Nobles of the Russian Empire - the backbone of the officers of the Red Army or On another liberal lie

For some time now we began to impose an opinion: we must sympathize with the whites. They de nobles, people of honor and duty, "the intellectual elite of the nation," innocently destroyed by the Bolsheviks ...

Some modern heroes, heroically, without a fight leaving the enemy half of the territory entrusted to them, even introduce White Guard shoulder straps in the ranks of their militia ... Being in the so-called. The “red belt” of the country known to the whole world ...

It has become fashionable on occasion to cry about the innocently murdered and expelled noblemen. And, as usual, the Reds are blamed for all the troubles of the present time, and they have so treated the “elite”.

Behind these conversations, the main thing becomes unnoticeable - the Reds won in the struggle, yet the “elite” not only Russia, but also the strongest powers of that time fought against them.

And why did the current “noble gentlemen” take it that the nobles in that great Russian turmoil were necessarily on the side of the whites? Other nobles, like Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, did much more for the proletarian revolution than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Turn to the facts.

In the Red Army, 75 served thousands of former officers (of which 62 were thousands of noble origin), while in Belaya there were about 35 thousands from 150 of the thousandth officer corps of the Russian Empire.

7 November 1917, the Bolsheviks came to power. Russia was still at war with Germany and its allies. Whether you want to or not, you have to fight. Therefore, the 19 of November 1917 was already. The Bolsheviks appointed the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief ... a hereditary nobleman, His Excellency Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Army Mikhail Dmitrievich Bonch-Bruyevich.

It is he who will lead the armed forces of the Republic in the most difficult period for the country, from November 1917 to August 1918 and from the separate units of the former Imperial Army and Red Guard units by February 1918 will form the Workers' Peasant Red Army. From March to August, MD Bonch-Bruyevich will hold the post of the military leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Republic, and in 1919 - the chief of the Field Staff Rev. Military Council of the Republic.

At the end of 1918, the post of commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces of the Soviet Republic was established. We ask you to love and favor - his highly honored commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces of the Soviet Republic, Sergey Sergeyevich Kamenev (not to be confused with Kamenev, who was then shot along with Zinoviev). Personnel officer, graduated from the Academy of the General Staff in 1907, Colonel of the Imperial Army.

First 1918 to July 1919, Mr. Kamenev made a lightning career from an infantry division commander to a commander of the Eastern Front, and finally, from July 1919 until the end of the Civil War, he held the post that Stalin would occupy during World War II. Since July 1919g. not a single operation of the land and sea forces of the Soviet Republic was complete without his direct participation.

Great help to Sergey Sergeevich was provided by his immediate subordinate - His Excellency Pavel Pavlovich Lebedev, Chief of the Red Army Field Headquarters, hereditary nobleman, Major General of the Imperial Army. He replaced Bonch-Bruyevich as the Chief of the Field Staff and headed him from 1919 to 1921 (almost the entire war), and from 1921 he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Red Army. Pavel Pavlovich participated in the development and conduct of the most important operations of the Red Army to defeat the troops of Kolchak, Denikin, Yudenich, Wrangel, and was awarded the Orders of the Red Banner and the Red Banner of Labor (at that time the highest awards of the Republic).

We can not ignore the colleague of Lebedev, the Chief of the All-Russian General Staff, His Excellency Alexander Alexandrovich Samoilo. Alexander Alexandrovich is also a hereditary nobleman and Major General of the Imperial Army. During the Civil War, he headed the military district, the army, the front, worked as a deputy at Lebedev, then headed Vseroglavshtab.

Isn't that so, a very interesting tendency is observed in the personnel policy of the Bolsheviks? We can assume that Lenin and Trotsky, selecting the highest command personnel of the Red Army, made it a prerequisite that these were hereditary nobles and regular officers of the Imperial Army in the rank not lower than the colonel. But of course, it is not. Just a tough wartime quickly put forward professionals and talented people, also quickly pushing all sorts of "revolutionary balabolok."

Therefore, the personnel policy of the Bolsheviks is quite natural, they had to fight and win now, there was no time to learn. However, it is truly surprising that noblemen and officers came to them, and even in such numbers, and served the Soviet government for the most part with faith and truth.

Often there are allegations that the Bolsheviks forced the nobles into the Red Army by threatening to repress the families of officers. For many decades this myth has been persistently exaggerated in pseudo-historical literature, pseudo-monographs and various kinds of “research”. This is only a myth. They served not for fear, but for conscience.

And who would entrust the command of a potential traitor? It is known only about a few officers cheating. But they commanded insignificant forces and are sad, but still an exception. The majority honestly fulfilled their duty and selflessly fought both with the Entente and with their “brothers” in the class. They acted as it should be for the true patriots of their homeland.

The Worker-Peasant Red Fleet is generally an aristocratic institution. Here is a list of his commanders during the Civil War: Vasily Mikhailovich Altfater (hereditary nobleman, Rear Admiral of the Imperial Fleet), Evgeny Andreyevich Berens (hereditary nobleman, rear admiral of the Imperial Navy), Alexander Vasilyevich Nemitz (personal data are exactly the same).

Yes, there the commanders, the Naval General Headquarters of the Russian Navy, almost at full strength, went over to the side of Soviet power, and so remained to lead the fleet of the entire Civil War. Apparently, the Russian sailors after Tsushima perceived the idea of ​​the monarchy, as they say, ambiguous.

Here is what Altfater wrote in his statement about admission to the Red Army: “I served until now only because I considered it necessary to be useful to Russia where I can, and as I can. But I did not know and did not believe you. I still do not understand much now, but I was convinced ... that you love Russia more than many of ours. And now I have come to tell you that I am yours. ”

I believe that the same words could be repeated by Baron Alexander Alexandrovich von Taube, Chief of the Main Staff of the Red Army Command in Siberia (former Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Army). Taube's troops were defeated by White Czechs in the summer of 1918, he himself was captured and soon died in the Kolchak prison on death row.

A year later, another “red baron” —Vladimir Alexandrovich Olderogge (also a hereditary nobleman, major general of the Imperial Army), from August 1919 to January 1920, commander of the Red Front, - finished off the White Guards in the Urals and eventually eliminated Kolchak .

At the same time, from July to October, the 1919 of the other most important red front — the Southern — was headed by His Excellency the former Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Army, Vladimir Nikolayevich Yegoriev. The troops under the command of Yegoryev stopped Denikin's offensive, inflicted a series of defeats on him and held out until the reserves came from the Eastern front, which ultimately predetermined the final defeat of the whites in southern Russia. In these difficult months of fierce fighting on the Southern Front, Yegoriev’s closest assistant was his deputy and at the same time the commander of a separate military group, Vladimir Ivanovich Selivachev (hereditary nobleman, Lieutenant-General of the Imperial Army).

As is known, in the summer and autumn of 1919, White planned to triumphantly end the Civil War. To this end, they decided to deliver a combined strike in all directions. However, by mid-October 1919, the Kolchak front was already hopeless, there was a turning point in favor of the Reds and South. At this point, the whites struck an unexpected blow from the northwest.

Yudenich rushed to Petrograd. The blow was so unexpected and powerful that already in October the whites found themselves in the suburbs of Petrograd. There was a question about the surrender of the city. Lenin, despite the well-known panic in the ranks of his comrades, the city decided not to surrender.

And now the 7 Red Army under the command of his high honor (former colonel of the Imperial Army) Sergei Dmitrievich Kharlamov is advancing towards Yudenich, and a separate group of the same army commanded by His Excellency (Major General of the Imperial Army) Sergei Ivanovich Odintsov comes to the flank. Both - from the most hereditary nobles. The result of those events is well known: in mid-October, Yudenich was still viewing Red Petrograd through binoculars, and on November 28 unpacked suitcases in Revel (amateur young boys turned out to be a useless commander ...).

Northern front. From autumn 1918 to spring 1919, this is an important part of the struggle against the Anglo-American-French invaders. So who leads the Bolsheviks to battle? First, His Excellency (former Lieutenant-General) Dmitry Pavlovich Parsky, then His Excellency (former Lieutenant-General) Dmitry Nikolaevich Nadezhny, both hereditary nobles.

It should be noted that it was Parsky who led the Red Army units in the famous February battles of 1918 near Narva, so it is largely thanks to him that we celebrate February 23. His Excellency Comrade Reliable after the end of the fighting in the North will be appointed commander of the Western Front.

Such a situation with nobles and generals in the service of the Reds is almost everywhere. They will tell us: you are exaggerating everything here. The Reds had their own talented military leaders and not from nobles and generals. Yes, they were, we know their names well: Frunze, Budyonny, Chapaev, Parkhomenko, Kotovsky, Shchors. But who were they in the days of decisive battles?

When the fate of Soviet Russia was decided in 1919, the most important was the Eastern Front (against Kolchak). Here are his commanders in chronological order: Kamenev, Samoylo, Lebedev, Frunze (26 days!), Olderogge. One proletarian and four noblemen, I will emphasize - in the vital sector! No, I do not want to belittle the merits of Mikhail Vasilyevich. He is really a talented commander and did much to defeat the same Kolchak, commanding one of the military groups of the Eastern Front. Then the Turkestan front under his command crushed the counter-revolution in Central Asia, and the operation to defeat Wrangel in the Crimea is deservedly recognized as a masterpiece of military art. But let's be fair: at the time of the capture of the Crimea, even the whites did not doubt their fate, the outcome of the war was finally decided.

Semyon Budyonny was the commander-in-chief, his cavalry army played a key role in a number of operations of some fronts. However, we should not forget that there were dozens of armies in the Red Army, and to call the contribution of one of them decisive in victory would be a stretch. Nikolay Aleksandrovich Shchors, Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, Alexander Yakovlevich Parkhomenko, Grigory Ivanovich Kotovsky - divisions. By virtue of this, for all their personal courage and military talents, they could not make a strategic contribution to the course of the war.

But propaganda has its own laws. Upon learning that the highest military posts are held by hereditary nobles and generals of the tsarist army, any proletarian will say: “Yes, this is a counter!”

Therefore, a kind of conspiracy of silence arose around our heroes in the Soviet years, and even more so now. They won the Civil War and quietly faded into oblivion, leaving behind yellowed operational maps and stingy lines of orders.

But "their excellencies" and "highly honored" shed their blood for Soviet power no worse than the proletarians. About Baron Taube has already been mentioned, but this is not the only example.

In the spring of 1919, in the battles of Yamburg, the White Guards captured and executed the 19 rifle division of the former Major General of the Imperial Army, AP Kommersh, and executed. Nikolaev. The same fate befell in 1919 of the commander of the 55 rifle division of the former Major General A.V. Stankevich, in 1920, the commander of the 13 rifle division of the former Major General A.V. Sobolev. Remarkably, before the death, all the generals were offered to go to the side of the whites, and all refused. The honor of a Russian officer is more precious than life.

So you think they will tell us that the nobles and the personnel officer corps were for the Reds?

Of course, I am far from this thought. Here you just need to distinguish the "nobleman" as a moral concept from the "nobility" as a class. The noble class was almost entirely in the camp of the whites, otherwise it could not be.

They were very comfortable sitting on the neck of the Russian people, and did not want to get down. True, the white help from the nobility was just scanty. Judge for yourself. In the crucial year of 1919, approximately by May, the number of shock groups of the white armies was: Kolchak's army - 400 thousand people; Denikin's army (Armed forces of the South of Russia) - 150 thousand people; Yudenich's army (North-Western army) - 18,5 thousand people. Total: 568,5 thousand people.

And this, in the main, “lapotniki” from the villages, who were driven into action under the threat of execution, and which then with whole armies (!), Like Kolchak, went over to the Reds. And this is in Russia, where at that time there were 2,5 million nobles, i.e. no less than 500 thousand men of military age! Here, it would seem, the shock detachment of the counter-revolution ...

Or take, for example, the leaders of the white movement: Denikin - the son of an officer, his grandfather was a soldier; Kornilov is a Cossack, Semenov is a Cossack, Alekseev is the son of a soldier. Of the titled persons - only Wrangel, and that Swedish baron. Who is left? Nobleman Kolchak is a stream of a captive Turk, and Yudenich, with a very typical surname and nonstandard orientation for the “Russian nobleman”. In the old days, the nobles themselves defined such fellows of their class as horny. But “for bezbiech and cancer is a fish”.

You should not look for princes Golitsyn, Trubetskoy, Shcherbatov, Obolensky, Dolgorukov, counts Sheremetev, Orlovykh, Novosiltsev and among less significant figures of the white movement. They sat "boyars" in the rear, in Paris and Berlin, and waited for some of their lackeys to lead others on the lasso. Not wait.

So Malinin’s howls about the lieutenants Golitsyn and Obolensky’s cornets are just an invention. They did not exist in nature ... But the fact that the native land is burning under their feet is not just a metaphor. It really burned under the troops of the Entente and their "white" friends.

But there is still a moral category - "nobleman." Put yourself in the place of “His Excellency”, who has sided with Soviet power. What can he expect? At the most - a commander's ration and a pair of boots (exceptional luxury in the Red Army, the rank and file shoe in sandals). At the same time, the suspicion and distrust of many "comrades" are constantly close to the vigilant eye of the commissioner. Compare this with the 5000 rubles of the annual salary of the major general of the tsarist army, and in fact many Excellencies also had family property before the revolution. Therefore, selfish interest for such people is excluded, one thing remains - the honor of a nobleman and a Russian officer. The best of the nobles went to the red - to save the Fatherland.

In the days of the Polish invasion of 1920, the Russian officers, including the nobles, went over to the side of Soviet power by the thousands. Of the representatives of the higher generals of the former Imperial Army, the Reds created a special body - a Special Meeting under the commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces of the Republic. The purpose of this body is to develop recommendations for the command of the Red Army and the Soviet Government to repel Polish aggression. In addition, the Special Meeting appealed to former officers of the Russian Imperial Army to come out in defense of the Motherland in the ranks of the Red Army.

The remarkable words of this appeal, perhaps, fully reflect the moral position of the best part of the Russian aristocracy:

"Into this critical historical moment of our people’s life, we, your senior comrades, appeal to your feelings of love and devotion to the Motherland and urge you to forget all insults, voluntarily go with complete selflessness and hunt to the Red Army to the front or to the rear, wherever the government “Soviet Worker-Peasant Russia did not appoint you, and serve there not for fear, but for conscience, so that with your honest service, not sparing life, to defend Russia, dear to us at all costs, and prevent its plunder.”

The appeal contains the signatures of their Excellencies: General from cavalry (Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army in May-July 1917) Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov, General from Infantry (War Minister of the Russian Empire in 1915-1916) Alexei Andreyevich Polivanov, General from Infantria, General Zayonchkovsky and many other generals of the Russian Army.

In absolute figures, the contribution of the Russian officers to the victory of the Soviet government is as follows: during the Civil War, 48,5 thousands of royal officers and generals were drafted into the ranks of the Red Army. In the decisive 1919 year, they accounted for 53% of the total command personnel of the Red Army.

I would like to conclude the brief review with examples of human destinies, which could not be better refute the myth of the pathological evil of the Bolsheviks and the total extermination of the noble classes of Russia by them. I note right away that the Bolsheviks were not stupid, so they understood that, given the dire situation of Russia, they really needed people with knowledge, talents and conscience. And such people could count on honor and respect on the part of the Soviet government, despite the origin and pre-revolutionary life.

Let's begin with his Excellency General from artillery Alexey Alekseevich Manikovsky. Aleksei Alekseevich as far back as World War I headed the Main Artillery Directorate of the Russian Imperial Army. After the February Revolution he was appointed comrade (deputy) of the Minister of War. Since the War Minister of the Provisional Government Guchkov did not understand anything in military matters, Manikovsky had to become the de facto head of the department. On the memorable October night of 1917, Mr. Manikovsky was arrested along with the rest of the Provisional Government, then released. A few weeks later, he was again arrested and released again; he was not noticed in conspiracies against the Soviet authorities. And already in 1918, he heads the Main Artillery Directorate of the Red Army, then he will work in various staff posts of the Red Army.

Or, for example, His Excellency Lieutenant-General of the Russian Army, Count Alexei Alekseevich Ignatiev. During World War I, in the rank of Major General, he served as military attache in France and was in charge of procurement of weapons — the fact is that the tsarist government prepared the country for the war in such a way that even the cartridges had to be purchased abroad. For this, Russia paid a lot of money, and they lay in Western banks.

After October, our faithful allies instantly laid a paw on Russian property abroad, including on government accounts. However, Alexey Alekseevich oriented faster than the French and transferred money to another account, unavailable to the allies, and also to his name. And the money was 225 million rubles in gold, or 2 billion dollars at the current gold rate.

Ignatiev did not succumb to the entreaties to transfer funds from either the whites or the French. After France established diplomatic relations with the USSR, he came to the Soviet embassy and modestly handed over a check for the full amount with the words: "This money belongs to Russia." The emigrants were furious, they decided to kill Ignatiev. And the killer volunteered to become his brother! Ignatiev miraculously survived - the bullet pierced his cap in a centimeter from the head.

We will offer each of you to mentally try on the cap of Count Ignatiev and think whether you are capable of it? And if we add to this that during the revolution the Bolsheviks confiscated the family estate Ignatiev and the family mansion in Petrograd?

And the last thing I would like to say. Remember how Stalin was accused at the time, blaming him for killing all the tsarist officers and former nobles who remained in Russia?

So, none of our heroes was subjected to repression, everyone died a natural death (of course, except those who fell on the fronts of the Civil War) in glory and honor. And their younger comrades, such as: Colonel B.M. Shaposhnikov, A.M. Vasilevsky and F.I. Tolbukhin, Second Lieutenant L.A. Govorov, became the Marshals of the Soviet Union.

History has put everything in its place for a long time and no matter how trying all sorts of Radzinsky, Svanidze and other riffraff, who do not know history but know how to get money for lies, the fact remains: the white movement has discredited itself. Most of them are punitive, looters and just a petty crook in the service of the Entente ...

Comments

[ssn18]

"not knowing history"
I dare to object to you. These national traders know the story, but they try to rewrite it for greens. I hope time will put everything in its place. And each will be measured by appropriate measure.

[Starover_Z]

I would like to end the brief review with examples of human destinies that refute the myth of the pathological villainy of the Bolsheviks and the total extermination by them of the noble estates of Russia. I note right away that the Bolsheviks were not stupid, so they understood that, given the dire situation of Russia, they really need people with knowledge, talents and conscience.

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral" showed how the Reds drowned and shot white naval officers!
This is how the "modern" history is created!
And no one remembers the 72-year-old film - "Red Square" about the fate of the commissar and the former white officer who went over to the side of the red
Isn’t it time to prosecute those who distort our history ?!

[svp67]

Quote: Starover_Z

But in the movie

Well, then let's remember "Two Comrades Served", where one of the heroes even at the beginning of the film boasted that he had shot the military expert, which his friend reminded him of when they wanted to shoot them. Remember?

Which also

Quote: Starover_Z

create a "new" history!

?????

[sabakina]

Dear, maybe we recall another movie ... I hope the plot of the film remember?

[sabakina]

Oh cons, how nice is the white guard acting? Oh well...

[svp67]

Quote: sabakina

Dear, maybe we recall another movie ... I hope the plot of the film remember?

I remember perfectly, but HOW does he relate to the topic of the article? Is there someone from the main characters who was previously a tsarist officer or civilian military specialist?

[sabakina]

Rescue, answer.
In the story, one encircling officer wants to shoot him. But, when he himself is asked why you were surrounded by how you survived, and did not die as a hero, immediately translate the arrows.
and so. the same woman from the movie "Two Comrades" is nothing more than a reborn ...
She does not remember who tormented her, this one is ready to shoot for cowardice, although he himself ...

[shasherin_pavel]

After all, there were all sorts of things, especially since most of the units in the occupied territory for most of the war were cut off from the command and had their own power in the unit. But what complaints to the director ... thank God that 'Bastards' were not cited as an example, you need to look at films as a fantasy scriptwriter, I can give you examples from the encyclopedia when propaganda hurts the eyes of the T-34 chassis from ISU -152 on streets of Berlin, when in the photo dated 42 year there are T-34-85 tanks and tankers in uniform. In the photo, by the way, there is a hand-made post-war model, instead of 'mashinengewangen'.

[sabakina]

I have not watched the film "Bastards" and am not going to watch it, because I was brought up on Soviet films.
Excuse me, but where to dial T-34-76? Where to recruit ISU-152 for large-scale filming after many years after the end of the Second World War? Follow them to Africa? In the film "Duma about Kovpak" they used BMD during filming, but the film did not lose its patriotism. You need to think with your head ...

[Nikoha.2010]

Quote: sabakina

Excuse me, where can I get the T-34-76? Where to dial ISU-152

Ask Shakhnazarov!

[editor]

Dear Russians, it’s fashionable to recall as many films as you like, but still do not need to learn history from them.

[veksha50]

Quote: Starover_Z

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral"

Actually, as far as I was waiting for this film, I was so disappointed ... I even find it difficult to explain my attitude to it ...

I did not like it, neither white, nor red, nor love melodrama ...

It’s better not to make such films ...

[Alekseev]

Quote: veksha50

It’s better not to make such films ...

Yes, former tsarist officers (and generals!) Served in the Red Army a fair amount. This fact once again emphasizes how complicated and ambiguous this time was.
And outlines one of the main motivating reasons for the entry into the Red Army and the Bolshevik authorities of tens of thousands of former tsarist officers and officials. It lies in the fact that not only those "who were nothing" were eager to "become everything." Those who "were everything" also did not want to "become nothing".
And many more likely confused the socialist revolution in Russia with the Great French. It seemed to them that, lo, the louts would be pushed by the new Russian Bonoparty, there would be many marshal posts, etc., as it was over a century ago in France.
Many great mistakes ...

[Pissarro]

Many great mistakes ...

And some became marshals of the Red Empire

But seriously, the Poles helped a lot, the war with them replenished the Red Army with tens of thousands of officers of the tsarist army who did not want to participate in the civil war. And after the war they remained in the ranks of the Red Army

[oldzek]

By the way, about the aristocrats during the Second World War on the Baltic Fleet, the Meschersky Prince from Rurikovich commanded a minzag

[shasherin_pavel]

Many naval officers who were captured in the Japanese war refused, returning to Russia, to continue serving in the imperial army, as did infantry officers, but with the advent of the revolution they began to serve. So think about the question of how, after four years of the First World War, there were so many officers with pre-war experience. The real officers did not want to ruin their soldiers at the mercy of the bourgeoisie and refused to serve for such purposes. Vasilevsky has a wonderful example in his memoirs, when not one of the 200 staff officers was found in the reserve regiment, who would voluntarily agree to escort the company of storekeepers to the front. And then non-commissioned officer Vasilevsky volunteered to command the company, although according to the charter only the department could be assigned to him. A month later, he commanded a battalion, as the officer did not want to go to war and there were thousands of such examples.

[Nikoha.2010]

Quote: Alekseev

Quote: veksha50

It’s better not to make such films ...

Yes, former tsarist officers (and generals!) Served in the Red Army a fair amount.

Alexey ! My mother’s great-grandfather also moved to the Red Army, I don’t argue, there was such a time !!! And, my Dad (the major of the Soviet army) did not take the Ukrainian oath, and we left Ukraine! I had to take two oaths, one SA, and the second Ministry of Internal Affairs, something like that!

[jktu66]

Many great mistakes ...

Many did not serve revolutions but Russia, as they understood this. Both red and white

[Sergey Vl.]

An acquaintance of mine with his wife and 10-year-old son went to the film "Admiral". After the session, the son was silent, and then asked: "Dad, are the Bolsheviks all bandits?" Oleg, who had graduated from a higher military school in his time, was taken aback and only a little later began to explain that this was not so, that the director had the right to fiction, and himself, as he recalled, terribly wanted to swear ...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Starover_Z

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral" showed how the Reds drowned and shot white naval officers!

more precisely, liberals, not red ones, those pogroms in Kronstadt were just after the bourgeois revolution

[svp67]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

more precisely liberals, not red

and in the Crimea, after its capture, the same "liberals" were noted, or is it red?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

1) genie is easy to release, but very difficult to drive
2) those events in Crimea began even before the October Revolution with the arrival of sailors in Crimea after hard labor
3) one of the reasons for those events was the behavior of naval officers in relation to lower ranks
4) in the sailor environment, the bulk were anarchists and not Bolsheviks

[yurta2015]

Both in 1917 and in 1-th floor. For 1918 years, the anarchists were considered red and participated in the suppression of the White Guard rebellions throughout the country along with the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries.

[Passer]

Quote: Starover_Z

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral" showed how the Reds drowned and shot white naval officers!

Great-grandfather, a nobleman, a tsarist officer (not a general, of course), after the revolution, established Soviet Power in Siberia. Well, he fought with Kolchak. I told a lot of interesting things about the "Supreme Ruler of Russia" and his orders ... Now I don’t remember everything, but most of all I remember how prisoners of the Red Army were driven into barges and drowned so as not to waste cartridges. In my childhood in Siberia, children were frightened with Kolchak. And now look like - "hero" (with the letter "x").

[Nick]

Quote: Starover_Z

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral" showed how the Reds drowned and shot white naval officers!

And this was. Only it is necessary to say that both "Red" and "White" fought not in white gloves, and destroyed each other without mercy and sentimentality. The civil war is very brutal everywhere. Neither one nor the other should be idealized. In both camps there were honest patriots, and scoundrels, and just bastards. The civil war is a common tragedy for all Russians, whites, and reds, and peasants, and workers, and nobles, and philistines, and industrialists.

[jktu66]

But in the film about Kolchak - "Admiral" showed how the Reds drowned and shot white naval officers!

Well, not red, but sailors, among them there were a lot of anarchists. "Nepenin Adrian (Andrian) Ivanovich (October 21, 1871, Velikiye Luki - March 4, 1917, Helsingfors) —Vice-admiral, the last commander of the Imperial Baltic Fleet, George Knight, founder naval communications and intelligence service. Shot by Peter Grudachev, a sailor of a coastal company. A bullet hit the head. On the same day, the head of the 2nd brigade of the Baltic Sea battleships, Rear Admiral A.K. Nebolsin, commander of the battleship "Emperor Pavel I "Captain I rank S. N. Dmitriev, commander of the battleship" Emperor Alexander II "Captain I rank N. I. Povalishin. The victims of the events in the Baltic Fleet on March 1-4 were Rear Admiral N. G. Rein, commander of the 1st Baltic Fleet crew Major General NV Stronsky, commander of the cruiser "Aurora" Captain I rank MI Nikolsky, a number of flagship specialists, many other officers of the fleet Rear Admiral AG Butakov - the son of the famous Admiral GI Butakov was shot at the monument to adm Iral Makarov. Senior Lieutenant N.N. Ivkov was lowered alive under the ice. "

[jktu66]

“In Kronstadt, in addition, at least 12 officers of the land garrison were killed. Four officers committed suicide and 11 went missing. In total, more than 100 people died, over 600 people were arrested. Many of the arrested officers were in prison until 1918 and after they were shot or drowned in barges in the Gulf of Finland as hostages during the "red terror".

[Pissarro]

is anyone else drowning in barges? The Red government was so rich that it drowned for the sake of the whim of the barge, right? The bullet is cheaper, for reference. And dur.achkov you can pokashmarit barges of course

[Yuri Davydov]

I agree. The atrocities were on all sides, just with the Reds they were many times less! Now I understand why! Not a single okay would have gone from a well-fed life to rations and boots in the Red Army, and honest officers of the old school did not allow atrocities and therefore won.

[yurta2015]

Quote: Yuri Davydov

The atrocities were on all sides, just at the Reds they were many times less!

Are you sure at times? Who counted this? In Soviet times, historians did not even dare to stutter about this. And today there’s no one to ask. In the documents of their atrocities, of course, neither white nor red were recorded.

[sent-onere]

For some time now it has become fashionable for us to sympathize with white. They are de nobles, people of honor and duty, "the intellectual elite of the nation." Almost half of the country recalls its noble roots.

It has become fashionable to cry on occasion about the innocently murdered and exiled nobles. And, as usual, all the troubles of the present time blame the Reds, who have treated the “elite” like this. Behind these conversations, the main thing becomes invisible - the Reds won in that struggle, but the “elite” fought not only against Russia, but also the strongest powers of that time.

And why did the current “noble gentlemen” take it that the nobles in that great Russian turmoil were necessarily on the side of the whites? Other nobles, like Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, did much more for the proletarian revolution than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The determining factor in the turn of former generals and officers towards cooperation with the Soviet government was the gradually coming understanding that it was the only power in the country representing Russia and its people, the only real force capable of protecting the country's national interests from internal and external enemies. That is why the former officers, especially patriotic, more democratic in origin and closer connected with the people, considered it their duty to support the Bolsheviks in their armed struggle for the independence of the motherland. The position of the Soviet government towards military specialists was of great importance: not to encroach on their political convictions if they agree to voluntarily, honestly and conscientiously give their military knowledge and experience in the interests of the people. This was legislatively enshrined in the resolution of the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets of July 10, 1918: “Every military specialist who honestly and conscientiously works on the development and consolidation of the military power of the Soviet Republic has the right to respect for the Workers and Peasants Army and to support the Soviet government”

Turn to the facts.

In the Red Army, 75 thousand former officers served, while in the White Army about 35 thousand out of the 150 thousandth corps of officers of the Russian Empire.

And the last thing I would like to say. Remember how Stalin was once accused of blaming him for killing all the tsarist officers and former nobles who remained in Russia. So none of our heroes mentioned in this article was subjected to repression, everyone died their own death (of course, except for those who fell on the fronts of the Civil War) in glory and honor. And their younger comrades, such as: Colonel B.M. Shaposhnikov, captains A.M. Vasilevsky and F.I. Tolbukhin, second lieutenant L.A. Govorov, became the Marshals of the Soviet Union.

author, tell me, if there was no repression, then where did all these 75000 former officers of the Russian Empire go? All of them died, exceptionally, without having survived their thirties?
Do you think that someone will believe in this nonsense?
By the way, who wrote this article, and where can you get acquainted with other "works" of this greyhound? ))

[Captain45]

Quote: sent-onere

By the way, who wrote this article, and where can you get acquainted with other "works" of this greyhound? ))

The article was posted on April 5, 2013 on the site "Motherland-USSR" under the title "Noblemen-backbone of the Red Army", and was taken from this address: http: //nnm.ru/blogs/Dmitry68/oficery-i-generaly-carskoy- armii-na-sl
uzhbe-sovetskoy-respublike / page2 /. By the way, this article does not contain many photographs that are in the primary source. And with Yudenich something is wrong, I’m not about his love or love for boys, I didn’t hold a candle, and the author too, but about his qualities as a military leader - on the site "Century" I read an article about him, so he is very much praised for his skillful actions on the Caucasian front. What is it, he fought successfully for three years, and then took it and forgot how? The Caucasian front advanced before the revolution itself, unlike other fronts.

[jktu66]

the author, tell me, if there were no repressions, then where did all these 75000 former officers of the Russian Empire go?

I once read such studies - by the beginning of the 1930s, there were already about 10000 former officers in the Red Army by 1939, quite a bit

[yurta2015]

You would at least take the words of the author of the article in quotation marks. There is also a citation function (select and click on the "quote" button). As soon as the patience was enough to retype. I completely agree with your own words.

[yurta2015]

Sorry, I did not take into account what is quoted from the text of the article. I take my "instructions" back.

[sent-onere]

I would like to add:
1. The highest aristocracy in the Russian army has not been around since almost the middle of the nineteenth century - just look at the lists of senior officers of those years. So howls about the princes Obolensky go far forest.
2. The nobility at the beginning of the twentieth century was strongly polarized in terms of property: several thousand of the highest aristocracy and several tens of thousands of families of classical landowners - for 2.5 million nobles. And the rest? I can show the example of our village Zaborye, Chernigov province (now Bryansk region). . The village is large - the parish. We had ends - "Noblemen", "Cossacks". These noblemen are odnodvorets: that is, ordinary peasants, maybe they have a little more land - for service, like the registered Cossacks (I have a grandmother- Cossack) True, their children had advantages when entering a cadet or cadet school.
3. Monetary allowance for officers is meager, especially for the younger ones (Kuprin's "Duel"). It was possible to steal money, starting with the regiment commander.
4. Beginning in 1915, almost 100% of the enrollment in the cadets comes from distinguished soldiers, literate workers and "freelancers" - raznochintsy, and the pre-war composition was knocked out during the war.
5. The attitude of the masses of officers to tsarism due to unpreparedness for war (1 rifle for three is not about the Red army, but about the tsarist army! , was, to put it mildly, not indifferent.
6. Based on the above, what was the fear of the officers to break into the Whites? To fight with their people? According to my information, over 75% of the tsarist officers were in the Red Army, and the bulk of the "officers" of the Whites were ordinary mummers, such as the current "Cossacks. ".
Moreover, the whites did not want to restore any autocracy (read their programs!), And they were ready not only to transfer enterprises and concessions to pay off the interventionists (and so over 70% of the industry before the revolution belonged to foreigners, Nobels, etc.), but also the return of the Russian lands - you can see the agreement with the Entente of all these Denikins and Wrangels.
At my classmate in St. Petersburg, my great-grandfather was royal, and then a red general, even their apartment (large!) Has been since that time.
7. Regarding the "patriotism" and love of their country among the whites: their behavior during the Second World War testifies to this in the best way: when the Nazis recruited into the Russian Guard Corps in Paris, the number of offers 5 times exceeded the number of vacancies. Then these "patriots" "famously slaughtered and killed the Serbs who had sheltered them.
Yes, and the Wehrmacht, their offspring and the whites themselves were not uncommon. Well, everyone probably knows about such an old German "rooster" as Krasnov: with his kami he walked a bloody path not only in Serbia, but also in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

[BOLSHEVIK]

Quote: ssn18

"not knowing history"
I dare to object to you. These national traders know the story, but they try to rewrite it for greens. I hope time will put everything in its place. And each will be measured by appropriate measure.

"Time" is a substance that cannot be touched, "Time" can only be measured, almost 30 years have already been measured since the rewriting of the History of the People's struggle for their rights and a state free from exploitation of man by man began. Kolchak, the traitor to Russia, suddenly became heroes (Kolchak was recruited by British intelligence when he was still a captain of the 1st rank and commander of a mine division in the Baltic Fleet. This happened at the turn of 1915-1916. This was already treason to the Tsar and the Fatherland, to which he swore allegiance and kissed the cross! Have you ever wondered why the Entente fleets calmly entered the Russian sector of the Baltic Sea in 1918? After all, it was mined! Moreover, in the confusion of the two revolutions of 1917, no one removed the minefields. that Kolchak's ticket for entering the British intelligence service was the surrender of all information about the location of minefields and obstacles in the Russian sector of the Baltic Sea! After all, it was he who carried out this mining and he had all the maps of minefields and obstacles in his hands!) and Yudenich (another Judas In the spring of 1919, Yudenich visited Stockholm, where he met with diplomatic representatives of England, France and the United States, trying to to assist in the formation of Russian volunteer units in Finland. In addition to the French envoy, who agreed with Yudenich's view, all the other envoys spoke out against interference in Russia's internal affairs.), Wrangel and Judas Krasnov

[g1v2]

As the goblin says, this is a turn. It’s about the fact that there were a lot of tsarist officers in the Red Army and they made a considerable contribution to the Red’s victory in the course for a long time, but when you tell about this to a person who was not very interested in history and has a set of stamps in his head, he usually makes round eyes and says that I come up with.

[Vasek Trubachev]

On the topic of the "innocent": modern "Kuban Cossacks" still carry in their arms the memory of the Hitler collaborationist - Ataman Krasnov, who was hanged in 1946; costumed clones from the Kuban Cossack "army" collected money for a lawyer for his executioner grandson and a war criminal , Pinochet's accomplice - Miguel Krasnova. The civil war continues!

[Reserve officer]

"The white movement discredited itself. For the most part, these are punishers, marauders and just petty crooks in the service of the Entente ..."

The author seems to be trying to give an objective analysis of that difficult time. And the text is very interesting. And suddenly such a beaten stamp. The whole impression of the article is blurry ...

[Homo]

Quote: Reserve officer

The author seems to be trying to give an objective analysis of that difficult time. And the text is very interesting. And suddenly such a beaten stamp. The whole impression of the article is blurry ...

And what is the author wrong? Did officer honor allow them, with the support of the Entente, to fight against their homeland? And do not say that they also fought for their homeland! The tsar denied it, Kerensky tried to escape, the people (most) supported the Bolsheviks. And where is the homeland?

[svp67]

Quote: Homo

Did officer honor allow them, with the support of the Entente, to fight against their homeland?

What Homeland? "Red", but they did not accept it, they wanted to return everything to its place: workers to the machines, peasants to the land, nobles to rule ... They fought for their homeland. It's called the Civil War, didn't you know?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: svp67

This is called the Civil War, but you did not know?

though some of them decided to call the gopniks from the street to the "family" showdown

[Reserve officer]

For homo.
What is the author wrong? In its one-sided and primitive interpretation of those events. There is still no single assessment. But everything is clear to the author. The more offensive cliches, the more right? He turns out that everyone who is against the Reds is marauders and petty crooks. Yes, the level of thinking leaves much to be desired ...
Both sides are far from sinless, there was terror everywhere, people were not spared anywhere.
Civil war is the worst thing that can happen to a country. And you need to approach the analysis of events very carefully.
Re-read M. Sholokhov's "Quiet Don" again. Maybe you will feel all the ambiguity and tragedy of that era ...

[Lenin]

Well, in the continuation of Simonov's trilogy "The Living and the Dead", there is also a lot to understand, especially if you reread it not for the first time.

[Aleksander]

Quote: Homo

the people (most) supported the Bolsheviks.

And how did you determine this? Elections to the absolutely legal Constituent Assembly Russian Bolsheviks with bang LOSED- surely, this speaks of the support of the people? And this despite the fact that after the October coup, they banned large right-wing parties and campaigning for them, all large newspapers were closedand Petropavivka was filled with political prisoners. And still, we lost! In Petrograd and Moscow, the Bolsheviks shot and dispersed popular demonstrations (hundreds of thousands) in support of the Constituent Assembly, the number of victims was HUNDREDS! In this way, the Bolsheviks carried out a coup d'etat, i.e. the crimetaking from Russia the only and magnificent chance to escape the Civil War ...

[ssn18]

"Colonel Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov, staff captains A.M. Vasilevsky and F.I.Tolbukhin, second lieutenant L.A. Govorov, became Marshals of the Soviet Union."
I can say that B.M. Shaposhnikov was the only person whom I.V. Stalin addressed by name to his middle name. To all the rest he turned to a friend (last name)

[svp67]

Quote: ssn18

Colonel Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov, captains A.M. Vasilevsky and F.I. Tolbukhin, second lieutenant L.A. Govorov, - became Marshals of the Soviet Union. "

I am afraid that the list of repressed "former" will be much wider

[ssn18]

and so it was these people who were not repressed.

[Homo]

Quote: svp67

I am afraid that the list of repressed "former" will be much wider

And the list of repressed "not former" is even greater! There were repressions against everyone!

[svp67]

Quote: Homo

Repression against all were!

But the author DENIES this, but why are you "minus" me, in righteous anger?

[ssn18]

Don’t worry. You’re so over for the cons, in the beginning I was also pissed off by the minuses without explanation, then I just came to the conclusion that they were liberals. What I wrote about earlier. Well, in life there are quiet-baked creatures and they will always be. Be above it.

[vladimirZ]

Don’t worry. You’re so far in the cons in the beginning, too, the minuses without explanation infuriated me, then he simply came to the conclusion that these were liberals. What I wrote about earlier. Well, there are quiet-baked creatures in life and they will always be. Be above it.
- ssn18 (6)

You are not right. I already explained on this occasion to the svp67 moderator that the minus is the answer of the VO participant who does not agree with your opinion, and who does not always find the time or desire to argue his point of view.
These are not some kind of "liberals" or even more "quiet creatures in life", these are people who do not agree with your point of view, do not argue their point of view for various reasons, sometimes even unable to find arguments against your point of view, but understanding that You're not right.
They do not insult you, calling you all sorts of bad words that you call them, they just express their opinion with a modest minus.
Try to contact them if you are so interested in their opinion on this issue, if they can answer you.
Respect them for the fact that they got acquainted with your point of view on any issue, and expressed their attitude to it.

[Homo]

Quote: svp67

But the author DENIES this, but why are you "minus" me, in righteous anger?

For a meaningless comment.

[vladimirZ]

I am afraid that the list of repressed "former" will be much wider
- svp67

If you are afraid, then list the repressed higher military men without fault, without participating in a conspiracy.
Who specifically repressed just for being of noble origin?
And so, this is just an unfounded statement.

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

If you are afraid, then list the repressed higher military men without fault, without participating in a conspiracy.
Who specifically repressed just for being of noble origin?
And so, this is just an unfounded statement.

It is enough just to see WHO was simply REHABILITATED in subsequent years.

In 1956, the Main Military Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR checked the criminal case of Tukhachevsky and other convicted persons and found that the charges against them were falsified. The military collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, chaired by Lieutenant General of Justice A. Cheptsov, having examined the opinion of the USSR Prosecutor General on January 31, 1957, determined: the sentence of the Special Judicial Presence of the Supreme Court of the USSR of June 11, 1937 in relation to Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Uborevich, Cork , Eideman, Primakov, Putna and Feldman to cancel and stop the case for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions by production [42]

.

So that people were not shot legally. And of what origin they were, of course was of secondary importance, but nevertheless the very fact of the presence of former nobles in person.

[vladimirZ]

It is enough just to see WHO was simply REHABILITATED in subsequent years.
In 1956, the Main Military Prosecutor's Office and the State Security Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR checked the criminal case of Tukhachevsky and other convicted persons and found that the charges against them were falsified.
- svp67

Do you believe all the rehabilitation of the 50s?
Khrushchev, in an effort to defame I.V. Stalin, and to whitewash himself so much in the 50s, that we are still plagued by his deeds.
By the way, I don’t even give an argument that the military conspiracy under the leadership of Tukhachevsky really was, I read the memoirs of an investigator who checked how the rehabilitation of 30-40 cases was carried out: several hundred cases in one day, in bulk, without proper study of the matter.

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

Do you believe all the rehabilitation of the 50s?

The fact that many of the trials of the 30s were far-fetched is evidenced by the fact that orders were issued in the republics for the number of repressed and firing squad. Or do you think that from Moscow it was more visible how many "enemies of the people" were around?
And there couldn’t be so many spies in the country working for several intelligence services at once ...

[vladimirZ]

The fact that many of the processes of the 30s were far-fetched is indicated by the fact that the republic issued orders for the number of repressed and executed.
- svp67

The fact that "orders were issued in the republics for the number of repressed" does not mean that Moscow ordered to repress so many and so many.
This suggests that the central leadership of the state restrained the ardor of particularly zealous leaders in identifying enemies of the people.
Remind you of the content of the resolution on the letter of the request of the zealous fool Khrushchev to carry out repressions, which was done by I.V. Stalin? "Calm down the fool!" - Iosif Vissarionovich wrote.
And the fact that the enemies were an indisputable fact, which all subsequent historical events speak up to during perestroika times.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: svp67

that the list of repressed "former" will be much wider

and???
the problem is that now we don’t know why they were really repressed for preparing the coup, for drinking (this also happened) or for what

[svp67]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

the problem is that now we don’t know why they were really repressed for preparing the coup, for drinking (this also happened) or for what

But this does not cancel the fact itself. and the author is trying to do it ...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: svp67

But this does not cancel the fact itself

fact of what?
we look at those events exclusively through the prisms of the 20th Congress and the bacchanalia of perestroika

[6 inches]

the only thing to add is the Shaposhnikov Colonel of the General Staff of the tsarist army .. this is not enough.

[Kilo-11]

For the sake of historical justice, comrade I.V. Stalin, not only addressed to Marshal of the Soviet Union B.M. Shaposhnikov by his middle name, but also to Marshal of the Soviet Union K.K.Rokossovsky and Chief Marshal of Aviation A.E. Golovanov.

[Yellow white]

It is necessary to know the history of the Fatherland, but excuse me, dear, why?

[Homo]

Quote: Black and White

It is necessary to know the history of the Fatherland, but excuse me, dear, why?

What is your story? Usu-syu, la-la-la, is life beautiful and amazing? History is all good and bad and muddy!

[Dry_T-50]

I looked, and I wonder who is minus us all ???

[Rock_n_roll]

The author is a rotten man, ignorant and narrow-minded ...
Perhaps that is why he did not sign the opus.
By the way, the original material was originally taken from liga-net ... this explains a lot ..
Someone really wants to once again confront the "reds" and "whites" in Russia.
Editors need to carefully select materials so as not to discredit the resource.

[Homo]

Quote: Rock_n_Roll

Perhaps that is why he did not sign the opus.

But your nickname is super Russian, super patriotic, super duper!

[svp67]

Some modern heroes, heroically without a fight leaving the enemy half of the territory entrusted to them, even introduce White Guard epaulets in the ranks of their militia ...

Is this how I understand "hitting" Strelkov-Girkin or Stalin? Anyone will explain

Often there are allegations that the Bolsheviks forced the nobles into the Red Army by threatening to repress the families of officers. For many decades this myth has been persistently exaggerated in pseudo-historical literature, pseudo-monographs and various kinds of “research”. This is only a myth. They served not for fear, but for conscience.

Yes? But what about this?

On September 5, 1918, the institution of hostage officially appeared in Soviet Russia, legalized by order of the head of the NKVD, G. I. Petrovsky. Trotsky supported the initiative, extending it to the families of former officers and military officials. His order of September 30 read: “The treacherous escapes of the officers in the enemy’s camps, although less frequently, have occurred to this day. These monstrous crimes must be put to an end without stopping at any measures. Defectors betray the Russian workers and peasants to the Anglo-French and Japanese-American robbers and executioners. Let the defectors know that they are simultaneously betraying their own families: fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, wives and children. I order the headquarters of all the armies of the Republic, as well as the district commissars, to submit by telegraph to a member of the Revolutionary Military Council Aralov lists of all commanding officers who have escaped to the enemy camp with all the necessary information about their marital status. On Comrade Aralova I entrust the adoption, by agreement with the relevant institutions, of the necessary
measures to detain families of defectors and traitors "

So, in a secret “Instruction for Responsible Employees of the 14th Army,” compiled on August 9, 1919, he, among other measures necessary to restore the combat readiness of the army, noted: “Each commissar must know exactly the marital status of command personnel (highlighted in the document. - A. G.) the part entrusted to him. This is necessary for two reasons: first, to come to the aid of the family in the event of the death of the commander in battle, and secondly, in order to immediately arrest family members in case of treason or betrayal of the commander. All information about the marital status of command personnel and political workers should be concentrated in the political department of the Revolutionary Military Council of the army. "

[vladimirZ]

Your, svp67, argument for the link "the institution of hostage, legalized by the order of the head of the NKVD G. I. Petrovsky," does not refute the passage written in the article and quoted by you, which says:

Often there are allegations that the Bolsheviks forced the nobles into the Red Army threatening reprisals to the families of officers.

No one drove by forcebut if the former officer agreed to go to serve the Soviet regime, then he probably gave some oath, honestly serve, and if he didn’t do it, he could probably bring trouble to his relatives.
By the way, in acute situations, for example, in 1941, Zhukov in besieged Leningrad tried to introduce this very "hostage institution" to strengthen the discipline and resilience of the troops.
Dear svp67, Are you satisfied with the explanation why I put a minus to you?

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

No one drove by force

Yes, are you sure? If yes, then you are an IDEALIST. Look at what is happening now in Ukraine, and understand what was happening then.

“Ninety-nine-hundredths of officers say they cannot participate in the Civil War. This must be done away with! - Leo Trotsky wrote in Izvestia on July 23, 1918. - The officers received their education at the expense of the people. Those who served Nikolai Romanov can and will serve, when he orders them working class".

In June, the first mobilization "Military specialists." After the release of this article, they are mobilized without exception ..
So that everything is interconnected. Mobilization is an institution of hostage ...

if the former officer agreed to go to serve the Soviet regime, then he probably gave some oath, honestly serve, and if he didn’t do it, he could probably bring trouble to his relatives.

The question is VERY difficult, they took the oath before, and they had their own concept of honor and service to the Motherland. This is a very difficult question. Is it possible that someone thinks that Yudenich, Markov and thousands of "white officers" did not think that they were faithful to their oath in this way.

[Pissarro]

But this doesn’t explain the refusal to switch to the white side when captured

There were those who went to serve the Bolsheviks quite sincerely. More than six hundred officers of the General Staff served in red, and fairly honestly. Only about a hundred of them turned out to be defectors - that is, a smaller percentage than among the mobilized Red Army soldiers. There are four known generals of the tsarist era who took the oath of red and did not change her, having been captured. They could have saved their lives, but von Taube, Nikolaev, Vostrosablin, Stankevich refused and were shot

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

More than six hundred officers of the General Staff served in red, and fairly honestly. Only about a hundred defectors turned out to be

That is, every sixth ... You think a little ...
But to whom and how to serve is a private matter.
You take the conversation away, to a completely different sphere.

[Pissarro]

which other? you wrote plainly that everyone was raided by force and under threat of the lives of the hostages they were driven out of the stick to fight. Which in itself contradicts the whole history of military art as the most stupid method of warfare. It might work with the rank and file, but not with the command
To show you the fallacy of your opinion, I demonstrated 4 generals who faithfully served the Reds and did not renounce their side of the civil war, even in the face of execution

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

. Which in itself contradicts the entire history of military art as the most stupid method of warfare. It may work with the rank and file, but not with the command

But Trotsky succeeded ... And the Red Army began to win precisely from the moment it ceased to be voluntary. And the fact that former officers served efficiently, that is, the concept of professional ethics ...

Quote: Pissarro

To show you the fallacy of your opinion, I demonstrated 4 generals who faithfully served the Reds and did not renounce their side of the civil war, even in the face of execution

These officers decided for themselves like that, and the generals V. E. Borisov, N. N. Stogov, the former general staff officers I. G. Pekhlivanov, N. D. Vsevolodov, A. N. Tsurpaleva differently and already from the Red Army fled to the whites.
And these did not want to serve red

[Pissarro]

I’ll tell you a terrible secret, volunteer formations cannot win the war against the regular army. They can successfully defend themselves, but an offensive needs an organized structure with planning, supply, mobility, political department. Now Donbass is an example with his transition from the militia to the regular army. And in the civil war was exactly like that, both sides started as volunteers and both sides came to mobilization. This is the logic of the war

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

I will tell you a terrible secret, volunteer units cannot win the war against the regular army.

Well, here you discover the secret of "open polish" ...

[Pissarro]

Well, it surprised you the evolution of the volunteer army in the mobilization

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

Well, it surprised you the evolution of the volunteer army in the mobilization

Act, this fact does not surprise me much, just like what is happening now in Ukraine, where under the anti-communist rhetoric the actions of the Bolsheviks are completely copied ...

[Pissarro]

they copy methods directly opposite to the Bolshevik ones. The Bolsheviks had everything taken away from the bourgeoisie and divided, the Bolsheviks had a Republic in the ring of intervention fronts, the Bolsheviks had factories for the workers, land for the peasants, the Bolsheviks were to hell to you and not the debts of the prevailing regime, down with the war.
Bandera is the other way around, all the power to the bourgeois oligarchs, their presidency, governors, interventionists, save us, come to us, give de-industrialization of the commune factories, give an increase in state debts and long live the war.

Where is at least something in common? perhaps only a radical approach to solving problems

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

perhaps only a radical approach to solving problems

What are the Bolsheviks, what is new-Ukrainian:
- abandon the past, demolishing monuments and renaming settlements,
- both of them establish their DICTATURE, suppressing dissent.

Quote: Pissarro

the Bolsheviks had a Republic in the ring of the fronts of the interventionists, the Bolsheviks had factories for the workers, land for the peasants, the Bolsheviks had hell to you and not the debts of the prevailing regime, down with the war.

Show me at least ONE worker who received the plant as a gift from the Bolsheviks, and the peasants were very quickly deprived of their land ...

[vladimirZ]

Show me at least ONE worker who received the factory as a gift from the Bolsheviks, and the peasants were very quickly deprived of their land ...
- svp67

You are joking. The plant was not supposed to get ONE worker, the plants passed into collective management, and later in the management of the socialist state, and as history has shown, in the most effective management, when the plants were planned and comprehensively developed not only in the interests of workers of a particular plant, but also in the interests of the whole country.
A similar situation is with the peasants in the socialist state.
Nobody took the land from the peasants. The peasants switched to a more effective large collective method of farming. The land remained with the peasants in free and perpetual possession.

You, svp67, are telling here the liberal fables of the 90s and Gorbachev's rebuilt times, which you have long to throw in the dustbin of history, in view of their not truth and bias of anti-popular ideology.

I am surprised at the presence on the site of fans of the liberal, white-run movements, and even monarchical views, praising the tsar's father and his "effective" management of bastard landlord Russia.
Remember your ancestors, for there are only a few among you who come from the exploiting noble, landowner, bourgeois, kulak classes.
If an ineffective monarchical system remained in Russia, many of you would remain in that exploited estate in which there were many generations of your relatives.
Yes, and Russia, united and indivisible, would not have existed for a long time, it would have been swallowed up by the emerging "progressive" fascist states of Europe and Asia, divided it like a raw material pie into small states with colonial governing regimes, and destroyed most of the population.
Thanks to the Bolsheviks, the Red Army who saved Russia and made it the second world power of the USSR.

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

The plant was not supposed to get ONE worker, the plants passed into collective management, and later in the management of the socialist state

That is, state capitalism was created ...

Quote: vladimirZ

I am surprised at the presence on the site of fans of the liberal, white-run movements, and even monarchical views, praising the tsar's father and his "effective" management of bastard landlord Russia.

That’s whoever I’ve never been, so an admirer of the liberal movement, this is my Batenka, your fantasies ... and clearly “Bolshevik”, since the obvious impatience of other people's views and the main thing is to blame the opponent, and then let him prove himself that he is not a camel .. ...
Yes, and on account

fans of white-chased movements, and even monarchical views

And how do you feel about Stalin?

Quote: vladimirZ

If in Russia there remained an inefficient monarchist system,

... We are not given to predict ...

Quote: vladimirZ

Thanks to the Bolsheviks, the Red Army who saved Russia and made it the second world power of the USSR.

And in the end they destroyed it, dividing it like a raw cake into small states with colonial control regimes, and destroying a significant part of the population in internecine wars.

[vladimirZ]

Svp67 answer
You can call a socialist state with state ownership "state capitalism", as the perestroika "democrats" and liberals invented, but this is basically wrong.
The socialist state set itself the goal of "further improving the life and increasing the well-being of the entire people," in contrast to capitalism, albeit a state one, which aims to make a profit and profit.
It’s like in modern Russia, when the liberal Government of the Russian Federation sets as its goal not to improve the life of the people, but to further increase the gold-currency savings.

How do you feel about Stalin?

I relate to Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin as the greatest statesman of Russia-the USSR, who created the second world industrial power out of bastard Russia, who saved the whole world from the brown plague of fascism, and is not deservedly forgotten and criticized in his country.

And then your argument that these are the Bolsheviks

eventually destroying it, dividing it like a raw pie into small states with colonial control regimes, and destroying a significant part of the population in internecine wars

it simply does not correspond to historical reality, and is simply a liberal lie and a fabrication with the goal of denigrating socialism, real communists and whitewashing the shifters, traitors like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kravchuk and other pro-Western American servants who destroyed the USSR.

[Rarog]

Quote: vladimirZ

I am surprised at the presence on the site of fans of the liberal, white-run movements, and even monarchical views, praising the tsar's father and his "effective" management of bastard landlord Russia.

Well, of course you mixed everything into one and liberals and monarchists, and fans of the white movement, whose political views may even contradict each other. Accuse some of the lies, and yourself, combining different concepts / watered. looks create a new lie.
Personally, I hate our liberals with their Christian-selling political programs, but I also have a bad attitude towards the first figures of the CPSU (b) at the helm of the new state with their national policy to destroy the Russian superethnos (remember only the false speeches about the "prison of peoples") , when they made three out of one people and planted a time bomb for the further disintegration of my ethnos, in addition to the "ukrov" and "litvin", "kozachki", "pomorians", "volzhans" and "siberians" began to appear, supposedly separate nationalities fuck them, I will never forgive Lenin, Trotsky and other persons of biblical nationality from the Communist Party! The current situation on the South-Western borders of our common Motherland is an echo of their national policy! Further, by the destruction of the Cossack class, I am from the Orenburg Cossacks by blood (class, not nationality), almost all branches + a branch from the merchant class, it must be understood that they were not patted on the head either.
And again, on the other hand, I admire, no matter how pathos it sounds, Russia under Stalin, the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, which was suffered by my people under the leadership of this very Communist Party and Stalin. I am proud of our space program, at times of strength and tranquility, greatness and order of my state.
As for the "whites" - this is one of the great tragedies of Russia from all points of view, when some of the best sons of the Motherland killed others, for the amusement of our "well-wishers" from across the hill. You can praise the White Guards, you can scold them, but we must not forget that there were many worthy people among them. And you should be ashamed of "bast-land-landlord Russia", this Russia knew many glorious pages in its history and we, as direct descendants of people who lived in that Russia, have no moral right to forget about our ancestors, about our Motherland. It is high time for everyone to stop dividing Russia in different historical eras into different, sometimes hostile states, we thereby extinct our hereditary memory, our history! As they say there - A people that does not remember their past does not have a future either!
So, what about the end result?
My political views are Strong Russia, United Russian People!

[vladimirZ]

Rarog's answer to:

Well, of course you mixed everything into one and liberals and monarchists, and fans of the white movement, whose political views may even contradict each other.

In one thing they are similar: in anti-Sovietism and anti-communism, this unites them and unites them in condemning the Bolshevik-communists, the Soviet government, the Red Army, and those officers who were then, according to their concepts, "repressed".

I feel bad about the first leaders of the CPSU (b) at the helm of the new state with their national policy to destroy the Russian superethnos ... when they made three of one people and planted a time bomb for the further disintegration of my ethnos,

You probably forgot, for example, Little Russians from the time of Mazepa, and even earlier, defined themselves as a separate part from Russia.
And here "the leaders of the CPSU (b)" is not clear? Is it that they proclaimed the principle of self-determination of nations, which at the next stage made it possible to create a new Russia - the USSR.
The trouble is not that the Bolsheviks, "the leaders of the CPSU (b)" proclaimed this principle, the trouble is that the USSR was not protected from destruction from the inside, from the betrayal of the top leaders of the state, the party, who set as their goal the destruction of the USSR, in favor of those who bought them capitalists, which was the impetus for the spread of the state into "national apartments".

Further, the destruction of the Cossack estate, I am by blood from the Orenburg Cossacks (estate, not nationality)

The Bolsheviks abolished all the nobility, bourgeois, merchant, Cossack and other estates.
Or do you propose that you had to leave some? Leave the estate that was the pillar of the tsarist regime?
The role of the Cossacks as a guard border guard of Russia ended long ago, the Cossacks became a military estate of the autocracy and its preservation in the new socialist state was inexpedient and dangerous.

As for the "whites" - this is one of the great tragedies of Russia from all points of view, when some of the best sons of the Motherland killed others, for the amusement of our "well-wishers" from across the hill.

This tragedy is due to the antagonistic nature of the class struggle of the rich and the poor, the exploited and the exploiters, if that tells you something.
There could be no peace between them, due to the fact that some wanted to continue to vandalize and profit from the work of workers and peasants, while others did not want to submit to the will of the landlord, kulak and factory owner.

And you should be ashamed of "bast-land-landlord Russia", this Russia knew many glorious pages in its history

I am also proud of many glorious pages of Russian history, but I am ashamed that my Russia until the mid-19th century (only 150 years ago), if you forgot, was almost a slave-owning state in which a person could be sold as cattle.

So, what about the end result?
My political views are Strong Russia, United Russian People!

And the other peoples of Russia you throw overboard Russia. Where to send them from their native land.
Your slogan causes rejection of other peoples of Russia.
More correct, if you say in your key, the slogan:
Strong Socialist Russia, the United Russian World, uniting all the peoples and nationalities of our multinational country.

[Rarog]

You probably forgot, for example, Little Russians from the time of Mazepa, and even earlier, defined themselves as a separate part from Russia.

Oh oh Bogdan Khmelnitsky, after taking Kiev from the Poles, accurately defined his ethnicity and religion in response to these same Poles - the Russian Orthodox man. Before entering the Soviet nat. politicians throughout the territory of Little Russia, the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants considered themselves Russian Orthodox people, even people from the territory of the former Chervonnaya and Carpathian Rus who called themselves Rusins, being under the fifth Austro-Hungarian Empire, insisted on their unity with the Russians from the Russian Empire, and this, with active opposition to the parties of the Germans and the Polish gentry, who tried to tear some Russian people from others, paid for it, especially during the First World War in the concentration camps of Talerhof and Terezin, they paid with their lives and only after that in connection with the mass persecution of such people and terry ukronationalism appeared as the support of local Jews, the Ukrainian is an artificially created nation created by the hands of the enemies of the whole Russian, including Lenin, Trotsky, countrymen and others like them.

The Bolsheviks abolished all estates ...

You modestly kept silent about one thing, such a cancellation was most often accompanied by physical elimination, those who were lucky enough to survive, even due to the fact that they went over to the side of the "red", often had a hard time, so it was with my two ancestors. Their past in the ranks of the red army saved them from execution, but did not save them from camps and the confiscation of all property, and for people who fed from their land and had a horde of children, this was tantamount to starvation, so not all of their children became adults.

... but I am ashamed that my Russia until the mid-19th century (only 150 years ago), if you forgot, was almost a slave-owning state in which a person could be sold as cattle.

Here I agree with you, good is not enough, having liberated Siberia and Central Asia from the slave-owning system, we held our own Russian People for slaves. You can't argue here, you can only add that the "advanced" West got rid of the concepts of racial segregation and apartheid less than 50 years ago.

And the other peoples of Russia you throw overboard Russia ...
Your slogan causes rejection of other peoples of Russia.

And on what basis do you say this? Did I say something against other nations? It may be enough each time to reproach the Russian man for expressing love for his own People, I must after each of my statements to the glory of the Russians, just in case, apologize to the others, what if they think ?!

Here you are, you love your family - spouse, children, parents, other relatives !? For this love and its public manifestation, you are not accused of despising other people's children, wives, parents, etc. and wish them harm? But they don’t tell you, after you publicly declared your love to your wife that other women’s wives do not approve of your attitude towards them and your words provoke their rejection of your family ?!

Agree the example is absurd. So why do not you consider your accusations against me absurd, just because I love my people? Well, I didn’t say that I wish harm to other nationalities living side by side with my people from time immemorial! Hai live if they consider Russia their Motherland, and associate their future with the Russian people, we ask for mercy, but for all those who threaten my People - there will be no forgiveness.

[vladimirZ]

The answer is Rarog.
There is no time to answer you, Rarog. We have already had midnight, especially since I have expressed my point of view on all the issues you have raised.
But once again I want to touch on the topic "Strong Russia and the United Russian People".

If you hadn’t connected Strong Russia and the United Russian people, but only touched the United Russian people, which is divided by politicians and enemies of Russia, I would agree with you, since I also worry that we are Russian people (Russians, Little Russians, Belarusians) separated.
I myself am Russian by blood, and am proud of my nationality, as all other peoples of Russia are proud of their nationalities.
We all of the peoples of Russia have a single Russian World, which we must protect and preserve.
The Russian World in combination with Russia is a more correct definition than the United Russian people and Russia, it does not infringe on the rights of other peoples of Russia.
By and large, and I have repeatedly written about this, we are all (Russians, Tatars, Buryats, Bashkirs, Chechens and others) Russian people, we all belong to Russia, Russia and the Russian World unite us.
But it is impossible in combination of Strong Russia to write and talk only about Russians by blood.
Without all other nationalities, there will simply be no strong Russia.

[vladimirZ]

And the Red Army began to win precisely from the moment it ceased to be voluntary
- svp67

You are biased in history.
The Red Army began to win not from the moment when it called for officers, but from the moment when the Soviet government, relying on the broad masses of the people, transferred land to the peasants, workers of factories and factories, and resettled workers in the cities from shacks to even communal, but well-equipped housing at that time. When the whole people, including the officers, realized that Soviet power was the power of the people.
After all, the White Army was also engaged in mobilization, but after all, it lost.
An example of the victory over the white officer movement, which advocated maintaining the former order, is the victory over Kolchak, when the main and decisive contribution to the defeat of the white movement in Siberia was made not even by the Red Army, but by the popular partisan movement of Siberia.

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

The Red Army began to win not from the moment when it called for officers, but from the moment when the Soviet government, relying on the broad masses of the people, transferred land to the peasants, workers of factories and factories, resettled workers in the cities from shacks to even communal, but well-equipped housing at that time.

Your post shows once again that you are an IDEALIST. The Red Army began to win victories only after tough, even cruel discipline was established both in the army and in production. And the Reds had more or less unity, which was not their visa-a-vi ...

[vladimirZ]

The Red Army began to win victories only after tough, even cruel discipline began to stop both in the army and in production. And the Reds had more or less unity, which was not their visa-a-vi ...
- svp67

Again, you are wrong. The whites also had "tough, even brutal discipline", they also had "more or less unity", they all recognized Admiral Kolchak as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the entire White Movement, and coordinated their actions to the best of their ability with him.
And their ideology was the same - anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet, and they flogged the peasants and shot the workers the same way, but lost because the people were not with them. The people were for Soviet power and the Bolsheviks.

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

More than six hundred officers of the General Staff served in red, and fairly honestly

485 officers, not more than 600.
-A.G. Kavtoradze "Military Specialists in the Service of the Republic of Soviets of 1917-1920." Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1988, 1


Some researchers believe that most of the officers of the tsarist army who died or disappeared during the Civil War were enlisted by the Soviet writers of "history" in the lists of those who fought for the Reds, for "persuasiveness", although they were in no way for the Reds. What to do, the "history" was written by the "winners" - for 70 years - adjusting, cleaning up archives, inventing

[vladimirZ]

In June, they carried out the first mobilization of "military specialists". After the release of this article, they are mobilized without exception ..
So that everything is interconnected. Mobilization is an institution of hostage ...
- svp67

"Mobilization is an institution of hostage" is a pearl!
Well, okay, even the lower command staff can be mobilized under the threat of the "institution of hostage" and forced to fight, and then I doubt who in this situation will crawl out of their skin and shed blood diligently. They will engage in quiet sabotage, the "Italian strike".
Well, the highest command staff, where sincerely loyal and trusted people are needed, to mobilize "a threat to family and loved ones" is generally more expensive for themselves.

[svp67]

Quote: vladimirZ

Well, the highest command staff, where sincerely loyal and trusted people are needed, to mobilize "a threat to family and loved ones" is generally more expensive for themselves.

Nevertheless, there are such facts

In particular, the RKKA military specialist, General Staff Makhrov, at the end of August 1919, transmitted to his brother, the chief of military communications of the Caucasian Army of the General Staff, Major General P.S. Makhrov, the news that he was serving in the Red Army under duress was the control of the military commissar and cannot go over to the whites, since his wife and daughter remain hostage to the Bolsheviks

In total, in 1919, 5491 hostages were taken [39]. At a meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.) On June 15, 1919, a draft decree on expanding the right to be shot was proposed by Dzerzhinsky [40]. According to the historian of the special services O. B. Mozokhin, Dzerzhinsky proposed shooting families of defectors and criminals

Finally, on December 17, 1919, an order was issued by the Presidium of the Cheka of the Cheka, No. 208, on the arrest of hostages and bourgeois specialists, in which, under the signatures of Dzerzhinsky and M. Ya. Latsis, it was explained that the hostage was “a captive member of the society or organization that is fighting against us. Moreover, such a member who has any value that this enemy cherishes, which can serve as a guarantee that the enemy will not destroy for his sake, will not shoot our captive comrade. ... By this order, it was ordered to register all former officers.

[vladimirZ]

Quote: vladimirZ
Well, the highest command staff, where sincerely loyal and trusted people are needed, to mobilize "a threat to family and loved ones" is generally more expensive for themselves.
svp67:
Nevertheless, there are such facts:
In particular, the Red Army soldier general staffer Makhrov ... serves in coercion in the Red Army, is under the control of the military commissar and cannot switch to white, as his wife and daughter remain hostage to the Bolsheviks
- svp67

Again, this is not a fact that the mobilization was carried out under the threat of violence against loved ones.
The same Makhrov was called up, he agreed to fight for Soviet power, and could refuse to find a thousand reasons or to hide, which was done by tens of thousands of former officers. And since he agreed to fight, swore allegiance to the new government, he should be responsible for the betrayal and betrayal of the new government.
And further: hostage-taking is not a fact of execution and destruction of relatives and friends, it is a fact of keeping the family of a "military specialist". And the fact that "Dzerzhinsky offered to shoot the families of defectors and criminals" is not a fact that this was allowed in life.
Separate the concepts of "hostage taking for betrayal and treason," and the concept of "hostage taking for refusal to mobilize," which in principle does not exist nowhere, even in the same Ukraine that you cited as an example.

[iliitchitch]

19th-century demographers assumed that by the year 2000, the population of the Russian Empire would be approximately 600 million. The stupid arrogance of the nobility and dissatisfaction with the life of the NON-nobles led the country to 140 million. But these are not figures on a piece of paper ... During the Gorbachev region, the Shevardnaz region, the country lost more population than during the Great Patriotic War. Because of the unborn. There you go.

[Pissarro]

in general, everything is simpler. Industrialization led to this, and not ambition or dissatisfaction with life. In the village you need a lot of children, a lot of working hands, in the city, stone-throwers and a couple of children is the maximum that a family of hard workers could pull.

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

in general, everything is simpler. Industrialization led to this, and not ambition or dissatisfaction with life. In the village you need a lot of children, a lot of working hands, in the city, stone-throwers and a couple of children is the maximum that a family of hard workers could pull.

Probably, we are talking about the calculations of D. Mendeleev. Which took into account both industrialization and trends, etc. The proof of the correctness of his calculations is that the same calculation made for the USAfully confirmed. But there was no coup ....

[Rosich333]

Oh, if White would win, how would we live now! But you can’t return the past. Such an Empire prosra ...

[6 inches]

oh I doubt ... they were in power, what was going well? Every year there was a famine in the provinces.

[Aleksander]

Quote: 6 inches

oh I doubt ... they were in power, what was going well?every year in the provinces hunger was.

There was a terrible famine with millions of victims more than once AFTER the October Revolution. And there existed State and public systems for combating hunger, which managed to completely stop the consequences of the famine years by the 20 century. Read, this is interesting ....

[Homo]

Quote: Rosich333

Oh, if White would win, how would we live now! But you can’t return the past. Such an empire prosra ..

If you are a nobleman, then yes, you would live well. What about 90% of the country's population (non-nobles)? Compare the number of educated population in Europe and Russia (in those years). And there were no plans to improve education and culture for the "cattle"!

[Rosich333]

Unfortunately, maybe fortunately my ancestors were not nobles. Unfortunately - I would like to relate to the elite, fortunately - the ancestors would not have survived under the communes. Parents were from the so-called middle peasants sat. A total of 15 people. close relatives - survived 2. Outright criminals came to power and those who did not want to work. While they were removed, in the village weaned a man working. And then serfdom returned, i.e. no one could leave the village. Etc. etc.

[Pissarro]

if no one could leave the village, then where did the cadres for industrialization come from? Then, in the thirties, the population of our country was mostly rural, and then it somehow became mostly urban. The paradoxes were continuous, they didn’t let anyone out of the villages, and their population somehow flowed into the cities.

[yurta2015]

I can explain: Rosich apparently talks about the times after continuous collectivization, when almost the entire rural population ended up on collective farms and the authorities got the opportunity to regulate the movement of people from village to city. The collective farmer could obtain a passport only through the chairman of the farm, which means he could not leave the village without permission. The government itself could take any number of people from the village for their needs according to the order. Until this order was established, peasants could go to construction sites on their own, and during continuous collectivization, the flight of peasants from the village became a mass phenomenon. (By the way, my maternal grandfather, with her two children, did so then)

[Aleksander]

Quote: Homo

And there were no plans to improve education and culture for the "cattle"!

“At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a little more than 40 thousand students studied in the Russian Empire. In Germany, then the leader in Europe, in the 1903 year, 40,8 thousand people studied at universities. In all the “faculties” of France in 1906, 35,7 of thousands of students studied. About 1900 thousand people studied at UK universities in 1901-20 ... From these data it can be seen that the system of Russian higher education in absolute terms was comparable with the systems of other leading European countries ... Russia has already been between 1904 and 1914 for years (together with the USA) has become a world leader in technical education, beating Germany».

“Since the publication of the law of May 3 1908 the first activities related to the implementation of the project begin to be held in the country introducing universal education in the country, which involved the creation of school networks of primary schools. ” These activities (including an increase in the number of schools and their availability within a radius of no more than 3 versts) were carried out steadily until 1917 ".

Among the education of women, Russia was ahead of the rest ...

[Pissarro]

In this topic, the masses are massively sculpted in both white and red. Makhnovists probably or Petliurists

[Aleksander]

They put a minus, and confirm it is WEAK! Yes and impossible .....

[starshina pv]

I wonder where did this officer go at 37? where are these heroes of the civil war?

[Homo]

Quote: starshina pv

I wonder where did this officer go at 37? where are these heroes of the civil war?

Do not distort! And if you can answer the question, where are the personnel, qualified, experienced, officers who want to serve the homeland, who were dismissed under the EBN?

[svp67]

Quote: Homo

Do not distort! And if you can answer the question, where are the staff, qualified

It is you who twist and defend the author's wrong ideas ... let's just "fly apart from cutlets".
Do you support the essence of the author’s article?

[Pissarro]

retired. If you are in the 17th thirty years, then in the thirty-seventh already fifty.

[Pissarro]

minus signers, give an example of an imperial officer who served in the Red Army and was shot in 1937?

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

minus signers, give an example of an imperial officer who served in the Red Army and was shot in 1937?

Do you know the surname Tukhachevsky?

And here are examples from the LISTS OF CITIZENS Shot IN 1937–1938. Http://visz.nlr.ru/search/lists/all/238_18.html

Osten-Saken Georgy Alekseevich, born in 1888, native and resident of Leningrad, Russian, non-partisan, from the nobility, state official. Duma since 1908, non-commissioned officer and lieutenant of the active army since 1914, after the revolution he served in the Red Army, the police, the transport Cheka and various institutions. Since 1932, pom. director of Svirsky labor prophylaxis Len. region Arrested in February 1933. Sentenced on May 20, 1933 to 3 years of exile to the Northern Territory. In April 1935, he was released early. In 1937 the head. workshop of toys, lived: Kazan, Tovarischeskaya st., 4, apt. 1. Arrested again on October 31 (according to other data July 5) 1937 for "praising the enemies of the people." The troika of the NKVD of the Tatar ASSR on December 13, 1937 was sentenced under Art. Art. 58-10 h. 2, 58-11 of the RSFSR Criminal Code to capital punishment. Shot in Kazan on December 16, 1937

[Pissarro]

Tukhachevsky was shot for a specific crime, an attempted military coup, and not for the fact that he served in the tsarist army

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

Tukhachevsky was shot for a specific crime, an attempted military coup, and not for the fact that he served in the tsarist army

Sorry, but everyone was shot there for some kind of "case". You asked:

give an example of an imperial officer who served in the Red Army and was shot in 1937?

Not enough for you Tukhachevsky, here is Marshal Egorov

It is known that we have five Marshals of the Soviet Union. Of these, Yegorov least deserved this title, I’m not talking about Tukhachevsky ... Yegorov, who came from an officer family, was a colonel in the past, came to us from another camp and had less right to receive the title with respect to these comrades Marshal, nevertheless, for his merits in the civil war, we awarded this title ...
- From the speech of Stalin 22.01.1938/XNUMX/XNUMX [

He was posthumously rehabilitated on March 14, 1956.

[sabakina]

Quote: Pissarro

minus signers, give an example of an imperial officer who served in the Red Army and was shot in 1937?

I give an example.
My great-grandfather Stepan Osipov served as a non-commissioned officer in the regiment with Nikolai the Bloody!
Moved to 17 with his unit on the side of the Bolsheviks!
He fought along with Budyonny!
He fought next to Chapaev, he really wanted to see him, but failed.
I saw Shchersa!
Smoked samosad and lived to be 92 years old!
P.S. He read the Bible in Latin ...
Yes, he also said that they only began to live normally under the Soviet regime ...
Rest in peace...

[svp67]

Quote: sabakina

I give an example.

I’m glad for your grandfather, but the example is not the topic, since it does not meet one of the criteria asked in the question

give an example of an imperial officer who served in the Red Army and was shot in 1937

[sabakina]

Non-commissioned officer is not an officer?

[Pissarro]

today it is a sergeant

[sabakina]

IS THERE ABOUT "TODAY" ...
Well, pissarlo ...

[Pissarro]

now non-commissioned officers are called sergeant. What do you not understand then?

[sabakina]

Well, yes, from the resort of Dubai, you know better ...

[Pissarro]

Do you associate Dubai only with a resort? I envy

[oldzek]

the so-called lower rank

[sabakina]

oldzek
old-old
zek- untranslated local folklore (but we know )
What brings you to the forefront?

[Pissarro]

I suggest a fine. How do you easily judge everyone? aren't you a witch for an hour?

[sabakina]

Witch of 331 RAP Airborne ...
They also call me the "ghost of communism" ... Sorry, I just walk quietly ...

[svp67]

The author either does not know the whole story or is consciously trying to distort it. What for? After all, the mass of documents is already open, moreover there are records of those who were in the white movement, former military experts, etc. etc...

So none of our heroes was subjected to repression, everyone died their death

That is why it is necessary to distort our history in such a way, and who was not subjected to reprisals, but there were others and there were plenty of them.

On the night of February 21-22, 1931, in the case of an alleged counter-revolutionary conspiracy of former OGPU officers, military commander of the Supreme Military Council Mikhail Dmitrievich Bonch-Bruevich was arrested. At one time, this general made a name for himself due to his proximity to the family of the famous Russian military commander Mikhail Dragomirov. Having published after the death of the latter, his book on tactics, Bonch-Bruevich earned the appreciation of all military Russia, became a teacher of the Nikolaev Military Academy. During the First World War, Mikhail Dmitrievich participated in the capture of Lviv and the defense of Riga. At that time, Major General Bonch-Bruevich held the position of Quartermaster General, first of the 3rd Army, then of the North-Western Front. Mikhail Dmitrievich’s boss was a companion of Dragomirov, infantry general N.V. Ruzsky (in 1918 he was taken red as a hostage and hacked).

By the way, even then Bonch-Bruyevich's permanent assistant on a number of issues was the humble Colonel of the General Staff SG Lukirsky, also convicted in the Vesna case.

During the interrogation, an employee of the Topographic Directorate repressed in the Viasna case, former Colonel A. D. Taranovsky, said during interrogation that in 1923 two purges were carried out in his organization, as a result of which many employees were fired, and some were arrested.

So, on September 2, 1918, the former colonel of the General Staff Joachim Ioakimovich Wacetis was appointed to the newly established post of commander in chief of the Red Army — by ethnicity, a Latvian, with a socialist bias. ...

... On June 25, 1919, the commander-in-chief was arrested, accused of leadership, which entailed the defeat of the Red Army ... (GASBU, fp, file 63093, vol. 79, the case of V.L.Baranovsky, testimony of Yu.I. Grigoriev, p. 248 ) Moreover, together with Vatsetis, the head of the Field Headquarters, former General F.V. Kostyaev, and most of their employees were arrested. Some of the imprisoned military experts were still unlucky: they were made extreme in the defeat of the Reds in the South, and Joachim Ioakimovich escaped with a "slight fright": he served eight months in prison and, in the end, was released. But he was no longer admitted to command positions.

Until the very end, Vatsetis remained a professor at the Frunze Military Academy, although in 1935 he was awarded the rank of commander of the 2nd rank. But under suspicion, he remained until his arrest on November 29, 1937.

[ImPerts]

http://fanread.ru/book/4227373/?page=1
True Stalinist repression
Kozhinov V.V.
Very interesting is written about it all.
Ruzsky is also mentioned a little there. Allegedly, Alekseev and Ruzsky were Masons.

[igordok]

I will add. Krasnov also fought for the Browns.

[ImPerts]

There is a long-held belief that whites fought for old Russia and the restoration of the monarchy. This is another myth.
We have to remind everyone, and some are surprised to learn that after the abdication, Nicholas II was arrested by General Alekseev (NSS). The empress with family members was arrested by General Kornilov (yes, yes, the same leader of the rebellion).
The monarchists spoke of the Bolsheviks as follows:
"In active politics, they are engaged in the destruction of Russia that is self-destructive for them with unlimited energy, while at the same time fulfilling the entire foundation of a unifying policy according to our Russian patriotic program, creating, against their will and thought, a new foundation for what they themselves destroy ..." (B. V. Nikolsky, one of the leaders and ideologists of the Black Hundred movement).
In fact, the Bolsheviks were closer to the Black Hundreds (monarchists) than the February Mensheviks.
And what happened in one of the pre-revolutionary pillars of statehood - the church?
"... Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn, in his" Review "gives a gloomy characterization of the system of spiritual education in Russia at that time. He quotes the words of one of the main bishops of the church:" It must disperse it all, break it down, dig the foundations of seminary and academic buildings and replace build new ones in a new place and fill them with new people. ”Vladyka had no idea how soon he would be heard ...
Immediately after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and the formation of the Provisional Government, 6 on March 1917, a solemn meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church took place.

In all the churches of Russia it was established during the services not to remember the tsar and the family, but to pray "for the God-Preserving Power of Russia and the noble Provisional Government of it." What was in the eyes of believers a clear blessing of the overthrow of the monarchy and the revolution.

The new chief prosecutor immediately began dismissing the most conservative bishops - for "supporting the old regime"! A wave of murders of clergymen, robberies of temples swept through the country. The cathedral noted with sorrow: “In many parishes, peasants forcibly took away church land, plowed the sacred field, cut down the sacred forest ...”
A more complete version is here:
http://vz.ru/opinions/2015/6/11/750174.html

[Homo]

Quote: ImPerts

There is a long-held belief that whites fought for old Russia and the restoration of the monarchy. This is another myth.

You can argue a lot and for a long time, but it has long been proved (by our historians and European (world)) that Russia would never have reached the level that the USSR had reached.

[tokens2]

You can argue a lot and for a long time, but has long been proved (by our historians and European (world)) that Russia would never reach the level that the USSR has reached.

They are Enti European, but easier British scientists will not be able to prove it yet. Proof is generally their hobby.
And what to prove then?
Excuse the society, which all its inventions "propped up" the doctorate, in principle, not viable for the long term. Yes, the system can ignite ... to warm up the inhabitants of Africa spit too.
But to carry gas into the Russian village is not. Too wasteful.

[boris117]

I read and see that the time for an objective assessment of historical accomplishments in our country has not yet come. The wounds inflicted by the revolution and the 1991 coup still hurt too much. It takes time to evaluate what happened in Russia. So many truths and everyone has the right to the truth. So much fate, so much suffering. What an indestructible pursuit of justice. This is the central motive of the entire 20th century. This desire for truth, for justice, and now helps to resist and survive Russia.

[Dry_T-50]

Quote: boris117

The wounds inflicted by the revolution, the coup of 1991 of the year are still too sore.

Time heals wounds

[tokens2]

I read and see that the time for an objective assessment of historical achievements in our country has not yet come.

Actually it is not up to you to decide.
The void will always be filled.

This desire for truth, for justice, and now helps to resist and survive Russia.

so do you want the truth? allowing to survive?
Or is the time not yet?
vinaigrette in general.

[AIR ZNAK]

Yeah, in the army of AB Kolchak, the corps of Colonel Kappel fought. And the corps included a division of Ural workers (with their families on carts) who went into battle under the singing of Marseillaise and had a red banner (by the way, there was a separate order from Kolchak) That's it definitely This is the Civil War What is now in the Donbass is the same only on a regional scale.

[yurta2015]

Quote: AIR-ZNAK

This is, after all, the Civil War. What is now in the Donbass is the same only on a regional scale.

What is happening in Ukraine now is a copy (only bad) of what happened in Russia during the Civil War. The anti-Bandera rebellion of Donbass is a copy of the anti-Bolshevik uprisings throughout Russia of the 1918-1919 years (in form, not in content). Donbass (and Crimea), of course, would repeat the fate of the white movement, if not for the help of Russia.

[ImPerts]

Those. support for white movement in all possible ways is a fiction?

Quote: yurta2015

The anti-Bandera rebellion of Donbass - a copy of the anti-Bolshevik uprisings throughout Russia 1918-1919 years

Do you equate the Bolsheviks and Bandera?
Then there should be the next step, Stalin and Hitler, the USSR and the Third Reich ...
Congratulations!

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

Do you equate the Bolsheviks and Bandera? Then there should be the next step, Stalin and Hitler, the USSR and the Third Reich ...

I said: "in form, not in content." The Bolsheviks in 1917, just like the Bandera in 2014, overthrew the legitimate government in an armed coup. The Bolsheviks, just like the Banderaites, did not have the support of the majority of the population by that time and could not expect to take power by legal means. Just as in 2014, against the Bandera government, those groups of the population rose up against the Bolsheviks in 1918 whose very existence was threatened by the new government (the bearers of the Russian culture of Donbass today, the Cossacks of the outskirts of Russia, supporters of the monarchy, etc. then). By the way, the structure of the Hitlerite regime largely copied the Soviet one in form (pioneers - Hitler Youth, Komsomol - Jungsturm, Gestapo - NKVD, SS troops - NKVD troops, monopoly VKP (b) - NSDAP, etc.). Stalin is undoubtedly related to Hitler in terms of his mentality and position in power (not in terms of political views).

[yurta2015]

Quote: yurta2015

Pioneers - Hitler Youth, Komsomol - Jungsturm

I am correcting myself: Of course, Jungfolk (not Jungsturm) corresponded to pioneer age, and Hitler Youth corresponded to Komsomol. I forgot a little. The last time I read about this is 20 years ago.

[ImPerts]

If you do not know, then the legal power in the Russian Empire ended in February 1917. If you want to equate Bandera to someone, then compare with them. If the power in Kiev is once again overthrown, then there you can even align it with the Bolsheviks.

Quote: yurta2015

against the Bolsheviks in 1918 those groups of the population rose up whose very existence was threatened by the new government (carriers of the Russian culture of Donbass today, Cossacks on the outskirts of Russia, supporters of the monarchy, etc. then)

Are you sure about that? The people fought in general against all power. And about the monarchists you’re my friend in vain, the monarchist ideas were just forgotten by the white movement.
Forgotten. Not for this, the February revolution of 1917 was arranged.
NOT FOR THIS.

One of the leaders of the White Army in Siberia, General A.P. Budberg wrote in his famous "Diary": "... a telegram from Slavgorod (one of the main centers of Stolypin emigration. - V.K.), informing that after the announcement of the call (to the White Army. - V.K.) an uprising arose there, crowds of peasants attacked the city and killed the entire city administration and the officer team standing there "

And, by the way, why many officers were on the side of the Reds, for their vision of Great Russia was more understandable and pleasant to them.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

legal power in the Russian Empire ended in February 1917.

In February 1917, power passed to the Provisional Government quite legally, since it included members of the State Duma, and the king abdicated quite officially. Yanukovych did not renounce power, therefore, the current government in Kiev is illegal.

Quote: ImPerts

monarchical ideas were just forgotten by the white movement.

Yes, why then did the whites so eager for Tobolsk, where Nicholas 2 was imprisoned? Of course, the leaders of the white movement were not supporters of the restoration of the autocratic monarchy, but most of them would surely have accepted a constitutional monarchy. And among the white volunteer officers in general, monarchists made up almost the majority.
As for the peasant uprisings in the rear of the whites in Siberia, they began after Kolchak’s attempts to create a massive army by mobilization. The peasants did not want to fight there (neither for white nor for red).

Quote: ImPerts

why many officers were on the side of the Reds, for their vision of Great Russia was more understandable and pleasant to them.

That's why it turned out. It was the Reds who controlled both capitals and the main part of the territory populated by the Russian population proper. That is, they really owned state power and most of the country's material resources. The rebels against the center of the outskirts had too little chance of success. The only hope is the help of the Entente allies, but it was too small and did not arrive on time.

[ImPerts]

43 percent of the officers (including the generals) chose to serve in the Red Army, moreover, which is especially significant, every fifth of them was first in the White Army and then transferred to the Red! And even more revealing is the fact that of the military elite - the officers of the General Staff, who were the most cultured and thinking - in the Red Army even 46 percent served, that is, a larger proportion than of the officers in general.
And the point was not at all that they were imbued with the Bolshevik ideology; so, only a few of them joined the party. The point was in the ability of the Bolsheviks to retain power in a huge country, embraced by boundless "willfulness." General A.A. Baltiysky, one of the first to join the Red Army, said that he, "and many other officers who followed the same path served the tsar, because they considered him the first among the servants of the fatherland, but he was unable to solve the problems facing Russia and There was a group of people who left the State Duma, which took upon itself the task of continuing the work of ruling Russia. Well, we went with them ... But they also failed to cope with the task, brought Russia into a state of complete ruin and were thrown back. the Bolsheviks arose. We accepted them as a government ... and came to the full conviction that they are right, that they are really building the state. "
Undoubtedly, tens of thousands of Russian officers who had joined the Red Army would join this confession.
The assertion that the Bolsheviks restored the statehood of Russia will undoubtedly cause bewilderment or even a direct rebuff among many, for the focus of Bolshevism - at least in the first years after 1917 - on the world revolution is well known; At the same time, Russia was presented as a "tool", as a kind of combustible material for a "world fire".
There is no dispute: the idea of ​​a world revolution played a huge role both in the consciousness and in the actions of the Bolsheviks, but gradually it was increasingly pushed aside by a different orientation, which clearly prevailed by the mid-1920s, when the then main ideologist Bukharin and after him Stalin approved the fundamental the thesis of building socialism "in one country", which provoked sharp resistance from the "leaders", who quickly receded into the background - Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev. And it is not so difficult to prove that this turn was a natural result of all the previous development, although it was ambiguous. As early as March 12, 1918 - just four months after October - Lenin published a programmatic article (later published in the form of a brochure) "The main task of our days", where, more than once mentioning the "international socialist revolution" as the highest goal, at the same time - in fact, contradicting this formulation of the question, he defined the "main task" in this way: "... to achieve by all means that Russia ... becomes in the full sense of the word powerful and abundant ... We have material in natural riches, and in the reserve of human strength (here is the basis of the thesis about "one country" - V.K.) ... to create a truly powerful and abundant Russia. "

Something like that.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

43 percent of the officers (including the generals) chose to serve in the Red Army, moreover, which is especially significant, every fifth of them was first in the White Army and then transferred to the Red!

In my opinion, this is natural. Most officers of the tsarist army were apolitical people. After the fall of the monarchy, they went to serve the new Russian government, that is, they continued to serve Russia, as they understood it. The fact that many of them were first white and then switched to red is also natural: the white were defeated, so the only way to serve Russia was to serve the Bolsheviks. If whites had achieved decisive success (for example, they would have approached Moscow), then most of the officers would have gone over to them.

[ImPerts]

Quote: yurta2015

and the king abdicated quite officially

In fact, he was forced to write a renunciation. Yanukovych would not have waited for this, he would have been killed earlier and legitimization would have happened, but he was taken out and this is a serious argument of the opponents of the junta.
Nicholas II bypassed this trend of modernity in the form of lead poisoning, for the time being. But the role of the generals in this is extremely clear. when a bunch of generals, including the chief of the General Staff, says: "We must, Your Majesty, we must." The personal guards crew under the control of brother Kirill Vladimirovich walks under the red panels, then ... (like a soldering iron in one place, many split and signed any papers). I will not reveal a secret (I already wrote in the comments to this article) that Nicholas II was arrested (yes, yes, he was) after writing the abdication. General Alekseev was arrested. The royal family was arrested by General Kornilov.
But, in secret, I’ll say that the shooting of the royal family is a personal initiative of Sverdlov and his group. Lenin was not happy, and Dzerzhinsky was extremely annoyed by the problems that arose.

Quote: yurta2015

Most officers of the tsarist army were apolitical people

Those. is it political?

Quote: ImPerts

General A.A. Baltiysky, one of the first to join the Red Army, said that he, "and many other officers who followed the same path served the tsar, because they considered him the first among the servants of the fatherland, but he was unable to solve the problems facing Russia and There was a group of people who left the State Duma, which took upon itself the task of continuing the work of ruling Russia. Well, we went with them ... But they also failed to cope with the task, brought Russia into a state of complete ruin and were thrown back. the Bolsheviks arose. We accepted them as a government ... and came to the full conviction that they are right, that they are really building the state. "

If necessary, I will find direct words recorded in the application for joining the Red Army.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

In fact, he was forced to write a renunciation.

This does not change anything. Formally, the rule of law was respected and, from the point of view of law, the Provisional Government that replaced the Tsar was completely legitimate, in contrast to the power of the Soviets, established by an openly illegal armed coup (as well as the power of the junta in Kiev in February 2014).

Quote: ImPerts

Those. Is this apolitical? Quote: A.A. ImPertsGeneral Baltiysky, one of the first to join the Red Army, said that he, "and many other officers who followed the same path served the tsar, because they considered him the first among the servants of the fatherland, but he was unable to solve the problems facing Russia and There was a group of people who left the State Duma, which took upon itself the task of continuing the work of ruling Russia. Well, we went with them ... But they also failed to cope with the task, brought Russia into a state of complete ruin and were thrown back. the Bolsheviks arose. We accepted them as a government ... and came to the full conviction that they are right, that they are really building the state. "

In my opinion, this quote only proves my words about the apolitical nature of these officers. They served the power that controlled the capital and the national center of the Russian state. As for the last sentence, it is difficult to expect in a Bolshevik country an opposite assessment of the role of the Bolsheviks.

[ImPerts]

Quote: yurta2015

Formally, the rule of law was respected.

Formally means.
But we will formally answer with "formality"

Quote: yurta2015

According to the law of succession to the tsar, tsarist power could be transferred only to a direct heir, that is, to a son, and nothing else.

It means that the emperor deliberately did a similar thing to the Februaryists, thereby knocking out the formal basis from the legitimacy of the authority of the Provisional Government.
If I just wrote that I renounce power, then I would agree to formality.
And so ...
By the way, the Americans recognize the formal right to legitimacy of the Kiev junta, since Yanukovych fled the country and does not act as president.
Russia does not recognize.
These are the formalities.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

By the way, the Americans recognize the formal right to legitimacy of the Kiev junta, since Yanukovych fled the country and does not act as president.

Still they would not recognize. It was they who prepared this coup. However, the president’s flight from the country is not recognized by international law (and the Ukrainian constitution) as a formal right to the legitimacy of a change of power. The Americans themselves almost always support the runaway president (the last case is Yemen), unless of course they organized his overthrow (the last example is Ukraine).

[Pissarro]

It’s just interesting, on the basis of what do you consider the Power of the Provisional Government legal? For the fact that it made a coup and took power from the king? Did someone choose it? And what is the fundamental difference between the interim government and the Soviets? Although the soviets have even more legitimacy, at least the collectives of workers, peasants and soldiers have delegated something to decide there, the Provisional Government is the same as the junta in Kiev, they overthrew the tsar and appointed themselves loved ones

[yurta2015]

Quote: Pissarro

on the basis of what do you consider the Power of the Provisional Government legal? For the fact that it made a coup and took power from the king? Did someone choose it?

The tsar abdicated and the power quite legally passed to the deputies of the State Duma elected by the people, who formed the Provisional Government from among their members.

Quote: Pissarro

the Soviets have even more legitimacy, at least delegated teams of workers, peasants and soldiers

Most of the peasants did not choose councils until October 1917. They chose zemstvos. The councils were chosen by soldiers and workers, that is, an absolute minority of the population.

Quote: Pissarro

The interim government is the same as the junta in Kiev, overthrew the king and appointed themselves loved ones

No, not the same. Yanukovych did not renounce the presidency and the Rada did not have a constitutional reason for his removal. Consequently, the junta in Kiev came to power illegally.

[Pissarro]

The tsar denied in favor of his brother, and not in favor of the State Duma. So in the first place, he did not have the right to renounce, he was anointed by God for this post, and secondly, the Duma is like his brother. The interim government, according to all the laws of the Russian Empire, is ABSOLUTELY illegitimate. And all strata of society treated him accordingly, they simply ignored

[yurta2015]

Quote: Pissarro

The king denied in favor of his brother

Firstly, in favor of his brother, he did not have the right to renounce. Secondly, the brother immediately refused to accept the crown.

Quote: Pissarro

he didn’t have the right to deny, he is anointed by God for this post

The whole history of Europe is replete with cases of abdication, therefore, this is legal.

Quote: Pissarro

The interim government, in accordance with all the laws of the Russian Empire, is ABSOLUTELY illegitimate.

The Russian Empire has not existed since 2 on March 1917. The Russian Republic was proclaimed, and it was the Provisional Government. From that moment on, it became the most legitimate authority in the country.

Quote: Pissarro

And all strata of society treated him accordingly, they simply ignored

Well, not all, but mainly those that supported the power of the Soviets. And that part of the peasantry that managed to profit from the seizure of landowner property. Most of the society throughout the country supported the Provisional Government.

[Pissarro]

The whole history of Europe is replete with cases of abdication, therefore, this is legal.

Iron logic. The whole history of Europe is full of murders, robberies and even the devil knows what. And this is all illegal. But even if some kind of gay pride parade is legal in Europe, we have nothing to do with it. According to our laws of that time, to overthrow emperors is illegal

The Russian Empire has not existed since 2 on March 1917. The Russian Republic was proclaimed, and it was the Provisional Government. From that moment on, it became the most legitimate authority in the country.

Well, of course it didn’t exist, the generals and deputies shoved the tsar under the nose and proclaimed the republic without asking anyone. What is legitimate in the persons who committed the coup? And why not overthrow the criminals who committed the coup? (The junta overthrew Yanukovych, the militia will overthrow the junta, the same thing)

Most of the society throughout the country supported the Provisional Government.

How did you come to this conclusion? Referendum? Opinion poll? One grandmother said?

[yurta2015]

Quote: Pissarro

According to our laws of that time, it’s illegal to overthrow emperors.

Nicholas signed the abdication voluntarily. No one put a gun to his temple. Therefore, this event cannot be called overthrow.

Quote: Pissarro

generals and deputies nagan king tucked under the nose

Have you personally seen this? There is no such fact in the recollections of eyewitnesses.
The fact that a large part of society in October 1917 supported the Provisional Government is evidenced by the very fact of the armed coup. If the Bolsheviks and their supporters had the support of society, they would quietly wait for the Constituent Assembly elections scheduled for February and without any provocations would take power in a completely legal way. In fact, even in the Bolshevik party itself there was no unity regarding the uprising, not to mention the other Reparties. In the Far East, even the Soviets did not initially support the coup, and they had to be persuaded by the new Bolshevik authorities for quite some time. It was the same in many other parts of the country. What can we say about non-revolutionary organizations. This outrage by the illegal coup was the first impetus for the start of resistance and civil war.

[ImPerts]

Quote: Pissarro

The king denied in favor of his brother

After all, damn right. I missed this moment. This is another argument in favor of the illegitimacy of the Provisional Government.
Even if the brother renounced, the members of the legislative branch had to bow to Nicholas II.
For legitimacy.

Quote: yurta2015

The whole history of Europe is replete with cases of abdication, therefore, this is legal.

The whole history of Europe is full of colonial wars and the looting of colonies, which means it is legal.
The whole history of Europe is replete with the attack on Russia and the subsequent ... ... p ... health @ lebanon, which means it is legal.
The whole history of Europe is replete with redistribution of borders - this is legal.
Thank you, we explained the way out of the situation with the Crimea. Pleased)))

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

Quote: Pissarro Tsar denied in favor of his brother I missed this moment. This is another argument in favor of the illegitimacy of the Provisional Government.

No, not right. According to the law of succession to the tsar, tsarist power could be transferred only to a direct heir, that is, to a son and nothing else. Only in his absence (or personal renunciation) could other options arise.

Quote: ImPerts

Quote: yurta2015The whole history of Europe is replete with cases of abdication, therefore, it is legal. The whole history of Europe is replete with colonial wars and the looting of colonies, then this is legal.

Do not distort. The existence of many precedents for the transfer of power in the monarchy through the voluntary abdication of the throne, proves their legitimacy in the eyes of society of that time, and therefore from the point of view of law (as, indeed, of colonial wars). In Russia, the legality of renunciation has never been disputed. By the way, the conspirator-killers of the emperors Peter 3 and Paul 1 also tried to get them to renounce (though to no avail).

[ImPerts]

Oh, about juggling and other things, as well as various types of formalities, I already wrote above.

Quote: yurta2015

By the way, the conspirator-killers of the emperors Peter 3 and Paul 1 also tried to get them to renounce (though unsuccessfully)

Eco climbed.
But if you get involved in your formalities, then the Romanov dynasty from 1762 is illegitimate. Since 1796, this formality of illegitimacy is already squared.
So, laugh cleanly, again using your principle of formality.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

the Romanov dynasty from the 1762 year is illegitimate. Since 1796, this formality of illegitimacy is already squared.

Catherine was succeeded by Paul, son of Peter 3. So everything is in order with legitimacy. True, Paul himself established this order. Before him there was no order. Since the time of Peter 1, power was transferred by the will of the ruling monarch. So formally, yes, power in 1762 passed illegally.

[ImPerts]

Quote: yurta2015

Catherine was succeeded by Paul, son of Peter 3.

It's to blame, I was mistaken.
But now explain to me the principles of formality and legitimacy in the transition of power from Peter III to Catherine II and from Paul I to Alexander I.
Although formally, everything is correct. From husband to wife and from father to son. Therefore, the formalities will be out of the question. With legitimacy, how?

[ImPerts]

Well, again, for the sake of formalities.
Yemen began to bomb.
They are bombing, bombing ...
And there is a joke in the subject.
For occasions, albeit formal ones.

Question for connoisseurs "What, where, when"

Dear experts!

At the moment, Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, in which, as a result of the revolution, Husite rebels, who have recently been involved in the creation of the ruling coalition, came to power. Formally, the operation is carried out at the request of the fugitive president of the country, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Victor Fedorovich from Rostov asks you: what could have been so, right?

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

Those. support for white movement in all possible ways is a fiction?

Do you mean the Entente? Yes, there was support, but its size was greatly exaggerated by Soviet historians. Entente states in every possible way delayed its provision and the bulk of the weapons arrived too late, as a rule, after the decisive defeat of the white armies. The interventionists themselves preferred to avoid direct clashes with the Red Army (the exception was the North and in the 1918 year the Far East and the provoked Czech uprising). In almost all of their memoirs, white generals blame the Entente countries for this and consider them the culprits of their defeat.

[ImPerts]

In the end, in November 1918, Kolchak was proclaimed the Supreme Ruler of Russia in Omsk to fulfill this “mission”. The West supplied him much more generously than Denikin; he was delivered about a million rifles, several thousand machine guns, hundreds of guns and cars, dozens of aircraft, about half a million sets of uniforms, etc. (of course, the “pragmatic” West delivered all this on bail as a third of Russia's gold reserve ...).
Under Kolchak, British General Knox and French General Janin were constantly present with their chief adviser, Captain Zinovy ​​Peshkov (YM Sverdlov's younger brother), who belonged, among other things, to French Freemasonry. These representatives of the West took care of the admiral and his army with all their attention. General A.P. Budberg - chief of supplies, then Minister of War at Kolchak - wrote in his diary on May 11, 1919 that General Knox "stubbornly stands on distributing the stocks of British supplies coming to him himself, and makes many mistakes, gives the wrong who needs it at a given time, "etc.
All such facts (and their list can be significantly multiplied) clearly indicate that Kolchak - although he undoubtedly strove to become the "savior of Russia" - in fact was, in his own words, a "condottier" of the West, and by virtue of this, the rest of the leaders of the White Army, starting with Denikin, had to obey him ...
As for the West, its plans for Russia were quite definite. A man whom he can hardly be suspected of slandering Western democracy clearly spoke about them in 1920. We are talking about the coryphaeus of Russian liberalism P.N. Milyukov. In the summer of 1918, because of his direct cooperation with German counterintelligence, he was forced to resign as chairman of the cadet party, and although in October of that year he brought “repentance” for this, he no longer had to play a leading role in politics. However, it was this particular “detachment” that gave him the opportunity - and the courage - to face the truth. Milyukov, who for many years wholeheartedly extolled the West and his noble help for a democratizing Russia, wrote on January 4 of 1920 of the year XNUMX from London to his associate, the famous Countess S.V. Panina, who was then in the White Army on the Don:
"Now the idea of ​​exploitation of Russia _ * as a colony * _ (emphasized by P.N. Milyukov himself. - V.K.) is being put forward (in the West. - V.K.) for the sake of its wealth and necessity for Europe raw materials ". And if the convinced "Westerner" Milyukov (by the way, who was in Great Britain since the beginning of 1919) reports this, there is no doubt about the truth of the "diagnosis."
Of course, the White Army has constantly proclaimed that it is fighting for Russia and its fundamental interests. However, there is every reason to assert that in reality the struggle of the White Army was determined - even if, as they say, to a certain extent and extent - by the interests of the West. By the way, M.V. Nazarov, although he sees a lot differently from me, nevertheless unequivocally asserts that "the orientation of the White movement towards the Entente made many fear that if the Whites won, the foreign forces behind them would subordinate Russia to their interests" (op. Cit., P. 218 ).

This is Kozhinov. His work "The Truth of Stalinist Repressions". Read it.

[yurta2015]

Quote: ImPerts

in November 1918 of the year, Kolchak for the fulfillment of this “mission” was proclaimed in Omsk the Supreme Ruler of Russia. The West supplied him much more generously than Denikin; he was delivered about a million rifles, several thousand machine guns, hundreds of guns and cars, dozens of aircraft, about half a million outfits, etc.

The lion's share of these weapons began to come to Kolchak only in the autumn of 1919, already after the crushing defeat of his armies in the Volga region and in the Urals, which in fact decided his fate.

Quote: ImPerts

General A.P. Budberg - chief of supplies, then Minister of War at Kolchak - wrote in his diary on May 11, 1919 that General Knox "stubbornly stands on distributing the stocks of British supplies coming to him himself, and makes many mistakes, gives the wrong who needs it at this time ", etc.

England supplied only a small part of the specified weapons. It was partially enough to arm Kolchak's army by March 1919 of the year, before the start of his offensive. In addition, a significant part of the funds of the allies went to the needs of the interventionists themselves (Czechs, French, British, etc.) who had not participated in the hostilities since the fall of 1918.

Quote: ImPerts

in fact, the struggle of the White Army was determined - even if, as they say, to a certain extent and extent - by the interests of the West.

To a certain extent, yes. This is largely why white lost.

Quote: ImPerts

"the orientation of the White movement towards the Entente made many fear that if the whites won, the foreign forces behind them would subordinate Russia to their interests."

This is one of the reasons for the defeat of the whites, but they had no other choice.

[ssn18]

Quote: g1v2 [b

] but when you tell a person about it [/ b]

And you tell, dear, tell, he who has ears will hear. Do not be shy about your history, and even more so for us Russians. From this begins patriotic education.

[tokens2]

The personnel officer corps in the service of the Reds was initially perceived by the new red power as a temporary phenomenon.
And this "temporary phenomenon" was actually on the rights of hostages.
The highly inventive know-how of the new government.
Well it is necessary .. to turn the ideological opponents into allies.
temporary.
And the people in leather jackets with a fellow Mauser became the new elite.
That’s the whole revolution ponimash.
Thanks to Stalin for slightly correcting the course.
But still, by June 22, the Red Army did not even stand close in comparing the officer corps of the Russian Empire in 1914.

[Pissarro]

it’s funny when they think that you can win battles under duress.
It’s also foolish to underestimate the Bolsheviks in order to command something larger than a squadron, you need a military education and they understood this well. Of course, there are nuggets, but for the most part the Reds didn’t have an alternative to using military experts. The General Staff especially helped the Red Crosses. (a third of the staff). And nothing prevented the military from sabotaging their posts, hard workers in leather jackets with their level of knowledge would not have seen sabotage.
The author is right, more officers served in the Red Army voluntarily than in the white and this is a fact

The officers of 1914 distinguished themselves in defeat in East Prussia, where our two armies died, so they do not differ much from the officers of 1941.

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

. And nothing prevented the military from practicing sabotage at their posts; hard-working workers in leather jackets with their level of knowledge would not have seen sabotage.

You naive ... "hard workers in leather jackets" simply quickly and severely punished for any defeat, so they quickly reduced cases of sabotage to zero ...

[Pissarro]

oh these storytellers.
Not a single hard worker in a leather jacket will understand what the same 600 officers of the General Staff who have switched to the side of the Red Army draw on maps on the General Staff will not see sabotage due to their illiteracy

[tokens2]

Not a single hard worker in a leather jacket will understand what the same 600 officers of the General Staff who have switched to the side of the Red Army draw on maps on the General Staff will not see sabotage due to their illiteracy

Of course not to say that the commissars "straddled" the fear of the officer corps in the red army would be wrong. or not entirely accurate.
The ideological propaganda was very strong, but this propaganda without intimidation was equal to 0.
The creative intelligentsia was also "deceived".
Former allies (who, in principle, no longer wanted to fight) also rely on intervention, the strongest motivator for a decision.
All this is sad. The best fought with the best. On both sides.

[tokens2]

Not a single hard worker in a leather jacket will understand what the same 600 officers of the General Staff who have switched to the side of the Red Army draw on maps on the General Staff will not see sabotage due to their illiteracy

in fact, there was another interested party, the German General Staff.
there yes .. women did not wear.
so there was someone to "look" so to speak.
Did the Germans give money to Ilyich?
But of course no one knows the answer to this question.

[Kilo-11]

Do not distort, during the East Prussian operation of the North-Western Front in 1914, the losses of our army amounted to approx. 80 thousand people / all-dead, wounded, taken prisoner /, and this is the loss of the 1st and 2nd armies that participated in this operation. Only the 2nd Army of General A.V.Samsonov was defeated. In 1941, during the defeat of the troops of the Western Special Military District, the losses amounted to 420 thousand people / all-dead, wounded, prisoners and another category of defectors was added, which was not observed in 1914 / .Moreover, the Germans got rich trophies-weapons, equipment, materiel, etc. Many details of the tragedy-defeat of the Western PSB are still, for a number of reasons, hushed up by official military historians of the Russian Federation.

[Pissarro]

everything would be like this, one nuance, in 1914 no one attacked Russia, the war began on the eastern front with an attack on the East Prussia of these two armies. The German army was mainly involved in France, that is, the attacking Russians were not threatened by boilers, a broken army rolled back to its original position

It is foolish to compare with 1941, when we defended ourselves and fell into the cauldrons of maneuverable German troops, and hence the captivity, defectors.

Yes, if we didn’t know the Great Patriotic War, we won, but lost the First World War by burying the state

[Kilo-11]

In the Western OVO, as you put it, there were no mobile troops, as I understand it, tank and mechanized? For your information, the Western OVO in 1941 included 6 mechanized corps, which included 2200 tanks, while in the army group "Center" had 1700 tanks. Yes, not overwhelming superiority, but the factor of surprise on the side of the Germans, but nevertheless, a certain superiority was and it could be used. The tale that we in the vast majority had outdated models of tanks should not be repeated, Suffice it to compare the technical specifications of our and German tanks in 1941. Air supremacy played a very important role, but the Germans achieved it almost instantly, but ask yourself why? In 1941 there were 1900 aircraft in the Western OVO, and only 900 in the Army Group Center Yes, the Germans destroyed a significant part of our aviation at the airfields, yes, we had a certain number of outdated types of aircraft, and the Germans had much better trained pilots andall the same, there was a chance to keep the sky in our hands. "It's all screwed up" - these are not my words, but the words of Comrade IV Stalin, which he said precisely after the catastrophe of our troops in the western districts in 1941. there was nothing of the kind, but there was a defeat of the 1914nd Army, which had on its side, at the initial stage of the operation, a numerical superiority and a surprise factor, but this was not a catastrophe for the whole front. About the defectors, why were they not there in 2, But they were not in small numbers in 1914, maybe the whole point is that a certain part of the Red Army soldiers was not going to die for Soviet power, while in 1941 the army went to war with brass bands for Faith, Fatherland and Tsar. And imagine in the know that we won the Second World War, but at what cost ?! But we did not lose the First World War, we were treacherously brought out of this war by the Bolshevik government, headed by Mr. V. Ulyanov-Lenin. In the end, when you communicate with strangers. people please be polite and correct, do not use phrases like : "It's stupid to compare ..." or "... if you don't know ...", you can talk in this tone at home in the kitchen.

[Pissarro]

leave your preachy tone for your kitchen, I’m not rude to you.

It’s not interesting to analyze the causes of our defeats for the hundredth time, they were already dismantled to the ground and defeat was inevitable. Just as the victory in 1941 was inevitable, the Germans had no chance to win. To decompose our society and army as it was in 1945 there was no chance. The government of the Bolsheviks pulled the country out of the war when the front cracked at the seams and passed somewhere near Mogilev, what victories can we talk about?
Regarding losses, if you do not take civilians and prisoners of war brutally destroyed by the enemy, then our military losses are less than the losses of the enemy, which is also discussed hundreds of times

The best of the Russian commanders of the war Brusilov left memories of the mediocrity of the command of tsarist Russia, which can still be said.

[Kilo-11]

It would be possible to argue with you further, but since you write: "... what else can we talk about.", So be it.

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

everything would be like that, one nuance, in 1914 year nobody attacked Russia, the war began on the eastern front with an attack on the East Prussia of these two armies

Alternative history went into "battle" as the last argument. But- recall, WHO WHO declared war first?

[Pissarro]

You have an alternative story. Germany declared war on Russia in response to the announcement of mobilization, but Germany attacked in France, leaving only miserable cover forces in the east. The first front-line operation on the eastern frontEast Prussian.Russian advancing, the Germans are defending. If in your alternative reality in the summer of 1914 there were some other front-line operations on the German-Russian front, tell us about them.

With small forces, the Germans occupied two small border towns in Poland, Kalisz and Czestochowa at the beginning of the war. But there weren’t a single soldier there. The supporters of German aggression in the summer of 1914 like to cite these towns as an example. The Germans weren’t up to the Russians, the Moltke-Schlieffen plan called for using maximum strength on the western front against the main enemy, France

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

.Germany declared war on Russia in response to the announcement of mobilization, but Germany attacked in France,

А 29 July in the German Army holidays were stopped.
Germany attacked Russiadeclaring war on it on August 1. Therefore, she is the aggressor and the instigator of the massacre along with Austria-Hungary. By the way, she declared war on France already on August 3. These are facts. And cover-cover, small-large forces are already details of the war. By the way, this is also the interpretation of the Versailles Agreements, which gave definitions to the actions of the attacking countries as criminal aggression. And only you have Russia - "attacked", in your alternative version ....

[Pissarro]

the devil is always in the details.
England also declared war with France in the year 1939 of France, do you think they are aggressors?
And the winners wrote the Versailles agreements, like all other agreements, their objectivity is zero.
So it’s possible to flog arbitrarily, but our troops in East Prussia crossed the German border with large forces and this is a fact. We went for the same purpose, helped allied France and helped. So at least this event is interpreted by all military historians without exception. But not in your apparently reality

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

England also declared war with France in the year 1939 of France, do you think they are aggressors?

What's wrong with you?! It was a collective PROTECTION from PERFECT ALREADY aggression against Poland, yes you yourself understand.

Quote: Pissarro

but our troops in East Prussia crossed the German border with large forces and this is a fact

-
-in reply to the aggression of Germany! Or should it have been necessary to wait for it to cross the Russian border with "large forces" ?! Well, this, you already know, is some kind of masochism. You have to understand that you always substitute the second and third cheeks? Well, this is your choice ...

Pissarro And the Versailles agreements were written by the winners, like all other agreements, their objectivity is zero.

Do you even understand that you are challenging the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal made by the WINNERS with such "arguments"? Then, in your opinion, and SS is not a criminal organization (etc.) - (since the winners "appointed" the "judgment seat"?)
Yeah, no words ....

[Pissarro]

I don’t like hypocrisy. Russia climbed into war in 1914 itself, and the war was declared by Germany precisely in response to Russian mobilization. Moreover, the German ambassador pointed it out openly, there is mobilization — there is war, there is no mobilization — there is no war. They got France to save Russia with Russian blood, for opponents you can see Russian blood voditsa. The Germans didn’t even have plans against Russia in the summer of 1914, it was important for them to defeat France, and the tsar seemed to be important to save France. We did not need a war at all and were detrimental to the state at the time of instability. And this war cost us There were no threats of military invasion for Russia, and no one threatened us.

And how did the simple truth outrage you that the winners write history? This is not true? Losers write it?

Regarding the Nuremberg Tribunal, any lawyer will tell you that this process is void from a purely legal point of view, the winners judged the vanquished from the point of view of humanism and universal values, not violations of any laws. The fascist executioners did not violate the Reich laws, they did not comply with other laws are required

Now minus the hypocrites

[Aleksander]

Quote: Pissarro

The Germans didn’t even have plans in the summer of 1914 against Russia, it was important for them to defeat France,

Yes, they wanted to defeat France so much that, first of all, they opened a second front in the rear, declaring war on the strongest European-Russian army (however, it was first front, France declared war on 2 days later).

Quote: Pissarro

Regarding the Nuremberg Tribunal, any lawyer will tell you that this process is void from a purely legal point of view, the winners judged the vanquished from the point of view of humanism and universal values, not violations of any laws. The fascist executioners did not violate the Reich laws, they did not comply with other laws are required

The familiar motive was the main excuse for the Nazi criminals and their lawyers. But the acts that were accused of the defendants, their components in the criminal law of any civilized country were considered crimes. Murders, torture, torture of people and so on. The Tribunal also worked on this. The condemnation of war crimes was based on already existing international law. By the way, Nazi judges were convicted by small Nuremberg precisely for violations of German laws.

[tokens2]

It is also foolish to underestimate the Bolsheviks, in order to command something larger than a squadron, you need a military education and they understood this well.

But what about Old Man Makhno?
Kotovskoy?

The officers of 1914 distinguished themselves in defeat in East Prussia, where our two armies died, so they do not differ much from the officers of 1941.

Well, probably not without the help of these

The General Staff especially helped the Reds, who transferred to them VOLUNTARY (one third of the composition).

In general, the main blow was on Austria-Hungary.
By the way - the main losses in East Prussia are prisoners. Of which after the war no one would have condemned and attracted. For treason.

[svp67]

Quote: Pissarro

The author is right, more officers served in the Red Army voluntarily than in the white and this is a fact

Do you understand the difference between VOLUNTARY and MOBILIZED?

[Pissarro]

I understand that after the Poles attack, it was VOLUNTARY that the tsarist officers who had evaded the civil war massively arrived in the Red Army. The defense of the Motherland is holy. And note, Trotsky with all his mobilization could not get as many officers in the Red Army as the Polish attack

[Vishnevsky]

Before the revolution, there was a great stratification between officers and soldiers. My friend's great-grandfather in the Navy served in the 17th year, so he told me that they threw officers overboard at best. And the Red Army was formed mainly of workers and peasants, so it was hard for them to accept the bourgeoisie into their ranks. About the same situation is now looming. Officers become smaller, but only those with no database experience. Some pathos ...

[veksha50]

No need now to dance on the bones ... Civil war is a terrible thing ...

And now it’s also difficult for us to judge after many times ...

However, after this phrase: "And their junior comrades, such as: Colonel B. M. Shaposhnikov, captains A. M. Vasilevsky and F. I. Tolbukhin, second lieutenant L. A. Govorov, became Marshals of the Soviet Union "...

I would like to remind you of the brutally tortured Lieutenant General Karbyshev, who was taken personally to Hitler during the Second World War after his capture, during which he (Hitler) invited Karbyshev to head the Military Engineering Academy (well, it seems he won’t directly fight against his own) , to which he refused and then in the cold with other prisoners of war was flooded with ice water ...

There were many of them ... different ... Many "whites" in France fought against the Germans and wished victory for the USSR ...

And someone was atrocious ...

A lot of time has passed ... It’s better not to touch ... THIS - Russia has a sore spot ...

[sabakina]

Quote: veksha50

A lot of time has passed ... It’s better not to touch ... THIS - Russia has a sore spot ...

There is no sore spot in Russia! NO!
Citizen is bad. BUT, when some want to be rude, while others live and work freely? ...
No comrade, we must and must remember the civil one and transmit it not over the Internet, but by word of mouth! Yes, the "rich" will talk about the White Guyade movement, and ordinary people about the red ...
P.S. and finally, greetings to Alexander Romanov from a Komsomol member who did not have time to become a member of the CPSU! ...

[veksha50]

Quote: sabakina

There is no sore spot in Russia! NO!
Citizen is bad. BUT, when some want to be rude, while others live and work freely? ...

Here the problem is this ... the topic of the article is somehow linked to what happened at US in the 90s ... And again there were those from the Soviet-party elite who quickly "changed their colors" - "adhered", and there were and are those who still have not accepted the consensual crap ... I'm not just talking about some white tape, but about normal people, in general ...

In general, the topic is rather complicated and I will repeat it again - it’s sick for Russia until at least my generation dies out ... The generation that the Tagged dog called lost ...

PS Now, today, I wouldn’t even raise this topic ... brother to brother, son to father, and as a result of the massacre, they take advantage of other, unworthy ...

And the current "analysts" and "historians" ... To read them is to become a fool and not respect yourself ... For example, I will cite such a "historian" Shirokorad, who writes 8-12 historical (!!!) opuses a year, and - quite readable ... Could you, even with full access to the archives, shovel and rethink so many materials, and even write a historical work ???

Now, raising such questions here, it seems to me that they again want to push brother to brother ...
Civil war is our story ... A terrible story ... And God forbid that it does not happen again ...

[veksha50]

Quote: sabakina

Yes, the "rich" will talk about the White Guyade movement, and ordinary people about the red ...

Yes, I forgot to add that I am very ridiculous in the fact that we had a lot of supposedly noblemen, tossing them into a swing ... And the first of them is Mykita Mykhalkov ...

[sabakina]

I’ll tell you more ... My great-great-great owned in Kostroma a couple of shops in the ranks in the city center ... And what? Well, it was and was. No need to think, as if it were, it is necessary to think how to be further ...
I’m thinking everything, but would we be born, writing here on the VO website, if it weren’t for the October Revolution? ... the story of a lady is ...

[yurta2015]

Quote: sabakina

I’m thinking everything, but would we be born, writing here on the VO website, if it weren’t for the October Revolution? ... the story of a lady is ...

The birth or unborn of children is a delicate and difficult to predict business. It depends not only on the twists and turns of history, but also on the slightest changes in the personal fate of each individual person, even in peacetime itself. We would not be born, others would be born.

[dmi.pris1]

With the author, and an anonymous one, I do not agree with everything. Both the Bolsheviks and the White movement had their own heroes and traitors. And about Yudenich, in general, a complete lie about orientation and abilities. Suffice it to recall 1915 - the Transcaucasian Front had the Turks as they wanted, surrounded, arranged landing operations on the coast. On the side of the Reds there were indeed many nobles. The author forgot about the war hero, General Brusilov, he taught at the academy, then he was an inspector. General Krasnov fought with the Whites, who turned out to be a villain, he actively supported the Nazis, and Denikin categorically refused to support Hitler ... Everyone was "your honors."

[Konstantm]

The main thing is that they won the Civil and Patriotic War so ineptly ... in the 90s. And happiness was so close and so possible.

[Reserve officer]

Quote: Pissarro

Tukhachevsky was shot for a specific crime, an attempted military coup, and not for the fact that he served in the tsarist army

The response of the representative of victims of the exam. Sadly ...

[Pissarro]

It’s not sad that people like you climbed and spat on the red period of our history.

[Reserve officer]

Accurate cornering. To assess the history of the country, you need several qualities, the main ones are love for your country and a desire to get to the roots.
And from your comments it does not blow. The content of the latest TV show "Novosti" is enough for you, judging by the depth of your questions.

[Pissarro]

the first language you have passed into the language of veiled insults. And from the news program in these times you will not hear the positive words about the red side of the Civil War, but your point of view (or the one that you supported) with millions of innocent tortured officers is constantly broadcast on zombies

So past

[Reserve officer]

And now, without irony.
There is such a publication - "Execution lists. - M, 1995. Issue 2. Vagankovskoe cemetery". There are no comments, only information. The burials of former tsarist officers date back to 1929. All - former specialists of the Red Army, heads of departments, industry, teachers of military schools. All were shot.
Seriously, read it.

[Corsair5912]

There were no execution lists, this is a dirty invention of the Liberals worked out in "perestroika" for idiots with ram brains.
All photocopies of the lists presented on the network are unambiguously primitive profane fakes, worked by half-educated people who have never seen official closed documents and who have no idea about paperwork in the USSR.
ALL tsarist officers, teachers and leaders who honestly served the Fatherland normally resigned by age and died of old age.
http://topwar.ru/23528-oficery-i-gen...espubliki.html

[sabakina]

Pissarro, at first I thought you were a whit ... It turns out ours ...

[Corsair5912]

I graduated from the school for 40 years before the introduction of the USE, but I agree that Tukhachevsky was sentenced for attempting a military coup in the USSR and for his connection with Hitler's intelligence.
The conspiracy of losers and mediocrities of the military is not an invention of the NKVD, and the nickname "Napoleon" was given to Tukhachevsky not only for his appearance.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

In addition, Tukhachevsky did so much that mom did not cry

[bydanoff.val]

That's right. They didn’t live for profit.

[garhail]

Quote: svp67

On September 5, 1918, the institution of hostage officially appeared in Soviet Russia, legalized by order of the head of the NKVD, G. I. Petrovsky.

Why, the NKVD appeared in 1918 ?. And it always seemed to me that later ... Enlighten ignorance.

[Pissarro]

he appeared the day after the October Revolution, in 1917. And 2 days later, on November 10, the police were created. Now this is the day of the police

[Pissarro]

Interestingly, the date of the formation of the NKVD of the RSFSR does not seem to be a secret, like the Soviet police. Where do minuscule people come from who disagree with reality? from the parallel world?

[Captain45]

Quote: garhail

Why, the NKVD appeared in 1918 ?. And it always seemed to me that later ...

NKVD - People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs. After the Great October Socialist Revolution, the old tsarist-bourgeois machine of governance was demolished. Instead of ministries and departments (as by the way at the present time), people's commissariats were formed - communications, food, finance, etc. including internal affairs. You seem to have gotten so screaming about the repressions of the NKVD that except for the 1937 year of the NKVD you have nothing to do with anything else. You need to teach history and listen to the Svanidze-Melechins.

[Kilo-11]

Civil war is a terrible thing and very wrong in its essence. Each side has its own truth, for me personally, "white" is closer, maybe the matter is in origin, or maybe because a military man in his life takes an oath only once and should be it is faithful to the end without any free reading. The author of the article is minus, especially for the extreme sentence: "For the most part, these are punitive ...", etc. I do not remember, whether in 1992 or 1993, one of my colleagues said , I try to quote verbatim- "It's a pity that General Kornilov is not on the Don now, otherwise he would have rushed without hesitation." This officer's dad had a Soviet general.

[bydanoff.val]

But Soviet officers denied the oath easily. It was sickening to look at the last All-Army meeting, which was led by Shaposhnikov. This was the last chance to save the USSR.

[Dry_T-50]

Quote: bydanoff.val

It was sickening to look at the last All-Army meeting, which was led by Shaposhnikov. This was the last chance to save the USSR.

What kind of Shaposhnikov are you talking about? The one that Boris Mikhailovich was one of the greatest commanders of his time. The one that Yevgeny Ivanovich, Gorbachev’s addict, therefore could not and did not want to save the USSR

[bydanoff.val]

Naturally a hangman, there was no other at that time.

[Kilo-11]

Well, let's say no one renounced the oath, who did not want to serve the new government quit, and the officers who remained to serve in the Russian Federation did not take the oath again and did not intend to accept it, for us it was a matter of principle. the former Soviet Republics took the oath again. Further, if you served during the Soviet era, you must remember that the text of the Soviet Oath contained the following words: "... to be loyal to your People ...", i.e. to all peoples living in the USSR and in the RSFSR, including. So in this sense, no one broke the oath. Yes, the text of the oath goes on to say about loyalty to the Soviet Motherland and the Soviet Government. Yes, here you can reproach us that we did not save the Soviet The Motherland and the Soviet Government, even if I agree in part, but alas, in 1991 there was no General L. Kornilov who could lead a movement or a rebellion, call it what you want, to save the Soviet power. And I dare to assure you, if in 1991 year would have found such a military leader, then many officers would have followed him, but alas, or perhaps fortunately, since there would have been a civil war on the scale of the entire USSR, and not separate military conflicts on the fragments of the Empire, as it was at that time ...

[bydanoff.val]

By the way, Kornilov was too weak for a leader - an unfortunate example. The question is not whether it was possible to keep the USSR, let's say by military means, even the Baltic states, where there were the most cowardly leaders (as proved by the State Emergency Committee), but WHAT to do next ??? Only one GARLO PLAN, and universal training, and so on, which only cost the BOLSHEVIKOV. And what the Kornilovs could offer - the war for the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. This is the problem now. Apart from cheating and theft, there are no successful ideas. Leaders such as Lenin and Stalin in the History of Humanity can be counted on one hand.

[yurta2015]

Quote: Kilo-11

either in 1992 or 1993, one of my colleagues said, I try to quote verbatim- "It's a pity that General Kornilov is not on the Don now, otherwise I would have rushed without hesitation"

And against whom would this officer fight on the Don? Really, like Kornilov, against the Bolsheviks (communists)?

[Kilo-11]

The question is interesting, so sorry without comment.

[garhail]

Summary. Lies are too much, the truth is not enough. Of course, a part, and a considerable one, of the officers of the tsarist army faithfully served Russia, the other part - the despicable and deceitful Entente (the present is confirmation of this). The fact that at the beginning there were brutal repressions could not have been otherwise (just imagine what would have happened if the Whites had defeated the Reds - the same thing, if not worse). The main thing is different, it was necessary to preserve Russia, as Stalin made it, and not give it up to be torn apart by all kinds of Trotskyists and liberals. After all, all our "rulers", starting with Khrushchev, are pure Trotskyists. It was they who destroyed Russia for three decades (it was not possible before, too strong a structure was built by Comrade Stalin; I am from Riga - Stalinist houses still stand like monuments of Eternity; not a single house has been destroyed; liberals fight for housing in Stalin ) We are waiting for a new messiah. Desirable, no worse than Stalin . Some people need not only to be repressed, but I absolutely need liberals, for example

[Corsair5912]

all the same, the Reds won in that fight, and after all the “elite” fought not only against Russia, but also the strongest powers of that time.

It turned out that the people of Russia are not only workers and peasants, but nobles too.

[garhail]

Quote: Corsair5912

all the same, the Reds won in that fight, and after all the “elite” fought not only against Russia, but also the strongest powers of that time.

It turned out that the people of Russia are not only workers and peasants, but nobles too.

Of course, how else? Where did science and engineering personnel come from? Reds were atheists

[starshina pv]

in how wound up, minuscule people, they immediately remembered the whole story!

[Reserve officer]

Alexey, God bless you. This is just an "agree - disagree" form. Not everyone wants to argue with reason.
I've honestly read all the comments - adults, in years. His life experience, therefore, opinions are quite contradictory.
And how can our children deal with all of this, what do they say in history lessons?
A request to the admins of VO - is it possible to post on the website any materials from modern history textbooks on this topic?

[Nikoha.2010]

Quote: Stock Officer

But is it possible to post on the site any materials from modern history textbooks on this topic?

Alexey I wish you good health! I still have the "Book of Future Commanders"! A. Mityaev, artist D. Grodman. The son read!

[Reserve officer]

Sergey, welcome! The famous book. Her father gave me when I became a pioneer. And it was in the 1971 year. Only now, with moving from the garrison to the garrison, I touched somewhere.

[Nikoha.2010]

Quote: Stock Officer

Only with moving from the garrison to the garrison.

Alexey It is difficult to convey, but the words "from garrison to garrison", as I understand you !!!!!! I spent all my childhood on the "lap" of a soldier. In 1985, for the first time Dad took me to the night shooting, I will never forget. I really don’t envy the soldier who cleaned the AK. Then there were parachute jumps, an attempt to enter the RVVDKU (Ryazan), training as a mechanic of the MTLB driver, SA- (Transnistria). Disappointment and from the words of the father "zasa.l" to act a second time.
He went to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, something like that, Could write in a personal, let everyone read!

[sabakina]

Quote: starshina pv

in how wound up, minuscule people, they immediately remembered the whole story!

Do you know why? At the end of the shaggy 90s and early 2000s, I asked our employee with a higher legal education: "Why don't they show films about the civil war on Central Television:? About Lenin, Chapaev, Kotovsky, Shchors, etc.?"
- You can’t incite discord between .... (between whom, I still don’t understand, but he himself comes from Kazakhstan, Uralsk, WHICH THE RUSSIAN FOUNDED), and left there. Guess two times why?
Got played in liberalism, and now we have what we have ...

[Rarog]

In general, the author is right, but still he is a little disingenuous:

So none of our heroes was subjected to repression, everyone died their own death (of course, except for those who fell on the fronts of the Civil War) in glory and honor.

Vladimir Olderogge was arrested on December 7, 1930 in the Vesna case, in which several thousand other former officers (+ civilians) of the Red Army who had previously served in the Russian Imperial Army were arrested. By the verdict of the Military Collegium of the OGPU of May 20, 1931 under Art. 58 pp. 2, 11 sentenced to capital punishment. Shot on May 27, 1931 in Kharkov. True, not all of those arrested were shot or sentenced to "camps", there were those who were acquitted and released.

[Rarog]

Quote: Aleksander

Quote: Rarog

Shot on 27 on May 1931 of the year in Kharkov.

Got deserved "reward". It's a pity it's too late.

I did not say that it was not deserved, I just said that the author made a mistake in his text. Well, if you are so true to the truth, even if you don’t like it, then it’s very sorry.

[Aleksander]

Quote: Rarog

Shot on 27 on May 1931 of the year in Kharkov.

Got deserved "reward". It's a pity it's too late.

[garhail]

And anyway, what are we breaking spears? Yes, the story is extremely important, but the main thing is how we relate to it. And we have only one criterion - OUR FUTURE, T, E, FUTURE OF RUSSIA, and everything else does not matter.

[parusnik]

What is the civil war in Russia? Basically, the struggle of supporters of the Soviet regime against nationalist separatists - Ukrainian, Belarusian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Armenian, Baltic, Finnish, Central Asian, Don, Kuban .. Roughly speaking, for a single and not divisible .. And Russia began to fall apart just under the Provisional government ..

[Pissarro]

The main fights were nevertheless between the Russians on both sides, therefore it is called civilian

[parusnik]

The Civil War is an organized armed struggle for state power between classes and social groups within the country .. Which, incidentally, was fought not only in the territory of the former Russian Empire, but also in the territory of neighboring states - Iran (Enzeli operation) ...

[parusnik]

Minus nationalists set? Of those who now do not mind ruining Russia .. like the predecessors from the Provisional?

[yurta2015]

Quote: parusnik

What is the civil war in Russia? Basically, the struggle of the supporters of Soviet power against the separatist nationalists -

And what, Denikin, Kolchak, Kornilov were separatists? And I thought that they fought for the One and the Indivisible? Denikin did not even want to ally with Pilsudski, since he still considered Poland to be part of Russia. The same is Kolchak, who postponed any questions about the territory and structure of Russia until the convocation of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly in Moscow, liberated from the Bolsheviks. And under the interim government, not a single region was separated from Russia. Ukraine and Finland demanded (or rather requested) only autonomy.

[Thompson]

Quote: sent-onere

author, tell me, if there was no repression, then where did all these 75000 former officers of the Russian Empire go? All of them died, exceptionally, without having survived their thirties?
Do you think that someone will believe in this nonsense?
By the way, who wrote this article, and where can you get acquainted with other "works" of this greyhound? ))

No Mlyn, everyone should have become generals and marshals, and about every entry in history!
Sami then what rubbish ??? Or do you have lists of who, where, how ... ???

[Ragoz]

One common epigraph can be attributed to many films about the Civil War and the Second World War released on screens after 1988 and their creators: "I saw the war only in a dream, but here my fantasies on the topic ..."

[moskowit]

The most complete and interesting work on this topic, many serious historians and researchers of the Civil War and the formation of the Red Army refer to it, Kavtoradze Alexander Grigorievich "Military specialists in the service of the Republic of the Soviets 1917-1920." Can be found on the Historical Materials website.
By the way, very respected Stalin, Marshal Govorov, served in the Civil War from October 1918 to November 1919 in the army of Admiral Kolchak, and the classic of Soviet literature Valentin Kataev was a Denikin officer ... This is so, for reflection and awareness of the pre-war time ... Not so everything is unambiguous, as the defamators of our pre-war history interpret ...

[TsUS-Air Force]

shoot komunyak for treason and a coup d'etat! to shoot all those who betrayed their homeland and emigrated from Russia. all are to blame both red and white. some betrayed the rebels, others betrayed by running away and having thrown !!! the great-great-grandson of an officer of the Peter and Paul Fortress — I have the honor!

[Double major]

Still, it is customary to treat the aforementioned officers of the Empire as traitors. “You swore allegiance to the Motherland, and betrayed!” ... It is clear that the Bolsheviks, after the coup, financed by the Brits, and the Kaiser Wilhelm's General Staff, who received the assistance of the General Staff of Kaiser Wilhelm in organizing underground work, urgently needed to organize their army country at that time was not. The material for washing the dirt does not channel.

[Double major]

A simple example from the present.
A significant part of the officers of the Iraqi army went over to the side of the Wahhabis - "revolutionaries of Islam", which subverted the very foundations of this religion of the sect, created by the Britons to fight the French in the colonies, back in the 19th century. And the officer corps of the Syrian Arab Army has rallied around its leader, Bashshar Khafisovich Al-Assad, and is opposed to outside interference. Yes, Syria is losing territory, has casualties in people and military equipment, has a negative image in gamerope and / is not printed / camp (like the USA). But to me personally, they are closer than the regular Iraqi officer, a former friend of the USSR.

[parusnik]

Quote: yurta2015

And what, Denikin, Kolchak, Kornilov were separatists?

..along with England, the USA, Japan, France .. Germany .. they fought for a united Russia ..? .. The Don army of Krasnov, the "volunteers" were called German prostitutes .. The Don army was on the military allowance of Germany .. the Germans passed the trophy weapons of the Russian army .. And actually for whom Denikin, Kolchak, and others fought for those who overthrew the tsar in February, who from February to October destroyed the empire and the army ..? And then, while Kolchak, Denikin and the fight ... fought for "democratic" Russia ... the Entente countries were engaged in ... open robbery of Russia ... And here's the result: on November 26, 1996, Russia and France signed a memorandum on the settlement of the debt of tsarist Russia. On May 27, 1997, the agreement was ratified. In turn, the Russian side committed itself not to support those associated with the intervention of 1918-1922. claims regarding all assets located in France, including that part of the gold that was transferred by the government of the RSFSR to Germany at the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, and gold transferred to France by Admiral Kolchak. The broad Russian soul ...

[strannik1985]

Quote: iliitch

19th-century demographers assumed that by the year 2000, the population of the Russian Empire would be approximately 600 million. The stupid arrogance of the nobility and dissatisfaction with the life of the NON-nobles led the country to 140 million. But these are not figures on a piece of paper ... During the Gorbachev region, the Shevardnaz region, the country lost more population than during the Great Patriotic War. Because of the unborn. There you go.

Did demographers take into account the reasons for the sharp population growth in the village? The community disposed of the land, when the child was born, the family received the allotment, and when they died, the allotment was taken (there were no redistributions in a quarter of the communities). On average, a fundamental redistribution occurred once every 12 years. There were peasant women giving birth up to 14 times. Think just like that?

[strannik1985]

Quote: Aleksander

Quote: 6 inches

oh I doubt ... they were in power, what was going well?every year in the provinces hunger was.

There was a terrible famine with millions of victims more than once AFTER the October Revolution. And there existed State and public systems for combating hunger, which managed to completely stop the consequences of the famine years by the 20 century. Read, this is interesting ....

I wonder why Blockhouse and Efron disagree with you?
The first place in mortality from infectious diseases (scarlet fever, typhoid, influenza ...), mass illness of syphilis, terrible infant mortality (40% of deaths in 1901-children under 1 year, 38% in 1910-EMNIP 298,3 per 1000, Denmark -93 per 1000), physical degradation of peasants (by the end of the 19th century, the average height of 165 cm) and a decrease in the Orthodox population against the background of an increase in the number of other peoples of the Empire (funny against the background of the slogan: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality"), redemption payments-according to K To Marx, the former state peasants paid an average of 92,7% of income from the land in taxes and taxes, the former landlords - 198% (with a small allotment of up to 275%) - canceled the redemption payments only after the mass protests of 1905-07. Is it any wonder that in 1905-1907 there was a blaze in the village?

[Aleksander]

Quote: strannik1985

I wonder why Blockhouse and Efron disagree with you?

About hunger, in what? At the end of the 19-beginning of the 20-th century in Russia, government agencies took measures to prevent starvation mortality:
1. this is the creation and maintenance of the system of the Common Imperial food capital, benefits and subsidies to the victims of hunger, medical care, and other measures of varying degrees of emergency;

3. The public was involved in assisting the victims, which caused in the Russian Empire 1890-1910's widespread development of the charity movement;

4. Active and timely efforts of the state and society allowed protect people from starvation. Mortality from starvation in lean years (1897-98, 1901-02, 1905-07, 1911-12) not fixed neither by Russian pre-revolutionary, nor Soviet, nor Russian post-Soviet historians and demographers.

After the October Revolution, hunger claimed millions of lives.

[fejnman]

The misinformation I noticed in this article
1. "And who would entrust the command to a potential traitor? Only a few of the officers were betrayed. But they commanded insignificant forces and are sad, but still an exception. Most honestly performed their duty and selflessly fought both with the Entente and with their own "Brothers" in class. They acted as befits true patriots of their homeland. "
It is enough to take the statistics of the executed marshals, commanders of the 1st and 2nd rank, etc. The numbers vary “out of 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union - 3 were shot, out of 5 commanders of the 1st rank - all five, out of 12 commanders of the 2nd rank - all 12, out of 2 army commissars of the 1st rank - both, out of 12 army commissars 2 rank - all 12, out of 67 corpsmen - 60, etc. " But any "softest" statistics tell us about the obvious fallacy of the above thesis.


2. "... So none of our heroes were subjected to repression, all died a natural death (of course, except for those who fell on the fronts of the Civil War) in glory and honor."
Mentioned above "...." Red Baron "- Vladimir Aleksandrovich Olderogge (also a hereditary nobleman, Major General of the Imperial Army), from August 1919 to January 1920, the commander of the Eastern Front of the Reds, - finished off the White Guards in the Urals and as a result liquidated Kolchak ... "
This baron was shot in 1931 in the "Spring" case.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%EB%FC%E4%E5%F0%EE%E3%E3%E5,_%C2%EB%E0%E4%E8%EC
%E8%F0_%C0%EB%E5%EA%F1%E0%ED%E4%F0%EE%E2%E8%F7#cite_note-1

3. "... Malinin's howls about the lieutenants Golitsins and the Obolensky cornets are just fiction. They did not exist in nature ..." The very first refuting example is easy to find in 30 seconds of search - Vladimir Vladimirovich Galitsin, colonel, later general - an active participant and major military commander of the Russian army. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%EE%EB%E8%F6%FB%ED,_%C2%EB%E0%E4%E8%EC%E8%F0_%C
2%E0%F1%E8%EB%FC%E5%E2%E8%F7

I did not look further for mistakes. I think the assessment of this article is obvious

[strannik1985]

[quote = Aleksander] [quote = strannik1985] I wonder why Blockhouse and Efron disagree with you? [/ quote]

About hunger, in what? At the end of the 19-beginning of the 20-th century in Russia, government agencies took measures to prevent starvation mortality:


In that.
. In 1872, the first Samara famine erupted, which struck precisely that province, which until then was considered the richest breadbasket of Russia. And after the famine of 1891, encompassing the enormous region of 29 years, the lower Volga region is constantly suffering from hunger: during the XX century. Samara province went hungry for 8 times, Saratovskaya 9. Over the past thirty years, the largest hunger strikes date back to 1880 (the Lower Volga region, part of the primeval and New Russian governorates) and by 1885 (New Russia and part of the non-blackish governorates from Kaluga to P); then, following the famine of 1891, the famine of 1892 occurred in the central and southeastern provinces, the hunger strike of 1897 and 98. approximately in the same area; in the XX century famine of 1901 in 17 provinces of the center, south and east, hunger strike of 1905 (22 provinces, including four non-black soil, Pskov, Novgorod, Vitebsk, Kostroma), which opens up a whole series of hunger strikes: 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1911 . (mainly Eastern, central governorates, New Russia)

But this is only a consequence, what are the reasons? For example, during the Time of Troubles, with abnormal 2 consecutive lean years, starvation occurred only in the third year.
And the reasons are in the conditions of land use. Taxes in the amount of 92,7% -275% of income from land (now taxes equal to 40% or more are considered prohibitive). Already in 1881 the redemption payment was reduced to 1 ruble from 2,5 rubles. on average per person "thanks" to huge arrears and massive abandonment of land plots.
Even in the harvest years, bread was diluted with quinoa and other surrogates.
http://ihistorian.livejournal.com/524070.html
Debt bondage of peasants in the 1890s.
I publish an article from the populist magazine "Russian wealth":

G. Uspensky. The rules of the Samara Zemstvo // Russian wealth. 1892. No3.C. 235-244.

Another problem is illiteracy. Thanks to the well-known circular of the Minister of Education Delyanov (during the reign of Alexander III) "0 cook's children", access to education for people from the class of peasants and bourgeois was blocked. And although in 1911-1914, the circular did not actually work, nevertheless, out of 119000 people who studied in gymnasiums, people from peasant families accounted for 18000 people (15,12%). The barrier was the structure of education - primary education was not enough to continue education, or home schooling, or in a number of private or public educational institutions (the number of which is limited), in some cases for money. Primary education did not provide knowledge of anatomy, hygiene, and due to this, in the very collapse of the Empire and the first time after it, there were traditions like "nipple" from bread crumb or "gum" from it. Is it any wonder that out of every 1000 newborns under the age of 1 year in Russia, 263 children died? (Sweden-70 children under 1 year, England-108, USA-112)

[strannik1985]

Read more.
According to statistics, in 1913, more than 12 million people (7,26% of the population) in Russia were hit by epidemics of cholera, diphtheria, anthrax, and scabies. Another 9 million people suffered from malaria, trachoma, whooping cough, etc. In total, there were 21877869 people (13,2% of the country's population) of chronic patients with infectious diseases.
Russia ranked first in terms of mortality from infectious diseases (smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhoid)
Scarlet fever: 1-place - Russia - 134,8 people., 2-place - Hungary - 52,4 people. 3-place - Romania - 52,3 people.
Measles: 1. Russia - 106,2 people. 2nd Spain - 45 people 3rd Hungary - 43,5 people The lowest mortality from measles is Norway - 6 people, in impoverished Romania - 13 people.
Typhoid: 1. Russia - 91,0 people. 2. Italy - 28,4 people. 3. Hungary - 28,0 people. The smallest in Europe - Norway - 4 people.
Whooping cough: 1. Russia - 80,9 people. 2. Scotland - 43,3 pax 3. Austria - 38,4 people.
Smallpox: 1. Russia - 50,8 people. 2. Spain - 17,4 people 3. Italy - 1,4 people
Diphtheria: 1. Russia - 64,0 people. 2. Hungary - 39,8 people. 3rd place in mortality - Austria - 31,4 people Romania, the world leader in wealth and industrialization, only recently got rid of the Turkish yoke - 5,8 people.
These are all the consequences of the systematic consumption of bread with surrogates and malnutrition of other products. According to statistics from the Military Department, 40% of recruits tried meat for the first time in the army.

At the exit, the average life expectancy of 32,9 years by 1913 (from 1909-1911-29 years) -England-52 years, France-50 years, Germany-49 years, average European-49 years, the average growth of conscripts by the end of the 19th century-165 see, a decline in the Orthodox population in the Empire amid growing numbers of other peoples.

After the October Revolution, hunger claimed millions of lives. [/ Quote]
In a relatively calm time (relatively, because there was a grain war in the country), there was a major famine only in 1932-1933, the rest was military or post-war devastation multiplied by drought (for example, the hunger strike of 1921-1925 or the famine of 1946).

[Opera]

Here you read the local reds and whites and such terrible pictures are drawn, which is completely incomprehensible how in general tsarist Russia lasted until the great October without dying from disease and hunger, and how, after 1917, it did not shoot itself from hopelessness ?! There is no right in a fratricidal civil war. And the guilty ones who always catch fish in troubled waters - and the tsar's entourage and the eternally "wise" liberating supranational intelligentsia and professional revolutionaries - are sent commissars and generally not Russian Chekists and ... So even the White Guard with imperial officers who are for their faith , the king and the fatherland should not be confused! Before the October Revolution there was actually the February revolution - bourgeois if anyone has forgotten, and posters on the streets of St. Petersburg depicting our peasant in an embrace with an American cowboy and the inscription - two brothers democrat! How do you like this?! So, that fans would like to argue - horseradish red white radish is not sweeter! And Russia has always existed as an empire, even if you call the USSR, even though the Russian Federation and the head of our state have always been a tsar in whom the Russian people have always believed, he was called the general secretary or the president ... And democracy for us is laughter and self-indulgence. And this is correct because for the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland or for the Motherland for Stalin! How else?! The essence is the same! Catch the debaters ?!

[vdilyin]

Good stuff. Thanks.

Both white and red at one time tried a lot to bring the facts presented in this article into oblivion and prevent their publication and discussion.

And, of course, all this contributes to the falsification of Russian history.

[Ravest]

Quote: yurta2015

Quote: Yuri Davydov

The atrocities were on all sides, just at the Reds they were many times less!

Are you sure at times? Who counted this? In Soviet times, historians did not even dare to stutter about this. And today there’s no one to ask. In the documents of their atrocities, of course, neither white nor red were recorded.

American General W. Graves "In Eastern Siberia
horrible murders were committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks, as is usually thought. I will not be mistaken if I say that in Eastern Siberia for every person killed by the Bolsheviks, there were one hundred people killed by anti-Bolshevik elements "(p. 174)

[Ravest]

Quote: NOC-VVS

shoot komunyak for treason and a coup d'etat! to shoot all those who betrayed their homeland and emigrated from Russia. all are to blame both red and white. some betrayed the rebels, others betrayed by running away and having thrown !!! the great-great-grandson of an officer of the Peter and Paul Fortress — I have the honor!

We’ll start shooting a fool with you, since you didn’t understand anything and you probably won’t understand!