Military Review

Tsarist Russia: a dash for world greatness

40
Tsarist Russia: a dash for world greatnessAt the request of readers, we continue the cycle of articles devoted to pre-revolutionary stories our country


Today's material is devoted to the state of the economy, science and education in Tsarist Russia on the eve of the First World War. In 1910, an event occurred that can be considered the beginning of the atomic program of pre-revolutionary Russia. IN AND. Vernadsky made a presentation at the Academy of Sciences on the topic "Tasks of the day in the field of radium."

“Now, when humanity enters a new century of radiant — atomic — energy, we, and not others, should know, should find out what the soil of our native country holds in this respect,” Vernadsky said.

And what do you think, "royal bureaucrats" spat on a lonely genius, and his insight remained unclaimed? Nothing like this. A geological expedition is sent to search for radioactive deposits and finds uranium, and research in the field of nuclear physics is unfolding rapidly. The Duma in 1913 considers legislative initiatives in the field of studying radioactive deposits of the empire ... These are the days of “lapotnaya” Russia.

Everyone has heard the names of such eminent pre-revolutionary scholars as D.I. Mendeleev, I.P. Pavlov, A.M. Lyapunov and others. The story about their activities and achievements will take whole volumes, but I would like to say now not about them, but to bring a number of facts directly tied to the 1913 year.

In 1913, the factory tests of the "Crab" began - the world's first underwater mine layer M.P. A raid. During the war of 1914-1918 "Crab" was part of the Black Sea fleet, went on military campaigns, and, by the way, it was on his mines that the Isa-Reis Turkish gunboat was blown up.

A new page in history opened in 1913 aviation: The world's first four-engine aircraft took off. Its creator was the Russian designer I.I. Sikorsky.

Another pre-revolutionary engineer, D.P. Grigorovich, in 1913, built the "flying boat" M-1. A direct descendant of M-1 was one of the best seaplanes of the First World War - M-5.

In 1913, gunsmith VG Fedorov began testing an automatic rifle. The development of this idea during the First World War was the famous machine gun Fedorov. By the way, under the direction of Fedorov, V.A. Degtyarev, later became a famous designer.

At the beginning of the 20th century, our country was also on an economic rise. To prove this thesis, let us first turn to the fundamental research of Doctor of Science, Professor V.I. Bovykina "Financial capital in Russia on the eve of the First World War."

Even for the most developed countries of the world, the beginning of the 20th century is still a period of “coal, locomotives and steel”; however, the role of oil is already quite large. Therefore, the figures characterizing the situation in these areas are fundamental. So, coal mining: 1909 year - 23,3659 million tons, 1913 year - 31,24 million tons, growth - 33,7%. Production of petroleum products: 1909 year - 6,3079 million tons, 1913 year - 6,6184 million tons, growth - 4,9%. Iron smelting: 1909 year - 2,8714 million tons, 1913 year - 4,635 million tons, growth - 61,4%. Steel production: 1909 year - 3,1322 million tons, 1913 year - 4,918 million tons, growth - 57%. Rolled steel production: 1909 year - 2,6679 million tons, 1913 year - 4,0386 million tons, growth - 51,4%.

Locomotive production: 1909 year - 525 units, 1913 year - 654 units, growth - 24,6%. Wagon production: 1909 year - 6389 units, 1913 year - 20 492 units, growth - 220,7%.

In general, statistics show that in the period 1909-1913. significantly increased the value of industry funds. Buildings: 1909 year - 1,656 billion rubles, 1913 year - 2,185 billion rubles, growth - 31,9%. Equipment: 1909 year - 1,385 billion rubles, 1913 year - 1,785 billion rubles, growth - 28,9%.

As for the situation in agriculture, the total harvest of wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, millet, buckwheat, peas, lentils, spelled, beans amounted to 1909 in the year 79 million tons, in 1913 year - 89,8 million tons, growth - 13,7 % And in the period 1905-1914. Russia accounted for 20,4% of world wheat harvest, 51,5% rye, 31,3% barley, 23,8% oat.

But maybe, against this background, the export of the above-mentioned crops has also sharply increased, as a result of which domestic consumption has decreased? Well, let's check the old thesis “we will not finish, but we will take out” and see the export figures. 1909 year - 12,2 million tons, 1913 year –10,4 million tons. Exports declined.

In addition, Russia accounted for 10,1% of world production of beet and cane sugar. Absolute numbers look like this. Granulated sugar production: 1909 year - 1,0367 million tons, 1913 year - 1,106 million tons, growth - 6,7%. Refined sugar: 1909 year - 505 900 tons, 1913 year - 942 900 tons, growth - 86,4%.

To characterize the dynamics of the value of agricultural funds, I will give the following figures. Commercial buildings: 1909 year - 3,242 billion rubles, 1913 year - 3,482 billion rubles, growth - 7,4%. Equipment and inventory: 1909 year - 2,118 billion rubles, 1913 year - 2,498 billion rubles, growth - 17,9%. Cattle: 1909 year - 6,941 billion rubles, 1913 year - 7,109 billion rubles, growth - 2,4%.

Important information on the situation in pre-revolutionary Russia can be found in A.E. Snesareva. His testimony is all the more valuable when you consider that he is the enemy of "rotten tsarism." This can be judged by the facts of his biography. Tsar's Major General in October 1917 becomes Lieutenant-General, when the Bolsheviks led the North Caucasus Military District, organizes the defense of Tsaritsyn, occupies the post of chief of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army, becomes a Hero of Labor. Of course, the period of repression 1930-x does not bypass him, but the sentence of execution is replaced by a term in the camp. However, Snesarev is released early, and this once again shows that he is not a stranger to the Soviet government ...

So, Snesarev in the book "Military Geography of Russia" operates with the following data relating to the beginning of the XX century. The amount of bread and potatoes harvested per person (in poods): USA - 79, Russia - 47,5, Germany - 35, France - 39. Number of horses (in millions): European Russia - 20,751, USA - 19,946, Germany - 4,205, Great Britain - 2,093, France - 3,647. Already by these figures the price is visible to conventional stamps about "starving" peasants and how they "did not have enough" horses in the farm. Here it is worth adding the data of a major Western expert, Professor Paul Gregory from his book Economic Growth of the Russian Empire (late XIX - early XX century). New calculations and estimates. He noted that between 1885-1889 and 1897-1901. the cost of grain left by peasants for their own consumption increased at constant prices by 51%. At this time, the rural population increased only by 17%.

Of course, in the history of many countries there are many examples when economic growth was replaced by stagnation and even decline. Russia is no exception, and this gives a wide scope for a tendentious selection of facts. It is always possible to pull the numbers of the crisis period, or, on the contrary, to use the statistics relating to several of the most successful years. In this sense, it would be useful to take the period 1887-1913, which was not at all simple. There is a strong crop failure 1891-92, and the global economic crisis 1900-1903, and the expensive Russian-Japanese war, and mass strikes, and large-scale fighting during the "revolution 1905-07," and rampant terrorism.

So, as the doctor of historical sciences L.I. Borodkin in the article “Pre-Revolutionary Industrialization and Its Interpretations”, in 1887-1913. The average industrial growth rate was 6,65%. This is an outstanding result, but critics of the “old regime” argue that Russia during the reign of Nicholas II increasingly lagged behind the top four most developed countries in the world. They point out that a direct comparison of growth rates between economies of different scales is incorrect. Roughly speaking, let the size of one economy be 1000 conventional units, and the other - 100, while the growth - 1 and 5%, respectively. As you can see, 1% in absolute terms is equal to 10 units, and 5% in the second case - only 5 units.

Is this model correct for our country? To answer this question, we will use the book “Russia and the World Business: Affairs and Fates. Alfred Nobel, Adolf Rotshtein, Herman Spitzer, Rudolf Diesel, ”under the Society. ed. IN AND. Bovykina and the statistical-documentary reference book “Russia 1913 Year”, prepared in Russian Academy of Sciences by the Institute of Russian History.

Indeed, on the eve of World War I, Russia produced industrial products 2,6 times less than the UK, 3 times less than Germany, and 6,7 times less than the United States. But as in 1913, five countries were distributed by shares in global industrial production: USA - 35,8%, Germany - 15,7%, United Kingdom –14%, France - 6,4%, Russia - 5,3%. And here, against the background of the first three, domestic figures look modest. But is it true that Russia is increasingly lagging behind the world leaders? Not true. Over the period 1885-1913. Russia's backlog from Britain has decreased threefold, from Germany - by a quarter. In absolute gross figures of industrial production, Russia almost equaled France.

Not surprisingly, Russia's share in global industrial production, which was in 1881-1885. 3,4% reached 1913% in 5,3 year. In fairness it must be admitted that it was not possible to close the gap with the Americans. In 1896-90 The US share was 30,1%, while Russia had 5%, that is, 25,5% less, and in 1913, the backlog increased to 30,5%. However, this reproach to "tsarism" applies to the other three countries of the "big five". In 1896-1900 the UK share was 19,5% versus 30,1% among Americans, and in 1913, 14 and 35,8%, respectively. The gap widened from 10,6 to 21,8%. For Germany, similar figures look like this: 16,6% versus 30,1%; 15,7 and 35,8%. Backlog increased from 13,5 to 20,1%. And finally, France: 7,1% vs. 30,1%; 6,4 and 35,8%. Backlog from the USA was 23%, and in 1913 it reached 29,4%.

Despite all these figures, skeptics do not give up, trying to gain a foothold on the next line of defense. Acknowledging the impressive successes of Tsarist Russia, they say that these successes have been achieved mainly due to colossal external borrowings. Well, let's open the directory “Russia 1913 Year”.

So, in 1913, our country paid 183 a million rubles for foreign debts. Let's compare with the total income of the national budget 1913 of the year: after all, debts are paid out of revenues. Budget revenues amounted to 3,4312 billion rubles that year. This means that for foreign payments, it took only 5,33% of budget revenues. Well, do you see here “bondage”, “weak financial system” and similar signs of “decaying tsarism”?

This may be objected to in the following way: or maybe Russia took on huge loans, of which it paid off previous loans, and its own revenues were small.

Check out this version. Take a few items of budget revenues 1913 year, of which it is known that they were formed at the expense of their own economy. Account in millions of rubles.

So, direct taxes - 272,5; indirect taxes - 708,1; duties - 231,2; government regalia - 1024,9; income from state assets and capital - 1043,7. I repeat that these are not all revenue items, but in general they will give 3,2804 a billion rubles. Let me remind you that foreign payments in that year amounted to 183 million rubles, that is, 5,58% of the main revenues of the Russian budget. What to say, only state-owned railways brought 1913 813,6 million rubles to XNUMX budget of the year! Whatever one may say, no matter how one goes by one’s ears, and there is no trace of foreign bondholders.

Now let us turn to such a parameter as productive investments in Russian securities (joint-stock entrepreneurship, railway business, urban economy, private mortgage loan). We will once again use the work of Bovykin “Financial Capital in Russia on the Eve of the First World War”.

Domestic productive investment in Russian securities for the period 1900-1908. amounted to 1,149 billion rubles, foreign investments - 222 million rubles, and all - 1,371 billion. Accordingly, in the period 1908-1913. domestic productive investment increased to 3,005 billion rubles, and foreign - to 964 million rubles.

Those who speak of Russia's dependence on foreign capital can emphasize that the share of "foreign" money in capital investments has increased. That's right: in 1900-1908. it was 16,2%, and in 1908-1913. increased to 24,4%. But note that domestic investments in 1908-1913. 2,2 even exceeded the total volume of investments (domestic plus foreign) in the previous period, that is, in 1900-1908. Is this not proof of a marked increase in Russian capital itself?

We now turn to the coverage of some social aspects. Everyone heard the standard discourse on the topic “how the accursed tsarist government did not allow the poor“ cook children to learn ”. From endless repetition, this stamp was perceived as a self-evident fact. Let us turn to the work of the Center for Sociological Research at Moscow University, which conducted a comparative analysis of the social “portrait” of a student at Moscow State University 2004 and 1904. It turned out that in 1904, 19% of the students at this prestigious educational institution came from a village (village). Of course, it can be said that these are children of village landowners, however, we will take into account that 20% of Moscow University students came from families with lower than average property status, and 67% belonged to the middle strata. At the same time, only 26% of students had fathers with higher education (6% had mothers with higher education). This shows that a significant part of the students come from poor and poor, very simple families.

But if this was the case in one of the best universities of the empire, then it is obvious that the estate partitions under Nicholas II were a thing of the past. Until now, even among people skeptical of Bolshevism, it is considered to be indisputable achievements of Soviet power in the field of education. At the same time, it is tacitly assumed that education in Tsarist Russia was at an extremely low level. Let's look at this issue, based on the work of major specialists - A.E. Ivanova ("Higher School of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century") and D.L. Saprykina ("Educational potential of the Russian Empire").

On the eve of the revolution, the system of education in Russia acquired the following form. The first stage is 3-4, primary education; then another 4 of the year in a gymnasium or a course of higher elementary schools and other relevant vocational schools; the third stage is still 4, a year of complete secondary education, and, finally, higher education institutions. A separate educational sector were educational institutions for adults.

In the 1894 year, that is, at the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas II, the number of students at the gymnasium level was 224 100 people, that is, the 1,9 student per 1000 residents of our country. In 1913, the absolute number of students reached 677 100 people, that is, 4 on 1000. But this is without regard to military schools, private and some departmental educational institutions. By making the appropriate amendment, we get about 800 000 students at the gymnasium level, which gives 4,9 a person on 1000.

For comparison, take France of the same era. True, the data is not for 1913, but for 1911 a year, but these are quite comparable things. So, “high school students” in France were 141 700 people, or 3,6 on 1000. As we see, “Lapotnaya Russia” looks advantageous even against the background of one of the most developed countries of all times and peoples.

We now turn to university students. In the late XIX - early XX centuries. absolute figures of Russia and France were about the same, but relative we were far behind. If in 1899-1903 we had only 10 students on 000 3,5 residents, in France we had 9, in Germany we had 8, in Great Britain we had 6. However, already in 1911-1914. the situation has changed dramatically: Russia - 8, Great Britain - 8, Germany - 11, France - 12. In other words, our country has sharply reduced the backlog from Germany and France, and has even caught up with Great Britain. In absolute terms, the picture looks like this: the number of university students in Germany in 1911 was 71 600, and in Russia - 145 100.

The explosive progress of the national education system is obvious, and it is especially vividly seen with concrete examples. In the 1897 / 98 school year, 3700 students were trained at St. Petersburg University, in 1913 / 14 - already 7442; at Moscow University - 4782 and 9892, respectively; in Kharkov - 1631 and 3216; in Kazan - 938 and 2027; in Novorossiysk (Odessa) - 693 and 2058, in Kiev - 2799 and 4919.

During the time of Nicholas II, serious attention was paid to the training of engineering personnel. Impressive results were also achieved in this direction. So, at the Technological Institute of St. Petersburg, 1897 was trained in 98 / 841 for the year, and in 1913 / 14 - 2276; Kharkov - 644 and 1494, respectively. Moscow Technical School, despite the name, belonged to the institutes, and here the data are: 718 and 2666. Polytechnic institutes: Kiev - 360 and 2033; Riga - 1347 and 2084; Warsaw - 270 and 974. But a summary of the students of agricultural higher educational institutions. In 1897 / 98, there were 1347 students in them, and in 1913 / 14 - 3307.

The rapidly developing economy also demanded specialists in the fields of finance, banking, commerce and the like. The education system has responded to these requests, which is well illustrated by the following statistics: in six years, from 1908 to 1914, the number of students in the relevant specialties increased 2,76 times. For example, 1907 students studied at the Moscow Commercial Institute in the 08 / 1846 school year, and 1913 in the 14 / 3470; in Kiev in 1908 / 09 year - 991 and 4028 in 1913 / 14 year.

We now turn to art: after all, this is an important characteristic of the state of culture. In 1913, S.V. Rachmaninov finishes the world-famous musical poem “The Bells”, A.N. Scriabin creates his great Sonata No. 9, and I.F. Stravinsky - ballet "Spring sacred", whose music has become classical. At this time, the artists I.Е. Repin, F.A. Malyavin, A.M. Vasnetsov and many others. Theater thrives: K.S. Stanislavsky, V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, E.B. Vakhtangov, V.E. Meyerhold - these are just a few names from a long line of great masters. The beginning of the 20th century is part of a period called the Silver Age of Russian poetry, a whole phenomenon in world culture, whose representatives are deservedly considered classics.

All this was achieved under Nicholas II, but still it is customary to speak of him as an incompetent, incompetent, weak-willed king. If this is so, it is not clear how, with such an insignificant monarch, Russia was able to achieve outstanding results, which the facts cited in this article testify irrefutably. The answer is obvious: Nicholas II was slandered by the enemies of our country. Should we, the people of the 21st century, not know what black PR is? ..
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2014/05/11/istoriya-rossiiskoi-imperii/739577-tsarskaya-rossiya-ryvok-k-mirovomu-velichiyu
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. EvilLion
    EvilLion 13 May 2014 08: 40
    +2
    author, shove your verbal diarrhea where this very "great Race" left, as soon as a big war broke out. The peasant before the revolution had been starving for 50 years already. And the army in the war was on the verge of defeat since 1915, when the mobilization reserves ran out, and they did not manage to organize the production of weapons and ammunition on any significant scale.

    In 1913, a new page in the history of aviation opened: the world's first four-engined aircraft took off. Its creator was the Russian designer I.I. Sikorsky.


    This crap is my favorite example. To put 4 imported engines on domestic plywood, of course, it was necessary to figure it out, well, they did not know then that such an aircraft was flying, aircraft construction was in its infancy. But then only 80 (eighty!) Of these "unparalleled" ilushek were built. Abroad, similar aircraft by the end of the war were built in series of hundreds of machines, and in terms of performance characteristics, they were already winging a bull like a bull a sheep. Later, in peacetime, the Bolsheviks managed to build as many as 212 bombers of the TB-1 type, and then 800+ TB-3s and did without the elite of the nation who emigrated on the "philosophical steamers".

    In total, the Republic of Ingushetia built 3000 + planes for the war, compared to the 40 of machines of all sorts of Germany and Britain, this is simply a shameful value.

    The development of this idea during the First World War was the famous Fedorov assault rifle.


    He went to the series only with the Bolsheviks. Effective managers lacked efficiency.

    Achievements of individual geeks in industries that are at the stage of enthusiasts in garages have ur. The country's development value is a little less than none. Much more important is the ability of the state to organize the work of the most complex industries with hundreds of enterprises.

    It is not worth breaking into the open door of the Republic of Ingushetia in the WWI suffered a crushing defeat, as on the fronts, where even rifles were trite enough, the only thing that saved from an instant pocket was that the front itself was secondary to the Germans, and inside the country, this is a historical fact. An attempt to blame everything on the Bolsheviks about which no one had heard before the 17 year is equivalent to the modern tantrums of Ukrainian politicians who see everything in the hand of Moscow and Putin personally, but in no way the consequences of 20 + years of fascist policy towards the Russian population. Well, a handful of agents of foreign powers cannot, or a riot of drunken sailors overthrow a great empire. By definition, it can’t. RI, for the 19 century, simply rotted as it rotted to the 80s of the CPSU, which ruled the USSR. The end in both cases was logical, in the first case, the people demolished their obsolete power, in the second, the authorities wanted not only positions, but also property, having surrendered the country under this business, while the people joyfully jumped and went into masochistic ecstasy.
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 13 May 2014 10: 48
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      author, shove your verbal diarrhea where this very "great Race" left, as soon as a big war broke out.


      Quote: EvilLion
      RI for the 19th century simply rotted,


      Add a little:

      One can argue for a long time about the percentage of literacy and industrial growth, citing figures and reference data as an example - and all this is correct on the one hand. But there are facts that do not leave stone unturned from all these fables about a great empire that was striving with leaps and bounds into the future, sweeping away everything in its path.
      I mean military force, which indirectly gives an idea of ​​how developed the country was. There can be no strong army without a good education, science, health, industry, agriculture. That is, a strong army = developed country. Let me remind you:
      - 1853-56 defeat in the CRIMEAN WAR;
      - 1877-78 with great difficulty, defeated TURKEY, at that time far from the most powerful country;
      - 1904-05 defeat in the RUSSIAN-JAPAN war;
      - 1914-17 the main enemy forces are linked in the WEST and nevertheless, the Republic of Ingushetia is defeated and retreats.
      I repeat, these facts better than any statistics give an idea of ​​what the RUSSIA "which we have lost" was like.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 13 May 2014 14: 46
        +2
        Characteristically, before the 1877-78 war, Russia tore the Turks like rags even with the numerical superiority of the last razik in 2, or even more, the only loot was under Peter I and there was an advantage in the forces of the order of 4: 1 EMNIP, then the Russian army had to negotiate the conditions of withdrawal. Suvorov took the capital fortified Ishmael without any superiority in manpower, perhaps the most brilliant assault on the fortress in history. But the last victory falls on the dense 1829 year.
    2. Hort
      Hort 13 May 2014 12: 10
      +7
      no, the RI under Alexander the Third was in its prime and, I think, if he had not died earlier than necessary, it is likely that the Russian-Japanese won and would not have participated in the WWII, or together with the Germans, such as it should have been (in the geopolitical ideal). And in fact, all further achievements are inertia from the inheritance that dad left to Nikolashka. As now, on the basis of the USSR, our Federation is moving.
      And this conclusion
      The answer is obvious: the enemies of our country slandered Nicholas II. Do we, the people of the XNUMXst century, not know what black PR is? ..
      incorrect. Nikolai was a weak politician and about * all the flashes about, including and revolutions, which were a logical outcome.
    3. ioann1
      ioann1 14 May 2014 00: 03
      +3
      Evilion, you commie and your commune reasons! Satanic, how wildly you react to the Holy King!
      1. Misha Kamensky
        Misha Kamensky 3 May 2021 02: 39
        0
        So it was under his rule, because of his wise rule, the country slipped into chaos. And say what you want, but it's true. And there is no need to nod at foreign intelligence services that they have made a revolution in our country. I don’t argue that they helped. But the people made a revolution, because they were driven to despair by poverty and lack of rights. By the way, now the situation is very similar (and it's scary) - you turn on the TV, so everything is cool with us, we get richer day by day. But in fact ..... All the same poverty. Can't the authorities see and understand this?
  2. 225chay
    225chay 13 May 2014 08: 47
    +4
    World revolutionaries still destroyed a huge country. The Bolsheviks signed the Brest Treaty of Lithuania and surrendered vast territories.
    Only Stalin, having gouged the Trotskyists bit by bit, began to gradually restore great Russia and its power
    1. smile
      smile 13 May 2014 11: 15
      +11
      225chay
      RI dealt a mortal blow in February 17 .... and not the Bolsheviks at all - but the solid princes and counts — who destroyed the army by their order No. 1, dismissed the police, self-government and zemstvos, the country began to starve despite food surplus, industry and transport stood up , in the country in the spring of 17 there were about 3000 peasant uprisings, often led by nobles .... and then the Bolsheviks arrived, who actually saved the country without sparing either their own or someone else's blood ....
      When Lenin signed the Brest Peace. he had on hand about 120 thousand bayonets and sabers - for comparison - only in Finland alone. which the white knights helped to tear the country protected by the Bolsheviks, there were over 100 thousand bayonets .... there was no one to protect the country from the Germans .... Lenin saved us with this treaty .... and after half a year, when the Bolsheviks strengthened, we canceled the Brest Peace ...
      And in general, you have some kind of mishmash in your head — here you are cursing the Brest Peace ... and the Trotskyites ... and what, it’s not clear to you that it was Trotsky who was an ardent opponent of this treaty? There is such an expression - The dream of reason gives birth to monsters ... I’ll add from myself - illiteracy - too .... :)))
      1. 225chay
        225chay 13 May 2014 12: 03
        +1
        Quote: smile
        curse the Brest Peace ... and the Trotskyists ... and what, it is not clear to you that it was Trotsky who was an ardent opponent of this treaty? There is such an expression - The dream of reason gives birth to monsters ... I’ll add from myself - illiteracy - too .... :)))

        I curse both Trotsky and Parvuses and all those who participated in the collapse of Russia, as well as those scum who destroyed the USSR in 91m. What is incomprehensible then?
        The same faces that "worked" in 17, the descendants and supporters of the same worked in 91m.
        And you can praise and scold the "bad" and "good" and the essence of the villains is the same, even though they changed their guises.
        Those now come to power in Ukraine ..
        In your opinion No?
        1. smile
          smile 13 May 2014 14: 17
          0
          225chay
          No. How everything is started up for you, how everything is mixed up ... Sorry, but you look like a Mamba who hates everyone .... :))) It never occurred to you that we are all descendants of those who lived before and after the Revolution , and their descendants destroyed the Union ... remember who the descendant of Gaidar degenerated into? Even lazy to argue with you .... excuse me. You just have to tell too much. Maybe you just better read different sources yourself?
          1. 225chay
            225chay 13 May 2014 22: 17
            +1
            Quote: smile
            Remember who the descendant of Gaidar degenerated into?


            For me, both the Gaidar scum and executioners.
            Quote: smile
            It didn’t occur to you that we are all descendants of those who lived before and after the Revolution, and their descendants destroyed the Union ..

            neither my ancestors nor I ruined Russia and the USSR.
            I am sure that it is possible to live under capitalism and socialism. normal. rather than predatory or bureaucratic bureaucratic.
            you can call me at least a mamba, at least a yumba but
            At 17, in the wake of the discontent of the people to power, scum broke through.
            the same with other faces or surnames, but the same organized a 91m coup.
            with a more bloody scenario, but according to the plan of the same people, Yugoslavia, once once prosperous, has been torn apart and is still bleeding.
            In 93 m, scum securing their success shot the Supreme Council of tank guns.
            The same scum, in the wake of dissatisfaction with the thieves' rule, seized power in Ukraine.
            Now they are pushing 2 fraternal peoples with their foreheads rubbing their hands in anticipation of a good gesheft.
            I do not want the Slavic people to cling to each other's throats with a death grip on the joy of world scum. everything goes to this, and you seem to like it ...
            And will you tell me what good Sverdlov, Tukhachevsky, Trotsky and other executioners of the Soviet Union?
            1. smile
              smile 13 May 2014 23: 56
              +1
              225chay
              And what did I really tell you, what a good Sverdlov, Tukhachevsky? :)))) And so, you can even quote my quotes? Sir, and you don’t think it’s too much .... you can’t tryn’t do this ...... you unnecessarily misinterpret everything you touch ...... unnecessarily, well, you can’t lie like that, because you get too universal. .... In short - it's good to lie, dear .... so will it?
              1. 225chay
                225chay 14 May 2014 07: 38
                +1
                Quote: smile
                to lie, because you get too common to man ..... In short - it’s good to lie, dear .... so will it?


                I understand, Mr. Pit Bull, that you, like Cerberus, run around sites barking at people in order to prevent dissent in your opinion, working out the FSB salary with the rank of major maximum. Ideological control.
                but weak you are an ideologist. KGB it was a force
                but its elite was corrupt and the scum sold it as the USSR sold it. I still remember how perestroika began with a beautiful sauce with openness and d..e..r..m kratia and what it all led to.
                And in the year 17 and in 91m and 93m and in Ukraine, your masters came to power whom you exalt here.
                So sing your pseudo-zany songs to young Nashi, swamps, lovers of Domov-2
              2. 225chay
                225chay 14 May 2014 08: 27
                +1
                Quote: smile
                misinterpreting everything that you touch ...... too much, well, you can’t lie like that, because you get too humanly ..... In short, it’s good to lie, dear .... will it?


                only you know to lie, lie and lie again ...
                you take an example from yourself and judge by yourself.
                Where do you get your salary in your regional Fino, or in the Kremlin itself?
                Remember and tell your owners:
                The people approve of something (for example, Crimea), but there is a lot of de jr. in the country and injustice. Can't you see? Ask ordinary people, such as peasants.
                It is necessary to fix it. Here it’s better to go in cycles and work, but not to be clever with cheap instructions. Go down to earth
            2. 225chay
              225chay 14 May 2014 22: 57
              +1
              Quote: smile
              "Do you remember who the descendant of Gaidar degenerated into?" [/ quote]

              Your famous haydar haydar has been appointed to command a regiment, a hysterical psycho-fall "warrior" with blood on his hands. Did not know? how many he personally hacked with a sword in the heat of the moment? And poor Khakassia is still terrified of this mad arcade, how many he cut off there. there children are frightened like the devil with the name of Gaidar. And the soldiers and officers of the White Army who surrendered and laid down their arms, who believed in his "honest" word, shot the unarmed from a machine gun.
              I found someone to cite as an example - scum ...
          2. 225chay
            225chay 14 May 2014 08: 43
            +1
            Quote: smile
            Even lazy to argue with you .... excuse me.

            Take a break, do me a favor
      2. ioann1
        ioann1 14 May 2014 00: 10
        +1
        It seems such articles sharply expose the essence of many. Complete rejection of either historical facts or common sense.
      3. 225chay
        225chay 14 May 2014 13: 22
        +1
        Quote: smile
        here you curse the Brest Peace ... and the Trotskyists ... and you don’t even know that it was Trotsky who was an ardent opponent of this treaty?


        Your friend Trotsky was a complete Ganduras.
        this is at least for the people of Russia whom he wanted to throw in the fire of the revolution,
        but for the "white slaves" and rivers of blood from our people,
        do not hesitate to call him a fag ... purulent rum
      4. 225chay
        225chay 14 May 2014 23: 20
        +1
        Quote: smile
        RI dealt a mortal blow in February 17 .... and no Bolsheviks — but solid princes and counts — who destroyed the army by their order No. 1, dismissed the police, self-government and zemstvos, and a famine began in the country


        Oh well!!!
        From order No. 1 and the dissolution of the police in the country began a famine? ...
        are you out of your mind "historian"))))))) literate!
        Quote: smile
        Lenin signed the Brest Peace. he had about 120 thousand at hand


        Quote: smile
        With this treaty, Lenin saved us .... and after half a year, when the Bolsheviks intensified,


        Your "kindest soul man" Lenin demanded to shoot as many clergy, nobility and other estates as possible as class and his personal enemies, this is like revenge for his executed terrorist brother ...
        And for this they shot the entire royal family together with the children and people loyal to him in the basement of the Ipatiev house, on average, stabbing each of them with seven bullets without trial or investigation, at the direction of another "honest man" Ya.M. Sverdlov with the knowledge of V.I. Lenin (later the perpetrators of the murder, Yurovsky, Goloschekin, and the vaybard, seized the telegraph from the telegraph operator so as not to leave evidence and destroyed it?
        Well, I understand Nicholas 11, but he already denied it, he was already nobody, just a citizen of Romanov ... and why are the children innocent and close?
        Are these not sadists, not executioners?
        Therefore, Russia was flooded with folk blood that the ghouls became in power and the executioners of which emoticons-pit bulls-cerberus protect and barrage their relatives
      5. Misha Kamensky
        Misha Kamensky 3 May 2021 02: 44
        0
        "Half a year later, when the Bolsheviks strengthened, we annulled the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty." The Brest-Litovsk Peace was annulled after the "revolution" in Germany. And when was the land returned? Half a year after signing, isn't it?
    2. dmb
      dmb 13 May 2014 11: 16
      +1
      Curiously, you did it in order to convince yourself of this, wrote, or expect that the others also did not read anything, except the writings of Mr. Zykin and the like. It follows from your analytical masterpiece that a) Stalin was not a Bolshevik, b) that he was for the continuation of the war, c) that he supported Trotsky on this issue, d) that Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Belarus and the Don were returned after 37 years (the height of Stalin's repression). How much your "masterpiece" corresponds to the real story, you can see from any textbook.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2014 14: 47
      +1
      Regarding the Brest peace and the Bolsheviks just the other day, comrade Pykhalov made the video.
  3. Cormorants
    Cormorants 13 May 2014 08: 50
    +1
    This is all Lelin’s idiot and liberal infection destroyed the Russian Empire.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 13 May 2014 08: 50
    +7
    Quote: EvilLion
    author, stick your verbal

    The lion is actually angry, as the authors rode spiked caterpillars.
    Essentially: everything is fine in the article, only the conclusions are completely wrong. It is Nikolai Aleksandrovich who is guilty of the collapse of Russia, and this is an axiom. Autocrat, you say? Here is all of you and the demand for power. After all, he has been at the helm for more than 20 years, it is ridiculous to blame the failures in foreign and domestic politics on black PR. Negative personnel selection of the highest command staff led to the death of the army and navy, and with them the empire, corruption completed the job.
    As you know, "it is useless to blame the Lord on what can be done by a good police" (c).
    1. Aleksandr
      Aleksandr 13 May 2014 09: 01
      +1
      Autocrat, you say? Here is the whole demand from you !!!!
    2. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 13 May 2014 20: 00
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      It is Nikolai Aleksandrovich who is guilty of the collapse of Russia, and this is an axiom.

      Absolutely right
      If so, it is unclear how, with such an insignificant monarch, Russia was able to achieve outstanding results.

      All the achievements listed in the article are rather contrary to Nikolai, and by no means thanks to him. This "fault" was the Russian people and their gift to create something unique, to survive and develop contrary to logic and common sense.
  5. svskor80
    svskor80 13 May 2014 09: 28
    +3
    As always and everywhere there was both good and bad in the Russian Empire. But revolutions cannot arise from scratch or for the sole reason that the general discontent of the estates (except for nobles and aristocrats) was tsarist power and this power hindered the development of the country. They did not manage to reform themselves within the time allotted by history, and were swept away by the revolution. And by 1915, everything was in order with the Russian army, there were local failures, but not a loss of controllability and panic. The Brusilovsky breakthrough in 1916 is a confirmation of this. Without internal fermentation, this war would have ended in Berlin.
    1. Orik
      Orik 13 May 2014 11: 35
      +2
      Quote: svskor80
      As always and everywhere there was both good and bad in the Russian Empire. But revolutions cannot arise from scratch or for the sole reason that the general discontent of the estates (except for nobles and aristocrats) was tsarist power and this power hindered the development of the country. They did not manage to reform themselves within the time allotted by history, and were swept away by the revolution. And by 1915, everything was in order with the Russian army, there were local failures, but not a loss of controllability and panic. The Brusilovsky breakthrough in 1916 is a confirmation of this. Without internal fermentation, this war would have ended in Berlin.

      The nobles and aristocrats were in the forefront dissatisfied, though their discontent was from satiety, they were weighed down by the tsarist government and wanted to rule Russia themselves, this is the main reason for the February revolution.
    2. smile
      smile 13 May 2014 11: 55
      0
      svskor80
      Yes, there was nothing in order - the Russian army had practically no heavy artillery - only a few hundred barrels, mostly French-made - some fifteen times less than the Germans, Russia could not master the production of fighters, could not even establish the required number of rifles. which were purchased from Japan to Mexico - there were six different rifles with different cartridges in the army .... they produced machine guns several times smaller than the Germans didn’t produce large-caliber and light machine guns, they didn’t produce mortars .... but what can I say, if the troops were unable to arrange the delivery of shells. which was produced enough ..... damn it, buying ships and general arms and military equipment abroad was cheaper, sometimes 2-3 times, than our patriotic capitalists ... already in 16 they were forced to introduce an additional reconnaissance, since patriotic fists, oh whom the tiligent cries so much, they rotted grain, preferring to throw it away than to sell it at non-speculative prices — these poor people actually made Famine in the country ... but the Germans disciplined everyone for the sake of victory. Michel didn’t even dare to kill a chicken - he handed everything over to the state ...
      Yeah, everything is fine ... everything is fine, beautiful marquise ... :)))
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2014 14: 51
      +2
      When soldiers in the trenches are sitting without weapons, and the enemy has an advantage in artillery at times, any local successes quickly come to naught. In WWI, this happened repeatedly, there were enough qualified generals, but the successfully launched operation simply stalled.
  6. Bayun
    Bayun 13 May 2014 09: 40
    -1
    In the title - the essence: "Tsarist Russia". Tsar-Dvor-Nobles, General Secretary-Politburo-CPSU, President-Family (Friends) - Party of Power: "the same eggs, side view." Maybe you shouldn't butt with the nature of Russia, but it's easier to start to correspond to it.
  7. demotivator
    demotivator 13 May 2014 10: 57
    +3
    Oh, how we love to cry over Russia, "which we have lost"! Well, let's take a look at it. Until 1917, we had a monarchy in Russia, and our Motherland was called the Russian Empire. It was ruled overwhelmingly by an emperor from the Romanov dynasty, a dynasty that had ruled Russia up to that time for more than 300 years.
    Russia had different kings and emperors: they were formidable, defending the people of Russia with fire and sword and forcing everyone in Russia to serve the Russian people; there were cunning ("silent"), which forced everyone to do the same, but without much noise; there were greats who, in a short period of time, threw Russia sharply forward on the path of progress; there were middle ones who nevertheless understood that they, the tsars, were the first servants of Russia, that they were for Russia, and not Russia for them. There were, of course, those who did not understand this, but they had not ruled for a long time before. And did not live. However, over time, the imperial family of the Romanovs became pampered and burnt out, and with it the nobility of Russia was pampered and burnt, which by its position was obliged to serve Russia and which at one time could kill the tsar, forgetting that he should serve Russia, and not himself. And in the end, from the beginning of the last century to 1917, Nicholas II Romanov ruled Russia, as they say today, a holy man and, as they said in those days, a very nice man. But a “dear man” is not a post, and, having occupied the post of emperor, Nikolai was obliged in this post to do what his great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers did. But Nikolay wasn’t enough for this. He certainly liked being a king, liked universal worship and admiration, liked having numerous palaces, huge yachts, two hundred different uniforms for receiving parades of Russian troops. He liked all this, but he loved his wife, loved his children, loved to photograph everyone and indulge in pleasant idleness. Darling was a man, but he did not like to work either and did not leave his royal post.
  8. demotivator
    demotivator 13 May 2014 10: 59
    +2
    The meaning of the existence of the nobility is in the armed defense of the Fatherland. The nobles are soldiers, and the king is their general. In the old days, in order to support one person who, due to employment, is unable to feed himself with direct work in agriculture, at least 10 peasant households were needed. Due to low labor productivity in the harsh conditions of Russia, it was such a number of people who gave an additional product, which was enough for food, clothing and weapons of one warrior. Therefore, the princes, and then the kings secured the land and courtyards with peasants for the soldiers. It made sense: just a mercenary, if you pay him only money, he felt love only for money and could go over to anyone who could pay this money in large quantities. The Russian nobleman defended not just the state, but his land with his peasants. For merits, the prince or tsar assigned a lot of land and peasants to distinguished nobles, but then such a nobleman went to war with his own detachment of fighters. Even at the time of Suvorov, the service of a hereditary nobleman to an old age as an ordinary or sergeant was commonplace, and if the nobleman was illiterate, then mandatory.
    But Tsar Peter III, who decided to take the "civilized" countries of Europe as his model, freed the nobles from the service of Russia in 1762. An unprecedented case - the transformation of the estate into parasites occurred by force - from above. Now the Russian nobleman did not know why he had serfs and land (the titled nobles - princes - had a lot of them), but could not serve! Took, but could not give!
    To the honor of the nobles, the process of turning them into parasites did not go very quickly, and yet by the beginning of the twentieth century it came to the point that even in the officer corps of the Russian army of hereditary nobles remained a little more than a third. Therefore, military service was extended to the nobles, which was a shame, if you understand who the nobleman is, but nevertheless, by the beginning of the First World War (1914) of 48 thousand officers and generals of the Russian army hereditary nobles amounted to only about 51%. Please note: in 1700 there were 50 thousand nobles in the army, in 1914 there were no 25 thousand.
    1. Sour
      Sour 13 May 2014 14: 17
      +1
      In the white army, which allegedly fought "for noble privileges," the percentage of nobles was even lower than in the tsarist army.
      Here are the data from the book by R.M. Abinyakin "Officer Corps of the Volunteer Army":
      Turning to the commanders of the nominal units, we discover that one out of 13 Kornilovites came from nobles, two from noble-officer families, two from the clergy, three from the middle class, four from the peasants, and one from the Cossacks; out of 17 Markovites, five are officers and service men, and 12 are raznoshintsy; out of nine Drozdovites, six are noblemen (including five who have served), two tradesmen and one peasant. These figures have already been cited and generally indicate 35,9% of immigrants from the nobility, bureaucratic-military environment, including no more than 10-12% of representatives of old noble families and not a single titled nobility.
      In the same book, data on the highest command of the Red Army:
      If we make a comparison with the military elite of the Red Army, then we observe a higher percentage of immigrants from the noble-serving environment! 41,4% (1922), 46,2% (1923), 41,7% (1924), and the decline occurred only by 1925. (34%)
      Curious statistics.
    2. Sour
      Sour 13 May 2014 14: 46
      +1
      Quote: demotivator
      Therefore, nobility was extended to conscription

      Conscription became omnipotent (including for nobles) in 1874, and not at the beginning of the twentieth century.
  9. demotivator
    demotivator 13 May 2014 11: 05
    +4
    In 1903, 2696 colonels of the Russian army accounted for only 24 princes and 11 counts; by 1392 generals - 25 princes and 23 counts, that is, in the army the level of the titled, richest part of the nobility continued to fall steadily (among colonels there are fewer ranks of titled nobility than among generals). At the same time, the titled nobility in the army had an unofficial advantage - on average 3 years earlier they increased in ranks.
    It is no coincidence, therefore, that the war that Russia entered in 1914 did not raise any patriotic feelings among the mass of noble parasites: it did not hurt either a sense of conscience or a sense of responsibility. (As the collapse of the USSR among the mass of the so-called “communists” did not hurt any feelings.) Such feelings are unknown to the pofigists. By the beginning of 1917, there were 115 thousand officers in the army - a number that could easily and several times manned the 2,5 millionth Russian nobility. Nevertheless, by this year, for example, in the Irkutsk military school out of 279 cadets there were only 17 noble children. If you say that there were few noblemen in Siberia, here are the data on the Vladimir Military School: out of 314 cadets, 25 are noble children. At the front, the ensigns were made from soldiers: 80% of the ensigns were peasants, 4% were nobles. So find in these figures those notorious lieutenants of the Golitsyn and Obolensky cornet, about whom it is sung in the White Guard song. And this estate, corrupted by parasitism and deviation from service to the Motherland, became one of the reasons for the fall of the Romanovs' house.
  10. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 13 May 2014 11: 38
    +2
    I don’t know, maybe Russia would have pulled out such a weak ruler like Nicholas II, maybe not for the war, you can talk a lot about him, I don’t know how many formations he had, how many languages ​​he spoke, but in my opinion, everything is very simple Nicholas II was corny , after all, if a person is educated and well-read, this is not a guarantee that a person is not. Nikolai did not understand that, where, when, why, even such not the most outstanding leader like Kaiser Wilhelm II looks an order of magnitude higher than Nicholas, Nikolai has a feeling that he lived in some imaginary world of his own, as some autistic, where he is a "kind Tsar-Father" and around him are kind, loving children-subjects who only want to go to the Temple and express loyal feelings to the Tsar. Probably at the last minute of life. when he was taken to the basement for execution, it may have come to him, but, as they say, too late. The Russian empire in the XX century was already a dinosaur that either had to evolve (could not) or die. I do not know what swear words Lenin used when I realized th he inherited from "the Russia that we lost", but Lenin, perhaps, did not like Russia, it was supposed to become an "instrument" for bringing the revolution to Europe, but then Russia could not even be an "instrument", and then it was necessary not to peacefully "evolve" like most of the countries of the world that were doing this throughout the 100th century, but at the cost of tremendous efforts and sacrifices, not in 20 years, but in XNUMX years. We managed to at least catch up with the West. do not twist, but saved, this man is a "bloody tyrant and maniac", and is autistic, hovering in the clouds and shooting from a rifle at cats and sparrows, a "holy man".
  11. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 13 May 2014 11: 44
    +3
    So, based on the article, Russia was on the rise, only one thing is unclear how then did the prosperous Russia live up to the revolution? it is strange at least. Second, production, let's look at what Russia produced, and most importantly, who produced in Russia. Most enterprises are European companies or companies with the advantage of European capital. Why are capitalists investing in industry abroad? The reason is only one profit more than in the homeland. How is a big profit achieved? schoolchildren know due to cheap labor and cheap raw materials. It follows that workers in Russia were paid much less than workers in Europe. It is naive to believe that investors left the profit in Russia. If there were purely Russian production, then there were so few that they did not solve the main problem, an independent economy. Even then, Europe assigned Russia the role of a raw materials appendage, or in extreme cases, to transfer all dirty and dangerous industries to its territory.
  12. Hort
    Hort 13 May 2014 12: 17
    +2
    It follows that workers in Russia were paid much less than workers in Europe.
    skilled workers lived very well, especially St. Petersburg.
    The point is not in the workers, but as a guide. and it was x * even
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 13 May 2014 12: 31
      +1
      Quote: hort
      It follows that workers in Russia were paid much less than workers in Europe.
      skilled workers lived very well, especially St. Petersburg.
      The point is not in the workers, but as a guide. and it was x * even

      compared to who they got good? with peasants or janitors. And how many such workers were in St. Petersburg, but throughout the country?
      1. Hort
        Hort 13 May 2014 12: 37
        +3
        in comparison with how it is customary to consider them. Janitors by the way we lived well
  13. parus2nik
    parus2nik 13 May 2014 12: 31
    +4
    Yes, there were a lot of steam locomotives built, and how many tractors were produced, by the way, the Russian inventor Cherepanov .. It’s even interesting, on whose aircraft engines did Sikorsky’s planes, Grigorovich’s flying boats, and even an interesting fact, when the Tsar tank Lebedenko was built, put on this tank engines from a downed German airship, how much it was necessary to bring down airships in order to establish a mass production of tanks ...
    My great-grandfather, a fist, bought agricultural equipment in the USA, it was cheaper and better .. And his five sons subsequently fought for Soviet power ..
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2014 15: 17
      +1
      On this occasion, Mukhin said that the peasants, even without any war, would have demolished this regime by 1925, since American tractors were becoming cheaper and the landowners could buy them in increasing quantities without caring about where the peasants who became unnecessary would go. As a result, so many people would accumulate in the cities that a social explosion would be inevitable. Actually, somewhere in Latin America, the former Pisants, replaced by a tractor, still live in the slums, having no work in the cities. This was also written about in the American novel "Grapes of Wrath", but for some reason the Yankees do not consider the events of those years when millions of Americans, who left their land to nowhere, remained lying in roadside graves as something shameful. Collectivization is different!
  14. nnz226
    nnz226 13 May 2014 13: 26
    +2
    In a successful country there are no THREE REVOLUTIONS in 13 years !!! Nikolashka was a mediocrity, and the fish rots from the head! And about "technical successes" so recently in VO there was an article about Alexander Popov and the radio invented by him. If it were not for the stupidity of "persons close to the emperor" the world would not have heard of some Italian Marconi, HOWEVER !!! That's the whole advanced country, but about the people, it is well known that the recruits, getting into the army (and they were 95% peasants), for the first time in the army, for the first time tried meat ...
  15. Sour
    Sour 13 May 2014 13: 44
    -2
    The article is weak.
    I won’t put either a minus or a plus.
    Based on the true facts, incorrect conclusions are drawn.
    Indeed, the growth rates of the Russian economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were very high.
    From this, a simple conclusion suggests itself - the causes of the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia were not in the plane of the economy, but in another. So it was necessary to analyze why the collapse occurred.
    Instead, the author praises Nicholas II, who had very little relation to the rise of the economy. Thank you for not stopping her from developing. But there was not a single initiative from him in the field of economics; he was not interested in her.
    Quote: EvilLion
    In total, the Republic of Ingushetia built 3000 + planes for the war, compared to the 40 of machines of all sorts of Germany and Britain, this is simply a shameful value.

    A lot of the USSR would build aircraft in the 40s without the supply of aluminum from the United States? Read the memoirs of Shakhurin, people's commissar of the aviation industry.
    This despite the fact that the fuselages of many aircraft were made mainly of wood.
    And tank diesels were made of the same aluminum. Indeed, in the USSR he was sorely lacking then.
    As, however, and rubber, without which you also can’t really fight. Almost all rubber and all raw rubber during the war in the USSR was Lend-Lease.
    If anything, then more than half of the army vehicle fleet was far from domestic. "Studebaker", "Dodge" and "Willis" were not made in the USSR.
    Like the vast majority of radio stations used by the Red Army during the war.
    And you never know what else. The backwardness of industry was not overcome.
    The Bolsheviks managed to impose discipline in the army, which their predecessors failed to do. This is their main merit. But they did not achieve any economic breakthrough. Industrial growth rates did not exceed pre-revolutionary ones. Because of the Civil War, the country wasted 7 years altogether. The railway network in 1941 in the USSR was almost the same as in 1914. Over the years of the pre-war five-year plans, the Gorky-Kirov, Petropavlovsk-Karaganda and Turksib roads were built. Judge for yourself whether this is a lot or a little.
    Quote: EvilLion
    The peasant before the revolution was starving for 50 years

    Hunger strikes and then enough. My mother is still alive, there is still someone to tell how under Stalin, a quinoa and a tree bark were eaten.
    Quote: vladsolo56
    only one thing is unclear how then did prosperous Russia live up to the revolution?

    And how did the prosperous USSR survive to the "perestroika"? Here and here about the same. The Russian Empire collapsed as a result of 1) the struggle for power within the ruling elite; 2) the growth of national separatism; 3) the fall of authority in power; 4) the destructive position of the intelligentsia. The USSR collapsed for the same reasons.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2014 15: 24
      +2
      RI would not have built 100k aircraft if it had any aluminum or plywood at that time. By the way, the same M. Solonin, for all the bizarreness of his conclusions, does not agree with the lack of aluminum. And in general, it is somehow difficult to argue with his statement that “to miss is an inalienable property of resources”. The last famine in the USSR was in 1933, then the tractor sharply raised labor productivity and before the War they did not know hunger, in the War, by the way, without mass deaths from hunger, perhaps this was facilitated by the understanding that everyone sucks and the population did not try where something to go in search of a dumbbell, which in conditions of large-scale famine only aggravates the problem, and everyone understood that there was no hope for the state in the war. The famine of 47 is in fact an echo of the War.

      How did the USSR survive until perestroika? Well, there was Khrushch with his "revelations" and there were those who wanted to appropriate the people's property, as well as the descendants of the "innocently repressed".
      1. Sour
        Sour 13 May 2014 16: 24
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        and also the descendants of the "innocently repressed".

        Is this about Gorbachev and Yakovlev? About Shevardnadze? Or about whom?
        Quote: EvilLion
        national property

        There was no such thing in the USSR, this is a lie. Property is something that you can use. There was state property, but it never belonged to the people. If anything, state property is and has been everywhere and always, even under the Egyptian pharaohs. But to call it "nationwide" - thank you. In the Empire, more than 70% of the railways were state-owned. Is this also "people's property"?

        Everything is simple with you. RI collapsed for objective reasons, and the USSR was destroyed by a small group of malicious individuals. What kind of rotten state is this that a small group of people was able to destroy? Then it turns out that such a state should not have existed at all. Why is it needed if half a dozen "agents of influence" will smash it to smithereens? This is a rotten rotten tree stump, not a state.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 13 May 2014 18: 42
          +2
          From state property, the profit goes to the state, and not to someone’s yachts there. And the director of state. the plant does not have any rights to this plant, but you really want it, and children should leave their assets.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 25 May 2014 13: 19
      0
      Sour
      Hunger, strife.
      Under the Tsar, hunger was permanent, aggravated by high child mortality, a stable first place in the Republic of Ingushetia for mortality from major infectious diseases, a massive syphilis disease, which resulted in a decrease in the Russian population against the background of an increase in the number of other peoples, physical degradation, and a low average standard of living.
  16. zav
    zav 13 May 2014 16: 08
    +2
    Do not think that any of us is smarter than Tsar Nicholas or any of the tsarist officials. We are all smart about our circumstances. Russia developed exactly the way its geographical location, the mentality of the people and the international situation allowed it. On a cozy patch of Europe, with the initial reach of material resources (coal, iron ore), God himself ordered the development of industry. Europe started doing this more than 200 years before Russia. She has an ocean nearby, and Europe builds ships for known purposes, along the way developing technology and fundamental science. And in itself, huge Russia has endless Siberia at its side, along which on roads swollen from permafrost they moved only on carts or on sleds. Do you think a lot with this way of moving goods? And so on, the reasons for Russia's lagging behind are known. As well as the reasons for Russia's forced dash into world leaders, it is the lost Crimean War. The tsars and the tsarist bureaucrats realized that it was necessary to make up for lost time and develop industry, "otherwise they would crush us."
    1. Sour
      Sour 13 May 2014 16: 38
      0
      Quote: zav
      Russia developed exactly as its geographical location, people's mentality and international position allowed it.

      I do not agree.
      No one bothered to abolish serfdom 50 years earlier. All the prerequisites for this were, there was not only political will. And then Russia would enter the 20th century with completely different opportunities.
      It would be an industrial country, with a large proportion of the urban population. Therefore, any revolution would have been easily suppressed in it, as it was suppressed in Germany in 1918 or in France in 1871. Because socialist revolutions win only in underdeveloped, rural countries like Russia, Mongolia, China, Cuba or Kampuchea.
      In no industrialized country did left radicals succeed in taking power. This is a rule from which there are no exceptions. Eastern Europe does not count, socialism came there on the armor of our tanks.
      1. zav
        zav 14 May 2014 00: 19
        0
        No one bothered to abolish serfdom 50 years earlier.


        And why not 100 years earlier or 150? Why serfdom appeared in Russia and existed for several centuries? Really none of those in power saw the malignancy of this phenomenon and made no attempts to get rid of it?
        The uncontrolled spread of the people throughout the vast Russian territory, and not the greed and stupidity of the tsarist government and landlords - this is the true cause of serfdom. That is, there was no one to defend Russia. Well, when the Crimean aggression of countries that waged wars on an industrial track occurred, the Russian Tsar chose the lesser of two evils — he freed the peasants. And he opened the door of the revolution.
  17. parus2nik
    parus2nik 13 May 2014 17: 52
    +2
    Quote: EvilLion
    Is it a matter of collectivization!

    We love, we slap our ears on the cheeks ... Speaking of my great-grandfather .. I thought that managing alone was a dead end .. When in 1918 they formed a commune, one of the first to enter there, gave seeders, winders, but ... manual communes, it wasn’t ice ... they didn’t listen to his grandfather with his advice .. they didn’t write down to the counters .. here the white ones came, the sons took with them .. When he returned, almost naked, with one mare, that amount of land was gone, that's all he raised the farm anyway, the dock was in this .. He got rich .. the time came for collective farms .. they dispossessed .. but they didn’t send them out .. but they recorded them as enemies of the people .. Soon a worker arrived from St. Petersburg, he was to command the collective farm .. and the last collective farm was ... with a question, who in the earth really knows? They pointed to their great-grandfather .. with a man, the man was there, he personally came to his great-grandfather .. He became a great-grandfather like an agronomist .. he raised the collective economy ..
    1. Sour
      Sour 13 May 2014 18: 02
      0
      Many people confuse the concepts of "small economy" and "private economy". Someone mixes out of thoughtlessness, and someone deliberately.
      Small-scale farming at the beginning of the 20th century really came to a standstill. Because it prevented the use of new technologies.
      But the fact that private property in agriculture, all other things being equal, is always more effective than state property, is generally not a topic for discussion for me. This was proved by the history of the USSR, and China too.
      No one can prove to me that a collective farm of a thousand hectares is able to work as efficiently as a private farm of a thousand hectares. And yields, and milk yields, and the salary on the collective farm will be lower.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 13 May 2014 18: 49
        +1
        I’ll explain to you on fingers how private property differs from state property. With private ownership, the owner has a yacht, and with state salary. That's all, and fairy tales about efficiency are complete nonsense. There is no reason to believe that the director of the plant with a salary, well, let him manage the 1 million worse than the owner, taking away a billion.

        And, by the way, in modern Russia, all the main assets are controlled by the state, all that private traders are capable of is squandering.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 13 May 2014 18: 44
      +2
      It’s easy. And especially about dispossession, only the village gathering could dispossess, and there were enough envious people.
  18. 225chay
    225chay 14 May 2014 23: 32
    -1
    Quote: 225chay
    Quote: smile
    RI dealt a mortal blow in February 17 .... and no Bolsheviks — but solid princes and counts — who destroyed the army by their order No. 1, dismissed the police, self-government and zemstvos, and a famine began in the country


    Oh well!!!
    From order No. 1 and the dissolution of the police in the country began a famine? ...
    are you out of your mind "historian"))))))) literate!
    Quote: smile
    Lenin signed the Brest Peace. he had about 120 thousand at hand


    Quote: smile
    With this treaty, Lenin saved us .... and after half a year, when the Bolsheviks intensified,


    This "SAVIOR"
    Your "kindest soul man" Lenin demanded to shoot as many clergy, nobility and other estates as possible as class and his personal enemies, this is like revenge for his executed terrorist brother ...
    And for this they shot the entire royal family together with the children and people loyal to him in the basement of the Ipatiev house, at night, on average, dropping seven bullets into each one, without trial or investigation, at the direction of another "honest man" Ya.M. Sverdlov with the knowledge of V.I. Lenin (the telegram perpetrators of the murder, Yurovsky, Goloshchekin, Vaybard, seized from the telegraph operator so as not to leave evidence and destroyed?

    Well, I understand Nicholas 11 ...
    but he already denied it, he was already nobody, just a citizen of Romanov ... and for what children are innocent? and loved ones?
    Are these not sadists, not executioners?
    Therefore, Russia was flooded with folk blood that the ghouls became in power and the executioners of which emoticons-pit bulls-cerberus protect and barrage their relatives