scholarly journals The Unknown Civil War in Soviet Russia: A Study of the Green Movement in the Tambov Region 1920-1921. By Oliver H. Radkey. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1976. xiv, 456 pp. $12.95.

Slavic Review ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 682-683
Author(s):  
Moshe Lewin
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Smirnov

This article includes a previously unpublished document, an address to the military officials of the Priamurye Zemstvo Host and civil refugees. The address was written in April 1923 in the Girin camp for Russian internees formed as a result of the White Army’s withdrawal from Primorye to Northeastern China at the end of the Civil War. The address was authored by Lieutenant General M. K. Diterikhs, former head of the last White government in Russia, supreme leader of the Provisional Priamurye Government and the governor of the Zemstvo Host. The original of the address is kept in the Archive of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (Fund of General P. P. Petrov) at Stanford University. The document reflects Diterikhs’ views on the nature of the Civil War and the prospects of continuing the anti-Bolshevik struggle following the defeat of the White movement. According to the general, the Civil War in Russia had a religious meaning, being a confrontation between the forces of Christ and the Antichrist. Members of the White movement, as well as Russian society as a whole, bore the stamp of the sin of regicide. They opposed the Antichrist power of Bolsheviks only by means of physical force and lost. Meanwhile, the victory over the Soviet regime and the future revival of Russia of Christ was only considered possible through the spiritual unification of all opponents of the Antichrist and the creation of an anti-Bolshevik Brotherhood in Christ.


Author(s):  
Jeremy E. Taylor

Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi 蔣介石)—also referred to as Chiang Chung-cheng (Jiang Zhongzheng 蔣中正)—is one of the most controversial figures in modern Chinese history. He is also one of the most studied. He has been the focus of a vast array of historiography, biography, hagiography, and demonization. For early critics, Chiang was seen, from his purging of the Communists in 1927, as a “betrayer” of the Chinese Revolution. This assessment is now a point of considerable contention among historians. His creation of a unified yet authoritarian Chinese state during the Nanjing Decade (1927–1937) is also a prominent focus of scholarship, as is his role as China’s leader during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945). Earlier assessments often ended their study of Chiang with his defeat by the Communists in the Chinese Civil War and his subsequent flight to Taiwan in 1949. However, more-recent scholarship has explored both the controversies and achievements of the quarter of a century that Chiang spent on Taiwan, and his legacy on that island in the period since 1975. There remain major differences in approaches to the study of Chiang along political, methodological, and national lines, but the deposition of Chiang’s diaries at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, in 2004 has ensured that a steady flow of scholarly reassessments has been published since then. This article focuses almost exclusively on studies of Chiang himself, rather than on studies dealing with immediate members of his family (such as Soong May-ling and Chiang Ching-kuo)—many of which would justify separate entries of their own.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 245-264
Author(s):  
Andrey Ganin

The document published is a letter from the commander of the Kiev Region General Abram M. Dragomirov to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia General Anton I. Denikin of December, 1919. The source covers the events of the Civil War in Ukraine and the views of the leadership of the White Movement in the South of Russia on a number of issues of policy and strategy in Ukraine. The letter was found in the Hoover Archives of Stanford University in the USA in the collection of Lieutenant General Pavel A. Kusonsky. The document refers to the period when the white armies of the South of Russia after the bright success of the summer-autumn “March on Moscow” in 1919 were stopped by the Red Army and were forced to retreat. On the pages of the letter, Dragomirov describes in detail the depressing picture of the collapse of the white camp in the South of Russia and talks about how to improve the situation. Dragomirov saw the reasons for the failure of the White Movement such as, first of all, the lack of regular troops, the weakness of the officers, the lack of discipline and, as a consequence, the looting and pogroms. In this regard, Dragomirov was particularly concerned about the issue of moral improvement of the army. Part of the letter is devoted to the issues of the civil administration in the territories occupied by the White Army. Dragomirov offers both rational and frankly utopian measures. However, the thoughts of one of the closest Denikin’s companions about the reasons what had happened are interesting for understanding the essence of the Civil War and the worldview of the leadership of the anti-Bolshevik Camp.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document