Timofey Kirpichnikov's fatal mistake

For what the whites shot the implacable fighter against Bolshevism, Kerensky's favorite and creator of the February victory

26 February 1917 of the year. "The revolution has failed!"

In the evening of February 26 1917, Alexander Kerensky mercilessly stated: "The revolution has failed!" But the night that came was resolved by a great surprise. The revolution, about which no one spoke and which no one expected, came true!

How? Why? Where did the people on the street come from and by what magical wave did the Volynsky regiment leave the barracks that played the decisive role?

The regiment brought tsarist non-commissioned officer Timofey Kirpichnikov, whom Kerensky would pathetically call the “soldier of the revolution number one”.

The minion of fortune magically exalted by revolution. And cruelly crushed by it.

The insurgent soldiers of the Volynsky regiment march with banners to the Tauride Palace. 1 February 1917 of the year.

27 February. 6.00. The murder of officer Lashkevich

If you believe the reports of the then newspapers, Kirpichnikov fought on the Austrian front, was wounded in the arm, after the hospital was in spare parts in Petrograd. He served in the second company of the Volyn regiment. Not very friendly with discipline. But, as a sniffing of gunpowder, was popular among the soldiers.

The archives found evidence of Volyn Pazhetnyh about a key episode of the February events:

“February 27 in 6 a team in 350 was already built in the morning. Speaker Kirpichnikov spoke about the general situation and explained how to act and what needs to be done ... At this time, a spur rattling was heard in the corridor. The team was alert for a minute froze. Ensign Kolokolov, a former student who had recently arrived at the regiment, came in. The team responded to his greeting in the usual way. Commander Lashkevich came in. (Gold glasses, unpleasant glasses!) Everything was set on the alert. Silence reigned. The greeting was "great, brothers!" "burst" cheers "- as we had agreed earlier. (According to the charter: “I wish you good health, Your Honor!”) When “hurray” died, Lashkevich seemed to sense something, but the greeting repeated once more. And again, a powerful and terrible “hurray” is heard. Lashkevich refers to To the non-commissioned officer Markov, he angrily asks what it means. Markov, throwing a rifle on his arm (bayonet at the officer!), answers firmly and with a call: “Hurray” is a signal to disobey your orders! "

In the next instant, Kirpichnikov tore a pistol from his holster and fired at an officer.

We can only guess what was going on in the soul of the unter who broke the oath. According to the laws of war, he was subject to execution. Probably that is why his speech addressed to the soldiers was so emotional. Slogans do not have to be invented, they are widely known: beat the officers, save the revolution, king of the bloodsucker, the queen is German!

In the electrified atmosphere, a gust worked. For Kirpichnikov gone.

So Volynsky regiment was on the street.

27 February. Noon. March of the "Army of the Revolution"

Further poorly fit into the picture of the heroic epic, soon penned. As it was established, the Volyn soldiers at first did not even think about the glory of the revolutionary pioneers. The murder of officer Lashkevich occurred two blocks from the parliamentary citadel - the Tauride Palace. And they went to the Duma to surrender and ask for leniency, fearing a tribunal for murder.

But on the way, a soldier’s convoy overgrown with a mob, the first revolutionary fraternization of people with guns and civilians began ...

We must pay tribute to Kerensky, he reacted instantly:

"I saw a soldier surrounded by a crowd of demonstrators lining up on the other side of the street. They were somewhat fussy and hesitantly standing up in ranks, feeling insecure without officers, in an unaccustomed setting. I watched them for a few minutes, and then suddenly, as I was, without a hat, without a coat, in a jacket, ran through the main entrance to the soldiers, whom I waited for so long with hope ... And so we went to the "assault" by the guard. It turned out that there was no security there, I ran away before our appearance. I explained to some noncom to the official where to arrange the guards, and returned to the big hall of the Duma, which has already been hammered by deputies, soldiers, civilians ... I remember when signing some papers, I could not help but laugh.

- Why are you laughing, Alexander Fedorovich? one reporter asked. - Do not you know that at the moment you are all-powerful in Russia?

Well, it was good to hear that. "

"Some non-commissioned officer" - Timofey Kirpichnikov. What do we know about a person who is at the epicenter historical events and who played a major role in them?

He was born in 1892 year. Village Dmitrovka Saransk district Penza province, a simple peasant family, from the Old Believers ... Whether from the traditions of the old faith, inherited the spiritual power and flame of Avvakum, the revolutionary nature of Timothy? One can only guess. Having mastered the beginnings of literacy in the folk school, he worked as a locomotive fireman, having reached military age before the start of the First World War, he ended up in the army in the field ...

By the time the fate of the non-commissioned officer wounded at the front made a puzzling reversal, he was only 25 years old. As much as the staff captain Lashkevich killed by him. Kirpichnikov, of course, does not think about his own near death. So far, he and his Volyn soldiers, who came to the Tauride Palace on the day of February 27 1917, are declared the "Army of the Revolution".

And in an instant, Kerensky transformed, without delay, sends the "army" to the liberation of the socialists sitting on trial and the investigation: the prison on Shpalernaya is just a few minutes walk away ...

28 February. Morning. "Soldier of the Revolution Number One"

The morning after the revolution, Kirpichnikov woke up famous. His portraits hung on fences and exhibited in shop windows. Yesterday the noncom was invited to the members of the soldiers and workers Petrosovet. Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky publicly called him "soldier of the revolution number one" and came up with a revolutionary award for his "protégé" - the Russian Cross of St. George on a red bow. And the "first general of the revolution" Lavr Kornilov, the commander (with 2 of March) the troops of the Petrograd military district, personally handing the cross to Timothy, announced the assignment of an officer's rank to him:

"For the fact that 27 February, becoming the head of the training team of the battalion, first started the struggle for the freedom of the people and the creation of the New Building, and despite the gun and machine-gun fire in the barracks of the 6 barracks of the Reserve Battalion and the Foundry Bridge, he took an example of personal bravery a soldier of his battalion and seized machine guns from the police. "

The police had no machine guns: they did not rely on the state. The revolution composed its first fairy tales. And create characters.

Perhaps the most striking of them in the spring of 1917, was Timofey Kirpichnikov.

He was now seen in many places in Petrograd: he continued to actively raise the soldiers and workers' masses to "fight against the enemies of the revolution", causing the latter to hate them. "... I did not see a more vile man. His small gray eyes running around, the same as Milyukov’s, with an expression of something predatory, his manner to keep himself when, in his passion for his story, he took theatrical poses, his immensely arrogant look and swagger — all this made an extremely disgusting impression, which I cannot convey ... "- the famous memoirist Prince Nikolai Zhevakhov, who served as the comrade (deputy) of the Ober-Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, left us with an impartial portrait of Kirpichnikov .

But in the people Timofey Kirpichnikov remained almost an epic hero. During the "April crisis", when the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin first tried to encroach on the absolute possession of the country, the "first soldier of the revolution" brought the soldiers to the streets again. And he helped the Provisional Government - also temporarily - to paralyze the claimants to power.

Very soon, this will have a fatal effect on Kirpichnikov's fate.

Alexander Pavlovich Kutepov.

General Kutepov's account

He will meet the October coup in the service of the Provisional Government. At the time of General Krasnov’s offensive on Petrograd, Kirpichnikov will try again to organize a soldier’s rebellion — against the Bolsheviks. But this time he will suffer a complete failure: only boys from junker schools were able to raise. Their resistance will be brutally crushed, and Timofey Kirpichnikov runs to the Don ...

The fact that the hero of the bourgeois revolution was a man far from wisdom is proved by the denouement of his short revolutionary career. Kirpichnikov planned to join the ranks of the formed White Army. It probably did not occur to him that the first fighter of the revolution was the first enemy of the counter-revolution ...

Once in the location of parts of General A.P. Kutepova, the arrogant "soldier of the revolution number one" began to insist on a personal meeting with the commander. Kutepov and told, already in exile, about this strange meeting. His words were recorded by General E.I. Dostovalov. Surname Kirpichnikova in the story does not appear, but there is no doubt about whom it is.

“I recall the story of General Kutepov, characteristic of the mood of the insurgent officers, from the early days of the Volunteer Army, which he liked to repeat and which invariably aroused the general sympathy of the listeners.

“Once,” said Kutepov, “a young officer came to my headquarters, and very casually told me that he had come to the Volunteer army to fight the Bolsheviks“ for the freedom of the people ”, which the Bolsheviks trample on. I asked him where he was until now and what he was doing, the officer told me that he was one of the first "fighters for the freedom of the people" and that in Petrograd he took an active part in the revolution, one of the first against the old regime. When the officer wanted to leave, I ordered him to stay and, having called the duty officer, sent for a dress. The young officer became agitated, turned pale, and began to ask why I was delaying him. Now you will see, I said, and when the outfit came, I ordered to immediately shoot this “freedom fighter”.

Kirpichnikova was taken outside the railway embankment. They took and destroyed all the documents and newspaper clippings with which he used to confirm his merits before the revolution. The body was left in a roadside ditch.

How was it known to the “first soldier of the revolution” who brought 27 February 1917 to Volynsky Street, that on the same day and on the same streets, General Kutepov defended the interests of the “obsolete class” with his army. And that March 2 Russian sovereign abdicated, writing in his diary: "Around treason and cowardice, and deceit!"

Of course, the sovereign had in mind such as Kirpichnikov, whose heroic face looked victoriously at General Kutepov from all Petrograd windows ...

Juncker in Petrograd. 1917 year.

POET POINT

On this day

On this day, an alarmed dignitary
The phone often came up
On this day, frightened, uneven
Phone to the dignitary called.

On this day, in his rebellious noise,
There was a lot of anger and longing,
On this day, marched to the Duma
The first rebel regiments.

On this day, armored cars
Crawled through the streets empty
On this day ... some policemen
From the attics stood up for the regime.

On this day, the country broke itself,
Without looking at what's ahead,
On this day, the queen pressed
Hands to a cold chest.

On this day, the embassies encrypted
The first summary is crooked,
On this day, exultantly exulted
Explicit and secret enemies.

On this day ... Enough, for God's sake!
We know, we know, the axle cracked:
On this day in the ousted Petrograd
There was no powerful hero.

This day arose, blood froth
This day began the Russian rut -
That day Lenin sat down somewhere
In your sealed wagon.

Inquires conscience, like a priest,
Denounces the martyr the shadow ...
Really, God, there is no forgiveness
Us for this crazy day ?!

Arseny Nesmelov

Comments

[parusnik]

With his darlings, Fate is sometimes cruelly costing ...

[creak]

Quote: parusnik

With his darlings, Fate is sometimes cruelly costing ...

That is how fate dealt with another prominent participant in those events - Antonov-Ovseenko, as secretary of the Military Revolutionary Committee, led the arrest of members of the Provisional Government in the Winter Palace and placed them in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
He was one of the leaders of the suppression of the Tambov uprising ...
Later he held a number of prominent posts, but in 1938 he was shot for participating in an underground "spy organization" ..
As they say - for what he fought, he ran into something

[parusnik]

And what would Antonov-Ovseenko be a spoiler of fate .. like Kirpichnikov ..? .. Alas, the Revolution devours his children .. This is a historical law .. It would seem that Oliver Cromwell died his death, but his body was removed from the grave by the royalists, convicted and sentenced to the death penalty ..

[Reptiloid]

"" The revolution devours its children "" In mythology, God Chronos devoured his children, on this topic --- a statue in the Summer Garden. He remembered that Robespierre had dealt with the Dantonists and Babuvists, and soon after that he was captured and executed without trial or investigation.

[swertalf]

Robespierre was shot in the face upon arrest, mutilating his jaw. Therefore, he could not speak, and realize his gift of persuasion.

[Reptiloid]

I read about it. Yes, apparently, those who seized him knew and did not allow him to use their talent.

[your1970]

don't you think that the junkers are a bit old in the photo ??

[bober1982]

They also seemed old for the junkers, I found this photo on the Internet, under it there is a caption: Junkers in Petrograd, summer 1917. but apparently it’s not a junker, not like.

[Alexander Greene]

In fact, they have shoulder straps of junkers.

[evge-malyshev]

Quote: your1970

don't you think that the junkers are a bit old in the photo ??

Junker (German: Junker) - a rank (military rank) in the Russian army of the Russian Armed Forces of the imperial period, until 1918, intermediate in its legal status between the military ranks of non-commissioned officers and chief officers. See Wikipedia for more details.

[Parsec]

Quote: your1970

don't you think that the junkers are a bit old in the photo ??

This is, most likely, the cadet of the ensign school, of which there were 10 in Petrograd and neighboring towns; 8 ensign schools were in Moscow.
By 1916, non-commissioned officers and soldiers with combat experience were actively involved in warrant officers' schools. Obviously, they were not 17 ... 19 years old, as the junkers of peacetime, but 21 ... 24, plus a year or two in a war, people are not young. Photographs of Moscow junkers in the Kremlin in 1917 also show the age of the junkers, a disproportionate number of non-commissioned officers for peacetime schools and the absence of monograms on uniform.

[your1970]

those. the old slogan about "teenagers - junkers" in the revolution / Civil - a lie?

[Parsec]

Quote: your1970

those. the old slogan about "teenagers - junkers" in the revolution / Civil - a lie?

Not a slogan, but an urban legend. Lies for the most part.
The need for officers is enormous and cannot be satisfied with the work of schools under peacetime programs. A pale young man with a gaze burning from the gymnasium bench must either be trained for a very long time by the standards of the war, or to be thrown into battle right away, practically unprepared.
It’s just that assigning a non-commissioned officer an officer rank is fraught with, it is necessary to form an officer as much as possible, to scold him as little as possible and to finish off the most necessary. Hence the school of warrant officers and a set of non-commissioned soldiers / soldiers.

[Reptiloid]

Ranger! !!! Victor !!! Your story about Antonov-Ovseenko is interesting for me in a slightly different way. NEVSKY district of St. Petersburg, modern. Metro station "Prospect Bolshevikov" and metro station "Ulitsa Dybenko". Ovseenko crosses Bolsheviks Avenue. Its length is 1,4 km. Parallel to it is Podvoisky Street. There are other streets in the Nevsky District with the names of the Bolsheviks. Although there are generalized names - Pyatiletok Avenue, Narodnaya Street, Iskrovsky Avenue. There is Olminsky Street, Krzhizhanovsky Avenue, and others. I decided to find out all these biographies, because before your comment I knew the biographies only of Dybenko, Krylenko and Kollontai.

[Monarchist]

Of this etymological gang, the BMs are decent (origin, behavior) - Krizhizhanovsky and Kolontai.
The first talented engineer, poet "Varshav, nka" (Russian text). Worked on electrification of Rossi
The second was a proponent of free love, the so-called "glass of water" theory. It is curious that Stalin spared her: there was a cart and a cart of compromising evidence on her, and if it were not for Stalin, they would have shot at least twice

[Reptiloid]

In addition to a glass of water, Kollontai proposed to enforce laws on the upbringing of children, so that even small preschool children could be removed from their parents and raised in a revolutionary spirit, but the leadership considered it too bold. A lot of interesting and instructive things were written about her. "noble" "origin ----- was a passion with Dybenko. His suicide attempt. Relationship with. Krylenko. So the location of the streets says a lot. Here is the Bolshevikov Avenue metro station, and there are Kollontai and Krylenko streets nearby. And here is Dybenko street. , at a distance from them It is wider, longer, more beautiful than the previous ones .. It is the last metro station of this line ----- also "" Dybenko Street "" Priorities are in the streets.

[svp67]

It means losing the scent. I would go to the Bolsheviks, you see, I would have lived more ...

[bober1982]

He could not go to the Bolsheviks, they would have shot him, because he came to Kutepov just as a fighter with the Bolsheviks, to offer his services. Indeed, he lost his scent, his head was spinning with fame.

[Reptiloid]

Probably, an example that many did not really understand where, why ?????? Emotions, knowledge was not enough. The choice often depended on those who were nearby.

[voyaka uh]

There were many such oddities.
There is a photo on which schoolboy Sasha Kerensky holds
on the lap of a little boy Volodya Ulyanov.
Kerensky and Ulyanovs from Simbirsk and were friends of families.
One made the February Revolution, and the second - the October Revolution.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: voyaka uh

One made the February Revolution, and the second - the October Revolution.

Kerensky generally never, never, and did not make any revolution.
In February 1917 Nicholas II transferred the throne to Emperor Michael II. Which abdicated in March 1917. In favor of the Constituent Assembly, and before its election, in favor of the Provisional Government. Kerensky was not involved in these matters at all.
Those. in fact, the autocracy in Russia collapsed in a completely peaceful way in March 1917. And if anyone is called a revolutionary, it’s Michael II. By the way, passing on to the Constituent Assembly, he said that he would not be against the constitutional monarchy, like the monarchy in Britain.
Further, until October 1917. nothing particularly and not particularly important was happening in Russia. And in October, a certain Bolsheviks, under the general leadership of a certain Bronstein (Ulyanov at that time was hawala at Razliv) dispersed the Provisional Government in Petrograd (which is a great name for the city). Which no one particularly defended or guarded, because it was temporary, until the beginning of January 1918. And they also seized power not only in the capital, but also in a number of large cities. At the same time, they declared allegiance to the future Constituent Assembly, therefore they did not meet with special resistance. Well, it would seem, who cares who will rule the country the last couple of months of 1917?
But there was a difference. After losing the election to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks (this time under the leadership of Ulyanov) dispersed the Constituent Assembly. And Vla usurped already completely and without any reservations. After which, as expected, Russia fell apart, and the Civil War began on its metropolitan part. However, minivans began in a number of national suburbs.
Who was Ulyanov? Well, it is clear that he could not be a revolutionary, in principle, because in January 1918 no revolution happened even after March 1917. could not have happened.
And who was he? The putschist (seizure of power within the framework of one OEF) or reactionary (degradation of the OEF one step down, that is, the opposite of revolution)? After all, there were no other options.
Here, it would probably be appropriate to take a closer look at what Ulyanov did after the end of the Civil War. And he took up the construction of the NEP, i.e. state CAPITALISM. Therefore, in fact, Ulyanov is a banal putschist. One gang of pro-bourgeois (outspoken) fought with another gang of pro-bourgeois (cunning ones). For power and access to the trough. And all the beautiful promises and "wonderful future", they remained somewhere out there, on the side track. As a famous armored train.
But a reactionary coup in the USSR did happen. And even two. The first at the end of 1927, and the second in 1937. Both times, a certain Dzhugashvili ruled over this all. Therefore, the reactionary was not simple, but terry. As a result of two successive reactionary coups, society in the USSR degraded to slaveholding (after the first coup of 1927 only to the feudal one), which was fixed at the legislative level (Decree of the USSR PVS of 26.06.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX).
A feature of Soviet society since 1928. became its pseudo-religious orientation on the basis of the pseudo-religion Marxism-Leninism. Those. in a sense, a reactionary coup, consolidated by the 1927th Congress of the CPSU (b) in December 1917. and can be conditionally considered the same mythical VOSR. But not the events of October 1928. Those. society in the USSR FROM THIS MOMENT became NOT secular. This society was called "socialism". Moreover, from 1936 to 1937 this "socialism" was being built, as it were. And from 1956 to XNUMX, it was expanded and deepened.
Well, the feudal revolution in the USSR still happened. It was made by someone Khrushchev in 1956. He later tried to abandon the pseudo-religiosity of society and move on to secular society. But in this he failed and was removed from power.
Further, the society in the USSR was called "developed socialism", which was actually true. Because this society, in contrast to "socialism", was not slave-owning, but feudal.
The pseudo-religiosity of Soviet society could only be picked up by Yeltsin in 1991. Since then, society in Russia has become secular.
This is so, a short course in the history of Russia and the USSR from 1917 to 1991.

[water]

400 years ago, in the same way they rewrote the Russian history of the Romanov slaves.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: watermark

400 years ago, in the same way they rewrote the Russian history of the Romanov slaves.

Yes, but a little less than 100 years ago the Bolsheviks wrote "history".
Then they suddenly, in 1917. VOSR appeared, although "socialism" in the USSR began to be built only in 1928. And the "classics" (Marx, Lenini and Engels) did not even hear such a word. And Lenin actually built state capitalism (NEP).
Then they had a great and terrible Provisional Government. Which was incredibly difficult to "overthrow".
In general, they tried not to talk about the Constituent Assembly.
Then they got a "prominent theorist of socialism" Ulyanov, nicknamed Lenin. Which during life, neither ear nor snout.
Then the "Trotskyists" appeared, under which the "Leninists" were actually encrypted. But Lenin was declared "our everything." And Trotsky, "not everything for ours." Therefore, "Trotskyists" and nothing else.
And in general, a lot of things in the Looking Glass were not like the rest of the people.
Yes, and I almost forgot about the main "masterpiece", about the "state of workers and peasants." True, both those and others under "socialism" were in the position of slaves (in the literal sense of the word, according to the Decree of 1940), but the state allegedly existed.

[water]

I quote you: "... Further, the society in the USSR was called" developed socialism ", which was actually true. Because this society, unlike" socialism ", was not slave-owning, but feudal." I believe that under fyodalism you would not have succeeded in getting a higher education - the lord is not interested, and your forced parents would not have enough money either. And meanwhile, you received it for free, and even with a scholarship during your studies! The question arises: who pays you for hanging bad things on the country that brought you up !? The answer is clear - modern fyodal.

This is now phyudalism. And then: ".. A man passes as the master of his immense homeland"!

And do not tell that farmers had no passports. In you, perhaps your beloved United States, Abama’s relatives only began to be considered people in the 60 of the last century.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: watermark

I believe you wouldn’t be able to get a higher education under feudalism - the feudal is not interested

Who told you such nonsense? And where does the feudal lord to my education?
Do you even understand what feudalism is? Do not confuse it with the slave system?

Quote: watermark

and your bonded parents would not have enough money

Why, under feudalism, my parents and someone else would be forced? What a fright? And why would they not have enough money?
You clearly confuse feudalism with the slave system.

Quote: watermark

Meanwhile, you received it for free

Only cheese in a mousetrap is free. Remember this once and forever. The same applies to "free Soviet education".

Quote: watermark

who pays you for hanging on a country that has grown you bad things

What do you mean "hang bad things"? What were, and wrote about such. Don't blame the mirror ...

Quote: watermark

feudalism.

Why haven’t you been taught? Literacy at least elementary?

Quote: watermark

And then: ".. A person passes as the owner of his immense homeland"!

Nonsense from you is just a rod. Have you heard about "theft of socialist property"? How could you steal from yourself and then sit down? Or is it not at home? Not the master?

Quote: watermark

And do not tell that farmers had no passports.

And what is the use of urban residents? There was not much difference, according to Soviet law 1940-1956, they were slaves. Or, if you do not like the word, serfs.

[water]

Eco, how you suffered! However, I rarely confuse anything.

Do you even understand what feudalism is? Do not confuse it with the slave system? ..... Why would this under feudalism my and someone else's parents be forced? What a fright? And why would they not have enough money?

Well, if you believed in what was written to suggest that feudalism began in the USSR since 1956, then, given your quote above, the conclusion that your parents were no more than vassals by the seigneur, with land and a village of serfs , souls of commercials in 100 and had the financial ability to provide their offspring with a decent education !? - Bullshit of course, but, arising from the logic of your comments.
Well here, you really amused me:

Have you heard about "theft of socialist property"? How could you steal from yourself and then sit down? Or is it not at home? Not the master?

One gets the impression that you were never in the USSR, and then in Russia. Become a slave born !? - Well, don’t be upset. Capitalism in Russia is not for long.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: watermark

I rarely confuse anything

And the old woman is proruha.

Quote: watermark

the conclusion that your parents were no more than vassals by the seigneur, with allotment of land and a village of serfs, a shower of 100

No, the lord was bigger. There are 250 million souls.
But the managers he had a lot. Different sizes.
Those. the seigneur's power in the USSR was absolute and there were no petty feudal lords (vassals). This senior was called "Party", and the chief executive of this senior was called "General secretary of the Central Committee." At the same time, the General Secretary of the Central Committee was also the chief priest of a pseudo-religion called "Marxism-Leninism."
At the same time, there was no control by the "senior" (Party) over the "manager" (General Secretary of the Central Committee). Therefore, he and his accomplices could do whatever he wanted.
But without relying on the "senior", the Party. One encroached on, Khrushchev, so his "comrades" quickly turned into a ram's horn.

Quote: watermark

and had the financial ability to provide their offspring with a decent education !?

And why did you decide that the feudal lord is not interested in educating his subjects? Who told you that? The more educated his subjects, the more you can milk them.

Quote: watermark

One gets the impression that you were never in the USSR, and then in Russia. Become a slave born !?

"Pearl" is completely incomprehensible.

Quote: watermark

Capitalism in Russia is not for long.

And from what date should it start? Well, to understand, "for a little while, how much?"

[voyaka uh]

"Kerensky has never made any revolution anywhere, ever ..." ///

You opened my short post

[Monarchist]

Quote: rjxtufh

Quote: voyaka uh

One made the February Revolution, and the second - the October Revolution.

Kerensky generally never, never, and did not make any revolution.
In February 1917 Nicholas II transferred the throne to Emperor Michael II. Which abdicated in March 1917. In favor of the Constituent Assembly, and before its election, in favor of the Provisional Government. Kerensky was not involved in these matters at all.
Those. in fact, the autocracy in Russia collapsed in a completely peaceful way in March 1917. And if anyone is called a revolutionary, it’s Michael II. By the way, passing on to the Constituent Assembly, he said that he would not be against the constitutional monarchy, like the monarchy in Britain.
Further, until October 1917. nothing particularly and not particularly important was happening in Russia. And in October, a certain Bolsheviks, under the general leadership of a certain Bronstein (Ulyanov at that time was hawala at Razliv) dispersed the Provisional Government in Petrograd (which is a great name for the city). Which no one particularly defended or guarded, because it was temporary, until the beginning of January 1918. And they also seized power not only in the capital, but also in a number of large cities. At the same time, they declared allegiance to the future Constituent Assembly, therefore they did not meet with special resistance. Well, it would seem, who cares who will rule the country the last couple of months of 1917?
But there was a difference. After losing the election to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks (this time under the leadership of Ulyanov) dispersed the Constituent Assembly. And Vla usurped already completely and without any reservations. After which, as expected, Russia fell apart, and the Civil War began on its metropolitan part. However, minivans began in a number of national suburbs.
Who was Ulyanov? Well, it is clear that he could not be a revolutionary, in principle, because in January 1918 no revolution happened even after March 1917. could not have happened.
And who was he? The putschist (seizure of power within the framework of one OEF) or reactionary (degradation of the OEF one step down, that is, the opposite of revolution)? After all, there were no other options.
Here, it would probably be appropriate to take a closer look at what Ulyanov did after the end of the Civil War. And he took up the construction of the NEP, i.e. state CAPITALISM. Therefore, in fact, Ulyanov is a banal putschist. One gang of pro-bourgeois (outspoken) fought with another gang of pro-bourgeois (cunning ones). For power and access to the trough. And all the beautiful promises and "wonderful future", they remained somewhere out there, on the side track. As a famous armored train.
But a reactionary coup in the USSR did happen. And even two. The first at the end of 1927, and the second in 1937. Both times, a certain Dzhugashvili ruled over this all. Therefore, the reactionary was not simple, but terry. As a result of two successive reactionary coups, society in the USSR degraded to slaveholding (after the first coup of 1927 only to the feudal one), which was fixed at the legislative level (Decree of the USSR PVS of 26.06.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX).
A feature of Soviet society since 1928. became its pseudo-religious orientation on the basis of the pseudo-religion Marxism-Leninism. Those. in a sense, a reactionary coup, consolidated by the 1927th Congress of the CPSU (b) in December 1917. and can be conditionally considered the same mythical VOSR. But not the events of October 1928. Those. society in the USSR FROM THIS MOMENT became NOT secular. This society was called "socialism". Moreover, from 1936 to 1937 this "socialism" was being built, as it were. And from 1956 to XNUMX, it was expanded and deepened.
Well, the feudal revolution in the USSR still happened. It was made by someone Khrushchev in 1956. He later tried to abandon the pseudo-religiosity of society and move on to secular society. But in this he failed and was removed from power.
Further, the society in the USSR was called "developed socialism", which was actually true. Because this society, in contrast to "socialism", was not slave-owning, but feudal.
The pseudo-religiosity of Soviet society could only be picked up by Yeltsin in 1991. Since then, society in Russia has become secular.
This is so, a short course in the history of Russia and the USSR from 1917 to 1991.

The Communists are going to spit you out with

[igoryok1984]

Sheer nonsense and porridge. Since the 91st year, the state has become secular?

[swertalf]

And you will not give a link to the photo. We were told at the pioneer time that Lenin and Kerensky often sorted out relationships in the gymnasium. At least in Ulyanovsk I have not heard of such a photo. Really curious. And most importantly - the age difference - Kerensky is 11 years younger than Ilyich. But the Ulyanovs and Kerensky families really knew each other. It is possible that there is a picture of Kerensky’s father with Vladimir Ulyanov on his knees, as an option, hence the confusion.

[voyaka uh]

A picture was exhibited somewhere. But maybe I made a mistake who was sitting on someone’s lap.
Rather, Sasha has Volodya.

[Parsec]

The warrior is again all in mmm .. in a fiasco, here.

quote = voyaka uh] There is a photo in which a schoolboy Sasha Kerensky holds
on the lap of a little boy Volodya Ulyanov. [/ quote]

V.I. Lenin was born in 1870,
A.F. Kerensky was born in 1881.

It’s more like a schoolboy Volodya Ulyanov could hold little Sasha Kerensky on his lap.

Well, you are throwing something so irresponsibly, recklessly relying on a leaky memory and exuberant imagination. A dangerous mixture, just a fiasco ... with splashes.

[Alexander Greene]

Dear, have you ever gone to political classes? Do you really not know that V.I. Ulyanov-Lenin was born in 1870, and A.F. Kerensky in 1881.

[voyaka uh]

"Have you ever gone to political classes?

God has mercy !!!!!!!

[Monarchist]

Father A.F. was the director of the gymnasium where V.I. studied

[Parsec]

Quote: Monarchist

Father A.F. was the director of the gymnasium where V.I. studied

And the signature on the certificate of Kerensky Sr.

[captain]

Spare parts in the capital can not be kept.

[bober1982]

Warheads moreover, decompose quickly.

[Parsec]

Quote: captain

Spare parts in the capital can not be kept.

This was the fourth stage of mobilization - sex, clerks, waiters and other scum, not needed in the first three. Nara in four tiers and 3800 ordinary soldiers in the reserve battalion.
Mocking banner "Hello comrades in the trenches."

[Monarchist]

In the Second World War, they did not keep storerooms in the rear for a long time. For the protection of military facilities used parts of the NKV D, recruits, and in the spare parts a constant rotation. A veteran of MV D told me that in spare parts for 100 people it was necessary (in 1942) about fifty rifles and 1 clip + nearby rear guard units

[Fagelov]

Quote: voyaka uh

There is a photo on which schoolboy Sasha Kerensky holds
on the lap of a little boy Volodya Ulyanov.

The Ulyanovs and Kerenskys were indeed family friends. But the "schoolboy" Alexander Kerensky could not keep Volodya Ulyanov on his knees. V. Ulyanov was born in 1870, and Alexander Kerensky in 1881. We need to be more precise.

[voyaka uh]

Thanks for the amendment. On the contrary - Volodya held Sasha. But the curiosity with the two leaders of the two revolutions remains

[Alexander Greene]

We ask for a photo in the studio.

[voyaka uh]

Have not found. Not everything is probably digitized (and hit Google) from archives. It's a pity.
There is a photo where Lenin and Mussolini play chess. Duce Lenin adored
knew his "April Theses" by heart.

[kit_bellew]

Bacchanalia and delirium.
What does Kerensky have to do with the events of February 1917? Somewhere out there said something. He was a Social Revolutionary and a member of the Duma committee. So what?

- Why are you laughing, Alexander Fedorovich? one reporter asked. - Do not you know that at the moment you are all-powerful in Russia?

A.F. Kerensky was not even omnipotent in Russia even as the minister-chairman of the Provisional Government, which he took up on July 7 (according to the old style). But a buffoon would have been with him.
The white movement cannot calm down in any way. It's not enough for them Kolchak and Mannerheim, let's now write Sergeant Kirpichnikov as heroes. For what? For the fact that "in the next instant he pulled the pistol out of its holster" and shot the commander. A kind of Texan. And then - "eksel-moxel! What have you done? Let's go to surrender."

And they went to the Duma to surrender and ask for leniency, fearing the tribunal for the murder.

I felt the framer behind me, I couldn’t feel how to drink. The curve, however, took out for the first time. But only at first.
Heroes cuckoo Maidan type-they are.

Now a few words about one comment that terribly outraged me. Site reader with nickname rjxtufh (for convenience we will call it fireman) wrote a long commentary, revealing to the ignorant and marginalized the essence of the February and October events of 1917. It turns out that after March 1917 no revolution could have happened. This point of view can be understood: after the abdication of the emperor and the fall of the monarchy, actual power passed to a group of oligarchs, who were represented in the Duma by factions of the right. Further social progress is not possible - this is the promise stoker. Oligarchy is our everything. Actually, he writes further:

Quote: rjxtufh

But a reactionary coup in the USSR did happen. And even two. The first at the end of 1927, and the second in 1937. Both times, a certain Dzhugashvili ruled over this all. Therefore, the reactionary was not simple, but terry. As a result of two successive reactionary coups, society in the USSR degraded to slaveholding (after the first coup of 1927 only to the feudal one), which was fixed at the legislative level (Decree of the USSR PVS of 26.06.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX).

I don't know if I bothered myself fireman read carefully the same decree. Those interested can read here: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BA%D0%B0
%D0%B7_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8
%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%A1_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A
1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_26.06.1940_%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%
B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%
B0_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%
B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%
B1%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%
8C,_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B4%D
0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D1%80%D0%B0%D
0%B1%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D
0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8E_%E2%80%A6/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%85%D0%
BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%
B0%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F
I’m just wondering what specific points of the decree he equated with slavery: an increase in the working day from seven to eight hours (paragraph 1)? or a seven-day working week with one day off on Sunday (item 2)? or maybe punishment for absenteeism (paragraphs 5-6)? I remind you that the decree was issued on June 26, 1940. By this time, the Third Reich had successfully occupied France. I'm not talking about the European trifle like Denmark and other Benelux. The war was on the verge. Although ... according to the liberal public, the Soviet government did a very, very vile thing, mobilizing the economy, instead of throwing flowers at the Wehrmacht soldiers on tanks. Right now, you see, Bavarian beer would be drunk instead of Zhiguli ...
I will not focus on individual mistakes stokerwho called, for example, the NEP state capitalism. Another thing is important. His entire post contains a message: the Soviet system is a bad, regressive system. Soso Dzhugashvili made - one like Batman! - Already two counter-revolutionary coups and drove the country into the times and customs of the Egyptian gods. This is very very bad. You have no liberal freedom to skip work (I again on the decree of June 26, 1940). Why is this important? Because our current government is gradually introducing this idea into the masses. And it is all the easier to do this, the fewer people remain alive who remember the USSR, as it really was. Another generation will change, the children of "children of the nineties" will grow up, and everyone is a tryndets. But, you see, Russian classical literature will again be in high esteem. Because it basically describes a world where the monstrous poverty and squalor of the life of the working people coexist with the insane luxury and immorality of idlers.

[ALEXEY VLADIMIROVICH]

Quote: kit_bellew

What does Kerensky have to do with the events of February 1917? Somewhere out there said something. He was a Social Revolutionary and a member of the Duma committee. So what?

Kerensky member of the lodge "The Great East of the Peoples of Russia." Formally did not enter the Progressive Bloc, but in fact carried out a connection between the liberals of the Duma opposition and the socialists.

[bober1982]

kit_bellew: Well, the white dvizhuha can’t calm down in any way ... now let's write Unter Kirpichnikov in heroes.
Your comment is frankly inadequate, have you read the article? carefully read the biography of Kirpichnikov, didn’t you hear about Kutepov?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: kit_bellew

Now a few words about one comment that terribly outraged me.

You need not be indignant, but learn the history of your country. It’s even indecent to not know her like you do not know her.

Quote: kit_bellew

This point of view can be understood: after the abdication of the emperor and the fall of the monarchy, actual power passed to a group of oligarchs, who were represented in the Duma by factions of the right. Further social progress is impossible - this is the message of the stoker. Oligarchy is our everything.

Let's start with the fact that about the transfer of power to the "group of oligarchs", this is your speculation. How can you confirm them? Who told you that an oligarchy was to be established in Russia? This is nothing more than nonsense.
Who was the oligarch? Temporary administrator of Russia Kerensky? In which place?
Maybe the oligarch was Savenkov, whose party won the election to the Constituent Assembly, and which in January 1918. was supposed to be the head of Russia? Not at all. I repeat once again, study history, and not publish your speculation.

Quote: kit_bellew

I do not know if the stoker himself bothered to read the very decree carefully.

Do not worry, bothered. And not only him, but the Decree of the PVS of the USSR dated 26.12.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX. also.

Quote: kit_bellew

I’m just wondering what exact points of the decree he equated with slavery.

I didn’t equate anything. Slavery (or serfdom, if you like) is legally introduced by this Decree. This is clearly indicated by ALL of his points, except for the first two:
... slaves are forbidden to leave the master without permission ...
... slaves for unauthorized departure from the owner put in jail from 2 to 4 months. (nostrils to tear, however, abstained) ...
... sentence negligent slaves (late for work) to corrective labor and staffs up to 6 months. (however, they did not flog with the bats, progress) ...
... negligent managers (not punishing runaway slaves) to dismiss and bring to justice (and there they did not give out bonuses) ...
... careless managers hiring runaway slaves also dismiss and bring to justice ...
Do you have any questions? Although, what other questions may be?
Here it is, "socialism" in all its slaveholding glory. Neither subtract nor add. Although, no, it turned out to be possible to add. By the Decree of the PVS of the USSR of 26.12.1941/5/8. they began to plant for unauthorized departure from the owner for a period of 31.05.1948 to XNUMX years. This Decree was canceled by the Decree of the PVS of the USSR dated XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. THREE years after the war.
The Decree of the PVS of the USSR of 26.06.1940/25.04.1956/XNUMX was canceled. (slavery or serfdom, to whom it is more convenient) was only under Khrushchev by the Decree of the USSR PVS of XNUMX.
In only 5 years, from 1941 to 1945. 2 people were convicted under these 7419261 decrees. Of these, according to the Decree of the PVS of the USSR dated 26.06.1940/6582368/1053019. XNUMX people Of these, XNUMX people went to the zone. The rest were "corrected" in correctional labor. But there was a war, a huge part of the population was at the front.

Quote: kit_bellew

By this time, the Third Reich had successfully occupied France. ... The war was on the verge.

And the Earth was supposed to fly on the celestial axis?
What's the difference what was the direct or indirect reason (or reason) for the introduction of slavery in the USSR? Peter I, when he introduced "serfdom" in a harsh form "(that is, slavery) into the Republic of Ingushetia, was also probably guided by some very important reasons. In essence, this did not change the matter.
Moreover, in 1950, what kind of war was on the verge? But slavery was not abolished. Up until 25.04.1956/XNUMX/XNUMX

Quote: kit_bellew

the Soviet government acted very, very vilely, mobilizing the economy

The mobilization of the economy of a normal state in a period of danger occurs from below. Those. based on the impulse of the masses to defend their homeland. Including and his labor in the rear. And not by legislative enslavement of the very masses.
The state is for people, not people for the state. Remember this tightly.
And do not forget, in reality, a huge number of other decrees were adopted, aimed at "mobilizing the citizens of the USSR." List them, fingers get tired.

Quote: kit_bellew

calling, for example, the NEP state capitalism

But what was that? State capitalism in its purest form. About the same as now in China. Only in China did he have time to develop. And in the USSR he was strangled in the bud. These are the very reactionaries in December 1927.

Quote: kit_bellew

His entire post contains a message: the Soviet system is a bad, regressive system.

Regression is always bad. Applies to all concepts.
Well, and besides, yes, there was nothing progressive in the USSR. Even at the time of its formation, in 1922. it was a much more progressive society than at the time of its collapse in 1991. And this is even without taking into account the period from 1940 to 1956.
In addition, it is imperative to clarify the Soviet tale, "Lenin is the founder of the Soviet state." This is exactly what was widely accepted in Through the Looking Glass, half-truth, half-lies. Yes, Ulyanov was the founder of the USSR. But not the USSR that collapsed in 1991. The Leninist USSR collapsed in December 1927. at the XV Congress of the CPSU (b). And in 1991. the USSR collapsed based on this congress Dzhugashvili in December 1927. Through a reactionary coup, when state capitalism was replaced by feudal TVOs. And the secular society was replaced by a pseudo-religious one. Do not forget where this same Dzhugashvili studied.
This is actually EXTREMELY important for understanding the essence of things that happened in the USSR.

Quote: kit_bellew

Dzhugashvili made - one like Batman! - as many as two counter-revolutionary coups

I don’t know who Batman is. But the fact that Dzhugashvili consistently made 2 reactionary (counter-revolutionary) coups is a historical fact. He replaced secular society in the USSR with pseudo-religious.
At the same time, it was the actual failure of collectivization (in terms of increasing production) and industrialization (on most points) that forced Dzhugashvili to replace feudalism with slave-owning TPOs. Otherwise, "socialism" could not survive. And that is precisely why it (slavery) was introduced, and not at all because of the "threat of war." And that is why it (slavery) was not abolished after the war, until 1956.
But then he did not survive, collapsing in 1991. And just being already in the form of pseudo-religious feudalism. Those. "the fruits of victory" lasted only 46 years. When they ended, the USSR collapsed. For he could exist more or less steadily only in the form of slavery, gradually degrading in all parameters of life, which was shown and proven in practice under Dzhugashvili.

Quote: kit_bellew

the fewer people alive who remember the USSR. as it really was.

I remember "how it really was." I remember and am horrified. And I am ashamed of myself of those times, a typical Soviet zombie living in some other, crooked dimension.

Quote: kit_bellew

Because it basically describes the world where the monstrous poverty and squalor of the working people live side by side with the insane luxury and immorality of loafers.

Poverty and squalor of the working people took place under "socialism". Exactly the same as the "insane luxury and immorality of Soviet idlers." But in Through the Looking Glass it was customary to turn everything upside down. Telling each other horror stories, like, "It's good that I was born and raised in the USSR, and not a black man in the USA." And as we can see, Obama was not afraid. And he feels quite well.

I repeat to you, learn the history of your country. You need.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: kit_bellew

Bacchanalia and delirium.

A worthy answer to KOCHEGAR's ravings

[nivander]

this is how actor Pashenin came on tour at the CLB

[bbss]

Inarticulate lamentations. French rolls do not crunch ...

[Parsec]

Quote: voyaka uh

There is a photo on which schoolboy Sasha Kerensky holds
on the lap of a little boy Volodya Ulyanov.

And after all seven people approved. Gloomily.