Military Review

Why did the Bolsheviks win?

The Bolsheviks did not do either the 1905 revolution of the year or the February 1917 revolution.

Revolution 1905 year began with an event known as Bloody Sunday, when troops opened fire on a march of workers, which was led by the priest Gapon. The procession itself was organized by "Assembly of Russian Factory Workers of St. Petersburg" - the largest legal workers' organization headed by the same Gapon. The Bolsheviks not only did not participate in the activities of this organization, but even tried to counteract it, believing that it harmed the true revolutionary movement.

Only on the eve of the march, 7-8 in January, did the Bolsheviks, realizing the full scope of the objectives and appreciating the revolutionary nature of the petition prepared by Gapon, decided to participate in the event, but their group was rather small (like the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary groups).

Subsequently, members of the RSDLP (b) recalled that the January strike and the march became a complete surprise for the Bolsheviks, they were not ready for the events of any organizational or technical.

Thus, Gapon and other leaders of the “Assembly” were involved in the 1905 revolution, as well as the authorities themselves, who created the prerequisites for the march and then dispersed him using weapons. But not the Bolsheviks.

In the February Revolution of 1917, the participation of the Bolsheviks was slightly more noticeable - their agitators acted among the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison and the sailors of the Baltic fleetworked on the streets of Petrograd. However, their impact on events was still small.

The main motive in the actions of the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison was the unwillingness to participate in the dispersal of demonstrations and, moreover, to shoot at the workers. Also, soldiers, many of whom were reservists, were motivated by unwillingness to go to the front (you can even consider this as the basic motive of the uprising).

The sailors of the Baltic Fleet moved hatred of the officers, accumulated in the course of a two-year stay in the inactive battleships, actually turned into a disciplinary colony. At the same time, most of the sailors were anarchists by political views.

In the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet (Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies), which, along with the Duma, became the “parliament of revolution” there were no Bolsheviks at all.

The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the abdication of Nicholas II. Renounce Emperor egged Rodzyanko (leader Octobrists) and a group of generals (Ruza, Alekseev and others that join them). The railway communication, the interruptions of which violated the plans of the emperor, was taken under the control of deputy Bublikov (progressive).

Lenin learned about the February revolution, the renunciation of Nicholas and the uprising in Kronstadt by the fact, while in Switzerland. The events came as a complete surprise to him, and the decision to return to Russia was not made immediately. Lenin hesitated for a while, assessing the situation and only 31 in March (a month after the start of the revolution) finally decided to go.

In Petrograd, Lenin came 3 April, a month after the abdication of Nicholas - that in itself demonstrates the readiness of the Bolsheviks to the February Revolution of 1917 years and participated in the events.

The Bolsheviks made their first attempt at seizing power on July 3-4 1917. However, there are also different versions regarding the role of the Bolsheviks in these events. But be that as it may, the attempt to seize power in any case was not crowned with success, and the Provisional Government issued a decree on the arrest of its organizers.

5-9 July, Lenin hid in Petrograd, after which he moved to Razliv and settled first with the worker Yemelyanov, and then in the legendary tent.

In early August, due to the deteriorating weather and the approach of autumn, it was decided to ship Lenin to Finland. 8 August Lenin left the hut, got to St. Petersburg and from there went to the Principality of Finland, where he stayed until early October.

So how did the Bolsheviks manage to ultimately come to power if, figuratively speaking, they slept through two consecutive revolutions - first the 1905 of the year, and then the February 1917 of the second?

How did the Bolsheviks manage to come to power, if Lenin, the undisputed leader of the Bolsheviks, was in Switzerland during the February and March events and found out about the revolution post factum, returned to Russia only a month later, and then was again forced into hiding, left for Finland and finally returned only in October?

Why did the Bolsheviks come to power?

Kerensky and ... General Kornilov helped the Bolsheviks to come to power.

During July-August, the situation in the Provisional Government deteriorated to the extreme. On July 7, Prince Lvov, who headed the government, resigned and Kerensky became chairman.

It should be noted here that the Provisional Government in general did not have a legitimate authority in the full sense of the word. It was formed by the Duma "committee", which arose in late February as a private meeting of the deputies of the Duma, dissolved by decree of the emperor.

The Provisional Government was created by the Committee, which, in turn, was created not by law, but according to the situation, by a narrow group of persons who formally had no authority at all, because the Duma was formally dissolved at that time. But even if the Duma has been dissolved, the creation of the Committee still has not been issued according to the law. And the authority to form a government that does not grant the Committee one, and could not give. The deputy committee could not form the government according to the laws existing at that time.

In fact, starting with 5 in March, when Mikhail signed his manifesto on the election of the Constituent Assembly and until the elections themselves, which were to be held in 6 months, there was no legal authority in Russia.

The interim government worked only because someone had to govern the country and other authorities simply did not exist.

The Provisional Government was a kind of power in a situation of powerlessness and uncertainty - uncertainty not only in the composition of the new permanent government, but even in the form of government.

And in this Provisional Government, which already existed on bird rights, new permutations began.

The Provisional Government was not only illegal, but also failed to take the necessary decisions on the merits - it was not possible to carry out reforms, the differences between different groups in the government grew.

After the July events, controversies also arose between the Provisional Government and the Soviets (Petrosoviet).

To get rid of the Soviets, which were armed soldiers and sailors, Kerensky decided to rely on General Kornilov and the army. However, Kornilov did not consider it necessary to serve the "temporary workers" and was inclined to establish a military dictatorship. Realizing this, Kerensky removed Kornilov from the post of commander-in-chief, but the general himself disagreed.

On the basis of the removal of Kornilov and the insubordination of the general, a new split arose, both within the government and beyond. Attitudes toward Kornilov also became twofold - some supported him, others, on the contrary, considered that the general had set himself "outlawed" (although the Provisional Government itself was essentially outlawed, starting from the first day).

The episode that vividly illustrates what happened in those days was the visit of 28 of August by sailors of the cruiser Aurora to Trotsky to the Cross, where he was under arrest. The sailors guarding the Winter Palace, where the Provisional Government met, came to arrested Trotsky to ask if it was time to arrest the Provisional Government.

I think this fully demonstrates the paradoxical nature and complexity of the situation in those days.

However, the Kornilov revolt led not only to a new split in the government and the army, but also to very important practical consequences:

The Provisional Government, concerned about the actions and intentions of General Kornilov, appealed to Petrosovet Soviet for help (from which it had recently wanted to get rid of with the support of the general). The Petrograd Soviet demanded that the Bolsheviks be released from arrest and that the workers be armed.

As a result, Trotsky and other Bolsheviks were released on bail, and the workers received weapons.

31 August Petrosovet adopted the proposed Bolshevik resolution on the transfer of power to the Soviets.

Following this, 1 September, Kerensky signed a government act proclaiming the Republic (which was again illegal, because the Provisional Government was not authorized to determine the form of government).

So Kerensky, who first tried to enlist the support of General Kornilov and the army, and then tried to enlist the support of the Petrograd Soviet and the workers for protection against Kornilov, contributed to the establishment of the power of the Soviets.

However, the Bolsheviks at that time did not control the Soviets in full, even though they already had a significant impact.

The growth of the influence of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets was facilitated by the simple fact that the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries, who attempted to work in the Provisional Government, discredited themselves, began to rapidly lose their popularity and positions, showed their incapacity.

The fact that the Bolsheviks "overslept" the February revolution and did not take part either in the first executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet or in the work of the Provisional Government began to quickly turn from a lack into an advantage.

The Provisional Government, which demonstrated its lack of talent and incapacity, illegality and inconsistency, not least by the efforts of Kerensky, promptly sank and dragged to the bottom of everyone who was somehow connected with it. That is, almost everyone except the Bolsheviks.

The last attempt to form a "democratic government" was made in mid-September and failed again - contradictions intensified, anarchy was growing. Events have shown that in this situation, democracy does not work and any government in which all political forces will be represented will turn out to be like a swan, a cancer and a pike from a famous fable.

On October 10, at the suggestion of Trotsky at a meeting of representatives of the regiments of the Petrograd garrison, the decision was made to disobey the Provisional Government. In fact, this was the beginning of the October armed uprising in Petrograd.

October 21 meeting of representatives of the regiments recognized the Petrograd Soviet as the sole authority.

Unlike the events of July, when demonstrations were held, on the night from 24 to 25 of October, small detachments of the Red Guard and sailors of the Baltic Fleet disarmed guards sent by the government, took control of the railway stations, power station, telephone, telegraph and other key facilities. Everything happened quietly, with almost no shots. The government found out about the coup in fact when the phones turned off in the Winter Palace and the lights went out.

In 21: 00 a blank shot from the Peter and Paul Fortress was the signal for the storming of the Winter Palace. In fact, by that time everything was already decided, the Provisional Government lost all means of control and communications last night, Winter was guarding a relatively small women's battalion (more like a company) and 2-3 of the Junker Company.

Winter storm was pretty chaotic. The guns of the Peter and Paul Fortress were firing over the building, Aurora generally fired at idle. How serious the assault was can be judged by the losses - it is for certain only known about the 6 dead soldiers and one striker of the women's garrison. That was such a harsh assault.

On October 25, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies took place in Smolny - and only then did the Bolsheviks, together with the Left Social Revolutionaries, get the most votes.

As a result of the Congress, a homogeneous socialist government was formed, which put an end to the actual dual power between the Provisional Government and the Petro-Soviet, which continued for half a year, with full legal authority.

So why exactly did the Bolsheviks win?

Why are not right-wing democrats, not Cadets, not Mensheviks, not anarchists, not the Provisional Government or anyone else?

Yes, simply because the Bolsheviks turned out to be perhaps the only political force that did not participate in the work of the Provisional Government, which was a team of swans, crayfish and pikes, unable not only to lift the problems, but even to move it from its place, participants teams are constantly opposed to each other.

The Octobrists, Cadets, Mensheviks, Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, and some others who tried to make up a "national hodgepodge" only interfered with each other and, as a result, they all sank together.

The soldiers and workers were simply tired of waiting for the “swan, cancer and pike” in the person of the Provisional Government to finally “pull”.

In a situation of absolute legal powerlessness (the legal authority did not exist in principle) and the actual dual power between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet, the Petrosoviet won, because it turned out to be more uniform ideologically, less fragmented, less controversial.

In the Provisional Government, different forces were pulling in different directions, and Kerensky rushed to Kornilov, or vice versa, to the Petrograd Soviet for protection against Kornilov - as a result, “problems” stood still.

In the struggle between the incapable and controversial Provisional Government and the Petro-Soviet, the Petrosoviet won, which proved to be capable and could choose its own direction of movement - the right or not, but the direction.

And inside the Petro-Soviet, the Bolsheviks won, because the Mensheviks and right-wing Socialist-Revolutionaries discredited themselves by trying to work in the Provisional Government and showed the same incapacity.

Anarchists, despite their popularity among sailors, did not have any clear ideas about what to do in the current situation - they had neither a program, nor managers capable of making decisions and developing any programs. And it could not be, because the main thing among anarchists was the denial of monarchy, and what should be the power and what to do - there was no clear answer to this question.

It can be said that in October 1917 the Bolsheviks simply came to the turn of governing the country after all those who had before them consistently signed their inability.

The first married Romanovs, in early March 1917 years.

Following the Romanovs signed Prince Lvov.

Next signed Kornilov and his supporters.

After that, the Provisional Government signed, and with it the Mensheviks and Right-wing Social Revolutionaries.

Left Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks won precisely because they “overslept” February 1917 of the year and did not take part in the work of the Provisional Government - this gave them the opportunity to preserve internal unity, trust from soldiers and sailors (soviets), as well as the ability to take into account the mistakes of other political forces and not to attack On those rakes, on which the others jumped, trying to create a "national" government.

The Bolsheviks won because in October everyone around them began to unite who were tired of the situation of complete legal powerlessness and de facto dual power. There was no other political force around which it was possible to unite, all the rest practically trampled each other and lost all confidence.

The Bolsheviks won because in October simply no one could have prevented them - consciously or not, but the Bolsheviks simply waited for the moment when everyone else gnawed at each other, spent their strength and exhausted their political opportunities.

The Bolsheviks were the last or one of the last political forces in the queue for power.

The principle of "the one who found the exit is torn down first" worked: in the window of opportunities that opened after Nicholas's abdication, everything came up, trampling, pushing and throwing each other out. And the Bolsheviks simply waited for the moment and quietly went through the wide open, or rather even the door torn from their hinges.

The Bolsheviks won, not because they were so popular in the people - about them is not so well known, the works of Marx and Lenin ordinary workers and soldiers do not really read.

The Bolsheviks did not win because their program was so brilliant, or behind them were some great forces, money, armed men. Armed people stood behind the Petrograd Soviet, and on the eve of the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks had a minority in it.

The Bolsheviks won because in a situation of powerlessness they remained almost the only ones who could offer power, and the power was unified, integral, and not piecewise intermittent and internally contradictory, which was the power of the Provisional Government.

Soldiers, sailors, workers and all the rest — they simply got tired of living without power and certainty in the future, without management, without understanding the future, without prospects, in a situation of chaos and crisis — that is why they accepted the Bolsheviks.

Later, when the Soviet government strengthened and began to write his historyeverything will be presented in such a way that the Bolsheviks went to power with firm steps from time immemorial, the people had been waiting for them for many years, read Iskra and Pravda in cities and villages, almost overthrew the tsar for the sake of establishing Soviet power under Lenin's direction.

The result of many years of spreading this myth will be that many still think that the Bolsheviks drove the tsar away and they made all three revolutions - 1905 of the year, February of 1917, and then the October revolution.

No, the Bolsheviks did not revolutionize either the 1905 or the February 1917. And even the October Revolution was made not so much by the Bolsheviks as by the Kerensky, Kornilov, and Petrograd Soviet as the collective body of workers and soldiers' deputies (most of whom were not Bolsheviks). And the sailors, who were mostly anarchists.

The Bolsheviks completed the revolution, put an end to powerlessness in Russia, the end of anarchy and chaos, put things in order.

The Bolsheviks won because no one besides them could offer order in Russia in the 1917 year.
61 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. captain
    captain 27 October 2017 15: 54 New
    For some reason, the author forgot about the Social Revolutionaries, especially about the Left Social Revolutionaries, who defended the interests of the peasants. But Russia was a peasant country and the peasants did not give a damn about everyone and everything. They needed land and peace. The Bolsheviks took away the slogan; land to the peasants of the Social Revolutionaries, added the slogan; factories to the workers, and threw the slogan; peace to huts, war to palaces. As the Communists themselves like to write, that in Russia 80% of the population were peasants and they were all illiterate, people believed in beautiful slogans and supported the Bolsheviks. The constituent assembly (the majority of the Socialist Revolutionaries was there) the sailor Zheleznyak (Bolshevik) dispersed. The peasants were delighted with the land and the world, but were mistaken in their faith. In 1991, Soviet power was blown away just as quietly as the power of the Romanovs, the power of the Provisional Government and the failed power of the Constituent Assembly. People stopped believing in the communists. They saw Secretary General Gorbachev, members of the Politburo and candidates Shevarnadze, Yeltsin and others. They saw Yakovlev and Volkogonov, members of the Central Committee and the like. As they came, they left.
    1. KBACYPA
      KBACYPA 28 October 2017 05: 45 New
      Sailor Zheleznyak (Bolshevik)
      They made a laugh. Zheleznyak was never a Bolshevik, but was a representative of one of the movements of anarchism: anarcho-communism. What kind of beast, anarcho-communism is, and what they eat with it - do not ask, I do not know. I think that Zheleznyak himself could hardly articulate clearly. However, the ally of the Bolsheviks was active.
    2. Pancir026
      Pancir026 29 October 2017 13: 42 New
      Quote: captain
      Gorbachev, members of the Politburo and candidates Shevarnadze, Yeltsin and others. We saw Yakovlev and Volkogonov, members of the Central Committee and the like. As they came, they left.

      You wrote a lot. You wrote "beautifully 2. but as always from an excess of 2 scholarships." As befits a neophyte who sold what he previously served. And you were in the CPSU. You lied a lot.
      Who cares, read
      and then draw conclusions to whom the captain essentially serves his verbose comments

      The doctrine of reform was contrary to knowledge accumulated even within the framework of liberalism! In 1991, to M.S. Gorbachev was addressed with an “Open Letter” by a group of 30 American economists (including three Nobel Prize winners in economics - F. Modigliani, J. Tobin and R. Solow; another, W. Vicry, became a Nobel laureate in 1995. ) They warned that for the success of the reforms it is necessary to preserve the land and other natural resources in public ownership. The most prominent Western economists saw the destructive nature of the doctrine of Russian reform and tried to prevent the grave consequences. However, they simply did not pay attention to their letter.
  2. Eurodav
    Eurodav 27 October 2017 17: 06 New
    Quote: dsk
    Kerensky, Trotsky, Lenin - one gang of Masonic. "Lodges" are different - there is only one customer.
    Some started, others finished.
    Only the former seminarian Stalin broke all their plans, freeing Russia for 70 years from the proteges of the Western "partners".

    Worthy !!!
  3. Eurodav
    Eurodav 27 October 2017 17: 13 New
    Quote: Vasily50
    Fashion for the transfer of modern trends to the past is fascinating, but it makes you stupid. True, there are those who on this not only made a name, but also earned it.
    THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE refused the slave trade only under the threat of the massacre of slave owners, but at the same time they robbed the peasants. For centuries, the peasants were driven-educated obedience and not only the army-police, but also the church. The church not only fostered obedience but was engaged in ideological investigation.
    WWI gave weapons to millions and showed the rot of the autocracy, when it turned out to be possible to steal openly and brazenly, and much more, and without any punishment. It was shown that noble officers and other * celestials * perish as well as soldiers. So the psychological barrier to the destruction of the nobility broke.
    The nobles and the rich themselves destroyed the state of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE under the leadership of foreign curators, often containing these same curators. They tried to * REDRAND * RUSSIA and turn it into a colony. That's when the OCTOBER REVOLUTION took place, which not only preserved RUSSIA but also made it possible to rebuild a new society.

    "... The nobles and the rich themselves destroyed ..."
    Exactly yourself? No one was organized, not molested? One would like to say: Eh, Vasily ...
    And this doesn’t tell you anything ?:
    Aron Simanovich, personal secretary of Grigory Rasputin testifies in his book "Memoirs":
    "Leiba Davidovich Trotsky, who was striving for the collapse of the greatest power in the world - Russia, said about this: We must turn it (Russia) into a desert inhabited by white negroes, whom we will give such tyranny that we have never dreamed of the most terrible despots of the East ... This tyranny will not be on the right, but on the left and not white, but red, for we will shed such streams of blood before which all the losses of capitalist wars will shudder and turn pale ... The largest bankers from across the ocean will work in close contact with us. If we win the revolution if we crush Russia, we will strengthen the power of Zionism on its debris and become such a force that the whole world will kneel down. We will show what real power is. By terror, bloody baths, we will bring the Russian intelligentsia to complete dullness, to idiocy, to animal state ... In the meantime, our young men in leather jackets are the sons of watchmakers from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, - oh, how wonderful, how delightful they know how to hate everything Russian! With what pleasure they will physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia - officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, agronomists, academics, writers !. "
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 27 October 2017 19: 26 New
      Eurodav, darling, thanks for the tip! I did not know about Simanovich’s book; I read only FF Yusupov and Rasputin’s daughter. I will definitely read it! +1 to you!
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 27 October 2017 19: 40 New
      And what is Simanovich, is it an indisputable authority? Are you sure that he did not lie? The unflattering memories of his contemporaries are very much about him, a crook, a schemer and a liar, even that one.
      So I would not recklessly trust his writings.
      I do not think that Trotsky was such a fool that in a country predominantly Russian and Orthodox, he began to openly preach such views.
      Especially the secretary of Rasputin.
      In general, I doubt it. Although Trotsky, of course, is still that fruit, it is not known how the fate of Russia would have developed if Trotsky, and not Stalin, had won the battle for the fate of Russia.
      Still, it was not for nothing that Trotsky was called the demon of the world revolution.
    3. Awaz
      Awaz 27 October 2017 20: 34 New
      after the memorable Congress of Soviets, when Lenin seized power in Russia, in the USA in the morning newspapers came out with the headlines that Trotsky had seized power .. This speaks volumes. Lenin saved Russia from destruction. That was the cruel chopping, until they destroyed most of the bandits who had destroyed the Russians before
  4. tank64rus
    tank64rus 27 October 2017 17: 18 New
    EVERYTHING, from the Grand Dukes to the peasant and the worker, wanted revolution in tsarist Russia. DO NOT BELIEVE watch the movie "Michman Panin" based on real events, not the inventions of the directors.
    1. A.V.S.
      A.V.S. 28 October 2017 11: 21 New
      Quote: tank64rus
      you believe

      We do not believe. Nobody has seen the great revolutionary princes.
      1. long in stock.
        long in stock. 29 October 2017 22: 55 New
        but in vain .... who of the great princes with the red banner went there? It seems Cyril Vladimir ... Among the sad shows ... it should be noted the appearance of the Guards crew with red rags, led by Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich ... The appearance of the Grand Duke under the red flag was it is understood as the refusal of the Imperial family to fight for their prerogatives and as a recognition of the fact of the revolution ... And a week later this impression was further reinforced by the appearance in print of an interview with Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, which began with the words: “my janitor and I, we equally saw that with the old the government of Russia will lose everything. ” And ending with a statement that the Grand Duke is pleased to be a free citizen, and that a red flag flutters over his palace.
        1. A.V.S.
          A.V.S. 30 October 2017 10: 55 New
          That is, the future emperor Cyril I is a revolutionary ?! Well, tell me, what party did he belong to, anarcho-communists or socialists-internationalists? As V.I. Ulyanov-Lenin used to say: "... the problem with quotes from the Internet is that people unconditionally believe in their authenticity!"
          1. long in stock.
            long in stock. 30 October 2017 15: 41 New
            this is from the book of the Polovtsian eclipse days. you can still recall the memories of the vojeykov-yard commandant ... the problem of people that they can’t read carefully. He wasn’t a member of the party. But he at least accepted the bourgeois revolution. And then he wrote interesting things in exile a curious reading. and yes, he could not claim the throne by law. He violated at least 3 articles of the succession law.
            1. A.V.S.
              A.V.S. 30 October 2017 19: 30 New
              Most of the commanders of the Volunteer Army in 1917 commanded units under the red flag. Even L. Kornilov was the commander in chief of the formation with a wonderful name:Revolutionary Army of Free Russia. So the red flag over the military unit is not an indicator of the officer’s political position.
  5. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 27 October 2017 18: 02 New
    Written by a dodger! All that helped the Bolsheviks! It is a pity that the Bolsheviks from the 1960s only became smaller and by 1991 had completely degenerated! Nails would be made of those people.
    1. AUL
      AUL 28 October 2017 11: 55 New
      Nails would be made of those people.
      ... there would be more horseradish nails!
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 28 October 2017 16: 23 New
        Well, it’s noticeable for you.
  6. Dart2027
    Dart2027 27 October 2017 18: 50 New
    The whole essence of the article in the famous phrase of Lenin:
    Death delay is like
    If they had not taken power then, they would never have taken it.
    1. Shurale
      Shurale 27 October 2017 19: 02 New
      Not really, they wouldn’t have taken it - there would have been no Russia.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 27 October 2017 19: 40 New
        Quote: Shurale
        if they didn’t take it, there wouldn’t be Russia

        May be. Or maybe not.
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 28 October 2017 06: 54 New
          There are none. The Entente countries accepted the February revolution with great enthusiasm (despite the fact that the tsar was a faithful ally), they did not take any sanctions and actions against the provisional government of the Entente, because the mess that began in Russia completely suited them, they already divided it into zones of influence. But the Bolsheviks came and broke them off. At first, the owners of the Fed decided to act on their own, together with their slaves, to return their booty, but again a bummer, then they brought up Herr Hitler, but broke off again. And only in 1991, relying on traitors and the “war of images”, they realized what they had planned.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 28 October 2017 13: 16 New
            Quote: zoolu350
            There are none. Entente countries accepted the February revolution with great enthusiasm

            Well, they themselves participated in its organization. The question is who would replace the VP. Suppose Denikin or Kornilov would come to power, then what? Question.
            1. zoolu350
              zoolu350 28 October 2017 13: 29 New
              No problem. The owners of the Fed released against him the clouds "Petlyur and Manerheim", other Kerensky, Semenov, Kolchak would also not have disappeared. Russia for the Fed owners in 1917 nothing more than the next production on a par with Turkey, Germany and Austria-Hungary. So their surprise from the bummer that the Bolsheviks organized for them knew no bounds.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 28 October 2017 15: 20 New
                Quote: zoolu350
                other Kerensky, Semenov, Kolchak would not have disappeared either.

                If he simply outweighed this audience in Petrograd and didn’t go face to face with the separatists, he could have completely put things in order.
                1. zoolu350
                  zoolu350 28 October 2017 18: 55 New
                  The army that was in order to restore order in 1917? It’s funny.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 28 October 2017 20: 58 New
                    Quote: zoolu350
                    The army that was in order to restore order in 1917

                    Put things in order in that army.
  7. Shurale
    Shurale 27 October 2017 19: 01 New
    For the first time I come across a concise truthful narration of those events, thanks to the author.
  8. Galleon
    Galleon 27 October 2017 19: 23 New
    Rodzianko (leader of the Octobrists) and a group of generals (Ruzsky, Alekseev and those who joined them) fought off the emperor.

    Rodzianko was chairman of the State Duma and was not an Octobrist. Guchkov created the party of the Octobrists, and he also went to the Tsar in Pskov in February 1917. But by then Guchkov had already split up with his party for political reasons.
    After such absurdities, reading further became uninteresting. Such blunders - disrespect for the history of their country, and touching such bloody and difficult topics for those who have not mastered and not made sense - well, simply does not suit.
    1. AA17
      AA17 31 October 2017 14: 52 New
      Dear Galleon. You obviously got excited, throwing such words: "... Such mistakes are disrespect for the history of your country ...". There is information, it is available: "The Union on October 17 (Octobrists), the right-liberal party of officials, landowners and the large commercial industrial bourgeoisie of Russia. The organization of the party ended in 1905 .... Leaders: A. I. Guchkov, P. L. Korf, M. V. Rodzianko, N. A. Khomyakov, D. N. Shipov, etc. .. "The author of the article is right.
  9. Strategy
    Strategy 27 October 2017 19: 30 New
    Yes, with each article, the story is "newer and newer" ... repeat
  10. Ulan
    Ulan 27 October 2017 19: 31 New
    An interesting version. But repeats the well-known - the Bolsheviks picked up the wallowing power.
    In general, everything is natural, the one who can not control the power, he gives it to others.
  11. solzh
    solzh 27 October 2017 19: 33 New
    The author approached the issue without cliches and any stereotypes and with an interesting presentation and vision of the events of 1917. I do not quite agree with the author, for example, on the participation of the Bolsheviks in the first Russian revolution, but the article is good! good
  12. Awaz
    Awaz 27 October 2017 19: 54 New
    Well, there is a bunch of mistakes, but the general thread of the moment is basically correct: the Bolsheviks really just stupidly found themselves at the right time in the right place. However, their government was very motley and did not succeed in getting rid of all this diversity. And it is unlikely that they would have got rid of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and all the rest, if not for the war that the officers had arranged. However, the Bolsheviks carried out all their slogans as best they could and the people followed them.
    Further bloody events were mainly connected not even with the bloodthirstiness of the Bolsheviks, namely, from the hatred of those who called themselves white to the people of Russia and from the fact that there really were not many Bolsheviks and a huge number of crooks and all kinds of bandit elements joined them in the wake of good luck.
  13. panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 27 October 2017 20: 22 New
    Communism won, as history shows, in only one country - the DPRK, Cuba ..... well, not quite as long as Raul is still alive. The communist world died out like a dinosaur, in one moment. Yes, and the Communists themselves wished it, one famous director even burned his party membership card live in front of the whole country!
    1. Awaz
      Awaz 28 October 2017 10: 17 New
      come on . Take a look at Qatar for example. The almost complete embodiment of communism ..
    2. Pancir026
      Pancir026 29 October 2017 13: 31 New
      Quote: panzerfaust
      Communism won, as history shows, in only one country - the DPRK, Cuba ..... well, not quite as long as Raul is still alive. The communist world died out like a dinosaur, in one moment.

      We look at the material of the CCP congress and understand that you are a vigorous apologist for Chubais, to say the least, you pass off your desired hallucinations as reality.
  14. demo
    demo 27 October 2017 21: 22 New
    The main thing is not to show "this" to Gennady Andreyevich.
    And then an uneven hour heart attack shies.
    Age. Not a boy.
    Let him live in ignorance.
  15. 1536
    1536 27 October 2017 21: 29 New
    The Bolsheviks won because Russian society was tired of Haponism, generated by the tsarist government itself, tired of the capitalist ministers, loafers and bribe takers who were seated in the government of the temporary and then State Duma. (Pop Gapon, hired by the tsarist security department to repair provocations among the workers of St. Petersburg as far back as the 1905 year, has become a household name in Russian history. A name that applies to all provocateurs and idiots-deceivers, professional manipulators of public opinion, in whatever order they We’ve seen one such “popik” today, but we still can’t do anything about it.) Then, as now, people wanted specificity and integrity in foreign and domestic policies, the destruction of external and internal enemies them, let live and just annoying. The Bolsheviks more than ensured and provided all this. Alas, the understanding that there is only power and those who possess it began to come only in our time.
  16. basmach
    basmach 27 October 2017 23: 32 New
    The Bolsheviks in time and intelligibly formulated those aspirations that were among the people. "Pestilence to the peoples" - there is no need to explain here .. "Land to the peasants" - by the summer of 1917. basically the "black" (unauthorized) redistribution of landlord land was completed (and the estates themselves were mostly burnt by the same peasants and without any help from the Bolsheviks). The Bolsheviks proposed that this redistribution be legalized with this slogan, well aware of the impossibility of new rearrangements in the near future. And this (in a country with 85% of peasants) gave them tremendous support. As well as the slogan "factory workers." The Soviets, not the invention of the Bolsheviks, but adopted by them, in essence corresponded to the community, grew out of this social phenomenon and were not only simple and understandable to the vast majority of the population, but also in tune with their idea of ​​governance.
    Actually, a revolution is a fundamental change in the socio-political and economic formation (change in political institutions and the system of power) with the advent of a new social group, with a mass social movement. Without a mass social movement there will be no revolution. Had the Bolsheviks not cheated on a huge mass of people (moreover from different walks of life) - there would have been no revolution and the building of a new society and state.
  17. Yak28
    Yak28 28 October 2017 09: 54 New
    Why did the Bolsheviks win, because the tsar with his retinue did not see or did not want to see the problems of the people and the changes that were happening in the world and in Russia in particular. But the main reason for the Bolshevik victory was that most of the army betrayed the tsar and went over to the side of the revolutionaries. In the same way, the USSR collapsed, here the GENESEC with his retinue did not see or did not want to see the problems of the people and the changes that were happening in the world and in the Soviet Union in particular, and here again the army and power structures change the oath and do not stand up for the USSR, so just like their grandfathers, great-grandfathers did not defend the Russian Empire. At any moment, go over the army with special services to the side of any opposition and the revolution will be successful.
  18. nikvic46
    nikvic46 28 October 2017 10: 28 New
    The author writes that power came to the Bolsheviks like manna from heaven, that they would not write about the Revolution in which they won
    Bolsheviks. The Civil War, which ended in the defeat of those forces (external and
    internal) who fought against the establishment of Soviet power.
  19. A.V.S.
    A.V.S. 28 October 2017 11: 14 New
    Why did the Bolsheviks win in October:
    1) power resource - thousands of frostbitten anarchist sailors, soldier regiments, the Red Guard plus the Finnish special battalion. 2) power resource control over the Petro-Soviet. 3) frantic propaganda on the principle of “all at once”.
    1. Pancir026
      Pancir026 29 October 2017 13: 18 New
      Quote: A.W.S.
      1) power resource - thousands of frostbitten anarchist sailors, soldier regiments, the Red Guard plus the Finnish special battalion. 2) power resource control over the Petro-Soviet. 3) frantic propaganda on the principle of “all at once”.

      Finely. Rumors, gossip and not a gram of truth.
    2. long in stock.
      long in stock. 29 October 2017 23: 15 New
      first read what the Finnish battalion was where it was trained and where it was used. then state it. I heard a ring- but I don’t guess your head .. it’s not for nothing that they say that education has degraded — you are the clearest example ..
  20. Yuri Simonov
    Yuri Simonov 28 October 2017 13: 04 New
    Everything is essentially correct. It should be added that the Bolsheviks still lied like no one else, namely: they promised everyone everything that he wanted, without even thinking to keep their promises.
    1. Pancir026
      Pancir026 29 October 2017 13: 20 New
      Quote: Yuri Simonov
      It should be added that the Bolsheviks still lied like no one else, namely: they promised everyone everything that he wanted, without even thinking to keep their promises.

      And what is the proof of your so "true" statement?
      And what did yours do in 91? Well, these gavril prirova. Zaslavsky. Naidary. Chubais? Did they tell the truth? Borya Yeltsin, what did they say about the rails. Is it really the truth?
      Before writing, at least you thought ... what to write ... and the feeling that the icteric subscription from the mezzanine was taken out from the mezzanine and scratched from there ..
  21. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 29 October 2017 13: 11 New
    Because in 1917 it was the only capable force. The revolutionary situation existed objectively. The Bolsheviks had clear (no matter, right or wrong) answers to the questions that life posed. The rotten liberals did not have any answers then, nor now.