The civil war in Russia, during which the forces of the Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolshevik front clashed, unfolded in 1917-1922/23. In addition to the main warring parties, there was a "third force" that acted differently at all stages of hostilities. The role of the "third force" is ambiguous. Researchers have not come to a consensus on the role and significance of the "green rebels".
Historians have disagreed about the nature of the Green Movement. Historian R. Gagkuev described the appearance of the "third force" as a defense mechanism of the common people, who tried to protect peace, at least in a small area. The driving force of the "greens" were the peasants, the Cossacks.
Soviet historiography considered the "greens" as bandits, illegal formations that acted on the principle of partisan detachments. The "greens" fought both the "whites" and the "reds", sometimes entering into alliances with each force if it suited their interests. The "Greens" were hiding from mobilization in the Red Army.
The opinion about the formations of the "third force" was expressed by the "white" general A. Denikin in his work "Essays on Russian Troubles". Denikin wrote that these formations received the name "green" on behalf of one of the leaders of the movement - Ataman Zeleny. In addition, the work emphasizes the lack of sympathy among the “greens” for both the “reds” and the “whites”. Geographically, the general localized the rebels in the western part of the Poltava region (the territory of modern Ukraine).
It is believed that initially "greens" were called peasants who evaded military service, later this name became common to all paramilitary peasant detachments.
Memories of the "greens" are contained in essays written by foreign interventionists, based on what they saw on the territory of Russia during the Civil War. H. Williamson, a Briton, fought in the Don Army, wrote that he saw a detachment of such fighters - an eyewitness described the meeting in "Farewell to the Don": they were without uniform, in ordinary peasant clothes, a green cross was sewn on their hats. The author was impressed by the army as a strong, united army. The "green" detachment refused to join the battle on the side of the "whites", but throughout the fighting, the main parties to the conflict tried to win over the peasants to their side.
The peasants had experience in combat operations: participation in skirmishes between villages, in the battles of the First World War, where many stocked up with three-rulers and even machine guns. It was not safe to enter such villages. Historians note that regular troops asked the local headman for permission to pass through the village - they were often refused. In 1919, the situation changed, which forced the peasants to hide in the forests and organize close-knit paramilitary units. The “greens” were hiding from mobilization into the Red Army - if in 1918 the Bolsheviks did not cause concern, then in 1919 they became a powerful force that was difficult to resist with the few forces of peasant detachments.
The most prominent leaders of the “greens” were A.Antonov, a socialist-revolutionary, one of the leaders of the uprising in the Tambov province, P.Tokmakov, the head of the Tambov uprising, and N.Makhno, an anarchist, one of the most famous personalities of the liberation movement in the southern part of Ukraine.
Among the "greens" there were also ordinary bandits and adherents of the ideology of anarchism. With the latter, the "third force" is most often associated. This ideology has been developing on the territory of Russia since the end of the 19th century. Anarchism developed in the form of several currents: anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-individualists, Chernoznamentsy, beznachaltsy. During the February and October revolutions, the movement experienced several splits. The most active were the anarch-syndicalists, from which the anarcho-federalists split off. There was also a split among the anarcho-communists - a group of anarcho-cooperators stood out, who believed that there were no barriers to the transition from capitalism to communism and this process should take place at once.
After the overthrow of the monarchy, anarchists called on the people to build a just society based on universal freedom. In view of the peculiarities of the situation in the country, the anarchists noted that in order to finally overthrow the old government, they would act together with the Bolshevik revolutionaries. At the first stage of the Civil War, anarchists sought, first of all, for an early social revolution. In addition, the anarchists demanded freedom of speech and the press, reprisals against representatives of the old government, the provision of material assistance to like-minded people who were released from prisons - who became “victims” of the harsh monarchical regime, and the issuance of weapons to all groups.
Groups operating under the slogans of anarchism marched under green, black, black-green, green-red flags. The most famous flag is that of Nestor Makhno's rebels: a black flag with a skull and crossbones has become a generally accepted symbol of anarchism.
A characteristic feature of the "greens" is the absence of a single center. In the modern territories of Russia and Ukraine, there were several groups - each had its own leader, its own rules and goals: some gravitated towards the aforementioned anarchism (opposed to any government), some - to the ideas of the Bolsheviks (the power of the Soviets and the socialist society were considered the ideal), separate groups defended national-democratic interests (demanded the convocation of the Constituent Assembly and the building of a law-based state, acted on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory). Nor did they support the foreign interventionists operating on the territory of Russia during the years of the Civil War.
One of the most famous uprisings of the “greens” is the Tambov rebellion or “Antonovshchina”. As a result of large-scale hostilities, the Bolsheviks won, for the first time in history, using chemical weapons against the rebels.
The Green movement was completely crushed by the end of the Civil War.
The latest research on the history of Russia
The Latest Studies in the History of Russia series was founded in 2016.
Design by the artist E.Yu. Shurlapova
This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 16-41-93579)
Introduction
Revolution and internecine strife are always very flowery, in every sense of the word. Vivid vocabulary, aggressive jargon, expressive names and self-names, a real feast of slogans, banners, speeches and banners. Suffice it to recall the names of the parts, for example, in the American Civil War. The southerners had "Lincoln assassins", all kinds of "bulldogs", "threshers", "yellow jackets", etc., the northerners had a grandiose sinister anaconda plan. The civil war in Russia could not be an exception, especially since in a country just approaching universal schooling, visual perception and marking meant a lot. No wonder the romantics of the world revolution expected so much from the cinema. An incredibly expressive and understandable language has been found! The sound once again killed the aggressively revolutionary dream: the films began to speak in different languages, the dialogue replaced the irresistible power of the living poster.
Already in the revolutionary months of 1917, the banners of shock units and death units provided such expressive material that an interesting candidate's dissertation was successfully defended on them. It happened that a unit with the most modest real combat strength had a bright banner.
The autumn of 1917 finally determined the names of the main characters - the Reds and the Whites. The Red Guard, and soon the army was opposed by the Whites - the White Guards. The name "White Guard" itself is believed to have been adopted by one of the detachments in the Moscow battles in late October - early November. Although the logic of the development of the revolution suggested an answer even without this initiative. Red has long been the color of rebellion, revolution, barricades. White is the color of order, law, purity. Although the history of revolutions knows other combinations. In France, white and blue fought, under this name one of the novels by A. Dumas from his revolutionary series came out. The blue semi-brigades became the symbol of the victorious young revolutionary French army.
In the picture of the unfolding Civil War in Russia, along with the "basic" colors, others were woven. Anarchist detachments called themselves the Black Guard. Thousands of Black Guards fought in the southern direction in 1918, being very wary of their red comrades. Until the fights of the early 1930s, the self-name of the rebels "black partisans" appeared. In the Orenburg region, even the Blue Army is known among many insurgent anti-Bolshevik formations. "Colored", almost officially, will be called the most cohesive and combat-ready white units in the South - the famous Kornilovites, Alekseyevites, Markovites and Drozdovites. They got their name from the color of their shoulder straps.
Color markings were also actively used in propaganda. In the leaflet of the headquarters of the recreated North Caucasian Military District in the spring of 1920, “yellow bandits” stood out - these are the sons of offended kulaks, socialist-revolutionaries and Mensheviks, fathers, Makhnovists, Maslaks, Antonovites and other comrades-in-arms and hangers-on of the bourgeois counter-revolution, bandits “black”, "white", "brown" 2 .
However, the most famous third color in the Civil War remained green. The Greens became a significant force at some stages of the Civil War. Depending on the inclination of specific green formations to support one or another "official" side, white-green or red-green appeared. Although these designations could only fix a temporary, momentary tactical line or behavior dictated by circumstances, and not a clear political position.
A civil war in a large country invariably creates some main subjects of confrontation and a significant number of intermediate or peripheral forces. For example, the American Civil War drew the Indian population into its orbit, Indian formations appeared both on the side of the northerners and on the side of the southerners; there were states that were neutral. Many colors were also indicated in civil wars, for example, in multinational Spain in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Civil War in Russia, the main subjects of confrontation crystallized rather quickly. However, within the white and red camps, there were often very serious contradictions, not even so much of a political nature as at the level of political emotions. The Red partisans did not tolerate commissars, the White Cossacks did not trust the officers, etc. In addition, new state formations were structured on the national outskirts with more or less success, striving first of all to acquire their own armed forces. All this made the overall picture of the struggle extremely variegated and dynamically changing. Finally, always active minorities fight, they rouse broader masses of fellow citizens. In peasant (and landslide re-peasantization in 1917–1920 due to land redistribution and rapid deindustrialization) Russia, the main character in any lengthy struggle was the peasant. Therefore, the peasant in the armies of the opposing sides, in the rebels, in the deserters - in any state created by a large-scale internal war - already by his mass character alone showed a very significant value. The Greens became one of the forms of peasant participation in the events of the Civil War.
The Greens had obvious predecessors. The peasant always suffers from war, often drawn into it out of necessity, either incurring a duty in favor of the state, or in defending his home. If we dare to make analogies that are not close, we can recall how the military successes of the French during the Hundred Years War in the 1360s and 1370s grew out of the need for self-defense and the emerging national feeling. and in the era of Joan of Arc, successes and innovations in the military art of the Dutch gezes at the end of the 16th century with their “transfer” through the Swedes to the Russian militias of the Time of Troubles, led by M. Skopin-Shuisky. However, the era of modern times has already separated the combat capabilities of the regular army and any improvised rebel formations too far. Probably, this situation was most clearly demonstrated by the epic of clobmen - "clubmen" - during the years of civil wars in England in the 17th century.
Cavalier royalists fought the parliamentary armies. The fight was fought with varying success. However, any internal war primarily hits the non-belligerents. The intemperate armies of both sides laid a heavy burden on the peasant population. In response, the cudgels rose. The movement was not widespread. It was located in several counties. In the domestic literature, the most detailed presentation of this epic remains the long-standing work of Professor S.I. Arkhangelsk.
The activity of klobmen is one of the stages in the development of the peasant movement in England during the civil wars of the 17th century. The peak of development of this self-defense movement came in the spring - autumn of 1645, although evidence of local armed formations is known almost from the beginning of hostilities, as well as later, outside of 1645.
The relationship between the armed peasants and the main active forces of civil strife - gentlemen and supporters of parliament is indicative. Let's highlight some plots that are interesting for our topic.
Clobmen are mostly villagers who have organized to resist looting and enforce peace on opposing sides.
Klobmeny had their own territory - this is primarily the counties of South-West England and Wales. These territories mostly stood for the king. At the same time, the movement also spread beyond the base territory, covering, at its peak, more than a quarter of the territory of England. The klobmen seemed to "not notice" the Civil War, expressing their readiness to feed any garrisons so that they would not act outrageously, expressing in petitions reverence for the royal power and respect for parliament. At the same time, the excesses of the troops caused a rebuff, and sometimes quite effective. Ordinary klobmen were mostly rural residents, although nobles, priests, and a significant number of townspeople are found in their leadership. In different counties there were different moods and motivations to participate in the Clobmen movement. This is due to the difference in socio-economic status. Everyone suffered from the war, but patriarchal Wales and the economically developed, woolen counties of England paint a different picture.
In 1645 there were about 50,000 clobmen. This number exceeded the royal armed forces - about 40 thousand, and slightly inferior to the parliamentary (60-70 thousand).
It is interesting that both the king and parliament tried to win the clubmen over to their side. First of all, there were promises to curb the predatory inclinations of the troops. At the same time, both sides sought to destroy the klobman organization. Both the Chevalier Lord Goring and the Parliamentary general Fairfax alike forbade Clobmen meetings. Apparently, the understanding that klobmen, in their further development, are capable of growing into some kind of third force, existed both on the side of the king and on the side of parliament, and caused opposition. Both needed a resource, not an ally with their own interests.
It is believed that by the end of 1645 the movement of klobmen was largely eliminated by the efforts of parliamentary troops under the command of Fairfax. At the same time, organizations of many thousands, even relatively weakly structured ones, could not disappear overnight. Indeed, already in the spring of 1649, at a new stage in the mass movement, a case was recorded of the arrival of an impressive detachment of clobmen from the county of Somerset to help the Levellers 3 .
For all the riskiness of analogies in three centuries, we note the plots themselves, which are similar in the civil wars in England and Russia. First, the grassroots mass movement is inclined towards a certain independence, although it is quite ready to listen to both "main" sides of the struggle. Secondly, it is territorially localized, although it tends to expand into neighboring territories. Thirdly, local interests prevail in motives, primarily the tasks of self-defense from ruin and excesses. Fourthly, it is the real or potential independence of the insurgent movement that causes concern of the main active forces of the civil war and the desire to liquidate it or integrate it into their armed structures.
Finally, the Russian Civil War unfolded when a great civil strife with active peasant participation was burning out on another continent - in Mexico. A comparative study of the civil war in an American country and in Russia has obvious scientific prospects. In fact, the activities of the peasant armies of Zapata and Villa provide rich and picturesque material for the study of the insurgent peasantry. However, it is more important for us that this analogy was already visible to contemporaries. In 1919, the well-known publicist V. Vetlugin wrote about “Mexican Ukraine” in the white press, the image of Mexico also appears in his book of essays “Adventurers of the Civil War”, published in 1921. evoked such associations. True, in the "green" areas of "Mexico" there were relatively few, this is more an affiliation of the steppe chieftain.
As early as 1919, the term "political banditry" appeared in the RSFSR to designate insurrection and anti-Bolshevik insurrectionary struggle, which became firmly and permanently included in historiography. At the same time, the main subject of this banditry was the kulaks. This evaluation standard was extended to situations of other civil wars, as a result of which the communists came to power. Thus, a book on the history of China published in the USSR in 1951 reported that in 1949 there were still a million "Kuomintang bandits" in the PRC. But by the first anniversary of the republic, the number of "bandits" had dropped to 200,000 4 . In the years of perestroika, this story caused controversy: “rebels” or “bandits”? The propensity for one or another designation determined the research and civic position of the writer.
The "big" civil war did not arouse as much attention among analysts of the Russian diaspora as the initial volunteer period. This is clearly seen in the well-known works of N.N. Golovin and A.A. Zaitsov. Accordingly, the green movement was not in the focus of attention. It is significant that the late Soviet book about the red partisans has nothing to do with the green movement, even the red-green one. At the same time, for example, in the Belarusian provinces, the maximum number, which hardly corresponds to reality, of partisans of a communist orientation is shown 5 . In a recent fundamental attempt to present a non-communist view of Russian history 6, the green movement is also not specifically singled out.
The green movement is sometimes interpreted as broadly as possible, as any armed struggle within the framework of the Civil War outside the white, red and national formations. So, A.A. Shtyrbul writes about "a broad and numerous, albeit scattered, all-Russian partisan-insurgent movement of the greens." He draws attention to the fact that anarchists played a significant role in this movement, and also to the fact that for the majority of representatives of this milieu whites were "more unacceptable" than reds. N. Makhno 7 is cited as an example. R.V. Daniele made an attempt to give a comparative analysis of civil wars and their dynamics. In his opinion, the Russian revolutionary peasantry, alienated by the policy of requisitioning, "became a free political force in many parts of the country", opposing the Whites and the Reds, and this situation was most dramatically manifested in Nestor Makhno's "Green Movement" in Ukraine. M.A. Drobov considers the military aspects of partisanship and small war. He analyzes in detail the red insurrection of the Civil War. The Greens for him are primarily an anti-White Guard force. “Among the “greens” it is necessary to distinguish between bandit gangs, self-seekers, various types of criminal punks who had nothing to do with the insurrection, and groups of poor peasants and workers scattered by whites and interventionists. It was these last elements ... having no connection either with the Red Army or with the party organization, independently organized detachments with the aim of harming the whites at every opportunity. M. Frenkin writes about the operations of the Greens in Syzran and other districts of the Simbirsk province, in a number of districts of Nizhny Novgorod and Smolensk, in the Kazan and Ryazan provinces, and clusters of Greens in Belarus with its vast forest and swampy areas 10 . At the same time, the name "green" for, for example, the Kazan or Simbirsk regions is uncharacteristic. An expanded understanding of the green movement is also inherent in historical journalism 11 .
T.V. played an important role in the study of peasant participation in the Civil War. Osipov. She was one of the first to raise the subject of the subjectivity of the peasantry in the internecine war 12 . In subsequent works by this author 13 a picture of peasant participation in the revolutionary and military events of 1917–1920 is developed. T.V. Osipova focused on the fact that the protest movement of the Great Russian peasantry was not noticed in Western literature, but it was, and was massive.
The well-known essay on peasant uprisings by M. Frenkin, of course, also concerns the theme of the Greens. He quite correctly assesses the green movement as a specific form of peasant struggle that appeared in 1919, that is, as a kind of innovation in the peasant struggle with power. With this movement, he connects the active work of the peasants in the destruction of Soviet farms during the Mamontov raid 14 . M. Frenkin is right from the point of view of the general logic of the peasant struggle. At the same time, one should carefully accept his value judgments about the unchanged multi-thousand greens. At times, conscious distortions in this matter have given rise to a whole tradition of incorrect perception. So, E.G. Renev showed that the memoirs of Colonel Fedichkin about the Izhevsk-Botkin uprising published in Abroad were subjected to serious editing by the editors of the publication with a deliberate distortion of the content. As a result, instead of peasant detachments of one hundred people who supported the workers' uprising in the Vyatka province, ten thousand detachments appeared in the publication 15 . M. Bernshtam, in his work, proceeded from the published version and counted active fighters on the side of the rebels, reaching up to a quarter of a million people 16 . On the other hand, a small active detachment could operate successfully with the total support and solidarity of the local population, sometimes quite an impressive neighborhood. Therefore, when counting insurgent, lightly armed and poorly organized (in the military sense of the word) forces, it may be appropriate to estimate not only the number of combatants, but also the total population involved in an uprising or other protest movement.
In 2002, two dissertations were defended on the military-political activity of the peasantry in the Civil War, specifically addressing the issues of the green movement. These are the works of V.L. Telitsyn and P.A. Pharmacist 17 . Each of them contains a separate plot dedicated to the "Zelenovshchina" of 1919. 18 The authors of these plots published 19 . P. Aptekar gives a general outline of the green uprisings, V. Telitsyn actively used Tver material.
One of the most massive socio-political movements in the modern world, uniting in its ranks various socio-political groups and organizations that oppose environmental pollution, the harmful effects of nuclear, chemical, biological and other types of industrial production, for the creation of a democratic society, for reduction of military budgets, the number of armies, for detente of international tension. The movement was started by small groups that performed in Western Europe in the 60s. on specific environmental issues. In the 70-80s. Green parties were created and began to actively operate in almost all Western European countries, including Austria, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, as well as in Canada, Japan, New Zealand.
The policy provisions of the Greens include a wide range of issues. These include requirements for the protection of nature and the human environment in the conditions of a modern industrial society; social provisions that criticize capitalist ownership of the means of production, suggesting the liquidation of large economic structures and the development of small and medium-sized production; measures for full employment and the participation of workers in the management of plants and factories; calls for the democratization of the state, the establishment of various forms of direct democracy, primarily in the form of various "civil initiatives"; demands for the defense of peace, the affirmation of the principles of peaceful coexistence, the complete destruction of atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, the renunciation of the use of outer space for military purposes, the dissolution of military blocs, the free development of all peoples. The "green" movement objectively reflects the growing desire for change in broad sections of the population, the search for an alternative.
Movement in different countries has its own characteristics. Thus, the program of the Environmental Protection Party (Sweden) is based on four principles of solidarity. The first is solidarity with nature. You can’t take more from her than she can then recover. It is necessary to fight for the creation of environmentally friendly production. The second principle is solidarity with future generations: we must leave the Earth to our children and grandchildren in such a state that they can live no worse than we do. The third principle is solidarity with third world countries, providing them with the necessary support in the fight against hunger, infectious and other diseases, etc. The fourth principle is helping those who are in difficulty, who are poor, the formation of strong social programs, the fight against bureaucratization and centralization authorities.
What tactics of action do the “greens” propose? It is based on a number of general provisions based on the principle of non-violence. Neither revolution nor reforms are suitable for achieving the goals of the Greens. So what in that case? “Replacement, gradual displacement,” the leaders of this movement answer. At the same time, a "double strategy" should be implemented - to act not only within the parliament and other state bodies, but first and foremost - outside them.
According to the “greens”, it is necessary to expand the “front of refusal” of the population from products and industries that are especially dangerous to human health and the environment, destroying valuable raw materials, to carry out work to disseminate alternative projects, using all the possibilities of the “green” party to support them.
"Greens" point to the need for industrial and trade union struggle of workers. They believe that such a struggle should be aimed primarily at reducing working hours, creating human working conditions and a possible change in income policy. Moreover, parliamentary activity must be coordinated and coordinated with the "basic movements", that is, with the actions of the masses. Demonstrations, sit-ins, pickets, distribution of leaflets, theatrical performances with political overtones, including concerts of rock bands - all this is taken by the "greens" into service. The combination of various forms of struggle testifies to their flexible adaptability to the most diverse conditions.
Recently, the Blues have emerged from the Green movement. If the former are primarily concerned with the salvation of nature, then the latter are concerned with the salvation of man's spirituality. The main activities of the Blue Movement are the practical solution of humanitarian-educational, spiritual-educational and initiative-organizational tasks. The movement originated in Russia, but is addressed to all the people of the Earth, since the entire civilization is experiencing a spiritual crisis. In Russia, the Blues are represented by the public organization For the Social Ecology of Man. Within the framework of its programs, youth clubs "Blue Bird" are being created, where young men and women join the beautiful, learn the history and traditions of their peoples, develop a new, humanitarian entrepreneurship - a type of business that combines commercial interest and attention to man and nature, clubs are formed The Blue Movement - the humanitarian protection of man, the all-Union program "Lyceum" is being implemented, the English Club in Moscow is being revived, etc. In 1990, the Blue Confederation was created - an alliance of forces concerned about the spiritual and moral situation of man. It includes more than a hundred different cultural, educational, scientific, and business organizations that are ready to work together to solve specific problems of human humanitarian protection.
The social base of the "green" movement is made up of young people, intellectuals, various sections of workers and entrepreneurs, progressive army circles, and religious figures. It acquired the greatest scope in Germany, where in January 1980 it took shape in the Green Party, which has authority in the general public. In the parliamentary elections of 1987, the Green Party received more than 3 million votes, its faction in the Bundestag (German parliament) has 42 deputies. In 1984, representatives of the parties of 9 countries created the “Coordinating Committee of the Greens in Europe”. Considering parliamentary activity to be complementary to the mass democratic movement, the "greens" entered the parliaments of Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Switzerland. In 1989, 24 representatives of various European environmental parties formed a joint faction in the European Parliament to pursue a common policy in it. In the 1989 European Parliament elections, the Greens won 38 seats.
Young people are actively involved in the Green movement. She is attracted by the progressive anti-war and environmental programs of this movement, calls for a society without exploitation and violence. Young people are also attracted by the focus of a number of Green parties and organizations on specific positive deeds, the rejection of the traditional orientation of bourgeois society towards the well-known triad “work - career - consumption”, orientation towards such values as mutual assistance, rejection of consumerism, promotion of spiritual values (less money , less stress, more humanity, more time for self-education), the search for harmony between nature and man, support for the disadvantaged. Young people are of some interest in the concept of life in harmony with nature, put forward by some “green” ideologues, in small ecologically clean agricultural communities that exist without damaging flora and fauna, switching to renewable energy sources, taking care of the natural renewal of biological resources.
Among the "greens" there are supporters of the so-called ecological socialism, which is understood as a kind of democratic decentralized society with extremely limited consumption of resources, waste-free technology, consisting of rural communes, environmentally friendly cities. From a social point of view, this is a utopian society, but there are rational grains in the idea of "ecological socialism". This is a protest against environmental pollution as a result of the unreasonable development of science and technology, calls for the creation of democratic, environmentally friendly societies.
The movement of the "greens" is gaining a wide scope in the CIS and countries of Eastern Europe. For example, the Ecological Union and the Ecological Fund have been created in Russia, and numerous societies are actively fighting to solve acute environmental problems. The speeches against the construction of the Volga-Don-2 and Volga-Chogray canals were widely known, since the implementation of these plans could lead to the death of the Caspian Sea; for the ecological safety of Lake Baikal, the Aral Sea, the ban on the construction of nuclear power plants in resort areas (Crimea), in those areas where earthquakes and soil movements are possible. In fact, the movement to assist in the elimination of the consequences of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has become nationwide. Thanks to the daily telethon, held on April 26, 1990 - the fourth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, voluntary donations were collected to eliminate its consequences in the amount of more than 50 million rubles. Almost every state has its own environmental movements. In the future, it is possible to transform some environmental movements into political parties. The number of joint actions of "green" different countries is increasing. These include actions such as "Caravan without shores", telethons, international peace marches, etc.
The international environmental organization Greenpeace (Green World) has gained worldwide fame. Today it has more than 30 branches in 18 countries, 2 million members and many millions of supporters. Greenpeace is headquartered in Amsterdam. Greenpeace deals with the following issues: ocean ecology, the state of the atmosphere and energy, toxic chemicals, and disarmament. Representatives of this organization have electronic and satellite communications, which enables them to quickly respond to cases of environmental disasters or disasters. The contribution of Greenpeace to the development of the anti-nuclear movement in the Pacific region and to the formation of modern environmental thinking is widely known.
The youth of many countries of the world support this progressive organization. A number of well-known musicians and composers speak in its defense and promote its ideas. At the initiative of Greenpeace, an album of records was prepared on an international basis: in Eastern Europe it was released under the name "Breakthrough", and in the West - "Rainbow Warriors". The album helped promote the ideas of this organization in those regions of the world where there are no branches yet.
Broad circles of the international community are becoming more and more aware of the need to unite the efforts of all people of good will in defense of the existence of civilization. This requires cooperation on a global scale: both at the interstate level and at the level of mass movements in the struggle to preserve peace, life, and nature on our planet. Young people, who make up more than half of the world's population, are called upon to play a special role in this movement.
Defenders of your world
Historian Ruslan Grigorievich Gagkuev very aptly described the events in our country related to the change of power: “In Russia, the cruelty of the civil war was due to the destruction of traditional Russian statehood and the destruction of centuries-old foundations of life.” And since there were no “defeated” in the battles, but only “destroyed”, the level of human confrontation reached a different level. Because of this, the villagers, most often, put their entire small homeland in defense of the territory. The external threat was too dangerous and insidious. She was fraught with drastic changes in everything. And the peasants were afraid of it. It was they who became the third force in the Civil War - the Green Army.
The peasants feared the changing life
The encyclopedia "Civil War and Military Intervention in the USSR" has a clear definition of this phenomenon. The book says that these are illegal armed formations, whose members were hiding from mobilizations in the forests.
But General Denikin thought differently. He said that this force received such an “environmental” name not because of its deployment in the forests, but by the name of its leader, Ataman Zeleny. The officer mentioned this in "Essays on Russian Troubles." Ataman is known for having fought in the Poltava region and against the Whites, and the Reds, and the Hetmans, and the German invaders. He himself called himself simply dad (ataman) Bulak-Bulakhovich.
Green Army flag
There are references to the Greens and among foreigners. For example, the Englishman Williamson in "Farewell to the Don" cited the memories of his compatriot, who managed to find himself during the Civil War in the Don Army of General Sidorin. Here is what Williamson wrote: “At the station, we were met by a convoy of Don Cossacks ... and units under the command of a man named Voronovich, who were built next to the Cossacks. The “greens” had practically no uniforms, they wore mostly peasant clothes with checkered woolen caps or shabby mutton hats, on which a green cross was sewn. They had a simple green flag and looked like a tough and powerful group of soldiers."
At the beginning of the Civil War, the Greens tried to remain neutral.
Vladimir Ilyich Sidorin offered Voronovich to join him, but was refused. Green declared his neutrality. But, of course, the peasants did not succeed in being between two fires for a long time. After all, both the Reds and the Whites were constantly trying to pour the mighty forces of the villagers into their armies.
Peasant strength
But even before the beginning of troubled times in Russia, the peasants were a special stratum, whose peaceful activities could mislead an inexperienced person. The peasants were constantly fighting ... among themselves. At any moment, under any pretext, they could grab axes and pitchforks. Such a conflict between the two villages was well shown by Sergei Yesenin in the poem "Anna Snegina". There, the "apple of discord" swept between Radovo and Kriushi.
And such confrontations were permanent. The pre-revolutionary newspapers did not hesitate and did not hesitate to write about this. Every now and then they were full of articles that the peasants staged a mass brawl or stabbing. And in those articles, nothing really changed, except for settlements. Instead of villages, auls were written, instead of auls, Cossack villages, and so on. They went, of course, to deal with both the Jews and the Germans. In general, pre-revolutionary Russia was restless.
In connection with such a situation, each village had its own cunning elders, seasoned warriors who, without hesitation, would give their lives to protect the sovereignty of their little world.
The peasants returned from the First World War armed
And after Russia stopped participating in the First World War, most of the peasants who returned from the front took firearms with them. Who are rifles, and who, the luckiest and most cunning, are machine guns. Accordingly, strangers in such an armed village could give a worthy rebuff.
There are many testimonies that say that during the Civil War, both the Reds and the Whites asked permission from the elders to pass through the village. And they often got rejected. The Greens hoped to the last that the situation in the country would “somehow” resolve itself and their familiar world would not collapse.
cruel realities
But the world collapsed soon. It was possible to keep the "hut from the edge" only until 1919. But then the Red Army became too strong. The village could no longer speak on an equal footing with the Bolshevik commanders. Therefore, many peasants, in order not to go over to their side, abandoned everything and went into the forests.
But there were those who accepted the challenge. They fought against everyone. And at the head of the "green movement" was Batko Angel. So he ordered to write on carts: "Beat the reds until they turn white, beat the whites until they turn red."
After 1919 it was no longer possible to stay away
The Greens also had another hero - Alexei Stepanovich Antonov, a member of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party. He became famous after he became the leader of the Tambov (Antonov) uprising in 1921-1922. His army fought under the banner of "For Justice". But few believed in victory. After all, the forces of the outside world were of a completely different scale. And the peasants, of course, failed to keep their usual little world intact.
In the autumn of 1920, when the last strong centers of the White Movement - Wrangel's Crimea and Semenov's Chita - were crushed, another movement, the "green", acquired the widest scope. Rebel. Frunze in the fight against him introduced the term "small civil war". But if you look closely, it does not look so "small". The entire Tambov and part of the Voronezh provinces were engulfed in an uprising led by A. S. Antonov. On 10/19/20, Lenin wrote about "Antonovism" to Dzerzhinsky and the commander of the VOKhR troops, Kornev, "Speedy (and exemplary) liquidation is certainly necessary."
But the "fastest" did not work, the uprising spread. In southern Ukraine, the "Makhnovshchina" was blazing with might and main. In January 21, a powerful West Siberian uprising began under the leadership of the Siberian Peasant Union, which engulfed the Omsk, Tyumen, part of the Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg provinces. It was headed by the Social Revolutionary V. A. Rodin. These are only the three largest outbreaks, but there were others. Right-bank Ukraine, Crimea, Belarus were full of small detachments and gangs. The Basmachi movement continued in Turkestan. On the Don, Cossacks rebelled in the Khopersky and Ust-Medveditsky districts. There was a war in Dagestan. In the Kuban and the North Caucasus, there were detachments of generals Przhevalsky, Ukhtomsky, colonels Nazarov, Trubachev, lieutenant colonels Yudin, Krivonosov, centurions Dubina, Rendskov with a total number of up to 7 thousand people. In Karelia, the rebels united in a brigade - about 3,5 thousand. All of Armenia rebelled ...
Almost all of Russia was engaged in the fire of the peasant war. At different times, there were diametrically opposed assessments of the "green" movement. In Soviet literature, he was preferred to pass over in silence or mentioned in passing, as something insignificant. And the 21st year was usually drawn as a year of peace, the year of restoration of the ruined economy. And this restoration was complicated only by the actions of individual "kulak bands". This attitude is quite understandable. The truth turned out to be impossible to publish: after all, the "workers' and peasants'" government could not fight against the entire peasantry! And if so, then it was necessary to keep silent about the very course of the struggle - the successes of the "greens" can by no means be explained either by the support of the Entente, or by professional officer training. Although the answer to this question is simple - the "green" movement for some time held on and won precisely because of its mass character.
And the scale of hostilities in 21, neither in terms of the number of belligerents, nor in territorial coverage, was inferior to 18, 19, 20 years, or even surpassed them. Judge for yourself, on the one hand - the population of entire counties and provinces, on the other - almost the entire Red Army. True, its composition in 21 was reduced from 5 million to 800 thousand, the Soviet of Deputies simply could no longer support such a colossus. And all the same, only part of the troops was combat-ready, which they left during demobilization. In addition, given that in the war against the peasants, ordinary Red Army soldiers often showed themselves to be unreliable, the troops of the VOKhR and parts of the Cheka, who were also employed in past years on the "internal front", as well as command courses and detachments of CHON (special purpose units) participated in it " "volunteer" formations created from communists and Komsomol members. The operations were led by the best military leaders. Against Antonov - Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, against Makhno - Frunze.
In the "perestroika" years, the attitude towards the "green" movement changed. It began to be regarded as a kind of "third way" of Russia's development. Moreover, the path is true, albeit unrealized. Such theories are also quite understandable and also stem from a specific political situation. Since the very foundations of socialism were not affected by the "green" movement. It acted under the slogans of "soviets without communists", and more often even allowed communists (like, say, Makhno), but on an equal footing with other parties, without diktat. The program of the "greens" was determined precisely by the "perestroika" requirements: pluralism of political opinions, a multi-party system - however, freedom of activity was usually allowed only for leftist, socialist parties. As well as the rejection of centralization, command and administrative methods of managing the economy, freedom of trade, ownership of land and the products of their labor. And it is not surprising that in the late 80s, when the "red" path of development showed its complete failure, historians and publicists began to seek compromises, including the "people's", "green" path.
If you look at it, then the "green" movement did not represent any "third way". Recall that in 1917, after the collapse of the tsarist government, the country quickly rolled into general collapse and anarchy. And for some time a real "peasant's paradise" came. The village was in a state of virtual anarchy, the hands of a weak government did not reach it, all taxes and duties were forgotten, all prohibitions were lifted. Left to themselves, the peasants did what they wanted. They divided the land, took away the landlord and state property, cut down the forest, poached. From a political point of view, everyone flirted with them, as with the largest part of the population. Economically, they found themselves in an advantageous position as food holders.
In the ensuing civil war, the white side advocated the restoration of law and order in any form characteristic of a civilized state. So, the Samara KomUch, the Ufa Directory kept a clear republican orientation. The Kolchak army, which absorbed the troops of these governments, turned out to be close to the republican forms. Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel adhered to the principles of not prejudging the future state structure. For example, there were many republicans among the Drozdovites, and monarchists among the Markovites, but this did not prevent them from fighting shoulder to shoulder. The specific form of "order" for whites was secondary, if only to ensure human rights. The red side fought for the anomalous order invented by its leaders. The green side in their confrontation represented not the "third way", but the "zero option". That same "primary chaos" from which, sooner or later, an exit to the red or white side was inevitable. A return to the situation of 1917, to those same multi-party soviets, still without the dictates of the Bolsheviks, which led the country to collapse, and ultimately to this dictate. By the way, at the end of the struggle even Makhno began to understand this. He said, "In Russia, either a monarchy or anarchy is possible, but the latter will not last long."
Politically, multi-party councils would inevitably lead either to an empty talking shop or to the suppression of the rest by one leading party. In the economic field, the old rural communities, which became local "soviets", had already outlived their usefulness by the beginning of the 20th century, and the path again led to a fork in the road - either to equalization and power like committees, or to the consolidation of private farms, i.e. reforms like Wrangel.
Both strengths and weaknesses of the "green" movement follow from this essence. The strength, as already mentioned, was in mass character. And the mass character was provided with memories of the "peasant's paradise". And the fact that the “greens” almost never set themselves global national tasks - they fought for specific, local interests, against specific oppression and atrocities of the authorities - food requisitions, mobilization, attempts at collectivization. To fight in the "green", it was not necessary to go far from home. Well, the weakness was that, opposing centralization, the "green" movement itself turned out to be decentralized. No, he lacked the support of the population; support was almost one hundred percent. And not the help of the Entente. Help wasn't really needed. By 1920 - 1921 the peasantry accumulated a lot of weapons, up to artillery, and in the very first battles and raids this number was replenished with trophies. The rebels dressed and put on shoes at their own expense, and they were not fed on foreign canned food. So they were much better equipped than the white armies in 1918. But, despite the scope, the "green" movement remained "local", tied to their villages, volosts and counties. So, Makhno, even controlling the entire south of Ukraine, sought to ensure that "the rear liberated by us would be covered with free workers' and peasants' formations, which have full power in themselves." Therefore, the role of personal leaders was so great. Without the same Makhno or Antonov, such "connections" of different villages or districts already turned out to be unrelated to each other. Moreover, the leader was more of a banner than a leader or organizer. Makhno was a talented partisan commander, but his talents found concrete expression only in the actions of a relatively small core of his "army".
From the "zero option" of the "green" movement it also follows that in the war of 1918-1920. it did not play an independent role. The rebels either harmed the rear of the side on whose territory they were, or joined with the main opposing forces, both with the Whites - Izhevsk and Votkinsk, Veshensky rebels, who fought under the same slogans "soviets without communists, executions and emergency situations", and with the Reds - Grigoriev, Makhno, close to the "green worldview" Mironov. We only note that a lasting alliance among such rebels was obtained only with the whites. Because the slogans of a multi-party system, the cessation of terror, free trade, etc., were fully consistent with the restoration of normal forms of statehood by the White Guards. And for the Reds, any person expressing such demands was obviously an enemy and subject to destruction - immediately or later, when he was no longer needed. And only at the end of the 20th, after the defeat of the Whites, the "intermediate" "green" movement ceased to be "intermediate", and turned into the only force still opposing the Reds.
The core of the White Movement was the intelligentsia and the Cossacks. Wartime officers and "freelancers" were yesterday's students, teachers, engineers, high school students, and those were the majority. The peasantry turned out to be involved in the white armies by a relatively small part, sometimes for ideological reasons, and more often for mobilizations. In this sense, the same thing can be said about the White Movement that was often said about the Decembrists - they went "for the people, but without the people." The core of the "green" movement was the peasantry. But already without the intelligentsia, which in 1917-1919. it did not trust, and by 1920 - 1921. already broken, exterminated, emigrated. And in the rest - depressed and demoralized. As a result, the "greens" were deprived of an organizing principle. And some "single soul", which would provide them with an impulse to a common goal. Strange as it may sound, the “greens” lacked intellectual selflessness and intellectual devotion. After all, indeed, during the years of the Civil War, only a Russian intellectual of the Silver Age of culture, brought up on the ideals of serving the people, was able, forgetting everything personal, to shoulder the cross of the revival of Russia, go to hardship and death for the seemingly abstract "triumph of true freedom and rights in Russia", and not for a specific piece of bread torn out of the mouth by the food detachment. Therefore, for a serious undermining of the "green" movement, vague promises or beggarly handouts became enough, like replacing the surplus appropriation with a tax in kind, also predatory, but leaving the peasant some share of the results of his labor. Moreover, without any guarantees of the irreversibility of such a replacement. The small “lordly” and Cossack White Movement resisted and threatened Bolshevism for three whole years. And the “green” movement, which was superior in number and scope, was basically crushed in just six months. By the way, this gap between the opponents of the Bolsheviks - the Whites and the "Greens", was probably the main reason for the victory of communism in the civil war.
