• mycorrhiza they/them
    link
    fedilink
    -2
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Here is Makhno in 1920 after agreeing to a temporary ceasefire:

    "Military hostilities between the Makhnovist revolutionary insurgents and the Red Army have ceased. Misunderstandings, vagueness and inaccuracies have grown up around this truce: it is said that Makhno has repented of his anti-Bolshevik acts, that he has recognized the soviet authorities, etc. How are we to understand, what construction are we to place upon this peace agreement?

    What is very clear already is that no intercourse of ideas, and no collaboration with the soviet authorities and no formal recognition of these has been or can be possible. We have always been irreconcilable enemies, at the level of ideas, of the party of the Bolshevik-communists.

    We have never acknowledged any authorities and in the present instance we cannot acknowledge the soviet authorities. So again we remind and yet again we emphasize that, whether deliberately or through misapprehension, there must be no confusion of military intercourse in the wake of the danger threatening the revolution with any crossing-over, ‘fusion’ or recognition of the soviet authorities, which cannot have been and cannot ever be the case."

    — quoted in Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack, a pro-Makhno book

    • alternative_factor
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      Just because people are enemies doesn’t mean they can have a truce. Who broke that truce?

      • mycorrhiza they/them
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        it appears to have been mutually understood

        After the Seige of Perekop, Makhno’s aide-de-camp Grigori Vassilevsky, announced the agreement was over:

        That’s the end for the agreement! Take my word for it, within one week the Bolsheviks are going to come down on us like a ton of bricks!

        — Grigori Vassilevsky, quoted in the same book