Military Review

"Peace" Bolsheviks

38
The strength of the Bolsheviks in October was the ability to preserve party unity, despite significant differences. For the time being, the Bolsheviks always managed to settle conflicts, avoiding a split in the face of numerous opponents.



Petrograd. Autumn 1917 of the year. Photo by J. Steinberg


The clearest example is the conflict around the position of Grigori Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, which they occupied in October 1917. Then they opposed the resolution of Vladimir Lenin on the armed uprising and even reported on the upcoming event in the Menshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn. Lenin reacted to this very harshly, declaring “betrayal.” There was even a question of excluding the "traitors", but everything was limited to the prohibition to make official statements. This “October episode” (as Lenin described it in his “Political Testament”) is well known. A little less aware of the disagreements on the eve of the coup itself.

The Military Revolutionary Committee (WRC), formed by the Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries, carried out an enormous amount of work (in particular, took control of the Petrograd garrison), creating the basis for the final seizure of power. But the Central Committee was not in a hurry to carry it out. A kind of “wait-and-see” approach prevailed there. This situation, Joseph Stalin described October 24 as follows:

“Within the WRC, there are two currents: 1) immediate uprising, 2) to concentrate forces first. The Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) joined 2. ”

The party leadership was inclined to think that it was necessary to first convene a congress of Soviets and put strong pressure on its delegates in order to replace the Provisional Government with a new, revolutionary one. However, the “temporary” were supposed to be overthrown only after the decision of the congress. Then, according to Leon Trotsky, the question of the uprising will turn from “political” into purely “policeman”.

Lenin was categorically against such tactics. He himself was outside Smolny, where he was not allowed. It seems that the leadership did not want the presence of Lenin at the headquarters of the uprising, because he was against the tactics he had chosen. October 24 Lenin several times sent letters to Smolny demanding to put him there. And each time he received a refusal. In the end, he lost his temper, exclaiming: “I do not understand them. What are they afraid of? ”

Then Lenin decided to act "over the head" of the Central Committee and turn directly to the grassroots organizations. He wrote a brief but energetic appeal to the members of the Petrograd Committee of the RSDLP (b). It began like this: “Comrades! I write these lines in the evening of 24, the situation is extremely critical. It is clearer that now, truly, the delay in the uprising is like death. With all my strength I persuade my comrades that now everything hangs in the balance, that issues that are not solved by meetings are decided next, not by congresses (even if by congresses of Soviets), but exclusively by peoples, the masses, the struggle of the armed masses ”. (By the way, while discussing the issue of Brest peace, Lenin, remaining in the minority, threatened the Central Committee that he would turn directly to the party masses. And, obviously, then many remembered his appeal to the PK.)

"Peace" Bolsheviks

Red Guard factory "Volcano"


Then Lenin, with a wave of his hand to ban the Central Committee, went to Smolny, wearing a wig and tying up a tooth bandage. His appearance immediately changed the balance of power. Well, the support of the Petrograd Committee decided the whole thing. VRK launched an offensive, while the uprising itself entered a crucial phase. Why did Ilyich be in such a hurry, speaking out against the "flexible", "legitimist" plan of his associates?

“From 21 to 23 in October, Lenin watched with satisfaction the success of the Revolutionary Command Committee in the fight against the Petrograd military district for control of the garrison of the capital,” writes the historian Alexander Rabinovich. “However, unlike Trotsky, he viewed these victories not as a gradual process of undermining the power of the Provisional Government, which, if successful, could lead to a relatively painless transfer of power to the Soviets at the Congress of Soviets, but only as a prelude to a popular armed uprising. And each new day only confirmed his previous conviction that the best opportunity to create a government under the leadership of the Bolsheviks would be the immediate seizure of power by force; he believed that waiting for the opening of the congress would simply provide more time for preparing the forces and fraught with the threat of creating a hesitant congress at best in a conciliatory socialist coalition government "(" Bolsheviks take power: the 1917 Revolution in Petrograd ").

Indeed, Lenin doubted the courage and radicalism of the majority of delegates. They might be scared to decide on the removal of the Provisional Government. As befits a real politician, Lenin was a good psychologist and understood the most important thing perfectly. It’s one thing when you are asked to get involved in the struggle for power, and it’s quite another when you bring it “on a silver platter”.



There was also no particular radicalism among the masses, the support of which might be required at the time of the congress and when it decided to remove the Provisional Government. On October 15, a meeting of the Petrograd Committee was held, at which the Bolshevik leadership was expecting an unpleasant surprise. In total, 19 representatives of district organizations spoke. Of these, only 8 reported on the fighting mood of the masses. At the same time, 6 representatives noted the apathy of the masses, and 5 simply stated that people are not ready to speak. Of course, the functionaries took action to mobilize the masses, but it is clear that in a week a radical change was impossible. This is confirmed by the fact that October 24 "was not organized a single mass demonstration, as was the case in February and July, which was considered to be the signal for the beginning of the last battle between leftist forces and the government" ("Bolsheviks come to power") .

If the Congress of Soviets gave up the slack, if endless debates and the search for compromises began, then the radical anti-Bolshevik elements could perk up and become more active. And they had enough strength. At that time, the 1, 4 and 14 Don regiments, as well as the 6 Cossack artillery battery, were in Petrograd at that time. (We should not forget about the 3-m cavalry corps of General Peter Krasnov, who was near Petrograd.) There is evidence that on October XOXX the Cossacks were preparing a large-scale military-political action. Then the Cossack procession was planned, timed to the 22 anniversary of the liberation of Moscow from Napoleon. And to make it the Cossacks thought, as always, with weapons. It is significant that the route to the Kazan Cathedral ran through the Liteiny Bridge, the Vyborg side and Vasilyevsky Island. Cossacks walked past the train stations, the telegraph, the telephone station and the post office. Moreover, the route passed by Smolny. Note that a different route was originally planned.

The authorities banned the Cossack move, apparently fearing that the right-wing forces would become more active. (Kerensky and Co. talked about the “right of Bolshevism.”) And this prohibition caused Lenin's joy: “The cancellation of the demonstration of the Cossacks is a gigantic victory! Hooray! Go out of our way and we will win quite a few days. ” October 25 Cossacks refused to support the "temporary" at the crucial moment, when they learned that the infantry units did not support the government. But after all, they could also change their decision if the Congress of Soviets were engaged in a meaningless talking shop.

Lenin magnificently calculated all the risks and nevertheless insisted that the armed uprising should take place just before the congress. This expressed his iron political will. And the leadership of the Bolsheviks showed the ability to compromise their ambitions and find a way out of acute conflict situations. In this way it compares favorably with other party leaderships.

As noted above, Lenin did not rush Russia at all with the implementation of socialist transformations. Historian Anatoly Butenko asked about this quite reasonable question: “Why, immediately after the April party conferences, Lenin declares that he does not stand for the immediate escalation of the ongoing bourgeois revolution into a socialist one? Why he answers to such an accusation of L. Kamenev: “This is not true. I not only do not count on the immediate degeneration of our revolution into a socialist revolution, but directly warn against it, I directly state in the thesis No. 8: “Not the“ introduction ”of socialism as our immediate task, but the transition immediately (!) To control the DDS (Council of Workers) Deputies. - A.E.) for social production and distribution of products "(" Truth and lie about the revolutions of the year 1917 ").

Commenting on the October victory, Lenin says nothing about the socialist revolution, although this is often attributed to him. In fact, it was said this way: "The workers 'and peasants' revolution, the necessity of which the Bolsheviks kept talking about all the time, was accomplished." Or another quote: “The party of the proletariat in no way can set itself the aim of introducing socialism in the country of the“ small ”peasantry” (“The tasks of the proletariat in our revolution”).

So the socialist reorganization was not at all put Lenin on the agenda. And structural changes in industry began with the democratization of production, with the introduction of workers' control (this was on the question of the original authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks and the torn democratic alternatives). On November 14, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars approved the “Provision on workers' control”, according to which factory and factory committees received the right to intervene in the administrative and administrative activities of the administration. The factory committees were allowed to seek the provision of their enterprises with cash, orders, raw materials and fuel. In addition, they participated in the hiring and firing of workers. In 1918, worker control was introduced into 31 provinces - in 87,4% of enterprises with more than 200 employees. Tellingly, the situation stipulated the rights of entrepreneurs.

The policy of the Bolsheviks met fierce criticism from both right and left. The anarchists were especially zealous. For example, the Voice of Labor anarcho-syndicalist newspaper wrote in November 1917:

"... Since we definitely see that there can be no talk of an agreement with the bourgeoisie, that the bourgeoisie will not go to workers' control," therefore, one must understand and say to oneself definitely also: not the control over the production of the owner's factories, but the direct the transition of factories, factories, mines, mines, all instruments of production and all means of communication and movement into the hands of the working people. " Anarchists characterized the control exercised by the Bolsheviks as "workers' and state control" and considered it a "belated measure" and unnecessary. Say, "in order to control, you need to have something to control." Anarchists suggested first “socializing” enterprises and then introducing “social labor control”.

It must be said that many workers supported the idea of ​​immediate socialization, and in practical terms. “The most famous is the fact of socialization of the Cheremkhovsky mines in Siberia,” reports O. Ignatieva. - Anarcho-syndicalist resolutions were adopted by the congress of food industry workers and bakers in Moscow in 1918. At the end of November 1917 in Petrograd, the idea of ​​dividing the enterprise found support from a significant part of the workers of the Red Banner factory.

Decisions on the transfer of control into the hands of the workers' union were made on a number of railways: Moscow-Windawa-Rybinsk, Perm and others. This allowed the Voice of Labor to declare in January 1918 in January that the anarcho-syndicalist method was supported by the workers . 20 January 1918 in the first issue of the Petrograd anarcho-communist newspaper “Workers 'Banner” brought new facts: Bavaria brewery, Kebka canvas factory, sawmill passed into the hands of workers (“Anarchists' views on the problems of economic reorganization of society after October revolution").

The Bolsheviks themselves were not in a hurry with socialization and nationalization. Although the latter has become an elementary state necessity. In the summer of 1917, rapid capital flight began from "democratic" Russia. Foreign industrialists were the first to give the squad a displeasure with the introduction of the 8-hour working day and the resolution of strikes. The feeling of instability, uncertainty about tomorrow also had its effect. For foreigners, and domestic entrepreneurs were drawn. Then the thoughts of nationalization began to visit the Minister of Trade and Industry of the Provisional Government Alexander Konovalov. He himself was an entrepreneur and politician of completely non-left-wing views (a member of the Central Committee of the Progressive Party). The capitalist minister considered the main reason for the need to nationalize some enterprises, the constant conflicts between workers and entrepreneurs.

The Bolsheviks carried out nationalization selectively. And in this regard is very revealing. история with the plant "AMO", which belonged to the Ryabushinsky. Even before the February Revolution, they received from the government 11 million rubles for the production of cars. However, this order was never executed, and after October, the factory owners generally fled abroad, instructing the directorate to close the plant. The Soviet government proposed the administration of 5 million, in order for the enterprise to continue functioning. She refused, and that was when the factory was nationalized.

And only in June 1918 of the year was the order of the Council of People's Commissars “On the nationalization of the largest enterprises”. According to him, the state should give enterprises with a capital of 300 thousand rubles. But even here it was stipulated that the nationalized enterprises are given to the free use of the owners. They got the opportunity to finance production and have a profit.

Then, of course, a total military communist attack on private capital began, and the enterprises lost their self-government, having fallen under tight state control. Here the circumstances of the Civil War and the radicalization accompanying it have already affected. However, at first, the Bolsheviks conducted a fairly moderate policy, which again undermined the version of their original authoritarianism.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/мирные-большевики/
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 14 November 2015 07: 10 New
    +1
    Lenin did not rush Russia with the implementation of socialist transformations... Actually, that was how it started ..
  2. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 14 November 2015 07: 52 New
    +1
    Thanks so much for the story.
    We used to live in such a place that if you walk 20-25 minutes, you can walk to the Vulkan plant. It turns out there were such workers' settlements near the factories to go to work? In general, these are long distances if you walk to the center on foot ...
  3. sherp2015
    sherp2015 14 November 2015 09: 44 New
    +3
    Peaceful then peaceful, but not quite ...
  4. bubla5
    bubla5 14 November 2015 09: 50 New
    11
    Well, where are they fugitive capitalists and wealthy officials over the hill, no kind of tribe or wealth, all sucked and lost in a foreign land, so it will be with the oligarchs and runaway officials, and the money will be lost, taxes will be levied, and there will be no kind, for sale
  5. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 14 November 2015 09: 55 New
    12
    On November 10 (according to the new style) of the 1917 of the year, in Moscow, the junkers who supported the interim government captured the Kremlin, where soldiers of the 300 regiment were shot to 56 without trial or investigation.

    Here is how it was. In the morning, the commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel Ryabtsev, personally called the chief of the garrison, ensign Berzin, to the Kremlin, and informed that the whole city was under the control of the Provisional Government, that the troops of the Military Revolutionary Committee had fled, and that surrender was proposed to the Kremlin garrison. The Kremlin had no connection with the military-industrial complex, which happened in the city — they did not know. Therefore, they opened the gate and surrendered.

    Unarmed soldiers were lined up in the courtyard of the Kremlin and shot from machine guns.

    It was the first organized terrorist act after November 7. And they did it, as you see - not the Bolsheviks.

    Interestingly, after the Bolsheviks won in Moscow, the junkers were released on parole. No one was punished. Only Colonel Ryabtsev was arrested. Moreover, they caught him already in the city of Shuya and brought him to Moscow, to the Tagansky prison. But he was released three weeks later.

    Most of the cadets violated their word of honor and went to the Don, where the Volunteer Army was already being formed.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 14 November 2015 11: 39 New
      -5
      In fact, the 56th Regiment violated the military oath by taking the side of the revolutionaries and not obeying the orders of the higher authorities. You yourself know what it was supposed to be in wartime conditions. This has little to do with terror.
      1. Proud.
        Proud. 14 November 2015 12: 12 New
        +7
        Quote: Nikolai K
        In fact, the 56th Regiment violated the military oath by taking the side of the revolutionaries and not obeying the orders of the higher authorities. You yourself know what it was supposed to be in wartime conditions. This has little to do with terror.

        I do not agree. They offered to capitulate. Surrender. Surely certain conditions were proposed. Or representatives of the 56th regiment put forward conditions. Or do you think that under these conditions there was a section on the execution!? Further. Let them be deceived. Cynically. But even in conditions wartime, there must be a tribunal and a sentence. In short. This is not an excuse. This is terror.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 15 November 2015 00: 59 New
        +1
        And with the execution, not everything is so obvious. According to eyewitnesses, part of the garrison rallied with a demand for surrender, a number of soldiers and Red Guards categorically refused to surrender. As a result, the latter decided to continue the resistance, this group, concentrating against the wall, opened fire on the junkers entering the Kremlin. Armored cars hit them in response.
        So what kind of shooting is this?
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 14 November 2015 11: 39 New
      -3
      In fact, the 56th Regiment violated the military oath by taking the side of the revolutionaries and not obeying the orders of the higher authorities. You yourself know what it was supposed to be in wartime conditions. This has little to do with terror.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 14 November 2015 14: 34 New
        +5
        In fact, the 56th regiment violated the military oath He violated it back in February 1917 .. When the tsar was overthrown ... I recall ... It was not Lenin and Trotsky who accepted the tsar’s abdication ..
        1. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 15 November 2015 00: 34 New
          +1
          Actually, Nicholas II abdicated in favor of his brother Michael. Grand Duke Mikhail made a statement saying that he could take power only by the will of the people, expressed by the Constituent Assembly, elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct and secret ballot, but for now called on all citizens of the Russian state to submit to the Provisional Government. So at that time, the Provisional Government was a completely legitimate authority.
  6. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 14 November 2015 09: 56 New
    +4
    In the first months of the revolution, the Bolsheviks tried to implement the concept of a commune state formulated by V.I. Lenin in his famous work “State and Revolution”: a state without police, without bureaucracy, without a standing army, without privileges, with broad social self-government, when a country is a collection of independent communes. There was an unlimited faith in the creative potential and consciousness of the masses, in the world proletariat. At the same time, the belief in the imminent European revolution and the future happiness of mankind was spinning.
  7. ImPerts
    ImPerts 14 November 2015 10: 55 New
    +9
    Let's be realistic
    Then, of course, a total military communist attack on private capital began, and the enterprises lost their self-government, having fallen under tight state control. Here the circumstances of the Civil War and the radicalization accompanying it have already affected. However, at first, the Bolsheviks conducted a fairly moderate policy, which again undermined the version of their original authoritarianism.

    the attempt to agree failed, which required a different attitude to the bourgeois stratum. And then there were lovers of parmesan and jamon.
    Quote: Yoon Klob
    Here is how it was. In the morning, the commander of the Moscow Military District, Colonel Ryabtsev, personally called the chief of the garrison, ensign Berzin, to the Kremlin, and informed that the whole city was under the control of the Provisional Government, that the troops of the Military Revolutionary Committee had fled, and that surrender was proposed to the Kremlin garrison. The Kremlin had no connection with the military-industrial complex, which happened in the city — they did not know. Therefore, they opened the gate and surrendered.

    Unarmed soldiers were lined up in the courtyard of the Kremlin and shot from machine guns.

    It was the first organized terrorist act after November 7. And they did it, as you see - not the Bolsheviks.

    Interestingly, after the Bolsheviks won in Moscow, the junkers were released on parole. No one was punished. Only Colonel Ryabtsev was arrested. Moreover, they caught him already in the city of Shuya and brought him to Moscow, to the Tagansky prison. But he was released three weeks later.

    Most of the cadets violated their word of honor and went to the Don, where the Volunteer Army was already being formed.

    Do not break people's brains; many people sacredly believe in Bolshevik terror and bloodthirstiness, forgetting that red terror was the answer to white.
    1. Udofil
      Udofil 14 November 2015 17: 04 New
      -4
      The Reds at that time were for the most part illiterate, embittered by the war people, on whom almost permissiveness fell. And the Bolsheviks are a people, to put it mildly, with a kind of morality. Remember A. Tolstoy's scene of two meetings between Roshchin and Telegin ... And they were led locally by people of Jewish nationality, whose moral concept is also not without strangeness. At first, officers, some of the students, cadets, gymnasium students, went to white ... Well, and which of them is more capable of atrocities? In addition, large territories were initially controlled by the Reds. I wonder if there are anywhere real numbers of losses when replacing the previous elite with the new?
  8. dvg79
    dvg79 14 November 2015 11: 02 New
    10
    It is a pity now that there is neither a party nor personalities comparable to the Bolsheviks. They were few but they expressed the real interests of the majority.
    1. Udofil
      Udofil 14 November 2015 17: 05 New
      -3
      And for this later I.V. Stalin put them, angels in the flesh, set them against the wall ...))
      1. dmb
        dmb 14 November 2015 21: 42 New
        +1
        But Stalin was certainly not a Bolshevik. Such arguments strongly resemble Ostap’s dialogue with a clever janitor, poorly versed in the class structure of society.
      2. dmb
        dmb 14 November 2015 21: 42 New
        0
        But Stalin was certainly not a Bolshevik. Such arguments strongly resemble Ostap’s dialogue with a clever janitor, poorly versed in the class structure of society.
  9. Basil50
    Basil50 14 November 2015 12: 18 New
    +2
    All criticism is only that the Bolsheviks did something on their own and in the interests of CITIZENS of their own country, without the instructions of wise advisers and other * bright heads * of democracy. The main accusation is not taking into account the interests of the Entente countries. The impudence of self-development has not been forgiven so far. For some reason, the main condition of * democracy * is still the subordination of the interests of RUSSIA to the interests of * the West * and the unconditional fulfillment of all * Wishlist * countries of the NATO regime.
    1. Udofil
      Udofil 14 November 2015 17: 10 New
      -3
      What you write is impossible by definition. Try now to do the same yourself ... like people do not mind. Not wondering why their congresses were held in London? Why was the case with a sealed wagon made possible? Why, after the civil war, in the same Sweden were locomotives purchased at space prices? Where did the concessions come from? What did Karl Radek do in Germany in 1918? He also acted in the interests of CITIZENS of his own country? What happened in the late 30s in the ranks of the party itself?
      1. Kopeikin
        Kopeikin 14 November 2015 22: 01 New
        +1
        Judofil, here I agree with you. Now the same thing is repeated in principle, the technology has not changed at all. What now, what then, the opposition with enviable constancy visits the West on friendly visits, holds symposia, meetings behind closed doors, conversations, and more. Denying these facts would be a sure sign of a misunderstanding of the situation as a whole or a hint of a clear bias in one direction or another. Unfortunately in the country (and in the world) there are very few people who are able to see history in an apolitical manner (without occupying one side or another).
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 15 November 2015 00: 40 New
      +1
      Yeah, the Bolsheviks did everything on their own and in the interests of the citizens of their own country, but they only made a revolution with German and American money, and for some reason there was a disproportionate number of Jews among the top leaders of the Bolsheviks.
    3. Basil50
      Basil50 16 November 2015 19: 44 New
      0
      Critics of the Bolsheviks, as true Christians attribute their own sins to others, and then do not know mercy in condemning sins.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 14 November 2015 13: 57 New
    -2
    "... Lenin was categorically against such tactics. He himself was outside Smolny, where he was not allowed. It seems that the leadership did not want Lenin's presence at the headquarters of the uprising, because he was against the tactics he had chosen. On October 24, Lenin sent letters to Smolny demanded to let him go there. And every time he was refused. In the end he flared up, exclaiming: "I don't understand them. What are they afraid of?"

    An interesting interpretation of the author or sources from where he tore off this nonsense ...

    And how, then, is the passage published above ...

    “From October 21 to October 23, Lenin watched with satisfaction the success of the Revolutionary Revolutionary Committee in the struggle against the Petrograd Military District for control of the capital's garrison,” writes the historian Alexander Rabinovich. , which, if successful, could lead to a relatively painless transfer of power to the Soviets at the Congress of Soviets, but only as a prelude to a popular armed uprising.And each new day only confirmed his previous conviction that the best opportunity to create a government under the leadership of the Bolsheviks would be an immediate seizure power by force; he believed that waiting for the opening of the congress would simply provide more time for the preparation of forces and fraught with the threat of the creation by an indecisive congress at best of a conciliatory socialist coalition government "(" The Bolsheviks Come to Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd ") ..."

    And if he “watched with satisfaction,” then all the information flowed to him, that is, he took part in the leadership ...
  11. bandabas
    bandabas 14 November 2015 14: 52 New
    +2
    You can argue as much as you like. But, the fact remains. The power was taken almost bloodlessly. And what happened next ... Another story. And not departing much from the topic, I personally am glad that I live in Russia, and not in some former fraternal republics.
  12. moskowit
    moskowit 14 November 2015 17: 13 New
    -1
    And further in the text ...

    “... Lenin splendidly calculated all the risks and nevertheless insisted that an armed uprising take place just before the congress. This expressed his iron political will. And the Bolshevik leadership showed the ability to give up its ambitions and find a way out of acute conflict situations. it distinguished itself favorably from other party leaderships ... "

    So who expressed the "iron political will"?

    Sincerely, Nikolai Ivanovich.
  13. T-73
    T-73 14 November 2015 18: 17 New
    +4
    An interesting time was still. Without jerking. Figures that suddenly became attractors. Attractive ideas. It was all this, it was ... Strong people, what to say. Laugh, but it was Lenin who turned half the world upside down. I didn’t even turn it over, but just directed the movement of history in the other direction. "After all, there were people in our time, not like the present tribe ..." and asks to speak. I am not making excuses, but I am not ready to condemn either. And you?
  14. lucdrakon2015
    lucdrakon2015 14 November 2015 18: 33 New
    -1
    .... winners are not judged .. !!!!
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 15 November 2015 00: 42 New
      +2
      So then the Bolsheviks were victorious, but now they are defeated. History has put everything in its place.
  15. Kopeikin
    Kopeikin 14 November 2015 21: 35 New
    +1
    "History has no subjunctive moods", but if at least a little all the structures of law enforcement (and, of course, laws) resembled structures of the 1941-45 model, Lenin and other hop-stop company would be immediately shot (!) As saboteurs and traitors to the Motherland during the time when the Fatherland is at war !!! Imagine for a second that in 1943. on the political arena in the USSR appears such a "Lenin" and declares that there is an urgent need to change the political course to NEP? 100% of it would be immediately put up against the wall !!!
    I have always been and will be against such rebels who strive to stab in the back! In peacetime, hold a meeting, express dissatisfaction with injustice and excesses in power, here I am completely "for", but when the threat of war hangs over the Motherland or it is already underway, if you please give up all your efforts to win!
    1. Arthur Wiesner
      Arthur Wiesner 14 November 2015 22: 10 New
      0
      1) Regarding the Bolshevik "stab in the back" of Russia: can you tell me where the line of the Russian-German front was on October 25, 1917?

      2) How popular was this war among the people?

      3) Who was financially interested in continuing this war?
    2. Kopeikin
      Kopeikin 14 November 2015 22: 28 New
      +1
      Imagine for a minute that in today's situation (today / tomorrow / for the new year) Zyuganov (Zhirinovsky / Mironov / others ...) will suddenly declare “Down with the interests of the Russian Federation in Syria!”, “Down with the interests in Ukraine!”, “Down with the vehicle ! "(by analogy with the Entente) and will begin to rouse his supporters to strikes, to barricades, etc.? What do you say gentlemen about this development of events? Everyone will say fiction, but I wrote "imagine". However, this has already happened and you all know when ...
      PS: You should not run away and demolish the monuments, because this is disrespect for your own history and your ancestors, but also it is not worth creating a personality cult - they passed, we know. Take a sober attitude to history and then we will become truly great and no one in the world can rewrite to please ourselves !!!
      1. Arthur Wiesner
        Arthur Wiesner 14 November 2015 23: 05 New
        -3
        Explain it clearly if you can: why do you persistently blame the Bolsheviks for the collapse of the Russian army, and not the direct culprits — the bourgeoisie and the liberal intelligentsia?
        1. Kopeikin
          Kopeikin 15 November 2015 13: 32 New
          0
          Dear Arthur, in my comments I did not blame the Bolsheviks specifically! Why do you think so??? I was just saying that blaming one side and heroizing the other is fundamentally wrong judgment! Reread thoughtfully and you will understand that EVERYTHING was to blame. I wrote about the too liberal attitude of the tsarist regime towards such saboteurs and rebels - this is Ros's fault. empire. I also said that on strike, staging strikes and calling for a coup in wartime, I consider it a betrayal, and here the Bolsheviks are guilty. In general, anyone who wants to destroy to break, to destroy the political and social system of the country during the war is a traitor! Do you really disagree ???
          PS: Answer the question: "What would happen if some Lenin began to call for a change of political course in 1942-43?" This is a million dollar question)))
  16. Kopeikin
    Kopeikin 14 November 2015 22: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: Arthur Wiesner
    1) Regarding the Bolshevik "stab in the back" of Russia: can you tell me where the line of the Russian-German front was on October 25, 1917?

    2) How popular was this war among the people?

    3) Who was financially interested in continuing this war?


    Is the answer accepted?
    1. Arthur Wiesner
      Arthur Wiesner 14 November 2015 23: 00 New
      +1
      Of course. On September 3, 1917, General Kornilov surrendered Riga to the Germans, two months before the October Revolution. So what kind of "victory stolen by the Bolsheviks" can we seriously talk about? Was the Russian army stationed 50 km from Berlin, but the malevolent Bolsheviks, when they came to power, ordered it to turn the shafts "to the house, to the hut"?
      1. Kopeikin
        Kopeikin 15 November 2015 13: 53 New
        +1
        Regarding the popularity of wars among the people ... A popular or unpopular war can be hostilities in Syria, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, aid from the Union of North Korea, etc. Everything that directly affects less than 0,0001-0,1% of the country's population can be divided into popular and not popular. But when the war came to your native Fatherland, when children, women and old people - your fellow citizens - are dying, then there can be NO SPEECH about any popularity! In this regard, if you want, consider me a special person who, without a drop of regret, is ready to shoot alarmists and saboteurs. When the war is already in the "house" there can be no talk of popularity!
  17. RUSS
    RUSS 15 November 2015 12: 46 New
    +1
    Over the past week, there have been many articles on the Bolsheviks and the Red Army; in fairness, articles on the White Guard are also needed.
  18. Arthur Wiesner
    Arthur Wiesner 15 November 2015 21: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Kopeikin
    But when the war came to their native Fatherland, when children, women and old people — your fellow citizens — are dying, then there can be NO SPEECH about any popularity!


    Are you talking about the war of 1914?
  19. ImPerts
    ImPerts 16 November 2015 09: 20 New
    0
    Quote: RUSS
    Over the past week, there have been many articles on the Bolsheviks and the Red Army; in fairness, articles on the White Guard are also needed.

    Let's start with this:
    http://xianyoung.livejournal.com/888496.html
    "We went to power to hang, but we had to hang in order to come to power

    The stream of articles and notes about the "good Father-father", the noble white movement and the red ghouls opposing them are not impoverished. I'm not going to speak for one or the other side. Just give the facts. Just the bare facts, taken from public sources, and nothing more. Tsar Nicholas II, who renounced the throne, was arrested by 2 March 1917, General Mikhail Alekseev, the head of his staff. Tsaritsa and the family of Nicholas II were arrested on March 7 by General Lavr Kornilov, commander of the Petrograd Military Institution. Yes, yes, those very future heroes of the white movement ...
    The government of Lenin, who assumed responsibility for the country in November-17, offered the Romanov family a visit to their relatives — to London, but the British royal family REFUSED them in permission to move to England.

    The overthrow of the king was greeted by all of Russia. “Even close relatives of Nicholas fastened red bows to the chest,” writes historian Heinrich Joffe. Grand Duke Michael, to whom Nicholas had intended to transfer the crown, refused the throne. The Russian Orthodox Church, having committed an oath to the church on oath of allegiance, welcomed the news of the denial of the king.

    Russian officer. 57% was supported by the white movement, of which 14 thousands later switched to red. 43% (75 thousand people) - immediately went for the Reds, that is, ultimately - more than half of the officers supported the Soviet power.

    The first few months after the October uprising in Petrograd and Moscow were not in vain called "the triumphal march of Soviet power." Out of 84 provincial and other large cities, only 15 were established as a result of armed struggle. “At the end of November, in all the cities of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia, the power of the Provisional Government no longer existed. It passed almost without any resistance into the hands of the Bolsheviks, Soviets were formed everywhere ", - testifies Major General Ivan Akulinin in his memoirs" The Orenburg Cossack army in the fight against the Bolsheviks 1917-1920 ". “Just at that time,” he further writes, “combat units — regiments and batteries — began to arrive in the Army from the Austro-Hungarian and Caucasian fronts, but it turned out to be absolutely impossible to count on their help: they didn’t want to hear about the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks "..."
  20. rkrp-vat
    rkrp-vat 24 November 2015 13: 04 New
    0
    The article is good and objective, it would be useful to add information about the party center approved by the Central Committee for the leadership of the uprising, composed of: Stalin, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinsky, Bubnov, Uritsky. He not only showed no hesitation, but also sent messengers to the districts to demand that the Central Committee begin an armed uprising
    BAT