Military Review

I can not deny the principles

391
Not without bitterness and with surprise I saw an article on “IN”Lenin and the Bolsheviks saved the Russian civilization". With even more bitterness, he discovered that about half of the commentators supported the author. At the moment, the article has 115 advantages (quite a few). Perhaps, for the first time, I regretted that I removed the opportunity to put an article a minus ...


The bitterness of the pernicious tendency I have observed lately in the minds of a certain circle of patriotic people made me not just confine myself to the article, but come up with a separate answer.

After the catastrophe of 1991, which marked the fall of the communist system, society took the path of denying everything Soviet and returning to the ideas of tsarist Russia, which was quite logical. Simply because the collapse of the country was associated with the unconstitutional change of power in 1917, with the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which the communist regime preached just after the Bolsheviks came to power. Dissatisfaction with the fall in living standards in the 80s and the complete collapse of the state in 1991 led to the denial of everything Soviet, which means a return to the fact that this "everything Soviet" in due time replaced, that is, to pre-revolutionary values. The revival of the Orthodox Church began (many then even talked about the second baptism of Rus), the rehabilitation of many statesmen and public figures of Tsarist Russia in the eyes of the general public, the debunking of various historical myths heaped up over the decades of building communism.

But there was one "but." Liberal cosmopolitan forces, which in 80's were advantageous to chant everything that contradicted Soviet ideology, and therefore tsarism, and the church, and all those who personified the pre-revolutionary order, after the fall of the USSR were not going to build a similarity to the great Russia of the times empire. The ideas of the revival of the church, the monarchy, the Russian Orthodox spirit were deeply disgusting and alien to them. They used them to destroy the Union, but as soon as this happened, they immediately switched to their criticism. Tubes of slop on the church, on the clergy, on the Russian emperors, etc. As a result, against the background of the total impoverishment of the people in 90-s, the "second baptism" simply choked. Those figures who shouted about the evil communists who killed Russia on 1917 began shouting about "bloody Nikolashka" who betrayed Russia. As a result, there was a whole stratum of people who were simply lost in the stream of lies and cannot understand that the source of lies remains the same. The circles that criticized autocracy at the end of the 19 century, the same ones who then criticized the USSR in 70-80's, the same people who now criticize Putin and the church are the same people. And it is they, those we are not talking about, who came to power in the fall of 1917. And in their plans there was by no means any preservation of the Russian civilization, for all their activity was aimed at its destruction. And if it were not for Stalin, who miraculously seized power gradually, it is not known what would have happened with this very civilization.

I will not give extensive quotations, figures and diagrams, I do not defend my dissertation. Anyone can find a lot of works of the smartest people to draw their own conclusions. Of course, by the end of the 19 century, the Russian elite was badly rotten, and all the outstanding church leaders of that time wrote about it. They wrote and warned how it would end. And the 1917 catastrophe of the year and all the horror that followed it were not the salvation of Russian civilization, but the natural result of the aristocracy’s departure from its ancient Russian Orthodox values. If it was salvation, it was salvation through cruel punishment, and in this sense, the Bolsheviks were not saviors, but cruel executioners whose hands God graciously punished the Russian people, teaching him a lesson that happens when God's chosen people forget God. And today I will allow myself to remind this lesson to those who support attacks on the church and the traditions of the Russian monarchy: guys, this is not a joke, God is not mocked. He already taught us a lesson a hundred years ago, and if we did not learn it ... I'm even afraid to think about what the consequences might be. They will be bigger, more monstrous and more terrible than those that were at the dawn of Soviet power.

No one detracts from the achievements of the Soviet period, but it is impossible not to see the obvious that these achievements were not realized according to, but contrary to the plans of the Trotskyists, who seized power in 1917 year. The country that Stalin built, and the one that the Trotskyists built in the 20s, are two completely different countries. And the false godless ideology of Marxism-Leninism proved its inconsistency, leading the great country to complete collapse in some 30 years, as soon as Stalin was gone. And not just leading the country to collapse, but leaving the Russian folk soul completely devastated. And still, through the efforts of the neo-Trotskyists, this soul often remains empty and filled with vodka, because only the infinite God can fill it, the infinite. And without God, in the words of our great Dostoevsky, the Russian man turns into beast.

Therefore, I ask you, brothers, do not allow me to slander our history, our church, our emperor. Yes, there are many shortcomings in the church, and Nicholas II may not have been an outstanding statesman, but this is our Tsar - the anointed of God, the quintessence and personification of the Russian Orthodox people, secretly and villainously killed by a bunch of God-hating and Russophobes, who were called Bolsheviks.
Author:
391 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 8 November 2016 05: 42
    +65
    It turns out the Bolsheviks are to blame for everything! In this article, I would put MINUS!
    1. Finches
      Finches 8 November 2016 06: 04
      +70
      What kind of liberal nonsense? The Bolsheviks did not plan to make a revolution at all in 1917, but the children who came to power with their Provisional Government put the country on the brink of disaster, starting not with reforms, but with its banal sale to please the British and American tycoons! Approximately what the Poroshenko gop-company is doing in Ukraine now, only on a Russian scale! Seeing that the liberal bourgeoisie that came to power is not capable of running such a colossal Empire, simply merging it piece by piece, Lenin made the decision to seize power! And he did it on time, because people who think "progressively" like you have already prepared to tear the country apart and distribute them to foreign powers in order to ensure a comfortable old age, somewhere in Cannes! And your Nicholas II, weak in knees ruler - the French ambassador was right at his coronation - "Khodynka began, and will end with Khodynka!" And in general, the people in Russia are wise, so if Peter then Great, Alexander II Liberator, Alexander III Peacemaker... and Nikolay Bloody...hi
      1. 210ox
        210ox 8 November 2016 06: 20
        +39
        What are your principles, author? Vladimir, you have forgotten that Nikolai turned out not to be the anointed of God, but "hump No. 1", and then the hunchback became the second in line ... He profuked the state which his fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers collected ... He allegedly bears the cross .. Better not even stutter about the principles ..,
        1. Flinky
          Flinky 8 November 2016 07: 58
          +32
          These "principles" strongly remind Poklonskaya's recent "benefit performance" on the still unreleased "Matilda". The Holy Tsar, the anointed one, did not fuck the ballerina together with his younger brother, his actions are not discussed, one must believe in him. The heresy of regalism, in short.
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 09: 45
            +40
            Therefore, I ask you, brothers, do not allow me to slander our history, our church, our emperor. Yes, there are many shortcomings in the church, and Nicholas II may not have been an outstanding statesman, but this is our Tsar - the anointed of God, the quintessence and personification of the Russian Orthodox people, secretly and villainously killed by a bunch of God-hating and Russophobes, who were called Bolsheviks.
            God, how pretentious and how delusional. The author would like to wish to shove his "principles" into the place where the legs lose their proud name. It's hard to come up with more delirium than in this article.
            Not without bitterness and with surprise I saw an article on “VO” “Lenin and the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization”. Even more bitterly, he discovered that about half of the commentators supported the author.
            The poor fellow, probably already turned green from bile. According to Starikov, scratch the anti-Soviet, you will find a Russophobe.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 10: 28
              +15
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              Not without bitterness and with surprise I saw an article on “VO” “Lenin and the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization”.

              The Bolsheviks did not fulfill any of their promises, killed a bunch of people and lost a third of the country, seriously undermined Russian culture, so that the expression "the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization" sounds rather blasphemous.
              Compare the map of the Russian Empire in 1914 with the current RF, I hope there is no need to remind that Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the Central Committee of the CPSU of 1990 were communists (Bolsheviks)
              1. Finches
                Finches 8 November 2016 10: 36
                +25
                If the Provisional Government had not been stopped by the Bolsheviks, I’m afraid that our country would not have been observed on the world map ... hi
              2. Diana Ilyina
                Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 10: 38
                +36
                saturn.mmm Today, 10:28 ↑
                The Bolsheviks did not fulfill a single promise, ditched a bunch of people and lost a third of the country.
                Another crystal baker ?! Do not talk nonsense. It was not the Bolsheviks who killed a bunch of people, but the very same crushers who unleashed the civil war, who brought the invaders to Russia in order to destroy and plunder this country! You can wipe yourself with this card. What good was it that we had Poland and Finland in the structure ?! They did not want to assimilate, they lived according to their own way of life and laws, and even at our expense. The same thing happened in the USSR, when the "fraternal" union republics lived at the expense of Russia.
                And then it was not the Bolsheviks who brought the country to collapse, but your beloved Nikolai-bloody one! Kiss him at the fifth point along with the bow.
                1. Finches
                  Finches 8 November 2016 10: 45
                  +8
                  Diana! hi

                  Today you are simply charming in your righteous, I would say mildly, indignation against such types with Belarusian flags and sympathizers .... smile love
                  1. Diana Ilyina
                    Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 11: 16
                    +16
                    Zyablitsov Today, 10: 45 ↑
                    Diana! hi
                    Today you are simply charming in your righteous, I would say mildly, indignation against similar types with Belarusian flags and sympathizers for them .... smile love
                    Eugene, good day! love
                    Well, what to do, I do not like liars with all the fibers of the soul. And then they begin to tell how the people lived well under the tsar-priests, especially when Nicholas, who profiled such a country.
                    1. Finches
                      Finches 8 November 2016 11: 28
                      +7
                      The most interesting and, even paradoxical, but myth is that The Russia they lost began to form under Stalin, for one reason - after all, according to Marx, a revolution could only happen in a highly developed country! And I had to adjust reality to the theory, or vice versa! In short, the revolution did not happen in a problematic, in fact, a country, but in a country developing at a frantic pace!
                      In the end, everyone believed in the superdevelopment of Russia and now, having heard the phrase, "how delightful in Russia evenings and the crunch of French bread", a stingy tear runs down the cheeks of all liberals, and sweaty little hands are compressed into pockets ... laughing
                      1. Diana Ilyina
                        Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 11: 46
                        +17
                        Eugene, the paradox also lies in the fact that all Newmonarchists without exception see themselves in the new monarchy as apparently barons or counts, or even whole princes. And well, these people would be oligarchs, I would also understand that you can buy any title for money. But someone suggested to these local bakeries that they are a new elite and that as soon as the monarchy is established they will immediately become easy to live, that’s the question ...!
                      2. Stanislas
                        Stanislas 8 November 2016 12: 53
                        +3
                        Quote: Finches
                        myth that The Russia they lost began to form under Stalin, for one reason - after all, according to Marx, a revolution could only happen in a highly developed country! And I had to adjust reality to the theory, or vice versa!
                        You have a noticeable gap: after Marx, Lenin wrote about Russia as the weakest link in the chain of capitalism, in which its break should occur, and Stalin did not argue with him on this subject. Give a copy-paste from the works of Stalin, where he would refute this concept of Lenin in favor of Marx, if you did not compose this canoe yourself.
                    2. andj61
                      andj61 8 November 2016 21: 16
                      +1
                      Diana, I basically agree with you, but Finland alone under the tsar had almost the same status as Australia - the head of state is the Queen of England (Finland had a Russian emperor), but her government, currency, customs, and border service were even border with Russia (Lenin there in 1917 was not just hiding). Plus its own laws and its own political system. The laws of the empire, contrary to the laws of Finland, did not apply on its territory. The difference with Australia now is only in the absence of the Foreign Ministry and the armed forces. hi
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 12: 17
                  +4
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  Another baker? Do not carry nonsense.

                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  Kiss him at the fifth point along with the bow.

                  Diana, I’m not rude to you.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  It was not the Bolsheviks who killed a bunch of people, but those same bakers who unleashed a civil war

                  The Bolsheviks staged a coup.
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  What good was that we included Poland and Finland ?!

                  Diana, the border of the Russian Empire was near Berlin and now near Smolensk, it is almost 1500 km. For example, if you conduct hostilities, then how much does the enemy army need to go until it reaches the native Russian lands?
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  The same thing happened in the USSR, when the "fraternal" union republics lived at the expense of Russia.

                  On March 3, 1918, a peace treaty was signed in Brest-Litovsk, according to which, in addition to the territory of Western Belarus, which had been under occupation since 1915, most of the rest of the Belarusian ethnic territory was transferred under German control. On March 25, 1918, the Byelorussian People's Republic was proclaimed in the occupied territory. Under the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty, Germany recognized "the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914," Germany recognized the independence of Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, but not Belarus. After the departure of German troops, the Red Army occupied most of the territory of Belarus, which was also claimed by the newly formed Poland, which led in the spring and summer of 1919 to the formation of the Soviet-Polish front.

                  And why did the Bolsheviks need this burden?
                  1. Finches
                    Finches 8 November 2016 12: 29
                    +11
                    The liberal coup d'état took place in February, and the Bolsheviks organized the Revolution with concrete clear slogans for a simple people tired of war and devastation:"Peace to the peoples! Land to the peasants! Factories to the workers!", The Brest-Litovsk peace was a difficult but necessary compromise at that time to prevent a war that no longer made sense! Yes, and the Germans stood 170 km from Petrograd ... However, it could be done differently, but it happened, as it happened. I agree that the Brest peace will still be considered a diplomatic failure of the Bolsheviks, and it was accompanied by an acute political crisis inside the country. But in Germany, a revolution took place in November and Lenin immediately canceled this treaty!
                    1. Gardamir
                      Gardamir 8 November 2016 15: 04
                      +3
                      The Brest peace, we will still consider the diplomatic failure of the Bolsheviks,
                      so then you have the pluses, but I'll correct it here. The country is in ruin, in confusion, "what next?", And what prevented the end of "Crimean Spring" somewhere in Poltava, but the shameful Minsk conspiracy happened.
                      1. Finches
                        Finches 8 November 2016 15: 20
                        0
                        I don’t think that the analogy is entirely appropriate, the scales are not the same, and the reality then and now is strikingly different, moreover, we were at war, which left a definite imprint on decision-making!
                  2. Diana Ilyina
                    Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 12: 34
                    +16
                    saturn.mmm Today, 12:17 ↑
                    The Bolsheviks staged a coup.
                    Lying again! The coup d'état took place in February and it was not initiated by the Bolsheviks, but that very liberal-selling stratum led by Kerensky and, by the way, the tsar’s relatives led by Alekseev.
                    Diana the border of the Russian Empire was near Berlin and now near Smolensk
                    Bullshit, the Russian border has never been near Berlin, and now it is far from Smolensk.
                    For example, if you conduct hostilities, then how much does the enemy army need to go until it reaches the native Russian lands?
                    This was true in the first and second world wars. With the presence of nuclear weapons, no one will go anywhere with any armies.

                    So all your "arguments" are past the checkout!
                    1. iConst
                      iConst 8 November 2016 14: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      Lying again! The coup d'état took place in February and it was not initiated by the Bolsheviks, but that very liberal-selling stratum led by Kerensky and, by the way, the tsar’s relatives led by Alekseev.

                      It's true. And the troubles went through the provinces.
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 15: 07
                        +1
                        Quote: iConst
                        It's true. And the troubles went through the provinces.

                        Troubles went earlier.
                      2. Bloodsucker
                        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 22
                        +5
                        Quote: iConst
                        It's true. And the troubles went through the provinces.

                        The distemper in the provinces began precisely from February and reached its climax just in time for October, then already. Restoration of the country.
                    2. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 15: 06
                      +4
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      The coup d'etat occurred in February

                      The bourgeois revolution or coup, you can name in different ways
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      and that same liberal-selling layer

                      But to start an uprising at a time when the Germans were going to Petrograd is not betrayal?
                      You are outraged that the bakers started a civil war when the main slogan after October was "plunder the loot" expropriation.
                      A man worked all his life, created something, the Bolshevik came and took everything away.
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      Bullshit, the Russian border has never been near Berlin

                      On the map that I posted above, 160 kilometers from the Russian border to Berlin.
                      Diana, you forgive me for meticulousness, but I want to ask, in your opinion, where is the western border of the Russian Federation currently located?
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      This was true in the first and second world wars. With the presence of nuclear weapons, no one will go anywhere with any armies.

                      Are you quite serious? Throw rockets and all?
                      1. Finches
                        Finches 8 November 2016 15: 28
                        +5
                        And what does "rob the plunder" have to do with it ?? You about Thomas, you about Eremu-liberal democrats came to power by means of a coup and began to plunder the country and its people in favor of foreign tycoons! Not to create a path of prosperity, but to take the path of selling the Russian land and its bowels for personal enrichment ... If the Temporary the government really came to power for the sake of building a prosperous state, the Bolsheviks would not have had a chance! Do you judge the story through the prism of the half-dead film "Admiral" or the much talented, but one-sidedly presented "Cursed Days" by Bunin?
                  3. Bloodsucker
                    Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 12: 39
                    +8
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    The Bolsheviks staged a coup.

                    February 17, are these the Bolsheviks?
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Diana, the border of the Russian Empire was near Berlin and now near Smolensk, it is almost 1500 km. For example, if you conduct hostilities, then how much does the enemy army need to go until it reaches the native Russian lands?

                    And thanks to Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, what does the Bolsheviks have to do with it?
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    And why did the Bolsheviks need this burden?

                    Do you understand what you are writing about?
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 15: 20
                      +3
                      Quote: The Bloodthirster
                      February 17, are these the Bolsheviks?

                      It was about the reason for the civilian won.
                      Quote: The Bloodthirster
                      And thanks to Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, what does the Bolsheviks have to do with it?

                      Yeltsin-1978-1989 - Member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (member of the Council of the Union). From 1984 to 1988 - member of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces. In addition, in 1981 at the XXVI Congress of the CPSU he was elected a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU
                      Kravchuk-In 1970-1988, the head of the sector, inspector, assistant secretary, first deputy head of the department, head of the agitation and propaganda department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine.
                      Shushkevich-1968-1991 - member of the CPSU.
                      Quote: The Bloodthirster
                      Do you understand what you are writing about?

                      This is Diana’s answer to
                      The same thing happened in the USSR, when the "fraternal" union republics lived at the expense of Russia.
                      1. Bloodsucker
                        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 27
                        +4
                        [quote = saturn.mmm] It was about the reason for the civilian won. [/ quote]
                        I do not know what "civil won", I know that the Civil War was unleashed by WHITES with the help of ANATANTA and some part of ESEROV. Why distort the realities of that time?
                        [quote = saturn.mmm] [quote = The Bloodthirster] February 17, is that really the Bolsheviks? [/ quote]
                        It was about the reason for the civilian won. [Quote = The Bloodthirster] And say thank you to Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, what does the Bolsheviks have to do with it? [/ Quote]
                        Yeltsin-1978-1989 - Member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (member of the Council of the Union). From 1984 to 1988 - member of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces. In addition, in 1981 at the XXVI Congress of the CPSU he was elected a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU
                        Kravchuk-In 1970-1988, the head of the sector, inspector, assistant secretary, first deputy head of the department, head of the agitation and propaganda department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine.
                        Shushkevich-1968-1991 - member of the CPSU.
                        Yes, this is the name for all one-TURNERS-opportunists who are not related to the Communists themselves.
                        [quote = saturn.mmm] The same thing happened in the USSR, when the "fraternal" union republics lived at the expense of Russia. [/ quote]
                        Another lie, followed by the collapse of the country, now, with exactly the same actions like you, they are trying to split Russia, shouting either about tribute to the Chechen Republic, then about the independent Urals and Siberia, then screaming "enough to feed ....." depending on the situation ...
                  4. Gardamir
                    Gardamir 8 November 2016 14: 57
                    +5
                    The Bolsheviks staged a coup.
                    That Yedtsin, Sobchak and their suitcases can arrange coups? About the borders, again, not the Bolsheviks, but the aforementioned are responsible for the destruction of the country.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 16: 52
                      +1
                      Quote: Gardamir
                      That Yedtsin, Sobchak and their suitcases can arrange coups?

                      They are the Bolsheviks.
                      1. Bloodsucker
                        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 27
                        +4
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        They are the Bolsheviks.

                        Lying.
                3. Lieutenant Teterin
                  Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 17: 11
                  +8
                  Mrs. Ilyina, the civil war began after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, when all other political forces, from monarchists to Social Revolutionaries, rose up against them. And the invaders were not the first to be invited to the country by whites, but by "Comrade Trotsky" - it was he who, in March 1918, agreed to the British proposal to guard the Murmansk railway. Even the agreement was concluded:
                  "" § 1. The highest power within the Murmansk region belongs to the Murmansk Council of Deputies. § 2. The supreme command of all the armed forces of the region belongs under the supremacy of the Council of Deputies to the Murmansk Military Council of 3 persons - one appointed by the Soviet government and one each from the British and French. § 3 The British and French do not interfere in the internal administration of the region: they inquire about all decisions of the Sovdep of general importance by the Sovdep in the forms that are deemed necessary by the circumstances of the matter. § 4. The allies take care of supplying the region with the necessary supplies "( Documents of the foreign policy of the USSR. T. 1. M., 1957, p. 221) "
                  1. Diana Ilyina
                    Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 18: 11
                    +13
                    Lieutenant Teterin Today, 17:11 ↑
                    Madame Ilyina, the civil war began after the Bolsheviks seized power
                    Mamkin’s grove, and who started it ?! Aren't those anarchist monarchists so beloved by you ?! And who invited the occupying forces to Russia, not white, not ?! Who destroyed the Russian people along with the British, French, Americans, Japanese, Germans, Poles ?! Aliens ?!

                    You are not a respected Mr. "monarchist" would be better taught the history of your country. you look smarter would be!
                    1. Finches
                      Finches 8 November 2016 18: 53
                      +4
                      Diana! I think that this is not his country ... His country, this is the EU, the USA ... the beacons of "universal" values, which the icons of Lieutenant Teterin just wanted to bring to Russia: the cadets, monarchists ..., and now he is praying for Kasyanov and others like him, to the sickening sounds of psalms published by Makarevich! hi
                      1. Diana Ilyina
                        Diana Ilyina 8 November 2016 20: 02
                        +10
                        Zyablitsov Today, 18: 53 ↑
                        Diana! I think this is not his country ... His country, this is the EU, the USA ...
                        Zhenya, I agree! It is precisely with the help of English, and now American money, that our country has a liberal-selling stratum of Judas, ready to ruin Russia under any slogan. And no matter what they are called, monarchists, anarchists, liberals, fascists, etc. they have one essence - frenzied Russophobia.
                    2. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 8 November 2016 20: 25
                      +3
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      Mamkina grove, and who started it

                      And what would you personally do if people came to power who announced that they would take all your property for the construction of something there? Hardly rejoiced, rather the opposite. The Bolsheviks played a minor role in February, this is a fact. But with their coming to power, the GV became inevitable. In general, the article says well:
                      The circles that criticized the autocracy at the end of the 19th century are the same who later criticized the USSR in the 70-80s, the same who now criticize Putin and the church are the same people. And it was they — those whom we are not talking about — who came to power in the autumn of 1917. And in their plans there was by no means any preservation of Russian civilization, for all their activity was aimed at its destruction. And if it were not for Stalin's miraculously gradually seizing power, it is not known what would happen to this very civilization.
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 23: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        In general, the article says well:

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And in their plans there was by no means any preservation of Russian civilization

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And if it were not for Stalin's miraculously gradually seizing power, it is not known what would happen to this very civilization.

                        Let me somewhat disagree.
                        Stalin did not preserve Russian civilization, but created his own Soviet.
                      2. Bloodsucker
                        Bloodsucker 10 November 2016 19: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        But with their coming to power, the GV became inevitable. In general, the article says well:
                        The circles that criticized the autocracy at the end of the 19th century are the same who later criticized the USSR in the 70-80s, the same who now criticize Putin and the church are the same people. And it was they — those whom we are not talking about — who came to power in the autumn of 1917. And in their plans there was by no means any preservation of Russian civilization, for

                        The nonsense is written.
                        Semolina and even smarter would betray thought, if it could think.
              3. Bloodsucker
                Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 13
                +6
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                The Bolsheviks did not fulfill any of their promises, killed a bunch of people and lost a third of the country, seriously undermined Russian culture, so that the expression "the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization" sounds rather blasphemous.

                Absolute nonsense.
                The Bolsheviks kept all promises, returning what Nicholas 2 had lost.
                1. Aleksander
                  Aleksander 8 November 2016 21: 07
                  0
                  Quote: The Bloodthirster
                  Absolute nonsense. The Bolsheviks kept their promises, returning what Nikolai 2 had lost.

                  fool belay fool laughing fool
                  1. Bloodsucker
                    Bloodsucker 10 November 2016 19: 47
                    +1
                    Your self portrait?
                    Tantrum satisfied.
            2. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2016 13: 27
              +5
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              God, how pretentious and how delusional. The author would like to wish to shove his "principles" into the place where the legs lose their proud name. It's hard to come up with more delirium than in this article.

              good
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 15: 38
                +2
                Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                More nonsense than in this article and hard to come up with.

                On February 7, 1905, G. A. Gapon-Novykh, who was closely associated with the Bolshevik A. E. Karelin, wrote an “Open Letter to the Socialist Parties of Russia,” in which he urged them to unite in the struggle against the autocracy. The letter was sent to the International Socialist Bureau and sent to all interested organizations. To ensure the representation of the revolutionary parties, Gapon conducted preliminary negotiations with their leaders. Gapon met with representatives of the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks (Plekhanov and Lenin), the Bund, the Liberation Union and various national parties, and insisted on the use of terror and the joint preparation of an armed uprising by all revolutionaries.
                1. Bloodsucker
                  Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 19: 01
                  +8
                  And now we will show Mrs. Poklonskaya, Lieutenant Teterin, Alexander and others, the poem of Yunna Moritz, corresponding to the anger of the day:

                  We? .. Hitler? .. Equals? ..
                  Yes, he is your dad's mother!
                  Now you are in love
                  In the cultural layer of the Gestapo.
                  Now in your brain
                  Such a wound up counter,
                  What owes you money
                  Killed Russian pilot
                  And an ocean of currencies,
                  Gathering a little thing
                  The dead will be sent
                  You Russian boys.
                  Are we equal to Hitler? ..
                  Yes, he is your dad's mother!
                  Now you are in love
                  In the cultural layer of the Gestapo.
                  And we are dictated by the army
                  Gestapo talents,
                  How to despise
                  Russian amateurs,
                  How to die
                  At the Hitler slaughter
                  Saving your army
                  So that she could live a cowboy, -
                  How to die
                  In that great war
                  Saving your army
                  With her anger to us wild.
                  Are we equal to Hitler? ..
                  Yes, he is your dad's mother!
                  Now you are in love
                  In the cultural layer of the Gestapo.
                  And next time
                  We will ask you kindly:
                  How to fight us iron
                  And die for you,
                  To be useful to you? ..
                  And me, scoundrel, sorry
                  What killed our guys
                  For mad trash
                  On Russophobic kennel!
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 23: 47
                    +2
                    Quote: The Bloodthirster
                    Now let’s show Mrs. Poklonskaya

                    What is Hitler? What is a Russophobic kennel?
                    We are discussing the topic:
                    "Lenin and the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization."
                    In February 1906, the Bolsheviks and the Latvian Social Democrats close to them committed a major robbery of a branch of the State Bank in Helsingfors, and in July 1907 the Bolsheviks carried out the famous Tiflis expropriation.

                    The Bolsheviks, close to Leonid Krasin, in 1905-1907 played an important role in acquiring explosives and weapons abroad for all terrorists from the Social Democrats.

                    In the period from 1906 to 1910, the Bolshevik Center led the implementation of a large number of "exs", recruiting artists for this from uncultured and uneducated, but eager to fight youth. The results of the Bolshevik center's activity were robberies of post offices, ticket offices at train stations, etc. Terrorist attacks were organized in the form of train crashes with their subsequent robbery. The Bolshevik Center received a constant inflow of money from the Caucasus from Kamo, who had organized a series of “exes” in Baku, Tiflis and Kutaisi since 1905, and who was actually the head of the Bolshevik combat “technical” group. Formally, the head of the combat organization was Stalin, who did not personally take part in terrorist acts, but completely controlled the activities of the organization, in practical terms, led by Kamo.

                    Kamo became famous for the so-called “Tiflis ex” - the expropriation on June 12, 1907, when the Bolsheviks dropped bombs on two postal carts carrying money from the Tiflis City Bank on the central square of the Georgian capital. As a result, the militants stole 250 rubles. At the same time, dozens of passers-by were killed and wounded by the Bolsheviks.

                    This is the salvation of Russian civilization.
      2. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 8 November 2016 08: 02
        +16
        I agree .... In addition, Nicholas abdicated from the throne in the most difficult year for the country ..... Yes, under pressure, but renounced and abandoned the country .... Stupidly scared .... This is definitely a betrayal ... ..
        1. Gunxnumx
          Gunxnumx 8 November 2016 11: 46
          +5
          I agree. Or Yanukovych turned out to be the same. An example on the other hand is M. Gaddafi. He could find refuge, but preferred to be at the post until the end. The kingdom (presidency, etc.) is not only privileges, as many people think. This is a huge responsibility and, in particular, the obligation to die in its place. Lukashenko said something like that. And, to be honest, I don’t know if I could find so much courage myself.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 8 November 2016 20: 27
            +2
            Quote: Gun70
            An example on the other hand is M. Gaddafi. Could find refuge, but preferred to be at the post until the end

            The king was actually under arrest, so the situation was a little different. Yes and whether there was a renunciation the same question.
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 8 November 2016 21: 19
              +2
              There is no such question.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 8 November 2016 21: 34
                +1
                The abdication itself is a piece of paper (in the presence of official forms), signed in pencil (generally without comment) and addressed to the chief of staff (and what does he have to do with it?). In general, a muddy story.
                1. murriou
                  murriou 8 November 2016 21: 57
                  +3
                  The paper itself does not matter. What, on what is it signed - what's the difference?

                  But the fact that the abdication was officially announced and it was not ANYONE protested then (and only now, almost 100 years later, stupid letter-eaters are trying to find fault with a pencil signature) - this makes the abdication a historical FACT.

                  K.O. clarification for the most bakery finished laughing
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 8 November 2016 22: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: murriou
                    The paper itself does not matter. What, on what is it signed - what's the difference?

                    That is, you can believe all those "stories" that tell about the atrocities of the "bloody gebny and the cannibal of Stalin" on the basis of some incomprehensible scribbles? And the "secret protocols" to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, written with no less nonsense, are they also true?
                    Quote: murriou
                    and no one was protested then

                    And then who could protest him? Nicholas II did not have such an opportunity.
                    Quote: murriou
                    K.O. clarification for the most bakery finished

                    Please provide a source of the fact that all rich or simply wealthy people in RI ate only French rolls.
                    1. Ulan
                      Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 13
                      0
                      Nicholas II had such an opportunity, before he fell into the hands of the Bolsheviks, his regime of detention was quite liberal and he had opportunities. His mother, numerous relatives, and his brother Michael, who finally refused to accept the crown, had opportunities. What did he refuse if Nikolai did not renounce?
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 9 November 2016 21: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Ulan
                        his detention regime was quite liberal and he had opportunities

                        In theory. Almost all of the top elite of that time was involved in the conspiracy and try to do something ...
          2. Ulan
            Ulan 8 November 2016 21: 21
            +1
            Why Gaddafi, the ancestor of Nicholas, Emperor Paul the First. Here is a man of honor and a real emperor and anointed of God.
      3. domokl
        domokl 8 November 2016 08: 06
        +19
        Hmm ... The civil war in Russia ended almost a century ago, and we continue to divide people into red and white ... Maybe it's time to stop stirring up the water?
        We were reconciled by World War II. And red and white and any other. There were only two categories — ours and not ours. Everything! So why dig bones today and build another theory on these bones? You can’t build anything worthwhile on bones. Need a foundation. Powerful foundation.
        I think Russia has the story that it has. Judging ancestors for what we do not like today is stupid. It's like a soldier for violating human rights to judge. A soldier who is at war! how to take care of civilians in besieged Aleppo. So the enemy departed from the peaceful. On the contrary, they will hide behind them.
        The article is caused just by the desire to condemn ... Or maybe it is worth taking an example from other countries. From those in whose history there are the same tragic facts. Maybe you should stop messing with dirty hands in history?
        1. alexej123
          alexej123 8 November 2016 09: 21
          +2
          Alexander, you are a BIG PLUS and with both hands FOR. But they don’t hear. Checkers sharpened, rifles equipped.
          1. Finches
            Finches 8 November 2016 09: 38
            +11
            Alexei to hear everything - only you need to hear that this does not happen, Nicholas II, the monarchy, the model of Western democracy ... - it is always perfect and white! Bolsheviks, socialism ... - totalitarianism and always black! Believe me - everywhere there are minuses and pluses: for personal enrichment and development, the former are good, but for the enrichment of the state and social justice - socialism will give odds to capitalism ... And so on! I just want to emphasize one thing - the fucking "democrats" Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their teams betrayed and destroyed MY Motherland - the USSR! It was bad there or good, but this is my Country! A similar thing happened then - the Russian Empire was betrayed and began to be sold in a brazen way, what happened in the 90s, then the only force was found that could prevent it! Unfortunately, there was no such force in the 90s ...
            1. alexej123
              alexej123 8 November 2016 10: 09
              +2
              Zhenya, so am I about the same. I wrote a comment to domoklu. I do not presume to condemn the ancestors. I condemn only traitors, those who openly betrayed their people, their country for the sake of some personal desire. I am against "Civil", the current Internet war. And you are right, THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. With its history, with its white and not very spots. They don't choose their homeland. Sincerely. hi
              1. Finches
                Finches 8 November 2016 10: 23
                +2
                With this your position, I agree! hi
            2. Tambov Wolf
              Tambov Wolf 8 November 2016 10: 52
              +8
              As I see it, all the former communists cry about the "devoted" country where they were born, that is, in the USSR. Why are you all crying? Who ruined and betrayed? Can you tell me? Your bosses in the form of the secretaries of the city and party committees of the party and the Komsomol, the instructor and the rest of the komsostav.And where were you, shouters and "crying communists", when how you all crucify, the country was ripped off? Have you sat in the kitchenettes? If only someone mumbled. And now you cry? Would you shut your mouths, Yes, you protect Blanca. It's good that at least he died early, or even the fate of his comrades-in-arms, whom J.V. Stalin had punished for treason to the country and the people. say wrong? All Blankov's last ones were either shot or went to the camps. And for this alone, Stalin needs to be erected, and for restoring the Empire, albeit under a different name. And you, now crying, destroyed her country with the last ones who escaped punishment. And your scumbags are still ruling us, who put party cards with Komsomol members under the table, repainted in EDRussia and a bunch of different bad garbage. You are now shouting all sorts of HSP, but afterwards you will tear this HSP, as it always was with your brothers. There were twenty million "communists". Who came to the defense, not the country, but at least the principles and ideas, NOBODY. And therefore, do not cry or beat in the chest with a hoof. It is too late to drink Borjomi, the liver has already fallen off. And do not say who I do not agree with you "kommunistami", that liberal.Eto you and your former chiefs liberaly.Odin sits at the helm, and the second taxis.
              1. Finches
                Finches 8 November 2016 11: 13
                +6
                Sorry, but you have some uncontrolled emotions, without specifics - what did you mean, Tambov Wolf?
            3. Stanislas
              Stanislas 8 November 2016 13: 22
              +4
              Quote: Finches
              Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their teams betrayed and destroyed my homeland - the USSR!
              But after all, Lenin and Trotsky also destroyed RI in order to kindle the fire of the world revolution on its fragments, and the Russian Empire, by the way, was also someone else's homeland. Does not care? I am not against the USSR, but by the end of the Brezhnev period, power in it had already rotted no less than the tsarist power of the Republic of Ingushetia had rotted by the beginning of the 20th century. Then, as now, most people expected changes, but few expected them to be like that. Nevertheless, they taxied in the 30s, we taxi out now.
              1. Bloodsucker
                Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 13: 29
                +7
                Quote: Stanislav
                But after all, Lenin and Trotsky also destroyed RI in order to kindle the fire of the world revolution on its ruins, and the Russian Empire, by the way, was also someone’s homeland.

                Do you have the same calendar issues?
                What happened before - February or October?
                When did the country creep into the specific principalities under the Februaryists or the Bolsheviks who gathered it?
                It can remind you when and who went into independent actions, so here we already have one activist directly felon, from such data begins ..
                Quote: Stanislav
                I am not against the USSR, but by the end of the Brezhnev period, power in it had already rotted no less than the tsarist power of the Republic of Ingushetia had rotted by the beginning of the 20th century. Then, as now, most people expected changes, but few expected them to be like that.

                It’s rotten, say .. you’re lying, for it’s not the country that has rotted, but only the top rotten, having surrendered the country in exchange for the specific principalities and property.
                The country, yes, demanded reform, but not destruction, but the architects of destruction have very definite names — Gorbachev and Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich and K.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 15: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: The Bloodthirster
                  The country, yes, demanded reform, but not destruction, but the architects of destruction have very definite names — Gorbachev and Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich and K.

                  They are the Bolshevik Communists.
                  The RCP (B.) Became the only legal party in the country. The word "Bolsheviks" in brackets remained in the name of the Communist Party until 1952, when the XIX Congress renamed the party, which by that time was called the CPSU (b), into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
                  1. Bloodsucker
                    Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 28
                    +1
                    Again a lie
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    They are the Bolshevik Communists.
                    1. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 8 November 2016 23: 21
                      0
                      Quote: The Bloodthirster
                      You brought a fake ..

                      Tormented by powerless anger? Do not get sick, my friend!

                      -
                      PEOPLE expelled united in the Red Army
                      .

                      3% of the people (mobilized Red Army soldiers with 50% of deserters)) this people is only in the inflamed imagination of the disappeared (almost) coma.
                      But this is another bend. Are the Poles "former" ours? Ah ... well, yes, the Poles have captured the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus
                      "
                      Our former, but RI subjects, did not know? .Captured memory and storage devices from someone who does not exist, by anyone except your friends of the German invaders of the unrecognized "government" of the Bolsheviks? So they themselves, just in 1918, abandoned Urina and the ZB, then abandoned the refusal, so the green will take them apart, and they tore everything up, taking advantage of the illegitimacy of the comms. They are to blame, respectively, for this.
                      Belofinny, when was the 1 war with the Finns? As? Take the courage to say when and for what purpose, otherwise you will again have to dunk where you deserve

                      . WHY should I talk about WHAT, did I say something about them?
                      What's wrong with you, my friend? fool .
                      Contrary to the Truth, you again have a game of unconsciousness? The price is worthless to you, Mr. Demagogue

                      What is the unconscious, whose truth and what?
                      What's the matter, my dear? fool
                    2. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 23: 51
                      0
                      Quote: The Bloodthirster
                      Again a lie

                      An undeniable argument. Once again, attempt number 2.
                      The RCP (B.) Became the only legal party in the country. The word "Bolsheviks" in brackets remained in the name of the Communist Party until 1952, when the XIX Congress renamed the party, which by that time was called the CPSU (b), into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
                2. Stanislas
                  Stanislas 8 November 2016 20: 01
                  0
                  Quote: The Bloodthirster
                  You’ve rotted, you’re lying, for it’s not the country that has rotted, but only the top
                  You are lying. Or you can read inattentively, and then rush with words, not understanding about what.
                  Quote: Stanislav
                  Today, 13: 22 I am not against the USSR, but by the end of the Brezhnev period, power in it had already rotted
                  Where did I write that the country is rotten? Better apologize if you're not warm.
                  1. Bloodsucker
                    Bloodsucker 10 November 2016 19: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: Stanislav
                    But after all, Lenin and Trotsky also destroyed RI in order to kindle the fire of the world revolution on its fragments, and the Russian Empire, by the way, was also someone else's homeland. Does not care? I am not against the USSR, but by the end of the Brezhnev period, power in it had already rotted no less than the tsarist power of the Republic of Ingushetia had rotted by the beginning of the 20th century. Then, as now, most people expected changes, but few expected them to be like that. Nevertheless, they taxied in the 30s, we taxi out now.

                    You lie where you learned, Mr. yap?
                    Before I write my philippics here, understand your writings.
                    The country to taxi from where it drove February from October began, so do not fight in the epileptic, precisely repeating the Yakovlev provocative thing, to compare Lenin and Trotsky and contrast Stalin and Lenin.
              2. Finches
                Finches 8 November 2016 13: 40
                +2
                Stanislav! You can’t argue with this, but still I’ll clarify that de jure the Russian Empire was destroyed by liberal democrats, not the Bolsheviks! The Bolsheviks took advantage of the situation by creating a state with a different political and economic formation and I think that in many respects thanks to them Russia was preserved, and then it also increased ...! hi

                The answer to your post about my misconception about the myth-VO drove down the branch!
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 8 November 2016 20: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Finches
                  that de jure the Russian Empire was destroyed by liberal democrats

                  They destroyed the USSR and they are trying to destroy Russia.
                  1. Finches
                    Finches 8 November 2016 20: 40
                    0
                    Absolutely true!
                2. Stanislas
                  Stanislas 9 November 2016 01: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Finches
                  The Russian Empire was destroyed by liberal democrats, not the Bolsheviks!
                  "De jure" ... Everything that depended on the Bolsheviks for this destruction, they also did, they did not stand aside until February. During the war, they set soldiers on the murder of officers and desertion, definitely not to save Russia. It did not work to translate the imperialist war into a communist revolution and the liberation of all mankind, they were transferred to the Civil War in Russia and its environs. I do not condemn the Bolsheviks, but do not paint them too white and fluffy; many Bolsheviks did not see any value in RI and were ready to follow Trotsky.
        2. Boris55
          Boris55 8 November 2016 09: 43
          +5
          Quote: domokl
          The civil war in Russia ended almost a century ago, and we continue to divide people into red and white.

          Not. The section does not go between red and white. And here and there, for the most part, ordinary people fought, who have nothing to share. The section goes between slave owners and slaves. Some fought for the right to continue to parasitize on the work of lawless citizens, while others fought for being free from slavery and never when slaves are reconciled with slave owners just as slave owners do not compare with the love of slaves. Unity between them is not possible in principle.

          Quote: domokl
          So why dig bones today and build another theory on these bones?

          Because in 1991, the bourgeoisie seized power.

          Quote: domokl
          Or maybe you should take an example from other countries.

          In what other country did the people overthrow their bourgeoisie and build their own state of workers and peasants themselves?
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 8 November 2016 10: 28
            +2
            Boris55 Today, 09:43
            Quote: domokl
            Or maybe you should take an example from other countries.

            In what other country did the people overthrow their bourgeoisie and build their own state of workers and peasants themselves?
            He is alluding to China.
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 8 November 2016 10: 41
              +3
              Quote: Mavrikiy
              He is alluding to China.

              China would not have succeeded without our help. And he hints at the fact that the slaves humble themselves, do not twitch and intensify the development of Stockholm syndrome within yourself ... Figs to him and everyone else who thinks like him. We have an example of how to deal with them. The people are still studying the heritage of our grandfathers ...
        3. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2016 13: 30
          +3
          Quote: domokl
          Hmm ... The civil war in Russia ended almost a century ago, and we continue to divide people into red and white ... Maybe it's time to stop stirring up the water?
          We were reconciled by World War II. And red and white and any other. There were only two categories — ours and not ours. All!

          If so ... Sasha, how many so-called "whites" fought on the side of the Nazis? like this ... what a reconciliation ...
      4. Aleksander
        Aleksander 8 November 2016 09: 12
        +11
        Quote: Finches
        What kind of liberal nonsense? The Bolsheviks did not plan to make a revolution in 1917 at all, but the children who came to power and their Provisional Government put the country on the brink of disaster, starting not with reforms, but with its banal sale to please the British and American tycoons

        What kind of nonsense? Read "April Theses"
        abnormal hoopoe rather than the parallel reality of Samsonov and find out that he planned a seizure of power IMMEDIATELY after the formation of the Provisional Government and WHAT he planned to do for this. The VP has not yet had time to "sell" anything. lol
        Read, you will not regret, they are small and much will be explained.

        The dwarf writes that "Russia is now the freest country in the world", there is no violence against the masses and, finally, the masses trust the EaP

        It would seem, what more could you want, freedom is-create, work, live! No, he needed not a normal democratic republic, but the power of only part of society, dictatorship.

        What did he offer, this "Russian statesman" lol , "savior of Russia and Russian civilization" to save Russia lol ?
        "Eliminating police, army.
        Fraternization "
        .

        Not change, not reform, but REMEDY, mind you.

        I emphasize that this is in conditions of severe war, during German offensive ... Turkish occupation.

        And he did it, a Russian citizen, liable for military service, a coward who sat out in Switzerland and destroys the permanent basis of Russia-the army.

        Read the primary sources, do not trust any "analysts" and suck YOUR opinion.
        1. Finches
          Finches 8 November 2016 09: 20
          +8
          Another liberal comrade ... By the way, I read the April theses of Vladimir Ilyich completely and I want to say that the two-month policy of the Provisional Government pushed the Bolsheviks to more decisive action! That is, you fully justify the total betrayal of the highest nomenclature of the Russian Empire, including the Russian generals and including the abdication of the Supreme Commander, "during the time of the hardest war, during the offensive of the German-fa ... Turkish invaders."but blaming the Bolsheviks for everything?
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 8 November 2016 09: 58
            +4
            Quote: Finches
            Another liberal comrade

            What is my "liberalism"? lol Facts do not have color.
            Quote: Finches
            that the two-month policy of the Provisional Government pushed the Bolsheviks to more decisive action!

            Are you also inventing parallel reality? What are two months? Abstracts printed in a month, and they also had to be written. You have NOT read the theses: it was not the policy of the EaP that didn’t suit the hoopoe, because there are no EaP assessments of the “sale” of Russia, and that the Government could have developed such a thing in a month. He was not satisfied it itself in principle, from the first day, he "did not need a parliamentary republic" and he was indignant, (hypocritical), that the VP did not set a deadline ..... of the Constituent Assembly belay lol (which he also dispersed), as well as accusations that he (!) is stirring up a civil war (no, he has not ignited)
            1. Finches
              Finches 8 November 2016 10: 18
              +3
              Your liberalism in the categorical and absolute correctness of your particular position - they say all du.raki and the narrow-minded cheers-patriots around, and you are Mr. Artagnan! Perhaps I am not right in relation to you in this proposition, but this is how I get the impression!hi

              Like, Komsomolets, in the past, I could not help but study the April Theses ... But that is not the point! Let's turn to historical facts - the February coup of February 27, for the leadership of the RSDLP (b), most of which was in exile, was utterly snow! The April theses, published in the press on April 20 (you feel like two months are pretty close), are Lenin's ingenious political flair, understanding of the current revolutionary situation and instant adjustment of the Party course! Moreover, the leadership did not have unity on this issue, the same Kamenev and Zinoviev believed that it was too early to make the Socialist Revolution, the country and the Party were not ready for decisive action ... Another fact - the destructive policy of the Provisional Government only deepened the revolutionary situation in the country and when the October Revolution took place in many regions, power passed to the Bolsheviks peacefully, without blood, at the request of the masses!
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 8 November 2016 12: 49
                +3
                Quote: Finches
                Your liberalism in the categorical and absolute correctness of your position - they say all du.raki and foolish cheers-patriots around, and you d Artagnan! Perhaps I am not right in relation to you in this judgment, but this is how I get the impression

                Dear Eugene, I did not set out the position at all, but brought datarefuting your erroneous data. EVERYTHING! What categoricalness and liberalism do the facts have?

                Quote: Finches
                when the October revolution took place in many regions, power passed to the Bolsheviks peacefully, without blood, at the request of the masses!

                Again, just the facts: at the time of the October coup in the peasant (85% of the population) country from 455 peasant Soviets in 265 faction of the Bolsheviks was not AT ALL, in the rest they are in the minority. In general elections (these are not narrow Soviets), the traditional self-government bodies were also modest: in the Moscow Petrograd City Duma, the Bolshevik faction won 33,5% of the vote, in Moscow 11,6%, in 50 provincial cities 7,5%, in district 2,2%. At the same time, the Socialist-Revolutionaries receive in the Petrograd City Council 37,5%, and in 50 provincial cities about 50%.
                Where is the will of the people, huh? Peasants, repeat-85% of the country and the Bolsheviks in their councils were not, or few at all.

                BOLSHEVIKOV NOBODY, NEVER, ANYWHERE, did not choose and instructed nothing to them.

                Say "peacefully", after the coup d'etat is a terrible massacre in Moscow, in St. Petersburg the battles, Ukraine immediately rejected, Don immediately rejected, Kuban, the Southern Urals, Irkutsk, Kaluga. Vikzhel, the largest trade union in Russia, on October 30 demanded stop the civil war! Many thousands victims in the very first days! She walked from October 25, smoldering, all flaring up, especially after breaking up the US, Brest shame and robbing the peasants with a robbery and claimed 10 million lives.



                Printed Apr 7 Abstracts March
                1. Finches
                  Finches 8 November 2016 13: 00
                  0
                  You are a little mistaken. The October Revolution was immediately supported in the Central Industrial Region, in the Baltic States and Byelorussia Soviet power was established in October - November 1917, but in the Central Black Earth region, the Volga region and Siberia, the process of recognition of Soviet power was delayed until the end of January 1918. As for the fighting in Moscow, it was a small-town uprising of a certain Committee of Public Security, led by the chairman of the city duma Rudnev, with the support of the cadets and Cossacks. November 3 - all this codla laid down their arms! hi

                  About Brest peace I have a post above!
                  1. Aleksander
                    Aleksander 8 November 2016 13: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: Finches
                    You are a little mistaken. The October Revolution was immediately supported in the Central Industrial Region, in the Baltic states and Belarus Soviet power was established in October - November 1917


                    What is the Baltic ?! The bloodsucker swearsthat she is already like xnumx months [b] FULLY Occupied. lol You really, somehow, agree among themselves.
                    «Since October- noted V.I. Lenin, - all over Russia civil war began in the form of resistance of the exploiters, landowners and the bourgeoisie, supported by part of the imperialist bourgeoisie "
                    Civil massacre from the FIRST day of the coup.
                    Good, yes?
                    Quote: Finches
                    As for the fighting in Moscow, it was a small-town uprising of a certain Committee of Public Security, headed by the chairman of the city duma Rudnev, with the support of cadets and cossacks


                    Once again, read the eyewitnesses: not only a yuker, but also mass students, teachers with whole-class students.
                    It was defeated due to the unwillingness of the commandant Ryabtsev and Rudnev to shed fraternal blood, he could suppress.
                    The White Guard was born in the battles in Moscow.
                    1. Finches
                      Finches 8 November 2016 14: 32
                      0
                      Comrade Bloodsucker has nothing to do with it! I am discussing with you, if everything was, as you write, that is, everyone was against the Bolsheviks, then it is unlikely that they would have been able to suppress this rebellion in Moscow so quickly, is it logical? And it will stop sending me to read something, it's not constructive! Although regarding the Moscow students, I will send you the same to your liberal deity, Solzhenitsen, his novel "The Red Wheel", where he characterizes who the bulk of young people were for ... You cannot argue with Lenin, naturally the exploiting class is not I wanted to give my junk ... But if you take the officer corps, then he shared approximately the same, for the Reds and for the Whites, which can also speak of all the same the nationality of the Bolshevik revolution as opposed to the February bourgeois, because the officers were nobles! would they have followed a handful of revolutionaries without feeling the support of the common people behind them!
                      1. Aleksander
                        Aleksander 8 November 2016 15: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Finches
                        if everything was as you write, that is, they were all against the Bolsheviks, would they hardly have been able to suppress this rebellion so quickly in Moscow, is it logical? AND

                        NOBODY, except the Bolsheviks, was not ready and did not want to pour brotherly blood. The Emperor proceeded from this, delaying the sending of troops to Petrograd in February, from this come Kornilov, the CAM surrendered in August 1917 after a non-existent rebellion, the Moscow leadership came from this. For the Bolsheviks, such sentiments were alien - they were purposeful, organized and ruthless, and the seas of Russian blood are indifferent to them. Not prone to fratricide, their opponents immediately found themselves in a losing situation. Therefore, Ryabtsev (soft-bodied d.k.
                        Quote: Finches
                        now if we take the officer corps, then he shared approximately in half, for the reds and for the whites, which can also speak of all the same nationalities Bolshevik revolution

                        NO: the only, universal, equal, secret elections in Russia (ANYWHERE in the world there have never been such!) In UCHR. Assembly, Bolsheviks with miserably LOSED. Next, again, the blood of innocent demonstrators, dispersal and usurpation of power.
                        Why was it impossible to fight in the DC on fists and discussions, and not on the terrible battlefields of the GV ?! Yes, because the Bolsheviks LOSED the elections and were afraid of them, as hell incense, killed 10 million in GW and there were no these elections for 70 years.
                        Quote: Finches
                        because the officers were nobles


                        Dear Eugene! Well, how so ?! One cannot but know that in the 1917 year before 70% of officers were from peasants, and only about 4 – 5% - from the nobles !.
                  2. Finches
                    Finches 8 November 2016 15: 10
                    +1
                    Yes, by the way, the April theses, because the April ones, because they appeared in April, so your statement that they were published on March 7, I apologize, nonsense! Otherwise, they would be March ... laughing
                    1. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 8 November 2016 15: 17
                      +1
                      Quote: Finches
                      Your statement that they were printed on 7 of March, I'm sorry, nonsense! Otherwise, they would have been March

                      not a statement, but a typo-7 APRIL. You yourself understood this. But...
                      1. Finches
                        Finches 8 November 2016 16: 08
                        +2
                        I will give you the same quote from Lenin, said later:
                        "Would there have been at least one other guy in the world who would have gone to the revolution if the social reform had really started", which confirms the opinion - the Provisional Government did not need this, the Russian people understood this and followed the Bolsheviks proposing real topics, and not what you say the rejection of the bloodshed of Kornilov and his associates ... Straight angels in the flesh!
                    2. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 8 November 2016 17: 13
                      +1
                      Finches
                      I will give you the same quote from Lenin, said later:
                      "Would there be at least one du..akwho would have gone to the revolution if the social reform had really begun, "

                      Found-IT HIMSELF.

                      And why are you crippling quotes of carla? And she was told in 1920 year [/ b-] is most abhorrent in its deceit and cynicism, when those to whom it was addressed were destroyed. And said so:

                      "But didn’t you, gentlemen of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, have eight months for your experience? . Then your program was social [b] transformation without a civil war
                      . Would there be at least one in the world who would go to revolution if YOU really started social reform? Why didn’t you do it?

                      Fact is that Temporary (i.e. before the Constituent Assembly) Government IN PRINCIPLE it was NOT possible to promise and do anything like this and was not authorized by anyone.
                      His only task was-ELECTIONS in CSS. EVERYTHING!

                      All this could, and should, and even partially did (Law on the land) Uchr chosen by the people of Rommiya. Collection.

                      And the howls of this moral hoopoe look against this background bullying and cynicism
                      the Russian people understood this and went after the Bolsheviks offering real topics

                      Once again: the people did NOT go after the Bolsheviks: they lost the election!

                      Links to win in Gr. war by the Bolsheviks: if a bandit robs you in the gateway, think the same way: he is stronger, which means-RIGHT!
                      1. Finches
                        Finches 8 November 2016 19: 08
                        +1
                        All you wrote is sophistry! If the people did not support the Bolsheviks in the vast territory from Petrograd to Sakhalin, then the history of our country would go differently. And in 1920, no one was destroyed yet, as you are trying to imagine - only in 1921 it was possible to defeat foreign intervention in most of the country, and the Civil War officially ended in historical science in 1922. In detail, in the Far East, they, foreign troops, held out until 1922. The last areas of the USSR freed from intervention were the island of Wrangel (1924) and Northern Sakhalin (1925). ... Just don’t write that you were mistaken again!
                    3. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 8 November 2016 22: 37
                      0
                      Quote: Finches
                      All you wrote is sophistry!


                      I have given FACTS, none of which is impossible to refute, But it is your general phases like
                      If the people did not support the Bolsheviks in the vast territory from Petrograd to Sakhalin, the history of our country would go differently
                      it is sophistry in its purest form.
                      And in the 1920 year, no one was destroyed yet, as you are trying to imagine - only in the 1921 year was it possible to defeat the foreign intervention by most territory country

                      Yes? Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel, Yudenich, Miller in 1920 was gone. , there remained minor white forces in the East.
                      There were NO interventions in the 1921 anywhere in the country and in the least, except for the yuppies in the Far East who left 1922 from the Far East. All the rest, except yupps, SAMI left in 1919 and there were no "battles" between the Bolsheviks and them. Poles and Finns, do not count, our b / subjects. but they did not exist in 1920 either. What relation do the interventionists have to the discussed "undestroyed" Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks?
                      Just don’t write that you were mistaken again!

                      What did you mean? I was not mistaken in anything, but you, excuse me, constantly get into trouble with the officers, that with the "sale of Russia" by the Provisional Government in March 1917, that with the intervention.
                      hi
                      1. Bloodsucker
                        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 22: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Aleksander
                        I have given FACTS, none of which is impossible to refute, But it is your general phases like

                        You brought a fake.
                        Quote: Aleksander
                        it is sophistry in its purest form.

                        Yours? Undoubtedly.
                        Quote: Aleksander
                        Yes? Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel, Yudenich, Miller in 1920 was gone. , there remained minor white forces in the East.

                        For they were expelled from the country-people expelled united in the Red Army.
                        Quote: Aleksander
                        In 1921, there were no invaders anywhere in the country, except for the Yapps in the Far East, who left the Far East in 1922. All the rest, except for the Yapps, left in 1919 and the Bolsheviks had no "battles" with them. Poles and Finns, do not count, our b / subjects. but they did not exist in 1920 either. What relation do the interventionists have to the discussed "undestroyed" Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks?

                        But this is another bend. Are the Poles "former" ours? And .. well, yes, the Poles seized the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus, "undoubtedly yours" .. The White Finns, when there was one war with the Finns? As? Have the courage to say when and with what goals, otherwise you will again have to dunk you where you deserve.
                        Quote: Aleksander
                        What did you mean? I was not mistaken in anything, but you, excuse me, constantly get into trouble with the officers, that with the "sale of Russia" by the Provisional Government in March 1917, that with the intervention.

                        Contrary to the Truth, do you again have a game of unconsciousness?
                        Worthless to you, Mr. Demagogue.
                      2. Finches
                        Finches 9 November 2016 05: 35
                        +2
                        Aleksander

                        I am not inclined to believe, to believe that you are citing some facts, and even highlighting them constantly, why is Caps Lock! But you twist them constantly! In rhetoric, such a form of argumentation that allows you to expose the subject of discussion in the right light, but does not always correspond to reality, is called rabulistics ... That is, you manipulate known numbers and definitions arguing your point of view, exclusively in the intonation you need, regardless of how close they are to truth! Like Poroshenko - yes, there was Prince Vladimir, but he was a Ukrainian prince! "Yes, he baptized Russia, but he baptized Ukrainian Ukraine! Yes, the UPA fought against the Red Army, but they also fought against the Germans"... However, in any case, thanks for the active dialogue! Today there will be new topics! hi
                2. Ulan
                  Ulan 8 November 2016 21: 26
                  +2
                  And where did the Provisional Government choose?
        2. Bloodsucker
          Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 09: 45
          +4
          Quote: Aleksander
          What kind of nonsense?

          Your?
          Really why?
          April theses, you didn’t read them, in the sense that reading between the lines and on the other side of the sheet is just an imitation and then the mythologization of what was not said. But you invented.
          Quote: Aleksander
          Read the primary sources, do not trust any "analysts" and suck YOUR opinion.

          Well, the fact that you are grief-analytist, grief-chilosophist and absolute anti-linker-Russophobe, has long been understood.
          The reason for the tragedy in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century is the incompetent leadership of the country by Nikolai 2, its demolition by its approximate ones.
          And the opinion, for example, of K. Shakhnazarov on this issue, is much more significant than all your writings.
          Take care of Moldova, in which the crazy people sniffing the same people in Kiev, that they began to think clearly about themselves, are above their strength and intellect. Make your efforts there while you have the opportunity not to be Romania.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 8 November 2016 12: 55
            +3
            Quote: The Bloodthirster
            April theses, you didn’t read them, in the sense that reading between the lines and on the other side of the sheet is just an imitation and then the mythologization of what you didn’t talk about was invented by you.

            Translate into RUSSIAN, please. lol
            Quote: The Bloodthirster
            Well, the fact that you are a grief-analyst, grief-chevosilosophist and absolute anti-Soviet-Russophobia has long been understood. The reason for the tragedy in Russia at the beginning of the 20 century is the incompetent leadership of the country by Nikolai 2, its demolition is approximate. And the opinion, for example, K. Shakhnazarov on this issue , where much more weighty than all your writings. Take care of Moldova, in which the crazy people sniffing the same people in Kiev, that they began to think clearly about themselves, above their strength and intellect. Make your efforts there while you have the opportunity not to be Romania

            I think that the comments are not intended to discuss the personalities of commentators, but discussions articles hi
        3. alexej123
          alexej123 8 November 2016 10: 20
          +4
          Alexander, I respect your point of view, your upholding. Although not in all, I agree. And ORDER No. 1 VP? Indeed, in essence, this is the collapse of the army and navy. The Bolsheviks have nothing to do with it. The army was destroyed by this order.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 8 November 2016 13: 08
            +2
            Quote: alexej123
            Alexander, I respect your point of view, your upholding. Although not in all, I agree. And ORDER No. 1 VP? Indeed, in essence, this is the collapse of the army and navy. The Bolsheviks have nothing to do with it. The army was destroyed by this order


            Dear Alexey, Provisional Government DOES NOT issue 1 Order (it HAS NOT BEEN yet) and objected to him after .. He published Petrosoviet socialists February 28 under severe pressure from non-front-line soldiers mortally afraid of sending to the front "... there was essentially no guidance. The appeal was given the appearance of an order. It was composed by several people according to the instructions of the meeting, where unknown soldiers went to the podium, made proposals, one more radical, and left with noisy applause. It would be a mistake to look for the individual author of this work, which has gained historical fame under the name of “Order No. 1”. It was made up of an impersonal mass of soldiers ”[-Kostyaev E.V. Russian Social Democrats and Order No. 1 of the Petrograd Soviet of March 1 1917 // Power, No. 4 / 2014

            Again I urge: -do not read propaganda, study the FACTS and primary sources, it will take even less time than reading the articles of "analysts" Yes
            1. Bloodsucker
              Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 13: 17
              +2
              Again, a lie ... sir, you are clearly not doing your job ...
              Opinions vary. Someone blames the Petrograd Council, someone the Provisional Government. The main excuse for the "temporary workers": on March 1, when the order came out, there was still no government. But we remember that both centers of the new Russian government were created on the same day, February 27th. Just at first it was a different name: the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, and not the government. But the essence of this does not change.

              The memories of VN Lvov, a member of the Provisional Government, shed light on this very dark story. On March 2, the author of the text of the order, a member of the Petrograd Soviet, lawyer Sokolov appeared in the room where the Provisional Committee of the State Duma was sitting. He clutched a text in his hand, which had already been published in the morning issue of Izvestia of the Petrograd Soviet. A bomb under the Russian army has already been planted, the newspaper is being distributed. Sokolov is a famous lawyer who made a name for himself during the first Russian revolution, protecting the destroyers of Russia. Together with them, he now sits in the Council. In addition, it was Sokolov who should be grateful to Russia for Kerensky. He marked the beginning of his political career by inviting Alexander Fedorovich as a defender in 1906 to a high-profile process of Baltic terrorists, after the successful completion of which Kerensky began his ascent to the heights of power ....
              .... Therefore, after the first, Order No. 2 appears, which clarified that its predecessor did not establish the election of officers, but only allowed the committees to object to the appointment of chiefs. After its publication, no one in the army could really figure out how the leadership of the Russian armed force was carried out. "
              http://www.plam.ru/hist/kto_ubil_rossiiskuyu_impe
              riyu_glavnaja_taina_xx_veka / p17.php
              Now look at the composition of the Temporary
              TOTAL: 12 members, half of them are cadets. Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Prince G. E. Lvov (occupied a position between the Octobrists and the Cadets)

              Foreign Ministry - Cadet P.N. Milyukov,

              military and naval mines. - Octobrist A.I. Guchkov,

              Ministry of Finance - a major entrepreneur M.I. Tereshchenko,

              Minister of Justice - Trudovik A.F. Kerensky (waxed into the EaP “on its own,” that is, not from the Soviets and the Socialist Revolutionary Party),

              Minister of Railways - cadet N.V. Nekrasov,

              Minister of Trade and Industry - Progressive A.I. Konovalov,

              Minister of Education - Cadet A. A. Manuylov,

              Minister of Agriculture - Cadet A. I. Shingarev,

              Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod - Centrist V. N. Lvov,

              State Comptroller - Octobrist I.V. Godnev.

              Thus, the government is liberal, the main positions are occupied by the Cadets. Lvov held a position between the Octobrists and the Cadets.
              http://historyrusedu.ru/bilety-po-istorii-rossii-
              1917-1939 / 417-deyatelnost-vremennogo-pravitelstva
              -firstgo.html
              And where can the "sinister intrigues" of the Bolsheviks be seen here?
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 8 November 2016 15: 32
                0
                Quote: The Bloodthirster
                Again, a lie ... sir, you are clearly not doing your job ... Opinions differ. Someone blames the Petrograd Council, someone the Provisional Government. The main excuse for the "temporary workers": on the 1 of March, when the order came out, there was still no government. But we remember that both centers of the new Russian government were created on the same day, February 27. Just at first there was another name: the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, and not the government. But the essence of this does not change.

                You are unique, as always: remember what ... was not! lol

                The order was created by the PETROSOVET (from socialist-Marxists) 28 th Februarywhen VKGD did not have any power and therefore did NOT participate in its creation by any side. And on the 1 of March, when already Order 1 came out , was created by VR. Prospect
                Quote: The Bloodthirster
                And where can the "sinister intrigues" of the Bolsheviks be seen here?

                Exactly these national traitors (Putin called) issued a decree on the ELECTION of commanders in the army.
        4. captain
          captain 8 November 2016 18: 01
          +4
          In as the author of the article couch communists hurt !!!! Savior of the fatherland is entrenched in the VO. None of these clever men came out to defend the power of the Communists in 1991, and everyone shouts about betrayal and traitors. Where were you at that time? Chatterboxes and demagogues, especially types like The Bloodthirster, Zablicev, Diana, etc. Why didn’t all these constant defenders of Lenin and his associates stand on the barricades? Because betrayal and hatred of the Russian people they have, at the genetic level.
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 18: 13
            +5
            Quote: captain
            captain

            Tantrum satisfied.
            While you ate three throats, stole and squealed about the damned communists in 90, I and my colleagues had to crush the gangs of all bearded and not so murderers.
            So what my comrades and I did my work, but what did you do, Mr. Demagogue?
            They screamed at Borka for the kingdom, and did the simple Vani Solntsevs wash themselves with blood?
            While you again screamed and frightened people in 1996, we again had to wash our blood to prevent the country from breaking up, you all screamed-Borka to the kingdom.
            The Communists did not allow the country to crawl into the new Civil, which was so desirable for your owners, explicit and not so. So, Mr. Demagog keep quiet.
            Quote: captain
            Because betrayal and hatred of the Russian people they have, at the genetic level.

            This is for you, a miserable bunch of liberal marginals, anti-Soviet and Russophobia, hatred of the vast majority of the people living because of your demagogy is not too good, Russophobia rolls over being at the genetic level, animal level.
          2. Finches
            Finches 8 November 2016 19: 29
            +3
            Easy cornering, captain Yuri! What, then, are you like to allow yourself to peremptorily throw such accusations like this? We talk about historical facts and their impact on the further development of the country! Here you just simply get in with insults, it’s not clear what is based on, and it’s not completely positive that characterizes your essence ... There is nothing to be proud of as captain, that's why in 1917 the people didn’t follow you because you considered everyone below you! And today, if you do not rank yourself as a saint right away, then in any case you consider yourself true in the last resort! Yuri, this is not a completely constructive position ... hi

            If you have something to say reasonably on the case, speak up, and if not, then it is best to remain silent ... However, I understand you, you will cut down a couple of likes on your "cool" phrase from schoolchildren to increase the rating ...!

            And by the way, I am not a communist and have never been!
      5. Baloo
        Baloo 8 November 2016 10: 01
        +2
        Seeing that the liberal bourgeoisie, which had come to power, is not capable of managing such a colossal Empire, simply merging it in pieces, Lenin made the decision to seize power!
        There is a photo in Mlechin’s film: the ambassador of England to Russia, the tsar general in full dress (they are relatives) and Trotsky. Ambassador and Troyky in tailcoats.
        The Ambassador of England to the Tsar: Nicholas, deny, Russia needs democracy. If you live in England with your sister, she will receive you.
        Tsar: no, I'm the master of the Russian land.
        Kerensky’s grandson: Grandfather about the February revolution: 12 people gathered, called Trotsky in America and that’s it, the February revolution ...
        And so it happened, liberalism on the Naglosak suction forces the king to abdicate. Before this, the king was horrified to see that only 2 districts would support him, if that. Tsar of the Queen of England: Sister, they expel me here, take shelter in a relative way. Queen: Nope, crowded by ourselves. Trotsky was an agent of the influence of the arrogant Saxons, as well as Sverdlov and other husks.
        The moral of this fable is this: The national leader must be aware of the responsibility for every word and action before his people and history.
        EBN: I am the president of Russia, I ... I ... clowned and grimaced
        GDP: I am a servant of the people ... like a slave in the galleys ...
        How ebn was pulled and worked we know.
        And GDP, does he ever rest? After all, besides work, there is also life.
        If everyone worked as GDP, we would build communism (a joke).
      6. guzik007
        guzik007 8 November 2016 11: 07
        +6
        Before spreading this heresy here. I would like the author to read the documents of that time himself, the "April Theses" at least.
        So no, it’s better, having heard all sorts of besogonov and nyashki (this one generally went very silent, than to speak), categorically declares, they say, the Bolsheviks are such and such, the czar-priest banged with an unbroken hand, burst, panimash, collapsed.
        Tsar, tsar ... Avno was our last emperor, completely awna like a ruler. Not like the grandfather. Here is who ... Russia, and the Bolsheviks only saved her from complete anarchy and chaos.
        But, if I already have the MOST hash in my head on this issue, what can we say about all the new-found interpreters of our history ...
    2. Mahmut
      Mahmut 8 November 2016 06: 08
      +2
      Not in everything, but in the main thing.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 8 November 2016 09: 01
        +8
        Quote: domokl
        We were reconciled by World War II.

        Really reconciled, but the same Poklonskaya brought to the memory parade the face of a passion-bearer dear to her heart and splits the people.Establishing monuments to white generals, modern cinema about noble "whites", replacing Soviet paraphernalia with imperial ones - this is all Sharman, it's great that there are active individuals are not indifferent to the pre-revolutionary era.
        The state as a whole favors this revival, and the church is actively promoting it.
        But this is watched by a huge part of our people, brought up by the Soviet regime. Although I am not a communist, I was raised on films where political officers were killed and killed there. My grandfather was a party veteran, since childhood I was told that there is only one army --- Red.
        Therefore, I have nothing against the traditions and exploits of the old army, but when red is replaced with white, this is not reconciliation. And a dangerous split. Again, when there is so acute a lack of social justice in the country.
        Therefore, it is not necessary to be surprised that the people stand up for Soviet power. Zyuganov then weakly stands up for the ideals of many people.
        1. Finches
          Finches 8 November 2016 09: 07
          +1
          What are you, comrades, attacked a woman! She’s a woman - d ... forgive me lovely ladies of whom I love very much, but I thought and still think that women have no place in politics! They are too unpredictable and stubborn! The same Poklonskaya, for some reason, decided that Nicholas II was truly a saint, but now you cannot move her with this tractor from this position! I won’t even think that the canonization of Nicholas and not the removal of Lenin from the Mausoleum is probably just a compromise between the opposing forces of today's Russian reality, and not because Nikolas is a saint and a great martyr! Moreover, de jure, when he was screwed up in the basement - he was not a king, he was an ordinary citizen, so criminality is politically motivated, but no more than laying some kind of sacred meaning in this is not necessary ... Here, kids, really, feel sorry!
          1. novel66
            novel66 8 November 2016 10: 43
            +4
            I am more sorry for those kids who, in a civil without a family, were left, were killed and had no children. thanks to the tsar -batyushka for the country
            1. Finches
              Finches 8 November 2016 10: 52
              +2
              Children, they have children - they are not divided into white and red! However, of course, a very large share of responsibility for what happened lies with Nikolai! hi
              1. novel66
                novel66 8 November 2016 11: 00
                +5
                holy note!
                1. Finches
                  Finches 8 November 2016 11: 18
                  +3
                  Yes, and God bless him! A clear church position was determined there: it was not the image of the reign of Nicholas II that was canonized, but the image of his death, but I think that the political situation of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time was also hidden behind this decision.
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 8 November 2016 11: 30
                    +2
                    let's canonize ALL the dead in the civilian, also to me, to hell with a hill!
                    1. Finches
                      Finches 8 November 2016 11: 48
                      +1
                      I agree with you that they did nothing in vain and a certain commitment is felt behind it, but I think that it is necessary to leave this to the conscience of the participants in the Bishop's Anniversary Cathedral, where Nicholas was canonized! hi
          2. ava09
            ava09 8 November 2016 10: 44
            +2
            (c) The same Poklonskaya, for some reason, decided that Nicholas II was truly a saint, and now you cannot move her with this tractor from this position! (c)
            Politics is not a woman's element. The wife follows her husband. In politics, too, only here the role of "husband" is performed by the "team". Whoever "warmed her", "promoted", respectively - "paid", determines her political "position", and maybe not only ...)
            1. Finches
              Finches 8 November 2016 10: 56
              +1
              I think that now her position has already been adjusted in the party - "What are you talking about doo.ra!" laughing
          3. guzik007
            guzik007 8 November 2016 11: 11
            0
            The same Poklonskaya, for some reason, decided that Nicholas II was truly a saint, but now you cannot move her with this tractor from this position!
            -------------------------------------------------
            -----------
            And why have we now begun to quote her so often? Who is she anyway? Mind the honor and conscience of the current State Duma? This is the one who is on the compromising YouTube with herself in the lead role of an interesting film in the style of "will give ist fantastish sexmashinen", briefly said: "it's not me"
            1. novel66
              novel66 8 November 2016 11: 32
              +2
              Look, this is the position!
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 8 November 2016 12: 47
          +2
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          But this is watched by a huge part of our people, brought up by the Soviet regime. Although I am not a communist, I was raised on films where political officers were killed and killed there. My grandfather was a party veteran, since childhood I was told that there is only one army --- Red.

          The Bolsheviks staged a revolution, well, there were probably prerequisites, a civil war, fists, the Gulag, the Great Patriotic War, a lot of people died, created the USSR, carried out industrialization, raised science. And then suddenly the Central Committee of the CPSU tired of being Communists wanted to be capitalists, the restructuring and collapse of the country.
          So what were all these sacrifices for?
    3. Vend
      Vend 8 November 2016 09: 59
      +2
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      It turns out the Bolsheviks are to blame for everything! In this article, I would put MINUS!

      And the blame for the Bolshevik Communists is also there. Who divided Russia into republics? Now we are reaping the benefits. Barely saved the country from extinction in 90. And all the bomb planted by the Bolshevik Communists. Pros and cons are in any system. There were flaws and advantages in the Russian Empire, but there were flaws and advantages in the USSR. So pour mud on Russia or the USSR, the most stupid thing. It works for the enemy.
      1. Bloodsucker
        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 11: 58
        +3
        Quote: Wend
        And the blame for the Bolshevik Communists is also there. Who divided Russia into republics?

        Dear ... it’s not worth judging from the standpoint today. It is still worth looking at those conditions, then the time, and why it was just like that and not otherwise, like that otherwise it was IMPOSSIBLE to act in those conditions.
        Now, let’s recall the affairs of recent days, legally, the actions of three drunkards in Bialowieza are a crime, they had no right to sign some kind of coats, but they did not give a damn about the highest expression of the will of the people — the Referendum, exchanging specific princes to the country for their personal power ...
        For the sake of AUTHORITIES, Yeltsin and K, committed a coup d'etat to the people and the consequences of his actions hiccup to this day, so it's easy to blame the Bolsheviks, but to understand that the collapse of the country in 90 is not the Bolsheviks, but a certain bunch of people , from which it seems to many unbearable and not desirable.
        1. Vend
          Vend 8 November 2016 15: 50
          +1
          Quote: The Bloodthirster
          Quote: Wend
          And the blame for the Bolshevik Communists is also there. Who divided Russia into republics?

          Dear ... it’s not worth judging from the standpoint today. It is still worth looking at those conditions, then the time, and why it was just like that and not otherwise, like that otherwise it was IMPOSSIBLE to act in those conditions.
          Why is this impossible? They liquidated the Far Eastern Republic. In general, the country's leader should look not only at the moment, but far ahead, assessing what his order might turn into. I was always interested in the question, if in the USSR there were Communists for 70 years, then where did the Democrats come from? Throwing a membership card does not mean becoming a democrat. Those communists who were in power ruined and plundered the country. Only they began to call themselves differently. And those who now call themselves Communists are not.
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 19: 44
            +1
            Quote: Wend
            Liquidated the Far Eastern Republic

            FER, as a buffer republic, was still not a national republic like the same Ukraine, therefore, in this case, problems that would arise. If they tried to forcibly remove the Ukrainian SSR, for example, in 1925, they would be expensive.
            Politics. The logic of desires did not coincide with the logic of intentions, assuming the logic of realities.
            Quote: Wend
            And in general, the head of the country should look not only at the momentary moment, but far ahead, assessing what his order might turn into.

            The look was enough for almost 70 years, another question is that they overlooked the degeneration of the party, as a result of which, such as Khrushchev broke through to power.
            Quote: Wend
            I was always interested in the question: if there were communists in the USSR for 70 years, then where did the democrats come from?

            Well, it's simple, our intelligentsia has always been front-line, imagining itself smarter than anyone else, instead of the question of developing an idea, they listened more and more to Radio Liberty and suffered from a beautiful Western life, plus to this, she didn’t understand that some points Marx, in their pure form are not applicable to Russia, well, they started to moan, oh, we don’t have such socialism, oh, let’s like in Sweden, oh, in the USA it’s even better, the result was in fact.

            Quote: Wend
            Those communists who were in power ruined and plundered the country. Only they began to call themselves differently. And those who now call themselves Communists, they are not.

            These were not Communists, they themselves admit it, the same, for example, Prokholrov, I joined the CPSU because I would make a career faster. Gorbachev almost always answered, who generally dreamed of destroying the USSR with his words. And there were a lot of such people.
            The question of quality, not quantity, Stalin had QUALITY, Yuu Gorbachev from the filing of Khrushchev-quantity without quality.
            And those who were shoved into the released secretaries, those who are older remember ... all those who were hopeless in their work, with the rarest exceptions, they themselves were sent to party organizers ..
            Quote: Wend
            And those who now call themselves Communists, they are not.

            How to say .. how to say, for example, those who call themselves Trotskyists, but to be counted among the Communists .. very and very absurd.
    4. ava09
      ava09 8 November 2016 10: 38
      +1
      (c) Therefore, I ask you, brothers, do not allow me to slander our history, our church, our emperor. Yes, there are many shortcomings in the church, and Nicholas II may not have been an outstanding statesman, but this is our king - the anointed of God (c)
      Such Russophobic statements will continue while the Trotskyist Chubais is the embodiment of Russophobia, robbery, and the destruction of the State of Rus' sits on the throne. It's time to understand the axiom: Antichrist (Chubais with accomplices) on the Throne - Kvachkov (as the personification of the people) in the Zone ...
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 20
        +3
        And how did it happen that God abandoned his anointed? Or maybe the anointed one refused God, who gave him the crown?
    5. Titsen
      Titsen 8 November 2016 12: 04
      +2
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      In this article I would put MINUS!


      Well, I very much regretted that MINUSES were removed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Only for this one sentence:
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      And until now, through the efforts of the Neo-Trotskyists, this soul often remains empty and is filled with vodka, because its, infinite, only infinite God can fill.[i] [/ i] And without God, according to our great Dostoevsky, a Russian person turns into beast.


      IDEOLOGY fills the soul, and everyone has a different look at it!

      And it’s very bad that IDEOLOGY has completely disappeared from us, and our ideologists have been GRINDED and VERY LONG AGAIN!

      PS And don’t drink vodka, otherwise you’ll become a little kid, the author of an article named Vladimir ...
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 8 November 2016 13: 17
        +3
        You didn’t do very well with quoting: I did not write about vodka, but the author of the article. hi
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 22
        +1
        And I agree and disagree. Ideology does not fill the soul. ideology fills the mind, but the soul fills the conscience, love, honor.
        But of course, conscience and honor go hand in hand with ideology.
    6. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 18
      +3
      I also think that the author in vain complained that there are no minuses, it is still unknown who would have raped them more.
      This is the first. The second - I did not understand why this article appeared on VO at all?
      If a person writes such an article, and not just a comment, he simply MUST subscribe in full, and not remain anonymous Vladimir otherwise it causes a distrust of the author, a distrust of his sincerity.
      Well, there are enough illiterate statements, I will point out only one thing, saying that the October coup was unconstitutional, the author does not say that February was unconstitutional, and the Bolsheviks essentially overthrew the illegal power of the Provisional Government.
      The February revolution, not the October one, laid the foundation for everything that happened in Russia.
      October is a consequence, not a cause.
    7. Starik72
      Starik72 10 November 2016 11: 25
      0
      Uncle Lee! I fully support you, the article is just a huge minus.
  2. Andrey Sukharev
    Andrey Sukharev 8 November 2016 05: 44
    +6
    Without Lenin, there would be no Stalin. Stalin is also a Bolshevik, but you contrast them.
    1. Mahmut
      Mahmut 8 November 2016 06: 05
      +18
      Without Lenin, there would be no Stalin. Stalin is also a Bolshevik, but you contrast them.
      Without Yeltsin, there would have been no Putin. Putin is also a democrat, and you contrast them
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 8 November 2016 11: 14
        0
        And without Putin there would be no oligarch friends with such kings! Here with such hands! stealing candy in the store!
        -------------------------------------------------
        -------
        and we all, but he doesn’t know, but he doesn’t know ...
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 24
      +1
      In fact, Stalin began his revolutionary activity, before meeting Lenin. So, what you wrote is nothing more than fortunetelling on coffee grounds.
  3. My address
    My address 8 November 2016 05: 56
    +6
    I have an ideological opponent Alexander Romanov. It is difficult to argue with him on the case, he gives effective arguments, he has logic and facts. But the meaning of this article is, of course, slightly exaggerated, uncomplicated:
    - LIKE THIS! WHY? BECAUSE!
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 8 November 2016 06: 18
      +10
      Quote: My address
      I have an ideological opponent Alexander Romanov. It is difficult to argue with him on the case, he gives effective arguments, he has logic and facts. But the meaning of this article is, of course, slightly exaggerated, uncomplicated:

      I agree with you, the article in general is based on an extremely harmful postulate about the supposedly powerful, wonderful time of tsarist rule in Russia. Let me remind everyone who reproaches about the advanced technical tsarist empire, the first ball-bearing factory in Russia was opened in 1917 by the Bolsheviks ....
      1. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 8 November 2016 06: 56
        +7
        Quote: ziqzaq
        ... I remind everyone who blames the advanced technical tsarist empire, the first ball-bearing factory in Russia was opened in 1917 by the Bolsheviks ....

        You are a plus, but ...
        You are mistaken, in 1932 ...
        And in tsarist times, with all our Ural wealth, Great Russia imported up to 90% of bearing alloys (bronze) ....
        1. ziqzaq
          ziqzaq 8 November 2016 07: 44
          +3
          Quote: Sergey S.
          You are a plus, but ...
          You are mistaken, in 1932 ...
          And in tsarist times, with all our Ural wealth, Great Russia imported up to 90% of bearing alloys (bronze) ....

          Read the history of GPP No. 2 .. True, it was nominally opened in 1916 as a branch of the Swedish plant, but production as such was organized on its basis in 1917 ...
          1. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 8 November 2016 19: 15
            0
            Thank you.
            My information was based on the information of automobile experts, as it turned out, who considered the first GPZ-1.
        2. Amurets
          Amurets 8 November 2016 07: 51
          +6
          Quote: Sergey S.
          And in tsarist times, with all our Ural wealth, Great Russia imported up to 90% of bearing alloys (bronze).

          I don’t argue for bronze, but the first bearing factory was built by SKF in Moscow.
          - In 1914, a subsidiary SKF was opened in Russia. A little more time passes and, only 9 years after the founding of the company in Sweden, SKF launches production at the first ball-bearing factory in Russia, located in Moscow. After the revolution, SKF in the form of a concession continued to manage the plant, and also assisted in the construction of a new state-owned ball bearing plant in Moscow.
          And so that there is no dispute: here is the link. http://www.skf.com/en/our-company/SKF-in-Russia/H
          istory / index.html
          What about the article? The answer must be sought in the events of 1917 and those who say that under conditions of anarchy the Bolsheviks took responsibility for Russia are right. Because the truth about those events is nowhere to be found. Neither the councils of deputies nor the State Duma or the Provisional Government had real power.
          1. Titsen
            Titsen 8 November 2016 12: 10
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            and right are those who say that in conditions of anarchy the Bolsheviks took responsibility for Russia.


            Now the moment is TOTALLY different!
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 8 November 2016 14: 03
              0
              Quote: Titsen
              Now the moment is TOTALLY different!

              I totally agree with you. Everything flows, everything changes.
          2. Aleksander
            Aleksander 8 November 2016 15: 52
            +1
            Quote: Amurets
            in the conditions of anarchy, the Bolsheviks took responsibility for Russia

            Nobody instructed them to take "responsibility for Russia". There was, albeit an ineffective and weak, but recognized by the Soviets by the Provisional Government! So then it’s Temporary, only BEFORE the Constituent Assembly., which would form a permanent, based on the WILL of RUSSIAN CITIZENS.
            WHO gave the right to disperse the Bolsheviks, who also called their Sovnarkom TEMPORARY OPPORTUNITIES- TO Uch.Sob.?! And .... dispersed Uchr. Collection. The result is 10 million victims of Gr. war - and this is also the will of the people, right?

            Partly yes, they answered: ALL first composition of the Council of People's Commissars (from October 27) Stalin-Shot (except for those who were lucky enough to die before 37) Yes
            1. Operator
              Operator 8 November 2016 16: 06
              0
              According to V. Putin's statement, 85 percent of the first composition of the Council of People's Commissars consisted of Jews by nationality, who "took responsibility for Russia." am
          3. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 8 November 2016 19: 16
            0
            Thank you.
            Expanded erudition.
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 8 November 2016 09: 09
      +1
      Quote: My address
      I have an ideological opponent, Alexander Romanov.

      Actually, the mentioned in vain Alexander writes the name of his avatar in capital letters. Well, a person likes it, probably very modest.
  4. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 8 November 2016 06: 05
    +4
    Vladimir - the problem is that having become disillusioned with anarchy, people are looking in the history of the country for a force or person who could or really changed the course of history. You can love or hate Lenin, you can ignore him, but, the time when you couldn’t throw him out of life. The fact is that the Bolsheviks give salt to the people to give a dream to a people’s state where everyone is equal, estates and titles were abolished, people were equalized in the middle, and, like terror, the impoverishment of the country and mass emigration are in second place.
    1. AUL
      AUL 8 November 2016 10: 46
      +3
      The bottom line is that the Bolsheviks give salt to the people to give their dreams a dream to a people's state where everyone is equal, estates and titles were abolished, people were called equal in the middle,
      Yes of course! And then before the Bolsheviks, no one knew how to dream of anything! And Campanella with his "City of the Sun" and all subsequent (and previous) utopians - this does not count? The Bolsheviks threw another utopian dream into the masses, knowingly understanding its impossibility. "Everything will be tip-top, but - later!" At first they believed, then little by little they began to doubt, the vague "then" did not arouse enthusiasm. Khrushch decided to refresh the idea - "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism!" I personally believed in this grade up to 7 - 8, until I began to think with my own head, and not to believe the slogans.
      That is why MEMBERS of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and prosrali country that they kept the people for a dumb mass, which shoves any noodles on the ears. And then the old estates were abolished, but they created new ones - party workers, officials, traders. The untouchables, no worse than the present.
      Regarding Vladimir's article. "History repeats itself, the first time, like a tragedy, the second - like a farce" (c). At the dawn of perestroika, there was already an article with the same name. Obviously ordered from the CPSU, the author Nina (some kind) also could not strongly compromise her party principles. So here is Vladimir's article - in my opinion, a pure farce, and somewhat illogical and confusing. The author asks not to offend the church and the emperor, to respect your history - well, who would argue! The meaning of the article boils down to "Guys, let's live together!"
      PS Regarding the church. A person must have faith in something. There must be a concept of a saint and a concept of sin. You can call it another way - beliefs, morality, moral principles - it does not matter, the main thing is that it is in the soul. And no matter what religion a person professes at the same time - in all religions the concepts of good and evil coincide. Another thing is how they are interpreted by officials from religion. And the church is now turning into a commercial structure - any whim for your money! I am an Orthodox person, but I don’t go to church - I do not need distributors from God!
      1. Bloodsucker
        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 12: 09
        +3
        An article by N. Andreeva, if READ, and not invented for her, is now relevant.

        “Another feature of the views of the“ left-liberals ”is an explicit or disguised cosmopolitan tendency, a kind of nationalless“ internationalism. ”I read somewhere that when, after the revolution, a delegation of merchants and manufacturers came to Trotsky“ as a Jew ”complaining about the oppression of the Red Guards. the latter declared that he was "not a Jew, but an internationalist", which greatly puzzled the petitioners.

        Trotsky's concept of "national" meant a certain inferiority and limitation in comparison with "international". And that is why he emphasized the "national tradition" of October, wrote about the "national in Lenin", argued that the Russian people "did not receive any cultural heritage", etc. as "backward and uncultured", he committed, according to Lenin, "three Russian revolutions", that the Slavic peoples were at the forefront of the battles of mankind against fascism. "
        "If the 'neoliberals' are oriented towards the West, then another 'alternative tower', using the expression of Prokhanov, 'guardians and traditionalists', strives to 'overcome socialism by moving backwards.' In other words, to return to the social forms of pre-socialist Russia. peasant socialism "are mesmerized by this image. In their opinion, a hundred years ago there was a loss of moral values ​​accumulated in the misty darkness of centuries by the peasant community." Traditionalists "have undoubted merit in exposing corruption, in a just solution of environmental historical monuments, in opposition to the dominance of mass culture, which is rightly assessed as a psychosis of consumerism ... "
        http://revolucia.ru/nmppr.htm
        Quote from AUL
        That is why MEMBERS of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and prosrali country that they kept the people for a dumb mass, which shoves any noodles on the ears. And then the old estates were abolished, but they created new ones - party workers, officials, traders. The untouchables, no worse than the present.

        Yesterday V. Solovyov’s broadcast, wild hysteria and clowning of Zhirinovsky, weighted words of K. Shakhnazarov and Y. Kedmi, you are now in your commentary, in an assessment. You have not gone far from Zhirinovsky, the same mishmash of myths, fairy tales and other things.
        Quote from AUL
        Another thing is how they are interpreted by officials from religion. And the church is now turning into a commercial structure - any whim for your money! I am an Orthodox person, but I don’t go to church - I do not need distributors from God!

        According to the canons of the Church, you cannot be considered Orthodox, since you deny the Church itself, accusing it of some kind of distribution, it’s more like you have a Protestant, Baptist, anyone, but not an Orthodox person, it’s strange that I, an atheist, should tell you this .
        Just like you "doubting" everything, doing nothing to correct the situation, but criticizing everything and everyone from the couch, there is the very thing that at all times was called a swamp, the miasms of which poison any society.
        1. AUL
          AUL 8 November 2016 12: 35
          +1
          Just like you "doubting" everything, doing nothing to correct the situation, but criticizing everything and everyone from the couch, there is the very thing that at all times was called a swamp, the miasms of which poison any society.

          Bloodsucker, let me ask you a curiosity, but what do you know about me, what am I doing or not doing? What do I doubt and what not? And it really painfully categorically you christened me a swamp, I was even ashamed for a short while!
          When a person draws conclusions without having any information for them, this is a phenomenon from the same category as laughter for no reason!
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 12: 50
            0
            Quote from AUL
            And the church is now turning into a commercial structure - any whim for your money! I am an Orthodox person, but I don’t go to church - I do not need distributors from God!

            Your words?
            Quote from AUL
            And it really painfully categorically you christened me a swamp, I was even ashamed for a short while!

            It is good that sometimes shame still appears.
            Especially when, as said above, there are no complaints.
            Quote from AUL
            I personally believed in this class until 7-8, until I began to think with my head, and not believe the slogans.

            Your words?
            Well, sometimes even briefly you will say much more about yourself than writing a resume when submitting to some office.
            1. AUL
              AUL 8 November 2016 13: 20
              +1
              Well, sometimes even briefly you will say much more about yourself than writing a resume when submitting to some office.

              So what exactly have you learned from the quotes? Please share on what I pierced? Only specifically, on points!
              1. AUL
                AUL 8 November 2016 16: 14
                0
                And in response - silence ...
                Yes, The Bloodthirster, Sherlock Holmes is one of you crap. Do not get a job as an investigator - you will disappear from hunger. Here is the prosecutor's office - this is perhaps yours! laughing laughing
    2. cannabis
      cannabis 8 November 2016 16: 35
      +2
      Yes, we have Brezhnev for the people made a hundred times more than Ulyanov. And the Brezhnev did not cossack and Tambov did not poison with gas and went to ZIL, and not to a Rolls-Royce.
      .
  5. base66
    base66 8 November 2016 06: 15
    +1
    white come - rob red come - rob and people radish horseradish is not sweeter
  6. populist
    populist 8 November 2016 06: 18
    +16
    The ideas of the revival of the church, the monarchy, the Russian Orthodox spirit were deeply disgusting and alien to them.

    I am Russian, not a liberal or a Westerner, but a patriot. But to me "deeply disgusting and alien" are "the ideas of the revival of the church, monarchy" and Orthodoxy ", because this is obscurantism.
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 07: 24
      +14
      Dear populist, the monarchy has been a form of government in Russia throughout 9 / 10 the entire time of its existence, and during this time we managed to take control of the 1 / 6 part of the land. Yes, and the Golden and Silver centuries of Russian culture also fall on the tsarist time. Like the emergence of Russian cinema - the works of the studio Khanzhonkova. To call such results obscurantism ... at least surprisingly.
      As for the Orthodox faith, it played a significant role in the unification of Slavic tribes, creating a single cultural space. And the very ideas of mercy and fraternal help, offered by Christianity, have become part of the culture of our people. And this despite the fact that the Church really helps people. About 5 years ago, one of my friends was on the verge of a severe depression. He wanted to listen to the arguments of logic and reason - I could not convince him. But the abbess of one of the monasteries helped him - one serious conversation helped a person radically rethink his life and begin to look at the world in a new way. What is obscurantism when people associated with the Church help people in difficult situations?
      So, forgive me my directness, but you, in my opinion, are still a Soviet person in culture, not a Russian, because a person’s belonging to a social community does not determine nationality, but, first of all, culture.
      1. svoi
        svoi 8 November 2016 08: 40
        +8
        Lieutenant Teterin distorted dear, it is probably the weakness of all lieutenants, you did not trample from the regiment? Most of the territorial annexations took place in the 17th century. times of expansion of all empires (most earlier, we traditionally lagged behind) But to master most of the Trans-Ural territories, it was possible only in (correctly) the 20th century. Who then stood at the helm? The heyday of classical art, also came in pre-Bolshevik times around the world, well, then there were not Lenin-Stalin, in general, even in the project)))
        As for the church: everything is far away, ambiguous))) you can say - help, you can - business, as a person whose growing up happened in the 90s, I prefer to believe exclusively in facts, and the kind of priests on "pradiks", like some other observations , incline me to the second option, so when I see a brand new church that has grown out of a chapel in the courtyard of the children's hospital, I see a well-located point of sale for "opium for the people".
        So, forgive my directness, but in my opinion, by the level of intelligence, you are still a romantic person, not a thinking person, because a person's belonging to this category determines not the fact of the statements, but, first of all, their meaning.
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 17: 29
          +6
          Yes, most of the territorial annexations really occurred in the 17th century. But the country was then ruled by kings - and they coped well with this matter - no worse than in other countries. The development of Siberia and the Far East also began under the kings. Or are you sure that the Bolsheviks built the Trans-Siberian Railway? The heyday of classical art fell on the New Age, but the Silver Age of Russian culture fell on the beginning of the 20th century. Soviet culture could not create anything similar to the art of this era.
          Regarding the Church - you and I really have a different vision, but, forgive me, your statements about business and opium are strikingly reminiscent of Marxist propaganda materials, so I don't think you even thought of talking to the people who go to these churches to find out , Why are they doing that. I made my choice at a conscious age, having familiarized myself with the teachings of the Church and seeing the deeds of people who call themselves Orthodox Christians. For example, I will say that there is a service "Mercy", which on a voluntary basis provides assistance to the elderly, orphans, single mothers. And here there is no romantic impulse - I saw people who are able to provide each other with real support, living according to the principle of "man to man friend". Romantics incapable of thinking were, rather, people who believed in the inevitable onset of communism.
          PS Since you moved on to the arguments ad hominem, I have to admit that you have ended other arguments ...
          1. svoi
            svoi 9 November 2016 06: 14
            +1
            I say that both the times of expansion and the heyday of classical art passed BEFORE the Bolsheviks, I repeat WORLDWIDE and, for example, in France in the 20th century. also did not surpass the cultural achievements of the 19th century. That is, you set an incorrect example of the superiority of tsars over the Bolsheviks. This is how to say that my grandfather exceeded me in the ability to handle horses.
            Regarding the church: I forgive, they really remind me, only I learned about opium from other authors, you didn't understand that this is humor, but about business I came to conclusions on my own, by the way, I agree with the theory that religion was invented by the "rich" to manage the "poor" ... Remind, WELL AND WHAT IS BAD HERE !? It seems to you that I did not even think (normal pearl, write easier) to talk with people who go to these churches: it is wrong for you to think that I have (had) religious friends, we had the opportunity to conduct theological disputes, with beer))) which always ended with the conclusion that each - his own))) For example, I talked about priests on "pradiks" (this is a Toyota Lendcruser Prado, if not aware of an expensive car) in the capital, I remember, there was a scandal with the trip of priests to the so-called. supercars (these are very expensive cars), and more recently they closed the "overexposure" jar founded by the Russian Orthodox Church (I wonder why)) and covered it, oh, not because of anti-religious considerations))), and you tell me about some funny service "Mercy" By the way, there are charitable foundations and all sorts of volunteers who provide assistance to others without a religious background.
            PS As for the arguments ad hominem, and here yours is not true: re-read (carefully) my answer to you, and now your answer to the user "populist" smacks of double standards, don't you find it? And there will be enough arguments, exactly until the dispute as such is bored)))
      2. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 8 November 2016 10: 17
        +6
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        Dear populist, the monarchy has been a form of government in Russia throughout 9 / 10 the entire time of its existence, and during this time we managed to take control of the 1 / 6 part of the land. Yes, and the Golden and Silver centuries of Russian culture also fall on the tsarist time. Like the emergence of Russian cinema - the works of the studio Khanzhonkova. To call such results obscurantism ... at least surprisingly.

        Everything was wonderful in the Russian Empire, a peasant crunched a French bun, a worker rested in Nice, milk rivers flowed in the jelly banks, and then the evil Bolsheviks came and ruined everything.
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        What is obscurantism when people associated with the Church help people in difficult situations?

        And what obscurantism when they do not help?
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        So, forgive me my directness, but you, in my opinion, are still a Soviet person in culture, not a Russian, because a person’s belonging to a social community does not determine nationality, but, first of all, culture.

        This is bad? For me it’s so much worse to be a person turned on monarchism, pulling the country into the past, instead of taking the best from there and moving on. You here declare that the Bolsheviks brought the country to the crisis of 1991, but the monarchists brought the country to the crisis of 1917 and all the further problems they come from this crisis. And the 37 year and all the hardships of collectivization and industrialization is all a direct consequence of the activities of your beloved monarchy. And everything else is your invention and artistic whistle.
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 17: 44
          +6
          The Russian Empire was not an ideal state, but the peasants did not starve there, so as to reach cannibalism (such cases were noted in the documents of the OGPU, dated 1932 and 1933). In the Russian Empire, people were not killed by the "sentences" of extrajudicial bodies, as was the case in the 30s.
          If people do not help, then this is not obscurantism, but hardheartedness. Such behavior in the Orthodox Church, to put it mildly, is condemned.
          Monarchism, in your opinion, pulls into the past? Say it to the inhabitants of Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain - all these countries are monarchies to this day. And nothing, they live better than us. It was the liberals who brought the country to the crisis of 1917, yearning for power instead of the tsar. As for industrialization ... it was not the tsar, and it was not the monarchists who shot university professors, because they are de "bourgeois". And they were not the ones who smashed engineering education all the 20s.
          PS To make it clearer what the monarchy really is, hi, an understandable picture. The budget of the Zemsky (i.e. local) self-government under the kings. Compare with spending similar budgets in the USSR and now.
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 18: 06
            +4
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            The Russian Empire was not an ideal state, but the peasants did not starve there.

            Then you can not read your lies.
            Realities
            On average, 10% of the population starved in European Russia.

            SHARE OF HUNGERS IN THE POPULATION OF CENTRAL RUSSIA
            (without Poland and without Finland) in 1891-1911 years
            HUNGER: 1891 - 25,7% and 1892 - 9,1%. In 1893 - 0,1%, 1894 - 0,5%, 1895 - 1,1%, 1896 - 2,2%,
            1897 - 3,8%, 1898 - 9,7% 1899 - 3,2%, 1900 - 1,5%.

            At the beginning of the XX century, Russia was hungry in Russia: 1901-1902, 1905-1908 and 1911 - 1912 years.
            In 1901 - 1902, 49 provinces starved: in 1901 - 6,6%, 1902 - 1%, 1903 - 0,6%, 1904 -― 1,6%.
            In 1905 - 1908. starved from 19 to 29 provinces: in 1905 - 7,7%, 1906 - 17,3% of the population
            In 1911 - 1912 over the 2 of the year, famine swept 60 provinces: in 1911 - 14,9% of the population.
            30 million people were on the brink of death.
            HUNGER 1905 - 1907 In 1906, the Volga provinces were most affected: Samara, Kazan, Ufa, Simbirsk and Saratov, and from the internal: Tambov, Nizhny Novgorod, Penza. The harvest of bread was so bad that it could not be reaped or mowed, but had to be pulled out with the hands with roots. Sometimes the annual grain yield per family of 8 people was 60 kg. The peasants poorly ate rye bread baked with pea flour, "sawdust" and even clay were mixed into the bread "for volume".
            From malnutrition, a fierce epidemic of typhus began. Masses of hungry people went from villages to cities.
            http://www.domarchive.ru/history/part-1-empire/61
            Well, you have a snack on your Nicholas 2, to refresh ... October 13, 1909
            About 40 percent recruits almost for the first time ate meat upon entering the military service. ”!!!!!!! In the service, the soldier eats, besides good bread, excellent meat soup and porridge, i.e. something that many have no idea about in the village. ! In the service, the soldier receives a warm, hygienic room, serviceable clothes, clean linen, medical care and, moreover, correct occupations, much less hard labor than working in some factories and mines. "This was written in Censored Articles, admitted the deputy of the Black Hundreds, an ultra-right Monarchist Prince M. Menshikov ... referring by the way to the statistics of Prince Bagration! "The Japanese beat us because our army from top to bottom, for a whole THIRD (!!!) of it, consisted of foreigners." The Russians simply degenerated! "I draw the reader's attention to a very remarkable article by Colonel Prince Bagration in No. 11 of the Bulletin of the Russian Cavalry. “Every year the Russian army,” says the prince, “becomes more and more ailing and physically incapable. The treasury spends up to three million rubles annually only to cleanse itself of unfit recruits, to "protest" them. Of THREE guys it is difficult to choose One who is quite fit for service.! And despite this, the term of the soldier's service is getting shorter. The frail youth threatens to overwhelm the military hospitals "! Wrote Prince M. Menshikov in 1909.
            http://www.olegarin.com/olegarin/Carskaa_Rossia__
            cifry.html
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 34
              +1
              You can also advise Engelhardt to read about the problems of food and agriculture in the Republic of Ingushetia.
            2. Aleksander
              Aleksander 8 November 2016 23: 57
              +1
              ISLAND OF MONKEYS ON NAZINO on the Ob 1935mass corpse and cannibalism 1921-22 32-33, 47-48 and 14 million dead from starvation in owls. the country- to help you Millions with undermined health from a hunger strike. Nowhere in Africa and in the world in the 20 century was there such a thing.

              In Russia, before 1917, there was no such thing in MIND, and from 1892 to 1917 there were no starvation, and then cholera is the main reason

              Russian man could eat milk and meat in the same way as in 1913 year only after FORTY YEARS! And bread and that later (Bulganin report)

              So here, Mr. unlucky propaganda, learn ..
              1. murriou
                murriou 9 November 2016 08: 02
                0
                The traditional question to "Alexander" (and traditionally, as a rule, remains unanswered on his part): where did the fireball go?

                Especially about tens of millions of corpses from starvation in the USSR almost every year and other zombie apocalypse in the spirit of the late woman Lera? lol

                From satellite-and-pogrom? On the Internet, somewhere else, someone has written, or rather let the opponents google themselves? One grandmother on the bus said? laughing
                1. Ulan
                  Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 17
                  0
                  There is no answer, as always. Baba Lera whispered.
            3. Lieutenant Teterin
              Lieutenant Teterin 9 November 2016 16: 54
              +4
              Excuse me, but maybe you will not refer to frankly false data about the famine in 1902-911? In the newspapers of that time about this hunger there is not the slightest mention. As well as in the memoirs of contemporaries. And yes, Prince Menshikov, by the way, belonged to the liberal wing. To refer to it is like to refer to Latynina
              1. Bloodsucker
                Bloodsucker 9 November 2016 17: 14
                0
                Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                And yes, Prince Menshikov, by the way, belonged to the liberal wing. To refer to it is like to refer to Latynina

                What a banned you are, so when you are a fact, this is "Latin", when you are caught in a lie, you cannot answer, but stubbornly claim that there was no starvation in RI Nicholas 2 ... the same position ..
                Why then, starting in February, didn’t everyone like you stay in power, and how did you think about the garbage being swept out of the country?
        2. captain
          captain 8 November 2016 18: 15
          +5
          IS-80_RVGK2, the Russian peasant may not have crunched in a French bun, but he obviously did not sit in the Gulag. And he didn’t work for workdays. By the way, the Bolsheviks-saviors, equated the Russian peasant to one fifth of the worker, read the first and second constitutions written by the Bolsheviks. All who support the Bolsheviks are Russophobes and Zionists. Equating Russian peasants to subhuman is communistly correct. Directly according to Marx, Engels and Hitler.
          1. Ulan
            Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 38
            +3
            Come on, "Russophobes and Zionists" ... write right away, aliens from Tau-Kit with two heads and three arms.
            A simple question: who paid a monthly salary to a peasant in RI?
      3. Bloodsucker
        Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 12: 16
        +1
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        but you, in my opinion, are still a Soviet person in culture, not Russian, because a person’s belonging to a social community does not determine nationality, but, first of all, culture.

        What a twist ... For you to see the secret of the open door, that CULTURE, in the form of the USSR, is the highest achievement of Historical Russia, which he was, and here is the savagery into which, thanks to the efforts of you too, with oohs about the crunch of French bread, supposedly the primacy of the church in everything and everything, they give out in you not even a Russian, and even more so, not a Soviet person.
        In the USSR, it was not forbidden for anyone to indicate in my passport that I am Russian, I’m Yakut, but with you, in your name, in the name of whose interests you didn’t understand your nationality, you are asked why?
        What has given the world and Russia, your present culture, implicated on the lowest moral foundations of modern liberal Russia?
        Where is at least one ingenious film comparable to those that were shot in the USSR, where at least one ingenious theater performance is comparable to what it was in the previous period?
        There are none, there are frankly lousy fakes-crafts, such as Raikin’s homosexual fantasies, fabrications of Tannhäuser’s motives, vulgarization of everything and everything, so what kind of CULTURE are you talking about, Pugacheva and Galkin? Is this culture?
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 05
          +6
          The culture of the USSR, for your information, to Historical Russia, has the same relation as the culture of today's America to the culture of the Aztecs and Maya. The rest of the first paragraph of your message is quite difficult to understand, due to the placement of punctuation marks and general presentation in the style of a stream of thoughts, but I will try to answer you. You see, I personally have never proclaimed the absolute primacy of the Church, although, without a doubt, I recognize a certain moral authority for it as an organization expressing mutual assistance and support of people to each other as its main idea. No, if, of course, you are personally closer to the idea of ​​a society in which people denounce each other or live according to "concepts" similar to those that existed in the 90s, then you are certainly free to name the Church as you please.
          I personally did not "blot out" the column about nationality from my passport. This was done by officials ... how can I put it mildly ... who studied in Soviet schools and universities. I have nothing to do with them.
          The current pseudo-culture has nothing to do with me personally. Just as it in no way correlates with the culture of Historical Russia.
          As for films, there were relatively few really good films in the USSR. I can ask you a counter question: which of the Soviet writers was filmed in countries outside the Warsaw Pact? "Anna Karenina", "War and Peace", "Fathers and Sons" are filmed and staged in theaters around the world today.
          As for Raikin's fantasies and Pugacheva's feints ... I will remind you that these people received Soviet education and Soviet education. It means that such was the price of this upbringing, that without the pressure of party and public control, they allow themselves such things. I remember that the educated part of the imperial society in the USSR in the 20s and 30s did not allow themselves to be rude to those around them and, on the whole, behaved in accordance with the rules of etiquette. Even in the camps, according to the recollections of Oleg Volkov, the "former" behaved in communication with women and with each other, as in the secular salons of St. Petersburg. No matter what.
          1. Ulan
            Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 41
            +2
            "And the dawns here are quiet", "Quiet Don". This is offhand.
      4. Aleksander
        Aleksander 8 November 2016 16: 04
        +2
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        Dear populist, the monarchy has been a form of government in Russia throughout 9 / 10 the entire time of its existence, and during this time we managed to take control of the 1 / 6 part of the land. Yes, and the Golden and Silver centuries of Russian culture also fall on the tsarist time. Like the emergence of Russian cinema - the works of the studio Khanzhonkova. To call such results obscurantism ... at least surprisingly.


        And how can I disagree with you ?! hi
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 08
          +6
          Dear Aleksander, thank you! hi
        2. Ulan
          Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 44
          +2
          Really. That is, the birth of cinema in Russia is the merit of the autocracy? Yeah ... this thing is stronger than Goethe's "Faust".
          And the birth of cinema in France whose merit? Personally, the Prime Minister of France?
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 9 November 2016 00: 02
            +1
            Quote: Ulan
            That is, the emergence of cinema in Russia is a merit of the autocracy?

            And the first in the world telecast, And the first in the world modern tv and transmitter also-in the Russian Empire good .
            1. murriou
              murriou 9 November 2016 08: 26
              0
              Russia is the birthplace of elephants, a well-known thing, and Ivan the Terrible invented the x-ray, also a fact laughing - but the personal merit of other tsars in other "great Russian inventions" is not visible, even if you believe in them laughing

              And if you do not take their word for it, in reality almost all such "information" turns out to be myths that crumble at the very first check.

              Mozhaysky’s plane, for example, couldn’t fly - and really didn’t fly higher than bouncing on bumps during the first and last run of his life. The first printer Fedorov was more than a hundred years behind Gutenberg.
              The cinema was brought to Russia by the Lumiere brothers, the photo was also brought from abroad, including with the participation of the same br. Lumiere, and so on.

              As for television, the Russian patent of Rosing (och Russian surname, yes) had a place to be, but the inventor of the scanning disk Nipkov, usually passed off by such alexanders as Russian because of the sound of his surname, was German and bore the name Paul, the photoelectric effect of selenium is open Willoughby Smith. And all the "successes" of TV in pre-revolutionary times were reduced to the transmission of recognizable simple geometric shapes.

              So what about
              Quote: Aleksander
              first in the world modern TV and transmitter, too, in the Russian Empire
              Alexander, as usual, ahem, * got excited * lol laughing

              The world's first TV transmitters and receivers capable of transmitting halftones appeared only in the mid-20s of the 20th century in England, the USA and ... the USSR wink lol
            2. Ulan
              Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 19
              0
              Well, the genius is the emperor, I hope he also built the Eiffel Tower and the Wright brothers' plane.
  7. Bureaucrat
    Bureaucrat 8 November 2016 06: 24
    +3
    In Soviet times, there was an anecdote "Nicholas 2 was awarded the Order of the October Revolution, for creating a revolutionary situation, but changed his mind, left little food." Now the anecdote can be continued “Let's posthumously award Stalin with the second star of the hero of socialist labor ?!
  8. demotivator
    demotivator 8 November 2016 06: 27
    +18
    It’s good when a person has principles. It’s also good when he does them "cannot give up". It only seems to me that this one, so to speak,"cry from the heart" not from the heart, but made to order. And here's why. I simply cannot imagine a person today who would have lived during the reign of the former Tsar Nicholas II, and would tell us here about the life of that time. There are no such people today! They have long since died. For example, I lived during the times of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and further down the list. Many events in the history of our country took place before my eyes, and in some I even took part. So much of what the author wrote, I can judge not from hearsay, but from my own experience. And I also have my own principles, which, oddly enough, I do not intend to compromise. It is understandable why the topic of the former tsar periodically arises - we are simply being prepared for something like that. Then Poklonskaya, for no reason at all, during the march of the Immortal Regiment pinned her portrait, although no one has clearly explained what relation it has to the Immortal Regiment. Then they begin to praise the "heroes" of the white movement of Kolchak, Wrangel, etc. It is no coincidence that all this. Well, of course, under the sauce that "I cannot compromise my principles." How else? Principles, they are .....
    1. AUL
      AUL 8 November 2016 13: 00
      +2
      It's good when a person has principles. It is also good when he "cannot compromise" them.

      Don't you think that other people may have principles that are different from yours? And can you admit (purely theoretically, at least) that their principles are more accurate than yours? Principles, they are ...
  9. Basil50
    Basil50 8 November 2016 06: 32
    +18
    The article is absolutely logical. Democratic liberals cannot forgive the PEOPLE of RUSSIA for respect for genuine HEROES who were able to build the STATE from the ruins of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE and that we KNOW HOW everything happened in 1917.
    Liberal Democrats have already forgiven themselves and the coup and destruction of the Soviet Union and the outright theft of people's property. What we all have seen, and attempts to present it all as * conquering democracy * causes nothing but hatred of thieves and those who justify these thieves.
    It is amazing how * libro-demshiza * tries to accuse V AND LENIN or AND STALIN, and all our ancestors of * moral unscrupulousness * in relation to those who first destroyed the country and tried to make it a colony * of the Entente *, and then unleashed the Civil War.
    Favorite * song * about terror and 100 million are not shy about voicing even noble figures hung with regalia from science.
    Spitting out of SUCCESSFUL builders of the state IN AND LENIN and AND IN STALIN becomes the code * friend or foe * for * liberals *.
    Today, our people are again trying to divide on the grounds of national, confessional, social. And an attempt to pass a law that at least somehow unites CITIZENS OF RUSSIA will again run into active rejection by all, of the * libro-demshiza * the rejection of the continuity of the history of RUSSIA, and most importantly, the merits of the BUILDERS OF THE SOVIET UNION, VLADIMIR ILYICH (ULYANOV) Lenin and Ishislis. Today, RUSSIA is the successor of the SOVIET UNION, rebuilt precisely AFTER OCTOBER 1917, rebuilt on the wreckage of the destroyed RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 8 November 2016 07: 59
      +7
      Quote: Vasily50
      IN AND LENIN or AND IN STALIN

      Lenin, not Stalin.
      The country that Stalin built and the one built by the Trotskyists in the 20s are two completely different countries.
      The article has a clear focus on this. And all the arguments of those who disagree with the author come down to mentioning Soviet achievements. And the achievements were ONLY with Stalin. And Lenin had food surpluses, the suppression of peasant uprisings, and executions in the Cheka. And as history shows, Stalin cleaned up the entire Leninist guard at the root.
      Quote: Vasily50
      OF THE SOVIET UNION, rebuilt precisely AFTER OCTOBER 1917, rebuilt on the wreckage of the destroyed RUSSIAN EMPIRE.

      Key words - "destroyed"! Lenin and KO took part in the destruction of the country. How is it in the song? "We will destroy the old world to its foundations"? Well, now the government is no better (even worse!) Than in the 17th, let's cut it now too? And cho - we will surpass Ukraine, we will arrange the power of the people. No.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 8 November 2016 08: 24
        +4
        Nude, Nude. Before writing something, it would be nice to read documents. They are absolutely not secret, and about the surplus appraisal by the tsarist army and about the pacification of the robbed peasants, because nothing was seized in large farms, only among the peasants. And much more about * tiligents * and about rrrevolutionaries who were removed from power for exorbitant ambitions and overt military coups. With such representatives as 72 they will never agree, subject to impunity, capable of any betrayal, even of their own ancestors.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 November 2016 08: 35
          +5
          Quote: Vasily50
          capable of any betrayal,

          Ek, you quickly identified me as traitors! laughing And to engage in anti-government agitation in a warring country - isn't that a betrayal? To distribute newspapers printed abroad in the armies with foreign money is not a betrayal? This is me about Lenin and Co., if you do not understand. wink
          And comparing the imperial food surplus and the surplus after the 17th, compare the sizes and consequences. And then it turns out a comparison .... shaky with a finger.
          1. captain
            captain 8 November 2016 18: 19
            +3
            Mr. Ingvar 72, your opponent, Vasily 50 is a Communist, and they like to label them. They have an occupational disease.
            1. Bloodsucker
              Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 18: 38
              +1
              Quote: captain
              love to label.

              This is you about yourself because of the helplessness to give at least some kind of argument, a fact that would confirm that balcony. What flows here in the comments of yours and your kind?
              Your helplessness, but at the same time ignorance, simply amaze, where have you been taught?
        2. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 07
          +6
          Dear Vasily, I dare to remind you that the surplus appropriation in 1916 concerned only bread, and money was paid for it, not "workdays"
          1. Basil50
            Basil50 9 November 2016 05: 30
            +1
            About the surplus appraisal of the tsarist army and in the pre-war time is mentioned. Money was not paid for her, only receipts.
            It’s useless to explain about workdays to people like you, because for such people * Letters of the Sages of Zion * and other * documents * like holy scripture.
            And about betrayal is not just words. * Libroid * figures betrayed all their ancestors who threw out the interventionists with lackeys and whites and other gangster bastards. Do you really think that you are smarter than your own ancestors? Then the question was the survival of all who lived in the destroyed RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
      2. Disorder
        Disorder 8 November 2016 14: 22
        +3
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        The article has a clear focus on this. And all the arguments of those who disagree with the author come down to mentioning Soviet achievements. And the achievements were ONLY with Stalin. And Lenin had food surpluses, the suppression of peasant uprisings, and executions in the Cheka. And as history shows, Stalin cleaned up the entire Leninist guard at the root.

        Study the materiel. The Red Terror was a response to the White Terror. The surplus was replaced by a tax in kind. Stalin's achievements are based on the foundation laid during the Lenin period. Moreover, Stalin himself participated in laying this foundation, being part of the Lenin Guard.
        1. cannabis
          cannabis 8 November 2016 16: 45
          +1
          The abolition of the surplus-appraisal was one of the ways to pacify the uprising in the Tambov province together with the use of gases and taking hostages. This can be read in the novel by Nikolai Wirth Loneliness.
          1. Basil50
            Basil50 9 November 2016 05: 54
            +1
            It is strange to operate with information from ROMAN. * Tambov uprising * this is the usual banditry * of the green * Antonov brothers. These are the very ones that robbed merchants and former nobles, and of course they did not disdain priests and churches with monasteries. The whole * struggle * with the Soviets resulted in the murders of families of Red Army soldiers, doctors and teachers with families. Self-development in their own interests was carried out mercilessly and without redemption payments.
            1. cannabis
              cannabis 9 November 2016 06: 55
              +1
              It is strange that these "bandits" were dealt with by a team - Ulyanov - Lenin, Tukhachevsky, Antonov - Ovseenko, even Zhukov put his handles there. Stalin awarded the writer Nikolai Virt the Stalin Prize for the novel Solitude. It meant what to write "correctly" about. How tired I am of reading these amateurish squeals of amateur demagogues.
              1. murriou
                murriou 9 November 2016 08: 30
                +1
                Quote: cunning
                How tired I am of reading these amateurish screeches of amateur demagogues.

                Well, the whole business - do not read your own messages, you write them without thinking laughing
                1. cannabis
                  cannabis 9 November 2016 08: 47
                  0
                  Well, the right word, the women’s cries or the crookedness of the thirteen year old. What for??? After all, besides denying someone else's, there is nothing in your remarks. No facts, no meaning, no personal opinion. And so life will pass in antics ... Or are you an adult scum, struggling for a fee with the spread of someone objectionable truth? But in general, it doesn’t matter to me; it is limescale.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 November 2016 16: 52
          0
          Quote: Trouble
          The "Red Terror" was a response to the "White Terror"
          The concept of Red Terror was introduced before the revolution. In the 18th. it has become widespread. And under the king of dissidents they did not shoot, they exiled maximum. After the revolution, dissidents fired in batches. Latsis said: “... do not look in the case of indictment for whether he (the arrested. - V.Zh.) rebelled against the Soviets with weapons or words. The first duty is to ask him what class he belongs to, what his background, what kind of education he has and what his profession is. All these issues should decide the fate of the accused. ”
          Quote: Trouble
          The surplus apportionment has been replaced by the tax deductible.

          Under the tsar, did the peasants leave the whole villages in the forests?
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 18: 20
            +2
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            The concept of Red Terror was introduced before the revolution. In the 18th. it has become widespread.

            Distort. If you already started for the pre-revolutionary terror, then call the party in which it was a program setting and this party is not the Bolsheviks, but the Socialist Revolutionaries.
            The Red Terror since 18, the answer to the outbreak of WHITE, so there is no need to juggle, blame the guilty parties on those who only responded to the terrorist, criminal tricks of the white and other colors of the armed opposition.
          2. Ulan
            Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 55
            +1
            Even as they left. Have you forgotten about Pugachev? Or
            was it under the communists?
            Look at the statistics of peasant uprisings, including in the 19th century and how many lordly estates burned indignant peasants.
        3. Tambov Wolf
          Tambov Wolf 8 November 2016 21: 01
          +1
          Yes, and the "guardsman" was I.V. Stalin. All the "Leninists" determined where they needed to, who was felling, who was against the wall, so that the empire was not interfered with in building. Until he took power into his own hands, the same mess was and now, when the former "loyal Leninists" are ruling with abandoned party cards.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 19: 52
      +1
      Here! Correctly said - "they forgave themselves", but before the bear disease, they are afraid that the people will not forgive them - "the coup and destruction of the SOVIET UNION and the outright theft of the PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 9 November 2016 05: 46
        +1
        Strange * dislocations * of consciousness among the descendants of * the lower estate *, or the more frequently mentioned * vile estate *. They can’t forgive the abolition of estates and the equations in the rights of ALL CITIZENS. Today they are trying to forget that even among the wealthy nobles there was a minority. Why do they believe that * if only .... it was like under the king * then today would they be respected and even with money? And even under the king in titles, counts-princes.
        1. Ulan
          Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 21
          0
          It always surprised me too that they saw themselves only in nobles, and not in footmen.
  10. svp67
    svp67 8 November 2016 06: 41
    +14
    Author AU. You are urging you to remember and honor the story, as you yourself approach it one-sidedly. Not the Bolsheviks overthrew the self-power. This was done quite by people who worship the church and sincerely believe in God.
    but this is our Tsar - the anointed of God, the quintessence and personification of the Russian Orthodox people, secretly and villainously killed by a bunch of God-hating and Russophobes, who were called Bolsheviks.
    And then somehow it is not at all clear. In the house of Ipatiev, it was not the Tsar of All Russia that was killed, but the citizen Romanov, who had previously signed the abdication of himself and his son. The last one who could save AUTHORITY was the Grand Duke Michael, but he also did not have the strength of mind to do this, he also gave up the throne. And why should I respect them? They led the country into a deep crisis and washed their hands.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 8 November 2016 08: 14
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Not the Bolsheviks overthrew the self-power.

      Sergei - what were the Bolsheviks doing until the 17th? Is it not a preparation for a coup? Until the 17th they were at one with the Mensheviks. To quote the speeches and slogans of the RSDLP? Do you know where their congresses were held before the revolution and for whose money? That's right, abroad, and on de. Doesn't it look like anything? With whose money Iskra was printed do you know?
      The king denied the artificially created crisis, and the RSDLP played a huge role in creating this crisis. Naturally, there was a rotten aristocratic layer.
      Quote: svp67
      In the house of Ipatiev, not the Tsar of All Russia was killed, but a citizen of Romanov,

      It was the king who was killed, otherwise there was no point in "killing" the whole family with servants.
      Quote: svp67
      And why should I respect them? They led the country into a deep crisis and washed their hands.

      But I agree with this, they do not cause respect. hi
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 8 November 2016 08: 28
        +2
        Sergey - what did the Bolsheviks do before the 17th?
        I give a link, see how many parties were in the Russian Empire. And they all did something.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%
        D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D
        0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A0%
        D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D
        0%B9_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8
      2. V.ic
        V.ic 8 November 2016 09: 30
        +4
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        The king denied the artificially created crisis, and the RSDLP played a huge role in creating this crisis.

        Dear, V. I. Lenin appeared in Russia on April 3 (16), 1917, and Nicholas 2 "became a citizen of Romanov" a month earlier on March 2 (15), 1917. Therefore, on the basis of this fact, I declare that you "blatantly lied".
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        It was the king who was killed, otherwise there was no point in "killing" the whole family with servants.

        They killed those who could claim the rights to bank accounts, incl. English and American. Part of the former "royal family" was released abroad without delay. Well, and Doctor Botkin and the servants were "cleaned out" as witnesses.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 November 2016 17: 02
          +1
          Quote: V.ic
          Dear V.I. Lenin, arose in Russia on April 3 (16), 1917

          What does the presence of Lenin in the country at the time of the abdication of the king? I am talking about the fact that Lenin was on the leading roles in preparing the coup. Http://biofile.ru/his/27501.html
          Quote: V.ic
          Well, and Doctor Botkin and the servants were "cleaned out" as witnesses.

          What? !!! The shooting of the king’s family was not hiding!
          1. Bloodsucker
            Bloodsucker 8 November 2016 17: 09
            +1
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            I am talking about the fact that Lenin was on the leading roles in preparing the coup. Http://biofile.ru/his/27501.html

            Yes, this is a Trotskyist look, who needs it, if there is nothing behind Trotsky and Trotskyism except mimicry under their own hands, mimicry under caring for the working people, and essentially servants are the chameleons of that notorious Wall Street.
            So screaming about "the great leader Trotsky" the entire Internet is crammed, and the REALITY, DIFFERENT
            http://zapravoedelo.my1.ru/publ/684-1-0-1978
            Now let's see what Trotskyism is, in the assessments of that time
            http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t6/t6_19.htm
            The talk about Trotsky's special role is a legend spread by obliging "party" gossips.
            This does not mean, of course, that the October uprising did not have its inspirer. No, he had his own inspirer and leader. But it was Lenin, and not anyone else, that same Lenin whose resolutions the Central Committee adopted when deciding on the uprising, that very Lenin, whom the underground did not prevent to be the real mastermind of the uprising, contrary to Trotsky's assertion. It is foolish and ridiculous to try to cover up the underground talk with the undoubted fact that the leader of the party, V. I. Lenin, was the inspirer of the uprising.
            These are the facts.
            ("Trotskyism or Leninism?") Vol. 6, p. 329.)
  11. demotivator
    demotivator 8 November 2016 06: 41
    +15
    Therefore, I ask you, brothers, do not allow me to slander our history, our church, our emperor.
    I respond to a request and briefly about the history of the abdication of Nikolai Romanov (Holstein-Gottorp). The first thing to remember is that the Romanov dynasty lost Russia without the participation of the Bolsheviks, back in February 1917. I didn’t even lose, but threw it away. The emperor abdicated in favor of his brother, who in turn refused to accept the reins of government. In fact, in February 1917 there was a double abdication of the Romanovs from the throne. Three times - about the anointed. Having abandoned the throne, the Romanovs abandoned Russia, threw their cross, which they had to bear as the anointed of God. Everything, on this one can put an end to the debate about who destroyed the monarchy in Russia. She destroyed herself. Degraded. Degenerated. Further. None of the other Romanovs (and there were many at that time) raised the cross thrown by Nicholas. No one! Everyone hid in the bushes, because they appreciated the situation very well. And there is no need to say that the renunciation was forged. If this were so, the Romanovs would have had to fight with the rebels, turn to the troops and people, declare the new government illegal. Did any of the Romanovs say that the abdication is false? No, no one said. It’s today the worshipers and others so smart in hindsight, and then the Romanovs knew "whose meat has been eaten." Did any of the Romanovs lift the cross thrown by Nicholas? No, no one raised. Thus, the monarchy in Russia degenerated, degraded, the ruling house refused further rule, abdicated in full force. That's all there is to know about this topic. And everything else is from the evil one. History must be known and protected, and not distorted for the sake of conjuncture.
    1. novel66
      novel66 8 November 2016 10: 57
      +5
      but now they don’t fight for this cross - the heirs are like dirt and, which is typical, all impostors (what is there according to the laws of the empire for imposture?)
  12. Fitter65
    Fitter65 8 November 2016 06: 42
    +11
    Nicholas II may not have been an outstanding statesman, but this is our king - the anointed of God,

    This anointed of God, who threw the country into a difficult year. It was not Trotsky and Lenin who renounced power. They excuse me and picked up from the mud what, from February 1917, was lying around and kicked everyone and sundry. And it’s strange but the main backbone of Russia well, it’s a different question there, contrary to their wishes or not. But the fact remains. When the Soviet government fought in the ring of interventionists, it didn’t renounce, although the situation was heavier than that of Nikolashka. In 1941, Stalin did not give up the leadership of the country. Therefore, your anointed a coward of God and a traitor to his country, although what kind of country is this if he has Russian blood, that was with Gulkin’s nose ...
  13. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 8 November 2016 06: 51
    +5
    ... the lying godless ideology of Marxism-Leninism proved its failure, leading the great country to complete collapse in some 30 years ...

    Ideology is a terrible thing ....
    If brainwashed, ideology replaces reason, experience, conscience ...

    Everything has already been decided many times, everyone has spoken out more than once, the result is quite understandable.
    And the anti-communists are not appeasing ...

    Paradox!
    Under the conditions of triumphant anti-communism, these same anti-communists are constantly attacking our past, the scientific foundations of the world order, quiet and calm citizens who do not show any real signs of aggression.

    Output.
    Even anti-communists understand that the Victory of a society of social justice with a scientifically sound state system is not far off.
    The laws of history are inexorable.
    If we do not build such a society, the course of history will not stop.
    Other nations will be at the head of historical progress.
    And God forbid we find ourselves in the company of historical losers, along with the Americans, the gay people and other egoists.

    And about the criminal negligence of Nicholas, who, supposedly a good man, ruined and ruined our Motherland, there’s no point in even remembering.
    It’s boring and stupid to walk forever in the dustbin of history.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 01
      0
      Anti-communists attack because they understand their precarious position and, with these attacks, they primarily try to prove to themselves that they are right.
      Complexes torment.
  14. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 8 November 2016 06: 56
    +7
    Yes winked sorry no cons request Right now I would have basically slapped the fattest! Yes "The anointed of God" ... Americans not only consider their president to be the anointed of God, there the whole nation, due to the exclusiveness of tea with the Almighty, drives lol
    Of course, the Tsar-Father is not without flaws (only one thing "drank tea and rode a horse" when the Japanese drowned the 2nd Pacific squadron of what they cost) and the church, and the Bolsheviks are also not saints, but a respected person of principle made a bias clearly into one of parties, ceasing to be objective Yes
    So minus, minus, and minus again negative
  15. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 8 November 2016 06: 57
    +6
    In short, here is not Ukraine; it's time to end the decommunization! am

    The question of confrontation is simple: there have always been supporters of a strong, independent, imperial Russia (these are the figures of the Russian Empire, the leaders of the USSR, and Putin today) and the opponents opposing them, dismember, ruin, and lie under the United States. And in this regard, tsarism completely solidifies with communism, despite the enormous differences in other worldviews.

    Write that "Stalin is a miracleo "- this is not to write anything. Stalin appeared naturally within the framework of the construction of the USSR; opposing one leader to another is not the smartest action. There could be no Stalin without Lenin, not even a miracle.

    Two episodes of the unconstitutional transfer of power in 1917 and 1991 took place because during this period the power was seized by the purest traitors, foreign mercenaries and all kinds of trash.
  16. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 06: 59
    +13
    The article is an absolute plus. Despite some emotionality, the main idea is stated correctly - you cannot call executioners saviors, this is a mockery of the memory of their victims. And the Bolshevik ideology really devastated the people's consciousness, offering people a bait-utopia, calling it communism. When the romantic veil of the idea of ​​"building communism" passed, the people became disillusioned with both the idea itself and the authorities that promoted this idea. Remember, gentlemen, how many citizens of the USSR opposed the Belovezhskaya carve-up ... And tens of thousands of people rose up to defend old Russia, for all its shortcomings.
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 8 November 2016 08: 34
      +2
      it is impossible to call executioners savior, it is a mockery at the memory of their victims.
      Are you talking about Yeltsin and his successors?
      offering people the utopian bait, calling it democracy.
      Once again, I repeat, but who are the judges, those who are destroying present-day Russia, pray for the destroyers of the time!
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 11
        +5
        No, I'm talking about those who killed "bourgeois" without trial or investigation, swaggering over unarmed and defenseless people. And Yeltsin and his followers were trained and brought to power by the CPSU, not the Martians. The communists brought such a person to the heights of power and then failed to do anything with him.
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 03
        +1
        No, he is about the king. It is enough to see how many executions were with him, and how much innocent blood he shed, it was not for nothing that he got a clique - bloody.
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 8 November 2016 09: 37
      +4
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      And for the protection of old Russia, for all its shortcomings, tens of thousands of people rose.

      So the trunks were on their hands, so they rose! In 1993, from what tanks from what hangover from the tank guns were "smacked"? This means that in October 1993 the putschist Yeltsin ordered to be shot ... In 1917, the October coup was almost bloodless (from 2 to 17 victims), but in 1993 the number of corpses went to hundreds.
    3. murriou
      murriou 8 November 2016 11: 17
      +2
      You are a lieutenant, you continue to climb into more and more new topics with your angry phillips, there is some kind of frantic Teterin! fellow

      But then work forever interferes with you, lol yeah yeah, answer many questions on the same topics that you started with your participation, but you carefully forgotten feel
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 14
        +5
        That is, you are most gracious, always answer the set You questions ... wink
        PS let me express to you my sincere appreciation for such a diligent and intense interest in my humble person on your part. smile
        1. Ulan
          Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 08
          +1
          You still say that you appear on the forum and write comments not at all for someone to read and respond.
          Uh, dear, modesty - you just do not suffer.
  17. andr327
    andr327 8 November 2016 07: 07
    +7
    Yes, it is a pity that the minuses were canceled; one does not respect oneself to review this nonsense of the monarchist-liberal religious senility.
  18. brelok
    brelok 8 November 2016 07: 28
    +10
    Not long ago I read all volumes of Denikin's Sketches of Russian Troubles. Before that, in my opinion, he was really a Russian general! But after I read there my opinion changed dramatically: They all vied with each other to share and sell Mother Russia to anyone, just to stay in power. And they did not hide this. The Bolsheviks saved the country, albeit in a new form. They hit everyone on the greedy hands. Only for this did they deserve the gratitude of their descendants
    1. murriou
      murriou 8 November 2016 11: 13
      +1
      Denikin was still among the best of the then white pack. Honestly served from the bottom, honestly fought in the REV and WWI, honestly believed, out of naivety and lack of education, in all the hoo-patriotic nonsense, and more or less honest in his memoirs.

      Well, the truth, along with other white generals, he considered it normal to kill dozens or hundreds of rebellious slaves without trial and investigation, and agreed to curry favor with foreigners for their help in the struggle of the white people against the Russian people, and who of the then white men and current crystal bakers thought otherwise?
  19. Fox
    Fox 8 November 2016 07: 31
    +2
    really, sorry the cons were canceled.
  20. Per se.
    Per se. 8 November 2016 07: 36
    +12
    "I can not deny the principles", just like Nina Andreeva's title from 1988 was borrowed, here, just," cry from the heart "for the tsar and religion. Neither the tsar nor religion would have saved Russia, as long as one can live in these popular fantasies. in the era of capitalism, the battle for world domination began, or rather, it escalated and accelerated, and tsarism, in its sleep-doze, did not act as a leader or even a contender for this. If Russia did not join the Entente, it would not harness to help Once again, the deceitful, hypocritical Britain, already from the encroachment of the Second Reich on the share of the world pie and leadership, would not have left Russia alone.Well, they would not have created an anti-Russia against the USSR, so against the empire that had served its time without war and survived with the "anointed of God" The West does not need a strong Russia either with the tsar, or with the communists, or with the democrats, they saw its strength and greatness in the grave. What is happening now is a vivid example of this, of course, if you do not openly lie under the West, as under Yeltsin, or as it would be, osta Keep in power Kerensky and others like him. And, most importantly, if the Tsar or the Provisional Government, the Constituent Assembly had remained, Russia would not have become a space and nuclear superpower. Why, yes, because tsarism was in capitalism, and not being a leader in it, would have been forced to submit to the same Anglo-Saxons, who would not have allowed Russia to get out of dependence, generally preserve its integrity. The communists created a new pole of power, not controlled by world capitalism, and therefore built a socialist superpower. Today's newly minted bourgeoisie were lucky that they got such a country, and not a semi-literate Russia, dependent on the import of high-tech products and with debts to the West, like Russia after Nicholas II. One can imagine what would have happened to the country when the "anointed of God" abdicated the throne and the pro-Western riffraff would format Russia to meet the demands of the West. Yelitsins, Chubais and Gaidars in 1917 would definitely have ruined the country. Finally, the rebellion of General Kornilov makes one think about the fact that the Civil War in Russia could have arisen between the monarchists and the then democrats, not even for the Bolsheviks. But it was precisely the Bolsheviks who saved Russia, made it truly great, and this, if you will, is the will of God. Faith and religion are not the same thing, simply, priests, but, earlier, shamans and priests, simply use this faith, under their confession, themselves breaking all the covenants, hating the "infidels", all those who can take away their influence and profit. I wanted to say this in response to reading the article.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 12
      +1
      American journalist Michael Bohm, on Roman Babayan's program "The Right to Vote", to a direct question - what kind of Russia would suit America ... he answered just as bluntly - as under Yeltsin.
      Neither add nor diminish.
  21. Flinky
    Flinky 8 November 2016 07: 51
    +5
    Natalya Vladimirovna, open your face ... You faction forbade to shine with your fierce monarchical heresy in the media, so now you have jumped on sites? So after all, the obstruction from the voters is not long to catch.
  22. BecmepH
    BecmepH 8 November 2016 08: 06
    +5
    And without God, according to our great Dostoevsky, a Russian man turns into beast.
    What nonsense ... Well, I live without God and what, is that why I'm a brute ?. My former colleague became a clergyman. At what, I believe that he truly believes. And he told me what was happening in their midst. What undercover games, read bestial, are being played with them. Need more details? I am a convinced atheist and nothing prevents us from communicating well and understanding each other. And who, by and large, is Dostoevsky? In any case, for me he is not an authority. I know that among the "believers, there are no less cattle than among atheists. Again, you write nonsense, Vova.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 16
      0
      This is a difficult question. Believers have burned so many people at bonfires in Europe that their mother does not grieve.
      And how many believers under the banner of God have beaten each other in religious wars? How many people were killed?
      Moreover, many sincerely believed that they were doing this for God's sake. One can also recall the fascist soldiers who had the inscription “God is with us” on their belt buckles.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 8 November 2016 23: 28
      0
      Quote: BecmepH
      I know that among "believers, there are as many brutes as among atheists.

      Dostoevsky said without God in the soul, and this is a little different. A bandit who imagines himself a believer is anyone, but not a person with God in his soul
  23. bober1982
    bober1982 8 November 2016 08: 15
    +4
    The article is very consistent and correct, does not offend anyone - only malicious comments are in response. The authors of such comments can be called neo-Trotskyists, even communists cannot be attributed to them. These are those who eagerly drank Royal alcohol and choked on hamburgers.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 19
      0
      And how do you know that, who drank Royal alcohol and choked on hamburgers? Do you personally know all the participants in the discussion?
      If not, then you wrote meanness and an abomination, blaming indiscriminately for people you don’t know and are unlikely to know when and only because their views do not coincide with yours.
      You have humiliated yourself, not your opponents.
    2. Sergey S.
      Sergey S. 8 November 2016 23: 20
      0
      Quote: bober1982
      The article is very consistent and correct, does not offend anyone - in response, only malicious comments.

      The article is sustained, but not correct.
      For the concepts do not correspond to the actual material.

      Comments are by no means malicious, one might say emotional.
      If we measure the viciousness of anti-communism on humanity, then the result will be negative.
      And do not remind about the crimes of the Bolsheviks. I agree, there were some. But the final result of the activity of the Bolsheviks is positive.

      The issue of EBN is more complicated than it seems.
      He was from a kulak family ...
      The clues to many questions lie ahead.
      Where traitors and agents of influence come from, I would very much like to understand.
  24. parusnik
    parusnik 8 November 2016 08: 16
    +6
    our tsar is the anointed of God, the quintessence and personification of the Russian Orthodox people, secretly and villainously killed by a bunch of God-hating and Russophobes, who were called Bolsheviks.
    ..That is, in February 1917 .. the emperor was not overthrown villainously ... And the modeled sidekick came to resign .. And the emperor's uncle, in love, along with the generals, suggested abdicating the throne .. In love, in friendship The Provisional Government arrested the tsar and his family .. General Kornilov cried when he arrested the tsarina ... But it was clear that the God-hater and Russophobes killed ... And they overthrew the tsar and arrested Russophiles and God's holy people ...
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 8 November 2016 10: 18
      +2
      And they killed clearly, God-haters and Russophobes .......
      That's right, the murder was ritual .....Valthasar was killed that night by his subjects ...., they were not tramps, and not Russian, and not Marxists.
  25. Gardamir
    Gardamir 8 November 2016 08: 17
    +2
    Just because the collapse of the country was associated with an unconstitutional change of power in 1993, with
    Who are the judges?
  26. Gray brother
    Gray brother 8 November 2016 08: 22
    +3
    At the moment, the article has 115 pluses (a lot).

    Already 141.
    Thanks for the tip, I read it and also plus.
    1. user3970
      user3970 8 November 2016 09: 35
      +4
      I will post two photos. Anatoly Wasserman, adviser to the president, atheist, does not believe in God. . Patriarch Kirill. Behind him is a service in the KGB, a duty-free business in alcohol and tobacco during the ebn, which helped to become a dollar billionaire, despite the fact that he is a black monk and took a vow of non-possessiveness. Who is more credible?
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 8 November 2016 11: 23
        +2
        Patriarch Kirill. Behind him is a service in the KGB, a duty-free business in alcohol and tobacco during the ebn, which helped to become a dollar billionaire, despite the fact that he is a black monk and took a vow of non-possessiveness. Who is more credible?
        -------------------------------------------------
        ----
        What are you, what are you! the gundyasha took upon himself the grave sin of selling potion and demonic smoke tokmo to restore the church for the sake of! Not a penny to myself, a sinner, all to the temple! To this day, the sin accepted for the sake of a bright goal is being held back.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 8 November 2016 12: 42
          +1
          I do not want to offend the feelings of believers, but it walks among ordinary people ...
          -The Patriarch bears a heavy cross ...
          -Well, what do you want after all, but five kilograms of pure gold!
          Moreover, what was said there about the sin of money-grubbing, and of other things, do not create yourself an idol, etc., etc.
  27. fif21
    fif21 8 November 2016 08: 29
    +6
    The events of the "bloody" resurrection of 1905, and the events in the basement of engineer Ipatiev are links of one chain. In 1905, citizens of the Russian Empire, families with icons and children, went to the Tsar's father to ask for protection, not with rifles and grenades, but with icons. By order of the Tsar, they were shot by soldiers, and Tsar Nikolai Romanov received the nickname in Russia - "Bloody"! And retribution overtook everyone, and the king gave the order to shoot the peaceful demonstration and the army shooting at the icons. So, in my deep conviction, the shooting of Nicholas II and his family is God's punishment for the children, women, men killed by his order in 1905, for the icons shot. And equating him with the face of saints, canonization is a spit into the soul of the Russian people. hi
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 8 November 2016 08: 50
      +4
      The king did not give orders to shoot the crowd, you fantasize. In the crowd itself there were many militants, well-armed, not such a demonstration was peaceful.
      Your arguments about God's punishment and spitting are also not convincing, very naive.
      1. fif21
        fif21 8 November 2016 09: 36
        +4
        Quote: bober1982
        The king did not give orders to shoot the crowd, you fantasize.
        He simply left for Tsarskoye Selo, tacitly approving all preparations. There was really no written order.
        Quote: bober1982
        There were many militants in the crowd who were well armed, not such a demonstration was peaceful.
        How many policemen and soldiers did the militants kill? You are cunning!

        Quote: bober1982
        Your discussions about God's punishment and spitting are also not convincing

        These are my reasonings, and I do not impose them on anyone. hi
        1. novel66
          novel66 8 November 2016 10: 53
          +7
          yes he deserved both his bullet and the control bayonet. Amen!
        2. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 20
          +5
          The king did not give orders. And he left for Tsarskoye Selo before the January strikes. The Socialist Revolutionaries really shot at the policemen - that was. And then, all the critics of Nicholas II forget that in the 20s the British fired artillery at Dublin. And nothing, no one accuses George V of anything. Like Khrushchev no one calls bloody after the events in Novocherkassek 1962.
          1. fif21
            fif21 8 November 2016 19: 05
            +2
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            The Socialist Revolutionaries really shot at the police - that was
            And how many were killed? The death of two policemen from shots SOLDIER is documented!
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            Like Khrushchev no one calls bloody after the events in Novocherkassek 1962.

            Do not distort! How many Khrushchev rules after these events? Was he recognized as a holy great martyr and canonized by the church? And in Novocherkassk people did not go to Khrushchev.
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            The king did not give orders.

            Say you still knew nothing laughing The strike began on January 3, on January 5, Gapon called on the people to march, on January 6, Nicholas II urgently left for Tsarskoye Selo! leaving the people to meet the army and the police. hi
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 26
              +2
              Unbeknownst to the king, such a forceful dispersal with the use of weapons could not happen. He and no one else gave the sanction to shoot the demonstration.
              Departure to Tsarskoye Selo was a miserable attempt to secure an alibi for this crime. De maul I did not know anything and this is an initiative on the ground. Tales for downs.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 8 November 2016 21: 04
                0
                Quote: Ulan
                Unbeknownst to the king, such a power dispersal with the use of weapons could not happen

                Are you sure? He was not in the city, and those who led the workers to a meeting which, in principle, could not take place, knew perfectly well about this. What for?
                1. Ulan
                  Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 23
                  0
                  I am sure. It is not necessary to be in the city to give such an order. The telegraph was already invented.
              2. murriou
                murriou 8 November 2016 21: 23
                +1
                Nicholas really was an extremely miserable and miserable indulgence, contrary to the nonsense of the neat-worship and the most stubborn crystal bakers (those who are nevertheless with a glimpse of rationality - those who usually have the mind not to fit in with his Imperial Nothingness).

                This is in his spirit: to authorize unconditional crime, to rush into the bushes in advance - and then pretend that he had nothing to do with it, and did not even know anything.

                In about the same way, he announced the resignation of personally unwanted well-known ranks: he smiled in person, spoke some nonsense, but did not dare to announce his decision himself - later he sent a notice by letter.

                And how did he react to the shameful defeats of the Russian army and navy in the REV? How did you perceive the fair indignation of Russian society?

                After Tsushima he was very sorry for "Alexis" - V.Kn. Alexei, an elderly womanizer and embezzler, who plundered on ballerinas a significant part of the funds allocated by the COUNTRY to strengthen the power of the Russian fleet, which paid for this with the defeat of the fleet and the country in the war, with thousands of lives (in Tsushima alone, with an official death toll of 5 thousand, one and a half times more, and another 6 thousand were captured).

                Nicholas didn’t feel sorry for these thousands of Russian people, but he was only sorry for "poor Alexis", who was publicly booed, forced to resign and go abroad (oh, what a grief!), Where several died. years later.

                However, this lesson did not go for the future - V.Kn.Sergey Mikhailovich continued the same activity with the Russian artillery and another ballerina, the notorious Matilda Kshesinskaya, followed by Nikolai himself at the same time, approving of the "contribution" of relatives to the defense Russia.

                That's all the greatness of the personality of the last Russian emperor, that's all his care about the greatness of Russia. lol
        3. Ulan
          Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 23
          +2
          This is really your reasoning and I support them.
  28. Nehist
    Nehist 8 November 2016 08: 48
    +8
    Heh heh !!! Since when is Orthodoxy native Russian then? Byzantine whole life was
    1. Finches
      Finches 8 November 2016 16: 58
      +2
      "Moscow is the third Rome, but the fourth is not given!" hi
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 8 November 2016 19: 51
        0
        Oh how !!! Yes, when Russia was baptized about Moscow, it wasn’t yet
  29. Pacifist
    Pacifist 8 November 2016 08: 57
    +4
    The problem of evaluating various historical events has always been a stumbling block and has led to heated discussions. I, personally for myself, accepted the principle of double evaluation to form criteria. I do not pretend to any truth in the last resort, but as an example I will take just the most painful topic and ask a couple of questions and give answers to them, on the basis of which I form an opinion about those events.
    1. Were the actions of the Bolsheviks on the fronts of the First World War and the 1917 revolution a betrayal of Russia's interests at that moment? Indeed, as a result of these actions, we essentially lost the war won and lost territories that could become part of the Russian Empire (talking about Turkey) and destroyed the state administration system. - in my understanding, yes, this is a betrayal.
    2. Was this a clearly negative event from the point of view of the country's history? - not. it was a turn of history. Change the line of development.
    3. Were these events winning from a strategic point of view? - Yes, it was thanks to these events that historical figures appeared that put the country on a different line of development. If this did not happen, then the inevitable next war, the Russian Empire would definitely lose in terms of technology. It was the industrialization of the USSR that laid the foundation for the country's production base and social ideology that allowed to win the Second World War.

    Again. My personal opinion is based on the analysis of many events and documents over decades. And I am not inclined to assess the events of those years in an exclusively negative or positive way. Every time we try to assess the events of those years from the point of view of our days, and this is fraught with simplifications and incorrect assessments, since the criteria of ethics and culture are eroding and changing, and what was normal and ethical at that time may now seem immoral barbarism. That is why every time there is a "holivar" on the theme of historical events. There are plenty of examples of these events from a long-standing and not so long history, when it is the temporary differences in the criteria of ethics and morality that lead to the most heated discussions. This is partly a variant of the dispute between "fathers" and "children".
  30. cannabis
    cannabis 8 November 2016 09: 08
    +7
    Here we break spears in an ideological debate, forgetting that Soviet historical science put these spears in our hands. And if you refuse to quote textbooks and do just that, take a sheet of Whatman paper and draw up a table, such as a table of interaction for an offensive. And in chronological order to describe the actions of the Bolsheviks, the tsarist government, British diplomacy, German diplomacy, American industrialists, Vatican priests, Swiss bankers. Write everything in columns. An interesting table is obtained! Well, for example, the Russian tsar offers other monarchs to create an international council (such as a league of nations) to prevent wars. We look in the next column - Japan begins a war with Russia. In another column we look - England has built many modern ships for Russia and Japan, and the Japanese got hidden with melinite. In the next column we read in the press of European countries there is a discourse on the creation of a pan-Slavic state. Nearby we are looking for the Zionist Congress in Basel, and the creation of the Bund. We considered this one parallel at the level of the change of centuries, but rising chronologically above we will see so many interesting coincidences!
  31. Altona
    Altona 8 November 2016 09: 12
    +6
    I do not understand, the author for whom? Or decided to stay in the middle with white like gloves? We are not talking about the king as a person. We are talking about a statesman who lost his country as a result of the war. Let me remind you, there was such an Adolf Aloizovich Hitler-Schicklgruber. According to current concepts, a worthy person is generally a vegan (vegetarian), did not drink alcohol, he loved painting and painted, wrote books. In general, a complete creative person in everyday life. He was not a liberal, and God forbid, a communist, he was a member of the workers' (true National Socialist) party. The results of his reign are more than terrible and deplorable. One can recall the cousins ​​of the king, then citizen Romanov, the English king George and the Kaiser of Germany Wilhelm, why did they treat the next of kin so cruelly? In general, gentlemen, monarchists, argue why the white-furry and now holy king (who shot birds and cats with a gun) needed a war with Austria-Hungary, then with Germany and Turkey over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles? And how can one lose a country? In the name of what?
    1. RPG_
      RPG_ 8 November 2016 11: 13
      +1
      The war with Austria-Hungary was forced. Russia defended Orthodox Serbia. But he lost the country by stupidity and not far-sightedness and was soft-skinned and spineless.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 8 November 2016 11: 42
        +3
        Then, on the side of Germany, Orthodox Bulgaria came out and struck the Serbs in the rear .. on this the defense of Orthodox Serbia ended .. Serbia was occupied ..
      2. murriou
        murriou 8 November 2016 11: 42
        +3
        Quote: RPG_
        The war with Austria-Hungary was forced. Russia defended Orthodox Serbia.

        Nonsense. Orthodoxy, the Slavic fraternity and other blah blah blah for the government of the tsarist Republic of Ingushetia were nothing more than a rattle that they waved in front of the scam at the right time, and at the unnecessary - they hid it behind their backs.

        In 1912-1913 there were the Balkan Wars. In 1912. Muslim Turkey was smashed to pieces by Orthodox Greeks and Slavic brothers - Serbs and Bulgarians, while Great Russia pretended that this did not concern us in any way. And when in 1913. the Austrians quarreled among the winners, and Turkey was saved - we continued to "ignore" what was happening.

        But at the same time, the allegedly most important dream for Russia of the Straits and Constantinople was more accessible than in all previous history. It was only necessary to stretch out a hand - but the tsar and tsarist Russia did not. Why? Not so it was important for them to risk getting sidelong glances from "friends and partners".

        There were other times when the tsarist government in fact supported the Turks during the uprisings of the Greeks and the Balkan Slavs, instead of really standing up for brothers in blood and faith.
        And even when this was really done in 1877-78, their own interests for the tsarist government were much more important than what all their high-profile slogans broadcast.

        That is why in 1914. Russia rushed its main forces not towards Serbia, which was allegedly defended, but towards East Prussia, which it considered a more important direction for its interests. And as a result, she got into there, because traditionally "it was smooth on paper".
    2. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 8 November 2016 12: 10
      +4
      was such Adolf Aloizovich Hitler-Schicklgruber. According to current concepts, a worthy person is generally


      laughing He also fought against smoking. But in genuine Europeans is not suitable, due to paragraph 175, which disrespectfully treated historical european nation - sodomites. laughing
      1. Tambov Wolf
        Tambov Wolf 8 November 2016 21: 12
        0
        Plus, have fun.
  32. Blue fox
    Blue fox 8 November 2016 09: 33
    +3
    I, too, cannot compromise with the principles, but for me, peace and prosperity in the land of my Motherland, the happiness of my family and loved ones, smiling people around me who are happy, are fundamental. What kind of state will be secular or religiously oriented does not matter to me, politics (external and, importantly, internal) should be carried out by a strong leader with a competent team, therefore it will not be a king or a leader in principle, in fact it is one and the same, but when the king not the tsar and noble officials, not officials, then how much patience the people have. So I write and think about 1917 or about 2017 ...
  33. Galleon
    Galleon 8 November 2016 09: 35
    +7
    Article undoubted +.
    However, the author in vain mentioned at the end of the article the more than controversial figure of the last frankly weak and disowned king, because this blurred the overall impact of his thoughts and gave a springboard for critics.
    The article will not gain many advantages. As for the commentary choir of this resource as a whole, then, probably, as in everything you need:
    1. There are more "good" people in the world by definition.
    2. Most of the "bad" have bought computers and are regulars here.
    This, of course, is a joke and can not be taken seriously as an insult, but many members of the forum do not want any historical understanding, but long for historical revenge, and conversations with them are counterproductive. It follows that the main message of the article - THOUGHT - will not find support, and dull criticism will cause even how.
    1. japs
      japs 8 November 2016 10: 22
      +7
      What about dumb support?
  34. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 8 November 2016 09: 36
    +5
    brethren, do not let once again slander our history, our church, our emperor

    How pathetic, with a trembling voice. Author, if you really do not wish to lie our a story. it would be better if they were not celebrated with their opus.
    I can not deny the principles

    What a "righteous man" must be. If you can't - go and hang yourself, maybe then the emperor will understand you.
  35. uskrabut
    uskrabut 8 November 2016 09: 54
    +8
    Just the facts:
    1. Nicholas II was the anointed of God because he did not deny the Russian throne, and in the absence of a worthy successor, this is a betrayal.
    2. The Bolsheviks did not seize power, but merely picked it up from the floor. But for containment I had to use terror. But the opposing forces also used terror.
    3. Stalin did not come from the side; he was in the Bolshevik party. He simply turned out to be a more determined politician and was able to eliminate his opponents of the Trotskyists (even those revolutionaries who would have sold the country to the bourgeoisie)
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. BAI
    BAI 8 November 2016 10: 03
    +3
    This makes no sense.
  38. Alexzora
    Alexzora 8 November 2016 10: 17
    +6
    A simple and obvious fact, which everyone is always trying to obscure, is that Nicholas II is a banal perjurer. The name "the king-anointed of God" means taking the Oath before God and the People to Serve and Protect the Fatherland, and "Nicholas" abandoned the oath without even starting to try to fulfill it ... and now the question (from which the priests now constantly shy away) Why is a person who has not fulfilled his oath canonized?
    1. novel66
      novel66 8 November 2016 10: 55
      +4
      shame of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the hope of the coming cleansing of the clergy
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 33
      0
      But Paul the First fulfilled his duty to the end, did not give up his oath, and preferred death to shame of renunciation.
      But for some reason the church is not canonized.
  39. japs
    japs 8 November 2016 10: 18
    +6
    Bullshit fanatic ...
    IQ has, most likely, from the field of negative numbers.
    Here to whom with obvious pleasure I would put a minus.
  40. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 8 November 2016 10: 46
    +4
    I can not deny the principles
    like Nina Andreeva, commendable. I read the article and also
    I can not be silent

    A very complex impression, not homework, emphasis shifted, sacred cows, not well-wishers. The Trotskyists suddenly became Bolsheviks,
    1. I can not deny the principles. And who can, go and find. And so the Civil War in 100 years has not abated.
    2. Just because the collapse of the country was associated with an unconstitutional change of power in 1917, with the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, Are we going to separate flies from cutlets or does the people like it? What did you mean February 1917 or October XNUMX? Unconstitutional change of government liberals should be proud. And the Communists seized control, power, what collapsed into the mud, and then through the Civil War led the restoration and development of the country.
    1. cannabis
      cannabis 8 November 2016 11: 33
      +2
      This is how easy it is for a gullible Russian language speaker to be programmed! The computer forces you to write "not" separately. But in Russian, "right" is one thing. "omissions, ill-wishers, shortcomings." Even in these little things they confuse us, but what to say about the past, which we know only from books ordered by someone. There is no national pride in us, no! Looks like a long and repeated note-taking of Lenin's article "On the national pride of the Great Russians" is bearing fruit.
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 8 November 2016 20: 38
        0
        Of course you need to write correctly, but still the forum is not a dictation and not an exposition of the Russian language.
        You also wrote ... - But in Russian it is "correct", forgetting that "Russian" is written with two p.
        Let's be condescending to each other, probably the main thing is what is written. I myself sometimes make mistakes in a hurry.
        1. cannabis
          cannabis 9 November 2016 11: 23
          0
          I am deliberately typing RUSSIAN with one letter "C". Rus - Russian. Also, I do not use the letters BES, always typing WITHOUT. This is also in Russian, even before Lunacharsky's reforms.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 9 November 2016 11: 36
            0
            Quote: cunning
            I am deliberately typing RUSSIAN with one letter "C". Rus - Russian

            “You and Sveles, now deceased, not relatives, for an hour?”
            - he also strove to distort the words ("Russian" is his ... trademark laughing )
            - he finished poorly, unfortunately
            - however, now there are no downsides. What is called - "stranded, Emelya" ...
            1. cannabis
              cannabis 9 November 2016 11: 51
              0
              "I love critics, funny people. In them I always recognize a story eternally familiar. Like a long-haired pimply student, he talks about the worlds. Sexual exhaustion."
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null 9 November 2016 12: 41
                0
                Quote: cunning
                I love critics, funny people ...

                - poetry, then why misinterpret?
                - and somewhere I ... criticized you, let me ask?
                - by the way - Yesenin, you are here by the ears and distorted on the way, the word "Russian" wrote correctly ... why, guess three times?
  41. murriou
    murriou 8 November 2016 11: 02
    +3
    Perhaps for the first time he regretted that they removed the opportunity to put the article minus ...

    Ready to regret with you! Guess how many cons would you then rake in with your article instead of the pathetic 26 pluses at the moment? laughing

    Pots of slops poured onto the church

    Yes, the servants are completely numb!
    They don’t like everything — and when officials slaughter children with expensive cars with impunity, and when priests instead of caring for the spiritual climb into worldly luxury, they build palaces, clinics and children’s centers are seized, they again acquire expensive cars to transport their belly, murderer gangsters are baptized and their families are friends with them ... Well, can you really blame our holy church for such petty pranks! laughing

    I will not give extensive quotes, numbers and diagrams

    Yeah, it’s noticeable laughing
  42. bober1982
    bober1982 8 November 2016 11: 02
    +4
    It is curious why in the USSR, during the period of so-called developed socialism, there was such a massive drunkenness, lying almost without feeling under every fence. Moreover, all categories of citizens, of different social and material levels. The classics of Marxism-Leninism did not say anything about this.
    And dear site participants are all about the bloody king, boring.
  43. RPG_
    RPG_ 8 November 2016 11: 09
    0
    In principle, I agree with you, but the fact that Communism and socialism are not wealthy, alas, but this is not so.
  44. The comment was deleted.
  45. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 8 November 2016 11: 18
    0
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    error
  46. murriou
    murriou 8 November 2016 11: 25
    +1
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    the monarchy was a form of government in Russia for 9/10 of all time

    yeah yeah yeah, and the tribal system prevailed 9/10 of the time the existence of mankind as a biological species, let's all get back to it urgently! laughing
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 8 November 2016 18: 25
      +5
      Joke, please? Compare the results of the tribal system and monarchies. See, for example, the HDI - Human Development Index. Just do not be surprised when you see the kingdom of Norway in the first place. Or compare the standard of living in monarchist Denmark with Russia, the Baltic states or Poland.
      1. murriou
        murriou 8 November 2016 19: 10
        +1
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        compare the standard of living in monarchical Denmark with Russia

        Why don’t you remember the monarchy in Thailand or any Swaziland from Lesotho at all? laughing
        1. Ulan
          Ulan 8 November 2016 21: 45
          0
          He will reply with something like that this is an "exception to the rule" and that these are "wrong" monarchies. lol
          1. murriou
            murriou 8 November 2016 21: 58
            +1
            Well, no need to tell! lol
            No need to spoil laughing
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 9 November 2016 21: 27
              0
              I will no longer ... feel
  47. Old warrior
    Old warrior 8 November 2016 11: 25
    0
    the author, however ...
  48. Old military officer
    Old military officer 8 November 2016 11: 25
    +5
    Yes, we coolly argue, blaming the Bolsheviks for everything and justifying all those who traded the Motherland right and left and continue to do so now. I will not go deep into philosophizing and prove my knowledge of primary sources, this is not important. And it is important that for the first time in the history of human civilization a more or less fair civilization was created. Of course, she had many shortcomings and she collapsed due to the actions of internal and external enemies, just like the previous Russian government. But do not forget that this was the first successful experience of its kind. Do not forget what impact he had on all of humanity. Do not forget in what conditions all this happened and what efforts it cost the whole people and the Soviet government. About blaming Lenin and the Bolsheviks is, at least, unwise. And insulting is disgusting.
    1. olimpiada15
      olimpiada15 8 November 2016 18: 12
      +4
      Old military instructor, completely agree with you. Yesterday I wrote a note about VOSR, the meaning of which is that
      1) The revolution was a great event, which contributed to the development of the country, as well as the protection of the rights of workers in the world.
      2) Revolution is always a difficult test for the people, and therefore everything must be done so that changes are possible, without revolution.
      3) Citizens of Russia can and should be proud of their history and their ancestors, who endured severe trials
      4) You can’t spit on your story - no one will respect us, which is actually happening now.
      Do not miss.
  49. Old warrior
    Old warrior 8 November 2016 11: 46
    +4
    It's time to sort out this phenomenon: why in 1991 we voluntarily donned the same yoke that we successfully threw off in 1917. Let's figure it out - we have a future. No - sooner or later die.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 8 November 2016 12: 06
      +1
      It’s better not to understand, it will reach street firing, die more, not everyone will live to the full future.
      1. fif21
        fif21 8 November 2016 14: 05
        +3
        Quote: bober1982
        It’s better not to understand, it will reach street firing, die more, not everyone will live to the full future.
        "We are not slaves!" this is the first thing that the illiterate wrote in schools of educational program (liquidation of illiteracy) Nobody, you hear! no one can bring the Russians to their knees, neither priests, nor oligarchs, nor officials! And it is unnecessary to frighten, the blood of the Russians intoxicates! You can deceive, but you can also be shocked for deception. soldier hi angry
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 8 November 2016 14: 41
          +3
          As for the priests who fail to bring the Russians to their knees - a pun came out, I must say.
          1. murriou
            murriou 8 November 2016 19: 15
            +1
            And even better - about priests who want to bring the entire Russian people to their knees.
  50. trantor
    trantor 8 November 2016 11: 54
    +1
    The author, apparently, simply does not understand that the slogan: Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality, although it is good to some extent, does not work anymore in modern conditions.