The tragedy of Kronstadt

In March 1921, the sailors of Kronstadt, a naval base outside Petrograd (St. Petersburg), rose in rebellion against the Russian Bolshevik regime. The revolt was suppressed after only two weeks. Trotsky much later called the Kronstadt uprising "a mere episode". He was, of course, wrong. The rebellion took place at the very doorstep of Petrograd, following a large strike movement among the workers in that important Russian city. If successful, Petrograd and Bolshevik power would have become sitting ducks. Many Russian émigré groups attempted to aid the rebels (in the event, unsuccessfully). Also, the Kronstadt mutineers turned out to have an elaborate political program and even managed to publish a newspaper. The program sounded left-wing but anti-Bolshevik, accused the Bolsheviks of betraying the ideals of the revolution, and called for the legalization of all socialist parties (but not right-wing groups).

This wasn't your everyday little peasant disturbance, of which there were many during the Russian Civil War and its aftermath.

Ever since 1921, Communists (with only a few exceptions) have condemned the Kronstadt rebellion as counter-revolutionary. For instance, the Socialist Workers Party has published a collection of articles by Lenin and Trotsky on the subject, available from Pathfinder Press. On the other hand, anarchists have turned Kronstadt into part of their political mythology, alongside the Makhnovists and the Spanish Revolution. The classical anarchist works on the subject are "The Kronstadt Commune" by Ida Mett and "The Unknown Revolution" by Voline.

Paul Avrich, a historian with anarchist political sympathies, has attempted to steer a middle course, and actually write an objective historical account of the uprising. The book deals with both the actual course of events during the uprising, Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik reactions to it, and the historical context in which the rebellion took place, i.e. War Communism and the future New Economic Policy (NEP). He uses Bolshevik and anarchist sources to paint a portrait of the principal leaders of the rebellion, which turns out to be easier said than done. None of them were particularly well-known people.

Avrich believes that the Kronstadt uprising was a spontaneous event, and that none of the opposition parties to the Bolshevik regime were involved. The political program of the rebellion didn't resemble those of the SRs or the Mensheviks. Avrich calls it anarcho-populist. It reflected ideas current among the Russian peasantry, which tended to oppose both the White Guards and the Bolsheviks, and indeed had a deeply-rooted suspicion of state power in general, in favour of a nebulous conception of libertarian self-government. The author also points out that the principal leaders of the Kronstadt Revolutionary Committee were of Ukrainian nationality. The principal leader, Petrichenko, was a Ukrainian peasant nicknamed "Petliura" for his nationalist ideas. However, the rebellion as such wasn't nationalist in inspiration, and most of the participants were Russians. Discontent with War Communism was what triggered the mutiny.

The Bolsheviks claimed, already at the outset, that the mutiny was organized by the White Guards. They even named the ringleader, a certain General Kozlovsky. As already mentioned, Avrich doesn't believe that White groups were directly involved in the rebellion. However, they were certainly active. A secret memorandum from the National Center, a Russian émigré organization associated with the Kadets, actually laid out plans for a mutiny on Kronstadt several months before it happened! The author of the memorandum, probably a Russian Red Cross official named Tseidler, claimed that a small group of émigré agents were already stationed at Kronstadt, waiting for an opportune moment to act. Tseidler was in touch with Grimm, another Red Cross official who had humanitarian contacts with Petrichenko during the actual uprising. However, it's unclear whether Petrichenko knew about the Russian Red Cross being a front for the National Center. Kozlovsky - there was such a person - is a more likely candidate for the secret mole at Kronstadt. He was a former Czarist officer who turned coat during the revolution, only to join the Kronstadt mutiny later on. Ironically, Petrichenko and the Revolutionary Committee refused to listen to Kozlovsky's expert military advice about how to deal with the Bolshevik threat. The secret memorandum of the National Center prophetically warned that if the uprising would break out too early, before the ice melted, it would probably be defeated. That is precisely what happened, suggesting that the counter-revolutionary agents at the naval base didn't have much leverage. This also points to Kozlovsky and his closest aides. The unruly Russian soldiers tended to distrust officers and generals.

What is clear is that Petrichenko and some of his associates *did* join the National Center in Finland after fleeing the Bolshevik attack on Kronstadt. They also volunteered their services to General Wrangel, who sent them a favourable letter. Apparently, Grimm was Wrangel's representative in Finland. Curiously, Petrichenko's program still sounded very left-wing but apparently contained a secret clause that a temporary military dictatorship would be necessary after the victory of the anti-Bolshevik forces, presumably headed by Wrangel himself! Avrich also quotes reports from the Russian secret police, according to which Petrichenko recruited several people to Wrangel's organization. These even managed to enter Russia and reach Petrograd, where a clandestine Wrangelite group was active. However, the Cheka managed to expose and liquidate them. Interestingly, Ida Mett's pamphlet on Kronstadt contains a short article by Petrichenko published in a Left SR magazine in 1926, denying that the Russian Red Cross was a White Guard front. Obviously, Petrichenko was lying, since by this time he surely knew the truth!

Ironically, Avrich's book has been used by Communists to "prove" their case that the Kronstadt rebellion was indeed counter-revolutionary. By contrast, some anarchists have accused Avrich of sloppy scholarship! Anarchists tend to think of the Kronstadt uprising as immaculate, and apparently don't want their rosy illusions smashed.

What Avrich's book really shows are the problems confronting non-Bolshevik leftists during the Russian Civil War, squeezed between "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and the Czarist and landlordist White Guards. Rejecting both proved to be easier said than done. The Kronstadt uprising was defeated by the revolution and its leadership derailed by counter-revolution.

That was the tragedy of Kronstadt.