Military Review

World War I - the key to the history of the twentieth century


Report at the scientific-practical conference “The war, mortally dangerous for Russia ...”, held October 27-28, 2008 by the Foundation historical prospects together with the Library Fund “Russian Abroad”.

“According to the superficial fashion of our time,” Churchill wrote, “it is customary for the royal order to be interpreted as blind rotten tyranny. But the 30 analysis of the months of the war with Germany and Austria had to correct these lightweight ideas. We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows that it sustained, by the disasters it endured, by the inexhaustible forces that it developed ... Holding the victory in her hands, she fell to the ground alive, devoured by worms ”[1].

Even judging by this statement, it is difficult not to notice how much our historiography lacks a deep understanding of the First World War. Unfortunately, Russian Soviet and post-Soviet historiography did not pay attention to so many aspects that led to the war. And not so much because of scientific negligence, - there are examples of excellent work of scientists on documents, - but because of a certain ideological constraint. Naturally, the paradigm of understanding historical processes was mainly aimed at that time to highlight those of them that, one way or another, promoted the world to a change in the former socio-political system. Concepts such as “national interests” in relation to a people as a nation — when rich and poor, old and young, man and woman — all feel like a single, single, living organism with common goals, historical experiences, in the Soviet historiography was not encouraged. And therefore, given the enormous research work that, despite everything, Russian science did in Soviet times, today it is necessary to take a fresh look through another prism in this period of history.
First of all, it must be emphasized that the Russian army of the period of the First World War, or the Second Patriotic War, as it was called at that time, was truly people's. Moreover, it was much more popular than any armies of today's democratic countries, where elites shy away from serving in them, and the backbone is made up of those who simply cannot realize themselves in other areas. In the Russian army of the time, the officers only half consisted of the nobility. The officers were people of other classes. They were made to the highest military ranks of the rank and file for such awards as the four George cross, which was awarded to my grandfather.

The question of the inevitability of the First World War, of course, is rhetorical. Too many powerful forces in it were interested: from the governments dreaming about the redivision of the world, revolutionaries, all sorts of internationals, the enemies of the Christian church to the Vatican itself, which intrigued along with England against its own spiritual daughter - the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

Stolen victory or a new look at the first world. Cycle "Tsarist Russia"

A documentary film from the series Tsarist Russia. Two and a half million Russian soldiers and officers gave their lives for Russia in the 1914 war of the year. But so far, our country has not put them a single monument. After the 1917 revolution, the exploits and sacrifices of millions of Russian people were forgotten, all the war graves of those times were destroyed, and the events of the First World War until recently were presented in Russian history only as a prologue to the great October socialist revolution ...

But the main strategic aspirations to the beginning of the twentieth century came together on the European maritime borders of Russia, in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. The interests of the formed triangle - Britain, Russia and Germany - collided in the Balkans, in the Black Sea region, in the strait region, and also in the Baltic.

Doesn't this remind us of today's realities? Do we not now see a reflection of the very contradictions - Russia's pushing away from the Baltic, from the Black Sea, from the region of the straits, which now became the naval approaches to the main region of world resources, to the routes of transportation of hydrocarbons.

For Russia at that moment it was absolutely impossible to stand aside, for all of its three hundred year history was crumbling. Subsequent events of the twentieth century urge to appreciate the wisdom of the notorious note of Peter Nikolaevich Durnovo (he will later be described by Soviet historiography as an arch-organizer) addressed to the Sovereign on the eve of the war, literally on the eve of it. From this note, it is clear that Durnovo foresaw both the revolution and literally everything that Russia would survive. And the main thing - these are the words of Durnovo: “Any casualties and the main burden of the war that will fall on us, and the role of a battering ram prepared for Russia, making a breach in the thickness of the German defense, will be in vain. For we are fighting on the side of our geopolitical adversary — Britain, which will not allow any serious gains. ”

World War I - the key to the history of the twentieth century

The fact that Russia, after the Sarajevo murder, was trying with all its might to refrain from the war, is being said by little-known telegrams of Nicholas II to his dear “cousin Willy” - the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. For example, such: “A shameful war was declared a weak country ... I anticipate that very soon, yielding to the pressure put on me, I will be forced to take extreme measures ... In an effort to prevent such a disaster as the European war, I implore you, in the name of our old friendship, do everything possible to prevent your allies from going too far. ”

A few years before, shortly after the Bosnian crisis, the chief of the Austro-Hungarian general staff, F. Conrad von Hoettsend, noted that the invasion of Austria into Serbia would undoubtedly lead to the performance of the first Russia. And then for Germany comes casus foederis - a reason for the fulfillment of allied obligations.

And for 15 years before World War I, the well-known politician of Kaiser Germany, B.fon Bülow, who became chancellor in 1906, wrote in his notes: “In a future war, we must push Russia away from Pontus Euxinsky and the Baltic Sea. From the two seas that gave her the position of a great power. We have to at least 30 years, to destroy its economic position, bombed its coast. " Such documents make sense of sense that the war, as the Bolsheviks wrote in their leaflets, was unnecessary, vain and incomprehensible.
Each of the internal political forces, despising the common interests and the fate of their own Fatherland, sought to extract only political benefits from the war. Therefore, the First World War, even by the alignment of these domestic political forces, is a good lesson for today's politicians.
The aggravation of contradictions between the states was brought to the apex of a monstrous campaign against each other in the press, including in the Russian one. Tsarist Minister Sazonov condemned the "Germanism" of the Russian press, but it was incomparable with the Russophobic hysteria that began in Prussian newspapers. This we must not forget.

The German historical impulse turned to the redivision of the world is usually associated with the name of the “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck, who left something like a political testament, writing: “In the East we have no enemies”. But just Otto von Bismarck understood perfectly well: one cannot conquer Russia! The war with Russia is absolutely impossible: it will be long, protracted, but in the end it will be lost.

After Bismarck, the creator of a strong Germany, all further development of the political situation in the country went under the aura of his name. But the impulse that has developed in relation to the East and the Slavs, of course, makes us think about how the unbridled ambition leads, in the end, only to losses. An example of this is the fate of Germany and Austria after the First and Second World Wars. And this, too, must always be remembered.

As for the Anglo-Germanic contradictions, it is impossible not to notice how they are obscured by Western historiography. In fact, the Anglo-German rivalry from the beginning of the twentieth century largely colored international relations, including the period after World War II. However, this circumstance eluded the sight of Soviet historiography, which viewed the entire non-socialist, capitalist world as a whole.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia, by its very existence in the acquired borders, represented an unconditional new force - a force that was viewed by Britain as an immediate threat to its interests. How many British newspapers wrote that "the Cossack cavalry is about to cross the Pamirs (presumably, crossing the Hindu Kush), and invade Britain in India!"
The contradictions between England and Russia, which by all estimates at the end of the nineteenth century should have led to some kind of Anglo-Russian clash, then both journalism and serious analyst spoke in vain.

However, completely different configurations began to take shape. And the beginning of such changes, in the opinion of documentaries, was laid by the letter of the Russian ambassador in Paris, Baron A.P. Moorengeim, from 1886. To the surprise of the Russian central department, he reported that in the event of a possible clash between France and Germany, Britain would support France. And this is after three centuries of containment by Britain of its main rival on the continent - France!

There is nothing paradoxical in the fact that Bismarck, in part, owes the first successes of his policy to the benevolent attitude of Britain. But his calculations on the longevity of this benevolence were short-sighted. The policy of England changed as soon as Germany began to form as the leading Central European, and then the world highly industrial and military power.

But in order to hold back Germany or prevent its rise, it was not enough English sea power. As British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray said, for continental countries such as Russia and Germany, defeats at sea are not disastrous. And in order for the defeat to be serious, we need a continental war between continental opponents.

Thus, there is an interest in Britain in the clash between Russia and the Central Powers, which, of course, does not relieve responsibility from other parties to the conflict.
This is an extremely interesting topic, and it has been little studied. The same, for example, can be said about such a component of the world cataclysm as religious and philosophical confrontation - the task of destroying the last Christian monarchies in Europe, the complete change of the state concept to rationalistic secular states. For such a “trifle” as the religious and philosophical foundations of history was not present in the scientific thinking of even the most venerable historians.

Of course, historians are obliged not to fall into marginalism and to be cautious in their assessments, avoiding vulgar-publicistic clichés about “Masonic conspiracy”, etc. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that a great number of movements, ideological organizations, as they would say today, sympathized with the worldview, not with their own governments, but with a certain idea of ​​bringing the world into an ideal model, born of the rationalistic consciousness of the philosophy of progress, which from within decomposed national communities .

For example, in the Franco-Prussian war, all French liberals supported Prussia only because Protestant Prussia was a symbol of progress for them compared to backward Catholic France. Documents on this testify.
It is no coincidence that one of the patriarchs of the British Balkan studies of the early 20th century, RU Seton-Watson (known for a number of serious works on the Eastern Question - one of the most lively topics related to the division of the world at the end of the 19th century) wrote that World War I was also a division of the world and the revolutions of 1789 and 1848! He does not mention the theme of the 1917 revolution, for he means shaking the world with the ideas of overthrowing the monarchy and establishing secular republics.

On the maps of the "future", which were published by strategists even for 24 year before the First World War, Europe very much resembles today. Instead of Christian monarchies - secular republics, Bohemia is separated from Austria, Germany is dismembered ... In the caricature of that time, all Christian monarchs are depicted being driven to the police station under the Jacobin red cap.

Another map has been preserved, where instead of Russia it is indicated: “desert”. Obviously, this was not a desert project in the sense of exterminating the population, it was a dream to deprive Russia of the role of a backbone element and turn its territory into material for historical projects of others.

It can be said that the First World War, with a triangle of Anglo-German-Russian contradictions, with the collapse of Russia and the drama revolution, led to the fact that the twentieth century was, of course, the Anglo-Saxon age. All that the German potential failed during the two world wars was perfectly accomplished by the Anglo-Saxons, creating a buffer between the Slavs and the Teutons from small dependent states from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea, thereby dividing Europe again.
It must be said that the post-war world searchlights, which were developed at the Versailles Conference, also need new insight with the study of archives and documentary publications. This is prompted even by touching the materials and transcripts of the “Council of the Ten” Paris Conference, which, in fact, developed the Versailles world. A huge role in this project of the future world was played by the group “The Inquiery” led by Colonel Howse, this unofficial head of American foreign policy, alter ego of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

But this is not even amazing, but the fact that every day began with the reading of telephone messages from M. Litvinov, a representative of the Bolsheviks, who calmly settled in Stockholm, was the unofficial ambassador of the Bolshevik government and was in constant contact with the Anglo-Saxon rulers of the Versailles world. Litvinov in one of the telephonograms even proposed the annexation of some Russian territories in exchange for the fact that the Entente would withdraw its troops from Arkhangelsk and from the northern territories, surrendering the White Army to Red mercy.

At the same time, at the Versailles Conference, obviously, those configurations that were beneficial to Britain were laid. She could not accept the gains of Peter the Great in the Baltic. Already at Versailles, everything was done to consolidate the loss of the Baltic states by revolutionary Russia.
Documents and records of negotiations give rise to the feeling that it was then that the Bolsheviks “surrendered” the Baltic States. And that is why the United States did not recognize the restoration of the Baltic republics within the USSR to the end. Although until 1917, no one disputed the ownership of these territories of historical Russia. Obviously, the West believed: it is possible to “stand” on what was once promised by the self-proclaimed authorities of the country, we note, then not even recognized by the West and did not control the entire territory.

S. Sazonov, in his memoirs about the First World War, published in 1925, predicted: “What did the denial of honor and the renunciation of the precepts of history imposed on him by the International cost to the Russian people only to future generations”. And, decades later, in the 1991, we experienced a parade of sovereignties, who counted their independence from the 1918 year ...

It is to our contemporaries that history shows what the disgraceful Brest Peace really meant to Russia. Then, with one stroke of the pen, Russia lost everything, for which it shed blood in the First World War and for what then Soviet soldiers shed blood in the Great Patriotic War.

"Deadly dangerous for Russia" called the imminent world war Durnovo. He perfectly imagined that a war in the economic conditions in which Russia found itself would necessarily lead to a revolution, and a revolution would spread to a rival of Russia - Germany. This is what happened. The victory of Germany will destroy the economy of Germany, Durnovo wrote in his note to the Emperor, and the victory of Russia - the economy of Russia. No one will be able to reparations to compensate for the damage. But the main thing is that the peace treaty in case of victory will be dictated by the interests of England, which will not allow any important territorial gains of Russia, except, perhaps, Galicia. And then P. Durnovo warned: “Only a madman can join Galicia. Whoever joins Galicia will lose the empire and Russia itself will become a small Russia. ” His foresight is astounding, for that is exactly what happened in our time, at the end of the 1990s.

Stalin annexed Galicia, forgetting that already since 1349, she has not shared her fate with Orthodox Ukraine and is a completely different cultural and historical type, in which Ukrainian self-identification is “anti-Moscovite.” The consequences of this thoughtless step we are seeing now. Poland’s current position, always restless where it comes to harming Russia, is understandable to those who are well aware of the works of Polish Pan-Germanists published in Krakow, in Austria-Hungary the day before and during the First World War.

True, the founder of the Institute of Red Professors and the vulgar-class sociologism in historical science M. Pokrovsky argues that “the German predator was still smaller and lower than the flight of its rivals, and the war was directly provoked by the Russian party and the Serbian militarists, which were months before it began they were preparing to partition Austria-Hungary, and, as Pokrovsky hints, they were behind the murder of Franz Ferdinand. He does not mention the German project Mitteleuropa based on the doctrine and the works of Pan-Germanists, such as Friedrich Naumann, who openly preached in the Reichstag and were actively printed in Berlin and Vienna.
It was about creating a German superstate with varying degrees of state unity between the alien territories included in it, right up to the straits and Baghdad. Sazonov called this project the “Berlin Caliphate”, in which the Kaiser became the “gatekeeper of the straits” instead of the Turkish sultan.

Pro-German Poles echoed this doctrine. Professor von Strazhevsky of the Krakow Jagiellonian University considered it a historical axiom that “Russia, pushed back in the Pacific Ocean, seized upon the predatory Pereo-Asiatic and Pan-Slavist plans that were interfered with by Poland.” According to him, “with its millennial membership in Western European Christian culture in all areas of public life,” Poland stands immeasurably higher than Russia, which with its Byzantine-Asian character is “the greatest enemy of all European culture.”

It is worth remembering how, in our interview today in September 2005, the well-known modern Polish historian Pavel Vecherkovich expressed regret that Poland did not agree with Hitler. Then she would take part in the parade of the victorious Polish-German troops on Red Square. Terminology and thinking have not changed since the First World War: Russia is the “northern bear”, the direct heir to the aggressive aspirations of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan.

However, it must be remembered that "the opinion of Poland on Russia, - as Engels wrote to Vera Zasulich in the nineteenth century, is the opinion of the West".

Historiography, its tone and accents in the twentieth century vary surprisingly depending on the ideological and ideological paradigm. During the Cold War, even in historical works, they begin to accuse Russia of allegedly being the main culprit of the outbreak of the First World War. Documents, however, say otherwise. Even at the Versailles Conference, when absent Russia could seem to lay all the blame, the commission to establish responsibility for the start of the war categorically decided: The First World War was unleashed for the sake of redistribution of the world by the Central Powers and their satellites.

Russian scientists today urgently need to initiate major historical conferences with Western colleagues. In the scientific community, as can be seen when working abroad, in principle, there is much more decency and objectivity, readiness to admit the truth of facts and documents, than in the Western press. Discussions in serious audiences are both interesting and fruitful.

However, unfortunately, the achievements of Western European science itself are not always reflected in textbooks. They still instill between the lines that Russia is a failure of world history.
And in Russia itself, inattention to studying the period of the First World War led to significant distortions in the historical consciousness of society. But the absence of successive historical consciousness is the weakness of any state. When a nation cannot find agreement on any issue of past, present and future, it is not able to realize its historical interests and is easily amenable to alien projects and ideas. But navigable rivers and non-freezing ports, access to the sea are equally needed by the monarchies of the 18th century and the republics of the 20th, communist regimes and democracies of the 21st.

The split of society before the First World War predetermined in many respects the losses and losses that we suffered after the revolution. Russian people instead of, as stated in the manifesto of Nicholas II, "reflect, rising as one person, the daring onslaught of the enemy," forgetting all internal strife, on the contrary, drowned in many-voiced disputes about the state organization, betraying the Fatherland, without which there can be no state.

The results of the First World War laid the balance of power of the twentieth century - the Anglo-Saxons, which wanted, was to break Germany, wounded by the outcome of the Versailles Conference. After all, when the text of the Versailles Peace Treaty was made public, it was a shock for the Germans. But instead of thinking about their sins and delusions, ups and downs, they gave birth to the Hitlerite doctrine of the natural inequality of people and nations, the rationale for unbridled expansion, finally discrediting the German historical impulse in the eyes of the world to the great satisfaction of Britain and the United States. The Anglo-Saxons forever “ordered” to the Germans the idea of ​​the unity of all German lands, which is now a nightmare for political correct historical consciousness.

In the age of universal values ​​and computerization, when the microchip supplanted Shakespeare, Goethe and Dostoevsky, the factor of power, the ability to influence, as we see, remains the basis of strategic control over territories, resource-rich regions and maritime approaches to them. This is evidenced by the policies of the great powers in the beginning of the XXI century, although these powers prefer to think of themselves as “great democracies”. However, in international relations much less democracy is manifested than successive geopolitical constants.
In 1990, Russia temporarily renounced the sensation of its geopolitical mission, rejected all the traditional foundations of its foreign policy. And while her political elite revel in "new thinking", the whole world willingly took advantage of the old.

The lines of force, which are now pushing Russia to the north-east of Eurasia, are surprisingly similar to those that appeared before the First World War. This is dropping Russia into the tundra, away from the Baltic, from the Black Sea, this is a rejection of the Caucasus, this is an oriental issue that did not remain in the nineteenth century.

It was these traditional configurations that were the main content of international contradictions throughout the twentieth century, despite the external side - the rivalry between communism and liberalism. The strategic points of the planet were the subject of the most dramatic clashes at both the diplomatic and military levels. There is nothing new in this world. But only one who knows the story well is able to adequately meet the challenges of the future.

[1] Churchill W. The World Crisis. 1916 — 1918. - NY, 1927. - Vo1. 1. - R.227 — 229 /
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexey
    Alexey 8 November 2010 20: 07
    A question for Natalia. Tell me. In the film "Admiral" the Tsar sounded a phrase to Kolchak - "I agreed with France and England that we will take control of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles." How does it fit with the policy of the Anglo-Saxons, and then it was about the termination of the existence of Turkey. Is it real if they wanted to oust us from the Baltic and Black Seas at all?
  2. kamenskiy1944
    kamenskiy1944 28 July 2014 18: 45
    Everything was correctly and intelligibly told by Natalya Alekseevna - as always.
    Both World Wars were unleashed by the World Dictatorship - and this last, the 3rd, is the same.
    + Paul Craig Roberts: Does Russia (and humanity) have a future?
  3. Rodokon
    Rodokon 30 August 2019 20: 04
    Bullshit! This war, which was never needed by Russia, and even more so by the Russian people, was never called patriotic, but was called German. For what they were fighting, none of the soldiers-peasants and workers knew, because Since the Kaiser of Germany was a relative of Nikolashka the Bloody, it is clear that even with the complete defeat of Russia, there will be nothing terrible from his German relative, and the war is organized by the bourgeoisie and only they have their own gesheft in it, and the people, both Russian and German, only cannon fodder for the huge profits of the millionaire oligarchs. Naturally, who will call this war a patriotic one, and, even more so, have a desire to shed blood for parasites? The bourgeois sat at home, counting the profits from the war, and people were driven to the war to fight, it is not clear why. Well, they killed some bourgeois there, in Serbia, so what and what does Russia have to do with it? Moreover, at that time the German tsars "Romanovs", and really - the Holstein-Gottorp brought the country "to the handle", never before in its entire history was Russia so weak and backward. The lost Crimean War of England and France, the shamefully lost war of tiny Japan, what kind of war with Germany could one talk about then, without having its own industry, killing millions of children and adults with annual hunger and regular famines? Here is the result - a general desertion and conscripts who are sick or dystrophic. This is for the tsar's crooks, who gorged and boiled at the expense of starving millions of Russian children, selling bread to the Germans was profitable to wage war as long as possible, and for the people, especially when they began to divide the land in a new way, the war became like a bone in the throat - unnecessary and worthless, and not at all domestic, but bourgeois, imperialist.
  4. Rodokon
    Rodokon 31 August 2019 15: 00
    Bullshit! This war, which was never needed by Russia, and even more so by the Russian people, was never called patriotic, but was called German. For what they were fighting, none of the soldiers-peasants and workers knew, because Since the Kaiser of Germany was a relative of Nikolashka the Bloody, it is clear that even with the complete defeat of Russia, there will be nothing terrible from his German relative, and the war is organized by the bourgeoisie and only they have their own gesheft in it, and the people, both Russian and German, only cannon fodder for the huge profits of the millionaire oligarchs. Naturally, who will call this war a patriotic one, and, even more so, have a desire to shed blood for parasites? The bourgeois sat at home, counting the profits from the war, and people were driven to the war to fight, it is not clear why. Well, they killed some bourgeois there, in Serbia, so what and what does Russia have to do with it? Moreover, at that time the German tsars "Romanovs", and really - the Holstein-Gottorp brought the country "to the handle", never before in its entire history was Russia so weak and backward. The lost Crimean War of England and France, the shamefully lost war of tiny Japan, what kind of war with Germany could one talk about then, without having its own industry, killing millions of children and adults with annual hunger and regular famines? Here is the result - a general desertion and conscripts who are sick or dystrophic. This is for the tsar's crooks, who gorged and boiled at the expense of starving millions of Russian children, selling bread to the Germans was profitable to wage war as long as possible, and for the people, especially when they began to divide the land in a new way, the war became like a bone in the throat - unnecessary and worthless, and not at all domestic, but bourgeois, imperialist.
  5. Rodokon
    Rodokon 31 August 2019 15: 37
    Sheer lies !!! No bad Durnovo foresaw anything and wrote what everyone has known for a long time - Russia, as a German colony for more than 300 years, had no policy of its own, it was ruled by the Germans Holstein-Gottorp, known in Russia under the pseudonym "Romanovs", and the invaders are never interested in needs the colony they captured. So Russia lived for 300 years, then, by order of Peter, copying everything foreign, and destroying its own people from time to time, it did the will of the English queens and as a result, sending its soldiers to die for the needs of foreigners in various European and Asian wars, it lagged behind in every way that had neither industry capable of securing the country with at least weapons for protection, nor agriculture that could feed the country. This is where the wars lost by Russia originate from: Crimean, Russian-Japanese and German. Another deceit - the Russian army has never been popular, just as Russia itself was not popular - it was divided into two camps: a bunch of gentlemen who live and live off the labor of another camp - Labor People: peasants who fed the whole country and workers who created all the wealth of the country. For more than a thousand years, with the occupation of Rus' by Christianity, which cruelly passed through the roller of destruction of Russian Culture by fire and sword, legalized slavery was introduced - the so-called "serfdom", which made the People of Labor - things for masters, nobles, tsars, princes, aristocrats and other degenerates of the elite cattle. This meant that the so-called "masters" (which in the Old Russian Initial letter means "Satanists") could freely do whatever they wanted with their serf slaves: rape their women and children, torture, maim and kill in any quantity. Even if your landlord will let your dogs tear and bite your dogs, you cannot complain about him - they will immediately send you to hard labor. In the history of serfdom, there was only one single case under Catherine 2, when Saltychikha was tried, who killed and tortured more than 1500 Russian serf slaves by torture, and even that, she was not hanged and sent to hard labor, even for such a monster there was no fair retribution. So the army was exactly the same copy of the country with respect to the soldier, as to an inanimate object, which has no right to anything. And the fact that not all the officers were rich in the army did not matter, they all got great pleasure from the most widespread social pleasure - humiliation of a person by the "master". And even more so, this German war was never called Russian soldiers - 2. It is not even funny. An excellent example - the Decembrists - educated officers, the flower of the nation, noble people acted really noble - came out to defend the Heroes of the Patriotic War, because they defended their Motherland near Borodino, and then in the most decisive battle - "Battle of the Nations" near Leipzig, after victory again returned to slavery, where every scum, who sat during the war in his estate and drank vodka, could flog and scoff, as he liked, spitting on the merits to the Fatherland and St. George's crosses. So do not tell tales, because there were three revolutions in the country because people are tired of being slaves and living like a bestial, dying of hunger and enduring the bullying of tyrant landlords and army "officers". And do not deceive people that revolutions are made by revolutionaries, no, revolutions are made by lousy monsters, rulers and "masters of life" - capitalist slave owners. The revolutionaries only devote their lives to organizing the popular liberation movement of the masses. Not from a good life, millions of people abandoned everything and were ready to go to death, because death was easier than their life. There was never a united Russia and could not be, because officers, Cossacks, landowners and nobility lived in one world and in one - parasitic Russia; and the overwhelming majority of the country's population - the People of Labor lived in another Russia and in another world, having no right to anything, dying of hunger and hard labor.
  6. Rodokon
    Rodokon 31 August 2019 19: 42
    I am surprised by the complete ignorance of history by this author - "Doctor of Historical Sciences" and, in fact, this article is ordered, made in the fashion of exalting the colonial regime of German Russia of the "Romanov" tsars, turning a blind eye to their historical sabotage in relation to their colony - Russia and forgetting that the Stalinist USSR regained all the lands taken from the tsars and during the hard times of foreign occupation with the betrayal of the white bandits. The author has forgotten and most importantly - never and under any circumstances a colonial state that has external control, both in tsarist Russia and in the current eReF, is not able to achieve economic and military power in order to become independent and self-sufficient, as it was under Stalin. The sovereignty parade is caused by the weakness of today's Russia, and not by far-fetched reasons a hundred years ago, which for some reason did not exist during the revival of the country's power during collectivization and industrialization, and, most importantly, during the most difficult war in the history of mankind, but appeared as a result betrayal by the ruling clans of the essence of the USSR, betrayal of the most important thing that should be in a nation-state — betrayal of the interests of the people for the sake of the thirst for profit preached by all the countries of capitalism. For some reason, the author does not recall that the Japanese did not take away half of Sakhalin from tsarist Russia, as was the case under a lost war treaty, but all of Sakhalin, because tsarist Russia was not even able to return its land from the Japanese. Kuril Islands, not to mention Korea. The bourgeoisie of the Provisional easily surrendered to Finland, Poland and Ukraine. And in the same way the present bourgeois RF distributes land. The author reproaches Lenin for agreeing to a shameful agreement in the most difficult conditions of the war on many fronts, but does not remember the shameful Sevastopol peace, signed by Tsarist Russia after the defeat in the war with England and France, signed when Russia had an incomparably better position, than Soviet Russia had during the attack on it by 14 aggressor countries and white gangs of traitors to Russia. Moreover, the white officer did not object to the robbery and division of Russia into many small territorial entities, which would then easily be subordinated to the same England with France and the United States. No, these white traitors, who had forgotten about the honor of the officer and their homeland, traded it like in a market. And the commander of the American occupation forces with pleasure declared to the whole world that Russia had completely ceased to exist. And only thanks to the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Stalin, as well as all the people who fought for Soviet power, they managed to save and save Russia. And, most importantly, in that, unlike the useless German war, in which the people openly did not want to fight and massively deserted, people went to the Civil War voluntarily, because they finally had something to protect - the power that gave them Peace, Earth, factories and factories, and self-government. This is what everyone forgets about, recalling the worthless words of some foreigners or our parasitic capitalists. The religious aspect never existed at all - any religion is always an enemy of the people and is created, invented only in order to spread rot on the people, to instill nonsense into it that God supposedly wants the people to be a slave to some kings, princes, aristocrats and other degenerates. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the brain knows that there are no "special" people who pass on their "special" qualities by inheritance. Parasites invented this nonsense so that after them their children and grandchildren would rule. Something this white officer with great pedigrees did not show himself in the Civil War, losing to uneducated peasants and workers, and then, when they washed off abroad and fought there, like mercenaries, they did not become anyone either. But in Soviet Russia such commanders left the people that they defeated the most honorable generals of the Reich. Was tsarist Russia capable of holding onto against Hitler for at least 4 days?
    All political intrigues really mean nothing, since there is only one law of capitalism - they always attack the weak. Knowing the weakness of tsarist Russia, Japan quickly attacked Soviet Russia, but received from the Amur partisans. On the lake, Hassan received from the Red Army, on the Khalkhin-Gol river she was defeated by the Red Army, so in 1941 she did not dare to attack, knowing the strength of the USSR, unlike tsarist Russia, even though the European war was undergoing a severe war with the Hitler fascists and our troops retreated. And after the victory over fascist Germany, our troops defeated Japan, forcing it to surrender and returned all the lands captured by the Japanese from tsarist Russia. In 1939, the USSR returned to itself all the lands captured by Poland during its attack on the USSR in 1920, as well as the Baltic states. Fascist Finland also attacked the USSR, but received such a rebuff that it not only returned the lands it had seized by Russia, but also fought Nazi Germany together with the USSR.
    The United States conducted how many wars of conquest, how much evil, terror and fascism sowed around the world, but no one punished them except Vietnam and that only because ours helped the Vietnamese to counter American fascism. And little Vietnam defeated vast America. Now there is no stronger country than the United States, which is why they rule the whole world as they want. North Korea alone remained an independent country.