The Big Lie about Red and White Terror

Adrenaline Дата публикации: 15-01-2026 16:42:00 Просмотров: 421

In the sinister, well-coordinated campaign to discredit the history of Soviet society, which is waged by liberal forces, one of the trump cards is the “Red Terror”. Its purpose is more than transparent: to present Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, so to speak, as born rapists.

The “zealots” of the truth of history want to get away from recognizing the indisputable fact that the “Red Terror” was a retaliatory, defensive, and therefore just measure against the White Terror, against the armed campaign of the interventionists, against the actions of the White Guards and their supporters in the Soviet rear in order to restore the old regime , which was the largest manifestation of the White Terror. All previous revolutions, including the English, American and Great French bourgeois revolutions, used this legitimate right to defend themselves (which is also carefully hushed up). And not a single supporter of social progress, either then or later, reproached them with this right. But there are some who would like to deny our revolution the right to defense.

The social orientation of the punitive measures of the Soviet government is distorted deliberately and unceremoniously, repressions against those who consciously and purposefully participated in the preparations for the restoration of the old regime, overthrown by the majority of the people, are skillfully projected onto this very majority. With the help of such a trick, God's myth about the "anti-people" nature of the Bolshevik government, which is walking around the pages of many publications today, is brought to light. As for those who, in an atmosphere of fierce confrontation, accidentally found themselves under the threat of repression, Lenin constantly took care that the punishing sword of justice did not fall on the heads of the innocent.It is enough to refer to 50-54 volumes of his writings or the documentary collection “VI Lenin and the Cheka” (Moscow, 1982), where this is irrefutably attested.

But perhaps the most striking thing in the flood of publications against the “Red Terror” is the complete failure of memory in relation to the White Terror.

As you know, the October Revolution won extremely quickly. Even fewer people were willing to defend the Provisional Government than the tsarist autocracy. After the establishment of Soviet power in both capitals, October triumphantly marched through almost the entire vast country in 4 months. None of the previous revolutions has known such dynamism yet. Thanks to the overwhelming superiority of forces, the Bolshevik Soviets took power in the overwhelming majority of places peacefully. Of the 100 largest settlements (including provincial towns) only in 16 the issue of power was resolved by force of arms. The supporters of the old regime, Lenin emphasized, “had no political or economic support, and their attack was thwarted.The fight against them combined not so much military operations as agitation…” (VI Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 36, p. 95).

Of course, as in other revolutions, the classes and parties leaving the stage did not want to voluntarily cede power. They tried to unleash a civil war in the country. The revolt of Krasnov-Kerensky near Petrograd, the uprising of the Junkers in the capital itself, the bloody massacre perpetrated by supporters of the Provisional Government in Moscow, the conspiracy of the old generals at Headquarters, the revolts of the Cossack leaders in the Don , Kuban, Urals, the anti-Soviet actions of the nationalist forces on the outskirts - all these are attempts to erect a barrier to the triumphal march of Soviet power. But a total civil war, despite the desperate efforts of the Mensheviks, the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Cadets who stood behind them, did not work out.

The people said their word, and they had to retreat along the entire front. The first round of unleashing a civil war was lost by them outright.

In this regard, it is necessary to restore the truth about the position taken by the Soviet government in relation to the opposition parties and their supporters. This is fundamentally important in view of the growing myths about the Bolsheviks as "rapists" and "terrorists".

As you know, no one removed the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries from the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. They left on their own, not wanting to obey the democratically expressed will of the majority of the people. “They,” Lenin recalled in those days, “were offered to share power… We invited everyone to participate in the government… We wanted a Soviet coalition government. We did not exclude anyone from the Council. If they did not want to work together, so much the worse for them” (VI Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 35, pp. 36-37).With threats and scolding, they retired from Smolny to the City Duma hastily to form a “Committee for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution” in order to start the very civil war in which they accused the Bolsheviks. Here is how the living witness of those events, the Menshevik NN Sukhanov, assessed their actions:

“It was a conspiracy arranged by a bunch of bankrupt politicians - against the Petersburg Soviet, against the legitimate All-Russian Congress of Soviets, against the overwhelming majority of the masses, in which they themselves were as inconspicuous as chips and wreckage of a ship broken by a storm in the ocean” (Sukhanov N. Zapiski about revolution, Berlin-Pg.-M., 1923, book 7, pp. 287-288). What's right is right!

Immediately after the collapse of the first anti-Soviet rebellions, Lenin declared: “We do not want a civil war… We are against a civil war” (VI Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 35, p. 53) . And one more thing: “We are reproached for using terror, but the terror that the French revolutionaries used, who guillotined unarmed people, we do not use and, I hope, will not use” (ibid., p. 63). And subsequently, the Soviet government showed more than enough acts of humanism towards its opponents. With the support of the vast majority of the population on their side, this government believed that, in accordance with the principles of democracy, the resisting minority should recognize the choice of the majority and not foment a civil war in the country.And she constantly reinforced this course with numerous acts of forgiving those who stopped fighting or even announced it.

The rebellious general Krasnov was subjected only to house arrest, and then released on parole not to raise his hand against the revolution. Where he ended up and what he did is well known. The junkers defending the Winter Palace were released, and without taking a breath, on October 29 they raised an uprising in order to open the way for Krasnov to the capital. The Moscow junkers, who flooded the streets of the city with blood, were not even arrested and, in accordance with the agreement, were released in peace at their place of residence. Soon, many of them showed up on the Don in the ranks of Denikin's Volunteer Army.

Even one of the main culprits of the Moscow bloodshed, the chairman of the “Committee of Public Security”, Socialist-Revolutionary VV Milyukov tearfully implores the "allies" to urgently begin military intervention against the ROFSR. In November 1917, a conspiracy led by an ardent Black Hundredist VM Purishkevich was uncovered. There is evidence: a letter signed by him to Kaledin, which said: “We are waiting for you here, General, and by the time you arrive we will set out with all available forces” (Red Archive, 1928, No. 1, p. 171). He defined the nature of the “action” as follows: “We must begin with the Smolny Institute and then go through all the barracks and factories, shooting soldiers and workers in masses” (ibid., p. 183). Purishkevich arrested,but soon ... amnestied in connection with the holiday of May 1 (1918). A year later, in the same Iasi, he agitates for military intervention, then helps Denikin with all his might in a campaign against Moscow.

The commander of the 5th Army, General VG Boldyrev, was condemned by the revolutionary tribunal to imprisonment for sabotaging the truce at the front, but under the same May amnesty he was generously pardoned - and immediately hurried to the camp of the eastern counter-revolution . He became a member of the Ufa directory, became the commander-in-chief of its armed forces. General VV Marushevsky, chief of the general staff, arrested for sabotage, so to speak, “on a large scale”, repented and wrote with his own hand: “I consider it necessary for the modern government to obey and carry out its orders. ” But, released from arrest, he was not slow to move to Arkhangelsk, captured by the interventionists, and became the closest assistant to the White Guard General Miller.The socialist ministers of the Provisional Government NA Gvozdev, AM Nikitin and SL Maslov arrested in the Winter were released, but they did not appreciate the generosity of the new government. Soon the first two ended up in the White Guard camp and, as leaders of the cooperation of the South of Russia, acted as, so to speak, non-regular commissaries of Denikin's army. By March 1918, all the activists of the sabotage Union of Unions of Employees of State Institutions, headed by its chairman, were released from arrest, again on parole. And such examples are innumerable.

Such is the truth that the present-day accusers of the Bolsheviks prefer to conceal. Before the start of foreign military intervention and the civil war, that is, before the unfolding of the massive White Terror, the repressive measures of the Soviet government were limited and very liberal in nature, since the onslaught of the counter-revolutionary forces at the the first stage was still relatively weak. For those who want to honestly understand the red and white terror, this relationship will open their eyes to many things. Here is some evidence for this.

Member of the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party D. Dalin, already in exile, confirmed: “And it was not at once that they (ie the Bolsheviks - PG) embarked on the path of terror. It is strange to remember that during the first 5-6 months of Soviet power, the opposition press continued to appear, not only socialist, but also openly bourgeois. The first case of the death penalty took place only in May 1918. Everyone who wanted to speak at the meetings, almost without risking getting into the Cheka. The “Soviet system” existed, but without terror” (emphasis added by me – PG). Regarding the subsequent intensification of repressive measures by the Soviet government, he wondered: “Why did this happen?”And he answered: “The civil war really gave impetus to the development of terror” (Dalin D. After wars and revolutions. Berlin, 1922, p. 24-25).

Another “unbiased” witness, the diplomatic representative of Great Britain in the RSFSR R. Lockhart, also looked at the root. He, one of the organizers of the conspiracy of the “Three Ambassadors” (Lockhart - Nulans - Francis), later admitted: “Life in Petersburg in those weeks was of a rather peculiar character. The iron discipline with which the Bolsheviks now rule (written in the early 1930s - PG) was not even in sight at that time. Terror did not yet exist (this is again for the attention of the “democrats” - PG), it was even impossible to say that the population was afraid of the Bolsheviks.The newspapers of the Bolshevik opponents were still published, and the politics of the Soviets were subjected to the most severe attacks in them ... In this early era of Bolshevism, the danger to bodily integrity and life came not from the ruling party, but from anarchist gangs ...

In the civil war, the allies are also guilty of a lot (Lockhart is clearly modest, downplaying their “merits” - PG), whose intervention aroused so many false hopes ... By our policy, we contributed to the strengthening of terror and increased bloodshed” (Lockhart R. Storm over Russia. Riga, 1933, p. 227). And he added to what was said: Alekseev, Denikin, Kornilov, Wrangel did their best to overthrow the Bolsheviks. But ... "for this purpose they, without support from abroad, were too weak, because in their own country they found support only in the officer corps, which in itself was already very weakened" (ibid., p. 234; highlighted me-PG).

As you can see, the ardent opponents of the Soviets D. Dalin and R. Lockhart clearly clarify the issue of the reasons for the escalation of terror, while the “democrats” today obscure it in every possible way and at the same time swear by adherence to the truth of history.

And what about the Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks? Considering themselves to be the bearers of democracy, have they submitted to the will of the majority? Nothing happened! Without respite, they set about preparing a new round of civil war. But, once burned, they sobered up, they realized: they couldn't cope alone, they needed foreign support, although they understood that they would have to pay with national sovereignty and many other things, to be with the owners in the humiliating role of servants.(Later, the most honest of them bitterly admit this.) In the respective embassies and consulates, their requests are readily accepted, because the interests of the parties coincide in many respects, and above all in the main thing - to topple the power of the Soviets. The diabolical alliance quickly becomes sinister. Emerging underground centers of consolidation of internal anti-Soviet forces: the “Right Center”, the “National Center” that broke away from it, The "Union of the Revival of Russia", Savinkov's "Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom " - unite a motley audience, from monarchists to anarchists, under the slogan: "Give intervention!". They see their activities as clearing the way for the latter.

Let's listen again to Lockhart: “Hicks (his intelligence assistant - PG) served as an intermediary between me and the enemies of the Bolsheviks. They were represented in Moscow by the so-called center, which had a left and a right wing, and, in addition, by the League for the Salvation of Russia, created by Savinkov. Between these two organizations there were constant quarrels ... Both counter-revolutionary bodies were unanimous in only one respect - both wanted to receive help from the allies with money and weapons ... For many weeks, their funding was provided entirely to the French . Political agents Alekseev and Denikin reproached me that I was relegated to the background ... I took part of the funding myself” (Lockhart R. Decree. cit., p. 282).Even more such secrets could tell the French ambassador Noulens. Savinkov spoke about them in part,

Lockhart was eloquently supplemented by one of the leaders of the Union for the Revival of Russia, the Socialist-Revolutionary leader A. Argunov. Thrown abroad by Kolchak and miraculously escaped execution, he, finding himself in Paris, wrote: “From the very first steps of its activity, the Union entered into regular and frequent relations with representatives of the allied missions located in Moscow, Petrograd and Vologda, mainly through the mediation of the French Mr. Nulans's envoy.The representatives of the Allies were thoroughly acquainted with the tasks of the Union and its composition and repeatedly expressed their readiness to assist it in every possible way, fully sharing the views of the Union both on the tasks of domestic and foreign policy, and statements of assistance were not private, but official, since they were usually accompanied by links to that

So, the plans of various "centers" and "alliances" are approved, weapons are in store, the conspirators are organized, the first Allied landings in Murmansk and Vladivostok have landed. “Now is the time to act. The 50,000-strong Czechoslovak corps, which at the headquarters of the Entente has already been assigned the role of "vanguard of the interventionist troops" in Russia, is put into action. The echelons of the corps, evacuated under an agreement with the Soviet government to their homeland, at the end of May 1918, rebelled and in a short time overthrew the still fragile Soviet power from the Volga to Vladivostok. And throughout their incredibly long journey - shot, imprisoned, beaten to a pulp.The French government, on behalf of all the allies, expresses gratitude to the corps (see Documents of the Foreign Policy of the USSR, vol. II, p. 384). Western "democracy" gave its first bloody lesson. And how many more are yet to come!

Civil war broke out in the vast expansions of Russia. Under the protection of the Czechoslovak bayonets, scattered and exhausted opponents of the revolution got out of hiding places. One after another, anti-Soviet governments are organized - Samara, Ufa, Ural, Siberian, etc., the armed support of which was the same Czechoslovaks, on whose shoulders “the whole burden of the struggle lay, because by that time they made up at least 80% of the armed forces, fighting at the front” (Argunov A. Decree. cit., p.11).

Soon the "allies" come to the conclusion that all these "constituent councils" and "directorates", led by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, are only getting in the way, hindering the achievement of the goals of the intervention. We need a military dictatorship. And now, with the direct participation of the English battalion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel D. Ward, on November 18, 1918 in Omsk, Admiral AV Kolchak was seated in the chair of the “supreme ruler” of Russia. The “socialists”, who faithfully served the allies, were so devastated that only a few took their feet out of Siberia. Most fell into the Kolchak meat grinder, from which few people got out alive.In the North, under the cover of the troops of the interventionists, a coup similar to the Omsk one also follows, and the “socialists” thrown out as unnecessary are replaced by Kolchak of a local scale, General EK Miller. A similar transformation of power is taking place in other regions of Russia. In the meantime, more and more new contingents of interventionist are troops landing from different sides - in the south of Russia, in the north, in the Transcaspian region, in the Caucasus, the Far East. Today, the accusers of the Bolsheviks pretend that none of this happened.

During 1918-1920. the “allies” moved an interventionist armada to Russia with a total number of more than 850 thousand people, including 140 thousand English, 140 thousand French, 175 thousand Japanese (according to updated data), 14 thousand American. If we add here at least 280 thousand Austro-German invaders, then the total number of interventionists will exceed 1 million people (see the Historical experience of three Russian revolutions, v. 3, p. 516). Let's think about this figure: it makes you shudder. Even if you approach it with modern standards.

What were they doing on Soviet soil under the guise of hypocritical assurances of “non-intervention” in Russian affairs? Let's listen to the then Minister of War of Great Britain W. Churchill, an ardent supporter of open intervention: “Were the allies in the war with Soviet Russia? Of course no. But they killed Soviet people as soon as they caught their eye; on Russian soil they remained as conquerors; they supplied weapons to the enemies of the Soviet government; they blocked their ports; they sanction his warships. They ardently sought the fall of the Soviet government and made plans for its fall. But to declare war on him is a shame! Intervention is a disgrace!They kept repeating that it made absolutely no difference to them how the Russians handle their internal affairs. They wanted to remain impartial and struck blow after blow” (Churchill V. World Crisis. M.-L., 1932. p. 157).

After such confessions, every honest person will agree with Lenin, who emphasized: world imperialism “caused us, in essence speaking, a civil war and is guilty of dragging it out ...” (Lenin VI Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 39, p. 343).

The Soviet government was fully aware of what a civil war might turn into, if it was intensively fanned by world imperialism. Therefore, she did everything possible to extinguish the fire of bloody strife. From her first day to the end of 1919, she appealed 10 times to the governments of the Entente countries and the United States - the main directors and directors of the bloody tragedy in Russia - with an appeal to stop the bloodshed. How did they answer from there, from the bastions of Western democracy, for which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks stood up so much? Churchill recalled with gloating glee: the Bolsheviks surfed the airwaves in vain with their radio messages: "Their answer was silence" (Churchill V. op. soch., p. 44).

Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau were not at all worried that blood was shed on the soil of Soviet Russia, they were thinking about something completely different. But the ongoing drama was very disturbing to the Soviet government, headed by Lenin, and in search of a compromise in the name of ending the bloodshed, it made about 50 more peace proposals before the end of the civil war. And, alas, with the same result. So what is the fault of the Bolsheviks, who today are blamed for the war to the same extent as their opponents? Maybe because they didn't lay down their arms? And they did not surrender the conquests of October, paying for it with their lives 200,000 of their most worthy members?