedka who gathered intelligence from
the villages and arrested Bolshevik and White spies, foiling several
attempts on Makhnoâs life by the Bolshevikâs. The Makhnovists while
certainly not in the same league as the Red Army organisationally did
have an organised senior military staff, a civilian political
organisation and unit organisation at regimental level . Indeed for
several months they were part of the Red Army fighting on the southern
front against Denikin and later the Makhnovists activities in the Whites
rear forced Denikin to divert forces from the Moscow front to deal with
the insurgents. these were hardly the actions of counter revolutionary
kulaks.
The Makhnovists described themselves as Anarchists but this has been
denied by critics and indeed contemporary Anarchist supporters of the
Makhnovists. The 3^(rd) Nabat (Confederation of Anarchist Organisations
of the Ukraine)Conference in Kharkiv held in September 1920 reported
that;
âAs regards the âRevolutionary Partisan Army of the Ukraine
(Makhnovites)....it is a mistake to call it anarchist....mostly they are
Red soldiers who fell into captivity, and middle peasant volunteersâ.
As regards the insurgent army this is basically true many Red army men
captured by the Makhnovists decided to stay and fight and the majority
of Makhnoâs cavalry were middle peasants, due to the agricultural
development in South East Ukraine commercial grain farming in an area of
low population wages were higher and there was a far larger number of
middle peasants than in other areas of the Ukraine. Makhno was
undoubtedly an Anarchist of deep conviction he had spent nine years in
prison for his involvement with crimes committed while a member of an
Anarchist Communist group in Gulyai-Pole and had his beliefs
strengthened and sharpened by his time in prison with other Anarchists.
On leaving prison he worked in Gulyai-Pole to set up organisations based
on Anarchistic principles and attempted to apply his beliefs to the
Makhnovshchina. Makhno was no ideologue following the teachings of any
one Anarchist ideology he believed that Anarchism was not a doctrine but
a way of life;
âAnarchism does not depend on theory or on programmes which try to grasp
manâs life in its entirety. It is a teaching which is based on real
life, which outgrows all artificial limitationsâ.
Makhno failed to do much to put into practise a free, non governmental
society, but this is understandable when he was fighting for his very
survival against overwhelming odds. Those free communes that were
organised were destroyed by the Bolsheviks when they took control of the
Makhnovist area (the Rosa Luxemburg commune with 300 members was one of
at least four agricultural communes). For the most part the peasants
farmed as much land as they could without hired labour, sharing tools
and other materials amongst themselves, similarly those industrial
concerns in captured towns and cities were run by workers councils. Each
community set up its own free soviet which in turn elected a delegate to
the âRegional Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgentsâ, these
congresses were the supreme decision making body with delegates from 72
districts representing more than two million people. Only three of these
Congresses were ever held as the fourth called for June 1919 was
outlawed and its delegates marked for arrest by the Bolsheviks, on
orders from Trotsky. As well as the lack of stability in which to build
anarchist communities the movement also lacked intellectuals and
agitators to help build them, Makhno appealed to anarchists to come and
help the Makhnovist movement but only few including Voline and Arshinov
responded to the call. The majority of Anarchist theoreticians had their
origins in the intelligencia and were unable to respond to a purely
peasant movement whose Anarchism lay more in the rough and ready
democracy of the Cossack Sich than in the teachings of Kropotkin. In May
1919 the Ukrainian Anarchist Nabat sought to become more involved in the
Gulyai-Pole region but the advance by White forces into the region and
the Bolsheviks attacks on Makhno prevented any larger link up from
happening. While in the countryside the Makhnovists at least allowed the
peasants natural instinctive anarchist tendencies towards communal
organisation and the removal of outside interference to be realised, in
the large towns and cities they failed to build any real support. Partly
this was due to the short periods of time that the Makhnovists occupied
any large town, but it was also due to the lack of understanding of
urban economies. The Makhnovists allowed freedom of the press, assembly
and speech in all towns that they captured but this lack of control also
applied to money. All currencies issued by Nationalist, Bolshevik forces
was to be accepted (some reports state that Makhno printed his own
money, which on the back stated that it was permissible to forge it).
This mass of different types of notes, all off which were acceptable led
to inflation which alienated urban workers who needed a stable currency
to buy food. The Makhnovists were primarily a peasant movement, peasants
could largely do without money if they had access to the land to grow
food, they failed to understand that workers needed payment in a strong
currency to survive. The Makhnovists were not a fully Anarchistic
movement but they did try to create free organisations without outside
interference from non members. As Peter Arshinov who played an important
part in the movement in its Cultural- Educational section said;
âIn the Makhnovshchina we have an anarchist movement of the working
masses not completely realised, not entirely crystallized, but striving
toward the anarchist ideal and moving along the anarchist pathâ.
How does the Makhnovshchina compare to other contemporary peasant
movements?. In Russia the most striking comparison is with the Antonov
rebellion in Tambov province South East of Moscow against the
Bolsheviks, with as many as 40,000 volunteers started in August 1920.
The rebellion targeted state farms and the Bolshevik authorities in
retaliation for food requisitioning and the collectivisation of peasant
land. Antonovâs movement was like Makhnoâs almost exclusively peasant,
but although calling himself a Social Revolutionary his political
platform was less defined calling for land to be given to those who
worked it and the abolition of soviet power. The rebellion was crushed
in May 1921 by the Red Army. The Antonov rebellion like the Makhnovists
was confined to its home province in which it had popular support. The
failure to spread the rebellion led to its isolation, containment and
eventual destruction by the Red Army. In Central Asia the Bolsheviks had
to deal with the Basmatchi, these peasant partisans like the Makhnovists
fought mainly from horseback and operated with the support of the
villages in their home region. Originally started in the Fergana valley
a rich area of cotton plantations the Basmatchi spread to other areas of
Russian controlled Central Asia. The Basmatchi fought against
collectivisation and requisitioning by the communists, but it was also a
nationalistic and religious movement against the Russian non-Muslim
occupiers. Unlike the Makhnovshchina the Basmatchi never became a
unified army under one command structure due to religious and tribal
differences. The Basmatchi also had an advantage that the Makhno never
had being able to operate across borders from neutral territory in Iran
and Afghanistan.
To compare the Makhnovists and foreign peasant movements one should look
to Mexico and the Mexican Civil War which gives two peasant movements to
compare with Makhnoâs. That of Doroteo Arango (Pancho Villa) and
Emiliano Zapata. With the fall of the dictator Porfirio Diaz in 1910
Mexico fell into confusion with peasant rebels, constitutional
reformists and reactionary supporters of the old regime vying for
control over the country. Villa operated in the Northern state of
Chihuahua an area mainly of cattle ranches and dominated by the landed
upper classes. Labour was scarcer and more expensive than in the rest of
rural Mexico and the independently minded cowboyâs and banditâs provided
Villa with supporters susceptible to revolutionary propaganda. These
hard core of supporters provided Villa with cavalry, and like Makhno his
was a war of manoeuvre. Villa unlike Makhno could obtain weapons and
equipment from outside his own area across the border in the United
States. Villa like Makhno was a peasant who while in Prison gained what
political education he had from Gildardo Magana an intellectual involved
in the Zapatista movement. By 1914 he commanded 40,000 troops in the
North of Mexico. Although he paid lip service to the land reform program
of Zapata he never carried out any agrarian reforms, due partly to the
difficulties of dividing cattle estates up viably among peasants and
cowboys . In the South of Mexico, Emiliano Zapata led a peasant partisan
army that had perhaps more political similarities to the Makhnovists
than any other. Operating in their home region of Morelos the Zapatistas
redistributed the land of the huge estates (Haciendas) to the local
peasantry and sought to build self governing village communities similar
to those advocated by Makhno. Indeed the Zapatistaâs rural anarchism
resembled that of the Makhnovists. Like the Makhnovists the Zapatistas
had to rely on what materials and supplies they could capture and
operated in their home region with some success eventually capturing the
capital Mexico city. The Zapatistas fought mainly a defensive guerrilla
campaign which was unable to defeat superior government forces in open
battle. Both the Zapata and Villa movements failed to become more than
peasant rebellions concentrated in their home regions, and both failed
to gain support among the urban working class. The constitutional
government who gained power with the help of these two movements then
turned on them killing Zapata in an ambush in 1919 and making peace with
Villa who was later assassinated in 1923.
The Makhnovshchina was a peasant movement based mainly on the support
gained from around its centre, Gulyai-Pole and the surrounding province
of Ekaterinoslav. The Makhnovists redistributed the land to the
peasantry and attempted to run its affairs in an instinctive Anarchistic
fashion, despite the lack of intellectuals among their ranks. While the
Bolsheviks attacked them for being petty-bourgeois Kulaks and agents of
French and Belgian financiers, they were quite happy to accept the
Makhnovists help against the White armies of Denikin and Wrangel. The
Makhnovshchina was a regional phenomenon which failed to gain support in
urban areas, it did succeed in winning the support of the Ukrainian
peasant by addressing their needs and organising in ways they could
recognise and relate to from their own experience of village life. But
its strength in the countryside, the movements understanding of peasant
life was its weakness when trying to organise in the urban environment.
Neither Nestor Makhno or the movement that bore his name were
Anti-Semitic, but many of his followers were, anti-Semitism was deep
rooted among the peasants of the Ukraine and effected Makhnoâs forces as
it did all others involved in the civil war. Pogromists among the
Makhnovists were ruthlessly dealt with and efforts were made to make the
movements position clear through propaganda work. However violent
Anti-Semitism did effect elements within the Makhnovist insurgent army.
The movements aims, leadership and political activists were not
anti-Semitic. Jewish peasants and workers were involved in the movement
at all levels as activists and as fighters and the Jewish colonies had
equal status with every other community in areas controlled by the
Makhnovshchina. The Pogroms perpetrated in the Ukraine stained every
army, but the Makhnovists like Trotskyâs Red army did not try to profit
through stirring up anti-Semitic feelings among their followers, and
both made strenuous efforts to stamp out anti-Jewish activities. Pogroms
and other anti-Semitic acts carried out by the Makhnovist and Red army
members happened despite both movements avowed commitments to end
anti-Semitism. Pogromist activity among the Makhnovists was an
aberration rather than a deliberate policy to build support, and
allegations against the movements leadership have been based on
propaganda produced by the movements enemies.
The Jewish population in the Ukraine, at one and a half million was the
largest in post World War One Russia after Poland gained her
independence. The majority of Ukrainian Jews had been forcibly resettled
from Poland during the early 19^(th) century as part of a Tsarist
government plan of âRussificationâ, to bring its Jewish subjects into
Russian culture and convert them to Christianity. The Russian state
severely restricted the freedoms of its Jewish population placing tight
restrictions on Jews from living outside of the Jewish âPale of
settlementâ, which covered Poland and parts of West Russia. The Jewish
settlers in the Ukraine were set up in agricultural colonies in the
country and encouraged to assimilate. The policy of resettlement was
also meant to change the economic role of the Jewish community, Robert
Weinberg states that the authorities hoped to assimilate them not only
into Russian culture and religion but also into the peasant economy;
âOne aspect of the Jewish question, as defined by Tsarist officials, was
the perceived unproductive nature of Jewish economic life. As a group of
people heavily involved in lease holding, commerce, money-lending, and
the sale of vodka, Russian Jews were regarded as parasites who exploited
the defenceless peasantry. Some Tsarist policies....strove to
ânormaliseâ, the socio-economic profile of Russian Jewry by encouraging
Jews to become agricultural colonists and small-scale manufacturersâ.
Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 (one of the
conspirators was Jewish) a wave of Pogroms (anti-Semitic violence) in
which thousands were killed spread across the Ukraine. The government
and the police turned a blind eye to anti-Jewish incidents, and reversed
some of the relaxationâs of restrictions on the Jews. The âMay lawsâ, of
1882 banned Jews from civil service and academic employment and
re-enforced the âPale of settlementâ. Another wave of Pogroms followed
Russiaâs defeat in the war with Japan in 1905 and the failed Revolution
that followed. The outbreak of the First World War again saw the Tsarist
authorities attempt to scapegoat the Jews as enemy sympathisers, in an
attempt to divert blame for the many military defeats due to the
incompetence of the military staff. Publications and correspondence in
Yiddish were banned in 1915 to prevent secret communications and Jewish
soldiers were blamed for treachery. The Tsarist secret police produced
and disseminated âThe Protocols of the Elders of Zionâ, after the 1905
Revolution, a document supposedly produced by leading Rabbiâs about
secret Jewish world domination, this forgery is still used by
Anti-Semitic groups and was widely disseminated in Russia after 1917 by
White forces. Because of the persecution suffered by the Jewish
community a large number of Jews became involved in radical political
organisations including the Bolshevik party. With the fall of the Tsar
in March 1917 one of the first acts of the Provisional government was
the emancipation of the Jews. In the Ukraine the various nationalist
organisations and parties entered the Ukrainian Central Rada who
declared independence from Russia, included among them were Jewish
political parties who were guaranteed thirty seats. In January 1918 the
Central Rada established legal protection for the Jews against
Anti-Semitism, recognised Yiddish as an official language and
established Jewish schools. These positive steps towards equality were
destroyed by the outbreak of the civil war.
Anti-Semitism in the Ukraine was so vicious and marked that some writers
have seen it as part of the national character. While there is nothing
intrinsic in the Ukrainian culture to make it Anti-Semitic there is
certainly a history of violent anti-Jewish incidents in the Ukraine.
What were the motives of the Pogromists and why did they find such
fertile ground in the Ukraine?. At the outbreak of revolution 83% of the
Ukrainian population were illiterate, the majority of the population
were peasants, ethnic Ukrainians while the majority of the urban
population were either Russian, Polish or Jewish. Religion played its
part in the encouragement of Anti-Semitism the Jew seen as Christ killer
a view encouraged by the Orthodox church. This view had an effect in
areas where religious observance was strong, however the Orthodox church
was seen by many in the Ukraine as one of the principle agents of
âRussificationâ, (the suppression of national cultures and languages
other than Russian) which effected the Ukrainian language and culture as
well as that of the Jews. Nationalist and âracialâ feelings were more
influential on Ukrainian anti-Semitism, the Jew was seen as an outsider,
an exploiter, an easy target for pent up frustrations and anger at war
and revolution. Those few Jews who converted to Christianity were
immediately free from official Tsarist persecution but like secular
Jews, those who had given up religious observance including many left
wing intellectuals and activists, they continued to suffer from
persecution from the Ukrainian population. Ukrainian folk tradition saw
the Jew as a ruthless profiteers mercilessly fleecing the poor honest
Ukrainian peasantry. This view of the Jews was common in the countryside
and was encouraged by the Tsarist authorities who sought to scapegoat
the Jewish communities to take pressure of themselves for social
injustices. Even Ukrainian politicians accepted that Anti-Semitism was
widespread, Vinichenko a Ukrainian Nationalist leader wrote;
âSons of shop keepers, kulaks, priests and Christians, they had from
childhood been infected with the spirit of anti-Semitismâ.
Anti-Semitism amongst the Ukrainian peasantry was widespread and had
been encouraged by the Tsarist government and its supporters, indeed it
was accepted by the majority in society a âsocial normâ. So why did
pogroms occur at intervals rather than being a constant feature of life,
and how could peasants with strong anti-Semitic feelings work and trade
with Jews ? Frank Wright in his book âNorthern Ireland a comparative
Analysisâ, uses the theory of âCommunal deterrenceâ, to explain how two
communities can live together despite violent animosity. If you have two
clearly defined communities an individual member may be âpunishedâ, as a
representative of their community. Violence of this nature is controlled
because it can set of an endless chain of reprisals in which any member
of either community may be a target for reprisals for something done in
their name without their approval. This can suppress the acceptability
of actual violence among members of either community who fear reprisals
and allow members of both communities to work together while the
stalemate continues. If some form of authority is present it must be
able to pursue and punish acts of violence committed by either side to
have any credibility with both communities. In the Ukraine under the
Tsarist government, the authorities condoned certain Anti-Semitic acts
when it was politically expedient, while during the Civil War any form
of authority was removed. In areas controlled by White or nationalist
forces anti-Semitism was condoned again for political expediency while
in areas where either Bolshevik or Makhnovist authority was firmly in
control anti-Semitic violence was suppressed. Pogromist activities by
Red and Makhnovist forces happened in unstable areas where social
relationships had been disrupted by warfare.
The role of Jews in prominent positions in the Bolshevik party gave a
weapon to the White and Nationalist forces who exploited the links to
paint the Bolsheviks as a Jewish take over of the Ukraine. Elias Heifetz
a Red Cross investigator believed that the presence of Jews on Bolshevik
executive committees in villages led the peasants to believe that the
Jews intended to dominate Christian Ukraine. The Jews in the Ukraine
were blamed for all the excesses of the communists and not only by the
Ukrainian peasantry In his report to the Foreign office in June 1919 the
Rear Admiral commanding the British Black Sea fleet wrote;
âThey found that their own local Soviets were formed, for the most part,
of the hated Jews: that these Soviets carried out their requisitions on
the workers and peasants...rightly the blame is apportioned to the Jews
and there are signs of a violent anti-Jewish movement spreading all over
the South of Russiaâ.
The Times newspaper also reported that the Jews were somehow partly
responsible for their own fate;
âAlone the Jews, who either as commissaries of the people or as
profiteers have filled their pockets since the revolution, are left to
be robbed. Hence Sokolovski, Makhno, Zaleny, and the other cut-throat
adventurers who lead these bands are conducting one enormous Pogrom
throughout the Ukraineâ.
There was widespread Anti-Semitism among the Ukrainian peasantry but
there were equally areas were Ukrainians lived peacefully along side
Jewish families and Jewish colonies. Partly this was due to who
controlled the region and whether or not they tolerated Anti-Semitism.
Thus ensuring the continuation of âcommunal deterrenceâ.
Both the Nationalists and the Whites stirred up Anti-Semitic feeling to
destabilise and discredit the Bolsheviks in areas where no firm control
had been established amongst the peasantry who equated Bolshevism with
Judaism.
The Pogroms carried out in the Ukraine were far more extreme than any
previously carried out under the Tsarist regime, an estimated 180,000 to
200,000 Jews were murdered between 1919â21 in 1,300 separate Pogroms in
the Ukraine. Whole peasant communities took part in these massacres
against neighbouring Jewish colonies as did troops and partisans of all
armies and all political persuasions. The Bolsheviks, perhaps because of
the number of Jews in the party committed fewer than the Whites or the
Nationalists who had the reputation for being particularly bad, Petliura
the nationalist leader lost control of his soldiers who slaughtered the
Jews who they regarded as Bolshevik supporters, Petliura feared that if
he attempted punish the Pogromists he would lose control of his army;
âIt is a pity that pogroms take place, but they uphold the discipline of
the armyâ.
The White armies also committed atrocities while they tried to cover
them up to placate their foreign backers who sustained the White
movement. On the 15 September 1919 the War office received a Telegram
from the British High Commissioner in Constantinople reporting
allegations by Zionist representatives regarding Pogroms in
Ekaterinoslav and Kremenchug carried out by Denikinâs volunteer army. On
the 18^(th) of September the military representative in Taganrog
interviewed General Denikin, based on this interview he sent a report to
the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs stating that;
âMakhno, Gregoriev and the Petliurists are known to have carried out
pogroms before the advent of the Volunteer Army which is now being
blamed for acts by certain peopleâ.
The Secretary of State Lord Curzon wrote in his minutes on 7 October
1919 that;
âThere can, I think, be little doubt that Gnr: Denikinâs troops have
committed atrocities, and that pogroms have been quite frequent
occurrencesâ.
The various Atamanâs fighting during the war were particularly seen as
perpetrators of pogroms and there is much truth in this, made up of
peasants and deserters and without the discipline of the various armies,
and often at the whims of their commanders the âGreensâ, and partisans
loyal to either Nationalists, Bolsheviks or White committed many of the
pogroms, some like Hryhoryiv (Grigorieff) revelled in their prejudice.
Contemporary White Russian sources blame the Makhnovshchina for many
pogroms. While a pamphlet by the Kiev Pogrom Relief Committee makes no
mention of Makhno, Major-General H.C. Holman chief of the British
military mission to General Denikin in his report to the Foreign office
reports Makhnoâs victims unnumbered. Despite the lack of any figures the
reports from British officials and officers in contact with the White
forces make many references to the fact that the Makhnovists are
anti-Jewish and committing pogroms. Reports of interviews with Denikinâs
staff officers on board HMS Caradoc put Makhnoâs popularity down to his
extreme anti-Jewish policy. While General Keyes the British consul in
Novorossisk in March 1920 reporting on Pogromist activity by the
Volunteer army stated;
âNo direct evidence re districts formerly occupied by Denikin now
available but insistent reports that Makhnoasts bands are exterminating
Jewsâ.
Allegations of Anti-Semitism were vigorously denied by the Makhnovists
and there is much evidence to show that Anti-Semites were punished for
their actions. Two of the most often quoted are the sign seen by Makhno
at the railway station of Verkhnii Tokmak saying âDeath to Jews, save
the revolution, long live batko Makhnoâ, the writer of the sign was
found and shot. The second incident happened in May 1919 when twenty
Jewish people were shot at the Jewish agricultural colony of Gorâkaya in
an area controlled by the Makhnovists, a commission was set up by the
Makhnovist staff to investigate this pogrom and seven peasants from a
neighbouring village were executed. Both these incidents show that
anti-Jewish feelings were prevalent among Makhnoâs supporters and that
the military staff and activists sought to stop any expressions of these
views. The peasantâs involved in the Makhnovshchina had the same
anti-Jewish prejudices as peasants in the rest of Ukraine. The severe
punishment meted out to those anti-Semites caught shows how seriously
such incidents were judged. The incident at the railway station may also
show that only through strict discipline could Anti-Semitic elements be
suppressed, even the smallest anti-Jewish action had to be stopped to
stop it spreading amongst a population who for at least a hundred years
had been encouraged to hate the Jews. Makhnovist activists sought an end
to all forms of religious or ethnic prejudice the executive committee of
the peasant and insurgent congress issued proclamations against
anti-Semitism;
âPeasants, workers and insurgents! You know that the workers of all
nationalities-Russians, Jews, Poles, Armenians, etc.-are equally
imprisoned in the abyss of poverty... You know how many honest and
valiant revolutionary Jewish fighters have given their lives for
freedomâ.
Evidence of Makhnoâs personal feelings comes from Alexander Berkman a
Russian born American Anarchist who was working for the Bolshevik
government at the time, while in the city of Nikolayev in September 1920
talked to a girl who saw Makhno speak while he held the town who he
reports as saying;
âI heard Makhno himself speak, it was on the square, and some one held a
big black flag near him. He told the people they had nothing to fear,
and that he would not permit any excesses. He said he would mercilessly
punish anyone attempting a pogrom. I got a very favourable impression of
himâ.
The fact that the Makhnovists issued many proclamations against
Anti-Semitism shows that they were worried about it amongst their own
supporters. As in the Red army activities against Anti-Semitism had an
effect on the Makhnovists even if it only suppressed openly anti-Jewish
violence, while not effecting underlying prejudices. Some Makhnovist
fighters and supporters as well as deserters and partisans recruited
from other armies, who had been encouraged by their previous commanders
into action against the Jews carried out pogroms. But they had no
support from the movements core supporters or activists, Pogromists
caught by the military leadership were harshly dealt with indeed they
were usually shot.
One sign that the Makhnovist movement was not inherently anti-Semitic
was the large number of Jews involved in the movement, this does not
signify that the movement did not contain anti-Semites but it does show
that Jews played an important role in the Makhnovshchina. Jewish
colonies participated in the Peasant, worker and insurgent congresses,
sending delegates. In the military structure many Jews fought along side
Ukrainian insurgents and indeed an Artillery Battery was recruited
exclusively from the local Jewish colonies. Many Jews served in
important positions in the movement, Kogan served for a while as the
chairman of the peasant congressâs Executive, while Aron Baron was a
leading Anarchist agitator, Elena Keller served in the
cultural-educational section as did Sukhovolâsky, Aly-Sukhovolski and
Yossif the emigrant who Berkman knew from America and who he saw while
in Kiev denied that the Makhnovists committed pogroms and blamed them on
the âGreensâ, (independent partisan groups) and bandits. One of the most
powerful men in the movement was also Jewish, Lev Zadov-Zinkovski headed
the counter intelligence service the Kontrrazvedka. Jewish Makhnovists
like their counterparts in the Red army may have been working alongside
Anti-Semites, Issaak Babel who was with the Red armyâs first cavalry
army used a Russian name to hide his Jewish roots though few were
fooled. The first cavalry army was recruited mainly from Ukrainian
Cossacks, indeed former Makhnovists served with Babel;
âthe Cossacks just the same, the cruelty the same, itâs nonsense to
think one army is different from anotherâ.
While the most that Babel and other Jews in the first cavalry army had
to deal with was verbal abuse, Jewish civilians were attacked, robbed,
raped and even murdered. The Red Cossacks made distinctions between
âourâ, Jews in the Red army and Jewish civilians, as did Babel who
watched the victimisation of Polish Jews by the Cossacks and stood back
and did nothing. Similar things probably happened amongst the
Makhnovists. If anti-Semitism was a social norm in the Ukraine and if we
are to believe the theory of âcommunal deterrenceâ, then pogroms
committed by the Makhnovists would of occurred either in areas were the
Makhnovists had not fully taken control or in periods of rapid change
either in retreat or in advance. In areas that achieved stability under
the Makhnovists serious acts of anti-Jewish violence did not occur
unpunished. This suggests that the Makhnovist organisation had the will
and authority to pursue and punish violent anti-Semites. Jewish
Makhnovists who escaped the movements destruction denied the claims that
the Makhnovists were Pogromists, and while pogroms were carried out by
members of the movement the movement itself always sought to prevent
anti-Semitic behaviour and violence. Voline in his book âThe Unknown
Revolutionâ, quotes an interview with the Jewish historian M.
Tcherikover who had studied the pogroms of the civil war and had no
political axe to grind, stated that the Makhnovists behaved better as
regards the civilian population including the Jews than any other army
involved in the Ukraine.
Allegations about the Makhnovshchina and Makhno personally have, and
indeed continue to persist both White and Red propaganda claimed that
the Makhnovists were Anti-Semitic and carried out many pogroms. Makhno
never denied that anti-Jewish violence took place in areas controlled by
the insurgents, but he did deny that the movement was supported such
actions. The Bolsheviks sought to discredit him and his movement both at
home and abroad and to smear him as a Pogromist was one way to do so,
the Soviet historian Yaroslavsky blamed Makhno personally for pogroms,
while Makhno himself credited Gerassimenko a âlick spittle lackey of the
Bolsheviksâ, and the journalist Arbatov;
âwho unashamedly credits me with all manner of violence perpetrated
against a troupe of âperforming dwarvesâ â.
During the periods of co-operation with the Makhnovists several
commissars sent to work within the movement reported anti-Semitism
within the Makhnovist forces but there are no specific allegations, and
hostility against the commissars would be found without it being the
result of anti-Jewish feeling. From reading Issaak Babelâs diary it is
likely that the level of anti-Semitism would be similar within Red army
forces who after all were recruited from same social groups and classes
and areas to those in the Makhnovshchina. British officers with the
White army of Denikin reported Makhno as carrying out Pogroms, but these
reports came at the same time as concern by the British government over
the Volunteer armyâs activities. British intelligence was reliant
totally on the Whiteâs intelligence reports and if Denikin could blame
his enemies for his own as well as pogroms carried out by the
nationalists, Greens and Makhnovists then Denikin could calm concern
from his foreign backers. The Bolsheviks had many Jews in powerful
positions and western governments were unlikely to believe they were
exterminating Jews, especially when many of the British reports show
signs of prejudice as regards the number of Jews involved at high levels
amongst the Bolsheviks. Petliuraâs nationalists had backing from the
French government and their own representatives abroad to deny
allegations, while Hryhoriyiv and Makhno could be blamed for the Whites
own pogroms without fear of contradiction. The Communists blamed the
Makhnovists to discredit them as a revolutionary movement, portraying
them as pogromists like Hryhoriyiv. While the Whites who after the civil
war were reliant on western governmentâs who would be uneasy about
supporting pogromists, could blame their own crimes on Makhno. The
Makhnovists own propaganda always denied that they carried out pogroms
perhaps fearing that if they admitted that some of there followers had
massacred Jews that the lies of both Whites and Reds would be believed.
Members of the Makhnovshchina did carry out pogroms and anti-Semitism
was prevalent amongst Makhnoâs followers, but like the Red army their
prejudices were suppressed and their excesses where found were punished.
Both Red and White Russians had reasons to spread the lie that the
Makhno was a Pogromist, the Reds sought to discredit Makhno and his
movements revolutionary character and justify its destruction both
internally and internationally. While the White army of Denikin and
Wrangel relied on the support of western governments for their survival
and after the war on their charity. The public of most of the âliberalâ
democracies were shocked and revolted by the Pogroms and the White
forces hoped to hide their own guilt by blaming their pogroms on the
âGreenâ, forces and the Makhnovists. The stories about the Makhnovists
pogroms are partly based on the truth that some of the insurgents
carried out violent acts of anti-Semitism, but their activities were
dealt with if they were caught and by no means were there actions an
accepted by the movement as a whole.
The Jewish colonies provided the Makhnovists with many fighters and
activists, and Jewish Anarchists from Russia and the Ukraine were
actively involved and supported the movement, this support would not
have been there if the Makhnovists had been inherently anti-Semitic or
if the movement as a whole had condoned the violence. This is not to say
that there were no pogroms carried out by the insurgents. No combatant
force in the civil war was innocent of violence against the Jewish
population of the Ukraine but the Makhnovists like the Red army who both
had many Jews among there ranks did not pursue anti-Semitism as a
deliberate policy or condoned it when it happened. The truth concerning
the Ukrainian pogroms of the civil war is so highly propagandised by all
sides involved that it is perhaps impossible to tell what truly happened
or to make judgements on who carries what proportion of blame. However
while both the Bolshevik Red army and the Makhnovist insurgents carried
out pogroms both of these two forces saw them as failings of discipline
and not as deliberate tactics.
The figure of Nestor Makhno is an extraordinary one, a peasant born
Anarchist revolutionary leader who fought both Whites and Reds with
great success and ingenuity. Makhno and his movement have many
similarities with Emiliano Zapata and his peasant movement of the
Mexican civil war, yet while Zapata is seen as a Mexican hero, Makhno is
virtually unknown outside of histories of the Revolution and Civil War
and Anarchist groups who claim Makhno and the Makhnovshchina as
forebears. Many myths and false claims have been made about Makhno, some
are due to the confusion of the civil war while others are pure
fabrication. Indeed Makhno has been the subject or featured in works of
fiction, even during his own lifetime. The purpose of this chapter is to
look at some of the myths surrounding Makhno and his use in fiction, and
to answer why he is such an attractive figure for writers and folklore.
During the Civil war, many stories about Makhno grew up on all sides,
British forces in the Black sea reported him as being an ex-sailor
robber chief, confusing him with Fyodor Shchus Makhnoâs cavalry
commander who served in the Russian navy on board the mine layer âIoann
Zlatoustâ, and wore a sailors peakless cap or âBeskozirkaâ.
Some reports and writers say that Makhno was originally a school teacher
in Gulyai-Pole this is untrue, Makhno did however travel on false papers
given to him in Moscow describing him as a school teacher and this is
were the confusion arises from.
The White armies also believed that due to his successes he must have
professional officers serving in his staff which is also untrue.
Makhnoâs early has also been reported differently, the Anarchist Emma
Goldman who met Nestorâs wife claimed he was arrested for the attempted
assassination of a Tsarist spy, while most sources say his arrest
followed his involvement in the death of a Policeman and activities
involving the Gulyai-Pole anarchist group. The historian W.E.D. Allen in
his 1940 history of the Ukraine is scathing of Makhno and extremely
inaccurate he describes him as being exiled to Siberia for the murder of
a policeman and on returning to the Ukraine;
âhe had been cunning enough to assume a deep red colourationâ.
Allen also claims that in Paris Makhno earned his livelihood as a
âCinema studio figurantâ (extra). None of this is correct, Makhno was
imprisoned in the Butyrki prison, Moscow, his politics were sincere (his
interest in Anarchist ideas began before his imprisonment) and he was a
committed activist for most of his life.
In Makhnovist controlled areas Makhno acted on his Anarchist
convictions, he opened and then destroyed the prisons , granted all
political organisations and parties freedom to operate but prevented
them from imposing their views or seizing political power and issued
money which stated on the back that no one would be prosecuted for
forging it. Makhnoâs political writings while in exile show his Anarchy
was no mere camouflage for a bandit . Other sources say while in Paris
he worked as a house painter and in rail yards plus various other jobs,
though I have found no other reference to him working as a film extra.
During the civil war many stories circulated about Makhno and his
activities, Alexander Berkman recorded in his diaries a conversation
with Petrovsky Chairman of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee
in July 1920 after Makhno had been outlawed by the Bolsheviks;
âMany legends have grown around his name, and to some he appears almost
a heroic figure. But here in the Ukraina you will learn the truth about
him. Just a robber ataman, thatâs all he is. Under the mask of anarchism
he conducts raids upon villages and towns, destroys railroad
communications, and takes a fiendish delight in murdering commissars and
communistsâ.
Many stories told about Makhno and the Makhnovists activities are
similar to those told about Robin Hood and Pugachev, sharing captured
wealth with the peasants, capturing towns and enemy soldiers by stealth
and cunning. While there is certainly truth behind some of these stories
(his capture of Ekaterinoslav using a commuter train full of soldiers
for example), others are likely to be pure invention. Arshinov in his
âHistory of the Makhnovist Movement 1918â1921â, draws comparisons
between Makhno and Pugachev the leader of a Cossack rebellion in the
18^(th) century. While both Michael Malet and Orlando Figes quotes
Russian Material that tells of folk verses at weddings that concerns
Makhno, and mothers threatening their children with his name;
âIf you donât go to sleep, Batko Makhno will be coming here this minute;
heâll give it to youâ.
The truth, stories, mistakes and both positive and negative propaganda
surrounding Makhno have been mixed up and have led to varying reports of
Makhno all of which claim to be the truth.
Such a âcolourfulâ (sic) figure as Makhno, a peasant Anarchist who led a
Cossack army against both White and Red attracted many writers of
fiction during Makhnoâs lifetime. Issaak Babel who had served with the
Russian First Cavalry Army as a Bolshevik news service correspondent in
both the Ukraine and Poland wrote several short pieces dealing with the
civil war. In âItalian Sunshineâ, a delirious soldier mixes up his
memories of the civil war and the role of Anarchists within the
Bolshevik government with a book he has just read about the Vatican;
âAnd only Volin is still there. Volin dons the sacerdotal vestments and
climbs up for anarchy to the Lenins. Awful. And the Batko listens to
him, strokes his dusty and wiry locks and emits from between his decayed
teeth the long snake of his moujikâs sneerâ.
Babelâs âDiscourse on the Tatchanka and other Mattersâ, deals with
Makhnoâs use of the peasant carts and the advantages of manoeuvre they
gave him over regular troops;
âThis Makhno is as many-sided as nature herself. Hay-carts, disposed in
battle array, took towns; a wedding procession approaching the
headquarters of a district executive opened a concentrated fire; and a
meagre little monk, waving above him the black flag of anarchy, ordered
the authorities to hand over the middle-classes, the proletariat, wine
and musicâ.
Babel while working with the first cavalry army came into contact with
soldiers who had fought against Makhno and former Makhnovist partisans
now with the Red Army. So his work may have been informed by
conversations with them. Babel saw little difference between the
Cossacks who fought for the Red Army and those who were with other
armies. Babel describes the Cossacks as anti-Semitic (Babel was a Jew
though he attempted to hide this fact by using a false Russian name,
Lyutov while with the army). Babelâs portrayal of Makhno may of been
coloured by contact with men who had fought with or against the
Makhnovshchina. Joseph Kesselâs book âMakhno et sa Juiveâ published by
Eos in 1926, depicts Makhno as an Anti-Semite charges that Makhno
strenuously denied claiming that Kessel had based his novel on work by
Colonel Gerassimenko a former White officer who was convicted of being a
Bolshevik spy by the Czechoslovakian courts, indeed Kessel credits
Gerassimenko in his introduction. Other writers contemporary to Makhno
wrote stories around him including Bulgakovâs âWhite Guardâ.
Unfortunately like Kesselâs âMakhno et sa Juiveâ, I have been unable to
find English translations and have had to rely on what little I could
translate from Kessel using a French-English Dictionary, with some
unusual results;
âle trahit et lâassasine, massacre les Juifs, les bourgeois, les
officiers, les commissaires, bref, pendant deux anees, terrorise
lâUkraineâ.
translated as;
âThe traitor and assassin, massacred the Jews, the bourgeois, the
officers, the commissars, briefly, while two donkeys terrorised the
Ukraineâ.
It is unusual to see writers base works of fiction on living people, but
Makhno had few supporters and no option of legal action against such
writers due to his poverty while in exile in Paris.
Makhno has also been used by modern writers, the most famous novelist to
use him as a character is Michael Moorcock who has written about him not
only in historical novels set during the Russian Civil War but also in
his works of fantasy. In âByzantium Enduresâ, set in the Ukraine during
the civil war Moorcockâs character âPyatâ, finds himself in the
Anarchist region âthe only territory where peace reignedâ, after a
rather dull encounter with Makhno âPyatâ, finds his childhood sweetheart
who is working with the Makhnovist Cultural-Education section. Moorcock
portrays Makhno as a rapist an allegation made by Bolsheviks and by
Voline;
âMakhno? He saved my life, she said. It was not much of a rape. It was a
token. His wife knows what he does. She tries to stop him. He Feels bad
afterwards. Heâs drunkâ.
Moorcock paints a sympathetic picture off Makhno and his movement
despite the portrayal as a drunken rapist, and in the books introduction
he thanks Leah Feldman who he interviewed for the book, Feldman who was
possibly the last survivor of Makhnoâs army always denied that Makhno
was a rapist;
âDid he change when he became a railway worker in Paris?...Who in Russia
is he supposed to have raped? His wife was always riding on a horse
beside him, and she would soon have put a stop to thatâ.
While in his book set during the Civil War, Moorcock bases his
descriptions of the Makhnovists on research and interviews in his
fantasyâs he uses Makhno as he would a purely fictional character.
Michael Moorcocks âJerry Corneliusâ stories which he started in 1965,
experiment with non-linear techniques of narrative and alternative
histories, comment on the hypocrisies of liberal Bourgeoisie of the
time. Moorcockâs work began in the 1960âs and 1970âs while he was
involved with the alternative press ( he edited âNew Worldsâ magazine)
and experimental music projects (with the rock band âHawkwindâ). In âThe
Entropy Tangoâ, Moorcock portrays an alternative 20^(th) Century where
Russia is controlled by the inheritors of Kerenskyâs Provisional
Government and Makhno succeeded in liberating the Ukraine. Makhno turns
his energies to other countries;
âLeaning against the damp draining board Una read the âManchester
Guardianâ, she had bought at Croydon. Makhnoâs âinsurgent armyâ,
consisting predominantly of Ukrainian settlers, indians, metis (pushed
out of their homelands), and some disaffected scots and french, had won
control of rural Ontarioâ.
Moorcock portrays Makhno as a romantic revolutionary figure, a man
driven by his political ideals and a committed internationalist;
âThere are lots of anarchists in Scotland now, said Una. You know the
one I mean. Makhno should still be there, Iâd like to look him up. Heâs
getting on now, you know. Must be at least eightyâ.
Michael Moorcockâs interest in Nestor Makhno may well come from his
political outlook, many of his books show sympathy for anarchist ideas
and his time spent editing âNew Worldsâ, at a time of political
radicalism and experimentation may well have introduced him to Makhno
and the Makhnovist movement via the Anarchist movement which revived
during the same period.
Nestor Makhno is an extremely colourful character, in a bloody civil war
he stands out as a leader of extraordinary capacity, he built an army
from the peasants of his home region using machine guns on peasant carts
âtatchankasâ, to fight German, Austrian and Hungarian invaders and their
Ukrainian lackeys, Nationalists, White Russian, Bolsheviks and western
interventionist armies. Makhno was only twenty seven when at the height
of his career and had almost no formal education. His political beliefs
which motivated his actions and influenced the movement that bore his
name were Anarchist, seeking total freedom from all authority.
For modern writers such as Moorcock, Nestor Makhno offers a
revolutionary hero untainted by Leninism or the spectre of Bolshevik
oppression. His followers peasant inheritors of Cossack traditions and
deserters from both Whites and Reds also are attractive to writers who
were involved in the politics and culture of the sixties and seventies,
W. Bruce Lincoln describes the Makhnovists as;
âArmed to the teeth and dressed in wildly outlandish clothing gathered
from the closets of lords and the shelves of tradesmen, the Guliai Pole
peasants resembled their boisterous Cossack forebears of the Zaporozhian
Sichâ.
Novelists contemporary with Makhno used him in their fiction for two
reasons, within the Soviet Union fictional accounts of Makhnoâs life
could be used to help discredit him, and help glorify the role of the
Red Army in his destruction, though Babelâs stories attack the
Makhnovists there is also I believe grudging admiration for his exploits
and tactics, possibly due to Babelâs own contact with ex-Makhnovists.
Writers working in the west did not have the same motives as those in
the Soviet Union, unless like Colonel Gerassimenko they were working for
the Bolsheviks seeking to destroy the reputation of a possible enemy.
Makhno as a former ally of the Bolsheviks and a vehement enemy of the
counter-revolutionary Whites, might carry some credibility in his
criticism of the communists. So the Bolsheviks would encourage western
anti-Makhnovist writings. Joseph Kessel however had no links with the
Bolsheviks, his book âMakhno et sa Juiveâ, was based on information on
the Makhnovists available to him in 1926 most of which was either
produced by the Bolsheviks or the Whites. Arshinovâs sympathetic history
was published in 1923 in Russian but I do not know if Kessel would have
had access to a French edition. Makhno claimed that most of Kesselâs
information came from the work of Gerassimenko, in which case it would
be influenced by Bolshevik propaganda. Kesselâs book was written in
1926, the same year that Arshinov published in Paris his âOrganisational
Platform of the General Union of Anarchists: Draftâ, which caused great
controversy throughout Anarchist circles. The âPlatformâ, called for a
general Union of anarchists with a central executive committee to
co-ordinate policy and action. Its detractors accused Arshinov of
abandoning Anarchism for Bolshevism by calling for a strict party
structure. The only prominent Anarchist to support Arshinov was Makhno,
it is possible that Kesselâs interest was aroused by the debate over the
âplatformâ. When writing about the Civil war whether in fiction or in
fact, the Ukraine was the central battlefield for all sides, Makhno was
certainly the most colourful leader in that conflict and the Makhnovist
forces fought all sides and changed the course of the war on several
occasions. A novel set in the Civil war is likely to cover Makhno even
if only in passing. Moorcockâs use of him in fantasy owes some thing to
the writers background in the alternative publishing and rock music
scene of the sixties and seventies. Though in Moorcockâs âJerry
Corneliusâ, books that deal with the collapse of civilisation what
better supporting characters to have than the anarchist revolutionary
Makhno and his unruly peasant followers.
The folk tales and legends that have grown around Makhno owe much to
stories told about previous peasant rebels most noticeably Pugachev,
indeed Berkman reports the comparison being made between Makhno and
Pugachev, and Arshinov makes the comparison in his history of the
movement;
âThe following legend about Pugachev is told among the peasants of Great
Russia. After his uprising he fell into the hands of the authorities. He
told the noblemen sitting around him ; âin this uprising I only gave you
a foretaste. But wait: soon after me will come the real broom- it will
sweep all of you awayâ. Makhno showed himself to be this historic broom
of the peopleâ.
For the Makhnovists drawing comparisons to a folk hero like Pugachev
could help win sympathy and support from the peasants who had grown up
with stories about his peasant revolt. The Makhnovists peasant form of
Anarchism based in an area were Cossack traditions of freedom were
respected also helped them to draw comparisons with the Zaphorozhian
Sich. With the destruction of the Makhnovists and the entrenchment of
Bolshevik authority in the Ukraine, government censorship made folk
stories and songs were one of the few ways that the Makhnovists could be
remembered. Many of the stories about the Makhnovists and Makhno are
invention either for propaganda purposes or exaggeration, while others
came through the confusion of the situation in the Ukraine during the
civil war. While the Makhnovists remain largely forgotten, swamped by
the victory of the Bolshevikâs in Russia some writers who have come
across their story have used it in works of fiction. Because they lost
in the end and that almost all traces of them were destroyed that
authors have been able to use them without fearing criticism from
Makhnovist supporters. The lack of evidence surrounding the movement
also makes it far easier to simply imagine the actions of the Makhno
without having to research huge amounts of research material.
Information on the Makhnovists was difficult to obtain in the west, what
came from White Russian and Bolshevik sources was mainly negative
propaganda, what little information from the Makhnovists point of view
came from Russian Anarchist refugees most notably Emma Goldman and
Alexander Berkman and those few Makhnovists who managed to escape. What
news there was of the movement appeared in publications whose political
stance was most in sympathy with the Makhnovists namely Anarchist and
far left papers and journals.
In Britain the Anarchist and anti-Parliamentary Communist movement was
tiny and lost much of their support to the Bolshevik backed Communist
Party of Great Britain after its formation in 1920. The coverage of the
Makhnovists and of Nestor Makhno in contemporary British left-wing
publications was unimportant to either the history of the Makhnovists or
the British Left, but what it does show is the differences and confusion
on the far left over the revolution in Russia and the nature of the
Bolshevik regime. While the Anarchist paper âFreedomâ was quick in
seeing the Bolsheviks as fundamentally opposed to Anarchist
organisations and ideology and contained the most accurate information
on the Makhnovists its influence was extremely small. Guy Aldred who
published both the âSpurâ and âCommuneâ was himself an Anarchist but he
consistently supported the Bolsheviks and attacked their critics long
after the rest of the British Anarchist movement had given up any
support for the Bolsheviks. Sylvia Pankhurstâs paper the âWorkers
Dreadnoughtâ originally supported the Bolsheviks, indeed it had become
the unofficial âorganâ of the CPGB while Sylvia was a leading member of
the party until she was expelled in 1921. The âWorkers Dreadnoughtâ,
published appeals on behalf of Russian Anarchists in Bolshevik prisons
and Sylvia Pankhurst spoke at a meeting in support of Makhno in London
in 1923. Information in the left-wing press on Nestor Makhno and the
Makhnovist movement was tied up with that of the rest of the Russian
Anarchist movement, and the plight of its prisoners and refugees.
The far left including Anarchists in Britain greeted the Bolshevik
revolution of 1917 with enthusiasm. The Anarchist movement believed like
most of the British left that Russia held the possibility of a socialist
revolution that would end the war and begin the triumphant march to
socialism throughout Europe. The British left was small and fragmented
at the end of the war, many of the parties amalgamated into the
Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920. The Bolsheviks October
revolution was originally reported in the west as being Anarchist,
confusion reigned on the British left as to the nature of the situation
in Russia. The Bolshevik party advanced the slogan âAll power to the
Sovietsâ, in order to reach its true goal that of authoritarian rule of
the Bolshevik party. There was confusion over the differences between
the Soviets which were spontaneously formed workers councils, committees
of recallable delegates elected by and answerable to mass meetings of
working class people. Which were seen by the anti-Parliamentary Left as
the means to carry out the revolution, and the Bolshevik party who
claimed to represent the Soviets and had the support of several
important Soviets and had seized control of the Russian government.
Despite this confusion the Left united to oppose British military and
economic intervention in Russia. Little information on the situation in
Russia reached the west and that which did was usually highly
propagandised either by the Bolsheviks or by their White Russian
enemies, so any news was tainted with the suspicion that it was untrue
or exaggerated. Information on the Bolsheviks anti-Anarchist activities
started to emerge in the leftâs publications in mid 1919 (these
activities had started in 1918), though the majority of political
activists took longer to convince. Many had placed all their hopes on
the revolution and were unwilling to denounce it without overwhelming
evidence. Articles on the Makhnovists in the British Left-wing press
appear originally as part of the debate on the role of Anarchists in the
revolution and Civil War. It is interesting to see that three main
Anarchist publications, âFreedomâ and Guy Aldredâs âSpurâ and âCommuneâ,
take opposing lines on Makhnoâs role, Aldred supported the Bolsheviks
and labelled the Russian Anarchists as counter-revolutionary, while the
Freedom group supported the Anarchists.
The Left Communists achieved a brief period of importance at the end of
the First World War. During the war the Labour party and the Trade
Unions leadership lined up to support the governments war effort. The
Left Communists evolved from the socialist political organisations and
rejected parliamentarism as a tactic which they saw as suited only to
the capitalist system and unable to be used to create a socialist order
due to its very nature, the already existing working class parties were
seen as class collaborators due for their support for the World War. The
Left Communists welcomed the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and their
policy of building socialism through the Soviets (workers councils)
which the left communists saw as a suitable replacement to Parliament.
However the Bolsheviks sought power through any strategy including
participation in Parliamentary elections. The Bolsheviks imposed the
policy of parliamentary action on the newly formed British Communist
party against the bitter opposition of the anti-Parliamentarians
involved in the discussions over its formation. Lenin made a vicious
attack on the left Communists in his âLeft-Wingâ Communism, An Infantile
Disorderâ, and set out his position as regards Parliamentary action and
the British Communists;
âI will put it more concretely. In my opinion, the British Communists
should unite their four (all very weak, and some very, very weak)
parties and groups into a single Communist Party on the basis of the
principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in
Parliamentâ.
Guy Aldred actually put forward a compromise position of standing
candidates for Parliament for propaganda purposes and to test popular
support but to refuse any seats if they won an election. The CPGB
adopted the policy of full involvement in the Parliamentary process and
also sought affiliation to the Labour party, this decision led to a
polarisation of the extreme left with the withdrawal of the Left
Communist elements within the CPGB and the creation of the
Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.
I have included Sylvia Pankhurstâs âDreadnoughtâ group because of Sylvia
Pankhurstâs involvement in support for the Russian Anarchists and for
the campaign over Makhnoâs trial for revolutionary activity in Poland in
1923. Pankhurstâs main strength was her political journal the âWorkers
Dreadnoughtâ (before 1917 the Womenâs Dreadnought) around which her
political supporters organised. Pankhurst was based in the East End of
London and her supporters will be referred to here as the âDreadnought
groupâ, due to its frequent name changes (East London Federation of
Suffragettes, Workers Suffrage Federation, Workers Socialist Federation,
Communist Workersâ Party). Originally Pankhurst supported the Bolsheviks
and organised the âHands of Russiaâ campaign and became a leading light
in the early Communist Party of Great Britain, but she was eventually
forced out of the CPGB in September 1921 for her continued opposition to
the policy of contesting Parliamentary elections and seeking affiliation
with the Labour Party and her criticisms of the party in the âWorkers
Dreadnoughtâ. During 1919 when the Makhnovists were most active the
âWorkers Dreadnoughtâ, reported news from the Ukraine regarding the
Civil War but there is no mention of Makhno, it is likely that as the
Makhnovists fought as part of the Red Army there movements would be
reported as such in Bolshevik Press releases. Following Sylviaâs
expulsion from the CPGB the âDreadnought groupâ, and their paper
expressed solidarity with Communist opposition groups in Russia
publishing articles by Alexandra Kollontai from the Russian Workers
opposition, and giving support to the âGroup of Revolutionary left-wing
Communists of Russiaâ, which had split from the Bolsheviks and other
left wing anti-Bolshevik parties. In July 1923 Nestor Makhno was in
prison in Poland;
âand is to be tried shortly on a charge of organising uprisings in
Poland aided by Bolshevik money. At the same time the Bolshevik
Government are asking Poland for his extradition so that they can put
him on trial for his so called âCounter-Revolutionaryâ, activity in
Russiaâ.
Russian Anarchists in London set up a protest meeting on the 27^(th)
July at the Mantle Makers Hall, Whitechapel, at which Sylvia Pankhurst
was one of the speakers ( other speakers included T.H. Keell and W.C.
Owen both of who were involved with the Freedom group and M.
Hassine-Arnoni). The meeting passed a unanimous resolution protesting
against Makhnoâs imprisonment and trial. The court case was based mainly
on the evidence of an agent provocateur working for Polish intelligence
and after a five day trial Makhno and two other insurgents were
acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence. âWorkers
Dreadnoughtâ, in the same month as the meeting was condemning the
Communist government for being âthe dictatorship of a party clique of
officialsâ. I do not know whether Sylvia Pankhurst had any involvement
in the campaign other than speaking at the meeting in Whitechapel.
Guy Aldred published two papers during the period of the Russian
revolution and civil war the âSpurâ, which he and Rose Whitcop published
as individuals and âCommuneâ, which Aldred published as the official
publication of the Glasgow Communist Group (united with the Glasgow
Anarchist Group at the end of 1916). Aldred supported the Bolsheviks
despite their authoritarian and exclusive character mainly due to their
concrete success at seizing power, and he continued to support them
after the Left outside the CPGB had seized. Mark Shipway argues that
Aldredâs lack of criticism of the Bolsheviks was partly due to his
personal dislike for some of the people who were critical of the
Bolsheviks. In 1923 Aldred criticised an article by W.C. Owen in
âFreedomâ, by questioning Owenâs revolutionary credentials. Guy Aldred
also attacked Emma Goldman in the âCommuneâ writing in December 1924
that her criticisms of the Bolsheviks were indistinguishable from White
propaganda. By April 1925 he was demanding through the Pages of
âCommuneâ that the âRevolutionary scabâ, and âex-Anarchistâ, Goldman be;
âBoycotted and condemned by every worker for her infamous associations.
She is a traitor to Labourâs struggle who should be âfiredâ with
enthusiasm- from each and every proletarian assemblyâ.
As regards the fate of Anarchists in Russia, while Aldred printed
letters from Anarchist organisations complaining about persecution he
was not fully convinced despite the deluge of information in the early
twenties he remained sceptical;
âWe want the truth. The cry of âSafeguarding the revolutionâ may be used
as an excuse for tyranny. The cry of âAnarchism and libertyâ may conceal
a counter-revolutionary conspiracy. We want to cut through phrases and
get down to factsâ.
By November 1925 Aldredâs line on the Russian Anarchists and the
Bolshevik regime had changed almost totally, writing for the âCommuneâ
on the eighth anniversary of the revolution Aldred wrote of âour
persecuted comrades in Russiaâ, and âour comrades rotting in the Soviet
Prisonsâ. As regards Aldredâs coverage of Nestor Makhno and the
Makhnovshchina I have found only two articles. The first in the issue of
the âSpurâ for November 1920 is from an article by Robert Minor
originally published in the American âThe Liberatorâ, on the role of
Anarchists in Russia. Minor puts forward the rumour that Makhnoâs
refusal to move his forces to the Polish front may have led to the Red
Armyâs defeat by the Poles;
âIf the story is true, it means that the Soviet Red Army was defeated in
Poland when the 75,000 men idle in the South with Makhno might have
saved itâ.
In the 1924 July-August edition of âFreedom there is an article
attacking Guy Aldred for a statement in the June edition of âCommuneâ
claiming that Makhno;
âproves his revolutionary heroism to-day by serving as a general in the
Polish White guards, a tool of French reactionâ.
The Freedom article goes on to quote Emma Goldman who they sent a copy
of Aldredâs article to in Berlin, Goldman attacks Aldred for spreading
Bolshevik propaganda as regards Makhno;
âAs to Makhno being in the employ of the Polish white Guard or French
reaction, that is all a repetition of the outrageous defamationâs spread
from Moscow....His sterling honesty and his revolutionary zeal are
beyond such defamationâs as repeated by Guy Aldredâ.
This attack on Aldred may have led to his condemnation of Goldman in the
December 1924 and April 1925 editions of âCommuneâ (see above). Aldredâs
attacks on Makhno, Goldman and the Russian Anarchists were all made in
support of the Bolshevik regime. Aldred refused to believe that the
Bolsheviks were persecuting revolutionaries because of personal
animosity against their accusers and defended the Bolsheviks until late
1925. By which time he could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence
of Bolshevik persecution of Anarchists and other left wing opposition
groups.
âFreedomâ was a mainly theoretical Anarchist paper originally set up by
Prince Peter Kropotkin and produced by the small Freedom group made up
of his supporters. Kropotkin had called for Anarchists to support the
first World War as a war against German Imperial aggression and this had
led to a split within the Freedom group and condemnation from the rest
of the small British Anarchist movement who set about propagandising
against it. By 1915 âFreedomâ was edited and controlled by T.H. Keell
originally the papers printer who had also fallen out with Kropotkin
over the issue of support for the war. Keell and a close group of
friends produced the paper and were very critical of the Bolsheviks and
the persecution of the Russian Anarchists. From July 1919 onwards
âFreedomâ carried articles and appeals by and on behalf of the
Anarchists in Russia and identified the Bolsheviks as anti-Anarchist. In
January 1922 âFreedomâ published a letter from Emma Goldman and
Alexander Berkman about the treatment of the Russian Anarchists in which
they stated that some Anarchists had been officially accused of being
bandits and Makhnovtsy. In April of the same year âFreedomâ published
Alexander Berkmanâs article âSome Bolshevik Lies about the Russian
Anarchistsâ, a large article running to three pages which mainly dealt
with the Makhnovists. Berkman states that the Russian Anarchist
organisations did not accept the Makhnovists as Anarchists, seeing them
as peasant rebels and deals extensively with allegations of
anti-Semitism laid against the Makhnovists;
âThere were, indeed, isolated cases of pogroms made by some Otryads
(military detachments) of the Makhno army....was not the Red Army guilty
of such incidents? ....Makhno is an Anarchist, and it is historic fact
that he and his staff kept up a continuous propaganda and agitation
against religious and nationalistic superstitions and prejudicesâ.
Berkmanâs article as far as I am aware is the largest and most accurate
to appear in the contemporary British press regarding the Makhnovists.
The meeting set up to support Makhno in his trial in Poland in July at
the Mantle Makers Hall, Whitechapel, included T.H. Keell and W.C. Owen
as speakers both were involved with the Freedom group and âFreedomâ
reported on the meeting and the campaign in the next monthâs issue;
âIt is hoped that the publicity given to the case will stay the
murderous hands of the reactionaries who seek to revenge themselves on
this gallant fighter for freedom of the workers and peasants of the
Ukraineâ.
There is no mention in the âFreedomâ volumes XL for 1926 of Peter
Arshinovâs âOrganisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists,
which was supported by Nestor Makhno and caused controversy throughout
European Anarchist circles. The âPlatformâ, called for a general Union
of anarchists with a central executive committee to co-ordinate policy
and action. Its critics accused Arshinov of abandoning Anarchism for
Bolshevism by calling for a strict party structure. In November 1934
âFreedomâ published an obituary of âNestor Machnoâ, by Sh. Yanovsky the
editor of the Yiddish language paper âFreie Arbeiter Stimmeâ, which had
originally been published in the âWatchmanâ in August in which he
apologises for declaring Makhno a pogromist in âFreie Arbeiter Stimmeâ,
and refutes any suspicionâs that Makhno was an Anti-Semite. Yanovsky
begins by writing;
âIn the personality of Nestor Makhno who died last week, the
revolutionary world in general and the Russian Revolution in particular,
have lost one of its greatest heroes, who will during the course of time
be more and more valuedâ.
âFreedomâ was the most consistently supportive of the Russian Anarchists
and carried the most information on the Makhnovists and Makhno due to
its links with Berkman, Goldman and Russian Anarchist émigrés,
originated through Kropotkin,s involvement in the paper and his role in
Russia following his return in 1917.
The British Anarchist and Left Communist movements were tiny and after
1920 many of their followers and activists had gone to the newly formed
Communist Party of Great Britain attracted by the success of the
Bolsheviks in Russia, indeed Sylvia Pankhurst had been an active member
of the party and Guy Aldred had offered the Bolsheviks his full support
through the pages of his publications. The CPGBâs adoption of fighting
Parliamentary campaigns and seeking affiliation to the Labour party had
prevented the Left Communists from joining the party. Later when the
Bolsheviks persecution of Anarchists had become well known about in the
west both the Freedom group and Pankhurstâs Dreadnought group both
switched to attacking the Bolsheviks, while Aldred took far longer to
convince of the authoritarian nature of the Bolsheviks. The Freedom
group were the most supportive of the Russian Anarchists and published
the most information on Makhno, but their readership and influence were
tiny even compared to the rest of the anti-Parliamentary left at the
time. The Makhnovist movement and Nestor Makhno had no impact on the
British Left but what it does help show is the differences over
attitudes to the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik regime on the
anti-Parliamentary Left. It also shows that information on Anarchists in
Russia during the revolution and Civil War was almost impossible to come
by other than from Bolshevik or white sources, unless brought out by
Anarchist refugees;
âWe think that few students of the Russian Revolution are under any
illusions as to the situation in Russia. The Bolsheviks and their
supporters at home and abroad raised a smoke screen so dense that for
some time it was almost impossible to get any reliable newsâ.
The Makhnovshchina and Nestor Makhno remain largely forgotten,
overshadowed by the massive struggle for Russia between Red and White
armies. The Makhnovists Anarchism was very much based on the traditional
freedoms and organisation of the Cossackâs and raw forms of village
democracy which had been influenced by the Cossack traditions and
persisted in the South East of Ukraine. While in the rest of the Ukraine
Nationalism, long suppressed by the Tsarist authorities gained popular
support. In the South East this home grown peasant democracy radicalised
by Makhnoâs Anarchist beliefs took root. The majority of the movements
peasant followers did not consider themselves Anarchists however with
the help of the Makhnovshchinaâs activists they followed a policy of
redistributing the land equally amongst themselves. The Makhnovists
encouraged the setting up of âfreeâ, agricultural communes organised on
the principles of full equality and mutual aid. The Makhnovists
attempted to run both their civilian and military organisations on
Anarchist principles (with varying degrees of success). The Makhnovists
were a peasant movement whose main support came from the town of
Gulyai-Pole and surrounding peasant communities in the province of
Ekaterinoslav. The Makhnovshchina remained a regional phenomenon which
was confined to this area which contained the conditions for the
movements creation and development. Its failure to build support among
the urban working class in towns and cities under the Makhnovistss
control weakened the movement, and was due to the peasant nature of the
Makhnovshchina which made it so successful in the Ukrainian countryside.
The Makhnovists were extremely successful in their military operations
considering the lack of experienced commanders or military supplies.
Makhnoâs cunning and inventiveness in his use of the Tachanka (peasant
carts) for example and the excellent quality of his locally raised
cavalry forces gave him the ability to manouvre far more effectively
than his enemies. This mobility plus the Makhnovists large number of
machine guns helped to allow the Makhnovists to âpunch above their
weightâ against larger forces. The power vacuum in the South East left
by the conditions of the Civil War allowed the Makhnovists to evolve
from small peasant bands into a large military and civilian project that
both the Red and White Russians had to take into account. The Bolsheviks
were prepared to co-operate with the Makhnovists against the White
forces of reaction, but once the threat from the White armies was
removed they turned the Red Army against the Makhnovists intent on
destroying a movement which they saw as a hindrance to the Communist
control of the Ukraine. The White Army had to divert forces from the
Moscow front to deal with the Makhnovists operating in their rear, thus
weakening their major offensive against the Bolsheviks.
Anti-Semitism was widespread in the Ukraine and Makhnovist insurgents
did carry out Pogroms against Jewish communities. This anti-Semitic
violence however was not a deliberate policy, nor was it condoned by the
Makhnovists governmental organisations or military leadership.
Anti-Jewish violence was an indication of the deep feelings of hatred
towards Jews among the Ukrainian peasantry. Despite this many Jews and
Jewish communities were involved in the Makhnovist movement and even
small anti-Semitic incidents were severely punished. Indicating how
seriously the Makhnovist movement saw such acts. This severity is
explained by the fear that if smaller incidents went unpunished, more
severe acts might have followed by Makhnoâs peasant supporters amongst
who prejudice against the Jews was widespread. No army in the Ukraine
was innocent of Pogroms but the Makhnovists and the Bolshevik Red army
both of which had many Jews among their ranks did not carry out Pogroms
as a deliberate strategy to curry favour and support from among the
peasantry, who had been encouraged in their anti-Semitism by the Tsarist
regime. Rather it came about when there was a break down in discipline
during periods when the Makhnovist organisations were unable to impose
their authority on their supporters.
The British anti-Parliamentary Left Communists and Anarchists response
to the Makhnovshchina was as part of their condemnation of the
Bolsheviks for the persecution of revolutionary opposition groups
including the Russian and Ukrainian Anarchists and Makhnovists. The
Makhnovshchina had no influence on the British left politically but the
coverage of the movement in different left wing publications show the
different reactions to the Bolsheviks by the anti-Parliamentary Left.
In looking at the Makhnovist Movement it is impossible not to be struck
by the role of Nestor Makhno himself. This short poorly educated and
alcoholic peasant was able not only to gain the support, trust and
admiration of Anarchist activists and more importantly thousands of
peasants who followed him through a terrible and bloody Civil War, but
also defeated vastly larger and better equiped enemies his ingenious
tactics. The conditions in the South East were there for a regional
insurgency without the influence of Makhno Indeed many groups commonly
known as âGreensâ, grew up and fought independently from other military
forces. But without Makhnoâs leadership and strategic daring it is
unlikely that the insurgent movement would have been so successful and
it would have given its political support to either the Nationalists or
Bolsheviks, which party likely depended on their policies of land reform
and distribution. Makhnoâs sincere Anarchist convictions shaped the
movement that bore his name and as Peter Marshall states in his history
of Anarchism led to the first major historical example of constructive
Anarchy in action.
In November 1934 the British Anarchist paper âFreedomâ, published an
obituary of âNestor Machnoâ, written by S. Yanovsky the editor of the
Yiddish language paper âFreie Arbeiter Stimmeâ, who began by writing;
âIn the personality of Comrade Nestor Machno who died last week, the
revolutionary world in general, and the Russian revolution in particular
have lost one of its greatest heroes, who will during the course of time
be more and more valued. And more so after being misunderstood and
shamefully calumniated, not only by his opponents, but by some of his
own comradesâ.