Military Review

How to suppress the December uprising in Moscow

103

110 years ago in Moscow, a week and a half, bloody battles began. 7 (20) December 1905 was dead in Moscow, enterprises stopped. The strike covered more than half of the plants and factories. It was joined by representatives of the intelligentsia, technical staff and part of the employees of the City Council. Soon a disturbance began in Moscow: revolutionaries killed police officers and government officials, plundered shopkeepers on the sly, and soon clashes between revolutionary squads and troops developed into fierce battles. It was possible to restore order only after additional forces and loyal to the authorities were transferred from St. Petersburg to Moscow. 18 (31) December 1905, the rebellion was crushed.


However, the Moscow Uprising and the Revolution 1905-1907. On the whole, they showed the entire depth of internal contradictions in the Russian Empire and its weakness before the influence of external forces, which actively sponsored and organizationally supported the revolutionary forces. Only the loyalty of the majority of law enforcement officers (police, Cossacks) and the army of the tsarist government was able to suppress the beginning unrest. The first wave of the revolution in Russia was shot down. Unfortunately, the central government was not able to carry out a series of fundamental changes and eliminate the channels of influence of Western powers and structures on Russian society. And having got involved in the First World War, the tsarist regime buried most of the cadre army, the only force capable of holding back the wave of chaos. As a result, the geopolitical disaster of 1917 of the year became inevitable.

Smoot in the Empire

In 1905, the contradictions that had long been accumulating in the empire, thanks to the skillful actions of the provocateurs, broke free. For several weeks after Bloody Sunday 9 in January 1905, the organizations of revolutionaries and constitutionalists strained their propaganda and agitation to the limit, calling for mass protest. The answer was impressive. He sounded, first of all, from hundreds of thousands of workers of the Russian Empire. They responded with massive strikes against the massacre in the capital.

The reaction of workers across the regions was uneven: restrained in Central Russia and more active on the outskirts. In Moscow, the strike was lethargic and quickly dried up. In Petersburg, the strike a few days later began to decline. Of all the provincial centers of the Center, a city-wide strike took place only in Saratov. And Warsaw mass demonstrations escalated into the construction of barricades, a clash with the police and the army. During the clashes on both sides, more than 200 people were killed and wounded. Strikes and clashes spread to other parts of the Kingdom of Poland, especially to industrial Лód, where there were even more killed, wounded and arrested. As a result, in the Polish provinces passed as many stocks as in the rest of Russia.

In the Baltic provinces and cities of the North-West, where many Jews lived, who actively participated in the revolutionary movement, the response was also powerful. Political strikes, demonstrations, melee fights, cavalry attacks and the use of army units took place in Riga, Mitau and Libau. At the same time, strikes took place in Revel, Vilna, Bialystok and many towns-towns. A similar picture was observed in the Caucasus. From Tiflis riots spread to the whole of Georgia. Mass demonstrations and armed clashes occurred in Finland.

The intelligentsia (it was mostly liberal and pro-Western in the Russian Empire) and the middle class actively supported the workers and supported the constitution. At all meetings, assemblies proclaimed constitutional demands and condemned the government for repression. In rural areas, traditionally more conservative, a wave of unrest began later in February. In the same month, the militants of the socialist revolutionaries (Social Revolutionaries) made a successful attempt on the Moscow Governor-General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich.

The royal court was in extreme stress. Strict security measures and fear of terrorists made the king himself a hostage in Tsarskoe Selo. Tsar's advisers and dignitaries sharply disagreed on how to stop the revolutionary wave: the moderates favored concessions, reforms, and parliament; supporters of the "hard line" demanded tougher repression. News from the Japanese front showed the need to stabilize the internal position of the empire. 18 February, the king issued a decree on the need to call on "the best people of Russia", representing its population to consult on improving legislation. Interior Minister Bulygin had to work on this issue. The Minister of Agriculture Ermolov suggested that Nicholas II immediately take measures to increase the land holdings of the peasants before it was too late. At the same time, new army units were sent throughout the empire to strengthen the city garrisons and suppress agrarian unrest. The number of arrests of oppositionists has increased.

During the first half of the year, the whole empire was covered with hotbeds of protests, strikes, riots and riots. Landlord lands and forests were seized, estates were burning. A series of impressive and stubborn strikes occurred in Ivanovo, Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinoslavl, Odessa, Belostok, Kovno, Tiflis, etc. However, the nationwide figures of protest activity did not reach even half of January’s 1905. The attempt to organize an all-Russia May Day demonstration failed. At the same time, the labor movement expanded and strengthened. The strength and radicalism of the organizations of the Russian middle class and the workers of the trade unions grew. In May, the Union of Unions was established to unite all professional organizations of the middle and working class. The Union initially had 16 from a wide variety of organizations: from unions of journalists and engineers, agronomists and lawyers to an association for the equality of Jews and the emancipation of women. All active members and leading speakers professed different views - both liberal and socialist. They all demanded democratization and constitution. All organizations eventually became more radical. Even the priests began to demand reforms and the restoration of the elected patriarchate.

At the end of May - June 1905, it seemed that Russia was on the verge of a revolutionary explosion. The labor movement intensified (there were street battles in cities in Poland), peasant uprisings again reached the highest degree of intensity. Death fleet in the Tsushima battle shocked all of Russia. The supporters of the autocracy were shocked, the revolutionaries and the liberal intelligentsia were gloating, the fermentation intensified in the fleet. In June there was an uprising of the battleship “Potemkin” (“God grant that this difficult and shameful story is more likely to end”). Other ships, though not revolted, refused to execute the order to fire and destroy the rebellious battleship. Even in the army, pockets of revolution appeared. A convention of Cossack officers, the main striking force of the then law enforcement agencies, asked the tsar to bestow a constitution on Russia!

However, this time the immunity of the empire was able to win up. And revolutionaries lacked unity, organization, experience and weapons. However, the main role still played the military-protective institutions of the empire. Foci of unrest in the army and navy were suppressed, the instigators put on trial or fled. The army, the Cossacks and the police retained their strength and loyalty to the oath. Those citizens and peasants (“Black Hundreds”), who were tired of the mess in the country, began to connect to them. Arrests and punitive expeditions struck hard at the revolutionary groups. The pogroms of the radicals and Jews, with the support of conservative-minded masses, became a sign of the mobilization of the immunity of the Russian Empire, which could still mobilize forces to repel the revolution and unrest.

In August-September 1905, the revolution went into decline. 6 August, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a decree convening the Duma. It was supposed to become a deliberative body, which was elected by indirect voting on electoral curiae representing various social groups and groups of owners. 23 August peace was signed with Japan. The revolutionaries were clearly inferior in power and organization of the tsarist bureaucracy, the army and the police, as well as the “black hundred” (right) masses. In addition, the liberal part was gradually satisfied with the new opportunities.

However, the revolutionaries continued to try to overthrow the autocracy. In this they relied on the West. Overcoming borders and distances, apparently with the loyal attitude of Western law enforcement agencies, former prisoners and immigrants hurriedly returned to Russia to join the fight. Newcomers immediately involved in the fight. The budgets of revolutionary organizations grew tenfold (which is also explained by the support of Western masters), providing resources for printing campaign materials and buying weapons. The Russian Empire was flooded with millions of leaflets, pamphlets, books and other materials calling for the destruction of the autocracy. The three main revolutionary organizations: the Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, as well as dozens of regional and national organizations that worked on the collapse of the empire after 1917, would be one of the leading forces of decay (again with the support of the West and part of the East - Japan), quickly acquired a permanent structure, strengthened internal discipline, recruited new members and activists, improved their programs and gained tactical experience. Numerous new opposition groups have appeared throughout the country.

Despite this, all revolutionaries were very far from penetrating into the "deep layers" of the people. According to rough estimates, there were only about 25 thousand active revolutionaries in the Russian Empire. In the peak year (1906), the number of members of the socialist parties who were in favor of changing the autocracy reached about 190 thousand people. The Socialist Revolutionaries were the largest group - 60 thousand people, approximately 44 thousand were Social Democrats - Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, some were inferior to the Jewish Bund and Latvian Social Democrats - 36,5 thousand people, several thousand people were different (Social Revolutionaries) - maximalists, anarchists, etc.). The number of people who had military training was in the hundreds. And the main cadres of the revolutionaries were in large cities, in the countryside they almost had no support.

Only the weakness of power gave revolutionaries a chance of success. The state apparatus and the ruling class have greatly degraded over the past decades, have been demoralized, have lost their will. The authorities feared that the army would let them down, as almost all the soldiers were recruited from the peasants, and the agrarian riots caused by the long-standing agrarian issue were gaining strength. This led to the fact that the possibility of the emergence of a major hotbed of the uprising in large industrial cities and ethnic margins was preserved.

Therefore, in September 1905, the next revolutionary wave began to rise. The mass protest began with the opposition’s indignation at the very idea of ​​the deliberative Duma. Most liberals joined the revolutionaries again. This led to the consolidation of the opposition in a united front. Socialists of all stripes, liberals, nationalists of the suburbs, non-party activists - all demanded a real parliament. 27 August, the government restored university autonomy, abolished in the 1890-ies. In September, the students decided to stop the strike, but instead of returning to school, they transferred the premises of the universities to the use of the opposition. Thus, in each university city, especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg, unique “islands” of the opposition, places of constant meetings of oppositionists, party leaders and non-party workers and middle class representatives, appeared. The police had no right to suppress these “islands of freedom”, and the professorship reacted tolerantly.

By the end of the month, small circles of revolutionaries had grown stronger and more widespread. In early October, a false rumor about the arrest of trade union delegates prompted the All-Russian Railway Union (it was located in Moscow and was under the influence of the Social Revolutionaries) to call for a political strike. This paralyzed almost all railway traffic. Union of Unions supported the All-Russian Railway Union. Solidarity strikes quickly spread to other industries, services and the free profession. By October 17 launched a nationwide strike. It was attended by the majority of industrial workers (about 1,5 million people), employees (about 200 thousand people), as well as the majority of people who considered themselves free professions.

This strike shook Russia. For Russia, and for the whole world, it was the first real nationwide strike, in which the majority of industrial workers, employees and intelligentsia of the empire came out in support of political demands. Both the center and the outskirts of the empire were involved in the strike. A Council of Workers' Deputies was formed in the capital. The Executive Committee of the Council quickly became an alternative authority in the city. The Council of the Soviets was cast aside. The Soviets also appeared in Moscow, Rostov, Odessa, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, etc. Peasant unrest began in the South of Russia, went out of control of the outskirts of the empire.

The whole colossal machine of the empire has stalled due to the sudden cessation of communications and transport. Governors and officials did not receive orders, it was not clear to the police what to do next. The transportation of the army units was disrupted. Even the daily procedures of royal rule through ministerial audiences and the signing of decrees were upset. The habitual order disintegrated before our eyes.

There was a split at the top. October 14 St. Petersburg Governor-General, Comrade of the Minister of the Interior, police chief Dmitry Trepov ordered "not to spare the ammunition" for "suppressing the rebellion." Witte, in his report to the king, summarized the situation as a direct choice between military dictatorship and constitutional reforms. A few days later, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, the uncle of the tsar, the commander of the guard and the main candidate for the role of military dictator, tearfully asked the tsar to accept proposals for peaceful concessions.

October 17 published the official text of the royal manifesto that Russia is granted freedom of speech, assembly, and organizations. The Duma increased in status, transformed from a consultative to a legislative body. In a memorandum published at the same time, Witte defined the goal of the reform as the creation of a “legal system,” that is, the autocracy was planned to be abolished by default. And Witte, as an agent of Western influence, sought to solve this problem. The Russian autocracy, which personified the unity and power of the Russian civilization and the Russian people, was dangerous for the masters of the West.

At the same time, an amnesty was announced for many political prisoners, and the democratic constitution of Finland was restored (it was terminated in 1899). A cabinet was created (instead of the previous order, in which each minister was approved personally by the king and was responsible only to him). Trepov resigned. Witte became the first in stories the country’s prime minister in charge of reform.

The surprise of the public was strong. Many did not expect the king to give in or give in so soon. As a result, there was a split between those who believed that reform should be given a chance and those who set as their goal the complete destruction of autocracy and the creation of a republic. The radicals tried to continue the general strike. However, most of the strikers celebrated a political victory and returned to normal life.

Soon the response wave began. The army and the police restored order. Autocracy actively supported the right, the Black Hundred elements. The loyalists of the metropolitan suburbs, the provinces, thousands of small proprietors, merchants, artisans, minor officials and lower nobility, police, part of the working class and the masses of peasants reacted with fury and anxiety to the activity of the revolutionaries, to what looked like reconciliation of the state and rioters. A significant part of the empire's population was still ready to support the tsar and the authorities, rather than passively looking at the fact that there is a change of orders and the collapse of the “old Russia” (as it will be in 1917 year). It was the core of the Russian people, not belonging to the privileged strata of the nobility, to the rich merchants, industrialists, bankers, pro-Western intellectuals, from which the revolutionaries emerged. It was the “black hundred,” on whose work the empire rested. The people responded to the revolutionary wave with pogroms, which in some places were supported by the police and local authorities. The radical intelligentsia, representatives of the socialist parties, students, Jews and other foreigners, in whom they saw "alien", were smashed.

Several mass right-wing organizations were created, such as the Union of the Russian People. They actively supported autocracy and at the same time had in their programs very sensible proposals for reforming the country. Among the right-wing were leading intellectuals of Russia, who quite correctly predicted the development of the empire, unless decisive, radical measures were taken to transform it. Unfortunately, the king and the government could not really rely on the people to do what Stalin and his commissars would do during the first five-year plans (the revolution from above).

Left forces tried to continue the revolution. October 26 revolted sailors of Kronstadt. Over the next several months, a number of army and naval units attempted to rebel or carry out punitive functions. So, from 11 (24) November to 16 (29) November 1905, there was an armed uprising of Black Sea Fleet sailors and soldiers of the Sevastopol garrison, port workers ("Sevastopol fire"). However, these performances were generally spontaneous and short-lived. Attempts by the revolutionary parties to manage them failed.

The difficult situation was in the village. The peasant revolt overtook more than half of the European part of Russia. The October Manifesto did not say anything about land reform. But on November 3, a new royal manifesto came out, canceling the remnants of 1861’s redemption payments and expanding the activities of the Peasant Bank in order to facilitate the purchase of land by peasants. At the same time, repressions hit the village. However, at the same time, the two most influential representatives of the conservative wing among the tsarist advisors, Trepov and Dubasov, proclaimed the need for immediate agrarian reform. They even expressed their willingness to part with part of their land holdings. That is, the understanding of the need for fundamental changes in the life of the peasantry was, for the peasants were the main part of the empire's population.

To be continued ...
Author:
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 25 December 2015 07: 02 New
    +2
    The historical significance of the revolution 1905-1907 gg. it was huge. She seriously shocked the foundations of the Russian autocracy, which was forced to go into a series of significant self-restraints. The convening of a legislative State Duma, the creation of a bicameral parliament, the proclamation of civil liberties, the abolition of censorship, the legalization of trade unions, the beginning of agrarian reform - all this indicated that the foundations of a constitutional monarchy were taking shape in Russia. The revolution also received great international resonance. It contributed to the rise of the strike struggle of workers in Germany, France, England, Italy.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 25 December 2015 07: 13 New
      +8
      Tsar NIKOLAI 2 hehe father, as a statesman, was completely insignificant ... and ultimately it was his actions that plunged RUSSIA into the abyss of war and endless deaths.
      1. drop
        drop 25 December 2015 07: 46 New
        +1
        Dear Alexey, he became a saint. I have the honor.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 25 December 2015 08: 13 New
          15
          Quote: Drop
          but he became a saint.
          Holy Martyr. He brought such an Empire to the 17th year and became a saint. Then let the Russian Orthodox Church elevate the whole Russian people to the rank of saints. After the 17th, he experienced and took on MORE Nicholas.
          1. Loreal
            Loreal 25 December 2015 10: 46 New
            +4
            Isn't Forms and Brackets? And continue here? In 1917, the German was not standing on the Volga, although they used WMD.
            More competent ROC consider ourselves in these matters?
            1. Mahmut
              Mahmut 25 December 2015 11: 28 New
              11
              And why did you need to shoot a crowd of workers whose priest GAPON led to the palace of the autocrat ???

              Why did the crowd come to the palace? And why did they bring dozens of firearms. Talk to the king on "good"?

              And why did you need to shoot a crowd of workers in Novocherkassk.
              Did they threaten the helmsman’s palace?
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 December 2015 11: 56 New
              14
              Quote: Loreal
              Isn't Forms and Brackets?

              Lovers again Russia we lost, stories of Soviet propaganda tell us about the leading role of the Bolsheviks in all events in Russia. laughing
              The blanks and the Bronstein led a marginal party of 20, a third of which was outside Russia. What should be the Empire, so that for its collapse enough party in 000? smile

              The empire collapsed the elite. Oligarchs, the highest generals, leaders of legal political parties. And Nikolai, how The owner of the Russian land, bore full responsibility for what was happening on his land. He turned a blind eye to the robbery of the state treasury by the oligarchs; he appointed generals who later demanded his abdication.

              Imagine for a moment that in the place of Nicky would be his crowned father - Alexander III. What do you think - would it come to revolution and renunciation? wink
              1. Loreal
                Loreal 25 December 2015 16: 08 New
                -2
                yes they were all masons or halves at best laughing
              2. Dart2027
                Dart2027 25 December 2015 18: 17 New
                +4
                Quote: Alexey RA
                that in the place of Nicky would be his crowned father - Alexander III

                The death of Alexander III was somehow sudden. A real hero suddenly falls ill and dies. Of course, everything happens in life, but I would not completely deny the version of poisoning.
            3. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 25 December 2015 12: 02 New
              +6
              Quote: Loreal
              More competent ROC consider ourselves in these matters?
              Do you know under what circumstances this happened? And what role did the Grand Duchess play in this (not a single offspring of the dynasty returned to Russia! Not a single one. That's all lyuboff fellow ))) and Yeltsin. What is his role in this matter? No? Continue to pray to Nikolai. yes
              Quote: Loreal
              Isn't Forms and Brackets?
              Who is Blanca? Kaaanechno. The Jews are to blame for everything. It was they who made the tsar enter the war. No, well, the French understand --- they had their graters with the Germans. And we went where ..? I give a hint-the Russian expeditionary force in France . What did he do there, besides the fact that he fought heroically? He was sent on account of the French loan, just sold am How can one explain the Tsar’s pathological dependence on his uncles, addiction to wine, Rasputin? Did they send Grisha’s Bronstein? But the people saw everything, he’s wise and you won’t be able to do this. Keep him in the palace ...
              Quote: Loreal
              In 1917, the German did not stand on the Volga, although they used WMD
              I’m aware, my grandmother told me. Her father was brought to recovery after a gas attack. I didn’t live for six months. And the merit of the Russian army was not on the Volga.
              Quote: Loreal
              And continue here?
              Continue WHAT?
              1. Loreal
                Loreal 25 December 2015 16: 09 New
                -3
                You yourself are not funny? laughing love What climbed right away can
                Forms and Brackets?

                was about the Germans? lol
        2. Imperialkolorad
          Imperialkolorad 25 December 2015 12: 15 New
          +4
          Quote: Drop
          Dear Alexey, he became a saint. I have the honor.

          He became a saint, but at the same time, with his slobbery, he contributed to all the horror that then happened to the country. Yes, and as a result, he ruined his family.
      2. bober1982
        bober1982 25 December 2015 08: 52 New
        -5
        Tsar Nicholas II was not a jerk, you speak very arrogantly as a commissar, or as at a rally. In those troubled times, such words were very successful, and even now to applause. Years, centuries pass, and nothing changes.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 25 December 2015 09: 04 New
          0
          Tsar Nicholas II was not a jerk; you speak very self-confidently as a commissar, or as at a rally.

          And why did you need to shoot a crowd of workers whose priest GAPON led to the palace of the autocrat ???

          What does the commissars have to do with it what

          Why did Nicholas 2, in a difficult moment for RUSSIA, step back from power ... is it difficult and scary that he became poor request ... eventually ruined the country ... ruined his family by a terrible death who died ...
          That's who it hurts me so much for his family’s children ...
          sorry to tears ... as I imagine their death under the bullets of the commissars.
          Many facts in the activities of Nicholas the 2nd clearly say ... short-sighted and out of place man.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 25 December 2015 09: 16 New
            +4
            the whole country is rotten: the aristocracy, the generals, the liberal bastard, the army, the gendarmerie and the God-bearing thieving people themselves.
            Therefore, everyone got what they deserved, except for the executions they didn’t understand anything. And as a result, February 1917: the peak of chaos and anarchy, but for some reason they called freedom and fraternity.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 25 December 2015 09: 59 New
              0
              Quote: bober1982
              Therefore, everyone got what they deserved, except for executions they didn’t understand anything

              And for some reason, people of other nationalities led the executions. Increasingly.
              P.S. Isn’t Bronstein’s grandson himself an hour? one minus mine. negative
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 25 December 2015 10: 10 New
                +2
                no, not Bronshtein’s grandson, Russian. After the shootings, it was about how Gapon led the crowd under the bullets (The same Lyokha rebuked the king)
                For minus no offense.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 25 December 2015 10: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: bober1982
                  After the shootings, it was about how Gapon led the crowd under the bullets

                  It was a well-planned provocation, and prepared from abroad.
                  But in the power of the 1917th there were still more decent people than now. But the king’s weakness failed them. hi
            2. V.ic
              V.ic 25 December 2015 11: 09 New
              +2
              Quote: bober1982
              the whole country is rotten: the aristocracy, the generals, the liberal bastard, the army, the gendarmerie and the God-bearing thieving people themselves.

              The Russian Empire is rotten from the head! Trying to destroy the existing hierarchy to realize their narrow departmental and selfish interests in the conditions of a protracted war, big business and higher officials received the dictatorship of the proletariat instead of a democratic republic. And the God-bearing and "thieving" people had to fight for another three extra years on the principle of "son for father and brother for brother" in the vast expanses of the former Russian Empire.
            3. veteran66
              veteran66 25 December 2015 18: 25 New
              +2
              Quote: bober1982
              the whole country is rotten: the aristocracy, the generals, the liberal bastard, the army, the gendarmerie and the God-bearing thieving people themselves.

              it’s just after February 17th, before that time the army was still fighting successfully, and some units even after the february
          2. Loreal
            Loreal 25 December 2015 10: 50 New
            +1
            You are now in the Kremlin so "come" ... lol Or visit to which Russian Railways banker
          3. V.ic
            V.ic 25 December 2015 10: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            Why did Nicholas 2, in difficult times for RUSSIA, withdraw from power ...

            There is a phrase: you can rely on bayonets, but you cannot sit on them. "When the front commanders, instead of establishing order in the units entrusted to them, send telegrams to Nicholas II, asking him to abdicate, the tsar had no chance." Nicholas shows Commandant Voeikov V.N. commanders of the fronts, and said: "What is left for me to do - everyone betrayed me, even Nikolasha" (Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich). http://artgroup-newage.ru/kloesoewyvkystowio/%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B
            5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F_II
        2. goblin xnumx
          goblin xnumx 25 December 2015 23: 25 New
          0
          I think so, that withstood years and centuries without changes, that’s the axiom, like in mathematics and physics, and that couldn’t stand it, an unauthorized notion and a lie — like all kinds of history :) so that if the attitude towards the king does not change for so long the way it is?
      3. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 25 December 2015 09: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        and ultimately it was him activity plunged RUSSIA into the abyss of war and endless deaths.
        I would say inaction.
        Hi Lyoha. hi
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 25 December 2015 10: 20 New
          +1
          Hello Igor hi
      4. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 25 December 2015 10: 03 New
        +3
        Quote: The same Lech
        Tsar NIKOLAI 2 hehe father, as a statesman, was completely insignificant ... and ultimately it was his actions that plunged RUSSIA into the abyss of war and endless deaths.


        And what "his actions plunged Russia into the abyss of war and endless deaths"?

        And at the same time, list all his actions in public office, which make it possible to judge him as a "complete insignificance"?
      5. xan
        xan 25 December 2015 11: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Tsar NIKOLAI 2 hehe father, as a statesman, was completely insignificant ... and ultimately it was his actions that plunged RUSSIA into the abyss of war and endless deaths.

        He had no sense of reality, in short, problems with intelligence. Otherwise I would have grabbed Stolypin and took care of him more than myself. It was clear to everyone that Stolypin was an outstanding statesman and patriot, the empress dowager openly told him "hold on to Stolypin," and he hovered in the clouds and thought about "braces". His family answered for this.
        I needed a tsar of the level of Peter 1 with his active determination and reliance on his personality, and there would be much less blood. And there was a slug.
        Then he took it and put the guard on the front, completely without brains.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 25 December 2015 12: 02 New
          0
          Quote: xan
          And there was a slug.

          Henpecked.
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 25 December 2015 08: 30 New
      +3
      all the concessions made by the tsarist government, and which you listed — convening the State Duma, freedom, abolishing censorship, etc. — all this did not create the foundations of a constitutional monarchy, it just accelerated the catastrophe. And no rise in the strike the struggle of the workers in the world did not contribute.
      And what historical significance does this revolution have? They raised the landowner to the forks, the brutal crowd, or looted by the drunken crowd of the shopkeeper. This is the whole essence of this revolution.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 25 December 2015 09: 12 New
        0
        The smallest, the Russian Empire lost during the reign of Nicholas 2 from starvation and its consequences about 12 million people who died!

        Nicholas 2, it was decided to start the "Little Victorious War" against the "macaques" Nicholas so often called the Japanese. Neglecting a future adversary, he already lost the war at this stage.
        Bottom line: Russia spent 2347 million rubles on the war, about 500 million rubles were lost in the form of property that had receded to Japan and sunk ships and ships. Losses of Russia amounted to 400 thousand dead, wounded, sick and prisoners. The Far Eastern adventure of tsarism, which led to heavy defeats, accompanied by great sacrifices, provoked indignation among the peoples of Russia.

        From 1880 to 1916, a sad result can be summed up: from "unnatural causes" (hunger, epidemics, infant mortality, criminal causes, during the suppression of peasant revolts, as well as in "minor wars" not counting the First World War), up to 20 million "Orthodox Christians" died prematurely. shower ". Nicholas 2 brought a murderer (STOLYPIN) to the government, who with this light hand simply killed 20 million people with his illiterate reforms.

        You can still give a bunch of arguments ...
        but better read ...

        https://www.proza.ru/2013/08/11/962

        1. saveall
          saveall 25 December 2015 09: 37 New
          10
          Quote: The same Lech
          Nicholas 2 brought to the government a murderer (STOLYPIN), who, with this light hand, simply killed 20 million people with his illiterate reforms.

          You can still give a bunch of arguments ...
          but better read ...

          https://www.proza.ru/2013/08/11/962

          Wow ... 20 million people? Stolypin? Yes, you sho? And the men don’t know ... © And why not all 100 million? Yes, he destroyed the whole of Russia, which is already there ... The murderer, sotrap, etc.! :) Do you still want someone to take this nonsense seriously? Well, damn it, agitation from the past.
          Regarding your link ... And who is this Kuzmin whom you so eagerly impose to read? Historian? Not. belay Oh, what a writer ... Well, at least not a singer. Well, in that case, I can throw a link to another "historian writer" wink Someone Rezun-Suvorov. Such, you know, a cool historian, and it’s so easy to write about Russia, you read a pancake. And try to refute. Eh Lech, Lech ...
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 25 December 2015 10: 29 New
            -2
            Wow ... 20 million people?


            Of course I agree that the numbers can be far-fetched.
            But on the other hand, destroying the patriarchal village of RUSSIA at an accelerated pace, it cannot be expected to happen bloodless ... people died and as a result of these reforms, STOLYPIN, so to speak, the attendant losses are not taken into account ... and after them the human tragedies of thousands of people ...
            that’s the misfortune of such reforms.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 25 December 2015 18: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              that’s the misfortune of such reforms

              The misfortune is that there is no other way. The Chinese have a curse:
              "So that you live in an era of change"
          2. Petrik66
            Petrik66 25 December 2015 12: 28 New
            +3
            You have forgotten another famous "historian" - Solzhenitsyn. He spared no blood, shot millions, planted tens of millions.
            1. saveall
              saveall 25 December 2015 12: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Petrik66
              You have forgotten another famous "historian" - Solzhenitsyn. He spared no blood, shot millions, planted tens of millions.

              Solzhenitsyn, if you like, went through all this horror himself. If he exaggerates the numbers, then this does not at all negate the fact that all this did not happen. It was and how it was ... Not only Solzhenitsyn wrote about this, but also Varlam Shalamov, Oleg Volkov, Anatoly Zhigulin and many others who were destined to go through all this themselves. There are also such books as "Father Arseny" about a priest who went through the camps. How many of them were there. So stop throwing mud at Solzhenitsyn, otherwise many may get the impression that everything he wrote about is a complete lie. This is fraught with repetition of the past.
              1. 97110
                97110 25 December 2015 13: 46 New
                0
                Quote: saveall
                Yes, how many were there.

                How many? How much will happen if you count in the territory of the United States, sitting on a shovel with a Nobel Prize?
              2. Banshee
                Banshee 25 December 2015 16: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: saveall
                So stop already throwing mud at Solzhenitsyn, otherwise many may have the opinion that everything he wrote about is a complete lie.


                Is not it so?
                1. veteran66
                  veteran66 25 December 2015 18: 33 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Banshee
                  Is not it so?

                  with the scoop they thought so, and we were taught this at school from the 3rd grade. Thank God I read it myself
                  1. V.ic
                    V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 02 New
                    +2
                    Quote: veteran66
                    We were taught this at school from the 3rd grade. Thank God I read it myself

                    They would have read better the rules for dealing with fractions, the behavior of schoolchildren in case of fire, the Disciplinary Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and other regulatory materials necessary for the pre-conscript of the Russian Federation ... It would have increased my mind / in a single skull /. Shurik Isai-evich and the likes of Russia never loved him, didn’t suffer for her and could only spoil her!
                2. RUSS
                  RUSS 25 December 2015 19: 37 New
                  0
                  Quote: Banshee
                  Quote: saveall
                  So stop already throwing mud at Solzhenitsyn, otherwise many may have the opinion that everything he wrote about is a complete lie.


                  Is not it so?

                  Prove the opposite.
                  1. V.ic
                    V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: RUSS
                    Prove the opposite.

                    Prove that Satan is above God.
              3. V.ic
                V.ic 25 December 2015 21: 53 New
                0
                [quote = saveall] So stop already watering Solzhenitsyn’s mud, [/ quote]
                Again = 25 !!! How many copies have been broken over the "works" of this "Nobel laureate"? And the laureate was the level of USA smoked prezik! This "laureate" deserves the "Shnobel" prize!
                [quote = saveall] otherwise many may have the opinion that everything he wrote about is a complete lie. This is fraught with repetition of the passed. [/ Quote]
                Are you sure that HE [quote = saveall] personally participated in the Jeskansga events?
                [quote = saveall] and Varlam Shalamov, [/ quote]
                ... also was not enthusiastic about this prose Spitz.
              4. Rastas
                Rastas 26 December 2015 00: 27 New
                +2
                So Shalamov himself could not stand Solzhenitsyn, wrote that Solzhenitsyn had not written anything truthful about the gulag. V. Shalamov: "The secret of Solzhenitsyn lies in the fact that he is a hopeless poetry writer with the corresponding mental warehouse of this terrible disease, who has created a huge amount of unusable poetic production that can never be shown anywhere, printed. All his prose from Ivan Denisovich to "Matryona's Dvor" was only a thousandth part in the sea of ​​poetic rubbish. "
        2. bober1982
          bober1982 25 December 2015 09: 39 New
          10
          you read about the results of the reign of all the beloved and adored Peter I, Eterina II, who are called Great.
          How many hungry, killed, tortured! In what state the empire was left. And nothing — deathly silence! One delight.
          Tsar Nicholas II was too kind.
          1. Loreal
            Loreal 25 December 2015 10: 56 New
            +2
            Quote: bober1982
            you read about the results of the reign of all the beloved and adored Peter I, Eterina II, who are called Great.
            How many hungry, killed, tortured! In what state the empire was left. And nothing — deathly silence! One delight.

            they’re just the same, those that admire them
          2. 97110
            97110 25 December 2015 13: 54 New
            0
            Quote: bober1982
            you read about the results of the reign of all the beloved and adored Peter I, Eterina II, who are called Great.

            Who summed up the results? The French and the Prussians? Or did you look at the map, did you refresh the story in your memory? Their kings were recognized as exemplary humanists, and especially his sultanic grandeur, who defended from Russia with all his strength all that was taken from the real masters with great difficulty. Or was he just walking around Vienna when true democrats led by Sobesski attacked him? Here is a dirty animal, this beaver. Where there was a dry pine forest, it will certainly build dams and dissolve the mud.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 25 December 2015 14: 07 New
              +1
              very witty, I would also add: what a dirty animal, this cat, dirty everywhere, everywhere, as it seems to me witty.
              About the Prussians, Vienna, Sobessky, humanists, did not understand anything, confused.
              1. 97110
                97110 25 December 2015 14: 16 New
                0
                Quote: bober1982
                About the Prussians, Vienna, Sobessky, humanists, did not understand anything, confused.

                Which will not prevent you from further assessing the greatness of the Russian monarchs and counting the victims of their reigns according to Western sources.
            2. V.ic
              V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 30 New
              0
              Quote: 97110
              Who summed up the results? The French and the Prussians?

              So far, you ...
              Quote: 97110
              Or did you look at the map, did you refresh the story in your memory?

              And you, personally, with Mnemosyna and Klio tumbled in bed?
              Quote: 97110
              especially his sultanic greatness

              Sultanic greatness was limited to Chesmoy, Sinop, Shipka, the capture of Kars, Batum.
              Quote: 97110
              Sultanic greatness, which from the last forces defended against Russia everything with great labors taken from the real masters.

              And this is hto? Well, this one, who are the "real owners"?
              Quote: 97110
              he just walked around Vienna when the true democrats led by Sobesski attacked him?

              Say sho wi say it! His Sultanic Majesty just delivered to ... God forgive me, a few tons of undeclared goods (coffee was called) in Geyropu. Here are the armored hussars, the Slavs by blood, the Catholics by faith, and smuggled these smugglers. And you run into Pan Sobessky, he did not participate in oil smuggling from the Holy Land and did not shoot Russian archers in the back.
              Quote: 97110
              Where there was dry boron, dams will certainly be built

              And you have to build talent nemae, ali penens, but, mabut, mind? Themselves in the country hooh toilet built themselves, ale hired workers?
          3. Rastas
            Rastas 26 December 2015 00: 31 New
            0
            And rightly so, each ruler had his own schools. No rulers should be elevated to the rank of saints, like Nicholas. And, of course, not one emperor was to blame, the emigration also contributed to this, which attributed everything to the weakness of the last Romanov, not wanting to admit his inaction. The system is rotten, the lower classes did not want - the upper circles could not. Classic.
        3. Dart2027
          Dart2027 25 December 2015 18: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Nicholas 2, it was decided to start a "Little Victorious War" against the "macaques"

          You do not know, but the Japanese attacked RI. The king did not start a war.
          Quote: The same Lech
          brought the murderer to the government (STOLYPINA)

          And how many people did the revolutionaries kill?
          Quote: The same Lech
          killed up to 20 million "Orthodox souls"
          who simply killed 20 million people

          So did Stolypin and PMV start?
      2. saveall
        saveall 25 December 2015 09: 17 New
        +9
        Quote: bober1982
        all the concessions made by the tsarist government, and which you listed — convening the State Duma, freedom, abolishing censorship, etc. — all this did not create the foundations of a constitutional monarchy, it just accelerated the catastrophe. And no rise in the strike the struggle of the workers in the world did not contribute.
        And what historical significance does this revolution have? They raised the landowner to the forks, the brutal crowd, or looted by the drunken crowd of the shopkeeper. This is the whole essence of this revolution.


        That's right ... The fault of the catastrophe was not at all Nicholas II, but the snickering elite-bourgeoisie looking into the mouth of the West, which arranged this revolution, which was also supported from abroad and inciting ordinary workers to revolt. It was not for nothing that Nicholas II wrote: "All around there is treason, cowardice and deceit ..." As a result, the same elite then got rid of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin in full, who finally finished off the country. And also with Western money. The same elite in the 91st threw a country called the USSR. And 70 years have not passed ...
        In general, you read some and it seems that you are reading some kind of propaganda from the past, apparently the old lesson does not let go. After all, you don’t need to include brains ...
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 25 December 2015 09: 24 New
          -1
          It was not for nothing that Nicholas II wrote: "All around there is treason, cowardice and deception ..."

          Yeah, this is how you should not love your people to say that.
          In RUSSIA at that time, a mass of talented and intelligent people was from whom a whole galaxy of outstanding minds then grew.

          And who was warmed near by the royal family .... RASPUTIN ...

          why then be surprised that after his dissolute way of life in the royal family, the people then murmured ... who needs such an autocrat ... nobody.
          1. saveall
            saveall 25 December 2015 09: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: The same Lech

            Yeah, this is how you should not love your people to say that.
            .

            And then the people then? He did not write about the people, but about the specific people who surrounded him. Why are you trying to give out wishful thinking?
            1. Same lech
              Same lech 25 December 2015 10: 31 New
              -1
              He did not write about the people, but about the specific people who surrounded him.

              Who exactly? what
              1. saveall
                saveall 25 December 2015 10: 54 New
                +2
                Quote: The same Lech
                He did not write about the people, but about the specific people who surrounded him.

                Who exactly? what

                The question is rhetorical ... What is your last name? Take a detailed study of the topic and find out. You know how to use Google or Yandex ... Kuzmin was somehow found. "And God save you, do not read Soviet newspapers before lunchtime ..." © And forgive me if something goes wrong. drinks
          2. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 25 December 2015 10: 33 New
            +3
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            And who was warmed near by the royal family .... RASPUTIN ...


            Opinions about him are also different. Some argue that all those drinking in pubs with walking girls were from a "figurehead" at the time when Rasputin himself was absent from St. Petersburg. It was for this reason that the tsar trusted him, because he knew (from the secret police) that Rasputin himself was not involved in all these obscenities.
            Of course, I personally was not present, but such an opinion has a place to be.
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 25 December 2015 18: 26 New
            +2
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            And who was warmed near by the royal family .... RASPUTIN ...

            A funny moment - they say a lot about Rasputin, but somehow in general terms. There are no concrete facts of his profligacy. And after death, he did not find any special wealth either.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 25 December 2015 10: 46 New
          +5
          Quote: saveall
          That's right ... The fault of the catastrophe was not Nicholas II at all, but the snickering elite-bourgeoisie looking west into their mouths

          The same thing happened in the 91st, all the dogs were lowered to Gorbach, which is partly true, but the Union was not destroyed by him alone, but by the entire Soviet elite.
          1. saveall
            saveall 25 December 2015 11: 40 New
            +6
            Quote: RUSS
            Quote: saveall
            That's right ... The fault of the catastrophe was not Nicholas II at all, but the snickering elite-bourgeoisie looking west into their mouths

            The same thing happened in the 91st, all the dogs were lowered to Gorbach, which is partly true, but the Union was not destroyed by him alone, but by the entire Soviet elite.

            I’ll even say more, the same thing can happen now and as usual, Putin will be to blame for everything. Many have written about this for a long time, backing it with all kinds of calculations and half-truths. So many times we are already stepping on the same rake ... And for now, we will repeat like asses that Nikolai II is to blame for everything that happened to Russia in the 20th century and will step on this rake and ruin the country. Apparently, it pleases God ... Until we understand, repent, and see the true reason for this. Only God will not give many chances ... Maybe the last one was already.
          2. V.ic
            V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 37 New
            0
            Quote: RUSS
            all the dogs were lowered to Gorbach, which is partly true, but the Union was not destroyed by him alone, but by the entire Soviet elite.

            Dear, and hto was a "train"?
        3. Glukashin
          Glukashin 25 December 2015 11: 31 New
          0
          Well, of course, the Tsar is not guilty, the boyars are bad! The reference to Vladimir Vladimirovich is completely clear and transparent. Chubais is guilty, and Nabiullina with Medvedev. And neither GDP!
          1. saveall
            saveall 25 December 2015 11: 54 New
            +2
            Quote: Glukashin
            Well, of course, the Tsar is not guilty, the boyars are bad! The reference to Vladimir Vladimirovich is completely clear and transparent. Chubais is guilty, and Nabiullina with Medvedev. And neither GDP!

            And who said that Putin is not to blame? He is also to blame and he has his own mistakes. He is a man. But this does not mean at all that someone else will come and everyone will be happy. Will not be. And there will be no happiness, and perhaps the country of such Russia ...
          2. V.ic
            V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Glukashin
            The reference to Vladimir Vladimirovich is completely clear and transparent. Chubais is guilty, and Nabiullina with Medvedev. And neither GDP!

            Did he ruin the chapel of the 14th century?
        4. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 December 2015 12: 59 New
          0
          Quote: saveall
          The fault of the catastrophe was not Nicholas II at all, but the snickering elite-bourgeoisie looking west in their mouths, who staged this revolution, also supported from abroad and inciting ordinary working people to revolt.

          Yes Yes Yes... good king tricked by evil boyars. And the Master of the Russian land himself had absolutely nothing to do with it. smile

          One question - who appointed and who commanded all those generals who sent telegrams supporting abdication? Who was the Supreme Commander in the Empire?
          I somehow somehow faintly imagine Zhukov, Konev, Eremenko and Tymoshenko with Shaposhnikov, sending telegrams to the Headquarters with support for the resignation of the IVS. belay

          Nicholas II, even in his family, could not restore order:
          The Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, with royal monograms on uniform and a red bow on his shoulder, appeared on March 1 at 4 hours 15 minutes in the State Duma, where he reported to the Chairman of the Duma MV Rodzianko: “I have the honor to appear to your Excellency. I am at your disposal, like all the people. I wish the good of Russia, ”and said that the Guards crew is at the full disposal of the State Duma.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, with royal monograms on shoulder straps and a red bow on his shoulder, appeared on March 1 at 4 hours 15 minutes in the State Duma, where he reported to the Chairman of the Duma MV Rodzianko: “I have the honor to appear to your Excellency. I am at your disposal

            So what to take with the "Kiryuha"? Do you know the meaning of this "term"?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 28 December 2015 10: 09 New
              0
              Quote: V.ic
              So what to take with the "Kiryuha"? Do you know the meaning of this "term"?

              Yeah ... this once again proves Nicky’s talents in the field of recruitment: Kirill, who was always kicking, was appointed commander of the Guards crew. Hope and support of the throne, which is already there ... smile
        5. V.ic
          V.ic 25 December 2015 22: 34 New
          0
          Quote: saveall
          After all, you don’t need to include brains ...

          Or maybe it's still worth trying and turning on "these"? What if it works out? There will be joy!
        6. Rastas
          Rastas 26 December 2015 00: 38 New
          0
          Sorry, but the revolution of 1905 came out of the lower classes, after the revolution began, local Soviets arose that consisted of workers. Where was the bourgeoisie there? And she was just begging Nikolai to at least take something in order to calm the people for a while and save her own skin. The elite never wanted to overthrow the autocracy, it itself was the backbone of the system, received preferences. Russia did not have the capitalism that prevailed in England, the American colonies and France before their revolutions. There he was independent of power. In Russia, capitalism came from above, and the bourgeoisie was completely dependent on power and held on to it. And about Lenin it is not necessary to repeat nonsense. Kaiser was an idiot to help the Bolsheviks, who maintained close ties with R. Luxemburg and C. Liebnecht, who stood for the liquidation of the monarchy in Germany?
    3. Turkestan
      Turkestan 25 December 2015 20: 17 New
      +2
      The main reasons for the revolution of 1905:

      - aggravation of the political situation in the country due to the stubborn reluctance of the ruling circles, led by Nicholas II, to carry out overdue reforms;
      - the unresolved agrarian issue - land shortage of peasants, redemption payments, etc .;
      - Unresolved work issue - lack of social protection of workers with an extremely high level of exploitation;
      - Unresolved national issue - infringement of the rights of national minorities;
      - the decline in the moral authority of the government and especially Nicholas II due to the shameful defeat in the Russo-Japanese war.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 25 December 2015 07: 40 New
    +2
    Well, it’s necessary to govern the country and govern the state ... to bring the empire to its liquidation ... and literally in a short time ... 1894-1917
    1. mishastich
      mishastich 25 December 2015 09: 27 New
      +3
      Well, you found the last one.)

      Nicholas 2 is just one of the guilty, and thousands of bureaucrats, nobles, priests, bribe takers and embezzlers, capital builders and Western guests / friends apparently just sat from the edge and cried about Russia?
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 25 December 2015 09: 36 New
        0
        Nicholas 2 is just one of the guilty, and thousands of bureaucrats, nobles, priests, bribe takers and embezzlers, capital builders and Western guests / friends apparently just sat from the edge and cried about Russia?

        You are right ... a hundred times right ...
        But still I can’t agree that Nicholas 2 was made a holy man ... he was sinful, oh how sinful ...

        however, a lot of people paid for his sins ... including himself ... GOD paid what everyone deserved ... only the innocent souls of the dead children are sorry.
        1. Loreal
          Loreal 25 December 2015 11: 00 New
          0
          list all his sins please

          He will reward and deserve to all who have killed his innocent children, as well as many others.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 25 December 2015 10: 01 New
      +2
      Yes, it’s necessary to govern the country in such a way as to bring the empire to its liquidation ... and literally in such a short time ... 1988-1918

      Greetings from the Second Reich.
      1. Loreal
        Loreal 25 December 2015 11: 01 New
        0
        would you specify then about the third one which is even shorter
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 25 December 2015 11: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Loreal
          would you specify then about the third one which is even shorter

          I gave an example of a "successful" German Empire with a "correct" emperor, in a similar period of existence.
          1. Loreal
            Loreal 26 December 2015 18: 07 New
            0
            there are those who might not understand
    3. MrK
      MrK 25 December 2015 11: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      Well, it’s necessary to govern the country and govern the state ... to bring the empire to its liquidation ... and literally in a short time ... 1894-1917

      In the end, it doesn’t really matter if the plans for overthrowing tsarism could be realized or not. Much more important is another - absolutely all sectors of society, from the landless peasant to the shining countesses, were in a remarkable state: if not in practice, then in thoughts and words they completely resigned themselves to the fact that one day the emperor would fly off the throne like a drunk from a stepladder. Everyone was eager for change - and some donated money for these changes, and some went on.
      It was a general commotion! Apart from a handful of particularly stubborn conservatives, the whole country was waiting for change! I do not care that everyone understood this to be purely their own state of mind, the expectation of a storm made possible any sharp turns! If all were already internally ready - just about something, sort of will strike.
      Not German money, not Bolshevik leaflets, not Socialist-Revolutionary bombs, but it was this universal internal readiness for scrap that became the death knell of the empire.
      Word to Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich: “A person’s personal qualities were not considered anything if he did not verbally or in print express his hostility to the existing system. A scientist or writer, artist or musician, artist or engineer was judged not by their giftedness, but by the degree of radical conviction". Remember now the time of perestroika in the USSR.
      Based on materials from the book of Alexander Kurlyandchik “Damned Soviet Power” ... on Prose. RU.
  3. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 25 December 2015 09: 37 New
    +4
    Colleagues! We are all very smart and can give the right advice in 110 years.
    It seems to me (I am also a smart adviser) that it was important to knock the soil out from under the feet of the revolutionaries. Elimination of the institution of the Grand Dukes, land reform, the introduction of 8-hour working days and paid leave, the introduction of minimum wages, the creation of apolitical trade unions, judicial reform, etc. In such a situation, revolutionary ideologists would have nothing to offer the masses.
    Unfortunately, Nicholas II was not capable of such changes. Yes, and it is especially impossible to blame him. After all, his brother George was specially prepared as heirs. By the way, his father Alexander III did not believe in the talents of Nicholas. On his deathbed, he conjured Nicholas upon reaching adulthood by Michael to abdicate in his favor.
    Well, and what is the sovereign, such is the environment.
    I do not idealize either tsarism or revolutionaries. But I really want Russia, in the words of Chancellor Gorchakov, to FOCUS!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. creak
      creak 25 December 2015 10: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Army 2
      Well, and what is the sovereign, such is the environment.


      This is so, but the opposite is true, as they say - the retinue makes the king ...
      Unfortunately, to count the truly outstanding monarchs in Russia, one finger is enough ...
      Nicholas, of course, was not a jerk, as some say, but was a very ordinary person, possessing very mediocre abilities in the field of public administration.
      It’s just that the Monomakh’s hat turned out not to be a senny, which, for example, was just right for his father Alexander III ...
    3. Same lech
      Same lech 25 December 2015 10: 35 New
      0
      I do not idealize either tsarism or revolutionaries. But I really want Russia, in the words of Chancellor Gorchakov, to FOCUS!


      Join hi ... we all need to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and not repeat them in the future.
      We need to raise our children, preferably in peace and prosperity, without all these horrors of war, revolutions and other upheavals.
    4. MrK
      MrK 25 December 2015 21: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Army 2
      Elimination of the institution of the Grand Dukes, land reform, the introduction of 8-hour working days and paid leave, the introduction of minimum wages, the creation of apolitical trade unions, judicial reform, etc. In such a situation, revolutionary ideologists would have nothing to offer the masses.

      If you add here - the land to the peasants, then this is Bolshevism. Yes you rEvolutionary - sir.
  4. moskowit
    moskowit 25 December 2015 09: 53 New
    +3
    "... And in Warsaw, mass demonstrations grew into the construction of barricades, clashes with the police and the army. During the clashes, more than 200 people were killed and wounded on both sides. Strikes and clashes spread to other areas of the Kingdom of Poland, especially to industrial Lodz, where there were even more killed, wounded and arrested. As a result, as many actions were held in the Polish provinces as in the rest of Russia ... "

    In the Kingdom of Poland and the Baltic states, the nationalist factor was very much mixed. Poland, in addition, considered itself an occupied territory. All performances had a bright national color ...
    1. Loreal
      Loreal 25 December 2015 11: 02 New
      -1
      he was mixed everywhere
      You can compare the urban romance of the 19th century with Israeli music
  5. Cruel beaver
    Cruel beaver 25 December 2015 10: 26 New
    +3
    Yes, Nicholas II was not Pyotr Alekseevich ... He would have drowned the whole rebellion in blood. Because Nicholas could not hold the Empire. But it was only necessary to show firmness ... Eh, what can I say now?
    History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood ...
    1. Loreal
      Loreal 25 December 2015 11: 04 New
      +2
      so the rebellion seemed to be suppressed, but not as that maniac would act
      In 1917, forces were drawn to the front.
    2. Glukashin
      Glukashin 25 December 2015 11: 42 New
      -1
      On the contrary, the great misfortune of Russia is that Nikolashka was not dumped in 1905. At that time, the Bolsheviks still did not represent much strength, and a normal constitutionally elected system could have taken place in Russia. With all the ensuing pros and cons, it’s no worse and no better than in France, England, Germany or the USA. It is possible that many troubles, including world wars, could have been avoided.
      1. Loreal
        Loreal 25 December 2015 16: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: Glukashin
        Nikolashka

        do you put yourself above the Russian Tsar?
        It seems like a schwonder who could not cope even with Professor Preobrazhensky in relatives?
        or ... oh, horror! MACHINE DOWN WAITING wassat
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 25 December 2015 18: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Glukashin
        It is possible that many troubles, including world wars, could have been avoided.

        You do not know, but those same democracies brought to power Hitler.
      3. semirek
        semirek 25 December 2015 22: 37 New
        0
        If it were not for the war, 17 was not in principle. Even Kerensky, in an interview with G. Borovik somewhere in the 60s, admitted: "... if I had made a normal peace with the Germans, there would have been no October ..."
    3. 97110
      97110 25 December 2015 14: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Angry Beaver
      Yes, Nicholas II is not Peter Alekseevich ...

      And the 20th century is not 18. A comparison with contemporaries — Kerensky, Lenin, Stalin — is more productive. And the attitude of sworn friends of Russia towards them is very revealing.
  6. Old warrior
    Old warrior 25 December 2015 11: 50 New
    +1
    "The feat of the Presnensk workers was not in vain ... their sacrifices were not in vain." (C) V.I. Lenin.
    The revolution begins where Central Power ceases to work.
  7. nnz226
    nnz226 25 December 2015 11: 52 New
    +1
    for only one "bloody Sunday" "the king-father" was subject to execution without trial or investigation. The Russian Orthodox Church here makes him a "martyr-saint", it would be better if it numbered more than two thousand innocent workers (with wives and children) of St. Petersburg!
  8. parusnik
    parusnik 25 December 2015 12: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Trapper7
    Yes, it’s necessary to govern the country in such a way as to bring the empire to its liquidation ... and literally in such a short time ... 1988-1918

    Greetings from the Second Reich.

    ..I don’t agree ... The Second Reich strove to redistribute the world .. Therefore, he died .. From this aspiration, one of the founders-Bismarck tried to keep, therefore he was dismissed ... Yes, and the revolutions in Germany except 1918 in the second Reich there wasn’t, but this was the result of the war, revolution in Russia, and during the period of its existence there weren’t any special riots .. The Second Reich was destroyed by military means .. because of his ambitions .. But here it’s different .. An outdated building .. did cosmetic repair with the reconstruction of some parts .. yes the trouble is, they did not finish it .. And the last Chief engineer of the empire in the construction simply did not understand .. hence his throwing .. and as a result .. the collapse of the building .. And they played a small role team leaders and contractors .. and designers ..
  9. Aleksander
    Aleksander 25 December 2015 13: 04 New
    +1
    As a result of the actions of terrorists (the so-called combatants) in Moscow in December 1905 was killed 424 person , of which 300 are random people who died partly as hostages of terrorists in the building of the Sytin Printing House and the Prokhorov Factory that they set on fire.
    What the "revolutionaries" were doing in the city:
    in the apartment of police Voyloshnikov, a bell rang from the front door ... They started shouting from the stairs, threatening to break down the door and burst into force. Then Voiloshnikov himself ordered to open the door. Six people burst into the apartment, armed with revolvers ... Those who arrived read the verdict of the revolutionary committee, according to which Voiloshnikov was to be shot ... Weeping rose in the apartment, children rushed to beg revolutionaries for mercybut those were adamant. They took Voyloshnikov to the alley, where the sentence was right there at the house and was carried out... Newspaper "New time". By such terror were destroyed dozens of law enforcement officials.

    And for all these atrocities, what was the punishment? Yes, practically NO! 28 November - 11 December 1906 in the Moscow Court of Justice a trial was held over 68 participants of the Presny defense; 9 people were sentenced to various terms of hard labor, 10 people - to imprisonment, 8 - to exile. belay
    Impunity for crimes and leniency of power to terrorists led to the tragedy of 1917. The court leaders were to be shot, and the instigators (apfelbaums, rosenfelds, schmites, letterheads) should have disappeared without a trace in socially useful work long before the 17. ..
    One can only imagine what would have happened to these "revolutionaries" and their relatives up to the tenth generation, if they had allowed themselves at least a WORD to say during the time of Stalin and against Stalin (I am already silent about the armed actions).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 December 2015 15: 59 New
      +3
      Quote: Aleksander
      Impunity for crimes and leniency of power to terrorists led to the tragedy of 1917. The court leaders were to be shot, and the instigators (apfelbaums, rosenfelds, schmites, letterheads) should have disappeared without a trace in socially useful work long before the 17. ..

      After which February 1917 would have happened anyway.

      For the Empire was killed not by blanks and bronsteins, but by its own elite. And she would not "clean" herself. Moreover, the cleaning had to start with the Surname - with all sorts of "seven pounds of august meat" and others ... members of... And also with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other law enforcement and punitive structures, which played so much as "provocateurs" that they actually led the terrorist attacks. In fact, it was necessary to break the system. Moreover, a system that, for its own safety and peace of mind, could easily organize the assassination of even the Prime Minister of the Empire.

      And you are urging everyone to fight with the consequences ...
      Quote: Aleksander
      One can only imagine what would have happened to these "revolutionaries" and their relatives up to the tenth generation, if they had allowed themselves at least a WORD to say during the time of Stalin and against Stalin (I am already silent about the armed actions).

      So one of the reasons for the purges of the late 30s was precisely the unwillingness of the IVS to be in the position of Nikolai. The Bolsheviks even learned from the mistakes of others.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 25 December 2015 20: 44 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        After which February 1917 would have happened anyway.


        Why on earth? Are you "piercing" the past, and in an alternative way? belay I do not see even the slightest reason to be convinced by you.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For the Empire was killed not by blanks and brackets, but by its own elite.

        They killed it - the blanks, the bronsteins, and, let's be fair, the Savenkovs with the kinglets and other "intellectuals" - "fighters for the people's happiness" - too.
        What are you actually blaming the Emperor for? The fact that he was not medieval misanthropic Bolshevik the beast who annihilated not only opposition, but even alleged dissent? That he was humane, humane, compassionate to his people, that is, ahead of his time much?
        After all, if the Bolsheviks easily destroyed millions much later, why should the "satrap" have done it earlier? I did not, alas .. And yet, yes, at least the laws of the Empire, it was necessary to observe, and terrorists and instigators-blanks and zalkins-to execute- LAW AND COURT.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        So one of the reasons for the purges of the late 30's was precisely the unwillingness of the IVS to be in the position of Nikolai. Bolsheviks even learned from the mistakes of others.


        So it is precisely the "fiery apfelbaums-Bolsheviks"- and finally executed. yes yes And -fair and deserved. As the Western press wrote absolutely consistently:
        "Based on the sentences of the Moscow trials, it became clear that the revolution was made by scum, traitors and stupid people. ”And how can one not agree with her and Comrade Stalin?
        I agree with them and I ...yes
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 December 2015 10: 45 New
          -1
          Quote: Aleksander
          They killed it - the blanks, the bronsteins, and, let's be fair, the Savenkovs with the kinglets and other "intellectuals" - "fighters for the people's happiness" - too.

          None of the individuals you listed and their followers were among those who overthrew the Emperor. As well as among those who in the midst of World War I ruined the army of the Empire with one order.
          Quote: Aleksander
          What do you actually accuse the Emperor of? That he did not turn out to be a medieval misanthropic Bolshevik beast, destroying in the bud not only opposition, but even supposed dissent? That he was humane, humane, compassionate to his people, that is, much ahead of his time? After all, if the Bolsheviks easily destroyed millions much later, why should the "satrap" have done it earlier? I didn’t, alas .. And yet, yes, at least the laws of the Empire, it was necessary to observe, and terrorists and instigators-blanks and zalkindov-to execute- BY LAW and COURT.

          Imago.
          What does the mass repression and execution of terrorists? The fish rotted from the head. The main opponents of the Empire did not live in Geneva or New York. No, they were sitting in the offices of that same Empire and with their actions did their best every day to bring the collapse of the Empire closer.
          Could it be that the blanks and the Savinkovs were covering up the Socialist-Revolutionary and other militias, passing off seasoned terrorists as "provocateurs controlled by the police"?
          Was it possible that the bronsteins and korolenki were robbing the budget of the Empire, selling ammunition at the price twice as expensive as the "breech" in the midst of the shell crisis?
          Surely Vladimir Ilyich drove the Empire into debt bondage to the French, for which he had to pay with Russian blood?
          Surely Lev Davydovich handed over a state-owned shipyard for free lease to AO, which had neither a Charter, nor a meeting of shareholders - and immediately issued a new company an order for the construction of battleships, and with an advance payment? Oh yes, in order to crank it up, the previous minister of the sea was also thrown off.
          Really, the savinkas before the war suggested reducing the mob stock of rifles, deciding that there were too many of them in the warehouses of the Empire’s army?
          Really, Korolenko made a leapfrog with subordination of state-owned factories, when three gun factories were subordinate to three departments (and the Perm plant, which not only produced guns, but also supplied castings to other plants, was under the jurisdiction of the Mining Department).
          Surely the Bolsheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries refused to test the shells of naval guns in front of the Russo-Japanese (but they saved the treasury as much as 70 rubles)?

          And yes - the philanthropy and humanism of Nicholas turned into three revolutions and one Civil. That's because someone didn’t have the courage to put things in order in their surroundings.
          Quote: Aleksander
          So it was precisely the "fiery Apfelbaums-Bolsheviks" who were finally executed.

          Not just the Bolsheviks. And those who did not understand that the time of anarchy and feudal liberties was over.
    2. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 25 December 2015 16: 51 New
      0
      Then they still did not understand the dangers of political organized crime groups ...
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 2 January 2016 11: 31 New
        0
        Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
        None of the individuals you listed and their followers were among those who overthrew the Emperor. As well as among those who in the midst of World War I ruined the army of the Empire with one order.


        It was about the EMPIRE, the state, but it never perishes during the abdication or even death of the Emperor. The state of Russia was killed precisely by letterhead and others like him by the coup.
        Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
        Was it possible that the bronsteins and korolenki were robbing the budget of the Empire, selling ammunition at the price twice as expensive as the "breech" in the midst of the shell crisis? Is it possible that Vladimir Ilyich drove the Empire into debt bondage to the French, for which they had to pay with Russian blood? Is it possible that Lev Davydovich leased the state-owned shipyard to a free-of-charge joint-stock company, which had neither the Articles of Association, nor a meeting of shareholders - and immediately gave the new Company an order for the construction of battleships, and with an advance payment? Oh yes, in order to pull this off, the previous naval minister was also thrown off. Was it possible that Savinkov proposed to reduce the mobilization of rifles before the war, deciding that there were too many of them in the warehouses of the Empire's army? Really, Korolenko made a leapfrog with the subordination of state-owned factories, when three gun factories were subordinate to three departments (moreover, the Perm factory, which not only produced tools itself, but also supplied castings to other factories, was under the jurisdiction of the Mining Department).

        It was all in France, and England, and in Germany-theft and profit on military orders-a common occurrence-was, is and will be. Mistakes in military construction, also not a feature of the Russian Empire alone, recall France, for example, with its artifacts, and the same USSR, with huge mobilization warehouses that supplied ... Germans belay millions of the same Soviet rifles and cartridges.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And yes - the philanthropy and humanism of Nicholas turned into three revolutions and one Civil. That's because someone didn’t have the courage to put things in order his surroundings.

        The emperor showed excessive philanthropy and humanism in the first place to state criminals and terrorists (convicted, by the way, by the COURT) from the RSDLP and others like them, believing that this contributes to the development and life of the people.
        Where were the opponents of the Bolsheviks? In the grave or abroad, quickly and ruthlessly, without trial or investigation. The empire just had to fulfill its own laws-in court to destroy the anti-state activity and its guides, who carried out the revolution and civil massacre. By your logic, when committing a crime, it is not the criminals who are to blame, but those who were attacked ....
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not just the Bolsheviks. And those who did not understand that the time of anarchy and feudal liberties was over.

        Not just the Bolsheviks, but LEADERS OF Bolshevismwho carried out the October revolution, the civil war and destroyed the country's economy. Yes, and then Lenin and Stalin, for decades who worked with these "spies" and "saboteurs" - the "elite" of the state?
        I respect your point of view, but I remain of my opinion: the Bolsheviks are the destroyers of the Russian state and the Russian people, only after 70 years of their rule he has died out ....
        Happy New Year and good luck!
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 2 January 2016 11: 31 New
        0
        Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
        None of the individuals you listed and their followers were among those who overthrew the Emperor. As well as among those who in the midst of World War I ruined the army of the Empire with one order.


        It was about the EMPIRE, the state, but it never perishes during the abdication or even death of the Emperor. The state of Russia was killed precisely by letterhead and others like him by the coup.
        Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
        Was it possible that the bronsteins and korolenki were robbing the budget of the Empire, selling ammunition at the price twice as expensive as the "breech" in the midst of the shell crisis? Is it possible that Vladimir Ilyich drove the Empire into debt bondage to the French, for which they had to pay with Russian blood? Is it possible that Lev Davydovich leased the state-owned shipyard to a free-of-charge joint-stock company, which had neither the Articles of Association, nor a meeting of shareholders - and immediately gave the new Company an order for the construction of battleships, and with an advance payment? Oh yes, in order to pull this off, the previous naval minister was also thrown off. Was it possible that Savinkov proposed to reduce the mobilization of rifles before the war, deciding that there were too many of them in the warehouses of the Empire's army? Really, Korolenko made a leapfrog with the subordination of state-owned factories, when three gun factories were subordinate to three departments (moreover, the Perm factory, which not only produced tools itself, but also supplied castings to other factories, was under the jurisdiction of the Mining Department).

        It was all in France, and England, and in Germany-theft and profit on military orders-a common occurrence-was, is and will be. Mistakes in military construction, also not a feature of the Russian Empire alone, recall France, for example, with its artifacts, and the same USSR, with huge mobilization warehouses that supplied ... Germans belay millions of the same Soviet rifles and cartridges.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And yes - the philanthropy and humanism of Nicholas turned into three revolutions and one Civil. That's because someone didn’t have the courage to put things in order his surroundings.

        The emperor showed excessive philanthropy and humanism in the first place to state criminals and terrorists (convicted, by the way, by the COURT) from the RSDLP and others like them, believing that this contributes to the development and life of the people.
        Where were the opponents of the Bolsheviks? In the grave or abroad, quickly and ruthlessly, without trial or investigation. The empire just had to fulfill its own laws-in court to destroy the anti-state activity and its guides, who carried out the revolution and civil massacre. By your logic, when committing a crime, it is not the criminals who are to blame, but those who were attacked ....
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not just the Bolsheviks. And those who did not understand that the time of anarchy and feudal liberties was over.

        Not just the Bolsheviks, but LEADERS OF Bolshevismwho carried out the October revolution, the civil war and destroyed the country's economy. Yes, and then Lenin and Stalin, for decades who worked with these "spies" and "saboteurs" - the "elite" of the state?
        I respect your point of view, but I remain of my opinion: the Bolsheviks are the destroyers of the Russian state and the Russian people, only after 70 years of their rule he has died out ....
        Happy New Year and good luck!
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 25 December 2015 20: 54 New
      +3
      In Penza, at the same time (the newspaper Gubernskie Vesti wrote), two people went to the pharmacy and raked out all the money, said - "For the revolution!" and gone! The pharmacist realized that his salary was there and rushed after them shouting: "Stop the thieves!" The thieves ran down the main street of Moscow and also shouted - Hold! Then a policeman grabbed one and ... received three bullets - in the arm, in the chest and in the leg. Fell and died! The newspaper wrote that a wife and two children remained. But! Nobody wrote, nor offered to collect money, to provide assistance, because a person defended the peace of citizens of whom NOBODY helped the city man, although it was crowded on the street! But the newspaper wrote - when will order in Penza be restored? And how to bring it when the attitude towards the hero-city man was worse than towards the dog ?!
  10. 933454818
    933454818 25 December 2015 14: 41 New
    +1
    The revolution in Russia could happen, oddly enough, because of the liberality and softness of the then Russian laws. The Bolsheviks themselves recognized that if in pre-revolutionary Russia there were the same laws as in Bolshevik Russia, then there would not have been and could not have been any revolution. they talked about this more than once, but he did not want to be branded as a strangler of freedom in Russia, and here is the result ... And the fact that the revolution was inspired and paid for from abroad is obvious, it was the "payment" of the allies in the anti-German coalition for participation Russia in the 1st World War.
  11. goblin xnumx
    goblin xnumx 25 December 2015 14: 52 New
    -1
    minus article - I read it to the place where the Black Hundreds and Jewish pogroms were declared as a good deed of patriotic citizens united against the lawlessness from the side of the revolutionaries and terrorists paid by the Western special services - and almost vomited - scribbler - not a historian — a normal historian will not write like that - if that and it was not like we were presented with before, but not like now the scribes of the present moment bring the vomit of their own thoughts
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 25 December 2015 20: 55 New
      0
      Extremes always cause nastiness in the past, now! Here I agree with you.
  12. holgert
    holgert 25 December 2015 16: 00 New
    +3
    You read the comments and you understand that the Civil War in Russia has NOT ended, but continues --- also the division into "white and red" "!!! revolution of 1905. was the dress rehearsal of 1917, and it was NOT arranged by Nikolai and the Autocracy, but by our "partners" and "friends" "!!! We all know their names !! By 1905, most of the Moscow factories were bought" " friends "" --- the factories of the Morozovs - Henry Lloyd, the factories of the Savelievs - the brothers Grunhlis, etc. Draw your conclusions !!!! In St. Petersburg and in Nizhny, the factories were still under Russian capital, so the revolution did not start. ---- this Saint --- like it or not !!!!
    1. semirek
      semirek 25 December 2015 22: 58 New
      +1
      You forgot one more respected moment: after the coup, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the policy of war communism, that is, expropriation (robbed loot) and suddenly a sharp turn of 360 degrees in the year 21-NEP, but with new owners (old or killed during the stripping, sorry civil war, or perished in a foreign land) and who are the new owners of the old property asked? Did not the commissars who settled in the royal chambers? and where did the fundamental principles of Bolshevism suddenly disappear?
      The Russian people were divorced as suckers by the western owners of these commissars, and would still have been bred if there were no healthy forces in the country, I mean, of course, Stalin.
  13. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 25 December 2015 16: 27 New
    +1
    The Russians are against the Russians. Mass madness ...
  14. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 25 December 2015 17: 29 New
    +1
    In my opinion, this article is really about us and is very applicable to the comments on this page.

    Sergey Khudiev: We are in a state of cold civil war
    http://www.vz.ru/columns/2015/9/24/768213.html

    “It is immoral to ignore injustice and human suffering in any case. It is even more immoral to express contempt for victims. A sane approach to history and its tragedies can only consist in recognizing all victims as our victims who are worthy of being recognized and mourned.

    As long as the victims of the 90's collapse or the victims of earlier Soviet history are perceived as strangers, we are in a state of cold civil war. Recognizing them does not mean approving the USSR or damning the USSR. This means recognizing human suffering regardless of political preferences.

    It means noticing little people trapped in the millstones of history. And for our future, this may be even more important than these or those political preferences. "
  15. iouris
    iouris 25 December 2015 17: 51 New
    -2
    The Bolshevik Party is the know-how of the scientific management of an organization. Similarly, in 2014, Anti-Russia was created and won in a single country. It seems that Robespierre declared in the convention "not the people won, but 10 thousand agents."
    The objective condition for the victory of the "orange", "blue" and other revolutions is the feudal thinking of the ruling class, which considers itself an "elite". This "elite" has only one alternative: broad reform or dictatorship. But it cannot carry out a broad reform: it means abolishing itself. Therefore, history repeats itself.
  16. Kibl
    Kibl 25 December 2015 19: 42 New
    0
    Fish at all times and among all peoples began to rot from the head. The law of nature. And if you dig into the realities, then any games of democracy or liberalism are not good. In order for the country to be in order, there must be a person who has real power. This like in the army, no democracy, otherwise a mess and failure to comply with orders, unfortunately Nikolashka was not like that!
    1. semirek
      semirek 25 December 2015 22: 30 New
      +1
      If Nicholas would apply harsh methods of government - for the sake of saving the monarchy, family and the Russian people - cut out this cancerous tumor that infected Russia, called the revolution, then we would now discuss his harsh methods of government. Where is the logic? By the way, why is it called Nicholas -blood? In my opinion everyone here considers him a weak monarch. Or maybe he did not want blood in principle?
  17. semirek
    semirek 25 December 2015 20: 19 New
    0
    I would not blame everything on Nicholas, but there were his mistakes, and even mistakes tragic for the country. I think the reign of Nicholas is something else, the peak of the systemic crisis of the Russian Empire, emperors, in particular, the fault of Alexander the Third, because he is essentially froze all the reforms of Alexander the Second, focusing on the autocratic strong hand, but time passed, but nothing changed in the empire, it is impossible to carry out reforms in the country in a matter of months (which Nikolai tried to do in a fire order), which can only be carried out by a strong ruler.
  18. The comment was deleted.