Military Review

War - Cossack code

163
War - Cossack code



97 years have passed since the Cossacks, now forgotten by the Upper-Don uprising of Cossacks, whose echoes still exist. Previously, any mention of this uprising was under strict prohibition. Some documents are still not declassified. Although popular rumor has long been learned to bypass all sorts of prohibitions, and yet that time, like weed grass on the field, gradually overgrown, goes into oblivion. And only the descendants of those Cossacks, to which I also rank myself, can restore the picture of what happened thanks to the stories of their great-grandfathers.

There was no analogue to the Cossacks in any camp of the world. The fate of the Cossacks is inextricably linked with the military glory of the state. History Cossacks with their roots almost all over the earth. More than one century passed before the free people of the southern steppes became the service estate of the Russian kingdom, and then of the Russian empire. The Cossacks participated in all the wars that led our country since the times of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, and at the same time served as a reliable border guard for the state.

They were raised in the steppes. The Cossack spirit is an existence in nature, brought up, inspired by will and glory. Cossack was born a warrior. On the fortieth day, at the same time as he was baptized in the church, the infant received the baptism of fire: the father brought a sword to his headboard and brought the child to the horse. Three-year-old children already rode freely on horseback through the yard, and five-year-olds were already galloping along the steppes and felt like a whole horse. They say that in their blood they kept the genetic code of the first Cossack Ilya of Murom.

13 Cossack troops were dispersed in the outskirts of the Russian Empire, and the largest was the Don.



They were the guardians of Russia. That is how the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, who wrote in one of the most insightful books about the Cossacks: “The Border Bore the Cossacks”, defined their role. Freedom of the human soul, conjugate with the will of the state.

In terms of the Stolypin reform, there was a resettlement of people from regions with a high population density to free territories convenient for agriculture. This affected the area of ​​the Don Cossacks.

In order to understand how Cossacks lived before the revolution, I visited the Morozovsky district of the Rostov region, which consists of parts of three districts of the Don region that were before the 1917 revolution. The yurt of the village of Taubevskaya belonged to the second district with its center in the village of Nizhne-Chirskaya. All this - Volgograd direction.

The Yurt Tsesarevichsky and Yanovsky parish were part of the Donetsk district with the center in the village of Kamenskoy. The village Chertkovskaya belonged to the first Don district. This sparsely populated area at the end of the 19th century on the outskirts of three districts revived with the opening of the Likhaya-Tsaritsyn railway in 1900.

The military circle 1909 of the year decided to allocate land to create new stanitsa yurts. The decision of the Land Council created four villages, including Taubevskaya (the city of Morozovsk) and Tsesarevichskaya (Volno-Donskaya). The names were assigned to them by order number 77 of 1911 year. The village of Tsesarevich (this difficult to pronounce word soon turned into a more acceptable one - Tsesarevskaya) was named after the heir to the throne (Tsesarevich), who was traditionally the chief of all Cossack troops. Taubevskaya - in honor of the ataman of the Army Don Don Baron FF. Taube, who atamanov in 1909-1911's.

In 1917, both villages were renamed: Morozovskaya and Volno-Donskaya respectively. On the lands of the newly created yurts, Cossacks moved from the old villages located along the banks of the Don and its tributaries, where the population density was high and there was a shortage of land. At the same time, plots for non-resident alien people were allocated on free lands. Thus were formed the General Farm, Spellboxes.

The territory of the Don Region was divided into military, Cossack (yurt), peasant and owned land. So, for example, the Cossack farms Lyubimov, Morozov, Ryazankin with their lands and population were assigned to the village of Esaulovskaya, located at the confluence of the Aksenets river to the Don, before 1910.

Territories compactly populated by non-Cossack people were united in townships with centers in the villages or suburbs. The military lands belonged directly to the Don Army and were used by the government to extract income to the treasury by leasing the land and for their own needs. An example of property land is the farm of Georgians, whose lands belonged to representatives of a noble Cossack family of Georgians.

According to the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, in 1887, in the Don region there were 114 Cossack villages and 135 volosts. The newly formed farms, both Cossack and peasant, were allocated land from the territories belonging to the Army Government. True, none of the common people could sell or pass on their land, as it was allocated to them by the community for a certain period. But the landlords had the land in full ownership and could sell it, mortgage, lose.



Taubevskaya was inhabited mainly by immigrants from the banks of the Don, from the farmsteads and stanitsas located in the territory of the present Volgograd region, which at that time was part of the Don region. These are the villages of Sirotinskaya, Trekhostrovyanskaya on the territory of the present Ilovlensky district and Pyatiizbyanskaya, which is currently flooded by the Tsimlyansky reservoir. From it remained the farm Pyatiizbyansky Kalachovsky district. Also flooded and the former yurtovy village of the farms of Lyubimov and Morozov - Esaulovskaya. When relocating, wealthy Cossacks, who had houses made of wooden plates (thick boards), dismantled their houses, transported them and put them in a new place. But the majority built the so-called dugouts of clay and straw, covered with reeds, partially dug into the ground. The plots were about 45 acres, so that the distance between the houses was eight times more than now. The names of the streets were given by the name of the villages, of which there were immigrants, and in memory of the famous Cossacks: Yermakovskaya, Platovskaya, Pyatiizbyanskaya, Sirotinskaya, and also in honor of Orthodox holidays: Voskresenskaya, Pokrovskaya.

The church before the revolution served as a modern registry office. The village by status should have had its own church. And 18 on April 1912 of the year, at the stanitsa assembly, the Cossacks of Taubevskaya decided to build a temple. Troops Land Council on this goal was released thirty thousand rubles. For comparison: a new wooden house in the center of the village in 1911 was estimated at 850 rubles.

In addition, the Cossacks leased 500 tithes of land from the reserve for a period of five years so that the proceeds went to the construction of the stanitsa and old believe churches. The consecration of the first of them in honor of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was held on 25 on April 1915. The temple operates in the present. Old Believers St. Nicholas Church is located on the corner of the Flame of Revolution and Kirov.

In May, 1913 was consecrated in honor of the Nativity of the Most Holy Mother of God and a new brick church in the Cossack village Chekalov. This temple now also operates and is a monument of architecture.

The agricultural lands allocated to the village were divided into plots that were redistributed among the Cossacks.

Streets Taubevskoy closely adjacent to the station railway houses, which were of the same type and are now easily guessed. For example, the second floor of the former building of the railway clinic is attached. Despite its age, all buildings are very well preserved. The railway park near the station had a high stage, where during the warm season, every evening a brass band played, and romances were performed accompanied by violins and cellos. The park was lit with carbide lights. Young people walked along clean, tamped paths.

From the station, the street went to the stanitsa square (Maidan), on which stood the stanitsa cathedral. On the approach to it from the east were the Cossack military barracks. Opposite them is the stanitsa government building, which is currently located on the territory of a military unit. Next to him was a commercial school.

By the decree of the troop congress of the Don Cossacks, decree No. 314 of 24 on April 1917 of the year, the village of Taubevskaya was renamed Morozovskaya.

In 1913, Emperor Nicholas II during the celebration of the 300 anniversary of the House of Romanov arrived in the summer in the city of Novocherkassk, visited the Alexander III cadet corps and the gymnasium. Here he was met according to the tradition with the orchestra. As the pupils recall it, the head of state said: “Hold on, learn, and strengthen yourself”. His words more than predicted the fate of many Cadets.

After all, then there was the First World War, the monstrous civil war, wandering around the white light. Among those who left the country was the 20-year-old Cossack with the surname Turover, which was very common in the Don.



Nikolai Nikolayevich became one of the most outstanding poets of the Russian emigration. He did not write a lot of poems, but his poetry was so penetrating and original, there was not a single fake note in it. It was all he suffered and transferred to paper. It was a rhymed tragedy of a Russian officer who survived the revolution and found himself in turmoil. The same fate befell many Cossacks. One of them was Chernetsov, who organized one of the first partisans on the Don. Nikolai Turoverov and his sixteen-year-old brother, the cadet Alexander, were in this detachment. It was their first choice - with whom to fight and for what. These were terrible years.



So, it all started with Lenin's notoriously famous directive on raskazachivaniyu, which was based on the main principle - the total destruction of this class, the bastion of the previous government.

The complete extermination of the combat-ready part of the Cossacks, the elimination of the economic base, the settling of the originally Cossack lands by people from small areas, mass terror and the violent destruction of national identity - this was the main task of the 1919 directive of the year. The press of that time wrote: “The Cossacks must be burned in the flames of a social revolution. Don needs to disarm, disarm and de-multiply. " With this evidence, ideological ground was prepared to justify the policy of terror and genocide against the Cossacks. And all because during the revolution 1917, the majority of the Cossacks opposed the Soviet government. They could not change the oath to the king.



Created over centuries of the tradition of martial arts, flourishing farms seemed to be put an end to. In two years, several million people were expelled from their native land. For the new government Cossacks posed the greatest danger.

Pockets of resistance arose throughout the region of the Don Cossacks. It was at this time that the notorious uprising began on the Upper Don in the area of ​​the Vyoshenskaya-Kazanskaya-Migulinskaya stanitsa. For three months, the Cossacks, cut off by regular units of the Red Army from Novocherkass, in complete isolation, made incredible attempts to resist, which was doomed to failure.



The fate of the Cossacks was different. I did not think that Nikifor Petrovich Mescheryakov, a farmer, did not guess that fate would play a cruel joke with him. He lived like all farmers. Had a big farm. Six daughters gave him a wife Maryushka. In order to manage the farm, in the spring he always hired workers who went to Nikifor Petrovich eagerly, because he paid well and ate with the workers at the same table. During the expropriation, Nikifor Petrovich was arrested and sent to the prison of the city of Millerovo. There, he and the other prisoners were sentenced to death without any interrogation and charges. Unhappy, they tied up their hands with ropes, put them on a horse-drawn sleigh in two rows and took them out of town towards the Khominsky forests for execution. The driver and the two guards were drunk. Nikifor Petrovich was lying on the back of the same poor fellow. They helped untie each other's hands.



On one of the sloping slopes of the road near the bush Nikifor Petrovich fell from his sleigh and hid. Chase was not. He went towards the forest, came across the forester's hut, where he was warmed, fed and hid for several days. He showed up only to his wife, who fed him, hid him for a while, and then he disappeared.

How difficult it was for Maria Ivanovna to live with children, only God knows. Of the six children, three survived: Frosya, Fields, Anna. Grown up, went to work in the farm. Borrowed their families. Two daughters lived with their mother in their home, which they returned after the war. And in the 1958 year, one summer day, a man entered the courtyard. Slowly, looking around, climbed the familiar porch. It was the master of the house, Nikifor Petrovich, who had lived all those long years in a strange land under an assumed name. Entering the house, he fell on his knees in front of the images, he began to cry, thanks to God for the opportunity to see his family in his declining years. Maria Ivanovna recognized him, knelt down beside him and began to cry too.

“Forgive me, Maryushka, I did not willingly leave you and my children to grief,” he asked his wife.

“God is with you, Petrovich, I have no evil on you, the main thing is that you are alive, this is a great joy for me,” she replied through tears.
Author:
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bya965
    bya965 April 14 2016 06: 44
    +20
    It was all. I know the history of both my ancestors and my relatives. He wrote a lot, erased, again wrote, erased.
    The present Cossacks are nothing. Individual people, Yes.

    With pain, canine tail. Farm Blinkov, my last name.
    1. Portolan
      Portolan April 14 2016 07: 33
      +7
      went to the Cossacks in life for their firm position. Under Romanov’s Cossacks, like all Russians, history was replaced by the Cossacks — refugees, peasants, and under the Bolsheviks, Cossacks were simply physically eliminated. But all the same, some features connecting the past and the present remained, the same URT-administrative division among the Cossacks, but this is distorted
      -YURT is Horde Horde
      a connection with the Horde is also visible here, although the Romanovs were destroyed
      -Cherkasy-Cossacks
      they were replaced by Circassians -adygs
      - Cossack saber, its origin was taken away from the Cossacks and attributed roofing felts to Central Asia, roofing felts to the same Circassians.
    2. Spnsr
      Spnsr April 14 2016 08: 26
      -9
      There was no analogue to the Cossacks in any camp of the world. The fate of the Cossacks is inextricably linked with the military glory of the state.
      - the author must have got excited here!
      for example, the nobility under the Romanovs! this estate makes me think that when the Romanovs came to power in Third Rome (the Moscow kingdom, you might call the principality, the khanate anyone you like), they still did not have the support of these military units! (the military estate, which in peacetime was engaged in agriculture, small cattle breeding !!), and the Romanovs had to create something like that from scratch, thereby freeing the nobility from work, but consolidating serfdom !!!
      and yet, similar to the Cossacks were everywhere in the territories of all Eurasia, you just need to read more closely, there are references to the military estates in the Ottoman Empire, and in the so-called Commonwealth speech, both in India and China ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 14 2016 08: 43
        +5
        for example, the nobility under the Romanovs!


        What in common? These lived at the expense of peasants.
        1. Spnsr
          Spnsr April 14 2016 09: 01
          0
          Quote: AK64
          What in common? These lived at the expense of peasants.

          it was already a consequence! and the estate was created, and the peasants tied, and put overseers!
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 14 2016 09: 21
            +6
            it was already a consequence! and the estate was created, and the peasants tied, and put overseers!


            Well, the Cossacks didn't live off the peasants! (There was a very short episode of "soliciting" in 1614-18, or something, but this lasted literally only a few years)

            The economic analogue of the Cossacks is the "military settlements" of Arakcheev. But for some reason, the Russian peasants did not express any particular joy about such prospects - although in military settlements they gave the same land.

            And to this day, military settlements in Soviet-modern Russian literature are described as "the terrible horrors of tsarism."

            But the Cossacks lived just like that, economically - in "military settlements". And (they just diligently forget) a combat horse and bought the right at their own expense.

            And BEFORE the berdanas and their rifles, acquired at their own expense, were among the Cossacks.

            But such izheya somehow did not fit the Russians - so what is the claim to kakzak?
            1. Spnsr
              Spnsr April 14 2016 09: 32
              0
              Quote: AK64
              But such izheya somehow did not fit the Russians - so what is the claim to kakzak?

              sorry! you do not catch the train of thought! In addition, give examples of experiments that were just because of the decomposition of the nobility, but also do not see the cause and effect !!!
              and where is the claim to Cossacks on my part?
              if you reveal my point of view and go further centuries away from a story less familiar to us, it is very similar to the fact that the Cossacks are a military estate, and which we are presented with in books as a yoke, a horde, and even there, pick up an analogy yourself! and all those nationalities that arose later, much later, were farmers, pastoralists, artisans, traders, who are trying to transfer the glory of the military estate in order to destroy it.
              and it began with the Romanovs, and the reason for this was one, as in the beginning of the 20th century, the opposition of the new government !!!
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 14 2016 10: 40
                +1
                sorry! you do not catch the train of thought!

                But where can we "understand": we are simple people.

                In addition, give examples of experiments that were just because of the decomposition of the nobility, but also do not see the cause and effect !!!

                What difference does it make to that "reason"? Fact is fact: the tsarist government tried to organize "Cossacks" (the economic equivalent) from Russian peasants - but the peasants took this attempt as a terrible exploitation.
                But the Cossacks lived just like that in RI for two centuries! Before that, they simply lived in war.

                What is it like living in war? To give birth to children, to housekeeping - and there is war around: Polovtsy, Nogais, Krymchaks, Chechens climb ... And here you are, all so incomprehensible - and with children.
                But this was the Cossack life of several centuries.
                Only in the 18th (!!!) century did the situation change for the Cossacks.

                and where is the claim to Cossacks on my part?
                if you reveal my point of view and go further centuries away from a history less familiar to us, it is very similar to the fact that the Cossacks are a military estate, and which we are presented with in books as a yoke, a horde, and even there, pick up an analogy yourself!

                No. "This is how it was all"
                I won’t tell (out of fear of heaps of minuses, locals gravitate towards what tendency to minus everything that they did not understand)
                I’ll just notice that brodniks and their atoman are mentioned at Kalk, where they were allies of the Mongols. (Which is natural.) It was the atman of Brodnik Ploskin who convinced the princes to surrender to the Mongols.
                And the city of that left two [with 1] governor Chygirkhan and Teshyukhan against Mstislav and his son-in-law Andrei and against Alexander Dubrovitsky: because there were two princes with Mstislav. There were brodniks with Tatars right there, and their governor Ploschyny, and that cursed kissed the cross honest to Mstislav and both princes that they would not be killed, but released for ransom, and he cursed the cursed: passing them, tied, to the Tatars; and the city was taken and the people were chopped and then they fell with bones; and they crushed the princes by laying them under the boards, and themselves sat down to dine on top, and so their life [2] ended.



                and all those nationalities that arose later, much later, were farmers, pastoralists, artisans, traders, who are trying to transfer the glory of the military estate in order to destroy it.

                There was no "estate". You would have figured out what "class" is. There were FOUR estates since the 19th century: noblemen, priesthood, philistines and peasants. Cossacks were written in the peasants. But at the same time "nationality" (there was such a term in the 19th century) - the Cossacks.
                Nationality, understand? Or, in our opinion, that is, in your opinion, according to the scientist - an ethnic group.
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator April 14 2016 16: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: AK64
                  Cossacks were written among peasants.

                  No need to lie. Cossacks are a separate estate and this was in all documents of the empire. They were given certain benefits for their service. They were not even drafted into the army and served in a separate order.
                  Not to know such substances and lie insolently must still be able to.
                  Quote: AK64
                  But at the same time "nationality" (there was such a term in the 19th century) - the Cossacks.

                  Whose term and who? In the documents of the Republic of Ingushetia, there were no estates of any KAZAKH nationality. Moreover, the tsars created from ZERO four Cossack military Siberian, Zabaikalsky, Ussuriisk and Semirechensk. Is that also a nationality?
                  Quote: AK64
                  Nationality, understand? Or, in our opinion, that is, in your opinion, according to the scientist - an ethnic group.

                  I understand, for example, Crimean people live in Crimea, etc. The nationality is not equal to the ethnic group.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 14 2016 16: 06
                    +3
                    No need to lie.

                    boor recorded in the emergency.

                    But what is surprising: after all 8 races said, look at the article "estates" at least in Wiki. After all, this is a matter of five minutes, even if you read the syllables.
                2. Spnsr
                  Spnsr April 14 2016 16: 41
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  But where can we "understand": we are simple people.

                  why are you so about yourself?
                  I just wanted to say about too memorized material that forms a stereotype of perception, for whose inertness you do not catch other causal relationships!
                  Quote: AK64
                  No. "This is how it was all"
                  I won’t tell (out of fear of heaps of minuses, locals gravitate towards what tendency to minus everything that they did not understand)
                  I’ll just notice that brodniks and their atoman are mentioned at Kalk, where they were allies of the Mongols. (Which is natural.) It was the atman of Brodnik Ploskin who convinced the princes to surrender to the Mongols.
                  as you see, you yourself give an example in which, to use modern terms, the commander of the local power structure, subject of the federation, convinced the rulers of the municipality and the governors to obey the feds! ... rude! but...
                  Quote: AK64
                  There was no "estate". You would have figured out what "class" is. There were FOUR estates since the 19th century: noblemen, priesthood, philistines and peasants. Cossacks were written in the peasants. But at the same time "nationality" (there was such a term in the 19th century) - the Cossacks.
                  Nationality, understand? Or, in our opinion, that is, in your opinion, according to the scientist - an ethnic group.
                  But this is really superfluous! you either openly lie, or you don’t understand where the materials you’ve learned, what you really learned? what you think is described at the end of the 18th century! and you never asked yourself why exactly the 18th century! and why with the Cossacks in such a derogatory form for them !? But this was the most combat-ready unit, in whatever language they spoke and in what religion they did not belong! the unit that fed itself, trained itself, provided itself with military property !!!
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 14 2016 17: 02
                    +1
                    as you see, you yourself give an example in which, to use modern terms, the commander of the local power structure, subject of the federation, convinced the rulers of the municipality and the governors to obey the feds! ... rude! but...

                    Your aberration of vision is amazing: something like hysterical blindness.
                    Why is this with you, huh?

                    After all, I gave you a proof, and it seems to me an exhaustive proof that already in the 13th century the Cossacks existed and even pursued a policy. (They were organized for the war, had an ataman - "voivode". And acted as allies of the Mongols)

                    But you managed to see something completely different in the same text .... Something completely incomprehensible to me ...

                    How so?


                    But this is really superfluous! you either openly lie, or you don’t understand where the materials you’ve learned, what you really learned? what you think is described at the end of the 18th century! and you never asked yourself why exactly the 18th century! and why with the Cossacks in such a derogatory form for them !? But this was the most combat-ready unit, in whatever language they spoke and in what religion they did not belong! the unit that fed itself, trained itself, provided itself with military property !!!


                    Sorry, but I'm not able to understand what you're trying to say here.
                    But the fact that you have all the signs of hysteria is what I see.
                    Tell me, why is the banal idea that the Cossacks is an ethnos (existing, as you saw, in the 13th century, Yes, and previously existing), leads you into such indignation?
                    What in This so unacceptable for you?

                    This idea is unacceptable only for two categories of persons (which, in fact, when you look closely, merges into one category).
                    Do you belong to this category? But then you should not talk with you - because for this particular category - this is a matter of not faith, no - this is a question of RELIGION. Well, with religious fanatics there’s nothing to talk about.
                    1. Spnsr
                      Spnsr April 14 2016 22: 05
                      0
                      Quote: AK64
                      Sorry, but I'm not able to understand what you're trying to say here.

                      you miss, as if on purpose, that there was blood tithe, a kind of appeal that was paid by all subjects of the state, and these are all peoples, respectively, the Cossacks are not a nation, but the totality of all nations, which, as now, can be attributed to the military caste, and in part it was at the first Romanovs that later they tried to break forming the nobility!
                      Quote: AK64
                      But the fact that you have all the signs of tantrum

                      your feeling can be explained by the fact that it seems to me that I'm talking to a person who is able to think logically, but actually made a mistake, losing sight of the stereotype of consciousness of the learned material, in which there is a general line of presenting history, but there is no logic ...
                      I’m not trying to insult, I’m just trying to help you get distracted from your stereotypes, for which you don’t notice small but solid facts that fundamentally change the perception of history!
                      don’t be relieved!
                      just read the story abstractedly from the general line, a similar perception I gave you
                      Quote: AK64
                      No. "This is how it was all"
                      I won’t tell (out of fear of heaps of minuses, locals gravitate towards what tendency to minus everything that they did not understand)
                      I’ll just notice that brodniks and their atoman are mentioned at Kalk, where they were allies of the Mongols. (Which is natural.) It was the atman of Brodnik Ploskin who convinced the princes to surrender to the Mongols.
                      as you see, you yourself give an example in which, to use modern terms, the commander of the local power structure, subject of the federation, convinced the rulers of the municipality and the governors to obey the feds! ... rude! but...

                      Quote: AK64
                      But the fact that you have all the signs of hysteria is what I see.

                      laughing is it an attempt to put pressure on my composure? laughing and about
                      Quote: AK64
                      What is so unacceptable to you in this?

                      This idea is unacceptable only for two categories of persons (which, in fact, when you look closely, merges into one category).
                      Do you belong to this category? But then you should not talk with you - because for this particular category - this is a matter of not faith, no - this is a question of RELIGION. Well, with religious fanatics there’s nothing to talk about.

                      I want the truth, not the general line of interpretation of history! where they are derogatory to the ancestors of a large mass of people!
                      but in general, we read everything too, but for some reason some see the general line of history, although it does not have logic, and do not notice small details, but which are logical, and can turn the whole interpretation of history !!!
                      and regarding communication, don’t get personal, you don’t need to, but it’s better if you are hurt by distracting from the general line and try to read the same story that you are interpreting here only from the point of view of the discussion rival! we all read the same story here, we just see it in different ways !!!
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 April 14 2016 22: 19
                        +1
                        you miss as if on purpose, h .....


                        Dear friend, have you come here from the eastern bazaar?

                        Don’t be offended --- we just see the methods.

                        People speak on the subject: simple and straightforward. Oriental merchants weave a long nonsense, hoping to hypnotize the client.

                        I, you see, European: when I see a nonsense - I do not try to get into IT: I understand - this is nonsense. This is to hang noodles on the ears.

                        This is your ethnic trick - and again we treat this with understanding: you are eastern people, but you won’t run away from yourself.

                        But you still try to understand that in the modern world the European mentality rules. And if you do not correspond, then no one will listen to you simply. Nobody will delve into your Asian twists - we are not interested in this corny.

                        The point, I repeat, is yours: hit to survive - reach for the samples. And to you, to Asia, no one will descend.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Spnsr
                        Spnsr April 14 2016 23: 17
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        Don’t be offended --- we just see the methods.

                        laughing can say cute!
                        you are trying to define the Cossacks as a nationality, something like, "The Russians are one people, but the constituents are nationalities!" in general terms, but this is exactly what can be traced from your comments.
                        but on the other hand, you emphasize that they are mentioned in a similar way in the 19th century, or rather at the end of the 18th century, when they describe the ethnic groups of the Republic of Ingushetia, and here excuse me, the winners write history (in European or Asian?)
                        specially for the european! also you mention
                        I’ll just notice that brodniks and their atoman are mentioned at Kalk, where they were allies of the Mongols. (Which is natural.) It was the atman of Brodnik Ploskin who convinced the princes to surrender to the Mongols.
                        we will not understand who the wanderers are, we will leave only the chieftain! all the same, the 13th century, and not 17-18, where one of the interpretations that the Cossacks are runaway peasants! again, we will not go into the details of the emergence of serfdom, consolidating it for the nobility! - not that topic.
                        you see, if you sort through the whole history, all interpretations, and references, all the side noise, this site does not have enough servers, because some of them have 14th century and Ryazan connected with Cossacks, others have runaway peasants and Pugachev and 17th century people; fourth, also fluent, but Yermak, fifth, are trying to generalize all the noise and replace it with Donskoys, with others in virtually every province! and this at least pushes us to think that this is, first of all, a military formation, and only then a nationality, but of the province from which they were called ....
                        Quote: AK64
                        Dear friend
                        and please, as a friend, don’t bother yourself with Europioidness, well, of course, Adnak’s civilization, but believe me, Asians also know how to tease very subtly, I’ll say right away, not a hint, but
                        Quote: AK64
                        I, you see, a European: It’s, I repeat, yours: hit to survive - reach for the samples. And to you, in Asia, no one will descend.

                        something, adnaka, I’m better in my territory, those samples do not delight me! but if you want to survive, then somehow away from their samples !!! or is this whole akalesitsa about ethnic trick including, a new way for the historians when someone disagrees with their interpretation of history !?
          2. Voima-liitto
            Voima-liitto April 14 2016 10: 25
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            The economic analogue of the Cossacks is the "military settlements" of Arakcheev.

            This is in which particular place ?!
            The fact that the Cossacks were economically and socially independent, even if they bought the same horse for their money, but in their own of property had, like the land - and the settlers were the usual serfs who worked and served and at the same time had nothing of their own, doesn't it bother you?
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 10: 45
              +2
              This is in which particular place ?!

              In such.
              The fact that the Cossacks were economically and socially independent, even if they bought the same horse for their money, but they owned as land, and the settlers were ordinary serfs, who worked and at the same time served and nothing didn’t have their own, doesn’t it bother you?

              Economically - exactly the same: land was given in a fair amount in the southern regions. Moreover, military settlers received military equipment from the state (the Cossacks then had EVERYTHING of their own).
              And they did not have landowners (though there was a commander), and there were no corvee corps either.

              But - they didn’t want, for some reason. And why would that be?

              However, it must be said that as a result of the WWII, the Cossacks, too ... ceased to want to be Cossacks, that is, to fight. Well, apparently a general degeneration.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 14 2016 10: 59
                +2
                By the way, for the sake of accuracy I will add: not only in Russia there were attempts to create "military settlements" and "Cossacks." In Austria-Hungary, they tried too (and quite successfully, although there is a smaller scale).
                In A-Hungary, these were border "Croats" (in this case, this is not a nationality, but a "type of citizens") - it was organized artificially on the same principles as the Cossacks: "here's the land on the borders --- that's defend the border and come to the service with a horse! "
                Incidentally, the appearance of the troops did not last long, and somehow disappeared somewhere in the 19th century, becoming peasants.

                Well, in principle, "payment in blood" (that is, military service in the war instead of taxes) was quite common in Asia: the Turks, Tajiks, the same Kurds, but you never know who ... in this sense, they were constantly used approximately as Cossacks.

                But only "payment in blood" was always and everywhere perceived as a grave form of oppression, and the Cossacks (and perhaps the Bashkirs and Kalmyks) are unique in that they were proud of it.

                The tsarist government also made attempts to "deny" (that is, the transfer of the Cossacks to the tax class). But the Cossacks resisted sharply, and the government did not want to arrange unrest and riots.

                An example of the introduction of "tax" is the Bulavin uprising ("Kondratiy had enough")
              2. Mavrikiy
                Mavrikiy April 15 2016 16: 59
                0
                [quote = AK64] [quote] This is in which place is that ?!! [/ quote]
                In such.
                [quote] The fact

                However, it must be said that as a result of the WWII, the Cossacks, too ... ceased to want to be Cossacks, that is, to fight. Well, apparently a general degeneration. [/ Quote]
                Famously, famously ... Maybe WWII is not to blame, but the Great October Social Revolution? Then maybe there is no degeneration?
                1. vvp2
                  vvp2 April 15 2016 17: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Mavrikiy
                  and the Great October Social Revolution?

                  And what was that? Are you firmly convinced of this, or was someone just crafty telling you about this? Misled you, so to speak.
            2. 97110
              97110 April 14 2016 15: 06
              0
              Quote: Voima-liitto
              but they owned, like land

              Own land - and redistributions were regularly carried out, according to the composition of the family. Strange some form of ownership.
            3. Hlavaty
              Hlavaty April 14 2016 16: 49
              +2
              Quote: Voima-liitto
              but they owned, like land

              Poor you know what you're talking about.

              Among the Cossacks, the land belonged to "society" - that is, to all the Cossacks of the village. Every year, there was a redistribution of land depending on the number of Cossacks in the family, and then lots were thrown to whom what allotments would go to, so that no one would have any offenses.
        2. Hlavaty
          Hlavaty April 14 2016 09: 34
          +1
          Wow consequence! This is a fundamental difference.

          Cossacks lived on the border, provided for themselves, created their own economy and worked on it, trained themselves in martial art, equipped themselves, etc. And all this on a distant border (at that time as on another planet). All posts are elective. Authority had to be won by real deeds.

          And the nobles lived out of the mercy of the king and at the expense of the villages he had bestowed. And they tried to stay close to the capital and the king. The authority is not by deeds but by the grace of the king (office, land ...) And how they were measured among themselves by generosity ...
          No wonder they were called "nobles" - which means at the royal court.

          This is a completely different psychology. Different worlds.
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr April 14 2016 09: 40
            0
            Quote: Hlavaty
            And the nobles lived out of the mercy of the king and at the expense of the villages he had bestowed. And they tried to stay close to the capital and the king. The authority is not by deeds but by the grace of the king (office, land ...) And how they were measured among themselves by generosity ...

            Can you read?
            1. Hlavaty
              Hlavaty April 14 2016 16: 50
              +2
              Quote: SpnSr
              Can you read?

              You will be surprised, I can even write :)
          2. 97110
            97110 April 14 2016 15: 11
            0
            Quote: Hlavaty
            No wonder they were called "nobles" - which means at the royal court.

            I doubt your correctness. The noblemen are servants, they gave the village, did not present what was supposed to be examined, they took it away. Do not confuse with the boyars, who were measured against the nobility, the merits of the clan - "localized". And there is no need to bring it to the XNUMXth century, with its "personal" nobility, and the Cossacks, which have lost the signs of an organized criminal group, which was under the last Rurikovichs and the first Romanovs.
            1. Hlavaty
              Hlavaty April 14 2016 16: 41
              0
              Then it turns out that you are talking about some very short segment of the history of the nobility. I don’t even know which one.
              Is that about that "chosen thousand" selected by Ivan the Terrible in 1550. So, less than a hundred years later, the Council Code of 1649 secured the right of the nobles to eternal possession and an unlimited search for fugitive peasants. That is, it made them slave owners.
              Cossacks were never slaveholders. I say different psychology and values.
      2. Basil50
        Basil50 April 14 2016 11: 23
        -7
        ak64. And so * Cossacks * lived at the expense of peasants, it was already at the end of the 19th century that some impoverished began to plow, and the rich never * plowed *. For this, they hired * Mitki * from RUSSIA.
        1. Hlavaty
          Hlavaty April 14 2016 16: 32
          +3
          I wish my great-grandfathers were amazed at your words.
          And then they would tell you how they set up the village of Plastunovskaya on the border with the highlanders, where "Mitki" from Russia and as part of the army very rarely reached. How they had to plow and fight.
          Do not say that which you do not know!
      3. The comment was deleted.
  2. stas
    stas April 14 2016 19: 43
    0
    Criticizing is easier. Like I have the right, I myself am from a Cossack family.
    And what do you suggest, close and forget.

    Need to revive. There will be growth sickness, but you need to go forward.
    And not Mr. Blinkov to wind the dog’s tail.
    1. Hlavaty
      Hlavaty April 14 2016 22: 27
      +1
      Quote: stas
      Need to revive.


      But why?
      Today there are no tasks that the Cossacks had previously solved: border guards, border guards, peasants plowing the land. Trying to revive the Cossacks without a real, and most importantly NEEDED STATE task, is to produce amusing troops. What we see today.

      The Kuban Cossack army has five royal monograms on the flag - according to the number of agreements between Cossacks and specific kings that the Cossacks will guard the border of the Russian Empire, and the tsars favor them with liberties, etc. This says that the Cossacks needed the Russian Empire so much that the kings agreed with them.

      Does the present-day Russia need Cossacks SO SO that the state NEGOTIATES about something with the Cossacks? It seems that neither the state knows how the Cossacks can be useful to it, nor the Cossacks themselves know what they can offer the state so unique. Every time when the current "Cossacks" try to take part in something, they find themselves in occupied niches - the police are already busy with the police, self-government is occupied by local authorities, and so on.

      Theoretically, the Cossacks could create a kind of "unique special forces", but whether the state needs such special forces and how it is better than the existing one has to be strongly thought.

      And so "to revive shob bulo" - only to dishonor the memory of real Cossacks. So you can "revive" and hussars and archers and musketeers ... as much as imagination is enough.

      A real Cossack is an alloy of three parts:
      1. Professional combat training.
      2. The highest collective responsibility for the undertaken obligations.
      3. The special status in society, due to the acute need of society for the Cossacks.

      The society does not show an acute need for Cossacks, and, accordingly, the current Cossacks do not take any special obligations. So there are parallel universes ...
      1. stas
        stas April 19 2016 00: 12
        0
        You carry nonsense liberal.
        And the Cossacks at the 9 May parade in Moscow go further, but do not exist!
  • PKK
    PKK April 14 2016 06: 51
    0
    Talking about it, Ulyanov will remember it for centuries. But the Cossacks survived Lenin and will survive all those who wish death to our people !.
    1. bya965
      bya965 April 14 2016 07: 28
      +4
      My relatives, and I was also captured (95 years old), nursed (there were no children) by the cousin of Ataman Krasnov. When asked, Nastoforevna, are you for the Reds or for the Whites, she proudly replied, "I keep neutral."

      Everything is complicated. The same Krasnov (he is not related to me by blood), whether he was a Cossack, whether he loved his Motherland and Russia and would give his life for it. Yes.
      Was he a traitor, too, probably Yes. And for this he gave his life.
  • Mangel olys
    Mangel olys April 14 2016 07: 14
    0
    At A.A. Gordeev, a white officer and historian, is well written about the Cossacks.
    1. Fotoceva62
      Fotoceva62 April 14 2016 08: 31
      +5
      From the memoirs of a white general, chief of staff of the 1st Army Volunteer Corps E.I.Dostavalov: “The path of such generals as Wrangel, Kutepov, Pokrovsky is dotted with hanged and executed without any reason and trial ... However, admittedly, the army was the most bloodthirsty General Pokrovsky. "

      From the memories of an emigrant. N.V. Voronovich. Between Two Lights // Archive of the Russian Revolution. T. 7. - Berlin, 1922:
      "A peasant from the village of Izmailovka, Volchenko, who ran to Sochi, recounted even more nightmarish scenes that played out in front of him during the occupation of Maikop by the detachment of General Pokrovsky.

      Pokrovsky ordered the execution of all the local council members and other prisoners who had not managed to escape from Maykop. To intimidate the population, the execution was public. At first it was supposed to hang all those sentenced to death, but then it turned out that the gallows would not be enough. Then feasted all night and pretty drunk Cossacks turned to the general with a request to allow them to chop off the heads of the convicted. General allowed. At the bazaar near the gallows, on which the executed Bolsheviks were already hanging, several wooden blocks were put up, and the Cossacks, drunk with wine and blood, began to chop heads and workers with axes and sabers. Very few killed right away, but the majority of those executed, after the first blow, the checkers jumped up with gaping wounds on their heads, they fell down on the chopping block again and again began to chop ...
      Volchenko, a young 25-year-old guy, became completely gray from his experience in Maikop. "
      1. MrK
        MrK April 14 2016 13: 05
        +6
        Thank you Fotoceva62. I will supplement it.
        In 1996, a well-known Soviet journalist told the members of the Japanese delegation how historical justice was being restored in Russia, how criminal records were removed from innocently convicted damned Bolsheviks.
        The Japanese listened and clapped their eyes for a long time. And then they asked: did they judge them according to the laws of that time? The journalist replied that in general, YES.
        Then the Japanese exploded, even with their restraint: so how can you cancel the then legal decisions of the then legal courts.
        And added: Why didn’t Lenin rehabilitate his hanged brother Alexander in 1918? That Lenin did not have such an opportunity?
        The journalist was silent.
        And for the article, as they say in Ukraine, they would kill.
        After all, only unfortunate Russia begins to heal the bloody wounds of the revolution and the civilian, as soon as the Polina, Svanidza, Aleksander creep out and begin to poke their rusty wounds in healing wounds.
        All this trash ... he’s not looking for the truth. Why look for her. Read the great Sholokhov. Why should they read about the personal tragedy of the Cossacks according to Sholokhov. They continue to think - how to excite the country, to bring to a new Civil.

        As if there were no 16 divisions of Cossacks who fought in the Red Army during the Second World War. As if there was no Cossack guard at the Red Banner in 1938, at the congress of the CPSU (b).
        And as for our story, one non-stupid person said: You, Russians, strange people, take off your pants and show the whole world your SCARFY PLACES - they say, look what we have. But all countries of the "Great West" have these places. But they don’t take off their trousers and DO NOT DEMONSTRATE HIMSELF to other nations. Shame on the article and a big minus. Sincerely.
        1. Rivares
          Rivares April 15 2016 18: 20
          +1
          Quote: mrark
          You, Russians, strange people, take off your pants and show the whole world your SCARFY PLACES - they say, look what we have. But all countries of the "Great West" have these places. But they don’t take off their trousers and DO NOT DEMONSTRATE HIMSELF to other nations. Shame on the article and a big minus.

          You must remember your history. This is the first thing. Secondly, the revolution was carried out according to Jewish ideology (Marx), with Jewish and foreign money, and mostly by Jewish leaders. But for some reason the revolution was called Russian. And the revolutionaries tried to physically destroy the Cossacks as capable of providing armed resistance and blame it on the Russians, "modestly" forgetting to mention the international Jewish contribution.
      2. Hlavaty
        Hlavaty April 14 2016 22: 37
        0
        Quote: Fotoceva62
        most of those executed after the first hit, the checkers jumped up with gaping wounds on their heads


        I don’t know that you read such interesting books in your UK, but if the Cossack couldn’t take off his head with a saber, then he was not considered a Cossack. A Cossack SHOULD own a checker, otherwise his own men will be sent home with shame to uncles to study with the Cossacks.

        It looks like another fantasy on the topic of bloodthirsty Cossacks.
  • bekjan
    bekjan April 14 2016 07: 20
    +1
    The Cossacks were a selected detachment of A.V. Suvorov, whom he loved. The sovereigns respected the Cossacks, the Basurmans were afraid to death !!!
  • Riv
    Riv April 14 2016 07: 20
    +8
    Like small children, in kind. Snot, tears and Russia that we lost. :)

    Guys, I’ll tell you a great secret right now: it was not the Bolsheviks who started the talk. Not even the Social Revolutionaries. It all began just during the reign of Ataman Krasnov, who set the task to destroy all the supporters of Soviet power. The corresponding decree directed against the Red Cossacks was adopted by the Don Rescue Circle in May 1918, almost a year before the directive of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.).

    About 1400 sentences were passed (many by tens or even hundreds of people) about the expulsion of sympathizers of Soviet power from the Cossack class - with the deprivation of all Cossack rights and benefits, confiscation of property and land, expulsion from the Don or for forced labor. More than 50 such sentences were published in the government newspapers Donskoy Krai and Donskoye Vedomosti. Based on these data, I made a calculation that showed: up to 30 thousand red Cossacks and their families were completely deprived and persecuted.

    The decree of the Great Army Circle, directed against front-line Cossacks who entered the Red Army, came out in October of that year - all red Cossacks who were captured were executed.

    So didn’t the Cossacks get it right?
    1. bya965
      bya965 April 14 2016 07: 42
      +6
      Quote: Riv
      So didn’t the Cossacks get it right?

      Whose wake yourself? I’ll walk your kindred.

      Do not touch my ancestors, everything has happened. Then they all wanted to separate. We Cossacks love order. In work, in life, in the ranks. And then literally anarchy. Earth to the people (land decree). The Cossacks, the peasants, and so had a communal way. There was no private ownership of land.

      Rather, Don will flow back than the Cossacks recognize private ownership of land.

      Until the land is given to the Cossacks for eternal (community) use. For example, so that nickel is not mined in Voronezh land, the Cossacks will not be reborn.
      1. MrK
        MrK April 14 2016 11: 28
        +3
        Quote: bya965
        We Cossacks love order. In work, in life, in the ranks.


        It is not necessary to measure all Cossacks with one arshin.
        From Kurlyandchik: "In general, the myth of the" hardworking Cossacks "who were ruined by the Reds needs some correction. The Cossacks, of course, for the most part were really hardworking. the elite, the notorious "foreman", who lived like any elite, was very sweet at all - and wanted to preserve their rather big privileges at any cost.
        Here is a document of the era: an appearance in one of the Ural newspapers in December of the seventeenth year of an ordinary Cossack, a delegate of his own hundred. He told interesting things ... "The first Army Circle in May of the seventeenth passed, if without the separative lusts of our military bureaucrats, but then every officer and official who appeared appeared to have a passionate desire to get into this or that post on self-government by the army. Each tried to find the guilt of the former servants of the army and sit in their place, i.e. get salaries, and there even though the grass does not grow. The elected revision commission discovered enormous thefts of military capital, which was used exclusively to improve the welfare of our officers: for example, in the suburb of Orenburg “Forstadt”, populated exclusively by Cossack generals, officers and officials, piped water was installed and the best fire convoy was launched.
        The children of these ranks studied in secondary and higher educational institutions at the expense of the same capital. Estimates were deliberately annually drawn up with balances, and these balances were distributed by ranks as a reward and allowance only to oneself, etc.
        ».
        Now it’s clear, reader, what were the stakes in the game, and why did the elite of all three of the above-mentioned Cossack troops strive to give a damn about Russia's troubles to carve out a cozy independent power?
        «In a word, our military bureaucracy lived no worse than the landowners, and therefore it is not easy to part with such a fat piece as military capital. The latter was mainly made up of the lease for plowing of the army’s free lands ... Having uncontrolled possession of about 400 000 tithes (I remind: tithes - about a hectare) of free military land, 437 487 of military harrows and forest dachas, the bureaucracy had a huge income and spent his own discretion ..."(I will explain: The military harrow is a plot for plowing." Forest cottage "is simply a plot of forest used for certain needs).
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 11: 38
          +1
          to remind that they also had their own elite, the notorious “foreman”,

          only the genocide fell not on the "so-called srarshina", but on the Cossack masses.
          and why would it be like that, eh?
    2. Portolan
      Portolan April 14 2016 07: 48
      -1
      Quote: Riv
      The corresponding decree directed against the Red Cossacks was adopted by the Don Rescue Circle in May 1918, almost a year before the directive of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.).



      Cossacks were a separate caste of military and prosperous proprietors with tax and other privileges under the tsar, so the fact that the Bolsheviks deceived the peasants of inner Russia by promising to give land was not relevant for the Cossacks, the Cossacks always had land. Therefore, when food surplus-war communism began in 18, and in fact legalized robbery was the impetus for the civil war.
      As for your concern for the "Red Cossacks", there were not so many of them, they were landless renegades who did not understand the connection with their family and all the falsity of the Jewish elite of Bolshevism, which is well described by Sholokhov.
      1. revnagan
        revnagan April 14 2016 11: 51
        -1
        Quote: Portolan
        when food surplus-military communism began in 18, and in fact legalized robbery was the impetus for the civil war.

        Just about, it’s necessary to start from this: the Cossack surplus was imposed AS ON ALL THE OTHER PEASANTS! Well, what impudence, huh? There was nothing like that with the king, but here you are! You have to pay tax on products! Robbery! that classes were destroyed in the RSFSR and there were no more privileges for anyone — it didn’t even come to the Cossack! So they rose (and by no means all). The poorest Cossacks, who lived almost like ordinary peasants, were more than less calm, with understanding.
        1. Portolan
          Portolan April 14 2016 14: 40
          +2
          Quote: revnagan
          The tax must be paid with products! Robbery! And the fact that classes were destroyed in the RSFSR and there were no more privileges for anyone, it didn’t reach the Cossack


          don’t have to scream so loudly, the Cossacks had economic benefits, but they had to be always on alert and in case of war be equipped at their own expense. troops, so the Cossacks did not accept Soviet power.
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) April 14 2016 20: 16
            -2
            Quote: Portolan
            Cossacks was a SUPPORT to the STATE always, under any kings,

            Not to the state but to autocracy, since they served for royal handouts.
            And the full-time Romanov family was precisely the Cossacks who planted the neck of the Russian people.

            Quote: Portolan
            Cossacks it was the best and always fighting forces

            Cossacks knew how to rob. And they could not stand up against regular cavalry. Since they were irregular parts, in fact - a militia. And they skillfully fought against a weak or taken aback enemy.
            1. Hlavaty
              Hlavaty April 14 2016 23: 02
              +2
              Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
              And they could not stand up against regular cavalry. Since they were irregular parts, in fact - a militia. And they skillfully fought against a weak or taken aback enemy.


              Maybe you don’t need to so clearly demonstrate your ignorance of history?
              List all the regular armies that Zaporozhye Cossacks piled on, then became Kuban and Terek?
              Remind who conquered Siberia and Central Asia?
              Do you know that Pavel 1 agreed with Napoleon to conquer India from the British and sent the Cossack corps of General Platov there? So the Angles got so overwhelmed by this news that Pavel 1 was urgently killed, and father-killer Alexander 1 returned Platov’s corps from halfway to India.
              Tell how that Cossack corps of Platov and other Cossack regiments smashed Napoleon’s regular French cavalry? And by the way, not only French - with Napoleon, the whole of Europe got into Russia with Russia. So the Cossacks smashed both German and Polish, and hell-still-knows what a regular cavalry.
              And in the First World Cossack Lava terrified the German regular cavalry and the Austro-Hungarian hussars (and they were far from children).
              But did you know that during the Great Patriotic War, the cavalry corps of General Belov was operating in the German rear. This is a unique story because behind the Germans in a large territory more than five months the Soviet government acted and the Germans could not do anything with this cavalry corps, and ours even arranged for the restoration of tanks.
              And this is not a complete list of Cossack feats.

              So you did not offend the Cossacks, you exposed yourself as an ignoramus
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 14 2016 16: 16
        +2
        Cossacks were a separate caste of military and wealthy owners who had tax and other privileges under the tsar,


        Not true

        Cossacks are not a "caste" - they are an ethnos. Or Nationality (ethnos, nationality - the same thing).
        The Cossacks were not "military" - they were "peasants" by class. (Look at last what is Estate!)
        The Cossacks were not "wealthy owners": the land was the property of the Troops, not the "owners".
        The Cossacks had no "tax benefits".
        Bashkirs and Kalmyks also had tax benefits. Both of them were legally in the same position as the Cossacks. But ... The devil is always in the details: according to the schedule, the Cossacks put up a fixed number of those for service, depending on martial law (first, second and third priority); neither the Kalmyks nor the Bashkirs had such a situation.

        In fact, even the need to buy and maintain a combat horse at your own expense (on which you can’t work - but who needs to be fed with something), not to mention the rest of the help, was a heavy burden, which far from everyone could do: fundraising for the help the poor Cossacks were a fairly ordinary affair.

        As a result, WWI Cossacks-front-line soldiers were the initiators of the "raid", that is, the abolition of the "service payment" in favor of the banal payment of taxes.

        Moreover, the most surprising thing is that in RI the peasants through most of the history .. did not pay taxes. It was a tax and other burdens - but not taxes. Even the introduction of serfdom was on the part of the state a way to receive (indirectly) taxes from the peasantry.
    3. AK64
      AK64 April 14 2016 08: 41
      +6
      So didn’t the Cossacks get it right?

      In February 1918, the Cossacks did not support the whites. Most (practically all) of the villages have declared "neutrality". That is, the red authorities were treated "neutrally" - and the authorities had the opportunity to both attract the Cossacks and alienate them.

      And what did the red power do by occupying the area of ​​the Don Cossacks? (I do not write "Soviet", because the advice at that moment was already only nominally)

      And having occupied the area of ​​the Army, the red power began the GENOCIDE.

      Usually the beginning of the genocide is referred to in the "Sverlov directive", February 1919. So, this is not true: the actual genocide began a year before, in February 1918.
      The Cossacks were ordered to surrender their weapons - and they surrendered their weapons. And immediately began the Robberies, violence, courtless killings. Correspondingly, at the end of March the Lower Don Don Uprising took place, which immediately spread to the whole region. It was from this that the Civil War began.

      And if the Bolsheviks behaved decently --- there wouldn’t be any war.

      The uprising was a completely spontaneous response to violence; NOBODY led it. Only later was Kasnov elected ataman.

      (Krasnov, it should be noted, was a "people's chieftain", and not to the white court, and the whites "re-elected" him - this is just in case Krasnov's "whiteness".)

      Now ask yourself: WHY Did the Reds begin to carry out such a "policy" towards the Cossacks? (There is a reason, there is also an answer. But the answer lies in the area of ​​completely irrational, this is sheer surrealism.)
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 14 2016 08: 49
        +3
        By the way, I’ll add a little bit about the spontaneity of the uprisings:

        The Kuban revolted only in May --- when the red power also reached it.

        Terek, where the red power reached much later --- rebelled only in July! Moreover, on the Terek River, in general, the Reds began to create utter chaos: Cossack villages began to give to the Chechens. Can you imagine?
        First, the Cossacks demanded to surrender their weapons - and the Cossacks surrendered (and this in June - despite the fact that Don had been fighting for 3 months). And then .... they passed the villages to the Chechens.
        Imagined?

        Naturally, Terek also revolted.
      2. Riv
        Riv April 14 2016 15: 45
        +1
        Yes, what other genocide ???

        As historian L. Futoryansky notes, estimates of the number of victims of the order of hundreds of thousands and even a million people that have been widely used in recent years do not have documentary evidence and are "fantastic." According to documented materials of the Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation of the Bolshevik Atrocities, the number of people shot by the Reds in the second half of 1918-1919. in the territory of the troops of the Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territories amounted to 5 598 people, of which 3 442 people were shot in the Don, 2 142 people - in the Kuban and Stavropol Territory. At the same time, the historian L. Futoryansky notes that the numbers contained in the materials of the commission are exaggerated, and during the same period during the white terror carried out under the regime of Krasnov, according to various sources, from 25 to 40 thousand Cossacks were destroyed. Professor Pavel Golub, Doctor of Historical Sciences, gives the following data on the same issue: “... in total, during the Red War, that is, from May 1918 to February 1919, at least 45 thousand supporters of Soviet power on the Don were brutally exterminated.

        Do you still have questions "why"?
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 16: 03
          +2
          Yes, what other genocide ???


          Indeed, out of about 5 million Cossacks, about 1.5 million remained in Ri, and even those ... very dubious Cossacks. What kind of LCD is this "genocide"?

          But no "genocide", no, no - I saw the movie "Kuban Cossacks"!

          So Pioneer Truth wrote that there was no genocide.
        2. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 16: 03
          -1
          Yes, what other genocide ???


          Indeed, out of about 5 million Cossacks, about 1.5 million remained in Ri, and even those ... very dubious Cossacks. What kind of LCD is this "genocide"?

          But no "genocide", no, no - I saw the movie "Kuban Cossacks"!

          So Pioneer Truth wrote that there was no genocide.
    4. Aleksander
      Aleksander April 14 2016 11: 00
      0
      Quote: Riv
      Like small children, in kind. Snot, tears and Russia we lost


      Communists are like small children, in kind. Snot, tears and Soviet authoritythat we have lost. lol
      And for which-NO ONE did not get up, nor ONE Bolshevik sobbing today. Jumped like cockroaches ...lol

      А for Russia fought with the junta of Rosenfeld blanks whole four years.

      They fought so that the Bolshevik never appears cannibal island nazino
      1. Riv
        Riv April 15 2016 07: 41
        +1
        To dismiss the Bolsheviks and the Communists of the flood of the 90s is about the same as comparing the Cossacks of the late 19th century with modern clowns.
    5. Boatsman_Palych
      Boatsman_Palych April 14 2016 12: 59
      +2
      It is useless to prove something to sectarians - and modern "Cossacks" are precisely a sect. What is the only nonsense in the article about the Cossacks taking the oath to the tsar. A girl who listened to a cycle of fairy tales on historical themes from the "Cossacks" or from a local priest surely believes that the Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar-priest, too.
      1. Riv
        Riv April 14 2016 15: 46
        -1
        Sect??? Let's just say: clowns.
      2. hoplite
        hoplite April 15 2016 01: 44
        -1
        Yeah, I agree. How much nonsense, how many groans in the article ... Here the supporters of the Cossacks recall how Sholokhov exposed something there. And that Sholokhov accurately described Cossack robberies, not a gugo.
        They are faithful to the state and order. Oh, oh. about loyalty to order - tell Denikin whose offensive failed because of the betrayal of the White Cossacks. Tsar, that the year under arrest he was not so far from the Cossack lands before the execution. temporary, which in October, one disciplined regiment would be enough to hold power.
        To the state - remember about Krasnov. It’s not the first time that he betrayed his homeland in the Great Patriotic War. He tried to do the same in civilian fashion, he wrote to the Kaiser about the conditions under which Russia would help him to get it.
        They wanted to secede. Yeah. Having taken with them lands not inhabited by Cossacks, that they did not want to separate from the country. Including never being Cossack, such as Tsaritsyn.
        In general, they were not white and fluffy innocently injured. It was civilian and the Cossacks in it were far from famous for the cleanliness of their clothes.
        And what the story-telling happened-so the storytelling was not genocide, as sectarians now lie. It was a deprivation of class privileges.
        1. vvp2
          vvp2 April 15 2016 02: 16
          0
          Quote: hoplite
          remember about Krasnov. It’s not the first time that he betrayed his homeland in the Great Patriotic War.

          He did not betray anyone. You had a different homeland with him. In the same territory.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 15 2016 02: 20
            +2
            You had a different homeland with him.


            Actually, the mistake is even here.
            For Krasnov - Country.

            The difference is very significant: Country somehow implies "land and the rights of the fathers."
            And what is "homeland"? Yes, only the place of birth, but somehow not a word about rights. (Not to mention property.)

            That's why everyone had Country, and only the Soviet homeland.

            Check: everyone has Country.
  • semirek
    semirek April 14 2016 07: 28
    0
    Thank you Polina for a good article about the Cossacks, yes there were times, but now the Cossacks are dead, they can live only according to the laws of Cossack life, which were abolished to some extent by the Cossacks themselves in 17, there are descendants of the Cossacks, I would say "red" The Don Cossacks, as well as the rest of the Cossack troops, rushed between the red whites, some promised incredible wealth, when they were taken away from the rich, others promised to return all the Cossack and former glory, the result is deplorable, the Cossacks fell, their best representatives went to a foreign land, forever, and the Cossacks shared the fate of the whole country.
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 14 2016 07: 49
    +6
    Everything is complicated .. Great-grandfather, owned a large plot of land in the Zimovnikovsky district, rented more land, seven children, two daughters, five sons .. During the revolution and the civil war, the sons in the Red Army ... their great-grandfather fisted .. He will come to the collective farm meeting , the presiding officer says: "Enemies of the people, get out of the hall" .. and he was already old, he didn’t hear well .. I didn’t understand what they mean .. Grandma, he’ll take it out .. but you say the enemy of the people .. cried .. The cattle on the farm were slaughtered, they came to him, demanded to cut it .. did not cut it .. and then, when there was nothing to plow, they took the whole herd from him, and they took those who cut their cattle ..
  • baudolino
    baudolino April 14 2016 07: 53
    +3
    The article is good, but not complete. If not for the projects on the independence of the Cossack lands, the civil war could go according to a completely different scenario.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 April 14 2016 08: 23
    +3
    pictured The current heirs of the "heroes"
    All these events are the legacy of the CIVIL WAR! Judging by this article, some have not ended this war so far.
    Apparently, these events in the city of Maykop also show a special love of Cossacks for order “... In September-October 1918, after the occupation of Maykop by the 1st Kuban Division of General Pokrovsky in the city and the suburbs, almost 4 were executed, scared and simply cut out 000 residents who were somehow suspected of collaborating with the Soviet government. They even cut out those who simply worked at the enterprises of the city nationalized by the Bolsheviks. The massacre of Maykopts lasted almost a month and a half without a break.
    It all started with such an order of the white "hero", Major General Pokrovsky, who was brutalized by his own impunity.

    "Order No. 2 for the city of Maikop, September 8, 1918
    For the fact that the population of the city of Maykop (Nikolaev, Pokrovskaya and Troitskaya Slobodka) shot at volunteer troops, I impose an indemnity of one million rubles on the above-mentioned outskirts of the city.

    Contributions must be paid within three days.
    In case of failure to fulfill my requirement, the above-mentioned settlements will be burned to the ground. I assign the collection of indemnity to the commandant of the city of Esaul Razderishchina.

    Chief of the 1st Kuban Cossack Division, Major General Pokrovsky. "

    Local monk Ilidor testified:
    “In the morning, September 21, in Maykop, I saw near the station, from the side of the fields, a lot of chopped corpses. After they explained to me that at night 1,600 Bolsheviks were cut down, captured in the city garden and surrendered. On the gallows I saw 26 people.

    I further saw 33 young men leading from the tannery; led because they worked in a nationalized factory. All walked barefoot, in one underwear. Walked in a row tied hands with each other. Officers and Cossacks walked from behind and whipped them. Three young men were hanged; the rest was waiting for a terrible procedure. Thirty tied in two and put on their knees. One of the couple was ordered to lay his head back, the other to tilt his head forward.

    When the young man did this, they chopped their necks and faces with sabers, saying:
    - Keep your head down! Raise your face above!
    At each blow, the crowd swayed with terror, and there was a short groan. When all the couples were chopped up, the crowd was dispersed with whips "...."
    An ordinary beast. This is a CIVIL WAR and not the Bolsheviks started that war!
    And yet, never light cavalry was the main branch of the armed forces; one should not offend A. V. Suvorov.
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 April 14 2016 18: 09
      -2
      The fact that you wrote is confirmed by almost everyone who * came across * with the Cossacks during the CIVIL WAR. * Tiligent * supporters of the white movement in exile wrote that sadism and bloody antics were almost the only thing that * fed * Bolsheviks. Or even better: * since the Cossacks were so it means they * were forced * to be just such * bastards *.
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) April 14 2016 20: 21
        +2
        Quote: Vasily50
        * since the Cossacks were so it means they * were forced * to be just such * bastards *.
        Cossacks have been like this all their lives, all their history
        Read what tricks these defenders of the Russian land did during the Time of Troubles, when the Cherkassians, along with the Poles, came to rob and kill Russian men, including Orthodox priests. Hair will stand on end from their "exploits"
        1. Basil50
          Basil50 April 14 2016 23: 43
          -2
          You are right, the history of the Cossacks is very bloody. Publicly at the service of RUSSIA, those who were later called * Cossacks *, the first called Ivan the Terrible.
          The re-education of the venality of the Cossacks took place on the eve of the POLTAVA BATTLE AD MENSHIKOV, when he cut out the entire population of the town of Mazepa. After that, if the Cossacks betrayed it secretly.
          The impunity of the 17th year and the likelihood of the collapse of RUSSIA corrupted some of the Cossacks, the bloody villains tried to bind * all the Cossacks * with bloody bail, but when it didn’t work out, they cut out neighbors and all those who disagree.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • igorra
    igorra April 14 2016 08: 31
    +11
    It was the USSR - the whites were bad, the liberals won - the red ones. I spoke and I will speak in the civil war there are no right and guilty. In order to judge that time, one must live at that time.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 14 2016 09: 25
      +2
      civil war there are no right and guilty.


      Are those who started it "not to blame"?

      Lenin, still sitting in Switzerland, openly called for the Civil War. And yet "not guilty"?
      Strange ...
      1. MrK
        MrK April 14 2016 12: 06
        0
        Quote: AK64
        Lenin, while still in Switzerland, openly called for the Civil War.

        Lenin called for turning the bourgeois imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeoisie. Ali you do not agree with AK64, or you also did not steal in the 90s.? Ali have you become a bourgeois? Then change your nickname. For example: "a jar of jam" or "a basket of cookies", which are so close to the soul of the bourgeois. Sincerely.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 16: 22
          +2
          Lenin called for turning the bourgeois imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeois.


          You just haven't read Lenin. But Lenin wrote a lot about the civil war and before the start of WWI: they say "we are accused of calling for a civil war (It turns out there were such - just think.). But why should we be afraid of it if it is already on its way? "

          It would be necessary to read their idols, read
          1. hoplite
            hoplite April 15 2016 01: 48
            -1
            He wrote all sorts of things. But in fact, it was not he who started the civil, but the liberals supported by the Cossacks.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 15 2016 02: 01
              +1
              He wrote all sorts of things. But in fact, it was not he who started the civil, but the liberals supported by the Cossacks.


              Well, yes, yes: aye, two thousand Rodzianoks suddenly took and started a civil war.

              Threatened with inkwells?
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 14 2016 09: 45
    +2
    no matter how it is our story, and the civil war is atrocities on both sides!
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth April 14 2016 09: 47
    +4
    Wonderful agitation. Plus. True, for the sake of justice, it is worth noting that initially the Cossacks came from gangs that the authorities tried to put into service for hundreds of years. And then it was irregular cavalry, whose role in wars is now greatly exaggerated. And by the way, the king does not need an oath. It was not the Bolsheviks who overthrew the tsar, and where at that time was the life guard of the Cossack convoy. Yes and further too. There were also many fights for the Red Cossacks, and if the White Cossacks hadn’t been in a hurry to part with the loot, then maybe there would have been no power. And in conclusion, one cannot help but recall the Cossacks who fought against the Germans. Not everything is clear.
    1. 97110
      97110 April 14 2016 15: 33
      0
      Quote: Kenneth
      and where was the Cossack convoy life guard at that time

      In 1980, our partisan auto repair battalion was deployed in the Cossack Camps. They said that in Afghanistan such parts did not show themselves, so we must ... The medical unit was commanded by a doctor with an ambulance. He told that they were on a call in st. Gnilovskaya (now it is practically the center of Rostov). Two brothers, both served in the Ataman regiment. They told about the Civil, that "they cut the red ones, they cut the white ones. Whoever is ordered to be cut down."
  • AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB April 14 2016 10: 02
    +6
    And all because during the revolution of 1917, most Cossacks opposed the Soviet government. They could not change the oath to the king. (C)

    What nonsense ??? What does the Soviet power and the "oath to the tsar" have to do with it? The Soviets did not overthrow the tsar, but the liberal provisional government!
    But when the liberals in February forced the tsar to abdicate, so that none of the Cossacks about the oath to the tsar even remembered, but quickly organized Cossack self-government in the districts and with the support of the interim government received tremendous autonomy. Almost a state in a state!
    On April 16, 1917, the Cossack Congress was held in Novocherkassk on April 27. The congress expressed full support for the Provisional Government. Its members decided to create the Army Circle as the supreme self-government body in the Don Army, and the circle, in turn, was to elect the chieftain of the army and to form an executive authority - the Troop Government. Also members of the congress called for serving Cossacks military service on grounds common to the entire population of the country. The military circle on the Don met on May 26, and the army foreman E.A. Voloshinov was elected the first (temporary) ataman. After E.A. Voloshin, from June 18, 1917 to January 29, 1918, the military ataman was Lieutenant General A.M. Kaledin.
    Well, where is fidelity to the oath to the King? Where are the centuries-old military traditions ???
    Maybe it's enough to poison the tales already? And then they got their tales about the "Cossacks"! No matter how you read it, all the Cossacks without exception had a herd of cows and a herd of horses in their farm; to the end they faithfully served the Tsar and the Fatherland; one at a time, whole shelves of vorogov were poured! And all this vile Bolsheviks destroyed!
    And the fact that the Bolsheviks, reuniting the State, these separatists opposing the Central Authority defeated is the only right decision. Just do not try to drag in the land question - collectivization began much later!
    PS. If anything, my ancestors are Semirechye Cossacks. Himself in the 90s was a member of the Semirechensk Cossack Army, until his Kazakh power defeated ...
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander April 14 2016 11: 16
      -2
      Quote: AllXVahhaB
      And the fact that the Bolsheviks, reuniting the Power, these separatists opposing the Central Authority defeated-the only right decision

      The Bolsheviks did not have POWER (find at least a word about this from them), they fought for power and for the world revolution, from the article by V. I. Lenin "Marxism and Revisionism":
      "The worker has no fatherland"

      On "separatism": on October 25, 1917, on the day of the coup, Kaledin made an appeal in which he announced seizure of power by the Bolsheviks criminal, and stated that henceforth before the restoration of legal authority in Russia The military government assumes full power in the Don region.
      A day later, Kaledin declared martial law throughout the Region and invited members to Novocherkassk Provisional Government of Russia
      1. MrK
        MrK April 14 2016 12: 16
        +3
        Quote: Aleksander
        A day later, Kaledin declared martial law throughout the Region and invited members of the Provisional Government to Novocherkassk


        Yeah. not separatists. The Don Cossacks, as already mentioned briefly, with great enthusiasm took up the construction of their own, completely independent and sovereign state. Everything was extremely serious: they composed a constitution, introduced the national flag, blue-yellow-scarlet, adopted the national anthem, and the old song “The Pacific Quiet Don was excited, excited”.
        The Don people were in no way going to restore a united Russia - they, as it was again said in passing, by their evil naivety believed that, having fenced off from the rest of the blazing expanse of the former Russian Empire, they would skate like cheese in butter. That they will be able to sit out. That no one will ever come to them with a bayonet, and if he does, they will throw them with whips.
        Ataman Krasnov, “a representative of the five millionth free people,” as he liked to call himself, quickly established a semblance of diplomatic relations with Ukraine of the hetman Skoropadsky and Germany. The Germans and Ukrainians recognized the sovereign power - though, again, unofficially, without sending plenipotentiary ambassadors and the thunder of orchestras.
        Inspired Krasnov wrote a letter to Kaiser Wilhelm, in which, without false modesty, he asked to make a large number of small requests: that the Kaiser help return the Taganrog District by putting pressure on Ukraine for this; so that the Kaiser would facilitate the transfer of Voronezh, Kamyshin, and Tsaritsyn to “for strategic reasons” by pushing Moscow for this. And in return, if you discard diplomatic turnovers, he promised to continue to stand in any position from the Kama Sutra, which Germany would please. Not separatists. Ha ha.
        1. Kaiten
          Kaiten April 14 2016 14: 55
          +1
          Quote: mrark
          for "strategic reasons" Voronezh, Kamyshin and Tsaritsyn

          Kaledin fought in Tsaritsyn?
      2. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) April 14 2016 20: 26
        +3
        Quote: Aleksander
        from the article by V. I. Lenin "Marxism and Revisionism":
        "The worker has no fatherland"

        "The socialist fatherland is in danger" is a slogan that appeared already in February 1918 in connection with the German offensive at the front.

        Learn the story ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Aleksander
          Aleksander April 14 2016 21: 42
          -2
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          "The socialist fatherland is in danger" is a slogan that appeared already in February 1918 in connection with the German offensive at the front ...


          The keyword is SOCIALIST. And there are none: neither "socialist" nor capitalist "Fatherland is ONE Country, without any isisms. Fatherland ALL citizens countries, without division into "enemies of the people" and "non-enemies". This is not a country of individual socialist deities of blank-bronstein-zalkin blanks, but a country of ALL its inhabitants.
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          Learn the story ...


          Judging by the wretchedness of judgment and councils- laughing you have big problems with her KNOWLEDGE. Good luck! hi (although I do not believe in a positive result yes )
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 14 2016 22: 09
            -1
            And there are none: neither "socialist" nor capitalist "Fatherland is ONE Fatherland,


            You are breaking through the open door.

            Do you at least understand why all peoples "Country", and only the Reds have a" homeland "?

            And everything is commonplace as always: Country it right fathers, and property of fathers; the word itself implies own. Law and land.
            Homeland but only and only the place of birth.

            Understand the difference. That's why white fought for Countryand red only home.
            1. AllXVahhaB
              AllXVahhaB April 15 2016 17: 50
              +1
              And who are the Whites? Yudenich, Wrangel and Kolchak fought for the same thing? Presumably, they have one fatherland? Who has the constituent assembly, who has the tsar-father, and who is the Supreme Ruler of Russia by himself! And what is their fathers heritage like? And the white Georgians fought for what fatherland? And the basmachi? A white-Poles and white-Finns? And Petlyura is white, no? What kind of fatherland did he fight for? And the Central Ukrainian Council for what fatherland fought? And what kind of volunteer corps? What about white Azerbaijanis? And the same chieftain Krasnov, for what fatherland did he fight ???
              White tueva hucha! And all of them, in your expression, fought for the Fatherland! Unlike the Reds.
              So for what kind of fatherland did all these groups fight ???
              The "whites" have homelands before ... But there is no country! If the whites had won, Russia as a state would have ended even then! And since Russia cannot end, then the victory of the Reds is a natural and only possible given. History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
      3. Hlavaty
        Hlavaty April 14 2016 23: 18
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander
        from the article by V. I. Lenin "Marxism and Revisionism":
        "The worker has no fatherland"


        Well, Lenin did not particularly cling to his own words :)
        When they fastened, they immediately remembered about the fatherland:
        "The socialist fatherland is in danger! - the name of the propaganda decree of the Council of People's Commissars, issued in February 1918 in connection with the German offensive at the front."
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander April 14 2016 10: 13
    +1
    Cossacks are wonderful, wonderful people and warriors, real patriots of Russia.
    The Don Cossack army was the FIRST in Russia to reject the criminal october coup of the blank afelbaums, right on the day of the coup and since then has consistently and valiantly fought with the red junta. Fought in the civilian and even at the end of the 20-x-beginning 30-x during criminal collectivization. The policy of the Bolsheviks in relation to the Cossacks is characterized by the two words CRIME and GENOCIDE of Russian people. It was crime against historical Russia.
    Mao famous page - "BLACK boards".

    And a couple of documents:
    RCCHIDNEY. f. 17, op. 112, d. 93, l 35.
    8. From a telegram from a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Caucasian Labor Army, G.K. Ordzhonikidze and I.V. Stalin from 1 on November 1920:
    “Eviction of the villages is successful ... Today I had a meeting with Chechens - representatives of villages. The Chechens' mood is excellent, they are eternally happy and declare that our act is a great historical event for them.». "the land came to the disposal of the Chechens. "

    The Russian state has officially condemned crimes against the Cossacks:
    DECISION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION "On the rehabilitation of the Cossacks"
    Cancel as illegal all acts concerning the Cossacks adopted since the 1918 of the year, in the part concerning the application of repressive measures against him.

    Decree of the President of the USSR:
    1. Invalidatecontrary to basic civil and socio-economic human rights repression, carried out against peasants during the period of collectivization, as well as against all other citizens for political, social, national, religious and other reasons in the 20-50-s, and completely restore the rights of these citizens.

    Thanks to dear Pauline for the article.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. revnagan
      revnagan April 14 2016 12: 06
      +2
      Quote: Aleksander
      The Don Cossack army was the FIRST in Russia to reject the criminal okt-coup of the afelbaum forms,

      That is, the February coup, which essentially gave the broadest autonomy with the support of the Provisional Government and created practically a "state within a state" out of the Don army (cited, see above), the Don Cossack army quickly and willingly recognized. Despite the age-old military traditions and the oath of allegiance loyalty to the tsar? But the October Revolution with its surplus appropriation (as for everyone) and equal rights with the rest of the territories of Russia - for some reason they rejected the FIRST. Strange ... "Coincidence? I don't think so!" (quoted)
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. AllXVahhaB
        AllXVahhaB April 15 2016 17: 58
        0
        Why, he’s quoted as the president of the USSR ...
    4. hoplite
      hoplite April 15 2016 01: 53
      -2
      Damn, all the same white - without exception elves. What was the crime of overthrowing the temporary?
    5. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB April 15 2016 17: 55
      +2
      And why didn’t they fight against the white junta ??? They threw the tsar, and they took the oath to him and he was the High Ataman of all Cossack troops. Why did they throw it then? So - traitors and political prostitutes !!!
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 14 2016 11: 29
      -1
      Anti-Semites tightened up. The discussion is more interesting.
  • Flatter
    Flatter April 14 2016 11: 27
    +1
    Living in areas with a relatively favorable climate compared to most of Russia, contributed to a higher standard of living for the Cossack regions, so the breakdown of the system that came from the central cities was perceived as a riot, a rebellion. It gave rise to cruelty. It’s worth mentioning that the entries made in Polish Three hundred years ago, the military register, the so-called register Cossacks, was also obliged to perform police functions, serving the Polish king. Today, the registered Cossack is also pronounced with Sholokhov with a meaning. During the Yeltsin period, the Krasnodar Territory, Voronezh Region called red zones, they were dominated by the support of the Communists for a long time. Peasant psychology, most importantly, did not interfere with life.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 14 2016 11: 42
      +1
      It is worth noting that the so-called registered Cossacks, listed in the Polish military register, were obliged to perform police functions while serving the Polish king three hundred years ago.


      Why are you putting everything together?
      What is common, besides the TITLE, between Ukrainian Cossacks and Don-Grebensky-Kuban?
      What?

      You are here also the Cossacks-kazakhov (who pronounce themselves with K) ascribe.
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth April 14 2016 13: 11
        +1
        But the Kuban Cossacks are not the reincarnation of Zaporozhye.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 14: 42
          0
          But the Kuban Cossacks are not the reincarnation of Zaporozhye.

          Not. This is a legend.
          See for yourself:

          Catherine really moved some of the Zaporozhye Cossacks to the Kuban, and the Kuban people really have a strong Turkic gene ("cubanoids").
          But the Cossacks on the Kuban, as well as on the Terek, lived long before that. That is, these Cossacks were not relocated to an empty place.

          The basis of the Cossack economy until the 18th century was (1) fishing and (2) salt. That is why there is a binding of the Cossacks to the rivers: they controlled fishing. It is "fishing" that is constantly mentioned in all tsarist gramata in relation to the Cossacks: they are "favored". (And what to "favor" if these fishings have always belonged to the Cossacks ?!)

          So about the Kuban: see for yourself: the Cossacks held out on the Don through the centuries. On the Ridge (ssbvenno, on the Terek) - again an uninterrupted line, Cossack settlements were not interrupted. Well, the Kuban, the river, it is, as it were, between Gredny and the Don, and Plavni there, the Kuban delta, is huge: there is where to hide from the Nagays. There are no villages (that is, large settlements) and fortresses there in the 18th century, to somewhere in the middle, but the Cossacks lived in small settlements ("kurens") all the time.

          At the end of the 16th century, it’s not like the Kuban — even the Cossacks returned to Yaik. (Until the 16th century, there was a break of the Cossack population from there.) Note that this is again a river and fishing. Why do I emphasize Yaik: (1) Yaik is far from the place of significant Cossack settlement (Don, Terek, Kuban), and (2) there is no such delta where you can hide in case of war, everything is more or less even. Therefore, there the Cossacks could not resist and were exterminated or forced to leave, and have returned only in the 16th century.

          I’ll say a few words about Sich.
          (1) The meaning of Sich is greatly inflated. This is essentially vik ("Vick" - "Viking"), that is, a military settlement with an exclusively male population. There were no farms in the Sich. children did not give birth. This is it was not a self-supporting system. Economically, they lived only by robbery, and nothing else. That is, this is a filibusters' settlement, which simply cannot be large: there will be nothing to eat.

          (2) The number of Sichs in the 18th century is about 3-5 thousand people, and even this, I think, is an exaggeration. My opinion: in the 18th century, less than a thousand.
          When they write about the Sich, everything looks much more massive, but this is because the "registered" Ukrainian Cossacks also participated in the operations of the Sich - hence the extras. (Let us recall though Bulba - Bulba is a registered Cossack.)
          That is, since there was no economy there, it was "they came, fled, and dispersed."

          (3) So, most of the Sich did not agree to go to the Kuban at all: there they had to obey discipline, manage the economy, and live "on the line" (that is, at the front). How will yesterday's filibusters manage? They need it, poking around in the manure? Most of the Sichs went to the Turks, and founded the "Trans-Danube Sich" in the Danube Delta.
          See the opera "Zaporozhets beyond the Danube": "Now I am a Turk - not a Cossack"!

          So the Turkic (Sich) Krvy in the Kuban really is, but they are against the background of the traditional Cossack basics.
          1. Hlavaty
            Hlavaty April 14 2016 23: 26
            0
            Quote: AK64
            But the Kuban Cossacks are not the reincarnation of Zaporozhye.
            Not. This is a legend.


            Why? My great-great-great-grandfather is probably laughing at you from the heart.
            It turns out it's all a legend !!!
            He probably dreamed that his plastun of the Zaporizhzhya Cossack army was first transferred to the Black Sea Cossack army, which was sent to the Kuban, and there it was divided into the Kuban Cossack army and the Terek Cossack army. And then my ancestors served in the Kuban Cossack army.

            Well you amused me ...
            If only they used Google, the storyteller.
            1. vvp2
              vvp2 April 14 2016 23: 50
              0
              Quote: Hlavaty
              My great-great-great-grandfather is probably laughing at you from the heart.

              Scary tale. A terrible story of chilling blood.
              However, your great-grandfather, this is not the whole army. And if they suddenly decided to attribute it to the Cossacks, then this was far from the case with all the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks during the dispersal of the Zaporizhzhya Sich. Most of them were attributed to the peasants. Those. they are not as lucky as your great-grandfather.
              These are the "Ukrainians" that flicker in the Quiet Don at Shelokhov's, this is the descendants of the Zaporozhye Sich. Some.
              1. Hlavaty
                Hlavaty April 15 2016 09: 16
                0
                Quote: vvp2
                And if they suddenly decided to attribute it to the Cossacks, then this was far from the case with all the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks during the dispersal of the Zaporizhzhya Sich


                They did not decide to ascribe him, but he was a Cossack.
                The part of the former Zaporizhzhya army that did not cross the Danube was called the Army of Faithful Cossacks, then the Army of Faithful Black Sea Cossacks. This army was sent to the Kuban and renamed the Black Sea Cossack army.

                Quote: vvp2
                Most of them were attributed to the peasants.

                Well, not the majority. When the Zaporizhzhya Sich was dispersed, part of the Cossacks moved to the hussar and pikiner regiments, part fell over the Danube, and the other part, literally eight years after the dispersal, through the efforts of Potemkin, was assembled into the Army of Faithful Cossacks.
            2. AK64
              AK64 April 15 2016 00: 01
              0
              Why? My great-great-great-grandfather is probably laughing at you from the heart.
              It turns out it's all a legend !!!
              He probably dreamed that his plastun of the Zaporizhzhya Cossack army,


              Hmm ...
              And how old is your esteemed great-grandfather?
              How old are you?

              The "Black Sea Host" is the Kuban army. The name has changed, and nothing more.
              Outside the Kuban, this army was nothing more than a fiction, and existed ... azhnik for five years (and those on paper).



              If only they used Google, the storyteller.

              He lightened his hands.

              So how many years, say, your great-grandfather? It’s very interesting to see the life expectancy - people lived for 200 years! Here's what it means Healthy food.
              Metabolism ... But with GMOs you will not get sick ...
              1. Hlavaty
                Hlavaty April 15 2016 09: 24
                +1
                Well, is it really necessary to clarify that my great-great-great-grandfather is already in the next world. And from there he laughs at those who do not know their own history.

                When there is nothing to object to, we begin to fool around?
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. Aleksander
              Aleksander April 15 2016 06: 39
              0
              Quote: Hlavaty
              The Black Sea Cossack army, which was sent to the Kuban, and there it is divided to the Kuban Cossack army and Terek Cossack Host

              You are mistaken about the origin of the Terek Cossacks. He has his own glorious history.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. vvp2
          vvp2 April 14 2016 23: 52
          +2
          Quote: Kenneth
          A Kuban Cossacks is not the reincarnation of Zaporozhye

          Nothing in common. Only sometimes, in places.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 14 2016 11: 31
    +3
    "To understand how the Cossacks lived before the revolution, I visited the Morozovsky district of the Rostov region." - I quote the author. Quite a bold statement. I'm afraid this requires a time machine. As for the Cossacks themselves, I would like to remind you that in the civilian Cossacks fought on both front lines. There were Cossacks in Denikin's army, and there were in the First Horse, at Budyonny. They turned out to be split, just like the entire Russian society. And they shot, indiscriminately or for the cause, both of those and others.
    1. vvp2
      vvp2 April 14 2016 23: 59
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      There were Cossacks in the army of Denikin, and were in the First Horse, at Budenny. They turned out to be split

      There were no Don Cossacks in the Red Army. So, a small number of garbage Cossack society.
      The fact is that the Cossacks (any) in the Republic of Ingushetia were a privileged estate. Therefore, there was no reason for them to fight for the Reds. They did not fight. In retaliation, the Bolsheviks repressed them, and divided the lands between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR (the lands of the Don Army). In addition, they and such a nation, the Don Cossacks, eliminated. And the alien population was massively brought to their lands. Those. for the Cossacks there was a complete caput.
      The second caput happened during and after the Second World War. Since then, Don Cossacks can say no.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 15 2016 00: 04
        +1
        There were no Don Cossacks in the Red Army. So, a small number of garbage Cossack society.


        Ahem ... Kochubey? Mironov?
        These are very cool "scum" - don't you throw it over?

        The fact is that the Cossacks (any) in the Republic of Ingushetia were a privileged estate.

        I am honestly tired of repeating: there were FOUR estates. Cossacks were "peasants" by class.
        "Privileges" are more than dubious: is the need to buy and keep a combat horse - is this "privilege" like that? This is more than taxes.
        This was called in Asia "blood payment", and it was usually collected from yesterday's enemies.
        1. vvp2
          vvp2 April 15 2016 00: 16
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          "Privileges" are more than dubious: is the need to buy and keep a combat horse - is this "privilege" like that? This is more than taxes.

          Cossacks did not pay taxes. With this money they kept a horse and ammunition. In addition, they were never serf slaves and owned land. Is this not a privilege?
          The peasants did not even own land after the abolition of slavery (serfdom). And in fact, massively turned into farm laborers.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 15 2016 00: 29
            -1
            Cossacks did not pay taxes. With this money they kept a horse and ammunition.

            (1) Peasants in Russia almost never (with rare exceptions in time) paid taxes. Yes Yes. And do not make big eyes: how do you overlay them and how will you assemble them?
            (2) The price and maintenance of a combatant horse significantly exceeds all taxes.
            (3) Cossacks paid in "blood" - that is, service in the war. And a lot of Cossacks went out to the wars of the Russian Empire. This is a typical situation in Asia, where foreigners usually "dance with blood" (that is, service in a war). So the same Turks were massively used in Iran and in Khorezm and in Bukhara (how is it .. forgot it .. Khiva or something)
            And it has always been considered creepy operation.

            In addition, they were never serf slaves and owned land. Is this not a privilege?

            And you do this: You strain and find the maximum number of serfs on the Web. And then compare with the total population.
            And then shake the ether.
            And then say: I told you that the peasants in Russia practically did not pay taxes. It looks wild --- until you check. But it is a fact. So: enslavement was a way of taxing peasants. Otherwise, it was not a fellow tax on them; infrastructure did not allow it. And so they collected it — the landowner from them (and into your pocket!), But partly into the treasury.

            The peasants did not even own land after the abolition of slavery (serfdom).

            Maybe you should still look into the directories?

            And in fact, massively turned into farm laborers.

            Yeah .. Who would doubt it. Everything - and without exception.
            You take an interest in the share of landownership in the Russian Empire - you will be greatly surprised.
            Everything is on the Web, and not a remake in PDFs from royal directories.
            Reading them is over hard: PDF, DPG ... But you will learn a lot of new things.
            1. vvp2
              vvp2 April 15 2016 00: 48
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              (1) Peasants in Russia almost never (with rare exceptions in time) paid taxes. Yes Yes. And do not make big eyes: how do you overlay them and how will you assemble them?

              No, well, everyone knows that; they did not work out corvée. It included agricultural tax.
              In addition, they paid:
              Beard fee. In the village, the peasants did not pay for the beard, but when leaving the city they paid 1 kopeck.
              Taxes were levied on domestic baths (from peasants 15 kopeks each).
              Duties were levied even on oak coffins.
              Submissive lodge. This tax was charged at a rate of 74 kopecks. from the male peasant soul. In 1861 already 3 rubles. 30 kopecks in year.
              There were also direct and indirect taxes, too lazy to list.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 15 2016 02: 32
                -1
                No, well, everyone knows that; they did not work out corvée. It included agricultural tax.

                Excuse me, can you read?
                After all, I wrote, copy-paste for you again (finally learn to read, please!)
                So: enslavement was a way of taxing peasants. Otherwise, it was not a fellow tax on them; infrastructure did not allow it. And so they collected it — the landowner from them (and into your pocket!), But partly into the treasury.

                Have you read? Did you understand? Or repeat again?

                Do not be shy: I can quickly copy-paste, I can for you three times.

                In addition, they paid:
                Beard fee. In the village, the peasants did not pay for the beard, but when leaving the city they paid 1 kopeck.
                Taxes were levied on domestic baths (from peasants 15 kopeks each).

                Pretty funny ...
                You tell me how it was possible to raise money from bath houses? Well tell me, tell me ...

                These "taxes from the bath" existed only under Peter. And I really doubt that they collected at least fifty dollars from the peasants. From the city - where to get to the city (disassemble the bathhouse, so as not to pay crazy money. And they will wash in the barn.)

                But this sur about "baths" only existed under the fantasy-writer Peter.

                So enough fairy tales, huh?
                The arrears after Peter remained literally millions - and they were already under Catherine (not the one that the 2nd, but the one that the wife) ... forgiven. Because they did not see the opportunity.


                Duties were levied even on oak coffins.

                Yes Yes.
                Enough of fairy tales.
                In oak coffins only Vysotsky and Brezhnev were buried. They are apparently from the peasants.

                You will excuse me - but I will not comment on fairy tales further - it is simply ridiculous.
  • Basil50
    Basil50 April 14 2016 11: 47
    +1
    Cossack is an estate. If you follow the logic of the Cossacks, the nobleman is a nation. How the classes deigned to be angry that they were deprived of class privileges, we read how they tried to regain power with the help of the interventionists and what they did to those who disagreed with tolerating parasites, we also read. As with the Nazis * liberated * RUSSIA from ...., also read. Today, idiots hope that * abroad will help them * rave again about * snow-white white ideas *. Wake up, you are needed only up to the partition of RUSSIA, then they will destroy you all, but it’s not a pity, but you betray the rest and substitute for destruction, REVEAL. All these nonsense about the Bolsheviks appeared when it became clear that on the ruins of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE a new state was being rebuilt. THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS.
    I can’t imagine a * patriot * consisting of the content of an import * kindliness * and even more so among the interventionists.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 14 2016 11: 51
      0
      Cossack is an estate.


      At least in Wiki see what "estate" is.
      The "nobles" are precisely the class. And the Cossacks are "peasants" by class.
      1. revnagan
        revnagan April 14 2016 12: 14
        +2
        Here you are, straight from your beloved "Wiki ..." Cossacks [edit | edit wiki text]
        The law called the Cossacks "Cossack estate", “Cossack state”, “Cossack rank”, and “Cossack population” (sometimes in the text of the same law). Commentators-lawyers attributed this to the fact that a Cossack is a person of another (usually peasant) estate, bearing a permanent military rank, and therefore, from a civilian point of view, Cossacks constitute groups within the estates, mainly within the peasant class, and from the military - military rank [2 ]. But in works devoted directly to the Cossacks (historical, statistical), it is said that there is a separate class of Cossacks as an abstraction necessary for understanding historical and economic processes. Nowadays, therefore, they sometimes write that since the peasants were usually regarded as a taxable estate (paid the capitation tax) of the Russian state (along with philistines), while the Cossacks and foreigners serving the Cossack service (Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Buryats, etc.) did not pay the poll tax, the Cossacks were a separate estate and from a legal point of view and related to exorbitant estates (like the nobility). [3].
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 14: 21
          +1
          Here you are, right from your favorite "Vicki ...

          VICKI Not my favorite. But for those who write about the "Cossack estate" Vicki is enough.

          "Cossacks [edit | edit wiki text]
          The law called the Cossacks "Cossack estate", "Cossack fortune", "Cossack rank", and "Cossack population" (sometimes in the text of the same law).

          This is nonsense. Take a look at the article on "Estates".
          There were four estates in RI: noblemen, priesthood, philistines and peasants. There are no "Cossacks" here. Cossacks are "peasants" (paying taxes in blood).

          Understand first the legal status of the Cossacks - and then shake the ether.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 14 2016 12: 39
      -3
      Yeah, and a certain Ulyanov did not work for the interventionists and a dozen provinces did not give them
      1. revnagan
        revnagan April 14 2016 14: 28
        +4
        Quote: Cartalon
        Yeah, and a certain Ulyanov did not work for the interventionists and a dozen provinces did not give them

        You were born this way, or did you graduate from special courses? Really, it does not reach that the Soviet government TEMPORARILY renounced very small territories saved the WHOLE country? But a certain Russian tsar (the first of the noblemen, God's anointed one) took and sold 1/6 of the Russian land (Alaska). Forever. And Russia did not even get money for it! These were the "patriotic" tsars! And all kinds of "Russian governments" during the Civil War of 1918-1924. whoever didn’t sell Russian territories. Arkhangelsk and the Russian north to the British, Vladivostok and Siberia to the Americans and Yapas, Crimea were ready to give to the Germans. And Ulyanov-Lenin did what Kutuzov did in his time. And he was right. Kutuzov, then you hope you do not consider a traitor?
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 14 2016 14: 56
          -2
          I didn’t need to be reforged; the kings were not saints, but their people in industrial quantities were not destroyed and there was no need to lie about the return of the Russian lands; white governments did not depart from the principle of the single indivisible
          1. Basil50
            Basil50 April 14 2016 17: 50
            0
            Education and work with documents are no longer needed, why? Wikipedia will cheat and explain everything, soon reading Wikipedia and diplomas will be issued.
            1. Basil50
              Basil50 April 14 2016 23: 18
              -1
              aku. The strangeness of the transition to * hair dryer * and * concepts * is still secondary to the speed of transition from conversation to mentoring. Professional.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 17: 53
              +1
              Education and work with documents are no longer needed, why?


              Fine. One should answer for the bazaar, right?
              So answer: Since you mentioned "document"- so you will bring exactly document.
          3. hoplite
            hoplite April 15 2016 01: 58
            -2
            Yeah, they weren't trifling. Fatherland was sold entirely. google, for example, "Wrangel's agreement with France" - - he promised to make the whole country a colony.
            1. vvp2
              vvp2 April 15 2016 02: 15
              0
              Quote: hoplite
              promised to make a colony.

              To promise is not to marry. Folk wisdom.
              But the Bolsheviks made a pigsty. Although promised, heaven on earth.
            2. AK64
              AK64 April 15 2016 02: 36
              +1
              "Wrangel's treaty with France" - - he promised to make the whole country a colony.


              That's what ... Here I once read in Pioneer Truth ... Everything is written there!
        2. AK64
          AK64 April 14 2016 21: 37
          +1
          Indeed, it does not reach that TEMPORARILY giving up very small territories, did the Soviet government save the whole country?


          Exactly - after having decomposed the army.

          The funniest thing here: "saving the country" for internationalists? What kind of absurdity? Since when the proletariat Yes fatherland?

          You, my dear, either take off your cross or put on your pants. Confused in words.

          At least Manifesto They read Marx, perhaps ... As an educational program.
          1. andj61
            andj61 April 14 2016 22: 20
            0
            Quote: AK64
            Indeed, it does not reach that TEMPORARILY giving up very small territories, did the Soviet government save the whole country?

            Exactly - after having decomposed the army.

            The funniest thing here: "saving the country" for internationalists? What is this absurdity? Since when does the proletarian have a fatherland?

            Do you seriously think that it was the Bolsheviks who laid out the army? And in my opinion, the decomposition of the army was the result of the incompetent policy of the tsarist government ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 22: 25
              0
              Do you seriously think that it was the Bolsheviks who laid out the army? And in my opinion


              and how did we live without your opinion?
              1. hoplite
                hoplite April 15 2016 02: 04
                0
                They lived poorly in the dark.
                Now google, say, "order number 1" and who took it. On which side of the front, who took the civilian ended up with his party.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Verdun
              Verdun April 14 2016 23: 23
              0
              Comments on the collapse of the country in 1917 by the Communists are left by those who are firmly convinced that the Bolsheviks forced the abdication to sign Nicholas II in October, and not the deputation of the State Duma in February.
              1. vvp2
                vvp2 April 14 2016 23: 39
                +1
                Quote: Verdun
                Comments on the collapse of the country in 1917 by the Communists are left by those who are convinced

                I completely agree with you. The Bolsheviks destroyed the country in January 1918. January 6, to be exact. After which they started the Civil War to retain power, for which they had no legal rights, in their hands.
                1. hoplite
                  hoplite April 15 2016 02: 05
                  -2
                  Tell us this drop dead story about the terrible actions of the Bolsheviks on 06.01.1918/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                  1. vvp2
                    vvp2 April 15 2016 02: 13
                    +2
                    Quote: hoplite
                    Tell us this drop dead story about the terrible actions of the Bolsheviks on 06.01.1918/XNUMX/XNUMX.

                    I won’t tell you. Because decent people already know the history of their homeland. And with indecent I try not to communicate.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. hoplite
            hoplite April 15 2016 02: 00
            -1
            For fun, read eyewitnesses who actually corrupted the army. The Bolsheviks are in tenth roles here, and the most active were those parties, people and movements that later fought for the whites.
            As for the reading of Marx and Lenin, yes. The paradox and shame of all the monarchists and bourgeois republicans of Russia, that the only force that was really preoccupied with the revival of the country turned out to be the Miserables and the Bolshevik destroyers.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 15 2016 02: 03
              +1
              For fun, read eyewitnesses who actually corrupted the army. The Bolsheviks are in tenth roles here, and the most active were those parties, people and movements that later fought for the whites.


              Yes, you already come down to us, and name the names: so that he fights for the whites, and at the same time he decomposes the army.

              I understand, I understand: Lenin did not receive money from Germany, and did not go in a sealed carriage: he teleported to Russia from Switzerland.
  • hartlend
    hartlend April 14 2016 11: 51
    -3
    Georgy Sidorov readily talks about the Cossacks.
  • Glot
    Glot April 14 2016 12: 50
    +4
    With regards to the Civil, it is not worth making "the lambs of God" out of some and "demons of hell" out of others. There are no lambs during the Civil Wars, everyone is good!
    And the Cossack women, just like the officers who swore allegiance to the "king and fatherland" in their time, fought not even on BOTH sides of the conflict that arose, that is, for the red or white, but also for the green, gray-brownish and outright bandits. And EVERYTHING has heaped up the business.
    And with regards to the reds, how sad it is for many nostalgic for the "crunch of French buns" (which, by the way, they did not try))) there were no people, they won in this meat grinder due to the fact that they were more united, strong in their idea and understanding what they want. Everything is arranged here historically, you can't replay it. And having won, they did not squander what they had won, they did not organize a "parade of sovereignties" but began to create and raise what was broken and destroyed during the GENERAL war.
    And the Cossacks ... I do not know if they are now. You can often see clowns in all kinds of near-clown outfits, but there are no Cossacks, you cannot see ... It’s ridiculous to look at this clowning at times. But now we have around - a continuous circus. So there is a place for clowns. )))
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth April 14 2016 13: 05
    +3
    By the way, since such a booze has gone, let's remember the "glorious deeds" of the first Cossack division of Helmut von Pannwitz
    1. Kaiten
      Kaiten April 14 2016 15: 18
      -4
      Quote: Kenneth
      By the way, since such a booze has gone, let's remember the "glorious deeds" of the first Cossack division of Helmut von Pannwitz

      And what? They fought well, while the cavalrymen of the liquidated Bolshevik Dovator cowardly defended Moscow.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Kaiten
          Kaiten April 14 2016 17: 29
          +1
          Quote: mrark
          If the cowardly followers had not defeated the Cossack SS von Panwitz division, then Israel would not have been.
          Cossacks of the SS men placed gas chambers from Brest to Vladivostok under the leadership of Panvits, and the Jewish question would be resolved once and for all.


          You apparently joined late, a little higher one comrade ranted on the subject of the Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish liberals. My post was addressed to him.
          P.S. Didn't you understand the sarcasm with my "non-Aryan" flag?
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 14 2016 16: 27
        0
        cavalrymen of the liquidated Bolshevik Dovator


        Do not cling on. Dovator - Belarus
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth April 14 2016 17: 15
          +2
          There were others.
          Jewish commanders in the cavalry of the Red Army in the Second World War:

          Major General Tsetlin - Cavalry Corps Commander
          Gen.-Major Borisov (Schister) - chief of staff of the cavalry corps
          Crew Dobrushin - deputy commander of the 3rd Guards Cavalry Corps
          P-k Demchuk David Semenovich - commander of the 9th Guards Cavalry Division.
          Roitenberg - commander of the 37th cavalry division
          P-k ik Mikhail Emmanuilovich - commander of the 75th cavalry division
          P-k Popov Haim Abramovich - kr 31 Guards Cavalry Regiment
          Mr. Or Nidelevich - C-37 Guards Cavalry Regiment
          C-Factor - C-170 Cavalry Regiment.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 14 2016 17: 25
            +2
            I do not argue at all. Add Starinov (which is the miner). Add Caesar Kunikov.
            And if you think about it, your hand will get tired of writing

            But it would only be nice to add the Mehlis there.

            But be that as it may, the Dovator is exactly Belarusian: this, in fact, was dug.

            But why do you reduce the topic to the fifth point?
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Kaiten
          Kaiten April 14 2016 17: 35
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Do not cling on. Dovator - Belarus

          In fact, it doesn't matter who he was: a Belarusian, a Jew or any other nationality. Just unlike other "estates", he was not a traitor.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 14 2016 17: 46
            0
            unlike other "estates", he was not a traitor.


            Oh, what big words ...

            So whom did the Cossack Krasnov "betray"? He was not a Soviet citizen, he did not take the USSR oath. What kind of "farting" can we talk about? Sorry, but under the Criminal Code, the article "treason" was only for of citizens.

            Yes, and other Cossacks: if you are genocide, then to defend yourself with weapons in your hands is right and duty. But the Cossacks were genocide: it is the longest and most terrible genocide of the 20th century. (The last echo of this genocide was in the 62nd.)

            So what are the "claims"?

            The Kalmyks, who simply mobilized themselves, having put up more than 5 thousand sabers, the Bolsheviks immediately forgave and did not even mention this fact: they say "what to take from them? Offended them in the civil war, it was a case. Went too far ...".
            Gamzatov, who served in the Wehrmacht (one of many) after the war, wrote poems about "cranes" --- such how he (and there were a lot of them before) was also immediately forgiven.
            The Chechens and those were no particular complaints.
            And only the Cossacks are still "betrayed". Why?

            The division (later corps) of von Panwitz consisted of more than half of emigrants - why are they "traitors" if they were not Soviet citizens for an hour?

            Well, you and I understand why you personally have such a deep hatred for the Cossacks. We understand, we understand. But do not worry - I will not tell anyone.


            PS: I could certainly say something about the Dovator. But perhaps ... I will refrain: let the people first digest what was said.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 17: 51
              0
              By the way, as soon as the Mehlis was mentioned, you immediately agreed to consider Dovator as a Belarusian ... I, of course, did not notice ...
              1. Kaiten
                Kaiten April 14 2016 18: 28
                0
                Quote: AK64
                By the way, as soon as the Mehlis was mentioned

                Mekhlis is really far from "Moshe Dayan" in her abilities. Unfortunately for the many thousands of soldiers whose lives he ruined.

                Quote: AK64
                You immediately agreed to consider Dovatora Belarus ...

                I have already explained everything above.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 14 2016 18: 38
                  +1
                  Mekhlis is really far from "Moshe Dayan" in her abilities.

                  Why are you so humble? And even then to say: what has "ability" to do with it? "Abilities" were not included in the duties of Mehlis.

                  Why are you so shy about Mehlis? You are proud, proud!
                  Here it is definitely yours.
                  Yes, and attribute yourself to Trotsky, in the guise of heroes: after all, a military figure ...:
                  Replace with a Bunsen burner
                  Thousand-voltage Osram?
                  What after Trotsky Frunze to us,
                  after Trotsky Frunze - disgrace!

                  Yours, all yours - be proud.

                  Unfortunately for the many thousands of soldiers whose lives he ruined.

                  Just a "soldier"? And only "thousand"? How humble are you? Almost English: I just don't recognize an oriental person ...
                  1. Kaiten
                    Kaiten April 14 2016 18: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    Why are you so humble? And even then to say: what has "ability" to do with it? "Abilities" were not included in the duties of Mehlis.

                    Quote: AK64
                    Yes, and attribute yourself to Trotsky, in the guise of heroes: after all, a military figure ...:

                    And you can remember the members of the Judenrat or Judenpolitsaev. You probably think that I belong to those Jews who believe that there are scum in any nation except their own. I assure you that this is not so. You personally do not know me, but if you knew, you understood that I am very critical of Jews. I have the right to do so.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 April 14 2016 19: 00
                      +1
                      I assure you that this is not so.


                      And then what are you so modest with the Mehlis?
                      How to slander Krasnov - so here you are eager to try.
                      You go and judge YOURSELF - but do not touch the strangers.
                      To judge yours is your right: I will not say a word across you.

                      What do you personally know about Krasnov? Besides that shovel of lies from a training manual that your friends threw on him?

                      Krasnov was a "gray" ataman, really popularly selected. He, by virtue of it nationalities, and the white was unpleasant - and the cadets (as the White Cossacks called) Krasnov quickly "re-elected".

                      It is due to his nationalities, Reds and was hated by red.
                      Denikin is not dangerous - he is clearly "alien" to ordinary people. And Krasnov is an honestly chosen one, and that is why he is dangerous for usurpers.
                      Hence all the slander against Krasnov.

                      So go on and judge yours: judge Mehlis, Trotsky, and other different ones.
                      It's your right.

                      And in a stranger, where you are incompetent, do not meddle

                      Keep going - go to the emergency.
                      1. Kaiten
                        Kaiten April 14 2016 19: 26
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        You go and judge YOURSELF - but do not touch the strangers.
                        To judge yours is your right: I will not say a word across you.

                        I wouldn’t have written one shot - “Jewish Bolsheviks”, I would not. And the way you kept silent. I had to intervene.
                        Quote: AK64

                        Keep going - go to the emergency.

                        1. Be.
                        2. What is the time to pull ??? You are pretty to me no more than your fascist henchman. How to read it right away and enter it in an emergency.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                2. Kenneth
                  Kenneth April 14 2016 19: 38
                  0
                  By the way, Mehlis was a man of exceptional personal courage.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 14 2016 21: 18
                    -1
                    By the way, Mehlis was a man of exceptional personal courage.


                    This is known to all from pioneering truth.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. AK64
                    AK64 April 14 2016 21: 31
                    +1
                    ABOUT! And here is the second account of the same character!

                    In vain I mean that he does not have two accounts - he has it.

                    True, as an oriental man, he called them the same nickname ... Well, they are people who are not quite civilized, and they think that no one will notice.

                    Well, we pretend that we did not notice.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Kaiten
            Kaiten April 14 2016 18: 16
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            So whom did the Cossack Krasnov "betray"?


            From the point of view of Krasnov, he really did not betray anyone. Here is what he wrote:
            “Cossacks! Remember, you are not Russians, you Cossacks are an independent people. Russians are hostile to you. "

            Quote: AK64

            He was not a Soviet citizen, he did not take the USSR oath. What kind of "farting" can we talk about? Sorry, but under the Criminal Code, the article "treason" was only for citizens.

            I totally agree with you. He should have been tried not for treason, Stalin made a discount to the Cossacks, having tried him for treason, thereby making it clear to other countries: "this is our internal affair", otherwise he would sit with other German generals in Nuremberg. The Cossacks did too well not only in Russia, but also in Yugoslavia against the Serbs and in other places. And the attitude to the Cossacks would be like to Bandera, hortists and other collaborationists.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 18: 55
              -1
              From the point of view of Krasnov, he really did not betray anyone.

              Krasnov from ANY point of view did not betray anyone.
              Treason - this is a violation of the military oath - but Krasnov of the USSR did not swear allegiance, and was not a Soviet citizen.

              Here is what he wrote:
              “Cossacks! Remember, you are not Russians, you Cossacks are an independent people. Russians are hostile to you. "


              They rummaged for a long time to find a piece of Byaki? Or do you have it in training manuals?
              I think, and I'm even sure that in the manuals: well, you didn’t read Krasnov.

              But why didn’t you bring such a Krasnov?
              I ask you to tell all the Cossacks that this war is not against Russia, but against the communists, Jews and their minions who sell Russian blood. May the Lord help German weapons and Hitler! Let them do what the Russians and Emperor Alexander I did for Prussia in 1813 [29] [30]

              But this is much easier to find - it lies on the surface, corny on Wiki.
              But you have found something "from the manuals".

              Krasnov was a writer, and he wrote a lot. I understand, I understand - to recommend that you read something from Krasnov would be ... something like treating pork.
              But for the rest who can eat a pig without a twinge of conscience, I would strongly recommend reading what Krasnov wrote. Something completely neutral: say, about the Russo-Japanese war.

              Krasnov appears as a surprisingly intelligent and intelligent person.

              I totally agree with you. He should have been tried not for treason, Stalin made a discount to the Cossacks, having tried him for treason, thereby making it clear to other countries: "this is our internal affair", otherwise he would sit with other German generals in Nuremberg.

              Bah ...
              Cries and tantrums began ...
              But why should Krasnova be judged in Nuremberg? I understand, I understand: in your completely irrational hatred of the Cossacks, you really ... messed up.

              You see, the problem is that they forgot to tell you that Krasnov (as, by the way, and Shkuro) did not serve for a day or an hour in the Wehrmacht (in contrast to the "crane" -Gamzatov).
              Yes, yes. He did not serve a day or an hour, and neither Krasnov nor SS Krasnov was a general at all.
              So why judge him - at least in Nirberg: at least anywhere?

              Yes, please, it was possible and necessary to judge him. Yes, it would justify any court except the Basmanny.

              And the trial in Panviyim is simply ridiculous: they could not have sewn anything to this at all. Von Panwitz himself arrested himself and sewed it to the Cossack case: he decided to "share the fate."
              (As the Dovator slandered by you, by the way, did this too disgusting those who trusted him people send to certain death.)

              The Cossacks too well frolic not only in Russia, but also in Yugoslavia against the Serbs and in other places. And the attitude to the Cossacks would be like to Bandera, Khortists and other collaborationists.

              Oh-ho-hoshenki ...
              and maybe the Yugoslavs and ask who and where "frolicked"?
              if "in Yugoslavia," then why would von Panwitz be given the Yugoslavs? As a gesture of friendship between peoples? AND?
              After all, according to post-war concepts, it was necessary to give out to those where he committed crimes. Since von Panwitz in Yugoslavia "frolicked" - so give him to them, let them be judged.

              Yes, it’s just that the Yugoslavs von Panwitz would most likely send, or give the sorrow some maximum period. And his had to hang - as a warning to the Cossacks.
              1. Kaiten
                Kaiten April 14 2016 19: 18
                +1
                Quote: AK64
                Cries and tantrums began ..

                Judging by your nervous and uncontrolled pressures - just the tantrum you have. I do not like this. Do not know how to communicate - do not. just show your level and that's it.
                Quote: AK64
                They rummaged for a long time to find a piece of Byaki?

                From the song words as they say do not throw.
                Quote: AK64

                Or do you have it in training manuals?

                Of course the manuals, I’m still paid for communication with you in shekels.

                Quote: AK64
                Yes, yes. He did not serve a day or an hour, and neither Krasnov nor SS Krasnov was a general at all.

                And what has he been doing since 1943 at the Ministry of the Eastern Occupied Territories of Germany as the head of the Main Directorate of Cossack Forces.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 14 2016 21: 21
                  0
                  provocateur recorded in the emergency.

                  On the topic: this ... only half an hour ago, and I learned from me that Krasnov did not serve in the Wehrmacht.

                  Half an hour - and from me.

                  Reasonable people apologize for this - and shut up, realizing that they did not know something.

                  But this is eastern bazaar: Turkish delight and other dates.
                  1. revnagan
                    revnagan April 14 2016 21: 38
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    On the topic: this ... only half an hour ago, and it was from the court that Krasnov did not serve in the Wehrmacht.

                    He did not serve in the Wehrmacht, but served the Wehrmacht. That forehead, that forehead ...
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 April 14 2016 22: 04
                      0
                      Wehrmacht served.


                      Prove it.

                      I understand: You will not apologize, for those like you an apology (admitting yourself wrong) is unthinkable. Asia
            3. andj61
              andj61 April 14 2016 22: 17
              +1
              Quote: Kaiten
              From the point of view of Krasnov, he really did not betray anyone. Here is what he wrote:
              “Cossacks! Remember, you are not Russians, you Cossacks are an independent people. Russians are hostile to you. "

              Of course, the Germans even gave them the theory that the Cossacks were not Slavs, but the descendants of the Goths, and, therefore, the Nordic race.
              I myself am from the Cossacks, but such krasnov are a shame for the Cossacks and for the whole Russian people.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 14 2016 22: 24
                -1
                I myself am from the Cossacks

                but I don’t eat a pig!
                1. andj61
                  andj61 April 15 2016 08: 25
                  0
                  Quote: AK64
                  I myself am from the Cossacks

                  but I don’t eat a pig!

                  Yes, wit and rushing! Only now I definitely know my ancestors for three hundred years, and neither Jews nor Muslims were among them - if it was about pork - there was no. Can you say this about yourself?
                  Yes, my ancestors were Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, the Polish king included them in the Cossack register from the beginning of the 17th century, from the middle of the 17th century - in the Russian Federation and they were registered Cossacks until the 17th revolution. They were also called Cherkasy. Yes, at the end of the 19th century the Zaporizhzhya Cossack army, already irregular, was disbanded, but all the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks by Cossacks remained their estate.
                  1. vvp2
                    vvp2 April 15 2016 10: 45
                    0
                    Quote: andj61
                    Only now, I definitely know my ancestors for three hundred years, and neither Jews nor Muslims among them - if it was about pork - was not.

                    Relax about the pork. 550-600 years ago, the ancestors of the Great Russians did not eat pork. Only the ancestors of the Little Russians (residents of Holy Russia) ate it. And the pigs were cultivated by them because their tartars were not taken.
          3. hoplite
            hoplite April 15 2016 02: 09
            0
            Among the whites there were enough decent people who understood that returning to their homeland with an army of conquerors and enslavers was a betrayal.
            You don't seem to understand this.
    2. revnagan
      revnagan April 14 2016 21: 32
      0
      Quote: Kaiten
      Jew Bolshevik

      Yes, you and your synagogue know better ...
  • Chazoy
    Chazoy April 14 2016 14: 13
    +4
    I agree with those who consider this article to be a cry like "Russia we have lost." As if the Cossacks were all for the father-tsar ... well, well ... The monarchy and everything that was connected with it by 1917 was weary of EVERYONE, including the Cossacks. "Quiet Don" would be revered. Yes, and whoever was offended by the Soviet power, one must think, made up the SS units. But most of the Cossacks were in the Red Army, weren't they? So the article is a minus.
  • skeptic31
    skeptic31 April 14 2016 14: 37
    +3
    Something similar can be written about anyone. On the one hand, the Bolsheviks really drank a lot of Cossack blood, on the other hand, to represent the Cossacks as some kind of Lamb of God, to put it mildly, to prevaricate. Not those, not others did not differ much in particular pity for each other. In addition, the Upper Don Cossacks are a special part of the Cossacks. Having appeared after the resettlement of Ivan the Terrible from the North by gangsters-ushkuynikov, it always differed from the rest of the Cossacks. Here, the Old Believers, and dislike, and even frequent betrayal of the rest of the Cossacks (very wealthy Cossacks prevailed here, who believed all the rest, like Prokhorov or Gref, were lobsters), etc. Therefore, singing praises to him is not particularly worth it. At the same time, I emphasize once again that I do not in any way condone the Bolsheviks for their terrible decree, which, by the way, was prepared and signed not by Lenin, but by Sverdlov (also that city).
    1. 97110
      97110 April 14 2016 15: 48
      +2
      Quote: skeptic31
      it was dominated by a very wealthy Cossacks, who believed everyone else, like Prokhorov or Gref, lobotami)

      Heard it in the opposite context. Grassroots Cossacks were richer and considered horseback raids. Which is more consistent with natural conditions.
    2. Kaiten
      Kaiten April 14 2016 18: 43
      +4
      Quote: skeptic31
      the Bolsheviks really drank a lot of Cossack blood,

      I'm sorry, but who served with Budyonny in the First Horse? Are there only Jewish commissars? If that were so, Budyonny would not have won any victories. The commissars only talk a lot, but someone must be able to ride a horse into battle and hold a saber correctly. The same Cossacks fought at Budyonny. To say that the Bolsheviks shed "Cossack" blood was initially wrong. You cannot mix social groups and ethnic groups in the same sentence. It is correct to say: the Red Cossacks shed a lot of blood on the White Cossacks. Both the Whites and the Reds had Cossacks.
      1. Black
        Black April 14 2016 19: 09
        0
        Quote: Kaiten
        Correctly say: the red Cossacks shed a lot of blood to the white Cossacks.


        When the Reds broke into my village, the old people were shot .... Who are the "old people" - I hope you know. The Red Chinese were shooting.
        In general, these disputes are bored - who are we, ethnos, people, peasants ... Zadolbali. Call it what you want, the main thing is that we ourselves do not forget.
        1. Kaiten
          Kaiten April 14 2016 19: 36
          0
          Quote: Chen
          When the Reds broke into my village, the old people were shot .... Who are the "old people" - I hope you know. The Red Chinese were shooting.
          In general, these disputes are bored - who are we, ethnos, people, peasants ... Zadolbali. Call it what you want, the main thing is that we ourselves do not forget.

          And my great-grandfather died of the Holodomor in 1933 in Ukraine. As you can see, not only Ukrainians suffered from the consequences of the revolution, but also Jews, according to many, the organizers of the revolution.
          1. andj61
            andj61 April 14 2016 19: 48
            +1
            Quote: Kaiten
            And my great-grandfather died of the Holodomor in 1933 in Ukraine. As you can see, not only Ukrainians suffered from the consequences of the revolution, but also Jews, according to many, the organizers of the revolution.

            So the famine then was not only in Ukraine, but also in the Volga region, in the Caucasus, in Kazakhstan, etc.
            And in the middle zone of Russia these years the old men recalled with horror, putting them on a par with the famine of 1947. And no one specifically suited the famine - confusion and excesses in the formation of collective farms, of course, played a role, but in order to do so, they can only say this in modern Ukraine.
            1. Kaiten
              Kaiten April 14 2016 19: 49
              +3
              Quote: andj61
              So the famine then was not only in Ukraine, but also in the Volga region, in the Caucasus, in Kazakhstan, etc.
              And in the middle zone of Russia these years the old men recalled with horror, putting them on a par with the famine of 1947. And no one specifically suited the famine - confusion and excesses in the formation of collective farms, of course, played a role, but in order to do so, they can only say this in modern Ukraine.

              100%
            2. AK64
              AK64 April 14 2016 21: 25
              -2
              And no one specifically suited hunger - confusion and excesses


              You are mistaken: the analysis of mortality by region shows that mortality was ... in the regions where there were Cossacks. In the Urals, in the Orenburg region, there was a mortality rate. It was insignificant - but at the same time sharply lacquered - Cossack villages.

              The same is the North Caucasus and the Don.

              You do not believe me, I am against believing - you will check: there are also maps with mortality by region.
              1. andj61
                andj61 April 14 2016 22: 10
                0
                Quote: AK64
                You are mistaken: the analysis of mortality by region shows that mortality was ... in the regions where there were Cossacks. In the Urals, in the Orenburg region, there was a mortality rate. It was insignificant - but at the same time sharply lacquered - Cossack villages.

                The same is the North Caucasus and the Don.

                Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Saratov and Kuibyshev regions suffered much more. In Stavropol and the Kuban, as well as in the Rostov region, there was also famine, but not at all because of its organization. And the legend about the organization of the famine against the Cossacks is from the same opera as the Ukrainian Holodomor: of course, the authorities are responsible for organizational mess and excesses with dispossession (although for the most part these processes took place a little earlier, but also in general they also affected), but the authorities couldn’t organize the weather specifically for the subsequent organization of the famine!
                Cossacks, of course, then suffered greatly - there is nothing to say. It was only in the 30s that the main defendants in the case of raskachachivanie were no longer in power, but quite a short time later they were destroyed. The course on the world revolution has already been curtailed, and the course has been taken on building socialism in one separate country taken.
  • realist
    realist April 14 2016 15: 02
    +4
    Cossacks - border guards who lived on self-sufficiency. they caught fish, raised cattle, it was impossible to engage in agriculture because at any moment an order could go on a campaign. it was so, at least in the Astrakhan Cossack army. they talked about my grandfather, I heard something from my grandfather and grandmother. to reproach the Cossacks for taking the oath to the tsar and the fatherland and did not want to violate it - silly!
    1. hoplite
      hoplite April 15 2016 02: 12
      -1
      First of all, it is foolish to reproach the oath in the civilian Cossacks, since they did not observe the oath.
  • shoemaker
    shoemaker April 14 2016 21: 30
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK8Y0abtk3A
  • AK64
    AK64 April 14 2016 22: 45
    0
    Overwhelming

    Brotherhood, There are few of us left and there is no us as a people.
    But there were less of our ancestors!

    We have no land, and there is no place for us.
    So it happened, brothers.

    Our lands are stolen, and our songs, and our fables are stolen, and fairy tales. And even our name itself is stolen from us.
    And so it happened: we changed our name.

    Our glory, the glory of our fathers, is stolen from us.
    So in that there is no shame on us - we did not steal! And we remember our fathers.

    What was with us and what cannot be stolen from us: Our Holy Faith, and our brotherhood, with whom our ancestors survived, and we, God willing, will survive too.
    And we will grow our children.

    Let’s drink, brothers, for the raspberry bunchug over the Holy Sepulcher.
  • Atigay
    Atigay April 14 2016 23: 07
    0
    But I wanted to add something: why do they always attract everyone in Russian by their ears? Well, the Cossacks were not Russian, they were not runaway peasants whom they despised and did not take into their community. Cossacks were Türks, spoke Turkic, but were baptized, that’s the whole truth. A yurt is a jurt, people, Yesaul is ayuyldyn Yesy - the owner, that is, the head of the village, and so on and so forth. My friend was in Soviet times a club in the famous Veshinskaya, lived there for several years. He was struck by how many local Turkic words are in the vocabulary. Until the 20th century, Cossacks spoke almost Turkic, but during the revolutionary time they lost their language, as, in fact, lost their identity. The revolution mixed everything. And today, the descendants of the Cossacks consider themselves Russian, like my friend Viktor Merkuryevich Mikhailov, a Muscovite, the son of a Chuvash and Belarusians. Well, it’s profitable in Russia to be Russian, what can you do. We also have a prime minister, like a Kazakh, although everyone knows that he is a Uyghur. This is life, this is conjuncture. So you can’t build a state. The Soviet Union collapsed, among other things, due to improper national policies. In Alma-Ata, for example, there was only one !!!! Kazakh school. And how would you react to this fact if Moscow had only one Russian school? Nonsense. They tried to create one community, the Soviet people, even announced this shortly before the collapse. Today, almost all of our youth has become multilingual, the President has won out, has set everyone to become trilingual. In principle, this is not difficult, in Singapore, for example, schools provide education in 4 languages: Malay, Tamil, Mandarin and English, and nothing.
    What am I talking about? Yes, it’s okay that Russia is multinational. This is actually a powerful trump card, it is the forerunner of the unifier of all lands. This is the mission of Russia. Be anyone, but love the homeland. And the motherland will love you all.
    Put cons as usual. He said that he thought like a normal northern Kazakh. Hello everyone.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 14 2016 23: 54
      0
      Cossacks were Turkic, spoke Turkic,


      This is not true. Well, or almost certainly not true.

      Ukrainian Cossacks - Turks, yes
      1. vvp2
        vvp2 April 15 2016 00: 08
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        Ukrainian Cossacks - Turks, yes

        If the "Ukrainian Cossacks" are the Zaporozhye Cossacks, then the Turks only ran around there.
        And if the Don Cossacks, then this is a Christianized and to some extent Russified people from the North. Of the Caucasus. Related to Ossetians.
        Moreover, the Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks had a completely different principle of formation. The Cossacks welcomed everyone; the Donetsk people did not accept almost anyone except, in their opinion, the most valuable personnel. Therefore, the Cossacks eventually degenerated into ordinary peasants (the estate is much lower than the level of privileged Cossacks), though not serfs, but Donchaks, no.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 15 2016 00: 19
          -1
          If the "Ukrainian Cossacks" are the Zaporozhye Cossacks, then the Turks only ran around there.


          There were no "Zaporozhye Cossacks", and could not be.
          There were Ukrainian. And they did their best to fight for the right to be like a gentry, and to be on the register of the Polish king (that is, to receive grandmothers and serfs).

          Cossacks couldn’t be in Zaporozhye, because the Zaporizhzhya Sich is vik

          But I already spent time, explained ... Well, really again? No - I will not - find above and read.

          Oh yes, about the Turks in Ukraine.
          Is the term "gray-footed" more noble? Tk Poles called Cossacks.
          Why, you understand?
          So ... Here it is ...

          In the 13th century. since the 11th century, in the forest-steppe strip of modern Ukraine, on the bottom of Kiev, (1) Karakalpaks, (2) Guzy, (3) Berendeni (4) and forgot someone ...

          Kiev quite quickly built these guys, and the Polovtsian invasion helped: like it or not, the Polovtsians turned out to be a "common enemy". As such, the above Turks steel "their filthy".

          It came to the point that the Karakalpaks (black hoods) were the guards of the Kiev princes.

          Then the Mongols came - and everything disappeared somewhere. But ... out of nothing, "Cossacks" suddenly appeared - in Ukraine. Already recorded in the 15th century.

          So where did it go? And why are "sivolfoots"?

          PS: You don't have to argue with me. It's not worth arguing at all, it's worth asking "why do you think so?"

          And you should not argue with me even more so.
          1. vvp2
            vvp2 April 15 2016 00: 38
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            There were no "Zaporozhye Cossacks", and could not be.
            There were Ukrainian. And they did their best to fight for the right to be like a gentry, and to be on the register of the Polish king (that is, to receive grandmothers and serfs).

            Quote: AK64
            Cossacks couldn’t be in Zaporozhye, because Zaporizhzhya Sich is a wiki

            Everything is in a heap, as usual. For some unknown reason, you call the Little Russian gentry (noblemen) "Ukrainian Cossacks". In your opinion, there were no Zaporozhye kakakas. Those. The Zaporozhye Sich (the lands of the Zaporozhye Cossacks) existed, but they themselves were not.
            Good for you. With fantasy.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 15 2016 02: 15
              -1
              All of you, as usual, on the heap.

              You, of course, according to the system


              For some unknown reason, you call the Little Russian gentry (noblemen) "Ukrainian Cossacks".

              And who are the "Little Russian gentry", and where did they come from? Ukrainian Cossacks are the aspirants to schlekhetism. Only a king could have the Schlehetian privileges, so they fought.
              No other "Molorossian gentry" are found even under a microscope.

              The whole idea of ​​the "Khmelnitsky revolt" is "put us on the register" (that is, give us a salary and grant privileges.) The king agreed to write down --- eight thousand agreed to write down, perhaps ... I don't remember anything. "No-e-e-e, few - there are more of us."
              Well, the Moscow tsar is richer - he recorded as many as 30 thousand in the register. They took the oath to him - and a year later they changed it.

              Such is the people.

              In your opinion, there were no Zaporozhye kakaks at all. Those. Zaporizhzhya Sich (land of the Zaporozhye Cossacks) were, but they themselves were not.

              You know, it's hard for me to write the same thing.
              Since it’s useless to suggest that you find what I wrote above, I’ll just copy myself for you.

              I’ll say a few words about Sich.
              (1) the meaning of the Sich is greatly inflated. Sich is essentially a vik ("vik" - "viking"), that is, a military settlement with an exclusively male population. There were no farms in the Sich. children did not give birth. This is it was not a self-supporting system. Economically, they lived only by robbery, and nothing else. That is, this is a filibusters' settlement, which simply cannot be large: there will be nothing to eat.

              (2) The number of Sichs in the 18th century is about 3-5 thousand people, and even this, I think, is an exaggeration. My opinion: in the 18th century, less than a thousand.
              When they write about the Sich, everything looks much more massive, but this is because the "registered" Ukrainian Cossacks also participated in the operations of the Sich - hence the extras. (Let us recall though Bulba - Bulba is a registered Cossack.)
              That is, since there was no economy there, it was "they came, fled, and dispersed."

              (3) So, most of the Sich did not agree to go to the Kuban at all: there they had to obey discipline, manage the economy, and live "on the line" (that is, at the front). How will yesterday's filibusters manage? They need it, poking around in the manure? Most of the Sichs went to the Turks, and founded the "Trans-Danube Sich" in the Danube Delta.
              See the opera "Zaporozhets beyond the Danube": "Now I am a Turk - not a Cossack"!


              Good for you. With fantasy.


              I just know. I understand: it’s very difficult to believe that when I go to the website to get in trouble, I met a knowledgeable person. To believe in such luck is almost impossible.

              How Soviet? Soviet arguments do not understand, and they only believe in information. There is a certificate that the doctor of science - then they will believe (even if about "the earth has the shape of a suitcase").

              So: I have a certificate.
              1. vvp2
                vvp2 April 15 2016 02: 33
                +1
                Quote: AK64
                And who are the "Little Russian gentry", and where did they come from? Ukrainian Cossacks are the aspirants to schlekhetism. Only a king could have the Schlehetian privileges, so they fought.

                Those. Kievan Rus also did not exist? All of these princes and their entourage, subsequently nobles? This means the Polish king gave the nobility of rootless Cossacks.
                However ...
                Quote: AK64
                Such is the people.

                In fact, Little Russians, these are the descendants of the Russians. Exactly the same as the Great Russians. The difference was only in religion during the "yoke", ie. 300 years and a long time ago. By the way, the ROC called Little Russia Holy Russia.
                But it doesn't matter, because you are still talking about Zaporozhye Cossacks, calling them "Ukrainian Cossacks". At the same time, keeping in mind that they are Little Russians. Which is fundamentally wrong.
                Quote: AK64
                So: I have a certificate.

                It would be nice from the doctor. With your "discoveries".
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 15 2016 02: 42
                  -1
                  Those. Kievan Rus also did not exist?

                  Kievan Rus in the 15th century? Amazing things...

                  But if you want: yes, it did not exist: there was no such state. And there was a conglomerate of separate "principalities", but in fact cities with suburbs.

                  All of these princes and their entourage, subsequently nobles?

                  And who of the Rurikovichs remained in Lithuania?

                  ABOUT! Yes, you go and you don’t know! After all, what is called Ukraine was first Lithuania, included in the ON.

                  Don’t tell you, you won’t know ...

                  This means the Polish king gave the nobility of rootless Cossacks.
                  However ...

                  I wrote to the registry and gave the villages.
                  And the name ... Who’s the name swaying?
                  Record in the registry meant a fee, both in peacetime and in wartime.
                  Well, the village ... you know ... Useful business.

                  And there was no other "Little Russian gentry". There were magnates (such as the Vishnevetskys), but they would send a joker to the stable for a hint of "gentry".


                  In fact, Little Russians are descendants of the Russians.

                  Why not Atlanteans?
                  Yes, do not forget: they also dug the Black Sea!


                  Exactly the same as the Great Russians.

                  Some kind of kindergarten ....

                  You know, go and figure out who the "Rusichi" are as your homework.

                  Here you go, you come, maybe we’ll talk.

                  In the meantime, goodbye: I am tired of protesting the textbook of fairy tales for 4th grade

                  1. vvp2
                    vvp2 April 15 2016 02: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    But if you want: yes, it did not exist: there was no such state. And there was a conglomerate of separate "principalities", but in fact cities with suburbs.

                    Well, don't fantasize, okay? Everything was, as in the whole world. Including peasants, nobles and princes. And the fact that Holy Russia (as it was called by the Russian Orthodox Church during the yoke) lost its independence does not mean that it has gone somewhere to know. She remained in place, you can not worry. And do not give out rootless tramps-Cossacks for Little Russian nobility.
                    Quote: AK64
                    Yes, you go and you don’t know!

                    Well, where are we going. It’s only you who have some special secret knowledge.
                    Quote: AK64
                    And who of the Rurikovichs remained in Lithuania?

                    There, in addition to the Rurikovich nobles, there were like uncut dogs. Including princes. And no less generous than Peter Romanov - nevertheless, the first and most ancient state of the Rus was with its capital in Kiev (Kievan Rus). By the way, that is precisely why the name Little Russia was assigned to those lands during the time of Catherine, which meant Small (i.e., original) Russia. And she commanded the history of all Russia to lead from ancient Kievan Rus. Learn elementary history, this is bad for you.
                    Quote: AK64
                    And there was no other "Little Russian gentry"

                    Bu-ha-ha 3 times. Yes, you, my friend, an ordinary ignoramus. Quartet, in other words.
                    We read about Taras Bulba and other Zaporozhye tramps. Have you ever thought where the peasants fled to Sich? From Little Russia they fled there. From, it’s scary even to imagine, their Little Russian landowners.
          2. hoplite
            hoplite April 15 2016 02: 14
            0
            . Find at least one document calling Zaporizhzhya Cossacks Ukrainian.
    2. hoplite
      hoplite April 15 2016 02: 13
      +1
      In my ancestors - Transbaikal Cossacks. They did not have any Turks there. Russian and local Siberian peoples.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 15 2016 02: 17
        -2
        In my ancestors - Transbaikal Cossacks. They did not have any Turks there. Russian and local Siberian peoples.


        God will give
  • Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin April 15 2016 18: 58
    +1
    Guys, comrades, gentlemen! Let's live in peace ! And then reading the comments in the topic, you might think that the Civil War in our country ended a month ago, and exactly the day before yesterday the Great Patriotic War ended ...
    1. gendir.grifon
      gendir.grifon April 15 2016 19: 53
      0
      the civil war continues; in 1991, the bourgeoisie and other enemies of the people temporarily prevailed.
  • gendir.grifon
    gendir.grifon April 15 2016 19: 52
    +1
    Normal Cossacks supported the Soviet power and the Motherland during the Great Patriotic War. Any proprietors and other owners of lands, herds, exploiting their own Cossack farm laborers, were piled into emigration. And there were also such Cossacks who fought on the side of the Wehrmacht in the Cossack units of Krasnov. You can say a lot about the fact that they were like fighting for their Russia with the bloody Soviet regime and the tyrant Stalin, who personally ate people. It's all lies and empty self-justification. For their familiar world, they fought for Schubert's waltzes and the crunch of French rolls (the top of the Cossacks), good land plots, their own small plots, herds and herds of cattle (wealthy Cossacks). And for the Motherland, the Cossacks, who supported the Soviet regime, fought no worse, if not better. It was not the Soviet government that repressed the Cossacks and the rest of the population, but the internationalist Trotskyists who discredited this power and their local accomplices. The victims of these repressions are truly sorry. Persecution and repression were the continuation of the civil war, and only J.V. Stalin and his team did not become a path to the destruction of the Russian people and the Cossacks as part of the Russian people. Read M. Sholokhov "Virgin Soil Upturned" and "Quiet Don".
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 21 October 2016 10: 09
    0
    Pauline Bow for Article! Another page of history ....
  • tundra
    tundra 5 November 2016 10: 32
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
    Guys, comrades, gentlemen! Let's live in peace ! And then reading the comments in the subject, you might think that the Civil War in our country ended a month ago,

    Each time it appears, an article about Cossacks is played out in comic wars in comments.
    And not to the house of these Zhid-Zapolitovskie commentators, who grumbled saliva at the history of the Cossacks, they humiliate the entire RUSSIAN history, to the delight of the naughty Saxons.
    Here someone is rubbing his hands over the ocean, again these barbarians have grabbed for their history.
    The history of the Cossacks, this is the history of the formation of Russia, with all its nuances.
    The logical chain of this ideological war is not visible only to a complete idiot,
    at first the Russians are barbarians who brought civilization from Europe,
    then here is the Cossacks, such as the king’s satraps,
    He already wrote, L. Tolstoy said that Russia was bound by its borders, owed to the Cossacks (those borders)
    That infuriated it, the Zhidomasonson kagal, and therefore they cut out the Cossacks, former tailors, because of the Pale of Settlement.
    Not for nothing Lomonosov, breaking his noses to German historians, under Elizabeth.
    How many commentators would have suffered noses, now from him.
    Or, for example, the end of 80 and the beginning of 90, howling about repression, Stalin, Beria,
    Destruction of true Leninists.
    And when did the repression begin?
    But do not remind the surnames of true Leninists, eh?
    I read comments, some lovers to trample on their own story
    and right before your eyes, faces of arrogant and stupid talk show participants,
    Koreans and this bald from Ukraine.

    A descendant myself, I am a descendant of the Don Cossacks and Trans-Ural peasants.