One of the most popular historical categories of our liberal or patriotic intelligentsia - "if only."
Had revolution not happened in 1917? How much bread would be sold abroad, when the Russian flag would be hoisted over Constantinople, what benefits would they get from dividing defeated Germany, how many territories would they get, how many people would they save? In general, "if it were not for the Bolsheviks ..."
However, almost no one wants to go in this "if" to the end.
After all, even in the case of victory in the First World War (although it is hard to believe in the amicable agreement on the division of the world between the countries of the Consent), the Russian monarchy would still have to solve its own age-old problems, the main of which is blatant technological backwardness. It is obvious that the winners of Germany - England, France, the USA and, let us make an assumption, Russia - instantly, due to geopolitical contradictions, would converge in a deadly fight. Already among themselves. Such is the reinforced logic of imperialism. By the way, this will happen a bit later with other winners of Germany - the USSR and the USA. Just a year after the capture of Berlin from the alliance, they will move to a war of annihilation.
So, according to our “if” scenario, did Russia have to do this? Russian winner?
Right. She, a country with a peasant, on 90% uneducated population, would have to pursue a rapid catch-up industrialization. Of course, nobody would have given time for such a jerk. In general, the greatest folly is the words spoken by Stolypin once about “twenty years of external and internal peace.” It is as if the boxer, wedged into a corner of the ring, suddenly began to talk about "twenty minutes of rest." For such a rant, as a rule, should be a hard knockout.
And how could the victorious Russia conduct super-fast military industrialization? Perhaps, by old habit, it would attract foreign (read, French, English) capital? Maybe Nobels, Rothschilds, Ryabushinsky and Mamontovs would have thrown in the blink of an eye to pump oil from Baku or drive ore from the Urals abroad for the sake of building new enterprises of high redistribution, where such an attractive salary would be set so that an agrarian Russia would rush to move to cities? Or maybe the Sovereign would have made a willful decision and transferred the lands belonging to the royal family and the church to public use, and large peasant farms capable of feeding millions of armies of new, happy workers would start growing on these lands? Well, and plus, it would be where, not tangling in a strip line, to arrange small things different - energy there, metallurgy, military-industrial complex, aviation industry?
And was it possible to carry out this grandiose plan without the establishment of a central planning body - simply put, the State Planning Commission? Was it possible to do this without nullifying the gigantic foreign debts that Russia had before the Entente powers (as we know from the following story, even for the unfortunate lend-lease good-natured Americans demanded immediate and full payment).
But in that case, as it seems to you, would not the Sovereign accidentally have to overcome the bitter resistance of his own environment? In this case, would the Emperor manage without tough repression, without speedy proceedings and a merciless fight against "enemies of the monarchy"? And without the propaganda mobilization of loose, like the French bun, salon society, shrouded in decadence hippies and Merezhkovsky? And without a total fight against drunkenness and morphinism?
An interesting result is “if”, agree.
To summarize To resist the grand battle of the imperialist powers, Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov would probably have to at least turn into a ... Bolshevik for a while. For the time being, we leave aside the question of which state would have turned out socialist or proto-fascist; For simplicity, we exclude any misfortunes that may arise in the way of the tsar-industrializer, such as the Bombs of the People or the derailed train. Let's just look again at the photo of this person and ask ourselves honestly and frankly: was Nikolai Aleksandrovich able to do something similar? Let's look at the photographs of the royal relatives who were available and ask ourselves: were there at least one of these people capable of something similar? If you said “no”, this is about the same thing as Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s contemporaries thought. Regardless of their ideological or party orientation.
Bolshevik from Nikolai Alexandrovich failed. The result was the February revolution. The awkward attempt of those who did not want to part with their “assets”, but who understood the whole alignment of oligarchs and generals to intercept the weakening administrative reins. This idiotic attempt ended with a total collapse of the front, transport and industry. The reins collapsed in the bloody mud of disorganization, decay and anarchy.
In October, the 1917 of this icy mud (to the incredible surprise of the British, French, Americans and Germans) was raised by a group of fanatics mobilized by the idea. In a short time, she did, in general, what Nikolai Aleksandrovich did not want or couldn’t do — stopped the disintegration of the state, conducted industrialization and replaced the aristocratic version of autocracy by autocracy (that is, dictatorship) of the proletariat ( people). Thus, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, who stigmatized the Stalinist USSR for betraying the ideas of the revolution, was still wrong. The true Thermidor happened in Russia not in 1937, but in 1917, with his own, Bronstein, participation.
Bolshevik Nikolai Romanov (?!), Or the historical inevitability of October
- Konstantin Semin
Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter