The Civil War is the greatest tragedy in the history of Russia in the 20th century. The tragedy of the civil war in the work of Ivan Shmelev and Boris Zaitsev What is the tragedy of the civil war

A civil war is a war that goes on inside the country, forcing a father to kill his son, and a brother to kill his brother. This war brings only destruction and suffering. Why is she needed? What causes it? What is the purpose? Two works are devoted to the topic of the Civil War, about the difficult formation of a new life: “The Defeat” by A. Fadeev and “Quiet Flows the Don” by M. Sholokhov.

In M. Sholokhov's epic novel "Quiet Flows the Don" one can see the whole tragedy of a bloody civil war. The book is about the fierce struggle for the victory of Soviet power on the Don, about the life and way of life of the Don Cossacks. They lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. All families lived at the expense of their work, in prosperity and respect. But this calm, normal life was crossed out by the war.

A very difficult time has come in the life of Russia, which brought great social and moral upheavals. Talking about the fate of Grigory Melikhov and his family, the writer shows these events not only as a misfortune for one family, but also as a tragedy for the whole people. This disaster brought with it pain, devastation and poverty. After the First World War, the Cossacks were drawn into the Civil War. Among all these events, the author especially focuses on the fate of the protagonist of the novel, Grigory Melikhov. The war hardened the peace-loving Cossack, she forced him to kill. After his first murder, when he hacked an Austrian in battle, Gregory could not recover for a long time. He was tormented by sleepless nights and conscience. The war changed Gregory's life. His fluctuations between whites and reds speak of the infirmity of character, that he is looking for the truth in life, rushing about and does not know “whom to lean against?”. But Grigory does not find the truth either among the Bolsheviks or the White Guards. He wants a peaceful life: "My hands need to work, not fight." But the war took that away from him. The war also brought discord into the Melikhovs' family relations. She broke the habitual way of life of these people. The grief and horrors of the war affected all the heroes of the novel.

Another work, A. Fadeev's novel "The Defeat", also covers the theme of the civil war. Shows people who fell into the partisan detachment. There were many truly dedicated people among them, but there were also those who got into the detachment by accident. In fact, both of them are experiencing a tragedy. Some are disappointed in their ideals, others give their lives for these ideals. Fadeev said that in a civil war “there is a selection of human material, everything that is not capable of a real revolutionary struggle is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution grows and develops in this struggle. There is a huge transformation of people." All people in the detachment are connected by the events that happen to them. Against the background of these events, the true character of the heroes is revealed. Testing a person is a choice between life and death. Frost, at the cost of his own life, warns the detachment of an ambush, and Sword, sent on patrol, saves his life in this situation: he abandons and betrays his comrades. He did not realize his place in life, and unlike him, Morozka appears to us at the end as a mature, responsible person, aware of his duty to people.

Drawing a conclusion, we can say that a civil war is a cruel and merciless war. It destroys families and destinies of people. This is the tragedy of the country and its people.

Updated: 2018-05-21

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, who believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How does it happen that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - the epic of M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don".
In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their own labor, in prosperity and respect. Cheerful, joyful, full of work and pleasant worries, the life of the Cossacks is interrupted by the revolution. And before the people there was a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, whom to believe - red, promising equality in everything, but denying faith in the Lord God; or white, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But does the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would have to be made, what difficulties would have to be overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the protagonist of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others himself. Of course, the first murder of a man
deeply and painfully strikes him, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the war makes him cruel. “I became terrible to myself ... Look into my soul, and there is blackness, like in an empty well,” Grigory admits. Everyone became cruel, even women. Recall at least the scene when Daria Melekhova without hesitation kills Kotlyarov, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about what blood is shed for, what is the meaning of war. Is it possible that “the rich are driven to death for the needs”? Or to defend the rights common to all, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases were both on the part of the whites and on the part of the reds. "They are all the same ... they are all a yoke around the neck of the Cossacks," says the main character.
In my opinion, the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, Sholokhov sees in the drama of the transition from the old, centuries-old way of life, to a new way of life. Two worlds are colliding: everything that used to be an integral part of people's lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new one still needs to be accepted and used to it.

M.A. Sholokhov is rightly called the chronicler of the Soviet era. "Quiet Don" - a novel about the Cossacks. The central image of the novel is Grigory Melekhov, an ordinary Cossack guy. True, maybe too hot. In the family of Gregory, large and friendly, the Cossacks are sacred ...

If we step aside for a while from historical events, then we can note that the basis of the novel by M. A. Sholokhov "The Quiet Flows the Don" is a traditional love triangle. Natalya Melekhova and Aksinya Astakhova love the same Cossack - Grigory Melekhov. He is married...

Many works have been written about forced collectivization and the massacre of the peasantry. We were told about the tragedy of the Russian peasant by the books of S. Zalygin "On the Irtysh", "Men and Women" by B. Mozhaev, "A Pair of Bays" by V. Tendryakov, "The Raid" by V. Bykov...

P.V. Palievsky: “Almost all of us know that in our literature there is a writer of world significance - M.A. Sholokhov. But we are somehow poorly aware of this report, despite the achievements of criticism. You can’t see the new that Sholokhov introduced into literature, perhaps ...

Mikhail Sholokhov's novel "Quiet Flows the Don" tells about one of the most intense and eventful periods in the history of our country - the time of the First World War, the October Revolution and the Civil War. The plot is based on the fate of the Don Cossacks,...

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

federal state educational institution higher professional education

"North-West Academy of Public Administration"

Department of History and World Politics

Civil war - national tragedy of Russia

1st year student(s)

3176 groups

Krasovskaya Nadezhda Vladimirovna

Saint Petersburg

Introduction

civil war historiography Bolshevik

Civil War 1918-1920 continues to be one of the most important events in national history. It left an indelible mark on the memory of the peoples of Russia, and its consequences are still being felt in the political, economic and spiritual spheres of our society.

The theme of the civil war occupies a special place in the historical and fiction, brochures, articles, documentary publications and feature films, in the theater, on television, in songwriting.

Suffice it to say that about 20 thousand books and scientific articles are devoted to the history of the Civil War. At the same time, it should be noted that many of our contemporaries have formed ambiguous and often distorted ideas about this tragic page in the history of Russia. For some, Pavka Korchagin remains a hero, for others - Lieutenant Golitsyn. Some know the war from the films "Wedding in Malinovka", " Elusive avengers”And songs like “Old Man Makhno looks out the window ...”, the performances of others are based on the “Quiet Don” by M.A. Sholokhov, memoirs of A.I. Denikin, on more accurate historical facts.

Generations of citizens of the USSR were brought up on the heroism and romance of the revolution. In the 1930s, millions of boys in the USSR saw their favorite hero in Chapaev and sang Aleksey Surkov's Cavalry Song.

Meanwhile, memories were being written abroad, scientific works, odes were composed in honor of the heroes and martyrs of the white movement. Their courage, devotion to duty, loyalty to the unfortunate Motherland in the fight against the Bolshevik monsters, their readiness to carry the martyr's cross through the cellars of the Lubyanka and the dungeons of the Odessa Gubchek were sung.

So, the civil war was seen, reflected, studied from two opposite sides - from the side of the victors and from the side of the vanquished. Distortions and tendentiousness were allowed on both sides. This is natural and inevitable. The wise Romans have long noticed a simple truth: "Times are changing, and we are changing with them."

It is no coincidence that a number of historians believe that "the civil war has not yet become history in the full sense of the word, reconciliation (in Russian society) has not yet come, and the time for balanced judgments has not yet come."

With collapse Soviet Union the atmosphere of civil war is in the air. Dozens of regional conflicts brought the country to the brink of war: Transnistria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Chechnya (December 1994 - October 1996). All this requires restraint, restraint, readiness to compromise from the current political leaders of all countries.

As before, everything that is said, written, sung, filmed, staged about the civil war is permeated with intransigence, i.e. psychology of the civil war.

The purpose of this work: - to reveal approaches to the coverage of the history of the civil war in domestic and foreign historiography; - to show the essence, causes, composition of the opposing forces and the main stages and events of the war; - highlight the consequences and lessons of the civil war, their significance for the current stage of Russia's development.

1. Essence, causes and main stages of the civil war in Russia

Civil wars have been known in history since ancient times. At the household level, a civil war is a war between citizens of one state. International Encyclopedia social sciences(USA) defines it as follows: "A civil war is a conflict within a society caused by attempts to seize or maintain power by illegal means."

This definition fits the civil wars in England (XVII century), in the USA in 1861-1865, in Spain in the 30s. 20th century It also applies to the civil wars of the early seventeenth century. and 1918-1920. in Russia. At the same time, armed struggle always acts as "illegal means". Therefore, a civil war is an armed struggle for power between various groups and sections of the population within a country due to deep social, political, economic and other contradictions.

In relation to Russia - the civil war of 1918-1920. - this is an armed struggle for power between various groups and strata of the country's population, due to deep social, political, economic, national and other contradictions, which took place with the active intervention foreign states and included military operations of regular armies, uprisings, rebellions, partisan and sabotage-terrorist actions and other forms.

Why did the civil war start in Russia? What are its reasons? Who is to blame for its unleashing, escalation, millions of human victims? The answers to these questions are ambiguous. At present, under the influence of publicists and especially electronic media, the point of view that the Bolsheviks unleashed the civil war has become widespread in Russian society. They allegedly usurped power, killed the most humane tsar in the world, aggravated the confrontation in society and unleashed a fratricidal war in the name of approaching the world revolution.

More reasoned is the point of view of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, enshrined in numerous books and school textbooks of the Soviet period. Its essence: In 1917, workers and peasants came to power in Russia. The bourgeoisie and the landlords did not want to put up with this. But they did not have the strength for any serious resistance to Soviet power. The rebellion of Krasnov-Kerensky, Kaledin on the Don and Dutov in the Southern Urals were easily and quickly suppressed. However, foreign states organized open intervention and helped the internal counter-revolution. Thus, international imperialism acted as the initiator and catalyst of the civil war in Russia.

We are well acquainted with this interpretation of the causes of the civil war, but even it is one-sided, biased, and unscientific. The causes of the war cannot be reduced to the guilt of any of the parties in its beginning. Its historical prerequisites should be sought in the state of Russian society before February 1917, when Russia was permanently entering a state of civil war, and the causes - in the actions or inaction of the main political forces of the country in the period from February 1917 to about the summer of 1918.

If we retrospectively evaluate the prerequisites and causes of the civil war in Russia, then they can be reduced to the following:

1. Exacerbation of social contradictions in Russian society, which accumulated over decades and even centuries and deepened to the limit during the First World War. The most acute problems of Russian society have not been solved for decades. In the West, the acuteness of social contradictions was more or less smoothed out. In Russia, violence against the people was the leading principle of the functioning of power.

At the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX centuries. especially noticeable was the stubborn unwillingness of the autocracy to carry out significant reforms of the political and economic system. The conflict between power and society was so deep that the autocracy had no defenders in February-March 1917, they simply did not exist in a country of many millions.

2. The policy of the leading political parties (the Cadets, the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks), which failed to stabilize the situation after the overthrow of the autocracy. The struggle for the army in the conditions of the ongoing war led to its collapse.

3. The seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and the desire of the overthrown classes to restore their rule.

4. Contradictions in the camp of the socialist parties, which received more than 80% of the votes in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, but failed to secure agreement, at the cost of mutual concessions.

5. Intervention of foreign states in the internal affairs of Russia. The intervention became a catalyst for the civil war, and the support of the White Guard troops and governments by the Entente countries largely determined the duration of this war.

6. The grossest mistakes and miscalculations of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet government in a number of important issues of domestic policy (the split in the countryside in the summer of 1918, decossackization, the policy of "war communism", etc.).

7. We should also highlight the socio-psychological aspect of the civil war. The psychology and psychopathology of the revolutionary era largely determined the behavior of every person and large social groups of people during the war years. A habit was formed to first make a control shot, and then check the documents. Violence was perceived as a universal method for solving many problems. Russia has traditionally been a country where the price of human life has always been negligible. In the era of the civil war, the mutual exasperation of people devalued this value as well.

Periodization of the Civil War. The problem of periodization of the history of the Civil War has repeatedly been the subject of scientific discussions. But to this day there is no single point of view. Until recently, the Leninist approach dominated Russian historical science. IN AND. Lenin considered the civil war in two aspects: a) civil war as the most acute form of class struggle (continued in Russia from October 1917 to October 1922); b) civil war as a special period in the history of the Soviet state, when the military question acted as the main, fundamental issue of the revolution (from the summer of 1918 to the end of 1920). The second (Lenin) period Soviet historians of the 60-80s. divided, as a rule, into three stages: 1st - end of May 1918 - March 1919 2nd - March 1919 - March 1920 3rd - April 1920 - November 1920 But there were other approaches: in the war, both 4 and 5 periods were singled out.

During the years of Stalin's rule, naturally, his periodization dominated: the campaign of Kolchak, the campaign of Denikin, the campaign of Poland and Wrangel. In some places, in schools and universities, historical educational maps "The first campaign of the Entente against Soviet Republic"," Second Campaign ..." and "Third Campaign", made in the light of the instructions of Comrade Stalin. But in such a periodization, 1918 falls out.

Western historians give their own periodization of the civil war in Russia: the 1st period - 1918 - is called anarchist; 2nd period - 1919 - the struggle of the reds with the whites; 3rd period - 1920 - the struggle of the Bolsheviks against the peasantry. At the same time, they believe that the victory in the civil war was won by the peasants, since the Bolsheviks abandoned the policy of "war communism" and switched to the NEP.

In the 1990s, Academician Yu.A. Polyakov proposed a new periodization of the history of the civil war in Russia. It covers the period from February 1917 to 1922 and consists of 6 stages:

February-March 1917 - the violent overthrow of the autocracy, the open split of society, mainly along social lines;

March-October 1917 - the failure of Russian democracy in an attempt to establish civil peace, the intensification of socio-political confrontation in society, the escalation of violence;

October 1917 - March 1918 - the overthrow of the Provisional Government by the Bolsheviks, the establishment of Soviet power, a new split in society, the spread of armed struggle (including the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as one of the factors of the split);

March-June 1918 - local hostilities, formation of white and red armed forces, terror on both sides, further escalation of violence

Summer 1918 - late 1920 - "a big civil war between massive regular armies, foreign intervention, guerrilla struggle in the rear, militarization of the economy (this is actually a civil war in the full sense of these words, although it is more accurate to call this time - the "big" stage civil war).

1921-1922 - the gradual attenuation of the civil war, its localization on the outskirts and the complete end. Of course, the approach of Yu.A. Polyakova is far from perfect. But he is more high level understanding the history of the civil war in Russia.

Thus, the causes of the civil war in our country cannot be reduced to the search for its unequivocal culprits, but should be considered as the result of a multi-stage process of growing and aggravating socio-political confrontation in Russian society.

2. The composition of the opposing forces and the main events of the "big" civil war

By the summer of 1918, the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens did not want to fight. This thesis can be confirmed by the fact that at the beginning of 1918 no more than 2-3% of the officers of the old Russian army opposed the Bolsheviks.

So, 2341 officers participated in the first campaign of the Volunteer Army (including generals - 36, colonels - 190, lieutenant colonels - 52, captains - 215, staff captains - 251, lieutenants - 394, second lieutenants - 535, ensigns - 668) , and the entire army consisted of 3377 people.

However, as the hostilities unfolded, millions of people were inevitably drawn into the war. And the front of the civil war passed not only through forests and fields, it passed through families, through the souls and hearts of people. Therefore, when characterizing the composition of the opposing forces in a civil war, one should avoid a primitive "class" division into rich and poor.

The composition of the red and white armies was not so different from each other. Hereditary noblemen served in the Red Army, and the workers of Izhevsk and Votkinsk fought under the red banners in Kolchak's army. The bloody meat grinder of the civil war drew people in most often without their desire, and even, despite their resistance, circumstances often decided everything. Much, for example, depended on under whose mobilization a person fell, what was the attitude of certain authorities towards him personally, his family, at whose hands his relatives and friends died. A significant role was played by the characteristics of the region, nationality, religion and other factors.

It should also be borne in mind that the positions of specific individuals, political parties and social strata during the war were not static. They changed - and often repeatedly - in radical ways.

The main struggle during the "big" civil war took place between the Reds and the Whites. But a third force was also very significant, acting under the slogan: "Beat the reds until they turn white, beat the whites until they turn red." In the history of the civil war, she entered under the name "green".

Red. The backbone of this camp was the Bolshevik Party, which created a powerful vertical structure and, under the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, actually established its own dictatorship.

The social base of the Soviet camp consisted of:

Workers of the central industrial region;

A significant part of the peasantry, which in the end largely predetermined the victory of the Reds;

Part of the officer corps of the Russian army (about 1/3 of its composition); petty bureaucracy, quickly making a career under the new government, incl. marginalized strata that seized power.

Some aspects of the creation of the Red Army. On January 15, 1918, the SNK decree proclaimed the creation of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army, and on January 29, 1918, a decree on the organization of the Red Fleet was adopted. But the first results of the creation of a new revolutionary army did not inspire optimism. The largest number of volunteers was recorded in peripheral areas under the immediate threat of capture by the whites, and in large industrial centers. In addition, under the guise of volunteers, a significant number of declassed elements entered the Red Army, considering the war as a source of personal enrichment.

In July 1918, the Decree on the general military service of the male population aged 18 to 40 was published. A network of military commissariats was created throughout the country to keep records of those liable for military service, organize and conduct military training, and mobilize the population fit for military service.

By the autumn of 1918, 300 thousand people were mobilized into the ranks of the Red Army, by the spring of 1919 - 1.5 million people, by October 1919 - up to 3 million people, by 1920 the number of Red Army soldiers close to 5 million.

The Bolsheviks paid great attention to the training of command personnel. In addition to short-term courses and schools for the training of the middle command level of the most distinguished Red Army soldiers, in 1917-1919. higher military educational institutions were opened: the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army, Artillery, Military Medical, Military Economic, Naval, Military Engineering Academy.

At the same time, in the spring of 1918, a notice was published in the Soviet press about the recruitment of military specialists from the old army to serve in the Red Army. As of January 1, 1919, there were approximately 165,000 former officers of the tsarist army in the Red Army.

The so-called policy of "war communism" played a special role during the years of the civil war. It included a number of measures: on December 2, 1918, a decree was promulgated dissolving the committees of the poor, which came into conflict with the local Soviets, seeking to usurp power; On January 11, 1919, the Decree “On the distribution of bread and fodder” was issued, according to which the state reported in advance the exact figure of its needs for grain. But in reality, this meant taking away from the peasants all the surplus grain, and often the necessary supplies; in area industrial production a course was taken for the accelerated nationalization of all industries, and not just the most important ones, as provided for by the decree of July 28, 1918; commodity-money relations were abolished (free trade in foodstuffs and consumer goods was prohibited), which were distributed by the state as wages;

Why was this policy called "war communism"? "Military" - because this policy was subordinated to the only goal - to concentrate all forces for a military victory over their political opponents, "communism" - because the measures of the Bolsheviks coincided with the Marxist forecast of some socio-economic features of communist society.

Describing the policy and composition of the Red forces, it is impossible not to reflect some points related to their policy of "Red Terror". In general, this is a policy of intimidation of the population. For the first time, on a large scale, terror was used against the peasantry on the basis of the decree of May 9, 1918 "On the granting of emergency powers to the food commissar." In the cities, the "Red Terror" assumed wide proportions from September 1918 - after the assassination of the chairman of the Petrograd Extraordinary Commission, M.S. Uritsky and the attempt on the life of V.I. Lenin.

The terror was widespread. Only in response to the attempt on V.I. Lenin The Petrograd Cheka shot, according to official reports, 500 hostages. In the famous armored train, on which Leon Trotsky made his journeys along the fronts, a military revolutionary tribunal with unlimited powers worked tirelessly. The first concentration camps were set up in Murom, Arzamas, and Sviyazhsk. Between the front and the rear, special barrage detachments are formed to fight deserters.

What were the whites? White. Usually under this concept they unite the entire camp of the counter-revolution, which opposed the Reds. The anti-Soviet camp consisted of:

and the landowners and the bourgeoisie deprived of power and property. Number with family members - about 6 million people;

b Cossacks - about 4.5 million people, united in 13 Cossack troops. Usually this military estate is portrayed as an implacable opponent of Soviet power. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Cossacks participated in the civil war and often fought on two fronts, protecting their interests, their special position in the state, which had developed historically and seemed unshakable to the Cossacks from both the Reds and the Whites. Thus, the Don Army was extremely reluctant to leave the Don Cossack Region. The top of the Kuban Cossacks pursued an openly separatist policy aimed at the formation of an independent state. Such aspirations were characteristic of the activities of atamans Semenov and Kalmykov in the East;

l part of the officer corps of the Russian army (about 40%);

the clergy. Only in the Orthodox Russian Church there were more than 200 thousand clergy, many of them fought against the Bolsheviks;

l workers and peasants who lived in the territory occupied by the white armies. At the same time, some were mobilized, others, mainly from among wealthy peasants, joined the ranks of the resistance on the basis of dissatisfaction with the policy of the Bolsheviks;

a significant part of the intelligentsia. This can include the top political parties (Socialist-Revolutionaries and, to a lesser extent, the Mensheviks), and the various governments they created during the civil war.

The White camp was heterogeneous. It included monarchists and liberals, supporters of the Constituent Assembly and an open military dictatorship, supporters of pro-German and pro-Ententine orientation, people of ideas and people without definite political convictions. In terms of civilization, the anti-Soviet camp included both supporters of the traditional path of development and those who advocated the development of Russia according to Western models.

However, extreme monarchists such as V.M. did not find their place in the white movement. Purishkevich, as well as extreme socialists like Kerensky and Savinkov. Due to political differences, the whites did not have a generally recognized leader. The programs of the Whites (Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel) did not take into account the interests of the majority of the population. Thus, the program drawn up at Denikin's headquarters provided for:

The destruction of Bolshevik anarchy and the establishment of a legal order in the country;

Restoration of a powerful, united and indivisible Russia;

Convening a people's assembly on the basis of universal suffrage;

Democratization of power through the establishment of regional autonomy and broad local self-government;

Guarantee of complete civil liberty and freedom of religion;

Implementation of land reform;

The introduction of labor legislation, the protection of workers from exploitation by the state and capital.

Kolchak's program contained similar measures: the Constituent Assembly, market economy, protection of private property, etc. For example, paragraph 3. Kolchak's "Agrarian Declaration" (March 1919) read: Retention of the owners of their rights to land. If we compare it with the Decree on Land, which proclaimed measures that are more understandable and acceptable to the peasantry, then the question is which of the programs will the majority of the peasantry follow? looks rhetorical (Kolchak Alexander Vasilievich (1873-1920). Admiral since 1918. From the family of a naval officer. Member of the Russian-Japanese and World War I, in 1916-1917 - commander of the Black Sea Fleet. At the end of 1918 he agreed become the dictator of Russia. Admiral Kolchak was extradited by the Czechoslovaks to the Irkutsk Political Center in exchange for the unhindered passage of their echelons through the city. On February 7, 1920, by order of the Military Revolutionary Committee of Irkutsk, Kolchak was shot).

There were also supporters of the so-called "greens" in the civil war. What is this power? Greens. The green movement was not institutionalized. It proceeded quite spontaneously. It acquired its most massive character in the spring and summer of 1919, when the Bolsheviks tightened the food dictatorship, and Kolchak and Denikin restored the old order. Peasants prevailed among the insurgents, and the Russian-speaking population prevailed in the national regions.

Thus, in the spring of 1919, the uprisings engulfed the Bryansk, Samara, Simbirsk, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Smolensk, Kostroma, Vyatka, Novgorod, Penza, Tver and other provinces. At the same time, in Ukraine, the uprising 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, Germans and French. For some time, Grigoriev with his detachments even entered the Red Army (6th Ukrainian Soviet division), but then opposed the Bolsheviks under the slogan "For the Soviets, but without the Communists."

The ideas and practices of the Greens manifested themselves especially brightly in the Makhnovist movement, which engulfed a significant region of southern Ukraine. It is characteristic that Makhno and other green leaders did not have a clear program. SR-anarchist views prevailed, the movement was not politically organized. In general, the insurrectionary movement in Russia was doomed, partisan detachments could not resist regular military units (Grigoriev, Makhno, Antonov, Basmachi) for a long time.

When analyzing the events of the civil war, it is necessary to take into account an external factor: the intervention of foreign states in the internal affairs of Russia. The Entente countries refused to recognize the power of the Bolsheviks, but tried to prevent Russia from leaving the world war.

Initially, the Entente tried in every possible way to maintain cooperation with the new government both in Moscow and on the outskirts of the former Russian Empire. At a conference in Paris, the spheres of influence of the allies on the territory of Russia were divided. At the beginning of 1918, the first troops landed in Murmansk, Odessa, Vladivostok and other ports. In March 1918, the Entente decided to support the anti-Soviet forces through military intervention. The goal was extremely clear: "The destruction of Bolshevism and the encouragement of the creation of a regime of order in Russia."

Three directions can be distinguished in the actions of Russia's former allies: 1) encouraging the collapse of Russia by supporting independent governments; 2) sending military contingents to zones of their "vital interests"; 3) providing all kinds of assistance to the White armies and other anti-Soviet forces.

In modern Russian historiography, there has been a tendency to "justify" the intervention or downplay its role in the civil war in Russia. They write that the interventionist corps was not numerous, that the interventionists acted far from Moscow and did not conduct active hostilities against the Reds. By February 1919, there were foreign troops on the territory of Russia with a total number of 202.4 thousand people, incl. 44.6 thousand English, 13.6 thousand French, 13.7 thousand American, 80 thousand Japanese, 42 thousand Czechoslovak, 3 thousand Italian, 3 thousand Greek, 2.5 thousand Serbian.

They spared no expense to fight the Bolsheviks even during the civil war. Only in December 1917 - the first half of January 1918, the volunteer army received: 60 million pounds from England, 500 thousand dollars from the USA, over 1 million rubles. from France and from special sources. England equipped the 200,000-strong army of Kolchak with everything necessary. By March 1, 1919, the United States provided the supreme ruler with 394,000 rifles, 15.6 million rounds of ammunition, machine guns, guns, and medicines. The reasons for such generosity were explained back in 1919 by W. Churchill: “It would be a mistake to think that during this year we fought for the Russian White Guards,” he noted, “On the contrary, the Russian White Guards fought for our cause.”

The role of Germany should not be forgotten either. After the Brest Peace, it occupied an area of ​​1 million square meters. km with a population of over 50 million people. There were about 300 thousand German troops on the territory of Russia.

Chronicle of the main events of the war. A characteristic feature of a "great" civil war is the confrontation between regular armies. By the end of 1917, the old Russian army had lost its combat effectiveness and practically disintegrated. The support of the Bolsheviks - the Red Guard - numbered more than 460 thousand people, but did not have combat experience, trained command personnel, or heavy weapons.

On December 16, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars abolished all ranks and ranks, introduced the election of command personnel and transferred power in the old army to soldiers' committees and Soviets.

On January 15, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree on the creation of the Red Army and on January 29 - the RKKF on a volunteer basis.

By April 1918, the armed forces of Soviet Russia numbered about 195 thousand people. During the summer - autumn of 1918, 300 thousand people were mobilized into the ranks of the Red Army. By the spring of 1919, the strength of the Red Army increased to 1.5 million people, and by October 1919 - up to 3 million people.

By 1920, the number of Red Army soldiers approached 5 million.

Simultaneously created their armed forces and opponents of Soviet power. In November 1917, the Alekseevskaya organization was formed in Novocherkassk (from December 27 it became known as the Volunteer Army). Its number at the beginning of 1918 was 3377 people, incl. 2341 officers. In April 1918, with the support of Germany, the Don Cossack Army (P.N. Krasnov) began to be created. Armies were also formed in other regions of Russia: in Transbaikalia - ataman G.M. Semenov, in Primorye - I.M. Kalmykov, in Harbin - L. Horvat, the People's Army of Komuch - in the Volga region, the Ural and Siberian armies, the army of the Central Rada in Ukraine, the Muslim, Armenian and Georgian corps in Transcaucasia.

Everywhere two methods of recruitment were used: a) voluntarily; b) forcibly on mobilization. The officer corps of the Russian army in the civil war. Officers form the backbone of the army. This is an axiom. The creation of both the red and white armies was impossible without the involvement of the officers of the old Russian army. As of October 1917, the officer corps numbered approximately 250 thousand, among which about 220 thousand (i.e. 88-90%) were wartime officers. And if the pre-war officer corps consisted mainly of noblemen, then by the autumn of 1917, as a result of heavy losses during the war in the combat regiments of the active army, regular officers could be counted on the fingers of one hand. In other words, the social composition of the officer corps, especially in the regimental level, has changed significantly: from the nobility, he became a raznochinsk.

How did the officers of the Russian army react to the Bolshevik revolution? Some historians, and especially modern publicists, argue that most of the officers met the Bolsheviks coming to power with hostility. Historical facts show that the position of the vast majority of officers in relation to the Soviet government can be called expectant or watchful-expectant. Immediately after October 25, 1917, 2-3% of the officers came out in the fight against the Bolsheviks. Even in the first campaign of the Volunteer Army at the beginning of 1918, only 2341 officers (including about 500 personnel) participated, and the entire army numbered 3377 people.

When analyzing the position of the officer corps, an important aspect is often overlooked. The collapse of the old army has left almost a quarter of a million officers unemployed. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars on legal and financial position generals and officers were equated with soldiers. War was their profession, and military service- the only source of livelihood for tens of thousands of officers. And many were drawn to the Don, not because they fiercely hated the Bolsheviks and Soviet power, but mainly because they promised service there. The Soviet government turned to military professionals only in the summer of 1918, when the construction of a regular Red Army began. By the end of the year, 60 divisions had to be formed. This required about 55,000 commanders of all levels, and only 1,773 red officers could be trained in the courses, suitable only for primary officer positions.

And many officers went to the Red Army not because they firmly believed in the ideals of the world revolution and the future socialist Russia. For most, the reasons for joining the Red Army were more prosaic. But without their participation in the construction and combat operations of the Red Army, victory in the civil war is out of the question. Of the 20 front commanders, 17 were military specialists (including 10 officers of the General Staff and generals). Of the 100 army commanders, 82 were officers of the old Russian army (including 62 were career officers). The positions of chiefs of staff of fronts (100%) and armies (83%) were also filled by military experts (out of 25 NSh fronts, 22 were officers of the General Staff). The commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Republic was also colonels of the General Staff I.I. Vatsetis and S.S. Kamenev. In general, 53% of the officers of the General Staff served in the Red Army.

In the course of studying the participation of the officer corps in the civil war on one side or another, one should avoid the primitive "class" approach: for the poor, for the rich, for the nobles. According to this logic, the son of a Cossack L.G. Kornilov, son of a soldier General M.V. Alekseev, as well as General A.I. Denikin and many others would have to serve in the Red Army, and aristocrats, hereditary nobles Brusilov, Tukhachevsky, Danilov - to create a Volunteer Army. In life, everything turned out to be much more difficult. Of the 250 thousand officers, approximately 75 thousand served in the Red Army (30%). About 100 thousand (40%) - in the white and other armies. The remaining 30% - turned into a "primitive state", i.e. returned to pre-war occupations or perished, died, scattered across the territory of Russia, emigrated abroad.

The civil war in Russia led to a phenomenal phenomenon, when the troops of the opposite sides were commanded by officers and generals yesterday still united Russian army. So, on the one hand, there were M.V. Alekseev, L.G. Kornilov, A.I. Denikin, A.V. Kolchak, N.N. Yudenich, and on the other hand, their yesterday's brother-soldiers who entered the service of the Soviet government: Commanders-in-Chief of the Red Army I.I. Vatsetis, S.S. Kamenev, Commanders of the troops of the fronts - V.M. Gittis, A.I. Egorov, V.N. Egoriev, P.P. Sytin, M.N. Tukhachevsky, V.I. Shorin; large staff workers - P.P. Lebedev, N.N. Petin, N.I. Rattel, B.M. Shaposhnikov; Army commanders - M.I. Vasilenko, A.I. Gekker, A.I. Cork, M.K. Levandovsky, I.P. Uborevich, R.P. Eideman.

Extremely confusing in modern literature is the question of the size of the armed forces. Often the total strength of the Red Army is compared with the number of troops of a particular white army in a particular operation.

In this work, the focus is on the most important events: summer 1918-winter 1919 - as the apogee of the civil war. The active actions of the anti-Soviet forces opened the rebellion of the Czechoslovak corps. It was formed from prisoners of war of the Austro-Hungarian army in 1917 and, by agreement of the Entente and the Council of People's Commissars, was evacuated to France through Vladivostok. On the night of May 26-26, 1918, parts of the corps, stretched in echelons along railway from Penza to Khabarovsk opposed the Bolsheviks.

In the summer of 1918, in the Volga region, in the Urals and in Siberia, about 30 different predominantly Socialist-Revolutionary governments arose: in Samara - the “Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly”, in Yekaterinburg - the Ural Regional Government”, in Tomsk - the “Siberian Government”. Under the slogan “ All power to the Constituent Assembly!” they launched armed operations against the Bolsheviks.

At the end of September, an SR-Cadet government was formed in Ufa - the Directory, which declared itself all-Russian. Then the government moved to Omsk, where on November 18 it was dispersed by Kolchak, who became the Supreme Ruler.

In the autumn of 1918 - in the winter of 1919, the main areas of hostilities were: a) the Eastern Front (functioned from June 13, 1918 to January 15, 1920. The Eastern Front was commanded by: M.A. Muravyov, I.I. Vatsetis, S. S. Kamenev, A. A. Samoilo, P. P. Lebedev, M. V. Frunze, V. A. Olderogge) where the Red Army defeated the enemy and advanced to the Urals, where it united with the troops of the Turkestan Republic. b) Southern Front (functioned from September 11, 1918 to January 10, 1920. Front commanders: P.P. Sytin, P.A. Slaven, V.M. Gittis, V.N. Egoriev, A.I. Egorov ) fought heavy battles against the Don army in the Tsaritsyno and Voronezh directions, and then went on the offensive. However, on January 24, 1919, the Organizing Bureau of the Bolshevik Central Committee demanded that mass terror be carried out against the Cossacks who took part in the struggle against Soviet power. This deprived the Bolsheviks of all support on the Don and led to an uprising of the Cossacks in March. The offensive was suspended. c) in the north - the Red troops defended themselves in the Vologda and Petrograd directions. d) after the annulment of the Brest Peace, Soviet troops occupied Belarus, a significant part of the Baltic states and the entire Left-Bank Ukraine.

Spring 1919-Spring 1920

a) in March 1919, the Kolchak armies (Siberian, Western, Ural, Orenburg and Southern army groups) launched an offensive. But on April 28, the Eastern Front of the Reds launched a counteroffensive (first with its southern flank, and from June 21 with all armies). Kolchak's armies retreated to Siberia, where in January 1920 they were defeated.

To avoid war with Japan, the Soviet troops stopped the offensive. In April 1920, a buffer state was created - the Far Eastern Republic.

b) in the summer of 1919, after the obvious failure of the Kolchak offensive, Denikin launched a campaign against Moscow. The fighting went on with varying success. At first he was on the side of Denikin, then the initiative passed into the hands of the Soviet command. The cavalry raid of General Mamontov largely disorganized the work of the Southern Front of the Reds. However, by the spring of 1920, Soviet troops took Odessa and Novorossiysk. The remnants of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia under the command of Wrangel withdrew to the Crimea.

c) during the battles with Kolchak and Denikin, Yudenich's army, supported by Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian and other troops, tried to capture Petrograd three times, but failed to do so and was ultimately defeated.

Spring 1920-late 1920 After the defeat of the troops of Kolchak and Denikin, the Soviet government received a respite. But she was short-lived. Poland, with the support of the Entente countries, demanded the restoration of the border that existed before 1772, i.e. before the first partition of Poland. Russia did not agree to this. On April 21, Poland signed an agreement with the Ukrainian Directory: a) Poland recognizes the Directory as the Supreme Government of independent Ukraine; b) Ukraine for this agrees to the annexation of Eastern Galicia, Western Volhynia and part of Polissya to Poland; c) all Ukrainian troops are subordinate to the Polish command.

On April 25, 1920, the Poles launched an offensive and on May 6 captured Kyiv. On May 26, Soviet troops launched a counteroffensive, which approached Warsaw by mid-August. This caused some of the Bolshevik leaders to hope that the idea of ​​a world revolution in Western Europe would soon be realized. In the Order on the Western Front, Tukhachevsky wrote: “On our bayonets we will bring happiness and peace to working humanity. To the west!". However, the inconsistency of actions between the fronts and the collapse of hopes for the help of the Polish proletariat led to the defeat of the Soviet Western Front.

On October 12, 1920, a peace treaty was signed in Riga with Poland, according to which the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus passed to it.

During the Soviet-Polish war, Wrangel began active operations. His troops were stopped at Kakhovka and other bridgeheads. At the end of October, the troops of the Southern Front launched a counteroffensive, broke through the Perekop and Chongar fortifications and defeated Wrangel. On November 16, 1920, after the capture of Kerch, the Southern Front was liquidated. Almost 100 thousand people were forced to leave their homeland.

The civil war ended with the victory of the Reds. In April 1920 Soviet troops defeated the White Guards in Semirechye. At the end of April 1920, the 11th Caucasian Army, under the pretext of helping the rebels, entered Baku. The Azerbaijan SSR was proclaimed. In May 1920, the Volga-Caspian flotilla under the command of F.F. Raskolnikov entered the territorial waters of Persia. In June, after the occupation of Rasht, the Persian SSR was proclaimed, which existed for about a year. In November 1920 and February 1921, the same 11th Army occupied Erivan and Tiflis, respectively, and "proclaimed" the formation of the Armenian and Georgian Soviet Republics.

3. Historical consequences and lessons of the civil war

In a fierce civil war that lasted more than 5 years, the Bolsheviks managed to seize and hold on to power. The White movement remained fragmented, heterogeneous, without clear and popular slogans. The absence of an ideology in this movement greatly contributed to its rebirth, and started by "almost saints", it fell into the hands of "almost bandits."

The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, managed to combine the communist ideology (at the level of slogans) with those features of the Russian mentality, in which the new ideology often replaced religion.

What are the historical consequences of the civil war? The civil war led to huge material and human losses. The total amount of damage amounted to 50 billion gold rubles, and human casualties are estimated today at 13-16 million people.

The losses of the Red Army in battles amounted to 939,755 people, about the same amount were the combat losses of its opponents. The rest died from starvation and war-related epidemics. About 2 million people emigrated from Russia. If we take into account the decline in population growth during the war years, i.e. count the unborn Russians, then the amount of the loss can be estimated at about 25 million people.

As a result of the victory in the civil war, the Bolsheviks managed to preserve the statehood, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia. With the formation of the USSR in 1922, a Russian civilizationally heterogeneous conglomerate with obvious imperial features was practically recreated.

The victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war led to the curtailment of democracy, the dominance of a one-party system, when the party ruled on behalf of the people, on behalf of the party the Central Committee, the Politburo and, in fact, the General Secretary or his entourage.

As a result of the civil war, not only were the foundations of a new society laid, its model was tested, but the tendencies that led Russia to the western path of civilizational development were largely swept away.

During the Civil War, the struggle was for the further development of the country. There were several of these paths. The first is the preservation of Soviet power and its extension to the entire territory of the former Russian Empire, the suppression of all forces that disagree with the policy of the Bolshevik leadership. This path meant the creation of a socialist state, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The second path is an attempt to preserve a bourgeois-democratic republic in Russia and the continuation of the policy that was declared by the Provisional Government and the Soviets in the spring and summer of 1917: the further development of democracy and free enterprise. This path was mainly advocated by the parties of "revolutionary democracy", members of the Provisional Government and the Soviets - the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries (from the autumn - the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries), the left wing of the Cadets.

The third path was in the interests of the big bourgeoisie, the nobility, the supreme leadership of the tsarist army and meant an attempt to preserve the limited monarchy and Russia as a "single and indivisible" country, true to "allied obligations."

The most important results of the Civil War: the defeat of all anti-Soviet, anti-Bolshevik forces, the defeat of the White Army and interventionist troops; the preservation, including by force of arms, of a significant part of the territory of the former Russian Empire, the suppression of attempts by a number of national regions to secede from the Republic of Soviets; the overthrow of the national governments in Ukraine, in Belarus and Moldova, in the North Caucasus, in the Transcaucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), in Central Asia, and then in Siberia and the Far East, the establishment of Soviet power there. This actually laid the foundations of the unitary state created in 1922 - the USSR.

The victory in the Civil War created geopolitical, social, ideological and political conditions for the further strengthening of the Bolshevik regime. It meant the victory of the communist ideology, the dictatorship of the proletariat, state form property.

Lessons from the Civil War. Russian society has two poles of stability: either "the people are silent" or "resolute and merciless rebellion." Moreover, the transition from one to another takes a little time. In such a mental field, a special responsibility falls on the modern political elite of the country.

Historical experience shows that civil war is easier to prevent than to stop. But, unfortunately, even today the psychology of the civil war is not only present, but often reanimated, deliberately pumped up by both politicians and the media.

Our society is still divided into reds and whites. And this is a warning sign. The collapse of the Russian army largely contributed to the civil war. And the real state in which the modern Armed Forces of Russia are located makes us think about many things. Are we ready today to repel the aggression of any, the most powerful adversary? As the results of the war in Chechnya show, NATO aggression in Yugoslavia - concern for the Armed Forces should be one of the priorities in the activities of the modern leadership of Russia.

Conclusion

The civil war was generated by a complex set of social contradictions, economic, political, psychological and other reasons, and became the greatest disaster for Russia. The deep, systemic crisis of the Russian Empire ended with its collapse and the victory of the Bolsheviks, who, with the support of the masses, defeated their opponents in the civil war and got the opportunity to put into practice their ideas about socialism and communism.

Historical experience teaches that it is easier to prevent a civil war than to stop it, which the Russian political elite must always remember. The victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War was determined by a number of factors:

The political cohesion of the Bolsheviks, headed by a super-centralized party, and in whose hands was a huge state apparatus, while in the White movement there was inconsistency in actions, contradictions with the national regions and the troops of the Entente;

The ability of the Bolsheviks to mobilize the masses. In contrast to them, the White movement, which was largely heterogeneous, failed to rally the bulk of the population under its own slogans.

The Bolsheviks, who ruled the central regions of the country, had a powerful economic potential (human resources, heavy industry);

The superiority of the Red Army over the White in terms of numbers (1.5-2.5 times at different stages of the war);

The defeat of the parties advocating the second path of development was due to the weakness of the social forces behind them, the weak support of the workers and peasants.

The failure of the supporters of the third possible path, despite the unification of military forces, their connection with the interventionists, was historically predetermined, since this path was rejected by the overwhelming mass of working people.

Literature

1. Anisimov A. Denikin's armies before and after the defeat // Military History Journal. 1996. No. 6.

2. Archive of the Russian Revolution: in 22 vol. M., 1991.

3. White business: Fav. Works in 16 books / Comp. S.V. Karpenko. M., 1992.

4. The air fleet of the white armies during the civil war (1918-1920) M., 1998.

5. Wrangel P.N. Memories. In 2 hours. M., 1992.

6. Civil war in the USSR. TT. 1-2. M., 1980-1986.

7. Danilov A.A. History of Russia, XX century. Reference materials. M., 1996.

8. Dolutsky I.I. National history. XX century. M., 1994.

9. Polyakov Yu.A. Civil war in Russia: internal and external consequences//New and recent history.-1992. M., No. 4.

10. Polyakov Yu.A. Civil War: a look through the years. Ufa, 1994.

11. Rybnikov V.V., Slobodin V.P. White movement during the civil war in Russia. M., 1993.

12. Shulgin V.V. Days. 1920.-M., 1989.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Causes of the Civil War and intervention. The problem of its periodization in various sources. Participants of the Civil War: composition, goals, ideology, organizational forms. Major military events Results of the Civil War. Reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks.

abstract, added 03/14/2008


A conflict is brewing between North and South. Civil War 1861-1865: South's desire to secede, outbreak of hostilities, turning point in the course of the war, death of Lincoln. Reconstruction of the South. Significance of the Civil War and the reconstruction of the South.

control work, added 12/26/2004


Civil war in Russia: prerequisites and causes of the civil war, participants in the civil war - white and red, intervention, development of military events on the territory of Russia in 1918-1920. Civil war in the Orenburg region. Results of the war. The price of victory, reasons

abstract, added 10/24/2004


The civil war is the greatest tragedy in the history of our people. Background and causes of the civil war in Russia. Results and consequences of the war. Reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War. Historical consequences of the civil war.

abstract, added 11/28/2006


The main causes of the civil war and intervention. White movement in Russia, its social base, goals and objectives. Social support of the Bolsheviks. Violence during the Civil War, "red" and "white" terror. Map of military operations in the period 1918-1920.

presentation, added 11/11/2013


The civil war of 1918-1920 in Russia, its conditionality due to deep social, political, economic, national contradictions. The events of the civil war that took place in the central part of Russia. results of the civil war.

presentation, added 09/03/2015


The Civil War in Russia as a general historical phenomenon with common characteristics and specific features. A study of the strategy and tactics of the opposing forces in the Russian Civil War of 1918. Formation of the Red Army and White formations.

abstract, added 05/10/2009


Causes of the Civil War and intervention: the problem of its periodization, participants and main events. The internal policy of the Soviet state during the years of hostilities, the concept of "war communism". The creation of a combat-ready army and the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks.

abstract, added 01/16/2011


Socio-economic relations on the eve of the Civil War. The main events of the Civil War in the Kuban. The process of creating the first rebel groups. Reasons for the end of the white-green rebellion. Consequences of the Civil War in the Kuban.

term paper, added 06/09/2014


The Civil War of 1918-1920: An Analysis of the Prerequisites and Causes of Its Beginning. General characteristics of the participants, the goals of white and red. The role of intervention. Features of the stages of the civil war, the essence of terror. Estimation of the price and results of the civil war.

Sections: History and social studies

Civil War. These are unforgettable pages of our past, when various political forces, social groups and individuals clashed. It was not about which of the opposing forces would be the winner, but which one would be defeated, but their very physical existence. Hence the special sharpness and cruelty of the struggle. The tragic consequences of this war were the split of society into "us" and "them", the depreciation of human life, the collapse of the national economy. Regardless of who won, the main victim of the Civil War was the people. A civil war, unlike ordinary interstate wars, does not have clear boundaries; it is impossible to draw a front line in it. In the Civil War, class relations come to the fore, pushing aside all the rest. Universal human values, such as mercy, tolerance, humanism, are relegated to the background, giving way to the principle “He who is not with us is against us”. During the period of the Civil War, the struggle takes on the most extreme forms, bringing with it mass terror, irreconcilable malice and bitterness of people. It is no coincidence that Russia lost 11.5 million of its citizens in it.

Lesson type: lesson of analysis and synthesis.

Lesson form: practical lesson.

Technologies: pedagogical workshop.

Goals:

• to systematize the material on the topic “Characteristics of the social system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century”;
• to summarize the material on the history of Russia in 1914-1917;
• determine the reasons for the split of Russian society into opposing factions in 1918;
• to continue the formation of skills in the analysis of historical documents;
• understand that the tragedy of the Civil War teaches the rejection of hatred, violence and arbitrariness as a method of state building, the entire organization of life.

Equipment:

• Zharova L.N. Mishina I.A. History of the Fatherland. 1900–1940: M., Education, 1992.
• Part 1, 2 of the multimedia textbook “History of Russia. XX century”: M., Clio Soft, 2000.
• Babel I. Cavalry. Odessa stories. Plays. Articles. Letters. Irkutsk: East Siberian book. Publishing house, 1991.

Preliminary work:

The class is divided into six groups of 4 people. The division into groups was carried out taking into account the psychological and pedagogical characteristics of each student. The division into groups involves the joint implementation of problematic tasks, the development of collective solutions, the cultivation of self-respect for each other. Prepared packages with documents, multimedia presentation.

DURING THE CLASSES

1. Inductor. In order for the participants of the workshop to get used to the historical situation and deeply feel the tragedy of the civil war, the word “fate” was chosen as an inductor. Students are offered cards on which the main social groups of the population of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century are identified ( Annex 1 ). So, at the beginning of the workshop, participants randomly choose a card with their “fate”.

2. Creative task. In the course of the analysis of documents, it is proposed to draw up a socio-economic portrait of their estate or class, to describe how the category of people in question could live on their annual income.

3. Work with materials. Students work with materials “Annual Income of Different Populations” ( Appendix 2 ), “Quantitative indicators of the population census for 1897.” ( Annex 3 ), “The way of life and mores of different groups of the population” ( Appendix 4 ). The materials are given to the groups according to the categories of the population they represent.

4. Socialization. Presentation by groups of the results of their work through oral presentations of students.

5. Intermediate reflection. Determination of the main result of the presented results of the work: was social life polarized in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

6. Gap. Students are invited to listen to a historical retrospective offered by the teacher:

1914 - Russia enters the First World War;
1915 - 1917 - national crisis
1917 - February bourgeois - democratic revolution;
October 1917 - the proletarian revolution, as a result of which the Bolsheviks came to power.

The teacher's story is accompanied by a multimedia presentation of historical events. The students are given a problem task: in what conditions do the participants of the workshop find themselves now, continuing to “live” the chosen fate.

7. Appeal to new information. Students are offered materials “Events of the Soviet Power” ( Annex 5 ).

8. Socialization. Students in groups offer their own answers and determine their attitude to the new government - the power of the Bolsheviks

9. Appeal to new information. Students are invited to analyze the programs of the "white", "red" and "green" movement. ( Appendix 6 ). What movement will be supported by this or that social category of the population (put a flag of your color on the table).

10. Socialization. Students explain why they supported a particular movement.

11. Appeal to new information. Students are offered materials on how each side defended its interests ( Annex 7 ).

12. Socialization. Presentation by groups of the results of their work through oral presentations of students.

13. General reflection. What is the tragedy of the Civil War?

M. Tsvetaeva.

All lie side by side
Don't break the line.
Look: soldier
Where is yours, where is someone else's
White was - became red:
Blood stained.
Was red - became white:
Death whitened.

14. Homework. Prepare oral reports about the participants in the Civil War.

Annex 1.

The main social groups of the population of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century:

• working class;
• bourgeoisie;
• landlords;
• fists;
• middle peasants;
• laborers, horseless peasants.

Appendix 2

Annual income of different population groups

• working class - an average of 214 rubles a year;
• bourgeoisie - an average of 60,000 rubles a year;
• landlords - an average of 8,000 rubles a year;
• fists - an average of 4,000 rubles a year;
• middle peasants in - an average of 2000 rubles a year;
• laborers, peasants (one horse, one cow), horseless peasants - an average of 100 - 200 rubles a year.

Prices in Russia before 1914

• Caviar (1 kg.) - 3 rubles 40 kopecks;
• Veal (1 kg.) - 3 rubles;
• Black bread (pound) - 3 kopecks;
• Lunch in the dining room - 5 kopecks;
• Lunch at a restaurant - 1 ruble 70 kopecks;
• Two-room apartment (rent per month) - 15 rubles;
• Draped coat - 13 rubles 50 kopecks;
• Horse - from 45 rubles;
• Cow - from 40 rubles ..

Appendix 3

Quantitative indicators of the population census for 1897

• The entire population of the country is 125 million people. Of them:
  • working class - 11.2% (14 million people);
  • bourgeoisie - 2% (2500 thousand people);
  • landowners - 1.5% (1853 thousand people);
  • middle peasants - 12% (37,500 thousand people);
  • fists - 3% (3706 thousand people);
  • laborers, peasants (one horse, one cow);
  • horseless peasants - 62% (775 thousand people).

Appendix 4

Way of life and mores of different groups of the population

Working class: 11, 5 - an hour working day, fines were taken away up to half of the workers' earnings, a high degree of exploitation - the capitalists took 78 kopecks from each ruble as profit. Spending in favor of workers (hospitals, schools, insurance) accounted for 0.6% of the current expenses of entrepreneurs. Families of workers lived in apartments of a bed-and-cabin type. Closet - part of the room, separated by wooden partitions.

Bourgeoisie: among the Russian capitalists, small and medium-sized ones prevailed, the bourgeoisie was divided into two categories - Moscow (those from the merchant environment) and St. Petersburg (those from the bureaucracy). Entrepreneurs sought to squeeze out the maximum income, using rude methods of competition, such as boycott, pressure, extortion from the population. The government extradited the industrialists at the beginning of 1905. Illegal loans for 63 million rubles, written off debts for 33 million rubles.

Landlords: the basis of wealth was land ownership, a profitable article was given by entrepreneurship, noble communities were further developed, the privilege of the nobility was preserved - they enjoyed an advantage in being appointed to public service, were not subjected to corporal punishment, and were sued with equals.

Middle peasants:“strong” peasants - owned up to 20 acres of land, gave 20% of marketable bread, as a rule, fellow villagers did not use hired labor, with the exception of seasonal work.

Fists: rural bourgeoisie, rich peasants who had 40-50 acres of land each, gave 30% of marketable bread, hired impoverished fellow villagers.

Laborers, peasants(one horse, one cow), horseless peasants: had 8 acres of land with a “subsistence minimum” of 15 acres, the ruin of peasant farms, going to work in cities or to richer fellow villagers.

Appendix 5

The first measures of the Soviet power:

• Confiscation of landowners' lands, the land was declared public property, egalitarian land use with a permanent redistribution of land.
• Decree on the 8-hour working day, the system of labor protection for women and adolescents, free medical care and education in schools, the resettlement of workers in new apartments.
• Nationalization of all industry, banks, introduction of workers' control in production.
• The class division of society has been abolished.
• Declaration of sovereignty and equality of all peoples of Russia.

Appendix 6

• White movement program:
  • A.I. Denikin. “From the order to the Special Conference”: “I order to accept the following provisions as the basis of my activity: -
    - United, great, indivisible Russia. Faith defense. Establishing order.
    - The fight against Bolshevism to the end.
    - Military dictatorship. Any opposition - right and left - to punish. 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 - only nationally Russian. For help - not an inch of Russian land.
  • Solving the agrarian question:
    Retention of the owners of their rights to the land. At the same time, in each individual locality there must be a certain amount of land that can be preserved in the hands of the previous owners, and a procedure for the transfer of the rest of the privately owned land to land-poor land must be established. These transitions can be made by voluntary agreements or by compulsory expropriation, but always for a fee. For the new owners, the land, not exceeding the established size, is assigned to the rights of unshakable property.
  • Working issue solution:
    Restoration of the legal rights of the owners of factory enterprises and at the same time ensuring the protection of the working class of its professional interests. Establishment of state control over production. Establishment of an 8-hour working day in factories.
• Green movement program:
  From the resolution of the congress of representatives from 72 volosts on April 10, 1918, the village of Gulyai-Pole, Aleksandrovsky district: “Taking into account the present situation in Ukraine and Great Russia, the authorities of the political party “Communist-Bolsheviks”, which does not stop at any measures to convince and consolidating state power, the congress decided:
  • We, the gathered peasants, are always ready to defend our people's rights.
  • In the hands of the Bolshevik government, the Extraordinary Commissions became a weapon for suppressing the will of the working people.
  • We demand a fundamental change in food policy, the replacement of the liquidation detachment with a correct system of trade between town and country.
  • We demand complete freedom of speech, press, and assembly for all political left movements.
  • We categorically do not recognize dictatorships, any kind of party.
  • Beat the whites until they turn red, beat the reds until they turn white!
• Red movement program:
  • Defense of the conquests of the October Revolution.
  • Complete nationalization of industry, elimination of private property.
  • The introduction of surplus appropriation in the countryside is the seizure of all surplus grain from the peasants in excess of the established norm.
  • The establishment of a one-party Bolshevik dictatorship.
  • Creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army.

Appendix 7

Analysis of terrorist actions in the Civil War.

From the newspaper “On the Way”, October 7, 1918: “The following telegram was received from the headquarters of the brigade N ... (Southern Front): “I report that the delegates of the N regiment found abandoned, covered with straw, killed Red Guards in the amount of 31 people. It is impossible to identify the identity of those killed, because the corpses are completely mutilated: almost all of them have their heads pierced, their eyes gouged out, their ears cut off.”

From the order of the Governor of the Yenisei and part of the Irkutsk province S.N. Rozanova, March 27, 1919:

"1. When occupying villages previously captured by robbers, demand the extradition of their leaders and leaders; if this does not happen, shoot the tenth.
2. Villages, the population of which will meet government troops with weapons, burn; to shoot the adult male population without exception; seize property for the benefit of the treasury.
3. For the voluntary supply of robbers, not only weapons, but also food, clothing and other guilty villages will be burned, and property will be collected in favor of the treasury.
4. Take hostages among the population, in case of actions of fellow villagers directed against government troops, shoot the hostages mercilessly.”

V.V. Shulgin An excerpt from the memoirs “1920”:

Reds are robbers, murderers, rapists. They are inhuman, they are cruel. For them there is nothing sacred, they rejected the traditions, the commandments of the Lord. They despise the Russian people. They kill, they torture. This means that the whites who are at war with the reds precisely because they are completely different reds ... Plundering is an indelible shame for them.
Whites only kill in combat. Who pinned the wounded, who shot the prisoner - he is deprived of honor.
Whites have a god in their hearts.
Whites only want to be strong in order to be kind... Are these people? It's almost holy...
“Almost saints” and started this white deed ... But what came of it? My God!
I saw how the venerable regimental father in large galoshes and with an umbrella in his hands, bogged down in the mud, ran around the village after the robbing soldiers. Chickens, ducks and white geese scattered in all directions, “white” soldiers ran after them, behind the soldiers a priest with a white beard.
In one hut, a “commissar” was hung up by the arms… A fire was laid out under him and slowly roasted… a man, and all around a drunken gang of “monarchists” howled “God save the Tsar”.

From the novel by A. Tolstoy "Walking through the torments":

On September 5, the Moscow and Petrograd newspapers came out with the ominous headline: "The Red Terror."
“It is instructed all Soviets to immediately arrest the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, representatives of the big bourgeoisie and officers, and hold them as hostages. If you try to raise an uprising - immediately apply mass execution unconditionally. We need to immediately and forever secure our rear from the White Guard bastards. Not the slightest delay in the application of mass terror.”

The tragedy of the Civil War is indelible in the memory of the people, its victims are innumerable. Among them, according to I. S. Shmelev, “there is a sacrifice, the meaning of which is not, perhaps, comprehended by everyone with due completeness and clarity: this sacrifice is our literature, the Russian artistic word”1. Many Russian writers were forced to leave their homeland in order to never come back. Among them are Ivan Shmelev and Boris Zaitsev. The fates of both writers developed differently, but the trials that fell to them for a long time are very similar.

In 1918, Shmelev traveled to the Crimea with his wife and son. Here the writer was destined to live, probably, the most terrible days of his life. The Shmelevs did not think about emigration; even his son Sergei, an officer of the Volunteer Army, remained in the Crimea during the retreat of P. N. Wrangel in November 1920. The reluctance to leave turned into a tragedy. Sergey Shmelev "was arrested by the Bolsheviks and taken to Feodosia [...] There he was kept in a basement on a stone floor, with a mass of the same officers, priests, officials. Starved. After keeping him sick for a month, they drove him out of town at night and shot" 3. This is how the writer himself describes the fate of his son. This death shocked the Shmelevs, but was not their only test: they had to endure the terrible months of red terror and famine. Shmelev spoke about everything he had endured in his first émigré work, the epic Sun of the Dead (1923). This book immediately caused a lot of responses abroad: it was compared both with the Apocalypse and with Dante's "Hell", because, according to A. V. Amfiteatrov, "a more terrible book has not been written in Russian"4. Describing the picture of the death of all living things, Shmelev strove for accuracy, documentary nature of his story. There is nothing fictional in the epic; the writer experienced all this horror for himself. The reader opens the tragedy that occurred in the Crimea, when the Bolsheviks "those who want to kill" came to it. Having received an order from the capital to "sweep the Crimea with an iron broom," the "new creators of life" eagerly set about fulfilling it: "And so they killed, at night. During the day ... they slept. and the old - with hot blood. Recently they fought openly. They defended their homeland [...] Now, tortured, they ended up in the basements. They planted them hard, starved them to take away their strength. They took them from the basements and killed them "5.

Later, Shmelev will return to the Crimean tragedy in a letter "to the Defender of the Russian officer Konradi - Mr. Ober, as material for the case," where he once again describes in detail all the crimes that he witnessed: "I saw and experienced all the horrors, having survived in Crimea from November 1920 to February 1922. If an accidental miracle and an authoritative international commission could obtain the right to conduct an investigation on the ground, it would collect such material that would absorb all the crimes and all the horrors of beatings that have ever been on earth " 6.

In 1922, Shmelev with great difficulty managed to move from the devastated Crimea to Moscow, and then from there - abroad. Exile was a heavy cross for Shmelev. However, in the midst of all the hardships and hardships of emigre life, the writer "not for a moment [...] stops thinking about Russia and is tormented by her misfortunes"7 (K. D. Balmont).

After completing work on The Sun of the Dead, Shmelev wrote a number of stories. Some of them, included in the collection "About one old woman" - about post-revolutionary Russia, about the sorrows and hardships of the Russian people. Others are devoted to the Crimean theme, in which the writer continues to comprehend everything that happened in Russia in general and on the peninsula in particular. For example, the story "The Huns" is dedicated to the entry of the Reds into the Crimea, and here the author draws clear parallels between the "new creators of life" and the wild hordes of the Huns. Such a comparison of the Bolsheviks with the horde was quite common among émigré writers. The story "Panorama" shows the fate of a family of intellectuals forced to keep a cow in the office, among books and manuscripts. The hero of the story "Fog" - a former jurist - defends his last right - "the right of a slave." All these broken destinies, complementing each other, help to see the tragedy that happened to Russia in its entirety and, most importantly, allow you to reveal its essence, to understand the meaning of what happened.

The theme of the revolution and the Civil War from Shmelev's works of art passes into his journalism, which is quite extensive: the writer never remained indifferent either to the life of the Russian emigration, or to the events that took place in the Soviet Union and in the world, responding to them in articles, appeals, appeals . As well as artistic creativity, the entire journalism of the writer is imbued with a feeling of love for Russia, pain for her fate and faith in her revival.

The theme of the White movement is of great importance in the creative heritage of Shmelev. This was caused not only by the memory of his son, but also by the writer's genuine attention to the White idea, to the fate of the Volunteer Army.

Disputes about the White movement, which have not subsided among emigrants from the first day of exile, flared up with renewed vigor after the publication of I. A. Ilyin's treatise "On Resistance to Evil by Force". In this discussion, Shmelev tried to comprehend the performance of the Volunteer Army from the point of view of the Orthodox worldview. In resolving this issue, the writer unequivocally takes the side of Ilyin, whom he called "the conscience of the Russian intelligentsia"8. Shmelev most clearly expressed his attitude to the White movement in the article "The Soul of Russia" (1927). The title itself speaks eloquently of the position of the author. The whole article as a whole is truly a hymn to the White warriors who "saved the honor of Russia." As we have seen, the Red Army in the works of Shmelev appears as a horde, as hordes of wild people, drunk with blood and distraught. As for the White movement, the writer, on the contrary, emphasizes that it "is a selection, a selection of the best Russian in Spirit, in the feeling of Russia, a selection - of that which could not imagine being without Russia, could not put up with Her distorted face, with outrage over her soul." The title of "White Warrior" is for the writer a sign of purity, steadfastness, fidelity. However, Shmelev not only sings of the Volunteer Movement, but also tries to reveal its essence, to comprehend its significance in the fate of Russia. The writer comes to the conclusion that the years of the White Struggle are a “break in Russian history”, and “behind it is New Russia, which will certainly be. Behind it is the most intense search for a true national existence, national renewal, gathering and protecting what Russia is [ ...] without which it cannot exist, which is Orthodox Great Russia"10. In Shmelev's understanding, the White Warriors are the bearers of the national idea. But they are also "a lofty and terrible example of national redemption", "are a stunning example of the suffering of an innocent generation for the mistakes and crimes of their fathers and grandfathers"11. Shmelev interprets the way of the Volunteer Army as a whole as the way of the cross, leading through death and defeat, through Golgotha ​​and the Expiatory Sacrifice to the Resurrection.

In later articles - "Feat" (1936), dedicated to the anniversary of the Ice Campaign, and "Sons of Russia" (1937) - Shmelev penetrates deeper into the essence of the White Struggle, emphasizes its not earthly, but the highest meaning: "This is a struggle with Evil, which has taken mask of Bolshevism." "Here are not ordinary events of history, but immeasurable by time - the tragedy of the struggle between the Divine and the Devil"12. And the writer again points to the sacrifice of the White movement, to the uncomplaining bearing of the Cross taken upon itself: "The honor of the Cross fell to the Russian Volunteerism: to be the first to withstand the blow of evil embodied in Bolshevism, to lay an initiative in the struggle for the Divine image in man"13.

Shmelev refers to the theme of the White movement in many publications throughout his émigré work. In 1947, in the article "In Memory of the 'Invincible'", dedicated to the death of General Denikin, the writer speaks of the extraordinary "purity of service" inherent in one of the last leaders of the Russian Volunteerism, once again proving his idea that "the sacred name is the White Warrior "- is a "sign of high spiritual selection"14.

Thus, in the person of I. S. Shmelev, the White movement found a staunch and loyal supporter and defender, who made the feat of the Russian Volunteering the property of Russian literature.

The tragedy of the revolution and the Civil War ran through all of Shmelev's émigré work. The writer returned to the long-experienced, comprehending it again, and brought it into his works. All the suffering that befell Shmelev - the loss of his son, wife, Motherland - allowed the writer to see the falsity of the path he had gone before, brought him closer to the Church and to understanding the soul of Russia, made him a truly Russian man and writer.

Zaitsev responds to everything that happens in Russia with a series of lyrical essays written in 1918-1922: "Solitary", "St. Nicholas Street", "White Light", "Soul", in which he tries to reveal the eternal, timeless meaning Russian tragedy. In the quiet words of the writer, there is a call not to hatred, but to love: "Will I see a brother in the beast?" But Zaitsev in no way justifies the murderers and criminals who seized power in the country. According to the correct statement of A. M. Lyubomudrov, “Zaitsev’s position has nothing in common either with Tolstoy’s “non-resistance to evil”, or with fatalistic obedience to “rock”, or with the preaching of a passive existence, indifferent to good and evil.” The "meekness" of the writer is "not soft and amorphous [...]: behind it stands firmness and strictness in upholding the Truth, a calm determination to face any sorrow and even death"16.

In June 1922, Zaitsev left his homeland forever. As for thousands of other exiles, separation from Russia was a difficult cross for the writer, but Zaitsev always remained true to his intransigence towards the Bolshevik regime and in 1953, in his Letter to the Motherland, he explains his position as follows: “Emigration, of course, is a drama: separation "But the killing of a living soul, violence against it is still something infinitely worse. So not only do I not envy those of my brethren in Russia who, living much wider, richer than me, are forced to adapt, write to order and bend their backs before nonentities, but I sincerely regret their fate."

The first major work of Zaitsev, written in exile, was the novel "Golden Pattern". It contains an attempt by the author to comprehend the Cause of the tragedy that happened, to point to its origins. The writer tells about the fate of Russian intellectuals, draws pictures of their pre-war life - idle, empty, irresponsible; then - war, revolution, exile and the turning point that takes place in the soul of the heroes. Of course, the novel has an autobiographical basis. It clearly sounds the motive of repentance, confession of guilt. This is the author's judgment on himself, his generation, which is largely responsible for what happened. After going through all the trials and tribulations, at the end of the book the main characters come to the Church. This is a reflection of the fate of the writer himself and of many other fates.

The theme of guilt and repentance continues to sound in other works by Zaitsev. So, in the essay "On the Road" he again points to "fatigue, licentiousness and lack of faith both at the top and among the middle intelligentsia" as one of the causes of the tragedy: "It's hard to remember. We paid dearly, but it means we got enough sins. A revolution is always a reckoning. There is nothing to reproach the former Russia: it is better to turn on ourselves. What kind of citizens were we, what kind of sons of Russia, the Motherland?"18.

An important step in the creative path of Boris Zaitsev was the book "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" (1924) - a biography of the great Russian saint of the XIV century. It would seem that the topic chosen by the author leads away from the events of reality, does not come into contact with them in any way. However, it is not. As A. M. Lyubomudrov points out, “probably one of the main reasons for turning to the image of Sergius was the similarity of historical eras. The revolution was perceived by many as a new enslavement of Russia; therefore, the image of St. Sergius, who blessed Dmitry Donskoy for the battle with the Horde, personified a light force capable of withstanding the horrors of wars and revolutions, and was the key to the future revival of Russia.It is noteworthy that, according to the writer, it is precisely Saint Sergius is not a prince, and not a warrior, but a “modest monk, whose main qualities are meekness and humility. But these very qualities, according to Zaitsev’s deep conviction, are the only weapon with which one can fight and defeat the spiritual enemy. And yet Sergius blesses Dmitry Donskoy for a battle, for the shedding of blood, because you also need to fight against a physical enemy with a sword: “If a tragic business is going on on a tragic land, he will bless the side that he considers right. He is not for the war, but since it happened, for the people and for Russia, the Orthodox. As a mentor and comforter, "The Paraclete of Russia," he cannot remain indifferent."20 These words can be considered the writer's answer to the question of resisting evil by force.

Like Shmelev, Boris Zaitsev returned to depicting the tragedy of the revolution and the Civil War throughout his entire work. Thus, in the essay "The Savior on Blood" the author recalls all those who were innocently tortured and shot during the terrible revolutionary years. But through pain and suffering the writer is led by the belief that "that the new Russia (and it is coming!), as of old, will again have to go with words of mercy and humanity." And in this new Russia the remains of all the victims will be found, collected and "united into one, verily, now a mass grave and over it the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood has been erected"21.

Touched Zaitsev in his work and the Crimean tragedy. In 1926, he wrote the essay "The Bright Path", dedicated to the memory of the Russian poetess Adelaide Ertsyk and preceded the publication of her "Podvalnye Essays".

The writer reveals to us the fate of a talented artist of the word and an unusually strong spirit of a woman who survived arrest, a stay in a basement prison in the Crimea, hunger, the death of loved ones - and yet unbroken: on terrible winter nights, "trembling in a fever from hunger and cold, this the inextinguishable soul composed its verses, sang its hymns, and praised God. Zaitsev cites an eyewitness account of those days in the Crimea, which echoes the most terrible pages of Shmelev's "Sun of the Dead": "At night they were taken out naked, into the winter cold, far behind a rock that protruded into the sea, and there, putting them over a crevice, they shot, then they threw stones at everyone interspersed - shot and unshot. And those who fled were shot anywhere, and their corpses often lay near our very dwellings, and under pain of execution they could not be buried "23. And yet the poetess, who experienced everything in full, showed herself "the greatest affirmation of humility and love for God - in moments of such trials, which are erected to the ancient Job." "The late A.G. is a vivid and wonderful example of overcoming evil with good. The revolution interrupted her life. But she defeated the revolution, for no suffering burned her soul"24.

Zaitsev's lines, dedicated to his dearly beloved Motherland, to the Russian people, who are an example of meekness and purity of soul, were imbued with the lyricism characteristic of the writer. However, for the enemies of Russia, to denounce evil, Zaitsev found tough, harsh words that reveal the essence of the ongoing lawlessness. One example of such an uncompromising journalistic speech is the response to the abduction of General A.P. Kutepov - "The Cross" (1930). Here, the writer’s artistic word openly exposes those who crucified Russia on the cross: “Our Motherland is on the Cross, what can I say: they crucify it, they crucify it before our eyes, every day, they drive nails deeper. task: in five years to "disinfect" everything, to destroy everything, to kill out the stronger peasantry, to exterminate the intelligentsia, morality, religion - to put a naked savage on the throne of glory"25. And General Kutepov, according to the writer, is "the banner of martyrdom, the banner of Russia crucified, he cannot but be his own to every Russian, no matter what his views"26.

Everything created by Boris Zaitsev in exile is written about Russia and for Russia. It was given to the writer to comprehend the highest meaning of the tragedy that occurred in the Motherland, and in his work he discovered this meaning for his readers.

During the years of the revolution, the Civil War, and exile, Russian writers Ivan Shmelev and Boris Zaitsev had a chance to drink the full cup of troubles and suffering. However, in the work of both writers, personal tragedy recedes into the background. It depicts mainly the tragedy of Russia and its people. And yet, the main thing that their works carry in themselves is an unquenchable faith in God's Providence, in the affirmation of Truth and in the Revival of Russia.

Notes
1 Shmelev I. S. Sobr. cit.: In 5 vols. Vol. 7 (additional): It was: Stories. Publicism. M., 1999. S. 445.
2 Shmelev I. S. Murder // Change. 1991. No. 7. S. 25.
3 Shmelev I. S. Sobr. op. Vol. 7 (additional). S. 402.
4 Cit. By: Kutyrina Yu. A. The tragedy of Shmelev // Word. 1991. N 2. S. 65.
5 Shmelev I. S. Ways of Heaven: Fav. prod. M., 1991. S. 41.
6 Shmelev I. S. Sobr. op. Vol. 7 (additional). S. 404.
7 Shmelev I. S. Ways of Heaven: Fav. prod. C. 3.
8 Shmelev I. S. Sobr. op. Vol. 7 (additional). S. 394.
9 Ibid. S. 392.
10 Ibid. S. 392.
11 Ibid. S. 393.
12 Ibid. S. 506.
13 Ibid. S. 512.
14 Ibid. S. 391.
15 Cit. By: Lyubomudrov A. M. Boris Zaitsev's book "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" // Literature and history. SPb., 1992. S. 264.
16 Ibid. S. 265.
17 Zaitsev B.K. Sign of the Cross: Roman; Essays; Journalism / Comp., enter, Art. and comment. A. M. Lyubomudrova. M., 1999. S. 507.
18 Op. By: Mikhailov O. N. Literature of the Russian Diaspora. M., 1995. S. 276.
19 Lyubomudrov A. M. Boris Zaitsev's book "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh". S. 267.
20 Zaitsev B.K. Autumn light: Tales, stories. M., 1990. S. 505.
21 Zaitsev B.K. Sign of the Cross. S. 406.
22 Ibid. S. 398.
23 Ibid. S. 396.
24 Ibid. S. 399.
25 Ibid. S. 431.
26 Ibid. S. 433.

Article from the collection: White Russia: Experience of historical retrospection: Proceedings of the international scientific conference / A.V. Tereshchuk. SPb. - M., sowing. 2002.