Military Review

Why the king did not deal with the national traitors

36
Why the king did not deal with the national traitors



Not a protest of the people, but a betrayal at the top led Tsarist Russia to revolution

The publicistic stamp "Stupidity or treason?" Is well known to modern man. Perhaps this is one of the oldest publicistic memes, which for many years survived its creator - the leader of the Cadets, the deputy of the pre-Revolutionary Duma Pavel Milyukov. In November 1916, he made a speech in which the phrase "Stupidity or treason?" Was repeated with a refrain. As many researchers have noted, what Milyukov said literally blew up public opinion and became a prologue to the overthrow of the king. What is so terrible reported Milyukov? Here is an excerpt from the transcript of his scandalous speech in the Duma:

“So, as soon as I moved the border, a few days after Sazonov’s resignation, first Swedish and then German and Austrian newspapers brought a number of news about how Sturmer’s appointment met Germany. That's what the newspapers said. I will read excerpts without comment.

Of particular interest was the editorial in the “Neye Freie Press” from 25 June. Here is what is said in this article: “No matter how old Sturmer (laughter) becomes Russified, it’s still rather strange that a German (laughter) will lead a foreign policy in a war that emerged from pan-Slavist ideas.

Minister-President Stürmer is free from the delusions that led to the war. He did not promise, gentlemen, note that without Constantinople and the straits he would never make peace. In the person of Stunner, an instrument was acquired that can be used at will. Thanks to the policy of weakening the Duma, Stürmer became a man who satisfies the secret desires of the right, who does not at all want an alliance with England. He will not say, like Sazonov, that the Prussian military helmet should be neutralized. ”

Where did the German and Austrian newspapers get this assurance that Stürmer, fulfilling the will of the right, would act against England and against the continuation of the war? From the information of the Russian press. A note was written in the Moscow newspapers about the extreme-right note (Zamyslovsky from his seat: “And every time it turns out to be a lie!”), Delivered to the Headquarters in July before Sturmer’s second trip. This note states that, although it is necessary to fight until the final victory, you need to end the war in a timely manner, otherwise the fruits of victory will be lost as a result of the revolution (Zamyslovsky from the spot: “Signatures, signatures!”).

This is an old topic for our Germanophiles, but it develops in a number of new attacks.

Zamyslovsky (with a place): Signatures! Let him say the signature!

Chairman: Duma member Zamyslovsky, I ask you not to speak from the floor.

Pn Milyukov: I quote Moscow newspapers.

Zamyslovsky (from a place): Slanderer! Say the captions. Do not slander!

Presiding Officer: Member of the State Duma Zamyslovsky, I ask you not to speak from the floor.

Zamyslovsky: Signatures, slanderer!

Presiding Officer: Member of the State Duma Zamyslovsky, I urge you to order.

Vishnevsky (from a place): We require a signature. Let not slander.

Presiding Officer: Member of the State Duma Vishnevsky, I urge you to order.

Pn Milyukov: I said my source - these are Moscow newspapers, of which there is a reprint in foreign newspapers. I convey those impressions that abroad have determined the opinion of the press on the appointment of Sturmer.

Zamyslovsky (from a place): The slanderer, that's who you are! ”

So, Miliukov, with a kind of childlike uncomplicatedness, brings down on the audience a “revelation” drawn from German newspapers. And so that no one at all should have any doubt that the newspapers of the enemy state write “the truth”, cites an even more “weighty” source - the Moscow newspapers. Right now, they would not even laugh at such a figure - they would simply not be taken seriously at all. During the war, newspapers, that is, propaganda of the enemy, are openly quoted, the Germans themselves took it from the Moscow press, and the piquancy of the situation is that the Russian press was largely controlled by opponents of state power and acted as an instrument of revolutionaries. The circle is closed.

And from the very beginning, Milyukov was called a slanderer, demanding signatures on documents that could be considered strong evidence of his words. As we see, Milyukov does not have any reliable information, he was laughed at in the Duma. However, this senseless chatter caused a sensation. The public believed that betrayal really matured at the top. The Germans, realizing that they were losing the war, hoped for a split within the Entente, they tried to create the impression that their opponents were secretly negotiating peace with Germany. And Miliukov awkwardly tries to present the theses of German newspapers as the ultimate truth. Imagine that around the year 1944, a Soviet party leader (for example, Mikhail Kalinin) will publicly read out Goebbels’s statements and accuse the head of government of being stupid or treason. How long after that will Kalinin be free? I think it will not take an hour, how they will arrest him and quickly put him against the wall. And in tsarist Russia, the “backward”, “prison of the nations”, Miliukov didn’t just get away with such talk, but also made him popular throughout the country.

Subsequently, Milyukov admitted that during the war he had read an article in an American journal that said that Germany was offering Russia proposals for peace negotiations. At the same time, he added that this article was a reprint of material from the Swiss newspaper Berner Tagwacht, the official organ of the Social Democrats of Switzerland. Milyukov admitted that what he read seemed plausible to him, although he did not check the source of this message. The funny thing is that similar articles by Berner Tagwacht have been published several times, but when the Bern newspaper Tagglatt asked to disclose the sources of this sensational information, she was denied this.

Interestingly, Russian diplomacy has denied the information spread by Berner Tagwacht, and the newspaper soon ceased to publish these rumors. And here's another interesting detail: Robert Grimm was the editor of “Berner Tagwacht”. He was the one who had to accompany Lenin on his famous trip in the spring of 1917 to Russia through the territory of Germany in a “sealed train”, but then he was replaced by Platten. In the summer, 1917 Grimm personally went to Russia to promote a separate peace with Germany. By the way, the employee of “Berner Tagwacht” was Lenin's associate Karl Radek, the future participant in the negotiations during the conclusion of the Brest Peace, a member of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party.

It was from such political garbage dumps that Miliukov selected information for his loud “revelations”.

Regarding the activities of Milyukov in those years, we have valuable evidence of Vasilyev, the former director of the Police Department:

“On November 1, the session of the Duma began, and from that moment onwards violent attacks on the government followed one after the other. Less than a week later, the Duma provoked the fall of the chairman of the Council of Ministers, Sturmer. I still remember how Miliukov appeared on the podium, addressed the deputies and said that he had a document in his pocket containing irrefutable evidence of the chairman of the Council of Ministers’s betrayal and help from Germany, but that he was prepared to provide this document only to the judicial authorities.

Later, the development of events showed how many real reasons this monstrous accusation had. Stürmer died in torment, while Milyukov is still alive and well and does not suffer from remorse of conscience; but Milyukov never presented any of the evidence mentioned, for the simple reason that they did not exist. Later, the Provisional Government appointed an investigative commission, and the chairman of this commission specifically informed Sturmer’s wife that the most thorough investigation of the charges against the former chairman of the Council of Ministers did not work because of the absence of any evidence.

After Sturmer was eliminated, the Duma continued its attacks, and every day some official was accused of treason and espionage; even the empress did not escape shameless slander. Thus, Guchkov, Milyukov, Polivanov and the company diligently prepared the road to disaster. Storner's successor was A.F. Trepov, but he, too, was helpless, and the Duma continued its persecution and intrigue.

Miliukov, who was patronized by the British Ambassador Buchanan, often spent his evenings at the English embassy. If the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs ever allows the publication of documents from its archives, this will illuminate Milyukov's “patriotism” in a new and especially favorable manner.

Characteristically, in December 1916, Foreign Minister Pokrovsky delivered a speech in the Duma about Russia's irrevocable intention to continue the war to victory: “... hegemony. All of us are equally imbued with the vital need for us to bring the war to a victorious end and will not let us stop any tricks of our enemies on this way (quoted on the work of Ayrapetov "On the Eve. Generals, Liberals and Entrepreneurs before February").

Who remembers these words of Pokrovsky now? Perhaps no one, except for a narrow group of specialists, but Miliukov's nonsense is still used by publicists as evidence of the "impasse of tsarism."

After the victory in the war, the revolutionary gang was waited for by the court and the prison, which, however, forced them to hastily prepare a rebellion. In their anti-state rage, they went too far, and now there was no going back. The game went right through: either they or the king. And here a natural question arises: why did the king not deal with the revolutionaries with harsh measures? They were no geniuses of conspiracy. Overfishing and shooting them would not be difficult. Why did Nicholas not do this? Showed unforgivable softness or psevdogumanizm? Nonsense is all. The tsar was not an idiot and understood perfectly well what was going on and what kind of sea of ​​blood the “well-wishers” had prepared for Russia. And the thing is this.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the main geopolitical rivals of Britain were Germany and Russia. And not just competitors, but mortal enemies. The English establishment planned to eliminate them. But in what sequence to act? The problem for London was that the destruction of Germany dramatically increased Russia's capabilities - and vice versa. And to eliminate Germany and Russia at the same time even the British Empire lacked strength. There were two levers to influence Russia - a local fifth column and a direct military invasion. If Nicholas II destroys revolutionaries, then the British can provoke a war against Russia, guaranteeing Germany non-intervention and thereby unleashing her hands.

As a result, Russia alone will fight against Germany and Austria-Hungary, which together surpassed our country in military and economic potential and were comparable to us in terms of population. For us, such a war would have been a disaster. Do not forget about Turkey, which in such conditions could easily join the anti-Russian bloc.

Yes, Germany’s victory over Russia would be expensive, and the British would get a breather. But, nevertheless, in the medium term, they would still have to meet with the sharply intensified German power. That is, this option is not very happy with the British. It would be more profitable for London to use Russia against Germany first, and then, at the last moment, to use its fifth column already against Russia. Nicholas II understood this perfectly well, but it was impossible to destroy revolutionaries before the war, and at the beginning of the war too: after all, the British could at any time order their agents to deploy revolutionary terror and sabotage, as was the case during the Russian-Japanese war.

In a situation where Germany is full of strength, it was very dangerous for our country. But when the victory of the Entente (and therefore, Russia) will already become obvious, when the potential of Germany will be largely squandered, the revolutionaries would not be happy. But the British easily counted this option. It was here that the game began to race, and it must be understood that the king had a task of incredible complexity. It was very difficult to choose the exact moment of hitting the revolutionaries. This is exactly the case when “yesterday — early, tomorrow — late.” But when will “today” come? Exactly unknown ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2014/05/15/istoriya-khkh-veka/739989-pochemu-tsar-ne-raspravilsya-s-natsional-predatelyami
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Silhouette
    Silhouette 26 May 2014 09: 51
    +8
    Some kind of muddy reasoning .... If Peter1 were offered to abdicate, he would have transplanted them all to the stake, and would not have waited for a convenient moment to strike. And Nicholas 2 was too soft and kind. For which everyone paid - his family, country ...
    1. Varang42
      Varang42 26 May 2014 10: 30
      +1
      Nicholas did not prepare for the throne, and was to become the Grand Duke and no more.
      His brother Mikhail was supposed to ascend the throne, but the death of their grandfather Alexander II. greatly influenced little Mikhail, he did not want to be killed just like his beloved grandfather. and "renounced" politics as such.
      And as you know, the princes were prepared for reign from infancy ...
      1. Azzzwer
        Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 47
        +3
        Quote: VaranG42
        Nicholas did not prepare for the throne, and was to become the Grand Duke and no more.
        His brother Mikhail was supposed to ascend the throne, but the death of their grandfather Alexander II. greatly influenced little Mikhail, he did not want to be killed just like his beloved grandfather. and "renounced" politics as such.
        And as you know, the princes were prepared for reign from infancy.
        where are you looking for this nonsense? In Russia, after Paul 1, the succession from father to eldest son was established
    2. falcon
      falcon 26 May 2014 10: 32
      +5
      In physics, there is Newton’s third law - each force must correspond
      reaction force (reaction force). There are always English, German,
      American spies, only strong power creates SMERSH, and weak
      it is not clear what is waiting. Nikolai, apparently, was a good person, but
      as they say, in the army there is no such position - a good guy. Eventually -
      He didn’t defend his family; he pushed the country to a civil war.
      Article "-", it is not worth justifying weakness by a political moment.
      1. Barboskin
        Barboskin 26 May 2014 11: 33
        +3
        Nicholas 2 was convinced before fanaticism of his royal destiny, that is, he was prepared and prepared well for the throne, he just turned out to be. And not soft and kind, but stubborn and self-confident. In our memory, there was also one such humanist, he also loved his wife very much, the country about ... shit. True, he turned his back on the bullet, so he did not become a saint, he received the Nobel truth.
        1. qwert
          qwert 26 May 2014 12: 19
          +3
          Well, I myself was convinced, this does not mean cooked. Vaughn Zhirinovsky seems convinced that he is a ji-dai, he didn’t cook him for the master Yoda)))
    3. Azzzwer
      Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 45
      +2
      Quote: Silhouette
      And Nikolai 2 was too soft and kind. For which everyone paid - his family, country ...
      hence the conclusion that the kind of government system in which the authorities can come without such an alternative to such rulers, and they cannot be re-elected!
  2. smart75
    smart75 26 May 2014 10: 15
    +6
    Well, what was the purpose of creating this Duma ?!
    The sense for the country is exactly the same as now.
    If the country has a strong ruler, then the Duma turns into a machine for signing.
    If not, to the association of bribe takers and corrupt officials to sell their homeland.

    If you read exactly how the State Duma "helped" the Russian Empire to prepare for the First World War, then the recipe "for a count" will seem the most appropriate.
  3. Varang42
    Varang42 26 May 2014 10: 23
    +1
    The biggest tragedy of that time .. for me personally was the murder of P.A. Stolypin ...
    as they say history does not tolerate subjunctive turns ...
    however, if Peter Arkadievich was alive, he would not have allowed Russia to be drawn into the war ... and then there would have been no revolution ... and would have completed his reforms, both civilian and military. and in which country we would now live ... it's hard to imagine.
    "You need great shocks .. And we need a great Russia" P.A. Stolypin.
    1. w2000
      w2000 26 May 2014 11: 24
      +1
      Have you heard the expression "Stolypin's tie"? It is a pity that this satrap had not been overwhelmed 10 years earlier.
      1. sso-xnumx
        sso-xnumx 26 May 2014 12: 07
        +1
        Tip. Study the history of this expression. P.A. Stolypin was not a satrap. He was a statesman more than anyone. And above all, he wanted to have peace and order in Russia. And further. Just wonder who his killer was. Someone, Dmitry Grigorievich (Mordko Gershkovich) Bogrov.
        1. qwert
          qwert 26 May 2014 12: 20
          +2
          That's just his reforms led to even greater impoverishment of the peasants. And yes, it was smooth and beautiful on paper. A politician and reformer divorced from reality is sometimes worse than the enemy.
          1. Varang42
            Varang42 26 May 2014 12: 26
            0
            facts to the studio
            1. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 26 May 2014 13: 25
              0
              Quote: VaranG42
              The biggest tragedy of that time .. for me personally was the murder of P.A. Stolypin ...
              as they say history does not tolerate subjunctive turns ...
              however, if Peter Arkadievich was alive, he would not have allowed Russia to be drawn into the war ... and then there would have been no revolution ... and would have completed his reforms, both civilian and military. and in which country we would now live ... it's hard to imagine.


              Quote: VaranG42
              facts to the studio


              laughing laughing laughing

              Catchy phrases like:"You need great shocks .. And we need a great Russia" P.A. Stolypin. - are not facts.
            2. Azzzwer
              Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 52
              +1
              Quote: VaranG42
              facts to the studio
              And you confirm that Stolipin wanted Russia dorb!
              1. Varang42
                Varang42 26 May 2014 19: 10
                +1
                confirm otherwise ?!
                1. rkkasa xnumx
                  rkkasa xnumx 26 May 2014 20: 47
                  -2
                  Quote: Azzzwer
                  And you confirm that Stolipin wanted Russia dorb!

                  Quote: VaranG42
                  confirm otherwise ?!


                  It's actually you Varang42 , began a conversation about Stolypin. Therefore, be kind, provide:
                  Quote: VaranG42
                  facts to the studio

                  why:

                  Quote: VaranG42
                  The biggest tragedy of that time .. for me personally was the murder of P.A. Stolypin ...


                  Quote: VaranG42
                  if Peter Arkadievich was alive, he would not have allowed Russia to be drawn into the war ... and then there would have been no revolution ... and would have completed his reforms, both civilian and military. and in which country we would now live ... it's hard to imagine.
      2. Varang42
        Varang42 26 May 2014 12: 18
        0
        on military field ships introduced by Stolypin.
        was executed during the period 1905-1913 think about this figure ... 2981 people ..
        for 8 years ...
        You give the official statistics of the death penalty in the USSR ..?

        (source, - Russian wealth 1909. No. 4. P. 80-81; Polyansky.N.N. Tsarist courts in the fight against the revolution of 1905-1907. M., 1958. S. 215 Yearbook of the newspaper "Rech" for 1914 . Pg., 1914. S. 41.)
        1. Barboskin
          Barboskin 26 May 2014 12: 32
          +1
          Quote: VaranG42
          on military field ships introduced by Stolypin.
          was executed during the period 1905-1913 think about this figure ... 2981 people ..
          for 8 years ...
          You give the official statistics of the death penalty in the USSR ..?

          (source, - Russian wealth 1909. No. 4. P. 80-81; Polyansky.N.N. Tsarist courts in the fight against the revolution of 1905-1907. M., 1958. S. 215 Yearbook of the newspaper "Rech" for 1914 . Pg., 1914. S. 41.)

          And how many of them died of starvation, and how many babies died from lack of medical care in the villages? The women gave birth to 30 each, and 2-3 survived no more. There was little land, as it had not been divided, even by farms, even though it was no longer becoming a community, and the reformer was afraid to take at least part of the landlords. So he came the seventeenth year, others have kindled, but the power has prepared combustible material for earlier.
          1. Varang42
            Varang42 26 May 2014 12: 53
            +1
            I will ask the facts in the studio, we are all masters of the "word", let's give numbers, dates, sources, etc. etc.
            argue your arguments! not in kindergarten!
            UPUs were introduced in connection with the events of 1905, as well as with the cheeky terror, by the way, mainly by the Socialist Revolutionary groups ... and not the Communists ..
            "Women gave birth to 30 pieces each ... 2-3 no more survived" as if not giving birth to children ... I know from my family (yes, purely working peasant) my great-grandfather had 11 children 3 of them died in childhood, the rest worked fought ...
            figures in the studio!
            1. Azzzwer
              Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 59
              0
              Quote: VaranG42
              I know from my family (yes, a purely working peasant) my great-grandfather had 11 children 3 of whom died
              Hear uncle, take away the red flag, you are not from there in my opinion!
              1. Varang42
                Varang42 26 May 2014 19: 05
                +1
                you are Ukrainian uncle. you will see tv ... but from where I don’t tell you bovem ..
          2. Azzzwer
            Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 56
            -2
            Quote: Barboskin
            And how many of them died of starvation, and how many babies died from lack of medical care in the villages? The women gave birth to 30 pieces, and 2-3 survived no more. There was little land, as it had not been divided, even by farms, even though it was no longer becoming a community, and the reformer was afraid to take at least part of the landlords. So he came the seventeenth year, others have kindled, but the power has prepared combustible material for earlier
            Why should they explain all this to them, they are still sure that under the tsar - benefactor he lived well
            1. Varang42
              Varang42 26 May 2014 19: 07
              +1
              and it’s true ... the primordially “party occupation” is rattling like a "stick", you, in addition to the reports of the Central Committee of the CPSU, read another thread if you die.
        2. Azzzwer
          Azzzwer 26 May 2014 15: 55
          0
          Quote: VaranG42
          on military field ships introduced by Stolypin.
          was executed during the period 1905-1913 think about this figure ... 2981 people ..
          for 8 years ...
          You give the official statistics of the death penalty in the USSR ..?
          and the fact that from the moment of detention on suspicion to the execution of the sentence was given 24 hours and the guilt was established and the sentence was passed, the commander of the military unit and two senior officers, without the fate of a prosecutor, lawyer and professional judge, does this bother you?
          1. Varang42
            Varang42 26 May 2014 19: 09
            +1
            and when the ROARS OF MILITARY TRIPS were not so ??? or maybe they didn’t give 24 hours? and yes you don’t really like tsiferka revolutionaries right?
            so YOU ​​bring at least one figure on the executions of the TREE in the USSR!
    2. Barboskin
      Barboskin 26 May 2014 11: 37
      0
      If anyone could save Russia, then this is Witte. Of course, not the best option, but given that it turned out without him you do not have to choose. Great Stolypin wanted to do through agrarian reform. Complete nonsense.
      1. qwert
        qwert 26 May 2014 12: 21
        +3
        I agree. Yes, he only said to Witte that if Nikolai did not turn to face the peasants, he could lose the throne ... and was already retired the next morning ....
        And Stalin had to save Russia ... But this is another story ....
  4. Moore
    Moore 26 May 2014 10: 35
    +2
    If Nicholas II destroys the revolutionaries, then the British can provoke a war against Russia, guaranteeing Germany non-intervention and thereby freeing her hands.

    I believe revolutionaries do not start from nothing. About the objective and subjective prerequisites of the revolutionary situation has been written for a long time and has not yet been refuted by anyone. And how many do not feed the carbonaries with money, but without the support of their ideas by the people (especially armed, the war is on) they are doomed.
    Milyukov - this is such a Zhirinovsky-Navalny-Panfilov-Nemtsov in one bottle. Duma bully. In this case, what he said fit perfectly into the mood of the then society - the tsar discredited himself and the very idea of ​​monarchism at every turn.
  5. w2000
    w2000 26 May 2014 11: 21
    +1
    Monarchist sloppoks got out, and some words: "national traitors". The Tsar-murderer and White Guard collaborators - these are the real traitors, or rather the enemies of the people. Comrades Lenin and Stalin did not finish off the nits. It was necessary to weed out all the imperial, priest's and Belyakov's reptile up to the third generation. Their granddaughters destroyed the USSR and now they stand up for the darkness of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalities, they bought the whole country for a penny in 1992, now they pump oil and gas, sit in the Kremlin, broadcast from TV screens and scribble crooked articles.
    1. Varang42
      Varang42 26 May 2014 12: 04
      +1
      you are a citizen to start a textbook on the history of the Russian state, open and try to draw at least something from there.
      You will not believe it - the story began long before Ulyanov and Dzhugashvilli ..

      And yes, Mr. Strelkov, judging by your comment, turns out to be one of the "shortcomings" that Lenin and Stalin did not suppress ...

      If you do not understand that history is one, and in 17 the tragedy happened the same as in 1991. then decide who you are "white" or "red" ...
      and then write articles "300 Slavyants" and blaspheme them yourself ..
      not solid citizen is not solid.
      1. Azzzwer
        Azzzwer 26 May 2014 16: 02
        +1
        Quote: VaranG42
        and in 17 the tragedy was the same as in 1991.
        I am embarrassed to ask what tragedy happened for you in 1991? you already decide either 1917 or 1991, but somehow it turns out slurry and mess request
        1. Varang42
          Varang42 26 May 2014 19: 17
          +1
          first "YOU are the uncle" then you ...
          not sequentially ..
          and for YOU UNCLE!
          if the history of the deal for before and after 17, then you are sorry "nerus" because your brains are washed out no worse than maydauns ... Russia has one history! and in 17 the country was sold the same way as in 91 ... the difference is that we remember 91 but we don't want 17 ... after all, then there was a "bright future" after the "dark kingdom" ..
          Not respecting the history of the state as a whole, you despise its future in general.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. TiGRoO
        TiGRoO 26 May 2014 14: 04
        0
        And then - for Faith, the king and the fatherland (c) and do not care that the 21st century is in the yard laughing

        There’s a constitution in the DPR with the predominant Orthodox religion, Strelkov (min. DPR defense), everyone with a PR - monarchist, BABAY - in general, for the new king to lead the KING, and even return to the Cossacks their social status, as in the days of the empire.

        Fascism vs PGMnuti - modern Ukraine crying
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Astartes
    Astartes 26 May 2014 11: 26
    +2
    Milyukov who is either a traitor and Nikolasha who could not hide a traitor or a fool because the British would have organized a war against Russia. Something the author has with a causal relationship is bad. And by the way, the ideas of a traitor find a lively response in society, but at 44 this was really difficult to imagine. So at 44, society and the government were clearly healthier than Nikolashka and "kind power" ????
  8. sso-xnumx
    sso-xnumx 26 May 2014 12: 00
    +1
    I did not find in the article the answer to the question in the title.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 26 May 2014 12: 08
    +5
    It was very difficult to choose the exact moment of the strike on the revolutionaries. This is exactly the case when "yesterday is early, tomorrow is late." But when will “today” come? It’s not known for sure ...
    Most of the revolutionaries of the Social Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists and other revolutionary parties were either in exile or in prisons .. or abroad .. The author didn’t really have to sin on them .. It should be noted that the royal family itself was muddy, a simple example .. in the conspiracy on the contrary Rasputin participated and were involved, members of the royal family .. Again I want to remind the author that with the hand of Gavrila Principle, Russia was drawn into the world war .. That is, the revolution in Russia was originally planned, because V.I. Lenin is right, Russia moreover, it was the weakest link in imperialism .. this was taken into account by those who organized a world war .. But in the article, the author never revealed who the organizer and ideological inspirer of the February revolution was ...
  10. OPTR
    OPTR 26 May 2014 12: 49
    +2
    The author of the article paints an interesting picture - the agents are so strong that it takes several bloody years to wait for Germany to weaken in order to strike at them, that you have to conclude an alliance with the country that feeds the agents.
  11. Prutkov
    Prutkov 26 May 2014 17: 06
    0
    In general, there is a very important similarity between that and currently existing Duma, however, as well as the Ukrainian Rada - none of the deputies is responsible for their words. This "irresponsibility" led to the 17th year in Russia and to the Maidan in Ukraine. The whole "charm" of the situation in Ukraine lies in the fact that those "dictatorial" laws that tried to pass through the Rada in January of this year caused so much stench in our democrats and led to first blood on the Maidan. But with the advent of power all the same "democrats", these laws were adopted in even harsher forms and are successfully applied against dissidents.