Search results

Originally published between 1918 and 1967, the 4 volumes in this set on the Russian Civil War: use archive material from official records cover boththe detail andthe wider implications of these epic events provid a short history of the Caucasus campaign and connect the events that were taking place in the Middle East with the past history of Central Asia combine vivid narrative of the military events with a biographical discussion of the White Generals

Purpose of study: The purpose of this research is to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the military-strategic, ideological and theoretical, foreign policy and socioeconomic reasons for the defeat of the White movement. Methodology: The methodology is based on the principles of historicism and objectivity with the involvement of archival material, documentary sources, memoirs and biographical literature. Result: The main message of the article is to show the lack of unanimity and coordination in the actions of the internal and external forces of counter-revolution during the Russian Civil War. Significant attention is paid to the characterization and estimation of the military and ideological leaders of the counter-revolution, such as A.I. Denikin, P.N. Wrangel, I.P. Romanovsky and G.V. Florovsky, V.V. Shulgin. Originality/Novelty: The authors conclude by defining the main peculiarities of the historical development of Russia which contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War and led to the complete failure of the White Guard.

Gaining international recognition for the White Movement was the most important foreign policy task of the Russian non–Bolshevik diplomacy. The article traces the evolving discourse of career diplomats considering this issue at different stages of the civil war. It shows their deep patriotism, professionalism, and persistency in carrying out the task. However, when the allies did not share the slogans of the White Movement, the possibilities for finding common ground were very limited. At the first stage (summer-autumn 1918), diplomats were cautious about the claims for recognition of numerous Russian non–Bolshevik governments. In the second stage (1918 – 1919), the issue of recognition played a unique role – participation of Russian representatives in the peace conference, and therefore in determining the configuration of the post-war world, depended on its success. The resolve of the diplomats to defend the Russia's national interests did not suit foreign powers, who did not share the movement's slogan about restoring a united and indivisible Russia, its power, and its position in the world. At the third stage (spring-summer 1920), diplomats, loosing hope for military victory of the White Movement in the civil war, withdrew from the direct involvement in seeking international recognition for the Movement. However, they provided all possible technical support to the head of the Department of External Relations of the Wrangel Government, Peter B. Struve, who assumed this mission. France's recognition of the Sevastopol authorities in the summer of 1920 was limited, did not involve active military assistance, and caused justified skepticism in diplomatic circles.

The paper is devoted to South Russian National Center (SRNC) - a moderate right-wing organization created in Odessa in January 1919 under the leadership of the exState Duma deputy V V Shulgin. SRNC, which had united the politicians from Little Russian and New Russian provinces, billed itself as the champion of the interests of South Russia and supported the autonomy of this region within the united Russian state. Special attention is paid to the Center's attitude to the Ukrainian problem, relations with the Volunteer Army and French interventionists. In spite of the fact that SRNC never became a mass political party, it played an important role in the life of Odessa in early 1919, and later its members made a serious contribution to the policy of the White movement with respect to the national issue, having developed the project of dividing the former Ukraine into three regions: Kiev, New Russia and Kharkov.

Статья посвящена личности Н.А. Раевского – историка, исследователя, писателя – и его произведениям, касающимся судьбы белого движения в России в годы гражданской войны. Также в статье рассматривается роль и значение «Русской акции», осуществленной правительством Чехословакии в 20-годы, и Пражского архива белой эмиграции – в судьбе и литературном творчестве Николая Раевского, белого офицера, автора таких литературных произведений как «Добровольцы», «Рыцари белой мечты» («Молодежь на войне»), «1918 год», «Дневник галлиполийца», «Русский гарнизон в Болгарии».
The article is about the personality of N. A. Raevsky - a historian, researcher, writer – and his works concerning the fate of the White movement in Russia during the Civil war. The role and meaning of the Russian Action carried out by the government of Czechoslovakia in the 1920s and the Prague Archive of white emigration in the fate and literary work of Nikolay Raevsky, a white officer, the author of such literary works as "Volunteers", "Knights of the White Dream" ("Youth at war"), "1918", "Diary of a Gallipoli man", "Russian garrison in Bulgaria" are also considered in the article.

The state protection bodies of the White movement in the territory of the South Ukraine was the special organization that operated not only in the military confrontation, but this organization was an essential attribute of social and political terror against the population of cities in the South Ukraine. Author is researching the issue of the confrontation of the state movement and state security structures of White Guard government. Separately, the author defines the institutional instruments of special services of the White movement, which were used relative to the Ukrainian political organizations, leaders and individuals who in certain way have been configured on the cooperation with the Ukrainian government bodies. ; Державоохоронні органи Білого руху на території південноукраїнського регіону являли собою особливу організацію, що діяла не тільки в рамках військового протистояння, а й була неодмінним атрибутом соціально- політичного терору проти населення міст Півдня. У статті автор роз- глядає питання протистояння українського державницького руху із дер- жавоохоронними структурами білогвардійського уряду. Окремо автор визначає інституційний інструментарій спецслужб Білого руху, що за- стосовувався по відношенню до українських політичних організацій, діячів та осіб, що певним чином були налаштовані на співпрацю з українськими урядовими структурами