One of the most massive socio-political movements in the modern world, uniting in its ranks various socio-political groups and organizations that oppose environmental pollution, the harmful consequences of nuclear, chemical, biological and other types of industrial production, for the creation of a democratic society, for reduction of military budgets, the size of armies, for the easing of international tension. The movement began with small groups performing in Western Europe in the 60s. on specific environmental issues. In the 70-80s. Green parties were created and began to actively operate in almost all Western European countries, including Austria, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, as well as Canada, Japan, and New Zealand.

Green policy positions include a wide range of issues. These include requirements for the protection of nature and the human environment in the conditions of a modern industrial society; social provisions criticizing capitalist ownership of the means of production, proposing the elimination of large economic structures and the development of small and medium-sized production; measures for full employment and participation of workers in the management of plants and factories; calls for democratization of the state, the establishment of various forms of direct democracy, primarily in the form of various “civil initiatives”; demands for the protection of peace, the establishment of the principles of peaceful coexistence, the complete destruction of atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, the renunciation of the use of space for military purposes, the dissolution of military blocs, and the free development of all peoples. The “green” movement objectively reflects the growing desire for change and the search for an alternative among broad sections of the population.

The movement in different countries has its own characteristics. Thus, the program of the Environmental Party (Sweden) is based on four principles of solidarity. The first is solidarity with nature. You can’t take more from her than she can later restore. It is necessary to fight for the creation of environmentally friendly production. The second principle is solidarity with future generations: we must leave the Earth to our children and grandchildren in such a state that they can live no worse than we do. The third principle is solidarity with third world countries, providing them with the necessary support in the fight against hunger, infectious and other diseases, etc. The fourth principle is providing assistance to those who are in difficulty, who are in poverty, the formation of strong social programs, the fight against bureaucratization and centralization authorities.

What tactics do the “greens” propose? It is based on a number of general provisions based on the principle of non-violence. To achieve the goals of the “greens,” neither revolution nor reform are suitable. So what then? “Replacement, gradual displacement,” answer the leaders of this movement. At the same time, a “double strategy” must be implemented - to act not only within parliament and other government bodies, but first and foremost - outside them.

According to the “greens,” it is necessary to expand the “front of refusal” of the population from products and industries that are especially dangerous to human health and the environment, destroying valuable raw materials, to work to disseminate alternative projects, using all the capabilities of the “green” party to support them.

The Greens point to the need for industrial and trade union struggle among workers. They believe that such a struggle should be aimed primarily at reducing working hours, creating humane working conditions and possible changes in income policy. Moreover, parliamentary activity must be coordinated and agreed with the “basic movements,” that is, with the actions of the masses. Demonstrations, sit-ins, pickets, distribution of leaflets, theatrical events with political overtones, including concerts of rock bands - all this is taken into account by the “greens”. The combination of various forms of struggle indicates their flexible adaptability to a wide variety of conditions.

Recently, the “blue” ones have emerged from the “green” movement. If the former are primarily concerned with saving nature, then the latter are concerned with saving human spirituality. The main activities of the Blue Movement are the practical solution of humanitarian, educational, spiritual, educational and initiative-organizational tasks. The movement originated in Russia, but is addressed to all people of the Earth, since the entire civilization is experiencing a spiritual crisis. In Russia, the “blues” are represented by the public organization “For Human Social Ecology.” As part of its programs, youth clubs “Blue Bird” are created, where boys and girls become familiar with beauty, learn the history and traditions of their peoples, new, humanitarian entrepreneurship is developed - a type of business that combines commercial interest and attention to man and nature, clubs are formed The Blue Movement - humanitarian protection of people, the all-Union program "Lyceum" is being implemented, the English Club in Moscow is being revived, etc. In 1990, the Blue Confederation was created - an alliance of forces concerned with the spiritual and moral situation of man. It includes more than a hundred different cultural, educational, educational, scientific, and business organizations that are ready to jointly solve specific problems of humanitarian human protection.

The social base of the “green” movement consists of youth, intellectuals, various layers of workers and entrepreneurs, progressive army circles, and religious figures. It acquired its greatest scope in Germany, where in January 1980 it formed the Green Party, which has authority in wide circles of the public. In the parliamentary elections of 1987, the Green Party received more than 3 million votes, its faction in the Bundestag (Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany) has 42 deputies. In 1984, representatives of parties from 9 countries created the “Green Coordination Committee in Europe.” Considering parliamentary activities to complement the mass democratic movement, the “greens” entered the parliaments of Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Switzerland. In 1989, 24 representatives of various European environmental parties formed a joint faction in the European Parliament to pursue a common policy. In the 1989 European Parliament elections, the Greens won 38 seats.

Young people are actively involved in the “green” movement. She is attracted to the progressive anti-war and environmental programs of this movement, calls for the creation of a society without exploitation and violence. Young people are also attracted by the focus of a number of “green” parties and organizations on specific positive causes, the denial of the traditional orientation of bourgeois society towards the well-known triad “work - career - consumption”, orientation towards such values ​​as mutual assistance, rejection of consumerism, promotion of spiritual values ​​(less money , less stress, more humanity, more time for self-education), the search for harmony between nature and man, support for the disadvantaged. Young people are of some interest in the concept of living in harmony with nature in small, environmentally friendly agricultural communities put forward by some “green” ideologists, which exist without causing damage to flora and fauna, switching to renewable energy sources, and taking care of the natural renewal of biological resources.

Among the “greens” there are supporters of the so-called ecological socialism, which is understood as a kind of democratic decentralized society with extremely limited resource consumption, waste-free technology, consisting of rural communes, environmentally friendly cities. From a social point of view, this is a utopian society, but there are rational grains in the idea of ​​“ecological socialism”. This is a protest against environmental pollution as a result of the unreasonable development of science and technology, calls for the creation of democratic, environmentally friendly societies.

The “green” movement is gaining momentum in the CIS and Eastern European countries. Thus, the Ecological Union and the Ecological Fund have been created in Russia, and there are numerous societies actively fighting to solve pressing environmental problems. The speeches against the construction of the Volga-Don-2 and Volga-Chogray canals became very famous, since the implementation of these plans could lead to the destruction of the Caspian Sea; for the ecological safety of Lake Baikal, the Aral Sea, a ban on the construction of nuclear power plants in resort areas (Crimea), in areas where earthquakes and soil movements are possible. In fact, the movement to provide assistance in eliminating the consequences of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has become nationwide. Thanks to a daily telethon held on April 26, 1990, on the fourth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, voluntary donations were collected to eliminate its consequences in the amount of more than 50 million rubles. Almost every state has its own environmental movements. In the future, it is possible that some environmental movements will transform into political parties. The number of joint actions of “green” countries from different countries is increasing. These include events such as “Caravan without Coasts”, telethons, international peace marches, etc.

The international environmental organization Greenpeace (Green World) has gained worldwide fame. Today it has more than 30 chapters in 18 countries, 2 million active members and many millions of supporters. Greenpeace's headquarters are located in Amsterdam. Greenpeace deals with the following issues: ocean ecology, the state of the atmosphere and energy, toxic chemicals, and disarmament. Representatives of this organization have electronic and satellite communications, which gives them the ability to quickly respond to cases of environmental disasters or disasters. Greenpeace's contribution to the development of the anti-nuclear movement in the Pacific region and to the formation of modern environmental thinking is widely known.

Youth from many countries around the world support this progressive organization. A number of famous musicians and composers speak out in her defense and promote her ideas. On the initiative of Greenpeace, an album of records was prepared on an international basis: in Eastern Europe it was released under the name “Breakthrough”, and in the West - “Rainbow Warriors”. The album helped promote the ideas of this organization in those regions of the world where there are no branches yet.

Broad circles of the international community are increasingly aware of the need to unite the efforts of all people of good will in defense of the existence of civilization. This requires cooperation on a global scale: both at the interstate level and at the level of mass movements in the struggle to preserve peace, life, and nature on our planet. Young people, who make up more than half of the world's population, have a special role to play in this movement.

• Whites in the Civil War

• Reds in the Civil War

• Greens in the Civil War

• Reasons for the victories and defeats of the main participants in the war

Whites in the Civil War

The goal of the White movement was proclaimed - after the liquidation of Soviet power, the end of the civil war and the advent of peace and stability in the country - to determine the future political structure and form of government of Russia through the convening of the National Constituent Assembly. During the Civil War, the White governments set themselves the task of overthrowing Soviet power and establishing a military dictatorship in the held territories. At the same time, the legislation in force in the Russian Empire before the revolution was reintroduced, adjusted to take into account the legislative norms of the Provisional Government acceptable to the White movement and the laws of the new “state formations” on the territory of the former Empire after October 1917.

Political program of the White movement

Organizational structure of the white movement

The four most combat-ready groups:

Documents for the analysis of the position of whites in the Civil War.

A.I. Denikin. From the order to the Special Meeting:

“I order the Special Meeting to adopt the following provisions as the basis for its activities:

United, great, indivisible Russia. Defense of faith. Establishing order...

The fight against Bolshevism to the end.

Military dictatorship... Any opposition - from the right and from the left - is punished. The question of the form of government is a matter for the future. The Russian people will elect the supreme power without pressure and without imposition...

Foreign policy is only nationally Russian... For help - not an inch of Russian land.

Continue the development of agrarian and labor laws...

To improve the health of the front and military rear - the work of specially appointed generals with great powers, the composition of the field court and the use of extreme repression."

Questions for documents:

• Select facts that represent and flesh out the white political agenda. What are its main provisions?

• Draw conclusions about the strength and weakness of the white movement.

• What are the reasons for White's defeat?

Red:

Traits:

1)focused on

leader - Lenin.

2) movement in which

there was a clear structure

management. Movement

had a pronounced

political in nature.

Slogans:

"The proletariats of all

countries - unite!

"War on palaces!"

Creation of the Red Army

On January 28, 1918, a decree was issued on the creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, and on February 11 - the Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet on a voluntary basis. The definition of “worker-peasant” emphasized its class character - the army of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the fact that it should be recruited only from working people of the city and countryside. The "Red Army" said that it was a revolutionary army.

Documents for analyzing the position of the Reds in the Civil War.

• From the RCP Program (b). Adopted by the VIII Party Congress in March 1919:

“October Revolution October 25 (November 7) 1917 in Russia implemented the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, with the support of the poor peasantry or semi-proletariat, began to create the foundations of a communist society... The era of the world proletarian revolution, the communist revolution, began. Only a proletarian, communist revolution can lead humanity out of the dead end created by imperialism and imperialist wars...

IN THE FIELD OF GENERAL POLITICS. The task of the party of the proletariat is to steadily suppress the resistance of the exploiters and ideologically fight against... prejudices about the unconditional nature of bourgeois rights and freedoms, to explain... that the deprivation of political rights and any restrictions on freedom are necessary exclusively as temporary measures to combat attempts by exploiters to defend or restore their privileges.

IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMIC... Maximum unification of all economic activities of the country according to one national plan; the greatest centralization of production in the sense of unifying it into individual industries and groups of industries... The wholesale mobilization of the entire working-age population by Soviet power... should be applied incomparably more widely and systematically than has been done so far...”

Questions for documents:

• Select facts that represent and specify the Reds' political program. What are its main provisions?

• Based on the sources, tell about the struggle of the Reds.

• Draw conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Reds

Green:

“Greens” were peasant rebels who fought against surplus appropriation in territories controlled by the Soviet regime, and against the return of landownership and requisitions in the territories of white governments. The “green” movement was simultaneously a reflection of the mass protest of peasants against violent mobilizations. After the division of the landowners' lands, the peasants wanted class peace, looked for an opportunity to do without a struggle, but were drawn into it by the active actions of the Whites and Reds.

The green movement was not institutionalized. It proceeded quite spontaneously. It became most widespread in the spring and summer of 1919, when the Bolsheviks tightened the food dictatorship, and Kolchak and Denikin restored the old order. Peasants predominated among the rebels, and in the national regions - the Russian-speaking population. Thus, in the spring of 1919, uprisings swept Bryansk, Samara, Simbirsk, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Smolensk, Kostroma, Vyatka, Novgorod, Penza, Tver and other provinces. At the same time, the uprising in Ukraine was led by the former staff captain of the tsarist army N.A. Grigoriev, who fought against the world bourgeoisie, the Directory, the Cadets, the British, the Germans and the French. For some time, Grigoriev and his troops even joined the Red Army (6th Ukrainian Soviet Division), but then opposed the Bolsheviks under the slogan “For the Soviets, but without communists.” The ideas and practices of the greens were especially evident in the Makhnovist movement, which covered a large area of ​​southern Ukraine. It is characteristic that Makhno and other green leaders did not have a clear program. Socialist-Revolutionary-anarchist views prevailed, the movement was not politically organized.

Documents for the analysis of the position of the Greens in the Civil War.

From the resolution of the congress of representatives from 72 volosts of Alexandrovsky, Mariupol, Berdyansky, Bakhmutovsky and Pavlogradsky districts and from front-line units. April 10, 1918, village of Gulyai-Pole, Alexandrovsky district :

“Taking into account... the current situation in Ukraine and Great Russia of the power of the political party “Communist-Bolsheviks”, which does not stop at any measures to persuade and consolidate state power for itself... the congress decided:

• ..We, the gathered peasants, workers and rebels. Once again we ardently protest against such violence... And we are always ready to defend our people's rights....

• Extraordinary commissions, designed to combat real counter-revolution and banditry, turned into a weapon in the hands of the Bolshevik authorities to suppress the will of the working people... We demand that all these perfectly armed real forces be sent to the front...

Questions for documents:

• Based on the sources, determine the demands of the greens, their place in the balance of political forces during the Civil War.

• Why was this party, whose demands are closest to those of the peasantry, unable to lead the “Small Civil War”?

• Draw conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Greens' position.

Reasons for the defeat of the white movement:

• The Whites did not have a long-term program for solving Russia’s pressing problems that was understandable to the population;

• Personal rivalry between leaders who poorly coordinated their actions;

• The Whites were supported by the Entente countries, but these countries did not have a single, coordinated position regarding Soviet Russia.

Reasons for the Reds' victory:

• The Bolsheviks were able to mobilize all resources, demonstrate unity and cohesion, which were supported not only ideologically, but also by force, dictatorial methods.

• The Bolshevik program turned out to be understandable and more attractive; the workers and peasants believed that Soviet power was their power.

• The peasantry, at first its poorest strata, and then the middle peasants, came out on the side of the Red Army; this meant the opportunity to create a massive army, ensure the strength of the Soviet rear and support from the partisan detachments fighting behind white lines.

Civil War- This is a period of acute class clashes within the state between different social groups. In Russia, it began in 1918 and was a consequence of the nationalization of all land, the liquidation of landownership, and the transfer of factories and plants into the hands of the working people. In addition, in October 1917, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established.

In Russia, war was aggravated by military intervention.

The main participants in the war.

In November-December 1917, a Volunteer Army was created on the Don. This is how it was formed white movement. White color symbolized law and order. The tasks of the white movement: the fight against the Bolsheviks and the restoration of a united and indivisible Russia. The volunteer army was led by General Kornilov, and after his death in the battle near Yekaterinodar, General A.I. Denikin took command.

Created in January 1918 Bolshevik Red Army. At first it was built on the principles of voluntariness and on the basis of a class approach - only from workers. But after a series of serious defeats, the Bolsheviks returned to the traditional, “bourgeois” principles of army formation on the basis of universal conscription and unity of command.

The third force was " Greens rebels,” or “green army men” (also “green partisans,” “Green movement,” “third force”) is a general name for irregular, predominantly peasant and Cossack armed formations that opposed foreign invaders, the Bolsheviks and the White Guards. They had national-democratic, anarchist, and also, sometimes, goals close to early Bolshevism. The first demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly, others were supporters of anarchy and free Soviets. In everyday life there were the concepts of “red-green” (more gravitating towards red) and “white-green”. Green and black, or a combination of both, were often used as the colors of the rebel banners. The specific options depended on the political orientation - anarchists, socialists, etc., just a semblance of “self-defense units” without expressed political preferences.

Main stages of the war:

spring - autumn 1918 g. - rebellion of the White Czechs; the first foreign landings in Murmansk and the Far East; the campaign of P. N. Krasnov’s army against Tsaritsyn; the creation by the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks of the Committee of the Constituent Assembly in the Volga region; uprisings of the Social Revolutionaries in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Rybinsk; strengthening of “red” and “white” terror; the creation of the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense in November 1918 (V.I. Lenin) and the Revolutionary Military Council (L.D. Trotsky); proclamation of the republic as a single military camp;

autumn 1918 - spring 1919 d. - increased foreign intervention in connection with the end of the world war; annulment of the terms of the Brest Peace in connection with the revolution in Germany;

spring 1919 - spring 1920 g. - performance of the armies of white generals: campaigns of A.V. Kolchak (spring-summer 1919), A.I. Denikin (summer 1919 - spring 1920), two campaigns of N.N. Yudenich to Petrograd;

April - November 1920 g. - the Soviet-Polish war and the fight against P. N. Wrangel. With the liberation of Crimea by the end of 1920, the main military operations ended.

In 1922 the Far East was liberated. The country began to transition to a peaceful life.

Both the “white” and “red” camps were heterogeneous. Thus, the Bolsheviks defended socialism, some of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were for Soviets without the Bolsheviks. Among the whites there were monarchists and republicans (liberals); anarchists (N.I. Makhno) spoke first on one side and then on the other.

From the very beginning of the Civil War, military conflicts affected almost all national outskirts, and centrifugal tendencies intensified in the country.

The Bolshevik victory in the Civil War was due to:

concentration of all forces (which was facilitated by the policy of “war communism”);

the transformation of the Red Army into a real military force led by a number of talented military leaders (through the use of professional military specialists from among former tsarist officers);

targeted use of all economic resources of the central part of European Russia remaining in their hands;

support for the national outskirts and Russian peasants, deceived by the Bolshevik slogan “Land to the peasants”;

lack of overall command among whites,

support for Soviet Russia from labor movements and communist parties of other countries.

Results and consequences of the Civil War. The Bolsheviks won a military-political victory: the resistance of the White Army was suppressed, Soviet power was established throughout the country, including in most national regions, conditions were created for strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat and the implementation of socialist transformations. The price of this victory was huge human losses (more than 15 million people killed, died of hunger and disease), mass emigration (more than 2.5 million people), economic devastation, the tragedy of entire social groups (officers, Cossacks, intelligentsia, nobility, clergy and etc.), society’s addiction to violence and terror, the rupture of historical and spiritual traditions, the split into reds and whites.

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 been an exception, especially since in a country that was just approaching universal schooling, visual perception and marking meant a lot. No wonder the romantics of the world revolution expected so much from cinema. An incredibly expressive and understandable language has been 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 the Indian population into its orbit, 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 state formations were structured with greater or less success on the national outskirts, striving first of all to acquire their own armed forces. 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 of the warring parties, in the rebels, in the deserters - in any conditions created by a large-scale internal war - was already a very significant figure by its very mass nature. 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 and 1370s grew out of the need for self-defense and the emerging national feeling. and in the era of Joan of Arc, successes and innovations in the military art of the Dutch Geese at the end of the 16th 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 carried out with varying degrees of 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 the clobmen is one of the stages in the development of the 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 of civil strife - the gentlemen and supporters of parliament - is indicative. 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. Different counties had different sentiments and motivations for participating in the Klobman 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 klobmen, in further development, are 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 among 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. The recent seminal attempt to present a non-communist view of Russian history 6 also does not specifically highlight the green movement.

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, “became a free political force in many parts of the country,” opposing the whites and 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 guerrilla warfare 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, various types of 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 the operations of the greens in Syzran and other districts of the Simbirsk province, in a number of districts of Nizhny Novgorod and Smolensk, in the Kazan and Ryazan provinces, clusters of greens 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 the protest movement of the Great Russian peasantry was not noticed in Western literature, 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. He connects with this movement the active work of peasants in destroying 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 insurgent, weakly armed and poorly organized (in the military sense of the word) forces, it may be appropriate to estimate not only the number of fighters, but also the total 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 the Kostroma Zelenism in Varnavinsky and Vetluzhsky districts, including the Urensky region, as an integral part of the uprising in these areas, 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 the 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 raises important questions, for example about the motives for brutality 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. In recent years, K.I. has been working 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, who, in particular, carried out field research 29, a voluminous study on this region was published by the author of this book 30. Northern material was worked on in a significant number of works by V.A. 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, little has been studied about the Zhigalovshchina, a major movement raised in 1918 in the Porechensky (in Soviet Demidovsky) district of the 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 an interesting work directly devoted 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.

Among the variety of terms that we use when talking about the world around us, there is one that was born during the Civil War and has survived to this day, but has received a completely different meaning. This is the green movement. In ancient times, this was the name given to rebel actions by peasants who defended their rights with arms in hand. Today this is the name given to communities of people who defend the rights of the nature around us.

Russian peasantry in the post-revolutionary years

The “green” movement during the Civil War was a mass uprising of peasants directed against the main contenders for seizing power in the country - the Bolsheviks, White Guards and foreign interventionists. As a rule, they saw the governing bodies of the state as free Councils, formed as a result of the independent expression of the will of all citizens and alien to any form of appointment from above.

The "green" movement was of great importance during the war, simply because its main force - peasants - made up the majority of the country's population. The course of the Civil War as a whole often depended on which of the warring parties they would support. All participants in the hostilities understood this very well and tried their best to win over the millions of peasant masses to their side. However, this was not always possible, and then the confrontation took extreme forms.

The negative attitude of the villagers towards both the Bolsheviks and the White Guards

For example, in the central part of Russia, the attitude of peasants towards the Bolsheviks was ambivalent. On the one hand, they supported them after the famous decree on land, which assigned landowners' lands to the peasants; on the other hand, wealthy peasants and most of the middle peasants opposed the food policy of the Bolsheviks and the forced confiscation of agricultural products. This duality was reflected during the Civil War.

The White Guard movement, socially alien to the peasants, also rarely found support among them. Although many villagers served in the ranks, most were recruited by force. This is evidenced by numerous recollections of participants in those events. In addition, the White Guards often forced peasants to perform various economic duties, without compensating for the time and effort expended. This also caused discontent.

Peasant uprisings caused by surplus appropriation

The “green” movement in the Civil War, directed against the Bolsheviks, as already mentioned, was caused mainly by dissatisfaction with the surplus appropriation policy, which doomed thousands of peasant families to starvation. It is no coincidence that the main intensity of passions occurred in 1919-1920, when the forced confiscation of agricultural products took on the widest scale.

Among the most active protests directed against the Bolsheviks are the “green” movement in the Stavropol region, which began in April 1918, and the massive uprising of peasants in the Volga region that followed a year later. According to some reports, up to 180,000 people took part in it. In general, during the first half of 1019, 340 armed uprisings took place, covering more than twenty provinces.

The Social Revolutionaries and their "Third Way" program

During the Civil War, representatives of the Mensheviks tried to use the “green” movement for their political purposes. They developed joint tactics of struggle aimed at two fronts. They declared both the Bolsheviks and A.V. Kolchak and A.I. Denikin as their opponents. This program was called the "Third Way" and was, according to them, a fight against reaction from the left and right. However, the Socialist Revolutionaries, far from the peasant masses, were unable to unite significant forces around themselves.

Peasant Army of Nestor Makhno

The slogan proclaiming the “third way” gained the greatest popularity in Ukraine, where the peasant rebel army under the command of N. I. Makhno fought for a long time. It is noted that its main backbone consisted of wealthy peasants who successfully farmed and traded grain.

They actively became involved in the redistribution of the landowners' land and had high hopes for it. As a result, it was their farms that became the objects of numerous requisitions carried out alternately by the Bolsheviks, White Guards and interventionists. The “green” movement that spontaneously arose in Ukraine was a reaction to such lawlessness.

The special character of Makhno’s army was given by anarchism, adherents of which were both the commander-in-chief himself and the majority of his commanders. In this idea, the most attractive was the theory of “social” revolution, destroying all state power and thus eliminating the main instrument of violence against the individual. The main provisions of Father Makhno’s program were people’s self-government and the rejection of any form of dictatorship.

People's movement under the leadership of A. S. Antonov

An equally powerful and large-scale “green” movement was observed in the Tambov province and the Volga region. After the name of its leader, it was called “Antonovshchina”. In these areas, as early as September 1917, peasants took control of the landowners' lands and began to actively develop them. Accordingly, their standard of living increased, and a favorable prospect opened up ahead. When large-scale food appropriation began in 1919, and the fruits of their labor began to be taken away from people, this caused the most severe reaction and forced the peasants to take up arms. They had something to protect.

The struggle became particularly intense in 1920, when a severe drought occurred in the Tambov region, destroying most of the harvest. Under these difficult conditions, what was nevertheless collected was confiscated in favor of the Red Army and the townspeople. As a result of such actions by the authorities, a popular uprising broke out, covering several counties. About 4,000 armed peasants and more than 10,000 people with pitchforks and scythes took part in it. The leader and inspirer was a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party A.

The defeat of Antonovshchina

He, like other leaders of the “green” movement, put forward clear and simple slogans that every villager could understand. The main one was the call to fight the communists to build a free peasant republic. Credit should be given to his commanding abilities and ability to conduct flexible guerrilla warfare.

As a result, the uprising soon spread to other areas and took on an even larger scale. It took enormous efforts for the Bolshevik government to suppress it in 1921. For this purpose, units withdrawn from the Denikin Front, led by M.N. Tukhachevsky and G.I. Kotovsky, were sent to the Tambov region.

Modern social movement "Greens"

The battles of the Civil War died down, and the events described above became a thing of the past. Much of that era has sunk into oblivion forever, but it’s amazing that the term “Green Movement” has been preserved in our everyday life, although it has acquired a completely different meaning. If at the beginning of the last century this phrase meant a struggle for the interests of those who cultivated the land, today participants in the movement are fighting for the preservation of the very breadwinner, the earth, with all its natural resources.

“Greens” is an environmental movement of our time that opposes the harmful effects of negative factors of technological progress on the environment. They appeared in our country in the mid-eighties of the last century and have gone through several stages of development during their history. According to data published at the end of last year, the number of environmental groups included in the all-Russian movement reaches thirty thousand.

Major NGO

Among the most famous are the Green Russia movement, Rodina, Green Patrol and a number of other organizations. Each of them has its own characteristic features, but they are all united by a commonality of tasks and the mass enthusiasm that is inherent in their members. In general, this sector of society exists in the form of a non-governmental organization. It is a kind of third sector, not related to either government agencies or private business.

The political platform of representatives of modern “green” movements is based on a constructive approach to restructuring the economic policy of the state in order to harmoniously combine the interests of people and the nature that surrounds them. There can be no compromises in such issues, since not only the material well-being of people, but also their health and life depends on their solution.