Military Review

"Great Russian Derzhimords" Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. Lenin's polemic with his comrades-in-arms about the form of the Soviet state

174
"Great Russian Derzhimords" Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. Lenin's polemic with his comrades-in-arms about the form of the Soviet state

The rapid disintegration of the Soviet space that took place in 1991 raised many questions about the strength of the Soviet state and the correctness of its national and state form chosen in December 1922. And it is not so easy Putin, in one of his last interviews, said that Lenin had laid a time bomb under the Soviet Union.


What happened and what influenced the form of the Soviet state at the time of its creation, and what factors influenced this? This period of the Soviet stories characterized as a conflict in the top Soviet leadership and a polemic between Lenin and Stalin on the issue of "autonomization".

Two approaches to the formation of the Soviet state


The basis of the conflict was two fundamentally different approaches to the national state structure of the Soviet Union. The first was characterized by the building of the state on a centralized basis and the priority of national interests, the second - on the basis of democratic unity and the prevalence of the principles of equality and observance of equal rights of the uniting republics, up to the freedom to withdraw from the union.

Lenin and Stalin advocated the creation of a single and solid state power and the rallying of all republics in the union: Stalin emphasized the centralization of state administration and the struggle against separatist tendencies, and Lenin viewed nation-building through the prism of the struggle against great-power Russian chauvinism.

Lenin in this historical period was already gravely ill, his bitterness against Great Russian chauvinism left its stamp on his political statements and actions in the last years of his life and acquired some obsessive forms of unbridled hatred. Thus, in a letter to the head of the Hungarian communists, Bela Kun in October 1921, he wrote:

I must strongly protest against civilized Western Europeans imitating the methods of the semi-barbaric Russians.

And in a letter to Kamenev in October 1922 he declared:

I declare a life-and-death battle to Great Russian chauvinism.

Confrontation between Lenin and Stalin


Before the unification processes back in November 1921, at the suggestion of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), headed by Ordzhonikidze, the question arose of concluding a federal treaty between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia and their unification into the Transcaucasian Federation, which was opposed by part of the leadership of Georgia, which united in a group national deviators led by Mdivani, who objected to the creation of the USSR, and then insisted on Georgia's entry into the union not through the Transcaucasian Federation, but directly.

Ordzhonikidze nevertheless consistently pursued a policy of uniting the republics, which led to conflicts with the Georgian leadership, and they sent a complaint to the Central Committee. A commission headed by Dzerzhinsky was created and sent to Georgia, which objectively assessed the situation and supported the creation of the Transcaucasian Federation, at the same time it pointed out Ordzhonikidze's blunders, his excessive haste and excessive fervor. The Transcaucasian Federation was created with the support of Lenin, but Lenin in his letter warned the Central Committee against great-power chauvinism and called Stalin and Dzerzhinsky "Great Russian Derzhimords." So the Georgian Stalin and the Pole Dzerzhinsky, and not the "Great Russian" Lenin, defended the Russian people as the state-forming nation of the future state.

In August 1922, the commission for the preparation of a draft decision on the relationship between the RSFSR and the independent republics approved the draft "autonomization" prepared by Stalin. The project provided for the formal accession of Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia (later the Transcaucasian Federation) to the RSFSR, the extension of the competence of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR to the corresponding institutions of the republics, the transfer of the conduct of external, military and financial affairs of the RSFSR, and the people's commissariats of justice, education, internal affairs, agriculture, workers 'and peasants' inspection, public health and social security of the republics remained independent.

This project caused a violent reaction and hostility from Lenin. He began to write to Stalin that there should not be a formal entry of the republics into the RSFSR, but their unification, together with the RSFSR, into the union of the republics of Europe and Asia on equal terms, and there should be an all-Union All-Union Central Executive Committee, to which all republics are subordinate.

Stalin tried to prove to Lenin that the national element works to destroy the unity of the republics, and formal independence only contributes to these tendencies. He emphasized not on the formal equality of the republics, but on ensuring the real unity of the country and the effectiveness of its governing bodies, but Lenin did not want to listen to him. Under pressure from Lenin in October 1922, the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) adopted a decision on the voluntary unification of the republics and condemned manifestations of great-power chauvinism.

At the first congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 26, Stalin was instructed to deliver a report “On the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, and the congress approved the Declaration on the formation of the USSR. It enshrined the principles of the unification of the republics, equality and voluntariness of entry into the Soviet Union, the right to free exit from the Union and access to the Union for new Soviet socialist republics.

The "autonomization" controversy


The polemic between Lenin and Stalin did not end there. Lenin decided to support his position by accusing Stalin of patronizing great-power aspirations and groundless attacks on Georgian national deviators with his letter “On the question of nationalities or“ autonomization ”to the 1923th Party Congress held in April XNUMX.

Before that, he met with Mdivani and emotionally wrote that the idea of ​​"autonomization" is fundamentally wrong:

... it is necessary to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressor nation and the nationalism of the oppressed nation, the nationalism of a large nation and the nationalism of a small nation. In relation to the second nationalism, almost always in historical practice, we, the nationals of a large nation, find ourselves guilty. Therefore, internationalism on the part of the oppressor or the so-called "great" nation (albeit great only by its violence, great only in the way that the great Derzhimorda) should consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations, but also in such inequality that would compensate on the part of the oppressor nation , the nation is large, the inequality that develops in life in fact.

This is the original opinion Lenin had in relation to the Russians who "oppress small nations" and their guilt for their greatness.

Not everyone in the party welcomed Lenin's calls against "Great Russian chauvinism," and many were in solidarity with Stalin. In this regard, Lenin turned to Trotsky with a request

to take over the defense of the Georgian cause at the Party Central Committee. This case is now under the "persecution" of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality.

However, Trotsky did not respond to this request, and Lenin sent a telegram of support to Georgia:

I follow your case with all my heart. Outraged by Ordzhonikidze's rudeness and by Stalin's and Dzerzhinsky's

Lenin's position on "Great Russian chauvinism" was clearly exaggerated: the Russian people never suffered from this, and the whole history of their coexistence with other peoples of the multinational empire only confirmed this. It was wrong to build the national policy of the newly created state on such principles. The Russian people have always been the backbone of Russian statehood, and all nations had to rally around them in building a new state. On this issue, Lenin tried to impose on everyone his personal, biased and in no way unfounded opinion about the Russian people.

Discussion of the "national question" continued at the XII Party Congress. Stalin spoke out and argued that the Union, and not in the republics, should have concentrated the main governing bodies of the state, and they should defend a single point of view in domestic and foreign policy. At the same time, Stalin had to, as it were, make excuses for his striving for a unified state, since the emigre magazine Smenam Vekh began to praise the Bolsheviks for such a policy:

The Smenovekhovites praise the Bolshevik communists, but we know that what Denikin failed to arrange, you will arrange it, that you, the Bolsheviks, have restored the idea of ​​a great Russia, or you will, in any case, restore it.

In fact, it was.

"Independence" of Ukraine


Stalin strongly opposed the transformation of a single state into a kind of confederation, he believed that it was local nationalism that was the main threat to the unity of the Union. Apart from Georgian nationalism, the same tendencies took place in Ukraine.

Ukrainian delegate Manuilsky said:

In Ukraine, there are serious differences with some of the comrades headed by Comrade Rakovsky. These discrepancies in the state line are that Comrade. Rakovsky stands for the point of view that the union should be a confederation of states.

The representatives of Ukraine demonstrated their line of "independence" and "independence", emasculating the concept of a single state, and concentrated on the struggle against Great Russian chauvinism.

Skripnik:

One point of view is great-power centralism, which has in its form a single and indivisible Russia, yet, unfortunately, it still has its supporters in our party. We will have to uproot this point of view, destroy it, we must constantly delimit ourselves from it, because the slogan "one indivisible republic" is only a Smena-Vekhovian modification of Denikin's slogan "one and indivisible Russia."

Rakovsky:

I believe that we, Ukrainians, are no less communists than Stalin. When he wants to introduce a more centralistic understanding into this concept, we will argue on this score.

Stalin sharply objected to them:

I see that some vols. of Ukrainians during the period from the I Congress of the Union of Republics to the XII Congress of the Party and the present conference have undergone some evolution from federalism to confederalism. Well, I am for federation, that is, against the confederation, that is, against the proposals of Rakovsky and Skrypnik.

It should be noted that after the February revolution and the collapse of the empire, it was precisely Georgia and Ukraine that most of all advocated "independence" and demanded "legal territories" for themselves. In addition to Abkhazia, Georgia considered part of the Kuban up to Tuapse as its native lands, and Ukraine considered the whole of Novorossia, Kuban, part of the Kursk and Belgorod regions and the "Green Wedge" in the Far East.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the same situation was repeated: the so-called national elites, representing a symbiosis of the rotten party, Komsomol and economic nomenklatura and shadow structures, at a new historical stage began to play "independence" with the same demands and the most active its advocates were again Georgia and Ukraine.

The struggle between the two approaches of Lenin and Stalin to the formation of the Soviet state showed that the victory of Lenin's approach turned out to be vicious and with far-reaching consequences, becoming one of the triggers for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Author:
Photos used:
skpkpss.ru
174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 21 January 2021 05: 45
    -40%
    There is no special respect for the communists, they outraged the calm, raised the people, fratricidal war, redistribution, war, restoration, and then they screwed everything up ineptly ...
    1. nikvic46
      nikvic46 21 January 2021 06: 30
      +29
      Igor: You do not respect the communists. This is your right. But when you turn on the light at home, it would be nice to think that it was not Anatoly Borisovich who ran the electricity in such large spaces, but your disrespectful communists.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 21 January 2021 06: 41
        +10
        I totally agree with you! My parents are builders and I perfectly understand that they, like millions of other people, took part in the creation of the USSR, and when I turn on the light at home, I always think: "How did it happen that everything that the people built for us belongs to some swindlers and Western investors? "
        1. nikvic46
          nikvic46 21 January 2021 06: 48
          +3
          Igor: I myself cannot answer your last question. Perhaps our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will.
          1. Bar1
            Bar1 21 January 2021 09: 56
            -16%
            Quote: nikvic46
            Igor: I myself cannot answer your last question. Perhaps our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will.


            Bolshevik history takes credit for the electrification of the country, the GOELRO plan, but was that really so? Maybe the electrification of the country was carried out not by the Bolsheviks, but by energy specialists Krzhizhanovsky, I. G. Aleksandrov, A. V. Winter, G. O. Graftio, R. E. Klasson, A. G. Kogan, T. R. Makarov, V. F. Mitkevich, N. K. Polivanov, M. A. Shatelen and others, and the Bolsheviks, how did they usually cling to that process?
            The construction of huge dams of the now Rybinsk and Kuibyshev reservoirs led to ecological disasters in the Volga basin. Cities and villages were flooded. This is how the Bolsheviks acted. This was the time of Stalin by the way.
            1. nikvic46
              nikvic46 21 January 2021 12: 43
              +1
              Timur: If you do nothing, then you will always be right. I partly agree with you, but what sources of electricity can we offer? Atom stations? For some time now, they have also instilled fear in people. There is a project of underwater mills. But they generate less energy. Although in environmental terms, everything is in order. We have one problem. We are never critical of what has already been done. So we will or will not do anything. , or spoil.
              1. Bar1
                Bar1 21 January 2021 13: 23
                -6
                Quote: nikvic46
                I partly agree with you, but what sources of electricity can we offer? Atom stations?


                but about the thermal stations which the whole world uses, you certainly have not heard?
                Hydroelectric power plants Rybinskaya and Kuibyshevskaya are very weak and the reason for the construction of these stations is not clear - this is not the need for electricity, but something else. Perhaps it was just necessary to flood the entire Russian history, which was clearly visible in the Volga cities.
                It is not necessary to fix the water flow in the Volga in such a barbaric way, but to carefully deal with all the accumulated problems of the Volga's water intake: these problems are all described in special literature.
                And building power plants on flat rivers is definitely some kind of savagery.
                1. nikvic46
                  nikvic46 21 January 2021 20: 57
                  0
                  Timur: I understand that you live on the Volga. I also live near this river. I agree that there is almost no current in the Volga. But even with the presence of platinum, the current can be started at the required speed. The management of the hydroelectric power station is beneficial to hold on to the water. time, when the control over the flow does not force to constantly drain the water in the required volume. What has been done cannot be corrected.
                  1. Bar1
                    Bar1 21 January 2021 21: 08
                    -1
                    Quote: nikvic46
                    What has been done cannot be corrected.


                    The Volga dies, dries up, if it were not for the Kama, then nothing would have come to the Caspian Sea. The Moscow Stalin Canal takes water from the Volga and into the Moscow River. And what about the Moscow River itself, why was there no water? Because all the banks are BUILT-up and the rivers are destroyed, i.e. the entire water intake of the river.
                    It is urgently necessary to remove all buildings from the water protection zones around the river, then the snow will not melt with a simultaneous flood in spring, but will naturally drain into the big rivers ALL SEASON in the form of rivulets.

                    But no one cares, no one wants to solve this problem. That state made mistakes, and maybe even worse, and this state does not need anything except palaces on the shores of the Black Sea and the Cote d'Azur.
                    This year they showed the SHARED Kuban, SHARED the Ob - it's scary. Here they are the results of the reign of the Bolsheviks and Putin.
            2. evgen1221
              evgen1221 21 January 2021 15: 28
              +3
              Bar1 And the people you listed, allegedly thanks to them, carried out electrification, they themselves put poles in one helmet and built stations, starting from ore exploration, or the Bolsheviks even organized this process. And who has more merit. However, the attribution of common merits to specific individuals is cave philistinism and Moviton.
              1. Bar1
                Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 45
                -2
                Quote: evgen1221
                Bar1 And the people you listed, allegedly thanks to them, carried out electrification, they themselves put poles in one helmet and built stations, starting from ore exploration, or the Bolsheviks even organized this process. And who has more merit. However, the attribution of common merits to specific individuals is cave philistinism and Moviton.

                Well, the fact that when creating su57, Putin gave money to create an airplane does not mean that Putin was involved in the creation of this airplane. So here. ALL PLANS for the creation of mines, roads, factories and power plants were created BEFORE the Bolsheviks, for the most part.
                1. evgen1221
                  evgen1221 21 January 2021 19: 25
                  -2
                  Well then, according to the same logic, Ivan the Terrible can be recorded as the discoverers of Alaska and the fathers of the Transsib.
                  1. Bar1
                    Bar1 21 January 2021 20: 01
                    0
                    Quote: evgen1221
                    Well then, according to the same logic, Ivan the Terrible can be recorded as the discoverers of Alaska and the fathers of the Transsib.

                    why is your logic problematic ...
                    1. evgen1221
                      evgen1221 21 January 2021 20: 30
                      -2
                      Well, why, after all, the formidable Ivan was also concerned about the growth of Russian land. And the fact that after him Alaska became the Russian land, you yourself said that since electrification is a merit, then the discovery of Alaska on the same, you can write down the merit of the formidable van. Some wanted but did others, but the merit of those who wanted to but did not.
                      1. Bar1
                        Bar1 21 January 2021 20: 34
                        0
                        nonsense, some kind of write. I did not say that electrification is a merit of RI. I said that plans for the construction of power plants were prepared during the time of RI and implemented by specialists who grew up in RI.
            3. Shuttle
              Shuttle 21 January 2021 16: 07
              +1
              Quote: Bar1
              Quote: nikvic46
              Igor: I myself cannot answer your last question. Perhaps our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will.


              Bolshevik history takes credit for the electrification of the country, the GOELRO plan, but was that really so? Maybe the electrification of the country was carried out not by the Bolsheviks, but by energy specialists Krzhizhanovsky, I. G. Aleksandrov, A. V. Winter, G. O. Graftio, R. E. Klasson, A. G. Kogan, T. R. Makarov, V. F. Mitkevich, N. K. Polivanov, M. A. Shatelen and others, and the Bolsheviks, how did they usually cling to that process?

              It is good that you leave appropriate punctuation marks at the end of your rhetorical questions. Here you can read detailed answers: https://minenergo.gov.ru/node/3039
              This article is not from the Soviet Ministry of Energy, but from our modern, bourgeois one.
              Here's a couple of suggestions for your selected subset of specialists:
              Technocrats, who had been unable to bring their ideas to life for years, now have that chance. The new government has consistently demonstrated its interest and political will on this issue.

              By the way, Gleb Maximilianovich is not just a Bolshevik, but a selective Bolshevik, high quality, 100% and without any compromises.

              Quote: Bar1

              The construction of huge dams of the now Rybinsk and Kuibyshev reservoirs led to ecological disasters in the Volga basin. Cities and villages were flooded. This is how the Bolsheviks acted. This was the time of Stalin by the way.

              This is the essence of all dams around the world. Not only the Bolsheviks build dams in this way, but also the Germans, Chinese, and Americans. I’ll tell you a secret that beavers arrange something similar, but on a much smaller scale. This is the essence, the inherent property of the dam. The only question is size. Didn't you know? Or is it that very fashionable nonche # Do you not understand this other thing?
              1. Bar1
                Bar1 21 January 2021 17: 13
                +1
                Quote: Shuttle
                : https://minenergo.gov.ru/node/3039


                I also read this article, it is one of the first in the Yandex list.
                so here
                Meanwhile, the domestic electrical engineering school was considered one of the best in the world. Its activity was coordinated by the VI (electrotechnical) department of the Russian Technical Society, as well as by the All-Russian electrotechnical congresses, of which seven were held from 1900 to 1913. Both technical and purely strategic issues were considered at these conventions. In particular, the question of where it is better to build thermal power plants: directly in industrial regions - in order to deliver fuel to them, or, on the contrary, at the place of extraction of this fuel, in order to then transmit electricity through power lines. The majority of Russian scientists and electrical engineers were inclined towards the second option, mainly because central Russia had the largest reserves of brown coal, and especially peat, for the transportation of unsuitable and practically not used as fuel.


                So there was an electrotechnical society, which most likely was the progenitor of all GOELRO plans. Nothing usually happens.

                Regarding the Plains Power Plants, remind you what Plains Power Plants are in America and Germany?
                Plain power stations arise where people usually do not live, but on the Volga, on the contrary, it was on the site of the Rybinsk and Kuibyshev reservoirs, just inhabited by a lot of people, there were cities and villages. Flooding the places where people live is barbaric.
                If the beavers decided to flood the places where people live, then the beavers would not live in these places, this is for your information.
                1. Shuttle
                  Shuttle 26 January 2021 13: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Bar1

                  So there was an electrical engineering society, which most likely was the progenitor of all GOELRO plans.

                  It's good that you have it written "most likely". This clearly indicates that you have exclusively dreamy guesses. Yes, there was an electric society. Yes, some of his people participated in the creation of GOELRO. But the scale of the electric society was not the same, not the Bolsheviks. And this is not the fault of the electric society, but the fault of the state that did not understand the meaning of electrification. And the Bolsheviks, incl. and thanks to the electric society, too - they understood.
                  Quote: Bar1

                  With nothing, something usually does not arise.

                  I completely agree with you. Ex nihilo nihil fit! (the winged Latin expression "nothing arises from nothing")
                  But your rhetorical question-statement that "the electrification of the country was not carried out by the Bolsheviks" has absolutely no basis whatsoever. If we take it seriously, then we must admit that the P-7 and Saturn-5 were created ... by the Germans! That the Germans created the most powerful NK-12 turboprop engine for the world's fastest propeller-driven aircraft Tu-95 ..

                  Quote: Bar1

                  Regarding the Plains Power Plants, remind you what Plains Power Plants are in America and Germany?

                  If they had conditions, they would arise. But they don't. And there is nothing to be done about it.

                  Quote: Bar1

                  Plain power stations appear where people do not usually live,

                  You wanted to write flat hydroelectric station, dear?
                  If so, they arise where the conditions are right for them. Living people are also one of the conditions. Such is the economy, and not only the Bolshevik one, that is, but any.

                  Quote: Bar1

                  And on the Volga, on the contrary, it was, on the site of the Rybinsk and Kuibyshev reservoirs, where a lot of people lived, there were cities and villages. To flood people's places of residence is barbarism.

                  You forgot to write that the bloody commies drowned the people along with their belongings, houses, villages and churches. Yeah.

                  Quote: Bar1

                  If the beavers decided to flood the places where people live, then the beavers would not live in these places, this is for your information.

                  I'll go and take note. hi
                  1. Bar1
                    Bar1 26 January 2021 13: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Shuttle
                    But the scale of the electric society was not the same, not the Bolshevik


                    yes, the Bolsheviks stopped in time, otherwise they could decide these specialists as enemies of the people.
                    For what has arisen, conditions are necessary for this
                    - need relevant ideas i.e. plans and design documentation for construction.
                    - we need people who will create all this.
                    -I need funding for the project.

                    So here for your information, the main competence is not project financing, but the idea embodied in the project documentation.
                    Therefore, not the Bolsheviks, but most importantly the concepts are the engineers who conceived all this.

                    Quote: Shuttle
                    And the Bolsheviks, incl. and thanks to the electric society, too - they understood.


                    especially Trotsky, who wanted to inflame the whole of Russia, that would be light for the whole world.

                    Quote: Shuttle
                    If it is considered seriously, then it should be admitted that the P-7 and Saturn-5 were created ... by the Germans!


                    yes you do not even know the history of technology.
                    The developers and designers of the P7 are Korolev and his colleagues.
                    So, who was the first to launch rockets? I speak in reality, and not in history books, Russian people Zasyadko and Kibalchich, so what have the Germans got to do with it?
                    Your maxim is not just erroneous, but not true. Let's attribute all scientific discoveries to the discovery of iron by mankind, this is your logic.
                    And the fact that Saturn type 5 flew and it is type-development of Brown. That is again part of the truth. Brown developed only a rocket, and the engines were not made by another company.




                    Quote: Shuttle
                    You wanted to write lowland hydroelectric power plants,


                    you probably wanted to write a hydroelectric power plant?
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 21 January 2021 07: 37
        -6
        Quote: nikvic46
        Igor: You do not respect the communists. This is your right. But when you turn on the light at home, it would be nice to think that it was not Anatoly Borisovich who ran the electricity in such large spaces, but your disrespectful communists.

        lol And in the vastness of Europe, America, too .... are they? lol

        Or somehow, nevertheless, they did without them?

        And yes, power plants worked and grew in Russia before the thief.
        And the world's first industrial power plant of three-phase alternating current was generally created in Russia by Russian engineers in 1893.

        Author:
        Lenin laid a time bomb under the Soviet Union.

        And there is.

        But he is not alone: ​​with what fright, for example, the territory of the BSSR, after the formation of the USSR and already without it, in 1924 and 26 was increased ... twice due to ... Smolensk province of Russia? They took, and like a sack of potatoes, the Russians gave Mogilev, Gomel, Orsha, etc., without even asking their residents.

        And then it started all over the place: everything was cut off from Russia all the time and all new huge pieces were cut off, without asking either citizens, or historians, or anyone.

        The "states" of the Kazakh SSR, the TSSR, the KFSSR, etc., which had never existed before in history, have appeared. Russia has lost its Russians forever Uralsk, Guryev, Verny and so on, their names have already disappeared from the map ...

        In total, for the unfortunate EIGHTEEN years, after the formation of the USSR, the territory of Russia was cut off by ... 4 million km2!. belay It's almost SEVEN Frances!

        Moreover, for them, specifically in the Constitution of 1936, they stipulated the right to leave the USSR at any time!

        What happened, what happened - why be surprised?

        What Russia lost from 1917 to 1940
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 09: 00
          +9
          What kind of card is this? And why would the Karelian Isthmus not belong to Russia / RSFSR / USSR on it?
          Olgovich, please give me a link to this card.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 21 January 2021 09: 10
            -7
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            What kind of card is this? And why would the Karelian Isthmus not belong to Russia / RSFSR / USSR on it?
            Olgovich, please give me a link to this card.

            Those who know the history of their country do not ask such stupid questions: this is the KFSSR 1940
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 09: 16
              +6
              Quote: Olgovich
              Those who know the history of their country do not ask such stupid questions: this is the KFSSR 1940


              Those. do you attribute this to the losses of the USSR?
              In the summer of 1940, seven new districts were formed on the former Finnish territories transferred to the KFSSR - Vyborg, Kegsgolmsky, Kurkiyoksky, Pitkyaranta, Sortavalsky, Suoyarvsky and Yaskinsky districts, as well as three village councils - Alakurtinsky, Kairolsky and Kuolajarvsky districts, included in the Kauolajarvsky district.
              Well, in 1956 the KFSSR was returned to the RSFSR.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 21 January 2021 10: 01
                -8
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Those. do you attribute this to the losses of the USSR?

                I attribute this to your ignorance: you might know about the KFSSR with the Russian Petrozavodsk, cut off from Russia, as well as about Vyborg in its composition.
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Well, in 1956 the KFSSR was returned to the RSFSR.

                Yes, this is an ugly formation 1940 year was destroyed in 1956 year

                Otherwise, today Murmansk would be in the position of Kaliningrad - without a land connection with the Motherland

                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 10: 04
                  +4
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  I attribute this to your ignorance: you might know about the KFSSR with the Russian Petrozavodsk, cut off from Russia, as well as about Vyborg in its composition.
                  In your low adequacy, I have been aware for a long time, Petrozavodsk, cut off from Russia, is a must.

                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Yes, this ugly 1940 formation was destroyed in 1956
                  The same people who "gave" Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 21 January 2021 10: 17
                    -6
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    In your low adequacy, I have been aware for a long time, Petrozavodsk, cut off from Russia, is a must.

                    It's just a FACT: in 1940, Russian Petrozavodsk was torn away from Russia and became the capital of a sovereign state (read the constitution) Karelo-Finnish SSR.

                    And if they had not returned him to his homeland in 1956, they would have had Finnish city Petroscoi
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 10: 33
                      +1
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      It's just a FACT: in 1940, Russian Petrozavodsk was torn away from Russia and became the capital of a sovereign state (read the constitution) of the Karelo-Finnish SSR.
                      Is this a claim to J.V. Stalin? But after all, it is he, according to the article "Derzhimorda", strange, is not it?

                      Quote: Olgovich
                      And if they had not returned him to his homeland in 1956, they would have had the Finnish city of Petroscoi today
                      It is not excluded, although the leadership of the Kazakh SSR, for example, did not want to leave the USSR, but thank the EBN that the USSR did not become, at least in a truncated form, and which EBN “Bolshevik” does not need to be explained to anyone.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 21 January 2021 09: 04
          +7
          Quote: Olgovich
          What Russia lost from 1917 to 1940

          Oh Olegovich, you hit the patient. And remember, it's even more so under Yeltsin, and he was also a communist, you can turn it over.
        3. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 09: 18
          +4
          And another question, what about the FER, after all, this is at least a third of the country, why is the FER not marked ?!
        4. tasha
          tasha 21 January 2021 10: 26
          +2
          Andrey, how do you like this thought:
          The Soviet government was so confidently redrawing the boundaries of the subjects that, by and large, they, these boundaries, did not matter ...

          I.V. Stalin says in his report "On the immediate tasks of the party in the national question" at the historic X Congress of the RCP (b) in the spring of 1921: "The essence of the national question in the RSFSR is to destroy the actual backwardness (economic, political, cultural) of some nations which they inherited from the past in order to enable backward peoples to catch up with central Russia in state, cultural and economic relations. "
          So they boldly cut off pieces from Central Russia in order to facilitate, for example, logistics, management system. Well, and, in some cases, so that, for example, territories with a Russian population would have some kind of positive influence on the "actual backwardness inherited by some nations." wink

          Of course, it was not without politics. I repeat:
          Whether you like it or not, historically, it so happened that Russia was formed as a multinational state. The unifying force for many nations was ... the monarchy. When joining the Russian Empire, they took an oath to the Tsar, promised to serve, so they served as best they could. In 1917, the monarchy ended and the Bolsheviks had to think about what to choose as a fastening force.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 21 January 2021 11: 23
            -2
            Quote: tasha
            The Soviet power so confidently redrawn the boundaries of the subjects that, by and large, they, these boundaries, didn't matter.

            Reasonable question: since they did not have no values, then WHAT Have these territories been cut off from Russia?

            Moreover, it entailed huge costs, questions, problems related to documents, education, production, politics, leadership?
            Quote: tasha
            So they boldly cut off pieces from Central Russia in order to facilitate, for example, logistics, management system.

            And in what way did the logistics of the Smolensk Province of Russia differ from the logistics of the Bessarabian and Kherson provinces of Russia so critically that it made them create .... MSSRs, Ukrainian SSRs?
            Quote: tasha
            Russia was formed as a multinational state. By the binding force

            The consolidating force of Russia was and is the Russian people. Imagine, for a moment, that he is not. AND?
            1. tasha
              tasha 21 January 2021 11: 29
              +2
              You, unfortunately, did not understand the meaning of my comment and, as it seemed to me (only it seemed), did not even try. It's sad. Well, let's finish, otherwise our conversation with you will turn into a waste of time. Have a nice day!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 January 2021 16: 39
            +2
            Quote: tasha
            So they boldly cut off pieces from Central Russia in order to facilitate, for example, logistics, management system.

            If it were about logistics, then the railway from north to south of Russia would not pass (after all the redrawing of the borders) partly through the territory of Ukraine. smile
        5. Olgovich
          Olgovich 21 January 2021 10: 45
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          And yes, power plants worked and grew in Russia before the thief.

          Russian Hindu Kush power station in the wilderness, in Turmenistan. 1909 g


          It still works in the same form, for 112 years!

          Even the safety fence, the tiles on the floor are the same.
      3. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 21 January 2021 08: 59
        +1
        Quote: nikvic46
        But when you turn on the light at home, it would be nice to think that it was not Anatoly Borisovich who conducted the electricity in such large spaces, but your disrespectful communists.

        And almost all power plants were built under the communists. And he probably lives in "Khrushchev".
      4. Fat
        Fat 21 January 2021 16: 13
        -2
        Come on. Disrespectful anti-communists suddenly, out of fright, gathered to gasify all of Russia to the last bearish corner. Because the time has come. If it were not for the dictatorship of the proletariat, Russia would still be electrified - the command of the times, but not the merit of the communists.
        Uh-huh. Spring has come and summer is soon, thanks to the party for that ... laughing
        1. Fat
          Fat 21 January 2021 16: 28
          +2
          The drug (electricity) is usually planted for free. Permanently "redhead" thought of demanding money for the connection ... Awesome progress of bestiality. am
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Crowe
      Crowe 21 January 2021 07: 14
      +26
      Quote: Pessimist22
      There is no special respect for the communists, they outraged the calm,

      Calmness? This is when the people calmly so-so bent their necks under the yoke of the bourgeoisie and the bar with the gentlemen, you do not like the breaking of such calmness by the Bolsheviks? But now you and others like such calmness - the working class is to lose at any moment, and serfdom will be restored to the peasants in general. But peace of mind. As in a churchyard.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 08: 44
        -8
        Quote: Crowe
        This is when the people calmly so-so bent their necks under the yoke of the bourgeois and the bar with the gentlemen,

        What is most interesting is that before the revolution of the 17th, the food basket of the average worker was not like the current one. In the sense of richer.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 08: 51
          +2
          Data from the science fiction film "The Russia We Lost"?
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 09: 00
            +3
            No, salary data from the office. sources and level of prices for products of those years. As a child, I read the book "Rebel", about revolutionaries, so it is mentioned that the mother of the protagonist worked as a laundress for the gentlemen for 17 rubles. per month. The main character himself received a scholarship of 7 rubles, studying to be a cabinetmaker at a carpentry school.
            The workers of the Putilov plant received more than 40 rubles. This is all easily verified.
            Now we live worse in providing food.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 09: 02
              +2
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              No, salary data from the office. sources and level of prices for products of those years
              Is it like the average salary in Russia from official sources and the inflation rate from there? Clearly understood.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 10: 30
                -1
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Clearly understood.

                A book praising revolutionaries is not your authority? Vladimir, let's be impartial. I refer to statistics and facts that have passed through the archives of the USSR. hi
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 11: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  A book praising revolutionaries is not your authority?

                  No, I have not read it, it is not available for download.

                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  I refer to statistics and facts past the archives of the USSR


                  I don't see any "links", only your words. But a quick search gives a figure:
                  "The living wage in the Russian Empire in 1913 was 36,34 rubles"
                  And in the book you mentioned for two people:
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  that the mother of the protagonist worked as a laundress for the gentlemen for 17 rubles. per month. The main character himself received a scholarship of 7 rubles
                  The findings are clear about well-being.
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 11: 18
                    -2
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    But a quick search gives a figure:

                    Google food prices, it will be easier.
                    P. S. The article was on VO for a long time,
                    https://topwar.ru/8443-korova-za-tri-rublya-ceny-i-zhalovaniya-v-carskoy-rossii.html
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 11: 41
                      +2
                      Further, in terms of increasing wages in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, there are workers of provincial factories, village manufactories, laborers, loaders. Their salary ranged from 8 to 15 rubles per month
                      From the same article, taking into account the rent and dependents, simply poverty on water and bread was obtained.
                    2. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 11: 45
                      +1
                      I forgot to add about 9-10 hour working day.
                      1. Xnumx vis
                        Xnumx vis 21 January 2021 16: 24
                        -5
                        Remember, Saturday, Sunday. Sayings like - "Thanks to the dear party, what a weekend!" Every month - Two, Saturdays and one Sunday had to go to work!
                      2. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 22 January 2021 03: 19
                        0
                        Quote: 30 vis
                        Two Saturdays and one Sunday I had to go to work!
                        You're lying exaggerating, dear. In the spring, Saturday clean-ups were held once or twice on the occasion of the Rev. Holidays, if the bosses were especially itchy. And they lasted four hours maximum, combined with a light drink.
                      3. Xnumx vis
                        Xnumx vis 22 January 2021 08: 29
                        -1
                        I, my dear, worked in production. A large instrument-making plant .. Don't rub my glasses on me! laughing Maybe in your collective farm "Holes of October" once, twice a year ... And the rest of the proletarians and engineers. That is free of charge in favor of Angela Davis, then the children of Guatemala, then the Fighters for world peace, then in favor of Louis Corvalan! then in honor of the builders of BAM ... then the plan is on fire, otherwise we will not receive the award, then we just really need to go out to work! “then if you don’t go out to work this Saturday we will all be fired!” So count the recycling and free labor!
                      4. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 22 January 2021 08: 37
                        0
                        Quote: 30 vis
                        then the plan is on fire, otherwise we will not receive a bonus, then it is simply "we really need to go out to work!" So count the recycling and free labor!
                        Those. on a blue eye about unpaid "processing" in Soviet times rubbing? Yes, and about "fired"? Yes, "do not roll bags" is about you.
                      5. Xnumx vis
                        Xnumx vis 22 January 2021 13: 53
                        -1
                        Where are you, in my words you saw not the truth!
                    3. faiver
                      faiver 22 January 2021 14: 56
                      +2
                      Come on, the valiant communist edro in terms of subbotniks in our city has surpassed, in the not very distant past, the mayor's office issued a decree so that every week and with a report, at that time I was not yet an individual entrepreneur and worked in a budgetary institution and had to draw these reports, here that's how we live... hi
                    4. Xnumx vis
                      Xnumx vis 22 January 2021 18: 45
                      0
                      Quote: faiver
                      Come on, the valiant communist edro in terms of subbotniks in our city has surpassed, in the not very distant past, the mayor's office issued a decree so that every week and with a report, at that time I was not yet an individual entrepreneur and worked in a budgetary institution and had to draw these reports, here that's how we live...

                      All the same, these are not full working days in production! Yes, and they didn't pay any processing. They also tried to spend the working day in favor of peace! This is at the instrument-making plant where they made stuffing for cruise missiles and on-board computers for nuclear submarines !!!
  • Bar1
    Bar1 21 January 2021 09: 14
    -9
    Well, new sides of these creators of "brotherhood, equality and friendship of peoples" are opening up.
    So Lenin was an ardent fighter against "Great Russian chauvinism," while Stalin and Dzerzhinsky were "Great Russian Derzhimords"?
    Well, how can you comment on this? If Lenin, the type of Russian, allowed himself this, then the question arises: was Ulyanov / Lenin himself Russian? Obviously, no, neither by the mother nor by the father. Such delusional ideas that the Russians oppress small nationalities, although they are oppressed not by the Russian people, but by the tsarist state bodies, could only occur to a person in whose family the Russian people were treated without due respect.
    About the fact that Stalin was like a "Great Russian Derzhimorda" But this is a lie. Stalin is also the creator of this "most advanced state in the world", which was a state of the "brotherhood of peoples", but in fact turned out to be a state of a handful of newly created nationalities in which the Soviet elite Lenin and Stalin carefully cultivated both national culture and national identity and the national elite. Let us recall the 10th party congress at which Stalin spoke about the Ukrainization of the Russian people.

    It has recently been said that the Ukrainian republic and Ukrainian nationality are an invention of the Germans. Meanwhile, it is clear that the Ukrainian nationality exists, and the development of its culture is the responsibility of the communists. You can't go against history. It is clear that if Russian elements still predominate in the cities of Ukraine, then in the course of time these cities will inevitably be Ukrainianized.


    I don’t know about the "Great Russian" Dzerzhinsky.
    It is worth recalling a few moments from history, what did the Bolsheviks, who seized power in the first place, begin to do? First of all, this is the language reform of Lunacharsky, when part of the alphabet was thrown out of the Russian language and this reform was by no means an invention of the Bolsheviks, but a continuation of the tsarist language reform of Shakhmatov. This "reform" was well, very necessary for the Bolshevik government, just the war and other concerns the Bolsheviks certainly did not.
    By the way, they generally wanted to switch to the Latin alphabet, that is how they were "patriots", these Bolsheviks.
    What first steps did this Bolshevik government take? And the very first steps were to embody the independence of the national provinces - Finland. They took and IMMEDIATELY - in 17, they made a decision on the independence of Finland, although the same Finns did not even ask about it. Helsingfors was quite a Russian city, there the Finns spoke Russian, and actually There were many Russians there. Immediately after the declaration of independence, this Finnish state became hostile to the Russians. The same was with Poland, as soon as the Provisional Government of Lvov gave independence to Poland, so Poland immediately became an enemy of Russia.
    Then the question arises: why were these "independent" states created?
    The answer is obvious in Finland, Poland and Ukraine, that all these states were created as ENEMIES of Russia and it was Lenin, Stalin, the father of nations, who created them, and in the literal sense, the Bolshevik party was specially created and brought to power.
  • meandr51
    meandr51 21 January 2021 15: 22
    +7
    You are a victim of bourgeois propaganda or you yourself are a bourgeois. You are not interested in history. It was not the communists at all, but the liberal democrats of all stripes, who outraged the "calmness" of the extreme exploitation of the people and the regular crop failure and famine. The tsar was overthrown by the grand dukes and generals of the tsarist General Staff under the supervision of British intelligence. The army was destroyed in 1917 not by the communists, but by the democrats led by the Trudovik Kerensky. It was his "order No. 1" on the election of commanders and the discussion of orders in the soldiers' Soviets that sharply accelerated the collapse of the Russian army, which began as a result of defeats and falling morale.
    Power was already lying on the ground and could not do anything. The Bolsheviks easily raised it, and only then did someone among the people know about them. Apart from them, there was no force in Russia capable of establishing order. She was doomed to chaos and decay. Read "Russia in the Dark" by H. Wells, who met with all the groups that wanted to rule Russia.
    As for Lenin's national policy, the author, as always with propagandists, easily attributes political decisions to the emotions and overtures of the leader. This never happens! Decisions are always based on the balance of power. And emotions, ideals and other nonsense are used only to give a beautiful shell to unpopular decisions. Then the central government simply did not have the strength to pacify national and regional leaders. Russia has already split into two dozen
    "states" that had to be persuaded to join the federation. For these persuasions, tolerant rhetoric was used. They just fooled their heads. But in the 30s it was already possible to tighten the nuts. This was done, but the opposition in the VKPB did not allow them to be tightened to the stop. Stalin could never make arbitrary decisions. He always acted in a toxic environment under the threat of a coup, which happened in the end ...
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 21 January 2021 16: 31
      -6
      Quote: meandr51
      You are a victim of bourgeois propaganda or you yourself are a bourgeois.


      yes you are a victim of a_rta.
      if you list all the sins of the interim governments and grand dukes, then this will not be the whole truth. The Bolsheviks have their own sins, see what I have listed above.

      Quote: meandr51
      Apart from them, there was no force in Russia capable of bringing order.


      have you ever taught history? In 17, there was a dual power - these are the Soviets (soldiers, peasants, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the Provisional Government, and the main power, i.e. the number of bayonets was on the side of the Soviets. The Bolsheviks simply attached themselves to the Soviets and led them, because they promised the peasants LAND. They gave the land, but then they took it away, the surrender and war communism began, because the city wanted to eat, and there was nothing. And then in collectivization. The land was taken away from the peasants altogether. These were the Bolsheviks.
      Quote: meandr51
      Then the central government simply did not have the strength to pacify national and regional leaders.


      Well, here's the most important thing. And this is a lie. If in Poland they always rebelled and there still, somehow their own elite took place, although there was no reason to recognize Poland as independent and the government of Lvov. If Poland were not recognized as independent in the new government, then there would be no the whole world would not go against the new Russia. As for Finland, it was generally a real hole, with a minimum of cities and complete indifference to politics. There was NO national elite, the same Mannerheim who created the Finnish army is a Swede. Anyone who could start raging on the streets could be Helsingfors was generally Little St. Petersburg, there were country dachas of the St. Petersburg aristocracy, there was a military port, there was a university with teaching in Russian.
      It was hammered into your heads that there were "national elites" who fought for independence, and there were no such "elites" at that time, all national elites were raised by the Bolsheviks.
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 21 January 2021 16: 35
        +2
        Here https://yandex.ru/q/question/chto_bylo_by_esli_by_posle_grazhdanskoi_a_d50abfc2/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=znatoki_like_comment&utm_campaign=bell&answer_id=a8655145-86ae-4127-a316-2ef00a43858d&comment_id=7291f45a-9467-4a7b-b292-582e1fd1e4b9#7291f45a-9467-4a7b- b292-582e1fd1e4b9 detailed with dates, how many in the 17th there were already separated republics in fact. Nobody could do anything with them.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 21 January 2021 16: 48
          0
          Quote: meandr51
          Here https://yandex.ru/q/question/chto_bylo_by_esli_by_posle_grazhdanskoi_a_d50abfc2/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=znatoki_like_comment&utm_campaign=bell&answer_id=a8655145-86ae-4127-a316-2ef00a43858d&comment_id=7291f45a-9467-4a7b-b292-582e1fd1e4b9#7291f45a-9467-4a7b- b292-582e1fd1e4b9 detailed with dates, how many in the 17th there were already separated republics in fact. Nobody could do anything with them.


          and that this worthless Yandex article did you give me, as confirmation of historical facts? This is not serious, change your sources.
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 21 January 2021 15: 48
    +3
    should consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations, but also in such inequality that would compensate on the part of the oppressor nation, the big nation, the inequality that actually develops in life.

    Oh, how do I like this BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement in the USA. The only thing is that they have this separation right in the face. Although we do too, you just need to take a closer look ...

    "Racism is the opposite", or as they have "positive racism".
    It worked for us to collapse for 70 years, let's look at their "successes".

    Forward according to the precepts of Ilyich! For the new front of the World Revolution, left-wing vice-president Kamala Harris stood yesterday on an armored car (on the steps of the Capitol, sorry) and listened to the greeting and farewell speech of Chernenko-Biden, from whom she would take the reins!
  • vladcub
    vladcub 21 January 2021 21: 08
    +3
    I distinguish between IDEAL and the so-called "opportunist communists".
    Do not treat Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but IDEAS are worthy of respect. While the GW was going on, the number of the party was not very large, but it was a strong idea. As soon as membership in the party began to promise some goodies, a slow degradation began from here.
    While the IDEAS were at the helm it was possible to ignore the "opportunists", but a change took place and ...
  • ivan2022
    ivan2022 30 January 2021 22: 05
    +1
    Quote: Pessimist22
    ..... outraged by the calm ....... fratricidal war, redistribution, war, restoration, and then everything was stupidly fucked up ..

    "Outraged calm" - this is exactly when? When, back in 1916, the Duma of Ingushetia adopted a law on surplus appropriation so that Russian grain could repay debts to the allies and its own army was half-starved? Yeah, they didn’t explain it on TV, but talked about the "crunching of a French roll" and "Russia, which we have lost" ....... You need to watch TV less, but you know the mat part better. Or after the collapse of the Empire in February 1917? Is it called "calmness" now? Original!

    And about the most cultured word "pissed away" - heh ... heh .... this is already a sign of a special relationship with the site administration. This is otherwise put in violation of the rules.

    But if someone is allowed to write "pissed off" - then I am a sinner, I will note that only in the dense estate pigsty of the descendants of serfs, the descendants of the "master" will always be bars, no matter what ideas they announce, it makes no difference, but the descendants of the master lackeys and slaves, too, slaves ..... and so forever.
    That is why those who betrayed the cause of the founders of the USSR will still be "like communists, who are about ......"
  • Far B
    Far B 21 January 2021 05: 49
    +14
    Hmm ... About the mine.
    "Lenin planted an" atomic bomb "under Russia, - said not so long ago Russian President V.V. Putin. And a considerable number of our fellow citizens agreed with him. Bearing in mind that the USSR, created under Lenin, was divided by his own efforts into republics on a national basis. After 70 years, the Union disintegrated (scattered) into these very republics (although Putin tried to express somewhat differently).
    A certain logic can be found in such a statement: Lenin created something that subsequently exploded. This means that Lenin is a miner-saboteur-demolitionist. Yes.
    The fact that the "explosion" took place many years after Ilyich's death, when the country and the consciousness of the party elite, and much, much more, changed radically, does not bother the adherents of such logic. For them, the main thing is the availability of facts: 1) the creation of the USSR and 2) its collapse into separate republics.
    There is a complete simplification of the question. Not only are only points A (the beginning of the USSR era) and B (the end of the era) taken, and the line connecting them is not considered at all, but the points themselves are absolutely pulled out of reality, like that "spherical horse in a vacuum."
    Meanwhile, the USSR was both created and collapsed in the context of world events of the corresponding time. And, since we began the article with Putin's words about Lenin, let's consider what was the political situation at the time of the "laying of the atomic bomb."
    And the situation, I must say, greatly facilitated the creation of the state in the very form in which Ilyich embodied it. Let us recall that the Bolsheviks in the early years firmly believed that, on the example of Russia, the working people of other countries would rise to the revolutionary struggle against the class enemy. And there were reasons for this: the revolutionary struggle unfolded almost throughout Europe, in those years, albeit for a short time, but the Hungarian Soviet Republic (March 21 - August 6, 1919), the Slovak Soviet Republic (June 16 - July 7, 1919), the Bavarian Soviet Republic ( April 6 - May 3, 1919), the Bremen Soviet Republic (January 10 - February 9, 1919), the Limerick Council (April 15 - 27, 1919), the Gilan Soviet Socialist Republic (June 5, 1920 - November 2, 1921) and a number of other Soviet formations. The situation was such that it seemed: bring up a match, and the world revolution will really cover all countries with its flame.
    At the same time, it should be noted that so different peoples and cultures were involved in the process of "Sovietization" that it was very problematic to unite them into one state, even with a single ideology. If it is not a confederation (even if only in form, not in content).
    It seems that Lenin went on to create a formally confederal Union of Soviet Socialist Republics precisely with the aim that over time all new members could join it.
    History has shown that this calculation was correct. Although the flames of the world revolution could not be fanned even by a march on Germany (through Poland), over time, five republics joined the Union (and were not "cut" from the inner territories). Let's leave aside the voluntariness of the annexation of Moldova and the Balts, but there is one example of pure voluntariness - the People's Republic of TNR, the Tuvan People's Republic, which became part of the USSR on the rights of not even a union republic, but autonomy within the RSFSR. What would have happened if the proletarian revolutions had been defeated in Hungary, Germany, etc. - one can only guess, but I think the result would be impressive.
    By the way, the same Republic of Tyva testifies that voluntary entry into the USSR is not at all a prerequisite for separation from Russia in the event of the collapse of the Union.
    And Bulgaria and Mongolia, and even China, also wanted to see themselves as a union republic. According to some reports, Agostinho Neto, the leader of Angola, cast a test rod. Bulgaria, it seems, was refused on the grounds that there is no common border. For China, Stalin lit the red one, probably fearing that the peoples of the rest of the USSR would simply dissolve in the countless Chinese mass. Why Mongolia was refused - there are two versions: in order not to irritate China, which considered the Mongolian People's Republic a part of itself, a loved one; to have a buffer state against militaristic Japan. In the author's opinion, both versions are so-so, but others could not be found. As for the country on the Black Continent, perhaps even Neto himself understood that his proposal would not be seriously considered in Moscow.

    Thus, we can conclude that while the integration of the republics was going on in the USSR, centripetal forces were operating, there could be no talk of any "Ilyich bomb". The division into union republics was very conditional - as an example, we can cite the Karelo-Finnish SSR, which was abolished with the same ease that it was founded. And if nationalism existed on the outskirts of a great country, it was deep underground. Of the most memorable cases, one can recall only the terrorist attack of the Armenian Dashnaks in the Moscow metro in 1977 and several clashes on ethnic grounds, which, however, for the most part grew out of quite everyday trifles. The post-war partisanship of the nationalists in the Baltics and Western Ukraine, again, we will omit - after all, force majeure.
    And the Union lived for itself, bringing up "a new supranational community of people - the Soviet man" (quote from the demographic reference book of 1989). But, unfortunately, in the second half of the 80s of the last century, very weak and not very clean people came to the leadership of the USSR (this is still very mildly said), and with them the centripetal vector of development in the country changed to a centrifugal one. The nationalist forces in the republics have revived, perked up and strengthened. And as a result, they divided the world's first socialist state into specific principalities that have nothing in common with socialism.
    So what do we have in the bottom line? And the bottom line is that Lenin did not plant an atomic bomb, but a magnet that was supposed to attract other states. And this magnet worked properly almost all the time of the existence of the USSR. The state collapsed for completely different reasons, and these reasons have names and surnames. After all, it is much easier to destroy even the most beautiful creation than to create it - ask Herostratus, he will not let you lie.
    He, by the way, will confirm that it never entered anyone's head to accuse the creators of the temple of Artemis of Ephesus that they had planted some kind of explosive device under the temple.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 21 January 2021 08: 14
      +7
      Good historical analysis. Respect. China asked not all of the USSR, but only Manchuria under the leadership of Gao Gang, to whom Mao later recalled it.
    2. depressant
      depressant 21 January 2021 09: 53
      +5
      Colleague Dalny V, what an amazingly accurate commentary that explains a lot. But you have quoted. I would like to know who is the Author?
      1. Fat
        Fat 21 January 2021 16: 36
        +2
        hi I will support. Remembered. You need to find out the author. To read and think. Precise on the "edge" yes I wrote down NB.
        1. depressant
          depressant 21 January 2021 20: 10
          +1
          One more thing I would like to add. Undoubtedly, in the historical conditions in which the USSR was taking shape as a state of a new type, the decision on the status of the union republics was correct. Just so they don't run away right away. But I do not think that the ordinary population of the republics knew about the possibility of secession from the Union. This short story, as it were, was not advertised in the situation of the emergence and formation of a new person - the Soviet. Moreover, in the Second World War, fighters of all Soviet peoples fought shoulder to shoulder with the enemy. The formation of a universal brotherhood was becoming a reality ...
          And then a socialist camp was formed as a buffer zone around the USSR. These countries are not Soviet, they were separate from us, but the leaders of the countries of this camp were on everyone's lips, and somehow it turned out that the status of each of them was higher than the status of the leader of the same Ukraine and the same, say , Kyrgyzstan. These people were given much more importance by the ideological apparatus of the USSR than the leaders of the union republics within the Union, they were more reckoned with, they were more worried about, and they allowed themselves to impose their own opinion, which looked like a manifestation of greater degrees of freedom. Moreover, they were subjects of world politics, but in general these countries formed a protective, buffer zone around the USSR. This was their main value for us, and a lot of efforts were required on our part to ensure the stability of the buffer.
          But the fact that the Soviet republics are a buffer zone around the RSFSR as the most advanced in accepting the ideas of communism, I believe, the leaders of the Central Committee of the Soviet republics guessed, either they knew it for sure, or were convinced of it for some reason.
          And when Stalin died, the suppressed national pride of the leaders of our national entities leaped out, insulted by their seemingly inferiority in comparison with the leader of Czechoslovakia or, say, Bulgaria, which prompted the republican secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee to secretly support local separatist sentiments. Indeed, the buffer, and much less honor than in relation to the countries of the socialist camp. And not even honor, but status. For example, the Yugoslav Tito was known all over the world, the Cuban Fidel Castro was known, but who abroad knew the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Tajik SSR? Is that experts in undermining the unity of the USSR from the CIA. Say, unimportant, a trifle? I'm not sure. The factor of pride - and this is in addition to the growth of greedy, grabbing moods of the party elite in many Soviet republics.
          1. Fat
            Fat 21 January 2021 20: 40
            +1
            When in all its glory. .. I'll think many times. In fact, your point of view has the right to be correct.
            1. Fat
              Fat 22 January 2021 00: 25
              +2
              When I served urgent 84-86. One national cadre tried to educate me in the spirit of Lviv political correctness, for which he was awarded a warm welcome with a shop, a butt in the ear. Did not serve in part and half a year, hospital. I remembered the name of the idiot for the rest of my life. They put it on the fig ... Our Chelyabinsk Tatars from the company "reacted sympathetically" and generally brought the miraculous to the handle. I didn't get it for "allowing hazing" (no one like that). In general, the boys were very normal. You can be friends. Many Chernobyls passed as my first "castle". Blessed memory for them, and for those who are still alive - health and prosperity.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Far B
        Far B 22 January 2021 00: 12
        +3
        author - D. Krasko, also a journalist from the Far East.
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 21 January 2021 19: 06
      0
      Quote: Dalny V
      And the bottom line is that Lenin did not plant an atomic bomb, but a magnet that was supposed to attract other states. And this magnet worked properly almost all the time of the USSR existence.

      Really? And how many states were included in it?
  • apro
    apro 21 January 2021 05: 53
    +5
    becoming one of the triggers of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Again, look for the guilty? To see bonby around? The socialist construction of a nationwide state. Over time leads to the erasure of national differences. And if this process is stopped. Or released from control, nothing will save. After the murder of the IVS of Stalin, the construction process was interrupted. The development processes slowed down. And start with renewed vigor there was no one. the imperfection of ideology. and the emphasis on material incentives was not justified.
    Today, the activity of the communists in building the USSR is viewed as directed against the Russians, and they are looking for evidence of this in the viciousness of the socialist choice in 1917.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 08: 48
      +3
      Quote: apro

      Look for the guilty again?

      Do you disagree, Oleg, that the division of the state according to the federal principle makes it much more vulnerable to disintegration than an integral state?
      1. apro
        apro 21 January 2021 09: 24
        +3
        I do not agree. Ri was very unitary. Which did not stop scattering.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 21 January 2021 14: 57
      -1
      Quote: apro
      .iteration processes slowed down. and there was no one to start them with renewed vigor


      Why was it necessary to first create disintegration of the country, i.e. these ethnic minorities, what would then start integration? This is stupid. So all the "republics" were intended to divide, first of all, Russia and the Russians.
      1. apro
        apro 21 January 2021 15: 02
        +3
        Quote: Bar1
        those. these minorities

        And nothing that they were in the country? They were not distinguished from the Russian peoples of the Caucasus, nomadic peoples. Only the civil war had died down, where separatism was on a par with the white enemy. And also brought a lot of problems. With the same unr. And other hasty and pleura. ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. apro
            apro 21 January 2021 15: 25
            +3
            Quote: Bar1
            Ukrainians were made like people in the USSR,

            The name Ukrainian Rada does not tell you anything? And when was it created? And what goals did it pursue ...
            And also ask about the separatists of the Caucasus, Crimea, Central Asia, Tatars, Kalmyks, and so on, what happened in the interval between revolutions. What the Communists did. This is the lesser of evil. Lead the country to tranquility. Yes, according to their own understanding. But they have other alternatives. moment did not see.
            You can better ... today is the time to demonstrate your skills and abilities to create your own Russian world.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 34
              -1
              Quote: apro
              The name Ukrainian Rada does not tell you anything? And when was it created? And what goals did it pursue ...


              and you say that like you know everything
              -Rada -from the Russian word Rat, hence the town hall i.e. advice.
              There would be no country of soviets, there would NEVER be any Ukrainians.
              As for the "separatists" of the Kavkaza. There is no need to drive away, the same Georgians themselves asked to go to Ingushetia, because they were very oppressed by Persia and Turkey. RI saved the Georgians from destruction, which, by the way, is happening NOW with Armenia and has always been so.
              As for the Tatars, then I can tell you EVERYTHING, who it is, where they came from, why they were named that way and why the Tatars in the Caucasus were named that way.
              As for the Kalmyks, too, by the way, the White Kalmyks were Black.
              1. apro
                apro 21 January 2021 15: 47
                +3
                Quote: Bar1
                Rada - from the Russian word Rat, hence the town hall i.e. advice.

                Oh, the fox carries me ... good luck on the turns.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 49
                  0
                  Quote: apro
                  Oh, the fox carries me ... good luck on the turns.


                  it's all?
                  1. apro
                    apro 21 January 2021 15: 53
                    +5
                    Quote: Bar1
                    it's all?

                    And what can you seriously talk about with a connoisseur of Fomenko's creativity? I don't have enough arguments.
                    1. Bar1
                      Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 56
                      -3
                      Quote: apro
                      Quote: Bar1
                      it's all?

                      And what can you seriously talk about with a connoisseur of Fomenko's creativity? I don't have enough arguments.

                      Well, and you - a history specialist on the textbooks of the tsarist and Bolsheviks, to study history, maybe learn to know where that comes from.
                      1. apro
                        apro 21 January 2021 15: 58
                        +2
                        Quote: Bar1
                        specialist of history on textbooks of Tsarist and Bolshevik

                        According to the Bolshevik ... I don't need strangers.
                      2. Bar1
                        Bar1 21 January 2021 16: 58
                        -2
                        Quote: apro
                        According to the Bolshevik ... I don't need strangers

                        You don't even know that. The textbook on the history of the Tsarist and the Bolsheviks is one and the same textbook.
                        And by the way, there was his own shot, the real Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov-Narodnaya Volya-blood from blood, who questioned bourgeois historical science, but here again the Bolsheviks did not want to listen to him.
            2. Kushka
              Kushka 21 January 2021 23: 07
              +4
              cabinet - from the person entered and his no matter-
              that's bullshit! Do you agree?
              Porada - advice, glad - advise, not a moment of the date glad -
              I could not put in order, having given a rada - I got things done,
              not a raj - I do not advise, naglyadova is glad to be a supervisory board,
              Verkhovna Rada - the Supreme Council, Radianska power - Soviet
              a country.....
              And what does the army (army) have to do with it, and even more so the town hall ?!
              1. Bar1
                Bar1 21 January 2021 23: 53
                0
                Quote: Kushka
                Porada - advice, glad - advise, not a moment of the date glad -
                I could not put in order, having given a rada - I got things done,
                not a raj - I do not advise, naglyadova is glad to be a supervisory board,
                Verkhovna Rada - the Supreme Council, Radianska power - Soviet
                a country.....
                And what does the army (army) have to do with it, and even more so the town hall ?!


                what are the similarities
                - glad advice and
                - glad - to play / warriors?
                and here and there it is necessary to gather, fight / stand up.
                Well, from the council / council went the town hall.
                everything is in Russian.
                1. Kushka
                  Kushka 22 January 2021 00: 08
                  +3
                  He served in the Baltic States - Tallinn, Riga, Liepaja.
                  I saw the town hall. In Russia, Belarus and on
                  Ukraine, not that I have not seen - I have not even heard.
                  But I won't argue (I'm a techie). Let it be
                  In your.
                  1. Bar1
                    Bar1 22 January 2021 00: 24
                    -2
                    Quote: Kushka
                    He served in the Baltic States - Tallinn, Riga, Liepaja.
                    I saw the town hall. In Russia, Belarus and on
                    Ukraine, not that I have not seen - I have not even heard.
                    But I won't argue (I'm a techie). Let it be
                    In your.


                    apparently, where the warriors came, there were formed Rada / town halls.
                    1. depressant
                      depressant 22 January 2021 00: 58
                      +2
                      Colleagues, can we recall the old Russian "to please"? )))
                      In the sense of caring, helping. What, in fact, should be the meaning of such an institution as the Rada.
                    2. Bar1
                      Bar1 22 January 2021 01: 00
                      0
                      Quote: depressant
                      Colleagues, can we recall the old Russian "to please"? )))
                      In the sense of caring, helping. What, in fact, should be the meaning of such an institution as the Rada.


                      "rejoiced without zeal"?
                      um, how to tie
                      - child - try
                      with advice? Does not work.
                    3. Kushka
                      Kushka 22 January 2021 14: 16
                      +1
                      Now it's warmer, almost hot.
                      I am writing - ne zmig dates gladand - badly looked after, flunked the case.
                      And Gnat yak pryishov, so giving a rad (took care of it - PARADEL,
                      as needed and it went) As we can see your "please" here is just the right place.
                      Well, to the Rada (rural, urban, supreme) it is very suitable.
                      So we'll get to the "town hall" (what are we doing at VO?)
          2. Fat
            Fat 22 January 2021 02: 03
            +1
            Thank you, Bro, nobody but Timur will intercede for us black Kalmyks. And where are the Kalmyks? Astrakhan? Swam, I know. laughing Serious people, you get tired of treating. Will camp opposite and Khan fishing wassat
  • Fat
    Fat 21 January 2021 17: 06
    +2
    Russia's conscious socialist choice is questionable. Marxism has been developing since 1848, from the very "Manifesto". The fact that the new parties took socialism as the guiding idea is a great "merit" of the British.
    Specifically - the Fabian Society. None of the "cool" Marxists has ever seen the former Russian Empire as the birthplace of socialism in fact. There were no prerequisites. The October Revolution and Stalin changed a lot, it became possible to build a state of social justice. But damn it! defense of the Soviet fatherland, made the country a hostage of the military-industrial complex.
    Not to nat. the program was. A very short period between wars
  • Fat
    Fat 21 January 2021 20: 50
    0
    Fuck you with your ... imaginary internationalism. Father in Stalingrad prochukhal everything on his own hump. Not fighters, although they called themselves warriors.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 21 January 2021 05: 55
    +11
    The struggle between the two approaches of Lenin and Stalin to the formation of the Soviet state showed that the victory of Lenin's approach turned out to be vicious and with far-reaching consequences, becoming one of the triggers for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    The Russian Empire was actually a unitary state, but this did not save it from collapse.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 08: 49
      +3
      But the unitary state is more stable in this respect. Although you can of course destroy everything.
      1. apro
        apro 21 January 2021 09: 22
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        But the unitary state is more stable in this respect.

        If you don't shake him, if there is one people, if there is one goal ... and with this there were problems that did not solve.
      2. tasha
        tasha 21 January 2021 09: 57
        +2
        Are you still writing about a unitary or mono-national state?
        Whether you like it or not, historically, it so happened that Russia was formed as a multinational state. The unifying force for many nations was ... the monarchy. When joining the Russian Empire, they took an oath to the Tsar, promised to serve, so they served as best they could. In 1917, the monarchy ended and the Bolsheviks had to think about what to choose as a fastening force.
  • Iskazi
    Iskazi 21 January 2021 05: 57
    -8
    not a bad article .., with far-reaching conclusions .... naturally Ilyich was wrong, but Stalin, with all his "unlimited power", could not change anything, the Father of the People was not so omnipotent ..., which means that there were other players and forces, and very influential, with whom CAM reckoned ... Well, after the death of the Leader, the Dnepropetrovsk period began ... ending with the dismantling of the USSR. With all the skepticism about the Guarantor, about the mine of the national division of the country, I agree with him, although these are not his thoughts, but the fact that he voiced them is correct.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 January 2021 06: 08
    +15
    The opinion of a former member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and then a devoted comrade-in-arms of the ardent anti-communist Sobchak gr..Putin, will leave without comment .... and the author should write such, sorry, nonsense.
    1) How Lenin, who died at 24 and is the founding father of Soviet Russia, could be involved in the collapse of the USSR in 1991?
    2) Moreover, this collapse is a consequence of the policy of perestroika and the rejection of socialism and Soviet power. It was this refusal that led to the collapse. The author literally turns everything upside down.
    3) The author, even after 100 years, could not even understand what Lenin feared and what, in general, was the meaning of the dispute. And he feared that in conditions when the first onslaught of socialism in Europe was suppressed (somewhere by force, somewhere it did not come to revolution), the leading capitalist countries would simply crush the extremely weak and backward Russia by the leading capitalist countries. To prevent this from happening and for the fire of the revolution to burn, it was necessary to raise both the proletarians of Europe and (first of all) all the backward and colonized peoples. And to do this by repeating the colonialist policy of tsarist Russia was not possible. He feared a repetition of the circles of Russian history with the revival of the old bureaucracy. In this case, there simply would be no chances for socialism. And in the end, there would be no chance for a Russia repeating its national traditions and subjected to maximum isolation. In addition, it was necessary to somehow tame the nationalism of the outskirts, following the path of maximum unification, this could not be achieved. Moreover, even with the Lenin version of the most loyal to the rights of all peoples, for example, the Basmachi had to fight until the end of the 20s.
    4) Well, the attempt to oppose Lenin and Stalin is simply ridiculous. I would look like the author would tell Comrade Stalin himself or Dzerzhinsky about the insidious Ilyich smile I am afraid in this case the author would add to the list of "innocent victims of Stalin's repressions."
    1. Andrey VOV
      Andrey VOV 21 January 2021 08: 17
      -6
      Sorry, of course, but when Putin was a member of the CPSU Central Committee ???? You are not confusing anything?
      1. tasha
        tasha 21 January 2021 08: 28
        +7
        The opinion of a former member of the CPSU
      2. Fat
        Fat 22 January 2021 03: 57
        +1
        hi All decent people started out in intelligence attributed to Henry Kissinger. laughing
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 00
      -2
      Quote: Odyssey
      How Lenin, who died at 24 and is the founding father of Soviet Russia, could have been involved in the collapse of the USSR in 1991


      and why were all the "independent republics" needed, made the country monolithic and there would be no independent ones in the future.?
  • tasha
    tasha 21 January 2021 06: 21
    +3
    The article, in my opinion, is somewhat mixed, touches on two issues - chauvinism and disputes about the state structure.

    JV Stalin opposed all kinds of chauvinism, including "great-power" too.

    “... anti-Russian nationalism is a defensive form, some ugly form of defense against Russian nationalism, against Russian chauvinism. If this nationalism were only defensive, it would still be possible not to make a fuss about it. It would be possible to concentrate all the strength of our actions and all the strength of our struggle on Great-Russian chauvinism, hoping that as soon as this powerful enemy is toppled, then, at the same time, anti-Russian nationalism will be overthrown, for this nationalism, I repeat, in the end the account is a reaction to Great Russian nationalism, a response to it, a well-known defense. Yes, it would be so, if locally anti-Russian nationalism did not go beyond the reaction to Russian nationalism. "

    Pay attention to the last sentence: "Yes, that would be so, if locally anti-Russian nationalism did not go beyond the reaction to Russian nationalism."
    This "further" means the aspiration of Ukrainian, Georgian and other communists to create a union of independent states - a confederation.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 02
      +2
      Quote: tasha
      One could concentrate all the strength of their actions and all the strength of their struggle on Great-Russian chauvinism, hoping that as soon as this powerful enemy is toppled, then, at the same time, anti-Russian nationalism will be overthrown,


      Can you give examples of "Russian chauvinism"?
      1. tasha
        tasha 21 January 2021 15: 23
        +1
        I didn't quite understand the meaning of your comment. Explain, please, what do you want from me?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 21 January 2021 15: 35
          +2
          Quote: tasha
          I didn't quite understand the meaning of your comment. Explain, please, what do you want from me?

          and what is incomprehensible? You are repeating "Russian chauvinism", but what is it?
          1. tasha
            tasha 21 January 2021 17: 19
            +1
            You have already written in this thread twice already: "Russian chauvinism", "Russian chauvinism".
            I do not know what it is.
            You can find the definitions of "chauvinism" and "great-power chauvinism" in any decent dictionary ...
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 21 January 2021 17: 36
              +1
              Quote: tasha
              You have already written in this thread twice already: "Russian chauvinism", "Russian chauvinism".
              I do not know what it is.
              You can find the definitions of "chauvinism" and "great-power chauvinism" in any decent dictionary ...

              Well, since we are talking about Russia, then the great-power is the essence of Russian? What are you denying?
              So what harassment did the small nations have from the Russian people?
              1. tasha
                tasha 21 January 2021 17: 45
                +1
                My friend, you are definitely at the wrong address with your question. Try to contact the author of the article.

                But I, reading the materials, the works of V. I. Lenin, J. V. Stalin, I believe that since they pay attention to this issue (and not only they) - "great power chauvinism", "Great Russian chauvinism" and "chauvinism" of other nationalities existed and were the subject of serious controversy.
    3. Fat
      Fat 21 January 2021 17: 22
      +1
      Summary: Topic - rubbish. The relationship to history is mediated. Good for holivar. Ashipka of the editorial board? In short - stuffing.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 21 January 2021 06: 26
    +14
    I wonder who laid the mine under the Russian Empire, that it exploded in an instant.? On the national outskirts. Bolsheviks? But the tsar renounced the throne even before October. And all these "mistakes" were not corrected later. In a country where, like nowhere else, there are many nationalities, it is necessary to be more careful with the national question.
    1. apro
      apro 21 January 2021 06: 35
      0
      Quote: nikvic46
      In a country where, like nowhere else, there are many nationalities, it is necessary to be more careful with the national question.

      Yes, many Russians forget the Polish uprisings. Wars in the Caucasus. Conquest campaigns in Asia. Once in one state, the problems have not been solved. And how different peoples to integrate into one community is not entirely clear
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 21 January 2021 06: 55
    +5
    In one of his last interviews, Putin said that Lenin had laid a time bomb under the Soviet Union.
    What prevented Putin from clearing the bombs in the same 2014? For example, from an incomprehensible Tatarstan to create the Kazan province.
    1. tasha
      tasha 21 January 2021 07: 12
      +7
      Not what, but who ... Tatars ... wink
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 21 January 2021 08: 54
        +5
        In my opinion, it is necessary to abolish absolutely all subjects of the Federation by creating regions. The borders of the republics are the lines of future cuts, which may not occur, but the prerequisites already exist. Like the heck of a glass cutter.
        1. tasha
          tasha 21 January 2021 09: 37
          +2
          When the question of the state structure was being decided, JV Stalin wrote: "The Russian Federation is not a union of separate independent cities or regions in general ..., but a union of certain historically distinct territories, differing in both their special way of life and their ethnic composition."

          The federation was considered a transitional period towards a single socialist unitary state. Those. sooner or later, a community of Soviet people had to form, which would have national differences. All this multinational building was to be held together by the Russian people, the Russian language.

          Currently, I cannot support your idea. And not because (!) That the existence of our own republic gives my people and me personally some privileges. But because, as a subject of the Russian Federation, we can protect ourselves from the rampant Nazism and racism. To know that we are ..

          Not literally, but something like this:

          - This woman has a black child! - shouts the American
          - So what? - say the Soviet people.
          - This woman has a black child! - shout in Russia
          - So what? - they say in the USA, Europe

          I expressed my thoughts not very well. But the meaning, I hope, will be clear. There are still some thoughts, but I better hold on to them hi
          1. Fat
            Fat 21 January 2021 17: 42
            0
            hi All right, everyone understood everything.
        2. populist
          populist 21 January 2021 10: 41
          +1
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          In my opinion, it is necessary to abolish absolutely all subjects of the Federation, creating regions

          This would be correct, but the authorities will not agree to this. Republics are their black belt. At some elections in Chechnya, as many as 110% voted for Putin. Kadyrov later made excuses that they had misunderstood.
  • Crowe
    Crowe 21 January 2021 07: 04
    +15
    Stalin emphasized the centralization of state administration and the fight against separatist tendencies,

    And he was right, which we have witnessed.
    Stalin resolutely opposed the transformation of a single state into a kind of confederation, he believed that it was local nationalism that was the main threat to the unity of the Union.

    And again he is right. A monolithic state is always stronger than one divided into autonomy of all stripes and a confederation with all sorts of uluses.
  • WayKheThuo
    WayKheThuo 21 January 2021 07: 53
    +14
    The main reason for the collapse of the Union, IMHO, is not "the bomb that Lenin laid down", according to Radiant, in the distant 22nd, but the stupid, mediocre and marasmus government of the country, carried out by hypocrites operating petty-bourgeois ideology on "land" for their own people, and type communist for the rest.
    People are simply stupidly tired of the almost permanent deficit, the mass of artificially created problems, a lot of prohibitions and constant lies.
    In addition, the USSR completely lost the main battle - the ideological one - an ordinary agitator and propagandist like the young Pozner, could not responsibly and intelligibly, and most importantly - honestly answer simple questions, ranging from general domestic disorder to nomenclature management privileges.
    Somewhere in the mid-80s, ideology decisively diverged, firstly, with the people, and secondly, with economic realities, and who wants to live in a country that in fact turned out to be ideologically untenable? Especially if we are talking about limitrophe countries.
    Work on the modernization of the Union should have been carried out in the early 60s, when specialists from both the State Planning Commission and the Academy of Sciences spoke about this, but our leadership had other tasks - they fought with the dead Stalin, satisfied their philistine needs and played hardware games - and most importantly, and most terrible, they raised a new breed of soviet managers - unprincipled, corrupt, lazy, narrow-minded, those who brought the economy to the handle, and the people "changed their shoes" on the fly to complete brutality, became real democrats, and then, comfortably settled down in new realities, they began to talk about the mistakes of the 22nd and the mass production of galoshes.
    I think so.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 21 January 2021 12: 36
      -8
      Quote: WayKhe Thuo
      but our leadership had other tasks - they fought with the dead Stalin, satisfied their petty bourgeois needs and played hardware games

      And where did they go and why did everyone calmly look at this Radiant Correct Leninists who defeated Tsarism, Capitalism, Trotskyism, Right-wing Right-wing Leninism. mountains, holes, rivers and okiyany? belay request recourse
    2. Fat
      Fat 21 January 2021 17: 45
      +2
      hi Come on. laughing
      According to the conditions of everyday life, Soviet society is already divided into a well-to-do and privileged minority and a majority living in poverty, and at the extreme poles inequality takes on the character of glaring contrasts. Products intended for general use, despite high prices, are usually of extremely low quality, and the further from the centers, the more difficult it is to get them. Under such conditions, not only speculation, but also the outright theft of consumer goods is becoming massive and, if until yesterday they supplemented the planned distribution, today they serve as an adjustment to Soviet trade.(c) Lev Davydovich Trotsky 1937.
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 21 January 2021 19: 04
      +2
      Victor! You are thinking very correctly!
      1. Fat
        Fat 22 January 2021 02: 24
        +1
        You know, Vyacheslav, common sense is not enough. Needed like this, Egregor ...

    4. vladcub
      vladcub 21 January 2021 19: 06
      0
      WeiKhe Thuo, my opinion: the Union was destroyed by incompetent leaders: Khrushchev, and then his successors. If in 1964-66 the state was headed by Yu. V. Andropov, and not Brezhnev, the Union would have survived. If Andropov came to power in the early 70s, it was still possible to preserve the state, and then it was too late
      1. Fat
        Fat 22 January 2021 01: 04
        +1
        hi Let's not fantasize and speculate. IMHO, with the departure of Brezhnev, the Union ended and none of the champions of the "carriage races" could have changed anything .... Gorbachev, at first, did everything in full, and then generally merged the Fatherland for the sake of universal values. there are no words, only letters, and those are obscene. And EBN would have been with him, at least he tried something, he didn't have time, or maybe he didn't want to ... It will take a lot of time to appreciate it. It is bitter for all of US to remember.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 22 January 2021 08: 15
          0
          I am not speculating, but trying to reason. In the 60s, the Andropovskys were also more orderly: "strengthening discipline" or "fighting non-labor incomes" would only slightly correct the course.
          That Andropov, that Chernenko were already seriously ill people
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 22 January 2021 07: 04
        +2
        Quote: vladcub
        WeiKhe Thuo, my opinion: the Union was destroyed by incompetent leaders: Khrushchev, and then his successors. If in 1964-66 the state was headed by Yu. V. Andropov, and not Brezhnev, the Union would have survived. If Andropov came to power in the early 70s, it was still possible to preserve the state, and then it was too late

        Alas, Svyatoslav, it's not that simple at all ...
  • Unknown
    Unknown 21 January 2021 08: 40
    +2
    Not so easy, right after G.V. to create a new state, and on completely different foundations. National separatism was in the ranks of the RKPb, it was not by chance that the VKPb had to be renamed. The so-called Ukrainian wing, the Transcaucasian and other national currents had to be reckoned with. So the role of V.I. LENIN should not be exaggerated. Since the spring of 1922, his health deteriorated, the blows followed one after the other, especially in the fall, and he gradually retired. Comrade Stalin understood that it was necessary to create a party apparatus for current and future goals. Therefore, on 03.04.22/1913/1922, he became the general secretary of the RKPb. Party discipline began to be consistently carried out, well, the famous "cadres decide everything," created an apparatus that implements and monitors the implementation of the decisions of the Central Committee of Congresses, etc. Now any statements, actions of the separatists that went against the central decisions, were interpreted as going against the general line of the party, and could have unpleasant consequences. It was not for nothing that STALIN was considered an expert on national issues in the RKPB, his work, Marxism and the National Question, published in XNUMX he appreciated V.I. LENIN. Also I.V. STALIN himself watched and took part in extinguishing interethnic enmity in the Baku oil development, and knew firsthand what interethnic massacre was. After all, separatism in a separate region is not so bad, but when it is fed from abroad, it is very bad. Half measures are not enough. There was no alternative to the USSR in XNUMX, it took time to hold everything together, tie, cement, and of course create cadres brought up on the ideas of the Union.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 21 January 2021 18: 55
      +1
      "it was no coincidence that it was decided to rename the CPSU (b)" as I remember from school, before 1925 (?) there was the name of the RCP (b) in a single state, etc. the name of the RCP (b) became an anachronism and it was decided to rename the party
      1. Unknown
        Unknown 22 January 2021 00: 33
        0
        Quote: vladcub
        "it was no coincidence that it was decided to rename the CPSU (b)" as I remember from school, before 1925 (?) there was the name of the RCP (b) in a single state, etc. the name of the RCP (b) became an anachronism and it was decided to rename the party

        In December 1925, the XIV Congress proclaimed a course towards building socialism in the country, which required the development of a new party program.

        In connection with the unification of the Soviet republics into the Union of SSR, the RCP (b) was renamed into the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) - VKP (b), which included the CP (b) of Ukraine, the CP (b) of Belarus and the party organizations of the ZSFSR. At the same time, the creation of a separate party in the RSFSR was declared "the greatest harm", since "in fact it would mean the existence of two central governing bodies, because the share of the Russian part in the party of union significance is clear by itself" [
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 22 January 2021 08: 19
          +1
          So I was not mistaken with the date? I doubted everything - so more than 50 years have passed, and in Vika to climb into scrap
  • Undecim
    Undecim 21 January 2021 08: 45
    +9
    And it is not so easy that Putin, in one of his last interviews, said that Lenin had laid a time bomb under the Soviet Union.
    The author did not complete the original sources.
    On June 18, 2004, at the international conference "Eurasian Integration: Trends of Contemporary Development and Challenges of Globalization", Putin said about the problems hindering integration: "If I were allowed to take part in this section, I would say that these problems can be formulated very simple. This is great-power chauvinism, this is nationalism, this is the personal ambitions of those on whom political decisions depend, and, finally, this is just stupidity - ordinary cave stupidity. "
    As always, this author has a sketch instead of a story.
    1. Fat
      Fat 21 January 2021 17: 56
      +1
      hi good Explicit sketch. And the quality is excellent am
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 21 January 2021 18: 43
      +2
      "As always, this author has a sketch instead of a story", but what a spectacular injection of a liquid substance onto a fan
  • steelmaker
    steelmaker 21 January 2021 08: 56
    0
    The union betrayed and destroyed not the people, but the leaders - traitors! The people were for the Union! And what difference does it make to the Union? If there is a traitor at the head of the state! The union ruined the humanism of the Russian people. Enemies must be finished off, not re-educated! And if Stalin had finished off all Bendera in the 40s, then their grandchildren would not have ruined Ukraine now!
    "..... Good cannot be without evil,
    because they create by destroying,
    good and evil cannot live
    without interfering with each other.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 January 2021 07: 10
      +2
      Quote: steel maker
      People

      There is a very good Polish film in 1963 Pharaoh, based on the novel by Boleslav Prus.
      There the priest Mentesufis says to the high priest Herhor: An army is against us!
      He answers: What army will not bow before Osiris?
      The people are hostile to us!
      The people that the grass - bends in the wind!
      But I don't see Osiris, and I don't feel the wind.
      Herhor: And I say that tomorrow the one who goes blind will be happy!
      And ... at 12.00 the eclipse of the sun began about which he knew in advance and everything was so arranged that the priests saved Egypt from the wrath of the gods.
      And Mentesufis was strangled by the keepers of the Labyrinth for stupidity!
  • Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 21 January 2021 09: 07
    -4
    Quote: nikvic46
    Igor: You do not respect the communists. This is your right. But when you turn on the light at home, it would be nice to think that it was not Anatoly Borisovich who ran the electricity in such large spaces, but your disrespectful communists.

    Based on the logic of your answer, without the Communists we would still be living in the Stone Age! Do you really think so? Are you serious?
    Only here's the bad luck: the plow with which the communists accepted Russia had a caliber of 305mm, and this plow was inherited from the tsarist regime ...
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 21 January 2021 13: 26
      -5
      Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
      Only here's the bad luck: the plow with which the communists accepted Russia had a caliber of 305mm, and this plow was inherited from the tsarist regime ...

      Russian "plow"Russian-built with Russian 305 mm guns:

      Interestingly, the receivers of this "plow" themselves none they could not build such a plow (battleship), although they tried many times.
      1. deddem
        deddem 21 January 2021 14: 59
        +1
        Let me give you a little hint: compare the cost of building a first-generation battleship (before WWII) and a 1945 light cruiser, with radars and other body kit.

        For example, according to English data, they are on the network.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 21 January 2021 15: 19
          -2
          Quote: deddem
          Let me give you a little hint: compare the cost of building a first-generation battleship (before WWII) and a 1945 light cruiser, with radars and other body kit.

          why not compare the "popovka" with the first generation battleship?
      2. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 21 January 2021 16: 39
        +3
        "although we tried many times" let's define for what reasons we could not build battleships: 1) there were no talented shipbuilders, but "the Russian land will not become scarce in talents"
        2) financial difficulties, but they can be understood.
        3) the requirements for ships may have changed. WWII showed that aircraft carriers are needed.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 21 January 2021 18: 48
          -1
          Quote: Astra wild2
          let's determine for what reasons we could not build battleships:.

          The reasons were for EVERYONE, but Russia in a short time was able to build 7 battleships "Sevastopol" and half built 4 even larger battleships "Izmail".

          And the next ones could not even finish building, but "Poltava" was ditched ....
          Quote: Astra wild2
          3) the requirements for ships may have changed. WWII showed that aircraft carriers are needed.

          The battleships were needed: we look how many times they tried to restore the "Poltava", at the attempts to build the battleships "Soviet Union"
          1. Fat
            Fat 22 January 2021 01: 15
            0
            Andrei, let's not drown for an alternative "Bis" version of an excellent book, but fantastic. And the projects were 1linkor = 5 tank divisions. So there were no frames, from the word at all. Bitterly.
          2. Astra wild2
            Astra wild2 22 January 2021 12: 18
            +2
            Olgovych, I speak for the Soviet period, and you mix 2 completely different eras.
            Regarding: "Poltava" or "Soviet Union" - the names tell me absolutely nothing and are not at all interesting. There used to be a colleague here: "Yura" he could discuss with you, but me? Dismiss this is not mine.
            P
            S
            + I will bet for perseverance and erudition on pre-revolutionary ships
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 22 January 2021 12: 27
              -1
              Quote: Astra wild2
              Olgovych, I speak for the Soviet period, and you mix 2 completely different eras.

              Dear Astra, so am I about him: battleships were needed, they wanted to build them, they tried, but they could not (there were not enough engineers, no hands, no money).
              And from me +: for a calm, reasonable conversation.
              1. Astra wild2
                Astra wild2 22 January 2021 17: 09
                +1
                Have I ever been rude? On the contrary, I tried and am trying to be fair, but not everyone likes it.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 22 January 2021 20: 23
                  -1
                  Quote: Astra wild2
                  Have I ever been rude? On the contrary, I tried and am trying to be fair, but not everyone likes it.

                  no. I had no idea of ​​offending you. hi
                  1. Astra wild2
                    Astra wild2 22 January 2021 20: 37
                    0
                    I know . We have great ideological differences with you, but I like your persistence
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 21 January 2021 09: 20
    +8
    When it was necessary, Iosif Vissarionovich very cleverly played with the "independence" and "statehood" of the union republics. This is beautifully described on VO in an article three years ago "How Belarus and Ukraine became the founders of the United Nations." Today, the editorial board would hardly allow such an article to be published. hi
  • populist
    populist 21 January 2021 09: 21
    +2
    The historian Yuri Zhukov examines in great detail the topic of the creation of the USSR in the book "The First Defeat of Stalin." (Moscow - 2011 "Aqua-Therm" 5000 copies)
    Stalin was right in the face of history, good but he had to yield to the most powerful pressure from Lenin and local nationalists. sad
    One should not think that Lenin was always right and was not wrong about anything. There were even cases when Lenin himself admitted his mistakes.
  • BAI
    BAI 21 January 2021 11: 42
    +1
    The Tsar (N-2) made a mistake, dragging Lviv and adjacent territories into Russia, although he was warned about it. Thank God they lost everything in 1918. But unfortunately, Stalin returned it in 1939.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 21 January 2021 12: 17
    +3
    Quote: BAI
    The Tsar (N-2) made a mistake, dragging Lviv and the adjacent territories into Russia, although he was warned about this. Unfortunately, Stalin returned it in 1939.
    Strange, Lviv was Austrian, as were the surrounding areas. What kind of pull-in are we talking about?
    1. BAI
      BAI 21 January 2021 18: 54
      0
      after the partitions of Poland in 1772, it became part of Austria-Hungary, in which it remained until 1914, when during the First World War it was occupied by Russian troops.

      In 1918, after the First World War, as a result of the collapse of Austria-Hungary, Lviv was proclaimed the capital of the West Ukrainian People's Republic, but Poland again returned Lviv by military means.
  • Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 21 January 2021 13: 41
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    Interestingly, the receivers of this "plow" themselves could not build a single plow (battleship) of this kind, although they tried many times.

    It should be added that under the Tsar Emperor the "plow" was built in two series: for the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet.

    Meanwhile, even more impressive "plows" were being built on the stocks ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 15: 02
    -1
    Thanks for the article, I did not know about the position of I V Stalin on this issue, once again I was convinced of the wisdom, God give us again a wise and honest leader like I V Stalin
  • DNS-a42
    DNS-a42 21 January 2021 15: 39
    +1
    On this issue, Lenin tried to impose on everyone his personal, biased and in no way unfounded opinion about the Russian people.

    IN AND. Lenin "On the national pride of the Great Russians":
    Is the feeling of national pride alien to us, Great Russian class-conscious proletarians? Of course not! We love our language and our homeland, we work most of all to raise its working masses (that is, 9/10 of its population) to the conscious life of democrats and socialists.

    And we, Great Russian workers, full of a sense of national pride, want by all means a free and independent, independent, democratic, republican, proud Great Russia, which builds its relations with neighbors on the human principle of equality, and not on the serfdom principle of privileges that humiliates a great nation. ...


    Lenin's position on "Great Russian chauvinism" was clearly exaggerated: the Russian people never suffered from this, and the whole history of their coexistence with other peoples of the multinational empire only confirmed this.

    I.V. Stalin "On the Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question":
    Tsarism killed all activity of the popular masses of the outskirts. By all this, tsarism generated among the local national masses the deepest mistrust, sometimes turning into hostile relations, towards everything Russian.

    The policy of tsarism, the policy of the landlords and the bourgeoisie, was to plant in these regions more kulak elements from Russian peasants and Cossacks, turning these latter into a reliable support of great-power aspirations. The results of this policy are the gradual extinction of local indigenous people (Kyrgyz, Bashkirs) displaced into the jungle.

    The tsarist policy was to nullify these minorities by all means, including pogroms (Jewish pogroms).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 21 January 2021 16: 17
    +1
    "Putin, in one of his last interviews, said that Lenin had laid a time bomb under the Soviet Union" author, maybe you shouldn't refer to V.V. He is somehow not the most popular chelivek
    1. Fat
      Fat 21 January 2021 18: 02
      0
      hi And spit, not stupid, but this is a little important. smile
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 January 2021 16: 33
    +1
    This is the original opinion Lenin had in relation to the Russians who "oppress small nations" and their guilt for their greatness.

    ICHH, before the revolution, the position of the VIL was more sane - he blamed for nationalism not on the Russian people. but on the imperial bureaucracy. But after coming to power, Vladimir Ilyich, the further, the more he became a Russophobe.
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 21 January 2021 17: 53
    +2
    The author, choose the words: "obsessive forms of unbridled hatred" in other words V. And Lenin is some kind of maniac.
    Colleagues, if you believe Solzhenitsyn, what would Stalin have done for such words? For some reason it seems to me that Stalin would not like
    R.
    S
    Colleagues, for me the name of Lenin is sacred and it jars me when they begin to bring the role of Lenin or mold him into some kind of maniac. If it was written by Solzhenitsyn or Peskov declared what was happening here. They are enemies of socialism and our enemies, and we will not tolerate this, but why do we tolerate such from our own?
    R.
    D.
    Someone is already preparing cons for me. Let them pose if they have no courage or reasoning, and I said that I thought
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 January 2021 13: 46
      +2
      Quote: Astra wild2
      Colleagues, for me the name of Lenin is sacred and it jars me when they begin to bring the role of Lenin or mold him into some kind of maniac. If it was written by Solzhenitsyn or Peskov declared what was happening here. They are enemies of socialism and our enemies, and we will not tolerate this, but why do we tolerate such from our own?

      Because there is really nothing sacred. All people are people. It's just that they mold the image of a saint out of some, while others are led to it, because they want to have at least some ideal in life ...
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 22 January 2021 17: 04
        +2
        Vyacheslav Olegovich, thank you for your attention
  • vladcub
    vladcub 21 January 2021 18: 11
    +1
    "Lenin, in his letter, warned the Central Committee against great-power chauvinism." In fact, the site already contained materials on the creation of the Union and it seems that Samsonov or Polonsky (I have not seen him for a long time) about the "Great Russian chauvinists" the opponent of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky was Trotsky
    1. Fat
      Fat 22 January 2021 01: 32
      +2
      Oh! When did Leiba Davidovich Bronstein become a Great Russian chauvinist? Svyatoslav? drinks An internationalist, his children many times, a bad decimator ...
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 21 January 2021 18: 55
    -1
    The policy of the parasitic "elite" is always the same: divide and conquer. For this, the forces of the court intellectual servants actively support the existing stereotypical differences between people, and also invent and implant new ones. As a result, there is a huge amount of contradictions in society - religious, cultural, historical, linguistic, status, national, hierarchical, property, class, racial, gender, gender, etc. - with the help of which people are divided into separate groups, which are then pitted against each other under the imaginary slogan of "establishing the truth." For the most part, these contradictions are artificial, far-fetched, but propaganda, deliberately stirring up emotions, makes each group believe that the point of view it stands for is "true", from which the sacramental conclusion follows - "since I am a bearer of truth, then I have the right to ". After that, in order to knock different groups together, it is enough to strike with another provocative match.

    Apparently, the VIL saw in the USSR a prototype of the future united world union, which was supposed to become a natural result of a successfully implemented "world revolution", in which all other republics of Europe, Asia, etc. will come in over time. Given this position, it was logical to build a union of equal republics and declare free entry and exit from it, thus demonstrating an example of genuine democracy, as it were, laid in the very foundation of the USSR.

    Reality, however, has subjected this blissful theoretical construction to a serious test. The "elite" of the West, which is the center of the world capitalist system, tried to destroy the USSR with a direct military blow, and when this did not work out, changed tactics and began to play on natural contradictions, thus trying to undermine the state from within. National contradictions were one of the key contradictions in the USSR. And the "elite" of the West has achieved their goal.

    Whereas dreams of a "world revolution" that would relatively quickly redraw the political map of the world turned out to be an illusion. A one-time "world revolution" is simply impossible, if we consider that it must take place in conditions when bourgeois propaganda subtly brainwashes the masses, who are a) poorly educated, because education in a capital country is expensive, which means that not everyone is available, b) from childhood they are accustomed to believe, but not to think for themselves, and the street in a crisis moment is reliably controlled by the Nazis.

    In such a situation, the main task is the ultimate elimination of all internal contradictions in order to obtain a cohesive, monolithic society, as it should be, and the fight against internal enemies, who usually work for a split, engaging in the usual division of society into separate groups with the aim of their subsequent play off under the manipulative slogan "protection of rights and freedoms."
  • smaug78
    smaug78 22 January 2021 09: 14
    0
    Quote: BAI
    The Tsar (N-2) made a mistake, dragging Lviv and the adjacent territories into Russia, although he was warned about this.

    after the partitions of Poland in 1772, it became part of Austria-Hungary, in which it remained until 1914, when during the First World War it was occupied by Russian troops.
    Shouldn't you have fought? This is something new...
  • antivirus
    antivirus 22 January 2021 13: 53
    0
    his bitterness against Great Russian chauvinism left its stamp on his political statements and actions in the last years of his life and acquired some obsessive forms of unbridled hatred.

    -see need 1880 -VILENIN's childhood - an estate with illiterate peasants and townspeople of Simbirsk-Kazan.
    in those years what was How did RI develop? thoughts of the lower classes - not slogans led princes.
  • andrei anatolevich
    andrei anatolevich 22 January 2021 13: 55
    +1
    Any empire crumbles sooner or later. Whether the Bolsheviks want it or not. You can hold for a while with bayonets or handouts, but a little the Center will weaken, everyone scatter. "It's better to live in a separate small room than in a luxurious communal apartment ...."
  • hjvtp1966
    hjvtp1966 23 January 2021 21: 57
    0
    Quote: nikvic46
    Igor: You do not respect the communists. This is your right. But when you turn on the light at home, it would be nice to think that it was not Anatoly Borisovich who ran the electricity in such large spaces, but your disrespectful communists.

    And that only Bolshevism is capable of generating electricity? Well, okay, we did not have the Internet in our youth and we believed everything that was broadcast to us at the lectures. And now there is Internet, open the night photo of Europe or, mind you! America: how poor they are there without GOELRO vegetate. In my time they said - spring has passed, summer has come - thanks to the party for that! laughing
  • ivan2022
    ivan2022 30 January 2021 21: 31
    +1
    About the "triggers" - great!
    In fact, the Belovezhskaya Agreement was characterized by the Commission of the State Duma of the Russian Federation back in the 90s, as a criminal offense with signs of treason to Rodnina. In fact, a firing squad ....... They betrayed everything that could be betrayed, but Lenin and Stalin are to blame.
    How many all kinds of "mines" have been laid for Russia over the past 30 years, we may not yet know. But we will find out without a doubt. When the hour X, appointed by the "miners", comes.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 9 March 2021 21: 01
    0
    In general, as the classic said, the adviser is always Russophobe.