[1] [Makhnovist Movement.]

[2] In addition to the large quantity of articles which have appeared in various Russian and foreign newspapers, and which demonstrate an extraordinary talent for slander or an unbelievable literary shamelessness on the author’s part, there are already fairly extensive works which pretend to have a certain ideological or historical importance, but which in reality are conscious falsifications or inept fables. For example, we can cite the book of Ya. Yakovlev, Russian Anarchism in the Great Russian Revolution (published in several Russian as well as foreign editions) — a steady stream of falsifications and outright lies. Or we could cite the long and pretentious article of a certain Gerasimenko in the historical-literary anthology Istorik i Sovremenik (published by Olga D’yakov and Co., Book III, Berlin, 1922, p. 151, article on “Makhno”), where such fantasies are reported that one is ashamed for the “author” and the “anthology.” We should also mention that the anarchist press, which generally treats the Makhnovist movement seriously, thoughtfully and honestly, analyzing it from other vantage points and with other aims than the above-mentioned “authors,” also contains numerous errors and inaccuracies which are caused by the fact that the authors themselves did not personally take part in the movement, were not in close contact with it, and wrote about it on the basis of hearsay, on the basis of published materials or secondhand accounts and articles. (See, for example, the pamphlet by P. Rudenko, “In the Ukraine — the Insurrection and the Anarchist Movement,” published by the Workers’ Publishing House, Argentina, March, 1922, reprinted from the journal Vol’nyi Trud, organ of the Petrograd Federation of Anarchist Groups, October, 1919. In the pamphlet as well as in the article, major errors appeared which can be explained by the fact that the author did not personally take part in the movement and did not actually experience its complex problems.)

[3] Instigator of Jewish pogroms.

[4] Before the publication of the present work, the author published two articles in foreign journals, “Nestor Makhno” and “The I Makhnovshchina and Anti-Semitism,” in order to acquaint foreign workers and comrades with certain facts about the Makhnovshchina.

[5] At the time of this defeat, during an attack by a cavalry division of “Red Cossacks,” Arshinov was almost killed (and not for the first time). He saw several close comrades massacred when they were unable to avoid the blows of the Cossack sabers

[6] Since the publication of this book in Russian, Makhno was tried by a Polish tribunal, accused of high treason (for having instigated an uprising in Galicia in collaboration with the Bolsheviks). The accusation was recognized to be false, and Makhno was acquitted. He has since then been at liberty. [Footnote in the French edition, Paris: Librairie Internationale, 1924.]

[7] [A territorial subdivision comparable to a “province,” a “state,” or a “department.” (In Russian: guberniya, here translated as “government.”)]

[8] Actually, at the time of the Hetman, the Bolsheviks tried to have partisan detachments of their type in the country which were to carry out the orders of the Party. Such was the detachment of Kolosov in the Pavlograd region. But the number of these detachments was small, and they were submerged by the large mass of insurgents who followed a path independent of the Party. In addition, these rare Party-type detachments were infected by the general spirit of the revolutionary insurrection. The detachment of Kolosov did not draw a sharp line between its insurrectional activity and that of Makhno. They often worked together.

[9] Cherednyakov was a peasant and an anarchist who was soon outlawed by the Bolshevik authorities. He and his detachment joined the general insurrectionary army of Makhno, and he fought on the Azov front against Denikin. At the time of Denikin’s invasion of the Gulyai-Polye region in June, 1919, he was captured and given 300 blows of the whip. He escaped. In the summer of 1919 he again fell into the hands of Denikin’s troops in the region of Poltava, and was shot.

[10] Certain characteristic facts can serve as examples. Very often the peasants of different villages on the Azov seacoast stopped trains with food supplies and verified the documents. If they lacked the papers of the staff of the Makhnovist army, the trains were delayed until information was received from the Makhnovists. It also frequently happened that the peasants of many villages responded to the appeal of Bolshevik organizations to deliver grain to the State at a fixed price by telling the Bolsheviks that they would be happy to furnish the grain, if the Makhnovist organization agreed.

[11] This commune was destroyed on June 9^th and 10^th, 1919, by the Bolsheviks, during their general campaign against the Makhnovist region. At that time. Comrade Kir’yakov, well-known local revolutionary peasant, as well as other organizers of the commune, were declared outlaws. Some days later, when the village of Pokrovskoe was occupied by Denikin’s troops, the commune was completely destroyed and Kir’yakov was publicly shot.

[12] Some members of the army, as well as some peasants, later interpreted this mobilization as compulsory. In their opinion the decree of the congress, which reflected the will of the working people of the entire region, and which was expressed in the form of an invitation, was to be strictly carried out. This was an error and a misinterpretation on the part of some individuals. The mobilization decree of the congress was simply an appeal to join the army voluntarily.

[13] See Put’ k Svobode, No. 2 and No. 3. 93

[14] In addition to L. Kamanev’s telegram, a telegram addressed to Makhno was received from Grossman-Roshchin (Soviet anarchist), referring to the same event.

[15] [Cossack chieftain.]

[16] One of the most important railway bridges in Russia, spanning the Dnieper near Aleksandrovsk.

[17] The record of the proceedings of the congress, the record of Makhno’s and Grigor’ev’s speeches, as well as a number of other documents, were lost during the armed struggles of 1920.

[18] In certain cities the Makhnovists appointed a commander. His function consisted only of serving as a contact man between the troops and the population, and of informing the population about measures taken by the army which might have repercussions on the life of the inhabitants and which the military command felt it opportune to take. These commanders had no authority over the population and did not interfere in any way with their civil life.

[19] One of the favorite arguments of the Bolsheviks against the Makhnovists is the claim that the insurgents did nothing during their stay at Ekaterinoslav to achieve a constructive organization of the life of that city. But in saying this, the Bolsheviks hide from the masses two circumstances of extraordinary importance. In the first place, the Makhnovists were neither a party nor an authority. In Ekaterinoslav, they acted as a revolutionary military detachment, guaranteeing the freedom of the city. In this capacity, they were in no way obliged to try to achieve a constructive revolutionary program. This task could only be carried out by the workers of the place. The Makhnovist army could at most help them with its opinions and advice, with its spirit of initiative and its organizational ability, and it did this.
Secondly, the Bolsheviks in their arguments hide from the masses the exceptional situation of the city at that time: during the whole time that the Makhnovists remained there, it was not only in a state of siege, but actually under bombardment. Not an hour passed without shells bursting. It was this situation, and not the Makhnovist army, that prevented the workers from setting out, on the spot, to organize life according to the principles of self-management.
As for the fable according to which the Makhnovists declared to the railway workers who came to them for help that they (the Makhnovists) did not need railroads, since they had good horses as well as the Steppes — this gross invention was started by Denikin’s newspapers in October, 1919, and from that source the Bolsheviks took it to serve their own ends.

[20] Extract from the proceedings of a Council session.

[21] Secretary of the Council of Revolutionary Insurgents.

[22] The representatives of the Soviet Government insisted on this last point because of the frequent passage of Red Army units into the Makhnovist ranks — P.A.

[23] I will mention a play written by a young Gulyai-Polye peasant who took an active part in different phases of the insurrectionary movement. This play was called “The Life of the Makhnovists” and consisted of several acts. The action begins in the summer of 1919, when Denikin’s army occupied all of the Ukraine. The free villages at that time were inundated by police and military officers. After their arrival, the workers are once again subjected to the old oppression. The peasants suffer at every step; their goods are requisitioned; they are constantly searched. The peasants look for the Makhnovists. Old and young peasants are beaten and shot. The spirit of revolt burns in the peasants. They meet in groups to discuss their disastrous situation, prepare for a new insurrection and increasingly turn their glances toward Makhno, who three months earlier was forced to retreat under the pressure of the armies of Denikin and Trotsky.
But one day it is rumored that Makhno had defeated Denikin and was again marching across the Ukraine, approaching Gulyai-Polye. This news gives courage and energy to the Gulyai-Polye inhabitants. Hearing the cannons of the Makhnovists in the distance, the peasants rebel, initiating a fierce struggle against Denikin’s troops and forcing them to leave Gulyai-Polye supported by Makhno’s cavalry which at this moment enters the village.
The play is a powerful description of life in the Ukrainian countryside in the summer of 1919. In it the hardships of the people, their poignant emotion, their honesty, their revolutionary enthusiasm and heroism, are depicted with remarkable force. The powerful tension of the play is maintained until the end.

[24] Frunze mentions several cases where soldiers of the Red Army were disarmed and killed by the Makhnovists. But all the cases he refers to were closely examined by himself, Rakovsky and the representatives of the Makhnovists at Khar’kov, and it was conclusively established: 1) that the Makhnovist Army had nothing to do with these misdeeds; 2) that if hostile acts toward the army were committed by certain military detachments which did not belong to the Makhnovist Army, this was primarily due to the fact that the Soviet authorities had neglected to publish, at an opportune time and intelligibly, their agreement with the insurgents. In fact it was known that numerous isolated military units, not incorporated into the Makhnovist Army, operated here and there in the Ukraine. The majority of these units, while acting on their own, nevertheless respected the opinion and the attitude of the insurrectionary army; they would certainly have ceased all hostility toward the Soviet authorities and armies if they had known about the agreement concluded with the Makhnovists.

[25] As soon as they were taken prisoner, the soldiers of the Red Army were set free. They were advised to return to their homes and no longer serve as instruments of power to subjugate the people. But in view of the fact that the Makhnovists were forced to move on immediately, the freed prisoners were reinstated in their respective units a few days later. The Soviet authorities organized special commissions to recapture the soldiers of the Red Army who were set free by the Makhnovists. Thus the Makhnovists were caught in a vicious circle from which they could not escape. As for the Bolsheviks, their procedure was much simpler. Following the orders of the “Special Commission for the Struggle against the Makhnovshchina,” all the Makhnovist prisoners were shot on the spot.
We truly regret that we cannot cite verbatim an important Soviet document which was lost in the conditions of war of 1920. This document is an order to the Bogucharski Brigade of the Red Army (the 41^st, if I am not mistaken), which was defeated by the Makhnovists in December, 1920, near the Greek village of Konstantin. The order stated (almost verbatim): In accordance with the regulations of the “Special Commission for the Struggle against the Makhnovshchina,” “in order to discourage a soft attitude among the soldiers” (i.e. conciliatory sentiments — P.A.) “and to prevent the Makhnovists from contaminating the Red -soldiers — all the Makhnovist prisoners are to be shot on the spot.”

[26] No map, no compass could be of any use in such movements. Maps and instruments could indicate the direction, but could not prevent falling into a ravine or a torrent, which did not once happen to the Makhnovist army. Such a march across the hilly and roadless Steppes was possible because the troops knew the configuration of the Ukrainian Steppes perfectly.

[27] This letter was written after N. Makhno had left Russia.

[28] Matrosenko was a Ukrainian insurgent and peasant poet — P.A.

[29] Makhno had been wounded by a bullet which fractured all the bones in his ankle. This is why he mounted a horse only in cases of extreme necessity. — P.A.

[30] The “Lewisists” were a unit of machine-gunners armed with Lewis machine-guns — P.A.

[31] We cite two characteristic examples of Bolshevik executions: Sereda — peasant, Makhnovist insurgent, native of the government of Ekaterinoslav, belonging to no party. He took care of the finances of the army and was paymaster. Sometimes he replaced Makhno, whom he loved and over whom he watched with extraordinary devotion. In October, 1920, at the time of the agreement between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists, a bullet went through his chest and another remained inside during a battle against Wrangel. Needing an operation, he went to Khar’kov, certain that the Soviet authorities would help him in view of his serious condition. In Khar’kov he was placed in a hospital, but a week later, when the Bolsheviks attacked the Makhnovists and anarchists, he was imprisoned and shot, in March, 1921. Let us recall the following facts: when the Makhnovists occupied Ekaterinoslav in October, 1919, they did not in any way disturb the soldiers and officers of Denikin’s army who were undergoing treatment in hospitals, believing that the murder of a disarmed enemy was not worthy of the honor of a revolutionary. General Slashchev, at that time under Denikin’s orders (today under the Bolsheviks), who took Ekaterinoslav a month later, put to death all the sick and wounded Makhnovists who were in the hospitals. The Communist authorities went even further than Slashchev by shooting a man who, having fought on the same front with them, and having been wounded there, came to them for help, believing that his life was safe because of the agreement signed by them.
Bogush — anarchist who had just returned from America with other anarchists expelled from the United States. At the time of the agreement between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks, he was at Khar’kov, and having heard about the legendary Gulyai-Polye, he wanted to go there to become acquainted with the Makhnovshchina. At this time, the Bolsheviks facilitated such journeys by putting at the disposal of the Makhnovists in Khar’kov a locomotive and a railway car to transport militants working in the cultural domain to Gulyai-Polye. However, Bogush was able to see free Gulyai-Polye only for a few days, and in view of the rupture between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists and the beginning of hostilities between them, he returned to Khar’kov, where he was arrested by the Bolsheviks and shot by order of the Cheka in March, 1921.
This event can have only one explanation: the Bolsheviks did not want to leave alive a single person who knew the truth about their aggression against the Makhnovists and who could have narrated it.

[32] This order was published at the time of the unification and organization of all the insurrectionary forces into a single army; when, after the forced retreat from the region of Gulyai-Polye, the detachments who had served under Grigor’ev and the Red Army troops who had come from Novy Bug to join the Makhnovists were incorporated into the insurrectionary army in the region of Elisavetgrad-Pomoshchnaya.

[33] i.e. to struggle against injustice in the insurgents’ own environment and in the insurgents’ relations to the environment of the working people — P.A.

[34] After 1920, the Bolsheviks wrote a great deal about the personal defects of Makhno, basing their information on the diary of his so-called wife, a certain Fedora Gaenko, who had been captured during a battle.But Makhno’s wife is Halyna Kuzmenko. She has lived with him since 1918. She never kept, and therefore never lost, a diary. Thus the documentation of the Soviet authorities is based on a fabrication, and the picture these authorities draw from such a diary is an ordinary lie.

[35] During the three years of the insurrectionary movement, various individuals obviously filled the same posts in the Makhnovist army.

[36] Bogdanov was chief of staff of the 2^nd insurrectionary brigade. He was shot in October, 1919, in Aleksandrovsk, for having imposed an indemnity on the bourgeoisie of the region in the name of the army, but for his own interests.
Lashkevich was the well-known commander of the famous 13^th regiment of the insurrectionary army. He was shot in the summer of 1920, after a decision made by a general assembly of insurgents, for having spent army funds for his own pleasure, and, in possession of these funds, having refused to help certain insurgent workers who were in a critical situation.

[37] We might note in passing that the faults and defects which the governmental press attributed to the movement: plundering, violence against the peaceful population, anti-Semitism, are all fantastic lies. To reduce all these lies to nothing, it is enough to point to the exceptionally joyful welcome given to the Makhnovists by all the villagers of the Ukraine and of Great Russia whenever the Makhnovist army passed through. An additional proof is provided by the Bolsheviks’ own documents. In all their references to the struggle against the Makhnovshchina (in secret documents, not in those intended for publication), the agents of the Soviet power always emphasized that the struggle against the Makhnovshchina is particularly difficult because of the aid which the peasants everywhere give to the Makhnovist army, while these same peasants place numerous obstacles in the way of the Red Army.