Even if it were mathematically proven that 90 percent of the Russian revolutionaries were foreigners, mainly Jews, that would not in the least disprove the purely Russian character of the movement. Even if alien hands lent themselves to the cause, the soul of the revolution, its inner nature, for better or for worse, remains authentically Russian, proceeding from the ideas of the intelligentsia and refracted through the psyche of the people.112
Ustryalov displayed great perspicacity. In the Soviet state of Lenin's time he detected many traits that later would become characteristic of the Stalinist Soviet Union. He saw what many of the Bolshevik leaders did not. The source of his clairvoyance was his certainty of an exact parallel between the Russian and French revolutions. 'The transition from a revolutionary situation to a normal statesmanlike condition will occur not in spite of or in opposition to the revolution but through it."113 He was convinced that in Russia the evolution from radicalism to empire that had been seen in France would inevitably recur. To him the summer of 1920 was the coming of the Consulate, and the battles with Poland were like Napoleon's victories at Arcole and Marengo. The next step in the process would be the naming of an emperor.
Ustryalov's method of historical analogy enabled him to foresee certain features of the rising Soviet state. At the same time it led him into gross error. He saw the revolution as an invigorating and renewing force (and predicted a rebirth of Russian literary and cultural achievements that never came).114
Vasily Shulgin, in concluding a book on the defeat of the Whites and the White exodus from Russia, expressed a self-consoling thought that in many respects coincided with Ustryalov's views:
Our ideas have crossed the front lines and conquered our enemies' consciousness. . . . Let us suppose that the Reds only think they are fighting for the glory of the International... and in fact are shedding their blood, however unconsciously, for nothing other than the restoration of the "Divinely Protected Sovereign State of Russia."... If this is the case, it means that the "White idea," having crossed the battlelines, has conquered their subconscious minds. ... We have foreced them to serve the White cause with Red hands. ... We have triumphed. ... the White idea has been victorious.115
The changing landmarks movement arose among the right-wing, conservative sectors of the Russian intelligentsia. Efimovsky was a monarchist, Ustryalov and Klyuchnikov supporters of Kolchak, Shulgin a monarchist, and Gredeskul a right-wing Cadet. They all "changed their landmarks" when they came to the conclusion that the White cause was being served by Red hands. The ideologists of this movement were adherents of such conservative thinkers as Konstantin Leontiev and Joseph de Maistre. They accepted bolshevism because the idea of liberty, so crucial to the left-wing intelligentsia, was a secondary matter to them.
The turn to the New Economic Policy seemed to be a confirmation of the changing landmarks point of view. In November 1921 Ustryalov wrote: "Before our very eyes the tactical 'degeneration of bolshevism' is occurring as we have consistently predicted for more than a year and a half."116 To Ustryalov and his supporters there was no question that bolshevism was degenerating. In an article entitled 'The Radish" he argued that Soviet Russia was "Red on the outside, White on the inside." Symbols of this "radishness" were the "Red flag waving on top of the Winter Palace and notes of the Internationale being played on the bells of the Kremlin towers."117 The changing landmarks supporters took up the term national bolshevism, which had originated in 1919 in Germany, suggested as an ideology for the Russian intelligentsia after the "elimination of the White movement in its only serious and promising form from the point of view of the state (Kolchak and Denikin)."118 The liberal theorist Peter Struve had polemicized against the advocates of national bolshevism. Struve's fundamental error, as Ustryalov saw it, was that he confused bolshevism and communism. Bolshevism was a Russian phenomenon; communism was internationalist and therefore alien to Russia. The changing landmarks supporters hoped that the revolution would adapt to the national interests of Russia and accomplish what the weak tsarist regime had been unable to. It seemed to them that events confirmed their hopes.
"The ideology of reconciliation has become a firmly established part of the history of the Russian revolution," Ustryalov asserted.119 In the early 1920s the changing landmarks ideology of reconciliation was sharply criticized in emigr6 circles and often indignantly condemned as treason. But it had an effect. According to official data, from 1921 to 1931, 181,432 emigr6s returned to Russia, between 10 and 12 percent of all who had left. In 1921 alone 121,843 returned.120 In other words, the overwhelming majority were repatriated during the first year of the NEP, which was also the first year of the openly proclaimed changing landmarks movement. The chief practical significance of that movement for the Soviet government, however, lay elsewhere: it divided the intelligentsia, the greater part of which had either actively opposed the October revolution or passively refused to accept it. The changing landmarks movement was the equivalent among the intelligentsia of the Living Church. In both movements sincere individuals worked alongside direct Soviet government agents, believing that they were acting in Russia's interest, that the Kremlin towers would digest and expel the Red flags waving above them, or, as Ustryalov said, "The Red flag will blossom forth in the national colors."121
The Soviet press greeted Changing Landmarks enthusiastically. Izvestia discussed it in an article entitled "A Psychological Breakthrough": 'The essence of all the articles in the anthology comes down to the acceptance of the October revolution and the renunciation of all struggle against its results."122 Izvestia was surprised at the extent to which "people who just yesterday were fighting against toiling Russia, arms in hand, have now managed to understand its spirit and historic mission." Pravda greeted the anthology with an editorial entitled "A Sign of the Times."123 The anthology was reprinted on Soviet presses. Lenin talked about it. Trotsky at the Second Congress of Political Educators in October 1921 insisted: "Every province must have at least one copy of this book." The topic was also discussed at the Eleventh and Twelfth congresses of the Soviet Communist party.
The changing landmarks tendency was used above all to disrupt the emigration. For many years, the Soviet authorities would consider the mere existence of an organized and hostile emigration a serious danger. The struggle against the emigration would be waged with the help of the GPU and ideology. Having created the provocateur "Trest monarchist organization," the GPU would play a successful game from 1921 to 1927, creating dissension first of all within the monarchist emigr6 organizations and leading foreign intelligence services by the nose. The changing landmarks ideas penetrated broad segments of the emigration; they later became an important component of the ideology of "return to the homeland" and a basic element in the Eurasian movement.