Liberals of the era of Nikolai Pavlovich and Alexander the Liberator

337
Liberals of the era of Nikolai Pavlovich and Alexander the Liberator
Eugene Delacroix, "Liberty Leading the People" 1830, Louvre

The shackles were falling. Law,
Leaning on liberty, proclaimed equality,
And we exclaimed: Bliss!
Oh woe! about crazy dream!
Where is liberty and law? Above us
A single dominates the ax.
We overthrew the kings. Killer with executioners
We have chosen the king. Oh God! oh shame!
But you sacred freedom
The goddess is pure, no, you are not guilty,
In a fit of violent blindness
In the despicable fury of the people,
You hid from us; healing your vessel
Cloaked with a veil of bloody:
But you will come again with vengeance and glory, -
And again your enemies will fall ...
("Andrey Chenier" by A.S. Pushkin)

History Russian liberalism. We will begin our next material on liberalism in Russia, perhaps, with the assertion that Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, who ascended the imperial throne of Russia under the most dramatic circumstances, was by no means the stupid and self-satisfied narrow-minded soldier on the throne, as Soviet historiography usually presented him in the recent past. ... And far from all free-thinking he pursued. Yes, he banned Griboyedov's play "Woe from Wit". But he allowed Gogol's "Inspector". And even personally attended the premiere of his production at the theater. Another thing is that he had no doubt that it was precisely unlimited autocracy that was a direct benefit for Russia. He also, of course, remembered the fate of his father, but he considered Peter the Great to be his political ideal.

Distrust of the European Enlightenment



Emperor Nicholas I. Portrait by Franz Kruger (State Hermitage)

Another thing is that he had a huge distrust of the European Enlightenment. And the revolutions of 1848-1849. in European countries only strengthened him in the opinion that it was he who was the root of all evil. Yes, the "free thinking" of their subjects was sometimes punished mercilessly. But (we cannot but see the paradox of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I), he did a lot to educate Russia, which for some reason many people forget.



Thus, the newspaper "Gubernskiye Vedomosti" appeared with his direct permission already in 1838. Moreover, 38 weekly newspapers and two daily newspapers (in Penza and Kharkov) began to be printed immediately. Since 1857, began to publish "Irkutsk", "Tobolsk" and "Tomsk" vedomosti. The newspapers had two sections: the official one — orders and orders of the local authorities, and the unofficial one, which published materials on local history, regional geography, ethnography and statistics. These publications contain a lot of valuable information about prices for goods and services, rates of working hours, data on births and deaths, crop failures, and much more. Those who say that statistics were bad in tsarist Russia simply did not read Gubernskie vedomosti — they contained the whole country and its entire economy. True, there was no fiction. Until 1864.


This is how Gubernskiye Vedomosti usually looked like

The magazines for the education of soldiers of the Russian imperial army: "Reading for Soldiers", "Soldier's Interlocutor" and "Soldier's Works" became absolutely unique for their time. The first began publishing in 1847. And what this magazine did not write about. "How to baptize babies correctly" and "Stories about Suvorov", "About the furrier trade" and "Heroic assault on Geok-Tepe", published stories of literate lower ranks and reports that "a private of the 90th Onega infantry regiment Ustin Shkvarkin on June 5 last year I saved a drowning woman in the river. Porusye is the daughter of the tradesman Evdokimov Pelageya. " These magazines taught the soldiers crafts and helped to open their own business after the release "outright". And the gentlemen officers were ordered to read these magazines by order, without shifting this responsibility to non-commissioned officers.

It was Nicholas I who returned Speransky to participation in state activities, and he finally put in order the legislation of the empire. And General P.D. Kiselyov (known for his liberal views) was attracted to the development of projects of peasant reform.


Subscription to Reading for Soldiers in 1885

By the way, it was he (and to a greater extent than Alexander I) who was fascinated by the peasant reform plan. So, in 1834 in his office, talking with General Kiselyov, the emperor showed him a lot of folders in the closet and said:

"Since my accession to the throne, I have collected all the papers relating to the process that I want to lead against slavery, when the time comes to free the peasants throughout the empire."

That is, he had such an intention. But I could not figure out how to bring it to life without prejudice to the interests of the landowners. Therefore, he did not dare to take such a radical measure.

Well, as for the liberal movement under Nicholas I, it was by no means exhausted by the activity of only a few tsarist dignitaries. The main event of both intellectual and social life of Nicholas Russia was the battles between Westernizers and Slavophiles. The former were naturally close to the liberals, while the Slavophiles firmly believed in the Orthodox autocracy and the patriarchal peasant community.

Although the same Westernizers did not represent a single movement. Someone advocated the development of Russia along the evolutionary path, as the historian T.N. Granovsky. But V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen (the one who wrote: "Call Russia to the ax!") Advocated the European path, modeled on the revolutions of 1789-1849.

As a result, Nicholas I was terribly influenced by the events of the Eastern (Crimean War), for the failures of which he blamed himself exclusively. So there is even a version that he took poison (although slowly acting) and managed to say goodbye to his family.

Coming out of the underground


During the reign of Emperor Alexander II, the period of Russian liberalism emerging from its "underground" began. And here three main trends were finally formed among Russian liberals. First: liberal officials, who hoped to carry out reforms by force of the monarchy, but slowly and carefully. The second direction is various groups of the Russian intelligentsia who are ready to cooperate with the authorities. But there was also a third trend (also belonging to the intelligentsia), or rather that part of it that became disillusioned with the evolutionary path of the country's development and tried to find a common language with the revolutionaries, first the Narodnaya Volya, and then with the Marxists.

At the very top of the liberal views (in the 60s and 80s of the XNUMXth century), even such representatives of the Romanovs as the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna adhered to. "Liberal" was the chairman of the State Council D.N. Bludov, Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky, close to Emperor J.I. Rostovtsev and Minister of War D.A. Milyutin. And, of course, Alexander II the Liberator himself, who initiated not only the abolition of serfdom, but also many other reforms (judicial, zemstvo, military). All of them literally "pushed" the country towards the constitution. But the king was in no hurry with her. It seemed to him that the reforms that had already been carried out were quite enough for the near future.


Such magazines were also published for soldiers

Russian liberals participated with great enthusiasm in the reforms of the government of Alexander II. Thus, the famous professors of St. Petersburg University K.D. Kavelin, M.M. Stasyulevich, V.D. Spasovich, A.N. Pypin began publishing the liberal journal Vestnik Evropy. In "Gubernskiye vedomosti" articles of critical content began to be printed, pushing the government to deepen reforms.

But the liberals of that time had neither a single political organization nor a well-thought-out ideology. In fact, they insisted only on the continuation of reforms, and above all the constitutional one. There could be no question of any support from the bulk of the population of Russia (that is, the peasants). The peasants did not trust them, considered them "bars", and even strange, and even "dashing". And a very significant part of the nobility, which was disappointed with the difficulties that fell on it after the reforms, openly took the position of conservatism. Entrepreneurs were consistent supporters of liberal values ​​in Europe, but in Russia at the end of the XNUMXth century they did not play any independent political role and did not even dare to think about participating in politics. They were completely captured by the industrialization that was beginning in the country and preferred to make big money on this under the protection of a strong monarchy.


And even there were publications that came out in separate shelves.

Seeing that the government clearly did not want to accelerate the pace of reforms, the liberals turned to outright revolutionaries for help. In 1878, a clandestine meeting of liberal constitutionalists with Narodnaya Volya terrorists took place in Kiev. And the authorities did not pay even the slightest attention to this, apparently considering that they would talk, “let off steam,” and that would end the matter.


Emperor Alexander II on his deathbed. Photo by S. Levitsky

True, already in 1881, Emperor Alexander II, seeing that the situation in the country was heating up (and besides, it was aggravated by the terror of the Narodnaya Volya), gave instructions to the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov to prepare a draft constitution. And the tsar was ready to sign this document when on March 1, 1881, the terrorist Grinevitsky's bomb cut his life.
337 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    24 November 2020 03: 48
    And the king was ready to sign this document

    Where did you get this?
    1. +8
      24 November 2020 05: 00
      This is out of faith in a kind and just king-father. smile and bad boyars.
    2. +19
      24 November 2020 07: 09
      Mordvin 3 (Vladimir)
      Where did you get this?
      From a session of spiritualism, this is shpakovsky ... He will tell you about the tsar-father and will tell you something different. For what babosy pay now, the author also praises. It is accepted by the current elite of the kings to praise, so he tries for a little bit, and maybe not a little, God knows him.
    3. +1
      24 November 2020 07: 52
      From the children's historical encyclopedia Avanta +. By the way, a very worthy publication! Specify the page?
    4. +3
      24 November 2020 09: 11
      Quote: mordvin xnumx
      And the king was ready to sign this document

      Where did you get this?

      I join ... oh, these Narodnaya Volya, the tsar thought and thought for 26 years, and now, when he turned 62, he decided to sign, and here on you ... they ruined everything, again no luck with the people
    5. +2
      24 November 2020 15: 37
      In fact, there were publications about this a long time ago. Naturally, it was not that the Tsar had a decree on his table, but he wanted to sign and the ink ran out. Just logically, Alexander was ready to sign.
      It seems to me that Aleksandr2 resembles Aleksadra1 "blessedly": there are many good ideas, but not constancy of character. In this regard, Nikolai Pavlovich was more constant
  2. +13
    24 November 2020 04: 00
    It looks like I'll be the first commentator today. Only, unlike Vlad, I have not yet gone to bed. smile
    Vyacheslav Olegovich, it seems to me that it is really so, but this time you somehow really tried to be objective. smile I'm afraid the people will not understand you: you are for whom - for ours or for these (each determines "ours" and "these" according to his own taste), decide, already! smile
    Liberals, of course, are evil. But damn, are they not all the same? No, it can't be!
    So who are you personally for - for Nikolai or for Alexander? Well, just to know who to curse ...
    Okay, I'm off to bed. laughing
    PS.
    Sober, honestly? just tired. laughing
    PPS
    Ay, damn it, it didn't work first ... laughing
    PPPS
    Mordvin, my compliments. smile
    1. +6
      24 November 2020 04: 23
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      for Nikolai or for Alexander?

      Everything will be like grandmother's! I killed my father with a snuffbox ... crying
      1. +12
        24 November 2020 04: 44
        Good morning Mikhail and Vladimir. As far as I remember, Nikolai Pavlovich was not involved in the death of Pavel Petrovich. Mal was still unlike the older brothers Alexander and Konstantin!
        If I choose between Nicholas I and Alexander II, then I vote to the first - "the last knight".
        Regards, Vlad!
        1. +2
          24 November 2020 05: 22
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Mal was still

          Well, yes, there Platoshka Zubov noted.
          1. +7
            24 November 2020 09: 41
            Well, yes, there Platoshka Zubov noted.

            If we take specifically the blow with a snuffbox, then it was the plateau's brother Nikolashka Zubov who was noted. And then, first, a French plateau valet jumped on Pavel’s stomach, and after that his comrades began kicking Platoshka himself. hi
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 11: 27
              Quote: Pane Kohanku
              If we take specifically the blow with a snuffbox, then it was the plateau's brother Nikolashka Zubov who was noted. And then, first, a French plateau valet jumped on Pavel’s stomach, and after that his comrades began kicking Platoshka himself.

              Good afternoon Nikolai, a question for you about the murder of Pavel: why didn't he actually defend himself? did he have a weapon with him? Has the body been exhumed today? if it was carried out what conclusions: are there any injuries? hi
              1. +7
                24 November 2020 14: 35
                Good afternoon Nikolai, a question for you about the murder of Pavel: why didn't he actually defend himself? did he have a weapon with him? Has the body been exhumed today? if it was carried out what conclusions: are there any injuries?

                Sergei, I think Pavel did not even think to defend himself physically. hi
                Let's give the floor to Nikolai Sablukov, who on the eve of the murder (slandered before Pavel!) Was removed from the Mikhailovsky Castle with his horse guards - they were the ones who were supposed to stand guard. General Uvarov may have taken part in this slander, the same one whom Kutuzov did not present for the award for Borodino ... negative Sablukov wrote everything from hearsay, from memory, and initially - in English, but the picture turns out to be alive, and we will analyze some flaws in the following comments. soldier
                http://az.lib.ru/s/sablukow_n_a/text_1848-zapiaski.shtml
                And so:
                At about midnight, most of the regiments taking part in the conspiracy moved towards the palace. The Semenovites marched ahead and occupied the inner corridors and passages of the castle.
                The conspirators got up from supper a little after midnight. According to the plan worked out, the signal to invade the inner apartments of the palace and into the very office of the emperor was to be given by Argamakov, adjutant of the grenadier battalion of the Preobrazhensky regiment, whose duty was to report to the emperor about the fires taking place in the city. Argamakov ran into the front hall of the sovereign's office, where recently there was a guard from my squadron, and shouted: "fire!"

                At this time, the conspirators, up to 180 people, rushed through door a (see Fig. 3). Then Marin, who commanded the internal infantry guard, removed the Faithful grenadiers of the Preobrazhensky Life Battalion, placing them as sentries, and those of them who had previously served in the Life Grenadier Regiment, placed in the front of the sovereign's cabinet, thus preserving this important post in the hands of the conspirators ...
                Two camera hussars, who stood at the door of the a, bravely defended their post, but one of them was stabbed to death and the other was wounded. [67] Finding the first door (s), leading to the bedroom, unlocked, the conspirators at first thought that the emperor had disappeared along the inner staircase (and this could easily have been done), as Kutaisov did. But when they came to the second door (c), they found it locked from the inside, which proved that the emperor was undoubtedly in the bedroom.
                Having broken open the door (c), the conspirators rushed into the room, but the emperor was not there. The search began, but unsuccessfully, despite the fact that the door with, leading to the Empress's bedchamber, was also locked from the inside. The search continued for a minute, when General Bennigsen, a tall, phlegmatic man, entered; he went to the fireplace (e), leaned against it and at that time saw the emperor hiding behind the screen. Pointing at him with a finger, Bennigsen said in French: "le voilà", after which Paul was immediately pulled out of his cover.
                Prince Platon Zubov, [68] who acted as orator and chief leader of the conspiracy, addressed the emperor with a speech. Typically distinguished by great nervousness, Pavel, this time, however, did not seem particularly agitated and, retaining his full dignity, asked what they all wanted?
                Platon Zubov replied that his despotism had become so difficult for the nation that they came to demand his abdication from the throne.
                The emperor, full of a sincere desire to bring happiness to his people, to keep the laws and regulations of the empire inviolable and to institute justice everywhere, entered into a dispute with Zubov, which lasted about half an hour and which, in the end, took on a stormy character. At this time, those of the conspirators who drank too much champagne began to express impatience, while the emperor, in turn, spoke louder and began to gesticulate strongly. At this time, the equestrian, Count Nikolai Zubov, [69] a man of enormous height and extraordinary strength, being completely drunk, hit Pavel on the arm and said: "Why are you shouting like that!"
                With this insult, the emperor indignantly pushed Zubov's left hand away, to which the latter, clutching a massive gold snuffbox in his fist, struck with his right hand with his right hand with a full swing on the emperor's left temple, as a result of which he fell senseless to the floor. At the same moment, Zubov's French valet jumped up with his feet on the emperor's stomach, and Skaryatin, an officer of the Izmailovsky regiment, took off the emperor's own scarf hanging over the bed and strangled him with it. Thus he was finished off.
                On the basis of another version, Zubov, being very drunk, seemed to have thrust his fingers into the snuffbox that Pavel was holding in his hands. Then the emperor was the first to hit Zubov, and thus began a quarrel himself. Zubov, as it were, snatched the snuffbox from the emperor's hands and knocked him down with a strong blow. But this is hardly plausible when you consider that Paul jumped right out of bed and wanted to hide. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the snuff-box played a well-known role in this event.
                So, the words "qu'il faut commencer par casser les oeufs" uttered by Pahlen at dinner were not forgotten and, alas, were carried out.
                They called the names of some persons who showed in this case a lot of cruelty, even atrocities, wanting to take out the insults received from the emperor on his lifeless body, so that it was not easy for doctors and make-up artists to put the body in such a form so that it could be exposed for worship, according to existing customs. I saw the late emperor lying in a coffin. [70] On his face, despite his diligent make-up, black and blue spots were visible. His triangular hat was pulled down over his head so as, if possible, to hide his left eye and temple, which was hurt.
                So died on March 12, 1801, one of the sovereigns, whom history speaks of as a monarch filled with many virtues, distinguished by unquenchable activity, who loved order and justice and sincerely devout. On the day of his coronation, he published an act establishing the order of succession to the throne in Russia. Agriculture, industry, trade, arts and sciences had a reliable patron in him. To promote education and upbringing, he founded a university in Dorpat, in St. Petersburg a school for military orphans (Pavlovsky corps). For women - the Institute of the Order of St. Catherine and the institution of the department of Empress Mary.
                It is impossible without disgust to mention the murderers who distinguished themselves for their brutality during this catastrophe. I can only add that I knew most of them until the very moment of their death, which for many represented a terrible moral agony in connection with the most cruel bodily torments.
                1. +3
                  24 November 2020 15: 25
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  Sergei, I think Pavel did not even think to defend himself physically.

                  Proceeding from the logic of events - apparently yes, unless of course Sablukov "does not lie as an eyewitness" laughing
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2020 23: 11
                    Proceeding from the logic of events - apparently yes, unless of course Sablukov "does not lie as an eyewitness"

                    Others lie even more.
                    This one was at least unbiased. By the way, I treated Pavel rationally - I remembered mercy, I forgave idiot condescendingly ...
                    Do you want a detective, Sergei?
                    Two camera hussars, who stood at the door, bravely defended their post, but one of them was stabbed and the other was wounded.

                    Pavel personally called Sablukov a Jacobin (Uvarov was neighing behind the emperor's back and making faces), after which the guard of the Horse Guards was dismissed. This is well known.
                    After that, according to Sablukov himself, two camera hussars took the place of the guard in the hallway. I mean, a footman dressed in a hussar uniform.
                    So that's it. What Bennigsen, the darkest guy in history, recalled:
                    “There we (in a small kitchenette adjacent to the hallway in front of Pavel's bedroom - approx. Pane Kokhanka) found the camera-hussar, who was sleeping in the deepest sleep, sitting and leaning his head against the stove. ; and even those, instead of being quiet, attacked the footman; one of the officers hit him on the head, and he raised a cry. "
                    I read somewhere that really one was killed. Another tried to raise a cry.
                    Here is what the Decembrist Matvey Muraviev-Apostol reports:
                    The main guard was held by Captain Mikhailov with his company. He was a Gatchina, a worthy example of these officers: rude, illiterate, and a drunkard. The soldiers of this guard also raised a murmur that they were not led to calm the noisy. Lost, Mikhailov turned for advice to Ensign Konstantin Markovich Poltoratsky, who was with him on guard. Understanding the essence of the matter, he replied that he did not dare to give advice to his commander.
                    Mikhailov led the soldier out of the guardhouse. Climbing up the front staircase, on its platform, he met Count Zubov and asked: “Captain, where are you going?”
                    Mikhailov replied: "Save the sovereign."
                    The count gave him a good slap in the face and ordered: "To the right around." Mikhailov, with due obedience, took his soldiers to the guardhouse.

                    That is, the second footman tried to raise a cry ... In someone's recollections, I definitely saw that his saber scar was then examined by his colleagues - in regiment (they were shaved into the soldiers!).
                    So we have, Sergei!
                    Sablukov saw TWO cameras-hussars. One of whom was killed, according to rumors he heard.
                    Bennigsen remembered ONE. And then, hit on the head with a stick.
                    Question. Bennigsen is the very activist who discovered Paul. And who kept the conspirators in his room when they were about to scatter. And who said later - they say, "I left the room, and when I returned, everything was over." Like, "I am not me, and my ass is not mine!"as Prosecutor General Skuratov at one timefeel
                    Where did the second chamber hussar go?
                    It can be assumed from the memoirs of Leonty Leontyevich Bennigsen ... who himself kept the conspirators in check .. who discovered Pavel, but at the same time left the bedchamber at the right time, according to HIS words ...
                    It was he who stabbed the second servant!

                    It is painfully suspicious! request
                    1. +1
                      25 November 2020 11: 51
                      Quote: Pane Kohanku
                      It was he who stabbed the second servant!
                      It is painfully suspicious!

                      It is quite possible, and it is better to hide this fact just in case, because whoever you are, but it is still a crime that at any moment they can use against you.
                      Captain Mikhailov with his company. He was a Gatchina, a worthy example of these officers: rude, illiterate and a drunkard.

                      Straight into thought, but it seems not me wassat
                      1. +1
                        25 November 2020 11: 57
                        Straight into thought, but it seems not me

                        Uh-huh. I also thought - like not me. And not you. laughing
                        Muravyov was still a minor then. So, someone told him, through the tenth hands. In other sources, there was a different surname of the captain-bungler ... hi
                        By the way, here is Muravyov-Apostol himself. The "Kulm cross" is well discernible. soldier
                    2. +1
                      25 November 2020 11: 55
                      Do I know why I asked about Paul?
                      Recently I read an article about the modern exhumation of the remains of Andrei Bogolyubsky, several years ago they did it using all modern methods. And the stories, you see, are very similar.
                      It is interesting, although not sensational, but the chronicle version of events is fully confirmed to itself.
                      1. +1
                        25 November 2020 14: 05
                        It is interesting, although not sensational, but the chronicle version of events is fully confirmed to itself.

                        Interesting! As for the exhumation, it would be interesting, nevertheless, if they had conducted a study of the remains of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich. But what if?.. drinks
                      2. +1
                        25 November 2020 14: 43
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        Interesting! As for the exhumation, it would be interesting, nevertheless, if they had conducted a study of the remains of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich. But what if?..

                        I remember talking about this back in my student years, but things are still there.
                      3. +1
                        25 November 2020 21: 14
                        I remember talking about this back in my student years, but things are still there.

                        And it's not beneficial to anyone! Imagine ... Let's examine the remains, and prove that this is not Fyodor Kuzmich, but Alexander Pavlovich. hi
                        So everyone will howl! Starting from:
                        1.pseudo-Romanovs who live happily ever after abroad (EMNIP, the son of the genetic degenerate Kirill Vladimirovich - Vladimir Kirillovich - also served the Nazis! Although they are now trying to hush it up in every possible way ...).
                        2.Official Russian historiography ... "Bliiiin ... to rewrite everything, change the plates ... and in general everything was not so" ...
                        3. Our officials, who have not changed at all since the time of Gogol. "Well this is spending money ..." Not on yourself! To the events!
                        4. church? .... She will also participate ...
                        That's all. And no one will establish the truth. request because - an unprintable word .... everything, everything. negative
                        But if the elder really turns out to be a former emperor, it will be the best reward for a parricide son! So he tried to atone ... tried ... soldier
                      4. +1
                        26 November 2020 11: 02
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        And it's not beneficial to anyone!

                        I also think so: there are so many things to change and revise, but why all this fuss?
                      5. +2
                        25 November 2020 15: 11
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        Interesting! And about the exhumation

                        Here is one of the articles about Andrey, you can not read everything, at the end of the article see the conclusions:
                        10 blows, 16 damage apparently with 2 weapons: a sharp chopping-cutting tool with a long blade (saber type) and a massive sharp-chopping tool with a long blade (like a sword). Apparently 2 people attacked him, he defended himself until he injured his left hand (apparently he was left-handed). None of the blows are fatal in themselves, apparently died of blood loss.
                        https://mdrussia.ru/topic/25828-issledovanie-ostankov-andreya-bogolyubskogo/
                      6. +1
                        26 November 2020 09: 28
                        None of the blows are fatal in themselves, apparently died of blood loss.

                        Sergey, I bow! The topic is not mine (Mikhail is more interested in it), but I read it from the heart! good
                        The annalistic lists indicate several direct perpetrators of the murder - “Pyotr Kuchkov's son-in-law,” “the chief of the murderers,” Andrei's trusted key-keeper, the Ossetian An-bal, Yakim Kuchkovich and the Jew Efrem Moizovich.
                        Straight medieval international! Isn't that where the word "ambal" came from? hi
                        But in reality, there could be two killers. The first - most likely, “Peter Kuchkov's son-in-law” - was armed with a chopping-cutting weapon such as a saber. He attacked the prince from the front and somewhat to the left. Then he shifted to the left and backward. He struck with a saber at an acute angle to the surface of the prince's body with a stretch. These are very traumatic blows, since the incisions of soft tissues, having a great length and depth, are accompanied by damage to many blood vessels. He delivered blows from a long distance with the end of the blade. Judging by the uniformity and strength of the blows, he professionally mastered weapons and close combat tactics. The second attacker, and this is possibly Yakim Kuchkovich, armed with a massive bladed weapon such as a sword, joined Peter later. His strong chopping blows in the forearm (with a cut of the radius) and the middle part of the left shoulder paralyzed Bogolyubsky's defense, after which the prince's left arm hung powerlessly along the body. From that moment on, the head and body of the prince were not protected. Immediately followed by two blows: with a sword - in the back of the prince's head on the left, with a saber - in the left shoulder bevel. The blow to the back of the head, although it was accompanied by a superficial cut of the bone, was, judging by the traces of vibration on its surface, deafening. The outcome of the contraction became inevitable after an extensive wound of the left shoulder girdle and shoulder joint with a cut of the scapula, the head of the humerus and a very large subclavian artery. The strongest saber blow on the prince's lowered hand, inflicted in the same manner - at an acute angle to the surface of the shoulder girdle, caused gushing bleeding. From that time on, the minutes of Andrei Bogolyubsky's life were numbered. The prince apparently fell. The first episode of the drama, about which the chroniclers report, ended: “Behold, the wickedness I am killed before him to the end, and vzzemsh my friend and carrying away trembling away”
                        More details: https://mdrussia.ru/topic/25828-issledovanie-ostankov-andreya-bogolyubskogo/
                        Thank you! drinks
                      7. +1
                        26 November 2020 10: 58
                        Greetings Nikolay, I asked about Pavel in this connection: do you know if he was exhumed? if he had, say, craniocerebral, then it will be clearly visible. However, of course they could not have been. If he was trampled underfoot, he could die from internal bleeding. hi
                      8. 0
                        26 November 2020 11: 35
                        Greetings Nikolai, I asked about Pavel in this regard: do you know if he was exhumed?

                        There is a legend about the looting of graves by the Bolsheviks - to search for valuables. In a sense, it was not someone's personal action, but quite a state matter to replenish the treasury.

                        https://pravoslavie.ru/86717.html
                        From there, additional rumors - they say, the grave of Alexander I was empty.
                        All these stories are reprinted from newspaper to newspaper - they say, "Shock! You won't believe!" People hawala ...

                        Here's an example:
                        https://news.rambler.ru/other/40265145-chto-nashli-bolsheviki-kogda-vskryli-usypalnitsu-russkih-tsarey/?updated
                        When the tomb of Emperor Paul I was opened, the members of the commission felt uneasy. Although the uniform in which the murdered tsar was buried was perfectly preserved, the wax mask worn on him before the funeral melted, and from under its remnants the disfigured face of the unfortunate could be seen ... But the tomb of Catherine II, in which there was a large amount of jewelry, pleased.

                        But add. information. where do the legs grow about these rumors:
                        http://www.sammler.ru/index.php?showtopic=6682
                        Another evidence - very striking - I look for in Nikolayevsky's extracts. "Paris, Breaking News," July 20, 1933. Title: "Tombs of Russian Emperors and How the Bolsheviks Opened Them".
                        “In Warsaw, one of the members of the Russian colony has a letter from one of the prominent members of the St. Petersburg GPU with a story about the opening by the Bolsheviks of the tombs of Russian emperors in the tomb of the Peter and Paul Cathedral. prisoners in imperial coffins. "
                        Krakow newspaper "Illustrated Courier of Zodzenna" quotes this historical letter:
                        "... I am writing to you," this is how the letter begins, "under an unforgettable impression. The heavy doors of the tomb are opening, and the coffins of the emperors, set in a semicircle, appear before our eyes. The whole history of Russia is before us. young ... Mechanics open the tomb of Alexander III. The embalmed corpse of the king is well preserved. Alexander III lies in a general's uniform richly decorated with orders. Alexander III is transferred to an oak coffin. The secretary of the commission draws up a protocol in which the jewels confiscated from the deceased tsar are listed in detail. The coffin is closed and seals are imposed on it.
                        The same procedure takes place with the coffins of Alexander II and Nicholas I. The members of the commission work quickly: the air in the tomb is heavy. The queue for the tomb of Alexander I.
                        But here the Bolsheviks are in for a surprise. The tomb of Alexander I turns out to be empty. In this one can obviously see a confirmation of the legend, according to which the death of the emperor in Taganrog and the burial of his body was a fiction, invented and staged by him himself in order to end the rest of his life in Siberia as an old hermit.
                        The Bolshevik commission had to endure terrible moments during the opening of the tomb of Emperor Paul. The uniform that fits the body of the deceased king is perfectly preserved. But Paul's head made a terrible impression. The wax mask that covered his face melted away from time and temperature, and from under the remnants the disfigured face of the murdered king could be seen. Everyone involved in the grim opening of the tombs was in a hurry to finish their work as soon as possible. The silver coffins of the Russian tsars, after the bodies were transferred to oak, were installed one on top of the other. Longer than others, the commission was busy with the tomb of Empress Catherine I, in which there was a very large amount of jewelry.


                        That is, starting with the rumors "one grandmother said", this is picked up by both the foreign and emigre press - just to throw poop on the USSR.
                        They tried to expose:
                        https://topdialog.ru/2018/08/14/petropavlovskaya-krepost/
                        The revolution gave birth not only to tragedies, but also to legends. One of the most common is the plundering of the royal graves in the Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Duke's tomb. Dialogue spoke with Marina Logunova, chief researcher at the State Museum of the History of St. Petersburg, about whether these legends should be trusted.
                        ..........
                        In the 1970s, Mikhail Gerasimov (Soviet anthropologist and sculptor - IA "Dialogue") asked permission to open the grave of Alexander I, the Soviet government did not give it, "explained Marina Logunova. She added that even if one day a decision is made to open the emperor's grave - although I really want to believe that this will never happen - then the graves of his relatives, father and younger brother will also have to be opened, since DNA samples will be needed for comparison.
                        ...
                        Much less fortunate was the Grand Duke's tomb. Due to the special arrangement of the crypts, it turned out to be much easier to open them, which was what vandals used in the 1930s. However, the desecration of the graves hardly bore any fruit - contrary to popular belief, members of the crowned family were not buried with untold riches, decorations and orders. “I can say with absolute certainty that in the 1930s there were cases when almost all the graves of the Grand Duke's tomb were desecrated. This is absolutely certain. They gnawed there, and it was not a systematic autopsy, it was looting. Everyone tried to find what is unknown in the graves, but there is no need to look for jewelry, treasures in the graves - a person was never buried with either diamond stars, orders, or medals. They were carried on regal pillows, exhibited in a sad hall, and then foreign orders and medals were sent to foreign countries, our domestic ones, of course, were left here. No jewelry was placed in the grave. The order ribbon [could have remained], and probably the ring would not have been ripped off the hand - but, on the other hand, it was customary to pass on family relics by inheritance, ”explained the chief research officer of the museum.


                        In general, no one opened anything! And scientific articles about it - no! hi
                      9. +1
                        26 November 2020 11: 44
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        In general, no one opened anything! And scientific articles about it - no!

                        Everything is clear, I did not know, just the graves of the tsars of an earlier time were opened and examined, for example, Ivan the Terrible and his son. hi
                      10. 0
                        26 November 2020 11: 34
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        Straight medieval international!

                        Masson however! wassat
                2. +2
                  24 November 2020 18: 41
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  as Kutaisov did.

                  Run away means a barber count? I did not know such details. Or forgot.
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2020 22: 49
                    Run away means a barber count? I did not know such details. Or forgot.

                    How I got away! Showered with Pavlovian favors .... In short, an unprintable word about him. But his son - yes, he was a hero, the deflection at Borodino! soldier I rushed to the attack!
                3. +1
                  24 November 2020 20: 59
                  Somewhere I read the version that the conspirators were involved in the conspiracy A.V. Suvorov, but he refused. Then they began to incite Paul against Lyaxandr Vasilich. The version is controversial, but interesting.
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2020 22: 47
                    Somewhere I read the version that the conspirators were involved in the conspiracy A.V. Suvorov, but he refused. Then they began to incite Paul against Lyaxandr Vasilich. The version is controversial, but interesting.

                    Vladimir, this is already fiction. Alexander Vasilyevich died in 1800, and the regicide took place in 1801. And Suvorov would not have dirty himself with this - he was not such a person. Yes
                    1. 0
                      24 November 2020 22: 58
                      Quote: Pane Kohanku
                      Vladimir, this is already fiction. Alexander Vasilyevich died in 1800, and the regicide occurred in 1801

                      As I understand it, the conspiracy has been brewing for years.
                      Quote: Pane Kohanku
                      And Suvorov would not have dirty himself with this - he was not such a person.

                      And he didn't. Refused. And he didn’t inform them, because Paul's reforms in the army were terribly displeasing to him.
                      "The powder is not gunpowder, the scythe is not a cleaver, I am not a German, but a natural hare!"
                      I do not deny that the version is very controversial, but who knows ...
                      1. +2
                        24 November 2020 23: 53
                        As I understand it, the conspiracy has been brewing for years.

                        Vladimir, but we have known each other for years! drinks
                        Eyewitnesses do not give a clear date. It appears that the conspiracy did not begin to mature until 1800.
                        Suvorov was physically unable to participate. First - a retired, living in Konchanskoye (under supervision!), Then for two years he fought with the French. He came to Petersburg seriously ill, and died, having bequeathed to the husband of his niece, Count Khvostov, not to write any more poetry. hi
                        "The powder is not gunpowder, the scythe is not a cleaver, I am not a German, but a natural hare!"

                        The phrase is very famous. Yes, bouclie and powder look silly. But Paul tried to use the methods known to him (and on the example of the army of Frederick the Great, whose court he did manage to visit!) To bring the guards into obedience ... what
                        I do not deny that the version is very controversial, but who knows ...

                        From the textbook to the textbook it says - "Paul introduced an uncomfortable uniform" ...
                        What else did he introduce? Yes, an overcoat! drinks For some reason before him (none of the "angels-father-commanders", including Suvorov and Potemkin!) Did not think of this! hi
                        My friend Anton 3x3zsave and I were at an exhibition in Gatchina in February. That was where the uniforms of the Pauline era were. Feeling ... Savings on the cloth! Moreover, Pavel really introduced an overcoat ... what .
                        That is, a long uniform plus an epancha (a cloak that hardly warms even the ass) was before Paul. No.
                        And why? And here we remember M.Yu. Lermontov:
                        "What do we need? For winter apartments?"
                        In winter, then there were no wars. stop They shot, chopped up, and for the winter went to the houses of local peyzan, who "We were extremely grateful that ten more soldiers were being brought into their hut!" wassat
                        That's it! Therefore, by introducing an overcoat (under Paul!), It was possible to wear a short tunic UNDER THE HAIT without damage from the cold. soldier Fortunately, he ordered to build barracks throughout the country he too! And before that - yes, "grateful peizans"! request
                        The Germans were the last to stumble upon the question of "winter overcoat" at the end of 1941 ... They were not ready ... Serve them right! angry
                      2. +1
                        25 November 2020 00: 23
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        Suvorov was physically unable to participate. First - a retired, living in Konchanskoye (under supervision!),

                        That is why he was in disgrace, because the conspirators got angry at him and began to slander him.
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        then he fought with the French for two years.

                        Yes, he fought, but our Austrian allies insisted on this.
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        I came to Petersburg deeply ill,

                        Because I fell into disgrace again. Paul wrote him an angry letter. And they buried him not as a general, but as a marshal.
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        What else did he introduce? Yes, an overcoat!

                        An overcoat is a good thing. And the rest? Whatever to say, but Paul was crazy. The ban on gambling, the ban on the word "snub-nosed", the ban on fur collars, the curfew, I don’t remember what else he came up with.
                      3. 0
                        25 November 2020 09: 29
                        That is why he was in disgrace, because the conspirators got angry at him and began to slander him.

                        No, because of their Petrosyanism. lol Alexander Vasilyevich liked to joke, including in "ideological protest". The army did not accept Pavlov's reforms. After a couple of times he cursed at the divorce under the emperor - so he left for his native village. stop
                        Because I fell into disgrace again. Paul wrote him an angry letter. And they buried him not as a general, but as a marshal.

                        It is believed, according to one version, that there was a slander. The reason was trifling - by order of Paul, every day under Suvorov a general on duty had to carry a shift, while they had to change daily. Suvorov, on the other hand, kept one and only one (whom I don’t remember). what Also, Alexander Vasilyevich blurted out something about the Austrian uniform in which he wanted to appear at court - apparently, out of "special love for allies." Here .. finished badly once again. request
                        There is one more fact. The first monument in Russia, which began to be prepared during the lifetime of the one to whom it was dedicated, is the monument to Suvorov, which is located in St. Petersburg. Moreover, this is the first monument to a non-royal person in our country. And they began to cook by order of Paul! soldier
                        And the rest? Whatever to say, but Paul was crazy. Ban on gambling, ban on the word "snub", ban on fur collars, curfew

                        Clothes are generally trash. And the color of the houses. And so that the dogs have collars. Yes, here Pal Petrovich managed to rivet decrees on every little thing ... hi
                        In general, the history of the relationship between Pavel and Suvorov is a complete sur and frenzy. wassat Pavel adored the commander, then lowered him below the plinth. He also did nothing to find a common language with the king ... request
                      4. +1
                        25 November 2020 12: 03
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        No, because of their Petrosyanism.

                        As far as I remember, he was crowing like a rooster or something like that.
                      5. +1
                        25 November 2020 14: 10
                        As far as I remember, he was crowing like a rooster or something like that.

                        Not only. If we take the relationship personally with Pavel - then at the divorce, Alexander Vasilyevich demonstratively got confused, pretended not to know how to wear the sword correctly - he was spinning with her, etc. In general, enchanting humor and subtle irony ... lol
                        More! One of the innovations of the emperor in the ranks has survived to this day. This is the "march" command. soldier Previously commanded - "go." Therefore, at the first divorces there was an incident - the soldiers of the St. Petersburg units did not move, because did not understand the new team. request
        2. +2
          24 November 2020 09: 12
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          If you choose between Nicholas I and Alexander II, then I give my vote to the first - "the last knight"

          good knight, no wonder he was nicknamed Palkin
        3. +6
          24 November 2020 13: 27
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          If I choose between Nicholas I and Alexander II, then I vote to the first - "the last knight".

          And I am for Alexander. smile
          He was a truly great reformer. A man living in the future, looking ahead. He did not have the energy and anger of Peter I, but, like Peter, he had an understanding of the need for transformations and had the courage to carry them out. Unlike his father, son and grandson, he was not a retrograde, concerned exclusively with the preservation of the inheritance he had inherited. He was fully aware of the challenges of the time and did not try to stick his head in the sand, pupating in his cozy world, as his descendants did, he accepted these challenges and tried not just to correspond to the era, but to stay ahead of it.
          But he could not bring up an heir in the same spirit. The son turned out not to be a father, but a grandfather. I think if among the last Romanovs there was another figure of the scale of the Tsar-Liberator, perhaps even now they would live under some kind of Alexander V, Mikhail II or Constantine III ... Volodya (Vladimir Ilyich) Ulyanov would become a professor of law and the first the legally and popularly elected prime minister, in the Tiflis diocese until 1953, Father Joseph Dzhugashvili (canonized in the 80s) would have ruled, and Adolf Schicklgruber would have become ... well, he would not have become anyone. By the mid-forties, I would have been drunk with despair, spending all the time in Bavarian pubs with the Baltic-Nine. smile
          1. 0
            24 November 2020 15: 12
            It seems like Alexander the second was exactly that he lived in his comfortable world and now he could not have people who were not part of his social circle, whose memoirs he read in this regard.
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 19: 17
              Perhaps in everyday life he was like that.
              But in politics he was a realist and did not run away from the struggle - he set himself tasks and solved them.
          2. +2
            24 November 2020 18: 16
            spending all the time in Bavarian pubs with the Baltic Nine
            Michael, you are wrong. In such an alternative, the "Baltika-Nine" is a car that has been produced by the auto giant Russo-Balt since the mid-seventies.
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 19: 12
              Do not care. Then let him choke on a Molotov cocktail. smile
              And then what about "Strong Hunt"? Concrete grade? smile
              1. +3
                24 November 2020 19: 51
                Just the popular name of one of the hundreds of nomenclature products produced by the concern "Sestroretsk Arms Plants"
          3. +4
            24 November 2020 19: 11
            Very revealing about Nikolai.

            “The Prussian envoy to Russia, TG von Rochow, reported to Berlin in 1849 that Tsar Nicholas I trusted official reports less and less, and the press was silent about the problems of concern to society. In official reports, Von Rochow is convinced that "the Russians are uncertain about their domestic policy." A real assessment of the situation was impossible because censorship prohibitions excluded any objective discussion of issues of state life in Russia.

            According to Rokhov, Nikolai confessed to him that he found "reliable information" in the observation book of the Westphalian envoy A. von Gasthausen on the internal situation in the country. The tsar considered the notes of the Westphalian aristocrat "much more solid than all the reports of all his officials, because in Russia nobody can be trusted." In a three-volume essay, Gasthausen admired the patriarchal nature of Russia, the boundless paternal power of the tsar and the autocrat himself, how he keeps even aristocrats in his fist, not to mention the lower classes. At that time A. Humboldt, both Heine brothers, and their rich uncle - even with reverence spoke of the ruler of Russia with respect. This was largely due to the foreign press.

            Nikolai listened attentively to the voices of loyal foreign periodicals praising his person and Russian order, gazing with gusto in the “mirror” of obsequious and flattering publications (often paid for with Russian money). O. Roland asserted in The History of Nicholas that the tsar “diligently collected everything that appeared about him in the foreign press: books (except for de Custine), brochures, albums with stickers of newspaper clippings and kept all this in his office”. He "is glad to be deceived, because the real state of affairs frightened him."
            1. +5
              24 November 2020 19: 19
              Yes, Nikolai lived in his own world. Therefore, the defeat in the Crimean War was a big blow to him. So to speak, welcome to the real world.
          4. +4
            24 November 2020 20: 21
            Mikhail, you, as always, are in your role - the ruler must be a complete cynic, dodgy like a snake, sagacious like an eagle, hardened like a fox and patient like a camel, while using his skills for the benefit of himself and the state.
            Specifically, Alexander II, I cannot forgive Alaska. A well-considered political decision from the outside, but I still can't.
            Nikolai had his own excesses, but as a person he is minely cute. Although the beloved monarch is still Alexander III.

            Especially for you, I'm posting a photo of the monument to Alexander the Liberator from grateful residents of Nizhneserginsky (my hometown). At the beginning of 1924, the stele was demolished, the plaques were knocked down, and Lenin was put on the monument. Then he was transferred to the courtyard of school N1. In 1993 the monument was destroyed. Until recently, a square flower bed reminded of him in the school yard.
            1. +3
              24 November 2020 20: 51
              To destroy monuments is bestiality. Only the installation of monuments to cattle is worse. smile Such is the pun. smile
              As for Alaska, it is believed that if he had not sold it then, after a while it would have left for free. So there's nothing you can do about it. We bit off a piece that we could not digest ... Although even after and now this little piece of land oh how useful ... Especially now. smile
              Vlad, why Alexander III?
              Why does the harsh Ural gamayun like him so much? smile
              Personally, it seems to me - one of the most ordinary monarchs, who was completely unaware of the problems that faced him (and all of Russia in his person) and, accordingly, did not take any measures to solve them. In what happened in 1917 there is, in my opinion, a great deal of his fault.
              And after all, I could have strangled Nikolai in childhood, I could ... I can't forgive him for this, otherwise Alaska ...
              smile
              1. +3
                25 November 2020 04: 39
                Good morning Mikhail. Alexander 3 is nice to me because the only one of our monarchs who ruled for a long time managed not to get involved in any of the wars.
                In Alaska, if at the end of the last century, someone annexed it against the will of Russia, then today we would have the moral lever and the opportunity to play offended. But alas. Half a hundred million dollars, the weather in our economy did not.
                1. +3
                  25 November 2020 10: 39
                  Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                  Good morning

                  Good. smile
                  The quintessence and motto of the reign of Alexander III I consider the phrase
                  While the Russian Tsar is fishing, Europe can wait

                  smile
                  In this context, the word "Europe" can be replaced by anything. smile
                  And I also remember Block:
                  In those years distant, deaf,
                  In the hearts reigned sleep and darkness:
                  Pobedonostsev over Russia
                  Stretched owl wings,

                  I think that in the near future we will have a reason to discuss the person of Alexander III, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. smile hi
          5. 0
            28 November 2020 20: 01
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            And I am for Alexander

            And Baba Yaga is against! First, two extremely shameful peace treaties that turn two wars (not yet lost and won) into political catastrophes with extremely negative long-term consequences. Well, the reform, such that it would be better if it did not exist ...
        4. +4
          24 November 2020 16: 14
          Vlad, hello hi , look in a personal, I have a question for you on the case.
    2. +6
      24 November 2020 05: 00
      Hi, I also haven't gone to bed yet and also not a single gram. smile
      I vote for both, and for Kolya, and for Sasha, they did what they could, although all the same - the liberals. But liberalism ruined Sasha, gave free rein - immediately the bombers and terrorists divorced, but they were afraid of Kolya.
      Good morning everyone and good mood " drinks
      We have. finally it snowed ...
      1. +7
        24 November 2020 05: 12
        Liberal Nicholas I?
        How do definitions limit.
        1. +6
          24 November 2020 05: 25
          I wanted to squeeze in a well-known historical anecdote about Nicholas, Zhukovsky and the verb "fuck", but it doesn’t pass under any guise.
          And there the liberalism of the sovereign-emperor is shown in all its full glory. laughing
          1. +5
            24 November 2020 05: 42
            Keywords make it easy to find any version of this anecdote.

            And philologists - to explain any origin of the word.

            However, this also has a certain relation to our forum.
      2. +3
        24 November 2020 05: 20
        but they were afraid of Kolya.

        If he had not hanged his brother Ulyanov Alexander, who knows, maybe Volodya would not have gone down the revolutionary path. what
        1. +5
          24 November 2020 05: 28
          I would not hang it, so they both went under the arm along the same path. The story of the "Pistol of the Marquis de Beaupertuis" (O. Henry "Roads of Destiny")
          1. +1
            24 November 2020 05: 33
            Alexander had a strong influence on Vladimir and his death radicalized his views on society at that time. Then Vladimir Ulyanov became a deadly and stubborn enemy of the tsarist autocracy.
        2. +2
          24 November 2020 07: 44
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          but they were afraid of Kolya.

          If he had not hanged his brother Ulyanov Alexander, who knows, maybe Volodya would not have gone down the revolutionary path. what

          First, Alexander III hanged Sasha.
          Secondly, the wrong Ulyanov had to be hanged. It would have been enough for Sasha to be expelled from Russia, and there he would either have drunk himself to death from not doing anything, or he would have taken up science, in which he showed considerable hope. But he certainly would not throw bombs and engage in other rrrrrrevolutionary affairs.
          But Volodya, who wanted to go the other way, still should.
          But the Emperor was mistaken and hung the wrong one.
          1. +6
            24 November 2020 10: 39
            Quote: Nagan
            Secondly, the wrong Ulyanov had to be hanged.

            Not that Alexander should have been hanged - but his fellow countryman. For without February there would be no October.
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 11: 06
              Not that Alexander should have been hanged - but his fellow countryman. For without February there would be no October.

              Then it was necessary to start with Zasulich ... hi Her process was significant, in a way. Namely - "the murderer's excuse" ... request By the way, her lawyer (who with a fiery speech and "pulled out an excuse") had the surname Alexandrov! Some kind of magic of the name! laughing
          2. +1
            24 November 2020 16: 16
            "in which he showed great promise" if I am not mistaken, Alexander Ulyanov had a gold medal for thorn worms. In short, he was a nerd
        3. 0
          24 November 2020 08: 18
          It was necessary to let the whole family into the expense, as did John Vasilyevich. Then the problem with this family would really be removed. If she could not bring up a normal citizen, then she must answer.
          1. +4
            24 November 2020 10: 37
            Quote: Junger
            It was necessary to let the whole family into the expense, as did John Vasilyevich. Then the problem with this family would really be removed. If she could not bring up a normal citizen, then she must answer.

            What's the point? There is another native of Simbirsk nearby, a native of the teaching environment, a lawyer and a revolutionary. smile Who did much more for the overthrow of the autocracy and the collapse of the country - one Order No. 1 is worth it.
            1. -2
              24 November 2020 10: 58
              Well, here you can argue who did more for the collapse of the state. Vladimir Ilyich has been actively destroying Russia since the beginning of the century, while Kerensky did not even think about anything like that.
              They would have let Ulyanov, Bronstein and Dzhugashvili with their families in a timely manner - they would live beautifully right now, drinking Bavarian beer))
              Although I live so beautifully, it's a shame for Raseya.
              1. +8
                24 November 2020 11: 26
                Quote: Junger
                They would have let Ulyanov, Bronstein and Dzhugashvili with their families in a timely manner - they would live beautifully right now, drinking Bavarian beer))

                What's the point? Others would have taken their place - the reasons that gave rise to all this rr-revolutionary movement did not disappear anywhere.
                Moreover, the Bolsheviks until March 1917 were a small marginality. If 20 people were able to destroy the Empire, could something be wrong in the Empire itself? Well, there, the undeveloped domestic market, 000% of the peasantry living on subsistence farming, the yield is several times lower than in other countries, the critical lag in the industry in terms of mass production, the dependence of the industry on government orders, the underdevelopment of the road network ... it cannot. smile
                And if it is to be used up, then in the first place it is necessary to cleanse the "elite" of the Empire and the bureaucracy. And then it has already come to the protection of the secret police for political murders at the level of a member of the Family. What revolutionaries are there - this serpentarium would gobble up itself.
                And yet ... why "would"? After all, he ate - both himself and the country. February was not organized by the proletarians with the peasantry, but by handsome gentlemen in expensive suits or in generals' uniforms. Party Emperor, let me steer! And they drove, yes ...
                1. -6
                  24 November 2020 11: 45
                  It would be useful. The revolution that the Bolsheviks made was a miracle based solely on the personal qualities of Ulyanov and Bronstein. All the rest in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) were burdocks.
                  They would have spanked Volodya and Leiba in a timely manner when they were still small, and there is a great chance that in Russia they would have held Uch. Assembly, Russia would not have thrown allies in the Entente. A lot of benefits, no shocks and a natural course of development without Jews and Georgians in the Kremlin.
                  1. +8
                    24 November 2020 13: 16
                    that in Russia they would normally conduct Uch. Assembly, Russia would not have thrown allies in the Entente.

                    After the February Revolution took place, there could be no question of any continuation of the war. But those who came to power did not understand this ... hi
                    1. -4
                      24 November 2020 14: 01
                      It depended on those who would replace Kerensky in the Winter Palace. And someone would inevitably change him in the very near future. And with a high degree of probability it would be the military - there is no one else.
                      And then - the quick tightening of the nuts, a series of executions of discipline violators at the front. And voila - we are fighting further, because nothing irreversible has happened. Much better than 41. The main lack of will of the leadership is to eliminate.
                      1. +10
                        24 November 2020 14: 05
                        And then - the quick tightening of the nuts, a series of executions of discipline violators at the front.

                        hmm ... and who will twist them when the discipline has already decayed, and no one wants to go and die for some unknown reason? "Parts of Death"? hi
                        And someone would inevitably change him in the very near future.

                        He was replaced. Six months later. And they made the most correct move, although not immediately - peace with Germany and demobilization of the army.
                      2. -2
                        24 November 2020 14: 27
                        There was someone to twist, as the subsequent long-term civil war showed. There were more than enough people of long will, they were just scattered at the fronts.
                        A holy place is never empty - not Kornilov, so Denikin, not Denikin, so Wrangel. Not that one, so Kutepov. You never know in Russia there were intelligent generals. There were many of them and there were many options without the Bolsheviks.
                      3. +5
                        24 November 2020 16: 08
                        Junger, Kornilov and Denikin are excellent generals, but politicians are insignificant
                      4. 0
                        29 November 2020 08: 46
                        Some general-officers cannot twist anything, they need soldiers loyal to them, but they were not there. On the contrary, the cadre, noble officer corps, firstly, was knocked out, and secondly, the soldier was already annoyed with his arrogant lordly attitude. What's the story, tell me, honestly, are there many soldiers to protect the current oligarchs?
                      5. +1
                        29 November 2020 19: 05
                        I have never met oligarchs and I don’t even know whether or not they should be protected.
                        If you are talking about people who have a lot of money, then it is great that there is an opportunity to earn money in our country. Naturally, they need to be protected, like the rest.
                        If you have problems with earnings, then you need to improve in your specialty, work better and harder, and not count money in other people's pockets.
                      6. +6
                        24 November 2020 15: 28
                        Quote: Junger
                        It depended on those who would replace Kerensky in the Winter Palace. And someone would inevitably change him in the very near future. And with a high degree of probability it would be the military - there is no one else.

                        We have already tried once - in August. Everyone remembers how it ended: the rebellion was suppressed by the forces of agitators and illegal armed formations of the Petrograd Soviet.
                        Understand one thing: the prominent role of the Bolsheviks in the events between February and October is a myth of Bolshevik propaganda. There will be no Bolsheviks - the Soviets will not go anywhere, the Social Revolutionaries will just run there. And again dual power, again armed confrontation, again a crisis, the collapse of the front (provoked by Order No. 1, the locomotive of which was the same Kerensky) - and the Provisional Government again controls only the Winter Palace, and outside of it the country lives by itself.
                        Quote: Junger
                        And then - the quick tightening of the nuts, a series of executions of discipline violators at the front.

                        Who will shoot something? In 1917 even the Bolsheviks tried to restore at least some order in the army (Tserel) - without a chance.
                        The old army is spreading like a rotten footcloth. The only thing that can be done is to form units from morally persistent cadres, and crystallize a new army around these units. But then who will fight at the front?
                        Quote: Junger
                        There were more than enough people of long will, they were just scattered at the fronts.

                        Well, here's an example of Kornilov: a charismatic officer led the units loyal to him to the capital. So what? In a couple of days of propaganda man of long will was left without troops, which were promoted by the agitators of the Council.
                      7. -3
                        24 November 2020 20: 48
                        Once again, I explain the idea - the October revolution was carried out by two great minds - Trotsky, firstly, and Ulyanov, secondly.
                        All other characters - Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, etc. - are incompetent talkers and thugs of a level not higher than Kerensky. A mediocre shobla. Including Dzhugashvili.
                        Without Bronshein and Ulyanov, their future fate is the grave.
                        And had it not been for these two outstanding characters on the political scene, the army would sooner or later take power into its own hands. She already took it - by organizing the White movement... But she could not suppress the turmoil. Why?
                        Yes, again, thanks to these two talented demons.
                        That's all, on this I consider the question closed. hi
                      8. +4
                        24 November 2020 20: 03
                        And then - the quick tightening of the nuts, a series of executions of discipline violators at the front.
                        I remind you, because you do not know. In the summer of 1917, Brusilov became Kerensky's commander-in-chief, who immediately introduced the death penalty at the front for failure to comply with an order. Everything was useless, after 2 weeks Brusilov resigned from his post as commander-in-chief. With unresolved internal economic problems in the country (land issue), the army did not want to fight. So your proposal has already been tested.
                      9. -2
                        24 November 2020 20: 20
                        It was necessary to introduce the death penalty, but not enough. It was also necessary to eliminate all the agitating trash inside the army.
                        Simply put - a temporary military dictatorship was needed. Well, or timeless.
                        Let me remind you, if you are not aware, that large units of captured Red Army men were formed in the White Army. The same Samur regiment. And according to the reviews of the officers, they fought perfectly.
                        So the point is Brusilov, not the death penalty - as the priest is, so is the parish.
                      10. +3
                        24 November 2020 20: 26
                        So the point is Brusilov, not the death penalty - as the priest is, so is the parish.

                        It seems that you are not aware of Brusilov's military talents. Sorry. As for the call of prisoners into their ranks - this is a common occurrence in the Civil War.
                        The same Samur regiment. And according to the reviews of the officers, they fought perfectly.

                        Well, yes, only those who did not run over to the red ones then somehow ended up in Paris as taxi drivers.
                        And try to read "Essays on the Russian Troubles" by A.I. Denikin. Very interesting.
                      11. -3
                        24 November 2020 20: 40
                        Quote: Aviator_

                        It seems that you are not aware of Brusilov's military talents.

                        A man who went over to the service of the defeatists, in principle, could not force his soldiers to fight. It is strange that you do not understand this.
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        As for the call of prisoners into their ranks - this is a common occurrence in the Civil War.

                        I gave this example in order to show that the White Army, the direct heir to the RI army, could force ordinary soldiers to fight. And there is not a single reason to believe that the same leaders, replacing Kerensky, could not have forced the same soldiers to fight the Germans.
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        Well, yes, only those who did not run over to the red ones then somehow ended up in Paris as taxi drivers.

                        It has nothing to do with the case.
                        Quote: Aviator_
                        And try to read "Essays on the Russian Troubles" by A.I. Denikin. Very interesting

                        I read everything and many times.
                      12. 0
                        29 November 2020 09: 01
                        Quote: Junger
                        And voila - we are fighting further, because nothing irreversible has happened.

                        Okay, let's say we did it, we fight on. Okay, let's say finished off (with the allies) Germany. Okay, let's suppose the allies didn't throw us for some reason, they gave us Constantinople. And then what? Will the peasants go dancing with happiness? The agrarian question can be solved by itself? Or maybe foreign creditors will write off the debts? Or maybe they will carry out industrialization, carefully raising their competitors?
                        No sir! stop If you are not aware, Russia was viewed in the west exclusively as cannon fodder and a zone of colonization. And not in any way as an equal partner.
              2. +5
                24 November 2020 15: 50
                Jünger, in general, Kerensky is unique: to do everything for the collapse of the army, to chat and chat. And when about something other than 2 or 3 hundred boys and romantic fools, no protection.
                If he did not destroy discipline, then: "grandmother wondered for two"
                1. +4
                  24 November 2020 17: 33
                  Quote: vladcub
                  Jünger, in general, Kerensky is unique: to do everything for the collapse of the army, to chat and chat.

                  You also forgot about Kerensky's arming of the Red Guard during Kornilov's speech. The official government officially arms the illegal armed formations of the structure, the main purpose of which is to overthrow this power. belay
                  Yes, and the very speech of Kornilov ... at first the AFK almost kicked the general, and at a critical moment - disowned him and surrendered his strength to propaganda to the agitators of the Petrosovet.
                  1. +1
                    25 November 2020 11: 04
                    I say: Kerensky is unique, he did everything to lose power.
                2. -2
                  24 November 2020 20: 54
                  Quote: vladcub
                  Jünger, actually Kerensky is unique

                  Did I extol Kerensky's dignity somewhere? You are arguing with yourself here.
              3. +4
                24 November 2020 15: 55
                Jünger, what a bloodthirsty you are, something like "Fatiha": under the knife!
                Necessarily Bavarian? And if I like Czech or "Siberian Crown"?
                1. +3
                  24 November 2020 16: 59
                  Quote: vladcub

                  Necessarily Bavarian? And if I like Czech or "Siberian Crown"?

                  And this is Bolshevism laughing
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2020 18: 22
                    And I like the dark "Qingdao". Maoism? laughing
                    1. +4
                      24 November 2020 18: 36
                      No, Confucianism laughing
                2. +4
                  24 November 2020 17: 35
                  Quote: vladcub
                  Necessarily Bavarian? And if I like Czech or "Siberian Crown"?

                  Then you are either a Westerner or a Kolchak deviationist. smile
                  1. +1
                    25 November 2020 11: 24
                    So and so evil?
          2. +11
            24 November 2020 11: 21
            Quote: Nagan
            But Volodya, who wanted to go the other way, still should.
            But the Emperor was mistaken and hung the wrong one.

            Quote: Junger
            It was necessary to let the whole family into the expense, as John Vasilievich did. Then the problem with this family would really have been removed.

            Monarchist citizens and other lovers of French buns! Let me remind you that the autocracy was overthrown in February 1917 and Vladimir Ilyich has nothing to do with this.
            I cannot understand the logic of your thinking. If the Ulyanov family were executed, then the famine in Ingushetia would immediately stop, the economy would flourish with a lush cactus, the industry would be thrashed, and foreign creditors would forgive all debts. The Japanese would have declared war on the Republic of Ingushetia and made seppuku, as a result of which Saint Nicholas would not have to shoot a demonstration of workers, and he would have driven not "Bloody", but "Japanese fighter". It was because of Lenin that he became stupid and spineless!
            It was the scoundrel Ulyanov who provoked the shooting at the Lena mines, he gave the industry of Ingushetia to foreigners.
            There would be no Lenin - there would be Stalin. And the crisis state into which the Republic of Ingushetia fell from the beginning of the twentieth century did not absolutely depend on the presence of Lenin.
            If the CPSU (b) had not taken power from the Provisional Government in October 1917, the results could have been much worse.
            1. +9
              24 November 2020 11: 40
              Quote: Sunflower
              If the Ulyanov family were executed, then the famine in Ingushetia would immediately stop, the economy would flourish with a lush cactus, the industry would be thrashed, and foreign creditors would forgive all debts.

              Uh-huh ... and the village would immediately switch from the community to progressive methods of management. The peasants who had become superfluous at the moment would have turned into trained cadres for industry. smile
            2. -2
              24 November 2020 14: 08
              Nobody talks about monarchy here except you.
              There was famine in Germany, where they ate ersatz bread and drank ersatz coffee for many years. In RI during WWII, hunger was only in the Sov. textbooks.
              The economy of the Republic of Ingushetia was naturally not enough to confront the entire world bourgeoisie, but it was not necessary for the Republic of Ingushetia, but it was quite enough to wage the war it was waging.
              The scoundrel Lenin provoked so many executions that no Nikolai even dreamed of.
              Without Lenin and Trotsky, Dzhugashvili and his accomplices would have died in prison or exile, since they would not have pulled their role.
              1. +5
                24 November 2020 17: 17
                Quote: Junger
                In RI during WWII, hunger was only in the Sov. textbooks.

                The surplus appropriation system was invented by St. Nikolai Romanov in 1916, apparently due to the abundance of food.
                Quote: Junger
                The economy of the Republic of Ingushetia was naturally not enough to confront the entire world bourgeoisie, but it was not necessary for the Republic of Ingushetia, but it was quite enough to wage the war it was waging.

                Is it because there was enough, during WWI, weapons were bought all over the world? About 70 aircraft "Ilya Muromets" were built during the whole war, and not all engines were found yet. Even cardiff coal for the needs of the fleet was purchased in England.
                Quote: Junger
                The scoundrel Lenin provoked so many executions that no Nikolai even dreamed of.

                But in my opinion, Lenin was not a member of the tsarist government. In the crisis of 1917, the country was brought in by other people who are responsible for its consequences. The interim government steered, the situation in the country became catastrophic. Soviet power saved the country.
                Quote: Junger
                Without Lenin and Trotsky, Dzhugashvili and his accomplices would have died in prison or exile, since they would not have pulled their role.

                Joseph Vissarionovich was freed from exile not by Lenin, but by the bourgeoisie - the February revolution.
                Lenin was not to blame for the collapse of the Russian Empire, it collapsed safely without him
                1. -3
                  24 November 2020 20: 57
                  I already understood everything - the Russian Empire is a prison of peoples, and the USSR, led by Lenin and Stalin, is the light in the window and the quintessence of all living things. The entire world human civilization existed solely for the sake of a great social experiment carried out under the banners of these great leaders. Hurray, comrades! lol
                  1. 0
                    29 November 2020 09: 19
                    You know, I would put it a little differently. By the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the ruling class of Russia (the nobles and especially the imperial family) had lost the ability to rule the country. And the moral right to do this, because with this inability they consumed too many resources, and showed off too much, just like modern bourgeoisie. The rest got sick of it, as a result they were thrown off, and in their place they were eventually replaced by more skillful and less wasteful.
            3. +6
              24 November 2020 16: 11
              And without "French rolls" anywhere? laughing Are you such an opponent of French starchy foods, or in general? For example, I am not a monarchist, but I adore white bread. Here I was offended for him and gave you a minus, do not exact. request
              1. +4
                24 November 2020 17: 01
                Quote: Sea Cat
                And without "French rolls" anywhere? laughing Are you such an opponent of French starchy foods, or in general? For example, I am not a monarchist, but I adore white bread. Here I was offended for him and gave you a minus, do not exact. request

                And I, though an anti-communist, love black rye with a smell laughing Constantini, greetings hi
                1. +4
                  24 November 2020 17: 19
                  Good evening, Albert. hi
                  Yes, fresh black, straight from the bakery - a dream that is now almost impossible to realize, I mean in our village, if only in the city it is possible to intercept. drinks
                  1. +3
                    24 November 2020 17: 25
                    With garlic and borschik drinks Uh ...
                    1. +2
                      24 November 2020 18: 31
                      Moldavian Sami!
                    2. +2
                      24 November 2020 20: 11
                      But here without a stoparik anywhere! drinks
                  2. +1
                    24 November 2020 19: 05
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    Yes, fresh black, straight from the bakery - a dream that is now almost impossible to realize, I mean in our village

                    It’s not right anyway. In the old days in Russia, loaves were baked in a Russian oven weighing 4-5 kilos for about the whole week and kept in straw. That is, bread was baked once a week. And no bakery can compare with a Russian oven. Even French. Yes
                2. +2
                  24 November 2020 18: 27
                  with a sweetheart
                  What kind of Jew are you ?! You are a Sami!
                  1. +3
                    24 November 2020 18: 29
                    Hello Anton! hi Do the Sami live in Karelia?
                    1. +2
                      24 November 2020 18: 37
                      Albert! hi
                      No, they don't live. There are, in general, a vanishingly small number. If my memory serves me, according to the census of the second half of the 80s. there were about 800 of them in the Union. At the same time, 2500 lived in Finland. I don’t know how it is now.
                      1. +3
                        24 November 2020 18: 42
                        In short, you called me self-financed))
                      2. +3
                        24 November 2020 18: 48
                        Moldavian, besides!)))
                      3. +3
                        24 November 2020 18: 54
                        Matsemamaly gnaw?
                      4. +3
                        24 November 2020 19: 13
                        I don’t even know what to say ... The Pridnestrovians treated me to their borscht, praising: this is not Ukrainian borscht, Moldavian! I did not notice much difference.
                        I ate mamalygu once in my life. Carried "three meters against the wind"
                        Do you really need to gnaw matzo? The one that I observed in the framework of "Hesed Abraham" resembled a well-caked popcorn ...
                      5. +3
                        24 November 2020 19: 55
                        Gnawing is bread without yeast))
                      6. +2
                        24 November 2020 20: 11
                        That is, as I understand it correctly, matzo is biscuit?
                      7. +2
                        24 November 2020 22: 14
                        Not quite - thinner and more brittle, while tasteless
              2. +1
                24 November 2020 19: 53
                Quote: Sea Cat
                And without "French rolls" anywhere?

                I’m wondering, but how many of those who constantly talk about them in general know the original source of this expression?
            4. +3
              24 November 2020 19: 09
              Quote: Sunflower
              Saint Nicholas would not have to shoot a demonstration of workers, and he would not have been driven by "Bloody"
              He was driven by "Bloody" on the day of his coronation because of the crush on Khodynka, in which more than 1000 people were trampled to death, and even more were mutilated.
              Quote: Sunflower
              The Japanese would have declared war on RI and made seppuku

              Even after Tsushima, RI had every opportunity to inflict defeat on Japan on the continent. Japan was already struggling with its last strength, both in money and in terms of military reserves. But revolutionary unrest diverted resources, and it was decided to merge the war in order to focus on restoring order in the country. Was the decision correct? Even today, knowing the consequences, it is impossible to tell, because history has no subjunctive mood.
              1. 0
                29 November 2020 09: 25
                Quote: Nagan

                Even after Tsushima, RI had every opportunity to inflict defeat on Japan on the continent.

                Remembering the battles of that war, one is amazed how our people managed to suffer defeat in any, the most favorable scenario. So there was quite a chance to blow it out even after the reserves arrived. Alas, the quality of management was not up to par.
            5. 0
              25 November 2020 11: 50
              "If the CPSU (b) in October 1917" for the sake of truth1), Kerensky actually did not have it in October 1917.2) "in October 1917 there was still the RSDLP (b). VKP (b) appeared in 1923
      3. +7
        24 November 2020 06: 57
        But liberalism ruined Sasha, gave free rein - immediately the bombers and terrorists divorced, but they were afraid of Kolya.

        Exactly. It was necessary to leave the peasants in the fortress. And then, look, they took fashion, to travel around the cities! wink
        Isho and books are read ... laughing
    3. +7
      24 November 2020 10: 05
      Vyacheslav Olegovich, it seems to me that it is really so, but this time you somehow really tried to be objective.

      Let's just say ... Concise, without superfluous, and to the point.
      Yes, the "free thinking" of their subjects was sometimes punished mercilessly.

      "Birth trauma of accession to the throne" - the Decembrist uprising. hi
    4. +1
      24 November 2020 15: 41
      Misha, good health. You reminded me from the movie "Chapaev", "for the communists or the Bolsheviks?"
      1. +2
        24 November 2020 17: 07
        Hello, Glory. smile
        I liked how our Vyacheslav Olegovich registered Nicholas the First as a liberal.
        In Soviet times he was stigmatized and defamed, they say, a gendarme of Europe, a strangler of freedom and enlightenment, a reactionary, a retrograde, etc. Recently, more and more often come across speakers who extol Nicholas to heaven, they say, a knight, not a gendarme, but a paladin of Europe, not a strangler of freedom, but a convinced statesman, not a reactionary, but a fighter for traditional values.
        However, both those and others agree on one thing, despite the difference of views - the "liberal infection" this emperor, like, burned out with a hot iron wherever he could reach. And then, all of a sudden ... That way the author will come to the point that he will declare Stalin a liberal, and moreover, will justify this announcement, so much so that you will not suddenly argue ... smile
        The next stage is Alexander III, let's see how this "reactionary and retrograde" was a liberal.
        Then Nicholas II, but everything is clear with him - no one loves him, except Olgovich and Poklonskaya, so he is a typical liberal ...
        But the author's position on Lenin and Stalin in terms of their liberalism interests me very much. There is something to speculate about. Let's see ... smile
        1. +2
          25 November 2020 12: 07
          Mish, about Nikolay 2. It seems to me that Olgovich loves him out of principle: "the anointed of God." And he is dear to Poklonskaya because he is a PUPPET, and the rest is PURPLE
          1. 0
            25 November 2020 12: 48
            Quote: vladcub
            It seems to me that Olgovich loves him out of principle:

            I don’t know, Slava ... You have to ask him - “he loves - he does not love” and why. Maybe it’s not love at all, but hate. Some people are ready to love even a pile of shit if a hated enemy has stepped into it, while at the same time finding a lot of advantages in its smell and ruined form. smile
  3. +7
    24 November 2020 05: 24
    Too often the king's retinue plays. And not only the inner circle.
    There is a time stamp. And we see echoes: whether it be in newspaper sheets, as well as in the formation of army units, bureaucratic and educational institutions.
    It is then that attention is drawn to painful points: at least to the Senate Uprising, at least to the Crimean War.
    1. +5
      24 November 2020 05: 35
      And in my opinion, at the present stage of our history, we are starting to repeat our past mistakes in tsarist times.
      1. +7
        24 November 2020 05: 38
        Compounding incredibly. And the dog's tail turns faster and faster.
        1. +4
          24 November 2020 05: 40
          Quote from Korsar4
          Compounding incredibly.

          Vodka?
          1. +5
            24 November 2020 05: 48
            “And that my friend’s glasses were broken,
            So they aggravated the port wine ”(c).
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 05: 52
              Quote from Korsar4
              “And that my friend’s glasses were broken,
              So they aggravated the port wine ”(c).

              But if I scolded someone - punish strictly!
              But this is unlikely - tell me, Seryoga!
              And what fell - so from clouding,
              Yelled not out of grief - from stupidity.
              ... Now allow me a few words without a protocol, comrade foreman
              What do family and school teach us, so to speak? -
              That life itself will punish such severely.
              Here we agree - tell me, Seryoga!
            2. +6
              24 November 2020 06: 37
              "Let's repeat, - said the postmaster, pouring on the checkerboard" (c)
              1. +5
                24 November 2020 06: 41
                “They are shy and drink with thimbles,
                And we will take away the soul in Russian ”(c).
                1. +6
                  24 November 2020 07: 56
                  "And the Lord will ask us: children,
                  What are you famous for in the world?
                  What will we answer him?
                  By drinking three buckets? "(C)
                  1. +4
                    24 November 2020 08: 01
                    “And numerous yogis wander about.
                    True, it is very difficult to recognize them ”(c).
                    1. +5
                      24 November 2020 08: 06
                      "I will walk along Aprikosovaya,
                      Turn to Grape "(C)
                      1. +4
                        24 November 2020 08: 07
                        “There is apricot. Only warm ”(c).
                      2. +3
                        24 November 2020 10: 41
                        "And the summer was snub-nosed,
                        And the hair smelled of apricot
                        And we looked askance at the sherry,
                        But they never saw the bottom. "(C)
                      3. +3
                        24 November 2020 12: 56
                        "And we drank something vile,
                        Similar to Cabernet "(c).
                      4. +3
                        24 November 2020 13: 08
                        "It's immoral to drink shmurdyak, buddy,
                        Drinking beer is an honor, old man! "(C)
                      5. +1
                        24 November 2020 15: 58
                        "It's not beer that kills people.
                        Water kills people "(c).
                      6. +1
                        24 November 2020 19: 21
                        "Water is a tasteless drink!" (FROM)
                      7. +1
                        24 November 2020 19: 30
                        "Drink water,
                        Water, gentlemen "(c).
                      8. +2
                        24 November 2020 10: 52
                        Quote: 3x3zsave
                        "I will walk along Aprikosovaya,
                        Turn to Grape "(C)

                        "I'll start with apricot,
                        I will continue with a wine cellar.
                        After the 20th glass
                        I will pass out in the shadows.
                        Cherry, pear ... " drinks
                  2. +1
                    25 November 2020 12: 10
                    "Russians do not eat after the first one" (c)
      2. +3
        24 November 2020 07: 50
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        And in my opinion, at the present stage of our history, we are starting to repeat our past mistakes in tsarist times.

        And not only in the royal!
  4. +5
    24 November 2020 06: 28
    The painting "Freedom Leading the People" is rather curious in the sense that it says a lot if you look closely at the characters of the painting itself.
    A naked man lies, in one stocking and, without underpants, apparently completely robbed, in a fit of revolutionary freedom.
    1. +8
      24 November 2020 09: 17
      I have always known this picture as "Freedom on the Barricades". But, apparently, the name is provocative in modern times. And it has always been that way. "Freedom" was either exhibited in the Paris Salon or hidden in storerooms. It got to the point that one day Delacroix took it, already bought from him, to the estate - to save the painting from possible destruction.
      In the picture, the symbol of Freedom of the French people is the girl Marianne. On it is a Phrygian cap, which was worn by the freed slaves of Ancient Rome and has now become a symbol of freedom for the French. In her hand, Marianne is holding a flag that embodies the Republic and its motto "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood". Marianne's bare chest symbolizes the fearless determination to go against the enemy:
      "Let us renounce the old world, shake its ashes from our feet! Get up, get up ..."

      The image of Marianne Delacroix was painted from the washerwoman Anna Charlotte. The royal soldiers killed her brother and she went to the barricades. Her act became an example for thousands of people. This is her brother, robbed by marauders, lies in the foreground of the picture. Do you want a Revolution? She is so! So think about it. But if you think and decide, go to the end! Through blood, death, smoke and ashes of a burnt out old society. And they are coming! They go together! They are together! Typographic worker, petty bourgeois and student with a cobblestone in his hand - a symbol of the weapon of the proletariat. And how can we do without the ubiquitous Gavroche from a new, cheeky, determined generation - the one behind Marianne?

      I have two favorite pictures.
      "Cobblestone - the weapon of the proletariat" by Geliy Korzhev and "Freedom on the Barricades" by Delacroix. And when it comes to these pictures, I always hear "Memories of the former love" of the immortal Pot - not a song, but a tragic instrumental piece.
      1. 0
        24 November 2020 10: 11
        Quote: depressant
        Marianne's bare chest symbolizes the fearless determination to go against the enemy:

        Why, precisely with bare breasts, should one decisively attack the enemy?
        By the way, this picture was a symbol of the French riots of 1830, and not the revolution of the late XNUMXth century.
        1. +7
          24 November 2020 10: 24
          Marianne's naked chest is a symbol of disarmament. Even if you only have a flag in your hands, symbolizing Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, and there is no other weapon - go to the end! Tearing a shirt on his chest, exposing his chest as the last obstacle in the enemy's path is also our Russian symbol.
      2. Fat
        +2
        25 November 2020 12: 09
        Cobblestone - the weapon of the proletariat "Helium Korzhev and" Freedom on the Barricades "by Delacroix.
        Cobblestone - the weapon of the proletariat is the name of the sculpture by Ivan Shadr. The work of Korzhev - "Rise, Ivan"
        1. 0
          25 November 2020 12: 19
          Colleague, I will not argue. Even Delacroix's painting is called differently. I meant the central canvas of Korzhev's triptych "Communists" .... Bliiin! I remembered what this picture is actually called! It's called "Raising the Banner!"
          Now I'll go to Yandex and check)))
          1. 0
            25 November 2020 12: 37
            Checked it out. Yes, "Raising the Banner" ...
            But something else is striking! I remembered that either on the right or on the left side of the triptych there was a painting with a dying commissioner. He has already been killed, but his figure, twisting, does not fall, frozen like a sculpture. And now I found something completely different in Yandex. On one of the side parts of the triptych, the regimental musician, apparently under fire, is playing the helicon "Internationale", and on the other side of the triptych, the communists, who have obviously just returned from the front of the Civil War, are learning modeling and drawing in the studio - a symbol of the high that gave a revolution to the people.
            1. 0
              25 November 2020 12: 47
              I also found "Get up, Ivan!" This is a separate picture that has nothing to do with the triptych. Geliy Korzhev acts as an artist of the Russian trouble.
              Based on the content of the painting "Rise, Ivan!", It turns out that you, colleague Tolstoy, just mocked me? I would not like to think so (((
          2. Fat
            +1
            25 November 2020 12: 56
            Sorry, I didn't put a question mark.
            The triptych "Communists" is a powerful piece, although it was written in 1958-1960 ...
            Late works, especially after 91, are very dark ... Eerie.
  5. +9
    24 November 2020 06: 39
    In my humble opinion, they are very worthy emperors. Not to say that they are the best in the history of Russia, but not the worst either.
  6. +4
    24 November 2020 08: 00
    The author continues in the third part "to burn with a verb". wink
    He has a liberal king and:
    "But V.G.Belinsky and A.I.Herzen, known to us from school (the one who wrote:" Call Rus to the ax! ") fought for the European path, modeled on the revolutions of 1789-1849."
    It is strange that he did not mention the famous Russian liberals Stenka Razin and Emelka Pugachev. Sung in songs and epics. The peasants still supported them.
    "Saw, Fedya, saw!" wink
    To replace the development of social relations with a manifestation of only liberalism? The author is not the first time.
    P.S.They were wholly captured by the industrialization beginning in the country and preferred to make big money on it under the protection of a strong monarchy.
    About entrepreneurs for sure. Suitable also for modern ones.
    1. +4
      24 November 2020 08: 23
      I see that you are interested in the topic. It's good. I can advise you a serious, unlike mine, work on this topic: Alexander II and his time. The topic of the dissertation and the abstract of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation 07.00.02, Doctor of Historical Sciences in the form of scientific. report Tolmachev, Evgeny Petrovich
      • Tolmachev, Evgeny Petrovich
      • doctor of historical sciences in the form of scientific. report
      • 1998
      Perhaps this will help you to better understand this time and its specifics ... In the meantime, your opinion is the opinion of an amateur
      1. +7
        24 November 2020 08: 27
        There you have to pay denyuzhku, but you can scold you for free!
        1. +6
          24 November 2020 08: 44
          That's right, Anton! And to receive purely face-to-face pleasure from this: I don't know, I haven't read it, but ... look, everyone - that's my zeal and virtue, and he's ... bad! This is so humanly understandable.
        2. 0
          24 November 2020 09: 43
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          There you have to pay denyuzhku, but you can scold you for free!

          So I understand, what kind of denyushka are you writing off? Or "the cuckoo praises the rooster ..."?
          Quote: kalibr
          That's right, Anton!

          And, on the merits of the question?
          1. +9
            24 November 2020 10: 08

            So I understand, what kind of denyushka are you writing off?

            Undoubtedly! I will begin to praise Shpakovsky free of charge.
            1. +3
              24 November 2020 18: 55
              Well said. Does Vyacheslav Olegovich pay in advance or for each comment? Maybe "maybe I'll come in handy" ("The Elusive Avengers")
              1. 0
                24 November 2020 19: 28
                Yes, for every comment! We're agents of various intelligence services. He's Intel Service, I'm Mossad
                1. +1
                  25 November 2020 14: 17
                  I thought that Mossad is Krasnodar
        3. +1
          24 November 2020 19: 32
          The abstract, for sure, you can freely find.
          1. +1
            24 November 2020 19: 57
            But, then on the "cyberleninka" you need to poke around, with its sloppy interface.
            1. +1
              24 November 2020 20: 06
              We have already quarreled about her. From a certain year, in the Councils, where theses were defended, he was made available for public access.

              I use the search through the bourgeois Google Academy and our Elibrary.
              1. +1
                24 November 2020 20: 15
                For example, I am interested in the work of T. B. Ryabova, will you find it?
                1. +1
                  24 November 2020 20: 25
                  He threw "A Woman in the History of the Middle Ages" in the mail. Is it good?
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2020 20: 37
                    I read it many times! With gratitude I will accept the work of Olga Togoeva, in the fb2 format ...
                    1. +1
                      24 November 2020 20: 40
                      Take your abstract in pdf. I can't promise about the format.
                      1. +1
                        24 November 2020 20: 49
                        In pdf I have Togoev. I can't read in this format ...
                      2. +1
                        24 November 2020 21: 23
                        Yes. I read in it only something brief, or what is absolutely necessary.
      2. +2
        24 November 2020 09: 01
        Quote: kalibr
        I see that you are interested in the topic. It's good.

        As far as possible I am formed wink
        Tolmachev E.P. , of course, a venerable historian, but I wrote about your article.
        That time and its specificity can be described conditionally and not fully "in two words". The transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia. Otel vacillation and incompleteness of transformations. But, it's dry and without personalities. And what story can there be without personalities?
        I do not agree with your definition of liberalism, and therefore with the conclusions.
        1. +5
          24 November 2020 10: 01
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          I do not agree with your definition of liberalism, and therefore with the conclusions.

          But you wrote this well. This is exactly the desired level of communication. Give your definition or indicate the definition of the historian that you think is correct. It will be very interesting.
          1. +2
            24 November 2020 10: 13
            Quote: kalibr
            But you wrote this well. This is exactly the desired level of communication. Give your definition or indicate the definition of the historian that you think is correct. It will be very interesting.

            Go back to your first article and comments on it. There is truncated. What to repeat.
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 11: 28
              Quote: There was a mammoth
              Go back to your first article and comments on it.

              Well, that few people would want to do ...
          2. +2
            24 November 2020 11: 29
            Can I have my own 2 kopecks.
            1. Liberalism is a democracy brought to the point of absurdity.
            2. Liberalism is a democracy in turn.
            Choose any.
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 11: 35
              Let us, Alexander, start with the definition of Wiki: Liberalism (from Latin liberalis - free) is a philosophical and socio-political movement that proclaims the inviolability of human rights and personal freedoms. In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the rule of law over the will of rulers and equality of all citizens before by law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence. As you can see, both of your definitions are at odds with the data. Of course, you can insist ... but I personally would not.
              1. 0
                24 November 2020 11: 42
                I do not insist, I expressed my point of view on this phenomenon based on modern realities.
                You can come up with a beautiful formulation for any phenomenon, even the most disgusting one, should you not know about it?
                1. +1
                  24 November 2020 19: 33
                  Quote: ee2100
                  even the most disgusting

                  But this is difficult. Shit, it's always shit, even if you call it excrement!
                  1. 0
                    25 November 2020 00: 55
                    You mean natural shit or human shit?
              2. 0
                25 November 2020 10: 35
                Quote: kalibr
                Let's start, Alexander, with the Wiki definition: Liberalism ...

                Both on! World turned upside down! Shpakovsky cites Wikipedia as an argument!
                I will give you a thought:
                "Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy the full range of socio-economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the USSR Constitution and Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures the expansion of rights and freedoms, the continuous improvement of the living conditions of citizens as the programs of socio-economic and cultural development are implemented. "
                USSR Constitution.
                Is socialism liberalism? wink
                In which country, where officially the liberals rule, achieved what is quoted from the Wiki?
                1. 0
                  25 November 2020 12: 28
                  Quote: There was a mammoth
                  In which country, where officially the liberals rule, achieved what is quoted from the Wiki?

                  In many, you just need to throw out the word socialism and that's it. And if everything in the USSR was as it was scheduled, why didn't its citizens cling to such happiness with teeth and claws, eh? But because they saw deception: in words one thing (and on paper), but in life another. That's all!
                  It is especially funny to read about the fullness of rights and freedoms ...
                  1. 0
                    25 November 2020 13: 47
                    Quote: kalibr
                    It is especially funny to read about the fullness of rights and freedoms ...

                    In countries of victorious liberalism? wink With batons and tear gas? wink
                    Again, modestly avoid the topic of private property, especially the means of production.
                    1. 0
                      25 November 2020 15: 54
                      Quote: There was a mammoth
                      In countries of victorious liberalism? With batons and tear gas?

                      Every state should be able to protect the family. 80% of people around the world are half-idiots or victims of "drunken conception". How much you give them - everything is not enough. Therefore, clubs and gas are the best way for them to discipline!
                      What about property? Yes, for some reason it belongs to 20% everywhere. And they have to protect her from theft, this is understandable.
                      But what you modestly bypass my question: if everything was as wonderful as you wrote, why did the citizens of the USSR not hold on to it with their teeth and claws? First you have to answer, right? Question to question is the most mediocre way of discussion. I personally always answer you, yes. First ... And only then I ask questions myself. Only about "got in and destroyed" is not necessary. I had a long article on this topic ...
                      1. +1
                        25 November 2020 18: 48
                        Quote: kalibr
                        I had a long article on this topic ...

                        Unfortunately, too little time.
                        You're right. Decently answer questions. Considered not related to the topic. You are not my authority on such matters.
                        The collapse of the USSR is a tragedy, not for everyone, however. The topic is big and painful. Does not apply to this. One of the reasons, the phenomenal gullibility of the Soviet people and one of the features of the Russian people is the belief in a "good tsar". "We got through and destroyed" from the same opera.
                        Recently a certain Sytin, also a historian, claimed a higher pension than that of a locksmith, arguing that he was a "generator of ideas." wink This is your favorite hypothesis.
                        It took so many words to get to the point. You are a professional!
                        To "their rams".
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Every state should be able to protect the family

                        EVERYTHING! The idea of ​​liberalism was blown away by you.
                        News from the country of victorious liberalism:
                        "Russian Valery Saramutin, playing for" Austin Bold "from the second American football league, suspended from games after refusing to kneel in support of Black Lives Matter ""
                        PS So what about "being determines consciousness"?
                        How about private ownership of "factories and ships" and liberalism?
              3. 0
                29 November 2020 10: 17
                Quote: kalibr
                let's start with the wiki definition:

                Let's start with the definition of TSB!
                "Liberalism is a bourgeois political and ideological trend of the XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries. It united supporters of the economic and political domination of the bourgeois class." This is the main thing, moreover, in collusion with the feudal lords, for which reason the kings are credited there. And all sorts of rights and freedoms there are exclusively propaganda, which must be separated from interests.
  7. +4
    24 November 2020 08: 31
    "But VG Belinsky and AI Herzen (the one who wrote:" Call Russia to the ax! "), Known to us from school, fought for the European path, modeled on the revolutions of 1789-1849." (C)
    Herzen is a true liberal, a worthy role model for modern people. Anything that harms the homeland is good for the revolution. His appeal to the defenders of Sevastopol is the height of meanness.
    About the personal life of Herzen-Ogarev and others, it’s not decent to say that everyone considers bl ... vom, then they have high feelings.
    1. +5
      24 November 2020 09: 45
      About the personal life of Herzen-Ogarev and others, and it's not decent to say that everyone counts

      Now, under this summed up separate concepts .. like a certain "Swedish family" and other nonsense .... Yes, I remembered the identity. what Sorry, Alexander. drinks This is how they are - "the honor and conscience of the nation" .... negative
      1. +3
        24 November 2020 11: 06
        There is an anegdote from the Soviet era about Swedish sex.
        "One woman and two men enter the room and have sex.
        Sex in Polish. 2 women enter the room and 2 men turn on TV and watch sex in Shaedi.
        Soviet sex. A man comes into the room and turns on the radio and listens to the Pole telling how he watched sex in Shaedi on TV. "
      2. +3
        24 November 2020 11: 10
        That is why, Panet, today's liberals are not even my fellow travelers. By speculating with my interests, waving them like a flag, they exclude mine as their own. It makes no sense to change an awl for soap. For awl and soap are amazingly transformed into one another and vice versa. And nothing else. Therefore, on occasion, whatever gathers people, the Kalashnikov assault rifle turns out. But the people are wise, learn lessons from history, endure as much as they can, and awl and soap - they are unteachable.
        1. +2
          24 November 2020 11: 38
          Liberals want it to be like the West, but do not understand how to do it. And most importantly, they don't want to do anything.
          To make it like in the west, it was necessary to walk the path like the west.
          And Nicholas I and Alexander II perceived what was happening in Europe as a threat
          1. +2
            24 November 2020 13: 00
            Quote: ee2100
            And most importantly, they don't want to do anything.

            Why don't they want to? I not only want, but also do. Long ago ... wasn't it? What I can and even a little more. But if everyone, not just the liberals, did everything that was supposed to + a little more, what would happen then?
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 13: 04
              Kitchen opposition?
            2. +2
              24 November 2020 17: 14
              Quote: kalibr
              But if everyone, not just the liberals, did everything that was supposed to + a little more, what would happen then?

              Well, as always, everyone would be plundered))
      3. +2
        24 November 2020 17: 11
        Quote: Pan Kohanku

        Now, under this summed up separate concepts .. like a certain "Swedish family" and other nonsense .... Yes, I remembered the identity. what Sorry, Alexander. drinks This is how they are - "the honor and conscience of the nation" .... negative

        So Herzen and Ogarev of that? Like Swedes? Is it because the Decembrists woke up the first? Therefore, they were terribly far from the people? ))
        Greetings, Nikolay! hi
        1. +1
          24 November 2020 22: 44
          So Herzen and Ogarev of that? Like Swedes? Is it because the Decembrists woke up the first? Therefore, they were terribly far from the people? ))
          Greetings, Nikolay!

          Albert, hello! When the first one was awakened, he was extremely busy swinging. laughing Bukak bukaka sees from afar! drinks It remains to remember Lilya Brik as a "passing banner" - she was also a torn off! wink Oh, tear off ... good
    2. +2
      24 November 2020 11: 37
      Quote: ee2100
      Anything that harms the homeland is good for the revolution.

      Was it not V.I. Lenin who put forward the slogan of the defeat of the tsarist government in WWI? But the defeat of the government is always the defeat of the country, that is, the Motherland, no?
      1. +2
        24 November 2020 11: 46
        The historian of the CPSU woke up in you?
        Extrapolate this thesis to WWII and get likes
        1. +6
          24 November 2020 12: 39
          Colleagues, come on!
          Everything is extremely simple and straightforward. We talked about this a thousand times. The goal of the oligarchs who seized the subsoil and large enterprises that are competitive on the world market, as well as the layer of officials they cared for, in conjunction with the top army leadership, is to completely and absolutely exclude the possibility of the emergence of a wide and powerful class of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs among the people as competitors to themselves, the oligarchy, - competitors capable of pushing that oligarchy both from economic and political positions. For this, with the help of laws, all attempts to develop their own small-scale production are stifled, and the market is filled with foreign products for the same purpose. As a result, all internal political movements that want to look like development are in fact a struggle for the redistribution of property within the ruling stratum. The battle of cockroaches in a glass jar.
          That's all.
          And there is no need to invent anything here.
          As for our liberals, their goal is only to oust the current ruling stratum in order to take its position and do exactly the same.
          1. +3
            24 November 2020 13: 03
            Quote: depressant
            As for our liberals, their goal is only to oust the current ruling stratum in order to take its position and do exactly the same.

            J. Orwell wrote about this. I quoted this quote from 1984 many times ...
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 13: 24
              To my shame, I have not read this work. I heard about him already in the second half of the 10s and thought: why bother? 1984 - passed? Passed through. And as you know, I don't like history))))
              Sometimes I force myself to read something that is very popular in the intellectual environment. That which is spoken about with aspiration, rolling eyes to the sky and a meaningful exclamation "Oh!" But after reading it, there is a nasty feeling of wasted time. For everything that the author told me, I have long deduced on the basis of my own life experience.
              The only thing I am ready to do justice to is the beauty of the style and the entertaining presentation, that is, the clothes in which the idea is wrapped.
              1. +2
                24 November 2020 13: 55
                Quote: depressant
                that is, the clothes that the idea is wrapped in.

                He writes about three groups of the population, of which there have always been three since the Paleolithic. “The goals of these three groups are completely incompatible. The goal of the higher ones is to stay where they are. The purpose of the middle is to swap places with the highest; the goal of the lower - when they have a goal, because for the lower it is characteristic that they are crushed by hard work and only occasionally direct their gaze beyond the limits of everyday life - to abolish all differences and create a society where all people should be equal. Thus, throughout history, a struggle flares up again and again, in general terms it is always the same. For a long time, the higher ones seem to hold firmly in power, but sooner or later a moment comes when they lose either faith in themselves, or the ability to govern effectively, or both. Then they are overthrown by the middle ones, who have attracted the lower ones to their side by playing the role of fighters for freedom and justice. Having achieved their goal, they push the lower into their former slavery position and themselves become higher. In the meantime, new averages peel off from one of the other two groups or from both, and the struggle begins anew. Of the three groups, only the lowest never succeed in achieving their goals, even for a time. "
                1. +1
                  24 November 2020 15: 46
                  And here I do not agree with Orwell if he thinks so.
                  Indeed, some part of the middle, overthrowing the higher by means of revolution, takes their place, thereby freeing their former places for the lower. As a result, some of the lower ones become middle ones. The progress in society is evident. Moreover, the middle ones, who have come to the upper power, are forced to fulfill some of the obligations given to the lower ones. As a result, society is at least a little shifting forward, in general, life is improving at least a little for the lower ones.
                  Then, in order not to lose power, the elders invented democracy in the form of at least two parties competing for power, in which they occupy leading positions. And if there is a change in power, then the victorious part of the elite is again forced to fulfill at least part of the election promises. The top really remain top, the middle middle, but the revolution is ruled out. Indeed, for the lower ones, the main thing is at least some improvement in living conditions.
                  Why is a revolution still possible in our time?
                  But because, as a result of democratic advances, life has improved so much that it has led to the development of complex technologies, which means the formation of a whole layer of technological leaders who, gradually becoming rich in a democracy, wanted to feel superior, but the old aristocracy does not let them at the political helm of the world. Everything that is happening on the planet now - vests, local wars, coronavirus - is a struggle between a new clan of aristocracy and the old elites. If they find a common language, there will be no revolutions. But then things will be much worse than Orwell suggests. The middle class as an eternal potential contender for power is unlikely to survive. Well, maybe in the form of a very small entrepreneur. I mean the Western model.
                  1. +2
                    24 November 2020 16: 29
                    As a result, society is at least a little shifted forward, in general, life is improving at least a little for the lower ones. First of all, it is improving due to scientific and technological progress. We sat by a torch, there was a candle, then an oil lamp, then a "kerosene stove", then "Ilyich's lamp." But my son-in-law, he is 45 years old, had an earthen floor in the village of his grandfather and grandmother! He remembers and why would he lie to me?
                  2. +1
                    24 November 2020 16: 31
                    Quote: depressant
                    Why is a revolution still possible in our time?

                    Impossible! Pareto's law forbids it. That is, you can do something. But as it was 80 and 20, it will remain so. The essence changes, the proportion does not. 20 at the top and sooner or later they will "rot" and 80 at the bottom. And the point to start? And Western sociologists have long been talking about the death of the middle class ...
                    1. 0
                      29 November 2020 10: 34
                      How do you love this Pareto! But he is mistaken (or deliberately lies, God knows). The proportion depends on many factors and is constantly changing. By class, region, nationality ...
                      But in fact, the proportion itself is simply not there. There is a continuous distribution of skills and income, but it is beneficial for the ruling class to present it as an "eternal" pyramid with "higher" and "lower". But for the effectiveness of management, there must be movement from the bottom up and (necessarily!) From top to bottom in order to free up space.
                      The frozen caste system discredited itself a long time ago. But each new ruling class, spitting on the laws of history, seeks to perpetuate its rule. Which fails sooner or later.
                2. Fat
                  0
                  25 November 2020 10: 24
                  Quote: kalibr
                  Quote: depressant
                  that is, the clothes that the idea is wrapped in.

                  He writes about three groups of the population, of which there have always been three since the Paleolithic. “The goals of these three groups are completely incompatible. The goal of the higher ones is to stay where they are. The purpose of the middle is to swap places with the highest; the goal of the lower - when they have a goal, because for the lower it is characteristic that they are crushed by hard work and only occasionally direct their gaze beyond the limits of everyday life - to abolish all differences and create a society where all people should be equal. Thus, throughout history, a struggle flares up again and again, in general terms it is always the same. For a long time, the higher ones seem to hold firmly in power, but sooner or later a moment comes when they lose either faith in themselves, or the ability to govern effectively, or both. Then they are overthrown by the middle ones, who have attracted the lower ones to their side by playing the role of fighters for freedom and justice. Having achieved their goal, they push the lower into their former slavery position and themselves become higher. In the meantime, new averages peel off from one of the other two groups or from both, and the struggle begins anew. Of the three groups, only the lowest never succeed in achieving their goals, even for a time. "

                  Vyacheslav Olegovich, did you by any chance retell the "animal farm"?
                  "84" is a love story under total control.
                  6 words and everything is clear.)))
                  1. 0
                    25 November 2020 11: 56
                    No, not a "farm". He writes about three groups in 1984. This is an excerpt from Goldstein's book, which. Winston reads with Julia.
                    1. Fat
                      +1
                      25 November 2020 13: 28
                      The masses never rise on their own and never
                      do not rebel just because they are oppressed. Moreover, they don't even
                      recognize that they are oppressed until they are given the opportunity to compare.
                      What views do the masses hold and which they don't -
                      indifferent. They can be given intellectual freedom because
                      they have no intelligence.

                      Yeah. Found. Thanks.
                      1. 0
                        25 November 2020 18: 40
                        Well said, isn't it? In the USSR, people in the USSR did not even know where they lived until they began to travel abroad in great numbers and compare ...
                      2. Fat
                        0
                        25 November 2020 20: 42
                        Some Orwellian critics consider Goldstein to be a copy of Trotsky (Bronstein). Found the alleged original source "Revolution Betrayed"
                        The social meaning of the Soviet Thermidor begins to emerge before us. The poverty and cultural backwardness of the masses were once again embodied in the sinister figure of the sovereign with a large stick in his hands. The demoted and outraged bureaucracy again became its master from a servant of society. On this path, she has achieved such social and moral alienation from the masses that she can no longer allow any control over her actions or over her income ...
                        Thus, it is not about the ghosts of the past, not about the remnants of what no longer exists, in a word, not about last year's snow, but about new powerful and gradually reviving tendencies towards personal accumulation. The first still very meager inflow of prosperity in the country, precisely because of its poverty, did not weaken, but strengthened these centrifugal tendencies. On the other hand, the desire of the underprivileged to give a hand to the new nobility increased at the same time. The social struggle is escalating again. These are the sources of the power of the bureaucracy. But from the same sources a threat to its power also grows.

                        It is also quite relevant ... hi
                      3. 0
                        26 November 2020 05: 39
                        Why do you think all of Trotsky's books in Soviet times were in the special storage of Leninka and were issued only with special permission. Even I could not get them with the 2nd form of access to classified documents. "This is not a topic for your research!"
                      4. Fat
                        +1
                        26 November 2020 12: 19
                        The Revolution Betrayed, for example, which I have quoted, is published in the Spanish edition of 1937. It seems that it was available to Orwell as well. Everyone interested could read this work probably all over the world. The work is also devoted to the Constitution of the USSR in 1936, which announced the construction of socialism to the world. Probably only in the USSR and there were problems with access.
                      5. +1
                        26 November 2020 12: 28
                        That is why they were not afraid of us anywhere. Read ... knew how it would end. They saw that he was right. And we saw all the signs ... It's easy ... We had only one way out - a nuclear war. But who would have dared to do this? And we would inevitably screw up the world! And pissed away in the end!
                      6. 0
                        29 November 2020 10: 44
                        Quote: kalibr
                        That is why they were not afraid of us anywhere. Read ... knew how it would end.

                        This is only from Khrushchev, who led exactly this path. Before that, they were still afraid, but Trotsky was perhaps despised as a loser.
                      7. +1
                        29 November 2020 15: 19
                        Quote: Kwas
                        Before that, they were still afraid, but Trotsky was perhaps despised as a loser.

                        If you read his works, you would understand that no one considered him a loser. Great scientists - yes!
                      8. 0
                        1 December 2020 07: 43
                        Quote: kalibr
                        that no one considered him a loser. Great scientists - yes!

                        He was rightly considered a bankrupt politician. And the scriptures are the self-justifications of this politician. Well, something like the memoirs of Hitler's generals, where the Fuhrer is to blame for everything.
                      9. 0
                        29 November 2020 15: 21
                        Quote: Kwas
                        Before - they were still afraid

                        It's generally funny to read. The country where the number of clamps and carts was secret ...
                      10. 0
                        1 December 2020 07: 44
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It's generally funny to read. The country where the number of clamps and carts was secret ...

                        This is what is funny to read.
                      11. -1
                        1 December 2020 07: 49
                        Konstantin! You do not know how the door opens in the archive, you have never been to one. All your knowledge is secondary. From the stupid TV and the writings of our mediocre journalists ... And you are still trying to prove something to me. It is just about the grave legacy of the scoop: they allowed the ignorant to believe that they are equal to people ... with knowledge. Here they are, and pose from themselves. Although the place for them is in a "wooden house" with a hole, and what would shout "busy!" And do not thank me that I open your eyes and help you get out of this state. This is my duty to society!
                      12. 0
                        1 December 2020 08: 08
                        Well, you need a lot of conceit mixed with contempt. Reminds either Ksyusha Sobchak, or some other "socialite". Like "all of you @ # $ lo".
                        To prove something to you on this topic is not to respect yourself.
                        But if I were of your moral qualities, I would say "it is correct that you were not allowed to read Trotsky - it has a bad effect on stupid people." But I won't say that, because in my snotty youth I was almost like that. Read more, ponder - and wisdom will come sooner or later.
                  2. 0
                    29 November 2020 10: 37
                    Quote: Thick
                    Vyacheslav Olegovich, did you by any chance retell the "animal farm"?

                    No. But Orwell, like most authors (and indeed people in general) has a certain core of ideology, about which he constantly thinks and writes.
          2. +2
            24 November 2020 14: 37
            It so happens that in such a situation, both socialists and monarchists and nationalists (or even three in one)) will be better for the people
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 16: 45
              It turns out, long live the tsarist system, the most progressive of all systems in the world !!! ))) wassat
              Well, yes, at least you can bomb, at least create Marxist circles. I can imagine: the underground, Ilyich's light bulb, the agitator reads Lenin's article aloud, everyone is sitting, buried in their smartphones. A pale anarchist disagreeing with the speaker, taking a drag, smokes cannabis. Not far from the basement, a drug dealer wanders about with doses. He knows the schedule of meetings of the secret Marxist circle.
              1. +2
                24 November 2020 17: 42
                Quote: depressant
                He knows the schedule of meetings of the secret Marxist circle.

                And above all this rabble, a drone with a sound amplifier is circling and transmits everything they talk about to the Security Council. And there they are already deciding who to jail for stealing candles in the church, who is for sexual harassment, who is for drugs. Nobody will be jailed for "politics". By the way, everyone admits what they have done.
                By the way, why is the imperial system? Stanislaw Lem's novel Eden perfectly describes the anonymous dictatorship.
                1. +5
                  24 November 2020 18: 38
                  The progressiveness of the tsarist system consisted in its ability to give birth to a small but powerful Bolshevik movement - a group of passionaries who managed to respond to the dreams of large masses of people about a better life.
                  Make me now respond to this. At the first sounds of speech, I immediately grab my pocket to see if someone is rummaging around in it while I hung my ears.
                  The system cannot be progressive if it does not form people who dream of a life with a high coefficient of the spiritual component and believe in the attainability of happiness for everyone.
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2020 19: 21
                    Quote: depressant
                    believing in the attainability of happiness for everyone.

                    So you are talking about the abnormal? The Strugatsky and Efremov wrote that even in a communist society there will be unhappy people, although they will have a food delivery service and other benefits ...
                    1. +3
                      24 November 2020 20: 45
                      That is, you think people with a high spiritual component are abnormal?
                      There are hundreds of thousands of private telescopes in the United States. Not watching the neighbors - the sky. We also sell telescopes - from 3900 to more than 70 thousand rubles. Do you have friends who have a telescope? They, I mean the United States, in their rotten capitalism, people dream of stars, films are made about it. About science. Scientists are praised. Moreover, the percentage of those who support socialism is gradually increasing. Well, they are the metropolis, they can.
                      And here such people, waking up, are considered eccentrics at best.
                      So stalkers roam the ruins of the Soviet era, the one in which everyone was called to be "eccentrics". Stalkers roam and grieve. How could they say, so, this was a scientific center, and now there are bare walls, everything is destroyed. And this was a factory ... Our people cannot recover from shock and, in order to hide their shame from the mistake they made under the guise of rationalism, supposedly they themselves wanted to, they are trying to portray those who fall out of the line and demonstrate a Soviet attitude to the future as abnormal. Like, wake up, uncle. And you go there, Vyacheslav Olegovich.
                      1. +1
                        24 November 2020 20: 51
                        Quote: depressant
                        Do you have friends who have a telescope?

                        Have a friend. But they bought him a telescope back in the Soviet Union, in the 80s.
                      2. +2
                        24 November 2020 21: 19
                        I believe that only dreamers can believe in happiness for everyone. It is impossible. I never liked Don Quixote fighting the mills. I believe in people with a high spiritual component. But I don't like idealists. As for the Americans, they are simply richer than us, that's all. More cultured? The bulk - not a fig!
                      3. -2
                        24 November 2020 21: 43
                        Quote: kalibr
                        As for the Americans, they are simply richer than us, that's all.

                        And why are they richer .. didn’t think?
                      4. +1
                        25 November 2020 05: 51
                        Quote: Liam
                        And why are they richer .. didn’t think?

                        In this case, it makes no sense to think about it. You can still think about why the earth is a ball, or gravity is directed to its center ... There was a specific question and a specific answer. What is the reason for the thought to spread over the tree? There will be a day and food. That is, the time will come - think about it!
                      5. -4
                        25 November 2020 08: 06
                        They are richer because, among other things, they are more educated for the most part. Or, as you put it, more cultured. You confused cause and effect.
                      6. 0
                        25 November 2020 09: 15
                        Quote: Liam
                        You confused cause and effect

                        I am now confusing something all the time ... I am getting old ...
                      7. 0
                        27 November 2020 21: 07
                        Quote: Liam
                        - education in the mass.


                        If once I had not taken part in the exchange program in the late 80s, I might have believed you, but this propaganda on your part is rather ridiculous.
                      8. 0
                        29 November 2020 10: 53
                        Quote: Liam
                        They are richer because, among other things, they are more educated for the most part.

                        An interesting conclusion, do not enlighten, on what basis is it made?
                        And the fact that they are robbing almost the whole world with a dollar means that they do not add wealth? wassat
                        And ask what happened before - robbery or education?
                        By the way, the quality of which is VERY greatly exaggerated.
                      9. 0
                        27 November 2020 21: 02
                        Because they built a system with which they rob the whole world.
                2. +2
                  25 November 2020 09: 56
                  Yes, you cannot bring a normal philosophical system under the dictatorship (it is necessary to create and it takes a long time and again reformism with an incomprehensible effect) The Russian people have a heightened sense of justice here without Orthodoxy and social sphere anywhere Well, or change the state-forming people (but this is if the state is an end in itself and not the people) Yes and it is long and dreary in general, utopia is also dangerous for the Russian people Therefore, nevertheless, the tsar is better You know socialism like this, where everyone is approximately equal, and above that the tsar who trims those who are especially greedy for money and a beautiful life, directing them on the true path through thorns to the stars) ) Or sending a thread to Europe where these "values" are in the mountain so that they "multiplied and multiplied" with a sign - "for with such priorities" + "does not happen And you do not need to plant anyone (why mock people) - all for garlic
  8. +4
    24 November 2020 08: 33
    True, already in 1881, Emperor Alexander II, seeing that the situation in the country was heating up (and besides, it was aggravated by the terror of the Narodnaya Volya), gave instructions to the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov to prepare a draft constitution.
    This draft does not feel like a "constitution" at all and the word "constitution" is never mentioned in it. Loris - Melikov himself called it "supposed reforms of the state structure."
    1. +3
      24 November 2020 11: 38
      A project is a project because you can call it whatever you like!
      1. +4
        24 November 2020 11: 51
        Kovalevsky, a prominent Mason, called him a "constitution" in 1904. Incidentally, this colorful personality fits into the theme of Russian liberalism.
  9. +5
    24 November 2020 08: 59
    How can we resist quoting our Mikhailovich Fyodor ...
    “Russian liberalism is not an attack on the existing order of things, but an attack on the very essence of our things, on the things themselves, and not just one order, not the Russian order, but Russia itself. My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother ... ”.

    Has something changed in 150 years?
    1. +6
      24 November 2020 09: 11
      I love Dostoevsky - not reading, but shock and awe laughing
    2. +3
      24 November 2020 10: 04
      The opinion of an extremely moral person. Above, Herzen and Ogarev were condemned for licentiousness, but here in general ... a whole bunch. The man was mentally ill, embittered at everyone ... trust his judgments, disrespect himself.
      1. +1
        24 November 2020 10: 32
        Yes Yes. Once he was angry with the liberals (he encroached on the sacred!), It means that he is clearly ill. Respect yourself further, brand the same Chekhov and Martynov.
        1. +1
          24 November 2020 10: 39
          And he wasn't sick, was he?
          1. +3
            24 November 2020 11: 24
            Vyacheslav Olegovich, well, you gave the pearls! )))
            In your opinion, a mentally unhealthy person is not able to adequately assess the essence of intangible concepts, such as despotism, one that quite realistically manifests itself in relations between the state and the citizen? )))
            It seems to me that the opposite is true. The person who calls things by their proper names is considered mentally ill. They count and twist a finger at the temple. For, according to the ideas of an ordinary citizen, the name, having lost the instinct of self-preservation, has sharply lowered the bar for his own safety in the conditions of an increased instinct for self-preservation of despotic power.
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 12: 53
              Quote: depressant
              It seems to me that the opposite is true. The person who calls things by their proper names is considered mentally ill.

              Obviously, therefore, in the United States there was a proposal to include schizoids in the crews of spaceships, since they "see everything as it is." But in this case we are not talking about despotism, but the assessment of specific people. And she's too mean to be objective!
              1. +2
                24 November 2020 13: 05
                Spiteful? wassat
                Yes, because you talk and talk, but they don't even have bumps left on their foreheads or on their foreheads. It enters one ear, exits the other, but when suddenly something settles in an empty cranial crust, a monstrous roar is heard: "Catch up and intimidate!" Well, or whatever they roar)))
                So think after that who is insane.
        2. +5
          24 November 2020 11: 41
          Dear Andrey! About Chekhov and others. I would like to advise you to expand your horizons to the book by E.V. Pervushin "Manors and dachas of the Russian intelligentsia" SPb. Parity, 2017. There is a lot about what dachas they bought, what they built for themselves, how they hunted, whom they loved ... it is very vital and instructive. By the way, there is also about Dostoevsky ... Well, and the casino where he spent huge sums, I myself saw in Nice. The fighter with the liberals for the happiness of the common people lived well ...
          1. +4
            24 November 2020 13: 08
            There is a lot about what dachas they bought, what they built for themselves

            EMNIP, Vyritsa was the "country paradise" in St. Petersburg in the second half of the 19th - early 20th century. There was even a tram running at that time. Naturally, it was a horse tram, but locals and summer residents proudly called it a tram! fellow
            By the way, without anything superfluous there - despite the fact that I have lived in St. Petersburg all my life, I learned about this "tram" for the first time from you, Vyacheslav Olegovich! hi And in 2017 there was a chance to check - I went to the Vyritsa church, and there was either a newspaper clipping, or some separate information leaflet hung about "the tram in Vyritsa." Yes
            1. +3
              24 November 2020 13: 25
              I met the priest of the Vyritsa church by chance on vacation in Sicily. Vividly interesting personality.
              1. +4
                24 November 2020 13: 45
                I met the priest of the Vyritsa church by chance on vacation in Sicily. Vividly interesting personality.

                Long? I have been to the Vyritskaya church twice. A year in 2014, they were quite young, like a gypsy. And in 2017 - I did not find the priest in the parish when I visited. drinks
                1. +4
                  24 November 2020 13: 50
                  About 5 years ago. XXXL size. In the beginning, we lay on the sun loungers nearby and heard his conversation with his colleague, also from the linen area. very interesting. And then he almost choked. There is no beach there, but a platform was made of scaffolding on the shore at the edge of the cliff
                  1. +3
                    24 November 2020 13: 54
                    I'll add busy later
                  2. +4
                    24 November 2020 13: 55
                    And then he almost choked. There is no beach there, but a platform was made of scaffolding on the shore at the edge of the cliff

                    The anecdote is recalled, in the sense, part of it:
                    - By the way, speaking about birds - the day before yesterday, a drunk father fell from the bell tower, so he didn't even chirp!

                    No, in the 14th, it seems, there was another ...
                    Hmm ... XXXL - straight "Tea drinking in Mytishchi"? wink Well ... what can I say ... So, he lives harmoniously! drinks

                    In the beginning, we lay on the sun loungers nearby and heard his conversation with his colleague, also from the linen area. very interesting.

                    On church, philosophical, al on worldly topics? wink
                    1. +3
                      24 November 2020 14: 00
                      Commercial themes. I will not write here. By the way I'm going to St. Petersburg
                    2. +2
                      24 November 2020 14: 02
                      The beard is not red, but looks so similar, but the truth was in swimming trunks
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. +3
                  24 November 2020 13: 58
                  There was a decent wave and he was covered and hit against the rocks. Then he sat and said that God washed him off today
                  1. 0
                    24 November 2020 17: 22
                    Quote: ee2100
                    There was a decent wave and he was covered and hit against the rocks. Then he sat and said that God washed him off today

                    Although not an atheist, it's already good
            2. +3
              24 November 2020 14: 10
              I got married in her and baptized my middle son. True, the father was different.
              1. +1
                24 November 2020 15: 20
                Are you religious?
                1. +2
                  24 November 2020 18: 00
                  It's hard for me to answer this question, honestly. The mother of my children insisted on the wedding, she was at that time pious. Actually, on the same wave and the middle one was baptized.
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2020 19: 33
                    He led you astray he was from Vyra
            3. +2
              24 November 2020 14: 38
              Quote: Pane Kohanku
              Vyritsa was a "country paradise" in St. Petersburg in the second half of the 19th - early 20th century.

              Good afternoon Nikolai, and not only Vyritsa, but all this direction, which is now called Luga, was in the second half of the 19th century a resort place. Trains went to Siversky, there was a large station (it was not preserved, it was wooden and burned down), there were dachas mainly of the middle hand of the bourgeoisie and the creative intelligentsia, which gathered at Maikov's dacha, in Siversky Shishkin, who lived in Maikov's dacha wrote "Morning in pine forest ". Aleksey Tolstoy and Gorky lived in Sivesrkom (they even show the chair on which Gorky was supposedly sitting tongue ) and even Brodsky dug potatoes in Siversok.
              And all this was invented by Count Wittgenstein, only not the one who was in the war with Napoleon, but his descendant. He cut the land, which his glorious ancestor received during the war of 1812, into plots, set up dachas and began to rent them (it seems it was in the 70s of the 19th century).
              In Siversky there is a small but interesting museum "Dacha Capital": (https://vk.com/dacha_museum) dedicated to dacha life. hi
              1. +5
                24 November 2020 14: 51
                Sergei, I haven't heard about most of what you said! good
                And all this was invented by Count Wittgenstein, not only the one who was in the war with Napoleon, but his descendant.

                Peter Khristianovich gave birth to children well. laughing And which of the descendants? His eldest was married to the daughter of the last sovereign Radziwill - the fabulous "Polish patriot" Dominik - Stephanie ...
                There were also dachas up to Oranienbaum along the bay. Some have even survived. Here is the dacha of someone from Benois - wooden, it still stands, despite the fact that during the war there were Germans here. This is near Sergievka, near the "Raskat" - a lighthouse. Our photo, June this year.

                As far as I understand, those who are richer often owned dachas on the northern side of the bay. Repin also lived there in his Penates ... drinks
                1. +4
                  24 November 2020 15: 18
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  Peter Khristianovich gave birth to children well. laughing Which descendant?

                  Honestly, I don’t remember, I have to look, but all these lands belonged to the Wittgensteins, they have a family estate in Druzhnoselie, there is a monument in Siverskoye

                  And the creative intelligentsia especially loved Siversky, here they downloaded:
                  Siverskaya has become a particularly popular dacha area since the middle of the 10th century. In the summer period, up to 1 thousand citizens rested in the village. There was everything necessary for a pleasant time: a public park, taverns, a post office, a library, a shop of colonial goods and even six summer theaters. “The place here is perhaps the best in the vicinity of St. Petersburg, picturesque, mountainous, wonderful air”, - so wrote about Siverskaya M.Ye. Saltykov-Shchedrin 150. Tired of the bustle of the capital, the intelligentsia rushed here to enjoy the clean air and amazing silence. These places were especially appreciated by creative people. The artists Ivan Shishkin and Ivan Kramskoy, the poets Anna Akhmatova, Alexander Blok, Apollon Maikov, Alexey Pleshcheev and Vladimir Mayakovsky, the writers Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, Ivan Goncharov, Alexey Tolstoy, Alexander Kuprin found their inspiration here. Baron Fredericks, who had a dacha in Siverskaya, founded his own menagerie here, in which he kept rare animals. After the revolution, Siverskaya became a children's resort, and until the nineties there were more than 1928 pioneer camps here. Korney Chukovsky in XNUMX wrote "Mukhu-tsokotukha" here, and Isaac Schwartz, walking along the banks of the Oredezh River, composed a melody for the film "The Captivating Star of Happiness"

                  According to I. Schwartz, he composed the melody of the song "Lady Luck" (White sun of the desert) in Siversky.
                2. +4
                  24 November 2020 16: 32
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  Peter Khristianovich gave birth to children well. laughing Which descendant?

                  Nikolay, I found it:
                  According to the "Commemorative Book of the St. Petersburg Province" for 1905, the Druzhnoselie estate with an area of ​​13 310 dessiatines belonged to His Highness Prince Fyodor Lvovich Wittgenstein

                  This, as I understand it, is the son of Lev Petrovich and Stephanie Radziwill, that is, the grandson of Peter Christianovich.
          2. +4
            24 November 2020 14: 23
            Quote: kalibr
            E.V. Pervushin "Manors and dachas of the Russian intelligentsia" SPb. Parity, 2017

            Oh, what an interesting book, I did not know about its existence, I will now order.
            Thank you! hi
            1. +3
              24 November 2020 16: 22
              Quote: Mihaylov
              Oh, what an interesting book, I did not know about its existence, I will now order.
              Thank you!

              You will not regret!
          3. 0
            24 November 2020 18: 01
            Dear Vyacheslav, thank you for taking care of my horizons, there will be time, I will read this too. As for the ugly, ugly Dostoevsky - and what, among the greats, he somehow stands apart? Didn't Nashefsø dream about Parisian brothels in his letters and, in general, led a respectable lifestyle? The descendant of the glorious Lermonts was not a harmful libel, poisoning the lives of others? And yes, Chekhov with his intimate correspondence is there. But is it because of this that we consider them unworthy to express thoughts about existence?
            1. +2
              24 November 2020 19: 29
              Quote: Moore
              As for the ugly, ugly Dostoevsky - and what, among the greats, he somehow stands apart? Didn't Nashefso dream about Parisian brothels in his letters and, in general, led a respectable lifestyle? The descendant of the glorious Lermonts was not a harmful libelous, poisoning the lives of others? And yes, Chekhov with his intimate correspondence is there.

              Yes, everyone ... had ... but in my opinion the "gradient of villainy" is higher than the rest. Although this is purely my personal opinion.
      2. +4
        24 November 2020 17: 18
        Quote: kalibr
        The opinion of an extremely moral person. Above, Herzen and Ogarev were condemned for licentiousness, but here in general ... a whole bunch. The man was mentally ill, embittered at everyone ... trust his judgments, disrespect himself.

        I wonder if Freud wrote something about Dostoevsky? laughing
        1. +4
          24 November 2020 20: 07
          Freud was lucky, unlike most Soviet schoolchildren.
          1. +3
            24 November 2020 20: 17
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            Freud was lucky, unlike most Soviet schoolchildren.

            Dostoevsky is very popular abroad)).
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 20: 31
              Because he patented the "pornography of the soul". For me personally, To Kill a Mockingbird or The Green Mile is much closer emotionally than the torment of all the heroes of Fedormikhalych ...
              1. +4
                24 November 2020 20: 45
                Well, it's a matter of taste))
                Russian classics are generally very popular in the West - Chekhov, then Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and ... Gogol. Poets do not know, perhaps because of fig translations.
                1. +4
                  24 November 2020 20: 53
                  That is, Chekhov is in the lead?
                  1. +3
                    24 November 2020 22: 15
                    Certainly
      3. +3
        24 November 2020 18: 29
        Vyacheslav Olegovich, of all Dostoevsky, I adore: "Crime and Punishment": a master of psychological portraits! Better hard to find
        1. 0
          24 November 2020 21: 43
          Astra, to the point! love )))
          As a child, I read "Crime and Punishment" with pleasure. Believing that everyone reads like that. And here our honorable gentlemen raise an eyebrow dismissively, like
          "Uh-uh ..."
          1. +1
            29 November 2020 11: 08
            Yes, you know, I’m probably just one of these. Well, I don’t like to read about flawed people, and in my opinion it’s just bad for the psyche and health. No, of course, you will not go to beat old women with an ax (I hope), but the very sympathy for this gives rise to the "movement for the abolition of the death penalty", "they are people too" and other abominations.
            1. 0
              29 November 2020 11: 23
              Not so, colleague)))
              Not sympathy for the "killer", but the style of presentation - the one that was cursed by Leo Tolstoy, and I, the hurry-up schoolgirl, not only liked it - he simply pulled me into his snares as a proof of an interesting theorem. Style - slow, fluid, consistent, flawless in its logic)))
              1. +1
                29 November 2020 11: 40
                Style - yes, he knew how to write, he couldn't take it away, but he instinctively pushed me away, it was even somehow disgusting, somehow he was pulling me in the wrong direction. You see, such a feeling - well, don't talk about it. And, you know what you can compare with - with the film "Gentlemen of Fortune". A wonderful film, talented, wonderful, but so NILZYA about crime! This shouldn't be a joke. Or here is the work of Vysotsky, his criminal or alcoholic cycle - what cool bandits and alcoholics are there ... Or here is the "work" of Erofeev or Bukovsky.
                1. +1
                  29 November 2020 12: 52
                  Here, a colleague, I must say the following. My feeling of Vysotskoo's work, apparently, coincides with yours. I did not categorically accept the works of the bard, and I still do not accept them. A kind of gangster brutality, clung to the urban intellectual in the form of a creative mask - an intellectual who did not live in a criminal environment and a stranger to it. And since this is not a stage role that requires reincarnation, then everyday self-expression in this style seems fake to me. But the mask had grown, it was not possible to get out of it. Maybe this, and not something else, was the cause of Vysotsky's alcoholism.
              2. +1
                3 December 2020 20: 43
                I haven't read Dostoevsky for a long time, since school. But by the way, yesterday I discovered another amateur - a classmate. And I thought - what if you try to read "with a fresh look, 40 years later", here you are, what work of his would you recommend for this?
                1. +1
                  3 December 2020 21: 19
                  Not Dostoevsky)))
                  "Doomed City" by the Strugatskys. And yet - "Waves extinguish the wind"))
                  1. +1
                    4 December 2020 08: 10
                    It's strange why ???
                    Quote: depressant
                    Not Dostoevsky)))
                    I don't understand anything?!?!?!
                    But if you recommend it, I will. In general, they like "Monday" and "It's hard to be a god."
                    1. +1
                      4 December 2020 08: 47
                      Dear Kwas Colleague ...
                      The meanings and imperatives of the beginning of the last century do not apply to our time. In those days, research was actively going on - to kill or not to kill your neighbor. Believe me, huge masses of people felt that they would soon have to do this, their question was voiced by Dostoevsky. We are now at a loss: will they kill us or not? Whether or not we are transformed in the image and likeness of what is planned for us by the powerful of this world, can we resist? Where is the point of our strength? Is she not, or is she still there? The Strugatskys answer: in ourselves. In association with those few who understand this. But the masses will have to resist, perish and start the confrontation again and again. This is it, our time.
                      1. +1
                        4 December 2020 18: 38
                        Thank you.
                        Quote: depressant
                        The meanings and imperatives of the beginning of the last century do not apply to our time.

                        I completely agree. Especially the then intelligentsia. And for today ... there is no confusion, but times will be difficult, that's for sure.
    3. +9
      24 November 2020 12: 44
      Has something changed in 150 years?
      Yes, nothing has changed. People are being strenuously instilled with "distrust of the European Enlightenment" and the idea "that it is it that is the root of all evil."
      And at this time, a "narrow circle of people" "prefers to make big money on this under the protection of a strong monarchy."
  10. +3
    24 November 2020 09: 18
    That is, he had such an intention. But I could not figure out how to bring it to life without prejudice to the interests of the landowners. Therefore, he did not dare to take such a radical measure.

    Well, Catherine also had it, it seems, but with the same effect. Peter III, that's who was really going to. And after the decree "on the liberty of the nobility", he was supposed to issue a decree "on the liberty of the peasantry," but then his enlightened noblemen overthrew him, and then strangled him just in case, and declared Peter to be crazy.
  11. +6
    24 November 2020 09: 33
    A surprisingly weak article.
    If the author wanted to talk about the beginning of the provincial press and periodicals for soldiers (which is very interesting because of the low light), then it was necessary to write in more detail.
    And even the Soviet school textbook wrote better about liberalism and liberals in the XNUMXth century.
    So a chaotic article is perhaps an invitation to shit ... (sorry, for a discussion) is good
    1. +5
      24 November 2020 11: 23
      You know, Pavel, I could easily rewrite Tolmachev's dissertation and turn it 32 pages into 16 thousand characters. But ... I thought there was no point in that. What is easier and even more useful to do like this than to climb into the historical jungle. At least here everything is clear to everyone, like God's day. And yes, there is a certain message for discussion. And is that bad?
  12. +7
    24 November 2020 10: 00
    It should be noted that Woe from Wit was first published with significant abbreviations after the death of Griboyedov, in 1833, and was fully published only in 1862, and according to some sources, in 1875. The Auditor’s fate was also not easy, it was possible to obtain permission for the production only after Zhukovsky was able to personally convince Nicholas I that there is nothing unreliable in the comedy, that this is just a funny mockery of bad provincial officials, and the play was allowed to be staged. , the play was not officially banned, but there is such an interesting moment: Nicholas I ordered a play on the same plot, but with a different ending: all state embezzlers should be punished, which would undoubtedly weaken the satirical sound of the Inspector General and such a play "was made ", The Real Examiner was called. So, "satrap, he is a satrap" (c)
    1. +5
      24 November 2020 12: 09
      Daniel, apparently, now the times are just approaching when instead of the "Inspector" it will be strongly recommended to put the "Real Inspector")))
      After all, the tsar, having watched the performance, laughed for a long time and said that everyone got it, and most of all - he himself. Not all kings have such a high level of tolerance and self-esteem to endure this. Some people also have an inferiority complex. But the point is not so much in the tsar as in the supporting layer of the bureaucracy.

      As for the "Real Auditor" itself, in short the story is as follows.
      Almost three months after the premiere of The Inspector General, on July 14, 1836, a play in eight acts took place at the Alexandrinsky Theater. First, there were five acts of Gogol's comedy, and then three acts of "The Real Inspector" were shown.
      About a month and a half later, a similar performance took place in Moscow.

      The title of the play, published a short time later, read "The Real Inspector. A comedy in 3 acts by Tsitsianov, serving as a continuation of the comedy" Inspector. "In subsequent editions, it was clarified: the author is Prince Tsitsianov. And only in 1984, on the basis of archival documents, the complete the name of the writer is Dmitry Ivanovich Tsitsianov, a state and military employee from the clan of Georgian princes Tsitsishvili.
      So why did the "Real Auditor" appear?
      Officials!
      The officials ruled Russia then, and they still control it now.
      The official of the Department of Foreign Confessions FF Vigel, in a letter to the director of the Moscow imperial theaters MN Zagoskin, called Gogol "an enemy of Russia" and said: "I know the author of The Inspector General, this is young Russia, in all its insolence and cynicism." - thus expressing the attitude of the entire bureaucracy not only and not so much to the play, but to the changes that are urgently necessary according to its logic.
      1. +9
        24 November 2020 12: 21
        2 years ago, the media reported that in a certain city of Gubernsk the play Inspector General, officials banned the play Inspector General from the demonstration in the local theater. And then did you notice that now satire does not exist, neither in cinema, nor on television?
        1. +7
          24 November 2020 12: 46
          I noticed! I also noticed. A year ago. Like, times are hard now, the mournful expression of faces is presumed. And whoever bares his teeth is, by definition, an enemy! ))))
          Because I haven't watched TV for a year now)))
          1. +4
            24 November 2020 12: 54
            Like the classics, by the way, the Soviet ones:
            "- Is it sinful to laugh? - he said. - Yes, you can't laugh! And you can't smile! When I see this new life, these changes, I don't want to smile, I want to pray!" (C) .... A similar desire .. laughing
            "- Satire cannot be funny" (c) .... smile
          2. +5
            24 November 2020 14: 54
            And whoever bares his teeth is, by definition, an enemy! ))))

            Reminded:
            And who does not honor quotes,
            he is a renegade and a bastard,
            To that on a butt we will stick datszybao!
            Who will argue with Mao
            that will be repulsed
            His wife along with friend Lin Biao.
            laughing (V.S. Vysotsky).
            1. +4
              24 November 2020 16: 28
              Well yes...
              Are you for Mao or for Khrushchev? For Khrushchev. Take off your pants, we will beat. He took off his pants and beat him.
              For another day. Are you for Mao or for Khrushchev? For Mao. Take off your pants, we'll beat ...
              You know, I once laughed, imagining such a submissive, naive Wang, and the stupidity of the Chinese leadership. And last year, or even this, I saw a Singapore video - 10 blows with a bamboo stick on a soft spot for violating traffic rules. Colleagues, this is terribly scary. With one blow, human flesh is cut up to a centimeter or more deep, the edges of the wound are turned outward, and there are ten such blows (10!). This is how the power of Asian economies was built.
              1. +1
                29 November 2020 11: 18
                Yes, horror. But by the way, for what traffic violation? After all, it may very well be not just a violation, but one that really threatens people's lives? Then justified! In general, I am for the adequacy of the punishment, for theft - a good fine, for murder - execution, and for self-harm or rape you need a good flogging! And much less prisons are needed, however, savings!
          3. +3
            24 November 2020 17: 41
            Regarding TV, I agree in some way: the officialdom bothers, but alternative Internet TV is even worse. Or I am so "lucky" and fall for outright stupidity like "COVID came up with power" or "mummy for the fire and blessing to all." I try to critically perceive the officialdom and various Internet TV. The truth is somewhere nearby. And I watch TV: concerts, serials
        2. +3
          24 November 2020 12: 56
          But there is a "vertical"! And in the USSR there was "democratic centralism".
          1. +3
            24 November 2020 13: 12
            And now, there are enough verticals, horizontals, only there is no sense at all ... Everything is bad, many times more than under the "empire tsars" and the USSR ..
            1. +3
              24 November 2020 13: 55
              The worst is the natural continuation of the bad. A curved path, the further you go, the more difficult it is. Finding a narrow path for ourselves among swamps and potholes, our demiurges leave us the opportunity to sink and break ridges. At best, legs. Those willing to wander without changing direction are pulled out with a thin rope of handouts.
              1. +4
                24 November 2020 16: 22
                Which every year becomes thinner and thinner ...
              2. +2
                24 November 2020 16: 24
                Quote: depressant
                The worst is the natural continuation of the bad. A curved path, the further you go, the more difficult it is. Finding a narrow path for ourselves among swamps and potholes, our demiurges leave us the opportunity to sink and break ridges. At best, legs. Those willing to wander without changing direction are pulled out with a thin rope of handouts.

                How well you said!
              3. +3
                24 November 2020 17: 22
                Lyudmila Yakovlevna, I would not be able to say so figuratively.
            2. +2
              24 November 2020 14: 02
              Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
              Everything is bad, many times more than under the "empire tsars" and the USSR ..

              Progress! He goes not only in technology. It also happens: in technology, progress, and in society - quantitative "progress" of the negative turns into regression. Remember Nazi Germany? What is the progress in technology? And ... regression in ideology! Remember ancient Assyria. What is the progress in construction and military affairs. And what kind of cannibalistic bas-reliefs did they leave us? And what, by the way, did both these regressing powers end up with ...
              1. +2
                24 November 2020 16: 29
                And what kind of cannibalistic bas-reliefs did they leave us?
                If you look at it through the eyes of a modern person, and then it was commonplace, the gods in that era, many peoples were not merciful and demanded bloody sacrifices, alas ... they were not vegetarians ... Phoenicians, for example, were no better, although about their god , we judge by the work of their enemies ..
                1. +2
                  24 November 2020 16: 36
                  Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                  If you look at it through the eyes of a modern person, and then it was commonplace, the gods in that era, many peoples were not merciful and demanded bloody sacrifices, alas ... they were not vegetarians ... Phoenicians, for example, were no better, although about their god , we judge by the work of their enemies ..

                  No, you're wrong. The cruelty of the Assyrians, and we see it on their bas-reliefs, were already amazed by the people of their time. We are not talking about bloody sacrifices to the gods. But this is a long story. Type in Google the art of ancient Assyria ...
          2. +2
            24 November 2020 18: 08
            But there is a "vertical"! And in the USSR there was "democratic centralism".


            ... or the principle of "obligatory decision of the higher organizations for the lower ones" from the same place, from the vertical.
            1. 0
              24 November 2020 18: 57
              Vyacheslav Olegovich, yes, savoring the killing of lions. Numerous scenes skillfully executed in a bas-relief style. And Carthage? Hundreds of lions were crucified on crosses at a time. It seemed to be relevant for all of them. I went to fetch water, a lion ate you. Whom did the lion eat today? - a common topic of conversation between neighbors at the end of the working day.
              Now tell me ...
              What need makes the "nice, kind, humane" Danes massively slaughter hundreds of black dolphins that come to them once a year, so much so that the sea boils with blood? And this is a custom!
  13. BAI
    +3
    24 November 2020 10: 44
    and A.I. Herzen (the one who wrote: "Call Russia to the ax!")

    A.I. Herzen never wrote this. This "Letter from the province", addressed to A. I. Herzen signed "Russian man", was published in the 64th sheet of the "Bell" on March 1, 1860.
    No, our situation is terrible, unbearable, and only an ax can save us, and nothing but an ax will help! It seems that this idea has already been expressed to you, and it is surprisingly true, there is no other salvation. You have done everything you could to promote a peaceful solution of the case, change your tone, and let your Bell ring the alarm, not for a prayer service! Call Russia to the ax! Farewell and remember that faith in the good intentions of the tsars has been destroying Russia for hundreds of years, it is not for you to support it.

    With deep respect to you

    Russian Man.

    I would ask you to print this letter, and if you are printing the letters of your enemies, why not print a letter from one of your friends!

    There are still disputes in the literature about the author of this letter. It was suggested that the author could be N. G. Chernyshevsky or N. A. Dobrolyubov.
    1. +4
      24 November 2020 11: 25
      It is generally accepted that the editor is responsible for everything that is printed in his publication, especially for the signature of the anonymous author.
      1. BAI
        +1
        24 November 2020 13: 50
        the editor is responsible for everything that is printed in his publication,

        Even for them?
        and if you print the letters of your enemies

        And even here on the site (and not only it) there is a note - "The opinion of the editorial board may differ from the opinion of the author." Perhaps there is no need to tell anything about freedom of speech?
        And if we take into account the anonymous person - here is not an anonymous person, but a pseudonym (although, of course, there is no clear boundary).
        Someone A.P. Chekhov was published under the name "Antosha Chekhonte". What is the difference from the "Russian Man"?
        1. +2
          24 November 2020 16: 25
          Quote: BAI
          "The opinion of the editorial board may differ from the opinion of the author"

          I don't know if Herzen had such a postscript in his journal
          1. BAI
            +2
            24 November 2020 16: 38
            Well, attributed the authorship to another person, have the courage to admit the mistake. Well, why play that?
            1. +1
              24 November 2020 17: 35
              Quote: BAI
              Well, attributed the authorship to another person, have the courage to admit the mistake. Well, why play that?

              Why bustle at once? It's about what exactly and you don't know who wrote it, right? So anything can be. And mistakes, if they are proven I, you should have noticed, I always admit. In this case, it is not 100% proven. He could well have written it himself, but subscribed ... but whatever! The phrase is biting!
              1. BAI
                +1
                24 November 2020 22: 05
                then exactly and you do not know who wrote, right?

                No not like this. The point is that Herzen did not write this. And this is absolutely certain. It is even stylistically visible: "To the ax call Russia. "This is an appeal to someone. To yourself? They do not turn to themselves with fiery appeals. And higher up there they are already drawing logical conclusions around this message.
                1. 0
                  25 November 2020 05: 43
                  Wonderful! So I didn't write, but I was wrong in attributing this fact to him.
    2. +2
      24 November 2020 17: 08
      colleague BAI, read somewhere that this is Chernyshevsky, allegedly he wrote in a rush
      1. BAI
        +1
        24 November 2020 22: 09
        A number of literary scholars support your point of view:
        It was suggested that the author could be N. G. Chernyshevsky or N. A. Dobrolyubov.

        But here it is really difficult to define authorship. Until a handwritten original is found (if found).
        1. 0
          25 November 2020 14: 15
          I doubt it. It is unlikely that Hertsin or Ogarev collected handwritten archives.
  14. +8
    24 November 2020 12: 32
    The magazines for the education of soldiers of the Russian imperial army became absolutely unique for their time: "Reading for soldiers", "Soldier's interlocutor" and "Soldier's works"
    The first, apparently, was Napoleon, who for soldiers and officers organized the publication in 1797 of the Courrier de l'Armée d'Italie, and the newspaper was distributed free of charge. The second newspaper of this kind was La France à travers les yeux de l'armée (France through the eyes of the army).
    And in Russia, the idea of ​​creating a soldier's magazine belongs to Nicholas I. True, liberalism was unlikely to move the emperor. According to him, the magazine was supposed to "incite jealousy of military service" among the lower ranks. However, he expressed his idea, but did not give money, so Captain Chekmarev began publishing "Reading for Soldiers" with his own money. "Financing" was allocated only a year later.
  15. +3
    24 November 2020 17: 00
    "he considered Peter the Great to be a flying idial" if we touch upon Peter's mind and logic, it will not be the most rosy picture, but personal unpretentiousness commands respect
  16. +3
    24 November 2020 19: 39
    "The same Westernizers did not represent a single movement." Perhaps I am mistaken, but this is exactly the modern anti-Russian opposition. They are united only by rejection of Putin, and then: the American model (Navalny and Co.) "Stalinists", "evolutionists", "Manilovites (USSR without communists, with Jesus instead of Lenin) USSR2 (Andrey from Chelyabinsk).
    1. +1
      25 November 2020 00: 09
      USSR without communists

      It will then turn out the Kronstadt mutiny of 1921 - "for Soviets without communists." laughing
      1. +1
        25 November 2020 14: 07
        About that. But advice without political parties is a wedding without brides
  17. -1
    24 November 2020 20: 32
    the picture is not enough gays, lesbians, blacks, Latinos, and would be a modern Western democracy
    1. 0
      25 November 2020 05: 45
      Quote: Ryaruav
      the picture is not enough gays, lesbians, blacks, Latinos

      That is, people, right? From your comment, you are not quite human ...
  18. 0
    29 November 2020 11: 16
    Quote: There was a mammoth
    How about private ownership of "factories and ships" and liberalism?

    I already answered you: 80% of the property belongs to 20% of the population. It has always been that way. And at the same time 80% of the population is not smart enough, educated and socialized.