Стаття присвячена встановленню кількості та імен загиблих під час більшовицького терору у
Києві в січні (за старим стилем)/лютому 1918 р. На основі проаналізованих статистичних даних, записів метричних книг київських церков простежується динаміка та топографія насилля. У тексті
ставиться питання, чому масове вбивство киян не отримало належного вивчення ані в історіографії,
ані увійшло в українські проекти колективної пам'яті. Авторка доходить висновку, що брак належної
уваги до жертв терору можна пояснити тим, що для українського наративу важливішою стала трагедія під Крутами, для російського – подальша боротьба з більшовиками в рамках Білого руху; єдиного
ж інклюзивного міського наративу подій досі не написано. На основі розглянутого матеріалу та стану розробки студій геноциду у статті ставиться питання доцільності подальшого вивчення більшовицького терору як злочину з ознаками геноциду.
The article is dedicated to the first of the bloodiest events in Kyiv during revolutionary period: terror organized
by the Bolsheviks against the city dwellers. The analysis of the terror victims is based on metric books and statistics
data. It is demonstrated that as many as 1286 were killed in January-February of 1918. Though, the number of
murdered civilians is less than it used to believe, the cruelty and circumstances in which Kyivities, the name of
which is also partly revealed in the article, were killed allow the historians to raise new questions while studying
the events. The author, actually, suggests considering applying genocide studies approach in the further studies of
the Bolshevik terror. At the same time, the author tries to answer the question of why historians have not been interested
in reconstruction of the events widening source base of their research and digging deeper so far. In her
opinion, the answer is that there is no integrated city narrative of the Revolution which would include different
perspectives and angles. Historians of the Ukrainian revolution picked up two events from that January story –
Kruty (where according to national myth 300 students sacrificed their lives for a newly independent Ukrainian
Republic) and destroyed by bomb Mykhailo Hrushevski’s house (an evidence of ruined city). For supporters of
White Russian movement or other opponents of the socialist Ukrainian government it was important to memorize
those events as an evidence of both Bolsheviks cruelty, barbarity, and weakness of the Ukrainian authorities. It is
presumed that number of casualties up to 5000 and half of them Russian officers had to be a proof of that enormous
cruelty taken for granted. Interestingly enough those voices did not notice that physically fighting with the Ukrainian
military units Bolsheviks actually aimed to destroy the old imperial Kyiv represented not only by the officers and
statesmen, but also by the oldest newspapers «Kievlanin» and «Kievskia mysl» which were shutdown and which
printing houses were used by Bolsheviks for printing their own newspapers. Ukrainian «Nova Rada» could be
published, however. The author also includes another voice which enriches our understanding of the events. That
is the Czechs’ voice of Tomas Masaryk and other members of the Section of the Czechoslovak National Council in
Russia located in Kyiv. The Czechs observed the events and decided not to be involved in the Russian internal
affairs. Thus, they did not elaborated any particular memory about the Bolshevik terror in Kyiv as well.
В статье рассматривается террор, организованный большевиками в Киеве в конце января-начале
февраля 1918 г. На основе анализа статистических материалов и метрических книг киевских церквей
уточняются количество и имена погибших. На примере материалов киевской прессы показано, как конструировалась память о событиях после восстановления в городе украинской власти.
