Interesting Facts

October 17th, or how the Bolsheviks raised power


The rather poorly educated workers and peasants were the force that various parties had to fight for, both before 1917 and after it. With the outbreak of World War I, the propaganda state machine tried to explain why the country got involved in the hostilities (the editors know.rf notes that at first Russia accepted the idea of ​​war with great enthusiasm, but this did not last long).

At first, the spiritual upsurge was so great that a dry law was introduced throughout the country - the decision was made under pressure from the public. Formally, it was canceled only during the NEP - in the mid-20s, already under the Soviet regime.

In total, no more than three days passed from the historic Aurora shot (which served as a signal for the start of action) to the transition of Petrograd to the control of the Bolsheviks. After that, Russia gradually plunged into the chaos of the civil war.

There is an opinion that propaganda and agitation at the end of the 10s of the twentieth century among the Communists was so well organized that this allowed the Bolsheviks to retain power in 1917 and beyond.

After the revolution and the end of the civil war, the country was still in a fever, it was time for the newly formed Soviet republics to “collect stones” and explain why this state system was the best, as well as, for example, why the peasant should take all his cows to the collective farm, and do not live your own house.

Leaving aside the ethical side of Soviet propaganda, we cannot but admit that the Soviet agitprop was placed with knowledge of the matter. However, one should not forget that propaganda in the USSR was not enough. Her “effective” help was a terrible repressive machine. The country has not yet recovered from the consequences of the operation of this meat grinder.
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen

Oh, sorry, but you don’t have enough continental rubles to promote the recording.

Get continental rubles,
inviting your friends to Comte.

What preceded October 17th, we examined here:

"February 17th, for which a" popular rebellion "was needed. We are looking for answers in 1916."

Since the Big History is a very grandiose and large-scale enterprise, in it, no matter what country or time it is discussed, usually little by little is mixed up: tragic and comic, blood, tears and fun ...

In strict accordance with this rule, what some call the October Revolution, while others the October Revolution, was finally finalized, discussed, thought over and brought to mind not at all in the “headquarters of the revolution” Smolny, but in a peaceful, cozy, homely atmosphere. Moreover, in the apartment of the person who categorically did not want this revolution, this revolution.

That was the case. The last meetings of the Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Committee took place ... in the apartment of the very Menshevik Sukhanov, who led the writing of "Order No. 1", and he treated the Bolsheviks roughly like a cat to a dog. But his legal wife was completely and completely on the side of the Bolsheviks - and for the sake of greater conspiracy, she provided her living space for crucial meetings.

It was arranged in the best traditions of female perfidy: Sukhanova, a kind of fox, insisted that the hubby should not trudge home half a city from his workplace, but spend the night there, so that, they say, he would not overwork. It is possible that at the same time she, gently stroking her husband's crown, cooed something like: “Kitty, you simply must save your strength, the new Russia needs you, be smart ...” Women on such tricks craftswomen.

In general, no matter how the persuasions looked, Sukhanov succumbed to them - and spent the night away from his homeland. At whom the Military Revolutionary Committee met at night. Having learned about this later, Sukhanov was terribly offended by the spouse. Judging by what we know about this audience - revolutionaries, liberals, democrats - we can say with confidence: for sure Comrade. Sukhanov would be a hundred times easier to accept and endure a purely bed betrayal of a spouse than a political one ... But who asked him?

Now let me bring another sensation. You can argue, for many it will be amazing news that the Bolshevik coup, in fact, did not take place on October 25 (November 7 in a new style), but on the 21st!

Meanwhile, everything was just that. Just on October 21, after the rallies and resolutions, the Petrograd garrison recognized the Council as its supreme power, and the Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Committee as its immediate superiors. After that, Kerensky and the company could only put out the light and drain the water. They had at their disposal in St. Petersburg several hundred people, a maximum of a thousand, which compared to the Petrograd garrison was not even a drop in the ocean, but an infusorium, visible not in any microscope ...

But, what is most ridiculous and piquant, the decision of the garrison was considered as a kind of abstraction by both the "temporary" and the Bolsheviks! Because a lot of very similar resolutions had already been passed by then ... And for some time, four days, everything went on as before. In the Winter, Kerensky was a balabol, in Smolny they were engaged in current affairs. As Sukhanov wrote in his memoirs:

“The council, by tradition, did not recognize itself as power, and the government, by tradition, did not recognize itself as a pure props ...”

The next four days, frankly, were more like a bad shed. The twenty-second delegation of the Military Revolutionary Committee showed up at the General Headquarters, Colonel Polkovnikov, commander of the Petrograd Military District (probably, judging by the surname, the great-grandson of the serfs who once belonged to some colonel) and demanded that they be given the right to check all the orders of the headquarters for the garrison and put your visa on them. Colonels sent them swearingly, and the delegates complacently retired - but not to the address indicated, but to Smolny. And nothing particularly happened. All were engaged in meetings, meetings, resolutions, and other chatter.

Twenty-fourth good fellows Kerensky and Polkovnikov decided to finally deliver a decisive blow to the adversaries in the person of the Bolsheviks. It's time ... But let no one think that they gathered a couple of hundred loyal soldiers and, reinforcing them with armored cars, went to storm Smolny ...

Nothing remotely similar. As usual, Kerensky simply foolishly. The “decisive blow” consisted in the fact that a dozen sergeless junkers with a police commissar headed at the editorial office of the Bolshevik newspapers “Work Path” and “Soldier” and announced that both editions were closed to the damn mother. They did not meet the slightest resistance, first of all because the Bolshevik newspapermen almost fell on the floor in surprise: they could not have imagined that there was still the Kerensky government and the commander Colonels. They were sure that the only power now is the Military Revolutionary Committee ...

Outraged junkers began to clatter with bolts, and the Bolsheviks, deciding not to mess with their snot, shrugged, took a coat and went to Smolny, still unable to recover from surprise. The junkers were broken by matrices and torn up finished newspapers, photographed as a keepsake in the midst of this mess (the picture was saved), sealed the editors and left with a sense of accomplishment. That was the end of all "decisive measures."

The Military Revolutionary Committee did not like such jokes, and he declared full combat readiness. Here it began in earnest.Destroyers with revolutionary sailors (mostly not the Bolsheviks, but the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, or simply Buzoters) came from Kronstadt. Sailors, soldiers, and Red Guard workers began to occupy all sorts of strategic points — bridges, a telephone exchange, and stations — without much ado. The cruiser Aurora approached the Nikolaev bridge and dropped anchor. Kerensky sent the cruiser an order to leave immediately. On the cruiser, as it is easy to guess, in the sense of an order, not Kerensky, they wiped it.

Only now Kerensky began to think little by little that things were, perhaps, worthless. And he began to send messengers wherever possible: to Cossack regiments, to armored car units, to ensign schools, demanding that everyone, “horses and weapons”, as they used to say in the Middle Ages, immediately defend the government and him personally.

No one thought to speak ...

Igor Bunich, the author is interesting, but sometimes inclined to the most unbridled fantasies, at one time he described in detail how the evil coup carried out the October Revolution. He composed a whole fantastic novel: from Germany, they brought a ship full of rifles and cannons, and German prisoners of war, dressed in Russian overcoats with red bows, clumsily shouted “Give!” Under the guise of the Bolsheviks Zimny ​​and stormed ...

Alas, this is nothing more than the fantasy of a bad flight. It is completely incomprehensible, firstly, why it was necessary to bring rifles with guns to Russia from Germany already - in Petrograd this stuff was already heaps. Secondly, and much more important, in the conditions at that time, when the Winter Palace was protected by only fifty drummers from the women's battalion and a handful of cadets, there was absolutely no need to attract the Germans. The Military Revolutionary Committee, and without captive Teutons, had a huge force.

Well, of course, there was no "storm" of the Winter. Like the assault on the Bastille. What to do, any revolution needs beautiful myths that give it solidity and romance. And not only revolution: look at the ceremonial portraits of European generals and field marshals of the 18th century - they also are something mythological. So it is accepted. So beautiful.

The Winter Palace was simply gradually occupied. It’s a very huge building, you can’t keep track of all the doors and windows with only a handful of defenders. And completely unorganized groups of soldiers and ordinary marauders dressed as soldiers gradually leaked into the palace. In those days, buying a soldier’s uniform at a flea market was no more difficult than now a pack of cigarettes.

But first of all, they rushed not to overthrow the "capitalist ministers", but to storm the richest royal wine cellars. For some time, the snotty defenders of the Winter Palace arrested these aggressors and dragged them into the first available rooms, where they stacked them in piles. But then so many people got into Zimnyi that they stopped arresting them - and the “assailants” consumed the finest wines. Waving at everything, the defenders of the Winter Palace themselves began to suck on a free screw. The recollections of one of them, Lieutenant Alexander Sinegub, have been preserved. The banquet was still ...

Then the defenders began to gradually wash off. The gunners from the Konstantinovsky military school were the first to leave with guns. Cossacks gathered behind them. Sinegub began to agitate the "stanshniks" to stay, but the commander of the subunit responded calmly:

- When we walked here, they told us tales that almost the whole city was with images, and all military schools and artillery, but in fact it turned out: Jews and women, and the government was also half Jewish. But the Russian people there, with Lenin, remained. And here even Kerensky didn’t remember you by night, he left alone.

Sinegub carefully wrote down these words of his for history.It is not known how much the brave Cossack managed to dred, that the "Jews" began to seem to him (there was not a single Jew in the Kerensky government), but what could you imagine, just to get into a fight for the empty man Sasha Kerensky.

Gone are the Cossacks. Drunken defenders and drunken "assaults" stumbled around the Winter Palace. I would not be surprised if it turns out that they drank together - that would be quite Russian ...

The cadets with machine guns left, the "drummers" left the barricades. It was then that events began to more or less correspond to the classical picture: Aurora spectacularly flopped a single, gathered at Zimny ​​with a whole crowd rushed to the palace and arrested a bunch of shaking with fear individuals who called themselves the “Provisional Government”.

And then the booze went for real!

True, the next morning, when the population reached Zimny, who also knew perfectly well about wine cellars, the Bolsheviks began to act harshly. A detachment of sailors rushed in and in half an hour shot from rifles a rare collection of wines that had been accumulating almost since Elizabethan times, and the rest was lowered into the sewers.

My soul is filled with inhuman sadness and my hand is barely able to hold a pen when I tell you that French brandies of a hundred years old and red wines of the provinces of Bordeaux and Beaujolais flowed into the sewer. But grieve with me, oh my attentive and impressionable reader ... The psychological appearance of people who, without a twinge of conscience, have perpetrated such barbarism, is completely incomprehensible to me. It’s just right to believe Bunich that they were Germans — a Russian is hardly capable of such a thing ...

In general, Winter somehow was taken. By the way, the tales that during the assault all the strikers from the women's battalion, that is, several dozen, were raped, - another bike. A special commission of the Moscow City Duma (which did not have the slightest sympathy for the Bolsheviks), which investigated this story without delay, found out with all the certainty that only three women were raped. This, of course, is sad - but we are talking, in general, about individual hooligan excesses, and nothing more, and certainly not about organized mass desecration ...

By the way. The legend that Kerensky disappeared from Zimny ​​in a dress of the sister of mercy was not born by the Bolsheviks, but by the defenders of Zimny, who were pissed at his escaped "high commander" ...

So it goes. In perestroika times, there were no publications where the revolution was diligently called a “coup”, which explained to the public that there was no heroic assault on the Winter Palace.

It's like that. But the authors of these articles, eager to kick the dead Bolshevik lion, did not at all think that the situation they described had a flip side: the "government" of Kerensky was so mediocre, worthless and despised by all that even a real assault and little was needed to overthrow him -Small serious hostilities ...

What is curious, among the defenders of the Winter Palace, according to the recollections of Sinegub, there were many Jews - cadets and ensigns: Schwartzman, Shapiro, Goldman, Meisner, Kahn, etc. Gentlemen, Russian personnel officers these days behaved somewhat differently. The same Sinegub recalled that on October 19, the General Staff organized a free distribution of revolvers with cartridges to officers - in order to fight against the Bolsheviks. At least a thousand officers stood on the Palace Square for the Nagans, and 134 came to defend Zimny. When Sinegub, out of naivete, was amazed at such a mismatch of tsifiri, his colleague at the warrant officer school, Shumakov, clarified the situation in two ...

“Ha ha ha,” the lieutenant interrupted me, bursting out laughing. - Well, you are naive. Why, these gentlemen, these gentlemen, St. Petersburg officers immediately sold upon receipt. They also managed to get them several times, and then they ran and asked where the Bolsheviks were, if they would buy this protection of the Provisional Government. ”

Lieutenant Shumakov did not slander the officers at all - the members of the Military Revolutionary Committee subsequently recalled how they organized the mass purchase of these revolvers directly on Nevsky Prospect. Gentlemen officers, blue princes ... Correct shoulder straps, Lieutenant Golitsyn ...

And the commissar of the All-Russian Revolutionary Committee, Sladkov, with a detachment of SIX people, had occupied the Admiralty even before the final capture of Zimny ​​and without any resistance arrested several hundred officers of the General Staff of the Navy. All obediently surrendered revolvers and daggers and declared their neutrality.

The officers of two other headquarters - the General and Main Headquarters of the Petrograd Military District - had prepared a lot of alcohol and snacks in the barracks of the Pavlovsky Regiment a few days before the coup, settled there and also declared neutrality. The fact is that the deputy chief of the General Staff, General Potapov, was a longtime good friend of the great Bolshevik M.S. Kedrova. Shortly before the coup, Kedrov brought him together with a member of the Revolutionary Military Committee, Podvoisky, the parties had a nice conversation, and as a result, neither the General Staff nor the War Ministry raised a finger to help Kerensky.

Already during the Soviet era, Potapov, flaunted in the form of the Red Army, wrote with serious pride: when after October employees of many ministries either ran away or sabotaged the instructions of the new government, “the tsarist Ministry of War was a clear exception, where work did not stop even after the October Revolution not for a minute ... "

Like this. And still terrible tales tell us that the evil Bolsheviks took hostages of Russian officers as wives and small children, and reluctantly went to the Red Army with incredible mental torment ... What kind of hostages could your hostages be in October of the seventeenth? !

Incidentally, when Kerensky nevertheless managed to move General Krasnov to the Cossacks on Petrograd, on October 28 the chief of staff of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Lieutenant General Dukhonin, telegraphed the Don Ataman Kaledin:

“Would you find it possible to send a detachment of Cossacks from the Don to Moscow to assist the government forces in suppressing the Bolshevik uprising, which, in order to pacify the uprising in Moscow, could go to Petrograd to support the troops of General Krasnov?”

Kaledin categorically refused - gentlemen of the Cossacks at that time had just declared the full sovereignty of the Don Cossacks (And not only them.). They thought, assholes, to sit out in their well-fed and rich lands, having decided, for some reason, that the revolution would bypass them and, until the end of the century, would turn fat with fat, fencing themselves off from the rest of Russia. In the nineteenth year, when the Bolsheviks and their hands reached them, the "village men" must have come to their senses, but it was too late ... They did not sit out.

Kerensky, in a word, collapsed like a flower pot from the balcony. A man of fantastic worthlessness! None other than Denikin wrote about the Provisional Government:

“All his activities, voluntarily or involuntarily, had the character of destruction, not creation. The government canceled, abolished, disbanded, destroyed ... This was the center of gravity of his work. Russia of that period seems to be a dilapidated old house that required major reconstruction ...

The architects began to take out the rotten beams, and some of them were not replaced at all, another was replaced with light, temporary supports, and the third was grinded with fresh logs without staples - the last resort turned out to be the worst. And the building collapsed. "

Power simply fell out of Kerensky’s weak legs.

But in general, the history of October is still fraught with many mysteries. The astonishing complacency shown to Lenin by a considerable number of gentlemen generals, starting with Potapov, looks very strange and ambitious. The same Colonels, as it turned out much later, did not so much defend Kerensky as lead some kind of game.

The matter is extremely foggy.According to some reports, by that time another coup was being prepared, by the forces of the "right", led by General Alekseev, Rodzianko and Milyukov. They seemed to be about to drop Kerensky just under the pretext of protecting him from the Bolsheviks. Kerensky himself throughout his long life in exile was convinced that between Lenin and part of the generals there was a certain conspiracy:

"Lenin should have done away with the Provisional Government, open the way to the" national "dictator in general uniform."

Very many have denied this, including Milyukov himself. But in principle, the version is not so crazy. It might well turn out that Lenin, in addition to the German General Staff, also used the gentlemen of the Russian generals for his own purposes: for example, assuring them that he was ready to serve as an “icebreaker” for them, and then nobly go aside, giving them power. It’s in the style of Ilyich, quite in the style of the Bolsheviks, quite in the style of “revolutionaries in general”, who are ready to cooperate for the sake of business, even with the devil.

But this is nothing more than a version, there is no evidence, there are no traces - such things do not make out on paper, even if there was something ...

The February revolution, as we have already seen, has long been predicted by many smart people, to whom, like Kassandra, those in power did not listen. In the same way, October was, in fact, predicted as early as August 20 of the seventeenth year, when at a meeting of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party in one of the speeches it was said:

"... the country begins to collapse ... the result of the inaction of the authorities ... the power will be taken up by someone who is not afraid to become cruel and rude ... we will wait for the dictatorship ... the government already considers the possibility of using the military to get bread from peasants ... outbreaks of social rebellion on the outskirts will not as much the result of bad shepherds and various villains, as a result of devastation and mutual misunderstanding ... Will there be cause for hunger riots or speeches of the Bolsheviks, but life will push society and the population to the idea that the surgeon is inevitable matic operation ... ".

The Bolsheviks were not afraid to scribble with a scalpel on their stomach, that's all. However, one should not reduce everything to the concept of "Bolsheviks". They were simply the first to decide what was in line with the general mood. Some of the tsarist generals recalled in his memoirs how, shortly before October, he had conversations with soldiers, activists of the committee there. And one of them is not a Bolshevik, by the way! - declared to His Excellency about the following: you, gentlemen, were good, you have been trying hard to do something, something else, and every time you didn’t succeed. Now we ourselves decided to take the helm, you see what happens ...

Not only the Bolsheviks agreed with October! When the constituent assembly was dispersed, the sailors, as you know, were commanded by the famous Zheleznyakov, the "sailor-guerrilla Zheleznyak" from the once popular song. He was never a Bolshevik. Alexander Zheleznyakov is an active member of the party of anarchists. The anarchists mainly consisted of the guard who was "tired".

In the following years, when the Bolsheviks became the only ruling party, the role and significance of the "fellow travelers" was in every way diminished and diminished, and the anarchists were especially unlucky - in numerous books and films they were presented as a miserable bunch of completely operet personalities. Meanwhile, the anarchists at one time were a large, powerful and influential party, especially in the navy.

By the way, that detachment, whose commander was Zheleznyakov, when he died on the Civil, was again not a Bolshevik, but a purely anarchist. With even his own armored train. Contrary to the same song, Zheleznyakov did not wander along the steppes and did not get ambushed - there was a normal battle, whites pressed against the train station, an armored train snapped from all the barrels, and a stray bullet got Zheleznyak when he hit from two revolvers from a narrow window of an armored car ...

For more than eight months, the Bolsheviks were also allies of the Left Social Revolutionaries (again, a large, influential party with its armed detachments). The Social Revolutionaries held prominent posts in power and in the Cheka.

“Before the Russian workers, horizons still unprecedented in history are opening up ... Until now, the entire labor movement has invariably ended in defeat. But the current movement is international and therefore invincible! There is no power in the world that could extinguish the fire of revolution! The old world is dying. A new world is emerging ... "

This is not Lenin. This appears a month after October, Maria Spiridonova, one of the Social Revolutionary leaders and at that moment - a loyal supporter of the Bolsheviks. Later, however, between the winners, as it often happens, a bickering will begin, which has turned into a collision with a shot. But it will be later ...

In addition, after the October Revolution, the United Social Democrats Internationalists joined the Bolsheviks, too - not a miserable bunch, but a serious group led by quite prominent people: the seasoned socialist Martov and writer Maxim Gorky ...

If we distract from everything incidental and highlight the main thing, we must agree that at the head of the October Revolution (or the October Revolution, like anyone else) stood three, towering above the others: Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky.

Lenin he earned this right with an extraordinary mind, the ability to feel the moment of a throw when the fangs unmistakably stick into the back of his head, and also with the talent to pierce his opinion when the majority in his own party is against you, and force this majority to act in the right direction.

Trotsky in the seventeenth - the personification of violent energy and will, a brilliant speaker, one of the best speakers of the XX century (in revolutionary times, when immeasurably much depends on the word - a most valuable quality).

Stalin he did not shine with oratorical talents, but he had no less energy and will, moreover, he knew how to work as a convict, methodically and relentlessly turning mountains. During the October Revolution, he remained in the shade, did not show off in the stands, did not throw incendiary slogans into the masses. He simply, in complete secrecy, was engaged in some important, serious and necessary combinations for victory. What this work was, we will never know, but many researchers come to the conclusion that it was.

Trotsky wrote that Lenin valued in Stalin "Firmness, endurance, perseverance and cunning." Krasin noted "diabolical ingenuity and cunning, multiplied by caution." V. Arsenidze, Stalin’s associate in Caucasian Social Democracy, "Great energy, tireless performance, a huge and peculiar organizational talent."

One has to rely only on indirect data - Stalin was the greatest conspirator. All my conscious life. But since it is well known that long before the revolution, he enjoyed recognition in the party as an experienced organizer, that his responsibilities were clearly known (financial affairs, networking, party intelligence and counterintelligence), this can be attributed to the fact that Stalin’s activities in the days preceding October , weeks, months, is obscured by obscurity - and the conclusion suggests itself.

Stalin did not idle at all and did not “sit out”. Wrong person. He also did something, and more intensely - but, as usual, he left everything secret. And memoirs, unlike many party comrades, he never wrote. All secrets died with him. In order to try to restore “indirectly” at least a part of his activities before October, he would have to turn all his memories and a lot of documents, looking for traces, hints, strings. Overwork.

Therefore, we confine ourselves to a simple statement of fact: the revolution has triumphed. And she had three leaders, although others counted themselves with great ardor ...

5 major war crimes of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War

Many atrocities incriminated by the Communists in the civil war of 1918-1922 were committed either by the still irregular units of the Red Guard or by the forces of the Cheka, the food army, etc. special units. Nevertheless, the regular Red Army also has many shameful pages.

The destruction of Yaroslavl

July 5, 1918 in Yaroslavl began an armed uprising of officers, prepared by the "Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom" under the leadership of the Social Revolutionary Boris Savinkov. The rebellion was timed to coincide with the active actions of the anti-Soviet People’s Army in the Volga region and the expected landing of the allies in Arkhangelsk (neither one nor the other took place). The rebels seized the arsenals, disarmed most of the Soviet units in the city and captured the central part of the city. They were joined by numerous volunteers from the civilian population of Yaroslavl.
The passivity of the rebels, caused by their unreasonable hope for external assistance, allowed the Bolsheviks to quickly recover from the shock and concentrate their forces to suppress the rebellion. Since the mobilization of the population in the Red Army was announced just a few days before, the Red Army consisted mainly of units of mercenaries - "internationalists". Three Latvian regiments, the Hungarian and Warsaw "revolutionary regiments" took part in the attack on Yaroslavl (the latter included a separate Sino-Korean company).

The commander of the Yaroslavl Front, Anatoly Gekker and the head of the Yaroslavl Military District, Konstantin Neiman, concentrated artillery against the city and launched his methodical shelling from July 13, as well as began his bombing from airplanes. The rebels did not have artillery. Destroying quarter after quarter, the Reds squeezed the encirclement. The remaining rebels on July 21 surrendered under the guarantee of a commission in the city for the repatriation of German prisoners of war, led by Lieutenant Balk. After the intervention of the German Ambassador Botmer, on July 24, Balk handed over all the internees (428 people) to the Bolsheviks, who immediately shot them in execution of Trotsky's telegram.

All suspicious persons (that is, "class alien") were driven to concentration camps. Worker Kostylev, sympathizing with the Bolsheviks, testified that all those detainees for whom none of the "proletarians" could vouch for were shot. During the battle for the city, 80% of its buildings were destroyed, 28 thousand inhabitants were left homeless. Many architectural monuments were destroyed or badly damaged. The fire killed Demidov Lyceum and its library, many museum exhibits and archival materials.

Suppression of the uprising of workers in Udmurtia

All subsequent uprisings described here were distinguished by their spontaneity and the fact that they were not raised by "exploiters", but by workers and peasants. One of the largest was the uprising, the core of which was the workers of the arms factories in Izhevsk and Votkinsk. On August 8, 1918, in response to an order from the Soviet government to speak to the front, the workers of Izhevsk rose. In mid-August, Soviet power in the district was overthrown. In the rear of the Soviet Eastern Front, liberated territory arose. On August 31, the rebels took the city of Sarapul, where the headquarters of the 2nd Soviet Army was located.
However, the rebels failed to establish cooperation with the troops of the People’s Army near Kazan. In mid-September, the Reds launched an attack on the liberated area. The head of the 2nd Combined Division, Vladimir Azins, commanded the suppression of the uprising. 60% of his troops were international mercenaries. On November 7, 1918, the Reds occupied Izhevsk. Some of the rebels managed to break through to join the White Guard armies, where they later fought as part of the special Izhevsk-Votkinsk labor division.

After the capture of Izhevsk and Votkinsk, mass executions began, which the Red Army initially engaged in. The very next day after the capture of Izhevsk, they shot more than 400 people.Subsequently, the terror was carried out by the forces of the Cheka.

The shooting of a labor strike in Astrakhan

In early 1919, Astrakhan became a front-line city. The financial situation of the workers sharply worsened. Fermentation began in the city. On March 6, the Bolsheviks reduced the ration of bread to workers to one pound. In response to this, on March 10, workers at several major enterprises gathered for a spontaneous rally. The provisional revolutionary committee, headed by Sergei Kirov, was fully prepared. According to the protesters, machine gun fire was opened. After that, mass executions began, the victims of which were from 200 to 4000 people. Units of the 11th Army, directed by Konstantin Mekhonoshin, Chairman of its Revolutionary Military Council, were engaged in terror.

Suppression of the Tambov, Kronstadt and West Siberian uprisings

Each of these revolts is a separate issue. All of them were accompanied by mass executions of not only captured, but also the civilian population. In the midst of the peasant uprising of Alexander Antonov (1920-1921), on June 11, 1921, the commander of the troops of the Tambov province Mikhail Tukhachevsky issued an order according to which the red commanders had the right to shoot all unarmed persons in the military area without trial and trial, to burn houses and t .d. Mass shootings of hostages were used in cases where peasants refused to give out weapons and “bandits”.
So, on June 27, in the village of Osinovka, the Red Army took 40 hostages and shot half of them, after which the peasants issued 5 “bandits” for reprisal, who were immediately shot.
Tukhachevsky reported: "Nothing happens without executions. Executions in one village do not apply to another until the same measure is taken.».

They took hostages without analyzing their age, including young children, tearing them away from their mothers and placing them in concentration camps. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee Commission noted this practice, pointing to its illegality.
Mass hostage was also practiced in the suppression of the West Siberian peasant uprising of 1921-1922. The total number of killed peasants, both participating in hostilities and civilians, is not accountable. The account should apparently be kept by tens of thousands. After the suppression of the Kronstad rebellion in March 1921, at least two thousand people were shot. All these operations were carried out by regular units of the Red Army.

The use of chemical weapons in densely populated areas

Chemical weapons were first used by the commander of the Ukrainian group of Soviet troops, the Left Social Revolutionary Mikhail Muravyov in Kiev in February 1918. Then Tukhachevsky widely used chemical shells against the rebellious peasants in the Tambov region. With the suppression of the Yaroslavl (1918) and Kronstadt (1921) rebellions, chemical ammunition was also prepared, but the weather prevented their use.

Essay “October 1917: Revolution or Coup?”

Essay on the topic of: “October 1917: coup or revolution”

Completed by: Parkhomenko Vadim Gennadevich, student of 10-A class

Head: Sinyavin Alexey Ivanovich, a teacher of history and social studies.

A revolution is often called a public explosion. In the history of Russia, it was believed that the most significant was the October 1917 revolution. More recently, the concept of "The Great October Socialist Revolution" was defined as the main event of the twentieth century. "

Recently, however, a different view has taken shape in historical science about the revision of the role and place of this event in our history. Instead of the term “Great October Socialist Revolution” commonly accepted in Soviet times, the expression “October Revolution” appeared.

The significance of this event, which happened in October 1917, was reassessed - from positive to almost negative.

It should be noted that this cardinal reassessment in understanding the October events of 1917 occurred mainly as a result of changes in public sentiments under the influence of the political struggle that unfolded in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. and especially after its collapse.

In the history textbook on the 11th grade, “History of Russia of the XXth - the Beginning of the XXIst Century” (edited by N.V. Zagladin, “Russian Word”, 2007), this event is interpreted as “Armed uprising in Petrograd. Establishment of Soviet power. ” On page 107 of this textbook it is stated that, "in historical literature there is no single point of view on the events of October 1917."

So October 1917 - revolution, coup, conspiracy? I am sure that the appearance of various assessments of the October events of 1917 is the result of an arbitrary interpretation of the very concept of “revolution”. As you know, the essence of the revolution lies in a radical change in the state of society, in a sharp transition to a new stage of its development.

This should be remembered, giving one or another assessment of the events of October 1917.

I will not try to recreate events related to the revolution in an essay essay, since this is, of course, a hopeless case, and draw a dotted line on it — to raise legitimate questions about the laws of the revolution.

As the events of October 1917 go farther away from us, questions become not less, but more and more.

But the main ones, what is a revolution or a coup? How did the Bolshevik party, numbering a little more than 250 thousand party members, be able to take power, change the social structure, create collective farms and state farms unknown to anyone, create large-scale industry, a strong defense complex, a new school, science, ideology, etc.?

In the essay essay, I will try to identify the factors that caused the steepness of the turn of Russian history, the fierce social clashes that were in Russia and to answer the main question of our time - October 1917 - revolution or coup, start to defend my position, by defining the concept of what is revolution?

The revolution is a special type of historical movement, a radical revolution in the life of society, which leads to a qualitatively new social

and the political system and the establishment of a new government. In a comparatively narrow chronological framework, from March to October 1917, the stream of events was condensed to the limit, carried away many, who were still dozing forces, eliminated public institutions and relations that had become dilapidated, shaking everything around with a roar of calls, spells, and curses.

Revolutions arise as a result of a gradual increase in the contradictions that accumulate in the process of evolutionary development, which arise as a result of the growth of contradictions in society at a certain stage of its development.Revolution is the most acute form of struggle between new and obsolete old forms of social relations. Was it in Russia? Yes it was!

The history of the October 1917 revolution sharply divided Russian society into opposing social groups, pulled into the political struggle the large masses of the people who were trying to come to power, it changed the form of ownership, carried out a radical transformation of the social system.

At that time, the political atmosphere in Russia changed dramatically, which finally dispelled the euphoria of the February revolution.

Moreover, I am deeply convinced of this, in the conditions of a tremendous psychological shift generated by the fall of autocracy, the breaking of centuries-old foundations, traditions and the absence of firm state power, the growing but unfulfilled demands of the revolutionary masses caused an explosion of discontent, bitterness, reinforced by feelings of their own strength .Under these conditions, the Bolsheviks, with their simple and super-radical slogans, worldwide inciting hatred of the bourgeoisie, as the source of all evils and the complete satisfaction of all the demands of the workers, soldiers, peasants, have gained unprecedented popularity.

It is known that Russia “became pregnant” with the revolution long before October 1917. The pressing tasks of social development remained unresolved for decades. Among them, the most important were:

- leading to the end of the industrial revolution,

-solving the national question,

-solving issues of science, education, culture, etc.

World War 1914 - 1918 extremely aggravated all social contradictions and led to an unprecedented economic devastation in comparison with other warring states; it became a kind of catalyst for the revolution. The autocracy once again demonstrated its helplessness, for which it was “punished” by the February Revolution.

The social crisis reached such a depth that in the spring of 1917, Russia actually collapsed as a state, and Russian capitalism as a social system, after the tsar’s abdication,

Having come to state power, he got a chance to overcome the crisis, but its representatives in the Provisional Government did not take this chance.

the progressive paralysis of state power became apparent, it was unable to even carry out the promised

elections to the Constituent Assembly, which was to determine the future direction of the country's development. Moreover, another, really terrible, problem began to be seen.

Almost ten million feral and furious soldiers, with weapons in their hands, refused to comply with orders of the command in large numbers, left the front and, seizing echelons, moved inland.

The October Revolution developed gradually as a large-scale peasant war, a deep moral decay of the army, the struggle of workers for their rights, the movement for national independence of non-indigenous peoples of Russia - all these are components of the social revolution in Russia, and each of these movements supported the popular Bolshevik slogans: “Peace to the peoples! ”,“ Land to the peasants! ”,“ All power to the Soviets! ”,“ Factories to the workers! ”.

Thus, the reasons for October 1917 matured in the bowels of the old system and were deep-seated, and the contradictions that had accumulated in the political, economic, social, national spheres of public life, which it was no longer possible to resolve in a reformist way, especially because of the position of the ruling circles. The immediate results of the October Revolution became real and undeniable: it wrested Russia out of a bloody debilitating war, prevented a national catastrophe, which threatened a society more and more plunged into chaos, preserved the territorial integrity and independence of the country, defended its sovereignty, freed workers from exploitation and oppression, giving land to the peasants, transferring the factories and plants under the control and control of the workers, established a new form of power - Soviets - how power really really hydrochloric. Therefore, to assert that in October 1917 in Petrograd there was only a coup, it means consciously ignoring historical facts. We must not forget that this event undermined the centuries-old foundations of tsarist Russia and radically changed the vector of its historical development, laying the foundation for the creation of a completely new society. No coup d'etat is capable of creating a new society.

The October Revolution can be treated differently, and everyone has the right to their point of view and their own assessment of its significance. However, deny the obvious fact that in October 1917

a revolution began in Petrograd — a revolution, not just a coup — means not to understand the essence of the very concept of “revolution”.

And although the form of the uprising and seizure of power organized by the Bolsheviks really resembled a coup d'etat, in reality it was the beginning

one of the most profound and dramatic in the history of social

Historical facts irrefutably indicate that the revolutions in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century were the result of a relatively

long development of Russian life, where the final phase became

October. It is impossible to imagine the 20th century without the October Revolution in Russia, because without it the history of this century would have been different.

Although signs like revolution, as well as coup and conspiracy took place in the days of October. The events of October represented the most acute form of the struggle between the emerging new and obsolete old forms of social relations.

The coup is limited, as a rule, to changes in the alignment of political forces that are in power or seek to seize them.

In contrast to a coup in which certain groups of interest plan and organize it in advance, it is impossible to develop a “scenario” for revolution, because, as historical experience testifies, revolutions develop according to their own laws and logic.

Among those who continue to consider the October events of 1917 a conspiracy, there are popular claims that, they say, the organizers of the armed uprising in Petrograd - Lenin and Trotsky - called the Bolsheviks' coming to power a coup.

Indeed, in the works of Lenin and Trotsky one can find the expression “coup” and “October coup”, but more often - and much more often! - they used the expression "October Revolution." Moreover, they used the term “October Revolution” in the meaning of the concept of “revolution,” that is, implying a radical change in the social system and working on an essay, I defend the argument that the events of October 1917 are a revolution.

But what are the reasons for the collapse of post-February democracy and the victory of the Bolsheviks?

Among the many factors I note the following:

1. The strength of the Russian bourgeoisie did not correspond to the level of development of capitalism (due to the enormous role of foreign capital and the state in the economy). This determined the relative weakness of liberal political forces.

At the same time, the absence of a wide layer of private owners in the countryside, remnants of traditional equalization control and consciousness, a deep mistrust of the masses in relation to the “bars”, all this contributed to the spread of socialist ideas, close to the masses with their radical slogans, led to an increase in the role of socialist ideas .

2. The Kadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries, even in a coalition with the Mensheviks, could not fill the vacuum of power, and the contradictions between them did not allow either a quick reform of the country or a decisive struggle against the revolutionary elements. The Bolsheviks made full use of their advantages: a firm political will, a desire for power, a flexible but united party organization.

3. The Bolsheviks were able to decisively saddle the revolutionary anarchist element and use the weakness of the Provisional Government,

a huge charge of social hatred, impatience, thirst for egalitarian justice of the masses to seize power. And all this taken together is the law of the revolution.

So - October 1917 is not a coup, but a revolution.

Revolution or coup d'etat?

Russian writer, public and political figure Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn said: "The 20th century is lost for Russia." In just one century, one of the most powerful states in the world suffered many events that influenced the course of world history.

And one of them is the revolution of 1917: for some it was marked by the Great Revolution, the main event of the 20th century, radically changing the social image of Russia and the whole planet, for others it was the Great Tragedy, national catastrophe, coup d'etat, armed with a conspiracy and counter-revolution.

In this article we will try to travel back to that period, to restore the chronology of actions and to trace what influence the events of that time had on the further fate of the country.

Now, step by step, relying on the historical base and expert opinions, we will consider those key events that preceded the autumn of 1917.

  • The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). In January 1904 Japan breaks off diplomatic relations with Russia and begins military operations without declaring war. The war was difficult for Russia. In August 1905, peace was made in Portsmouth at the initiative of US President Theodore Roosevelt. Russia ceded to Japan its rights to the railway in southern Manchuria, and consequently the Kwantung Peninsula and the southern half of Sakhalin Island.
  • Riots in St. Petersburg (January 1905). As the historian Kadesnikov writes: “The failures of the Russo-Japanese War caused by the confluence of the circumstances already set forth were, as one would expect, used by the non-dormant enemies of Russia. In early January 1905, unrest artificially caused by revolutionaries began in St. Petersburg. For some reason, workers at the Putilov factories located on the outskirts of the capital revolted. Further provoked crowds of people invaded the city center and clashes with police and troops took place. The riots were periodically repeated and spread across different cities and provinces of Russia. ”
  • Council of Workers' Deputies. In October 1905 illegally formed and began to openly sit the Council of Workers' Deputies, like a revolutionary government. The Union of Unions was organized, striving to merge individual strikes into one “general strike”, which would stop all social and commercial-industrial life in Russia.
  • Constitutional Monarchy (October 17, 1905). On October 17, the Manifesto of Nicholas converted the All-Russian Empire to the Constitutional Monarchy (monarchical power limited by popular representation). The population was solemnly declared that “from now on no law can take power without the approval of the State Duma.”

Thus, an elected People's Representation was established from two chambers: the State Duma and the State Council (half of the members of the State Council were still appointed by the Sovereign, the other half were elected by scientists, educational, estate, public, commercial and national established institutions and groups).

The State Duma was elected for five years. Then new elections were held. However, the Tsar could (as in all other states) dissolve the State Duma before the deadline by calling new early elections.

Also, along with the declaration of the Constitution, the “October 17 Manifesto” proclaimed the following civil liberties: freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, strikes, etc. Since the “Manifesto” did not indicate restrictions on these freedoms, the extreme revolutionaries took all measures to “deepen the revolution” "

Immediately, attacks on troops began, political killings became more frequent, and a general strike began to grow again. Along the line of the Great Siberian Railway, a number of “republics” were formed that did not recognize the imperial government. In Turkestan and in many other places, revolutionary committees were also formed. Council of Workers' Deputies in S.

-Petersburg openly led the revolutionary movement throughout the country.

It seemed that the revolution was winning. However, if at first it seemed to the majority of the “progressive” society that the revolutionary movement was guided by liberal goals, then as events unfold, society began to realize that the leadership of the revolution belonged to extreme groups hostile to Russia, pursuing goals alien to the Russian people and led from abroad.

  • The economic and cultural heyday of Russia. Despite the turmoil from the Japanese war and the huge payment of ransom for prisoners, Russia quickly recovered and began to develop and grow stronger again. The last 10 years before the 1917 revolution can be called the heyday of agriculture and the economic power of Russia. Read more about the economic situation of pre-revolutionary Russia in our article “The Russian Empire in Figures”.
  • World War I. Only the revolution could break the powerful organism of Russia. And her enemies knew this and strongly supported the revolutionary propaganda in Russia. In 1914, the Great War began, which was protracted and therefore was the main impetus for the start of the revolution.

Entering the world war, both Russia and its allies could not predict the magnitude, duration or tension of this war.

It turned out that the stocks of military equipment and weapons with which Russia entered the war were far from sufficient and did not meet the requirements imposed by the new methods of war.

In 1915, the Russian army was virtually without shells, machine guns, guns and other weapons. Given this, the Germans decided to deliver a decisive blow to the Russian troops and completely incapacitate Russia.

The insistent attack of the well-armed, well-equipped, numerous German divisions on the almost unarmed Russian army began. Skillfully maneuvering, fighting off with bayonets, almost without the support of their artillery, the Russian army slowly began to retreat deep into Russia.

Despite a completely critical situation, the Russian troops were not only not defeated anywhere, but, in the end, having exhausted the enemy with their resistance, stopped him and strengthened themselves in firm positions. This coincided with the assumption of the sovereign command of the army.

  • February coup d'etat. The historian Kadesnikov believes that even at the height of the war of 1915, the Russian revolution, which had been hiding, and its overseas leadership, raised its head.
  • "Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies." On February 27, the actual extreme left-wing leadership of the revolution was organized in the capital - the “Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies." The council included many Georgians, Jews, Poles, Latvians, Estonians and other foreigners who had been “trained” by the socialists in advance.

Thus, during the general turmoil, dual power also appears, which was tantamount to suicide for the country. The "Provisional Government" was discouraged, confused and disconnected. On the contrary, the Council of Deputies was well organized and funded by the revolutionaries. The council was illegal, but because of its activity and aggressiveness it began to play a larger role than the “Provisional Government.

Since February 28, 1917, Russia has been without a government, because all ministers were arrested. At that time, the Russian Tsar, faithful to his covenants to protect Great Mother Russia from the encroachments of an external enemy, was at the front, at His Headquarters (in Mogilev on the Dnieper) and was deliberately not informed of the growing formidable events in the state capital.

On the night of February 27-28, the Emperor left Stavka for Tsarskoye Selo. However, the stations of all railway lines closest to Petrograd and Tsarskoye Selo were in the hands of the rebels.

Having traveled without communication for two days, the imperial train arrived in Pskov by night on March 2, where the headquarters of the Northern Front was located.

At night, the Sovereign signed a Decree on the “Responsible Ministry” and ordered to stop the movement of troops arriving to the capital.

However, Rodzianko, Chairman of the State Duma, said in the morning (in a telegraph conversation with gays. Ruzsky) that the talent of the Responsible Ministry was late, and that in the rebellious Petrograd they had already demanded the abdication of the Sovereign in favor of the Son.

On the morning of March 2, in view of Rodzianko’s reports of the growth of anarchy in the capital and the receipt of news of uprisings in Moscow and a number of other large cities, as well as a riot in the Baltic Fleet, six senior generals (five commanders in chief, including Grand Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich - the cousin's uncle and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Gen. Alekseev) advised the Emperor to renounce in favor of the Son to win the war and save the dynasty.

To their telegrams, the Sovereign replied: “There is no sacrifice that I would not bring for the good of the Motherland!”

  • The abdication of the Sovereign (March 2, 1917). Due to the constant incitement of the press and unrest in Petrograd and under the great and illegal pressure of his entourage, this was clearly a conspiracy, on March 3, 1917, the Tsar resigned from power, "in order to save Russia." The sovereign abandons the throne for himself and for his son and transfers it to his brother Vel. To Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich. The brother also refused, and power passed to the Provisional Government, which was not distinguished by stability and patriotism. All this facilitated the path to the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in 1917.

The foundation on which the state stood was the Orthodox Tsar and the Orthodox faith. There was no king, but persecution began on faith. The people and the army fell silent and were at a loss, while the revolutionary-minded minority triumphed, the looters began to rob.

  • Decomposition of the army. Order No. 1 (March 2, 1917). On March 2, 1917, a critical event occurred, without which the Russian catastrophe, in all probability, would not have happened. Influenced by revolutionary agitators, the Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies issued the famous Order No. 1, which led to the shameful decomposition, decapitation, neutralization and seizure of the army. This was crucial for the revolutionaries. Commissars appeared in the army. Lynching and executions of officers began. Most of them began to leave such an army. The army was transformed before our eyes into the executive organ of revolutionaries and agitators. She posed as the legitimate army of the new legitimate government and called for recruits when she needed it.
  • Interim government. The interim government was formed on March 2, 1917. Its chairman, Prince Lvov, was appointed Emperor before His abdication, in accordance with the wish of the State Duma.

The Provisional Government was not thinking about the device of a new order and about helping the army to win the war, but about “deepening” the revolution, i.e. held events preparing the second already Bolshevik coup, or worse, promoting the interests of the enemies of Russia.

  • The arrest of the Sovereign with his family (March 8/21, 1917). On March 8, the Sovereign and his family were arrested. In the fall of 1917, the entire Tsar’s Family was transported to Siberia, to the city of Tobolsk, and later, by the Bolsheviks, to Yekaterinburg in the Urals.

All other members of the Imperial House were also arrested. On the night of July 17-18, 1918, in the basement of Ipatiev’s house, in Yekaterinburg, the entire Tsar’s Family was shot: Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II and His Family - Empress Alexandra Fedorovna, Tsarevich Aleksey, Grand Duchesses: Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia and their faithful servants.

Of the 17 killers, only three were Russian. As the height of the mockery of Russian people, the city was renamed Sverdlovsk, named after the main executioner, who signed the murder order.

This terrible act violated the oath given by our ancestors in 1613 to allegiance to the House of Romanov.

The oath contained the following formidable words: “It is commanded that the chosen one of God, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, be the ancestor of the Rulers in Russia from generation to generation, with responsibility in His affairs to the One heavenly King.

And who will go against this Council Decree, whether the Tsar, the patriarch, and every person, curse him in this century and in the future, he will be excommunicated until the Holy Trinity. " What happened then in Russia can only be explained by "excommunication from the Lord God Himself."

  • Civil War. Stunned and bewildered by shock and surprise, the former leaders of the country gradually began to understand what was happening and organized the "Volunteer White Army", which voluntarily included the best people and patriots of Russia: former cadets, cadets, Cossacks, volunteers from the people and others. Volunteer white army began action against the Red. After several years of battles, White had to retreat to the Crimea.General Wrangel with his army was evacuated from the Crimea on November 1, 1920 (ns.). The rest were shot or scattered. The civil war in European Russia ended, but in Siberia it still continued. The last whites left Siberia in 1922.
  • October Revolution (October 25 / November 7, 1917). On October 24, 1917, the Bolsheviks raised a new uprising in Petrograd. The head of the Provisional Government Kerensky fled.

October 25 (November 7, NS). The interim government was captured in the royal Winter Palace. Power illegally passed to Lenin and Trotsky, in Petrograd - immediately, in Moscow - after the armed struggle, in the province - automatically.

The vast territory of the country and poor communications played into the hands of the revolutionaries. There was a systemic collapse of the state structure. She was arranged to work with the capital, whatever it was.

As mentioned above, when another government appeared in the capital, far from it, few people understood this. In many remote places, they simply continued to obey her orders. Although, resistance flared up in some places.

Thus, the vastness of the country has become one of the main causes of the Russian catastrophe.

Coup or revolution?

Today, many say that, supposedly, after the overthrow of tsarism, the February Revolution was. However, after the overthrow of the interim government, the October Revolution came. This cliché was so intrusive that it even stuck to many leaders of Bolshevism.

However, what really happened? The phenomena should be considered separately, since the picture, in principle, just the same indicates that the first is a coup, but the second is just the same revolution.

It is known that since 1905 the government made various concessions, however, rather slowly. At first, the thought was “government”, then near-opposition, well, then the revolution began to decline, and the opposition was de facto ignored.

The war, of course, worsened the situation, since there was already a real possibility of a real revolution itself - a revolution that was disadvantageous either to imperialism, or to the upper class, or to the reactionary aristocracy, or to foreign firms, of which there were quite a lot in the Russian Empire.

Obviously, the collapse of tsarism was primarily due to the desire of the upper class to “slow down” the revolution. That is why the so-called

The February revolution consisted in the fact that the tsar simply signed a paper stating that he was no longer a tsar and that the government was actually headed by the same officials (they also asked the tsar to sign the paper).

It is clear that such an event does not look like a revolution, given the fact that all the actions of tsarism were continued, including the war.

But the bureaucracy, which worked for tsarism, retained its position. Together with the king, only the most stubborn fanatics and prominent representatives left their offices, all the rest immediately adapted.

The clergy, who were something like officials, were happy to accept the changes, and began to praise the interim government and condemn the king.

It is clear that their situation was fully preserved, they were paid salaries.

Accordingly, what is this if not a coup? The interim government has never been legitimate in the eyes of the common people, since nothing, in fact, has changed, but only engaged in populism, claiming reform. No one chose him. For a long time, the possibility of replacing Nicholas II with another "autocrat" was seriously seriously considered.

This has its own logic, in view of the fact that the revolution was already very fierce, and at any time the people could actually take power, i.e. throw off all the bureaucracy. And then suddenly the king signs a decree, and no one needs to be thrown off. People save their places, capitalists save their capital. This is the logic of a coup, not a revolution.

In the future, the interim government changed figuratively, but, in fact, never changed. It has always been an illegitimate gathering of tsarist officials and the “official opposition”. Over time, they were able to attract imaginary radicals, but they, sitting in their offices, did not dare to go for reform, and quickly became the most ardent statesmen.

The conflict with the Bolsheviks began soon, but initially only ideological. Everyone managed to "agree", but the Bolsheviks were uncompromising, and at the beginning of the February events unpromising.

The influence was weak, and the ideology, prior to the arrival of Lenin, was directly vague.

Before the April theses, the Bolsheviks could not act as an independent force, and therefore, in Pravda, Stalin, Kamenev and some other Bolsheviks wrote articles about the need to support the interim government. True, then they changed position.

April theses of Lenin changed the rules of the game, since Lenin understood everything correctly enough. In Marxism, such an opportunity has long been considered by Engels:

“I think that one fine morning, our party, due to the helplessness and lethargy of all the other parties, will have to stand in power, in the end to carry out all the same things that do not correspond directly to our interests, but to the interests of the general revolutionary, specific and petty-bourgeois, in In this case, under the pressure of the proletarian masses, bound by their own, to a certain extent, false statements and plans put forward in the midst of the party struggle, we will be forced to make communism experiments and to make jumps, of which we ourselves know very well how untimely they are ”

However, the authorities in reality left no choice. The decisive moment in history was the “July Days”, when, although an anti-government, but a democratic and peaceful demonstration of the Bolsheviks, they were dispersed by force in the spirit of tsarism (Cossacks and the army). Then the persecution of the Bolsheviks began, real persecution and pogroms, the press was destroyed, the members of the party were imprisoned and tried.

So from now on, the Bolsheviks became the real opposition to the government, which every day more and more resembled tsarism. It is important to note that the Bolsheviks were deprived of the right to act as an ideological opponent of the EP.

It was this moment in the history of Bolshevism that was crucial, because now, after fierce persecution and persecution, they began to be perceived among the people as heroes. Their slogans (including anti-war) picked up all the broad masses.

The party during the persecution grew rapidly (especially in Petrograd and Moscow).

Soon, Bolshevism entered the army, and the situation became inevitable. Especially when the most ardent counter-revolutionaries decided to take advantage of the situation, the Bolsheviks mobilized against Kornilov, but not for the interim government, but simply against the “lesser evil”. After the temporary elimination of the threat, the Bolsheviks began to respond more often to attacks of the VP.

After all, it was then that myths were invented that allegedly Lenin and the Bolsheviks were agents of the Germans, that they were not patriots and enemies of the people. It is important to say that back then there were Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and all the rest in the EaP. Those. they basically did not see political rivals in the Bolsheviks and refused to give them a say in legal politics, i.e. they left no choice but active resistance.

As a result, the revolution was determined by objective factors, and passed very quickly and bloodlessly. However, now the Bolsheviks actually could not act otherwise than to resist attempts to seize power back or even restore tsarism. Their task is to defend the revolution.

It is clear that the transfer of power to their main opponents was impossible, due to the fact that while they were in power, they persecuted the Bolsheviks, destroyed their right to self-expression, and smashed their press.

Of course, then they asked for “equals,” but why did the Bolsheviks give them “equal rights” when they not only persecuted, but also joined the Cossacks, reactionary generals, or Entente invaders?

What was the result? A revolution, not just a revolution, but a social revolution. The cabinet of the government was completely renewed, the reforms were actually implemented in the early years. Moreover, the peasant reform was carried out according to the Social Revolutionary project, which they never realized while they were in power, but only lied about the saying that "soon, soon."

It is important to note that the coup does not change anything. In fact, a sign of a coup is the inviolability of the political system. Just some people are replaced by others. But the essence remains the same.

Reformism is when the regime remains, but reforms (evolutionary) take place that should improve or stabilize the situation. But the social revolution is changing the mode of production and society (including the cultural revolution).

In fact, this is exactly what the world was observing.

Therefore, the October Revolution is a social revolution, not a coup. Whoever would relate to events, but there was a real transition in all senses of the word. Social and economic policies have changed.

Traditional society has become industrial. The raw materials appendage of the West has become a world power. Social mobility of society is a reality, not a slogan.

The changes are obvious even to principled opponents, and to call everything a simple coup is ridiculous.

The difference between a coup and a revolution

Coups and revolutions are always carried out with the aim of introducing fundamental changes in the current state of affairs. However, the ongoing processes are not the same in nature. What is the difference between a coup and a revolution? Let's try to figure this out.

Coup d'etat - Forcible replacement of the current leadership, initiated by an organized group of people.

Revolution - A powerful process that entails radical transformations in the life of society up to the complete destruction of the old social system and its replacement with a new one.


In both cases, dissatisfaction with the established order is manifested. However, the difference between the coup and the revolution can be seen already for the purposes pursued.

The main intention of the instigators of the coup is to overthrow those who are at the helm of the state. At the same time, forces are attracted to capture the centers of concentration of power and the physical isolation of the leaders who worked until this moment.

As a rule, everything happens rapidly with the preliminary creation of a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, this situation is not associated with global changes in the structure of society, while the purpose of revolutionary action is to deeply transform the existing state system.

If the efforts of the Protestants are aimed at reorganizing the political regime, such a revolution is called, accordingly, political.

When it comes to changing the entire social system, grandiose events are classified as a social revolution.

The entire revolutionary process lasts long enough. First, excitement arises within the state, the cause of which is an infringement on the rights of people belonging to certain strata and classes of society.

The process is developing, its dynamics are growing, the atmosphere is heating up more and more. The logical conclusion is the revolution itself, often accompanied by bloodshed and the transition to civil war.

So, revolution is a much larger phenomenon. It represents the movement of large masses, which make up a considerable part of the entire population of the country.

The coup is not supported to such an extent by popular support. A limited number of people participate in its planning and implementation.

Sometimes the process is led by a political party that does not manage to break through to power in the traditional way - through elections.

What is the difference between a coup and a revolution other than what has been said? The fact that the latter occurs under the influence of the formed class ideology, capable of completely changing the consciousness of people. A coup, like rebellion or rebellion, is somewhat less than class ideological principles. In this regard, it is much simpler.


The goal is to remove the current leaders from power, the foundations of society are not affectedThe goal is to change the political regime or the entire social system
Happens fasterMatures for a long time, then accomplishes
It is not supported to a large extent by popular support, is carried out by a small group of persons or a separate partyIt is an incredible power movement of the masses
Far from class ideologyOccurs under the influence of class ideological principles

Reflection on the topic

Tumarenko Pelageya, a student of the 9th grade of the Municipal budgetary educational institution “Basic comprehensive school No. 15 of Yurga”

October 1917 - a point of sharp turn in the history of Russia. This bloody event left deep imprints on the further development of our country. In order to understand what, in fact, it was, not even a few thousand pages of text would be enough.

In modern historical science there is no single point of view on the October events of 1917.

Supporters of the ousted provisional government believed that a coup d'etat had been completed with German money, burying hopes for Russia's democratic development.

The Bolsheviks themselves more than once called these events the “October Revolution”, referring exclusively to the way of seizing power. At the same time, they characterized the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks as a socialist revolution.

And in the works of scientists of the Soviet period, the events of October 1917 were interpreted as the Great October Socialist Revolution - a milestone in the development of not only Russia but also of all mankind, which laid the foundation for the establishment of a socialist system on a global scale.

A revolution is often called a public explosion. In the historical past of Russia, the October 1917 revolution was the most significant. However, in recent years, a tendency toward a revision of the role and place of a given period of our history has become increasingly evident.

Instead of the term “Great October Socialist Revolution” commonly accepted in Soviet times, the expression “October Revolution” appeared.

This was accompanied by a reassessment of the significance of the event that happened in October 1917, from positive to almost negative.

It should be noted that this radical reassessment of the significance and consequences of the October events of 1917 occurred mainly as a result of changes in public sentiment under the influence of the political struggle that unfolded in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. and especially after its collapse.

It should be noted that the appearance of various new versions of the October events of 1917 is often the result of an arbitrary interpretation of the very concept of “revolution”. As you know, the essence of revolution lies in changing the state of society, in a sharp transition to a new stage of its development.

The coup d'état, usually carried out by force, is, in essence, a struggle for power between separate groups of forces, while society continues to remain in its former state.

The real revolution sharply divides society, drawing large masses of people into the political struggle, brings new classes or social groups to power, changes the form of ownership, that is, carries out an essential transformation of the system.

A coup, however, is limited, as a rule, to changes in the alignment of political forces that are at the helm of the state or seek to take control of it. Unlike the coup, which the forces interested in it plan and organize in advance, it is impossible to develop a “scenario” for revolution, because, as historical experience testifies, revolutions develop according to their “laws” and logic, which people can hardly master.

Of course, the term October Revolution appeared later, at first the Bolsheviks themselves for a long time called the event that happened in 1917 a coup, but it is the term “October Revolution” that we consider to be the most accurate.

So what does it mean that in October 1917 a revolution took place in our country?

International law officially recognizes the revolution as an extreme measure of protest by the people of any country against intolerable living conditions. The remarkable Russian philosopher and contemporary of October 1917, Nikolai Berdyaev, in his book The Russian Idea writes: “By 1917, in the atmosphere of an unsuccessful war, everything was ripe for revolution. The old regime rotted and did not have decent defenders.

... Among the people, those religious beliefs that supported the autocratic monarchy were weakened and decomposed. ” The October Revolution was neither an accident nor a mistake. Caused by the concrete historical conditions of 1917, it saved Russia from a national catastrophe and led it to the only possible way of modernization and social progress.

The fundamental difference between a revolution and a coup is that revolution is a powerful multifaceted process of radical transformations in the life of society. As a result, the existing social system is destroyed and a new one is born.

As a result of the events of October 1917, a new social system was created that denied class differences, proclaimed the formation of a one-party state, and affirmed the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

As a result, already from November 1917, the rapid process of destroying the old state apparatus and the construction of a new one has been unfolding: instead of the Provisional Government, a one-party Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars is created, a number of documents are adopted that change the economic and political life of society - decrees on peace and on land.

The coup organizers aim to overthrow the leaders of the state, which is happening quickly. Usually, a coup does not have significant popular support.

The revolutionary process takes a long time, with a gradual increase in protest moods and an increase in the participation of the masses.

If in February 1917 the party of the Bolsheviks numbered 25 thousand people, then for the period until October of that year its number grew to about 300 thousand. These data indicate the broad popular support of the Bolshevik party by the masses.

A coup usually does not have an ideology that guides its participants. The revolution is carried out under the influence of class ideology, which changes the consciousness of a significant part of people.

The October Revolution of 1917 was carried out under the influence of the Bolshevik ideology of the transition to communism - a social and economic system based on social equality, social ownership of the means of production.

The revolution won because its ideals were supported by the people.

The only argument in favor of the fact that in October 1917 a coup took place in Russia, in our opinion, is a power replacement of the state’s leadership, carried out by a group of people who plotted against him.

Thus, we can conclude that in October 1917 there was a revolution supported by the masses who were under the influence of Bolshevik ideology and who wished a radical restructuring of all spheres of public life.

“The Tale of how the Bolsheviks were waiting for a revolution in Europe ...” or another anti-Soviet myth

Today, in the patriotic environment, as well as in the media, it is customary to contrast the figure of Stalin with the figure of Lenin, and the political systems behind these figures. One of the issues on which they are confronted is the question of the onset of the World Revolution.

The point of view is widespread that the course towards building socialism in a single country is Stalin’s know-how.

Know-how, because all the classics of Marxism, allegedly, sacredly believed that the World Revolution was about to take place. And therefore, they considered Russia only as a “bundle of brushwood” in the bonfire of this World Revolution itself.

Stalin, however, shot this whole “bastard” and began rebuilding the Soviet state, the successor of the Russian Empire.

From this a whole bunch of far-reaching conclusions is made, including:

- Stalin was not a Marxist, and considered this teaching unrealizable in practice.

- Stalin was a hidden monarchist, because de facto really relied heavily on the pre-revolutionary heritage in many areas of society, from education and upbringing, to the army.

- Based on this, many patriots begin to build a completely false structure in which Stalin is opposed to at least the so-called.

“Leninist” guards, and as a maximum to the entire Soviet system of the 1917-1920s.

The Leninist guard, and Lenin himself, are acquiring the stigma of a benevolent belief in a speedy European revolution, in fantasy, utopia, following which the country has been agonizing for several years.

I have no purpose at all to say something against Stalin, as well as against the fact that he really did a lot for our country. And indeed, he adopted a lot of useful things from the Russian Empire.

However, the point of view that the Bolsheviks sacredly believed in a speedy European revolution, I believe is unfounded.

Probably Trotsky, who had never been a convinced Bolshevik, as well as some of the ultra-left who stood behind him, really believed in this.

And if they didn’t believe it, at least they proclaimed it - after all, the phrase falsely attributed to Trotsky about “knitting brushwood” (which is completely absent in his writings) is to some extent the quintessence of the political views of the left opposition within the Bolshevik party.

But Lenin didn’t believe in the imminent fulfillment of the world revolution. Yes, he proclaimed it as a slogan, but to rely on her, fire him.

We can draw information about this from many of his articles, but the first public recognition that the Russian revolution will not be supported from Europe is connected with the outbreak of the First World War.

I quote “The War and Russian Social Democracy” (October 28, 1914):

«With a feeling of deepest bitterness, I have to admit that the socialist parties of the most important European countries have not fulfilled this task, and the behavior of the leaders of these parties - especially the German one - borders on a direct betrayal of the cause of socialism.

At the moment of the greatest world-historical importance, most of the leaders of the present, second (1889-1914) socialist International are trying to replace socialism with nationalism.

Thanks to their behavior, the workers' parties of these countries did not oppose the criminal behavior of governments, but called on the working class to merge their position with the position of imperialist governments.

The leaders of the International committed treason against socialism by voting for war credits, repeating the chauvinistic ("patriotic") slogans of the bourgeoisie of "their" countries, justifying and defending the war, joining the bourgeois ministries of the belligerent countries, etc., etc.

The most influential socialist leaders and the most influential organs of the socialist press of modern Europe stand on the chauvinist-bourgeois and liberal, not the socialist point of view. The responsibility for this disgrace of socialism lies primarily with the German Social Democrats, who were the most powerful and influential party of the Second International. ”

«It is impossible to fulfill the tasks of socialism at present, it is impossible to carry out real international rallying of workers without a decisive break with opportunism and explaining to the masses the inevitability of his fiasco. ”

Thus, even at the very beginning of the war, Lenin did not directly admit that he did not smell of revolution in Europe, although he did not say it directly, he pointed out that the leading European socialist parties were not socialist, but nationalist. Consequently, it is impossible at the present time to fulfill the tasks of socialism, until this opportunism has been eliminated.

Time passes, April 1917 comes. Has this position changed? Not at all, moreover, from exhortations did Lenin pass to direct recommendations. I quote “On the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution” (the so-called “April Theses”):

“The initiative to create a revolutionary International, the International against the social chauvinists and against the“ center ”.

In the understanding of Lenin, the center was practically the entire then social democracy of Europe, namely:

Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) and his supporters. Kautsky, represented the left wing of the SPD.

Jean Longuet (1879-1938) - the largest representative of French Social Democracy and the grandson of Marx, and his supporters.

James Ramsey MacDonald (1866-1937) - one of the leaders of the Labor Party, later Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1924, 1929-1935.

Filippo Turati (1857-1932) - one of the founders and leaders of the socialist party of Italy. By the way, at first he opposed the involvement of Italy in the War, but subsequently changed his position. In 1922, expelled from the party.

Simply put, in developed Europe, according to Lenin (far from baseless), there were no socialist parties that were not saturated with opportunism. And without overcoming this opportunism, “it was impossible to fulfill the tasks of socialism”, i.e. come to a world revolution.

Finally in his work "The main task of our days", published in the "News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee" March 12, 1918that is, a year after the “April Theses”, after the Bolsheviks took power, and, most importantly, after they were convicted of this by the German Social Democracy led by Kautsky (to which Lenin responded by “ The proletarian revolution and renegade Kautsky ”, October 1918), Lenin directly proclaims the slogan of building socialism in a single country:

“We were forced to sign the Tilsit Peace. No need for self-deception. One must have the courage to look straight into the face of the unvarnished bitter truth. We must measure, to the bottom, the whole abyss of defeat, dismemberment, enslavement, humiliation, into which we are now pushed.

The clearer we understand this, the more solid, hardened, steel our desire for liberation will become, our desire to rise again from enslavement to independence, our adamant determination to achieve at all costs so that Russia ceases to be miserable and powerless, so that it becomes in the full sense of the word powerful and abundant.

It can become such, for we still have enough space and natural wealth left to supply everyone and everyone, if not plentiful, then with enough means of living.

We have material both in natural wealth, and in the reserve of human forces, and in the excellent scope that the great revolution gave to folk art - in order to create a truly powerful and abundant Russia.

Russia will become such if it casts aside all despondency and every phrase, if it grit its teeth, gathers all its strength, if every nerve is tense, stretches every muscle, if it understands that salvation is possible only on the path of the international socialist revolution that we have embarked on.

To go forward along this path, without losing heart from defeats, gather stone by stone the solid foundation of socialist society, work tirelessly to create discipline and self-discipline, to strengthen organization, order, business efficiency, harmonious cooperation of popular forces, universal "accounting and control over the production and distribution of products - this is the way to create military power and socialist power."

The same quote, by the way, addresses the cries of Russian nationalists about, allegedly, anti-patriotism and Russophobia of Lenin.However, to analyze the behavior of potential residents of the "yellow house" is not the task of this article.

I just would like the gentlemen-patriots to compare this position with the position of Stalin and find, as they say "ten differences."

And finally, May 1918, a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee:

“I know, of course, there are wise men who consider themselves very smart and even call themselves socialists who insist that they should not take power until a revolution breaks out in all countries.

They do not suspect that, saying so, they are moving away from the revolution and are taking the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait for the working classes to make a revolution on an international scale - this means everyone is waiting. This is nonsense.»

From all of the above, the conclusion directly follows that the hope attributed to the Bolsheviks for the World Revolution is a myth. Lenin’s authority in the party was unconditional and his point of view was not only a point of view, but a programmatic position of the party’s future actions. Yes, the discussion about the World Revolution was ongoing.

Otherwise, there would be no relevant statements at the meetings of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. However, the point of view that the expectation of the World Revolution dominated the politics of the Bolsheviks, and only the great Stalin managed to break this disastrous tendency, expressed in the words of Ilyich - "nonsense."

This nonsense is driven into the heads of people by the old Katason gentlemen in order to divide the Bolsheviks into “bad revolutionaries” and “good sovereigns” in the minds of people, thus discrediting communist teaching and singing soilism. From there follows only one step to the very opportunism that Lenin scourged, i.e.

e. supporting the oligarchic system for the sake of stability of the existing system. And healed the pro-Soviet masses with false arguments that Stalin was not a Marxist, but a patriot, and he plagued all these Marxists in order to go to his "true goal" - the greatness of Russia.

Yes, indeed, Stalin wanted the greatness of Russia. And the Bolsheviks wanted her greatness.

And Lenin, as confirmed by his quote above. But not anyhow! Not royal! And not oligarchic, as it is now! You want her, gentlemen-guardians, because in Chaldean you get pocket money from these oligarchs, like true opportunists.

The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Stalin, wanted the greatness of Soviet, socialist Russia, the kingdom of justice and light. And for the sake of this goal they went to great feats. And for this purpose, our people made the greatest sacrifices.


Watch the video: Russian Empire 1912 "Farewell of Slavianka" White ArmyKolchak Government, 1917-1922 (April 2020).