Military Review

The version of the “victory stolen from Russia” in the First World War does not take into account important circumstances

50
Exactly 100 years ago saw the light of the Decree on Peace - the first legislative act of the Soviet government. Subsequently, his edition would more than once be called a “crime” and even a “betrayal” - allegedly the Bolsheviks stole a deserved victory in world war from Russia. But what actually was this document, and why did the Soviets begin their rule with it?


The version of the “victory stolen from Russia” in the First World War does not take into account important circumstances


Around the Decree on Peace, in which the workers 'and peasants' government that came to power the day before, expressed their readiness to “immediately sign the terms of peace”, serious passions still boil. Some believe it is nothing more than a humanitarian foreign policy initiative, others - the fulfillment of the obligations of revolutionaries to the German General Staff, the betrayal of the Allies in the Entente and the first step towards a separate Brest peace. Reality, as usual, is much more complicated.

“We overlooked the lack of patriotism”

In Russia at the beginning of the 20th century there was a very special attitude to the war, which was very different from both the Soviet and the modern. This is clearly seen from the sentences and orders of the peasants of European Russia to the State Duma: the anti-war theme (in this case, the Russian-Japanese war) leitmotif passes through most of the correspondence from the field.

So, the peasants of the village of Gariali of the Sujansk district of the Kursk province affect the economic part of the problem: “We only breathe with that landowners' land we rent out for rent ... And now we don’t have a rent, but we don’t know. We were supported by earnings, and now because of the war, and earnings have disappeared, and everything has become more expensive, and the taxes have increased. ”

The peasants of the village of Kazakov of the Arzamas district of the Nizhny Novgorod province are outraged: “We wrote out a newspaper (we have literacy), began to read about the war, what is done there and what kind of people the Japanese are. It turned out that they ... so thrashed us ... And for all this we will have to pay, the peasant and the working people, in the form of various taxes. ”

Residents of the village of Veshki in Novotorzhsky district of the Tver province declare: "The ill-fated, destructive and devastating war should become a people's question, for which it is necessary to immediately gather representatives from the people and inform those of all information relating to the war, then continue or end it in peace."

Recall that we are talking only about the Russian-Japanese war. With the start of the First World War, Russian patriotic demonstrations rolled through, the first regiments went to the front under the thunder of orchestras and with massive solemn wires. “Alas,” Anton Denikin later wrote, “clouded with thunder and the noise of familiar patriotic phrases ... we overlooked the internal organic weakness of the Russian people: the lack of patriotism.”

“They didn’t want war,” the general develops his thought, “with the exception of perhaps ardent military youth who were eager for heroism; believed that the authorities would take all possible measures to prevent a collision. " In general, “the idea of ​​national self-defense” was not understood by the “dark people”, who “rose to the war dutifully, but without any enthusiasm and without a clear awareness of the need for a great sacrifice.”

One of the most comprehensive definitions of a political nation is this: a collection of people who have a common Fatherland and perceive its objective interests as their own. For a significant mass of Russian peasants at the beginning of the 20th century, not the whole country was the Fatherland, but only their own village, and they were primarily concerned not with geopolitical problems, but economic ones. As Denikin wrote all the same, we are supposedly Tambov, the German will not reach us.

People simply did not understand why they were sitting in trenches and were dying under the shells of enemy artillery. The demand for the termination of the war by the will of the masses was clearly expressed during the first Russian revolution of 1905, and during the February revolution of 1917, when the “dark people” took to the streets, including with banners “Down with the war!”.

"A terrible slaughter, defaming humanity"

The socialist parties regarded the First World War as imperialistic, that is, unleashed by the ruling circles and the big capital of the member states for the expansion of markets and the redistribution of colonies. Moreover, all socialist parties, and not only the Russian, considered the war.

The question of the impending world war became central at the congress of the 2 International in Stuttgart in 1907, where representatives of 25 nations from all continents gathered. In the final resolution, the immediate tasks were divided into two parts: the prevention of war and the actions of the socialists in the event of a war. On the second question, it was said: “In the event that a war does break out, they (the working classes of the respective countries and their representatives - approx. VIEW) should actively advocate for its early end and strive by all means to use the economic and political a crisis to stir up the masses and hasten the fall of capitalist class domination. ”

That is, use the crisis caused by the war to carry out a socialist revolution.

All representatives unanimously voted for the Stuttgart manifesto from Russia: from the social democrats Lenin and Martov through the national socialist parties to the party of the Social Revolutionaries, the socialist revolutionaries, the “peasant party”.

In the 1912 year, in conditions when the world war was becoming more and more real, at the congress of the 2 International in Basel, the provisions of the Stuttgart Manifesto were once again confirmed.

“In all advanced countries, war puts the slogan of a socialist revolution on the line, which becomes all the more urgent the more the burden of war falls on the shoulders of the proletariat,” Lenin wrote two years later. “The transformation of the modern imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan ... arising from all the conditions of an imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries."

Already from this quote it is clear that Lenin called for workers in all the belligerent "highly developed bourgeois countries" to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. At the same time, by “civil war” he understood not a civil war that actually occurred in Russia in 1918 – 1922, but a revolution. A revolution is an internal war of the oppressed with its oppressors, it is a war for power between citizens of different social situations, and therefore a civil war.

Yes, with reference to Russia, Lenin further wrote about the defeat of his own government, but still a government, and not a country: “For us, the Russian Social-Democrats. (Social Democrats - approx. LOOK), there can be no doubt that from the point of view of the working class and the toiling masses of all the peoples of Russia, the least evil would be the defeat of the royal monarchy. "

But what kind of defeat? Lenin also specified this question: “In Russia, the tasks of the Social-Democrats. in view of the greatest backwardness of this country, which has not yet completed its bourgeois revolution, there must still be three basic conditions for a consistent democratic transformation: a democratic republic (with full equality and self-determination of all nations), the confiscation of landowner lands and the 8 hour-hour working day. ”

That is, directly following the provisions of the Basel and Stuttgart manifestos and putting forward for "all advanced countries" the slogan of the socialist revolution, before Russia, where bourgeois transformations have not yet happened, the Bolshevik leader set the objectives of the fall of the monarchy (and not the country's military defeat) and the formation of the republic. These are the tasks of the bourgeois revolution.

This was precisely the concept of "defeating one's government" and "turning an imperialist war into a civil one." All these are euphemisms of the word “revolution”, which is a twist of fate! - then it sounded much worse than the "civil war". Now, on the contrary: the word “revolution” is emotionally much less saturated than “civil war”.

The discrepancies between the “defencists” and the “defeatists” after the 1914 year went on the question of the continuation of revolutionary activities in a real war. But even the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks who became “defencists”, having received the reins of power following the February Revolution, were quick to recall the provisions of the Basel and Stuttgart congresses, launching the manifesto “To the Nations of the World” in March 1917. It called for the proletariat of the countries participating in the war to throw off the yoke of the ruling classes, that is, to make a revolution, and to stop the “terrible slaughter that dishonors humanity” by “united joint efforts”.

The manifesto, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, found broad support in society. Folk aspirations merged with the positions of the socialist parties, even if they had completely different origins.

Decree of Peace

Contrary to popular belief, the Bolshevik Decree on Peace did not stop the war immediately and unilaterally. The first paragraph of the document on behalf of the workers 'and peasants' government contained a proposal "to all the warring peoples and their governments to begin immediately" peace negotiations. A real platform for such negotiations and, therefore, for ending the war, the Soviets considered a “just democratic peace” concluded without annexations (that is, without seizures) and indemnities (that is, without the economic burden of the vanquished).

In fact, the Bolsheviks proposed a return to the pre-war status quo. Such (and precisely such, and not any!) Conditions of peace they expressed their readiness to sign immediately. At the same time, they stated that these requirements are not at all ultimatum, and their government “agrees to consider all other conditions of the world, insisting only on the quickest possible offer to any belligerent country and to the fullest clarity, to the unconditional exclusion of any ambiguity and every mystery in proposing the conditions of peace. "

In the meantime, such proposals are being prepared, the workers 'and peasants' government proposed that all governments of the belligerent countries conclude a truce. That is, it came out with a peace initiative, calling on all countries to stop, think again and sit down at the negotiating table.

This was the first semantic layer of the decree. The document was multifaceted. In addition to the actual peace initiatives, it was a declaration on the principles of the Soviet foreign policy and formulated the basic foundations of the new Soviet diplomacy. Of these, the key ones are full openness in international relations: secret diplomacy was canceled, all secret treaties of the tsarist regime were subject to publication. In matters of peace negotiations, the revolutionary government also, we recall, demanded complete openness.

At the same time, it reserved the right to directly address the peoples of the world, bypassing the governments of these countries and the traditional channels of diplomacy. The first such appeal was part of the decree: "The Provisional Workers 'and Peasants' Government of Russia also appeals especially to the class-conscious workers of the three most advanced nations of humanity and the 16 of the largest states participating in this war." The document expressed the hope that “the workers of these countries will now understand the tasks of liberating humanity from the horrors of war and its consequences” and “that these workers with their full, determined and selfless energetic activity will help us successfully accomplish the cause of peace”.

Thus, the Bolsheviks repeated the provisions of the Basel and Stuttgart manifestos: in the event of war, the working classes of the belligerent countries and their representatives should actively advocate for its early completion. Because war is an imperialist one, being waged in the interests of the ruling classes, and not in the interests of the working people. The working people only suffer from the world slaughter - at the front and in the rear, bearing on their shoulders all the war time.

In this, the position of the revolutionary government, which had as its basis the manifestos of the pre-war congresses of the 2 International, again met with popular aspirations. These aspirations were never expressed in a high syllable: “a dark people,” “lacking patriotism,” armed at the front and unarmed in the rear, simply demanded an end to the war.

The decree on peace really became the fulfillment of certain obligations on the part of the Bolsheviks. But not before the German General Staff, but before the 2 International. Moreover, his position was not alien to the Russian reality.

And was there another way out at that moment - given the state of the army and the rear?

There is a theory that Russia was on the verge of victory: Nicholas II was ready to fight to the end, but the revolution did not allow the country to triumphantly enter Berlin and join the post-war division of the world together with its allies in the Entente.

But it is worth remembering that Nicholas II abdicated the throne against the background of the revolutionary events in Petrograd, and the revolutionary events were triggered by the collapse of the transport communication, the lack of food, and sometimes famine in the cities, that is, the collapse of the rear during world war. Moreover, the emperor renounced under pressure from the generals. The command of the army of the belligerent state was openly engaged in politics, General Alekseev circularly interviewed the front commanders about the position in relation to the sovereign’s abdication, and General Ruzsky in Pskov directly pressured the king, demanding renunciation.

At the same time, the “Order No. 1” of the Petrograd Soviet, which decomposed the troops, was intended only for the Petrograd garrison, should not have been in the active army at all and certainly did not act in it. But how to explain its avalanche-like spread among soldiers and the introduction of its positions across the front? There is only one answer: the officer corps has lost control of the soldiers' mass. There was no more command, there was no more discipline. In fact, this means that there was no longer an army.

There was no solid rear in the country, the previous regime collapsed, anti-war sentiments coming from below did not disappear, and the army, according to Denikin’s apt expression, was armed people. At the same time, the new government proclaimed peace initiatives with one hand (Petrosoviet), and the other with a course for war to the bitter end and loyalty to the allies in the Entente (Provisional Government).

Knowing this, it is much easier to answer the question whether Russia could continue the war in its state at that time.

New army

At the very beginning of 1918, the Bolsheviks had to create a new army in the country - the Red Army. But how did the revolutionary authorities succeed in putting millions of soldiers into battle, who until recently refused to fight on the fronts of the First World War without understanding the goals and objectives of the war?

In just one 1919 year, the total circulation of newspapers for the Red Army was almost 150 million copies. In the same year, 68 of millions of books and brochures were published in Soviet Russia. Back in 1918, 3033 libraries were created in the army, by the year 1919 their number reached 7500 stationary and 2400 mobile. During the Civil War, almost 6,000 Red Army literacy schools and a thousand Red Army theaters operated in the Red Army. And that's not counting the mass of oral agitators.

All these bodies performed a very important function - they day after day enlightened the "dark people", explained what the young Republic of Soviets is for it and what its objective problems and interests are. They formed a political nation.
Author:
Originator:
https://vz.ru/politics/2017/11/8/894182.html
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 11 November 2017 15: 24 New
    +6
    And so all the socialist parties viewed the war
    .. Incorrect wording, it was all the socialist parties in all the howling countries who voted for the military budget and for the war, except for individual socialists, K. Liebknecht, for example, turned out to be “traitors” in Germany, Jean Jaures in France .. The Social Democratic Party came forward in Russia in the Duma, quite with a vague document ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. A.V.S.
      A.V.S. 12 November 2017 15: 14 New
      +1
      Strange, they removed the comment that Jean Jaures was "accidentally" shot a month before the start of the war ... And this was seen as anti-Soviet ?!
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 11 November 2017 15: 31 New
    14
    Thanks to the author for not being afraid to clarify about the * Peace Decree *. Today, especially among the stubborn liberals, it has become fashionable * to forget *, or even just lie about the events of 1917.
  3. svp67
    svp67 11 November 2017 15: 36 New
    11
    I’m wondering, the author seriously believes that the Bolsheviks created their Red Army only with the help of agitation and "literature"? This is either the most stupid naivety or the blind fulfillment of a certain ORDER.
    In reality, the Bolsheviks reinforced agitation with a word and deed, abandoned the VOLUNTARY army and began to mobilize, including the command staff, from among the former officers. They did not shun the executions of those who retreated, and in general, their policy of building the Army was more complete than that of their opponents. That's why they won
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 11 November 2017 16: 24 New
      +8
      Quote: svp67
      They did not shun the executions of those who retreated ... That's why they won

      Again about foreign squads? Do you really think that the Red Army was built on the fear of death? Do you think that the Nazis, then, that then-they flunked with corpses?
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 November 2017 16: 30 New
        +9
        Quote: Boris55
        Do you really think that the Red Army was built on the fear of death?

        Do you think that stopping the running, armed crowd into which any poorly trained part of the Reds quickly turned into was possible only by persuasion and leaflets under the blows of its opponents? Shooting, in this situation, is one of the most effective means. And somehow the Bolsheviks did not bother much with this. Quickly changing the slogan: "Down with the war!" to "The Socialist Fatherland is in danger."
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 00 New
          +9
          When you speak, it feels like you are raving. And there were a lot of "runners"?
          1. svp67
            svp67 11 November 2017 17: 32 New
            +4
            Quote: sabakina
            When you speak, it feels like you are raving. And there were a lot of "runners"?

            ENOUGH. Take, for example, the history of the “heroic” flight of the detachment of “revolutionary sailors,” led by Dybenko from near Pskov on February 23, 1918 ....
            Or how do you like this:
            Notices.
            From the Military Field Tribunal of the 6th Army.

            § 1.
            The Military Field Tribunal of the 6th Army was sentenced to be shot by White Guards, who made their way to Arkhangelsk and were seized in the front line area, Savin, Zhukov, Gakhov and Alekseev. 5140 rubles taken from them included in the fund to support the families of the fallen in the battles of the Red Army.

            § 2.
            The commander of the 3rd Petrograd regiment, Yakuseks, and part of the command staff of Yevpakov, Shadov, Elgenhard, Bachinsky, Volkovnitsky and Smolin, who failed to hold the regiment to positions that allowed the rally to be held during the battle and before speaking to positions despite repeated instructions from the Army Commissioner who did not work over the military commissure of the regiment, as the unworthy high rank of the command staff of the Workers 'and Peasants' Army, the Military Field Tribunal of the 6th Army was sentenced to be shot. In addition to them, former officers were sentenced to be shot, who hid their rank upon admission and were enlisted by ordinary Red Army men Fedor Ignatievich Zhukov, Chugunov, who escaped and was caught under the surname of Chebotarev, Shapchenko. Zhukov was the chairman, Chugunov - the secretary of the rally. The sentence is carried out.
            § 3rd:
            Caught on a railway in the area of ​​the 6th Army with counterfeit money and speckled cards, Shuller Delkin was shot on September 19, 1918.
            Signed: President of the Tribunal, Eiduc.
            Military Commissar N. Kuzmin.
            1. sabakina
              sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 48 New
              11
              When I asked about “a lot,” the question was rhetorical. Yes, there were, but not half the Red Army! And I apologize, without the threat of execution then it was impossible. It is we who have been living in peace since birth, and then the SOCIAL SYSTEM has changed!
              1. svp67
                svp67 11 November 2017 18: 01 New
                +2
                Quote: sabakina
                Yes, there were, but not half the Red Army!

                You are definitely raving. Since, they invented something for themselves and are trying to blame the opponent for this. Remind me where I talked about HALF of the Red Army? According to the statistics of the General Staff of the Red Army, the largest number of losses for these reasons, but suicides were also included, was in 1924 - 2,7% of the total number of losses
                Quote: sabakina
                And I apologize, without the threat of execution then it was impossible.

                You repeated the thought that I expressed in my first comment
                Quote: sabakina
                It is we who have been living in peace since birth, and then the SOCIAL SYSTEM has changed!

                Even the modern Military Charter gives the commander the right to use weapons in a combat situation to restore order and prevent panic
    2. zoolu350
      zoolu350 13 November 2017 10: 26 New
      +1
      The fact of the matter is that all the participants in the Civil War used force-based methods of forming armies, but ideological agitation (clearly organized) was used only by the Reds.
  4. AKC
    AKC 11 November 2017 16: 24 New
    +3
    Lenin further wrote about the defeat of his own government, but still of the government, and not of the country: “For us, the Russian Social-Democrats (Social Democrats - approx. LOOK), there can be no doubt that from the point of view of the working class and the working masses of all the peoples of Russia, the defeat of the tsarist monarchy would be the least evil. ”
    he is a traitor. the same as modern bulk dogs and company! they also talk about that.
    that Russia is backward, we need more democracy, that we need to eradicate corrupt officials and more! but in fact there will be a collapse of the country and a civil war, which Ilyich did in his time.
    By the way, Vlasov also wanted defeat to the government and not to the country! it turns out that Vlasov did everything right? modern Sobchak is also against the government. but for the people, she also turns out doing everything right?
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 11 November 2017 16: 45 New
      +8
      [/ quote] Modern Sobchak is also against the government. but for the people, [quote]
      Here she is quite consistent, she is for the people living on the ruble.
    2. sabakina
      sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 51 New
      +7
      Tell AKC, but you definitely read that Lenin? And all the volumes? If I’m not mistaken, there are about 20 of them ....
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 11 November 2017 19: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: sabakina
        If I’m not mistaken, there are about 20 of them

        So quote what did he say?
      2. AKC
        AKC 11 November 2017 21: 31 New
        +1
        God forbid! life is short and spend it on a full study of the works of a traitor who drove our country into ..... I think it is impractical!
        You began to comment without reading the article? I want to attract your attention. that the passage I highlighted is in the article we are discussing. and this article is before the comments, on the same page!
  5. captain
    captain 11 November 2017 16: 37 New
    10
    Dear author. Of course, before the Bolsheviks in Russia, everything was miserable and not patriotic. Only Lenin was able to raise patriotism to an unprecedented height. Especially when you deceived the peasants with the land. You are a sir, a wild Russophobe (they were the Bolsheviks, Leninists and aristocrats, who did not consider a Russian peasant to be a man), you probably did not read Lenin’s work “On the national pride of the Great Russians” and “On the question of nationalities or autonomy.” " In these works, your leader calls on all territorial issues to be resolved at the expense of the Russians and has repeatedly called the Russians "der ... jimords." It is just like you that led to the division of the Russian people, which the Leninists presented together with the land; Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Estonia, the republics of the North Caucasus. When you drove Russians there or scoffed at them, such as you screamed that this was not. That the great Lenin did everything right. To drive you all to the farmers of the CPSU there, in these republics. So that everything in their own skin would be experienced by many residents of these republics, Russians by nationality. Maybe I would not write such articles.
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 03 New
      16
      captain, stop the White Guard propaganda.
      1. urman
        urman 11 November 2017 18: 06 New
        +8
        Quote: sabakina
        captain, finish the White Guard propaganda

        Quote: captain
        When you drove Russians there or scoffed at them, such as you screamed that this was not. That the great Lenin did everything right. To drive you all to the farmers of the CPSU there, in these republics. So that everything in their own skin would be experienced by many residents of these republics, Russians by nationality.

        What does the White Guard propaganda have to do with it?
        The captain is right and I agree with him 100%
        By the way, remember the story of how it was taught in the USSR, the plan of Lenin and Stalin on the administrative structure of the country, Stalin proposed no allied republics, but only regions (provinces) with little autonomy. Well, Lenin won with his union republics, and this mine exploded and we have what we have. Originally, Russian lands were given away, people were left to their own devices in the former republics.
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 13 November 2017 10: 30 New
          +1
          And answer me, why did not Stalin change the Leninist structure of the USSR when he came to power?
          1. urman
            urman 13 November 2017 15: 59 New
            0
            Yes, you yourself can easily guess, because Crimea did not have time to rename the Tauride region.
            Yes, and tales of the omnipotence of Stalin, only tales.
            As soon as he died, all the anti-Russian abomination, headed by the Khrushchev, climbed out right there.
            Before the war it was impossible, for ideological reasons, after the war did not live enough.
            Nevertheless, what we now have, thanks to them, we have an inherent margin of safety,
            Although HOW ZADORNOV SPEAKED FINALLY, THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL APPEARED, ONLY THERE WITH .... Ah, the tunnel does not end.
        2. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 26 February 2018 12: 31 New
          0
          Stalin did not propose the liquidation of national republics. His plan for autonomy was to Ukraine, Belarus and other "independent Soviet republics" included in the RSFSR as autonomous republics with the same rights as the Tatar Bashkir, Turkestan ASSR,
    2. AKC
      AKC 11 November 2017 21: 32 New
      +1
      The captain often does not share your opinion, but in this particular case he agrees to all 120%
      1. badens1111
        badens1111 11 November 2017 21: 38 New
        +5
        Quote: AKC
        The captain often does not share your opinion, but in this particular case he agrees to all 120%

        Bullshit. Explain ... the time of Catherine’s victories. 2. your outposts in the MEDITERRANEAN ... have gone ... why? There were completely controlled territories for us ... but ...
    3. chenia
      chenia 13 November 2017 17: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: captain
      It’s just like you that led to the division of the Russian people, which Leninists presented with the land


      You go to the mirror. The collapse of the USSR provided "democratic" Russia (if you are not so young and remember that time)
      Ukraine, as more socialist, was in no hurry to declare independence (only after the coup, when Russia was not on the path with liberoid Russia), the Central Asian republics did not think about secession at all.
      Crimea and Sevastopol subsequently voted for independence due to Russian liberoids. Only the Caucasus and the Baltic states, perhaps, thought that upon secession they would prosper, and were eager to leave the USSR.
      And only then Soros and K undertook to change consciousness in the Union republics pushing through nationalism ..
  6. A.V.S.
    A.V.S. 11 November 2017 16: 38 New
    +6
    It is impossible to lose the war by joining it on the side of the victorious coalition. The only ones who succeeded in such stupidity are the Bolsheviks. So the Communists began their state activities with the greatest national betrayal of the Brest Peace.
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 06 New
      17
      If you haven’t seen it, see episode 1 “The State Border”. There V.I. Lenin explained on the fingers why we needed the Brest Peace.
      1. badens1111
        badens1111 11 November 2017 21: 40 New
        10
        Quote: sabakina
        "State border". There V.I. Lenin explained on the fingers why we needed the Brest Peace.

        For anti-Soviet and Russophobia, this fact does not matter ..
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 12 November 2017 06: 24 New
          +5
          Tsarist officers were extremely unhappy that the Republic of Ingushetia was participating in WW1 for the sake of foreign interests. This war was unpopular. This explains why the tsarist officers later sided with the Bolsheviks. In one of the articles published here, Shirokorad cited the facts that at that time the Russians themselves did not believe in the possibility that Russia would benefit as a winner .
        2. captain
          captain 12 November 2017 11: 39 New
          +3
          Quote: badens1111
          Quote: sabakina
          "State border". There V.I. Lenin explained on the fingers why we needed the Brest Peace.

          For anti-Soviet and Russophobia, this fact does not matter ..

          To go nuts, to learn the history of the feature film. Then it’s better for the "Wedding in the Robin." You do not even know that the Soviets were not invented by the Bolsheviks. I am beginning to understand why the USSR collapsed.
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 12 November 2017 14: 16 New
            +3
            Quote: captain
            To go nuts, to learn the history of the feature film. T

            Then read the work of V.I. Lenin's "Children's disease of" leftism "in communism", PSS, T. 41, S. 1-104. Everything is sorted out there, but if you don’t understand anything, then review the film “State Border” as advised by sabakina. There, for the especially dull, V.I. Lenin really explained on the fingers why we needed the Brest Peace.
  7. antivirus
    antivirus 11 November 2017 16: 44 New
    10
    great-grandfather (1885-1945) with great-grandmother (1887-1945) gave birth to 7 children (+ 2 died in early childhood)
    HE FINALLY SUPPORTED THE DECREE
    nothing new:
    And: a father from 30 years old remembered- "grandfather (my great-grandfather) said:" here we are in the first imperialist .. "and so on (father did not remember or said something empty?)
    Only one episode ----
    IMPORTANT --- REASON FOR THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION-
    great-grandfather served as a batman under the officer. serves coffee in bed. "Ivan, I told you how many times I told you. What is needed with the foam." Razz-zzz on the teeth of his great-grandfather. "Go do as taught."
    He went out the door, spat in the cup, shook his finger and handed it again. "That's the way to do it"
    In this spit, the reason for the defeat in the WWI and the destruction of the Ros Empire and its army. Tired of enduring dentists, not re-educated officer A, turned out to be. and the whole nobility
    maybe the reason is dentition?
    27g
    1. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 11 November 2017 17: 53 New
      14
      Yes, no. The reason is that in the Russian Empire we live as if there were two ethnic groups: on the one side of the Khaspod (for which there were `` rapturous evenings and a crunch of French bread '' in Russia) and a base class (some 40 more years ago sold and traded for greyhound puppies and locked up for death at the stables) for which hunger is not when there is no bread hunger is when there is no quinoa (many of the peasants ate only in the army for the first time). And if for the former there wasn’t enough Freedom at all that they were prevented from taking the last 9th skin off of the latter (Nikolashka’s regime wasn’t even more tolerant), for the latter the Bolsheviks offered a CHANCE if they didn’t change so at least avenge all the good. And since the Russian people can endure for a long time, it’s easy to rise ( it would be nice if the present Boyars didn’t forget it) they got the Hospoda to plepire like in the best houses of London and Zhmerinka (i.e. Paris with its gelletina and cleansing of the aristocracy) only of course, taking into account the Russian scope. If anyone wants to blame those men then let it delve into its genealogy (something doubts gnaw at me that all the ancestors of the noble MAX from the genitals and miners come from well-worn and broken nostrils, or if the ambition goes off scale, then from the shabby villagers by the gentlemen Sheremetevs and Golitsins, etc. e. from bajstryuk). Who sowed the wind let no offense if the Storm demolished its quiet corner with a cherry garden.
      PS I recall the words of the Adjutant of His Excellency to the young lad: If you love the Garden but don’t want to be a gardener in this garden, sooner or later someone will want to burn your house again.
    2. sabakina
      sabakina 11 November 2017 17: 59 New
      11
      andr, my maternal great-grandfather served at Nicholas II at the palace with the rank of junior command staff (now called the presidential regiment), read the Bible in Latin, so you cannot call him dark illiterate. switched to 17 on the side of the revolution with his entire unit.
      1. captain
        captain 12 November 2017 17: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: sabakina
        andr, my maternal great-grandfather served at Nicholas II at the palace with the rank of junior command staff (now called the presidential regiment), read the Bible in Latin, so you cannot call him dark illiterate. switched to 17 on the side of the revolution with his entire unit.

        Specifically, in which unit did your grandfather serve? And what is this junior command staff? I did not read such an expression in historical sources about the tsarist army. And I didn’t hear that any of the tsar’s personal convoy would have sided with the revolution in 1917 in full force. The convoy of his imperial majesty did not go over to the side of the revolution.
  8. Pan_hrabio
    Pan_hrabio 11 November 2017 17: 06 New
    0
    The Soviets considered a “fair democratic peace” concluded without annexations (that is, without seizures) and indemnities (that is, without the economic burden of the vanquished) as a real platform for such negotiations and, therefore, to end the war.


    That is, obviously unacceptable conditions ...
  9. Ural resident
    Ural resident 11 November 2017 17: 33 New
    +4
    I did not understand what the article was about. Based on the content, it turns out that if it were not for the revolution, then Russia would emerge victorious from the war.
    Why are the statements of the peasants - that de war - bad?
    Russia did not attack Germany. The peasants and workers of Germany did not support the peace call, but continued to fight. The war was drawing to a close, and even in the worst case scenario, Russia would be among the winners and be able to receive damages materially and territorially. Under the interim government, the soldiers did not leave the battlefield — this began under the Bolsheviks. What version and what circumstances. the victory was really stolen and the article confirms this.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 11 November 2017 19: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      I did not understand what the article was about.

      It’s just in the light of the changed realities that 50 years ago, much was extolled as a feat, they began to be called a little differently, and it became very difficult to maintain a halo of infallibility around Lenin. One hysteria about Putin’s words about a mine laid in the USSR is worth something.
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      Under the interim government, the soldiers did not leave the battlefield — this began under the Bolsheviks.

      No army collapse began then. ... the decree completely ruined discipline in the army. That is, the Bolsheviks tried the same in this direction, but the main merit belongs precisely to the VP.
    2. Conrad
      Conrad 12 November 2017 17: 03 New
      +4
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      Russia did not attack Germany.

      Here's how !? And the invasion of East Prussia in early August 1914? What's this? Response to the demand for termination of mobilization? The tsarist government began the first of all the warring countries. Immediately the day after Austria-Hungary. Moreover, Austria-Hungary at least explained its mobilization as a threat to Serbia. But the Russian Empire attacked Germany even earlier than Austria-Hungary, although mobilization was, in words, against it.
      Quote: Resident of the Urals
      Under the interim government, the soldiers did not leave the battlefield — this began under the Bolsheviks.

      Then the question: "When did you surrender the Baltic States and the Carpathians with the Carpathians?" Not really with the Bolsheviks?
  10. Aspid 57
    Aspid 57 11 November 2017 18: 01 New
    +4
    All this is very cleverly written, but it is possible to bring both the front and the rear into such a state only by purposeful work! And you must be able to lose the war by fighting in alliance with the victorious powers!
  11. Looking for
    Looking for 11 November 2017 18: 50 New
    +3
    Quote: parusnik
    .Invalid wording,

    but when are you, damn it .... THE LITERATURE learn how to write a particle "not" SIGNIFICANT !!!!! SIGNIFICANT !!!!!! with a word. It's OPPOSITE to read all your "scientific" rants after your ELEMENTARY LITERACY !!!
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 11 November 2017 18: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: Seeker
      Indeed, it is OPPOSITIVE to read later ...

      Plusan, perhaps.
      Indeed, the eye scratches somewhat.
      Like the wish of many here "writeиthose"
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 11 November 2017 19: 39 New
      +6
      Looking for
      With the word "wrong" jamb, illiterate, it happens .. But where did you see the "scientific" ranting in the commentary? At two congresses of the Second International in Stuttgart in 1907 and Basel in 1912, resolutions were adopted on the need to combat the military threat and about the attitude of all Social-Democratic parties and workers' organizations, the unfair nature of the war and the need for workers of all countries to oppose it in all ways, and the Social Democrats to use popular outrage to eliminate capitalism, were pointed out. But at the time the war started, the decisions of the congress in Basel were not implemented by most parties. The German Social Democrats, along with the other right-wing parties, unanimously voted in the Reichstag for military loans. In France, the same thing, and shortly after the declaration of war, the socialists Jules Gues , Marcel Samba, and later Albert Thoma took ministerial posts. The situation in Belgium is the same, and the leader of the Workers' Party, Emil Vandervelde, chairman of the International Socialist Bureau, became Minister of Justice. Austrian Social Democrats endorsed the Austrian government’s military activities. English Labor voted in Parliament military credits. Only the left elements in the socialist parties took an anti-war position, but they were in the minority. Their votes were not decisive ... Where is the ranting? ... Where is the lie ..? If you have other data that contradict mine, write. It will be interesting to know.
  12. Cartalon
    Cartalon 11 November 2017 21: 00 New
    +2
    dubious attempts to justify treason
    1. Conrad
      Conrad 12 November 2017 17: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: Cartalon
      dubious attempts to justify treason

      Treason was committed in the summer of 1914 when the Russian Empire embarked on an adventure that was completely unnecessary for her and her people with goals that are still embarrassing to voice.
      If you say that RI started WWI to protect the Serbian Brothers. That is completely wrong. What prevented the establishment of supplies and assistance "specialists" on the model of the First Balkan War? Moreover, there was no experience. But in fact, and little brothers merged and drove themselves, nowhere else.
      1. Karen
        Karen 12 November 2017 18: 43 New
        +1
        This Massacre, WWII, was necessary for Mankind to realize its danger. RI did not help out the little brothers ... she corrected the military-political balance on the planet for her future ...
  13. borys
    borys 12 November 2017 18: 10 New
    +5
    A few years ago, the famous television figure (and staunch anti-communist) Svanidze
    made a series of programs about Russian pre-revolutionary history. So, in the program about the year 1914 he
    said bluntly that joining this war was directly contrary to Russia's interests; participation in this
    the war caused Russia enormous damage. At the same time, he kept silent about one interesting circumstance:
    in the summer of 1914, the Bolsheviks were the only ones who were against the participation of Russia in this war.
    These are they, the anti-communists and the "bakers".
  14. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 18 November 2017 05: 17 New
    +1
    Right.
    For the sake of completeness, we can add that the world without annexations and contractions was then offered not only by the International, but also ... by the American president W. Wilson.
  15. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 7 February 2018 16: 14 New
    0
    History, I repeat science is purely subjective, alas, this is reality, each government writes it in its own way! And about individual states, I’m just keeping silent will be completely ridiculous!
  16. Omsk
    Omsk 19 February 2018 17: 46 New
    0
    To write that discipline under the Bolsheviks collapsed in the army seems wrong to me. All sorts of soldiers and sailors' committees that decided to go on the attack or not, were created under Kerensky. "Monsund" Pikul is not written from scratch ...