Agrarian reform of P. Wrangel in the South of Ukraine (1920)

The real state of affairs with the provision of peasant farms in southern Ukraine was this. Our simple mathematical calculations of statistics show that in the last pre-war year (1913) peasants on two farms accounted for one arable crop and one cultivator (an average of 20 people), one seeder for twenty farms (an average of 200 des.), fifteen reapers per hundred farms (an average of 1,000 ten), one horse rake per hundred farms (an average of 1,000 ten), one thresher for fifty farms (an average of 500 ten), thirty-seven fans per ten farms (an average of 100 des.). Compared to similar indicators in other provinces, the peasants of Tavria in 1916 occupied 4-5 places in terms of availability of agricultural machinery and equipment” (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174).

In 1920, the peasants of southern Ukraine had one arable crop and one cartridge (an average of 13.1 persons), seven seeders per hundred farms (an average of 1310 farms), and four harvesters per ten farms (in one farm). an average of 131 people), six threshers per one hundred farms (an average of 1,310 people), five fans for ten farms (an average of 131 people), one forge could serve the needs of repairing agricultural machinery of five farms (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174).

During World War I and Revolution years, the average size of peasant farms in southern Ukraine increased from 9,9 per cent. in 1916 to 13,2 des. in 1920; the number of farms decreased by 38,880 farms (these data are very relative, given that information is not available on all counties of southern Ukraine - Authors); at 810,562 units there was a decrease in the fans. Positive shifts are observed in the remaining positions: by 81,018 units the number of field implements has increased; on 37129 - harvester; on 6739 - threshers; on 855 - sowing machines (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174; SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 24, p. 4 rev.).

In our opinion, it is advisable to refer to the analysis of indicators for the technical support of one or more peasant farms during 1916 - 1920. Given the data on this, we note that in 1916 1 arable field was 20 times, in 1920 - by 13.3 des.; in 1916, 1 planter served 200 units, in 1920 - 187 units; in 1916 1 reaper - 66 des., in 1920 - 33 des.; in 1916 1 thresher - 500 des., in 1920 - 218 des.; in 1916 1 fan - 2,7 des, in 1920 - 26,2 des (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174; SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 24, p. 4 rev). Consequently, changes to the better provision of agricultural farms and machinery for the peasant farms were minimal in 1916 - 1920. Moreover, a considerable number of them needed repair or renewal. The presence of agricultural machinery on the farm did not always mean its effective use. Factors such as lack of weight, dominance of the female and adolescent labour force in the absence of men, etc., were an obstacle to this.

Equally important was the way agricultural machinery was distributed between the counties, taking into account the availability of acreage in each of them, the number of peasant farms, etc. Careful analysis of statistics gives sufficient reason to speak about the security of each county in a particular type of agricultural machinery and stock (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174). At the same time, we can draw a fair picture of the shortage of agricultural machinery and agricultural stock in the peasant farms of southern Ukraine (except for the Yalta county, whose population did not specialize in arable land). According to our calculations, the peasant farms of Perekop, Yevpatoria, Berdiansk, and Melitopol counties were provided with the tools of agriculture. In the remaining counties, two to four farms out of ten were unsecured. Agricultural machinery was lacking in every farm (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 174).

It was also obvious that it would be difficult to saturate the farms with the necessary labour tools only through imports. Firstly, they were expensive for the peasants, though not for everyone, as we wrote above. Secondly, agricultural machinery was difficult to transport from the ports in the parish in the absence of a well-established transportation system. Thirdly, in addition to the equipment itself, the authorities had to buy overseas and spare parts for it. This required additional costs. Fourthly, the demand for expensive agricultural machinery among the peasants was low, and therefore the treasury could not count on the rapid replenishment of the state stocks of bread consumed during export-import operations. In addition, despite significant bread reserves in the peasant farms of southern Ukraine, they were also not unlimited.

In adequately responding to the needs of agriculture in agricultural machinery and equipment, P Wrangel developed and implemented a number of measures to improve the situation in the agricultural sector of the economy. Thus, in parallel with the continuation of export-import operations, an emphasis was also placed on the accumulation of domestic resources. The government involved the state structures, zemstvos and other public associations and organizations in the implementation of a purposeful programme of supplying farmers with the necessary agricultural machines. In addition, efforts were made to increase the production capacity of domestic agricultural enterprises.

A large-scale action programme was developed to address the goal of intensifying agriculture in southern Ukraine. Its content was reduced to the following provisions. Firstly, setting up of service and repair of agricultural machines, mechanisms, stock. Secondly, the rational use of existing spare parts reserves, old foreign orders. Thirdly, correct and even distribution of agricultural machinery and tools among the population. Fourthly, restoration of activity of domestic factories and agricultural workshops and strengthening of production capacities of those enterprises that were still operating (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 24, p. 56).

The Department of Agriculture and Land Use (hereinafter referred to as DALU) was entrusted with specific work on the organization of repair of agricultural machinery and tools. To do this, the employees of the Office involved agricultural workshops, forges remaining in the estates under the administration of this department, and eight factories located in Simferopol, Dzhankoy, Old Crimea, Yevpatoria and Berdiansk (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 175 rev.). In addition to the above, the activity of two state-owned agricultural machinery manufacturing plants near Big Tikman, one sequestered plant in Big Tikman, was resumed. DALU launched a machine-building station in Akamovka with a large tractor station and a large repair shop (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 24, p. 57).

The DALU proclaimed itself a monopoly-owner of the property of 'Technical Consultation' - a state structure, which at the Special meeting provided the agriculture with the necessary machinery, equipment, spare parts for them. The size of this property was serious, its rational use would, as expected, significantly reduce the shortage of agricultural implements. Thus, according to the certificate of Technical Consultation, submitted on February 29, 1920 to the authorized DALU, one of the warehouses of this structure focused the following amount of equipment: only separators with a capacity of 42 buckets per hour - 3000 pieces, Clayton locomobiles with threshers to them - 4 pieces, Becker fans - 8 pieces, rivets for mowers - 2170 ood., Turner machines for the production of spare parts - 10 pieces, Robison machines - 7 amount, Penney fans - 8 amount, Becker fans - 4 amount, different types straw cutter - 392 pcs. Garret locomobiles of different power - 33 amount, Garrett hammers different power - 17 pcs., 11 names of spare parts to them (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, pp. 51-51 rev.).

The property of the 'Selhoz' was transferred to the ownership of the DALU, which also kept a large part of the agricultural implements necessary for the agrarian sector of the economy and their spare parts. The Agricultural Department also distributed agricultural machines purchased abroad. The Department of Trade and Industry also transferred imported industrial products to the balance of the Department of Agriculture (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 24, pp. 5757 rev.). G. Glinka's office also received the prerogative of securing applications for such goods, such as coal, iron, fuel and lubricants, for the factories and workshops required for the manufacture and repair of agricultural machinery. In this way, the government delegated to the state structure all powers regarding the distribution of agricultural tools and labour.

The district zemstvos were actively involved in the implementation of the P. Wrangel programme on the intensification of the agrarian sector of the economy. Tavriya Provincial Zemstvo Authority received from the Commander-in-Chief clear instructions regarding the powers of Zemstvo officials and the directions of work of the district zemstvos during the implementation of the above measures in the village. In particular, zemstvos warehouses were co-opted into a common system of repositories, to which DALU centrally distributed imported and domestic agricultural equipment. Entrepreneurship was entrusted with the organization and real holding on the ground, with wide involvement of 'cooperative organizations, representatives of the agricultural factory industry', county zemstvos, the following types of works: 1) uniform distribution of agricultural inventory between peasant farms of counties and parishes; 2) rational use of stocks of consumables stored in warehouses; 3) repair and production of simple types of agricultural machines and tools; 4) expanding the network of agricultural machinery land points to enable as many peasants to benefit from them. To implement these measures, Tavriya provincial zemstvo received a loan of 50 million rubles (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, p. 178).

The figures of Tauriya provincial zemstvowere also granted a number of powers, which made their activities real and productive. Zemstvos were able to raize all available reserves for repair and production of agricultural implements. They had the right to involve governmental, private enterprises in the execution of land orders for the manufacture of agricultural implements. Zemsky agents were given the 'power and authority of persons carrying out a matter of special state importance'. Not only did they issue orders, but they also directly supervised their implementation on the ground, eliminating the difficulties encountered during this. Zemstvos enjoyed the right of extraordinary (except military) transportation of goods by any means of transport. Such transportations, as well as their contents, were protected by the authorities against requisitions and other unforeseen circumstances. Social benefits and social guarantees were provided by the authorities at the request of zemstvos to the workers, their families involved in agricultural enterprises and workshops. Tax preferences were given to small and medium-sized enterprises that performed orders for zemstvos for the production of agricultural implements or their repair (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 7, pp. 184-185 rev.).

Therefore, summarizing the above, we note that P. Wrangel prioritized agriculture in the agricultural policy. A purposeful program for providing the farms with the necessary agricultural machinery and equipment was developed and put into practice. To solve the problem of technical equipment of the agrarian sector of the economy of Southern Ukraine, maximum opportunities, financial and human resources were involved. The satisfaction of the needs of single peasant farms in machinery and repair was achieved through commodity exchange, export-import operations, mobilization of domestic resources. All efforts by the authorities have focused on improving agricultural productivity as an economic sector, with particular emphasis on providing it with the necessary agricultural machinery and mechanisms. On the basis of disparate and circumstantial evidence, it can be assumed that the peasants' demand for agricultural machinery and P Wrangel's government's supply were partially met.

The materials we have worked out capture a wide range of peasant sentiment regarding P Wrangel's agrarian reform. At the same time, one should take into account the peculiarities of the psychology of the peasants. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the attitude of peasants to the land order and other supporting documents to a greater extent manifested their position to the individual representatives of the authorities, to the duration of its stay, to the socio-economic situation in 1920, rather than to the most legal and regulatory situation bases.

In most of the historical sources involved in our research we have found a complementary attitude of peasants to the agrarian laws of Wrangel government. “The attitude of the population to us is positive ... The peasants are actively interested in literature. Life here is several times cheaper than the Crimean one”, - one of the lecturers who returned from a trip to the villages of Northern Tavriya shared his impressions with the correspondent of the Voice of Tavriya (V mestnostyah, zanyatyih name, 1920). According to the newspaper “South of Russia”, “the population is interested in the new law on land, treats it with understanding” (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 20, p. 5 rev.).

The note, in the fields written by the author 'about Wrangel's law', stated the state of affairs in Tavriya districts, which had just been conquered by the Russian Army in the Red. Among other things, it was about the attitude of the population of these areas to the agrarian legislation of the P. Wrangel government. 'There is no need for any state intervention', the condolence with which the population meets the law of the land, especially in Tavriya counties, which had gone through all the horrors of the Bolshevik slavery and deceit in its promises, the document ran. According to the impressions of Melitopol county land mediator, who arrived in the district on September 11, 1920 for land surveying, 'the population received positive news about the land' (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 18, pp. 13-15).

The situation was similar in Perekop district. Campaign lecturers, who repeatedly visited the townships of the county, informed that the peasants showed an active interest, a 'sympathetic' attitude to the land law. They came to this conclusion on the basis that during the conversations with the peasants, the latter asked many questions. First of all, they were interested in practical aspects of the implementation of the agrarian reform (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 3a, pp. 9-9 rev.). Despite the fact that there were no lands in Yalta district subject to alienation, the peasants of Baidar, Alushtin and Bogatyr districts showed keen interest in the agrarian legislation of May 25, 1920. They even raized petitions before the county council for organizing elections (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 20, p. 32 rev.).

At the same time, in the counties in which the fighting had been taking place until recently, the peasants' attitude to the agrarian legislation of P. Wrangel was restrained and neutral. This was at least reported by DALU employees in their information sheets. Thus, employees of this department, being in the northern parishes of Melitopol, Berdiansk and Dnieper counties, noted that “they had the impression that after a series of promises from various authorities ..., the peasants lost faith in these promises ...” (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 4, pp. 50, 52). Such observations date from the first decade of June 1920. Above we have noted that already in the first decade of September 1920 the peasants thought otherwise.

An example of the restrained attitude of peasants to the agrarian legislation of the P Wrangel government is the case in one of the villages of Simferopol district, which is characteristic in general of all parishes in this locality. The land surveyor, in conversation with the peasants, asked if they knew anything about the agrarian legislation of the Government of Southern Russia. The peasants of the East found a misunderstanding of the situation. A DALU employee drew their attention to a document affixed on the bulletin board. “We know this law”, they respond enthusiastically. At the same time, the villagers agree to have the surveyor explain it to them. During the explanation of the Order, it became clear that the peasants were well aware of its meaning. This time the misunderstanding was demonstrated by an employee of DALU. In response, the villagers explained to him: “We had many laws: land and land. Just hang out at the town board and nothing else. Depends, hangs, then remove, the other hang. As General Wrangel's law was hanged, so we read it, but waited for it to be taken down and hanged by another'. At the same time, as the land surveyor noted, since the Order was appealing to the peasants, they studied it by heart and expected the authorities to take concrete steps to implement it. 'When the peasants saw that this law was created not only to hang on the board near the district board, but also to put it into practice, they joined in the long-awaited reform” (SARF, f. 355, op. 1, d. 20, pp. 30-31 rev.).

Thus, the attitude of the peasantry, landowners of the South of Ukraine to the agrarian legislation of P Wrangel was determined by the reasons of a socio-economic, sociopolitical and subjective nature. The range ranged from open aversion (from the landlords), a restrained attitude to active interest (from the peasants, the Red Army, soldiers and officers of P Wrangel's army).

Summarizing the above, we note that P Wrangel's agrarian reform was widely understood as a system of measures that influenced the socio-economic situation in the countryside, the socio-political activity of the peasantry. P. Wrangel's agrarian reform did not limit the redistribution of land among peasants. He considered the cornerstone of the intensification of agriculture as an industry, improving the material wealth of peasants, transforming the peasantry into a leading social class.

The main provisions of the agricultural legislation of P. Wrangel were consistent with the content of the agricultural legislation of the governments of the Directorate of the UPR, Soviet Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. So, firstly, P Wrangel in the south of Ukraine and the authorities of Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Estonia and other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe advocated the principle of alienation or expropriation of excess land tenure in solving the agrarian question. Secondly, the granting of peasants by additional areas of land in the south of Ukraine and in European countries was for a fee. They could not exceed 25 des. Thirdly, the size of non-alienated land in both southern Ukraine and Europe, taking into account the relevant regional characteristics of soil quality and fertility, the level of intensification of agriculture, land shortages for one peasant farm, etc., fluctuated within approximately the same limits. Fourthly, the political and economic future of their countries by the leadership of the aforementioned European countries and P. Wrangel was unambiguously linked to the institute of a private ownership of land, the economically developed agricultural sector of the economy, profitable single peasant farms. The peasantry was understood as the guarantor of such prospects. In the case of Soviet Russia, what was common was that the Bolsheviks, like P Wrangel, chose to support the middle-class peasantry as the main focus of an agricultural policy.

Aware of the need for quality changes aimed at intensifying agriculture as a sector of the economy, P Wrangel worked in this direction. In our estimation of efficiency of this work, in our opinion it is necessary to consider the conditions under which it was carried out. Despite the adverse circumstances, P Wrangel's agrarian reform in southern Ukraine was fruitful. Its conduct, firstly, testifies that the Commander-in-Chief took care of improvement of land management, improvement of agro-technical cultivation of land, provision of peasant farms with agricultural machinery, seed fund, working cattle and so on. Secondly, the measures taken by the government did not seek to exacerbate the authorities' relations with the peasantry. On the contrary, every effort was made to minimize confrontation in the countryside. Thirdly, an agrarian reform was based on the principles of the state protectionism of the peasantry.

The Conclusions. Among the clear achievements of P. Wrangel's agrarian reform were the following results: 1) the peasant character of an agrarian legislation and agrarian reform in general, aimed at preserving livestock, including breeding stock, providing peasant farms with agricultural machinery and stock, seeds; 2) the complimentary attitude of the peasantry of the South of Ukraine to the activities of the white civil authorities during the sowing, harvesting, normalization of lease relations, intensification of the agrarian sector as an economic sector; 3) in the course of an agrarian reform in the south of Ukraine, 3145 peasants became the real owners of the land, which was confirmed by the relevant legal documents, according to which 66,725 des. of land were secured into private ownership. None of the governments that took part in the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917 - 1921 achieved this.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agrarnaya politika Vrangelya. (1928). Agrarnaya politika Vrangelya. [Wrangel's Agrarian Policy]. The Red Archive, 1, 61-65. [in Russian]

Bernstein, H. (2018). The Peasant Problem in the Russia Revolution(s), 1905 - 1929. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45 (5-6), 1127-1150. [in English]

Cherkasov-Georgievskiy, V. (2004). General P. N. Vrangel. Posledniy ryitsar Rossiyskoy imperii. [General P. N. Wrangel. The Last Knight of the Russian Empire]. Moscow. 512 p. [in Russian]

Derzhavnyi arkhiv Avtonomnoi Respubliky Krym (SAARC - State Archive of Autonomous Republic of Crimea)

Derzhavnyi arkhiv Rosiiskoi Federatsii (SARF - State Archive of Russian Federation)

Fareniy, I (2019). The Peasant Revolution in Theoretical Views and Political Practice of Ulyanov- Lenin. East European Historical Bulletin, 10, 58-65. doi: 10.24919/2519-058x.10.159186 [in Ukrainian]

Fareniy. I (2014). Pro pravomirnist kontseptsii “Velykoi selianskoi revoliutsii” V P Danylova. [On the Legitimacy of Danilov's Concept of the “Great Peasant Revolution”]. Ukrainian Peasant, 14, 162-166. [in Ukrainian]

FonDrejer, V. (1921). Krestnyiy put vo imya Rodinyi. Dvuhletnyaya voyna krasnogo Severa s belyim Yugom, 1918 -1920 gg. [The Way of the Cross in the Name of the Motherland. Two-year War of the Red North and the White South, 1918 - 1920]. Berlin. 155 p. [in Russian]

Holec, R. (2011). Agrarna demokracia akopokus o tretiucestu Stredoeuropskej transformacie [Agrarian Democracy as an Attempt at a Third Way in Central European Transformation]. Historicky Casopis, 59 (1), 3-32. [in Slovak]

Imshenetskiy, Y. (1919). Vosstanovlenie poryadka v derevne [Restoring the Order in the Countryside]. Poltava Day, 31. [in Russian]

Istoriya grazhdanskoy voynyi v SSSR (1959). Istoriya grazhdanskoy voynyi v SSSR [The History of the Civil War in the USSR]. (In 5 vol). T. 4. Reshayuschie pobedyi Krasnoy Armii nad ob'edinennyimi silami Antantyi i vnutrenney kontrrevolyutsii (mart 1919 g. - fevral 1920 g.). [The Decisive Victories of the Red Army Over the United Forces of the Entente and Internal Counter-revolution (March 1919 - February 1920)]. Moscow. 444 p. [in Russian]

Kachinskiy, V. (1922). Ocherki agrarnoy revolyutsii na Ukraine. [Essays on Agrarian Revolution in the Ukraine]. Kharkiv: Derzhvydav. 107 p. [in Russian]

Kornovenko, S. (2008). Ahrarna polityka bilohvardiiskykh uriadiv A. Denikina, P. Vranhelia na pidkontrolnykh yim ukrainskykh terytoriiakh (1919 - 1920 rr.): istoriohrafichnyi protses 1919 - 2000-kh rr. [Agrarian Policy of the White Guard Governments of A. Denikin, P. Wrangel in the Ukrainian Territories Under Their Control (1919 -1920): Historiographical Process of1919 - 2000s]. Cherkasy: Ant. 238 p. [in Ukrainian]

Kornovenko, S. (2014). Ukrainska revoliutsiia 1917 - 1921 rr.: selianskyi factor [1917 - 1921 Ukrainian Revolution: the Peasant Factor]. Ukrainian Peasant, 14, 142-146. [in Ukrainian]

Kornovenko, S. (2017). Subiektnyi skladnyk ahrarnoho pytannia yak odna z peredumov Ukrainskoi revoliutsii 1917 - 1921 rr. [The Subjective Component of the Agrarian Issue as One of the Preconditions of the 1917 - 1921]. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 4, 83-95. [in Ukrainian]

Kornovenko, S., Zemziulina, N. (2018). Revoliutsiini potriasinnia pochatku XXst.: ahrarne zakonodavstvo krain Tsentralnoi ta Pivdenno-skhidnoi Yevropy. [Revolutionary Upheavals of the Beginning of Twentieth Century: Agrarian Legislation of the Countries of Central and Southeastern Europe]. Ukrainian Peasant, 19, 45-49. [in Ukrainian]

Kovalyova. N., Kornovenko, S., Malynovsky, B., Mykhailiuk, O. & Morozov, A. (2007). Ahrarnapolityka v Ukrainiperiodu natsionalno-demokratychnoi revoliutsii (1917-1921 rr.) [Agrarian Policyin Ukraine during the National-Democratic Revolution (1917 - 1921)]. Cherkasy: Ant. 280 p. [in Ukrainian]

Noveyshee agrarnoe zakonodatelstvo. (1922). Noveyshee agrarnoe zakonodatelstvo [The Newest Agrarian Legislation]. Needs of the Village, 66-95. [in Russian]

Revoliutsiinyi protses 1917 - 1920 rokiv. (2014). Revoliutsiinyiprotses 1917-1920 rokiv: vytoky, zmist, znachennia zbirnyk naukovykh prats za naslidkamy teoretychnoho seminaru, orhanizovanoho kafedroiu arkhivoznavstva, novitnoi istorii ta spetsialnykh istorychnykh dystsyplin I Naukovym tovarystvom istorykiv-ahrarnykiv 13 chervnia 2013 r [The Revolutionary Process of 1917 - 1920: the Origins, Content, Value. Collection of Scientific Works on the Results of a Theoretical Seminar Organized by the Department of Archival Studies, Modern History and Special Historical Disciplines and the Scientific Society of Agrarian Historians on 1 S. 3 June 2013]. Cherkasy: Vertical, 62 p. [in Ukrainian]

Rosiiskyi derzhavnyi voiennyi arkhiv (RSMA - Russian State Military Archive).

Ross, N. (1982). Vrangel v Kryimu [Wrangel in Crimea]. Frankfurt-On-Main. 362 p. [in Russian]

Rybalka, I. (1987). Velykyi Zhovteni zminy sotsialnoi struktury selianstva Ukrainy [The Great October and Changes in the Social Structure of the Peasantry of Ukraine]. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 11, 38-52. [in Ukrainian]

Shafir, Y. (1923). Ekonomicheskaya politika belych [Economic Policy of Whites]. Entente and Wrangel. Collection of Articles. (Vol. 1, pp. 99-124). Moscow, Petrograd. [in Russian]

Sumpf, A. (2017). The Russian Peasant Revolution [les revolutions du paysanrusse]. VingtiemeSiecl: Revue dHistorie, 135 (3), 102-116. [in English]

Ter-Pogosyan, M. (1922). Zemelnaya reforma v Gretsii. [Land Reform in Greece]. Needs of the Village. P. 43. [in Russian]

Tsentralnyi derzhavnyi arkhiv vyshchykh orhaniv vlady ta upravlinnia Ukrainy (CSAPOU- Central State Archive of Public Organizations of Ukraine)

Tsvetkov, V. (2006). Beloedvizhenie. Istoricheskie portretyi. [White Movement. Historical Portraits]. Moscow, Astrel. 446 p. [in Russian]

V mestnostyah, zanyatyih nami. (1920). V mestnostyah, zanyatyih nami [In the Areas Occupied by Us]. Voice of Tavria, 252. [in Russian]

Verstiuk, V. (2003). Ukrainskyi natsionalno-vyzvolnyi rukh. Berezen-lystopad 1917 roku [Ukrainian National Liberation Movement. March - November 1917]. Documents and Materials. Kyiv. 1024 p. [in Ukrainian]

Vyvoz zerna za granitsu. (1920). Vyvoz zerna za granitsu [Grain export abroad]. Voice of Tavria, 329. [in Russian]

Wrangel, P. (1992). Vospominaniya barona P. Vrangelya [Baron P. Wrangel's memoirs] (Vol. 1.). Moskva. 480 p. [in Russian]

Размещено на Allbest.ru