THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE SOLDIER AND COMMITTEES.
Elective bodies from the Military Section of the Soviet to Committees
and Soviets of various denominations in regimental units and in
the Departments of the Army, the Fleet and the rear, were the most
prominent factor of "Democratisation." These institutions were partly
of a mixed type, and included both officers and men and partly soldiers
and workers' institutions pure and simple. Committees and Soviets were
formed everywhere as the common feature of Revolutionary Organisations,
planned before the Revolution and sanctioned by the Order No. 1.
Elections from the troops to the Soviet in Petrograd were fixed for
February 27th, and the first Army Committees came into being on March
1st, in consequence of the above-mentioned Order No. 1. Towards the
month of April self-appointed Soviets and Committees, varying in
denomination, personnel and ability, existed in the Army and in the
rear, and introduced incredible confusion into the system of military
hierarchy and administration. In the first month of the Revolution the
Government and the military authorities did not endeavour to put an
end to or to restrict this dangerous phenomenon. They did not at first
realise its possible consequences, and counted upon the moderating
influence of the Officer element. They occasionally took advantage of
the Committees for counteracting acute manifestations of discontent
among the soldiers, as a doctor applies small doses of poison to a
diseased organism. The attitude of the Government and of the military
authorities towards these organisations was irresolute, but was one of
semi-recognition. On April 9th, addressing the Army Delegates, Gutchkov
said at Yassy: "A Congress will soon be held of the Delegates of all
Army Organisations, and general regulations will then be drawn up.
Meanwhile, you should _organise as best you can_, taking advantage of
the existing organisations and working for general unity."
In April the position became so complicated that the authorities could
no longer shirk the solution of the question of Committees. At the end
of March there was a Conference at the Stavka, attended by the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief, the War Minister, Gutchkov, his Assistants, and
officers of the General Staff. I was also present in my capacity as
future Chief-of-Staff to the Supreme C.-in-C. A draft was presented to
the Conference, brought from Sevastopol by the Staff-Colonel Verkhovski
(afterwards War Minister). The draft was modelled upon the regulations
already in force in the Black Sea Fleet. The discussion amounted to the
expression of two extreme views--mine and those of Colonel Verkhovski.
The latter had already commenced those slightly demagogic activities
by which he had at first gained the sympathies of the soldiers and
of the sailors. He had had a short experience in organising these
masses. He was persuasive because he used many illustrations--I do
not know whether the facts he mentioned were real or imaginary--his
views were pliable, and his eloquence was imposing. He idealised the
Committees, and argued that they were very useful, even necessary and
statesmanlike, inasmuch as they were capable of bringing order into the
chaotic movements of the soldiery. He emphatically insisted upon the
competence and the rights of these Committees being broadened.
I argued that the introduction of Committees was a measure which
the Army organisation would be unable to understand, and that it
amounted to disruption of the Army. If the Government was unable to
cope with the movement, it should endeavour to paralyse its dangerous
consequences. With that end in view, I advocated that the activities of
the Committees should be limited to matters of internal organisation
(food supplies, distribution of equipment, etc.), that the officer
element should be strengthened, and that the Committees should remain
within the sphere of the lower grades of the Army, in order to prevent
them from spreading and acquiring a preponderating influence upon
larger formations such as Divisions, Armies, and Fronts. Unfortunately,
I only succeeded in compelling the Conference to accept my views to an
insignificant degree, and on March 30th the Supreme C.-in-C. issued
an Order of the Day on the "transition to the new forms of life," and
appealing to the officers, men, and sailors wholeheartedly to unite in
the work of introducing strict order and solid discipline within the
units of the Army and Navy.
The main principles of the regulations were the following:
(1) The _fundamental objects_ of the organisation were (_a_) to
increase the fighting power of the Army and of the Navy in order
to win the War; (_b_) to devise new rules for the life of the
soldier-citizen of Free Russia; and (_c_) to contribute to the
education of the Army and of the Fleet.
(2) The _structure_ of the organisation: Permanent
sections--Company, Regimental, Divisional, and Army Committees.
Temporary sections--Conferences, attached to the Stavka, of Army
Corps, of the Fronts, and of the Centre. The latter to form
permanent Soviet.
(3) The Conferences to be called by the respective Commanding
Officers or on the initiative of the Army Committees. All the
resolutions of the Conferences and Committees to be confirmed by
the respective military authorities prior to publication.
(4) The _competence_ of the Committees was limited to enforcing
order and fighting power (discipline, resistance to desertion,
etc.), routine (leave, barrack life, etc.), internal organisation
(control of food supplies and equipment), and education.
(5) _Questions of training_ were unreservedly excluded from
discussion.
(6) The _personnel of the Committees_ was determined in proportion
to elected representatives--one officer to two men.
In order to give an idea of the slackening of discipline in the
higher ranks I may mention that, immediately after receiving these
regulations, and obviously under the influence of Army organisations,
General Brussilov issued the following order: "Officers to be excluded
from Company Committees, and in higher Committees the proportion
lowered from one-third to one-sixth...."
In less than a fortnight, however, the War Ministry, in disregard
of the Stavka, published its own regulations, drafted by the famous
Polivanov Committee, with the assistance of Soviet representatives. In
these new regulations substantial alterations were made: the percentage
of officers in Committees was reduced; Divisional Committees abolished;
"the taking of rightful measures against abuses by Commanding Officers
in the respective units" were added to the powers of the Committees;
the Company Committees were not permitted to discuss the matter of
military preparedness and other purely military matters affecting
the unit, but no such reservation was made with regard to Regimental
Committees; the Regimental Commanding Officer was entitled to appeal
against but not to suspend the decisions of the Committee; finally, the
Committees were given the task of negotiating with political parties
of every description in the matter of sending delegates, speakers, and
pamphlets explaining the political programme before the elections to
the Constituent Assembly.
These regulations, which were tantamount to converting the Army in
war-time into an arena of political strife and depriving the Commanding
Officer of all control over his unit, constituted, in fact, one of the
main turning points on the path of destruction of the Army.
The following appreciation of these regulations by the Anarchist,
Makhno (the Order of the Day of one of his subordinate Commanders of
November 10th, 1919), is worthy of note: "As any party propaganda at
the present moment strongly handicaps the purely military activities
of the rebel armies, I emphatically declare to the population that all
party propaganda is strictly prohibited pending the complete victory
over the White Armies...."
Several days later, in view of a protest from the Stavka, the
War Ministry issued orders for the immediate suspension of the
regulations concerning the Committees. Where the Committees had
already been formed, they were allowed to carry on in order to avoid
misunderstandings. The Ministry decided to alter the section of the
regulations concerning the Committees, in accordance with the orders of
the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, in which fuller consideration was given
to the interests of the troops. Thus, in the middle of April there was
an infinite variety in the organisation of the Army. Some institutions
were illegal, others were sanctioned by the Stavka, and others still by
the War Ministry. All these contradictions, changes, and re-elections
might have led to ridiculous confusion had not the Committees
simplified matters: they simply cast off all restrictions and acted
arbitrarily. Wherever troops or Army departments were quartered
among the population local Soldiers' Soviets or Soviets of Soldiers
and Workmen were formed, which recognised no regulations, and were
particularly intent upon covering deserters and mercilessly exploiting
municipalities, Zemstvos, and the population. The authorities never
opposed them, and it was only at the end of August that the War
Ministry lost patience with the abuses of these "Institutions of the
Rear," and informed the Press that it _intended_ to undertake the
drafting of special regulations concerning these Institutions.
Who were the members of the Committees? The combatant element, living
for and understanding the interests of the Army and imbued with its
traditions, was scantily represented. Valour, courage and a sense of
duty were rated very low on the market of Soldiers' Meetings. The
masses of the soldiery, who were, alas! ignorant, illiterate, and
already demoralised and distrusted their Chiefs, elected mostly men
who imposed on them by smooth talking, purely external political
knowledge derived from the revelation of Party propaganda; chiefly,
however, by shamelessly bowing to the instincts of the men. How could
a real soldier, appealing to the sense of duty, to obedience and to
a struggle for the Mother Country, compete with such demagogues? The
officers did not enjoy the confidence, they did not wish to work in
the Committees, and their political education was probably inadequate.
In the Higher Committees one met honest and sensible soldiers more
often than officers, because a man wearing a soldier's tunic was in
a position to address the mob in a manner in which the officer could
never dare to indulge. The Russian Army was henceforward administered
by Committees formed of elements foreign to the Army and representing
rather Socialist Party organs. It was strange and insulting to the Army
that Congresses of the Front, representing several million combatants
and many magnificent units with a long and glorious record, and
comprising officers and men of whom any Army might be proud, were held
under the Chairmanship of such men as civilian Jews and Georgians, who
were Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, or Social Revolutionaries--Posner on the
Western Front, Gegetchkory on the Caucasian, and Doctor Lordkipanitze
on the Roumanian.
* * * * *
What, then, were these Army Organisations doing that were supposed to
reconstruct "the freest Army in the world"? I will quote a list of
questions discussed at Conferences of the Front and which influenced
the Front and Army Committees:
(1) The attitude towards the Government, the Soviet and the
Constituent Assembly.
(2) The attitude towards War and Peace.
(3) The question of a Democratic Republic as a desirable form of
Government.
(4) The question of the land.
(5) The Labour question.
These intricate and burning political and social questions, to which
a radical solution was being given and which created partisanship
and class strife, were thus introduced into the Army that was facing
a strong and cruel enemy. The effect was self-evident. But even
in strictly military matters certain utterances were made at the
Conference at Minsk, which attracted the particular attention of the
military and civil authorities, and caused us gravely to ponder. It was
suggested that the rank of officer, individual disciplinary power,
etc., should be abolished, and that the Committees should be entitled
to remove Commanding Officers of whom they disapproved. From the very
first days of their existence the Committees fought stubbornly to
obtain full power not only with regard to the administration of the
Army, but even for the formula: "All Power to the Soviets." At first,
however, the attitude of the Army Committees towards the Provisional
Government was perfectly loyal, and the lower the Committee the
more loyal it was. The Petrograd papers of March 17th were full of
resolutions proclaiming unrestricted obedience to the Provisional
Government, of telegrams greeting and of records of delegations sent
by the troops, who were perturbed by rumours of the opposition of the
Soviet. This attitude later underwent several changes, due to the
propaganda of the Soviet. A powerful influence was exercised by the
resolution of the Congress of Soviets, which I have already quoted,
and which appealed to the Russian Revolutionary Democracy to organise
under the guidance of the Soviets and to be prepared to resist all the
attempts of the Government to avoid the control of the Democracy or the
fulfilment of their pledges.
The Higher Committees indulged chiefly in political activities and
in the strengthening of Revolutionary tendencies in the Army, while
the Lower Committees gradually became absorbed in matters of service
and routine, and were weakening and discrediting the authority of the
Commanding Officers. The right to remove these officers was practically
established, because the position of those who had received a vote of
censure became intolerable. Thus, for instance, on the Western Front,
which I commanded, about sixty Senior Officers resigned--from Army
Corps to Regimental Commanders. What was, however, infinitely more
tragic was the endeavour of the Committees, on their own initiative and
under pressure from the troops, to interfere with purely military and
technical Orders, thus rendering military operations difficult or even
impossible. The Commanding Officer who was discredited, fettered and
deprived of power, and, therefore, of responsibility, could no longer
confidently lead the troops into the field of victory and death.... As
there was no authority the Commanding Officers were compelled to have
recourse to the Committees, which sometimes did exercise a restraining
influence over the licentious soldiery, resisted desertion, smoothed
friction between officers and men, appealed to the latter's sense
of duty--in a word, tried to arrest the collapse of the crumbling
structure. These activities of some of the Committees still misled
their apologists, including Kerensky. It is no use to argue with men
who think that a structure may be erected by one laying bricks one day
and pulling them to pieces on the next.
The work, overt and unseen, of Army Committees, alternating between
patriotic appeals and internationalist watchwords, between giving
assistance to Commanding Officers and dismissing them, between
expressions of confidence in, or of distrust of, the Provisional
Government, and ultimatums for new boots or travelling allowances
for members of Committees.... The historian of the Russian Army, in
studying these phenomena, will be amazed at the ignorance of the
elementary rules governing the very existence of an armed force,
which was displayed by the Committees in their decisions and in their
writings.
The Committees of the Rear and of the Fleet were imbued with a
particularly demagogic spirit. The Baltic Fleet was in a state
approaching anarchy all the time; the Black Sea Fleet was in a better
condition, and held out until June. It is difficult to estimate the
mischief made by these Committees and Soviets in the Rear, scattered
all over the country. Their overbearing manner was only comparable
with their ignorance. I will mention a few examples illustrating these
activities.
The Regional Committee of the Army, the Fleet and the Workmen of
Finland issued a declaration in May, in which, not content with the
autonomy granted to Finland by the Provisional Government, they
demanded her complete independence, and declared that "they would give
every support to all the Revolutionary Organisations working for a
speedy solution of that question."
The Central Committee of the Baltic Fleet, in conjunction with the
above-mentioned Committee, made a declaration, which coincided with the
Bolshevik outbreak in Petrograd in the beginning of June. They demanded
"all power to the Soviets. We shall unite in the Revolutionary struggle
of our working Democracy for power, and will not allow the ships to be
called out by the Provisional Government for the suppression of the
mutiny to leave Petrograd."
The Committee of the Minsk Military District, shortly before the
advance, gave leave to all the Reservists to proceed to their farms.
I gave orders for the trial of the Committee, but the order was of no
avail, because, in spite of all my representations, the War Ministry
had not established any legal responsibility for the Committees, whose
decisions were recorded by vote and occasionally by secret ballot. I
will mention yet another curious episode. The Committee of one of the
Cavalry Depôts on my Front decided that horses should be watered only
once a day, so most of the horses were lost.
It would be unjust to deny that the organisations of the Rear
occasionally did adopt reasonable measures, but these instances are
few indeed, and they were drowned in the general wave of anarchy
which these organisations had raised. The attitude of the Committees
towards the War, and in particular towards the proposed advance, was,
of course, a momentous matter. In Chapter X. I have already described
the self-contradictions of the Soviets and Congresses, as well as
the ambiguous and insincere directions which they gave to the Army
Organisations, and which amounted to the acceptance of War and of the
advance, but without victory. The same ambiguity prevailed in the
High Committees, with the exception, however, of the Committee of our
Western Front, which passed in June a truly Bolshevik Resolution to the
effect that War has been engendered by the plundering policy of the
Government; that the only means of ending the War was for the united
Democracies of all countries to resist their Governments; and that a
decisive victory of one or the other of the contending groups of Powers
would only tend to increase militarism at the expense of Democracy.
As long as the Front was quiet the troops accepted all these discourses
and Resolutions in a spirit of comparative indifference. But when
the time came for the advance, many people thought of saving their
skins, and the ready formulas of Defeatism proved opportune. Besides
the Committees, who were continuing to pass patriotic Resolutions,
certain organisations reflecting the views of the units of the Army, or
their own, violently opposed the idea of an advance. Entire regiments,
divisions, and even Army Corps, especially on the Northern and Western
Russian Fronts, refused to conduct preparatory work or to advance to
the firing line. On the eve of the advance we had to send large forces
for the suppression of units that had treacherously forgotten their
duty.
I have already mentioned the attitude of many Senior Commanders towards
the Committees. The best summary of these views can be found in the
appeal of General Fedotov, in temporary command of an Army, to the
Army Committee: "Our Army is at present organised as no other Army in
the world.... Elected bodies play an important part. We--_the former
leaders_--can only give the Army our military knowledge of strategy
and tactics. You--the Committees--are called upon to organise the Army
and to create its internal strength. Great indeed is the part which
you--the Committees--are called upon to play in the creation of a
new and strong Army. History will recognise this...."
Before the Army Organisations were sanctioned the Commander of the
Caucasian Front issued an Order for the decisions of the self-appointed
Tiflis Soldiers' Soviet to be published in the Orders of the Day, and
for all regulations appertaining to the Organisation and routine of the
Army to be sanctioned by that Soviet. Is one to wonder that such an
attitude of a certain portion of the Commanding Staffs gave an excuse
and a foundation for the growing demands of the Committees?
As regards the Western and South-Western Fronts, which I commanded,
I definitely refused to have anything to do with the Committees,
and suppressed, whenever possible, such of their activities as were
contrary to the interests of the Army. One of the prominent Commissars,
a late member of the Executive Committee of the Soviet, Stankevitch,
wrote: "Theoretically, it became increasingly apparent that either the
Army must be abolished or else the Committees. In practice, one could
do neither one nor the other. The Committees were a vivid expression
of the incurable sociological disease of the Army, and a sign of its
certain collapse and paralysis. Was it not for the War Ministry to
hasten the death by a resolute and hopeless surgical operation?"
The once great Russian Army of the first period of the Revolution
dwindled inevitably to nothing under such conditions as these:
There was no Mother Country. The leader had been crucified. In his
stead a group appeared at the Front of five Defensists and three
Bolsheviks, and made an appeal to the Army:
"Forward, to battle for liberty and for the Revolution, but ... without
inflicting a decisive defeat upon the enemy," cried the former.
"Down with the War and all power to the Proletariat!" shouted the
others.
The Army listened and listened, but would not move. And then ... it
dispersed!
[Illustration: The Conference of Commanders-in-Chief. Standing on
the pathway, from left to right: Generals Denikin, Danilov, Hanjin.
Seated (left): Doukhonin, Gourko, Brussilov. Centre: Alexeiev. Right:
Dragomirov, Scherbatchev.]
[Illustration: A group of "prisoners" at Berdichev. From left to right:
Captain Kletzando, General Elsner, General Vannovsky, General Denikin,
General Erdeli, General Markov, General Orlov.]