Great October

9 101 318
Great October
Lenin proclaims Soviet power. Artist V. A. Serov.


Pandora's Box


It is necessary to remember that by the autumn of 1917, the liberal-bourgeois Provisional Government – ​​the “Februaryists” who destroyed the Russian Empire (although for some reason they like to call the Bolsheviks the culprits of this event) – brought Russian civilization and statehood to the brink of disaster.



It is important to remember that, Contrary to the liberal democratic myth formed in the 80s and 90s, Old Russia was destroyed not by Bolshevik commissars and Red Guards, but by ministers and generals, deputies and high church officials, aristocrats and grand dukes. High-ranking Freemasons, the elite of the Russian Empire. Noble, educated, and wealthy people. High society. The big bourgeoisie, capitalists, bankers, the oligarchs of the time, the owners of factories, plants, and steamships.

Those who thought Russia could be transformed into "dear France or England." With parliament, a rule-of-law society. With the Western civilizational matrix. They miscalculated everything. They crushed the last "staple"—autocracy. They opened Pandora's box.

A true catastrophe had begun. Not only the national outskirts of Russia were rejecting the Russian state, but also regions within Russia itself—like the Cossack autonomies of the Don and Kuban. A tiny number of nationalists claimed power in Kyiv and Little Russia. An autonomous government emerged in Siberia. The Caucasus erupted in flames.

The armed forces had collapsed long before the Bolshevik coup and were unable to continue fighting. The Provisional Government "democratized" the army in the midst of a terrible war!

Army and fleet from being pillars of order they themselves turned into sources of unrest and anarchy. Soldiers deserted by the thousands, carried away weapon (including machine guns and artillery!) The front was disintegrating, and there was no one left to stop the Austro-German and Turkish armies. Russia could no longer fulfill its duty to its Entente allies.

Finances and the economy were disorganized, the unified economic space was falling apart. The transportation system was crumbling. Supply problems with the cities began, harbingers of famine. Even during the Russian Empire, the government had begun implementing food tax collection (again, the Bolsheviks were later blamed for this).

The peasants saw that there was no authority! For the peasants, authority was God's anointed—the tsar—and his support—the army. They began seizing land, farmland, and forests, and "took revenge." Hundreds of landowners' estates burned under the Provisional Government. Essentially, another peasant war had begun, a war between village and city. The peasants believed they owed nothing more to the new authorities, any of them. They no longer had to pay taxes, provide recruits, or obey the laws.

A criminal revolution had begun. The former police, gendarmerie, and secret police were disbanded. Archives and card files were smashed and burned. Experienced police officers were thrown out onto the streets. Prisons were sacked, releasing professional criminals and common criminals. The country and cities were overrun by gangs and criminal groups that robbed the "bourgeoisie" and raided banks, warehouses, and railroads. Soon, entire gangs, bandit armies—the "greens"—emerged.

External open enemies and former "partners" began dividing and seizing Russian territories. England, France, and the United States laid claim to the most lucrative pieces. The Americans, in particular, planned to stake out virtually all of Siberia and the Far East with the help of Czechoslovak bayonets.

The Provisional Government, instead of proposing a goal, a program, and active and decisive action to save the state, postponed the resolution of fundamental issues until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.

It was a disaster! Russia in front of her eyes ceased to exist, turning into an ethnographic territory that they were going to “master” and completely solve the “Russian question”.

A wave of chaos, both controlled and spontaneous, engulfed the country. The autocracy, the core of the empire, was crushed by an internal "fifth column." The "Februaryists"—the grand dukes, the degenerate aristocracy, generals, Freemasons, Duma officials, liberals, bankers, and industrialists.

In return, the empire's inhabitants received "freedom." People felt free from all taxes, duties, and laws. The Provisional Government, whose policies were determined by liberal and left-wing figures, was unable to establish effective order; indeed, its actions deepened the chaos.

It turned out that Western-oriented figures (mostly Freemasons, subordinate to their "big brothers" in the West) continued to destroy Russia. In words, everything was beautiful and smooth, but in reality, they were destroyers or "impotents," capable only of beautiful words. It's enough to recall the "democratization" of the army during the war (Order No. 1).

Liberal democratic Petrograd de facto lost control of the country. The continued rule of the liberals led to the disintegration of Russia into appanage principalities, each with its own host of "independent" presidents, hetmans, atamans, khans, and princelings, each with their own parliament-talking-shops, micro-armies, and administrative apparatuses. All these "states" inevitably fell under the control of external powers—England, France, the USA, Japan, Turkey, and so on.

At the same time, many neighbors coveted Russian lands. Finnish radicals, in particular, dreamed of a "Greater Finland" that would include Russian Karelia, the Kola Peninsula, and, if successful, lands as far as the Northern Urals.

The Russian civilization and people were threatened with complete destruction and disappearance from the stories.


Revolutionary sailors of the battleship Petropavlovsk (Baltic Fleet) in Helsinki (now Helsinki) around a red banner with the inscription "Death to the bourgeoisie!"

"There is such a party!"


However, a force emerged that was able to seize power and offer the people a viable plan. This was the Bolsheviks. Until the summer of 1917, they weren't considered a serious political force, inferior in popularity and numbers to virtually all other parties, especially the Cadets and Socialist Revolutionaries. But by the fall of 1917, their popularity had grown. Their program was clear and understandable to the masses. During this period, virtually any force that demonstrated political will and common sense could have seized power. The Bolsheviks became that force.

"There is such a party!" is the famous phrase uttered by Vladimir Lenin at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets on June 4 (17), 1917. It was a response to the statement of the Menshevik Irakli Tsereteli, who claimed that there was no party in Russia ready to assume power. The phrase became a symbol of the Bolsheviks' determination and readiness to seize power.

In August 1917, the Bolsheviks set their sights on armed uprising and socialist revolution. This occurred at the Sixth Congress of the RSDLP(b). At that time, the Bolshevik Party was effectively underground. The most revolutionary regiments of the Petrograd garrison were disbanded, and workers sympathetic to the Bolsheviks were disarmed. The opportunity to recreate armed structures only arose during the Kornilov rebellion. The plan for an uprising in the capital had to be postponed.

Only on October 10 (23), 1917, did the Central Committee adopt a resolution on preparing for an uprising. On October 16 (29), an expanded meeting of the Central Committee, attended by representatives from the districts, confirmed the previously adopted decision.

The Bolsheviks seized power


12 (25) in October 1917 of the year, the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee was established to defend the revolution from the “openly preparing attack of the military and civilian Kornilov” on the initiative of Petrograd Chairman of the Council of the Soviet Union Lev Trotsky. Not only the Bolsheviks, but also some left-wing Social Revolutionaries and anarchists entered the WRC. In fact, this body and coordinated the preparation of an armed uprising. He was formally headed by Pavel Lazimir, a left SR, but almost all decisions were made by the Bolsheviks Leo Trotsky, Nikolai Podvoisky and Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko.

With the help of the Military Revolutionary Committee, the Bolsheviks established close ties with the soldiers' committees of the Petrograd garrison units. In effect, leftist forces restored dual power in the city and began to establish their control over the military. When the Provisional Government decided to send revolutionary regiments to the front, the Petrograd Soviet ordered a review of the order and determined that it was dictated by political, not strategic, motives. The regiments were ordered to remain in Petrograd.

The commander of the military district prohibited the distribution of weapons from city and suburban arsenals to workers, but the Soviet issued warrants, and the weapons were issued. The Petrograd Soviet also thwarted the Provisional Government's attempt to arm its supporters using the arsenal of the Peter and Paul Fortress. Units of the Petrograd garrison declared their insubordination to the Provisional Government. On October 21, a meeting of representatives of the garrison regiments was held, recognizing the Petrograd Soviet as the sole legitimate authority in the city. From that moment on, the Military Revolutionary Committee began appointing its own commissars to military units, replacing those of the Provisional Government.

On the night of October 22, the Military Revolutionary Committee demanded that the headquarters of the Petrograd Military District recognize the authority of its commissars, and on the 22nd, it declared the garrison subordinate to it. On October 23, the Military Revolutionary Committee secured the right to create an advisory body at the headquarters of the Petrograd District. That same day, Trotsky personally conducted agitation in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where people were still unsure which side to take.

By October 24, the Military Revolutionary Committee had appointed its commissars to the troops, as well as to arsenals, weapons depots, railway stations, and factories. By the time the uprising began, leftist forces had effectively established military control over the capital. The Provisional Government was ineffective and unable to respond decisively.

Therefore, there were no serious clashes or significant bloodshed; the Bolsheviks simply seized power. The Provisional Government's guards and loyal units surrendered almost everywhere and went home. No one wanted to shed their blood for the "provisionalists."

From October 24, detachments of the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee occupied all key points in the city. Armed men simply occupied the capital's key sites, and all this was accomplished without a single shot being fired, calmly and methodically.

When Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government, ordered the arrest of members of the Military Revolutionary Committee, there was no one to carry out the arrest. The Provisional Government surrendered the country virtually without a fight, even though it had every opportunity to deal with active members of the Bolshevik Party even before the revolution. The utter incompetence and ineffectiveness of the Provisional Government is demonstrated by the fact that they did nothing to defend their last stronghold—the Winter Palace: there were no combat-ready units there, and neither ammunition nor provisions were prepared.

By the morning of October 25 (November 7), the Provisional Government had only the Winter Palace left in Petrograd. By the end of the day, it was “defended” by about 200 women from the Women’s Shock Battalion, 2-3 companies of beardless cadets, and several dozen disabled holders of the St. George Cross. The guards began to disperse even before the assault. The Cossacks were the first to leave, then they left on the orders of their superior, cadet Mikhailovsky. artillery School. Thus, the defense of the Winter Palace lost its artillery. Some of the cadets from the Oranienbaum school also left.

Therefore, the footage of the famous storming of the Winter Palace is a beautiful myth, a mere image. Most of the palace guards had gone home. The entire assault consisted of a sluggish firefight. Its scale can be gauged by the casualties: six soldiers and one female shock worker were killed. At 2:00 a.m. on October 26 (November 8), the members of the Provisional Government were arrested.

Kerensky himself escaped early, riding away in the American ambassador's car, flying an American flag (he was rescued by his overseas protectors). He went to Gatchina, where he disguised himself as a sailor to continue his escape. This gave rise to the legend that Kerensky escaped in women's clothing.

It must be said that the Bolsheviks practically defeated a "shadow." Later, a myth was created about a brilliant operation and a "heroic struggle" against the bourgeoisie. The main reason for the victory was the utter incompetence and passivity of the Provisional Government. Almost all liberal figures could only talk. The resolute Kornilov, who tried to establish at least some order, had already been eliminated. If Kerensky had been replaced by a decisive dictator of the Suvorov or Napoleonic type, with a few shock troops from the front, he would have easily dispersed the disorganized units of the Petrograd garrison and the Red partisan formations.

In the evening of October 25, the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in Smolny, which proclaimed the transfer of all power to the Soviets. October 26 The Council adopted a Decree on Peace. All belligerent countries were asked to begin negotiations on the conclusion of a universal democratic peace. The decree on the land passed landowner land to the peasants. All bowels, forests and waters nationalized. At the same time, a government was formed - the Council of People's Commissars headed by Vladimir Lenin.

Simultaneously with the uprising in Petrograd, the Moscow Council Revolutionary Committee took key points of the city under its control. It didn't go so smoothly here. The Public Security Committee under the chairman of the city duma Vadim Rudnev, with the support of the junkers and Cossacks, began military actions against the Council. The fighting continued until November 3, when the Public Security Committee capitulated.

Overall, Soviet power was established in the country easily and without much bloodshed. The revolution was immediately supported in the Central Industrial Region, where local Soviets of Workers' Deputies already effectively controlled the situation. In the Baltics and Belarus, Soviet power was established in October–November 1917, and in the Central Black Earth Region, the Volga Region, and Siberia, by the end of January 1918.

These events are called "the triumphal march of the Soviet government." The process of the predominantly peaceful establishment of Soviet power throughout Russia was yet another proof of the complete degradation of the Provisional Government and the need to rescue the country with active and program-like force.


E. A. Kibrik. "There is such a party!", 1947.

The Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization.


Subsequent events confirmed the Bolsheviks' correctness. Russia was on the brink of collapse. The old project had been destroyed, and only a new project could save Russia. This is what the Bolsheviks created. They did not destroy "old Russia." The Russian Empire was destroyed by the "Februaryists," the country's degenerate elite. The Westernizers and Eurocentrists wanted to make Russia part of "enlightened, civilized Europe," with its own order. They turned out to be chatterboxes, imitators, and provocateurs who "dumped" the country, leading it to utter disaster.

The Bolsheviks did not save the "old Russia", it was doomed and fought in agony. They suggested that the people create a new reality, a civilization - a Soviet, more equitable one, where there will be no classes parasitizing the people. The Bolsheviks had all three necessary elements for the formation of a new reality, a project: an image of the future, a bright world; political will and energy, faith in one's victory (overpassionality); and organization.

The image of the future appealed to the majority of ordinary people, as communism was inherent to Russian civilization and the people from the very beginning. It's no coincidence that long before the revolution, many Christian-minded Russian thinkers were also supporters of socialism. Only socialism could offer an alternative to parasitic capitalism (and, in our time, to the neo-slave, neo-feudal system).

Communism prioritized creation and labor and was opposed to the exploitation of the people and parasitism. All of this corresponded to the Russian "matrix code." The Bolsheviks had political will, energy, and faith. They had organization.

Modern liberals try to convince the public that October was "Russia's curse." They claim Russia once again drifted away from Europe, and the history of the USSR was a continuous catastrophe. In reality, the Bolsheviks were the only force that, after the collapse of "Old Russia"—the Romanov project—attempted to save the state and the people and create a new reality.

A project that will preserve the best of the past (Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Suvorov, Nakhimov, Kutuzov) and simultaneously be a breakthrough into the future, into a different, just, and sunny civilization, free from slavery and oppression, parasitism and obscurantism. If not for the Bolsheviks, Russian civilization would likely have simply perished.

It's clear that not everything went smoothly with the Bolsheviks. They had to act harshly, even cruelly. A significant portion of the revolutionaries were internationalists (supporters of Trotsky and Sverdlov). Many of them were agents of Western influence. They were supposed to launch a "second wave" to destroy the Russian super-ethnos (Russian civilization). The "first wave" were the "Februaryist Masons."

They viewed Russia as a victim, a feeding trough, a base for a world revolution that would lead to the establishment of a New World Order, whose masters would be the "world behind the scenes" ("world international"). The "world behind the scenes" unleashed the world war and organized the revolution in Russia. The masters of the United States and England planned to establish a global world order based on Marxism—a kind of global totalitarian concentration camp. Their instruments were internationalist revolutionaries, the Trotskyists.

First, they "cleared the field" by destroying the old monarchical empires. The Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires fell as planned. Then they planned a series of "socialist" revolutions. They planned to make Russia the base for a world revolution, harness all its resources, the energy of its people, and sacrifice it. The goal: a New World Order based on false communism (Marxism).

Therefore, part of the Bolshevik Party acted as an enemy of the Russian people. However, in Russia, the deeply popular, Russian component—the Bolshevik-Stalinists—won the upper hand. It was they who demonstrated such fundamental values ​​of the Russian "matrix" as justice, the primacy of truth over law, the spiritual over the material, the universal over the particular.

Their victory led to the construction of a separate “Russian socialism,” the physical liquidation of most of the “fifth column” (Trotskyist internationalists), and the unprecedented success of Soviet civilization, which withstood the blow of World War II and entered space.


Decree on Land. Art. V. A. Serov
318 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -31
    28 October 2025 03: 43
    I have a rhetorical question for the author: Do you yourself believe in the slogans you wrote in the article?
    Or did they "create" the article in the hopes of generating hype?
    1. -36
      28 October 2025 03: 53
      My grandmother asked me why her family had land before the revolution, but then it was taken away. And they didn't give us passports until 1974. If we wanted to go to town to sell geese, we had to ask for a permit from the village council.
      1. +14
        28 October 2025 04: 45
        Well, actually, passports were a bit of a problem in the countryside even before the revolution. bully
        1. -21
          28 October 2025 04: 45
          Were you punished for going into town?
          1. +10
            28 October 2025 04: 56
            What I don't know, I don't know,
            Why did her family have land before the revolution?
            - Speaking of land, most of the land was communal until Stolypin had time to complete his reforms...
            1. -12
              28 October 2025 08: 58
              In fact, the Bolsheviks stole land reform from the Socialist Revolutionaries! And the Land Law was too late. By this time, the peasants had already taken the landlords' lands. Furthermore, a peasant could take more land than he could cultivate, leading to land speculation and other negative consequences.
              1. +5
                28 October 2025 09: 27
                Quote from Songwolf
                In fact, the land reform was stolen from the Socialist Revolutionaries by the Bolsheviks!

                Land reform was a must for any party seeking support. The Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) didn't have a monopoly on this idea. Moreover, they relied more on terror than on any reforms. Let me remind you that the "Red Terror" was launched precisely when the SRs had a majority in the workers' council; this wasn't Bolshevik policy. But the terror is attributed to the Bolsheviks, who ended it just then.
                1. -8
                  28 October 2025 09: 29
                  Are you sure you know the Socialist Revolutionary Party's policies well?
                  1. +6
                    28 October 2025 09: 34
                    Yes, are you sure? And let's be clear right away that slogans don't equal real policy.
                    1. -3
                      28 October 2025 09: 51
                      I definitely agree that slogans aren't real policy! But to understand that, we need to remove most of the commenters from here...😉
                      But seriously, the Socialist Revolutionary Party was numerous and had several branches, often at odds with one another. There was the Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom) party, which focused on the peasant question, and then there was the terrorist party led by Gershuni and Savinkov. Spiridonova's party even broke away and joined the Bolsheviks. Therefore, I believe labeling all Socialist Revolutionaries as terrorists is historically inaccurate.
                      1. +4
                        28 October 2025 09: 53
                        The Socialist Revolutionaries gained support because they wanted the same thing as the village community—to end the treatment of land as a commodity. But that was a lousy economic strategy at the time. And when the radical wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries began to determine policy, everything went completely wrong.
                      2. +3
                        28 October 2025 12: 13
                        The Socialist Revolutionaries were in favor of land nationalization, while the peasants, not waiting for any decrees, resorted to land grabbing. After all, the kulak didn't originate from the strong landowners the Bolsheviks had envisioned, but from usury, the purchase of land.
                      3. +2
                        28 October 2025 12: 22
                        Quote from Songwolf
                        while the peasants did not wait for any decrees

                        Several processes were going on in parallel in the village.
                        1. Social stratification of communities after Stolypin's reforms and "emancipation." A mass of impoverished and landless people appeared.
                        2. The kulak takeover of the community and the kulaks were much more brutal than the former landowners.
                        3. The illegal redistribution of land, primarily associated with various types of commercial relations, crime, and discrimination against certain social strata, especially war recruits. Let me remind you that military mobilization took approximately 18 million peasants from villages to become soldiers and several million more simply as home front workers, and all of them believed their land was being stolen while they were at the front.
                      4. Fat
                        +1
                        28 October 2025 13: 18
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Let me remind you that military mobilization took about 18 million peasants from the villages to become soldiers and several million more simply as home front workers.

                        The figures vary widely. In total, during the First World War (up to the autumn of 1917), the Russian Empire mobilized 15,798,000 enlisted men and officers, 12,8 million of whom were villagers. According to the following data: Mobilization of the Russian Army and its Replenishment with Manpower during the First World War (1914-1918).
                        Shein I.A. (Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation) article in journal No. 3 (11) Year: 2016 Pages: 72-76
                        MILITARY ACADEMIC JOURNAL
                        Founders: Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ISSN: 2311-6668
                        request
                      5. +3
                        28 October 2025 10: 30
                        But to understand this, you need to remove most of the commenters from here...😉
                        - laughingYes, sir, you are a radical. bully
                      6. 0
                        28 October 2025 21: 23
                        People's Will and Black Repartition emerged from Land and Freedom; both parties existed long before the Socialist Revolutionary Party was founded and were no longer in existence by the time of the latter's creation. It would be more accurate to say that there were Left and Right Socialist Revolutionaries. And there was also the Popular Socialist Party.
          2. +12
            28 October 2025 09: 25
            Quote: ASSAD1
            Were you punished for going into town?

            Actually, they could have refused entry, they could have driven them out of the city, and the Cossacks could have flogged them to death for being in the wrong place or fined them so heavily that they would have threatened starvation. That's what the Russian Empire is like.
            1. -23
              28 October 2025 11: 46
              Quote: multicaat
              This is what the RI bakery is like.

              Yes, it's a pipe dream for the owl-people on the Bolshevik The Cannibal Islands of Nazino, eaten and frozen alive.

              This is not Russia, where fewer people were executed in the 19th century than in a single day in 1937.
              1. +11
                28 October 2025 11: 52
                Quote: Olgovich
                This is not Russia, where fewer people were executed in the 19th century than in a single day in 1937.

                Yes??? And how many were executed per day in 1937?
                Please share the information, but please don't quote Solzhenitsyn - his writings have killed off the entire population of our country for 500 years to come.
                1. -13
                  28 October 2025 13: 35
                  Quote: multicaat
                  Yes??? And how many were executed per day in 1937?

                  Is this really a crash course? Learn Pavlov's references and so on.

                  And remember these workers and peasants who ended up on the streets and trains among the cannibals of the Soviet islands of Nazino:

                  1. Novozhilov Vl.** (** The document does not contain full names.) from Moscow. Compressor Plant. Driver, awarded three times. Wife and child in Moscow. Finished work, got ready to go to the cinema with his wife, while she was getting dressed, went out for cigarettes and was taken.

                  2. Guseva, an elderly woman. Lives in Murom, her husband is an old communist, chief conductor at Murom station, 23 years of production experience, her son is an assistant driver there. Guseva came to Moscow to buy her husband a suit and some white bread. No documents helped.

                  3. Zelenin Grig. He worked as a mechanic's apprentice at the Borovsk weaving factory "Red October", and went to Moscow with a voucher for treatment. The voucher did not help - he was taken.

                  4. Gornshtein Gr. - member of the YSM since 1925. Father was a member of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) since 1920, a worker at a gas plant in Moscow. Gornshtein himself was a tractor driver at the Panyashkovo state farm in Verkh-Nyachinsk. He was traveling to see his father. He was taken at the station, he had just gotten off the train. He had his documents in hand.

                  5. Frolov Arsenty - member of the YSM since 1925. His father is a member of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), an underground worker, works as a doctor at the Suzemka station, Western Region. Frolov himself was taken to Sochi for the construction of the resort "Svetlana" (he worked as a carpenter). He was walking from work (his brother is an OGPU worker in Vyazma).

                  6. Karpushin, M.L., a student at Factory School No. 6 on Sennaya Street in Moscow. His father was a Muscovite, and Karpushin himself was born in Moscow. He was walking home from the factory school after work and was snatched from the street.

                  7. Golenko Nikifor Pavel, an old man. From the Khopersky district. He was traveling via Moscow to see his son at the Bagashevo station of the Kursk railway. The Ostry state farm. He was arrested at the station.

                  8. Shishkov was a worker at the Red October factory in Moscow, where he worked continuously for three years. He was captured on the street while returning from work.

                  9. Vinogradova - a collective farmer from the Central Black Earth Region. She was traveling to her brother in Moscow. Her brother was the chief of police of the 8th department. She was taken as she was getting off the train in Moscow.
                  and so on.
                  1. +14
                    28 October 2025 14: 11
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    Is this really a crash course? Learn Pavlov's references and so on.

                    Actually, I know all the documents and they don't contain anything close to the scare mongering you're actively hinting at but can't quite articulate.
                    Besides, I'm fed up with how you hysterics constantly replace arrested with convicted, convicted with executed, executed with eaten, and add a couple of zeros on the right for persuasiveness.
                    Well, damn, it's not 1993 anymore, Novodvorskaya-style rhetoric doesn't cut it.
                    According to the same note from Pavlov, to which you had the audacity to refer,
                    I emphasize ARRESTED, not eaten and not convicted 936750 people.
                    The same note contains the wild number VMN - the highest measure of punishment - 353074
                    But here's the problem: this note is a Khrushchev-era forgery. This has already been officially proven and is known. No one named Pavlov, head of the 1st Special Department of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, ever worked there. You can check. Pletnev was working there at the time. Furthermore, the figures in this "document" are three times higher than the official figures of Yakovlev's Commission on Repressions.
                    Furthermore, the period of great repressions is not years, it is 433 days
                    Yezhov's order was signed on July 30, 1937, stating that the operation to "repress anti-Soviet elements" should begin on August 5, i.e., six days after the signing. Based on this, the beginning of the "Great Terror" can be considered August 5, 1937. And the "terror" ended—also according to the official version—with the order of the NKVD of the USSR No. 00762 "On the procedure for implementing the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of November 17, 1938" [2], i.e., November 17, 1938.
                    Finally, you should check how many capital punishment sentences were actually handed down, how many were executed, and how many were rehabilitated by Beria's commission six months after the Terror was abolished. As a reminder, this is according to official data. In 1938, 837 thousand sentences were overturned.
                    I think that closes your outrageous insinuations forever.
                    And about educational programs. Check out modern analyses of the repressions, as well as source analysis, for example, by Pyotr Balayev.
                    Based on modern estimates, which note that the NKVD's organizational structure was in no way adapted to the enormous number of alleged executions, as well as another note – this one from Yezhov himself – the number of people executed under the repressive mechanism in 37 in no way exceeded 75, and even this number is significantly adjusted by the fact that a significant portion of the sentences were overturned under Beria.
                    These are also large numbers, but they're not the slaughterhouse of Pavlov's memoirs, where a thousand were shot every day. The exact number of those actually executed in 37 remains unknown. But scholars have determined a range—it's definitely more than 3 and definitely less than 75.
                    As an example of the falsity of references to "Pavlov's note," I'll cite the fate of Marshal Rokossovsky. He was arrested, tortured, sentenced, but acquitted under Beria. He wasn't shot or sent to a camp.
                    1. -3
                      28 October 2025 16: 43
                      Let me remind you that the 1st category is execution by firing squad.
                      1. +5
                        28 October 2025 16: 47
                        The document states limits, not execution.
                      2. -4
                        28 October 2025 17: 03
                        Quote: multicaat
                        The document states limits, not execution.

                        And what about execution limits? Are limits usually set to prevent someone from getting carried away?
                      3. +1
                        29 October 2025 09: 31
                        When you get a credit card with a limit, does that mean you'll be broke the bank that same day?
                        In my opinion, a limit is not such an obligation.
                      4. 0
                        29 October 2025 09: 35
                        Quote: multicaat
                        When you get a credit card with a limit, does that mean you'll be broke the bank that same day?
                        In my opinion, a limit is not such an obligation.

                        There's a limit on your card because the bank doesn't trust you with an unlimited card, knowing that without it, many people will go into the red. So why do properly functioning agencies set limits? Is there no trust? And why is there no trust? Probably because of some facts, and not just "just in case"? It sounds kind of crazy—a limit on executions, just in case—don't you think? They don't do things like that without a reason.
                      5. +2
                        29 October 2025 09: 44
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        Why set limits? There is no trust?

                        in any state or complex organizational structure there must be order
                        Limits are part of management. All processes must be managed.
                        Where did the limits come from in Ukraine, and for example in Krasnoyarsk Krai, but not in Tambov? Maybe because certain individuals distinguished themselves there? The bloody Hungarian Bela Kun with Zemlyachka, the bloody Nikita (remember Stalin's famous telegram "calm down!"?). I can't even remember the name of a former radical Socialist Revolutionary who distinguished himself in Krasnoyarsk Krai. That's where the limits came from, when lawlessness needed to be curbed somehow. The correspondence with Beria, when he was in Georgia under the death penalty limit, is very interesting. Suddenly, the Moscow City Court halved his initial requests, and most of the candidates clearly had good reason to do so.
                        Don't interpret every word in the most bleak and one-sided manner. It's easy to go crazy like Novodvorskaya.
                      6. +1
                        29 October 2025 09: 46
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Where did the restrictions come from in Ukraine, and in Krasnoyarsk Krai, for example, but not in Tambov? Maybe because certain individuals distinguished themselves there? The bloody Hungarian Bela Kun with Zemlyachka, the bloody Nikita (remember Stalin's famous telegram "calm down!"?). In Krasnoyarsk Krai, I can't even remember the name, but a former radical Socialist Revolutionary distinguished himself. That's where the restrictions came from, when lawlessness needed to be curbed somehow.

                        That's how they told you about it... It's good that you understood what it was about... Namely, that they were introduced against inadequate performers... Otherwise, you started - just in case, it doesn't mean anything yet... laughing
                      7. +2
                        29 October 2025 09: 51
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        that they were introduced against inadequate performers.

                        This is your invention, not the perpetrators'. One of the liberals' favorite manipulations is the notion that the Soviet government had perfect control over everything. This is not true. Yezhov's repressions, for example, were monitored with a lag of almost a year, which is precisely why they dragged on for over a year. The famine in Ukraine—Moscow didn't immediately learn the real state of affairs. And if we avoid speculation and deception, and instead trace the cause-and-effect relationship between incoming reports and actions, it's clear that many of the accusations against the Soviet republic's authorities are far-fetched. Incidentally, I haven't forgotten how you twisted my words to distort the meaning of what I said.
                      8. +1
                        29 October 2025 11: 28
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Where did the limits come from in Ukraine, and in Krasnoyarsk Krai, for example, but not in Tambov? Maybe because certain individuals distinguished themselves there? The bloody Hungarian Bela Kun with Zemlyachka, the bloody Nikita (remember Stalin's famous "calm down" telegram?).

                        Is this my imagination or your words?
                      9. 0
                        30 October 2025 15: 22
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        and then you started - just in case, it doesn’t mean anything yet..

                        I do not deny the shootings, I deny that there were an inappropriately large number of them.
                        According to my personal estimates, the actual number of executions during the 30s repressions was somewhere around 55-60. This is my personal estimate, which is limited by a number of conditions that you ignore, basing your analysis on a single note signed by a non-existent person. If there are a lot of zeros, what difference does it make who signed it? Is that what you think? The numbers are convenient; we can forget about formalities.
                      10. +1
                        30 October 2025 15: 18
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        So why set limits on normally functioning agencies? Is there no trust?

                        Just 12 years ago, at the end of the civil war, executions without trial or investigation were considered normal; in '24, they were officially banned. Some perpetrators could easily have fallen into this trap. Therefore, quotas have been common practice since the civil war. This isn't a plan for how many people should be executed; it's a threshold beyond which legal action will be taken against those who orchestrated the sentences and executions. Incidentally, most of the investigators who churn out sentences by the thousands under Yezhov were themselves convicted or even executed.
                    2. -3
                      29 October 2025 13: 42
                      Quote: multicaat
                      besides me gotHow are you, hysterics?

                      drink some bromine:
                      Quote: multicaat
                      But here's the problem: this note is a forgery from the Khrushchev era. This has already been officially proven and is known.

                      what a dishonest non-hysterical person lol , on: GA RF. F. 9401. Op. 1. D. 4157. L. 201-205. Original. Manuscript.

                      The same order of numbers for Rudenko, Zemskov, etc. Stalin was bashfully silent about the number of people he destroyed
                      Quote: multicaat
                      Start from August 5, i.e. 6 days after signing. Based on this, the beginning of the "Great Terror" can be considered August 5, 1937. And the "terror" ended - also according to the official version - with the order of the NKVD of the USSR No. 00762 "On the procedure for implementing the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of November 17, 1938" [2], i.e., November 17, 1938.

                      madladets, it has been realized that 682 thousand soglashnir were destroyed in a YEAR, 1500 people a day!
                      Quote: multicaat
                      , you should check out how many VMN sentences were actually handed down, how many were executed,

                      non-Russian, or what?rendered :682 thousand VMN sentences, , according to the decree of 1934, death sentences are given, as a rule, in execution immediately
                      Quote: multicaat
                      was cancelled

                      did they revive the executed? fool
                      Quote: multicaat
                      as well as analysis of sources, for example, by Petr Balaev

                      lol Balaev: I am not a professional historian.
                      Balaev's argument: no body, no case fool
                      Quote: multicaat
                      But scientists have determined the range—it's definitely more than 3 and definitely less than 75.

                      bullshit.
                      Go to Stalin - why was he embarrassed to tell the truth?
                      Quote: multicaat
                      "I'll cite the fate of Marshal Rokossovsky. He was arrested, tortured, sentenced, but acquitted under Beria.

                      what a lying, non-hysterical person even in small things: there was no sentence, March 22 1940 Rokossovsky was released in connection with the termination of the case. at the request of S.K. Timoshenko, S.M. Budyonny and G.K. Zhukov to I.V. Stalin, Beria with 1938 in the NKVD

                      but Tukhachevsky and hundreds of thousands of others were shot immediately after the verdict
                      1. +1
                        30 October 2025 14: 41
                        But comrade Tukhachevsky M.N. was rightly shot for his sabotage in artillery, especially in small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery...
                      2. -1
                        31 October 2025 08: 41
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        But comrade Tukhachevsky M.N. was rightly shot for his sabotage in artillery, especially in small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery...

                        Read the verdict - he's a spy
                      3. +1
                        31 October 2025 09: 26
                        A spy can't also be a saboteur? In the position he held since 1931.
                      4. -3
                        31 October 2025 09: 44
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        A spy can't also be a saboteur? In the position he held since 1931.

                        Read the verdict, speculation is uninteresting
                      5. +2
                        31 October 2025 11: 29
                        But your speculations, Mr. Olgovich, are very interesting. In terms of jokes about "kind" White Guards.
                      6. +2
                        30 October 2025 15: 08
                        According to the decree of 1934, death sentences are generally carried out immediately

                        Firstly, you've confused the monarchy with the USSR; there were no decrees there, and you're writing with mistakes.
                        and secondly, there were two mandatory rules for the execution teams
                        1. petition for clemency - not executed until a response from the court comes
                        that is, definitely not immediately after the verdict, you lied.
                        2. Mandatory time off after the execution of the sentence for the entire team of executioners.
                        And this point is important: the statistics on time off among NKVD personnel. It hasn't changed at all compared to other years, when, judging by your data, executions were hundreds of times fewer. The personnel itself hasn't increased, and the average annual ammunition consumption hasn't changed. Apart from these "notes" with all the actual archival details that appeared in the archives during Khrushchev's time, there are no economic signs whatsoever of a sharp increase in the number of executions.
                        Facts, not notes, but physical evidence, in no way support the existence of a large-scale trial, roughly equivalent to the execution of half the population of Latvia. Besides the notes, there should have been enormous graves the size of several football fields, piles of artifacts like those in German concentration camps, mountains of spent cartridges, and piles of unusable weapons. But none of this exists. Apparently, they shot with blasters, and the people burned with all traces of their existence. And the blasters were loaded with hatred.
                        And also during the civil war and up until '24, there was the institution of lynching, when they actually shot people on the spot, which was legally prohibited since '24, but you, with the force of your insanity, stretched it out all the way to '38.
                      7. -2
                        31 October 2025 09: 02
                        Quote: multicaat
                        First of all, you've confused the monarchy and the USSR; there were no decrees there.

                        to school for the illiterate:
                        Decrees of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were official acts issued between sessions
                        The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (which performed the functions of the collective head of state) and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR itself
                        Quote: multicaat
                        1. petition for clemency - not executed until a response from the court comes

                        what kind of court is there in extra-judicial troikas, dvoikas and OSO?

                        On August 8, 1937, Yezhov's deputy, Frinovsky, sent a telegram: "To all heads of the NKVD. In addition to operational order No. 00447. The sentences of the troikas are to be announced only to convicts of the second category. Category 1 – do not announce. I repeat – do not announce. Frinovsky, the death row inmate learned of his death at the... firing squad
                        At 23:35 p.m. the verdict was announced - all eight were sentenced to death. Immediately after this, Tukhachevsky and the other defendants were shot in the basement of the building of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR

                        The former head of the Kuibyshev operational sector of the NKVD Directorate for the Novosibirsk region, L. I. Likhachevsky, testified that about 2 thousand people were liquidated in the Kuibyshev operational sector during the period 1937-1938, of which about 600 were eliminated by strangulationme, and it took an average of one minute per person[65].

                        On ISTMAT:
                        о
                        Assistant Neiman specifically went around the rooms of the cadet investigators and taught them how to interrogate, showing us new forms of beating he had invented, as a result of which several people died in the prison hospital. By order of Tomin, 87 people were placed in a single cell in the turpod under the department building, where 30 people could barely fit, and water was forbidden. A couple of hours later, 8 people suffocated to death, and the ninth teacher went berserk—he lost his mind, so Tomin, Petrov, and Neiman with a cadet (the physical education teacher—the strongest one in our school [of cadets], I forgot his last name) took him to the cellar and shot him without trial, and the prison doctor was forced to draw up a false report that the teacher also suffocated, with the help of the prison warden, Abramov. Among those who suffocated was a Komsomol secretary, 18-19 years old, from the Monastyrsky district, and all of them died two days after they were arrested.

                        For this incident, thoroughly interrogate the prison doctor and the young nurse who was pregnant at the time, and the physical education cadet and the police officers on duty at the prison guard station, and you will find out that the teacher was mad, not dead, and was taken from his cell alive to be killed, and Borisov and Tomin argued not to do this, but he did not listen and shot them.

                        When Tomin checked the interrogation protocols we had recorded, he returned the recruited persons for revision, pointing out to us that the recruitment should be recorded according to the bigwigs (engineers, doctors, teachers, district workers, even regional ones), as long as the arrested person named their last names, and we, the cadets, according to his standard, recorded them ourselves and assigned them to the counter-revolutionary organization to which Tomin could assign them.

                        PETROV, NE[Y]MAN, ABRAMOVICH, and TOMIN stoned an arrested NKVD officer in a cellar, forced him to sign a confession, and then killed him. They took the dead man's overcoat for themselves, and ABRAMOV[ICH] wore it. Petrov, the commandant, himself told this story, and the coat can be found on him. They also used young and beautiful women, one 17-year-old girl, the daughter of a planner or laboratory assistant at the Monastyrsky District sugar factory, and another, the wife of the division's political department chief, and then they were shot, and Petrov inserted a wooden pin into the genitals of the dead woman.

                        Beasts

                        On yet-
                        In 1937-1938, up to 1200-1300 people per day throughout the countrye. In the city of Minusinsk alone, 310 people were shot in August 1938, and a kind of “record” was set on the night of December 8, 1937 – 222 shootings[33].

                        In Slavgorod, the "record" was set on January 22, 1938 (298 executions), and in Tobolsk, on October 14, 1937 (217 executions). Since the NKVD operational sections in small provincial towns were few in number, and they couldn't cope with such a volume of executions, then the police and couriers were involved in the execution of sentences.
                        Animals
                      8. +1
                        31 October 2025 09: 20
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        trial in extra-judicial troikas, dvoikas, and special panels

                        there were no extra-judicial bodies after 24 years
                        The work of the troikas was regulated by law.
                      9. -2
                        31 October 2025 09: 42
                        Quote: multicaat
                        there were no extra-judicial bodies after 24 years
                        the work of the troikas was regulated by law

                        Read the USSR Constitution—it doesn't stink of troikas, OSOs, etc., or extrajudicial decisions.
                        .
                        PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE USSR
                        DECREE
                        dated January 16, 1989 No. 10036-XI
                        On additional measures to restore justice for victims of repression that took place in the 30s, 40s and early 50s


                        In order to restore social justice and eliminate the consequences of the lawlessness that occurred during the 30s, 40s and early 50s, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decrees:

                        1. To cancel the extrajudicial decisions made during the 30s, 40s and early 50s by the NKVD-UNKVD "troikas" operating at that time, the OSHU boards and the "special meetings" of the NKVD-MGB-MVD of the USSR
                        Quote: multicaat
                        the work of the troikas was regulated by law

                        finish school
                      10. +2
                        31 October 2025 10: 19
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        finish school

                        Finish your own education. Don't try to pass off the Yakovlev Commission's 89 decisions as proof of the legality of the courts in the 30s.
                      11. -2
                        31 October 2025 10: 46
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Finish your studies yourself.

                        You'll poke your wife if she gives it to you, young man.

                        This is a DECREE of the highest authority of the USSR, which cancelled illegal decisions.

                        ONCE AGAIN - there is no law regarding troikas.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        About Minusinsk

                        for more:
                        Several quotes from declassified documents (available to the editors): "Witness Nikitin testified that the process of executing execution orders was agonizing, as many of the repressed remained wounded during the executions and, on Alekseyev's orders, were finished off with crowbars. Witness Samoilov testified that during the execution of the repressed in October 1937, he was an eyewitness and personally reported to Alekseyev about instances of abuse and an attempt by Korolev (Alekseyev's subordinate – A.T.) to blow up one of the convicts with an electric detonator. Alekseyev stated that they had done worse, and the main thing was to shoot quickly and conserve ammunition."

                        The first execution of the new year, 1938, took place on January 2nd. Sixty-nine people were killed that night. Then, colleagues from Abakan arrived, and on the 5th and 6th, officers from the Khakassia NKVD executed 130 prisoners in Minusinsk Prison. In total, 781 people were liquidated in Minusinsk during the first quarter, and 593 in the second. The firing squad took a rest in July.

                        On August 5, 1938, 309 people were shot in one go.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        My question is - when will you start selecting normal independent sources?

                        You are given DIRECT testimony from animals:
                        They also used young and beautiful women, one 17-year-old girl, the daughter of a planner or laboratory assistant at the Monastyrsky District sugar factory, and another, the wife of the division's political department chief, and then they were shot, and Petrov inserted a wooden bowling pin into the genitals of the murdered women.

                        For more
                        Dmitry Tokarev, head of the NKVD for the Kalinin region: When everything was ready for the first execution, Blokhin came for him: "Well, let's go..." We went, and then I saw all this horror... Blokhin pulled on his special clothes: a brown leather cap, a long brown leather apron, brown leather gloves with gauntlets above the elbows. This made a huge impression on me—I saw an executioner!" On the very first night, the team led by Blokhin shot 343 people. In the following days, Blokhin ordered that parties of no more than 250 people be delivered to him for execution, and so on and so forth.
                      12. 0
                        31 October 2025 10: 48
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        You'll poke your wife if she gives it to you, young man.

                        You have lost all my respect with your inappropriate personal attacks.
                        so it's what it deserves.
                      13. -3
                        31 October 2025 10: 55
                        Quote: multicaat
                        You have lost all my respect with your inappropriate personal attacks.

                        Respect from you is insulting a priori.
                        There were no PS attacks.

                        Tired of ...
                      14. +2
                        31 October 2025 10: 58
                        the narrative is not considered a sufficiently reliable source
                        It needs to be supported by something else. I've provided examples of additional data, based on documents from the prosecutor's office. The definition of "animal" is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the analysis of what's happening.
                        Finally, stop ignoring the fact that these were local squabbles between locals, which were carried out in a brutal manner from all sides.
                        It was not an institute for noble maidens.
                        I don't know why I need to lay out all this; I don't deny the documented events. But spare people the emotional judgment, especially based on your misunderstanding of what happened then. You don't understand human relationships, their makeup, or the concept of "ordinariness" in those parts at that time. I lived nearby for 30 years and have a fair bit of background information. The civil war officially ended in 22, but in a number of places, and not just in the hinterlands, it continued until 41—only the war put an end to the squabbles. The quotes I've provided are about this war, which didn't begin in 37-38 but only intensified.
                        And it wasn't waged by the Soviet government against the population; it was waged by local groups among themselves, and the people on both sides were generally very similar. Only chance divided them: some considered themselves NKVD members, while others considered themselves kulaks or other such.
                      15. -1
                        31 October 2025 11: 07
                        Quote: multicaat
                        on your lack of understanding of what was happening then

                        brutality and lawlessness
                        Quote: multicaat
                        7-38 did not start, but only intensified.
                        And it was not the Soviet government that waged it against the population,

                        and the strongest resistance is before the day of the final victory of the system? fool
                        Quote: multicaat
                        They were very similar people. Only chance separated them: some considered themselves NKVD members, while others considered themselves kulaks.

                        Don't talk nonsense - the widespread torture and beatings are acknowledged by the Central Committee of the CPSU itself.
                      16. +1
                        31 October 2025 11: 10
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        brutality and lawlessness

                        Again empty words, demagoguery.
                        You're annoying, you even write reproaches for no apparent reason.
                        I myself wrote about torture, and you say that I do not admit it.
                        Please see a doctor, don't come to me.
                      17. +2
                        31 October 2025 10: 07
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        In the city of Minusinsk alone, 310 people were shot in August 1938, and a kind of “record” was set on the night of December 8, 1937 – 222 executions[33].

                        You could at least remove the brackets from the copy-paste so that it looks like your thoughts, but here it’s just a stupid copy-paste, without even thinking about it in your head.
                        Do you have no respect for your interlocutors at all?
                        About Minusinsk. It just so happens I have friends there. A lot of trashy legends have happened in that city, but no one there remembers or knows anything like this.
                        I assume your source is
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большой_террор
                        and the main source there is Conquist's book "The Great Terror",
                        written by curators from the same publishers as Suvorov (Rezun), etc.
                        and also, as if from a carbon copy, the article "terror machine" and so on
                        All these sources—there are about 40 of them, I looked through them all, and here's how strange it is: somehow they're all either English (they certainly know how they executed people in Siberia!), or from the anti-communist hysteria of 1993-1996, or from Khrushchev's speech. There are simply no others.
                        I have a question: when are you going to start finding decent, independent sources? Why do you only have people who benefit from lying?
                        Or did no one else write anything about the 30s?
                        but let's return to Minusinsk.
                        First, let me describe what kind of city it is. The population in 38 was 69.
                        Of these, at least 4 are disenfranchised. People deprived of their political rights, and certainly not "for nothing."
                        Next, the Minusinsk prosecutor's office issues a whole list of decrees from 29 to 31 years, which prescribe what punishment for what kind of sabotage
                        For example, theft of grain from mills was punishable by execution.
                        In 1930, there was a Black Partisan uprising—two detachments attacked settlements. They were scattered and 75 people were ultimately executed. I'll also add that numerous independent, often armed, gangs were active there, living in the taiga and, for example, panning for gold. And if they encountered someone in the taiga, they could kill anyone, for example, to steal matches, salt, or ammunition. Just so you understand what was going on there.
                        And here you claim that 310 people were shot in Minusinsk.
                        Every year, several dozen bandits and other criminals were executed there. But we're talking about '37.
                        There was a scene like this, I quote
                        Chief of the Minusinsk NKVD operations sector, Andrei Spiridonovich Alekseev, born in 1903, native of Krasnoyarsk, 2nd grade education, member of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) since 1924. In the organs of the OGPU, NKVD since 1921

                        What can you say about this very typical man? He's definitely not a committed communist, has no education, behaves like a bandit, and grew up right during the collapse of the Russian Empire and the civil war. A typical amoral opportunist. And then 1937 begins, and under his leadership, 2300 people are convicted, including about 1500 executed. Fifteen times more than the usual statistics. And all this is accompanied by robbery, looting, unbridled drunkenness, abuse, and torture.
                        After which, when the full details of his actions reached the center, he immediately found himself in the "Lubyanka prison"—at the end of 38.
                        The list of his charges runs to several pages, detailing episodes and charges. I'd like to point out that Kolchak and the Czechs in those parts acted exactly like this individual, who was then 17 or 18 years old.
                        The question is: can these events be blamed on the central government?
                        Incidentally, it wasn't the innocent sheep that were sentenced. The repression there began with the dissection of a large group of pests infecting grain. Let me remind you, the penalty for this was execution by firing squad.
                        The events did take place, but there's no state policy involved—purely local squabbles between people who hated each other. And the years 37-38 were marked by the widespread use of the NKVD to settle scores, often personal ones, rather than state policy.
                        As another example, I'll cite the fate of the chief engineer of the Kirov plant. More than 15 denunciations against him were filed by one subordinate. Why? Because after his arrest, he was appointed to that position. And then, much later, it was this same guy who wasted a huge amount of resources on the heavy tank program, which never came to fruition. As a reminder, Taubin was executed for this.
                      18. 0
                        6 November 2025 11: 57
                        Olgovich, you'd better look up Ogonyok, there will be more numbers there, somewhere between the mid-80s and early 90s.
                      19. 0
                        6 November 2025 12: 07
                        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                        Olgovich, you better pick up Ogonyok, there will be more numbers there

                        You are better documents read-see above
                      20. -1
                        6 November 2025 17: 01
                        Her documents, like Ogonyok's, would be more useful on toilet paper.
                      21. -1
                        7 November 2025 12: 43
                        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                        Her documents, like Ogonyok's, would be more useful on toilet paper.

                        Your "documents" are not even good enough for the toilet, there are no others - your leaders were afraid of their own atrocities and hid them.
                    3. +1
                      30 October 2025 14: 39
                      The head of the transport department, Olgovich, has only one powerful authority figure, a certain "Pavlov"... laughing
                  2. 0
                    3 November 2025 05: 44
                    This is a lie, a complete and utter nonsense. Why are you lying?
                    1. -1
                      3 November 2025 09: 02
                      Illiterate people go to school to study documents.
                      1. +1
                        3 November 2025 21: 35
                        Once again, why are you lying? Everyone here can see you're a liar, no one believes you. But you lie. Why?
          3. +7
            28 October 2025 12: 22
            Quote: ASSAD1
            Were you punished for going into town?

            And how were they punished?
            Quote: ASSAD1
            To go to the city to sell geese, you had to ask for a certificate from the village council.

            Proof that you raised them, and didn't steal them or buy them for resale.
            Quote: ASSAD1
            My grandmother asked me why her family had land before the revolution, but then it was taken away.

            Who was your grandmother before the revolution, that she had her own land?
            After the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, land was given to peasants, but not for free and not for personal use. The landowner remained the landowner, and the peasant was merely its user. To become the full owner of a plot, a peasant had to purchase it from the landowner. This was stipulated by the Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom of February 19, 1861, and the "Regulations on Peasants Emancipated from Serfdom." Some provisions of the reform:
            Landowners were obliged to provide peasants with a “homestead” (a plot adjacent to the house) and a field allotment for use.
            The lands of the field allotment were not provided to the peasants personally, but for collective use by rural communities, which could distribute them among peasant farms at their own discretion.
            Procedure
            The peasants were required to pay the landowner 20% of the value of the land granted to them, and the state paid the remaining 80% of the value for the peasants. However, the state did not do this for free; rather, the peasants were considered to have taken this money from the state as collateral, to be repaid within 49 years.
            Until the land was fully redeemed, peasants were considered "temporarily obligated"—they were required to perform a number of duties for the landowner, such as corvee and quitrent. By law, peasants remained temporarily obligated for nine years, after which they could relinquish their plot.
            So what kind of land did your grandmother own?
          4. +6
            28 October 2025 17: 03
            My grandfather moved to the city and got a job building a flax mill in Smolensk. He refused to join the collective farm. They threatened to tear his house down, so he gave up and left. And nothing happened to him for it. And the house went to his relatives.
          5. -1
            28 October 2025 19: 29
            I would have told you in Russian...don't bullshit. They didn't issue passports until 1974? You're lying!
            1. +10
              28 October 2025 21: 03
              Enough lying. By 1956 alone, around 50 million peasants had moved to the cities. And yet, the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people have never once reproached the Romanovs for failing to grant permanent passports to the entire people, despite their 300-year-long ambitions.
            2. 0
              28 October 2025 21: 28
              In rural areas, full passportization was indeed completed in the 70s.
      2. +21
        28 October 2025 08: 06
        Quote: ASSAD1
        My grandmother asked me why her family had land before the revolution, but then it was taken away.

        And didn’t grandfather ask why in 1905 he shot at workers, and in 1919 former workers - Red Army soldiers - shot at him? belay
        1. -3
          28 October 2025 08: 42
          No, he vanished in the Vasyugan swamps, Grandpa. And I'll answer the next question right away: yes, Grandpa was a "kulak" (a peasant) who worked a lot with children.
          1. +13
            28 October 2025 10: 44
            Quote: ASSAD1
            And I’ll answer the next question right away: yes, my grandfather was a “kulak” and worked a lot with children.

            A kulak or a wealthy peasant? Because these are two different concepts that were only lumped together during collectivization.
            A "kulak" in the classic definition is a rural moneylender who has entangled the community in monetary and commodity loans at interest rates that no bank could dream of.
            Working with bills of exchange carelessly issued to him and armed with writs of execution, which the court often has no right to refuse, the rural moneylender simultaneously corrupts and intoxicates the weak members of wealthy families, entangling them in fictitious debt obligations issued for amounts 10-20 times greater than the actual debt, and ruining the masses of peasants in the fullest sense of the word. It's hard to believe the enormous interest rates charged to peasants for money lent to them, which depend primarily on the degree of national need. Thus, in the summer, especially in view of a favorable harvest, loans are granted at no more than 45-50% per annum; in the fall, these same creditors demand no less than 120%, and sometimes up to 240%, with the collateral often being the peasants' plots of land, which the owners themselves then rent from their lenders. Sometimes land taken by a lender for a debt at a rate of 3-4 rubles per dessiatine is leased back to its owner for 10-12 rubles.
            However, even such interest rates are generally considered insufficient, as various other services, in-kind payments, and other payments are also required, in addition to cash and the like. In the case of grain loans, a pood is returned in winter or spring, and two in autumn. Putting a monetary value on all this is extremely difficult, especially since the debtor's accounts with his creditor are usually so tangled—mostly deliberately so by the latter—that it is almost impossible to sort them out.
            In recent years, credit secured by property has become increasingly common, with the moneylender turning to anything—farming tools, clothing, standing grain, even draft horses and livestock. When the time comes to pay and the peasant has no means of paying, all of this is sold, or more often, sold to the same creditor, who also sets the price at which he will accept the pledged item in payment of the debt. So often, after repaying the pledge, the peasant remains in debt, sometimes for an amount no less than the original debt. In some places, the compulsory labor of peasant debtors for the kulak creditor takes on the character of a complete corvée, far more oppressive than the former serf labor, because in the past, landowners were interested in maintaining the well-being of their peasants, whereas today's kulak creditors have no interest in them.
            © Minister of Agriculture and State Property Alexey Sergeevich Ermolov. 1892.
          2. +8
            28 October 2025 12: 23
            Quote: ASSAD1
            Yes, my grandfather was a "kulak", he worked a lot with the children.

            Or did many children work for him?
            1. +4
              29 October 2025 14: 26
              Quote: Fitter65
              Or did many children work for him?

              Work in the air
              Work with people.
              © laughing
              1. +1
                29 October 2025 14: 28
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The work is outside!
                Work with people!

                You could simply say that I was involved in the health and development of children. drinks laughing laughing
      3. +4
        28 October 2025 09: 32
        Quote: ASSAD1
        My grandmother asked me why her family had land before the revolution, but then it was taken away.
        I don't know who took it from whom. My grandfather had 140 acres of prime collective farm land and a field for hay for livestock. This was about two to three times larger than the typical peasant allotment in the Russian Empire. Incidentally, before the Revolution, ALL the land in the area belonged to the landowner, and village communities had almost no land of their own. My grandfather could have taken more, but he simply couldn't afford to cultivate it. Now this land belongs to our family by inheritance, and we don't know what to do with it—we don't live in a village.
        1. +3
          28 October 2025 09: 44
          Oh, I almost forgot - my grandfather also had his own non-collective farm "vegetable garden" of about 60 acres.
          There he planted potatoes and set up two gardens with greenhouses, fruits, and berries. I usually hauled strawberries and peas there.
        2. -8
          28 October 2025 11: 53
          Quote: multicaat
          Grandfather had 140 acres of prime collective farm land and also a field for hay for cattle.

          What nonsense is this? The land is only for the collective farm, and the people only have a private plot.
          1. +4
            28 October 2025 12: 00
            Quote: Olgovich
            What nonsense? The land only belongs to the collective farm.

            Each member of the collective farm had a share of the common land assigned to them. Moreover, it was cultivated using the collective farm's machinery. My grandfather had it that way. How you imagine it is a separate topic. True, my grandfather mainly made hay on the collective farm land and didn't strive to grow anything else—his personal farming, hunting, gathering, and fishing were quite sufficient. I remember he had an apiary, about 60 rabbits, chickens, ducks, geese, a cow, and so on. The land didn't limit him in any way. The river was 50 meters from the house.
            1. -5
              28 October 2025 12: 11
              Quote: multicaat
              Each member of the collective farm had a share of the common land assigned to him

              Each person had only a private plot (which was constantly being reduced) and the state land was in the perpetual use of the collective farms

              What kind of land is in your head is of no interest to me.
              1. +7
                28 October 2025 12: 15
                My grandfather left us 130 acres of collective farm land. We also sold a house with 50 acres of private land. Should I post the ownership documents here, or will you believe me?
                What's this nonsense about constantly shrinking sections? Did you accidentally get the century wrong?
                1. -5
                  28 October 2025 13: 28
                  Quote: multicaat
                  After my grandfather, we were left with 130 acres of collective farm land

                  After the collapse of the collective farms, shares were allocated, which
                  represented a share in the ownership of lands that previously belonged to the collective farm
                  Quote: multicaat
                  What is this nonsense about constantly shrinking areas?

                  This is not a literacy course - read Stalin and other Khrushchevs,
                  1. +5
                    28 October 2025 13: 34
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    After the collapse of the collective farms, shares were allocated, which
                    represented a share in the ownership of lands that previously belonged to the collective farm

                    In fact, the same land remained in the village, but people started paying taxes.
                    The only exception is the privatization of farms that closed after the collapse of the USSR.
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    This isn't a literacy course - read Stalin and other Khrushchevs.

                    There is no point in stretching two narrow periods, which together lasted approximately 12 years, over the entire existence of the USSR.
                    After Khrushchev's coup, my grandfather's family starved until he was removed.
                    1. +3
                      28 October 2025 23: 05
                      The shares that former collective and state farm workers received during privatization were not tied to the original plots they owned before collectivization. Moreover, shares were also received by people whose ancestors did not live in the area at the time of collectivization. And those who left the collective farm during Soviet times and were not registered in the area did not participate in the privatization or receive their shares.
                      1. +1
                        29 October 2025 08: 38
                        As far as I know, pre-collectivization property wasn't even taken into account when distributing land. Some baron, whose family owned everything there, came from Europe, hung around, but was turned away.
                  2. +3
                    28 October 2025 16: 24
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    This isn't a literacy course - read Stalin.

                    Helpful advice! Add: read Marx and Lenin. wink
                    Olgovich and the Marxist circle!!!
          2. 0
            30 October 2025 16: 29
            Besides the collective farms, there were also state farms. And who was industrializing the country back then? Aliens, perhaps? Or perhaps former villagers? Just don't lie about them all being herded under guard to construction sites.
        3. +4
          28 October 2025 12: 25
          Quote: multicaat
          I don't know who took it from whom. Grandpa had 140 acres of prime collective farm land and a field for hay for the cattle.

          Was it after perestroika that your grandfather grabbed it while he was on the collective farm board? Or was he buying up shares from fellow villagers under Yeltsin's rule?
          1. +1
            28 October 2025 13: 27
            Quote: Fitter65
            Was it after perestroika that your grandfather grabbed it while he was on the collective farm board? Or was he buying up shares from fellow villagers under Yeltsin's rule?

            I can't speak for the entire village, but on the street where he lived and all his acquaintances, there were about the same number. My grandfather's neighbor, the groom, had twice as much because he kept horses at home and needed them for hay and grazing. This was the case before the collapse of the USSR and remains the same after.
            1. -3
              28 October 2025 16: 56
              Quote: multicaat
              My grandfather's neighbor, a groom, had twice as much because he kept horses at home and needed them for hay and grazing. This was the case before the collapse of the USSR and remains the case after.
              A groom, in your opinion, is someone who keeps horses at home?! I have no more questions for you.
              1. +2
                28 October 2025 16: 57
                Quote: Fitter65
                A groom, in your opinion, is someone who keeps horses at home.

                That's how you see it. Speaking nonsense for other people is bad manners.
                1. -3
                  28 October 2025 17: 05
                  Quote: multicaat
                  Speaking nonsense on behalf of other people is bad manners.

                  Which you demonstrate here. As well as your feeble knowledge.
                  Quote: multicaat
                  The groom, my grandfather's neighbor, had twice as much because he kept horses at home and needed them for hay and grazing.

                  You wrote this, not me. And it turns out, according to your writing, that a groom is someone who kept horses at home.!!! There is no other way to explain your nonsense.
                  1. 0
                    29 October 2025 09: 29
                    You're so annoying to me with rearranging my words and distorting my meanings. Have you been in kindergarten? I'm tired of correcting you.
                    1. -2
                      29 October 2025 10: 10
                      Quote: multicaat
                      You're so annoying, rearranging my words and distorting my meanings. Did you run away from kindergarten?

                      Why bother bothering you? If you don't even understand what you're writing, there's no need to distort anything.
                      Quote: multicaat
                      Did you run away from kindergarten?

                      Don't judge by yourself, especially considering that from the second comment you started being rude, and without justification.
                      1. 0
                        29 October 2025 10: 12
                        Quote: Fitter65
                        You started being rude, and without any reason.

                        Please provide proof, not distorted ones, but quotes.
                        I'm tired of your unfounded attacks and taunts.
                        It would be better if they did something useful. For example, read about the realities of collective farms from documents, not from journalistic articles.
                      2. +1
                        29 October 2025 10: 20
                        Quote: multicaat
                        For example, they read about the realities of collective farms from documents, and not from journalistic articles.

                        I studied this without your advice in the early 1980s, and I lived in a rural area from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Please provide proof, not distorted ones, but quotes.
                        Yes please
                        Quote: multicaat
                        It's nonsense to speak for other people - bad manners.
                        Well, okay, about manners, although according to the site's terms and conditions this applies to swearing.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Did you run away from kindergarten?
                        This can already be attributed to a hint at the opponent’s retarded mental development in a veiled form.
                      3. +2
                        29 October 2025 10: 27
                        Quote: Fitter65
                        This can already be considered a hint.

                        You constantly pass off your "guesses" as reality. This is a mistake.
                        Quote: Fitter65
                        and lived from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s in a rural area.

                        Life was very different in the USSR in the "rural areas"
                        In one place in the Caucasus, they were building three-story reinforced concrete villas with swimming pools, while in another, they wouldn't even let us use the boards from the crates to build houses. In the Lviv region, villagers were building luxurious Austrian-style chalets for themselves, while in the Leningrad region, people were making primitive log cabins as best they could. In one place, there was electricity, gas, and paved roads, while in another, there were no roads at all for half a year, and no electricity. In one place, 3 acres of land can provide food for a family for a year and two harvests, while in another, 10 acres won't even provide enough food, and you still have to toil hard to get anything to grow. So, people's experiences vary greatly. My experience is from the Leningrad region, from a relatively prosperous collective farm.
                      4. +1
                        29 October 2025 11: 10
                        Quote: multicaat
                        You constantly pass off your "guesses" as reality. This is a mistake.

                        No guesses, just pure facts. Like a fact of not understanding what you yourself are writing.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Groom, grandfather's neighbor had twice as much because he kept horses at home and it was needed for hay and grazing.
                        A groom is a person who cares for horses, grooms them, monitors their health, and ensures proper nutrition. Not the person who keeps the horses. Each member of a collective (state) farm was allocated a certain area of ​​hayfields (mown hayfields, etc.). Like grazing land, one standard was calculated for a collective (state) farm and another for a private farmer. Moreover, pastures were allocated based on the number of animals, their type (cattle or small ruminants), and so on. And not because Kolya had a lot of horses... Regardless of how many head of cattle you had. You could take more, but you had to pay a higher tax for it, so it was easier: you'd negotiate with a fellow villager who had little or no livestock and mow his corner. I mowed with a tractor and hauled hay in the late 70s and early 80s, so unlike you, I knew the ropes, not just according to regulations and documents, but how it was in reality... So even if you had 1000 horses, they wouldn't give you more than the allotted amount per family. Moreover, if you don't mow a given plot for a certain period of time, it goes to the board without any compensation.
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Life was very different in the USSR in the "rural areas"
                        In one place in the Caucasus, they were building 3-story reinforced concrete villas with swimming pools, while in another they weren't even allowed to use the boards from the boxes to build houses.

                        How does this relate to the groom who kept horses at home?
                        Quote: multicaat
                        My experience is from the Leningrad region, from a relatively prosperous collective farm.

                        I have experience in Novosibirsk. I've worked in various rural areas, like the Mekhleskhoz (Mekhleskhoz), a million-dollar collective farm, a couple of medium-sized collective and state farms, and a number of poultry farms. This includes everything from before perestroika, under Soviet rule, to Gorbachev's bacchanalia, to the Yeltsin collapse. I once spent time in the Novgorod region at the very beginning of perestroika, though only for six months. What was called a prosperous collective farm there, in Siberia, barely even reached the level of a middling farmer. And that's considering their provision with equipment and spare parts. So, about the 1,4 hectares of land that didn't limit anything... I don't need to tell you. I might have believed you if you'd told me something about the fishing fleet, or about the fishing collective farms... But otherwise...
                      5. -1
                        3 November 2025 20: 40
                        Lived from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s in a rural area.
                        Then why are you lying like a grey gelding?
                  2. 0
                    30 October 2025 16: 32
                    For those of you who are particularly curious, I'll let you know that the horses are kept in a stable located in the yard next to the house. The pigs are kept in a barn, and the chickens, geese, ducks, and turkeys are kept in a coop or poultry house... No need to thank them. laughing
                    1. 0
                      31 October 2025 02: 18
                      Quote: Grencer81
                      For those of you who are very "sharp-witted", I would like to inform you that the horses are kept in a stable, which is located in the courtyard of the house.

                      And if it’s on the far edge of the garden plot, next to the chicken coop and turkey house, right next to the cowshed, and not in the yard near the house, will it be considered a stable?
                      1. 0
                        31 October 2025 05: 36
                        Well, if a groom can get there by metro or, at worst, by trolleybus, then probably yes...
                      2. 0
                        31 October 2025 10: 11
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        Well, if a groom can get there by metro or, at worst, by trolleybus, then probably yes...

                        What if we ride a bike? It's just that not every rural community with horses has a trolleybus, let alone a metro... And then again, if a horse, a cow, and various poultry are housed under the same roof, how do you count that? A stable, a barn, or a poultry house? If you count by head count, then a poultry house; there are definitely more of them, but what if you count by space? laughing
                      3. +1
                        31 October 2025 11: 31
                        No metro or trolleybuses? Then take the tram!!!
                      4. -1
                        31 October 2025 11: 53
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        Then the tram!!!

                        Our tram depot was closed, and in some places not only the wires but also the rails were dismantled...
        4. 0
          28 October 2025 23: 00
          140 hundred square meters is only 1,4 hectares of land. The average peasant allotment per capita after the abolition of serfdom was 3,3 hectares, or 330 hundred square meters. Specifically, per male capita, not per family. Of course, this is a very average figure. Nevertheless, your 140 hundred square meters are not 2-3 times larger, but, on the contrary, 2-3 times smaller than the previous average per capita allotment in the Russian Empire.
          Before the Revolution, all the land in the region couldn't have belonged to a landowner. Firstly, after the abolition of serfdom, landowners retained approximately half the land, the other half went to peasant communities. According to the 1916 Agricultural Census, the share of landowners' land in the total agricultural land in the Russian Empire was 10,7%. Okay, let's subtract the agricultural lands of Siberia, where landowners had virtually no landownership, subtract the Cossack lands, and subtract the lands of former state and appanage peasants. Even after this, the share of landowners' land on lands owned by landowners before 1861 was no more than 20% by 1917. Of course, this is also an average figure; the proportions could have varied in different regions.
          Even if the peasants in your area did not want to wait and preferred to receive a free quarter allotment, then even in this case all the land in the area could not belong to the landowner.
          1. 0
            29 October 2025 08: 41
            Quote: Sergej1972
            That is, 330 acres. Specifically for a man's soul, and not for a family.

            You're not taking into account that in a given village, a significant portion of food comes not from the harvest, but from livestock, gathering, fishing, and hunting. And most families even used the land they had well, if only half of it, and they had enough—my grandparents had almost 20,000 rubles in their savings account, and two apartments in the district center. You can imagine how much you could buy with that kind of money in the USSR.
      4. +3
        28 October 2025 14: 31
        To go to the city to sell geese, you had to ask for a certificate from the village council.

        "Experts" on life in the USSR don't even realize how they expose themselves with such tales.
      5. +6
        28 October 2025 15: 06
        Excuse me, but why then, starting with industrialization, did the urban population grow? And the introduction of passports began in the 17s. If at the beginning of the 30 revolution, Russia's population was 85% peasant, by the end of the 30s, the urban population had increased to 30%. By the 50s, 50% of our population was urban, and by the 70s, 70% lived in cities. And you're talking about passports.
        1. 0
          28 October 2025 16: 51
          Quote: 2 Ivan
          Excuse me, but why then, starting with industrialization, did the urban population grow?

          It's very simple: people were sent from villages precisely to work in factories, so people tried to escape the countryside by any means necessary, and building a factory was a perfect opportunity to escape. And after the army, they also tried to settle in the city.
          1. +4
            28 October 2025 16: 58
            Ha, how many factories were built then, if the urban population of the USSR increased by 70 million people from 1926 to 1956?
            1. Fat
              -6
              28 October 2025 19: 55
              This is a brazen and unprincipled lie. I didn't expect this from you.
              Quote: tatra
              Ha, how many factories were built then, if the urban population of the USSR increased by 70 million people from 1926 to 1956?

              By 1976, the total population of the USSR, compared to 1913, had grown by only 60,6%.
              1. +2
                28 October 2025 21: 01
                How many lies are in one comment from an enemy of the USSR and the Soviet people.
                1. Fat
                  -5
                  28 October 2025 21: 15
                  As for you, I only take your message into account. I often agree with it. Factual information is empty words or a blot to you... In this regard, your opponents are stronger. It's a shame... Your mind works perfectly and, I'm not ashamed to admit, it's very accurate. Therefore, I believe that by choosing clichés, you are being lazy.
                  With respect.
                  1. +1
                    28 October 2025 22: 24
                    It just doesn't get through to the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people that, with the freedom from the communists that Gorbachev gave you, you not only GOT everything for which you so longed to seize the USSR, but you also completely proved everything about YOURSELF, including the fact that you are all mental liars.
                    You lied in what you wrote. If I asked you to show me the population size you used to calculate the USSR population, you would lie again. And you would also lie about the population of the Republic of Ingushetia in 1913 and 1917.
                    That's why I wrote it that way.
                    1. Fat
                      -4
                      28 October 2025 22: 27
                      How wonderful. What about reading some old Soviet books? I see. Laziness is your master.
                  2. +2
                    28 October 2025 23: 45
                    Read the article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia about the population of the USSR. https://gufo.me/dict/bse/СССР_Население. The Tatra data is confirmed. The article indicates that in 1913, 18% of the population lived urban and 82% rural; in 1940, it was already 33% urban and 67% rural; in 1976, 61% urban and 39% rural. Moreover, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia reports that the rural population in absolute figures was: 130,7 million in 1913, 131,0 million in 1940, meaning there was virtually no growth compared to 1913. And in 1976, 98,9 million people lived in rural areas, more than 30 million fewer than in 1940. The population of the USSR in 1940 was 194,1 million people, in 1976 it was 255,5 million, an increase of 60 million, or 61,4%. This means that the urban population from 1940 to 1976 grew from 63,1 to 156,6 million, an increase of 93,5 million people, or 147%, or almost two and a half times. The rural population, however, declined from 131 million to 98,9 million, a decrease of more than 32 million people, or 24,5%.
                    If we break it down completely, it turns out that while the total population of the USSR grew by 60 million in 1976 compared to 1940, the urban population increased by more than 90 million, while the rural population decreased by more than 30 million.
                    1. 0
                      29 October 2025 11: 12
                      "The population of the USSR in 1940 was 194,1 million, in 1976 it was 255,5 million, an increase of 60 million, or 61,4%." Here I have an unfortunate error in the calculations, which doesn't cancel out everything else. The increase was 31,63%, not 61,4%.
              2. +1
                28 October 2025 23: 11
                In 1926, the urban population of the USSR was 26,3 million; in 1956, it was 87 million. It may not have grown by 70 million, but it certainly grew by 60 million. I disagree with this commentator on most points, but she's right about this.
          2. +3
            28 October 2025 17: 12
            Quote: Trapper7
            That's why people tried to escape from the village by any means possible, and the construction of a plant was an excellent opportunity to escape from the village.

            Because every year, the villages became more and more useless, with the rise of mechanization and automation. Where five or eight people used to work, only two or three now had enough work. Where did the rest go? To the city. Smart and capable people were sent to study on a voucher, plus stipends from the collective farm; with state farms, it was a different story. Specialists were lured to the villages by any means necessary. There was already a surplus of unskilled laborers, and the villages had fewer and fewer vacancies for them every year.
            1. -4
              28 October 2025 17: 21
              Of course, I don’t argue with that) The surplus of labor began during the reign of the tsars, but it was not resolved through a plan.
      6. +3
        28 October 2025 15: 22
        [quote=ASSAD1 To go to the city to sell geese, you had to ask for a certificate from the village council.[/quote]
        This certificate stated that the geese belonged to your grandmother. That she raised them on her farm. Without this certificate, the geese could have been confiscated. And village councils still issue similar certificates to this day.
        1. -1
          28 October 2025 16: 52
          Quote: Brook-2
          And village councils still issue similar certificates to this day.

          What a twist laughing
          1. +3
            28 October 2025 17: 18
            Quote: Trapper7
            What a twist

            Don't you know? If you want to sell something from your own property, not just to a neighbor, but at the city market, you'll need a certificate, and more than one. A veterinarian's certificate is a must, and resellers will buy everything up right before you get to the market. So, to avoid the hassle of getting certificates, call a reseller right away. They'll come and handle everything quickly and easily. Even if you really want to, the "market regulars" won't let you sell properly.
            1. 0
              28 October 2025 17: 22
              Well, from the village council)))
              Regarding the other questions, you are all correct. good
              1. +2
                28 October 2025 17: 24
                Quote: Trapper7
                Well, from the village council)))

                Well, let it not be the village council, but the rural settlement administration laughing
                1. +2
                  28 October 2025 17: 30
                  You know, I'll check with my friends who they get their certificates from.
                  Maybe I'm wrong.
                  1. +3
                    28 October 2025 17: 46
                    Quote: Trapper7
                    You know, I'll check with my friends who they get their certificates from.
                    Maybe I'm wrong.

                    Let me clarify. Some friends of mine used to get a certificate from the local government when they sold cows, because when they bought a calf, they registered it and put it on the veterinary register. I didn't ask where they did the registration, though. They called, and resellers showed up right away, took the certificate, calculated the cow's live weight, paid by bank transfer, and goodbye. Same with pork, but a little differently: they slaughtered it, and the meat was supposedly sold to their own people. If you're slaughtering livestock for personal purposes, just for yourself—like, say, entertaining your relatives, nothing more—you don't need a certificate. However, you still need documentary proof that you slaughtered cattle for personal use, not for sale. Another friend breeds broiler chickens, but she doesn't get a certificate from the local government; she's a sole proprietor. Things are different there. There are certificates, and a veterinarian, basically, a hassle.
                    1. 0
                      29 October 2025 08: 31
                      I just bought poultry (domestic, but no longer alive) from friends who raise them for sale—I don't think they ever got any documentation for it. Although, of course, they don't sell them over the counter.
          2. +5
            28 October 2025 19: 31
            What a twist laughing

            It seems to me that the respected commentators here still think that bread grows on trees. Every rural homeowner is listed with the village council (they're currently being abolished) in a house register along with all other residents. If they have livestock, they're all listed in the same register. Just like your car is registered with the traffic police. If the owner intends to sell meat at the market, they must have a certificate. It proves that it's their property, that it wasn't stolen, wasn't found in a ditch, etc.
      7. 0
        4 November 2025 07: 48
        I, on the other hand, questioned my grandmother. She said that the land plots attached to the house from the Romanovs to the Brezhnevs remained the same, that they'd never heard of the prohibition on keeping large numbers of livestock, and that everyone who made a living went to town to sell produce from their farms. Without any documentation. Naturally, they didn't pay taxes on the proceeds.
    2. -18
      28 October 2025 08: 51
      A very apt observation! 😊 Revolutions are made on propaganda like this. You can't wash a black dog white! Essentially, it was a Great Criminal Coup, when criminals came to power. I think there should be no doubt that the entire top Soviet government, led by Trotsky and Lenin, were, by legal right, hardened criminals and wartime traitors. Be it under the laws of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or modern Russia. And they acted according to the same accepted criminal patterns, relying on the lowest elements of the population. Creating impunity, lawlessness, and chaos. Even the slogan in the photo, on the flag of the Baltic sailors, calls for tyranny.
      And the very thesis that the Bolsheviks saved Russian civilization by plunging it into civil war sounds blasphemous!
      1. +10
        28 October 2025 08: 59
        If the Bolsheviks were like you wrote, they would have done the same thing as the anti-Soviet, Russophobic clique that seized the USSR in order to enrich themselves by robbing the country and the people, and who believed, "We owe nothing to this country and these people."
        Our enemies, the USSR, love to call those who oppose what they created Russophobes. BUT Russophobes are those who oppose a better state for Russia and the Russian people—the USSR—both in comparison to the Russian Empire and in comparison to the state created by the enemies of the October Revolution.
        1. +7
          28 October 2025 15: 09
          I support you. And the previous comment was purely Russophobic.
      2. +7
        28 October 2025 10: 36
        I think there should be no doubt that the entire top of the Soviet government, headed by Trotsky and Lenin, according to legal law, were hardened criminals and traitors of wartime.
        - And who were those who forced Nicholas to sign the abdication? bully
        1. -12
          28 October 2025 12: 26
          Calling them enemies is a matter of pure convenience. They were a section of the bourgeoisie that had risen from the bottom, become wealthy, and wanted control over the governance of the state and the distribution of wealth. They did not seek to change the system as such. At the same time, they had no experience governing a country as large as Russia, and therefore demonstrated their incompetence.
          1. +2
            28 October 2025 12: 47
            If we call them enemies, it's purely conditional.
            - Really? They were enemies, and also traitors to the motherland...
          2. +5
            28 October 2025 14: 48
            Quote from Songwolf
            This was a part of the bourgeoisie that came from the bottom, got rich and wanted power.

            Oh, how nasty. They came from humble beginnings, got rich, and now they want power... What a disgrace. Only counts and princes, by birthright, should have been eternally rich and forever ruling, so masterfully and efficiently trampling 90% of their own country's population into filth, despair, poverty, and total stupidity...
      3. +9
        28 October 2025 12: 06
        Quote from Songwolf
        I think there should be no doubt that the entire top of the Soviet government, headed by Trotsky and Lenin, according to legal law, were hardened criminals and traitors of wartime.

        Well, first of all, none of them were criminals. They were all persecuted under political statutes.
        Secondly, you're talking about wartime betrayal... but could you clarify what the goal of the war was for the people of the Russian Empire? Not the Straits and working off French loans for the aristocracy, but for the common people—what goals could they achieve for themselves in the war? And what exactly did they betray? I'd like to remind you that the first battles for the Russian Empire's army weren't fought in Poland or central Russia, but in Bessarabia and further west, in Prussia; a separate corps fought in France and the colonies. Are you saying that's what the Bolsheviks betrayed?
        1. -7
          28 October 2025 12: 15
          This is demagogy on this issue from no angle at all!
          1. +3
            28 October 2025 12: 25
            In my opinion, your accusation of treason is demagoguery.
        2. -3
          28 October 2025 13: 45
          Quote: multicaat
          Well, first of all, none of them were criminals. They were all persecuted under political statutes.

          aha... they exist in every time and that means they are not criminals?
          Quote: multicaat
          Secondly, you are talking about wartime betrayal... but could you clarify what the purpose of the war was for the people of the Russian Empire?

          The same can be said about many wars, both past and present.
          Quote: multicaat
          And what exactly did they betray?

          The Russian Empire, my homeland... during the war...
          But from the point of view of the USSR no, but from the point of view of the Russian Empire - yes... or no?
          1. +2
            28 October 2025 14: 18
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            Russian Empire

            The peasants were loyal not to the empire, but to the institution of the tsar. As is well known, it was the nobles who betrayed the tsar, not the peasants.
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            their homeland.

            nothing like this
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            during the war.

            which they did not consider their own.
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            So they are not criminals?

            We're not criminals. Call a spade a spade.
            1. 0
              28 October 2025 14: 22
              Quote: multicaat
              The peasants were loyal not to the empire, but to the institution of the tsar. As is well known, it was the nobles who betrayed the tsar, not the peasants.

              You are engaging in sophistry... The Motherland is not the Tsar... Legally, they were not subjects of the Tsar, but subjects of the Russian Empire.
              Quote: multicaat
              which they did not consider their own.

              So you're just saying, "This isn't my war," and you're free from wartime responsibilities? For some reason, that never worked in war. Why is that?
              Quote: multicaat
              We're not criminals. Call a spade a spade.

              A "criminal" is a criminal offender, a person who has committed a criminal offense. Did they commit a criminal offense at the time? What's the question then?
              1. +2
                28 October 2025 14: 32
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                This is not my war and you are free from wartime responsibilities?

                Let me remind you that there was no law on universal conscription in the Russian Empire. Mass conscription into the army occurred during WWI for the first time in the country's history, and it contradicted the state structure that had existed for centuries.
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                A "criminal" is a criminal offender, a person who has committed a criminal offense. Did they commit a criminal offense at the time?

                Part 4 of Article 102 of the Criminal Code, according to which exile to a settlement was punishable by conspiracy to create a community with the aim of changing the social order of Russia

                The thing is that this does not coincide with the definition of a criminal offense.
                Moreover, it is not even a crime against the state or its laws.
                That is, it wasn't a criminal offense. There was another, more severe article, but the punishment there was execution. But as is well known, no Bolsheviks were sentenced to death, meaning no one at the top of the party was a criminal, although some other party members certainly did have criminal convictions. But this doesn't describe the Bolsheviks specifically, who suffered for their beliefs.
            2. +4
              28 October 2025 17: 14
              Quote: multicaat
              which they did not consider their own.

              So, a Vlasovite or other renegade during the Great Patriotic War who declared that he did not consider the war his own is automatically exempt from the consequences of such an act?
              You speak, but don't over-talk.
              1. -2
                29 October 2025 09: 07
                Quote: Trapper7
                That is, a Vlasovite or other renegade during the Great Patriotic War, who declared that he did not consider the war his own

                But the war was, in fact, a people's war and began with an attack on us, unlike WWI, where the Russian Empire's goal was to distract the Germans and fight for the Straits and the Balkans, located in the middle of nowhere. No need for cheap sophistry.
        3. -3
          28 October 2025 17: 09
          Quote: multicaat
          Could you clarify what the purpose of the war was for the people of the Russian Empire?

          The fact that the German Empire declared war on us.
          Quote: multicaat
          Not the Straits and the working off of French loans for the aristocracy, but for the common people - what goals could they achieve for themselves in the war?

          Maybe so that later we don’t have to fight alone against all of Europe, like One Very Wise Leader?
          Quote: multicaat
          And what exactly did they betray?

          Their country, which waged war against an external enemy. For any country at any time, such people are traitors.

          Quote: multicaat
          I would like to remind you that the first battles for the army of the Russian Empire did not take place in Poland or central Russia, but in Bessarabia and to the west of it, in Prussia,

          I'd like to remind you that the word "Russia" is written with a capital letter. That's one.
          Secondly, that you are historically illiterate and don't know the chronology of the First World War. That's two things.
          Thirdly, already on August 2, German troops invaded Russian territory and occupied the city of Kalisz (Kalisch pogrom, you can google it)
          Fourth, the fact that Russia sought to transfer the fighting to enemy territory suggests that it was led by intelligent people, for it's better for our soldiers to trample enemy territory than vice versa. May I venture to recall the famous phrase "with little bloodshed and on foreign soil"—or do you think these were also aggressive plans of the Soviet Union?
          a separate corps fought in France

          It's all true, we must support our ally, because if they are defeated, the entire German military machine will fall upon us. But you apparently don't understand this.
          and in the colonies

          Please provide more details on this point.
          You say that this is what the Bolsheviks betrayed?

          If a person agitates for the defeat of his country and cooperates with foreign intelligence services in order to achieve his goal - the seizure of power - what else can one call this?
          Until 1917, the Bolsheviks were clearly traitors to the Russian Empire.
          1. +1
            29 October 2025 09: 18
            Quote: Trapper7
            For it's better for our soldiers to trample the enemy's soil than the other way around. Let me remind you of the famous phrase "with little bloodshed and on foreign soil"—or do you think these are also aggressive plans of the Soviet Union?

            a lot of pathos.
            I repeat - what does all this matter to the peasant from the Russian Empire?
            He's not a soldier; the fighting is taking place thousands of kilometers from his homeland; the fruits of victory in the war will certainly pass him by, but if he gets involved, he and his entire family could die from hunger and disease. On the contrary, he'll avoid war at all costs.
            What does he care about the Straits, the Balkans, the French, or the Polish province?
            This is not his war, no matter how hard you try to prove otherwise.
            1. +1
              29 October 2025 09: 42
              Quote: multicaat
              I repeat - what does all this matter to the peasant from the Russian Empire?
              He's not a soldier; the fighting is taking place thousands of kilometers from his homeland; the fruits of victory in the war will certainly pass him by, but if he gets involved, he and his entire family could die from hunger and disease. On the contrary, he'll avoid war at all costs.

              Was Poland part of the Motherland back then? Yes. So, there were already battles in his homeland... and he wouldn't get anything personally from victory? Well, what if, in WWII, the peasants from Siberia could have been ignored - everything was happening thousands of kilometers away? What did it matter to them? You have the philosophy of Ancient Rus' - let the princes fight there - what do I care? And the Turkish wars - they didn't even need to go - what the hell did the peasants need Little Russia?
              1. +1
                29 October 2025 09: 46
                I didn't understand anything. You could at least learn to construct your words coherently.
                Regarding the Turkish wars, peasants didn't participate. Only a very limited army and volunteer officers.
                1. -1
                  29 October 2025 11: 13
                  Quote: multicaat
                  understood nothing.

                  Unfortunately, it's noticeable in you.
                2. +1
                  29 October 2025 11: 13
                  Quote: multicaat
                  I repeat - what does all this matter to the peasant from the Russian Empire?
                  He is not a soldier, the battles are taking place thousands of kilometers from his homeland, the fruits of victory in the war will certainly pass him by, but if he gets involved, he and his whole family could die from hunger and disease.

                  Okay... it's simpler... was Poland an enemy in the Russian Empire during WWI? Was it... was the country attacked? Yes, it was. In your opinion, it should have given up... Okay... but why shouldn't it have given up during WWII? What's the fundamental difference, based on your position?
                  1. +1
                    29 October 2025 11: 23
                    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                    Why didn't he have to give up on WWII then?

                    because responsibility is roughly equal to rights
                    You won't agitate the slaves of Egypt to join him against Assyria, will you?
                    1. -1
                      29 October 2025 11: 26
                      Quote: multicaat
                      because responsibility is roughly equal to rights
                      You won't agitate the slaves of Egypt to join him against Assyria, will you?

                      Ah... what's the difference? Explain in more detail. I don't understand how a peasant (in your terms) in 1914 was different from a peasant in 1941. What changed so dramatically in his life that it turned everything upside down in 25 years?
                      1. +1
                        29 October 2025 11: 27
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        Explain in more detail

                        I don't write history books
                      2. -1
                        29 October 2025 11: 29
                        Quote: multicaat

                        I don't write history books

                        Yes, at least write more about your comment, I’m not asking for a book laughing
            2. -1
              29 October 2025 11: 13
              Quote: multicaat
              I repeat - what does all this matter to the peasant from the Russian Empire?

              What business is Khalkhin Gol for a Soviet peasant? It's not even part of his own country.
              Or to Vyborg? Are you going there to sell potatoes?
              after all
              He's not a soldier; the fighting is taking place thousands of kilometers from his homeland; the fruits of victory in the war will certainly pass him by, but if he gets involved, he and his entire family could die from hunger and disease. On the contrary, he'll avoid war at all costs.

              Or is the battle at Lake Khasan his war?
              At least use a little logic when you write. Your sentences can be twisted in any direction.
              1. +1
                29 October 2025 11: 26
                Quote: Trapper7
                What business is Khalkhin Gol for a Soviet peasant? It's not even part of his own country.

                I'll repeat from another post: the balance of rights and responsibilities.
                The Soviet state gave ordinary peasants a great deal and expected equal responsibility to protect it. Unlike the Russian Empire, where peasants had only a few rights, there were even fewer guarantees.
          2. 0
            29 October 2025 09: 27
            Quote: Trapper7
            If a person agitates for the defeat of his country

            Not countries, but states. You seem to be substituting concepts too often.
            Quote: Trapper7
            and cooperates with foreign intelligence services to achieve his goal

            As it turns out, the communists weren't directly involved in this. It's all just a myth. On the contrary, Parvus himself robbed the communists, appropriating their assets. If we take Lenin personally, his letters contain a direct recommendation to avoid foreign agents and Parvus personally.
            They tried to recruit him in France, but were turned down. All this is known if you stop reading only selective and rather odd sources and start studying all the materials.
            I'm not interested in other agitators. Think what you will about them. And most importantly, stop manipulating them like substituting concepts, using sophistry, and taking phrases out of context.
            If we were to focus on this, we could easily turn Stalin into a Mussolini-style fascist, which he certainly wasn't, and Churchill into a communist. But we shouldn't do that. It's unnecessary.
            1. 0
              29 October 2025 11: 48
              Quote: multicaat
              not countries, but states.

              I'm unable to comment on this passage. For me, Russia will always remain Russia, whether under tsars, general secretaries, or presidents.
              If this isn't the case for you and you find it justifiable to act against your own country, especially during a war with an external enemy, then we can consider this dispute closed. We will never understand each other.
              Quote: multicaat
              As it turned out, the communists were not specifically involved in this.

              Norin is currently collecting material on Lenin and his life in Austria-Hungary. We'll read it when the book comes out.
              Well, yes, I didn't write that ALL communists worked for foreigners. But some of their representatives certainly did.
          3. 0
            29 October 2025 10: 24
            wassat
            Thirdly, already on August 2, German troops invaded Russian territory and occupied the city of Kalisz

            well, like this
            Fourthly, the fact that Russia (crossed out) Germany sought to transfer military operations to enemy territory It speaks to the fact that there were smart people at the helm., for it is better for our soldier to trample the enemy's land than the other way around.

            after all, the events according to the provision put into effect "About the preparatory period for war" in Russia had begun a week earlier. And the Germans knew about it.
            So it's better not to use phrases like:
            Secondly, that you are historically illiterate and do not know the chronology of the First World War.
            1. -1
              29 October 2025 11: 16
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              And the Germans knew about it.

              Yes, and they realized their Schlieffen Plan was starting to backfire. So they ignored all the Tsar's telegrams and began their own measures.
              Or would you prefer that the German plan of gradual defeat be carried out?
              Fourthly, the fact that Russia (crossed out) Germany sought to transfer military operations to enemy territory indicates that smart people were at the helm, for it is better for our soldiers to trample enemy soil than vice versa.

              This is a natural desire of any state, understood by everyone except Serzh. And this was an example of who, where, and how initiated military action on whose territory.
              1. 0
                29 October 2025 11: 44
                Or would you prefer that the German plan of gradual defeat be carried out?

                I would have preferred that Russia had not provoked Germany into military action in 1914.
                That's why all the Tsar's telegrams were ignored.

                Or maybe they've ignored the Kaiser's telegrams asking for a halt to mobilization? Because the Tsar's telegrams, purporting to be "we're all white and fluffy," against the backdrop of concrete actions signaling preparations for the possible outbreak of military action, aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
                And this was an example of who, where and how was the first to start military operations on whose territory.

                This example served as an argument for "they started it, we're off the hook."
                1. -1
                  29 October 2025 11: 55
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  I would have preferred that Russia had not provoked Germany into military action in 1914.

                  Dear Timur, I don't see any normal way out of the crisis in that situation, except for one thing: England immediately declares its unconditional support for Russia and France. That was the only thing that could influence the Kaiser.
                  And now we'll get back to the question of "was it necessary for Russia to participate in that war?", where you and I hold diametrically opposed views.
                  I suggest we end here, because we'll be writing long, drawn-out essays until Lent, where we'll simply repeat long-known theses.
      4. +5
        28 October 2025 16: 28
        Quote from Songwolf
        In essence, it was the Great Criminal Coup, when criminals came to power.

        After saying "A", say "B".
        "The Great Criminal Revolution" is 1991 and 1993. Correct definition.
        1. -8
          28 October 2025 19: 35
          I think it's the natural course of history, with the communists leading the country to collapse. Once again, the elite colluded with the criminal underworld, this time not with the old communists, but with the new wolves they had raised from the Komsomol Central Committee. They didn't want to live like the old guys, where there was a strict gradation: a district committee secretary couldn't live better than a regional committee secretary. The punishment was harsh. The young wolves couldn't care less! Together with the criminal underworld, they began robbing the country and its wealth accumulated by the people. And they began, like their ancestors, to oppress the army, dismissing and sometimes even eliminating the best representatives of the officer corps. I lived through all of this myself in the 90s. I got my fill!
          Liberals and revolutionaries of all stripes have destroyed two Empires and still hope to destroy Russia again!
          1. +4
            28 October 2025 21: 07
            How insanely afraid the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people are to take responsibility for your seizure of the USSR. And all because you yourselves admit that you did it for criminal purposes, to the detriment of the country and the people.
            1. +2
              29 October 2025 01: 36
              Just look at this character's avatar. Your questions will disappear immediately.
      5. +2
        29 October 2025 08: 15
        Quote from Songwolf
        In essence, it was a Great Criminal Coup, when criminals came to power. I think there should be no doubt that the entire top Soviet government, led by Trotsky and Lenin, were, according to legal law, hardened criminals and wartime traitors.


        According to some legal norms, Minin and Pozharsky and their comrades were troublemakers, leaders of illegal armed groups who rebelled against the completely legitimate authorities and Western partners, who were providing a humanitarian mission to rid Rus' of the accursed "Asianism."
    3. +4
      28 October 2025 10: 34
      Don't interfere with this writer's work on Modern History for a generation of degenerates. They care about thesis statements. They simply cannot comprehend profound knowledge, backed by historical references. This is how the State sees and shapes future generations; the author has merely integrated himself into this system of education and enlightenment. In reality, he is a brilliant man with a profound knowledge of Russian history, but the situation dictates. The only thing I don't understand is why we, people with a classical Soviet secondary and higher education, should read this.
    4. AAK
      -1
      29 October 2025 22: 20
      Slogans are, of course, always present, and there are plenty of "pearls" besides them, especially the passage about "...a more just system, where there will be no classes parasitizing on the people..." In the end, the nobility and the bourgeoisie were simply replaced by the party-economic nomenklatura, which continued to "parasitize" and from its depths emerged those very ones who buried this "more just" system...
      1. +1
        29 October 2025 22: 23
        Quote: AAK
        In the end, the nobility and the bourgeoisie were replaced by a party-economic nomenklatura, which continued to "parasitize" and from its depths emerged those very ones who buried this "more just" system...

        You just drew a grave. Are you suggesting everyone die?
        1. AAK
          +2
          29 October 2025 22: 27
          There are only three ways to approach any social system: 1. Support the system; 2. Adapt to the system; 3. Fight the system. Freedom from the system can only be achieved in a different system, where, again, there are only three paths... The choice is ours...
          1. -1
            29 October 2025 22: 30
            Quote: AAK
            1. - support the system; 2. - adapt to the system; 3. - fight the system

            Amazingly.

            Quote: AAK
            You can only be free from the system in another system, where again there are only 3 paths

            This is not possible, this is necessary)

            Quote: AAK
            The choice is up to each of us...

            Naturally. I made my choice a long time ago. And the graves you drew there are on my way. no

            Just kidding, yeah... she's not there.
            1. AAK
              0
              29 October 2025 22: 31
              And which path did you choose, dear colleague? 1st or 2nd?
              1. +1
                29 October 2025 22: 33
                Quote: AAK
                1st or 2nd?

                Third. I'm outside the system, I've been living like this for a long time, I'm already used to it. laughing
                1. AAK
                  +1
                  29 October 2025 22: 34
                  Aaaaa... so you're in a different system?
                  1. 0
                    29 October 2025 22: 35
                    Quote: AAK
                    Aaaaa... so you're in a different system?

                    Yeah... I wrote that from the very beginning)

                    Mail is slow to arrive... you look at the letter and realize that didn't get it (C)
  2. +9
    28 October 2025 03: 46
    Excellent article! My deepest gratitude and respect to the author! Very insightful analysis and clear presentation. And the words are perfectly written.
    1. +9
      28 October 2025 04: 58
      If not for the Bolsheviks, the Russian civilization, most likely, would simply have died.
      That's the whole point of the article...
      1. +10
        28 October 2025 05: 05
        Dear Vladimir, you've partially grasped the essence of the article. Indeed, if not for the Bolsheviks, Russian civilization would likely have simply perished. But you overlooked, or simply didn't want to, the bigger picture: who wanted Russian civilization to perish, both from within and without? What were their motives? All of this is still relevant today.
        1. +4
          28 October 2025 05: 13
          Quote: AK-1945
          All of this is still relevant today.

          Arseniy Konstantinovich, I didn’t emphasize this...
      2. -8
        28 October 2025 08: 42
        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

        Quote from Uncle Lee
        That's the whole point of the article...

        Isn't that true? The Bolsheviks always saved Russia from destruction:
        - Bolshevik Lenin in 1917;
        - Bolshevik Stalin in 1941;
        - Bolshevik Putin in 2000.
        1. +11
          28 October 2025 10: 37
          Quote: Boris55
          - Bolshevik Putin in 2000

          Please don't humiliate the Bolsheviks Lenin and Stalin, they didn't deserve it.
          1. 0
            28 October 2025 10: 40
            The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

            Quote: AlexSam
            Do not humiliate the Bolsheviks Lenin and Stalin

            You have misconceptions about Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks. For a definition of who the Bolsheviks were and what their goals were, see my post below, in response to bober1982.
            1. 0
              28 October 2025 10: 43
              It was ironic)) but I liked your answer, plus it flew away)
  3. +23
    28 October 2025 03: 50
    Essentially, two things are clear. The Bolsheviks would never have won the Civil War without massive popular support. And the elections to the Constituent Assembly made it abundantly clear that the Russian people voted overwhelmingly for socialism. For the Constituent Assembly turned out to be 90 percent composed of socialists of various persuasions. And that's where we can end...
  4. P
    +3
    28 October 2025 03: 51
    The terminology makes it clear that the author is an idealist. The Bolsheviks and communists are materialists.
  5. +9
    28 October 2025 05: 02
    The article notes an interesting value: the primacy of truth over law. But if everyone has their own truth, should they defend it with arms in hand? Then a new civil war is just a stone's throw away. Ideally, a just law should be the same for everyone.
    1. +11
      28 October 2025 08: 12
      Quote: Glock-17
      The ideal is to have a fair law that is the same for everyone.

      Nothing could be simpler. We simply need to remove all the extra perks and privileges for officials and stop making the president into an infallible God.
      Everyone is obligated to answer for their actions, otherwise they just babble whatever comes to mind, and then put on a sad face and ask for understanding...
      What is there to understand, an insatiable thirst for power?
      1. -2
        28 October 2025 08: 53
        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

        Quote: ROSS 42
        Nothing could be simpler. Simply remove all the perks and benefits.

        Laws are written by the victors. They would never offend themselves.

        Are the 10 Commandments of Moses enough for us?

        1st Commandment: “I am the Lord your God… You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2-3).
        The 2nd Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4-6)
        3 commandment: “Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not leave without punishment the one who pronounces His name in vain ”(Exodus 20: 7).
        The 4th Commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:8-11).
        5th Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you” (Exodus 20:12).
        6th Commandment: “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
        7 commandment: “Do not commit adultery” (Exodus 20: 14).
        The 8th Commandment: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15)
        The 9th Commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).
        The 10th Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife… anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17).
        1. +5
          28 October 2025 08: 57
          Quote: Boris55
          Are the 10 Commandments of Moses enough for us?

          If those who violate them are publicly excommunicated from the church and given the status of blasphemers, then that's enough...
          But it would be better to use the IMSZ for committed crimes, especially on an especially large scale...
          1. -1
            28 October 2025 09: 01
            Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

            Quote: ROSS 42
            If those who violate them are publicly excommunicated from the church and given the status of blasphemers, then that's enough...

            And if they go to a synagogue or a mosque, can they continue to be naughty? laughing
            Beginning in the 10th century, outsiders began to seize power. They couldn't care less about the natives. They wrote laws, offering false hope of justice.
            1. +6
              28 October 2025 09: 06
              Quote: Boris55
              And if they go to a synagogue or a mosque, can they continue to be naughty?

              And for this there is the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation...
              I once advised you not to get carried away with propaganda, but you didn't listen, and with your persistence you got on the site's users' nerves so much that they "left you" in the minus...
              Go on...The gates are still open...
              1. +4
                28 October 2025 09: 24
                Quote: ROSS 42
                Go on...The gates are still open...

                Boris Leontyevich takes the narrow path, but only in the context of true Bolshevism; the gates and the wide path are not about him.
                This is the reason why he is being downvoted, that is, he is not doing his job on the site, to put it simply.
                1. 0
                  28 October 2025 10: 03
                  There is a Russian spirit here, there is a smell of Russia here...

                  Quote: bober1982
                  but only in the context of true Bolshevism

                  "Bolshevism is not a Russian variety of Marxism and not a party affiliation... Bolshevism is a phenomenon of the spirit of Russian civilization, and not the spirit of the bearers of the doctrine of biblical global slavery on a racial basis.

                  Bolshevism existed before Marxism, existed in Russian Marxism, somehow it exists today. It will continue to exist.

                  As stated by the Bolsheviks themselves, members of the Marxist party of the RSDLP * (b), it was they who expressed in politics the strategic interests of the working majority of the population of multinational Russia, as a result of which only they had the right to be called Bolsheviks.

                  Regardless of how infallible the Bolsheviks are in expressing the strategic interests of the working majority, and how much this majority itself is aware of its strategic interests and is true to them in life, the essence of Bolshevism is not in the numerical superiority of the adherents of certain ideas over the adherents of other ideas and the mindless crowd, but precisely in this:
                  - in a sincere desire to express and implement the long-term strategic interests of the working majority, who want no one to parasitize on their work and life... "

                  Excerpt from the book: "The Judas Sin of the 20th Congress".
                  1. +5
                    28 October 2025 10: 14
                    Quote: Boris55
                    Excerpt from the book

                    If you read these excerpts, your mind will go crazy, it’s very unclear and confusing.
                    1. -2
                      28 October 2025 10: 31
                      The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                      Quote: bober1982
                      very unclear and confusing.

                      Read the original source. I've only posted a small part of what's written there. More details on Bolshevism are on page 154.
                  2. 0
                    28 October 2025 15: 16
                    Quote: Boris55
                    Bolshevism existed before Marxism,

                    At the Second Congress of the RSDLP (August 1903), the Iskra party split: the majority supported the principles and tactics of the old Iskra, while a minority turned to opportunism, finding support from Iskra's former enemies, the Economists and Bundists. Hence the names: Bolshevism and Menshevism (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks). In 1903-1904, the main issue at stake was the Mensheviks' opportunism in organizational matters. From late 1904 onward, differences in tactics became paramount. The "Zemstvo Campaign Plan" (autumn 1904) of the new Iskra, which had gone over to the Mensheviks, defended the tactic of "not intimidating the liberals."
        2. +5
          28 October 2025 09: 55
          These are God's laws. Man still failed to fulfill them. Ultimately, God exalted mercy above law, which is the fundamental theme of the New Testament.
          In worldly laws, unfortunately, mercy is only for the chosen ones.
    2. +3
      28 October 2025 08: 48
      Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

      Quote: Glock-17
      And if everyone has their own truth

      That's how it is. Everyone has their own truth.
      1. +8
        28 October 2025 09: 02
        Quote: Boris55
        That's how it is. Everyone has their own truth.

        If you drink with thieves, beware of your wallet.
        If you drink with thieves, beware of your wallet.
        If you walk on a dirty road, you cannot help butting your feet.
        If you pull your hair out, you won’t put it back.
        If you pull your hair out, you won’t put it back.
        And your head is always responsible for where your ass sits.
        "The truth is always one"
        This is what the pharaoh said.
        He was very smart
        And for this he was called -
        Tutankhamun.

        And in order for there to be only one truth, you need to look at the object itself, and not at the shadow it casts...
        1. +1
          28 October 2025 09: 12
          Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

          Quote: ROSS 42
          So that there is only one truth

          Do you know why the police need at least two witnesses?

          Because one notices what the other doesn't. Our brain is designed to constantly scan the space around us, which has allowed the human race to survive in this world... So it turns out that their truths differ...

          Take you and me, for example - I have my own truth, you have yours...

          ps
          Propaganda? What's wrong with me defending my point of view? And I couldn't care less about the pros and cons.
          1. +7
            28 October 2025 09: 14
            Quote: Boris55
            Do you know why the police need at least two witnesses?

            I know that...But do you know what it means to bear false witness?
            By comparing the testimonies, the investigator (court) can determine which of the witnesses is lying...
            1. +1
              28 October 2025 09: 16
              Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

              Quote: ROSS 42
              I know that...But do you know what it means to bear false witness?

              Those who bore false witness - intentional distortion of facts.
              "It's okay to make mistakes. It's not okay to lie."
          2. +7
            28 October 2025 09: 40
            Quote: Boris55
            Do you know why the police need at least two witnesses?
            Because one notices what the other did not see.

            Well, yes... but as it follows from your posts, you only notice and know the truth... and that VVP is a Bolshevik, etc.—have you ever considered it? Why don't you have any support on the site? You're contradicting yourself, trying to convey your truth, which is essentially just a projection of a figure. laughing
            1. -1
              28 October 2025 09: 55
              The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              Why don't you have support on your website?

              I'm not exchanging my beliefs for mythical epaulettes. I've grown past the age when a pat on the head is a pleasure.

              Half the people on this site are TsIPSO supporters, Navalny supporters, Sorrosya supporters, and just plain Unified State Exam students. I couldn't care less about their opinions!
              1. +12
                28 October 2025 10: 30
                Quote: Boris55
                Half the people on this site are TsIPSO supporters, Navalny supporters, Sorrosya supporters, and just plain Unified State Exam students. I couldn't care less about their opinions!

                And this guy says that truth can be understood from several angles, including a picture with projections... and then immediately declares that anyone who disagrees with him is a CIPSO member... Boris's opinion is wrong, right? But what about a comprehensive examination from different perspectives, which will be the truth, and not just Boris's truth, which is just one projection? And what if you're wrong about something? Or have you already grown past the age where you can be wrong?
                1. +1
                  28 October 2025 10: 34
                  The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  What about a comprehensive examination from different perspectives?

                  I express one of these diverse positions. You can agree with it or not—that's your right, but mine is to express mine and not try to accommodate everyone else.
                  1. +4
                    28 October 2025 10: 37
                    Quote: Boris55
                    I express one of these diverse positions. You can agree with it or not—that's your right, but it's mine to express mine.

                    I don't often agree with you, but this is exactly the case.. +You..
    3. +23
      28 October 2025 09: 24
      the primacy of truth over law.
      What equality before the law, what truth... Now we have "everything for friends, the law for everyone else"
    4. P
      +12
      29 October 2025 05: 14
      Justice is an exclusively class phenomenon, and the law, as an attribute of the state, ALWAYS serves the dictatorship of the ruling class
  6. +7
    28 October 2025 05: 07
    Not a word about the role of the General Staff officers. Only the "brilliant" Bolsheviks could have planned all this? It's the 21st century, there's a ton of information.
    1. +10
      28 October 2025 05: 15
      Quote: prapor55
      On the role of General Staff officers

      And among them there were patriots, they saw where the wheel of history was rolling and drew the right conclusion! hi
      1. +2
        29 October 2025 17: 55
        I agree, and then they served for a long time.
    2. +6
      28 October 2025 06: 03
      Well, if you take into account the number of nobles among the Bolsheviks... There were probably even more of them than Jews.
      1. +4
        28 October 2025 08: 11
        Quote: paul3390
        Well, if you take into account the number of nobles among the Bolsheviks... There were probably even more of them than Jews.

        Interestingly, it turns out that most of the Bolshevik leaders were nobles and Jews, and we should be grateful to them for creating the USSR as a result of the revolution. What's interesting is that later in the USSR, nobles and Jews were not liked—a paradox. laughing
        1. +9
          28 October 2025 08: 29
          Even pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet Jews in the USSR were radically different. Pro-Soviet Jews brought great benefits to Soviet culture, science, and diplomacy, while anti-Soviet Jews, like all other enemies of the USSR, proved capable only of sowing malice and hatred, lies, slander, and enriching themselves by robbing the country and its people.
        2. +6
          28 October 2025 11: 31
          And this is understandable—because the Bolshevik nobles had long since ceased to consider themselves nobles. And they didn't demand privileges simply because of their birthright. And they disliked precisely those who did... Jews were disliked for many reasons. The main ones were their habit of clustering together in diasporas and pushing only their own people to the top, as well as their demonstrated cosmopolitanism and loyalty only to their own people and their own pockets, rather than to the multinational Soviet Union. Clearly, not everyone was like that, but a significant majority were.
          1. 0
            29 October 2025 09: 13
            Quote: paul3390
            And they did not demand privileges for themselves simply based on the fact of birth.

            In the 20th century, the privileges of the nobility were rather symbolic and did not provide anything supernatural... This was not the time of Peter the Great... There were a bunch of poor noble families who, besides being noble, practically had nothing else... often not even normal food...
        3. +1
          28 October 2025 23: 59
          A number of authors point out that there were quite a few priests' sons among the Bolsheviks. Incidentally, the high-ranking Chekist Frinovsky, deputy first to Yagoda and then to Yezhov, who was executed under Beria, came from the family of an Orthodox priest. Some uneducated people in our country, for some reason, classify him as Jewish. They've obviously never heard of so-called priestly or seminarian families.
          1. P
            0
            29 October 2025 05: 17
            It was a question of access to scarce education, now there is no particular need to incorporate parasites
    3. +6
      28 October 2025 08: 06
      Quote: prapor55
      Not a word about the role of General Staff officers. Was it only the "brilliant" Bolsheviks who could have planned all this?

      According to Prosyannikov's research, at the beginning of 1917 there were about 8 officers in the Imperial Russian Navy. During the years of the Revolution and the Civil War, more than six and a half thousand of them went over to the Reds and began to serve the Soviet government. The Naval General Staff, almost in its entirety, went over to the side of the Soviet government and led the Red Fleet throughout the Civil War.
      https://cont.ws/@bya965/736983
      1. -2
        28 October 2025 09: 25
        A dubious premise! According to the collection "The Fleet in the White Struggle," up to 80% of the navy's active personnel participated in the White movement.
        And in Bonch-Brunevich’s report of July 8, 1918, it is stated: “The overwhelming majority of former career officers are refraining from joining the new army, and the number of those who have expressed a desire to serve, according to some reports, does not amount to even 10% of those registered.”
        Officers were often lured in by the promise that they would fight only against external enemies. Bonch-Brunevich himself made no secret of this when describing how he lured generals in.
      2. 0
        28 October 2025 10: 10
        Quote: bya965
        Almost the entire Naval General Staff went over to the side of the Soviet government and led the Red Fleet throughout the Civil War.

        Not everything is voluntary. Remember what they did to Admiral Shchasny?
        1. +2
          28 October 2025 10: 14
          Quote: Prometey
          Do you remember what they did to Admiral Shchasny?

          Trotsky's jealousy

          However, revolution, as we know, devours its children. Alexei Shchastny would be among the first to learn this. After saving the fleet, his personal authority becomes unshakable, and the residents of chaos-ridden Petrograd begin to speak of the Baltic sailors as the only force capable of restoring order to the city.

          Shchastny himself behaved indiscreetly, revealing that he had received a telegram from Trotsky ordering payment of a reward to any sailors who dared to sink the ships. This irritated the Bolshevik leadership, which had by then relocated to Moscow.

          On May 10, 1918, sailors from the Baltic Fleet ships stationed on the Neva adopted a resolution demanding that "all authority for the defense and administration of the Petrograd District be handed over to the naval dictatorship of the Baltic Fleet." The Soviet government perceived this as an attack on its own "dictatorship of the proletariat." Shchastny was invited to Moscow. The admiral sensed no danger—he had not participated in the sailors' uprising, and for his actions in saving the fleet, he would likely have received awards and honors. However, he was arrested right in Trotsky's office.
    4. +5
      28 October 2025 08: 59
      Quote: prapor55
      Was it only the "brilliant" Bolsheviks who were able to plan all of this?
      Well, Lenin was definitely a genius, I don't think there's anything to argue about. hi
  7. +19
    28 October 2025 05: 41
    The Bolsheviks, unlike the Provisional Government, began immediately by fulfilling the demands of the population: with decrees on land, decrees on peace, etc. They received some support.
    In particular, modern films about the revolution, like "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution," made with oligarch money, are like a prostitute telling everyone about morality. They contain nothing about the revolution itself.
    The situation of the people during that period: a shortage of communal land, forcing peasants to move to the cities and work in factories with limited compliance with labor laws. Work 12-15 hours a day. Rented housing, where several people shared a corner of a room, sleeping in the same bed (one working during the day, the other at night), while some even slept at their machines. And much more. The use of special trains, for example, the Semyonovsky Regiment's, on the Kazan Railway, and the execution of everyone involved and not involved, after which people complained to Nicholas II that they had somehow gone too far and killed too many ordinary people. And Nicholas's response: "Well done, Riman. You should have shot more."
    There were plenty of such episodes.
    It was very difficult to bring the people to peace, and it is not surprising that there were many reprisals during the revolution.
    As for the high circles, everyone there lives in fear of the Socialist Revolutionaries. Where police department agent Yevno Azef makes so many successful assassination attempts? And Stolypin (who had come to Kyiv to attend a performance attended by the Tsar, among others) was killed by a certain Bagrov, who was admitted to the theater without being searched and issued an invitation. Despite this, Stolypin had no security, and he moved around Kyiv alone. One gets the impression that some departments were creating their own work and playing these games with provocateurs.
    Our state was in turmoil left and right then.
    But whatever one's attitude towards the October Revolution, what it gave to citizens in terms of their rights, in work, women's rights, and the efforts of the Bolsheviks in transforming the country from an agrarian one into a great power with achievements in the field of science and technology over several decades deserves respect.
    1. +6
      28 October 2025 08: 08
      Quote: kebeskin
      The use of special trains, such as those of the Semenovsky Regiment on the Kazan Railway, and the execution of everyone involved and not involved, after which people complained to Nicholas II that they had somehow gone too far and killed too many ordinary people. Nicholas II responded: "Well done, Riman. You should have shot more."

      Some inaccuracies, namely:
      - not special trains, but punitive expeditions by rail, killing everyone without trial or investigation (the suppression of the December 1905 armed uprising outside Moscow)
      - No one complained to Nicholas II that they had gone too far, I mean those who led the suppression, there was even some euphoria.
      - Nicholas II did not utter the aforementioned words about Riemann and about the need to shoot more; the Tsar expressed his heartfelt gratitude to the troops for suppressing the rebellion.
      - Colonel Riman commanded the combined punitive detachment, and the commander of the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment was Colonel Min, who was one of the main active participants in the suppression of the uprising and was recognized as a hero of the victory.
      - The king, of course, could not thank Riemann personally, this is someone's fantasy
      - Lenin later called all those involved in the punitive operation wild dogs.
      What is the conclusion? By 1917, all the conditions for a civil war had been created, and the level of hatred towards each other was off the charts.
      1. +7
        28 October 2025 08: 26
        There was praise from "kind" Nika, after all. But not personally.
        1. +1
          28 October 2025 08: 30
          Quote: kebeskin
          There was praise from "kind" Nika, after all. But not personally.

          Well, that's what we're talking about, he didn't thank Riemann, but the troops.
          1. +4
            28 October 2025 08: 36
            This is debatable. A simple example: when a department at work excels, the first thing we praise is the department manager, not Uncle Vasya from department X who pulled all the work off. Or we express gratitude to X's boss and his subordinates.
        2. +2
          28 October 2025 08: 34
          Quote: kebeskin
          from "kind" Nicky

          In my opinion, no matter what one's attitude toward the rulers of Tsarist Russia, the USSR, or today's Russia, such designations as Khrushchev, marked, alcoholic, Nicky, and the like are unacceptable.
          What kind of people, what kind of army, what kind of people, what kind of monks, what kind of people, what kind of degenerates.
    2. +7
      28 October 2025 08: 16
      Quote: kebeskin
      In particular, modern films about the revolution, like "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution," made with oligarch money, are like a prostitute telling everyone about morality. They contain nothing about the revolution itself.

      You noticed this just in time, otherwise I was already thinking that Konchalovsky decided in his old age to tell the people the truth and repent...
  8. +7
    28 October 2025 06: 39
    The artist Kibrik was actually a contemporary of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the liberals of the time. That's why his painting "There Is Such a Party" portrays Lenin and Stalin as geniuses and thinkers of global stature, whose ideas will lead hundreds of millions of people around the world. The liberals aren't even visible in that painting. Only 80 years have passed since the appearance of Kibrik's painting, and the liberal counter-revolution, which finally won in 1991, has now, in the person of Konchalovsky, released a film called "Chronicles of the Russian Revolution," where Lenin is shown as almost a buffoon, a figure of regional significance, and all the Bolsheviks there are without any thoughts of world-class philosophers, including Gorko, Stalin, etc. So the destruction of great personalities such as Lenin and Stalin will continue, especially on the eve of the Great October Revolution.
    1. +11
      28 October 2025 08: 02
      The oligarch Usmanov provided the money for the film. There's no need to explain how a leading member of the bourgeoisie views the ideas of communism, socialism, and their leaders.
      Therefore, we have a film with lisping characters taken from the episodes of the TV show "Gorodok" and Ilyich's behavior with a certain Parvus in the style of Sasha Bely from "Brigada".
      It feels like these people consider our people to be uneducated b.....
      Comments in the media said they were all in the archives looking for materials. Well, yes... they found the materials. The film's plot is based, among other things, on the book "Lenin in Zurich" written by a certain Solzhenitsyn.
      1. +3
        28 October 2025 08: 21
        Quote: kebeskin
        Well, yes... they found the materials; the plot of the film is based, among other things, on the book Lenin in Zurich written by a certain famous Solzhenitsyn.

        How have the materials from the famous comedy not yet been taken?
      2. +6
        28 October 2025 09: 03
        Quote: kebeskin
        Comments in the media said they were all in the archives looking for materials. Well, yes... they found the materials. The film's plot is based, among other things, on the book "Lenin in Zurich" written by a certain Solzhenitsyn.
        The Decembrist Uprising in the film "Union of Salvation" (2019) was also sung about—historical truth, "for the first time in history," and so on. Badcomedian, in his analysis of this film, broke down all this "truth" and archival work. hi
      3. +5
        28 October 2025 09: 37
        The money for the film was provided by the oligarch Usmanov.

        He who dines with a girl gets to dance with her. And so the brainwashing continues, as can be judged by some of the comments. The same thing happened in Ukraine. Remember? "Do you want it like in Ukraine?" (c) They do it like they do in Ukraine, and that's how it's done throughout the former USSR.
    2. Fat
      +1
      28 October 2025 08: 10
      Quote: north 2
      The artist Kibrik was essentially a contemporary of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the liberals of the time. That's why his painting "There Is Such a Party"

      E.A. Kibrik was born in 1906, the same age as Brezhnev. "History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks): A Brief Course" was published in 1938. The artist and illustrator received the Stalin Prize, third degree, for his work in 1948. There is a concept called the "time-binding function"—a function that, on a historical level, allows each generation to add new categories to the "mental library," connecting and separating ever new phenomena and things.
      It's time to stop being surprised by anything and grumbling at the "liberals".
      "Study, study and study again" (c)
    3. -9
      28 October 2025 09: 35
      I haven't seen the chronicles yet... But my personal opinion is that Stalin can be called the leader, and Lenin, no matter how much you dress him up in white clothes, was a rather mediocre dogmatic figure, created by PR, zombifying people for decades.
  9. +3
    28 October 2025 06: 47
    A definite plus to the author and the article.
  10. +5
    28 October 2025 07: 10
    Old Russia was destroyed not by Bolshevik commissars and Red Guards, but by ministers and generals, deputies and high church officials, aristocrats and grand dukes, high-ranking Freemasons, the elite of the Russian Empire.

    History loves repetition. The USSR was also destroyed by the elite. Therefore, to avoid a repeat of 1917 and the 90s, we, the Russian people, must be very careful about who we entrust with power, so that various Kerenskys, Gorbachevs, Yeltsins, chatterboxes, drunkards, and traitors to Russia and the Russian people don't come to power again.
    The only question is how to do it!? And this should be the most important lesson from history!!!
    1. -6
      28 October 2025 08: 16
      Quote: The Truth
      Old Russia was destroyed not by Bolshevik commissars and Red Guards, but by ministers and generals, deputies and high church officials, aristocrats and grand dukes, high-ranking Freemasons, the elite of the Russian Empire.

      The thesis that omits the fact that the Bolsheviks participated in the February Revolution no worse than others, and somehow separates them from February (it was the others who broke everything) and focuses the attention on October (the Bolsheviks saved everyone)... this is manipulation, and not a historically accurate presentation of what happened.
      1. +6
        28 October 2025 09: 35
        a thesis that fails to mention that the Bolsheviks participated in the February Revolution no worse than others

        At least read up on history and find out who overthrew the legitimate ruler, and only then write here.
        For your information:
        Nicholas II was arrested by order of the Provisional Government. The arrest was carried out by General Kornilov. The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it!
        1. 0
          28 October 2025 09: 44
          Quote: The Truth
          At least read up on history and find out who overthrew the legitimate ruler, and only then write here.

          That is, what I wrote, that the Bolsheviks participated in the February Revolution that overthrew the Tsar - is a lie?
          But what about this?
          "The Bolshevik Party was the only party that prepared the masses for decisive battles with the autocracy... The Bolshevik Party put forward the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war, educated the masses in the spirit of a consistent revolutionary struggle against tsarism... On the eve of the February Revolution of 1917, it had about 24 thousand members.
          The St. Petersburg Committee headed the largest party organization in the country, with 2 members. The St. Petersburg Party Committee operated a number of underground printing houses where revolutionary leaflets were systematically printed. From late July 1914 to early March 1917, local party organizations issued approximately 2 million leaflets. Guided by Lenin's strategic and tactical principles, the Bolsheviks called upon the masses to wage a decisive struggle against the autocracy at rallies, workers' meetings, and through leaflets.
          Was it all made up by the people who wrote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? That's where this information came from... And please point out where I claimed the Bolsheviks arrested the Tsar, since you're taking such a patronizing tone.
          1. 0
            28 October 2025 09: 47
            For your information:
            Nicholas II was arrested by order of the Provisional Government. The arrest was carried out by General Kornilov. The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it!

            Also read about who joined the Provisional Government and when. Moreover, the Bolsheviks overthrew this Provisional Government!
            1. +1
              28 October 2025 10: 27
              Quote: The Truth
              For your information:
              Nicholas II was arrested by order of the Provisional Government. The arrest was carried out by General Kornilov. The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it!

              Where did I write that the Tsar was arrested by the Bolsheviks?
              Quote: The Truth
              Moreover, the Bolsheviks overthrew this provisional government!

              This is definitely true..
          2. +2
            28 October 2025 10: 54
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            The Bolshevik Party was the only party that prepared the masses for decisive battles with the autocracy... The Bolshevik Party put forward the slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war, and educated the masses in the spirit of a consistent revolutionary struggle against tsarism... On the eve of the February Revolution of 1917, it had approximately 24 members.
            The St. Petersburg Committee headed the largest party organization in the country, with 2 members.

            Compared to the Socialist Revolutionaries, they were a pitiful handful. It's not for nothing that even the official history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) wrote that:
            While the Bolsheviks led the direct struggle of the masses in the streets, the compromising parties, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, seized deputy seats in the Soviets, forming their majority in them. This was partly facilitated by the fact that most of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in prisons and exiles (Lenin was in exile, Stalin and Sverdlov were in Siberian exile), while the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries roamed freely on the streets of Petrograd. Thus, at the head of the Petrograd Soviet and its Executive Committee were representatives of the conciliatory parties: the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. The same thing happened in Moscow and in a number of other cities. Only in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Krasnoyarsk and some other cities the majority in the Soviets from the very beginning belonged to the Bolsheviks.
            © Brief Course
            In fact, it's enough to look at the composition of the Petrograd Soviet Executive Committee. There were no Bolsheviks on the provisional Executive Committee at all. In the first permanent Executive Committee, only two out of fifteen members were Bolsheviks. Subsequently, four out of thirty and seven out of thirty-six.
          3. +2
            28 October 2025 13: 16
            Quote: 2 level advisor

            That is, what I wrote, that the Bolsheviks participated in the February Revolution that overthrew the Tsar - is a lie?


            Participated... in what way? In the tsar's abdication—no. In the formation of the Provisional Government—also no. If there had been no Bolsheviks at all, the liberal democratic revolution (the February Revolution) would still have taken place. But the second revolution—the October Revolution—certainly would not have happened.
            As for propaganda, many people were engaged in propaganda against the autocracy back then, from the Cadets to the anarchists. And the Bolsheviks weren't the loudest voice at first.
            1. 0
              28 October 2025 13: 50
              Quote: Illanatol
              Participated... in what way?

              Read my entire post again and you won't have to ask... I'll copy it, though.
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              "The Bolshevik Party was the only party that prepared the masses for decisive battles with the autocracy... The Bolshevik Party put forward the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war, educated the masses in the spirit of a consistent revolutionary struggle against tsarism... On the eve of the February Revolution of 1917, it had about 24 members.
              The St. Petersburg Committee headed the largest party organization in the country, with 2 members. The St. Petersburg Party Committee operated a number of underground printing houses where revolutionary leaflets were systematically printed. From late July 1914 to early March 1917, local party organizations issued approximately 2 million leaflets. Guided by Lenin's strategic and tactical principles, the Bolsheviks called upon the masses to wage a decisive struggle against the autocracy at rallies, workers' meetings, and through leaflets.
              Was it all made up by those who wrote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?

              Quote: Illanatol
              In the tsar's abdication – no. In the formation of the Provisional Government – ​​also no.

              Is there a fact of participation? Or not? What's wrong with this statement? Or if you weren't invited to participate in the main events, does that mean you didn't participate and just stayed home?
              Quote: Illanatol
              But the second revolution, the October Revolution, would definitely not have happened.
              As for propaganda, many people were engaged in propaganda against the autocracy back then, from the Cadets to the anarchists. And the Bolsheviks weren't the loudest voice at first.

              unquestionably
              1. 0
                29 October 2025 08: 10
                If participation was limited to the crowd, what's the point? It's worth discussing those who played the leading roles, not the supporting cast, without whom the event would have taken place anyway. The main actors at this political carnival were, after all, the liberals, not the Bolshevik comrades. Regardless of what was written in the "Short Course"... alas, not everything written in Soviet times reflected the real state of affairs.

                Well, how would things have turned out after February if there hadn't been October... I'm sure they would have been much worse than Russia had been in the "wild 90s." After all, those raised in the Soviet system of values ​​weren't there yet (and despite not receiving their wages for months, they still fulfilled their duties), and there were no nuclear weapons, which prevented the West from doing to the Russians what they did to the Serbs.
                1. +2
                  29 October 2025 09: 27
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  If participation is at the crowd level, what's the point?

                  So, without their participation in February, there might not have been October, since it is not a fact that they would have managed to gain any strength and influence if others had scolded them for not participating, so their participation was very useful for the Bolsheviks, although they certainly did not have much influence.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Well, how would things have gone after February if there had been no October...

                  You know, there's a lot you can fantasize about here... On the one hand, the economy would have been intact, there would have been no GW, no losses of millions... Or maybe the bourgeoisie would have screwed everything up without any control... Even though all the managers would have remained in place and the systems would have worked... I don't know... You can only fantasize about here, definitely, personally, I don't know what would have happened... The main thing is how the problem with WWI would have been solved, and then we can build on that...
                  1. +1
                    29 October 2025 14: 03
                    1. The opinions of "others" would hardly have concerned the Bolsheviks. They began their revolutionary work long before the February events and had formulated their political program and attractive slogans even before Nicholas's abdication.
                    2. What "whole economy" are you talking about? The country was already falling apart under the Tsar, and after his abdication... do you think the national outskirts, or rather local elites, simply accepted the Provisional Government? Yeah, so these shady gentlemen who decided to replace the perfectly understandable "White Tsar" will be legitimate in the eyes of Asian princelings and khans. And in an empire in disarray—what "whole economy"? Should I remind you what was happening to the USSR's economy even before its collapse, when the "parade of sovereignties" began? And "democratization" would help... it wasn't just the army that was in chaos.
                    What's the solution to the WWI problem? Only the brutal rule of the Bolsheviks, who were able to quickly rebuild the army on a new ("Red") basis, saved the country. Without this rule, yesterday's allies would have torn the dying empire to pieces. They were a pack of imperialist predators, ready to tear even the weakened members of their pack to shreds for the British flag. Or do you seriously believe that the Entente countries staged an intervention to aid the "White movement"? Those imperialists couldn't care less about the White Guards; they simply wanted to profit from chunks of Russia. "Just business, nothing personal."
                    1. +2
                      29 October 2025 14: 28
                      1.
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      The opinions of "others" would hardly have bothered the Bolsheviks.

                      The opinion of the people, whether they would follow them or not, given that they did not participate in the fight against the Tsar... It's clear that the other parties don't care...
                      2.
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      What whole economy? What are you talking about? The country was already falling apart under the Tsar, and only after his abdication...

                      Quote: Illanatol
                      Yeah, these shady gentlemen who decided to replace the quite understandable "White Tsar" will be legitimate in the eyes of the Asian princes and khans.

                      Quote: Illanatol
                      What was the solution to the WWI problem? Only the strict rule of the Bolsheviks, who were able to quickly rebuild the army on a new ("red") basis, saved the country.

                      ALL of this, I emphasize ALL... could have been done by the Provisional Government, and it would have been even easier for them if there had been a normal, tough leadership, and not Kerensky... why? Because all these reasons became noticeably stronger after the October Revolution, and then the Civil War began, which greatly strengthened them.. You must admit... here one can even more strongly emphasize the merits of the Bolsheviks, that they sorted out a more complex situation, and the disastrous role of Kerensky for the Great Patriotic War and their lack of a sane leader.. If he had been there, I am sure October simply would not have happened.. That is why I always say that it was largely an accident that the USSR was born in world history... and that the Tsar, Kerensky, and other people... everyone except the Bolsheviks "shit themselves" and that the war (the wars since 1905) turned out to be unsuccessful.. All this came together.. Also with the fortunate arrival of the troops that Lenin led.. Only this together made it possible to carry out the October Revolution.. A series of interdependencies and coincidences, and not a "natural outcome", as some claim.. The USSR, one might say, was a "wonder of the world"..
                  2. 0
                    29 October 2025 14: 40
                    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                    So, without their participation in February, there might not have been October, since it is not a fact that they would have managed to gain any strength and influence if others had scolded them for not participating, so their participation was very useful for the Bolsheviks, although they certainly did not have much influence.

                    The Bolsheviks' participation in February was only at the grassroots level.
                    ...most of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in prison and exile (Lenin was in exile, Stalin and Sverdlov in Siberian exile), while the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries freely walked the streets of Petrograd.

                    So if they wanted to make claims against the Bolsheviks, they would have. Like:Where was your party's leadership in February 1917? Living off the people's money abroad while we were here fighting the bloody Tsarist regime?" wink
                    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                    You know, there's a lot you can fantasize about here... on the one hand, the economy would be whole

                    The economy was already struggling by early 1917. First and foremost, transportation was unable to support shipments even to the rear. As a result, gross production figures and supplies from abroad seemed encouraging, but in reality, warehouses were overflowing in one place (Arkhangelsk being a case in point) and shortages were rife elsewhere.
                    Disruptions in supplies led to the fact that the supply of food in the army began to decline sharply. If in 1915 it ranged from 18 to 30-day needs, then already in 1916 it dropped to 12-16 days, and in 1917 to 6-10 days. There were days when a two-day supply remained on separate fronts. In 1917, the troops switched to the 800-gram norm of bread, and then to the 400-gram norm.
                    © Beskrovny.

                    But the biggest problem will be personnel. After February, the new government will be faced with the land issue in full force.
                    Rejecting his decision would lower morale, which would be immediately exploited by those who didn't have much power after February (the Socialist Revolutionaries, for example). And hello, October.
                    Any solution to this issue is mass desertion under the slogan "Otherwise we won't get anything!"
                    1. 0
                      29 October 2025 15: 09
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      The Bolsheviks' participation in February was only at the grassroots level.

                      at any level... if it weren't for him, they could be reproached for not coming out against the Tsar... here, as they say, the main thing is "participation"...


                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      The economy was already struggling by early 1917. First and foremost, transportation was unable to support shipments even to the rear. As a result, gross production figures and supplies from abroad seemed encouraging, but in reality, warehouses were overflowing in one place (Arkhangelsk being a case in point) and shortages were rife elsewhere.

                      But you must admit, after the February War and the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, things got even worse on all fronts...
    2. +9
      28 October 2025 08: 32
      Quote: The Truth
      The Russian people need to be very careful about who we trust with power, so that the Kerenskys, Gorbachevs, and Yeltsins don't come to power again.

      And aren't they in power now?
    3. +1
      28 October 2025 13: 24
      Quote: The Truth
      History loves to repeat itself. The USSR was also destroyed by the elite.


      Not exactly a repeat. The people didn't elect the previous, tsarist elite; it was a caste in which power and influence were hereditary. The "democratic reformers" came to power through elections, and the "masses" voted for them more than once. "Vote or lose," remember?
      So the USSR wasn't destroyed only by the elite; it was betrayed by a significant portion of the masses. And this portion remains quite loyal to anti-Soviet ideology and practices to this day. Let's not delude ourselves about this.
      1. -2
        28 October 2025 13: 51
        the people did not elect the royal elite

        Yes, really, what are you saying!
        Historical information:
        The Romanovs were elected to the throne at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613. And throughout the history of Russia and Byzantium, from which Rus', Russia, takes its historical origins, the power of the prince, the grand prince, and then the tsar was always hereditary. So, what does your assertion about the royal power mean?
        it was a caste
        It has no negative connotation, only a positive one: the grand dukes and sovereigns of Rus' and Russia were always raised from childhood, taught to govern their people and state. And the people of Rus' and Russia, with the exception of the Time of Troubles and then after the 1917 coup, have always recognized state power in Rus' and Russia as sacred. And this was the strength of Rus' and Russia.
        Now about the democrats.
        The people gave them that name for a reason. You can't make candy out of shit, even if you vote for that shit. And as for how the democrats came to power through elections, tell those tales in, say, Gayrope or the Baltics. They'll listen with pleasure there and even applaud you to death. As the leader of the people used to say: it doesn't matter how they vote, it matters how they count. And that was the whole point of the democrats. Something similar is happening right now in unfortunate Moldova, and before that in Romania, where your beloved democrats overthrew the legitimate government.
        1. +1
          29 October 2025 08: 34
          Quote: The Truth
          Yes, really, what are you saying!
          History
          The Romanovs were elected to the throne at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613.


          The rabble, comprised of traitors and double-dealers, elected the same representatives. Well, yes, if a worthy person were elected, like Prince Pozharsky, he, once he becomes ruler, will start asking awkward questions: "What were you doing, gentlemen, before 1612?" And truthful answers are so awkward.
          The truth is that practically the majority of the elite and state institutions had already failed the test of the "Time of Troubles" and proven their incompetence. The Tsar's throne had become a mere passing point, the elite boyars proved corrupt, willing to serve anyone who would share their perks, and the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church were ready to anoint any "False Dmitry," a puppet of the occupiers, to the throne (legitimizing their power). All these aristocrats of the belly were leading the country toward disintegration and external subjugation. Russia was saved by the self-organization of those who could be called the true people—the people, not a select few.
          Alas, the lesson was not learned and was repeated three centuries later.
          Incidentally, the Romanovs themselves eventually relegated the Zemsky Sobors to a dark corner. There was no point in electing tsars. What if someone else were elected instead of a Romanov? And to consolidate their power, they began instilling in the people a servile spirit and reverence for higher authority through convenient historical myths.

          And yes, any overly centralized power, any closed caste, any mossy elite with no social mobility—both then and especially now—has a negative connotation, not even in terms of moral flaws, but because of the high vulnerability of such a state and political organization. This is clearly demonstrated by the example of both monarchical Russia and the late Soviet Union. We must learn our lessons and avoid making the same mistakes again.
          The future belongs to a network-centric, intelligently decentralized system. This applies to both the state and the armed forces. Only then will new "Minins and Pozharskys" emerge systematically and fulfill their vital missions not by chance, but in a completely natural manner.

          In our time, one can only speak of the sacredness of power with irony. Modern thinking is, for the most part, quite rational and non-religious, so let's leave such spiritual trinkets in the past. The emphasis should be on reason, not the "sleep of reason."
          1. -1
            30 October 2025 12: 43
            The scum, consisting of traitors and double-dealers, chose the same representatives.

            Here's the strangest thing: how did this pack of traitors and double-dealers manage to make Russia one of the world's largest powers!? So think carefully about whether you should pursue this topic further.
            In our time, one can only speak about the sacredness of power with irony.

            I have no doubt about that. This irony is the hallmark of every liberal and liberal-minded person. So there's nothing to even discuss here.
            But, just by the way.
            When power in Russia ceases to be sacred (in Russian for those who don't understand what we're talking about, accepted by all the people), then immediately in Rus' there arise troubles, revolutions and uprisings, etc. This was the case in the past (the Time of Troubles, 1917, the end of the 80s and it is still the case today.
            And God forbid that something like this happens again in modern Russia!
            God forbid that liberals come to power in Russia again!!!
            I have nothing more to say to you. You don't have to answer, I'll manage without your ignorance.ёny maxims..
            1. +1
              30 October 2025 13: 30
              Quote: The Truth
              Here's the strangest thing: how did this pack of traitors and double-dealers manage to make Russia one of the world's largest powers!? So think carefully about whether you should pursue this topic further.


              It's worth it. If you view the state and its people as your private property, then why not take care of such a business? As long as it's personally beneficial. So, who benefited most from the expansion of the state? The workers and peasants?
              Incidentally, one historian, back in Tsarist times, put it this way: "The state grew stronger, but the people withered." Incidentally, this historian was neither a liberal nor a communist. Why, despite all the state's successes, did the people live in poverty, and why was serfdom abolished only when it had become completely indecent?

              Quote: The Truth
              I have no doubt about that. This irony is the primary characteristic of any liberal and liberast.


              That's just your opinion, nothing more. This view is typical of any reasonable person with a materialistic bent, not just liberals. Or are you one of those who still believes biblical nonsense and thinks the Earth is flat and rests on elephants?

              The USSR was an atheistic state, and its power was not sacred. Relying on blind faith is a priori a losing proposition. But you can continue to enjoy the clericalism of both hemispheres; that's your right. The future, after all, belongs to those who are rational and prefer science to clericalism.
  11. +9
    28 October 2025 07: 52
    Both the Bolshevik-communists and their supporters in October 1917, and their enemies in their totally deceitful Perestroika, equally seized their country, equally imposed themselves into power, their System, economy, and ideology on the country and the people.
    BUT with directly opposite goals and results, therefore, both Soviet communists and their supporters have always been proud and are proud of the October Revolution, and of what they did useful for their country and people after it, its leader Lenin still has a huge number of supporters, and the enemies of the Bolshevik-communists cowardly whine in chorus that they "had nothing to do" with their counter-revolution during their Perestroika, and everything that they did after it, and they betrayed its leader Gorbachev long ago, throwing him to those whom he betrayed and slandered.
  12. +4
    28 October 2025 08: 03
    ... offered the people to create a new reality, a civilization - a Soviet one, more just, where there would be no classes parasitizing on the people. The Bolsheviks had all three necessary elements for the formation of a new reality, a project: image of the future, a bright world; political will and energy, faith in one’s victory (super-passionarity); and organization.

    A question immediately arose in my mind: does the current project have all three necessary elements? And does the project even exist?

    Kerensky himself fled beforehand, leaving in the car of the American ambassador.

    There's a real interview with Kerensky on YouTube, recorded in the 1960s. In it, Kerensky himself recounts the events as they unfolded. It's interesting to hear the perspective of an eyewitness and participant. Of course, it should be noted that this is a perspective from the other side.
    1. +3
      28 October 2025 10: 55
      Quote: Stas157
      There's a real interview with Kerensky on YouTube, recorded in the 1960s. In it, Kerensky himself recounts the events as they unfolded. It's interesting to hear the perspective of an eyewitness and participant. Of course, it should be noted that this is a perspective from the other side.

      To paraphrase a famous joke: "Who do you believe? The official story or the shameless, direct participant in the events?" wink
      1. 0
        30 October 2025 13: 18
        Quote: Alexey RA
        To paraphrase a well-known joke: "Who do you believe? The official story or the shameless, direct participant in the events?"


        Trusting a "shameless participant in events" who has proven himself a complete loser and screwed up everything he could is truly unwise. Maybe we should also trust Gorbachev, who's a bird of a feather with "Alexandra Feodorovna"? laughing
    2. +2
      28 October 2025 16: 47
      Quote: Stas157
      Of course, we must make the adjustment that this is a view from the other side.

      The newspaper Pravda published a short obituary when Kerensky died in New York.
  13. 0
    28 October 2025 08: 26
    Of course, it is a great pity that the events of 1917 (February in particular) led to the Civil War and became the reason for Russia's defeat in the First World War.
    But under those conditions, no other development of events was apparently foreseen.
    1. +2
      28 October 2025 09: 41
      and became the reason for Russia's defeat in the First World War.

      I had to be patient for a little while, and then Russia was presented with the Straits on a silver platter, along with other wishes...and from the heart. laughing
    2. +1
      28 October 2025 13: 08
      Quote: Trapper7
      Of course, it is a great pity that the events of 1917 (February in particular) led to the Civil War and became the reason for Russia's defeat in the First World War.


      And before that there were continuous victories over the Germans, one must assume.
      By the way, how did it happen that at the beginning of WWI subversive elements were not drafted into the army, and later the tsarist authorities lifted this ban?
      Well, there are still those who like to put the cart before the horse.
      And the Russo-Japanese War, based on this logic, was also lost by the Russian Empire because of the damned "Sicilians". laughing
      1. +1
        28 October 2025 16: 09
        Quote: Illanatol
        And before that there were continuous victories over the Germans, one must assume.

        Answer me one question: who won the First World War, the Entente or the Quadruple Alliance?
        1. 0
          29 October 2025 01: 57
          Well, by November 1918, Germany was winning. It had already won the Eastern Front, while the Western frontline was in the Entente countries. Germany was ramping up production of tanks and anti-tank rifles. But then the Revolution happened. Incidentally, it was heavily influenced by the Russian Revolution.
          1. +1
            29 October 2025 08: 48
            Quote: The Meaning of Life
            Well, by November 1918, Germany was winning. It had already won the Eastern Front, while the Western frontline was in the Entente countries. Germany was ramping up production of tanks and anti-tank rifles. But then the Revolution happened. Incidentally, it was heavily influenced by the Russian Revolution.

            You know, yesterday I responded somewhat emotionally to another commentator and decided to be more restrained, so I’ll just write that you are completely wrong.
            Here is Hindenburg's opinion regarding the Eastern Front on the eve of the February Revolution:
            "Regarding the 1917 campaign, we were debating whether the main threat would come from the West or the East. In terms of numerical superiority, it seemed the greater threat lay on the Eastern Front. We should have expected that in the winter of 1916-1917, as in previous years, Russia would successfully compensate for its losses and restore its offensive capabilities. We received no information indicating serious signs of disintegration in the Russian army. Moreover, experience has taught me to treat such reports with great caution, regardless of their source or time of origin.

            Faced with Russia's superiority, we could not look with equanimity at the state of the Austro-Hungarian army. The reports we received did not provide compelling grounds to believe that the favorable outcome of the campaign in Romania and the relatively favorable situation on the Italian Front (since the situation there remained tense) had a lasting, encouraging effect on the morale of the Austro-Hungarian troops.

            We had to take into account that Russian attacks could once again lead to the collapse of the Austrian position. In any case, it was impossible to abandon the Austrian front without direct German assistance. On the contrary, we had to be prepared to continue sending reinforcements to our ally if a critical situation developed."

            Marshal von Hindenburg. Out of my life. Cassel and company, LTD, London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne 1920, p. 243.

            The collapse of the Austrian army. This is not written by a "crust baker" or a civilian propagandist. This is written by perhaps the best military mind in Germany during the First World War.
            For my part, I would like to remind you of such a phenomenon as “rutabaga winter”
            The winter of 1916–1917 became the "rutabaga winter," when rutabaga cooked with potatoes formed the staple diet of German families. Mortality in the rear increased sharply (by almost a third), primarily from diseases related to malnutrition.

            And here is Hindenburg in January 1917:
            "Things can't get any worse than they are now. This war must be ended by any means necessary and as quickly as possible."

            I can give many more quotes, but you can find them yourself if you want.
            And yes, Germany won.
            1. 0
              29 October 2025 10: 05
              You cite Hindenburg's thoughts in early 1917. It's only natural that "Germany's finest military mind" considered the potential dangers. But we now know that his fears were NOT confirmed:
              - there was no collapse of the Austro-Hungarian army.
              - the offensive of the Russian army in July 1917 was easily repelled.
              Germany survived the winter of 1916-1917, and then the winter of 1917-1918. But the winter of 1918-1919 would have been easier to endure, since food supplies from occupied Ukraine began arriving.

              Reading your conclusions, based on the anxieties and fears of German generals, I can't help but think that in a hundred years, someone will write that by 2023, Russia had already lost the war to Ukraine miserably, and as proof, they will cite the thoughts of Igor Strelkov (who, seriously, is arguably the best military mind in modern Russia). Smart people differ from those who just throw in the towel because they always consider potential dangers.
              1. +1
                29 October 2025 11: 23
                Quote: The Meaning of Life
                and as proof he will cite the thoughts of Igor Strelkov (who, no joke, is perhaps the best military mind in modern Russia).

                Now you surprised me.
                Quote: The Meaning of Life
                What distinguishes smart people from those who are too cocky is that they always take into account possible dangers.

                Yes. And Hindenburg was one of them and understood perfectly well that Germany had already lost the war in January 1917.
                1. -1
                  29 October 2025 17: 52
                  Now you surprised me.
                  It's strange that you're not surprised how his assessments and predictions come true with regular accuracy.

                  Hindenburg was one of them and understood perfectly well that the war was lost by Germany already in January 1917.
                  Well then, Russia lost this war back in 1915.
        2. +2
          29 October 2025 09: 04
          Quote: Trapper7
          Answer me one question: who won the First World War, the Entente or the Quadruple Alliance?


          I, and not only I (the majority of German historians are in agreement), am confident that if Germany and Austria-Hungary had not experienced their own revolutionary events, which were a direct consequence of our October, there simply would not have been any defeat of Germany and Austria.
          In fact, Germany and Austria were brought to their knees by revolutionaries, and the Entente simply appropriated the fruits of others' victories, which is typical of Western "democracies."
          Could you remind me how many German fortresses and cities the Entente troops were able to capture before October 1917?
          And how the Germans are capable of fighting to the last, having the motivation to do so, they clearly demonstrated in the Second World War.
          Are you sure that in 1917-1918 the Entente forces had a sufficient superiority in forces to storm Berlin? I am convinced of the opposite – such a superiority did not exist. Germany was not defeated on the front lines, but fell victim to a systemic (political) weapon – the "plague of Bolshevism."
          Subsequent events showed that even Western democracies had no vaccine against this "plague" at the time, and were therefore later forced to curtail their intervention in Soviet Russia.
          1. 0
            29 October 2025 11: 37
            Quote: Illanatol
            In fact, Germany and Austria were brought to their knees by revolutionaries

            Like Russia.
            Quote: Illanatol
            Are you sure that in 1917-1918 the Entente forces had sufficient superiority in forces to take Berlin by storm?

            And the German troops - Paris?
            Germany was not defeated on the front lines, but became a victim of a systemic (political) weapon - the "plague of Bolshevism".

            Change "Germany" to "Russia" and voila)
            Could you remind me how many German fortresses and cities the Entente troops were able to capture before October 1917?

            Not at all. But the German army retreated closer to the border in 1918 for a reason.
            If revolutionary events had not occurred in Germany and Austria-Hungary, which were a direct consequence of our October, there simply would not have been any defeat of Germany and Austria.

            So the situation is this: there's no revolution in Russia, which means Germany suffers military defeat at the front. There's a revolution in Russia, which means Germany suffers defeat as a result of its own revolutionary movements... It's a rather hopeless situation, don't you think?
            1. +2
              29 October 2025 13: 28
              1. A revolutionary movement wasn't required to bring Russia to its knees. Russia was objectively weak and backward, as all previous wars had clearly demonstrated. They could only fight on equal terms against the Turks. They even abandoned the war with Japan, even though there were no Bolsheviks on the front lines. Russia suffered its first major defeat at Tannenberg at the very beginning of the war, when there wasn't a single Bolshevik in the army. This was because at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, there was a ban on conscripting politically unreliable individuals into the armed forces.
              So, in Russia's case, the rise of revolutionary sentiment in the army was a consequence of defeat, while in Germany it was the primary cause of ultimate defeat. Germany had no objective preconditions for defeat; formally, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk offered a head start: the Eastern Front was closed, vast territories suitable for economic development were gained, dozens of divisions of experienced veterans (not Yankee greenhorns who couldn't fight properly) could strengthen the Western Front, millions of workers and potentially tens of thousands of volunteers were available in the new eastern territories... but it was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that led to Germany's swift defeat.

              That's why I wrote that WWI could have ended in a military draw. In fact, the war ended in a positional stalemate. And yes, the Germans were closer to Paris than the French were to Berlin. By the time of the Russian Revolution, not a single Entente soldier had been on German soil, so where were the German divisions?

              The "plague of Bolshevism" worked both ways. But let's not forget that Russia had previously been plagued by a "liberal cholera" epidemic, and the 90s demonstrated in practice how liberal democracy strengthens defenses. Remember how our army "strengthened" under Yeltsin? Well, democratic reforms ("we decide by vote whether to attack the Germans or continue drinking moonshine... adopted unanimously!") in the army had a corrosive effect back then, too.

              1918 saw an explosive rise of revolutionary sentiment in Germany and its army! Russia, where the Bolsheviks, openly opposed to the imperialist war, seized power, is a clear example.

              No. If there's no revolution in Russia, then most likely the Entente and its opponents, exhausted by the war, will conclude a peace acceptable to both sides. Each will retain their own interests, excluding those who have demonstrated their weakness and dependence. They could be finished off even by yesterday's allies (possibly in alliance with former adversaries). "Bolivar can't bear two." Among the weakest would be Russia and Austria-Hungary, and perhaps Turkey as well. The strongest would seize some territory, taking advantage of the opportunity. The strongest get the biggest bonuses. What can you do, "that's the law of the jungle"... of the imperialist jungle.
            2. 0
              29 October 2025 18: 04
              The German army itself retreated closer to the border in 1918.
              Yep. 40 km. And in the summer of that same year, the allied armies retreated 80 km closer to Paris.

              So the situation is as follows: there is no revolution in Russia, which means Germany suffers a military defeat at the front.
              Look at the map of military operations in either February 1917 or October. Only Germany's opponents suffered defeats at the front.
  14. +3
    28 October 2025 08: 39
    Capitalism is not only an economic system, but also an ideology, in short, hatred of the poor.
    1. +7
      28 October 2025 08: 44
      And those who staged the counter-revolution in the USSR in order to become the same rich and richest parasites that the Bolsheviks overthrew, hate and despise the people they robbed just as much as those rich and richest parasites in the Russian Empire, whom the enemies of the USSR declared to be the "gene pool and the flower of the nation."
      1. -2
        28 October 2025 08: 46
        Quote: tatra
        And those who staged the counterrevolution in the USSR

        Enemies of the communists. Members of the CPSU party, and not the least of them.

        This world is strangely arranged. request
        1. +9
          28 October 2025 08: 54
          Nothing strange about that. The USSR's enemies on Soviet territory—both during the Soviet era and during their vicious and totally deceitful anti-Soviet period—always pretend to be whoever suits their current interests, and they've proven that it doesn't matter to them who they glorify for profit—whether it's the Communists, Nicholas II, the White Guards, or the White Cossacks.
          1. +1
            28 October 2025 08: 58
            Quote: tatra
            Enemies of the USSR

            and communists.

            Quote: tatra
            It doesn't matter to them who they praise for their own benefit - whether it's the communists, Nicholas II, the White Guards, or the White Cossacks.

            Tatra, you speak with hatred. Understand already -

            Well, people, humanity, must someday understand that Hatred destroys. Only love creates.! Only love

            But you're not so good with love, Tatra.
            1. +10
              28 October 2025 09: 05
              Don't try to wriggle out of it. Hatred of everything and everyone is precisely one of the main mentalities of the enemies of the USSR who seized it. Their entire ideology, propaganda, geopolitics, their "history" of our country and people is the inculcation of malice and hatred.
              I am for the USSR, but I do not have the same hatred for the enemies of the USSR that you all have for each other, because of which you even selflessly kill each other.
              And it’s high time to understand that I love the USSR.
              But for each of you, enemies of the USSR, 90 to 99% of your comments here are AGAINST someone or something. And not the slightest love for the State you created or its people.
              1. 0
                28 October 2025 09: 10
                Quote: tatra
                I don't have such hatred towards the enemies of the USSR

                Do you have one that is different?)))

                And before, you called these enemies "enemies of the communists." Then the methodology was amended because it didn't work.

                Quote: tatra
                I love the USSR

                And I love a woman who died 15 years ago. And in a month she will be 16. So what?

                Quote: tatra
                not the slightest love to what you created To the state and its people

                Girl, I'm just a skilled worker. I'm not creating a state; I'm not trained for that. It's always hatred that speaks within you. It will kill you, a stroke, a heart attack, and all the other joys—you're bringing it on yourself. In vain, IMHO. But it's your business, of course.
                1. +3
                  28 October 2025 09: 12
                  Are you so happy that I answered you that you're clinging to me? That's enough, I won't feed the bot.
                  1. +1
                    28 October 2025 09: 13
                    Quote: tatra
                    I won't feed the bot

                    You yourself used this word. With you, as a person... okay, let's move on.
                    1. 0
                      28 October 2025 11: 25
                      Quote: Paranoid62
                      Quote: tatra
                      I won't feed the bot

                      You yourself used this word. With you, as a person... okay, let's move on.

                      It's useless there. Like a record.
                      1. -3
                        28 October 2025 21: 01
                        Quote: Trapper7
                        It's useless there. Like a record.

                        Yes, I know, I've been here since 14)
                      2. +2
                        28 October 2025 21: 10
                        Records - it is you, the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, no matter what we are talking about here - you always have only one evil AGAINST in all your comments.
              2. +2
                28 October 2025 10: 00
                Quote: tatra
                I don't have such hatred towards the enemies of the USSR

                I'm not like that... we know, we've been there before. laughing
          2. +3
            28 October 2025 10: 07
            Quote: tatra
            Enemies of the USSR on the territory of the USSR

            Could you at least once write specifically who all these invisible enemies are?
            1. +1
              28 October 2025 13: 00
              Every woman should have a mystery in her. bully
  15. +2
    28 October 2025 09: 21
    Until the summer of 1917, they weren't considered a serious political force, inferior in popularity and numbers to almost all other parties, especially the Cadets and Socialist Revolutionaries. But by the fall of 1917, their popularity had grown.

    The Bolsheviks had always been an active and moderately radical group with influence, but their support remained low for a very long time, as their program lacked a primitive populism understandable to the "masses." The first steps toward changing propaganda appeared with the April Theses of 17, but a major surge in popularity was still a long way off. This surge continued for a whole year, but the Bolsheviks only gained radically significant support, sufficient to implement their policies, after the Socialist Revolutionary Party's attempted coup. summer 18 years
  16. 0
    28 October 2025 10: 05
    It seems that the army, represented by the soldiers' deputies, was also destroyed by Freemasons and liberals?
    1. +1
      28 October 2025 11: 30
      No, no, what are you saying? Go higher - they were enemies of the USSR.
    2. +2
      28 October 2025 15: 56
      Milyukov's speech, "Stupidity or Treason?" was printed in two million copies and distributed at the front. Of course, the Bolsheviks produced it, printed it, and distributed it, but Milyukov was a Bolshevik at heart. But he was still pretending to be a liberal. laughing
  17. -1
    28 October 2025 11: 58
    “There is such a party!” is the famous phrase uttered by Vladimir Lenin at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets on June 4 (17), 1917.


    The author - the full version of the speech delivered from the rostrum of the congress is presented in Volume 32 of Lenin's collected works. The phrases: “There is such a party!” are not in the speech

    And the entire article is made up of similar mossy myths, long since dispelled by time and history.
    1. +1
      28 October 2025 14: 58
      mossy myths

      What is the myth?
      If the transcript recorded Lenin's words "Yes."
      If you worked with the transcripts of that period, you'd know that the transcripts were a collection of edits added after the fact, as several stenographers were required to take the transcripts (which wasn't always the case) and then compile a consolidated document. This was done because such congresses almost always degenerated into a jumble of squabbles interrupting the speaker. And a single stenographer was simply physically unable to respond to multiple speakers. This led to inaccuracies in the transcript. This is precisely why the entry "There is" could be the same as "There is such a party," if such an exclamation was imprinted in the memory of those present. Or it might not. It doesn't affect the essence of the matter.
    2. BAI
      +1
      28 October 2025 22: 10
      Probably in volume 32 it says:
      Now, a whole series of countries are on the brink of collapse, and those practical measures that are supposedly so complex that they are difficult to implement, that they need to be specially developed, as the previous speaker, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, said—these measures are quite clear. He said that there is no political party in Russia that would express a willingness to assume power entirely. I answer:There! No party can refuse this, and Our party does not refuse this: every minute She is ready to take power entirely." (Applause, laughter.) You can laugh as much as you like, but if the citizen minister puts us before this question next to the right-wing party, then he will receive a proper answer."
  18. +2
    28 October 2025 13: 18
    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
    a thesis that keeps silent about the fact that the Bolsheviks participated in the February Revolution no worse than others and, as it were, separates them from February (it was the others who broke everything)


    They effectively broke the entire tsarist regime, bringing it to a complete standstill. Even Nicholas's inner circle realized that "something had to change at this conservatory."
    1. -2
      28 October 2025 14: 09
      Quote: Illanatol
      They effectively broke the entire tsarist regime, bringing it to a complete standstill. Even Nicholas's inner circle realized that "something had to change at this conservatory."

      If we're talking about the mechanism for implementing the revolution, then it's likely that the maximum effort and funding (including from the Bolsheviks) was provided by certain oligarchs of the time, who wanted more money after the disappearance of the Tsarist government's control. Without them, it's not at all certain that it would have been exactly as successful. Revolutions are prepared with money. They weren't the main reason, but without them, it wouldn't have happened.
      1. +3
        30 October 2025 09: 03
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        If we're talking about the mechanism for implementing the revolution, then it's likely that the maximum effort and funding (including from the Bolsheviks) was provided by certain oligarchs of the time, who wanted more money after the disappearance of the Tsarist government's control. Without them, it's not at all certain that it would have been exactly as successful. Revolutions are prepared with money. They weren't the main reason, but without them, it wouldn't have happened.


        There were no oligarchs as such in Tsarist Russia, not even a single one. There were relatively wealthy individuals, industrial capitalists, bankers (relatively few), merchants... but they weren't oligarchs! The term "oligarch" is used too loosely on this website. An oligarch isn't just a rich person. Even with a sizable stock of "factories, newspapers, and steamships," it's entirely possible to not be an oligarch, but merely a businessman. An oligarch is someone who is not only wealthy but also wields real power, political power at that. The point is that homegrown capital effectively had no political power in Tsarist Russia. But it desperately wanted it. That's why the bourgeois February Revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy occurred. The capitalists finally realized that under the Tsar, they wouldn't be granted absolute power, like two birds in a den... Nicholas made it clear that he had no intention of sharing power and would not deviate from the principles of autocracy.
        And yes, if not for October, Russia (or rather, what remained of it from its more ruthless imperialist neighbors) would have been faced with a bourgeois dictatorship, where real power lay with the capitalists, who had become real oligarchs, and their protégé—a dictator, a Führer "à la Russe." There were simply no other options, and the Provisional Government and the Constituent Assembly would have been mere temporary stopgap measures (like the Directory—a stopgap measure for Napoleon).
        1. +1
          30 October 2025 09: 22
          You have certainly opened up my thought more correctly, more broadly and with more precise terminology, Anatoly, I agree. hi
  19. +3
    28 October 2025 16: 54
    The enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people are an anomaly of humanity in every way, including the fact that even 35 years after they created their State, their entire ideology and propaganda, their comments on the Internet are NOT for their State, but AGAINST other States.
    And if Lenin and Stalin still have a huge number of supporters, then the enemies of the USSR have long betrayed their two "leaders", and for the third they had to hire paid bots on the Internet, so that at least they would pretend to be his supporters.
    1. +1
      29 October 2025 02: 07
      Even after 35 years since they created their State, all their ideology and propaganda, their comments on the Internet are NOT for their State, but AGAINST other States.
      And while Lenin and Stalin still have a huge following, the enemies of the USSR have long since betrayed their two "leaders," and for the third, they had to hire paid bots on the Internet.

      Very aptly observed! While all Soviet leaders constantly emphasized that they were merely continuing Lenin's work, now they're scaring us with: "What, do you want the 1990s back?"
  20. Des
    +1
    28 October 2025 19: 43
    "Death to the bourgeoisie!"
    Well, actually, people had complaints about them (the bourgeoisie). Why not?
    Of course, those were the times.
    Nowadays, for some reason, people don't treat the bourgeoisie that way.
  21. +2
    28 October 2025 19: 52
    Those were difficult times. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks brought Russia under their control within the Empire's borders and rebuilt the state. But now, under democrats, that's not happening.
    1. +1
      30 October 2025 09: 29
      Quote: Yuri_K_Msk
      Those were difficult times. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks brought Russia under their control within the Empire's borders and rebuilt the state. But now, under democrats, that's not happening.


      It's impossible to rally and revive the people through military force alone. We need to offer an attractive vision of the future for a united state; we need a worthy purpose for existence and development. This is deeply problematic; there's no real positivity; at best, it's a retreat from the obvious negativity, which many people drank in abundance in the 90s, and which some are still consuming by the spoonful (like the non-brothers, for example). The problem is that what the majority perceives as an undeniable negative is, for an elite minority (both in Russia and other former Soviet republics), a veritable blancmange with chocolate.
  22. BAI
    0
    28 October 2025 21: 41
    Russia could not fulfill its duty to its Entente allies.

    Russia owes nothing to the Entente. The Allies are something else. It would be better if Germany were an ally.

    French Marshal Ferdinand Foch admitted: "If France was not wiped off the face of the earth in 1914, it owes it primarily to Russia."
  23. +2
    28 October 2025 21: 51
    Ah, Samsonov...
    and here he shoved in the machinations of the West and conspiracy theories...
    "The 'Global Behind the Scenes' unleashed a world war and orchestrated a revolution in Russia. The masters of the USA and England planned to establish a global world order based on Marxism – a kind of global totalitarian concentration camp. Their tools were internationalist revolutionaries, Trotskyists. ...The goal: a New World Order based on false communism (Marxism)."
    1. 0
      30 October 2025 09: 35
      There is some truth to this. "Nes pas," as the French say.
      Or haven't you read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"? Incidentally, the author's brother was a Darwinian and a founder of "social Darwinism."
      Let me remind you that this dystopian novel describes a future society that combines features of both imperialism and "false communism." Henry Ford is revered as a god by the members of this future society, and one of the main characters is named "Lenina."
      1. +1
        30 October 2025 10: 19
        There are countless dystopias... then and now... (I haven't read this one, but others).
        In reality, if there is an "event", all active people try to take advantage of it.
        And "liars" (propagandists) - even more so
        1. 0
          30 October 2025 13: 53
          But it would be worth it.
          In reality, the truly successful are those who don't simply exploit "events" but rather properly prepare for these desired events. Those who simply react to changing situations end up at the tail end, among the losers.
          1. 0
            30 October 2025 14: 51
            Now - yes... but to do this you need to have the resources and competence....
            Like AI development, Musk, Bilgeitz, the owners of Ozone, Ali and Walberis, etc.

            It's easier to write 100,000 notes... (and there's a lot of text, and some payment will be collected)
  24. +1
    29 October 2025 13: 10
    And so, after so many victims, after so much destruction, after the deaths of both guilty and innocent, they finally built it. And they screwed it up. Thanks to the bastards who latched on to it.
    1. +1
      29 October 2025 18: 07
      All human systems collapse sooner or later. Be it the Russian Empire, the Roman Empire, or the British Empire. Even though no less effort and sacrifice went into their construction.
  25. 0
    29 October 2025 20: 22
    This isn't an article, but a collection of slogans. It'll do for fans of Bolshevism. It's unlikely to be of interest to anyone else.
  26. +1
    30 October 2025 13: 57
    Quote: Igor Belobrov
    And so, after so many victims, after so much destruction, after the deaths of both guilty and innocent, they finally built it. And they screwed it up. Thanks to the bastards who latched on to it.


    It's somehow forgotten that "socialism" was originally seen as something temporary, a transitional stage and nothing more. Marx and Engels never suggested that the "socialist system" would last a thousand years, like the Reich. Alas, after socialism, it turns out, one can take a step back, not forward.
    Let me remind you that the collapse of the Soviet system began with the slogan "More socialism!" Many people fell for it...
  27. 0
    30 October 2025 14: 35
    Actually, in October 1917, there was a coalition of Bolsheviks, anarchists and Left Socialist Revolutionaries, and not just the Bolsheviks.