Andrei Fursov: The Origins of February

67
Andrei Fursov: The Origins of February


"TOMORROW". The events of February 1917, have different interpretations in modern times. Despite the fact that 100 years have passed, we have not united in the general understanding of those events. Until now, there are a lot of secrets connected with them and a lot of different interpretations ...



Andrei Fursov. In principle, all February estimates can be grouped into two “pole” groups. The first position: in the second half of the nineteenth century, everything was fine in Russia, the country was confidently moving along the bourgeois path, and February culminated in the triumph of democracy and liberalism. And then the Bolsheviks came and spoiled everything. The second position is that the entire second half of the nineteenth century, Russia socially degraded and therefore went to a social revolution. February in this context became a kind of zigzag, it was breaking out of the path to a social revolution, since it did not offer anything to the majority of the population. The Russian society of the second half of the nineteenth century, along with its incompetent authorities, was sick, rejecting therapeutic treatment, and therefore doomed to surgery.

In the Russian literary and intellectual tradition there are two people who can be referred to in favor of this second point of view. The first - Lermontov, who wrote back in the 30 of the 19th century: “A year will come, Russia will have a black year when the crown of kings falls ... On that day, a powerful person will appear, and you will recognize him - and you will know why he has a damask knife in his hand ... "

The second person is one of the best publicists for the whole history Of Russia - Mikhail Osipovich Menshikov, who wrote: “The nineteenth century finally approved our spiritual captivity in Europe. We have finally changed our folk cultural work into imitation. From imitation to the West, we have adopted an alien criterion of life, which is unbearable for our nation. We want to live now just as Western luxury, forgetting that neither racial energy nor our nature is the same as there. The West struck the imagination of our upper classes and forced them to rebuild our entire national life with the greatest sacrifices and great danger to it. Like India, which was made from a once rich and more recently prosperous country, is completely impoverished, Russia has become a dainty of Europe in many of the most debilitating relations. Wanting to have all those items of luxury and comfort that are so common in the West, we have to give him not only the surplus of bread, but, like India, his necessary supplies. Our people are chronically undernourished and tend to degeneration. And all this only in order to maintain the brilliance of Europeanism, to enable a small layer of capitalists to go hand in hand with Europe. The nineteenth century should be considered the century of the gradual and, at the end, alarmingly rapid decline of the people's well-being in Russia. If any change of energies does not occur, if the process of imitation of Europe develops further, then Russia risks being ruined without a shot. ” In essence, this is a description of a systemic crisis, a revolution.

"TOMORROW". And February itself fell under the rink of this shift. However, he was her herald. That's what's interesting!

Andrei Fursov. The February coup is not a change of energies, it is an attempt to accomplish the curvaceous bourgeois revolution that is stuck in the political sphere. February plunged Russia into chaos. Political dwarfs and insignificance who could only vault, who did not know their country and their people, using Blok’s metaphor, unleashed wild passions under the yoke of the flawed moon. The whole history of February and then October shows very well the inadequacy of the authorities. Almost the entire establishment of late-imperial Russia made an enormous contribution to the revolution. And it's not one of Nicholas II.

To understand how the revolution occurred in Russia, it is necessary to put the February and October events in the long term. In my opinion, the 1917 year in Russia has become a very important turning point in two long-term segments of history. The first segment is the period between 1861 year - the liberation of the peasants and generally the beginning of the reforms, and 1939 year - the year the end of the Cold War in Russia and the XVIII Congress of the AUCP. 1917 year is a watershed.

If we take European history, then in it 1917 is the year - the turning point of an even longer segment between 1789 - the beginning of the French Revolution, then the appearance of the left Jacobin Modern project, and 1991 - the destruction of the Soviet Union.

"TOMORROW". The tendency associated with the inability of the elite to manage the processes was also characteristic of the Russian empire in the last period of its existence, and in February 1917, when Duma industrialists came to power - demagogues, idle talkers and, in a direct sense, agents of other powers and other civilizations.

Andrei Fursov. One of the main reasons for the rise of February and its failure is the incompatibility of Russia, Russian history as a socio-cultural type with the capitalist system. When Menshikov spoke about the nineteenth century as a century of growing problems in Russia and the impoverishment of the Russian people, he was absolutely right.

If we take, say, Moscow autocracy in the pre-Peter the Great, then with a huge quantitative difference in the standard of living and in the consumption levels of the tops and bottoms, the bottoms and tops still lived in the same economic and cultural system, and the needs of the tops were determined by this system. In Catherine's times, the situation has changed. The Russian nobility began to live not according to the needs determined by the local economy, but according to the needs of Western Europe — its bourgeoisie and aristocracy. These needs were made up entirely of other factors. Take a factor like farming. Our productivity was “self-3 — self-4”, in Europe — self-6-itself-7. Protoindustrialization and the colonial era were already beginning there, when it was possible to rob weak nations. There, the level of need was determined by a much more developed system of agricultural work. That is why, in order for even a small part of the Russian elite to live according to these European needs, it began to exploit the population much more rigidly ... And assign, in the Marxist language, not only a surplus product, but also a part of the necessary. As a result, already under Catherine, the level of exploitation of state and privately owned peasants increased 3 – 3,5 times. Further, this process went only incrementally.

Russia's inclusion in the world capitalist system and the life of its elite, according to other people's needs, was ensured by eating away its future and the future of the country. By the 1859 year, 66% of serfs were laid by landowners to the state. From 1833-th to 1850-th year under Nicholas I, despite all the attempts of the government to economically help the nobility, from 127 thousands of landlord families 24 thousands (almost 20%) went bankrupt. According to the estimates of specialists, in order to lead a socially acceptable noble lifestyle, that is, to give balls, to receive, to have tutors, etc., in Russia at the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th century, it was necessary to have a hundred serfs (that is, 500 – 600 people) or a money equivalent that only 15 – 20% could afford. That is, the Troekurovs were 15%, the rest were Dubrovskys.

Nicholas I is usually blamed for the fact that he "froze Russia". Yes, he froze the process of decay of Russia because of the life of the leaders not according to his needs. This strategy lasted for a quarter of a century. Alexander II rotting processes defrosted.

In 1870, Marx wrote that Russia would face a serious social revolution in the future. Menshikov believed that "1861 is not able to warn 1905." But Lenin spoke even more clearly: "1905 was generated by 1861." From myself I will add that October 1917-th completed what was not done either in 1861 or in 1905. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the liberation of the peasants became a means and at the same time a by-product of their robbery. It was not for nothing that Nekrasov wrote that the reform had struck at one end against the master, the other at the peasant. The peasants lost a significant part of their plots, that is, in fact, they were robbed. And, perhaps, it is not by chance that the Yeltsin authorities are so fond of Alexander II, who also conducted a "liberation of the people" from lack of freedom in the form of robbery. It is indicative that during the reign of Alexander II the struggle against bashing was largely curtailed - and how else: reforms, you remember. Having defrosted Russia and having received the crisis, Alexander II decided to freeze the crisis itself and thereby pushed Russia onto the path that ended with 1905 and 1917 for years. In fact, the power, carrying out reforms 1860-ies, sought to avoid a revolution on the Western model. Western-style revolutions were avoided; revolution-wise was followed by Russian ones. In 1905 – 1906, the village blazed with Pugachev’s, and since the spring of 1917, the situation has almost recurred.

During the reign of Alexander II, Russia began to turn into a raw materials appendage of the West and foreign capital went into it. In fairness it should be noted that Alexander II and Alexander III strenuously sought to slow down this process, but during the reign of Nicholas II, Russia's dependence on foreign capital began to grow rapidly. Finance Minister Bunge in one of his notes (1886) wrote that the decline of Russian finance began to show itself especially since the 60s, that is, from the very beginning of the reform of Alexander II; “Since 1880, he has become a threatening character. In the absence of even a hint of any improvement, all this is preparing a difficult outcome in the near future: a state bankruptcy, and a coup d’état behind it. ” For such a forecast, Bunge 1 January 1887, was dismissed. After 30 years, his prediction was confirmed.

"TOMORROW". What are the quantitative indicators of foreign capital before the revolution?

Andrei Fursov. If at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II foreigners controlled 20 – 30% of capital in Russia, and in 1913 year they controlled 60 – 70%, then by September 1917 was 90 – 95%. In these threatening conditions of growing influence of foreign currency, Stolypin appears - a very intelligent and strong-willed person of his time, but limited in class and, therefore, a loser. The main goal of the Stolypin reform was not the economy, the latter was the means. The goal was class: it was necessary to destroy the community, as a ready-made framework of resistance to power. Beginning with Herzen, both revolutionaries and conservatives believed that the community should be preserved at any cost, because for the socialists the community was a forerunner of socialist transformation, and for conservatives it was a stronghold of principles. The 1905 – 1907 revolution showed that the community is a ready-made orgkarkas of the struggle of the peasantry.

Stolypin's task was class in essence. The second stratum of this reform — economic in form and again class in content — was to destroy the economic system based on collectivism and create conditions for the mass privatization of the land (hi ​​Chubais!). The interests of the nobility-landlords reform did not hurt. Moreover, Stolypin sought to provide the landowner, a nobleman, with a class ally in the village, that is, to create a breakwater between the landowners and the bulk of the peasantry. Stolypin was a class limited intelligent man, he did not understand that the peasants and landowners are the main competitors in the struggle for land in Russia. Therefore, in 1917, a strong and vivid little man not only did not defend the landowner, but also led the people to rob the landowner’s manor. And while the poor population set fire to the manor, the shit in the libraries and drowned the pianos in the ponds, these strong strong men, on whom Stolypin was counting, slowly loaded the goods and brought them to their compound.

Stolypin did not manage to destroy the community. Only 2,5 of a million households were separated from the community, i.e. 27%, and they owned only 14% of the land. And when in 1910 – 1911. it became clear that the reform was failing, new laws were issued, aimed already at forced privatization. We forget that Stolypin reform was carried out with the help of violence. Flogged whole peasant meetings, forcibly pushed people out of the community. And still nothing happened. The verdict to the Stolypin reforms was passed first in 1913 at the First Agricultural Congress in Kiev, and then the Provisional Government in 1917 officially recognized the reform as failed. It is indicative that during the civil war the peasants returned more than 90% of the land to communal ownership. This was their answer to Stolypin.

"TOMORROW". What happened if Stolypin’s reform was a success?

Andrei Fursov. It is terrible to think that it would be. The revolution, most likely, would have happened already in 1912 or 1913, because there would be approximately 20 – 25 millions of men in the city whom the Russian industry could not digest at that time. At best, 1,5 – 3 million, no more.

"TOMORROW". But then who and why today spreads the myth of a great and successful statesman?

Andrei Fursov. Stolypin worked to preserve the privileges of the ruling layer. In fact, he was a reactionary. In addition, with the current official demand for a hero of the bourgeois type, there is no such thing in Russian history. On bezrybe Alexander II and Stolypin became the most conditional bourgeois heroes.

"TOMORROW". And this is despite the fact that Stolypin was still a statesman.

Andrei Fursov. That's right - an unconditional statesman, a strong-willed, intelligent man. But, I repeat, class limited. At one time, Barrington Moore said that the great social revolutions are born not from the triumphant cry of the ascending classes, but from the dying roar of those classes over which a wave of progress is about to close. The Stolypin reform here is a classic example.

"TOMORROW". If Russia were alone in the sea of ​​emptiness, then perhaps everything would be different.

Andrei Fursov. Yes, Russia developed as a dependent element of the capitalist system, and hence its many problems. Moreover, if from the middle of the XV to the middle of the XIX century before the Crimean War, Russia was an autonomous world-system (using the terms of I. Wallerstein), then in the second half of the XIX century the situation changed. First, the West itself in 1850-ies has evolved from a world-system into a world system already without any hyphen. And the world system cannot coexist with the world-systems, it must destroy them. It is significant that simultaneously with the Crimean War, the Anglo-French unleashed aggression against Qing China - the Second Opium War. Neither the Crimean War nor the Second Opium reached their maximum goals. But both China and Russia as world systems have ceased to exist.

Since 1860-s, Russia has begun to turn into a dependent element of the world capitalist system, whose owners at that time were the British. After the Crimean War, money was needed for reform and restoration, and Russia received money in the West from banking houses. Thus began the process of forming Russia's dependence on foreign capital. Being engaged in Russia and solving the Russian problem, the British very actively supported Prussia’s claims, trying to make it a counterweight to Russia.

In 1870-71 Prussia defeated France - largely due to the collusion of the British, French and Prussian Masonic lodges. However, the Prussian victory presented the British unexpected unpleasant surprises. First, Prussia, becoming the Second Reich, turned out to be much stronger than the British had expected. Secondly, after the victory over the French, the Germans united all their masonic lodges into one “Geheimes Deutschland” (“Secret Germany”). Prior to this, Masonic lodges had never worn a national character; they had always been liberal cosmopolitan organizations. However, centralization took place here. Thus, the Germans challenged the British in two directions at once — the hidden and open control loops.

In addition, in the 1880s, the world was already largely divided, and there were few areas with natural resources. In the 1884 year at the Berlin Conference, the Europeans decided that those countries that could not use their resources should be opened by force. Officially, it was about Africa, which in fact did not particularly interest anyone. In essence, the Europeans talked about Russia.

"TOMORROW". Then they were still shy. After a hundred years, Madeleine Albright had already spoken openly about Russian resources.

Andrei Fursov. Yes. It was a test, as far as Alexander III has strong nerves. And with nerves he was better than his father. Europe choked on hungry saliva, but did not calm down.

With the 1880-s, the Russian-German question becomes a question of the continued existence of the British Empire. Germany is a competitor, Russia is a resource. During the new European war, the British decided to pit these two countries. War needed to be prepared. The Anglo-Saxons with their characteristic long planning horizon in 25 – 30 years have brilliantly prepared and carried out this operation!

First, it was necessary for Russia and France to get close. The Pope, who owes the Rothschilds, took up the matter. As a result, a Russian-French alliance was concluded in 1892 – 1893. At the end of the 19th century, anti-British sentiments were very strong in France, and the French needed to be shown: one must be friends also with Albion. For this it was necessary for Russia to be defeated somewhere. They chose the enemy - Japan. But Japan needed to be raised first. Therefore, the British help the Japanese to win the Japanese-Chinese war of 1895, then they pump up the country with funds, and after ten years in the Russian-Japanese war, Russia loses. More precisely, Russia does not win this war and shows weakness to everyone. After that, the French begin to turn in the direction of Britain. And in the 1907, an English-Russian agreement is concluded. Before this, the British agency of influence erases all the possibilities of the Russian-German rapprochement. Moreover, Wilhelm and Nikolai were people of a small mind and allowed themselves to be divorced. As a result, in 1907, the scene for the Russian-German clash was ready. It remains to create a structure of financial support, and in the year 1913 appears the Federal Reserve System in the United States, through which the British get money for their campaign.

In general, already at the beginning of the twentieth century there existed two "Great Britain". Great Britain as a state, that is, a subject of international relations, and as a certain supranational subject of world relations. After the German history with “Geheimes Deutschland”, major changes occurred in the closed UK government structures. In particular, fundamentally new, more adequate to the epoch than the Masonic, structures, such as the society “The Group” or “We” (We), created by Cecil Rhodes, closely related to the Rothschilds, appeared. This society coincided with the British establishment on the principle of Euler circles: a part of the establishment (the smaller one) was included there, a part (the large one) was not. At the same time, there were not only selected British, but also selected French and even Russians. According to all the indirect data, the members of the group were our Foreign Minister Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky and our ambassador to Serbia, Nikolai G. Gartvig. Izvolsky was unpopular in Russia, something like Chubais in the Russian Federation. Nicholas II tried several times to send Izvolsky to resign, but each time he was asked for by Edward VII, and he remained. And only when the “Group” decided that Izvolsky would be more useful in France, he was appointed Russia's ambassador to France.

"TOMORROW". What goals did this “Group” set for itself?

Andrei Fursov. There were seven goals. And in this case, the interests of financial capital, Great Britain as a state and closed groups coincided.

1. To establish control over the remaining world resource zones at the end of the 19th century (Russia and southern Africa).

2. Eliminate the Eurasian empires: Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, because they interfered with the realization of the goals of the world capitalist class.

3. Destroy Russia and Germany as potential UK continental rivals in global high finance.

4. Destroy Germany as the military-political framework of the German Masonic lodges and Paramasonian structures.

5. Create a single European political entity on the site of the destroyed Eurasian empires - “Venice the size of Europe” - and something like a world body of bankers (the first attempt is the League of Nations).

6. Take control of global finance. Rhodes put it this way: the return of the United States as part of the British Empire.

7. To organize, at a minimum, the Eurasian war to solve all these issues.

"TOMORROW". With the latter happened.

Andrei Fursov. At the end of the 19th century, the pamphlet “Son Kaiser” was published in the British newspaper “Truth” (“Truth”): Wilhelm dreams that Germany and Austria-Hungary suffered a defeat as a result of the war, and in their place on the map of Europe there are small republics but in the place of Russia there is a political desert — there is no state as such. To a large extent, except for Russia, this plan was implemented. It is very interesting that at the beginning of 1914, according to the memoirs of the leader of the Social Revolutionaries, V.M. Chernova, Joseph Pilsudski, then a socialist, the future dictator of Poland, said at a meeting of the Geographical Society in France that there would soon be a war in Europe in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and then Russia would be defeated first.

"TOMORROW". He was aware, as they say.

Andrei Fursov. By the way, namely Izvolsky and Gartvig, members of the “Group”, actively participated in the creation of the Balkan League, directed against Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Gartvig, being the ambassador of Russia in Serbia, was in close contact with Dimitrijevic (Apis), the head of Black Hand. This organization was associated with British intelligence. 28 June 1914, the Gavrilo Princip, kills Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, a supporter of peace with Russia. By the way, in the same summer two more people who could interfere with military actions were put out of action. This is Rasputin, who received a blow with an almost 20-centimeter blade, and miraculously survived, and Jaures, the leader of the French socialists, a well-known pacifist — he was killed.

I wonder what happened next with the defendants in the murder of the Archduke. Gavrilo Princip had cyanide with him, he took it, but instead of poison it turned out to be a placebo, and he did not die: the Serb was needed alive for the trial, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, and he died in prison from tuberculosis. Gartwig died suddenly in the same year 1914 in the Austrian embassy in Belgrade, Apis was shot in 1917, and in 1917 Gartwig's correspondence with Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov disappeared in the same year. In 1919, Izvolsky died suddenly, just starting work on his memoirs.

After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Anglo-Saxons began an insidious game. While the British press attacked the Serbs, urging the Austro-Hungarians to take revenge, British diplomats rushed to St. Petersburg and began to explain to Nicholas II that Austria-Hungary was an aggressor, that it was preparing a strike against Serbia, and it needed to be stopped and curbed. The king acted listlessly, as if relying on the will of fate. The role of rock in this play was played by the agents of the “Group”. This agent was also supposed to break the resistance of a large part of the British establishment, which did not want war at all. By the way, Herbert Wells in his autobiography admitted that Sir Edward Gray, the British Foreign Secretary (and a member of the “Group”), started the war, forcing the Kaiser and the German government to believe that Britain would not enter the war, even if Germany will start it. The fact is that when Gray met with William, he always talked about the relations of four countries: France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. Each time he made it clear that Britain was a neutral country, and William believed it. Although, according to Lord Louis Mountbatten, the son of the second lord of the Admiralty, the British fleet was put on alert the week before the start of the war. Churchill began mobilization fleetwithout even notifying the cabinet.

Decisive events occurred on August 3 in the House of Commons. Gray made a completely false speech in the House, that the British did everything to achieve peace, but did not succeed, and offered to vote for a declaration of war. Then the members of the "Group" announced a break, and Gray rushed to his ministry, from where he sent the ultimatum to Germany. He already knew that Germany had begun the invasion of Belgium, and would reject his ultimatum. After the break, supporters of peace continued to advocate for the preservation of peace. Then the member of the “Group” Lord Balfour announced: there is not enough quorum for the debate, so we will vote without a quorum. So the members of the “Group” divorced the British Parliament as gamblers.

"TOMORROW". They were broken through the knee.

Andrei Fursov. 4 August 1914, George V at Buckingham Palace declared war on Germany. For Wilhelm it was, of course, a shock. But - an important detail - the British, being engaged in Germans and Russians, missed another major spider in the world system - the United States, which had its own plans, different from Great Britain. Moreover, they conflicted, if not with the whole of Great Britain, then with the very serious British Rothschild family. The Rockefellers created Standard Oil, and this corporation was already actively supporting the revolution in Russia in 1905.

"TOMORROW". And what about Russia? Do people understand what is coming?

Andrei Fursov. We had a few people who understood very well what was going on. In February 1914, a member of the State Council, Peter Nikolaevich Durnovo, wrote to the Tsar a note in which he says that war will lead to social upheavals throughout Europe, but “Russia, of course, is the most favorable ground for social upheavals, where the masses undoubtedly profess principles of unconscious socialism . The Russian commoner, the peasant and the worker are equally not looking for political rights that are not necessary and incomprehensible to him. The peasant dreams of granting him foreign land, a worker of transferring to him all the capital and profits of the manufacturer, and beyond that their desires do not go. And it is only to throw these slogans widely into the population, if only the government authorities irrevocably allow agitation in this direction, and Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into anarchy, which it experienced during the memorable period of the 1905 – 1906 turmoil. The war with Germany will create extremely favorable conditions for such agitation. As already noted, the war is fraught with enormous difficulties for us and cannot be a triumphal march to Berlin. Inevitable and military setbacks. Let's hope - partial. These or other shortcomings in our supply will be inevitable. With the exceptional nervousness of our society, these circumstances will be given exaggerated importance, and with the opposition of this society, everything will be put in the guilt of the government. ”

"TOMORROW". All right.

Andrei Fursov. For 12 years before Durnovo, a striking accuracy prediction was given by the Minister of Internal Affairs Plehve: “The revolution will be artificial, thoughtlessly made by the so-called educated classes, social elements. They have one goal - to overthrow the government in order to sit in its place, if only in the form of a constitutional government. Whatever you may say, the tsarist government has experience, traditions, and a habit of government. Notice that all of our most useful, most liberal reforms were made exclusively by the government, on her initiative. Usually, even if the society is not sympathetic from individuals, from social elements, which will be replaced by the current government. What will happen? The mere desire for power. At least, even animated from their point of view, love for the motherland. They can never master the movement. They do not sit on the ground for the mere fact that they have issued so many bills that they will have to pay them and immediately make concessions. They, having stood at the head, will find themselves in the power of things in the tail of the movement. Under these conditions, they will fall down with all their theories and utopias at the first siege of power. And then all the harmful criminal elements, thirsting for destruction and disintegration of Russia with Jews at the head, will come out of the underground ”. By the way, Lenin agreed with Pleve about the latter, who at one time noted that with the sabotage that had taken place after the revolution, a huge number of Jews had moved to the cities, filled the state apparatus and thus saved the revolution.

And there was another person who guessed the upcoming foreign policy situation. It was Alexei Efimovich Vandam (Yedrikhin), who, writing down the actions of the British and Americans, wrote in 1913 that "we will soon see these actions against us." So it happened. The war became a direct prologue of February and October.

"TOMORROW". Awesome Of course, those documents and the forecasts that you read, speak about the high level of people who were in power in the empire. And, of course, those forces and phenomena that were called rock were long clear and visible to so many intelligent people.

Andrei Fursov. Yes, many people felt the revolution was approaching, but the urine system was bringing this revolution closer. The insensitivity of the mainstream to reality was an indicator of the dying system. The era, whose face in the culture was the so-called Silver Age, was in fact the era of the decay of Russia. And it is precisely this decay that led to February; it is one of the manifestations of the activity of social rot.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    2 2017 June
    Remarkably on time this article appeared on the site !!!!!!
    The bakers come running ----- but there is nothing to say !!!!!
    1. +4
      2 2017 June
      Quote: Reptiloid
      The bakers come running ----- but there is nothing to say

      Regarding Japan, the war with which the Communists recall on every occasion, he correctly said:
      They chose the enemy - Japan. But Japan needed to be raised first. Therefore, the British help the Japanese win the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, then pump the country with money, and ten years later, Russia loses in the Russo-Japanese war. More precisely, Russia does not win this war and shows weakness to all
      That is, RI did not fight with little Japan.
      Regarding the Stolypin reform, this is nonsense. No community could ever pose a threat to power. Any action of the peasants was suppressed without much difficulty, and Stolypin knew this very well. In essence, his goal was to repeat the processes that took place in Europe much earlier - the transfer of most of the peasants to cities and industrialization.
      About Nicholas II and his passivity is the same nonsense. To the last, he tried to convince the Kaiser not to start a war. I remember what a howl was when an article appeared here about what role he played in trying to create an international court and his proposals on limiting the arms race.
      And as always, the question of who is preparing the revolutions and what kind of bucks they are being committed, is bypassed.
      1. +6
        2 2017 June
        Quote: Dart2027
        Regarding the Stolypin reform, this is nonsense.


        Prove it! Only please, with links to the archive (stamp, signature of the archive register), and not to articles from an unclear whom. Actually, all the Stolypin reforms just resulted in military field trials of the peasants. On August 19 (September 1) of 1906, on the initiative of P. A. Stolypin, in accordance with 87 article of the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire, the “Regulation of the Council of Ministers on military field courts” was adopted in order to expedite the proceedings on civilians and military personnel .

        Quote: Dart2027
        About Nicholas II and his passivity is the same nonsense.


        And prove it again! Articles from people monarchy on the head are not considered at all! For example, 89% of the entire industry in the Republic of Ingushetia belonged wholly or partially to the banks of England and France (that is why Nicholas II went against his direct relative William the Second in World War I — it is necessary to repay debts). Correspondence on the eve of the WWII of Kaiser and the Tsar can be seen here: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80
        %D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%B8
        %D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0_
        II_%D0%B8_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1
        %8F_II_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%BD
        %D0%B5_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B
        C%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%B
        E%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B

        PS That's when you will have at least a small part of the merits, the degree of candidate of history and honorary awards from international institutes and universities that Fursov has, then you will argue what is nonsense and what is not.
        1. +3
          2 2017 June
          Quote: Saburov
          August 19 (September 1), 1906 at the initiative of P. A. Stolypin in accordance with the law of the international
          You mean the military field courts that cleaned up the country when armed riots broke out? And what about those who killed it was necessary to stroke the head? They tried to tell me several times about the massacres of innocent people, but for some reason, for example, they were carried out only by terrorists, not even peasants who decided to rob some landowner, namely terrorists. And this had nothing to do with reforms.
          Quote: Saburov
          Prove it! Only please with archive links
          Prove what? The fact that
          Quote: Dart2027
          No community could ever pose a threat to power. Any action of the peasants was suppressed without much difficulty, and Stolypin knew this very well
          Do you disagree with this? I recall that in February there was a coup, led by generals and ministers, and not some peasants at all.
          Quote: Saburov
          Articles from people monarchy on the head are not considered at all!
          And who will determine monarchy?
          Quote: Saburov
          For example, 89% of all industry in the Republic of Ingushetia belonged fully or partially to the banks of England and France.
          I’m wondering, how did you think that? Terrible numbers are repeated constantly, but I don’t remember something about the links to the archive (stamp, signature of the archive registry), and not to the articles from whom it is not clear to anyone.
          Quote: Saburov
          Correspondence on the eve of WWII Kaiser and the Tsar
          In which something is not visible desire of Nicholas II joyfully climb into the fray, at the request of England and France. But the proposal to bring the dispute between Serbia and AB to a court in The Hague, which I wrote about, is there (No. 4):
          It would be right to entrust the solution of the Austro-Serbian problem of the Hague Conference
          as well as the fact that the Kaiser did not answer anything.
          1. +2
            2 2017 June
            Quote: Dart2027
            And what about those who killed it was necessary to stroke the head? Here they tried to tell me several times about the massacres of innocent people, but for some reason only terrorists were carried out as examples, not even peasants who decided to rob some landowner, namely terrorists. And this had nothing to do with reforms.


            Three quotes from Count Witte:

            "Nobody executed so much in the most ugly way as he, Stolypin, no one arbitrated as he did, no one spat on the law like him, no one destroyed so much as the appearance of justice, like him, Stolypin, and everything, accompanying liberal speeches and gestures. "

            "Stolypin executes in vain: for robbing a shop, for stealing 6 rubles, just for a misunderstanding ... You can be a supporter of the death penalty, but the Stolypin regime abolished the death penalty and turned this type of punishment into simple murder, often completely meaningless, murder by mistake. In a word, there was a mishmash of government killings called the death penalty. "

            “All kinds of killings from the point of view of human, moral principles cannot be justified, nevertheless, killings of all kinds are constantly carried out; many of these killings are carried out by persons in power. Thus, between the thousands and thousands of people who were executed during "Stolypin’s premiership, dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of people were executed in vain, in other words, these people were killed by the power that Stolypin held in his hands."

            quote from 11 of September 1906 of the year from the appeal of the Moscow Surgical Society, uniting domestic surgeons:
            "Torture, torture and the death penalty overwhelmed the Russian land from end to end. The value of human life fell, the whole civilized world shuddered at the horrors that were happening in the country, which had given great scientists and thinkers. The Surgical Society in Moscow, which put on its banner the search for means of protecting the precious the welfare of people - their health and life ... incompatible with lawlessness and blood flows, cannot remain calm and indifferent to the horrors that are happening ... Enough blood, don’t torture brothers and sisters ... End torture and torture. Down with the death penalty ... "

            A block of Russian literature Leo Tolstoy:

            Today, 9 of May, something terrible. The newspaper has short words: "Today in Kherson on the Strelbitsky field twenty peasants were executed by hanging for robbery on the estate of the landowner in Yelisavetgrad district."
            Twelve people from the very people whose labors we live by, the very ones whom we have corrupted and corrupting with all our might, starting from the poison of vodka and to that terrible lie of faith, in which we do not believe, but which we are trying to impress upon them with all our strengths - twelve such people are strangled with ropes by the very people whom they feed and dress and build up and who have corrupted and corrupted them.

            In general, I hope you understand how reforms are being made (which are needed only to hide our inability to rule).

            Quote: Dart2027
            Prove what?


            Quote: Dart2027
            Regarding the Stolypin reform, this is nonsense.


            Quote: Dart2027
            And who will determine monarchy?


            Tales about the blossoming Russian Empire ...


            Quote: Dart2027
            I’m wondering, how did you think that? Terrible numbers are repeated constantly, but I don’t remember something about the links to the archive (stamp, signature of the archive registry), and not to the articles from whom it is not clear to anyone.


            You are welcome! Korolenko S. A. "Civilian labor in the holdings and the movement of workers in connection with the statistical and economic survey of European Russia in agricultural and industrial relations." - St. Petersburg: V. Kirshbaum's printing house, 1892 year. Russie a la fin du 19e siecle, sous dir. de M. Kowalevsky. Paris, 1900, pp. 687, 691. Portal R. The Industrialization of Russia. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Cambridge, 1965, Volume VI, Part 2. Bairoch P. European Trade Policy, 1815 — 1914. Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Cambridge, 1989, Volume VIII, pp. 42-46. B.Mitchell. Statistical Appendix, 1700 — 1914. Fontana Economic History of Europe, ed. by C. Cipolla, Glasgow, 1974 — 1976, Vol. 4, part 2, p. 773. “Statistical Yearbooks of Russia” (edited by Director of the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs N.N. Belyavsky) for 1908-1913. Prokopovich S. N. National income in Western European countries. - M., 1922. Yearbooks of world statistics by S. Zap "Socio-political tables of all countries of the world" of the publishing house "Cooperation" Moscow. So, 1908-1913 years. National Encyclopedia of Scientific and Applied Knowledge. Volume XII. Political Economy. - M., 1911. - with. 260-261, 278-279 I can continue the list ...

            PS For the period from 1888-1908. Russia had a positive trade balance with other countries in the amount of 6,6 billion gold rubles. This amount is 1,6 times higher than the value of all Russian industrial enterprises and working capital for them. In other words, having built 2 enterprises in Russia, the West, using Russian money, built 3 enterprises at home. Moreover, all these enterprises in Russia did not belong at all. Take, for example, the book Securities of the Russian State, published in Moscow in 1995. In it, the authors provide photographs of samples of securities. Having carefully examined these photos, we see that the Russian industry was practically divided between Western states. For example, shares of enterprises, banks and railways of the Russian Empire had inscriptions in Russian, German, English and French, except for distribution addresses in St. Petersburg and Moscow, had distribution addresses in Europe and the United States. In other words, at least 2 / 3 (according to the documents of the Republic of Ingushetia owned up to 30% of each enterprise and this justified the protectionism policy of our stupid government), the Russian industries did not belong to it and did not work for the well-being of the country, but to support the growth of foreign economies. For example, in the hands of in. joint-stock companies had 70% of coal production in the Donbass: wherever you look - solid Yuz, Cruz, Beaulieu, Harriman. Mostly Belgians and French. Approximately 90% of platinum production in Russia was in the hands of foreign companies - as was a fair share of gold mining. Remember the Lensky shooting at 1912? .. The Russian guards shot, but, strictly speaking, the bullets were English - because the Lena mines belonged to the English gold mining company Lena-Goldfils ...
            1. +1
              3 2017 June
              Quote: Saburov
              In general, I hope you understand how reforms are being made (which are needed only to hide our inability to rule).

              All this is very interesting, but you started talking about the military field courts in 1906, and I asked a simple question.
              And what about those who killed, it was necessary to stroke the head?

              Will the answer be?
              The whining of the then liberals does not answer him, as does their opinion, in view of the liberalism of the brain.
              Quote: Saburov
              Remember the Lensky shooting in 1912? .. The Russian guards shot, but, strictly speaking, the bullets were English - because the Lena mines belonged to the Lena-Goldfils English gold mining company ...

              Well, let's see how they say "devil in detail":
              ... Now let's try to determine the share of foreign participation in Lenzoto. At the end of 1909, the share capital of this company amounted to 6660 thousand rubles. Most of it (74%) was accounted for by Lena Goldfields JSC - 4928 thousand rubles. But in Lena Goldfields itself, foreigners owned only about 30% of the shares. Based on this, we can determine foreign participation in Lenzoto - 1478,5 thousand rubles. (22,2%) By the end of 1913, it amounted to 3231 thousand rubles. from 16,5 million rubles (19,6%), and by the end of 1916 - 2917 thousand rubles. (17,7%) Despite the conventionality and approximation of these estimates, they nevertheless reflect the scale and dynamics of foreign participation in the largest gold mining enterprise in Russia.
              (O. N. Razumov, Tomsk State University, "From the history of the relationship between Russian and foreign equity in the Siberian gold industry at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.)
              http://new.hist.asu.ru/biblio/predpri/B-9.html
              Well, to whom did everything belong to Russians or foreigners?
              And by the way, what percentage of gold began to go to the treasury of the USSR when the Soviet government concluded an agreement with the same "Lena"? Only 7% and that’s all, the king is also to blame?
              Do you want to figure out the rest? What was actual share of RI, not general phrases.
              Quote: Saburov
              Russia had a positive trade balance with other countries in the amount of 6,6 billion gold rubles
              A positive trade balance indicates the demand for the goods of a given country on the international market, as well as the fact that the country does not consume everything that it produces. A negative trade balance indicates that the country, in addition to its goods, also consumes foreign goods. It’s not very clear where did you get the idea that it is beneficial for foreigners?
              1. +2
                3 2017 June
                Dart2027 Well, you fantasize again, as always! Gold mining does not reflect the scale and dynamics of foreign participation! belay The significant volume, as well as the determination of foreign capital, allowed it to gain important positions in the production of means of production in Russia. The huge role was played by foreign capital in creating the basic metallurgical industry in Russia at that time. The largest metallurgical complex of the country, the South Russian, is being created with foreign funds, which in 1913 accounted for 67% of pig iron smelted in Russia and 60% of steel. Despite the fact that the government provided the necessary benefits to Russian entrepreneurs, all their attempts to create a center for the iron industry here failed. Without the help of foreign capital, Kryvyi Rih ores would have to rest peacefully for a long time under the chernozem fields of the Dnieper region. In the same way, in the metallurgical business of the Donetsk basin, the pioneer was the Englishman Hughes.

                In the south of Russia there were almost no enterprises in which foreign capital did not participate. Of the 18 joint-stock companies that existed there, 16 were quoted on foreign exchanges. Thus, we can speak of South Russian enterprises as enterprises with almost exclusive or predominant participation of foreign capital lol
                1. +2
                  3 2017 June
                  German capital is called the "actual owners" of the Russian energy industry. The oldest enterprise and at the same time the first foreign company in Russia operating in this area was the German “Electric Lighting Society of 1886”. In 1914, the fixed capital of this company and its three subsidiaries was equal to 76,25 million rubles, or about 3/4 of the total fixed capital invested in this industry in Russia. A significant portion of the remaining funds was also of German origin. With these huge funds for those times, an energy economy of Russia was created, in which German societies held a special place.
                  1. +1
                    3 2017 June
                    Quote: Uncle Murzik
                    Dart2027 Well, you fantasize again, as always! Gold mining does not reflect the scale and dynamics of foreign participation

                    They gave me a concrete example and I gave a concrete answer, at the same time showing that it is far from always that what is on the surface reflects the essence.
                    Yes, there was foreign capital, no one argues with this. But the reasoning that he supposedly controlled everything is already causing serious doubts. An example of what I made out.
                    Quote: Uncle Murzik
                    Of the 18 joint-stock companies that existed there, 16 were quoted on foreign exchanges.

                    May be. But the question is, who controlled them? Foreigners? Or like with Lena.
                    Quote: Uncle Murzik
                    German capital is called the "actual owners" of the Russian energy industry.
                    And why RI in WWI fought with Germany? The discussion began with the assertion that RI supposedly was subordinate to foreign capital and therefore fought for it, but what happens? And with the society itself again details - it was organized in the Republic of Ingushetia.
              2. 0
                3 2017 June
                Quote: Dart2027
                But in Lena Goldfields itself, foreigners owned only about 30% of the shares. Based on this, it is possible to determine the share of foreign participation in Lenzoto


                Have you seen this source? Razumov O.N. From the history of the relationship between Russian and foreign equity in the Siberian gold industry at the beginning of the 20th century // Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in Siberia in the 18th - early 20th Centuries. - Barnaul: ASU Publishing House, 1995. - S. 139-153. Such a source of 1995 of the year can be safely thrown into the furnace! If you want to give a source, please provide the source or archive. I brought you some of the links where you can see it!

                Quote: Dart2027
                http://new.hist.asu.ru/biblio/predpri/B-9.html


                Razumov's works cannot be taken as a source in any way. Have you seen the sources to which he refers? For example, a collection of legalizations and government orders. 1896. N46. St. 599 or Gold and Platinum. 1907. N12. C.235 in the first only a decree of the legislative plan, and in the second the level of production in the Republic of Ingushetia and nowhere is it indicated about the division of production! All other sources in general in no way relate to this, or were written in the post-revolutionary period, and many are generally post-Soviet (which is even worse)!

                Quote: Dart2027
                A positive trade balance indicates the demand for the goods of a given country on the international market, as well as the fact that the country does not consume everything that it produces. A negative trade balance indicates that the country, in addition to its goods, also consumes foreign goods.


                And the fact of the matter is that in addition to wood, minerals, casting of metal, cast iron and other things, RI did not produce nicherta !!! Therefore, the policy of protectionism was so kindly treated. Why buy at a trip, when you can buy cheap from Russians, since wages in Russia were five times, or even eight times lower, for example than in France. First of all, Russia even lagged behind the USA, England, Germany and France in industrial production volumes. Its share in the total industrial production of the five above-mentioned powers was only 4,2%. In global production in 1913, Russia's share was 1,72%. Of the same statistical compilations of the Minister of the Interior, Belyavsky, in 1913, Russia imported from other countries more than 1 million tons of steel and 8,7 million tons of coal. In 1909-1914 the British riveted 64 large surface ships, the Germans 47, the French 24, the Italians 16, Russia, with attempts, completed and re-created 10 surface ships of the class battleship-cruiser. About 90% of the Russian Imperial Fleet was built abroad. German and Swedish turbines, English gyrocompasses and rangefinders were mounted on Russian destroyers, cruisers and battleships. What kind of industrial growth are we talking about? Remember, on which aircraft did Utochkin and Nesterov shine? Newpor, Farman, Bristol-Bulldog, Sopvich, Fokker. England, France, Belgium .., but not Russia. For 1914-1917 all 94 of "Ilya Muromets" was assembled and then the engines and devices were imported. And this despite the fact that in Russia military spending in 1908-1913gg. accounted for 32 - 33% of the total state budget. , yearbooks of world statistics by S. Zap "Socio-political tables of all countries of the world" publishing house "Cooperation" Moscow. So, 1908-1913 years. total revenues received by the budget amounted to: 14987 million rubles, including income from the vodka monopoly: 3993 million rubles. (26,64%), direct taxes: 1115 million rubles. (7,44%), indirect taxes: 3111 million rubles. (20,76%), duties: 943 million rubles. (6, 29%) And the tales of high wages and low prices at all angles are poisoned by the monarchists, without giving any reason for their attacks. So a working-class family of 4 people in St. Petersburg spent 1914 rubles in 750. in year. At the same time, food expenses amounted to 100% of the salary of the head of the family of 4 people, and, as a rule, everyone worked, including children. Of the remaining amount, up to 45% went to pay for housing, up to 25% - for clothes and shoes. S.Yu. Witte said at a meeting of ministers 17 on March 1899 held under the chairmanship of Nicholas II and discussing the foundations of the current commercial and industrial policy in Russia, he said: “If we compare our consumption in Europe, the average per capita in Russia will be the fourth or a fifth of what is recognized in other countries as necessary for ordinary existence. "
                1. +1
                  3 2017 June
                  Quote: Saburov
                  If you want to give a source, please provide the source or archive. I gave you a part of the links where you can see
                  And what else is written there? so quote with a specific place. Or are there common phrases that supposedly was foreign capital? So nobody argues with this that he was. The question is in its degree.
                  Quote: Saburov
                  either written in the post-revolutionary period, and many generally post-Soviet
                  When are yours written? And you will argue that the USSR did not write the ideologically correct story? For example, in the “Lesser Soviet Encyclopedia” of 1930 about the Time of Troubles they wrote that it was supposedly a peasant revolution (Volume 8, p. 64). Or do you want to consider only sources convenient for you?
                  Quote: Saburov
                  And the fact of the matter is that in addition to wood, minerals, casting of metal, cast iron and other things, RI did not produce nicherta
                  What does the trade balance have to do with it? You express yourself more clearly.
                  I am aware of the technical backwardness, only work was underway to overcome it, and Stolypin’s reforms as a result of which a large number of able-bodied people were to move to the cities was part of this program. Actually, the industry of all European countries was created and he did not invent anything. At the end of the reign of Nicholas II, students in the Republic of Ingushetia were no less than in Germany. And the engines for aircraft began to be done before the revolution.
                  Quote: Saburov
                  If we compare consumption in our country and in Europe
                  But in Europe there were no poor, hungry, poor, etc.? Somewhere I already heard it. And in the Republic of Ingushetia and in any European country, there were different workers whose salaries varied greatly, if you are talking about this. However, they already said well about Witte
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  Sorry, but quoting Count Witte about Stolypin is the same as quoting Goebbels when speaking of Russians. Stolypin became the man appointed to Witte's place, and Sergei Yulievich was a very, very ambitious man, and Stolypin, frankly, he hated and scolded almost in every of his publications.
                  1. 0
                    4 2017 June
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    And what else is written there? so quote with a specific place. Or are there common phrases that supposedly was foreign capital? So nobody argues with this that he was. The question is in its degree.


                    You can download and see for yourself, for example: istmat.info/files/uploads/15971/stat.eg_1913_zolo
                    to.pdf
                    With other sources the same.

                    Quote: Dart2027
                    When are yours written? And you will argue that the USSR did not write the ideologically correct story?


                    If you at least managed to look at me for the cited sources or for the publication dates, you would not ask such questions.

                    Quote: Dart2027
                    I’m aware of the technical backwardness, only work was underway to overcome it, and Stolypin’s reforms as a result of which a large number of able-bodied people were to move to the cities was part of this program.


                    If ... yes, if only ... As a result, this was the end of this whole dumbhead system. His agrarian policy led the country to hunger and instead of starting social reforms, they began to hang up their already embittered and hungry people! Ingenious! We also have reforms and the fight against corruption now ... and things are still there ... if the whole system is sick ... even if you have seven spans in the forehead ... nothing will change.

                    Quote: Dart2027
                    But in Europe there were no poor, hungry, poor, etc.? Somewhere I already heard it. And in the Republic of Ingushetia and in any European country, there were different workers whose salaries varied greatly, if you are talking about this. However, they already said well about Witte


                    And here they are, and there ... Stop like a small child with your finger to point at someone and give examples of members of the forum ... there is no authority at all that someone from the members of the forum said there. There is an archive and history, and as they say it does not tolerate the subjunctive mood! And of course, Europe was poor and hungry, but if we compare it with RI, it is much less. In the nineteenth century. Russia survived 40 hunger strikes. In the twentieth century. were hungry 1901 / 02 gg., 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908 g .; 1911 / 12 In the 1901-1902 years, the 49 provinces were starving, in the 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908 starved from 19 to 29 provinces, in 1911-1912 years. for 2 years, famine swept 60 provinces. 30 million people were on the brink of death. According to various estimates in 1901-1912 years. about 8 million people died from hunger and its consequences. The tsarist government was most concerned about how to hide the scale of hunger strikes. In the press, censorship forbade the use of the word hunger, replacing it with the word "infirmity." Nicholas II sharply curtailed the rights of zemstvos to combat hunger, and in 1911 and 1912 completely prohibited the participation of zemstvos, the Red Cross, and charitable organizations in helping the starving. Where do the allegations come from that Russia produced more grain than other countries combined? After all, the United States produced 96 million tons of grain - more than Russia. In total production, Russia was in the 2 place after the United States, while per capita production put it in the 5 place. If we take European countries, as well as Australia and Canada, then Russia was thrown into the 2 ten and even lower. It is necessary to pay attention to the figures characterizing the production of grain per capita. England, France, Germany, producing grain of less than 500 kg per capita, were its importers. USA, Canada, Argentina, producing 800-1200 kg of grain per capita exported it. And only Russia, producing less than 500 kg (the norm of self-sufficiency in production grain) of grain per capita, exported it. Those. export went at the expense of dooming part of the population to malnutrition and hunger. Or for example, the infant mortality rate at 100 of children under the 1 of the year according to the archives and statistical collections of N.A. Rubakin “Russia in Figures” (St. Petersburg, 1912 edition of the year) and Novoselsky S.A. "Mortality and life expectancy in Russia" (Petrograd, Printing house of the Ministry of the Interior, 1916 year) died from 23 to 30 children in different years. Or for example, if you pick up the archives of the Moscow province in TsGAMO, then from the reports of the medical inspection we find out that there were only 10000 doctors at the 2 thousand of the population. And the level of education (those who knew how to write and read) was, according to the most overstated estimates, 21% in reality 14-15% for the entire RI. And for the future, remember if the source does not have a seal, signature and archive registry, then this source is a chatter! The tales of "eyewitnesses" and the memories of contemporaries are not considered at all.
                    1. +1
                      4 2017 June
                      Quote: Saburov
                      You can download and see for yourself, for example: istmat.info/files/uploads/15971/stat.eg_1913_zolo
                      to.pdf
                      With other sources the same.
                      And what else is written there? So quote indicating the specific location. Or are there common phrases that supposedly was foreign capital? So nobody argues with this that he was. The question is in its degree.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      If ... yes, if only ... As a result, this was the end of this whole dumbhead system.
                      All this is very pathetic, but what, then, collapsed the Soviet system?
                      Quote: Saburov
                      His agrarian policy led the country to hunger and instead of starting social reforms, they began to hang up their already embittered and hungry people!
                      In the nineteenth century. Russia survived 40 hunger strikes. In the twentieth century. were hungry 1901/02, 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908; 1911/12 In the years 1901-1902 49 provinces were starving, in 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908 starved from 19 to 29 provinces, in 1911-1912. in 2 years hunger has swept 60 provinces

                      I don’t remember about hunger anymore, how many times it was said that there was a banal crop failure caused by weather conditions, and not reforms.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      According to various estimates in the years 1901-1912. about 8 million people died from hunger and its consequences
                      In fact, there were very few starvation deaths, and a state aid program was in place.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      Or for example, the infant mortality rate per 100 children
                      But this, alas, was.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      There is an archive and history, and as they say it does not tolerate the subjunctive mood!
                      According to the history of the Republic of Ingushetia, liberals of all stripes were falling apart and the role in this Witte was rather muddy.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      And for the future, remember if the source does not have a seal, signature and archive registry, then this source is idle talk
                      You forgot to say if it is ideologically verified. Regarding the fact that the communists were free to deal with history and will argue? I gave you an example.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      If you at least managed to look at me for the cited sources or for the publication dates, you would not ask such questions.

                      I look forward to hearing from you sources with a seal, signature and archive registry. If not, then this is a chatter.
                      1. +1
                        4 2017 June
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        I look forward to hearing from you sources with a seal, signature and archive registry. If not, then this is a chatter.

                        Actually, they gave you more than a detailed answer, have you forgotten how to read ???
                      2. 0
                        4 2017 June
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And what else is written there? So quote indicating the specific location. Or are there common phrases that supposedly was foreign capital? So nobody argues with this that he was. The question is in its degree.


                        That's it! In this source, the share of foreign capital is not indicated, as well as its lion's share of profit, and in those sources that I gave you, there are chapters and tables on the division of production.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        I don’t remember about hunger anymore, how many times it was said that there was a banal crop failure caused by weather conditions, and not reforms.


                        Stop talking in tales! There are international statistics of the Red Cross. There are statistics on the export of grain from RI. There are statistics from the Medical Inspectorate on starvation deaths. There was a conscious policy of protectionism and since RI had the largest income from the sale of vodka in the country, it simply needed to replenish its treasury and sell grain to the maximum, due to dooming part of the population to malnutrition and hunger. This is a historically proven fact at the international level, and monarchist comrades are still trying to dispute this without any argument. “Statistical Yearbooks of Russia” (edited by Director of the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs NN Belyavsky) for 1908-1913 Novoselsky “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”. Petrograd Printing house of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 1916. Sokolov D.A., Grebenshchikov V.I. Mortality in Russia and the fight against it. SPb., 1901. P.A. Stolypin and the fate of reforms in Russia Chapter III. Agrarian reform. New encyclopedic dictionary. Under the total. ed. Acad. K.K. Arsenyev. T.14. St. Petersburg: F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron, 1913.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        In fact, there were very few starvation deaths, and a state aid program was in place.


                        Did you switch to bikes again? Here we are and we will "believe"! Once again to you there! ON. Rubakin “Russia in Figures” (St. Petersburg, 1912 edition of the year) and Novoselsky S.A. "Mortality and life expectancy in Russia", (Petrograd, Printing house of the Ministry of the Interior, 1916 year). Grebenshchikov V.I. Mortality in Russia and the fight against it. SPb., 1901.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        According to the history of the Republic of Ingushetia, liberals of all stripes were falling apart and the role in this Witte was rather muddy.


                        Witte is one of the smartest figures of the time. Although his merits can be evaluated in two ways. One of the main reasons for the emergence of contradictions between Witte and Stolypin was the political and general, “reformatory” field of activity, the sharpness, in addition to personal qualities, added career motives. Until now, many believe that the conflict was based on the primacy of the idea of ​​agrarian reform. Witte had no doubt that Stolypin “stole” his idea, although he, in turn, was the successor and executor of some points of the agrarian reform program, Sergei Yulievich, as well as many figures who worked out this idea even before Witte. Thus, the conflict between S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin bore both a political and a personal touch. And while they were biting the country, the end was coming ... The temporary ones could not hold this power because of their stupidity, and the Bolsheviks simply picked it up.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        You forgot to say if it is ideologically verified. Regarding the fact that the communists were free to deal with history and will argue? I gave you an example. I look forward to hearing from you sources with a seal, signature and archive registry. If not, then this is a chatter.


                        That is, the sources, statistics or archive for the 1911 or 1908 communist year? Or did GARF suddenly become an unreliable source? Or are you not enough of the sources that I gave you? I think you did not even look, because there you need to read carefully and spend time on this. This is not for you articles about the "crunch of French rolls."
            2. +4
              3 2017 June
              Sorry, but quoting Count Witte about Stolypin is the same as quoting Goebbels when speaking of Russians. Stolypin became the man appointed to Witte's place, and Sergei Yulievich was a very, very ambitious man, and Stolypin, frankly, he hated and scolded almost in every of his publications.
              And yes, the reference to Tolstoy is also simply "charming." This is the man who wrote: “I can’t be silent!”, While his estate was guarded by an armed military team. Ammunition which, incidentally, were not single. It’s good to write about the “arbitrariness of tsarism against free people” while defending themselves against these people by soldiers who swore allegiance to “tsarism”, right?
              1. +2
                3 2017 June
                darling PoruchikTeterin and what permission you did not ask? belay
              2. +3
                3 2017 June
                Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                Sorry, but quoting Count Witte about Stolypin is the same as quoting Goebbels

                FROM WHICH MISCELLANEOUS SUCH COMPARISONS?
                S.Yu. Witte, who meticulously followed the political career of his successor, noted that Pyotr Arkadyevich “was a man of great temperament, a man of courage,” but accused him of the lack of state culture, lack of balance, excessive influence on his political activities of his wife Olga Borisovna, and the use of official position for patronage to relatives [16]. "Stolypin, the last two or three years of his reign, committed positive terror in Russia, but most importantly, he introduced police arbitrariness and police discretion in all administration of state life" [16]. In his memoirs, Witte noted the evolution of Stolypin from a liberal prime minister to "a reactionary who would not disdain by any means in order to maintain power, and arbitrarily, in violation of all laws and rules of Russia" [16]. “. Stolypin,” he wrote, “had an extremely superficial mind and an almost complete absence of state culture and education. By education and intelligence. Stolypin was a type of bayonet-junker” [3]. http://all-stars.su/4375-katya-sambuka-foto.html
                A.F. Kerensky: “Stolypin’s political insight was inferior to the strength of his character” A.S. Izgoyev, member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party: “P.A. Stolypin had a strong mind, but it was some kind of second-class mind, truly devoid of deepening and idealistic nobility, a mind mixed with petty cunning and cunning ”[16] Konchina Stolypin caused a lot of responses in the Russian and foreign press. The foreign left press took this fact with satisfaction. Thus, the newspaper of the Independent Labor Party of England noted: "Stolypin turned the Duma into a farce and a fraudulent trick. He, it was he, threw thousands of people into infected prisons and sent thousands to the gallows." "He cannot turn back - and, of course, many thousands of Russians will reverently thank the gentlemen for this."
                The press organ of the French Socialist Party declared: "Stolypin's deserved death. Before this grave, humanity can only breathe a sigh of relief
                1. +1
                  3 2017 June
                  Quote: Pancir026
                  FROM WHICH MISCELLANEOUS SUCH COMPARISONS?

                  With such that they were his political enemies.
                  1. +3
                    3 2017 June
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    they were his political enemies

                    But what are you !! It was in one system that they were “enemies.” You seem to have already got confused who is walking with his opponents.
                    Opponents, they may have been, in a vision of the country's development situation, but here are the enemies in the same system, no.
                    And as events showed, no one did so much to the collapse of RI as Stolypin did.
                    1. +1
                      3 2017 June
                      Quote: Pancir026
                      But what are you !! It was in one system that they were “enemies.” You seem to have already got confused who is walking with his opponents.

                      Do you know anything besides the class struggle? Read history books - people in one system cut each other, sometimes literally, the whole history of mankind.
                      Quote: Pancir026
                      nobody did so much to the collapse of RI as did Stolypin

                      As events showed, the country was destroyed by Kerensky, Guchkov, Milyukov, Alekseev and others. If not for their thirst for power, then Lenin would have died in Switzerland, and now no one would have remembered where.
                      1. +1
                        4 2017 June
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        As events showed, the country was destroyed by Kerensky, Guchkov, Milyukov, Alekseev and others.

                        Oh ... well, then ... finally recognized ...
                        If yes, if only ... the categories are not applicable to the already held History, where all sorts of Milyukovs, Kerensky, Nikolai and other Guchkovs turned out to be losers and remained in History only as an example of talkers and stupid people, unlike Lenin.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Do you know anything besides the class struggle?

                        Have you read the article?
  2. +6
    2 2017 June
    this Fursov should be sent to the compilation of a history textbook for schools. anything without husks. real facts. what about children . they are not stupid. They will understand whose ears stick out because of February.
    1. +5
      2 2017 June
      The network is full of stories. Andrei Ilyich. Lectures on the History of Russia --- a large cycle. There is a SCHOOL of FURSOV ANALYTICS .....
      To children, modern education in general ----- speeches are dedicated. I try to listen more to his lectures.
  3. +5
    2 2017 June
    So, even now, the authorities are doing everything in their power to strengthen the dependence of the domestic economy, or what is left of it (the remnants of the Soviet legacy) on transnational corporations. The fuel and energy complex is developing less or less, so this is one of the few industries that provides foreign exchange and tax revenues to the budget. With the defense industry, it’s also clear. Our hucksters and bureaucrats understood that the Western "partners" and "colleagues" would not accept them in their closed elite non-slave strawberry and could, on occasion, take away their back-breaking labor. So we strengthen the defense. They themselves can’t really do anything, they’re living on the remnants of the Soviet heritage. There has been no real modernization since 1991, but they are trying to create the appearance of an investment-attractive climate in Russia and attract so-called foreign investments. It is hoped that foreign hucksters will develop our economy for those who are required to do this ex officio. They hope to become a second China, if only to hold out longer under power. It has long been said I.V. Stalin: “We must build our economy so that our country does not become an appendage of the world capitalist system, that it is not included in the general system of capitalist development as its subsidiary enterprise, so that our economy does not develop as an auxiliary enterprise of world capitalism, but as an independent an economic unit based mainly on the domestic market, based on the link between our industry and the peasant economy of our country. ” (From a report by Stalin at the Fourteenth Congress of the CPSU (B.). How he looked into the water. And in Russia everything is exactly the opposite. Until Russia takes the socialist path, taking into account all the mistakes of the USSR, there will be nothing to expect from modernization and prospects from hucksters.
    1. +4
      2 2017 June
      Absolutely agree! Russia managed to be great and speak its own word in world civilization only on the paths of systemic anti-capitalism. Spiritual anti-capitalism - this is all Russian classics. Social and political anti-capitalism - this is the USSR.

      The fact of the matter is that our government is far (or rather, they are ....) from what the people need and how to raise the economy. They are former thieves and hucksters. It is already incredibly annoying when our government rubs us about patriotism, and at the accounts and villas themselves, tells us about love for the motherland, and at the siblings themselves and their wives live and study abroad, scares us with the State Department and Anglo-Saxons, and their mouths against them they can’t open it, they talk about import substitution, but they themselves use Mercedes, iPhones and drink French cognacs and, moreover, write such laws under which crontons come to our industry with such loans for factories and businesses, with the complete destruction of secondary specialized education and complete elimination of with the help of workers and scientists ... sorry guys, but with this massive idiocy, it's time to end. We already have a simple student at the stage of study will think about how to get out of this country with this state of affairs! Let the authorities explain to people how our budget is being made? Why is the Russian budget in the budget of Russia 1.5 percent, and the bureaucratic apparatus 7 percent? And the police 11 percent? Why is fuel and lubricants more expensive for our citizens than they sell it abroad? Why do our energy companies, including state ones, sell electricity domestically at a higher price than on the foreign market? Why does our Sberbank give its citizens mortgage loans in 12-16 percent, and in "malicious" Poland or the Czech Republic under 5-6 percent? Why are huge amounts of money pouring into zero projects that are already failing at the development stage? Let the authorities explain to the people how the state was going to substitute if it doesn’t produce a damn and there are no capacities and nothing has been created for this, no conditions, no production facilities, no specialists! Will we put one computer per year in schools? Or move on to handicraft instead of CNC machines? This import substitution campaign is generally conceived to finally bury our industry. Here is just the law on new privatization on the way. They do not understand this, that just science and technology make life cheaper? Starting with heavy machinery, ending with a mixer in the kitchen. And now all of this has risen in price, and as a result, thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises have suffered, which just produced competitive products due to these technologies. And the defense industry generally slowed down by at least ten years, at least until they made an analogue, until it was brought to mind and, as a result, they would lag anyway. For example, a Chinese, a Swede or an Australian can buy good computer technology many times cheaper than ours? Our cars are worth interest on 20-30 more expensive than almost all over the world and even domestic cars are expensive, as well as loans for them. And by the way, why do we have loans for industrialists an order of magnitude higher, or even five, than everywhere else? But the Ministry of Finance does not want to subsidize loans that are too expensive, and we do not have inexpensive loans! And the result is a vicious circle! The key rate at which the Central Bank lends to banks is 11%. This is fucking! But the bank also winds up the same amount on its loans. And he pays 10% to investors for using their funds, and he offers the same money to borrowers at the rate of 25%. A business that could afford to pay such a percentage while working legally simply does not exist. In such conditions, our economy will never work !!! And the funny thing is that domestic banks, including the Central Bank and Sberbank, prefer to invest in Western economies (primarily in the US economy), but they don’t consider Russian at all a place for investment! And why, in the end, will explain to us that by selling oil and gas for colossal amounts, Russia remains largely impoverished? Why do yachts, palaces, whores, bureaucrats, and power eat and buy from us? Is there no money for raising pensions, salaries, bonuses or for repairing a kindergarten, clinic or school? Why b ... ?

      PS As one unknown, but very intelligent man said: “Someone with a clever head seemed to realize that the Russian sucker is not a European sucker. And nevertheless, it bites poorly on liberal values. But on the sovereign-patriotic - with everything our pleasure! " The authorities are holding the people for the acting and acting, while we are doing our best to justify this trust.
  4. +3
    2 2017 June
    Rasputin according to Fursov survived, recent history however ... confuse the truth with fiction and pass it off as truth, and they will believe ...
    "... And then the Bolsheviks came and ruined everything."
    Well, still, the troops are deserting from the front, the Germans are advancing on Petrograd, and then the Bolsheviks came and ruined everything, Andrei Fursov’s amazing pirouettes
  5. +2
    2 2017 June
    In principle, everything is the case ...
  6. 0
    2 2017 June
    The roots of the collapse of the Empire and the fall of tsarism are deeper than Fursov’s historical boundaries, and they are associated with a church schism that occurred in the mid-17th century. Ideologies, as such, did not know either the lower or the upper, faith united all. It was faith that was the ideological foundation on which the Russian land, the Russian world, and the Russian kingdom were based. Unification with Polish Ukraine in 1654 required the unification of the foundations, that is, religion. As you know, the scythe of “Ukrainization” found on the stone of the ancient Greek faith .., whose followers rightly saw in this unity .., among other things, the trace of Catholic Rome, which led to a split, which from that time until 1917 only increased, with the active help of the popes, the Anglo-Saxons, Zion and this whole trap as a whole ...
    February is not separable from October. In February 17th, the "Titanic" -RI finally split into two parts, and in October sank ...
  7. +3
    2 2017 June
    Mr. Durnovo correctly noted: “The Russian commoner, peasant and worker are not equally looking for political rights that are not needed and incomprehensible to them. The peasant dreams of endowing him with alien land, the worker is about transferring all the capital and profit of the manufacturer to him, and beyond that their desire They’re going to throw these slogans ONLY WIDELY into the population, only the government will irrevocably agitate in this direction and Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into the anarchy that it experienced during the memorable period of the unrest of 1905 – 1906. But with Germany it will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitation. "Everything is correct, money was found (the Germans were given Trotsky to the USA, Lenin), but there were always a lot of people tearing in boyars and for money. It is a pity, such was a huge country, so much wealth as many people ... Danilevsky was right, we have always been and will be hated by Europe. That Rothschild, that Rockefeller, that Marx, that Engels ..... we all hated and hate us fiercely.
    1. +3
      2 2017 June
      Quote: captain
      The peasant dreams of endowing him with alien land, the worker of transferring to him all the capital and profits of the manufacturer, and their desire does not go further than this

      The most interesting thing is that when they destroyed the USSR, they promised the people basically the same thing - let's change the system and everyone will be rich.
      1. +2
        3 2017 June
        Quote: Dart2027
        The most interesting thing is that when they destroyed the USSR, they promised the people basically the same thing - let's change the system and everyone will be rich.

        Not surprisingly, the slogans under which the country can be destroyed whether it is 17 or 91 first or not Russia at all are always the same and the Bolsheviks were not their discoverers.
    2. +4
      3 2017 June
      Quote: captain
      That's right, the money was found (the Germans were given Trotsky to the USA, the Germans to Lenin), but there were always a lot of people rushing in boyars and for money. It is a pity, such was a huge country, so much wealth as many people ... Danilevsky was right, we have always been and will be hated by Europe. That Rothschild, that Rockefeller, that Marx, that Engels ..... we all hated and hate us fiercely.


      Tip. Stop reading bullshit! If you want to study history, study in archives. All memories, eyewitness accounts and other articles in the furnace!

      Quote: captain
      That's right, the money was found (Dali was given to Trotsky the USA, Germans to Lenin)


      A hackneyed bike ... All that Lenin was accused of was allegedly financing from the Germans, it was traveling in a car across Europe and Lenin visiting the German embassy in Bern and referring to Sisson's documents (a set of several dozen documents allegedly proving that the Bolshevik leadership consisted of direct agents of Germany, governed by the directives of the German General Staff. Purchased at the end of 1917 Special Envoy of the US President in Russia Edgar Sisson for 25 thousand dollars and published in Washington in xnumx Currently, most scholars consider Sisson’s documents to be completely falsified and fabricated by Polish writer and journalist Ferdinand Ossendowski, the author of fakes made after the October Revolution and known as “Sisson’s documents,” for which he used fake forms from institutions that never existed): Sisson E. One hundred red days. New York, 1931, P. 291 — 292; Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. 1918. Russia. Vol. 1. P. 371) Not a single serious author believed in the authenticity of the “Sisson documents”, regardless of his political position, including those who devoted themselves to the question of Lenin's German money, like Melgunov, Kerensky, and Burtsev. For example, in several documents we find mention in the official reports of German officers to the Soviet government of the names of German secret agents in various parts of Russia. Anyone who has elementary ideas about the principles of intelligence work knows that no experienced intelligence organization, especially in wartime, will list the names of its agents even in intra-departmental correspondence, especially not in official messages to a foreign government. The German publication noted that the caps on the supposedly official letterhead of the department of the German General Staff from Sisson's documents are clearly fake. The designation “Grosser Generalstab” was actually canceled on August 2 1914 and restored only after the war ... Although there are ... s like the main researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor V. Nikolo-Ugreshsky Orthodox Theological Seminary М. Lavrov, who made a report “Crimes of the Bolsheviks and their leaders. Extremism in the works of Lenin. " In this report, V. М. Lavrov said: "And Lenin himself collaborated with the criminal leadership of Kaiser Germany and received money from the Germans to carry out a Bolshevik coup; documents about this were preserved both in Germany and in Moscow in the former Central Party Archive (RGASPI. F. 2. Op. 2. D. 226). Therefore, in July 1917, a legal warrant was issued for the arrest of Lenin on charges of treason. If you use today's terminology, then Lenin is a foreign agent. " As we can see, there are links to where some German documents are kept, which indicate that Lenin "collaborated with the criminal leadership of Kaiser Germany and received money from the Germans to carry out the Bolshevik coup" V. М. Lavrov for some reason does not. Strange, historians around the world do not know about the existence of such documents, no one has been able to find these documents for decades of searches, and here such a sensation, it turns out only V. М.

      PS Do not read lousy newspapers. In general, this bike is from the category of those stories based on the ignorance of readers, as well as the bike that the "Jews" made a revolution.
      1. +4
        3 2017 June
        Tip. Read Engels, as he writes, "Europe has only one alternative: either submit to the barbaric yoke of the Slavs, or completely destroy the center of this hostile force - Russia."
        Or, as Herzen, Marx called "despicable Muscovite."
        http://www.posprikaz.ru/2013/04/pochemu-karl-mark
        si-fridrix-engels-nenavideli-rossiyu /
        1. +1
          3 2017 June
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          "Europe has only one alternative: either submit to the barbaric yoke of the Slavs, or completely destroy the center of this hostile force - Russia."
          Or, as Herzen, Marx called "despicable Muscovite."


          I will repeat to you again. DO NOT READ Lousy NEWSPAPERS AND ARTICLES! Want to study history, study on primary sources and archives! I have all 39 volumes of the Works of Marx-Engels. None of the 39 volumes have such a phrase !!!

          PS If you insert supposedly “quotes”, then please be kind enough to give a link to that and the page or provide the source of this “quote”.
          1. +1
            3 2017 June
            Quote: Saburov
            I have all 39 volumes of the Works of Marx-Engels. Such a phrase is not in any of the 39 volumes !!!

            Do you think that the compilers of these volumes were so “alternatively smart” that they would include this?
            Here is Stalin's curious opinion about one article by Engels, and the corresponding recommendation
            http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t14/t14_03.htm
            1. 0
              4 2017 June
              Quote: Dart2027
              Here is Stalin's curious opinion about an article by Engels

              Well, that is, you acknowledge that Stalin, in the wake of Lenin, understood that the founders sometimes had something with respect to Russia that was not applicable to the realities of the country and attempts to use their words were trotted out by politicians and idle talkers.
              But in the 60-90s, the intelligentsia, jumping up the notepad and not having learned from the legacy of Lenin and Stalin, drawing directly Russophobic thoughts from Engels’s article, concluded on this basis that everything was lost, everything was bad, everything had to be broken. Engels according to Lenin, Lenin according to Stalin, they succeeded, they sold everything and everyone, as joyfully ... precisely in verse, it is sweet for them to hate the Fatherland ...
              How sweet - to hate the homeland
              And eagerly wait for her humiliation!
              And see the destruction of the homeland
              World Renewal Day!
              (I offend these pious gentlemen
              I didn’t think: everyone has an opinion.
              Be in love? - every beggar knows how to love,
              And hatred is the hearts of mighty food!)

              Then in convulsions the arm trembles
              And fiery blood boils like a river
              And like a star, a dagger shines before the eye,
              And in a dark way beckons me with him ...
              I am yours! I am yours! - let me whip towards
              The whole ocean in a thundering wave! ..
              I’ll burn your ashes ... a two-headed temple,
              And I will be Herostratus, but with greater glory!
    3. +1
      3 2017 June
      Quote: captain
      That's right, the money was found (Dali was given to Trotsky the USA, the Germans to Lenin),

      At the expense of Trotsky, you got to the point., However, you didn’t mention Keresnky, Prince Lvov, but you lied about Lenin right there.
      Quote: captain
      if only the government has irrevocably allowed agitation in this direction, Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into the anarchy that it experienced during the unforgettable period of unrest in 1905-1906. The war with Germany will create exceptionally favorable conditions for such agitation.

      Yes?
      And who is to blame for you, that Russia was pushed into the war in 1914, if not Stolypin and Nikolai?
      What kind of "industrial breakthrough" and "development of the East" under Stolypin can we talk about if Russia rapidly reduced railway construction? If in 1896-1901 (the time the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed) in Russia, an average of 3100 versts of railroad tracks were built per year, in 1902-1903, 1902 versts each, and in 1908-1913 (it was the time of the reign of Stolypin and immediately after it) - a total of 719 miles. The reason is a catastrophic lack of money, which no Stolypin could overcome, and foreign loans for such construction were given only under government guarantees. By the way, they in many ways contributed to the pulling of Russia into the criminal First World War, which cost our country 4 million lives. After all, loans guaranteed by the government to Paris and London financial tycoons had to be repaid, with interest, but there was nothing to repay! Except, of course, with soldier’s lives ...
      Quote: captain
      Mr. Durnovo

      WARNED
      “a note from one of the firm and, of course, especially traumatic right-wingers — PN Durnovo, who predicted what consequences the impending war would have for Russia,” noted a prominent church historian, conservative man ND Talberg.
      The content of this rather voluminous document is well reflected in the headings of the sections of the “Note” given to it already when it was published in Soviet Russia: 1. The future Anglo-German war will turn into an armed clash between two groups of powers; 2. It is difficult to grasp any real benefits received by Russia as a result of rapprochement with England; 3. The main groups in the coming war; 4. The main burden of the war will fall on Russia; 5. The vital interests of Germany and Russia do not clash anywhere; 6. In the field of economic interests, Russian benefits and needs do not contradict German ones; 7. Even a victory over Germany promises Russia extremely unfavorable prospects; 8. The struggle between Russia and Germany is deeply undesirable for both sides as being reduced to weakening the monarchist principle; 9. Russia will be plunged into hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which is difficult to foresee; 10. Germany, in case of defeat, has to survive no less social upheaval than Russia; 11. The peaceful cohabitation of cultural nations is most threatened by the desire of England to maintain its dominance over the seas that is escaping it. "Https://topwar.ru/60983-prorochestvo-pet
      ra-durnovo.html
      You sometimes, at least read something other than anti-Soviet yellow brochures or refrain from commenting where you don’t understand anything at all.
  8. +3
    3 2017 June
    Article minus. It is impossible to take seriously a person who speaks of Stolypin's "class limitation". And the passage about the revolution in 1912, due to the possible success of the reforms, is delusional. In fact, the reforms carried out by Witte and Stolypin led to a significant growth of the Russian economy. More details about this can be found in the monograph by Mikhail Davydov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, “Twenty Years Before the Great War. Russian Modernization of Witte-Stolypin.”
    1. +2
      3 2017 June
      darling PoruchikTeterin, but essentially nothing to tell you apparently! lol
      1. +3
        3 2017 June
        That is, at least to look for a book I have called do political beliefs bother you?
    2. +2
      3 2017 June
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      In fact, the reforms carried out by Witte and Stolypin led to a significant growth of the Russian economy

      Are you seriously considering this balcony?
      It is not surprising ... BUT already in the second year of the “Stolypin reform” the country was struck by the all-Russian famine, during which more than 20 provinces were starving, and in 1911-1912 the next, even more severe famine fell on Russia, covering 60 provinces. Then on the brink of starvation were 30 million people.
      So, according to modern Russian experts, Russia's share in world exports decreased from 5,2 percent in 1885 (during the reign of Alexander III) to 4,5 percent in that very year of 1913, according to which we can summarize the entire Stolypin "reform ".
      So, contrary to the efforts of today's propagandists, including you, Poruchik Teterin, to introduce Russia to the times of Stolypin and right after it, almost as the most prosperous state of the then world, which in fact it was losing its pace of development, more and more lagging behind Western countries, IMPOSSIBLE.
      1. +2
        3 2017 June
        Quote: Pancir026
        the country suffered a famine during which hunger over 20 provinces

        Crop failure. Weather.
        1. +3
          3 2017 June
          Quote: Dart2027
          Crop failure. Weather.

          When ... and when they say that hunger in the Volga region, it is nature, therefore a crop failure, plus the consequences of the Civil unleashed by the Whites, all the Bolsheviks are to blame.
          When they talk about the famine at 30, they again keep quiet that the weather, therefore the crop failure, was such, they forget about the actions of the Trotskyists and other unfinished ....., but again they blame everything on the Bolsheviks. Why are you so inconsistent?
          1. +3
            3 2017 June
            White civilians, you say, have begun? So in your opinion, Denikin and Wrangel raised an armed uprising on October 25, 1917? Or did Kolchak order the execution of a demonstration in support of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918?
            1. 0
              3 2017 June
              Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
              White civilians, you say, have begun?

              Do you doubt it?
              Periodization of the Civil War

              There are 4 stages in the history of the Civil War:

              The first stage: the summer of 1917 - November 1918 - the formation of the main centers of the anti-Bolshevik movement

              The second stage: November 1918 - April 1919 - the beginning of the intervention of the Entente.

              Reasons for the intervention:

              - get rid of the Soviet power;

              - protect your interests;

              - fear of socialist influence.

              The third stage: May 1919 - April 1920 - the simultaneous struggle of Soviet Russia against the white armies and troops of the Entente

              The fourth stage: May 1920 - November 1922 (summer 1923) - the defeat of the White armies, the end of the civil war
              Separate episodes of the Civil War took place already in 1917 (the February events of 1917, the July "half-uprising" in Petrograd, the performance of Kornilov, the October battles in Moscow and other cities), and in the spring and summer of 1918 it acquired a large-scale, front-line character .
              Will you challenge?
              1. +3
                3 2017 June
                Of course I will dispute.
                Firstly, who is the author of this periodization?
                Secondly, why does this author write about the formation of the anti-Bolshevik movement in the summer of 1917, ignoring the fact that the Bolsheviks had not yet seized power?
          2. +2
            3 2017 June
            Quote: Pancir026
            but again they blame everything on the Bolsheviks. why are you so inconsistent

            I never said anything like that, but I read all the stories that "the Holodomor was organized by Stalin with the goal ..." But this does not at all follow that crop failures in the Republic of Ingushetia were caused by some reforms. As a matter of fact, the problem of periodic crop failures was still under Ivan the Terrible, and the government had nothing to do with it, although in our time there are other technologies for managing agricultural production, but this is another matter.
            Quote: Pancir026
            plus the consequences of the Civil unleashed by the Whites

            GV was inevitable and it was pointless to say that it was unleashed by one or the other. How do you imagine a complete redistribution of property without a fight? No way.
      2. +3
        3 2017 June
        You write nonsense here. Here is a quote from p. 133 of my study: "
        In January 1907, A. S. Ermolov accepted the proposal to head a very representative
        Comprehensive Central Committee for the provision of medical and food
        assistance to the population of the affected provinces. Actively working in this field, he, in
        in particular, he personally got acquainted with the state of affairs on the ground and did not know what he was writing about
        by hearsay.
        Analyzing the steady desire of the press to enlarge the minds of readers,
        the headquarters of the crop failure consequences of 1906–1907. and at the same time discredit the food
        government assistance, examining in great detail the dishonest practices to which
        eye she resorted to this 1
        , a special section of his monograph, Ermolov called “Pre-
        increased rumors of starvation. ”
        Turning "to those terrible manifestations of hunger - to starvation and
        murders inclusive, about which they also wrote so much and shouted, "he says
        following: “There is no doubt that there have been many cases of deaths from
        Diseases developed on the basis of malnutrition, mainly from different types of typhoid.
        There were places of an outbreak of scarlet fever, which claimed, perhaps, more victims than
        usually with this disease, because both typhoid and scarlet fever were already affected
        weakened organisms. There were, although very rare, deaths from scurvy, which
        also very weakens the body and sometimes for long months, from swelling of the limbs,
        cripples people.
        But, according to the report of all the Zemstvo leaders I interviewed, representatives
        Of the Red Cross, members of the local medical administration - if you don’t believe
        us the general administration - not a single death directly from a
        yes, from the complete absence of any food, not to mention suicides
        or the killing of children due to starvation, was not recorded once and nowhere. "
        1. 0
          3 2017 June
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          You write nonsense here.

          Well, why are you writing it?
          Enlighten yourself.
          Sources:
          Zemsky reference book for 1913, comp. P.A. Golubev
          Volzhskiy Slovo # 1426 "A brief outline of the Government Food Campaign"
          Public assistance to the starving in the Samara province in 1911-1912 Report of the Samara Department of the Public Health Protection Society. Samara, 1913.

          All photos were taken by Zemstvo photographers in 1911-12.
          Tags: RI, Stolypin, Famine 1911-12, Hunger Story
          http://d-clarence.livejournal.com/100759.html
          1. +3
            3 2017 June
            I actually gave you a quotecontemporary those events that participated in their investigation.
            1. 0
              4 2017 June
              Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
              contemporary of those events

              Give a magnifier?
              Zemsky reference book for 1913, comp. P.A. Golubev
              Volzhskiy Slovo # 1426 "A brief outline of the Government Food Campaign"
              Public assistance to the starving in the Samara province in 1911-1912 Report of the Samara Department of the Public Health Protection Society. Samara, 1913.
              All photos were taken by Zemstvo photographers in 1911-12.
              1. +3
                4 2017 June
                You need a magnifier here. The information given does not contradict my material. There were food problems, but the government solved them. And by the way, the starving people in your photos do not look exhausted by the lack of food. And, unlike the Soviet periods of famine, there are no cases of cannibalism:
                1. 0
                  4 2017 June
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  The information given does not contradict

                  Not ... you still need a magnifying glass ... I have to consider this photo-job something worthy of attention?
                  In hungry winters, the situation of the peasant and his family is terrible. He eats all sorts of nasty things. Acorns, tree bark, marsh grass, straw, everything goes to food. Moreover, he has nothing to buy salt. He is almost poisoned; he has diarrhea, swells or dries; are terrible diseases. Milk could still help, but he sold the last cow, and the dying man often, as they say, has nothing to take his soul away from. Women lose milk in their breasts and infants die like flies. No one knows this because no one dares to write, or speak loudly about it; and how many look into the peasant's shacks? But it’s no secret that hungry years are not rare events; they, on the contrary, appear periodically.

                  (Note by A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky "On the Serfdom in Russia" 1841)
                  https://scisne.net/t-548
                  And for this, in modern times, do not want to answer?
                  http://www.demographia.ru/articles_N...=23&id
                  Art = 1350
                  Cannibalism under the guise of "high technology"
                  1. Investing cannibalism as a way to "increase money tenfold" in the "crisis period"
                  At present, a group of influential medical technocrats holding senior positions in Russian healthcare and medical science are persistently lobbying for the promotion of so-called “fetal therapy” in the country.
                  Fetal therapy is based on the removal and use of tissues of human embryos and fetuses (lat. Fetus), whose life is artificially interrupted at different stages of pregnancy, most often at 15–22 weeks. Fetal - germinal - cells are introduced into the body of people suffering from various diseases, as well as to “rejuvenate” the aging organism, and even used in the manufacture of cosmetics.
                  For example, fetal therapy is promoted on the website of the so-called Institute of High Technologies.
                  1. +3
                    5 2017 June
                    For you, a document - a photo-toad? Then what can you talk about if you even ignore documentary evidence.
                    Question: what does a certain work of 1841 have to do with Stolypin’s reforms? (I’ll add that the hunger years in the mid-19th century were all over the world, regularly, and not only in Russia)
                    And another question: what is the relation to the topic of discussion of modern mad scientists, “scientists”, on whom the Criminal Code cries?
  9. +1
    4 2017 June
    Quote: Pancir026
    Actually, they gave you more than a detailed answer, have you forgotten how to read ???

    Actually, I also gave a detailed answer, but for some reason my opponent did not like it.
    1. 0
      4 2017 June
      Quote: Dart2027
      also gave a detailed answer, but for some reason the opponent did not like it

      Because your answer, so to speak, is not complete, does not correspond to reality, is not confirmed by serious research.
      But what your opponent says is confirmed at least like this.
      Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. (Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church) / Comp., Author of the preface and comments M.A. Babkin - M .: Indrik, 2006 .-- 504 p .; silt. ISBN 5-85759-351-4
      Telegram to the chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko of the congress of clergy and laity of the 1st deanery district of the Kotelnic district of the Vyatka diocese

      25 May 1917 city

      The congress of the clergy and laity of the first [deanery] district of the Kotelnic uyezd of the Vyatka diocese welcomes the Provisional Government, which overthrew the chains of slavery, brought Russia to the path of free creative work and freed the Church from the yoke of Caesarapapism.

      RGIA. F. 1278. On. 5. 1917. D. 1292. L. 174. The original.
      1. +2
        4 2017 June
        Quote: Pancir026
        Oh ... well, then ... finally recognized ...
        You do not confuse me with anyone? I wrote this more than once.
        Quote: Pancir026
        and remained in History only as an example of talkers and clumsy people, unlike Lenin.
        But where are Lenin’s ideas implemented right now? Loser, there's nothing to be done.
        Quote: Pancir026
        Have you read the article?
        Read. The fact that belonging to one class does not mean "peace, friendship, chewing gum" is news for you?
        Quote: Pancir026
        Because your answer, so to speak, is not complete, does not correspond to reality, is not confirmed by serious research.
        Then why should I consider your sources serious? And where are they? I gave a specific answer on a specific question (though I didn’t raise this topic) - do you have other information? So show, I do not mind, just not common words.
        Quote: Pancir026
        Telegram to the chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko of the congress of clergy and laity of the 1st deanery district of the Kotelnic district of the Vyatka diocese
        And how does this quote relate to the discussion? If you forgot, then the article gives an attempt to explain some social problems (this is how I see the suffering General Alekseev, the poor man is sobbing directly) a banal palace coup in February 1917, and we started talking about Stolypin's reforms and the development of RI. This has nothing to do with either. Yes, and it is interesting what then these lay people thought when they ended up in a country whose religion is communism?
        Quote: Pancir026
        Well, that is, you acknowledge that Stalin, in the wake of Lenin, understood that the founders sometimes had something with respect to Russia that was not applicable to the realities of the country and attempts to use their words were trotted out by politicians and idle talkers.
        Well, that is, you acknowledge that in the USSR only those articles of Marx and Engels were published that did not blur their bright image, and the rest was discarded? With the fact that, for the sake of a new ideology, history also corresponded then, will you also not argue?
        Quote: Pancir026
        drawing directly Russophobic thoughts from Engels' article on this basis
        Well, that is, do you acknowledge that Engels was a Russophobe? Then what are you unhappy with when you are told about this? Are you already confused?
        Just in case, I immediately clarify that to those who spilled the USSR I have the same attitude as to those who destroyed RI.
        1. 0
          4 2017 June
          Quote: Dart2027
          But where are Lenin’s ideas implemented right now? Loser, there's nothing to be done.

          Are you talking about yourself, in the sense of "loser-s"?
          Why, then, Russia abandoned the communist ideology ?!
          It was not Russia, not the people who refused, but the then pro-American liberal state apparatus, which sought to include the corresponding prohibitive article in the country's Constitution. Among the people, the communist ideology is alive (how alive are the memories of the best that socialism gave the country even in its incomplete phase, even not fully realized). Today in Russia this ideology of fraternity and equality is noticeably synthesizing with its primary principle - with Christianity, or more precisely - with Orthodoxy.
          PRC and SRV, Cuba, DPRK, in Sweden, on work About the Cooperation. All agriculture is organized .. study at least something ..
          Quote: Dart2027
          Yes, and it is interesting what then these lay people thought when they ended up in a country whose religion is communism?

          They broke the very temples and drove the long-maned, you will deny it?
          Quote: Dart2027
          Well, that is, you acknowledge that in the USSR only those articles of Marx and Engels were published that did not blur their bright image, and the rest was discarded? With the fact that, for the sake of a new ideology, history also corresponded then, will you also not argue?

          That is, you admit that you have a small mind, you are a loser and don’t understand that the basis is taken from the teachings of Marx and Engels, and not their assessment of tsarist Russia? Moreover, they are not applicable to Soviet Russia in any way? intellectuals who do not learn lessons?
          And for you terra incognita, the idea that an idea, which does not develop, turns into a dogma, dies and loses its attractiveness-WHAT is done by such clever people as you from the 60s of the last century — are you apparently proud of this? China took into account the lesson.
          Quote: Dart2027
          Well, that is, do you acknowledge that Engels was a Russophobe? Then what are you unhappy with when you are told about this? Are you already confused?

          Do you build your dubious knowledge on quotes from this? Quotes are copied from this article: http://www.novdelo.ru/article.php?i...07e9c5d47d4
          8406
          Author anti-Soviet and liberalist Vadim ANDRYUKHIN: http://www.politkuhnya.ru/prep_geto...hin20041012
          .jpg
          And here is an explanation for you. Learn the materiel.
          http://new-communist.livejournal.com/54897.html
          Now about how Marx and Engels are Russophobes:
          Here are some information from the book “The Great Founders of Marxism” Moscow, 1972 and the preface to the volumes of “Works”.
          "Marx called the movement of the serf peasantry of Russia the greatest event in the world."
          “Since 1861, Engels wrote, in Russia the development of modern industry begins on a scale worthy of a great people.”
          “Russia is the forefront of the revolutionary movement in Europe” (from the preface to the Manifesto)
          “Engels began studying the Russian language in the early 50s. In a letter to Marx dated September 7, 1852, he noted that he studied the Russian language with pleasure. Since 1869, Marx also began to study the Russian language persistently. Within a few months, Engels congratulated Marx on his successes in Russian.
          There were hundreds of Russian books in the library of Marx and Engels, including works by Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Herzen, Plekhanov, Kovalevsky, Flerovsky, Lavrov, Semevsky, Engelgart, Chicherin, Kostomarov and many others. ”
          “The knowledge of the Russian language,” Engels wrote, “of a language that in every way deserves to be studied in and of itself, as one of the strongest and richest of living languages, and for the sake of the literature it reveals, is now not so rare ..."


          8. Last remark. Even if Marx and Engels were terrible Russophobes, why did you get the idea that this has something to do with the Bolsheviks? The Bolsheviks differ from Orthodox Marxists in that they are creative Marxists. That is, they wanted to spit on Marx when there is a contradiction to Russia's interests or business. The Bolsheviks themselves criticized M. and E. be healthy. After all, everyone understands that it is human nature to make mistakes, especially in political matters.

          So your hatred of Marx and Engels and their monuments is not justified by anything.
          1. +1
            4 2017 June
            Quote: Pancir026
            Are you talking about yourself, in the sense of "loser-s"?
            No about Lenin. His ideas were utopian.
            Quote: Pancir026
            It was not Russia, not the people who refused, but the then pro-American liberal state apparatus, which sought to include the corresponding prohibitive article in the country's Constitution.
            And is it nothing that this apparatus just came to power after the communism project collapsed?
            Quote: Pancir026
            Among the people, the communist ideology is alive (how alive are the memories of the best that socialism gave the country even in its incomplete phase, even not fully realized).
            Actually, memories are alive. Yes, in the USSR there was a lot of good, but there wasn’t a new humanity there, so building socialism or communism would not work anyway.
            Quote: Pancir026
            Today in Russia this ideology of fraternity and equality is noticeably synthesizing with its primary principle - with Christianity, or more precisely, with Orthodoxy.
            They broke the very temples and drove the long-maned, you will deny it?
            You already decide, huh? And you never answered how sideways this refers to the discussion.
            Quote: Pancir026
            That is, you admit that you have a small mind, you are a loser and don’t understand that the basis is taken from the teachings of Marx and Engels, and not their assessment of tsarist Russia? Moreover, they are not applicable to Soviet Russia in any way? intellectuals who do not learn lessons?
            That is, essentially nothing to say?
            Quote: Pancir026
            Do you build your dubious knowledge on quotes from this? Quotes are copied from this article: http://www.novdelo.ru/article.php?i...07e9c5d47d4
            Excuse me, I cited the example of "Stalin I. V. Compositions" volume 14, which I wrote about by the way.
            Quote: Pancir026
            Last remark. Even if Marx and Engels were terrible Russophobes, why did you get the idea that this has something to do with the Bolsheviks? The Bolsheviks differ from Orthodox Marxists in that they are creative Marxists. That is, they wanted to spit on Marx when there is a contradiction to Russia's interests or business. The Bolsheviks themselves criticized M.E.
            That is, you first begin to assure that they were just Russophiles, then you admit that they are Russophobes? Original. Regarding criticism, I myself, in the comments on this article, gave an example of such criticism, critical remarks by Stalin, and his opinion that Engels’s article should not be published in the USSR.
            By the way, what do you think of Engels' opinion on the development of industry in the Republic of Ingushetia?
  10. 0
    4 2017 June
    Quote: Dart2027
    Do you think that the compilers of these volumes were so “alternatively smart” that they would include this?


    Firstly, there are photocopies (on the net) of early publishers.

    Secondly, even in earlier editions there is no such phrase, including on photocopies, but the source of this “quote (at least I managed to find) from an article by one patient on the head of comrade Vadim Andryukhin. I repeat: do not read the lousy newspapers ! If you have evidence of this "quote", then please provide them!

    Quote: Dart2027
    Here is Stalin's curious opinion about one article by Engels, and the corresponding recommendation


    As I thought ... you are a consumer of articles and unfortunately absolutely ignorant in these matters. Stalin has the works of 13 volumes and all of them were released in the 1951 year.

    After in 1965, the Hoover Institute for War, Revolution and Peace (Stanford University) graduated vol. 14-16, however, their content was slightly different from the planned Soviet edition:
    t. 14 - works from 1934 before the war
    T. 15 - works of war
    t. 16 - post-war work.
    The Short Course was not included in the collection, since Stalin was not its author, but only participated in writing as a co-editor. What the Americans could have written in the era of the struggle against communism is clear to everyone.

    Other:
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 14. March 1934 - June 1941. - M.: Information and Publishing Center "Union", 2007
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 15. Part 1. June 1941 - February 1943. - M .: ITRK, 2010
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 15. Part 2. February 1943 - November 1944. - M .: ITRK, 2010
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 15. Part 3. November 1944 - September 1945. - M .: ITRK, 2010
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 16. Part 1. September 1945 - December 1948. - M .: ITRK, 2011
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 16. Part 2. January 1949 - February 1953. - M.: Rychenkov, 2012
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 17. 1895 — 1932 years. - Tver: the company "Northern Crown", 2004
    Stalin I.V. Works. Tom 18. 1917 — 1953 years. - M.: Information and Publishing Center "Union", 2006


    Moreover, there are no photocopies of the original works, although a small part is in the GARF !. The anti-advisers worked very well in the volumes! Beginning in 2007, an alternative edition of additional volumes of Stalin's collected works was published in Russia. Compared with the American edition, these volumes, on the one hand, include a number of articles and letters of Stalin, which became known only after the opening of archives in the 1990-ies. On the other hand, they also contain a number of unreliable or falsified sources, for example, Stalin’s conversation with “Generals Dzhuga and Lavrov” (non-existent personalities). In general, there is essentially half the truth!

    Therefore, it is difficult to name Stalin’s opinion without the original source, as well as name the colors or smells that irritated him (at least without his writing about it with his signature).
    1. 0
      4 2017 June
      Quote: Saburov
      In general, there is essentially half the truth!

      I understand correctly that to distinguish lies and falsification in the works of Stalin, published after the 1951 of the year, is it possible only to a professional historian? And how, then, are things with the works of Lenin?
      1. 0
        5 2017 June
        Quote: There was a mammoth
        I understand correctly that to distinguish lies and falsification in the works of Stalin, published after the 1951 of the year, is it possible only to a professional historian? And how, then, are things with the works of Lenin?


        Approximately the same unfortunately. And often, Lenin’s foreign editions are much more accurate (unlike the originals) than Russian ones.
        1. 0
          5 2017 June
          Quote: Saburov
          Approximately the same unfortunately.

          Sneaky! This is how much money, specialists were attracted.
    2. +1
      5 2017 June
      That is, everything is falsified, and only by anti-Soviet, and the Communists themselves are all in white?
      1. +1
        5 2017 June
        Quote: Dart2027
        That is, everything is falsified, and only by anti-Soviet, and the Communists themselves are all in white?


        Of course not! But in 80% of cases, the lie that is attributed to the Communists does not have any reasoned ground. Because lie and communism are ideological opponents!
        1. 0
          6 2017 June
          Quote: Saburov
          Because lie and communism are ideological opponents!

          In theory, it may be, but in practice - a communist is a person, and human politics has always been dirt. Otherwise, we would have lived under communism.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"