The Democratic Press of the Civil War during the White Movement in the Urals and Trans-Urals

Abstract

This article considers the functioning of the opposition democratic press in conditions of non-communist authoritarianism during the Civil War. The author focuses on the democratic press of the Urals and Trans-Urals (Perm, Orenburg, Ufa, and Tobolsk provinces). Traditionally, historiography mostly focuses on the anti-Bolshevik activities of democratic forces during the Civil War. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that the author carries out a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the situation of the democratic press in the Urals and Trans-Urals in territories controlled by the White movement between 1918 and 1919, which has not been done before. Previously, this problem was only fragmentarily touched upon by general studies of the history of socialist parties in the Urals (primarily, the works of A. N. Aldashov and V. V. Moskovkin). The main sources for this article are the leading democratic periodicals of the region: Narodnoe Delo (Ufa), Narodnoe Delo (Orenburg), Narodovlastie (Tyumen), Bor’ba (Orenburg), Zemlya i Trud (Kurgan), and Nash Ural (Yekaterinburg). For the first time, the author shows the role of these periodicals in the struggle of the democratic forces of the Urals and Trans-Urals against the so-called “revolutions on the right”. The author relies on conceptual studies of political communication and media theory. It has been proved that one should not exaggerate the differences between stages in the history of the White movement, like the “democratic counter-revolution” and the “Kolchak dictatorship”. As evidenced by the analysis carried out here, both before and after the Kolchak coup d’état, the democratic press actively fought against the “revolution on the right”, facing pressure from various government bodies and conservative forces. The article identifies the key factors that contributed to the long-term existence of democratic periodicals: the desire to act as a “systemic opposition”, the lack of direct communication with the leadership of the left-wing parties, and the specificity of the political atmosphere in certain regions and settlements. At the same time, the author demonstrates that the transition from non-communist authoritarianism to Bolshevism meant the destruction of the democratic alternative in Russia.