French directory. Directory (in France)

|
Directory(French Directoire) - the government of the first French Republic under the constitution of the III year, adopted by the National Convention in 1795 during the last stage of the French Revolution from October 26, 1795 (4 Brumaires of the IV year) to November 9, 1799 (18 Brumaires of the VIII year). The executive branch of the Directory consisted of five directors of the Executive Directory (French Directoire exécutif) and the legislative branch (French Corps Législatif) of two chambers - the Council of Elders (French Conseil des Anciens) and the Council of Five Hundred (French Conseil des Cinq-Cents).

• 1 Constitution of the Year III
• 2 Failure of stabilization (1795-1797)
  • 2.1 First Directory
  • 2.2 Conspiracy of Equals
  • 2.3 Conquests
  • 2.4 18 fructidor
• 3 Fall of the Republic (1797-1799)
  • 3.1 Second Directory
  • 3.2 Expansion
  • 3.3 Last effort
  • 3.4 18th Brumaire
• 4 Composition and competence
  • 4.1 Qualification
  • 4.2 Competence
  • 4.3 Directory members
• 5 Sources
• 6 Literature
• 7 Links

Constitution of the Year III

The new Constitution of the Year III created the Directory (French Directoire) and the first bicameral legislative body in the history of France. The Constitution returned to the distinction between "active" and "passive" citizens. Universal suffrage in 1793 was replaced by limited qualification suffrage. The new constitution returned to the principles of the 1791 constitution. The principle of equality was confirmed, but within the limits of civil equality. Numerous democratic rights of the 1793 constitution - the right to work, social insurance, universal education - were excluded. The Convention determined the rights of citizens of the republic and at the same time rejected both the privileges of the old order and social equality. Only citizens over twenty-five years of age who paid tax on income from two hundred days of work were eligible to be electors. This electoral body, which had real elective power, consisted of 30,000 people in 1795, half as many as in 1791. Guided by the recent experience of the Jacobin dictatorship, republican institutions were created to protect against two dangers: the omnipotence of the executive branch and dictatorship.

A bicameral legislature was proposed as a precaution against sudden political fluctuations: the Council of Five Hundred (French Conseil des Cinq-Cents), with the power to propose laws, and the Council of Elders (French Conseil des Anciens), 250 senators, with the power to accept or reject proposed laws . Executive power was to be divided among five directors chosen by the Council of Elders from a list drawn up by the Council of Five Hundred. One of the directors, determined by lot, was re-elected each year with the possibility of re-election after five years. As a practical precaution, no troops were allowed within 60 miles of the Assembly's meeting place, and it could choose another meeting place in case of danger. The Directory still retained great power, including emergency powers over freedom of the press and freedom of association in cases of emergency. Amendments to the constitution had to go through a complex system of adoption in order to achieve stability, and the adoption procedure could last up to nine years.

Elections of deputies to one third of both chambers were to take place annually. But how can we ensure that a new elected body cannot change the constitution, as happened with the Legislative Assembly? The Thermidorians stipulated this on Fructidor 5 (August 22, 1795) following the results of voting for a resolution on the “formation of a new legislative body.” Article II provided: “All members of this Convention shall be entitled to re-election. The assemblies of electors cannot accept less than two-thirds of them to form new legislatures.” This was the famous law of two thirds.

Failure of stabilization (1795-1797)

The success of the policy of regime stabilization and revolution depended on finding a solution to the main problems inherited from the Thermidorian period: the war with the first coalition and internal economic and financial problems. Confined within the narrow confines of a republic with limited suffrage, excluding both the people and the aristocracy, the Thermidorians took every precaution against the dictatorship of the executive, which left no other alternative than a weak state or recourse to the army.

First Directory

6 Brumaire 741 deputies took their seats; 243 of them, by lot, over 40 years old, constituted the Council of Elders, and the rest - the Council of Five Hundred. The members of the Convention, thanks to the two-thirds decree, managed to avoid a fiasco, but they were clearly the losers. However, 394 of them were chosen due to the two-thirds decree. As stipulated, the remaining 105 were to be “added.” However, the new third included only four former deputies of the convention.

Jean-Francois Rebelle

The main losers were the remnants of the Montagnards. 64 “progressive” deputies were also elected, including Audouin, Poultier and Marbeau. On the other hand, the number of right-wing deputies elected was impressive: 88 of them openly expressed counter-revolutionary views, while 73 others were moderate royalists. And finally, as an indicator of the crushing defeat of the outgoing deputies of the convention, there was the appearance of ghosts from the past: former members of the Constituent and Legislative Assembly.

Supporters of the constitution were of moderate views: Republicans and Thermidorians made up a bloc of 381 deputies. Decisive opponents of both terror and restoration, they managed to stay in power and had no intention of giving it up. The regime established in Year III was not parliamentary, but without a broad base, the “eternals,” as they came to be called, ultimately risked losing their hegemony.

The Council of Five Hundred drew up a list of fifty names, including Sieyès, Barras, Rebelle, Larevelier-Lépaux, Letourneur, and forty-five unremarkable deputies. But Sieyès refused to serve and Carnot was chosen instead. The directors divided their tasks according to their wishes and their experience. The five directors, all of whom voted for the king's execution, belonged to the Thermidorians who had monopolized power in the previous National Convention. But different temperaments and the political ambitions of the directors meant that their coexistence would be difficult.

Conspiracy of Equals

Literally at the moment when the Directory had just begun its activities, inflation had reached its final stage: a 100-franc assignat cost 15 sous, and prices were rising hourly. Within four months, the issue of paper money doubled and reached 39 billion. Paper money was printed every night for use the next day. 30 pluviosis, year IV (February 19, 1796), issue of assignats was stopped. The government decided to return to specie again. The result was the squandering of much of the remaining national wealth in the interests of speculators.

The winter was terrible, especially since the peasants stopped supplies and the markets remained empty. In the countryside, banditry became so widespread that even mobile columns of the National Guard and the threat of the death penalty did not lead to improvement. In Paris, many would have died of starvation if the Directory had not continued the distribution of food; but as in the fourth year, more than 10 thousand starvation deaths were registered in the Seine department alone. This led to a renewal of Jacobin agitation. But this time the Jacobins resorted to conspiracies, and the government again began the old Thermidorian see-saw policy.

Gracchus Babeuf

It was against this background that Babeuf began his Conspiracy of Equals (French: Conjuration des Égaux). Babeuf, starting in 1789, turned to the so-called. agrarian law or the general exchange of goods as a means of achieving economic equality. By the time of Robespierre's fall, he had abandoned this as an impractical scheme and was moving towards a more comprehensive plan for collective ownership and production. It was still his ultimate goal when, in the winter of 1795-96, he entered into an agreement with a group of former Jacobins and "terrorists" to overthrow the Directory by force. The movement was organized in a series of concentric levels: there was an internal rebel committee (Secret Directory of Public Safety), consisting of a small group that was fully informed of the aims of the conspiracy; behind her is a group of sympathizers, ex-Jacobins and others, including Robespierre's old opponents, Amar and Lende. And, finally, the surviving activists of Paris - in general, the number of those involved in the conspiracy was estimated by Babeuf at 17,000. The plan was original and the poverty of the Parisian suburbs was appalling, but the sans-culottes, demoralized and intimidated after the Prairial, did not respond to the calls of the conspirators.

The conspirators were betrayed by police spy Carnot, now one of the directors and quickly moving to the right. On the night of 23 to 24 Fructidor (September 9-10, 1796), the Babouvistists tried to win over the soldiers of the Grenelle camp to their side. Carnot was aware of their plan and they were met by cavalry. One hundred and thirty-one people were arrested and thirty were shot on the spot; Babeuf's associates were brought to trial; Babeuf and Darté were guillotined a year later.

Once again the pendulum swung to the right, this time with a massive influx of royalists into the assembly.

Conquests

After the conclusion of peace with Prussia and Spain, only two powers remained in the first coalition - England and Austria. The republic was unable to strike England; all that remained was to break Austria. In the spring of 1796, for this purpose it was planned to launch operations on the Rhine and Danube. According to the plan drawn up by Carnot, the Rhine and Mosel French armies under the command of General Moreau were to act in concert with the Sambro-Meuse, led by Jourdan, penetrate in two columns along both banks of the Danube into Germany and unite under the walls of Vienna with the Italian army entrusted to Bonaparte. The initial actions of the French troops crossing the Rhine were brilliant; the Austrians were pushed back at all points, and already at the end of July the Duke of Württemberg, the Margrave of Baden and the entire Swabian district were forced to conclude a separate peace, paying France 6 million livres of indemnity and ceding to it many possessions on the left bank of the Rhine. In August, the Franconian and Upper Saxon districts followed their example, so that the entire burden of the war fell on Austria alone.

See also: Italian Campaign (1796) Peace of Campo-Formia

However, Bonaparte, with his successes in Italy, made his front the main one in the campaign of 1796-1797. Having crossed the Alps along the so-called “cornice” of the coastal mountain range under the cannons of English ships, Bonaparte led his army to Italy on April 9, 1796. The dazzling campaign was followed by a series of victories - Lodi (May 10, 1796), Castiglione (August 15), Arcole (November 15-17), Rivoli (January 14, 1797). Bonaparte's first Italian campaign ended in brilliant success and caused the first friction with the Directory. She still considered Italy a minor theater of war. The main goal the annexation of the left bank of the Rhine and the offensive of the Rhine armies towards Vienna were planned.

But Bonaparte did not want to concede the palm to his rivals - the commanders of the Rhine armies Gosch and Moreau. He did not care about the left bank of the Rhine, but was in a hurry to independently make peace with Austria and consolidate his conquests. Without waiting for the sanction of the Directory, peace was concluded with Austria at Campo Formio on October 17, ending the War of the First Coalition, from which France emerged as a complete winner, although Great Britain continued to fight. Austria abandoned the Netherlands, recognized the left bank of the Rhine as the border of France and received part of the possessions of the destroyed Venetian Republic.

On December 7, 1797, Bonaparte arrived in Paris, and on December 10 he was triumphantly greeted by the entire Directory at the Luxembourg Palace. A countless crowd of people gathered at the palace, the loudest shouts and applause greeted Napoleon when he arrived at the palace. The Peace of Campo Formio was signed after the 18th Fructidor, an event that returned the revolutionary republic to emergency measures at home and triumph in the war with Europe; terror and victory are a paradoxical combination with the distribution of roles, Barras in the first and Bonaparte in the second.

18 Fructidor

According to the constitution, the first elections of a third of the deputies, including the “eternal” ones, in the Germinal of the 5th year (March-April 1797), turned out to be a great success for the monarchists. The Republicans were routed in all but a dozen departments. A total of eleven former deputies to the convention were re-elected, some of whom were royalists. The Republican majority of the Thermidorians disappeared. In the councils of five hundred and elders, the majority belonged to opponents of the Directory. The monarchist General Pichegru was elected Chairman of the Council of Five Hundred, and Mabua was elected Chairman of the Council of Elders. The law of 3 Brumaire of the IV year was repealed. All amnestied “terrorists” were deprived of the right to hold public office. Legislation against unsworn priests was suspended. The massive return of emigrants began.

Meanwhile, encouraged by the passivity of the directors, the right in the boards decided to dilute the power of the Directory, depriving it of financial powers. Carnot, one of the directors, following the constitution, tried to find a compromise. When the majority of the directors decided to act, the conflict between the Directory and the boards entered a decisive phase. the absence of instructions in the Constitution of Year III on the issue of the emergence of such a conflict, it could be resolved in one of two ways: either appeal to the people along the lines of Year II, or resort to the army, which, according to its nature, was chosen by the regime. An example of a Republican, General Gauche, was appointed to the War Ministry - especially since his Sambro-Meuse army had already been marching on Paris for ten days, which was a violation of the 60-mile zone.

Bonaparte and Gauche supported the Directory; This happened before the conclusion of the Campo-Formian Peace and the rise to power of the royalists called into question the conquests in Italy. Bonaparte sent General Augereau to take command of the armed forces of the Directory. The Soviets realized the danger and tried to form National Guard battalions from the wealthy sections of Paris. But it was too late. On 18 Fructidor V (September 4, 1797), Paris was placed under martial law. There was no resistance, and the decree of the Directory announced that everyone who called for the restoration of the monarchy would be shot on the spot. Posters were posted in Paris with correspondence between Pichegru and emigrants, captured by Bonaparte in Italy. Carnot and Pichegru fled. In 49 departments, elections were annulled, 177 deputies were deprived of their powers, and 65 were sentenced to the “dry guillotine” - deportation to Guiana, 42 newspapers were closed and repressive measures against emigrants and priests were reintroduced. Emigrants who returned without permission were asked to leave France within two weeks under threat of death.

Fall of the Republic (1797-1799)

The 18th of Fructidor marked a turning point in the history of the regime established by the Thermidorians; this marked the end of the constitutional and relatively liberal experiment. The Second Directory, as it came to be called, resorted to extreme repressive measures and suppression of its opponents. If the dictatorship of this second Directory was based on terrorist methods, these methods were never as harsh as in 1793, the threat from outside was not so acute, and the civil war was largely suppressed. With the establishment of the Continental Peace, the Directory was able to devote more attention to administration, but still did not succeed in winning public opinion and approval.

Second Directory

The Directory attempted to consolidate the victory in Fructidor. Two new directors were chosen to replace Carnot and Barthelemy - Merlin and François Neufchâteau. The conflict stimulated questions about constitutional reform - the right to dissolve councils, annual elections during the war - but things did not go further than questions.

In the spring of 1798, the next elections were coming. Since the posts of the suspended deputies were not replaced, 473 deputies had to be elected - almost 2/3 of the composition of the councils. The suppression of the right gave an advantage to the left. The agitation of the ex-Jacobins intensified. Lists circulated in which, among the electors and deputies, the names of former members of the Robespierrist Committee of Public Safety of Lende and Prieur from the Marne, the Jacobins Drouet, and Pache appeared.

As a result, the Jacobins won in their old zones of influence - the Pyrenees, the center of France, Nord, Sartre and Seine. in general, about forty departments voted for the left, five for the monarchists, and the rest more or less supported the government. Frightened by the specter of a revival of Jacobinism, the Directory made another turn to the right. The councils of the previous composition were given the right to approve the lists of newly elected ones. In 26 departments, instead of one meeting of electors, two were created and the Directory chose “profitable” deputies. According to the law of Floreal 22 of the year V (May 11, 1798), 106 deputies were not confirmed.

Thus, the Directory managed to form a majority supporting it. The price was even greater discrediting of the regime. The deputies remaining in the councils, both on the left and on the right, were determined to make any compromises in order to take revenge on the Directory.

Expansion

After the Treaty of Campo Formio, only Great Britain stood against France. Instead of concentrating its attention on the remaining enemy and maintaining peace on the continent, the Directory began a policy of continental expansion, which destroyed all possibilities of stabilization in Europe. Now France surrounded itself with “daughter” republics, satellites, politically dependent and economically exploited: the Batavian Republic, the Helvetic Republic in Switzerland, the Cisalpine, Roman and Partenopean (Naples) Republics in Italy.

Plans were drawn up for an invasion of the British Isles under the command of Bonaparte, but on February 23, 1798 he submitted a report that the project was not feasible. It was then decided to turn to British positions in the East. The Egyptian campaign followed, which added to Bonaparte's fame. However, when he established his power over Egypt, the army was blocked and the fleet was destroyed during the Battle of Aboukir. Bonaparte tried to break the blockade by starting a campaign in Syria, but the failure of the siege of the fortress of Saint-Jean d'Acre in May 1799 put an end to this attempt.

In the spring of 1799 the war became general. The second coalition united Britain, Austria, Naples and Sweden. The Egyptian campaign brought Turkey and Russia into its ranks. Turkey allowed the Russian fleet through the straits to land troops in Italy, and Austria allowed passage through its territory. The shortage of funds was resolved in the Treaty of London (29 December 1797). Russia initially received 225,000 pounds and 75,000 monthly. The military operations began extremely unsuccessfully for the Directory. Already in April 1799, Russian-Austrian troops entered Milan. Soon Italy and part of Switzerland were lost and the republic had to defend its “natural” borders. The Austrians began to operate in Switzerland. The Batavian Republic was also under threat - in August, Anglo-Russian troops landed in Helder with the aim of attacking Belgium and northern France. As in 1792-93. France was under threat of invasion.

Last effort

The danger awakened national energy and the last revolutionary effort. At the next elections in the spring of 1799, a number of left-wing deputies passed, and this time the Directory did not decide on a new coup. this time it was carried out by the renewed councils of five hundred and elders. The Directory itself became a victim. On 30 Prairial, Year VII (June 18, 1799), the councils re-elected the members of the Directory, bringing “real” Republicans to power and carried out measures somewhat reminiscent of those of Year II. From its composition, by lot, its most energetic member, Rebelle, emerged, and Sieyes was chosen in his place. Members of the Directory were forced to resign, and a number of ministers were replaced. At the suggestion of General Jourdan, a conscription of five ages was announced. A forced loan of 100 million francs was introduced. On July 12, a law on hostages from among the former nobles was passed.

The fear of the return of the shadow of Jacobinism led to the final decision to put an end once and for all to the possibility of a repeat of the times of the Republic of 1793. At the same time, military failures gave rise to attempts at royalist uprisings in the south and a new movement in the Vendée.

By this time the military situation had changed. The very success of the coalition in Italy led to a change in plans. It was decided to transfer Austrian troops from Switzerland to Belgium and replace them with Russian troops with the aim of invading France. The transfer was carried out so poorly that it allowed French troops to re-occupy Switzerland and defeat the enemy piece by piece. Korsakov's corps was defeated at Zurich - all efforts to cross the Alps by Suvorov's army were in vain, and Brun's victory at Bergen forced the Anglo-Russian troops to evacuate the coast.

18th Brumaire

The crisis was averted. But for how long? Annual elections brought uncertainty instead of stability. Ever since the 18th Fructidor, an opinion began to emerge about the need to revise the constitution. But it was almost impossible to change the constitution legally, and with new elections approaching there was no time left for this. It was in this alarming situation that the Brumerians, as they were later called, among them Sieyès, Fouché and Talleyrand, planned another, more decisive coup. Once again, as in Fructidor, the army must be called in to purge the assembly, but, this time, the assembly must have a republican majority. The conspirators needed a “saber”. They turned to the Republican generals. Bernadotte was not trusted; Augereau and Jourdan were excluded due to their Jacobin leanings; Moreau approached, but refused, and Joubert was killed at Novi. At that moment, news arrived of Bonaparte's arrival in France.

From Fréjus to Paris, Bonaparte was hailed as a savior. At every stage of his journey, representatives of the official authorities paid him various honors; Enthusiastic crowds greeted the general, whom fate itself had sent to save France from invasion. Arriving in Paris on October 16, 1799, he immediately found himself at the center of political intrigue. The Brumerians approached him as a man who suited them well in terms of his popularity, military reputation, ambition and even his Jacobin background.

General Bonaparte in the Council of Five Hundred (Bouchot, 1840)

Playing on fears of a "terrorist" plot, the Brumerians convinced the councils to meet on November 10, 1799 in the Paris suburb of Saint-Cloud; By the same decree, to suppress the “conspiracy,” Bonaparte was appointed commander of the 17th division located in the department of the Seine. Meanwhile, in Paris, according to the plan, two directors, Sieyès and Ducos, themselves conspirators, resigned, and the third, Barras, was forced to resign: it was necessary to destroy the executive power that existed at that time - with the resignation of three members, the directory could not more act. The remaining two directors (Goyer and Moulin) were taken into custody. Saint-Cloud Napoleon announced to the Council of Elders that the Directory had dissolved itself and the creation of a commission for a new constitution. The Council of the Five Hundred could not be so easily persuaded, and when Bonaparte entered the council chamber uninvited, cries of “Outlaw!” Down with the dictator!” Napoleon lost his nerve, but his brother Lucien saved the situation by calling the guards into the meeting room.

The Council of Five Hundred was expelled from the chamber, the Directory was dissolved, and all powers were entrusted to a provisional government of three consuls - Sieyès, Roger Ducos and Bonaparte. The rumors that came from Saint-Cloud on the evening of the 19th Brumaire did not surprise Paris at all. Military failures, which were overcome only at the last moment, the economic crisis, the return of civil war - all this spoke of the failure of the entire period of stabilization under the Directory. Bonaparte had to cope with all this. Bonaparte fell to the task of “ending the revolution” and reconciling the divided country.

Few people understood at that moment that this was the end of the Republic and that power had passed into the hands of a military dictator.

Composition and competence

Qualification

Consisted of 5 members (French: membres du Directoire) (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 132). The quorum for the meeting of the directory is 3 members (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 142). Candidates for members of the Executive Directory were to be nominated by the Council of Five Hundred and elected by the Council of Elders, for a term of 5 years, without the right of re-election (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, articles 132, 133, 137 and 138).

Members of the Executive Directory could be citizens over 40 years of age who are members of the Legislative Corps or ministers; at the same time, relatives could not be members of the directory (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, articles 135, 136, 139). Each member of the Executive Directory serves as Chairman of the Executive Directory (French président du Directoire) in turn for a period of only three months. (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 141).

But no rules were established for electing the chairman of the Directory. Larevellère-Lepeau later recalled that he proposed rotating the chairman in order of seniority of the members of the Directory by age, but in the end the first chairman was elected by a majority vote. There is no evidence that there was subsequently an agreement to change chairmen in order of age, but at least initially the members of the Directory were elected as its chairmen in this order: Rebelle (born 8 Oct 1747), Letourneur (15 Mar 1751 ), Lazare Carnot (May 13, 1753), Larevelier-Lepeau (August 24, 1753), Paul Barras (June 30, 1755). The post of chairman was rather ceremonial in nature and did not impose any additional powers other than keeping the seal, public appearances on national holidays and the first signature on documents adopted by the Directory.

The Secretary of the Executive Directory (French secrétaire du Directoire) was also elected (Constitution of the French Republic, article 143)

Competence

• Disposition of the Armed Forces (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 144);
• Appointment of commanders-in-chief (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 146)
• Appointment of Ministers (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 148)
• Appointment of direct tax collectors (fr. receveur des impositions directes) in each department (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 153)
• Appointment of heads of departments for the collection of indirect taxes (French chef aux régies des contributions indirectes) (Constitution of the French Republic of 1795, article 154)
• Appointment of the administration of national estates (French l’administration des domaines nationaux) (ibid.);

Directory members

At the first elections the following were elected members of the Directory:

• Larevelier-Lepo
• Letourneur
• Rebelle
• Sieyes
• Barras

Due to Sieyès's refusal, he was replaced by Carnot. A year later, Letourneur resigned from the Directory and was replaced by Barthelemy.

In 1797, during the coup of the 18th Fructidor (September 4), Barthélemy and Carnot were among those condemned to exile and replaced by Merlin and François de Neufchâteau; the latter was replaced by Trelyar the following year, and a year later Rebelle was replaced by Sieyès. New elections to the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders in April 1798 brought victory to the Democratic-Republicans, including the Jacobins, after which the Directory of the 22nd Floreal (May 11, 1798) annulled the election results.

However, a new coup on Prairial 30 of the year VII (June 18, 1799) again changed the composition of the Directory. Trelyar's election was canceled 13 months after he became a member of the Directory; Larevelier-Lepaud and Merlin were forced to resign; Goyer, Roger Ducos and Moulin were elected as new members of the Directory.

Thus, by the time of the coup of the 18th Brumaire, only Sieyès and Barras remained of the original members of the Directory, and in just 4 years there were 13 people in the Directory.

• Paul Barras (1755-1829); membership 1795-1799
• Jean-François Rebelle (1747-1807); membership 1795-1799
• Louis-Marie de Larevelier-Lepeau (1753-1824); membership 1795-1799
• Lazare Carnot (1753-1823); membership 1795-1797
• Letourneur, Charles Louis François Honoré (1751-1817); membership 1795-1796
• François Barthelemy (1750-1830); membership 1796-1797
• François de Neufchâteau (1750/56 - 1823); membership 1797-1799
• Philippe Antoine Merlin (1754-1838); membership 1797-1799
• Jean-Baptiste Tréliart (1741-1810); membership 1798-1799
• Emmanuel Sieyes (1748-1836); membership in 1799
• Louis Jerome Goyer (1746-1830); membership in 1799
• Moulin, Jean Francois Auguste (1752-1810); membership in 1799
• Roger Ducos (1747-1816); membership in 1799

Sources

1. Doyle, 2002, pp. 319
2. Soboul, 1975, p. 483
3. Woronoff, 1984, p. 36
4. Woronoff, 1984, p. 37
5. Lefebvre, 1963, p. 174
6. Lefebvre, 1963, p. 175
7. Rude, 1991, p. 122
8. Lefebvre, 1963, p. 176
9. Tarle, 2003, p. 26
10. Soboul, 1975, p. 503
11. Tarle, 2003, p. 29-34
12. Soboul, 1975, p. 509
13. Furet, 1996, p. 192
14. Soboul, 1975, p. 505
15. Furet, 1996, p. 181
16. Soboul, 1975, p. 507
17. Soboul, 1975, p. 508
18. Lefebvre, 1963, p. 202
19. Woronoff, 1984, p. 173
20. Soboul, 1975, p. 517
21. Woronoff, 1984, p. 177-179
22. Soboul, 1975, p. 518
23. Soboul, 1975, p. 523-525
24. Soboul, 1975, p. 528
25. Woronoff, 1984, p. 162
26. Woronoff, 1984, p. 164
27. Doyle, 2002, pp. 372
28. Woronoff, 1984, p. 184
29. Soboul, 1975, p. 540
30. Lefebvre, 1963, p. 253-254
31. 1 2 Rude, 1991, p. 125
32. Doyle, 2002, p. 374
33. Woronoff, 1984, p. 188
34. Woronoff, 1984, p. 189
35. Woronoff, 1984, p. 195
36. Rude, 1991, p. 126
37. Larevellière-Lépeaux, 1895

Literature

• Doyle, William. The Oxford History of the French Revolution. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. - ISBN 978-0199252985.
• Hampson, Norman. A Social History of the French Revolution. - Routledge: University of Toronto Press, 1988. - ISBN 0-710-06525-6.
• Furet, Francois. The French Revolution: 1770-1814. - London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. - ISBN 0631202994.
• Larevellière-Lépeaux. Mémoires de Larevéllière-Lépeaux: suivis de pièces justificatives et de correspondances inédites. - Paris: Plon, 1895.
• Lefebvre, George. The French Revolution: from 1793 to 1799. - New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. - Vol. II. - ISBN 0-231-08599-0.
• Lefebvre, George. The Thermidorians & the Directory. - New York: Random House, 1964.
• Mathiez, Albert. The French Revolution. - New York: Alfred a Knopf, 1929.
• Rude, George. The French Revolution. - New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. - ISBN 1-55584-150-3.
• Soboul, Albert. The French Revolution: 1787-1799. - New York: Random House, 1975. - ISBN 0-394-47392-2.
• Tarle, E.V. Napoleon. - M.: Isographus, 2003. - ISBN 5-94661-051-1.
• Woronoff, Denis. The Thermidorean regime and the directory: 1794–1799. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. - ISBN 0-521-28917-3.

Links

• Bovykin D. Yu. 1795: failed restoration // French Yearbook 2003. M., 2003.
• Constitution of the French Republic of 1795 in Russian
• Constitution of the French Republic of 1795 French

Directory (French Revolution) Information About

DIRECTORY (in France) DIRECTORY (in France)

DIRECTORY (Executive Directory), government of the French Republic from November 1795 to November 1799.
Results of the Thermidorian coup (cm. THERMIDORIAN COUP) 1794 were enshrined in the constitution of the III year, developed and adopted by the Convention (cm. CONVENTION) in the fall of 1795. The Convention itself was dissolved (October 26, 1795). Legislative power was concentrated in two chambers - the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders; the executive one was awarded to the Directory. The latter consisted of five people and was annually renewed by one-fifth of its composition; During the first four years, the order of members leaving was determined by lot. The Directory of the first composition included L. M. La Revelier-Lepo, J. F. Rebel, F. L. O. Letourneur, P. Barras (cm. BARRAS Paul), L. N. Karno (cm. CARNO Lazare Nikola). For each vacant place The Council of Five Hundred drew up a list of ten candidates, from which the Council of Elders chose a new member of the Directory.
The Directory regime corresponded to the needs of the social consolidation of the class of owners on the descending line of the revolution, providing a compromise between those layers of the bourgeoisie who benefited from the revolutionary redistribution of property, but were not going to risk the fixed capital formed before 1789, and the “new” owners, whose fixed capital was formed after 1789 and guarantees of the inviolability of which were given by the Jacobin dictatorship (cm. JACOBINS).
Even before the adoption of the new constitution, the Thermidorians successfully dealt with the uprisings of the Parisian poor in Germinal and Prairial (April and May 1795). The social nature of the Directory was clearly demonstrated during the defeat of Babeuf’s “Conspiracy of Equals,” drawn up in 1795-96, and at the same time during the suppression of the royalist rebellion in Paris on the 13th of Vendémière (October 5, 1795). Nevertheless, the results of the elections to the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders in Germinal in the year V (1797) showed a serious increase in the influence of the royalists. The monarchists, who filled both chambers, began to eliminate revolutionary legislation. Thus, on Fructidor 7 (May 20, 1797), the laws of 1792-93 against unsworn priests were repealed, and on Prairial 30 (June 18, 1797), the Council of Five Hundred voted to transfer the right to manage finances from the Directory to the Treasury, controlled by ultra-conservatives. On 18 Fructidor of the V year (September 4, 1797), republican troops loyal to the Directory occupied Paris, the most active monarchist deputies were arrested, the results of elections to both houses in 49 departments were annulled, new laws were passed against emigrants and unsworn priests, and the activities of patriotic clubs were allowed. The elimination of the parliamentary opposition allowed the Directory to streamline the tax system (November 1797 - December 1798), but the overall financial situation remained difficult. Economic revival and further stabilization within political life France was promoted by large-scale external expansion - the Napoleonic wars in Italy, Egypt, and the robbery of neighboring countries. This aggression protected Thermidorian France both from the threat of the restoration of the “old order” and from a new rise in the revolutionary movement. The growth of the army's influence, inevitable under these conditions, led to the coup of 18 Brumaire (November 9), 1799, the establishment of “firm power” - the dictatorship of Napoleon (cm. NAPOLEON I Bonaparte), which ended the existence of the Directory.

encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .

See what "DIRECTORY (in France)" is in other dictionaries:

- (new lat., from lat. dirigere to manage). 1) during the first French The republic was the supreme government institution (from October 27, 1795 to November 9, 1799), which had executive power and consisted of 5 members. 2) a meeting or commission of... ... Dictionary foreign words Russian language

directory- and, f. directoire m. 1. The governing body of the Masons. Sl. 18. Russia has been elevated to the dignity of the VIII province, and now a provincial capital and directory have already been established. Letters from a Mason. 244. 2. Government body of the French Revolution era. Sl. 18 … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Directory is a form of organization of supreme power in the form of a special collegial form of government. In some cases, the term also denotes a collegial form of management in general, regardless of state power. So, directory... ... Wikipedia

1) (“Council of Five”) body government controlled, a board of 5 ministers of the Provisional Government headed by A.F. Kerensky, September 1 (14) September 25 (October 8), 1917. September 1 (14) declared Russia a republic. Ceased to exist with... ... Political science. Dictionary.

DIRECTORY, and, female. The name of certain provisional governments. Executive D. (in France in 1795-1799). Ukrainian village (in 1918 1920). Dictionary Ozhegova. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

After the Thermidorian coup, which provided for the abolition of universal suffrage, executive power was given to Directories consisting of five people.

The Constitution established the property rights of the nouveau riche, which caused a rebellion among supporters of the restoration of the monarchy. The decisive role in its suppression was played by General Napoleon Bonaparte, whose artillery literally swept away the rebels from the streets of Paris. Bonaparte was appointed commander of all military forces of internal France, and from this step began his rapid ascent to the heights of power.

The war against the first anti-French coalition contributed to the militarization of French society and the strengthening of the role of generals in political life.

Under the Directory, military operations were transferred outside of France, and the war itself acquired an aggressive character. Military victories were accompanied by the creation of states dependent on France - “daughter republics”, the first of which was the Batavian Republic, created in 1795 on the territory of the Netherlands.

The soon-signed peace treaty with Prussia marked the beginning of the collapse of the anti-French coalition. Treaties of alliance directed against Great Britain were also concluded with the Batavian Republic and Spain.

The famous Italian campaign of Napoleon Bonaparte ended in 1797 with the defeat of Austria. The following year, Bonaparte led an expedition to Egypt, undertaken with the aim of restoring the colonial empire of France and to prepare a strike on British possessions in India.

The Directory regime could not be durable due to the heterogeneity of the political forces on which it relied, therefore, having gone through a series of crises, it collapsed as a result of another coup, which opened a new era in historical development France. The Directory’s desire to retain power at any cost led to the discreditation of not only itself, but also the republican regime as a whole. Large-scale speculation and all kinds of fraud have become completely shameless. The authority of the Directory was finally undermined by the military defeats of 1799, especially the loss of Italy as a result of the campaign of the Russian army under the command of A.V. Suvorov. Material from the site

Coup of the 18th Brumaire

The Directory was doomed because it had lost all support in society. In such a situation, Bonaparte returned to Paris in October 1799, and quickly found influential allies interested in establishing strong power.

18th Brumaire VII year of the Republic (November 9, 1799), the conspirators, relying on troops loyal to Bonaparte, overthrew the regime of the Directory. General Napoleon Bonaparte was elected First Consul of the French Republic, who, according to the constitution of 1799, was endowed with the broadest powers.

I. Formation of the Directory and the revival of the UPR.

On the night of November 13-14, 1918, a secret meeting of the Ukrainian National Union took place.
It discussed the issue of armed action against Pavel Skoropadsky.
The beginning of a general uprising against the hetman was proclaimed.
And a Directory was created to lead this uprising.

It was created for a specific purpose - to eliminate the hetman regime and restore the Ukrainian People's Republic.
The Directory had the functions of a collective president, dictatorial power and was formed on the basis of a compromise between various political forces.
It was decided that the Directory would remain in power only until the Skoropadsky regime was eliminated.
Well, after the victory it will be replaced by representative power.

The UPR Directory included:

Vladimir Vinnichenko, social democrat.
He was elected head of the Directory.
- Simon Petliura, Social Democrat.
He was promoted from the Sich Riflemen.
He was elected in absentia and appointed to the post of Chief Ataman of the UPR troops.
- Fyodor Shvets (1882 – 1940), Socialist Revolutionary and representative of the “Selyanskaya Spilka”, professor of geology at Kyiv University.
- Opanas Andrievsky (1878 – 1955), socialist, lawyer.
- Andrey Makarenko (1885 – 1963), non-partisan, head of the railway workers’ trade union.

On November 15, 1918, the Directory addressed the population of Ukraine with an Appeal (written by Vinnychenko).
In it P. Skoropadsky was called a “traitor”, “usurper” people's will", a former royal mercenary, made him an outlaw.
They called on the population to rebel against the hetman's regime.
At the same time, they promised the people:
- Democratic freedoms.
- 8-hour working day.
- Transfer of landowners' lands to peasants.

In particular, the Appeal stated:

“Who is for the oppression and exploitation of the peasantry and workers and who wants the rule of the gendarmes and secret police; “Whoever can calmly look at the execution of peaceful students by brutal Russian officers, let him stand together with the hetman and his government for a united, indivisible hetman-monarchical Russia against the will of the democracy of the Ukrainian People’s Republic.”

Simultaneously with the Appeal of Vinnychenko and the Directory, a separate appeal personally from Symon Petlyura appeared.

It read:

“By order of the Directory of the Ukrainian Republic, I, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, call on all Ukrainian soldiers and Cossacks to fight for the state independence of Ukraine against the traitor, former royal hireling, General Skoropadsky, who arbitrarily usurped the rights of Hetman of Ukraine. By decree of the Directory, Skoropadsky was outlawed for crimes against the independence of the Ukrainian Republic, for the destruction of its liberties, for overcrowding prisons with the best sons of the Ukrainian people, for the execution of peasants, for the destruction of villages and for violence against workers and peasants. All citizens living in Ukraine are prohibited, under threat of a military court, from helping the bloodsucker, General Skoropadsky, in flight, giving him food and protection. It is the duty of every citizen living in Ukraine to arrest General Skoropadsky and hand him over to the hands of the republican authorities.
The Hetman's orders and orders for troops are cancelled; the military units of Hetman Skoropadsky, in order to eliminate unnecessary bloodshed and destruction, must transfer to the ranks of the Republic after those that have already transferred.
The troops of the Republic are aiming to smash into smithereens the system established by the Hetman’s government, to destroy the whip on which he relied until the last moment. At this great hour, when peasants and workers have become masters all over the world, at this moment we, Cossack brothers, will we really allow ourselves to follow the landowners, the hetman’s government against our fathers? At this great hour, do you, Cossack brothers, dare to serve corrupt people who have themselves been sold and want to sell Ukraine to the former tsarist ministers of Russia and the ruling class - the unemployed Russian officers and marauders who have gathered in a counter-revolutionary lair on the Don.”

This appeal was written by Petliura a few days after he gave his word of honor to the hetman and his minister of justice Vyazlov not to take part in organizations hostile to the hetman.

The center of the uprising was the White Church, which was completely captured by the rebels on the morning of November 16.
By the way, when the Petliura Directory and its comrades raised an uprising against Skoropadsky in Bila Tserkva, at first only the Galicians of Konovalets were with the Head Ataman.

The main reason for the uprising is the indomitable desire of Ukrainian socialists to seize power over Ukraine into their own hands.

On November 17, the Directory signed an agreement with the Great Soldiers' Council of the German Army on the neutrality of the Germans during the confrontation between the Directory and the Hetman.
German troops pledged to adhere to “strict neutrality” in the Directory’s struggle against the hetman.
The Directory, in turn, promised to do its best to assist the German troops in the evacuation and protection of their property.

A. Goldenweiser recalled that:

“German neutrality during the Petliura uprising was not explained either by sympathy for the rebels, or (as some said) by a malicious desire to leave chaos in Ukraine and thereby damage the Entente... The exhausted, tired and disillusioned German army did not have the slightest desire to shed blood either for or against the hetman . She wanted to return home as soon as possible: this was her entire political platform.”

On the same day, Konovalets’ fighters arrived on trains provided by the railway workers to the neighboring Fastov station.
They captured her, disarming the unsuspecting "warta".
Then they captured the Motovilovka station (30 km from Kyiv).
But further the path to Kyiv was blocked.
Vasilkov station was already occupied by those sent by the hetman to suppress the “rebellion”:
- an officer squad of 570 bayonets and sabers, under the command of General Prince Alexander Svyatopolk - Mirsky,
- by armored train,
- a cavalry detachment numbering 200 sabers and
- a regiment of the hetman's personal guard - Serdyukov of 700 bayonets.

The forces of the parties were approximately equal.
The outcome of the upcoming battle depended only on the initiative and stamina of the opponents.

On the morning of November 18, the hetmans arrived at the Motovilovka station.
There the rebels of the Directory were already waiting for them - a regiment of Sich riflemen, commanded by Yevgen Konovalets.
Without bothering to reconnaissance of the area, General Svyatopolk-Mirsky ordered his troops to form a chain and advance towards the nearest forest. According to him, the enemy was hiding there. The prince hoped to quickly deal with the rebels, not expecting to encounter serious resistance. He thought that he would have to deal with armed peasants who would certainly run home at the mere appearance of his officers.
However, the hetmans had to pay a very high price for such frivolity.
The Sich Riflemen, who went through the crucible of the World War, were far from the easiest enemy in battle. Having dug deep into the forest, they met the officers advancing across the field with well-aimed machine-gun fire.
The Serdyuks, who were moving along the flanks, immediately slowed down their advance, and soon fell behind completely.
The officers stubbornly moved forward, despite the huge losses, and, approaching the trenches of the Sich, they rushed hand-to-hand.
However, by this time the forces were already unequal.
And after a short fight, the archers drove the remnants of the volunteers towards the station.
The hetman's supporters completely lost the battle.
The officer corps was defeated. The battle cost the lives of half the officers of the hetman's squad.
The failure of the officers' campaign is also explained by the fact that units of the Hetman Serdyuks, not wanting to fight with the Sich Riflemen, broke away from the officers' squad and lay down in defense near the village. Many of the Serdyuks fled or partially went over to the side of the rebels.
Only an armored train was able to save Svyatopolk-Mirsky’s detachment from complete defeat.

Having learned about this battle, the hetman’s units began to defect to the side of the advancing troops of the Directory:
- Zaporozhye Corps,
- Gray-hued division.

On November 20, rebel troops operating in the Kyiv region approached the capital and began its siege.
Having recovered from his first military failures, General Svyatopolk-Mirsky organized a new officer squad.
On November 21, she pushed back the Petliurists advancing on Kyiv.
This development of events led to a transition to trench warfare.

In Kyiv, at direct participation Directory, an underground revolutionary committee was created from Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries, left Social Democrats, Bolsheviks and Bundists.
But the uprising began only on November 22, when parts of Petliura were already repulsed from the suburbs of Kyiv.
On November 23, the rebels of Kiev occupied Podol, Lukyanovka, and Kurenevka.
However, very quickly, due to the inconsistency of the forces of the rebels, the Kiev anti-hetman uprising was suppressed.

According to the memoirs of contemporaries, Petliura, with the help of his agents, began to spread rumors that he was a supporter of the “Radyan rule.”
And so the revolutionized peasantry soon began to flock to him.
On November 21 - 23, peasant “gangs” - rebel detachments - began to arrive near Kyiv.
Three weeks later, the hetman's position became almost hopeless.

On the night of December 12-13, 1918, a general assault on Kyiv by Petliura’s troops began.
The troops loyal to the hetman numbered no more than 3,000 bayonets and sabers.
There were 10 times more Petliurites going on the assault.
Simultaneously with the assault, an uprising broke out in Kyiv.
And several hundred rebels (these were fighting squads, mainly Bolsheviks and Jewish socialist parties) captured the working-class suburbs of the capital, as well as the Arsenal and the War Ministry.

Here's what Dmitry Doroshenko wrote about it:

“On the night of December 13-14, local combat units, mainly Bolsheviks and Jewish socialist parties, came out and began to seize various institutions, disarming small hetman units. The hetman's personal guard detachment was also disarmed. Around noon, the rebels captured the Arsenal in Pechersk, the War Ministry and some other institutions. At the same time, rebel troops from outside began to break into the city.”

An interesting point: the 50,000-strong peasant army of the “head ataman” Petlyura entered Kiev under the “Bolshevik” red banners, which bore the slogans: “For Vlada Rad”, “For Radyansky Vlada”, etc.

Vladimir Vinnichenko explained it this way:

“The initiators foresaw that the main force of the revolutionary movement would be the rural and urban proletariat. And indeed, the rebel army was replenished mainly by the proletarian element... It goes without saying that this element could not be satisfied with the vague slogans put forward by the Directory, and “unauthorizedly” began to expand them, organizing revolutionary committees everywhere, which were predominantly in the character of Soviet power.”

Hetman Skoropadsky abdicated power:

“I, the hetman of all Ukraine, have been making every effort for seven and a half months to bring the region out of the difficult situation in which it finds itself. God did not give me the strength to cope with this task, and now, taking into account the conditions that have developed, and, guided exclusively by the good of Ukraine, I renounce power. Pavlo Skoropadsky."

At two o'clock in the afternoon the hetman fled from his palace.
In the uniform of a German officer, he boarded a train and rode off to Berlin, into exile.
At 20.00 on December 14, all of Kyiv was in the hands of the Directory.
The next day, the main entrance of the Siege Corps units into Kyiv took place.

Andrey Dikiy recalled:

“On a cloudy December day, Kiev residents silently watched as the winners walked along Vasilkovskaya Street and Bibikovsky Boulevard towards the city center. First, the “Sich Riflemen” - the Galicians, then - the variably dressed columns of the “Petliura Army”, as the Kievans had already dubbed the armed forces of the Directory. There was no noticeable joy or animation. Single and rare cries of greeting were drowned in the deathly silence of the capital’s residents, who did not know what the near future would bring them.”

Vladimir Vinnichenko colorfully described what preceded this in his memoirs:

On the same day, festive demonstrations and a prayer service were organized.
A grand parade of troops took place on Sophia Square.
Crowds of people and troops greeted all members of the Directory.
Ukrainian clergy led by Archbishop Vishnevsky, leaving the gate St. Sophia Cathedral, sang “many years” of the Directory.

Around December 20, 1918, the fighting against the hetmans and officer squads in the Ukrainian province ended.

The uprising ended with the triumph of the victorious people.
All lands of Hetman Ukraine, except Odessa and part of the Ekaterinoslav region, came under the authority of the Government of the Directory.

Against the backdrop of these events, the Ukrainian People's Republic (“second UPR”) was restored.
In fact, only the name was taken from the UPR during the Central Rada.
Form of government, organization power structures The “second UPR” was fundamentally different from the UPR of the Central Rada era.

Mikhail Grushevsky proposed reviving the Central Rada itself, its legislation, and creating a new government that would transfer power to the Constituent Assembly. But all this did not happen.

Here I would like to cite an excerpt from the novel “The White Guard,” in which Mikhail Bulgakov, an eyewitness to those events, very accurately conveyed the mood of the Kiev residents of that time.

In short but colorful strokes, he painted a portrait of one of the “defenders of the people” and the reaction to his actions:

“It was in the city prison that one bright September evening that a paper signed by the relevant hetman authorities arrived, ordering the release of the criminal held in the said cell from cell No. 666. That's all.
That's all! And because of this piece of paper - undoubtedly because of it! - such troubles and misfortunes occurred, such campaigns, bloodshed, fires and pogroms, despair and horror... Ay, ah, ah!
The prisoner, released, bore the simplest and most insignificant name - Semyon Vasilyevich Petlyura. He himself, as well as the city newspapers of the period December 1918 - February 1919, called himself somewhat in the French manner - Simon. Simon's past was plunged into the deepest darkness. They said that he was supposedly an accountant.
Alas, alas! Only in November of the eighteenth year, when the cannons began to buzz near the City, smart people, including Vasilisa, realized that the men hated this same lord hetman like a mad dog, and the peasant thoughts that no such lordly bastard reform was needed, But we need that eternal, long-awaited peasant reform.
Back in September, no one in the City could imagine what could be built by three people who had the talent to appear on time, even in such an insignificant place as the White Church. In October they already strongly suspected this, and trains began to leave, illuminated by hundreds of lights, from City I, Passenger into the new, still wide opening, through the newly-minted Poland and to Germany. Telegrams flew. Gone are the diamonds, shifty eyes, partings and money. They were eager to go south, south to the seaside city of Odessa. In the month of November, alas, everyone already knew the word Petlyura quite definitely.”

What enabled the Directory to come to power?

A well-chosen moment for an uprising.

It was in mid-November 1918 that P. Skoropadsky had just lost German support.
Because she was defeated in the 1st World War.
And then the hetman renounced the state independence of Ukraine and proclaimed an unpopular pro-Russian course.

People's support.

The Directory, albeit for a short time, actually became the spokesman for the interests of the majority of the population.
Her performance, which at the initial stage was considered by many to be an adventure, achieved success only because it was based on the rise of popular activity, on the mass movement of workers against the hetmanate and the occupation regime.

Rapid formation of a large army.

In December 1918, it consisted of 100 thousand people, and according to other sources, even 300 thousand.

Under its banners, the Directory gathered, albeit with different views, but quite influential and authoritative leaders - V. Vinnichenko, S. Petliura, N. Shapoval, N. Porsha and others.
This made it possible to form, albeit not a monolithic, but quite numerous anti-hetman front.

As a result: having skillfully neutralized the Germans, winning over a significant part of the hetman's troops to its side, proclaiming popular slogans among the people, the Directory secured its victory.

II. Domestic policy Directories.

1. The position of the new government.

The Directory represented the body for leading the anti-Hetman uprising.
And therefore, its functions were exhausted after a military parade and a solemn prayer service in honor of the victory took place on December 19, 1918 on Sophia Square in Kyiv.
Based on this, M. Grushevsky, V. Golubovich, A. Zhukovsky and other leaders of the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries insisted on restoring the legislation of the Central Rada dispersed by the occupiers, as well as on the immediate convening of this body of supreme power.
However, neither V. Vinnychenko nor S. Petlyura wanted to give up power to the new composition of the Central Rada. Because they were not sure whether they would retain their influence in such a representative body.
The extremely difficult international and internal situation of Ukraine also seemed to convince of the need to organize the supreme power in the form of a dictatorship, and not parliamentary republic. In any case, this was the argument used by members of the Directory in response to demands for their self-dissolution.
But building power in the form of a Directory was more convenient only at first glance.
In reality, this led to a crisis of power, which further intensified the crisis of society.

The political course of the new regime was not consistent.

It soon became clear that the Directory came to power on a wave of criticism of the previous regime.
That it did not have clear strategic plans and specific tactical objectives.
Among the members of the Directory and the political parties supporting it, there was no common view on the form of the Ukrainian state, its socio-economic system, and foreign policy priorities.
The directory was torn apart by internal contradictions.
Each of the members of the Directory, according to contemporaries, was convinced: only he and no one else knew how to correctly form and establish ideas of independence in the state.

The head of the Directory, Vladimir Vinnichenko, became increasingly sympathetic to communist ideas.
He and his supporters defended the idea of ​​​​creating labor councils (the “Soviet platform”).
They were looking for the possibility of an alliance with the Russian Bolsheviks.
They advocated priority solutions to social problems.

Petlyura was, in fact, his antipode, a man of action.
Moreover, he was a rather ambitious person who could not stand any criticism.
He got involved in organizing the uprising at the very last stage, because he was in prison. When the power of the Directory was established, many even joked: Vinnichenko and his comrades, they say, organized an uprising especially for Petliura, who came to the ready and led it.
Simon Petliura hoped to find mutual language with the Entente.
He and his supporters considered the priority tasks to be strengthening the independence of the state by strengthening the army and administrative bodies.

Other, lesser-known members of the Directory also received their own characteristics from their contemporaries:
- One turned out to be an honest man, but only a scientist far from life.
- The other is energetic, but has no work experience or relevant education.
- The third did not share anyone’s beliefs, under any circumstances he remained in his own mind.

It turns out that the main body of state power was unable to unite all the best Ukrainian forces around a single idea.

In addition, the activities of the Directory were paralyzed by the personal rivalry between Vinnychenko and Petliura.
Once again the saying “There are as many parties as there are Ukrainians” has been confirmed.

The government of the Directory changed all the time.
It was led in turn by: V. Chekhovsky, S. Ostapenko, B. Martos, I. Mazepa, V. Prokopovich.

The Directory was initially unable to resolve internal contradictions, at least temporarily.
Result: The Directory and the government did not have a clear concept and program for further action.
To put it simply, people received power, but did not know how to properly use it or what to do with it.

A comprehensive and truthful picture of the mood and general situation of this time was given in his book “Ukraine in the Fire and Storm of the Revolution” by the former prime minister of the Petliura government, Isaac Mazepa:

“In the government of the Directory there was a struggle between two directions: some stood for an agreement with the Entente, others for an alliance with Moscow. Vinnichenko was for peace with Soviet Russia, but often hesitated and did not know what to do. The head of government, Chekhovsky, stood firmly for an agreement with Moscow. Most of the Socialist Revolutionary leaders, like Grushevsky, Shapoval, Lyubinsky and others, identified themselves with Vinnichenko and Chekhovsky and were more inclined to an alliance with Soviet Moscow than with the Entente.
In general, the internal situation in Ukraine was unfavorable for the successful defense of Ukraine. In addition to the difficult situation in which the army was located, among the Ukrainian leadership circles themselves there was a deep process of separation into two camps: one anti-Bolshevik and the other, which was inclined to the ideology of the Bolsheviks. The failures of the Central Rada in the previous period of the revolution and the expansion of sympathy for the Bolsheviks among the Ukrainian masses - all this influenced many in such a way that they believed that we, Ukrainians, also needed to take the position of the Soviets in order not to break up with our people. The strengthening of these sentiments was greatly facilitated by the then events in Austria-Hungary and Germany, where governments were created with socialists at their head. There was almost a general opinion that the world socialist revolution had begun, and therefore the revolution in Ukraine was looked upon as “the initial phase of the world revolution.”

As a result, dual power reigned in the UPR:

On the one hand, the ideas of transferring power to labor councils were blocked. Commandants and commissars were appointed locally, and in fact no one controlled them.
- On the other hand, the people themselves formed alternative authorities - popular revolutionary committees and Councils of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies.
In theory, they seemed to support the Directory.
But they were not supported by the commissioners and commandants appointed by the same Directory.

As Vladimir Vinnychenko wrote in his book “From the History of the Ukrainian Revolution”:

“...These positions were often filled by people who were good for nothing and, most importantly, sometimes not only not socialists, but also not democrats. The only sign of suitability for the position was the “Ukrainianness” of the candidates.
... As a result, violence and injustice were often committed against the population, bribes were taken, speculators and hetmans were covered up, the interests of landowners and various social criminals, known throughout the district for their previous outrages, were protected.”

2. Political events.

Key points:

Elimination of the Skoropadsky regime.
- Restoration of an independent Ukrainian People's Republic, in which all the laws of the Central Rada are in effect.
- The promise of expropriation of state, church and large-scale landholdings for their redistribution among peasants.
- The government's commitment to act in the interests of workers, peasants and the “labor intelligentsia” and to disenfranchise the landed and industrial bourgeoisie.
- Local power is transferred to labor councils.
- Legislative power belongs to the Labor Congress, elected by the working people.
- Establishing international relations on the principles of neutrality and peaceful coexistence with the peoples of all states.
- Restoration of the 8-hour working day and freedoms abolished by the hetman.

But, as Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“...This declaration was not implemented. It remained on paper, and the activities of the Directory authorities were carried out according to a completely different, unwritten and unpublished program.”

Here is what Goldenweiser recalled, for example:

“The first days of the Directory vividly reminded me of the beginning of November 1917, when the Ukrainians first gained power over us. Immediately the same rude and defiant tone was established in politics and the public. But only this time, our rulers, who had the enchanting success of the uprising they raised, felt like genuine national heroes. Therefore, the time of the Directory's rule, some six weeks, was a time of the most unbridled Ukrainian nationalism and Russophobia. And at the same time, it was a time of unheard-of bloody and cruel pogroms against Jews.
The only administrative measure that the Directory managed to not only declare, but also implement, was the removal of all Russian signs in the city and replacing them with Ukrainian ones. The center of gravity of the order was not that every store must have a Ukrainian sign, but that Russian signs must be removed. The Russian language was not allowed even along with Ukrainian. The signs on foreign languages could not be removed.
...The whole city in these cheerful days was a giant painting workshop. The streets were full of ladders, buckets of paint, etc. Special patrols walked around the city and checked whether the order was carried out. In case of any spelling doubts, they resolved them with the authority of the Academy of Sciences...
...In the field of administrative activities, the Directory proved its leftism by announcing the inspection of safes, confiscating valuables from jewelers with numerous arrests. These latter were carried out so randomly and uncontrollably that it was difficult to establish where the arrest was and where the raid and kidnapping were. The story with A. Yu. Dobry was repeated many times and in a worse form.
The time of the Directory in general was for the city of Kyiv an era of excellent hooliganism. Of all the authorities that reigned over us during these motley four years, under none of them did raids, robberies and extortion flourish so magnificently...”

And here is what Andrei Dikiy wrote about the first days of the Directory:

“The new government quickly seized all state and public institutions and began work the very next day. First of all, by order of the new commandant - the Austrian captain, Galician Konovalets, it was ordered that all signs in Russian be changed to Ukrainian. Painters and carpenters worked from morning to evening, changing signs. Kyiv was “Ukrainized” under the editorship of the Galicians – the “Sich Riflemen”, due to which many born Ukrainians-Kievians did not understand many of the signs, since each “Rifleman” edited it in his own way.
At the same time, hunts began for hetmans and counter-revolutionaries, during which some were simply shot, while others were “captured” and taken to the Pedagogical Museum - the building where the Central Rada used to meet.
A few days later, thousands of these “prisoners,” like sardines in a barrel, filled the huge museum building. Later, the Germans, fearing reprisals from the Petliurites, took them to Germany.”

Any meetings were banned.
The press was brought under strict control.
Professional and other workers' organizations were dispersed.
Punitive units of the Petliurites, pursuing the Bolsheviks, shot their victims without trial or investigation.

On December 26, 1918, the government of the Directory was formed - the Council of People's Ministers of the UPR.
It was headed by the Ukrainian Social Democrat V. Chekhovsky.
With the exception of two non-party members, the government consisted of representatives of Ukrainian parties united in the Ukrainian National Union.

The rule of the Directory began with the destruction of the old state apparatus.
A decision was made on the immediate dismissal of all employees (including even teachers) appointed under the hetman. But among them there were many good specialists.
Some of them were brought to justice.
The first prime minister of the hetman's government, M. Ustimovich, was killed by the rebels, F. Lizogub went missing, and some ministers were in prison.

But!
Having dissolved the old state apparatus, the Directory was unable to restore order and organize effective government.

The suppression of the large industrial and agrarian bourgeoisie began immediately.
They were deprived of the right to vote.
Searches were carried out in the mansions of millionaires.

The use of the Russian language was prohibited.
On the night of New Year They hastily removed all signs and announcements in Russian.
The Petliura press launched rabid propaganda about the superiority of the Ukrainian nation.
Ukrainian guys were officially recommended to take wives only from their Ukrainian environment in order to save the Cossack nation from degeneration.
Teaching the Russian language was prohibited.
Forced Ukrainization began.

This is what General Denikin recalled about forced Ukrainization:

“Ukrainization, which began with signs, in extremely rude and vulgar forms, took over the school, the church, the press and caused a new purge of the service element in all the remaining state institutions. The fight against Ukrainians was declared by Petliura’s order to be a state crime, subject to the jurisdiction of field courts, and any criticism of the actions of the Directory and the authorities it established was included under its concept. The order threatened liability “according to the laws of war” and entrusted monitoring of its implementation to “all officials of the republic,” charging them with the duty to “send those responsible to the nearest military units or to the commandant.” In the same way, according to wartime laws, the Directory promised to punish “all agitation for the propaganda of the former hetman’s slogans about federation (with Russia).” With all this, the members of the Directory called themselves representatives of democracy, and the system they introduced called a democratic republic.”

The systematic persecution of Russians and Jews naturally led to mass executions, robberies and pogroms.
The chauvinistic Great Ukrainian (or “Nazi”) policy of the Petliurist regime was based on anti-Semitism and Russophobia.

Here I would like to quote some paragraphs from open letter to the head of the UPR Directory, Ataman Simon Petlyura, from Vasily Shulgin, editor of the newspaper “Kievlyanin”:

“It was not without reason that General Bertello publicly recognized you as the culprit of all the horrors taking place in the region. Yes, you are the cause of all these terrible murders and atrocities to which the intelligentsia in the cities and the entire more or less prosperous peasantry are subjected. It was you who, with your appeals and promises, incited criminal or unstable elements against them...
You know very well that according to the 1917 census, 62 percent of the population of the city of Kyiv consider Russian to be their native language, and only 9 percent consider Ukrainian as their native language. And so you, who call yourself a democrat, to please these 9 percent, banned all Russian newspapers, removed or barbarously destroyed all signs and inscriptions in Russian, replacing them with illiterate jargon of Galician origin. Under penalty of death, you banned in the Russian city of Kyiv, which is considered the cradle of Rus', any manifestation of national aspirations, calling it high treason. The savvy boot of Konovalets, an Austrian captain, mocks the unfortunate Russian city...
Having captured the city handed over to you by the despicable Skoropadsky, you, according to a secret list drawn up by Konovalets, shoot defenseless people at night. You locked them in the museum, luring them there by deception, and brought down a glass ceiling on their heads, crippling hundreds of people who trusted Petliura’s generosity. You arrest them on all roads when they are fleeing from Kyiv, which has become a huge dungeon...”

In fact, the entire intelligentsia (lawyers, doctors, professors, secondary school teachers, etc.) were deprived of political rights.

Certificates of education issued by the Bolshevik and Hetman administrations were annulled.

These ill-considered steps deprived the Directory of support for national minorities and the vast majority of specialists, industrialists, and government officials.

3. Agrarian policy of the Directory.

The inconsistency of the Directory's course was manifested, first of all, in the development of agricultural policy.

The liquidation of private ownership of land was proclaimed and the confiscation of land from landowners without ransom was declared.
With this, the Directory responded to the requests of the peasantry.
But the timing and procedure for dividing the land were not determined.
That is, the answer to the main question was not given: when will the peasantry receive land?
- At the same time, the Directory sought to reassure the landowners, promising them compensation for the costs of various (agrotechnical, land reclamation, etc.) improvements previously carried out on the estates.
- The landowners retained their houses, where they had lived until now, breeding cattle, vineyards, etc.
- It was also announced that the lands of industrial enterprises and sugar factories, owned by industrialists and landowners-sugar producers.
- The property and lands of Polish, Austrian and German landowners remained inviolable.
“...Take under protection all non-labor farms owned by foreign nationals and leave them inviolable.”
- Plots of up to 15 acres of land remained in the hands of wealthy peasants.
Showing concern for the protection of landowners' lands, the Ministry of Food Affairs sent out instructions in mid-January 1919.
It required “not to allow any arbitrary actions on savings, and to bring the perpetrators to a military court.”
The majority of peasants regarded these events as landlord and pro-kulak.
The landowners, in turn, were also dissatisfied with the Directory's policies.
After 2 months, the UPR government conditioned the transfer of land to peasants with several onerous obligations.
Owners for the received plots had to:
- transfer a third of the harvest to the state,
- pay the full cost of plowing the land,
- pay all taxes in advance.

Thus, the agrarian policy of the Directory did not satisfy either the peasantry or the landowners.
The peasants became increasingly convinced that they would not receive either landlord or kulak lands from the Directory.

One of the messages dated February 15, 1919 from the village of Chernyatin, Podolsk province, said:

“The peasants have formed the opinion that they are given land in the winter, and in the summer the lords dispose of the land... The peasants are opposed to the Directory, the Bolshevik elements have great influence, as soon as the Bolsheviks come, the entire population will join them... The population really wants the Bolsheviks to come as soon as possible rather, because they beat the lords and pass on the lord’s goods to the people.”

From the village of Ternovki in the same province they reported that “the Bolsheviks are welcome as friends.”

The Directory continued the practice of requisitioning food.
True, at the beginning her actions in this direction were softer than under Skoropadsky.
But when the situation of the Directory became more complicated, it decided to sharply increase grain delivery standards with the new law of August 15, 1919.
It was planned to increase them by 3 - 5 times.
In farms that had over 16 acres of land, the harvest was completely withdrawn.

The measures taken allowed the Directory to maintain the army and state apparatus.
But they did not significantly improve the situation in the cities.
The peasants, as always, bore the brunt of wars, economic anarchy and state tyranny.

4. Industry.

In the field of industry, the Directory proclaimed:
- Taking measures to restore industry.
- Introduction of workers' control in production.
- Taking measures to provide assistance to the unemployed and other categories of people in need.

The Directory declared its devotion to the interests of the working class and the need for workers' control.
However, in reality, the Directory or its atamans:
- suppressed strikes
- prohibited workers' organizations of a political nature,
- trade unions were dispersed.
And with all this, socio-economic reforms were postponed.
- Private ownership of the means of production has been preserved.
Factories, factories, mines, mines and other industrial enterprises remained in the hands of capitalists.
- Manufacturers and factory owners closed enterprises, throwing workers out onto the street.
- National economy continued to collapse.
- The working masses were starving.

“Construction has stopped, every city dweller feels the lack of housing, in a country rich in bread - cities sit without bread; poorly lit; trams stop, prices for basic necessities rise enormously; villages have no light, leather, or manufactures at all, and therefore are switching to subsistence farming... Due to a lack of fuel and lubricants, traffic on the railways is reduced; due to the lack of raw materials and fuel, factories do not work, mail and newspapers in the provinces for the most part do not arrive or arrive when events look different... The value of money is falling, trade has turned into speculation, and prices are rising every day.”

5. Trade.

On January 26, 1919, the Directory abolished the temporary Law of the Hetman Government on criminal liability for exceeding maximum permissible prices and speculation.
A new law was adopted, according to which any transactions with goods, raw materials, and banknotes were considered speculation.
The law provided for fairly severe penalties for speculation.
However, despite the harsh measures, trade on the “black market” flourished.
It caused huge losses to the state and worsened the already difficult financial situation of the poor.

In general, the policy of the Directory government in most cases was declarative in nature.
None of the socio-economic measures the need for which the Directory declared was implemented.
All this led to a rapid departure from the Directory by the majority of the population.
The peasantry and masses of soldiers supported the Bolsheviks, who launched an offensive against the Petliurists.
The army of the Directory fled.
Unrest and arbitrariness among local chieftains increased.

So, the political course of the Directory was contradictory and inconsistent, which increased the destabilization of Ukrainian society.
The Directory's only concern was how to maintain power. And it’s not at all about how to benefit your people. Although this has been talked about a lot and often...

To create the impression of democracy in the new government, the Directory hastily held “elections” to the “Labor Congress” on January 12-15, 1919.
With his help, the nationalists tried to strengthen their position.
But the elections to the Labor Congress did not arouse any interest among the population.
And they could not be carried out everywhere due to anarchy.
There were many cases when, in settlements of several thousand, only a dozen or two “labor elements” voted.
The Bolsheviks boycotted them.
They used pre-election meetings to expose the demagogic and anti-people nature of the activities of the Directory, its counter-revolutionary essence.
The majority of workers did not take part in the elections at all.
However, the Congress was "chosen" and the day it convened was set for January 22.

The Labor Congress opened on January 23, 1919, the day after pompous celebrations on Sophia Square.
Of the 593 deputies, as provided for by the electoral law, about 400 arrived at the congress (of which 36 were from the Western Ukrainian People's Republic).

The meeting of the Labor Congress, which was assigned the role of a revolutionary parliament, was held by the Directory in Kyiv in the premises of the opera house.

The main task of the congress was to give the power of the Directory a legitimate representative character.

I would like to point out this.
By the time the Labor Congress opened in Kyiv, almost all of Ukraine was already under the rule of the Ukrainian Soviet government (Kharkov).
And the Ukrainian Soviet units, led by the Tarashchan and Bogun divisions, approached Kyiv.

All the contradictions in views on the form of the Ukrainian state, its socio-economic system, foreign policy guidelines emerged with renewed vigor during the work of the congress.

The composition of the Congress split into 3 irreconcilable camps:

- “Selyanskaya Spilka” and the Galagan group.
They advocated for the Directory's trust.
- Mensheviks, Bundists and Socialist Revolutionaries of Russian orientation.
They called on the forum participants to take power into their own hands.
- Left movements of the USDRP (independent social democrats) and the UPSR (Borotbists).
They demanded the establishment of Soviet power, whose bodies would consist exclusively of workers and peasants.

“Meetings of the Congress took place in a tense atmosphere in the city theater, packed with people in soldiers’ greatcoats and, of course, with weapons. Many have bombs on their belts. The audience reacted violently to the speakers’ speeches, ranging from: “Glory!” and ending with whistling and swearing... Waves of shag smoke, noise, threats, approval... And from a distance cannonade can be heard - the Bolsheviks are approaching Kyiv. General Grekov informs Congress that they are already in Semipolki,” this is how one of its participants described the meeting.

The leader of the Sich Riflemen proposed to form a military triumvirate instead of the Directory consisting of S. Petlyura, corps commander E. Konovalets and his deputy A. Melnik.
- One of the leaders of the Ukrainian Social Democrats, N. Porsh, defended the parliamentary path of development.
He spoke out against both the dictatorship of the proletariat and the military dictatorship.
- The representative of the Socialist Revolutionaries N. Shapoval argued that it is necessary to immediately establish Soviet power in Ukraine, because this is exactly what the working people demand.

The Congress decided to merge the UPR with the WUNR into one state - Conciliar Ukraine.
True, by that time the governments of both merging states were already hanging by a thread and were preparing to rush towards the former Russian-Austrian border.

On the eve of the closure of the Congress, the Law on the Form of Power in Ukraine was adopted.
In accordance with it, all power in Ukraine is temporarily transferred to the Directory.
She received the right:
- legislate,
- exercise supreme governance in the country,
- form a government.
These provisions did not introduce anything new to the scope of the real powers of the Directory. But the law made the power of the Directory legitimate.
From a body for leading the anti-hetman uprising, it turned into the highest authority, receiving it as if from the Congress of the Working People.

The Congress instructed V. Vinnichenko to perform the functions of the head of state.

The Congress instructed the Directory and the Council of People's Ministers to work towards solving the following problems:
a) implementation of land reform by transferring land to workers without ransom;
b) eliminating unemployment among the proletarian sections of the population by restoring the work of industrial enterprises;
c) defense of the independence of the republic.

The Labor Congress was never able to solve the pressing problems.
The declarations and resolutions of the delegates immediately turned into a meaningless piece of paper.
On January 28, in connection with the threat of the Bolsheviks seizing Kyiv, the Congress of Working People stopped its work and liquidated itself.
The participants in this “exponent of the will of the entire Ukrainian people,” in the delicate expression of I. Mazepa, “dispersed.”
In fact, they had nowhere to “disperse”, since almost all of Ukraine was already under the rule of the Bolsheviks.
And therefore, as one of the Congress participants put it, “they scattered and disappeared into the masses.”
Some of them managed to escape with the Directory and survived the entire “wheeled era” with it.
Of course, the Congress of the Working People was formed hastily, on the basis of a curial, disproportionate electoral system and did not fulfill its constituent functions.
But it nevertheless became an attempt to create a revolutionary parliament of Ukraine. Moreover, on the basis of the conciliarity of the Ukrainian lands.

7. Atamanshchina (atmosphere of anarchy and tyranny).

In the territory still remaining under the rule of S. Petlyura, the unbridled ataman’s government gains full power, subjecting the working class and peasantry to incredible violence...

Life in the Ukrainian province since December 1918 was under the control of hundreds of local commanders.
These were atamans and fathers who led the rebel and military formations.
Sometimes such detachments defended the interests of a separate volost or village.
Sometimes they fought among themselves.
Sometimes they fought against cities where the government hostile to the peasants “sat.” A power from which the only “use” was to receive orders and accept “punitive” and requisition detachments.
Starting with rural “leaders,” the atamans very soon acquired a taste for power. And sometimes they even laid claim to all-Ukrainian power.

It was not only the power that was falling apart.
But the UPR army, which consisted of 70% peasant rebel detachments, was also disintegrating.
The atamans did not want to obey anyone, they did not want to move far from their areas...

“Where two Ukrainians gather, three hetmans appear,” said the proverb.
Rural Ukraine was divided among several dozen atamans.
They imagined themselves to be completely independent leaders.
And they could move from the Petliurists to the “Reds”, and after trying the “Red power” - again to the Petliurists.
The atamans led the peasantry, who had little understanding of politics, “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
The atamans dreamed of realizing their vision of “will and freedom” in Ukraine.
It was a kind of leader, people's elite.
And the “ataman idea” was the lack of control by local authorities over the self-organization of villages that were hostile to city culture and city authorities.
In “Atamanshchina,” the leading role was played by “the man with the gun.” A man for whom weapons opened the way to permissiveness.

The vitality of the ataman system is due to the fact that Petliura had no reserves and was looking for forces that he could rely on in the fight against the “reds.”
He was forced to supply the atamans with money and weapons in order to unite all the anti-Bolshevik forces.

The other side of the atamanism is the transfer of local power in the territories controlled by the Petliurists to the military.

Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“...Atamans decided not only military affairs, but also all political, social and national... They introduced a state of siege, they imposed censorship, they prohibited meetings.”

For example, Bolbochan in Left Bank Ukraine dispersed workers' and peasants' congresses, shot and flogged workers and peasants with rods.
Locally, atamans were “gods.”
The “Bolbochan” policy was also carried out by the Sich Riflemen of Konovalets, with whom Petliura completely consolidated.
Through their common efforts:
- Kyiv was declared in a “state of siege”
- censorship of the press was introduced,
- congresses and meetings are prohibited.

Here are the main features that characterized the ataman (as defined by Vinnichenko):

“Lack of control, irresponsibility, autocracy, inability to organize, Little Russian patriotism and absurd chauvinism...”

“Anyone who wanted could become an ataman. The chief atamans were given a certificate that such and such a person was authorized to form a “detachment”, he was given several million rubles, and the new chieftain began his activities. Of course, these “national heroes”, following the example of the “main national hero,” did not recognize any reports, no control, no responsibility for money and for their activities. Formally, they seemed to obey the chief ataman, but in essence this “ambitious ballerina” was afraid of these atamans, curried their favor and did not dare to punish these heroes for any crimes, so as not to lose popularity among them.
And therefore these atamans and atamans freely stole money, drank, committed outrages and organized Jewish pogroms».

As a result, as Vinnichenko wrote:

“The policy of Ataman Balbachan in the Kharkov region, Poltava region, Yekaterinoslav region, the policy of Angel in the Chernihiv region, the policy of the atamans Konovalets and Petliura in the Kiev region soon led to the fact that almost all of Ukraine rose again.”

8. Jewish pogroms.

Feeling their complete impunity, the Petliurists moved on to mass robbery and extermination of the Jewish population.

At this time, the terrible names of the atamans of the Petliura army were passed on from mouth to mouth.

It was Ataman Struk, who drowned the Jews in Chernobyl with his own hands.
- It was Ataman Sokolovsky, who completely cleared Radomyshl of Jews.
- These were atamans: Zeleny, Volynets, Kozyr-Zirka, Grigoriev, Lesnik, Shepel, Lyuty, Stepovoy, Trepet, Plum, Tyutyunik, Zheleznyak, Doroshenko and others.

They all considered the Supreme Ataman their undisputed leader.
And they were all part of armed forces UPR, whose commander-in-chief was Petliura.
The impunity of robbery and murder intoxicated the rioters.
They felt like giants, “superman”, who were given the right to control other people’s lives.

Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“...I will not give descriptions of all those horrors that stood like a heavy nightmare over Ukraine for many months. Suffice it to say that it was rare to find any town or city on the territory of the ataman region where Jews lived, and where the ataman’s hand would not walk, where there would be no robbery, bullying and murder of unarmed people, from old people to infants. .."

Monstrous pogroms took place in Zhitomir, Berdichev, Proskurov, Fastov.
In Fastov, for example, the Petliurists, led by Ataman Semesenko, burned residents alive in buildings.
They used slow burning over fire, quartering, and cutting out letters and signs on the body.

I would like to note one more thing.
All pogroms had a predatory and sadistic background and were accompanied by robberies, rapes, all kinds of abuse, and beatings.

And now some facts.

During the Directory, special punitive detachments were created for the mass extermination of Jews.
They were called “death smokehouses.”
On Petliura’s instructions, their formation was carried out by the future “leader” of the OUN, Yevgen Konovalets.

The pogrom scenario was simple.
Jews, first of all, were accused of sympathizing with the Bolsheviks.
They demanded a huge indemnity (so as not to rummage through the corpses later).
Well, having received it, they began a bloody massacre.
Clothes and shoes were removed from the dead, earrings were torn off, and fingers with rings were cut off.

Here is what the head of the Committee for Assistance to Pogrom Victims, which operated under the patronage of the Red Cross, E. Kheifetz, wrote about this in New York in the early 20s of the last century:

“Jewish pogroms began and ended according to signals, often open, sometimes hidden. All pogroms carried out by the regular troops of the Directory were carried out according to a certain general plan.”

In Proskurov (now Khmelnitsky) on February 15, 1919, regular detachments of the Petliura army, on the orders of their commander Ataman Semesenko, massacred 1,650 Jews in 4 hours.

Having burst into the houses, Kheifetz testified, the Petliurists:

“They took out sabers and started cutting down residents without regard to age or gender... They threw hand grenades at the shelters. And entire families were destroyed in this way.”

Kamenets-Podolsky.
“Some Jews were hung up by their hands, and their executioners cut off various parts of their bodies. Others were roasted alive on fire... Still others had their tongues pulled out, their eyes gouged out, their noses cut off.”

Uman
“Entire families have been destroyed. There were numerous cases of deliberate barbarity: cutting off hands and fingers to take gold rings, cutting off legs, noses, ears, breasts.”

“...The favorite game of the Petliurists was to put Jews in a row, shoot and see how many could be killed with one bullet.”

The French writer Henri Barbusse, in his story “While We Celebrated Peace,” described the terrible picture of one of the pogroms:

“Only corpses and corpses lie - five, ten, twenty, and more, and more, bayoneted, chopped up, crouched in their death throes: children and babies, some with severed heads, others with their heads smashed like eggs on a brick corner…"

Colonel Friedenberg, a member of the special commission of the Entente troops in Ukraine in 1919, stated:

“Petlyura himself is a pogromist. His army is a gang of pogromists. We have specific evidence of this."

As Finkelshtein Yuri writes in his documentary biography Simon Petlyura:

"WITH. Petlyura sacrificed the Jews in order to maintain the commitment and support of the “death kurens”, “Cossacks”, “Serozhupanniks”, “Sich Riflemen” or ordinary bandits who were brutalized by blood and impunity, who were subordinate to countless angels, zirok, struks and shepels. The Petliurists did not have any clear line between the “combat”, “regular” units and the partisan freemen...
...The Zhytomyr pogrom took place directly before the eyes of Petlyura himself, who approved the actions of the atamans Zakharchuk and Petrov. With the approval of Petlyura, the atamans - pogromists Angel, Kovenko, Paliy, Udovichenko acted. The genocide was carried out officially and was portrayed as a military victory for the Petliurists. Similar “victories” were won in Ovruch, Vasilkov, Dombrovets, Korosten, Korostyshev, Poltava, Kobelyaki, Lubny, Romodan, Tarashcha, Boguslev, Balta and other villages and towns in Ukraine. According to the most rough estimates, at least 150 thousand people died during the pogroms.”

These unprecedented mass pogroms against Jews were a rehearsal for the Holocaust.
Under Petlyura, 1,295 Jewish pogroms swept across Ukraine. And as a result, thousands of killed and tortured people, hundreds of destroyed and burned cities and villages.

Ataman Petrov, Petliura's minister of war, told the Jewish delegation that came to him:
“Jewish pogroms are our banner!”

You can also cite Petliura’s telegram (February 1919) to Colonel Semenenko, the direct organizer of the notorious pogrom in Proskurov, which was widely reported in European newspapers at that time.

Let's quote this document:

“Secret and very important. Everything points to a Bolshevik uprising of part of the Jewish population. Suppress mercilessly by force of arms, so that not a single Jewish hand is raised in Podolia against the resurgent Ukraine.
Chief Otaman."

S. Petlyura, as the chief ataman of the Directory troops, is fully responsible for the shameful actions of the commanders of the troops and UPR groups against the civilian Jewish population.

Here are fragments from a letter from former UPR Army Colonel Gavriil Petrovich Antonenko to lawyer S. Schwarzbard Torres (December 13, 1926):

“...Petliura’s actions, encouraging robbery and violence, created the wave of pogroms that broke out in January 1919...”
“Petlyura personally appointing units, allowing the atamans to rob and slaughter the “Jews”...
“...everyone in the army knew about the fact that S. Petliura allowed to rob and slaughter the “Jews.” They also knew that the massacre of the “Jews” was regarded by him, S. Petliura, as courage, equal to the merits of combat at the front...
...All of the above clearly and indisputably establishes the fact that Petliura is the main culprit and organizer of Jewish pogroms in Ukraine...”

But not only Jews suffered from Petliurists, but also Ukrainians.

Here’s what, for example, Tatyana Leonenko (Chernigov region) said:

“When Petliura’s gangs were roaming Ukraine in 1918–1920, my grandfather worked for a shipowner as a captain, drove ships along the Dnieper, transported passengers and various cargoes. He said that in the area of ​​​​Kyiv, Kherson and Pinsk there was simply no life for the Petliurists: they attacked ships and barges, beat and robbed people, and took away valuable cargo.
One day the Petliurists attacked the ship that my grandfather was sailing.
“What are you doing, good people! - he begged. – Don’t touch the cargo! The ship is not ours, we work here for hire. You will leave, and the owner will skin us three times! Have pity on us, because we have wives and children at home!” Unfortunately for him, grandfather said all this in Russian. Oh, how furious the Petliurists were! “Are you a Muscovite or a Jew?!” - they shouted. “Why are you talking like that?!” They started beating my grandfather. First they beat us with rifle butts, then with boots. They beat me brutally, until they bled. They also brutally dealt with the entire crew, many sailors were shot, one who tried to resist had his hands cut off and his eyes gouged out. The female passengers were raped and all were robbed. After the beatings, my grandfather became disabled, was seriously ill and died in 1924...
In our village of Radul, the Petliurists left a bloody memory of themselves. How many people did these bandits drown in the Dnieper! They tied the unfortunate man's hands with barbed wire, tied a stone around his neck and pushed him off a cliff into the water. In one family, a little girl hid under the stove out of fear. The Haidamaks hacked her mother, father and grandmother to death with sabers, but did not notice the child. The girl could have survived, but unfortunately she sobbed under the stove. One of the Petliura men heard this, pulled the little girl out from under the stove by the legs, went out into the yard, swung his head as hard as he could against the door frame and hit the child! All this was seen by the neighbor boy Misha, who hid from the bandits in a willow tree. His parents were killed that day, but Misha survived.”

9. The Directory and the Makhnovists.

The Directory sought to prevent conflict with Nestor Makhno.
Since behind him stood the broad masses of the peasantry of the Yekaterinoslav region and Northern Tavria.
The Petlyura command highly valued the military abilities of Nestor Makhno.

For example, General Korunzhy, quartermaster of the Ukrainian army in the field, Kapustyansky, spoke of the old man this way:

“Ataman Nestor Makhno was without a doubt a capable, outstanding person, and performed the role of leader of the rebel revolutionary masses well.”

Representatives of Simon Petliura officially contacted Makhno’s headquarters with a proposal to conclude an “alliance” against the White Guards.
At that time, the Makhnovists still acted as allies of the Bolsheviks. Therefore, Makhno rejected Petliura’s proposal.
But already from mid-August 1919, Makhno sought to come into contact with Petlyura.
He hoped to receive ammunition and weapons from the Chief Ataman.
However, the prospect of allied relations with Denikin at that time pushed the Directory away from Makhno.
In September, everything changed, because by this time the Makhnovists and Petliurists had a common enemy - the “white” regime.
The Makhnovists entered Uman on September 14.
And Petlyura’s headquarters was located in Vinnitsa at that time.
The Chief Ataman comes to Makhno with a hundred mounted personal guards. He proposes to jointly fight against Denikin.
But Batko pretended to be sick.
And that’s why Shpot’s chief of staff greets the guests.
His appearance is the envy of the independent. Salty mustache, black eyes, Zaporozhye Oseledets. And he speaks Ukrainian language better than Taras Shevchenko. In a word, a generous Ukrainian, his brother.
- So where is your dad?
- Even when my dad got sick, Mr. Chief Ataman, they were already afraid that he would die!
It was this Shpota that the crafty Makhno sent to negotiate in Zhmerinka.
In his person, Batko “expressed agreement,” “recognized the line,” “respected seniority,” and “offered cooperation” on the terms of a “fair military alliance” in order to “completely liberate real Ukraine from the yoke of Muscovites, officers and communists.”

Who would refuse such an ally?

Of course not.
And Petlyura happily agreed to this alliance.
On September 20, an agreement on a military alliance with complete autonomy for each of the allied armies was signed in Zhmerinka.
It was signed by Petliura and Tyutyunik from the UPR, and Volin and Gubenko from the Makhnovists.
- Makhno undertakes to go on raids to the east - to beat the whites, cut communications and throats, tear the underbelly of Denikin’s army.
- And Petlyura stands against the Reds, covering his rear at the same time.
- We leave the wounded in their huts - the Petliurists do not harm them, and if possible, they will help.
By entering into an alliance with Petlyura, Makhno, first of all, hoped to weaken the onslaught of Denikin’s troops (the Makhnovists then had a huge convoy of wounded).
In addition, the dad outlined a plan to destroy Petliura under certain conditions.
And one last thing. He expected to receive sufficient quantities of weapons and ammunition.
The Makhnovists occupied a common front with Petliura’s army of 44 kilometers near Uman.
On September 20, Petliura also signed a political agreement with Makhnovist representatives. Under this agreement:
- The Makhnovists were prohibited from carrying out anarchist propaganda in parts of the Petliura army and on the lands controlled by it.
- Makhno was promised autonomy for the “Makhnovist region” after a general victory over the enemies.
- In operational terms, Makhno obliged to coordinate his strategic plans with Petliura’s headquarters.
A meeting was scheduled for September 26 between Makhno and Petliura in Uman.
But it didn't happen.
Because Denikin’s army suddenly struck concentrations of enemy troops on the Balta-Uman front and quickly captured strategic centers: Balta and Uman.
Parts of the Sich and the Volyn group of Petliurists were forced to retreat to Tulchin.
This opened up the unprotected rear of Makhno’s Insurgent Army.
Although the Makhnovists and Petliurists had to fight and die together, mistrust remained between their leaders.
The self-confident Makhno dreamed that he could “tear off” as many soldiers as possible from Petlyura. Or maybe he himself will lead the united Ukrainian army.
Despite the promise not to conduct anarchist propaganda in parts of the UPR, Makhnovist agitators distributed to the Petliuraites a leaflet printed by the Cultural Education of Makhno’s Army under the eloquent title “Who is Petliura?”
In it, the Chief Ataman was accused of being “bourgeois” and of “selling Ukraine to French and English capitalists.”
Makhno explained the forced and temporary nature of the alliance with Petliura.
Petliura’s counterintelligence warned the Chief Ataman that the Makhnovists were very unreliable allies and, according to unverified rumors, were preparing an assassination attempt on Petliura himself.
And in fact, Makhno decided to kill Petlyura as soon as possible.
He even sent a group of terrorists. But nothing came of it.
In response to Makhnovist propaganda, Petliura’s began to call the Makhnovist allies “robbers” and “destroyers.”
On December 15, 1919, Makhno’s representatives arrived in Yekaterinoslav. Here they agreed with the Petliurists on joint actions against the White Guards. And also about providing the Makhnovist units with weapons, clothing and food.
The Makhnovists received a carload of cartridges and half a carload of rifles.
But having received weapons, Makhno immediately opposed the Directory.
He destroyed a company of Petliurists and captured Sinelnikovo.
At the end of December 1919, Makhno, having agreed on joint actions with the Bolsheviks, tried to knock out parts of the UPR from Yekaterinoslav.
But here the Makhnovists were defeated, many of them died.
After these events, there was no point in thinking about an alliance between the Makhnovists and the Directory.

III. Foreign policy Directories.

The Directory managed to achieve the expansion of international relations of the UPR.
Ukraine was recognized by Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Holland, the Vatican, Italy and a number of other states.

But she failed to establish normal relations with the countries on which her fate depended:

Soviet Russia.
- Entente states.
- Poland.

The authority of the UPR in the international arena was greatly damaged by the employees of its diplomatic missions.
And, first of all, with its speculative combinations with currency and purchases of goods, scandals, overt nepotism, ignorance of the languages ​​and characteristics of the host countries.
And also simply a lack of culture of behavior.
For example, the head of the UPR delegation at the Peace Conference in Paris, G. Sidorenko, used offensive expressions in the notes he compiled, often ending with threats against certain powers.

Here is what Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote about this:

“Only shame and laughter aroused these missions, embassies, commissions - all this “representation” of the ataman-farmer statehood. Masculine, clumsy, sometimes poorly educated people, who often had not traveled further than their Skvira and in most cases did not properly know a single language (even Ukrainian), who wore embroidered shirts or blouses almost all their lives, and knew about diplomacy from pulp novels - these people, forgetting all shame, dressed in tuxedos and not even knowing how these tuxedos are dressed, climbed into the bourgeois and diplomatic salons, ministerial front rooms to represent our working, exhausted, illiterate nation.
Of course, they considered it their duty to live as luxuriously as possible, to scatter money as generously as possible, for this stemmed from their task: to imagine a state of ours that would be “like that of the people,” that is, bourgeois. And all these commissions, embassies, whose members received colossal salaries unheard of in Europe, lived only in first-class hotels, traveled only in cars, ate only in the most expensive restaurants.
What were they doing? Why did the Ukrainian people have to pay such huge amounts of money to these people? They didn't do anything. They wandered around restaurants, hotels, taverns, brothels - this is how they spent their lives...
Theft of money, debauchery, demoralization, some kind of bacchanalia of moral abomination, loafing, laziness, meaningless miserable life - all this, the further, the more normal the state of the “representation” of the Ataman-Ukrainian government abroad became.”

IV. Reasons for the defeat of the Directory.

The Directory was officially liquidated on January 20, 1920 by the Decree of S. Petlyura.
Well, in fact, the UPR Directory ruled over most of the territory of Ukraine for only 1.5 months.
And after that, under the blows of Soviet troops, she was forced to leave the Ukrainian capital.
From this moment on, a period of political instability began for the Directory.
A period of fierce struggle for power.
A period of unsuccessful searches for reliable external and internal support.
A period of endless travel (Vinnitsa – Proskurov – Rivne – Stanislav – Kamenets-Podolsky).
A period of government reorganization (its composition changed 6 times) and a radical change in the official political line.

Here's what Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote about all this:

“...The “carriage” existence came, wandering around stations, towns without shelter, without order, without troops, without territory and with enemies on all sides. There were times when under the rule of the Ukrainian ataman-“socialist” government there were only a few miles railway occupied by government carriages in which the government, parties, officials and troops lived.” Something similar to a gypsy camp...
The directory lives in carriages, around which there are mountains of garbage and dirt. The ministers swear, bicker, complain, arrest each other. There are no troops, only headquarters and atamans, led by the Head Ataman - the “ballerina”. This funny man, harmful to our movement, will stop at nothing, as long as there is at least an inch of territory and two or three people in front of whom he can gracefully pose, then he feels in business.”

And the people sang ditties with the following words:

Oh, you glorious Directory,
Where is your territory?
The entire Directory is in the carriage,
Under the carriage is her territory.

So why did the Directory fail to stay in power for long?

The collapse of the Directory was due to the following reasons:

1. Short-sighted, indecisive, contradictory and inconsistent domestic policies:

A) The Directory failed to create an effectively functioning state apparatus, a system of legislative and executive bodies, both in the center and locally.
The government (which changed its composition 6 times in a short period of time) was unable to govern the country.
In the territories controlled by the UPR, military commandants, garrison commanders, and local atamans established their own “orders.”
And the illusory power of the cabinet of ministers extended almost only to the “capital” city: first Vinnitsa, then Kamenets-Podolsky.

As a result of this anarchy: anarchy, growing chaos, violent flourishing of the ataman, banditry, Jewish pogroms, numerous anti-government conspiracies both “on the right” and “on the left.”

Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“... Robberies, robberies and murders in broad daylight were committed in the very capital of the ataman region... in the “province” (that is, in the vicinity of the “capital”) commissars, commandants and small atamans committed rampages in the towns, but in the village there was no power, and peasants often They dug themselves in with ditches, surrounded themselves with cannons and machine guns, and did not allow the “people’s” power to come to them...
...All the activities of the “socialist government” were a malicious caricature of the government.
...In each “ministry” there were huge headquarters of officials who had accumulated in the same unfortunate Kamenets and were scurrying around randomly like a crowd of ordinary people at a fire. They all received salaries for their aimless bustle, they all squabbled bureaucratically, cheated on each other, arrested each other and brought even greater demoralization and disintegration into common life.”

B) The population was unhappy social program Directories:

The peasantry - agrarian policy.
It accused the Directory of pro-kulak policies.

The workers because the Directory and its atamans suppressed strikes, prohibited workers' organizations of a political nature, and dispersed trade unions.

The intelligentsia, which the new government limited its voting rights and classified as “landowners and capitalists.”

The Russian-speaking population is subject to forced Ukrainization.

Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“The policy of Ataman Bolbochan in the Kharkov region, Poltava region, Yekaterinoslav region, the policy of Angel in the Chernihiv region, the policy of the atamans Konovalets and Petlyura in the Kiev region soon led to the fact that almost all of Ukraine rose again.”

The Ukrainian prime minister of the “wheel” period, Isaac Mazepa, in his book “Ukraine in the Fire and Storm of the Revolution” quotes the words of E. Konovalets:

“...The peasants, instead of helping us, attack our carts, don’t even give us water, drive us away with the words: “What do you want here? Get away from us! We will give ourselves advice!”

Anti-Soviet dissident General Pyotr Grigorenko in his book “In the Underground You Can Find Only Rats...” recalled:

“They essentially knew nothing about the Petliurites. But when two of our fellow villagers appeared, who had been captured by the Petliurists, where they tasted the ramrods and torture of the “Sich’s striltsy”, indifference to the Petliurists gave way to hostility and Soviet agitation against the “Petliurists’ underdogs” began to fall on fertile ground.”

2. The collapse of the UPR Army.

Vladimir Vinnichenko wrote:

“...Throughout...Ukraine, with all the garrisons and fronts, there were thousands to a hundred. The army that entered Kyiv aroused everyone’s admiration for its discipline, bearing, and cheerful and dashing appearance.
The directory stayed in Kyiv for 1.5 months. During this 1.5 month, 300 million rubles were allocated for the formation of the army. And so, a week or two before we were expelled from Kiev, when the rebels had already taken Poltava, the Minister of War gave the Directory an accurate and detailed report on the number of our troops throughout Ukraine: throughout Ukraine, on all fronts, with all garrisons and the reserves were 21,000."

Having adopted from the Ukrainian Central Rada the tradition of recruiting units “for a specific ataman,” the Directory thereby strengthened the local version of patriotism and military tactics.
Even talented commanders - A. Ossetsky, E. Volokh, P. Bolbochan, V. Tyutyunik, I. Bozhko and others - often made far from successful adjustments to the plans of the General Staff and the Head Ataman.

Minister of War Alexander Shapoval, dejected by the confusion at the front, reported to Petlyura:

“In fact, our army does not have a front commander. You give your orders, Andrei Melnik (chief of army staff) gives his, and General Grekov (ataman) from Odessa also gives his.”

The detachment commanders showed arbitrariness. And often tyranny and adventurism.
They didn't want to learn modern methods combat and control.
It was necessary to constantly make personnel changes, send punitive detachments against the rebel units, and execute atamans.
The large rebel peasant army created at the end of 1918 after the liquidation of the regime of P. Skoropadsky quickly went home, as if “melted like snow in the sun.”
Under the influence of Bolshevik agrarian policy, parts of the Directory began to go over to the Bolshevik side.
One of the first, and without any agitation on the part of the Bolsheviks, to “Bolshevisize” was the Dnieper division, located in Svyatoshin near Kiev.
Simon Petlyura urgently took her outside the capital. But it did not help.
A peasant congress was held in the village of Grigorovka with the participation of soldiers of the Dnieper division.
He put forward a demand to transfer power to the Soviets and nationalize large enterprises.
The address to the Directory noted that “an armed people will seek their rights by force of arms.”
At the congress, the revolutionary committee, the division council, and its ataman, Zeleny (D. Terpilo), were elected.
In Tripoli, where the division was stationed, Petliura sent troops to disarm the “rebels.”
The latter crossed to the left bank of the Dnieper. They partially defeated and partially annexed the military units of the Directory stationed in the area. And they captured Zolotonosha, Grebenka, Rzhishchev, Cherkasy.
Here, a new administration began to form under the leadership of the Ukrainian left Socialist Revolutionaries and the Independents.

At the end of January 1919, units of the Trans-Dnieper division, located on a vast territory in Southern Ukraine, “Bolshevised”.
By order of the leadership of the Ukrainian Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the headquarters consisting of Ataman N. Grigoriev, Yu. Tyutyunik and S. Savitsky left the subordination of the Directory.
After which, under Soviet slogans, he began military operations against the White Guards and Entente troops on the front from Bessarabia to Perekop.
Grigoriev's division was replenished by numerous rebel detachments of peasants.
The detachments of “father” Makhno, located in the Gulyai-Polye region (Ekaterinoslav region), also announced support for the Soviets.

By the spring of 1919, most of the UPR army had become completely incapable of combat.
Petliura has only two combat-ready forces left:
- Zaporizhian Corps led by Ataman P. Bolbochan and
- corps of Sich riflemen under the command of E. Konovalets.

But even the support of the regime, the Sich Riflemen, were disorganized.

Their leader, Colonel Konovalets, wrote:
“...Due to the fact that there are no reserves, everyone is tired, any idea fades away, all I want is to sleep.”

Petliura, trying to save the army from collapse, issues an order stating that surrender, panic, desertion, and failure to carry out military orders will be punishable by death.
But these cruel orders, like many others, no longer “work” and cannot save the army from collapse.

3. Lack of a model of state formation that would meet the realities of that time.

There was no unity among the leaders of the Directory in their views on the prospects for nation-state building.
During its existence, the Directory, to one degree or another, tested 3, essentially different forms of social organization:

; Parliamentary republic.
; Republic of Soviets.
; Military dictatorship.

4. Lack of unity among the members of the Directory regarding immediate politics, personal rivalry (which, unfortunately, has long been common among Ukrainians) and the confrontation between V. Vinnychenko and S. Petlyura.
Endless clarification of relations between parties and individual political figures.
The struggle for power between various political parties (Ukrainian Social Democrats, Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries, Borotbists).
All this taken together could not help but weaken the authority of the Directory among the population, especially among the peasants.

A vivid description of this “dominant demagogic part of the Ukrainian intelligentsia” is given by the former independent senator and minister, the Ukrainian S. Shelukhin, who moved among them and knew them well:

“The work of this part of the intelligentsia, although insignificant, but due to spiritual defectiveness and pathological thirst for power over the people and everything, was destructive. In fact, they showed themselves to be an incompetent and destructive force, devoid of constructive thinking by nature. I was twice, out of necessity, Minister of Justice and both times I refused, after trying to work productively as part of an incapable party majority. Having shown a thirst for power, these people created worthless governments, which destroyed the freedom of the nation and did not show the slightest ability for constructive work. Narrowness of understanding, the ability to think according to a cliché, lack of criticism, self-praise, intolerance towards dissidents, stubbornness, inability to understand the facts, inability to foresee and draw conclusions from one’s own misdeeds, instability and lack of a sense of real responsibility for the work are their distinctive properties...”

5. Underestimation by the Directory of Bolshevik agitation and propaganda, which consistently and purposefully influenced the Ukrainian population, creating in them an attractive image of Soviet power.

6. Unfavorable foreign policy conditions.

The territory of Ukraine became a battle arena for the troops of Soviet Russia, the White Guards, the Entente, and the Poles.
- The leadership of the Directory found itself in international isolation.
The focus on the Entente countries was not justified. The Entente refused to help the Directory (due to the active anti-Ukrainian propaganda of Poles and Whites, the participation of representatives of leftist parties in the Directory, etc.).
The Entente countries did not support the idea of ​​an independent UPR.
And Poland violated the terms of the agreement with the UPR, moving on to seize its territories.

7. The broad masses of the Ukrainian population did not realize the national interests and the need to create and strengthen an independent Ukrainian state.

A significant part of the Russians, the Russified workers of the cities of Ukraine, mainly supported the Bolsheviks.

As for the peasants, the historian O. Subtelny noted:

“...The uneducated, downtrodden and politically immature peasant knew what he did not want, but could not say with certainty what he was fighting for. The peasant understood that he was a worker who was being exploited. But it was difficult for the peasant to understand the more complex idea of ​​national independence, and only at the end of the civil war did many more or less educated peasants begin to lean towards it. But at that moment best opportunity the conquest of independence was lost."

I would like to draw attention to the following words of Vladimir Vinnichenko:

“...We put all the blame on the Russian Bolsheviks: they, they say, went to Ukraine with their troops and beat us! And again, it is necessary to say openly and sincerely that if there had not been an uprising against us by our own peasantry and workers, then the Russian Soviet government would not have been able to do anything against us. And again... It was not the Bolshevik agitators who corrupted our republican troops, who fought so heroically with the hetmans and Germans, but we ourselves, our Bolbochanovism, Petliurism, Konovalism.
And it was not the Russian Soviet government that expelled us from Ukraine, but our own people, without whom and against whom, I repeat once again, Russian Soviet troops could not have occupied a single district of our territory.”

Andrei Dikiy also wrote about this:

“...Ukraine was not conquered by the Great Russians at all, but was mastered by the propaganda of Bolshevik ideas, which were followed by the active political part of the population of Ukraine, which forced the Directory to flee.
The second conclusion: the social all-Russian slogans of the Bolsheviks turned out to be stronger than the national-chauvinist slogans of the Central Rada and the Directory. Third conclusion: - the civil war in Ukraine was not at all a struggle for the national liberation of the Ukrainian people, but a social revolution, as in all of Russia. The fourth and final conclusion: the group of Ukrainian separatist chauvinists did not at all reflect the will of the population of Ukraine in the years Civil War and has neither formal nor moral right to speak on behalf of Ukraine now.”

That's all it was weaknesses Directories that did not allow her to stay in power for a long time and establish the independence of the UPR.

The Thermidorian government stopped revolutionary terror and abolished price restrictions on the market. For several more months, France and its capital were shaken by revolts of former Jacobins and the urban poor. However, the army and the National Guard remained loyal to the Thermidorians.

Constitution of the 3rd year of the republic (1795)

A year later, the Thermidorian Convention adopted a new Constitution of 1795.

Legislative power in the republic was vested in Legislative body, which consisted of the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Hundreds. Voting rights were again given only to citizens with large capital. The government's executive power was vested in the Legislative Corps Directories of 5 people.

The Constitution confirmed the deprivation of emigrant nobles and the Church of property and rights to feudal duties, while at the same time guaranteeing the inviolability of newly acquired property.

Previously closed newspapers were opened, and the activities of political clubs, including royalist ones, were resumed. In October 1795, the Convention ceased its activities, transferring power, according to the Constitution, to new institutions. The head of the Directory was the chief Thermidorian Barras, and among the deputies there were many large entrepreneurs who got rich by buying up the property of emigrants and the Church, involved in speculation.

Terror against the Jacobins

The leading stratum of the “new rich” grew up during the revolution and now, freed from the danger of laying their heads on the guillotine, sought to live as quickly as possible for their own pleasure. The Constitution of 1795 made these people the main voters in the country. Access to the National Guard was also open only to the rich. Young people from such families, enrolling in the guard, bought weapons and dressed in uniforms embroidered with gold. For this passion for forgotten luxury they began to be called “golden youth.” Seeking revenge for years of fear during revolutionary terror, the guards of the “golden youth” burst into the working-class neighborhoods of the poor, seeking out and killing the Jacobins and their supporters. This was already “white” terror - intimidation of the poorest and disenfranchised sections of the population.

Seesaw Policy Directories

As a result, the government of the Directory found itself between two fires. On the one hand, they were opposed by the heirs of the Jacobins, demanding a return to the democratic Constitution of 1793, on the other, the royalists’ hopes for the restoration of the monarchy and the return of the property of the emigrants were revived. Both forces were preparing conspiracies against the Directory. The government first had to enter into an alliance with the royalists and persecute the democrats. Then, on the contrary, expel royalist deputies from the Legislative Corps and restore laws directed against emigrants. When the Democrats won the elections, this victory was declared illegal. This “swing policy” led to the loss of all support in society. The only support for the Directory was the army, or rather, loyal generals.

One of these generals was Napoleon Bonaparte.Material from the site

Foreign policy of the Directory

After Napoleon's victorious campaigns, French foreign policy took on a slightly different character. Now the scale of the desired conquests increased to European domination. However, success did not last indefinitely, and in 1799 the Second Anti-French Coalition repulsed Napoleon's army. Soon there was a threat of a coalition invasion of French territory.