Military Review

The myth about Decembrism and "knights without fear and reproach"

272
The myth about Decembrism and "knights without fear and reproach"
St. Petersburg. Senate Square on December 14, 1825. Drawing by K. Kohlman


195th anniversary of the Decembrist uprising. A myth has been created in society about "knights without fear and reproach" who, for the sake of high ideals, were ready to sacrifice their own well-being and even life. However, the facts suggest the opposite: they were dangerous rebels and cynical conspirators, whose success would have led to disaster much earlier than 1917.

Knights?


In liberal pre-revolutionary Russia, a myth was formed about fearless fighters against absolutism. The noble elite, the color of the nation. People who tried to crush the serf system, "free" Russia from "slavery." The nobles who fought for the ideals of the Great French Revolution - freedom, equality and brotherhood.

Later, Soviet historiography (with some changes) supported this myth-making. V. Lenin called it the time of noble revolutionism. When the struggle against tsarism was led by a small group of the best representatives of the nobility, who, for the sake of lofty ideas, renounced their class and began a struggle for the liberation of the people. Lenin also noted:

“The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their case was not lost. "

In fact, the Decembrists were the predecessors of the Februaryists of the 1917 model.

A narrow elite group, influenced by the West, decided to "transform" Russia. Young people of nobility (mainly officers) fell under the influence of "advanced" revolutionary ideas that came from Europe. These were the ideas of predominantly French enlighteners and revolutionaries of the XNUMXth century.

Patriotic War of 1812 and overseas campaigns of the Russian army in 1813-1814. made it possible for the nobility and the officers to see the "progressiveness" of the elimination of serfdom, obsolete feudal order and absolutism (autocracy). Also, the idol of many members of secret societies was Napoleon and his progressive reforms. The officer youth began to create secret organizations, like Masonic lodges. Draw up revolutionary programs and coup plans.

In fact, the same thing happened in 1917 when the Russian elite opposed the tsar. The Decembrists, hiding behind quite humane slogans understandable to the majority, opposed the legitimate government. Objectively, they worked for the then “world community”, which was striving to weaken Russia at any cost. Hence the plans for the physical destruction of the royal family (these plans were carried out after the 1917 revolution).

However, by 1825, only an insignificant part of the elite of the Russian Empire was affected by decay. In general, the officer corps, generals, guards and officials were in favor of the king. And Nicholas I showed will and determination.

The Fifth Column in 1825 was a pitiful bunch of conspirators, stupid, poorly organized. They led the soldiers, who did not even understand what was happening. Therefore, the "first revolution" was easily crushed.

It is obvious that the palace coup in the capital and the subsequent "reforms" could cause confusion in Russia.

The emergence of various national separatists, the collapse of the country, uprisings in military settlements, peasant war (Pugachevism), the intervention of foreign powers.
The military "reform", the fall of the authority of the authorities and the hierarchy at the top (the officers 'actions against the authorities) led to the disintegration of the army and soldiers' riots. Also, the victory of the conspirators inevitably led to the struggle of moderate and radical revolutionaries.

The result is a severe crisis that would have thrown Russia politically and militarily and economically back tens or hundreds of years.

Any attempts to Europeanize Russia always lead to heavy losses and disaster.


A mortal wound to M.A.Miloradovich on December 14, 1825.
An engraving from a drawing by G.A.Miloradovich.

"Standing uprising"


The rebels planned on December 14 (26), 1825, to bring the controlled units to Senate Square before taking the oath of allegiance to the guard to Nikolai Pavlovich. The soldier was raised under the slogan of loyalty to the first, legal oath, loyalty to Emperor Constantine I (although he had already renounced the throne).

The fact that the Senate swore allegiance to Nicholas did not really matter. The main role was played by the guard. According to the plan of Sergei Trubetskoy (there were several of them, and they were constantly changing), the conspirators wanted to bring out into the street most of the guards regiments that had not sworn allegiance to Nikolai, and force him to renounce power.

And the Senate was supposed to promulgate a corresponding manifesto on the destruction of the former government and the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government. The Senate was supposed to approve the constitution, liquidate serfdom, introduce democratic rights and freedoms, liberalize the economy, reform the army and court, etc.

Then it was proposed to convene a National Council, which would determine the future structure of Russia. The majority were in favor of a constitutional monarchy, while some (Russkaya Pravda by Pestel) proposed a federal republic.

Interestingly, Tsar Alexander I, who had a good network of agents, regularly received reports of the growth of the spirit of free-thinking in the army and of a conspiracy directed against him. But he did nothing. During this period, the conspirators planned to raise a mutiny during army maneuvers in southern Russia in the summer of 1826. They wanted to capture or kill Alexander (that is, to overthrow the power).

The Southern conspiratorial society had greater forces than the Northern. It included several regimental commanders, General S. Volkonsky, who commanded the brigade. Only shortly before leaving, Alexander gave the order to begin the arrests of the conspirators.

The problem has already fallen on Nikolai. A few days before the uprising, he was warned by the chief of the General Staff Dibich and the conspirator Rostovtsev. Therefore, the Senate was sworn in in the morning.

When it became clear that most of the guards would not act, the conspirators returned to the use of force, traditional for the era of palace coups of the XNUMXth century.

The Naval Guards crew, in which most of the officers supported the secret society, had to refuse to take the oath to Nicholas, go to the Winter Palace, capture the imperial family and the guards generals. The Moscow Guards regiment blocked the approaches to the Senate and occupied it. The Grenadier Regiment was in reserve.

But as a result of internal contradictions among the conspirators, this plan collapsed. The confusion (improvisation) began.

By 11 o'clock, 600-800 Muscovites were brought to Senate Square. Later, the guards sailors (who were never taken to the Winter Palace) and the Life Grenadiers made their way to them. The rebels had about 3000 bayonets.

12 thousand soldiers (including 3 thousand cavalry), 36 guns were put up against them. The conspirators chose a wait and see tactic. They waited for darkness, hoping that some regiments would go over to their side, and government forces could upset the movement of the urban masses.

At first, Nikolai and his entourage tried to convince the soldiers to come to their senses. However, the Decembrist Kakhovsky shot at the hero of the Patriotic War, the favorite of the soldiers, the governor-general of St. Petersburg Mikhail Miloradovich. Having happily escaped wounds in more than fifty battles, the general also received a bayonet wound from Prince Obolensky. The mortally wounded commander allowed the doctors to remove the bullet that pierced his lung, examining it and seeing that it was fired from a pistol, he exclaimed:

“Oh, thank God! This is not a soldier's bullet! Now I'm completely happy! "

Also, Kakhovsky inflicted a fatal wound on the colonel, commander of the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment, Nikolai Sturler.

After unsuccessful attempts to bring the rebels to order, Aleksey Orlov (his brother Mikhail was a Decembrist), commanding the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment, personally went on the attack on the square of the rebels. But the demonstrative attacks were unsuccessful.

The guards artillery was put into action under the command of another hero of the wars with France, the chief of artillery of the guards corps Ivan Sukhozanet. The artillery scattered the rebels with its fire. The uprising was suppressed.


The plans "bloody and crazy"


The great Russian genius Alexander Pushkin accurately assessed the essence of the Decembrist uprising. In a note "On public education" he noted:

"... and secret societies, conspiracies, designs, more or less bloody and insane."

The rebellion on Senate Square inevitably led to unrest, "senseless and merciless." The Western Decembrists, who did not understand the essence of Russian civilization and the people, opened Pandora's box with their amateurish actions, like the Februaryists in 1917. The visible humanism of their slogans led in fact to a lot of blood.

In particular, the peasant question, key in Russia at that time, was poorly worked out by the Decembrists. According to most of their projects, the emancipation of the peasants was assumed without land, which the peasants themselves considered a form of robbery. That is, the Decembrists defended the interests of the nobility.

It is clear that this with a high probability led, especially in the context of a crisis of central power (palace coup) and army “reforms” (its destruction), to a new Pugachevism and a large-scale peasant war.

Plus the simultaneous confrontation at the top. The seizure of power by the Decembrists led to the resistance of a significant part of the generals, officers, court and bureaucratic elite. This led either to a counter-coup, or to a revolutionary dictatorship, terror (as it was in France and how it will be after 1917 in Russia).

It is worth noting the humanity and nobility of the sovereign Nicholas I. The military rebels were subject to execution. They planned a military coup and the possible liquidation of the dynasty. However, only 5 people were executed. Nikolai pardoned 31 (out of 36 sentenced to death by the court).

Active conspirators were awaited by hard labor and eternal settlement on the outskirts of the empire.

A significant part of the rebels were pardoned, only about 300 people were found guilty, 121 conspirators were brought to trial.

Only the Decembrists were punished. Relatives, friends and sympathizers were not persecuted, they retained their positions.

In Western Europe, England or France, with the same events, the heads would fly in hundreds and thousands. And blood would flow like a river there.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/, https://runivers.ru/
272 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 28 December 2020 05: 03
    -18%
    “The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their case was not lost. "

    Interestingly, Navalny and his group of associates fall under this definition. what
    Kakhovsky, of course, committed a great stupidity, bringing the matter to blood, there was no need for this, then the meat grinder had already begun.
    You cannot build happiness on deceit and blood of people, retribution will inevitably arrive.
    But on the other hand, the tsarist autocracy held back the political development of society ... social elevators were completely absent and the conflict was inevitable ... as we see in its worst form.
    I am trying to impose this tracing of history on our current reality ... the current Decembrists act in other ways, and not without help from abroad, more inventively ... but on the whole the situation is politically similar.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 28 December 2020 07: 33
      +2
      Muravyov's Constitution.
      -13. All Russians are equal before the face of the Law.
      14. All the indigenous inhabitants of Russia and the children of Foreigners born in Russia who have reached the age of majority are recognized as Ruski, if they have declared a desire to stay in Russia.


      16. Serfdom and slavery are abolished. The division between the noble and the throne is not accepted - because it is an image of pride and arrogance and is contrary to the Christian faith - according to which all people are brothers, all are born good, because they are born according to the will of God - all are born for good and all are just people, for everyone is weak before him

      24. The right to property, which contains one thing, is sacred and inviolable.
      Church lands remain forever with them.
      25. The lands of the landowners remain with them. A special law will determine the remuneration that the villagers are obliged to do, who decide to leave their village and move to another place - for a temporary interruption in the order of receiving income, with the land cultivated by these villagers.


      Yes, these "revolutionaries-nobles" thought first of all about themselves and their estates, and the people must also unfasten them in order to leave their lands.
      Well, Lenin just had to find examples of dialectics of the revolutionary movement among the people in the history of Ingushetia, but the teachings of Marx-Lenin turned out to be a false and even harmful delusion.
      1. silberwolf88
        silberwolf88 28 December 2020 10: 34
        +23
        The Decembrists, of course, are so-so ... But about the ideas of Marx and Lenin, my friend, apparently from illiteracy and not knowing the theory ... these ideas forced the capitalists to change their world and fill it with lumens with the ideas of consumerism instead of the proletariat ...
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 28 December 2020 10: 57
          -12%
          Quote: silberwolf88
          The Decembrists, of course, are so-so ... But about the ideas of Marx and Lenin, my friend, apparently from illiteracy and not knowing the theory ... these ideas forced the capitalists to change their world and fill it with lumens with the ideas of consumerism instead of the proletariat ...


          and you besides "my friend" still something from Lenin-Marx remember? For example, what formations should follow one another without going back? And the example of the USSR-Russia, what happened? That for socialism capitalism came again, and we were not told such a Marxlenin.
          This is so offhand, without penetrating into the rest, this is their "teaching".
          1. silberwolf88
            silberwolf88 28 December 2020 11: 38
            +13
            of course I remember ... and development in a spiral ... and then the current capitalism is already a different formation (we did not return to a different level) ... with all the signs and by the way according to Marx / Lenin)) ... and that the hegemon is already not a proletarian (they do not exist under current capitalism) and so on and so forth ... But this is already according to theory 4 of the economic structure (which, by the way, is no longer called capitalism)
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 28 December 2020 11: 50
              -7
              gag, just no need to drive, we were not told about any "spirals" of M / L, but only about the INEVITABLE change of formations, in fact this is not.
              "hegemon is not a proletarian", capitalism is not capitalism "- are you here either to confuse us, or deliberately mislead us.
              The whole history was ONE WAR for property and who will dispose of it, and to call it slave owners, feudal lords or capitalists is one and the same-OWNERS. On the other hand: NOT THE OWNERS - slaves, peasants, or hard workers; there is no land of our own - that means there is no possibility to be independent, and therefore to work all my life on my uncle, which we now see.
              1. Bar1
                Bar1 28 December 2020 12: 39
                -11%
                Quote: Bar1
                The whole history was ONE WAR for property and who will dispose of it, and to call it slave owners, feudal lords or capitalists is one and the same-OWNERS. On the other hand: NOT THE OWNERS - slaves, peasants, or hard workers; there is no land of our own - that means there is no possibility to be independent, and therefore to work all my life on my uncle, which we now see.

                I'll get better too, there weren't those without before, everyone was in society - in the world and therefore always had their share for life and for everything else.
                On the other hand, there were those who were going to break this order - let's call them so Christians / Jews / Muslims - one religion, who then introduced private property, and made everyone else indigent.
              2. Ross xnumx
                Ross xnumx 29 December 2020 15: 15
                -2
                Quote: Bar1
                We were not told about any "spirals" M / L

                Quote: Bar1
                this is the same-HAVING. On the other hand: NOT HAVING

                There are the OWNERS, and there are the UNOUTHOUSEDs - without a livelihood, the poor, living in need.
                There are LITERATE, there are ILLITERATE - DOORS ...
                Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. Everything that you have written about the change of social order in a certain order will be valid until the destruction of the existing one occurs. At the same time, the country is sliding back to the previous stage of development.
                I realized one thing:
                Any attempts to Europeanize Russia always lead to heavy losses and disaster.

                It was written by those who came to power after Peter I. How, today, we do not have enough beads and a toilet behind the yurt ...
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 29 December 2020 17: 28
                  0
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  ... Everything that you have written about the change of social order in a certain order will be valid until the destruction of the existing one occurs. At the same time, the country is sliding back to the previous stage of development.


                  this is your gag, they themselves came up with what would lick one place in power standing.
                  here is a quote from the textbook Scientific Communism.


                  Thanks to the philosophy and economic teachings of Marxism, it was established that the development of society is a natural-historical natural process of changing socio-economic

                       

                  1 V.I. Lenin. Full collection op. vol. 2, p. 6.

                  2 K. Marx and F. Engels. Vol. 23, p. 773.

                  34

                  formations. The consistent application of the materialist understanding of history and economic theory to the analysis of capitalist society made it possible to draw a conclusion about the natural nature of the emergence and victory of socialism.

                  Historical mission
                  the proletariat
                  Marxism not only substantiated the inevitability of replacing capitalism with socialism, but also discovered a social force capable of fulfilling this task. The working class is such a social force. "The main thing in Marx's teaching," Lenin emphasized, "is to clarify the world-historical role of the proletariat as the builder of socialist society."

                  http://bse.uaio.ru/76/nauchkom.htm

                  NOWHERE in the textbook Scientific Communism does it say that capitalism will come after socialism, but always the other way around.
          2. Alexander Greene
            Alexander Greene 29 December 2020 09: 14
            +3
            Quote: Bar1
            For example, what formations should follow one another without going back?

            Where did you read such nonsense? The change of formation is a whole epoch. There are rollbacks and rollbacks, an example of the Great French Revolution: the king's head was cut off - the republic, then the restoration of the empire, then the revolutions of 1830, 1848, again restoration - the Bourbons on the throne, and only after the Paris Commune of 1870, the current republic was established. England is similar. IN AND. Lenin warned. in the work "On the Significance of Gold for the Dictatorship of the Proeltariat" that we will have to start all over again more than once. So everything is still ahead.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 29 December 2020 09: 46
              -2
              Quote: Alexander Green
              Where did you read such nonsense? The change of formation is a whole epoch.

              Now, during the transition from the USSR to Putin's Russia, there has been a change in the form of ownership from nation-wide to private, which means capitalist. Did you also decide to fill a fog here?
              1. Alexander Greene
                Alexander Greene 29 December 2020 21: 06
                0
                A change in ownership is not a formation. There was a temporary rollback from socialism in a number of countries, but not in all. Socialism has survived in the PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos. Now a crisis is brewing all over the world, which will be engendered by new socialist revolutions. Capitalism replaced feudalism for almost 400 years.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 29 December 2020 21: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  Change of ownership is not a formation

                  It is the formation. Private property has returned, the refusal to control the quality of products-guests, the refusal of free education and medicine, in Russia the stratification into the poor and the rich is the largest in the world, and this is happening along the path of nepotism to power. Putin makes people work harder than before - the pension reform speaks about it. exploitation has increased and is likely to grow further.
                  In this country, the approach to power occurs not according to the principle, the most intelligent and skillful, but according to belonging to a certain nationality.
                  This is not even capitalism, but worse, colonial dependence on parasites.
                  So no need to drive.
                  1. Alexander Greene
                    Alexander Greene 30 December 2020 18: 02
                    0
                    Nobody drives anywhere. Explaining for the particularly dull. The formation of capitalism is a whole era with victories and defeats (restoration), and capitalism, despite 400 years of its development, has not yet won feudalism everywhere. So the formation of socialism is also a whole era, with victories and defeats. In Russia, a temporary restoration of capitalism took place, but in Asia the socialist states survived. So, I repeat again: Everything is still ahead.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 28 December 2020 13: 46
          +9
          Quote: silberwolf88
          these ideas made the capitalists change their world and fill it with lumens with the ideas of consumerism instead of the proletariat ...

          But was it not the proletariat itself that wanted to become a lumpen when it had everything in the USSR, but came out with the slogans "Down with the CPSU, you give 50 varieties of sausage!"
          Maybe you should not at least one-sidedly interpret the events of our history, and not exalt those who themselves wanted to live under capitalism, taking into account the fact that there were no capitalists themselves in the USSR.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 28 December 2020 19: 07
            +8
            taking into account the fact that there were no capitalists themselves in the USSR.

            There were shadow workers. And they merged with the party nomenclature, in the RSFSR - to a lesser extent, in the republics - to a greater extent. In general, at the end of the 80s, I was greatly surprised that the top did not try to preserve the state system at all, they were already preparing a change in the system.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 28 December 2020 19: 17
              +6
              Quote: Aviator_
              There were shadow workers. And they merged with the party nomenclature,

              Yes, there were, but their role was not the same as that of the "seven-bank", so there is no need to even remember this, especially since they were constantly caught and imprisoned for a long time, and not nominated to the Duma or governors, as now.
              Quote: Aviator_
              In general, at the end of the 80s, I was greatly surprised that the top did not try to preserve the state system at all, they were already preparing a change of the system.

              I think that they were afraid of bloodshed, and only because of this they decided not to aggravate the situation in the country, letting the whole thing go by itself. This is how the road to hell turned out to be paved with good intentions - if then several tens or hundreds of thousands of instigators were sent to the camps, then millions of people would still have their lives saved.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 28 December 2020 22: 57
                +6
                I think they were afraid of bloodshed

                Well, yes, they were afraid - Tajikistan, Transnistria, again, indulged the nationalists, instead of winding them on caterpillars, as the Chinese did in Tiananmen. They were preparing for scrapping the system and for themselves pieces of Soviet property.
            2. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 29 December 2020 11: 05
              +3
              As far as I understand, the population, all people saw that there was speculation in goods
              And services, ----- sales workers, got all sorts of things, in films about this ........ but I do not see indignation, like they fought, but somehow not much? Did everyone seem to agree? And most of all opportunities to get ----- from the leadership, the nomenclature. Here is just a rebirth. And the dream of 50 varieties of sausage, as the final touch .. It was a long and many years process
              Quote: Aviator_
              taking into account the fact that there were no capitalists themselves in the USSR.

              There were shadow workers. And they merged with the party nomenclature, in the RSFSR - to a lesser extent, in the republics - to a greater extent. In general, at the end of the 80s, I was greatly surprised that the top did not try to preserve the state system at all, they were already preparing a change in the system.
              1. Astra wild2
                Astra wild2 29 December 2020 17: 38
                +2
                Repteloid, I want to argue with you, but I don't see any arguments yet
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid 30 December 2020 18: 07
                  0
                  Quote: Astra wild2
                  Repteloid, I want to argue with you, but I don't see any arguments yet

                  hi came to the conclusion that it is doubly difficult to talk about the time when controlled rebirth began. Because for many, and perhaps you, Astra, it was a time of youth and recovery. ... and destructive changes were already underway. Milestones --- 1967 and the novel by Vsevolod Kochetov. You were inside that life. I am --- based on films and some facts ...
                  1. Astra wild2
                    Astra wild2 30 December 2020 18: 25
                    0
                    What novel are you talking about.? Once Kochetova read, but I DON'T REMEMBER AT ALL
          2. Minato2020
            Minato2020 29 December 2020 06: 40
            +3
            Quote: ccsr

            But was it not the proletariat itself that wanted to become a lumpen when it had everything in the USSR, but came out with the slogans "Down with the CPSU, you give 50 varieties of sausage!"


            At first there were slogans - "Down with the USSR" from the inhabitants of the Baltics in August 1989 .. Probably in the Baltics it was very bad with sausage, as well as with Riga balsam.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZmdhKmBdo
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 29 December 2020 11: 11
              +3
              made non-Balts a showcase of the USSR, so they imagined their exclusivity. It was necessary to leave, as the classic wrote - the shelter of the wretched Chukhonts.
              1. Plastmaster
                Plastmaster 29 December 2020 19: 16
                +1
                Quote: Reptiloid
                did not balance

                Yes, they were not made, but the places where monks come to the platform. There would be no ports, then they chewed corn.
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid 30 December 2020 16: 05
                  +2
                  What are they chewing now ---- wassat lol laughing and not to say, transit somewhere is already equal to 0, somewhere almost equal to 0, they asked to save crying applied ---- a vegetable to them for life. For Russophobia
                  Quote: Plastmaster
                  Quote: Reptiloid
                  did not balance

                  Yes, they were not made, but the places where monks come to the platform. There would be no ports, then they chewed corn.
          3. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
            Andrey Krasnoyarsky 29 December 2020 14: 41
            0
            An interesting thought you have: the proletariat in the USSR had everything, but did not have sausage.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 29 December 2020 19: 13
              +3
              Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
              An interesting thought you have: the proletariat in the USSR had everything, but did not have sausage.

              The proletariat could influence the government, but now no one sees it at all, and no one reckons with it. So they go whining, they block the road, then they go on hunger strike and wait for Putin to notice them.
              But what happened in the USSR in the first half of the 70s:


              Against the background of the supertanker "Crimea" built at the quay wall of the Zaliv plant, a huge number of yachts, on which any worker of the plant, having completed initial training in the yacht club of the plant or in the DOSAAF section, could go to sea. Another picture shows the nomenclature of only one cannery in the same city - so it was not so sad as those who did not live then tell about it.
              1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                Andrey Krasnoyarsky 30 December 2020 14: 34
                +1
                Oh, yes, on June 1-2, 1962, in Novocherkassk, the proletariat tried to influence the government. Remember how this influence ended?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 30 December 2020 18: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
                  Oh, yes, on June 1-2, 1962, in Novocherkassk, the proletariat tried to influence the government. Remember how this influence ended?

                  That you are running around with this Novocherkassk, as if after the collapse of the USSR, millions of former Soviet citizens did not die. Is the current Karabakh war not enough for you, where the number of deaths is hundreds of times greater than in Novocherkassk? No need to be hypocritical, but rather ask why in Siberia and the Urals no one came out at that time to demonstrate, and in the richest region suddenly began to live badly?
                  And this event itself was caused by a chain of accidents, and not by the fact that the Central Committee gave the command to shoot people - you do not know this or do not want to know?
              2. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 31 December 2020 02: 57
                +1
                ...... not everything is so sad .......
                This is precisely the cunning and cunning of the corrupt nomenklatura, that the degeneration took place slowly and gradually, reborn itself, the nomenclature changed the climate in society.
                Pioneer camps, sanatoriums, free flats and other social protection - it all continued ..... You say yachts? And not only. The whole DOSAAF system. Of course, diving or parachute jumping --- not everyone was available, but they were. But ---- are free. It is worth remembering the biography of Tereshkova. Now - who can use parachutes?
          4. Plastmaster
            Plastmaster 29 December 2020 19: 12
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            Maybe you should not at least one-sidedly interpret the events of our history, and not exalt those who themselves wanted to live under capitalism, taking into account the fact that there were no capitalists themselves in the USSR.

            As if yeah, and at the same time there was no talk of capitalism then. In those days, I argued that you can open the door for capitalism, but only so that the tail can slide through. But mostly people just wanted to live better. After a while, everything started.
          5. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 29 December 2020 19: 17
            +1
            Was it not the proletariat itself that wanted to become a lumpen when in the USSR it had everything

            The stupidity of the Kuzbass miners was transcendental, when they first demanded a transition from union to republican subordination, and then knocked on their helmets in Moscow, demanding wages, but the train had already left. So the proletariat of the early XNUMXth century and the end of the XNUMXth century are different proletarians.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 29 December 2020 19: 43
              +2
              Quote: Aviator_
              So the proletariat at the beginning of the twentieth century and the end of the twentieth century are different proletarians.

              Quite right. And those "connoisseurs" of Marxism who reproach Marx for every stupidity in his teaching do not want to take into account that he developed his theory on the basis of the proletariat that existed in Europe.
              Naturally, it never entered his head that the proletariat, having built a socialist state, and having defended it in bloody wars, would take it and simply degrade to such a level that it would voluntarily give up its gains.
              Certainly something can be blamed on him as a scientist, for example, that he believed in the internationalism of the proletariat, but not that he could not foresee the degradation of the hegemon himself. The CPSU accepted the proletariat without restrictions - everyone remembers who then lived. Apparently, not everything was taken into account, and the quantity did not grow into the quality of the party, judging by Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 29 December 2020 21: 27
                +1
                The CPSU accepted the proletariat without restrictions - everyone remembers who then lived. Apparently, not everything was taken into account, and the quantity did not grow into the quality of the party, judging by Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

                After Stalin, the party became unprincipled. Is it possible to call the building of communism in 20 years an idea, as Khrushch Kukuruzny proclaimed? And then - the ever-memorable "developed socialism", it also did not contain any ideas of development. So we have what we have.
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid 30 December 2020 18: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  ...... After Stalin, the party became unprincipled. Is it possible to call the building of communism in 20 years an idea, as Khrushch Kukuruzny proclaimed? And then - the ever-memorable "developed socialism", it also did not contain any ideas of development. So we have what we have.
                  I thought for a very long time --- what development could be then? For the CPSU. There could be an expansion of the socialist camp at the expense of new countries. Why did you stop.? They did not supervise the student unrest in '68 and beyond. ????? But they passed literally all over the world. They did not support the socialist government of Portugal in the 70s ... I'm not talking about the damage to the world communist movement that occurred as a result of the anti-Stalin campaign ... a lot of things did not want to do for development
                  1. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ 30 December 2020 19: 21
                    +1
                    You see, Dmitry, it was necessary to conduct a flexible economic policy with an immediate response to the overtures of various zealous fools-executors. In the early 30s, during collectivization, moods were continuously monitored, excesses were corrected (Stalin's article "Dizziness with Success"). But the party was reborn - the purges of the 30s stopped, and everyone who was not lazy was forced into it. As for the student unrest in 1968, it was an ordinary Maidan "for all good against all bad", in America - against the Vietnam War, for example. The hippies were too lazy to fight for the greatness of the United States, there was no such movement in the Korean War yet, and then these drug addicts decided that they did not need it. As for the "socialist" Portugal after 1974, you are in vain. There was no more socialism there than the SPD had in the 70s of the last century. To plant the poorest state of Western Europe in the mid-70s on your neck? Moreover, it is part of NATO.
                    1. Reptiloid
                      Reptiloid 30 December 2020 20: 08
                      +1
                      It was possible to somehow influence ... the socialists came to power in Portugal. We have always helped how many beggars. And not a beggar. Until recently, the Communist Parties of the United States and Britons. Did you save money here? As for student students, perhaps Sergey, you have not read everything about this, what was
                      ... And we did not find anything in common with the Latinos, they say, based on myths (Ecuador) Ours, after all, closed their eyes to much worse, helped ...
                      It seems to me that only through the strengthening of the socialist camp, including the economic system, could the renewal and development of socialism and the USSR take place.
                      1. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 30 December 2020 21: 46
                        +2
                        only through the strengthening of the socialist camp, including the economic system, could the renewal and development of socialism and the USSR take place.

                        Of course so. But there was no plan for the development of socialism in the USSR since the mid-60s. What can be discussed here with the Communist Parties of other countries? Oddly enough, but meetings of the Communist Parties in Moscow were held regularly, it is only unclear what they discussed there, probably current tactical issues - there was still no strategy. The 1973 energy crisis gave us a lot of trouble, when petrodollars in the USSR flowed like a river, the leadership decided that it would always be like this, but it was only 10 years. And the foreign communists got themselves out as best they could - the Italians, it seems, came up with the theory of Eurocommunism (Antonio Gramsci), I don’t know the specifics, but it seems that something like convergence. Sergei Kara-Murza has about it. The Communist Party of Cuba worked with the Latinos, and it worked well.
                      2. Reptiloid
                        Reptiloid 31 December 2020 03: 14
                        +1
                        It seems to me that both the unification of the countries by the Warsaw Pact and COMECONThat was the most important thing that aroused the anger of the West. Creation and development of opposition, a viable system of anti-capitalism.
                        And about petrodollars, yes! But not only the aforementioned harm, but also the lack of control of these funds for the top, the ability to appropriate and, probably, from that time on, dreams of turning state property into private began. As for the movements in Latin America, there were good articles by Ilya Polonsky. However, not only there.
                      3. Aviator_
                        Aviator_ 31 December 2020 09: 59
                        +1
                        It seems to me that both the unification of the countries by the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon, this was the most important thing that aroused the anger of the West.

                        Naturally, the political and economic unification of the socialist countries was necessary, but as the leaders of the previous generation left (although there were also not very smart ones, for example, Rakosi in Hungary), the CMEA and the Warsaw Pact became more and more amorphous. So under Georgiu-Deja, the Romanians would have supported the introduction of troops into Czechoslovakia, and under Clement Gottwald, the introduction of troops would not have been required at all. But the rebirth was not only for us, but also for them. Fidel alone survived.
  2. aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 28 December 2020 11: 13
    +14
    Quote: Bar1
    But the teachings of Marx-Lenin turned out to be a false and still harmful delusion.

    Where is it false? Can you be more specific? and in what harm? winked
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 28 December 2020 11: 14
      -10%
      Quote: aybolyt678
      and you besides "my friend" still something from Lenin-Marx remember? For example, what formations should follow one another without going back? And the example of the USSR-Russia, what happened? That for socialism capitalism came again, and we were not told such a Marxlenin.
      This is so offhand, without penetrating into the rest, this is their "teaching".

      and you besides "my friend" still something from Lenin-Marx remember? For example, what formations should follow one another without going back? And on the example of the USSR-Russia, what happened? That for socialism capitalism came again, and we were not told such a Marxlenin.
      This is so offhand, without penetrating into the rest, this is their "teaching".
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 28 December 2020 11: 29
        +15
        Quote: Bar1
        and you besides "my friend" still something from Lenin-Marx remember?

        I remember .. My friend. Another class struggle. Only history shows that a person flows from class to class very easily. From the 21st century, after more than 100 years, it is easy to sling mud and blame, it is much more difficult to realize that the Soviet state was built not with the help of Western capitals or relying on its rich people, but exclusively on Ideology, and developed very well. The mistake was the departure from the doctrine of surplus value. But all this would not be critical if the system of power of the elderly would allow changes in theory. Marx Lenin were not mistaken, we were mistaken in transforming their opinion into Dogma.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 28 December 2020 11: 32
          -9
          Quote: aybolyt678
          I remember .. My friend. Another class struggle. Only history shows that a person flows from class to class very easily. From the 21st century, more than 100 years later, it is easy to sling mud and blame, it is much more difficult to realize that the Soviet state was built not with the help of Western capitals or relying on its rich people, but solely on Ideology. The mistake was the departure from the doctrine of surplus value. But all this would not be critical if the system of power of the elderly would allow for changes in theory. Marx Lenin were not mistaken, we were mistaken in converting their opinion into Dogma.

          Don't you read what I said? THE MAIN THING.
          The reverse movement of formations along M / L is unacceptable. But in fact it is. Therefore, these gentlemen-comrades were not just mistaken themselves, but also all people were misled.
          1. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 28 December 2020 11: 44
            +9
            Quote: Bar1
            Reverse movement of formations according to M / L is unacceptable, but in fact it is

            If you look in our country, the homeland of socialism, then yes. And thanks to the USSR, in some places free education with medicine, elements of socialism, social benefits appeared in the world. So there is movement.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 28 December 2020 12: 04
              -12%
              Quote: aybolyt678
              If you look in our country, the homeland of socialism, then yes. And thanks to the USSR, in some places free education with medicine, elements of socialism, social benefits appeared in the world. So there is movement.

              not this way.
              Marx invented all these formations for one purpose, in order to hide the true history of mankind. Previously, Russian society and the rest of the world lived according to different laws, what Marx put into the most distant past, at the beginning of human development: this is the Primitive Communal system / primitive communism. But it was not "primitive communism", but this is how the ALL RUSSIAN SOCIETY lived until Peter the Cursed.
              All the land belonged to the WORLD / COMMUNITY and it could not be taken away by the tsar, the boyar, and even less by any official. And such an order, such a way of life was correct for the life of human society. There were no huge cities, this was not allowed, because the city breaks traditions and life, and all production relations, and there were industrial settlements, for production, like Arkaim. And the Russian people lived richly and prosperously, not like the workers / peasants lived under the Romanovs - they were swollen with hunger.
              Accordingly, religion, or it can correctly call the outlook of people different: People were not "slaves of God", but children of nature, therefore that society was built, what it cannot build; aqueducts, pyramids, megalithic temples - what has come down to us.
              1. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 28 December 2020 12: 07
                +3
                Quote: Bar1
                , and this is how the ALL RUSSIAN SOCIETY lived until Peter the accursed.

                just a question - what about the princes' civil strife?
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 28 December 2020 12: 13
                  -14%
                  Quote: aybolyt678
                  just a question - what about the princes' civil strife?

                  We do not know our history. We are told that the princes were the sovereign masters of the land, but most likely not so. The princes were hired governors to protect the peace / community and their power was limited, i.e. they could be asked from the community. And all the authorities, including the armed - let's say - guards were subject only to the people's circle / veche. Therefore, "civil strife" is perhaps some kind of transition period in the civil war of those years.
                  1. aybolyt678
                    aybolyt678 28 December 2020 12: 16
                    +7
                    Quote: Bar1
                    And all power, including the armed - let's say - guards were subject only to the people's circle / veche.

                    read about birch bark letters, about the texts on them, about the Truth of Yaroslav the Wise. That is, Pravda itself without comment. Work hard and don't listen to what they tell you. Better read more
                  2. Bar1
                    Bar1 28 December 2020 12: 30
                    -10%
                    Quote: aybolyt678
                    read about birch bark letters, about the texts on them, about the Truth of Yaroslav the Wise. That is, Pravda itself without comment. Work hard and don't listen to what they tell you. Better read more

                    read already. And you read the study of Fomenko-Nosovsky, that Veliky Novgorod in the ancient manuscripts and Novgorod on the Volkhov are not correlated with each other.

                    the map of the 16-17 centuries, you can't say more precisely, is Amsterdam, as we see there are TWO Novgorods, the old one is on the Volga, it is Yaroslavl and the new one on the Volkhov, as well as the whole region is Novogardia. This is apparently a map of the transition period.
                    As for the letters, then apparently Yanin and co did a good job, as with Stonehenge, you cannot understand where the truth is and where the lie is.
                  3. aybolyt678
                    aybolyt678 29 December 2020 00: 23
                    +2
                    Quote: Bar1
                    you will not understand where the truth is and where the lie.

                    find an old book by Vladimir Chivilikhin "Memory", an archaeologist and a talented writer .... I was brought up on it
              2. Astra wild2
                Astra wild2 28 December 2020 13: 25
                +7
                Bar, in fact, there was a veche in Novgorod and Pskov, and Kiev, Vladimir, Tver and smaller cities did not have a veche
              3. Bar1
                Bar1 28 December 2020 20: 12
                -7
                Quote: Astra wild2
                Bar, in fact, there was a veche in Novgorod and Pskov, and Kiev, Vladimir, Tver and smaller cities did not have a veche

                there was no OI, i.e. we simply do not know this. But the fact that in any Russian society, a city or village had its own government in the form of OWN CIRCLE-WORLD, such a phenomenon was noted by history. In Kiev there was a Rada-this too- Our Circle, in the Cossack troops there was a Cossack The circle, the streltsy troops had their own Circle, and even the janissary troops had their own Hearth-Circle, which was divided into Horde units, and the Sultan was elected on the Circle.
            2. silberwolf88
              silberwolf88 28 December 2020 19: 55
              +5
              You at least read Lev Gumilyov to raise the general level of understanding of history in an inextricable connection ... but I'm surprised ... that you are not a famous fantasy writer ...
            3. aybolyt678
              aybolyt678 29 December 2020 07: 50
              +1
              Quote: Bar1
              Therefore, "civil strife" is perhaps some kind of transition period in the civil war of those years.

              Aha smile were there wars ?? civilians! between the layers? and what kind of wealth and prosperity during the war? What varieties of wheat were there? frost-resistant, drought-resistant? sowed wheat and went together to gather pearls? wassat
              - Dear Bar! do not become a victim of information war! read the old history textbook for the 6th grade! Information warfare is aimed at destroying the primary concepts of the world, family, country and even sex (when the digestive organs are used for sex wassat mouth and anus). By destroying these concepts, enemies easily instill others convenient to them! and society (the average person) loses its foundations and guidelines.
            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. Bar1
              Bar1 29 December 2020 08: 33
              0
              about sex and anus, you here ask any cat-like, they know better, since such interest.
              The fact that people have no landmarks is noticeable.
              But the guides are the same: our Motherland, our Land, our Russian people, our Russian Women - all this needs to be protected from attacks from non-Russians. It has always been, it is happening now. We stand on that.
            6. aybolyt678
              aybolyt678 29 December 2020 08: 45
              +1
              +++ plus sign for you! progress is, I see you began to doubt, think about the realities. Soon you will become completely tame laughing
              for a start I will say that there is Truth and Truth. Truth is different, Truth is one. Truth is based on known facts and their interpretation depending on interests. Truth is all known and unknown facts and disinterested interpretation.
              During the period of my dissertation defense, in the late 90s, I met "scientists" who defended dissertations with delusional topics: for example, "the influence of the animal owner's experiences on his recovery." I'm a veterinarian. So in such a dissertation, in all seriousness, it was said about some kind of biofields and vitality that helps and improves ........ scientific and practical value, it did not represent. But they had sponsors, the Soros Foundation and others ... So, pearls from Russian peasants from the same opera. Sorry if this offends you smile
            7. Bar1
              Bar1 29 December 2020 08: 57
              -2
              Quote: aybolyt678
              So in such a dissertation, in all seriousness, it was said about some kind of biofields and vitality that helps and improves ........ scientific and practical value, it did not represent.

              um, recently one scientist, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Pyotr Goryaev, died. He seemed to be able to do something and it was on the basis of e / m and sound fields.

              https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBtJD6SOKn459ljY2mZt6Rw
            8. aybolyt678
              aybolyt678 29 December 2020 12: 57
              0
              In science, a prerequisite is the repeatability of the result ... There are many people who have settled down (with a scientific degree) who claim a breakthrough or even a discovery, but in fact it turns out to be a newspaper duck. There is a lot of noise, the name is on hearing, some devices or herbal preparations that improve health are being sold under this noise ...
              in fact, a real scientist may not have enough life to write one line in a history or virology textbook.
  3. VengefulRat
    VengefulRat 28 December 2020 16: 57
    +3
    You are a huge plus, supporters of alternative history are a huge minus.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 06: 45
      0
      Quote: VengefulRat

      You are a huge plus, supporters of alternative history are a huge minus.


      So the Mongol Yoke was, as described in the history books? Or it was invented in due time,
      as an alternative history?
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 28 December 2020 12: 09
    +5
    Quote: Bar1
    And the Russian people lived richly and prosperously, not like the workers / peasants lived under the Romanovs - they were swollen with hunger.

    your diet is not mushroom by chance? what are you reading? where is it from?
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 28 December 2020 12: 19
      -11%
      Quote: aybolyt678
      your diet is not mushroom by chance? what are you reading? where is it from?

      you don't know anything except textbooks of "scientific" communism.
      An example of collective property is the society of Russia, and not some kind of "ancient" one, but examples from the 16-17 century.
      What are these facts? And these are letters - memoirs or reports of foreign ambassadors.
      -Adama Olearius.
      -Juan the Persian
      -Paul Alepsky
      -Francheso Tiepolo
      -Perkamoto
      -Weight
      All these authors argued that Russian society does not just live prosperously, but most importantly, there is no difference between the nobility and ordinary peasants. Peasant women can be dressed in the same clothes as the boyars and wear jewelry that the nobility has. And this is so: there is a wonderful lecture by Alexander Vlaimirovich Pyzhikov "On pearl production in Russia and who the mermaids were"
      where he says that there were a lot of pearls in Russia: here is a real researcher of the past and not from textbooks for the 6th grade.
      And such wealth and prosperity could exist only if the Russian society did not live according to the laws that Marx describes with his "formations".
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 29 December 2020 00: 18
        +1
        Quote: Bar1
        And such wealth and prosperity could exist only if the Russian society did not live according to the laws that Marx describes with his "formations".

        why, then, did collectivization proceed with a creak?
      2. Minato2020
        Minato2020 29 December 2020 06: 55
        +2
        Quote: aybolyt678

        Why, then, did collectivization proceed with a creak?


        Because, in private, the peasants' own instincts prevailed over the social ones and there was no awareness of the need for joint survival.
      3. Bar1
        Bar1 29 December 2020 09: 31
        -2
        Quote: aybolyt678
        why, then, did collectivization proceed with a creak?

        because the Bolshevik "collectivization" was pseudo-collectivization. To live in a collective, in one's own circle, does not just mean working together with the collective, but also to sell the products of their labor together and share the income together. And the Bolsheviks took EVERYTHING from the peasants and the peasants worked just for food in this Bolshevik collective. A concentration camp can also be called a collective, and an association is a collective, but in fact it is not collectivization.
      4. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 29 December 2020 13: 01
        0
        but what about the Kooptorg chain of stores? At the same time, take an interest in the results of the work of collective farms in Georgia in the 30s.
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 29 December 2020 07: 35
    +1
    Quote: Bar1
    What are these facts? And these are letters - memoirs or reports of foreign ambassadors.
    -Adama Olearius.

    the authors you mentioned are not scientists. Moreover, based on modern concepts, the ambassador is a disguised spy. Sometimes a spy needs disinformation stuffing. I guess you bought it, hundreds of years later lol
  • Bar1
    Bar1 29 December 2020 08: 48
    -1
    Quote: aybolyt678
    the authors you mentioned are not scientists.

    and Nestor (The Tale of Bygone Years) or, say, Adam of Bremen (History of the Slavs), which new generations of historians refer to, are these scientists? Do not invent superfluous entities for yourself.
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 29 December 2020 12: 45
    +1
    Quote: Bar1
    Nestor (Tale of Bygone Years)

    it's more of a piece of art. And here is Yaroslav's Truth - a set of laws by which they lived
  • Bar1
    Bar1 29 December 2020 14: 00
    -1
    Quote: aybolyt678
    it's more of a piece of art. And here is Yaroslav's Truth - a set of laws by which they lived

    what are you! For such words, academic science will live with you. PVL is the BASIS of Russian history, in their understanding.
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 29 December 2020 15: 43
    0
    I confess I just read the beginning, but I don't think that PVL is a source beyond doubt. In the end, he writes about what he has heard or read. There have always been fictions
  • ccsr
    ccsr 29 December 2020 19: 24
    +2
    Quote: aybolyt678
    There have always been fictions

    Even now, 75 years after the Victory, there are so many fables about the Great Patriotic War, including thanks to our advanced liberal historians, that in another 100 years it may turn out that it was we who attacked Hitler and, in addition, lost the war, since the USSR in 1991 year ceased to exist. And to speak about that time only on the basis of the "Tale of Bygone Years" is certainly possible, but how true everything will look, hardly anyone will say even now.
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 28 December 2020 12: 01
    +5
    can I complete the answer? - the opinion of M / L was based on the knowledge of the 19th century, but for example I am outraged that they did not use the laws of biology in their theoretical calculations, for example, about the behavioral reactions of animals. Social laws originated precisely from them - food, sexual and protective types of reactions. The herd instinct, as a kind of protective type of behavioral reactions, is precisely the analogue of socialism in humans! Ideology is awareness need exactly co-survival, without diseases inherent in capitalism.
  • Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 29 December 2020 19: 23
    0
    Quote: Bar1
    and also all people were misled.

    Not at all. The works were experimental, on pieces of paper. With a certain upbringing of the younger generation, everything would work.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 28 December 2020 19: 23
    +5
    Quote: Bar1
    That for socialism capitalism came again, and we were not told such a Marxlenin.

    And Marxism is not a dogma - you could not even understand this postulate of the theory, but you are already undertaking to criticize the doctrine. Well, well, "theorist" ...
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 28 December 2020 19: 51
      -4
      Quote: ccsr
      And Marxism is not a dogma - you could not even understand this postulate of the theory, but you are already undertaking to criticize the doctrine. Well, well, "theorist" ...

      Well, you're just a local chatterbox about anything.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 28 December 2020 19: 57
        +4
        Quote: Bar1
        Well, you're just a local chatterbox about anything.

        I taught for five years a course in Marxism-Leninism, including the philosophy of this teaching, so I know what I'm talking about. But I wonder if you know at least something from history, philosophy, political economy or scientific communism, or just like that blah blah blah?
        I think it will be just funny for some to find out where another "critic" of Marxism-Leninism came from and what is behind him - so do not be shy, inject ...
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 28 December 2020 19: 59
          -5
          Quote: ccsr
          I taught for five years a course in Marxism-Leninism, including the philosophy of this teaching, so I know what I'm talking about. But I wonder if you know at least something from history, philosophy, political economy or scientific communism, or just like that blah blah blah?
          I think it will be just funny for some to find out where another "critic" of Marxism-Leninism came from and what is behind him - so do not be shy, inject ...

          I’m talking about business, and I’m not just chattering here, like you, so there’s nothing to talk about.
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 28 December 2020 13: 17
    +6
    Good day to all.
    I read Muravyov's version. In fact, it is a mixture: sinful and righteous.
    What will the peasant do without land: again go to the landowners as laborers?
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 December 2020 19: 50
      -1
      The most interesting thing is that the same Benckendorff, who took an active part in the investigation, let his peasants go with the land and then made money on services for them ... but the Decembrists did not do this, because they were dreamers who wanted everything at once and just like that .. in the end, they themselves were calmly sent to hard labor, where they "studied philosophy and foreign languages", and ordinary soldiers went under the ice
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 28 December 2020 20: 01
        0
        Quote: Boris Chernikov
        he released his peasants with the land and

        In hudlite.
        1. Fat
          Fat 28 December 2020 20: 35
          +1
          In which? OH. Benckendorff released the serfs in 1816 with land and without ransom, after the war with Napoleon ... Maybe this is the same legend?
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 28 December 2020 21: 34
            +3
            Quote: Thick
            In which?

            Alexander Bashkuev. The calling of the Varangian.
            Quote: Thick
            OH. Benckendorff released the serfs in 1816 with land and without ransom, after the war with Napoleon ...

            First, not all.
            Secondly, without land.
            Thirdly, it was not his initiative, but one of the reforms of Emperor Alexander. In 1816-18, serfs were freed in the three Ossetian provinces.
            Quote: Thick
            Maybe this is the same legend?

            No. Just a stupid fake.
            https://7x7-journal.ru/posts/2015/04/05/ocherednaya-falshivka-v-internete-teper-uzhe-kasatelno-benkendorfa
            Alexander Khristoforovich has enough merit not to resort to such nonsense.
            1. Fat
              Fat 28 December 2020 22: 18
              0
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              No. Just a stupid fake.

              Maybe fake, but not so stupid.
              https://w.histrf.ru/articles/article/show/kriestianskaia_rieforma_v_ostzieiskom_kraie_1804_1819
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 28 December 2020 22: 43
                +1
                Well, what is Benckendorff's merit in this?
                By the way, he had estates not only in Estonia.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 28 December 2020 16: 53
    0
    Such an article with an inversion of the incident "fur inside" should have appeared in the current state of affairs in a great power. To condemn categorically the first attempt to fix things in the country For, both here and there
    the ruler is weak and crafty,
    bald dandy, enemy of labor,
    warmed up by glory
    reigned over us then.
    A.S. - our everything-
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 02
      0
      Quote: Galleon

      A.S. - our everything-


      Well, if A.S. Pushkin is our everything, then from him

      The earth is motionless - the Heaven of the Vault,
      Creator, supported by you,
      May they not fall on land and water
      And they won't overwhelm us with themselves.

      You lit the sun in the universe
      May it shine on Heaven and Earth,
      Like flax, drunk with oil,
      Crystal shines in the lamp.

      Pray to the Creator; he is mighty:
      He rules the wind; on a sultry day
      It sends clouds to the sky;
      Gives the earth a woody canopy.

      He is merciful: he is Mohammed
      He opened the shining Quran,
      May we flow to the light,
      And let the fog fall from the eyes.
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 29 December 2020 07: 56
        +1
        Quote: Minato2020
        Well, if A.S. Pushkin is our everything, then from him

        So what? This is Pushkin's "Imitation of the Koran". The Koran is generally a poetic form. There is a wonderful translation of the Koran by Porokhova. Almost Pushkin style is sustained there. smile
  • Vikking1966
    Vikking1966 18 January 2021 12: 27
    0
    One wrote nonsense, you aggravate it ... The fact that you have turned to a historical document is good, but the fact that you do not know how to draw conclusions from historical documents is bad.
    I'll start with the document you provided. If you read the events of a later time (the reign of Alexander II) or find another document "Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom of February 19 (March 3) 1861", then you will see that the developers of the Manifesto took a lot from Muravyov's Constitution. And Lenin did not have to look for a long time "in the history of RI for examples of the dialectic of the revolutionary movement among the people", there were more than enough of them even without the December uprising (peasant riots, uprisings, wars). The Decembrists, however, became an example of the fact that among the nobility there are people who are ready for change (perhaps Lenin was trying to explain the participation of the nobles in the social democratic movement by this). As for the Marxist teaching, your statement about it speaks only of your primitivism and lack of education. For confirmation of the correctness of the provisions of "Capital" by K. Marx is visible today with the naked eye.
  • Civil
    Civil 28 December 2020 09: 36
    +8
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    But on the other hand, the tsarist autocracy held back the political development of society ... social elevators were completely absent and the conflict was inevitable ... as we see in its worst form.

    1. Well, why are you so. The author in his article hints that the autocracy based on serfdom is the future of Russia. The peasants still fondly remember the master's favorite whip.
    2. The author believes that for happiness the population should be returned to the Nikolaev tube system. To prohibit teaching the mob to read, and even more so to the exact sciences.
    3. All residents of the national outskirts are recognized as foreigners and deprived of their rights.
    4. That's just the author, are you sure that the gentlemen will take you? Or will you, just like now, a serf clerk, to write such wonderful opuses on praising slavery and licking the owner's favorite boot, only not for money, but for food?
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 11: 13
      +6
      Quote: Civil
      1. Well, why are you so. The author in his article hints that the autocracy based on serfdom is the future of Russia. The peasants still fondly remember the master's favorite whip.
      2. The author believes that for happiness the population should be returned to the Nikolaev tube system. To prohibit teaching the mob to read, and even more so to the exact sciences.
      3. All residents of the national outskirts are recognized as foreigners and deprived of their rights.
      4. That's just the author, are you sure that the gentlemen will take you? Or will you, just like now, a serf clerk, to write such wonderful opuses on praising slavery and licking the owner's favorite boot, only not for money, but for food?

      You wrote a very good post! Especially in the end - it amazes me too, in those who are so nostalgic for the old order that they, of course, see themselves in the nobility. hi
  • Odessa Greek
    Odessa Greek 28 December 2020 23: 35
    -3
    Kakhovsky shed blood, and Lyokha Navalny did his stupidity - replacing the "smeared" with poison bottles of water with "sprinkled" with the poison of a coward ..... In Russia, a lot is forgiven, but parsley is not respected .... although they regret good
  • Kart
    Kart 29 December 2020 15: 36
    0
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    Interestingly, Navalny and his group of associates fall under this definition.

    Are they also "young officers from noble families"?
  • zenion
    zenion 29 December 2020 21: 38
    0
    With such a good tsarism, where the tsar will share the last piece with the poor. This was their inspiration. But Kozma Prutkov did not know about this, and Pushkin did not know. And only in February 1916 they found out about it. Now everyone knows about it through this composition. But, thank God, the power has returned to the right place. And the people go where they are put in the stall.
  • zenion
    zenion 29 December 2020 22: 19
    0
    Lech from Android. (Lech from Android). The wrong were the nobles, not like in England, who forced the king to sign a paper that they would rule the country, and the king would sign. In the opinion of this master in Russia, no one would have thought of this, the cells were not gray, but noble ones. It happens that some are struck in the middle of the night by an idea, like a hammer on a cast iron, and they sit down to write before they wake up. As if it was not a mongrel in the First World War that pushed the king away from the throne, and the throne was broken. If it were not for the Bolsheviks, there would be a globe with a certain territory outlined on which there would be an inscription - there used to be the Russian Empire here.
  • your1970
    your1970 29 January 2021 08: 42
    0
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    societies ... social lifts were completely absent and the conflict was inevitable ... as we see in its worst form.

    Well, you are running around with these social elevators - to say the least ...
    So the social lift worked in relation to Mishka Gorbachev - and where is the country ??? !!! In my opinion, if the hands of the first organization that first nominated him and voted for him had dried up, all over the place !!! so that they could not vote - that would be great ...
    And how many of these were the pests whose lifts lifted up - trains ...
    Of course, the USSR could not stand it and collapsed
  • armannu
    armannu 28 December 2020 05: 07
    +8
    However, the victory of Nicholas I, a protective direction, led to a catastrophe in the Crimean War.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 28 December 2020 05: 22
      +5
      The catastrophe in the Crimean War still forced the tsarist autocracy to take up the reorganization of Russia.
      1. armannu
        armannu 28 December 2020 05: 25
        +13
        Exactly.
        And the abolition of serfdom from the same place.
        You can hang dogs on the Decembrists, but this does not make their opponents either ideal or even a worthy alternative.
        1. Russian jacket
          Russian jacket 28 December 2020 06: 00
          +14
          Uh-huh. But what about the fact that the Decembrists are the same owners of serfs? Who or what prevented them from setting an example and freeing their serfs and providing them with a land plot for the master?
          1. DNS-a42
            DNS-a42 28 December 2020 09: 49
            +6
            It would be like asking a few Russian oligarchs today to give up their wealth in favor of the state, hoping that all the other oligarchs will be inspired by their example and will do the same. The result will be obvious.
            1. Russian jacket
              Russian jacket 28 December 2020 10: 56
              +5
              I agree. But these brawlers, as the rather meanly murdered Miloradovich called them like, dreamed of freedom ...
            2. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 11: 15
              +1
              Quote: DNS-a42
              It would be like asking a few Russian oligarchs today to give up their wealth in favor of the state, hoping that all the other oligarchs will be inspired by their example and will do the same. The result will be obvious.

              Or there to heal, at their own expense, a couple of sick children, and the rest like, let them die, it means no luck!
      2. Minato2020
        Minato2020 28 December 2020 06: 07
        0
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        The catastrophe in the Crimean War still forced the tsarist autocracy to take up the reorganization of Russia.


        What kind of disaster are we talking about? Nicholas I did not lose the Crimean War. Because the British Empire did not achieve its goals.

        In 1853, the British Empire attacked Russia in 5 places
        - Petersburg - the Baltic Sea,
        - Arkhangelsk - White Sea,
        - Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka,
        - Baku-Caspian Sea
        - Own Crimea.

        At that time, as the first major blow, the British Empire delivered exactly in the heart of Russia - the capital of Petersburg in 1853.
        Did you take Petersburg? - No! Selected Crimea? - No!
        Not a word about the fact that he did not take either Arkhangelsk, or Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, or Baka. And then the British took Sevastopol - nothing was given to them, the British pillaged Sevastopol, but they were forced to leave, like the French 40 years earlier in Moscow.
        And only after the attack of the British Empire and allies from all over the world drank in St. Petersburg, only then the British Empire decided to bite off Crimea.
        Both France and Germany were on the side of the British Empire; The British drove with them the Indians, the French Zouavov (originally the name of the elite parts of the light infantry of the French colonial wars), the Afrikans.
        And the United States took part in this war, helping the British Empire, than they could, although they themselves had a civil war.
        Officially, the United States did not participate in the Crimean War, but in fact it did. And for this Russia could declare war on the USA, but as there are always too many traitors in Russia at the top, remember only the sale of Alaska.
        1. Minato2020
          Minato2020 28 December 2020 06: 16
          +1
          There are books on this topic, for example, the book by US Captain Coldman "American Transport in the Crimean War."
          Or on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FitzRoy_Somerset,_1st_Baron_Raglan

          Lord Raglan, aka FitzRoy Somerset - 1st baron Raglan.
          Commander of the Allied Allied Occupation Army in Crimea.

          "Despite further success at the Battle of Inkerman, a piecemeal allied assault on Sevastopol in June 1855 was a complete failure. Somerset died later that month from a mixture of dysentery and clinical depression."


          "Despite the success in the Battle of Inkerman, the attack on Sevastopol in June 1855 was a complete breakthrough. The commander of the military army Lord Raglan died a month later in the same place at the place of clinical dysentery."


          Dysentery is a dysentery, plus a clinical depression. That is, the British themselves admit that their commander Lord Raglan has done well and is out of fear. And who played? Crimea remained Russian!

          But this defeat in the Crimean War, by no means means the British Empire dropped its hands. Having lost this war to Russia, the British Empire begins to intensively finance the "5th Colonna" in St. Petersburg: the "Petrashevites" appear, Nekrasov appears, the writers appear and start the Czechoslovakian celebrations.
          But that's another story.
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 28 December 2020 06: 22
            +2
            Quote: Minato2020
            Crimea remained Russian!

            Well, now the skakuas will give you a lecture whose Crimea laughing
          2. Lech from Android.
            Lech from Android. 28 December 2020 06: 38
            0
            Dysentery is a dysentery, plus a clinical depression.

            Well, the war with the Russians is always accompanied by diarrhea and clinical depression in Europeans ... you read the letters of German soldiers at Stalingrad ... there that is not diarrhea, scrofula with dysentery ... the British were no exception.
          3. armannu
            armannu 28 December 2020 06: 50
            +12
            Never, from anyone, anywhere, except from you now, have I heard about the defeat of the British Empire in the Crimean War.
            You clearly have your own deeply alternative view of history.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 28 December 2020 07: 03
              +8
              He has not only a glance, but also a "fifth column" of British spies, led by Leo Tolstoy, Chekhov and Turgenev. How Pushkin didn't get there, I'm surprised, probably just "in time" he died in a duel. laughing
              Seriously, it is impossible to comment on this nonsense.
              1. Minato2020
                Minato2020 28 December 2020 07: 36
                +5
                Quote: Sea Cat

                He has not only a glance, but also a "fifth column" of British spies, led by Leo Tolstoy, Chekhov and Turgenev. How Pushkin didn't get there, I'm surprised, probably just "in time" he died in a duel. laughing
                Seriously, it is impossible to comment on this nonsense.


                Why didn't they mention Herzen, who started it all?
                Whom the Decembrists allegedly "woke up"?
                As for Pushkin, he was invited to take part in the coup, but he did not come.
                1. Bashkirkhan
                  Bashkirkhan 28 December 2020 10: 59
                  +14
                  Quote: Minato2020
                  Why didn't they mention Herzen, who started it all?
                  Whom the Decembrists allegedly "woke up"?

                  1. Galleon
                    Galleon 28 December 2020 16: 58
                    +4
                    Bashkirkhan !! Well, why can I only put + for your meme, and not 5+ !!))))))))))))))))))))))
                    1. Bashkirkhan
                      Bashkirkhan 28 December 2020 17: 02
                      +7
                      hi The pluses are not important to me, it's good that you liked it drinks ... Already 7 warnings, Skomorokhov said to leave the site repeat .
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Minato2020
                Minato2020 28 December 2020 08: 17
                +6
                [quote = Sea Cat]
                How Pushkin didn't get there, I'm surprised, probably just "in time" he died in a duel [/ quote]

                And more about Pushkin - taken from the Internet.

                [quote] ... I was invited to the Pushkin Commission with a report on the diary of Carolina Sobanskaya found in Paris. Pushkin was passionately in love with her. He dedicated to her in 1830 one of his most fiery and sad poems "What's in my name to you ..." Two letters from Pushkin to Sobanskaya have come down to us in rough drafts, but they still kept the secret of their relationship.
                Suddenly, I found the answer to many questions in her notes. However, this was not the main point. The fate of this woman was surprisingly contemporary. Sobanskaya was a sexot.
                Life brought her to four great contemporaries: Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Balzac and Chopin. And none of them knew that she was writing paid denunciations to the Third Section, watching dissidents, betraying Polish revolutionaries. And I spoke about her life as if it were a modern writer serving in the former Rostovs' house. Some stern young people with the appearance of seminarians were sitting on the commission. After my presentation, one of them said:

                - I understood that you condemn Sobanskaya. But in vain. She fought against the rebellious Poles and unreliable foreigners. This means that it strengthened the Russian statehood. If Pushkin knew about this, he would certainly have approved of her activities.

                At the first moment, from surprise, I was at a loss. And then he told a member of the Pushkin Commission that Pushkin despised informers and secret police. And he reminded about Pushkin's epigram on Thaddeus Bulgarin. TO
                When I went out into the fresh air under the linden trees on Povarskaya Street, I remembered the preface to Pushkin's missing one-volume edition of the thirty-seventh edition.
                And he thought that every time he wants to make Pushkin serve himself. But Pushkin did not like to serve ... [/quote]
            2. Minato2020
              Minato2020 28 December 2020 07: 33
              +4
              Quote: armannu

              Never, from anyone, anywhere, except from you now, have I heard about the defeat of the British Empire in the Crimean War.
              You clearly have your own deeply alternative view of history.


              So who did Crimea belong to according to the results of 1853-55?
              1. kalibr
                kalibr 28 December 2020 08: 08
                +6
                The point is in the Crimea. The consequences of wars are different! The Russian Empire suffered a blow to its authority. She was pointed to her place in Europe, where she did not want to be at all. The prestige of Russia as a great power was undermined. Everyone understood this!
                1. 27091965
                  27091965 28 December 2020 19: 13
                  0
                  Quote: kalibr
                  The consequences of wars are different! The Russian Empire suffered a blow to its authority. She was pointed to her place in Europe, where she did not want to be at all. The prestige of Russia as a great power was undermined.


                  Dear Vyacheslav, I will give you a small fragment from a book dedicated to the Crimean War. It was published in England in 1856, how Russia was treated abroad is one of the opinions.

                  "....... Russia has carried out some of its greatest designs with a knack for diplomacy. Cunning and forward-thinking, sparing no means to achieve the desired goal, this amazing force has created agents in every corner of Europe and Asia ...
                  .......... some of this extraordinary Army of Agents are accredited to foreign courts for alleged purposes; some are merely spies, while others appear to have a mission that combines the powers of envoy and spy. Brilliant, experienced, Russian agents are hard to resist ........
                  ...... sparing no means to achieve the goal and not adhering to the constitutional forms, the ruling power in Russia is steadily moving forward through deception and aggression, as if guided by only one principle - the desire to universal empire.
                  .. "1856

                  As you can see, Russia was not treated very well.
                  1. kalibr
                    kalibr 28 December 2020 19: 40
                    0
                    Yes, and after the war its authority dropped even more!
                2. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 11
                  0
                  Quote: kalibr

                  The Crimea case. The consequences of wars are different! The Russian Empire suffered a blow to its authority. She was pointed to her place in Europe, where she did not want to be at all. The prestige of Russia as a great power was undermined. Everyone understood this!



                  Since the British Empire suffered defeat on all fronts: in St. Petersburg, in Arkhanegelsk, Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka and suffered defeat in the Crimea, Britain had to urgently turn down the war while preserving its face. They did this by poisoning Nikolai-I, who was only 58 years old, having bought his court doctor. Nicholas I was killed on March 2, 1855, Petersburg. And there and then the fighting was stopped and peace was signed in March 1856.
                  On the Russian side, the world was signed by traitors and secret agents of the British Empire, such as in Russia there were very, very many and even more now. Of course, the Western media went all out as, ostensibly, the defeat of the Russian Empire.

                  However, it was clear that none of their goals, which were put to war - the British Empire had not been achieved. Not a single goal was achieved!
                  Has Britain taken Petersburg? - No! Britain took Arkhangelsk - no! Britain took Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka - no! The British Empire took only Sevastopol, but it remained cut off and already without resources!
                  Therefore, the capture of Sevastopol was formal, they themselves had to sail away immediately. This is how the French took Moscow and immediately had to flee. With the capture of Sevastopol, the same thing happened. Only the formal capture of one Sevastopol allowed the British Empire to shout to the whole world that, they say, they defeated Russia. In fact, the British Empire, in its General attack on Russia, did not achieve any of its goals!
                  What did the British Empire manage to squeeze from Russia?
                  Vicki: "Russia ended the war with practically no territorial losses. But it was forced to destroy its Black Sea Fleet and the Sevastopol fortifications."
                  "Russia ended the Crimean War with minimal territorial losses, but was forced to destroy its Black Sea Fleet and Sevastopol fortifications".
                  Under the terms of the treaty, Russia had to tear down the fortifications of Sevastopol. So they were destroyed during the siege!

                  Sevastopol was razed to the ground like Stalingrad! In this way, the only thing the British Empire got was that the Black Sea was declared free by the sea from warships of any countries! Including Russia!
                  If the British Empire had achieved its goals in 1853-56, then Russia would have become northern India and Bangla Desh by the middle of the 19th century.
                  But the Emperor Nicholas I was objectively one of the best leaders of Russia and only Emperor Nicholas I of Russia was obliged that she did not become Bangla Desh 160 years ago! Among other things, Nicholas I in Russia is now not worth a single monument.
              2. Catfish
                Catfish 28 December 2020 08: 46
                +7
                He stayed, but the trouble is that we no longer have a fleet in the Black Sea, and there was nothing to oppose to Turkey.
                1. Pane Kohanku
                  Pane Kohanku 28 December 2020 14: 56
                  +8
                  Uncle Kostya, let me squeeze myself sideways to you, so that I can say my opinion on today's article by Mr. Samsonov? drinks
                  Very weak article.
                  You can talk about the Decembrist uprising in cycles of chic articles - from the ideas of ideas (because Mikhail Orlov was not just a Decembrist, as Mr. Samsonov says - he was the founder of the first society - the "Union of Russian Knights", but he himself did not suffer much punishment!) to what actually happened on Senate Square - with nervousness, lack of gathering of all sides and other chaos. How not to remember. that the Life Grenadiers first showed up at the Winter Palace, but when they saw the Life Guards Sapper Battalion at the entrance, they politely left. And they personally passed Nikolai Pavlovich, who, having learned "what kind of Konstantin they are," gestured towards the Senate and said: "Then you should go there!" hi Here you can write and write, analyzing personal names and hourly events. soldier
                  But Mr. Samsonov confined himself to an extract from a school textbook with pompous thoughts about Russian civilization summed up ...
                  I said everything. Basically, this was expected ...
                2. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Sea Cat

                  He stayed, but the trouble is that we no longer have a fleet in the Black Sea, and there was nothing to oppose to Turkey.


                  Under the terms of the peace treaty, Russia was supposed to tear down the fortifications of Sevastopol. So they were destroyed during the siege. Sevastopol was destroyed to dust,
                  like Stalingrad.
                  Thus, the only thing that the British Empire achieved was that the Black Sea was declared a sea free of warships of any countries.
                  Including Russia.

                  In fact, to sink the Black Sea Fleet during the war -
                  this is already a tradition. Maybe he is not needed at all?
                  Some chores and money spending.
          4. Catfish
            Catfish 28 December 2020 07: 00
            +1
            But that's another story.


            This is no longer history, but delirium ... then you can continue on your own.
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 28 December 2020 08: 14
              -4
              Quote: Sea Cat

              But that's another story.


              This is no longer history, but delirium ... then you can continue on your own.


              Here's more from history ... you can count as you like.

              And what are these lights of Russian classics ??
              Gogol, Chekhov, Turgenev - unlike the Decembrists, Herzen or Petrashevsky-Butashevich, did not directly call for rebellion, but they portrayed life in Russia as complete hopelessness!
              And with the whole course of their thoughts, they inspired the Russian educated people to be low-class before the West, and that the light comes only in the West!
              Therefore, in Russia, the low inclinations before the West is a traditionally incurable disease of the intelligentsia, especially the creative one.

              That is why London published the books of Gogol, Turgenev and Chekhov in mass circulation, when in Russia itself there was still no one to read them.
              In Tsarist Russia, Gogol, Chekhov and Turgenev were read only by a few people, since the population was almost completely unable to read and write.

              And the western public, thanks to these writers, also received a corresponding coverage of Russia that Russia is a terrible hole.
              The main plot of all this great trio of "Great Russian Writers" as - how and now! In Russia - a full hole, estates in a gap. Dump the gendarmes from this country somewhere in the water - to Karlsbad.

              That is the basic idea of ​​this trio of writers who quite by chance passed by, for some reason, even in Soviet schools from the youngest classrooms, it’s such a simple idea to fill it in, just go to Like Herzen with Ogarev!

              Pro Gogol.
              He took the last name Gogol from whom he took. He took the theme of "Dead Souls" and "The Inspector General" from Pushkin. Expressions - he, like Ilf and Petrov, borrowed from life. What kind of life did he have? I am sitting in Rome and do not wish to return to Russia, because they do not like sodomy there. And Gogol himself lived in Italy and, apparently, died of what is now called AIDS.

              Pro Nekrasov.
              As they drummed in the school that how can Nekrasov "love Russia without seeing"? Black for white! Therefore, from the poems of Nekrasov, hatred for Russia.
              And Nekrasov, with English money, contained 2 anti-government magazines and published in them only, as they would say in the USSR, "anti-responders".

              And to this day, the Russian Federation, these pernicious writers are still considered to be "classics" ...
              1. Was mammoth
                Was mammoth 28 December 2020 09: 48
                +3
                ...
                Quote: Minato2020
                to drive to the West - to Karlsbad, to Paris, London - but to drive! Like Herzen with Ogarev!

                Ask about the history of the village of Beloomut. wink
                Recently I passed there.
                In 1762, the village was granted by Catherine II to the officer of the Preobrazhensky regiment Mikhail Baskakov for participating in the palace coup that elevated her to the throne. Since 1834, Upper Beloomut owned Nikolai Ogarev, who in 1846, fifteen years before the abolition of serfdom in Russia, granted freedom to his peasants. 1820 souls.
                Decembrists. Nobody said better than Lenin about them.
                1. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 24
                  0
                  Quote: There was a mammoth

                  Nikolai Ogarev, who in 1846, fifteen years before the abolition of serfdom in Russia, granted freedom to his peasants. 1820 souls. Decembrists.
                  Nobody said better than Lenin about them.


                  To clarify - gave freedom or released with the ground
                  free?

                  And then there were precedents.

                  - A.Kh. Benckendorff released the serfs
                  in 1816 year.

                  First, not all.
                  Secondly, without land.
                  Thirdly, it was not his initiative,
                  and one of the reforms of Emperor Alexander.
                  In 1816-18, serfs were freed in the three Ossetian provinces.


                  That is, there was a reform of Emperor Alexander I, according to which a number of serfs were freed without land. As a result, the landless had to look for work
                  in cities in industrial production.
                  1. Was mammoth
                    Was mammoth 29 December 2020 08: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Minato2020
                    To clarify - gave freedom or released with the ground
                    free?

                    Together with the freeman he gave up the land, forest and meadows. Out of relation to his views, he committed an Act worthy of memory and respect.
              2. Stirbjorn
                Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 11: 21
                +2
                Quote: Minato2020
                The main plot of all this great trio of "Great Russian Writers" as - how and now!

                Comrade ignoramus, the three "Great Russian Writers" are Tolstoy, Chekhov and Dostoevsky! fool
                1. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 30
                  -2
                  Quote: Stirbjorn
                  Quote: Minato2020

                  The main plot of all this great trio of "Great Russian Writers" as - how and now!


                  Comrade ignoramus, the three "Great Russian Writers" are Tolstoy, Chekhov and Dostoevsky! fool


                  Thanks for the clarification - perhaps the current teachers do not teach students the Russian classics as thoroughly as they did in the USSR.

                  This is the advantage of modern education over the Soviet school - if you want, you can find on the Internet what Soviet students could not have thought of.

                  There are doubts about Dostoevsky, but without a doubt the paid agents of the British Empire were three "great Russian writers": Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov. Even in Russia there were no books by Tolsto, Turgenev and Chekhov, and in England and the USA their complete collections of works were already published in mass circulation! And Tolstogo and Turgenev back in 1850-70s!
                  The books of all these figures were first shown in London. Gonorars, on the other hand, need to give them something to live on and act against RI.
                  For whom were these books written, if RI, according to various estimates, was 70-80% ill-graded, and some serfs were movable property of all these Tolstoy, Nekrasov and Turgenevs.
                  This is still forced to teach students how to say Russian classics, And if you look at everything from modern positions - where did Lev Tolstoy, Turgenev and Chekhov come from? Who provided it for them?
                  In Russia, 70-80% of the population were illiterate, they could not read or write, and in 1855 many were still legally movable property of the Tolsty, Turgenev, Nekrasovs.
                  How could a writer then become famous in black-and-white Russia? That is why the glory of Tolstogo, Turgenev, Chekhov entered Russia from abroad! Their glory was brought from the West as a consequence of the glory of Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn!
                  And these "classics" are still being studied in schools - like they learned to read and write.
                  The pretext for issuing huge sums of money to agents of the British Empire has always been, they say, "gonorars" for some kind of scribbling, which both in the USSR and in the Russian Federation are being taught to students as outstanding and progressive.
                  These "literary gonorars" - this is one of the many types of payment by the British Empire for the services of their agents of influence.
                  Here fugitives find shelter and further financing, and Kerensky is far from being the discoverer here. In London, the historical refuge of all anti-Russian elements, where all traitors to Russia have been hiding for 200 years.
                  The Rothschilds, with their own money, kept Herzen in London with his indescribable "other" charred and various explorers in a large multi-storey house in the center of London, owned personally by Herzen. All that pleases, if only Herzen made plans against RI.
                  1. Minato2020
                    Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 34
                    0
                    Nekrasov supported two anti-government magazines with the money of the British Empire.
                    Under Nicholas I, there were no dissident organizations in Russia and could not have been. But after his death with the arrival of the weak Alexander II in Russia, as in Russia after 1991, various secret, underground and legal organizations began to appear working for the British Empire and secretly financed by it.
                    Only after signing peace with Russia in 1956, Britain the very next day turned on all the mechanisms for creating state coups, which she applied to Russia since the beginning of the century and which we have already listed and which are being celebrated at the beginning of the 21st century! Agitation and propaganda was launched through the magazine of the poet Nekrasov "Sovereign", who was just a man through whom money was transferred for subversive work; well, as now Kasparov, Navalny or dad and son of Ponomarev. The military training of terrorists "nationalists" was started, financed through subordinate people and subordinate NGo. Propagandists and agitators of the British Empire went to the masses to agitate against the tsar-father. That is, the British Empire immediately took up what was called "the creation of prerequisites for a color revolution" in Russia.
                    Such an agent of the British Empire was the "great Russian poet Nekrasov", who contained 2 magazines "Sovereign" and "Otechestvennye zapiski", which printed various dirt about Russia. Nekrasov did it with the money of the British Empire. How did he get this money? very simple.
                    Nekrasov was reputed to be a successful card player, he systematically won large sums of money and, therefore, everything from British diplomats. The money was transferred to Nekrasov in the form of allegedly "card games" of British diplomats.
                    With this money, Nekrasov kept 2 magazines promoting the goals of the British Empire in Russia.
                    All Peter then knew that "the singer of the oppressed people" Nekrasov - the first booze in St. Petersburg, a card sharper, a brawler and money from him does not end, and he was also registered in London and lived on the same money that Herzen, Engels, Ogarev , Garibaldi, Mazzini, Bakunin, Hirsh Plekhanov - funded by the Rothschilds.
                    This is still forced to teach students how to say Russian classics, And if you look at everything from modern positions - where did Lev Tolstoy, Turgenev and Chekhov come from? Who provided it for them?
                    In Russia, 70-80% of the population were illiterate, they could not read or write, and in 1855 many were still legally movable property of the Tolsty, Turgenev, Nekrasovs.

                    How could a writer then become famous in black-and-white Russia? That is why the glory of Tolstogo, Turgenev, Chekhov entered Russia from abroad! Their glory was brought from the West as a consequence of the glory of Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn!
                    And these "classics" are still being studied in schools - like they learned to read and write.
                    1. Minato2020
                      Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 37
                      0
                      Read the two-volume book "War and Peace" without footnotes on the translation below and very soon you will come to the conclusion that this was written not for Russians, but for the French who know Russian.
                      The first American edition of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" 1886
                      Anna Karenina - American Edition 1886
                      Tolstoy "Cossacks" - 1878.
                      Sevastopol Tales - Paris 1855.

                      This is not the end of the Crimean War and the height of the war! And Tolstoy, under the guise of a book, is already transmitting to the West in the form of stories the deployment of Russian troops in Sevastopol and the Caucasus. Then there was no other connection. Tolstoy transmitted reports to London from the theater of military operations, veiled under the so-called "fiction".
                      Now, if Tolstoy wrote his books about the defense of Sevastopol and the Caucasus after the war, it would be a different matter! And since he was writing at the height of the wars and straight to London, these are intelligence reports camouflaged as "fiction".

                      And the fact that immediately after writing Tolstoy, world fame and the best publications were provided, speaks only in favor of this. Then even the telegraph had just appeared and was only in London and nowhere else!
                      Who needed the stories of some writer in London if they weren't intelligence? And for London, Tolstoy's "Sevastopol Tales" in 1855 were just intelligence. Therefore, they came out with lightning speed on the other side of the world in an era when the telegraph did not really exist yet.

                      Even now they are forced to teach students how to say Russian classics, And if you look at everything from a modern perspective - where did Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev and Chekhov come from? Who provided them with this?
                      In Russia, 70-80% of the population were illiterate, they could not read or write, and in 1855 many were still legally movable property of the Tolstoy, Turgenev, and Nekrasovs.

                      How could a writer then become famous in illiterate Russia? The fact of the matter is that the glory of Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov, entered Russia from abroad! Their glory was brought from the West as later the glory of Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn!
                      And these "classics" are still being studied in schools.
              3. Igoresha
                Igoresha 28 December 2020 11: 32
                0
                o they portrayed life in Russia as a complete hopelessness!
                but what about ".. the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia" (c)? and the railway was not that affected strongly the military actions in the Crimea
                1. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Igoresha
                  ... and there was no railway, which had a strong impact on military operations in Crimea


                  And there was no telegraph.
                  But Aivazovsky already had a railway, but not for the theater.
          5. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 28 December 2020 11: 42
            +4
            Quote: Minato2020
            Having lost this war to Russia, the British Empire begins to intensively finance the "5th Colonna" in St. Petersburg: the "Petrashevites" appear, Nekrasov appears, the writers appear and start the Czechoslovakian celebrations.

            Was there a sealed carriage? wink
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 42
              -1
              Quote: Sahar Medovich

              Was there a sealed carriage?


              A sealed carriage would not have been enough, as well as an echelon. But the steamer is quite.
              Beginning in the early 1800s, the British Empire made it its goal to destroy the Russian Empire. The all-round war of the British Empire against the Russian Empire began, which the British Empire for its part did not hide, but gave it such a romantic name "GREAT GAME" - "BIG GAME"!
              As always, the British Empire first resorted to the creation of a "5 column" in Russia and the preparation of pro-British revolutions - Maidans! Well, that is, she thought she would repeat the French Maidan - the "Great French Revolution" - in St. Petersburg too! And why not, if in Paris the pro-British Maidan was successful why not in St. Petersburg?
              Therefore, from the beginning of 1800, one after another, the most powerful attacks went on the Russian Empire. And also the financing of potential heads of the future pro-British government of Russia in the person of such famous figures as the family of the Count Vorontsovs, the dissident Herzen in London, as well as the activities of the "poet Nekrasov" and the Petrashevsky-Butashevich organization a little later.
              Legal methods of reforming the Russian Empire were pushed by the British Empire too! All methods of the collapse of the Russian Empire went into action! Well, just like now! This was done by Mikhail Speransky - Gorbachev's namesake - long before Gorbachev was introducing "reforms", that is, "Perestroika and ACCELERATION"!
              The British Empire illegally armed the Poles in the Polish province and the British Empire organized the uprising there too! And of course in Russia, the British Empire tried to organize cholera epidemics - several times!
              A little later, they discovered that Vibrio cholerae is extremely unstable in the external environment and cannot reproduce in the cold. Cholera rages in summer, and decreases in August! Russia is not India! Since the attempts of the British Empire to take possession of Russia were unsuccessful, and in the empire of Nicholas-1 Russia, as well as under Stalin, developed rapidly, the British Empire decided that there was no money except for war.
              They landed in Arkhangelsk, in Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka, in the Crimea, and the direction of the main attack was, of course, to St. Petersburg. This is a page completely crossed out by Soviet and Russian historians, and only Academician Tarle touched upon the attack on St. Petersburg, while other Soviet Russian and historians do not mention it at all. It's like erasing Hitler's attack on Moscow from Soviet history and leaving only his Crimean campaign from Hitler's attack on the USSR.
              This is approximately what Russian historians are doing now, because buying Russian historians is an elementary thing - they go to study in England!
              You will be speaking at a historic conference in Oxford! We will give you a cash "grant"! Not a bribe, not a purchase of a spy, this is just a "grant for" scientific "or" public "or" humanitarian "activities! We will make you an honorary member of the Royal Historical Society! British historical science is so much more powerful than Russian science that a paradox arises - while in Britain and the United States you can find as much literature as you like on key points deleted from Russian history such as:
              The first part of the Crimean War is the attack on St. Petersburg.
              Or Britain's attack on its ally in World War I, that is, on Russia as part of the attack of the entire British-American coalition on Russia in 1-1918.
              In Russia even now nothing can be found on these issues. That is, Russian historians are completely bought by the British Empire even now. Why don't Russian historians talk about these topics? But because the leadership of Russian history is still working for the British Empire.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 28 December 2020 07: 10
          +5
          Quote: Minato2020
          there are too many traitors at the top in Russia, remember only the sale of Alaska.

          Then there was a "big game", or rather a conflict between Russia and Britain over spheres of influence in Central and South Asia and the Balkans. There were well-founded fears that an open war would begin, and it was obvious that if the Britons landed in Alaska (they had the necessary forces and means), Russia would not be able to resist, the Britons would cut off Russia's small forces in Alaska from supplies by sea, and only Indians could live there. Having established themselves in the north of the Pacific Ocean, the Britons would not have left there, but does Russia need it? So after all, Kamchatka and Vladivostok would be within reach of Britain. Therefore, it was decided to sell Alaska to anyone who wants it for no matter how much they offer it, if only this person could not give it to the Britons. Only America found such people. Moreover, they got a tidy sum from America; The Americans had no idea how much the Russians wanted this deal, and, in principle, they could have gotten Alaska for free or even with a surcharge, just to keep the people out.
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 28 December 2020 08: 20
            -1
            Quote: Nagan

            ... Therefore, it was decided to sell Alaska to anyone who wants it for no matter how much they offer it, if only that person could not give it to the Britons. Only America found such people. Moreover, they got a tidy sum from America ...


            According to some reports, this "tidy sum did not reach Russia."
            Perhaps one of the Russian participants in the transaction tried to make everything come back.
            1. Obliterator
              Obliterator 28 December 2020 12: 54
              +4
              Quote: Minato2020
              According to some reports, this "tidy sum did not reach Russia."
              Perhaps one of the Russian participants in the transaction tried to make everything come back.

              A big sum was used to purchase materials for the construction of railways in Russia. Since the costs of this construction were huge, this amount easily disappeared into them.
              1. Minato2020
                Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 44
                0
                Quote: Obliterator

                A big sum was used to purchase materials for the construction of railways in Russia. Since the costs of this construction were huge, this amount easily disappeared into them.


                I would like to clarify - has this amount reached the RI treasury for further use?
                And then, as it were, there is information that the money for the sold Alaska remained in American banks.
                1. Obliterator
                  Obliterator 29 December 2020 17: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Minato2020
                  I would like to clarify - has this amount reached the RI treasury for further use?
                  And then, as it were, there is information that the money for the sold Alaska remained in American banks.

                  The State Historical Archives of the Russian Federation contains a document written by an unknown employee of the Ministry of Finance in the second half of 1868, stating that “For ceded to the North American States Russian possessions in North America came from the aforementioned States 11 rubles. 362 [cop.]. Of the 481 94 11 rubles. 362 kopecks spent abroad for the purchase of accessories for the railways: Kursk-Kiev, Ryazan-Kozlov, Moscow-Ryazan, etc. 481 94 10 rubles. 972 K. The rest is 238 rubles. 4 k. Were received in cash. "
        3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 December 2020 08: 05
          +9
          Quote: Minato2020
          And the United States took part in this war, helping the British Empire, than they could, although they themselves had a civil war.

          The civil war in the USSA was in the next decade, later the Crimean (Eastern) one.
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 49
            +1
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Quote: Minato2020

            And the United States took part in this war, helping the British Empire, than they could, although they themselves had a civil war.


            The civil war in the USSA was in the next decade, later the Crimean (Eastern) one.


            You could say that.
            The United States then waged a war with Mexico, which was then half of America, and there was Texas and California, and already on the nose was a full-scale American Civil War.
            That is, there was a protracted civil war in the United States, in which the central government fought with individual states and the United States then had no time for imperialist British problems. The United States then captured all of America that was not yet theirs - half of America was still Spanish-Mexican.
            Therefore, the United States at that time could not help the British Empire.
            If the USA were free at that time in 1856, then of course the British Empire would have involved them in the war against the Republic of Ingushetia. She involved, but only to a limited extent - American transport ships were used to deliver cargo and weapons to the British army in the Crimea.

            Therefore, from the middle of the 19th century, the British Empire had to continue to blame RI itself. The United States was able to join the destruction of the RI only from the Japanese-Russian War, but from the Japanese-Russian War, the advantage of the combined British-American Empire became obvious.
            And in 1856, the British Empire was supposed to start a new war against Turkey against Russia. In the end, the British Empire, since Peter I, organized wars between Russia and the Turkish Empire.

            Therefore, in 1856, the British Empire, having just signed a peace with Russia, immediately began to set Turkey against Russia. And the fact that the war between Turkey and Russia would begin just about - it was then known to everyone. Formally, it began only in 1878, but all this time from 1856 to 1878 everyone knew that it was about to start! Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378)

            Of course, in the Crimean War, Turkey was on the side of Britain, which the British Empire used against Russia throughout the 19th century until the turn of 1918, when the British Empire "in one fell swoop with seven beats" destroyed several empires in that landmark 1918 at once: Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish. But the British Empire did not immediately destroy the German and Austro-Hungarian empires either, the entire 2nd half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the British Empire assassinated the imperials and possible heirs of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Among them is the famous Austrian empire "SISI" - Elizabeth of Bavaria, stabbed to death in Geneva. Bavarian king Ludwig II, who was drowned; Greek King George I of German descent shot dead in Thessaloniki
            And WWI, as a result of which the British Empire got rid of 4 empires at once, began precisely because of the assassination of the Austrian Arch-Duke Ferdinand. All of these assassinations were organized by the British Empire.
            For example, the British Empire once strained, because a talented heir Nikolai Alexandrovich began to grow up with the weak Emperor Alexander II - and he immediately "died" in Nice. How good for Britain and, most importantly, on time. The assassination of Griboyedov in Tehran is also the work of the British Empire. The British Empire became enraged when Russia began to move towards India, which was colonized by the British Empire, and from which the British Empire intended to move further north into Central Asia.
            For the movement towards India, that is, to Persia, the British Empire killed Paul I, Alexander II and Alexander III, including terrorists financed and organized by the British Empire, which itself has long been sharpening its teeth on Central Asia in its "GREAT GAME"
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 50
              +1
              The British Empire wanted to round off its possessions to the whole world, but several empires stood in its way at once: the Spanish, French, Swedish, Prussian, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Russian empires. The German Empire has not yet revived, but for a short time the German Empire was revived under Bismarck, but in the crucible of World War I, the British Empire will destroy them all. The Spanish Empire was destroyed by her first. She would destroy the Swedish Empire and the Prussian Empire back in the 1th century with the help of the Russians, whom she would arm for this. And the British Empire will destroy the French Empire with the help of the French Revolution. Here the subtlety and difficulty of the position of the British Empire - in order to destroy one empire, it was necessary to create other empires. And it's like a vicious circle! For example the Swedish, Prussian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, and German Empires were destroyed by the British Empire at the hands of the Russians. But as a result, a powerful Russian Empire arose on 18/1 of the land, which, due to the abundance of natural resources and area, represented the potential death of the British Empire. Therefore, starting in the early 5s, the British Empire set itself the goal of destroying the Russian Empire. The all-round war of the British Empire against the Russian Empire began, which the British Empire, for its part, did not hide, but gave it such a romantic name "GREAT GAME" - "BIG GAME".
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
        4. albert
          albert 28 December 2020 20: 02
          0
          Quote: Minato2020
          neither Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, nor Baku.

          But it is interesting to know how the British attacked Baku? wassat
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 29 December 2020 07: 53
            +2
            Quote: albert

            But it is interesting to know how the British attacked Baku?


            Come on - Baku, but how was St. Petersburg attacked?
            That is, on foot or by sea?
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 29 December 2020 10: 42
              +1
              Quote: Minato2020
              Quote: albert

              But it is interesting to know how the British attacked Baku?


              Come on - Baku, but how was St. Petersburg attacked?
              That is, on foot or by sea?


              We ran into mine-laying in the Gulf of Finland and smeared fat on our heels. I'm not kidding, backward Russia during the Crimean War had sea mines.
      3. BAI
        BAI 28 December 2020 13: 16
        +8
        Only defeat in the war propelled Russia towards reconstruction. All victories led to stagnation and defeat:
        Damages:
        Mongol-Tatar yoke - the end of the fragmentation of Russia.
        Time of Troubles - the transformation of the state.
        Defeat in the Northern War - the creation of a new type of army and fleet.
        Defeat in the Crimean War - state reforms.
        The defeat in the Russo-Japanese War - the rapid growth of industry.
        Victory:
        Victory in the war with Sweden - stagnation, the fleet rotted before the reign of Catherine II, peasant uprisings.
        Victory in the war with Napoleon - stagnation, Russia is the gendarme of Europe.
        It seems that there is nothing more to say about RI. If you roll over to the USSR - yes, after the war there was an unprecedented leap in development. But the war and the hellish work of restoring what was destroyed physically destroyed the real communists, for whom the party card was a ticket to the front or wherever it is more difficult. The CPSU filled in those for whom the party card was a pass to a special feeder, which led to the collapse of the USSR. Those. The victory in the VO also negatively affected the fate of the USSR.
        And the defeat in the Cold War gave impetus to the current development of the Russian Federation, which has not become what Ukraine has become now.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 28 December 2020 20: 08
          -1
          Quote: BAI
          Only defeat in the war propelled Russia towards reconstruction. All victories led to stagnation and defeat:

          Not indisputable, but an interesting point of view that has a right to exist.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 December 2020 06: 41
      +1
      Quote: armannu
      However, the victory of Nicholas I, a protective direction, led to a catastrophe in the Crimean War.

      What is the "catastrophe", considering that the whole world then opposed only Russia, but achieved a zilch? And he would not have achieved this, if not the death of Niaolai ...

      If the scoundrels had seized power in 1825, then Russia would not have existed and it would have been pulled apart much earlier than 1853.
      1. armannu
        armannu 28 December 2020 07: 16
        +4
        The army of the first-class state, the "gendarme of Europe", was defeated by the amphibious assault, and so nothing, everything is good and wonderful.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 28 December 2020 08: 21
          +2
          Quote: armannu
          The army of the first-class power, the "gendarme of Europe", was defeated by the amphibious assault

          The first class army lost only a part of Sevastopol to THREE first class armies +1, which more than twice outnumbered it in the Crimea.
          At the same time, she won brilliant victories in the Caucasus, stopped another class 1 power in the Balkans and repulsed all attacks along all other borders.

          Which country would have withstood such a blow? None, only Russia.

          The fate of the Euro-invaders of Kinburn, who died of hunger, ate the village of adal and surrogates, is indicative: they never went deep into Russia, they were afraid.
          1. armannu
            armannu 28 December 2020 08: 31
            +6
            That only speaks about the deepest problems of the Nikolaev regime.
            Which actually had a half million soldiers - an overwhelming, multiple superiority.
            However, it is useless to argue with alternative historians.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 28 December 2020 09: 43
              -1
              Quote: armannu
              That only speaks about the deepest problems of the Nikolaev regime.

              The fact that the invaders got out without completing even the 10th part of their tasks?
              Quote: armannu
              Which actually had a million and a half soldiers - an overwhelming, multiple superiority

              I see you have no idea about the size of the country of Russia? Where are you broadcasting from?

              The army was needed EVERYWHERE, and not only in the Crimea-in the Balkans (hundreds of thousands), in the North, in the West, in the Caucasus, Asia (it was there). Isn't that even getting through?

              And in Sevastopol, initially there were 7 thousand Russians against 60 thousand landing in Europe.
              Quote: armannu
              However, it is useless to argue with alternative historians.

              Quote: armannu
              However, it is useless to argue with alternative historians.

              Learn in school and then try.
              1. armannu
                armannu 28 December 2020 09: 55
                0
                I can imagine.
                But you are not very good.
                You don't know exactly the distance to England.

                The problem is certainly not in the size, the troops did not have to be sent from Kamchatka.
                Everything happened in the European part, nearby.

                The reasons are not imaginary distances - but clearly and specifically - in the guardianship:
                Count KF Toll said that the railways "can shake the very age-old foundations of Russia" because they "are the most democratic institution that could be thought of to transform the state."
                Finance Minister Count E.F. Kankrin wrote that the railways would destroy "the much-needed social hierarchy", since the new mode of transport would lead "to equality of estates, since both a dignitary and a simpleton, a gentleman and a peasant, will ride, sitting side by side in a carriage, in the same posad."
                The St. Petersburg manager of the office of the Ural industrialists Demidov F. Weyer recalled that "every time the question of railways is raised, the emperor shows a kind of hostility."

                Nikolai feared that the creative destruction, a consequence of the development of the modern industrial economy, would undermine the patriarchal political structure of Russia ...
                At the direction of Nikolai Kankrin took a series of steps designed to further slow down the growth of industry.
                In particular, decisions were made limiting the emergence of new factories and providing for rather complicated procedures for their opening (special permission was required from the Governor-General, and in some cases - from the Tsar personally).
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 28 December 2020 09: 59
                  -4
                  Quote: armannu
                  Everything happened in the European part, next.

                  Nearby?! lol

                  This is SEVEN Frances, for a minute.
                  Quote: armannu
                  The reasons are not imaginary distances - but clearly and specifically - in the guardianship:

                  Why this empty talk?
                  1. armannu
                    armannu 28 December 2020 10: 00
                    +5
                    I remind you - the distance to England.
                    PS: the main reasons for the disaster became chatter.
                    This is a truly alternative view.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 28 December 2020 15: 15
                      -3
                      Quote: armannu
                      I remind you - the distance to England.
                      .

                      Remind you: seven Frances
                      Quote: armannu
                      PS: the main reasons for the disaster became chatter.
                      .

                      Empty chatter
                      1. armannu
                        armannu 28 December 2020 15: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        Empty chatter

                        Fully applies to your opuses.
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 28 December 2020 19: 04
                        -3
                        Quote: armannu
                        Fully applies to your opuses.

                        More chatter.
                      3. armannu
                        armannu 28 December 2020 19: 07
                        +1
                        At least not about SEVEN Frances.
                        He burst out laughing. laughing laughing laughing
                      4. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 28 December 2020 20: 26
                        -2
                        Quote: armannu
                        At least not about SEVEN Frances.
                        Laughed.

                        Already the delirium has gone ... request

                        Substation European part of Russia (in which, in your opinion, "everything is ... near" fool ) in area - and was equal to the territory of SEVEN France.

                        Got it, no? No.
                      5. armannu
                        armannu 28 December 2020 20: 33
                        -1
                        It dawned on me, that's why I burst out laughing! wink laughing

                        Only this is the same as answering the question "Is your dacha far away" - "25 acres"!
                        Or how much is twice two - red!
                        With the same degree of adequacy.
                        Or rather, inadequacy.

                        If the European part was the same shape as France - one could say - the distance is 2,6 times greater.
                        This is me purely for a laugh already!

                        The troops do not trample the ground in squares, but follow the shortest path possible.

                        In general - write more, laughter is useful ... laughing laughing laughing laughing

                        PS: our cards are everything!
                      6. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 28 December 2020 21: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: armannu
                        burst out laughing! Only this is the same as answering the question "Is your dacha far away" - "25 acres"!

                        All the same, this is only for the "everlasting laughter" from the special establishments for them yes lol

                        The question was completely different: where is faster summer residents will gather from different ends of the cottage to the house: on the site 5 sototo or on the site 35 acres?

                        Yes, and one more thing: we must run away to each to his corner and call him. Time is up again!

                        And this everyone needs somewhere else to stock up on beer, and so on and - again, at the other end of the site, not near the house. More time.

                        One "giggle" did not understand at all, and disappeared, he had to look for him, running around the entire site, tapping on the head — again time had gone.

                        Got it, no? No.

                        And where is YOUR "next" ALREADY? fool
                        Quote: armannu
                        The troops do not trample the ground in squares, but follow the shortest path possible.

                        Not the shortest, but along the roads and go not through France alone, but through France, seven times more.

                        Tie yourself a knot yes lol

  • Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 December 2020 08: 27
    +11
    Quote: armannu
    The army of the first-class state, the "gendarme of Europe", was defeated by the amphibious assault, and so nothing, everything is good and wonderful.

    There were many landing parties! There were private victories, both in the Baltic, and in the Pacific, Black Sea regions.
    The loudest is the capture of Sevastopol.
    Was this a strategic victory? Has she thrown Russia to her knees? Humiliated yes, but did not put an end to the Crimean War. Four decades earlier, the army of Europe reached Moscow and?
    So what, on top of it? The loss of the Aland Islands, the burning of Kola and the seizure of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, left by the population, were all that the coalition could boast of.
    By the way, the allies were completely out, having medical losses dozens of times more than combat ones. And this is within walking distance from sea communications.
    For example, we must not forget that St. Petersburg is a coastal city, and the coalition conducted only demonstrations against it, perfectly realizing the futility of their efforts. Even the loss of Crimea and the Black Sea region was not fatal for Russia. The entry into the coalition of Austria could change the course of the war. But the Germans did not want to fight, they wanted only "buns".
    Allied generals also understood that they could gain victories, but they could not inflict a strategic defeat!
    By the way, besides the British, French and Turks, the Italians fought against us. The difference between their sanitary and combat losses was 100 times different.
    Well, somewhere like that!
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 28 December 2020 08: 42
      +9
      At the same time, our troops were stationed on the western border and were in readiness.

      There were not enough of them in Sevastopol.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 December 2020 09: 50
      +3
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      so what, on a jump? The loss of the Aland Islands, the burning of Kola and the seizure of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, abandoned by the population, were all that the coalition could boast of.

      Kinburn is also known.

      But how did it end for the French garrison? Almost the entire garrison died - they ate carrion from hunger, died from the cold, not daring to stick out their nose inland
  • Bourgeois 1963
    Bourgeois 1963 28 December 2020 11: 17
    +6
    Dear Olgovich, you, as a dull monarchist, apparently find it difficult to learn such a science as dialectics. And applying it as a scientific method, it can be assumed that the result of the victory of the Decembrists would be the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia and the abolition of serfdom. In turn, this would significantly reduce the likelihood of a revolution in 17, a civil war and the world's greatest experiment to build a different world order on planet earth. In a little over thirty years, the peoples of the former Russian Empire, from 1917 to 1949, lost at least 50 million human lives in violent deaths, and mainly at their most reproductive age. The problem of the best people of the nobility who came out to Senate Square in December was, perhaps, that they were at least a hundred years late. Although, on the other hand, after the death of Peter 1, the Russian nobility was still too ignorant and wild, and did not even think about something like that.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 December 2020 15: 28
      -1
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      Dear Olgovich, you, as a dull monarchist, apparently find it difficult to learn such a science as dialectics.

      Are you wondering?
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      And applying it as a scientific method, we can assume that the result of the victory of the Decembrists would have been the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia and the abolition of serfdom.

      Guessing!
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      In turn, this significantly reduced would the likelihood of a revolution in 17,

      On three FUNCTIONS they "raised" ... the result lol

      With the victory of the "Decembrists", Russia would tore into pieces both outside and inside.

      Without the Great War, no thief would have smelled.
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      ... In a little over thirty years, the peoples of the former Russian Empire, from 1917 to 1949, lost at least 50 million human lives in violent deaths, and mainly at their most reproductive age.

      "Thanks" to the thieves who stabbed their country in the back and started the GV for ages.
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      The problem of the best people of the nobility who came out to Senate Square in December was, perhaps, that they were at least a hundred years late.

      The problem of these WORST people of the nobility who came out to Senate Square in December was their lack of principles, meanness and treachery.
    2. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 02
      0
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963

      The problem of the best people of the nobility who came out to Senate Square in December was, perhaps, that they were at least a hundred years late.


      Kropotkin and others like him had no problems.
      Kropotkin's book (first published in England) "Terror in Russia and an Appeal to the British Nation!" The terror in Russia: an appeal to the British nation (1909)

      Throughout the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the intelligentsia was preparing a "change of regime" in Russia with funds provided by the American-British Empire. The movement of "populists" went among the people and spread among the people the so-called "NIGILISM", which is now called as, the denial of everything positive and, first of all, love for the motherland and patriotism.
      That is, the first words that the peasants taught under the guidance of nihilists were "Down with the Tsar!" and “All power to the people!” by which nihilists naturally meant themselves, as happened after 1917.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 28 December 2020 13: 06
    +2
    Olgovich, I completely agree with you here. There can be no talk of any "catastrophe" of the Crimean War. Defeat in the Crimean theater of operations - yes. (in this case, the troops of the Russian Empire there, in fact, can be considered a "reserve army" against the European "special forces" of that time and Turkish "meat"). Defeat in the war? - Of course not. Taking into account the defense of St. Petersburg, Solovkov / Arkhangelsk and Petropavlovsk, taking into account the fact that not a single "European" soldier dared to cross the western border. A pack of trained huskies can seriously bite a bear, but never lift it up. Another thing is that technical backwardness has come out, well, this is not the first time in the history of Russia, and not the last, I think. For all my rejection of serfdom, I cannot say that this was some kind of weakening factor in the Russian army and navy, rather, on the contrary, stabilizing, as if it looked paradoxical to a superficial observer.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 December 2020 17: 31
    +3
    "If the scoundrels seized power in 1825," ///
    ----
    Any nobleman for such a servile statement in 1825
    would have finished off in a duel.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 28 December 2020 19: 14
      -6
      Quote: voyaka uh
      You for this servile statement in 1825 by any noble
      would have finished off in a duel.

      Not a single nobleman would have entered a duel with you.

      Maximum slave ... hi
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 December 2020 21: 57
        +1
        It was always customary for nobles and their descendants to respect the Decembrists
        for bravery.
        Regardless of whether they shared their political views,
        or not.
        Only a person can call the Decembrists scoundrels
        with a dirty soul.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 28 December 2020 22: 07
          -2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It was always customary for nobles and their descendants to respect the Decembrists
          for bravery.
          Regardless of whether they shared their political views,
          or not.
          Only a person can call the Decembrists scoundrels
          with a dirty soul.

          Don't take it to heart ... As I understand it, the Decembrists began to associate with the liberal revolutionary idea. And this is now fashionable to criticize in the Russian media. Enemies, foreign agents and other liberals ..
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 28 December 2020 23: 39
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It was always customary for nobles and their descendants to respect the Decembrists
          for bravery.

          Pestel the thief who got into the regimental cash desk and was mired in debt

          Kakhovsky-COLLABARATIVE, ALFONS and KILLER, drunk with the French invaders in burning Moscow

          ALL of them are "people" without shame and conscience, who led the subordinates who trusted them by DECEPTION to the slaughter, like sheep. More betrayal is hard to imagine

          All of them are CRIMINALS and CHECKERS, according to the decisions of the courts of Russia

          One high-ranking dignitary, meeting one of the arrested Decembrists, his good friend Prince Yevgeny Obolensky, exclaimed in horror: "What have you done, prince. You pushed Russia back at least 50 years ago" (c)


          And there is.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The Decembrists can only be called scoundrels people
          with a dirty soul
          .

          belay lol Lovers of poking around in other people's souls Osya Bender: " Contact the World League for Sexual Reform. May be, there you can help." lol
  • 1970mk
    1970mk 28 December 2020 05: 16
    +13
    In liberal pre-revolutionary Russia, a myth was formed about fearless fighters against absolutism.

    When and from whom?
    A narrow elite group, influenced by the West, decided to "transform" Russia.

    And Peter 1, the influence of the West, will be cursed here?
    PS Is it worth reading further or the same?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 28 December 2020 07: 36
      +10
      Quote: 1970mk
      When and from whom?

      I agree with you, in pre-revolutionary Russia such a myth did not exist, the reason for the absence of mythology is that the overwhelming majority of the Decembrists repented. It is enough to reread Ryleev's letters from the conclusion - this was a sincere repentance and this is just one example, of which there were more than enough and, other Decembrists.
      They began to engage in myth-making in the Soviet period, when the Decembrists were made "saints"
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 28 December 2020 16: 04
        +4
        And how differently you can relate to the famous epigram:

        “We have made the revolution to know.
        What did you want to be a shoemaker? " (c).
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 08: 03
      +5
      Quote: 1970mk
      And Peter 1, the influence of the West, will be cursed here?

      Yes, the author, in general, has already "reported". Some article, a blooper on a blooper
  • apro
    apro 28 December 2020 05: 19
    -1
    The era of guards coups ended there ... is it good or bad. For the country it is good. Legal power is transferred by legal methods. For progress not very well. But the guardsmen also did not go to a new level. The same only view from the side. The idea of ​​rearranging the king of the ampirator . in a peasant country. without changing the production forces. what is the point?
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 28 December 2020 05: 29
    +2
    And now they have returned everything to their places, in a modern version, the tsar is on the throne, around friends and associates (colleagues) servants and slaves. It's funny how Putin and Shoigu fulfill wishes, well, surely fairy-tale wizards smile
  • Russian jacket
    Russian jacket 28 December 2020 05: 53
    +4
    I asked a history teacher at school. Why was there an uprising if the same Pestel, Kakhovsky, Orlov and others like them had serfs .... Why not free them. And set an example. And why Miloradovich was killed in the back (or on the side - were they afraid?) What started here .... It's good that at least the schoolboy was not accused of Trotskyism ... I don't remember the class, secondary school from 1974 to 1982. I don't know why, but even from Soviet textbooks it was clear that the guys wanted power, not liberation ...
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 28 December 2020 06: 27
      -6
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      It's good that at least the schoolboy was not accused of Trotskyism ...

      Well, this is unlikely, the times were not the same, but on the "pencil" in the KGB you most likely ended up
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 28 December 2020 10: 06
        0
        Quote: Lipchanin
        but on the "pencil" in the KGB, you most likely got

        What for? Parents "on the carpet" at the place of work and all business. yes
    2. Crowe
      Crowe 28 December 2020 06: 37
      +18
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      the guys wanted power, not liberation ...

      That the "guys wanted" there, the disputes still do not subside, but with regards to "the authorities wanted", we can say that the leaders of the Northern Society, in the event of a victory in St. Petersburg, did not at all claim their participation in the new government. One of the points of the manifesto directly stated on the creation of a temporary government (government), which none (!) of the conspirators was going to enter. The temporary government was supposed to consist of major statesmen, headed by Mikhail Speransky and Admiral Nikolai Mordvinov. We can say that it was one of the most disinterested uprisings in history. So, a little remark of "justice for" ..
      1. Russian jacket
        Russian jacket 28 December 2020 11: 08
        +2
        The same for the sake of justice. What about the leaders of the Southern Community? And the Pestel program? Who, according to his idea, was supposed to form the government? From my point of view, he who forms, controls. And regarding the point in the manifesto - to promise does not mean to marry. hi
    3. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 08: 08
      +8
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      Why was there an uprising if the same Pestel, Kakhovsky, Orlov and others like them had serfs ... Why not free them. And set an example.

      On a nationwide scale, this is a drop in the ocean. People thought big, not within their corner
      1. Russian jacket
        Russian jacket 28 December 2020 11: 10
        +2
        Exactly. First, about the great, but you have to live on something ... how familiar it is.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 28 December 2020 06: 51
    +3
    Petrograd. Night of October 25 / November 7, 1917. The elderly Countess (G) is sitting in the bedroom by the fireplace. Noise, shouts, shots are heard through the window from the street. The Countess sends the maid (C) to find out what the matter is. The maid returns.
    S: Oh, Countess, they are making a revolution there!
    H: Oh, how interesting! My grandfather also made a revolution in 1825! And what do they want?
    S: Oh, Countess, they want there to be no king!
    H: Oh, how curious! My grandfather in 1825 also wanted there to be no king! What else do they want?
    S: Oh, Countess, they want there to be no rich!
    H: Strange ... And my grandfather in 1825 wanted there to be no poor ...
    lol
  • Konstantin Shevchenko
    Konstantin Shevchenko 28 December 2020 07: 13
    +2
    French hirelings, not all of course, indirectly. The funny thing in the comments is "the lack of a social ladder."
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 28 December 2020 07: 45
      +3
      Quote: Konstantin Shevchenko
      French hirelings

      They could not speak Russian and did not want to speak - and these are Russian people. Even during interrogations, they spoke in French.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 28 December 2020 09: 18
        0
        Quote: bober1982
        They could not speak Russian and did not want to speak - and these are Russian people. Even during interrogations, they spoke in French.

        Come on, in those years it was considered indecent not to speak French, like 1000 years ago, Latin and Greek, and today English. And not only in Russia; for example, Frederick the Great in Prussia, as he himself stated, "at court, German exists only for soldiers and horses." And the highest order of Prussia established by him was called Pour le Mérite, and not für das Verdienst (both mean "For Merit", the first in French, and the second, respectively, in German).
        1. Civil
          Civil 28 December 2020 14: 00
          +2

          Come on, in those years it was considered indecent not to speak French, like 1000 years ago, Latin and Greek, and today English. And not only in Russia; for example, Frederick the Great in Prussia, as he himself stated, "at court, German exists only for soldiers and horses." And the highest order of Prussia established by him was called Pour le Mérite, and not für das Verdienst (both mean "For Merit", the first in French, and the second, respectively, in German).

          1. Tell us how many millions of Russian serfs spoke French.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 28 December 2020 20: 03
            +2
            Quote: Civil
            Tell us how many millions of Russian serfs spoke French.

            So their noble gentlemen, not only as decent people, generally did not consider them as people, and they were in the position of a two-legged talking draft cattle. The time was like that.
            1. Civil
              Civil 29 December 2020 07: 21
              0
              Quote: Nagan

              So their noble gentlemen, not only as decent people, generally did not consider them as people, and they were in the position of a two-legged talking draft cattle. The time was like that.

              Time is always the same, for which the gentlemen had to pay with their lives. The new gentlemen did not study history.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 28 December 2020 07: 54
    +12
    Catherine II soaked two "empire tsars", but the Great and the "Kamenyuk" are trying not to throw at her .. And they are not called a revolutionary, although she and Dashkova, in her notes, the perfect action is called a revolution. smile... And so according to the article, Samsonov is in his repertoire ... and the impression that he had already read this article several years ago.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 December 2020 08: 35
      +8
      Quote: parusnik
      Catherine II soaked two "empire tsars", but the Great and the "Kamenyuk" are trying not to throw at her .. And they are not called a revolutionary, although she and Dashkova, in her notes, the perfect action is called a revolution. smile... And so according to the article, Samsonov is in his repertoire ... and the impression that he had already read this article several years ago.

      Communicated with Dietrich and was full of freethinking.
      Conclusion Alexey - the winners are not judged!
      Similar associations emerged under the article.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 28 December 2020 08: 11
    +2
    And how the Decembrists were going to implement
    Then it was proposed to convene a National Council

    Estates canceled?
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 08: 15
    +9
    It is obvious that the palace coup in the capital and the subsequent "reforms" could cause confusion in Russia.

    The emergence of various national separatists, the collapse of the country, uprisings in military settlements, peasant war (Pugachevism), the intervention of foreign powers.
    The military "reform", the fall of the authority of the authorities and the hierarchy at the top (the officers 'actions against the authorities) led to the disintegration of the army and soldiers' riots. Also, the victory of the conspirators inevitably led to the struggle of moderate and radical revolutionaries.

    The result is a severe crisis that would have thrown Russia politically and militarily and economically back tens or hundreds of years.

    That is, palace coups from Elizabeth, Catherine and Alexander I, like it was normal ?! The legitimate emperors Ionan Antonovich, Peter III and Paul I were killed. And nothing, it seems, did not throw Russia anywhere, even the victorious tsars were also revered. But if the Decembrists had won, then the pipe. wassat Moreover, they wanted to free the peasants, here are the radishes! He also dragged Pugachev. He also fought against serfdom. Something I have already ceased to understand, for whom the author is actually - he seems to be supporting the Soviet project, but according to the latest articles, so generally some kind of mess.
    1. tasha
      tasha 28 December 2020 08: 43
      0
      During the time of palace coups, the emperor changed, but not the state system.
      I think that the Decembrists needed to attract someone from the dynasty to their ranks, with the right to the throne, quietly strangle Nicholas I with a pillow or scarf, and then engage in reforms ...
  • Jünger
    Jünger 28 December 2020 08: 22
    -9
    Samsonov even gave a good article. Happens..
    1. moreman78
      moreman78 28 December 2020 09: 06
      +8
      Quote: Junger
      о

      Where is a good article in this nonsense?
      1. Jünger
        Jünger 28 December 2020 09: 24
        -5
        It is worth noting the humanity and nobility of the sovereign Nicholas I. The military rebels were subject to execution. They planned a military coup and the possible liquidation of the dynasty. However, only 5 people were executed. Nikolay pardoned 31

        I wrote it well. I love it when they respectfully write about kings smile
      2. Jünger
        Jünger 28 December 2020 09: 49
        +2
        But the role of the world behind the scenes in the person of the Masters of the West in the events described has not been revealed.
        It also remained unclear whether the Decembrists belonged to the super-ethnos of the Rus or were representatives of the lost tribe of Israel.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 28 December 2020 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Junger
          But the role of the world behind the scenes in the person of the Masters of the West in the events described has not been revealed.

          By the way, a good formulation of the question.
          Freemasons, Freemasons, all around the Freemasons.
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 09
            +1
            Quote: bober1982
            Quote: Junger
            But the role of the world behind the scenes in the person of the Masters of the West in the events described has not been revealed.

            By the way, a good formulation of the question.
            Freemasons, freemasons, all around the masons.


            Need Masons? There are plenty of them on the Internet.

            This is the advantage of modern education over the Soviet school - if you want, you can find on the Internet what Soviet students could not have thought of.

            From the Internet.
            "Emperor Alexander died on December 1825, 47 in Taganrog, in the house of Papkov, from fever with brain inflammation at the age of 1925. Alexander Pushkin wrote an epitaph:" He spent his whole life on the road, caught a cold and died in Taganrog. "In the house where he died sovereign, the first memorial museum named after him was organized in Russia, which existed until 47. The imminent death of the emperor at the age of only XNUMX gave rise to a lot of rumors among the people. "

            Rumors about the murder of Alexander I were by no means groundless - in order to understand why he suddenly died at the age of 47, you just need to look at the date of the Decembrist uprising - December 14 (26), 1825.
            Nothing is that easy! And if the Emperor, in his prime, suddenly died on December 1, 1825, and after 3 weeks a coup begins in St. Petersburg, then one follows from the other - he was poisoned.
            Why did Alexander I suddenly die in his prime of life on the way from Balaklava to the St. George Monastery in Taganrog? And because before that he had been in the company of Mikhail Vorontsov at his residence of the governor of Crimea and Novorossiya in Crimea and felt bad after leaving Vorontsov.
            Who was Mikhail Vorontsov?
            Mikhail Vorontsov's father, Semyon Vorontsov, the ambassador in London ordered the assassination of Emperor Paul I. And his son Mikhail Vorontsov, raised in England, in the position of Viceroy of Crimea, himself poisoned the son of Paul I, Emperor Alexander I, and organized the Maidan attempt in 1825. And without its governor in the Crimea, the Crimean War and the attack on Crimea in 1953 would have been impossible for the British Empire.

            Emperor Alexander I died on December 1, 1825. And the Decembrist uprising took place 3 weeks later, because it had been expected for a long time, had been preparing for a long time, and the poisoning of Emperor Alexander I by the governor of Crimea and Little Russia by the omnipotent Count Mikhail Vorontsov at his residence in Crimea was a signal for the uprising of the notorious "Decembrists" - agents of the British Empire.
            The death of Alexander I was the signal for an uprising of the Masonic "Scottish Masonic Lodges" of Russia, just like today's foreign "Humanitarian Funds" and NGOs funded by the British Empire. They say that even Pushkin belonged to one of these Masonic lodges, but apparently this was nonsense, which the conspirators spread to raise their prestige. They still support the version that Alexander I did not die, but became an old man in Siberia.
            The leader of the coup d'état in Russia prepared by the British Empire - the rival of the Russian Empire in the Great Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
            for domination in the whole world - there was none other than the Russian ambassador to London, Count Semyon Vorontsov - the father of the Crimean governor Mikhail Vorontsov.
            Mikhail Vorontsov was a fully English-speaking gentleman and was awarded many British awards. But the greatest award to Mikhail Vorontsov for the Decembrist coup was the fantastic Alupka Palace, designed by the best British architects and built with British money from pure basalt in the style of an English castle.
            The castle was designed by English architect Edward Blore and his assistant William Hunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorontsov_Palace_%28Alupka%29
            The lock is actually cleverly made. From the side of the sea, the castle had an oriental view in full view, and from the inside, which was inaccessible for viewing, the castle was English.
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 10
              +1
              Moreover, Semyon Vorontsov, as Russia's ambassador to London, was in 1801 the organizer of the assassination of the Russian Emperor Paul I.
              And Emperor Alexander I knew. who ordered his father, so Semyon Vorontsov since 1806 remained a defector in England. That is, Russian Ambassador to London Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov never returned to Russia and lived in England for 47 years, becoming a defector. He worked for the British Empire and is buried in England at St Mary-le-Bow in London.
              That is, Semyon Vorontsov became the first defector to Russia of this level and stayed in London with his daughter, whom he married off as a lord and his grandson by the time of the Crimean War became the Minister of War of the British Empire.

              Try to realize this fact! Of course, you will not find these facts in the official courses of Soviet and Russian history, which of course is a consequence of the fact that up to now Russian history is being written according to British instructions.
              On May 22, 1785, Count Semyon Vorontsov arrived with children in London - that is, little Misha Vorontsov was only 3 when he was taken to London.
              Semyon Romanovich chooses London because at one time his elder brother Alexander Romanovich was an envoy in London and significant acquaintances and connections have been preserved in England. That is, the Vorontsovs worked for the British Empire by no means the first generation.
              Mikhail Vorontsov will return to Russia as an English aristocrat after the assassination of Paul the First in 1801, that is, 16 years later. That is, English was the main language for Mikhail Vorontsov.

              And his dad, leading from London, where he was already a defector, will send Mikhail immediately after Paul's murder to occupy military positions and recruit people to form "Scottish Masonic Lodges" and prepare a coup d'etat of the "Decembrists". However, his son was still too young then, although the young Mikhail Vorontsov, after the defeat of Napoleon, was at first the commandant of all the occupying forces of Paris, which explains why the Russians, having reached Paris, returned with nothing. At this time he got married. His bride, of course, was not the Russian Branitskaya - Engelhardt. Lisa's dad was also a citizen of Poland, Count Francis Xavier Branicki, the hetman of Poland. The planted father of Vorontsov's bride was the English Duke of Wellington himself.
              The marriage of the daughter of Vorontsov and the Earl of Pembroke became possible thanks to the merits of Semyon Romanovich before the English crown and long years in England.
              That is, Mikhail Vorontsov's sister, Katerina (Katherine), like her dad, never returned to Russia. She in 1808 in England married the English Lord Pembroke.
              "Catherine married George Herbert, 11th Earl of Pembroke, 8th Earl of Montgomery lieutenant-colonel in the 2nd Dragoon Guards
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert,_11th_Earl_of_Pembroke
              That is, there was no smell of Russia there!
              Here's another interesting thing about the Crimean War.
              The son of Ekaterina Semyonovna Vorontsova, whose name is Sidney Herbert 1st Lord Herbert of Lee (1810-1861), was the British government minister of war.
              An interesting case - Mikhail Vorontsov - Viceroy of Novorossiya and Crimea, during the Crimean War of 1853-56 had as his own nephew the Minister of Defense of the British Empire (!) Sidney Herbert the 1st Lord Herbert of Lee. A fact that was never advertised in official Soviet history.

              It's like it's all the same if, like Zhukov during the Second World War, he had Hermann Goering as his own nephew!
              Sidney Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Lea
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Herbert,_1st_Baron_Herbert_of_Lea
              - This Secretary of Defense of the British Empire has a mother - Katerina Vorontsova, and a grandfather - Semyon Vorontsov. And this is exactly when the British Empire attacked Russia in 1853.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 28 December 2020 08: 47
    +10
    A difficult task for modern historians. You have to turn inside out 4 times.

    On the one hand, the Bolsheviks consider the Decembrists to be the right guys.
    On the other hand, they seem to be liberals.

    From the third, the heroes of the war of 1812.
    On the fourth, rebels like Navalny.
    laughing
    1. Senior seaman
      Senior seaman 28 December 2020 09: 48
      +2
      Quote: Arzt
      From the third, the heroes of the war of 1812.

      Myth. There are not so many just participants, and only a few heroes.
    2. silberwolf88
      silberwolf88 28 December 2020 10: 48
      0
      I do not really relate to the Decembrists ... but you do not need to equate with them small mongrels like bulk Germans and others
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 28 December 2020 10: 59
        +1
        I do not really relate to the Decembrists ... but you do not need to equate with them small mongrels like bulk Germans and others

        Small ones? I think the Prosecutor General and the Prime Minister would not agree with you. laughing
        And also other oligarchs and generals ... wink
    3. evgen1221
      evgen1221 28 December 2020 12: 50
      +2
      Arzt-in the end they will come to an agreement among themselves that the majors were clear guys because the Orthodox both believed in God and went to church.)))
  • Operator
    Operator 28 December 2020 09: 11
    0
    Nicholas I showed not "humanity and nobility", but prudence - most of the rebel officers had wide family ties with the top of society and mass executions would have played a ricochet at Nicholas himself.

    Behind those who came out to Senate Square were authoritative representatives of the generals and the Senate, who lobbied Konstantin Pavlovich with the constitutional monarchy and were supposed to intervene after Nikolai's removal from power.

    Nikolai personally burned the criminal case against the true leaders of the rebellion in the fireplace.
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 09: 19
    +3
    It is worth noting the humanity and nobility of the sovereign Nicholas I. The military rebels were subject to execution. They planned a military coup and the possible liquidation of the dynasty. However, only 5 people were executed. Nikolai pardoned 31 (out of 36 sentenced to death by the court).
    Oh, I can't, I found a knight, who was nicknamed Palkin by the people. Especially against the background of the broken ropes for executions, which was popularly considered a pardon. The image of this "knight" is well shown in the movie "Star of Captivating Happiness". Hysterical and vengeful.
    1. silberwolf88
      silberwolf88 28 December 2020 10: 50
      +3
      do you trust movies ??? ... then apparently you firmly believe in the exploits of Rambo or Captain America ... and what Life is not joking about ... apparently the idol is Batman himself)))
  • Unknown
    Unknown 28 December 2020 09: 35
    +6
    I don't know how I lived there in pre-revolutionary Russia, I didn't live, but in the late USSR, these Decembrists were suddenly glorified. Such an image was made by “revolutionaries,” which was promoted by Soviet cinema, with such stupid films, based on the plot as “The Star of Captivating Happiness,” Say a word about the poor hussar, where all the heroes are so correct, in their hearts they all sympathize with the Decembrists, that you are simply amazed how Nikolai even sat on the throne. But the reality is different. As they correctly write in the comments, there was nothing to stop all these bars from experimenting with the abolition of serfdom on their estates, of which there were plenty. And the influence at the court of all these princes, counts, was great, the king then listened to their opinion. What was in the way? And then the poor soldiers did not regret being set up under the guns. And the campaigns of the army to Europe, too, did not play a special role for the Russian nobility. Since the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century, the army in that Europe was constantly at war, defended other people's interests. The nobility itself rolled overseas, with the peasants always beating money. Judging by the program they had, the hand of Britain is felt here. They successfully performed such actions against the peasants at home.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 28 December 2020 11: 06
      +3
      Quote: Unknown
      but in the late USSR, these Decembrists were suddenly glorified.

      In the late, suddenly began to glorify ?! Senate Square in Leningrad, renamed the Decembrists' Square in 1923. The attitude in the USSR has always been respectful towards them, starting with Lenin.
      1. Unknown
        Unknown 29 December 2020 02: 27
        +1
        Respect and glorification, two different things. The renaming of the square in 1923, was noticed only by the residents of St. Petersburg. The rest of the people in the USSR, it was like on a drum, as the square is called, Senatskaya or Decembrists. But when in
        cinemas, and from TV screens, millions of people are shown films, this is mass propaganda, and the imposition of a certain image. You will not name a single film about the Decembrists created in the 30-60s from memory. But 70-80 years are enough.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 29 December 2020 08: 42
          0
          Quote: Unknown
          You will not name from memory a single film about the Decembrists created in the 30-60s. But 70-80 years are enough.

          In terms of?! - Wikipedia has only 5 films about the Decembrists - "The Decembrists" (1926), "S. V. D. " (Union of the Great Cause) (1927), "The Star of Captivating Happiness" (1975), There is no foreign land (1990), and the "Union of Salvation" (2019). That's all hi
          Quote: Unknown
          The rest of the people in the USSR, it was like on a drum, as the area is called, Senate or Decembrists.
          Well, with this logic, we can say that the rest of the people of the USSR do not care about what the city is called, Petrograd or Leningrad.
          Losers generally receive little attention. There are even fewer films dedicated to the uprising of Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev, and I’m silent about Bulavin, or Bolotnikov.
          1. Unknown
            Unknown 29 December 2020 12: 17
            0
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            In terms of?! - in Wikipedia there are only 5 films about the Decembrists - "The Decembrists" (1926), "S. V. D. " (Union of the Great Cause) (1927), "The Star of Captivating Happiness" (1975), There is no foreign land (1990), and the Union of Salvation (2019). That's all
            All the same, I had to search in Wikipedia, it didn't work out from memory, because I didn't remember the films made in the 20s. And it's no wonder who should remember the degenerating class of nobility in the USSR. But in the first half of the 70s, the liberal intelligentsia imagined themselves as almost descendants of these noblemen, and films about them, as well as films in which they were mentioned, went on.
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            Well, with this logic, we can say that the rest of the people of the USSR do not care about what the city is called, Petrograd or Leningrad.
            But do you want to say that in 23 the peasants of the RFSR, which made up 85 percent of the population and could not read, were worried about renaming in distant St. Petersburg? Yes, and the renaming of cities was not very worried about the population of the USSR, at that time there were tasks of great importance, for example, the elimination of illiteracy so that the people could at least read.
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 28 December 2020 09: 40
    +1
    The Decembrists are just an example of an unsuccessful coup.
    On December 6, 1741, 30 guards brought Elizaveta Petrovna to power.
    June 28, 1762 Catherine II similarly came to power
    On March 24, 1801, Alexander 1 knew about the impending murder of his father and the emperor, but became tsar.
    then there were the Decembrists who did not succeed.
    March 1917, the liberals forced Nicholas II to abdicate, but did not retain power and
    On November 7, 1917, the Bolsheviks took power
    On August 21, 1991, power changed again
  • north 2
    north 2 28 December 2020 09: 44
    -2
    it’s scary to even think what would happen to Russia if Nicholas I were as spineless as Nicholas II and abdicated before the Liberast Decembrists in the same way that Nicholas II abdicated the throne before the liberals. The Bolsheviks then, during the time of Nicholas I, did not yet exist that they would have raised the abandoned power by the Tsar and thereby saved Russia, as the Bolsheviks of Lenin raised the power thrown by Nicholas II and saved Russia. Liberators, what then what then, having come to power would quickly sell Russia to the West. Just like the liberals would have sold them now, if anyone would have allowed them to power in today's Russia. Stalin, a dozen years after the Bolsheviks raised the abandoned power to the Russian Nicholas II by the Emperor, had already restored the Red Empire of Russia to the USSR. And this was done not for the authorities, but for the salvation of Russia. So any campaign of liberals in power in Russia is only for the sake of power and for their own benefit, how much the West will throw them from the sale of Russia to the West.
    But since history does not recognize the subjunctive mood, then my judgments, what would have happened if there were, you can evaluate as minuses, if these judgments of mine hit the liberals right in the heart and unmasked them ..
    1. Jünger
      Jünger 28 December 2020 10: 02
      +1
      Quote: north 2
      if Nicholas I were as spineless as Nicholas II and renounced the Decembrists-Liberasts

      If the generals came to visit him and said - renounce, then the first would have renounced as well as the second. Supermen only exist in movies. But in reality - Grozny threw the capital to plunder the Tatars, Peter the First fled in his underwear from the rioters in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius and was generally psychic on this basis.
      In the old days, the people were loyal to the tsars and did not represent any other power, otherwise it would be the same as in the 20th century with Nicholas II.
      Therefore, one should not become like fools and write about someone's spinelessness. Anyone will squeeze and become such.
      1. north 2
        north 2 28 December 2020 11: 21
        +4
        it was Grozny who took Kazan to end the plundering of Russia by the Tatars. And that Peter the First left the Kremlin and retreated from the rioters in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, so power is not where the throne chair for the Tsar is, but where the Tsar himself is. Moreover, the Trinity of Sergius Lavra was then no less an encroaching fortress than and the Moscow Kremlin itself. Prior to that, the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius even withstood several sieges by the Poles, led by Sapieha, but the Poles were never able to take the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, which cannot be said about the Moscow Kremlin. And Peter the First did not retreat there alone. The Semyonovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments and the regiment of Sukharev immediately arrived to him. That is, the army followed Peter.
        And further . The Trinity of St. Sergius Lavra is and was the Holy place of Russia of the current and past Tsarist Russia, And since Tsarist Russia was held on their shoulders by three Atlantes - the Tsar, the Motherland and the Orthodox Faith, it is quite logical that Peter the First used the citadel of Orthodoxy to retreat there from The Kremlin, to deal a decisive blow to the rioters.
        So, the oath-renegade Nicholas II, who lost the Empire, can be compared with the Terrible or with Peter the Great, who not only preserved the Empire for their descendants, but also expanded it to such great dimensions, it is impossible to compare them. a hundred times more insidious than that of Nicholas II ...
        1. Jünger
          Jünger 28 December 2020 11: 38
          +1
          Do not carry a blizzard. Both Grozny and Peter retained power only because they had the support of the boyars, the army and the clergy. And therefore supporters (and not only) ran after them - to the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda and the Lavra.
          And there was no one behind Nikolai - the commanders of all fronts made him a pen, and Ruzsky shouted and threatened at the same time.
          All advanced subjects wanted republics and constitutions by that time, and nobody needed the Tsar. And when you do not feel support, the thought appears - "why do I need all this? Let them live as they want"
          Of course, there were many supporters of the monarchy among the officers, but they were scattered along the fronts and did not represent the monolith.
          Quote: north 2
          So the oath-renegade Nicholas II

          Whether he is an oath-renegade or not is not for hysterics to decide. It is not in your competence. At another level they will decide.
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 28 December 2020 13: 22
        +4
        Everything was true about Nikolai Pavlovich. It was CHARACTER. And the examples of the alleged cowardice of the rulers given above are far-fetched. About Grozny - in general, for several generations the rulers of Russia left the capital and went out to collect troops, - starting from the same unhappy Georgy Vsevolodovich, and in the burning of the capital there is no big difference between the Crimean Napoleonians - an invasion is an invasion. Peter, no matter how they treated him, ran to the Lavra not just anywhere, but for the same gathering of military forces and supporters, for a bad death in the style of Andrei Bogolyubsky does not require much intelligence. About the stubbornness of the rulers in the struggle for power, with all the role of the entourage and parties, the same Vasily the Dark returned to the throne one way or another. And it turns out that the rulers of Russia are not suitable for Muammar Gaddafi. This is not true.
        1. Jünger
          Jünger 28 December 2020 13: 52
          0
          Quote: andrew42
          About Grozny,

          He asked for asylum from the English queen, offered the Crimean Khan to surrender Astrakhan and Kazan.
          Quote: andrew42
          Peter, no matter how they treated him, ran to the Lavra not just anywhere, but for the same collection of military forces

          He ran away into the neighboring forest, undressed.
          Peter was suddenly awakened by defectors from the Kremlin, who warned him that the princess had gathered an armed army to attack and kill him at Preobrazhensky. The existence of this attempt has not been proven by anything, it is even, perhaps, incredible ... Sophia did not think and could not even think at this time about the attack on the Preobrazhensky camp. She knew that he was well guarded, kept in martial law, ready for any surprises.
          ..Peter is running. Without thinking to check the danger that threatens him, he jumps out of bed, runs straight to the stable, undressed, jumps on a horse and hides in the nearby forest.

          Peter showed cowardice and cowardice, as well as later - in the Prut campaign. But if something - I do not blame him.
          Quote: andrew42
          Otherwise, it turns out that the rulers of Russia are no match for Muammar Gaddafi. This is not true.

          Actually, I'm not talking about the fact that all our kings are nonentities (I just respect them), but about the fact that all people are the same plus or minus. Batmen exist in immature children's and girls' heads.
          And if someone thinks that Nicholas 2 had to spit to summon a Cossack convoy, which would chop everyone to meat, he is stupid as a cork or a child.
          Even Napoleon, when he took the Council of Five Hundred, almost fainted. Murat saved him.
          Therefore, when someone starts squealing - "Nikolashka, a nonentity," then he just needs to thump less and look at life with wide open eyes.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 28 December 2020 10: 17
    0
    And in the 18th century, the dark darkness of palace coups occurred and no one fell away and did not intervene, and here everything is the end of Mother Russia.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 28 December 2020 10: 30
    +5
    the riot of the snickering "golden youth" ... the boredom of local or garrison life and the permissiveness of the barchuk ... such as they are now driving from the police in cars ... for all their declarativeness, NONE of them released their peasants ... the soldiers were deceived shooting ... the debtor / gambler Kakhovskoy simply ... killed the hero of the war of 1812 ... General Miloradovich ... about those who support their ideas, a good example of how a great piety was afraid that a bunny had crossed the road ...
    betrayal of the state and the oath that's what the Decembrists are
    1. north 2
      north 2 28 December 2020 12: 10
      +1
      we must also take into account that then all this "golden youth" in conversations with each other along with three Russian words in linguistics used at least ten words in French. And their parents, Russian nobles in Russia, even after Napoleon's invasion of Russia tried
      speak too by inserting phrases in French. They believed that the West is progress and enlightenment and
      they hated Russia. Well, the French army came to Russia in 1812, and in the Churches and Shrines of Russia in the Kremlin, the French set up stables ... So the barbarians entered Russia, before whom the parents of this golden youth and this golden youth itself cherished. By the way, now today's golden youth, next to Russian words, are already sticking as many English words and praying to the English-speaking West and its pseudo culture and pseudo values. But since there are no horses in the armies now, it means that if Russia is weak, these barbarians in the shrines of Russia will make toilets for their soldiers from NATO. And the golden youth hopes that the invasions
      NATO, if Russia is weak, will bypass them. Fools, she will scrub these toilets, at best, and NATO will be selected by competition - who is the best of these young people smiling happily while scrubbing these toilets in the shrines of Russia, NATO soldiers turned into toilets.
  • Anachoret
    Anachoret 28 December 2020 12: 33
    +1
    As now, in those years everything was the same with the opposition.
    The so-called Southern Society was actively feeding on smuggling through the ports of the Black and Azov Seas. And according to one hypothesis, Emperor Alexander made a trip to conduct an on-site investigation with sentencing. So there are far from high ideals in action.
    Ryleev would have already been given the status of "foreign agent", since he lived within the walls of the British Trade Mission and fed from it.
    And lofty ideas from France also came not from a desire for the common good, but from Britain's inability to win the American War of Independence. After all, the States were actively supported by France.
    It was easier through Jewish merchants and bankers to agree on a deficit and rise in prices for bread and essential products in the state of a key rich enemy, and the ideological "political leaders" followed with the ideas of "freedom, equality and brotherhood" to the hungry and angry people to organize a color revolution with the indispensable demonstrative execution of local monarchs.
    After that, power in France passed to the transnational oligarchy.
    So the revolution of the 17th year in Russia was no different in terms of its organization.
    P.S. bravo to the film "Union of Salvation", which did not once again romanticize the Decembrists. A dog's death and oblivion to traitors!
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 28 December 2020 12: 42
    -1
    Yes, some West did not move the Decembrists - a handful of rich majors gathered and decided to hyip out of satiety and boredom. It is expected that they made any kind of nonsense and took this opportunity to lie to the strips and withdraw the troops. As expected, we got a podzhopnik. Lenin wrote absolutely rightly, they were terribly far from the needs of the people. And in the links did not become closer. No more jerks with their daddies' rooftops.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 26
      0
      Quote: evgen1221

      Yes, no West moved the Decembrists - a handful of rich majors gathered and decided to hyip out of satiety and boredom ...


      The rumors about the murder of Alexander I were by no means groundless - in order to understand why he suddenly died at the age of 47, you just need to look at the date of the Decembrist uprising - December 14 (26), 1825.
      Nothing is that easy! And if the Emperor, in his prime, suddenly died on December 1, 1825, and after 3 weeks a coup begins in St. Petersburg, then one follows from the other - he was poisoned.
      Why did Alexander I suddenly die in his prime of life on the way from Balaklava to the St. George Monastery in Taganrog? And because before that he had been in the company of Mikhail Vorontsov at his residence of the governor of Crimea and Novorossiya in Crimea and felt bad after leaving Vorontsov.
      Who was Mikhail Vorontsov?
      Mikhail Vorontsov's father, Semyon Vorontsov, the ambassador in London ordered the assassination of Emperor Paul I. And his son Mikhail Vorontsov, raised in England, in the position of Viceroy of Crimea, himself poisoned the son of Paul I, Emperor Alexander I, and organized the Maidan attempt in 1825. And without its governor in the Crimea, the Crimean War and the attack on Crimea in 1953 would have been impossible for the British Empire.

      Emperor Alexander I died on December 1, 1825. And the Decembrist uprising took place 3 weeks later, because it had been expected for a long time, had been preparing for a long time, and the poisoning of Emperor Alexander I by the governor of Crimea and Little Russia by the omnipotent Count Mikhail Vorontsov at his residence in Crimea was a signal for the uprising of the notorious "Decembrists" - agents of the British Empire.
      The death of Alexander I was the signal for an uprising of the Masonic "Scottish Masonic Lodges" of Russia, just like today's foreign "Humanitarian Funds" and NGOs funded by the British Empire. They say that even Pushkin belonged to one of these Masonic lodges, but apparently this was nonsense, which the conspirators spread to raise their prestige. They still support the version that Alexander I did not die, but became an old man in Siberia.

      The leader of the coup d'état in Russia prepared by the British Empire - the rival of the Russian Empire in Great Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
      for domination in the whole world - there was none other than the Russian ambassador to London, Count Semyon Vorontsov - the father of the Crimean governor Mikhail Vorontsov.
      Mikhail Vorontsov was a fully English speaking gentleman and was awarded many British awards. But the greatest award to Mikhail Vorontsov for the Decembrist coup was the fantastic Alupka Palace, designed by the best British architects and built with British money from pure basalt in the style of an English castle.
      The castle was designed by English architect Edward Blore and his assistant William Hunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorontsov_Palace_%28Alupka%29

      Moreover, Semyon Vorontsov, as Russia's ambassador to London, was in 1801 the organizer of the assassination of the Russian Emperor Paul I.
      And Emperor Alexander I knew. who ordered his father, so Semyon Vorontsov since 1806 remained a defector in England. That is, Russian Ambassador to London Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov never returned to Russia and lived in England for 47 years, becoming a defector. He worked for the British Empire and is buried in England at St Mary-le-Bow in London.

      That is, Semyon Vorontsov became the first defector to Russia of this level and stayed in London with his daughter, whom he married off as a lord and his grandson by the time of the Crimean War became the Minister of War of the British Empire.
      Try to realize this fact! Of course, you will not find these facts in the official courses of Soviet and Russian history, which of course is a consequence of the fact that up to now Russian history is being written according to British instructions.
      On May 22, 1785, Count Semyon Vorontsov arrived with children in London - that is, little Misha Vorontsov was only 3 when he was taken to London.
      Semyon Romanovich chooses London because at one time his elder brother Alexander Romanovich was an envoy in London and significant acquaintances and connections have been preserved in England. That is, the Vorontsovs worked for the British Empire by no means the first generation.
      Mikhail Vorontsov will return to Russia as an English aristocrat after the assassination of Paul the First in 1801, that is, 16 years later. That is, English was the main language for Mikhail Vorontsov.

      And his dad, leading from London, where he was already a defector, will send Mikhail immediately after Paul's murder to occupy military positions and recruit people to form "Scottish Masonic Lodges" and prepare a coup d'etat of the "Decembrists". However, his son was still too young then, although the young Mikhail Vorontsov, after the defeat of Napoleon, was at first the commandant of all the occupying forces of Paris, which explains why the Russians, having reached Paris, returned with nothing. At this time he got married. His bride, of course, was not the Russian Branitskaya - Engelhardt. Lisa's dad was also a citizen of Poland, Count Francis Xavier Branicki, the hetman of Poland. The planted father of Vorontsov's bride was the English Duke of Wellington himself.
      The marriage of the daughter of Vorontsov and the Earl of Pembroke became possible thanks to the merits of Semyon Romanovich before the English crown and long years in England.
      That is, Mikhail Vorontsov's sister, Katerina (Katherine), like her dad, never returned to Russia. She in 1808 in England married the English Lord Pembroke.
      "Catherine married George Herbert, 11th Earl of Pembroke, 8th Earl of Montgomery lieutenant-colonel in the 2nd Dragoon Guards
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert,_11th_Earl_of_Pembroke
      There was no smell of Russia!

      An interesting case - Mikhail Vorontsov - Viceroy of Novorossiya and Crimea, during the Crimean War of 1853-56 had as his own nephew the Minister of Defense of the British Empire (!) Sidney Herbert the 1st Lord Herbert of Lee. A fact that was never advertised in official Soviet history. It's like it's all the same if, like Zhukov during the Second World War, he had Hermann Goering as his own nephew!
  • Victor Red
    Victor Red 28 December 2020 12: 49
    0
    The article, frankly pleased, or rather amused. Credit to the author! He directly condemns the actions of the Decembrists, and in their person and the Februaryists, while he is clearly not delighted with the Marxists (Bolsheviks), hinting at a certain original path. All this reminds of a scene from the movie Chapaev:
    - Vasily Ivanovich, are you for the Bolsheviks and for the Communists?
    - I am for the International!
  • BAI
    BAI 28 December 2020 12: 58
    -2
    However, the facts suggest the opposite: they were dangerous rebels and cynical conspirators,

    That's putting it mildly. Judging by the surviving documents, they were cowardly, unprincipled traitors, betraying both their own and others.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 28 December 2020 13: 32
    +1
    "They are terribly far from the people" - this has long been carved into the granite of history, and this verdict is not subject to appeal. The Decembrists are classical agents of structureless management, and it doesn't matter whether they were aware of their "work" for the "collective west" or not. All these secret lodges and societies - one single painfully familiar handwriting. About Nekrasov and Turgenev, the author came up with something strange. Passionateness? This is how today the Zaputins are trying to cram the communists into one barrel, regardless of the "right" capitalist venality of the former, and the "left" socialist adherence to principles of the latter. Something I do not remember anything so "western" by Nekrasov in the same "Who Lives Well in Russia," the then Russian people). I do not accept the ode to autocracy and serfdom, but there is no worse such "liberators" - the Decembrists. Ponty for a ruble, gesheft for 5 kopecks, and damage to the state - for generations to come.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 30
      0
      Quote: andrew42

      ... Something I do not remember anything so "western" by Nekrasov in the same "Who Lives Well in Russia" ...


      Nekrasov, funded by the British Empire, maintained two anti-government magazines.
      Under Nicholas I, there were no dissident organizations in Russia and could not be. But after his death, with the arrival of the weak Alexander II in Russia, as in Russia after 1991, various secret, underground and legal organizations began to appear working for the British Empire and secretly financed by it.

      in 1856, only after signing peace with Russia - the very next day Britain turned on all the mechanisms for creating coups d'état, which it applied to Russia since the beginning of the century and which we have already listed and which are repeated according to the pattern and now at the beginning of the 21st century! Agitation and propaganda was launched through the poet Nekrasov's journal Sovremennik, who was just a person through whom money was transferred for subversive work; well, as now Kasparov, Navalny or dad and son of Ponomarev. The military training of "Narodnaya Volya" terrorists, financed through dummy people and dummy NGOs, was launched. The propagandists and agitators of the British Empire went to the masses to agitate against the Tsar-Father. That is, the British Empire immediately took up what was called "creating the prerequisites for a color revolution" in Russia.

      Such an agent of the British Empire was "the great Russian poet Nekrasov", which contained two magazines "Sovremennik" and "Otechestvennye zapiski", which published various dirt about Russia. Nekrasov did it with the money of the British Empire. How did he get this money? Very simple.
      Nekrasov was known as a successful card player, he systematically won large sums of money and for some reason everything from British diplomats. The money was transferred to Nekrasov in the form of alleged "card losses" by British diplomats.
      With this money, Nekrasov kept 2 magazines that pushed through the goals of the British Empire in Russia.
      All Peter then knew that the "singer of the oppressed people" Nekrasov was the first carousel in St. Petersburg, a card sharper, a rowdy and his money did not run out, and he was also registered in London and lived on the same money as Herzen, Ogarev, Marx, Engels , Garibaldi, Mazzini, Bakunin, Girsh Plekhanov - funded by the Rothschilds.

      This is still being forced to teach students how to say Russian classics, And if you look at everything from a modern perspective - where did Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev and Chekhov come from? Who provided them with this?
      In Russia, 70-80% of the population were illiterate, they could not read or write, and in 1855 many were still legally movable property of the Tolstoy, Turgenev, and Nekrasovs.

      How could a writer then become famous in illiterate Russia? The fact of the matter is that the glory of Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov, entered Russia from abroad. Their glory was brought from the West as later the glory of Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn.
      And these "classics" are still studied in schools
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 29 December 2020 13: 05
        0
        Well, let's say they overthrew Tolstoy, Nekrasov, Turgenev, Chekhov from the Russian classics ... Who was left? Griboyedov-? - (a worthy person, no doubt, but he wrote in a hobby mode). Who else? - Dostoevsky, okay. Chernyshevsky with "Vera Pavlovna's dream"? - God forbid. Whom will we read from that time? Who is the "real" literary classic without fear or reproach?
  • Seal
    Seal 28 December 2020 14: 21
    +1
    Quote: aybolyt678
    That is, Pravda itself without comment.
    And where can you see the Truth itself in the original? Not in the first copy (copy from the original), not in the second copy (copy from the first copy), not in the third copy (copy from the second copy), not in the thirty-third copy (copy from the 32nd copy), but in the original?
    If there is no original, then who can guarantee that no additions or deletions have already been made to the first copy? And so on, incrementally. Do you personally know in which copy you read Yaroslav's Pravda ???
  • Seal
    Seal 28 December 2020 14: 23
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    Nikolai personally burned the criminal case against the true leaders of the rebellion in the fireplace.
    And who was present at this burning?
    1. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 28 December 2020 18: 50
      +1
      The author was present. Joke
  • Seal
    Seal 28 December 2020 14: 35
    +3
    Quote: andrew42
    Something I do not remember anything so "western" in Nekrasov's "Who Lives Well in Russia"
    Well, Nekrasov, besides this poem, has other verses. For example, in a letter to M. N. LONGINOV on July 1, 1857. Peterhof

    Dear, beloved and respected by me Longinov. I returned the other day, walked, it would be better to say, after various travels across Europe -

    Finally from Koenigsberg
    I approached the country
    Where Gutenberg is not loved
    And finding a taste in .........
    I drank Russian infusion,
    I heard "........... mother."
    And come before me
    Russian faces to dance.

    There is no time to write, otherwise I would have scribbled a dozen more verses for you ... until another time. Your bibliographer (ich) zap (claims) Turgenev and I read with pleasure. Your labors in this area have taken on a very integral character. We thanked you in Paris, by the way, for publishing "There were two of us on the boat." Be healthy. I will write more one of these days. I kiss you.

    N. Nekrasov.

    Notes
    Original: IR LI, No. 23239.
    For the first time: Nekr. by mat. PD, p. 230.

    I cut out the middle, otherwise I will again receive a warning for swearing in quotes. Read in full here. Source: http://nekrasov-lit.ru/nekrasov/letter/letter-312.htm
  • Seal
    Seal 28 December 2020 14: 42
    0
    Quote: Junger
    And there was no one behind Nikolai - the commanders of all fronts made him a pen, and Ruzsky shouted and threatened at the same time.
    Taking into account the existing bureaucratic machine, it was quite enough to send a telegram about the dismissal of at least all the front commanders with their simultaneous appointment somewhere in the rear military districts or to court positions. And by the same telegram, appoint their deputies or army commanders as commanders. The new appointees themselves will find the strength to throw the dismissed front commanders out of their offices.
    1. Jünger
      Jünger 28 December 2020 15: 43
      -2
      Quote: Seal
      it was not enough to send a telegram about the dismissal of at least all the front commanders and their simultaneous assignment somewhere to the rear military districts or to court positions. And by the same telegram, appoint their deputies or army commanders as commanders.

      This is if you are confident that their deputies adhere to a position on this issue that is fundamentally different from the position of their superiors.
      Those. are loyal subjects.
      And there was no such confidence. And as life has shown, they were not loyal subjects either.
      In general, Nicholas had a sense of raising the boil only in one case - if he knew that behind him was a strong group of society that needed a tsar and supported him. But such in reality did not exist, it was not for nothing that he wrote - "Around betrayal, and cowardice, and deception."
      This was also shown by subsequent events.
      If the people needed a king, then everyone would spit on his abdication and chop into nickels all who forced the king to this abdication. And they would do it naturally and without coercion.
      But the people no longer wanted a tsar, but to hang out beautifully - with a red bow.
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 28 December 2020 18: 11
    +2
    Colleagues, I want to say a few words about the Decembrists. I, like most of them, from school got used to the myth and: "about knights without fear and reproach", and in the fall of 2017 I "dug" deeper. I was shocked: Pestel is at the investigation, he slandered everyone he could, and we immortalized his name. Ryleev, when he saw that the matter was taking a serious turn, said to Obolensky: "You are holding on here, and now I will bring Trubetskoy." It reminds me of Medvedevskoye "there is no money, but you are holding on."
    Once at school I read an art book about the Decembrists and was worried that Muravyov Apostol did not free Pestel. And now I think: he never remembered about him.
    Pushchin got the girl in exile, but taught her to be addressed by her first name and patronymic .. "The obstinate" father.
    Decembrists and Decembrists were different: decent and scoundrels.
    The women showed themselves to be a lot of decent, and Trubetskaya raised her own and other people's children
    Perhaps naively, but I would rename the streets: Pestel and Ryleeva. For example: Trubetskoy Street and Sergei Volkonsky Street ..
    Kakhovsky v Miloradovich
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 28 December 2020 20: 12
      0
      Quote: Astra wild2
      She was shocked: Pestel is at the investigation, he slandered everyone he could, and we immortalized his name.

      Or maybe he was just ashamed to lie, considering it dishonorable, and told everything, not hoping for an excuse?
      Quote: Astra wild2
      Ryleev, when he saw that the matter was taking a serious turn, said to Obolensky: "You hold on here, and now I will bring Trubetskoy."

      And this does not mean anything, because from this phrase it is impossible to understand what agreements were discussed earlier.
      Quote: Astra wild2
      Once at school I read an art book about the Decembrists and was worried that Muravyov Apostol did not free Pestel. And now I think: he never remembered about him.

      Or maybe he did not have such an opportunity?
      Quote: Astra wild2
      Pushchin settled the girl in exile, but taught her to be addressed by her first name and patronymic.

      And then all the children in noble families addressed their father by name and patronymic - they were taught etiquette from childhood, and the father was revered in the family at the level of a lord, and not a dad with whom one could be familiar.
      Quote: Astra wild2
      Perhaps naively

      I will note that if any person today lived at that time, he would behave like the environment in which he grew up. I think it is impossible to assess the actions of people of that era from the standpoint of educating a modern person - then there was a completely different world, and far from as romantic as they might think now. Read "The Restless Admiral" by Stanyukovich, which describes a later history, but conveys well the spirit of that time, and a lot will become clear.
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 29 December 2020 16: 47
        +1
        Volkonskiy, Fonvizin, Pushchin, Lunin either did not name anyone, or they named mythical people.
        Read The Captain's Daughter.
        "there was no opportunity" especially if you go the other way
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 28 December 2020 19: 08
    +3
    "in liberal pre-revolutionary Russia, the myth of fearless fighters against absolutism was formed" in fairness. Until 1917, the Decembrists were not really remembered, and in 1917 they were remembered
  • ccsr
    ccsr 28 December 2020 19: 21
    +1
    Quote: Bar1
    Therefore, "civil strife" is perhaps some kind of transition period in the civil war of those years.

    And what about the church schism and its huge sacrifices, from what story? And why so far the Old Believers cannot unite with our church in any way - it turns out that our world was interesting even before the Bolsheviks with their Marx ...
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 29 December 2020 09: 22
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      And what about the church schism and its huge sacrifices, from what story? And why so far the Old Believers cannot unite with our church in any way - it turns out that our world was interesting even before the Bolsheviks with their Marx ...

      look at Professor Pyzhikov, no one can say better than him.
      It was the Old Believers who formed the ideas on which the revolution of 17 years took place, according to Pyzhikov.

  • iouris
    iouris 28 December 2020 23: 22
    0
    “Sergei Muravyov crashed violently; he broke his leg and could only utter: “Poor Russia! And they don't know how to hang them! “Kakhovsky swore in Russian. Ryleev did not say a word. "
    Maybe that's why they didn't execute everyone?
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 29 December 2020 08: 36
      0
      Quote: iouris

      ... Maybe that's why they didn't execute everyone?


      Maybe someone tried very hard for the members of the "Scottish Masonic Lodges" of Russia?
  • Sergey Nikiforov
    Sergey Nikiforov 29 December 2020 10: 03
    -1
    The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow, they are terribly far from the people If my memory serves me, then it was Herzen who wrote
  • Selevc
    Selevc 29 December 2020 11: 17
    -1
    The author rushes from one extreme to another - the coming to power of the Decembrists would not lead to any chaos and revolution. The uprising of the Decembrists is the last act of the era of palace coups. This is a struggle for the throne of Constantine and Nicholas. Constantine was supported by the liberal party - the party of reforms, Nikolai was supported by the party of conservatives !!!

    There is even indisputable evidence of the struggle of the sons of Alexander for the throne - money with the profile of Constantine. Which he had already begun to mint in those few critical and troubled days - while the Decembrist uprising was going on in St. Petersburg. And the insurgent Decembrists shouted "Constantine for the kingdom" for a reason - it was the key slogan of their uprising.

    The uprising actually happened because at the time of Alexander's death Constantine was in Warsaw and Nikolai was in St. Petersburg. Nicholas, taking advantage of the moment, ascended the throne, contrary to the rules of succession. Constantine tried to challenge this - but quickly losing in a hastily prepared uprising, he declared that "He abdicates the throne and never had any claims to it ...". That is, he preferred the mild scenario of his defeat. That's all - everything else is thought out and embellished by writers and poets.

    And by the way, the coming to power of the Conservative Party made the era of Nicholas I a dark time that ended in shame and the disaster of the Crimean War !!!
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 29 December 2020 13: 50
      -1
      Quote: Selevc
      There is even an indisputable evidence of the struggle of the sons of Alexander for the throne - money with the profile of Constantine. TO

      that papa Pavel was ch_mo, that this one was a freak, it's good that this bald one was not on the throne. However, ALL this dynasty of the Romanovs, from goggle-eyed Peter to the bloody one, are all degenerates.
  • Eula
    Eula 29 December 2020 12: 52
    0
    Well, Glory to Nikolai? He just didn't want to start the reign with executions, according to his mind or after calling a friend
  • Seal
    Seal 29 December 2020 13: 37
    +1
    Quote: Junger
    This is if you are confident that their deputies adhere to a position on this issue that is fundamentally different from the position of their superiors.
    What's the difference ? Nicholas II - Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Failure to comply with the military order of the Supreme Commander in a war is to become a rebel and a traitor. It is unlikely that any of the front commanders and their deputies (potential successors) would want to be accused of disobeying the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. In any case, the transfer of affairs would have brought confusion and discord to the "united front of front commanders," and Nicholas II would have won the time he needed so much. Yes, and the deputy, who only yesterday frustrated, having received a promotion, could well turn into the most loyal subject.
    Nicholas II was artificially isolated in the circle of those about whom he wrote "Around treason, and cowardice, and deception." He needed to somehow break out of this circle. He failed. The loss of the prestige of the monarchy among the officers and generals arose mainly after the abdication. And before his abdication, even if Nicholas II was not popular, he was still recognized as the head of state. Albeit unpopular.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 29 December 2020 13: 45
    0
    A narrow elite group, influenced by the West, decided to "transform" Russia. Young people of nobility (mainly officers) fell under the influence of "advanced" revolutionary ideas that came from Europe.
    Well yes. They wanted to transform. For a pretty good reason. The military people clearly saw that Russia was losing economically. Because Europe was being transformed, and in the direction of increasing production efficiency. True, none of our revolutionaries understood at all - but what should be done?
    Europe was being transformed because the Jesuits conducted extensive research on the optimization of human thinking. They taught their "brothers" to think correctly. From among the Jesuits, the technique of thinking penetrated the ranks of scientists, and it began ... There was a total lack of everything in the world of that time. All goods and products were in short supply, so everyone around who could and at least knew something tried to increase production. And being able to think correctly, they often achieved success in that.
    Our rulers also understood that things were not good enough (the "passivity" of the tsar - what if they decide what?), But they also had absolutely no idea what and how to do. Well, here it ended with insane, cannibalistic and hellishly illiterate designs and a completely stupid execution of something incomprehensible.
  • Givi_49
    Givi_49 29 December 2020 19: 13
    0
    An example of the collapse of liberal Western ideas on Russian soil and a test of the autocracy for strength, so interesting to Albion.
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 30 December 2020 09: 52
      0
      What "liberal ideas" ?! Have you read what ideas were at the heart of the non-grasping attempt? You read ...
  • nemez
    nemez 1 January 2021 01: 05
    0
    Yes, I read the comments, I am amazed. They remembered Novocherkask, did not even bother to remember the culprit. I found the last years of this great country. Even then, life there was easier than now. And ice cream and sausage were tastier then. I know that for sure.
  • Old man
    Old man 1 January 2021 17: 10
    0
    And then, and now, and in the future, everything led, is leading and will lead Russia to blood without understanding and taking into account the conclusions of the "Concept of the Core and Periphery" (https://www.proza.ru/2018/12/17/810), and from it it follows that according to the Law of Movement, any process, and the development of mankind is a PROCESS, always has a CORE and a PERIPHERAL. It is on the opposition of these two poles of the One Whole that Evolution is built.
    The periphery is freer and more reckless. Its role is to find, at any cost, everything new, without any regard for the consequences of such actions.
    The kernel is more conservative and judicious. Its role is to select, preserve, and transmit to others the necessary (but safe) locations of the Periphery.
    This natural opposition of the Spiritual Core and the Intellectual Periphery of the human population is perceived by people (due to lack of real Knowledge) as hostility. Which historically manifests itself in the form of Russophobia.
    "... And now answer, how, not knowing or not recognizing these Laws and, as a consequence, their influence on our life, can we correctly formulate the same national Russian idea, or name the real role and importance of Russia in the modern world? How can we plan development? countries for many years to come and then wonder what happened again "as always"?
    Russia has a special role in the world, which cannot be ignored when trying to understand the essence of the ongoing processes. "

    "God. Earth. Man" (part I, chapter X) https://www.proza.ru/2009/10/02/706
  • Andycomm
    Andycomm 12 January 2021 16: 26
    +1
    At one time, being on duty admiring the Decembrists in full compliance with the school curriculum, he could not suppress in himself a certain logical roughness. Why "some kind of there" Miloradovich was killed with a shot at point-blank range because of what the unfortunate Decembrist hero subsequently danced in a noose?
    And only after gaining access to the primary sources (how many works THEN it cost me to write to the "Leninka"!) I learned that, firstly, Miroradovich is a real hero of the Napoleonic wars of the level of Bagration (and in terms of popularity in the soldier-VETERAN mass, it is not higher), and secondly, he was despicably hit in the back - the Kakhov's shtafirnaya did not have the spirit to shoot, looking the general in the face.
    Food in front of the Decembrists, however, I disappeared much earlier
  • Pavel Fedorov
    Pavel Fedorov 14 January 2021 08: 11
    +1
    Yes, the Judas of the Russian people, the Jewish liberal propaganda has done its job ...
    Scoundrels. Then their kids flooded Russia with blood ... all sorts of countrywomen, meers, shmuli, Tserenbaums ... now their kids are killing Russia ...
  • Vikking1966
    Vikking1966 18 January 2021 12: 30
    0
    Another graphomaniac opus about nothing.
  • Vladimir Maximov
    Vladimir Maximov 13 February 2021 04: 35
    0
    In 1861, the first subway car went to England, and serfdom was abolished in Russia. Where else could Russia be thrown back in 1825?
  • uncle_Andrey
    uncle_Andrey 19 February 2021 19: 21
    0
    Shiny aristocrats
    Guardians of noble honor
    They showed brother to brother,
    Friends were handed over in bulk, together.
    They didn't lie
    And they did not hide anything,
    Though their nails weren't ripped out
    And the genitals were not pressed.
    They injected like dudes
    Not knowing about the pain at all
    And the wives followed them -
    By the way, by the way, will.
    And now - a crazy adventure
    Very dubious properties
    We have de facto and de jure
    She entered the annals as heroism.
    And still poets
    All the same slogans rinse:
    "Are you capable of this?
    Would you go out to the square? "
    Both dissidents and the system
    They were glorified in chorus without falsehood ...
    Guys, getting out is not a problem.
    The problem is what comes next.
    But, this is all we have - give a damn about it,
    It is more important to shout "crow" ...
    And the blood will splatter the steps
    And the corpses will be thrown into the river afterwards.
    And there is no one to say "how long?"
    And future terrorists
    Already learned at school
    An example of what the Decembrists gave.
  • Velikanov Igor Nikolaevich
    Velikanov Igor Nikolaevich 2 March 2021 16: 09
    0
    "Any attempt to Europeanize Russia always leads to heavy losses and to disaster" .... Okay, let's look at Asia. Or is it also not suitable? Then which way to go to get out of the swamp? Way of standing still? So we have been marking time for 30 years ... And the Revolution of 17 brought a lot to Russia, no matter how hard they tried to harm it. I mean the Intervention, civil, the Great Patriotic War ... 44 years after the Revolution, we were in space, and now in ass ...
  • Borka
    Borka 8 March 2021 16: 43
    0
    The German tsars of Russia had mercy on the scum from all over Europe, whom they designated as nobles, and poured out all their anger on the Russian people, who were literally enslaved and made white slaves.
  • Eirik Krause
    Eirik Krause 16 March 2021 20: 48
    0
    When the head of the security department Benckendorff asked the conspirators during interrogation, which of them, the freedom fighters freed at least their serfs, it turned out that this was done only by the strangler of freedom Benckendorff himself, ten years before the rebellion with land and payment of taxes for five years for the liberated peasants: GY GY GY!