Military Review

How did the war end on the Russian front

100 years ago, in December 1917, Russia withdrew from the war, concluding an armistice with Germany. The bloody struggle on the Russian front, advantageous to the "allies" of Russia on the Entente, was completed.

The first decree and the first foreign policy act of the Soviet government was the Decree on Peace. The document said: "The workers and peasants' government ... invites all the warring peoples and governments to begin negotiations on a just democratic peace." The decree emphasized that "a just or democratic world ... the government considers an immediate peace without annexations (that is, without seizing foreign lands) and indemnities." The Soviet government declared "the determination to immediately sign the terms of peace, stopping this war on the said, equally fair conditions for all without the removal of nationalities."

The decree was addressed not only to governments, but also to the peoples of the warring countries. At the same time, the Soviet government sent a note to the governments of Great Britain, France, the USA, Italy, Serbia and Belgium, in which it proposed considering the Decree as a formal proposal to conclude an armistice on all fronts and immediately begin peace negotiations. October 28 (November November 10) notes of similar content were sent to the powers of the Fourth Union (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria) through neutral countries. The governments of the Entente ignored this appeal. “Western democracies” decided to sabotage Russian proposals.

British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George wrote: “The question of whether the Russian revolution will have the same impact as the French, or its influence on the fate of all mankind will be even more, depends on one. This will depend on whether the leaders of the revolution will be able to continue their movement on the paths of peaceful development, or the energy of the revolution will not be spent, and it will be rejected from its goal by the war. If Russia is not involved in the war, then the revolution will be one of the greatest factors determining the fate of the masses in all countries that humankind has ever seen or experienced. ”

Thus, the masters of the West relied on the sewage of revolutionary energy in Russia in a civil war, which they inflamed with all their might, supporting the “white” governments and armies, as well as the nationalists who created their “bantustans” and armies. Also, the Entente went on direct intervention in order to dismember and destroy Russia-Russia and the Russian superethnos.

Actually, the world war was started in order to bleed Germany and Russia, and then destroy the two great powers, which prevent the Anglo-Saxons from establishing their own world order. The masters of the West did everything so that Russia, until the last moment, waged war in their interests and failed to slip out of the deadly trap. In particular, as soon as the threat of a separate peace between Russia and Germany arose, which the pro-German party would like to conclude in Russia, the British secret services immediately removed G. Rasputin, who opposed this war. The Russian empress, the monarchy as a whole, and then the Westernists-Februaryists with the full support of the Western powers destroyed the Russian autocracy, staging the February coup was also discredited.

In addition, the Entente was interested in the preservation of the Russian front due to the military-strategic factor. Even in an extremely weakened form, the Eastern Front still distracted the forces of the German Empire. Even by December 1917, the Russian front was diverting the German divisions to 74 (31% of all German forces). It is clear that Russia's withdrawal from the war allowed the Second Reich to strengthen its positions on the French front. Therefore, the Soviet peace proposals were hushed up.

The Russian Headquarters, headed by Supreme Commander N. N. Dukhonin, was also against the peace agreement. Dukhonin, after Kerensky escaped from Petrograd and the failure of his campaign with Krasnov to the capital, became the commander-in-chief. 7 (20) in November, the Council of People's Commissars (Council of People's Commissars, SNK) instructed Dukhonin to appeal to representatives of the enemy armies with a proposal for an armistice to begin peace talks. However, Duhonin sabotaged this order. On the night of 9 (22) in November, SNK representatives called Dukhonin via direct wire. During telephone conversations, Dukhonin also tried to avoid this topic. When he was ultimately demanded to comply with the instructions of the government, he refused.

Sovnarkom removed Dukhonin from the post of supreme commander. The High Commissioner was appointed Warrant Officer N. V. Krylenko. Before his arrival at Headquarters, Dukhonin had to continue to fulfill his duties. In connection with the sabotage of the generals, Lenin addressed the soldiers directly. In the afternoon of November 9 (22), an appeal for the signature of Lenin and Krylenko to all regimental, divisional, corps, army and other committees, all soldiers and sailors was transmitted by radio. The appeal informed about the refusal of Duhonin to begin negotiations on a truce and his removal from the post of commander in chief. The soldiers were given the right to choose their representatives to enter into a truce with the enemy. This led to the conclusion of the so-called. "Soldier's worlds". Throughout the Eastern Front, separate formations sent parliamentarians to the enemy in order to conclude an armistice. As a result, the conclusion of a local truce took a wide scope. Military operations were stopped everywhere.

How did the war end on the Russian front

Supreme Commander of the Russian Army after the October Revolution 1917, Nikolai Krylenko

Entente opposed the truce. 10 (23) of November, the heads of the Allied missions located in the Russian Headquarters, expressed their protest against the treaty violation of 23 of August (5 of September) 1914. According to this agreement, “the allies, including Russia, solemnly agreed not to conclude a separate truce and not to stop action. From Soviet Russia demanded to fulfill these obligations taken by the tsarist and Provisional governments. The "allies" threatened, promising "the most serious consequences." I.e The Entente still demanded “Russian cannon fodder”, the continuation of the war in the interests of France, England and the USA.

17 (30) in November 1917, when Dukhonin became aware of the movement of echelons with revolutionary Baltic sailors and soldiers to Mogilyov, he appealed to the UNR government for permission to transfer the Headquarters to Kiev. The General Secretariat, however, delayed the consideration of this issue, and began to put forward counter conditions. November 19 (December 2) Dukhonin ordered the release of Generals Kornilov Denikin and other commanders arrested during the Kornilov revolt from Bykhov prison. Dukhonin also ordered the soldiers who had kept him loyalty from the shock units to leave Mogilyov and make their way to the Don, where the formation of the “white” movement began.

November 20 (December 3) 1917. The headquarters was occupied by revolutionary soldiers from Petrograd led by N. Krylenko. Dukhonin was arrested, he should have been taken to Petrograd. A crowd of revolutionary soldiers and sailors gathered around the train, demanding that Dukhonin be handed over. Krylenko arrived at the car and tried to stop the crowd, but persuasion did not work. As a result, the general was the victim of mob. General Denikin wrote in "Outlines of the Russian Distemper": "... a crowd of sailors — wild, angry in front of the Chief Commander, Krylenko tore General Dukhonin and cruelly abused him." The cynical words “send to Dukhonin headquarters” - in the sense of killing without a trial - became winged during the civil war and were used not only “red” but also “white”.

Lieutenant-General Nikolai Dukhonin

The Fourth Union, unlike the Entente countries, went to meet the Soviet government. The protracted war undermined the German economy. The national economy lacked strategic raw materials, and the population lacked food. The industry worked with maximum overvoltage. The population was on the verge of starvation and was tired of a long and bloody war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in an even worse position. The weaker Austro-Hungarian economy was on the verge of collapse, the country also experienced a shortage of raw materials and food. On the front, the Austro-Hungarian army held out only with the support of German bayonets. The Habsburg Empire was facing the threat of collapse, the ruling circles understood that the state could not withstand the fourth military campaign. Turkey, which even before the war could not boast of decent finance, industry, agriculture and armed forces, was rapidly falling apart. Her farm was barely functioning, the country was completely devastated. The army lacked combat-ready reinforcements, weapons, ammunition and food. The Allies pressed Turkish forces on the Mesopotamian and Palestinian fronts. In November, the Allies broke through the Ottoman front from Gaza and Beersheba, captured Jaffa, and December 9 occupied Jerusalem.

Thus, the difficult military-strategic and economic situation forced the ruling circles of Germany and Austria-Hungary to negotiate with Russia. Having made peace with Russia, Berlin and Vienna got rid of conducting war on two fronts. They could transfer combat-ready divisions to the Western front, and again make an attempt to make a decisive offensive, even before the march of large American forces. Expressing the general opinion of the ruling circles of Austria-Hungary and Germany, the Austrian Foreign Minister O. Chernin wrote in one of his letters in November 1917 of the year: “For our salvation, peace must be reached as soon as possible; it is unthinkable without the capture of Paris, and for this, again, it is necessary to clear the entire Eastern Front. ” In addition, the world with Russia allowed partially breaking the blockade of Central Europe and somewhat improving the economic situation of the Fourth Union.

13 (26) November 1917 from Dvinsk, the Supreme Commander Krylenko sent parliamentarians to the German High Command in order to find out whether it agreed to start negotiations for a truce. The commander-in-chief of the German Eastern Front, Prince Leopold of Bavaria, agreed to enter into negotiations. Two days later, Chancellor G. Gertling said in the Reichstag that he was ready to enter into negotiations with the Russians. 15 (28) November the Soviet government once again appealed to the warring powers and peoples with a proposal to begin peace negotiations. 17 (30) November The People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs reiterated a note to the diplomatic representatives of the allied countries, in which it announced the start of negotiations and offered to join them. And this appeal remained unanswered.

November 19 (December 2) to Brest-Litovsk (there was located the German headquarters on the Eastern Front), where they decided to hold talks, the Soviet peace delegation arrived under the chairmanship of A. A. Ioffe. It consisted of G. Ya. Sokolnikov, A. A. Bitsenko, S. D. Maslovsky-Mstislavsky, L. M. Karakhan, etc. The delegation included military consultants and representatives of working people, soldiers and sailors. The German delegation was headed by the Chief of Staff of the Eastern Front, General Hoffmann, the Austro-Hungarian - by Lieutenant Colonel Pokorny, the Bulgarian - by Colonel Ganchev, and the Turkish - by General Zekki.

Hindenburg headquarters officers meet the peace delegation of the Soviet government on the platform of Brest-Litovsk

November 20 (December 3) negotiations began in Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet delegation, at the very first meeting, proposed to the Germans to appeal to the Entente powers to take part in the negotiations for a general truce. General Hoffman, referring to the lack of authority, rejected this proposal. At the November meeting of 21 (December 4), the Soviet delegation announced its draft armistice. It was based on the following points: the cessation of hostilities on all fronts; the demarcation line will run along existing positions; truce is valid for six months; German troops must clear Riga, the Moonsund archipelago; the transfer of troops from the Eastern to the Western Front is prohibited. The German command, however, took a tough stance, refusing to withdraw troops from Riga and from islands in the Baltic Sea, as well as to stop the transfer of troops to France and Belgium that had already begun. Having met the opposition of the Germans, the negotiations were interrupted. However, a provisional agreement was signed on the cessation of hostilities for a period of 10 days - 7 on December 17.

Almost simultaneously, on November 29, the Entente conference began in Paris, at which they discussed what to do now in view of the changed situation in Russia. The allies feared that the Germans, Austrians and Turks could seize large territories in Russia and take advantage of their strategic position and resources. This could worsen the position of the Entente. They discussed the possibility of landing British, French and American landings in Russian ports in order to get ahead of the Germans. 10 (23) December in Paris was concluded first Anglo-French agreement on the division of Russia into "spheres of influence." The allies intended to avoid clashes with the Bolsheviks, whose authorities refused to recognize, but were ready to provide support to all anti-Bolshevik governments and newly-formed countries. The British zone of influence included the Caucasus, the French - Ukraine, Crimea and Bessarabia.

The course of the peace talks with Germany was discussed at a meeting of the CPC, which instructed the delegation in Brest-Litovsk to adhere to the position of the Lenin's "Peace Decree", which proclaimed "an immediate peace without annexations and indemnities". 2 (15 December) negotiations resumed and on the same day ended with the conclusion of a truce between Soviet Russia and the Fourth Alliance. It was installed from 4 (17) December 1917 on 1 (14) January 1918. Contracting parties could terminate the truce by making a warning about this for 7 days. It was also agreed that the Germans would no longer deploy troops from the Eastern Front to the Western. On a huge Russian front, the gun went silent.

The 9 (22) of December in Brest-Litovsk, within the framework of the already reached armistice agreement on the Eastern Front, began negotiations between Germany, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary on the one hand, and Soviet Russia on the other hand on the signing of a peace treaty itself. The delegations headed: from Germany - State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Richard von Kühlmann, from Austria-Hungary - Foreign Minister Ottokar Chernin, from Bulgaria - Justice Minister Hristo Popov, from the Ottoman Empire - Chairman of the Majlis Mehmed Talaat Bey, from Soviet Russia - Adolf Ioffe .

In the same period, Romania emerged from the war. November 26 (December 9) in the city of Focsani, the Romanian government entered into a truce with representatives of the Fourth Union. Because of the beginning of Russia's withdrawal from the war, Romania found itself in an extremely dangerous position. Romania entered the war on the side of the Entente in August 1916, under the guarantee of the Allies for providing assistance and, most importantly, military and material support from Russia. Romania from three sides was surrounded by the allies of Germany: in the south it was bordered by Bulgaria, in the north by Austria-Hungary, in the east by occupied Serbia. Shortly after entering the war, the Romanian army was defeated, most of the country was occupied, and the remaining troops and the Romanian government fled east under the protection of the Russian army that created the Romanian front. With Russian military-material support, the Romanian army was restored and performed well during the 1917 campaign of the year. After the conclusion of a truce between Russia and the German bloc, the Romanian army was one-on-one with three opponents at once, which forced the country's government to begin peace talks.

Soon Russia concluded an armistice with Turkey. 5 (18 December) in the city of Erzincan in eastern Anatolia, the commander-in-chief of the troops of the Russian Caucasian Front, Mikhail, and the leadership of the Transcaucasian Commissariat (a coalition government created in Tiflis) signed an armistice agreement with representatives of the Turkish army. It entered into history as Erzincan truce, which put an end to the war between Russia and the Turkish Empire. At this point, active hostilities were no longer conducted. The Russian army decayed and was in a deplorable state, its supply was almost destroyed. However, the Turks could not lead the offensive. And it was the Turks, taking into account the news of the truce on the Eastern Front and the peace talks in Brest-Litovsk, turned to the Russian command with a proposal for a truce. According to the agreement, hostilities in Asia Minor and Persia were suspended prior to February 12. For the final peace treaty with Russia, the Ottoman Empire sent its delegation to Brest-Litovsk. After that, the spontaneous departure of the Russian troops from the South Caucasus began, and Turkey was given the opportunity to occupy the South Caucasus.

It should be noted that The Soviet government made the only correct step in this situation. In geopolitical, strategic terms, Russia did not need a war with Germany, ideally - Germany was Russia's natural ally against the symbiosis of parasitic clans ruling France, England and the United States (so-called "world backstage", "financial international" "golden elite"). The Russian Empire was set against Germany in order to destroy the two great powers, and without interference, rule the planet, build your world order. The war had to stop and restore normal, good-neighborly relations. The Russians should not have played the role of the "cannon fodder" of the Anglo-Saxons in the fight against Germany.

Militarily, Russia could no longer fight. The armed forces were completely decomposed and lost their combat capability even under the February lists, the Provisional Government. The pro-Western Provisional Government has done everything to decompose, destroy the imperial army, what is left of it. The Russian front has de facto collapsed, the army could not fight. Separate units that retain the ability to fight, did not make the weather. The old army ceased to exist, and the new Red (Soviet) was just beginning to form. Russia could no longer fight. Peace was needed to create a new statehood, a new army, restore the economy, transport and reassure the people.

Delegates of the parties at the consultations in Brest-Litovsk. December 1917 of the year
Articles from this series:
1917 Campaign

The transition of the Central Powers to a strategic defense
Entente plans for 1917 year: bet on a decisive victory in the war
Russian army to the beginning of the 1917 campaign of the year: the approach of the general collapse
Attack without shot: Mitav operation
How Germany began the unlimited submarine war
German submarine vs UK
How the German submarine fleet tried to crush the "mistress of the seas"
The United States used the myth of "inhuman" submarine warfare to oppose Germany
Caucasian front in 1917 year. Baratov corps offensive in southwestern Persia
Mosul operation. How the British, until recently, tried to use the Russian "cannon fodder"
The war of the USA and England against Europe and Russia for absolute power on the planet
USA and World War I
How did the USA profit from World War I
"War will end wars." USA in the First World War
World War I turned the United States into a leading world power
"Nivel Meat Grinder"
Tenth Battle of the Isonzo
The failure of the "offensive of Kerensky"
"It was no longer the former Russian"
As Greece at gunpoint forced to go to war
The revival of the Romanian army: the battle of Marashti and Maraseshti
Operation "Albion"
How the Germans stormed the Moonsund Islands
The bloody battle on the plateau Bainzitz
The defeat of the Italian army in the Battle of Caporetto
The defeat of the Italian army in the Battle of Caporetto. H. 2
"To die, but not to retreat!"
As the British offensive under Yprom drowned in mud
The bloody end of the battle of Paschendale
Tank Break under Cambrai
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 12 December 2017 06: 33
    I really liked the article. Thanks to the author.
  2. Korsar4
    Korsar4 12 December 2017 06: 38
    "Russia is over ... at last
    We blundered her, chatted,
    They crawled, drank, spit ... "
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 12 December 2017 07: 23
    February, destroyed the empire ...
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 12 December 2017 07: 53
      hi The empire was destroyed by a bunch of emperors: Alexander 1 and Nikolai 1, who did not solve the most important question, the question of land. February is only an outward manifestation of a far-reaching disease. Paralysis did not happen from an ax strike, as modern monarchists imagine the situation to us, but from a defeat of the entire nervous system by a chronic infection, which was also “treated” with blush and whitewash. Just to make the deceased look beautiful.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 12 December 2017 08: 01
        February is only an outward manifestation of a far-reaching disease.
        ... Yes, February, like the "core" of the abscess, he came out, a little pressure ... Although there were still treatment methods, but they pressed in February, which could lead to infection ....
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 12 December 2017 08: 14
          Yes, they pressed ... There was just an article about the werewolf, in the comments to which, it was absolutely true that in the Middle Ages, instead of solving the problem, it was necessary to find someone who would fit the definition of "evil" and that's all, there is no problem . Centuries have passed, the era of enlightenment and scientific and technological revolution, people with a university education have appeared in commodity quantities, and the approach has not changed. The answer is known, "German and English agents are to blame," and also those who eat matzo. Oooo, those are just as evil! wassat
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 12 December 2017 08: 16
            The answer is known, "German and English agents are to blame", and also those who eat matzo. Oooo, those are just as evil!
            ... It goes without saying ... smile
            1. avva2012
              avva2012 12 December 2017 08: 24
              And note, they are here and there, sharpening and sharpening! Where to go to the poor Guz nationalist crying Thanks to N. Starikov, he opened his eyes to the Englishwoman, but there is nowhere without them. Shaw is ....
        2. IGOR GORDEEV
          IGOR GORDEEV 12 December 2017 08: 23
          Quote: parusnik
          ... Yes, February, like the "core" of the abscess, he came out, a little pressure ... Although there were still treatment methods, but they pressed in February, which could lead to infection ....

          Unfortunately, this is statistics. In the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century, they could reform the USSR according to the correct one without its barbaric collapse. But the elite failed, as then ...
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 12 December 2017 09: 45
            Quote: IGOR GORDEEV
            In the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century ......... the elite failed, as then ...
            turned out to be meaner, more cunning, more educated. And primitive instincts defeated Soviet education.
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 12 December 2017 12: 26
        Corporal avva, it seems to me that you dived too deeply: "a bunch of emperors: Alexander 1 and Nikolai1: who did not solve the most important question, the question of land." We were told at school about the half-hearted reforms of Alexander 2, but they did not remember about the predecessors.
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 12 December 2017 12: 58
          Vyacheslav, if reforms, albeit half-hearted, had occurred in the 20-30 of the 19 century, the results of the Crimean War would be different and capitalism would have developed in Russia in a different direction, i.e., not through Western loans. The "acute" phase of the reform, of course, passed earlier. Nonsense with farms, too, would not be.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 12 December 2017 15: 14
            And Peter is to blame for the fact that he only Westernized the elite, Alexei Mikhailovich for arranging a split, Ivan the Terrible with the oprichnina, Ivan the third for giving the table to Vasily, the Tver princes for losing to Moscow, and generally accepting Vladimir Islam or Catholicism would be all right.
            1. avva2012
              avva2012 12 December 2017 15: 56
              Chuckle, how funny. The country is stuck in feudalism, with its social relations, master-servant, and a cheap economy. How did Russia differ during the time of Peter from the rest of the world? Yes, there were the most advanced ones that had already developed industry and the capital economy, but in his time, the lag was not critical. About Ivan the Terrible, in general, there is nothing to say, a typical feudal lord, like everyone else. So, your irony, by. There was a chance, but frankly profiled. Well, and then, the Bolsheviks, the evil ones are to blame, of course, there is no one else.
              1. Cartalon
                Cartalon 12 December 2017 23: 02
                only Alexander and Nikolai had no idea about these chances, everything seemed to suit them, they noticed a lag in the Crimean one, and when you manage a huge victorious empire, the idea rarely changes dramatically, we know how to do it, capitalism in England arose not by order so that.
                1. avva2012
                  avva2012 13 December 2017 02: 30
                  Yes, of course, they learned about affairs in the empire from the first channel. There, as you know, now we have universal prosperity. It is sad that such an opinion is about all-Russian emperors.
                  1. Cartalon
                    Cartalon 13 December 2017 15: 06
                    They learned from the reports, and there everything was safe, the current king also believes that everything is safe.
                    1. avva2012
                      avva2012 14 December 2017 02: 15
                      If so, then this is very bad, since the boss cannot organize an alternative way of obtaining information or allows subordinates to think that they can lie and they will not have anything. You either pretend to be naive or you have to think about them even worse if it was the way you write.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 12 December 2017 08: 14
      Quote: parusnik
      February, destroyed the empire ...

      Probably, the destruction, cracks started when the “Westerners” appeared and every year there were more cracks.
    BRONEVIK 12 December 2017 08: 43
    Even after the expansion of the army by the Provisional Government and its successors, the Russian Front could KEEP
    Let not actively act - but hold on. Up to a very CLOSE victory.
    600 thousand fighters of shock units + cavalry and artillery fully preserved combat readiness. The rest could be phased out (such projects were not implemented).
    No wonder even after Brest, when the army was actually DEMOBILIZED, the advance of the Germans was far from brilliant.
    Concluded on the eve of Victory and for the sake of the current moment (just to stay in power) a separate world with devastating conditions for the country is a crime against Russia good
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 12 December 2017 09: 57
      on the eve of Victory

      Precisely the vestibule (vestibulum v.). And people would fall into this victory. Mama Do not Cry. How would they heal then! As in the west, even better:
      Western historiography initially also recognized this picture of the impoverishment of agricultural Russia. Until the 70 of the last century, the cause of the revolution was seen in the worsening position of the masses, and above all, the peasantry; the main reason for the impoverishment of the peasantry was considered a rapid population growth, which led to an acute shortage of land [for example: Robinson, 1967; Gerschenkron, 1967; Volin 1970]. However, in the 1970's, the situation changed. One of the apostles of the Cold War, John Kenan, in 1967 called on Western historians to show the positive features and achievements of the tsarist autocracy [Tyukavkin, 2001, p. 26). The works of P. Gregory, P. Gatrell, J. Simms, S. Hawk [Gregory 1982; Gatrell 1986; Simms 1977; Hoch 1994] emphasized these achievements; their authors tried to prove that the Russian agricultural economy was on the path of progressive development, and the level of consumption was increasing. In this case, however, sometimes not quite correct methods were used. Thus, P. Gregory, estimating the total consumption of peasants, did not take into account the consumption of oats and a number of other crops and carried out the calculation not in physical but in cost terms, which overestimated the result due to the outstripping growth in the production of more expensive breads [Gregory, 2001, p. 36]. In addition, the American author compared only the five-year periods of 1885-1889 and 1897-1901, although S. Witcroft showed that consumption fluctuated strongly over the five-year period, and choosing dates for comparison, you can get any result you need for the researcher [Wheatcroft, 1991, p . 134, 172] ......... Judging by the abundance of references by P. Gregory, J. Simms, S. Hawk, the work of these historians had a great influence on the views of some Russian historians, in particular, on B. N. Mironov , who in his recent works speaks not only of an increase in consumption at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries, but also that his level “generally satisfied the food needs existing at that time” [Mironov, 2008b, p. 95]. In an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Rodina, B. N. Mironov claims that “from table. 3 implies that in 1896-1915, peasants received an average of 2952 kcal per capita per day, translated as an adult male - 4133 kcal, which was sufficient to perform hard physical work throughout the day all year round ”[Mironov, 2009, c .19]. This is practically the only argument cited by B. N. Mironov in favor of his thesis about the "satisfaction" of the Russian peasantry with regard to food (data on the cost of vodka, of course, do not apply here).

      P.A. Stolypin. In a report on the unrest in the Saratov province, he wrote: “All peasant disturbances, agitation among peasants and unauthorized seizures are possible only on the basis of land disorder and extreme impoverishment of rural people. Brutal violence is observed where the peasant cannot escape poverty. ” The level of consumption in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century Ch. Http://
      1. Gopnik
        Gopnik 12 December 2017 12: 06
        Yes, it’s better than with the Bolsheviks, really. The corpses would not eat from hunger, and on collective farms they would not work for sticks of workdays.
      2. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 12: 11
        Actually, in the agrarian sphere of Russia there was a significant problem, which was associated with the relative overpopulation of the Russian village. The policies of Alexander III and Nicholas II led to a significant development of the institute of zemstvo medicine and, as a consequence, a reduction in mortality, including child mortality. The number of families in the village increased sharply, which led to a reduction in the size of land allotted to one family, which caused a temporary decrease in income. The imperial government understood this, and therefore both a resettlement campaign was organized and measures were taken to destroy the peasant community.
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 12 December 2017 13: 15
          which was associated with the relative overpopulation of the Russian countryside.

          During 1906-1913, 4138 thousand peasants who sold land and left for the cities left the villages of European Russia; 2566 thousand more relocated beyond the Urals; the total disposal amounted to 6704 thousand people. However, during the same time, the natural increase amounted to 14127 thousand people .; as a result, over eight years, the rural population increased by 7489 thousand people, or by 7,3%, and, despite all the efforts, the problem of agrarian overpopulation became even more acute. As noted above, the “1901 Commission of the Year” determined the number of surplus workers in 23 million, which amounted to 53% of the total labor force; according to A.M. Anfimov’s calculations, made by the same methodology, in 1913 there were 32 million "extra" workers, which accounted for 56% of the total workforce. However, government measures in the Black Earth region brought a relatively greater effect than in other regions. For Tambov province, as A. A. Ivanov showed, in 1912 the proportion of surplus workers remained the same as 12 years ago, and the situation, in any case, did not worsen. In 1905-1912, the number of peasant households in the Tambov province increased by 13%, and the allotment of land in the yard decreased from 7 to 6,6 dess., But this decrease was offset by an increase in yield. However, there remained a large difference in the land supply of the former landowners and former state peasants. In the Lipetsk district, the former state peasants had 7,5 dess. land, and the former landowners - only 4,0 dess. to the yard; in the Ottoman district, respectively, 8, 0 and 4,6 tithes ..... Another important component of the Stolypin reforms was the organization of the mass resettlement of peasants on the outskirts. Resettlement seemed to be the easiest way (at least partially) to solve the land problem, and, as noted above, a fundamental decision to encourage resettlement was made back in June 1904. In the context of the destruction of the community, resettlement was also one of the ways to provide land for those poor people who left their communities selling their land. However, the government program was not backed by resources; resettlement expenses in 1907-1913 amounted to only about 200 million rubles, which amounted to only 1% of all government spending over the years. In 1906-1916, 3078 thousand peasants moved to the eastern regions, but due to lack of funds, 546 thousand people returned. When the unsuccessful migrants began to return, this discouraged the relocation of those gathered on the road, and the wave of resettlement quickly subsided. As a result, only 2532 thousand migrants were entrenched in new places.
          and measures were taken to destroy the peasant community.

          In general, for 1906-1915. in the 45 provinces of European Russia in which the reform took place, 26,6% of households that had 16,3% of the land left the community. The allotments of the outgoing peasants were less than average because only arable land was strengthened, and the land remained in the community. In addition, the poor often went out of the community, who were going to sell the allotment, or migrants, who had long been not cultivating their own land for a long time. In the course of the reform, 10,3% of farms that had 10% of all land passed to the cut and farm land use. In the seven provinces of the Chernozem region, 26,5% of households that had 15,6% of communal land left the community, but only 8,8% of households were allocated to the cut and farm; approximately a quarter of the fortified land was immediately sold [22]. The degree of destruction of the community in different provinces varied greatly, for example, in Kursk province, 42% of households left the community, in Orlovskaya - 38%, and in Tambov - only 22%. The average size of the allocated yard in the Tambov province was 4,1 dess., While the average size of communal households was 7 dessiatines. The average size of farms and cuts was 6,4 dess., While the cost of living calculated by economists for such farms was 10,5 dess. In the Zemlyansky district of Voronezh province, almost half of the cut yards did not have horses. As many researchers note, prosperous peasants preferred to remain in the community - thus, Stolypin’s stake on “strong and strong” owners did not quite materialize.
        2. avva2012
          avva2012 12 December 2017 13: 24
          and, as a result, a reduction in mortality, including child mortality.

          According to medical data from the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. the average life expectancy among the population of the Russian Empire was 32,3 years (31,3 for men and 33,4 for women). At the same time, the corresponding average indicators in Europe were as follows (ascending): in Austria - 38,8, in Germany 42,2, in Italy 43, in England 46, in France 47,4, in Denmark 51,9, in Norway 52,2, in Sweden 52,3 of the year . Mortality in Russia was extremely high in all age groups, both in childhood and in working age. Regionally, the highest mortality rates were observed in the Perm, Kaluga, Orenburg and Samara provinces. Among cities, the worst situation was observed in Astrakhan, the cities of Samara and Saratov provinces. The infant mortality rate was particularly high. Here, for all age groups from 0 to 15 years, Russia ranked first in the world. В 1900-1909 гг. 4,8-5,2 million were born annually in the country people of whom under the age of one year died 1,1-1,3 million people, which was 22-27% of all babies born. At the same level, this proportion of deceased children remained in the 1910-1911 years. (respectively 27,4% and 23,7%), when the birth rate fell to the level of 3,4-3,5 million. people. a year. If we compare these figures with European countries, the worst indicators were in Hungary and Austria (20,4% and 20,3%, respectively). At the same time, in Germany 17,6% of children under the age of 1 died, in France 12,1%, in England and Wales 11,6%, in Sweden 7,6%, in Norway 6,9%. In some provinces of the Russian Empire, the highest infant mortality before the age of 1 was observed in 1902-1904. in the provinces - Perm (37,1%), Nizhny Novgorod (34,2%), Vyatka (33,7%); and in subsequent 1905-1907 years. in the provinces of Kostroma (36,1%), Nizhny Novgorod (34,9%), Vladimir (34,6%). The smallest was infant mortality in the Baltic provinces and in Crimea, amounting to 13-16%. The reasons for the high infant mortality among the Orthodox Russian population were known and understood by contemporaries. First of all, this is the low level of living and sanitary conditions of the peasant population. To this was added terrible village customs very early, almost from the first days of a child’s life, to give him besides mother’s milk chewed bread, porridge, and other food products that cause acute gastrointestinal diseases. The highest mortality rates were in the summer - a period of intensive field work. In some provinces in the summer, infant mortality reached 80%, that is, 80 children from 100 born died. Doctors stated that “the main causes of enormous child mortality in Russia are the hard work of women during pregnancy, lack of free time and lack of childcare, as a result of extreme poverty and illiteracy.” Comparing mortality rates among Orthodox Russians, Muslims and Jews, Russian researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century also clearly found that the relatively low mortality rate, for example among Muslims “living in general in very unsanitary conditions,” depended on the tradition of compulsory breast-feeding of children in connection with with the religious precepts of the Qur'an, as well as with the fact that, unlike Russian women, who often a few days after giving birth again started hard agricultural work, m sulmanki at least a month or two have been released from other family concerns, in addition to caring for a newborn. In the same way, the traditions of breastfeeding of children under the age of one year and low mortality in the Jewish environment influenced. In the next age group, from 2 to 10 years, high mortality rates were determined by the spread of acutely infectious diseases - smallpox, scarlet fever, diphtheria, measles, whooping cough, typhoid - which occurred mainly in the autumn and winter months. In cities, these indicators were lower due to the anti-epidemic measures carried out there, as well as because of the better provision of doctors. At the age of 10-35 years, the peak of mortality from the same acute infections was in the spring (after 35 years in winter and spring), when, due to malnutrition, the body's resistance to disease fell sharply. From acute diseases in 1901-1913. annually in Russia from 358 to 508 thousand died
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 12 December 2017 13: 48
            Politics of Alexander III and Nicholas II

            Concerning other types of diseases, then the rates for cancer in Russia were lower than in Europe, for cardiovascular diseases - about the same as in Europe. According to 1912 England was ahead of measles and whooping cough mortality. According to the mortality from tuberculosis - Austria and France. For respiratory diseases, Russia had approximately the same indicators as France. This shows that in Russia it was epidemic diseases that were directly associated with a low level of hygienic conditions and weakened (due to poor nutrition and depressing living conditions) immunity of the majority of the population. Outstanding Russian figure in medicine (Swiss by origin) F.F. Erisman wrote that "the food allowance of our Russian workers is poor main and most valuable nutritional principles - digestible proteins and fats." Dr. S.N. Igumnov from Kharkov in his report at one of the medical Pirogov congresses bitterly said that an important factor contributing to the development of epidemics is the difficult economic situation of the population, and above all, the “hunger strike”. According to Igumnov, the people “eat ... "with bread alone, not always benign and not always in sufficient quantities, all other products are only seasoning, flavoring substances, flavoring its grain-eating dryness.” Due to fat starvation, in many places every year in the spring there was an overall disease of night blindness (a sharp drop in vision in low light). The result of poor nutrition was "a huge development of diseases of the digestive organs", "an extremely high percentage of tertiary forms of syphilis among the rural population." And scabies and trachoma, which were very widespread, in the “Report on the state of public health and the organization of medical care in Russia for 1903” were directly described as “diseases of the poor, unicultural, living in unsanitary conditions”. That is why during the period 1901-1913 years. the distribution of patients (seeking medical help) by separate groups of diseases from year to year gave the same picture. The largest number of patients (18% of the total number) accounted for diseases of the digestive organs, 17% for infectious diseases, 11% for respiratory diseases (pulmonary tuberculosis was not called “the disease of the poor”), 9% for skin diseases, for 7% - for injuries and parasitic diseases. In 1913 was in the group of non-communicable diseases 65% of cases were anemia and pale sickness. In the group of parasitic diseases, 74% was scabies, 11% worms. In the “poisoning” group, 72% accounted for acute and chronic alcohol poisoning. According to the observations of doctors, the picture was typical when epidemics developed in a number of localities the next year after a crop failure. In 1903 was there was an epidemic of scurvy in the Novgorod province. 18.344 people got sick there. The enormous size of scurvy was taken in Starorussky uyezd, where 16.890 cases from all 18 with more than thousand in the province were registered. The fact is that in 1902 there was a crop failure so strong that already in December 1902 most peasants, having exhausted their own reserves, began to buy grain. For this, “many were forced to sell everything, almost all cattle, all horses, but the money earned through this sale was barely enough only for bread, and other seasonings needed for food, such as potatoes, cabbage, onions, cucumbers, etc., - which in 1902 absolutely not ugly, there was nothing to buy anywhere else. ” The peasants had to eat, "and that will not be enough", one bread, and to drink water - rarely anyone could afford tea and kvass. According to doctors, such a plight and poor nutrition of the peasants "paved the way for the widespread development of scurvy." The epidemic lasted three months, starting in March. There were villages where the patient was not lying in a rare house, and even between the peasants who considered themselves healthy, there was not a single examination that did not have swollen gums and bleeding. It was possible to repay the epidemic only in June, thanks to the Novgorod provincial zemstvo and the main administration of the Red Cross. Zemstvo organized 11 temporary medical stations, which were equipped with reinforced medical personnel and where temporary hospitals were opened. And the Red Cross opened 91 a free dining room where all the months of the 28 epidemic were fed. the people who released 1,3 million servings of food.
            1. Lieutenant Teterin
              Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 21: 17
              Quote: avva2012
              According to data from 1912, England was ahead of Russia in mortality from measles and whooping cough. According to the mortality from tuberculosis - Austria and France. For respiratory diseases, Russia had approximately the same indicators as France.

              You just “forget” to say that the imperial government not only realized the scale of the epidemic threat, but also made considerable efforts to eliminate it.

              Source data table: Novoselsky S.A. Overview of the most important data on demography and sanitary statistics of Russia. Pg., 1916.P. 69-70.
              That is, the dynamics in the field of epidemic diseases was positive. In addition, Russian society itself also recognized the need to combat epidemic diseases:
              In 1909, the All-Russian League for the fight against tuberculosis emerged, dispensaries and outpatient clinics began to open actively (by 1913 already 48 departments of the league and 10 societies across the country had such), a lot of work was being done to improve, first of all, the working conditions of workers [48].
              Source: Ten years of October and Soviet medicine. M., 1927. S. 55; Andreev E., Kharkov T. A new challenge to tuberculosis.
              And the last - when citing data on European countries, one should not forget that the medical statistics there were far from up to par:
              And the lack of a network of outpatient facilities did not allow to establish a study of the general incidence. Methods of studying and obtaining indicators differed, which is why country data often turned out to be incomparable. There was no unified medical statistics for such major powers as Germany, where the data were revealed separately for each of the principalities included in the Reich, and Great Britain, where it was counted by its component parts (England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland). Only statistics on the incidence of tuberculosis, syphilis and some other infectious diseases existed as public, although not everywhere [50].
              Source: Zabludovsky P.E. et al. History of medicine. M., 1981. S. 268.
              So in spite of your lengthy quotes, koi, you must have wanted to justify the opinion that, supposedly, "the backward tsarism kept everyone in terrible conditions" (and which you did not substantiate with any thesis), the facts prove that Russian medicine is imperial times worthily fulfilled its tasks and promptly responded to epidemic threats.
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 13 December 2017 02: 36
                You, my comment, about the vestibule, inattentively read, apparently. It indicates who, where and when, began to paint a picture of the dairy rivers and the kissel shores of tsarism.
          2. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 21: 06
            Mr. Avva, how much will I remind you of the common truth of any discussion - the need to confirm my words with a reference to the source? Moreover, here you unceremoniously copied an article-agitation, which has long been roaming the Web.
            Quote: avva2012
            The average life expectancy among the population of the Russian Empire was 32,3 years (31,3 years for men and 33,4 years for women).

            Outright juggling. These numbers reflect expected life expectancy at birth. To make it clearer to you, this is a life expectancy forecast taking into account medical risks, and not data on age-specific mortality groups.
            Quote: avva2012
            At the same level, this proportion of deceased children remained in 1910-1911. (respectively 27,4% and 23,7%), when the birth rate fell to the level of 3,4-3,5 million people. in year. If we compare these figures with European countries, the worst indicators were in Hungary and Austria (20,4% and 20,3%, respectively). At the same time, 17,6% of children under the age of 1 year died in Germany, 12,1% in France, 11,6% in England and Wales, 7,6% in Sweden, and 6,9% in Norway.

            Again, an unknown author juggles the numbers. The reality was slightly different:
            Interestingly, the data on European Russia at the turn of the 1900-1910s. turn out to be comparable with the indicators of such countries as, for example, Austria-Hungary or Romania (20%), and also do not lag too much behind the average in the German Empire (16-19%) [35]. Foreign researchers indicate that the average mortality rate in infancy and in the first year of life (infant mortality) in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden was 28,5% in 1900 and 22,1% in 1913.
            The source of the data is this monograph: Bowblis JR The Decline in Infant and Overall Death Rates, 1878-1913: The Role of Early Sickness Insurance Programs. Miami University, 2008. P. 2.
            1. avva2012
              avva2012 13 December 2017 02: 52
              Ah, leave a fellow traveler, ah, leave your mentoring tone ... Who, you said that I am in a state of discussion with you? I simply laid out real information on your shameless lie. It is intended not to convince you of something, but to an interested, impartial, history, site visitor, which, say, I was two years ago. I repeat once again that the whitening of tsarist power began in the 70 of the 20 century, in the writings of Western "historians" on the instructions of lovers of the Soviet Union. Modern, non-worthy "historians", for the most part, take data for their inventions, just from these works. Thus, they disseminate information of the enemies of Russia, and not just anti-Soviet. I think it’s not a secret for you that the West "loves" us now, just like 100-200 years ago.
              About the links. If you know how to work with the Internet, then for you to get a comment source is not a problem. Hide where the information comes from is not possible.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 12 December 2017 12: 41
      Kamrad is an armored car, and you are right: the Russian front, though with a creak, could still hold on. You can even recall, as an example, the series “State Border” film 1 “We are ours, we are a new world”, when at the sharpest moment 2-gun platoons approached and, as they say on the “machine gun,” they executed Danovich’s commands. (Personally, it seems to me that in the "State Border" the most interesting were 1 and 2 films, and then ...)
  5. Gopnik
    Gopnik 12 December 2017 12: 02
    It’s kind of ridiculous to become, trying to betray need for virtue. A kind of fig leaf for the Bolsheviks. How did the war end? They shamefully screened the winter-spring campaign of 1918 and surrendered in Brest. And so it ended.
  6. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 12: 05
    The article is a fat minus. Once again, the author strikes into conspiracy theological ravings about certain “masters of the West,” which (I will tell you a terrible secret) do not exist in nature, but instead there is a conglomerate of states with their national elites and national interests.
    The author writes that
    The Allies intended to avoid clashes with the Bolsheviks, whose authorities refused to recognize the authorities, but were ready to provide support to all anti-Bolshevik governments and newly formed countries. The Caucasus was part of the British zone of influence, and Ukraine, Crimea, and Bessarabia entered the French zone of influence.
    However, in reality, this agreement dealt with something else. It was about the need "to avoid official relations with the Bolsheviks at all costs (Lord R. Cecile agreed)." Not clashes, but official diplomatic contacts with criminals who seized power in Russia and pulled it out of the struggle with the Central Bloc. The difference is significant. There is not a word about support for newly formed countries there either.
    Here is the text of the agreement itself:
    . Actions led by France are developing north of the Black Sea (against the enemy).
    Actions led by England are developing southeast of the Black Sea (against the Turks).
    II. Since General Alekseev in Novocherkassk proposed to implement a program to create an army to confront enemies, and given that this program was adopted by France, which allocated a loan of one hundred million [so in the text; apparently, francs are meant. - OS], while stipulating that inter-allied control will be organized, the implementation of this program will continue until new resolutions are adopted in agreement with England.
    III. Given this, the zones of influence identified for each government will be as follows:
    The English zone - Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan.
    French zone - Bessarabia, Ukraine, Crimea.
    IV. The costs should be summed up and regulated by the central inter-allied body. "Pp align =" center "> Lord R. Cecile announced his intention to present the agreement to his colleagues. Clemenceau said he would do the same.
    In general, it can be seen from the text of the transcript of negotiations that Britain and France regarded the Bolsheviks entering separate negotiations and concluding a truce with the Germans as a direct betrayal of the common cause of the struggle against the Central Bloc. And the goal of introducing "spheres of influence" is not the "partition" of Russia, but the prevention of the Germans from using the food-rich lands of Little Russian provinces.
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 12 December 2017 14: 25
      Was there no intervention?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 12 December 2017 20: 34
        Nooooo ... there wasn’t ... They came to guard their property, and the Russian peasant, he’s not good .. tried to steal the bureaucratic, foreign riffraff .. Well, that would not be stolen, the British organized the concentration camp in Mudyug, periodically organized raids on The Far East, in the Russian North .. Then, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, calmly boarded the steamboats, loaded the property and sailed home .. Lenin phrase: "We took her soldiers from the Entente," German-Bolshevik propaganda ... laughing
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 20: 56
          Quote: parusnik
          They came to guard their property, and the Russian peasant, he’s not good .. tried to steal the treasury, foreign stuff ..

          Your sarcasm is inappropriate. There were warehouses with weapons and ammunition in Murmansk, only the British invaded these warehouses not from the Russians to protect, but from the Bolsheviks, who could easily fuse weapons to the "comrades of the Germans" to "fight the insidious Anglo-French imperialism."
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 12 December 2017 21: 34
            Yes ... yes ... and in Arkhangelsk there were warehouses in Vladivostok ... and the Bolsheviks, mostly of German-Jewish nationality, Latvians, all kinds of Poles ... Bolsheviks were friends with "German comrades", Georgian Mensheviks were friends, even the Iron Cross , the Germans, awarded one of them, who during the years of the empire shouted “War to a victorious end”, Ukrainian nationalists were friends with the “German comrades” ... The circle of friends among the Germans is interesting, nationalists of different nationalities, Baltic states, Georgians, Ukrainians and Bolsheviks ..
      2. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 12 December 2017 20: 54
        This is actually not about establishing the fact of the intervention, but about its goals. The goal was not to "crush Russia and make it a colony," but to avoid feeding the Germans at the expense of the resources of the southern provinces captured by Russia by the Bolsheviks.
        1. parusnik
          parusnik 12 December 2017 21: 43
          This comes out of panov from the UPR, which in February 1918 signed a peace with the Germans and sent Austro-German troops into Ukraine, guided by the best of wishes ... so that they would later organize the state of Hetman Skoropadsky ... This passage was they don’t “crush Russia and make it a colony”, “I especially like it ... Now, they don’t want this either and didn’t want it during the Chechen war in the 90s, so .. for the kind of separatist bandits, they called freedom fighters .. You are right, the whole world of Russia wanted and wants happiness, but Russia does not understand this ..
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 13 December 2017 03: 19
            Alexei, I think that from such a statement: “The goal was not to“ fragment Russia and make it a colony, ”would Vlasov be pleased?
            1. parusnik
              parusnik 13 December 2017 07: 17
              ... Not the right word, jumping for joy, quit smoking .. The ranks of Vlasovites are growing day by day ....
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 13 December 2017 07: 30
                Yes, for the warm place of the "home Negro" under the new owners, some will not make such sacrifices just to see their bright day.
                1. parusnik
                  parusnik 13 December 2017 07: 32
                  Most fig, we will be these victims ...
                  1. avva2012
                    avva2012 13 December 2017 07: 45
                    Moreover, we all and they too. Something does not allow the brain to make an elementary analysis of the situation. Look at the neighbors, how good they are, how wonderful it is in the former Jamahiriya. "The gentleman is coming," and a stingy tear flows from the faded heifer and the shabby tail shakes in anticipation of the berets under the ribs.
                    1. parusnik
                      parusnik 13 December 2017 07: 46
                      Something does not allow the brain to make an elementary analysis of the situation.
                      ... And if there are no brains, then what kind of analysis ...
                      1. avva2012
                        avva2012 13 December 2017 08: 08
                        The analysis is only one, stool.
        2. avva2012
          avva2012 13 December 2017 03: 48
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin This is actually not about establishing the fact of the intervention, but about its goals.

          It is, in fact, that armed people of other countries came to our country whom nobody called. What is happening inside the country, according to international laws and just human, is the business of this country, do not you think? The justification of an intervention is no different from a personal, armed struggle against its people or calls for it. In any sovereign country, after such statements, the criminal prosecution of the person. In addition, at the official level, the Russian authorities recognized that the current state is the legal successor of the USSR, that is, practically by the letter of the law, what you write is a betrayal of the homeland.
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 13 December 2017 05: 05
            Quote: avva2012
            that is, practically by the letter of the law, what you write is a betrayal of the homeland.

            Greetings Colleague! hi
            K. Semin released the third film "The Last Bell", filmed with folk money.
            Highly recommend for viewing.
            1. avva2012
              avva2012 13 December 2017 07: 17
              Good day! I watched the film is correct, but they will not show it on the Internet, because they will not show it on the central heating system. No less sad in medicine, everything is the same and even the bosses are like a carbon copy (an episode in the Moscow Ministry of Education, where there is talk about cheburashki). But, in general, our entire state in the country is best characterized by another film by K. Semin, "Biochemistry of betrayal." hi
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 December 2017 12: 28
    Quote: parusnik
    February is only an outward manifestation of a far-reaching disease.
    ... Yes, February, like the "core" of the abscess, he came out, a little pressure ... Although there were still treatment methods, but they pressed in February, which could lead to infection ....

    Man, you are a medic. Joke
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 12 December 2017 20: 36
      Almost a dozen corpses were described in the inspection reports of the scene ... and in other documentation ...
  8. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 December 2017 13: 01
    Quote: Reptiloid
    Quote: parusnik
    February, destroyed the empire ...

    Probably, the destruction, cracks started when the “Westerners” appeared and every year there were more cracks.

    Dima, this question is very complex and controversial: when did erosion begin? I remember in the reign of Catherine the Great, Prince Shcherbatov wrote a book: "On damage to morals." And in Pushkin’s time, there were also zealots of the full language, remember: “a good-looking guy is walking in a wet-stoop, along a gulbyshch, from a stadium to a disgrace”.
    Even our school had an “opposition”: when a simplified spelling of capital letters A and B was introduced, our boys decided — before the 8th grade (a rural eight-year school) to not spell these letters.
  9. Monarchist
    Monarchist 12 December 2017 13: 54
    The author basically agrees with you: the West was vitally interested in preserving the Russian Front of the 74th division; this is not halam — balam. And Germany, these 74 divisions were as needed on the western front.
    I agree with you that the Entente enjoyed a civil war, but neither the English nor the French did not want to strengthen the army of Denikin. Recently, an idea has popped into my head: London and Paris were interested in a long war in Russia, which means that Denikin should be supported by a quarter of his strength. Denikin did not need “bantustans” and he wanted Great Russia, preferably within the borders of 1914. And among the Bolsheviks there were “sane” from the Western point of view that
    in% it was. On our site there was information that the Estonian embassy lays wreaths at the Ioffe monument, and down with the monuments to our soldiers. Apparently, later that Ioffe was involved in the destruction of the Great Empire, and our wars, on the contrary, perished for the revival of the Great Empire?
    ALEA IACTA EST 12 December 2017 18: 21
    What the Germans could not achieve for three years at the cost of tremendous sacrifices and efforts was ultimately simply presented to them by the Bolsheviks.
  11. parusnik
    parusnik 13 December 2017 08: 10
    Which, incidentally, is happening .. now ...
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 13 December 2017 11: 23
      They try to pour this substance into people's heads ...
  12. Seal
    Seal 14 December 2017 18: 13
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    The article is a fat minus. Once again, the author strikes into conspiracy theological ravings about certain “masters of the West,” which (I will tell you a terrible secret) do not exist in nature, but instead there is a conglomerate of states with their national elites and national interests.

    And yet.
    As soon as Herr Diesel invented his internal combustion engine and converted it to oil, everyone in Europe understood the importance of oil. And in Europe, by the beginning of the XNUMXth century, huge reserves of oil were whitewashed only among us and the Ottoman Empire. Well, there was still Romania - but Ploiesti didn’t stand next to Baku and Kuwait. “If oil is a queen, then Baku is its throne,” Winston Churchill wrote at the beginning of the century. Baku is the Russian Empire. And modern independent Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - before the First World War is the Ottoman Empire. But as they say: “Oil was found in Antarctica. The bloody penguin regime is about to end. ” So, I repeat that as soon as Herr Diesel invented his internal combustion engine and everyone in Europe understood the importance of oil, right there, as if by magic, "Jewish pogroms" began in Russia and "Armenian" in Turkey. No wonder they say that the Armenians are reserve Jews.
    The world "democratic press" is beginning to harshly condemn "bloody tsarism" in Russia and "bloody sultanism" in Turkey. Our Empires began to bite around the edges. A piece of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands bit off from Russia, taking the Liaodong Peninsula with Port Arthur and Dalniy, and Manchuria. Almost all of its European part and Libya were bitten off from Turkey. But at the beginning of the 20th century, the Western "democratizers" were not yet so united. Therefore, in 1914, German and Austrian "democracies" clashed with the English and French "democracies." Well, here, in this fight, they first dragged the Russian Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire. As a result, both of our Empires perished. And to the heap there are two more empires from among the "Western democracies" - German and Austro-Hungarian. After the defeat in World War I, Baku oil was torn from Russia (Azerbaijan became independent), and all its oil-producing provinces - Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia - were removed from Turkey. And it became clear who received the main gesheft from the war. ENGLAND !!!! England for some time began to control Baku (though they were soon kicked out by the Germans and Turks from there, since the war had not yet ended). But after the war, England received under its mandate (the League of Nations gave out mandates) and Iraq, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, English Democracy even puffed up its ally, French Democracy, which only Lebanon and Syria inherited from Turkey, where the cat was crying hi
  13. Karen
    Karen 15 December 2017 00: 26
    Quote: Seal
    And it became clear who received the main gesheft from the war. ENGLAND !!!!

    Sergei Petrovich, not quite so ... The one who conceived this whole scenario won - he was a cheater ... Well, their thousand-year-old comrades-in-England were a bit overpowered.

    England for some time began to control Baku (though they were soon kicked out by the Germans and Turks from there, since the war had not yet ended)

    The British in shorts stayed there shortly, and only after Lenin laid bare Baku for the Germans. Our nationalists even sent cannons to the English ships, forcing their soldiers to return to the battlefield, but they still draped.
    Let me give you a couple of documents of those days ...
    Here is what Ludendorff writes in his memoirs (S. 278 and 279, vol. II):
    “We could only rely on Baku oil if we took it ourselves. I remember only the great shortage of fuel in Germany and all the difficulties that the problem of lighting in the winter caused us, and all that followed. After the advance of the 7th Army, fuel reserves were exhausted; we really missed them. Railways of Ukraine also needed oil. We accelerated by exceptional measures, remaining within the scope of the possible, oil production in Romania and, nevertheless, could not hope to cover the deficit. It now seems that it was possible by delivering it from Transcaucasia, namely from Baku, if we could at the same time solve transportation conditions ... The decisive, naturally, was the question: how to get to Baku ... "


    To Stalin

    Today, June 30, a message was received from Ioffe from Berlin that Kühlman had a preliminary conversation with Ioffe. From this conversation it is clear that the Germans agree to force the Turks to stop military operations beyond the Brest border, having established an exact demarcation line for us. They promise not to let the Turks in Baku, but wish to receive oil. Joffe replied that we will strictly adhere to Brest, but we completely agree with the principle of giving in order to receive. Pay special attention to this message and try to pass it on to Shaumyan as soon as possible, because now there are serious chances to keep Baku. Part of the oil, of course, we will give.

    Lenin then simply complied with the Germans' instructions to surrender Baku. And the fact that in the 1920s the Bolsheviks regained Baku was the way Kagalists ruled in Russia, and they simply agreed with the rest of the Zionists.
    In defense of the French, we can only say that they managed to stop Russian Zionism ... in Poland - this is when Trotsky rushed about with the slogan that the rear of the Red Army was in Berlin ... Otherwise, it would have been a nightmare worse than the WWI.
  14. Seal
    Seal 15 December 2017 16: 18
    Quote: Karen
    The one who conceived this whole scenario won - kagal ... Well, their number for the thousand-year-old comrades - the British - was a bit overpowered.

    In your piggy bank about the "jugglers". I give it. What does the "nation of the British" consist of, not counting the Britons, Scott, Picts and others who lived before moving to the island from the continent ..... whom ???
    1. Karen
      Karen 15 December 2017 17: 18
      George Bush Sr. once told about the “kagal” and its role in starting two world wars ...
      The other day, I was looking for old magazines and books in my home, which indicated the close interaction between the Freemasons of the German and French general staffs before the WWI, and about the creation of a bunch of Britons + Jews almost a thousand years ago ... When armfuls of books began to fall on the floor, and among them they weren’t interesting to me, I realized that this business should be left for later ... :)
      In the Chronicles it is recorded who brought civilization there ... about this in the piggy bank?
  15. Normal ok
    Normal ok 23 December 2017 21: 56
    100 years ago, in December 1917, Russia emerged from the war by concluding a truce with Germany. The bloody struggle on the Russian front, beneficial to the "allies" of Russia on the Entente, was completed

    On the German front it was completed, but inside the country it was just beginning.
    The first decree and the first foreign policy act of the Soviet government was the Peace Decree

    The same scam as the slogan of the earth - to the peasants.