Military Review

Fight over the coffin. To the 90 anniversary of the death of Lenin

40
90 years ago, 21 January 1924, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin died. His health collapsed much earlier, the first stroke occurred in May 1922, the disease is then associated with vascular sclerosis, then with the consequences of a long-term injury, with a bullet extraction operation. Some sources report a tumor destroying the brain. But for some reason no one links the leader's illness with the last thing he managed to create. With the pogrom campaign against the Orthodox Church. In March-April, 1922, Vladimir Ilyich, was one of the initiators of the atheism orgy, he planned massacres in advance. And is it not natural that in response to a blow to the Church there was a blow from Lenin? The Lord personally showed how insignificant a person is, no matter how high he ascended.


True, Vladimir Ilyich was too inveterate atheist. Awareness of his own insignificance turned him not to the Lord, but to thoughts of suicide. Even in his youth, he liked the example of the Lafarg couple, son-in-law and Marx’s daughters: when they considered that they could not serve the cause of revolution by age, they took poison together as a family. But Stalin managed to dissuade Lenin from such an option.

And in the Soviet leadership, the first stroke did not cause serious shocks. To temporarily replace Lenin, who was often ill, had become accustomed. He treated his best luminaries, by the fall he began to recover, joined in the preparation of measures for the formation of the USSR. However, on the night of December 16 a second stroke struck. Now it was clear that Lenin’s health was being destroyed by an irreversible, full-fledged leader. And there were four figures of the “first size” in the Bolshevik elite. Zinoviev - Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Comintern and the St. Petersburg Communist Party Organization, Kamenev - Chairman of the Labor and Defense Council and the Moscow Party Organization. Stalin - people's commissar of two commissariats, general secretary of the party Central Committee. Trotsky was commander of the armed forces and the All-Russian Council of National Economy.

It is this pair that has become real candidates for power. In the first round of the struggle, an attempt was made to use the authority of the still living Lenin. It manifested itself in the form of the notorious “political testament”. Anyone who has experienced a stroke case knows its features. It greatly affects the psyche. The patient easily falls into anger and tantrums, becomes inclined to dwell on some "fad" - and easily inspired. All this we see in the articles of the so-called “testament”. And only one person could influence Lenin - Krupskaya, who was constantly with him. The apartment of the patient has become the epicenter of cruel intrigue.

18 December 1922, the plenum of the Central Committee, at the insistence of the doctors, decided to strictly observe the regime for the patient — Krupskaya was the violator. No, she did not resign. She insisted to the doctors that Lenin should be allowed to dictate at least 10 minutes a day. Say, he will then feel less slighted. After that, one of Vladimir Ilyich’s secretaries was removed from her duties. Alliluyeva, Stalin's wife! There were only secretaries from the Krupskaya team - Glyasser, Volodicheva, Fotieva. This is where the works of the “testament” began to be born.

When exactly they were dictated is unknown. A lot of inconsistencies have been found in the “Journal of duty doctors” and “Journal of duty secretaries”. And the works themselves are typed copies, not certified by anyone, not registered anywhere, without any marks, without originals of transcripts. But their focus is obvious. Krupskaya winds up her husband against Stalin - and pushes Trotsky to the side (although it was difficult, Vladimir Ilyich did not like Lev Davidovich too much). Lenin was constantly reminded of the long-standing, still October scandal in Tbilisi, when Ordzhonikidze gave in the physiognomy to one of the local “national communists,” Kabakhidze. Lenin dwells on the “Georgian business,” recalls him in January, in February, he demands materials.

In addition, Krupskaya did not tire of reminding her husband of a personal offense against Stalin, also last — in December he reprimanded Nadezhda Konstantinovna for violating the plenum resolution, to ensure Lenin had complete peace of mind. By the way, not just reminded. The sister of the leader MI Ulyanova recalled that Krupskaya arranged wild scenes “was not like herself, sobbed, rolled on the floor.” She got her way. 5 March 1923 Lenin dictated two notes. Trotsky offered to take the defense of the "Georgian cause". Stalin, for some reason, was found guilty. Joseph Vissarionovich Lenin dictated the note, demanding to apologize to his wife and threatening to break off the relationship. Krupskaya delayed this note for two days. So that Stalin did not apologize in time! But she overdid it. Lenin was worried, and March 7 had a third stroke. He was speechless and finally dropped out of the game.

Now the latent power struggle began to spill out. Trotsky underestimated Stalin. I imagined myself an exceptional talent, a genius. He was supported by most party leaders. Finally, behind him were the powerful forces of the "world backstage" - the Masonic organizations and the shadow circles of Western financiers, whose order for the destruction and looting of Russia, he worked out. Could any craftsman compete with him?

In the spring of 1923, propaganda attacks began. On the eve of the XII Party Congress, Radek published an article entitled “Leon Trotsky - organizer of victory” in Pravda. He was credited with all conceivable merit and merit - "great mental authority", "a great representative of the Russian revolution ... whose work and work will be the subject not only of love, but also of the science of new generations of the working class preparing for the conquest of the whole world." Pravda was the main press organ of the Communists, and its line was determined by the chief ideologue, Bukharin. Party members openly prompted whose side to take. There were other characteristic shares. Petrograd has not yet become Leningrad, but the city of Gatchina in 1923 was already turned into Trotsk.
In the course of this struggle, the work of "Lenin's political testament" began to surface. But not at once. Krupskaya threw them into use in turns, one by one. She suddenly remembered that she still had some important work of Vladimir Ilyich. But Trotsky was at the peak of his power! For housing occupied Yusupov Palace in Arkhangelsk. He kept a staff of the best cooks, servants. Conducted own receptions of foreigners, negotiations, meetings, which did not consider it necessary to inform the government. He was very careful about his health, he was taken care of by personal doctors, even at the most difficult moment of the war, Trotsky did not forget to take vacations, he went to resorts, to hunt and fish. Still, his supporters miscalculated.

The “gray” mass of party members was repelled by his nobility and arrogance. The soldiers did not forget how he spent in the retreating shelves "decimation", shooting every tenth. They remembered how he drowned peasant uprisings in blood. How he made "labor armies", proclaimed the restoration of industry and transport, for the slightest violations brutally cracking down on workers and railway workers. Well, those officials who by their position were more informed knew more. How foreign businessmen travel to Trotsky, conclude treaties that are extremely beneficial for themselves, receive concessions ... Lev Davidovich was a “stranger” for ordinary communists. Stalin looked much closer, he became the leader of the patriotic wing of the party. The 12th Congress turned into triumph, not for Trotsky, but for Joseph Vissarionovich.

His opponents realized that in an open struggle, Stalin had too much support in the “lower classes” - at any congress or conference, ordinary delegates would be on his side. Switched to other methods, backroom. In July, government leaders went on vacation, and Zinoviev, his assistant Evdokimov, Bukharin, and Lashevich, the commander of the Siberian military district, gathered in a cave under Kislovodsk under the guise of a picnic. Trotsky was also in the Caucasus. He did not take part in the “cave conference”, but the participants acted in his favor. Developed requirements to reorganize the party leadership. They sent Stalin a letter, actually an ultimatum. They blackmailed him with "Lenin's testament." They insisted on curtailing his powers, giving part of them to Trotsky and Zinoviev. Kamenev pretended to be a supporter of Stalin, helped to develop compromises, but in fact he played along with the conspirators.

Joseph Vissarionovich maneuvered, led the negotiations, agreed to "share power." Zinoviev, Trotsky, Bukharin added a few more senior positions. However, in the fall, the balance of power in the Soviet elite began to change. Lev Davidovich already considered himself a winner, he was puffed up with a consciousness of his own greatness, but he pushed away even his comrades - Zinoviev, Kamenev from his arrogance and unwillingness to reckon with anyone. Moreover, he was out of control of foreign owners, the "world backstage." In Germany, the economic and financial crisis broke out, unrest began. Trotsky insisted that the time had come to “put everything on the map” - the very existence of the Soviet state. Kindle the revolution with the Germans, and at the same time in Poland, Bulgaria, the Baltic States!

At the same time, Trotsky himself was automatically promoted to the role of not even a Russian, but a European leader! Colossal funds were sent to Germany, tens of thousands of Comintern activists and instructors went. Strikes, demonstrations began, revolutionary detachments were formed. Trotsky already saw himself as a new Bonaparte. Subordinate divisions advanced to its western borders. But the Western oligarchs did not smile at all in Europe. It needed revolutions in 1917 and 1918 in order to overthrow Russia, to win the war with Germany and Austria-Hungary. In 1923, they wanted to quietly “digest” the fruits of the successes achieved and row the profits.

Why, even Stalin did not want to risk the Soviet Union for the sake of the ghost of the “world revolution”. And even more so for the sake of Trotsky's ambition and elevation. However, in this case, not only Stalin became the opponent of Lev Davidovich. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin became thoughtful. By the way, all three were also emissaries of the "world backstage". But none of them wanted to put a “napoleon” on the neck of “Lev Davidovich”. But they, like Trotsky, underestimated Stalin. Were sure that this figure is not far, colorless performer. They believed that they could control his actions and decisions.

In November, with a united front, with the exception of Trotsky, the Politburo suddenly decided that the revolutionary situation in Germany was “overestimated” and the uprising must be canceled. Lev Davidovich disrupted his plans infuriated. He accused Stalin and other members of the Politburo of cowardice, of political mistakes. Anger so inflated him that he rushed into an open fight. He fanned the campaign as if “bureaucrats” had broken away from the party, betrayed the revolution and led it to “Thermidor” (the Bolsheviks often used comparisons with the French Revolution, and “Thermidor” - its rebirth when the bourgeois Directory overthrew the Jacobins). To avoid this, Trotsky demanded the expansion of party democracy. True, in the mouth of Lev Davidovich, who always proved himself an extreme dictator, the call for “democracy” sounded absurd, but what difference does it make?

The Trotskyists made a fuss in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where there were many all kinds of "internationalists" in the party ranks. Slogans against "bureaucrats" aroused the youth, small party members. Lenin's “testament” was distributed on the lists (by the way, it is curious that Gorbachev, starting “perestroika”, will play on the same slogans - expanding party democracy, fighting “bureaucrats”, will try to rely on fragmented articles of Lenin's “will”). But Kamenev and Zinoviev Trotsky insulted the attacks, they are even closer to Stalin.

Lev Davidovich caught very simply. They pretended to agree with him. Do you want democracy? You are welcome. A general party discussion was announced. Trotsky was inspired by reading the New Deal brochure. Thus framed. From his pamphlet, they pulled quotes and beat him. Even the name “new course” could be interpreted as different, not Leninist. Lev Davidovich was reminded of his previous disagreements with Lenin, the whole press fell on him. And once the general party discussion was announced, the province was involved in it, lower party organizations, where Trotsky's positions were weak. The XIII party conference, which opened on 16 on January 1924, was to sum up the results. But it was already clear that Trotsky had lost. At the conference, he chose not to appear, referred to the disease. And his supporters were crushed, denounced Trotskyism as “anti-Leninist deviationism”.

Well, then really mysterious played out история. January 18, the day the conference closed, Trotsky unexpectedly takes off. Leaves in Abkhazia, allegedly treated and relax. And January 21 did not become Lenin ... We emphasize that Lev Davidovich knew about his state of health. His personal physician, Fyodor Getye, was among the doctors serving the leader. On January 18, on the day of departure, Getya visited Trotsky twice. Lenin’s death was announced when he reached Tbilisi. But he did not return to the funeral! I telegraphed an obituary and continued on my way to Sukhum ...

Later in his memoirs, Lev Davidovich wrote - a “conspiracy” was formed against him and he was deceived. They told him: "The funeral on Saturday, you still do not have time, we advise you to continue the treatment." But in fact, the funeral was on Sunday, I could have time. This is a blatant lie. Please note that Trotsky does not operate with numbers, but with days of the week. If you take the numbers, the discrepancy is immediately visible. From Moscow to Tbilisi, he traveled from 18 to 21 in January — three days. And Lenin's funeral took place on 27. Even if he was lied to and called 26, 5 days remained! He had time anyway. It turns out he did not want.

Already in 1940, Mr .. Trotsky made new accusations, published in the American newspaper “Liberty” the article “Superborges in the Kremlin”. Referring to Doctor Goethe, he wrote that Lenin was recovering quickly, could soon return to business, and Stalin would have had difficulty. But Vladimir Ilyich was poisoned. And he, Trotsky, was deceived about the date of the funeral, so that he could not conduct an investigation. All this is also a lie, and very arrogant. About improving Lenin's health is known only from one source. From Trotsky himself. He voiced such accusations only when he was no longer alive in Gruete, Krupskaya, and none of those persons to whom he refers, who could allegedly confirm his words. All medical data and eyewitness memories show that the “improvement” was very conditional. Lenin did not even learn to speak. He could only repeat individual words, remember them by inscriptions and pictures. And since October, 1923 has deteriorated again.

In this state, Vladimir Ilyich could not pose a threat to either Stalin or anyone. But the accusations of violent death could indeed be played. Such an attempt really took place! As already noted, after the first stroke, Lenin had a thought about suicide. He returned to this idea after the second attack, asked Fotiev to get poison. And on March 17, after the third stroke, Krupskaya suddenly turned to Stalin. Say, Lenin demands to give him poison, and Joseph Vissarionovich must do it. By the way, according to the “Journal of duty doctors” it is clear that Lenin could not make any requests for March 17. He only moaned that day. So, the initiative came from Krupskaya herself. But Stalin did not fall for the bait. He informed all members of the Politburo: Krupskaya insisted to give Lenin poison, but he, Stalin, refused. The Politburo (including Trotsky) approved his actions.

Could Lenin "contribute" to die? To answer this question, it is necessary to take into account - in January, 1924 was not necessary for this to happen. It was enough a nervous shake. And biographical chronicles contain an eloquent fact. 19-20 in January, Krupskaya, again violating the doctors' instructions, read to her husband the decisions of the XIII party conference. The conference that defeated Trotskyism — and the woman who warmly sympathized with Trotsky read. Well, how could it not spill out of emotions? Do not comment on your own?

When the leader was gone, Lev Davidovich had opportunities for a very large game. He had a trump card of the “political will”. He had an army! Among the military, in fact, began a dangerous fuss. The head of the political department of the Red Army, Antonov-Ovseenko, launched an agitation in the units, appointed party conferences at military schools for February, calling Trotsky the "legitimate successor" of Lenin. He stated more than transparently that “the army can become the guarantor of the unity of the party” and “will call to the order the presumptuous leaders”. Trotsky was supported by the commanders of the Moscow District Muralov and the Siberian District Lashevich. The commander of the Western Front, Tukhachevsky, rolled from Smolensk to Moscow, and conducted negotiations with supporters and opponents of Lev Davidovich, who promise the most. Reports of the GPU testified to fermentation in schools, parts of the Moscow garrison. There were talks that it would be necessary to come forward and support Trotsky by force.

But he himself did not appear, remained in the Caucasus, walked along the deserted Sukhumi beaches. Why? It begs the version that he wanted to stay away from the coup. Everyone will arrange without him and "call upon the kingdom." It will remain clean. Will take power "by the will of the masses." Again, if the coup fails, he will have nothing to do with it ... However, the absence of Trotsky provided Stalin with free hands. Magnificent burial of Lenin was organized. At the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR, Joseph Vissarionovich brought the solemn “Oath of the disciple to the teacher” - thereby already assuming the supreme power.

But Trotsky, Stalin and his supporters neutralized very simply. The figure of Lev Davidovich was too large and authoritative, it was overthrowing — oh, how problematic! But ... he himself never dealt with practical guidance. Only shone, posed, distributed instructions. Concrete work was carried on him by talented, but inconspicuous assistants. In particular, command and control was closed to Deputy Commissar Sklyansky. That is what turned out to be Trotsky's weak point. The secondary Sklyansky could be shifted without congresses and conferences, without shocks. With a simple working decision of the Politburo he was transferred to another job, in the Supreme Economic Council. And Frunze, who was popular in the army and had long feuded with Trotsky, was appointed to replace him. And then already with his help they shot Antonov-Ovseenko, Muralov, Lashevich. And that's all. Lev Davidovich, retaining the post of Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, became “Bonaparte without an army”. His career is still quietly, but steadily rolled toward sunset.
Author:
Originator:
http://zavtra.ru/
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. invisibility
    invisibility 25 January 2014 07: 51
    +12
    Overall an interesting article. Only one thing is not clear. If there is a claim to an analytical article, why insert, "The Lord showed with his own eyes how insignificant a person is, no matter how high he ascended", "The realization of his own insignificance turned him not to the Lord, but to thoughts of suicide"?
    1. smile
      smile 25 January 2014 17: 13
      +5
      invisibility
      Really. Auto takes a weird approach. That states. that the Lord punished Lenin with illnesses - allegedly for persecuting the church. By the way, these persecutions of certain clergymen were largely justified, although not always - many actually incited the population to continue the civil war - like the way the Wahhabis are acting now, only without religious fascism. Or does the author believe that if even more people died in our fratricidal brawl, would God like it?
      And yet, if the author is such a very God-fearing person, why does he forget - Don't judge, but you won't be judged? Or he forgets that at the top of any church, including the Orthodox, serious passions are always simmering and there is a merciless struggle for power. No, the author should "either put on his panties or take off the cross." It's not good ...
  2. Sanyht
    Sanyht 25 January 2014 08: 57
    .
    billions of national money aimed at preserving the stuffed GREAT ...- this is only one of MARASMES, because of which the ECONOMY OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE DECLINED! there is still a bunch of the same, similar ... NO ONE WANTS TO CANCEL THEM.
    1. 222222
      222222 25 January 2014 10: 56
      +10
      Sanyht UA Today, 08:57
      BOSCOPE CONSTANTINE BENDAS, Managing Director of ROSHVE:
      1. ".. I believe that the stormy polemics and sometimes even hysteria, which both religious and non-religious people are spinning around this phenomenon, are just demagogy and distraction from other really pressing, important issues and topics .."
      2. "I think that the item related to the maintenance of the Mausoleum is not the largest item of expenditure in the state budget."
      http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=authority&id=1953
    2. invisibility
      invisibility 25 January 2014 13: 44
      +3
      Do not choke.
      Money invested in preserving history. It will pay off, believe me.
      Lenin created the world's first socialist state. All social benefits, copied from the USSR. Well, except that in addition to retirement, English bankers have distinguished themselves.
      Not a good reason to not be forgotten?
    3. smile
      smile 25 January 2014 17: 23
      +2
      Sanyht
      Make letters smaller, otherwise the pants will tear from the strain. :)))
      Unhappy one, do you not realize that the very concept of the "People's State" arose only thanks to Lenin? What, really not able to comprehend?
      And about your heaps of insanity you can tell your neighbors in the garbage can, on which you look for such insane arguments and facts.
      At the same time, a request - tell your mother to conduct additional classes on the style of the Russian language with you - blatant illiteracy hurts your eyes ... which, obviously, led you to the conclusions you set out.
    4. nnz226
      nnz226 25 January 2014 18: 45
      +4
      With Lenin's body, all liberals and other "believers" are hysterical. But! The embalmed body of the great Russian (Orthodox believer !!!) surgeon N. Pirogov, one of the heroes of the 1st defense of Sevastopol, lies in the same crypt. And nothing! Nobody cramps in cramps, does not shout that they say, not in a Christian way, etc. etc. So it is quite possible to leave the theme of the mausoleum and the body of Lenin in it alone. Moreover, he was a great man! Good or bad (whoever is without sin - let him throw a stone at him!), But great!
      1. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 25 January 2014 21: 29
        -2
        I agree - truly great! So in the 20th century, no one threw Anglo-Saxons like Lenin. He was given money and funds to break up, to fragment Russia into many small parts. And he took and assembled the ruined Kerensky. Let, a little smaller in size, albeit in ruin, but GATHERED !!!! He launched the next revival of Russia. And the monuments to him stand deservedly.
      2. peter_sh
        peter_sh 26 January 2014 19: 31
        0
        But I’ve never understood all these crowds of idiots who stand for hours in the heat / frost just to see the dried corpse of a very morally questionable person.
  3. muhomor
    muhomor 25 January 2014 10: 45
    +5
    The article is a typical order of the "new Russians". If the author is an anti-communist, this does not mean that he is a democrat. And where does the church?
  4. vezunchik
    vezunchik 25 January 2014 11: 43
    +10
    how tired of these gossip! The Russian intelligentsia can only whisper and pour mud, but when it comes to business, into the bushes! The whole world recognized that the Bolsheviks saved Russia from collapse, that Lenin did not take money about the Germans, and the mud was being watered. the church, especially in rural areas, was a brothel for terrorists and bandits, nuns (or disguised as nuns) went to villages with anti-Soviet propaganda, inciting hatred and provoking gang raids. See what is happening in Ukraine and with us ???? You have to have your own brains, and not repeat them like parrots .....
    Now look at the representatives of the church ???
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 25 January 2014 13: 33
      +2
      You have to have your own brains, and not repeat them like parrots .....
      Now look at the representatives of the church ???

      Can you imagine what they were before 1917? THE SAME!
      How do you put xnumx pluses?
  5. alone
    alone 25 January 2014 12: 12
    +3
    not surprisingly, all the time after the death of the leader of the country, the beginning of the struggle for power.
    1. cumastra1
      cumastra1 26 January 2014 13: 39
      0
      according to the premature Churchill - a bulldog fight under the carpet
    2. cumastra1
      cumastra1 26 January 2014 13: 39
      0
      according to the premature Churchill - a bulldog fight under the carpet
  6. valokordin
    valokordin 25 January 2014 12: 30
    +9
    Quote: vezunchik
    Now look at the representatives of the church ???

    How much dirt was poured on Stalin and his comrades-in-arms, and as for the church, she really got it, but not because of faith (the Bolsheviks would not risk setting the believing majority of the population against themselves), but because of their counter-revolutionary nature and ideological support of the rich. When the counter-clericals were eliminated, the patriarchy was restored, and now the church is again on the side of the bourgeoisie and the work in the church is prestigious and profitable.
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 25 January 2014 13: 48
      +3
      Stalin was never opposed to faith. There were decrees to prevent the persecution of clergy.
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 26 January 2014 17: 51
        +1
        Quote: invisible
        Stalin was never opposed to faith. There were decrees to prevent the persecution of clergy.


        Did the Tatars-Mongols destroy the Cathedral of Christ the Savior? Prisons were built in monasteries, priests were shot, wasn’t it under Stalin?
        1. usaratov
          usaratov 28 January 2014 11: 53
          0
          Do you really think that in general one person is to blame for all the troubles? And the rest, like blind kittens, did everything he said?
    2. wax
      wax 26 January 2014 00: 10
      +2
      By the way, here I am from Zhizdra. Before the war there was a magnificent Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, functioning. The Germans destroyed it. At 10 km in a small station Zikeevo there was an active church (it would seem, why?) - the Germans destroyed. So they destroyed it, but not everywhere, but where the resistance of the workers 'and peasants' power went wild. This is the answer. About today:
      http://yopolis.ru/occasion/595612/15176?tc=1&nsb=1&utm_source=s27&utm_medium=cpc
      & utm_term = lnt & utm_campaign = c010101
      http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/21221531/andrej-kuraev
  7. pRofF
    pRofF 25 January 2014 12: 37
    +2
    There are, of course, roughness, but overall not bad and deserves interest. So, about Comrade. Sklyansky hitherto did not know. In general, the author +.
    1. Max otto
      Max otto 25 January 2014 14: 48
      +2
      There is an interesting film "We sharpened their blades", though somewhat odious and ambiguous, but if we omit the political and liberal dust, then the historical facts are very interesting, it turns out that in fact Sklyansky created the Red Army, or rather its leadership.
  8. jjj
    jjj 25 January 2014 14: 17
    +7
    It is stated briefly, clearly, clearly. By the way, Comrade Stalin not only did not trample the merits of the previous ruler, but elevated them to the Absolute. All subsequent ones, as we recall, began by demeaning the previous one. This rule was partially violated by Brezhnev, who did not allow Khrushchev to be eliminated, but exiled him to the country. Well, Putin did not let Yeltsin be repressed. And here is the picture. It was under Brezhnev and under Putin that the merits of Stalin were recognized and recognized. This publication, in my opinion, is one of the steps to return to Stalin a good name
  9. leks
    leks 25 January 2014 16: 09
    0
    "Ivashek" must be fooled.
    We won't seize power without fooling "Ivashki"
    "And I don't care about Russia ..."
    "... So that they would not dare to think about any resistance for several decades."
    "The court should not eliminate terror, but justify and legitimize it in principle"
    "The intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, but shit"
    "We need to encourage the energy and mass character of terror"
    "Under the guise of" green "we will walk 10-20 versts and hang the kulaks, priests, landowners.
    "... the more bourgeoisie and clergy we manage to shoot on this occasion, the better"
    11 1918 of August
    PLEASE PLEASE WHO SAY THESE WORDS ???
    1. smile
      smile 25 January 2014 17: 31
      +1
      leks
      These are mainly words invented by those who tried to prevent the Bolsheviks from preserving the country and tearing it to shreds. Propaganda. There are blotches of Lenin's words torn out of their context, which in this connection completely changed the meaning. So. that you set out a false agitation. The principle of operation is as follows - right now from your comment I can pull letters and make up a few swear words from them. What do you think, can I say after that. what do you talk exclusively obscenities? :))) No. you will not agree - you will be indignant and say that I, bad, pulled out individual letters from the words, and therefore I am a liar and a provocateur ..... :))) So I say - you are a liar and a provocateur.
      Good luck to you.
      1. leks
        leks 25 January 2014 18: 04
        +5
        smile
        This is why I ask everyone about this text here, who know people, if you are well versed in this topic. You have such a question.
        Tell me, you, as the leader of certain forces, are trying to overthrow the regime that you hate; you do it, but not peacefully, that is. with the help of the revolution during this action, excesses of murder, terrorist attacks, and, in general, fratricidal war take place.
        As a result, as I said, you are in power, want to say that you will not hide something in historical textbooks for future generations to whitewash and justify your actions? After all, the majority of members of the forum here studied on Soviet textbooks, but as they say, "THE WINNERS WRITE HISTORY" Take Soviet history textbook and see how much has been written there about the First World War.
        A natural question arises on my side. AND IF THESE WORDS ARE THE TRUTH WHICH HIDE?
        FOR YOU CAN'T PROVE ME THIS ANYWHERE YOU HAVE ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS IN YOUR HANDS, and any evidence, SAME OTHER OPPOSITIVE PARTY CAN'T PROVE ME THE VALIDITY OF THESE WORDS.
        1. smile
          smile 25 January 2014 19: 50
          +4
          leks
          The fact is that the part of the phrases that you quoted that you did not invent — about two-thirds — is distorted or taken out of context in such a way that the meaning completely changes. It was easy to find them if you wanted in the days of the USSR, some I met in the texts of Lenin’s works, his speeches and documents while studying the history of the Communist Party hated by all students. :)))
          For example, the phrase about the shit of the nation is addressed to the liberal guys, who really cannot be called otherwise.
          Lenin really responded to the White Terror unfolded his own. And what was to be done if the opponents of the Reds were white, the interventionists, nationalists from the Baltic states, Finland, whom the Whites helped to chop off the country's territories, and the rest instantly put anyone on the wall on suspicion of red empathy?
          If wild bloody gangs raged in the country, shedding blood from left to right, large riots like Antonovsky were organized, while the "rebels" committed atrocities in such a way that the ghouls would scatter in terror ... they shed rivers of blood ... and who supported? A significant part of the clergy and the clergy .... you understand, this can only be cured by the wall ... otherwise - nothing.
          My advice to you - watch the video of the Goblin, with his commentary on the film "there was one woman"
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlkFx73weMI
          and much will become clear to you. Without stiffness and even cruelty, the Reds would not have saved the country - therefore, there was no other way.

          And about your question - they say, what if it's true? I can tell you the following - the creators have said so much about Lenin on the other side that if you start to believe them, you can ask me - but, they say, they say that Lenin was a cannibal, and what if it’s true? And what will I tell you? How can I prove to you that this is nonsense? :)))

          One thing I can tell you for sure, Lenin’s life, sayings and works were carefully documented and preserved. The vast majority of materials were not secret even under the USSR, and now even more so. So do not get fooled by propaganda.
          To admit, I thought that in your comment you are not asking, but scolding, picking those. who treats Lenin normally. That is why he answered so harshly. I think I was wrong. I apologize.
          1. leks
            leks 25 January 2014 21: 32
            +3
            smile
            You answered very clearly and clearly, but the minus is very bold. hi
            1. smile
              smile 25 January 2014 22: 39
              +2
              leks
              Compensate. I probably made a mistake. That's why I compensate.
    2. wax
      wax 26 January 2014 00: 14
      +3
      Just about, about the "brain of the nation", as I looked into the water. Keep pulling quotes. Would be quite suitable for "work" in the 37th.
  10. Crang
    Crang 25 January 2014 16: 19
    .
    Vladimir Ilyich! Save us from the tenacious tentacles of the current putinoids !!! Save Uncle Vova! The "alpha males" have already pulled up. Let's burn them again like stupid pigs.
  11. Puffed up
    Puffed up 25 January 2014 20: 51
    -9
    In dementia, we abide now. Satanic is now a sign now in our blood now. This poison has been heretofore. Through it, we have many complaints. It is necessary to pray that the Leninist enchantment will pass. The mercy of Russia is necessary then. And the chasing will pass this.
    1. smile
      smile 25 January 2014 22: 56
      +3
      Puffed up
      And in the case, is there anything to say? Or blurted out to check in? :))) By the way, I love humor, therefore I advise you - alternate the style if you want to be funny, and, of course, it is advisable to saturate the comment in addition to the original vocabulary with some more meaning. Well, if you succeed :)))
  12. predator.3
    predator.3 25 January 2014 21: 14
    +5
    The article is written correctly. The fact is that all these revolutionaries (Kamensky, Tomsk, Bukharin Rykov, etc.) did not know how to rule the country, and Stalin, as General Secretary, had to do all this routine, everyday work, and gradually all power was in his hands! and then he all this shushera-revolutionaries who until the 17th year were fooling around abroad with party money, simply eliminated.
  13. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 25 January 2014 21: 22
    0
    Put a minus. Author, you'd better take Mukhin, Bushkov, Starikov. Well, who is closer to you - if they published their article and their opinion - it would have turned out better. And so, without reference to sources and conclusions, it resembles a novel, not an analyst.
  14. I think so
    I think so 25 January 2014 22: 19
    -5
    The article is very PREFERRED ... Not to mention that the content and essence of the statements are simply delusional ... I think the author will end his days as he relates to the great historical personalities of his (?) People ...
  15. jjj
    jjj 25 January 2014 23: 17
    +4
    But the FSB archives are beginning to clear up many ambiguities. So I just learned yesterday that the phenomenal idea of ​​"Turning the imperialist war into a civil war" belongs to Parvus. And Natalia Narochnitskaya openly says that in general Lenin is a political technological project of Parvus. But when, after October XNUMX, Parvus set out to manage the finances of Russia, Lenin answered him that the revolution must be done with clean hands. Then we know: two assassination attempts and - the final
    1. wax
      wax 26 January 2014 00: 22
      -3
      To understand that Lenin is not Parvus’s political technology project, one must read Lenin himself, since 55 volumes have not yet been burnt in the square. Plus, in Soviet times, transcripts of party Bolshevik congresses were published. As for the provocateurs, these figures are very difficult to eradicate, and they are everywhere, even in your home.
  16. toos_1799
    toos_1799 26 January 2014 08: 49
    0
    Good article. The topic is interesting. A huge number of opinions, and many claim to be true. Probably, history will never work out any other way ... English historian Arnold J. Toynbee somewhere at the beginning of his work "Comprehension of History" / "" A Study of History "notes that sometimes history depends on what voice is broadcasting and what hearing he listens to.
    One of the readers of the site, whose commentary I mastered to read to the end, to my great regret, is very far from being able to comprehend, since he only has enough strength for frank abuse and cynical provocation against another reader, who has so clearly revealed his attitude to God. And the magnificent style of speech that this evil person uses only strengthens the first impression ... The voices of such disputants, in all fairness, must be muffled, and the rules of the site also oblige. But "complaining" is the worst way to show sympathy - and I sincerely sympathize with people who have different analyzers inharmoniously developed. Let everyone hear and speak too.
    It is interesting to note that the article resembles a work of fiction: without facts, without references, without analyzing all the works of Lenin, Trotsky and others like them ... This is a clear distortion. You don't have to have knowledge to have an opinion. And in this respect, fiction is like the most exact science, and the history of mankind is just an excuse for misinterpretation. For example, is Lermontov's "Hero" likable? Basically, yes. Is his story true? Yes, for those who have read the story to the end. The impression remains, like: Pechorin is contradictory, but the personality is integral ... Now let's imagine that someone, without reading a single work of M.Yu. Lermontov (maybe not knowing about his existence), will write a novel or story with a decent title - "Hero of Our Time". What are the chances that one piece will be similar to one another? I think they are tall: heroes, extraordinary personalities (which everyone considers himself to be in secret; which he is from birth) at all times attracted the minds of both writers and their readers. But the copy, in any case, will definitely not work ... Why do we, people, demand to "copy" the thoughts of the "great", and even more so our own ?!
    Of course, these considerations do not detract from the purpose of the argument - the search for and finding the truth. And yet, the distance from the truth of one and the closeness of the other does not give anyone preemptive rights in a dispute. Moreover, a person who is more versed in the question (of course, the question should be discussed alone) is obliged to assume the role of a mentor for the less enlightened in the question ... Worthless is the knowledge brought into our minds by spitting to the very depths of the soul.

    And the last, the most (in my opinion) interesting thought of Toynbee: "A war of conquest and victory are no less (and possibly more) destroying a civilization (state) than a defeat in a war." The quote is taken from "Comprehension ...", but for God's sake, don't waste time looking for it in the book. After all, the English historian was mistaken in many ways.
  17. Alerii
    Alerii 26 January 2014 10: 01
    -1
    And here the "ears" of God stick out !? Low bow towards Gundyaev.
  18. Criceta
    Criceta 26 January 2014 11: 52
    +1
    If, as someone spoke here, the article takes into account diverse opinions, then what did the author not mention about the most widespread theory of the death of Lenin - from neglected domestic syphilis?

    Quote: Alerii
    And here the "ears" of God stick out !? Low bow towards Gundyaev.

    And for most patriots, they will even stick out of a fairy tale about a bun.
  19. Wurger
    Wurger 26 January 2014 11: 59
    +3
    When will it be buried?
  20. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 26 January 2014 17: 06
    +1
    God's chosen people put a hand.
    Some reasons, the same resident involved in the deaths of Lenin and Stalin.
  21. Black
    Black 26 January 2014 17: 15
    +5
    I already wrote something and I will repeat myself. Lenin-Parvuz is nothing more than a diabolical project for the destruction of the Russian Empire. We sing praises to the "founder" only thanks to I.V. Stalin, who was able to outplay the demonic wing of the party. Let's imagine for a moment what would have happened to the country if Zinoviev-Bukharin-Kamenev and others like them had been defeated.
    1. ramzes1776
      ramzes1776 27 January 2014 04: 44
      +3
      Quote: Chen
      I already wrote and repeat. Lenin-Parvuz is nothing but a diabolical project to destroy the Russian Empire

      In fact, the Bolsheviks, led by the radical Lenin in October 1917, while the troops loyal to the interim government were at the front, carried out an illegal armed coup in the capital of the country, deserting soldiers from the front and leaving themselves sailors. Subsequently plunging the country into the abyss of fratricidal civil war and giving all of Ukraine to the Germans.
      1. ddd1975
        ddd1975 28 January 2014 12: 09
        0
        In fact, in February 1917, the anti-monarchists staged an armed coup in the capital ..... well, that's it! The question is - how can you fuck up everything being the richest person on planet Earth ??? The answer is "The king is made by the retinue." So it is about the February coup and about October ... yes, even now, about Ukraine.
    2. usaratov
      usaratov 28 January 2014 11: 48
      0
      Yes, especially fantasize and do not. I think something similar to the 90s.
  22. pvv113
    pvv113 26 January 2014 20: 19
    +6
    Quote: leks
    The truthfulness of these words.
    WORDS COULD BE TURNED FROM THE CONTEXT
  23. Aleksandr2
    Aleksandr2 27 January 2014 09: 55
    +1
    Lenin just wanted to avenge the brother of the terrorist and he succeeded
  24. usaratov
    usaratov 28 January 2014 11: 46
    -1
    I liked the article. Author, keep it up !!!