Аннотация: A historical insignificance of the monument to the "end of the Civil War" erected in the Crimea. A conceptual and historical essay.
A historical insignificance of the monument to the 'end of the Civil War' erected in the Crimea. A conceptual and historical essay.
The monument to the end of the Civil War, erected in Crimea, is one of a number of results of the activities of the Military Historical Society under the leadership of Medinsky. (The monument was opened on April 22 (23), 2021).
Numerous photographs show a plate: 'Russial Military Historical Society. A monument dedicated to the end of the Civil War in Russia will be erected here. " [unofficial translation]
In the photographs of the completed monument, I could not find its official name. The caption to one of the photographs reads: "Monument "to the Sons of Russia who fought in the Civil War" in Sevastopol." [unofficial translation]
As one of the "official" sites, this monument requires respect and recognition of its significance.
What is the basis for the idea of the significance of this monument?
Firstly, we, the citizens of modern Russia, must regrete and to horriffy to the very fact of armed confrontation between different groups of the population.
Secondly, we must perceive the fact of the end of the armed confrontation with a positive connotation - in the situaton when this end of the armed confrontation was achieved not as a result of democratic procedures, but in the form of an armed victory of one participant over another.
Looking at the monument in Crimea, we, the citizens of modern Russia, have the right to recall 1993 by association and by analogy we have the right to evaluate the events of 1993 with a positive connotation.
Here we immediately note that if the evacuation of Wrangel's troops from the Crimea (November 13-16, 1920) was awarded a positive historical commentary, then the Constituent Assembly (from January 5 (18) to January 6 (19), 1918), the history of its convocation and completion of work - this story is perceived by modern official Russial historians rather indifferently. Many facts are common knowledge, but of whom in the official circles they attract? Or maybe it would be worth taking off the headdress and standing silently, reflecting on the lessons of the Constituent Assembly?
However, the historical reality is more complex and multi-layered - when compared with the option offered by modern official Russial historical science and practice.
If we talk about the forces of Denikin and Wrangel, then it is not so easy to answer the question of what social strata these forces relied on, and what image of the future these forces defended and tried to translate into reality.
The lack of a clear answer to this question meant a fundamental weakness in these forces.
Recognizing the fundamental weakness of these forces, we logically move to new levels of consideration:
1.1. Conflict between Poland and Soviet Russia,
1.2. Conflict between Western Europe and Soviet Russia,
2. Events in Siberia and the Far East. Confrontation between political forces of Russial origin; the Japanese occupation.
Coming to this level of thinking, we see the relative insignificance of the evacuation of Wrangel's troops from the Crimea and the significant importance of the Riga conference and the Washington conference.
(Peace negotiations began in Minsk on August 17, 1920. On March 18, 1921, the Riga Treaty was signed following the results of the so-called Soviet-Polish war (1919-1921).
The approximate date of the evacuation of Wrangel's troops from the Crimea is November 13-16, 1920.
The Washington Conference was held from November 12, 1921 to February 6, 1922.
Obeying the decisions of the Washington Conference, the Japanese occupation forces were forced to "voluntarily" withdraw from the Russian Far East.
On October 25, 1922, the troops of the People's Revolutionary Army of the Far Eastern Republic solemnly, without firing a single shot, entered the city of Vladivostok.).
Accordingly, we - at such level of reflection - see a small specific historical weight of the forces of Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak (as such) and a significant historical weight of the position of the countries of Western Europe and the United States.
Some negative light onto the evacuation of Wrangel's troops from the Crimea is thrown by hints from some researchers that the main (or significant) mass of the Cossacks mobilized by Denikin was not evacuated from the Crimea - with all the ensuing consequences. According to some historians, from November 1920 to March 1921, from 60 to 120 thousand people were shot. To these hints are added hints and facts about supernatural losses among the Cossacks mobilized by Denikin - during some combat operations in winter (with deep snow, low winter temperature and strong winter wind). The negative opinion regarding the activities of Denikin and Wrangel is also verified by the fact that they failed to establish effective relations with the US government.
In general, if we talk about the end of the Civil War (about the meaning and lessons), then attention should be paid not so much to the evacuation of Wrangel's troops from the Crimea, but to the lessons of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, to those events and consequences that are associated with the Riga and Washington conferences ... With this approach, the end of the Civil War in Russia can be viewed from the correct historical point of view.
We will not discuss the artistic style of the monument in this essay. This artistic style seems tasteless to us.
November 4, 2021 02:55
Translation from Russian into English: November 4, 2021 05:14.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'Историческая малозначительность памятника 'окончанию Гражданской войны', установленного в Крыму. Концептуально-исторический очерк'.
{ 2511. Историческая малозначительность памятника 'окончанию Гражданской войны', установленного в Крыму. Концептуально-исторический очерк.
MMСCCСLXXXI. A historical insignificance of the monument to the 'end of the Civil War' erected in the Crimea. A conceptual and historical essay. (English). }