Military Review

Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

283

Who did the Russian tsar interfere with?



Opposition to the autocracy, including the grand dukes, the highest generals, the Duma and public figures, industrialists, bankers and the highest hierarchs of the church, itself destroyed the foundations of Russian statehood. The then Russian elite did not at all understand the role that the autocracy played in Russia.

The Russian state stood on faith, autocracy and the army. The Russian faith was undermined and crushed by the reforms of Nikon and Peter I. The cadre army perished on the battlefields of the First World War. And the tsar was overthrown by the Russian elite.

And Russia exploded.

After the 1905 revolution, the Russian elite felt like an independent player in the country's political field. The autocratic monarch became a hindrance to their political plans and ambitions. The political, military, industrial and financial elite had strength and wealth. But there was no genuine, complete power that implied control.

And what kind of control over the autocrat, who, with a wave of his hand, can execute or start a war, disrupt all the cunning plans that can drag on for many years?

And the archaic, as it seemed to them, political system hindered the capitalist development of Russia. And the royal family had to share the property. And, finally, Russian Westerners and Freemasons just liked Europe - such

"Sweet and civilized."

Representatives of the Russian elite received an excellent education, they were real Europeans. Lived in Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Paris or Zurich.

Our Westernizers wanted a market, a hierarchical democracy, essentially a plutocracy, when all power belongs to

Rich and famous.

Make Russia a part

"Civilized world".

Modeled after Holland, France or England. To direct Russia along the western path of development, to complete the westernization of the country, begun by the first Romanovs. But not completed, since Catherine the Great, Paul I, Nicholas I and Alexander III, as best they could, “slowed down” this process and tried to solve national problems, and not others.

External forces


External forces also played an important role in the fall of the Russian Empire.

The Germans needed a revolution in Russia in order to save themselves or postpone their fall. Germany was completely exhausted by the war. The Germans needed to free the divisions from the Russian front, seize the resources, provisions and wealth of Russia in order to continue the war in the Western Theater. That is, the Germans were solving the current problem.

Long-term goals for the dismemberment and colonization of Russia appeared already in the course of the war, as a reaction to the war. At the same time, Berlin did not come up with the idea of ​​a separate peace with Russia and a joint Russian-German army to fight the "world evil".

Western democracies - France, England and the United States, and the one behind them

"Financial international",

solved the strategic task of the complete victory of the Western project (slave-owning) on ​​the planet and the way out of the crisis of capitalism. To do this, it was necessary to crush competitors and rob, master their territories. A part of Western civilization - the archaic (medieval) Germanic world (German and Austro-Hungarian empires), the Muslim world - the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire - acted in the role of competitors and "prey".

At the same time, there was competition among the Western powers.

Britain was in a hurry to resolve the "Russian question", to end more than two centuries of confrontation. Dismember and plunder Russia. Create a number of Western-dependent limitrophes.

The Americans were solving their own problems in the world war. They entered the war when the main competitors weakened in the most brutal massacre - Germany, France and England. The United States has changed from a world debtor to a world creditor. The war made it possible, due to the inflow of world capital and gold, to create a powerful military industry, army and navy. America was in a hurry to create its own

"new world order",

where England will be their junior partner.

“Democratic” Russia, reduced in size, was supposed to become a raw materials appendage, a bottomless storehouse of resources and a sales market for American goods.

"Cannon fodder"


In the revolution there is always "cannon fodder", brainless crowds with goats-provocateurs who lead the "sheep" to the slaughter. So, in the modern era during the "Arab Spring" in the role of "cannon fodder" was played by the youth, the petty bourgeoisie, willing

"Live like in the West."

In the Ukrainian Maidan, the same population groups plus neo-Nazi Bandera were used.

In Belarus and the Russian Federation, the stake is placed on the same social groups.

In the United States, democrats and globalists used against Trump the urban lower classes, the extreme left (new Trotskyists, anarchists), the cosmopolitan part of society and black racists. Moreover, if the revolution was successful, then usually, "cannon fodder" is smashed and destroyed. Since revolutionaries are destroyers, aimed at demolishing existing foundations. They cannot create and want to "continue the holiday."

In general, the revolution, like the god Saturn, devours its children.

The Russian elite and the forces of the West used professional revolutionaries, liberal and revolutionary intelligentsia as "cannon fodder".

The Russian intelligentsia, in addition to a small traditionalist (conservative) group, was sick with the West, sought to forcibly drag Russia into the Western world and root it there. In this sense, the Russian liberal intelligentsia was anti-people.

She did not understand the Russian civilizational idea and her own people. Therefore, the intelligentsia tried with all its might to crush tsarism. In fact, it was suicide. The pre-revolutionary intelligentsia flourished under the Romanovs, but with all its might sought to cause a revolution and became its own victim.

Professional revolutionaries are people who fundamentally rejected the modern world. They dreamed of the destruction of the old order, of a new world, which, of course, would be better and happier than the previous one. They possessed great energy - passionarity (according to Gumilev). The revolutionaries had the will and determination to overcome everything in their path.

Among them were Russians, various national minorities, Jews. Natives of all classes and social groups. Nobles, intellectuals and workers. Bolsheviks, various social democrats (Lithuanian, Polish, Finnish, Georgian, etc.), socialist revolutionaries, popular socialists, anarchists and numerous nationalists (Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, etc.).

The Russian elite and the forces of the West were eager to use the Russian revolutionaries.

Money from industrialists, bankers, Western capital was taken by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, nationalists, etc. However, it would be an oversimplification of the same Bolsheviks to be considered agents and puppets of the "financial international".

The relationship between revolutionaries and Westerners was twofold. As before, the relationship between the revolutionaries and the tsarist secret police. Many revolutionaries, no doubt, were agents of the secret police (and then agents of the West, like Trotsky). But they were "double agents." The security service considered them their agents. And the revolutionary believed that he was using the capabilities and resources of the secret police for the cause of the revolution.

Thus, the West tried to use the revolutionary underground in Russia for its own purposes. The revolutionaries, in turn, tried to adapt the resources of the West to their revolutionary intentions.

After the victory of the February Revolution, some of the revolutionaries (the Februaryists) were satisfied with the result. They planned to stabilize the situation and lead Russia along the path of Western modernization.

But Pandora's box was open.

The foundations of "old Russia" —the army and the monarchy — have been destroyed. The radical revolutionary wing demanded the continuation of the banquet.

Nationalists and separatists began

"Parade of sovereignties".

Crime had its own revolution

"Plunder the loot".

The peasants began their war for the land and the project of "free farmers".

The Februaryists, Russian and Western capital tried to promote a liberal-democratic project - the "White Project". Integrate Russia into the European community.

As a result, having overthrown the tsar, the Russian elite received the Russian Troubles.

Only the Bolsheviks were able to pull Russia and the people out of this hell (Bolsheviks saved the Russian civilization).
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
283 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 2 March 2021 04: 29
    +14
    Only the Bolsheviks were able to pull Russia and the people out of this hell
    Who could?
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 2 March 2021 05: 35
      +26
      And no one else could.
      1. Sofa batyr
        Sofa batyr 2 March 2021 06: 27
        +7
        Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

        Interest Ask yes And the answer to it is probably correct, using the method of deduction - "Seek someone profitable"

        And the traces immediately lead outside of Russia ...
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 27
          +8
          Quote: Divan-batyr
          Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

          An interesting question And to answer it probably correctly, using the deduction method - "Look for someone who benefits"

          It hindered those who were hindered by the autocracy of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires.
          1. Civil
            Civil 2 March 2021 08: 51
            +5
            Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

            1. A propaganda attempt to play off the fans of the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia. Given that both patriotic camps are conservative and supported the return of Crimea, this is an attempt to play off the people loyal to the state.
            2. However, it is clear why - the government has lost the support of both conditional "patriots" and conditional "liberals".
            3. Propaganda actually folded its hands in an attempt to consolidate society, adopting a course of pitting the population against each other. Red with white. Youth with elders. OMON with civilians. Only the army is not yet involved, openly, in the polarization of society.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 2 March 2021 09: 20
              +1
              Quote: Civil
              ... A propaganda attempt to play off the fans of the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia. Given that both patriotic camps are conservative and supported the return of Crimea, this is an attempt to play off the people loyal to the state.

              It turns out that there was no need to take Crimea back? Or maybe I didn't understand something.
              1. Civil
                Civil 2 March 2021 09: 37
                +4
                Quote: tihonmarine
                It turns out that there was no need to take Crimea back? Or maybe I didn't understand something.

                And Crimea and everything had to be taken, and not previously given. The point is that inept propaganda, for the sake of momentary goals, pits patriotic people against each other.
            2. ammunition
              ammunition 2 March 2021 11: 27
              -4
              Quote: Civil
              play off fans of the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia.

              USSR = RI.
              Whoever honors the USSR also honors the Russian Autocratic Empire !!
              And whoever honors the White Guard February and the Provisional Government with the Guchkovs - Milyukovs, he honors the Yeltsins - Chubais ... and the other Krasnovs, Kornilovs - Vlasovs.
              -----------
              Everything is extremely simple.
              1. Civil
                Civil 2 March 2021 11: 29
                +6
                USSR = RI.

                The USSR is a state of workers and peasants. RI - the state of the nobles, headed by the king.
                1. ammunition
                  ammunition 2 March 2021 13: 50
                  -4
                  Quote: Civil
                  The USSR is a state of workers and peasants.

                  You reason as primitively as Mekhlis in the movies ... or Trotsky. sad
                  The state in the USSR acted in the interests of the working people - this is correct. But! only under Stalin and under Brezhnev .. and under Gorbachev - already no.
                  -------------
                  Quote: Civil
                  RI - the state of nobles led by the king

                  In the Russian Empire, the ruling stratum was fully accountable to the Tsar. That is, the Tsar was the spokesman for the interests of the people. And this did not suit this very ruling stratum of top officials, generals and the rest of the Duma. Which got rid of the king in February 17.
                  1. tihonmarine
                    tihonmarine 2 March 2021 15: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: ammunition
                    That is, the Tsar was the spokesman for the interests of the people. And this did not suit this very ruling stratum of top officials, generals and the rest of the Duma. Which got rid of the king in February 17.

                    And immediately did not suit the interests of the peoples of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Something is suspicious here, all at once.
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 13: 12
                +2
                Quote: ammunition
                USSR = RI
                -----------
                Everything is extremely simple ..


                uniquely laughing


                And "an anti-Soviet is always a Russophobe !!!"
              3. Terran ghost
                Terran ghost 3 March 2021 16: 55
                0
                USSR = RI.
                Whoever honors the USSR also honors the Russian Autocratic Empire !!

                A short course on the history of the CPSU (b), 1938.
                http://www.lib.ru/DIALEKTIKA/kr_vkpb.txt
                Quote: "The history of the CPSU (b) is the history of the overthrow of tsarism, the overthrow of power
                landlords and capitalists, the history of the defeat of a foreign armed
                interventions during the civil war, the history of the construction of the Soviet
                state and socialist society in our country. "
                Quote: "Tsarist Russia was a prison of peoples. Numerous non-Russians
                the peoples of tsarist Russia were completely deprived of rights, incessantly
                were subjected to all kinds of humiliation and insults. Tsarist government
                taught the Russian population to look at the indigenous peoples of the national
                regions as a lower race, called them officially "aliens",
                brought up contempt and hatred for them. The tsarist government deliberately
                kindled ethnic strife, set one people against another,
                organized Jewish pogroms, Tatar-Armenian massacres in Transcaucasia. "
                1. Vladimir
                  Vladimir 4 May 2021 16: 48
                  0
                  A short course on the history of the CPSU (b) was recognized as unscientific back in the 50s of the last century.
                  1. Terran ghost
                    Terran ghost 28 May 2021 12: 43
                    0
                    A short course on the history of the CPSU (b) was recognized as unscientific back in the 50s of the last century.

                    Well let's open up a later source. "
                    History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Textbook for universities. BN Ponomarev et al. Politizdat, 1976 "
                    foreword
                    Quote: "In the late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries, the party entered the historical arena and boldly led the working class and peasantry to battle against the tsarist autocracy and Russian capitalism."
                    Quote: "The Communist Party led the peoples of Russia through three revolutions: the bourgeois democratic revolution of 1905-1907, the February bourgeois democratic revolution of 1917 and the Great October Socialist Revolution — and led the Soviet people to the world-historic victory of socialism."
                    Chapter 1
                    Quote: "The remnants of serfdom in the social and political life of the country especially made themselves felt. Russia was an unlimited monarchy, that is, power in it belonged entirely to the tsar, who, at his discretion, issued laws, appointed ministers and officials, uncontrollably collected and spent the people's money The tsarist monarchy was essentially a dictatorship of feudal landlords who had all political rights, enjoyed all the privileges, occupied all the main positions in the state, received huge benefits from the people's money.The tsarist government supported large manufacturers and factory owners, financial aces. political rights. He could not freely gather, express his opinions and make demands, unite in unions and organizations, freely publish newspapers and magazines. A whole army of gendarmes, detectives, jailers, policemen, guards, police officers, police officers, zemstvo chiefs guarded the tsar, landowners and capitalists from the people. "
            3. Looking for
              Looking for 2 March 2021 16: 11
              -2
              Question-a. What is not supported now?
            4. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 3 March 2021 17: 19
              0
              play off fans of the USSR and RI. Considering that both patriotic camps

              The monarchical form of government in the Russian Empire ceased to exist at the beginning of 1917. That is, in the "patriotic camp of supporters of the Russian Empire", by definition, there can be only persons not younger than 104 years of age. For all those who were born after 01.01.1918/XNUMX/XNUMX, the Russian Empire cannot be their Motherland by definition.
            5. UrraletZ
              UrraletZ 29 March 2021 14: 24
              0
              The rise of fascism in the former Ukraine began with equating traitors to heroes. So it is with us - by equating the White Guards with heroes.
          2. Proxima
            Proxima 2 March 2021 13: 21
            +6
            Personally, I think that this article should be referred to the OPINION section, I am sure that for many of us there is no historical informational value, only the AUTHOR'S OPINION .. request
        2. Vend
          Vend 2 March 2021 12: 09
          -2
          Quote: Divan-batyr
          Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

          Interest Ask yes And the answer to it is probably correct, using the method of deduction - "Seek someone profitable"

          And the traces immediately lead outside of Russia ...

          It was not the autocracy that interfered with, but the Russian Empire, and the overthrow of the autocracy is just a tool. This is the same if we say who the communists in the USSR interfered with.
        3. vlad106
          vlad106 April 24 2021 19: 23
          0
          Quote: Divan-batyr
          Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

          Interest Ask yes And the answer to it is probably correct, using the method of deduction - "Seek someone profitable"

          And the traces immediately lead outside of Russia ...


          Russia was constantly pitted against other peoples by the Anglo-Saxon monarchies and their masters of the back.
          Purpose: to weaken Russia, in the future to expose it to robbery in various forms
        4. vlad106
          vlad106 25 May 2021 12: 37
          0
          "Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy"
          ..
          From very ancient times, vile impudent Saxony harmed Russia.
          Specifically, Britain with its monarchs, and their hirelings Trotsky, Sverdlov, and other jackals.
          The country was specifically torn apart
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 2 March 2021 08: 07
        -30%
        Quote: Destiny
        And no one else could would.

        Others, just, and could and built BEFORE 1917. the largest country in the world - painstaking military and peaceful labor for a thousand years.

        And the Russian people with them became the fastest growing and almost the largest people in the world.

        But the subsequent ones, in just twenty years by 1940, "could" only tear off from Russia 5 million km2, with inconceivable speed producing the never-existent "states" of Kazakhstan, "Tajikistan", "Belarus", etc.

        By 1940 and were mainly installed today's borders 17th century Russia


        The 200-year-old labor of the Russian people to create the Russian state was destroyed, and the Russian cities of Nikolaev and Uralsk were turned into Mykolaivi and Oral.

        The Russian people, the regime in just 70 years, "was able" to lead to extinction, and before that, to an unprecedented death rate in the history of the country of the world in ...peaceful rodes of the middle 20th century In the middle Europe-1932 -33,37,46,47yy
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 2 March 2021 08: 50
          +13
          So decide - 200 or 1000 years have been building the Russian state, so that the testimony does not contradict each other.
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 10: 43
          +12
          Damn you demagogue when will you calm down? I'm already incredibly tired of my nonsense.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 05
      -5
      The peasants who just wanted to work on their land and sell their products without state obstacles are free farmers in quotation marks and is this hell for you? A strange assessment of reality, given that the peasants in Russia were 80% of the population. And the interests of the peasants were the interests of Russia in the first place. However, for someone it was really hell, for those who saw a "terrible picture" of peasants with land.
      All these famines of the 22d and 30s are explained primarily not by "harvest", but by the Bolshevik experiments of prohibiting markets, surplus appropriation and crafty collectivisations.
      There was always a lot of grain in Russia, especially in the black earth regions of Ukraine and the Volga region, but in a strange way in 1922 famine began in the Volga region, when the Bolsheviks robbed the peasants turned to the whole world with an appeal to save the Russian peasantry, and in the 30s in Ukraine, when they were already dying of hunger Little Russian peasants.
      1. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 10: 23
        +7
        And the interests of the peasants were the interests of Russia in the first place.

        A very good conclusion.
        Please describe what was interesting to the peasant of that time?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 10: 49
          -8
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Please describe what was interesting to the peasant of that time?


          The Russian peasant of any time always needs only one land to cultivate it and the markets where products can be sold.
          The Bolsheviks, with their decrees, seem to have allowed to cultivate the land, although the soldiers / peasants, even without the Bolsheviks, took the landlord's lands themselves (the army of Father Makhno), but they FORBIDDEN market-market relations and offered to hand over bread to the new government to the peasants for SO What led to the uprisings in the Tambov region and Siberia - the uprising of the chembarniks. The Bolsheviks drowned the uprisings in blood.
          The Bolsheviks were those to whom the world elite handed over POWER in the main camp of the world with one condition: the Russian people should under no circumstances be in power, which is what we see from the revolution to Putin.
          1. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 11: 43
            +11
            That is, the interests of Russia are the land to cultivate and the markets in which to sell products. Some limited interests of Russia are obtained if we rely on the interests of the peasants.
            BANNED markets-market relations and offered to hand over bread to the new government to the peasants for SO

            The introduction of the grain monopoly and the abolition of "free purchase and sale in general" are not quite the same thing. You can answer simple questions:
            1) What are the reasons for the introduction of the grain monopoly in the spring of 1917 by the Provisional Government?
            2) What are the reasons for the failure of state purchases of grain in 1916?
            3) How to explain the hunger riots of the peasants in the period of November 1917 and May 1918, that is, in the period between the Provisional Government's surplus appropriation system and the SNK's surplus appropriation system?
            4) Why did the existence of a free market for the sale of agricultural products during the NEP led to famine in the cities by 1927?
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 08
              -7
              It is always necessary to proceed from the fact that in Russia there was a SUPPLY of foodstuffs always. Russian chernozems are something that the whole world did not have, there are always large harvests on black soil.
              The fact that in RI there was corruption in the supply of the army I hope to agree with this?
              The grain monopoly and the policy of surplus appropriation in Ingushetia during the war was, of course, due to wartime, when supply interruptions began, just most of the male population was at the front. BUT MARKETS were not destroyed in Ingushetia and food trade continued. markets and demanded the peasants to hand over grain at "firm state prices", but the peasants did not trust either the Bolsheviks or their foreign power and refused, in response, the Bolsheviks began repressions.


              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              What are the reasons for the failure of state purchases of grain in 1916?


              I don’t know that, you tell me.

              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              How to explain the hunger riots of the peasants in the period of November 1917 and May 1918, that is, in the period between the surplus appropriation system of the Provisional Government and the surplus appropriation system of the Council of People's Commissars?


              you somehow filter the information in general. Russia was a huge country, the northern part was non-black earth and the landowners there did not have the same harvests as in the black earth. Therefore, in order to supply the peasants of the north of Russia, this bread must be brought from the fertile south, and in times war and corruption was difficult to do.

              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              Why did the existence of a free market for the sale of agricultural products during the NEP led to famine in the cities by 1927?


              I do not know this fact either, maybe because NEP is not everywhere.

              Now you also tell me.
              Where did the food go in 89-90? Food in the USSR was and SUDDENLY disappeared. So when you answer this question, you will find out what GOVERNANCE of the people is.
              1. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 13: 04
                +6
                there are always big harvests on black soil

                Of course not, the soil is not the only component of the yield. This was the problem, almost a crop failure on chernozem soils - immediately hunger in the country, since they supplied the non-chernozem regions with bread.
                I don’t know that, you tell me

                You are welcome. Free market.
                you somehow filter the information in general. Russia was a huge country, the northern part was non-black earth and the landowners there did not have the same harvests as in the black earth. Therefore, in order to supply the peasants of the north of Russia, this bread must be brought from the fertile south, and in times war and corruption was difficult to do.

                What is there to filter? What you wrote for anyone, in general, is not a secret. And this is the reason why both temporary and the Bolsheviks introduced a grain monopoly - to feed those who do not have bread. After all, the snag was not to take grain out of the producing regions, but that there was nothing to carry - the non-producing regions could not buy bread at the price that the producing regions set on the free market. In some Voronezh province, the peasants considered it better to brew moonshine from the surplus than to sell it cheaply to the state, but with this to feed the peasants of some Smolensk province.
                I do not know this fact either, maybe because NEP is not everywhere.

                Not. Because the free market, the self-sufficiency of the peasant economy and the very interests of the peasants that you wrote above.
                Where did the food go in 89-90? Food in the USSR was and SUDDENLY disappeared.

                Free market. Are you surprised?
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 13: 15
                  -3
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Free market. Are you surprised?


                  so from the last, you wrote nonsense, there was no "free market" then.
                  1. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 13: 20
                    +5
                    1989-1990? And how it was. How old are you?
                2. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 09
                  -7
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Of course not, the soil is not the only component of the yield. This was the problem, almost a crop failure on chernozem soils - immediately hunger in the country, since they supplied the non-chernozem regions with bread.


                  It is already possible to draw an analogy with today's time, when in this Russia it is incomprehensible SUDDENLY, big harvests began to be born every year.
                  Why would it be? Russia is becoming the world's granary, but because the restraining moments have been removed.
                  Compare with the USSR. In the USSR there was almost everything that is now in this Russia.
                  -the same ground
                  -Fertilizers are the same, maybe even more was.
                  -pesticides / herbicides were also
                  -but the harvesting equipment was not the same.
                  Probably everyone remembers what Soviet agricultural machinery was? These are CONSTANTLY breaking units. Now the situation is much better.
                  - and most importantly - production relations were distorted. In collective farms, the peasants did not want to work.
                  In short, if earlier the average yield in the country was 6-10 c / ha, then in this Russia it is already 20 c / ha. On the black earth -60 c / ha. Ukraine -45 c / ha.
                  So the conclusion is, why did the yield so sharply jump in comparison with the USSR? Or maybe because the Bolshevik collective farms covered up and began to grow bread by natural methods, and not by the command of the Soviet economy.
                  We can say that the possibilities of Russia in grain crops were ALWAYS great or at least sufficient. the Bolsheviks built a crooked economy.

                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Not. Because the free market, the self-sufficiency of the peasant economy and the very interests of the peasants that you wrote above.


                  listen to what you always write in stupid cliches?
                  The peasants have grown their products, they need to sell it, but they are not allowed to do this, there is no market, there are unnatural prices after the war. This means there is no movement of goods throughout the country. And who is to blame? Of course, the authorities, who established such an order.
                  1. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 14: 18
                    +6
                    The peasants have grown their products, they need to sell it, but they are not allowed to do this, there is no market

                    You have no market in 1924-1926, for example, years? Not 1927-1928?
                    1. Bar1
                      Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 23
                      -5
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      You have no market in 1924-1926, for example, years? Not 1927-1928?


                      in general, it is not worth looking too far for a motive in these famines. Both under tsarism and under Bolshevism, the reasons were the same.
                      Therefore, I assert that tsarism handed over power to the Bolsheviks.
                      1. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 14: 30
                        +4
                        Did I ask about the Holodomor somewhere? I asked a specific question in response to obscure claims to my previous answer. I don't see the answer to this question of mine. The conversation was not interesting at all. Good luck.
                      2. Bar1
                        Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 34
                        -6
                        to answer specific questions you have to delve into the sources of that time, I do not have such an opportunity.
                        And your answer about the "free market" at the end of the USSR is just stupidity.
                      3. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 16: 07
                        +3
                        You call your ignorance my stupidity.
                        The cooperative independently plans its production and financial activities

                        The conclusion of contracts, including the selection of contract partners, is the exclusive competence of the cooperative and the relevant enterprises, organizations and citizens. Interference of state and cooperative management bodies and officials in the establishment and implementation of contractual relations between the cooperative and other enterprises, organizations and citizens is not allowed.

                        The cooperative sells products and goods of its own production, performs work and provides services at prices and tariffs set by the cooperative by agreement with consumers or independently.

                        The cooperative independently determines the types, sizes and procedure for the formation and use of funds and reserves (except for the insurance (reserve) fund in cooperatives in the spheres of production and services). Intervention of state and economic management bodies in the formation and use of centralized funds and reserves of unions (associations) of cooperatives is prohibited.
                      4. Bar1
                        Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You call your ignorance my stupidity.


                        I lived at that time and I know how the goods disappeared from the shops, how they gave / distributed vile food stamps and all these disgusting queues for a kilogram of sugar with a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of vodka.
                      5. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 16: 20
                        +1
                        What does your writing have to do with refuting or confirming the existence of a "free market" in the last years of the USSR? You do not hold the thread of the conversation at all.
                      6. Bar1
                        Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 28
                        -1
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        What does your writing have to do with refuting or confirming the existence of a "free market" in the last years of the USSR? You do not hold the thread of the conversation at all.


                        Fu uncle, I am 57 years old, I saw the whole PERFORMANCE with my own eyes. What market, if there was still the USSR, was there still a planned economy? If bread disappeared from the shops, it should have been sold in the bazaars, according to you, but it was not sold in the bazaars.
                        In short, you do not need to drive.
                      7. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 18: 12
                        +2
                        What market, if there was still the USSR, was there still a planned economy?

                        You could not master my message with excerpts from the normative act on cooperation in the USSR? Tell us, according to what plan of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, for example, the cable was written off from enterprises in order to extract copper and send it as scrap to Finland, and in return bring colored plastic bags and sell for 2 rubles. thing? According to what plan of the State Planning Committee of the USSR Gusinsky churned out thousands of metal bracelets every day at a cost of 3 (three !!!) kopecks and sold them as "healing" for 5 rubles. thing?
              2. don-1500
                don-1500 3 March 2021 08: 17
                +1
                "to answer specific questions" you do not need to dig into the sources, you just need to be in the subject, you know? Your arguments about the average yield, herbicides / pesticides, lomuchy equipment, about the fact that Russia is the world leader of something out there grain blah blah blah, etc. etc., demagoguery, ignorant nonsense. You are a deletant who does not understand the essence of the problem. In order to explain why the USSR bought grain and the Russian Federation sells a whole article is needed. I hope there will be a person on VO who will write an article and put everything on the shelves. But read your writings uv. Bar1, just no strength.
              3. Bar1
                Bar1 3 March 2021 08: 23
                +1
                Quote: don-1500
                I hope there is a person on VO who will write an article and put everything on the shelves


                hopefully ...
  • Deniska999
    Deniska999 2 March 2021 12: 06
    +8
    Are you sure that in the age of the transition to the sixth way of life, Russia could exist exclusively on the shoulders of the peasantry? Would peasants build rockets? Plants? Have you worked as programmers? Sooner or later, they would spill over to the cities. Do not happen 17 years old, it probably happened later, but nevertheless.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 26
      -6
      Quote: Deniska999
      Are you sure that in the age of the transition to the sixth way of life, Russia could exist exclusively on the shoulders of the peasantry? Would peasants build rockets? Plants? Have you worked as programmers?


      Of course not. But you do not know history. If you look back, what do we see? And we see what modern civilization CANNOT do. These are pyramids, these are aqueducts, these are huge temples. These are the Serpent Shafts and the Zakamskaya line. Who built all this? An old civilization that did not stand on these Christian foundations.
      Civilization before Peter's Russia was DIFFERENT. There was a SUPPLY in all of this, celebrated by foreign ambassadors and travelers to Russia. Peasant women wore brocade and pearls like boyars.
      But the Romanovs came, reforms began, a split, and everything rolled into a hole.
      Now look at the Russian peasant society, it was the Russian MIR.
      The land passed from father to eldest son, and therefore the land was always well-groomed. The younger sons, just replenished the urban population, went to brigades and artels. That is, the village FEEDED THE CITY with all industries with its personnel. It was the CORRECT and natural order human society. It was not necessary, according to Stolypin or Stalin, to destroy the community.
      But Christians came and broke this order.
      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 2 March 2021 13: 04
        +4
        The problem with all currents interested in politics / history in Russia is that you live in dreams of the past - pre-Christian, Romanov, Soviet. You don't even want to think about how to build the future, you just dream of transferring old models to current conditions. All those Russians are not. There is a present-day country and it needs modernization and changes.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 42
          -5
          Quote: Deniska999
          You don't even want to think about how to build the future, you just dream of transferring old models to current conditions.


          This is not so. It was in the past that human society lived according to NATURAL laws and everything worked out for them, but now, with this capitalism, everything is going somersault. On the one hand, HUGE values ​​accumulate in an insignificant part of society, and on the other, most of society is POVERTY, like tsarism. This model CANNOT be corrected, it can only be broken.
      2. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 13: 11
        +8
        And we see what modern civilization CANNOT do. These are pyramids, these are aqueducts, these are huge temples.

        Who told you he couldn't? He just doesn't see the point. What's the point in a pyramid? Can it be of some economic value? Pay for the construction of the pyramid and it will be built for you. Any. Whichever you want.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 50
          -5
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Who told you he couldn't? He just doesn't see the point. What's the point in a pyramid? Can it be of some economic value? Pay for the construction of the pyramid and it will be built for you. Any. Whichever you want.


          you see, you don't even know that. Megaliths of the Temple of Jupiter in Balbek 1000 tons cannot be made and cannot be moved by any machine of this time.
          So clearly and evenly fit the stones of the aqueduct in Spain Segovia can not be any construction technology of that time. By the way, it can be used against the OI, which claims that this civilization is the successor of that civilization.
          In 77g, the Japanese built a pyramid in Egypt as an experiment, so they almost overstrained.

          https://i-mar-a.livejournal.com/263445.html
          1. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 15: 57
            +4
            you see, you don't even know that. Megaliths of the Temple of Jupiter in Balbek 1000 tons cannot be made and cannot be moved by any machine of this time.

            The quarry wire rope cutting machine will cut the block, after which the crane will load it onto the conveyor and transport it. You seem to be stuck somewhere. Just pay.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 47
              -3
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              The quarry wire rope cutting machine will cut the block, after which the crane will load it onto the conveyor and transport it. You seem to be stuck somewhere. Just pay.

              give an example, when modern machines cut blocks of 800 tons, load them onto cars and take them somewhere.
              1. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 16: 57
                +4
                And why now cut blocks of 800 tons, load and carry somewhere? Are the batching plants gone?
                You stubbornly do not understand that this is not necessary, and not that there are no machines and mechanisms capable of doing this.
              2. Bar1
                Bar1 2 March 2021 17: 03
                -3
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                And why now cut blocks of 800 tons, load and carry somewhere?

                and then, that such structures are worth thousands of years, so once having built such a house there will be no need to rebuild it, this saves resources, and this Christian civilization cannot do this.
                Why are you talking? For example, the aqueducts: they were destroyed and were not rebuilt, but WHY was water not needed in Rome? And because this civilization CANNOT build or repair such things.
              3. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 17: 48
                +3
                so once you have built such a house you will not need to rebuild it

                At whose expense is the banquet? I am a developer. Building a house. Why do I need it to stand for a thousand years? And at the same time, in order to cover the cost of construction thanks to your "technical solutions", I have to expose such a cost of living space, for which there is simply no demand from the population. Wonderful. Does it surprise you why such megalithic structures - one or two and not enough and they are of a sacred nature?
                they were destroyed and were not rebuilt, WHY water was not needed in the same Rome?

                Was there no water in Rome? When? If even now in Rome there are still 3 aqueducts built in BC.
              4. Bar1
                Bar1 2 March 2021 18: 11
                -3
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                At whose expense is the banquet? I am a developer. Building a house. Why do I need it to stand for a thousand years


                This civilization of Christian Jews has only one God - the golden calf and prays to him wherever possible. This civilization is mindlessly wasting resources, growing mountains of garbage, littering oceans shallow and disappearing rivers, because such as you only think about your pocket, not the future.
                Look at the engravings of the ruinist Giovani Piranesi, what buildings and palaces were at that time, so now they can not build.
                They were Etruscans i.e. Russian.
              5. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 18: 35
                +3
                Here are two architectural sites built by the Christian civilization


                Show me something similar in the pre-Christian era.
                Or maybe, well, so, purely hypothetically, the massive architecture of the ancients is a consequence of the inability to calculate the bearing capacity of structures ...
                And again, ignoring the fact that such structures are few in number, which contradicts their "efficiency".
              6. Bar1
                Bar1 2 March 2021 19: 52
                -2
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Here are two architectural sites built by the Christian civilization


                about the Cologne Cathedral to say that it is Christian, it may be a mistake. Look what kind of finials there are not crosses. At Barcelona Cathedral, too, there are not crosses, but most likely the Sun, and the Sun is just a symbol of the previous civilization.

                here is the medal of Napoleon for the capture of Moscow, on the Kremlin domes, too, are not crosses or not the usual crosses.



                but the cathedral of St. Stephen / Stephen in Vienna in the 17th century, what are the finials of the cathedral? Crescent and Sun.



                What is the name of the capital of our Motherland? Moscow: Do you know what Moscow is? And no one knows. All versions are very unconvincing. Here is a part of the plan of the old map of the times of Mikhail Fedorovich the first Romanov.
                This is the arrow of the Moskva River and Yauza-Tagan.
                The finials of local temples are visible and these finials are not crosses, but crescents, therefore in French / English the mosque is mosque. This is not our name for our capital.

    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 17: 03
      +1
      Quote: Bar1
      give an example, when modern machines cut blocks of 800 tons, load them onto cars and take them somewhere.

      Doesn't this seem idiotic to you yourself? What do you want to say? That modern machinery is not suitable for your fabulous pra-pra-civilizations? Why is this esoteric ritual?
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 17: 08
      -3
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Doesn't this seem idiotic to you yourself? What do you want to say? That modern machinery is not suitable for your fabulous pra-pra-civilizations? Why is this esoteric ritual?


      this is some kind of arctic fox, but do you see that we are building pyramids or at least some of the large stone blocks? Are there such modern buildings? Open your eyes.
    4. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 17: 13
      0
      Quote: Bar1
      this is some kind of arctic fox, but do you see that we are building pyramids or at least some of the large stone blocks? Are there such modern buildings? Open your eyes.

      Why the hell are they needed? That is, if now such monstrous squalor is not being built from 800-ton bricks, then this speaks of the superiority of your civilizations?
    5. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 17: 18
      -3
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Why the hell are they needed

      stone structures for centuries and millennia, and modern ones do not stand for a hundred years - they are destroyed.
    6. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 17: 31
      -1
      Quote: Bar1
      stone structures for centuries and millennia

      What for? Along with such a building, pass on to its inhabitants from generation to generation a conservative way of life? But the advancing civilizational progress of the neighbors will sooner or later force, in order to preserve the traditional way of life, to isolate themselves from them, to turn into autarky, which means stagnum and degradation.
  • BAI
    BAI 2 March 2021 14: 49
    +4
    Civilization before Peter's Russia was DIFFERENT. There was a SUPPLY in all of this, celebrated by foreign ambassadors and travelers to Russia. Peasant women wore brocade and pearls like boyars.

    Who made such a discovery?

    Professor Afanasy Prokofievich Shchapov
    Great Russian regions and the Time of Troubles (1606-1613)
    :
    Chapter II
    It was a terrible time for Russia in 1603. It seemed that nature itself had predicted something sad and disastrous for the people in advance. In the year before the Time of Troubles, more than 500,000 people were buried in Moscow alone, who died from terrible hunger and pestilence. People, tormented by hunger, wallowing in the streets like cattle, nibbled grass in summer and ate hay in winter. Fathers and mothers strangled, cut and boiled their children, children - their parents, owners - guests; human meat was sold in the markets for beef; travelers were afraid to stay in hotels. They saw in Moscow poor women, exhausted by hunger, who, walking down the street, seized their own children, who were in their swearing, with their teeth and devoured them. The people could hardly take the babies away by force and save them. They had not yet had time to remove all human corpses from the streets, when terrible signs and phenomena began.

    Where are the brocade and pearls? Travelers were afraid to stay in hotels.
    By the way, orators (orators) often appear on VO who claim that there was no famine in Russia before the revolution - this is also for them.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 15: 05
      -5
      Quote: BAI
      Who made such a discovery?


      Well, what do you bring the time of troubles? This is a civil war, and during the war it was clear that there were supply interruptions.
      Here are the words from the book of Juan the Persian, sent to Russia.

      When we arrived at this city, we were met by so many people who looked at us with surprise that we could hardly drive through the streets and squares. We stayed in the city for 10 days, and we were treated so abundantly that the food had to be thrown out the window. There are no poor people in this country, because food is so cheap that people go out on the road to look for someone to give it to.
      1. BAI
        BAI 2 March 2021 15: 37
        +4
        Well, what do you bring the time of troubles?

        This was a year before the turmoil. It is written quite clearly:
        A year before the time of troubles
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 15: 42
          -5
          Quote: BAI
          This was a year before the turmoil. It is written quite clearly:


          maybe there was a pestilence, or a plague, or something else, a flood. Just tell me, but rather an article squeeze.
  • Bolt cutter
    Bolt cutter 2 March 2021 16: 34
    +2
    modern civilization CANNOT do it. These are pyramids, these are aqueducts, these are huge temples. These are the Serpent Shafts
    Can. Only they are not needed.
    But Christians came and broke this order.
    Well at least not Jews this time wassat
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 48
      -3
      Quote: Bolt Cutter
      Can. Only they are not needed.


      give an example.
      1. Bolt cutter
        Bolt cutter 2 March 2021 16: 58
        +3
        It is an order of magnitude more complicated than shafts and aqueducts. There was a need for it - and it was built. And the pyramids / shafts are not needed.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 17: 17
          -4
          Quote: Bolt Cutter
          It is an order of magnitude more complicated than shafts and aqueducts. There was a need for it - and it was built. And the pyramids / shafts are not needed.


          you don’t need it, because you don’t know what it is. And these are structures made of concrete. Here is an article about the "eternal and ancient" Column of Trajan from which for some reason in LAST time pieces fly off.
          https://yandex.ru/turbo/masterok.livejournal.com/s/3065490.html
  • Illanatol
    Illanatol April 30 2021 08: 37
    0
    The younger sons, just replenished the urban population, went to the brigades and artels. That is, the village FEEDED THE CITY with all industries with its personnel.


    If it were so, there would be no shortage of manpower in the cities, but objectively there was. And the population of cities would not be 13% of the total population, but much more. But it was exactly 13% in 1913.
    There was not enough real recharge. So it was necessary to carry out an agrarian reform with the abolition of serfdom without giving out land, and then destroy the community so that some of the peasants would go to the city. What really crippled the autocracy.
    The same communal peasants worked in the artels in the winter season.
    Stalin did not destroy the community. On the contrary, collective farms are an attempt to restore it.
  • Alex_1973
    Alex_1973 2 March 2021 17: 44
    +7
    Bar1 (Timur)
    The Russian peasant of any time always needs only one land to cultivate it and the markets where products can be sold.
    An absolutely absurd stupid and wretched local opinion, exactly the same small town and wretched as that of the villagers on the Ruin. The state cannot have any development having only antediluvian agriculture and nothing else. This just showed how miserable RI was before WWI, an agrarian backward country with practically no industry. As the country would say now, a gas station, but in relation to those realities, the country is more likely a grain station, well, or a grain storage.
    With all my respect for peasant labor, peasants have never and nowhere been the engine of progress, progress and culture developed only in industrialized centers.
    All the rest of your squalor does not even make sense to comment on!
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 18: 31
      -3
      Quote: Alex_1973
      progress and culture developed only in industrialized centers.


      Yes, especially today's culture such as dom2 or these vile films about the war (fighters, when soldiers are buried under crosses in war) or when a Kirkorov with a Baskin dog is disgusted, or when youth gum is recklessly stupid and sent, and the audience squeezes out laughter or endless talk shows where yelling and squabbling among themselves? Is this your urban culture? Ugh.
      And you don't know anything about the past Russian culture.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 20: 09
        -2
        Quote: Bar1
        Ugh.
        And you don't know anything about the past Russian culture.

        What are you trying to achieve? Total downshifting and immersion in
        Quote: Bar1
        Russian culture

        ?
        What a sanctimonious messianism?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 20: 11
          -1
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          What are you trying to achieve? Total downshifting and immersion in


          I do not even know the words of such filthy people.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 20: 18
            -2
            Quote: Bar1
            I do not even know the words of such filthy people.

            Words are like words. And what is your sect called? Or whatever you have. Well, there must be some name. Rodnovers, neo-pagans type.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 20: 19
              -1
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Rodnovers, neo-pagans type.


              we are Old Believers.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 20: 22
                -2
                Quote: Bar1
                we are Old Believers.

                clear.
              2. Alex_1973
                Alex_1973 2 March 2021 22: 30
                +3
                Bar1 (Timur)
                we are Old Believers.
                How can an Old Believer Old Believer be asked? What canons do you adhere to ?! By the way, WHO are Old Believers?
                I remember you here drowned for "true" Cossacks, and so I "report" that not only am I a Cossack on all lines, but also an Old Believer by baptism. Well, will there be controversy, or, as always, will we fart into a puddle?
                Who are you, that you undertake to judge what you have no idea about? Excuse me, but what madhouse were you released from?
      2. Alex_1973
        Alex_1973 2 March 2021 22: 22
        +2
        Bar1 (Timur)
        Yes, especially today's culture such as dom2 or these vile films about the war (fighters, when soldiers are buried under crosses in war) or when a Kirkorov with a Baskin dog is disgusted, or when youth gum is recklessly stupid and sent, and the audience squeezes out laughter or endless talk shows where yelling and squabbling among themselves? Is this your urban culture? Ugh.
        You are mistaken "respected", this is not ours, this is your "culture" ... These are not mine, these are your idols. This whole darned get-together has nothing to do with Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, Tolstoy, and you won't even believe with Mayakovsky, Bulgakov, and I'm not even afraid of Nekrasov. It is YOURS, not mine, it is the fruit of YOUR fantasies and perversions, not mine. It is the fruit of what YOU are uplifting here. So do not shift from a sore head to a healthy one, these are not mine, these are YOUR idols. And YOUR darned government, anticipates all this buzovokirkorovobaskovskaya crap into life. So you choke on it yourself, I will not eat this shit under any sauce. And may Andrey Malakhov and Olga Buzova come with you ...
  • Nazar
    Nazar 2 March 2021 10: 43
    +7
    Bar1 - And there were no "famines" under the tsars? Who told you that: "There was always a lot of bread in Russia" - eh? Where did the famous painting by I. Aivazovsky come from, in which a Russian troika under the AMERICAN (!!!) flag is carrying food aid collected in the United States to a Russian village. That is, the Bolsheviks were not even in the project, and the famine in Ingushetia has already been such that even the public from the states saved the starving Russian villages. If you don't want to remember that, your memory has been knocked out?
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 11: 02
      -9
      Quote: Nazar
      Bar1 - And there were no "famines" under the tsars?


      why "was not"? Of course, the Bolsheviks and tsarism were united in this, in the destruction of the Russian peasantry. But the Bolsheviks then declared themselves "people's power", but in fact, as there was violence against the people under the tsar, it remained under the Bolsheviks.
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 2 March 2021 12: 09
    +6
    Quote: Bar1
    There was always a lot of bread in Russia, especially in the black earth regions of Ukraine and the Volga region.
    There was never a famine in the Russian Empire ...
    Famine in Russia 1891-1892 - an economic and epidemic crisis that swept the fall of 1891 - summer of 1892 the main part of the Chernozem and Middle Volga regions (17 provinces with a population of 36 million people).
    The immediate cause of the crisis was a severe crop failure in this zone in 1891 [⇨], which struck precisely those areas where a significant part of peasant farms were economically weak. Grain stocks in the state-public food aid system, designed to eliminate such crises, were practically absent at the time of the crop failure. Food prices were growing everywhere, and the demand and prices for labor of peasants in the crop failure zone were falling. A significant part of the population, therefore, had neither the grain of the current harvest, nor reserves from previous harvests that would allow them to survive until the next harvest, nor the opportunity to find work and live on wages. As a result, there was a real danger of mass hunger and the collapse of agriculture, which required the organization of the state to help the hungry.
    This is all too
    Quote: Bar1
    the bolsheviks robbing the peasants

    And what do they write here?
    At the beginning of the XX century, Russia was hungry in Russia: 1901-1902, 1905-1908 and 1911 - 1912 years.
    In 1901 - 1902, 49 provinces starved: in 1901 - 6,6%, 1902 - 1%, 1903 - 0,6%, 1904 -― 1,6%.
    In 1905 - 1908. starved from 19 to 29 provinces: in 1905 - 7,7%, 1906 - 17,3% of the population
    In 1911 - 1912 over the 2 of the year, famine swept 60 provinces: in 1911 - 14,9% of the population.
    30 million people were on the brink of death.

    According to various estimates, in 1901-1912. about 8 million people died from hunger and its consequences. The tsarist government was concerned about how to hide the scale of the famine. In the press, censorship prohibited the use of the word "hunger", replacing it with the word "crop failure"One can doubt the specific figures on the number of deaths from hunger, but there is no reason to doubt that famine was a regular and widespread phenomenon in tsarist Russia ..
    In reality, there never was famine in the Russian Empire, so crop failure, you will not understand right away, if the women are not ready for slaughter, there is no one to drive to slaughter, or the greyhound has not brought puppies to the Grand Duke, you will not boast to the "colleagues". Well, poor crops. Read on?

    GRAIN FOR EXPORT. Despite the famine, grain was flowing from Russia to Europe (as now oil and gas also go to Europe, bypassing Russia). On average, 30% of the grain was exported annually. This means that the grain trade was a compulsory measure, and was conducted not at all because of its surplus. The tsarist minister Vyshnegradsky, responding to accusations of selling bread abroad even during the famine in Russia, said from the rostrum of the State Duma: "We will not eat enough, but we will take it out!"
    And they said that they were the Bolsheviks ...
    Getting hungry help (“a hunger loan”) was also difficult. The Hunger Loan was 1 pound of flour per month per adult and 1/2 pound of flour per child. The following categories of rural population were excluded from the recipients of the “hunger loan”:
    - adults aged 18 to 55 years (they say, there is nothing to feed parasites);
    - ownerless peasants (that is, 3,5 million families, usually laborers);
    - widows and orphans, they had to be fed by the rural society "from surplus aid."
    Thus, the most defenseless strata of society were doomed to death by starvation. Where does the starving village get its "surplus"? Moreover, the received "starvation loan" subsequently had to be repaid. In 1911, over 20 million rubles were collected from the starving Samara province. arrears for "hunger loans" of previous years. How many people in 1911-1912 killed the "hunger loans" received in 1901-1902. 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908 ...
    Well, the right word is how the herald of the prosperous Russian Empire trumpets there ...
    Quote: Olgovich
    And the Russian people with them became the fastest growing and almost the largest people in the world.
    Indeed, we are looking at the dynamics of the Russian population in the Republic of Ingushetia; ... in 1896 there were 55 667 469 Russians, and in 1926 - 77 791 124, in 1939 - 99 591 520 ...
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 34
      -3
      Quote: Fitter65
      There was never a famine in the Russian Empire ...
      The famine in Russia of 1891-1892 was an economic and epidemic crisis that swept through the autumn of 1891 and the summer of 1892 the main part of the Chernozem and Middle Volga regions (17 provinces with a population of 36 million people).


      there can be only one answer. It was the PURPOSE policy of tsarism to destroy the Russian community and the Russian people. This policy was continued by the Bolsheviks and they achieved their goal. The Russian community was destroyed, and the Bolshevik collective farms became synonymous with backwardness and inefficiency.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 2 March 2021 12: 50
        +3
        Quote: Bar1
        It was a PURPOSE policy of tsarism to destroy the Russian community and the Russian people. This policy was continued by the Bolsheviks and they achieved their goal.

        Yes-ah, and I see you really pins. At first, the Bolsheviks destroyed the peasantry, but it turns out that it is Evon, as it has gone from the time of tsarism. And from what kings did it come from? From the Romanovs or even earlier from Ivan IV Vasilyevich, well, the one who changed his profession, becoming the first tsar from the Grand Duke?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 53
          -3
          Quote: Fitter65
          From the Romanovs or even earlier from Ivan IV Vasilyevich, well, the one who changed his profession, becoming the first tsar from the Grand Duke?


          Ivan the Terrible OPPOSED the so-called Heresy of the Zhidovstvovyh, therefore Christians hate him.

          And the reforms to split the Russian society began, of course, with the Romanovs, with Mikhail Fedorovich.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 2 March 2021 13: 05
            +3
            Quote: Bar1
            And the reforms to split the Russian society began, of course, with the Romanovs, with Mikhail Fedorovich.

            Well, the first one has nothing to do with the king, these are the others who are the kings ... laughing laughing laughing
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 2 March 2021 12: 13
    +4
    Quote: Bar1
    There was always a lot of bread in Russia, especially in the black earth regions of Ukraine and the Volga region.

    But in a strange way, famine in tsarist Russia was a constant phenomenon. Very often in Ukraine and in the Volga region. Contemporaries saw the reason, among other things, in the market.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 38
      -3
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      But in a strange way, famine in tsarist Russia was a constant phenomenon. Very often in Ukraine and in the Volga region. Contemporaries saw the reason, among other things, in the market.


      yes it was. Low purchase prices, lack of markets throughout Russia. Although large-Nizhegorodskaya Yarmarka remained. This led to the impoverishment of the peasantry. This policy was under tsarism, the SAME policy remained under the Bolsheviks.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 2 March 2021 13: 00
        +4
        Quote: Bar1
        This policy was under tsarism, the SAME policy remained under the Bolsheviks.

        Quote: Bar1
        It was a PURPOSE policy of tsarism to destroy the Russian community and the Russian people. This policy was continued by the Bolsheviks and they achieved their goal.

        Quote: Bar1
        the Bolsheviks and tsarism are united in the destruction of the Russian peasantry.

        I quietly "cried" to you. laughing In short, Vasily III Ivanovich, the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow in 1505-1533, the sovereign of all Russia, is to blame. It was his son Ivan who proclaimed himself tsar. And if the Grand Duke, Vasily III Ivanovich, had protected himself, then there would have been no tsar in Russia, well, consequently, there would have been no turmoil, then the Romanovs would not have been placed on the throne by the tsars, therefore Kolyan Romanov would not have renounced the throne, well, you look at the Bolsheviks. would not have been ... Definitely - Vasily III Ivanovich is guilty. not protected... good laughing laughing
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 13: 12
          -4
          You don’t know the history, mold a hunchback: the turmoil in Russia began not from Ivan 4, but from the Romanovs.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 2 March 2021 13: 29
            +6
            Quote: Bar1
            You don’t know the history, mold a hunchback: the turmoil in Russia began not from Ivan 4, but from the Romanovs.

            Yes, yes, it's a shame how they forgot about the hunchback, but he's 90 years old ... It's you here, it's not clear what you are sculpting with your statements
            Quote: Bar1
            PURPOSE policy of tsarism to destroy the Russian community and the Russian people
            и
            Quote: Bar1
            This policy was continued by the Bolsheviks
            Well, if you rearrange something in my comment about the turmoil with the accession of the Romanovs, then it still turns out that Vasily Ivanovich (but not Chapaev) is to blame, but the one who did not protect himself.
      2. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 2 March 2021 14: 23
        +4
        Under the tsars was there a lack of markets throughout Russia? Interesting!
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 28
          -5
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          Under the tsars was there a lack of markets throughout Russia? Interesting!


          the peasants of central Russia were forced to hand over grain to the state at beggarly prices, because there was no opportunity to sell, which means there were no markets. Markets were - the Novgorod Fair, but apparently not for everyone and not everywhere.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 2 March 2021 16: 00
            +2
            Quote: Bar1
            the peasants of central Russia were forced to hand over grain to the state at beggarly prices, because there was no opportunity to sell, which means there were no markets. Markets were - the Novgorod Fair, but apparently not for everyone and not everywhere.

            the tsar is bad, the Bolsheviks are bad. The first forced to hand over grain to the state, the second forced to hand over grain to the state ... Something I do not understand this individual - the tsar is very bad. the Bolsheviks are also very bad, but what is good then? British Queen?
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 19
              -1
              Quote: Fitter65
              the tsar is bad, the Bolsheviks are bad. The first forced to hand over grain to the state, the second forced to hand over grain to the state ... Something I do not understand this individual - the tsar is very bad. the Bolsheviks are also very bad, but what is good then? British Queen?


              and I argue that the tsarist and Bolshevik power in relation to the peasants is one and the same.
              1. Fitter65
                Fitter65 2 March 2021 16: 20
                +1
                Quote: Bar1
                and I argue that the tsarist and Bolshevik power in relation to the peasants is one and the same.

                We have already realized that both are bad! I want to know, but what is good?
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 22
                  -1
                  Quote: Fitter65
                  We have already realized that both are bad! I want to know, but what is good?


                  I already wrote several explanations here, see me here.
                  1. Fitter65
                    Fitter65 2 March 2021 16: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: Bar1
                    I already wrote several explanations here, see me here.

                    Explanation of what? I didn’t manage to look at you here, but I managed to see the comments, where the letters say, if briefly, the tsars destroyed the peasantry, the Bolsheviks continued to destroy the peasantry. Conclusion (according to your letters) and tsarism and the Bolsheviks are bad, so I ask what is good then and when was it? When did we turn off this correct and good path? After the Battle of Kulikovo, before it, and maybe even earlier, when did Christianity in Russia become accepted? Explain when it was good to live in Russia?
                  2. Bar1
                    Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 36
                    -1
                    Quote: Fitter65
                    Explanation of what? I didn't manage to look at you here,


                    Of course not. But you do not know history. If you look back, what do we see? And we see what modern civilization CANNOT do. These are pyramids, these are aqueducts, these are huge temples. These are the Serpent Shafts and the Zakamskaya line. Who built all this? An old civilization that did not stand on these Christian foundations.
                    Civilization before Peter's Russia was DIFFERENT. There was a SUPPLY in all of this, celebrated by foreign ambassadors and travelers to Russia. Peasant women wore brocade and pearls like boyars.
                    But the Romanovs came, reforms began, a split, and everything rolled into a hole.
                    Now look at the Russian peasant society, it was the Russian MIR.
                    The land passed from father to eldest son, and therefore the land was always well-groomed. The younger sons, just replenished the urban population, went to brigades and artels. That is, the village FEEDED THE CITY with all industries with its personnel. It was the CORRECT and natural order human society. It was not necessary, according to Stolypin or Stalin, to destroy the community.
                    But Christians came and broke this order.
                  3. Fitter65
                    Fitter65 2 March 2021 16: 48
                    +4
                    Quote: Bar1
                    But you don't know the history. If you look back, what do we see? And we see what modern civilization CANNOT do. These are pyramids, these are aqueducts, these are huge temples. These are the Serpent Shafts and the Zakamskaya line. Who built all this? An old civilization that did not stand on these Christian foundations.
                    Civilization before Peter's Russia was DIFFERENT. There was a SUPPLICITY in all of this, celebrated by foreign ambassadors and travelers to Russia.

                    So you would have written right away that you are from the support society for friendship with the Anunnaki, for the commonwealth of the Earth and Nibiru. And I wonder in which city mental dispensary there is a great guru who wrote this
                    Quote: Bar1
                    There was no need to destroy the community according to Stolypin or Stalin.
                    But Christians came and broke this order.
                    Power! Really the Giant of Thought wrote! Yes, it's really not that! Although nothing would be more correct!
                  4. Bar1
                    Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 50
                    -2
                    Quote: Fitter65
                    as if they wrote right away that you are from the support society for friendship with the Anunnaki, for the commonwealth of the Earth and Nibiru.

                    you have Anunnaki on your forehead, is it printed that you squeezed it in here?
                  5. Fitter65
                    Fitter65 2 March 2021 17: 35
                    +3
                    Quote: Bar1
                    you have Anunnaki on your forehead, is it printed that you squeezed it in here?

                    So you yourself are replicating here
                    Quote: Bar1
                    Civilization before Peter's Russia was DIFFERENT. There was a SUPPLY in all of this, celebrated by foreign ambassadors and travelers to Russia. Peasant women wore brocade and pearls like boyars.

                    Here they even laugh ashamed, they laugh at truly sick people.
                    Quote: Bar1
                    These are the Zmievy Shafts and the Zakamskaya Line. Who built all this? An old civilization that did not stand on these Christian foundations.

                    If you read the diagnoses of some "scientists", then it is not only the Anunnaki, there are more ancient inhabitants of the earth, the Reptilians.
                    I don’t even want to comment on your nonsense about Soviet agricultural machinery, I just studied it at one time, and I didn’t work much, so thank God we can distinguish forget-me-not from ... Therefore, write better about how peasant women in brocade and pearls at parakonny Kruzaks at fairs driving around ...
                  6. Bar1
                    Bar1 2 March 2021 20: 09
                    -1
                    Quote: Fitter65
                    Therefore, write better about how peasant women in brocade and pearls on paracon

                    it was not me who wrote it, but the Dutch traveler Isaac Massa, here is an article by the historian Valery Shambarov.
                    https://topwar.ru/17142-valeriy-shambarov-rus-byla-bogache-zapada.html
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 3 March 2021 07: 05
      +2
      Any government and in any country forces you to pay taxes and incur duties. Conclusion: in all countries, power is the enemy of the people. belay
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 2 March 2021 18: 08
    0
    However, it is drawn to a historical discovery!
  • Illanatol
    Illanatol April 30 2021 08: 30
    0
    There was always a lot of bread in Russia


    Unfortunately no. In terms of the amount of grain produced per capita, we were inferior to France. At the same time, the bread was exported. To the same France, for example.
    Most of the peasants did not produce grain for sale at all. They ate everything themselves.
    Famine, by the way, was not only in our country. So, by the way.
  • Di sh
    Di sh April 1 2021 22: 40
    0
    Zhidokommunyatskaya scum Russia into Hell and overthrew!
  • ammunition
    ammunition 2 March 2021 04: 31
    +2
    The article describes the mechanism and origins of "February" correctly. Although brief (incomplete), due to the small format.
    It would be nice .. in continuation, to describe the mystical meaning of that catastrophe in Russia. To try to understand our current situation.
    And also the disaster 91-93.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 06: 44
      -2
      Quote: ammunition
      The article describes the mechanism and origins of "February" correctly. Although brief (incomplete), due to the small format.

      If in essence. One of the versions is described, at the moment it is the most fashionable, but one can argue about its exclusivity.
      For example, they ignored the factor “participation in the revolution of old believers-industrialists”. For example - Morozovs.
      Or the student body. It is a fairly well-known fact - during the Russo-Japanese War, students and professors of Moscow University went to Berlin and their pickets near the Japanese Embassy for "defeat in the war"!
      You can also cite many strokes that would not increase the volume of the article, but provided a more complete picture of those events!
      In particular, they questioned the exclusive role of the "Bolsheviks" in the restoration of the state.
      I repeat after comrade Michael (the Master of the Trilobite), the power should be toothy, unprincipled and resourceful, using all these qualities for the good of the state.
      So, if I was asked it was possible to do without revolutions, I would answer "so much better"! But the toothlessness and infantilism of the authorities led to what happened. Before the events of 1925, the exclusivity of the management efficiency of the "Bolsheviks" can be questioned, our slogans are an afterthought.
      Further - yes, obviously the only solution to the "stalemate" situation with the "industrialization" of the state, the realization of the correctness of which comes on June 22, 1941.
      I repeat - Stalin was a "Bolshevik", but a wrong "Bolshevik", sufficiently moderate and extreme at the same time, who in 1925 put the country's interests ahead of the revolution.
      Well, probably Everything - now I'm ready to catch the minuses from everyone and everything! I have the honor, Kote!
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 2 March 2021 06: 57
        +10
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        I repeat - Stalin was a "Bolshevik", but a "Bolshevik" was wrong

        It was Stalin who was the "correct" Bolshevik ... And not the left or the right ...
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 08: 06
          0
          Quote: mat-vey
          It was Stalin who was the "correct" Bolshevik ... And not the left or the right ...

          Dear Matvey - the post-knowledge is harmful.
          What is a "right" or "wrong" Bolshevik? After almost a century, it is possible with foam at the mouth and snot with a bubble to prove “we are right, comrades,” but then?
          The genius of V.I. Ulyanov is that he, with his decrees "On Land" and "On Peace", tore the ground from under the feet of the "moderates" who said "tomorrow." But after the victory of the "Revolution" we take a "step back"?
          And there is a dilemma "The people did not fight for this"? It makes no sense to paint the events of the internal political struggle of the 20-30s of the last century. But objectively, they have been looking for "correctness" for almost a decade, having managed to commit, if not all, then a lot of mistakes! Or would you say that the repression of the 30s is the only right decision? Without them in any way?
          Alas, "simplicity is worse than theft."
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 2 March 2021 08: 11
            +4
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Dear Matvey - the post-knowledge is harmful.

            That's just the time and showed who is "correct" ... The one who measures reality with theory ....
          2. frog
            frog 2 March 2021 16: 18
            0
            Do not explain anything to them, dear ... Climbing into questions of faith is like walking in nettles in ... shorts ...
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 2 March 2021 09: 07
        +5
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        I repeat - Stalin was a "Bolshevik", but a wrong "Bolshevik", sufficiently moderate and extreme at the same time, who in 1925 put the interests of the country a priority above the revolution.

        To begin with, you will analyze the composition proposal you have made and decide on the meaning of the words:
        "Interests of the country", "priority", "an order of magnitude higher", etc. Especially for you about the "wrong Bolshevik":
        Interesting memories of Air Marshal Golovanov about Stalin
        More details: https://odintsovo.info/white/blog.asp?id=26354
        In addition, there is a phrase said by Stalin (from the memoirs of the same Golovanov):
        I know that when I am gone, more than one tub of mud will be poured on my head, but I am sure that the wind of history will dispel all this ...

        So, the wind is blowing, and you bring everything and bring your "tubs".
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        I have the honor, Kote!

        You have neither honor nor conscience. Because with your phrases you are trying to denigrate the deeds of a great man. Save your "honor" for the rug in front of the door.
        Stalin was a correct Bolshevik. It was Putin who grew up to be the wrong communist.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 10: 59
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          You have neither honor nor conscience. Because with your phrases you are trying to denigrate the deeds of a great man.

          What did you personally do to defend the Soviet Union in 1991? The answer is nothing, all except for a couple of members of the forum "sissy crumpled" or "tricked like a mouse under a broom"!
          I.V. Stalin is a great man, I have never denied it and will not deny it! But like any ruler, he had mistakes, and like great people, there were no small mistakes! It could have been avoided, alas, critical analysis shows that yes - you can!
          But this does not implore his merits to the patronymic, but the refusal of critical thinking leads to the phenomenon of "hamsters"! Moreover, ignorance of even a short course of the VKPb. Sadly, but apart from insults, snot bubbles and saliva, I did not expect about you and those like you.
          In the late 00s, the question arose of reminding the younger generation of the role of Marshal Stalin. Then we decided with route Gazelles, painted two cars. We came out with a proposal to the local communists. Out of fear, they wrote a statement to the police against us. Not laughter, but sin!
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 2 March 2021 11: 09
            +3
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            What did you personally do to defend the Soviet Union in 1991?

            It was enough that before that I had voted for the preservation of the USSR. And in 1991 I was undergoing treatment in a hospital, then VVK ... I did not sign the new EBN Oath.
            The question is not for me, but for the commanders of the units who swore allegiance to the Yeltsin regime.
            Also, I have a different perspective on merit and length of service.
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 13: 22
              0
              Quote: ROSS 42
              It was enough that before that I had voted for the preservation of the USSR. And in 1991 he was undergoing treatment in a hospital, then VVK.

              Heard an old Soviet joke from the 70s! 10 Germans from the GDR studied at the Peoples' Friendship Institute on the stream. By the decision of the Komsomol organization, a survey was conducted on what your fathers were doing during the Second World War! Imagine the surprise of the inspectors when all the respondents from the GDR wrote in the questionnaire that my phaser served in a musical company!
              There is no point in citing the proverb "the dancer Faberge is being prevented"! Everyone is to blame, but not me!
              Tfu on you "couch communists"!
            2. Fitter65
              Fitter65 2 March 2021 16: 14
              +3
              Quote: ROSS 42
              I did not sign the new EBN Oath.
              The question is not for me, but for the commanders of the units who swore allegiance to the Yeltsin regime.

              And the new oath in Russia, after the collapse of the Union, was taken only by those who after 1991 were drafted or enrolled in schools .. Unit commanders. as well as all other officers, warrant officers, warrant officers and supernumerary men who swore allegiance to the Soviet Union did not take the oath of the Russian Federation, since there was a decree, and then the corresponding order of the Ministry of Defense, that the Russian Federation becomes the successor of the USSR, and we all became servicemen of the Russian Federation. So flaunt that type: "I did not sign the new EBN Oath." So everyone did not sign it, and they served nothing without problems ...
          2. mat-vey
            mat-vey 2 March 2021 11: 55
            +1
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            What did you personally do to defend the Soviet Union in 1991?

            Do you think you wrote something about the harm of afterthought?
      3. BAI
        BAI 2 March 2021 15: 02
        +5
        Or the student body.

        In 1905, there were only 23 students and listeners. Even if they all as one become revolutionaries - that's nothing. One should not think that under the tsar there was a number of students comparable to that of the USSR.
        It was in the USSR cursed by God and monarchists (1986) there were 5 088 400 students. This is magnitude and this is strength. And under the king - they simply do not exist (relative to the total population). This means again: under the tsar - 23, under the communists - 249.
      4. illuminat
        illuminat 3 March 2021 15: 39
        -1
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Everything - now I'm ready to catch the minuses from everyone and everything! I have the honor, Kote!
        Well, if they wrote stupidity, why be surprised at the minuses?
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        the government should be toothy, unprincipled and resourceful, using all these qualities for the good of the state.
        "Use for the good of the state" is just a PRINCIPLE, about what kind of "unprincipledness" one can speak at the same time.
        And you get a "generous redneck" or "altruistic egoist". You are playing in "the truth is somewhere in the middle", between 2x2 = 4 and 2x2 = 10.
      5. illuminat
        illuminat 3 March 2021 17: 41
        0
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Everything - now I'm ready to catch the minuses from everyone and everything! I have the honor, Kote!

        In! I received the attention of the offended admiralissimo! Immediately minus half of the rating laughing It was worth criticizing, and "honor" disappeared somewhere.

        And for normal informative posts, no pluses!
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 2 March 2021 09: 25
      +2
      Quote: ammunition
      To try to understand our current situation.
      And also the disaster 91-93.

      Capitalism has been fighting since the beginning of the 20th century, not for the overthrow of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR, but for the enslavement of Russia. And this process is ongoing and still does not stop.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 2 March 2021 11: 18
      +1
      Quote: ammunition
      It would be nice .. in continuation, to describe the mystical meaning of that catastrophe in Russia. To try to understand our current situation.

      And you can assess the current situation, according to today's news
      Russian President Vladimir Putin sent his congratulations to the first President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev on his 90th birthday. The text of the congratulatory telegram on March 2 was published on the Kremlin's website.
      "You rightfully belong to the constellation of bright, extraordinary people, outstanding statesmen of our time, who have had a significant impact on the course of national and world history.", - says the congratulation.

      Details: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/3204012.html
      Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to REGNUM.
  • Simargl
    Simargl 2 March 2021 04: 33
    +7
    Representatives of the Russian elite received an excellent education, they were real Europeans. Lived in Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Paris or Zurich.

    Our Westernizers wanted a market, a hierarchical democracy, essentially a plutocracy, when all power belongs to
    Something it reminds me of!
    Oh yes! criticism of the current government!
    The article cries for a friend.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 2 March 2021 11: 20
      0
      Quote: Simargl
      Something it reminds me of!
      Oh yes! criticism of the current government!
      The article cries for a friend.

      It would be better if he did not write this, this tovrischch.
  • ammunition
    ammunition 2 March 2021 04: 37
    -2
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    only the Bolsheviks
    Who could ?

    It seems to me .. (at least by the example of the Second World War), the Almighty showed the Russian people how it was necessary to serve the Tsar and the Fatherland. With the help of the Bolsheviks, he indicated. .. IMHO ..
    1. Sofa batyr
      Sofa batyr 2 March 2021 06: 37
      +9
      Quote: ammunition
      The Almighty showed the Russian people how it was necessary to serve the Tsar and the Fatherland. With the help of the Bolsheviks, he indicated. .. IMHO ..

      The Bolsheviks, what have they to do with the overthrow of the autocracy in February 1917 by the hands of courtiers and persons close to the emperor?
      If someone is inclined to consider October 1917 the "collapse of the Russian Empire", then he is deeply mistaken.
      The autocracy was sentenced to the then "elites" incited from abroad in February, and the Bolsheviks, who took away "temporary" power from useless, only stopped the process of further destruction of the country, with its disintegration into many national quasi-autonomies ...
      1. ammunition
        ammunition 2 March 2021 07: 36
        0
        Quote: Divan-batyr
        The Bolsheviks, what have they to do with the overthrow of the autocracy in February 1917 by the hands of courtiers and persons close to the emperor?

        The Bolsheviks have nothing to do with "February". Due to the lack of opportunity.
        Quote: Divan-batyr
        If someone is inclined to consider October 1917 the "collapse of the Russian Empire", then he is deeply mistaken.

        The collapse of the Russian Empire is February! .. And October was allowed by God, to preserve the country .. and (along the way), to punish those responsible for treason to the Tsar. .. IMHO.
        Quote: Divan-batyr
        The autocracy was sentenced to the then "elites" incited from abroad in February, and the Bolsheviks, who took away "temporary" power from useless, only stopped the process of further destruction of the country, with its disintegration into many national quasi-autonomies ...

        Well said.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 16
          -1
          Quote: ammunition
          The collapse of the Russian Empire is February! .. And October was allowed by God, to preserve the country .. and (along the way), to punish those responsible for treason to the Tsar. .. IMHO.


          stupidity. One of the first decrees of the Bolsheviks, literally in November, is "recognition of the sovereignty of Finland."
          Is this called "preserving" the country?
          1. BAI
            BAI 2 March 2021 15: 11
            +5
            One of the first decrees of the Bolsheviks, literally in November, was "recognition of Finland's sovereignty."
            Is this called "preserving" the country?

            As always, the same thing. What does the Bolsheviks have to do with it? They were faced with the fact, the country was destroyed before them:
            Kerensky's 1953 interview:
            - The interim government proclaimed the autonomy of Finland ...
            - Not! we restored the independence of Finland. It was annexed by Russia during the Napoleonic wars and entered the empire as an independent state, which entered into an alliance with the emperor personally. During the reign of Nicholas II, many of Finland's rights were abolished, which naturally caused discontent, even uprisings in Finland. By the way, liberal public opinion in Russia has never accepted the policy of forced Russification. The Provisional Government immediately returned all rights to Finland under one condition: the independence of Finland must be accepted by the Constituent Assembly. Simultaneously we proclaimed the independence of Poland... The mode of providing independence for the Baltic countries, for Ukraine ... In the Caucasus, in Turkmenistan we began to invite representatives of the local population to govern the country. Even Lenin, when he returned to Russia, admitted that in mid-1917 Russia was the freest state in the world.

            All actions that are attributed to the Bolsheviks for the collapse of the country were initiated by the Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks had to rake a bunch of g ... which they inherited from the Provisional Government. In the conditions of the Civil War, when there was a question of survival. here you will go to any conditions.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 15: 29
              -3
              Quote: BAI
              As always, the same thing. What does the Bolsheviks have to do with it? They were faced with the fact, the country was destroyed before them:
              Kerensky's 1953 interview:


              Kerensky then did not recognize sovereignty, but the Bolsheviks showed an INITIATIVE, took and recognized Finland's sovereignty.
              1. BAI
                BAI 2 March 2021 15: 41
                +2
                Kerensky did everything for the independence of Finland and simply did not have time to complete it:
                Finland's independence must be accepted by the Constituent Assembly.

                The Bolsheviks did not show any initiative. The train had already left, they completed what Kerensky had begun.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 15: 43
                  -2
                  Quote: BAI
                  The Bolsheviks did not show any initiative. The train had already left, they completed what Kerensky had begun.


                  do not talk nonsense. If they were patriots, they would not "complete" the affairs of the bourgeois government.
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 35
        0
        Quote: Divan-batyr
        The Bolsheviks, what have they to do with the overthrow of the autocracy in February 1917 by the hands of courtiers and persons close to the emperor?

        It is true that the Bolsheviks did not even think about overthrowing the autocracy, and Kerensky and the courtiers probably also did not want to until 1917, but other forces that stood over them did it. But in a country like Russia, unlike Germany and Austria-Hungary, he and his comrades could not only retain power, but also brought it to the Bolsheviks on a silver platter.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 19
          -6
          Quote: tihonmarine
          but other forces that stood above them did it.


          damn what "other forces"?
          Nicholas himself abdicated the throne for himself and for his son. Generals expressed distrust to him, but only a few, but ALL the rest of Russia was for him.
          You don't know history at all.
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 2 March 2021 09: 47
            -2
            Quote: Bar1
            damn what "other forces"?

            What, what? Yes, the Anglo-Saxons. These are the pancakes. "Isn't it clear.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 53
              -3
              Quote: tihonmarine
              What, what? Yes, the Anglo-Saxons. These are the pancakes. "Isn't it clear.


              you overestimate, again you do not understand the balance of power at that moment. Maybe the Angles influenced Nicholas, but he alone is to blame for the fact that Russia was left without power.
              1. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 2 March 2021 10: 08
                -1
                Quote: Bar1
                you overestimate, again you do not understand the balance of power at that moment.

                What is there to understand who played PMV to destroy four empires at once. In your opinion, there was some kind of "balance of power." The power was one, and it led to the fact that the British Empire remained in Europe. You don’t understand this yet, but maybe in time you will understand where and what the acting force works. Just as it happened with the USSR, not by a wave of some sort of alignment of forces in the state. There were forces, but who set them in motion, that they swept away everything in their path. And now these forces are working on the layout and destruction of Russia, how many have already been destroyed in recent years.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 10: 36
                  -4
                  Quote: tihonmarine
                  and she led to the fact that she remained in Europe, one British empire


                  the fact that Britain was the main beneficiary of all these events is only a VISIBLE part. Britain itself has an elite - a financial elite, which is connected with the SAME elites around the world: the same French Rothschilds, American and all the rest.
                  The French Rothschilds did not lose ANYTHING with the destruction of France, but simply transferred their capital to America.
                  With the revolution in Russia there was a STRENGTHENING of the power of the world elites, first of all by the creation of new states and new peoples of Poland and Finland, which IMMEDIATELY became hostile to the new Russia and military operations immediately began (the Polish war, the expulsion of the Russians from Finland, the expulsion of the Russians from Manchuria)
                  Lenin adopted a absurd and harmful program to create a state from a UNIFIED state divided into national districts, which fled in our time.
                  It was precisely these goals that were the most important among the world elites. As a result of the revolution, the weakening of Russia / Russia (the lands were torn away from it), and also the Russian people lost the opportunity to influence the government, since the Bolsheviks declared themselves "united with the people", but in fact the workers were shot and the peasants were gassed.
          2. IS-80_RVGK2
            IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 11: 19
            +1
            Quote: Bar1
            ALL the rest of Russia was for him.

            Lies. The rest of Russia got tired of him immensely, as did the authorities, which showed a complete inability to solve the country's problems, but at the same time they knew how to fill their pocket with money. Just like now.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 11: 25
              -1
              Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
              Lies. The rest of Russia got tired of him immensely, as did the authorities, which showed a complete inability to solve the country's problems, but at the same time they knew how to fill their pocket with money. Just like now.


              the Cossacks were for him, the generals and officers of the army were for him. The peasants soldiers went to die "for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland" and it was so.
              Only those who were in the parties were opposed, that is, the rotten intelligentsia.
              During the war, the people were not against the king, but against the war - these are different things.
              1. IS-80_RVGK2
                IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 12: 03
                +2
                Come on, where are you going with your fairy tales? By the time of his overthrow, only he was for him.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 12: 28
                  0
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  Come on, where are you going with your fairy tales? By the time of his overthrow, only he was for him.


                  what can I say? deftly handled you.
                  1. IS-80_RVGK2
                    IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 16: 37
                    0
                    Take a pill already and calm down.
                2. ammunition
                  ammunition 2 March 2021 18: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  By the time of his overthrow, only he was for him.

                  This is completely true only with regard to the generals and the government and the Duma.
                  And the people were silent .. exactly the same as during the "overthrow" of the USSR.
                  "At the time of the overthrow of the USSR, for him (for the USSR), there was only himself.
              2. ammunition
                ammunition 2 March 2021 18: 35
                0
                Quote: Bar1
                the Cossacks were for him, the generals and army officers were for him

                Find I.P. Jacobia "Emperor Nicholas II and the Revolution". For starters .. at least.
                .. although .. even the facts are unlikely to convince you.
      3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 09: 18
        +1
        Quote: Divan-batyr
        The Bolsheviks, what have they to do with the overthrow of the autocracy in February 1917 by the hands of courtiers and persons close to the emperor?

        Yes? And Comrade Stalin did not think so:
        we Bolsheviks who have made three revolutions

        From a speech at the 1st All-Union Conference of Social Workers industry, 1931
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 2 March 2021 10: 36
          0
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Yes? And Comrade Stalin did not think so:
          we Bolsheviks who have made three revolutions

          From a speech at the 1st All-Union Conference of Social Workers industry, 1931

          Stalin in his "short course on the history of the All-Union Communist Party" said clearly and clearly:

          -people took to the streets in February at the call of the BOLSHEVIKOV.

          -the February revolution was made by the PROLETARIAT.

          -the leadership of the proletariat directly on the streets was carried out by the BOLSHEVIKS.

          And yes, one of the main official holidays of the Bolshevik government was in March "Day of the overthrow of the autocracy".


          it turns out that the Bolsheviks were celebrating ...bourgeois revolution. belay lol
          1. ammunition
            ammunition 2 March 2021 14: 01
            -1
            Quote: Olgovich
            Stalin in his "short course on the history of the All-Union Communist Party" said clearly and clearly:

            -people took to the streets in February at the call of the BOLSHEVIKOV.

            This means the British emissaries who handed out over 200 rubles to the soldiers of the reserve regiments in Petrograd (in February), calling for a riot ... are they the Bolsheviks?
        2. ammunition
          ammunition 2 March 2021 13: 57
          +1
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Yes? And Comrade Stalin did not think so:
          we Bolsheviks who have made three revolutions

          Well, I lied ... for political reasons.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 14: 26
            0
            Quote: ammunition
            Well, I lied ... for political reasons.

            be careful, otherwise the admirers of Comrade Stalin will not forgive such a passage. laughing
            Softer, softer - not "lying", but "rewriting history"))))
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 16: 38
              0
              Come on. Maybe he was talking about another revolution.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 16: 45
                -1
                Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                Maybe he was talking about another revolution.

                about which one, for example? Really Mexican ?? laughing
                1. IS-80_RVGK2
                  IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 17: 12
                  0
                  These revolutions are like fleas on a macaque. The question is not for me, but for the old man Vissarionitch.
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 06: 47
      -1
      Quote: ammunition
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      only the Bolsheviks
      Who could ?

      It seems to me .. (at least by the example of the Second World War), the Almighty showed the Russian people how it was necessary to serve the Tsar and the Fatherland. With the help of the Bolsheviks, he indicated. .. IMHO ..

      Maybe the people once again on the example of the Great Patriotic War. proved to everyone and everything that he can and can serve !!!?
    3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 09: 27
      +2
      Quote: ammunition
      It seems to me .. (at least by the example of the Second World War), the Almighty showed the Russian people how it was necessary to serve the Tsar and the Fatherland. With the help of the Bolsheviks, he indicated. .. IMHO ..

      Enchanting delirium laughing After the phrase "it seems to me," I hope you crossed yourself sweepingly? Or re-starred?
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 2 March 2021 04: 40
    +5
    Could that sad scenario of Russian history have been avoided?
    Or was it inevitable?
    I think if the state management system is not able to rebuild with the dictates of time, it will inevitably collapse (this is relevant now, this is especially evident in the example of Belarus), then there was no need for Russia in 1914 to intervene in the world massacre with an unclear result, the state's resources are human, economic , the military was wasted and, as a result, this led to the natural collapse of the Russian Empire and the restructuring of the entire society.
    And looking at these lessons of history and comparing our society, you understand that the state machine should not be frozen in its development, it is necessary in accordance with the needs of society and it should change for a better and not a worse form of its existence ... otherwise, again, there is a collapse and again a revolution, a riot, mutiny, coup d'état whatever you want.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 24
      0
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      then there was no need for Russia in 1914 to intervene in the world massacre with an unclear result,


      Note that it was Russia who began mobilization in response to the outbreak of Austria's military operations against Serbia. What was left for Germany to do? Germany has declared war on Russia. such was the sequence of events.
      It turns out that the Romanovs were interested in the world massacre, but hard times came and the Romanovs gave up power and threw their country into the chaos of anarchy.
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 16: 50
      -1
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Could that sad scenario of Russian history have been avoided?

      Why is it so sad, Lyokha?
      Why is history like this?
      This is necessary so that humanity can cheerfully part with its past. "

      (c) K. Marx
      So
      Have fun, young man ...

      (c) Ecclesiastes.
  • Far B
    Far B 2 March 2021 04: 42
    +4
    The Russian state stood on faith, autocracy and the army
    The Russian state, first of all, has always held on to the Russian people. There were periods of Troubles (in fact, an interregnum), there were periods of weak kings and a split in the faith. There were periods with a weak army. But at the expense of the people, the state held on. Is always.
    And the autocracy by 1917, in fact, had really become archaic and loot had been dragging Russia down for about 70 years, since the Crimean campaign. So 1917 was historically inevitable. Even the relatives did not fit in for Nicholas, what to talk about after that?
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 2 March 2021 04: 56
      +2
      So 1917 was historically inevitable.

      Do the rulers of our time understand this, sitting in power for decades and thinking that this will be so forever? hi
    2. saigon
      saigon 2 March 2021 05: 15
      +4
      And it is worth talking about the fact that the most dangerous for the ruler are close people (moreover, for frequent or as a rule - people without principles and rudiments of conscience and morality), this is the essence.
      The control system of the Republic of Ingushetia did not correspond to the times (however, it is worth noting this was in all countries), all those in power were not ready for the new times, and the world system went to pieces.
      The Russian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, German empires collapsed, France practically died and the most interesting thing Britain was also defeated, the old world order died.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 2 March 2021 07: 43
        -3
        Quote: saigon
        empires collapsed Russian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, German

        Quote: saigon
        the old world order is dead

        Three empires, were Christian, for their destruction and staged all this world massacre to begin to establish a new world order.
        What is this new world order after the collapse of monarchies - we are now seeing ourselves.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 38
          +1
          Quote: bober1982
          What is this new world order after the collapse of monarchies - we are now seeing ourselves.

          We watched the entire 20th century, and we are now watching. And this is not over yet, more cruel events are still coming than in the 20th century.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 2 March 2021 08: 41
            0
            Quote: tihonmarine
            We watched the entire 20th century, and we are now watching. And this is not over yet, more cruel events are still coming than in the 20th century.

            Yes that's right.
            And, old Biden, the process began to accelerate.
        2. saigon
          saigon 2 March 2021 09: 56
          -1
          Speaking about Christian empires, it should be borne in mind that all three empires belonged to different branches of Christianity.
          And understand for Orthodox Catholics or Protestants simply schismatics perverting the true faith. To reduce everything to the elimination of Christian empires is not correct. To reduce to the collapse of monarchies is not correct.
          We can see that the system of governing countries at the beginning of the 20th century failed, and this was superimposed on the world massacre, or the massacre became possible from the collapse of the system.
          It is worth noting that all this happened in addition to the transition of peasant civilization to urban civilization in the Republic of Ingushetia.
          Changes in thinking and attitudes.
          What we are seeing now has very little to do with the collapse of the monarchies at the beginning of the century.
          At this moment we have another change in the world order, perhaps the US abandonment of world leadership (this seems to be not obvious, but there are signs of a breakdown of the US empire)
          And here I am worried about the picking between Russia and Europe and the United States, the main thing is CHINA, and he is not an ally, not a friend or a brother to us.
          China is an absolutely alien civilization to us with different moral and ethical standards.
          I am afraid that the next rift in the world will not go to the East - West, but to the North and South, and it will worsen mentally and maybe religiously.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 2 March 2021 10: 33
            0
            Quote: saigon
            We can see that the system of governing countries at the beginning of the 20th century failed.

            And, at the beginning of the XXI century, this system of governing countries not only failed, but was completely lost - national borders, currency, culture, family, morality were destroyed. An artificially created influx of migrants finished off old Europe.
            As required.
        3. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 11: 32
          +1
          What about Muslims, Buddhists and Shintoists? They seem to have fallen under the hot hand?
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 2 March 2021 11: 47
            -3
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            What about Muslims, Buddhists and Shintoists? They seem to have fallen under the hot hand?

            Having liquidated the sultanate, Ataturk not only began the construction of a secular state, but also persecuted local national minorities, entered into an alliance with Hitler, the Turks miraculously did not enter World War II.
            Everything was thought out to whom to get under the hot hand.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 12: 07
              +2
              AND? Why did you post this nonsense? One delirium has not prokanal decided to push the other?
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 2 March 2021 12: 12
                -2
                Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                AND? Why did you post this nonsense?

                Support the conversation, Makar
      2. Bar1
        Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 35
        -1
        Quote: saigon
        The Russian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, German empires collapsed, France practically died and the most interesting thing Britain was also defeated, the old world order died.


        here it is necessary to talk not about which country had or lost something, but about what the world elites had. there was a STRENGTHENING, as Lenin used to say, imperialism. International capital-imperialism is UNGROUND or we see it that way. Maybe, on the contrary, the world is ruled by some one family that unleashes wars and plunges the people of world slaughter. We do not know, but if before the revolution the people in response to the arbitrariness of the authorities could somehow influence the power (revolution of 1), then after 1905m.v. and the revolution of 1g. the Bolsheviks came to power, who led Russia along the path, when all power belonged essentially to one party and even to one person. This is not socialism, the power of the people (the Soviets did not play any role), but power was concentrated in one hand.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 11: 37
          +3
          And before the revolution, power was not in one hand? What wild nonsense are you talking about?
          1. Bar1
            Bar1 2 March 2021 11: 41
            -4
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            And before the revolution, power was not in one hand? What wild nonsense are you talking about?

            I believe that tsarism handed over power to the Bolsheviks on one condition: not to allow the Russian people to come to power, as we see.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 12: 05
              +3
              You can count anything you like. Only your nonsense has nothing to do with reality.
            2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 12: 07
              +2
              Quote: Bar1
              I believe that tsarism handed over power to the Bolsheviks

              What ???
            3. saigon
              saigon 2 March 2021 12: 50
              0
              Timur not so badly handed over the tsarist power to the Bolsheviks straight from hand to hand after about four years of war of all against all.
    3. apro
      apro 2 March 2021 06: 00
      -2
      Quote: Dalny V
      The Russian state, first of all, has always rested on the Russian people.

      On his ability to produce livelihoods, to self-organize, to promote his interests, and with this, the autocracy by the end of his domination clearly only hindered.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 42
        +2
        Quote: apro
        On his ability to produce livelihoods, to self-organize, to promote his interests, and with this, the autocracy by the end of his domination clearly only hindered.

        Interesting idea. Well, then what is in the way now?
        1. apro
          apro 2 March 2021 08: 48
          +3
          Quote: tihonmarine
          now what's stopping you?

          Capitalism. Today, full control over the reproduction of livelihoods is in the hands of persons who are not interested in the population of the territory.
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 2 March 2021 09: 18
            +1
            Quote: apro
            Capitalism. Today, complete control over the reproduction of livelihoods is in the hands of individuals.

            What capitalism was striving for, it got it in 100 years of struggle.
  • ammunition
    ammunition 2 March 2021 05: 02
    -4
    Quote: Dalny V
    And the autocracy by 1917, in fact, really became archaic

    I do not agree at the root.
    I.V. Stalin was an autocrat, in the absence of a rotten ruling stratum.
    So !
    1) Tsar Nicholas II is a legitimate Autocrat, if there is a powerful and completely rotten ruling stratum in the country.
    2) Stalin is an illegal Autocrat, and a forced hostage of the Marxist - anti-Christian ideology.
    --------------
    ehma .. if only to combine it! .. removing the false.
    1. Far B
      Far B 2 March 2021 05: 38
      +2
      Is Stalin an autocrat? laughing This was hindered at least by the presence of a current Constitution (constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy are two different things, not to mention the fact that under Stalin there was no smell of monarchy in the USSR). Well, and comrade. Stalin, so that he is never an autocrat, even though he is presented as such a despot, an unlimited dictator.
      1. Bar1
        Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 42
        -4
        Quote: Dalny V
        not to mention the fact that under Stalin in the USSR there was no smell of monarchy)


        Well, yes, there was no monarchy, but there was authoritarianism and tyranny.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 44
      0
      Quote: ammunition
      ehma .. if only to combine it! .. removing the false.

      It is not possible to combine water with fire, but to separate the false from the truth.
    3. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 11: 39
      +4
      This is sheer nonsense.
    4. clerk
      clerk 2 March 2021 11: 53
      0
      ... 1) Tsar Nicholas II is a legitimate Autocrat, if there is a powerful and completely rotten ruling stratum in the country.
      2) Stalin is an illegal Autocrat, and a forced hostage of the Marxist - anti-Christian ideology.
      Here we can talk not about formal legality, but about the actual legitimacy of the autocrat. Nicholas lost the autocrat's legitimacy 10 years before his abdication, and Stalin acquired it after 1937-38 (when the old elite killed each other) and retained it until about 1952 (XIX Congress of the CPSU), when he yielded to the party nomenclature. And he was not a forced Marxist, but quite sincere. And until his death.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 12: 16
        +1
        Quote: clerk
        Here we can talk not about formal legality, but about the actual legitimacy of the autocrat. Nicholas lost the legitimacy of the autocrat 10 years before his abdication

        With what fright "lost legitimacy"?
        1. clerk
          clerk 2 March 2021 13: 56
          +1
          ... With what fright "lost legitimacy"?
          With the open murders of their own people.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 14: 08
            0
            Quote: clerk
            With the open murders of their own people.

            Seriously?
            That is, Sov. the authorities lost their legitimacy after the execution, say, in Novocherkassk in 1962 ??
            Or
            #this is another
            ?
            1. clerk
              clerk 2 March 2021 14: 19
              0
              .
              Seriously?
              That is, Sov. the authorities lost their legitimacy after the execution, say, in Novocherkassk in 1962 ??
              Or
              #this is another
              ?
              By the way, this is the same - a very good example! The only thing that is really worth adjusting the wording is that it has not lost its legitimacy, but began to lose it.
  • apro
    apro 2 March 2021 05: 22
    -2
    Everyone interferes with someone. Only not everyone can oppose this. And move forward. How much the Russian autocracy was Russian. Here is the question. Before PMV. All emperors are relatives to each other. All Europe is like Santa Barbara. Basically German.
  • Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 2 March 2021 06: 18
    +3
    It (the autocracy), first of all, hindered itself! The author does not mention that Nikolashka was related to some Western monarchies. The first bell rang in 1905-1907, but no one heard it, Nicolas was not able to accept reality, and his entourage felt weak and the country all 7 years went to war, which overflowed the cup of patience.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 2 March 2021 08: 46
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      It (the autocracy), first of all, hindered itself!

      And the modern democratic system, which is imposed on the world, in my opinion, hinders everyone.
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 12: 26
      0
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      The first bell rang in 1905-1907, but no one heard it

      Why didn't you hear? How can you not hear the two-millionth October All-Russian strike ?? Witte answered the crowned slug, as usual, in another stupor - either a dictatorship or a constitution. If they are not capable of dictatorship, it means political reforms. However, Russia has never been ready for parliamentarism. The "bell", I think, was the Manifesto of October 17.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 2 March 2021 06: 25
    +2
    If you trace the chain of revolutionary transformations, you get Russia, Germany, Turkey and then Italy. The monarchy was coming to an end. Someone already began to bury Russia. But time gives rise to great people. It is time, not advancement. And in the future we will still rule great people. So it was. And so it will be. Fursov was asked the question, "When will it get better?" Answer - "Who is better? Even with any improvement, who will always be worse." And then Fursov talks about the need to create collective farms. But for some it was a real tragedy. Many have a delusion. There will be a tsar, there will be patriotism. Patriotism is shown by personal example. Everything has dried up.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 2 March 2021 08: 03
      0
      Quote: nikvic46
      If you trace the chain of revolutionary transformations, you get Russia, Germany, Turkey and then Italy

      Italy, which side? nothing was confused with a chain. Where, Austria-Hungary?
      In 1922, the fascists came to power in Italy, they are good, it turns out revolutionary transformations, they would sit better in their kingdom.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 14: 37
        0
        Quote: bober1982
        In 1922, the fascists came to power in Italy, they are good, it turns out revolutionary transformations, they would sit better in their kingdom.


        They were sitting. The monarchy in Italy was abolished only in 1946.
        Regarding the Duce, transformations have taken place quite well.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 2 March 2021 14: 56
          0
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          The monarchy in Italy was abolished only in 1946.

          They finished off the bloodsuckers, even the blackshirts could not.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 15: 01
            0
            Quote: bober1982
            They finished off, bloodsuckers,

            referendum)
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 2 March 2021 15: 11
              0
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              referendum

              Which means the great power of democracy and humanism.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 15: 13
                +1
                Quote: bober1982
                Which means the great power of democracy and humanism.

                well yes. Not guillotined, not thrown out of the window, not spanked in a smelly basement.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 2 March 2021 06: 31
    +8
    According to the statistical reports of the Petrograd Society of Factory Owners and Manufacturers, if during the whole of 1913 there were 624 strikes in St. Petersburg, of which 59% were political, then only in June-July 1914, 337 strikes were recorded in the capital of the Russian Empire, and already 81% of them wore political nature. In the first half of 1914, more workers went on strike in Russia under political slogans than in the same period of the revolutionary 1905 - about two million people! As contemporaries noted, already in 1913 the strike movement in Russia “came to the brink, beyond which the strike excitement began”. Russia was on the verge of a new revolution. Workers were on strike not only in the capital, but throughout Russia. With the beginning of WWI, the strike movement subsided. However, soon the wave of patriotism subsided forever. In the spring of 1915, under the influence of the growing cost of living, an upsurge in the strike movement began. In May, there was a general strike in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. In July in Kostroma, the thousandth demonstration of the workers of the Big Linen Manufactory was shot. Events in Ivanovo-Voznesensk triggered mass strikes and protest demonstrations in Petrograd, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinoslav. On September 2, a strike began at the Putilov factory in Petrograd, which quickly spread to other enterprises and which involved 83 thousand people from 70 factories. A new countdown has begun. More precisely: the countdown of the last years of the monarchy has begun.
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 09: 49
      -4
      Quote: parusnik
      According to the statistical reports of the Petrograd Society of Factory Owners and Manufacturers, if during the whole of 1913 there were 624 strikes in St. Petersburg, of which 59% were political, then only in June-July 1914, 337 strikes were recorded in the capital of the Russian Empire, and already 81% of them wore political nature. In the first half of 1914, more workers went on strike in Russia under political slogans than in the same period of the revolutionary 1905 - about two million people!


      what does this mean? That the people could INFLUENCE the power and the power of Russia sagged. Maybe that is why Russia began mobilization in response to the outbreak of hostilities in Serbia?
      And after the revolution, when “the people and the party became united,” could the people influence the government? I could no longer, there were no strikes, everyone was building a new state like ants.
      Under Nikita, the Cherkassk execution, the people tried to influence the authorities and what happened? The authorities shot the people.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 11: 54
        +3
        Stop talking nonsense. What the fuck is the influence? Quit smoking rentals.
  • nnm
    nnm 2 March 2021 06: 51
    +8
    An important role in the fall of the Russian Empire was played by external force.

    What familiar words! And the fact that more than half of the men called up for WWI had traces of flogging on their backs (in the 20th century !!!!!), it doesn't matter!
    There was no other reason for the overthrow of the autocracy, apart from the fact that the imperial house behaved with the people as with cattle, was not and could not be.
    The Romanovs perfectly put the empire on French loans and calmly let foreign business into the country - from oil refining to urban transport and the banking system, everything belonged to foreigners. What external reasons can we talk about in such a situation?
    All that followed was the result of the actions of the reigning family itself and no one else.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 2 March 2021 07: 00
      +1
      Quote: nnm
      External forces also played an important role in the fall of the Russian Empire.

      What familiar words!

      Does it ever happen without "external forces"? If the rulers dream of "20 years of peace" This smells of some kind of infantilism and fantasy ..
      1. nnm
        nnm 2 March 2021 07: 03
        +5
        Well, to be honest, it was not Nikolai who dreamed about 20 years, but Stolypin. As well as Gorchakov, Witte A Nikolai, kissing the German emperor in letters, perfectly allowed himself and the whole country to be dragged into an absolutely unnecessary war for the country. And precisely on the advice and with the full support of the Court. And the predecessors of Nicholas are also one more beautiful than the other.
        The problem is that the current Court stubbornly refuses to draw any conclusions from history.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 2 March 2021 07: 07
          -2
          Quote: nnm
          Well, to be honest, it was not Nikolai who dreamed about 20 years, but Stolypin. As well as Gorchakov, Witte

          So this is what they say "word and deed" ...
          Simply, in principle, there can be no situation without external forces and the ruler simply must know and take into account, otherwise it is not a ruler, but some not quite (rather not at all) adequate individual.
          1. nnm
            nnm 2 March 2021 07: 10
            +2
            Quite right. But you must admit that external reasons cannot shake the people, who feel the real positive impact of power on themselves. And when you treat the people as human oil, then and only then the external forces have a field for activity. Then there are their own esser, their Gorbachevs, Yeltsins, Navalny ...
            All external forces operate on one principle - on the use of the mistakes of the authorities themselves.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 2 March 2021 07: 15
              0
              Quote: nnm
              But you must admit that external reasons cannot shake the people, who feel the real positive impact of power on themselves. And when you treat the people as human oil, then and only then the external forces have a field for activity.

              So Nicholas 2 also believed that since he is the "master of the Russian land", then there is no need to engage in political work ... there is no glimpse of "the state's husband" anywhere ... so problems, both internal and external, are a matter of time ... And how such a specialist can decide something, time has shown ..
            2. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 2 March 2021 09: 18
              -1
              Quote: nnm
              But you must admit that external reasons cannot shake people who feel the real positive impact of power on themselves.

              Sorry, but you are not speaking correctly.
              The people can forgive the mistakes of the authorities, they can steadfastly endure hardships and hardships, if they are convinced that ALL (!!!), the power structure works for the sovereignty of the state, for the strengthening of the country. The people always protect the most precious thing. I'm not sure that he will defend the government, which, it seems, says everything correctly, but in fact encourages embezzlers, corrupt officials, "coolly" carries out his punitive measures against outright enemies of the state, warms up bribe-takers, sycophants, takes nepotism under its wing and distributes undeserved awards and titles to villains.
              Remember! The people will not forgive any authorities for this!
        2. clerk
          clerk 2 March 2021 12: 07
          +1
          ... Well, to be honest, it was not Nikolai who dreamed about 20 years, but Stolypin. As well as Gorchakov, Witte A Nikolai, kissing the German emperor in letters, perfectly allowed himself and the whole country to be drawn into an absolutely unnecessary war for the country. And precisely on the advice and with the full support of the Court. And the predecessors of Nicholas are also one more beautiful than the other.
          The problem is that the current Court stubbornly refuses to draw any conclusions from history.
          Well, in fairness, the current "Dvor" has made conclusions - it does not get involved in large-scale wars, it has removed the oligarchs from making strategic decisions, flirts with the people, sometimes throws it up with milk, does not interfere with life, the intelligentsia and various opposition feeds. If the royal court had behaved like that, they would still rule.
  • Torins
    Torins 2 March 2021 06: 56
    +6
    From the first paragraph I realized that Samsonov did not even read this game ...
  • svp67
    svp67 2 March 2021 07: 18
    +3
    Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy
    First of all, the development of Russia. Revolutionary situations do not arise out of nowhere and in their occurrence it is a great fault of those who are involved in governing the country. Did the all-Russian autocrat Nicholas II meet the challenges of the time? Obviously not. But this happened before, and then Russia was saved from such shocks by energetic and capable of decisive action people who surrounded the autocratic, but they did not even appear next to Nikolai Romanov (((A similar story happened after, but already with the "red emperor" - Gorbachev.
    And the main reason was that the system turned out to be not viable, it outlived itself and could not "produce" not nominal, but real leaders
  • Unknown
    Unknown 2 March 2021 07: 35
    +4
    The last of the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs was the most unfortunate of the dynasty. Even as an heir, he bore clear signs of degeneration - hemophilia. Nicholas did not pull the role of the savior of the Fatherland ............
    As contemporaries said, “Khodynkoy began, and finished with it”. The complete defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the loss of the fleet and the army in Manchuria, did not bring popularity to Nicholas. With difficulty he was able to cope with the revolution of 1905. Even after this call, he walked confidently towards the death of himself and the dynasty. The tsar was also henpecked, this was not perceived by the people in Russia. The story with Rasputin is generally out of the ordinary, a natural disgrace for the tsar, as men .......
    And how did the people for the most part, the peasants react to this? Negatively. The last unsuccessful step of Nicholas, entry into WWI, which put a big cross on himself, and on the monarchy. Other people were needed, the Bolsheviks, and they appeared to pull Russia out of the abyss where the Romanovs drove it over the past 200 years.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 2 March 2021 08: 39
      -1
      Quote: Unknown
      Even as an heir, he bore clear signs of degeneration - hemophilia

      How is hemophilia associated with signs of degeneration, if the disease itself is a violation of the blood coagulation process?
      If Lenin lisped, and Stalin was six-fingered, then what can we say now that they were degenerates?
      1. Unknown
        Unknown 2 March 2021 10: 04
        +1
        Quote: bober1982
        How is hemophilia associated with signs of degeneration, if the disease itself is a violation of the blood coagulation process?
        If Lenin lisped, and Stalin was six-fingered, then what can we say now that they were degenerates?

        We will not discuss the term degeneration. Since ancient times, kinship ties were taboo in primitive communities and tribes, because already at that time our ancestors unconsciously understood the laws of nature and were afraid to violate them. Unfortunately, many monarchs in Europe violated the incest taboo, which led to dire consequences such as the degeneration of the Habsburg family. Take the Romanovs. Through his mother, Alexei inherited hemophilia, which was carried by some of the daughters and granddaughters of the English Queen Victoria. It's so mixed up there that you can't figure it out, in any case, Nikolai and Georg are very similar, like brothers ...
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 2 March 2021 10: 13
          +3
          Quote: Unknown
          in any case, Nikolai and Georg are very similar, sort of like brothers ...

          You look at the photos of their mothers, sisters - the Russian empress and the English queen, they can be confused, so they look alike.
          And what does it mean like brothers? After all, they are cousins.
          1. Unknown
            Unknown 2 March 2021 12: 58
            -1
            Quote: bober1982
            And what does it mean like brothers? After all, they are cousins.

            All the more so, it means again marriages between their own. After all, the chances that the heir would have lived until those times when he himself could have children are small, and if such a chance presented itself, what would be the offspring? Remain V.K. which are a dime a dozen, so they also prefer marriages between their own. A sad prospect. The Hanoverian dynasty, and still reigns, which dilutes its stagnant blood, fresh. The British nobility was smart enough to marry the bourgeoisie, and the Russian, wherever there, blue blood, the result is known.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 2 March 2021 13: 05
              +1
              Quote: Unknown
              The British nobility was smart enough to marry the bourgeoisie, and the Russian, wherever there, blue blood, the result is known.

              We can agree that the British know the result - in all seriousness:
              Baron Hampton in the London area of ​​Rind-on-Thames and Siberia in the Russian Federation.
              What kind of blue blood is there.
              1. Unknown
                Unknown 2 March 2021 13: 35
                0
                I have always welcomed a sense of humor. Well, but more seriously. Daughter of American millionaire Chiswell Langhorn. Moved to the UK at a young age after divorcing her first husband; there she married the media tycoon William Waldorf Astor of the Astor industrial dynasty. For their residence, the nouveau riche acquired the ducal estate of Cleveline, where they gave fashionable receptions. Conservative politicians who gathered at the Astors'. There are a bunch of examples.
                1. bober1982
                  bober1982 2 March 2021 13: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Unknown
                  The nouveau riche bought a ducal estate for their residence

                  What's wrong here, I would also not refuse, but as you know - I have a desire, but I do not have the opportunity.
        2. BAI
          BAI 2 March 2021 15: 20
          0
          So Nikolai and Wilhelm had a relative:
          July 29 1914
          Wilhelm to Nikolai (These two telegrams crossed)

          It is with the deepest concern that I hear the impression that Austria's actions against Serbia are being produced in your country. (…) I fully understand how difficult it is for you and your Government to contain the pressure of your public opinion. Therefore, in view of our cordial and affectionate friendship, which binds us both with long-standing strong ties, I will use all my influence to convince the Austrians to do everything in order to come to an agreement that would satisfy you. I sincerely hope that you will help me in smoothing out those contradictions that may still arise.
          Your extremely sincere and devoted friend and cousin,
          Willy

    2. Bar1
      Bar1 2 March 2021 10: 22
      -1
      Quote: Unknown
      Other people were needed, the Bolsheviks, and they appeared to pull Russia out of the abyss, where the Romanovs drove it over the past 200 years.


      it is not so, the whole point is in power. Is there a continuity of the tsarist power and the power of the Bolsheviks? Yes there is it
      For centuries, tsarism has been growing new peoples who were supposed to gain "independence", but due to the fact that centripetal forces remained in the empire that did not allow Russia to be torn apart, the world elite, together with the Romanovs, carried out a change of government in Ingushetia and in other countries through world massacre and revolution, when tyranny and auto-territorialism came to power. This was immediately followed by:
      -recognition of Poland's independence by the VP Lvov.
      -recognition of the independence of Finland by the Bolsheviks
      - in fact, the Bolsheviks transferred the remaining regions of Manchuria to China.
      - Lunacharsky's reform, when the Russian language was cut off. (Reforms of the philologist Shakhmatov)
      - the most important thing: the Bolsheviks declared themselves "the people's power of the workers" in fact, there were executions of the same actions of workers (Gorky wrote about this), as well as massive repressions of peasants with the use of gases.
      And to whom was the power not transferred from the POWER? Power was not transferred to the RUSSIAN COMMUNITY - the peasants, in fact, the Russian people, everywhere in power was nerus, as now.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 12: 02
        +3
        Quote: Bar1
        Power was not transferred to the RUSSIAN COMMUNITY

        These are the wildest illiterate peasants of the early 20th century? They would have driven it. It would not seem to anyone.
      2. Unknown
        Unknown 2 March 2021 14: 04
        0
        Quote: Bar1
        This was immediately followed by:
        -recognition of Poland's independence by the VP Lvov.
        -recognition of the independence of Finland by the Bolsheviks
        - in fact, the Bolsheviks transferred the remaining regions of Manchuria to China.
        - Lunacharsky's reform, when the Russian language was cut off. (Reforms of the philologist Shakhmatov)
        -the most important thing: the Bolsheviks declared themselves "the people's power of the workers" in fact, there were executions of the same protests of workers (Gorky wrote about this), as well as massive repressions of peasants with the use of gases

        No need for executions. During the Civil War, executions were carried out by all parties without exception. Repressions after the revolutions were everywhere, and in France, Britain, as well as the United States after G.V. there. As for the USSR, I will quote I.V. Stalin once again .... “I want to say a few words, maybe not festive. Russian tsars did a lot of bad things. They plundered and enslaved the people, they waged wars and seized territories in the interests of the landowners. But they did one good thing - they put together a huge state up to Kamchatka. We inherited this state. And for the first time, we Bolsheviks rallied and strengthened this state as a single and indivisible state, not in the interests of the landlords and capitalists, but in favor of all the working people, all the peoples that make up this state.
        We united the state in such a way that every part that would be cut off from the common socialist state would not only harm the latter, but could not exist independently and would inevitably fall into someone else's bondage. Therefore, everyone who tries to destroy this unity of the socialist state, who seeks to separate a separate part and nationality from it, is an enemy, a sworn enemy of the state. Those who by their actions and thoughts, and even thoughts, encroach on the unity of the socialist state, we will mercilessly destroy. "
        Joseph Stalin. November 7, 1937 And if they adhered to this line, then the collapse of the USSR was not in sight. He was born and lived on the outskirts of the USSR, saw with his own eyes how the sprouts of separatism and nationalism rose, more and more, until they led to the collapse of the Union. If these sprouts were cut down at once, the USSR has lived up to now.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 2 March 2021 14: 21
          +1
          Quote: Unknown
          No need for executions.


          how is it "not necessary"? It is necessary.

          M. Gorky wrote in his newspaper Novaya Zhizn:

          On January 5, 1918, unarmed St. Petersburg democracy - workers, office workers - peacefully demonstrated in honor of the Constituent Assembly ... Pravda lies when it writes that the January 5 demonstration was organized by the bourgeoisie, bankers, etc., and that the Tauride Palace it was the "bourgeois" and the "Kaledinites" who were walking. Pravda is lying - it knows perfectly well that the "bourgeois" have nothing to rejoice at about the opening of the Constituent Assembly, they have nothing to do with 246 socialists of one party and 140 Bolsheviks. Pravda knows that workers from Obukhovsky, Patronny and other factories took part in the demonstration, that workers from Vasileostrovsky, Vyborgsky and other districts were marching to the Tauride Palace under the red banners of the Russian Social Democratic Party. It was these workers who were shot, and no matter how much Pravda lied, it would not hide the shameful fact ... So, on January 5, the unarmed workers of Petrograd were shot. They were shot without warning that they would shoot, they were shot from ambushes, through the cracks of fences, cowardly, like real killers [24]


          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Всероссийское_учредительное_собрание

          was it or not?

          Kronstadt mutiny, when the Bolsheviks brought the sailors to starvation.

          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кронштадтское_восстание_(1921)
          was it or not?
          1. Unknown
            Unknown 2 March 2021 15: 21
            +1
            Quote: Bar1
            ttps: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Russian_Constituent_Assembly

            was it or not?

            Kronstadt mutiny, when the Bolsheviks brought the sailors to starvation.

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кронштадтское_восстание_(1921)
            was it or not?

            You are not careful, the executions were carried out by both sides, and who else needs to be seen ... So according to M.A.Nesterovich-Berg, General Kornilov stated the following:
            “Let half of Russia be burned down, three-quarters of Russia should be drenched in blood, but all the same, Russia must be saved. Anyway, someday the Bolsheviks will prescribe unheard-of terror not only to officers and intelligentsia, but also to workers and peasants. " In the summer of 1918, supporters of the Constituent Assembly came to power in the Volga region. The White Guards perpetrated reprisals against many Party and Soviet workers. On the territory under the control of Komuch, security structures, military-field courts were created, so-called "death barges" were used to execute Bolshevik-minded persons. In September-October, workers' uprisings in Kazan and Ivaschenkovo ​​were brutally suppressed.

            In northern Russia, 38 thousand people were sent to Arkhangelsk prison on charges of Bolshevik activity. About 8 thousand prisoners were shot, and more than a thousand died in prison.

            In the same 1918, about 30 thousand people became victims of the "white terror" in the territories under the control of General P.N. Krasnova. Here are the lines from the order of the commandant of the Makeyevsky district of November 10, 1918: “I forbid workers to arrest workers, but I order them to be shot or hanged; I order all the arrested workers to be hanged on the main street and not to be removed for three days. ”

            In November 1918, Admiral A.V. Kolchak actively pursued a policy of expulsion and execution of the Siberian Socialist-Revolutionaries. D.F. Rakov wrote: “Omsk simply froze with horror ... The killed ... there were an infinite number, at least not less than 2500 people. Whole carts of corpses were transported around the city, as they carry in winter lamb and pork carcasses ... "

            General A.I. Denikin was accused of being too lenient with the Bolsheviks. Nevertheless, there is an order No. 7 of August 14 (27), 1918, signed by him, according to which “all persons accused of aiding or aiding the troops or the authorities of the Soviet republic in their military or other hostile actions against the Volunteer Army, as well as for premeditated murder, rape, robberies, robberies, intentional ignition or drowning of someone else's property "was ordered to be handed over" to the courts-martial of the military unit of the Volunteer Army, by order of the military governor
            ra. D. In a terrible matter, human life was of little value. As for the Kronstadt uprising, not everything is as simple as it seems at the first time, and the requirements there were different. . Hopefully on VO there will be another topic dedicated to him.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 2 March 2021 16: 14
              0
              Quote: Unknown
              In September-October, workers' uprisings in Kazan and Ivaschenkovo ​​were brutally suppressed.


              Firstly, it is necessary to immediately cut off hostilities, when prisoners of war were shot from both sides. The conversation will be about civilians.
              Immediately I came across one study in LiveJournal about "executions of workers in Ivaschenkovo"
              Apparently this is a lie and propaganda of the Bolsheviks. The Czechs were not shooting workers, but the Internationalist Regiment captured as a result of hostilities. The number of those executed was 570 Latvians, Magyars, Chinese. And they were not workers. Even Furmanov deceived.

              https://samara-russ.livejournal.com/43441.html

              Quote: Unknown
              In northern Russia, 38 thousand people were sent to Arkhangelsk prison on charges of Bolshevik activity. About 8 thousand prisoners were shot, and more than a thousand died in prison.


              in the north? So maybe the British were shooting there? Link to this.
              1. Unknown
                Unknown 2 March 2021 20: 30
                0
                Quote: Bar1
                Firstly, it is necessary to immediately cut off hostilities, when prisoners of war were shot from both sides. The conversation will be about civilians.
                Immediately I came across one study in LiveJournal about "executions of workers in Ivaschenkovo"
                Apparently this is a lie and propaganda of the Bolsheviks. The Czechs were not shooting workers, but the Internationalist Regiment captured as a result of hostilities. The number of those executed was 570 Latvians, Magyars, Chinese. And they were not workers. Even Furmanov deceived.

                Also read this study that you are referring to. ,, Russian Samara ,, for you, this is the ultimate truth, believe her, well, I believe Real Time and their presentation of events. As already mentioned, G.V. all parties were engaged in terror, and peasant gangs or detachments, as they like, are no exception, human life was worth nothing.
                Quote: Bar1
                in the north? So maybe the British were shooting there? Link to this

                You can .... the book by PA Golub “Intervention and White Terror in the North of Russia”.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 2 March 2021 21: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: Unknown
                  You can .... the book by PA Golub “Intervention and White Terror in the North of Russia”.


                  Naturally, the "white" North was also the leader in terms of the number of victims of terror in relation to the population. Arkhangelsk province at that time had only 500 thousand inhabitants. According to incomplete estimates of researchers of the Civil War in the North, about 52 thousand people passed through prisons, concentration camps and hard labor, that is, every tenth inhabitant of the province. According to the official data of the authorities, about 4 thousand people were shot on the verdicts of military courts. And how many were killed without any trial, died from disease, hunger and torture, probably will forever remain a mystery (see: Intervention in the Soviet North. 1918-1920. - Arkhangelsk. 1939, p. 14). It could not have been otherwise under a regime that, according to a member of the puppet government, Sokolov, “could rightfully be called a military dictatorship” (Archive of the Russian Revolution ... Vol. 9-10, p. 10).


                  so 4 thousand people were officially shot about 8 thousand I did not find.
                  It was a colonial administration, can you call these puppets Russian? Perhaps not. Atrocities against civilian Russian people were committed by Czechs, Angles and these puppets.
                  Incidentally, the slogans of the workers "For Soviet Power" are mentioned, but there were also such slogans of the workers "For Soviets without Communists", and for such slogans the Reds were also shot.
                  1. Unknown
                    Unknown 2 March 2021 22: 33
                    0
                    About 8 thousand information from here https://zen.yandex.ru/media/russian7/chem-belaia-armiia-otvetila-na-krasnyi-terror-5c26028748eb0500a9175bdc Whether it is true or not, everyone thinks for himself.
                    Quote: Bar1
                    It was a colonial administration, can you call these puppets Russian? Probably not. Czechs, Angles and these puppets committed atrocities against civilian Russian people

                    Don't just do that. How not to call the administration, colonial or otherwise, but the people who worked there are Russians. And the atrocities committed by them surpass the atrocities of the interventionists themselves, in GV, later in the Second World War, the servants of the invaders were also doing. There were such people among the Russians.
                    1. Bar1
                      Bar1 2 March 2021 22: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Unknown
                      Don't just do that. How not to call the administration, colonial or otherwise, but the people who worked there are Russians.


                      in the first Bolshevik government there were as many as 10% non-Jews, the rest were Jews. It is not clear who Lenin pretended to be?
                      As soon as the hero of the civil war, Dumenko, spoke out for Trotsky, as for the train, he was immediately tied up and shot, and he was a hero and legend of the Red Army, what can I say about the rest. Stalin took part in the consideration of the case.
                      And in this book I read that the dictator was General Miller, a very Russian surname. In general, the Millers did a great job for us in history. Perhaps this is what the British liked.
                      I think that national relations have always been PRIMARY in all matters.
                      1. Unknown
                        Unknown 3 March 2021 06: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Bar1
                        As soon as the hero of the civil war, Dumenko, spoke out for Trotsky, as for the train, he was immediately tied up and shot and he was a hero and legend of the Red Army, what can I say about the rest. Stalin took part in the consideration of the case

                        About Dumenko. The member of the RVS of the 9th Army, Anisimov, who conducted the inquiry, unconditionally took the side of the commissars and offended commanders and telegraphed to the RVS of the army, A. Beloborodov: “Sov. secret. Dumenko is a definite Makhno, not today, so tomorrow he will try to turn his bayonets ... He sends his Red Army soldiers to smash wine shops, rapes women and everywhere openly agitates against the Soviets ... ... After a while it will be too late, he will certainly perform. They talk about joining Budyonny ... ”And then follows ... The verdict read:

                        The commander of the 2nd corps of the army Dumenko, the chief of staff Abramov, the chief of intelligence Kolpakov, the chief of the operational department Blehert, the commandant of the headquarters Nosov, the chief of supplies of the 2nd brigade of the concorpus Kravchenko conducted a systematic anti-Semitic and anti-Soviet policy, cursing the central Soviet power and calling names in the form of insulting leaders The Red Army was not recognized as Jews, political commissars were not recognized, in every possible way slowing down political work in the corps ...

                        To deprive the awards received from the Soviet power, including the Order of the Red Banner, the honorary title of Red commanders, and apply the capital punishment to them - to shoot ... The verdict is final and not subject to appeal.
                        Chairman A. Rosenberg, members A. Zorin, A. Chuvatin. Looks more like settling personal scores. In G.V. there were enough freemen, but the Bolsheviks were slowly putting things in order in the army without it.
                        Quote: Bar1
                        And in this book I read that the dictator was General Miller, a very Russian surname.

                        Yes, there were many German surnames in R.I., the Eastsee barons fit tightly into its history.
    3. Olgovich
      Olgovich 2 March 2021 11: 15
      -4
      Quote: Unknown
      Even as an heir, he bore clear signs of degeneration-

      This is the "degeneration" of the Romanovs, yes:


      Sister of the Emperor Xenia with children

      But these are NON-degenerates yes Manyasha and Annyasha Ulyanovs (sterile and asexual, like all their brothers and sisters)
      Quote: Unknown
      the Bolsheviks and they appeared to pull Russia out of abysswhere the Romanovs drove her over the past 200 years.

      before Romanovsky the edges "abyss" for the consumption of food, clothing, productivity, housing in the cities - yours had to SCAM from your abyss for forty years, at the cost of many, many millions of victims.

      As a result, in just 70 years, yours were built .... the borders of the 17th century and the Russian cross - this is a comparison with the Romanovs.
      1. Bar1
        Bar1 2 March 2021 11: 38
        -4
        Quote: Olgovich
        before that Romanov region "abyss" in the consumption of food, clothing, productivity, housing in the cities, yours had to SCAM from your abyss for forty years, at the cost of many, many millions of victims.


        but it is not necessary to CONTRACT tsarism and bolshevism. Both the one and the other power were AGAINST the Russian people. If the tsars had not prepared the national outskirts and would not have raised the national elite, then the Bolsheviks and the temporary would not be able to distribute pieces of Russian land.
      2. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 2 March 2021 13: 53
        +3
        Asexual Ulyanovs ..? What an interesting statement from you.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 2 March 2021 07: 52
    0
    The Russian elite and the forces of the West were used as "cannon fodder" professional revolutionaries, liberal and revolutionary intelligentsia.
    Here is nonsense. "Ostap was carrying." Cannon fodder - Bourgeois, high school students. Who knows nothing and does not understand, not ideologically ready for changes, but ready to yell and run with their chest at machine guns.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 2 March 2021 09: 26
    -3
    An interesting analogy:
    1917 year:

    1991 year:

    The end results are just the opposite.
  • Old Orc
    Old Orc 2 March 2021 11: 43
    0
    Evolution requires expanding the capabilities of the species to make it more adaptable. Social evolution requires empowering more people. The more people have advanced capabilities, the more effectively a person's potential is used for the state and society. Monarchy - Autocracy requires the preservation and enhancement of opportunities only for the aristocracy. Because they are the aristocracy. Giving someone access to opportunities against their nature. BUT this leads to a scientific and technological lag. The example of Western Europe demonstrated technological growth in gaining access to the power of the bourgeoisie. And also there was an example of a clash between the caps of countries and the monarchy China and India from the richest countries in the world for 80 years in the colony. But the greed of the elite won and carried out a counter-revolution after 1905. It formed and concentrated the problem, making the victory of the February bourgeois revolution inevitable. But we were lucky. If it were not for the Great October Revolution, Russia would have been the same as with China in the same period, which did not have a Party that took responsibility.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 12: 00
    0
    Ok, a word to comrade Mayakovsky:
  • smaug78
    smaug78 2 March 2021 12: 05
    +1
    Another portion of half-truths, lies and the author's delirium ... But hamsters like it ...
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 2 March 2021 15: 27
      -2
      Quote: smaug78
      Another portion of half-truths, lies and the author's delirium ...

      rather - a portion of yeast in a jolt.
      Quote: smaug78
      But hamsters like ...

      Hamsters, one hell of a thing, will reduce everything to their beloved comrade Stalin - idefix for laughing
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 2 March 2021 19: 23
        -1
        So the main thing for them is to wave a hurray-chuykoy and instruct the minuses)))
        1. Richard
          Richard 2 March 2021 21: 44
          +1
          Another portion of half-truths, lies and the author's delirium ...

          It doesn't look like delirium ... Everything is much more serious here. This alone is worth it:
          Author:Crime had its own revolution - “plunder the loot”.

          On whom did you raise your hand? To the sacred !!? angry fool
          “Steal the loot” is a political slogan that appeared in Russia in 1918, as a Russian copy of the Marxist term “expropriation of expropriators”. For the first time this expression was used by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in his speech on January 24, 1918, in the editorial office “we rob the loot”.

          I hope comrades Tatra and Svarog will not leave this attack without due attention.
          And let the respected head of the "History" section of the VO, Alexander Samsonov, take a very careful look at the person who has entered his writers' environment and take appropriate measures.
  • Andy-1970
    Andy-1970 2 March 2021 12: 42
    0
    Qui prodest, qui bono?
  • BAI
    BAI 2 March 2021 14: 34
    0
    Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

    This is why the author spread his thoughts along the tree, when it is known that the British Prime Minister Lloyd George, having learned about the revolution in Russia, said: "One of Britain's goals in this war has been achieved."
    1. ivan2022
      ivan2022 3 March 2021 07: 36
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      That is why the author spread his thoughts along the tree, when it is known that the British Prime Minister Lloyd George, having learned about the revolution in Russia, said: "One of Britain's goals in this war has been achieved."


      How do you "know" this? From his friend W. Churchill? And do you, for example, know that in 1918, on the well-known Solovki, an almost unknown nowadays English death camp was located, where the invaders killed thousands of Red Army prisoners of war? Reading your verses, I understand that the "goals of Britain" are now 100% achieved
  • ivan2022
    ivan2022 2 March 2021 15: 13
    +3
    Quote: Bar1
    As a result of the revolution, Russia / Russia was weakened (the lands were torn from it), and the Russian people were also deprived of the opportunity to influence the government, p


    Comparing the legislation of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR, we will see what the Russian people have lost ....... For Mr. Bar1 it is too difficult. Convenient to write slogans t
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 2 March 2021 15: 32
    +2
    But not completed, since Catherine the Great, Paul I, Nicholas I and Alexander III
    a huge blame for the events of '17 lies precisely with Catherine 2 and Alexander 3
    first transformed the nobility from a service class to a parasite class
    and the second forced Russia into an unnecessary alliance with the French
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 2 March 2021 16: 48
    +1
    Everything repeats itself in history, although there are different variations. The Bolsheviks, no matter how they relate to them, raised the power that was lying on the street and for more than 70 years revived the empire, making it the second state in the world. But the project failed due to the betrayal of the "elite".
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 March 2021 20: 08
    +1
    "Catherine the Great, Paul I, Nicholas I and Alexander III, as they could," slowed down "this process and tried to solve national problems," ///
    ----
    Catherine the Great was once a convinced Westernizer. And she pushed Russia forward incredibly.
    Nicholas I led to complete stagnation and the Crimean War. On Alexander III - the absence of urgent economic reforms - the first Russian revolution in 1905. Although formally at that time there was already Nicholas II.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 3 March 2021 12: 41
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Nicholas I led to complete stagnation and the Crimean War.

      Nicholas 1 was a naive person, and there was not a sufficiently influential and intelligent adviser nearby, so he made a bunch of mistakes that led the Republic of Ingushetia to a number of difficult events that seriously undermined the resources and economy of the empire, and Crimea was far from everything.
      In general, a strange paradox - RI three times (!) Over the course of 2 centuries flatly refused to be friends with the current European Union, choosing some very strange alliances and as a result received 3 heavy wars. Plus the story of Hitler's Reich.
      As a result, we have 3 zeroing of the European part of the country and the Crimean war over 200 years, not counting the wars in the Caucasus, with Turkey, with Japan, and with China.
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 10 March 2021 11: 40
      0
      Catherine II was never a Westerner, she did not interfere with her favorites to rule, and all of them, especially Potemkin, were domestic, as a result, Russia acquired Crimea and Alaska.
      Nicholas I got into the affairs of Europe alien to Russia, suppressed the revolution of 1848 (Spring of Nations) with a fool, and received in response from "grateful" Europe the Crimean (Eastern) War, in which Russia suffered a shameful defeat.
      Alexander III sent the British on a sexual hike and drove them out of Central Asia. His foreign policy was characterized by exceptional openness, peacefulness and common sense, and was in the country's national interests. As a result, the British repeatedly assassinated him.
      Under Alexander III in 1891, Russia began construction of the Great Siberian Railway - the Chelyabinsk-Omsk-Irkutsk-Khabarovsk-Vladivostok railway (about 7 thousand km),
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 March 2021 12: 24
        0
        "As a result, Russia acquired Crimea and Alaska." ///
        ---
        Westerners and liberals were in those days even more expansionists and colonialists than native people.
        Don't forget: in the 18-19th century, the West conquered colonies - the more, the better. This was considered quite progressive. So there are no contradictions with Catherine.

        The Decembrist and Liberal Pestel seriously worked out plans for the seizure ("liberation") of Constantinople and Jerusalem, as well as the seizure of Iran and India
  • svoit
    svoit 3 March 2021 12: 21
    +1
    Quote: Bar1
    Russia is becoming the world's granary, but because the restraining moments have been removed.

    And also because they ruined their livestock breeding, so there is no need for a lot of compound feed and the grain was exported.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 3 March 2021 12: 34
    +2
    Mr. Samsonov, I am glad that you are interested in history, but it is very sad that you have not learned it even at the level of Wikipedia. And attempts to draw conclusions on this meager basis look absolutely trashy.
    At the same time, Berlin did not come up with the idea of ​​a separate peace with Russia and a joint Russian-German army to fight the "world evil".

    There is a historical fact
    Willie came to Nikolai-2 in St. Petersburg before the war for a few days specifically to try to avoid a war with Ingushetia, but Nikolai2 flatly refused to discuss anything other than the full implementation of allied treaties, primarily with Great Britain.
    In addition, during the controversial moment with the mobilization, RI also flatly refused to even discuss the possibility of not starting hostilities. Then Wilhelm declared war. (this is also a very strange moment, since Germany could well have avoided declaring war first with at least 2 countries). So, just the peace of Germany with the Republic of Ingushetia was very necessary and they tried to achieve it.
    In addition to pure politics, the Germans really needed a supplier in the rear, primarily food.
    And it is very strange that RI was looking for ways to export grain through the Bosphorus, when it could simply sell it to the Germans, without really straining.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 3 March 2021 13: 04
    +1
    "Tsarskoye Selo gopher" - complete mediocrity on the throne interfered with everyone!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 March 2021 09: 03
    0
    in general, everything is correct, but it was not the Bolsheviks who saved civilization, but a certain small part of them that created Christian socialism = a society of justice, that is, And Stalin and several of his assistants, Against the background of Judas from the rotten intelligentsia, sold-out Masons, generals, officers who knew how to knock teeth a soldier, but who did not care about his service, shifting it to the non-commissioned workers, against the background of the officials of the embezzlers, the Bolsheviks gave the people land and factories, peace in war .... seemed better and the people chose them, between the white and the red.
  • Lew
    Lew 9 March 2021 14: 49
    +2
    The power, fattening on the poverty of the people, will never last long .... it's good that those who are now with the money and are in power, badly studied at school and have no idea who grandfather Lenin and grandfather Stalin are and have not read their works. ..
  • Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 10 March 2021 11: 17
    +1
    The author forgot or did not want to say that on January 9, 1905, the autocracy, in the popular opinion, lost its legitimacy. The supreme power, shooting an unarmed obedient people, loses the right to rule the state.
    If the tsar on January 9 received the people's representatives, listened and at least partially satisfied their requests, no Rodzian women, Alekseevs and Kornilovs would dare to overthrow the tsar and arrest the royal family.
    And if the tsar had made peace with the Germans, after the Brusilov breakthrough, then his authority had risen to an unattainable height and he would not have ended up in the basement of the Ipatiev house. The Russian autocracy itself dug a grave for itself, haughtily despising the working people.
  • Antagonist
    Antagonist 10 March 2021 23: 37
    +1
    Who was hindered by the Russian autocracy

    It disturbed the people !!! To the Russian people!
  • Armen Sologyan
    Armen Sologyan 12 March 2021 05: 58
    -1
    Well, at the expense of the Autocracy and the Monarch, everything is clear and this is already history, BUT! History repeats itself, well, only not with the monarchical system, but with today's one, with the so-called "Putin's regime" in a well-known environment. Again, there is the opposition and the Western forces supporting it. Throughout the centuries, the West has tried to subjugate Russia to itself, to make Russia a colony, and some of the "big" mind support this aspiration of the West today. Therefore, Thank God that in Russia the Worthy Supreme Leader Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and He is supported and protected by the real Citizens of the Russian Federation against the manifestations of the opposition and the collective West, Our Power structures, including Intelligence and Counterintelligence. I pray to God that They all have enough strength and health to protect Russia from obscurantism !!!
  • Verkhovskaya
    Verkhovskaya 12 March 2021 09: 59
    0
    To whom is the President of the Russian Federation V.V. And still the same and still the same
    1. Dod Income
      Dod Income 22 March 2021 06: 43
      0
      one can say in every way "that Putin got such a country, etc."! - But the fact that it was he who "managed" to create conditions for common people such as salary without delay and remove unemployment! But the most important thing is “to end the Chechen war”, which took human lives (today Chechnya is a flourishing republic in the Russian Federation!) - there are many opinions on the question “What to do”, but let's judge for ourselves - after all, a new reboot on the old USSR is not entirely possible and simple impossible in any way, tk. everything is gone and is unlikely to return! .. and amendments and additions with changes are more useful than - "We will build a new world but destroy and then ... =" why! " right away - "bye Crimea"!
    2. Sychev Vitalii
      Sychev Vitalii April 14 2021 19: 14
      0
      already interfering with himself ...
  • Dod Income
    Dod Income 22 March 2021 06: 31
    0
    The Bolsheviks came to power because they promised the people what had always belonged to the rich - land, factories and plants! So the councils of people's deputies took their place in the history of the country's power! And the people's institutions such as the local committee trade union and the council of the labor collective, in collaboration with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, worked quite successfully. - Until there were disciplinary omissions that sprouted on the basis of "anti-Stalinism" and the "sixties" who were reborn as liberals under Gorbachev's pluralism! ... and as you know, the "liberals" under the same royal house of the Romanovs "messed up" a lot by creating conditions for the overthrow ...
  • Azamat Ramazanov
    Azamat Ramazanov April 10 2021 09: 14
    0
    The rotten autocracy prevented its people
  • Sychev Vitalii
    Sychev Vitalii April 14 2021 19: 11
    0
    By 1917, it had completely outlived its usefulness, the further development of Russia within the framework of autocracy was impossible.
  • Lew
    Lew April 26 2021 16: 22
    0
    Autocracy is a relic of civilizations, like religion, like capitalism ... But we, Russians, without getting into shit, we cannot go to the stars))
  • Alexey Gorshkov
    Alexey Gorshkov April 27 2021 15: 38
    0
    And in my opinion, to consider the origins of the crisis of autocracy in Russia, it is necessary not even with Nikon and Peter I, but BEFORE - from the moment of the change of the ruling dynasties! The Rurikovichs, in my opinion, were, in terms of status, or something, somehow on a par with the European monarchical dynasties, the Romanovs are another matter ...
    We judge pre-Petrine Russia by looking somehow "through European glasses" - like: "Before the Romanovs, Russia developed incorrectly, the Rurikovichs sucked, Ivan the Terrible is generally a babay, and the Romanovs, especially Peter I and Catherine II, are great just because that they let Russia go along the normal, European way! And I am constantly interested - how is it that we, such "wretched" and "mossy" ones, expanded to the Pacific Ocean even before Peter the Great, and did not collapse when the invaders were already in the Kremlin? Peter cut through the "window to Europe" - in fact, RECOVERING the lands that were previously NOVGORODSKY from the Swedes! Nobody was interested in why it was Alexander - NEVSKY? Peter founded St. Petersburg of the Neva?
    I am sure that ALL the Romanovs are definitely a pro-Western dynasty! It was under them that Russia itself, INSIDE RUSSIA, began to be treated as some kind of "secondary" power, looking to the West "from the bottom up", "regiments of a foreign order" appeared according to the Western model, ships according to the "European standard", etc. and the MAIN THING is the drift of the elite, which broke away from its people, but rushed to the West! Peter I acted especially zealously and sharply, but even before him, the entire XNUMXth century was created for this!
    The Romanovs, trying to appear "white and fluffy" against the background of the "wild" Rurik, contrary to the very idea of ​​monarchism, INTENTIONALLY allowed to discredit the Rurik, and especially Ivan the Terrible! The services to Russia of the Romanov dynasty - in particular, Peter I - were exalted, the Rurik dynasty - were undeservedly hushed up! So, the battle of Molodi was completely bypassed - and it really was and changed European history - if we had lost it then, the Turks would not only have conquered Russia - but they would have conquered the whole of Europe! But it did not happen under the Romanovs, but under the Rurikovichs, more precisely - under the hated by the West Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the attitude of the Romanovs towards whom was ... ambiguous! Their position: "It seems that both the Russian tsar and his services to Russia are obvious - but not" ours ", and we hate Europe too!" Hence - the "anti-threat" volume of "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin (whatever one may say, and court historian Alexander I ROMANOV - that is, initially having no right to be objective)! And even after Karamzin, this stupid Romanov policy of encouraging discrediting the Rurikovich flourished! The great painting "Ivan the Terrible kills his son", the deliberate absence of the figure of Grozny on the Novgorod monument "Millennium of Russia", etc., etc.! It should be noted that this line of discrediting the Rurikovichs sideways came out of the Romanov dynasty itself: discrediting them, the Romanovs "jumped" - the very idea of ​​autocracy in Russia was so spat upon at their submission that in 1917, with some pleasure, they overthrew THEIR YOURSELF!
  • Vladimir
    Vladimir 4 May 2021 16: 46
    0
    Author, the authorities are to blame for all revolutions. She always, as now, it seems that she is omnipotent to rule in the old way. But there is no strength for this. He tightens the screws with stupid repressive laws, not fearing that the cauldron of popular anger will surely burst. The people have the right to revolution. In the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a clear reference to the right to rebel in the third paragraph: “... it is imperative that human rights are protected by the rule of law in order to ensure that people are not forced to resort to rebellion against tyranny as a last resort. and oppression. "
    Russia is rich in tyranny and oppression, and there is an explosive record gap between rich and poor. A spark can fly to him at any moment.
    As for the Bolsheviks, they built a worthless state capitalism on the bones of millions of people. Even wages by the end of their reign remained the same or even lower than in 1913. This means the absence of any development of the economy (except for the militaristic) and society.
  • Evgeny Ostrovsky
    Evgeny Ostrovsky 7 May 2021 08: 46
    0
    In vain that Russia was not made a constitutional monarchy.
  • Dmitry Kapustin
    Dmitry Kapustin 8 May 2021 11: 25
    0
    Who is the main enemy of Russia now? Not the West at all. The main enemy of Russia is the same as in Tsarist
    Russia. This is the decayed nobility who surrounded the Tsar then, and today the President.
  • SHAH
    SHAH 10 May 2021 12: 12
    0
    [i] [/ i The revolution and the destruction of the monarchy and aristocracy in Russia were needed by those who prevented them from seizing the power and wealth of the country. How are we all
    we know most of those who made a pseudo revolution, but in fact the coup were Jews. Trotsky and K * were actually in power, but their
    outplayed by I. V. Stalin. Fortunately for Russia, he was a sovereign and a patriot, and under him Russia - the USSR was the most powerful state on the planet.
    Stalin was removed and undermined for a long time by the Soviet regime, Stalin's mortal enemies Khrushchev and the Jews. We got to Gorbachev-Yakovlev, obvious agents of the West. The alcoholic Yeltsin handed over power to the grandchildren of Trotsky-Bronstein and, as he dreamed, they turned Russia into a country of white blacks.
  • Trukhin Vasily
    Trukhin Vasily 19 May 2021 00: 15
    0
    The Bolsheviks dispersed the Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to determine the further structure of the state - they also liquidated the eight parties registered at that time, ensuring the dictatorship of the proletariat ... Which led to the collapse of a huge state, created not by them, by previous generations ... consider that the Russian Empire could not do without the Jewish RSDLP-how to understand the uprisings, Kronstadt, Antonov, the main idea of ​​which was the Soviets without the Bolsheviks ...?
  • Sychev Vitalii
    Sychev Vitalii 22 May 2021 07: 39
    -2
    Everyone began to interfere! Moreover, it became an open problem with his stupid colonial and expansionist policies. So the land was full, no stubbornly climbed into the Transcaucasus, Korea and even Europe, for some reason the Black Sea straits were needed.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 27 May 2021 01: 58
    0
    Well, damn it, it was still in Soviet history textbooks - whoever has the money is trying to take power. In this regard, I am watching the present-day China with interest.
    So our bourgeoisie were striving ... though they completely lost their shores, during a war of insane proportions, and even when millions of yesterday's peasants had the experience of war and a lot of questions to the authorities on the topic of hunger, land, etc. As if the brief fate of the Guchkov-Milyukov government hints.
    And a vigorous bomb under the "foundations" was laid by Peter III by his decree on the freedom of the nobility. The followers in this regard were not much better - the mortgage for the land from the peasants "liberated" by Alexander II was canceled only following the results of the Revolution of 1905. Too late, let's face it.
    And therefore, Nicholas II is certainly a tsar-rag, but he inherited a catastrophic inheritance.
    Frankly, what windows of opportunity were there (and were there) to solve the "land issue" is a topic for separate research. But, the fact is that for this on the throne there should have been a figure of the level of Ivan the Terrible - Stalin, and that is not the fact that it would have come out.