Military Review

Constituent Assembly - stillborn child of democratic counter-revolution

67
In January, 1918 issued a decision of the Council of People's Commissars to open the Constituent Assembly. The Provisional Government at one time came up with the idea of ​​deciding at this meeting the subsequent fate of Russia, but was drawn to the discovery. The Bolsheviks allowed the "founding", despite the fact that the presidium, headed by Chernov, rejected all the decrees of the Soviet government - offering them exact copies. The Constituent Assembly also declared Russia a federal democratic republic, refusing the monarchical system a little out of time, for even the Provisional Government in September 1917 announced the end of the monarchy and the proclamation of the republic, not to mention October.


Forcing the Bolsheviks to leave the hall, the Constituent Assembly lost the quorum and did not have more legal force. Waste of time was interrupted by one of the guards at five o'clock in the morning, urging the gentlemen to round out, because "the guard was tired, and it would be good to disperse." The “bloody Bolsheviks” stopped at this, but, as historian Ilya Ratkovsky says, the white movement, which also did not support the “founding” in the future, dealt with its followers more strictly.

About how the conspiracy matured before the Constituent Assembly, who prepared the attempt on Lenin, what the victims of the armed uprising prevented by the Cheka, and many other things were read in the interview on the eve of the main event of January 1918 with historian Ilya Ratkovsky.

Constituent Assembly - stillborn child of democratic counter-revolution


Question: The Constituent Assembly, without which the Provisional Government could not make decisions about the organization of power in Russia, with the fall of the Provisional Government did not lose its relevance. Or is it not quite like that? What preceded the first and only meeting?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The Bolsheviks supported the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly for the most part of 1917 year. In the opinion of many politicians, it was to finally decide the question of the form of government. Suffice it to mention the wording of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich’s abdication, which referred this question to the Constituent Assembly. Procrastination with the development of regulations on elections, postponement of elections - all this was interpreted as the anti-people policy of the Provisional Government. It is another matter that, under these conditions of the continued distancing of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the alternative idea of ​​the Republic of Soviets became increasingly important. In addition, the key issue of the form of government of September 1 has already been resolved: a republic was officially proclaimed in Russia. By this decision, the value of the future Constituent Assembly has already been largely reduced. Especially important in departing from the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly of the Bolsheviks were the re-election of the Soviets in late August - September 1917, when the Bolsheviks won a majority in the major Soviets of workers and soldiers' deputies, including Moscow and Petrograd. Under these conditions, the idea of ​​the Republic of Soviets was seen as more promising for the implementation of the political program of the Bolsheviks. It was the Second Congress of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies that shaped the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. However, the Bolsheviks could not immediately reject the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly, as they had previously advocated its convocation. Therefore, the first Soviet government headed by Lenin was called the Provisional Workers 'and Peasants' Government.



Question: In general, what was the point of the Constituent Assembly when the idea first arose? Did she belong to Michael, in whose favor Nicholas II had renounced?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly has a long history. This term was used by the Decembrists. It was also mentioned in the works of liberal figures at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was the idea of ​​a popular assembly that would form a government of national trust. In the February days, this idea was revived again. During the February Revolution, Michael only used the opportunity to postpone the question of the form of government to a remote period.

Question: The Soviets - this is the improved form of the Constituent Assembly, the roots of which go back to the days of the French Revolution?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The idea of ​​the Soviets is the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the working people. If we talk about the roots, here, rather, you can see the connection with the organs of the Paris Commune 1871 of the year. This is the difference between the Constituent Assembly and the System of Soviets. The first represented the idea of ​​a national assembly in which the interests of various groups of the population and estates would be represented. The idea of ​​the Soviets is in reliance on the workers: on workers 'and peasants' Soviets, and further, as the development of this idea showed, on the Cossack Soviets. The bourgeoisness of the first idea was opposed by the Nationality in the broad sense of the Soviets.

Question: Before the Constituent Assembly a conspiracy matured, and an attempt was made on Lenin? Why, whom did he bother?

Ilya Ratkovsky: Lenin is the key figure of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet government. Its elimination could destabilize the situation before the Constituent Assembly, to split the party and the government. Again, it could convince the Germans of the weakness of the Bolsheviks and provoke them to interrupt the peace talks, achieve everything with an armed German offensive. The Germans, many of the opponents of the Bolsheviks saw the saviors of Russia and waited for their arrival.

Question: Who was involved in the assassination?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The involvement of the Orel-Lansky officer group, to a lesser extent the Right Socialist-Revolutionary terrorist organization, or other groups is possible for the attempted assassination of 1 in January. The circumstances are inclined to accept with great justification the first version, since it received indirect confirmation of a new attempt to capture (murder) Vladimir Lenin in the middle of January 1918 by the leadership of the Petrograd Union of St. George Cavaliers: Osmin, Ushakov, Zinkevich, Nekrasov and others. The role of the organizer of the January assassination also claimed the prince Shakhovskoy.

It is characteristic that on the same days observation of the movements of Lenin, Bonch-Bruyevich, Trotsky and other persons was revealed. It is also plausible that Savinkov’s people were involved in organizing the terrorist attack, the organization of which included many officers, Social Revolutionaries of various persuasions, as well as young students. Savinkov was also connected with the Union of St. George Knights.

Question: Was there a place for other terrorist attacks? Cheka was already on guard?

Ilya Ratkovsky: Actually, this was the second attempt to liquidate Lenin. Back in December 1917, actions were taken to eliminate it physically. It was only there that a mere chance, the time factor, played in favor of Lenin. He left the place where he had not rested for long, literally in a few hours, when armed officers arrived there. Therefore, the attempted January 1 is a continuation of the hunt for Lenin. It is this attempt that will lead to a change in the protection of Lenin. Before him, Lenin moved around the city without protection. It is characteristic that in the car at the January assassination, apart from the driver, Lenin's sister and another Swiss socialist Platten sat, leaning Lenin’s head down during the shelling of the car. Weapons no one had it. After the January assassination attempt, there was an armed driver in the car and, as a rule, one guard. Lenin was assigned a car. The commandant of the Smolny, and later the Cheka, took over the protection of Lenin. Dzerzhinsky also undertook an investigation of the December-January events. True, it soon became clear that many of the participants in the attempt left for Don to Kaledin.



Question: How did the Bolsheviks prepare for the assembly?

Ilya Ratkovsky: First, they tried to take control of the electoral process. Tried to take the majority. The chairman of the credentials committee was Moses Uritsky. Secondly, they launched an agitation in their favor. The partial demobilization of soldiers during the election period had a certain effect. The demobilized soldiers in the village were literally carried the “Decree on Land”, printed in large quantities. Numerous meetings were held. Thirdly, the Bolsheviks went to meet the Left Social Revolutionaries, forming a coalition of parties standing on the Soviet platform. The left SRs were supposed to give peasant voices. However, the time factor played a key role. There was little time for propaganda and agitation. The left SRs also gave a smaller number of peasant votes, because as a party they were only formed, and the mandates were for the most part not for them, but for supporters of the right SRs and centrists. Thus, although the Constituent Assembly was socialist in its choice, it was not pro-Bolshevik. The Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries managed to get only a third of the mandates.

Question: Why the Bolsheviks could not abandon the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The refusal to convene a Constituent Assembly would give opponents a reason to accuse the Bolsheviks of departing from their pre-October promises. In addition, the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly was still quite popular, that would just abandon it. It was necessary to give the Constituent Assembly to show itself, to reveal its essence, to show its opposition to the Soviet decrees on the land, on the world and others. To give a "pain of the disease" to the Constituent Assembly, so that the Right Socialist-Revolutionary alternative would "self-debauch".

Question: Why did the presidency refuse to consider the decrees of the Soviet government and to consider the decrees? Maybe they wanted the Bolsheviks (120 delegates) to leave the hall?

Ilya Ratkovsky: Recognition of the Declaration and Soviet decrees legitimized Soviet power and the October Revolution. Moreover, the Declaration proclaimed the principle of the dictatorship of the working people, which was unacceptable for the Right Allied majority. Rather, the Right SRs, demonstrating "uncompromising", wanted to "indicate the place" to the Bolsheviks, to achieve a split of the Soviet coalition and the formalization of the transfer of power to the Presidium. The departure of the Bolsheviks by the Presidium was not deliberately provoked, since after that the quorum and legality of the Constituent Assembly would be called into question.

Question: But, in essence, the decisions of this assembly copied the decisions already adopted by the Soviet government - the law on the land, for example, duplicated the “Decree on Land”, and the warring powers called for peace. How to explain it?

Ilya Ratkovsky: It was determined by two factors. Firstly, the Bolsheviks themselves used the Socialist-Revolutionary documents in the preparation of the "Decree on Land", since they were based on peasant orders. Therefore, the Social Revolutionaries in this matter duplicated the Bolsheviks, who were able to earlier declare the peasants' aspirations collected earlier by the Social Revolutionaries, but postponed by them for later. Secondly, the majority of participants in this meeting were representatives of the socialist parties, and the “Decree on Land”, in fact, is deeply socialist. Therefore, the Presidency, not accepting it under the Bolshevik hat, wanted to accept as a manifestation of its will, its “gift” to the people. The "Decree on Peace" is already a purely Bolshevik decree, therefore it cannot be accepted. But also to keep silent too, therefore, not having accepted a decree, the Presidium tried to give something similar. The soldiers would not understand ...



Question: Why does the name “overclocking” remain in history? Nobody was going to disperse the meeting initially? According to the legend, it lasted until 5 in the morning, and simply “the guard was already tired,” asked everyone to disperse? Was it an initiative solely for Sailor Ironstone?

Ilya Ratkovsky: Initially, several solutions to the problem of the Constituent Assembly were considered. Considered, in particular, the option of Sovietization of the Constituent Assembly. This would have been possible if the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries had carried away the majority of the assembly, the divisions of the Social Revolutionaries. Therefore, there was a compromise candidacy from the Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries to chair the Assembly in the person of the Left Social Revolutionary Maria Spiridonova. However, the Left Social Revolutionaries failed to get the majority among the Social Revolutionaries, failed to win over. The candidate from the Social Revolutionary majority Victor Chernov won. After this, the confrontation began with the Bolsheviks of Chernivtsi, attempts to drag the Left SRs over to their side. Under these conditions, the continued presence of the Bolsheviks within the walls of the Constituent Assembly became unpromising. Staying here, they only legitimized the decisions of the Constituent Assembly. The Bolsheviks are leaving, disrupting the quorum of the assembly and raising the question of the further stay of the Left Social Revolutionaries. Ultimately, the Presidium “outplayed” itself, denying the Bolsheviks, he achieved their departure and the loss of a quorum. He failed to win support from the Left Social Revolutionaries. The actions of the Presidium were reduced to speeches, to promises to achieve a change in the situation the next day.

The speeches were really delayed, and here, as an expression of the attitude of the soldiers and sailors to these speeches, the reaction of the guard. The guard was tired, and the delegates were tired. And then followed by a willingness to give in to the demands of the guard. Submit to "violence" and disperse. Transfer all the next day, which has not come for the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, figuratively speaking, the guard executed the mission of the doormen in the restaurant, who took out (kicked out, dispersed) the later visitors from the establishment.

Question: What was the attitude of the people to the Constituent Assembly? Is there any support?

Ilya Ratkovsky: By many, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was simply ignored. Actually, authority is determined by real or moral force. There was no real power behind the Constituent Assembly. The moral component of the Constituent Assembly was relative, endless conversations and reports in 1917 were already fed up. Therefore, for the Constituent Assembly, if there were speeches on the ground, then, rather, these were speeches against the Bolsheviks, and not for the Social Revolutionaries. It is characteristic that General Lavr Kornilov expressed support for the Constituent Assembly. Other opponents of the Bolsheviks also came out in support of the Constituent Assembly. In my opinion, this was only a reason, and not the adoption of the ideas of the Constituent Assembly.

Question: What role in the dispersal of the "founding", as it was called, was in the Cheka?

Ilya Ratkovsky: Cheka played a certain role in the January events. She conducted a series of preventive arrests on the eve of the Constituent Assembly. In the "crackdown" of the Constituent Assembly, the staff of the Cheka did not participate. Yes, and there were few of them: just 40 people. More important actions after the "acceleration". The Chekists conducted an operation to arrest the delegates of the Constituent Assembly who lived at the Astoria Hotel. This arrest was intended to prevent delegates from traveling to another city to organize a new Constituent Assembly. However, it soon became clear that there were no such intentions among those arrested, and they were released.

Question: The confrontation between the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets was less bloody than expected, however, there were no victims?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The sacrifices could be great, as preparations were made for an armed uprising on the opening day of the Constituent Assembly. It was assumed that during the armed demonstration several regiments would be involved, drummers, an armored division, and so on. Cheka was able to disable armored cars, isolate percussion. Campaign work was carried out in the barracks. The same Semenovsky regiment did not go to the demonstration. Demonstration in support of the Constituent Assembly in such conditions was peaceful. However, they tried to use it too, sending it to the Tauride Palace, where the Constituent Assembly met. The Red Guard units blocked the path of the demonstration. There was an attempt to break through, during which the nerves of the young Red Guards broke down, and there was a volley.

The victims in Petrograd were according to different sources from 8 to 12 people. There was a crackdown on similar demonstrations in other cities. As a rule, there were no victims from the opponents of the Bolsheviks. But the victims among the Bolsheviks were. So, on January 5, 1918, late in the evening, in Moscow after the local demonstration of the defenders of the Constituent Assembly was dispersed, the building of the Dorogomilovsky district council was blown up. The head of the headquarters of the Red Guard of the Dorogomilovsky district, Tyapkin, the chief of the arsenal of the district Red Guards Vantorin and three Red Guard workers were killed. It was a deliberate terrorist act, designed for numerous victims among the hours gathered at 9 in the building of the Council members. In total, five people died as a result of the explosion - a relatively small number of victims were due to an earlier end of the meeting.

The Presidium of the Moscow City Council 8 in January 1918 adopted a resolution on the burial of the victims of this explosion near the Kremlin wall, where they replenished the “red church”, as expressed by the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky. 6 January 1918 in Petrograd, an attempt was made on the commandant of the Constituent Assembly, a member of the Emergency Military Headquarters of Uritsky (the future first chairman of the Petrograd GubChK). And on January 9 1918, around two o'clock in the afternoon, in Moscow, a working demonstration dedicated to the next anniversary of Bloody Sunday (January 9 on January 1905) was fired by unidentified persons in Moscow. For security reasons, vehicles with machine guns and armed Red Guards moved in front and behind each group of demonstrators. The measures taken were insufficient, and during a rally, rifle and machine-gun fire was opened at the protesters from the roofs of the adjacent buildings in front of mass graves in the Red Square. Among the dead were the Red Guards of Sushchevsko-Maryinsky District: 18-year-old Zasuhin, 19-year-old Drozdov; Red Guard Zamoskvoretsky area 18-year-old Yudichev and many others. In total, as a result of the shelling, more than 30 people were killed and 200 was injured.

Question: How then to explain the appearance of Komuch in the cities of Russia, what was the role of supporters of the Constituent Assembly in the Civil War?

Ilya Ratkovsky: 8 June 1918, after the capture of Samara by parts of the Czechoslovak Corps with the support of the local underground, a Committee of members of the Constituent Assembly (KOMUCH) was formed, headed by Social Revolutionary Vladimir Kozimirovich Volsky (he acted as chairman), Ivan Brushvit, Prokopy Klimushkin, Boris Fortunatov Ivan Nesterov. This government was formed six months after the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. However, it was formed not as a result of the popular movement, but with the assistance of the Czechoslovak corps. At the same time, it relied not only on them, but also on units of the People's Army, at the head of which were white monarchist officers, including Kappel. Therefore, the continuity of the Constituent Assembly Komucha relative. Yes, the government declared the restoration of basic democratic freedoms, allowed the activities of workers and peasant congresses, factory committees, set the 8 hourly working day (September 4 1918) and adopted the Red state flag. However, this was reminiscent of the actions of the Constituent Assembly, which, not recognizing the Soviet power, declared a lot of similar things from itself. Later, Komuch began to implement a more stringent policy, the victims of which were in the summer and autumn up to 5 thousand people. At the same time, Komuch’s tougher course against the background of his military defeats was considered insufficient, and in the fall a whole series of upheavals took place, which marked a departure from previous ideas towards white dictatorships.

Question: What can be said when the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly is attempted to be presented as a crime by the Bolsheviks and a violation of the “natural”, “normal” historical path of Russia?

Ilya Ratkovsky: The February 1917 revolution marked the revolutionary path of Russia's development. The constituent assembly, as an idea, was still difficult to fit into the revolutionary process.

Moreover, the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly later did not accept the White movement, putting forward an alternative National Assembly. Attempts at the third way in the civil war, previously called the "democratic counter-revolution", were unsuccessful. The heirs of the Founding were dispersed white. At the same time, if the Bolsheviks dispersed the Constituent Assembly, then after the Kolchak coup did not end there. A number of delegates were soon self-executed.

Well, I will add that soon after the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, on January 13, an association of Congresses took place: worker-soldier and peasant. Appeared unified system of Soviets.

Author:
Originator:
https://www.nakanune.ru/articles/113644/
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 28 January 2018 05: 57
    +6
    The provisional government at one time came up with the idea to decide at this meeting the further fate of Russia, but was drawn to the opening
    Temporary, because it was temporary, that worked until the decision of the Constituent Assembly.
    The Bolsheviks allowed the "founding", despite the fact that the presidium, headed by Chernov, rejected all the decrees of the Soviet government - offering them exact copies.
    At the very beginning, the Bolshevik government was called "temporary", since the Bolsheviks hoped to legitimize their power by the Constituent Assembly. The mood of the masses was very strong. So that the Constituent Assembly brought in a state of "de jure", much that was already "de facto"
    The Constituent Assembly also declared Russia a federal democratic republic, abandoning the monarchist system a little late, because even the Provisional Government in September 1917 announced the demise of the monarchy and the proclamation of the republic, not to mention October.
    The same case. Kerensky announced the Republic of Russia by his own Decree, signing it individually. The Constituent Assembly made this fact LEGAL.
    It was necessary to allow the Constituent Assembly to express itself, to reveal its essence, to show its opposition to Soviet decrees on land, peace and others.
    Without gaining a majority in this assembly and not risking it, the Bolsheviks, Left Social Revolutionaries and anarchists simply "trolled" the holding of the meeting.
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 28 January 2018 07: 54
    +6
    The Bolsheviks leave, breaking the quorum of the meeting and raising the question of the further stay of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. Ultimately, the Presidium "outplayed itself", denying the Bolsheviks, he secured their departure and quorum loss.

    What a funny "historian" who counts on fools!
    And WHO gave the right to some Ulyanov to establish a “quorum, to change the rules AFTER the election? In the Law on Elections, there was NO quorum -NOT! Yes, and WHO was he for the election? NONE!
    He also did not participate in the Electoral Commission. This is the first.

    Secondly, if this “historian” had bothered to read even this illegal decree, he would have seen that the words “quorum” are NOT there, but that there is a minimum threshold for the OPENING of the Meeting. Not work and discoveries!
    Those. 410 deputies gathered — the Assembly is working, and then, as in the Duma, let half (less) leave, and the quorum for WORK (more than half) IS!

    "Historian fool "-punishment: read the Decree on the dissolution of the Constitutional Court, where grandfather did not" think of "calling such a seemingly" iron "reason for dissolution (" oh, the historian "was not there! lol ), as the absence of a "quorum", but was forced to carry nonsense that it does not represent anyone. lol
    the guard fulfilled the mission of porters in the restaurant who removed (drove out, dispersed) late visitors from the institution.

    And these are the words "historian" ?! fool
    A tired Zheleznyak soon laid forever relax by a bullet.
    It would be better if he "worked"
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 January 2018 10: 21
      +5
      Olgovich, it is known that recently you printed a cool Soviet poster more than once. If possible, print now, please!
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 28 January 2018 10: 57
        +3
        Quote: Reptiloid
        Olgovich, it is known that recently you printed a cool Soviet poster more than once. If possible, print now, please!

        Reptiloid, on the topic of the article, nothing to say?
        Then maybe better to be silent? hi
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 28 January 2018 11: 41
          +5
          I don’t know about the whole theme of your collection of posters. Suddenly there is on this topic? If not, there is nothing to be done.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Quote: Reptiloid
          Olgovich, it is known that recently you printed a cool Soviet poster more than once. If possible, print now, please!

          Reptiloid, on the topic of the article, nothing to say?
          Then maybe better to be silent? hi
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 28 January 2018 10: 23
      +4
      Olgovich, I agree with you that the concept of “Quorum” did not exist then. And about Zheleznyak, let me slightly correct you: soon the concept is extensible and 5 minutes and a day and several days. This is the first, and now the second, with which I don’t agree with you: “they soon put the tired Zheleznyak. Rest forever” you could say: “and the tired Zheleznyak died on the fronts of the civil war”, otherwise you might think that Zheleznyak was revenge for overclocking US killed.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 28 January 2018 11: 43
        +2
        Quote: Monarchist
        regarding Zheleznyak, allow me to slightly correct you: soon the concept is extensible and 5 minutes and a day and several days. This is the first, and now the second with which I disagree with you: "and tired Zheleznyak was soon laid down. Rest forever."

        1. One and a half years, this means "soon"
        one could say: "and a tired Zheleznyak died on the fronts of the civil war," or you would think that Zheleznyak is someone in revenge for overclocking

        Of course, Life itself took revenge on him for his choice. He chose the Civil War — and got a bullet. Deservedly? Wordlessly.
        As, however, the majority of deputies of the Bolsheviks and left Socialist-Revolutionaries, for their choice, received a bullet: some in the Civil, some in the 1930s with shouts: "AND US FOR WHAT ?!" yes Some, smarter, washed off abroad, sensing that they would kill.

        The fate of the ardent Social Revolutionary is indicative Maria Spiridonova (candidate for the presidency of the CSS from Bolsheviks and L. Social Revolutionaries): she was arrested countless times by the Bolsheviks, sat for many years, in the end, it’s just shot, like yeah.
        It was not a “damned inhuman” tsarist regime, where she and Ilyichs were fat in links and skating, everything is simple here ... yes
    3. long in stock.
      long in stock. 28 January 2018 11: 16
      10
      And WHO gave the right to some Ulyanov to establish a “quorum, to change the rules AFTER the election? In the Law on Elections there was NO quorum -NOT! Yes, and WHO was he for the election? NO ONE! Interesting and who gave the right to say something to olgovich? How are you before the election there was no one and after no one. Your maximum status is a patient in a special hospital .. and yes .. the most important thing is that a sailor came and said, turn off .. and the whole government immediately curled up .. you have to think about who this government represented for dispersal which took 1 person .... still olgovich are stupid you are incredible ...
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 28 January 2018 11: 41
        +5
        As always, if the leftist has nothing to say on the topic, he goes on insults V.I. Ulyanov was just no one, just a bandit who seized power.
        1. long in stock.
          long in stock. 28 January 2018 12: 07
          +6
          as always, whoever has nothing to say is nonsense ... if Ulyanov was nobody, then who are you? microbe? as you know, his personality was appreciated by history and contemporaries. and yours? and yes, this is not an insult .. unfortunately, olgovich is really not very healthy .. a person who told me with passion how in the city in 70 there were not coupons for milk in itself..
    4. Looking for
      Looking for 28 January 2018 23: 20
      +1
      Well, Laurel then Georgievich survived him for a short time, also rested.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 29 January 2018 09: 11
        +2
        Quote: Seeker
        Well, Laurel then Georgievich survived him for a short time, also rested.

        Lavr Georgievich died for the power of the people — a worthy death, and this was devoured by the war, which he pushed.
        1. long in stock.
          long in stock. 29 January 2018 17: 18
          +1
          from go olgovich. but you disdained .. not gobbled up.
    5. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 27 July 2018 23: 11
      -1
      He took the article as a provocative seed with a lot of lies and untruths, typical of the Bolshevik backlogs on the PPR. There is nothing to discuss, because an article, a continuous crooked mirror of far-fetched explanations of the ugly facts of the Bolshevik usurpation of power .. It is possible to discuss and argue when there is a basis for discussion, there haven’t been noticed ...
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 28 January 2018 08: 21
    +9
    Nobody and nothing prevented the Provisional Government from holding elections to the Constituent Assembly before October 1917, a government would have been formed ... legal ... Under these conditions, the Bolsheviks would struggle to overthrow the government, it would be much more difficult .. And the newly elected government could it is perfectly legal to disperse the Soviets .. But ....
    For many, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was simply ignored. Actually, authority is determined by real or moral strength. There was no real power behind the Constituent Assembly. The moral component of the Constituent Assembly was relative, endless conversations and reports in 1917 were already tired
    .
    ... And this is a harsh truth .. The story repeated in October 1993 ... When dispersing the RF Armed Forces, there were more spectators than defenders of the parliament ...
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 January 2018 10: 13
      +4
      Why didn’t the elections take place, Alexey? After all, the Provisional Government had its own plans, which the Constituent Assembly could prevent and, probably, could limit it. ??
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 28 January 2018 11: 48
        +6
        Moreover, some of the Temporary considered themselves to be "saviors" of the Fatherland .. We all look at Napoleons ... We didn’t really want to leave the government .. hold elections, and suddenly you lose all posts .. and they forget about you ..
  4. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 28 January 2018 09: 51
    0
    The dispute between the terrorists.
  5. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 09: 55
    +6
    Article minus. Ilya Ratkovsky, this is a man who cannot be considered an objective historian, his work is aimed at justifying the Bolsheviks, the proof of this is his book on white terror, where he’s doing nothing, the common crimes and acts of the “green” anarchists are called “white terror”. There is no trust in the words of this person after such gross factual errors.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 January 2018 10: 09
      10
      As V.O.Shpakovsky, a well-known author of publications and candidate of historical sciences, says in such cases, and you, neteterine, hto? Anonymous character! What books have been published, which magazines are published? Now, if you inform about your work, then you can talk about Ratkovsky !!!!
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 28 January 2018 10: 54
        +4
        Witily noticed. Unfortunately, V.O. has such a sin: who are you, where was it printed?
      2. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 12: 48
        +3
        One can talk about Ratkovsky by reading how professional historians point out his mistakes. Moreover, the mistakes are gross and clearly due to the ideologized nature of his opuses. Here is an example of such an analysis:
        The second case of white terror in Samara according to Ratkovsky was the explosion in the White House: “On the night of December 15, 1917, in an explosion in the basement of the building of the Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, organized by counter-revolutionaries, 8 Red Guards were killed and 30 wounded. 7 victims of the explosion were solemnly buried in the kindergarten near the city theater on December 26 ”(p. 28). I already wrote about this event, I repeat only that the investigation of this explosion did not reveal any involvement of the "counter-revolutionaries", and "the explosion came from the inept handling of maximalist combatants with weapons." Later, there was also no evidence of the involvement of the mythical "counter-revolutionaries" in the explosion, and all charges against them remain unfounded and wander from one propaganda publication to another. So Ratkovsky quite expectedly included this episode in his book.
        http://a-malyavin.livejournal.com/87229.html
        This is written by a resident of Samara, studying the history of his native city. He also has a discussion of other episodes of Mr. Ratkovsky’s opus, with references to the memoirs of his contemporaries, convincingly proving that Mr. Ratkovsky himself did not seek objectivity in writing his work, but tried to bring as many episodes as possible under the description of White Terror. Not caring for authenticity.
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 28 January 2018 15: 07
          +4
          "As a resident of Samara, who is a little interested in the history of his native land, I, first of all, in the book." This is from the author of the article. And what does he write further there? Parses inaccuracies to one person? In addition, they shot him in the back of the head with shelling, "and not with shelling from the outside, which speaks a little not in favor of the version of the" white terror "in this particular case." That is, during the shelling, "from the outside", the person could not turn and get a bullet in the back of the head? Well, and other, in my opinion, insignificant examples that "white terror", well, they cannot refute. Mr. Alexey Malyavin’s attempt was unsuccessful. Of course, he tried to describe inaccuracies, to raise doubts about the veracity of Ratkovsky's sources, but somehow weakly. In his book, there are much more colorful facts that no one disputes. ps I look, you are a specialist in Learn. Moreover, you choose those that are not in the first places in the ranking (last time, 758, in my opinion), where does the time come from? Lawyers usually suffer from a lack of it.
          1. long in stock.
            long in stock. 28 January 2018 17: 15
            +2
            yes .. marasmus grows stronger .. doctor say idiocy is a contagious disease? otherwise I'm afraid ..
          2. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 18: 25
            +2
            You will forgive me for the harshness, but in general to call the “white terror" the death of a person, even if he belonged to the Communists, at the hands of unknown persons is at least dishonest, especially when you consider that the city was flooded with representatives of crime.
            1. avva2012
              avva2012 29 January 2018 02: 44
              +2
              That is, you say that during the civil war, there was no "white terror"? For the place of the “whites”, were there “green” and “unknown faces”? Sharman, sharman, Goebbels in hell, apparently pleased. But you understand that with such small episodes, Mr. Malyavin is trying to sow doubt. The goal is to leave the concept of “red terror”, which was fixed in the orders, lists of the executed, and “white terror”, because there is less waste paper left from them, to blur on some “unknown” and “green” ones. Clever! "There was nothing, there was nothing." The civil war after the WWII was, and the "white" they are so white .....
        2. long in stock.
          long in stock. 28 January 2018 17: 13
          +4
          God ... you’re not talking about Samara, you don’t write about yourself .. and so you put yourself poorly and now I’ll drown you ... I know this plush worker .. and so I graduated from medical college. -Sociology course. That is yap. By profession I haven’t worked a day. And now it doesn’t work, he is a member of the council of some small party .. He has no NIOD scientific article. All that he scribbles in a slime is just a little note ... you Teterin fell below the plinth ...
          1. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 18: 27
            +2
            Well, that is, there are no other counter-arguments besides insults to me and the author of the article in LiveJournal, right? I recognize the old style of work of the “red” agitators on the Web: in essence, do not mind (because there is not enough intelligence and knowledge), but constantly insultingly insult your opponent (you don’t really need to do that, and there’s enough intelligence for such actions). Something you have, "comrade", the training manual is completely outdated))
            1. long in stock.
              long in stock. 28 January 2018 23: 56
              +3
              what can you find out ... you compared a historian that you dislike, but who has both publications and a scientific degree with a man from a slurry ... well, destroy the red agitator-bring us scientific articles and publications by Malyavin. at least 1.and I do not insult the opponent. I’m just stating the fact that you don’t have a brain. I think there’s no problem rolling an article that you are a notorious zoofi .. oh and on the basis of this, declare that this is the most truthful truth .. and that it was written in LJ ..
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 January 2018 10: 49
      +5
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      Article minus. Ilya Ratkovsky, this is a man who cannot be considered an objective historian

      I agree, the historian could write this:
      difference of the Constituent Assembly from the System of Councils. The first was the idea of ​​a popular meeting, which will represent the interests of various population groups, classes. The idea of ​​the Soviets is relying on workers: on workers 'and peasants' Soviets. The bourgeoisness of the first idea was opposed Nationalities in the broad sense of the Soviets.

      Those. in his opinion, the Assembly, representing absolutely ALL citizens of the country, is NOT a Nationality, but a so-called councils where tens of millions of citizens did NOT participate at all — this is Nationality.
      The “historian” lacks just common sense, overshadowed by hatred of the POPULAR choice.
      Also an outright liar:
      There was no real power behind the Constituent Assembly. .

      There was a real armed force, but the Socialist Revolutionaries themselves refused to attract it, and this was a mistake: the front-line soldiers crushed the rebellion in Germany, and here the drummers could do it.
      The moral component of the Constituent Assembly was relative, endless conversations and reports in 1917 alreadye tired of

      Yeah, "tired." But to fight, which was inevitable after the dispersal, according to the "historian", they thirsted.

      The “historian” is silent as “people's deputies” the Bolsheviks ARRESTED untouchable people's deputies BEFORE the Assembly, banned the Cadets (they could not come to the Parliament), about the brutal murder of deputies, about beating Latvian mercenaries of deputies on the way to the day of the meeting (they did not trust the Russians) about the execution of peaceful 100 thousandthx demonstrations.
      Silent, shy, about a hundred registered 495 MPs, and on the opening day, only 410. WHERE the rest, no one knows Until now ...
    3. long in stock.
      long in stock. 28 January 2018 11: 19
      +8
      pseudo lieutenant not served even a day .. huh? a liar and a fraudster gives people marks .. yes something is wrong with the Danish kingdom ..
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 12: 53
        +3
        Mr. pseudo-linguist, do you get in touch with insults again, hoping to get my attention? Vain hopes. Regarding the fabrications of Mr. Ratkovsky, I already wrote above, you can see the link to the material I gave.
        Quote: Long in stock.
        pseudo lieutenant not served even a day ..

        But lying, dear sir, is not good. Have you seen my military ID? No. And you undertake to assert that I did not last a day. Doing wrong ... negative
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 28 January 2018 16: 31
          +5
          I read Elena Kiryakova’s articles on other resources even before her articles on VO .. I like her subject and the quality of information.
          But Teterin’s links often went nowhere and categorically do not trust. I know that Alexander is watching these links, he’s in principle, but now I don’t have time or desire.
        2. long in stock.
          long in stock. 28 January 2018 17: 16
          +5
          I don’t need to see your white ticket ... I can assert. I’m taking it. because a person with such an intellect would not be able to go through a medical examination ... even for the money .. and even more so, the serving person will not take on someone else's title ... it’s mean ..and has always been mean ... but apparently it’s normal for you ..
  6. Curious
    Curious 28 January 2018 10: 21
    +6
    For some reason, recently articles on historical topics have not served for an objective coverage of historical events. In many cases, the task, as they say now, is to “cause srach”.
    Fortunately, there’s no need to strain for this today. Today we open the site "On the eve. Ru".
    It has an interior view with historian Ilya Ratkovsky. The question is whether the historian Ratkovsky, does he own the question? Of course owns. Of course owns. Candidate of historical sciences, associate professor of the Department of Contemporary History of Russia, St. Petersburg State University, author of more than 150 scientific and methodological publications. including three monographs. That is, a person is quite competent. What does he say. And what's in the title. The Constituent Assembly is the stillborn child of the democratic counter-revolution. The February Revolution of 1917 marked the revolutionary path of development of Russia. The constituent assembly as an idea still pre-revolutionary was difficult to fit into the revolutionary process.
    And the people will rush into battle. Some will refute the idea of ​​the article, others with the heat of revolutionary sailors to refute the first.
    Tomorrow we open the no less interesting site "Lenta.RU" and there is also an interview with a historian on it. And also with a serious historian, even much more serious than in the first case, doctor of historical sciences, professor of RANEPA Konstantin Morozov.
    And what we learn.
    And we learn the exact opposite. It turns out, "This (dispersal of the Constituent Assembly) has become a kind of" point of no return "for both the Bolsheviks and the whole country. Before that, there was still the opportunity to return to the peaceful path of development and prevent a civil war, which was largely fomented by the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917, as well as the shooting of peaceful demonstrations in defense of the Constituent Assembly and its dispersal in January 1918. On the one hand, this deprived Russia of a peaceful democratic path of development based on political freedoms, a multi-party system and parliamentarism - a path in which market relations would be preserved, but powerful institutions of social protection of workers would be created. (https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/12/18/uchredilka/
    ).
    And again, the people will rush to fight with each other. Once again, in the hot battles "Bulk-crunches" and "Bolsheviks" converge.
    And where is the truth? And this is the tenth question. The main thing is this one, with the letter "c"
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 January 2018 11: 37
      +4
      Thank you, Victor! And the truth? She will become clear in the argument. And then in the wine.
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 12: 54
        +4
        You know, I myself would be very happy if every argument ended, instead of insults and insults, by being in vino veritas.
        1. Curious
          Curious 28 January 2018 14: 11
          +4
          Then it would be won not by those who possess the greatest amount of knowledge and intelligence, but those who have a large liver. After all, it has long been known that the weak fall in the salad and the strong fall in the dessert in the face.
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 28 January 2018 15: 40
            +3
            With a big liver, these are no longer fighters crying All strength in the liver of normal size and density laughing
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 28 January 2018 16: 42
              +2
              Quote: avva2012
              With a big liver, these are no longer fighters crying All strength in the liver of normal size and density laughing

              I understand that the most human liver is experiencing difficulties from libations, neutralizing the harm from alcohol. It is increasing in size for the struggle for health .. And who wins in this unequal struggle? Probably most often the owner of the liver! The truth in wine --- a friendly conversation over a glass of light wine ...
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 28 January 2018 16: 51
                +4
                Under such conditions, “conversations”, what is on our site? When the opponent tries to drive the fish of the second freshness, it is not possible to agree. Eat, do not choke.
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid 28 January 2018 18: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: avva2012
                  Under such conditions, “conversations”, what is on our site? When the opponent tries to drive the fish of the second freshness, it is not possible to agree. Eat, do not choke.

                  Proverbs much earlier than the site, that one, that another. Emotions can prevail over reason and knowledge, as you yourself wrote below.
          2. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 28 January 2018 18: 21
            +2
            I agree, if the entire dispute is transferred to the In vino category, then this will most likely not be a dispute, but a quasisports competition.
    2. avva2012
      avva2012 28 January 2018 16: 03
      +4
      I think a public mood is being created, as it was at the end of the 80's. Serious events are coming? After all, not only on our site this happens, but also on others, plus Instagram, LJ .... The soil is depleted, there’s a flaw from the ruble and higher ...
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 28 January 2018 17: 36
        +4
        You know one thing, I don’t understand why there are so many supporters of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Cadet Party on the site, some dropped bombs on the tsar’s officials and raised peasants against the landlords in 1905-1907, others organized a conspiracy against the sovereign in 1916, which ended in the February Revolution .. And at that the same time, these same zealously advocate for the monarchy .. And again, what the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets wanted yesterday, we received today ...
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 28 January 2018 18: 41
          +3
          I don’t understand this either, Alexey. But the site ----- is a reflection of reality. For the time being, such people (for the Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, monarchists, White Guards) did not manifest themselves in everyday life. And it turns out so that in normal conditions I now encounter this. Every time I am surprised, because I hear not from noble descendants, but vice versa. Something here I wrote --- the descendants of those who had eaten up for cattle. I am grateful to the site for the fact that I can calmly express my opinion and deflect it.
        2. long in stock.
          long in stock. 29 January 2018 00: 01
          +3
          the fact is that they have no idea who the Socialist Revolutionaries are, what monarchists are ... they don’t know anything.
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 29 January 2018 07: 02
            +1
            Quote: long in stock.
            the fact is that they have no idea who the Socialist Revolutionaries are, what monarchists are ... they don’t know anything.

            So why on earth 100 years after the revolution are such nonsense? It seemed, having survived the 90s, to remember how the destruction of socialism took place and to regret the White Guards ---- "they, too, were worried about Russia" ---- he heard. ??????
            1. long in stock.
              long in stock. 29 January 2018 08: 38
              0
              so where do they get the arguments from? They don’t know how and don’t like to think about it. To think all the more .. and the articles from the slurry are simple and they don’t need to strain the brain. From there, and their nonsense ... if they started talking about Vlasov as a hero of Russia .. and they say it is precisely those who position themselves as monarchists ..
        3. avva2012
          avva2012 29 January 2018 02: 47
          +3
          M. Bulgakov, "... schizophrenia, as was said"
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 30 January 2018 22: 10
      0
      Quote: Curious
      For some reason, recently articles on historical topics have not served for an objective coverage of historical events. In many cases, the task, as they say now, is to “cause srach”.

      I generally think that this site is on a salary from the Communist Party.
      1. Curious
        Curious 30 January 2018 22: 16
        0
        Yeah, especially a certain creative conglomerate under the general name "Samsonov". Pure communist.
  7. Opera
    Opera 28 January 2018 10: 44
    +4
    The key expression of the article is a revolutionary process! Something fit into the process, something not! It turns out so ?! The question is, who established the rules of this process and what right did they have ?! It's not a secret that the election results were deplorable for the Bolsheviks! Moreover, the Bolsheviks themselves predicted this result and were preparing to dissolve the Constituent Assembly! Attempts were made to delay the convening of the meeting, and at that time insurance decrees were adopted ... Immediately after the start of the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries (the paths of which the Bolsheviks also parted soon after the notorious Brest Peace) concluded, left the meeting and declared its activity illegal ... During 1918, prominent figures of opposition parties were arrested. Many were shot. All this was done in order to prevent the re-convening of the meeting! The situation prevailing in those days can be judged by the absolutely brutal murder of the Cadet leaders Shingarev and Kokoshkin by revolutionary sailors. And by the way, about the enemies of the people — virtually all members of constitutional democrats who were outlawed by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars from November 28, 1917 were called such!
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 January 2018 11: 58
      +2
      Quote: Oper
      The situation prevailing in those days can be judged by the absolutely brutal murder of the cadet leaders Shingarev and Kokoshkin by revolutionary sailors

      The fate of TENS of deputies arrested BEFORE and immediately AFTER the DC is still unknown ... I recommend an article on the situation of TERROR against the People’s Power on election days and the work of the DC organized by the rebels. https://historical-fact.livejournal.com/56632.htm
      l
  8. Monarchist
    Monarchist 28 January 2018 10: 47
    +3
    The term “Pre-Assembly” itself may have appeared in the first quarter of the 19th century, and the idea of ​​a general meeting to choose a form of government is much older. In fact, the Zemsky Sobor is the Constituent Assembly, but it is called differently. Ratkovsky as a historian should know this. Now there’s another rebuke to the author: he either didn’t know or forgot that the so-called “Komuch” Committee for convening the Constituent Assembly existed. By the way, Komuch appointed Admiral Kolchak as Supreme Commander
  9. long in stock.
    long in stock. 28 January 2018 11: 36
    +6
    CADETS (ONE bourgeois PARTY) - the main slogans:
    the rule of law, universal values, private property, the evolutionary path of reform, to prevent “cooks” from governing, since it is the destiny of “professionals” from the upper stratum of society to turn the State Duma into a real Western-style parliament. here is one of the parties that was supposed to enter the founding party. then they were broken off. for that they did it in 90. and they continue now .. how do you like people? did you like living with such a program?
  10. Opera
    Opera 28 January 2018 12: 18
    +4
    The dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, which was the litmus test of negotiability and, in general, the desire to agree on dispersal, was the actual start of a civil war! The events of 1917 and their consequences are certainly a tragedy for the Russian people, and not the Russian revolution, as many are now trying to imagine! Even the Bolsheviks did not think of calling it Russian, calling it October. The parallels that some try to draw between those events (parties) and the 90s of the last century are parallel precisely with their tragedy.
    1. long in stock.
      long in stock. 28 January 2018 17: 23
      +5
      There was a French revolution, because the French did it. And the October revolution was done by all the peoples of Russia. Therefore, they did not call it Russian ... didn’t you try to think?
      1. Opera
        Opera 28 January 2018 19: 38
        +4
        You look at the national composition of the first Bolshevik government. Yes, what is the government! Just famous Bolshevik figures ... Just ask you to ask what military units were created by the Bolsheviks on a national basis? Who was the guard of the leader of the world proletariat? Well, about the Comintern, you can read something at your leisure ... You will be interested to learn about the most active peoples who made (as you put it) a revolution.
        1. long in stock.
          long in stock. 29 January 2018 00: 20
          +3
          and if you read it very carefully, you will understand that these parts were not created by the Bolsheviks .. that you are hinting at the Latvian shooters .. so enlighten yourself, see when and where these parts were created by. and then write. you are obliged to opera check the information .. there was a big article about them on the site. now about the nat composition .. doesn’t it mean that surnames like Stürmer Fredericks Bark Rhine confuse you? .. and don’t really believe any slush that the Hungarians and all kinds of Chinese defended Soviet power . Of the 2 million prisoners of war, only 40 thousand joined the Red Army. Less than the Belochekhs. And you do not know the most active and numerous people who made the revolution? Strange .. you write in the language of this people .. you may not like the Bolsheviks, please. your right. but if you make a claim, then at least reasonably. but not as pseudo-lieutenants ... articles from the contact and the same ..
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 29 January 2018 09: 19
          +3
          Quote: Oper
          s look at the national composition of the first Bolshevik government look.

          Better look at the social: 40% of the "worker-peasant" so-called "Governments" -NOBLES!
          100% except for Shlyapnikov-TUNAYADS, never working anywhere, not earning a living for a piece of bread.
          And the finale is cool: EVERYTHING was shot by Stalin in 1937-38, like bandits and spies.
          I can never get an answer from the Communists: WHO are the bandits real? Those, who shot, or thosewho shot? request yes
  11. Opera
    Opera 29 January 2018 11: 59
    +2
    Quote: Long in stock.
    and if you read it very carefully, you will understand that these parts were not created by the Bolsheviks .. you are hinting at the Latvian shooters .. so enlighten yourself, see when and where they were created

    Such a feeling, dear, that you somehow read in fragments and respond accordingly! You want to say that parts of the so-called Latvian riflemen were created in the Russian Empire? Of course! And there is! Only here, and in the Red Army, these units were created - recreated, if you like, on a national basis and with a host of privileges in comparison with other units of the Red Army! About the protection of Ulyanov Lenin, you did not answer? I can continue arguing!) There is such a book called, unfortunately, I don’t remember how, but you can easily find it in net and not in contacts and contacts that I don’t use - the bodies of the Cheka, the Cheka. NKVD, OGPU ... released as it is not strange in the 70s of the times of the USSR. It’s really strange because after reading this literature, one can seriously doubt the normality of the majority of the Russian people, who in your opinion turns out to be the overwhelming sword of the revolution that the vast majority of Jews, Latvians and a little Hungarians! I won’t quote wise quotes about the Chinese. I’ll just say that I know this from the stories of my relatives, who, from my father’s side, are all from the Tambov province. Well, where is the Antonov uprising ... Remember? So I know about the atrocities of these proletarians and conscious revolutionaries, as they say firsthand! It was rewarded to them accordingly. My great-grandfather was a senior non-commissioned officer of the machine gun team (as far as I was able to establish later) the Life Guards of the Semenovsky Regiment. Here I also managed to listen to his stories to the glory of God. And all the while I was thinking as a teenager - where did the Chinese come from?!?! That is why he probably later entered the Historical and Archival Institute. It was interesting to me. I didn’t take off my epaulettes after my military service in the SA.) Yes, I don't like the Bolsheviks! But Bolshevism and Russia are not synonyms, thank God! And indeed the phenomenon is not Russian. We ourselves with a mustache. We will understand in our country without outside help!
    1. long in stock.
      long in stock. 29 January 2018 17: 55
      0
      Seriously? will you figure it out you don’t figure it out .. this is my country. and it will remain mine so I won’t lie or figure it out - I won’t give it. that's all. you had to ask your great-grandfather how it happened that his Life Guards Semyonovsky Regiment didn’t even try to stop the Bolsheviks .. In 1917, the Semenovsky regiment declared itself a supporter of the new system, was renamed the 3rd Petrograd city guard named after Uritsky .... and how the Chinese who defeated us here were simply migrant workers, diggers ... so someone lying here- or you or great-grandfather ..
  12. Opera
    Opera 29 January 2018 12: 35
    +4
    And I almost forgot, of course, the German surnames of a number of famous people of the Russian Empire cannot confuse me. This is a historical fact, so to speak. I can list here quite reasonably many of the well-known ethnic Germans and real Russian people! But where did we get such a perfect dominance of foreigners and Gentiles in the midst of fiery revolutionaries, yes, this is a mystery of nature! I agree with the question and commentary by Olgovich. The revolutionaries were professional and had no other work. Everyone thought about the people, while being mostly in Switzerland and France. How did you live ?! For what?! And today, in the revolutionary movement, little has changed.
    1. long in stock.
      long in stock. 29 January 2018 17: 31
      0
      dominance? well no .. if you look at the percentage, then there will be no more of them than Germans in the Russian empire. And yes, many of the Germans served the Russian empire and served faithfully. But then they were just as spoken about as you are now about Jews. that they sold all to the Germans. and so the way was said not by the Bolsheviks, namely those who overthrew the tsar. so nothing new. And yes, he is Jewish subject to the Russian empire. Like the Finn, like the Pole and even the Swede or Tatar. I sincerely warn you especially believe olgovich. he has a very strange consciousness .. he very often leads lies instead of evidence. you know I won’t persuade you about Switzerland and France .. you just look where the members of the royal family lived at that moment. all the great princes and so on. But the country is hanging by a thread .. you blame those who broke the system but for some reason completely miss those who brought the country to collapse ..
      1. Opera
        Opera 30 January 2018 09: 04
        +3
        You know, to be honest, I don’t really want to argue on this topic - yes, it is dominance! Moreover, in almost all Bolshevik authorities. What to argue if all this is now in the public domain. Not only that, Putin spoke openly about this and you can also easily find a video with his speech on this topic. I hope you know that Trotsky and his team arrived from the USA and Lenin arrived too ... I have no doubt that you know this too. Are you writing about bringing the country to collapse ?! I would like to ask to what ?! Indeed, in this case, we can say that in 1993 the government also brought the country to collapse ?! So?! I would also like to remind you that for many years until 1917 real terror was unleashed in the country! The murders of leaders of various levels, from simple city and lower police ranks to prominent politicians, city governors, ministers and royal persons! At the same time, these killings were not spontaneous and were not committed by desperate representatives of the people! The terror was carried out by the representatives of parties and left-wing movements trained by fighters of battle groups! Do you know that? Such activities require significant funding! In addition to Japanese (1905) and German (1914) money, constant attacks were carried out on banks, post offices, etc. Do you like it or do you justify all this ?! And the last one. If we talk about the collapse, it happened on a full scale for the Russian people, just after 1917! Millions of victims in the civil war, the Red Terror, mass immigration in several stages, and this is also millions, hunger and hunger again ... For this it was necessary to make a revolution ?! Is that salvation from collapse ?!
  13. Opera
    Opera 30 January 2018 09: 12
    +2
    Quote: Long in stock.
    Seriously? will you figure it out you don’t figure it out .. this is my country. and it will remain mine so I won’t lie or figure it out - I won’t give it. that's all. you had to ask your great-grandfather how it happened that his Life Guards Semyonovsky Regiment didn’t even try to stop the Bolsheviks .. In 1917, the Semenovsky regiment declared itself a supporter of the new system, was renamed the 3rd Petrograd city guard named after Uritsky .... and how the Chinese who defeated us here were simply migrant workers, diggers ... so someone lying here- or you or great-grandfather ..

    But also, as the land was promised to peasants and factories for workers ...) This is about lies. And many believed and many were not bad people. Ordinary Russian people. And of course we’ll figure it out. In my country. And there will be no more revolutions! Do not doubt! The Russian people will not pull your revolutionary experiments anymore. And do not touch my great-grandfather. He died a long time ago. Kingdom to him is heaven. It’s not customary to talk badly about the dead among the Russians, but of course the Russians do not have the Bolsheviks. They can’t answer, and the men in our family were not offended by the power of strength and everyone fought for Russia. Is always. And in the first world in the army of the Russian Empire and the second in the Red Army. Not for the Bolsheviks, not for Marxism - Leninism and other communism, but for the Motherland!