Do Communists Have a Fatherland? The Ukrainian Answer

Relying on a variety of archival sources (those of the government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, NKVD, Ukrainian SSR, and Ukrainian Cheka, we will attempt to tell the reader about opposition to the Bolshevik Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1919-24. National Communism passed two stages here: armed struggle for Ukrainian independence, against the KP(b)U [Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) of Ukraine] and Ukrainization, following the enactment of the Soviet Ukrainian Constitution with its pretentious statement of independence, a process then interpreted as attracting the broadest strata of workers and peasants to socialist construction, along with the Russian-speaking intelligentsia mastering the Ukrainian language and culture (1923-29). That Ukrainization was treated very seriously is evidenced by a speech delivered by Stalin’s satrap Lazar Kaganovich (then first secretary of KP{b}U central committee) at a meeting of party activists in 1926, when he unequivocally threatened Party activists not having an adequate command of Ukrainian with exclusion from the party.

National Communism in conditions of armed struggle was just a means of achieving a certain goal. Among its members were people representing all Ukrainian strata and waging a losing battle with the rule of the commissars. Theirs were typically socialist views reflected in party documents, eulogizing Ukraine, its virtuous people, even aristocratic dignity (brought forth by the national Communist to counterpoise the Ukrainian colonial status in the aristocratic Russian Empire) (actually, in what they viewed as becoming the Russian Soviet empire —Ed.).

Gone was the first stormy year of the Ukrainian Revolution. Ukraine was now fought by Bolshevik Russia. The KP(b)U was opposed by different political forces, among them the nationally oriented Ukrainian Communist Party of the Borotbists, formed in May (actually, they started out as the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries in April —Ed.) 1918, the Ukrainian Communist Party (of Borotbists) set up January 22, 1920, at a convention at Kobeliaky. The national Communist leadership included Serhiy Mazlakh, Vasyl Shakhrai, Andriy Richytsky, A. Drahomyretsky, Yuri Mazurenko, Yury Lapchynsky, and Oleksandr Shumsky. The national Communist forces recognized the legitimacy of the government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (no, they did not; they recognized the legitimacy of the Ukrainian SSR —Ed.). The Borotbists put forward a Communist theory adjusted to an oppressed nation, in contrast with the predominant official doctrine. Those parties used propaganda slogans such as the current regime is not Soviet but Bolshevik. At a conference in Polissia in October 20, 1919, the Communist Borotbists worked out a tactic designed to take the initiative from the KP(b)U. The conference resolution read that the KP(b)U had “made a number of mistakes, antagonizing the poor peasantry and part of the urban workers, ending up as an occupation authority with clearly defined colonial tasks.” In a message to the Comintern of August 1919, the Borotbists “created an historically inevitable moment largely owing to the occupation-like structure of Soviet power in Ukraine; at the same time a historically unavoidable organization of the Russian Communist Party (RKP{b}) in Ukraine, the role of which has been played by KP(b)U.” The Borotbists called KP(b)U a “touring occupation party.” They addressed a memorandum to the Comintern in July 1920, stating that the KP(b)U “is conducting the centralist policy of the former imperialist Russia... and Ukrainian Soviet power is being replaced by Russian occupation authorities.” A concept of a separate Ukrainian revolution was developed, having nothing to do with the October [Bolshevik] coup (it did, they wanted a Ukrainian Soviet Ukraine like Soviet Russia but as a product of the Ukrainian Revolution and led by Ukrainian revolutionaries like them —Ed.).

The resolution of the Ukrainian Social Democratic fraction (called Left Nezalezhnyky or Independents —Ed.) that had joined Borotbists read that KP(b)U was an “anti-Ukrainian” party and that, “following the course aimed against the national- political rights of the Ukrainian people, it is a party hostile to the Ukrainian state. This party serves the Russian imperialist Bolshevik government. Because of this it is profoundly reactionary...”

KP(b)U, in turn, lashed out at the national Communists. In retaliation for obstructing food supplies from Ukraine and fighting the prodotriads [Russian squads requisitioning Ukrainian farm produce], the Bolsheviks in Ukraine branded the national Communists as traitors of the revolution and agents and leaders of the Ukrainian landholding bourgeoisie (because they must have been supporting the local kulaks); as mercenaries of Petliura and Pilsudski. Bolshevik counterpropaganda maintained that “Many peasants cannot understand what the parties are fighting over... Petty urban shop-owners, propertied peasants, and part of the intelligentsia have their own party, a petty bourgeois one known as the Ukrainian Communist Borotbists... Under the banner of Communism, the Borotbists conduct certain work against Soviet power...” (Selianyn, January-February 1920). A memorandum of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), abbreviated as VKP(b), Central Committee’s organizational-party department, dated 1924, reads: “The social nature of the Ukrainian Communist Party (Ukapists, a group quite separate from the Borotbists and not to be confused with them as our supposedly learned author seems to do —Ed.) is petty bourgeois... Being a legal party, the Ukapists do not refrain from underground forms of organization. Thus, in March of this year, in Poltava, 25 students of the Institute of People’s Education formed an illegal group and held about 25 underground meetings... Among the Ukapists are many former Petliurists and generally anti-Soviet and openly counterrevolutionary elements...”

With the war being fought on three fronts in Ukraine and the political and military situation changes at a head-spinning rate, the national Communists (actually the Ukapists; the Borotbists stayed loyal to the Soviet regime —Ed.) made a deal with the UNR government to offer the Bolshevik and Denikin forces armed resistance. An interim underground Ukrainian government was formed, involving the Petliurist underground, with national Communist and Social Revolutionary delegates. In February-July 1919, an All- Ukrainian Revolutionary Committee operated, headed by Drahomyretsky. In Skvyra, it formed its Supreme Insurgent Council and general headquarters of the insurgent Ukrainian forces, led by Yuri Mazurenko who sent the following ultimatum to the Soviet Ukrainian government:

“Ultimatum

“Attention: Rakovsky, Head of the so- called Ukrainian Workers’ and Peasants’ Government

“Executed this 25th day of June of the year 1919 in the town of Skvyra.

“On behalf of the insurgent Ukrainian working people, I hereby declare that the workers and peasants of Ukraine have risen in arms against you as a government of the Russian aggressor, which, using slogans we hold sacred — (1) power to the Soviets [councils] of workers and peasants, (2) the self-determination of nations including secession, and (3) struggle against the imperialist aggressors and robbers of the toiling masses — defiles not only all such sacred mottoes, ruining the true power of the workers and impoverished peasantry in the neighboring country, but also uses them towards an end which is remote from any socialist order.”

The national Communists and Petliurists made every effort to organize a Ukrainian Red Army in the occupied territory (actually, the Petliurists had nothing to do with this —Ed.), which would not be under command of the Bolsheviks. In 1919, a Borotbist (? —Ed.) team organized a rebellion in the Sixth Soviet Brigade, led by Matviy Hryhoriyiv and his chief of staff Yurko Tiutiunnyk . On May 7, 1919, Hryhoriyiv proclaimed a Universal [Decree] in Lysavethrad [now Kirovohrad], reading, “All power to the Soviets of the people of Ukraine, without the Bolsheviks!” and containing the slogans “Down with the Rakovsky government!” and “Down with the Cheka!” The leaders of the rebellion declared that they were for the restoration of the UNR government. In a short while the well-equipped insurgent forces defeated the Bolshevik troops and overthrew the commissar authorities in a large territory, liberating Lysavethrad, Mykolayiv, Kobeliaky, Cherkasy. Kherson, Oleksandriya, Sicheslav (Katerynoslav), Znamianka, Kremenchuk, and Voznesensk. Latsis, head of the Ukrainian Cheka, accused the Borotbists of complicity in the uprising and the Ukrainian SSR Defense Council declared a Red terror under the ill-famed motto that he who is not with us is against us.

In November 1919, the national Communists (which ones? —Ed.) set about organizing an independent Ukrainian Red Army. Borotbist delegates became members of a Volyn Revolutionary Council presided over by Volokh and Danchenko. The council controlled military units composed of the former UNR Zaporizhzhia Army Corps. The Bolshevik Defense Committee of Volyn informed the Central Committees of the RKP(b) and KB(b)U,: “The Rada troops are full of Borotbist workers and literature. A policy is being waged, aimed at forming the main nucleus of a Ukrainian Red Army.” Information was also obtained, concerning the underground Provisional Government of Ukraine, which published a declaration urging the replacement of Bolshevik revolutionary committees by revolutionary councils. Insurgent committees mushroomed all over Ukraine. After an abortive raid on Kyiv, numerous clashes with Bolshevik forces, and finally an ultimatum from the Soviet government, the exhausted insurgent troops laid down their arms. A Right-Bank Ukrainian Revolutionary Committee was formed and on December 22, 1919 formally claimed power in Ukraine. However, the national Communist resistance continued at the local level. March 16, 1920, a nonparty conference in Katerynoslav voted for the idea of an independent Ukrainian Red Army “with Ukrainian the language of instruction and command.”

The Bolshevik-Borotbist confrontation grew from early military conflicts into stable hostility, as evidenced by reports dating to the period: Pryluky revolutionary committee banning publication of the local Borotbist people’s committee’s newspaper, followed a statement of protest from the Borotbist Party central committee, in a telegram signed by Comrade Poloz and addressed to the KP(b)U Central Committee. (Bolshevik) Comrade Zatonsky contacted the Kyiv Guberniya Revolutionary Committee, demanding an explanation of the ban on the daily newspaper. (Bolshevik) Comrade Petrovsky, chairman of the All- Ukraine Revolutionary Committee (Revkom), demanded from the Zhytomyr Guberniya Revkom an explanation of the persecution of Borotbists. Borotbist interests in the All-Ukraine Revkom were represented by Hrynko and Kovaliv. On January 7, they met with Petrovsky and Manuyilsky who presented to them a statement of protest on behalf of the All- Ukrainian Revkom: “For the second time since the formation of the All-Ukrainian Revkom, we representatives of the KP(b)U are witness to a flagrant violation of the Agreement of December 17, whereby the Ukrainian Borotbist Party undertakes to stop propagandizing the organization of separate military formations, which agitation facilitates disorganization of the Red Army, thus playing into the hands of the counterrevolution, which is dying before our very eyes. Adhering, together with the entire Communist Party, to the concept of recognition of the right of the working people of all nationalities to separation, including complete secession at the state level, we representatives of the KP(b)U at the All-Ukrainian Revkom remain convinced that our cooperation with the Borotbist Party cannot be impaired by different conceptions of the forms of future governmental relationships between the RSFSR [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic] and the Ukrainian SSR... Regrettably, despite the agreement duly signed and despite the moral obligation of international solidarity, the Ukrainian Borotbist Party continues to pursue a course aimed at splitting the working masses of different countries, campaigning for the formation of a separate Ukrainian army, relying in this agitation on disorganizing insurgent detachment. We observe the first instance of such flagrant transgression of the agreement in the statement of the members of the Right-Bank Ukraine Revolutionary Committee, when the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party (of Borotbists) members continued in the old vein adopted by them after Denikin occupied Ukraine...”

Bolshevik documents illustrate the Borotbist stand in different matters. Petrovsky wrote to Zatonsky: “The Borotbists, referring to Clause 4 of the CC RKP(b) resolution on policy in Ukraine, demand through their representatives at the public education department instruction in Ukrainian in all Ukraine’s schools. They make a special point of Ukrainian being the sole official language.” After discussing the matter, the KP(b)U leadership concluded that doing so was premature and opposed the introduction of the Ukrainian SSR official language clause as such.

The NKVD information-instruction department announced on February 17, 1920: “Kyiv. From a conversation between Comrades Ivanov and Petrovsky. The Borotbists are propagandizing the independence of the Council for the National Economy and are chagrined by the appointment of Comrade Rakovsky. They are campaigning for a single Communist Party, considering that only the Borotbist Party can become one. Rallied round them are all the Petliurist elements that have no other center at present. If the Borotbists continue with this policy, the result could be an open action against Soviet power.”

(To be completed)