HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

PIATAKOV: A MIRROR OF SOVIET HISTORY 137In fact, Piatakov's activity both in 1917 and, in spite of the rupture whichthe October Revolution marked in this field too, during the Civil War offersa good measurement of the progress in the development of a Ukrainiannational-political frame of reference, to which at first he undoubtedlybelonged (as shown by the fact that, unlike Voroshilov or Kviring, beforehis Trotskyite option he was recognized by the Ukrainians as the representativeof a tendency which, though hostile, was internal to their world).After the Brest-Litovsk peace, for example, like all the leaders of theLeft, Piatakov resigned from his post. But, unlike the others, he left straightaway for Ukraine, to continue the war against the Germans and, with thevolunteer units of the "Red Cossacks," to keep alive the flame of the revolutionin Europe.The enemy of nationalism was thus transformed into the defender of theindependence and the specific nature of Ukraine. And, as such, he was theally of Mykola Skrypnyk against the "Russian" Bolsheviks of Kharkiv,Katerynoslav, and Luhans'k in the building of an independent KP(b)U, ofwhich he became the first secretary. Naturally, behind his pro-Ukrainianstance, which went as far as to sustain the new party's complete independencefrom the Russian one, there were divergences with Moscow over thepeace, with attempts to get around its effects, beginning with those inUkraine, doubts about the new power's "independent" ability to survive,and hopes for a European revolution. But, Piatakov's behavior in factconfirmed Ukraine's relative otherness compared to Russia and showed thatKiev was still one of Piatakov's centers of action.The rapid defeat at the hands of the Germans did not substantially alteranything, and, indeed, by the summer of 1918 Piatakov went so far as to sethimself up as the theoretician of the revolutionary potential of the Ukrainianpeasants, on whom he "gambled" in August, despite the violent oppositionof Kviring and his group, proclaiming an insurrection, which immediatelyaborted. At the Second Congress of the KP(b)U (October 1918) the Rightcriticized him and, thanks to the support of Moscow, gained the majority inthe Central Committee. Despite the "truth" of some of Kviring's observationsabout the Ukrainian peasants—revolutionaries, to be sure, but certainlynot of the Bolshevik line—Piatakov's position immediately seemedto be vindicated by the defeat of Germany and the rapid expansion of thepeasant insurrection in Ukraine.It was at this time that Piatakov, after having overcome the oppositionfrom Moscow, became for a few weeks the premier of the new Bolshevikgovernment. He was quickly removed from that position, for a series of reasonsthat cannot be analyzed here. What is of interest here, rather, as in theprevious sections, is the defeat and ship-wreck of the Bolshevik power in