Civil War in Finland and Colonel Svechnikov

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Civil War in Finland and Colonel Svechnikov

V.N. Baryshnikov, V.N. Borisenko

Events related to the history of the Finnish Civil War of 1918, are, undoubtedly, of research interest. This war was the first such kind of military-social clash in the territory of the former Russian Empire and presented a very bloody display of internal confrontation, which characterized the Finnish society of the observed period. However, there are still no real analytical researches in the national literature, especially concerning military aspects of the Civil War. Many historians traditionally ascribe the determinant role in the victory of the white movement to the merits of Mannerheim. Much less attention is devoted to the organizational abilities of the former Russian army colonel Svechnikov who was the main coordinator of the activities of the Finnish Red Guard during the war. It was thanks to him that the Red Guards managed to stabilize the front and prevent the breakthrough of Mannerheim's troops in February-March 1918 to the most vital southern regions of Finland. As a result, on March 20, Mannerheim was forced to send a request to the German military command to “speed up the arrival” of regular units of the German army to Finland. This appeal was justified by the fact that “procrastination is fatal” for the white movement in Finland. Thus, the analysis of the activities of Colonel Svechnikov clearly indicates that he turned out to be a very worthy opponent to Mannerheim. The defeat of the Reds was mainly the result of the German military intervention that began on April 3, 1918.

Keywords: Civil War in Finland, Soviet-Finnish relations, independence of Finland, C. G. Mannerheim, M. S. Svechnikov, R. von der Goltz, Russian troops, Finnish Red Guard, Finnish White Guard.

Гражданская война в Финляндии и полковник Свечников

В. Н. Барышников, В. Н. Борисенко

События, связанные с историей финской гражданской войны 1918 г., несомненно, представляют исследовательский интерес. Эта война оказалась первым такого типа военно-социальным столкновением на территории бывшей Российской империи и стала весьма кровавым проявлением внутреннего противостояния, которое тогда наблюдалось в финском обществе. Однако в отечественной литературе в вопросах ее военно-исторического анализа до сих пор нет достаточно конкретных аналитичных научных разработок. Также недостаточно ясна роль представителей военнослужащих прежней русской армии в событиях, связанных с ходом самой финской гражданской войны. При этом в утверждениях историков о причинах победы белого движения традиционно главными определяются заслуги К. Г. Э. Маннергейма. В значительно меньшей степени обращается внимание на организаторские способности полковника российской армии М. С. Свечникова, который в период войны был основным координатором действий финской Красной гвардии. Именно благодаря этому красногвардейцам удалось стабилизировать фронт и не допустить прорыва войск К. Г. Маннергейма в феврале -- марте 1918 г. к наиболее жизненно важным районам Финляндии на юге страны. В результате 20 марта Маннергейм вынужден был направить немецкому военному руководству просьбу «ускорить прибытие» в Финляндию регулярных частей германской армии. Данное обращение обосновывалось тем, что для белого движения в Финляндии «промедление губительно». Это вынуждены были признать и в немецком военном командовании, поскольку четко увидели, что «Маннергейм не в состоянии в одиночку освободить Финляндию». Таким образом, анализ деятельности полковника М.С. Свечникова по организации боевых действий финской Красной гвардии явно указывает на то, что он оказался весьма достойным оппонентом К. Г. Маннергейма. Поражение красных во многом оказалось следствием начавшейся 3 апреля 1918 г. германской военной интервенции на территорию Финляндии.

Ключевые слова: гражданская война в Финляндии, советско-финляндские отношения, независимость Финляндии, К. Г. Маннергейм, М. С. Свечников, Р. фон дер Гольц, русские войска, финская Красная гвардия, финская Белая гвардия.

The study of the history of the Civil War of 1918 in Finland is not very popular nowadays. Moreover, we cannot say that this issue was well studied previously. This looks quite surprising, because in the USSR great attention had been always paid to the problems of social class and revolutionary movement. However, there are no special articles devoted to this war in such major Soviet reference books, like Soviet historical or military encyclope- dia See: Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopediia. Vol. 4. Moscow, 1963. P. 678-687; Sovetskaia voennaia entsiklopediia. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1977. P. 5-23.. The Civil War was mentioned only in articles dedicated to the Finnish revolution of 1918. This seems hardly understandable, providing that the interest in these events arose in our country in the 1920-1930s and was, at some point, the most developed and attractive for consideration subject of Finnish history1918 gg. (Vospominaniya i materialy). Moscow; Petrograd, 1923; Mayzel' M. Iz stranits revoliutsionnoi istorii finliandskogo proletariata. Leningrad, 1928; Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii 1905, 1917, 1918 gg. Leningrad, 1933 etc..

As a result, nowadays there are only a few scholarly publications dealing with this dramatic period of Finnish history, especially, in its political context Petrov V. Finliandiia v planakh imperialisticheskikh derzhav v 1918-1920 gg. Petrozavodsk, 1961; Sykiainen I.I. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia 1917-1918 gg. v Finliandii. Petrozavodsk, 1962; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii 1918 g. i germanskaia interventsiia. Moscow, 1967; Novikova I. N. “Finskaia karta” v nemetskom pas'ianse. Germaniia i problema nezavisimosti Finliandii v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny. St. Petersburg, 2002; Dubrovskaya Ye. Yu. Rossiiskiie voennosluzhashchie i naselenie Finlyandii v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny (1914-1918). Petrozavodsk, 2008.. The most fundamental study was undertaken by Moscow historian V. M. Kholodkovsky. However, we can only regret that, judging by the bibliography, he didn't use the original text of C. G. Man- nerheim's memoirs dedicated to the Civil War in Finland resorting to French and German translations References to these memoirs in German or French translations look strange (Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 152, 169).. Moreover, in modern Russian historiography there is still no real analytical research concerning military aspects of the Civil War. As a result, the statement made in 1962 by Petrozavodsk researcher professor I. I. Sukiainen that the “question about the Civil War in Finland... deserves special study” Sykiainen 1.1. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia. P. 244. is partly relevant to the present day.

However, the mere outbreak of the Civil War in Finland in the winter of 1918 and its further progress retains obvious research interest, even due to the fact that this war was the first military-social conflict of such kind on the territory of the former Russian Empire. Moreover, objectively it began, and ended, earlier than the Civil War in Russia itself.

On the other hand, the Civil War of 1918 for a long time has been extensively studied in Finnish historiography. We can even mark certain historiographical stages of this pro- cess Lobanova D. R. Grazhdanskaia voina v Finliandii na stranitsakh zhurnala “Historiallinen Aikakau- skirja” // Sankt-Peterburg i strany Severnoi Evropy. Materialy ezhegodnoi konferentsii. St. Petersburg, 2014. P. 197-208. See also: Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1993. N 2.. However, assertions of Finnish historians concerning its development and results were traditionally determined by the predominant position of the victorious side, i.e. fixation of the merits of the Mannerheim's army See for example: Puntila L. A. Suomi vuonna 1918 // Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1958. N 4. S. 339. (which, incidentally, is quite natural).

Whites, as is well known, needed only three months of war, to defeat Reds. But was the resistance of the Reds generally hopeless, taking into account that at the beginning of the war they were at an advantage and controlled the most economically developed part of the state? We still seem to have no clear answer. As far as the resistance of the Reds is concerned, it's necessary to assess their ability to organize the struggle. Another important question concerns more specific military activities of the leadership of both warring parties. Thus, the core of the problem is the specific issue of the military command of the opposing troops.

It is well-known that the White troops at the time were led by one of the most famous representatives of Finland in the world, a former Lieutenant General of the Russian Army, who later became the only marshal of his country -- C. G. E. Mannerheim. At the same time, his role in the organization of strategic planning of operations was described in details in Finland immediately after the end of the Civil War See: Suomen vapaussota vuonna 1918. Os. I-VI. Helsinki, 1921-1925; Suomen vapaussota. Os. I- VII. Helsinki, 1921-1928.. Mannerheim himself prepared a separate article about this war, which was published in the leading Finnish historical journal Mannerheim G. Vapaussota-teosten tarkastelun johdosta tarkastus // Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1929. N 1. See also: Lobanova D. R. Grazhdanskaia voina v Finliandii... P. 200-201., and then, in 1951, he published his two-volume memoirs.

However, in the first volume of these memoirs, Mannerheim, describing the course of the Civil War in Finland, clearly sought to point out the difficulties that he personally encountered at the time of the outbreak of the war. In particular, Mannerheim stressed that initially, in February 1918, “the most dangerous was the enemy's offensive near the Hapamдki railway station, the loss of which would mean the division of the White front into two parts”. Further, Mannerheim noted that “the offensive was commanded by Colonel Svechnikov, who was appointed to be in command of the Army of Western Finland” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. Osa I. Helsinki, 1951. S. 269. Svechnikov in his memoirs defines more precisely: “on January [according to old style. -- Auth.], I was appointed troop commander of Western Finland” (see: Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 53)..

Indeed, the beginning of this offensive could radically have changed the general course of the Civil War that broke out in Finland since initially the White troops showed determination and a clear initiative See: Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. Finnlands Rote Garde im Kampf gegen WeiЯgardisten und deutsche Militaristen. Berlin, 1962. S. 42-43; Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. Suomen kohtaloissa. Osa I. Valkoinen kenraali 1918-1919. Helsinki, 1957. S. 56-62.. But the first serious offensive of the Reds could provide them with a strategic initiative. Moreover, the seizure of Hapamдki meant that the supporters of the revolution blocked strategically important White railway line since this road ran parallel to the front along the line Vaaza (Nikolaystadt) -- Elisenvaara, allowing easy maneuvering of troops. As Professor I. I. Sykiдinen noted in this regard, “the outcome of the war depended heavily on the one in whose hands this branch would be” Sykiдinen I. I. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia. P. 246.. The same point of view was supported by the Finnish general E. Heinrichs in his memoirs Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. S. 63.. However, the adversaries could not achieve the desired result. Mannerheim only briefly writes on this occasion: “Heavy fights on the front stretching 50 kilometers lasted ten days, and only on February 12 the joint offensive of the Russian and Red Guards choked” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 270..

Nevertheless, it's difficult to explain that Mannerheim writes about this “most dangerous offensive” in a concise manner. It is also difficult to understand why he did not describe other operations of the Reds that put the White Army in central Finland in a critical position, instead of describing the victories of his troops.

Obviously, if the Finnish marshal wanted to tell about the failures, then, undoubtedly, he should have dwelled in more detail on his main opponent, who actually led the Red troops. Mannerheim was clearly aware of this See: Ibid. S. 296.. He noted that “the editor of the newspaper and the former ensign Eero Haapalainen, who became” the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of Finland, “was such only nominally” Ibid.. Objectively, Mannerheim's main opponent in the planning and organization of hostilities was , to some extent, his former colleague, a fairly young officer who was then only 37 years old, a former colonel of the same Russian army, chief of staff of the 106th Infantry Division M. S. Svechnikov. However, the Finnish marshal clearly did not aspire to pay special attention to this circumstance in his memoirs. Traditionally, Svechnikov's name is ignored in Finnish historiography or is mentioned only in order to emphasize the “Russian trace” in the Finnish Civil War, thus proving its “liberating” character Puntila L. A. Suomi vuonna... S. 343.. Ignoring the role of Svechnikov in confronting Mannerheim is also typical of Russian historians. In particular, I. I. Sykiainen mentions this active participant in the text of his monograph on the Civil War in Finland also with extreme indecision See: Sykiдinen 1.1. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia... P. 15, 242, 255, 258, 259..

It is indicative, on the other hand, that General R. von der Goltz, who was the commander of the German “Baltic Division”, which also fought in Finland since April 1918, directly pointed out that the activity of M. S. Svechnikov “deserves recognition” Gol'ts R. von der. Moia missiia v Finliandii i Pribaltike. St. Petersburg, 2015. P. 65.. This was confirmed in a number of other memoirs, as well as research publications, in which Svechnikov was referred to only as an “initiative commander”, “qualified”, “famous”, “outstanding”, or simply a “prominent” military specialist See: Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien vuodet 1917-1918. Helsinki, 1977. S. 92; Manninen O. Va- paussota // Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1993. N 2. S. 117; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 128; Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii. P. 166. V. M. Kholodkovsky, appreciating the merits of Svechnikov, mistakenly characterizes him as a colonel of the “General Staff” (Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 128), which did not correspond to reality..

It is probably difficult not to agree with this if you still try to look objectively at the course of the Finnish Civil War and pay attention to Colonel M. S. Svechnikov, and the way he opposed Lieutenant-General C. G. Mannerheim in operational plans.

First of all, it is necessary to take into account the fact that M. S. Svechnikov at the time of the beginning of the Civil War in Finland was a supporter of the development of the revolution. Being an officer of the Russian army and serving in Finland, in the spring of 1917 he joined the Bolshevik Party. Moreover, from his memoirs, which were published in the early 1920's Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. and were immediately translated and then published in Finland Svetsnikov M. S. Vallankumous ja kansalaissota Suomessa 1917-1918. Helsinki, 1925., it becomes clear that he had a fairly good understanding of the Finnish military-political situation. Even though the author admitted a number of inaccuracies in relation to the political situation in Finland itself See: Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 3-5., it is still evident that, militarily, he understood General Mannerheim very well. This obviously allowed him to foresee the potential possibilities of combat operations of the Whites as well as to anticipate the direction of the main strategic attacks of the troops of Mannerheim.

In particular, referring to the very beginning of the Civil War, Svechnikov in his memoirs, immediately drew the readers' attention to the evidently growing threat to the Red Finland from the then emerging army of Mannerheim. He pointed out that “having captured, through a sudden attack on the Russian troops, weapons, uniforms and all manner of valuable property of the troops, in which the White Guard felt a special need, General Mannerheim brought the White Guard units in order” Ibid. P. 48.. This, of course, made the emerging White army extremely dangerous. Svechnikov ,probably, understood this from the outset and made conclusions that stemmed from negative trends in the rapidly developing military and political situation as the Whites moved on to resolute military actions that clearly did not have an adequate response from the leadership of the Red Finland Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien vuodet... S. 92, 94, 118; Manninen T Suojeluskuntien synty ja sisдllissodan alkaminen // Raja railona. Nдkцkulmia suojeluskuntiin / R. Alapuro. Porvoo, 1998. S. 28..

Indeed, by the beginning of the Civil War the supporters of the Whites, under the command of Mannerheim, acting on the principle that “a quick attack by even small forces can instantly save the situation” Mikola K. J. Vapaussota // Oman maan puolustaminen. Porvoo; Helsinki, 1964. S. 70., could quickly disarm the already demoralized divisions of423rd Infantry (“Luga”) regiment. Moreover, some of the servicemen of this union were repressed. On the whole, up to 8,000 Russian servicemen stationed in 30 garrisons in Ostrobothnia and Northern Finland were attacked by Whites Dubrovskaya Ye. Yu. Rossiiskie voennosluzhashchie... P. 113.. The number of disarmed Russian military men is somewhat understated by C. G. Mannerheim in his memoirs He points out that the shuckor units “disarmed about 7,000 Russian soldiers” (see: Mannerheim G. Muistelmat... S. 267).. Anyway, during the period from January 23 to February 9, 1918, it was already clearly stated that “the Russian armed forces and the power of the Russian military north of the Pori [Bjцrneborg. -- Aut.] -- Tammerfors (Tampere) -- Vyborg line were eliminated” Dubrovskaya Ye. Yu. Rossiiskie voennosluzhashchie. P. 114.. Moreover, for Whites it was not very difficult to do this because it was understandable that “the resistance of the Russians will either be almost nonexistent, or it will be completely non-existent” Lehen T Punaisten ja valkoisten sota. Helsinki, 1967. S. 152.. This, undoubtedly, strengthened “moral superiority to the enemy” among the Whites Mikola K. J. Vapaussota. S. 70..

At the same time, relying on the paramilitary bourgeois detachments already formed on the territory of Finland since the spring of 1917, “specifically to protect social har- mony” Manninen T. Suojeluskuntien. S. 28., which received the general name of a White Guard (Skyddskar), Mannerheim began to form the combat-ready parts of his army Seppдlд H. Itsenдisen suomen puolustuspolitiikka ja strategia. Porvoo, 1974. S. 20.. Moreover, for the then formed White Army, it was important that at the beginning of 1918 there were already 38,000 people in the White Guard squadrons Manninen T Suojeluskuntien synty ja sisдllissodan alkaminen. S. 31. See also: Hentilд S. Ot obreteniya nezavisimosti do okonchaniya voiny-prodolzheniya 1917-1944 // Yussila O., Hentilд O., Ne- vakivi O. Politicheskaia istoriia Finliandii. Moscow, 2010. P. 137; Sykiдinen I.I. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia. P. 247; Manninen O. Valkoisen armeijan suojeluskuntarykmentit // Sotahistoriallinen Aikakauskirja. 1989. N 8. S. 7; Salokangas R. Itsenдinen tasavalta // Suomen historian pikkujдttilдinen. Porvoo; Helsinki; Juva, 1995. S. 610.. Thus, the formation of the White Army began. The main challenge Mannerheim faced was to create completely combat-ready units from recruits and White Guard to launch a rapid offensive on the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Svechnikov guessed the plans of Mannerheim. He believed that the offensive of the Whites would not develop in the direction of Abo or even Vyborg, but in the most important industrial center of the country, Tammerfors. It was there that the headquarters of the 106th Infantry Division of the Russian Army was located, and the city was the main working center of Finland Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 48.. In particular, while analysing Mannerheim's actions, Svechnikov stressed: “It is obvious that calculation of the general Mannerheim was based on two assumptions: (1) that the Russian troops would remain neutral, and that the Red Guard, which had no more than 500 people in Tammerfors, would be easy to cope with, and (2) that, in the case of resistance by the Russians, taking into account the starting process of their demoralization (which, of course, was known to the Whites), it will not be difficult to make them submit to a real force that was, in fact, already in the hands of the Whites” Ibid. P. 48..

Assessing the possibilities of the Finnish Red Guards, Svechnikov was not far from the truth. Although detachments of the Finnish Red Guard began to emerge simultaneously with the White Guard squadrons, their numbers as a whole were smaller. By the beginning of the Civil War the number of Red Guards had reached 25,000 Manninen T. Suojeluskuntien... S. 31; Sykiainen 1.1. Revolyutsionnye sobytiia... P 254. -- There are other data on the number of Red Guards. In particular, it is indicated on 30 thousand people (see: Salokangas R. Itsenainen tasavalta... S. 610).. At the same time, the Social Democratic Party of Finland, then generally “not setting itself the goal of organizing an armed assault, did not take measures to timely military training of workers” Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii. P. 131.. Moreover, explaining why “our first steps were not sufficiently vigorous and resolute”, one of the members of the Finnish revolutionary government O. W. Kuusinen directly remarked in 1919 that “we did not then think that the war would drag on for several months” Kuusinen O. V. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii... P. 51.. In general, it is believed that the “logic of events led the Reds to a revolution before they were ready” to retain power. As a result, their “organization was incomplete, directives that they sent across the country were late, and there were not enough weapons” Salokangas R. Itsenainen tasavalta. S. 609..

At the same time, under the circumstances Svechnikov understood that in the Civil War that began, the Reds had an opportunity not to allow the implementation of the Mannerheim's plan, but this could only be achieved through active and resolute counter-actions with reliance on the part of Russian troops, still remaining in Finland There were about 42 thousand people on the whole territory of Finland (Hentila S. Ot obreteniia. P. 134. See also: Pokhlebkin V. V. SSSR -- Finliandiia. 260 let otnoshenii. Moscow, 1975. P. 219; Lehen T. Pu- naisten ja valkoisten... S. 149; Rinta-Tassi O. Lokakuun vallankumous ja Suomen itenaistyminen // Lenin ja Suomi. Osa II. Helsinki, 1989. S. 159). Some researchers, however, believe that the number of Russian troops at the time was even less, either 30 thousand people (Manninen O. Vapaussota. S. 117), or even 20 thousand people. (Salokangas R. Itsenainen tasavalta. S. 611). It is indicative that the number of Russian troops in Finland since the beginning of the revolution in Russia was rapidly declining. By the end of 1917, the number of Russian soldiers had seriously decreased from 125,000 people to almost half of that staff (see: Shkvarov A. G. Naseleniie Finliandii i russkie garnizony v gody Pervoi mirovoi voiny (1914-1918): prob- lemy vzaimo otnoshenii // Sankt-Peterburg i strany Severnoi Evropy. Materialy ezhegodnoi konferentsii. St. Petersburg, 2012. P. 114, 117).. The offensive strategy is apparently seen in Svechnikov's plans. The well-known Finnish military historian H. Seppala was clearly mistaken when he asserted that “in the true sense nothing can be said about the existence of the strategic line of the Reds” Seppala H. Itsenaisen suomen. S. 20.. In this respect, Moscow researcher V. M. Kholodkovsky who quite rightly believed that the distinctive feature of Svechnikov's military plans was “active offensive measures” was closer to the truth Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 129..

The question arose whether the Russian troops, already at the stage of demobilization, deployed, in particular, in Tammerfors, were able to support the Reds and what the general legal status of these units, residing, in fact, in a country independent of Russia, was.

Indeed, the Russian army in Finland, against the background of the announced demobilization and the transition to the principle of volunteer recruitment, was rapidly losing its fighting capacity, but retained the ability to influence the developments in the country. The Finnish researcher H. Yulikangas, probably, rightly pointed out that the Russian troops “were strong per se, but they were not enough for full-fledged war or even for one of its segments” Ylikangas H. Sisдllissota // Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1993. N 2. S. 111.. Mannerheim understood that very well. Therefore, he addressed with general appeal “to the brave Russian soldiers”. In it, Mannerheim mentioned that his troops “are not fighting against Russia” See: Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii... P. 173. See also: Dubrovskaya Ye. Yu. Rossiskiie voennosluzhashchie... P 110; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 72; Lehen T. Punaisten ja valkoisten... S. 155.. Thus, the commander of the Finnish White Army sought to maximally neutralize the Russian units. He succeeded at first Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 128.. Svechnikov commented on these conditions explicitly: “The mood of the garrison... these days has significantly decreased. There were already voices saying that we should not interfere in the Civil War” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P 49..

Under these circumstances he tried to change the situation relying on his established authority among Russian soldiers, and on the order of the Military Division of the Regional Committee of the Army, Fleet and Workers of Finland “to join the defense of his Finnish comrades” Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii. P 174; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 128; Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 24.. He managed to persuade a certain part of the soldiers to support the Finnish revolution, following the principles of internationalism, and even to justify the legality of these actions. Svechnikov's position was facilitated by the fact that on January 30, 1918, he was appointed “commander of Russian troops in Western Finland”. At the same time, he became the “commander-in-chief of the Red Guard of the Tammerfors Front” Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii. P 175; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 127-128..

Having objectively received very broad power, Svechnikov was able to proceed to direct reciprocal counter-actions against Mannerheim's troops, aimed at “gaining time to prepare for the fight against Whites”. To this end, he sent a “delegation to General Mannerheim with a proposal to return all the property seized by the latter and to let Russian troops pass to Tammerfors with weapons” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P 50.. These claims of the Russians were legal since at that time there was no interstate mechanism for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of independent Finland See: Dokumenty vneshney politiki SSSR. Vol. I. Moscow, 1959. P 94.. Moreover, on January 12, 1918, the head of the Finnish bourgeois government P. E. Svinhufvud allowed himself a statement in which he reported that the withdrawal of the Russian army deployed, in particular, in Tammerfors could be carried out “only depending on military-technical conditions and situation and by mutual agreement” Dubrovskaya Ye. Yu. Rossiiskie voennosluzhashchie. P 111. -- This statement by Svinhuvud was then quoted in a note of the Soviet government dated January 29, 1918, addressed to the leadership of Finland (see: Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR. P 94).. Naturally, the Finnish authorities did not have any rights to appropriate military property of the Russian army, and had no right to carry out any internment of Russian soldiers as well.

Mannerheim held other views because he believed that it was necessary to act decisively, to “direct military actions against those Russian armed units that remained in Finland, despite the Soviet government's recognition of the independence of our state” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat... S. 263.. As a result, a quite predictable answer came to Tammerfos after negotiations with representatives of the Russian armed forces: “General Mannerheim refused to fulfill the claimed demands” SvechnikovM. S. Revoliutsiia... P. 50.. As Svechnikov noted in this regard: “Thus, Mannerheim's response was quite sufficient for me to start serious hostilities” Ibid. P. 51.. Moreover, “the capture of Russian troops, which at first the Whites succeeded in, as well as the seizure of arms and military property, was suspended” Ibid. P. 74..

As a result, first real clashes between Russian soldiers who began to work together with the Finnish Red Guards and the White formations occurred See: Lehen T Punaisten ja valkoisten... S. 179-184, 218-219.. The most significant aspect of these actions was that the revolutionary troops were already clearly trying not to allow further advance of Mannerheim's army to the south. Red units began to turn to counterattacks, demonstrating the Whites that at least “more serious preparation is needed to defeat the Reds” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 51..

At this time, the Reds made an attempt, very dangerous for Mannerheim, to attack Hapamaki station. In fact, it seriously bothered Mannerheim. However, as Svechnikov noted, in view of the “weakness of our forces for active action” this offensive did not yield the desired result Ibid. P. 64.. This explanation, however, is still not fully justified since, as some authors note, “the decisive cause of this failure on the part of the Reds was in the complete absence of prior preparation and negligence” in carrying out the operation itself Lehen T. Punaisten ja valkoisten. S. 183.. This failure was also due to the fact that the Red Finns had a clear deficit in armaments Ibid. S. 183-184..

On the other hand, as Svechnikov rightly pointed out, after this operation the Tam- merfors district was “provided for by the Red Guard, which did not allow the White Guard to take it and open the “gate” for further movement to Helsingfors” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 64..

Therefore, the initial activity of the Reds brought about a definite positive result. The counteroffensive, though not successful, allowed them to get some time to start the immediate organization of their own armed forces. In particular, it was then that the general headquarters of the Finnish Red Guard was formed. The commander-in-chief of these troops became Ero Haapalainen, well-known to Mannerheim Ibid. P. 61.. Svechnikov, due to the great military experience, was appointed his assistant and moved to Helsingfors Ibid. P. 72.. Thus, “in fact, the highest command of all the Red forces in Finland was concentrated in his hands” Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii. P. 175..

At the same time, the assertion that the Russian troops launched military hostilities in Finland, and the comparison of these events with the beginning in 1939 of the so-called “Winter War”, as it was done by the Finnish professor O. Manninen, does not look convincing66. The scale of the Russian army's participation in the Finnish Civil War is simply not commensurable with the event of 1939. The distinctive feature of these troops was that workers comprised 62,8 % of the total composition. The Red Army was “more homogeneous than the White troops, being formed purely on a voluntary basis”68, whereas on the territory controlled by Mannerheim, on the contrary, the general mobilization, which did not imply the principle of voluntariness, began on February 1869. As a result, 45,4 % in these troops turned out to be peasants of northern and central Finland70.

In fact, the Red Finns began to take on “most of the combat mission”, thus replacing the rapidly shrinking number of Russian troops71. The witness of those events, V. M. Smirnov, directly noted that “one can't help but be surpised that under these difficult conditions the Finnish proletariat, nevertheless, within a short time managed to create an army that showed great courage, steadfastness and selflessness”72.

However, considering all the specificity of the Civil War that began, Svechnikov thought it urgently necessary to change throughout Finland the old combat strategy of the Red Finns used by the chief of staff of the Red Guard A. Aaltonen, who provided only defensive actions Manninen O. Vapaussota... S. 119. Salokangas R. Itsenainen tasavalta... S. 615. Hyvonen A. Suurten tapahtumien... S. 92 Mikola K. J. Vapaussota. S. 72; Seppala H. Itsenaisen suomen... S. 20; Kholodkovskiy V M. Revo- liutsiia v Finliandii... P. 149; Sykiainen 1.1. Revolyutsionnye sobytiia. P. 248. Salokangas R. Itsenainen tasavalta. S. 615. Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandiii. P 132. Smirnov V. Iz revoliutsionnoi istorii Finliandii. P 167. Taami A. Stranitsy perezhitogo. Moscow, 1956. P .217-218; Sykiainen 1.1. Revolyutsionnye sobytiia. P 245-246; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revolyutsiia v Finlyandii. P 162.. Moreover, the Red Guards realized what the nature of their fighting was when their detachments saw the task “only as defense of their city” and “waiting for the attack of the Whites” Sykiainen 1.1. Revolyutsionnye sobytiia. P. 247.. Svechnikov also believed that it was necessary to move urgently on to active, offensive operations. As a result, on February 28, 1918, the Red troops received the order to refuse involvement in “small encounters with Whites in the area of western Finland” and to switch “to fighting organized on a large scale at the front to 130 km” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P 71. Rasila V. Punainen aseveljeys // Historiallinen Aikakauskirja. 1978. N 2. S. 193. See also: Tanskanen A. Venalaiset Suomen sisallissodassa vuonna 1918. Tampere, 1978. By the end of February 1918, the number of Russian soldiers who participated in the Civil war had already declined to 3,000 (see: Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 131; Pokhlebkin V. V. SSSR -- Finlyandiia. P .231)..

It is obvious that Svechnikov thus endeavored to intercept Mannerheim's common military initiative in the ongoing Civil War. At the same time, he was well aware of how difficult it would be to do so. It was especially becoming more and more difficult for him to count on Russian troops, still remaining in Finland. By mid-February only about 10% of them fought on the side of the Reds76. Svechnikov in his memoirs directly remarked that “for the defensive actions I could still use all Russian troops, but for offensive operations it was possible to use only volunteers and Finnish Red Guards”. Further assessing these formations, he noted: “The first [i.e. Russians. -- Auth.] was not enough77, and the second [i.e. the Finns. -- Auth.] were still at the stage of formation, still impressionable, less stable and more prepared to defend than to advance” SvechnikovM. S. Revoliutsiia... P. 71.. Nevertheless, only an offensive strategy could allow the Reds to achieve any positive result.

Having correctly determined the strategic line in the war, Svechnikov, however, faced yet another problem. On March 3, 1918, the Soviet Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany in Brest-Litovsk. The article VI of this treaty stated that all Russian troops had to leave Finland immediately Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR. P. 122-123.. This meant, as the well-known Finnish historian, Professor M. Klinge, correctly noted, another division of “spheres of interests between the great powers” Klinge M. Ocherk istorii Finlyandii. Helsinki, 1990. P. 100.. Russia had just given up Finland, and it turned out to be in the sphere of German interests. As a result, Svechnikov was compelled to call upon Russian servicemen to fulfill the conditions of the Brest treaty. However, believing in the victory of the revolution, he invited the soldiers voluntarily “to join the Red Soviet troops” of Finland.

Svechnikov himself soon concluded that for many Russian soldiers “longing for home... took precedence over their international trends” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 73.. As a result, only about 1,000 Russians remained as volunteers in the Finnish Red Army Ibid. P. 74..

Thus, Mannerheim, objectively, took revenge on Svechnikov and achieved the exclusion of the main part of the Russian troops from the further struggle with the Red Finns. This, of course, was another serious blow to Svechnikov's strategic plans. He could only ask bitterly a rhetorical question: “What could the small Red Finland withstand when a large neighbor -- Soviet Russia -- was surrendering to the Germans?” Ibid. P. 90. Nevertheless, by this time the Reds had already achieved obvious positive results. They firmly held their occupied areas of Finland, and the troops of Mannerheim throughout February could not seriously move to the south of the country, having not captured at least some meaningful Finnish city during this time Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 163..

The new stage of the Civil War began. It seems to have been the most interesting from the standpoint of confrontation between the Reds and General Mannerheim. The Finnish military historian H. Seppala claims that from now on the “Reds, feeling that there will be no help from Russia, have already morally lost” Seppala H. Itsenaisen suomen... S. 22.. But Svechnikov after practically total withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Finland, on the contrary, did not consider the military situation of the Reds to be hopeless. He defined it as “comparatively tolerable”, noticing that “it still takes a lot of work to organize the struggle on the scale of the whole of Finland” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. S. 77..

The mechanism of Russian military specialists' aid in the organization of combat units of the Finnish Red Guard, is fairly well known See: Kholodkovskiy R M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 125-126, 138-139; Taami A. Stranitsy pe- rezhitogo. P. 219-221, 223-224. -- As Svechnikov notes, “in total, the Red Army received from the Russians about fifty thousand rifles, two hundred machine guns, up to fifty guns, several aircraft, with a corresponding number of firearms” (Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P. 77).. It is probably necessary to dwell on the tactical scheme that Svechnikov proposed in the new stage of the Civil War. Strikingly enough, it remained the same. Actively defending the Vyborg district and “protecting the

Vyborg-Petrograd railway line”, the main forces were “to develop decisive actions in the direction of Haapamaki”. From the military point of view, this plan had certain shortcomings MengerM. Feuer ьber Suomi... S. 53., but what remained important was that Svechnikov, finding a vulnerable position in the strategic construction of the White troops, once more strived to interrupt their basic communication “between the Vaza-Nikolaishtad area for the liquidation of the Whites' base” SvechnikovM. S. Revoliutsiia... P. 78..

This operation, which was to be carried out almost exclusively by the Finnish Red Guards, required serious preparation and a corresponding regrouping of forces See: TaamiA. Stranitsy perezhitogo... P. 225.. It was difficult to implement at that time. Svechnikov wrote: “It was possible, by conceding some points to the Whites to retrieve something in the reserve, but this was not realized, since with the departure of the Finnish Red Guards from the towns and villages, all their families went along with the household belongings. All this not only created an unpleasant moral impression, but also deprived the troops of maneuverability” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P 80.. Nevertheless, the Red Army, though fully deprived of the “experienced commanding staff”, on March 10, 1918 launched its first major offensive on a very broad front of 400 km See: Lappalainen J. T. Punakaartin sota. 1-2. Punaisen Suomen historia 1918. Helsinki, 1981..

This operation did not bring the desired result. The command of the Whites was informed in advance through their sufficiently developed intelligence network about the prepared offensive Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 163; Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 297.. The Reds failed to break the front. It is important, however, as the German historian M. Menger observed, that “in offensive operations, the majority of the Red Guards detachments were able to gain combat experience, and the revolutionary command ... received a more accurate picture of the enemy's common positions and forces” Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 53.. Moreover, this offensive seriously affected the character of the ongoing war. For the first time, the Mannerheim's troops had faced the large-scale offensive actions of the Reds, who “definitely found out, morally and politically, that the Whites would sooner or later be defeated, and that they were powerless to cope with the uprising of the Reds” Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia. P 81.. Moreover, it became obvious that the Reds were actively gaining military experience and “ould perform complex tasks”. In addition, “the Whites began to show certain signs of fatigue” Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien. S. 95, 119..

One can feel it in Mannerheim's behaviour. He was clearly puzzled Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 303; see: Lehen T. Punaisten ja valkoisten. S. 228.. Moreover, the commander of the White Army received very disappointing information about the difficult prospects for his troops, as “enemy's forces only grew” Mikola K. J. Vapaussota. S. 74., and the hostilities themselves acquired only one tendency -- to a protracted and very fierce struggle. Moreover, as V. M. Kholodkovsky remarked, “with the onset of spring field works, Mannerheim could not keep peasants in his army by any force -- they would inevitably return home with their horses to process and sow the fields” Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P 164.. Other authors confirm the observation Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi... P. 58; Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien vuodet... S. 119; Lehen T. Punaisten ja valkoisten... S. 228. Even Mannerheim in his memoirs indicates that in his army there were cases when servicemen left the fighting formations in whole units to “visit the sauna -- and, of course, at home” (Mannerheim G. Muistelmat... S. 285). General E. Heinrichs also commented on this: “Yes, these people were ready to sacrifice their lives if it was necessary, but..” and then also regretfully noticed that they had not yet been torn from the places where they lived and sometimes showed a desire to return home from the front (see: Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. S. 64).. Svechnikov also hoped for the early onset of spring, and especially of the summer. He believed that by this time he would finally be able to seize the initiative in carrying out offensive operations Svechnikov M. S. Revoliutsiia ... P 111..

The situation required from Mannerheim the transition to a new offensive. It began on March 15, and again on the main, Tammerfors, direction Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 303-304.. In this case, the commander of the White army, undoubtedly, risked since he had to deploy in battle already “tired and hungry soldiers, whose strength was almost exhausted” Lehen T Punaisten ja valkoisten. S. 228.. As Mannerheim himself noted: “The fighting capabilities of many units raised great doubts, but we had no choice but to turn a blind eye to all shortcomings and believe in victory!” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 305. By means of formidable effort, when “all available forces” were moved to the Tammerfors area Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 316., the Whites were able to strike the flanks of the advancing in the direction of this city units of the Red Army. The counteroffensive was not developed as Mannerheim probably would have wanted it Ibid. S. 317. See also: Finland 1917-1918. In the Documents of the US Department of State / red. J. Suchoples. Wroclaw, 2007. P 225; Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 55, 58; Lehen T Punaisten ja valkoisten. S. 228.. He directly noted in his memoirs that first fights “showed that the capture of Tammerfors was a much more difficult task than it had been previously thought” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 317.. Moreover, military skills in front-line units of Red Guards clearly continued to improve.

Nevertheless, in the fierce battles the White forces began to move forward. However, there was no overwhelming breakthrough See: Mikola K. J. Vapaussota. S. 79.. The offensive, in the opinion of the researcher M. Menger, “did not in any way correspond to the expectations” of Mannerheim Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 57.. The front of the Reds did not fall apart, and the prospects for a quick victory were clearly not visible. Moreover, on March 31, the Red Guards themselves began to turn into counter-attacks, and, according to Mannerheim's opinion, “the situation became threatening” Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 320.. In general, it is believed that at this moment hostilities acquired “the most fierce character during the entire Civil War” Sykiдinen 1.1. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia. P 259.. The Reds were evidently not going to surrender the city. As a result, the decisive battles and storming of Tammerfors were still ahead. This already implied colossal casualties. In addition, the Whites were well aware that “thousands of Red Guards were concentrated, ready for desperate resistance” Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 58. See also: Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. S. 92. in Tammerfors.

It is no coincidence that, despite Mannerheim's definite prejudice against Germany See: Mannerheim G. Muistelmat... S. 297-298. -- Mannerheim in early March 1918 even allowed himself the assertion that “he will have to resign as soon as the first German soldier is in Finnish territory” (see: Heinrichs E. Mannerheim.S. 87)., he had to urgently appeal to it for emergency help See: Jokipii M. Mannerheim ja saksalaiset // Sotahistoriallinen Aikakauskirja. 2004. N 23. S. 91.. Already on March 5, at the time of the Reds offensive, he sent a telegram to Germans in which he thanked them for the opportunity to provide White Finland with effective support, “without which”, he wrote, “we could no longer stand firm and victoriously” See: Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 232. See also: Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien... S. 119-120.. At the same time, Mannerheim began to express these thoughts openly, which, naturally, was noticed by foreign diplomatic representatives Finland 1917-1918. P. 178-179. -- At the same time, however, the American envoy in Stockholm I. N. Morris (Morris Ira N.) still believed that “The whites must win” (Ibid. P. 210)..

On the other hand, von der Goltz recalled the text of another very important telegram in his memoirs. On March 20, 1918, in the midst of battles for Tammerfors, Mannerheim turned to Germany with an open request “to speed up” the arrival of the German expedition. Justifying his appeal to the German military leadership, Mannerheim stressed: `procrastination is fatal' ” See: Gol'ts R. von der. Moia missiia... P. 61.. It is noteworthy that the text of this telegram became then widely known See for example: Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. S. 92; Hyvцnen A. Suurten tapahtumien. S. 120; Menger M. Feuer ьber Suomi. S. 58-59; Sykiдinen 1.1. Revoliutsionnye sobytiia. S. 259; Novikova I. N. “Finskaia karta”. P. 225.. Moreover, the Finnish marshal himself had to reproduce it in his memoirs. However, it is indicative that he “remembered” only the first part of his text, which concerned the need to “speed up” the beginning of the German intervention Mannerheim G. Muistelmat. S. 303.. The phrase about “fatal procrastination” Mannerheim , obviously, decided “not to reproduce”, since it immediately showed the real state of affairs at the front The Finnish general E. Heinrichs justifying Mannerheim in his memoirs also tried to downplay the meaning of this phrase, pointing out that the future Finnish marshal simply believed that the delay in the landing of the German troops “would be fatal, especially for the bourgeois part of the population of Southern Finland” and that precisely the fear of “red terror” was the essence of Mannerheim's request addressed to the German command. However, the author immediately crossed out this opinion with the statement “This remark does not mean that Mannerheim would still consider that he can carry out his liberation mission without the help of the Germans” (Heinrichs E. Mannerheim. S. 93)..

Nevertheless, this phrase is vital. It allows us to understand the critical military situation which then developed at the front. The commander-in-chief of the German troops, E. Ludendorff, evaluating the text of this telegram, directly and laconically made a completely logical conclusion. He simply stressed the most important thing: “Mannerheim is not able to liberate Finland alone” See: Novikova I. N. “Finskaia karta”... P. 226..

Nowadays there is a certain cult of Mannerheim in our country See, for example: Mannergeym za 90 minut. Moscow; St. Petersburg, 2006; Zhukov A. A. Mannergeym v Peterburge. Metodicheskoye posobiye po provedeniyu ekskursiy. St. Petersburg, 2007. Criticism of this phenomenon is contained in the book: Klinge A. Mannerheim and the blockade. The forbidden truth about the Finnish marshal. Moscow, 2017.. His service for thirty years in the tsarist army and his “victory” in the Civil War in Finland are extoled. That is why the text of this telegram seems quite significant, as are the words of the German General von der Goltz, who explicitly wrote that for Mannerheim, “immediate success could only be achieved if the Reds who fought the front to the north were attacked as decisively as possible from the sea” Gol'ts R. von der. Moia missiia... P. 55., i.e. from the south. The attention to this obvious fact was drawn in the historiography of this war long ago. For some reason, it is not spoken about nowadays. It is also not mentioned how many German troops really landed in Finland. V. M. Kholodkovsky noted, “Mannerheim tried to play down the help” Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 269.. As a result, according to the memories of the Finnish marshal, just 9,000 German soldiers landed on the mainland of Finland Mannerheim G. Muistelmat... S. 328-329., while in reality there were about 13,000 Novikova I. N. “Finskaia karta”... P. 327; Kholodkovskiy V. M. Revoliutsiia v Finliandii. P. 269..