Although we today stand in the midst of the struggle and dispassionate objectivity does not yet prevail, still, the writer of the history of the revolution in Ukraine will be able to sum up these battles of the peasants and the Red Army from the following points of view: The Red Army battled against the capitalist world imperialism of the entente and against all the Russian czarist generals sent forth by this imperialism, as well as against the smaller states, like Poland, Roumania, etc., which were economically and politically dependent upon the entente. But the Ukrainian peasants fought against all, and even against the Russian Soviet Republic. The word "imperialism" coupled to the word "red" has, of course, only a symbolic meaning.
It further says in this article that the Machno troops have united with the Red Army. This only means that the peasants prefer the Red Army to the Wrangel army, not, however, that they consider the Red Army the savior of liberty, for they will also fight the Red Army if it tries to circumscribe their liberty. As long as the Soviet government of the bolsheviks does not annoy them, they take no exception to it. But if it demands their subjection, then they fight against it.
It is quite sure, however, that the bolsheviks, who now cooperate with Machno, will fight him again at their first opportunity and then, perhaps, will annihilate him. But with Machno's person they have not killed the rebellious spirit of the peasants. Of course, it might happen that a general exhaustion of the peasants, a relaxing of the revolutionary tension sets in, and that then the peasant movement comes to an end. Therefore later historians of the revolution could, chronologically, connect these things, but between Machno's person and his eventual separation from the movement, and the revolutionary movement of the peasants on the other side, there is no causal connection.
In Russia there are strong differences of opinion in regard to the character of the Machno movement. The Russians and the Russian revolutionaries do not allow themselves to be guided by the facts in passing judgment on this movement. Appreciations of this movement are almost altogether colored by preconceived theoretical views and opinions. Thus, the bolsheviks condemn the Machno movement, and so do the counter-revolutionaries. Both of them see in the peasants who flock around Machno, as well as in himself, only bands and bandits, which must be fought and exterminated, because they stand in the way of any government. The mensheviks, as well as the right social-revolutionaries, yes, even part of the left, condemn the base tactics of the bolshevik government in dealing with Machno, but they also turn against Machno, because they are for a unified and centralistic state army and against the Povstanzy. The maximalists, the social revolutionaries of the left, the largest part of the syndicalists and the anarchists defend the Machno movement, because they themselves desire no party rule and combat centralism. Thus one learns, when Machno is under discussion, less truth about Machno than truth about the standpoint of the disputants. An objective opinion of this movement one can only get by doing like the writer of this story, that is, by listening to all opinions in the matter without being a member of any of the Russian parties.
If we now free ourselves from all party opinions and hold fast to the objective facts of the case, the following historic facts are undeniable. The Machno movement in Ukraine was originally a movement of the peasants against hostile invasion. The rebellious peasants did not content themselves with fighting against the Germans and Austrians, but in the course of their battle they turned against every government. As in the course of events all governments through the war came into Ukraine from the outside, the peasants, who in some localities had had 13 governments, conceived of each one of them as a tyranny coming from the outside.