Military Review

Mutiny of the White Czechs

28
In the twenties of May 1918, a so-called “White-Czech insurgency” broke out in the country, as a result of which in the vast expanses of the Volga region, Siberia and the Urals. The formation of anti-Soviet regimes there made the war almost inevitable, and also pushed the Bolsheviks to a sharp tightening of their, and so rather tough, policy.


But before this, the anti-Bolshevik formations did not represent any real power. Thus, poorly armed and devoid of any normal supply, the Volunteer Army numbered only a thousand officers and approximately 1-5 thousands of soldiers and Cossacks in 7. At that time, everyone was completely indifferent to the “whites” in the south of Russia. General A. I. Denikin recalled those days: “Rostov struck me with its abnormal life. On the main street, Sadovaya, full of a crowd of the public, among which there is a mass of combat officers of all kinds weapons and guards, in parade uniforms and with sabers, but ... without national chevrons distinctive for volunteers on the sleeves! ... Volunteers, both the public and “officers,” did not pay any attention to us, no matter how we were here ! However, after the uprising of the Czechoslovak Corps, the situation changed dramatically, anti-Soviet forces received the necessary resource.

In addition, it must be borne in mind that in the spring of 1918, the Bolsheviks, despite all their leftist bends, were ready for some kind of compromise in the field of domestic policy. If in 1917, Lenin acted as a “radical”, then in 1918, he had already argued with the “Left Communists” (A. S. Bubnov, F. E. Dzerzhinsky, N. I. Bukharin, and others). This faction acted from the leftist positions, demanding to accelerate the socialist reorganization of Russia in every possible way. So, they insisted on the complete liquidation of banks and the immediate abolition of money. The “Left” categorically objected to at least some use of “bourgeois” specialists. At the same time, they advocated the complete decentralization of economic life.

In March, Lenin was set up relatively “complacently”, believing that the main difficulties had already been overcome, and now the main thing is the rational organization of the economy. It may seem strange, but the Bolsheviks at that moment (and even later) were not at all supporters of the immediate "expropriation of the expropriators." In March, Lenin began writing his programmatic article “The Next Tasks of Soviet Power”, in which he called for a suspension of “an attack on capital” and some compromise with capital: “... It would not be possible to define the task of the present moment with a simple formula: continue the attack on capital ... in the interests of the success of the further offensive must be “halted” now the offensive ”.

Lenin puts the following in the forefront: “The organization of the strictest and national accounting and control over the production and distribution of products is decisive. Meanwhile, in those enterprises, in those sectors and aspects of the economy that we have taken away from the bourgeoisie, we have not yet achieved accounting and control, and without this there can be no question of the second, equally essential, material condition for the introduction of socialism, namely: about raising, on a national scale, labor productivity. ”

At the same time, he pays special attention to the involvement of “bourgeois specialists”. This question, by the way, was quite acute. The left communists opposed the attraction of bourgeois specialists. And it is very significant that on this issue along with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who seem to have occupied more “moderate positions than the Bolsheviks. But no, moderate socialists for some reason were against attracting specialists, strengthening discipline in the workplace and among the troops.

The “Left” criticized Lenin in every way for “state capitalism”. At the same time, Vladimir Ilyich himself was ironic: “If, approximately in half a year, we established state capitalism, it would be a tremendous success.” (“On the“ Left ”Childhood and on the Petty-Bourgeois”). In general, in terms of relations with the urban bourgeoisie, many Bolsheviks expressed readiness to make a substantial compromise. There have always been trends in the leadership that suggested abandoning immediate socialization and the use of private initiative. A typical representative of such trends was the deputy chairman of the Supreme Economic Council, V.P. Milyutin, who called for building socialism in alliance with the capitalist monopolies (the latter were supposed to be gradually socialized). He advocated the incorporation of already nationalized enterprises, leaving 50% in the hands of the state, and returning the rest to the capitalists. (At the end of 1918, the Communist faction of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, which developed a project for the full restoration of free trade, began to play the role of a kind of opposition to the regime.)

Lenin himself did not approve this plan, but he did not intend to abandon the idea of ​​an agreement with the bourgeoisie. Ilyich put forward his own version of the compromise. He believed that industrial enterprises should be under workers' control, and they should be directly managed by the former owners and their specialists. (It is significant that the left communists and left-wing Socialist-Revolutionaries immediately began to oppose this plan, who spoke about the economic Brest of Bolshevism.) In March and April, negotiations were held with the big capitalist Meschersky, who was offered to create a large metallurgical trust with 300 thousand workers. But the industrialist Stakheyev, who controlled the 150 enterprises of the Urals, himself turned to the state with a similar project, and his proposal was seriously considered.

As for the nationalization carried out in the first months of Soviet power, it did not have any ideological character and was, for the most part, “punitive”. (Its various manifestations were examined in detail by the historian V.N. Galin in a two-volume study entitled "Trends. Interventions and Civil War.") In most cases, it was a conflict between workers who wanted to start production and the owners, whose plans included its suspension. and even coagulation - "until better times." In this regard, the nationalization of the plant “AMO” owned by the Ryabushinsky is very indicative. Even before February, they received from the government 11 million rubles for the production of 1500 cars, but did not fulfill the order. After October, the factory owners fled, instructing the directorate to close the plant. The Soviet government, however, decided to allocate 5 million to the plant so that it continued to function. However, the management refused, and the plant was nationalized.

Nationalization was also carried out to curb the expansion of German capital, which tried to make full use of the favorable situation that had developed after the conclusion of the Brest Peace Treaty. They began a mass buying up of shares of leading industrial enterprises of the country. The First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of the National Economy noted that the bourgeoisie “is trying by all means to sell their shares to German citizens, trying to get protection for German law through all kinds of handicrafts, all sorts of fictitious transactions.”

Finally, in June 1918 of the year, an order was issued by the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSO to “nationalize the largest enterprises”, according to which the state was supposed to give enterprises with a capital of 300 thousand rubles. However, in this decree it was stated that the nationalized enterprises are given to the free use of the owners who continue to finance production and make a profit. That is, even then the implementation of Lenin’s state-capitalist program continued, according to which the owners of enterprises were not so much “expropriated” as they were included in the system of the new economy.

Under these conditions, long-term technocratic projects began to be conceived. So, March 24 was created by the “Flying Laboratory” of Professor Zhukovsky. She began to work with the Calculation and Testing Bureau at the Higher Technical School (now MSTU Bauman). Other promising projects were conceived. The Bolsheviks began to position themselves as a party of technocrats, the “party of affairs”.

However, excessive urbanism of consciousness seriously interfered with this “cause”. The agrarian policy of the Bolsheviks repelled the broad masses of the peasantry from Soviet power. The Bolsheviks headed for the establishment of a food dictatorship based on the forced withdrawal of grain from the peasants. Moreover, there was an opposition led by Rykov to this course. Moreover, a number of regional Soviets - Saratov, Samara, Simbirsk, Astrakhan, Vyatka, Kazan, decisively opposed the dictatorship, canceled firm prices for bread and established free trade. However, the Central Executive Committee and the Supreme Economic Council over the head of the Soviets reassigned the local food authorities to the drug company.

Of course, some elements of the food dictatorship in those difficult conditions were necessary. Yes, they, in fact, existed - the removal of bread, in one way or another, was practiced both by the tsarist and Provisional Government. The politician had to be somewhat toughened, but the Bolsheviks here had pretty much overdone it, which turned many people against themselves. In fact, Leninists underestimated the strength of the "peasant element", the ability of the village to organize and resist. In the agrarian, peasant country there was a mass discontent with the Bolsheviks, which was superimposed on the discontent of the "bourgeoisie and the landowners."

And now, in this situation, an uprising of the Czechoslovak Corps takes place, which has made civil war inevitable. The performance itself became possible only thanks to the position of the Entente, which hoped to use the Czechoslovak units in the struggle with both the Germans and the Bolsheviks. Back in December 1917, I Jassy (Romania), the military allied representatives discussed the possibility of using Czechoslovak units against the Bolsheviks. England was inclined to such an option, while France nevertheless considered it necessary to limit herself to evacuating the corps through the Far East. Disputes between the French and the British continued until April 8 1918, when in Paris the Allies approved a document in which the Czechoslovak Corps was considered as part of the interventionist forces in Russia. And May 2 at Versailles L. George, J. Clemenceau, W. E. Orlando, General T. Bliss and Count Mitsuoka adopted the Note No. 25, ordering the Czechs to remain in Russia and create the Eastern Front against the Germans. And soon it was decided to use the corps to fight the Bolsheviks. Thus, the Entente frankly headed for the sabotage of the evacuation of the Czechs.

Western democracies were interested in permanent civil war. It was necessary that the reds beat the whites as long as possible, and the whites beat the reds. Of course, this could not continue all the time: sooner or later, one side would have the upper hand. Therefore, the Entente decided to promote the conclusion of a truce between the Bolsheviks and the white governments. So, in January, 1919, she made an offer to all government agencies located in the territory of the former Russian Empire to begin peace negotiations. It is obvious that a possible truce would be temporary, and would be violated in the short term. At the same time, it would only stabilize the state of splitting Russia into a number of parts, primarily the red RSFSR, the Kolchak East and the Denikin South. It is possible that a second truce would follow the first truce, and so it would have lasted a long time. By the way, a similar situation of permanent war developed in the 20-30-s. in China, which was divided into territories controlled by the nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek, the communists of Mao Zedong and various regional cliques of militarists. It is clear that this split only played into the hands of external forces, in particular, the Japanese.

England never abandoned plans to “reconcile” whites with reds. So, in spring, she suggested in the ultimatum form that the communists and P. Wrangel should start negotiations under the arbitration of Britain. Wrangel himself resolutely rejected the British ultimatum, with the result that in May 1920 of the year London announced the termination of white assistance. True, France has not yet refused this assistance and even strengthened it, but this was due to the circumstances of the Polish-Soviet war. The fact is that the French made the main stake on the Poles of U. Pilsudski, whose help was far superior to the help of white. But in 1920, there was a threat of the defeat of Poland and the advancement of the Red Army in Western Europe. It was then that the French needed Wrangel’s support, whose resistance forced the Reds to abandon the transfer of many select units to the Polish front. But after the threat to Pilsudski had passed, the French stopped helping the whites.
Author:
Originator:
http://zavtra.ru/
28 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lecha57
    Lecha57 5 June 2013 09: 02 New
    +5
    Surprisingly, with the support of seven countries of the White Army, the Reds not only withstood, but completely defeated the invaders. Only now, government agencies and some historians do not want to admit this fact, referring to the experience of the village "cook".
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 5 June 2013 10: 24 New
      +3
      In fact, this is not very and surprising, given that the white, unlike the red, did not have a real program of the post-revolutionary structure. And foreign aid to the white movement was not very tangible - the Angles, Yapes and Yankees have not yet figured out the situation. In addition, White’s victory was not beneficial for them — rather, they wanted to keep the chaos in Russia.
    2. anip
      anip 5 June 2013 10: 29 New
      +7
      It's a fact, yes. Liberators like to speculate about the "bloody" Bolsheviks, completely keeping silent about the beginning of the civil war by the White Czechs, incited by the beloved democrat-liberst Britain and France.
      In addition, accusing the Bolsheviks of all sins, the same democrats with their Boschs cannot understand that if the bulk of the people did not follow the Reds, the Bolsheviks would never have won. And, as a result, the same democrats cannot understand why the majority of the people nevertheless followed the Bolsheviks (supposedly, repression cannot be explained here)?
      1. fedot.uncle
        fedot.uncle 5 June 2013 17: 41 New
        +7
        It is even more incomprehensible why the authorities of Chelyabinsk erected a monument to the white whales in the city !!! What a shame. These crooks stole Russian gold, Kolchak was given for reprisal, and in Chelyabinsk they are immortalized. Poor Russia, a crazy country.
        1. Genady1976
          Genady1976 5 June 2013 18: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: fedot.uncle
          It is even more incomprehensible why the authorities of Chelyabinsk erected a monument to the white whales in the city !!! What a shame. These crooks stole Russian gold, Kolchak was given for reprisal, and in Chelyabinsk they are immortalized. Poor Russia, a crazy country.

          and I’m about the same thing and in Samara they still want to put a monument to the hitler
          1. Karlsonn
            Karlsonn 5 June 2013 18: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: fedot.uncle
            It is even more incomprehensible why the authorities of Chelyabinsk erected a monument to the white whales in the city !!!


            Quote: Genady1976
            and I’m about the same thing and in Samara they still want to put a monument to the hitler


            in St. Petersburg erected a monument to Mannerheim fool
            1. Genady1976
              Genady1976 5 June 2013 19: 21 New
              +2
              For the fact that the mannerheimer helped the hitler starve Leningraders.
    3. ammunition
      ammunition 5 June 2013 21: 34 New
      +1
      From a military point of view, the victory of the Reds in the civil war is a fact INCOMPATIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE,

      The Reds remained a small area around Moscow. With a severe shortage of all resources .. except for three-inch shells .. So there were not so many guns.

      And if you take into account the landing of the expeditionary corps of all the border (and not only border) countries ... France, Japan, England, Poland, Germany, Romania, USA .. etc.
      -------
      IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND

      And only when you begin to understand that such was THE WILL OF GOD... only then clearing in the head disappears. laughing
  2. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 5 June 2013 10: 18 New
    +1
    Yes, then the Czechs robbed the "brothers" pretty much, the goods were taken out in echelons.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 5 June 2013 10: 21 New
    +4
    Czechs, these are those political whores. How many Russian people put this corps !!! We fought for the loot; shot, hung, executed a lot of people. Yes and Zolotishko adm. A.V. Kolchak was taken with him.
    And what kind of resources did Czechoslovakia go uphill when the compatriots arrived?
    1. Andrey78
      Andrey78 5 June 2013 21: 11 New
      0
      Quote: aszzz888
      .
      And what kind of resources did Czechoslovakia go uphill when the compatriots arrived?

      For personal savings in the bank of the Austro-Hungarian Empire lol
  4. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 5 June 2013 10: 24 New
    +6
    Quite a bit is written about the rebellion in the article.
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 5 June 2013 10: 37 New
      +2
      Yes, I agree
  5. pinecone
    pinecone 5 June 2013 10: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Lecha57
    Surprisingly, with the support of seven countries of the White Army


    What kind of "seven countries of the White Army?" The Bolsheviks used the term "Entente campaign" and counted three such campaigns.
    As for the mutiny, it was officially called "Czechoslovakian" and not "White Bohemian". There was also "Pansky Poland" with "White Poles", Estonia with "White" Estonians, as well as Finland with "White Finns" and Finnish Red Guards.
  6. creak
    creak 5 June 2013 11: 41 New
    0
    In this connection, it is also necessary to mention Trotsky’s order of May 31, 1918 on the suspension of the movement of Czechoslovak echelons to the east, the disarmament of Czechoslovak legionnaires and their placement in prisoner-of-war camps. The Legion refused to obey this order, and the Bolsheviks did not have enough strength to execute it. And then everything went on increasing. In this situation, as in the negotiations on the conclusion of the Brest Peace, Trotsky played his sinister role and acted as a provocateur.
  7. Sour
    Sour 5 June 2013 11: 52 New
    +1
    Czechoslovakians fought on the side of Russia in the 1st World War, but in small numbers. Was created from volunteers by the Czechoslovak brigade of 3,5 thousand, the commander of the Russian colonel Troyanov. In September 1917, the brigade was deployed in a corps numbering at first 40 thousand, then over 60 thousand. Thus, most of the soldiers and officers of the created corps did not take part in active hostilities on the side of Russia.
    On the side of the Reds during the Civil War, 12 thousand Czechs and Slovaks fought. Most of the survivors returned home only in 1920-1922. They took part in operations on the Eastern and Southern Fronts, as well as in the Soviet-Polish War of 1920. The most famous are Yaroslav Chastek (brigade commander), Josef Sikora (regiment commander). The famous writer Yaroslav Hasek also served in the Red Army, as part of the troops of the 5th Army reached Irkutsk, was wounded. At one time he was the commandant of the city of Bugulma.
  8. Seraph
    Seraph 5 June 2013 12: 23 New
    +2
    "Brothers" are strange people. It is clear that the German colonial past affects them, all sorts of diabolical experiments with the Golem, the legacy of heresies and sects from all over Europa, who have been there since the Hussite wars, etc. But who are they themselves and for what? Muddy people: what a significant historical event associated with the Czechs, you will not look - everywhere there is some kind of ambush: the White Czechs, the Sudetenland surrendered to the German without a fight in 1938, in 1939 they surrendered altogether, the 1968 Revolution, the Velvet Revolution. And now? Zombie parade every year, the presidential candidate is wearing tattoos. Mess
  9. My address
    My address 5 June 2013 14: 01 New
    +5
    Mom of the Old Believers peasants. According to her, based on the stories of her father, my grandfather, the White Czechs mocked, robbed, raped. For the slightest discontent could kill. And in their village all the Old Believers and the Bolsheviks were not. Whites behaved much better, there was no bullying and murder, but they forcibly took the young guys into the army. Reds best of all behaved, requisitioning food or horses, either paying off or giving out papers. Of course, the penny was the price of those papers, but at that time it was amazing. And after the civil attitude in the village to the Soviet power was not bad. But in 30, the dispossession went wild and more than half of the village were evicted or the people themselves fled.
    When, in the Soviet Union, I convinced my mother that the Czechs were almost our best friends, she didn’t want to hear about it and asked why they were behaving in civil manner with the peasants.
  10. Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 5 June 2013 14: 45 New
    +1
    1. And where, in fact, the story of the rebellion? What was the political and economic state of the country is known even without an article, and the heading is about another.
    2. Was there something before the rebellion?
    November 15 1917 years in Novocherkassk, General M. Alekseev published an appeal to the officers, urging them to “save the Motherland”, where he arrived and created the Alekseevsky organization (the nucleus of the future Dobarmia). Martial law was introduced in the Don, introduced by the ataman of the Don Army A. Kaledin, in connection with an armed uprising in Petrograd. The Don government took power by liquidating the Soviets. Between Alekseev and the headquarters of the Romanian front established a connection. On the Romanian front, the idea arose of creating a Volunteer Corps for sending to the Don.
    December 24 1917 Colonel M. Drozdovsky arrives in Yassy and becomes one of the organizers of this corps. After the decision to disband, Drozdovsky, the commander of the 1st brigade of the corps, decided to go to the Don. He made an appeal: "I'm going - who is with me?" Detachment with March to May 1918 1200 miles from Iasi to Novocherkassk marched with fights, destroying the detachments of Bolsheviks and deserters encountered on the way.
    3.
    And so, in this situation there is an uprising of the Czechoslovak corps, which made a civil war inevitable.

    The corps was asked to disarm. The corps did not want to. The Council of People's Commissars made concessions: "Czechoslovakia is advancing not as a combat unit, but as a group of free citizens, carrying weapons to protect themselves from ... counterrevolutionaries. And on May 21, many Soviets received a telegram from the head of the operational department Aralov:" By order of Trotsky, I suggest you offer the Czechoslovakians. ... to organize into workers' artels or join the ranks of the Soviet Red Army. "And then Trotsky's order:" All Soviets ... on pain of responsibility to disarm the Czechoslovakians, every Czechoslovakian found armed on the railway line must be shot ... "
    Here the rebellion began! The reasons also lie in the fact that the captured Austro-Hungarians and Germans went to cooperate with the Soviet government and, as it is now said, an ethnic conflict arose. There was much more, but the direction of the Civil War with the aim of overthrowing Soviet power was begun even before the Czech rebellion.
    1. Sour
      Sour 5 June 2013 15: 53 New
      0
      Until April-May 1918, the civil war in Russia consisted mainly of the sluggish actions of the Volunteer Army (very small), plus the confusing situation in Ukraine. Foreign intervention basically came down to the actions of intelligence services.
      A large-scale civil war began in April-May with mass uprisings in the Cossack regions, as well as the revolt of the Czechoslovakians and the intervention of foreign states (the Germans, who supported Krasnov, and the Japanese, who supported Semyonov, were the first to start). It cannot be said that the Czechs are to blame for the civil war, but they "got into the stream". Many white memoirists, cursing the Czechs for not wanting to fight the Reds to the end, admit through clenched teeth that without them it would be difficult to overthrow the Bolsheviks in Siberia and the Urals in 1918.
      1. Valery-SPB
        Valery-SPB 5 June 2013 16: 42 New
        +1
        The spirit of Soviet textbooks is strong in us. When it comes to civil war, we immediately subconsciously identify ourselves on the one hand, the red and the Soviet. We were attacked! Intervention! But the foundations are the same as in 1991. The Baltic States, Ukraine, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Asian regions - suddenly separated from Russia, they wanted independence. And the Donskoy Krug decided to live separately from the "sivolapa" of Russia. The scale of the phenomenon was already in the fact that there was a split! And not only for political convictions, but also for economic and national-ethnic.
        Foreign intervention? Well, yes, the British built a railway on Romanov-on-Murman in order to carry military cargo. And in this city, which became Murmansk, the Council and the workers and all sorts of other deputies. The British turned to the Council, worried about the safety of a huge amount of military equipment, and with the consent of the Council, British troops were brought in. However, the intervention!
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 5 June 2013 19: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Valery-SPB
          Foreign intervention? Well, yes, the British built a railway on Romanov-on-Murman in order to carry military cargo. And in this city, which became Murmansk, the Council and the workers and all sorts of other deputies. The British turned to the Council, worried about the safety of a huge amount of military equipment, and with the consent of the Council, British troops were brought in. However, the intervention!


          about the first concentration camp built by the British, didn’t you remember the comrade?

          Quote: Valery-SPB
          The spirit of Soviet textbooks is strong in us. When it comes to civil war, we immediately subconsciously identify ourselves on the one hand, red and Soviet. They attacked us! Intervention!


          learn what Americans, Canadians and Japanese did in the Far East, you will discover a lot.
          1. Valery-SPB
            Valery-SPB 5 June 2013 19: 45 New
            0
            Karlsonn SU about the first concentration camp built by the British didn’t you remember the comrade?
            learn what Americans, Canadians and Japanese did in the Far East, you will discover a lot.


            I just felt like they patted me on the shoulder, spitting at the same time through gritted teeth. Where does familiarity come from?
            Comrade! There is no need to pose as a patriot of Russia and, at the same time, not to use the name adopted by us, "comrade".
            Do not try to distort! It is said that:
            1. "Intervention" in Murmansk is not an attack on a foreign country, but the introduction of troops at the request of the authorities. Blame the future, for that time, concentration camps on the local Soviet authorities or "Roth Front", if you like. The Far East has nothing to do with it.
            2. The second quote (my first paragraph of the post) is not an analysis of the intervention, but an indication that it is impossible to blame all the causes of the civil war on intervention. We had our own inventors, on both sides.
  11. Zopuhhh
    Zopuhhh 5 June 2013 15: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Standard Oil
    Yes, then the Czechs robbed the "brothers" pretty much, the goods were taken out in echelons.

    And on these (our money with you) thrived in the 20-30s, until they were dispossessed by other methods ...
  12. brr7710
    brr7710 5 June 2013 16: 46 New
    0
    [quote = anip] Yes, it's a fact. Liberators like to speculate about the "bloody" Bolsheviks, completely keeping silent about the beginning of the civil war by the White Czechs, incited by the beloved democrat-liberst Britain and France.

    yes THEY (England, France) rubbed their hands and rejoiced in this chaos and tried to snatch a bigger piece of territory .....
  13. Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 17: 52 New
    +1
    I thought in the article they write about the war crimes of the white whales
    And how many monuments were erected by this white-casing in Russia?
  14. sergey261180
    sergey261180 5 June 2013 18: 00 New
    +2
    For example, what the American spy Arthur Ballard writes:

    "The beginning of the construction of TRANSSIB in the 1890s and the threat of the development of Siberia by the Russians themselves became the real cause of the Japanese-Russian War; with Japan, supported by the United States and Britain. Now, if TRANSSIB stands up now, it will cause the death of many thousands of people from hunger and cold," because products are delivered by rail. TRANSSIB is the target of any military operations in Siberia. Who owns TRANSIB - owns Siberia. The blockade of TRANSIBA by the Czechs in August-September 1918 immediately paralyzed the whole of Siberia. Cities along the TRANSIBA were filled with refugees. revolution there were 200 thousand inhabitants, and in 1918 this number tripled to 600 thousand with the same housing stock! "

    The Holodomor in Siberia and the blockade of TRANSIBA were achieved by the American interventionists with the help of a hired Czechoslovak army in order to suppress all resistance in Siberia and secession of Siberia from Russia, which happened in 1920 - the formation of the Far East Republic under the auspices of the USA - the Far Eastern Republic with the capital on Lake Baikal in Verkhneudinsk and with the President of the Russian Far East - an American citizen - a Russian Jew, a former emigrant to the United States Abram Moiseevich Krasnoshchek, who had a passport of an American citizen Stroller Tobinson. The Americans liquidated the FER only after they became convinced that the power in Siberia and the Far East after completing joint punitive operations with Trotsky in Siberia was also transferred to an American citizen, like Krasnoshchek, who had come from New York, to Leib Bronstein-Trotsky, who at that time time was an unlimited dictator of the Soviets in the post of Pre-Revolutionary Council. The last interventionists - the Japanese left Vladivostok only in November 1923).
  15. knn54
    knn54 5 June 2013 18: 04 New
    +5
    The whites rebelled to profit from the royal gold reserve, stole more than 100 tons!
    The whites were atrocious from the heart and it was THEY who created the first concentration camps in Russia. In the end, betrayed Kolchak.
    From the song of the Altai partisans (1919):
    We were attacked by evil Czechs,
    Native village set on fire.
    Father killed in the first fight
    And the mother was alive in the fire burned.
    Sister native captured taken
    And I was left an orphan ...
    In the photo: Siberians hang white whales, 1919.
    PS They erected a monument in Chelyabinsk, they are also going to Samara ...
    1. sergey261180
      sergey261180 5 June 2013 18: 15 New
      0
      They did not revolt. Everything was organized by the Americans. Nobody betrayed Kolchak; they banged him at the behest of the Americans for Bonapartist habits and for trying to hide gold from the Americans.
  16. rexby63
    rexby63 5 June 2013 19: 49 New
    0
    Something about the Czechs
  17. PiP
    PiP 5 June 2013 21: 32 New
    0
    Something I did not understand ... Is this only the first part? or finished work? CzechCorp was somehow mentioned in a slippery way, and it turned out some kind of political and economic analysis of those years.
    ss
    Wikipedia is even more interesting. Http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%EE%F1%F1%F2%E0%ED%E8%E5_%D
    7%E5%F5%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E0%F6%EA%EE%E3%EE_%EA%EE%F0%EF%F3%F1%E0#1918_.D0.B3.D0.BE
    .D0.B4
    1. Seraph
      Seraph 5 June 2013 23: 09 New
      0
      on YouTube I also watched a film about the Czechoslovak corps. sorry, forgot the name ...
      but the fact that these geeks-traitors of Russia also put monuments is terrible! liberal kagal is still in force, our people's minds are still muddied
  18. shurup
    shurup 5 June 2013 23: 30 New
    0
    I did not learn anything from the article about the rebellion of the white whites and the struggle of the red war for the interests of the working people. Maybe the title is confused?