Extract from “Turns of Destiny and Tyranny” , Book 1, chapter 5, p.498-502, 506-514
I entered Glavcontsesscom and reported Trotsky’s secretary of my coming. I came exactly at the time settled before. When I entered into Trotsky’s study I saw a man sitting at the table, who was wearing a white-snow suit. His grayish-green unwinking eyes looked at me through pince-nez glasses. What was striking in his face was a sharp vertical line on the lower lip. The face seemed a little puffy. Trotsky was holding in his hand a red paper case resembling very much the case with so-called “Lenin’s will”, which I read in 1924, when Ivanovo-Voznesensk regional secretary Simeon Zorin gave it to me in his office. Trotsky invited me to sit closer to his desk, switched on a fan, standing on his desk, and said: “The fan is meant not only for cooling the air, but for making noise because of the immense curiosity of the informants”. I was astonished: I could hardly imagine that in 1927 there was organized constant hearing of conversations of many Central Committee members.
I began my report of the situation in Leningrad with Zinoviev’s speech at the meeting of Putilov works, mentioning the funny position, in which the former Komintern chairman and the closest Lenin’s supporter got into. I mentioned the telegram from Central Committee sent to Zinoviev directly to Putilov Works. I added: “Zinoviev in Putilov works was as frightened, as before October”.
Trotsky smiled, he evidently thought of his “October Lessons”. Then he remarked: “Grigory Evseevitch now understands well his fatal mistake, when he in the year 1924 immediately after Vladimir Ilyich’s death invented his legend about trotskizm and menshevist wing in the Party.
I decided to make it more exact: “No, Lev Davydovich, not only he made mistakes, all the members of Politbureau made mistakes, including you, when in due time you could not fire Stalin from the General Secretary post.”
Further I tried to state my own opinion of Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s “mistake” before October. In a quiet manner I said that Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s mistakes, using Lenin’s words, “were not casual”. Trotsky stopped, looked at me with his unwinking eyes and asked:
“What does it mean?”
I resolutely blurted out:
“It means, Lev Davydovich, that Russia was not ready for social revolution in 1917.”
Trotsky was stunned with my answer. It seemed to me, that the organizer of October revolution would call me menshevik, supporter of Martov and Dan. But this did not happen. Trotsky did not answer and was silent for some time. Then he walked several tines to and fro in his study, sat in his arm-chair and began to develop his idea:
“I would like that comrades in Leningrad understand, that after Vladimir Ilyich’ s death the Party is suffering a crisis: it either will go by a new democratic way or degenerate and become a government party of state capitalism… Only façade of socialism will survive, but actually it will be state capitalism system. In the conditions of Russia it will lead to absolutism.”
I was listening to Trotsky very attentively, trying not to miss a single word. Trotsky continued:
“We have to be supported by an advanced, more conscious group of the Party and try to do our best in consolidation of all the supporters of the democratic way. I think, now Zinoviev and Kamenev, advanced workers of Leningrad, Moscow and Ural understand this… I suppose, soon Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky will also understand this. After that it will be possible to develop a new program, its essence I call democratic socialism.” Trotsky spoke in such a way, as if he addressed not one person, but a big audience, working class, people. At first I decided, that one of the leaders of Russian revolution and the main leader of October upheaval had got to a conclusion, that the dictatorship of one party became outdated, that it would inevitably lead to unlimited tyranny. But suddenly Trotsky began to speak that it was by all means necessary for the opposition to stay inside the Party with the aim to unite all the live forces of it against the forming oligarchy of Party bureaucracy. In this connection it was necessary to dismiss organized opposition groups.
I was not only stunned with such unexpected conclusions, but simply deafened. Some time I could not collect my thoughts. I could hardly believe that in the year 1927 when Stalin clique during several years and especially after Lenin’s death actively and successfully acts for liquidation of all the opposition groups in the Party, Trotsky still did not realize uselessness of the struggle for a new democratic way in the Party. Couldn’t he see that first of all supporters of democratic methods of guidance are expelled from the Party? Support of which sections of the population and Party he counted on? I mentally planned my objections and asked his permission to give my account of situation. Trotsky offered me to speak out. I said the following:
“Lev Davydovitch, don’t you see that the moment is missed? It was possible to unite people against the usurper in the years 1923-24. But then the majority was busy with attacks against those, who criticized ”Lenin” Central Committee, with mutual squabbles and scholastic argues of possible socialism building in one country. At the same time Stalin, using his position of general secretary, changed the secretaries of regional committees and political workers in the army, selected people, loyal to him in the GPM (General Political Management) organs. Today such apparatus of suppression is built, that Central Committee can not only get rid of all criticizers in the Party, but oppress any different minding in the country. And what has become of Leningrad proletariat? The best part of it perished on the fields of Civil War, the worst hung on the Party and government stuff. The social basis of the working class has changed due to coming of great masses of peasants to towns, I can illustrate this fact with real figures for Leningrad. Absolutely unprincipled people with clearly petty-bourgeois psychology came to government and Party staff. All that is the basis of the regeneration of the Party and will promote unlimited dictatorship of a small group in the Party. The numerous new Party members and especially all ranks of bureaucracy do not need democratic socialism, they are panic-stricken and afraid of democracy. As to the leaders, that guided revolutionary movement of masses, they either died after the social upheaval, as Lenin did, or were executed as Danton and Robespier, or are exiled to the places, located not very far. Probably, this is natural for all the revolutions, both bourgeois and proletarian ones.”
I said all that spontaneously and rather excitedly, I became hot. Trotsky noted my excitement, put his hand on my shoulder and said: I see, you thought a lot about all what was happening in the Party and in the country and take it painfully. You think as a philosopher, it seems, you chose philosophy as a scientific school?
I answered:
“Yes, I am very much interested in the history of philosophy, especially Spinosa attracts me.”
Trotsky asked me to compose myself. I noticed that my excited speech effected him. But I, using this rare possibility, decided to continue this conversation and asked:
‘Lev Davydovich, don’t you think, that Lenin in all his fundamental works accented his attention on the worker-peasant dictatorship, and not on a proletarian one, and that he secretly hardly believed in the revolutionary mission of the Russian proletariat, integrally connected with the peasantry?”
Further I asked Trotsky a psychological question:
“Don’t you think, that the execution of his brother Alexander Ilyich influenced very much on the psychical and mental condition of Lenin? Actually, Lenin in the course of his political struggle tried to connect Marxism with narodniks and Blankism.”
Trotsky smiled broadly and said:
“You are right, all the essence of Leninism is in that, actually in the peasant question… All those, who took up the peasant question, concealed their distrust not only in Russian proletariat, but in European proletariat too… Those, who criticized my notorious theory of permanent revolution, meant this fact, my theory was repeatedly misinterpreted not only by Bukharin school, but by my present-day friends – Zinoviev and Kamenev.” He added: “You as a scientist-marxist, should know, that the theory of permanent revolution was developed not by me, not by Parvus, but by Marx.”
Further Trotsky said, that neither Marx, nor Engels ever supposed that the socialism problem could be solved in the limits of one national state… If such attempts are done, such socialism will have little distinctions from Zubatov socialism, which is a police socialism.
Here our conversation interrupted: the secretary came in and told that there was an urgent affair. Trotsky went with me to the door, pressed my hand and said that he was glad to have such a sincere conversation.
Very excited and bewildered I left Glavkontsesscom.. I decided to walk, to calm down and think over the conversation with Trotsky. I understood that he called up all his supporters to stay in the Party and refuse from the organizational registration of the opposition. But I already saw in Leningrad that Stalin gang started open suppression of its enemies and it is quite logical, that the first step in this struggle was expelling all the differently minded persons from the Party. Thinking our conversation over, I began to understand, that he himself hardly believed in the possible unity of the democratic forces inside the ruling Bolshevik party.
Soon I was expelled from the Party, and it was impossible for me to work in the education sphere. I came to Moscow, where I hoped to receive some work, connected with edition and translation of the materials on history of philosophy. I was staying at my old friend Nikolay Vikhirev, who was a colleague of Evgeny Preobrazhensky in Glavprofobr (Professional education department). Evgeny settled my second meeting with Trotsky…
I approached Sheremetyev lane, which connects Nikitsky street with Vozdvizhenka. It is adjoined from one side by buildings of Moscow University, from the other side – by government houses, where Molotov, Voroshilov and other high-ranking persons were living. In a large apartment of one of these houses lived practically former people’s commissar of Interior Beloborodov. When Trotsky was offered to leave the apartment in the Kremlin, Beloborodov invited him to settle with his wife Sedova in his apartment. He was that Alexander Beloborodov, who being the chairman of the Ural Soviet, signed the decision of the Soviet of tsar Nikolay the Second and his family execution…
With a dim feeling I entered into Beloborodov’s apartment. In a small room to the right lied Beloborodov, he suffered from angina pectoris… Next to this room there was a rather large room with a long table, covered with oil-cloth. Several young men were sitting around the table, they were copying a new big article by Trotsky: “At a new stage”. I promptly began to read it. It was a brilliant from the literature point of view pamphlet with a profound philosophic analysis of our reality after Lenin’s death. The article substantiated the necessity of transfer of the Party and country to wide democracy, sharply criticized the bureaucratic management in the Party and government apparatus. Profoundly analyzing the process of the Party degeneration, Trotsky confirmed his former theory of Thermidor.
When I was copying the article, Trotsky entered. He recognized me at once, shook my hand and invited me to his room. I entered. The room was long, but narrow. A lot of books, journals and newspapers were on the shelves and on the floor. On a small table there was a manuscript. Trotsky offered me a chair, walked about the room several times, readjusted pince-nez , through which almost unwinking eyes twinkled.
I was looking closely at the features of the greatest tribune and revolutionary of our epoch. He was the leader of revolution in 1905 at tsarist regime, was at the head of Petrograd Soviet at Provisional Government, carried out practical guidance of October upheaval in 1917, and at last, at the most hard period of the Civil war he was at the head of Revvoensoviet of the republic.
Trotsky always was in the most difficult sectors, where often the fate of not only a military operation was being solved, but of the Soviet government itself. 1918. Red army was created of mobilized peasants, former soldiers of tsarist army, of partisan detachments, of refugees, running away from White armies, and only of the small part of reliable workers detachments, Latvian gunners and Baltic sailors. Besides, there were anarchic attitudes of some Party members, taking up high posts in the Red army. They did not want to submit the central military command, objected to enlisting in the army of military specialists from former tsarist army, and already then began to group about Stalin. In the country there was dislocation, hunger, cold, typhus, cholera.
It was necessary to have very special qualities, to guide successfully the creation of efficient army in those enormously complicated conditions, the army that resisted regular, well equipped white armies, and at the same time to be in the most critical sectors of military operations. When Trotsky arrived, the situation changed dramatically It was in the summer of 1918 near Kazan, in the summer of 1919 in the South-West front near Ekaterinoslav, in the autumn of the same year near Petrograd. Thanks to rare courage, extraordinary energy, organization and speaker talent and personal bravery he managed literally save the army or front from as it seemed inevitable defeat. Ten years of Soviet power, which owed to L.D.Trotsky more, than to anybody else by its existence, passed. And now he becomes the main object of attacks from the Party and Soviet authorities. Stalin gang is afraid of his popularity in the masses, Party and army, and feverishly prepares to his arrest and exile.
And now I found myself in his home beside this man, who asked in a weak voice to tell about situation in Leningrad. Somehow I could not concentrate, my attention was drawn to very sad face and grayish hair of Trotsky. I had to make an effort to begin. I told something like that: “The workers of Leningrad are indignant with the decisions of XY-th Party Congress, there are many oppositionists in Leningrad, they are expelled from the Party, fired from work, they are being shadowed.” I also expressed my own opinion: “At this stage the opposition is weak, it cannot address people, as it has no press organ and has no access to radio. And even if an attempt was done to address the Party and people, any actions of this kind would be immediately stopped. The whole huge oppression machine is in the hands of Stalin gang.”
After such sad information I asked Lev Davydovich to answer several questions, to which I wanted to know exactly his opinion. I added that these questions interest a lot of people. Trotsky sat at one side of the small table, I sat at another side, and a sincere dialogue began, when I asked questions, and he answered. At last I could concentrate, I remember our conversation very well.
- Trotsky: It is necessary to inform working class and Party members of a new stage of our revolution.
I: What is the essence of this new stage?
Trotsky: This is the combination of state capitalism with Thermidor. We come out against both, we stand up for democratic development of socialism.
I: Is there always a connection between the degradation of the ruling party and social revolution?
Trotsky: Yes, Thermidor expresses those processes in the society, which began from the beginning of NEP (New Economic Policy) that is from the moment of formation of new bourgeoisie in the country, especially kulaks.
I: Don’t you think that the leaders of the Party may degrade on the reason that is laid in the human psychics, in the tendency by all means to keep the power and privileged position?
Trotsky: I don’t exclude psychological factor, politicians’ striving for power, for ruling over subordinates. But such people also depend on the social surroundings, in which their character is formed.
I: As we know from the history, tyrants and despots were at all times, but their social essence was different, though the bureaucratic clique always was the basis of the tyranny. Don’t you think, Lev Davydovich, that the dictatorship of proletariat and one party system inevitably create such bureaucratic clique, oligarchy?
Trotsky: When we made upheaval in October, we counted on the dictatorship of proletariat, but not on the dictatorship over proletariat.
I: How could you rely on this principle, if you knew well, that Russian proletariat was not numerous and its consciousness and culture did not reach the necessary level. When Marx and Engels brought forward the idea of the dictatorship of proletariat, they proceeded from the experience of English industry and historical tradition of English proletariat. You also knew Marx’s answer to Vera Zasulich on this question.
Trotsky: Yes, Lenin and I knew all that. But in October we had two aims: to abolish absolutism, to put an end to Romanovs’ House, to take away the land from the landlords and give it to working peasantry. We did it. The second problem was more complicated – we supposed to give impulse to socialist movement in European countries. The second problem was not solved, and this was the main reason to disagreement in the Party… The forced concession to Russian petty bourgeoisie, comprising the majority of population in Russia, was the result of our hopes failure to social revolution in Europe.
I: Do you stick now to the theory of permanent revolution?
Trotsky: This theory was first suggested by Marx and Engels and developed by Lenin.
Socialism can win only in the whole world scale, the revolution in one country has to raise revolution process in other countries – this is a peculiar chain reaction. But this does not mean at all that the victory of socialism inevitably leads to the dictatorship of proletariat… Socialism may win also in the parliament state, if the majority in the parliament are working class representatives.
I: Fridrich Engels came to this conclusion before his death – I know that. But is the socialism compatible with one-party system and absence of democracy? Today is practically impossible for different groups in the Party to express their point of view.
Trotsky: The political and historical experience, especially after Lenin’s death demonstrates that without wide democracy, without workers’ right to form groups with their platforms the socialism remains a myth and Utopia.
I: Do you acknowledge now, that your position and Zinoviev and Kamenev’s position about groupings at the tenth Party congress was not right? As you know, Zinoviev, Kamenev and you then fought frantically against working opposition, democratic centralists, and did not acknowledge the legitimation of the fractions and groupings?
Trotsky: It was the greatest error. Party without free discussion of economical, political and ideological issues is not a political party, but Jesuit order.
I: Lev Davydovich! Tell me, what do you think will be the situation in the Party and country after the fifteenth Congress?
Trotsky arranged his pince-nez, knitted his brow, walked with long strides along his narrow room, then stopped in front of me and began to speak. I remembered almost all his arguments.
- The situation in the country and in the Party is now finally determined. The country won’t take the way of socialism, but the way of state capitalism, profit and wages, these typical features of any capitalist society, will be kept in the Soviet state too. The category of surplus value, i.e. exploitation of the working class also will be kept. This surplus value from one side will be the economical basis of the capitalist accumulation and the expansion of the production, from the other side it will be a huge fund for paying the enormous mass of privileged bureaucracy, for keeping the army and GPM, and also for maintenance of a huge gang of political adventurers abroad... Instead of social-economical classes the castes will be formed, their position will differ both in incomes and conditions of life and in their rights. Trade Unions in our country are deprived of possibility to defend working class interests, of the right to strike. A small group of people will rule the country, from which group inevitably one person will be promoted, who will do away with all the different minded persons… Creative work will take place only in techniques, as it is necessary first of all for self-defence of the caste system… The Party will rely on the Army and punitive structures… Court, prosecutor office will not use law or constitution, but will base on caprices and tyranny of a tyrant or oligarchy… In politics not international interests of the proletariat, but national aspirations will prevail. Patriotism will inevitably grow into nationalism. In the nearest years the country will take the fascist way, the fascist methods of ruling the country will take place as if to keep the unity in the Party… The suppression of the elementary democracy in our country will compromise the idea of the proletariat dictatorship in the whole world, the advanced workers of England, USA, France, Italy, Scandinavian countries, Japan will turn away from us. Instead of these all kinds of political plotters from East countries and Africa will drag behind us. All the backward members of the world society will group about us.
I:
Is it possible to come to the conclusion, that social-democrats, mensheviks and social revolutionaries were right in their forecasts?
Trotsky:
We have to acknowledge, that we made a lot of political errors, when we pushed away true revolutionaries, who gave their lives to working class…All the democratic forces have to unite to save the working movement from fascism. Fascism is not only typical German or Italian phenomenon – it is capable to infect the whole world’s working movement… Russia won’t stay away from so-called national-socialism… Russian chauvinism can rise again on the historical scene.
I: Practically the question is: what has to be done? How can we save the working movement from fascist influence? What is the tactics for the nearest future?
Trotsky: Now it is necessary to disarm organizationally, to dismiss all the groups and fractions to save the advanced forces of the Party. It may seem strange to you, but the circumstances oblige us to do it. Soon new forces will join us, those ones that as yet struggled against us…Already now a blow is being prepared at those, who helped Stalin to crush the opposition in the fifteenth Congress, who in spite of the Lenin’s instructions supported Stalin at the critical period. Neither in Politbureau, nor in the Central Committee of the Party there is no unity, there is also three groups there: open Stalinists, Bukharin supporters and always hesitating marsh. We are strong theoretically, but we let go the State machinery – this is the heel of Achilles of all our politics – we have to own this sincerely. The new stage in the working movement has to involve all the live forces of the advanced countries of the world. It is necessary to unite these forces and to oppose fascism, including the fascism of Stalin type.
Lev Davydovich spoke with such animation, as if he had the former audience of thousands in front of him, his eyes flashed, there was metal in his voice. I saw and heard again Trotsky of the old days. Our conversation was interrupted by a knock on the door. Trotsky’s wife Sedova came in. She asked us to eat something, she told Trotsky: “Today you have only drunk a cup of tea.” She was a very nice woman, there was nobleness in her voice and manners, soft features and crow’s feet about eyes told of her kindness and selflessness. I mentally compared her with Alexandra Lvovna Bronshtain and told to myself: “They are both good.” I refused from dinner, thanked Lev Davydovich for his answers to my questions. He pressed my hand, smiled and said: “We have to hope for better future.”
In spite of these words, I was in low spirits. I went to say good- bye to Beloborodov. I could not suppose then, that I would never see neither Trotsky, nor Sedova, nor Beloborodov again. In the middle of April 1928 Trotsky will be arrested and exiled first to Alma-Ata and later abroad.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Autobiography by Grigory Grigorov
Article by Dmitri Minaev
Recently, I finished reading memoirs of Grigory Grigorov. He was born in 1900 in Ukraine, in a family of a poor tailor. The book starts in 1905, when his family lived in Aleksandrovsk, with one of his first recollections, a pogrom. In 1911, he graduated from a five-year Jewish school and started working: at a footwear factory, as a newspaper boy, an assistant at a barbershop... In 1915 he made acquaintance with a couple of students who ran education groups for workers and who helped him find good books, and he started learning. In just two years, Grigory managed to prepare for the gymnasium exams, which included math, geography, history, physics, chemistry, biology, German and Latin languages. In 1917, he was already reading Caesar in Latin and Schiller in German. At the same time, he read philosophy books, books about religion, classical Greek literature, Shakespeare's works. What's more important, these two students who became his close friends, were socialists. They introduced him to Marxism. By that time Grigorov was working at a factory, and the choice of socialism was quite natural for him.
What is so interesting about this book? Firstly, it's a detailed description of life in the early USSR. Secondly, it is one of few biographies written by the people from the other side of the revolution. And, finally, to a certain degree, it has explained to me the way of thinking of the people who fought in the Red Army for the bolsheviks. Grigorov, like many others, was disappointed with the way the things went. I'd say he should have listened better to the wise people, like Bondarenko and Likhachov. There's a bunch of things where I would disagree with Grigory Grigorov, but he had made his choice and the book is a frank justification of that choice.
Full article
Recently, I finished reading memoirs of Grigory Grigorov. He was born in 1900 in Ukraine, in a family of a poor tailor. The book starts in 1905, when his family lived in Aleksandrovsk, with one of his first recollections, a pogrom. In 1911, he graduated from a five-year Jewish school and started working: at a footwear factory, as a newspaper boy, an assistant at a barbershop... In 1915 he made acquaintance with a couple of students who ran education groups for workers and who helped him find good books, and he started learning. In just two years, Grigory managed to prepare for the gymnasium exams, which included math, geography, history, physics, chemistry, biology, German and Latin languages. In 1917, he was already reading Caesar in Latin and Schiller in German. At the same time, he read philosophy books, books about religion, classical Greek literature, Shakespeare's works. What's more important, these two students who became his close friends, were socialists. They introduced him to Marxism. By that time Grigorov was working at a factory, and the choice of socialism was quite natural for him.
What is so interesting about this book? Firstly, it's a detailed description of life in the early USSR. Secondly, it is one of few biographies written by the people from the other side of the revolution. And, finally, to a certain degree, it has explained to me the way of thinking of the people who fought in the Red Army for the bolsheviks. Grigorov, like many others, was disappointed with the way the things went. I'd say he should have listened better to the wise people, like Bondarenko and Likhachov. There's a bunch of things where I would disagree with Grigory Grigorov, but he had made his choice and the book is a frank justification of that choice.
Full article
Monday, December 6, 2010
From The International Newsletter of Communist Studies Online XVI
2010, no. 23, p. 159-160
Not many members of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union survived Stalin's terror regime. Those who wrote about their experiences of struggle and repression constitute even a lesser quantity. In 2005, the OGI publishing house released such a rare document – the first volume of the memoirs of Grigorii Isaevich Grigorov (1900-1994), revolutionary, scientist, dissident and GULAG inmate. Born into a Jewish craftsman family, Grigorov joins the revolutionary movement as a teenager, takes part in the revolutions of February and October 1917, fights on the side of the Reds in the Civil War, becomes imprisoned by Denikin and is freed again by Nestor Makhno. After the war, Grigorov succeeds in obtaining a proper education through rabfak institutions, specializes himself in philosophy and becomes a "red professor", obtaining a doctoral degree with a monograph on Spinoza and being close to Abram Deborin, Evgenii Preobrazhenskii and David Riazanov. Having an independent mindset and not being content with the bureaucratization of the party, Grigorov associates himself with the Opposition from 1923 on, and is forced to move to Siberia, where he can work relatively freely due to his friendship with Vladimir Kosior. From 1926 on, when the struggle between the United (Communist) Opposition and Stalin's circle reaches a new level, Grigorov takes part in the work of clandestine circles, crossing paths with Lev Trotskii, Karl Radek, Victor Serge and other prominent oppositionists. The first volume ends with the author's expulsion from the party in 1927.
A planned 2nd volume did not see the light in Russia for unknown reasons. Instead, Grigorov's son, who lives in Israel, has put out a very limited print run of the 2nd volume in 2008. Dealing with the period between 1928 and 1972, it proves to be a fascinating and highly valuable source on the Stalin era. In 1928, after the "capitulation" of Radek, Preobrazhenskii and Smilga, Grigorov is more than ever active for the Opposition – yet in a way that fails to please him: Carrying out the controversial tactical decision of the Left Opposition's leadership to disband on oppositionist groups in order to be able to operate within the party, he goes on a liquidatory mission into the Soviet province , including the Caucasus, and is confronted with frustration of rank-and-file oppositionists who are not at all willing to give up the organized struggle. In the same year, Grigorov faces arrest and deportation to a village in the Ural, where he spends the next two years together with Decist leader Vladimir Smirnov, first-hand experiencing the brutal peasant collectivization. After a brief period of freedom back in Leningrad, Grigorov and his wife (an old Bolshevik revolutionary herself) get arrested straight after the Kirov murder in 1934. What follows is an odyssey through several GULAG camps, where the couple manages to stay together for most of the time. Grigorov experiences the Trotskyist prisoners' famous hunger strike in Vorkuta (in which he does not take part) and the massacre that followed thereafter – and it is striking that the information on these events, which he brought to paper in the 1970s-1980s without access to any sources, corresponds with the findings of recent research.1 After being released in 1939, again his freedom does not last long: he is mobilized into the army for the war against Finland, captured by enemy troops and spends the following (comparably easy) years as a POW in Finland. In 1944, after the Soviet Union made peace with Finland, Grigorov is arrested again by the infamous SMERSH counter-intelligence, and another period of GULAG imprisonment begins, ending only in March 1955. During the times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Grigorov works as a schoolteacher and succeeds to get back into science, shifting to geology (using the experience he gained participating as forced laborer in geological expeditions during his imprisonment). His monograph on the entanglements of philosophy and geography gets published in Kiev in 19832, while his memoirs, which he has been secretly writing from the mid-1960s until 1983, of course remain unpublished during Soviet times. During late perestroika, in 1988, Grigorov writes a letter to Soviet historian Vladimir Billik where he shares his memories on the encounters with Trotskii.3 Shortly after, in 1989, he immigrates to Israel together with his son's family, where he dies in 1994.
The memoirs of Grigorii Grigorov, contemporary of the 20th century in a literal sense, have an immense historical value for scholars of the Left Opposition, but also they are fruitful as a source for several aspects of the Russian Revolution, the early Soviet Union and the times of Stalinism. And, above all, they are highly fascinating read.
While volume one is sold out, volume two can be obtained from Grigorov's relatives for € 20 incl. shipping. Orders may be directed to fluffy2001 at gmail dot com (you can write in Russian, English, and Hebrew).
Gleb J. Albert, Bielefeld
1 Comp.: Jean-Jacques Marie: Der Widerstand der Trozkisten im Gulag 1936 bis 1938. Der Hungerstreik und das Massaker in Vorkuta. In: Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung (2007), pp. 117-136; ld.: Les trotskystes a Vorkouta in: Cahier du movement ouvrier (2007), N0 34.
2 G.I.Grigorov: Prichinnost' I sviazi v geografii. Metodologicheskii askept, Kiev, Vishcha Shkola, 1983.
3 Grigori Grigorov: Souvenirs sur Trotsky. In: Cahiers du movement ouvrier (2005), N0 27, pp. 67-72.
Grigorij Grigorov: Povoroty sud'by I proizvol. Vospominanija. 1905-1927 gody, Moskva, OGI, 2005. 536 p. (Chastnyi archiv). ISBN 5-94282-281-6; Grigorij Grigorov: Povoroty sud'by I proizvol. Vospominanija. 1928-1972, s.p., [2008]. 682 p. No ISBN.
Not many members of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union survived Stalin's terror regime. Those who wrote about their experiences of struggle and repression constitute even a lesser quantity. In 2005, the OGI publishing house released such a rare document – the first volume of the memoirs of Grigorii Isaevich Grigorov (1900-1994), revolutionary, scientist, dissident and GULAG inmate. Born into a Jewish craftsman family, Grigorov joins the revolutionary movement as a teenager, takes part in the revolutions of February and October 1917, fights on the side of the Reds in the Civil War, becomes imprisoned by Denikin and is freed again by Nestor Makhno. After the war, Grigorov succeeds in obtaining a proper education through rabfak institutions, specializes himself in philosophy and becomes a "red professor", obtaining a doctoral degree with a monograph on Spinoza and being close to Abram Deborin, Evgenii Preobrazhenskii and David Riazanov. Having an independent mindset and not being content with the bureaucratization of the party, Grigorov associates himself with the Opposition from 1923 on, and is forced to move to Siberia, where he can work relatively freely due to his friendship with Vladimir Kosior. From 1926 on, when the struggle between the United (Communist) Opposition and Stalin's circle reaches a new level, Grigorov takes part in the work of clandestine circles, crossing paths with Lev Trotskii, Karl Radek, Victor Serge and other prominent oppositionists. The first volume ends with the author's expulsion from the party in 1927.
A planned 2nd volume did not see the light in Russia for unknown reasons. Instead, Grigorov's son, who lives in Israel, has put out a very limited print run of the 2nd volume in 2008. Dealing with the period between 1928 and 1972, it proves to be a fascinating and highly valuable source on the Stalin era. In 1928, after the "capitulation" of Radek, Preobrazhenskii and Smilga, Grigorov is more than ever active for the Opposition – yet in a way that fails to please him: Carrying out the controversial tactical decision of the Left Opposition's leadership to disband on oppositionist groups in order to be able to operate within the party, he goes on a liquidatory mission into the Soviet province , including the Caucasus, and is confronted with frustration of rank-and-file oppositionists who are not at all willing to give up the organized struggle. In the same year, Grigorov faces arrest and deportation to a village in the Ural, where he spends the next two years together with Decist leader Vladimir Smirnov, first-hand experiencing the brutal peasant collectivization. After a brief period of freedom back in Leningrad, Grigorov and his wife (an old Bolshevik revolutionary herself) get arrested straight after the Kirov murder in 1934. What follows is an odyssey through several GULAG camps, where the couple manages to stay together for most of the time. Grigorov experiences the Trotskyist prisoners' famous hunger strike in Vorkuta (in which he does not take part) and the massacre that followed thereafter – and it is striking that the information on these events, which he brought to paper in the 1970s-1980s without access to any sources, corresponds with the findings of recent research.1 After being released in 1939, again his freedom does not last long: he is mobilized into the army for the war against Finland, captured by enemy troops and spends the following (comparably easy) years as a POW in Finland. In 1944, after the Soviet Union made peace with Finland, Grigorov is arrested again by the infamous SMERSH counter-intelligence, and another period of GULAG imprisonment begins, ending only in March 1955. During the times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Grigorov works as a schoolteacher and succeeds to get back into science, shifting to geology (using the experience he gained participating as forced laborer in geological expeditions during his imprisonment). His monograph on the entanglements of philosophy and geography gets published in Kiev in 19832, while his memoirs, which he has been secretly writing from the mid-1960s until 1983, of course remain unpublished during Soviet times. During late perestroika, in 1988, Grigorov writes a letter to Soviet historian Vladimir Billik where he shares his memories on the encounters with Trotskii.3 Shortly after, in 1989, he immigrates to Israel together with his son's family, where he dies in 1994.
The memoirs of Grigorii Grigorov, contemporary of the 20th century in a literal sense, have an immense historical value for scholars of the Left Opposition, but also they are fruitful as a source for several aspects of the Russian Revolution, the early Soviet Union and the times of Stalinism. And, above all, they are highly fascinating read.
While volume one is sold out, volume two can be obtained from Grigorov's relatives for € 20 incl. shipping. Orders may be directed to fluffy2001 at gmail dot com (you can write in Russian, English, and Hebrew).
Gleb J. Albert, Bielefeld
1 Comp.: Jean-Jacques Marie: Der Widerstand der Trozkisten im Gulag 1936 bis 1938. Der Hungerstreik und das Massaker in Vorkuta. In: Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung (2007), pp. 117-136; ld.: Les trotskystes a Vorkouta in: Cahier du movement ouvrier (2007), N0 34.
2 G.I.Grigorov: Prichinnost' I sviazi v geografii. Metodologicheskii askept, Kiev, Vishcha Shkola, 1983.
3 Grigori Grigorov: Souvenirs sur Trotsky. In: Cahiers du movement ouvrier (2005), N0 27, pp. 67-72.
Grigorij Grigorov: Povoroty sud'by I proizvol. Vospominanija. 1905-1927 gody, Moskva, OGI, 2005. 536 p. (Chastnyi archiv). ISBN 5-94282-281-6; Grigorij Grigorov: Povoroty sud'by I proizvol. Vospominanija. 1928-1972, s.p., [2008]. 682 p. No ISBN.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Second book published in Petersburg
The second book has been published in Petersburg.
The publishing house of Historical and Regional Studies Society
Karelia under E.A. Balashov management has published 800 copies.
It contains the extract about finnish captivity.
The publishing house of Historical and Regional Studies Society
Karelia under E.A. Balashov management has published 800 copies.
It contains the extract about finnish captivity.
The third book of Grigory Grigorov memoir
The third book of memoir Grigory Grigorov has been published.
The third book of my grandfather's memoir "Turns of destiny and tyranny. Memoir. The consequencies and analysis of what happened in Russia/USSR in the XX-th century.
The first book was published by OGI publishing house in Moscow in 2005. The book was selled out in OZON.
The second book was published in Israel in 2008. We have now about 10 books for sale.
The third book was published in Israel 10.10.10.
Please send your comments and questions to:fluffy2001 at gmail dot com
The third book of my grandfather's memoir "Turns of destiny and tyranny. Memoir. The consequencies and analysis of what happened in Russia/USSR in the XX-th century.
The first book was published by OGI publishing house in Moscow in 2005. The book was selled out in OZON.
The second book was published in Israel in 2008. We have now about 10 books for sale.
The third book was published in Israel 10.10.10.
Please send your comments and questions to:fluffy2001 at gmail dot com
Monday, October 18, 2010
Letter from Bradley L. Schaffner, Harvard University
Slavic Division
Widener Library of the Harvard College Library
Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts o2138
January 20, 2009
Mr. and Mrs Vissarion Grigorov
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Grigorov
On behalf of the Harvard University Library, I wish to acknowledge and thank you for the gift of your father's two volume memoir "Povoroty sud'by i proizvol: vospominaniia 1905-1972" (Moskva: 2005; 2008). His memoir is a welcome addition to the Harvard college Library' slavic collections.
Since 1638, Harvard has benefited from the generosity of friends, faculty, alumni and others interested in creating and expanding our library collections.The colledge library makes every effort to add donated material to our permanent collections.
Thank you again for your interest in and support of Harvard's libraries.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley L. Schaffner
Head, Slavic Division
Widener Library of the Harvard College Library
Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts o2138
January 20, 2009
Mr. and Mrs Vissarion Grigorov
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Grigorov
On behalf of the Harvard University Library, I wish to acknowledge and thank you for the gift of your father's two volume memoir "Povoroty sud'by i proizvol: vospominaniia 1905-1972" (Moskva: 2005; 2008). His memoir is a welcome addition to the Harvard college Library' slavic collections.
Since 1638, Harvard has benefited from the generosity of friends, faculty, alumni and others interested in creating and expanding our library collections.The colledge library makes every effort to add donated material to our permanent collections.
Thank you again for your interest in and support of Harvard's libraries.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley L. Schaffner
Head, Slavic Division
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Fragment from from “Turns of Destiny and Tyranny” by Grigory Grigorov
Our group of convicts was standing near the jail gates for about an hour. Suddenly an iron bar banged, the gates opened, and we were led into an insatiable throat of the stone monster. More than one generation of revolutionaries were led through these gates. My wife (she is older than I) told me later, that she had been imprisoned there in 1912 for taking part in a demonstration on the occasion of the execution on the Lena river.
Our group was separated into smaller units, one of them was taken away immediately. Women were left on the first floor, and a small group, including me, was led upstairs to the second floor, where we were dressed in striped clothes, each of us was given a pair of underwear and a round cap resembling those that academicians were wearing. We were distributed to cells. I was pushed into a stone cell with a narrow bar of window, overlooking deserted Pollevaya street. Soon I learned that our cell was ment to prisoners sentenced to death, which fact left little hope. Our cell contained 18 prisoners, and the next one contained more than hundred.
The chief of the jail was some Belokoz, he remained here from prerevolutionary time; my wife, who had been in the jail before the revolution, still remembers him.
In two cells rather mixed groups of prisoners were collected: social revolutionaries (S.R.’s), anarchists, bolsheviks, members of Boond, zionists, makhnoists, a counterfeiter and just people that took part in actions against government. The largest group were peasants from Novomoskovsk, who were charged of participation in the rebel against Denikin. The peasants in our cell were considered instigators, the rest were scattered about the jail. The makhnoists in our cell were born in Goulyay-Polle or in the surroundings of this center of Makhno movement. All of them were men of Makhno units. One of the prisoners, a man of delicate appearance with a very intelligent face, with a high forehead and a small beard was sitting in a corner and did not take part in conversations. Brodsky, the prisoner, arrested for fabrication of false money, especially, marks, told me that the silent man was a brother of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of V.Tch.C. There was also a left social revolutionary that totally denied the participation of “S.R.’s” in the attempt on Lenin’s life, as well as in the murder of Volodarsky and Uritsky. Contrary to general opinion he claimed that S.R.’s were principally against individual terror. At the same time he condemned Maria Spiridonova, the leader of left S.R.’s, accusing her in political carreerism because of her taking part in bolsheviks’ government.
One of the makhnoists in our cell, Moskalenko, a clever and educated man, a convinced anarchist, who had been imprisoned for many years in tzarist jales, disproved in a peculiar way Marx’s theory of economical factor in historical process. He said: “According to Marx, the working masses only want to eat, consequently, the history is advanced only by hungry people. And only landlords and capitalists are to blame for their starving conditions. Really, - he continued, - the working people suffer first of all from the state: bureaucracy, army and police.” On his opinion, the politics is the decisive force of social development, and in politics it is first of all necessary to struggle with those, who hold tight to their personal interests. Moskalenko thought that Lenin in his statements pursued only gaining his personal power, thinking little of freedom for people. In those faraway times I did not agree with such opinions, though already in 1921 when Lenin became the head of the government and the defeat of the workers’ oppositions, expressing the interests of the advanced workers, was going on, I started to meditate on the position that anarchist Moskalenko had expressed in jale.
One of the young makhnoists Grigory Karetnikov, a relative of well-known at that time ataman Karetnikov, a nearest associate of Nestor Makhno, described in detail the life of N. Machno. I reproduce the story that he told me in jail cell, precisely enough.
Ataman Nestor Ivanovitch Makhno was born in a poor peasant family in Goulyay Polle, Alexandrovsk region, near Yekaterinoslav. In his early years he became a orphan, was a beggar, often slept in hay stacks and stables. In summer he worked as a farm hand, in autumn and winter helped a blacksmith for food and shelter.
He learned to read and write on his own, liked to read adventure novels very much. In 1905 he joined a terrorist group. They set on fire landlords estates and even killed provocateur agents and especially cruel policemen. Makhno was sentenced to penal servitude. There he became intimate with anarchists, especially with Volin, a Jew.
The February revolution set Makhno free and he returned to his homeland. Makhno was elected to worker-peasasnt council in Goulyay-Polle, he made violent massacre of land lords, and turned over their land to poor peasants. He was a great authority in his homeland and in all the Ukraine. When Yekaterinoslav region was occupied with Germans, Makhno created partisan groups of the most brave fellows and stroke painful blows on the Germans. German Headquarters estimated the ataman’s head at million roubles, but nobody betrayed him. Makhno had to escape to Moscow, where he renewed his connections with anarchists. He returned again to his homeland with an anarchist group and created a large detachment of peasants, faught with German invadors and hetman Skoropadsky troops. Exactly then Makhno developed a peculiar tactics of fight and used famous machine-gun carts. Simulating peasant weddings and burials, Makhno penetrated on machine-gun carts into positions of German forces and hetman Skoropadsky units, swiftly moved in the rear of Denikin army, seizing arms and ammunition. In all the towns, which even for a short time surrendered to Makhno units, all the prisoners were realesed from jails, irrespective of their political views. Karetnikov continued his story. “Our countryman managed to form several large detachments, which were headed by atamans Schous, my relative Karetnikov, Marchenko, Vasilevsky, Kourilenko and others.” My neighbour spoke with delight of organization talent of his ataman, compared him with haydamaks’ (Ukrainian Cossacks) leaders Gonta and Karmelouk. Karetnikov thought that only Makhno sincerely wanted to give the land to the peasants. He spoke also of gathering of Makhno units and representatives of 72 small Ukrainian regions. There several important decisions were accepted, including organization of “communes without authority”. All of Makhno’s groups were formally united into a separate brigade under the leadership of Makhno, subordinate to Soviet Zadneprovsky battalion under the command of famous Dybenko, one of the leaders of October revolution. Later I got to know that responsible messengers from Moscow repeatedly visited Makhno, including Kalinin, Manuilsky, Karl Radeck. They tried to arrange somehow cooperation of Makhno’s groups with Red Army, but without success. I listened to Karetnikov with great interest, I was fascinated with the biography of modern Stepan Razin. Seeing my interest to the personality of Makhno, Karetnikov gave many interesting facts, testifying that Nestor Makhno undoubtedly was a very outstanding person of our unfortunate epoch.
The military tactics of Makhno could arise exactly in the period of civil war. Native wit of the peasant leader perplexed experienced military men. The units of Makhno with their machine-gun carts smashed regiments and divisions under the command of experienced military specialists.
At the end of August the Makhnoists from our cell were called to meet their relatives, who brought them luxurious parcels from the country. They came back with sacks full of Ukrainian lurd, fried geese, cucumbers and tomatos, melons, apples and Ukrainian bread. The lads laid out all of the food on beautifully embroidered towels and invited all the cellmates to share a meal with them. One of them found a note, skilfully shoved under the skin of fried goose. It told that soon the ataman would enter the town with his men and release all of the prisoners from jail.
One night, when all of us were lying on the floor, we heard remote peals. We thought that thunderstorm was beginning. Brodsky told me that somebody stroke a hollow iron barrel in the jail yard. Makhnoists slept soundly. A lamp glimmerd above the cell door, I heard snorring of the guardian in the corridor. I crawled noiselessly to the narow bar of the window, overlooking Polevaya Street. I peered into the darkness, suddenly a lightning flashed, followed by a crash. No doubt, it was a cannon fire. Hearing steps in the corridor, I quickly lay on the floor and did not move. Soon I heard machine-gun bursts. Morning came. The next cell, the largest in the jail, was unusually quiet. Suddenly the keys jingled, the heavy door of our cell opened. A group of guardians entered, in front of them in a black great coat was the chief of the jail Belokoz, known for his ferocity. He ordered everybody to lie down and announced. “For the least violation of jail regime, for loud talks we will shoot up”. We lay quietly on the stone floor, I heard the thump of my heart. We were not led out to wash, only allowed to carry out close-stool. When Brodsky and I were carrying close-stool, we were escorted with increased convoy. At night two anarchists were taken away from our cell, one of them shouted, “Good bye, brothers, they are leading us to execution.”
Soon we heard shots from the prison yard. At night nobody slept, each one said last farewell to his life in his thoughts.
Suddenly something banged deafeningly in the jail yard, we could hear hum of a great mass of people and sounds: “Hurrah! Brothers, come out to freedom! The town is in the hands of ataman Makhno!”
In the corridor there was hum and song, it was anarchist hymn: “Down with shameful and slavish love, we will drown the people’s grief in blood…” In some cell the prisoners began to sing Marcelleze. We began to beat on the cell door, it seemed to us that we could be forgotten. But already near our cell somebody shouted: “Move away from the door!” After several violent strokes with a hammer from the corridor the door came off its hinges. We rushed into the corridor with a cry, ran off downstairs, mingled with the crowd of released prisoners from other cells, and continuing to shout we ran out into the jail yard. It was pouring. But we, coming out of Yekaterinoslav Bastilia, suffered little from it. The rain seemed to us a delight, we felt refreshed after our cells, soaked with rotten and stinking air of close-stool and the breath of the doomed ones. For the first time in my life I felt so deeply the spirit of freedom.
When the croud of people in striped clothes came out of the prison gates to the square, all of them saw an extraordinary picture. In the huge space between two jales hundreds of machine-gun carts stood with handsome and well-fed horses, harnessed to them. There were machine-guns on all the carts, makhnoists were seated near them, dressed in leather jackets and raincoats above them. The makhnoists met each group of prisoners that was running out of the prison gates with shouts: “Long live freedom, long live anarchy, down with casemates!” They gave a loaf of bread and a sausage to each one of the released prisoners. We heard that Belokoz, the chief of the jail, who did not manage to make off, was thrown down from the roof.
Our group was separated into smaller units, one of them was taken away immediately. Women were left on the first floor, and a small group, including me, was led upstairs to the second floor, where we were dressed in striped clothes, each of us was given a pair of underwear and a round cap resembling those that academicians were wearing. We were distributed to cells. I was pushed into a stone cell with a narrow bar of window, overlooking deserted Pollevaya street. Soon I learned that our cell was ment to prisoners sentenced to death, which fact left little hope. Our cell contained 18 prisoners, and the next one contained more than hundred.
The chief of the jail was some Belokoz, he remained here from prerevolutionary time; my wife, who had been in the jail before the revolution, still remembers him.
In two cells rather mixed groups of prisoners were collected: social revolutionaries (S.R.’s), anarchists, bolsheviks, members of Boond, zionists, makhnoists, a counterfeiter and just people that took part in actions against government. The largest group were peasants from Novomoskovsk, who were charged of participation in the rebel against Denikin. The peasants in our cell were considered instigators, the rest were scattered about the jail. The makhnoists in our cell were born in Goulyay-Polle or in the surroundings of this center of Makhno movement. All of them were men of Makhno units. One of the prisoners, a man of delicate appearance with a very intelligent face, with a high forehead and a small beard was sitting in a corner and did not take part in conversations. Brodsky, the prisoner, arrested for fabrication of false money, especially, marks, told me that the silent man was a brother of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of V.Tch.C. There was also a left social revolutionary that totally denied the participation of “S.R.’s” in the attempt on Lenin’s life, as well as in the murder of Volodarsky and Uritsky. Contrary to general opinion he claimed that S.R.’s were principally against individual terror. At the same time he condemned Maria Spiridonova, the leader of left S.R.’s, accusing her in political carreerism because of her taking part in bolsheviks’ government.
One of the makhnoists in our cell, Moskalenko, a clever and educated man, a convinced anarchist, who had been imprisoned for many years in tzarist jales, disproved in a peculiar way Marx’s theory of economical factor in historical process. He said: “According to Marx, the working masses only want to eat, consequently, the history is advanced only by hungry people. And only landlords and capitalists are to blame for their starving conditions. Really, - he continued, - the working people suffer first of all from the state: bureaucracy, army and police.” On his opinion, the politics is the decisive force of social development, and in politics it is first of all necessary to struggle with those, who hold tight to their personal interests. Moskalenko thought that Lenin in his statements pursued only gaining his personal power, thinking little of freedom for people. In those faraway times I did not agree with such opinions, though already in 1921 when Lenin became the head of the government and the defeat of the workers’ oppositions, expressing the interests of the advanced workers, was going on, I started to meditate on the position that anarchist Moskalenko had expressed in jale.
One of the young makhnoists Grigory Karetnikov, a relative of well-known at that time ataman Karetnikov, a nearest associate of Nestor Makhno, described in detail the life of N. Machno. I reproduce the story that he told me in jail cell, precisely enough.
Ataman Nestor Ivanovitch Makhno was born in a poor peasant family in Goulyay Polle, Alexandrovsk region, near Yekaterinoslav. In his early years he became a orphan, was a beggar, often slept in hay stacks and stables. In summer he worked as a farm hand, in autumn and winter helped a blacksmith for food and shelter.
He learned to read and write on his own, liked to read adventure novels very much. In 1905 he joined a terrorist group. They set on fire landlords estates and even killed provocateur agents and especially cruel policemen. Makhno was sentenced to penal servitude. There he became intimate with anarchists, especially with Volin, a Jew.
The February revolution set Makhno free and he returned to his homeland. Makhno was elected to worker-peasasnt council in Goulyay-Polle, he made violent massacre of land lords, and turned over their land to poor peasants. He was a great authority in his homeland and in all the Ukraine. When Yekaterinoslav region was occupied with Germans, Makhno created partisan groups of the most brave fellows and stroke painful blows on the Germans. German Headquarters estimated the ataman’s head at million roubles, but nobody betrayed him. Makhno had to escape to Moscow, where he renewed his connections with anarchists. He returned again to his homeland with an anarchist group and created a large detachment of peasants, faught with German invadors and hetman Skoropadsky troops. Exactly then Makhno developed a peculiar tactics of fight and used famous machine-gun carts. Simulating peasant weddings and burials, Makhno penetrated on machine-gun carts into positions of German forces and hetman Skoropadsky units, swiftly moved in the rear of Denikin army, seizing arms and ammunition. In all the towns, which even for a short time surrendered to Makhno units, all the prisoners were realesed from jails, irrespective of their political views. Karetnikov continued his story. “Our countryman managed to form several large detachments, which were headed by atamans Schous, my relative Karetnikov, Marchenko, Vasilevsky, Kourilenko and others.” My neighbour spoke with delight of organization talent of his ataman, compared him with haydamaks’ (Ukrainian Cossacks) leaders Gonta and Karmelouk. Karetnikov thought that only Makhno sincerely wanted to give the land to the peasants. He spoke also of gathering of Makhno units and representatives of 72 small Ukrainian regions. There several important decisions were accepted, including organization of “communes without authority”. All of Makhno’s groups were formally united into a separate brigade under the leadership of Makhno, subordinate to Soviet Zadneprovsky battalion under the command of famous Dybenko, one of the leaders of October revolution. Later I got to know that responsible messengers from Moscow repeatedly visited Makhno, including Kalinin, Manuilsky, Karl Radeck. They tried to arrange somehow cooperation of Makhno’s groups with Red Army, but without success. I listened to Karetnikov with great interest, I was fascinated with the biography of modern Stepan Razin. Seeing my interest to the personality of Makhno, Karetnikov gave many interesting facts, testifying that Nestor Makhno undoubtedly was a very outstanding person of our unfortunate epoch.
The military tactics of Makhno could arise exactly in the period of civil war. Native wit of the peasant leader perplexed experienced military men. The units of Makhno with their machine-gun carts smashed regiments and divisions under the command of experienced military specialists.
At the end of August the Makhnoists from our cell were called to meet their relatives, who brought them luxurious parcels from the country. They came back with sacks full of Ukrainian lurd, fried geese, cucumbers and tomatos, melons, apples and Ukrainian bread. The lads laid out all of the food on beautifully embroidered towels and invited all the cellmates to share a meal with them. One of them found a note, skilfully shoved under the skin of fried goose. It told that soon the ataman would enter the town with his men and release all of the prisoners from jail.
One night, when all of us were lying on the floor, we heard remote peals. We thought that thunderstorm was beginning. Brodsky told me that somebody stroke a hollow iron barrel in the jail yard. Makhnoists slept soundly. A lamp glimmerd above the cell door, I heard snorring of the guardian in the corridor. I crawled noiselessly to the narow bar of the window, overlooking Polevaya Street. I peered into the darkness, suddenly a lightning flashed, followed by a crash. No doubt, it was a cannon fire. Hearing steps in the corridor, I quickly lay on the floor and did not move. Soon I heard machine-gun bursts. Morning came. The next cell, the largest in the jail, was unusually quiet. Suddenly the keys jingled, the heavy door of our cell opened. A group of guardians entered, in front of them in a black great coat was the chief of the jail Belokoz, known for his ferocity. He ordered everybody to lie down and announced. “For the least violation of jail regime, for loud talks we will shoot up”. We lay quietly on the stone floor, I heard the thump of my heart. We were not led out to wash, only allowed to carry out close-stool. When Brodsky and I were carrying close-stool, we were escorted with increased convoy. At night two anarchists were taken away from our cell, one of them shouted, “Good bye, brothers, they are leading us to execution.”
Soon we heard shots from the prison yard. At night nobody slept, each one said last farewell to his life in his thoughts.
Suddenly something banged deafeningly in the jail yard, we could hear hum of a great mass of people and sounds: “Hurrah! Brothers, come out to freedom! The town is in the hands of ataman Makhno!”
In the corridor there was hum and song, it was anarchist hymn: “Down with shameful and slavish love, we will drown the people’s grief in blood…” In some cell the prisoners began to sing Marcelleze. We began to beat on the cell door, it seemed to us that we could be forgotten. But already near our cell somebody shouted: “Move away from the door!” After several violent strokes with a hammer from the corridor the door came off its hinges. We rushed into the corridor with a cry, ran off downstairs, mingled with the crowd of released prisoners from other cells, and continuing to shout we ran out into the jail yard. It was pouring. But we, coming out of Yekaterinoslav Bastilia, suffered little from it. The rain seemed to us a delight, we felt refreshed after our cells, soaked with rotten and stinking air of close-stool and the breath of the doomed ones. For the first time in my life I felt so deeply the spirit of freedom.
When the croud of people in striped clothes came out of the prison gates to the square, all of them saw an extraordinary picture. In the huge space between two jales hundreds of machine-gun carts stood with handsome and well-fed horses, harnessed to them. There were machine-guns on all the carts, makhnoists were seated near them, dressed in leather jackets and raincoats above them. The makhnoists met each group of prisoners that was running out of the prison gates with shouts: “Long live freedom, long live anarchy, down with casemates!” They gave a loaf of bread and a sausage to each one of the released prisoners. We heard that Belokoz, the chief of the jail, who did not manage to make off, was thrown down from the roof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)