Military Review

On whose money was made the First Russian Revolution?

29
End of December 1902. Moscow. In the Kamergersky Lane huge queues. People gathered at the door of the Moscow Art Theater in anticipation of the premiere - Gorky’s new play “At the Bottom”. One of the main female roles was performed by Maria Andreeva. According to contemporaries - the most beautiful actress of the Russian theater. All Moscow went to look at it.


However, the success of not only the performance, but also the Russian revolution depended on how it performed the role.

Not just a beautiful woman and a talented actress, and Comrade Phenomenon. That is what Vladimir Lenin called her for the ability to get fabulous money. Preparation of documents for underground workers, organization of shoots from the links, purchase weapons - All this required large material resources, which the party did not have. From 5 to 20 rubles - this is all that ordinary Party members could transfer to the treasury. And Andreeva sometimes brought hundreds of thousands. Where did the actress, even if very popular, have that kind of money?

29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather
    Grandfather 25 December 2017 14: 36 New
    +4
    On whose money was made the First Russian Revolution?
    -moved to distort History ...
    1. Dalailama
      Dalailama 25 December 2017 14: 53 New
      +1
      And who ever has the money?
    2. Basil50
      Basil50 25 December 2017 16: 58 New
      0
      Well today, in a similar vein, and * scientific papers * are written. There’s even an academician from history, the one who argues in a similar vein and operates on different shows using copyright lies or his own speculations.
  2. solzh
    solzh 25 December 2017 14: 39 New
    +1
    On whose money was made the First Russian Revolution?

    Why did the first Russian revolution take place immediately for money? The first Russian revolution began without anyone's cash infusion, and then the revolutionary expropriation began.
    1. Dalailama
      Dalailama 25 December 2017 14: 55 New
      +2
      Because at least you need money for a ticket. And on the flyers. By the way, she’s not Russian, but at least Russian.
      1. solzh
        solzh 25 December 2017 16: 00 New
        0
        The revolution of 1905-1907, in historiography it is customary to call the First Russian Revolution. In addition, the period until 1917 is called Russian, from 1917 to 1991 it is called the Soviet, from 1991 to the present, the Russian period.
        1. Dalailama
          Dalailama 25 December 2017 16: 42 New
          0
          Accepted by whom? Period - yes, revolution - no. In the Soviet period and here it was now customary to call that no Russian people were and cannot be. How then could the Russian revolution be? There was so some kind of unwritten and illiterate scandinavian-inviting lapotnoy unwashed bunch massed with opium in 988. Even Pushkin helped you with this.
          1. Geronimo73
            Geronimo73 25 December 2017 16: 54 New
            0
            "In the Soviet period and here it was now customary to call that there was no Russian people and cannot be" what kind of nonsense are you making a fuss of?
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 25 December 2017 18: 39 New
              0
              If you don’t remember then, read here the comments of the internationalists who themselves are without tribe. They quickly agree if they don’t start right away.
              1. Geronimo73
                Geronimo73 27 December 2017 16: 14 New
                0
                I'm not very interested in “comments here”, I remember the Soviet period. any kind of chauvinism was suppressed harshly and unequivocally, but no one has ever denied the presence of the Russian people
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 27 December 2017 16: 39 New
                  0
                  Why did you suddenly become uninteresting, but mine became interesting selectively?
                  I also remember. All at once, "nobody" and "never" ?.
                  Quote: Geronimo73
                  what nonsense are you making a fuss of?

                  And for example Gumilev?
                  1. Geronimo73
                    Geronimo73 28 December 2017 10: 01 New
                    0
                    what happened to him?
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 28 December 2017 17: 30 New
                      0
                      Which of the two?
                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гумилев
                      1. Geronimo73
                        Geronimo73 9 January 2018 14: 27 New
                        0
                        you asked the question "but for example gumilev?". so what happened to them in this context? one White Guard conspirator; the second was arrested under counter-revolutionary articles. what does the Russian people have to do with it?
                    2. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 9 January 2018 14: 48 New
                      0
                      happened in the sense of?
          2. Victor Red
            Victor Red 25 December 2017 17: 51 New
            +1
            Perhaps I agree with you. All these "Russian" definitions are newz. In Soviet times, it sounded like this:
            The bourgeois revolution of 1905-1907
            The February bourgeois revolution of 1917.
            The October Socialist Revolution of 1917.
            As we see nowhere, the word "Russian" is not, and could not be. From the first days, the Soviet government pursued a policy of combating "Russian great power", the Minister of Nationalities implemented it. In the Soviet Union there were many different nationalities, including the Russian, but there were only one people, the Soviet one. Although it must be admitted that all these nationalities "rallied forever Great Russia."
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 25 December 2017 18: 43 New
              +1
              Yes, for the “Russian people” they immediately sewed an article even without “Mikhail the Archangel”, and anyone could put a “Russian” in their passport, and no one asked him about his grandparents.
              1. Victor Red
                Victor Red 25 December 2017 19: 22 New
                0
                Of course, he could deliver it, but about grandparents as they asked. And about other relatives too.
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 25 December 2017 19: 25 New
                  +1
                  This then, not everywhere and not in this vein. More precisely, not in this but quite the opposite. Suddenly, the little Rus wants to climb.
              2. Geronimo73
                Geronimo73 27 December 2017 16: 18 New
                0
                from the transcript: I, as a representative of our Soviet government, would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Stormy, prolonged applause, cries of "Hurray")
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 27 December 2017 16: 44 New
                  0
                  Well, this is a seminarist-Stalin. First time, before whom and when? He introduced the patriarchate back into Russia. The International, on the contrary, has gone somewhere. Together with all its members.
    2. Baloo
      Baloo 25 December 2017 14: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: solzh
      The first Russian revolution began without anyone's cash infusion

      Superficial conclusion. We all wonder what money Zakharchenko stored in 4-room and other apartments. There was infa about packs of bucks with Fed seals, i.e. unpacked. A box from under Xerox-petty things compared to current investments. The time will come to know.
      1. solzh
        solzh 25 December 2017 16: 03 New
        +2
        A superficial conclusion, say ... And what is the conclusion called by comparing the period of the first Russian revolution with the criminal case of Zakharchenko?
        1. Dalailama
          Dalailama 25 December 2017 18: 44 New
          0
          There was no first Russian revolution. She was anti-Russian, like the second, from February in the middle.
  3. 1536
    1536 25 December 2017 16: 12 New
    +2
    Famous phrases from the Manifesto of the Communist Party of K. Marx and F. Engels: "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. But they will gain the whole world." These phrases explain all Russian revolutions. And those in power, enjoying their power and possessions, reveling in impunity, do not even think that everything is coming to an end. And millions of the poor, in the end, will begin to expropriate their property in order to give birth to new powers that be. And so on until there is something to share. Apparently, Emperor Nicholas II did not think about this in the 1905 year. And at 1917 it was too late to think.
  4. Some kind of compote
    Some kind of compote 25 December 2017 16: 24 New
    16
    On international with a lot of Japanese
    1. captain
      captain 25 December 2017 18: 45 New
      +1
      With the money of wealthy sponsors and intelligence; Japan, Germany, UK and USA. All invested, but not enough. In 1917 they invested well and a lot.
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 27 December 2017 16: 47 New
        0
        And the war to create a revolutionary situation has muddied more.
  5. The comment was deleted.
    1. Forever so
      Forever so 21 January 2018 11: 46 New
      0
      And a quote by the way for those who assure that the PEOPLE of the USSR did not want to live the old way)) does not resemble anything ?? How much is there, 5 billion dollars Americans have thrown into the destruction of the USSR, according to them ?? for then they robbed 17 trillion dollars, this is a business.