The tale of how the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas
"In fact, the Bolsheviks were the most categorical supporters of the overthrow of autocracy among all Russian opposition parties, they excluded the possibility of preserving the monarchy even in constitutional form and were consistent Republicans ... The Bolsheviks did not play a major role in the overthrow of the monarchy only because by February 1917-th party was still very weak ”(Yegor Kholmogorov).
“The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the king. The Bolsheviks overthrew the liberal-zapadnicheskoe Provisional Government. The battle against the Bolsheviks was not started by the people who fought for the faith, the tsar and the fatherland, but Lavr Kornilov, the general who announced the arrest of the empress and the royal family ”(Zakhar Prilepin).
So to say, for the anniversary of the Great October Revolution, two well-known publicists decided to once again discuss this very event and the preceding (next) events, as well as the role of the Bolsheviks in everything that happened. One hundred years have passed, and the general, consensus (or at least close opinions) on this key event of the world stories No, and not foreseen. History is always politicized. And this very event was overpoliticized from the very beginning.
And then, given the degree of ideology of Soviet society, some kind of scientific study of the 1917 events of the year was absolutely impossible. With the same success, a Muslim chemist can be offered to study the chemical composition of the Kaaba Black Stone ... Or a Muslim historian can be offered to give a strictly scientific assessment of the activities of the Prophet ... And so it was with us in the USSR with 1917. In fact, in Russia, they blew up churches (as opposed to the socialist Europe of Europe), because in our country they tried in many ways to replace Marxism religion. No more, no less. In Russia, everything was so “original” that Christ and Marx were direct competitors ...
Therefore, the “first year of the hijra” was not very possible to study with us. What led to certain psychological consequences: to this day, for most, October much, more than February. February was usually mentioned something like that - in passing ... they say that there is a lot of rassusol here? They made a revolution, but unfinished it, and only in October the Aurora shot announced the onset of a new era in the history of mankind ... After, at the time of the "controlled collapse" of the USSR, the signs changed, and everyone began to curse together the same October, the low politician in the cap and the very armored cars ...
However, as the obscure American blogger in uniform wrote, everything is not so simple. In general, by that very fateful October, the Russian Empire as such was no longer there. As we were told in those very Soviet textbooks, there were some muddy "capitalist ministers" in power. They had practically nothing to do with the sovereign-emperor, and their power was generally incomprehensible, it was not clear how widely it was distributed ... And here the most attentive reader will inevitably ask the same “fatal” question: “But allow! Where did the Romanov empire go by October 1917, and where did the Romanovs themselves go? Which years 300 quite successfully ruled the very Russia? "
And here you asked the right question. Dynasty The Romanovs were overthrown much earlier. And not Ulyanov-Lenin and the Bolsheviks. This is a kind of consequence of the “Folks History” for the broadest peasant masses: tsarism was cruelly oppressed by the common people, but the Bolsheviks made him a complete sting ... The eagles, as you know, do not hunt flies, and the removal from power of a little-legitimized Kerensky "in a woman's dress" - well, it’s rather from the category of operetta, and not the heroic epic.
There was no way for the Bolshevik comrades to recognize the simple fact that by the overthrow of Nicholas the Second they absolutely nothing did not have. But this is exactly the way things are: even the most “evil” critics of Bolshevism are forced to admit: the Bolsheviks did not play a major role in overthrowing the monarchy simply because by February 1917 the party was still very weak. They did not play not only the “big one”, they didn’t play any role at all and could not play.
The active role is implied. As a factor (one of many) of instability, they certainly were present. And some doubts are taking that Nikolai Romanov was shaking with fear when he heard the name Ulyanov ... He didn’t even know his main political “opponent” by name, let alone by his patronymic name! And where only watched the security? Okhranka, by the way, looked where it should go, and the RSDLP party was under very tight control.
From time to time the question: “How did they miss Lenin?” - sounds mockingly. Firstly, they “did not miss it”, secondly, the Simbirsk student who didn’t get enough of the monarchy and the empire delivered a mortal blow. What to consider it? What for? Arrest and even “liquidation” of Ulyanov-Lenin (and his entire party!) Until 1917 in no way the empire could not be saved. In no way. The empire was destroyed in February-March 17, by completely different people who were not formed any worse than Comrade Ulyanov (and not much more stupid), and their social position was much higher.
And all his “reflections” and “constructions” were, frankly, of little interest. It would be naive to think that it was Ulyanov-Lenin (or one of his Camerid) that was at that time the most powerful political theorist in the empire. And if so, then few, few knew about it ...
That is a basic, key event for Russia, its tragedy and shame - this is exactly February of the year 1917. Here everything has changed, here the legitimate power was destroyed (during the war!) And everything went downhill. Therefore, just February (and what led to it!) Must be studied in great detail. Because the “February revolution” was not some kind of “intermedia”, just the opposite - this is a key event. After him, the army fell down (preparing a major offensive!), And the empire as a whole. The key element was removed from the complex mechanism, and the whole sophisticated mechanism simply began to crumble ...
To dissolve frank fables, what would have happened if the October Revolution had happened, and everything would have been openly, frankly, simply dishonorable: by October and without the Bolsheviks there was a sea of spilled water, moreover: the problems were growing exponentially. Evaluation of “Ulyanova and the team” is a very separate question, but it is somewhat incorrect to say that they “pushed the abyss that has begun to flourish in democratic Russia”. As one contemporary about the “new democratic power” remarked: “They only seized, seized, seized ...”
In general, it is difficult with the positive assessments of the Provisional Government - more and more they go into negative, throwing them to the root. Did not become comrade. Kerensky a national hero, alas. The liberal-bourgeois government very quickly compromised itself ... You write, and each time you want to clarify a decade ... Liberal Democrats with Russia have no luck ... or Russia has no luck with them. No, I would sincerely be grateful for the alternative (super-positive!) Assessment of 1917 spring-summer from one of the grateful contemporaries of those events. But somehow I have not yet met.
Once again: in order not to leave the full staff in the “holivar”, we will not fundamentally evaluate the violent activities of Ulyanov and his team - it was already much later, after February. Let's try throw comrade Ulyanova-Lenin from the research ship. Difficult, but nonetheless. It is simply extremely difficult to agree that it is he who is the key figure of what happened.
Tov. Lenin, rather, "hit the tails." But for those who removed Tsar Nicholas from power in February 1917, it is worth looking more closely ... No, rather, not so: it would be easier to list (literally on the fingers) those who remained loyal to the Sovereign. He was betrayed by literally everyone. At the same time, for some strange reason, what has happened is blamed above all ... Tsar Nicholas himself. Say, and what did he overlook? Well he did not save? Well, we must begin with the fact that Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was not a runaway criminal or a political adventurer, and it would be strange for him, in his social position, to “take care of himself”.
Watch out, sorry, from whom? From their own officers who swore to him before God? By a strange coincidence, the Sovereign considered himself in complete safety, being in the company of Russian officers. Strange man, is not it? But no, in order to shave off the beard and dressing up in civilian clothes, covering the face with a scarf, but in a second-class carriage ... you could have crossed into the same compartment with Ulyanov. Or, perhaps, in the “tolerant” style of Kerensky, in a hired car ... and never twice spend the night in one place and every time I change clothes ... then a nun, then a shepherd boy ... And conspire, conspire
But the Emperor for some reason didn’t do that, he didn’t play in the Baghdad caliph ... he drove himself in a personal carriage with all the regalia. Where he was "taken." Warm. And for some reason everyone addresses the questions of arrest to him, to Tsar Nikolai, but no one addresses any questions to those who betrayed him - to Russian officers. But practically no one stood up for him: all five front commanders agreed with his “removal” (like both commanders fleetsunless Kolchak “just kept silent” unlike everyone else). For some reason, this is cited as a sentence to Nicholas II, although I rather see the sentence of the Russian army and, above all, the Russian officer corps.
Analyzing the “vigorous activity” of the German generals and their “independence” in the face of the Führer, Mr. Rezun came at one time to the logical conclusion that with such Germany could not win the generals. Regardless of the specific brilliant plans and brilliantly carried out operations. So, in Russia 17, the situation was not much better. The fish, so to speak, were actively “rotted from the head,” and the top leadership of the active army was no exception.
Gentlemen were doing whatever they wanted, but for some reason, the idea of saving the king did not occur to them. This is, by the way, the circumstance causing complete and sincere amazement: Nicholas II was very much counting on the help of the army ... but did not receive it.
Beg to a lengthy quote: "Brusilov was faithful royal government, at least ideologically. Since childhood, he has absorbed the motto "For faith, the king and fatherland", could not imagine a different path for Russia and was faithful to him. Perhaps this explains his respect for the imperial family, as the sacred rulers of the country. Although the commander had a difficult personal relationship with Nicholas II, especially since the emperor led the active army. Brusilova annoyed indecision of the Supreme Commander, because of what the fronts acted separately - when the South-West advanced, the Western and Northern ones stood still. To organize joint actions, to force the commanders to put common tasks above local ones, Nikolay could not. He asked, persuaded, the generals argued and bargained with him, and precious time went by. The softness of the commander-in-chief was costly for his army.
By the way, in this relation to the last emperor, Brusilov was not alone. It is no coincidence that in February 1917, none of the high command supported the staggering power. Telegrams from all the commanders of the fronts and the Baltic Fleet (Sakharov, Brusilov, Evert, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, Nepenin) came to the headquarters car of Nikolay almost once, asking him to peacefully abdicate (the commander of the Northern Front, Ruzsky, had the “happiness” to do it personally) which he understood the uselessness of resistance. Even the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Mikhail Vasilyevich Alekseev, and the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich did not see any other way out. So can we consider them all traitors? Maybe there really was no other option? ”
That is, the question is put like this: if you betrayed everything, was there a betrayal? That is, the "great and invincible Brusilov" "irritated indecision" of the king, and he decided that this could not continue any further?
Apparently, the royal indecision irritated and oppressed all the other "gentlemen-generals" ... and they decided that this could not continue. No, based on the fact that under Tsar Nicholas, the Russian army fought "badly", you can immediately draw a bold conclusion that after February 17, under the guidance of these "patriotic generals" ready to "give life to ... hmm, yes! for the fatherland! ”, she began to fight just great ... Unfortunately, history does not confirm this. After February 1917, the Russian army frankly went racing. As, in principle, the whole Russian empire.
But a major offensive was being prepared for the month of April - it promised to be successful, and the “revolutionaries” were in a great hurry, a successful offensive would cause a patriotic upsurge, which would make a coup impossible. And yes, the United States was about to enter the war ... and the leadership of the Russian Empire knew about this (the United States would enter the 6 war on April 1917 of the year!). The conspirators had to hurry ... and then suddenly Russia will win? Disorder.
“The Masonic leadership — Nekrasov, Kerensky, and others — as well as thousands of privat-docents, teachers of gymnasiums, telegraph operators, and other provincial intelligentsia were confident that the people would begin to rejoice at one change in the form of government and wait patiently for victory in the war, resolving the land issue , national problems, etc.
Alas, all these expectations were not justified. Immediately after the abdication of Nicholas II in March 1917, a real revolution began throughout the country. There were massacres of officers in the army and navy, military discipline collapsed, officers lost control of the units entrusted to them. In the villages begins a sluggish civil war - the defeat of landlords' estates, arson, armed clashes. I repeat, the bloody revolution in March-April 1917 of the year gained momentum against the wishes of the Freemasons and without any influence from the Bolsheviks. The revolution went everywhere, even in the Orthodox Church. ”
“Funny,” it happened: after the displacement of the “Glavkoverha”, it quickly became clear that even at lower levels (up to the rank and file!), There was a “certain” dissatisfaction with the higher ones ... And the process started! Started massacre of officers! And without any Bolsheviks. And we still stubbornly love to oppose the royal officers and the red cavalry in Budyonovka, who fought for some bright future ...
However, the events of spring-summer 1917, this bold hypothesis completely refute. Or rather, so: they do not leave her stone on stone. The big (childish) problems of the “tsarist officers” began immediately after the overthrow of the sovereign-emperor. That is, from the very moment when they, having changed their conscience and oath, ceased to be “royal”, they began to actively shoot them.
And what do you want? The whole country was "hawking": “In the spring of 1917, a revolution began in ... monasteries! The younger brotherhood in many monasteries rose to the eldest. There were fights, fights, in some places revolvers went into action. The reason for the conflicts were both religious and domestic issues. For example, where to whom to stand in the service, the distribution of tea, sugar, matches, etc. "
So, in the monasteries "revolvers went into action", this is not directly "Holy Russia", but some kind of "Wild West" is obtained. And this immediately after the overthrow of the Sovereign and without any participation of the Bolshevik Party. Without your “commissars in dusty helmets”.
You know, it is the simultaneity of events and the rate of growth of anarchy in the empire that frightens: “In Kiev, the power was seized by impostors who organized the Central Rada. From the moment of the tsar's abdication and until October 25 1917, the Provisional Government did not control Kronstadt, which in fact became an independent state. The cities of the Little Russian provinces were partially subordinate to the Provisional Government, and partly to the Central Rada. Steppe Crimea was ruled by the self-styled Kurultay. And the Little Russian villages were controlled by local atamans - Maroussi, Grizzians of Tauris and so on and so forth ...»
That is, "Wedding in Robin" began long before the appearance of strict but fair red commanders in Budyonovka. We all somehow love all the "dark forces", from the bespectacled Cadets to outright bandits, to oppose "the most correct party with the most correct ideology ..." However, all these "dark forces" fought each other perfectly without any participation of Lenin-Trotsky and even unaware of the existence of such "characters." And the empire went astray ...
And even kazаki: "Under Nicholas II, all the Cossack troops were the backbone of the autocracy and were ruled by fallen, that is, appointed chieftains of the king. In February 1917 of the year not a single Cossack army did not intervene for Nicholas II. But everywhere the atamans were replaced by elected. Independent state formations actually arose - the Don Army, the Kuban Army, etc. ”
So I imagine the agents of Ulyanov-Lenin in the Don villages. Well, okay, with the St. Petersburg workers it is clear (theoretically!), The factories are the workers, but that V.I. Ulyanov could offer the Cossack tops? Arabian horses unlimited? The “official” and “counter-official” versions of the 1917 revolution of the year (the Soviet era) are equally “idiotic”. Ulyanov-Lenin vs. Nicholas II - on this topic, you can argue endlessly (and it will be just as useless).
Why did the Bolsheviks overthrew the king? Strangely enough, the question is not raised directly by anyone, but it is constantly debated. There was such a "historical confrontation." Such a kind of “special historical Olympiad” - monarchists against Leninists ...
So, in that same France after 1793, this situation had a place: Republicans versus monarchists, that was, that was. The worst was the confrontation. The most interesting thing is that the French nobility and French officers for the most part stood for the king. The problem was precisely the reluctance of the bourgeois king Louis XVI to use violence. It was his “character” that in many ways served the fact that all the actions of the royalists were initially doomed. But until the very end they were ready to go after the king and die even for such a king. In the spring of 1917, Russian officers behaved quite differently in relation to the current monarch. At the critical moment (and he was just ready to fight!) Nicholas II did not receive any support from the army.
In a much more difficult situation on August 1945, after the atomic bombings and the virtually complete defeat at sea, on land, and in the air, the Japanese officers remained loyal to their emperor. After the appearance of information about a possible surrender, there was even an attempt of a coup ... They were ready to die for the emperor, even when it was completely meaningless.
One of the symbols of the Civil War was the tragic figure of the white officer (death on the battlefield, shooting with red or meaningless emigration). There is an integral such genre of “White Guard song” (in fact there is no “folk Red Guard song” genre), so to say: “All Russia is tortured, tears flow like a river ...” / “How many of us died on the Don, in Sevastopol and under Simbirsk ...”
However, on closer examination of historical facts, the desire to mourn this officer himself largely disappears. Alas, the Russian officers ’corps didn’t bring the“ Jewish-Bolshevik contagion ”just to the good, but the amazing willingness of the gentlemen of the cadre officers to зад pulling up their pants’ to run after various political adventurers.
According to the testimony of the French ambassador in Petrograd, Maurice Palaeologus, 1 (14) in March, representatives of the privileged parts of Tsarskoe Selo came to the Potemkin Palace in Petrograd with a statement of his loyalty to the new government:
“... the old Potemkin Palace served as a frame for another equally sad picture. A group of officers and soldiers sent by the garrison of Tsarskoye Selo, came to declare their transition to the side of the revolution. At the head were the Cossacks retinue, magnificent horsemen, the color of the Cossacks, the arrogant and privileged selection of the Imperial Guard. Then he passed the regiment of His Majesty, the sacred legion, formed by the selection of all the guards units and specially appointed to protect the persons of the king and tsarina. Then he passed another railway regiment of His Majesty, who was entrusted with escorting the imperial trains and guarding the king and the queen on the way. The procession was closed by the imperial palace police: selective bodyguards, attached to the internal protection of the imperial residences and taking part in everyday life, in the intimate and family life of their masters.
And everything, officers and soldiers, declared about their loyalty to the new government, which they don’t even knowas if they were in a hurry to rush to new slavery. During the reporting of this shameful episode I think of honest Swiss who were killed on the steps of the Tuilerian Palace 10 in August 1792. Meanwhile, Louis XVI was not their national sovereign, and, welcoming him, they called him the king-father..
Information