Depending on what features the agrarian policy of the white governments had, their relations were built with the peasantry, which supported either the communists or their opponents. During the Civil War, Denikin, Kolchak and Wrangel managed to develop entire programs related to agriculture, but they were never implemented.
The Importance of the Rural Issue
Historians are still studying what features the agrarian policy of white governments had. New research is possible due to the discovery of previously unknown documents, etc. In the context of the outbreak of the Civil War, the position of the peasantry became vital for any government. It was the villagers who became the backbone of the armies, and it was from them that the well-being of unstable political regimes depended. The uprising of the discontented peasantry could become fatal both for the Bolsheviks and for the supporters of the monarchy or republic.
Therefore, every government since 1917 tried to appease the inhabitants of the villages, making concessions to their interests. Before the October Revolution, the land issue was resolved gradually, through elaborated laws and decrees. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd, the situation changed radically. Primitive decisions, changes according to the current situation - these are the features of the agrarian policy of the white governments during the Civil War.
Haste of change
Even under Nicholas II, the Stolypin reform began to be implemented on the relocation of enterprising peasants to Siberia with the purchase of land on credit. This program could not operate in conditions of a full-scale military conflict throughout Russia.
According to the economist and philosopher Peter Struve, all anti-communists had to quickly alienate property from the state in favor of the villagers. In other words, the privatization of land took place in a hurry and often did not comply with legal standards. The situation was aggravated by the fact that for the most part peasants were not familiar with the laws and other regulatory documents.
Uncertain actions in the south
So, what features did the agrarian policy of white governments have? Its main postulates completely and completely depended on the views of leaders. So, Anton Denikin called the three principles of the Supreme Council of the All-Union Socialist League: to preserve the right of ownership, to do everything to ensure order in the village, to maintain the production of grain and other crops at a level sufficient to feed the army. All these measures were temporary. Denikin himself admitted that all White’s policies in the Kuban and Don only postponed the agrarian question until better times, when power in the whole country would finally be in legitimate hands, and the Bolsheviks would be overthrown.
It was a rather sluggish position. While the whites hesitated, Lenin had already adopted the Land Decree, which confiscated the property of the landowners - long-standing enemies and oppressors of the peasants. This gave the Bolsheviks great support in the village. Denikins and other whites could not repress the landlords, since this was one of the pillars of the former system, for which most of them fought.
Cancellation of Bolshevik decrees
However, over time, the features of the agrarian policy of the white governments seemed to the peasants a mere trifle in comparison with the military communism, which was introduced by the Soviet government. The surplus appraisal was strengthened in the villages - up to 70% of products were taken from residents.
Starving villagers went to Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, etc., when they learned what features the agrarian policy of the white governments had. In short, the opponents of the Communists, beating off some area from them, immediately abolished all Soviet laws on food surplus and decrees. If the previous owner of the plot was not located, then the allotment was temporarily transferred to the state fund.
Siberian example
In Siberia, the features of the agrarian policy of white governments, in short, differed from Denikin's because of the lengthy communications and large territory. In particular, a specialized ministry of agriculture was created, which was engaged in the settlement of land disputes between owners. Zemstvos were also recreated. They were a minimal administrative unit. Zemstvo issued land and monitored the inviolability of the right to property.
Siberian transformations were a vivid example of a political course when the authorities tried to solve a particular issue in a dialogue with the public. A special council was created for these purposes. It included not only officials of the Ministry of Justice and Agriculture. There were also elected representatives of the peasantry and other local residents of a particular region.
At the same time, a case is illustrative when Kolchak during a public speech in Chelyabinsk in 1919 explained what features the agrarian policy of white governments had. The short answer is this: the supreme ruler of Russia believed that over time it is necessary to abandon the previous order, when there was a dominance of large landowners in the country. Kolchak said that the state needs small and strong peasant possessions, which would become the basis of a market economy in the village.
Conclusion
March 26, 1919 the above theses of the supreme ruler of Russia were developed in a specially prepared "Land Certificate". The white government emphasized that in the future it would take care of the poor and poor peasants left without households. Criminals were declared those who, since that day, seized or divided the land of others.
On the whole, the agrarian policy of the opponents of the Bolsheviks can be described as a course towards recognition of private property. White hoped in the future to create a state fund that would distribute all disputed lands among market participants.