Military Review

Why did the White Army lose?

383
Smoot. 1919 year. Why did the White Guards lose? Some researchers note that there were too few whites. The Reds simply “filled up with corpses”. Other historians look deeper and note that the white project was a pro-Western, liberal-democratic project, that is, it was unacceptable to the Russians.


Why did the White Army lose?

View 2-th Kornilov shock regiment, Rostov. Volunteer Army Commander General May-Mayevsky (in the foreground), Captain Pashkevich, commander of the 2th Kornilov shock regiment (partially closed) and Captain Makarov (behind)


White project


The white project was a continuation of the liberal-democratic project for the development of Russia, which the February revolutionists put forward during the February-March revolution of 1917. Westerners and Masons, the liberal "elite" of Russia, killed the Russian autocracy. They believed that tsarism was preventing Russia from following the western path of development. That Russia is a civilizational, cultural periphery of the Western world, European civilization. That Russia needs to be fully integrated into Europe, discarding mossy survivals, such as autocracy and the unity of the church with the state.

Thus, Westerners, liberals proceeded from the possibility of full economic, cultural and ideological integration of Russia into European civilization. At least a stuffed animal, at least a carcass. Make Russia a “cute” France, Holland or England. In this regard, the current Russian liberals are no better. They are infected with the same disease of Eurocentrism. Hence almost all the current problems of Russia and the Russian people.

It was planned in Russia to create a bourgeois-democratic society, the hallmarks of which were parliamentary democracy or a constitutional monarchy, an independent judiciary, political pluralism, secular society, a market economy, etc. The ideologists of the project were Russian freemasons, connected and hierarchically subordinated to the Western lodges. . That is, they knew very well that in the West, "democracy" is only a sign. In reality, Western democracies stand on a strictly hierarchical system of secret power in order, masonic structures and networks. That the Western economic and political elite is brought up and raised in a closed system of clubs and lodges, starting in youth. That the “independent” judicial system is in fact based on corporate agreements and a system of arbitration of disputes for “chosen”, real masters of life. A market economy has become the basis for monopolistic structures of financial and industrial capital, concentrating in itself the main financial flows and profits. Ideological, political pluralism became the basis for the manipulation of public consciousness. The created social security system was supposed to prevent massive social discontent.

The problem was that the Western European version of the development of Russia suited the countries of Europe, but not the Russians. Moreover, the Western development project, which was introduced by the Romanovs (the peak of their activity is Peter I, who cut through the “window to Europe”), has already failed in Russia. This is proved by the deep contradictions accumulated in the Romanov empire and the civilizational, design and state disaster of 1917 of the year. The Western project was unacceptable to the Russian people.

The paradox of the white (liberal) project in Russia was that the image of an attractive, rich and “sweet” future, acceptable to most educated and prosperous Russian society, did not have a single chance of success among the masses. It is interesting that modern liberal Russia very quickly came to the same. To a dead end and degradation on the rails of pro-Western "modernization". For the pro-Western, liberal part of society, the new bourgeoisie, the "new nobles" of officials and security officials, the image of the West is attractive and sweet. They strive there with all their might, transferring families, offspring and capitals. They see the future only in the West. They want to make Russia at least a stuffed animal, at least a carcass, from Lisbon to Vladivostok (or at least the Urals). At first, people were able to be confused with the help of methods of manipulating public consciousness, information processing and the benefits of a consumer society. However, as the foreign policy worsens (the global systemic crisis that caused the start of a new world war with the main front in the Middle East) and the domestic political situation, with the consistent destruction of the basic social institutions - the state (a gradual renunciation of its obligations to citizens, becoming a “night watchman”) , science, schools, health care, etc., the troubles gradually subside.

That is, the path of integration, the convergence of Russia with the West, its loss of its national identity and leads to disaster. There is a divergence of civilizational and national projects and, ultimately, the collapse and death of the Russian state and society. Westernization inevitably causes collapse and self-destruction. The fact is that the Western project has no chance at all in Russia.

Russian code and the Bolsheviks


Liberals err at the very core of their ideology. Russia, the Russian world is a special, original civilization, not the West and not the East. The larger the Russian civilizational code, the civilizational project diverges from the political projects of its own elite, the closer and worse the turmoil. The time of troubles is the answer of Russian civilization and people to the erroneous course of the elite. A way to "reset" Russia, change its elite.

The Westernization of the Romanovs blew up and destroyed the Russian Empire. The Russian people cannot be recoded, made of Russian Europeans. The split, the gap between the Westernized Russian elite (including the intelligentsia) and the people who have preserved powerful deep traditional cultural, civilizational strata and caused the disaster of 1917 of the year. And then the Western liberals who seized power (Provisional Government) decided to carry out even deeper integration of Russia and the West. And the full-blown Russian turmoil began.

The white project was a continuation of the pro-Western-liberal project of the February revolutionaries who wanted to regain power and make Russia a part of the "enlightened" West. His victory would finally kill Russia and the Russian people. Russia would become the prey of western and eastern predators. At its core, it was an anti-people project. It is clear that at a deep subconscious level, people knew this. Therefore, the White Guards, although often outwardly more attractive than the Reds, did not receive mass popular support. Hence the smaller number of their armies, compared with the Red Army. Therefore, about a third of the generals and officers of the “old Russia” supported the Reds, a third was for the Whites, the rest remained neutral, immediately fled, became ordinary bandits or servants of the new national regimes.

The people supported the red project. On the one hand, the Bolsheviks created a completely new world, decisively broke with the past. This is consistent with the logic of development, "old Russia" committed suicide. If whites tried to reanimate a deceased society, then the Bolsheviks, on the contrary, began to create a new reality, a new empire. Moreover, the old world died under the weight of its problems, as a result of the mistakes of its development, and not because of the actions of the Bolsheviks. Of course, to the best of their ability, they helped destruction. But the main contribution to the destruction of the Russian Empire was made by the Westernist feudalists, the elite of the “old Russia” - politicians, members of the Duma, generals, aristocrats, grand dukes, members of Masonic lodges, liberal intelligentsia, demanding the annihilation of “rotten tsarism”.

On the other hand, the red project had a deeply national, Russian component (later it was associated with the name of Stalin - Stalinism). The Bolsheviks absorbed fundamental values ​​for Russian civilization and the people, such as justice, the primacy of truth over the law, the spiritual principle over the material, the general over the particular, the catholicity (unity) over the individual. Bolshevism grabbed the old work ethic that was traditional for the Russians (and remained with the Old Believers) - with the fundamental significance of labor in the life and life of the people. The Bolsheviks had an image of a happy future for everyone (except social parasites) - communism. The red world rejected the Western world, based on the spirit of robbery, looting, appropriation and parasitism. Communism was at the forefront of labor and knowledge. Planetariums, houses of culture and creativity, factories and laboratories against taverns and brothels.

Thus, the Bolsheviks had the image of an attractive future for the people. The red project (without internationalism and Trotskyism) basically coincided with the Russian civilizational, national one. Therefore, the Reds received massive popular support. The Bolsheviks also had will, energy and faith. They were ready to die for their ideas. Plus organization and iron discipline. So the Bolsheviks turned out to be the only force that, after the actual death of the Russian Empire in February - March 1917, was able to start building a new life on the ashes and create a new reality, peace, new Russian (Soviet) empire.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Smoot. 1919 year

How the British created the Armed Forces of the South of Russia
How to restore Soviet power in Ukraine
How Petliurists led Little Russia to a complete catastrophe
How defeated Petliurism
Give the boundaries of 1772 of the year!
Battle for the North Caucasus. How to suppress the Terek Uprising
Battle for the North Caucasus. CH 2. December battle
Battle for the North Caucasus. CH 3. The January accident of the 11 Army
Battle for the North Caucasus. CH 4. How the 11 army died
Battle for the North Caucasus. CH 5. Capture of Kizlyar and the Terrible
Battle for the North Caucasus. CH 6. Furious assault of Vladikavkaz
How Georgia tried to seize Sochi
How the Whites crushed the Georgian invaders
The war of February and October as a confrontation between two civilization projects
How did the "Flight to the Volga"
How Kolchak's army broke through to the Volga
Catastrophe of the Don Cossacks
Verkhniyon uprising
How "Great Finland" planned to seize Petrograd
"All to fight with Kolchak!"
Frunze. Red Napoleon
The missed opportunities of the army of Kolchak
May offensive of the Northern Corps
How white broke through to Petrograd
Battle for the South of Russia
Strategic change on the southern front. Manych operation
Crimea on fire Russian distemper
Crimea in 1918-1919. Intervents, local authorities and whites
How did the uprising of ataman Grigoriev
Nikifor Grigoriev, "ataman of the rebel forces of Kherson region, Zaporizhia and Tavria"
Odessa operation ataman Grigoriev
Uprising in the Ukraine. How failed the “Blitzkrieg” of Grigorievka
Ufa operation. How were defeated the best parts of the army of Kolchak
Moscow campaign army Denikin
"All to fight with Denikin!"
Battle of the Urals
The defeat of the Siberian army. How the Red Army liberated Perm and Yekaterinburg
The defeat of Kolchak in the Chelyabinsk battle
August Counterattack of the Southern Front
The battle for Siberia. Recent operations Kolchak
Pyrrhic victory of the Kolchak armies on Tobol
Operation "White Sword". Beat at the heart of the revolution
"Do not give up Petrograd!"
General battle for Russia
Avalov Army Campaign in Riga
The defeat of the Kolchak armies in the second battle on Tobol
Victories of Denikin’s army in New Russia and Little Russia
White Movement Top
Recent major victories of Denikin
383 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 8 November 2019 05: 16
    -5
    Other historians look deeper and note that the white project was a pro-Western, liberal-democratic project, that is, it was unacceptable to the Russians.
    Modern history since 1991 completely refutes this "insight".
    1. venaya
      venaya 8 November 2019 05: 25
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      Modern history since 1991 completely refutes this "insight"
      Most likely they are refuted by the modern media, which basically create all these "amazing" stories.
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 November 2019 05: 28
        -1
        Quote: venaya
        Most likely they are refuted by the modern media, which basically create all these "amazing" stories.

        I wonder what? You want to say that the Russian national minority did not accept the "pro-Western, liberal project" in the Baltics and Ukraine. I assure you, do not do it, no matter what "projects" there are
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 8 November 2019 05: 34
          +14
          Why did the White Army lose?
          not soon, but the current oligar-liberal one will also lose, the people are "maturing" for now, and then they will sweep away again, bloody, as always. the story develops in a spiral.
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 8 November 2019 05: 41
            +19
            The white project was a continuation of the pro-Western-liberal project of the February revolutionaries who wanted to regain power and make Russia a part of the "enlightened" West.

            Quote: Aerodrome
            the current oligar-liberal one will also lose, the people are still "maturing", and then again they will sweep away, bloody,

            Some have never realized that it is the Russian people who are more acutely aware of inequality, violence, lies, and injustice. That is why pity and compassion, revenue and selflessness are strong in the Russian people. And all these attempts to build some kind of thieves' society of oppressors are certainly doomed to failure.
            1. Aerodrome
              Aerodrome 8 November 2019 05: 45
              +5
              Quote: ROSS 42
              The white project was a continuation of the pro-Western-liberal project of the February revolutionaries who wanted to regain power and make Russia a part of the "enlightened" West.

              Quote: Aerodrome
              the current oligar-liberal one will also lose, the people are still "maturing", and then again they will sweep away, bloody,

              Some have never realized that it is the Russian people who are more acutely aware of inequality, violence, lies, and injustice. That is why pity and compassion, revenue and selflessness are strong in the Russian people. And all these attempts to build some kind of thieves' society of oppressors are certainly doomed to failure.

              drinks
              1. novel66
                novel66 8 November 2019 07: 25
                +11
                and on the wreckage of autocracy they will write to us - "go to ..."
                1. Stone
                  Stone 8 November 2019 17: 42
                  0
                  Laughter through tears laughing
            2. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 8 November 2019 08: 42
              +18
              Quote: ROSS 42

              Some have never realized that it is the Russian people who are more acutely aware of inequality, violence, lies, and injustice. That is why pity and compassion, revenue and selflessness are strong in the Russian people. And all these attempts to build some kind of thieves' society of oppressors are certainly doomed to failure.

              I will support you and, with your permission, I will add that the white movement, frankly, did not have such popular support as the reds. Whatever it was, but the Reds won, first of all, ideologically. The majority of people understood what the Reds wanted and supported them. Without popular support, the Reds would not have succeeded. How it did not work with white. And today, the ideas of the Reds are in demand more than ever. And, if they come, the people, in the vast majority, will support them again.
              1. neri73-r
                neri73-r 8 November 2019 09: 12
                +5
                I.V. Stalin:
                “I know that after death a lot of garbage will be put on my grave. But the wind of History will mercilessly dispel it. ”

                This is inevitable if we want our people and state to survive.
              2. lucul
                lucul 8 November 2019 09: 39
                -10
                the white movement, frankly, did not have such popular support as the reds. Whatever it was, but the Reds won, first of all, ideologically. The majority of people understood what the Reds wanted and supported them. Without popular support, the Reds would not have succeeded. How it did not work with white.

                White simply did not sink to the primitive populist slogans of the Red Zionists - and therefore lost.
                Roughly speaking, the Reds had more arrogant propaganda (factories for the workers, land for the peasants - huh ...).
                Subsequently - neither the factory nor the land did not get people .....
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 32
                  +9
                  Quote: lucul
                  White simply did not sink to the primitive populist slogans of the Red Zionists - and therefore lost.

                  Well, yes, whites had a lot of slogans with "beautiful faces .." ...
                  At the expense of land and factories .. For you there will probably be news that the first television in the USSR was made at a non-state plant ..? In general, what you describe happened later, in the time of Khrushchov .. In the time of Stalin there was a large percentage of non-state industry and even banks.
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 8 November 2019 10: 37
                    -8
                    In general, what you describe happened later, during the Khrushchev era

                    We are talking in general, and not about the candy - flower period)))
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 44
                      +8
                      Quote: lucul
                      We speak in general

                      You have an interesting position .. Let’s generally talk about Russia with 91 to date ..
                      1. lucul
                        lucul 8 November 2019 11: 44
                        -7
                        You have an interesting position .. Let’s generally talk about Russia with 91 to date ..

                        Kghmm ....
                        This is not for me - it is for those chosen by God who made a coup both in 1917 and in 1991. Ask them from them ....
                        Or do you also not see trees in the forest?
                      2. vladimirZ
                        vladimirZ 8 November 2019 13: 05
                        +15
                        Why did the White Army lose?
                        The "whites", as representatives of the ruling class of exploiters in Russia, could not win the Civil War.
                        The civil war of 1918-21 had an antagonistic class character, and because of this, the main opposing sides of it: - workers (workers and peasants) and - the exploiting class of landowners, officials, the bourgeoisie (large, small, urban, rural), with its own power apparatus coercion in the form of remnants of the tsarist and then newly created "white" armies.
                        No ideology of the "white" army, as representatives and defenders of the exploiting class, could help, because they have the same ideology - the exploitation of the working people, the immense appropriation of the results of the people's labor, covered with cheap slogans about "freedom" to rob the workers and the state.
                        Now when in Russia, as a result of a coup, the capitalist state was revived, antagonistic socio-economic relations reappeared, which are an inevitable source of class contradictions between the working people and the modern bourgeoisie, which in the future will be resolved by a new clash on the fronts of the class struggle. Historically, this is inevitable.
                      3. lucul
                        lucul 8 November 2019 13: 28
                        -15
                        No ideology of the "white" army, as representatives and defenders of the exploiting class, could help, because they have the same ideology - the exploitation of the working people, the immense appropriation of the results of the people's labor, covered with cheap slogans about "freedom" to rob the workers and the state.

                        The red Zionist power did the same. Also exploited the people for workdays, and subsequently for a penny. Hiding behind populist slogans - land - to peasants, factories, workers.
                        And after 70 years, leaving people with empty pockets and the firm belief that they worked for these 70 years for nothing, and that the state owes them free labor. (yeah)
                        It strongly resembles a deceived girl - to promise does not mean to marry.
                      4. vladimirZ
                        vladimirZ 8 November 2019 15: 50
                        +11
                        The red Zionist power did the same. Also exploited the people for workdays, and subsequently for a penny. Hiding behind populist slogans - land - to peasants, factories, workers. - lucul (Vitaliy)

                        Write nonsense, illiterate. What is the "Zionist power"? The participation of Jews, as one of the oppressed nationalities in tsarist Russia (Pale of Settlement, prohibition on education, occupation, etc.) in the revolutionary movement, as the most active part in the revolution, reflecting the aspirations of the oppressed class of all working people, is not "Zionist power" ...
                        The Communist Party leadership included Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Jews, and representatives of other nationalities. And to give priority to some nationality, naming by its name the power taken by the people led by the Communists, and by the way the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, is simply illiteracy. Moreover, with the further development of the socialist state, the number of people of different nationalities in state bodies and local authorities was regulated so as not to cause ethnic conflicts.

                        As for "workdays", "work for a penny", "populist slogans", then this is purely demagogy, out of your elementary ignorance of the history of the USSR. Yes, it was difficult to rebuild the country after almost ten years of its participation in the war (1 World and Civil), which took place throughout the territory, the lack of experience in building the first socialist state, not without flaws and mistakes, BUT all the same, for a relatively short period of time - 10-15 years, they built, they found maybe not an ideal, but a development option that satisfies the majority of the population.
                        By the 1940 year, they had eliminated not only systemic hunger, which had been shaking Russia for centuries, but also fed people, educated, created a powerful industrial base that began to provide not only weapons to the Red Army, but also goods to people. It has already been written here that by the 40 years in the country, the production of television sets had begun, moreover in the private sector of the economy.

                        Now about your demagoguery regarding "they gave factories and factories to the workers, the land to the peasants and took away." I have already noted above that in the Stalinist USSR, before the Khrushchev times of the mid-50s, there was private, collective production in industry, agriculture, the service sector and the production of goods for the population. Large and medium-sized industrial production was state public property, the products and profits from which went to the state public consumption funds with subsequent distribution to all citizens of the USSR - free education, health care, sanatoriums and resorts, pioneer camps for children, free public housing for citizens with low utility tariffs, etc., etc.
                        Along with state enterprises (state farms), collective farms — collective farms and collective farms with collective property, to which the state transferred land for agricultural production free of charge, were used in agricultural enterprises, since only large-capacity agricultural production can feed the country, people in cities and villages. This was confirmed not only by the experience of the NEP of the 20 of the last century, but also by the current time when large-capacity agricultural production was almost completely eliminated, after which Russia ceased to produce its products - everything is imported, expensive with GMOs.
                      5. lucul
                        lucul 9 November 2019 00: 06
                        -9
                        Write nonsense, illiterate. What is the "Zionist power"? The participation of Jews, as one of the oppressed nationalities in tsarist Russia (Pale of Settlement, prohibition on education, occupation, etc.) in the revolutionary movement, as the most active part in the revolution, reflecting the aspirations of the oppressed class of all working people, is not "Zionist power" ...

                        I won’t even comment, the whole post - hutspa in its pure form .....
                      6. vladimirZ
                        vladimirZ 9 November 2019 00: 22
                        +9
                        I won’t even comment, the whole post - hutspa in its pure form ..... - lucul (Vitaliy)

                        Do you have enough knowledge? Yes, judging by your comments you do not have them. But in demagoguery you will not go far.
                      7. lucul
                        lucul 9 November 2019 00: 24
                        -7
                        Do you have enough knowledge? Yes, judging by your comments you do not have them. But in demagoguery you will not go far.

                        Haifa Detected .... stop
                      8. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 12: 34
                        0
                        Quote: lucul
                        The Red Zionist Authority did the same.
                        In fact, even the Bund opposed the Zionists, religion, the departure of Jews in Palestine. It is unlikely that the Jews in the power of the RSFSR and the USSR were closer to the Zionists: they did not even advocate national-cultural autonomy. But claims to the Russian Tsar after its liquidation, many of them were not difficult to transfer to the Russian people and treat it as a consumable.
                    2. sniperino
                      sniperino 8 November 2019 13: 27
                      -4
                      Quote: lucul
                      We are talking in general, and not about the candy - flower period
                      More precisely, not in general, but about the Civil War, which was seen in red as the beginning of the massacre (world revolution), but the Western proletarians did not support it. Stalin did not support them either, but he began to multiply the most frantic by 0. For what? In addition to the danger of armed coups on their part, there was a deeper reason. The construction of socialism presupposed the rallying of the people in a country with a mixed economy, and this cannot be achieved when a large group of people (more than here) methodically feeds inter-class, inter-class, inter-confessional or interethnic hatred. Agitators - fighters with the regime - should think about whether they would be happy if Stalin replaced Putin.
                      1. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 11: 41
                        -2
                        Quote: sniperino
                        More precisely, not in general, but about the Civil War, which was seen in red as the beginning of the massacre (world revolution), but the Western proletarians did not support it. Stalin them

                        Red, who saw this? Did you see the Red Army soldiers? Or to whom? Trotsky saw, but he retired, but Stalin did not. So who saw that?
                      2. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 11: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Trotsky saw, but he retired, but Stalin did not.
                        Lenin and Trotsky saw each other. Lenin saw the problem earlier, but did not know what to do with it (the lamp of reason was no longer the same) and announced NEP in earnest and for a long time. The liberals of the 80s respected him for this. In Ogonyok Korotich they shouted: “Not a step in 33 years!”, Meaning that criticism of Brezhnev, Khrushchev (to a lesser extent), Stalin (to a greater extent) is necessary, and then - no, no. Then Korotich scored against Lenin and Trotsky and faded in the USA.
                      3. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 23 November 2019 01: 54
                        0
                        Quote: sniperino
                        about the Civil War, which was seen in red as the beginning of the massacre (world revolution)

                        ??? What did you get it from? Can you confirm the thesis? I read about the doctrine of the development of a world war into a revolutionary one, but never about the development of a civil war in Russia into a world revolution. Share a source of knowledge?
                2. qQQQ
                  qQQQ 8 November 2019 11: 30
                  +11
                  Quote: lucul
                  Subsequently - neither the factory nor the land did not get people .....

                  Come on. And who got them? Now we say "popular" we mean a bunch of oligarchs, but then all the means of production belonged to the people. The very fact of distribution, at one time, of vouchers confirms precisely the nationality of factories, land, etc. At the same time, I am absolutely sure of the fraudulent, predatory nature of the reforms of the 90s.
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 8 November 2019 11: 40
                    -10
                    Come on. And to whom did they get it?

                    Are you serious or just trolling?
                    The workers were hanged noodles on the ears — that the factories were workers — that they would receive all the added value of the product they produce, as the owner or shareholders. And the peasants were hung noodles on their ears - that the land will pass to them in OWNERSHIP - as much as he can process.
                    Where and when did this happen after 1917?
                    The usual Zionist manipulation, about the same as an adult man (pulls an inexperienced girl into bed.
                    1. qQQQ
                      qQQQ 8 November 2019 11: 44
                      +8
                      Quote: lucul
                      Are you serious or just trolling?

                      Tell me the owner in the USSR. Once again, confirmation of national ownership, there is the issue of vouchers in 90's, for which, according to the plan, it was possible and necessary to buy part of the plant, factory or land.
                      1. lucul
                        lucul 8 November 2019 11: 45
                        -13
                        Tell me the owner in the USSR.

                        Twenty five again ..
                        I mean that they promised property and deceived ....
                      2. qQQQ
                        qQQQ 8 November 2019 11: 57
                        +5
                        You confuse private property and public.
                      3. lucul
                        lucul 8 November 2019 12: 01
                        -9
                        You confuse private property and public.

                        I just do not confuse.
                        Do you think a peasant would go to war for collective farms, and not for his own piece of land? ))))
                      4. qQQQ
                        qQQQ 8 November 2019 14: 56
                        +2
                        Quote: lucul
                        I just do not confuse.

                        Let's decide which side of the issue we are considering, legal or factual. Legally, everything belonged to the people, as the bowels are now, but in fact this is a different issue, under any authority the facts are very different from even legally binding decisions. The legislatively fixed transfer of the means of production to the people by the Bolsheviks immediately made the rest not competitive.
                      5. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 11: 03
                        -3
                        Quote: qqqq
                        in fact, this is a different issue, under any authority the facts are very different from even legally binding decisions
                        A situation where "very different" is called lawlessness. And the manipulation of legal terminology is cunning. Land was promised to the peasants and factories to the workers and not given. It is a fact. And those who dispute it should not be allowed a kilometer to the power: they should not be trusted - they will be deceived. A completely different question, whether it was necessary to distribute, but now it is not about that. Cheating should be called cheating.
                      6. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 17: 29
                        +2
                        Did the peasant go to the Reds to fight for his OWN piece of land?
                      7. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 8 November 2019 21: 25
                        +6
                        Quote: lucul

                        I mean that they promised property and deceived ....

                        Nothing was deceived. It’s just that you have not mastered to understand what the Bolsheviks promised.
                        Read carefully again what they promised - "PUBLIC PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION MEANS"
                        And they kept their promise. And then yours came and began to redeem his property from the owner (people). Read - change to vouchers. But for the owner to agree to give his paperback (vouchers), he was previously brought to poverty.
                      8. lucul
                        lucul 8 November 2019 23: 59
                        -5
                        Nothing was deceived. It’s just that you have not mastered to understand what the Bolsheviks promised.
                        Read carefully again what they promised - "PUBLIC PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION MEANS"

                        Aha-ahah and I see how an illiterate peasant is promised "PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION" and the meaning of what has been said reaches him and he picks up a rifle)))
                        You God-chosen have completely lost the coast in a lie ....
                        The peasant was promised - "LAND FOR THE PEASANTS", that is, each peasant will receive his allotment of land (taken from the landlords), as much as he can handle. It was with this that the peasants were lured into the Red Army. Under any "" PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION "he would not go to the army (he needs to cultivate the land) .....
                      9. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 01: 04
                        +5
                        Quote: lucul

                        The peasant was promised - "LAND FOR THE PEASANTS", that is, each peasant will receive his allotment of land (taken from the landlords), as much as he can handle.

                        So they got it. You simply cannot look at the logic of events.
                        There was even such a joke. They told the peasant - take as much land as you want, as long as you run in a straight line and cut as much to you. A man ran. He ran, he ran, there was already not enough breathing, in the end he fell, crawled and there was no strength to crawl. Then he throws his hat forward and, with the words — and this on the tomatoes — dies. They cut the land to the peasants, they began to work with the same tools as in the 18 and 19 centuries. But the state needs industrialization, for this it needs working hands. And where to get them? In the village. With that productivity of labor, to withdraw labor from the countryside — doom the country to starvation. So it is necessary to raise labor productivity in the countryside. How? Mechanization. They started to produce tractors. And who can buy them? A peasant farmstead can? No! A collective farm can! Further, I suppose, you’ll think for yourself.
                      10. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 03: 44
                        -4
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        They started to produce tractors. And who can buy them? A peasant farmstead can? No! A collective farm can! Further, I suppose, you’ll think for yourself.

                        What amazes me in most of the Stalinists is some absolutely childish lies. That is, either the person really does not know anything at all, or holds the rest for the kindergarteners. This is usually combined.

                        And here is a country where a full paragraph, even with a SVT rifle, not to mention tanks, has been selling (selling means of production? For years? How's it?) To collective farms of a tractor for 10.

                        Vika, Machine and tractor station, read, think, if there is anything.
                      11. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 13: 38
                        +5
                        Quote: tesser
                        What amazes me in most of the Stalinists is some absolutely childish lies.

                        It seems to you that - a lie. Because you are far from the realities of rural life, both the present and the more so then.
                        Let's start the educational program.
                        There is a certain village. She "owns" very specific lands. Because other lands "belong" to other villages.
                        These lands differ in fertility, in distance from the village, etc. Therefore, in order to observe justice, each family, taking into account the family members, allocated a plot of fertile land, put on less fertile and put on bad land. And the result was the so-called striphead. Can you imagine what it is? And so, one owner decided to plow tomorrow and ordered a tractor for MTS. And the other only after three days. And again, MTS drives a tractor to plow a strip of land, which is next to the one that he plowed three days ago. In a word - ordeals, excessive consumption of fuel, unproductive exploitation of equipment and other problems. The collective farm is another matter.
                        And, not knowing the realities of rural life, you do not understand why the dispersal of Khrushchev MTS was a strong blow to agriculture.
                        By the way, did they fall from the sky to MTS? Or did the collective farms buy them together for loans taken from the state?
                      12. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 14: 11
                        -4
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Therefore, in order to observe justice, each family, taking into account the workers-members of the family, allocated a plot of fertile land, put on less fertile and put on bad land. And the result was the so-called striphead.

                        Well then stop doing justice. Effective production issues are resolved without applying this concept. More precisely, ideas of justice may be appropriate at the distribution stage, but they are inappropriate at the production stage. Never appropriate.
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        And, not knowing the realities of rural life, you do not understand why the dispersal of Khrushchev MTS was a strong blow to agriculture.

                        First, the sad "realities of rural life", albeit not the 30s, are a little known to me.
                        Secondly, the mistake with MTS is obvious. It's like giving out tanks to infantry battalions. Naturally, the mechanics with 2 hours of driving "Voroshilovets" equipment rolled into the trash for a week maximum.
                      13. Serg65
                        Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 39
                        +4
                        Quote: qqqq
                        Call me the owner in the USSR

                        Party and state apparatus.
                        Quote: qqqq
                        confirmation of national ownership, there is the issuance of vouchers

                        Issuance of scam vouchers for taking an enterprise from the state pocket to a private ..... and nothing more!
                      14. qQQQ
                        qQQQ 8 November 2019 14: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Party and state apparatus.

                        Show at least one document where this property right is fixed.
                      15. Serg65
                        Serg65 11 November 2019 07: 42
                        0
                        Quote: qqqq
                        Show at least one document where this property right is fixed.

                        Similarly .... show me at least one worker-owner of his plant ... under the USSR?
                      16. qQQQ
                        qQQQ 8 November 2019 16: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Issuance of scam vouchers for taking an enterprise from the state pocket to a private ..... and nothing more!

                        No one doubts that this is a scam, but the fact of issuing a voucher suggests that legally every citizen owned a piece of the productive forces.
                    2. Sugar Honeyovich
                      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 15: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: lucul
                      And the peasants were hung noodles on their ears - that the land will pass into their property

                      Is not it? As far as we know, the Bolsheviks first announced the abolition of land ownership ..
                      1. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 8 November 2019 21: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich

                        Is not it? As far as we know, the Bolsheviks first announced the abolition of land ownership ..

                        On the abolition of PRIVATE land ownership. The land was leased by the state to individuals and legal entities for unlimited rent for a ridiculous fee.
                      2. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 09: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Sahar Medovich
                        the Bolsheviks first announced the abolition of land ownership
                        The "Decree on Land" also established that the lands of ordinary peasants and Cossacks should not be confiscated. So what? Whole villages were evicted to Siberia. It is possible to declare, promise, write and speak for the sake of the victory of the revolution, whatever the masses want at the current political moment. This is the meaning of revolutionary consciousness: it abolishes the concepts of honor and dishonor as moral fetters that prevent the world fire of revolution from flaring up: the end justifies the means.
                      3. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 13: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: sniperino
                        The "Decree on Land" also established that the lands of ordinary peasants and Cossacks should not be confiscated.

                        How can you confiscate what does not belong to you?
                        What do we smoke?
                        It is said that private ownership of land is being abolished.
                      4. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 15: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        What do we smoke?
                        TSB
                        The decree abolished the landlord ownership of land without any ransom and transferred the landlord, specific, monastic, church lands with all the inventory and buildings to the volost land committees and county councils of peasant deputies, which were charged with taking measures to observe the strictest order during confiscation of landowner estates. The decree also established that the lands of ordinary peasants and ordinary Cossacks are not confiscated.
                        Enough?
                      5. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 20: 38
                        0
                        Quote: sniperino
                        Enough?

                        Can’t you turn on your brains?
                        Earth not yavl. private property. So it can neither be bought nor sold. She is in perpetual lease. How can you confiscate a car that you do not have?
                        In this case, the lease is not confiscated, but the lease is broken.
                      6. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 20: 47
                        -3
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Can’t you turn on your brains?
                        Is this about the author of the Land Decree? It is there that it is said about the transfer of land into the ownership of the whole people and about confiscations. Almost on one page, imagine. Take a look for yourself. What do you believe more in public property or in confiscation? I am in confiscation.
                    3. sniperino
                      sniperino 8 November 2019 19: 30
                      0
                      Quote: lucul
                      The workers were hanged noodles on the ears — that the factories were workers — that they would receive all the added value of the product they produce, as the owner or shareholders.
                      I remember the inscription on the factory fence:
                      Take away even a nail
                      You are the master, not the guest!
                      1. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 01: 14
                        0
                        Quote: sniperino
                        I remember the inscription on the factory fence:

                        A lot of things were written on the fence. Having read one of the inscriptions, have you tried to have fun?
                      2. Nikolai Korovin
                        Nikolai Korovin 9 November 2019 01: 40
                        0
                        "I'm walking down the street. Suddenly I see a word of three letters written on the fence! I was delighted, climbed ... And there was firewood."
                        Um ... Send, do not send ... The word itself is not written. It seems they should not be banned.
                      3. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 10: 02
                        -3
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Quote: sniperino
                        I remember the inscription on the factory fence:
                        A lot of things were written on the fence. Having read one of the inscriptions, have you tried to have fun?
                        This inscription is sarcasm, a caustic joke, and I was wounded by it as a worker, but as a person I recognized that she was right. Such an inscription at the end of the 70's looked like a mockery:
                        If you study wall painting and inscriptions for pleasure, you better not go to a factory or construction site, but to a school toilet.
                      4. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 11: 47
                        0
                        Quote: sniperino
                        If you study wall painting and inscriptions for pleasure, you better not go to a factory or construction site, but to a school toilet.

                        No, dear, I do not quote the inscriptions on the fences, unlike you, either on the sites or anywhere else. Because I, again, unlike you, do not even read them.
                      5. sniperino
                        sniperino 9 November 2019 12: 55
                        -4
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        I, again, unlike you, do not even read them
                        It is clear that you are mainly interested in pleasure, then watch porn and do not ask about what does not concern you.
                    4. abc_alex
                      abc_alex 23 November 2019 01: 58
                      0
                      Quote: lucul
                      factories to workers - they will receive all the added value of the manufactured product, as the owner or shareholders.

                      In the state, this is not possible in principle. And by the way, they received DS to a greater extent, through public funds.

                      Quote: lucul
                      the land will be transferred to them in PROPERTY - as much as he can process

                      What are you saying? This is when the Bolsheviks promised them this?
                  2. AU Ivanov.
                    AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 13: 02
                    +1
                    The fact of distribution of vouchers suggests the opposite: the industry did not belong to the people. Vouchers are an attempt to distribute "factories to the people" Under the USSR, enterprises did not belong to the people, but to the state. They are far from the same thing.
                    1. qQQQ
                      qQQQ 8 November 2019 15: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: AS Ivanov.
                      Under the USSR, enterprises did not belong to the people, but to the state.

                      As far as I remember, the Constitution of the USSR stipulated that we have a people's state, i.e. the people and the state are inseparable, therefore everything that belonged to the state also belonged to the people. Again, do not confuse legal affiliation with factual matters.
                  3. Nikolai Korovin
                    Nikolai Korovin 9 November 2019 01: 37
                    +3
                    In, we have arrived! The distribution of vouchers is a positive fact. Yes, they gave for a bottle. Many did not receive a dime at all. Personally, for three vouchers (my own and my parents), which I invested in the shares of a "promising" enterprise that was wildly advertised in the institution where I worked, I received an extremely insignificant amount voluntarily and compulsorily after a few years. I was in a construction team in a week for a much larger amount of real estate at one time, than I got. So about vouchers, please don't.
                3. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 15: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: lucul
                  The whites simply did not go down to primitive populist slogans

                  Whites, it was the case, dropped even lower: until the publication of fake Soviet decrees in newspapers counterfeited to Soviet ones. Or printing on Soviet banknotes "You can't buy dogs with these signs."
                  Or they hired cripples (for example, invalids of the 1st World War) to walk the streets and celebrate Christ: "Give the victim of the Bolshevik emergency."
                4. Maki Avellevich
                  Maki Avellevich 8 November 2019 20: 32
                  +2
                  Quote: lucul
                  White simply did not sink to the primitive populist slogans of the Red Zionists - and therefore lost.

                  not really.
                  the whites tried to save the past and the red strived for a new one, for the future.
                  here the question is not which of the two is better, but that the new will captivate the minds and passions of the young and energetic.
                  White has little chance. sooner or later the old system would collapse.
                5. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 8 November 2019 21: 16
                  +3
                  Quote: lucul
                  Subsequently - neither the factory nor the land did not get people .....

                  Yes, you’re right - no factories, no factories, no land (did you work on the land? Have you handled it manually, what are you moaning here ?! The collective farmer had a garden, no one took it, and he didn’t need it anymore. He worked on a collective farm (state farm).)
                  But on the other hand, we had a wonderful free education, at that time a good free healthcare, trips to sanatoriums and rest houses for 1 / 3 real value, they gave apartments for free !!! Yes, you can’t list everything. It is only necessary to have a conscience and memory, so as not to moan like you.
                6. victor50
                  victor50 9 November 2019 19: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: lucul
                  Subsequently - neither the factory nor the land did not get people .....

                  To your people? laughing Because - experiences?
                7. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 23 November 2019 01: 51
                  0
                  Quote: lucul
                  Subsequently, neither the factory nor the land was given to people.

                  Well, why deceive the audience? Didn’t they give the land to the peasants? The first decree passed. And by the way, how do you imagine the real transfer of factories to workers? In addition to pseudo-historical verbiage, do you have specific arguments?
              3. tesser
                tesser 8 November 2019 09: 59
                -6
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                The majority of people understood what the Reds wanted and supported them. Without popular support, the Reds would not have succeeded. How it did not work with white.

                Absolutely agree with you.

                The Great October Socialist Revolution was a rare event in the history of the revolt of liberated slaves with the goal of returning slavery. The Bolsheviks had the imagination to saddle this movement, but the white ones didn’t; they seemed too crazy to pose this question.
                1. qQQQ
                  qQQQ 8 November 2019 15: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: tesser
                  The Great October Socialist Revolution was a rare event in the history of the revolt of liberated slaves with the goal of returning slavery.

                  Freer than in the USSR, I emphasize - for the most part, people were not. There were restrictions, but one cannot ignore external and internal circumstances; over time, restrictions became less and less. Now there are no fewer prohibitions; they are regulated differently, just a little afford, and there, not far from the trash.
                  1. AU Ivanov.
                    AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 16: 00
                    -2
                    And in what were we so free in the USSR? In movement? In the opportunity to express their opinion? In business? Do not make me laugh.
                    1. qQQQ
                      qQQQ 8 November 2019 16: 21
                      +7
                      When traveling within the country, they paid for this with a rather complicated trip abroad, now try to change your place of residence, few will risk being left without work, money, etc. There are many more restrictions in your opinion now than then. There was a case a few years ago, a representative of a famous party came to our party meeting and her first words: we decided everything at home, you don’t understand all the intricacies, you just need to accept and vote, there will be no debate. This is an example, my opinion, which interests no one starting from the boss at work, etc. in increasing order. The illusion of freedom is not yet her. There is no point in arguing with entrepreneurship, although under Stalin some developed quite actively, unfortunately Khrushchev buried everything.
                    2. Krasnoyarsk
                      Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 12: 10
                      +2
                      Quote: AU Ivanov.
                      And in what were we so free in the USSR? In movement? In the opportunity to express their opinion? In business? Do not make me laugh.

                      Let’s say so - you tell your failures (or a ban) in traveling around the country, in a ban, by someone, to express your opinion, and how business was banned for you.
                      And I will set out my own on the same topic. Have you agreed? From personal experience. The stories of grandfather's aunt's grandparents are not accepted.
                      1. AU Ivanov.
                        AU Ivanov. 9 November 2019 12: 21
                        -2
                        Could you, during the Union, go fishing in, say, Finland? Or, instead of the Black Sea, go to the Mediterranean? Travel around the country. What work was it worth to get a Moscow or St. Petersburg residence permit? Entrepreneurship generally fell under the articles 153 and 154 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. From personal experience: in St. Petersburg I registered in the zero, immediately and immediately, along with the purchase of an apartment. I wonder how much I would vegetate on a limited residence permit and how long I would wait in line until I was deigned to provide an apartment?
                  2. tesser
                    tesser 8 November 2019 16: 19
                    0
                    Quote: qqqq
                    Freer than in the USSR, I emphasize - for the most part, people were not.

                    In golden crepe de chine
                    Behind the wheel of "Moskvich"
                    I'll drive by car
                    On the collective farm of Ilyich.
                    Today women are at the helm, Nikanorovna.
                    We get to the Kremlin, Khristoforovna.
                2. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 12: 02
                  +5
                  Quote: tesser
                  ... a case of rebellion of liberated slaves in order to return slavery.

                  Tell me the name of the country where slaves are educated, not to mention free, where slaves are treated for free, where a slave could be elected and elected, could move freely throughout the country without any restrictions, where a slave could not be fired from work without consent slaves like him, elected to the trade union committee of the enterprise. Where a slave could do a lot of things, if he achieved this with his mind, his work. Call me?
                  1. tesser
                    tesser 9 November 2019 14: 19
                    -7
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    Tell me the name of the country

                    Republic of Haiti.

                    The PRC under Mao and the DPRK as an example fit worse; they were presented with socialism by the Soviet government.
              4. dvina71
                dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 28
                +4
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                the white movement, frankly, did not have such popular support as the reds.

                Where does this support come from? The Bolsheviks offered the people simple solutions ... land, factories, the world ...
                Their opponents were not only heterogeneous ... both for the tsar and for the founding ... so they hobnobbed with foreigners. Krasnov, so he generally received weapons and infantry from the Germans !!! ... they helped him with troops in the Don, and he later in Ukraine. The Volunteer Army also received tanks and planes from the Entente, there were even plans to place a cartridge factory in Yekaterinodar on foreign equipment. NA DV .. the Bolshevik opponents were densely lying under the Japanese .. and the Japanese themselves could distinguish themselves there ..
              5. Serg65
                Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 25
                -1
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                the white movement, frankly, did not have such popular support as the reds.

                I completely agree with you, the peasants demanded land, the Bolsheviks promised land, the workers demanded 8-hour working day, the trade unions and power over the factories and factories, the Bolsheviks said ... guys, everything will be!
                White suffered from inert thinking and memories of the past, not really appreciating the situation .... but after all, they had a chance after the red food detachments had painted in their rear. Only in 20 did he understand the situation and gave birth to political and economic reforms on the mountain ..... but the train had already left!
                The situation with Makhno is interesting, because Nestor really created a people's republic, but his experience did not go further than the Yekaterinoslav province.
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Today, the ideas of the Reds are in demand more than ever. And, if they come, the people, in the vast majority, will support them again.

                And here is the question ... the red ideas did not seem to go away ..... the slogans "Equality, Brotherhood and Freedom" are constantly hovering in the vastness of Russia, but somehow the people are mostly indifferent ...
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 12: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  with Makhno, Nestor really created a people's republic, but

                  What do you know about the economic life of this "real" republic? Nestor began to build there, well, at least planned, factories, factories, schools. Well, everything that is inherent in the state. Well, well, - did not have time, but did he publish his plans? Did he have them?
                  Quote: Serg65
                  And here is the question ... the red ideas did not seem to go away ..... the slogans "Equality, Brotherhood and Freedom" are constantly hovering in the vastness of Russia, but somehow the people are mostly

                  That is why they are indifferent because these slogans without "Public ownership of the means of production" are empty words. The mass of working people cannot be the brother (Brotherhood) of a handful of magnates, be equal to them (Equality) and be free (Freedom). A beggar cannot be free because he cannot choose. Because freedom is not only a right, but also the ability to choose.
              6. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 8 November 2019 21: 59
                0
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Whatever it was, but the Reds won, first of all, ideologically. The majority of people understood what the Reds wanted and supported them.

                You fall into some exotericism .. Ideology is good, but the "Decree on Earth" and "Decree on Peace" were adopted literally two hours after the overthrow of the Provisional Government. This is not an ideology. This is direct and concrete materialism. As soon as the whites began to take away the lands distributed by decree, they lost.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 12: 46
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  You fall into some kind of exoteric ..

                  exoteric (from the Greek exoterikos - “external, external”) - part of the same knowledge, not hidden from the uninitiated, open to study and understanding by strangers.
                  And how do you understand?
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Ideology is good, but the "Decree on Earth" and "Decree on Peace" were adopted literally two hours after the overthrow of the Provisional

                  Well, they adopted the "Decree on Land", so what? All the land immediately turned out to be with the peasants? Adopted the "Peace Decree", and peace came?
                  For the implementation of these decrees had to fight, and shed blood. And what did White offer? - Leave everything as it was under the king, landowners and bourgeois.
                  And since the people believed in red and followed them, it means they won ideologically. No isoteric if you meant it.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 9 November 2019 22: 09
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    Well, they adopted the "Decree on Land", so what? All the land immediately turned out to be with the peasants? Adopted the "Peace Decree", and peace came?

                    Yes!! The world has come! And the peasants themselves, immediately dismantled !!! And then the whites came and these peasants began to smack to death .. For mercy .. What happened next is easy to guess.

                    Read, damn it, the classics - V.I. Lenin "State and Revolution" - there it is simply and intelligibly stated.
              7. Oleg (Kharkov)
                Oleg (Kharkov) 9 November 2019 10: 14
                -1
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Reds won, first of all, ideologically

                Lenin once said that one good agitator will bring more benefits than 10 locomotives. Does the government of the Russian Federation remember this?
              8. Sunstorm
                Sunstorm 9 November 2019 14: 45
                -1
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                I will support you and, with your permission, I will add that the white movement, frankly, did not have such popular support as the reds. Whatever it was, but the Reds won, first of all, ideologically. The majority of people understood what the Reds wanted and supported them. Without popular support, the Reds would not have succeeded. How it did not work with white. And today, the ideas of the Reds are in demand more than ever. And, if they come, the people, in the vast majority, will support them again.

                No not like this. The white movement had popular support, make no mistake, but other groups of the population supported it .. this is obvious, but look at it from the other side, there are no domestic capitalists, and kulaks .. greatly improved life in Russia? I had to buy technology for bread (hello Holodomor), they came to power ... no, not the Germans, the Romanovs .. and the party officials, how many Russians were they? Maybe if instead of ideology we listened to the voice of reason .. we would all live better? Although you are unlikely to admit it .. it is easier for you to believe that by destroying the "kulaks" and the capitalists "once again you will live better. No, it will not be so. (Although of course, you may become a better life if you get a share of property of the dispossessed .... but do you really think that this is the discovery of the communists? remember the "list of descriptions."
                Red ideas? No, they are not, the eternal universals are in demand .. which for some reason you consider the prerogative of the Reds.
            3. Mitya2424
              Mitya2424 8 November 2019 09: 47
              +2
              Quote: ROSS 42
              Some have never realized that it is the Russian people who are more acutely aware of inequality, violence, lies, and injustice.

              Then why do we - Russians tolerate serfdom (read slavery) until 1861, class inequality until 1917, socio-political inequality in the Soviet period (the division of society into party and everyone else, into workers, peasants and the "straying" stratum - the intelligentsia) why are we now tolerating inequality of property (99,9% of the country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population) ???????
              1. dvina71
                dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 35
                +1
                Quote: Mitya2424
                Then why did we Russians tolerate serfdom (read slavery) until 1861

                Well, how they endured .. The riots were constantly, in the flesh to the epic .. type of Pugachevsky .. they just fed the oppressed peasantry. And there’s no extradition from the Don? Where did it come from?
              2. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 9 November 2019 12: 55
                -3
                Quote: Mitya2424

                Then why did we Russians endure serfdom (read slavery) until 1861,

                Well, you know, with serfdom, not everything is so unambiguously bad as we are told.
                The serf did not have anything to do with the tax authorities, firefighters, and other state oversight bodies. All these questions were decided by the landowner. And it is not so rare when the serf was an entrepreneur, he could easily redeem himself from the landowner, but he did not do this - it was not profitable. He’s behind the master, like behind a stone wall. I do not want to say that serfdom is a blessing. But to consider it as an absolute evil, I think it’s wrong.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 9 November 2019 22: 23
                  +2
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  I do not want to say that serfdom is a blessing. But to consider it as an absolute evil, I think it’s wrong.

                  Slavery is always slavery, as it is not adorned with pink ruffles ..
            4. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 11: 31
              0
              Are you bringing forth a new racial theory? Bravo! I remind you - it already happened: "the people are God-bearers"
            5. Sneaky Urus
              Sneaky Urus 13 November 2019 14: 26
              0
              White lost primarily in a military confrontation with the Reds. Everything else (people for Lenin, etc.) is idle chatter.
          2. Rey_ka
            Rey_ka 11 November 2019 12: 17
            0
            Who is the people? Is it really you who will take your ass off the couch and go to sweep away the blood?
    2. Boris55
      Boris55 8 November 2019 08: 30
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Other historians look deeper and note that the white project was a pro-Western, liberal-democratic project, that is, it was unacceptable to the Russians.
      Modern history since 1991 completely refutes this "insight".

      Little depends on the people.

      If someone thinks that the illiterate peasants of tsarist Russia were able to organize themselves, then remember how the riots of Razin and Pugachev ended. Where did Makhno and so on. Look at the same Ukraine, when 74% of the population is against the war, and it continues, remember the referendum on the preservation of the USSR and in the end we will look in the mirror, remember the pension reform and what we could do.

      Just as then the officers of the General Staff (GRU) of the tsarist army (not all) spoke for Russia and saved it from collapse, just like in the 1991, the security forces called for the preservation of Russia, preserved it and increased its power, without bringing the situation to civil war, which would not immediately end in the collapse of Russia.

      If anyone is too lazy to watch the biographies of former tsarist generals who went over to the side of the Reds (as an example, see the biography of Brusilov), watch at least the film "The Adjutant of His Excellency."
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 15: 43
        +1
        Brusilov is an example of so-so. He did not help especially red. That's who would talk about Potapov ...
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 8 November 2019 19: 29
        +1
        Quote: Boris55
        officers of the General Staff (GRU) of the tsarist army

        To judge by complex historical events, it’s not necessary to watch movies, although not bad ones, as mentioned above, this is not a historical source, but to seriously work on yourself, study archival documents, etc., and the difference between the concepts of the corps of officers of the General Staff, GRU and, in fact, by the general staff itself.
      3. sniperino
        sniperino 8 November 2019 19: 55
        0
        Quote: Boris55
        remember how the riots of Razin and Pugachev ended
        By the way, something is not heard accusations against serfman A.V. Suvorov, who brought in a cell to the execution of a famous fighter for national happiness. Ss Do not dare ...
      4. shura7782
        shura7782 8 November 2019 23: 40
        0
        Very interesting topic.

        Quote: Boris55
        in the same way, in the 1991, the security forces advocated the preservation of Russia, preserved it and increased its power ......

        Boris, is it possible to talk a little about this? I want to understand you what it means "The siloviki made a speech"?
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev 8 November 2019 09: 58
      -3
      Quote: svp67
      Modern history since 1991 completely refutes this "insight".

      Something the author mixed up flies and cutlets.
      The white movement is the VSYUR gene. Denikin, etc. military units.
      Those. the movement of those who with arms in their hands opposed the Bolsheviks. There were no liberals in him.
      Any other government is different: Komuch, the Kuban Council, Georgian, Ukrainian and other nationals. This is where you can see the harmful liberals who did a lot for the victory of the Bolsheviks, mainly even before the October 17 year.
      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 8 November 2019 11: 03
        +3
        Quote: Alekseev
        The white movement is the VSYUR gene. Denikin, etc. military units.
        Those. the movement of those who with arms in their hands opposed the Bolsheviks. There were no liberals in him.

        And who was Denikin in your opinion? is it a monarchist or a dictator ?!
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 13: 48
          -4
          Denikin was neither a monarchist nor a dictator. He was a Russian officer.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 8 November 2019 19: 21
            +2
            Quote: AS Ivanov.
            neither a monarchist nor a dictator. He was a Russian officer.

            That's right!
            But on this discussion, as you can see from the work of the "minisuars", a group of "Orthodox Bolsheviks" is actively working. laughing
            No wonder - it’s the 102 anniversary, however.
            The author and the "minisuars" who joined him are trying to whitewash the violence and terror that took place during the years of the revolution and civil and flourished a little later. By the way, on the part of the Bolsheviks, terror was not a set of excesses, but took the form of a legitimate state policy.
            They say that they kept the state, they say there was no other way, there the liberals opposed! And about how many millions of vain victims the Russian and other peoples suffered in the 20, 30, 40 years of the 20 century, are modestly silent.
            The end, they say, justifies the means!
            Fool them, as grandfather Shchukar used to say!
            There were other ways of transforming Russia, but, for a combination of complex reasons, history chose very difficult tests.
            The main thing is to remember this and teach young people so that there is no repetition.
    4. Olgovich
      Olgovich 8 November 2019 10: 08
      -7
      Quote: svp67
      Modern history since 1991 completely refutes this "insight".

      Exactly!
      Both modern and REAL Russian history refute.

      Which to the Bolshevik so-called. "history", invented in parallel reality by Leninists instead of her, has nothing to do.

      This is the Bolshevik "history" that DOESN'T KNOW about the worst famine in the history of the country and the world, which occurred in 33 g with millions of victims and cannibalism, she did NOT HEAR about the owls. on the island of cannibals Nazino, she DIDN'T NOTICE that in 30 years, without trial or investigation, 600 children were exiled to the North to the chariots of poles, that 000% of the dead among the exiled were CHILDREN, etc.

      Just as "real" are judgments ... about the "Russian code", allegedly inherent in ..... the Bolsheviks belay lol

      It is said about people who use the word "Russian" thrown out IN GENERAL: the Russian army, Russian science, Russian education have disappeared, even the name of the country "RUSSIA" - they were thrown from the world map. Russia is the ONLY state in the world, completely devoid of a proper name then (THE USSR).

      School America, FR Germany, Swiss confederation and so forth and so fortheveryone has there is a name, besides then Russia.

      And white won- It’s enough to look at the State Banner of RUSSIA of the White Army over the Kremlin. And this is an objective thousand-year process of normal development of the people, people and Russia,.

      Then they lost due to their exceptional honesty, decency, because of service to the Fatherland and unwillingness to shed fraternal blood in the civil war.

      The Bolsheviks temporarily won thanks to a monstrous, cynical lie ("we promise whatever, but we will hang it ... we will hang it later!"), unprecedented cruelty, the most terrible in the history of the country, which flooded the country with the blood of 10 million victims (TIMES more than PMA) and betrayal ...

      But the voice of the people, all their short life, they were afraid like FIRE: they didn’t hold ANY election, they didn’t allow a single party, they didn’t allow a single free word, meeting, procession: they were afraid to a cold sweat, to hysteria and paranoia .. ..

      And not without reason: in 91 nobody stood up for them, including and ... they themselves belay lol
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 40
        +7
        Quote: Olgovich
        This is the Bolshevik "history" that DOESN'T KNOW about the worst famine in the history of the country and the world, which occurred in 33 g with millions of victims and cannibalism, she did NOT HEAR about the owls. on the island of cannibals Nazino, she DIDN'T NOTICE that in 30 years, without trial or investigation, 600 children were exiled to the North to the chariots of poles, that 000% of the dead among the exiled were CHILDREN, etc.

        Audible hysteria ...
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 8 November 2019 11: 03
          +2
          And you do not know about cannibalism on the island of Nazino?
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 8 November 2019 11: 15
            +6
            Quote: kalibr
            And you do not know about cannibalism on the island of Nazino?

            So what? Do you know how many famines were in Russia before the Bolsheviks?
            Check here ..
            https://d-clarence.livejournal.com/89855.html
            LJ, but reliable source .., not defiled by Bolshevik influence ..
            So ... in short .. Peter 1 has systematically fought against hunger, but neither cx structure nor storage methods made it possible to maintain at least some significant supply of food.
            So the Bolsheviks got the same, not arranged tsarist system. And here’s a miracle .. From the second half of 30x they began to forget about hunger, and in 40x cx the system withstood the heaviest load .. and again .. huge territories did not undergo hunger .. By the 70 years, the USSR’s reserves allowed the 4 to grow nothing at all, but stupidly eat up the stock ... the whole population of the country.
            Blame the Bolsheviks for climate hunger .. it's like .. that .., but forget that they solved this problem after all ...
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 06
              -8
              Quote: dvina71
              So what? Do you know how many famines were in Russia before the Bolsheviks?

              Ahh, on about. Nazino-poor harvest was, right?

              You didn’t have time, you see, thrown in summer dresses into Siberian snow and frost, WITHOUT FOOD. people-grow bread negative
              at least IN MEMORY of them, innocent and Unconvicted, have respect negative
              Quote: dvina71
              So the Bolsheviks got the same, not arranged tsarist system. And here is a miracle.

              They got a PERFECT system - state, community and church, to prevent hunger. Its result is the lack of starvation after 1892.

              The result of the Bolsheviks:
              - 5 million starvation, cannibalism in 22 g,
              -hundreds of thousands-in non-military 25 g
              -7 million in non-military 33 g
              1,5 million in 47

              This has never happened in Russia

              Quote: dvina71
              , but forget that they solved this problem after all ...

              Yeah, "decided": the level of food consumption in 1913, after all the "battles" and losses, reached already ... after 40 years ... (Report of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR 55 g)
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 8 November 2019 11: 52
          -5
          Quote: dvina71
          Quote: Olgovich
          This is the Bolshevik "history" that DOESN'T KNOW about the worst famine in the history of the country and the world, which occurred in 33 g with millions of victims and cannibalism, she did NOT HEAR about the owls. on the island of cannibals Nazino, she DIDN'T NOTICE that in 30 years, without trial or investigation, 600 children were exiled to the North to the chariots of poles, that 000% of the dead among the exiled were CHILDREN, etc.

          Audible hysteria ...

          Indicative, this, how is it? A powerlessness lol object to the facts
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 42
          +6
          Quote: dvina71
          Audible hysteria ...

          Quote: Olgovich
          in 91 no one stood up for them, including and ... they themselves

          But is he right about this?
        4. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 8 November 2019 12: 43
          0
          ]
          dvina71 "Record hysteria ..."
          As usual.))) Nothing new.))) What to do ... does not protect itself.)))
      2. lucul
        lucul 8 November 2019 13: 44
        -5
        Bolsheviks ... Bolsheviks .... Bolsheviks

        What did you modestly keep silent about the national composition of THESE Bolsheviks? )))
      3. BAI
        BAI 8 November 2019 19: 42
        +2
        And White won, just look at the State Banner RUSSIA of the White Army over the Kremlin.

        And we see a commercial flag over the Kremlin - the flag of traders, which very accurately characterizes modern Russia. Anyone was needed, but not red. Not a yellow-black national flag of the Republic of Ingushetia is too odious. And not Andreevsky - the fleet never changed him. Only this one remains.
  2. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 8 November 2019 05: 44
    +14
    Planetariums, houses of culture and creativity, factories and laboratories against taverns and brothels.

    Brutal, but true.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 8 November 2019 06: 34
      +1
      Against taverns, brothels and churches.
  3. Moskovit
    Moskovit 8 November 2019 05: 50
    -1
    Samsonov, as usual, gives out his wishful thinking. The red project was deeply international. And actually now such. The Bolsheviks did not want the building of socialism in a single state. It just so happened in connection with failures outside of Russia. Therefore, they began, like the tsarist authorities before that, to use the Russian people as building material.
    1. venaya
      venaya 8 November 2019 06: 08
      +2
      Quote: Moskovit
      The red project was deeply international.
      Actually, the people themselves do not care about the national project or the international project, ordinary people didn’t bother with that. And in general, few people understood what nationality was, or even steeper - internationality, because the nationalities themselves appeared in Russia only in the 1917, and had not previously been observed in Russia from the word at all.
      1. Moskovit
        Moskovit 8 November 2019 07: 07
        +6
        Yes. Poles, Lithuanians, Jews, Finns, considered themselves Russian? Why did so many national formations fight on the side of the Bolsheviks? Why did so many Jews participate in the revolution? The Bolsheviks declared all nationalities and religions equal.
        1. venaya
          venaya 8 November 2019 07: 27
          -1
          Quote: Moskovit
          Why did so many Jews participate in the revolution?
          So the Jews were created in order to arrange revolutions, this is their professional bread. And as for the "Bolsheviks" under the leadership of Y. Sverdlov, the point here is not in these very Bolsheviks, but in general in all revolutionaries, in this they are all absolutely the same, differences are observed more only in the methods of propaganda. I myself would not single out the Bolsheviks in this regard, this is still a fairly general trend and I think that many have already noticed this.
      2. qQQQ
        qQQQ 8 November 2019 11: 38
        +2
        Quote: venaya
        Actually, the people themselves do not care about the national project or the international project, ordinary people didn’t bother with that.

        Ordinary people didn’t bother, because it simply didn’t reach the moment of choice, Lenin died and Stalin came with his building of socialism in a single country. Until that moment, all Leninists were oriented towards the world revolution, and it was the Russian people that should have been the firewood with which this fire would be ignited.
    2. ilimnoz
      ilimnoz 8 November 2019 06: 34
      +3
      the red project could not close to Russia alone. any successful project must capture territory and minds. whatever they say, the red project is n ... radically redrawn the world. the West had to revise the system of retaining slavery, formally abandon colonies, and other things.
      1. Moskovit
        Moskovit 8 November 2019 10: 02
        +1
        Yes. It was the revolution that destroyed all the colonial and not only the empires of the world. Now, when people live much better, many dream of social justice, but what happened then? But for some reason, the fans of "their eminences" do not understand this ..
    3. Hlavaty
      Hlavaty 8 November 2019 07: 00
      +4
      Quote: Moskovit
      The red project was deeply international.

      Like Russia itself, in which many peoples lived and lives.
    4. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 09: 34
      -1
      The Leninists viewed the Russian people as kindling for the "fire of the world revolution." On the woe to all the bourgeoisie, we will fan the world fire. The kindling, however, is burned first.
      1. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 8 November 2019 09: 52
        0
        Interestingly, do you literally imagine that?
        PS about the Australian working day you will not answer?
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 10: 07
          -2
          You can literally: export the revolution on the bayonets of the Red Army. Financing of foreign communist parties (at whose expense?) And it was - support for the German and Hungarian revolutions, apparently, there was nowhere to put money - the budget was in surplus. Regarding the 8 hour work day in Australia - google and browse.
          1. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 8 November 2019 10: 56
            0
            And where is the "burning of the Russian people"?
            google and find

            to find out that at the national level, the 8 hourly working day was set in Australia in the 1920's at the 4-hourly working week and from 01.01.1948 at the 40-hourly? And the requirements are yes, with 1855 started.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 8 November 2019 11: 07
              0
              48-hour
      2. dvina71
        dvina71 8 November 2019 10: 49
        +1
        Quote: AS Ivanov.
        The Leninists viewed the Russian people as kindling for the "fire of the world revolution."

        I will correct ... the Trotskyists ..., there were no Leninists yet ... But Trotsky had a whole "column" ... Lenin at that time was in the top five in rank ... and after being wounded ... purely a symbol ...
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 10: 56
          -7
          Trotsky was not only the main practitioner, but also the main theorist of the October Revolution. Then, after its defeat, an alternative version of the revolution was written.
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 8 November 2019 11: 17
            +1
            Quote: AS Ivanov.
            an alternative version of the revolution was written.

            Can you briefly. Tezisno ... describe the real?
            1. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 11: 26
              +1
              In short - you get a "multibukaff". It is enough that the Soviet official history was silent about the role of Trotsky in the preparation and implementation of the October Revolution. Lenin, who arrived in Petrograd on October 24, could not carry out active preparation and leadership of the uprising - this was done, unlike the Soviet version of history, by completely different people.
              1. dvina71
                dvina71 8 November 2019 11: 31
                -2
                Quote: AS Ivanov.
                It is enough that Soviet official history ignored the role of Trotsky in the preparation and implementation of

                Come on? You reviewed the campaign of kin ... but you had to read books ... About the role of Trotsky, Kamenev, Sverdlov .. Just don't say that they were not published in the USSR .. "Notes of a Survivor" ..SM. Golitsina .. Yes ... yes ... the grandson of the Moscow governor ..., a member of the Writers' Union since 1965 ...
                1. AU Ivanov.
                  AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 11: 35
                  -1
                  How objective were these books? Soviet history determined the leader of the revolution - V. I. Lenin, although this was far from the case.
                  1. dvina71
                    dvina71 8 November 2019 11: 40
                    -1
                    Quote: AS Ivanov.
                    How objective were these books? Soviet history determined the leader of the revolution - V. I. Lenin, although this was far from the case.

                    Well, I’m saying .., you operate on data from films ... Lenin determined the leader of the revolution Stalin .. and there were reasons for that. He did not technically maintain the power he received, but he got power thanks to him .., but they don’t show it in the movies ... people don’t know .. and they believe that the gate to the ZD was broken ... during the assault ... which did not have.
                    1. AU Ivanov.
                      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 12: 44
                      +1
                      Why only movies? I operate on the theses of official Soviet propaganda. The country needed an idol - the country received it. And I will express seditious thought: if Lenin lived to the 30-ies, then, with a greater degree of probability, he would share the fate of his associates.
                      1. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 8 November 2019 21: 12
                        -2
                        "if Lenin lived until the 30s then ... he would have shared the fate of his associates" ///
                        ----
                        The reverse is also true: if Trotsky died simultaneously with Lenin in 1924,
                        then they would be put nearby in the Mausoleum. And for this sweet couple they would pray
                        Soviet people right up to 1991.
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 55
                      +3
                      Quote: dvina71
                      Stalin determined the leader of the revolution Stalin

                      what Did Stalin have the right to determine in 1917?
                      1. tesser
                        tesser 8 November 2019 21: 53
                        -4
                        .
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Did Stalin have the right to determine in 1917?

                        Not in 1917. Stalin was the winner who writes history. What was really not interesting there.

                        In a parody, this can be seen in the example of the great political instructor comrade. Brezhnev.
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 54
                  +2
                  Quote: dvina71
                  Survivor's Notes ".. S. M. Golitsin

                  And in what year are the notes written, do not tell me .... and could the notes at that time not be biased?
              2. dvina71
                dvina71 8 November 2019 18: 29
                +1
                Quote: AS Ivanov.
                October Revolution

                What a coup? You don’t even know this .. The Bolsheviks received power not by weapons, but by the only legal way then. From the hands of the deputies of the Second All-Russian Congress of People’s Deputies .. The irony is that this congress was not an initiative of the Bolsheviks .. Mensheviks, essays .. they had a real opportunity to become power because for some there was intelligence, and for the second the peasantry .. And when they got the power the question arose about finance .. and what do you think .. they opened the bank with explosives? I will not kill the intrigue .. I suggest you find out yourself ..
                1. tesser
                  tesser 8 November 2019 21: 56
                  -5
                  Quote: dvina71
                  The Second All-Russian Congress of People's Deputies.

                  II All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies. People’s deputies - this is to Gorbachev.

                  What did this event have to do with the law?
                2. AU Ivanov.
                  AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 23: 13
                  +1
                  The term "October Revolution" was used by both Lenin and Stalin. Therefore, he has the right to life.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 8 November 2019 12: 49
          +4
          Quote: dvina71
          Correct .. Trotskyists .., Leninists were not there then

          laughing Bravo, bravo !!!! Those. Trotsky, who made the holiday of November 7 and the second man in the RSDLP (b) after Lenin ..... he is so hot, on the side, and has nothing to do with Lenin ... good
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 8 November 2019 18: 18
            +1
            Quote: Serg65
            Those. Trotsky - who made the holiday of November 7 and the second person in the RSDLP (b) after Lenin

            You see ... if you had taken an interest in this topic more densely than you didn’t write such nonsense.
            1 .. Lenin was never N1 in the RSDLP (b).
            First, management was collegial, and in the party, Lenin was a theorist. For example, the fate of Nicholas II was decided collectively and the majority inclined to conduct a trial on him, and his family agreed to accept in Denmark.
            And if we talk about the 1 number, then the Minister of War in the country with martial law is the only option for this number.
            1. tesser
              tesser 8 November 2019 21: 57
              -4
              Quote: dvina71
              For example, the fate of Nicholas II was decided collectively and the majority inclined to conduct a trial on him

              Collegially, you say, they decided? And what did you decide?
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 11 November 2019 07: 40
              -1
              Quote: dvina71
              Lenin was never N1 in the RSDLP (b).

              lol He smiled ..... to cut off unnecessary conversations, take an interest in the fate of Bogdanov, Krasin, Shlyapnikov ... this is to the point ..
              Quote: dvina71
              if you took an interest in this topic more densely than such nonsense did not write.
      3. Looking for
        Looking for 8 November 2019 17: 17
        0
        What are you lying !!! This phrase does not belong to the Bolsheviks. It came from the pen of Blok. Poem "The Twelve".
    5. tesser
      tesser 8 November 2019 10: 00
      -1
      Quote: Moskovit
      use the Russian people as building material.

      Not quite the right metaphor.

      As firewood.
      1. AU Ivanov.
        AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 10: 58
        -1
        What's on the forehead, what's on the forehead. The Russian people were seen as a tool for the realization of crazy ambitions, nothing more.
        1. BAI
          BAI 8 November 2019 15: 56
          +2
          What's on the forehead, what's on the forehead. Russian people were seen as implementation tool crazy ambitions no more.

          Do you think that the Russian people are not capable of anything, even to control their fate? Only life under external control?
          1. AU Ivanov.
            AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 16: 12
            -1
            Well, where did we get such a longing for a "strong hand"? Apparently, because we really can't organize ourselves - give us a king.
            1. BAI
              BAI 8 November 2019 17: 23
              +2
              I have no longing. Just a distinctive feature of all anti-Semites - running into the Jews, they humiliate the Russian people and do not see it. Those. anti-Semite = Russophobe, and it does not reach them. Genetic seeing problem. nothing is treated.
      2. sniperino
        sniperino 8 November 2019 14: 05
        -2
        Quote: tesser
        As firewood.
        Well, they didn’t like the Russian people, they considered them slaves not suitable for construction, but the very thing in the furnace. Our steam engine is flying forward!
    6. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 November 2019 11: 10
      +3
      Quote: Moskovit
      The red project was deeply international.

      Yeah ... in words. But in reality, Leninist internationalism was internationalism, in which the Russian people were assigned the role of a scapegoat for all the sins of the tsarist regime. Moreover, Vladimir Ilyich masterfully replaced concepts - first blaming Russian officials, and then transferring blame to the entire Russian people as a whole.
      Here is what Leninist internationalism is:
      Therefore, internationalism on the part of the oppressing or the so-called “great” nation (although great only by its violence, great only as great as the Grand Mordion) should consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations, but also in such inequality that would compensate the oppressing nation , a nation large, the inequality that actually develops in life. He who did not understand this, he did not understand the truly proletarian attitude to the national question, he essentially remained on the petty-bourgeois point of view, and therefore could not but slide down every minute to the bourgeois point of view.

      What is important for the proletariat? For the proletariat, it is not only important, but also essential, to ensure it with a maximum of confidence in the proletarian class struggle on the part of foreigners. What is needed for this? This requires not only formal equality. To do this, one way or another must be compensated by his conversion or his concessions to the foreigner for that distrust, that suspicion, those insults that were made to him in the historical past by the government of the "great-power" nation.

      At the same time, Lenin demanded strict punishment. rude Great Russian и Great Russian nationalists comrade Ordzhonikidze, Stalin and Dzerzhinsky for daring to accuse the Georgian leadership of social-nationalism and trying to put an end to the nationalist orgy that was happening in Georgia at that time.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 8 November 2019 13: 40
        +5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Lenin demanded strict punishment of the rude Great Russian state mords

        Ha! Vladimir Ilyich answered the repeated complaints of Rudzutak, Ioffe, Peters, Makogon to Lenin regarding the anti-Russian land company organized by Safarov in Turkestan ...
        for world politics of the RSFSR, it is devilishly important to win the trust of the natives, to win three times and four times, to prove that we are not imperialists.

        And the Central Committee issued a conclusion ...
        charges against comrade Safarov, in the form in which they are nominated, is unfounded, and their source is a group struggle over the methods of involving the Kyrgyz working masses in party and Soviet work

        but at the same time stated ...
        in carrying out his policy to combat colonialization, Comrade Safarov did not always maintain due restraint and thereby gave rise to putting forward incriminating charges against him

        Ioffe's report to Moscow ..
        Safarov’s activity in Turkestan had no special consequences for him, which cannot be said about its destructive influence on the fate of thousands of Russian peasants and the state of the economy of the region. The situation of the territories that I personally saw and studied can be described in two words: the abomination of desolation. The blessed land, once the eden of mankind, lies in the dust, and general destruction is crescendo. I saw with my own eyes that the land that the Russian peasants who had previously sowed by them was now sowed and not plowed by anyone. I saw abandoned Russian huts and Russian gardens abandoned during these huts - both transferred to Kyrgyz artels living nearby in yurts and abandoned all this just because they do not know how to handle the Russian stove and how to care for the Russian garden ..

        Rudzutak Report
        As a result of this land reform, a huge underseeding and already begun famine in some previously grain-growing areas. The experience of the Semirechye "land management" conducted by "methods of reckless terror, devastation and destruction" once again reminds that the correction of injustices caused by the previous government, the restoration of the violated rights and dignity of the people are incompatible with revenge and violence, irresponsible demagogy and attempts to pit people of different nationalities, origin or beliefs
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2019 15: 22
          +3
          Quote: Serg65
          anti-Russian land company organized by Safarov in Turkestan, Vladimir Ilyich replied ...
          for world politics of the RSFSR, it is devilishly important to win the trust of the natives, to win three times and four times, to prove that we are not imperialists
          .

          This VIL hoped for the action of the peoples of the East and the next "world revolution". Therefore, he demanded in every possible way to bend in front of local personnel.
          It must be borne in mind that the fragmentation of the people's commissariats and the inconsistency between their work in relation to Moscow and other centers can be paralyzed enough by party authority if it is applied with any sufficient prudence and impartiality; the harm that can result for our state from the lack of united national apparatuses with the Russian apparatus is immeasurably less, infinitely less than the harm that will result not only for us, but for the entire International, for the hundreds of millions of Asian peoples who will have to speak at historical proscenium in the near future, following us. It would be unforgivable opportunism if, on the eve of this speech of the East and at the beginning of its awakening, we would undermine our authority among him with the slightest at least rudeness and injustice towards our own foreigners.
  4. apro
    apro 8 November 2019 06: 55
    +1
    There was no ideological basis for the white movement. Apart from articles on whites, the main motive is a military dictatorship. To keep and not to let go. The Russian military could not offer anything to the country's population. They themselves rejected the monarchy and liberal bourgeois values. Plus, terrible racism. Cossack separatism.
    Was the white project western? Definitely not. He enjoyed the support of the West. Yes, but the Russian military did not want to be a West in the sense of civil rights and economic structure. He was more impressed by the age of antiquity. Military class privileges are such neo-feudalism ..
    1. rusin
      rusin 8 November 2019 07: 12
      0
      Quote: apro
      The white movement did not have an ideological basis. In addition to the article on the whites, the main motive is a military dictatorship. To keep and not let go. The Russian military could not offer anything to the country's population.

      Well, the Russian ministers, generals of the Russian Imperial Army, professors of Russian universities and millionaire entrepreneurs did not have an ideology !!! Unlike the Soviet ones, who clearly knew: "What are we fighting for, Semyon Mykhalych? Duc is clear to the hedgehog, Vasily Ivanovich is for the International, Soviet power and the world revolution!"
      “The political program of Kornilov”
      1. Restoration of the rights of a citizen: all citizens of Russia are equal before the law, without distinction of gender and nationality; the destruction of class privileges, the preservation of the inviolability of the person and home, the freedom of movement, residence, etc.
      2. Restore the full scope of freedom of speech and press.
      3. The restoration of freedom of industry and trade, the abolition of the nationalization of private financial enterprises.
      4. Restoration of ownership.
      5. The restoration of the Russian army on the basis of genuine military discipline. The army should be formed on a voluntary basis (on the principle of the English army), without committees, commissioners and elected posts.
      6. Full implementation of all the union obligations of international treaties accepted by Russia. The war must be brought to an end in close unity with our allies. Peace must be concluded universal and honorable, on democratic principles, that is, with the right to self-determination of enslaved peoples.
      7. In Russia, universal compulsory primary education is introduced with wide local autonomy of the school.
      8. The Constituent Assembly, torn down by the Bolsheviks, must be convened again. Elections to the Constituent Assembly must be held freely, without pressure on the people’s will and throughout the country. The personality of the people elected is sacred and inviolable.
      9. The government created by the program gene. Kornilov, is responsible in his actions only to the Constituent Assembly, to which it will transfer the entirety of the state-legislative power. The Constituent Assembly, as the sole owner of the Russian land, must develop the basic laws of the Russian constitution and finally construct the state system.
      10. The church should receive full autonomy in matters of religion. State custody of religious affairs is being eliminated. Religious freedom is fully realized.
      11. A complex agrarian question is submitted for resolution by the Constituent Assembly. Before the latter develops the land issue in the final form and issues relevant laws, all sorts of anarchist actions of citizens are recognized as unacceptable.
      12. All citizens are equal before the court. The death penalty remains in force, but applies only in cases of grave state crimes.
      13. The workers retain all the political and economic gains of the revolution in the field of labor standards, freedom of labor unions, meetings and strikes, with the exception of the forcible nationalization of enterprises and workers' control, leading to the death of domestic industry.
      14. General Kornilov recognizes the right to broad local autonomy for certain nationalities that are part of Russia, provided, however, that state unity is maintained. Poland, Ukraine and Finland, formed into separate national-state units, should be widely supported by the Russian government in their efforts to revive the state, in order to further consolidate the eternal and indestructible alliance of fraternal peoples.

      // Archive of the Russian revolution, published by G.V. Hesse. Berlin, 1923. T. IX. C. 285-286.
      1. icant007
        icant007 8 November 2019 07: 48
        -1
        Kornilov did not live long, he was slapped at the beginning of the 1918 year. Of the other leaders of the White movement, only Wrangel began to do something in the Crimea, trying to give the peasants land. And what about Denikin and Krasnov? Ultimately, they went to the service of Hitler. Here is the crown of white movement.
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 09: 38
          +8
          When was Denikin in the service of the Nazis? Denikin rejected all German proposals for cooperation and urged emigrants not to support Germany in the war with the USSR
          1. solzh
            solzh 8 November 2019 09: 42
            0
            Quote: AS Ivanov.
            Denikin rejected all German proposals for cooperation and urged emigrants not to support Germany in the war with the USSR

            He called for US support against the USSR
            1. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 09: 43
              +4
              The USA is not the Nazis. They said that Denikin was in the service of Hitler, like Shkuro or Krasnov.
              1. Alexander Suvorov
                Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 10: 06
                0
                AS Ivanov. (Andrei)
                The USA is not the Nazis. They said that Denikin was in the service of Hitler, like Shkuro or Krasnov.
                And why is the United States better than the Nazis? And Denikin, although he was not in the service of the United States, but intensely set them against Soviet Russia. And why is he better than the same Krasnov?
                1. tesser
                  tesser 8 November 2019 10: 19
                  -2
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  And Denikin, although he was not in the service of the United States, but intensely set them against Soviet Russia. And why is he better than the same Krasnov?

                  The fact that Denikin in his hatred of the Soviet regime did not reach the genocide of the Russian people. But the German partners of Mr. Krasnov had such ideas, and didn’t even really hide them.
                  The Americans of Denikin's time had chaotic wishes for the Soviet regime, but not at all bloodthirsty. If you took it upon yourself to read Truman's speech on "containment" - it would be laughter and tears.
                  1. Alexander Suvorov
                    Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 10: 34
                    +3
                    tesser (-_-)
                    The fact that Denikin in his hatred of the Soviet regime did not reach the genocide of the Russian people.
                    Well, yes, the proposal to stifle Soviet Russia through an economic blockade, including a ban on the sale of essential goods, is an undoubted blessing for the people of Russia and never looks like genocide, right?
                    God, what are all the bakers of lying and not distant mind!
                    1. tesser
                      tesser 8 November 2019 11: 00
                      -5
                      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                      including a ban on the sale of essential goods is an undoubted blessing for the people of Russia and never looks like genocide, right?

                      Excuse me, was Comrade Stalin interested in essential goods? Heavy cruisers? Turbines for battleships? Aircraft engines? Do you have a little list? You, for an hour, did not confuse who carried out the genocide of the Russian people there, talking about the Americans and Comrade. Stalin?
                      1. Alexander Suvorov
                        Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 11: 17
                        +6
                        Denikin believed that the United States should not forget the lessons of the Second World War and draw conclusions from them. The most important conclusion is that in no case will you turn the war against Bolshevism into a war against Russia, otherwise the same thing will happen that happened during the attacks on Russia of Poland, Sweden, Napoleon, Hitler.

                        In this regard, Denikin advised the Americans to make it clear to the people of the USSR that the struggle was not being waged against him, but only against the Bolshevik authorities. It is interesting that Denikin did not reject the very possibility of a war against Russia; he was ready for casualties among the Russian people, without which not a single war would have cost.
                        And Krasnov, and Shkuro, and Vlasov also of the type "fought against Bolshevism", and the methods of this "struggle" are well known. Denikin differs from these only in that he did not like the Germans, but he did not even breathe towards the British, French and Americans. Which he called to fight against Soviet Russia and, accordingly, its people. Very "noble" isn't it?
                        And what's the difference to call on Germans or Americans to fight Russia. Especially since the Americans, in Civilian times, perfectly showed that in terms of cruelty towards the civilian population, they were not inferior to the Nazis in the least.
                        So your corrupt creature Denikin, like everyone who sympathizes and sympathizes with the white bastards.
                      2. tesser
                        tesser 8 November 2019 11: 46
                        -6
                        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                        Which he called to fight against Soviet Russia and, accordingly, its people. Very "noble" isn't it?

                        You see. Mr. Denikin nevertheless divided Soviet Russia and its people. Given its background, it was not so difficult to do.
                        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                        Especially since the Americans, in Civilian times, perfectly showed that in terms of cruelty towards the civilian population, they were not inferior to the Nazis in the least.

                        I mean, did the Germans put as many civilians as Americans in civilian? 2, perhaps, thousands of people according to the most radical estimates (that is, together with all the red ones)? And the remaining 27, conditionally, of millions - one comrade. Stalin, it turns out, activated?
                        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                        And what's the difference to call on Germans or Americans to fight Russia.

                        Actually big. After the victory of the Americans, you sat at home, complained about the Democrats and lack of money and voted, I suppose, for the Communist Party. But under the Germans you would not complain, I assure you.
                      3. Alexander Suvorov
                        Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 15: 13
                        +4
                        tesser (-_-)
                        Actually big. After the victory of the Americans, you sat at home, complained about the Democrats and lack of money and voted, I suppose, for the Communist Party.
                        Well, yes, this is from the same category that if we had not resisted, but surrendered to the Germans in 1941, now we would have been drinking Bavarian beer.
                        What are you all corrupt bakers.
                        As now in the countries occupied by Americans, then, 100 years ago, the American interventionists set about creating camps in the territory of Northern Russia they occupied. In prisons and camps created by Americans, British and French, there were thousands of people in the European North 52. By decision of the military field courts 4 thousand people were shot. The conditions in the camps were appalling, the feeding was very poor, and torture and harassment were widespread. The prisoners of the camps were forced to work for 18-20 hours, so dozens of Russian people died every day. 23 August 1918 was the most famous Mudyug concentration camp in the north of Russia, which became a real cemetery for victims of the Anglo-French-American intervention.

                        The American occupation forces in the Far East and Eastern Siberia acted even more brutally. Only in the Amur region, Americans destroyed 25 villages, suspecting their population in the support of the partisans. The centralized export from the territories occupied by the interventionists, forests, fur, gold, and other valuable goods began. But if the forest or gold were exported by train, under the control of the command, then ordinary soldiers and junior officers hunted for banal criminal robbery. There were not rare cases of murder, rape, beating of local residents by American servicemen.

                        Documentary information was kept about the torture and humiliation that the Russian invaders subjected the Russian people to before the murder. I must say that they did not differ from the atrocities of the German fascist invaders after two and a half decades. For example, the partisan N. Myasnikov was chopped to pieces alive, and the wife of partisan E. Boychuk was punctured with bayonets and drowned in a cesspool. Americans did not disdain to kill adolescents, children, women, old people, set fire to rural houses and schools. There are quite a few photographs that were taken at that time by the American soldiers themselves, who, evidently, were going to then brag about their stay in distant Siberia.
                        The Colonel of the American Army, Morrow, even recalled that his soldiers could not sleep peacefully without killing some Russian. On one of the days, American soldiers under the command of Morrow shot 1600 people who were brought in railway cars to Andriyanovka station. While in the countryside, Americans pretended to fight with partisans, in cities they simply dealt with criminal activity, for example, they robbed passersby, apartments of local residents. The command practically could not, and did not want, to control the chaos of the American soldiers.
                      4. tesser
                        tesser 8 November 2019 15: 31
                        -1
                        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                        American Army Colonel Morrow even recalled that his soldiers could not sleep peacefully without killing any Russian.

                        Ohhhh, this is a very famous story. I will unsubscribe later.
                      5. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 03: 25
                        -4
                        And so that we know about the atrocities of Americans.

                        The first one. The Americans and the British really did very unsuccessfully at that time. An alien civil war is a dark matter, there and the pro-wounded British there was a bungle time after time, and the Americans of that period are generally children. As a result, they supported various non-viable rabble, and often quite obvious Bolsheviks. In particular, the only opportunity to close the issue with Karelia / Kola Peninsula - to transfer them to the future fascist Mannerheim, even if with a surcharge - was missed. The Far East for the Soviet power really should thank mainly the Americans (well, in addition to great-grandfathers, of course).

                        The second one. The easiest way to distinguish a work that claims to be academic is from a huddle / propaganda - links. The method is not universal: the propagandon Suvorov, for example, has a million links, fortunately, in Soviet times, few were able to compare them all. The propagandists of the late USSR were rich in making references to English-language sources that were not translated into Russian: where will the broad Soviet reader take the same memoirs of Laga, with reference to which Soviet authors wrote about Truman's anti-Sovietism? At the Leninka foreign fund?

                        But now the old Soviet propaganda is gone. Now published mainly old Moscow hack workers Usyshkin-Werther, Leonid Trepetovsky and Boris Ammiakov A.G. Patients who have long practiced literary dumpingwho are not steaming around the game, which they would not have taken to Gospolitizdat. In particular, a little strange (for what purpose would an American officer publish this about American soldiers under his command, even if this is true? Did he want to be tribunalized?) "Colonel Morrow's memoirs" (a real American colonel who participated in those events) exist, for some reason, exclusively in Russian translation, but, like the Patients, without references to ISBN. Worse, next to the strange Colonel Bolnyh indicates how he learned about the atrocities perpetrated by the Americans against the partisans - from the red prints of that time. On this, in principle, the conversation could be closed. The Bolsheviks will not lie.

                        Naturally, the Americans of that time were already registered bureaucrats, so the sea preserved the documents of the American expeditionary forces. Oddly enough, an invoice for nails for crucifying boys in shorts has not yet been found. And there were complaints about political stupidity (what have we forgotten here?), Surprise at the activities of various Russian people, including gentlemen of officers, especially his high nobility Esaul Semyonov, as well as questions that were obscure to ordinary people, such as the organization of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the conflict zone.
            2. tesser
              tesser 8 November 2019 10: 03
              -3
              Quote: solzh
              He called for US support against the USSR

              And what seems strange to you in that a man did not like the gang of gopniks who had seized his homeland?
              1. Alexander Suvorov
                Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 10: 36
                +5
                tesser (-_-)
                And what seems strange to you in that a man did not like the gang of gopniks who had seized his homeland?
                A gang of gopniks, as you put it, is a large part of the people, but your white-sellers were a gang that the people swept out a filthy broom from Russia.
                1. tesser
                  tesser 8 November 2019 11: 02
                  -6
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  A gang of gopniks, as you put it, is a big part of the people,

                  I do not remember that the CPSU (b) was once the majority of the people.
                  1. Alexander Suvorov
                    Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 11: 19
                    +5
                    And here is the CPSU (b)? The majority of the people supported them, the people threw all this white-chased trash out of Russia.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 26
                      -6
                      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                      And here is the CPSU (b)? The majority of the people supported them,

                      Their people sent on . at the NATIONAL ELECTIONS.
                      Forgot, suvorov?

                      You need a halo, by the way. do not press? hi
                      1. solzh
                        solzh 8 November 2019 14: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        The people sent them on. at the NATIONAL ELECTIONS.
                        Forgot, Suvorov?

                        But your favorite traitors from any ROVS and other NTS there were not even close at the elections, they were not even invited to the new Russia even after 91. So they sit abroad and continue to pour dirt on modern Russia.
                  2. dvina71
                    dvina71 8 November 2019 11: 25
                    +9
                    Quote: tesser
                    I do not remember that the CPSU (b) was once the majority of the people.


                    Yeah .. tens of thousands of people stumbled upon Lenin’s funeral in severe frost .. so .. cleanly gloating ...
                    1. tesser
                      tesser 8 November 2019 11: 48
                      -6
                      Quote: dvina71
                      Yeah .. tens of thousands of people stumbled upon Lenin’s funeral in severe frost .. so .. cleanly gloating ...

                      And if the Nevel’s gather at the rally as much as shown here, it will be the majority of Russia, I understand correctly?
                2. SERGEY SERGEEVICS
                  SERGEY SERGEEVICS 8 November 2019 13: 26
                  -2
                  Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                  tesser (-_-)
                  And what seems strange to you in that a man did not like the gang of gopniks who had seized his homeland?
                  A gang of gopniks, as you put it, is a large part of the people, but your white-sellers were a gang that the people swept out a filthy broom from Russia.

                  Not respected and who sits in a clean field. Your gang, as you say, destroyed your own country, but then what 91 did not go and defend your communism, but now you are building up yourself not to understand what? Go and take the oath in the army, defend and protect your country, and then what you did not show your heroism?
            3. Olgovich
              Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 19
              -7
              Quote: solzh
              He called for US support against the USSR

              Nonsense.
              1. solzh
                solzh 8 November 2019 14: 56
                +1
                Quote: Olgovich
                Quote: solzh
                He called for US support against the USSR

                Nonsense.

                Go to school, at the desk, learn history.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 9 November 2019 07: 59
                  -5
                  Quote: solzh
                  Go to school, at the desk, learn history.

                  To school for ... Denikin’s article? belay lol

                  They go to the LIBRARY for her: you even that failed to drive in school.

                  And read, there, finally, the article itself, so as not to repeat the nonsense about it
                  Quote: solzh
                  He called for US support against the USSR
                  lol
            4. SERGEY SERGEEVICS
              SERGEY SERGEEVICS 8 November 2019 13: 11
              -5
              Quote: solzh
              Quote: AS Ivanov.
              Denikin rejected all German proposals for cooperation and urged emigrants not to support Germany in the war with the USSR

              He called for US support against the USSR

              Denikin, only in words called on the stripes to only demolish the power of the Bolsheviks and preserve the country completely, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in fact, did it. When the Russian lands were distributed free of charge to other countries. And those parts of the Russian lands that were part of us, like Finland and many others.
          2. icant007
            icant007 8 November 2019 10: 11
            0
            Guilty, wrong. I got confused with Shkuro.
            But Denikin’s position was ambiguous.
          3. sniperino
            sniperino 9 November 2019 08: 28
            -1
            Quote: AS Ivanov.
            When was Denikin in the service of the Nazis?
            Your opponent, however, plus 5 participants. Even today, the Bolsheviks are replaced by class instinct and revolutionary expediency by knowledge and logic.
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 8 November 2019 08: 05
        -7
        They did this late!
        1. Konstantin Shevchenko
          Konstantin Shevchenko 8 November 2019 10: 12
          -4
          Too competently. Easier land - for peasants, factories - for workers, water - for sailors laughing ... The one who is more beautiful and easier lied and won. This was only later understood by "the hammer and sickle - death and hunger." The Bolsheviks deceived everyone, even the Red heroes.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 32
            -3
            Quote: Konstantin Shevchenko
            It’s simpler land for peasants, factories for workers, water for sailors.

            peasant women ... yes Anything, just to keep the POWER ....
            And hang ... we will hang later!
      3. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 08: 36
        +5
        rusin
        “The political program of Kornilov”
        You can say in words anything, the main thing. And the affairs of the whites were such that they not only pushed the peasantry away from themselves, but even managed to quarrel with the Cossacks.
      4. solzh
        solzh 8 November 2019 09: 38
        +3
        In the photo in your comment:
        For the fact that the Russian people themselves would choose a HOST

        That is why White lost. The Russian people did not want to be a servant of the owner. The Russian people themselves wanted to be the Master in their own country.
        1. tesser
          tesser 8 November 2019 10: 05
          -6
          Quote: solzh
          The Russian people themselves wanted to be the Master in their own country.

          Sorry? There was only one owner with a capital in the USSR, and he treated the Russian people purely rhetorically. So the Russian people a little deceived.
          1. solzh
            solzh 8 November 2019 14: 57
            +2
            Quote: tesser
            Quote: solzh
            The Russian people themselves wanted to be the Master in their own country.

            Sorry? There was only one owner with a capital in the USSR, and he treated the Russian people purely rhetorically. So the Russian people a little deceived.

            The owner in the USSR was the people.
            1. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 15: 14
              0
              In which place? Even the Secretary General was elected in a narrow circle, completely without the participation of the people.
        2. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 10: 29
          -2
          And you pay attention to the national composition of the first Soviet government. Aha Russian, undoubtedly, was the master in his own country.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 36
            -4
            Quote: AS Ivanov.
            And you pay attention to the national composition of the first Soviet government. Aha Russian, undoubtedly, was the master in his own country.

            What's that: in the so-called. "gabochegyestiansky pr-ve" was ... 40% of the nobles and 1 (one!) really working Shlyapnikov.
            True, and that shot soon comrades. . yes
          2. solzh
            solzh 8 November 2019 15: 00
            0
            Quote: AU Ivanov.
            And you pay attention to the national composition of the first Soviet government. Aha Russian, undoubtedly, was the master in his own country.

            We have always had a multinational country. In addition to Russians, many other peoples lived and still live in Russia.
            1. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 15: 10
              +1
              Nationalities should be represented in government, but in strict proportion to its percentage in the total population of the country. And in the composition of the Soviet government was the dominance of one nation, which was far from the majority in Russia.
              1. solzh
                solzh 8 November 2019 16: 18
                +4
                Quote: AS Ivanov.
                Nationalities should be represented in government, but in strict proportion to its percentage in the total population of the country.

                In the USSR, one of the constituent parts of the Supreme Council was the Council of Nationalities, where it was exactly as you wrote, i.e. percentage ratio. As for the government, I honestly do not understand you. How do you propose dividing in proportion to ministers?
                1. AU Ivanov.
                  AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 16: 23
                  -1
                  In the USSR, the Supreme Soviet was a decorative body without real power. So much for "All Power to the Soviets" Immediately after the revolution, persons of a far from titular nationality prevailed in the Soviet government. I would like to note that the country was not a Union then, it was the Russian Federation, as it is now.
                  1. solzh
                    solzh 8 November 2019 16: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: AS Ivanov.
                    Immediately after the revolution, people of far from a titular nationality predominated in the Soviet government.

                    About the first Soviet government. Adapted from the article https://russian7.ru/post/kakim-byl-nacionalnyy-sostav-pervog/
                    "Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars - Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) People's Commissar for Internal Affairs - A.I. Rykov People's Commissar of Agriculture - V.P. Milyutin People's Commissar of Labor - A.G. Shlyapnikov People's Commissariat for Military and Naval Affairs - Committee, composed of: V.A. Ovseenko (Antonov), N.V. Krylenko and P.E. Dybenko People's Commissar for Trade and Industry - V.P. Nogin People's Commissar of Education - A.V. Lunacharsky People's Commissar of Finance - I.I. Skvortsov (Stepanov) People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs - L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky) People's Commissar of Justice - G.I. Oppokov (Lomov) People's Commissar for Food - I.A. Teodorovich Commissar of Posts and Telegraphs - N.P. Avilov (Glebov) People's Commissar for Nationalities - I.V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin). ” So, who were all these people by nationality? Eight people - Rykov, Milyutin, Shlyapnikov, Nogin, Lunacharsky, Skvortsov (Stepanov), Oppokov (Lomov), Avilov (Glebov) were Russian. Three - Ovseenko, Krylenko and Dybenko - were Little Russians (Ukrainians). Dzhugashvili (Stalin) was Georgian, I. Teodorovich was a Pole. The only Jew in the first government of the Soviets was Trotsky, People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs, whose real name was Bronstein ...

                    So, in the first Soviet government, the majority were Russians.
              2. sniperino
                sniperino 9 November 2019 15: 39
                -3
                Quote: AS Ivanov.
                Nationalities should be represented in government, but in strict proportion to its percentage
                Interesting, but why? Why such a tight binding of power to nationality? Any struggle for power then turns almost automatically into an ethnic conflict.
          3. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 15: 51
            +1
            And what? 80% - Great and Little Russians .. What problems? laughing .
      5. AU Ivanov.
        AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 09: 48
        0
        The Kornilov program looks much nicer than the Bolshevik program.
      6. rusin
        rusin 8 November 2019 10: 32
        +1
        DECLARATION OF THE VOLUNTARY ARMY

        OFFICIAL MESSAGE BY THE CHAIR OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
        UNDER THE COMMANDING ARMED FORCES IN THE SOUTH OF RUSSIA


        1On April 0 (23), the main command in the south of Russia addressed the governments of the Allied Powers through their official representatives with the following declaration:

        “I ask you to bring to the attention of your government what goals the command of the armed forces of the South of Russia pursues in the armed struggle against Soviet power and in state building:

        1) The destruction of Bolshevik anarchy and the establishment of a legal order in the country.
        2) The restoration of a powerful united and indivisible Russia.
        3) Convocation of the National Assembly on the basis of universal suffrage.
        4) The decentralization of power through the establishment of regional autonomy and broad local self-government.
        5) Guarantees of full civil liberty and freedom of religion.
        6) Immediate approach to land reform to eliminate the land needs of the working population.
        7) Immediate implementation of labor legislation providing the working classes from exploitation by their state and capital.


        Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia
        Lieutenant General Denikin
        Chairman of the special meeting cavalry general Dragomirov
        Ekaterinodar, 10 (23) April 1919 years
      7. Moskovit
        Moskovit 8 November 2019 11: 17
        +2
        Holy Russia, for faith and fatherland, the people ate to the dump.
        Kornilov’s point 6 crossed out everything written before and after.
        1. sniperino
          sniperino 8 November 2019 21: 29
          -2
          Quote: Moskovit
          Holy Russia, for faith and fatherland, the people ate to the dump.
          As if today's liberal is broadcasting: neither faith, nor fatherland, nothing sacred. In vain do you try to pull this American owl (For outside US only) onto the Russian globe.
          1. Moskovit
            Moskovit 9 November 2019 05: 10
            +1
            Yeah. Everywhere liberals see you. Hiding behind loud slogans, the then authorities were stuffing their pockets. Moreover, it dragged Russia into an unnecessary war. However, the degradation of excellencies has reached such a level that the whole system collapsed from a small breeze.
            1. sniperino
              sniperino 9 November 2019 11: 36
              0
              Quote: Moskovit
              Everywhere liberals see you
              Among liberals, have you often met ardent patriots and fervent believers? They are against religion and for cosmopolitanism. Do they differ from the Bolsheviks in this respect? I do not see. Ilyich considered himself a true liberal, unlike most others. He opposed liberals as soft-bodied half-liberals.
      8. Serg65
        Serg65 8 November 2019 13: 48
        +1
        Quote: rusin
        Well, it’s necessary

        Of the 14 points you gave Kornilov, not one could surpass the promise of the Bolsheviks! And the links to the Constituent Assembly caused only a smile .. gentleman, give us right now, right now and not tomorrow !!!!
        And Wrangel’s reforms were a year and a half late!
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 21
      -3
      Quote: apro
      the Russian military did not want to be a West in the sense of civil rights and economic structure, they were more impressed by the age of antiquity. military class privileges are such neo-feudalism ..

      Yes, yes, therefore, their program goal was: all power to the PEOPLE, on the basis of UNIVERSAL equal suffrage yes
      What are the Bolsheviks смертельно were afraid.
  5. samarin1969
    samarin1969 8 November 2019 06: 55
    +1
    "And then the Western liberals who seized power (the Provisional Government) decided to carry out an even deeper integration of Russia and the West." - and where does the White movement? The Bolsheviks waged a class war of annihilation.
    The Russians were not ready for this and simply did not understand well what was happening. Trotsky's methods of war proved to be more effective than Kolchak's frontal offensive. It was a "war without rules": (as in the famous scene of a film about samurai and mitraleses).

    Who won the Civil War became clear only after 70 years.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 08: 38
      +7
      samarin1969 (Konstantin Viktorovich Samarin)
      Who won the Civil War became clear only after 70 years.
      But this is not a fact. Yes, in 1991, we lost the general battle, but apparently the civil war is not over yet and it is far from the fact that the Chubas and Co. won it.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 8 November 2019 14: 00
        -7
        Quote: dvina71
        climate hunger

        On the island where the exiles were driven ... it's cool!
      2. tesser
        tesser 8 November 2019 14: 24
        -8
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        far from the fact that the Chubas and Co. won it

        Anatoly Borisovich, only an order! (from)
  6. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 8 November 2019 07: 30
    -4
    Holding a shield between two hostile races
    Mongols and Europe!
  7. Procopius Nesterov
    Procopius Nesterov 8 November 2019 07: 43
    -7
    Therefore, the White Guards, although often outwardly more attractive than the Reds, did not receive mass popular support. Hence the smaller number of their armies, compared with the Red Army. Therefore, about a third of the generals and officers of "old Russia" supported the Reds, a third were for the Whites,
    Maybe because the idea of ​​a voluntary Red Army failed, and Trotsky (Bronstein), the creator and commander of the Red Army, began violent mobilization. As for the former officers of the tsarist army, the Bolsheviks adopted a decree on admitting them exclusively to the Red Army. They were ridiculous about the support of the people. They were afraid of the people like fire . And such quotes in the collected works of Lenin are full.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 09: 01
      +7
      Procopius Nesterov
      Maybe because the idea of ​​a voluntary Red Army failed, and Trotsky (Bronstein) the creator and commander of the Red Army began a violent mobilization.
      Mobilization was forced only at the beginning of the Civil War and was a forced measure. Then the people, having drunk the "charms" of the white power of Kolchak, Denikin and others, he threw himself in a shaft into the red army. So there is no need to la-la about poplars. And then those who are forcibly mobilized do not fight like that.
      I already wrote before, but for you to repeat. My great-grandfather was forcibly mobilized by just the same whites in the Don army. In the very first battle with the first cavalry army, their officers left to their own devices, escaping from the battlefield, and the privates were left to be beaten. So they did not even show any resistance and surrendered in full force. They were offered on a voluntary basis either to go to Budyonny, or leaving weapons and ammunition to go home. My great-grandfather stayed and fought in the First Horse until the end of the Civil War. And no one from under the stick did not force him to serve in red. So don’t bother!
      1. Procopius Nesterov
        Procopius Nesterov 8 November 2019 09: 28
        -3
        The memory of the grandfather is good, but it’s better to use documents. The June 1919 is far from the beginning of a civil war. And violent mobilization also happens.
        Pay attention to how the Bolsheviks are afraid of the people, to shoot the people the usual order.
        1. Alexander Suvorov
          Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 09: 49
          +4
          There are millions of cheap fakes in the internet. I’ll tell you exactly such an 5 minute, only the signature will not be Lenin, but let’s say Kolchak. So I trust the memory of my great-grandfather more than your lying docs.
          Yes, and sometimes you need to turn on the brain. I repeat, they don’t fight like that from under a stick. Why was there a mass desertion from the WWI fronts, but not from the Civil Front? Just do not need to sculpt a hunchbacked one here about the fact that the Bolsheviks spread the front of the WWI and didn’t need to say about the shooting teams either, they were both white and red. Only now more people turned from white to red than vice versa. The Bolsheviks would never have won if they had not had the real support of the people.
          1. Procopius Nesterov
            Procopius Nesterov 8 November 2019 10: 03
            -2
            All the documents that I cited were taken from the collected works of Lenin.
            Check is not difficult.

            About desertion, Maybe because the tsar did not take the families of his soldiers hostage. And the Bolsheviks took. They did not shun anything, nor executions, nor threats and hostages.
            And yes, the Bolsheviks decomposed the army in World War I. In 1941 they would have put it on the wall for such agitation, and Lenin would have been declared a Vlasovites calling for the defeat of his country to war.
            1. Alexander Suvorov
              Alexander Suvorov 8 November 2019 10: 28
              +9
              Procopius Nesterov
              About desertion, Maybe because the tsar did not take the families of his soldiers hostage. And the Bolsheviks took.
              I knew that it’s precisely this BAD about hostages that you write. And now turn on the brain, if of course there is one. Yes, members of SOME military experts (former tsarist officers) who were considered not quite trustworthy were taken hostage and this is a fact. But this concerned a very small part of the officers. Why, for example, did the family of Brussilov or Bonch-Bruyevich not take hostages?
              As for the rank and file, and it was about him that we initially started the conversation, how do you imagine this? Suppose the Bolsheviks "forcibly" drove, say, a million people. This million, taking into account the then high birth rate, the number of families should have been at least five million. Now attention to the question:
              1. Where and for what money to keep so many "hostages"?
              2. How much more "forcibly mobilize" to protect such a quantity?
              3. How fool you have to be a beat in order to believe in all that monstrous WRONG that you and your brethren are in the form of olgovichs, soldiers, and other crystal bakers here ?!
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 49
                -7
                Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                Why, for example, did the family of Brussilov or Bonch-Bruyevich not take hostages?

                Duc, they did NOT fight against Russia: they trusted Brusilov ... to check the teeth of horses. lol With pre-conscripts.

                And Bruyevich pounded so violently after his arrest in the 30s on his "comrades in the struggle" yes , he sent so many to the next world that his NKVdny son pulled out, nevertheless, him from under execution.

                but contempt for the informer remained forever with everyone (oh, except you! of course) lol .
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 8 November 2019 12: 41
              -6
              Quote: Procopius Nesterov
              , and Lenin would have been declared by the Vlasovites calling for the defeat of his country for war.

              Interesting telegram ghoul.
              I didn’t know that.

              You, of course, are aware of such cannibalistic telegrams of the Revolutionary Military Council signed by Trotsky
            3. AU Ivanov.
              AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 12: 48
              0
              In fairness, I note that Anton Ivanovich Denikin fundamentally disagrees with you:
              “When they repeat at every step that the Bolsheviks served as the cause of the collapse of the army, I protest. This is not true. Others ruined the army ... The military legislation of recent months has ruined the army. ”
  8. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 08: 02
    +2
    I don't like stamps like "Russian code", etc. but this is said very well and correctly: “The paradox of the white (liberal) project in Russia was that the image of an attractive, rich and“ sweet ”future, acceptable to most of the educated and prosperous Russian society, had no chance of success among the masses. "
    Scientifically speaking, the Bolsheviks reflected the corresponding mentality of the majority of the population. A step to the left or to the right, even among them, immediately generated rejection and uprisings under the slogan "For the Soviets, but without the Communists." But when they did not take such steps ... the peasants were only in favor. Hence the rejection of the Bolshevik program of "municipalization of the land" and the adoption of the Socialist-Revolutionary division, and the preservation of the community ... everything that the "people" understood. Worked for them!
    1. Procopius Nesterov
      Procopius Nesterov 8 November 2019 09: 23
      0
      It is strange, why then did the Bolsheviks lose the election to the Constituent Assembly? The people didn’t support them, but didn’t want to give up power. It’s the same as now the Communist Party will hold elections, gain 10-20 percent, and United Russia will earn 40 percent. Although the Communist Party will say, we lost the election, but the people have chosen the wrong one, the power will be ours.
      1. tesser
        tesser 8 November 2019 10: 13
        -1
        Quote: Procopius Nesterov
        but the people made the wrong choice, the power will be ours.

        What confuses you? For whom the Petrograd garrison is power. And you’ll collect your founding in Paris.

        Another thing is that the Bolsheviks were rational people, they dealt with their enemies in turn. The turn of the peasantry came to the 30 years. In the meantime, it was necessary - one could make friends even with the peasant, even with the SR, at least with the German, even with the imperialists. This is the strength of such parties - no question is unprincipled, except for one. Who is the power here.

        From this point of view, the faithful Leninists are, of course, EP.
        1. AU Ivanov.
          AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 11: 12
          0
          I would say a little differently, to paraphrase one slogan: EP is the CPSU today. Rebranding and nothing more.
        2. dvina71
          dvina71 8 November 2019 19: 08
          0
          Quote: tesser
          The turn of the peasantry came to the 30 years.

          Yes, yes .. during the war, the army and people were fed by aliens .. we know ..
          1. tesser
            tesser 8 November 2019 19: 51
            -4
            Quote: dvina71
            Yes, yes .. during the war, the army and people were fed by aliens .. we know ..

            Trying poorly. Omerikantsy.
  9. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 08: 04
    +1
    Quote: samarin1969
    Who won the Civil War became clear only after 70 years.

    You noticed it well!
  10. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 08: 08
    0
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Some have never realized that it is the Russian people who are more acutely aware of inequality, violence, lies, and injustice. That is why pity and compassion, revenue and selflessness are strong in the Russian people. And all these attempts to build some kind of thieves' society of oppressors are certainly doomed to failure.

    So another civilian + intervention of the Western powers?
  11. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 08: 48
    +2
    "At its core, it was an anti-people project."
    And white is a foreign body.
    "That's really not easy - these are white officers. After all, they were our commanders, they fought one war. And in the war, as in a family, every brother. Well, they had to deserve so much that, apart from bile, a soldier has nothing for them not left
    .... Volunteer is not related to us. He gives them both a cross and a watch, and promises the earth. And you don’t give him faith: someone else’s seed.
    ... he holds my hand, politely says. But I feel nauseous, before I disliked officers in the German war. I feel good from them.
    ... If I didn’t know about the Tatars that they were good people, I would have thought like this: our gentlemen, there are leftovers from the Tatar nobles. Those three hundred years, our people rolled.
    ..... I don’t understand the rich, before that I’ve been trained in everything, they understand all the strangers, they speak all languages ​​With us, they won’t find a joint word. It would not be from one homeland.
    ... I have seen Kornilov-General many times. ... A brave general, but he cannot stand a soldier, a soldier of God cut him a chopped off - ate. ... There is no reason to expect good from him, although he is the most important among us.
    .... In that war - from under the stick, but against the German, for the benefit of others. And as for yourself, but against a blood enemy, you are fighting with pleasure.
    ... Here the revolution replaced one another. That is theirs, this is ours. All life has changed. And even though they were torn in half, but according to the old time they will not see off "
    .... I will say: White hit the worst of all. They beat, beat, in four places my left leg was broken. The right one is moldy. He asked for death - they did not give it ... "

    And compared to the red ones:
    "The communists beat us clean, they didn't leave a grain. All the work is like a cow with the tongue. They just put me in a unit with the officers, and that night, I heard one prayer from them, to the people of the whip until subjugation. I escaped from the volunteers, entered the bandits . Yes, painfully tired of the will, I can't wait: at the crossroads to meet comrades again "(S. 3. Fedorchenko).

    As a result:
    “... it turned out to be absolutely ridiculous, but equally typical for ALL (-S.M.) white fronts:
    When the Reds left, the population was pleased to count what was left of them ... When the Whitees left, the population angrily calculated what they had taken ... ”(A.A. von Lampe)
    “Our village, like ALL (-SM) neighboring Ukrainian and Russian villages, was“ red ”. The ratio is as follows. The Reds, to whom Makhno's army was ranked until the very end of the civil war, from our village served 149 people. White has two. Bulgarian villages and German colonies were "white" in our area.
    .... But here is the phenomenon. We all heard that, we knew. Two years have passed and have already been forgotten. We remember the executions of White’s first tips, the stories of white atrocities in our memory, and the recent Red Terror completely forgotten .. ”(P.G. Grigorenko).
  12. RUSS
    RUSS 8 November 2019 09: 44
    +7
    White were liberals ??? What a news. Samsonov's autumn aggravation
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 15: 24
      0
      Quote: RUSS
      White were liberals ???

      Including. From a mishmash of "Cadet and Octobrist upper classes and Menshevik-Socialist-Revolutionary lower classes" (Ya.A. Slashchev).
      In addition, "There were many left-wing socialists in the White Army" (NV Volkov-Muromtsev).
  13. bober1982
    bober1982 8 November 2019 09: 59
    -3
    Why did the White Army lose?
    For the reason that this army was not.
    For the first time, the term White Army appeared during the French Revolution, when the royalist army was created, which opposed the Republicans, and for the restoration of the monarchy, and on their banners (white banner) God and the king.
    In Russia, in 1905, a military organization of the monarchists of the White Guard was created, which opposed revolutionary terror. Thus the word itself appeared white guard
    During the Civil War, there were no whites, these anti-Bolshevik forces themselves (very scattered) called themselves whatever you like - Markovites, Kornilovites, Drozdovites, etc., but not white.
    The only exception is the cadet in 1917, and in the army of Yudenich, they called themselves White Guards.
    That is, the White Army is primarily a struggle for the restoration of autocracy, and given that the anti-Bolshevik forces were very motley and led by republican traitors generals (Alekseev, Kornilov, Denikin), there’s no clear idea except for the republican verbal husk, they could not offer.
    And, as a result, a civil war, where the main role was played by traitor generals, from the red side there were also enough of them, namely traitors - from the former, Brusilov, Bonch-Bruevich and the company, the role of these was disgusting.
    1. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 11: 17
      +2
      The white movement never set itself the task of restoring the autocracy. Moreover, one of its founders is the gene. Alekseev, was one of those who forced the emperor to abdicate
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 8 November 2019 11: 21
        -3
        Quote: AS Ivanov.
        one of its pioneers is the gene. Alekseev, was one of those who forced the emperor to abdicate

        Of all the main leaders of the anti-Bolshevik forces, only General Wrangel had nothing to do with the whole story with the abdication of the king.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 16: 21
      0
      Not certainly in that way. For example, the Drozdovites (Volkov-Muromtsev, Turkul) said to themselves: white, white army, etc.
  14. Konstantin Shevchenko
    Konstantin Shevchenko 8 November 2019 10: 33
    +1
    This revolution was beneficial to the bourgeoisie from another part of the planet. The goal is to bring Russia out of world competition.
  15. alebor
    alebor 8 November 2019 10: 41
    +1
    It is interesting, what would be the course of the civil war, if on the contrary the whites controlled the industrial center of Russia, and the Bolsheviks were on the outskirts? Similarly, what would end the American civil war if the northerners and southerners switched places and the southerners controlled the industrial North, and the southerners had an agrarian South?
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 17: 40
      0
      And the rest would be the same? The reds are one, with a single leadership, the whites - who is into the forest, who is by firewood? lol
  16. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 11: 01
    +3
    Quote: Alexander Suvorov
    But from the Civil Front there?

    Alexander! Don't be so hot. Just from the fronts of the Civil War there was the most massive desertion. Whole armies of the Greens sat in the forests and ravines. By the end of Civil War, they even actively collaborated with the Reds. Anapa has a Red-Green street. Together they took both Anapa and Novorossiysk. Gaidar also has them in his book "In the days of defeats and victories". Yes, and in the Second World War, and deserters, and skirmishers were enough. There is accurate data on their number in the archive of the Podolsk MO. But, it is clear that against the background of the millions of conscripts to the army, their number cannot be considered very large. There were incomparably more in the Civil.
  17. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 11: 04
    +3
    Quote: Aerodrome
    then sweep away again, bloody, as always. history develops in a spiral.

    I wonder what then will remain of Russia and the Russian people?
  18. hhhhhhh
    hhhhhhh 8 November 2019 11: 07
    +3
    The whole difference between us and the Europeans in relation to human life.
    For us, every life is important, for Europeans only their own lives are important.
    Therefore, they did not resist Napoleon and Hitler. Do not resent when they bomb Libya or Iraq. They exterminated the Indians and Irish. Whom the law protects (Europeans) you can’t kill the rest as much as you like.
  19. Laurus
    Laurus 8 November 2019 12: 15
    +6
    No matter how much the White Guards - Neovlasians hysteria, no matter how they try to rewrite history, the fact remains that the Bolsheviks won the civil war. And in a civil war, only one who is supported by the people can win, it just doesn’t happen otherwise. And if the people then chose exactly the Bolsheviks, then it was the Bolsheviks who were right, it was they who expressed the interests of the majority.
    1. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 12: 33
      +1
      Yeltsin also enjoyed great support from the people and therefore came to power. If the people chose the Bolsheviks, this does not mean that they expressed the interests of the majority (the peasants were very quickly disappointed in them), this may mean that the Bolsheviks were more skilled demagogues and their slogans were more cracking.
    2. icant007
      icant007 8 November 2019 13: 59
      -2
      Quote: Laurel
      And in a civil war, only one who is supported by the people can win, it just doesn’t happen otherwise. And if the people then chose exactly the Bolsheviks, then it was the Bolsheviks who were right, it was they who expressed the interests of the majority.

      And if the people were divided in half? Who should win?
  20. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 13: 12
    +2
    Comrade Samsonov not only knows how to copy-paste Shambarov (by the way - a White supporter), but also collect all the myths of the post-Soviet leftist education at the same time.

    Everything is fine here - both the whites who didn’t have a “program” (well, yes, but the red ones “had” it), and the “Russian code” (greetings to comrade Kozhinov and the late Pyzhikov, who brought Bolshevism out of the Old Belief), the Bolshevik internationalists as Russians nationalists and patriots (despite the fact that Marxism is a purely Western and anti-Slavic teaching), and of course, the “Russian General Staff as a pillar of Bolshevism”.

    The last invention of the Soviet historian Kavtoradze has long and completely been refuted by the historian Volkov, but the left post-Soviet education does not pay attention to the facts, as it is simply a folkhistorical sect, speculating on the nostalgia of the inhabitants and rejection of the actions of the modern regime.

    Taldychat - white de white. But the Reds began a large-scale struggle with Bolshevism. Yes, yes, the most true socialist revolutionaries who won the elections to the Constituent Assembly. Under the red banner. In the north, in Siberia and the Volga region. But they were fundamentally different from the Bolsheviks in that they did not want the destruction of Russian national statehood and democracy, they strove to carry out socialist transformations peacefully, without terror and radical leaps.
  21. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 13: 14
    +1
    “White did not have an ideology.” But “single and indivisible” - is that not ideology?

    I will give you one fact that is stubbornly hushed up by the left-wing education. When in the 1919, the All-Union Union of National Liberation Forces temporarily occupied large territories, the question arose - what about the peasants who seized the former privately owned lands (by the way, not only the landowners).
    They thought for a long time and decided - to recognize the invaders as de facto ownership of this land (crops), but to finally solve the agrarian question on the basis of the law adopted by the new Constituent Assembly after the end of the civil war. And without the law - it’s impossible, since the FSSJ has no right to decide for the whole of Russia.
    “These are these white fools ...” - modern leftists laugh - “..., reactionaries, they don’t have a program, they didn’t give the land to the peasants. And it would be necessary to promise the peasants everything, we will hang later ”...
    And it is not known to poorly educated leftists that such nihilism to the laws and the rule of law always ends badly, often with a wall of execution ...
    1. tesser
      tesser 8 November 2019 20: 14
      -5
      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
      And it is not known to poorly educated leftists that such nihilism to the laws and the rule of law always ends badly, often with a wall of execution ...

      I am forced to note that it ended with these. But they, nevertheless, won the war, but the AFSR did not. Which hints that during the (civil) war, the maxim "the end justifies the means" goes well.
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 20: 35
        0
        Are you or your children ready to be a means? Well, to be destroyed for someone’s purpose? If yes, ready, then I have no more questions.
        Of course, I am far from illusions that in politics there is no place for cynicism and deception. But on total lies and betrayal, a solid effective system cannot be built. The fate of the USSR is an example. Millions died and were torn so that later the Soviet nomenclature and the oligarchs took national wealth to themselves. A state where people are alienated from power and property is not viable in the long run.
        Well, the Russians certainly paid an unprecedented bloody price for their naivety. Marx, it seems in the work of “18 Brumaire Louis Bonaparte” aptly said - a nation, like a girl, can be expensive for a minute of weakness.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 20: 37
          -1
          By the way, white officers who drove a taxi in Paris, as opposed to Soviet tales, lived the rest and ended their lives more worthily than the traitor and careerist Tukhachevsky.
          1. tesser
            tesser 8 November 2019 21: 46
            -4
            Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
            traitor and careerist Tukhachevsky.

            With a careerist it is clear, but why a "traitor"? Of the traitors, perhaps the first to recall Comrade. Brusilov. Guaranteed Mr. officers will be treated well by the Bolsheviks, handsome. It is a pity that Comrade Yezhov did not have time. The second comrade. Mikhnevich.

            Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
            But on total lies and betrayal, a solid effective system cannot be built.

            Effective for whom?

            You, it seems to me, do not understand a rather sad thing. Good civil war people, as a rule, do not win. It is in relation to the Civil, and not the Second World War, it should be recognized: everything that the Bolsheviks did was right. Because it led them to victory.

            The fact that their victory meant hell on earth is not a question for them, but for those who could not stop them.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 8 November 2019 21: 59
              -2
              Quote: tesser
              Good civil war people usually don't win

              1861-1865 exception to the rule?
              1. tesser
                tesser 8 November 2019 23: 41
                -1
                Quote: Town Hall
                1861-1865 exception to the rule?

                Of course not.

                You seem to know my beloved American president. But there was one that was definitely worse.
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 8 November 2019 23: 46
                  -2
                  That is, the victory of the slave owners was preferable?)
                  1. tesser
                    tesser 9 November 2019 00: 03
                    -1
                    1. It would be preferable for the US president not to launch a civil war in his own country. Sovereign Emperor Alexander II somehow managed to avoid this, and he had all the states in the slave-holding.

                    Let me remind you that this great liberator, with his constructive opposition, ditched more Americans than anyone else in history. For all the wars of the 20th century taken together, including WWII and WWII, they died comparable, perhaps even fewer Americans than during the terrible 4 years of his presidency. If Donnie and Hillary had arranged something similar, then for the same percentage of losses they would have had to kill 6-10 million people.

                    2. Was it Lincoln against the slaveholders?
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 9 November 2019 06: 44
                      -3
                      I doubt that in America there was at least one normal president on your scale)
                      We're not talking about Lincoln's personality, America is not a country where the president alone can start a war, let alone a civil war. There is the North and the South (the confederation of states). The first are against slavery, the second for it. For this reason (or rather, this is a formal reason for both parties, there were more reasons) a civil war begins, which was won by those who are against slavery. I asked how this is consistent with your theories that civil wars are won by the "bad"
                      1. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 14: 31
                        -3
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I doubt that in America there was at least one normal president

                        Reagan, of course))) Not a saint, of course, but even so.

                        Quote: Town Hall
                        The first against slavery, the second for her.

                        Stop repeating the agitators of murzilka of the 60 of the XX century. When activists for the rights of blacks began to claim that this issue had been resolved even under Lincoln, and obscurantists all obscurantism.

                        The "historical" solution to slavery was nothing more than a tactical move that undermined the enemy's rear. And this enemy did not at all intend to "win" in the understanding of burning Washington.

                        The dispute then concerned the powers of the subject of the federation, starting with the tariff policy and ending with the right to self-determination.

                        American IFV.

                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I asked how it fits with your theories that the "bad" win in civil wars


                        That's consistent. The bad ones - the decisive dispute about customs tariffs on buckshot by their own citizens - were Lincoln and the northerners. Another question is that Lincoln and the northerners did not after that build socialism and collectivize.
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 9 November 2019 15: 58
                        0
                        Quote: tesser
                        Reagan, of course)))

                        At which there was an explosive growth of public debt)
                        Quote: tesser
                        That's consistent. The bad ones - the decisive dispute about customs tariffs on buckshot by own citizens - were Lincoln and northerners

                        When was the last time you re-read the history of the civil war in the United States?)
                      3. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 16: 29
                        -2
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        At which there was an explosive growth of public debt)

                        Nobody is perfect.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        When was the last time you re-read the history of the civil war

                        I missed a beat GA "Center" Von Bock to Washington?

                        If you want to convey something to me, it is better to express yourself more clearly. If this is "something" - "Lincoln fought for the Great Society like Lyndon Johnson" - then this is a lie of the American Epishevs.
                      4. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 9 November 2019 16: 44
                        -3
                        Quote: tesser
                        Nobody is perfect

                        Osalny 40 with a hook of presidents too. But you are not so lenient towards them.) Presumably before Reagan and after the USA they were a peripheral country with a dead economy.
                        Quote: tesser
                        I missed the hit of GA "Center" Von Bock on Washington

                        You missed General Lee’s attack on Washington, as well as such minor events as the declaration of the secession of the southern states, the formation of the Confederation, the shelling of Fort Sumter, etc., etc.
                      5. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 17: 03
                        -4
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        You missed General Lee’s strike on Washington.

                        1. And why is this Lee trapped in Washington, do not remember?
                        2. Was it, perhaps, the enemy of Freedom and the Republic?
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        As well as such minor events as the declaration of secession of the southern states, the formation of the Confederation, the shelling of Fort Sumter

                        ))). And which of these, except Sumter, meant the mass destruction of the Americans? As for Sumter, what, in your opinion, was the argument there?
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Haggard 40 with a hook of presidents too.

                        Конечно.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        But you are not so condescending to them)

                        Someone less imperfect, someone more. Yes, President Hoover was much better than F. Roosevelt.

                        I admit the opposition of my position in the Tolstoyian manner. Lincoln is not Comrade Stalin; personally, his significance should not be absolutized. The desire to talk about the dough seriously was present in the North, not only and not so much in Washington. But you, it seems to me, Lincoln was the new Moses (or the old Weizmann), ending centuries of slavery. This is not true.
                      6. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 14: 46
                        -4
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        in civil wars "bad" win

                        PS

                        A man killed 3 times more of your fellow citizens than Hitler !!!!!!!! 1111DINODIN

                        How can you relate to him? What kind of discussion about the place of this person in history?

                        And here you go, discussion. She shows us how flexible people with good faces are in approaching moral issues. This is the main thing you need to know about them.
                      7. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 9 November 2019 16: 46
                        0
                        Quote: tesser
                        Your fellow citizens

                        Mine?). I only have 2 (or rather 3 if we count the USSR) citizenship and American are not among them. But I would not refuse)
                      8. tesser
                        tesser 9 November 2019 17: 06
                        -6
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Mine?)

                        I argued with imaginary American good people, not with you. I saw that it turns out ambiguous, but could not be formulated otherwise.
            2. Yaik Cossack
              Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 22: 24
              -1
              The activity of Brusilov among the Bolsheviks is largely fake. Like his memoirs.
              Tukhachevsky is undoubtedly a traitor. I went to serve voluntarily with the rebels.
              Right-wrong is a morally relativistic sophistry. For whom? Who do you identify with? With the Bolsheviks? Are you closer to their personal career interests? I don’t. And from the point of view of the interests of the Russian nation, their victory was a disaster. Just like Hitler's victory was a disaster for the Germans. Or do you disagree?
              1. Yaik Cossack
                Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 22: 34
                -1
                Tesser, you have not answered my direct question - are you ready to personally be a means? Or let others, but you do not. Answer please
            3. Yaik Cossack
              Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 23: 11
              +3
              Who could not stop them .... I once was engaged in the analysis of the composition of the officer corps of the Ural Army, and not of the Cossack units, but of the army infantry. Almost all wartime headquarters and chief officers. Among the chief officers there are many awarded soldiers and non-commissioners, from workers and peasants sent to warrant officers' schools. A lot of technical and zemstvo intelligentsia - technicians, teachers, doctors, engineers. There are also many volunteers who went to the World War - students, graduates of gymnasiums and, to a greater extent, more democratic real schools. In general, this was not a cadre officer, but a new worker-peasant-intellectual social group, which only got into the officers by war and its own patriotism. This new and popular Russia would replace the old.
              1. tesser
                tesser 9 November 2019 00: 38
                -4
                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                This new and popular Russia would replace the old.

                She lost.
                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                Tukhachevsky is undoubtedly a traitor.

                I think you are unfair. To each his own. The demand from the general from the cavalry and the general from the infantry is not the same as from Colonel Shaposhnikov, the staff captain Vasilevsky, and even more so the guard of the second lieutenant Tukhachesky. Second lieutenants have the right to fly. His further success is another conversation.
                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                The activity of Brusilov among the Bolsheviks is largely fake.

                Honestly and voluntarily taking the side of the Soviet government-will not suffer punishment. We guarantee a complete amnesty to everyone who goes over to the side of Soviet power.
                ...
                Chairman of the Special Conference under the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Republic A. Brusilov.


                Did he sign it? If so, how did it happen that Comrade Kuhn and comrade Pyatakov survived to comrade Yezhov, and Comrade Countrywoman survived even him?

                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                And from the point of view of the interests of the Russian nation, their victory was a disaster. Just like Hitler's victory was a disaster for the Germans. Or do you disagree?

                I take this a little more broadly. I, unlike Vladimir Vladimirovich, am sure that the main geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century was the First World War and the madness of Versailles. The Bolsheviks, Hitler and much more are a consequence of the decisions taken then. Forgive me, not from the Bolsheviks there is a demand here, not those strengths.

                As for the Russian nation, if there is one, then it had a chance in those years to get its own country. He was again missed. Yes, in the list of losers of WWI, Russians are number one, but here they themselves are to blame, there is no one to ask.

                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                Right-wrong is a morally relativistic sophistry.

                You do not want to understand a rather simple thing. There is no morality in a civil war. There is expediency.

                Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                Are you or your children ready to be a means? Well, to be destroyed for someone’s purpose?

                You see.

                You seem to think that if Russia fell under the power of cannibals, it makes sense to sit and groan, what kind of toothy they were. I believe that my task is to ensure that there are no cannibals in power. As a maximum - in my country, at least - specifically in my life. When the question is posed in this way, you must admit that it turns the practical side. Especially when it is obvious that the program is maximum failed.

                In particular, therefore, I am not at all interested in the crimes of the Bolsheviks. It is important for me to understand the mistakes of their opponents.
                1. Yaik Cossack
                  Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 01
                  +1
                  Subject dirtied spam, but I will answer you thesis. Who, if you take your argument, is more effective in life success - a school teacher or a bandit (well, say Chubais or Prigozhin). Of course, based on the volume of material goods and the quality of life - a bandit. He is more likely to be a winner, and ride a Porsche. But each "efficiency" of a gangster is in fact a disaster for society. Ultimately, the prevalence in society of the most effective strategies at the moment can lead to a subsequent collapse. Should all the teachers decide to join the bandits? Therefore, you consider only subjective effectiveness for one social group, and this is not true. The Bolsheviks actually lost. They spent tremendous resources, but did not create a viable self-reproducing system.
                  1. Yaik Cossack
                    Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 15
                    +1
                    You see ...

                    - Pavel Andreyevich, are you a spy?
                    - Do you see Yura ...

                    From one movie
                    1. Yaik Cossack
                      Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 19
                      +1
                      And finally. Could White Win? In my opinion, they could. Probability is approximately 40 to 60. Despite all the objective conditions. Despite the total superiority of the Reds in resources. What were the alternatives - if I get together, maybe I’ll write a book.
                  2. tesser
                    tesser 10 November 2019 19: 24
                    -6
                    )))
                    For some reason, you are trying to explain to me about ethics and that cannibals are worse than non-cannibals. This conversation makes no sense.

                    There is a cute little fat man Kim Jong Un who lived in Switzerland for several years, there is brother Assad, an ophthalmologist from London. They know very well what a normal life looks like, but they live like this and chose this for their country. These are not the most stubborn options. Comrade Lenin, too, if you remember, came from Switzerland, and comrade. Pol Pot was not sent directly from hell, but from the Sorbonne.

                    I do not consider it reasonable to discuss their activities in moral categories.

                    As well as the activities of the past and, more importantly, the current leaders of the USSR / Russia. I am interested in whether there is any other option for good people, besides the one chosen by the good people, the Cadets and Peter the Little Pig.
                    1. Yaik Cossack
                      Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 32
                      +1
                      Well, you are so .... slightly corrected your thesis. Initially, it sounded differently, if I'm not mistaken)))))
                      1. Yaik Cossack
                        Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 33
                        +1
                        And there are always alternatives. History is polyvariant and probabilistic
                      2. Yaik Cossack
                        Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 38
                        +1
                        Here is one of the alternatives for you - the naive Kornilov shows wisdom and is not trapped by Kerensky, continues to create volunteer units at the front. )))) But their mass
                      3. tesser
                        tesser 10 November 2019 19: 37
                        -3
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        slightly adjusted their thesis

                        Which the?
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        In my opinion, they could.

                        Like these ones? No. After the activities of good people - Rodzyako, Kerensky, etc. - everything, already without outs.
                      4. tesser
                        tesser 10 November 2019 19: 43
                        -4
                        Quote: tesser
                        everything, already without outs.


                        Oh yes. There remains the option of confirming Brest-Litovsk in Versailles. But this option is very far from reality.
                      5. Yaik Cossack
                        Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 50
                        0
                        I have long guessed that you profess a Bolshevik monistic view of history)))
                        About your thesis. At first you assured that the main criterion for the effectiveness of a policy is success. When I objected to you that success should be considered in the long term and not every today's “success” will be such in 50-70 years. Moreover, success should not be operational, but a substantive definition. After that, you began to attribute to me a bias in morality, which is absurd.
                      6. Yaik Cossack
                        Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 19: 53
                        0
                        No

                        - There is no God, said Ostap
                        “There is a god,” said the priests.

                        If everything is clear to you on 100%, then I will no longer waste time on you.
                      7. tesser
                        tesser 10 November 2019 20: 06
                        -2
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        that the main criterion for the effectiveness of a policy is success.

                        Naturally. Success in the sense of seizing power.
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        When did I object to you that success should be considered in the long run

                        The long term is 4 of the year. All that comes next is kitchen policy.
                        Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                        If everything is clear to you at 100%

                        After the dispersal of the foundation, yes.
          2. Al shahini
            Al shahini 10 November 2019 22: 27
            0
            Well, of course, with dignity, for once, we learned to do something good, for example, to be cabmen.)).
  22. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 13: 21
    -2
    Why did you lose the White Cause? In my opinion, von Lampe responded best of all - “because she didn’t want to become like red and use their methods.”

    One cannot but deny the intrinsic similarity of the unrest of 1917 and 1991. In the conditions of the collapse of old social structures and ideologies and the delay in the formation of new ones, the masses of disoriented people easily fall for the bait of social demagogy and brazen propaganda of the most vile, unprincipled and radical political forces that offer the simplest solutions and promise everyone anything.

    Such were the Bolsheviks in the 1917 r, and the Yeltsinists in the 1991 r.
    Bolshevism won precisely because Nazism later came to power in Germany, and fascism in Italy.
    Bolshevism became the first ever totalitarian populist terrorist regime of a new type.

    In addition, since the top of the Bolsheviks was non-Russian and hated Russian statehood, they did not have any moral brakes to apply the most radical terror. They got the most developed center of the country, almost the entire military potential and reserves of the Russian army, and whites first and almost all the time relied on the sparsely populated and agricultural outskirts.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 8 November 2019 17: 10
      +5
      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
      "Because I didn’t want to be like red and use their methods."

      The Cossacks pulled themselves up to the Kolchakites ...
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 19: 33
        0
        You can give a documentary link, otherwise it looks like red propaganda.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 8 November 2019 19: 59
          +2
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          You can give a document link

          There is a link on the White Cause website.
          And this order was really from the 28th. Here it is: http: //leb.nlr.ru/agate/lists/docs/? Page = 1223 & ipp = 15 ..., and here is its text: Government troops are fighting gangs of robbers. Criminal elements, scum of society, came out for profit, robbery and violence. Bolshevism gave them organization. The ugly facts perpetrated by the robbers - the crash of passenger trains, the murder of officials of the administration, priests, the execution of families of civilians who left the area of ​​the uprising, violence and torture, an endless string of perpetrated in the area of ​​action of robbers - all this forces us to reject those general moral principles that are applicable to the enemy in the war. The prisons are full of the leaders of these killers. I order the chiefs of the garrisons of the cities of the district entrusted to me: consider the Bolsheviks and robbers held in prisons as hostages. Report to me about every fact similar to the above, and for every crime committed in the area, shoot from 3 to 20 people from local hostages. This order should be put into effect by telegraph and published widely ".. --- This is exactly the order that was discussed during Kolchak's interrogation.

          http://beloedelo.com/researches/article/?836
          I can continue.
          1. Yaik Cossack
            Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 20: 17
            0
            It is clear that White had excesses too. But red terror is systemic, class. Only the executions of the Cossacks according to the infamous directive - not for resistance, but for the quota, or for participation in the village self-government.
            Well, to your supposedly humane order of Latsis I can ask - weren't the Reds the first to take and shoot the hostages? Want the stories of Kiev, Kharkov and Syzran extravaganza? Please. I will bring you in response to Latsis, and I will write about him too
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 8 November 2019 20: 31
              +1
              Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
              weren't the Reds the first to take and shoot the hostages? Want the stories of Kiev, Kharkov and Syzran extravaganza? Please.

              Go ahead. In response, I can also bring a lot of things. Only in my memory such a song stuck for some reason:
              English uniform
              Shoulder strap french
              Japanese tobacco,
              Omsk ruler.
              The uniform has been torn down
              Epaulet fell
              Tobacco smoked,
              The ruler was washed away.
              Oh, my scumbag
              American,
              There will be no money
              I'll take it for sale!
              1. Yaik Cossack
                Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 22: 31
                -3
                I decided to seriously debate with you, with facts, and you suddenly fell into rudeness - “wallow”.
                Why? You Here you can wallow your wife as much as you like, but not include the tram boor in a reasoned dispute. Or is this not interesting to you?
                And yet - are you really a participant in the civil war, since you recalled a ditty? How old are you then? Or do you just remember Soviet films and propaganda stuck in your memory that you decided to pass off as evidence?
                However, grimace further, but with Latsis and the website White matter I will still bother you. You'll like it ))))
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 9 November 2019 07: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  I decided to seriously debate with you, with facts, and you suddenly fell into rudeness - “wallow”.

                  If you take the word "go on" for rudeness, then I ask for a petition for your vocabulary.
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  And yet - are you really a participant in the civil war, since you recalled a ditty? How old are you then? Or do you just remember Soviet films and propaganda stuck in your memory that you decided to pass off as evidence?

                  This is not Soviet films or propaganda, a song stuck in my head since childhood, my neighbor on the porch, a civilian participant often sang it and told what a bastard Kolchak was.
                  Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
                  but with Lacis and the White Case website I will still bother you. You'll like it

                  I doubt that I will like something there.
  23. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 13: 22
    -2
    Quote: Laurel
    And in a civil war, only one who is supported by the people can win, it just doesn’t happen otherwise. And if the people then chose exactly the Bolsheviks, then it was the Bolsheviks who were right, it was they who expressed the interests of the majority.

    An absolutely correct remark, directly from Plekhanov's work "The Role of the Personality in History". But it also applies to 1991, doesn't it? It simply cannot be otherwise.
  24. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 13: 24
    -2
    Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
    And it is not known to poorly educated leftists that such nihilism to the laws and the rule of law always ends badly, often with a wall of execution ...

    And ended with 37 year and 91 th ...
  25. icant007
    icant007 8 November 2019 13: 48
    +3
    They talked a lot about the causes and, in particular, ideological properties. But I think it is necessary to consider also purely technical factors.

    Here I simplify the situation somewhat, than I will certainly bring forth righteous anger, but nonetheless.

    The mobilization capabilities of the Red Army were higher, since initially the most densely populated European part of Russia was under the control of the Reds.

    The composition of the White Army was initially largely formed due to parts of the tsarist army, including the Cossacks. After all the 4 years of the war with the Germans, all these service people did not at all want to enter a new war. A vivid example is the behavior of the Cossacks, a significant part of which during the first months of the civil war avoided serving in the White Army, preferring to farm on their farms.

    And in the future, the mobilization capabilities of the White Army were limited by their operating territory - and these are the national outskirts of Russia, poorly populated Siberia.
    It is clear that in Siberia and Central Asia you will not especially call anyone to the service.
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 16: 32
      0
      Quote: icant007
      The composition of the White Army was initially largely formed due to the units of the tsarist army

      In a little. Unless Drozdovsky brought with him a few of those with whom he served. And in the Ice Camp, they gathered gathered from the pine forest. And the composition of the Red and other armies was formed at the expense of whom?
      Quote: icant007
      The mobilization capabilities of the Red Army were higher, since initially the most densely populated European part of Russia was under the control of the Reds.

      So the whites, it was the case, occupied the densely populated provinces: the North Caucasus, Little Russia, the Volga region. Purely mathematically, white and red had equal opportunities. But practically ... If the people treated white as red, and red as white, these latter could have won even with less opportunities ...
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 17: 20
        +2
        This is not true. Look at the population of the provinces of these regions.
        In addition, White occupied Little Russia for too short a time to mobilize there. Yes, and atamanism prevailed there - the peasants generally shied away from any mobilization.
        The same is in the Volga region. The most densely populated provinces were firmly behind the Bolsheviks.
        So your assumptions are incorrect.
        The Bolsheviks had an absolute superiority in mobilization potential, which even Soviet historians never denied (see Kakurin).
        I urge you to argue with facts.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 17: 27
          +3
          According to estimates by quite professional historians, even during the period of short-term greatest successes of whites (by the beginning of October 1919) there were no more than 40 million people in their territory, and about 100 - 105 million people in the territory under the control of the Bolsheviks. But this was only a short period, and White did not have time to mobilize in the occupied territories.
          At the time of the All-Union Front of the All-Union Socialist League, the Reds had an 3,5 multiple advantage in the number of troops.
          At the same time, the Reds got 90% of the imperial army’s weapons and almost all military production.
          1. icant007
            icant007 8 November 2019 18: 47
            0
            Bravo! For the time being, I was going to answer Sahar Medovich, you have laid out everything here) Thank you!
        2. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 9 November 2019 09: 35
          0
          This is fully consistent with the facts. Look at the population of the provinces of these regions.
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          peasants generally shied away from any mobilization

          This can be attributed to one degree or another to any area of ​​Russia located both under the white and the red. Cossacks, for example, also behaved very differently.
          Another thing - the support of the Reds was much more than the Whites, or, if you will, the service in the Reds was evaded less than the service in the White. This is what explains the numerical superiority of the Reds where it took place. As well as the "short" stay of whites in some localities. They did not stay long - because they were quickly driven out, quickly driven out - because the Reds were stronger, the Reds were stronger - because the population (often local) supported them more and / or fought more actively against the Whites.

          As an eyewitness I.M. Kalinin writes: “... the peasantry of Tavria put up with requisitions, with a murmur carried out submarine duty, but completely refused to obey the orders of mobilization. Skull hunts were organized in the villages ...
          Those ill-fated who fell into the snare of skull-hunters were put into spare parts under an escorted convoy. From there they fled at the first opportunity. Weapons did not dare to give these recruits.
          In Crimea, the following anecdote became common, characterizing how great the benefits of such warriors were:
          The Reds are advancing, - they are telegraphing to the rear from the corps headquarters, - take measures.
          Measures have been taken: spare parts are disarmed, - they answer from there. "
          White tried to explain it like this:
          "... you see, not real Russia. There are all sorts of sectarians or German colonists. The Molokans left Orthodoxy and ceased to be truly Russian people. The colonists — Mennonites, Germans, Bulgarians — are not at all ours, Ukrainians are also not our brother , Great Russian.
          O. Andronicus was not mistaken. This was not real Russia. The real one - Ryazan, Kaluga, Moscow, Tula - stood opposite us, with bristling Red Army bayonets. "
          That is, there was someone for white to mobilize. Consequently, the root cause of White's failures and Reds' successes is not in quantity, but, so to speak, in the quality of available resources. Sometimes the result of the civil war is explained by the favorable strategic position of the Reds - they say, they could maneuver and smash the Whites in turn. But this "head start" was provided for them by White themselves, acting separately. If they had acted in harmony, the benefits of the surrounded Reds would turn into disadvantages.
  26. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 14: 02
    +1
    Since in the Soviet educational institutions the real history of Bolshevism was not taught, as they were very shy, I will finally give one more example about the "program" of the Bolsheviks.
    So, in principle, almost the whole country met the Bolsheviks, if not with joy, then with tolerance. Well, let it be, the population thought, maybe even these will cope, since Kerensky failed everything. This was called in Soviet textbooks - "a peaceful procession of Soviet power."

    To manage the socialist economy, the Bolsheviks created the Supreme Council of the National Economy. A member of his presidium and chief ideologist of the Supreme Economic Council was a former Odessa citizen and Bundist, one Larin (in the world - Ikhil-Mikhl Lurie, yes, I am not kidding, that’s it).
    Ichil-Michl, of course, read Marx’s “Capital” and, like all Marxists, from Ulyanov to Trotsky, immensely admired the holy divine revelations, namely, the wonderful examples of exchanging a frock coat for axes contained therein.

    So our prominent Bolshevik decided to implement, so to speak, in practice the Marx program, that is, to eliminate money circulation and forcefully switch to direct product exchange. How to do this - and it’s very simple, according to the decisive Bolshevik. To start printing paper banknotes - both royal ones, and kerenki and common signs - without measure at full speed. Then put them into circulation, pay for everything.
    Like, this will depreciate the capital of the bourgeoisie and will ensure a quick transition to product exchange, and the money will turn into worthless pieces of paper. But they should provide their rations with natural rations, and let the enemies of the Bolsheviks, along with their children and household members including infants, quietly and peacefully die of hunger.
    In addition, the Bolsheviks decided to introduce a “monopoly of the grain trade” in the form of a ban on its private sale and prevent private transportation of bread in the country by placing special guards. The term "bread monopoly" was used before the Bolsheviks, but it meant a completely different thing - namely, centralized purchase from peasants at fixed prices and distribution of stocks.

    No sooner said than done. After a few months, economic paralysis absolutely naturally occurred in the country. Peasants refused to sell bread for useless candy wrappers, cities began to starve. In March 1918, the People's Commissar Tsyurupa panicky reported that the situation was close to disaster.
    But to recognize the fact that the Bolshevik leadership in general, and Ichil-Michl in particular - illiterate adventurers, stupid - of course it was impossible. The Bolsheviks began by force to take away bread. In response to this, anti-Bolshevik uprisings began in Russia. Their main reason is the insane actions of the Bolshevik authorities. In May 1918, the Bolsheviks created the Food and Requisition Army.
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 16: 41
      +5
      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
      The term "bread monopoly" was used before the Bolsheviks, but it meant a completely different thing - namely, centralized purchase from peasants at fixed prices and distribution of stocks.

      And since the peasants did not want to sell bread at fixed prices, even the tsarist governors, on their own initiative, began to suppress the private transportation of bread in the country by placing special guards - detachments. And the Provisional Government introduced food detachments, because otherwise it was not possible to establish a bread monopoly. And all this economic paralysis was inherited by the Bolsheviks.
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 46
        -1
        This is a shameless lie spread by leftists on the Internet. No detachments existed. The bread monopoly existed in a different form than the Bolsheviks.
        Read the classic work of Kondratiev N.D. The bread market and its regulation during the war and revolution
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 55
          +1
          Here is N.D. Kondratyev, by the way, the country's best specialist in the grain problem:

          1. Yaik Cossack
            Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 56
            +3
            And here are Kondratiev’s assessments of the outcome of the policies of the Provisional Government. They chatted about confiscations, but did nothing.
            1. Yaik Cossack
              Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 57
              0
              "Take from the big owners" is from the landlords and owners of large economies, not from the peasants.
        2. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 18: 17
          +2
          Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
          This is a shameless lie spread by leftists on the Internet.

          This too: https://rg.ru/2016/04/24/rodina-hleb.html?
          1. Yaik Cossack
            Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 19: 35
            0
            What is this, the link does not open.
            1. Yaik Cossack
              Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 19: 36
              -2
              But, judging by the link, some publication in the newspaper. What does she prove?
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 9 November 2019 09: 49
                +1
                Not in the newspaper, but in the historical magazine "Rodina" No. 4 for 2016. About the food appropriation under the tsar. It is easy to find through a search engine: the article "Tsarist Provisional Property". And in No. 8 for 2014 (I have not seen it in the public domain yet) there is an article "Is it possible to come to service in bast shoes?" about the growing economic crisis in 1915-17.
                1. Yaik Cossack
                  Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 18: 49
                  0
                  You still Short Course cite. By the way, in the hatred of denigrating Russia before 1917, you have a touching, cordial union with the liberals
                  1. Yaik Cossack
                    Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 18: 51
                    0
                    All your Novorossiysk publicists in front of Kondratiev nobody
      2. tesser
        tesser 8 November 2019 19: 53
        -5
        Quote: Sahar Medovich
        And all this economic paralysis was inherited by the Bolsheviks.

        It’s all the king’s fault, completely agree.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 20: 18
          0
          Has not created a stock of food until 1980 year
          1. tesser
            tesser 8 November 2019 20: 31
            -3
            Not only this.

            The 17 year is truly the logical result of the Sovereign's activity. Not just the last one.

            Female student, fashionable dandy,
            The scarlet bow is in the buttonhole
            Lilac blooms all around
            Tavern "Deer".


            Russia, which we lost, was the ugliest place. People who saw the old regime had their hands shaking with rage, even if he personally did nothing to them. Google it, while it is still not imprisoned for it, "Mark Twain Russia Dynamite".

            Another thing is that that Russia, in spite of all the autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, had a future. The young republic of workers and peasants, in spite of the poster cult of modernization, had no future.

            But who knew.
  27. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 14: 04
    -6
    Quote: Alexander Suvorov
    Yes, in 1991, we lost the general battle, but apparently the civil war is not over yet and it is far from the fact that the Chubas and Co. won it.

    But you use the fruits of defeat very well however. Imagine for a minute that at 37 you would have written, well, after reading Bogdanov's novel RED STAR, that socialism in the USSR may still await a crushing defeat and restoration of capitalism in the future. Very soon a black crater would come for you, then ... then at best 10 years in the camps. And today we have a "bad system", but you are not ashamed to write that you are not shy about changing it with blood ... it is possible and not punishable. Such are the harmful Chubais and Co. You get used to good things quickly, and you don't even notice ...
  28. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 14: 35
    +2
    Funny - the left-wing educators put down the minuses, but do not write rebuttals on the facts. Can not )))
    Continue boldly. "Sim win")))
    Well, the position of timid defenders of the prospects of left utopia in general is one-on-one taken from the classic literary Vasisualiy Lokhankin:
    "Or maybe it should be so," he thought, "maybe this is redemption and I will come out of it purified ..."
  29. BAI
    BAI 8 November 2019 15: 45
    +2
    Well let's go, in order

    1.
    That Russia needs to be fully integrated into Europe, discarding mossy survivals, such as autocracy and the unity of the church with the state.

    What's wrong with that? The Bolsheviks supported the liquidation of the autocracy and the separation of the church from the state. It turns out that this was a popular opinion, supported by all sectors of society.
    2.
    The paradox of the white (liberal) project in Russia was that the image of an attractive, rich and “sweet” future, acceptable to most educated and prosperous Russian society, did not have a single chance of success among the masses.

    There was no paradox. The White Guards did not have a coherent political strategy. They fought for some Constituent Assembly, which then, somehow, will decide the fate of Russia. But the Bolsheviks offered land to the peasants and factories of the workers. Here and now. Therefore, the people went after them, not the whites.
    3.
    new Russian (Soviet) empire.

    I’m curious to understand for myself. Who was the emperor? Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev? Or, God forgive me, Gorbachev? Who crowned the empire (kingdom, kingdom, khanate, sultanate, and even the principality in the end, after all, by the way, the old Russian form of government)? Was the church in the pen? Moreover, an absolute monarchy implies the transfer of power by inheritance. The author carries unimaginable nonsense.
    1. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 16: 32
      +3
      They offered to offer something: land to the peasants and factories to the workers and power to the Soviets. In fact: the peasants were given land, but the opportunity to freely dispose of the results of their labor was not. Factories for workers? What, handed out to the workers shares of enterprises? No, they weren't even allowed to operate. Power to the Soviets? And that the Soviets had real power in the country? Power belonged to party functionaries and politics, both external and internal, was carried out by the party, not the people's representatives. In certain circles, this action is called "divorce"
  30. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 18
    +2
    Quote: BAI
    There was no paradox. The White Guards did not have coherent political strategy. They fought for some Constituent Assembly, which then, somehow, will decide the fate of Russia. And the Bolsheviks proposed land to peasants and factory workers. Here and now. Therefore, the people went after them, not the whites.


    Can't you see the obvious and elementary logical contradiction in your words?

    "Land for the peasants and factories for the workers" is not any "intelligible political strategy", but a set of populist demagogic slogans, none of which have been implemented. Strategy is about something else.

    1. About "factories for workers". In fact, they created a state-monopoly complex headed by central boards, the factories were transferred to the management of the bureaucracy, they were "militarized" (militarization of labor), and the so-called "workers' control over enterprises" (for which the Bolsheviks campaigned in 1917) was completely destroyed by the Bolsheviks. how harmful.

    2. About "land to peasants". Yes, they implemented the Socialist-Revolutionary (!) Program for dividing the land by consumers, but they forbade the peasants to use the results of labor on this land (they seized all food in excess of the rather hungry norm and forbade the sale of grain). And for hiding their bread produced on the ground or refusing to surrender - up to 10 years in prison (but in fact - often execution) Is this such a coherent political strategy? This really corresponds to the slogan "land for the peasants". This is a clear deception.
    1. BAI
      BAI 8 November 2019 17: 30
      +2
      All that the Bolsheviks proposed, regardless of how they were implemented, is better than the Manilism of the White Guards. Therefore, they did not receive popular support. What about
      This is a clear fraud.

      when you stop counting the Russian and other peoples of the Republic of Ingushetia go.ota.mi who can not distinguish the truth from the lie? Therefore, people did not follow the White Guards, because they considered the people to be cattle, incapable of anything. And the people on this account held a different opinion.
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 18: 24
        0
        "Better - Worse" - These are unsubstantiated value judgments. So in fact you have nothing to object to. Well, you can believe in anything, even in the Macaroni Monster and the second coming of Leon Trotsky to the earth.

        "When will you stop considering the Russian and other peoples of the Republic of Ingushetia go.ot.mi who cannot distinguish truth from falsehood? Therefore, the people did not follow the White Guards, because they considered the people to be cattle, incapable of anything. the account was of a different opinion. "

        Well, this is just your golimy politota and rather delusional fantasies that have nothing to do with me. How did you get this, what and how do I think?
        By the way, then in your opinion it turns out that the Russian people in 1991 correctly drove out the communist government?

        White Russian people "were not considered cattle", the Soviet leaders kept them for them, spending resources on the world revolution and assistance to the proletarians of Africa.
        Due to the transition to some kind of propaganda spam, I don’t see the point in further discussion.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 18: 25
          +2
          And I, too, am forced to note that no factual rebuttal was received from you in factories and land.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 8 November 2019 18: 39
      -2
      2

      And they did quite right. There was no way to build a coherent agricultural development strategy. In fact, "saddled" "black redistribution". Had they thought to resist this process, it would have flared up so that the bones would not have been collected.
  31. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 16: 35
    -1
    Quote: BAI
    Who was the emperor? Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev? Or, God forgive me, Gorbachev? Who crowned the empire (kingdom, kingdom, khanate, sultanate, and even the principality in the end, after all, by the way, the old Russian form of government)? Was the church in the pen? Moreover, an absolute monarchy implies the transfer of power by inheritance. The author carries unimaginable nonsense.


    "What to consider as gossips to work, / Isn't it better to turn around for yourself, godfather?"

    The monarchy is still elective (principle, for example), or constitutional (Russia 1914 was almost close to it) and much more.
    According to the Basic State Laws of 23 of April 1906, most of the laws of Russia were to go through the State Duma and the State Council. The budget could not be adopted without the Duma, and often it slowed it down. Can we imagine under Stalin that the Supreme Council would return the budget for revision?

    The Soviet state system is, of course, an extremely archaic construct in a modern guise. It is much more Asian than the later Romanov monarchy. With formal republicanism and democracy, in fact it is based on "leaderism" (in German - "Fuhrer-principle"). The highest and really unlimited power belongs to the elected leaders, who then rule, usually until their death or removed during a coup. What limited Stalin? Law? Parliament? The judicial system? Typologically, this is just like the Roman principate, early Franco Spain or Nazi Germany. If you know what I mean ...
    1. BAI
      BAI 8 November 2019 17: 35
      0
      If you know what I mean ...

      I do not understand.
      We start with the basics, i.e. with the definition.
      An empire (from Latin imperium - power) is a monarchical state headed by the emperor or a colonial or internationally significant power, relying in its domestic and foreign policies on military estates (organized army) and acting in the interests of military estates.

      The Bolsheviks began by destroying the estates. The USSR and the empire, in principle, are not compatible. Everything else is verbiage, including
      "Fuhrer-principle
      .
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 18: 12
        +2
        Well, the transition to rudeness ("verbiage", etc.) is the usual result of the painful effect of the militant leftist education from a collision with reality)))

        So we are talking about the monarchy or about the empire. You give a definition from the Internet, but due to poor education and high self-esteem do not understand its meaning. About the rest - I also realized that you do not understand what I wrote. Well, it happens)))
        Think in your spare time of modern Britain and Japan - whether they are empires and whether they have the support of power on the military estates (by the way, the late daughter of the Thatcher shopkeeper is a baroness).
        If this is not available to you, then science and education in your case are powerless.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 18: 17
          +4
          Yes, and I fully understood that you have nothing to answer my remark about Stalin and the limits of his real power))) Your reservations ("some kind of constituent assembly") fully show your dislike of the people's representation.

          "People of servile rank are real dogs sometimes: the harder the punishment, the dearer they are to the Lord." Nekrasov.
  32. smaug78
    smaug78 8 November 2019 17: 04
    -1
    "..the white project was a pro-Western, liberal-democratic project, that is, it turned out to be unacceptable for the Russians." - you don't have to read further. Again Samsonov ran out of shekels, sorry autumn aggravation and no haloperidol laughing
  33. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 17: 05
    +1
    Quote: Sahar Medovich
    And all this economic paralysis was inherited by the Bolsheviks.


    As I understand it, you have nothing to object to Lurie’s experiments on money circulation and you decided to keep silent. Well, I understand))) True, their devastating result far surpassed the inflation of the ruble during the war and under the Provisional Government. Moreover, he even destroyed the cooperation chains in the economy - how to buy raw materials and sell products, how to pay salaries. As a result, the Bolsheviks had to urgently nationalize even what they were not going to.

    In Samara, in the spring of 1918, all restaurants, taverns and tea houses were nationalized. As a result of the mess and the inability to purchase products, they actually stopped working. Dissatisfied workers, cab drivers, movers with marinas gathered and nearly defeated Sovdep)))
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 8 November 2019 18: 21
      +1
      Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
      As I understand it, you have nothing to object to Lurie’s experiments on money circulation and you decided to keep silent

      Just no one knows how it would be under the Provisional, if it remained in power further. Maybe it would be even worse than Lurie’s ...
  34. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 8 November 2019 17: 58
    -1
    It was planned in Russia to create a bourgeois-democratic society, the hallmarks of which were parliamentary democracy or a constitutional monarchy, an independent judiciary, political pluralism, the secular nature of society, a market economy, etc.


    Independent judiciary, i.e. jury trials, in Russia it was from Alexander II, political pluralism can probably be counted from Alexander I. The secular nature of society is from Peter. The market economy in general has always been from the time of ancient Russia. And nothing, Russia lived, developed, at 1913 year I felt great. The February revolution has nothing to do with this.
  35. AAK
    AAK 8 November 2019 18: 20
    0
    The photo is very interesting, because Makarov is the prototype of the GG Soviet television series "Adjutant of His Excellency"
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 8 November 2019 18: 54
      -4
      Very revealing photo: one drunken drunken (this fat man Mai-Mayevsky) another red spy ...
    2. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 8 November 2019 19: 39
      0
      The film at the expense of great actors is wonderful. But Makarov himself is extremely muddy. There are reasonable assumptions that he invented most of his exploits.
  36. samarin1969
    samarin1969 8 November 2019 18: 35
    -2
    Quote: lucul
    We are talking in general, and not about the candy - flower period)))


    Very true remark. ... It would be ridiculous if this were not done with the Russians. am
  37. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 18: 52
    -3
    Quote: Sahar Medovich
    would

    This is not an argument ... if ... would ... would ... why do sovkodrocher constantly operate on "would"? And all the while food that "the people see their sight." Like a mantra! He is seeing, he is seeing, it’s time to see clearly ... but from where? If you read the pearls of ignorance here, then what to say about those who do not come here at all, do not write and prefer a pub to a computer?
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 8 November 2019 21: 18
      +4
      co-drivers
      You, Vyacheslav Olegovich, decided to introduce a new term into scientific circulation? High calm! And what does the name of the opposing social group sound like?
      1. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 8 November 2019 22: 43
        0
        Quote: Undecim
        And what does the name of the opposing social group sound like?

        Propogandon-rastrig from the CPSU
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 8 November 2019 22: 53
          +2
          The formulations feel the high culture and mutual respect inherent in real scientists.
          1. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 8 November 2019 22: 55
            +1
            Quote: Undecim
            The formulations feel the high culture and mutual respect inherent in real scientists.

            Folk wisdom: "To live with wolves - howl like a wolf ..."
          2. AU Ivanov.
            AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 23: 17
            0
            "O great, mighty, truthful and free Russian language!"
            I. Turgenev.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 November 2019 09: 58
      +4
      Quote: kalibr
      why sovkodrochery constantly operate to "would"?

      Vriberals, bullshit democrats and new monarchists do this much more often.
  38. lelik613
    lelik613 8 November 2019 19: 17
    +1
    If only because G (razhdanskaya) V (oina) had the character of a clash of bandit gangs, and not a classic war. This is the first thing. Secondly, the dignity of the "holy" army is greatly exaggerated. All of them were molded into a "royal passion-bearer" from what was and thanked him with what they were molded from. The result was expected ...
  39. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 8 November 2019 20: 29
    +1
    Introduced a dialogue. A sort of worker Ivan Fedorov comes home from the factory:

    “That's all, Manya, there is no more my patience.” Tomorrow I’ll go to the recruiting station as a volunteer in the Red Army.
    - Are you really stupid, old grunt? Where did you go then? Children barefoot are sitting all in snot, I am falling from hunger, there is nothing to drown, there is no bread crust at home, and you, what to do, what do you need in this war?
    “I can’t see this, Manya.” My urine is gone. Here I look at these White Guards, well, their civilization code does not match mine.
    - Well, to hell with him, let him not coincide, what is it to you?
    - I can’t calmly look at it. It will personally be a disaster for me if I integrate into the Western community.
    “What other disaster?” And so you, hungry, undressed, without ammunition will be sent to crawl through the mud on a machine gun, is this not a disaster for you? Yes, you’ll die from typhoid on the road. Sit yourself, on the stove, but don’t poke around wherever they ask. They will figure out what civilization code is without you.

    Or another option.

    - Eh, Manya, here I look at these whites, there is no genuine nationalism in them. This Kolchak was the one who went skiing in the polar ice, was a Japanese hero, and a hero from heroes in Germany. In 36 years already, Vice Admiral. Chest in orders, nowhere to hang. But there is absolutely nothing nationalistic about him. He is not Russian, and that’s it. And take Denikin. He was also in the Japanese and the German hero. And also the chest in the orders. No, not our man. I smell him in the morning. And Kornilov escaped from captivity. Could calmly lie on a bed for four years. Anyway, he is not a patriot. Traitor he, Manya, you really believe me. Here is Leiba Davidovich Bronstein, who lived calmly throughout the war in America, and here he is. From it, the Russian spirit is just rushing. And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, he has not been to Russia for the last fifteen years. And for fifteen years he lounged, lived at the expense of the party cashier, in Switzerland, but in France and Belgium. Yes, the one who said that the proletariat has no fatherland. Yes, he still wished the Germans victory. And in Japan - to the Japanese. Let, says, 90% of Russians perish, if only ten survived the world revolution. This is right away, for Russia. This is ours, native, national. This is what I approve of. I heard them, and I wanted something to quickly die for the world revolution. It's nothing, Manya, that you’ll go begging, and the children will die of hunger. But think about it, ten percent of us will live to see a future in which Koreans and Uruguayans, and Australian natives, will get rid of the oppressors! That will be Russian joy.
  40. kalibr
    kalibr 8 November 2019 21: 13
    -4
    Quote: tesser
    Another thing is that that Russia, in spite of all the autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, had a future. The young republic of workers and peasants, in spite of the poster cult of modernization, had no future. But who knew.

    You wrote it really well!
  41. Spring fluff
    Spring fluff 8 November 2019 23: 04
    +1
    Infernal br ... d. "They are infected with the same disease of Eurocentrism. Hence, practically all the current problems of Russia and the Russian people." Are you serious? Are all the current problems from Eurocentrism? And I thought from lawlessness, monopoly, etc.
  42. fif21
    fif21 9 November 2019 08: 42
    +2
    Power to the Soviets, factories to the workers, land to the peasants! And from the greedy-thieving modern bourgeoisie, there will only be a wet place. The Communists no longer have faith! Raising the people with these slogans, they in fact made-power-KPSS, factories-to ministries, land to collective farms! The current regime cannot create comfortable living in the country for either students, workers or retirees. The number of poor, poor is increasing, and how it ends, God alone knows. hi
    1. Alexander Greene
      Alexander Greene 9 November 2019 16: 21
      +4
      Quote: fif21
      how this will end, God alone knows.

      How is this what? The new socialist revolution, this has already been proven by history.
      1. AU Ivanov.
        AU Ivanov. 9 November 2019 17: 50
        -5
        Shaw, again? Do we need it?
        1. Alexander Greene
          Alexander Greene 9 November 2019 20: 00
          +5
          Quote: AS Ivanov.
          Shaw, again? Do we need it?

          But IT does not ask us! Everything comes .... This is an objective process of the development of society.
  43. victor50
    victor50 9 November 2019 19: 50
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    The peasant was promised - "LAND FOR THE PEASANTS", that is, each peasant will receive his allotment of land (taken from the landlords), as much as he can handle. It was with this that the peasants were lured into the Red Army. Under any "" PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION "he would not go to the army (he needs to cultivate the land) .....

    Another copyist of history ...
  44. Vladimir NN
    Vladimir NN 10 November 2019 09: 41
    +3
    The whites did not like the land that fed them.
    The Russian "elite", for the lawlessness they committed in the Holy Russian Land, was forced to disgracefully move to those lands, whose interests it served more. Many spiritual leaders who incited the people to revolt, abandoned them and the Holy Thrones, taking with them the parish treasury and church icons, shamefully fled abroad and “consecrated” their thrones there. But the lips of these shepherds repeated the words of John the Baptist more than once: who told you to flee from future wrath? create ubo fruit worthy of repentance .. The remaining bishops and clergy later ended up in the taiga for logging, where they met their flock. It was an exam for our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. http://abc.shn-host.ru
    By the way, some of the Bolsheviks also hated Russian land, which is why they set up crematoriums in the USSR so as not to fall into it.

    The current “elite” hopes, through crises and the looting of states, to collect as much material wealth as possible, then act as great gentlemen of benefactors for those who remain poor after civil wars, ethnic conflicts, the Holocaust, massacre, hunger, epidemics, technological and environmental disasters, which are now being prepared through puppet regimes.
    And they are preparing to do in their own way, and the masses can be offered, even a monarchy with an "Orthodox" tsar, even socialism with the Butovo test site, even a feudal landlord system, only the name of the governing body changes - the Central Committee of the CPSU, boyar or people's duma, what's the difference, it doesn't matter kagal puppets. For this, Lenin's corpse is kept as a reserve, in case democratization collapses, then again to revive the CPSU as a centralized dictatorial vertical of management of the Talmudo "proletariat", hiding behind this corpse.
  45. Dymik
    Dymik 10 November 2019 15: 14
    0
    There was no unity in the white movement (many officers did not go to war because they swore allegiance to the tsar! And the tsar, as is known, abdicated! Yes, and many did not want to participate in the fratricidal war !! Well, the Bolsheviks deceived everyone and the workers and peasants! And who does not agree - under execution (not to mention the first Soviet government - there were no Russians, except Lunacharsky)
  46. Awaz
    Awaz 10 November 2019 17: 18
    +1
    The white movement did not offer anything to the people — neither the peasantry nor the workers. They simply engaged in war and robbery of this very people.
    And if part of the peasants who are in the remnants of the tsarist army and followed the whites, it is mainly due to the fact that they respected their commanders, with whom they fought in the world’s 1. Most likely it was they who followed the junior officers with whom they rotted and died in the trenches of this very war. They simply did not see how the elders were eating at that time and believed that all the same.
    By the way, for example, the most high-tech military of those years, and it was a fleet, in particular, sailors did not go after the whites at all. Not a single sailor fought on the side of the white army, and what is more, they became famous for their fierce hatred of both their officers and officers from tsarist times in general.
    And it seems that they were recruited from the most educated and prepared recruits, but what was the reason for this attitude? It's simple - they lived with the officer on the same territory and if the officers ate on gold and drank champagne, then the sailors lived in tight cubicles in unsanitary conditions and ate waste ...
    Well, the Reds, unlike the Whites, offered the people fantastic conditions for those times. What bought the peasantry and workers. And when in territories that the Reds could not control, the Whites tried to take the land from the peasants and engage in terror, the people took up arms and actually switched to the side of the Reds.
    This is briefly. And so the forces on the battlefield were approximately equal. Although on both sides the people were commanded mainly in the same school (one third of the officers went over to the Reds), but ordinary soldiers on the Reds had more motivation.
    1. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 18: 44
      0
      Well, the leftist half-education came running and, without reading anything, began to post miserable myths that had long been refuted.
      Apparently hoping to compensate for the lack of quality in quantity. Missing topic. There’s nothing to waste time on her. These will not teach anything to the mind, disgusting Chubais they will rule over many generations ... no matter how they babble about the new socialist revolution
      1. Al shahini
        Al shahini 10 November 2019 23: 04
        +1
        Well, the leftist half-education has come running (c)
        Oh god What a syllable!
        The most compelling argument is the outcome of the Civil War. The power of the high-winged and bloodsucking grabbers was overthrown. The country made a giant breakthrough in development. It managed to defeat the Nazi plague of a united Europe and built the foundation of the State on which even under the current comprador government the country still holds.

        But those who are trying to defend the "white movement" cannot even be called semi-educated. Aggressive ignorance is their name.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 23: 34
          +1
          All your points are refuted by the facts above. You are in response - again slogans and words. Neither facts from you, nor figures. So your words about ignorance you say in the mirror. However, I do not hope that you have even a bit of logic in you.
    2. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 20: 00
      +2
      Forces on the battlefield were approximately equal

      That’s why such a story, why facts, documents, calculations? Why does he need historical truth? He just doesn’t need him, he wants only a comfortable myth. The darkness of bitter truths is dearer to us than exalting deception. Such a nation deserves today's power. By relics and firs
      1. Awaz
        Awaz 11 November 2019 05: 41
        +1
        We must also remember that all these Denchins Kolchakova and the like, overthrew the tsar and brought the country to such a state that the Bolsheviks came to power. Although this is so conditionally the Bolsheviks, because there was a motley coalition. And the theft and crimes of whites are really confirmed not only in the investigations of the Reds, but even in the memoirs of the white officers themselves and their Anglo-American sponsors and curators.
  47. Al shahini
    Al shahini 10 November 2019 22: 24
    -1
    What the hell to write such nonsense- "It was planned in Russia to create a bourgeois-democratic society, the hallmarks of which were parliamentary-type democracy or constitutional monarchy, an independent judiciary, political pluralism, the secular nature of society, market economy, etc."?
    Who planned? - "The British? The French? Really the Americans or the Japanese ?."
    Their plans were to dismember Russia and take advantage of its wealth.

    And the so-called. The "noble white" bastard simply acted as shabes-goyim of these "planners."
    And therefore, those from the military and civilian intelligentsia of Russia who understood what was happening took the side of the then only Bolshevik patriots .. Not even sharing much of their ideas.
    But one Idea - the Idea of ​​the Homeland was among the Reds and the former tsarist officers and officials.
    1. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 23: 15
      +1
      Kohl, it’s wet on a stake, start over.
      No, these people are hopeless. Here's what to do to brainwash so clean?
      Well, what was the “idea of ​​the homeland” of Leiba Bronstein? World revolution ... The proletarians have no Fatherland .... defeatism
      1. Yaik Cossack
        Yaik Cossack 10 November 2019 23: 25
        +1
        By the way, the Bolsheviks later luxuriously “thanked” these officers who stood on their side. They shot the overwhelming majority of this “red bastard”, as well as their red heroes. And what - quite a fair payment, patrioticly so, completely for the Idea .... although the people say: a dog - dog death
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 11 November 2019 08: 16
          -2
          What kind of officers are these? Maybe Shaposhnikov, whom Stalin addressed by name and patronymic and who made the most gorgeous career from the tsarist colonel to the Soviet marshal? Or maybe Tukhachevsky with his plots. Or maybe Brusilova, who, if he did not actively help, then at least did not interfere with the Bolsheviks, and in the last years of his life taught military affairs to Soviet officers?
          1. Yaik Cossack
            Yaik Cossack 11 November 2019 11: 04
            +1
            Vatsetis, Samoilo, Egorov, Cork, Kamenev, Uborevich, Putna, Fedko, etc., etc.
            Militant illiteracy, as you have, is always ridiculous, read more and enlighten
            1. Yaik Cossack
              Yaik Cossack 11 November 2019 11: 21
              +1
              Killed Baltic, Svechin, Verkhovsky, Sytin, Gutor, Olderogge (succeeded Frunze and finally defeated Kolchak), an outstanding orientalist and head of the Red Army Academy Snesarev died after the camp,
              Arrested the right hand Frunze Novitsky and Bonch-Bruevich.
              And this is only a small part of the list of generals and officers of the imperial army who immediately went to serve the Bolsheviks. The fact of cleaning since the end of the 20's. most former officers are not in doubt among professional historians.

              A.A. Brusilov did not seriously teach at any academy. You are not even able to master Wikipedia, but undertake with aplomb to judge objects unknown to you.
              Since May 1920, he chaired the Special Conference under the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Soviet Republic. This body itself was meaningless and was used mainly for speculation in the name of Brusilov
              Since 1921 of the year - Chairman of the Commission for the organization of pre-conscription cavalry training. Haha The most important position is steeper than the academy! You would think that Brusilov the rider is better than Gorodovikov or Budyonny)))
              In 1923 — 1924 years - inspector of cavalry of the Red Army. Also a ceremonial post.
              From 1924 he was at the Revolutionary Military Council for especially important assignments. It's just a form of pension. No "important assignments" were noted.
              1. Yaik Cossack
                Yaik Cossack 11 November 2019 18: 12
                +1
                Well, about Tukhachevsky - what kind of "conspiracies" do you attribute to him?
                You, the Soviet patriot, spit on the decision of the Soviet court, which, as you know, is the most humane in the world? After all, it was legally established that there was no conspiracy. Today's delusional fabrications and inflamed fantasies of red freaks have no evidential value.
                The decision on rehabilitation was made in 1957 and is valid. Therefore, until this decision is revised, all fabrications about the "Tukhachevsky conspiracy" are slander.

                By the definition of January 31 1957 of the year (Definition number 4н-0280 / 57 of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR), all the defendants were acquitted and rehabilitated for lack of corpus delicti. The new decision was based on evidence that the defendants' confession, on which the conviction was based, was obtained using torture, beatings and other “criminal methods of investigation”.
  48. EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 November 2019 08: 13
    -2
    Because nothing but a whip for the people and the sale of the country of Entente could not offer.
  49. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 11 November 2019 13: 25
    0
    Che then Tula gunsmiths (hard workers) went on the attack with songs to the accordion. They are not alone. There was a whole regiment of them. He went all under Volochaevka. The article was not disclosed. Pechalka.
  50. Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 11 November 2019 18: 15
    +1
    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    Che then Tula gunsmiths (hard workers) went on the attack with songs to the accordion. They are not alone. There was a whole regiment of them. He went all under Volochaevka. The article was not disclosed. Pechalka.


    And with songs to the accordion, the Kolchak regiments from Izhevsk and Votkinsk workers went on the attack. There were more than one regiment))))