Antipov, Alexander Petrovich

He graduated from high school in St. Petersburg in 1914, in 1914-1916. studied at the law faculty of St. Petersburg University . He graduated from accelerated officer courses at the Page Corps in 1916, ensign.

Member of the First World War; fought on the Western Front . In February 1918, captured by German troops and placed in a camp for Russian officers in East Prussia. In October 1918, released; arrived in Novocherkassk, where he joined the Volunteer Army. He took part in battles with the Reds in the Mineralnye Vody area.

In the fall of 1920, he was evacuated from Crimea with the remains of the Wrangel Russian Army in Gallipoli (Turkey). In the years 1921-1923. lived in Sofia (Bulgaria). In August 1923 he illegally came to Czechoslovakia, received permission to settle in Prague, but did not accept Czechoslovak citizenship. He was a member of the "Gallipoli Community" (1923-29), which in 1924 became part of the Russian All-Military Union (ROVS) . In 1927 he completed his legal education. He worked as an employee at the Skoda factory (Prague). ^[one]

He joined the Eurasian movement in 1927, in 1929 he was elected a member of the Prague Branch Committee and was appointed its secretary in the early 1930s. was the acting chairman. Antipov later spoke about the causes of the “attenuation” of the movement:

The Eurasian movement had few supporters, in view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of emigration was vividly counter-revolutionary and was not capable of perceiving a positive attitude towards the Soviet Union. Many Eurasians completely switched to the Soviet platform; for them, Eurasianism served as a starting point from a white ideology to a Soviet one. Many old members of the Eurasian movement dispersed to other states, and therefore the Eurasian movement began to fade

- The Central Archive of the FSB of Russia. Document R-40030. Sheet 10.

He was published in Eurasian publications: “The New Epoch”, “Eurasian Notebooks”, made speeches at public evenings and meetings of Eurasians. In a draft letter to one of the leaders of the Prague Eurasian group of the post-Clamatic period, K. A. Chkheidze, N. A. Setnitsky, referring to the differences in views of the right and left Eurasians, noted:

It is not a secret to anyone who is able to ponder over the wording and statements that the position of your friends is now neither practically nor theoretically different from the position of the Klamar people (“Left” Eurasians P. P. Suvchinsky , D. P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky , S. Ya. Efron ). The whole difference is that they do not talk about Marx and Fedorov and do not conduct and do not try to conduct any conversations with the Soviet representatives. As for the statements, the report of Savitsky and Antipov’s speech a month and a half ago fully rehabilitate Klamar’s position.

- A letter from N. A. Setnitsky to K. A. Chkheidze. (Between February 28 and March 2, 1934), Harbin ^[2]

Unlike the “founding fathers” of the Eurasian movement, the young generation overwhelmingly passed through the crucible of the Civil War in the ranks of the white armies. In their works, an important place is taken by the comprehension of the lessons of that fratricidal war, including in the works of Antipov, in the past - a white officer. For example, in the article “White and Reds,” Antipov gave a biased interpretation of the causes of the Civil War, which, in his opinion, was a reaction of the Russian officers to the agitating work of the socialist parties. In the view of A., the white armies consisted of alien policies of “front fighters”, “experiencing a feeling of pain for scolded dignity and national honor” by Bolshevik-internationalists.

In his articles, he acted as a fiery patriot who devoted his life to the struggle for the triumph of the Russian idea:

Those whites whose head is capable of free, critical thinking, and the heart beats with the heart of all of Russia, realized that the idea of ​​the fatherland should have the content, that the October Revolution is not a meaningless rebellion, but an excruciating search for that social order that would contribute to the whole mental the appearance of the Russian people and their historical past, in which this appearance was forged. In the revolution, the Russian people searched for themselves and now they are close to finding themselves. To find oneself means to realize one’s vocation, and the vocation of the Russian people consists in the struggle for the truth of life, for life in truth, where there should be no oppression and exploitation, and friendly work is for the benefit of the common cause. This is the socialist ideal of the Russian people and the content of the Russian national idea.

^[3]

Antipov laid the blame for the defeat of the white movement on politicians who promoted “old obsolete Western ideologies” (from monarchist to socialist) in the rear of the white armies. These "restorers" had the fullness of civil power in the white missions. It was their activity that gave the White Case a reactionary form, which, according to Anipov, did not reflect its content.

Antipov believed that the white movement did not have a developed ideology, did not pursue political, socio-economic goals, and was guided only by “one national idea,” but this idea was not filled with social content, while the Reds, on the contrary, “obscured the national feeling". The combination of these two principles: “sacrificial love for the motherland” and “high socialist ideal”, according to Antipov, will ensure the implementation of the Russian national idea of ​​“social truth”, and therefore white and red should unite and jointly go towards a common goal: eliminating the absurdities of the communist system and amicably take up the construction of a new social Russia ":

Red and white, or rather, former red and white, are so close to each other that it is time for them to forget that they once with bitterness sought to destroy each other. The whites now know that in the current Russian army, which the whites consider the Red Army, there are many strong Russian people who deeply love their homeland. For these reds, it is time, for its part, to understand that there are many white people among them who are close in spirit. The Reds must understand what would be a shame for Russia if there were no white movement, as this would mean that there were no people among the Russian people who could not indifferently endure the scolding of Russian dignity. But on the other hand, Russia would not be Russia, that is, a country that is called upon to lead the rest of the world in its search for social truth if it had not singled out the social asset that began to fight against social untruth in arms. It is not the red or white ideology that must be borne in mind in order to unravel the meaning of the civil war, but the internal motives that guided the white and red ones.

These thoughts of Antipov, as well as the views of other representatives of the young generation of Eurasians, were consonant with the ideas expressed earlier by N.V. Ustryalov and V.V. Shulgin . Ustryalov back in 1920, regarding the collapse of the white movement, said:

The causes of the disaster lie incomparably deeper. Apparently, they need to be sought in other planes. Firstly, the events convince us that Russia has not yet outlived the revolution, that is, Bolshevism, and indeed there is something fatal in the victories of the Soviet regime, as if such is the will of history. Secondly, the anti-Bolshevik movement by force of things too connected itself with foreign elements and therefore involuntarily surrounded the Bolsheviks with a famous national halo, essentially alien to its nature. The bizarre dialectic of history unexpectedly put forward Soviet power, with its ideology of internationalism, as the national factor of modern Russian life, while our nationalism, remaining unshakable in principle, faded and faded in practice, due to its chronic alliances with the so-called "allies" ^{[4 ]}

Following other Eurasianists, Antipov, in accordance with the Eurasian ideas about the evolution of the socialist revolution, believed in its transformation from a communist to a national one. Politically, according to Antipov, this will lead to the transformation of the Soviet “semi-aristocratic”, due to the significant role of proletarian origin, “pseudo-democracy” into a true ideocracy as the realization of the Eurasian ideal of “leading stratum” rule, “capable of taking into account the interests of all social groups of the state, appreciating them in terms of their functional significance in relation to society as a whole. ” In the economic, to the creation within the framework of an ideocracy of a "harmonious" planned economy on the basis of a "deeply developed worldview stemming from the essence of the people", which will distinguish it from the plannedness of "inactive" dictatorships. ^[5]

Antipov devoted particular attention in his theoretical searches to developing the concept of ideocratic domination. Based on the traditional or “complicated” Eurasian definition of ideocracy as “a state in which the ruling stratum is formed and replenished on the basis of the fulfillment of the idea of ​​subordinating“ citizenship ”to it, Antipov, as N. S. Trubetskoy and Savitsky, in the mid-1930s . in the modern world he saw no signs of the development of states in an ideocratic type into a "true ideocracy", with the exception of the USSR, since its political borders coincided with the natural contours of the development of Russia - Eurasia. " ^[6]

This position of Antipov was consistent with the Eurasian notions that a true ideocracy is possible only within the framework of an autarkic world, because the ruling layer “as an active noumenon of a nation or group of nations” is an expression of the will of all their organic “living space” - development.

These thoughts were supported by quotes from the works of the founder of the magazine Wiederstanda ('' German '' Widerstand) E. Nikisch , in a cut it was stated that Germany should unite with Russia in order to regain the “Potsdam idea” of the era of Frederick II. Moreover, in this “German-Slavic unity, which will extend to the Pacific Ocean”, according to Nikish, “the German substrate will be a commanding, creative element”, which will necessarily lead to “a struggle between Germany and Russia for hegemony within the eastern cultural and political world” (Antipov A.P. New ways of Germany ... S. 42).

From this, Antipov concluded that the attitude of “young” Germany to Russia was ambivalent as a “teacher and an object."

Antipov’s interest in German conservative revolutionaries was not only theoretical. He tried to establish direct contact with some of them: he was negotiating with the leader of the Der Gegger group (“Opponent”) X. Schulze-Boysen about the publication of Eurasian articles on the pages of the magazine of the same name, and sent the programmatic provisions of the Eurasians to Di Tat ^{[7 ]}

On June 2, 1945, Antipov was arrested in Prague by members of the military counterintelligence SMERSH of the 1st Ukrainian Front on charges of "belonging to a counterrevolutionary organization." The information provided by Antipov during interrogations allows us to clarify a number of events related to the activities of the Eurasian movement. For example, during interrogation on August 21, 1945, Antipov spoke about the reasons for Savitsky’s trip to Soviet Russia and the further steps of the Eurasians.

Having the intention to personally establish contact with the anti-Soviet element remaining with the USSR and organize work against the Soviet regime, Savitsky illegally crossed the USSR state border at the end of 1926 and entered Moscow. While in Moscow, Savitsky made contact with the Monarchist Langov, together with whom he created an anti-Soviet organization. Who was part of this organization, Savitsky did not speak. In addition to creating an underground anti-Soviet organization, Savitsky and Langov also developed the program of the “Eurasian Movement”, in which one of the first points was the question of the overthrow of Soviet power. ... Having returned abroad, Savitsky convened a meeting of the “Higher Eurasian Council” in Paris, at which the organization’s program submitted for approval was considered. After the corresponding amendment, this program was approved by the “Council” and accepted for management.

- The Central Archive of the FSB of Russia. Document R-40030. Sheet 10.

By the decision of the Special Meeting at the NKVD of the USSR of October 20, 1945, he was imprisoned in a forced labor camp for a period of 10 years. According to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, he died in Butyrka prison from pneumonia.

Rehabilitated by the conclusion of the USSR Prosecutor's Office of February 28, 1991.