The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, who believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How does it happen that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - the epic of M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don".
In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their own labor, in prosperity and respect. Cheerful, joyful, full of work and pleasant worries, the life of the Cossacks is interrupted by the revolution. And before the people there was a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, whom to believe - red, promising equality in everything, but denying faith in the Lord God; or white, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But does the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would have to be made, what difficulties would have to be overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the protagonist of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others himself. Of course, the first murder of a man
deeply and painfully strikes him, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the war makes him cruel. “I became terrible to myself ... Look into my soul, and there is blackness, like in an empty well,” Grigory admits. Everyone became cruel, even women. Recall at least the scene when Daria Melekhova without hesitation kills Kotlyarov, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about what blood is shed for, what is the meaning of war. Is it possible that “the rich are driven to death for the needs”? Or to defend the rights common to all, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases were both on the part of the whites and on the part of the reds. "They are all the same ... they are all a yoke around the neck of the Cossacks," says the main character.
In my opinion, the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, Sholokhov sees in the drama of the transition from the old, centuries-old way of life, to a new way of life. Two worlds are colliding: everything that used to be an integral part of people's lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new one still needs to be accepted and used to it.

M.A. Sholokhov is rightly called the chronicler of the Soviet era. "Quiet Don" - a novel about the Cossacks. The central image of the novel is Grigory Melekhov, an ordinary Cossack guy. True, maybe too hot. In the family of Gregory, large and friendly, the Cossacks are sacred ...

If we step aside for a while from historical events, then we can note that the basis of the novel by M. A. Sholokhov "The Quiet Flows the Don" is a traditional love triangle. Natalya Melekhova and Aksinya Astakhova love the same Cossack - Grigory Melekhov. He is married...

Many works have been written about forced collectivization and the massacre of the peasantry. We were told about the tragedy of the Russian peasant by the books of S. Zalygin "On the Irtysh", "Men and Women" by B. Mozhaev, "A Pair of Bays" by V. Tendryakov, "The Raid" by V. Bykov...

P.V. Palievsky: “Almost all of us know that in our literature there is a writer of world significance - M.A. Sholokhov. But we are somehow poorly aware of this report, despite the achievements of criticism. You can’t see the new that Sholokhov introduced into literature, perhaps ...

Mikhail Sholokhov's novel "Quiet Flows the Don" tells about one of the most intense and eventful periods in the history of our country - the time of the First World War, the October Revolution and the Civil War. The plot is based on the fate of the Don Cossacks,...

A civil battle, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody battle, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, who believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How does it happen that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - the epic of M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don".

In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their own labor, in prosperity and respect. Cheerful, joyful, full of work and pleasant worries, the life of the Cossacks is interrupted by the revolution. And before the people there was a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, whom to believe - red, promising equality in everything, but denying faith in the Lord God; or white, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But does the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would have to be made, what difficulties would have to be overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov announces, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the main character of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others himself. Of course, the first murder of a person hits him hard and painfully, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the battle makes him cruel. “I became terrible to myself ... Look into my soul, and there is blackness, like in an empty well,” Grigory admits. Everyone became cruel, moreover women. Recall at least the scene when Daria Melekhova without hesitation kills Kotlyarov, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about what blood is shed for, what is the meaning of war. Is it possible that “for the needs of the rich they are driven to death”? Or to defend the rights common to all, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this battle is becoming meaningless, because one cannot fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases were both on the part of the whites and on the part of the reds. “They are all the same ... they are all a yoke around the neck of the Cossacks,” says the main character.

In my opinion, the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, Sholokhov sees in the drama of the transition from the old, centuries-old way of life, to a new way of life. Two worlds collide: everything that used to be an integral part of people's lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new one still needs to be accepted and used to it.

Shakespeare's comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream The action takes place in Athens. The ruler of Athens bears the name of Theseus, one of the most popular heroes of ancient legends about the conquest of a warlike tribe by the Greeks...

The vitality of "Sharikovism" as a social and moral phenomenon... The story "Heart of a Dog", in my opinion, is distinguished by an extremely clear author's idea. Briefly, it can be formulated as follows: accomplished in ...

The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, who believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How does it happen that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - the epic of M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don".

In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their own labor, in prosperity and respect. Cheerful, joyful, full of work and pleasant worries, the life of the Cossacks is interrupted by the revolution. And before the people there was a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, whom to believe - red, promising equality in everything, but denying faith in the Lord God; or white, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But does the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would have to be made, what difficulties would have to be overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the protagonist of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others himself. Of course, the first murder of a person strikes him deeply and painfully, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but war makes him cruel. “I became terrible to myself ... Look into my soul, and there is blackness, like in an empty well,” Grigory admits. Everyone became cruel, even women. Recall at least the scene when Daria Melekhova without hesitation kills Kotlyarov, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about what blood is shed for, what is the meaning of war. Is it possible that “the rich are driven to death for the needs”? Or to defend the rights common to all, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases were both on the part of the whites and on the part of the reds. "They are all the same ... they are all a yoke around the neck of the Cossacks," says the main character.

In my opinion, the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, Sholokhov sees in the drama of the transition from the old, centuries-old way of life, to a new way of life. Two worlds are colliding: everything that used to be an integral part of people's lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new one still needs to be accepted and used to it.

War as a tragedy of the people in the literature of the twentieth century War is the death, suffering, pain of people. Many works have been written about her. The authors of books about the war explored military everyday life, authentically depicted battles, they also spoke about the courage of their native land, about the pricelessness of human life, about how ordinary people, having a conscience and a sense of duty to the Motherland, sacrificed themselves. Georgy Baklanov in the story Ch Forever - nineteen-year-old Ch tells about the short life of his hero. Before the war, Viktor Tretyakov lived like all ordinary people. The boy was happy, loved his father and mother, but the war took everything from him. Shortly before the start of the Great Patriotic War, Victor Tretyakov's father, who was not guilty of anything, was arrested. A stranger appeared in the family, Ch's stepfather. Tretyakov did not accept him, relations with his mother changed. The hero condemned her, believing that her mother had cheated on her father. And here is the war. First, her stepfather leaves for her, then Tretyakov himself. The writer shows how honest and kind the young man is. Tretyakov has the best qualities. In war, he does not hide behind other people's backs. Lieutenant Tretyakov appreciates, pities the soldiers, is not afraid of difficulties, is capable of a feat, is true to his word, understands that the word Ch is also an act. In the war, Tretyakov grows up. He sees death and now knows the true value of life. Memories of loved ones, of home, of peacetime help the hero to keep a person in himself in tragic conditions. While in the hospital, Tretyakov reflects on life, scolding himself for his boyish insolence and stupidity. He is a youth with no right to condemn his mother for her decision to marry again. The hero disliked his stepfather, not understanding that he brought pain to his mother, dear, beloved person. Now he asks her forgiveness in a letter, he wants her to be happy. In the hospital, Viktor Tretyakov met his first love. His feeling is tender, strong, pure. Sasha Ch is the girl who is infinitely dear to him. The hero is ready to share her misfortune, anxiety. He loves her truly, tries to help her in everything. You read the pages of the story dedicated to their meetings, and you worry about the love of the characters. I want happiness to happen. But war will destroy everything. You could pretend you didn't notice her. Tretyakov is offered to stay in this small town where the hospital was located, but the honor and duty inherent in the young man do not give him such an opportunity. Front again. Now Victor is responsible not only for his mother, sister, stepfather, from whom there have been no letters for a long time, but also for Sasha, for her mother. There is no peace in Sasha's family: his mother has a German patronymic, and therefore worries. How will their life go on? War H then with the Germans! Tretyakov, and together with him we understand how much grief the war brought with it. She separated the hero from his father, stepfather, took away his life. Victor never lived to be 20 years old, forever remained nineteen. He received a letter in which his mother and sister congratulated him on his birthday. It arrived a day before the celebration. On this day, Tretyakov was wounded, everything seemed to be fine, because he was sent to the hospital, but the war delivers its final blow. Tretyakov dies on the way to the hospital. Before his death, he thinks about the people with whom he was on the same cart, tries to help them, gives way, he himself goes on foot. A stray bullet kills him. Yes, no doubt, the hero lived every minute of his existence on earth according to his moral values. The war destroyed his dreams, and Sasha Ch, his beloved girl, who managed to overcome many difficulties, lost her happiness. War H tragedy, pain, death. In the hero G.Baklanov embodied the best features of his generation - a sense of duty, patriotism, responsibility, mercy. It seems to me that the main thing is that we should inherit humanity from that generation. Manifesting it in everything, we will always live without war.

SECOND:
People of Honor and Duty in Modern Russian Literature Honor and duty These moral categories are undoubtedly very important in people's lives. For many heroes of the works of classic writers, honor and duty are words filled with deep meaning. Pyotr Grinev, Pierre Bezukhov are endowed with fearlessness, a sense of justice and duty, responsibility, kindness. Time passes, everything around changes. Duty and honor remain either necessary for a person or not. The twentieth century is the era of wars and destruction. In my opinion, in extreme situations, a person shows his true face. Vasily Bykov C is a seventeen-year-old participant in the war, a writer who reflects in his works about a person, about his behavior in a war, about duty and honor, which guide the hero of the story of the same name ChSotnikov Ch. The writer sent two partisan scouts Ch Sotnikov and Rybak to death. They were supposed to deliver food for the detachment that had taken refuge in the forest. At first, the heroes appear before us as comrades in a partisan detachment, as like-minded people. Rybak attracts attention more than Sotnikov because of his physical strength, luck, and vitality. Sotnikov is shown as a gloomy, irritable person. The events of the story gradually unfold, and we see how the characters of people are manifested in their actions. The fisherman becomes unpleasant to us, causes hatred, as he is capable of betrayal. Sotnikov, on the other hand, opens up as a strong-willed, courageous nature. The writer is proud of Sotnikov, whose last feat was an attempt to take all the blame on himself, removing it from the headman and Demchikha, who came to the Nazis for helping partisan intelligence officers. Duty to the Motherland, to people, as the main manifestation of one's own self, is what the author draws attention to. Consciousness of duty, human dignity, soldier's honor, love for people - such values ​​exist for Sotnikov. It is about the people who are in trouble, he thinks. The hero sacrifices himself, knowing that Ch's life is the only real value. And Rybak had just a lust for life. And the main thing for him is to survive at any cost. Of course, much depends on the person, his principles, beliefs. Rybak has many virtues: he has a sense of camaraderie, he sympathizes with the sick Sotnikov, shares with him the remnants of steamed rye, and behaves with dignity in battle. But how did it happen that he becomes a traitor and participates in the execution of his comrade? In my opinion, in the mind of Rybak there is no clear boundary between the moral and the immoral. Being with everyone in the ranks, he conscientiously bears all the hardships of partisan life, without thinking deeply about either life or death. Duty, honor, these categories do not disturb his soul. Faced alone with inhuman circumstances, he turns out to be a spiritually weak person. If Sotnikov thought only about how to die with dignity, then Rybak is cunning, deceiving himself and, as a result, surrenders to his enemies. He believes that in moments of danger, everyone thinks only of himself. Sotnikov, despite the failures: captivity, escape, then again captivity, escape, and then the partisan detachment, did not harden, did not become indifferent to people, but retained loyalty, responsibility, love. The author does not pay attention to how Sotnikov once saves the life of Rybak in battle, how the sick Sotnikov nevertheless goes on a mission. Sotnikov could not refuse, as this was contrary to his life principles. On the last night of his life, the hero recalls his youth. Lying to his father in childhood became a lesson in pangs of conscience for him. Therefore, the hero strictly judges himself and holds an answer to his conscience. He remained a man in the cruel conditions of war. This is the feat of Sotnikov. It seems to me that in the tragic situations of war it is difficult to remain true to yourself, to your moral principles. But it is precisely such people of duty and honor who fight evil, make life more beautiful, and they make us think: do we know how to live in conscience.

Lushnikov Oleg Vadimovich
Researcher at the Institute of History and Archeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

The topic of the civil war is huge, complex, controversial, and is so connected with the personal views of researchers that sometimes you realize that almost 100 years have passed, and the civil war is still going on. Disputes continue who is more to blame - whites or reds, who started the terror first, and who was more cruel.

The civil war became a national tragedy, both for those who were in power, and for the intelligentsia, and for the common people. Under the conditions of the external and internal war that did not stop for 7 years, the entire established world collapsed. The economy was destroyed, personal destinies were broken, the country lost colossal resources - material and human. The death of millions in fratricidal combat, devastation, famine, diseases, epidemics, threw the country back for decades, and caused new crises (demographic, economic, etc.). To a certain extent, the inevitable methods of forced industrialization of the 1930s were laid at the same time. and accompanying victims.

While "big politics" was solving global issues, the life of ordinary people turned into an ongoing nightmare. The documents of the Perm archives (GAPO and GOPAPO) impartially testify to the realities of society in a period of instability of power, the attitude of the population to the policies of the whites and reds. The leitmotif of all the documents of this period is the theme of hunger, devastation, violence, chaos.

A comprehensive analysis of what is happening in the country was given "in hot pursuit" in the "Appeal of Perm University professors to scientists in Europe and America" ​​signed by A.I. Syrtsov. “All printing is suspended; no newspapers are published except Pravda. Free preaching in the church entails imprisonment and execution... The slightest manifestation of displeasure causes punitive expeditions that carry out mass executions and even the destruction of entire villages. Under such conditions, the only way out for the population is an uprising. And indeed, the uprisings do not stop ... The country captured by the Bolsheviks is getting upset every day, thanks to the complete disorganization of life and poor nutrition, labor productivity has fallen 5 times, which even the Soviet authorities admit. Passive resistance or sabotage, manifested at every step, finally demoralized the people's labor. The unpunished capture of someone else's made labor meaningless. In this regard, the amount of food is decreasing every day and hunger is spreading wider and wider. There is a decrease in livestock and an ominous reduction in plowing in the country, which, however, is understandable; who wants to plow and sow, since he is not sure that the harvest will go to him, and will not be taken away by the committees of the poor or requisitioned for the needs of the Red Army ... After the departure of the Bolsheviks in the areas they left behind, they find everywhere the corpses of not only executed, but tortured by them victims. Especially terrible are the moments when, under the pressure of the advancing Siberian troops, the Red Army soldiers leave the areas where they ruled. Their anger reaches extreme limits. They forcibly steal residents with them, attack civilians, kill them, invade houses, where entire families are often slaughtered, rape women, and plunder property. In the villages, to this is added the senseless slaughter of those cattle that they cannot steal with them. (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 33. L. 1–9.)

The result of such a policy was the “Perm catastrophe” of the Reds in December 1918, and the successful mobilization and offensive of the Whites in the Kama region in the spring of 1919 (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 5. L. 76 .; F. р-746. Inv. 2. D. 54. L. 11, 11 v.), and the amazing intensity of passions and the readiness to die “like a samurai”, but not to fall into the hands of the “red monsters” among part of the Perm peasantry. (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 298, 298v.)

In the summer of 1919, the most irreconcilable either died in battle or left for Siberia and emigration. Tired of the arbitrariness of the military, the population hoped to find peace under the new government. However, soon after the red agitation generously distributing promises (F. r-484. Op. 2. D. 19. L. 1, 1 rev.), people in the village and in the city again faced the reality of “war communism”. Inflation, devastation, lack of food (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 14 .; F. 557. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 117.), Arbitrariness of power (GAPO. F 383. Inventory 1. File 20. Sheet 271.; F. R-49. Inventory 3. D. 19. Sheet 2, 2v.; F. R-656. Inventory 1. D. 32. L. 1–8; GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 9. L. 68.; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. F. 77, 77v.; 557. Inv. 1. D. 50. L. 63-65.) cause dissatisfaction even with workers and peasants who accepted the new government with hope, which often developed into spontaneous protests, covert and open criticism of the authorities, workers' strikes and peasant uprisings, mass desertion from the Red Army and prolonged partisan resistance in many districts of the province (Cherdyn, Osa, Okhansk, Kungur) (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 55 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 7. L. 69, 69v., F. 754. Inv. 2. D. 5. L. 195, 195v.). The authorities did not actually control most of the territory of the province, continuing to hold on to the bayonets of punitive detachments (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 158-159).

A set of documents from the Perm archives highlights the realities of the food dictatorship, the activities of the committees and food detachments, the pumping out of food from the village and its hungry everyday life (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 52. atrocities of food workers (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 50. L. 29, 29v. GAPO. F. r-49. Inv. 1. D. 534. L. 78, 78v.). In each document - tr “Comrades, freedom, equality and fraternity are preached everywhere and everywhere, but, unfortunately, I still don’t see any freedom or equality for the peasant yet, but they lead him, the poor fellow, like a leash horse, force him to soon time to thresh bread and at the same time provide bread, hay, straw, potatoes for bulking points, they are driven to all kinds of work and forced to bring fuel for all state institutions and even officials and are driven on duty, at the same time leaving no more than 1 horse on the farm, and require uniforms for our red eagles to the front, and a large amount of meat is required. And in such a stupor, the peasant’s head is completely spinning, and it happens that a peasant has no time to bring a hay cart and a bundle of firewood for his household, and he drives, poor, in the middle of the night ... ”(GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D 38. L. 89.)

“There are riots in our village, two soldiers came and took away a young cow from us, they impose very large taxes. If there is a pound of flour in the barn, then half a pound is taken away. We don't know how to live, it's very bad... Life is very bad. You can't say a word right now, otherwise you'll be arrested. They also take potatoes and eggs from us. Petya, this government is very bad.” (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 53. L. 29-30v.)

The attitude of the people to the new government is also characteristic, with the demand to disperse the councils of idlers and bureaucrats and return the headman, clerk and constable to the village. “Zhul crammed everywhere: bosses, commissars, etc., scoundrels, robbers, former drunkards who slept under the boat on the shore; they are commissars, they are our rulers. Our husbands, our fathers, our sons involuntarily shed blood at the front, and these damned communists hang around in the rear, save their skins, travel around the villages, arrange performances, such lazy people want to enlighten the people. This is only mockery of us, there is nothing more, if you please, now drive to work in such cold and such deep snow, tell jokes, we women go to the forest to chop firewood - not felt boots, not bast shoes and leather shoes, but go ... In an institution where 2 people were sitting, they ruled all affairs, and now there are 20 people, and they also say that there is already so much work - and there is no time to eat. Of course, there is a lot of work when they are almost completely illiterate: you come with some piece of paper, and you go from table to table, here it’s clear as day that he doesn’t know either “A” or “B”! (GAPO. F. r.-737. Op. 2. D. 1. L. 17–18 v.)

The food pumped out of the villages by repeated repeated surplus appropriations under peppy loud reports (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 138. L. 97.) led to a terrible famine in the winter of 1919 and in the spring of 1920 (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op.1. D. 7. L. 79). Peasants dying of hunger were forced to buy bread at exorbitant prices in neighboring counties, if only they could turn in an unbearable surplus appropriation (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1.D. 52. L. 94–96 .; F. 557. Op. 1. D. 138. L. 21.). Cultivation areas have fallen catastrophically. The former province-producer itself became in dire need of bread. (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. L. 21.; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. L. 38, 38v.). At the same time, the food taken from the people was actively and with impunity plundered by those who “guarded” and distributed it, rotted in tons in warehouses, and then thrown into ravines for all to see the hungry. (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 52. L. 94–96, 104–106, 133, 133v.). The bungling of individual leaders and the general line of the Central Committee on the "food dictatorship" as the most effective way to control society, almost did the Soviet Power a disservice.

Typical responses to the "second coming of the Bolsheviks" a year later. “1.07.20. Today in Perm they are celebrating the anniversary of the liberation from the bloody Kolchakovshchina, in other words, the liberation from grits, oil, freedom, etc. therefore, the occasion was only dealt with today until one o'clock, and from 2 o'clock the fun will begin. Eh ... yes, you just need to be silent. ” (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 51. L. 40, 44.)

“No, in other powers there are no such unrest as you have in Soviet Russia. You rule according to the popular saying: “I used to be a swindler, climbed into my pockets, and now I am the chief commissar in the Council” ... Down with the war, down with the communists! Long live the whites. Down with Lenin and Trotsky with the mare! Long live Kolchak with pig meat! (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 53. L. 4.)

The growth of anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic sentiments (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 10. L. 32 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 46-47), mass exit from the party, as ordinary members and responsible employees (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 63–66; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 63–66 v.; F. 557.op.1.D.55.l.77–79,134,135 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 53. L. 36v.), dissatisfaction with the authorities in a sick, hungry and undressed army (GOPAPO.-F .557.op.1.D.52.l.104-106.; GAPO. F. r-78. Inv. 3. D. 22. L. 41-42.) threatened the very fact of the continued existence of the Bolsheviks among authorities. And only the awareness of V.I. Lenin, the dangers of continuing such a course and the transition to the NEP made it possible to soften relations between Russian society and its new government.