Military Review

How to kill the Tsar Liberator

220
How to kill the Tsar Liberator

135 years ago, 1 (13) in March 1881, the revolutionary revolutionists killed the people killed Tsar Alexander II Nikolayevich, tearing him up with bombs on the Catherine Canal embankment in St. Petersburg. With the Tsar Liberator dealt with the most brutal way. This murder was significant: the successful attempt on the tsar was the natural end of the period of liberalism in the Russian Empire and flirting with liberal circles. The heir to the throne, Alexander III, the Peacemaker was able to crush the revolutionary infection and temporarily stabilize the situation in the empire.


It should also be said that the martyr end of Emperor Alexander II became the forerunner of the terrible death of his grandson Nicholas II Alexandrovich with the whole family, the tragic suppression of the 300-year reign of the House of Romanov. This phenomenon, which, with all clarity and pain, showed F. Dostoevsky with the novel “Demons”, written after the first attempts on the life of the Russian tsar and ten years before the nightmarish last, successful, attempt, the seventh in a row. Alexander's death was a terrible warning to Alexander III and Nicholas II. They were supposed to hold the Russian Empire "along the razor's edge", to bring it to a new level. Alexander the Peacemaker was able to keep Russia on the brink of disaster, but died prematurely. His successor could not hold back a civilizational disaster.

Alexander was the eldest son of the first Grand Duke, and from 1825, the imperial couple Nikolai Pavlovich and Alexandra Feodorovna (daughter of the Prussian monarch Friedrich-Wilhelm III). Alexander Nikolaevich received a good education. V. Zhukovsky was his mentor, who led the process of upbringing and education, and the teacher of the Russian language. Among the teachers were theologian, archpriest G. Pavsky, K. I. Arsenyev, M. M. Speransky, EF Kankrin, F. I. Brunov, captain K. K. Merder, and other prominent statesmen and teachers. The identity of the future emperor was influenced by his father, who wanted to be the heir to the military, and at the same time the poet Zhukovsky, who sought to educate an enlightened monarch, a monarch-legislator, who carried out reasonable reforms in the Russian Empire. Both of these trends left a deep imprint on the character of Alexander Nikolaevich. On the one hand, he, like all the Romanovs, was a “militarist”, that is, he loved military affairs, the army, parades, on the other hand, he strove for transformations.

Leading the empire in 1855, Alexander received a difficult legacy. He received instruction from the father who had left his life: “Serve Russia. I wanted to take upon myself everything difficult, all serious, leaving the kingdom peaceful, arranged, happy. Providence judged otherwise. Now I am going to pray for Russia and for you. After Russia, I loved you more than anything else. ”

There was a severe Eastern (Crimean) war, which was a kind of rehearsal of the First World War. The leading world powers came out against Russia and landed an expeditionary army in the Crimea; the empire was internationally isolated. Russia faced tough political issues: the long-lasting and resource-consuming Caucasian War continued; there was a question of the accession of Central Asia; it was necessary to modernize the industry; the peasant question was not resolved, and so on. Alexander Nikolayevich was forced to become the reformer tsar.

In March 1856, the Paris Peace was concluded. The Russian Empire lost some of its positions in the Black Sea region (including the abandonment of the Black Sea fleet) In the same year, Alexander II secretly concluded a “double alliance” with Prussia, breaking through the diplomatic isolation of Russia. At the same time, Alexander Nikolaevich made some concessions in domestic politics: recruitment packages were suspended for 3 years; Decembrists, Petrashevists, participants in the Polish uprising of 1830-1831 received relief. In 1857, military settlements were abolished. A kind of “thaw” began in the socio-political life of Russia.

Tsar Alexander II headed for the abolition of serfdom, and in 1861 he pushed through this decision. Moreover, a milder version of the reform was adopted - it was initially proposed to carry out the “Baltic version”, with the landless liberation of the peasants. True, the reform had many negative sides - the peasants did not receive land. In fact, many peasants were forced to break with the land, the community, to go to the cities and become workers. The capitalist path of development was activated, which led to the parasitism of small groups of people over the masses. With the support of the emperor, territorial and judicial reforms (1864), urban reform (1870), military reforms (1860 — 70's), education reform were carried out. In general, Alexander conducted liberal reforms. Thus, the position of Jewry was alleviated, corporal punishment was abolished, censorship was facilitated, and so on.

During the reign of Alexander Nikolaevich, the Russian Empire won decisive victories in the Caucasian War and completed it. The North Caucasus was pacified. The empire's advance into Central Asia was successfully completed: in 1865 — 1881. Most of Turkestan became part of Russia. In 1870, Russia, which supported Bismarck’s policy and benefited from it, took advantage of Prussia’s victory over France, and was able to mark an article in the Paris Treaty on the neutralization of the Black Sea. Russia won the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878. Although St. Petersburg, under pressure from the West, had to abandon part of the conquests and Constantinople-Constantinople. In addition, militarily, the campaign was characterized by a mass of mistakes that spoke of a systemic crisis of the Russian army (they were not corrected, and this had a negative impact on the course of the Russian-Japanese war and the world war). The Russian Empire returned the southern part of Bessarabia, lost after the Crimean War, and received the Kars region. Gained independence and began the sovereign existence of Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia. However, under pressure from the West, their independence and territories were curtailed, which laid a “powder keg” under the Balkans.

After the victory at Plevna, Alexander began to be honored as the Tsar-Liberator of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula from the Ottoman yoke. True, Alexander's government made a strategic mistake - in the 1867, the United States sold Alaska, which seriously worsened Russia's position in the Asia-Pacific region. Petersburg buried the works of several generations of Russian explorers, explorers, statesmen who were glad about the expansion of the power and capabilities of the empire. At the same time, the sale of Russian America affected the military-strategic, geopolitical and economic position of Russia throughout the 20th century and still influences Russia.

After the Polish uprising 1863-1864. and the attempts of D. V. Karakozov on the life of the emperor in April 1866, Alexander II began to listen more to supporters of the protective course. Grodno, Minsk and Vilna governors-general appointed a conservative leader M.N. Muravyov, he conducted a series of reforms aimed at the Russification and restoration of the positions of Orthodoxy in the province. Conservatives D. A. Tolstoy, F. F. Trepov, and P. A. Shuvalov were appointed to the highest state posts. Many supporters of reforms, with the exception of a few exceptions, such as Minister of War D. A. Milyutin and Minister of the Interior M. T. Loris-Melikov, were removed from power. However, in general, the course of liberal reform was continued, but more cautiously, sluggishly.

Thus, a project was developed to expand the functions of the State Council and the establishment of the "General Commission" (congress), where it was supposed to introduce representatives from the Zemstvos. As a result, autocracy could be limited in favor of organs with limited representation. In essence, it was the germ of constitutional reform that limited autocracy. The authors of this idea were the Minister of the Interior, M. T. Loris-Melikov, and the Minister of Finance, A. A. Abaza. Emperor Alexander II, shortly before his death, approved the draft, but did not have time to discuss it at the Council of Ministers.

Reforms and relaxation in public life led to the destabilization of the domestic political situation in Russia. In Russia, a revolutionary underground appeared in the person of the People's Volunteers, which strengthened its position and took a course towards the liquidation of the king. According to the conspirators, the death of the emperor was supposed to cause a revolutionary wave in Russia and lead to the fall of the autocracy.

The Hunt for the Emperor

The movement of populists coincided with the liberal reforms of Alexander II. The emperor abolished serfdom and introduced unprecedented freedoms and freedoms in the country before. However, the ideas formulated by the founder of Russian socialism and the first known dissident Alexander Herzen were developed by Russian intellectuals, like N. G. Chernyshevsky, V. G. Belinsky, P. N. Tkachev, M. A. Bakunin, P. A. Kropotkina, were not accepted by the people, remaining in a narrow circle of intellectuals.

Then the revolutionaries decided that the confusion of the revolution could cause the killing of the king. The call to kill the king and take "the axes" "imperial party" appeared already in 1862 year: "We will issue one cry:" The axes! "- and then ... then hit the imperial party, not sparing it, as it does not spare us now, beat in the squares, if this despicable bastard dares to go out on them, hit the houses, beat in the narrow alleys of the cities, beat in the wide streets of the capital cities, hit the villages and villages! Remember that then, who will not be with us, he will be against, who will be against, that is our enemy, and the enemies should be exterminated by all means. " These words were spoken in the proclamation "Young Russia". Its author was Peter Zaichnevsky, a young man from a noble family of the Oryol province.

In the proclamations, Zaichnevsky noted that society in Russia "is entering a revolutionary period of its existence." Society, in his opinion, is quite clearly divided into two groups, whose interests are diametrically opposed, and therefore hostile to each other. The first part is the "oppressed and plundered by all" people. This is the "people's party." The other group consists of “robbers” - officials and landowners, the king and his court, the generals, merchants, “making money for themselves by robbery and deception”, all the haves, all who own property. This is the "imperial party." It is her author who offers the "axes". In fact, he proposes to physically destroy the existing power, the political elite of the empire - the king, the imperial family, the closest aides of the sovereign, the generals, the highest color of the nobility and merchants. This is a blow to the very foundation of the then Russian statehood, a frankly expressed desire to destroy the Russian empire and create a kind of democratic Russian republic. The imperial family causes special hatred - “How the cleansing sacrifice lays down the whole Romanov dynasty house!” Zaichnevsky and his comrades saw only one method of fighting injustice of society with injustice - “revolution”, and “revolution bloody and implacable” that should change all the foundations of the existing system . It’s not for nothing that Dostoevsky called these people "demons", and Turgenev - nihilists. They were going to destroy everything to the ground, and then build something.

Russian statehood turned out to be unprepared that people educated and received a good education in the Russian Empire (often representatives of high society) would treat their homeland with such hatred. Russian society was not yet familiar with the extreme fanaticism and bloodthirstiness of the next fighters “for the happiness of the people”. The state has not yet had to deal with attacks on the king and statesmen. Acts of terror and subversive proclamations shocked the citizens of the empire. The actions of the "People" became the harbinger of a new bloody era.

The personification of the Russian statehood was the autocrat, the emperor, therefore his assassination was the main revolutionaries. The first assassination attempt took place on 4 on April 1866, when Emperor Alexander II was walking in the Summer Garden accompanied by his nephew, Duke Nicholas of Leuchtenberg, and the niece, Princess of Baden. When the king headed for the carriage, an unknown person tried to shoot the king. It was a young man of noble origin, a student of Kazan and Moscow universities Dmitry Karakozov. They prevented him from aiming well, and the peasant Osip Komissarov, who was standing next to him, withdrew the hand of the villain. The people wanted to lynch the intruder right away, but the police saved him.

I must say that this was a new phenomenon in Russia. Russian tsars walked freely, without special precautions. The people respected the sovereigns. There was almost no security, not counting several Cossacks and officers, which was supposed to be according to etiquette. This attempt was a kind of thunder out of the blue in the Russian Empire. The first public attempt to kill the sovereign! 3 (15) September 1866 Karakozov on Smolensk field (Vasilyevsky Island) in St. Petersburg hung.

25 May 1867 in Paris, during the visit of the Russian emperor to France, the second attempt was made. Napoleon III and Alexander II were returning in a wheelchair after a military parade, when a shot rang out. He was unsuccessful due to damage to the gun. The intruder was a Polish gentry and émigré Anton Berezovsky. The motive of the assassination was the desire to avenge the emperor for suppressing the Polish 1863 uprising of the year. A jury sentenced him to life penal servitude in New Caledonia (later it was replaced with life exile).

2 (14) April 1879, in Petersburg, right on Palace Square during the walk, the king noticed a man who was watching him closely. It must be said that, despite the already two attempts and a series of attempts and murders of officials, the sovereign still walked without special precautions. Only at a distance were gendarme officers following him. As a result, the terrorist gets a revolver and freely makes five (!) Shots, Alexander was able to escape. Thank God that the villain shooter was bad. Snatched up was another underestimated student, Alexander Solovyov. He stated that thoughts about the assassination attempt on the tsar had arisen after studying the ideas of the social revolutionaries. 9 June 1879. He was put to death by hanging.

26 August 1879, the executive committee of the “Narodnaya Volya” decided to “execute” the emperor. The terrorists decided to undermine the train that Alexander and his family members were traveling on. They noticed that the most vulnerable place in the security system is the route on which the king traveled annually to rest on the Crimean peninsula and back to the capital. On the way of the movement of the imperial staff, several ambushes were prepared: in Odessa, in case the sovereign sets out from Crimea by sea; on the Simferopol-Moscow railway near the town of Aleksandrovsk; and on the Rogozhsko-Simonovskaya outpost near Moscow. 18 November 1879 of the year near Odessa A. Zhelyabov unsuccessfully connected the wires of an explosive device embedded in a railway embankment. On November 19 near Moscow, the group of S. Perovskoy mistakenly blew up not a royal train from Livadia, but an escort train. The terrorists knew that the first train with retinue and luggage, and the second train - the royal train. However, in Kharkov, due to the malfunctioning of the steam locomotive, the departure of the first train was postponed. The first went the royal train. Terrorists missed the royal train and blew up the Sweets. At that time, Alexander II, as they say, said: “What do they have against me, these unfortunates? Why are they following me like a wild beast? After all, I always tried to do everything in my power, for the good of the people! ”

People did not calm down and began to develop a new attack. Sophia Perovskaya, through her friends, found out that in the Winter Palace, cellars were being renovated, including a wine cellar, which was located directly under the royal dining room. They decided to lay a hellish car. The explosion was to lead to the collapse of the dining room and the death of people there. The implementation of the attack was assigned to the worker Stepan Khalturin. He was hired for carpentry work in the palace and gained access to the basements. At night, he would carry bags of dynamite, masking him among building materials. This case shows what a mess was in the imperial palace. In February 1880, the terrorists received information that on February 5 a gala dinner was scheduled at the Winter Palace, at which the sovereign and all members of the imperial family would be present. The explosion was supposed to happen 6: 20 evenings, when, presumably, the emperor, who strictly followed the daily routine, was already in the dining room. But the case spoiled the terrorists the whole deal. Due to the visit of the Duke Alexander of Hesse, the brother of the emperor's spouse, who was half an hour late, the dinner time was shifted. Khalturin did not know about it. When there was a terrible explosion, the king was located near the guard room near the dining room. He was not injured. However, 11 veteran soldiers, heroes of the Russian-Turkish war, who were credited with guarding the palace for their distinction, were killed, and 56 people were injured.

Despite all these “bells”, only 12 February 1880 of the year was established by the Supreme Administrative Commission to protect the public order and fight against the revolutionary underground. But he was headed by a liberal-minded Count Loris-Melikov, who was unable to take decisive measures to combat the revolutionary contagion. The result of such a negligent attitude towards the mortal danger and activities of the then “fifth column” was obvious and sad.

1 March 1881, the villains have succeeded. On Sunday morning, the sovereign received Interior Minister Loris-Melikov. He approved his constitutional draft and appointed a meeting of the Council of Ministers for March 4. I must say that most ministers endorsed this plan. When March 8 held this meeting, already chaired by Alexander III, the majority of the ministers were in favor, only Stroganov and Pobedonostsev were against (Alexander III accepted their point of view).

Loris-Melikov asked the king not to go on that day to divorce the troops. Such requests have recently been repeated regularly, the emperor almost stopped visiting troops. Alexander was indignant: “I would not want my people to consider me a coward!” The Minister of Internal Affairs did not back down and turned to Princess Yuryevskaya, knowing how much Alexander was subject to female influence. She managed to persuade her husband (after the death of Empress Maria Alexandrovna, Alexander married E. Yuryevskaya). The divorce trip was canceled. But the Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna appeared in the palace. Her youngest son, the nephew of the sovereign, had to appear before him for the first time in that divorce. Alexander makes a fatal decision.

Alexander left the Winter Palace to Manezh, he was accompanied by a rather small guard - there was a Cossack on the box next to the coachman, six more Cossacks followed the coach, and a sleigh with the police chief Dvorzhitsky and three police officers. Having been on the divorce guard and having drunk tea at her cousin, the sovereign goes back to the Winter Palace through the Catherine Canal. And the conspirators were waiting for him on Malaya Sadovaya. The attempt was duplicated: a mine was laid, and there were four terrorist bombers, in case the mine did not work. A variant was even worked out that if the king was not killed by a bomb, Zhelyabov had to jump into the carriage (he was arrested before the assassination) and stab the emperor with a dagger.

Perovskaya urgently changes the plan. Four Narodovoltsa - Grinevitsky, Rysakov, Emelyanov, Mikhailov, occupy positions along the embankment of the Catherine Canal and wait for the signal of Perovskaya (sway of a scarf). When the imperial carriage left the embankment, Sophia signaled, and Rysakov dropped the first bomb. She damaged the carriage, killed a passer-by and two Cossacks. Alexander at the first explosion was not injured. Here the emperor made a fatal mistake, instead of leaving at once, he wished to look at the seized intruder.

Rysakov fought back from the crowded crowd when the king approached and said: “What did you do, you are crazy?” He also asked his name and rank. Rysakov called a tradesman. The police chief ran up, asked if the sovereign was wounded. “Thank God, no,” said Alexander. Rysakov heard it and said evil: “Is it still glory to God?” Nobody understood the hidden meaning of these words. At this time, Grinevitsky threw a bomb. With the explosion, Alexander practically severed both legs, disfigured his face. He managed to whisper: "Take me to the palace ... There I want to die ...". Soon the sovereign died. Tsar Alexander II was buried in St. Petersburg, in the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

The case of regicide was heard in the Special Presence of the Governing Senate 26-29 in March 1881. The defendants were Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Mikhailov, Rysakov, Gelfman. The court sentenced all defendants to death. Gelfman, because of her pregnancy, the execution was delayed until the child was born, and then replaced by eternal penal servitude, but she soon died. 3 (15) April 1881, Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Mikhailov and Rysakov were hanged on the Semenovsky parade. On each chest was attached a plaque with the inscription "Regicide".

Alexander II Nikolaevich was to some extent himself guilty of his death. No wonder Pobedonostsev said that only pure autocracy can resist the revolution. Alexander shook the Nikolaev empire and did not take appropriate measures to fight the revolutionary underground. Fortunately for Russia, the reins of government after his death were seized by the strong hand of Alexander III, who was able to freeze the decay of the empire. Otherwise, turmoil in Russia could have begun at the end of the XNUMXth century. At the same time, his reign left behind a good memory. At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, when Russian peasants were asked which of historical they remember the leaders, they also called the tsar-liberator.
Author:
220 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Forward
    Forward 14 March 2016 06: 28
    +5
    The conclusion suggests itself. The great prosperity of Russia can be considered the red empire of Stalin. Liberalism harms our country. Although, nevertheless, the peasants remained grateful to the king.
    1. Egor123
      Egor123 14 March 2016 07: 02
      -8
      The great heyday of Russia is the reign of Alexander 3 and Nicholas 2
      1. Darkness
        Darkness 14 March 2016 07: 10
        +23
        Nikolashka?
        Maloholny, who overslept the country, inherited from his ancestors. He deserved the hatred of most of the people and shamefully betrayed the Empire and his god.
        1. Blondy
          Blondy 14 March 2016 07: 52
          +10
          Quote: Darkness
          The great heyday of Russia is the reign of Alexander 3 and Nicholas 2

          Well, of course, the era of Nicholas II, the grateful people christened him bloodthirsty for special merits in the field of prosperity.
          1. Darkness
            Darkness 14 March 2016 08: 35
            +2
            This is not what I wrote, if that.
            But what should ordinary people do if we have high ranks in serious cabbage broadcasting from the screens of the media about the Great Martyr Nicholas II.
            You see, soon the schools will teach that it was the Bolsheviks who overthrew the last emperor)))
            1. the villain
              the villain 14 March 2016 15: 50
              +2
              Quote: Darkness
              But what should ordinary people do if we have high ranks in serious cabbage broadcasting from the screens of the media about the Great Martyr Nicholas II.

              As an option, do not put your head under the stream of these slops.
            2. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 19: 42
              +6
              The fact that Nicholas II is a martyr is anyone. Only with his martyrdom does it smell a lot like pharisaism. Why is he only a martyr? And why didn’t they make Peter III the saints? What about his son Paul? They were also killed. And finally, John Antonovich, this innocent baby on the throne, a victim of court intrigue, whose whole fault was that he was the son of Anna Leopoldovna from another branch of the Romanovs?
          2. bober1982
            bober1982 14 March 2016 08: 39
            0
            You, apparently in a hurry, confused the authors of the quote. What sources drew knowledge about the terrible reign of Emperor Nicholas II?
            What kind of people?
          3. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 09: 05
            +8
            the grateful people christened him bloodthirsty for special merits in the field of prosperity.


            If the "people" is Trotsky, then indeed, then "christened." And if the people are those obscurantists that are in small Ivanovka and large Petrovka - then "the tsar-father".
            1. Blondy
              Blondy 14 March 2016 15: 13
              +5
              Quote: AK64
              If the "people" is Trotsky, then indeed, then "christened." And if the people are those obscurantists that are in small Ivanovka and large Petrovka - then "the tsar-father".

              Yes, for Khodynka, the people christened him, for waltzes on the day of the death of hundreds or thousands of people, plus "Bloody Sunday." Trotsky was then Leiba Bronstein.
              1. Morrrow
                Morrrow 14 March 2016 19: 54
                +2
                And what did the people call Lenin and Stalin?
              2. AK64
                AK64 14 March 2016 21: 48
                +1
                Yes, his people christened Khodynka,


                Do not "baptize" his people, do not invent. It was "baptized" by those who later congratulated the Japanese emperor on his victories.

                for waltzes on the day of the death of hundreds or thousands of people, plus "Bloody Sunday".


                Would you at least familiarize yourself with the subject at the Wiki level, huh? And it would be better on both topics.
          4. Morrrow
            Morrrow 14 March 2016 19: 53
            0
            What kind of people? Is it not the one who unleashed a civil war and gave the Germans 30 million Russians for experiments?
        2. nils
          nils 14 March 2016 07: 56
          0
          Quote: Darkness
          shamefully betrayed the Empire and his god


          DARKNESS! Your name matches the comment. Do you, far from the Orthodox Faith, talk about God, blaspheme RUSSIAN saints. Aren't you the ones who condemned the Tsar and his family to ritual murder after reading the Jewish press?
          1. Darkness
            Darkness 14 March 2016 08: 31
            +8
            What does faith have to do with it? Although, with whom I argue ....
            The king who led the country into a dead end, who lost all the wars, who was responsible for the death of millions of citizens of the Empire, who renounced the throne (respectively, of the country and his god) is a saint for you.
            Strange you, Orthodox fanatics with the crunch of "French bread on the teeth"
            1. AK64
              AK64 14 March 2016 09: 22
              +2
              What does faith have to do with it? Although, with whom I argue ....
              The king who led the country into a dead end, who lost all the wars, who was responsible for the death of millions of citizens of the Empire, who renounced the throne (respectively, of the country and his god) is a saint for you.
              Strange you, Orthodox fanatics with the crunch of "French bread on the teeth"


              You are an amazingly stupid and ignorant person. And this is not an insult - this is a statement.
              If only out of curiosity you would have familiarized yourself with more or less reliable descriptions of events - let's say the same story of "doom". About how telegrams flew from Headquarters (!!!!) demanding "to stop the tsar's train!"
              Is it really people did you send those telegrams?

              Under Nikolai Alexandrovich, the pace of industrialization was quite Stalinist - and without the robbery of peasants and collectivizations.
              And Russia won the war and would win - if it had not been decided to finish off Russia and merge.

              Well, people like you don’t understand: you’ve grown up on murders, and you are not capable of thoroughly sorting out problems or thinking.

              Dandruff starts from thinking, right?
              1. Mr. Pipster
                Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 10: 04
                -3
                Quote: AK64
                Under Nikolai Alexandrovich, the pace of industrialization was quite Stalinist - and without the robbery of peasants and collectivizations.

                1. In 1901-1903 there was a decline in production. But even in 1905-1914. the rate of increase in industrial production was several times lower than in the 1890s.
                2. And one must not deny the obvious, the command-and-control economy (Trotsky’s authorship) really gave a colossal quantitative growth is greater than in protectionist RI.
                Quote: AK64
                carefully understand the problems nor categorically are not capable.

                If you look carefully, the industrial growth rate in the Republic of Ingushetia was only slightly ahead of the population growth rate in Russia.
                Therefore, industrialization in the Republic of Ingushetia seems so inconspicuous that if under Stalin we practically died out and at the same time a steadily increasing population did not starve, then under the tsar there was famine, but with a population growing at a wild pace wassat
                1. AK64
                  AK64 14 March 2016 11: 01
                  +5
                  1. In 1901-1903 there was a decline in production. But even in 1905-1914. the rate of increase in industrial production was several times lower than in the 1890s.


                  Absolute untruth. To make sure of which is very simple - just look at the production of steel, for example.
                  Economic growth began precisely as a result of reforms, that is, after 1906


                  2. And it is not necessary to deny the obvious, the command-and-control economy (Trotsky's authorship) did yield tremendous quantitative growth more than in protectionist RI.

                  The perfect sausage.
                  It's very simple: reports are one-sided, just like the Soviet Stalinist "economy" is one-sided. To put it simply: metallurgy developed at the expense of everything else. Someone will say: what else do you need? Metallurgy is needed first of all!
                  But the economy must be balanced anyhow, and in the Stalinist pre-war USSR, for example, textiles were produced less than 10m per capita. Fact.
                  As a result: in the villages back in the 50s ... weaved.
                  Yes, rockets fly - and they weave themselves on wooden looms.

                  Here is the whole "Trotsky ideal" for you.

                  If someone does not believe, let him ask his grandmothers: weaved. My mother’s woven curtains (pure linen, natural product) were still hanging in the 90s.

                  The caricature of Stalin's industrialization is a Chinese "metallurgical project" with the development of ferrous metallurgy in the gardens - the Chinese simply reflected like a mirror.

                  If you look carefully, the industrial growth rate in the Republic of Ingushetia was only slightly ahead of the population growth rate in Russia.


                  To see that you are stupidly lying - it is enough to oppose the "Russian Empire steel production"

                  But I don’t see any reason to talk with pathological liars - you should not give liars an opportunity.

                  So you are ignoring.

                  You can find confirmation of what I said about the economic growth rate in the Republic of Ingushetia in about half an hour.
                  1. Mr. Pipster
                    Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 12: 04
                    -2
                    Quote: AK64
                    Absolute untruth. To make sure of which is very simple - just look at the production of steel, for example.
                    Economic growth began precisely as a result of reforms, that is, after 1906

                    Types of products 1887 1900 1913
                    Cast Iron 36,1 176,8 283
                    Coal 276,2 986, 4 2215
                    Steel and iron 35,5 163 246,5
                    Oil 155 631,1 561,3
                    Cotton (processing) 11,5 16 25,9
                    Sugar 25,9 48,5 75,4
                    Quote: AK64
                    Yes, rockets fly - and they weave themselves on wooden looms.

                    Here is the whole "Trotsky ideal" for you.

                    And what does Trotsky have to do with it?
                    Trotsky did, indeed, offer a command-and-control economy (which really gave a startling quantitative increase in economic indicators) with industrialization and collectivization.
                    But he proposed this as a "link" between the first proletarian state and world capital, assumed that this would lead to an extremely profitable reduction in the cost of "steel and electricity" and this would force the world capital to place its factories for the production of goods in Russia.
                    That is, what we got under Stalin has nothing to do with what Trotsky wanted to realize request
                    And I didn’t invent it myself, Trotsky wrote it.
                    Quote: AK64
                    But I don’t see any reason to talk with pathological liars - you should not give liars an opportunity.

                    So far, only here I see an uneducated ignoramus.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 14 March 2016 21: 52
                      0
                      So far, only here I see an uneducated ignoramus.


                      Honestly, I have not put a single minus to you.
                      (Although for the tautology "uneducated ignoramus" = "butter") it would be worth it - all the same, you must have a taste. Yes, sir. Taste.

                      But about the topic that you raised: well, this particular discourse is not appropriate in this place. Just out of place
                  2. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 14 March 2016 12: 59
                    +2
                    Yes, it was necessary to produce textiles, and then they would beat the Germans.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 14 March 2016 13: 10
                      +2
                      Yes, it was necessary to produce textiles, and then they would beat the Germans.


                      Beating a German with cast iron ingots is certainly better.

                      The talk about the fact that Stalinist industrialization was skewed. As a result, the economy was a hunchback, sided together. As a result, there are deficits of everything and disaster.

                      But if on the topic of the conversation, then it was mentioned because, due to the aforementioned bias, the figures of Stalin's industrialization are banally incorrect - they reflect only the part "which is needed."

                      Just in case: the economy is needed not to produce numbers, but to satisfy needs. And if women in the villages are woven, then their work and time mean that they are thrown into the wind, or in other words, it is used unproductively.
                      1. alicante11
                        alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 37
                        0
                        Beating a German with cast iron ingots is certainly better.


                        Well, yes, you can make shells out of them.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 14 March 2016 21: 56
                        +1
                        Well, yes, you can make shells out of them.


                        This is unlikely.
                        By the way, even normal steel was in short supply. Rails (rails!) In 1942 were sorely lacking, and I had to order amers from Lend-Lease.
              2. kalibr
                kalibr 14 March 2016 11: 18
                +7
                The most interesting thing: in one of the Penza provincial newspapers, the peasants of one of the villages asked: Give us back Tsar Nicholas. With him everything was and everything was cheap! The letter was published as an example of the backwardness of the masses. But the peasants would hardly want the "bloody" tsar back. And remember the beginning of the war and the explosion of patriotism and love for royalty in Russia. But then, in many respects, due to the inability of the royal associates to manage information, the image of the king changed by 180 degrees. Many had a hand in this, including Gorky! There was a big article about this in Rodina magazine. You can find and see.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 38
                  +6
                  The most interesting: in one of the Penza provincial newspapers, peasants of one of the villages asked: Give us Tsar Nikolai back.


                  Well, some now want to return EBNya. Some even put up monuments. This does not mean that the majority of the people also think.
                  1. kalibr
                    kalibr 14 March 2016 17: 54
                    +3
                    And you want to say that the majority is automatically right only because the majority? Oh how much you are mistaken!
              3. EvilLion
                EvilLion 14 March 2016 12: 59
                +1
                And to answer for the nonsense about the underestimated population is weak?
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 14 March 2016 10: 20
              +5
              Quote: AK64
              You would at least out of curiosity get acquainted with more or less reliable descriptions of events

              Andrey, who cares? It is said that Nikolashka is bloody, so forged! But as it really was, it is not a fashion trend! And no one is not interested, but why until the 80s of the last century the Soviet gross income was compared with the tsarist gross income of 1913 ??? How did the "oppressed" Russian workers and peasants actually live? Once I asked my grandmother a question ... what could be bought on the floor of the KOPEYKA? So she bent almost all my fingers on her hands, combing out what could be bought !!!!
              1. AK64
                AK64 14 March 2016 11: 11
                +7
                Andrey, and who cares?

                How do you know my name?
                This is how you disguise yourself, you disguise yourself - and you bam - and your name, surname, place of work and address :)

                But by the way, why do I have an Amer’s flag? Of course, I don’t care, but geographically I’m kind of so far in Europe

                It is said that Nikolashka is bloody, so forged! But as it really was, it is not a fashion trend! And no one is not interested, but why until the 80s of the last century the Soviet gross income was compared with the tsarist gross income of 1913 ??? How did the "oppressed" Russian workers and peasants actually live? Once I asked my grandmother a question ... what could be bought on the floor of the KOPEYKA? So she bent almost all my fingers on her hands, combing out what could be bought !!!!


                You are of course right.
                The problem, however, is that history is like a memory, only at the ethnic level.
                A person (and even animals) needs memory to be able to foresee events. (At least on the level "this is danger, and behind that bush there is a watering hole"). History plays the same role, but at the ethnic level: if you do not remember that "there is a crocodile behind that bush, and the robbery is spread out" - then you will constantly step on this rake.

                To put it simply: Russia was "written off" because it became extremely dangerous. The "wild population growth" mentioned by PIP promised to turn Russia into a world hegemon in just 50 years (even with a relatively backward economy).
                All this and everyone perfectly understood - so they "took action".

                But that's why modern seemingly Russians are happy about these "measures taken", that's not entirely clear to me: do they really hate their ancestors so much, huh?
              2. kalibr
                kalibr 14 March 2016 11: 21
                +9
                In 1900, for fifty dollars you could buy: two chickens, five eggs and two franzolki buns - they are still there, twisted so ruddy. Warrant officer's salary - 25 rubles. cool lady - 30 p. a worker of the Putilov factory of a first-hand turner - 40 rubles. What could be bought with this - see Gorky's novel "Mother".
                1. tundra
                  tundra 14 March 2016 12: 29
                  +9
                  By the way, a very useful novel.
                  Direct advertising, pre-revolutionary life.
                  And what was Paul missing?
                  By the way, now a worker of his qualifications, cannot afford half of those purchases that he made at his first s / n.
                  Yes, and in Soviet times, too.
                  1. bober1982
                    bober1982 14 March 2016 12: 44
                    +8
                    And here is how Tsarist times N.S. Khrushchev recalled: I got married in 1914, twenty years old. Since I had a good profession (locksmith), I was able to immediately rent an apartment. It had a living room, kitchen, bedroom, dining room.
                    Considering that Nikita Sergeevich was distinguished by his talkativeness, he has many such recollections. Real longing for old-time times and a French bun.
                    1. Aleksander
                      Aleksander 14 March 2016 13: 56
                      +6
                      Quote: bober1982
                      I could immediately rent an apartment. It had a living room, kitchen, bedroom, dining room.


                      In this regard, you can see that in Russia there was a huge housing construction before the BOP. Before the revolution, cooperatives, homeowners associations, mortgages, rental housing (apartment buildings) were familiar to very many, including workers and peasants.
                    2. bober1982
                      bober1982 14 March 2016 14: 12
                      +6
                      That's right, the housing problem spoiled people just after the revolution, M.A. Bulgakov precisely noticed it.
                    3. alicante11
                      alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 40
                      +3
                      That's right, the housing problem spoiled people just after the revolution, M.A. Bulgakov precisely noticed it.


                      In-in, before that they lived in shelters and everyone liked everything. A person is never satisfied. And, it is noticed that the more he receives, the more he wants.
                  2. kalibr
                    kalibr 14 March 2016 17: 28
                    +11
                    My great-grandfather was a foreman of the Penza locomotive workshops. In 1882 he built a family house - 6 rooms, a kitchen, three ovens, a canopy, a closet, and three sheds. In one they kept rabbits, in the other a cow and chickens. Had 10 children, 5 died. Of these five, one girl graduated from the women's institute and married (!) - I was always surprised by this !!! - Colonel of the tsarist army. Another grandfather of mine became a mathematics teacher at a gymnasium. And only my grandfather is a "filthy sheep in the flock!" (!) went as a hammer to the workshops in the forge. For three years he was waving a hammer. But then it cleared up in his mind and he graduated from the external gymnasium and teacher's institute and rose to the rank of inspector of public schools. He married the daughter of the count's manager ... But everyone came out of the people! Great-grandfather went all the way from a turner apprentice to a master! And he brought all the children into people and gave them an education! So whoever wanted and did not drink could do a lot!
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. Aleksander
                    Aleksander 14 March 2016 22: 49
                    +2
                    Quote: kalibr
                    My great-grandfather was a master of the Penza locomotive workshops. In 1882, he built a family house -6 rooms, a kitchen, three stoves, a canopy, a closet, and three sheds

                    I think that after all, great-great-grandfather? My great-grandfathers were only born in 1880 (to me 56).
                    Quote: kalibr
                    Great-grandfather went all the way from the student turner to the master! And he brought all the children to people and gave them an education! So whoever wanted and didn’t drink - could do a lot!

                    Of course! And my family (great-grandfather) is also an example.
                  5. kalibr
                    kalibr 15 March 2016 06: 31
                    0
                    Well, my grandfather’s father - that’s who he was ... I think he’s great-grandfather. And great-great-grandfather is the great-grandfather's grandfather!
                2. MrK
                  MrK 24 March 2016 18: 48
                  0
                  Quote: kalibr
                  And only my grandfather is a "filthy sheep in the flock!" (!) went as a hammer to the workshops in the forge.

                  And he’s caliber, after that he taught the history of the CPSU. That's for sure the rotten sheep in the Communist Party.
            3. kalibr
              kalibr 14 March 2016 20: 28
              0
              You go to the house-museums of V.I. Lenin in Kazan, in Ulyanovsk and see how they lived there. I especially like the Kazan house ... Yes, some rooms are cramped, but there are many. And the housewife herself didn’t wash the floors and did not wash the laundry. And how the university professorship lived ... it really affects me personally. I don’t even want to describe.
        3. Rastas
          Rastas 14 March 2016 20: 15
          0
          The data you have is somewhat one-sided, since Russia was an agricultural country, which, naturally, led to some cheaper products. At the same time, the seasonality factor influenced prices. Then, the first-hand turner is still a fairly skilled worker, and most were simple and the salary was less. Here you give the data of a narrow layer of workers.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 14 March 2016 20: 22
            +1
            Yes, narrow, but Gorky in "Mother" wrote about a wider stratum and add the data.
            1. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 23
              +1
              N.A. Troitsky gives information about the work and home life of workers:
              "Until 1897, the working day in industry was not standardized and, as a rule, was 13-15 hours, and sometimes it reached 19 hours (as at the Struve machine-building plant in Moscow). At the same time, workers worked in unsanitary conditions, without elementary safety measures. "Once my friends weavers took me to the factory during work. Oh my God! What the hell is this! - recalled an eyewitness about one of the St. Petersburg factories. - In the weaving shop, from unaccustomedness, there is no opportunity behind the roar of a machine to hear not only what he says, but also shouts a stone's throw from a person. The air is impossible, the heat and stuffiness, the stench from human sweat and from the oil with which machines are lubricated; cotton dust floating in the air produces a kind of haze "
            2. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 24
              0
              from the report of the inspector of the zemstvo council of the St. Petersburg district, who, examining the living conditions of the capital's proletariat in 1878, describes in detail one of the residential basements: "Representing a deepening into the ground for at least 2 yards, it (the basement) is constantly flooded, if not with water, then liquid from a nearby latrine, so that the rotten boards that make up the floor literally float, despite the fact that its residents are diligently engaged in draining their apartment, daily scooping out several buckets. In such and such a room with a content of 5 1/3 . I found up to 10 tenants, of whom 6 were minors. "
            3. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 25
              +1
              In the encyclopedia "Moscow" we already read about the situation in the second capital: "Overcrowding and dirt in the dwellings of workers often led to epidemic outbreaks of cholera, smallpox, typhus, dysentery ... The incidence of tuberculosis of the lungs was high; over 1880 thousand people died between the ages of 89 and 3 ...
              The sanitary doctors invited in 1884 to serve in the City Council, having examined the streets, bazaars, overnight accommodations, workers' dormitories, everywhere saw “dirt, impurities beyond all description”
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 15 March 2016 06: 38
            +1
            Yes, and every third in 1913 received criminal experience and was full of syphilis patients and prostitutes. So what? There were different people and different opportunities. Do you think in the USSR it was easier to work on a farm in the 1977 year. Skotnik, knee-deep in g ... sh, smell the stench in the barn - I was giving lectures to the people there, I almost suffocated.
      2. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 14 March 2016 15: 13
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        How did the "oppressed" Russian workers and peasants actually live? Once I asked my grandmother a question ... what could be bought on the floor of the KOPEYKA? So she bent almost all my fingers on her hands, combing out what could be bought !!!!

        Yes, but do not forget about a completely normal working day of 12-14 hours (we did not hear about any forty-hour working weeks then), paid sick leave and vacation - forget, and do not forget about other pleasant "little things".
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 14 March 2016 17: 37
          -1
          Do you know how many holidays were at that time? There were Sundays and CHURCH HOLIDAYS when it was considered a sin to work. The plants stood. The namesake of the sovereign, the great princes ... a big family ... The plants stood! And the most interesting (I hope you are sitting!) Of such days in years was 258 in 1902 year! So there was a working day on 12-14 hours. And when does it work otherwise?
          So giving the people an 8-hour working day and taking away Easter, Baptism, namesake ... the Bolsheviks actually made people work more! You yourself can easily calculate it. It’s enough to take the calendar of that time ...
          1. Mahmut
            Mahmut 14 March 2016 21: 36
            +2
            Yes, but we must not forget about the quite normal working day of 12-14 hours of commercials (they didn’t hear about any forty-hour work weeks there),

            Not 12-14, but 11 hours a day. Like in other countries at that time. Only the salary was higher than in other countries. Migrant workers from France went to Russia to earn money, and not vice versa. If we take the ratio of the ruble of 1900 and 2010, then it will be 1/1100. The salary of a worker is from 20 to 90 rubles per month, depending on qualifications. Every year 10000 new schools were built. Primary education was free. Peasants owned 85% of the arable land in the European part; there was no landowner land beyond the Urals. 50% of the existing industrial buildings were built before the revolution. 75% of the railways in Russia were built before the revolution. Russia was the largest food supplier to foreign markets. Oil production ranked 1st in the world. The illiteracy elimination plan was developed by the tsarist government, and not by the Soviets, the country's electrification plan is the same. In total, there were 10 thousand gendarmes in Russia. In enlightened free France 30 thousand. There was and was a program of resettlement to the east. For immigrants, free relocation due to the treasury and transportation of all property, including livestock. Free of 40 hectares of land per family. Lifting 200 rubles per family. Exemption from all types of taxes for 5 years. There were district wage coefficients. Prohibition has been introduced for the peoples of the east and the far north.
        2. Morrrow
          Morrrow 14 March 2016 19: 58
          0
          But the population was growing, fantasy? And under the great Stalin did not grow.
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 23: 16
            +1
            And statistics say that the population was growing under Stalin. And not only grew, but also grew rich in pace, which under no king did not dream of in the most rosy dreams. Already in the 1939 year, a few years after the start of collectivization, collective farmers massively purchased luxury items such as bicycles, pocket watches, gramophones and sewing machines.
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 15 March 2016 06: 41
              0
              Pravda reported that a restaurant on one collective farm opened with a wide range of dishes! And the film was shot "Kuban Cossacks" ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. AK64
        AK64 14 March 2016 11: 54
        +1
        into a fool! "And Russia won the war and would have won" ... they blew the Germans outright .... and t / d / and t / n /


        Run and continue to retell murzilka and pioneer dawns.
        And the facts, which are stubborn, say that the Germans actually lost the war already in 1915, failing to achieve any of the goals set.
        And they could only drain the water and extinguish the light.

        Well, where is it for you, who don’t read anything and are not capable of thinking, can such simple things be understood?

        If there was no coup d'etat in February, the war would have ended in the summer of 1917, victoriously.
        (The truth then was without the USA, which did not suit the USA very much ... for the USA wanted to participate too)

        And you ... yell, yell: maybe they will give a pie. Or sweetie
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 45
          0
          And the facts, which are stubborn, say that the Germans actually lost the war already in 1915, failing to achieve any of the goals set.


          The fact that the Germans lost the war is understandable. But this would not make Russia any easier. The state of the army was deplorable, the economy was in a catastrophic crisis due to the transfer to a war footing. Plus loans, which would blackmail us allies. It would be nice if all the territories were preserved, otherwise the British have long licked their lips at the independence of Poland and Finland. And after the war with the Lady of the Seas, there would have been no one in the Baltic, not the Baltic Fleet with four cardboard Sevastopols against Grandfleet. The Poles would have arranged a "color revolution" and would have planted the weapons left over from the Germans who capitulated, and the Allies had unnecessary heaps of weapons. In the east, the Japanese would quickly remember that they had not reached Baikal yet. And what would our would-be victors do in such a ring of bayonets?
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 14 March 2016 20: 00
            +2
            The English army leaked to the Turks in Iraq. To frighten the English army is a bad manners. English ended after Waterloo.
        2. Pissarro
          Pissarro 14 March 2016 15: 47
          +3
          In February 1917, the front passed near Mogilev, where the king was sitting. What victory do you write about by summer? The next war with tank wedges and attack aircraft reached Berlin for another year, with an industrial economy and a postponed industrial machine.
          The plans of the tsar’s command for 1917 included purely defense, to keep the Romanian front and defend themselves on the rest. There were no plans to knock the Germans out of Belarus, the offensive was sensible only on the Caucasus front, on the rest the defense
        3. Andy
          Andy 14 March 2016 15: 49
          +1
          what is the gathering of insane monarchists? every year of war, retreat and defeat, what a victory ??? if in 1941 the Germans were kicked in the teeth near Moscow, then in 1 pm there was no shift. Write the articles for your monarchist murzilka. It's a pity you all weren't shot in civil war, it's you, the "patriots" brought the Entente to Russia, you must have the people " grateful "for the intervention and the killings. Well, if you are at the same time with the invaders, how else do you do with people like you?
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 22: 05
            0
            what is the gathering of insane monarchists? every year of war, retreat and defeat, what a victory ??? if in 1941 the Germans were kicked in the teeth near Moscow, then in 1 pm there was no shift. Write the articles for your monarchist murzilka. It's a pity you all weren't shot in civil war, it's you, the "patriots" brought the Entente to Russia, you must have the people " grateful "for the intervention and the killings. Well, if you are at the same time with the invaders, how else do you do with people like you?


            Y-yes ... Indeed: in 1942 the Germans on the Volga and in the Caucasus: what kind of "victory" could there be?
            The second year of "retreats and defeats", only the prisoners lost about 1942 million by the fall of 4.5 --- and "what a victory"?
            1. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 22: 20
              0
              I understand what you are driving towards, but the WWII and WWII are different wars. WWII was an offensive war with the use of mechanized units, and WWII was mostly a positional, trench warfare. Germany’s plan on the Eastern Front was to occupy the border regions of Russia, and further, due to poor communications, it was impossible to advance, so they went a long way. The main goal of the Germans in the 14-18th was Paris, on the Western Front in the 14th they concentrated 80 of the best divisions, on the Eastern - 14 for the defense of East Prussia. The situation began to break out only in February 1915, when 10 more German and 8 Austrian divisions arrived on the Eastern Front, bringing the balance of forces to 92 divisions against 105 Russians. Then in WWI, Germany was just Germany, in 1941 it was Wehrmacht, on which worked industry most of Europe.
            2. AK64
              AK64 14 March 2016 22: 50
              +1
              Honestly, I’m just too lazy to repeat the obvious ....

              I understand what you are driving towards, but the WWII and WWII are different wars.


              Not at all. All wars are somewhat the same. But the WWII and WWII are so very similar in general, simply because Germany is in the same geopolitical position. She either must win very quickly - or she can safely drain the water - will die from the economic blockade.
              Germany stayed longer in WWII because it received the resources of France (and indeed almost all of Europe). That’s the whole difference.

              Yes, the Germans themselves perfectly understood everything - hence their crazy "Schlieffen plan" comes from. It was vital for them to do away with at least one of the two fronts in one company. As you can see, it didn't work out. (And WWII wondered - but Britain appeared behind France's back - and the situation again became desperate.)
              That is why in 1915 the Germans decided to try to drive Russia out of the war: they decided to try to inflict such defeat on it that Russia wanted a separate peace.
              But .... again it did not work: the defeats were terrible, but not catastrophic, Russia was able to survive half a million losses. (Losses of the summer of 1941, only summer, about 3 million)

              WWII was an offensive war with the use of mechanized units, and WWII was mostly a positional, trench warfare.


              This is not true.
              But actually - well, suppose. So what? then this is a war of attrition, in which Germany will inevitably lose. Losing Germany in the war of attrition is only a matter of time.

              Germany’s plan on the Eastern Front was to occupy the border regions of Russia, and further, due to poor communications, it was impossible to advance, so they went a long way.


              This is false and ridiculous. You think of history textbooks for the 9th grade, where there is also sheer nonsense.
              Germany's only task would be to lead Russia out of the war. For this, it would be necessary to defeat the Russian army. No "areas" or "territories" should and cannot be the target of an operation. Operations are carried out only and only against enemy troops. And the occupation of the territory is carried out only for the purpose of occupying strategically advantageous positions.

              Get all these "territories" out of your head: "territories" are received after the war under a peace treaty.

              The main goal of the Germans in the 14-18th was Paris, on the Western Front in the 14th they concentrated 80 of the best divisions, on the Eastern - 14 for the defense of East Prussia.


              Again twenty-five ...
              Stop already retelling the textbook - nonsense is written there.
              The aim of the operation was not "Paris" but the defeat of the French army. By deep flanking. Well, it didn’t work out in 1914 (and most likely it couldn’t ask it - but this is already outside the topic of the conversation.) In 1915, the defeat of France was removed from the German agenda - as unrealistic and unrealizable. In 1915, they are looking for other solutions - and offered to try to knock Russia out of the war, forcing it into a separate peace. This also failed - and in 1916 they had ... a dead end. Verdun's idiocy begins ... But Verdun's stupidity is already despair, it is already clear that there are no decisions, and the war is lost.
              Well, played around Verdun, grinded a bunch of troops - well, all remained with their own ... And then what? And then just turn off the lights and drain the water: every day the situation is getting worse and worse, and the conditions for a peace treaty are getting worse and worse, too.
            3. Rastas
              Rastas 14 March 2016 23: 13
              +1
              Great excuse. Nonsense from grade 9 (although I do not understand what was written in the textbook) write and the point. There is nothing more to write. Very reasoned. As for the 15th, the Germans had the main task - to stabilize the Eastern Front, where the Austro-Hungarian army was falling apart, and also, by breaking into the Gorlitsa region, cut off the withdrawal routes of the Russian group in the Carpathians. The defeat of the Russian army is the maximum task, especially since the Germans can only dream of Russia leaving the war, because Russia had enough resources. Moreover, England and France could not be so easily abandoned, even Serbia resisted.
            4. AK64
              AK64 15 March 2016 01: 41
              0
              Great excuse. Nonsense from grade 9 (although I do not understand what was written in the textbook) write and the point. There is nothing more to write. Very reasoned.


              That is, you did not understand a single word?
              Well, as expected.

              As for the 15th, the Germans had the main task - to stabilize the Eastern Front, where the Austro-Hungarian army was falling apart,


              They did NOT have such a "task", and could not be. The goal was to knock Russia out of the war. Why is it necessary to rout the army corny?
              the problem was not solved.

              And stop repeating the same nonsense - from repeating 33 times they do not sound smarter and do not become fair.

              And by the way, here on the site there is already a series of very good articles about PMA (well, actually a rehash of the well-known - but nevertheless): read at least them first, and then expound the "opinions".
  2. The comment was deleted.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 34
    +1
    Is it really the people who sent those telegrams?

    Well, not Trotsky either. And the most that neither is the closest "associates".

    Under Nikolai Alexandrovich, the pace of industrialization was quite Stalinist - and without the robbery of peasants and collectivizations.


    Well, that’s probably why Russia couldn’t even provide an army with rifles in WWI, while in WWII they were able to actually arm a new army after a border pogrom.

    And Russia won the war and would win - if it had not been decided to finish off Russia and merge.


    Well, yes, well, yes, please give examples of the brilliant victories of the tsarist generals over the Kaiser's troops. The Brusilov breakthrough should not be offered. Firstly, as you know, the Italian army is needed solely for the Austrian army to have someone to beat, and secondly, just with the approach of the German "fire brigades" Brusilov's offensive drowned in blood at Stokhod.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 14 March 2016 20: 02
      +1
      Exiting the Polish boiler is a brilliant operation.
    2. AK64
      AK64 14 March 2016 22: 18
      -1
      Well, not Trotsky either. And the most that neither is the closest "associates".


      I would highly recommend that you deal with this story - it is very instructive.

      However: Christ had only 12 disciples - and then one of them betrayed him. And Nikolai had enemies. And here is the problem - his enemies are your enemies. That's how ...

      If you do not understand: the British and the French "merged" it, their direct agents. You see, they also believed that the war should end in the summer of 1917 (and it would have ended, believe me.)
      Well, they began to think about the structure of the post-war world. Well, we came to the natural conclusion that it would be nice to kill two birds with one stone. Or even four birds with one stone.
      So they were embarrassed .... At the same time, the slons were miscalculated: the turbidity in Russia rose already very strong and the war broke out a year and a half earlier than expected. And a new player appeared on the field - the USA - who managed to fire a lot of gingerbread.

      Well, that’s probably why Russia couldn’t even provide an army with rifles in WWI, while in WWII they were able to actually arm a new army after a border pogrom.

      Well, how do you say "could not" if the tsarist weapons and tsarist snyaryadami not only civil but fought in the first year of the Second World War?
      (I am silent about the royal guns)
      Don’t think that I’m joking: for example, the choice of 45mm caliber for anti-tank guns was due to the abundance of 47mm shells for the Gotchiks gun. And 76mm was ... a lot.

      But the situation with guns in 41 was just catastrophic: the Red Army lost 6 million guns (!!!) Not because of a good life, "bed PPSh" began to drive. Voroshilov seriously planned to forge peaks.

      You just believe agitation - and in vain you believe. The shell hunger was in the 15th, in the 16th it ended.


      Well, yes, well, yes, please give examples of the brilliant victories of the tsarist generals over the Kaiser's troops. The Brusilov breakthrough should not be offered. Firstly, as you know, the Italian army is needed solely for the Austrian army to have someone to beat, and secondly, just with the approach of the German "fire brigades" Brusilov's offensive drowned in blood at Stokhod.

      Give me an example of victory - no matter whether brilliant or not - allies.
      At least one. Though not brilliant. If only over the Turk (what really is the Austrians)

      Well, who won the war? Are the Germans really?

      As the English say, "you can lose all battles except the last".
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 14 March 2016 18: 53
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    You are an amazingly stupid and ignorant person. And this is not an insult - this is a statement.

    This applies to you, because you are still sitting on Khrushchev's lectures completely false. You don’t even want to understand that the people didn’t give a damn about the "priest" after the World War! Therefore, no one rushed to defend citizen Romanov, as, according to the decree of the Provisional Government, he should have been named after his abdication.
  • Rastas
    Rastas 14 March 2016 20: 08
    +1
    Hitler, too, pretended to the Germans that under the Empire, the Germans prospered and, naturally, would have defeated everyone if it hadn't been a stab in the back.
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 14 March 2016 21: 20
    0
    Quote: AK64
    And Russia won the war and would win

    She would have won if she had endured. There wasn’t enough willpower. Unlike the Great Patriotic War, although the methods of discipline were harsh there.
    1. AK64
      AK64 14 March 2016 22: 24
      0
      She would have won if she had endured. There was not enough willpower.


      Who exactly "lacked the willpower"? Gene. Alekseev "lacked will"?

      Just don't talk about "popular unrest": in Ireland in 1916, "popular unrest" had to be pacified from cannons. And nothing, did not frown, planted buckshot on the peace. In Russia, however, nothing like this has come about.

      Everything was decided by the betrayal of a very small handful of people. Do not be lazy, sort out this question: the fact is that what happened then is very similar to "now". But it’s just interesting.
  • igoryok1984
    igoryok1984 27 November 2016 11: 07
    0
    Your tsar-rag didn’t rest against anyone at all, even many members of the imperial family, his own generals and foreign relatives — George V, who refused to accept him. And who needs the slobber merging their country?
  • nils
    nils 14 March 2016 11: 42
    +2
    Quote: Darkness
    What does faith have to do with it? Although, with whom I argue .... Strange you, Orthodox fanatics


    Nicholas II: "Maybe a sacrifice is needed to save Russia - I am ready to become this victim."
    Only a superficial and scholastic, materialistic (GRIM) mind will call this goal of the King chimerical. The Orthodox person will understand and bow before her unearthly grandeur.
    The head of all Buddhists of Russia Pandito Khambo Lama Damba Ayusheev: “Our most respected Pandito Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov treated the Emperor Nicholas II and the Cesarevich as our saints. When the Buddhist clergy were killed in the 1930s, and 16 of thousands of Buddhist lamas were destroyed, they went to die quietly because they had the example of the White King. ”
    Pierre Gilliard very accurately expressed the world significance of the Tsar’s family sacrifice: “The Sovereign and Sovereign believed that they were dying martyrs for their homeland - they died martyrs for all mankind.”
    The lamp of the Russian Land, Venerable John of Kronstadt: “The Tsar is our righteous and pious life. God sent him a heavy cross of suffering, as his chosen one and beloved child, as said by the seer of the fate of God: "If there is no repentance from the Russian people, God will take away from him the pious Tsar and send a scourge in the face of wicked, cruel, self-appointed rulers who will flood the whole earth blood and tears. "

    Gloom and others like him are not given to understand.
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow 14 March 2016 19: 55
    +3
    What a dead end? Where was the front line in February 1917? Near Moscow and on the Volga?
  • Darkness
    Darkness 14 March 2016 08: 36
    -9
    No one killed the king. They killed a citizen. An ordinary citizen of the country. There were many.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 14 March 2016 08: 46
      +6
      The Orthodox Tsar was killed ritually and revealingly - the date, time and place of the murder: carefully thought out, in compliance with all the rituals.
      Your arguments about the citizen, only repeat other people's nonsense.
      1. Avantageur
        Avantageur 14 March 2016 11: 40
        -8
        Quote: bober1982
        The Orthodox Tsar was killed ritually and revealingly - the date, time and place of the murder: carefully thought out, in compliance with all the rituals.

        Yes, for sure, everything was so ... The liquid-Christian Nikolai Romanov was sacrificed to Satan by the Goth-Trotskyists.


      2. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 15: 51
        +1
        Indicative? Those. to shoot at night in the basement, burn the corpses, pour acid and then secretly dig in a roadside ditch, does it turn out to be "significant kill"?

        Significantly executed Germans in the 1946 year, in Leningrad, on Kalinin Square. Significantly executed the German commandant of the Great Luke von Zassa, tugging him publicly in the city center.

        And to consider the shooting of the Romanov family as indicative, and even ritual execution, is at least stupid.
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 14 March 2016 10: 00
      +10
      Quote: Darkness
      No one killed the king. They killed a citizen. An ordinary citizen of the country. There were many.

      It was the king who was killed! For ordinary citizens, young children and servants were not shot. And the killing was just ritual.
      But in essence, Nicholas, you are right - the king was weak-willed, for which he paid. And the millions who died during the Civil War are the same on his conscience. If he began to act in relation to the Bronstein, Uritsky, Apfelbaumans by the methods of the Mossad - thousands would suffer, but not millions. For me, reckoning him a saint is the most sacrilegious thing.
      1. AK64
        AK64 14 March 2016 12: 03
        +3
        And in essence, Nicholas, you are right - the king was weak-willed,


        How do you know this? From the "pioneer zorek" go?
        The "wicked king" who took over the command after the defeats on the 15th?

        Generally speaking, there is not a single example of Nikolai Alexandrovich's "lack of will". But examples of will, and even stubbornnessabound.
        These are fairy tales about "lack of will". Believe only the facts.

        for which he paid. And the millions who died during the Civil War are the same on his conscience.


        Why not, for example, the Alekseev gene, who was the key figure in the conspiracy? It was Alekseev who actually arrested (isolated - but what's the difference in "freedom" if nothing can be ordered?) Nikolai Aleksandrovich.
        In the end, Nikolai RUNNED from Headquarters, literally ran - and telegrams flew after him "to detain the train such and such !!!"
        He was detained in Pskov, arrested already rudely and formally (these are THOSE WHO BELONGED!) And staged a play with "renunciation".

        (Too Much Evidence That There Was No "Renunciation")

        So why don't you blame the scoundrel-Alekseev, huh?

        Ah, you just don’t know this story?
        What do you even know? If you don't know anything, then maybe you should (1) close your mouth and (2) start reading (and thinking) and not writing?

        If he began to act in relation to the Bronstein, Uritsky, Apfelbaumans by the methods of the Mossad - thousands would suffer, but not millions.


        Brackets are fiction. These are myths. Shadows it. Fighting the shadows is ridiculous. If they were strangled, others would be found: the shadows are endless.


        For me, reckoning him a saint is the most sacrilegious thing.


        Fortunately, your opinion on this issue is not interesting even to your wife.
        1. Darkness
          Darkness 14 March 2016 13: 10
          0
          The anti-Soviet is always Russophobe.
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 13: 14
            +3
            The anti-Soviet is always Russophobe.


            It's funny to hear this from a fan of an international gang that betrayed their country for the money of the enemy.
          2. hard rock
            hard rock 14 March 2016 13: 23
            +3
            Quote: Darkness
            The anti-Soviet is always Russophobe.

            There is no need to identify the "witnesses of socialism" with the Russians.
            1. IS-80
              IS-80 14 March 2016 15: 58
              +2
              Quote: hardrock
              There is no need to identify the "witnesses of socialism" with the Russians.

              What about the witnesses to capitalism? smile
              1. hardrokc
                hardrokc 14 March 2016 17: 45
                -4
                Quote: IS-80
                What about the witnesses to capitalism?

                But there are no witnesses to capitalism. And witnesses of feudalism, too.
                Feudalism and capitalism are socio-economic formations (OEF). And the so-called. "socialism" is not a formation, it is a pseudo-religion. Those. ideology of a totalitarian sect. It has nothing to do with the OEF.
                If you are interested, then under the primary "socialism" (Stalinist) the OEF was slave-owning, and under "developed socialism" (starting with Khrushchev), it was feudal.
          3. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 14: 06
            +3
            Not just Russophobe. In 99,99% of cases, he is also completely ignorant in the history of Russia, since he operates with the myths of liberal propaganda in the middle of the 80's.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 14 March 2016 14: 42
          +6
          Quote: AK64
          The "wicked king" who took over the command after the defeats on the 15th?

          And what did he achieve, victory?
          Quote: AK64
          Ah, you just don’t know this story?
          What do you even know? If you don't know anything, then maybe you should (1) close your mouth and (2) start reading (and thinking) and not writing?

          If I read other literature, then I need to either close my mouth or read the same as you? Yes you are a boor, my friend.
          Quote: AK64
          Fortunately, your opinion on this issue is not interesting even to your wife.

          But about the interests of my wife it is better to close your mouth. Keep an eye on your wife’s interests.
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 23: 03
            0
            And what did he achieve, victory?


            Has Germany really won the WWII? But muzhuki do not know ....

            If I read other literature, then I need to either close my mouth or read the same as you? Yes you are a boor, my friend.


            No, son, I'm just a straight person, and I think that you shouldn't publicly retell the history textbook for the 8th grade. You should not do this at least out of respect for the interlocutors who studied at school and also "passed" it.

            But you, apart from the 8th grade textbook, didn’t read anything - that’s why you should be silent.

            But about the interests of my wife it is better to close your mouth. Keep an eye on your wife’s interests.


            In this case, you should close your mouth and not express your opinion about the decision of the organization to which you do not belong. You just should not have to worry about this - that's all. This is NOT YOUR business.

            Remember this for the future. And do not go in there with your ... in general, do not get into someone else's sled.
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 14 March 2016 21: 41
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          there is not a single example of Nikolai Alexandrovich's "lack of will"

          I agree. There is no apathy. There is melancholy and personal interests that prevail over state ones.

          In general, if you read his diaries, then most of the time he walked, and did not engage in public affairs. And the Lord kept repeating, save us, by all the will of God ....
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 23: 10
            0
            I agree. There is no apathy. There is melancholy and personal interests that prevail over state ones.

            Not true. Fudge it.
            Apparently therefore, in August 1915, in the midst of terrible defeats, Nikolai took over the duties of the Commander-in-Chief?

            In general, if you read his diaries, then most of the time he walked, and did not engage in public affairs. And the Lord kept repeating, save us, by all the will of God ....

            Do you write diaries? Here you are personally? And what do you write there? Probably immediately swung at the posthumous publication, eh?

            That Nikolai’s diaries ... There was also Vyrubova’s diary, where she ... such an indecent woman, such ...

            So Vyrubova died in Finland in 1964. The virgin. Medical fact.

            But what about the diaries? And there are diaries, there are ... But then she died a virgin. That's all the "diaries"
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 15 March 2016 17: 31
              0
              Quote: AK64
              took charge of the Commander-in-Chief?

              Well, yes, an excellent commander came out of the colonel. In order to properly understand the military situation, you need to be a professional military man, and not get the title for seniority. Well, how can you not recall Hitler in the role of Commander-in-Chief, he commanded his emotions on the generals
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 14: 00
        -4
        Nicholas the Bloody abdicated. And he ceased to be a king, but simply became a citizen of Romanov.
      4. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 14 March 2016 14: 56
        +4
        Greetings Igor hi .
        Recently there was a discussion similar to Kabardin's article "championship in lies". So they kicked me there for saying:
        Quote: RUSS
        and the attitude of the church to Nicholas II is well known.

        That's what I'm talking about. It is precisely because of such an attitude towards this person, and also because of a good knowledge of history, that is how I feel about this decision of the church.
        Are you familiar with the Russian history of that period? Do you know the "blessings" of the last emperor? Russian brigades in WWI defending Champagne-Ardennes, Reims ??? Matilda Kshesinskaya, Grigory Rasputin Do these names mean anything to you? Khodynskoe pandemonium and Nikolasha's behavior after it. An agreement signed by Nikolasha and Wilhelm in Bjork, which was in full accordance with the interests of Russia and its further rejection. The shooting of unarmed people walking to talk with the tsar on January 9, 1905.
        What do these people and the listed events tell you about something ??? Do you still consider Nicholas worthy of canonization ???
        This is only a small, but the most famous part of the "blessings" of the last emperor. For all this one can hate, despise, or not canonize in any way.
        .
        Regarding the canonization of Nicholas, Deacon Andrei Kuraev answered very well in due time:
        “Did the last emperor deserve canonization? I don’t know. If a priest received an exemplary parish, and a few years later the grateful flock shoots him, is that priest good, make your own conclusions.”
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 14 March 2016 15: 11
          +2
          not a deacon, but a deacon.
          Father Andrew has an audience on another (specific) site, he solo there, breaks the applause.
          Your modesty is completely absent: ..... and also because of a good knowledge of history .....
          Big doubts, I must say (about knowledge of history)
          1. velikoros-xnumx
            velikoros-xnumx 14 March 2016 15: 55
            +2
            Quote: bober1982
            not a deacon, but a deacon.

            Thank you for the amendment. Regardless of his personal convictions, the stated party very well describes the situation.
            Quote: bober1982
            Big doubts, I must say (about knowledge of history)

            To doubt the exclusive right of any person who knows how to think, so your right. In my opinion, I did not write anything immodest, and you very quickly draw conclusions without knowing the person. It can do you a disservice.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 14 March 2016 16: 25
              0
              and you very quickly draw conclusions from very muddy personal convictions (statements) of Father Andrew.
              1. velikoros-xnumx
                velikoros-xnumx 14 March 2016 16: 59
                +1
                I did not draw conclusions based on the statements of Kuraev, but I brought him (the statement) only as a good understandable example-analogy. I will not deal with flood, if you are interested, read the rest in PM.
          2. Avantageur
            Avantageur 14 March 2016 17: 35
            -2
            Quote: bober1982
            not a deacon, but a deacon.


        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 14 March 2016 17: 44
          +3
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          Regarding the canonization of Nicholas, Deacon Andrei Kuraev answered very well in due time:

          Greetings Misha! hi Kuraev is certainly a controversial (provocative) personality, but he is often right. Here he is partially right - he was shot by a "grateful flock", which consisted mostly of people from settlements outside the Pale of Settlement. The composition of the Central Committee of all (!) Revolutionary parties consisted of more than half of them. Money from abroad came the same from bankers of the same origin.
          According to Nicholas - any person, and the tsar also has pluses and minuses. The tsar's supporters list only pluses, opponents only minuses. I want objectivity. On bloody Sunday, the tsar was not really guilty, it was a well-planned provocation. The Khodynskoe pandemonium is a fatal accident (recently in Mecca, many were also trampled under pressure). But according to the agreements I agree with you, the behavior of the tsar as a politician corresponds to the level of Gorbachev. I fell into a banal "fork" between Germany, France and England, and chose the wrong side. A weak-willed person, causing only pity and resentment for the destroyed empire.
          But I would like to ask the supporters of revolutionaries who record victory in the Great Patriotic War, flight into space and other victories of the Union as achievements of the revolution — are you sure how Russia would develop if the Romanov dynasty remained at the helm? I'm not sure it would be worse. request
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 15 March 2016 20: 36
          0
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          If the priest received an exemplary parish, and after a few years the grateful flock shoots him

          You can change a little:
          "If a priest received an exemplary parish, and a few years later the grateful flock burned him down, the question arises: what was he doing there?"
    3. Andy
      Andy 14 March 2016 15: 56
      -3
      killed the king. firstly, it was not an innocent angel, remember bloody Sunday. secondly, had he remained alive, the civil war would never have ended. even a century later, they impose on us the next "heirs" of the house in the form of a thick-faced Down and his Israeli mother's blood.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 14 March 2016 16: 03
        +1
        Not one of the parties to the civil war fought for the tsar. He was a political bankrupt and no one. Not even a single politician on either side of any possibility of returning this citizen Romanov to politics did not stutter. It was clear that the catastrophe in which Russia was directly merit of his reign
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 14 March 2016 17: 44
        0
        And the children, too, were vicious, and Dr. Botkin, and servants ...
  • Pissarro
    Pissarro 14 March 2016 15: 29
    +4
    According to the very essence of the monarchy, the king, as the anointed of God (appointed by God to this post) should not renounce his ministry at the will of the people. This is the most natural betrayal. He must die at his post. Even the monarchists admitted this and were outraged by the act of Nicholas

    "I handed over how the squadron is being handed over ... I had to go not to Pskov, but to the guard, to the Special Army."
    General Dubensky D.N.
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 14 March 2016 18: 44
    0
    Quote: nils
    Are you far from the Orthodox Faith

    Is it possible to clarify: what kind of Orthodox faith? Do you know several confessions in our country, and if Kirill is the head of Russia, this does not mean that there are no other branches of churches ... and all are "Orthodox", in some ways they do not agree with the existing order. Have you heard about the creation of the "True Orthodox Church", which was created recently? Don't forget about the Old Believers ...
    Quote: nils
    about RUSSIAN saints

    By the way, it is necessary to write according to the church grammar: "Russian Saints". Among the Old Believers, Saint Avvakum ... whom in Yuryev "priests and women pulled out by the hairs from the church, they kicked and beat him like a son of the B.'s and expelled from the city" - as it is written in the annals, he was burned alive with his companions.
    The “anathema” from the cathedrals of 1656 l., And the Great Moscow Cathedral 1666 — 1667 l., Became the main reasons for the split of the 17th century Russian Church into “Old Believers” and “New Believers”. The cathedral assembled by him cursed those who baptized with two fingers. Opposition circles gather on the periphery of Nikon’s actions, refusing to submit to the decisions of the 1654 summer council. The movement was led by Protopop Habakkuk and other priests. Until Solovki new books reached the 1657 summer. Nikon was transferred under strict supervision to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery. The Patriarch Pitirim who replaced him is trying to intercede for the noblewoman Morozova in front of Alexei Mikhailovich and, at his request, seeks a personal meeting with the arrested noblewoman. But he was convinced of the commitment of the noblewoman to the religion, which Prince Vladimir was baptized in Crimea and condemned as heresy in the Council of Nicaea. But the Moscow nobility rebelled against the burning (!) Of a representative of an ancient clan, apparently fearing that this might become a habit, and Alexey Mikhailovich “Silent” yielded to their demand. Theodosius Morozov and sister Evdokia were placed in the earthen prison of the Borovsky city prison, where they gradually starved them. (!) “Burnings” and after that someone will say that in Russia there were no bonfires of the Inquisition? In Europe, those who did not recognize the rights of the court of the church were burned or executed, he was transferred to secular authorities who could be sentenced to death. * Here the phrase is illiterate to history: the prison is a fortress wall, previously a wooden palisade around the city, it was in the walls of monasteries and fortresses that dungeons were created in the wall itself and pits under the walls of the fortress. In monasteries, overseers were monks who strictly complied with the tsar’s decree on how to keep or how to feed. At the sums of the descended prisoners, so as not to interfere with praying, the monks cut off their tongues.
    This is only part of the history of Russia and the confrontation between the two Orthodox churches.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 14 March 2016 18: 48
      0
      ..... and if Kirill heads in Russia ...
      not Cyril, but Patriarch Cyril
    2. Pissarro
      Pissarro 15 March 2016 07: 58
      0
      There are no two or more Russian Orthodox churches, there is only one canonical one recognized by other Orthodox churches and most importantly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The remaining impostors and schismatics. It is possible to write at least a hundred times in the name of a sect that it is true in the last instance, without recognition of Constantinople by the Orthodox Church to become
  • sdv68
    sdv68 14 March 2016 17: 40
    +1
    Nikolay pr ## ral all that was created before him. Incl. if for you there was a "flourishing of an empire" under him, then you are clearly not in the subject.
  • Rastas
    Rastas 14 March 2016 19: 39
    0
    There was good, but no less bad in their pawn. History is a logical thing - it put everything in its place. And what about Alexander II? then, unfortunately, a good emperor was left alone with his good undertakings, he did not have his "chicks", like Peter, who could turn his undertakings into life.
  • AK64
    AK64 14 March 2016 09: 16
    -9
    The conclusion suggests itself. The great prosperity of Russia can be considered the red empire of Stalin. Liberalism harms our country.


    Urgently forward to the canyon.
    And flog!
    At least twice a week.
    Because Liberalism harms - a whip tokma forwards to the benefit
    1. Forward
      Forward 14 March 2016 09: 35
      +4
      You change the cutest flag on the profile picture before discussing Russian Tsars and patriotism, and even ordering someone to flog and who not. And then somehow it is not very politically correct. Are you from overseas here telling us how to correctly understand our history? So what?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 14 March 2016 10: 22
        +1
        Quote: Forward
        Are you from overseas here telling us how to correctly understand our history? So what?

        laughing Do you understand it correctly?
        1. Forward
          Forward 14 March 2016 10: 36
          +1
          Well, speak out if something is not considered correct in my conclusions. I do not pretend to Truth in the last resort. However, this is my country and the history of my people. I did not indicate to the Americans or the British what and how to understand whom to punish and whom to pardon. Don't you find?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 14 March 2016 13: 42
            +4
            Quote: Forward
            I do not pretend to Truth in the last resort. However, this is my country and the history of my people.

            If this is YOUR COUNTRY and the history of YOUR PEOPLE, then you should not extol some to the skies, and trample others in the mud! Nicholas II was made a monster here, but I dare to ask why? For the fact that he did not shoot in packs, he did not exile to the camps in a crowd? Yes, perhaps his fault is that he believed in the integrity of his people and this faith eventually led him to the basement of the Ipatiev house. Stalin did not believe in this decency and did what he considered necessary and must be given his due, he considered it right, proof of that the USSR at the end of his life. "It is not the tsar who rules the ball, but his entourage" this applies to both Nicholas II and JV Stalin.
            Quote: Forward
            I did not indicate to the Americans or the British what and how to understand whom to punish and whom to pardon. Don't you find?

            Both in America and in Britain, RUSSIANS live, it is another matter who they are in their hearts! And the flag on the avatar is not a sign of belonging to any country, believe me, the site is full of foreigners under the Russian tricolor.
            1. Forward
              Forward 14 March 2016 14: 09
              +2
              And where did you see what I trampled in the mud of our sovereigns? Read my posts carefully. I respect my history and culture and have not trampled anyone into the mud. You made a big mistake. In a nutshell, I consider the economy of Stalin more viable than the tsarist structure. And liberalism played a cruel joke on our country. Yes, and the liberal club has already lost on all fronts, no matter who says it. As for the avatar. I saw an obvious Bender provocateur who considers us quilted jackets and colorado, respectively, and answered. If you do not see this, read carefully.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 15 March 2016 06: 18
                +1
                Forward. "They do not pick figs from the thorns and do not take grapes from the bushes. For every tree bears its fruit."
                You are absolutely right. I apologize hi
                1. Forward
                  Forward 15 March 2016 06: 35
                  +1
                  Nothing wrong ! Apologies are accepted hi
      2. AK64
        AK64 14 March 2016 12: 08
        +2
        You change the cutest flag on the avatar,


        I can’t - not I put it there. I myself am surprised (and I have already expressed this surprise).

        But you still need to be at the stable - you are a lover of serfdom, aren't you? Well, then you need to be consistent - to the stable and pass the janitor to break you a dozen hot.
        1. Forward
          Forward 14 March 2016 12: 21
          +1
          You are a friend rude in vain! Learn to lead the discussion culturally. Or in Hohland, your culture is finished once and for all. However, you do not get used to it, because you are not shy about killing children and old people. So judging by your statements, I still got off easily. Thanks to the Ukrainian master that you have descended to me of a poor and miserable Colorado. I will accept this punishment with joy. You are our smart guy
        2. Darkness
          Darkness 14 March 2016 13: 11
          0
          From hohland, or what?
          The style is very familiar.
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 14 March 2016 13: 46
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          to the stable and pass the janitor to break you a dozen hot.

          Andrew, do not bury yourself ... have something to say, tell me. 17 years have passed since October of the 99 year, and we are still ready to kill each other for the joy of others.
          1. AK64
            AK64 15 March 2016 01: 57
            -1
            Yes, I don’t seem to bury myself. Just Forward - a fan of serfdom (see his post at the very top). Well, with serfdom fans, what kind of conversation can there be? How can one convince these citizens that slavery is not just an abomination, corrupting the accords of slaves and slaveholders, but EVIL and TROUBLE for any state and any country?

            In my opinion, the best way is to go to the stable and dive into Wednesday. And then we will ask him "well, dear, did you like you Do you want serfdom? Will you come back tomorrow? "

            I already spoke about serfdom in another topic: the banal abolition of serfdom immediately, within literally several years, led to a reduction in infant (0-5 years) mortality from 44% to 27-29%. And as a result - explosive population growth (Russian, not Asian!)

            Population dynamics can be found on the Web in 15 minutes, and make sure that what is said is true. With infant mortality, it’s a little more complicated: data from before 1861 will have to be searched for azhnik for half an hour.

            So how can a reasonable person treat the adherents of serfdom? Yes, only this way: "please go to the stable!"
    2. AK64
      AK64 14 March 2016 13: 18
      +3
      By the way, what are the cons?

      Forward yearns for serfdom (see his post at the top). I, as a good man, wish him this right to try on his forward ass.

      So what are the cons? For my kindness, is it so?

      Well, about the abolition of serfdom (which from the point of view of forwards and the like was wrong):
      almost immediately after the abolition of serfdom, human-rights mortality in the country fell from 44% to 29-27%
      Feel the difference!

      But the striker, whose ancestors were flogged, believes that it was bad.

      And for some reason they put cons. Is it consistent?
      1. Forward
        Forward 14 March 2016 13: 46
        +3
        Yes, you are not the sweetest kind, you are a provocateur. I read your statements. Judging by your way of communicating with people, I think it's better for you to censor, and to speak out on a mov. There you have a lot of fans there. If you saw in my statements a longing for serfdom, then buy glasses for better, or turn on the brain at the worst. You are our European. Fat should be eaten less, and then the gyrus swims with fat and the correct vision of the environment is deformed. My ancestors such as you Bender in the Nazi Farland beat. And the Poles flogged your Bender ancestors. Or is Judas weakly versed in history?
      2. Rrrj
        Rrrj 14 March 2016 13: 49
        -1
        Everyone is ranting, but they don't see the main thing - the enemy did not even hide that under Alexander 2 it was the so-called "Narodnaya Volya" company, that under Nicholas 2 ... - the overseas curators at least changed the name ...
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 14 March 2016 15: 51
        0
        By the way, what are the cons?


        They told you - for rudeness.
        1. AK64
          AK64 15 March 2016 02: 04
          0
          Where is the "rudeness"?
          A man is nostalgic for serfdom: he says "liberalism is hurting us." (Please, check - he writes so.) I, out of my kindness, advise him a method - to get acquainted with what he is nostalgic about (that is, serfdom).
          And for this they suddenly call me "boor" ...

          This is a substitution of concepts.
          A boor is one who likes serfdom.
          1. Forward
            Forward 15 March 2016 06: 06
            +1
            And I don’t accept Bendery advice from dogs. Draw me into the empty

            a dispute from invented conclusions will not succeed. If I said harm

            liberalism does not mean that I am nostalgic for serfdom.

            But change the training manual Mr. Bendera. And tell your owners that those who have no mind have no fantasies left.

            They think they destroyed the Union and Russia will be destroyed with the help of Judas and corrupt skins like you.

            And whoever discusses here about Marxism and liberalism, - You who work out your 30 pieces of silver.

            It is clear that you will change your nickname and will appear here under a new patriotic name. But nothing will be calculated and cleaned up by people like you.

            Scat the censor evil spirits
            1. The comment was deleted.
  • kalibr
    kalibr 14 March 2016 17: 59
    +2
    It is interesting that my wife's great-grandfather at that time was a "boy" in St. Petersburg and picked up a PIECE OF HOOD from the emperor's overcoat, torn off during an assassination attempt! And it was their family heirloom! Long. But then ... in the red times they didn't really boast about it, and then they completely lost it. My wife still regrets me too! What a strange thing life, right?
  • Morrrow
    Morrrow 14 March 2016 19: 51
    0
    This is when the number of Russians decreased by 30 million?
  • Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 14 March 2016 07: 01
    +3
    It was necessary to crush even in the bud on Senate Square and before all the Decembrist revolutionaries, all these assassinations and subsequently the death of Alexander the second were direct connivance towards these people, as a result of the collapse of the empire and the revolution with the deaths of millions of people.
    1. Darkness
      Darkness 14 March 2016 07: 11
      0
      The result of the revolution is the creation of the USSR. And this is a great blessing.
      1. AK64
        AK64 14 March 2016 09: 25
        +6
        The result of the revolution is the creation of the USSR. And this is a great blessing.

        Since the "great blessing" ordered to live a long time, the pistol should be like this: the result of the revolution is the collapse of Russia to the level "within the boundaries of the 17th century."
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 14 March 2016 10: 02
          +7
          Quote: AK64
          the result of the revolution is the collapse of Russia to the level "within the boundaries of the 17th century."

          By the way, yes, it was Lenin who created the prerequisites for the collapse in the future - dividing the country on a federal basis.
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 13: 25
            +4
            Hehe .... This is already the GDP said :)

            Lenin not only laid these mines, unfortunately.
            Strictly speaking, it is completely unclear what goals Lenin set, and whether he set strategic goals in general.

            For example, Mr Pip writes that the Bolsheviks wanted a world revolution. But the fact is that already in 1918, Lenin ... betrayed the ideas of his German comrades, refusing to essentially bring the country he had inherited to the altar of this very world one. (I'm about the Brest Peace)

            So it is not clear what tasks he set.

            (Bukharino flashed "to rob also to Argentina" - so it’s not in vain that he was a little later .... Well, everyone probably heard about Sverdlov's passports and currency.)
        2. Mr. Pipster
          Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 10: 06
          -1
          Quote: AK64
          the result of the revolution is the collapse of Russia to the level "within the boundaries of the 17th century."

          This is not the result of the revolutions themselves (which was also a tragedy), but above all of the "Stalinist reforms" - better think about the problem, remember the NEP for example!
          1. AK64
            AK64 14 March 2016 10: 49
            0
            This is not the result of the revolutions themselves (which was also a tragedy), but above all of the "Stalinist reforms" - better think about the problem, remember the NEP for example!


            If you want to say something, then say it directly, people around are adults (/ and, looking around / well, or almost all adults)

            The NEP was an unstable impasse, for it was half. In fact, a return to the state of affairs before the reforms of 1906. In other words, "you can't live like that" - you can't try to sit on two chairs, you have to choose. Any choice is better than half-heartedness.
            1. Mr. Pipster
              Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 11: 38
              +3
              Quote: AK64
              If you want to say something, then speak directly

              I say that before evaluating the events of that time, one must understand at least a little bit about Marxism - otherwise the policy of the "Bolsheviks" will be incomprehensible.
              You need to understand the following.
              1. According to Marxism, the building of communism (and socialism too) on the scale of the national economy (that is, in one country) is not possible.
              2. Socialism is not a form of ownership of the means of production (as it was thought in the USSR, where everything was "common and nobody's"), it is a level of development of production forces (and labor productivity, respectively) that ensures full satisfaction of the needs of the population and which only creates the preconditions for the evolution of forms of ownership.
              “The volume of human needs radically changes with the growth of world technology: Marx's contemporaries did not know any car, radio, cinema, or airplane. socialist society is unthinkable today without the free use of all these benefits"- Trotsky.
              Now about the "Bolsheviks" - they were not going to build communism in Russia, because building communism in one country is not possible.
              They counted on the inevitability of a "pgoletarian revolution" in Europe following Russia, and on the erasure of national borders (hence the Peace of Brest and other "autonomies").
              When hopes for a "flashy revolution" collapsed and the NEP was introduced as restoration of capitalism - EVERYTHING - this could put an end to the "building of communism in Russia", further building of a capitalist society in Russia (albeit according to Marx's textbooks) was inevitable - if not for Stalin.
              1. AK64
                AK64 14 March 2016 12: 13
                +2
                Absolutely sausage: Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1848, Karl! What kind of "development" is there?


                However, it is not interesting: comrade is an explicit Trotskyist.

                And he lies too, like Comrade. Trotsky
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. hard rock
                hard rock 14 March 2016 12: 51
                0
                Quote: Mr. Peipster
                2. Socialism is not a form of ownership of the means of production (as it was thought in the USSR, where everything was "common and nobody's"), it is a level of development of production forces (and labor productivity, respectively) that ensures full satisfaction of the needs of the population and which only creates the preconditions for the evolution of forms of ownership.

                Real Bolsheviks did not have any socialism. The renegade Bolsheviks (it is more convenient to call them Stalinists) in the late 30s called their regime socialism. And the traditional Bolsheviks (the Stalinists called them Trotskyists; in the moderate press the name "old Bolsheviks" is found), after all their extremes, as a result, they built ordinary state capitalism (they called it NEP).
                Quote: Mr. Peipster
                When hopes for a "flash revolution" collapsed and the NEP was introduced as the restoration of capitalism - EVERYTHING - it was possible to put an end to the "building of communism in Russia" on this, the further construction of capitalist society in Russia (albeit according to Marx's textbooks) was inevitable - if not Stalin.

                I agree completely.
                I would also add that the renegade Bolsheviks (Stalinists) not only seized power in the country, they carried out a full-fledged reactionary (counter-revolutionary) coup. And they threw the USSR from the old Bolshevik rudimentary form of capitalism (state) into slave TDOs. After the death of Dzhugashvili, Khrushchev and the company made an almost bloodless revolution in the USSR, he converted the TDO in the country into a feudal form. For this, the ideological Stalinists (renegade Bolsheviks) do not like him that much.
                The next almost bloodless revolution was made by Yeltsin. After that, the country for the second time (taking into account the NEP) began to "build capitalism". "Let's see" how it all ends this time.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 14 March 2016 13: 49
        +1
        Quote: Darkness
        The result of the revolution is the creation of the USSR.

        The creation of the USSR is not the result of the revolution, but the result of the struggle of the Stalinists with the Leninists!
        1. hardrokc
          hardrokc 14 March 2016 17: 54
          +1
          Quote: Serg65
          The creation of the USSR is not the result of the revolution, but the result of the struggle of the Stalinists with the Leninists!

          The USSR Bolsheviks lied in 1922. In those days, Dzhugashvili was still nobody, and his name was nothing.
  • inkass_98
    inkass_98 14 March 2016 07: 32
    +12
    Samsonov in his repertoire, as usual.
    I will only touch upon the question of Russian America: during the Crimean War, we barely managed to defend Kamchatka from the British expeditionary forces, which also bombarded Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Defense of the lands of Alaska and California was not at all possible; there simply wasn’t any forces for that. And the manageability of these overseas territories also left much to be desired.
    Yes, the decision to sell Russian America is now very unpopular, but you need to look at things from the perspective of those times, then the situation was seen in a completely different light.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 14 March 2016 08: 06
      -2
      Quote: inkass_98
      Defense of the lands of Alaska and California was not at all possible,

      From whom? There were no US ports on the west coast at that time, and it was not entirely profitable to seize the territory that nobody needed (as it seemed then). Two "gold rushes" were yet to come.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 14 March 2016 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      And the manageability of these overseas territories also left much to be desired.

      Yuri, you are absolutely right! It has always been a mystery to me how England, being at the devil's henbuckets, successfully managed the colonies, and everything fell out of our hands? What is striking and this hour is the same story ... Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and Kamchatka!
      1. Mr. Pipster
        Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 10: 34
        +6
        Quote: Serg65
        It has always been a mystery to me how the very same England, being at the devil's heels on the sandpit, successfully managed the colonies

        1. Controlled the sea lanes - because the sea power.
        2. Made a diplomatic bet on the elite of the colonies - it was more profitable to cooperate with the BI than to fight with it.
        3. Dominated the world in both scientific, technical and financial potential.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. hard rock
          hard rock 14 March 2016 12: 41
          +2
          Quote: Mr. Peipster
          1. Controlled the sea lanes - because the sea power.

          What about France? What about Holland? What about Portugal?
          No, it’s not about controlling the sea lanes.
      2. hard rock
        hard rock 14 March 2016 12: 31
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        It has always been a mystery to me how England, being at the devil's henbuckets, successfully managed the colonies, and everything fell out of our hands?

        Britain has always been ruled by the national elite.
        In Russia, this has been a problem for a long time. That elite was not national. Either national, but not elite, then not national and not elite.
        And the traditional national elite in Russia was in such ancient times that it is no longer possible to recall. If I’m not mistaken, the normal path of development of the state in Russia ended on Fedor III Alekseevich. Then everything went awry.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Aleksander
      Aleksander 14 March 2016 14: 33
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      Defense of the lands of Alaska and California was not at all possible; there simply wasn’t any forces for that. And the manageability of these overseas territories also left much to be desired.


      The territories of Central Asia, which went to Russia under Alexander II, are larger in size than India, Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. In addition, Russia took the huge Primorsky Territory, southern Bessarabia, Kars. All this was close by, it was vitally necessary to equip all this, as well as to resolve issues in the Balkans.
      There were simply not enough forces for Alaska, and even there was its own land "hegemon".
    5. k174oun7
      k174oun7 14 March 2016 14: 41
      -1
      If Alaska were not sold in the 19th century, it would have been successfully drunk by a drunk of all Russia EBN at the end of the 20th. So to speak, historical inevitability.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 14 March 2016 14: 54
        -3
        So what? Let's sell everything so that some future EBN doesn’t drink it sometime?
  • parusnik
    parusnik 14 March 2016 07: 42
    +4
    The first public attempt to kill the sovereign!... Well, yes .. before that they killed secretly ... Paul, Peter III, Ivan V ... by the way, these educated people also killed ..
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 14 March 2016 08: 08
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      Paul, Peter III, Ivan V... by the way, these are also educated people killed..

      For English money. By the way, who is that Ivan V?
      1. avt
        avt 14 March 2016 09: 02
        +3
        Quote: V.ic
        For English money. By the way, who is Ivan V?

        Well, if a joint man on the throne with brother Petsey under the patronage of Sister Sophia. wassat
        Quote: Forward
        The reforms did not receive a logical conclusion, which subsequently led to the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the death of the Romanov dynasty.

        Oh, wei! laughing Or maybe he should have watched his women and not scattered weapons "? Sasha No. 2? Well, do not stir up with Dolgoruka to such an extent that the new applicant on legal grounds does not sit on the throne? How did it all coincide with his intrigues around a new marriage .... even now the terrorists dashingly got up to it.
        1. Forward
          Forward 14 March 2016 09: 23
          0
          Oh wei! laughing Or maybe he should have watched his women and not scattered weapons? " his intrigues around a new marriage .... even now the terrorists have dashingly got along so.

          This is an interesting version, and not without a certain logic. But I can remind you that work on the collapse of the Russian Empire did not suddenly begin even this very minute. It has long been funded from abroad by the Rothschilds through its distant Kun relatives. The approximate amount of investment at that time was gigantic, and amounted to about $ 20. In addition, various Western intelligence services, including the British, were directly involved.
        2. V.ic
          V.ic 14 March 2016 10: 20
          -2
          Quote: avt
          Well, if a joint man on the throne with brother Petsey under the patronage of Sister Sophia

          Not an autocrat, Shelupon Romanovskaya.
      2. AK64
        AK64 14 March 2016 09: 15
        +1
        who is Ivan V


        Ivan Alekseevich, Brother of Peter. The fact that the "first".
        Most likely poisoned, like the other sons from his first wife
      3. parusnik
        parusnik 14 March 2016 10: 59
        +1
        Typo .. Ivan Antonovich VI
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 14 March 2016 13: 51
          0
          Quote: parusnik
          Typo .. Ivan Antonovich VI

          And when the baby was anointed to the kingdom?
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 14 March 2016 21: 01
            +1
            Ivan VI 12 (23) August 1740, St. Petersburg - 5 (16) July 1764, Shlisselburg) - Russian emperor from the Braunschweig branch of the Romanov dynasty from October 1740 to November 1741, great-grandson of Ivan V.
            Formally, the first year of his life reigned during the regency, first Biron, and then his own mother Anna Leopoldovna. The infant emperor was overthrown by Elizabeth Petrovna, spent almost all her life in solitary confinement, and already in the reign of Catherine II was killed by the guard at the age of 23 when trying to release him. In official lifetime sources, it is mentioned as Ivan III, that is, the account is from the first Russian Tsar John the Terrible, in later historiography, the tradition was established to call him Ivan VI, counting from Ivan I Kalita.
        2. AK64
          AK64 14 March 2016 21: 44
          +2
          Typo .. Ivan Antonovich VI


          Yes, not at all: Ivan Alekseevich most likely fits the description. (Like the rest boys from the first marriage - oh you can’t marry a second time, oh you can’t)
  • Aquarius
    Aquarius 14 March 2016 08: 36
    +8
    And when will the streets bearing the names of terrorists be renamed: S. Perovskaya (in Tver), Kibalchich (in Moscow) and throughout the country? It’s strange to name streets after terrorists ...
  • Forward
    Forward 14 March 2016 08: 52
    +3
    Quote: Egor123
    The great heyday of Russia is the reign of Alexander 3 and Nicholas 2

    Emperor Alexander wholeheartedly wished his homeland happiness and prosperity, but unfortunately his life was tragically cut short. The reforms did not receive a logical conclusion, which subsequently led to the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the death of the Romanov dynasty. Reforms of Stalin led to the victory of our people in the great Patriotic war and the emergence of a powerful power with which the whole world was forced to reckon. We still take advantage of the groundwork laid by Joseph Vissarionovich. The biblical quote very accurately indicates this situation. Do not collect figs from blackthorn and do not remove grapes from the bush. For each tree bears its fruit.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 14 March 2016 08: 59
      +1
      You quoted the Bible quote unsuccessfully.
      1. Forward
        Forward 14 March 2016 09: 04
        +1
        I rephrased it a little. I hope I didn’t hurt anybody’s religious feelings, but if I’ve hurt, please forgive me.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 14 March 2016 09: 11
          0
          Religious feelings You did not hurt.
  • AK64
    AK64 14 March 2016 09: 13
    +3
    The most complete nonsense ...
    People will be some ... Yes, there were no "Narodnaya Volya", the myth is all.
    It is necessary to look to those who are dead on the corn with their actions.
    Whose prodest?

    Here is his son, Alexander Alesandrovich, he got scared and turned his father's policy (that is, he actually betrayed his father's business) - and right away ... no Narodnaya Volya members, the “Narodnaya Volya” members disappeared somewhere. They just disappeared instantly.

    Katkov, who was not Katkov at all, publicly asked the question "where did they get the money?" People like all are not rich - commoners, and suddenly excellent weapons, horses of thousands, secret houses - after all, first of all, all this requires money. Just think at your leisure how much a full-scale terrorist activity against the head of state costs in modern conditions - and then it cost no less!

    And the betrayal was from top to bottom - even Alexander Nikolaevich surrendered ... own lover! (And very dusty after his death, she lived in Nice)

    And you say "Narodnaya Volya" ... this is a myth, there were no "Narodnaya Volya members"
    1. Mr. Pipster
      Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 10: 09
      +3
      Quote: AK64
      Here is his son, Alexander Alesandrovich, he got scared and turned his father's policy (that is, he actually betrayed his father's business) - and right away ... no Narodnaya Volya members, the “Narodnaya Volya” members disappeared somewhere.

      And also students began to "disappear" en masse - they were kicked out, their knowledge was limited, freedom was fettered - the result was not long in coming in 1917, so everything should develop evenly and naturally stop
  • Humpty
    Humpty 14 March 2016 09: 26
    +3
    Alexander the second and Nikolai the second were killed by Jews. Coincidence?
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 14 March 2016 15: 04
      +1
      Alexander the Second was killed by a Pole, a Catholic, a nobleman Grinevitsky. And the Tsar gave a lot of indulgences to the Jews in the empire. But the habit of blaming the Jews for all troubles worked and this time, despite the fact that the killer’s identity was immediately restored, the people responded to the murder Pole king of the Jewish pogroms with almost complete inaction of the authorities

      By the way, they tried to establish the reason even then
      ... Poles and Jews, in the perception of Russian officials, were inextricably linked with each other, making up a united anti-Russian force. The belief in the existence of this connection has grown into the concept of the Jews - an integral part of the anti-government revolutionary movement ...


      Jewish Question in the Russian Empire
      1. Rivares
        Rivares 14 March 2016 21: 05
        +1
        Quote: Pissarro
        , the people responded to the Polish assassination of the king by Jewish pogroms with almost complete inaction of the authorities

        So the Poles and killed. The empire had a law on the Pale of Settlement; Jews lived in the same place where before, with the Poles. And if they broke the law and secretly came, then let them blame themselves.
        By the way, the Polish authorities were inactive.
  • timyr
    timyr 14 March 2016 09: 46
    +2
    Alexander 2 laid the foundation for the revolution in Russia when he liberated the peasants, according to the most idiotic scenario. The peasants considered their land when they received it, not all, with redemption payments until 1905. The nobles were also dissatisfied, they believed that the whole land should go to them. So the autocracy received discontent from both sides.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 14 March 2016 11: 29
      +2
      This is a common practice: of the two bad decisions, the third worst is chosen as a compromise. Not only did both sides suffer anyway, so did the economy as a whole, because peasant farming was even less effective than landowners. And the peasants immediately seized the land themselves, as soon as the February revolution took place.
  • Mr. Pipster
    Mr. Pipster 14 March 2016 10: 20
    0
    Russian statehood was not prepared for the fact that people brought up and well educated in the Russian Empire (often representatives of high society) would react to their own homeland with such hatred.

    Well, so that it means that "education is evil" (as Alexander 3 decided) or that "it's time to change something in our house" (as the revolutionaries decided) stop
    Was the "democratization of Russia" ultimately inevitable, as in the rest of Europe? request
    1. AK64
      AK64 14 March 2016 23: 17
      +1
      Guys6 finish Pipster again in the minus to drive: he is generally good, just a little sense of proportion is not enough for him.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 14 March 2016 11: 59
    +2
    Congratulations to Alexander with a wonderful article! The undoubted growth of the professional level!

    There was a difficult Eastern (Crimean) war, which was a kind of rehearsal of the First World War. Leading world powers opposed Russia

    It seems like quite different. Here is the Seven Years' War or the Napoleonic Wars - yes, it is in the theme of the World War- when the leading countries of Europe clutch among themselves and the colonies. In the case of the Crimean War - everything is easier - they decided to punish Russia that reached too much weight by stepping up for green Turkey.

    Russia won the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878. Although St. Petersburg, under pressure from the West, had to abandon part of the conquests and Constantinople from Constantinople. In addition, militarily the campaign was notable for the mass of mistakes that spoke about the systemic crisis of the Russian army (they were not corrected, and this negatively affected the course of the Russo-Japanese War and World War II).
    Absolutely! Unfortunately, the bloody Russian-Turkish 1877-78 years. It turned out to be the most victorious and if it were not for the English squadron with the landing - they would take Istanbul. And accordingly, the post-reform army was considered good enough, and before the Russo-Japanese, everything was considered ideal ...

    Alexander II Nikolaevich to some extent was himself guilty of his death. No wonder the Pobedonostsev said that only a pure autocracy can resist the revolution. Alexander shook the Nikolaev empire and did not take appropriate measures to combat the revolutionary underground.

    It’s just that Russian tsars were not supporters of terror against their OWN PEOPLE. They did not even dream of the methods of the Bolsheviks even in a bloody dream. Although, as noted above, the methods of antiterrorist struggle in the style of the Metsad would not have hurt.

    On 3 (15) on April 1881, Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Mikhailov and Rysakov were hanged on the parade ground of the Semenovsky regiment.

    I didn’t know this, but beautiful! Guards regiment testifies so to speak!

    Quote: inkass_98
    I will only touch upon the question of Russian America: during the Crimean War, we barely managed to defend Kamchatka from the expeditionary forces of Britain. Defense of the lands of Alaska and California was not at all possible; there simply wasn’t any forces for that.
    Yes, the decision to sell Russian America is now very unpopular, but you need to look at things from the perspective of those times, then the situation was seen in a completely different light.

    Very correct vision, it seems to me. With the underdeveloped colonial management system in Russia, especially overseas territories, with a weak economy, selling Alaska is the best option. Moreover, this made it possible to get money for reforms and they were not allowed to plunder, but invested in the development of the economy.

    Quote: AK64
    Consider at your leisure how much full-scale terrorist activity against the head of state in modern conditions costs - and so then it cost no less!

    Then it cost much less. Russian tsars did not go to the armored cars, they drove in the usual open carriages, and often met with the common population, often just walking along the streets and squares of St. Petersburg. And the protection of sovereigns was a more honorable escort than really effective.
    1. AK64
      AK64 14 March 2016 12: 21
      +1
      Then it cost much less. Russian tsars did not go to the armored cars, they drove in the usual open carriages, and often met with the common population, often just walking along the streets and squares of St. Petersburg. And the protection of sovereigns was a more honorable escort than really effective.


      (1) Do not shout like that - not deaf.
      (2) Then it cost as much as now (adjusted for increased living standards). Look how much the chief officer received per month in the 1870s - you will be very surprised. And for very poor rich raznochintsev suddenly somewhere excellent (and mean expensive) weapons, safe houses, and other miscellaneous.

      Katkov was very surprised at that.

      In the days of Alexander 3, there was already amateur performances - I'm talking about the group where Ulyanov Sr. participated. This is really a student’s amateur activity - well, how much did they manage to fight? They burned in the very early stages of conversations. (And therefore they were executed in vain --- well, yes there was another reason, IMHO)
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 March 2016 13: 29
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Absolutely! Unfortunately, the bloody Russian-Turkish 1877-78. It turned out to be the most victorious and if it were not for the English squadron with the landing - they would take Istanbul.

      Here are just the results of our victory used by others. A few years after that war, Russia was forced to send the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to the coast of Bulgaria to ensure the evacuation of Russian and pro-Russian citizens.
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth 14 March 2016 12: 47
    -2
    Autocracy, as such, was already an outdated and rotten form of government for the late 18th century. Not for nothing in the 19 world it was precisely the autocratic empires that collapsed on both sides of the front.
  • Darkness
    Darkness 14 March 2016 13: 14
    -2
    I look in Russia still completely missing the gentlemen and princes.
    It is a pity that stupidity does not bring physical pain.
    1. hard rock
      hard rock 14 March 2016 13: 26
      +4
      Quote: Darkness
      I look in Russia still completely missing the gentlemen and princes.

      And the totalitarian sect of "witnesses of socialism" headed by another "brilliant supreme shaman", too.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 14 March 2016 13: 41
    +4
    Quote: Kenneth
    Autocracy, as such, was already an outdated and rotten form of government for the late 18th century. Not for nothing in the 19 world it was precisely the autocratic empires that collapsed on both sides of the front.

    You have an inconsistency - in fact, Russia, after the 1905 year, was just a monarchy that was not autocratic, but limited, according to the English model. But for some reason, the British monarchy is still alive.

    Quote: Darkness
    I look in Russia still completely missing the gentlemen and princes.
    "Barinov", who controlled the serfs, did not exist in Russia after 1861, if anything, and the prince began to be more perceived as a kind of analogue of a modern oligarch or something. So there were no strong differences from the current state.
    1. Darkness
      Darkness 14 March 2016 14: 26
      0
      I say that.
      There is practically no difference.
      Who has more babboks is the master.
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 14 March 2016 14: 33
      0
      Just do not need to compare with Britain. Nicolas left so many rights to himself that in fact the Duma was a decoration.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 14 March 2016 15: 20
        +1
        and to break the monarchy at the first stage, even such a decoration is enough. The most important thing is to create a symbolic alternative institution of power. The Duma or the Reichstag. At the time of the coup, this institution will act as the body that seizes power. Do not be in Germany, the Reichstag or in the Duma, a bourgeois revolution it would not have been possible, the maximum that it would have been possible to change his head under the crown, imposing certain conditions on the part of the conspirators. What, however, as in the case of Anna Ioannovna, doesn’t prevent the new Tsar from breaking these obligations publicly at the time of accession, accusing the conspirators of the conspiracy publicly. It doesn’t roll with the parliament, the parliament overthrew both the English king and the French. The mistake for the autocracy was to introduce such a body in general, which even in a symbolic form the autocracy is a direct threat
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 13: 55
    0
    Quote: Humpty
    Alexander the second and Nikolai the second were killed by Jews. Coincidence?

    Perovskaya is the daughter of the governor of St. Petersburg. Do you consider her Jewish?
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 14: 20
    0
    The result of the reign of Alexander II is not as clear as the author of this propaganda campaign wrote about it.
    It was in his reign that there were contradictions, which eventually became the cause of all the Russian revolutions of the twentieth century.
    The victory in the war with Turkey turned the Balkans into the powder keg of Europe; there simply did not exist a peaceful solution to the problems that developed there.
    Agrarian reform, carried out in the interests of large suppliers-landowners, has led to the impoverishment of a third of the peasant population, which makes up the majority of the country's population.

    All this could not end just like that, and as soon as the autocratic power weakened, it immediately exploded.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 14 March 2016 20: 54
      +1
      Normally, you justified the Ottoman yoke. How much Erdogan paid you. Everything else is true for other powers.
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 22: 55
        -1
        Here from this moment in more detail: what was the expression of my justification for the Ottoman yoke?
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 14 March 2016 14: 25
    +6
    ETERNAL MEMORY AND ETERNAL GLORY !!!
    If he stayed alive, the history of the world would go differently.
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 14 March 2016 15: 32
    +1
    The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decides:

    Increase personal pension to the participants of the terrorist act 1 March 1881 year: Vera Nikolaevna Figner, Anna Vasilyevna Yakimova-Dikovskaya, Mikhail Fedorovich Frolenko, Anna Pavlovna Pribyleva-Korba and Fani Abramovna Moreynis - up to 400 rubles per month from January 1 on 1933 of the year.

    February 8 1933 years, Moscow, Kremlin.

    So, the terrorists
    lived to a very old age. That's why Alexander II and Nikolai died. comply with the laws of the country according to the strictest punishment of terrorists and not to pardon them, but to destroy and not breed antimony. The Bolsheviks dealt with their opponents quickly and forever, having learned from the Tsars-AS NOT need to do....
    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 16: 40
      -1
      All references to the source of this decree refer to the Internet edition "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" N4230-2006. The issue itself does not contain any initial data on the archival source.

      Conclusion: most likely stuffing.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 14 March 2016 22: 28
        0
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        All references to the source of this decree refer to the Internet edition "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" N4230-2006. The issue itself does not contain any initial data on the archival source. Conclusion: most likely stuffing.


        And what bothers you what causes rejection? You doubt that these nonhuman terrorists honored by others Bolshevik animals? In vain, look how many streets, planets, ships, etc. were named by their names - Figner, Perovskaya, etc. Zhelyabovs (but many have now been renamed back, thank God).
        Amazingly, all these animals (from the Decree) survived until 90 YEARS! -this is how the bloody tsarist regime "crushed" them and the Bolshevik regime (without quotes) went out. And according to all existing laws, they should have disappeared 60 years earlier, but no-mercy, but su. Figner even ... was released from hard labor, for treatment ... abroad! belay The state is obliged to protect itself and citizens from it is not clear that they had imagined dangerous lunatics ...
  • alicante11
    alicante11 14 March 2016 16: 02
    -3
    Alexander the Second was a very weak king, like his grandson Nikolashka No. 2.
    It is clear that the liberation of the peasants was by no means dictated by their concern for them, but by the need to saturate the enterprises created by the bourgeoisie with the living blood of workers. And for this they had to be moved to cities. With serfs, it would be very difficult to do, but a free man who was left without land is quite possible.
    The conquest of Central Asia and the reconciliation of the Caucasus, of course, is good and right. But to this, everything was already going on. If not for the Crimean War, Nikolay the First would have dealt with this.
    The Russian-Turkish war of 1878 is a glorious sacrifice of the Russian people, which turned out to be unnecessary to anyone. All the gains of this war were lost on the diplomatic front. By the way, Bismarck tried his best. Even Bulgaria could not be kept under their influence.

    Everything is said about the loss of Russian America. Incidentally, during the Crimean campaign, Alaska was better protected than Kamchatka. but not guns, but diplomacy. The neutrality of British possessions in the North and Russian America. Therefore, the Allies did not take any action against Alaska. Also, quite a lot of time passed from the time of the Crimean campaign to the sale of Alaska during the reign of Alexander the Second, but nothing was done to improve the situation. It was easier to sell land than to develop it.
    Well, about the weakness of the Emperor, who was unable to protect himself, with an iron hand suppressing the speeches of the terrorists, there is no point in talking either. In this he can blame only himself.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 14 March 2016 16: 15
      -2
      It is clear that the liberation of the peasants was by no means dictated by their concern for them, but by the need to saturate the enterprises created by the bourgeoisie with the living blood of workers. And for this they had to be moved to cities. With serfs, it would be very difficult to do, but a free man who was left without land is quite possible


      But this was done according to the worst of all possible options. On the one hand, while maintaining the peasant community with the redistribution of cut land by the number of souls, this caused population growth, hunger, inefficient use of land (no one had to invest in it, after a few years anyway redistributed in a new way.) On the other hand, the landowner could not develop the only efficient large-scale economy so far. Plus, the peasants were forced to pay for meager chunks of land for decades to come. A half-hearted measure, which, in addition to general discontent, did not give anything. not only to become material for industrialization (as it was in the Stalin era), but also to populate the entire empty eastern part of the empire, up to Alaska, to dilute the foreign population in Central Asia and in the same Poland, thereby creating reliance on Russian settlers in potentially rebellious lands.
      Nekrosov’s reform assessment is the most colorful

      the great chain broke
      torn and hit
      one end over the gentleman
      others by peasant
  • Captain45
    Captain45 14 March 2016 18: 19
    +2
    Gentlemen "nobles"! What dynasty of the Romanovs can we talk about if the last representative of the Romanov family on the throne of the Russian Empire was Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughter of Peter Alekseevich Romanov. All subsequent representatives of the ruling house of the Romanovs were descendants of the Hesse-Darmstadt and Gottrop-Holstein Dinas. the surname of the Romanovs in their veins was good if 1/500 of a part. Nicholas II was a cousin of the English king, they portraits look like two drops of water and the nephew of the German Kaiser Wilhelm, and it was a direct relationship. It's great, yes, two cousins ​​fought with their uncle They ... married each other, hence the degeneration of the reigning dynasties, as a result of degeneration and mental retardation. Now some princess Mukhosr @ nskaya declared herself the heiress of the Romanov dynasty, she herself was lying under anyone else, from an American Jewish banker , before the fascist colonel, now claims the laurels of the empress, and his vylyadka to the legitimate emperors Moreover, the Windsor dynasty of its Prince Harry, too, read the Russian throne, because he is a relative of the Romanovs' house. E ... t each other, and money in a mug.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 14 March 2016 18: 28
      0
      Quote: Captain45
      ! What kind of Romanov dynasty can we talk about,

      Yes, God be with them, the Romanovs! It is generally about the monarchy as a system of power. How to build?
      1. Captain45
        Captain45 14 March 2016 19: 18
        +2
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        How to build?

        By the way, I don’t know. I usually express my opinion about what I saw with my own eyes, was a direct participant, so to speak, but ... My grandfather was born in 1894 and I was born after his death and naturally did not see him, but from I heard my father’s ditty, which my grandfather sang:
        When the king, under Nikolashka
        They ate white olashki (pancakes),
        And Soviet power came,
        Chaff in ... opu rested.
        My grandfather lived with the king, fought in World War I, and he probably knew exactly what the ditties were singing about. He could compare. Grandfather died in 1949.
  • Nubia2
    Nubia2 14 March 2016 18: 53
    +2
    Quote: Pissarro
    In February 1917, the front passed near Mogilev, where the king was sitting.

    So what? In the 41st winter, the front passed near Moscow, where Stalin was sitting ..
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 15 March 2016 08: 15
      -1
      and the fact that in the winter of 1941 no one said that the war would end by victory by summer.
      1. Nubia2
        Nubia2 15 March 2016 13: 40
        +1
        Then they did not say the same thing.
  • Rastas
    Rastas 14 March 2016 19: 45
    0
    V. G. Korolenko wrote: “I still remembered, although it was in childhood, the joyful revival of the first years after the liberation of the peasants, caused by him in the best elements of society ... But it soon turned out that Alexander II was much lower than the work he had begun and too soon changed him. From the young tsar, who delivered liberating speeches, by the end of the 70s there remained a miserable, repentant and frightened reactionary ... "
  • Rastas
    Rastas 14 March 2016 19: 47
    0
    Andrei Zhelyabov explained the reasons for the transition of the Narodniks to terror: “Russian philanthropists didn’t always act with projectiles ... In our activity there was youth, pink, dreamy, and if it passed, then we do not blame it ... The movement is extremely harmless by its means ... it crashed exclusively about the numerous obstacles encountered in the face of prisons and exile. The movement was completely bloodless, rejecting violence, not revolutionary, but peaceful - it was suppressed ... According to my convictions, I would leave this form of struggle violent if only the possibility of a peaceful struggle, that is, peaceful propaganda of their ideas, peaceful organization of their supporters appeared. ”
    Another leader of Narodnaya Volya, Sofia Perovskaya, said: “Whoever knows our life and the conditions under which we have to act will not throw us either accusations of immorality or accusations of cruelty ...”
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 14 March 2016 20: 10
      +2
      The movement is extremely harmless within its means ..
      They wanted to throw bombs with impunity, apparently Zhelyabov and his comrades were too outlined in pink youth.
      1. Rivares
        Rivares 14 March 2016 21: 14
        +2
        Zhelyabov dreamed of a blue youth))
        1. Rastas
          Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 43
          0
          Well, everyone understands the extent of their own corruption.
      2. Rastas
        Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 31
        +1
        No, I don’t whitewash Perovskaya or Zhelyabov, they, of course, acted incorrectly, to put it mildly. But history is a science, it is necessary to understand why the same Perovskaya, a noblewoman, suddenly went from a noble family to the people of the people, knowing full well what fate awaits her. Why did these nobles not serve the king, but go to the revolutionaries? Maybe because the class itself is rotten and degraded. After all, there is no need for Bolshevik propaganda - it is enough to read Russian classics.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 15 March 2016 08: 25
          0
          Most of the nobles served the Empire, liberated the Slavs in the Balkans, liquidated the slave khanates in Central Asia, expanded borders, built. And there are black sheep in any herd. What these renegades counted is not clear at all, they killed the Tsar-Liberator of peasants and Balkan Slavs. Did you think the answer from the cool enough of his son will not follow?
          If we talk about the degradation of nobles, Perovskaya is the first candidate
  • Captain45
    Captain45 14 March 2016 20: 24
    +3
    Quote: Rastas
    Andrei Zhelyabov explained the reasons for the transition of the Narodniks to terror: “Russian philanthropists didn’t always act with projectiles ... In our activity there was youth, pink, dreamy, and if it passed, then we do not blame it ... The movement is extremely harmless by its means ... crashed exclusively about the numerous obstacles encountered in the face of prisons and exile.

    They were called Narodniks because at first they went among the people firmly following the guidelines of the London emigrant Herzen (also a damn connoisseur of the Russian soul with Rothschild's money) that the Russian peasant is by nature a socialist and he only needs to explain the state of affairs, and then the peasant himself will make a revolution. when walking among the people, the peasants, as a rule, grabbed the "students and sitsalists" by the scruff of the scruff of the neck and dragged them to the sergeant, and at the same time yielded them under the ribs so as not to scold the king-father. In general, the populists, like the Decembrists, were terribly far from the people, and when the people kicked them on the back of the neck, they decided to use bombs themselves, without the people. And even now, you will see how the "intelligentsia" shed tears on all kinds of talk shows for the people, and they themselves only dream of getting closer to the feeding trough, and not succeeding will lead the crowd to come @ rkov, as in the Ruin. Themselves are afraid to take a bomb, in contrast to Zhelyabov. It doesn’t trickle bags. N. Gumilyov said correctly "I am not an intellectual, I have a profession."
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 42
      +1
      Well, the failures of "going to the people" had their reasons.
      1. The propaganda plan among the peasants was very chaotic, ill-conceived.
      2. The Narodniks were struck by the philosophy of the peasantry - slavish obedience, tolerance, hope for the help of the tsar-father or a kind gentleman. Everywhere was mentioned "divine providence", "God's will for that."
      3. The peasants, according to the recollections of the Narodniks, of course, listened to what they were saying, but perceived it as a fairy tale, utopia. They did not want to go against established traditions.
      4. And most importantly. For the most part, Narodnaya Volya residents came from noblemen, raznochintsy and did not know their own people well, and when they encountered them, they did not know what to do. As it turned out, the peasants, just in time for the nobility and harbor hatred, and pray for the king.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 20: 40
    +2
    Quote: kalibr
    Do you know how many holidays were at that time? There were Sundays and CHURCH HOLIDAYS when it was considered a sin to work. The plants stood. The namesake of the sovereign, the great princes ... a big family ... The plants stood! And the most interesting (I hope you are sitting!) Of such days in years was 258 in 1902 year! So there was a working day on 12-14 hours. And when does it work otherwise?
    So giving the people an 8-hour working day and taking away Easter, Baptism, namesake ... the Bolsheviks actually made people work more! You yourself can easily calculate it. It’s enough to take the calendar of that time ...

    Such fantasies could be composed in the mid-80's when there were problems with access to information. Nowadays, they cause nothing but laughter.

    The 1897 Law of the Year, which determines the duration of working hours and non-working days, established 14 non-working days (three more were added in the 1900 year) on Sundays. Total in 1902 year was 296 working days.

    Also, this law limited working hours: on Saturdays and holidays - 10 hours, on night shifts - 11,5 hours.

    And nobody allowed the plants to stand idle, since the same law allowed them to smack workers on Sundays (with days off on weekdays) and overtime.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 14 March 2016 21: 42
    +3
    Quote: Captain45
    Nicholas II was a cousin of the English king, they portraits are like two drops of water and a nephew of the German Kaiser Wilhelm, and this was a direct relationship. Well, yes, two cousins ​​fought with their uncle

    That was the horror ... As someone clever said, "Every war in Europe is a civil war," and unfortunately this is so.

    Quote: Serg65
    Nicholas 2 was made a monster right here, but I dare to ask why? For the fact that he didn’t shoot in batches, he didn’t exile to the camps in droves? Yes, it is possible his fault that he believed in the integrity of his people, and this faith eventually led him to the basement of the Ipatiev House.

    Absolutely correct words. As I have already noted - a complete repetition of the situation in France with Louis XVI, both of these sovereigns were probably the most warmhearted of all dynasties. But subjects (and most importantly the enemies of the country) usually do not appreciate the carrot, but only recognize the whip.

    Quote: Aleksander
    The territories of Central Asia, which went to Russia under Alexander II, are larger in size than India, Pakistan and Afghanistan combined.

    The vastness of the territories does not correlate with their economic profitability. Unfortunately, Russia, unlike Britain, only invested in their own colonies with permission, and did not receive wealth from there ...
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 14 March 2016 21: 57
      0
      It is difficult to call Louis and Nikolai a darling. Under Louis in France, workers' uprisings in Lyon and the Paris suburbs were suppressed. And shortly before the capture of the Bastille, troops were sent to Paris. In the end, he completely discredited himself, agreeing to the direct intervention of Prussia, Austria, Spain against his country, if only to save his crown and preserve the nobility and clergy, as estates. About Nicholas, and so it is known - January 9, the Stolypin military field courts, the suppression of workers in Siberia, Lensky execution. And in February 17th Nikolai ordered to send 8 regiments of General Ivanov against Petrograd, only they refused to shoot at the rebels.
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 14 March 2016 22: 03
      0
      You see, the whip does not always help, and it does not help at all. Things must be done for the good of the country and the population, taking into account its interests. And the whip ... You see, in Cuba Batista planted people in packs, but that didn’t stop him from cutting, in South Vietnam the ruling regime killed people without investigation, but people with great zeal went into the jungle to the partisans. At a certain stage, when, in addition to repression, there is nothing more to offer, such a policy begins to become embittered.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 14 March 2016 22: 40
    0
    Quote: Aleksander
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    All references to the source of this decree refer to the Internet edition "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" N4230-2006. The issue itself does not contain any initial data on the archival source. Conclusion: most likely stuffing.


    And what bothers you what causes rejection? You doubt that these nonhuman terrorists honored by others Bolshevik animals? In vain, look how many streets, planets, ships, etc. were named by their names - Figner, Perovskaya, etc. Zhelyabovs (but many have now been renamed back, thank God).
    Amazingly, all these animals (from the Decree) survived until 90 YEARS! -this is how the bloody tsarist regime "crushed" them and the Bolshevik regime (without quotes) went out. And according to all existing laws, they should have disappeared 60 years earlier, but no-mercy, but su. Figner even ... was released from hard labor, for treatment ... abroad! belay The state is obliged to protect itself and citizens from it is not clear that they had imagined dangerous lunatics ...
    false myths arouse my rejection. And you are the ones who operate on them.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 14 March 2016 22: 59
    +3
    Quote: Rastas
    In the end, he completely discredited himself, agreeing to the direct intervention of Prussia, Austria, Spain against his country, if only to save his crown and preserve the nobility and clergy, as estates.
    Yeah, because the alternative was a monstrous revolutionary terror, the extermination of the elite of the nation and the genocide of its own people (read about the "hellish columns" of revolutionary troops). Or read the opinion of A.V. Suvorov about the French revolutionaries.

    Quote: Rastas
    About Nicholas, and so it is known - on 9 of January, the Stolypin military field courts,
    Oh, you compared! Yes, there were few of them, Stolypin vessels, very few! or maybe we’ll raise for comparison the scale of the terror unleashed by the Bolsheviks after coming to power?
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 14 March 2016 23: 45
      -2
      Who is the elite? These are the nobles who robbed and humiliated their people, taxed them, poisoned people with dogs? When people were dying of hunger, they set up magnificent balls and became mired in debauchery. Have you read the history of the French revolution? Zhores, for example, his 6-volume work? And Mathieu or Bloos, Mounier? They also found the elite destroyed, which rushed into exile and encroached on the thresholds of the kings' courts to organize a campaign against France. And so that no one has risen to defend them in the country, what did the intervention have to start, huh? If there had been no intervention, there would have been no terror, which was its consequence. The same thing and red terror, which was the answer to white. After all, at first they were released on parole not to fight against the new government. The same Krasnov was so released.
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 14 March 2016 23: 54
      -1
      And here the opinion of Suvorov is dragged in, who was a military man, not a politician who had never been in France. And here are Catherine's words to her son Pavel when he asked to send troops to France: "Fool! Do you think that ideas can be shot from cannons?" I read French literature - Hugo, Balzac, Stendhal, Dumas, Zola, Flaubert, they all paid tribute to the revolution. The great Hugo wrote verses:

      Fifteen hundred years the people lived in darkness
      And the old world, affirming its oppression over it,
      It was a medieval tower.
      But indignation rose a formidable rampart,
      Clutching an iron fist, the Titan people revolted,
      Blow - and yesterday’s world collapsed!

      And the revolution in peasant shoes,
      Going hard, with a club in his hands,
      She came, spreading the system of centuries,
      Shining with triumph, from bleeding wounds ...
      The people shook off the yoke from a mighty shoulder, -
      And the ninety-third struck!
      1. hardrokc
        hardrokc 15 March 2016 00: 51
        +2
        Quote: Rastas
        I read French literature - Hugo, Balzac, Stendhal, Dumas, Zola, Flaubert, they all paid tribute to the revolution.

        And I also read them all. Nevertheless, I do not consider it necessary to listen to their opinion regarding the structure of society. This is not the genre of writers.
        As for the national elite, this is the most valuable thing that any nation has. Actually the elite, this is the nation. Therefore, even the poorest national elite is better than its absence.
        There is such a problem in Russia. Therefore, it constantly shakes itself into various kinds of isms, there is no national elite, it has been destroyed. Moreover, purposefully destroyed. But there is no national elite, no healthy society, no full nation. And this is not even a problem, it is a disaster. Because this elite cannot be quickly obtained, its formation and education is a very long process that cannot be accelerated in any way.
        Moreover, in exactly the same way as in a society of a sectarian type (the so-called "Soviet socialism"), it will also not be possible to get it under capitalist TAR (see the experience of China and other countries). Therefore, the end of the "thaw" and the tightening of the regime to the level of the feudal one (apparently in some veiled, but completely obvious form) is inevitable. Those. return of Russia in the 19th century Then another 100 years for the formation of the national elite, and then the bourgeois revolution (as in February 1917) can be expected. This option is almost inevitable, even there is a feeling that the "electorate" is ready. The only question is the timing of its implementation.
        Is there any other option? There is, and not one. But I'm not sure if they are better than "feudal".
        That's about something such a thing the Bolsheviks once created with Russia. And something like this all will have to be disentangled. You have to pay for everything.
      2. Pissarro
        Pissarro 15 March 2016 08: 57
        0
        And the ninety-third struck!


        And 10 years later there was a monarchy in France again laughing
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 15 March 2016 13: 42
    +1
    Quote: Rastas
    These are the nobles who robbed and humiliated their people, taxed them, poisoned people with dogs?

    Do not confuse sour with warm, you confuse France and Russia of the 18 century.
    In France, peasants were personally free for the most part (this is not Russia). For dog poisoning a peasant, any nobleman would be put on trial.
    Without taxes, more than one state did not exist yet, and such taxes, which were introduced later by volunteers, and then direct requisitions, are generally gloomy.

    Quote: Rastas
    When people were dying of hunger, they set up magnificent balls and became mired in debauchery.

    And you compared the level of debauchery, which indulged the lower strata, compared with the higher? I wonder by what criteria?

    Or judge by one black sheep about the whole herd?

    And yet - the "yellow press" has existed since the 17th century.

    Quote: Rastas
    They also found the elite destroyed, which rushed into exile and encroached on the thresholds of the kings' courts to organize a campaign against France.

    There were few of them. Many remained in their homeland and suffered completely undeservedly (surname Lavoisier, the founding father of chemistry, by the way, what does that tell you?)

    Or maybe the priests and monks who were brutally murdered by the "revolutionaries" were guilty of something? or also in debauchery and taxes?

    Quote: Rastas
    And so that no one has risen to defend them in the country, what did the intervention have to start, huh? If there had been no intervention, there would have been no terror, which was its consequence.

    Actually, terror from the side of the volunteers appeared before the start of the intervention. That in France, which is especially bright - in Russia.

    Quote: Rastas
    And here the opinion of Suvorov to drag in, who was a military man, not a politician who had never been to France.

    Many believe that it is a pity that he did not visit Paris in 1799. You look and the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars would not have been. And how he personally knew (and beat!) Many members of the "sans-culotte" armies! And by the way, he was also a nobleman, but that's the trouble for the revolutionary critics, he was not a cruel oppressor, but was a kind-hearted person, and led the life of an Orthodox ascetic - a non-silver person.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 13: 56
    -2
    Quote: kalibr
    Pravda reported that a restaurant on one collective farm opened with a wide range of dishes! And the film was shot "Kuban Cossacks" ...
    Well, refute her, prove that she wrote a lie.

    As for the real situation on the collective farms, for example, in 1937, the average occupancy of one workday in the country was 7,5 kg of grain (!).

    And the average production of workdays was approximately 200 workdays per year. Those. each collective farmer in the country (i.e., approximately 100 million people) received one and a half tons of grain per year only. One and a half tons of grain is about 2,3 tons of tax-free bread for each member of the collective farm. Divide by 365 days in a year, how much will it turn out? Almost 6 kilogram of bread per day (!) For each member of the collective farm including the elderly and infants.

    And these are just grains. But on working days, collective farmers received real money and other types of products produced by the collective farm, such as potatoes, meat, butter, eggs, milk, dairy products (cottage cheese, sour cream, cheese, kefir), honey, etc. etc.

    And he could use these products as food, or sell them in the city on the collective farm market.

    After that, she was completely surprised that the Stalinist collective farmers could buy planes and tanks for the army for personal savings.

    But that's not all.

    Already at the beginning of the 30-s, at the very beginning of the collective farm movement, a significant number of collective farms provided their members with such a small amount as free food, or food at prices lower than state procurement.

    For example, a survey conducted in 1936 of the collective farms of the Akimovsky district yielded the following results:

    - did not charge any fee for catering for dairy products - 27% of collective farms

    - charged at a price lower than state procurement: for dairy products - 44%, for meat products - 42,9%

    http://ihistorian.livejournal.com/356766.html

    In my opinion it is very revealing. Critics of the collective farm movement usually after the publication of this table breaks the pattern ...
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 14: 05
    -1
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Or maybe the priests and monks who were brutally murdered by the "revolutionaries" were guilty of something? or also in debauchery and taxes?

    As for the Russian revolution and the ensuing civil war unleashed by political opponents of the Bolsheviks, the priests and monks were guilty of interfering in the internal conflict, speaking together with one of its sides. Whereas, according to their position, religious figures are obliged not to interfere in such a showdown, supporting one of its parties, but rather try to extinguish them by all means available to them.

    so for what the bearded loafers in robes fought, they ran into something.

    By the way, we ran into it even before the Bolsheviks came to power, since the mass exodus of priests from their parishes began in March-April of the 1917 year.
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 15 March 2016 14: 25
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      As for the Russian revolution and the ensuing civil war unleashed by political opponents of the Bolsheviks,

      The fountains quoted by you, the same as from the torn sewer, the shovel lies, have already bothered me.
      Russian revolution of February 1917 no civil war caused.
      The Civil War began in response to the creeping Bolshevik coup, which was carried out on October 25, 1917. January 6, 1918 After their dispersal of the LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY, the Constituent Assembly, when no one else had any illusions about the true intentions of the Bolsheviks, a war broke out in the country against these putschists and usurpers, later called Civil.
      Also, in response to this coup, Russia fell apart. Later, they surrendered to the Germans the Baltic states, Poland, as well as a significant part of Ukraine and Belarus.
      How long can you talk nonsense? You yourself read your "pearls" not disgusting? Is your salary high? Or are you ideological ...?
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 15 March 2016 14: 38
    +1
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    After that, she was completely surprised that the Stalinist collective farmers could buy planes and tanks for the army for personal savings.

    It is strange that this myth still exists. Well, in general, it has long been proven that these "collective farmers", to put it mildly, were not entirely collective farmers with millions of rubles, but thieves in law or other persons of the criminal world who sometimes even donated "common funds" (forcedly or voluntarily) in war conditions to defend the Motherland. If you are related to law enforcement agencies, then it's a shame not to know this.

    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    And these are just grains. But on working days, collective farmers received real money and other types of products produced by the collective farm, such as: potatoes, meat, butter, eggs, milk

    According to the recollections of my grandfather, oh how much they received:
    - He only saw real money after the war, and only a stick of workdays in exchange for which they received a certain amount of canvas.
    - they had butter, eggs and milk, yes, but it was very limited, literally a dozen eggs per month for a family !!!!
    - potatoes - yes, they received, usually ice cream, or one that they themselves collected after harvesting on a collective farm potato field, if there were potatoes left. And how much do you think was given out per family? Yes THREE Sacks FOR THE YEAR!

    Please distinguish between Soviet propaganda materials and Soviet reality.

    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    then priests and monks were to blame for interfering in the internal conflict, speaking together with one of its parties.
    Uh-huh they intervened so much that until the very last day in France they urged everyone to change their minds and be reconciled! And in Russia even the patriarch did not completely anathematize the Bolsheviks, "for they are also baptized Orthodox Russian people," "and they should have hope for salvation and reconciliation." And all of them under the knife ...

    Or maybe I remind you of France, where the genocide of the priesthood and monasticism took place precisely on a religious basis, simply because they believed in Christ, and not in the ideas of Monteske? Have you read anything about "Loire bathing" or about "Naiads of Nantes" when the revolutionaries connected naked young girls, often nuns, with undressed priests and monks, and drowned them in the presence of the crowd and under mocking gaze?
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 14: 53
    -1
    Quote: hardrokc
    The fountains quoted by you, the same as from the torn sewer, the shovel lies, have already bothered me.
    Russian revolution of February 1917 no civil war caused.
    Sure. Indeed, in the understanding of dreamers (let’s call it so that moderators do not bother with more precise definitions of the essence of an opponent who cowardly escaped from dialogue in an emergency but nevertheless continues to yap from under the benches) mass killings of fleet and army officers, execution of the July peaceful demonstration and other bloody intra-civil conflicts - these are not the excesses of the civil war.

    Quote: hardrokc
    The Civil War began in response to the creeping Bolshevik coup that took place from October 25 to 1917. on January 6 1918 After the dispersal of their LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY, Constituent Assembly,

    Remember, the victim of the Bologna education system, the legitimacy of power is determined by the trust of the people. The U.S. did not have this trust, since no one actually defended it - the demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg didn’t count because: 1) these were attempts at an armed Socialist-Revolutionary rebellion (which the AKP leaders themselves wrote about); 2) they were attended by no more than 100 thousand people in both capitals, which even for 2,5 millions of the population of Petrograd is less than 1% of the total number, i.e. a number close to zero.

    Unlike the power of the Soviets, which were able to win the confidence of the people as soon as possible, expressed in the fact that it was the people who ensured the victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war, providing them with an army of more than a million soldiers and commanders by the fall of 1918.

    Quote: hardrokc
    when no one else had any illusions about the true intentions of the Bolsheviks, a civil war broke out in the country.

    Once again for those who are especially dull: the goal of any civil war is power. The Bolsheviks gained power as a result of the revolution and the historical period known as the "Triumphal Procession of Soviet Power", when it was bloodlessly installed in all major industrial and agricultural centers of the republic.
    Therefore, the Bolsheviks did not need a civil war, moreover, it was extremely dangerous, because during it they could lose power.
    But the civil war was beneficial precisely to the political opponents of the Bolsheviks.

    This leads to a simple conclusion: it was not the Bolsheviks who started the civil war, but their opponents — the Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and the former generals and officers of the tsarist army who joined them.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 15: 07
    0
    Quote: Warrior2015
    It is strange that this myth still exists. Well, in general, it has long been proven that these "collective farmers", to put it mildly, were not quite collective farmers with millions of rubles,

    Actually, this is not a myth but a reality, since the very famous Ferapont Petrovich Golovaty was a collective farm beekeeper, and besides this he had a few dozen beehives on his personal farm. The cost of honey on the collective farm market during the war was 500-900 rubles per kg. So there was no problem for Golovaty to sell honey (and he collected it in 1942 about 2 centners) and there was no money to collect for the plane.

    Learn the story ...

    Quote: Warrior2015
    According to the recollections of my grandfather

    The memories of any relatives are the essence of their subjective opinion. Since it was possible on their collective farm, and on the neighboring millionaire collective farm, it was completely different.
    I rely not on the memories of relatives (and I also had them), but on documents that give an objective picture, combining many separate episodes of social life into a single whole and deducing the average denominator.

    Quote: Warrior2015
    And in Russia, even the patriarch did not completely anathematize the Bolsheviks, "for they are also baptized Orthodox Russian people," "and they should have hope for salvation and reconciliation." And all of them under the knife ...

    "... But we still have
    Monastic communities
    With "Amin" put
    Each protocol.

    And they say
    Forgetting about the dangerous days:
    "Oh, how are we them ...
    Not to the nines, but right to the dust ...
    Fifteen pieces myself
    Stabbed red
    Yes, so much each
    Every monk of ours
    »
    .

    Russia is homeless. S. Yesenin
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 15: 44
    -1
    Quote: Warrior2015

    According to the recollections of my grandfather, oh how much they received:
    - He only saw real money after the war, and only a stick of workdays in exchange for which they received a certain amount of canvas.
    In 1935, on average, on a collective farm yard, 247 rubles were issued in money per workday, in 1937, 376 rubles.

    http://istmat.info/files/uploads/21970/kolhoz_1937_razdel_7.pdf


    Quote: Warrior2015
    - potatoes - yes, they received, usually ice cream, or one that they themselves collected after harvesting on a collective farm potato field, if there were potatoes left. And how much do you think was given out per family? Yes THREE Sacks FOR THE YEAR!

    In 1937, potatoes were distributed by 143706 collective farms for workdays. On average, 1 kg potatoes were given out on 2,7 workdays.

    http://istmat.info/files/uploads/21970/kolhoz_1937_razdel_7.pdf

    The average production of workdays in the 1937 year was about 180 for each collective farmer. Total, on average, each collective farmer received about 500 kg of potatoes for his earned workdays, which is clearly more than the declared three bags.

    Conclusion: do not la la. Such tales could be composed in the middle of the 80's, when there was a serious problem in accessing real archival sources of historical information. Nowadays, nothing but laughter can make such references to relatives of a sane researcher.

    By the way, infa for thought: in 1937, the average income per collective farm yard (for the 28 surveyed republics, territories and regions) was 5843 rubles.

    http://istmat.info/files/uploads/21970/kolhoz_1937_razdel_7.pdf
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 15 March 2016 16: 49
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      in 1937 - 376 rubles.

      This is actually called "the poverty of Paraguay."
      Let us examine what the figure "376 rubles per yard in 1937" means.
      376 RUB to the yard means 84 rubles. on the nose in year. Or 7 rub. per month.
      And what about the prices? And with the prices we have a priest. To the letter G.
      Molded wheat bread of flour of the 1st grade - 1 kg 2-80 rubles
      Bagels from flour 1 grade - 1 kg 4-90 rubles
      Moscow crackers from flour of the 1st grade - 1 kg 6-50 rubles.
      However, why does the collective farmer need as much as 1 kg of Moscow rusks per month? He needs to cover his ass with something. And fasten something to your feet. What is heard with manufactured goods?
      Men's boots with leather soles, - a pair of ~ 125-00 rubles.
      Men's cotton socks, grade 1, - pair ~ 2-80 rub
      Men's sweatshirt, cotton, knitted size 42-45, - piece ~ 13-80 rub
      Saucepan 1 grade, - piece ~ 9-00 rub
      Laundry soap - 100 g ~ 1-40 rubles
      Electric lamp - piece ~ 0-90 rub
      Algebra textbook - thing ~ 2-65 rub
      Hand-operated family sewing machine - piece ~ 360-00
      Men's road bike - piece ~ 365-00
      It is very convenient to compare. The "yard" of collective farmers (at that time it was 4,48 people) had to save up a whole year for one sewing machine or bicycle. This is if you do not buy yourself anything else. Here it is, "a happy socialist barrack, the dream of working people around the world." For the escape from which they were supposed to be shot. Or 10 years of the Gulag in the presence of extenuating circumstances. And repression of relatives.
      Right now, under the "wrong regime", living, according to the neo-Stalinists, is very bad. And then, in the "correct regime", living, in their opinion, was very good. When they express such "thoughts out loud", there is a feeling that they are delusional.
      1. hardrokc
        hardrokc 15 March 2016 17: 09
        +2
        Note, this is in the USSR in 1937. money for one "yard" was issued on average 376 rubles. The RSFSR issued 231 rubles. Or 4,30 rubles (!!!) per person per month. And in the Vologda region 1,60 rubles (!!!) per person per month.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 15 March 2016 17: 54
    0
    Wowhaha, while reading the comments he laughed)) So much nonsense has been written about the good kings and how freely the Russian people lived with them, delirium
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 15 March 2016 18: 26
    +1
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    Actually, this is not a myth but a reality, since the very famous Therapont Petrovich Golovaty was a collective farm beekeeper,
    And all the rest who donated gigantic contributions to the defense are poor, righteous, ordinary employees who had hundreds of thousands of rubles of money. Do you yourself believe in it? That the great designer Yakovlev himself was able to buy only one of his own aircraft, and a simple "beekeeper" as much as TWO?!?

    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    Fifteen I slaughtered the Reds myself
    Yes, so much each, every monk of ours. "

    First, do you approve of genocide on religious grounds?
    Secondly, do you think that every Orthodox monk massively killed the Reds? Is there at least one example? There are a lot of reverse examples - when Orthodox monks did NOT kill the Reds FOR ANYTHING.

    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    Total, on average, each collective farmer received about 500 kg of potatoes for his earned workdays, which is clearly more than the declared three bags.
    You know, you are a comrade of operas, I trust my grandfather much more than you, a wretched unknown supporter of War Communism. My relatives drank in full the "charms" of the socialist system and something, but saw life; they were not lured out of the Kremlin's money-box, but just honestly worked, receiving pennies for it. Therefore, there is no reason to believe your false political data.

    And in general, the theme of the consequences of the revolution and the murder, the theme of communist repression in another branch. Do you have few 400 posts there?
    1. Rivares
      Rivares 16 March 2016 02: 30
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      You know, comrade opera, I trust my grandfather much more than you a miserable unknown supporter of war communism

      By the way, according to my information, there was also an ass on collective farms. Moreover, they didn’t even give out passports so that people would not scatter.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 20: 45
    -2
    Quote: Warrior2015
    And all the rest who donated gigantic contributions to the defense are poor, righteous, ordinary employees who had hundreds of thousands of rubles of money. Do you yourself believe in it? That the great designer Yakovlev himself was able to buy only one of his own aircraft, and a simple "beekeeper" as much as TWO?!?
    The great designer Yakovlev did not sell honey, i.e. not chalk such profits as the ordinary beekeeper had.
    Quote: Warrior2015
    First, do you approve of genocide on religious grounds?
    And there was no religious genocide. This is a myth of liberal propaganda, intensively washing the brains of modern citizens of Russia.
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Secondly, do you think that every Orthodox monk massively killed the Reds? Is there at least one example?
    There is. And not one. Read about the role of bearded loafers in provoking uprisings against Soviet power.

    In Syzran, a crowd pounded by priests burst into an orphanage, where they began to examine children - did they have crosses, and then beat six children who did not have crosses to death. “These young serpents need to be taken off the face of the earth,” shouted the murderers. In the Raifa desert (in one of the Kazan monasteries), the monks burnt alive seven representatives of the Workers' Council. In Soligalich, priests shot the chairman of the local Council, Viluzgin, and his body was torn to pieces. As a result of pogroms organized by priests, in the winter of 1918-1919, 138 Communists were killed.
    Colonel Sakharov, the head of the White Guard rebellion in Murom, took refuge in the Spassky Monastery. Bishop of Murom Mitrofan blessed him with rebellion, saying: "The Bolsheviks must be destroyed so that they are not there."
    Near Stavropol priests created a detachment of 700 clergy. Under Tsaritsyn, the “regiment of Christ the Savior,” consisting exclusively of the clergy, fought. Archpriest of the East actively created the "crusader" units in southern Russia. Priests did not disdain participation in kulak gangs. Rector of the Rostov Cathedral Verkhovsky, priest Kuznetsov from Uch-Pristan and many others stood at the head of such gangs.

    So do not make innocent victims out of them. The church and its ministers quite consciously entered the civil war with the support of one of its parties, for which they eventually paid.


    Quote: Warrior2015
    You know, comrade opera, I trust my grandfather much more than you a miserable unknown supporter of war communism
    Faith is an irrational concept. And there is no logical explanation.
    Relatives of Chikatilo were also sure that he was injured without fault.
    Quote: Warrior2015
    And in general, the theme of the consequences of the revolution and the murder, the theme of communist repression in another branch. Do you have few 400 posts there?

    But I did not write about communist repressions. Because I do not think that there were any such places at all.

    I refuted the historical myths that you and the like operate on.

    And, apparently, he did it successfully, since I did not follow any objections to the essence of what was said - only links to the OBS agency and the opinion of mythical relatives.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 20: 58
    -2
    Quote: hardrokc
    This is actually called "the poverty of Paraguay."
    Let us examine what the figure "376 rubles per yard in 1937" means.
    376 RUB to the yard means 84 rub. on the nose per year. Or 7 rub. per month.
    Firstly, this is the height of indecency - yapping from under the benches, depriving the opponent of the opportunity to object in essence. In itself, this manner of communication is further proof that there is nothing to object to the opponent’s words. Therefore, it remains only to blacklist him, and most calmly comment on his words, forcing him to go to all kinds of tricks to refute these comments.

    Secondly, actually it is called: we look in the book - we see a fig. Because, in addition to living money in the amount of 376 rubles, each collective farmer in the same 1937 year received about 500 kg of potato for earned workdays (try to gobble up at least a kilogram of potatoes per day - a turn of intestines is provided), 1,5 tons of grain (of which the most conservative estimates could have baked 2,3 tons of bread per face) plus other types of products produced by collective farms - eggs, butter, milk, etc. etc.
    Of course, these are average figures for the country, i.e. coarsening is very, very large (for example, in the Central Asian republics they paid more money for a workday than natural products, but their collective farms mainly produced cotton, which people do not eat), but nevertheless gives a clear idea of ​​the level of income of collective farmers before the war.

    And the material expression of their well-being can be determined by these figures (I draw attention to the fact that we are talking about collective farmers of only one (!) District of one region):
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. hardrokc
      hardrokc 15 March 2016 23: 23
      +1
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Firstly, this is the height of indecency - yapping from under the bench, depriving the opponent of the opportunity to object in essence.

      I did not understand the presentation? Are you dissatisfied with something? Write to the League of Sexual Reforms. They will help there.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Secondly, actually it is called: we look in the book - we see a fig.

      Well then. You asked for it yourself. I did not react to your "dashing bends". Now I will.
      So:
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      The average production of workdays in 1937 was about 180 for each collective farmer.

      This figure is not particularly interesting. More interesting are the production figures per yard and per eater. To the courtyard in 1937 435 workdays were generated. On the eater - 97,1 workdays.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      every collective farmer in the same 1937 received about 500 kg of potatoes for earned workdays (try to eat at least a kilogram of potatoes per day yourself - intestinal inversion is ensured)

      2,7 kg of potatoes per workday x 435 workdays per yard: 4,48 people per yard = 262 kg of potatoes per year per person: 365 = 0,718 kg per person per day
      Those. the opponent habitually dragged about 2 times. I am not even surprised.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      1,5 tons of grain

      1740 kg of grain: 4,48 people per yard = 388,4 kg of grain per person per year: 365 = 1,064 kg per person per day.
      Here the opponent has already dragged steeper, 4 times.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      (from which, according to the most conservative estimates, it was possible to bake 2,3 tons of bread per face)

      In fact, 1,5 tons of bread can be baked from 1,4625 tons of grain. And not by modest, but by normal calculations. And out of 388,4 real kg per year, 378,7 kg of bread can be baked per person. At the same time, the minimum physiological norm is within 110 kg per person. in year. You can’t do less. Of course, only on one bread a person will not survive.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      plus other types of products produced by collective farms - eggs, butter, milk, etc. etc.

      “Other types of products” were within the statistical error. And even statistics were not taken into account. Those. made up "nothing". Something is sometimes a little more than zero.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      can be determined by these numbers (I draw attention to the fact that we are talking about collective farmers of only one (!) district of one region)

      You still give the inscription on the wall of the barn as "weighty evidence".
      1. hardrokc
        hardrokc 15 March 2016 23: 24
        +2
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        but nevertheless gives a very clear idea of ​​the level of income of collective farmers before the war.

        Oh yeah. We will not be lazy and will count them. Not those "shed inscriptions", but real figures for 1937.
        income per person per year:
        money - 84 rub
        grain (in terms of bread screened wheat bread of flour of the second grade) - 644 rubles. I think that I think a lot, because most likely they didn’t give wheat, but rye; if anyone is interested, then through wheat-rye bread 341 rubles are already obtained.
        potatoes - ~ 79 rub
        Total 807 rubles per year per person. We’ll add 33 rubles for good measure just in case. Total we will receive 840 rubles a year or 70 rubles per person per month (through the issuance of not only wheat, but also rye it turns out 45 rubles per person per month).
        Is it a lot or a little? Judge for yourselves if you count 2 grades of flour from bread made from molds (it’s better because you get quiet horror through your boots), then today it’s about 1440 (most likely 925, if you count through the issuance of not only wheat but also rye) rubles person per month. And there was something else to eat. I had to get dressed. It was necessary to buy coal. It was necessary to buy kerosene. It was necessary to feed the cattle (so no one sold potatoes and grain). We had to buy textbooks. It was necessary to pay for teaching children in high school (under Dzhugashvili it was paid). And for a lot of what you had to pay. And the income in monetary terms was about 1440 (most likely 925, if you count through the issuance of not only wheat, but also rye) modern rubles per person per month.
        Here it is, "the true conquest of socialism, here it is, this paradise on earth for the labor element." In monetary terms. This is what the neo-Stalinists are calling for. Here it is, their ideal.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 15 March 2016 21: 10
    -2
    Quote: Warrior2015
    I trust my grandfather much more than you a miserable unknown supporter of war communism.
    And I do not ask to trust me.

    I posted the numbers and gave a link to their source. Those. cited relevant evidence.

    You referred to a relative, whose presence and the fact that he said something like this at all, is not possible.

    This is our difference: I can confirm my words with a link to a carrier of historical information, and you can only refer to information from the OBS agency.

    From the point of view of historical science, the point of view confirmed by real carriers of historical information deserves more trust.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 12: 36
    -2
    Quote: hardrokc
    Oh yeah. We are not too lazy and count them. Not the barn inscriptions, but the real numbers for 1937.
    income per person per year:
    money - 84 rub
    Well, since there is no justification for these so-called "real" figures and I did not see any links to the source of their appearance (unlike the figure presented by me), then we can confidently say that they were obtained by furiously picking a pimpled nose with a finger.

    All other rants are also not confirmed by anything. Accordingly, they can only convince their author.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. hardrokc
      hardrokc 16 March 2016 14: 21
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      and I did not see links to the source of their appearance either

      You need to see the optometrist. Table 87, row "total" (top), column 8. According to your link.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Well, since there is no justification for these so-called "real" figures

      984,5 RUB per consumer per year, taking into account personal income (i.e., all income in total). In the place indicated above. Learn to work with the primary, ignoramus.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      they are by furiously picking a finger with a pimple nose.

      Do not equal everyone on your own.
      Better think about how with such "income" they could buy gramophones, sewing machines, bicycles and motorcycles, as indicated in your toilet rag. After all, if you count even through bread made of wheat from flour of 2 grades, their OFFICIAL average income in 1937. amounted to approximately 1700 modern rubles per month per person. You do not succeed in "happy Stalinist socialism", it does not work out. Only the "cheerful wind" from the corresponding hole.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Kindly, the corresponding document in the studio pzhlst. It hurts to see hotz ...

      And again I am sending you all to the same table. Official. Wanted a doc? Get it.
      984,5 rubles (total annual net income of the collective farmer in total) - 840 rubles (approximate net annual income of the collective farmer from labor on the collective farm) = 144,5 rubles (approximate net income of the collective farmer from personal subsidiary plots). Although all these figures are not particularly important, the OFFICIAL figure is important, the total net income of 984,5 rubles per person per year, for 1937.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Sure, not a problem. Do not agree? Do you think that the presented document does not reflect the real situation with the growth of the welfare of collective farmers? Refute. will you risk it?

      Already denied. A little higher. With OFFICIAL numbers on hand. If you have not noticed this, then do not go to the optometrist. You need another specialist.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 13: 13
    -2
    Quote: hardrokc
    I did not understand the presentation?
    Not understood? So turn on the head and think, if of course you know how. The head, you know, is needed in order to think, and not just to eat into it.

    Quote: hardrokc
    Are you dissatisfied with something?
    It’s funny to watch how you persecute a person whom you refused to communicate with voluntarily, putting him on a black list. It reminds a pug that will yap from under the shop and immediately run back under it with a screech, it’s worth only looking at it. If you want to object - be a man, object openly. :-)

    Quote: hardrokc
    Well then. You asked for it yourself. I didn’t react to your lies. Now I will.
    Zelo is threatened by the boyar. Frightened the dog with a loaf ...

    Quote: hardrokc
    2,7 kg of potatoes per workday x 435 workdays per yard: 4,48 people per yard = 262 kg of potatoes per year per person: 365 = 0,718 kg per person per day
    Those. the opponent habitually lied about 2 times. I am not even surprised.
    Mathematician mean? Well, tell me, mathematician, where did you get such numbers from? Why 435 workdays per yard per year? Where did these "one and a half diggers" come from in the form of 4,48 people per peasant farm?

    Before there is something to subtract, multiply (and at the same time loudly accuse the opponent of deception), sane people first give reasons for their mathematical exercises. :-)

    Quote: hardrokc
    1740 kg of grain: 4,48 people per yard = 388,4 kg of grain per person per year: 365 = 1,064 kg per person per day.
    Here the opponent lied already cooler, in 4 times.
    Oh how. Yes, it turns out you really did not learn to read, sickly.

    1,5 tons of grain per year is per employee. At least two people work in the family (this is if the family consists of a father, mother and young children), but there were more workers in the peasant families of that period, since both old and older children worked. Which also received their workings of workdays based on the same occupancy of the workday. Accordingly, the original 1,5 tons must be multiplied by at least two.

    Conclusion: such mathematical exercises only once again exposed the opponent as an ignoramus who does not understand the elementary conditions of peasant life. :-)

    Quote: hardrokc
    In fact, you can bake 1,5 tons of bread from 1,4625 tons of grain.
    Actually, this is only in your imagination. But in reality, the yield of flour from grain is 80%. And from 2 kg of flour you can bake 3 kg of bread (the yield of rye bread from flour is 44%, the yield of wheat - 130-150% of the mass of flour)
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 16 March 2016 14: 52
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      The head, you know, is needed in order to think, and not just to eat into it.

      It's strange to hear from you.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      If you want to object - be a man, object openly. :-)

      And I "object to the closed"? In general, I prefer not to communicate with people like you, "witnesses of Stalin's socialism". I am, you know, squeamish. It's just that your empty chatter has already gotten.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Well, tell me, mathematician, where did you get such numbers from? Why 435 workdays per yard per year? Where did these "one and a half diggers" come from in the form of 4,48 people per peasant farm?

      Because you need to learn. You are very illiterate. You do not know how to work with the primary. The number of souls per yard is taken from table 87 (4410,6: 984,5 = 4,48 people per yard).
      We take out the delivery of grain for a workday from the table 85 (1740: 4 = 435 workdays per yard).
      Then, using the usual school division method, we determine the number of workdays per person (consumer) 435: 4.48 = 97,1 workday per consumer per year
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      1,5 tons of grain per year is per employee.

      You’ll tell the doctor that. And in table 85 it is clearly written "1740 kg per yard". Or 1740: 4,48 = 388,4 kg of grain per year per eater (person).
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Accordingly, the initial 1,5 tons must be multiplied by at least two.

      Yeah. Come on, multiply. Then the figures for "a prosperous life under Dzhugashvili" will be even more beautiful. The only pity is that they have nothing to do with reality.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Conclusion: such mathematical exercises only once again exposed the opponent as an ignoramus who does not understand the elementary conditions of peasant life. :-)

      You are funny. Highly.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      But in reality, the yield of flour from grain is 80%. And from 2 kg of flour, you can bake 3 kg of bread (the yield of rye bread from flour is 44%, the yield of wheat is 130-150% by weight of flour)

      In fact, the yield of flour from kg of grain is 75%. And bread from 1 kg of flour, 1,3 kg. As a result, from 1 kg of grain, 0,975 kg of bread is obtained.
      I don't know what else you stuffed into bread (quinoa, tree bark, mouse droppings, sawdust, or something else), but based on the laws of physics, 2 kg of bread will not work out of 3 kg of grain. A little yeast, a little salt and that's it. Maybe under "Stalinist socialism" your proportions were obtained. But now it doesn't work. Lost "advanced Soviet technologies".
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 13: 14
    -1
    Quote: hardrokc
    Other types of products fit into the statistical error. And even statistics were not taken into account. Those. made up nothing. Something is sometimes a little more than zero.

    Kindly, the corresponding document in the studio pzhlst. It hurts to see hotz ...


    Quote: hardrokc
    You still bring the inscription on the wall of the barn as a weighty evidence.
    Sure, not a problem. Do not agree? Do you think that the presented document does not reflect the real situation with the growth of the welfare of collective farmers? Refute. take a chance? Or will you say so from behind a curtain of invisibility?
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 16 March 2016 13: 24
    +1
    Summing up the discussion, which went very far from the topic, so as not to slip into a banal srach, we can say that we still disentangle the consequences of the murder of the Tsar-Liberator ... Probably if he had been alive longer and the reforms would have continued, then there would be no nightmare revolution and civil war in our country would not be.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 13: 31
    -1
    Quote: Warrior2015
    Summing up the discussion, which went very far from the topic, so as not to slip into a banal srach, we can say that we still disentangle the consequences of the murder of the Tsar-Liberator ... Probably if he had been alive longer and the reforms would have continued, then there would be no nightmare revolution and civil war in our country would not be.

    I have a completely different point of view: the reforms of Alexander II were extremely ill-conceived, carried out not in the interests of the majority of society, but in the interests of the elite only. As a result, insoluble contradictions developed in society, the way out of which was possible only in a revolutionary way. As confirmed by the history of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 14: 07
    -3
    Quote: hardrokc
    Table 87, line "total", column 8. By your own link.
    By my link http://istmat.info/files/uploads/21970/kolhoz_1937_razdel_7.pdf

    in table No. 87 "Personal income of collective farmers in 1937 (by workdays and from personal subsidiary plots) there is no line" Total "at all, and in column 8 the figure of consumption per capita is indicated.

    In table 85 "Distribution of grain and money by workdays between collective farmers" there is also no "total" line, since there is a breakdown by region. There is a line "USSR" where there are figures of cash payments in 1932 - 108 rubles, in 1935 - 247 rubles and in 1937 - 376 rubles.
    Separately, there is the line "RSFSR" - in 1937, on average, 231 rubles were issued about the republic in money.

    Quote: hardrokc
    Better think about how with such "income" they could buy themselves gramophones, sewing machines, bicycles and motorcycles, as indicated by your lousy toilet rag. After all, if you count even through bread made of wheat from flour of 2 grades, their OFFICIAL average income in 1937. amounted to approximately 1700 modern rubles per month per person.
    This is all blah blah blah. Would you like to refute the submitted document? Refute, lay out your document. But demagogy does not interest me.
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 17 March 2016 11: 59
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      no line "Total" at all

      No, nevertheless, to the optometrist too. He does not even see what is written in bold.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      and column 8 shows the figure of consumption per 1 soul.

      Yeah. This is it. Net income. Learn economic terms, ignoramus.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      In table 85 "Distribution of grain and money by workdays among collective farmers" there is also no "total" line, since there is a breakdown by regions. There is a line "USSR"

      It is not the same? What, confused in 3 digits, ignoramus? 376 rubles per year / yard: 4,48 people / yard = 83,93 rubles per person per year.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      Would you like to refute the submitted document?

      Why should I refute it? He just clearly demonstrates the entire depth of the soviet poverty of Stalin. I do not need to refute it at all. Everything is clear.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      But demagogy does not interest me.

      What are you doing then?
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 14: 41
    -3
    Quote: hardrokc
    984,5 RUB per consumer per year, taking into account personal income (i.e., all income in total). In the place indicated above. Learn to work with the primary, ignoramus.


    The table number 87 contains the following numbers, namely:
    At the 1 yard: all personal income - 5843 rubles, taxes - 52,8 rubles, consumption - 4410 rubles, increase in livestock, poultry, money and products - 1379,8 rubles

    At 1 soul: all personal income - 1304 ruble, taxes - 11,8 ruble, consumption - 984,5 ruble, increase in livestock, poultry, money and products - 308 rubles.

    And this is the average for the country. At the same time, the table shows the regions where the income growth of collective farmers was much higher. For example, in the Urals, it amounted to 567,6 rubles per capita, in the Upper Volga zone - 567 rubles, on the Middle and Lower Volga - 528,1 rubles per capita.

    There were certainly lagging (and significantly lagging behind) regions, such as Azerbaijan - 17,7 rubles, Georgia - 58,9 rubles, Turkmenistan - 44,1 rubles. This, by the way, dispels neo-Nazi myths that in the USSR the Russian people were in the position of a subordinate to the national republics.


    Quote: hardrokc
    Better think about how they could buy gramophones, sewing machines, bicycles and motorcycles for such profits, as indicated by your lousy sortie newspaper. After all, even if counted through wheat bread of the 2 type flour, their OFFICIAL average income in 1937. amounted to approximately 1700 modern rubles per month per person.
    Here for these 308 rubles of annual growth for each family member including infants and bought bicycles, pocket watches, sewing machines, etc., etc. indicated in the above document.

    Quote: hardrokc
    And again I am sending you all to the same table. Official. Wanted a doc? Get it.
    Got. I looked. And once again I stuck you with a pimple-nosed nose in a figure showing an increase in prosperity in just one year by almost one and a half thousand rubles for each collective farm yard.

    So the information that collective farmers massively purchased the luxury goods set out in the above note from the regional newspaper is further confirmed by the figures of the corresponding statistical document.

    Which, in principle, was required to prove.

    Free ...
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 17 March 2016 12: 34
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      This, by the way, dispels neo-Nazi myths that in the USSR the Russian people were in the position of a subordinate to the national republics.

      No no. You do not jump off the topic. You come specifically for net income in the whole of the USSR. 984,5 rubles per eater (person) per year.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      There were certainly lagging (and significantly lagging behind) regions, such as Azerbaijan - 17,7 rubles, Georgia - 58,9 rubles, Turkmenistan - 44,1 rubles.

      Are you completely out of your mind? Is Georgia lagging behind? Don’t you even understand the words written in Russian? PPC. This is not even a free interpretation, it’s just PPC, in my opinion.
      By the way, about the regions. Below the all-Union level, net income in 1937. received:
      1. 4 of 8 economic zones of the RSFSR. Those. half.
      2. 3 union republics.
      At the same time, on a USSR scale, net income was most of all in 1937. received by residents of Uzbekistan and Georgia (whoever doubted, only the opponent "confused" everything). By the way, in 1936. also, they have the highest income.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      showing welfare growth in just one year by almost one and a half thousand rubles for each collective farm yard.
      So the information that collective farmers massively purchased the luxury goods set out in the above note from the regional newspaper is further confirmed by the figures of the corresponding statistical document.
      Which, in principle, was required to prove.

      Apparently the opponent believes that received in 1936g. the average income on 1 of a consumer (person) per month in the amount of 1160 of modern rubles for a rich and well-fed life is more than sufficient. And as soon as something above that rustled in his pocket, everyone immediately rushed to buy gramophones and other bicycles. We rushed. Heads of collective farms, security forces and co-workers of regional scale. Those. officials. The peasants at their 1700 modern rubles a month were not particularly up to gramophones. And not really either.
      And the "low base" effect is known to any student. And only the scribes of "Stalin's socialism" do not notice it point blank. So they need it.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 16 March 2016 15: 17
    -3
    Quote: hardrokc
    We take the number of souls per yard from the table 87 (4410,6: 984,5 = 4,48 people per yard).
    We take out the delivery of grain for a workday from the table 85 (1740: 4 = 435 workdays per yard).
    Then, using the usual school division method, we determine the number of workdays per person (consumer) 435: 4.48 = 97,1 workday per consumer per year

    1740: 4,48 = 388,4 kg of grain per year per consumer (person)
    Sit down, five in arithmetic. Though buttons to press on the calculator taught you, and even bread. laughing

    Only all these mathematical exercises do not make the slightest sense. Since the same table indicates the welfare increase of collective farmers in 1937 year, calculated both for a separate yard (1379,8 rubles) and for each family member (308 rubles).

    So the welfare of collective farmers in the USSR of the 30's was growing at a pace not accessible at the time of the king or in the west.

    Quote: hardrokc
    In fact, the yield of flour from kg of grain is 75%. And bread from 1 kg of flour, 1,3 kg. As a result, from 1 kg of grain, 0,975 kg of bread is obtained.
    The average yield of flour from grain is 80% (it can be 72%, but the average yield is 80%).

    The rye bread bake is 44%, the wheat bake is from 130 to 150%.

    Accordingly, from 1 kg of rye flour, 1,44 kg of bread can be baked, from 1 kg of wheat flour from 1,3 to 1,5 kg of bread.

    It follows that 1740 kg of rye grain can bake 2003 kg of rye bread. You will calculate how much bread comes out from 1740 kg of wheat yourself (the amount of lint is indicated to you, look do not be mistaken, press the buttons on the calculator correctly), but the bread yield will be clearly higher than the declared 975 grams from 1 kg of grain.
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 17 March 2016 12: 51
      +2
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      So the welfare of collective farmers in the USSR of the 30's was growing at a pace not accessible at the time of the king or in the west.

      You don’t understand, or pretend you don’t understand, two things:
      1. There are fruitful and lean years.
      2. If you count from zero, then "growth" will generally be wild. This is called "low base". In this case, the comparative statistics are incorrect and you need to look at the absolute figures. And they are like that, in 1936. the average peasant (eater) received an income of 1160 modern rubles a month. And in 1937. 1700 rubles per month. Both numbers are extremely small, and such incomes do not allow satisfying even the most basic living needs of people.
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      It follows that from 1740 kg of rye grain you can bake 2003 kg of rye bread.

      So I ask you, what did you cram there? If you have the weight of the final product more than the original? Do you have Buchenwald bread with sawdust? In normal bread, a little salt and a little yeast in a sourdough and that’s all. And still it is necessary to consider losses when threshing.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 17 March 2016 11: 03
    0
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    So the welfare of collective farmers in the USSR of the 30's was growing at a pace not accessible at the time of the king or in the west.

    For some reason, it seems to me that you have never once seen in the eyes of how farmers live even in the same Czech Republic, not to mention Switzerland or Canada. And I will say even more: it’s immediately obvious that you personally have never lived on a collective farm and have not tasted the charms of communist socialization and the full regulation of everything.

    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    The reforms of Alexander II were extremely ill-conceived; they were carried out not in the interests of the majority of society, but in the interests of the elite exclusively. As a result, insoluble contradictions developed in society, the way out of which was possible only in a revolutionary way. As confirmed by the history of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.
    Your right to think so.
    But is the liberation of 90% of the population from serfdom a reform only in the interests of the elite? you yourself are not funny from your statement?

    And revolutionary contradictions - well, read, a revolution would have been possible that 1905, that 1917 of the year without the active external help of the enemies of Russia.
    1. hardrokc
      hardrokc 17 March 2016 11: 43
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      you yourself are not funny from your statement?

      He's not funny. And not ashamed. This is the teacher of "Stalinist socialism". Therefore, he does not care at all. It's easier not to argue with them. It's useless anyway.
  • Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 17 March 2016 12: 26
    -1
    Quote: Warrior2015
    For some reason, it seems to me that you have never once seen in the eyes of how farmers live even in the same Czech Republic, not to mention Switzerland or Canada.

    For some reason I’m sure that you are talking frank nonsense.
    Firstly, in order to make a comparison, we must first compare the same historical periods. Can you find data on the situation of peasants (state subsidies for the development of agriculture, property status, social security) in the same Canada in the middle of the 30's? Find and then we'll talk.

    Secondly, in order to make a comparison, in addition, it is necessary to compare the same climatic conditions, i.e. average annual temperatures, rainfall, average duration of warm and cold seasons (which affects the length of the stall period of livestock raising, and therefore the amount of feed procured for this period), etc. etc.

    Thirdly, it is necessary to compare the amount of fertilizers used in agriculture (if you don’t know, then in the middle of the 80-x in the USSR it did not exceed 50 kg per hectare whereas in the USA and Europe it was about 150 kg per hectare) as well as the level of mechanization Agriculture.

    And still very, very many different parameters.

    And your comparison gives away absolute ignorance. So it’s better not even start, you’ll sit in a puddle.

    Quote: Warrior2015
    And I will say even more: it’s immediately obvious that you personally have never lived on a collective farm and have not tasted the charms of communist socialization and the full regulation of everything.
    This is demagoguery. I did not live - my maternal ancestors lived. And the ancestors of my wife also lived.

    As for the "charms of communist socialization", the documents I have cited above indicate that collective farms were conceived (and not only thought, but existed for the first decades up to the Khrushchev agricultural reform) as non-state enterprises owned by labor collectives, i.e. the collective farmers themselves.
    This can be clearly seen from the difference in the distribution of profits by region: in Azerbaijan, the increase averaged 17 rubles per year for each collective farmer, and in the Urals - 567 rubles for each collective farmer. And if we take collective farms separately, then in one they distributed 2,7 kg of potatoes per workday, and in the neighboring one they could easily dump 30 kg of potatoes for the same workday. Those. the principle: "As you drown, so you burst," - in the Stalinist collective farms it was considered the main one.

    Learn history, stop repeating other people's words already, even if these are words of people close to you personally - they could easily be mistaken in good faith. Learn to finally live your mind.