| Popis: |
The article attempts to carry out a comparative analysis of the agrarian policy pursued by the governments of the White Movement during the Civil War (1918–1920). The period of the second half of the XIX – early XX century was marked by the development of land relations in the Russian Empire. Despite serfdom abolition, peasant land scarcity continued to be the main problem of the peasant issue. The First World War, like the Russian-Japanese war, was supposed to be a small victorious war in order to postpone making the final decision on the agrarian issue. Absence of reforms combined with a protracted nature of the war contributed to the emergence of new liberal democratic forces in Russia. Beginning with February 1917, the Provisional Government tried to pursue a revolutionary policy to raise the authority of the government among soldiers, peasants and workers. However, political misconceptions and mistakes contributed to further power decentralization in Russia, which led first to the counter-revolution formation, and only then to isolation of the White Movement from this united front. With small resources, the leaders of the European part of the movement faced a problem that was not yet solved. Despite the Decree on Land adopted by the Soviet government, redistribution of land was not carried out, the agrarian issue continued to be acute, especially in the outskirts, which were under the rule of the whites. In contrast to the Decree on Land, the leaders of the White Movement had to pursue their own policy, which would be more attractive to the peasant masses. 95% of the population of Russia was peasants, so to gain their support would mean victory in the civil war. The regional and the national character of the White Movement determined future agrarian policy. It is also necessary to take into account that domestic policy was implemented in wartime conditions, which affected the effectiveness of reforms. Contradictions between the right-wingers and left-wingers delayed the development and implementation of reforms, which ultimately resulted in their failure. However, despite this, the white governments managed to lay a regulatory framework in their territorial entities, while taking into account the national and climatic specifics of the region. |
