Military Review

Liberals in search of dictatorship

37
Liberals in search of dictatorship



Liberalism is a doctrine that advocates for guarantees of private property, civil rights, and the rule of law implemented by a multiparty system. So on paper. In fact, especially in the era of revolution, contradictions may arise between these principles. And then the protection of private property can turn into social elitism, requiring dictatorship.

So long as the liberals - and in Russia 1917 of the year, in a party sense, these are primarily constitutional democrats - were fighting for power against autocracy, they were in favor of the government responsible to parliament. However, having obtained power, the liberal Provisional Government, first of all, deprived the Duma of power. As in autocracy, the legislative and executive branches were in the same hands.

In the spring of 1917, the Duma’s authority in the country was still high. Although political leaders for the most part opposed the resumption of its activities as a monarchist body, elected by an authoritarian "third June" law. At the same time, the Soviets could not be perceived as the representation of the people, since a part of the society was not represented in any way. As a result, the government decided not to report to anyone at all. But not for long - just before the elections to the Constituent Assembly. True, there was a discussion about when to collect it. The Cadets were in favor of the purity of the elections, and in Russia this meant a long preparation. It is desirable to do until the end of world war. The people in the meantime will calm down, cease to be carried away by socialist little ideas. At the same time, in contrast to the aggravating socio-economic crisis and war weariness, the people became more and more radical. And the left demanded the early convening of a Constituent Assembly, which could consolidate the outcome of the revolution.

When it came to social and economic transformation, it was more difficult for liberals to act. The situation assumed government regulation of the economy. 25 March The Provisional Government decided to transfer the grain to the state. Characteristically, this “socialist” decision was made, albeit under pressure from the Council, but at the suggestion of the Cadet Minister Andrei Shingaryov. The country took this response to the need of the day with understanding. However, he demanded a continuation, building a wider regulatory system, otherwise the restriction of trade in bread could cause, above all, an increase in the deficit.

At the same time, the liberals were not ready to deepen the transformation. The liberal program, based on the protection of private property and the continuation of the war until victory, opposed the sentiments of the masses and could be imposed on them only by force. Although the liberals did not have the strength, because the soldiers were striving for an early peace, did not trust the officers and were not ready to participate in the military coup. This was shown by the events of the April crisis.

To Constantinople!

The Cadets, led by Foreign Minister Pavel Milyukov, turned out to be very belligerent, hoping to “get their own way” - to participate in the section of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire, and to get compensation from Germany for the costs of the war. And while the policy aimed at annexing and receiving contributions from the enemy continued, it was impossible to reach a peaceful compromise, which did not suit the socialists - for the most part supporters of the world without annexations and contributions - the soonest peace "draw."
Milyukov’s opinion was shared by most of the cadets. With a storm of applause, Fedor Rodichev said at the March 26 party congress: “Where are the annexations? And Constantinople? Who are we going to annex it? Turks? Hall calmed down in perplexity. Indeed - who, if not the Turks? “Gentlemen, you know that Constantinople is not a completely Turkish city. You know that there, if memory serves me correctly, 140 is thousands of Turks, the rest are Christian Greeks and Jews. ” Well, of course: a hundred thousand Turks do not count. And the God himself ordered the Greeks to live in Russia, and not in Turkey or some Greece. Not to mention the Jews. What are the annexations here!

The cynical logic of the chauvinist liberals stumbled upon the resistance of the peacekeepers from the Council. In order to preserve its influence on the Soviets, for which the masses of metropolitan soldiers and workers stood, the Provisional Government maneuvered and adopted a peacekeeping declaration. Allies on the Entente demanded certainty: is Russia going to fight in full force for its former goals?

April 20 was published note to the allies, prepared by Milyukov and after discussion adopted by the government. It talked about the war before victory (which excluded a quick compromise peace), after which the “democratic states” (that is, the Entente) would impose “sanctions” capable of preventing a new war. The socialists felt betrayed and did not allow themselves to be faced with the fact of a change in the foreign policy line of the government towards imperialism. They brought soldiers and workers to the streets of Petrograd.
There were heated debates in the government whether it would be possible to seize the opportunity and seize all power by suppressing the Council. 21 on April, the commander of the Petrograd Military District Lavr Kornilov, on the orders of Alexander Guchkov, attempted to call two batteries of the Mikhailovsky Artillery School to Palace Square, but the assembly of soldiers and officers decided not to give him guns. New January 9 did not take place, and Kornilov resigned.

Since it was impossible to crush the left, it was necessary to direct their energy to the benefit of the government. And this was executable only if Milyukov was excluded from the “hawk” cabinet.

In vain, Pavel Milyukov convinced Prime Minister Georgy Lvov to establish a firm power, ready to crush the left. In the setting of spring 1917, these proposals were completely inadequate. Milyukov first claimed that he would not remain in the government in the event of a coalition with the left, but then he began to divide portfolios, experiencing a new humiliation: he was offered the post of Minister of Education. Miliukov refused to educate citizens in such conditions and left the government.

Milyukov himself was now inclined to the tactic "the worse, the better." He said in a circle of comrades-in-arms: "The sooner a revolution exhausts itself, the better for Russia, for the less crippled it will emerge from the revolution." Realizing their counter-revolutionary mission under the prevailing conditions, the Cadets continued to hesitate between "trying to stop" and "stepping aside is not our business." However, no matter how they acted, the revolution continued to deepen for a long time. And she could not help but go deep until she found herself somehow or completely resolving her social problems.

Waiting for Bonaparte

On May 5, the Lvov government was reorganized: it included not only Cadets and other liberals (nine ministers), but also six socialists. The Cadets and the Socialists had a different view on the strategy of social transformation. At the same time, the influence of the Cadets among the masses was rapidly falling, so that under these conditions there was no chance for them to insist on their project of transforming Russia. And if so, it was necessary to “freeze” the revolution, postpone the transformation until better times.

Therefore, the Cadets and right-wing socialists, such as Alexander Kerensky, saw a way out in that at least until the Constituent Assembly, and preferably until the end of the war, to slow down social transformations.

In order not just to freeze the crisis, but to start treating it, we need social transformations - at least moderate ones. So that people understand: something is being done. And in a coalition, the liberals stood to death: no social changes before the Constituent Assembly, you can not prejudice the will of the people. In fact, they easily “anticipated” this will by conducting a series of transformations in March-April, when the government was liberal. But now the question of land ownership has arisen, and then the Cadets "showed their principles." They also rejected the agrarian proposals of the land minister, Social Revolutionary Viktor Chernov, and the Mensheviks' proposals for regulating industry.

On July 2 they left the government altogether and with great difficulty only July 24 allowed to persuade themselves to return - now to the government of the right-wing socialist Kerensky. And at that moment they had a new hope of regaining leadership. On July 24, the new Commander-in-Chief Kornilov left for GHQ.

Kornilov immediately began to intervene in politics, expressing views close to the Cadet. He demanded the elimination of the Soviets and army committees, the partial militarization of the rear. Especially the general insisted on the introduction of the death penalty in the rear, and it was obvious that it would be a question of execution not only of criminals.

The Cadets provided him with political support. When 13 August Kornilov solemnly arrived in Moscow to take part in the State Conference, he was greeted by a crowd of fans, on whose behalf the cadet Fyodor Rodichev pathetically said: “Come, lead, and save Russia.”

However, at the same time, one of the cadet leaders, Vasily Maklakov, told the leader of the Union of Officers Colonel Ardalion Novosiltsev: "Tell General Kornilov that we are provoking him." The cadets "provoked" more than one Kornilov. In June 1917, Milyukov secretly led through the Union of Army Officers and fleet probing negotiations with Admiral Alexander Kolchak (recently withdrew from the Black Sea Fleet) on the possibility of transferring temporary power to the military. True, on August 20, the majority of the Cadet Central Committee spoke out against the establishment of a military dictatorship. Although it was an official political position.

An attempt to establish the right dictatorship will encounter fierce resistance, and 27 – 31 August, during the Kornilov speech, and later, when this dictatorship will be established by white generals. Already in August, the Cadets faced the problem of attitudes towards the right dictatorship: to keep themselves in politics and abandon democratic slogans or remain idealists outside of real politics. Milyukov answered this question in the following way: “Life pushes the society and the population to the idea of ​​the inevitability of a surgical operation. This process takes place without us, but we are not in a neutral position towards him: we call on him and sympathize with him to a certain extent. ” However, it would be good for others to do the dirty work of introducing repression and defeating the Soviets, after which the Cadets could inherit power without smearing white gloves.

In this case, the performance of Kornilov failed. Well, it was necessary for a while to return to the democratic slogans on the eve of the elections to the Constituent Assembly. But this few people convinced. Supporters of the right "order" voted for the Cadets, and those turned out to be 4,5%.

However, the situation at the time of the election has changed radically - the Bolsheviks came to power. The Cadets became active and organized fighters against Soviet power. The Bolsheviks reciprocated. Already on November 28 of 1917, they adopted a decree on the arrest of "leaders of the civil war", which included members of the leading institutions of the cadets. Later, the Cadets actively supported the White movement, which materialized the liberal dream of establishing a military dictatorship to pacify the raging masses. However, the dream did not last long.
Author:
Originator:
http://xn--h1aagokeh.xn--p1ai/special_posts/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B-%D0%B2-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%85-%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B/
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Basil50
    Basil50 28 October 2017 07: 16 New
    +5
    The seizure of power by liberals in RUSSIA in one century has occurred twice. In 1917, the military made a coup with the arrest and abdication of the king, and liberals took power in power. The result was: the collapse of the entire state machine, an attempt to divide RUSSIA into specific principalities with the occupation of * allies *.
    At the end of the twentieth century the same thing happened. It all fits together. And the military coup and the destruction of the state apparatus, and rampant theft.
    The only difference is that in 1917 liberals often financed their own foreign curators, but in the nineties liberals did not openly finance from abroad.
    In RUSSIA, they just stopped the civil war and stopped the disintegration into destinies, until they punished the thieves and traitors and until they began the revival of the STATE. No matter how the current government resists, steps need to be taken further.
    1. San Sanych
      San Sanych 28 October 2017 08: 13 New
      +7
      "Our Russian liberal is, first and foremost, a lackey and is just watching how someone can clean their boots." F.M. Dostoevsky.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 28 October 2017 11: 55 New
        +4
        Quote: San Sanych
        "Our Russian liberal is, first and foremost, a lackey and is just watching how someone can clean their boots." F.M. Dostoevsky.

        Fyodor Mikhailovich has many statements about liberals. He, as a true artist at the subconscious level, felt what danger for Russia comes from these nonhumans. One of many thoughts:
        ".... a liberal has come to the point of denying Russia itself, that is, hating and beating his mother. Every unfortunate and unsuccessful Russian fact excites laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. If there is an excuse for him, except that he does not understand what he is doing, and takes his hatred of Russia for the most fruitful liberalism ... "
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 October 2017 10: 09 New
      +3
      The article really liked the description of a difficult moment in our history, and later I will read it through the link.
      Quote: Vasily50

      In RUSSIA, they just stopped the civil war and stopped the disintegration into destinies, until they punished the thieves and traitors and until they began the revival of the STATE. .
      This phrase is suitable for both 1917 and 1990 ----- It is only today's liberals who are activating and uniting with all their might.
    3. Basil50
      Basil50 28 October 2017 11: 30 New
      +2
      It seems to me that the Anglo-Saxon attempts to destroy RUSSIA exist only because there are no programs for the destruction of England, France, Germany, the United States. Bonuses for homicide poisoning are not paid, hired borozopisy are not paid for scumming everyone in these countries.
      It is clear that this is disgusting, but defending RUSSIA only inflames the leaders of these countries to meanness and, in the end, the hope of irresponsibility * will encourage * them to open aggression ..
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 28 October 2017 12: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Vasily50
        It seems to me that the Anglo-Saxon attempts to destroy RUSSIA exist only because there are no programs to DESTROY England-France-Germany-USA. ..
        And to whom can they be beneficial as an acquisition, because only the United States of these are the owners of their own natural resources of various kinds? After all, war, destruction, not for the sake of satisfaction, but from purely commercial purposes. Russia alone possesses such a huge and diverse natural resources and vast territory.
        1. Basil50
          Basil50 28 October 2017 12: 57 New
          +2
          reptiloid
          Well, you should not be so mercantile. In the end, something can be done for nothing, and thereby serve humanity.
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 28 October 2017 14: 19 New
            0
            There is still, Vasily50, it is necessary to calculate very well ----- who will occupy the vacant space? What would "" for nothing "" spoil yourself?
    4. Dzmicer
      Dzmicer 31 October 2017 13: 50 New
      +1
      It's funny It turns out that people with CPSU membership cards or KGB crusts, hereditary “proletarians” of the third or fourth generation, whose grandfathers naturally washed to death the “Russian chauvinistic scum”, “wreckers”, “five intelligence spies” in the torture cellars of the Cheka / NKVD - it’s our liberals.
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 28 October 2017 08: 03 New
    +6
    In the meantime, a policy aimed at annexing and receiving indemnity from the enemy continued Cynical logic of chauvinist liberals

    The author, tell me what is then called the policy of the Soviet leadership in the Second World War, when it is made SAME: required and got and territory and damages (from the same, incidentally, the enemy). Also
    Shubin ... The cynical logic of chauvinist liberals
    ? And what would happen to peacekeepers who would refuse this?
    Or Russia, a victim of aggression, did not have the right to receive compensation from the aggressor for losses in humanity’s worst war (at that time)?
    1. Alexander Greene
      Alexander Greene 28 October 2017 09: 38 New
      +5
      Quote: Olgovich
      Author’s quote: “In the meantime, a policy aimed at annexing and receiving indemnities from the enemy continued. The cynical logic of liberal chauvinists”

      The author, tell me, what is the name of the policy of the Soviet leadership in the Second World War when it did the SAME thing: it demanded and received territory and compensation for losses (from the same enemy, by the way).


      Do not confuse the circumstances that developed in the first and second world wars. The Soviet leadership demanded the return of their previously captured lands, and compensation for the completely destroyed infrastructure of the European part of the USSR.
      But most importantly, the goals in the wars were different. For the USSR, the war of 1941-1945 was Patriotic, the goal was to protect their Fatherland. The goals of the war of 1914-1918 for the participating countries, including Tsarist Russia, there were others, imperialist, they consisted in redivising the world and in capturing the colonies. The Liberals at that time dreamed of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 28 October 2017 10: 05 New
        13
        Quote: Alexander Green
        Do not confuse the circumstances that developed in the first and second world wars.

        The circumstances are the same: the attack of the same aggressor, who had the same tasks.
        Quote: Alexander Green
        The Soviet leadership demanded the return of their previously captured lands, and compensation for the completely destroyed infrastructure of the European part of the USSR.

        Yes, yes, it required a return .... Poland captured by Germany in the 17th century "Polish" lands. request
        And the return of their lands is what? Konigsberg?
        But Russia could not demand compensation for aggression against it, right ?. fool
        For the USSR, the war of 1941-1945 was Patriotic, the goal was to protect their Fatherland. The goals of the war of 1914-1918 for the participating countries, including Tsarist Russia, there were others, imperialist, they consisted in redivising the world and in capturing the colonies. The Liberals at that time dreamed of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

        For Russia, the Great War was the Second World War and the goal was to protect the Fatherland, as in the Second World War.
        Aggressors in WWII lost a lot of land. why in WWI aggressors could not lose the Dardanelles, as they did Alsace, etc.?
        1. Alexander Greene
          Alexander Greene 28 October 2017 12: 32 New
          +3
          Quote: Olgovich
          The circumstances are the same: the attack of the same aggressor, who had the same tasks.

          False, learn the dialectic, then you will see the difference. The form is similar, but not the content.
          Quote: Olgovich
          And the return of their lands is what? Konigsberg?

          As for Koenigsberg, you don’t know how it was? When the Eastern Corridor was liquidated, these lands were no man's land. Poland did not pretend to them, and therefore transferred to the USSR.
          Quote: Olgovich
          For Russia, the Great War was the Second World War and the goal was to protect the Fatherland, as in the Second World War

          These are fermented patriots who dreamed of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, tried to call it that, but this name did not take root, because for some reason neither the Russian people, nor the Russian army wanted to fight for the fatherland.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Aggressors in WWII lost a lot of land. why in WWI aggressors could not lose the Dardanelles, as they did Alsace, etc.?

          Yes, you, my friend, are just imperial ways ...
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 28 October 2017 13: 49 New
            13
            Quote: Alexander Green
            False, learn the dialectic, then you will see the difference.

            False, learn the FACTS of history and then you will not see the difference
            Quote: Alexander Green
            The form is similar, but not the content.

            belay
            on the second day of the war, the Germans took, burned, blew up the Russian city of Kalish, cut out (literally) its population (hundreds of people), partly drove them to a concentration camp without food and water. This is the year 1914, if that.
            About WWII, I hope you yourself know.
            What is the difference in the content ?? Atrocities recorded by the State Cheka
            Quote: Alexander Green
            As for Koenigsberg, you don’t know how it was? When the Eastern Corridor was liquidated, these lands turned out to be in a draw. Poland did not pretend to them, and therefore transferred to the USSR.

            You, teaching everyone, write well such ridiculous things that you wonder: East Prussia is the basis of all Germanyno man's land ?! fool The USSR did not receive them because Poland refused (who asked her, a loser? lol ) and someone graciously gave it to him, but because CAM demanded it and took it for himself.
            Quote: Alexander Green
            These are fermented patriots who dreamed of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, tried to call it that, but this name did not take root, because for some reason neither the Russian people, nor the Russian army wanted to fight for the fatherland.

            Patriots are the same as in the Second World War, the name stuck, ka and the slogan "Everything for the front, everything for the Victory" (copied it and the Second World War)
            Quote: Alexander Green
            because neither the Russian people, nor the Russian army for some reason did not want to fight for the fatherland.

            Would not want to, you would not be in the world. The army and people won the war.
            Quote: Alexander Green
            Quote: Olgovich
            Aggressors in WWII lost a lot of land. why in WWI aggressors could not lose the Dardanelles, as they did Alsace, etc.?
            Yes, you, my friend, are just imperial ways ...

            Give, non-imperialist, Koenigsberg. And France, offer to give Alsace with Lorraine. Romania-give Transylvania, etc. . (This is all the result of WWII). Let's see how far they will send you.
            1. Alexander Greene
              Alexander Greene 29 October 2017 08: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Olgovich
              False, learn the FACTS of history and then you will not see the difference

              In fact, the facts are not taught, but analyzed, and in order to understand them correctly, the dialectic method must be applied. Everything flows in the world, everything changes, therefore neither in nature nor in society is anything the same: neither things, nor events.

              Quote: Olgovich
              on the second day of the war, the Germans took, burned, blew up the Russian city of Kalish, cut out (literally) its population (hundreds of people), partly drove them to a concentration camp without food and water.

              First, atrocities are not a sign that the war should be called "Patriotic." Secondly, Kalisz is a Polish city with a Jewish population, and yours “burned, blew up the Russian city of Kalisz, cut out (literally) its population (hundreds of people)”, it’s greatly exaggerated, otherwise a lot of Jewish gymnasiums would have opened in Kalisz by 1916 , schools and other institutions.

              Quote: Olgovich
              East Prussia, the basis of the foundations of all of Germany, no man's land ?! The USSR received them not because Poland refused (who asked her, a loser? And someone graciously gave it to him, but because the SAM asked for it and took it for himself.

              With Koenigsberg, too, Churchill proposed to divide Germany into parts, in particular to separate East Prussia, which was originally supposed to go to Poland and the USSR. It was necessary to choose which part to take for himself, Stalin took Koenigsberg, or was he supposed to exchange Poland with the Polish corridor?

              Quote: Olgovich
              Patriots are the same as in the Second World War, the name stuck, ka and the slogan "Everything for the front, everything for the Victory"

              Firstly, patriotic fervor was only in the initial period of the war, and then among the butchers and shopkeepers who shouted that we would throw the hats of the German, only the peasants and workers had to fight, who after they fed the lice in the trenches because then he dreamed of the Dardanelles; in general, they saw his light and turned their bayonets against tsarism.

              Secondly, the war is called the Patriotic War, when military operations are launched in a large part of its territory, that is, the enemy occupies part of the country, and not only the army, but also the people (partisan detachments) are mobilized to expel the enemy. The First World War did not affect the main territory of Russia and ordinary citizens did not participate in it, which means that the war was imperialistic for the Russian Empire, and the people did not call it otherwise than German.

              Quote: Olgovich
              The army and people won the war.

              The old hackneyed plastic “The Army and the People Won the War”, and the Bolsheviks lost the war. Do not tell readers, everyone has long been sorted out by this one you are confused with.
              Quote: Olgovich
              Give, non-imperialist, Koenigsberg. And France, offer to give Alsace with Lorraine. Romania-give Transylvania, etc. . (This is all the result of WWII). Let's see how far they will send you.

              Everything goes to the third world war, and Alsace and Lorraine and other lands of Olya will begin to divide. As long as imperialism exists, they will not stop there.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 29 October 2017 14: 37 New
                0
                Quote: Alexander Green
                In fact, the facts are not taught, but analyzed,

                The facts are LEARNED, otherwise there will be nothing to analyze: is it really not clear? request
                Quote: Alexander Green
                in order to understand them correctly, one must apply the dialectic method.

                Right? belay Where is he, recognized by ALL, the criterion of "correctness"?
                Quote: Alexander Green
                therefore, neither in nature nor in society is anything the same: neither things, nor events.

                Yes, exclude from the Russian language: "the same, the same, serial, twins, etc." lol
                All people are different, but they are all people, and this is the same. Did not know?
                Quote: Alexander Green
                First, atrocities are not a sign that the war should be called "Patriotic." Secondly, Kalisz is a Polish city with a Jewish population, and yours “burned, blew up the Russian city of Kalisz, cut out (literally) its population (hundreds of people)”, it’s greatly exaggerated, otherwise a lot of Jewish gymnasiums would have opened in Kalisz by 1916 , schools and other institutions.

                1. The same atrocities - they say the same thing content-about THIS we talked about.
                2. Kalish-RUSSIAN city
                3. Teach our story-if you consider exaggerated atrocities. .
                Quote: Alexander Green
                Firstly, patriotic fervor was only in the initial period of the war, and then among the butchers and shopkeepers who shouted that we would throw the hats of the German, only the peasants and workers had to fight, who after they fed the lice in the trenches because then he dreamed of the Dardanelles, in general they saw the light and turned bayonets against tsarism

                None of the bayonets turned against tsarism (you don’t know the story at all), except for cowards — the front-line soldiers of the reserve regiments who were afraid of going to the front. The patriots were many millions and millions of awarded, hundreds of thousands of captives, children of regiments, sisters of the ROCC, etc. .
                Quote: Alexander Green
                Secondly, the war is called the Patriotic War, when ordinary citizens did not participate in it on a large part of its territory, which means that the war for the Russian Empire was imperialist, but the people didn’t call her otherwise than German.

                you are surprisingly illiterate. Is it really uninteresting to read anything more than owls. 4th grade textbook?
                Quote: Alexander Green
                The old hackneyed plastic “The Army and the People Won the War”, and the Bolsheviks lost the war. Do not tell readers, everyone has long been sorted out by this one you are confused with.

                All figured out already like 30 years, except for completely mossy and ossified. Read the Brest Peace, it was signed by the Bolsheviks. And who recognized them in Russia and abroad? Nobody .. Who recognized this piece of paper? None. Except you and the German-Turkish invaders: a good company of outcasts!
                Quote: Alexander Green
                Everything goes to the third world war, and Alsace and Lorraine and other lands of Olya will begin to divide. As long as imperialism exists, they will not stop there.

                Once again I urge: "Give, non-imperialist, Koenigsberg. Or is this a non-imperialist takeover? And Alsace, surrendered to France, is already an imperialist takeover, right? lol laughing
                Your cliches put you in a ridiculous position ....
      2. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 28 October 2017 13: 04 New
        +1
        The Soviet leadership demanded the return of their previously captured lands

        And the heart of Prussia?
        But most importantly, the goals in the wars were different.

        Both William and Hitler followed one — the colonies * and world hegemony **.
        Also, the Russian government in 1914 and Stalin in 1944 went for * .and **.
        The politicians are the same, their wars are the same. There will be no politicians - there will be no wars.
  3. BastaKarapuzik And
    BastaKarapuzik And 28 October 2017 10: 58 New
    +4
    Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of each person as the supreme value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order. Moreover, the ability of the state and the church to influence the life of society is limited by the constitution. The most important freedoms in modern liberalism are the freedom to speak out publicly, the freedom to choose a religion, the freedom to choose representatives in fair and free elections. In economic terms, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and business. In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the rule of law over the will of rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence

    Sorry for the quote, but I’m quoting it in order to visualize what is at stake.
    Our liberals turn a blind eye to the fact that in the world, in general, there is no freedom.
    What kind of freedom can a person have if he has been given media noodles over his ears from three boxes?
    No independent media.
    Totalitarianism is flourishing in the world. Totalitarianism is a restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens. One of the basic human rights is the right to free access to reliable information.
    The principles of liberalism, listed in the quote above, are not something that almost everyone has been violated, they regularly wipe their feet.
    1. Zina389
      Zina389 28 October 2017 17: 29 New
      0
      In Russia, there has never been a fair election or a true liberal government. You can’t love wine when you are sour. Many countries thrive under liberal democracy. As for servility, all classical Russian literature describes just servility under tsarism. The royal family kept huge amounts in Western banks, this behavior in itself can not be called a lackey. Democracy requires efforts and political activity from the people, while under the dictatorship you only need to kiss the boots, and under tsarism, serve the master.
      1. BastaKarapuzik And
        BastaKarapuzik And 28 October 2017 20: 36 New
        +2
        In Russia, there has never been a fair election or a true liberal government.

        Many countries thrive under liberal democracy.

        The first without comment, and the second ...
        This is where we have a flourishing liberal democracy?
        Many countries thrive under dictatorship. This does not mean that prosperity is a consequence of the above-mentioned political regimes. Someone sits on oil, someone on a printing press, someone just has a favorable geographical position, numerous colonies (which rob), climate, etc.
        We have the so-called "prosperous countries", part-time the largest debtors in the world. You can take a loan and look quite "prosperous" until the time comes to repay this debt.
        In each case, the reason for relative well-being is somehow different.
        So liberalism does not have to lead to prosperity.
        And the second, liberalism is just a screen, a ceremonial sign. The fact that the state does not interfere in the affairs of business entities does not mean that no one intervenes in them. There is no democracy in corporations and at this level there is almost no competitive market, everything is divided into zones of influence, the price is determined as a result of a cartel conspiracy.
        You can go on and on ...
        "Welcome" to the dictatorship.
        1. Zina389
          Zina389 28 October 2017 23: 04 New
          0
          Clear. Democracy is a dictatorship, and dictatorship, therefore, is democracy. Everything is just a screen, so let's do what?
          1. BastaKarapuzik And
            BastaKarapuzik And 29 October 2017 01: 26 New
            +2
            Let us emphasize, dictatorship, it is also a dictatorship in Africa.
            Negroes were hanged in a democratic USA, and Hitler came to power while maintaining the appearance of democratic procedures.
            At the same time, Assad, Kim (as well as in the past, Gaddafi, Hussein ..), having the support of the population, is declared a tyrant and dictator.
            Where is the logic in this looking glass?
            let's do what?

            I will refrain from global advice. But he wrote his comment to emphasize that our liberals do not agree with any intervention his states in any form in the economic and moral freedoms of citizens, but they do not see point-blank that these very freedoms are violated from the outside by other, state and non-state entities.
            And what exactly is its state called to be that mechanism for protecting the rights and freedoms of the people, since it raises its future citizens (and, by the way, rulers), and therefore can influence history.
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 29 October 2017 14: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: Zina389
        There have never been fair elections in Russia

        Elections to the Constituent Assembly of Russia in 1917 are the freest and most equal in the world, the standards of which all Western countries reached much later.
        Such things must be known.
        1. Pancir026
          Pancir026 29 October 2017 15: 00 New
          +1
          Quote: Olgovich
          Elections to the Constituent Assembly of Russia in 1917 are the freest and most equal in the world, the standards of which all Western countries reached much later.
          Such things must be known.

          Mdya ... admirable, talking and idleness in the Constituent Assembly, which has proved its complete worthlessness and futility, to present as the top of the dubious quality of democracy.
        2. Dzmicer
          Dzmicer 31 October 2017 13: 52 New
          +1
          Not really. Right-wing ("fascist", "anti-revolutionary") parties were not allowed to join them. Choose from varieties of revolutionaries and more.
  4. Alexander Greene
    Alexander Greene 29 October 2017 18: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    The facts are LEARNED, otherwise there will be nothing to analyze: is it really not clear?

    Quote: Olgovich
    Correctly? belay Where is it, recognized by ALL, the criterion of "correctness"?

    Quote: Olgovich
    All people are different, but they are all people, and this is the same. Did not know?

    Quote: Olgovich
    The same atrocities — talking about the same content — we talked about THIS.

    Quote: Olgovich
    None of the bayonets turned against tsarism (you don’t know the story at all), except for cowards — the front-line soldiers of the reserve regiments who were afraid of going to the front.

    Quote: Olgovich
    All figured out already like 30 years, except for completely mossy and ossified. Read the Brest Peace, it was signed by the Bolsheviks. And who recognized them in Russia and abroad? Nobody .. Who recognized this piece of paper? None. Except you and the German-Turkish invaders: a good company of outcasts!


    This is called the "clinic", it is confirmed and, widely used by you, emoticons, when there is nothing to say, they make faces.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 October 2017 10: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Green
      This is called a "clinic."

      This is called to you nothing and nothing to argue with the facts, except for empty rotten agitation .. lol
      1. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 30 October 2017 17: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Olgovich
        This is called to you Nothing and Nothing to object to the facts, except for empty rotten agitation

        No, my friend, I’m just explaining everything to you with reason, but you persist in your ignorance and make faces.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 31 October 2017 09: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Green
          No, my friend, I’m just explaining everything to you with reason, but you persist in your ignorance and make faces.

          FACTS - I have, you have some kind of empty scribble about dialectics that explains everything fool lol You refute FACTS, FACTS, not ranting

          Dialectics is the philosophical science of universal laws of movement and development of nature, human society and thinking, a scientific method of cognition of the ever-moving and changing phenomena of nature and society by revealing internal contradictions and the struggle of opposites, leading to an abrupt transition from one quality to another.
          Now they understand WHAT is dialectics?
          Although ... Hardly.
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 31 October 2017 23: 29 New
            +1
            Quote: Olgovich
            Now they understand WHAT is dialectics?
            Although ... Hardly.


            Refute your “Facts” with facts, not racketeering, ”accompanied by faces, indicates that you absolutely do not understand what dialectics are, you have confused it with logic.
            And logic says that facts are refuted not only by facts, but also by means of a refutation, which is understood as reasoning directed against a put forward fact or position, with the aim of establishing its error or unprovenness. One of the most common methods of refutation is the deduction from the refuted facts of the consequences, contrary to the truth.
            For example, you came up with the fact that the Earth is worth $ 5 trillion, which fact to refute. To say that she is worthless. It seems to be wrong too. It is in such cases that a logical refutation is applied that, firstly, the Earth is not someone else’s property and, secondly, there is hardly any buyer for it.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 2 November 2017 11: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Alexander Green
              And logic says that facts are refuted not only by facts, but also by means of a refutation, which is understood as reasoning directed against a put forward fact or position, with the aim of establishing its error or unprovenness. One of the most common methods of refutation is the deduction from the refuted facts of the consequences, contrary to the truth.

              What's wrong with you?! fool
              Facts cannot be refuted by reasoning, for they are an objectively existing REALITY, regardless of their perception and evaluation by anyone.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 2 November 2017 22: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: Olgovich
                Facts cannot be refuted by reasoning, for they are an objectively existing REALITY, regardless of their perception and evaluation by anyone.

                The fact is that now there are a lot of fictitious facts, and therefore their truth must be checked. The fact that there is some piece of paper in the archive is not proof that it is true. Your like-minded people (haters of the Soviet regime), since the birth of the Soviet regime, have produced so much waste paper, especially when they finished off the USSR, which alone is worth the execution of Katyn. The Yeltsinists concocted documents on Katyn, now there is no end to the Poles - they demand compensation. So be careful with slander, all this falls into Russia if it is dear to you.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 3 November 2017 09: 46 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  The fact is that now there are a lot of fictitious facts, and therefore their truth must be verified

                  The fact is that fictitious facts are NOT facts.
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  Your like-minded people (haters of the Soviet regime), since the birth of the Soviet regime, have produced so much waste paper, especially when they finished off the USSR,
                  Murderous (against oneself) waste paper and murderous facts spawned herself Owls power, being sure that no one will ever get into top-secret archives.
                  So I brought you the facts, and in response, empty hollow
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  all this goes to Russia if it is dear to you.

                  Russia is the best country in the world and her TRUE story NEEDS to know!
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 3 November 2017 21: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    Russia is the best country in the world and it IS NECESSARY to know its TRUE history!

                    You and your accomplices have already deceived her so much that you cannot reach the truth today. The time will come and everything Great will be called Great, as has already happened to Stalin. For 60 years they poured mud on him, destroyed his labors, and now even the slanderers are raising him to the shield.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 4 November 2017 08: 49 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      You and your accomplices have already deceived her so much that you cannot reach the truth today. The time will come and everything Great will be called Great, as has already happened to Stalin

                      I cite FACTS that you cannot refute. Your time will not come, your time of complete untruth and amazing hypocrisy has passed forever.
                      Even when all other points of view and even ordinary information, were thoroughly uprooted and persecuted, then everyone laughed at the stupidity of the prohibitions.
                      Well, now, when IS access to everything - your campaigns are generally funny.

                      For sim .....
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 5 November 2017 00: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        Your time will not come, your time of complete untruth and amazing hypocrisy has passed forever.

                        You want it so much, you, apparently, are either a descendant of the old exploiting classes, or a representative of the current bourgeoisie fiercely hate the Soviet regime, all the gains of the revolution cause you mad fury, you can’t forgive V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks that they liberated the common people from slavery. Therefore, you, pouring heaps of dirt and lies on their heads, repeat the spell that 1917 was a mistake and that it will not happen again.
                        But you forget about the laws of the development of society, and they say that a new socialist revolution is inevitable.
              2. badens1111
                badens1111 2 November 2017 22: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: Olgovich
                Facts cannot be refuted by reasoning, for they are an objectively existing REALITY, regardless of their perception and evaluation by anyone.

                Right?
                Well, those facts are for you.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oe1K23O-Us
                Gosizmena = liberalism, as well as all of their servants, to which you, undoubtedly, belong.