Military Review

October 1917 - regularity or randomness

October 1917 - regularity or randomnessOn the eve of the 100 anniversary of the Great October Revolution in Russia, the ninth wave of anti-Soviet propaganda passed.

In 1868, Alexander Ostrovsky in the play “Every Wise Man Enough Simplicity” brought up a comedic character who wrote a treatise “On the dangers of reform in general”. All Russia laughed at this. Well, now wise politicians and professors in all seriousness argue about the harm of revolutions in general, that Russia has exhausted the limit on revolutions, etc. I do not want to argue with them, so as not to repel bread from psychiatrists.

Naturally, drinking pills is better than lying on a complex operation, and evolution is preferable to revolution. Only modes capable of operational evolution can withstand the struggle for survival. Lag in political, economic and scientific evolution leads either to a bloody revolution, or to the death of the entire state.


The Mongol invasion and 200 years of subordination to the Golden Horde led to a slowdown in the rate of evolution, and in some cases to regress in the Russian principalities. This was facilitated by the trade, scientific and cultural blockade declared in the XII century by the Roman popes, Polish, Swedish and German feudal lords. So Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV became the first revolutionaries in Russia. I note that Ivan III was the first to receive the nickname “Grozny”, and only after a century - his “ferocious grandson”.

Three Moscow sovereigns slaughtered or expelled from the country most of the princes of Rurikovich, who had ruled in Russia for almost six centuries, and made the survivors their slaves.

That Moscow princes began scrapping the feudal system in Russia. Ivan III introduced the system of regionalism, which radically broke the system of governance of the Russian principalities. According to her, the most prominent person was considered not by his pedigree, but by how important his ancestors occupied in the hierarchy of the Moscow principality. Localism helped to convert the serfs and sons of the grand princes of Tver, Ryazan, Smolensk and to equalize their rights with ordinary Moscow noblemen.

However, in general, the system of Moscow regionalism was a marasmus, and already in the time of Alexei Mikhailovich, decrees were issued that on such a hike or on such a holiday "to be without places." In 1682, localism was officially banned, and bit books are set on fire.

In addition, three Moscow rulers completely cut out all their near and distant relatives, making an exception for only a few women sent to monasteries. The right of departure was taken away from the boyars and princes, and Yuryev's day was taken from the peasants.

The Great Smoot 1603 — 1618's threw Russia back. The country was made great by two more revolutionaries, Peter and Catherine, who were given the titles “Great” and “Great” by the nobles and the people. Neither before nor after in Russia there were no great kings. But the great monarchs had great mistakes.

In 1762, Catherine the Great issues a decree on the liberty of the nobility. That is, the nobles are not obliged to serve the state. Thus, the centuries-old “social contract” was violated, and the peasants got every reason to look at the nobles as idlers and parasites.

Catherine the Great, during her reign, annexed the empire of 15 provinces. But worthless is the price of that province, where only 3 – 5% of the Russian people are in the population. Similar gubernias keep only on bayonets. Both Ivana and Peter the Great would have issued a decree, and thousands of landowners with tens of thousands of serfs would set off without a murmur to explore the Crimea and New Russia. And Catherine fought like a fish on the ice, picking up people in new provinces, sending Germans, Serbs, Little Russians, and Jews to New Russia. The result was a new Russia, but not very Russian.

Catherine returned to the Russian state all the western lands of the Old Russian state. Peasants and the vast majority of townspeople of cities spoke there in Russian and professed the Orthodox faith. To secure these provinces to Russia, it required nothing at all — several thousand middle and lower managers and several thousand teachers. But the Empress did not have any of them because of serfdom! Noblemen, at the very least, went as officers to the guards regiments, but dismiss as a schoolmaster in Volyn or as a schoolteacher. And their serfs were not given. As a result, Poles remained managers and teachers, who raised at least six generations of Little Russians in the spirit of Russophobia. The pans did not hesitate, they snooped: “Not us, not you”.


Alexander II freed the peasants. This is a half-truth, if not a lie. Peasants were required to pay 49 for their meager allotments for years, and most of the land was left to the landlords.

Landlord farming at the beginning of the 19th century was generally ineffective. Yes, take the same Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin. His father in 1830 gave him 200 male souls with their families in the village of Kistenevo in the Nizhny Novgorod province. Sergey Pushkin himself in this estate had 474 souls, of which 200 were mortgaged for debts. The remaining souls the father gave to his son as a wedding gift.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the landlords laid down 5% of serfs, 30% by the 42 years, and by the 1859 year, already 65%. Many landowner estates burdened with debts “went under the hammer”: by the 1833 year from the 127 thousands of noble families of the 18 thousands had no serfs, and by the 1859 year such families numbered 27 thousand. state credit institutions, reached an astronomical magnitude - 425 million rubles, which is twice the annual income in the budget of the country.

It is not excluded that the crisis with landowner land ownership would be significantly reduced if the kings did not climb into this question at all. But, alas, they supported the degrading landlord farms with all their might.

Pledged estates regularly went under the hammer. If in 1886, 166 noble estates were sold for debts, in 1893, 2237 was sold.

To help landowners in the 1880-ies, two banks were founded: Noble Land Bank, which on favorable terms gave landowners loans on the security of land, and Peasant Land Bank, which accepted land from landowners for sale to peasants and, thanks to its monopoly, maintained high price level.

In addition, the king and queen annually gave landowners, at their request, hundreds of thousands of rubles to support the ruined estates.

Thus, in the early twentieth century, the landlords' estates were unprofitable collective farms of the Brezhnev era. By 1912, landlords in Russia produced less than a quarter of marketable bread.

In parallel with the exacerbation of the peasant question, the decay of the Russian nobility proceeded. There are two philosophical systems and two legal doctrines. According to the first, God made people equal, and they should have rights and privileges in accordance with their personal merits. According to the second, the rights and privileges of people are determined by their origin. The last doctrine will be called feudal law. Let's try according to him to assess the state of the Russian nobility at the beginning of the XX century.

The first three or four centuries of the rule of Rurikovich completely corresponded to the classical feudal law. Yes, Rurik fought with each other, blinded and killed their relatives. But on the princely table was not allowed any squad or boyar. I’m not talking about the smerds - the stokers, the hare merchants, choristers, etc.

In the first four centuries of the Rurik rule all princes were born from legitimate wives. Needless to say that Rurikovich were normal men and had several, and sometimes several dozen concubines. But not a single bastard (bastard) could even think about the throne.


The merits of Peter the Great are indisputable to Russia, but he delivered many terrible blows on feudal law and on feudal and church morality.

Peter I, introducing the Table of Ranks in 1722, legalized the possibility of the transition of people "from a low breed" to the nobility. At the same time, the former ranks — the boyars, the stewards, and others — were abolished. First time in stories Russia were divided civilian and military ranks.

On the basis of the Table of Ranks (paragraphs 5, 11 and 15), all persons of any origin who reached the first officer's rank - XIV class (ensign), received hereditary nobility (transferred to children and wife).

Finally, Peter I and his heirs appropriated the right to distribute titles of barons and earls, which were not there before, and also princes, who previously had such title only “by blood”.

Production in the counts, barons and princes was carried out in a purely Asian way at the whim of the monarch. No regulatory documents, such as when and for what you can give these titles, of course, was not.

And by the end of the XIX century, that is, in less than two centuries, the Romanovs produced 310 (!) Count families and 240 (!) Baronial ones. Of these, a good half were “guest workers” from abroad. In addition, there were 250 Russian princely families, the vast majority of whom were made princes in the XVIII and XIX centuries.

According to the 1897 census, 125,68 million people lived in Russia. Of these, hereditary noblemen 1222 thousand (0,97% of the total population), personal nobles 631 thousand (0,5%) and clergy - 589 thousand (0,47%).

In order to preserve the income of the nobility, the Russian tsars systematically opposed the interests of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state.

Thus, in the 30 – 40s of the 19th century, Estonians and Latvians began to massively switch from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy. A truly wild situation developed: the Orthodox Tsar Nicholas I, the official head of the Orthodox Church, organized repressions against Baltic peasants who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. According to official data, more than 74 thousand Latvians have converted to Orthodoxy. Lutheran shepherds forbade the burial of deceased Orthodox Latvians in village cemeteries. And the king-father sent troops against them.

I would not believe it myself, having read about it in the work of the Soviet historian. But, alas, all of the above is taken from the book of Patriarch Alexy II "Orthodoxy in Estonia."

Later, the German propagandists and local nationalists will place all the responsibility for the 1905 — 1906 massacre solely on the Russians, more precisely, on the Russian people as a whole.

But it was the Germans who for centuries made it impossible to bring the Russian people and the peoples of the Baltic states closer together. Imagine for a second if Peter I or Catherine II had expelled the Germans from the Baltic. Estonians and Latvians just physically could not accept the enlightenment and culture from the Russians. Add more economic factors, and in the Baltics over two or three centuries, what would have happened in the Vologda region or on Izhora land (in the Neva region) would have happened, that is, almost complete Russification of the population.


At the end of the 50-x - the beginning of the 60-s of the XIX century, the Tatars began to leave the Crimea en masse. They were abetted by local religious leaders, as well as the government of the Ottoman Empire, who promised them the most fertile lands in Bulgaria and other places. By this time in Istanbul they realized that it was almost impossible to keep the Balkans without their settlement by Muslims.

It would seem that Alexander II should have been delighted. But then the Crimean landlords and bureaucrats headed by Count Vorontsov came running. They began to argue that, supposedly, until the Russian men moved to the Crimea, the landowner economy would suffer enormous damage. As a result, no one stopped the Tatars with rifle fire and many left. But the Crimean authorities did everything possible to make it difficult for the Tatars to leave.

And here are a few numbers on “agrarian riots”. 16 April 1902 of the year (April 3 under Art. Art.). Punitive troops suppressed the Poltava-Kharkiv peasant uprising (9. 03 — 3. 04. 1902 under Art. Art.), During which 336 landlord estates and savings were crushed by 105 peasants. The 1092 of the arrested peasants were subsequently brought to justice, of which 836 people were sentenced to imprisonment.

In addition, at least dozens of peasants were killed, and hundreds punished with whips. In the suppression of peasant uprisings in 1902, in the Ukraine, over 200 thousand (!) Infantrymen, cavalrymen and gunners took part, that is, more than Kutuzov had in the Battle of Borodino.

In February 1905, the peasant uprisings resumed in the Kursk, Oryol and Chernihiv gubernias. They began with the withdrawal of grain reserves in landlord economies and distribution among the population of the surrounding villages, which once again met hand-to-hand spring.

In the autumn of 1905, the peasant movement encompassed more than half of European Russia, almost all regions of landlord tenure. In total for 1905 year, 3228 peasant speeches were registered, for 1906 year - 2600, for 1907 year - 1337.

In August, 1906, the governor of the Stavropol province, Yevgeny Felsikovich Elsner, denounced St. Petersburg: “Yesterday, a serious revolutionary center arrived in the village of Petrovskoye. Artillery fired seven grenades. However, the population persists, does not extradite members of the committee. This morning I'll start shelling again. In the next village Konstantinovsky spent three days. The artillery made eleven shots, after which the peasants drew up a sentence of humility and issued the rest of the committee members on September 1. ”

According to various estimates, 1905 — 1907 years in European Russia were destroyed from 3 to 4 in thousands of noble estates, that is, from 7 to 10% of their total number.

In 1917, the mass seizure of landlords began immediately after the abdication of Nicholas II, and the Bolsheviks at first had nothing to do with it.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, in April 1917, 205 of “agrarian unrest” was recorded, in May - 258, and in June - 1122! And according to the Encyclopedia "The Great October Socialist Revolution" 1977, published in March - June 1917, only Great Russian provinces of Russia produced 2944 peasant appearances, and in September-October in 26 provinces of European Russia - over 3500 peasant appearances.

The total burning of the manor’s estates is a consequence of “class struggle,” as Soviet historians have argued, or the wildness and ignorance of the peasants, as is commonly believed now? Neither one nor the other. This is a competent calculation from both political and economic points of view.

Here, for example, does it make sense to burn a building of a private hydroelectric power station? Well, the peasants will burn it. And after the suppression of unrest the owner will return, will deliver a new, more powerful and cost-effective equipment. And then, even in a narrow circle, he will chuckle that the “red rooster” has sharply increased his income.

It was serfdom and its terrible consequences that neither Alexander II, nor his son and grandson wanted to eliminate, and became one of the main causes of the 1915 — 1907 revolutions and 1917 of the year, as well as the death of the Russian Empire.

The hatred of the peasants and farm laborers to the bars became the main cause of the terrible cruelty of both the Reds and the Whites in the Civil War.

But now we are paying for our short-sighted monarchs, who failed to integrate many regions of Russia.


The Bolsheviks in the 70 years fastened non-integrated regions with Marxist-Leninist ideology. In 1990 – 1991, the communist ideology and power collapsed, and a sluggish civil war began on the territory of the former USSR. Judging by its dynamics, now we see "flowers", and "berries" are still ahead.

The second no less important reason for the Russian revolution was the systemic crisis of empire management. Formally, the king had unlimited power in the empire.

I note that the term "autocracy" in Western Europe implies the publication by the monarch of laws according to his own understanding, and then the government in strict accordance with the established laws. And in the East, the khan could write any laws, and he could rule the country as he pleased.

It is not difficult to guess what type of autocracy existed in Russia. Here, for example, the Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich in 1891, he married the daughter of Prince Nassau. But Alexander III did not like the fact that Sofia’s mother, Countess von Merenberg (by the way, the daughter of A.S. Pushkin) gave birth to her in a second marriage. On this occasion, by imperial decree, marriage was considered fictitious. All the ranks and titles, awards and estates were taken from the disobedient. As a result, Mikhail Mikhailovich became a political émigré. He lived in England "idly, merrily, richly", together with Albert Vickers entered the Masonic Lodge and died in 1929, surrounded by three children.

Grand Prince Nikolai Konstantinovich presented several family diamonds to his mistress, actress Fanny Lear, in 1874. For this, Alexander II sent him to prison, and then to exile. There he stayed 43 (!) Of the year, and then was released by decree of the Minister of Justice Kerensky. The sufferer died of the flu in Tashkent and on January 18 1918 was buried near the Military St. George's Cathedral. A number of historians claim that the procession was headed by a detachment of the Red Guard, and "the orchestra blew copper": "You fell victim to the fateful fight ..." And indeed, Nikolai Konstantinovich was a prisoner of autocracy longer than any Decembrist or patriot.

But the grand dukes, General-Admiral Alexey Alexandrovich and General-Fieldmaker Sergey Mikhailovich dragged from the treasury for themselves and their metress Eliza Ballet and Matilda Kshesinskaya several million gold rubles and brought the fleet and artillery to the pen.

However, Tsar Nicholas II didn’t even threaten with his finger On the contrary, he regretted his uncle, who was called “the prince of Tsushima” - “Poor Alexey! He is not guilty of anything. ”

Alexander III and Nicholas II never spent the night in St. Petersburg, but only came from their country residences to the capital for several hours to conduct official ceremonies. As a result, any minister needed to visit the tsar in the Winter Palace, it took 5 – 10 minutes, in Tsarskoe Selo or Peterhof - a day or two, in Livadia or Finnish skerries - 7 and more days.

Everything that was not connected with the affairs of the Family, Nicholas II called "occupations." But the lion's share of these “occupations”, no less than 90%, could be carried out by the secretariat, the top and middle administration.

The king loved to accept subjects. “The performances were collective and individual:“ After the report, 21 people were received ”,“ Before breakfast, 56 people were received. military and sailors in the Rotunda ", we read in the book of Igor Zimin" Tsar's work. XIX - the beginning of the twentieth century. Daily life of the Russian Imperial Court ". It took a lot of time for numerous regimental holidays, reviews. At the same time, information on the state of the armed forces obtained during these events was close to zero.

And how many were quite anecdotal situations! For example, the ballet dancer of the Mariinsky Theater Matilda Kshesinskaya did not want to dance in fizz (underskirt). Who should solve the problem? Producer? Theater director? As a result, Matilda went to complain to the emperor. And Nicholas II entered into negotiations with the director of the theater, forcing him to remove his petticoat from Kshesinskaya.


By 1894, the control system of the Russian Empire no longer corresponded to the time. Formally, there was a Committee of Ministers in the country, but it was an empty talking room. Neither the cabinet minister, nor all the ministers together could influence his colleague. Each minister had the right to report directly to the king and reported only to the king. Such a system was tolerant in the XVIII - early XIX century, when a strong monarch, having advisers of the level of Panin, Potemkin, Bezborodko, Speransky and others, could directly manage the ministers. By the beginning of the twentieth century, only the amount of information delivered to the king increased many times. As Leo Tolstoy wrote caustically in 1895, the year: "... in the Kokan Khanate, all things could be considered one morning, and in Russia today, in order to govern the state, tens of thousands of daily decisions are needed."

This is how the typical adoption took place. The minister was accepted by the king one-on-one, without strangers. The minister reported, the king was silent, occasionally made insignificant remarks, but never entered into an argument. The audience took just a few minutes, only occasionally was delayed, there were never many wordy discussions.

In the morning, the king could take up to three or four ministers, and then ride a bike or shoot a raven. If the report was delayed, then the king was unhappy and wrote in his diary: "As a result, [the hearing of the report] was late for breakfast." In some cases, the king took the report, but he did not read it for long. Never in the 23 year of the reign did Nicholas II even write a couple of pages analyzing any report - rare notes are extremely laconic.

The author knows about the quality of reports to the tsar not according to his memoirs. When I, as a student, took the beautiful dear volume of sheets on 300 for the first time, “The All-Effort Report on the War Department” for Nicholas II, I almost cried. There was a chop. It was virtually impossible to understand the condition of the army. It was only clear that all was well. For example, it was said in the 1902 report for the year that there are about 11 thousand guns in the land fortresses. Well, seemingly not bad.

Only a few years later I found in the Military Historical Archive reports of military districts, polygons, the Main Artillery Directorate, etc., specially written for the preparation of the General Report. The most accurate information and in a very compressed form, where, how much and in what form of soldiers, horses, guns, machine guns, cartridges, shells, etc. And it turned out that by the year 1909 11 thousands of serf guns of large and medium caliber about 30% - sample 1877 of the year, 45% - sample 1867 of the year, 25% of smooth-bore systems since Nicholas I and ... not a single modern weapon!

From the reports of the districts, administrations and polygons a report was drawn up for the Minister of War. All data was filtered and combed, but still from this report it was more or less possible to present the real situation in the army. Then, on the basis of the report, the All-Giving Report, written in simple Russian, was made to the Minister. In some places, entertainment moments were interspersed, for example, about the lower ranks of the Jewish religion, funny incidents in the military court, etc. It was physically impossible to understand anything about the real state of affairs. Directly even send a report to Berlin or Vienna, to send them to the bedlam of their General Staff. It goes without saying that no analysis of the state of the Russian army or its comparison with the armies of potential opponents was made in the reports.

The same author saw in the reports of the Maritime Office. It is difficult to imagine a different picture in the reports of other ministers.

As early as 1900, Prince Trubetskoy wrote: “There is an autocracy for the police, governors-general and ministers. The tsar’s autocracy does not exist, since it knows only what comes to it through the complex system of “filters”, and thus the autocrat tsar, because of ignorance of the real situation in his country, is more limited in real exercise of his power than the monarch having direct ties with the elect of the people. "

In the Russian Empire, every official could afford to act not according to the law, but within the framework of what was permitted by his superiors. Well, who doubts this, let him look in Yandex at the actions of the Yalta governor Dumbadze, by the way, the favorite of Nicholas II.

Emperor Nicholas II and his ministers did not have strategic plans either in foreign or domestic policy, but only responded to the current situation. So, by February 1917, the goals of the war were not worked out - what to do with Galicia, with Armenia, with Poland, etc. All that is known about the internal plans after the war, this letter from Empress Nicholas II with the proposal after the war "to punish the enemies of our Friend", and send demobilized soldiers to the construction of railways in order to avoid agrarian unrest.

The struggle against separatism in 1894 — 1917 has been reduced to dozens of prohibitions and dozens of their repeals. The country was going to disaster. But the fact that the peasants and workers worked hard and gave birth to children, and the merchants increased the capital, there was no merit of the Romanovs.

In the Livadia Palace, I saw a stand where it was claimed that thanks to the Romanovs, Russian literature had become the best in the world. What a great fellow! Pushkin and Lermontov were banished to exile, Dostoevsky was nearly shot, then sent to penal servitude, Count Tolstoy was searched, and then they were followed up with dozens of agents. Mayakovsky was sent to prison. Hundreds of works of classics banned. So we became “ahead of the rest” in the field of literature.


Could there be an alternative to the 1917 revolution of the year? Naturally, was. Our service historians hide from us that the majority of Russian tsars were elected. And they chose their "big battalions." The first elected king was Boris Godunov. And loyal to the stable boyar of the archery regiments built him to the throne, and the Council stamped this decision.

False Dmitry I and Vasily Shuisky also chose the “big battalions”. At the end of 1612, Prince Pozharsky dismissed the noble militia, and as a result Tush Cossacks “chose” 16-year-old Mishka Romanov - “Small is stupid, but ours, Tushinsky! And his father served as the patriarch of the Tushino thief. "

Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna was chosen by the archery regiments, and Petr Alekseevich - amusing regiments. Accordingly, the Guard chose Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizabeth, Catherine II and Alexander I.

But in December 1825, the Guards Coup ended in failure. Nicholas I, instead of carrying out radical reforms in the army and the country, turned Guards officers into non-speculative martinet. Unfortunately, in the Russian Empire over 80% of generals, governors and ministers came from among the officers of the guard.

Theoretically, the Guards Coup could have guided Russia along the evolutionary path to the 1904 year. Russia's defeat in the war with Japan ruled out this possibility. The Russian patient could not have been helped by any pills, but a complicated operation was required.

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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parusnik
    parusnik 7 October 2017 07: 41
    Accident - a chain of unrevealed patterns, said ancient philosophers.
    1. Finches
      Finches 7 October 2017 09: 22
      In my opinion Plekhanov said:“There is not a single historical fact which would not be preceded, which would not be accompanied and followed by a certain state of consciousness”that is, before any revolution, a certain state of social consciousness develops, which, as soon as its understanding is lost, knowledge of this society, then an avalanche-like growth of contradictions occurs, which, when the critical mass is exceeded, explode by the revolution! So it was in England and France, remember - "no bread, let them eat cakes" and in Russia ... Today we are also arriving in a state far from knowing the society in which we live, which is fertile ground for all kinds of pseudo-reformers and agents of influence, whose goals are pragmatic to disgrace - to ruin, undermine, weaken and enrich ourselves in the chaos that arises and thank their masters, who, by historical will, are the Anglo-Saxons, the eternal enemies of Russia. But they only help, albeit actively, our main enemy, in ourselves ... The collapse of the USSR, essentially the same revolution that led to the enormous geopolitical tragedy of our time! External forces using our ignorance, naivety, and somewhere silly romanticism were able to once again inflict the most severe blow on Russian civilization, as a hundred years ago:"they aimed (allegedly) at the monarch (communism), but shot at Russia!" '
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 7 October 2017 10: 18
        The collapse of the USSR, essentially the same revolution
        ... I agree, ...... and Yeltsin is so young and Black October is ahead ...
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 7 October 2017 07: 42
    The author touched on a very complicated topic. Just today, few people understand that the RUSSIAN EMPIRE on the eve of the WWII was practically a colony under the control of the German Tsar. From that, priorities in politics changed so quickly. As soon as the French outbid the tsar, RUSSIA became practically a colony of France, right up to the departure of expeditionary forces to defend France, on the rights of the colonial troops.
    The fact that in February 1917, under the leadership of the French and British, a coup occurred, with the arrest of the king and the collapse of the whole state * mechanism * is not at all surprising. The German Empire by that time was already almost defeated, the colonies were selected. But there was a huge RUSSIAN EMPIRE, and not somewhere overseas, but here, next. So they made a coup with legal registration of the colonial status of RUSSIA. The first stage of colonization provided for the official division of RUSSIA into zones of occupation.
    So much hate is still precisely because of the failure of such a successful scam. Well, of course, none of the descendants of those scams will be able to forgive lost profits. By the way, Hitler was raised, and Gorbachev and today's * oppositionErov * to continue attempts to colonize RUSSIA.
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 7 October 2017 08: 14
      That's really brief, for sure, not in the eyebrow, but in the eye! Only ++++!
    2. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 09: 44
      Quote: Vasily50
      on the eve of the WWII was almost a colony under the control of the German king.

      And why not under the control of reptilians from the planet Nibiru? lol
      And another question: why do you find fault with the nationality of a person who spoke Russian, raised his children in Russian and defended Russian national interests? What is this manifestation of frenzied Nazism?
      Quote: Vasily50
      As soon as the French outbid the king,

      Yeah. So "outbid" that with the beginning of the WWII received the first blow from the Germans, when the Austro-German-Russian dispute over Serbia escalated into war. And in general, if you look at the history of the beginning of the WWII, then the French were drawn into this war because of Russia's protection of Serbia.
      Teach history, please, so that when reading your comments it would not be so embarrassing for your fellow citizens.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 7 October 2017 10: 07
        Yeah, really ... The blacks are the blacks.
        The French paid the German tsar on the RUSSIAN throne with an ephemeral loan, which remained in France, for the union agreement. The French themselves violated the contract when they refused to fulfill it during the Japanese attack on the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. And by the way, the French entered into a secret agreement with the British for an alliance, and then, by blackmailing the loan, they demanded that RUSSIA recognize allied obligations to the British.
        About nationality. The nobility deliberately * calibrated * with foreign adventurers, and Peter became the first such king. His descendants did not become RUSSIAN either in spirit or in blood. Here they were slave traders and colony managers. And nothing more.
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 12: 08
          Quote: Vasily50
          Yeah, really ... The blacks are the blacks.

          You ran out of evidence and you decided to find fault with a nickname? lol
          Quote: Vasily50
          The French paid the German tsar on the RUSSIAN throne with an ephemeral loan, which remained in France, for the union agreement. The French themselves violated the contract when they refused to fulfill it during the Japanese attack on the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.

          Awesome nonsense. The Franco-Russian Union was of a European anti-German orientation. We and the French were to fight only in case of German aggression. This agreement did not apply to conflicts with third countries. Read:
          Quote: Vasily50
          By the way, the French entered into a secret agreement with the British for an alliance,

          The Anglo-French agreement of 1904 was open and published in print. Like the voluntary Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907. So again you have some strange fantasies.
          Quote: Vasily50
          The nobility deliberately * calibrated * with foreign adventurers, and Peter became the first such king. His descendants did not become RUSSIAN either in spirit or in blood.

          But this is Pearl! Firstly, what is the word "calibrated with"? Do you speak Russian or not? And as for the descendants of Peter the Great ... Under Alexander II, serfdom was abolished, under Nicholas II - the Union was founded Russian people, of which the emperor himself was an honorary member, and Alexander III told the educator of his children: "I need normal, healthy, русские children "
          So your fantasies are decidedly delusional. The Romanovs were Russian emperors, whether you want it or not. And in spirit, they were an organic part of the Russian people. During the years of WWII, the Imperial family gave the Winter Palace to the hospital, and not princes and barons, but ordinary soldiers and officers got into this hospital. The empress and the princes assisted the surgeons and bandaged the wounds that were being healed. Wounds. Do it yourself. Ordinary Russian guys called up for war. And the prince of imperial blood, Oleg Konstantinovich Romanov, was mortally wounded in a battle with the Germans, the squadron of the Life Hussar command.
          Count Vladimir Paley, the grandson of Alexander II, fought in another hussar regiment. Dmitry Pavlovich Romanov fought in the Life Guard cavalry regiment.
          Alexander Ivanovich Iskander, great-grandson of Nicholas I - officer of the Life Guards of the Cuirassier Regiment.
          Prince of imperial blood Konstantin Konstantinovich, another great-grandson of Nicholas I - captain of the Life Guards Izmailovsky Regiment.
          And the nobles were also Russian. The ancestor of the poet Lermontov was the Scot Lermont. Do you want to say that Lermontov is not a Russian poet? Hundreds of Baltic Germans honestly served Russia. Count Keller, the First checker of Russia, the cavalry commander was a favorite of soldiers. Baron Wrangel in 1914 led an attack on the German battery of cavalry guards. Scandinavian by origin. Baron. And with a revolver in his hand in the front row, covering himself with Russian cavalry guards. You say these people were not Russian in spirit?
          1. water
            water 9 October 2017 23: 10
            Ah Lieutenant Teterin! Patriotic you about the reigning house, no doubt. Only from something about Princess Masha and Prince Gosha and their dad didn’t mention them !? And it would be necessary - for the objectivity of the picture, so to speak.
            As for objectivity, it should be noted - not the commissars, they threw off the Tsar in their leather jackets. He, in February 1917, was overthrown by the generals, capitalists and clergy, naturally under the glee of the masses. And this is an indisputable fact. Immediately after this event, the "progressive world community" began to agree on the division of Russia, naturally in every possible way condoning its collapse. However, an error crept into the calculations - on October 25, “commissioners in leather jackets” decided to take responsibility for Russia by expelling the Provisional Government.
            At the same time, in December, the "progressive world community" finally agreed to divide Russia into protectorates, and in January 1918, interventionist troops began to arrive in Russian ports.
            So the commissioners need to say thanks! Thank you for being able to not only defend Russia under very difficult conditions, but also turn it into the Great Soviet Union.
            Well, then !? - The same thing happened with the top of the CPSU that by February 1917 of the year happened with the Tsar and his closest associates - they liberated themselves, you know. The empire crumbled again, now we are going to quietly. Quietly, because it’s fast. Fast - you need to shoot it. And to shoot is a "mine to lay" in the distant future for the country, its people. And surely it will explode. It will explode, as the one that the Tsar, the bourgeoisie and the commissars laid down under our country in 1993, exploded. That is such a thing - our History. And she is ours! And we have no other.
            Reds have long been gone, white, where red ones are. What I lie to you, Lieutenant Teterin, as a monarchist I support, only in one thing - the Tsar should be in your head!
  3. Settlement Oparyshev
    Settlement Oparyshev 7 October 2017 08: 01
    England pursued a tough policy in Russia, monitored the state of the Army and Navy, not allowing any amplification. Censorship and surveillance of each character made it possible to identify and timely eliminate those who could correct the situation. All that remains is to sigh watching the difference in the work of the British Secret Cabinet and Russian ministers and Duma . Sadly, but the Privy Council owned a XNUMX-hour Empire, and ours only stole from the treasury.
  4. tasha
    tasha 7 October 2017 08: 07
    The author correctly noted that October 1917 is a crisis of the monarchy in general as a system of governance. With the size of our country, with the speed of passing information, hoping for the prudence of one person endowed with unlimited power is a serious mistake. In any case, delegation of authority is required. But! The selection of leading cadres on the principle of loyalty, membership in any circles without taking into account the personal qualities of the candidate, his ability to solve problems of national importance is also incorrect.
    1. venaya
      venaya 7 October 2017 08: 35
      Quote: tasha
      .. Leadership selection, belonging to any circles without taking into account the personal qualities of the candidate, his ability to solve tasks of national importance - is also wrong.

      You would be prompted in what kind of management system is selection that does not take into account the principle of loyalty. I recall the description that in Egypt several pharaohs happened during the day. Such is the nature of both man and society, which, unfortunately, is not enough without it, otherwise there will be an even bigger mess.
      1. tasha
        tasha 7 October 2017 08: 50
        I meant loyalty in the sense of personal devotion to a particular person.
    2. badens1111
      badens1111 7 October 2017 09: 30
      Quote: tasha
      The author correctly noted that October 1917 is a crisis of the monarchy in general as a system of government.

      I don’t know what the author noted there .. for before October, as a reaction to the essentially anti-state activities of the Provisional, was February, here it was definitely as an answer to the crisis of the monarchy.
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 17 December 2017 06: 31
      Quote: tasha
      With the size of our country, with the speed of passing information, hoping for the prudence of one person endowed with unlimited power is a serious mistake

      Did Comrade Stalin know about this?
      1. tasha
        tasha 17 December 2017 06: 46
        Comrade Stalin knew a lot of things. And he made decisions, sometimes true, and sometimes not ...
  5. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 09: 19
    Article minus. The author is clearly enthusiastic about the revolutions and sees himself as “a commissar in a dusty helmet with a Mauser in his hand and a fiery heart,” but he forgets about two things. First: any revolution is blood, devastation and monstrous losses for the nation:
    Second: such commissars, as a rule, end their lives: a) in battles with their people, trying to impose a revolutionary disorder or rob their fellow citizens;
    b) on the block or in the execution basement because of “betrayal of the interests of the revolution” and “work for Martian intelligence”.
    So only a madman or a traitor can desire a revolution in his country.
    PS The author, in the style of amateurs to justify revolutionary crimes, makes full use of defaults. Speaking about events in Little Russia, the author is silent that even TSB spoke directly about social democratic propaganda as the reason for the speeches.
    1. badens1111
      badens1111 7 October 2017 09: 36
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      first: any revolution is blood, devastation and monstrous losses for the nation:

      For October 1993, do not want to answer? For 1994? No? Why so?
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      Second: such commissars, as a rule, end their lives: a) in battles with their people, trying to impose a revolutionary disorder or rob their fellow citizens;

      That is, you recognized that those who committed the coup in 1993 exchanged the country and people for money and property?
      And indirectly, as a result, the majority of the people suffer, and a handful of fattening?
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      b) on the block or in the execution basement because of “betrayal of the interests of the revolution” and “work for Martian intelligence”.

      At the expense of work on foreign intelligence and stuff, there are no questions to Chubais? And to the Yeltsin center? And to a handful of so-called monarchists with the bogeyman Hohenzollern_romanovs rushing to the throne?
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      So only a madman or a traitor can desire a revolution in his country.

      That is, the figures of 1991-1993 are crazy and traitors, aren't they?
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      . The author, in the style of amateurs to justify revolutionary crimes, makes full use of defaults.

      The author ... you start with yourself. As a representative of forces who like to distort, fake and simply confuse the cause and effect relationships of the events in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, silent about the events of the late 20th century, when the reaction in the form of your authorities in the 90s defeated the country to the joy of the West.
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 11: 40
        [quote = badens1111] For October 1993, do not want to answer? For 1994? No? Why so? [/ quote]
        Why are you asking me these questions? They must be asked by the grown Communist Party and the Komsomol Gorbachev, Shevarnadze, Yeltsin, Rutsky, Chernomyrdin, Korzhakov and other figures of those years. Do you want to ask them?
        [quote = badens1111] So you admitted that having committed a coup in 1993, exchanged the country and people for money and property? [/ quote]
        Question: how does the 1993 coup d'etat correlate with the theme of revolutions raised by the author? Or do you not know how to distinguish a revolution from a coup?
        [quote = badens1111] At the expense of work on foreign intelligence and stuff, there are no questions about Chubais? [/ quote]
        Do you have evidence of this work? Testimony of witnesses or of the suspect himself? Evidence? I am not a supporter of Chubais and others like him, but nonetheless I think that the letter of the law should be respected. And you can blame a person only on the basis of evidence, not speculation.
        [quote = badens1111] That is, the figures of 1991-1993 are crazy and traitors, aren't they? [/ quote]
        You know better who raised the Communist Party.
        [quote = badens1111] as a representative of forces who like to distort, fake and simply confuse the cause and effect relationships of events in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, [/ quote]
        Sorry, but I'm not a Marxist and I don’t relate to the left movement from the word at all, so here you are mistaken.
        1. badens1111
          badens1111 7 October 2017 12: 00
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          Why are you asking me these questions?

          Because you were miserable, Mr. Teterin.
          1. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 13: 22
            Prove it. Or would you prefer, for lack of evidence, to rush with unfounded accusations?
            1. badens1111
              badens1111 7 October 2017 13: 25
              Prove what?
              Reading your fabrications, you do not need to prove anything, everything is visible with the naked eye.
              A hired writer, you can accurately formulate your activity here, because you do not consider the facts, arguments of the opposing side at all, but you pretty much operate on myths, rumors, gossip that have been debunked for a long time.
              1. Lieutenant Teterin
                Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 14: 14
                Quote: badens1111
                for the facts, arguments of the opposing side are not considered by you at all

                Can you give an example? Or how will the demagogue rush with unfounded phrases? You are now behaving like a mediocre propagandist, and I demand that you give an example of my use of false information or facts, followed by a refutation. Otherwise, I will have every right to accuse you of cheap demagogy and an attempt to provoke an opponent to an emotional response with a transition to personality.
                1. badens1111
                  badens1111 7 October 2017 14: 23
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  Can you give an example? Or how will the demagogue rush with unfounded phrases?

                  Your comments on topics related to the USSR, for example, idle lies. What else is needed?
                  You will demand from your wife, for example, a plate with borsch, and from me you can only get another answer, you have completely become isolated.
                  1. Lieutenant Teterin
                    Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 14: 53
                    Quote: badens1111
                    Your comments on topics related to the USSR, for example, idle lies

                    Again unfounded accusation? Tell me where and what I said inaccurately and provide disproving information. You can not? Then do not let your emotions and ideological disagreement between us prevail over objectivity in the discussion.
                    Quote: badens1111
                    You will demand from your wife, for example, a plate with borsch

                    Rude again? You, by the way, in a public discussion allowed yourself to accuse me of lying. As a civilized person, I now have every right and will demand proof of your words from you. Therefore, if it was not immediately clear to you, I repeat: I require you to prove your position. Give my "unreliable" (from your point of view) words and refute them, and do not repeat the same word, in the vain hope that it will become true.
                    PS Get used to it, it is customary among cultural people to confirm their words with evidence, and unfounded accusations are considered a sign of rudeness and bad education.
                    1. badens1111
                      badens1111 7 October 2017 15: 11
                      Well ... let's start ..
                      "Lieutenant Teterin October 2, 2017 16:55 | Lost Straits
                      For a real understanding of the issue, it is necessary to remember that the Bosphorus operation was frustrated due to the coup, caused by the fact that the conspirators, after their British curators, realized that another 1,5-2 months and their efforts would go to waste. ... blah blah blah ... "- Thoughts have little basis in reality.
                      "The USSR is not guilty, the Soviet leadership is guilty of the people for being aware of Hitler’s cannibalistic plans for the USSR, he continued to flirt with him instead of concluding an alliance with England and France in order to destroy Nazism.
                      Complaint PoruchikTeterin "-The next pearl.
                      And this is a deliberate lie- "You know, an alliance and an obligation to refrain from attacking are slightly different things. Hitler, knowing that the USSR would not come to the rescue of either the Allies or Poland, finally decided to start a big war to redistribute the consequences of the Versailles Peace."
                      And finally, “Lieutenant Teterin September 2, 2017 17:20 | Why do they hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact so much? Service in the law enforcement bodies of the Republic of Ingushetia was considered by the Soviet law as a crime - a fact. Article 58.11. Of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926.
                      So what turns out, you are sick of the facts? And your enemy is historical and legal reality?
                      PS But a link to the Stalinist Rimmir could not be given. "Objectivity in his words about Volkov is nothing more than in the words of a feminist about men."
                      You would be silent about your own hallucinations of some kind
                      "kuluturks" which you obviously do not know, a cultured person who knows History will not lie and refer to deliberately clear and false fabrications of "tantrums," in the field of history, such as your Volkov and others like him.
                      So do not be rude and do not show your bad education.
                      At least for this reason- "Lieutenant Teterin September 2, 2017 13:10 | Why do they so hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
                      You are a funny person. Russian man and Russian patriot call Russophobe. You would have called the doctor "medicophobe". Well, yes, however, your problems with logic are your business. But the fact that you were clearly nervous when you were convicted of knowing the works of Mr. Goebbels is symptomatic.
                      The partition of Czechoslovakia was a violation of the terms of the treaty. Hitler violated the treaty, but England and France are guilty of this? Your logic is strange. "
                      Are you, contrary to obviousness and reality, arrogantly and deceitfully claiming that Hitler is not to blame? And are you not guilty of unleashing World War II in Europe, England and France? Isn't this the position of those who did not come to the aid of Poland, untied Hitler?
                      So who are you after such a blatant demonstration of fraud, juggling and outright lies?
                      1. Lieutenant Teterin
                        Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 17: 30
                        Finally, I have obtained from you an adequate dialogue.
                        [quote = badens1111] Thoughts have little basis in reality. [/ quote]
                        From your words, I conclude that you are not aware of either the Anglo-Russian contradictions of the first half of the 1910s, or of the establishment by the British Ambassador Buchanan of ties with the Duma opposition to the Emperor. Read:
                        So the participation of the British in the conspiracy against the Emperor is not my speculation, but a historical fact. Even the odious writer Starikov directly speaks about this.
                        [quote = badens1111] Another pearl. [/ quote]
                        And again by. Dzhugashvili Hitler's delusional opus "Mein Kampf" read and knew how the possessed Fuhrer belonged to the USSR. He knew and went to an agreement with him, instead of an agreement with those who could help strangle the reptile of Nazism in the bud. It is a fact.
                        Regarding my link to the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. First edition of this "document": [quote]
                        58.11. Active actions or an active struggle against the working class and the revolutionary movement, manifested in responsible or highly secret posts under the tsarist regime or with counter-revolutionary governments during the civil war,
                        social protection measures provided for by Part 1 of Article 58.2.
                        [/ quote]
                        _RSFSR_1926_goda / Edition_05.03.1926
                        And this is also a fact. According to this article, in reality, people who held police and judicial positions were “judged”.
                        [quote = badens1111] You would be silent about your own hallucinations about some kind of kalyuturki [/ quote]
                        From these words your cultural level is perfectly visible. As well as ignorance of the causes of the conflict, from which you quoted. The aforementioned Mr. Rimmir deigned in a hysterical manner to pour mud on a doctor of historical sciences, who worked for 30 years in the archives, exploring the history of the officer corps and elites of the Russian Empire. But the rude ignoramus Rimmir believes that writing works based on archival documents is "not historical." And you, judging by the commentary, join his opinion. So there can be only one attitude towards Rimmir and the like for an educated and cultured person - contempt.
                        [quote = badens1111] Well, with ... first ..
                        "it is symptomatic.
                        [quote = badens1111] You, contrary to obviousness and reality, brazenly and deceitfully claim that Hitler is not to blame? [/ quote]
                        Good gentleman, this is only in your imagination. In reply to my opponent, on the contrary, I indicated that Hitler was guilty of the occupation of Czechoslovakia. Where did you see the demon's excuses ... decidedly incomprehensible. In other words, you sink to the lies and deliberate distortion of the opponent’s words to justify your position.
                        And about England and France - it's amazing. Why don’t you understand the difference between betraying an ally and starting a war? Yes, the Allies are guilty, but Hitler is guilty of betrayal, and of unleashing a war. You see, Hitler, not France and England.
                        So, judging by this comment, you are a liar, a provocateur and ignorant, as long as you allow yourself to distort the words of your opponent, to be rude and insulting learned historians, whose works and academic degree are recognized by the scientific community.
  6. Varyag77
    Varyag77 7 October 2017 10: 20
    Quote: Vasily50
    The author touched on a very complicated topic. Just today, few people understand that the RUSSIAN EMPIRE on the eve of the WWII was practically a colony under the control of the German Tsar. From that, priorities in politics changed so quickly. As soon as the French outbid the tsar, RUSSIA became practically a colony of France, right up to the departure of expeditionary forces to defend France, on the rights of the colonial troops.

    You can of course bring facts, right. This is in no way the fruit of your sick imagination, is it?
    Sofa whistleblowers are very diverse however.
    And of course, as a continuation of your kitchen conspiracy theology, during the Second World War the USSR strained its colonies in the form of the USA and England, so that they would open a second front. I, after all, correctly continued yours with permission to say conclusions.
    Further, kitchen revelations of the entire Romanov dynasty should apparently follow, which they only did, as if to surrender Russia to the west. Am I missing anything?
    ALEA IACTA EST 7 October 2017 13: 17
    In a normally functioning state, people are not grabbing at rifles.
  8. badens1111
    badens1111 7 October 2017 17: 35
    Lieutenant Teterin,
    The answer is incorrect. Do not bother writing a lot.
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 7 October 2017 19: 03
      I ascertain. You have no counterarguments, and the attempt to accuse the opponent of lying has failed. I ask you, study the history of the Motherland not by agitation, but by the documents and works of real historians. If a person working in the archives writes something unusual for you, this does not mean that he is lying, it means that you have come across agitation distorting the historical reality. And here is why their authors admitted this - I suggest you think for yourself. hi
      1. badens1111
        badens1111 7 October 2017 19: 12
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        You have no counterarguments

        That's right, you don’t have them.
        And for me, you will be answered by the best of Russian writers of the present, V. Bushin
        When Alexander Zinoviev was still living in Munich and was already seeing clearly from his anti-Soviet, we corresponded. In 1990, I sent him my article about Solzhenitsyn, he wrote to me about this: “Solzhenitsyn must not only be criticized, he must be smashed. This ... is forced upon us both from the West and from the fifth column West in Russia. " I completely agreed with him on everything, starting with ...
  9. samarin1969
    samarin1969 7 October 2017 21: 24
    The author fruitfully walked through the mistakes and vices of the Russian Tsars ... But
    1) Compared with the modern "offshore yoke" - millions to ballerinas - these are childish pranks
    2) People create history, not some "objective reasons". The history of many countries and, especially Russia, has refuted all the "theories of the development of society. ... The collapse of the Russian empire is primarily the fault of the weak-character and infantile Nicholas II ... Except for the prophecy of poets, no one then and now can to predict the future of Russia. History depends on the actions of the Romanovs, Lenins, Stalin, Gorbachev, Putin (and their environment) ... The author is inclined to the idea of ​​the Yeltsin Center that the whole history of Russia is an endless chain of misfortunes and lawlessness (From "Ivanov", to Nicholas II). This is absurd! ... In other states there were no less abominations .... The modern "RF" is only the shadow of that Russia.