In consideration of this state of affairs it was a signal lack of good taste for the bolshevik papers, who should not have fought against other revolutionaries, that they, nevertheless, did that. How wrong they had been, they themselves saw some time later. Thus one of their papers which is published in English at Moscow ("Russian Press Review," edition of October 29, 1920) says, in an article under the heading "Machno and Wrangel," as follows:
"The War Commissariat has published the following correction: The French press has, as is probably known, written a good deal about Machno joining Wrangel. The Soviet press, in its turn, has also published documents which have shown that a formal alliance existed between Wrangel and Machno. But it has now been ascertained that this information was not correct. Without doubt, Machno has de facto helped Wrangel as well as the Polish army, by fighting against the Red Army. But a formal alliance has not existed between them. All documents published about a formal alliance between Machno and Wrangel were forged by Wrangel. A bandit chief from the Crimea, who called himself chief Voldin, who was under the command of Machno, received his instructions from the Wrangel staff. But in reality there was no connection between them. The whole forgery was undertaken by Wrangel, in order to deceive the French and other imperialists.
"For some weeks Wrangel was really trying to get into contact with the Machno forces and sent two delegates to Machno's headquarters, in order to begin negotiations. But the Machno' troops showed that they did not want to have anything to do with Wrangel, that they saw their error in fighting against the Soviet army by the fact that Wrangel wanted to get in contact with them. And united with the Soviet army of the South and jointly fought against Wrangel. Soon thereafter they proposed to the commander of the army of the South to undertake common action against Wrangel. This proposition was accepted under certain conditions. At the present time Machno is carrying on his operations of war under the direct supervision and orders of the commander of the army of the South, Comrade Frunze."
This document shows conclusively that all reports, stating that Machno fought on the side of Wrangel, were false. The bolsheviks excuse themselves by saying that they learnt only later that these documents were forged. In the first place it is quite peculiar that they had not found out sooner, as they otherwise do not put any faith in the capitalist press, but on the contrary always emphasize their lying tendencies. Second, one would think that the bolsheviks would not first go to foreign countries like France, to> get the news of what takes place in their own land. Because the French press wrote so and so (the French knew, consequently, better what took place in Russia) the bolshevik press took it up as the truth. But as the bolsheviks are not as naive as all that, there is good cause for asserting that it was not lack of correct information but evil intention that put the pen in the hand of their paper and their high command, when they spoke of co-operation between Machno and Wrangel.
In regard to the other statement, which is to be found in the article quoted above, that the Machno forces de facto, (that is, indirectly) had helped Wrangel when they fought against the Red Army, we have also to do with a conscious distortion of the facts, a conscious lie, for it was not the peasants under Machno which fought against the revolution. It was these peasants ivho made the revolution. It was when the centralistic Red Army wanted to rob the peasants of their freedom that the peasants rose against this new rulership also. Thus, it was not Machno who fought against the Red Army but it was the Red Army who wanted to strike down the peasants under Machno who were insurgents. When the peasants then defended themselves by fighting against the Red Army, it naturally appeared to the uninitiated as if the peasants under Machno fought against the Red Army.