Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 9. 1ts May 1973
[advert]
Victor Serge, who Graham Rua recommends at an authority on the Kronstadt uprising, writing in relation to Makhno on page 122 of bit book "Memoirs of a Revolutionary 1901-1941", refers to a "number of atrocities committed by his hands". True, he does not state that they were against Jews, but perhaps Graham Rua can throw some light on this reference.
Trotsky himself did not accuse Makhno personally of being anti-Semitic. In his article I referred to in my first letter, he said: "I should add that the hatred of the city and the city worker on the part of the followers of Makhno was complemented by a militant anti-Semitism".
The evidence brought out by A. A Adams in his book "The Bolsheviks in the Ukraine" (New Haven and Yale Press 1963) supports to the hilt the view that although Makhno was himself opposed to anti-Semitism there were at times substantial anti-Semitic elements within his army.
In May of 1919 the anti-Bolshevik Ukrainian partisan group let by Giforev, carried out the massacre of 5000 Jews in the town of Elisavetgrad. Almost immediately this force was broken up by the Red Army, but a remnant of it, still under the command of Grigorev, joined forces with Makhno. On page 402, Adams says: "Makhno acted as the Government of this alliance and Grigorev served as the head of the military forces". This union lasted for a short period ending with Grigorev's death at the hands Makhno, in a shoot-out at Sentova on July 27 1919. It seems that the bulk of Grigorev's supporters were immediately fused into Makhno's general army. To Makhno's credit it is said that one of his reasons for killing Grigorev was the Elisvetgrad pogrom.
On page 218 of his book, the "Unknown Revolution", Voline also describes the Sentova incident, but strangely makes no mention of Makhno's alliance with Grigorev, which preceded the gunfight. He does, however, tell us that "nearly all" the Grigorev supporters absorbed into Makhno's army had to be dismissed "later on". This was, he states, explicitly due to their "anti-Semitic spirit which their former chief had managed to instil into them".
To the extent that my earlier letter suggested that Makhno was personally anti-Semitic, I unreservedly withdraw and retract. Will' Graham Rua similarly concede that Trotsky's charge relating to anti-Semitism among Makhno's followers has a basis of fact?
I commend a book review of Arvrich's "Kronstadt 1921" appearing in Volume 23 of Soviety Studies (p. 677) to G. Rua. The reviewer is M. Lewin who suggests that Arvrich's conclusion is that, though one can have sympathy with the rebels, the Bolshevik's were none the less justified in acting as they did. Arvrich quotes from a White Guard group which claimed to have organisers within the fortress making plans, but who did not spark off the actual revolt. Can the Anarchists be certain that, had the actual revolt not been stifled by the Bolsheviks, this group could not in any circumstances have taken over the leadership of the rebels? The conduct of Oetrichenko, a leading rebel, after he fled to Finland, can give little comfort to the Anarchists. Arvrich is quoted as saying that he entered into an agreement with the National Centre (an emigre group) and Wrangel, the White Guard Commander, to wage a common fight against the Bolsheviks.
The reviewer expresses the opinion, whether it is his own or Arvrich's is not dear, that the programme and opinions of the Kronstadt sailors was a blend of populist anarchism, slavic nationalism and nativism, often xenophobic and never far from the mood traditionally expressed by the slogan 'beat the communists and the Jews'. As far as I am aware, neither Arvrich nor Lewin are Trotskyites.
Yours fraternally,
Hector Mac Neill