Successes and failures of opponents on the fronts in decisive degree were determined by the strength of the situation in the front-line territories and in the rear, and depended on the attitude of the bulk of the population - the peasantry - to the authorities. The peasants who received the land, not wanting to participate in Civil War, against their will, were drawn into it active actions white and red. This gave birth to the green movement. This was the name of the peasant rebels who fought against food requisitions, mobilizations into the army, arbitrariness and violence of both the white and red authorities. In terms of scale and numbers, the movement significantly exceeded the white movement. The “Greens” did not have regular armies; they united in small detachments, often consisting of several dozen, less often hundreds of people. The rebels operated primarily in their areas of residence, but the movement itself covered the entire territory of Russia. It is no coincidence that Lenin considered the “petty-bourgeois counter-revolution” more dangerous than Kolchak and Denikin “taken together.”
The development of this mass peasant protest took place in the summer-autumn of 1918. The implementation of the “food dictatorship” meant the confiscation of “surplus” food from the middle and wealthy peasantry, i.e. majority of the rural population; “the transition from the democratic to the socialist” stage of the revolution in the countryside, within which the offensive against the “kulaks” began; dispersal of democratically elected and “Bolshevization” of rural Soviets; the forced establishment of collective farms - all this caused sharp protests among the peasantry. The introduction of the food dictatorship coincided with the beginning of the “front-line” Civil War and the expansion of the use of “red terror” as the most important means of solving political and economic problems.
The forced confiscation of food and forced mobilization into the Red Army agitated the village. As a result, the bulk of the villagers recoiled from Soviet power, which manifested itself in massive peasant uprisings, of which there were more than 400 in 1918. To suppress them, punitive detachments, hostage-taking, artillery shelling and storming of villages were used. All this strengthened anti-Bolshevik sentiments and weakened the rear of the Reds, in connection with which the Bolsheviks were forced to make some economic and political concessions. In December 1918, they liquidated the hostile committees, and in January 1919, instead of a food dictatorship, they introduced food appropriation. (Its main purpose is the regulation of food procurement.) In March 1919, a course towards an alliance with the middle peasants was proclaimed, who previously, as “grain holders,” were actually united with the kulaks in one category.
The peak of resistance of the “greens” in the rear of the red troops occurred in the spring - summer of 1919. In March - May, uprisings swept Bryansk, Samara, Simbirsk, Yaroslavl, Pskov and other provinces of Central Russia. The scale of the insurgency in the South: Don, Kuban and Ukraine was especially significant. Events developed dramatically in Cossack regions Russia. The participation of the Cossacks in the anti-Bolshevik struggle on the side of the white armies in 1918 became the reason mass repression, including against the civilian population of Kuban and Don in January 1919. This again stirred up the Cossacks. In March 1919, on the Upper Don and then on the Middle Don, they raised an uprising under the slogan: “For Soviet power, but against the commune, executions and robberies.” The Cossacks actively supported Denikin's offensive in June - July 1919.
The interaction of red, white, “green” and national forces in Ukraine was complex and contradictory. After the departure of German and Austrian troops the restoration of Soviet power here was accompanied by the widespread use of terror by various revolutionary committees and “cherekas.” In the spring and summer of 1919, local peasants experienced the food policy of the proletarian dictatorship, which also caused sharp protests. As a result, both small detachments of “greens” and fairly massive armed formations operated on the territory of Ukraine. The most famous of them were the movements of N. A. Grigoriev and N. I. Makhno.
Former staff captain of the Russian army Grigoriev in 1917-1918. served in the troops of the Central Rada, under Hetman Skoropadsky, joined the Petliurists, and after their defeat in early February 1919, he went over to the side of the Red Army. As a brigade commander and then a division commander, he took part in battles against the interventionists. But on May 7, 1919, refusing to transfer his troops to the aid of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, he withdrew them from the front zone and started a mutiny in the rear of the Red Army, which was fighting against Denikin. Grigoriev's military forces amounted to 20 thousand people, over 50 guns, 700 machine guns, 6 armored trains. The main slogans are “Power to the Soviets of Ukraine without communists”; "Ukraine for Ukrainians"; "Free trade in bread." In May - June 1919, the Grigorievites controlled vast lands in the Black Sea region. However, in June their main forces were defeated, and the remnants went to Makhno.
A convinced anarchist, Makhno created a detachment in April 1918 and became famous for its partisan struggle against the Germans; opposed the hetman regime and parts of Petliura. By the beginning of 1919, the size of his army exceeded 20 thousand and included divisions, regiments, and had its own headquarters and Revolutionary Military Council. In February 1919, when Denikin's troops invaded the territory of Ukraine, Makhno's units became part of the Red Army. However, politically the Makhnovists were far from the Bolsheviks. In May, Makhno wrote to one of the Soviet leaders: “I and my front remain invariably faithful to the workers’ and peasants’ revolution, but not to the institution of violence in the person of your commissars and Chekas, who commit arbitrariness against working population" The Makhnovists advocated for a “powerless state” and “free Soviets”; their main slogan was: “To defend Ukraine from Denikin, against the whites, against the reds, against everyone attacking Ukraine.” Makhno refused to cooperate with Wrangel against the Bolsheviks, but three times signed agreements with the Reds on a joint struggle against the Whites. Its units made a great contribution to the defeat of Denikin and Wrangel. However, after the decision common tasks Makhno refused to submit to Soviet power and was eventually declared an outlaw. Nevertheless, its movement was not local in nature, but covered a vast territory from the Dniester to the Don. The “revolutionary insurgent army of Ukraine,” numbering 50 thousand people in 1920, included motley elements that did not shy away from robberies and pogroms, which was also characteristic feature movements.
After the defeat of the main white forces at the end of 1919 - beginning of 1920. peasant war V European Russia flared up with new strength and, as many historians believe, the bloodiest phase of the Civil War began. The internal front for the Red Army became the main one. 1920 - the first half of 1921 is called the period of the “green flood”, since it was the time of the bloodiest massacres, the burning of villages and hamlets, mass deportations population. The basis of peasant discontent was the policy of “war communism”: the war was over, and emergency measures in economic policy were not only preserved, but also strengthened. The peasants opposed surplus appropriation, military, horse, horse-drawn and other duties, failure to comply with which resulted in arrest, confiscation of property, taking hostages, and execution on the spot. Desertion became widespread, reaching 20 or even 35% of the force in some units. military units. Most of deserters were replenished by the “green” detachments, which in the Soviet official language were called "gangs". In Ukraine, Kuban, Tambov region, the Lower Volga region and Siberia, peasant resistance had the character of a real cross-country war. In each province there were groups of rebels who hid in the forests, attacked punitive detachments, took hostages and shot them. Regular units of the Red Army were sent against the “greens,” led by military leaders who had already become famous in the fight against the whites: M. N. Tukhachevsky, M. V. Frunze, S. M. Budyonny, G. I. Kotovsky, I. E. Yakir , I. P. Uborevich et al.
One of the most large-scale and organized was the peasant uprising that began on August 15, 1920 in the Tambov province, which received the name “Antonovshchina” after the name of its leader. Here, the provincial Congress of the Labor Peasantry, not without the influence of the Social Revolutionaries, adopted a program that included: the overthrow of the Bolshevik government, the convening of the Constituent Assembly, the formation of a provisional government from opposition parties, the abolition of the tax in kind and the introduction of free trade. In January 1921, the number of “bandits” reached 50 thousand. At the disposal of their “Chief operational headquarters"there were two armies (consisting of 21 regiments) and one separate brigade. The South-Eastern Railway was cut, which disrupted the supply of grain to central areas, about 60 state farms were looted, over two thousand party and Soviet workers were killed. Artillery, aviation, and armored vehicles were used against the rebels. Tukhachevsky, who led the suppression of the rebellion, wrote that the troops had to fight “an entire occupation war.” In June 1921, the main forces were defeated, and only in July the uprising was finally suppressed.
In October 1920, there was an uprising in the garrison of Nizhny Novgorod. The Red Army soldiers - mobilized peasants - at a non-party conference adopted a resolution demanding improved nutrition, free elections to the Soviets and the permission of free trade. It also condemned commanders and commissars who did not share the hardships of a soldier's life. When the conference leaders were arrested, a rebellion broke out in response. It reflected the sentiments that had become widespread in the army and navy, and was the predecessor of the Kronstadt mutiny.
Perhaps the most tragic on the internal front in 1920-1921. there were events in the Don and Kuban. After the Whites left in March-April 1920, the Bolsheviks established a regime of strict control here, treating the local population like victors in a conquered hostile country. In response to the Don and Kuban, in September 1920, the insurrectionary movement began again, in which 8 thousand people took part. Its suppression marked the Bolsheviks' transition to a policy of mass terror against the entire population of the region. The territory was divided into sectors, and three representatives of the Cheka were sent to each. They had the authority to shoot on the spot anyone found to have connections with whites. The scope for their activity was great: in certain periods, up to 70% of the Cossacks fought against the Bolsheviks. In addition, they were created concentration camps for family members of active fighters against Soviet power, and among the “enemies of the people” were old people, women, children, many of whom were doomed to death.
Inability to consolidate anti-Bolshevik forces, restore order in their rear, organize reinforcements and arrange supplies army units food was the main reason for the military failures of the whites in the 1919-1920s. Initially the peasantry, as well as urban population, who experienced the food dictatorship and terror of the Red Chekas, greeted the whites as liberators. And they won their most resounding victories when their armies were several times smaller in number than Soviet units. So, in January 1919, in the Perm region, 40 thousand Kolchakites captured 20 thousand Red Army soldiers. The admiral’s troops included 30 thousand Vyatka and Izhevsk workers who fought staunchly at the front. At the end of May 1919, when Kolchak’s power extended from the Volga to Pacific Ocean, and Denikin controlled vast areas in the south of Russia, their armies numbered hundreds of thousands of people, and aid from the allies regularly arrived.
However, already in July 1919 in the East, from the Kolchak front, the decline began White movement. Both the whites and the reds represented their enemies well. For the Bolsheviks, these were the bourgeoisie, landowners, officers, cadets, Cossacks, kulaks, nationalists; for the whites, they were communists, commissars, internationalists, Bolshevik sympathizers, socialists, Jews, separatists. However, if the Bolsheviks put forward slogans that were understandable to the masses and spoke on behalf of the working people, the situation was different for the Whites. The White movement was based on the ideology of “non-predecision”, according to which the choice of form political structure, the definition of the socio-economic order was to be carried out only after the victory over the Soviets. It seemed to the generals that rejection of the Bolsheviks alone was enough to unite their disparate opponents into one fist. And since the main task of the moment was the military defeat of the enemy, in which the main role was assigned to the white armies, they established military dictatorship, which either sharply suppressed (Kolchak) or pushed into the background organized political forces(Denikin). And although the whites argued that “the army is outside of politics,” they themselves were faced with the need to solve pressing political problems.
This is precisely the character that the agrarian question acquired. Kolchak and Wrangel postponed his decision “for later,” brutally suppressing land seizures by peasants. In Denikin's territories, their lands were returned to the previous owners, and peasants were often dealt with for the fears and robberies they had endured in 1917-1918. Confiscated enterprises also passed into the hands of the previous owners, and workers' protests in defense of their rights were suppressed. In the sphere of socio-economic relations, there has largely been a throwback to the pre-February situation, which, in fact, led to the revolution.
Standing in the position of “united and indivisible Russia,” the military suppressed any attempts at autonomous isolation within the country, thereby pushing away national movements, first of all, the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia; There were not isolated manifestations of xenophobia, especially anti-Semitism. The reluctance to meet the Cossacks halfway and recognize their rights to autonomy and self-government led to a rift between the whites and their loyal allies - the Kuban and Don people. (Whites even called them “half-Bolsheviks” and “separatists.”) This policy turned their natural anti-Bolshevik allies into their own enemies. Being honest officers and sincere patriots, the White Guard generals turned out to be worthless politicians. In all these matters the Bolsheviks showed much greater flexibility.
The logic of the war forced the whites to pursue policies similar to those of the Bolsheviks on their territories. Attempts to mobilize into the army provoked the growth of the insurgent movement, peasant uprisings, to suppress which punitive detachments and expeditions were sent. This was accompanied by violence and robberies of civilians. Desertion became widespread. Even more repulsive were the economic practices of the white administrations. The basis of the administrative apparatus were former officials who reproduced red tape, bureaucracy, and corruption. “Entrepreneurs close to the authorities” profited from supplies to the army, but normal supplies to the troops were never established. As a result, the army was forced to resort to self-supply. In the fall of 1919, an American observer characterized this situation as follows: “... the supply system was so unsecured and became so ineffective that the troops had no other choice but to supply themselves from the local population. The official permission that legitimized this practice quickly degenerated into permissiveness, and the troops are held accountable for all sorts of excesses.”
White terror was as merciless as the red one. The only difference between them was that the Red Terror was organized and consciously directed against class-hostile elements, while the White Terror was more spontaneous, spontaneous: it was dominated by motives of revenge, suspicions of disloyalty and hostility. As a result, arbitrariness was established in the white-controlled territories, anarchy and permissiveness of those who had power and weapons triumphed. All this had a negative impact on morale and reduced the combat effectiveness of the army.
The attitude of the population towards whites was negatively influenced by their connections with the allies. Without their help, it was impossible to establish powerful armed resistance to the Reds. But the frank desire of the French, British, Americans, Japanese to take possession of Russian property, using the weakness of the state; The large-scale export of food and raw materials caused discontent among the population. The Whites found themselves in an ambiguous position: in the struggle for the liberation of Russia from the Bolsheviks, they received the support of those who viewed the territory of our country as an object of economic expansion. This also worked for the Soviet government, which objectively acted as a patriotic force.

The green movement is a social movement whose primary interest is related to environmental problems. It has wide support and is busy polluting environment, wildlife conservation, traditional countryside, and shaping development control. In addition, it is a strong political wing, which was a powerful lobby during the 1980s. The Green Party was the most prominent in West Germany and Holland, in the late 80s. with the renaming of the Ecology Party, it became noticeable in the UK. However, many supporters of the movement support practical problems rather than traditionally political ones, in which both consumers and nature lovers can participate. Perelet R. A. Global aspects of international environmental cooperation // Nature conservation and reproduction natural resources. T. 24. M., 2005. - P.98

The term "green" has been appropriated by politicians and marketers, and is even used as a verb, as in "this party or its candidate has gone green." Typically, such green parties do not support Green parties in all aspects, but are movements or factions of existing or newly organized political parties (an example of a green party in Russia is Yabloko).

Green parties are part of, but not necessarily representatives of, a larger political movement (commonly called the Green Movement) for reforms of human governance that would fit better within the constraints of the biosphere to be designated separately from electoral parties.

In some countries, especially France and the USA, there have been or are currently several parties with different platforms calling themselves Greens. In Russia, the first officially registered “green party” appeared in Leningrad in April 1990. To date, not a single green party in Russia has undergone re-registration. There were also no new green parties registered. Many people also confuse the Green Parties with Greenpeace, the global non-governmental organization, very prominent in the environmental movement, which, like Green political movement, was founded in the 1970s and shares some green goals and values, but works by other methods and is not organized into a political party.

A distinction is often made between "green parties" (usually capitalized) in in a general sense, emphasizing environmentalism, and specially designed political parties, called "Green parties" (with capital letters), which grow out of principles called the Four Pillars and a consensus-building process built on these principles. The main difference between the Green Party and the Green Party is that the former, in addition to environmentalism, also emphasizes goals social justice and world peace.

Organized Green parties themselves may sometimes disagree with the division into “green” and “Green” parties, since many greens argue that without peace, respect for nature is impossible, and achieving peace without prosperous ecoregions is unrealistic, thus seeing “green” principles as part of a new coherent system of political values.

The “four pillars” or “four principles” of the Green parties are: Perelet R. A. Global aspects of international environmental cooperation // Nature conservation and reproduction of natural resources. T. 24. M., 2005. - P.99

Ecology - environmental sustainability

· Justice - social responsibility

· Democracy - appropriate decision-making process

· Peace - non-violence

In March 1972, the very first green party in the world (the United Tasmanian Group) was formed at a public meeting in Hobart (Australia). Around the same time, on the Atlantic coast of Canada, the "Little Party" was formed with much the same goals. In May 1972, a meeting at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, created the Values ​​Party, the world's first national green party. The term "green" (German grün) was first coined by the German Greens when they took part in the first national elections in 1980. The values ​​of these early movements were gradually cemented into the form that they are shared by all of today's Green Parties around the world.

As Green parties gradually grew from the grassroots level, from neighborhood to municipal and then (eco)regional and national levels, and were often driven by consensus-driven decision-making, strong local coalitions became an essential precondition for electoral victories. Typically, growth was driven by a single issue, on which the Greens could bridge the gap between politics and the concerns of ordinary people.

The first such breakthrough was the German Green Party, known for its opposition nuclear energy, as an expression of the anti-centralist and pacifist values ​​traditional for the Greens. They were founded in 1980 and, after serving in coalition governments at state level for several years, entered the federal government together with the Social Democratic Party of Germany in the so-called Red-Green Alliance from 1998. In 2001, they reached an agreement to phase out nuclear power in Germany and agreed to remain in the coalition and support the German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on the war in Afghanistan in 2001. This complicated their relations with Greens around the world, but demonstrated that they were capable of complex political deals and concessions.

Other Green parties that have been part of governments at the national level include the Finnish Green Party, Agalev (now "Groen!") and Ecolo in Belgium, and the French Green Party.

Green parties participate in the electoral process defined by law and try to influence the development and implementation of laws in each country in which they are organized. Accordingly, Green parties do not call for an end to all laws or laws whose enforcement involves (or potentially involves) violence, although they do favor peaceful approaches to law enforcement, including de-escalation and harm reduction.

Green parties are often confused with "left-wing" political parties that call for centralized capital controls, but they generally advocate a clear separation between the public domain (land and water) and private enterprise, with little cooperation between both - - it is assumed that higher prices for energy and materials create efficient and environmentally friendly markets. Green parties rarely support subsidies for corporations -- sometimes with the exception of grants for research into more efficient or greener industrial technologies.

Many "right-wing" Greens follow more geo-libertarian views, which emphasize natural capitalism -- and shifting taxes from value created by labor or services to people's consumption of the wealth created by the natural world. Thus, Greens can view the processes in which living things compete for mating partners, housing, food, and view ecology, cognitive science, and political science in very different ways. These differences tend to lead to debates over issues of ethics, policy making, and public opinion over these differences during party leadership competitions. So there is no single Green ethic.

The values ​​of indigenous peoples (or "First Nations") and, to a lesser extent, the ethics of Mohandas Gandhi, Spinoza and Crick, as well as the growth of environmental consciousness, have had a very strong influence on the Greens - most obvious in their advocacy of long-term (“seven-generation”) planning and foresight and in the personal responsibility of each individual for one or another moral choice. These ideas were compiled in the "Ten Core Values" prepared by the US Green Party, which included a reformulation of the "Four Pillars" used by the European Greens. At the global level, the Global Green Charter proposes six key principles. Pisarev V. D. Greening international relations// USA - economics, politics, ideology. 2006. - P. 34

Critics sometimes argue that the universal and all-encompassing nature of ecology, and the need to use it to some extent for the benefit of humanity, pushes the movement within the Green Party program towards authoritarian and coercive policies, particularly in relation to the means of production, since they are the ones that support human life. These critics often see the Green agenda as merely a form of socialism or fascism - although many Greens refute these claims as referring more to Gaia theorists or non-parliamentary groups within the Green movement that are less committed to democracy.

Others criticize that the Green parties have the greatest support among well-educated citizens developed countries, while their policies may appear to be against the interests of the poor in rich countries and around the world. For example, the Greens' strong support for indirect taxation of goods that are associated with environmental pollution inevitably results in the poorer sections of the population shouldering a larger share of the tax burden. Globally, the Greens' opposition to heavy industry is seen by critics as against rapidly industrializing poor countries such as China or Thailand. The Greens' involvement in the anti-globalization movement and the leading role of Green parties (in countries such as the US) in opposition to free trade agreements also lead critics to argue that the Greens are against opening rich country markets to goods from developing countries, although many Greens claim that they act in the name of fair trade.

Finally, critics argue that the Greens have a Luddite view of technology, that they are opposed to technologies such as genetic engineering (which critics themselves view as in a positive way). Greens often take the lead in raising issues public health, such as overweight what critics view as modern form moral alarmism. And while the technophobic view can be traced back to the early Green movement and Green parties, the Greens today reject Luddist arguments with their policies of sustainable growth and the promotion of "clean" technological innovations such as solar energy and pollution control technologies.

Green platforms draw their terminology from the science of ecology, and their political ideas from feminism, left liberalism, libertarian socialism, social democracy ( social ecology) and sometimes some others.

Proposals to reduce fossil fuel prices and not genetically label are extremely rare for the Green platform. modified organisms, liberalize taxes, trade and tariffs to eliminate protections for ecoregions or human communities.

Some issues affect most green parties around the world and can often facilitate global cooperation between them. Some of them affect the structure of parties, some - their politics: French H. Global Partnership to Save the Earth // USA - economics, politics, ideology. 2006. - P.71

· Fundamentalism versus realism

Ecoregional democracy

· Electoral reform

· Land reform

· Safe trading

· Native peoples

· Extermination of primates

· Destruction of rain forests

Biosafety

· Healthcare

· Natural capitalism

On issues of ecology, species extirpation, biosecurity, safe trade and public health, Greens generally agree to a certain extent (often expressed in joint agreements or declarations), usually based on (scientific) consensus, using a consensus process.

There are very distinct differences between and within Green parties in every country and culture, and there is ongoing debate about the balance of interests natural ecology and individual human needs.

Anton Posadsky.

Green movement in the Russian Civil War. Peasant front between Red and White. 1918-1922

Latest research on Russian history

The series “Newest Research on the History of Russia” was founded in 2016.

Design by artist E.Yu. Shurlapova

The work was carried out with financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 16-41-93579)

Introduction 1
The monograph was prepared with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Fund, project No. 16–41 -93579. The author expresses gratitude to F.A. Gushchin (Moscow) for the opportunity to familiarize himself with a number of memoir materials.

Revolution and internecine warfare are always very flowery, in every sense of the word. Vivid vocabulary, aggressive jargon, expressive names and self-designations, a real feast of slogans, banners, speeches and banners. Suffice it to recall the names of the units, for example in the American Civil War. The southerners had “Lincoln assassins”, all kinds of “bulldogs”, “thresherers”, “yellow jackets” and so on, the northerners had a grandiosely sinister anaconda plan. The civil war in Russia could not have become an exception, especially since in a country that was just approaching universal schooling. visual perception and markings meant a lot. No wonder the romantics of the world revolution expected so much from cinema. Incredibly expressive and everyone clear language found! Sound once again killed the aggressive revolutionary dream: films began to speak in different languages, dialogue replaced the irresistible power of a living poster.

Already in the revolutionary months of 1917, the banners of shock units and death units provided such expressive material that an interesting candidate’s dissertation was successfully defended on them 1 . It happened that a unit with the most modest actual combat strength had a bright banner.

The autumn of 1917 finally determined the names of the main characters - Reds and Whites. The Red Guard, and soon the army, were opposed by the Whites - the White Guards. The name “White Guard” itself is believed to have been adopted by one of the detachments in the Moscow battles of late October - early November. Although the logic of the development of the revolution suggested an answer even without this initiative. Red has long been the color of rebellion, revolution, and barricades. White is the color of order, legality, purity. Although the history of revolutions also knows other combinations. In France, whites and blues fought, under this name one of A. Dumas’s novels from his revolutionary series was published. The blue demi-brigades became the symbol of the victorious young revolutionary French army.

Along with the “main” colors, other colors were woven into the picture of the unfolding Civil War in Russia. Anarchist detachments called themselves the Black Guard. Thousands of Black Guards fought in the southern direction in 1918, very wary of their Red comrades.

Until the battles of the early 1930s, the self-name of the rebels “black partisans” appeared. In the Orenburg region, even the Blue Army is known among many rebel anti-Bolshevik formations. “Colored,” almost officially, will be the name given to the most united and combat-ready white units in the South - the famous Kornilovites, Alekseevites, Markovites and Drozdovites. They got their name from the color of their shoulder straps.

Color markings were also actively used in propaganda. In the leaflet of the headquarters of the recreated North Caucasus Military District in the spring of 1920, “yellow bandits are the sons of offended kulaks, Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, dads, Makhnovists, Maslaks, Antonovites and other comrades-in-arms and hangers-on of the bourgeois counter-revolution”, “black” bandits, “white”, “brown” 2.

However, the most famous third color in the Civil War remained green. The Greens became a significant force at some stages of the Civil War. Depending on the inclination of specific green formations to support one or another “official” side, white-green or red-green ones appeared. Although these designations could only record a temporary, momentary tactical line or behavior dictated by circumstances, and not a clear political position.

A civil war in a large country invariably creates certain main subjects of confrontation and a significant number of intermediate or peripheral forces. For example, the American Civil War pulled into its orbit Indian population, Indian formations appeared both on the side of the northerners and on the side of the southerners; there were states that remained neutral. Many colors emerged in civil wars, for example, in multinational Spain in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Russian Civil War, the main subjects of the confrontation crystallized quite quickly. However, within the white and red camps there were often very serious contradictions, not so much of a political nature, but at the level of political emotions. The Red partisans did not tolerate commissars, the White Cossacks did not trust the officers, etc. In addition, new ones were structured on the national outskirts with greater or less success state entities, who sought first of all to acquire their own armed force. All this made the overall picture of the struggle extremely varied and dynamically changing. Finally, active minorities always fight; they rally the broader masses of their fellow citizens behind them. In peasant Russia (and a landslide re-peasantization in 1917–1920 due to land redistribution and rapid deindustrialization) Russia, the main character in any prolonged struggle was the peasant. Therefore the peasant in the armies warring parties, in rebels, in deserters - in any conditions created by a large-scale internal war - its mass character alone showed a very significant value. The Greens became one of the forms of peasant participation in the events of the Civil War.

The Greens had obvious predecessors. The peasant always suffers from war, and is often drawn into it out of necessity, either while serving the state or defending his home. If we decide to draw close analogies, we can remember how the military successes of the French during the Hundred Years' War in the 1360s – 1370s. and in the era of Joan of Arc, successes and innovations in the military art of the Dutch Guezes in late XVI century with their “transfer” through the Swedes to the Russian militias of the Time of Troubles, led by M. Skopin-Shuisky. However, the era of the New Age has already separated the combat capabilities of the regular army and any improvised rebel formations too far. Probably, this situation was most clearly demonstrated by the epic of the klobmen - “bludgeoners” - during the civil wars in England in the 17th century.

Royalist cavaliers fought the parliamentary armies. The fight was with with varying success. However, any internal war primarily affects the non-combatants. The intemperate armies of both sides placed a heavy burden on the peasant population. In response, the bludgeoners rose. The movement was not widespread. It was localized in several counties. IN Russian literature The most detailed presentation of this epic remains the long-standing work of Professor S.I. Arkhangelsky.

The activity of clobmen is one of the stages of development peasant movement in England during the civil wars of the 17th century. The peak of development of this self-defense movement occurred in the spring - autumn of 1645, although evidence of local armed formations is known almost from the beginning of hostilities, as well as later, beyond 1645.

The relationship between the armed men and the main active forces civil strife - gentlemen and supporters of parliament. Let us highlight some subjects that are interesting for our topic.

The Klobmen are mainly rural people who organized to resist looting and force peace between the warring parties.

The Clobmans had their own territory - these were primarily the counties of South-West England and Wales. These territories mainly stood for the king. At the same time, the movement spread beyond the core territory, covering, at its peak, more than a quarter of the territory of England. The Klobmen seemed to “not notice” the Civil War, expressing their readiness to feed any garrisons so that they would not commit outrages, expressing in petitions reverence for royal power and respect for parliament. At the same time, the outrages of the troops caused a rebuff, and sometimes quite effective. Ordinary klobmen were mainly rural residents, although their leadership included nobles, priests, and a significant number of townspeople. There were in different counties different moods and motivation to participate in the Klobmen movement. This is due to differences in socio-economic status. Everyone suffered from the war, but patriarchal Wales and the economically developed, wool-rich English counties paint a different picture.

In 1645 there were about 50 thousand people. This number exceeded the royal armed forces - about 40 thousand, and was slightly inferior to the parliamentary ones (60-70 thousand).

It is interesting that both the king and parliament tried to attract the klobmen to their side. First of all, promises were made to curb the predatory tendencies of the troops. At the same time, both sides sought to destroy the Klobmen organization. Both the cavalier Lord Goring and the parliamentary commander Fairfax equally prohibited Klobman meetings. Apparently, the understanding that the clobbers, in further development, capable of growing into some kind of third force, existed both on the side of the king and on the side of parliament, and caused opposition. Both needed a resource, not an ally with their own interests.

It is believed that by the end of 1645 the Klobmen movement was largely eliminated by the efforts of parliamentary troops under the command of Fairfax. At the same time, organizations of many thousands, even relatively weakly structured ones, could not disappear overnight. Indeed, already in the spring of 1649, at a new stage of the mass movement, a case was recorded of the arrival of an impressive detachment of clobmen from Somerset County to the aid of the Levellers 3 .

Despite the riskiness of analogies after three centuries, let us note the plots themselves, which are similar in the civil wars in England and Russia. Firstly, the grassroots mass movement is inclined to a certain independence, although it is quite ready to listen to both “main” sides of the struggle. Secondly, it is geographically localized, although it tends to expand into neighboring territories. Thirdly, local interests prevail in the motives, primarily the tasks of self-defense from ruin and atrocities. Fourthly, it is the real or potential independence of the rebel movement that causes concern to the main active forces of the civil war and the desire to eliminate it or integrate it into their armed structures.

Finally, the Russian Civil War unfolded when a large civil strife with active peasant participation was burning out on another continent - in Mexico. A comparative study of the civil war in America and Russia has obvious scientific prospects. In fact, the activities of the peasant armies of Zapata and Villa provide rich and picturesque material for the study of the rebellious peasantry. However, what is more important for us is that this analogy was already visible to contemporaries. The famous publicist V. Vetlugin wrote about “Mexican Ukraine” in the white press in 1919; the image of Mexico also appears in his book of essays “Adventurers of the Civil War,” published in 1921. The steppe daredevils who mercilessly plundered railroads in the South are quite naturally evoked such associations. True, I visited relatively little in the “green” areas of “Mexico”; this is more a property of the steppe ataman region.

To designate the insurrection and anti-Bolshevik insurgent struggle in the RSFSR, already in 1919, the term “political banditry” appeared, firmly and for a long time included in historiography. At the same time, the main subject of this banditry was the kulaks. This evaluative standard also applied to situations of other civil wars, as a result of which the communists came to power. Thus, a book on the history of China published in 1951 in the USSR reported that in the PRC in 1949 there were still a million “Kuomintang bandits.” But by the first anniversary of the republic, the number of “bandits” had decreased to 200 thousand 4. During the perestroika years, this plot caused controversy: “rebels” or “bandits”? The inclination towards one designation or another determined the research and civic position of the writer.

The “big” civil war did not attract as much attention from analysts of the Russian diaspora as the initial volunteer period. This is clearly seen in the famous works of N.N. Golovin and A.A. Zaitsova. Accordingly, the green movement was not the focus of attention. It is significant that the late Soviet book about the red partisans does not deal at all with the green movement, even the red-green one. At the same time, for example, in the Belarusian provinces the largest possible number, hardly corresponding to reality, of communist partisans is shown 5. In a recent fundamental attempt to present a non-communist view of Russian history 6 the green movement is also not specifically highlighted.

The green movement is sometimes interpreted as broadly as possible, as any armed struggle within the Civil War outside the boundaries of white, red and national formations. So, A.A. Shtyrbul writes about “a broad and numerous, albeit scattered, all-Russian partisan-insurgent movement of the greens.” He draws attention to the fact that anarchists played a significant role in this movement, and also to the fact that for most representatives of this environment, whites were “more unacceptable” than reds. An example is given by N. Makhno 7 . R.V. Daniele attempted to provide a comparative analysis of civil wars and their dynamics. In his opinion, the Russian revolutionary peasantry, alienated by the surplus appropriation policy, “has become free in many parts of the country.” political force", speaking out against the whites and against the reds, and this situation was most dramatically manifested in the "green movement of Nestor Makhno in Ukraine" 8. M.A. Drobov examines the military aspects of partisanship and small war. He examines in detail the Red insurgency of the Civil War. For him, the Greens are, first of all, an anti-White force. “Among the “greens” it is necessary to distinguish between gangs of bandits, self-dealers, different types criminal punks who had nothing to do with the insurrection, and groups of poor peasants and workers scattered by whites and interventionists. It was these last elements... having no connections either with the Red Army or with the party organization, who independently organized detachments with the aim of harming the whites at every opportunity” 9. M. Frenkin writes about green operations in Syzran and other counties Simbirsk province, in a number of districts of Nizhny Novgorod and Smolensk, in Kazan and Ryazan provinces, clusters of greenery in Belarus with its vast forest and swampy areas 10. At the same time, the name “green” is uncharacteristic for, for example, the Kazan or Simbirsk regions. An expanded understanding of the green movement is also inherent in historical journalism 11 .

T.V. played a major role in the study of peasant participation in the Civil War. Osipova. She was one of the first to raise the topic of the subjectivity of the peasantry in the internecine war 12. Subsequent works by this author 13 developed a picture of peasant participation in the revolutionary and military events of 1917–1920. T.V. Osipova focused on the fact that in Western literature the protest movement of the Great Russian peasantry was not noticed, but it existed and was massive.

M. Frenkin’s well-known essay on peasant uprisings naturally also concerns the topic of greens. He quite correctly assesses the green movement as a specific form of peasant struggle that appeared in 1919, that is, as a kind of innovation in the peasant struggle with the authorities. With this movement he associates active work peasants for the destruction of Soviet farms during Mamontov's raid 14. M. Frenkin is right from the point of view of the general logic of the peasant struggle. At the same time, one should be careful in accepting his value judgments about the unchanged multi-thousandth greens. Sometimes, in this matter, conscious distortions gave rise to a whole tradition of incorrect perception. So, E.G. Renev showed that Colonel Fedichkin’s memoirs about the Izhevsk-Botkin uprising, published abroad, were subjected to serious editing by the editors of the publication with deliberate distortion of the content. As a result, instead of peasant detachments of one hundred people who supported the workers' uprising in the Vyatka province, detachments of ten thousand people appeared in the publication 15. M. Bernshtam, in his work, proceeded from the published version and counted the active fighters on the side of the rebels, reaching a quarter of a million people 16. On the other hand, a small active detachment could operate successfully with the total support and solidarity of the local population, sometimes from a fairly impressive area. Therefore, when calculating rebel, weakly armed and weakly organized (in the military sense of the word) forces, it may be appropriate to estimate not only the number of combatants, but also total number population involved in an uprising or other protest movement.

In 2002, two dissertations were defended on the military-political activity of the peasantry in the Civil War, specifically addressing the issues of the green movement. These are the works of V.L. Telitsyn and P.A. Pharmacist 17. Each of them contains a separate story dedicated to the “Zelenovism” of 1919. 18 The authors published these stories 19 . P. Aptekar gives a general outline of the green uprisings, V. Telitsyn actively used Tver material.

The green movement has been actively studied in the regions over the past two and a half decades. Some stories are well developed using local funds from Soviet institutions and archival and investigative files. S. Khlamov explores the history of the most organized Vladimir greens operating in Yuryevsky (Yuryev-Polsky) district. S.V. Zavyalova studies Kostroma greenism in Varnavinsky and Vetluzhsky districts, including the Urensky region, how component insurrection in these parts, which began in the summer of 1918. 20 A.Yu. Danilov offers a detailed picture of the performances of the Yaroslavl greens, primarily in Danilovsky and Lyubimsky, as well as Poshekhonsky districts 21. IN Yaroslavl region The activities of the law enforcement and punitive system are being actively and successfully studied, including in the early Soviet period 22 . Departmental historiography puts important questions, for example, about the motives for cruelty in suppressing the green movement. M. Lapshina clarified in detail a number of plots of the Kostroma greenism 23. Based on the Tver performances of both 1918 and 1919. V last years K.I. works productively Sokolov 24. The largest green uprising in Spas-Yesenovichi prompted a detailed reconstructive analysis by Vyshnevolotsk local historian E.I. Stupkina 25. Ryazan authors formed a fairly detailed picture of the so-called Goltsovshchina - the struggle of an active rebel group in the Riga district. It was led by successively different people, the most famous figure of them being Ogoltsov, who in fact raised a fairly massive green movement in several volosts, and the most interesting was S. Nikushin. G.K. is actively working on this topic. Goltseva 26. S.V. Yarov proposed a typology of the uprisings of 1918–1919. based on materials from the North-West of Russia 27. In 1919, the young researcher M.V. was actively working in the Pskov region. Vasiliev 28. The Prikhoper Zelenism is being studied by Balashov researcher A.O. Bulgakov, conducting, in particular, field research 29, a voluminous study on this region was published by the author this book 30 . Nordic material V.A. worked in a significant number of works. Sablin, T.I. Troshina, M.V. Taskaev and other researchers 31. Kaluga local historian K.M. Afanasyev built a documentary chronicle of provincial life during the years of war communism, touching, naturally, on the topic of desertion and its attendant issues 32 . A significant amount of material on the rebel movement, including the green movement, during the Civil War has been published in a series of collections edited by us 33 .

At the same time, some subjects remain in the shadows due to the lack of professional research “hands”.

Thus, Zhigalovism has been little studied - major movement, raised in 1918 in Porechensky (in Soviet Demidovsky) district of Smolensk province, which had a long history. At the origins of the insurrectionary movement were the three Zhigalov (Zhegalov) brothers. The active green movement in the Novgorod province remains in the shadows.

The green movement is best known as a more or less reflected position of the “third force” in the Black Sea province. There are Soviet memoirs on this plot, and there are many mentions in the memoirs of the white side. The epic, which is rare for rebel stories, was described by one of the initiators of the case, guards officer Voronovich, who published a book of documents on the topic 34. In modern historiography, we should highlight a comprehensive study conducted by Sochi researcher A.A. Cherkasov 35, and the work of N.D. Karpova 36.

Belarusian atamans of national orientation have their share of attention in Belarusian historiography; first of all, the names of N. Stuzhinskaya and V. Lyakhovsky should be mentioned.

The study of the green movement cannot be named among the priority topics of Western historiography of the Russian Civil War. However there is interesting job, directly dedicated to this plot. This is an article by E. Landis 37, author of the English-language monograph “Bandits and Partisans,” dedicated to the Tambov uprising of 1920–1921. Landis argues using the concept of “collective identity” and correctly connects the green movement with mobilizations and defections. He correctly points out that the green army is a collective name.

In addition to the “reds” and “whites,” the “greens” also took part in the Civil War in Russia. Historians have mixed opinions regarding this category of those who fought; some consider them bandits, while others speak of them as defenders of their lands and freedom.

According to historian Ruslan Gagkuev, the Civil War in Russia led to the destruction of the foundations that had developed over centuries, as a result of which there were no vanquished in those battles, only those destroyed. Village residents tried to protect their lands as much as possible. This was the reason for the appearance in 1917 of rebel groups called “greens”.

These groups of people formed armed groups and hid in the forests, trying to avoid mobilization.

There is another version of the origin of the name of these units. According to General A. Denikin, these rebel detachments got their name from Zeleny, one of the atamans from the Poltava province, who fought both the whites and the reds.

Members of the green detachments did not wear uniforms; their clothing consisted of ordinary peasant shirts and trousers, and on their heads they wore woolen caps or sheepskin hats with a cross made of green fabric sewn on them. Their flag was also green.

It should be noted that the rural population had good fighting skills even before the war and were always ready to fend for themselves with pitchforks and axes. Even before the revolution, articles appeared in newspapers every now and then about clashes breaking out everywhere between villages.
When the First World War ended a large number rural residents Those who took part in hostilities took rifles with them from the front, and some even machine guns. It was dangerous for strangers to enter such villages.

Even army troops had to request permission from village elders to pass through such settlements. The elders' decisions were not always positive. In 1919, the influence of the Red Army became stronger, and many peasants hid in the forests, hiding from mobilization.

One of the most famous representatives“Greens” was Nestor Makhno, who made a unique career from a political prisoner to the commander of a Green army, which consisted of 55 thousand people. Makhno fought on the side of the Red Army, and for the capture of Mariupol he received the Order of the Red Banner.

However, the main activity of the greens from Nestor Makhno’s detachment was robberies of wealthy people and landowners. At the same time, the Makhnovists often killed prisoners.

In the early years of the Civil War, the Greens remained neutral, then fought on the side of the Red Army, but after 1920 they began to oppose everyone.

Another one of prominent representatives The Green Army was A. Antonov, who was also a member of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, known as the leader of the Tambov Uprising of 1921-22. All members of his squad were “comrades,” and they carried out their activities under the slogan “For Justice.” At the same time, not all participants in the green movement were confident of their victory, which can be confirmed in the rebel songs.