Military Review

“We need a weak Russia”

64
“We need a weak Russia”

What role did the British play in the fall of tsarism and the events of the Civil War?


Slightly less than a century ago, the Russian Empire, which had waged the most grueling war in its stories, could not resist any more internal enemies. It was traditionally believed that both the February and October revolutions were beneficial to Germany, which hoped to disarm its rival on the Eastern Front (it was not by chance that the Germans in a sealed train sent Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin to Petrograd). The Anglo-American allies, in theory, should have condemned the rebels, who are shaking the Russian boat. However, at the end of 1916, it became obvious that the Kaiser Empire was losing the war, and in London and Washington they began to think about how to prevent the Russians from reaping the fruits of the common victory.

Why didn't the British shelter Nika's cousin?

In this sense, the fate of the last Russian tsar, who was refused asylum by his English relatives, is very curious. In March, 1917, the ex-emperor Nikolai Romanov was arrested and sent under heavy guard to Tsarskoye Selo. The ministers of the Provisional Government, who ruled Russia after the February Revolution, hoped to send him to England. After all, there was a very warm relationship between the Russian autocrat and the British king. They were cousins ​​to each other and looked like two drops of water. There are letters in which George V swore to Nicholas in eternal friendship and loyalty. However, when a friend needed help, the English monarch only threw up his hands. “We cannot give him asylum,” he wrote to Prime Minister Lloyd George, “I categorically object to this.” Why, it is asked, cousin George has refused a shelter to the adored cousin Nika who besides was his ally in the First World War?

As Vladimir Lavrov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explains, “It was a legitimate sovereign who could well become a consolidating center, gather under his banners supporters of the revival of a powerful great Russia. The United Kingdom was not interested in this turn of events. On the contrary, the British dreamed that Russia, as a great power, as a competitor, ceased to exist. ” “The king is a symbol of a united, powerful Russia,” said Prime Minister Lloyd George to his cabinet colleagues, “to him in secret agreements we promised to transfer the straits and Constantinople, and it would be the height of insanity to accept him in Britain, thus contributing to the restoration of the Romanov dynasty ".

For a long time, the British were afraid that the Russians would seize the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles and block their communication with India, which was considered the "main pearl" in the crown of the British Empire. “In the event of our victory in this war, Downing Street would have to accept the fact that the Russians would nail a shield at the gate of Constantinople,” said Andrei Sakharov, director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - And England did everything to exclude Russia from the number of victorious powers. In this sense, the position of London was distinguished by enviable consistency. As early as the 18th century, Catherine the Second said: “The Englishwoman shits.” And it should be noted, "Englishman shit" is always behind the scenes.

Battleship Explosion and Rasputin's Murder

At the beginning of 1915, at the very moment when, in the secret agreements, the British promised to transfer Constantinople to the Russians, they themselves attempted to seize the Black Sea straits. However, the so-called "Dardanelles operation" failed. A year later, the Russians began to plan their own, “Bosporus operation,” for which a special Black Sea division was formed, staffed by experienced soldiers - all of whom were cavaliers of St. George. The fleet also strengthened: the large battleship "Empress Maria" was launched - the flagship that would finally strengthen Russia's position on the Black Sea. However, in October 1916, the battleship sank as a result of the explosion of the powder cellar. What caused this incident? Not so long ago, the English historian Robert Merid dug up interesting data: the lieutenant of naval intelligence, John Haviland, who served in Russia during the First World War, immediately after the explosion returned to England as a lieutenant colonel, emigrated to Canada and was killed at the end of 20-s Russian emigrants. So, as a result of a study of photo archives, it turned out that Haviland and the battalion commander Voronov, who disappeared on the eve of the tragedy, are one and the same person. And consequently, the legendary story described in the novel “Dirk” is directly connected with geopolitics: the British did everything possible to prevent Russia from seizing the straits.

In December, 1916, this time in St. Petersburg, another important event occurred, to which London was directly related. It is about the murder of the all-powerful old man, a friend of the royal family Gregory Rasputin. Attacks on him in the Entente countries are called by many the information war of the West against Russia. And now no one doubts that the first director of the Secret Intelligence Bureau, Mansfield Smith-Cumming, gave the order to eliminate Rasputin, and a British officer Oswald Rainer made a control shot in the forehead of the old man. In the documentary “Who killed Rasputin?”, Which recently appeared on the BBC, it says that Russian conspirators, such as a graduate of Oxford University, Felix Yusupov, were only obedient tools in the hands of London. The day after the murder, on the front page of The Times, a photo of the Yusupov couple with the signature “Saviors of Russia” was printed. “Rasputin was a kind of talisman for the Romanov dynasty,” writes British researcher Richard Cullen, “and, having eliminated him, the British expected to weaken their main geopolitical rival.”

The first "color" revolution

It was possible to prevent the victory of Russia and deprive it of its rightful trophies only by blowing up the country from the inside. And the British, according to contemporaries, made every effort to throw off the king from the throne and bring the liberals to power, who in London were considered to be people absolutely controlled. “The February revolution, of course, can be called the first“ color ”revolution,” says Vladimir Lavrov, “because foreign powers, primarily Great Britain, played a huge role in its organization. There are memories of the English consul, who met with Prince Lvov, the future chairman of the Provisional Government, and discussed with him how to overthrow the regime. ”

The English Ambassador George Buchanan was constantly playing a double game, building close relations with the opposition groups from moderate Octobrists to the extreme left Socialist-Revolutionaries behind the back of the Russian court. In St. Petersburg, it was even rumored that he had met with the radical socialists and attended revolutionary meetings, putting on a fake nose and beard. In general, the British did not care at all what forces to provide support, so long as these forces opposed the existing regime. (Apparently, this is the traditional pattern of behavior of Anglo-Saxon diplomats working in Russia.)

“On the eve of the revolution, the British embassy turned into a hotbed of propaganda,” Princess Olga Paley wrote in 20 in the journal Revue de Paris, “it was here that the future ministers of the interim government gathered, it was decided to abandon the legal ways of struggle. And it is not surprising that when Prime Minister Lloyd George learned about the fall of tsarism, he rubbed his hands and said: "One of the British goals of the war has been achieved."

Of course, the Provisional Government was completely satisfied with the UK. “The fevralists were very comfortable for the English people,” notes Andrei Sakharov, “they were close to them in their political spirit, dependent and obedient, without any claim to sovereignty.” Liberal ministers instantly abandoned all secret agreements, forgetting and thinking about seizing the Black Sea straits. But the tsarist generals in April 1917 of the year planned to launch the “Bosphorus operation”: the army, located in Romania, was just waiting for the go-ahead. But did not wait.

Wall Street and the October Revolution

Ideally, the British would like to divide the former Russian Empire into several parts. “We need a weak Russia,” they said. Their allies in the United States also dreamed of the same. "Russia is too large and homogeneous," wrote Colonel House, adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, "it must be reduced to the Central Russian Upland ... We will have a blank sheet of paper on which we plot the fate of Russian peoples." It was the American protege who, according to some sources, was the last chairman of the Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky. “Kerensky assured his patrons in the United States that he agreed to dismember Russia,” noted Russian writer Mark Aldanov, a contemporary of those events, “and no one doubted that, under the most democratic sauce, the country would divide up so that it would remain one fifth of the territory ... ”Recall that in October 1917 of the year from the city of Petrograd, seized by the revolution, Kerensky fled by car to the United States Embassy. What is it? Just a coincidence? Many researchers are surprised by the ease with which he transferred power to the Bolsheviks. “He was offered military assistance,” says Lavrov, “but he refused. Although in the middle of summer, as a boy, I beat General Kornilov himself. In the Soviet textbooks they wrote that by the autumn Kerensky had suddenly become inadequate, but was that so? Rather, he simply surrendered power. Another interesting detail: right after the Bolshevik coup in the New York Times, a note appeared on the creation of the Soviet government, which was allegedly headed by Leon Trotsky. What is a journalistic mistake? Or maybe the Americans were preparing for such a turn of events, developing a scenario for the transfer of power from Kerensky to Trotsky? ”

The historian Anthony Sutton in the book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" claims that the October coup was committed with the money of American bankers. First of all, we are talking about Jacob Schiff - the owner of one of the largest US investment banks Kuhn, Loeb & Co (existed until the 1977 year, when it merged with Lehman Brothers). Schiff prepared an information campaign plan in Russia to, as he put it, “manage the storm”. And in the first place, of course, he bet on Trotsky. Indeed, unlike the cabinet leader Lenin, there was a romantic halo around him: during the 1905 revolution, Trotsky was the chairman of the Petersburg council, then he was convicted to the eternal settlement in Siberia, he fled ... Schiff, along with other representatives of the American establishment, will equip the Russian revolutionary, supply him with money and helps to easily get from New York to Petrograd, despite all the cordons of wartime. According to some sources, Woodrow Wilson himself wrote out Trotsky's passport, and on the journey he was accompanied by the unofficial personal representative of the president, Charles Crane.

Divide and Conquer

It is known that the British took an active part in the Civil War. In March, 1918, they seized the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk railway, formed the so-called Murmansk legion. In August, British torpedo boats made their way into Kronstadt harbor and destroyed several large ships, including the cruiser Memory of Azov and the battleship Andrey Pervozvanny. As a result, the Baltic Fleet, which remained the only force capable of withstanding Britain in the northern seas, lost its combat capability.

But the main task for the British and Americans was to prevent the restoration of the Russian Empire. And although during the Civil War they seemed to be considered allies of the White Guards, no white government was recognized in the West (only the Wrangel government a week before the evacuation). After all, recognition entailed the need to transfer gold assets to Russia and ensure its participation in the post-war world order. For some reason, no one wanted to support the Russian army in Gallipoli, which, it seemed, could easily be used to fight the "bloody Bolsheviks." The British behaved extremely strange. As the writer Alexander Kuprin, who was in the army of General Yudenich, recalls, “the rifles supplied by England were wedged after the third shot. Machine gun belts did not fit the machine guns. The propellers were not attached to the planes. And on the eve of the decisive offensive a steamer loaded with fencing accessories arrived from London. Rapiers and masks instead of rifles and cartridges - what a black English humor. "

According to historians, the British put money in both piggy banks, sponsoring both white and red. Among the Bolsheviks, who were called "demons" in London, there were, strangely enough, quite a few British henchmen. Take at least one of the creators and leaders of the Cheka, Jacob Peters, who before the revolution was married to the daughter of a major English banker Freeman and managed to become his own man in London light. And the representative of the USSR in Persia, Fyodor Rotshtein, who refused all Russian possessions in this country?

The British also supported Admiral Alexander Kolchak, who, with their light hands, became the supreme ruler of Siberia (his work was supervised by British General Alfred Knox, a former military attaché in St. Petersburg). They even allegedly intended to hold a conference on the Princes' Islands, on which the Kolchak government and the Bolsheviks were to divide Russia in half. And although the Bolsheviks reacted to this plan with interest, Kolchak showed his principles and refused to participate in the transaction. Anyway, when our former allies in the Entente drew a new map of the world in 1919, at Versailles, none of them thought about the interests of Russia. Moreover, it was decided to immediately recognize the states that are formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reddragon
    Reddragon 22 March 2013 08: 14 New
    +2
    No matter what the Anglo-Saxons revolution started, in those days - nothing came of them bully The USSR is still afraid!
    1. Aleks28
      Aleks28 22 March 2013 08: 25 New
      14
      Quote: RedDragoN
      No matter what the Anglo-Saxons revolution started, in those days - nothing came of them

      They didn’t succeed at least twice. Or did they forget the 90s? And the article plus is definitely not to forget such things. And everyone should know that we don’t have friends in that direction.
      1. Letun
        Letun 22 March 2013 16: 49 New
        +8
        Quote: Allex28
        They didn’t succeed at least twice. Or did they forget the 90s?

        Thrice. For some reason, nothing is written about the murder of Paul I. And they killed him because he agreed with Napoleon to march on India, and already began to pull troops south.
        Although it also did not work out how much blood was spilled, the territories were lost, they were spiritually hurt, I generally keep quiet about material losses ...
      2. Zen
        Zen 23 March 2013 04: 44 New
        +1
        Not twice, and not thrice, many times they didn’t succeed, but there is such a Russian proverb (Not all cats are curd, sometimes there is a snout on the threshold) I hope we will wait, we have a big tribute to them)
    2. Atlon
      Atlon 22 March 2013 12: 42 New
      +5
      Quote: RedDragoN
      No matter what the Anglo-Saxons revolution started, in those days - nothing came of them

      It turned out half. The Russian people will always throw some sort of "crap." So it’s impossible to plan here for years. That's just all these "revolutions" that in the 17th, in the 91st throw us back. And Stolypin would carry out his reforms, the gendarmes would bang somewhere Lenin, you look, and the world would be completely different!
      1. bogdan
        bogdan 22 March 2013 16: 47 New
        -2
        Quote: Atlon
        the gendarmes would have banged somewhere, look, and the world would have been completely different!

        This is myopia!
        There would be no Lenin and the October Revolution, there would be no USSR and victory over fascism.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 22 March 2013 18: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: bogdan
          There would be no Lenin and the October Revolution, there would be no USSR and victory over fascism

          There would be no fascism itself, more precisely, a perverted National Socialism. If not for the February coup, in which part of the Romanovs took an active part in the struggle for the throne, connecting both the Duma and the top of the generals, in 1917 the world war would end, and Russia would be among the winners. But the USA (the USA as it stands today) would not be among this, since they entered the war later, and they would not have entered at all. As a result, the Russian Empire would not allow the arrogant Saxons and the French to impose not only the predatory, but the pirate indemnity on Germany (which would also remain the Empire). But only poverty, loss of territories, inflation, hunger (with the participation of USA agents) created the conditions for the marginals to come to power with Hitler and Rem at the head. Still in the Compiegne forest it was said: "This is not peace, this is a truce for 20 years," as a result, and it turned out. No matter how history develops further — hundreds of options can be thought up, good and bad for Russia — we will never know, but without the British — there would be no emperor’s renunciation, without it — there would be no catastrophic humiliation of Germany, just Germany who had lost the war did not fall before Nazism, as a nation-wide ideology, June 22 would not have happened ... It is quite likely that a revolution would have happened, but without a bloody Civil War, without robbing Russia, without a new world war, or maybe not. But all the same, aaagromadnee thank you to the nachalis for the torment they started ... so that they don’t have a bottom or tires ... and continue to spoil further! am
    3. Maks111
      Maks111 22 March 2013 15: 39 New
      +2
      How do they hate us ...
    4. brelok
      brelok 23 March 2013 06: 33 New
      0
      regretted Rasputin! Dog canine death!
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 22 March 2013 08: 18 New
    20
    Impudently the most bloodthirsty and despicable nation, from time immemorial British dogs dirty Russia. Actually, for the article plus, this article is a repetition of a historical lesson! It is better to keep your hand in a jug with cobras than to be friends with arrogant Saxons.
    1. Pancho
      Pancho 22 March 2013 21: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Impudently the most bloodthirsty and meanest nation

      and burry comrades you forgot?
    2. smile
      smile 22 March 2013 21: 43 New
      +2
      Sakhalininsk
      In the fall, I got acquainted with the book of the British historian Stuart Laycock, when counting the countries where they invaded with predatory [] goals, this guy was surprised to count only 22 countries. which honest Britons did not try to rob, among them 5 dwarf ones, like Andorra and the Vatican, the rest - Belarus, Mongolia .... the world did not know such a state built on a robbery ....
  3. radio operator
    radio operator 22 March 2013 08: 33 New
    +9
    Since the days of Peter, Russia has been like a bone in the throat of the British.
    Let them choke.
    1. igordok
      igordok 22 March 2013 13: 52 New
      +7
      Quote: radio operator
      Since the days of Peter, Russia has been like a bone in the throat of the British.


      Earlier. Even under Ivan IV, they were mischievous.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 22 March 2013 15: 03 New
        +4
        Quote: igordok
        Even under Ivan IV, they were mischievous.

        You are absolutely right! Once again I remember the movie "Ivan the Terrible"! The scene when Ivan is crowned and declares to the ambassadors that Russia will no longer pay duties. One of the ambassadors exclaims: "Europe will not recognize!" And the Jesuit - the papal legate - replies: "He will be strong - everyone will recognize. It must be not strong!" Since then, they have spoiled us all over Europe.
        By the way, about the fact that the British did not help the Russian Tsar. The official answer was: "For the Tsar Romanov we would send troops, but for the nobleman Romanov - we can’t!" Those. played at the king’s abdication, although who now knows whether it was really conscious, or they presented the world with a fake.
  4. Zerkalo
    Zerkalo 22 March 2013 08: 34 New
    +7
    They hate us. They want to make submissive slaves. It is still surprising that our "elite" worships them. How many times they threw us, how much they used ... They themselves have already turned into a nation of gays and stupid fat people, but no, they are still shitting ...

    It’s time, it’s time to turn to them "their Asian mug ...".
    1. Atlon
      Atlon 22 March 2013 12: 44 New
      +5
      Quote: Zerkalo
      It’s time, it’s time to turn to them "their Asian mug ...".

      Nothing, Muslims will blow them up from the inside ... At least Islamic patrols on the streets of London are no longer a curiosity ...
    2. evfrat
      evfrat 23 March 2013 16: 25 New
      0
      And what surprises you if the elite and power are chosen from loyal servile figures?
  5. Forest
    Forest 22 March 2013 09: 18 New
    +8
    Memoirs of Lazar Kaganovich, recorded from his words, by an American nephew, Stuart Kagan "USA 1987.
    “In the wake of the tsar’s abdication, Trotsky was sent from New York to Petrograd on the steamer Kristianafjord in New York in May 1917. Trotsky did not arrive empty-handed. The steamer was full of weapons and about three hundred Jewish gangsters from Trotsky were sent from The Manhattan East Side, already experienced in skirmishes with police in a noisy street war during the “Prohibition.” At the same time, astronomical and unlimited amounts of money accompanied Trotsky from Wall Street through the Swedish bank “Nyaken” to Petrograd. The irony of fate is that it is precisely for liaison with the bourgeois of Wall Street that Trotsky will destroy tens of millions of innocent people, calling this purposeful massacre the neutral word "civil war", as if it were an internal squabble in which the people themselves were guilty, and not the planned destruction of tens of millions Trotsky knew that he arrived on behalf of and with all the powers of the masters of this planet, so Trotsky immediately went to Tavri the palace, where the Petrograd Soviet met and presented its credentials, and most importantly - money, weapons and people. He immediately became Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, which at that time had actually declared himself an alternative authority. "
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 22 March 2013 15: 33 New
      +4
      Everything would be fine, but prohibition was introduced in the States in the fall of 1917, and not in the spring. Therefore, gangsters could not have time to become proficient in the street wars of the "prohibition". But there were many foreigners in the ranks of the Reds.
      1. Forest
        Forest 25 March 2013 08: 51 New
        0
        "In 1905, Prohibition was in force in Kansas, Maine, Nebraska and North Dakota, by 1912 it had already covered nine states, and by 1916, 26 states."
  6. avt
    avt 22 March 2013 09: 33 New
    +6
    Correctly, all the author voiced. Well, it would be nice if admirers of the “historical” research of Radzinsky would have read and thought. You would have looked less if there were pink snot about “Russia that we lost”, but more often we thought about today.
  7. Gari
    Gari 22 March 2013 10: 54 New
    +6
    then the order to eliminate Rasputin was given by the first director of the Secret Bureau of Intelligence Mansfield Smith-Cumming, and the British officer Oswald Reiner made a control shot in the forehead to the old man
    - because Rasputin was connected with the Germans, he was a supporter of the alliance between Russia and Germany, a natural alliance that would benefit both states, the war between Russia and Germany was not needed and did not bring any benefits, which happened both countries and lost, and Russia and the revolution, etc. Here are the Anglo-Saxons and removed Rasputin
    annihilating each other in the name of Anglo-Saxon interests should have been the main competitors of the Anglo-Saxons - Germany and Russia. They should be pitted, which was done.
    British diplomacy and the British agents of influence in Russia did everything to prevent the Russo-German alliance: objectively, such a continental bloc put an end to the British Empire. The mediocrity and weakness of the king and the Kaiser contributed significantly to the success of the agents of influence.
    There are letters in which George V swore to Nicholas eternal friendship and fidelity. However, when a friend needed help, the English monarch only spread his hands. “We cannot grant him asylum,” he wrote to Prime Minister Lloyd George, “I strongly object to this.”
    England does not have constant friends and constant enemies, but has permanent interests
    And the main principle is divide and rule
  8. Gari
    Gari 22 March 2013 11: 02 New
    +7
    All the activities of the post-February Provisional Government and the Petrosoviet are activities to destroy Russian statehood, due to both incompetence and intent, including from outside the country
    . At the first stage (February 23 - April 18) this is Order No. 1 of the Petrograd Council on the creation of army committees in the army, on the removal of the Petrograd garrison from subordination to the senior command, and on the abolition of the officers' titles and giving them honor outside of service. This order, supported by the Provisional Government, was ruining the army. At the same time, the government insisted on fidelity to the allies and on the war to a victorious end - and this was with a crumbling army, which in this way (and with it the whole country) was put under attack and defeat was what the destructive forces inside and outside Russia, using a strategy of controlled chaos.
    At the second stage (April - July), the manifestation of either stupidity or betrayal was the order of the Provisional Government of the South-Western Front to go on the offensive. Being unprepared and carried out by a crumbling army, the offensive stalled, and then the Germans struck back, the Tarnopol breakthrough overturned the front and the Russian army fled.

    At the third stage (July – August), the central “strange” episode was the episode with the so-called “Kornilov rebellion”. On the twenties of July 1917, General Kornilov was appointed commander in chief. He developed a directive for the creation of the “three armies”: in the trenches, in the rear, on the railway. This meant the introduction of strict discipline and was the first step towards curbing chaos. Then Kornilov set about creating a special Petrograd army. Finally, by secret agreement with Kerensky on August 25, 1917, two horse divisions and a horse corps were advanced to Petrograd. This would be enough to take control of the city, since the rebel regiments, which became the striking force of February, were completely incapable, having lost by the end of summer even those remnants of combat qualities that they had in early spring.
    The implementation of the Kornilov plan meant, in essence, the introduction of a dictatorship and the beginning of the restoration of statehood. However, the plan was not implemented.
    Kerensky declares Kornilov deposed and orders his arrest. The state continues to crumble.
    But at the last stage (August - October), the Provisional Government, and above all Kerensky, will make so many mistakes that some observers, and later researchers, will talk about consciously surrendering the country to the Kerensky Bolsheviks.
    Of course, paradoxically, both Germans and British were interested in this. The first counted on the withdrawal of Russia from the war, the conclusion of peace and the conduct of war on one front. The second, confident of victory with American help, were interested in the maximum weakening of Russia with the prospect of its dismemberment into zones of influence. Great Britain and France signed the corresponding document at the end of 1917. But besides the British and French, the United States also wanted to.

    And how does it look like what happened already with the USSR
    1. Xay
      Xay 22 March 2013 12: 02 New
      +2
      Everything to the very point.
  9. Gari
    Gari 22 March 2013 11: 10 New
    +7
    The role of American capital in the destruction of Russian statehood in 1917 is highlighted in a number of works. E. Sutton notes that, for example, L. Trotsky’s stay in the United States and his shipment to Russia after the February Revolution was funded by the Rockefellers, and Trotsky’s passport was arranged by none other than Woodrow Wilson, an agent of the largest US banking houses who they planted in presidential chair [1]. Financing the revolution had a simple goal - the destruction of Russian statehood, the depletion and fragmentation of Russia, turning it into a raw materials appendage of the United States and a zone of commercial exploitation.
    In addition to money of $ 20 million in gold, Trotsky brought a group of rebel professionals from America. When Canadian services delayed the American ship on which Trotsky departed from the USA, he was attributed US citizenship. The main thing was that the Entente did not need the defeat of the Bolsheviks, it needed the longest possible continuation of the Civil War with the subsequent disintegration of Russia into parts — at least two: “ red "and" white ". At the same time, the British constantly remembered their short-term interests. For example, as soon as Trotsky’s plan (according to Trotsky’s top-secret (but made known to British intelligence) plan to march on India in the summer of 1919, Denikin’s offensive began, which almost led to the fall of the Bolshevik regime. However, this was not included in the plans of Great Britain and especially the USA, and in the autumn of 1919 the offensive was stifled.
    Having funded the Bolsheviks, the Anglo-Americans (by the way, the Germans financed the Bolsheviks with loans received from American banks) were not going to allow the restoration of a "united and indivisible Russia." Practice has shown that it is easier for sponsors to negotiate with the Bolsheviks than with the white generals. NEP has demonstrated this in all evidence. In addition, during the NEP, the Bolsheviks (especially in 1921–1925) had to pay creditors.

    The situation changed only after the dismissal of Trotsky (1927) - the liquidation of the NEP by Stalin's group (1929) and the beginning of the ousting of the "Leninist Guard" by this group, which was connected with the financial capital of the West.
    1. smile
      smile 22 March 2013 21: 58 New
      0
      Gari
      These 2 of your comments are surprisingly concise and accurate. thank!
  10. Xay
    Xay 22 March 2013 12: 02 New
    +3
    Impudent - enemies .... of the whole world ....
    And they were definitely not friends when they were and never will be.
  11. dmb
    dmb 22 March 2013 12: 17 New
    +1
    Citizens who delight us with "historical discoveries," is it possible to indicate at least a link to the source when reporting something new, or sometimes it seems that some people get information exclusively from the astral, or refer to "now living co-authors." Of course, this is very convenient, having read from another "historian" about the Masonic conspiracy to destroy the Russian people (for some reason, the most annoying damned zedydam), without hesitation to take a bat, and mark the first who on this very sinister will be description similar. But sometimes it’s worth straining the brain gyrus. So I tried to do this after seeing a link to the memoirs of a very dubious nephew Kaganovich, and I had questions. But is it not that Kaganovich who was a faithful Stalinist and loved Trotsky as well as his patron. If he (and there is no doubt about this in general), then he could tell about three steamboats with gangsters. The second question is whether he talked about these steamboats at all, or did the savvy “nephew” simply decide to make some money by fantasizing himself freely. The second is more convincing, especially since the daughter of Kaganovich Maya, in the preface to the Father’s Memorial Notes, calls the “tribe” a nonsense, who has nothing to do with their family at all and has never met dad.
    1. Forest
      Forest 22 March 2013 12: 42 New
      +5
      The same Kaganovich. Only there is a big difference that they say among their own and to the public. And "source" ask the American nephew, Stuart Kagan in the USA
    2. avt
      avt 22 March 2013 13: 46 New
      +4
      Quote: dmb
      But is it not that Kaganovich who was a faithful Stalinist and loved Trotsky as well as his patron. If he (and there is no doubt about this in general), then he could tell about three steamboats with gangsters. The second question is whether he talked about these steamboats at all, or did the savvy “nephew” simply decide to make some money by fantasizing himself freely. The second is more convincing, especially since the daughter of Kaganovich Maya, in the preface to the Father’s Memorial Notes, calls the “tribe” a nonsense, who has nothing to do with their family at all and has never met dad.

      Do you want songs? I have them. laughing Look for a documentary film, Who paid Lenin? the secret of the century "and ,, Leo Trotsky. The Secret of the World Revolution", this is for starters. Well, the BBC’s film about the murder of Rasputin, it’s just what the arrogant sax in its archives showed. If you are interested, then you dig it yourself. Seeker let him find it.
      1. dmb
        dmb 22 March 2013 20: 08 New
        0
        My dear, I was talking about the primary sources, and not about the "now living co-authors" from among crooks such as the aforementioned Kagan. You review these “revelations” once again and consider whether they can claim the truth. All the evidence presented in these films reminds me personally of receipts for sending registered letters to "Brother Kolya", which Bender showed to the chairman of the district executive committee, trying to keep them away from the latter. To continue the discussion and its fruitfulness, I would like to hear why, say, facts like the arrival of the ship with the gangsters do not raise any doubts.
        1. avt
          avt 23 March 2013 13: 00 New
          0
          Quote: dmb
          My dear, I was talking about the primary sources, and not about the "now living co-authors" from among crooks such as the aforementioned Kagan.

          That is, a documentary film depicting an English resident's declassified report of years ago about the liquidation of Rasputin and a letter shown by the granddaughter of the same resident about his personal participation in the action is not the source for you? Well then, you just have to wait for the time machine to go into production. request
          1. dmb
            dmb 23 March 2013 18: 21 New
            0
            Listen, well, you can’t do that. You would have dragged Julius Caesar or Ivan the Terrible. As you can see, I was talking about Kaganovich and the ship with the gangsters. And then Rasputin ?. An article is delusional in its essence. According to her, there would be no desire of the British, there would be no revolution. What do you think your own people are cattle, which, like a herd, goes for a "bunch of crooks." For that matter, Stalin also entered this "bunch" and was far from supporting. Why are you then praising him.
            1. avt
              avt 23 March 2013 19: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: dmb
              According to her, there would be no desire of the British, there would be no revolution. What do you think your own people are cattle, which, like a herd, goes for a "bunch of crooks."

              request Well, suppose the article dealt with the concrete participation of one state in the fate of another and at least it is not far-sighted to deny this participation. And the fact that different powers borrowed money from revolutionaries is a medical fact and did not for the sake of love and democracy but in pursuit of their specific interests. Another thing is that the revolutionaries themselves did not consider it shameful to take money for the revolution. The end justified the means.
              Quote: dmb
              According to her, there would be no desire of the British, there would be no revolution

              No, of course, a definite revolutionary situation naturally developed, and the Bolsheviks also insured themselves. Trotsky took money from the British for the first time from the British, and Lenin through Parvus-Gelfand and Krasin in Sweden from the Germans. Well, if you later threw creditors, then what can’t you do for the sake of the world’s revolution? request And Stalin, correctly you say, is a participant in the events, by the way one of the explanations for why he treated the Leninist Guard so tough. He knew how flaky as a participant in the events and what to expect from his comrades-in-arms if the struggle for power loses, especially from Trotsky.
              1. dmb
                dmb 23 March 2013 22: 18 New
                0
                And I did say that the British are white and fluffy. I don’t accept when both monarchists and liberals, biting each other for their thighs, are trying to make a paid agent, and some idiots are copying this nonsense. Of course, the Lambs and Americans worked in Russia exclusively in the interests of their country. But they didn’t give money at all for building a socialist state. At first they gave them in order to prevent a separate peace, which was clearly pecking. You can understand them. Recall our reaction to Wolf’s negotiations with Dulles. Moreover, not being fools, they gave them several forces. They did not expect another, that, having taken power, the Bolsheviks would knock them out with all their aspirations. I’m not sure that Denikin and Kolchak would have subsequently financed them later. Most of all, the new-fangled "trend" annoys me about the bloody Lenin and the humanist Stalin, who is not a saint for little. Therefore, I absolutely agree with the last paragraph of your comment. Stalin did not destroy opponents by the fact that he was rooting for the people with his soul. First of all, he supported the regime of personal power. Another question is, would our people live better if their opponents defeated. Not sure. I know only one thing without Lenin, there would be no Stalin, but to separate them in the current context. The last two years have begun, when the current government needed it. Under Nikita, something else was beneficial, and then Lenin was a humanist, and Stalin a bloody one.
            2. Forest
              Forest 25 March 2013 09: 10 New
              0
              It’s immediately clear that you live not in our country, and Bolotnaya does not hide that he receives recommendations (with the ensuing consequences) from the West. What has changed?
        2. Forest
          Forest 25 March 2013 09: 08 New
          0
          Then your question "about the source" is absurd, but you know it very well. Are you not the same DMB which is from Israel ????
          1. dmb
            dmb 25 March 2013 19: 58 New
            0
            Perhaps Razik will change my rule, do not discuss with a certain category. Tell me, dear, but besides a set of stamps about Bolotnaya, Israel and the State Department, do you have any thoughts of your own? You disagree with something in my comment, so refute it conclusively. By the way, unlike you, I don’t hide my place of residence or name, so which of us is from Israel is a big question. Judging by your faith, Stuart Kagan, he is closer to you than to me.
            1. Forest
              Forest 27 March 2013 08: 53 New
              0
              Argue with a man who speaks half the truth while hiding the main thing? Example: “Of course, the Lambs and Americans worked in Russia exclusively in the interests of their country.” - Half the truth, the revolution was sponsored by Jacob Schiff, an American banker and philanthropist Jewish descent. Also "Schiff was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in the United States." Further, "The banker persistently compared the situation of Jews in Russia with the biblical history of the Egyptian exodus, and he himself, no doubt, saw the new Moses ... and it was the Crusade against Russia that Schiff owed to his elevation to an unprecedented height for the Jewish leader" - these were a new struggle Jewish community against a sovereign state. In general, the American state didn’t care with whom, but when the “supranational” people have their own interests, the interests of a sovereign state for them recede into the background or simply disappear.
              And so half-truth and efforts to divert the conversation aside from you in all your "reasonings."
              By the way, I mentioned the name of a Jewish banker - what do you make a "conclusion" I am a Jew or a banker? ))) This is me about your phrase (Judging by your faith, Stuart Kagan, he is closer to you than to me.)
              1. dmb
                dmb 27 March 2013 18: 45 New
                0
                My young friend. I have the impression that you are talking to yourself. We started with Kaganovich, and where does the Schiff you mentioned? I think that you can’t bring arguments why you believe Kagan and don’t believe Kaganovich’s daughter, and therefore go away from this question by switching to a completely different topic. Well, let's try talking about her. The principle is one. What is the source of information about sponsoring the revolution Schiff. Maybe sponsored, where did you read about it? If in the comments on the site or in the works of the same Kagan, then of course the source is more than serious. You would refer to Svanidze, who also insists on this. And the last; You famously determined your nationality by text. Unlike you, I, making a hypothesis about your ancestors, I have given at least some reasons.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 28 March 2013 09: 21 New
                  0
                  An ancient friend (?), I do not believe Kaganovich’s daughter because she will say something that is beneficial to her at the moment. Nephew is not interested in this
                  . "What is the source of information about sponsoring the revolution Schiff" - Yours, that Google banned?
                  Svanidze just stands in your position.
                  No offense, confused, just on Newsland nickname DMB uses a troll from Israel.
                  1. dmb
                    dmb 28 March 2013 20: 42 New
                    0
                    And again you declined to answer. Google is naturally not a source, but just a reference system. Evaluate the sources still need to be sober. The linden "nephew" is much more interested than you think. He earns money from his “revelations”, and his daughter only brought evidence of the “phony” relative’s insidiousness, which does not at all change her father’s activities. You also did not answer, in connection with which you unexpectedly “switched to Schiff when it came to Kaganovich. From what do you conclude that my position coincides with the position of Svanidze? There certainly must be some kind of argument.
                  2. dmb
                    dmb 28 March 2013 20: 42 New
                    0
                    And again you declined to answer. Google is naturally not a source, but just a reference system. Evaluate the sources still need to be sober. The linden "nephew" is much more interested than you think. He earns money from his “revelations”, and his daughter only brought evidence of the “phony” relative’s insidiousness, which does not at all change her father’s activities. You also did not answer, in connection with which you unexpectedly “switched to Schiff when it came to Kaganovich. From what do you conclude that my position coincides with the position of Svanidze? There certainly must be some kind of argument.
                  3. dmb
                    dmb 28 March 2013 20: 42 New
                    0
                    And again you declined to answer. Google is naturally not a source, but just a reference system. Evaluate the sources still need to be sober. The linden "nephew" is much more interested than you think. He earns money from his “revelations”, and his daughter only brought evidence of the “phony” relative’s insidiousness, which does not at all change her father’s activities. You also did not answer, in connection with which you unexpectedly “switched to Schiff when it came to Kaganovich. From what do you conclude that my position coincides with the position of Svanidze? There certainly must be some kind of argument.
                    1. Forest
                      Forest 29 March 2013 08: 22 New
                      0
                      If I even show you Bronstein’s ticket for a parachute to Russia, you’ll tell me without the certificate of the cashier who issued it, it’s invalid. The nephew lived in another country and he didn’t need to be afraid of the authorities, and his daughter wanted to have her “gesheft” from the significance of Kaganovich and therefore denied him as a relative at all.
                      Svinidze also talks about everything except the Jewish trace in the revolution.
                    2. Forest
                      Forest 29 March 2013 08: 22 New
                      0
                      If I even show you Bronstein’s ticket for a parachute to Russia, you’ll tell me without the certificate of the cashier who issued it, it’s invalid. The nephew lived in another country and he didn’t need to be afraid of the authorities, and his daughter wanted to have her “gesheft” from the significance of Kaganovich and therefore denied him as a relative at all.
                      Svinidze also talks about everything except the Jewish trace in the revolution.
    3. Gari
      Gari 22 March 2013 15: 46 New
      +3
      article ,, WEST AND REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA ,,
      An excerpt from the chapter “History of the struggle against Russian statehood” of the second volume of the Center’s large-scale work - “The National Idea of ​​Russia”.
      I read about other sources, but here you can find more fully respected who are of interest on the site
      http://rusrand.ru/idea/idea_64.html
  12. Atlon
    Atlon 22 March 2013 12: 40 New
    +8
    How far and long could Russia go in its development if it weren’t for England ...
    1. wax
      wax 22 March 2013 12: 51 New
      +8
      How far and long could Russia go in its development if it weren’t for England ...

      How far and long ago the USSR could have gone in its development, had it not been for Gorbi and Yeltsin.
      1. Zerkalo
        Zerkalo 22 March 2013 17: 31 New
        +1
        This is another matter. Were it not for England — others would have appeared — for a holy place does not exist. As far as I remember, the decree on the liberty of the nobility played a cruel joke. Most of our rulers did not have that cunning and that constant course, which would ultimately lead to victory.
        Paul, if I am not mistaken, was against an alliance with England - the British were pissed off - and there is no Paul. Another came and the course changed 180 degrees ... And there are many more such examples. A lot of forces and resources of every kind went into the void.

        It always happened somehow that our country was waiting for something, and then, tearing its bellies, it was catching up sharply. Well, yes, the Romanov dynasty is not the people that our country needed, unfortunately ... But the British, as enemies need to be respected and ALWAYS wait for meanness from them - ALWAYS. We also do not have regular friends.
    2. terp 50
      terp 50 22 March 2013 13: 06 New
      0
      ... the USA, Germany, Japan, France, China, Israel and a number of others? ..
    3. gizz
      gizz 22 March 2013 13: 42 New
      +2
      And not only Russia. Germany (1 world, 2 world, unification), Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Africa, the countries of Indochina (these are those that were called the Eastern tigers at one time) and so on. and so on. Only China seems to have succeeded. World parasites they are. The Saxons are fattening from this. Well, they are afraid: no matter how to answer.
    4. Gari
      Gari 22 March 2013 16: 35 New
      +4
      It was then from Poland in the west to Port Arthur in the east, and this is the Yellow Sea China, from Finland, fed bread all over Europe, industry was booming, population was growing rapidly according to wikipedia.org-
      155 million, had the most powerful army in the world, for that period, and what awaited next, that’s why the Power collapsed
      1. Zerkalo
        Zerkalo 22 March 2013 17: 43 New
        +2
        Yes, it was only to great regret that I had a rotten corrupt top of officials. A foolish king who could not curb his regrets and realize that the position of the ruler of such a great country implies sacrifices from himself. and not just a pleasant pastime with the actresses and his purchase of palaces ...
      2. smile
        smile 22 March 2013 22: 18 New
        0
        Gari
        But this army did not have heavy artillery, only a slightly purchased corps, we produced 10 times less machine guns, we bought rifles even from the Japanese, mortars, cr. Machine guns were not made. tear planes, and armored vehicles ... well, etc .... read the diaries of Nikolas, your hair will stand on end from the kind of insignificance that led Russia ... and that’s the ruin of the Power .... and into the moderators of Russia. pedagogy do not even take the Europeans - even they are more objective than this orange propaganda gang! :)))
        1. Gari
          Gari 23 March 2013 00: 39 New
          0
          smile
          I read all about it and I know that technically the Russian army was lagging behind, but if only Russia can be said to have switched to capitalism, we will not forget that when serfdom was abolished, it began to create industry, all this needed technology, and still two troubles Russian fools and roads
          and also corruption, kickbacks have not yet been invented, I think it was profitable to import than to establish production all the same as now in our time,
          Yes, and Nicholas was not an emperor, an autocrat like his predecessors, Alexander II, and especially Alexander 3, it was a different level
          but on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by the Narodnaya Volya, and Alexander III, the mighty hero who is less than 50 years old, fades away in a month and dies on October 20, 1894
          Nikolai as he read his level was the maximum command regiment
  13. Atlon
    Atlon 22 March 2013 12: 52 New
    +1
    Dragged to him: http://atlon-69.livejournal.com/11955.html
  14. Avenger711
    Avenger711 22 March 2013 13: 01 New
    -3
    Learn the history of your country and then you will not write nonsense. The October Revolution is the legitimate result of the mediocre policy of tsarism over the past decades, its inability to solve the problems facing the country. We still use the achievements of October.
  15. terp 50
    terp 50 22 March 2013 13: 01 New
    +1
    ... straight some kind of ecclesiastes, - That was, it will be; and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun ...
    And, interestingly, well, their history taught nothing to nuuu! ... by the way, too ...
  16. Horn
    Horn 22 March 2013 13: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: radio operator
    Since the days of Peter, Russia has been like a bone in the throat of the British.
    Let them choke.

    No, much earlier than Peter. Any state that has a merchant (and even more so a military) fleet is the natural enemy of England.
  17. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 22 March 2013 13: 55 New
    +5
    For so many centuries, England has been (and still is) pursuing a policy aimed at destroying Russia and pursuing it so openly that British donkey ears could easily guess all the hostile actions directed against Russia, and the Russian ruling elite saw it very well. Nevertheless, Russia, amazingly but regularly fell into traps and got involved in various adventures conceived by the British, incurring orgasm losses, incurring gigantic human losses for the sake of foreign interests, and even found itself on the verge of destruction, when Russia could even disappear from the world map. This could be possible only due to the fact that in Russia it has long been forged among the “intelligentsia” and even in the power structures a pro-Western 5th column, which, hoping for the introduction of Western values ​​in Russia and, thus, its entry into the club of enlightened states of Europe , knowingly or unconsciously, actually helped the British and acted AGAINST the interests of Russia. Unfortunately, history repeats itself and again we clearly see the work of the 5th column, which again works against modern Russia and is not unsuccessful! Is it time to learn from history!
  18. Slevinst
    Slevinst 22 March 2013 14: 36 New
    -1
    An interesting article, but I still did not understand why this did not happen (Russia could not be divided)
  19. shurup
    shurup 22 March 2013 15: 02 New
    +1
    The initial message is correct. Germany had to take Russia out of the war by any means. The "allies" had to prevent Russia from using the fruits of victory by any means. And those and those money and resources did not spare it.
    Reasoning about subsequent events is a discussion on a general topic, i.e. blah blah blah, like on TV.
  20. ABV
    ABV 22 March 2013 17: 07 New
    +3
    It is absolutely clear to all sane people that the main enemy of our country is a certain Great Britain, and not Americans at all, as many believe. The Americans, for the most part, are simple people, intimidated by internal problems, who do not care about us, would live on their own. But the top of the United States, yes, they are also vicious, but they are just hired managers of the same Great Britain as the United States themselves, just a veiled colony of the British. And it’s not what the Rothschilds may be, which everyone has heard, although they themselves are just servants of the “English Crown”.
    Not the queen, but the “English Crown” - a kind of union of the Anglo-Saxon elites led by the monarch HERE IS AN ANCIENT ENEMY !!!
    1. Slevinst
      Slevinst 22 March 2013 17: 36 New
      -2
      Our enemy is at the top of our country, officials incompetent in his industry, and possibly the president, I don’t know who he is and therefore I can’t believe, but what he puts in the ministers' branches that have little to understand in this industry is very alarming, because ... k and sets, wait and see, it will be insulting if we lose the country because of money and traitors
    2. Zerkalo
      Zerkalo 22 March 2013 17: 38 New
      0
      Debatable. The people hawala what they give him. there in the wild-wild West there are not so many sources of information, and the people turned into zombie drug addicts. They are used to living well - everyone quickly gets used to it. It doesn’t work out just by overthrowing this certain top to sharply make mattresses loyal to themselves and others like them. And essentially: do they have democracy there? Yes. People choose a president and politics that way, right? Here the people are ultimately to blame, if you look. If all this nation of consumers went out into the street (they have a sea of ​​arms) and overthrew their entire elite - yes, I would say - the USA is a beautiful country with wise people!

      I would say that England is a wonderful country with wise people - however, no one takes to the streets, everyone lives as they live, they consume, they consume - and everyone is happy and satisfied. Everything would be fine, but they just live at the expense of the whole world. This is a snag. And Russia has always been an enemy to them. And they always will, until something radically changes on our planet.
    3. GG2012
      GG2012 22 March 2013 18: 58 New
      -1
      Quote: ABV
      Not the queen, but the “English Crown” - a kind of union of the Anglo-Saxon elites led by the monarch HERE IS AN ANCIENT ENEMY !!!

      There is a well-known term that screechy and burry voices hang on us when something does not suit them in our behavior - this is Anti-Semite.

      The time has come to establish a new term - Antibrit.
  21. Goldkonstantin
    Goldkonstantin 22 March 2013 21: 35 New
    0
    The British spoil everyone, not just us, although to a greater extent. And the fact that Russia interfered with "civilized" Europe is a well-known fact. If we had not entered the First World War! After all, they warned the Tsar! But, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, so ... About the United States I can only say that the United Kingdom
    I had a headache from this more than everyone else. But, a boomerang of history exists! For now all the troubles that they slipped to us are polluting them. Look, there will be a referendum on the independence of Scotland in a year, Europe is dead, and here?
  22. Ilya Katasonov
    Ilya Katasonov 22 March 2013 22: 32 New
    0
    Excellent article
  23. Bosk
    Bosk 22 March 2013 23: 36 New
    0
    If you look closely at the subject of the colonies, you can see .... the French are modern Canada, the Indians are well preserved there, most of the geographical names are Native American. Where there were Portuguese and Spaniards, the indigenous population was not exterminated, everyone was mixed up, papered and a new ethnos was created. But here it’s completely another matter of the territory in which the Anglo-Saxons commanded. there, the Indians underwent deliberate destruction and the blacks and whites did not mix ... this is the fundamental difference between the Anglo-Saxon civilization — not absorbing the culture of others, but destroying it.
  24. Marat
    Marat 24 March 2013 21: 29 New
    0
    so who is more to blame for the death of the empire, the Germans or Britain?
  25. Marat
    Marat 24 March 2013 21: 57 New
    0
    The destruction of the fifth column was what could save Tsarist Russia. But the tsar was very humane, he was very looking forward to the April offensive in 1917, and the Milyukovs and Guchkos did not sleep at that time. Stalin would later take into account this deplorable experience and remain in power.
  26. Abdurahman
    Abdurahman 9 June 2013 19: 07 New
    0
    The British are our enemies! Unfortunately or fortunately ... how to know. But I really hope that our current president will take into account the words of one of the Russian emperors to his son: "Russia has two allies - this is the army and navy!"