Military Review

100 years "lousy" Brest world

313
100 years ago, 3 March 1918, was signed “bawdy” Brest Peace. Russia was officially defeated and left the world war.


After February, Russia lost the possibility of waging war with the Central Powers. As the military operations of the summer of 1917 showed, the Russian army was disorganized, decomposed and could not conduct offensive operations. Further degradation of Russia led to the fact that the army lost the ability to even defend. The policies of the Provisional Government and Westernizers of the February list led to the destruction of Russian statehood. The Troubles began, caused by the fundamental contradictions that have accumulated over the centuries in Russia of the Romanovs.

It was a disaster. Russia was writhing in agony. Fueled national suburbs. The policy of national separatists was one of the reasons for a large-scale civil war. Before October, peasant Russia exploded - the Peasant War began. The peasants divided the landowners' lands, burned estates, removing the hatred that had been accumulated for an entire era of social injustice. The criminal revolution began - the eternal companion of unrest. Formed gangs that terrorized entire settlements and localities. Cossacks remembered their liberties. The industry and transport system was falling apart, the cities and the army were left without supplies. The village did not want to feed the city, not supplying them with industrial goods. Started hunger.

Russia could not fight. The generals mired in intrigue, many top commanders supported the February-March coup to occupy high positions in the "new Russia". Then part of the generals came out against the Provisional Government to restore order, but the mutiny failed. Another part of the generals went the way of supporting the formation of various national "armies". The Provisional Government by its actions finished order, unity of command, discipline among the troops. The rear collapsed, the transport system, industry could not supply the army and the city. I.e Russia has lost the ability to wage a regular war. - provide all the necessary millions of soldiers. The soldiers themselves (yesterday's peasants) and the Cossacks did not want to fight anymore, they wanted peace and return home, to take part in the redistribution of the land. But the Provisional Government was so hated or completely indifferent to it, that when the Bolsheviks went to take power, nobody defended the temporary workers.

Old monarchist Russia died. Along with it, the “new Russia”, a pro-Western democratic-bourgeois type, also died. A socialist, Soviet Russia — statehood, army, economy, etc. — was still to be created. Under these conditions, other powers were preparing to divide the "skin" of the Russian bear. Our enemies - Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, were preparing to occupy the western regions of Russia. Our western "partners" —England, France, and the USA, divided the Russian land into spheres of influence and also prepared for the seizure of strategic ports, cities, and points. The masters of the West needed the resources of Russia for building their “new world order”.

Under these conditions, the Soviet government was forced to conclude a truce and begin negotiations for peace. The negotiations dragged on. The Bolsheviks knew about the difficulties of the German bloc. Germany itself was barely holding on. The blockade has completely exhausted the country. The army still had a powerful potential and was ready to fight. And the population was tired of the war, the economy was cracking at the seams. There were practically no resources to continue the war. Hope was only on forcing Russia to peace and the seizure of its resources, with the withdrawal of part of the troops from the Russian front to the West. The condition of Austria-Hungary and Turkey was even worse, they were on the verge of complete collapse (following the example of Russia). Therefore, the Bolsheviks hoped that while negotiations were underway, a revolution would take place in Germany and the Central Powers would lose the war. This will allow Russia to maintain the status quo.

However, the Germans also understood the complexity of their position and their allies, they were not going to pull with a peace agreement. The Ukrainian factor also helped them - the Ukrainian nationalists concluded a separate, separate agreement with Germany. This allowed on the "legal" grounds "to begin the invasion of Ukraine, where Soviet troops were able to occupy Kiev and most of Little Russia, freeing it from ukronatsistov. In addition, Trotsky, who was an agent of the influence of the owners of the United States, in every way provoked the Germans, in order to resume military operations and, in a crisis, strengthen their positions in the Bolshevik elite. Trotsky 28 January (10 February) 1918, made a provocative declaration that Soviet Russia stops the war, demobilizes the army, and does not sign peace. In response, the Germans said that the non-signing of a peace treaty by Russia automatically entails the termination of the truce.

18 February 1918, the German troops launched an offensive on all fronts. A few days later they were supported by the Austro-Hungarian troops. The Turkish army launched an offensive in the Caucasus even earlier. February 19 chairman of the SNK Lenin sent the German government the consent of the Soviet government to sign the German conditions. The German side demanded an official written notice, and continued the offensive of troops in the north in two directions: Revel-Narva-Petrograd and Pskov. During the week they occupied a number of cities and created a threat to Petrograd.

February 22 Trotsky, recognizing the failure of his negotiations with the German delegation, resigns from the post of Commissar for Foreign Affairs. G.V. Chicherin (he headed the department until 1930 of the year) becomes the new drug minister. At the same time, Trotsky, for supporting Lenin during the discussion in the party leadership, rose even more. Lenin already on March 4 appoints Trotsky chairman of the Supreme Military Council, and March 13 - Commissar of the Military Commissar. That is, Trotsky became the military leader of Soviet Russia, concentrating enormous power in his hands.

23 February the German side conveyed a response that contained even more severe conditions. On the adoption of the ultimatum SNK was given 48 hours. The first two points of the document repeated the ultimatum of January 27 (February 9), that is, confirmed the territorial claims of the Central Powers. In addition, it was proposed to immediately clear Livonia and Estland from the Russian troops. In both areas were introduced Germanic police forces. Germany demanded: immediately make peace with the Ukrainian Central Rada, withdraw troops from Ukraine and Finland, return the Anatolian provinces of Turkey, immediately demobilize the army, withdraw its fleet in the Black and Baltic Seas and the Arctic Ocean to Russian ports and disarm it, etc. d.

February 23, 1918 passed historical meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b). Lenin demanded a peace on German terms, threatening to resign otherwise, which in fact meant a split in the party. Trotsky, despite his negative attitude to the peace treaty, refused to participate in the discussion, and supported Lenin. In the end, Lenin received the majority of the vote. During the vote, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky, Ioffe and Krestinsky abstained, which allowed a majority of 7 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions to make a historic decision to sign the peace. “Left communists” led by Bukharin entered the world.

At the same time, the Central Committee unanimously decided to "prepare an immediate revolutionary war." Soviet Russia began to take extraordinary measures to recreate the army, first on a voluntary basis, and then on traditional military service. February 23 SNK from February 21 "The Socialist Fatherland is in danger!", As well as "Appeal of the Military Commander-in-Chief" N. V. Krylenko, which ended with the words: "... All to arms. All to the defense of the revolution. " The mass enrollment of volunteers into the Red Army detachments, created under the Decree of the SNK of the RSFSR "On the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army" of 15 (28) of January 1918, began.

On the same day, February 23 held a joint meeting of the Bolshevik and Left Socialist-Revolutionary factions of the Central Executive Committee in the late evening. Left SRs decided to vote against peace. After the joint meeting, a separate meeting of the Bolshevik faction alone began. When voting, Lenin gathered 72 votes against 25 votes for “Left Communists”. February 24 Lenin with great difficulty, 126 votes against 85 with 26 abstained, managed to push his decision through the Central Executive Committee. The left SRs called for the organization of a mass guerrilla war against the German troops, even if such a war ended with the loss of Petrograd and significant territories of Russia.

The Soviet delegation returned to Brest-Litovsk on March 1. 3 March agreement was signed. 6 - 8 March, March 1918, at the VII Emergency Congress of the RSDLP (b) Lenin also succeeded in pushing through the ratification of the Brest Peace. When voting, the votes were distributed as follows: 30 for ratification, 12 against, 4 abstained. 14 - 16 March 1918, the IV Extraordinary All-Russian Congress of Soviets finally ratified the peace treaty - by a majority of 784 votes against 261, with 115 abstaining. The congress also decided to transfer the capital from Petrograd to Moscow due to the danger of the German offensive.

According to the conditions of the Brest Peace, Russia was to carry out the complete demobilization of the army (the old tsarist army, and also the Red Army) and the complete demining of its part of the Black and Baltic seas. The Baltic Fleet was withdrawn from its bases in Finland and the Baltic States. Russia yielded to Germany areas lying west of the Brest-Litovsk-Kamenets-Litovsk-Pruzhany-Zelva-Bridges-Orel-Dokudova-Dzevenishki line-to the west of Slobodka-Gervyaty-Mihalishki-east of Svenciany-Malengyany-Driesvyaty-Druya ​​and further downstream Oger, and leaving Riga to the west, the border line went to the Gulf of Riga, passing along it to the north between the mainland and the Moonsund archipelago and to the exit from the Gulf of Finland, which remained entirely to the east of the boundary line. Russia ceded Ardagan, Kars and Batum districts to Turkey and withdrew troops from all parts of Eastern Anatolia.

Soviet Russia should immediately make peace with the Ukrainian People’s Republic and recognize its peace treaty with Germany and its allies. Russia has withdrawn troops from the territory of Ukraine. The same applied to the Baltic provinces, where the border ran along the River Narva, the Peipsi and Pskov lakes. Finland and the Aland Islands were also cleared of Russian troops.

Russia also paid 6 billion marks of reparations plus the payment of losses incurred by Germany during the Russian revolution - 500 million gold rubles. The annex to the contract guaranteed the special economic status of Germany in Soviet Russia. Citizens and companies of the Central Powers were removed from the action of the Soviet decrees on nationalization, and those who had already lost property were reinstated. That is, German citizens were allowed to engage in private business in Russia. The Brest Treaty restored the customs tariffs of 1904 of the year with Germany extremely unfavorable for Russia. In addition, Russia was forced to confirm all debts to the Central Powers (from which 1918 was refused in January), and to resume payments on them.

Thus, the Vistula provinces (the Kingdom of Poland), Little Russia, Byelorussia, Estland, Kurland and Livonia provinces, the Grand Duchy of Finland departed. Moreover, the boundaries of the new territorial entities (under German rule) were not clearly defined. The territory of 780 thousand square meters was torn away from Russia. km with a population of 56 million (one third of the population of the Russian Empire) and on which before the revolution were: 27% of arable agricultural land, 26% of the entire railway network, 73% iron and steel were mined, 89% sugar was mined, 90% sugar was mined, there lived 40% industrial workers, etc.



Results

Despite the peace agreement, German troops continued their offensive. 1 March German troops in Kiev, the power of the Central Rada was restored. April 5 German troops entered Kharkov, in late April - early May entered the Crimea and the southern part of the Don region, April 22 seized Simferopol, May 1 - Taganrog, and May 8 - Rostov-on-Don, causing the fall of Soviet power on the Don . On the Don, the Germans helped the establishment of the ataman P.N. Krasnov in power. A puppet government was created in the Crimea. In June, the Germans entered Georgia. Using the absence of a border treaty between Soviet Russia and Ukraine as a formal pretext, the Germans seized a number of key points in Russia. In Finland, the Germans helped crush the Reds. The nationalist regime that plans to build "Great Finland" at the expense of the Russian lands was established in Finland. In the Caucasus, Turkey continued its offensive with the aim of seizing Baku, Dagestan, and areas of the North Caucasus with the Muslim population.

Thus, the Austro-German and Turkish intervention allowed to tear away large areas from Russia and support the creation of anti-Soviet state formations on them. This led to a new round of the Civil War and the increase of its scale. With the help of the interventionists (they were then joined by the British, French, Americans and Japanese), various anti-Soviet forces strengthened and launched a counter-offensive.

The Brest Peace allowed the Austro-German High Command to concentrate all the main forces against the Entente troops in France and Italy, and to organize the last decisive strategic offensive on the Western Front. So, the German command transferred about half a million soldiers and officers from the Eastern front to the Western and on March 23 launched an offensive operation. Turkey had the opportunity to strengthen its position in Mesopotamia and Palestine. However, significant military forces in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey were diverted to the continuation of the intervention, protection and looting of the occupied territory of the western part of Russia.

The Entente took the Brest Peace extremely hostile. England and France have already divided Russia into spheres of influence and have begun intervention. On March 6, English troops landed in Murmansk, April 5 - Japanese troops in Vladivostok, August 2 - British in Arkhangelsk, etc.

By the fall of 1918, it became obvious that the Entente would win and eventually Germany would capitulate. In Berlin they decided, in the conditions of the growing Civil War in Russia and the beginning of the Entente's intervention, to conclude additional agreements to the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. 27 August 1918 in Berlin, in the strictest secrecy, a Russian-German supplementary agreement to the Brest Peace and a financial agreement were concluded. It was signed, on behalf of the government of the RSFSR, by the plenipotentiary Adolph Joffe, and from Germany, Paul von Hinz.

According to its conditions, the demarcation commission was to determine in detail and immediately establish the eastern border of Estland and Livonia. The German troops east of the demarcation line were immediately withdrawn. Russia recognized the independence of Ukraine and Georgia, refused from Estland and Livonia, bargaining for the right of access to the Baltic ports (Revel, Riga and Windau). Also, to facilitate Russian trade through Estonia, Livonia, Kurland, and Lithuania, free transit of goods was established through them in both directions; low railway and freight rates; free shipping on the Western Dvina. The Soviet side bargained for control of Baku, losing to Germany a quarter of the products produced there.

Germany also agreed to withdraw its troops from Belarus, from the Black Sea coast, the Crimea, from Rostov and part of the Don basin, and not to occupy more than any territory of Russia. Germany pledged not to interfere in the relations of the Russian state with national regions and to encourage them to secede from Russia or to form independent state entities. Germany guaranteed that Finland would not attack Russian territory, especially Petrograd. In the secret agreement (the so-called “Hinze note), the mutually expressed consent of the parties to make mutual efforts to fight inside Russia with the Entente interventionists, the Volunteer Army and the uprising of the Czechoslovak Corps was recorded.

Thus, the Brest Peace, and the Additional Agreement, which Russian liberals and Westerners so much like to reproach Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and which were signed by Soviet Russia, which actually had no army, under the threat of the German invasion and capture of the capital, were much more profitable than Gorbachev's shameful surrender - Yeltsin in 1991 year. In addition, Russia already in the same year 1918 had the opportunity to abandon the conditions of the “obscene world.”

Lenin showed great insight. He made huge concessions to Germany and her allies, not only because of the lack of an army, but also the inevitable defeat and fall of the German bloc. Lenin repeatedly said that the Brest peace would not last even several months, and that the revolution in Germany was inevitable. 3 November 1918 in Navy rebelled in Kiel, and thousands of soldiers joined them. Soon the uprising swept Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen and other cities. In Bavaria, the Soviet Republic was proclaimed. 5 November, the Soviet government suspended diplomatic relations with Germany. November 9 revolution in Germany won. 11 November Germany signed a truce with the Entente powers. 13 November, the Brest Treaty was canceled.

As the American historian Richard Pipes noted: “Having shrewdly went to the humiliating world, which gave him time to win, and then collapsed under the influence of his own weight, Lenin deserved wide confidence of the Bolsheviks. When 13 November 1918, they broke the Brest Peace, after which Germany capitulated to the Western allies, Lenin's authority was lifted up to unprecedented heights in the Bolshevik movement. ”

100 years "lousy" Brest world
Author:
Articles from this series:
1918 Campaign

US world domination strategy
Turkish invasion of Transcaucasia. “Thousands of Russians were shot and burned alive. Armenians are subjected to indescribable torture”
Romanian invasion of Bessarabia
How Romanian executioners exterminated Russian soldiers
German "fist strike" for the purpose of occupation of the western part of Russia
How the Germans occupied the western part of Russia
313 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 3 March 2018 06: 29
    +17
    That's right! Lenin saved Russia from Germanization. No matter how liberals humiliate him, they sympathize with them now.
    1. captain
      captain 3 March 2018 09: 39
      +9
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      That's right! Lenin saved Russia from Germanization. No matter how liberals humiliate him, they sympathize with them now.

      No, Lenin worked the money given by the Germans. He led Russia out of the war and made it possible for the Germans not to starve to death. Lenin and Trotsky helped the Americans, the British, and the French solve their problems at the expense of Russia.
      PS To be fair, I note that the Bolsheviks were not alone in corrupting the army. They were actively helped by revolutionaries of all stripes, and of course, our progressive intelligentsia. Here we must pay tribute to Lenin; well called the intelligentsia, a simple Russian word. Ordinary envy, greed, money-grubbing, vanity and absolute disregard for the fate of the state and people, these are the main driving forces of the events of those years.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 3 March 2018 09: 53
      +13
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      Lenin saved Russia

      He didn’t save Russia, but saved his POWER, for the salvation of which he gave a third of the country, but was ready to give more.
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 3 March 2018 10: 19
        +19
        I, as I see, there will always be a contra. Do you remember everything about your family estates?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 3 March 2018 11: 09
          +8
          Quote: sabakina
          Do you remember everything about your family estates?

          Dear Sabakin, What are you talking about ?! belay fool
          Have you read the article? What is she talking about? request
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 3 March 2018 11: 17
            +13
            Dear Olgovich, the fact of the matter is that I read. I generally love to read from childhood. Have you read?
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 3 March 2018 12: 13
              +9
              Quote: sabakina
              Dear Olgovich, the fact of the matter is that I read. I generally love to read from childhood. Have you read?

              Read. And he did not find in the ARTICLE a word about ... estates and about me. request
              And then why flood? hi
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 11: 14
          +8
          Quote: sabakina
          I, as I see, the counter will always be

          You seem to be stuck tight in the last century ...
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 3 March 2018 11: 16
            +12
            And I see, you just returned from the future ... Well, how is it?
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 3 March 2018 13: 07
        +12
        An interesting personality is the direct signatory of the Brest Peace from the Soviet side with a symbolic name ADOLF Aurram Ioffe.
        Jewish son millionaire, received the specialty of a doctor, but nowhere, not a day, has anyone worked in his 35 years. He spent half his conscious life abroad, traveled all over Europe, or rather, its PSYCHIATRIC clinics, where he was profitable rich patient famous psychiatrist Alfred Adler.
        . After the October coup was sent to ..... People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. belay lol In Brest, he was the chairman and ....consultant! belay fool
        In addition to the infamous Brest Treaty, he signed several more small Brest betrayals- with Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Latvia. And he signed another secret treaty (remember that the Bolsheviks had just condemned all the secret treaties forever lol ) -Germany, through which Russia handed over to her ANOTHER 6 000 000 000 marks in gold (thanks to the Entente, she won and the train was ready, she didn’t leave)
        Everywhere, as in the case of Germany, the Bolsheviks, not sparing, calculated the Russian territories, people, gold and property of the country.
        As a sign of eternal appreciation, in is our time Every year, the Estonian government arranges a memorial service at his grave.

        But for all the betrayals they’ve paid off with him .... the "comrades in the struggle" themselves: when he needed to go abroad for urgent treatment (wild pain), they didn’t let him go and he shot himself, writing a huge letter, where he said "to comrades " everything.
        His son was shot, his son-in-law was shot, his wives and daughter spent 25 years, well, and his descendants, you can guess where they live.
        Neither to myself nor to people ... request
        1. Nukesmoke
          Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 27
          +1
          Come on. The very fact that the Entente in 1917 had to experience for itself what RIA made in the name of their interests in 1915 already makes the Brest Peace not so bad. And the potential controllers, having received from the Germans the cabbage soup, suddenly saw that their soldiers were inclined to the option: "You are a cowboy - you and jump!"
        2. captain
          captain 5 March 2018 08: 56
          0
          Quote: Olgovich
          An interesting personality is the direct signatory of the Brest Peace from the Soviet side with a symbolic name ADOLF Aurram Ioffe.
          Jewish son millionaire, received the specialty of a doctor, but nowhere, not a day, has anyone worked in his 35 years. He spent half his conscious life abroad, traveled all over Europe, or rather, its PSYCHIATRIC clinics, where he was profitable rich patient famous psychiatrist Alfred Adler.
          . After the October coup was sent to ..... People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. belay lol In Brest, he was the chairman and ....consultant! belay fool
          In addition to the infamous Brest Treaty, he signed several more small Brest betrayals- with Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Latvia. And he signed another secret treaty (remember that the Bolsheviks had just condemned all the secret treaties forever lol ) -Germany, through which Russia handed over to her ANOTHER 6 000 000 000 marks in gold (thanks to the Entente, she won and the train was ready, she didn’t leave)
          Everywhere, as in the case of Germany, the Bolsheviks, not sparing, calculated the Russian territories, people, gold and property of the country.
          As a sign of eternal appreciation, in is our time Every year, the Estonian government arranges a memorial service at his grave.

          But for all the betrayals they’ve paid off with him .... the "comrades in the struggle" themselves: when he needed to go abroad for urgent treatment (wild pain), they didn’t let him go and he shot himself, writing a huge letter, where he said "to comrades " everything.
          His son was shot, his son-in-law was shot, his wives and daughter spent 25 years, well, and his descendants, you can guess where they live.
          Neither to myself nor to people ... request

          The real Bolshevik.
          1. Nukesmoke
            Nukesmoke 6 March 2018 23: 18
            +1
            And what? Joffe was then accepted in Europe. Of course, it is better to give all the nadra of the country to the Gentons from the Entente, because they allowed the Russians to die for the interests of the sagibs (100 thousand Russian soldiers left for France, to serve in its colonial units, and in exchange the French sent 93 thousand Lebel rifles).
      3. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 3 March 2018 13: 11
        +8
        The Bolsheviks with Trotsky in the main, were confident in the German support further, because Germany was one of the main forces that brought the Bolsheviks to power. The Brest peace was basically the secret first big pay by the Bolsheviks to their owners. There Trotsky opened the borders to grain Ukraine: famous: without peace and without war, which meant surrender of the territory, which the Germans did - with two divisions and occupied: all of Ukraine with Crimea, and to Latvia. Later, the Bolsheviks secured an agreement on the return of vast territories - they paid off and as if they had saved their face .... ..
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 3 March 2018 17: 57
          +11
          Question one: where is the evidence that the Bolsheviks had masters in Germany? The second question is if the German General Staff is so omnipotent that it prevented him from preventing the revolution in his own country in November 18th? The third question: what relation did the UPR government have to the Bolsheviks, how many Bolsheviks were in its composition? Fourth question: if there is irrefutable evidence that the Bolsheviks had masters in the German General Staff, why was this not used in propaganda against Bolshevism by Goebbels in the 41st in the attack on the USSR, they say that you are fighting for those whom our country itself brought to power?
          1. wer2
            wer2 3 March 2018 18: 41
            +5
            Quote: Rastas
            The second question is if the German General Staff is so omnipotent that it prevented him from preventing the revolution in his own country in November 18th?

            A revolution, in contrast to a coup, is a conscious movement of the masses ripened for it. I even admit it. that the highest ranks of the German General Staff might not be the last people at the time of the revolution.
            1. Rastas
              Rastas 3 March 2018 21: 02
              +5
              There are documents that the German generals stood behind the revolution in Germany? Only without assumptions, like, maybe, maybe. Why the German generals needed a revolution, if it would automatically be followed by the end of the war, you can’t explain. If not in the subject, then do not write anything better.
              1. Nukesmoke
                Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 29
                0
                German generals are not rabid militarists. War is not their goal, but rather its fruits. If they are acidic - why grow them even more?
              2. wer2
                wer2 4 March 2018 01: 54
                +2
                Quote: Rastas
                There are documents that the German generals stood behind the revolution in Germany?

                What for? You do not understand what a revolution is, as I see it.
                Quote: Rastas
                Why the German generals needed a revolution, if it would automatically be followed by the end of the war, you can’t explain.

                On the one that at a certain stage the upper stratum of society without revolution in any way. And there is no guarantee that the generals of the German General Staff were not included in this layer.
                Quote: Rastas
                If it would automatically be followed by the end of the war, you will not explain.

                Yes, spit on this and all other wars. The revolution is more important.
        2. Nukesmoke
          Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 28
          +3
          The question is - why then did the Germans in no way help the Bolsheviks to fight their opponents in 1918? But did they head the “whites"?
          1. wer2
            wer2 4 March 2018 02: 15
            +4
            Quote: Nukesmoke
            But did they head the “whites"?

            You probably mean Russians? After all, the Bolsheviks called the Russians exactly white.
            1. Sugar Honeyovich
              Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 13: 50
              +2
              And the whites claimed that they were fighting against the Russians ...
              1. wer2
                wer2 4 March 2018 14: 21
                +1
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                And the whites claimed that they were fighting against the Russians ...

                Why are you writing such nonsense? Want to be "original"?
                1. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 18: 12
                  +1
                  Bullshit - what the Reds called white exactly the Russians. But the white ones ...
                  "The war with the Bolsheviks in the Don already had the character not of a political or class struggle, not of a civil war, but of a national, national war. The Cossacks defended their Cossack rights from the Russians." P.N.Krasnov
                  1. wer2
                    wer2 4 March 2018 18: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: Sahar Medovich
                    Bullshit - what the Reds called white exactly the Russians.

                    The fact is, the young man that white was mostly made up of Russians. Those. from the nationally oriented upper layer of society of the Russian Empire.
                    Quote: Sahar Medovich
                    Cossacks defended their Cossack rights from the Russians

                    Well, where does the Cossacks? They most often acted on the side of whites. But they were not white.
                    1. Nukesmoke
                      Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 21: 01
                      +2
                      Ukrainians, Poles, Finns and other border gang-brethren-they were all white, and all fought against the Reds. Well, you can write them in Russian :))))
                      1. wer2
                        wer2 4 March 2018 21: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Nukesmoke
                        Ukrainians, Poles, Finns and other border gang-brethren-they were all white, and all fought against the Reds.

                        I will not even comment on this unthinking nonsense.
                    2. Sugar Honeyovich
                      Sugar Honeyovich 5 March 2018 03: 58
                      +1
                      The whites were mostly Russian - sheer truth, young man! As well as the fact that the Reds also mainly consisted of Russians. And among the reds there were very many nationally oriented Russians (it was for the sake of national interests that they ended up in the reds).

                      And you can call the upper layer of society of the Russian Empire nationally oriented with a very big stretch ...

                      Cossacks were not white? And who were they?
                      1. wer2
                        wer2 5 March 2018 09: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich
                        that the Reds also mainly consisted of Russians.

                        First of all, you need to understand what the term “Russian” means (“Georgian,” “Armenian,” “Uzbek,” etc.). And you do not understand this. It is naive to believe that if dad Ivanov, and mother, Petrova, then you have Russian.
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich
                        And among the reds there were a lot of nationally oriented Russians (it was for the sake of national interests that they ended up in the reds).

                        When you write about "nationally oriented reds," you write about "sweet salt." Or about "white soot." Those. delirium of pure water.
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich
                        And you can call the upper layer of society of the Russian Empire nationally oriented with a very big stretch ...

                        The upper layers of any feudal and even in some places slave states are ALWAYS nationally oriented. The difference in the numbers of these layers.
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich
                        Cossacks were not white? And who were they?

                        Cossacks. Along with the white. But they were not.
            2. Nukesmoke
              Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 21: 00
              0
              I, by virtue of upbringing, and differentiate the Russians by the color of their pants.
              1. wer2
                wer2 4 March 2018 21: 13
                0
                Quote: Nukesmoke
                I, by virtue of upbringing, and differentiate the Russians by the color of their pants.

                ?
                1. Nukesmoke
                  Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 43
                  0
                  : P There is a stain on your white squares.
        3. Sweetheart
          Sweetheart 3 July 2018 17: 22
          0
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          The Bolsheviks with Trotsky in the main, were confident in the German support further, because Germany was one of the main forces that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Brest peace

          Where is at least one document confirming your lie? You don’t have them, why do you duplicate the lie?
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          There Trotsky opened the borders to grain Ukraine

          Again a lie. In signing the Brest Peace, the Ukrin government of that time independently participated.
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          The Bolsheviks with Trotsky in the main, were confident in the German support further, because Germany was one of the main forces that brought the Bolsheviks to power. The Brest peace was basically the secret first big pay by the Bolsheviks to their owners. There Trotsky opened the borders to grain Ukraine: famous: without peace and without war, which meant surrender of the territory, which the Germans did - with two divisions and occupied: all of Ukraine with Crimea, and to Latvia. Later, the Bolsheviks secured an agreement on the return of vast territories - they paid off and as if they had saved their face .... ..

          And again, an idle lie. Having preserved the whole, having paid for the small ones, already by 39 they regained all that was lost.
      4. Looking for
        Looking for 3 July 2018 16: 58
        -1
        He did not save power, but REVOLUTION. And his tactics turned out to be the only correct one.
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 11: 36
      +7
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      That's right! Lenin saved Russia

      There was no one else to fight Russia, the army ceased to exist. It became clear to Lenin that if the Bolsheviks did not agree even to the most harsh conditions of the world, then, in the words of the head of the Council of People's Commissars, "the world will make another government." But it was not easy for the Bolshevik leader to convince his party comrades-in-arms. The faction of the "Left Communists" led by Nikolai Bukharin advocated a "revolutionary war" with the Germans. Trotsky and his supporters kept their course - not to fight, but not to sign the peace. Only Trotsky’s maneuver, which at the last moment agreed - out of fears of a final split in the Bolshevik leadership - to abstain from a decisive vote, allowed Lenin to put together a shaky majority in favor of peace.
      The Council of People's Commissars sent a new delegation to Brest, led by Grigory Sokolnikov. She signed the world, which Lenin himself called "obscene." The former Russian empire ceded to the enemy the territory of today's Ukraine, partly - Belarus and the Baltic countries, some regions of the South Caucasus, carried out the demobilization of the army and navy - which, however, because of the revolutionary storms, were already in ruin. A territory with a population of 56 million people and the lion's share of heavy industry enterprises was seized from the country. Contrary to the Bolshevik requisition and expropriation, subjects of Germany and the allied countries were allowed to conduct business and own property in Russia, which also committed to renew the payment of royal external debts.

      But the Bolsheviks were lucky: the Brest peace lasted only 9 months. In November 1918, when the Central Powers were defeated on other fronts of World War I, one of the conditions for a truce between the Entente and Germany was the refusal of the latter to agree to the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Agreement. After a couple of days, Soviet Russia confirmed that it considered the "obscene" world annulled.
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 3 March 2018 12: 28
        +4
        Quote: RUSS
        But the Bolsheviks were lucky: the Brest peace lasted only 9 months. In November 1918, when the Central Powers were defeated on other fronts of World War I, one of the conditions for a truce between the Entente and Germany was the refusal of the latter to agree to the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Agreement. After a couple of days, Soviet Russia confirmed that it considered the "obscene" world annulled.

        So, so, the Bolsheviks had to bow to the Entente for agreeing on the conditions of a truce under which Germany renounced the conditions of the infamous Brest peace.
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 15
          +4
          Bow to those who in February 1917 He planned and supported this whole mess in Russia. And the “kindness” of the Entente consisted only in the fact that it took away the pieces of Russia from the Central Powers to itself.
        2. Nukesmoke
          Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 31
          0
          One hell, rapprochement could not be canceled - it was Rappalo, after which the Versailles system at first smoothly and quietly began to fall apart.
    4. wer2
      wer2 7 March 2018 17: 25
      0
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      Lenin saved Russia from Germanization.

      You are in the Constituent Assembly where the Germans noticed?
      1. Mar.Tirah
        Mar.Tirah 8 March 2018 05: 18
        0
        And here is the Constituent Assembly, if I am talking about German troops in the Russian territories occupied at that time? Do you think that the occupier will leave a foreign language and life in the conquered territories unchanged? We already had such thinkers calling to kneel. They ended badly .
  2. Odysseus
    Odysseus 3 March 2018 06: 58
    +10
    Here it must be added that Lenin did not just talk about the inevitability of a revolution in Germany, he actively brought it closer.
    Actually, the German Communists and Social Democrats did this revolution. So subsequently, German nationalists and bourgeois patriots believed that the Bolsheviks, Russian spies and Jews destroyed the great Germany. This was one of Hitler’s key convictions.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 3 March 2018 07: 46
    +13
    President of Russia on Brest shame: "It was an act of NATIONAL TRIEDness of the then leadership."
    100 years ago, on March 3, 1918, the "obscene" Brest peace was signed. Russia officially defeated and left the world war
    .LYING: defeated Bolshevik so-called the "government" of usurpers of power-foreign tourists, which to Russia, a terrible war, didn't have not the slightest attitude (they sat her abroad and in the rear). Neither the Emperor, nor the VP, nor the US were planning to surrender to the invaders.
    Russia lost the opportunity wage regular war

    Let me remind the author that the Bolsheviks did not intend to wage war, in any case, there was an opportunity or not, We read a stupid secret "about the world" - there is NO word that they "can not", that they DO NOT WANT, but an army ... were going to (and still did) dissolve (apr. abstract)
    In these conditions, the Soviet government forced to was to conclude a truce and start peace negotiations
    Not forced, but not wanted.
    Richard Pipes: “Lenin earned the wide confidence of the Bolsheviks. When November 13 1918 years they tore the Brest peace, followed by Germani. capitulated to the western allies

    Where does the author find such sv? belay lol FIRST, there was the Compiegne truce (capitulation) of Germany and the annulment by ANTANTO of Brest shame, and BECAUSE, after the fact, Ilychi "broke the contract.
    And thanks to ANTANTE, who ordered the Germans to get out of Russia: after all, they could have allowed them to stay robbing further.
    Brest shame is the clearest manifestation of complete incompetence, stupidity, naivety, inexperience and betrayal of the invaders: they proclaimed bluntly a world without annexations and indemnities, carried out .... demobilization during the war fool but received unprecedented annexation, indemnity. everyone wiped about them.

    And these are two Russian worker-peasant, NEVER ANYWHERE ANY DAY unemployed (Brest shame -the FIRST “work” in life) Leiba Bonstein and ADOLF Ioffe- they signed and led the "delegation."
    1. BAI
      BAI 3 March 2018 08: 45
      +15
      And why, yesterday, in "How Russia Lost the Historical Chance to Occupy Constantinople and the Straits" with enthusiasm about the tsarist government - "politics is the art of compromise", and here - the Bolsheviks are scoundrels, they sold Russia? We must somehow be consistent, without double standards: the tsar’s everything is fine without exception, the Bolsheviks’s bad without exception.
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 3 March 2018 08: 57
        +7
        Quote: BAI
        with enthusiasm about the tsarist government - "politics - the art of compromise", and here - the Bolsheviks are villains, they sold Russia?

        In fact, in 1877, Russia did not lose its industrially developed territories. And, in the event of a potential war, she faced a hostile coalition without allies. In 1918, the Bolsheviks sold a huge part of Russia for their power and betrayed the allies with whom Russia fought against the Germans for 3 years.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 3 March 2018 09: 48
          +5
          Russia has not lost its industrialized territories

          - But were these territories?
          1. Gopnik
            Gopnik 3 March 2018 10: 25
            +2
            of course
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 3 March 2018 13: 57
              +4
              then there were two times!
              and where were ?? -in the Urals? or in the Donbass? or Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan?
              maybe only the capital of Speter-g- Moscow + Poland and the Baltic states?
              1. Gopnik
                Gopnik 3 March 2018 20: 27
                +2
                Yes, the listed Urals, Donbass, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Baltic, Poland including
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 3 March 2018 21: 18
                  +1
                  the port "infrastructure" in NN and Kazan (and other Volga cities) is well written by writers of those years-- barge haulers and movers with bags on their backs
                  one word-girlfriends
                  1. Gopnik
                    Gopnik 3 March 2018 21: 35
                    +3
                    yes, well written, better than about Russian women in scarves, quilted jackets and orange vests with sleepers on their shoulders in the late USSR, and?
                    1. antivirus
                      antivirus 3 March 2018 21: 39
                      0
                      for pampered modern cheeks, those women in orange vests are horses
                      you should know that "digging from here to lunch" is a mockery now, and 30-50 years ago it was the norm
        2. sabakina
          sabakina 3 March 2018 10: 24
          +8
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          In fact, in 1877, Russia did not lose its industrially developed territories.
          Hey, contra, and where does the year 1877 go?
          1. Sergey Medvedev
            Sergey Medvedev 4 March 2018 15: 11
            +2
            Quote: sabakina
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            In fact, in 1877, Russia did not lose its industrially developed territories.
            Hey, contra, and where does the year 1877 go?

            Hey, Bolshevik bastard, is such treatment permissible here?
        3. BAI
          BAI 3 March 2018 13: 48
          +10
          In 1918, the Bolsheviks sold a huge part of Russia for their power and betrayed the allies with whom Russia fought against the Germans for 3 years.

          1. The territory was lost temporarily and involuntarily. After a year, they all returned.
          2. Tsarist Russia and the allies of tsarist Russia entered WWI. Why would the Bolsheviks continue the war to which they had nothing to do, and even for the interests of the "allies" who did not recognize them? France and England were never allies of the Bolsheviks. Accordingly, they did not betray anyone.
          3. The end of the war is a natural, logical and only possible move that the Bolsheviks could make.
          1. Gopnik
            Gopnik 3 March 2018 19: 43
            +4
            Quote: BAI
            1. The territory was lost temporarily and involuntarily. After a year, they all returned.


            come on? A year later returned to the Baltic states, Finland, Western Ukraine with Belarus and southern Armenia?
            1. RUSS
              RUSS 3 March 2018 20: 33
              +2
              Quote: Gopnik
              Quote: BAI
              1. The territory was lost temporarily and involuntarily. After a year, they all returned.


              come on? A year later returned to the Baltic states, Finland, Western Ukraine with Belarus and southern Armenia?

              But what about Tuva? Why is this sunny republic always forgotten?
            2. Rastas
              Rastas 3 March 2018 21: 10
              +5
              After the 17th of October, the Baltic authorities did not last long in the Baltic states, which were destroyed by German bayonets with the support of, by the way, whites, such as the Belarusian-Lithuanian SSR. The Baltic states broke away with the active mediation of whites. There was also an active civil war in Finland, give lectures by Bair Irincheev, for example, as Mannerheim drowned the workers' uprising in Tampere in blood. Southern Armenia was lost as a result of the war against Turkey unleashed by the Dashnaks. Soviet power came to Armenia when there was a threat no longer to southern Armenia, but to the whole.
              1. Gopnik
                Gopnik 3 March 2018 21: 39
                +2
                AND? Why did you write this?
                By the way, it’s funny that the vast majority of Latvian riflemen, having done business here, dumped into bourgeois Latvia.
                And it’s even funny that in the war of Armenia and Greece against Turkey, the Bolsheviks supported the Turks.
                1. RUSS
                  RUSS 4 March 2018 08: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Gopnik
                  And it’s even funny that in the war of Armenia and Greece against Turkey, the Bolsheviks supported the Turks.

                  The Bolsheviks supplied Zolotishko and weapons from the heart to Ataturk.
              2. Olgovich
                Olgovich 4 March 2018 08: 50
                +1
                Quote: Rastas
                That Baltic States and broke away with the active mediation of whites

                Bald tourists recognized independence and Estonia and Latvia in 1918 g. HOW can you not know this? request
                Quote: Rastas
                Finland also had an active civil war,

                It was. What did you want to say? Ilychi recognized its independence in December 1917 and .... sent troops, weapons and money there for WAR from recognized by their government. Is it normal in your opinion?
                Quote: Rastas
                . Southern Armenia was lost as a result war against Turkey, unleashed by the Dashnaks.

                Read Brest peace
        4. Nukesmoke
          Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 33
          0
          Entente Gandons are not worthy of being called allies.
          And the war 77-78 crossed out all the achievements of the Reforms of Alexander. What a sin to hide, the country collapsed in a crisis. And the Balkans turned into a powder cellar with crazy people.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        5. Looking for
          Looking for 3 July 2018 17: 06
          -1
          What does it mean - "sold a huge part of Russia" ?????
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 3 March 2018 10: 21
        +7
        Quote: BAI
        about the tsarist government - "politics is the art of compromise,"

        Not compromise, but POSSIBLE.
        The tsarist pr-in and even the Provisional with the State Duma are politicians who have led the country and had experience in this, knowledge and long-standing traditions, including and in diplomacy. At the very least, but the country was ruled, albeit brutalized-lived. And there was no famine. Germany and A-Hungary were not in a better position, France, too, was languishing and writhed from losses and fatigue. EVERYTHING was hard, it was impossible to hit in the back in such a situation.
        The Bolshevik “leaders” NEVER ANYONE worked at all, had neither experience, nor knowledge, nor traditions, NOTHING! In addition to theories about the destruction and uselessness of everything that makes up .... the state:
        Elimination of the army, police, bureaucracy
        is from the April Theses by Ilych, which his associates put into practice after the Thief. .
        The bald tourist wrote this DURING the war with the German occupiers and considered it necessary to do it during the war. Is this a normal person? fool What would happen to him in 1941? Even the Marxist Plekhanov called it nonsense.

        By the way, will you let the theorists build a courtyard toilet? No? Why so? request
        1. BAI
          BAI 3 March 2018 13: 53
          +10
          The Bolshevik “leaders” NEVER ANYONE worked at all, had neither experience, nor knowledge, nor traditions, NOTHING!

          And what experience did Nicholas 2 have?
          Run around the women? When they tried to teach him how to manage the state, what did he do?
          To quote his teacher - Pobedonostsev: "With great care I picked my nose." Is this experience and knowledge?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 3 March 2018 14: 22
            +5
            Quote: BAI
            And what experience did Nicholas 2 have?
            Run around the women? When they tried to teach him how to manage the state, what did he do?

            Nicholas laid the BASIS of international law, it was he who was the FIRST in the world to gather ALL the nations of the world in The Hague where the fundamental principles of law, warfare, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and WMD, the current UN and much more were signed.

            Portrait of Nicholas at the Peace Palace in The Hague

            Under him, the population of Russia grew by 50% (by 60 million people). Over the next 22 years, only 17%, then, in general, the Russian Cross.
            What else do you need for comparison? request
            1. Hantengri
              Hantengri 3 March 2018 19: 21
              +8
              Quote: Olgovich
              Nicholas laid the BASIS of international law, it was he who was the FIRST in the world to gather ALL the nations of the world in The Hague where the fundamental principles of law, warfare, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and WMD, the current UN and much more were signed.

              Quote: Olgovich
              Under him, the population of Russia grew by 50% (by 60 million people).

              Yes of course! And he defecated, exclusively, with roses! lol
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 4 March 2018 09: 01
                +3
                Quote: HanTengri
                he defecated

                T. is a lover of obscene expressions, Mr. and this from above: go-go, go-go where you will be accepted with IT.
                Do not turn the discussion into a stinking cesspool!
                Abomination ....
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid 5 March 2018 06: 47
                  +2
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  T. is a lover of obscene expressions, Mr. and this from above: go-go, go-go where you will be accepted with ETIM. Do not turn the discussion into a fetid cesspool! Abomination ....
                  Olgovich, once again you see a swearing woman where she is not. This is hypocrisy! And your other word ---- "disdain?". Apart from you, nobody in the modern language uses it, Olgovich, probably you are ----- an old-fashioned bakery woman !!!!!!!
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 5 March 2018 11: 23
                    0
                    Ask the khan, HOW MUCH time he has sworn me.
                    Or for you: once, not, lol um yes?
                    Quote: Reptiloid
                    And your other word ---- "disdain?". Except you nobody in modern language does not consume Olgovich, probably

                    You are non-Russian, yes.
                    Quote: Reptiloid
                    You are ----- an old crunchy granny !!!!!!!

                    Hi sandcrusts! hi lol
                    1. Hantengri
                      Hantengri 5 March 2018 20: 27
                      +2
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Ask the khan, HOW MUCH time he has sworn me.

                      Maybe you’d better tell me how many months after the “HORRIBLE INGREDIENTS” you, safely, continued to communicate with me and why, “suddenly” decided to “take offense”?
                      1. Reptiloid
                        Reptiloid 5 March 2018 20: 59
                        +2
                        Somehow I did not see a single swear comment from Khan-Tengri. Okay ...... I miss a lot of things. But the moderators could not miss. !!!!!! There is no swearing, but there is some kind of suspicious hypocrisy. Yes, no one has been stigmatizing anyone for a very long time. They don’t say that already. Olgovich has lagged far behind the current standards ........
                2. Looking for
                  Looking for 3 July 2018 17: 14
                  -1
                  The verb "defecate" is the most literary expression of the natural human physiological process, without which Homo sapiens cannot exist, be it the king or the very last member of society. HANJA !!!!!!
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri 3 March 2018 19: 17
          +7
          Quote: Olgovich
          France, too, languished and writhed from loss and fatigue. EVERYTHING was hard, it was impossible to hit in the back in such a situation.

          Those. You, Olgovich, acknowledge that forcing Nicholas 2 to abdicate was, on the part of the Februaryists, vile betrayal ?! For "it was impossible to beat in the back in such a situation"! Well, commendable, meritorious. laughing
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 5 March 2018 06: 52
            +1
            Quote: HanTengri
            Those. You, Olgovich, acknowledge that forcing Nicholas 2 to abdicate was, on the part of the Februaryists, vile betrayal ?! For "it was impossible to beat in the back in such a situation"! Well, commendable, meritorious. laughing
            You can read about all this in Guchkov’s book “How We Overthrew the Tsar”.
        3. Alexander Greene
          Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 44
          +3
          Quote: Olgovich
          Bald tourist

          Bald tourists have begun to seem to you everywhere. Is it your aggravation of the disease, or vice versa, are you going to recover? Previously, you saw the dead with braids.
      3. sabakina
        sabakina 3 March 2018 10: 22
        +7
        BAI, he’s just a contra and that’s it.
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 3 March 2018 11: 17
      +14
      Olgovich, but for you, Alexander II, who sold Alaska for nothing to the United States without any war, and the Japanese Kuril, is also a national traitor? Or did the Bolsheviks stop him too? Nicholas II in the almost-won war with Japan (as the neo-monarchists prove today) gave part of Sakhalin, Manchuria and Port Arthur. Anyway, then the rule of the Romanovs began with betrayal, when Mikhail, after the expulsion of the Poles, gave them the Smolensk and Seversky lands, and the Swedes - Yam, Koporye, and Oreshek. Or were they the right people and gave rightfully?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 3 March 2018 12: 24
        +4
        Quote: Rastas
        Lgovich, but for you, Alexander II, who sold Alaska for nothing to the United States without any war, and the Japanese Kuril, is also a national traitor?

        A smart politician who has concentrated his forces on the development of the Far East, instead of spraying them also on Alaska. Otherwise, there would be neither Alaska nor the Far East.
        Quote: Rastas
        Nicholas II in the almost-won war with Japan (as the neo-monarchists prove today) gave part of Sakhalin, Manchuria and Port Arthur

        Manchuria and Port Arthur have never been Russian, what is the matter with you? belay Polsakhalin is nonsense compared to SAVED DV.
        Quote: Rastas
        . Anyway, then the rule of the Romanovs began with betrayal, when Mikhail, after the expulsion of the Poles, gave them the Smolensk and Seversky lands, and the Swedes - Yam, Koporye, and Oreshek. Or were they the right people and gave rightfully?

        At this time, Poland and Sweden from the west sought England, the United States and France? No? And the Smolensk land was not already captured by the Poles? It was, unlike Little Russia 1918.
        Then WHAT do you compare? request
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 30
          +6
          Quote: Olgovich
          At this time, Poland and Sweden from the west sought England, the United States and France? No? And the Smolensk land was not already captured by the Poles? It was, unlike Little Russia 1918.
          Then WHAT do you compare? request

          Do not believe it. In the 17th century, Rzeczpospolita had huge problems with the Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire, Sweden had problems with Denmark. The state of Russia at the beginning of the 17th century and the beginning of the 20th century. it was about the same, but the Stolbov Treaty and the Deulinskiy truce signed by the tsars were good for you, and the crime of Brest peace signed by the Bolsheviks, although the tsars needed 100 years to completely level the results of the first two treaties, and the Bolsheviks were only 22 years old.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 3 March 2018 14: 05
            +3
            Quote: zoolu350
            Do not believe it. In the 17th century, Rzeczpospolita had huge problems with the Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire

            and they fought with Sweden both in Moldova and in the 30-year war, and everything was successful. The Austrians were defeated and Maximilian was even captured. So Poland had no problems similar to those in Garman in 1918.
            Quote: zoolu350
            The state of Russia at the beginning of the 17th century and the beginning of the 20th century. it was about the same, but the Stolbov Treaty and the Deulinskiy truce signed by the tsars are good for you, and the crime of the Brest Peace signed by the Bolsheviks

            It was not the same in sight: Poland was on the rise, unlike doomed Germany, and Smolensk in 1917 was not under occupation, as in the beginning of the 17th century.
            Germany could not swallow Russia, there was no time, she would have removed from her territory after a couple of months in ANY case. But there would be no Bolsheviks, yes.
            Therefore, they saved the power, not the country
            Quote: zoolu350
            although in order to completely level the results of the first two treaties, the tsars took 100 years, and the Bolsheviks only 22 years old.

            What are 22 years? belay Take a look at the western border of Russia to see what you have done!
            1. zoolu350
              zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 29
              +5
              Quote: Olgovich
              and they fought with Sweden both in Moldova and in the 30-year war, and everything was successful. The Austrians were defeated and Maximilian was even captured. It was not the same in sight: Poland was on the rise, unlike doomed Germany, and Smolensk in 1917 was not under occupation, as in the beginning of the 17th century.
              Germany could not swallow Russia, there was no time, she would have removed from her territory after a couple of months in ANY case. But there would be no Bolsheviks, yes.
              Therefore, they saved the power, not the country

              Do you have cognitive dissonance? They themselves listed the problems of the Commonwealth.
              Who was Smolensk case ten. The main thing in what state Russia was. In 1941, the European Union No. 1 captured Smolensk. Did it help him?
              I did not understand, after 22 years, the western borders of the USSR passed along the line of the river. Prut - Przemysl - Brest - p. Neman. What's wrong?
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 3 March 2018 14: 39
                +2
                Quote: zoolu350
                Do you have cognitive dissonance? They themselves listed the problems of the Commonwealth

                SOLVED PROBLEMS
                Quote: zoolu350
                Who was Smolensk case ten

                belay fool How much to Moscow from him to Moscow, in the know?
                Quote: zoolu350
                The main thing in what state Russia was.

                1. Compared to 1612, in MUCH better
                2. Germany in 1917 was in a HOPELESS position. unlike Poland, the beginning of the 17th century
                Quote: zoolu350
                I did not understand, after 22 years, the western borders of the USSR passed along the line of the river. Prut - Przemysl - Brest - p. Neman. What's wrong?

                Once again: after WHAT 22 years have they “decided” if TODAY's border of Russia coincides with the Brest betrayal? belay
                1. zoolu350
                  zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 53
                  +7
                  And on the borders of the Russian Federation in the west today it is a question for you neovlasovtsy.
                  That is, in 1918. in Russia was better than in 1617? How would you say softer. You ........... and not in the subject.
                  The distance from Moscow to Smolensk is 395 km along the highway and 368 km. in a straight line.
                  In the 17th century with a daily passage of 20-25 km, the army covered this distance without fighting for 2-3 weeks.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 3 March 2018 15: 09
                    +3
                    Quote: zoolu350
                    And on the borders of the Russian Federation in the west today it is a question for you neovlasovtsy.

                    I didn’t understand: didn’t you, the Vlasovites, have been in power ONLY all 70 years? belay lol
                    Quote: zoolu350
                    That is, in 1918. in Russia was better than in 1617? How would you say softer. You ........... and not in the subject.

                    In 1917, it is much better than in 1612 and than in 1918 with you. If you don’t even know this, then
                    Quote: zoolu350
                    You ........... and not in the subject.
                    lol
                    Quote: zoolu350
                    The distance from Moscow to Smolensk is 395 km along the highway and 368 km. in a straight line.

                    it's nothing!
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 5 March 2018 06: 58
        +1
        [quote = Rastas And indeed then the Romanov rule began with betrayal, when Mikhail, after the expulsion of the Poles, gave them Smolensk and Seversky lands, and the Swedes - Yam, Koporye, and Oreshek. Or were they the right people and gave rightfully? [/ Quote] The Romanovs' reign began with betrayal and the betrayal ended. Also, their rule began with the killing of a child ---- "vorenok" !!!!!!
    3. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 3 March 2018 12: 50
      +14
      Olgovich, thanks to the Entente from you - is this not a betrayal? Thanks to the invaders? Jackals began to share the bear's skin, thinking that he was killed. But he turned out to be alive.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 3 March 2018 13: 25
        +3
        Quote: Okolotochny
        Olgovich, thanks to the Entente from you - is this not a betrayal?

        For the fact that they expelled the German-Austrian occupiers from Russia, of course, thanks.
        And if you left? Betrayal, if not in the know, is to GIVE invaders a third of the country forever. Who did this, in the know?
        Quote: Okolotochny
        Thanks to the invaders? Jackals began to share the bear's skin, thinking that he was killed.

        The interventionists appeared AFTER the betrayal of the Bolsheviks, who began to feed the invaders with gold and bread. The invaders demanded that the traitors to transfer a MILLION of prisoners of war to the border to throw their battle in the West, to which they agreed. And only White’s performance stopped this catastrophe
        On the interventionists: the USSR and England intervened in Iran, defeated its troops in order to destroy Hitler's ally. Condemn? But England, which occupied Iceland for the same purpose, where convoys were then assembled for the USSR, also condemn, yes. yes
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 4 March 2018 01: 42
          +5
          Largely disagrees with you, but I respect your point of view. At least she is.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 4 March 2018 09: 09
            +1
            Quote: Okolotochny
            Largely disagrees with you, but I respect your point of view. At least she is.

            I respect ANY point of view expressed in a correct and respectful form. Further, you can calmly discuss and argue, figuring out common ground. And they are, because the main thing for almost all of us here is the good of Russia and its people.
            Understanding of this good is different, this can and should be said, IMHO. hi
            Do you disagree with something?
            Do you agree with the facts? Is the rating different?
            1. Okolotochny
              Okolotochny 4 March 2018 11: 11
              +11
              Olgovich, the call of foreign troops to Russia, when it was already, how did it end? And the interventionists in the 20th century were no different from the interventionists in the 17th century. Their goals and objectives were identical, to grab.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 4 March 2018 13: 18
                +1
                Quote: Okolotochny
                And the interventionists in the 20th century were no different from the interventionists in the 17th century. Their goals and objectives were identical, to grab.

                The 17th-century interventionists needed Russian territory, the 20th-century interventionists had to end the Great War and prevent the Germans from seizing Russian resources so that the Germans would not intensify. Done and left. SAMI left, mind you.
                They were not angels, yes.
                At the same time, out of the Bolsheviks and whites, in the end, the Bolsheviks were chosen, who were geopolitically more satisfied with them than the supporters of United and Indivisible (and therefore strong) Russia
              2. Gopnik
                Gopnik 4 March 2018 22: 41
                +2
                So the British were called to the North by the Bolsheviks, if that. And they, together with the Bolsheviks, fought against the “white” Finns.
  4. fa2998
    fa2998 3 March 2018 08: 07
    +6
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    That's right! Lenin saved Russia from Germanization. No matter how liberals humiliate him, they sympathize with them now.

    We must also remember, from where did Lenin and his comrades arrive, and who paid for this voyage? The Russian language is rich, the same events can be reflected in other words. I will try.
    March 3, 1918, the Soviet government of Russia went to a separate peace with Germany, and abandoned the allies. hi
    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 31
      +8
      For Soviet Russia in 1918 Entente, the same enemies as the Central Powers and even worse.
      1. Gopnik
        Gopnik 3 March 2018 13: 44
        +3
        for the "Soviet" undoubtedly.
  5. Korsar4
    Korsar4 3 March 2018 08: 15
    +5
    Voloshin:

    "Russia is over ... At the end
    We blundered her, chatted ... "

    Why compare - what is more disgraceful - the Brest Peace and the Bialowieza Agreement?
    Two black dates.

    Got game in the revolution. We still disentangle.
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 09: 01
      +12
      Quote: Korsar4
      Got game in the revolution. Still dissolve

      So far, we are dismantling the results counterrevolution - the return to power of the capitalists.
      And the results revolution, This is the creation of a powerful industrial power, with a very good standard of living.
      By the way, and the revolution in science, technology, medicine, etc., is this too bad in your opinion, does it also have to be "disentangled"? smile
      Quote: Korsar4
      Why compare - what is more disgraceful - the Brest Peace and the Bialowieza Agreement?

      Before comparing these two events, many first need at least a little understanding of them.
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 3 March 2018 09: 23
        +3
        About technology - often yes. Breaks free. With unpredictable consequences. Of course, I use it. And our communication in this format is an indicator.

        Both you and I have a well-established picture of the world. They are different. It is unlikely that some kind of argument will be given that is capable of drastically reversing consciousness.
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 11: 18
          +4
          Quote: Korsar4
          About technology - often yes. Breaks free

          Again you are confused.
          “Breaking free” is an accident that occurs either due to a violation of TB, or due to the fact that the technology is new, not everything is fully understood and understood. But by themselves, the revolution in science, technology, medicine, etc., is good.
          Quote: Korsar4
          Both you and I have a well-established picture of the world

          Your picture is wrong, and I corrected it a little. Well, if you will be able to realize this, or not, it depends on you.
          1. Korsar4
            Korsar4 3 March 2018 19: 41
            +1
            You see, you know what is right and what is not.

            I do not make a diagnosis - there is too little data. Only when the source data is known. And what I understand.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 09: 14
      +6
      Quote: Korsar4
      Why compare - what is more disgraceful - the Brest Peace and the Bialowieza Agreement?
      Two black dates.
      Got game in the revolution. We still disentangle.

      And both of these black dates were made by the reds and their direct heirs!
      1. zoolu350
        zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 37
        +9
        You are mistaken, the Belovezhskaya agreements were signed by whites, they are neovlasovtsy. For among the Bolsheviks there were also former officials of the Republic of Ingushetia and the Provisional Government, but we are not saying that the peace of Brest was signed by monarchists and Februaryists.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 3 March 2018 13: 45
          +3
          you have porridge in your head. Neo-Vlasovites - possible. Because Vlasov was a hero of the Civil War and a member of the CPSU. But the white whitewash did not sign.
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 54
            +7
            Why porridge? Bely - a collective image that includes Bulk-crunching monarchists, liberals, neovlasovs, slaves of the Russian oligarchy, adherents of the KhPP and other traitors and enemies of the common Russian people.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 3 March 2018 19: 49
              0
              Well, this is for you, perhaps, and illiterate comrades who see the world as "collective images" like "we and everyone else"
            2. wer2
              wer2 4 March 2018 02: 19
              +3
              Quote: zoolu350
              White - a collective image that includes

              The Bolsheviks called the Russians white.
              At first.
              Then the Bolsheviks had many different names for the Russians. This is also “socially alien”. And the "pests." Etc. etc.
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 3 March 2018 14: 08
          +3
          Quote: zoolu350
          For among the Bolsheviks there were also former officials Temporary government,
          What are you? belay lol
        3. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 15: 02
          +3
          Quote: zoolu350
          You are mistaken, Belovezhskaya agreements were signed by whites, they are neovlasovs

          Was White Signing? Are you dying? He was signed by the top of the Communist Party of the Union, former members of the CPSU until its ban in 1991. It was their party that raised and educated them in such a way that they betrayed the same party and country with one stroke of the pen.
          Neo-Vlasov is generally a specific game.
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 3 March 2018 15: 06
            +5
            Here you are one of this particular game.
            1. RUSS
              RUSS 3 March 2018 15: 48
              +2
              Quote: zoolu350
              Here you are one of this particular game.

              Peter you drive!
              1. zoolu350
                zoolu350 3 March 2018 19: 25
                +5
                Of course I'm driving. You pipe down the dustbin of history.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 4 March 2018 10: 30
                  0
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Of course I'm driving. You through the pipes to landfill history.


                  And when did you get out of there? belay lol laughing
    3. captain
      captain 3 March 2018 09: 52
      +5
      Quote: Korsar4
      Voloshin:

      "Russia is over ... At the end
      We blundered her, chatted ... "

      Why compare - what is more disgraceful - the Brest Peace and the Bialowieza Agreement?
      Two black dates.

      Got game in the revolution. We still disentangle.

      Not played out, and the followers of Lenin and Trotsky completed the order of the "progressive West." They divided Russia. And no matter how the Leninists would now try to make guardians of Lenin and Trotsky for the Russian peasant (at that time in Russia 82% of the population were peasants), it will not work. All these Leninists strove for a dictatorship, and not for democracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in Russia was about 10%. To the suppression of the majority by the minority.
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 3 March 2018 11: 24
        +6
        Come on, run away into the bushes. Your idols like Shafarevich and Solzhenitsyn welcomed the Bialowieza Agreement. It was a couple of years later that they repainted. And in general, where are the Communists, when the collapse of the USSR went under anti-Soviet and nationalist slogans.
      2. dSK
        dSK 3 March 2018 21: 33
        0
        Quote: captain
        dictatorship of the proletariat, which in Russia was about 10%
        The dictators were different, the workers were recorded in "hegemony" to set one part of the population against another. So a miserable handful of Zionist Freemasons rule "into the quiet" Christian Europe and America. In early Christianity, followers of Christ were destroyed "directly." When the Christians became half the planet, the strategy was changed, they began viciously pitting among themselves - setting fire to any extremists from the right and from the left. One of the latest popular modifications is the Islamic State.
        1. dSK
          dSK 3 March 2018 21: 55
          +1
          Quote: Olgovich
          An interesting person is the direct signatory of the Brest Peace from the Soviet side with the symbolic name ADOLF Avrram Ioffe. The son of a Jewish millionaire received the specialty of a doctor, but nowhere, not a day, he did not work for anyone in his 35 years. He spent half his conscious life abroad, traveled all over Europe, or rather, its PSYCHIATRIC clinics, where he was a profitable rich patient.

          Bright representative "worker - peasant" authorities.
  6. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 08: 21
    +11
    What would Russia expect in case of abandonment of this "obscene world"?
    1 The continuation of the war with Germany, despite the fact that for most of the Russian army, this war has already become ossified. The very support of the Bolsheviks by the people, it was precisely in many respects that was provided by their position on the war. The continuation of the war under such conditions would lead to a drop in confidence in the Bolsheviks on the part of the population, and to at least serious defeats.

    2 Foreign intervention, support of anti-Bolshevik forces, it would still be, since bourgeois of all stripes were very hellish about nationalization and the refusal of Soviet Russia to pay royal debts, and in general to the very idea of ​​the emergence of any socialist state anywhere. Moreover, these support and intervention would probably be more powerful than in real life.
    In aggregate, a drop in confidence in the new government, plus losses from the ongoing war with Germany, plus foreign intervention, could well lead to the fall of the Bolsheviks, and to the further collapse of Russia.

    That is, the refusal of an immediate peace with Germany, even if it’s "obscene," would lead to much more trouble for us.

    PS "Russia also paid 6 billion marks of reparations plus the payment of losses incurred by Germany during the Russian revolution - 500 million gold rubles."
    Paid, or - should have paid? As far as I know, the Bolsheviks ignored these payments.
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 3 March 2018 08: 54
      +7
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      What would Russia expect in case of abandonment of this "obscene world"?

      Continuation of the war, joining the victorious countries, receiving reparations from Germany. But ... power was more dear to the Bolsheviks than the efforts of millions of Russian people who selflessly fought the German bloc.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 09: 35
        +10
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        The continuation of the war

        ... and even more killed and crippled. And it is not known why, with very vague prospects for Russia.
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        joining the winning countries

        ... and the payment of royal debts to the victorious countries, and even more complete enslavement to Western "partners".
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        receiving reparations from Germany

        ... yeah ... even France and England, Germany paid reparations sooo! reluctantly, and by itself, completely and did not pay. But Raseyushka would, the Germans Kaneshn would pay everything in full laughing laughing laughing
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        the efforts of millions of Russian people who fought selflessly against the German bloc

        ... and no less selflessly escaping from a disgusting war.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 3 March 2018 10: 31
          +3
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          ... and even more killed and crippled. And it is not known why, with very vague prospects for Russia.


          Less than in a civil war

          Quote: rkkasa 81
          ... and the payment of royal debts to the victorious countries, and even more complete enslavement to Western "partners".


          Royal debts were small. reparations from Germany would have covered them. Plus would get Galicia and the Straits, i.e. what Stalin received or wanted to receive in 30 years.








          Quote: rkkasa 81
          ... yeah ... even France and England, Germany paid reparations sooo! reluctantly, and by itself, completely and did not pay. But Raseyushka would, the Germans Kaneshn would pay everything in full


          We paid in full. And recently quite.

          Quote: rkkasa 81
          ... and no less selflessly escaping from a disgusting war.


          When the Bolsheviks needed it, they successfully fought desertion in a war with their own people, or, for example, with the Poles. They simply did not want to fight the Germans for the sake of Russia.
          1. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 11: 48
            +4
            Quote: Gopnik
            Less than in a civil war

            ... and the intervention unleashed by the enemies of Russia - the bailers, and their Western masters.
            Quote: Gopnik
            Royal debts were small. reparations from Germany would have covered them. Plus would get Galicia and the Straits, i.e. what Stalin received or wanted to receive in 30 years

            Why do you think Germany would pay us reparations? And who would give us Galicia with the Straits?
            By the way, did Stalin really want to get the straits? For example, there is such an opinion (about the significance of the White Sea-Baltic Canal and the Northern Fleet):
            Stalin suddenly said:
            - What is the Black Sea? Pelvis. What is the Baltic Sea? The bottle, and the cork is not ours. Here is the sea, here is the window! There should be a Big Fleet here. From here we can take for life, if necessary, England and America. Nowhere else to go!

            Quote: Gopnik
            We paid in full. And recently quite

            They paid ... recently ... Xs that Germany paid there now, and then, she didn’t really pay anything either to France or England.
            Quote: Gopnik
            When the Bolsheviks needed

            I agree. Bolsheviks well done.
            But the matter is that at the beginning of the 18th, most of the soldiers did not want to fight categorically.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 3 March 2018 20: 33
              +2
              No, the Bolsheviks unleashed a civil war, seizing power and trying to impose it on the whole country.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Why do you think Germany would pay us reparations?


              Because she paid them to the rest.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              And who would give us Galicia with the Straits?


              In the sense of "who"? And to whom did they belong? Former Austria-Hungary and the former Ottoman Empire.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              By the way, did Stalin really want to get the straits?


              Exactly.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              and then, she didn’t really pay anything to either France or England.


              I paid.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              But the matter is that at the beginning of the 18th, most of the soldiers did not want to fight categorically.


              So they didn’t want to fight in 1919-20, except for several thousand volunteers. Who wants to die? But mobilized and forced. Someone was shot. There is a question of the will and desire of leadership.
          2. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 02: 01
            +4
            Quote: Gopnik
            Royal debts were small. reparations from Germany would have covered them.

            Here is what Artsibashev writes about external debt.

            From the book "The Coming Death of Russia."
            Part 1, C.-P., typ. Suvorin
            1908, - c. 156., - MMArtsibashev.

            Chapter II. "State ravage"

            As for some external debts, they are currently in arrears.
            rubbed up to 7.500.000.000 rub. In addition to all external debt, we get
            the alarming domestic debt figure of approximately 9.000.000.000
            rub. To this should add land debt more than 2 billion debts
            cities, joint-stock companies, societies, institutions, and finally all private
            nye capital pouring abroad.


            And by 1917, this figure had become cosmic.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 4 March 2018 11: 08
              0
              This is what Artsibashev writes some nonsense (who is this anyway?).
              "As of 01.01.1914, the external debt of the central government amounted to 4.5 billion rubles, the guaranteed liabilities of private companies were 1.8 billion rubles .. Total: 6.3 billion rubles ... The annual servicing of external debt was worth 5.5% of the income."
              "To all this I add that as much as 1913% of the budget was spent on paying off external debts in 5,7. What happened during the war? As in all countries, the state debt grew incredibly. On January 1, 1917 it amounted to 33,6 billion rubles How much of this money was external debt? The question is complex. The most probable figure is 7,22 billion. The highest that I have met is 13,3 billion, but this is at the end of 1917, so let's focus on the first one. What about the rest? people voluntarily lending to the government, the Communists “forgave” the debt to them, but closer to the topic, what was the external debt of other countries?
              England - £ 850 million or $ 4131 million
              France - $ 7000 million
              And Russia's foreign debt is 7220 million rubles, or 3715 million dollars "
              Those. Russia's foreign debt was comparable to that of other countries. Most of the public debt is loan commitments to its citizens. Which the Bolsheviks "threw." Actually, they then did this several times during the years of their reign.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 30
                +3
                Quote: Gopnik
                This Artsibashev writes some sort of nonsense (who is this anyway?)

                You don’t recognize your own, he is from yours, from monarchists, and perhaps even the Black Hundred, seems to be born in 1865
                Book: Mic.Mih. Artsybashev. The impending death of Russia. - St. Petersburg: type. A.S. Suvorin, 1908. - 155 p. Part 1.
                The book is printed with it, your source can’t compete with it.
                Quote: Gopnik
                England - £ 850 million or $ 4131 million
                France - $ 7000 million
                And Russia's foreign debt is 7220 million rubles, or 3715 million dollars

                Did England and France owe Russia?
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 5 March 2018 09: 35
                  0
                  Yes, even from the anarchists. Is he the Minister of Finance or who? Data on the public debt and external debt of the Republic of Ingushetia are known, for this it is not necessary to involve journalistic writings of 100 years ago.
                  Yes, at least to someone. The main thing is that the debt of RI was not gigantic, as they like to imagine, it was comparable and even less than the debt of other countries and its service was not overwhelming.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 20: 14
                    +2
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    Yes, even from the anarchists. Is he the Minister of Finance or who? Data on the public debt and external debt of the Republic of Ingushetia are known, for this it is not necessary to involve journalistic writings of 100 years ago.
                    The main thing is that the debt of RI was not gigantic, as they like to imagine, it was comparable and even less than the debt of other countries and its service was not overwhelming.

                    Blessed is he who believes, but there is no reason to distrust Artsibashev.
                    1. Gopnik
                      Gopnik 5 March 2018 20: 44
                      0
                      Well, believe Artsybashev, I will believe in normal, generally accepted sources.
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 10 March 2018 10: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: Gopnik
                        Well, believe Artsybashev, I will believe in normal, generally accepted sources.

                        Norm is a relative concept.
        2. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 3 March 2018 10: 50
          +3
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          and even more killed and maimed. And it is not known why, with very vague prospects for Russia.

          That is, the number of those killed and maimed as a result of the Civil War unleashed by the Bolsheviks, do you not take into account? And the prospects for Russia were clear — getting rid of the threat of German aggression and gaining access to the markets of southern Europe.
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          and the payment of royal debts to the victorious countries, and an even more complete enslavement to Western "partners".

          There were so many of these “debts” that against the background of the general budget of the Republic of Ingushetia, they were against the background of statistical error. Read the statistics for 1913-17 instead of a short course of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. England, by the way, has done more debts, and didn’t get anyone in bondage.
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          yeah ... even France and England, Germany paid reparations sooo! reluctantly, and by itself, completely and did not pay.

          And this is a purely theoretical question. England and France were then pressed on Germany, demanding payments, but the Russian factor “thanks” to the Bolsheviks was excluded.
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          and no less selflessly escaping from a disgusting war.

          Deserters were always and everywhere. But the number of deserters in the Second World War is not comparable with that in 1941 ...
      2. Rastas
        Rastas 3 March 2018 11: 29
        +7
        Italy was in the camp of the winners, and received crumbs, although they promised it almost the entire coast of the Adriatic. And after a couple of years, the Nazis came to power there. How could this be in a victorious country. Yes, because the main players — England and France, who eliminated Germany — received profit. And Russia was a country of peripheral capitalism, where 3/4 of the industry belonged to foreign companies. Consequently, it would not receive any benefit from the war.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 3 March 2018 11: 40
          +2
          Normally, she received, and this did not work, to be honest. England and France received not so much. The main profit, then, was received by Romania, Serbia and Poland in general.
          Russia would gain Galicia and control of the Straits.
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 47
            +6
            An intelligent man told you that the Duce did not come to power in Italy just like that, but because the main beneficiaries of the Entente (Small Britain, the United States School of Music and France) simply threw it in a big way during the division, and the Italian government could not do anything, because it was debt. Romania and Poland received bonuses as a sanitary cordon against Soviet Russia. And Entente appointed Serbia as a “watchman” in the Balkans.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 3 March 2018 19: 52
              +1
              it’s their own fault, who fought better. he got more. In our case, the Serbs. The Italians not only could not defeat Austria-Hungary, their French and British also had to save periodically.
              1. Nukesmoke
                Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 21: 10
                +1
                Normally the Italians fought. Austrians are warriors a little weaker than the Germans. In 1914, for example, they brought the battle of Galicia with a superior opponent in a draw.
          2. Rastas
            Rastas 3 March 2018 17: 50
            +4
            So Italy would have received the same thing, except Trieste, without even participating in the war. Auto-Hungary, under pressure from Germany, agreed to give them the Trentino region, inhabited by Italians, simply for neutrality, but England and France promised to consider joining Italy, Istria and Dalmatia, which were then part of Auto-Hungary in the event of entering the war on the side of the Entente. Serbia, which became the kingdom of the CXC after the war, was created by England and France to contain Germany in the Balkans in the future and was completely dependent on France.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 3 March 2018 19: 54
              +1
              Everything is logical and correct. But Russia would not have received Galicia and the Straits because someone would have given it, but simply would have taken it.
              1. Rastas
                Rastas 3 March 2018 21: 49
                +5
                This is your assumption, then write, in my opinion. Nowhere was this recorded, there was no approved plan for the capture of Constantinople, so all these are your dreams and fantasies.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 3 March 2018 23: 22
                  0
                  No, the Allies agreed with these Russian demands. And, most importantly, they did not have the opportunity to prevent this, but we had the opportunity to do it.
              2. Nukesmoke
                Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 21: 11
                +2
                Than? By 1917, Russia was hopelessly behind in industrial development.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 4 March 2018 22: 43
                  0
                  What with what? Who lagged behind?
                  1. Nukesmoke
                    Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 44
                    +2
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    What with what? Who lagged behind?

                    Production. Even from Italy.
                    1. Gopnik
                      Gopnik 5 March 2018 23: 34
                      0
                      Cool (although it’s not). Those. Italy would not allow to pick up Galicia and the Straits? Can you state your thoughts clearer, or is it excessive for you?
                      1. Nukesmoke
                        Nukesmoke 6 March 2018 23: 20
                        0
                        Italy could send several hundred bombers of its production, for example. The question is closed.
              3. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 48
                +1
                Quote: Gopnik
                Everything is logical and correct. But Russia would not have received Galicia and the Straits because someone would have given it, but simply would have taken it.

                "The hopes of young men feed" or "D ...... richer with thought"
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 5 March 2018 09: 37
                  0
                  What m. hope for events 100 years ago ?? This is just knowledge. And the Bolsheviks stole these opportunities.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 20: 16
                    +2
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    It's just knowledge

                    How can one know that which was not, and could not be?
      3. zoolu350
        zoolu350 3 March 2018 13: 41
        +8
        What reparations from Germany and who would receive them? Dozens of Bantustans that would have formed on the site of Russia if not for the Bolsheviks?
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 3 March 2018 13: 46
          +2
          Russia would receive. Without Poland and, possibly, without Finland.
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 57
            +4
            From Russia to 1918 there is practically nothing left. And here, according to you, someone comes in who builds everyone up. Attention question: Who do you think this is?
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 3 March 2018 19: 55
              0
              After the Bolsheviks seized power by 1918, de
              Quote: zoolu350
              From Russia to 1918 there is practically nothing left.
              and before that, everything is fine.
              1. zoolu350
                zoolu350 3 March 2018 20: 12
                +5
                Which ....... is normal? In February 1917 the war of "all against all" began and every gopher in the field imagined himself an agronomist. And the Provisional Government, instead of urgently solving urgent problems, dealt with any .....
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 3 March 2018 20: 34
                  +2
                  There was no
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  wars of all against all
                  . There was a country that began to fall apart after the Bolsheviks seized power.
                2. wer2
                  wer2 4 March 2018 02: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  In February 1917 the war of "all against all" began

                  Bosh what.
                  The war began after the Bolshevik coup of January 1918.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 09: 18
      +4
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      Foreign intervention

      Every “resident of the USSR” has heard about the “campaign of the 14 powers against the young Soviet Republic” from school.

      Most mechanically crammed to get their mark and run faster to play football. Some had the bad habit of thinking about what they read.

      What are the 14 powers? From books and films, everyone knew about the British, French, American, Japanese and Polish invaders. The most savvy heard something about the participation of the Greeks and Romanians. All the same, 14 does not work.

      How did it happen that in 1941-1942 we, having already fulfilled two and a half five-year plans, created a powerful army, having allies and suppressing internal enemies, could hardly stand against Germany alone, and in 1918-1920, barefoot and hungry, scattered almost not the whole world and your own whites in addition?

      The answer to the first question can be rummaged through in the literature.

      To get an impressive figure, communist historians included Canada, whose troops were in the ranks of the British contingent, Finland, whose participation in the intervention was reduced to the fact that it declared independence, thereby encroaching on the territory that the Bolsheviks considered their own, Czechoslovakia and Serbia whose citizens participated in the Civil War not on behalf of and on behalf of the governments of their countries, but privately, as well as Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

      The last in terms of the Brest Peace for several months were occupied by the vast expanses of the former Russian Empire, but they had nothing to do with the notorious Entente and not only did not seek to eliminate the Bolshevik regime, but not vice versa.

      The second answer sounds short and unexpected: because there was no serious external interference in the Civil War.

      By analogy with the "strange war" in Europe in 1939-1940, this can be called "strange intervention."

      It was politically beneficial for the Communists to present the matter in such a way that their opponents would not have lasted two weeks without the "interventionists". In exactly the same way, today the Kremlin is trying to assure that without "feeding from the hill" there would be no opposition in Russia.

      "The opponents of the Soviet regime had no political or economic support among the masses. And if it had not been for the support provided by the foreign imperialists, the Soviet state would have ended with the conspirators in a short time, suppressing their resistance in the very first months after October ", - wrote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

      The relevant chapters in the textbooks were entitled "Foreign Military Intervention and the Civil War of 1918-1920."

      "Intervention" was put in first place. The tragedy of the split people was presented as a struggle against external aggression, and whites - for foreign puppets.

      But once Vladimir Lenin let slip. "There is no doubt that the most insignificant exertion of the forces of these three powers [Britain, France and Japan] would be quite enough to defeat us in a few months, if not several weeks," he wrote.

      In fact, the interventionists acted as insignificant forces, almost did not participate in battles with the regular Red Army, only indicating their presence on the outskirts of the country and solving particular tasks, and the White was far from unambiguous.

      The only militarily significant acts of intervention were the actions of Japan in the Far East and the Soviet-Polish war of 1920. But the Japanese did not set the task of changing power in distant Moscow, but sought to tear off Primorye from Russia. Pilsudski was also not interested in domestic Russian affairs, but wanted to recreate the "Rzeczpospolita from Sea to Sea".
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 3 March 2018 09: 19
        +5
        Soviet films showed the Red Army men in bast shoes and sleek, well-fed, in uniforms with a white needle.

        The country was in ruin, armies were forming in a hurry. There were bast shoes, but the Reds got huge arsenals of the tsarist army, located mainly in the central part of the country. They had plenty of artillery, armored cars and airplanes.

        Difficulties with weapons and equipment experienced just white. In the elite Denikin division of General Markov, dirty and burned overcoats were considered a special officer chic.

        After the end of World War II, huge excess reserves of military equipment were at the disposal of Western governments, and there was also captured German weapons. However, White was helped sparingly and mainly for the money. Kolchak transferred 147 tons of gold in payment for deliveries.

        Sometimes they slipped worthless junk. Of the 20 tanks and 40 airplanes received by Yudenich from the British, only one tank and one aircraft were in good condition. Instead of Colt machine guns, Kolchak was sent outdated and heavy French Saint-Etienne machine guns.

        Supplies increased when White failed, and declined when they succeeded. According to historian Andrei Burovsky, the Allies were happy that the civil war in Russia would last as long as possible.

        According to some, the last act, according to some, was judged by the West to commit treason in the summer and autumn of 1920, leaving Wrangel without support.

        Many historians are sure that if Britain did for Wrangel what the United States did for Chiang Kai-shek in 1949, that is, it introduced a fleet into the Black Sea and took Perekop under the gunship’s gunship, the dream of “another Russia” on the “island Crimea "could materialize.
        1. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 08: 08
          +3
          Quote: RUSS
          However, White was helped sparingly and mainly for the money.

          Quote: RUSS
          Sometimes they slipped worthless junk. ... Instead of Colt's machine guns, Kolchak was sent outdated and heavy French machine guns of Saint-Etienne.


          In addition to the obsolete machine guns of Saint-Etienne, Western governments supplied Kolchak with something else.
          When approaching the Reds to Novonikolaevsk (modern Novosibirsk) they got trophies:
          “... in the rear - from Art. Kargat and until Novonikolaevsk there were dozens of trains, frozen without fuel ...
          Here are the platforms loaded with brand new English cannons, on which the factory lubrication is still frozen. Next - a carriage with shells, cartridges, rifles. Even further stolen Kolchakites from the Ural factories machines. And there they went wagons with cereals, sugar, flour, a finished dress, furs, felt boots, furniture and Kolchak money ... "
          And in occupied Novonikolaevsk “The trophies we captured are hard to count: more than 200 guns, including all Kolchak’s heavy artillery, 2 armored trains, 5 armored cars, about 1000 machine guns, more than 50000 rifles, 5 million rounds and 3 million rounds. They also seized all the commandant's artillery and engineering warehouses of the front, a huge number of different assets. To our great joy, we also got a significant amount of medicines ”(Memoirs of the revolutionary Novonikolaevsk (1904–1920) L. A. Krasnopolsky Liberation of Novonikolayevsk from the whites).
      2. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 12: 18
        +5
        What are these flood walls of yours?
        Was there an intervention? It was.
        Was there any help for the breeders? It was.
        Red got arsenals? But the center turned out to be cut off from Donetsk coal and food from the south of the country.
        Ah, V.I. Lenin allegedly said something there? But there is, for example, Stalin’s statement that without the support of the West, GV in Russia would be impossible.
        1. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 12: 32
          +3
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          What are these flood walls of yours?

          Flood is meaningless messages, or messages not related to the topic under discussion, what is my flood?
      3. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 08: 03
        +3
        Quote: RUSS
        they did not and did not seek to liquidate the Bolshevik regime, but not vice versa.
        however, moving deeper into Russia, they necessarily and everywhere overthrew the Bolshevik Soviets and put in power anyone but always opponents of the Bolsheviks.

        Quote: RUSS
        It was politically beneficial for the Communists to present the matter in such a way that their opponents would not have lasted two weeks without the "interventionists".

        by a strange coincidence, the White Guards claimed the same thing;
        “Without Germans, Don would not be free from the Bolsheviks — that was the general opinion of the front-line Cossacks ..” - PNKrasnov.
        “... However, nobody really hopes for Denikin, despite his seemingly colossal successes, for all of these Kharkovs, Eagles, Mamontov, etc. We are too sighted here, we know everything from the inside, not to see, that our "white generals", the old Russian "remnants" will not lead to anything but the deterioration of our situation, even if they are honestly and definitely supported by Europe ... ”- Z. N. Gippius.
    3. Olgovich
      Olgovich 3 March 2018 11: 33
      +2
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      S "Russia also paid 6 billion marks of reparations plus the payment of losses incurred by Germany during the Russian revolution - 500 million gold rubles"
      Paid, or - should have paid? As far as I know, the Bolsheviks ignored these payments.

      If you don’t even know ELEMENTARY, maybe you should learn and only then talk about "utility" betrayal?

      The Bolsheviks did not have time to send only the second, already prepared train with gold, they sent the first.

      For lost wars, the Bolsheviks paid with gold (and territories and people) back with Estonia and Poland
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 3 March 2018 16: 32
        +5
        Quote: Olgovich
        The Bolsheviks didn’t have time to send only the second, already prepared train with gold, they sent the first

        1 And the train, how much gold? One ton ... ten ... or a stopitsot of milleins of gold rubles ... stomilienne of billions of rubles ... It seems that gold is not measured by trains.
        2 Of course, there are documents at this level?
        Threat Of course I know that monarchies are stupid and bragging, but they do not get tired of "taking new heights" in their stupidity and bragging.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 3 March 2018 16: 53
          +2
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          1 And the train, how much gold? One ton ... ten ... or a stopitsot of milleins of gold rubles ... stomilienne of billions of rubles ... It seems that gold is not measured by trains.

          1. Is there an educational program for the ignorant with ZPS? belay "She herself!" (WITH) yes
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          2 Of course, there are documents at this level?

          2. See Clause 1 yes
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          Threat I certainly know that monarchies are creatures.

          Ignorance, like yours, have not yet met hi lol
          PS Ask your sobolsheviks, "let them train you yes
  7. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 3 March 2018 08: 52
    +6
    Enchanting juggling of facts for the sake of neo-Bolsheviks.
    Russia writhed in agony. The national suburbs began to boil. The policy of the National Separatists has become one of the reasons for the large-scale civil war.
    Actually, this happened after the Bolsheviks seized power. Before them, Russian troops pacified the Finnish Senate in June 1917, and the Ukrainian Rada declared their subordination to the Provisional Government.
    Industry and the transport system were falling apart, cities and the army were left without supplies. The village did not want to feed the city, not supplying them with industrial goods. Famine began.
    And again, the author describes the situation after the Bolshevik coup. Under the EaP, both the army and the cities were supplied.
    And the Provisional Government was so hated or completely indifferent to it that when the Bolsheviks went to take power, no one defended the temporary workers.
    Yes. So no one defended that the people in crowds went to support the Constituent Assembly (the main goal of the existence of the EaP).
    In a word, the article again - a lie to lies, fueled by a juggling of facts, with only one purpose - to hide behind these verbiage the catastrophic consequences of the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, who, for their power, traded Russia, hiding behind loud words about the "world revolution".
    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 03
      +3
      The fact is that Russia is from February 1917. It was at war "all against all", thanks to the activity of Nikolai No. 2, beloved by the Bulk Khrust crusts, the Bolsheviks had to bring everyone to a common denominator, that is, to heap heaps for this character ...
      1. Gopnik
        Gopnik 3 March 2018 20: 04
        +1
        Quote: zoolu350
        The fact is that Russia is from February 1917. was at war "all against all"


        it is not a fact, it is a fantasy. Since February 1917, Russia continued to be at war with the Fourth Union.
  8. timyr
    timyr 3 March 2018 08: 58
    +3
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    Enchanting juggling of facts for the sake of neo-Bolsheviks.
    Russia writhed in agony. The national suburbs began to boil. The policy of the National Separatists has become one of the reasons for the large-scale civil war.
    Actually, this happened after the Bolsheviks seized power. Before them, Russian troops pacified the Finnish Senate in June 1917, and the Ukrainian Rada declared their subordination to the Provisional Government.
    Industry and the transport system were falling apart, cities and the army were left without supplies. The village did not want to feed the city, not supplying them with industrial goods. Famine began.
    And again, the author describes the situation after the Bolshevik coup. Under the EaP, both the army and the cities were supplied.
    And the Provisional Government was so hated or completely indifferent to it that when the Bolsheviks went to take power, no one defended the temporary workers.
    Yes. So no one defended that the people in crowds went to support the Constituent Assembly (the main goal of the existence of the EaP).
    In a word, the article again - a lie to lies, fueled by a juggling of facts, with only one purpose - to hide behind these verbiage the catastrophic consequences of the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, who, for their power, traded Russia, hiding behind loud words about the "world revolution".
    interestingly the Bolsheviks traded in Russia, as a result of their activities, Russia became a superpower
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 09: 20
      +4
      Quote: timyr
      interestingly the Bolsheviks traded in Russia, as a result of their activities, Russia became a superpower

      A superpower for a short time, and then they themselves destroyed the power.

      Putin about the collapse of the USSR
      “You know how I feel about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was not at all necessary to do this. It was possible to carry out transformations, including a democratic one, without it. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that the head of our former Fatherland, the USSR, was "The Communist Party. Not some other that promoted the ideas of nationalism, or other destructive ideas that are destructive to any state."
      1. zoolu350
        zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 05
        +6
        And in the CPSU was a KGB lieutenant colonel V.V. and it is not surprising that the country collapsed under such "defenders."
    2. K.A.S.
      K.A.S. 3 March 2018 10: 07
      +5
      start selling your values ​​and in a short time you will become a wealthy person. and then poverty, and what do you call a superpower-buying grain, technology, and more? low standard of living
      1. zoolu350
        zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 35
        +3
        Was it a low standard of living in the USSR? Well, if you are a well-fed servant of the oligarchy of the Russian Federation, then most likely yes for you personally.
        1. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 15: 16
          +2
          Quote: zoolu350
          Was it a low standard of living in the USSR?




          The USSR has never had a high standard of living. Levels ranged from poverty to poverty. During times of poverty, there was nothing at all in the shops, and jokes went: "In Pravda, a typo" God sent a piece of cheese to Voronezh ... "To which the secretary of the Voronezh regional committee sent a refutation that he didn’t." In Moscow it was possible to get something, the outskirts of the city: Ryazan, Yaroslavl, Tula were supplied with "sausage" electric trains. In distant cities it was more difficult. Poverty was combined with the lack of rights of Soviet people, theft in trade and a sharp distinction between "population" and nomenclature. Now they tell tales about the justice of the Soviet system. Storytellers are old people who were once young, and then everything was fine. Only the people's faith in a bright future was good, the belief that everything that was happening around was temporary distortions.
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 3 March 2018 18: 29
            +7
            How did you personally determine that the standard of living was on the verge of poverty? Consumption of the same meat and dairy products was approximately at the level with Western European countries, the level of education, science, contribution to world GDP and scientific achievements was at a high level, not inferior to the West. If we talk about salaries, then you fall into a typical mistake when comparing the socialist model from the capitalist point of view. When A. Zinoviev was told in exile that you were a professor in the USSR at the level of an American sergeant, he replied that, excuse me, utility bills are a penny, unlike yours, there are no taxes, education and medicine are free, there are no loans it is necessary, the possibility of cultural and leisure activities is incomparably higher than yours, so my standard of living was not only higher than the American sergeant, but was at the level of the American general. This Zinoviev said in an interview with A. Borovik in '93, the record is on the Internet.
          2. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 08: 21
            +3
            Quote: RUSS
            Levels ranged from poverty to poverty. In times of poverty, there was nothing at all in the stores,

            What a conversation! Nobody knew about the standard of living when it was considered "it’s not a problem, since there is quinoa," which was abundantly added to the so-called "bread" in the USSR, in which white bread was bought for pig feed.

            They also call such signs of "poverty": "It was hard to buy jeans!". "There was no place to buy the Beatles or E. Presley!" Etc. etc. In general, how they survived is not clear.
          3. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 4 March 2018 08: 24
            +3
            Quote: RUSS
            Now they are telling tales about the justice of the Soviet system. Narrators are old people who were once young, and then everything was fine

            Talk about the justice of the Soviet system began in the early 1990s, when the current old people were not yet old. And the youth of those years is now under 50, but there is no way to hear stories that “they were young in the 90s, and then everything was fine”.
            1. wer2
              wer2 8 March 2018 22: 22
              +1
              Quote: Sahar Medovich
              Talk about the justice of the Soviet system began in the early 1990s

              This is a Soviet mentality.
              May I be a beggar, but let all be poor.
              An analogue of the installation is to let one eye go out to me, if only for a neighbor.
              Soviet algorithm.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 9 March 2018 06: 14
                0
                Rather, it’s a Russian mentality, the direct continuation of which was Soviet. But in this case, not mentality, but in comparison. If the post-Soviet life were better than the Soviet one, there would be no such nostalgia.
                1. wer2
                  wer2 9 March 2018 07: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  Rather, it’s a Russian mentality, the direct continuation of which was Soviet.

                  There could be no Russian mentality since Russians themselves were invented only by the Bolsheviks.
                  Then it’s great Russian, but I do not agree with this. This is it, scoop. His installation of "justice." Those. the same poverty for all.
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  If the post-Soviet life were better than the Soviet one, there would be no such nostalgia.

                  Is she worse? People in Russia have never lived as good as they are now. It’s just that the eternal losers have eaten a little. And slightly forgotten social. actuality.
                  And black envy, she gnaws and gnaws. That is because Vasya and I yesterday lived opposite to each other in Khrushchev. And now Vasya is on Merce, and I'm on the bus. Bad times. I want a scoop. And Vasya, the scoundrel, there too. Together we will ride the bus.
                  Here you have all the reasons for "nostalgia for the USSR." This is the "suffering of the losers," nothing more.
                  1. Sugar Honeyovich
                    Sugar Honeyovich 9 March 2018 08: 40
                    0
                    Quote: wer2
                    Russians were invented only by the Bolsheviks.

                    Of course. In general, the history of Russia began in 1917.

                    Quote: wer2
                    This is it, scoop. His installation of "justice." Those. the same poverty for all.

                    Without the Great Russians (as well as little and white), a scoop could not have appeared.

                    Quote: wer2
                    Quote: Sahar Medovich
                    Rather, it’s a Russian mentality, the direct continuation of which was Soviet.

                    There could be no Russian mentality since Russians themselves were invented only by the Bolsheviks.
                    Then it’s great Russian, but I do not agree with this. This is it, scoop. His installation of "justice." Those. the same poverty for all.
                    Quote: Sahar Medovich
                    If the post-Soviet life were better than the Soviet one, there would be no such nostalgia.

                    Is she worse? People in Russia have never lived as good as they are now. This is the "suffering of the losers," nothing more.


                    The people themselves seem to have a different opinion. Maybe this is the "suffering of the losers", nothing more, but this is a significant fact with which "non-losers" have to be reckoned with.
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 9 March 2018 09: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Of course. In general, the history of Russia began in 1917.

                      You do not know the origin of the term "Russian". It really was invented by the Bolsheviks. And under the autocracy, the term "Great Russian" was in use.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Without the Great Russians (as well as little and white), a scoop could not have appeared.

                      Without the Bolsheviks, “internationalists,” a scoop could not have appeared. The nationalist-oriented strata of society had nothing to do with the scoop and could not. For fundamental reasons.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      The people themselves seem to have a different opinion.

                      How do you know it? Do you draw information on communication sites? Sites of this kind, this is just a glade of losers. It is in this virtual world that they graze fat herds. But real life, it is different. And real communication, too.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      this is a significant fact with which "non-losers" have to be reckoned with.

                      The fact is that power (any) cannot ensure the rapid development of consciousness. This is a long and difficult process. But what it can do is dramatically degrade consciousness. How it was done in the period from 1927 to 1940
                      Therefore, it all depends on the authorities. She wants, and shoves such sufferers here on socialism (or something else) closer to the anus. By giving way to the development of society.
                      And he wants, and tomorrow everyone will suffer about socialism (or something else). Many are in camps in camps. At hard labor. True, it will actually be a disaster. But delayed in time for the country as a whole. And for the authorities in real time from this solid nishtyaki. Here's how for the Bolshevik Communists in the USSR.
                      To restrain power in the world and there are democratic institutions. In order not to be weird and not burrowing. But somewhere they are not. And somewhere they do not work.
                      And certainly what will not happen under any circumstances is that the power that exists without checks and balances will reckon with someone. Do not wait.
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 9 March 2018 10: 35
                        0
                        Quote: wer2
                        "Russian". It really was invented by the Bolsheviks. And under the autocracy, the term "Great Russian" was in use


                        If under the autocracy we had Bolsheviks in power, then of course. "Great Russia" - at that time the concept of geographical, not national. Type "Siberian". And under the autocracy, the great, little and white Russians were all called Russians.

                        Quote: wer2
                        Rationalist-oriented strata of society had no relation to the scoop and could not have


                        Correctly. PRONATIONAL layers. What was the minuscule. And the vast majority of society, especially the peasants, were prosocially inclined. They are the root cause, and the Bolsheviks-internationalists are the consequence.

                        Quote: wer2
                        [

                        How do you know it? Do you draw information on communication sites?


                        I draw information from communication in real life with real people, the benefit of the nature of the work has a lot to visit and a lot to communicate with. I rarely visit communication sites.

                        From 1927 to 1940 (as well as before and after) there was a development, the progress of consciousness. And the degradation - from the late 1980s to the present day. But since far from everything depends on the authorities, they are forced to reckon with the “lower classes,” or even adapt to them. This is exactly what happens to us with the "Soviet" idea.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Sugar Honeyovich
                    Sugar Honeyovich 9 March 2018 12: 29
                    0
                    You think up, and I state well-known facts.

                    Quote: wer2
                    feudal society is more advanced than slave society.

                    Yes. And our society was more advanced in the USSR.

                    Quote: wer2
                    In bourgeois societies, yes. But in the bourgeois, no.


                    Yes, we have.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 9 March 2018 20: 14
                    0
                    Quote: wer2
                    The bourgeois revolution in Russia in March-February 1917 was premature. Prerequisites have not yet ripened for her.

                    History develops according to its own laws. therefore, the revolution does not ask anyone: is it premature or not, it is accomplished when all conditions have ripened to this.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 9 March 2018 20: 10
                +1
                Quote: wer2
                then the Soviet mentality.
                May I be a beggar, but let all be poor.
                An analogue of the installation is to let one eye go out to me, if only for a neighbor.
                Soviet algorithm.

                And what is your mentality called?
                "To seize the whole nation-wide property and offer the deceived people to live together"
                1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Gopnik
          Gopnik 3 March 2018 20: 05
          +2
          Well, is the 26th place in the world in terms of living low or high?
    3. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 3 March 2018 10: 56
      +3
      Militarily, yes. In the economic ... don’t you recall how many years you had to wait in the USSR for your turn for an apartment or a car?
    4. Olgovich
      Olgovich 3 March 2018 11: 20
      +2
      Quote: timyr
      interestingly the Bolsheviks traded in Russia, as a result of their activities, Russia became a superpower

      And where is she ?!
      1. zoolu350
        zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 08
        +4
        In the hearts and thoughts of each patriot of the USSR and in the FUTURE OF MANKIND, unlike you are the bulkhrusts who will soon die out like dinosaurs.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 3 March 2018 14: 32
          +2
          Quote: zoolu350
          In the hearts and thoughts of everyone

          Who cares what is happening in your head? lol
          Quote: zoolu350
          , unlike you, bullcrusts that will soon die out like dinosaurs.

          the mossy sandcrusts, frozen in the 1950s, are dying out lol
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 15: 18
          +2
          Quote: zoolu350
          In the hearts and thoughts of each patriot of the USSR and in the FUTURE OF MANKIND, unlike you are the bulkhrusts who will soon die out like dinosaurs.

          Your Reds have a strongly pronounced syndrome of delayed happiness!
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 3 March 2018 19: 15
            +4
            And you do not have bulkohrust and happiness at all, everything is gray and dull.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 4 March 2018 13: 24
              +1
              Quote: zoolu350
              And you do not have bulkhrusts and happiness AT ALL,

              Is your happiness again only in the heart?
              Or lies in the mausoleum? lol
              1. zoolu350
                zoolu350 5 March 2018 05: 40
                +1
                Little happiness, kicking you - bunkhrust. In the Mausoleum are the remains of a Great Man.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 5 March 2018 09: 38
                  +1
                  Great syphilitic.
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 5 March 2018 10: 21
                    0
                    Your idols from the royal family were also not deprived of various diseases, but this does not apply to case number.
                2. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 5 March 2018 11: 27
                  0
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Little happiness, kicking you - bunkhrust.

                  Until now, you .... have begotten yourself lol
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  In the Mausoleum are the remains of a Great Man.

                  There is no man there. What's wrong with you?
                  So that the infection did not spread, it was isolated with a sealed, durable structure. yes
        3. RUSS
          RUSS 3 March 2018 17: 03
          +3
          Quote: zoolu350
          In the hearts and thoughts of each patriot of the USSR and in the FUTURE OF MANKIND, unlike you are the bulkhrusts who will soon die out like dinosaurs.

          Corrupted the Soviet government of the Russian people, freeloaders made of him.
          1. K.A.S.
            K.A.S. 3 March 2018 17: 37
            +3
            Quote: RUSS
            Corrupted the Soviet government of the Russian people, freeloaders made of him.
            to confirm your thesis it is enough to read the comments, the meaning of which is that someone has to do something. open production for them. to employ 20 million beggars, reduce their rent. buy them a tire, make cheap food, someone must make rockets, underpants, electronics, etc. for them. will set as an example China. but none of them will do anything. as the Chinese do. but they will only whine for any reason
          2. Rastas
            Rastas 3 March 2018 18: 06
            +6
            The Soviet government did not make anyone a freeloader. No need to repeat the ravings of your idol-liberals, such as Chubais and Gaidar - this is their rhetoric. In the Union, for a good life, you had to work and work, then you will achieve something. Today it’s people who are free to play, playing on sweepstakes or exchanges, organizing one-day firms, entering into financial pyramids. This is the thirst for a freebie. But if for you a freebie is a free education and medicine, then you are a consistent liberal.
            1. wer2
              wer2 3 March 2018 18: 35
              +3
              Quote: Rastas
              The Soviet government did not make anyone a freeloader.

              The stump is clear. But I did the opposite.
              But it became even worse when the "old Bolsheviks" (advisers) were defeated by the "new Bolsheviks" (socialists).
              Quote: Rastas
              In the Union, for a good life, you had to work and work, then you will achieve something.

              Do not tell tales. For a good life in the USSR it was necessary to criminalize to one degree or another. But just work was of little use. You won’t earn much, they won’t let you become a “grabber”.
              Quote: Rastas
              This is the thirst for a freebie.

              By the way, she overwhelms as a cut of those same fellow citizens. Which are accustomed to a freebie back in the days of the LATE USSR. Those. to a freebie LATE communists. There was no freebie under the Bolsheviks at all. It is understandable, under the Communists, the price of oil has reached sky-high heights. After which they clearly decided that they were doing everything right.
              Sobering came when oil prices collapsed. And the USSR collapsed with them.
              Quote: Rastas
              But if for you a freebie is a free education and medicine, then you are a consistent liberal.

              Or a Bolshevik-Stalinist (socialist). I recall, under socialism, education for more than 7 classes was paid (except for the military). As well as medical care, except for basic. Type, anoint with green.
          3. wer2
            wer2 3 March 2018 18: 23
            +2
            Quote: RUSS
            Corrupted the Soviet government of the Russian people, freeloaders made of him.

            The Soviet government would not have time, too little time was allotted to it.
            As for socialism, after the Soviet regime there was no one to particularly corrupt. He simply almost completely finished off the few Russians whom the Soviet government had not managed to destroy or extradite abroad during the Civil War.
            All of the above applies not only to Russians. The most advanced, nationally oriented stratum of the society of the former Russian Empire was either destroyed or squeezed abroad by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks did not need him, and it is understandable why.
            1. Rastas
              Rastas 3 March 2018 20: 59
              +4
              An advanced and nationally oriented layer - who is this? Maybe Bunin and his entourage, who in Cursed Days calls on the Germans for help? Maybe these are the representatives of emigration, who were dogged with each other and then the part went after Hitler? Typical Goebbels propaganda and social racism. That is, after the 17th, there was only one stupid shovel left in Russia, but decent people all left. Well, as I understand it, Korolev, Cosmodemyanskaya, Gastello. Gagarin, Tupolev, Sukhoi, Papanov, Kharlamov, Shukshin is just that.
              1. wer2
                wer2 4 March 2018 02: 07
                +2
                Quote: Rastas
                An advanced and nationally oriented layer - who is this?

                You know it yourself.
                Quote: Rastas
                That is, after the 17th, there was only one stupid shovel left in Russia, but decent people all left.

                Not necessary. They were also exterminated by the Bolsheviks. Those who stayed and did not leave. Almost all.
                Well, and what remains in the dry residue, guess for yourself.
                Quote: Rastas
                Well, as I understand it, Korolev, Cosmodemyanskaya, Gastello. Gagarin, Tupolev, Sukhoi, Papanov, Kharlamov, Shukshin is just that.

                I don’t know, guess for yourself.
  9. RUSS
    RUSS 3 March 2018 09: 32
    +5
    All the articles and comments of the cheers-patriots and other krasnostanishniks boil down to what the Soviet government would not do everything right and right: "Brest Peace" is a blessing and salvation, repression and deportation are also right decisions and actions, etc. .... Wherever you look everywhere they were doing everything right, and what then did the country disappear? And the very idea of ​​socialism was blown away; there is not a single social country in the world apart from the totalitarian DPRK.
    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 09
      +1
      Vietnam, Cuba and most importantly the PRC. So socialism is not blown away, but confidently moving to victory.
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 3 March 2018 15: 22
        +2
        Quote: zoolu350
        Vietnam, Cuba and most importantly the PRC. So socialism is not blown away, but confidently moving to victory.

        Beggars Cuba and DPRK laughing , but about China you don’t need la-la, China is a real classic capitalist country.
        By the way, Vietnam, too, just recommend going there and seeing everything with your own eyes!
        And Cuba is releasing more and more reins, I’m sure everything will fall into place soon and we will fly not to the Dominican Republic where tourism has developed thanks to the bourgeoisie, but to Cuba where we expect the tourism industry to recover, since Cuba is now bored and discouraged by tourists, and even before Fidel Cuba was a Caribbean paradise for tourists.
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 3 March 2018 18: 19
          +5
          Yes, Cuba under Batista was a huge raspberry, where mafiosi let down their babos. Somehow, the Cubans do not want to return to the bright past. In addition, the life of a Cuban is much better than a simple Dominican. Of course, you tourist should not give a damn about how the country lives, if only the hotel was cool and the Dominican servant licked the fifth point for you.
        2. zoolu350
          zoolu350 3 March 2018 19: 19
          +3
          China, where the CCP is in power is a real capitalist country. Pearl bun! I think the Soviet Union during the NEP for you "a real capitalist country."
          1. wer2
            wer2 4 March 2018 02: 29
            +1
            Quote: zoolu350
            China, where the CCP is in power is a real capitalist country.

            You tell the psychiatrist.
            By the way, China dreamed of a Cuban businessman. After she refused the rotation of the supreme feudal lord. In my opinion, he is called the Chairman. Now it is only a matter of time.
            It could not be otherwise in the feudal system of management. Follow the news.
            Quote: zoolu350
            I think the Soviet Union during the NEP for you "a real capitalist country."

            In fact, the NEP is pure feudalism.
          2. RUSS
            RUSS 4 March 2018 08: 16
            +1
            Quote: zoolu350
            China, where the CCP is in power is a real capitalist country.

            The Chinese system can be called so - State-party capitalism, with a market-socialist sign, capitalism under the leadership of the Communist Party is the dream of the Russian Communists.
            Quote: zoolu350
            I think the Soviet Union during the NEP for you "a real capitalist country."

            Essentially very close, but unfortunately not for long ..
            1. wer2
              wer2 4 March 2018 12: 15
              0
              Quote: RUSS
              The Chinese system can be called so - State-party capitalism, with a market-socialist sign, capitalism under the leadership of the Communist Party is the dream of the Russian Communists.

              In China, a theocratic, on a pseudo-religious basis (actually a sectarian type), feudal society. In fact, China went further than the USSR, which lived in a theocratic, on a pseudo-religious basis (actually a sectarian type), of a slaveholding society. Chinese society is one step higher. But all on the same curve and rotten stairs.
              And they have a common problem, with the development of any underdeveloped (not bourgeois) society, if they are not strictly controlled, a revolution will occur. And society will move on to its next phase of development. From slave to feudal. Or from feudal to bourgeois. And from a theocratic society to secular.
              In China, they understand this very well, but apparently the decision on the further development of China in the CPC was made only now. Judging by the latest news from there, it will be tough to regulate life in China. By freezing the development of society at this stage.
              What does this mean?
              This means that the "frozen" China will further and further lag behind in its development. And after some time everyone will forget about the “Chinese miracle”.
              An alternative to the scenario described above is the bourgeois revolution in China, the overthrow of the CCP and the collapse of China into several parts.
              The CCP understands this very well. And there, apparently, they chose the first scenario.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 57
                0
                Quote: wer2
                The CCP understands this very well. And there, apparently, they chose the first scenario.

                China is now in a transition period from capitalism to socialism. In the USSR, this period was from 1917 to 1937.
                1. wer2
                  wer2 5 March 2018 00: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  China is now in a transition period from capitalism to socialism. In the USSR, this period was from 1917 to 1937.

                  Try drinking a greenback course. Orally. Maybe this will help.

                  I chewed everything in the commentary especially for the poorly understood. But this one didn’t understand anything. He is not even weak-poking.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 00: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: wer2
                    Try drinking a greenback course. Orally. Maybe this will help.
                    I chewed everything in the commentary especially for the poorly understood. But this one didn’t understand anything. He is not even weak-poking.

                    Leave your chewing gum for your classmates, they eat for a sweet soul. And for me and my comrades, before you write something. at least flip through a textbook on istmatism, preferably a Stalinist publication.
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 5 March 2018 00: 42
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      And for me and my comrades

                      I do not write for comrades. They do not interest me.
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      at least flip through a textbook on istmatism, preferably a Stalinist publication.

                      Not ready to bother with all sorts of dumb stuff. That's just it for comrades, and that’s it.
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 00: 45
                        +2
                        Quote: wer2
                        Not ready to bother with all sorts of dumb stuff. That's just it for comrades, and that’s it.

                        A worthy answer to the d-league.
            2. wer2
              wer2 4 March 2018 13: 05
              0
              Quote: RUSS
              Essentially very close, but unfortunately not for long ..

              NEP, these are the rudiments of a secular feudal society. A more advanced model compared to the theocratic feudal society of the Romanovs. Or theocratic feudal society of modern China.
              Unfortunately, by December 1927, apologists of such a model (“advisers”, part of the “old Bolsheviks”) of the country's development lost the internal bickering to socialists (Bolshevik-Stalinists). After that, a two-stage creeping reaction coup took place in the country.
              At first, secular society was replaced by theocratic, on a pseudo-religious (sectarian type) basis. And then the feudal mode of production (feudal society) was degraded to the level of slaveholding. As a result, by the end of the 30s of the last century, the USSR finally established the theocratic, on a pseudo-religious (sectarian) basis, a slave-owning society. Better known as "socialism."
              This society in the USSR in various modifications lasted until December 1991. And it collapsed because in the 20th century a society with a slave-owning mode of production could exist only under the most severe pressure from the authorities. And in the conditions of a "baseboard" standard of living. This was not the case in the late USSR — raising the standard of living of the population, the CPSU (later) dug its own grave with its own hands. Therefore, in the USSR this society lasted only 64 years.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 56
                0
                Quote: wer2
                NEP, these are the rudiments of a secular feudal society. A more advanced model compared to the theocratic feudal society of the Romanovs. Or theocratic feudal society of modern China.

                You are our literacy, it is felt that you were in a university or did not study, or you were a dummy.
                1. wer2
                  wer2 5 March 2018 00: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  You are our literate

                  Yes, I’m literate. Unlike you.
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  it is felt that you were either not studying at the university, or you were a loser.

                  Do not make up. Judging by your comments, you don’t have a special apparatus even for elementary analysis.
                  Maybe it wasn’t from the very beginning. Or maybe later he died. As unnecessary.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 00: 36
                    0
                    Quote: wer2
                    Yes, I’m literate. Unlike you.

                    Yes, you have more than enough conceit. Be more modest, then at least someone will listen to you. Modesty is certainly not a sign of the mind, but a sign of the absence of stupidity.
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 5 March 2018 00: 45
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Yes, you have more than enough conceit.

                      This is just an objective assessment.
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Be more modest

                      What for? Modesty is not something that should be brought up in oneself.
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      When at least someone can listen to you.

                      Many listen to me. Yes, and for my money.
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Modesty is certainly not a sign of the mind, but a sign of the absence of stupidity.

                      Modesty is just a sign of stupidity. Which they are trying to hide.
                      Modest people do not need modesty. They have nothing to hide.
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 00: 50
                        +1
                        Go far if the police (now the police) do not stop.
  10. K.A.S.
    K.A.S. 3 March 2018 10: 05
    +5
    as I understand it. that the author will not mind if some modern Bolshevik signs an agreement with the United States under which the country will abandon its territory, citing the fact that the government and the country are spread out and no one wants to fight. and in the old days there are many poor and everyone wants change and hates power!
    I explain to fans of the Brest Peace and the Bolsheviks, how would you feel about Stalin if he, for example, two months before the end of the war signed a peace with Hitler?
    Russia must recognize the communist government as criminal and genocidal of the Russian people and Russia!
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 10: 21
      +5
      Quote: K.A.S.
      Russia must recognize the communist government as criminal and genocidal of the Russian people and Russia!

      good
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 3 March 2018 11: 22
      +2
      Quote: K.A.S.
      I explain to fans of the Brest Peace and the Bolsheviks, how would you feel about Stalin if he, for example, two months before the end of the war signed a peace with Hitler?
      Russia must recognize the communist government as criminal and genocidal of the Russian people and Russia!

      It is impossible to disagree with you! hi
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 3 March 2018 11: 34
      +6
      So the Americans sold the territory of Alaska and Fort Ross not the Bolsheviks, but your revered emperor of all-Russian. And without war, and for nothing. You do not write down the emperor of the All-Russian as traitors?
    4. zoolu350
      zoolu350 3 March 2018 14: 16
      +5
      The oligarch of the Russian Federation has already abandoned part of the Bering Sea in favor of the secondary school without any war. And why did Stalin, whose people work like a clockwork and all on the rise, who had already crushed half of Europe for themselves and whose troops, being in the MAXIMUM CAPACITY IN HISTORY OF HUMANITY, were preparing to storm the European Union capital No. 1, to sign the world?
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 4 March 2018 08: 20
        +3
        Quote: zoolu350
        The oligarch of the Russian Federation and so abandoned part of the Bering Sea

        No need to fantasize and substitute historical facts, say “thank you” to your USSR Foreign Minister Shevardnadze who presented part of the Barents Sea of ​​the USA in 1990!
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 5 March 2018 10: 24
          +1
          The power of the oligarchy of the Russian Federation (neovlasovtsev) begins with Mechny, so by.
  11. Gopnik
    Gopnik 3 March 2018 10: 32
    +4
    The most shameful world in the history of Russia. Which will forever remain a black spot on the Bolsheviks, no matter how hard they try to wash it.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 3 March 2018 11: 26
      +4
      Quote: Gopnik
      The most shameful world in the history of Russia. Which will forever remain a black spot on the Bolsheviks, no matter how hard they try to wash it.

      The only consolation is that it was not Russia that signed it, but a handful of usurpers of power not recognized by anyone, but the so-called NOBODY recognized the "treaty" (except, of course, the invaders)
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 3 March 2018 11: 35
      +3
      "Mogilev. Anna Lvovna Skalon. Farewell, dear, beloved Anyuta, do not judge me, I'm sorry, I can’t live anymore, I bless you and Nadyusha. Yours to Volodya’s grave."

      Such a note was found on a table in a room where at three o'clock in the afternoon on November 29 (December 12, according to the new style) of 1917, Major General of the Russian Army Vladimir Skalon shot himself dead. The new Bolshevik government of Russia appointed him, an experienced and respected staff officer, as a military consultant to the delegation that arrived in Brest-Litovsk to prepare for peace talks with Germany and its allies. It was clear that the conditions of a possible peace would be extremely difficult for Russia, whose army had collapsed, decomposed by revolutionary agitation. General Skalon, a monarchist by conviction, decided not to wait for what he considered unbearable shame for his country and army. Premonitions did not deceive the unfortunate general: the Brest Peace, after many upheavals signed exactly one hundred years ago - March 3, 1918, is rightfully considered the most difficult and humiliating peace agreement in Russian history.
  12. Antares
    Antares 3 March 2018 11: 45
    +3
    This allowed on an “legitimate” basis to launch an invasion of Ukraine, where Soviet troops were already able to occupy Kiev and most of Little Russia, freeing her from ukronatsistov.

    I wonder how ... the author’s time machine?
  13. wer2
    wer2 3 March 2018 12: 26
    +4
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Russia was officially defeated and left the world war.

    Not Russia, but the RSFSR. These are different things.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    After February, Russia lost the opportunity to wage war with the Central Powers.

    Why does the author "invent facts"?
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    As the military operations of the summer of 1917 showed, the Russian army was disorganized, decomposed, and could not conduct offensive operations.

    The author can give examples of offensive operations until 1917?
    And then, fables about the decomposition of the army in 1917, it is nothing more than fables of the Bolsheviks. Well, the army then held the front. It quite naturally collapsed only after the Bolshevik coup, in 1918.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Further degradation of Russia led to the fact that the army lost the opportunity to even defend itself.

    Degradation of the RSFSR (Soviet Russia).
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    The policy of the Provisional Government and Westernists-Februaryists led to the fact that Russian statehood was destroyed.

    That's what impudent nonsense.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    The Time of Troubles began, caused by the fundamental contradictions that have accumulated over the centuries in Russia by the Romanovs.

    In fact, the turmoil was caused by the Bolshevik coup. And after the bourgeois revolution in Russia in February-March 1917, there was no turmoil in Russia. Until October 1917 - January 1918
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    It was a disaster. Russia writhed in agony. The national suburbs began to boil. The policy of the National Separatists has become one of the reasons for the large-scale civil war.

    Yes, since January 1918, agony has really begun. As a consequence of the Bolshevik coup.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Before October, peasant Russia exploded - the Peasant War began.

    There was no peasant war in the 20th century. There were her attempts during and after the Civil War, but they were ruthlessly suppressed by the Bolsheviks. At the cost of a lot of blood. Peasants.
    The Bolsheviks generally did not say the local population to save. All the way. The communists were noticeably better in this regard. More humane.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    The peasants divided the land of the landowners, burned estates, taking out the hatred that had accumulated over an entire era for social injustice.

    Divided and burned. But after January 1918, moreover, this is not called a "peasant war."
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    The criminal revolution has begun - the eternal companion of troubles. Gangs were formed that terrorized entire settlements and localities. Cossacks remembered their liberties. Industry and the transport system were falling apart, cities and the army were left without supplies. The village did not want to feed the city, not supplying them with industrial goods. Famine began.

    All this was. But all this began after the Bolshevik coup of October 1917 - January 1918.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Russia could not fight.

    Yes? But how did she fight until January 1918? How did the Constituent Assembly elections in 1917 go?
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    supported the February-March coup

    In February-March 1917, a bourgeois revolution took place in Russia. The nationally-patriotic-oriented part of Russian society has finally thrown off the supreme feudal lords, the Germans of the Romanovs. But less than a year later, a reactionary Bolshevik revolution took place. And this revolution was suppressed for several years by the Bolshevik reactionaries.
    So the RSFSR, and later the USSR, in the early 20s returned to feudalism. On a different basis, but nonetheless, in feudalism. Not all revolutions end successfully.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Then part of the generals opposed the Provisional Government to restore order, but the rebellion failed.

    Not order, but autocracy. Those. feudal society based on the rule of the Romanov Germans. Or some other supreme feudal lords.
    The author seemed to have flown from Mars. Such a blizzard sweeps, ears wither.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Another part of the generals took the path of supporting the formation of various national “armies”.

    How could it be otherwise? True freedom, equality and fraternity do not exist differently.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    The Provisional Government, by its actions, finished off order, unity of command, discipline in the troops. The rear collapsed, the transport system, industry could not supply the army and the city. That is, Russia has lost the opportunity to conduct a regular war - to supply millions of soldiers with everything necessary.

    And again, nonsense. The army held the front perfectly. Until the Bolshevik coup.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    that when the Bolsheviks went to take power, nobody defended the temporary workers.

    In fact, the Bolsheviks declared their power temporarily, until January 1918. Therefore, no one really objected, it did not really matter who would rule for 3 months, from October 1917 to January 1918. But in January 1918 the Bolsheviks did not give up power. Not for that they took. Those. the Bolsheviks simply deceived everyone.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Together with her, the "new Russia" - a pro-Western democratic-bourgeois one, died.

    She did not die herself; she was killed by the Bolsheviks. During the Civil War.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    But socialist, Soviet Russia — statehood, the army, the economy, etc. — was yet to be created.

    Do not confuse the Soviet (Ulyanov) regime of the RSFSR / USSR and the socialist (Dzhugashvilevsky) regime of the USSR. These are fundamentally different things. Here, in general, fundamentally different. Nothing in common.
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Under these conditions, other powers were preparing to divide the "skin" of the Russian bear. Our enemies - Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, were preparing to occupy the western regions of Russia. Our western "partners" - England, France and the USA, divided Russian land into spheres of influence and also prepared to capture strategic ports, cities and points. The masters of the West needed the resources of Russia to build their “new world order”.

    Again Bolshevik horror stories.
    Why didn’t they "split the skin"? The Red Army shamefully fled even from the Germans, after which the Bolsheviks made peace in Brest. And after all, no one has "divided" the skin.
    Why retell the fiction of the Bolsheviks?
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    Therefore, the Bolsheviks hoped that while negotiations were ongoing, a revolution would occur in Germany and the Central Powers would lose the war. This will allow Russia to maintain the existing situation.

    Apparently therefore, Ulyanov constantly sent telegrams to Bronstein, demanding that he quickly sign an agreement with the Germans. Bronstein, incidentally, rested for some time.

    Something I'm tired of reading this nonsense. I’m throwing this thing, perhaps.
    1. Nukesmoke
      Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 23
      0
      To answer "nonsense" to answer nonsense - right, tie it up.
  14. Opera
    Opera 3 March 2018 13: 30
    +3
    Comment on the creations so prolific as much as ambiguous)))) the author does not see any possibility! After reading the last two paragraphs, we can naturally conclude that this disgrace was generally signed for the benefit of a future revolution in Germany and an increase in the authority of Lenin! However ...) Although, if we take into account the postulates of Marxism - Leninism on internationalism. the proletariat - the hegemony of the world revolution and Russia, as a bundle of brushwood for all this world fire, then of course everything is very logical!
  15. Horseman without a head
    Horseman without a head 3 March 2018 20: 30
    +19
    Russia was officially defeated and left the world war.

    Russia officially just did not suffer defeat
    someone read the document poorly
    this and the Versailles peace treaty later.
    In accordance with the latter, Russia was among the winners.
    How not ashamed for the sake of "fries" to hang noodles
    The mind is incomprehensible
  16. Whispering in the night
    Whispering in the night 3 March 2018 23: 31
    +2
    100 years "lousy" Brest world

    And why is the expression "obscene" quoted? And was obscene, without any quotes.
  17. Whispering in the night
    Whispering in the night 3 March 2018 23: 33
    +2
    Quote: zoolu350
    Vietnam, Cuba and most importantly the PRC. So socialism is not blown away, but confidently moving to victory.

    Hand face... laughing
    1. wer2
      wer2 4 March 2018 02: 33
      +3
      Quote: Whispering in the night
      Hand face...

      Do not pay attention. This is another grumble inadequate.
      There is no money to go to Cuba, to Vietnam and to China and there’s no way to figure it out. So he fantasizes. How can.
  18. Alexander Greene
    Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 00: 45
    +3
    Again, the anti-Soviet dragged on their old song. Whatever arguments they have been given here, they do not perceive them. Brought up on hatred, they are not able to accept the truth, the victorious workers in 1917.
    Of course, they all understand. They understand that the situation in 1918 was critical, that Soviet power was still being established, that the country needed a peaceful respite, that the peoples were tired of the war, that the old army could not fight, that the new army had not yet been created. They understand that V.I. Lenin managed to find the right solution, foresightedly anticipating that a revolution would soon take place in Germany too.
    But hatred blinds their eyes, they took it from their ancestors, whom the Soviet government at one time deprived of private property and all the privileges that they enjoyed. And they, like their ancestors, are not able to rise above the old grievances and objectively evaluate the facts, which is why they are so zealously against the Soviet regime. Only the second edition of the socialist revolution will calm them.
    But no matter how they slandered our history today, the facts speak for themselves. Under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the country became truly Great, in just 10 years, a powerful industrial base was built in the USSR, socialism was mainly built in the country in 20 years, and after 30 years, despite the devastating war, consumer prices were reduced annually in the USSR for 8 years. For more than 70 years, the entire Soviet people have had confidence in the future.
    What about today?
    Question for all anti-advisers.
    Today, more than 25 years have passed since the open counter-revolutionary bourgeois coup. The Bolsheviks have not been in power for a long time.
    Why is not even one of the former republics of the USSR even hinting at the slightest improvement in the lives of working people?
    Who is stopping you from making the working people rich and happy?
    1. wer2
      wer2 4 March 2018 02: 50
      +4
      Quote: Alexander Green
      Again anti-advisers

      Not anti-Soviet, but decent people. However, this is one and the same.
      Quote: Alexander Green
      Under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the country became truly Great

      It is when? During the famine of the 20s? Or during the famine of the 30s? Or maybe during the famine of the 40s?
      When did you become great?
      Quote: Alexander Green
      in just 10 years, a powerful industrial base was built in the USSR, in 20 years socialism was mainly built in the country,

      Socialism may have been built. But is this a reason for pride?
      And about the "powerful industrial base", yes, it’s really funny.
      After all, what was this “socialism"? A pseudo-religious (theocratic) society based on a slaveholding method of managing. Is that reason for pride? Yes, and in the 20th century.
      Quote: Alexander Green
      30 years later, despite the devastating war, in the USSR, for 8 years, prices for consumer goods were reduced annually. For more than 70 years, the entire Soviet people have had confidence in the future.

      Yes, this “confidence” has led to utter poverty of the population and the absence of the most necessary goods. After which "socialism" was logically overthrown.
      Quote: Alexander Green
      What about today?

      And today the next stage in the development of society, after slavery, is feudalism. So far in its initial stage. After 50 years, society has grown to the middle stage of feudalism. And then, after another 50 years, and capitalism is just a stone's throw away.
      But capitalism after slave society does not happen. This is political economy, son. The science is like that.
      Quote: Alexander Green
      Why is not even one of the former republics of the USSR even hinting at the slightest improvement in the lives of working people?

      Why so? Improving life is evident. In almost all republics of the former USSR. If you did not notice this, then these are your problems.
      Quote: Alexander Green
      Who is stopping you from making the working people rich and happy?

      No one bothers. The working people in the republics of the former USSR live very well. Better than in the USSR.
      1. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 4 March 2018 23: 38
        +1
        Quote: wer2
        And about the "powerful industrial base", yes, it's really funny

        In vain you laugh, this fact is confirmed by life. For the first time during the Great Patriotic War - the economic potential of the USSR withstood all of Europe. The second time this time - for more than 25 years, your masters still cannot destroy it and plunder it.
        1. wer2
          wer2 5 March 2018 00: 13
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Green
          For the first time during the Great Patriotic War - the economic potential of the USSR withstood all of Europe.

          God, what nonsense you are talking about right now. He’s not even enchanting, he’s just stupid.
          And contrary to all historical facts.
          Quote: Alexander Green
          The second time this time - for more than 25 years, your masters still cannot destroy it and plunder it.

          Who to destroy? Who to steal?

          "Around the Enemies" came. And he went to scratch once and forever memorized 50 years ago on political information. Contrary to all the facts.
          In general, I wonder where such subjects come from? And what do they have with their heads, are they even able to tie their shoelaces? Elementary motor skills at least developed?
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 00: 42
            +1
            Quote: wer2
            God, what nonsense you are talking about right now. He’s not even enchanting, he’s just stupid.
            And contrary to all historical facts.

            Have you been in a lethargic dream in the 90s and 2000s, and now too, and therefore do not see how many plants and factories are destroyed and closed, how many ships, ships, how many planes were cut? Total not to list. It is visible that you have no device
            1. wer2
              wer2 5 March 2018 00: 58
              0
              Quote: Alexander Green
              how many plants and factories are destructible and closed

              These factories produced Soviet rubbish. Therefore, the products of these industries were not needed by anyone. As soon as people had the opportunity to choose, they immediately refused it. And the factories have become.
              Quote: Alexander Green
              how many ships, ships, how many planes were cut?

              They cut a little. Because trash, it requires funds for its maintenance. Giving nothing in return.
              Quote: Alexander Green
              It is visible that you have no device

              It’s not for you to judge this with your abilities. You learned a training manual 50 years ago? Already an achievement for you.
              Now work on not to forget her. And there is nothing to confuse in it. This will be enough for you.
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 5 March 2018 20: 29
                +1
                Quote: wer2
                These factories produced Soviet rubbish.

                They produce rubbish now, and now you wear unhygienic rubbish and eat rubbish not edible. So you do not have health problems, then remember my words.
                And as for the training manual, you are working on the old cliche, and it gives you away, as they give out the official shoes of the disguised police officers.
                1. wer2
                  wer2 8 March 2018 22: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  They produce rubbish now, and now you wear unhygienic rubbish and eat rubbish not edible.

                  Apparently therefore, life expectancy is increasing.
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  And as for the training manual, you are working on the old cliche, and it gives you away, as they give out the official shoes of the disguised police officers.

                  That's just your shoes painfully familiar from the time of Soviet insanity.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 9 March 2018 20: 21
                    0
                    Quote: wer2
                    Apparently therefore, life expectancy is increasing.

                    Are you serious? Take an interest in the data of military registration and enlistment offices, there are practically no completely healthy recruits. And if life expectancy increased, then in our republics the people would not die out so intensively.
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 9 March 2018 20: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Are you serious?

                      See the summary of Rosstat. Ukrainian statistics are not known to me.
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      Take an interest in the data of military registration and enlistment offices, there are practically no completely healthy recruits.

                      That's where the "data", so the "data".
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      And if life expectancy increased, then in our republics the people would not die out so intensively.

                      Are there any republics in Ukraine?
                      1. Alexander Greene
                        Alexander Greene 10 March 2018 10: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: wer2
                        Are there any republics in Ukraine?

                        I have in mind our former Soviet socialist republics, the RSFSR, which is now briefly called the Russian Federation, including. Everywhere, ordinary people are dying intensely.
                  2. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 9 March 2018 20: 30
                    0
                    Quote: wer2
                    Quote: Alexander Green
                    And as for the training manual, you are working on the old cliche, and it gives you away, as they give out the official shoes of the disguised police officers.
                    That's just your shoes painfully familiar from the time of Soviet insanity.

                    I wrote about the cliche and boots because you are recognizable by your comments even after changing your nickname
          2. Nukesmoke
            Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 38
            +1
            Quote: wer2
            In general, I wonder where such subjects come from? And what do they have with their heads, are they even able to tie their shoelaces? Elementary motor skills at least developed?

            Do not broadcast your development problems to opponents.
  19. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 22
    +1
    The blow of the liberated German forces, by the way, tremendously crippled the Entente forces. So instead of the Germans clearing the spheres of influence for future winners, they shred the winners in the end.
  20. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 4 March 2018 01: 35
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    Nicholas laid the BASIS of international law, it was he who was the FIRST in the world to gather ALL the nations of the world in The Hague where the fundamental principles of law, warfare, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and WMD, the current UN and much more were signed.

    Nonsense. Nikolai tried to limit the superiority of his potential opponents. And halberdists will not pull against machine guns.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 4 March 2018 09: 23
      +2
      Quote: Nukesmoke
      Nonsense. Nikolai tried to limit the superiority of his potential opponents.

      Aha: someone in a carrot sees something else. lol
      And if you compare the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter, then they practically coincide. And the USSR ratified the Gaask conventions.
      Those. communist
      Quote: Nukesmoke
      halberdists will not pull against machine guns.
      lol
      That's right, comrade good
      1. Nukesmoke
        Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 36
        0
        Quote: Olgovich
        Aha: someone in a carrot sees something else.

        Well, the relationship between you and carrots doesn't concern me.
        Quote: Olgovich
        And if you compare the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter, then they practically coincide. And the USSR ratified the Gaask conventions.

        Yes, only the Hague Conventions somehow did not help much, from the word at all. And the RIA firmly received by the cabbage soup. For Willy Sukhoruky, while Kolya Balerun rushed about the Hague, pumped the industry.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 6 March 2018 09: 45
          0
          Quote: Nukesmoke
          Well, the relationship between you and carrots doesn't concern me.

          Your vision.
          Quote: Nukesmoke
          Yes, only the Hague Conventions somehow did not help much, from the word at all.

          The rules of warfare, the treatment of prisoners, the long-standing prohibition in the WWII of deadly gases, etc., saved millions of lives.
          Quote: Nukesmoke
          And the RIA firmly received by the cabbage soup

          RI ?! belay It is when? This the RSFSR received for the cabbage soup yes
          Quote: Nukesmoke
          For Willy Sukhoruky, while Kolya Balerun rushed about the Hague, pumped the industry.

          And lost both the Empire and the territories and millions of lives yes
  21. Doliva63
    Doliva63 4 March 2018 16: 53
    +3
    Quote: captain
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    That's right! Lenin saved Russia from Germanization. No matter how liberals humiliate him, they sympathize with them now.

    No, Lenin worked the money given by the Germans. He led Russia out of the war and made it possible for the Germans not to starve to death. Lenin and Trotsky helped the Americans, the British, and the French solve their problems at the expense of Russia.
    PS To be fair, I note that the Bolsheviks were not alone in corrupting the army. They were actively helped by revolutionaries of all stripes, and of course, our progressive intelligentsia. Here we must pay tribute to Lenin; well called the intelligentsia, a simple Russian word. Ordinary envy, greed, money-grubbing, vanity and absolute disregard for the fate of the state and people, these are the main driving forces of the events of those years.

    Links to financial documents where? Or so, rattle? laughing
    Major Snegiryov, s / n Gladkova remember? They would argue with you, probably laughing But I will not.
  22. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 5 March 2018 16: 24
    0
    Quote: wer2
    you must first understand what the term "Russian" means


    It is logical! To usefully lead the discussion, you need to determine the terms. I understand this: Russian is one who considers Russian as his native language, Russian as her native culture, Russia as her Motherland. And performs actions, one way or another aimed at the benefit of these factors.
    Now I am ready to listen to your definition.
    1. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 20: 48
      0
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      I understand this: Russian is one who considers Russian as his native language, Russian as her native culture, Russia as her Motherland. And performs actions, one way or another aimed at the benefit of these factors.

      You wrote nonsense. Everything is very foggy and vague.
      The Bolsheviks also spoke Russian, shouting that they adore Russia and do everything for its good. What if the Bolsheviks at least even get drunk and can someone ever call Russians? And what did it turn out to be? What am I asking you? That's it.
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      Now I am ready to listen to your definition.

      Look in my profile, I already gave it.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 05: 10
        0
        Yeah. I’ll drop everything and I’ll look for something in your profile that probably has never been there.
        The Bolsheviks were called and are called Russians. Exclusively on a sober head. And they can be called non-Russian really only drunk. This is, if, of course, judged by REAL cases, and not by words and, especially, not by last name.
        1. wer2
          wer2 6 March 2018 09: 39
          0
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          Yeah. I’ll drop everything and I’ll look for something in your profile

          That's your business. But I will not print the same thing 100 times.
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          The Bolsheviks were called and are called Russians. Exclusively on a sober head.

          Inadequate and called different. Those who do not understand who the Russians are (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tajiks, etc.), and who are the Soviet ones.
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          then if, of course, judged by REAL cases

          That's it. Judging by the affairs of the Bolsheviks.
          Kolchak, for example, he was not Russian by origin. But in REAL MATTERS, he was just Russian.
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 13: 32
            0
            Kolchak on REAL affairs in Russia compared himself with a condottiere in a foreign service. And the Russian people, according to him, Kolchak, the definition: "distraught - wild - unable to get out of the psychology of slaves" compared him with Mamai, and with him - ferocious dogs. Such were his affairs.
            1. wer2
              wer2 6 March 2018 13: 43
              0
              Quote: Sahar Medovich
              And the Russian people, according to him, Kolchak, the definition: "distraught - wild - unable to get out of the psychology of slaves"

              Not the Russian people, but the Russian (then) people. Therefore, he said everything correctly.
              Now, in our time, the Soviet people have replaced that Russian people. And this is very sad. The only good news is that along with these people in Russia live representatives of the Russian (and not only Russian) nation.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 16: 31
                0
                In his understanding, it is Russian.
                1. wer2
                  wer2 6 March 2018 20: 47
                  0
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  In his understanding, it is Russian.

                  Are you deeply familiar with his understanding? Where from?
                  In addition, the Russian people fought on his side. Why would he dislike him?
                  1. Sugar Honeyovich
                    Sugar Honeyovich 7 March 2018 03: 49
                    +1
                    Where from? From the historical sources of that period!

                    Quote: wer2
                    Russian people fought on his side


                    Yeah, and generally on the side of whites. Only the whites themselves did not notice this.
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 7 March 2018 09: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
                      Yeah, and generally on the side of whites.

                      Russians? Of course. Not on the side of the Reds.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      only the whites themselves did not notice this.

                      Therefore, they called their army Russian?
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 7 March 2018 11: 12
                        +1
                        That's why they called it so that at least the name contains the words "Russian". Since in essence White was not Russian, the Russian people supported the Reds.
                    2. wer2
                      wer2 7 March 2018 17: 30
                      0
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      White Russians were not - the Russian people supported the Reds.

                      For your naivety, you for some reason call the population of the RSFSR of those years “the Russian people”. Although this is far from the case. The Russian people were only part of the population of the RSFSR. And almost all of them fought in the Russian army (the Bolsheviks called them "whites"). And if you didn’t fight, then this is due to old age, illness, and other objective reasons.
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 7 March 2018 18: 22
                        +1
                        That is, of the entire RSFSR, the Russian people amounted to 300 thousand by force? And who were the remaining one and a half hundred million?
                    3. wer2
                      wer2 7 March 2018 19: 34
                      0
                      Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
                      That is, of the entire RSFSR, the Russian people amounted to 300 thousand by force?

                      You forget older women and children. As well as the elderly and disabled.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      And who were the rest

                      Yes, anyone. Reds, monarchists, Cossacks, greens, etc. etc. A million all sorts of different.
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 8 March 2018 10: 54
                        0
                        300 thousand - this is just with women, children, the elderly, the wounded, sick, civilians. In general, "mouths." And “bayonets and sabers” hardly 10% of this number was typed.
                        Reds, monarchists, Cossacks, greens - therefore, not Russian? And by the color of your eyes or hair, or by the shape of your skull, have you tried to identify Russians? You will not get bored!
                        Why, after all, did the Cossacks who joined the White Cossacks call the Russians not their white allies, but the red their enemies? AND?
                    4. wer2
                      wer2 8 March 2018 22: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Reds, monarchists, Cossacks, greens - therefore, not Russian?

                      Of course not.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      And by the color of your eyes or hair, or by the shape of your skull, have you tried to identify Russians?

                      I wrote to you 100 times already, “Russians”, this is not a genetic definition. This is a mental definition. Everything will not reach you in any way.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Why, after all, did the Cossacks who joined the White Cossacks call the Russians not their white allies, but the red their enemies? AND?

                      Because you made it up yourself. Cossacks are not capable of inventing such nonsense.
                      Reds, these are Russians. Enchanting. White soot and sweet salt. Something like this.
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 9 March 2018 06: 16
                        0
                        Quote: wer2
                        Cossacks are not capable of inventing such nonsense


                        And yet a fact.

                        But how can you understand if you are unable to clearly explain.
  23. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 5 March 2018 16: 34
    0
    Quote: wer2
    When you write about "nationally oriented reds," you write about "sweet salt." Or about "white soot." Those. delirium of pure water.

    Your right to consider what I wrote as “sweet salt”, “white soot”, “delirium of pure water”, but the whole point is that I only reflect the opinions of contemporaries, personally witnessing the actions of red and white, comparing and drawing conclusions:

    “... Yakhontov’s next speech became a form of scandal. It was the article“ What is the strength of the Bolshevik army ”, published on 5 June 1919 in New York in the Russian“ People’s newspaper ”. It was read .... wherever the white emigres were. Naturally "Its officers read with special attention. A wild wave of hatred then rose against the author. ... Yakhontov wrote that the Red Army is strong because it protects its native country from the invasion of foreigners. That it fulfills, therefore, a national, patriotic task. Refuted Yakhontov and the myth common in exile that the Red Army "does not have Russians," and it consists of hired Latvians, Chinese, Hungarians, etc. ... Yakhontov wrote that everything is explained by patriotism, and not by some kind of betrayal the increasing influx of old officers into the Red Army, he suggested that many of them didn’t sympathize with the Soviet regime, but they went to the warrior's duty to defend their homeland from an external enemy. Today’s Red Army concluded Viktor Aleksandrovich It’s just tomorrow’s Russian Army.
    For white emigrants, especially for officers, this was unbearable. It turns out that the Reds are for Russia, but they are against? Civilians were also indignant, because the political conclusion was obvious from the article: if the Red Army is a national army, then the Bolshevik government should be considered national! "(A. Afanasyev, Yu. Baranov ODYSSEY GENERAL YAKHONTOV)

    Or: "... we, your senior comrades in arms, appeal to your feelings of love and devotion to the Motherland and urge you ... to voluntarily go with complete selflessness and hunting to the Red Army ... and serve there not for fear, but for conscience, in order to defend Russia, dear to us, at all costs, by our honest service, not sparing our lives. " (“To all former officers, wherever they are”).

    About the words that characterized the Bolsheviks, their leader Lenin and their national policy A.M. Romanov, I will not say anything ...
    1. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 20: 52
      0
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      Today’s Red Army, Viktor Aleksandrovich concluded, is simply tomorrow’s Russian Army.

      Well, sick man, what to take from him? Senile senility, it happens.
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      "... we, your senior comrades, appeal to your feelings of love and devotion to the Motherland and urge you ... to voluntarily go with complete selflessness and hunting to the Red Army ... and serve there not for fear, and for conscience, so that with our honest service, not sparing life, to defend at all costs Russia, dear to us. " (“To all former officers, wherever they are”).

      And this is nonsense. Where did you get this nonsense?
      I still highly recommend reading in my profile. Maybe something = for yourself and understand. And I will not repeat myself. Laziness.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 05: 04
        0
        Delirium is not delirium, but a real historical document. Having, notice, a considerable influence on ALL layers of Russian society.
        1. wer2
          wer2 6 March 2018 09: 45
          0
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          Delirium is not delirium, but a real historical document. Having, notice, a considerable influence on ALL layers of Russian society.

          This “document” had no effect on the development of Russian society.
          The officers wanted to spit on him, they knew the price.
          And they will press you the causal place with the door, you also sign such a thing.
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 13: 39
            0
            On the development of society, maybe not, but on the development of events - very much so. The officers, if for anything, spat at it, so most of all about their white leaders, who lost everything and everything. And they marched in the thousands under the red banner.
            1. wer2
              wer2 6 March 2018 14: 12
              0
              Quote: Sahar Medovich
              The officers, if for anything, spat at it, so most of all about their white leaders, who lost everything and everything. And they marched in the thousands under the red banner.

              You might have noticed earlier that I did not call the monarchist officers Russian. And the officers of the Russian army (white) were even bigger enemies for them than the red ones.
              At the same time, monarchist officers did not voluntarily go to the service of the Reds. In addition, a negligible amount, which were not Russian and not monarchists. And the names of which are heard (Tukhachevsky, Egorov and the like).
              But the monarchist officers were mobilized by the Reds. AND forced serve yourself. This is where the mythical "thousands of officers who sided with the Soviet power" came from.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 16: 30
                0
                With your "Russian standard" it is generally impossible to understand who you consider Russian. It seems that you yourself do not know this. So climbing in your profile is obviously useless.

                And whom, for example, from the monarchist officers did the Reds mobilize?

                Among the whites was "every creature in pairs" - monarchists, cadets, Octobrists, Socialist-Revolutionaries and so on. and so on. Were they all Russian or what?
                1. wer2
                  wer2 6 March 2018 20: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  With your "Russian standard" it is generally impossible to understand who you consider Russian.

                  I probably already wrote 100 times that the upper (most advanced) layer of any national society is called Russians (Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks, etc.). What is not clear?
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  So climbing in your profile is obviously useless.

                  You know better. Do not want to educate yourself, do not.
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  And whom, for example, from the monarchist officers did the Reds mobilize?

                  Almost everyone. With rare exceptions, those who went to their service themselves. There were very few of them.
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  Among the whites was "every creature in pairs" - monarchists, cadets, Octobrists, Socialist-Revolutionaries and so on. and so on.

                  You watch Soviet cinema less. Have you seen the uniform of the Russian army? Have you seen the Chevron with the flag? Where did the monarchists come from under this flag? There were almost no monarchists, except those fleeing from the reds.
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  Were they all Russian or what?

                  I think yes. At least their army was called "Russian."
                  1. Sugar Honeyovich
                    Sugar Honeyovich 7 March 2018 04: 05
                    0
                    [quote = wer2] the upper (most advanced) layer of any national society is called Russians (Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks [/ quote]

                    Have you tried to inform them, these Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks and especially Ukrainians and Baltic states from the upper strata, that they are Russians? And how did they react?

                    [quote = Almost everyone. [/ quote]

                    For instance? And most importantly - how did they determine their beliefs?
                    [quote = wer2] [quote = Sugar Medovich] With your "Russian standard" it is generally impossible to understand who you think is Russian. [/ quote]
                    I probably already wrote 100 times that the upper (most advanced) layer of any national society is called Russians (Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks, etc.). What is not clear?
                    [quote = Sakhar Medovich] So climbing in your profile is obviously useless. [/ quote]
                    You know better. Do not want to educate yourself, do not.
                    [quote = Sakhar Medovich] And who, for example, from the monarchist officers did the Reds mobilize? [/ quote]
                    Almost everyone. With rare exceptions, those who went to their service themselves. There were very few of them.
                    [quote = Sakhar Medovich] Among the whites were "every creature in pairs" - monarchists, cadets, Octobrists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, and so on. and so on. [/ quote]
                    You watch Soviet cinema less. Have you seen the uniform of the Russian army? Have you seen the Chevron with the flag?
                    There were almost no monarchists there.

                    I try to watch movies less. Both Soviet and especially post-Soviet. I prefer to work with primary sources. The form - yes, I saw. There is a lot of evidence about whites that in the city it is impossible to see even two equally dressed officers. "Tunic English ..."

                    And that there were almost no monarchists is true. Because at that time there were almost none of them in all of Russia. Before that, the monarchy got sick of everything. There were, according to the white general, "individual dumbasses" who spoke out loud the words "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland"

                    I repeat, a very small part of the whites at the end of the war called themselves the Russian army. Most did not call themselves that. Were they not Russian?
                    1. wer2
                      wer2 7 March 2018 09: 19
                      0
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Have you tried to inform them, these Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks and especially Ukrainians and Baltic states from the upper strata, that they are Russians?

                      You do not understand Russian at all? The upper layer of the national society of Armenia is the Armenians. Etc.
                      Quote: Sahar Medovich
                      Most did not call themselves that.

                      And what did she call herself? The Chinese army?
                      1. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 7 March 2018 11: 14
                        +1
                        They called themselves the Volunteer Army (more simply, volunteers), the KOMUCH army, the Siberian Army. What was enough for fantasy.
  24. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 5 March 2018 16: 36
    +1
    Quote: wer2
    The upper layers of any feudal and even in some places slave states are ALWAYS nationally oriented. The difference in the numbers of these layers.

    And at the time of the "big hat" the upper layers in Russia were also nationally oriented? Or is it the number? What did you say about white soot there?
    1. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 20: 43
      0
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      And at the time of the "big hat", the upper layers in Russia were also nationally oriented.

      You, when you want to communicate, try to articulate your thoughts.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 05: 11
        0
        Articulate simply does not happen. If you are unable to understand articulate human speech, then this is not my problem.
  25. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 5 March 2018 16: 39
    0
    Quote: wer2
    Cossacks. Along with the white. But they were not.

    And those Cossacks who closed with the red, presumably, were not red?
    And, for example, the Izhevsk and Votkinsk workers, who joined the white, but fought for Soviet power under the RED banner, were white? If not, were they Russian?
    1. Nukesmoke
      Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 29
      0
      He is already white not white, red not red, just some lack of obvious color differentiation of his pants, which leads to a lack of purpose.
      1. wer2
        wer2 5 March 2018 20: 39
        0
        Quote: Nukesmoke
        Right there is some lack of obvious color differentiation of the pants, which leads to a lack of purpose.

        Who called you?
        1. Nukesmoke
          Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 46
          +2
          Quote: wer2
          Who called you?

          Your flight on an individually air-detonation engine cannot but attract attention.
    2. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 20: 38
      +1
      Am I supposed to chew every phrase? Are you unable to grasp the essence of the matter?
    3. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 21: 05
      0
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      And those Cossacks who closed with the red, presumably, were not red?

      Still, I will repeat it once. In the Civil War on the territory of the RSFSR (Bolshevik primary product), the Reds participated (regardless of any affiliation) on the one hand and various national formations on the other. One of such formations was the Russian army, whose servicemen were called “whites” by the reds. Another of these formations was the Cossack formations. There were also other national formations, but relatively few.
      Also, the so-called "green". In fact, these were detachments of local peasant self-defense, which were against everyone. And for yourself.
      Monarchists, contrary to the tales of the Bolsheviks, served mainly in the Red Army, because they were forced to mobilize there. Only those monarchists who managed to escape from the Red Army served in the Russian and other armies. And they had no turning back.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 6 March 2018 05: 27
        0
        Quote: wer2
        One of such formations was the Russian army, whose servicemen the Reds called "white"

        In fact, it was the other way around - it was the Whites in 1920, at the end of the Civil War, who called the remnants of their army the Russian Army.

        Quote: wer2
        different national formations on the other

        Ie KOMUCH army was also national. Oh well.

        Quote: wer2
        Monarchists, contrary to the tales of the Bolsheviks, served mainly in the Red Army, because they were forced to mobilize there.


        Rave! Everyone served in the red, white, green, national voluntarily or by mobilization: monarchists, republicans, socialists, anarchists, etc.
        Quote: wer2


        And they had no turning back.

        That is, among the 14390 white officers who switched to the Reds, there was not a single monarchist? Probably according to profiles?
        1. wer2
          wer2 6 March 2018 09: 48
          0
          Read my previous comment.
  26. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 27
    +1
    wer2,
    And so the verbose expert comes down. So, Ukrainians (***! There is no other name for the **** circus of Skoropadsky and Petlyura not to name normal people), Finns (a bunch of German huntsmen with a samovarnik headed), Poles (a German client Pilsudsky, who changed his shoes in the air and his ambition) are they white or already red?
    1. wer2
      wer2 5 March 2018 20: 41
      +1
      Quote: Nukesmoke
      Are they white or already red?

      Boy, the white reds were called the army, which was called RUSSIAN. And in the end, the Red Army did not defeat the White Army, as the Bolsheviks claimed. AND RUSSIAN the army. Try to remember this.
      1. Nukesmoke
        Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 47
        +1
        Quote: wer2
        Boy, the reds were called white army, which was called RUSSIAN. And in the end, the Red Army did not defeat the White Army, as the Bolsheviks claimed. A RUSSIAN army. Try to remember this.

        Which army was called RUSSIAN? Polish, Finnish, petliurts, instvents? Or are they all Russian?
  27. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 37
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    That's right, comrade

    And why then in the RIA glorious kind of troops - halberdists thought to revive?
  28. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 5 March 2018 20: 40
    +1
    Quote: wer2
    This is another bezgramonny inadequate.

    You in this organization are inadequate primus interpares.
  29. Sanya Terek
    Sanya Terek 6 March 2018 00: 24
    0
    Quote: wer2
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    After February, Russia lost the opportunity to wage war with the Central Powers.

    Why does the author "invent facts"?
    And then, the fables about the decomposition of the army in 1917 are nothing more than the fables of the Bolsheviks. Well, the army then held the front ... In February-March 1917, a bourgeois revolution took place in Russia. National-patriotically oriented part of Russian society finally threw off the supreme feudal lords ...

    Something I'm tired of reading your nonsense.
    The order of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies of March 1, 1917 No. 1, printed and distributed in nine million copies, led to terrible consequences.
    Lieutenant General K.G. Mannerheim spoke about the consequences of Order No. 1: "The first known order of the Soviets, which initially concerned only the capital's garrison, began to operate here, so discipline fell sharply. Anarchist sentiment intensified, especially after the Provisional Government announced freedom of speech, press and meetings, as well as the right to strike, which could now be carried out even in military units.The military tribunal and the death penalty were abolished.This led to the fact that the eternal military order in which soldiers must obey orders was practically not respected, and commanders who were trying to keep their units, they had to seriously fear for their own lives. Under the new rules, a soldier could take a vacation at any time or, simply put, to flee. By the end of February there were already more than a million deserters. And the military leadership did nothing to combat revolutionary element. "
    Major General P. N. Krasnov, Head of the 2nd Consolidated Cossack Division: “Before the revolution and the famous Order No. 1, each of us knew what he needed to do both in peacetime and in war ... There was no time to peel seeds. After the revolution, everything went differently: the committees began to intervene in the orders of the chiefs, the orders began to be divided into military and non-military. The first were executed, the second were executed according to the characteristic expression that became fashionable then, insofar as. it’s just that the soldier reasoned whether this or that doctrine was necessary or not, and it was enough for him to declare at the rally that it was leading to the old regime, so that a part would not go out to the lesson and that which then was very simply called excesses would begin. - from a rude answer to the murder of the boss, and everything went completely unpunished. "
    Major General M.D., Head of the Pskov Garrison Bonch-Bruevich: "I was convinced that the army created on the principles announced by order would not only be unable to fight, but could not exist in any organized way."
    After the October Revolution, M.D. Bonch-Bruevich will serve with the Bolsheviks, P.N. Krasnov will lead the anti-Bolshevik Cossack movement, and K.G. Mannerheim will separate Finland from Russia.
    But in their assessments of the consequences of Order No. 1, the generals are united, regardless of their future beliefs.
    National-patriotically oriented part of Russian society She did everything to destroy the army first, and then the country. If the October Revolution did not take place, these b] national-patriots [/ b] would completely ruin Russia.
    1. wer2
      wer2 6 March 2018 09: 50
      0
      Quote: Sanya Tersky
      The nationally-patriotically oriented part of Russian society did everything to destroy the army first, and then the country. If the October Revolution did not take place, these b] national-patriots [/ b] would completely ruin Russia.

      This user is clearly not in himself. It’s not burning deTski.

      PS. There was no October revolution. This is a fake, an invention of the Bolshevik Communists. For starters, learn what revolution is. Maybe you will understand something.
      In October 1917 - January 1918, a reactionary Bolshevik coup took place in Russia. "Reactionary," this is a revolution the other way around. Those. revolution is a leap forward. A "reactionary coup" is a leap back in the development of society. And the Bolsheviks, they are not revolutionaries. They are the most terry reactionaries.
      From October 1917 to the summer of 1940 (I don’t remember the exact month) - I take extreme points, society in Russia / the USSR was degraded two (!!!!!!) steps down. From the rudimentary bourgeois to the slaveholding. In the country during this period two (!!!!!) reactionary coups took place. It was just a disaster. Clear? A catastrophe has occurred in Russia.
      You must first master the basics of knowledge. And then "give expert estimates."
      1. wer2
        wer2 6 March 2018 10: 04
        0
        Quote: wer2
        through the summer of 1940 (I don’t remember the month exactly)

        June 26.06.1940, XNUMX
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 6 March 2018 10: 49
        0
        Komrad wer, I prefer to do without revolutions and counter-revolutionary
        1. wer2
          wer2 6 March 2018 13: 49
          0
          Quote: Monarchist
          I prefer to do without revolutions and counter-revolutionary

          Alas, this is impossible. Historically.
          But if you follow your wishes, you should welcome the revolutions taking place peacefully. Here, for example, is the February-March bourgeois revolution in Russia in 1917.
          And from reactionary coups, God forbid Russia. There has never been anything good from them. Yes, and enough of them already for one country. Only at 20 in Russia / USSR survived two such coups (successful) in a row. There were also unsuccessful ones. How much can you do?
  30. Monarchist
    Monarchist 6 March 2018 10: 44
    0
    Reptiloid,
    Sometimes moderators make mistakes or addictions. What can you do only the Lord is perfect, and all people are sinners: both Khan and Olgovich and I are all not immune to mistakes
  31. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 6 March 2018 11: 30
    0
    Brainwashing continues.
    1. Krylenko in December 17 at the Small Council of People's Commissars proposed, among other things, to cut the army in two, leaving only reliable units. Half of the army was still combat ready! And to us: "there was no army" ... Propaganda.
    2. And Lenin, who was obsessed with the revolution in Germany (and not just anyhow, but just about), had to at all costs (what are the problems of Russia, when tomorrow there will be no “neither Russia nor Latvia”) to tie the former enemy to yourself. All this collapsed, but by some miracle, the German revolutionary inferior managed to break the obscene world before being strangled in the cradle. Then it was declared the great vision of the leader. And here is cheap, but many years of propaganda.
    1. Nukesmoke
      Nukesmoke 6 March 2018 23: 25
      0
      Quote: M. Michelson
      1. Krylenko in December 17 at the Small Council of People's Commissars proposed, among other things, to cut the army in two, leaving only reliable units. Half of the army was still combat ready! And to us: "there was no army" ... Propaganda.

      Support with numbers.
      Quote: M. Michelson
      2. And Lenin, who was obsessed with the revolution in Germany (and not just anyhow, but just about), had to at all costs (what are the problems of Russia, when tomorrow there will be no “neither Russia nor Latvia”) to tie the former enemy to yourself. All this collapsed, but by some miracle, the German revolutionary inferior managed to break the obscene world before being strangled in the cradle. Then it was declared the great vision of the leader. And here is cheap, but many years of propaganda.

      Do you think your propaganda is better? Nude Nude.
  32. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 6 March 2018 23: 24
    0
    The empire fell apart from military defeats. And the lion's share of those killed in August 1914 - the summer of 1917 (then about the RSFSR neither rumor nor spirit, it appeared later).
    And where did the initiatives of the half-drunk ballerina Kolya save millions of lives?
    Kaiser lost. He lost with dignity (though he was trickier), not like his cousin, whom the grateful former subjects fed lead in the basement. And Kaiser, as it should be for a real ruler, left for emigration, where he died.
  33. Nukesmoke
    Nukesmoke 6 March 2018 23: 27
    0
    Quote: wer2
    But if you follow your wishes, you should welcome the revolutions taking place peacefully. Here, for example, is the February-March bourgeois revolution in Russia in 1917.

    Truth? But the police and military personnel (in particular officers) do not agree with you about the "bloodless" revolution of February-March 1917.
    Chukchi, become a reader, not a writer, with the hands of all sorts of rubbish.
  34. Sweetheart
    Sweetheart 3 July 2018 17: 19
    0
    Quote: captain
    No, Lenin worked the money given by the Germans. He led Russia out of the war and made it possible for the Germans not to starve to death

    There is not a single document that would confirm your ridiculous lie.