Military Review

"The first soldier of the revolution"

Timofey Ivanovich Kirpichnikov (1892 — 1919) ...

"The first soldier of the revolution"

Timofey Ivanovich Kirpichnikov was born in 1892. Contrary to the popular myth that he was a student and even the son of a professor, Kirpichnikov came from a simple peasant old believer family who lived in the village of Dmitrovka in the Saransk district of the Penza province. It was hard to say whether or not it influenced participation in the revolution of belonging to the Old Believers, but the fact remains that the “first soldier of the revolution” was an Old Believer. Having received the basics of education in the folk school, Kirpichnikov, according to some data, worked as a fireman on one of the railways, and upon reaching the draft age, even before the start of the First World War, he ended up in the active army. According to the reports of the revolutionary newspapers, Kirpichnikov during the war was a participant in the hostilities on the Austrian front, where he was wounded in the arm, and then, after treatment at the hospital, was sent to spare parts stationed in Petrograd. This, unfortunately, scant information about the pre-revolutionary biography Kirpichnikova and ends.

The beginning of the February revolution caught 25-year-old Timofey Kirpichnikov as senior sergeant-major of the training team of the reserve battalion of the Life Guards of the Volynsky regiment stationed in the capital of the Empire, Petrograd. 27 February 1917 of the year in 5 hours of the morning Kirpichnikov, on a personal initiative, raised the soldiers subordinate to him, armed them and built them before the arrival of the authorities, determined to fight the battalion commander. The day before, the soldiers under the command of their commander, Captain Lashkevich, were withdrawn to the city in connection with the unrest in the capital.

Later Kirpichnikov told about these events. On the morning of February 24, a platoon of a training team under his command was sent to Znamenskaya Square (now - Vosstaniya Square) with the task of dispelling the crowd: "The public surrounded us from behind, those who were shouting at us:" Soldiers, do not shoot. " I said: - "Do not be afraid, we will not shoot." - A crowd of people with red flags approached us. At that time I was stunned. I think: "to shoot - died, not to shoot - died". The officer was standing here. I go to him and say: "They are going, they are asking for bread, they will pass and go away." He looked at me, smiled and said nothing. He stands, says nothing, and with a gesture he shows - to pass - he says: "Come on, come on." The crowd passed - it rounded us on both sides, and stopped near the monument to [Emperor Alexander III]. Passing shouted: "Hooray, well done soldiers." Speakers there spoke: that spoke did not hear. We stayed there until 6 hours. ”

February 1917, Petrograd

The next day, the picture almost exactly repeated. And when it became known that the commander himself, staff captain Lashkevich, Kirpichnikov, who realized that this time they couldn’t avoid shooting, would lead the training team to establish order in the city, he began to persuade the soldiers not to shoot. However, from the first time, he was unable to organize the soldiers, and on February 12, the Volyns were led out again by their commander, this time to Nevsky Prospect. “I was behind the crowd in the crowd, I went to watch,” Kirpichnikov recalled. - I go up and say: "It is a thunderstorm. Integral trouble - what shall we do?" The soldiers say: "Really trouble - so and we will die." I said: “Remember, if you are forced to shoot, - shoot up. You can’t stop fulfilling the order - you can die. And God would give back to the barracks tonight, we will decide our fate”. As a result, the majority of Volyns people deliberately shot past the target that day.
Revolutionary postcard, 1917 year

On his return to the barracks, Kirpichnikov persuaded the platoon at night to refuse to participate in the suppression of the revolutionary rebellion. “I (...) asked for my junior non-commissioned officer, Mikhail Markov. I asked him if he agreed not to go tomorrow, ”Kirpichnikov recalled. - He says: "I agree." I ordered him to gather all platoon commanders. Platoon commanders agreed. (...) I declare: “To win or to die. I think it’s better to die with honor. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, brides are asking for bread. Will we beat them? Have you seen the blood that flowed through the streets? I don’t suggest go. I personally don't want to. " Vzvodnye said: "We will not lag behind you. Do what you want." I kissed them all and said: "Let us remain friends. We will not betray one another and live in our hands will not be given. Death is only now terrible. They will kill you - you will not know what is being done." The platoon agreed, of course. The duty officer asked to convene all separated. Those came half-dressed (...). "You, close assistants. We, platoon commanders, decided not to go shooting tomorrow." They said unanimously: "We agree, only your team and we will execute." Vzvodnym and separated, I again declared: "Tomorrow we are not going. To execute my team and watch only what I will do." Everything was decided: to get up tomorrow at 6 hours, but at five. ”

T.I. Kirpichnikov, photo from the journal * Niva *, 1917 year.

The headquarters captain, Igor S. Lashkevich, who arrived in the morning, tried to influence the soldiers who refused to suppress unrest in the capital, but to no avail. Driven by soldiers from the barracks, Lashkevich was shot in the back. After that, the insurgent training team with weapons in her hands she moved to the reserve battalion of her regiment and carried him along. Kirpichnikov did not stop there and led the soldiers on - to raise neighboring regiments, which resulted in thousands of armed soldiers who joined the revolution a few hours later. During the day, other parts of the Petrograd garrison joined the armed rebellion, which ultimately led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the victory of the revolution. At the same time, from the testimony of Kirpichnikov it follows that when confronted with a group of soldiers of the Guards Semenov regiment under the command of three ensigns who tried to resist, he and his charges shot officers with revolvers on Liteiny Avenue.

For a short time, Timofey Kirpichnikov became a hero of the revolution. He was called "the first soldier of the revolution", "the first hero of the uprising", "the hero who raised troops against the tsarist regime." Newspapers took interviews from Kirpichnikov and published his photographs, accompanying them with stories of accomplished "exploits." The Provisional Government made the instigator of the unrest in the Petrograd garrison in the rank of sub-ensign and awarded the 4 degree with the Cross of St. George “because February, at the head of the training team of the battalion, [he] was the first to start the struggle for the freedom of the people and the creation of the New Building, and ( ...) an example of personal bravery led the soldiers of his battalion with him ... ”. The commander-in-chief of the troops of the Petrograd Military District, General L. G. Kornilov, personally handed the honorary military award to the revolutionary Kirpichnikov.

George Cross by T.I. Kirpichnikova

However, speaking of the role of Timofey Kirpichnikov in the February events, it must be borne in mind that he was not the only one responsible for the mass transfer of soldiers to the side of the revolution. When an investigation was carried out hot on the subject of who first brought the Volynsky regiment to the streets of Petrograd and led him to support the revolution, it turned out that seven soldiers were claiming for this role at once. A survey conducted among officers who joined the revolution gave six more names ... Thus, there is every reason to believe that Kirpichnikov was just one of the leaders of the soldiers' masses who acted together with senior noncommissioned officers V. Kozlov and F. Konnikov, junior unters M.Markov, I.Drenichev, M.Brodnikov and other soldiers' commanders (more than four dozen names!). But the fact that he stood out against the background of his other revolutionary-minded colleagues was beyond doubt. “It is not known how further events would develop. Perhaps, in the morning of February 27, there would be no unrest at all, but Timofey Ivanovich Kirpichnikov decided to say his weighty word, ”the modern author VA Bryukhanov notes.

T.I. Kirpichnikov

Historians are still arguing about who killed the staff captain Lashkevich. According to the “official” version, this “feat” was personally committed by Kirpichnikov, however there are other opinions. The fact is that in the memories that have come down to us about this tragic event, different names of the officer's killers are indicated (or are not called at all). And Kirpichnikov himself did not say a word about his role in the murder of an officer in his interviews and memoirs. Only one thing is known for certain - after the hastily leaving officer, someone shot from the window of the barracks in the back. Some called Lashkevich Kirpichnikov’s killer, others — Private Sokolov, others — NCO Kozlov, the fourth — Unter Markov and the corporal Orlov. But, be that as it may, Kirpichnikova’s fault in the tragedy that happened is obvious, the question is only in her degree. As the revolution historian ABNikolayev notes, “Kirpichnikov personally did not kill his commander, but it was he who developed the plan of the uprising, one of the points of which was the assassination of Lashkevich, he also took part in appointing soldiers to carry out this assassination. (...) Recall that Kirpichnikov was one of the murderers of three Semenov ensigns on Liteyny Ave. in the afternoon of February 27. ”

Badge of the Volynsky Regiment, 1917 year

Immediately ascended to the top of fame in the spring days of 1917, Timofey Kirpichnikov also quickly descended from historical the scene. The following is known about his further biography: in the days of the April political crisis, he, according to some reports, led the Volyn regiment to support the Provisional Government, in May 1917 he was promoted to officer rank of ensign, demanded that the authorities restore order and fight against anarchy, and after The October Revolution resolutely opposed the Bolsheviks. Kirpichnikov tried to provide support for the Kerensky-Krasnov campaign against Petrograd, in 1918 he participated in clashes with the Red Guards, was briefly arrested, and then demobilized.

After moving to the Don, Kirpichnikov hoped to continue the fight against the Bolsheviks, but fate decreed otherwise - the “first soldier of the revolution” was shot by the whites in the year 1919. “It would have been fateful for Ensign Kirpichnikov to meet with Colonel Kutepov,” recalled General B.A. Steyfon. - It is not difficult to imagine how Alexander Pavlovich experienced this meeting ... (...) Since the beginning of the revolution, Kirpichnikov was declared the "hero of the revolution" (...) All this long lasting horror made a horrible impression on the officers. (...) "Take the ensign", - Alexander Pavlovich ordered the adjutant. A few minutes later shots rang out in the yard ... "
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ABAZA
    ABAZA 26 March 2016 05: 22
    A hundred years after the Patriotic War of 1812, the consciousness of Russian society was revolutionized. The first were the "Decembrists". Their goals ?: the overthrow of the autocracy, to arrange a "confederation" out of a single Russian state, to give the primordially Russian lands of Little Russia and White Russia to the Poles. Did not work out.
    The Narodnaya Volya and Herzen were next. Objectives: the overthrow of the autocracy, the Poles to give the primordially Russian lands of Little Russia and White Russia. And then "anarchy and collectivism". Neither the ones nor the others were concerned about the fate of the peasants.

    This continued until 1880, when Sergei Nechaev wrote the "Catechism of a Revolutionary". A terrible book in meaning and frankness. A revolutionary is a destroyer, unprincipled, cruel and mean in relation to loved ones, comrades, society, traditions. It was from this moment that a coup took place in the revolutionary movement of Ingushetia. It acquires purposefulness, is structured through parties in a short time, embraces all strata of Russian society with a wide net, people from the Jewish environment become party ideologists and leaders, revolutionaries find sponsors and shelter in the West, as well as from international Jewish capital.

    By 1900, the organization ends, the offensive begins on a broad front on the autocracy. Discrediting the nobility, officers, the Orthodox clergy. And after the family of Nicholas II. Revolutionary terror was unleashed, from which at least 17 thousand Russians and Orthodox people died, from a simple peasant and soldier to Stolypin.

    The fate of the "first soldier of the revolution" was characteristic of that time. Deceived by revolutionary propaganda, people followed the revolutionaries. Awakening from illusions began after the Bolsheviks shot down a peaceful demonstration in defense of the Constituent Assembly in early January 1918. 70 thousand people immediately left the Bolshevik party.
    1. sherp2015
      sherp2015 26 March 2016 07: 16
      Quote: ABAZA
      "Catechism of a Revolutionary". Terrible in meaning and frankness little book. A revolutionary is a destroyer, unprincipled, cruel and mean-spirited towards relatives, comrades, society, traditions. From that moment on, a revolution occurs in the revolutionary movement of the Republic of Ingushetia. It acquires purposefulness, is structured through parties in a short time, encompasses all layers of Russian society with wide net, people from the Jewish environment become party ideologists and leaders, revolutionaries find sponsors and a roof in the West, as well as among international Jewish capital.

      Back in Soviet times, when he was the chairman of the KGB, Andropov read that, along with "samizdat literature", a batch of instructions for the destruction of the Soviet system and system was secretly imported into the country.
      It was called "The Catechism of the Jew in the USSR".
      In it, it was for people of a certain "God-chosen" breed that it was recommended how to act in an organized manner to destabilize the situation and discredit the Soviet authorities in order to change the existing system. How to hold meetings, "throw mud" at the leaders of any level, turn the people against the Soviet system, set peoples against each other.
      And the most important thing is the spread of the Russian people precisely: not letting them into leading positions, not giving them jobs ...
      With all the ensuing consequences.
      The Russian people should familiarize themselves with this "work" thanks to which the scum destroyed the USSR and left the majority of the common people beggars
      1. ABAZA
        ABAZA 26 March 2016 07: 24
        What they fought for. It would not be quoted. But if: troublemakers to the fingernail, then Russia could stand it, and the Russian army marched across Berlin, and there was no reason for National Socialism in Germany, and Europe was on a short leash in Russia, and the United States was left in the wit to sit across the ocean, and the population in 2000 in Russia is 594,3 million people. And Russia is a leading world power.
        Such a small rot, and how many troubles done.
        1. ALEA IACTA EST
          ALEA IACTA EST 26 March 2016 09: 15
          We would have been "thrown" in any case: Russia would not have received neither Galicia, nor Prussian Poland, nor Krakow, nor the straits, nor influence on Europe under any circumstances.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 26 March 2016 11: 30
            Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
            We would have been "thrown" in any case: Russia would not have received neither Galicia, nor Prussian Poland, nor Krakow, nor the straits, nor influence on Europe under any circumstances.

            Your "WO" is worth no more, and possibly less than the previous one, as the facts show:
            In 45, nobody was thrown. And in the 18th they didn't throw anyone -all winners, including Serbia and even Romania, received territories and reparations.
            1. ALEA IACTA EST
              ALEA IACTA EST 26 March 2016 12: 12
              In the 45th, we ourselves came and took. By the 18th, our troops would not advance beyond the old border.
              The British are not used to sharing prey.
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 26 March 2016 12: 41
                Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
                In 45, we ourselves came and took. By 18, our troops would not advance beyond the old border

                What is the "old" border in 18-m? belay
                I give you facts, and you again "WOULD" ...
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Rastas
          Rastas 26 March 2016 11: 52
          Alternative history buff? when would we be marching through Berlin? Under Hitler, the Germans were shown that if it were not for the revolution, the Germans would have won everyone. What were the preconditions for winning a war that Russia did not need? The people were smarter than people like you, people with a philistine spirit. And the nobility, officers, clergy, for the most part, discredited themselves. As A. Blok wrote: "Why are they making holes in the ancient cathedral? - Because for a hundred years here an overweight priest, hiccupping, took bribes and sold vodka. Why do they shit in gentlemanly manors' estates? - Because they raped and flogged the girls there. master, so at the neighbor. Why are they felled centenary parks? - Because for a hundred years under their spreading lindens and maples, the gentlemen showed their power: they poked a beggar in the nose with money, and a fool with education. I know what I say. There is no way to hush up this; but everyone, however, hush up. " ("Intellectuals and Revolution")
          1. ABAZA
            ABAZA 26 March 2016 12: 57
            Be diligent in teaching Russian history. Preferably without a communist alternative.
            1. Rastas
              Rastas 26 March 2016 13: 52
              And what should be taught? Capitalist? Nationalist sovereign? Monarchical? No thanks. None of them gives an answer to questions of a causal relationship of the events of the 17th. It all comes down to a set of conspiracies, accidents, conspiracy theories. We underestimate the significance of our Great Revolution.
              1. Mikado
                Mikado 26 March 2016 15: 41
                Quote: Rastas
                And what should be taught? Capitalist? Nationalist sovereign? Monarchical? No thanks. None of them gives an answer to questions of a causal relationship of the events of the 17th. It all comes down to a set of conspiracies, accidents, conspiracy theories. We underestimate the significance of our Great Revolution.

                Dear Rastas, a plus for you. My opinion is the same as yours. The nobility and the royal family really discredited themselves. The king was frankly weak. And the elite has become different (sorry, as an indicator - the number of perverts in it, even the poets of the "Silver Age" do not want to read, because they are the same). Even if we needed this war, from the point of view of geopolitics, we had to seriously prepare for it.
                It was interesting to read Shirokorad, a historian of artillery. He writes that during tenders for the purchase of guns (the competition was in charge of the tsar's relative, the Grand Duke "someone there", too lazy to look in Wikipedia) corruption flourished, cuts and kickbacks that Serdyukov never dreamed of. The very same rearmament of the army was carried out at such a pace that the serf artillery, for example, was supposed to re-equip as much as 1930! It is probably not worth comparing quantitatively and qualitatively the Tsarist Air Force and Navy with the forces of the Allies and the Germans. And heavy siege artillery was practically absent from us as a class. As a result, during the war, the industry was transferred to a war footing, but in 1915, the year of our greatest territorial losses, the situation was terrible, there were not enough rifles and shells, and someone, it seems, I can’t vouch for the truth, even offered to arm a number of units WITH AXES!
                And what is shown in the motion pictures of those years: brilliant generals, ladies in chic dresses, religious processions and parades are just a screen. The war quickly put everything in its place.
                Because of SUCH preparation for war (and everyone knew that it would begin), we lost the most people + state system. And there’s nothing to blame the Russian soldier for! He did his job with dignity! soldier
                This must be remembered now, with the current attitude to corruption at all levels. And with too sluggish attitude to their own industry.
                Yours faithfully, hi
                1. ABAZA
                  ABAZA 26 March 2016 16: 29
                  Rastas, Mikado! No offense, but minus you. Let's walk briefly from 1817 to 1917.
                  1. Russia, with its 40 million population, 450 thousand army, serf peasantry, "backward" agrarian economy - DEFEATED the Franco-European army of 610 thousand people, behind which stood 70 million Europe. For several months, a people's militia of 400 thousand people gathered at the Sovereign's manifesto.
                  2. Data by Nicholas The first indulgences to the state peasants caused a real industrial revolution in Russia. The number of serfs decreased from 58% to 35%. Peasant capital became the creators of light and textile industries. The population of Russia increased from 40 million to 58 million. The urban population from 1,8 million to 5,5 million. The well-being of the population actually increased.
                  3. The reforms of Alexander II were crucial for socio-economic development. But at the same time, they intensified the overheating of ethnogenetic and social. Therefore, the reign of Alexander the Third, called conservative, benefited the state and people. Cooling and bringing to life. And yet, by 1880. working class of about 1 million, by 1890 - 3 million. The great migration of the Russian people from the center to the outskirts of the south and east begins.
                  4. The pinnacle of the socio-economic and ethnogenetic development of Russia and the Russian people was the reign of Nicholas II. Find in the network "Autocracy and Progress" or Platonov "Attempt on the Russian State". Everything is brief, clear and accessible about this last time. This is not to distract you with long posts.
                  5. All this time the revolutionary virus has been eating away at the state organism, the soul of the people from within. The revolutionaries did not use the internal disorder in order to find a common language with the authorities for the benefit of the people. They needed a "world revolution", a civil war for the sake of the essentially rotten revolutionary idea of ​​"freedom, equality, brotherhood." And they got their way. If Nicholas II had acted harshly, like Vladimir Putin, for example, in relation to revolutionary terrorists ...
                  1. Rastas
                    Rastas 26 March 2016 16: 47
                    Dear ABAZA:
                    1. In France, they will tell you how in the period 1790-1807 they fought against the whole united Europe and defeated it. And also, in 1813-1815, when all of Europe went to France. And the number of militia in your country is greatly exaggerated, given that the landowners sent their peasants there, but not with the consent of the latter.
                    2. From what sources do you have data on the growth in the well-being of the population under Nicholas I ?. Under him, Russia was called a "facade empire". In the first year of his reign alone in 1826, 104 mass peasant uprisings were recorded, of which 104 were suppressed with the help of troops. In the future, the intensity of the struggle in the countryside did not abate. One should not exaggerate the progressive phenomena in agriculture of the 30-50s of the XIX century: new capitalist processes were revealed mainly in the southern and southeastern outskirts of the European part of Russia, in areas of continuing colonization, there where there were few serfs. The number of advanced landowners who switched over to new agricultural technology amounted to approximately 3-4% of their total number. Technical innovations in the peasant environment were an even rarer phenomenon: they were only able to cope with the wealthy stratum, mainly state peasants. The development of productive forces in agriculture took place not so much in the form of a radical renewal of agricultural technology and field cultivation, but in the expansion of the sown area and in the development of new, sparsely populated areas.
                    3. There have been cases when the owners of small and even large estates took away all the field and grasslands from their peasants, and turned the peasants themselves into yards or planted them for a month (that is, for a monthly ration), forcing them to cultivate the lord's field all the time. Such peasants, in fact, were no different from slaves, and feudal exploitation returned the economy back - to an undisguised slaveholding.
                    4. The expansion of the landlord's demand required an increase in labor force, and the desire to extract more products from the land pushed for the strengthening of peasant duties. During the 30-50s of the XIX century. In the agricultural regions, corvée was spreading more and more: by the beginning of the 60s, peasants who had served corvee in the chernozem center made up more than 70%, in the Volga region — more than 73%, and in Ukraine — from 97 to 99%.
                    In six provinces of the Central Black Earth Region, an average of 40 quarters were collected for each revision soul in the 3,15s, and 50 quarters in the 2,66s. In Right-Bank Ukraine, this attitude was even less beneficial for peasants: in the 50s they received 30% less bread and potatoes from their fields than in the 40s. So your figure on the decrease in the number of serfs indicates that there was a dehumanization of the peasants and their impoverishment, i.e. reduction in their number.
                    1. ABAZA
                      ABAZA 27 March 2016 01: 12
                      Dear Rastas!
                      1. Revolutionary propaganda, and even more Soviet propaganda, based their arguments in favor of the necessity and benefit of the revolution on the skillful mixing of truth with falsehood. The Patriotic War of 1812 was truly popular. The truth is that part of the serfs met the Franco-European army with the hope of freedom. There were also landowners brought up in French culture, even orders in the army could be given in French. But all this hope of liberation disappeared very quickly and the reason for this is the French plunder. Yes, the Russian army was retreating under the pressure of superior forces. But by the fall, partisan detachments had sprung up in the rear of the French. And also by order of the Russian command, military partisan units were sent to the French rear. And the militia was not gathered under duress. Because thanks to him, the Russian army received excellent replenishment, as well as supplies. Napoleon introduced a total of 610 thousand to Russia, then brought no more than 40 thousand. And then followed a campaign to Europe and the complete defeat of the French. Let me remind you once again: in Russia there are 40 million people - for Napoleon - 70 million. For Alexander the First, agrarian, "backward", serf Russia - For Napoleon, developed industrial Europe. If we follow the logic "Russia is so-and-so and the authorities there are completely oppressors", then no liberation movement, especially in the form of corvee, could happen in principle.
                      2. Serfdom really doesn't look very good from our future. But it did not just happen. It took shape, took shape in fact in the 17th century. The Russian ethnos entered the period of ethnogenetic maturity and imperial ambitions. Centralization of power, strengthening of the state, socio-economic progress at that historical moment required such a solution as enslavement of the peasants. That gave the concentration of forces and at that time, in those conditions it was necessary. By the way, the same thing happened in Europe. Pushkin in his "Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg" had a better opinion of the Russian peasant and his life than Herzen and other troublemakers.
                      3. I do not argue that there could have been peasant demonstrations. But they in no way pull on "mass character". Note that under Nicholas I at the beginning of his reign, only 58% of the peasants were serfs. And at the end already 35%. His indulgences contributed to the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in Russia. And the well-being of the people grew, and the population increased from 40 million to 58 million. And cities were built, and the urban population increased threefold.
                    2. ABAZA
                      ABAZA 27 March 2016 01: 43
                      Strange "front empire"! Do you even imagine that this is such an increase in the population for 30 years by almost 20 million? And what is "colonization of new lands"? Even today, it is a great feat to go to an extinct village, plow 15-20 acres of deposits there, build a house, acquire a cattle. Moreover, in the first half of the 19th century. Without the help of the state, without the correct socio-economic policy, this was simply impossible then.
                      It was under Nicholas 1 that the relations of landowners and peasants changed from slave-owner to slave. The state for the first time took upon itself the responsibility of protecting the peasant from the arbitrariness of the landowner. In the 1850s more than 2 thousand landowners went on trial. And many were really sentenced.
                      Under him, a mass codification of the laws of the Russian Empire was carried out. He painstakingly and persistently set the stage for the reforms of Alexander the Second. Laying a solid foundation for subsequent social and economic progress.
                  2. Rastas
                    Rastas 26 March 2016 17: 15
                    Now, regarding the beloved by many Alexander III:
                    1. Requirements: Exemption from military service; economic support of the estate (providing cheap credit); ensuring the privileged position of the nobility in the field of education (arranging for boarding schools special boarding houses for gymnasiums and admitting exclusively noble children to closed privileged educational institutions); measures to impede access to the nobility by immigrants from other social strata.
                    The normal psychology of parasites. Give, give, give! For what? Because we are. And all the requirements have been met. Noblemen were released from compulsory military service. Noble school created. On June 3, 1885, the Noble Land Bank was opened, the task of which was to maintain landlord property that was ravaged by capitalism. This bank was distinguished by very favorable loan conditions and just angelic patience with respect to non-payers.
                    2. The law "on cook's children", about which K. Chukovsky wrote later: "Emphasizing the common people of his reign, this half-German let himself loose a Slavophile beard, wore a shirt, boots with bottles, a hat on one side. And he preferred his native booze to any overseas wine. "Populism" ended here, because at the heart of his entire "popular" policy lay the ferocious oppression of the people, the exploitation of the ruined peasants to please the kulaks, the factory owners and the big landowners. The autocratic "populist" most clearly revealed his true feelings for the people when it was about public education, about schools for the masses.He considered the craving of his beloved "common people" for culture a dangerous crime that must be nipped at the root.
                    When the peasant woman Ananyina, brought to trial in one revolutionary case, mentioned that she wanted to send her son to the gymnasium, Alexander III wrote, indignant: “This is terrible! Man, he’s also climbing into the gymnasium! ” When the Tobolsk governor, not without regret, in his report informed the monarch that there were few literate people in the province, the tsar wrote in the margin: “And, thank God!” He well understood that “ordinary people” only until that moment were a reliable support of the throne, as long as they were in the dark.
                    3. Regarding the welfare of workers, I have already cited data from the late 19th century on this site, you can see my notes on how the workers lived there "happily". This is data from the government commissions.
                    4. Under Alexander III and his son, did industry develop, only to whom did it belong? To the people? Not at all. Here are the data: By 1914, nine-tenths of the coal industry, the entire oil industry, 40% of the metallurgical industry, half of the chemical industry, 28% of the textile industry belonged to foreigners. Belgians owned tram depots in the cities, 70 percent of the electrical industry and banking belonged to the Germans. Foreign banks and firms held extremely important positions in Russia. If in 1890 there were 16 companies with foreign capital in the country, in 1891-1914 foreign capital prevailed in 457 new industrial companies. Companies based on Western capital were on average richer and more powerful than Russian companies. On average, by 1914, the Russian company accounted for 1 million, and the foreign company - 2 million.
                    5. The main problem of modernizing Russia in the late XNUMXth and early XNUMXth centuries was attempts to build capitalist relations "from above" in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population rejected such relations and the state structure itself contradicted them. The ongoing reforms were unable to resolve the social conflict. The development of capitalism in the West followed the path of revolutions and forcible de-peasantry.
                    1. ABAZA
                      ABAZA 27 March 2016 04: 13
                      Rastas, you proceed from the principle of "revolutionary hatred". The envy of the eye is obscured, as they say. Was there a class division in RI? It was! Is it as striking as the revolutionary agitation described it?
                      1. The bulk of the nobles were not lazy people and oppressors. Many of them worked on their own farms. Noble estates were the foremost outposts in the development of agriculture in the Republic of Ingushetia. But on the other hand, as landowners, they lost a lot under the conditions of the reform of 1861. The government tried to minimize the risks of their losses through debt obligations and preferential sale of land to peasants. Landowners gave the greatest harvest of grain and agricultural products. That during the hunger strikes of 1881-1911, repeated at a frequency of one in three years, there was great support. There were no starvation deaths.

                      2. Workers. It is impossible to proceed from modern conditions in assessing that time. Yes, the conditions were not the best. But the government, and even the capitalists themselves, were interested not only in obtaining banal profits, but also in improving working conditions. In the west they were no better. But this in Russia by 1914 achieved the best working legislation in the world. By the way, with the filing of the government. It was in Russia that the workers had the largest number of days off, comfortable hostels, schools, sanatoriums and sports facilities. Industrialists of Russia actively participated in this. Despite the fact that the products were cheap, decent salaries, the purchasing power of a worker in the early 20th century. was higher than Soviet citizens in the early 1980s.

                      3. The peasants. A 4-fold increase in population over a hundred years has put a heavy burden on the central regions of Russia. Overpopulation, soil depletion, technological backwardness in cultivating the land, massive outflow of young and healthy people to cities, to the outskirts of the south and east. All this created enormous difficulties, which are not mentioned in the interpretations of revolutionary propaganda. Is that why Soviet times were always compared to 1913 ?!

                      Alexander the Third was not only a man of great strength, but also Russian and Orthodox, who mothballed revolutionization for 13 years. What revolutionaries cannot forgive him so far.
                  3. Mikado
                    Mikado 26 March 2016 17: 34
                    Dear ABAZA!

                    Pay attention, not a minus! We have a cultural and interesting discussion for us, and everyone's opinion is interesting!
                    item 1. The victory in the Patriotic Won of 1812 occurred not so much because of open battles (which showed the first-class knowledge of the matter by the commanders and the strength and spirit of the Russian soldiers), but because of the general concept of the war of attrition adopted by the wise Kutuzov. Kutuzov shores the army. If, even because of a small accident, our army was defeated in the general battle of the war (which Napoleon wanted and what did not work at Borodino), the new army, given our population density, would be recruited, supplied and trained in a short time would be impossible. Therefore, the war with Napoleon was largely reduced to a war on communications, and the occupation of Moscow and the subsequent decomposition of Napoleon's army "on the basis of everyday life", on the basis of drunkenness and robbery, also "helped" in some way. Leaving Moscow, the hungry French threw their guns, but at the same time dragged silver dishes. Even Denis Davydov, during the defeat of the corps, Marshal Ney described: "It was not a battle, it was our troops wandering through the forests in search of groups of hungry Frenchmen who immediately surrendered."
                    Despite the fact that Napoleon lost the entire army in Russia, the next year he gathered a new one, which was easier to do, given the population density of Europe, and industry working for France.
                    Again, the example is a bit out of that opera, I think. A hundred years have passed since the First World War, and they fought not according to the principles of the Napoleonic Wars. The winner was the one with more heavy artillery, machine guns, airplanes, and better supply. From the amount of ammunition and throughput of railways.

                    item 2. With all due respect to Nicholas I, the main indicator and the outcome of his reign is the Crimean War. The state of the opposing armed forces is not worth comparing. The supply in Sevastopol was brought to the point where our soldiers collected enemy bullets in order to overfill them. Again, only the Russian soldier helped out, his courage, skill and perseverance.
                    This is a consequence of the development of industry. Once again about corruption, a historical anecdote: Checking together with the heir the documents on the supply of the Russian army during the war, the tsar exclaimed: "Sashka! It seems that in all of Russia we are not stealing only you and me!"

                    p. 3-4. I do not argue about economic success, I agree with you. And workers in England and France sometimes had much worse conditions than ours.
                    Despite this, we were NOT READY for war. Neither the Russian-Japanese (from which conclusions were drawn), nor the First World War. Neither the amount of artillery, nor the number of armadillos, nor the quality of supply, etc. The result is a mass of corpses. The people, to put it mildly, did not like it.
                    1. ABAZA
                      ABAZA 27 March 2016 04: 46
                      Dear (or th?) Mikado!
                      Under item 1 I agree with you. A small amendment, the concept of waging war against a quantitatively and qualitatively superior enemy was developed by more than one Kutuzov. It was a common job.
                      According to the First World War. You do not take into account the demoralizing role of revolutionization in Russia for a hundred years. That was not in sight in the Patriotic War of 1812. And then, at the suggestion of the Bolsheviks, "the first world, imperialist" should have turned into a civilian. And at that time it was the "Great Patriotic War" for the people.

                      p.2 You forget the historical context of the Crimean War. The industrial revolution in Russia began rapidly, but this did not mean that it embraced the entire socio-economic life of a large country. Industrialization was at the very beginning. Sevastopol was on the outskirts of the Empire, the supply was lagging, but the morale of the defenders remained at the height to the end. You can not say about the liberal revolutionaries of that time. After all, from their submission, the tactical defeat of Russia was elevated to the rank of strategic. After all, they vulgarized the efforts of the people and the government for the sake of self-serving revolutionary interests (overthrow of the autocracy in any way).

                      I think Emperor Nicholas I would die of a broken heart, if he knew the extent of theft and corruption in Soviet times.

                      At the beginning of the 20th century Russia was at the stage of a great technical and technological restructuring, the army was at the stage of active reform. Therefore, you are right when you write about the unpreparedness of the army. But it was not catastrophic, as the revolutionaries draw it.
                      The Russian-Japanese campaign essentially ended in a draw. But it is necessary to keep in mind the most distant end of the country. The Transsib was not yet fully ready for the transfer of troops and weapons. Add to this revolutionary provocations. After all, the war became the pretext for the so-called "revolution of 1905"
                      World War I was also in Russia's favor. And the army successfully coped with its duties. By 1917, supply failures were overcome, a sufficient number of recruits were recruited. Good reserves remained in the country. Fertility exceeded losses. Industry and rural households remained at their best and were able to rebuild on a war footing. That is, everything was normal according to wartime. While Germany and Austria-Hungary came to the point of depletion of human and economic resources. In these conditions, the revolutionaries did their dirty deed, hit in the back.
                  4. Mikado
                    Mikado 26 March 2016 17: 34
                    item 5. Of course, there was a revolutionary virus. But he crawled out into the February Revolution on previously well-prepared soil. And the current regime itself prepared this ground for its rule and its actions.
                    I highly recommend A. Ikonnikov-Galitsky's book "Chronicles of Petersburg Crimes. Brilliant and Criminal". The author in an unobtrusive manner gives an idea of ​​the then state of society, the crime situation and the actions of law enforcement agencies. Including, the analysis is given and political crimes. I recommend to all!

                    As the saying goes, "if you want peace, prepare for war." They were preparing for it. The Baltic Fleet was restored even (because after Tsushima it was not left, as it were) under the command of the wise and active N.O. Essen.
                    And still this was not enough.

                    Stalin was better prepared for war. They didn’t steal under him. And there were no revolutionaries with him. And industry was not a royal couple. And the correct conclusions were drawn from the Finnish war. That is why we won the Great Patriotic War.

                    Do not blame Stalin. You plus for the given reasoned information.
                    Yours faithfully, hi
                    1. ABAZA
                      ABAZA 27 March 2016 05: 06
                      If we compare RI and the USSR, then the arguments are not in favor of the latter.
                      - The territorial losses of the Republic of Ingushetia for the three years of the war are much smaller than those of the USSR for the first six months;
                      - RI human casualties are estimated at 1,5 million people, the USSR - 27 million. At the same time, the Soviet army in the first six months lost (think about it!) 3,9 million prisoners;
                      - yes, under Stalin they "did not steal", under him robbery was legalized (collectivization, confiscation of valuables from the population during 1918-1938, etc.)
                      - there really was an industry, but its foundation and 74000 km of railways, as well as a scientific and technical base, were created in the Russian Empire. Which was almost destroyed by "revolutionary transformations".
      2. sigdoc
        sigdoc 26 March 2016 20: 47
        Have already read. The "Catechism of the Jew in the USSR" is a provocation, cobbled together in the late XNUMXs during the anti-Semitic campaign in the USSR, similar to the "Doctors' Plot". In terms of style, it was written not by a Jew, but by a Russian or Ukrainian, which pursued several goals: to remove Jews from the governing bodies and the party, provoke a massive resettlement to the newly-made state of Israel and create interethnic tension in the country. This affected the USSR negatively.
  2. c3r
    c3r 26 March 2016 05: 54
    A dog’s death is a dog! Only it wasn’t necessary to shoot, but to put on a stake! They ruined the country, destroyed the army, pros.ali war! led by the prostitute Kerensky! All those who shot in the back, hung up and drowned the officers eventually ended up worse and their memory didn’t preserve them and there was nothing to talk about this freak, traitor!
  3. Good cat
    Good cat 26 March 2016 07: 09
    A good hero, his commander in the back.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 26 March 2016 07: 33
    General L.G. Kornilov, Commander-in-Chief of the troops of the Petrograd Military District, personally presented the honorary combat award to the revolutionary Kirpichnikov...... and LG Kornilov had the same fate — he supported the February revolution, tried to overthrow the Temporary, fought with the Reds .. and now ... he is building a memorial in Krasnodar ... In vain the article was minuscule .. Good, informative article..
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 26 March 2016 11: 11
      Quote: parusnik
      ..... and LG Kornilov had the same fate — he supported the February revolution, tried to overthrow the Temporary, fought with the Reds .. and now ... he is building a memorial in Krasnodar ... In vain the article was minuscule .. Good, informative article..

      Not the same fate. How can you compare podonka and the traitor with the hero Kornilov? He did not support the February revolution, but obeyed the only legitimate authority in Russia at that time, as it should be for the military. He was appointed to the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Petrograd Military District and the Emperor and the Provisional Government, headed by Prince Lvov, to whom the Emperor also charged to form a government. The VP did not overthrow, but carried out the order of the VP and Kerensky in the direction of troops to Petrograd. Unfortunately, he again obeyed the order of the VP about his arrest, trying to avoid confrontation and civil war. VP investigators in his actions ANY crime-NOT found.
      Absolutely logically fought with the Bolsheviks absolutely illegitimate couriers who committed a coup.
      The St. George Cross, again, handed over not on his own initiative, but following the order ...
      Quote: parusnik
      Now ... he is building a memorial in Krasnodar

      Thanks for the great news! hi
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 26 March 2016 20: 19
        A.F. Kerensky, on July 19, 1917, appointed Kornilov Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The newspapers called him "the first soldier of the revolution." However, soon Lavr Georgievich became convinced of the complete inconsistency of the Provisional Government. With the mediation of the head of the War Ministry B.V. Savinkov and V.N. Lvov, he negotiated with Kerensky on the establishment of strong power. Kerensky's proposals to transfer Lvov were perceived as an ultimatum and an attempt on the life of power of the Provisional Government B.V.Savinkov and V.N. Lvov.In Bykhov prison, Kornilov developed the so-called "Bykhov program", which provided for the establishment of a strong government, the revival of the army, the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the preservation of the main gains of the February revolution. from Kornilov a servant to the tsar ... The political circle of Kornilov is very interesting ... A.F.Aladin, M.M. Filonenko. Aladin worked as a journalist for a number of British newspapers and entered military service in the British army, where he was promoted to lieutenant. M.M. Filonenko was a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. He was a member of Kornilov's entourage. After the appointment of Kornilov as commander-in-chief, from July 19, 1917 - commissar at the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Kornilov. Before Kornilov's speech he tried to reach a compromise between Kornilov and Kerensky. On August 28, together with Savinkov, he sided with Kerensky. Since 1919 in exile in France. Mason. Dedicated to the venerable Hermes lodge No. 535 of the Grand Lodge of France on October 15, 1930. Retired from the lodge on October 10, 1945. After the Second World War II, a member of the society of Soviet patriots. In my opinion, L.G. Kornilov was the first to realize that the power was lying underfoot and it only needed to be raised ... But it did not grow together ... Kerensky did not want to give in, the political environment betrayed ... Kirpichnikov, could and not to reward ... to surrender to someone else, this honorable duty, under a plausible pretext ... there was no provisional government legitimateOn February 26 (March 11), 1917, by the Highest Decree, the activity of the IV State Duma was suspended. February 28 (March 13), the Provisional Committee of the State Duma announced that it would take power into its own hands in view of the termination of its activities by the government. The Provisional Government was created by agreement between the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies, as a compromise. headed by Prince Lvov, to whom the Emperor also instructed to form a government.Since 1916, Lvov's name has appeared on many lists of members of the "responsible ministry" or "ministry of trust", which was supposed to replace the existing "government of bureaucrats". The decree to the Governing Senate on the appointment of Lviv as the chairman of the government is dated 2 p.m. on March 2 (15), that is, an hour ahead of the time indicated in the abdication, that is, Lviv was appointed by the emperor. But on the same day, Lvov was appointed minister by the provisional committee of the State Duma. Chairman and Minister of Internal Affairs of the first Provisional Government.
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 27 March 2016 00: 15
          Quote: parusnik
          In the Bykhov prison, Kornilov developed the so-called "Bykhov program", which provided for the establishment of a strong government, the revival of the army, the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the preservation of the main gains of the February Revolution.Cannot be obtained from the Kornilov servant to the king

          Did not have the king at that time already, HOW could he be his servant ?! belay
          Quote: parusnik
          .In my opinion, L.G. Kornilov, the first realized that the power is lying around and you just need to raise it .. But it didn’t grow together .. Kerensky did not want to give in, the political environment betrayed

          Everything was fused, but Lavr Georgievich did not want a civil war and submitted voluntarily to the order of his arrest. VP investigators did NOT find a crime in his actions.
          Quote: parusnik
          ..Kirpichnikova, could not reward ..

          NOT Kornilov awarded, and VP and the Council, and he only presented the award, because was the commander of the troops of Petrograd.
          Quote: parusnik
          .. Interim government was not legitimate

          It was absolutely Legitin -Lvov was appointed by the Emperor the chairman of the government, and he became them, being approved by the VC (that's why he became so that there is continuity and legitimacy of power.

          Calling on the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit To the Provisional Government, on the initiative of the State Duma, which arose and is vested with all power, Michael II (Emperor 2.03 to 3.03)
          . After my abdication for myself and for my son from the Russian throne, power transferred to the Provisional Government, on the initiative of the State Duma to emerge. May God help him lead Russia along the path of glory and prosperity.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. baudolino
    baudolino 26 March 2016 08: 01
    Our Gabriel Principle.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 26 March 2016 11: 53
  6. Cappit
    Cappit 26 March 2016 08: 04
    The article is interesting. It is clear that now it is very difficult to restore the events of those years in details, if not to say - it is impossible. Therefore, a feeling of understatement remains. For example, the fact of awarding Kirpichnikov Kornilov. In my opinion, the combat general could not thus mark the rear skin. Here lies some kind of intrigue that we do not know about.
    ALEA IACTA EST 26 March 2016 09: 05
    Drawing the military into politics is a crime.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 26 March 2016 09: 54
      The opposition of the army to the people is doomed at the draft formation. People criticize Kirpichnikov, but I do not want anyone to be in this situation. When the oath and orders visibly contradict the duty of a warrior to protect people - brothers and sisters.
    2. Warrior Hamilton
      Warrior Hamilton 26 March 2016 11: 02
      But what about: "The army is an instrument of politics"?
      I always thought that betraying your army was a betrayal. For example, say to a legless man: "I didn't send you there!"
      Or betray your country and the people to whom you have sworn - betrayal. Sell ​​soldiers to "Chechens" at a brick factory, for example.
      Then it would be better to first decide what the country needs an army for: "To defend the country and the people, or to defend and promote the regime"?
  8. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 26 March 2016 10: 26
    According to his recollections, Kutepov told in exile: “Once a young officer came to my headquarters, who quite cheekily told me that he had come to the Volunteer Army to fight the Bolsheviks“ for the freedom of the people, ”which the Bolsheviks trample on. I asked him where he had been so far and what he was doing. The officer told me that he was one of the first "fighters for the freedom of the people" and that in Petrograd he took an active part in the revolution, being one of the first against the old regime. When the officer wanted to leave, I ordered him to stay and, having called the officer on duty, sent for a detachment. The young officer became agitated, turned pale and began to ask why I was delaying him. You will see now, I said, and when the outfit arrived, I ordered the immediate execution of this “freedom fighter”. ”It is reported that Kirpichnikov tried to trump his personal acquaintance with General Kornilov, showing papers, newspaper clippings with his portraits (there were also postcards) .. This is how the life of the "first soldier of the revolution" ended.

    1. Mikado
      Mikado 26 March 2016 15: 45
      Quote: Yoon Clob
      And so the life of the "first soldier of the revolution" ended.

      It is a pity that the author of the article did not cite these memories, they are even on Wikipedia.

      Thank you! A very good addition hi
  9. iouris
    iouris 26 March 2016 12: 14
    In 1991, a similar story occurred.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 26 March 2016 14: 02
      no, in 91 there was a capitalist restoration, which threw us into "Russia we lost." In the 17th there was a movement forward, along a progressive path of development. Why are the national powers unhappy? It seems that communism is gone. According to the president, Lenin is to blame for everything, de-Sovietization has taken place, the welfare state with social guarantees has been destroyed, the economy is following the monetarist precepts of Vyshnegradsky and Witte, the village, according to Stolypin's precepts, relies on a "fair owner." The Stabilization Fund goes to the United States, as 100 years ago the industry was sold to foreign companies. Again, the church has become at the service of those in power, and the people are promising happiness in the afterlife. Che are unhappy? Or do you need to crown the emperor? who will solve all the problems?
      1. ABAZA
        ABAZA 27 March 2016 05: 35
        Dear Rastas, what are you talking about? Yes, and in general terms.
        In 1917 the worst thing happened that could happen. Demons-revolutionaries took power, brought down the successful Russian Empire, brought down the economy by 40%, expelled the cultural elite, and destroyed millions of citizens. And all these are historical facts.
        There has never been communism, it seems that socialism was developed in an ugly form, with a half-poor population and empty counters. In our memory.
        Aren't the revolutionaries to blame? And what "social guarantees" are you talking about? They were exactly the same in imperial Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Only the communists for some reason do not want to remember them. For example, N.S. Khrushchev in 1914, a worker of the second category and receiving the minimum, got married and rented a 3-room apartment. Apparently, so great was the "oppression of the royal satraps" ?!
        For better or worse, in the last 15 years the Russian economy has become one of the seven economies in the world. The third by grain sales (in the world), the second by arms; etc. etc. And the Soviet people did not dream of such social guarantees in their most rainbow dreams.
        The Russian Orthodox Church is people, that is, 70% of those who called themselves Orthodox in the Russian Federation. From 118 million Russians quite a lot. They are from different sectors of the population (peasants, workers, employees, officials, military). And why should they be outside politics, if politics is the art of running the state ?! Who would you prefer, 25 million Muslims? Or all the rest and undecided?
        The task of the Church is the salvation of souls. And only after that "Caesar - Caesar's". The Church is on guard of the morality of society, without distinction in the possessors and others.
  10. tundra
    tundra 26 March 2016 12: 54
    Quote: iouris
    In 1991, a similar story occurred.

    I wonder how the fate of the officers who sided with (the people)
    under the command of the traitor general of the swan.
    Unless, of course, the people can be called a crowd of Moscow gopniks and hucksters,
    gathered at the white house under the leadership of ebn.
    And having decided that they can decide the fate of the Great Country,
    in their selfish interests.
    Unfortunately, we did not have the determination of the Chinese.
    And then they would roll this trash, tanks on the asphalt.
  11. iouris
    iouris 26 March 2016 17: 18
    Quote: tundra
    I wonder how the fate of the officers who sided with (the people)
    under the command of the traitor general of the swan.

    The swan died under strange circumstances, its main competitor in the run up the career ladder Grachev died under strange circumstances.
    An officer, a general must fulfill the oath, otherwise the "first soldier of the revolution" appears.
    It was not by chance that everyone in the Armed Forces of the USSR in the top command posts turned out to be careerists and some kind of higher ranked men. They didn’t give a damn, the main thing was that they remained marshals, generals, colonels ... The same thing happened in 1917. This is probably a sociological law.
  12. moskowit
    moskowit 26 March 2016 19: 34
    The "driving force" of the February revolution was the spare parts of the regiments of the Petrograd garrison. They were "bloated" and overwhelmed with faces dodging the front with all their might. This was also the "hero" of the article. A face of troubled time. The respected and famous soldier's award was presented to the "rear rat" for the murder of the military personnel who kept the oath.
  13. Velizariy
    Velizariy 28 March 2016 16: 39
    Quote: Yoon Clob
    According to his recollections, Kutepov told in exile: “Once a young officer came to my headquarters, who quite cheekily told me that he had come to the Volunteer Army to fight the Bolsheviks“ for the freedom of the people, ”which the Bolsheviks trample on. I asked him where he had been so far and what he was doing. The officer told me that he was one of the first "fighters for the freedom of the people" and that in Petrograd he took an active part in the revolution, being one of the first against the old regime. When the officer wanted to leave, I ordered him to stay and, having called the officer on duty, sent for a detachment. The young officer became agitated, turned pale and began to ask why I was delaying him. You will see now, I said, and when the outfit arrived, I ordered the immediate execution of this “freedom fighter”. ”It is reported that Kirpichnikov tried to trump his personal acquaintance with General Kornilov, showing papers, newspaper clippings with his portraits (there were also postcards) .. This is how the life of the "first soldier of the revolution" ended.


    It was necessary to hang this Judas in the same way as the prototype.