Plan

Revolution of 1917 in Russia

February Revolution

Policy of the Provisional Government

From February to October

October Revolution

The Bolsheviks came to power

II Congress of Soviets

Revolution of 1917 in Russia

Russia's entry into the First World War relieved the severity of social contradictions for some time. All segments of the population rallied around the government in a single patriotic impulse. The defeat at the front in the fight against Germany, the worsening situation of the people caused by the war, gave rise to mass discontent.

The situation was aggravated by the economic crisis that emerged in 1915-1916. Industry, rebuilt on a war footing, generally provided for the needs of the front. However, its one-sided development led to the fact that the rear suffered from a shortage of consumer goods. The consequence of this was an increase in prices and an increase in inflation: the purchasing power of the ruble fell to 27 kopecks. Fuel and transport crises developed. The capacity of the railways did not ensure military transportation and uninterrupted delivery of food to the city. The food crisis turned out to be especially acute. The peasants, not receiving the necessary industrial goods, refused to supply the products of their farms to the market. Bread lines appeared for the first time in Russia. Speculation flourished. The defeat of Russia on the fronts of the First World War dealt a significant blow to public consciousness. The population is tired of the protracted war. Worker strikes and peasant unrest grew. At the front, fraternization with the enemy and desertion became more frequent. Revolutionary agitators used all the government's mistakes to discredit the ruling elite. The Bolsheviks wanted the defeat of the tsarist government and called on the people to turn the war from an imperialist one into a civil one.

The liberal opposition intensified. The confrontation between the State Duma and the government intensified. The basis of the June Third political system, cooperation between bourgeois parties and the autocracy, collapsed. Speech by N.N. Miliukov on November 4, 1916, with sharp criticism of the policies of the tsar and ministers, marked the beginning of an “accusatory” campaign in the IV State Duma. The “Progressive Bloc” - an inter-parliamentary coalition of the majority of Duma factions - demanded the creation of a government of “people's trust” responsible to the Duma. However, Nicholas II rejected this proposal.

Nicholas II catastrophically lost authority in society due to “Rasputinism,” the unceremonious intervention of Tsarina Alexander Feodorovna in state affairs and his inept actions as Supreme Commander-in-Chief. By the winter of 1916-1917. All segments of the Russian population realized the inability of the tsarist government to overcome the political and economic crisis.

February revolution.

At the beginning of 1917, disruptions in food supplies to the big cities Russia. By mid-February, 90 thousand Petrograd workers went on strike due to a shortage of speculative bread and rising prices. On February 18, workers from the Putilov plant joined them. The administration announced its closure. This was the reason for the start of mass protests in the capital.

On February 23 (new style - March 8), workers took to the streets of Petrograd with the slogans “Bread!”, “Down with war!”, “Down with autocracy!” Their political demonstration marked the beginning of the Revolution. On February 25, the strike in Petrograd became general. Demonstrations and rallies did not stop.

On the evening of February 25, Nicholas II, who was in Mogilev, sent the commander of the Petrograd Military District S.S. A telegram to Khabalov with a categorical demand to stop the unrest. Attempts by the authorities to use troops did not produce a positive effect; the soldiers refused to shoot at the people. However, officers and police killed more than 150 people on February 26th. In response, the guards of the Pavlovsk regiment, supporting the workers, opened fire on the police.

Chairman of the Duma M.V. Rodzianko warned Nicholas II that the government was paralyzed and “there is anarchy in the capital.” To prevent the development of the revolution, he insisted on the immediate creation of a new government headed by a statesman who enjoyed the trust of society. However, the king rejected his proposal.

Moreover, he and the Council of Ministers decided to interrupt the meeting of the Duma and dissolve it for the holidays. Nicholas II sent troops to suppress the revolution, but a small detachment of General N.I. Ivanov was detained and not allowed into the capital.

On February 27, the mass transition of soldiers to the side of the workers, their seizure of the arsenal and the Peter and Paul Fortress, marked the victory of the revolution.

The arrests of tsarist ministers and the formation of new government bodies began. On the same day, elections to the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Soldiers' Deputies were held in factories and military units, drawing on the experience of 1905, when the first organs of workers' political power were born. An Executive Committee was elected to manage its activities. The Menshevik N.S. became the chairman. Chkheidze, his deputy - Socialist Revolutionary A.F. Kepensky. The Executive Committee took upon itself the maintenance of public order and the supply of food to the population. On February 27, at a meeting of leaders of Duma factions, it was decided to form a Provisional Committee of the State Duma headed by M.V. Rodzianko. The task of the committee was “Restoring state and public order” and creating a new government. The temporary committee took control of all ministries.

On February 28, Nicholas II left Headquarters for Tsarskoye Selo, but was detained on the way by revolutionary troops. He had to turn to Pskov, to the headquarters of the northern front. After consultation with the front commanders, he became convinced that there was no force to suppress the revolution. On March 2, Nicholas signed a Manifesto abdicating the throne for himself and his son Alexei in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, when Duma deputies A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgin brought the text of the Manifesto to Petrograd, it became clear that the people did not want a monarchy. On March 3, Mikhail abdicated the throne, declaring that the future fate of the political system in Russia should be decided by the Constituent Assembly. The 300-year rule of classes and parties ended.

The bourgeoisie, a significant part of the wealthy intelligentsia (about 4 million people) relied on economic power, education, experience in participating in political life and managing government institutions. They sought to prevent the further development of the revolution, stabilize the socio-political situation and strengthen their property. The working class (18 million people) consisted of urban and rural proletarians. They managed to feel their political strength, were predisposed to revolutionary agitation and were ready to defend their rights with weapons. They fought for the introduction of an 8-hour working day, a guarantee of employment, and increased wages. Factory committees spontaneously arose in cities. To establish workers' control over production and resolve disputes with entrepreneurs.

The peasantry (30 million people) demanded the destruction of large private land properties and the transfer of land to those who cultivate it. Local land committees and village assemblies were created in the villages, which made decisions on the redistribution of land. Relations between peasants and landowners were extremely tense.

The extreme right (monarchists, Black Hundreds) suffered a complete collapse after the February revolution.

Cadets from the opposition party became the ruling party, initially occupying key positions in the provisional government. They stood for turning Russia into a parliamentary republic. On the agrarian issue, they still advocated the purchase by the state and peasants of the landowners' lands.

The Social Revolutionaries are the most massive party. The revolutionaries proposed turning Russia into a federal republic of free nations.

The Mensheviks, the second largest and most influential party, advocated the creation of a democratic republic.

The Bolsheviks took extreme left positions. In March, the party leadership was ready to cooperate with other social forces. However, after V.I. Lenin returned from immigration, the “April Theses” program was adopted.

Policy of the provisional government.

In its declaration on March 3, the government promised to introduce political freedoms and a broad amnesty, abolish the death penalty, and prohibit all class, national and religious discrimination. However, the internal political course of the provisional government turned out to be contradictory. All the main bodies of central and local government have been preserved. Under the pressure of the masses, Nicholas II and members of his family were arrested. On July 31, Nicholas, his wife and children were sent into exile in Siberia. An Extraordinary Commission was created to investigate the activities of senior officials of the old regime. Adoption of a law introducing an 8-hour working day.

In April 1917, the first government crisis broke out. It was caused by general social tension in the country. On April 18, Miliukov addressed the Allied Powers with assurances of Russia’s determination to bring the war to a victorious end. This led to extreme indignation of the people, mass meetings and demonstrations demanding an immediate end to the war, the transfer of power to the Soviets, the resignation of Miliukov and A.I. Guchkova. On July 3-4, mass armaments and demonstrations of workers and soldiers took place in Petrograd. The slogan “All power to the Soviets” was again put forward. The demonstration was dispersed. Repressions began against the Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who were accused of preparing an armed seizure of power.

Measures were taken to strengthen discipline in the army, and the death penalty was restored at the front. The influence of the Petrograd and other Soviets temporarily decreased. The dual power was over. From this moment, according to V.I. Lenin, the stage of the revolution ended when power could pass to the Soviets peacefully.

From February to October.

The February Revolution was victorious. The old state system collapsed. A new political situation has emerged. However, the victory of the revolution did not prevent the further deepening of the country's crisis. Economic devastation intensified.

The time from February to October is a special period in the history of Russia. There are two stages in it.

At the first (March - early July 1917) there was a dual power, in which the provisional government was forced to coordinate all its actions with the Petrograd Soviet, which took more radical positions and had the support of the broad masses.

At the second stage (July - October 25, 1917), dual power was ended. The autocracy of the provisional government was established in the form of a coalition of the liberal bourgeoisie. However, this political alliance also failed to achieve the consolidation of society. Social tension has increased in the country. On the one hand, there was growing indignation of the masses over the government's delays in carrying out the most pressing economic, social and political reforms. On the other hand, the right was not happy with the weakness of the government and the insufficiently decisive measures to curb the “revolutionary element.” Monarchists and right-wing bourgeois parties were ready to support the establishment of a military dictatorship. The far left Bolsheviks set a course for seizing political power under the slogan “All power to the Soviets!”

October Revolution. The Bolsheviks came to power.

On October 10, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) adopted a resolution on an armed uprising. L.B. opposed her. Kamenev and G.E. Zinoviev. They believed that preparations for an uprising were premature and that it was necessary to fight to increase the influence of the Bolsheviks in the future Constituent Assembly. IN AND. Lenin insisted on the immediate seizure of power through an armed uprising. His point of view won.

The chairman was the left Socialist-Revolutionary P.E. Lazimir, and the actual leader is L.D. Trotsky (chairman of the Petrograd Soviet from September 1917). The Military Revolutionary Committee was created to protect the Soviets from the military coup and Petrograd. On October 16, the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) created the Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Center (MRC). He joined the Military Revolutionary Committee and began to direct its activities. By the evening of October 24, the government was blocked in the Winter Palace.

On the morning of October 25, the appeal of the Military Revolutionary Committee “To the citizens of Russia!” was published. It announced the overthrow of the provisional government and the transfer of power to the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee. On the night of October 25-26, the ministers of the provisional government were arrested in the Winter Palace.

IICongress of Soviets.

On the evening of October 25, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened. More than half of its deputies were Bolsheviks, 100 mandates were from the Left Social Revolutionaries.

On the night of October 25-26, the congress adopted an appeal to workers, soldiers and peasants, and proclaimed the establishment of Soviet power. The Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries condemned the action of the Bolsheviks and left the congress in protest. Therefore, all the decrees of the Second Congress were permeated with the ideas of the Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries.

On the evening of October 26, the congress unanimously adopted the Decree on Peace, which called on the warring parties to conclude a democratic peace without annexations and indemnities.

The October Revolution of 1917 took place on October 25 according to the old style or November 7 according to the new style. The initiator, ideologist and main protagonist of the revolution was the Bolshevik Party (Russian Social Democratic Bolshevik Party), led by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (party pseudonym Lenin) and Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky). As a result, power changed in Russia. Instead of a bourgeois one, the country was led by a proletarian government.

Goals of the October Revolution of 1917

• Building a more just society than capitalism
• Eliminating the exploitation of man by man
• Equality of people in rights and responsibilities

  Main motto socialist revolution 1917 “To each according to his needs, from each according to his work”

• Fight against wars
• World socialist revolution

Slogans of the revolution

• "Power to the Soviets"
• "Peace to the Nations"
• "Land to the peasants"
• "Factory to workers"

Objective reasons for the October Revolution of 1917

• Economic difficulties experienced by Russia due to participation in the First World War
• Huge human losses from the same
• Things going wrong at the front
• The incompetent leadership of the country, first by the tsarist, then by the bourgeois (Provisional) government
• The unresolved peasant question (the issue of allocating land to peasants)
• Difficult living conditions for workers
• Almost complete illiteracy of the people
• Unfair national policies

Subjective reasons for the October Revolution of 1917

• The presence in Russia of a small but well-organized, disciplined group - the Bolshevik Party
• The leadership in her is great historical Personality— V.I. Lenina
• The absence of a person of the same caliber in the camp of her opponents
• Ideological vacillations of the intelligentsia: from Orthodoxy and nationalism to anarchism and support for terrorism
• The activities of German intelligence and diplomacy, which had the goal of weakening Russia as one of Germany’s opponents in the war
• Passivity of the population

Interesting: the causes of the Russian revolution according to writer Nikolai Starikov

Methods for building a new society

• Nationalization and transfer to state ownership of means of production and land
• Eradication of private property
• Physical elimination of political opposition
• Concentration of power in the hands of one party
• Atheism instead of religiosity
• Marxism-Leninism instead of Orthodoxy

Trotsky led the immediate seizure of power by the Bolsheviks

“By the night of the 24th, members of the Revolutionary Committee dispersed to different areas. I was left alone. Later Kamenev came. He was opposed to the uprising. But he came to spend this decisive night with me, and we remained alone in a small corner room on the third floor, which resembled the captain’s bridge on the decisive night of the revolution. In the next large and deserted room there was a telephone booth. They called continuously, about important things and about trifles. The bells emphasized the guarded silence even more sharply... Detachments of workers, sailors, and soldiers were awake in the areas. Young proletarians have rifles and machine gun belts over their shoulders. Street pickets warm themselves by the fires. The spiritual life of the capital, which on an autumn night squeezes its head from one era to another, is concentrated around two dozen telephones.
In the room on the third floor, news from all districts, suburbs and approaches to the capital converge. It’s as if everything is provided for, leaders are in place, connections are secured, it seems that nothing is forgotten. Let's check it mentally again. This night decides.
... I give the commissars the order to set up reliable military barriers on the roads to Petrograd and send agitators to meet the units called by the government...” If words cannot restrain you, use your weapons. You are responsible for this with your head." I repeat this phrase several times... The Smolny outer guard has been reinforced with a new machine gun team. Communication with all parts of the garrison remains uninterrupted. Duty companies are kept awake in all regiments. The commissioners are in place. Armed detachments move through the streets from the districts, ring the bell at the gates or open them without ringing, and occupy one institution after another.
...In the morning I attack the bourgeois and conciliatory press. Not a word about the outbreak of the uprising.
The government still met in the Winter Palace, but it had already become only a shadow of its former self. Politically it no longer existed. During October 25, the Winter Palace was gradually cordoned off by our troops from all sides. At one o'clock in the afternoon I reported to the Petrograd Soviet on the state of affairs. Here's how the newspaper report portrays it:
“On behalf of the Military Revolutionary Committee, I declare that the Provisional Government no longer exists. (Applause.) Individual ministers have been arrested. (“Bravo!”) Others will be arrested in the coming days or hours. (Applause.) The revolutionary garrison, at the disposal of the Military Revolutionary Committee, dissolved the meeting of the Pre-Parliament. (Noisy applause.) We stayed awake here at night and watched through the telephone wire as detachments of revolutionary soldiers and workers' guards silently carried out their work. The average person slept peacefully and did not know that at this time one power was being replaced by another. Stations, post office, telegraph, Petrograd Telegraph Agency, State Bank are busy. (Noisy applause.) The Winter Palace has not yet been taken, but its fate will be decided in the next few minutes. (Applause.)"
This bare report is capable of giving misconception about the mood of the meeting. This is what my memory tells me. When I reported on the change of power that had taken place that night, tense silence reigned for several seconds. Then came the applause, but not stormy, but thoughtful... “Can we handle it?” — many people asked themselves mentally. Hence a moment of anxious reflection. We'll handle it, everyone answered. New dangers loomed in the distant future. And now there was a feeling great victory, and this feeling sang in the blood. It found its outlet in a stormy meeting arranged for Lenin, who appeared at this meeting for the first time after an absence of almost four months.”(Trotsky “My Life”).

Results of the October Revolution of 1917

• The elite in Russia has completely changed. The one that ruled the state for 1000 years, set the tone in politics, economics, public life, was an example to follow and an object of envy and hatred, gave way to others who before that really “were nothing”
• The Russian Empire fell, but its place was taken by the Soviet Empire, which for several decades became one of the two countries (together with the USA) that led the world community
• The Tsar was replaced by Stalin, who acquired significantly greater powers than any Russian emperor.
• The ideology of Orthodoxy was replaced by communist
• Russia (more precisely Soviet Union) within a few years transformed from an agricultural to a powerful industrial power
• Literacy has become universal
• The Soviet Union achieved the withdrawal of education and medical care from the system of commodity-money relations
• There was no unemployment in the USSR
• In recent decades, the leadership of the USSR has achieved almost complete equality of the population in income and opportunities.
• In the Soviet Union there was no division of people into poor and rich
• In the numerous wars that Russia waged during the years of Soviet power, as a result of terror, from various economic experiments, tens of millions of people died, the fates of probably the same number of people were broken, distorted, millions left the country, becoming emigrants
• The country's gene pool has changed catastrophically
• The lack of incentives to work, the absolute centralization of the economy, and huge military expenditures have led Russia (USSR) to a significant technological lag behind the developed countries of the world.
• In Russia (USSR), in practice, democratic freedoms were completely absent - speech, conscience, demonstrations, rallies, press (although they were declared in the Constitution).
• The Russian proletariat lived materially much worse than the workers of Europe and America

February 1917... The First World War has been going on for two and a half years, and by this time it had become protracted. The millions of armies of all the warring countries are literally rotting in the trenches, unable to move forward. Any attempt by one of the parties to significantly change the situation in their favor only leads to enormous human casualties. Thousands of soldiers die every day from enemy shelling, bombing, and chlorine gas attacks, sometimes without even seeing the enemy in person; die from diseases, in particular from raging typhus. Millions of people have already died, and millions of others have become crippled and disabled people who do not know how to live further.

True, in the summer of 1916, Russian troops Southwestern Front under the command of the talented General Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov, it is possible to carry out one of the largest offensive operations of the entire war - the so-called Brusilovsky breakthrough, which almost led to the complete defeat of the Austro-Hungarian army and the withdrawal of Austria-Hungary from the war. But the lack of adequate support from other fronts and the lack of resources for the development of the operation did not allow this to happen. None of the warring parties has yet been able to decisively change the course of the war in their favor.

On eternal question: "What to do?" - the answer suggests itself: “Change the balance of power in your favor.” Everyone tries to do it in their own way. The Entente countries hope to see the United States on their side, and Germany is taking action to withdraw Russia from the war, the enemy with the greatest human and Natural resources. Moreover, the majority of the people of Russia, after the jingoistic euphoria of the first days of the war, now have little understanding of why this war, protracted and unsuccessful, is being waged, and what victory in it can bring ordinary people, first of all, to millions of peasants who are now torn away from their farms, mobilized into the army, and, feeding typhoid lice in the trenches, wondering: for what great purpose did they have to leave their villages, where their wives and children are now in poverty without their breadwinners.

Gradually, Russia becomes the “weak link” of the Entente and finds itself in the focus of intrigues of opposing coalitions. The world war of the great powers is penetrating deeper and deeper into our country, soon to tear it apart from the inside.

Now it is very fashionable to talk about German money, which was used to carry out the October coup that destroyed Russia. But somehow it is not customary to say out loud that discrediting the Russian monarchy and royal family in the eyes of the people, the overthrow of this very monarchy and the coming to power of the liberals of the Provisional Government was carried out, among other things, with considerable money from France and England (the Americans also took part in this), the main goal of which was in no case to allow Russia to leave war, to bring to power a government that is obedient and dependent on its allies and to achieve its victory even at the cost of the death and suffering of several more millions of ordinary Russian men: why feel sorry for them when they didn’t particularly feel sorry for their own people, and these are even more so not their own. Moreover, when huge amounts of money are at stake, loaned by the Entente countries to Russia. Russia will leave the war, the Entente will lose - and this money will cry. It is better to invest more in order to prevent such a development of events, and after victory you can more than return everything spent.

Well, creditors, as you know, have the right to demand everything from the debtor. That's what they demanded. And yet they achieved their goal - even after 80 years, Russia, under the strict leadership of Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin, returned to paying off those tsarist debts to the “dear” (very expensive for our people and our country) allies who took only “cash” to pay off debts: lives millions of Russian soldiers who died in East Prussia and Galicia, in expeditionary forces in Greece and France for a common cause with the allies, in the name of the salvation and interests of the same England and France, in the opinion of these eternal fighters for “human rights” are worth nothing.

According to the logic of some gentlemen, taking German marks was immoral and stupid - the Bolsheviks had to take francs, pounds sterling or American dollars in order to fight the war to a victorious end, and if the financing party (creditors) needed it, then to the last Russian soldier, that is, to fight themselves according to the market, and, thus, are now considered to be the lights of democracy and liberalism, like the leaders of the Provisional Government. In general, you need to understand who to take money from! But it’s not customary to talk about such things now...

War is death, blood, destruction of values ​​created over centuries. Therefore, it would seem, how could anyone be interested in war and wars in general?! However, the abundance of wars throughout the history of mankind shows that war is necessarily beneficial for someone, and this someone wants war, prepares for it, starts it and warms his hands on human misfortunes. So who is this “someone”, to whom, according to the apt popular expression, “war is a mother”?

Firstly, any war is fought for someone’s economic interests: we will not take into account nonsense about establishing democracy with the help of aircraft carriers and napalm. Secondly, the war brings fabulous profits to those who supply the warring army with weapons, uniforms, and food: these suppliers are directly interested in ensuring that the war lasts as long as possible and that material losses are as great as possible - the incomes of these same suppliers grow in proportion to the duration and severity of the war . Thirdly, this is the army. Of course, not that part of it from the soldiers and junior officers who die every day at the front, but the army elite, the generals. War increases the role of the generals in society by increasing the size of the army, curtailing the mechanisms of public control over it that operated in peacetime, and increases the military budget, from which something may fall to some people in uniform. Finally, during a war, salaries increase, ranks grow faster, orders are poured in more abundantly... A victorious war also makes the top of the army national heroes.

Naturally, all of the above applies to Russia on the eve of February 1917. The end of the war meant the loss of huge incomes for a whole host of figures involved in military supplies, who, to coordinate their actions, united in military-industrial committees that entangled the whole of Russia in their network. The prominent businessman Guchkov was elected Chairman of the Central Military-Industrial Committee, who accepted abdication of Nicholas II from the throne at the beginning of March 1917. It was probably not at all by chance that this mission was entrusted to him, however, together with another Duma member, Shulgin. The country's exit from the war without a resounding victory sharply reduced the importance and prestige of the army in society. True, the soldiers, who at the end of the war had to return home to their families, did not care at all about this, but for the generals and senior officers this was unacceptable.

So, the forces that are now called the military-industrial complex (we will include the army itself in this concept) were against a quick end to the war, especially by concluding a separate peace. They advocated war to the bitter end. Well, the “intelligentsia,” as always, served the interests of those who paid for its services with crumbs from the wealth acquired during the war, absolutely not understanding and not wanting to understand the deep interests of the multi-million people of Russia. For which she soon paid.

Now, in the age of television, anyone can see what is happening on world exchanges when they react to wars, coups or natural disasters somewhere in the oil-producing regions of the world, when oil prices literally rise to the skies, when, due to some international cataclysms, the stock prices of the world's largest companies "jump" up and down, and the exchange rates of the world's leading currencies fluctuate. Some people get fabulously rich from this, others go completely broke. This is the nature of the free market, and nothing can be done about it!

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia was an active subject (and object) of the world market, including the securities market. A lot of companies and banks from different countries of the world operated in the country, and the assets of Russian companies were kept not only in their homeland, but also in banks in Berlin, Vienna, London, Paris, and New York. Many influential and wealthy people in Russia invested their money in shares of foreign companies, receiving good dividends, and had foreign currency accounts. Everything is exactly as it is now!

But then the world war began, and the question arose: “who will win”? The answer to this question meant a lot. Germany will win, and the securities of the English, French and Russian governments, the currency and shares of companies of the losing countries will depreciate, turn to dust, and their owners will instantly find themselves beggars. If the Entente wins, the same will happen to holders of German and Austrian securities and currency. In general, someone will win in any case, and someone will definitely lose - this is the price for entering the global free market. There is no time for abstract patriotism and the interests of the Motherland - it would be better to save, or better yet, increase our own.

The wealthy world of Russia split into two irreconcilable camps: supporters of the Entente, who demanded war to a victorious end (not to be confused with true patriots), and grouped around two ambassadors: the French - Maurice Paleologue and the English - Sir George Buchanan, and the Germanophiles, who tried through the “holy elder” “Grigory Rasputin, in his own interests, influenced Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, who trusted Rasputin in every possible way.

In Soviet times, the feature film “Conspiracy of Ambassadors” was shot about the attempt of the ambassadors of the Entente countries to overthrow Soviet power in the summer of 1918. The overthrow of the Soviet government was not an end in itself for the ambassadors: the main task was to break the Brest-Litovsk Treaty concluded between the Bolsheviks and the Germans and again involve Russia in the war with Germany. But now we are talking about the conspiracy of the ambassadors of England and France in 1916-1917 against Emperor Nicholas II.

Completeness! Could this really happen? How... And, in order not to be unfounded, I will cite the story of the head of the royal guard (palace police) A.I. Spiridovich about the incident with the British ambassador at a diplomatic reception in Tsarskoe Selo on the occasion of the New Year 1917:

The New Year's royal reception brought two sensations. Accepting the congratulations of the diplomats, the sovereign spoke very graciously with the French ambassador Paleologue, but, approaching the English ambassador Buchanan, he apparently told him something unpleasant. Those nearby noticed that Buchanan was very embarrassed and even blushed deeply. On the way back to Petrograd, Buchanan invited Maurice Paleologue to his compartment and, being extremely upset, told him what happened during the reception. The Emperor remarked to him that he, the ambassador of the English king, had not lived up to His Majesty’s expectations, that the last time at an audience the Emperor reproached him for visiting the enemies of the monarch. Now the sovereign corrects his inaccuracy: Buchanan does not visit them, but himself receives them at his embassy. Buchanan was both confused and discouraged. It was clear that His Majesty became aware of Buchanan's behind-the-scenes game and his connections with the opposition.

Like this! French Ambassador Maurice Paleologue appears in this story from the best side, but if you read his memoirs, it becomes clear: he was aware of all the intrigues against the Russian emperor; even the great princes were not afraid to share with him plans for a palace coup in order to overthrow Nicholas II and his wife. So both ambassadors had a hand in rocking the ship of Russian statehood. Oh, these allies!

Many, including current admirers of Emperor Nicholas II, indignantly reject the very possibility of attempts to conclude a separate peace between Russia and Germany. They say that the sovereign and empress could not betray. But who to betray? Allies, of course!

However, Nicholas II was not the emperor of the allies, but of the vast people of Russia. What did “what’s his name people” think about this? He showed this after Lenin’s “Decree on Peace”, when mass desertion of soldiers from the front by regiments and divisions began - men dressed in soldiers’ greatcoats expressed their attitude towards the war with their feet. And it’s not for us to judge them: !

We’ll talk about why Russian soldiers were offered to die a little later, but for now I want to say this. I am not a fan or admirer of Nicholas II and his wife, although this is very fashionable now. But I believe that if they had plans to take Russia out of the war, and they managed to implement them, then they would have done a great good for the country, which, perhaps, would have avoided many terrible upheavals in the twentieth century. And they would certainly have saved from death and wounds hundreds of thousands of Russian people who continued to die and be maimed at the front in 1917 under the puppet Provisional Government, controlled by the ambassadors of England and France, which waged the war to a victorious end in the interests of Western countries.

I foresee criticism of cheerful (or unfortunate) patriots who did not feed typhoid lice in the trenches, who did not swallow lungfuls of chlorine during gas attacks, who did not know the raids of heavy German artillery, but are still moaning that Russia was not among the winners and did not participate in the post-war division of spoils. However, I believe that the saved millions of lives of my compatriots are more valuable than dubious territorial acquisitions, which the Russian Empire, given its gigantic size, did not really need. And would she have received them? Big question.

Usually, when they talk about possible Russian acquisitions, they mean the transfer of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits under its control. I doubt that this would have happened even if Russia had been completely faithful to its allies and if it had been among the winners. Indeed, since ancient times, it was England and France that prevented its attempts to gain a foothold in this region. In 1854, they supported Turkey with their armies and navies in the war against Russia, which as a result was defeated in Crimean War, lost Sevastopol and its Black Sea Fleet. In 1878, when, during the new Russian-Turkish war, the troops of the legendary General Skobelev stood literally at the walls of the Turkish capital - Istanbul and off the coast of the Bosphorus, England sent its navy to the straits, threatening to start a war if Russian troops advanced further. Why would things suddenly happen differently? Most likely, Russia would once again be humiliated and deceived at Versailles: after all, it was not expected to participate equally in the post-war division of the world, but only to supply “cannon fodder” for the benefit of the allies.

But by February 1917, Russia had not yet emerged from the war. And it is unknown whether there were actually attempts to get her out of the war: maybe all the talk about the “empress’s conspiracy” is just gossip aimed at discrediting the imperial couple in the eyes of their allies and their citizens? Apparently, there were similar trends, and it can be assumed that negotiations on the possible conclusion of a separate peace between Germany and Russia were conducted through the brother of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, a high-ranking official in the German army, the Grand Duke of Hesse Ernst Ludwig (“Uncle Ernie” for the children of Nicholas II). As one source testifies, the German crown prince wrote to him back in 1915:

I consider it absolutely necessary to conclude a separate peace with Russia. First of all, it is too stupid that we should tear each other to pieces just so that England can fish in troubled waters.

And in the fall of 1916, “Uncle Ernie” was spotted in one of the residences of the Russian emperors near Petrograd. At least, there is mention of this in the literature, although it is stated that Empress Alexandra Fedorovna resolutely refused to discuss with her brother the possibility of concluding a separate peace. Apparently, it was after this that pro-English and pro-French forces decided to overthrow Nicholas II and his wife and replace them with more loyal figures.

The first step was to eliminate the communication channel between the pro-German forces in Russia and the empress, who was Grigory Rasputin, and he was soon killed. Killed by whom? I will not repeat the hackneyed version of Prince Felix Yusupov, because in one of the television programs of the “Seekers” series it was said that Rasputin was killed by an agent of British intelligence, and the English documentary “British trace in a high-profile murder. The Scotland Yard investigation confirms this version.

When it comes to a change of power, the question always arises: who will replace the current ruler?

In the Romanov dynasty, and even in the vast circle of monarchists, even thoughts about a system other than the monarchy were not allowed. In the most extreme case, a constitutional monarchy in the English style is the ideal of many Russian liberals to this day. But who, in the event of a coup, could become the new emperor of Russia? Maurice Paleologue provides interesting evidence on this matter:

Several grand dukes, including the three sons of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna: Kirill, Boris and Andrei, talk about saving tsarism through a palace coup. With the help of four guards regiments, whose loyalty has already been shaken, they will move at night to Tsarskoye Selo; they will capture the king and queen; the emperor will be shown the need to abdicate; the empress will be imprisoned in a monastery; then the heir to the throne, Alexei, will be declared king under the regency of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.

Note that the father of the three above-mentioned great princes was the emperor’s own younger brother Alexandra III and Nicholas II's uncle, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, who more than once said that he would have been a much better king than his nephew Nicholas. It was Vladimir Alexandrovich who ordered the shooting of the workers who went to the tsar with a petition on January 9, 1905, which undermined the faith of the common people in a just tsar and put an end to the beginning of the first Russian revolution, and it was he, and after his death in 1909, his son Kirill Vladimirovich who were supposed to inherit the Russian throne in the event of the suppression of the line of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail, who, however, according to dynastic laws had no right to the throne, as he was not married to a woman royal family.

So, if something happened, it was Kirill Vladimirovich who had the best chance of taking the Russian throne, and after Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and for his son Alexei, he stood only one step away from this. But Nicholas II’s brother, Mikhail, screwed him over by not abdicating the throne, but leaving this issue to the discretion of the future constituent assembly. And Kirill Vladimirovich, putting a red bow on his chest, led the Guards Fleet Crew, of which he was the chief, to the Tauride Palace to show loyalty and respect to the victorious Duma members: maybe they will be honored at the constituent meeting.

The descendants of Kirill Vladimirovich to this day lay claim to the Russian throne, and these claims are by no means as illusory as they might seem. Just fifteen years ago, the issue of establishing a constitutional monarchy in Russia and enthroning Kirill Vladimirovich’s minor great-grandson, Grand Duke George, was seriously considered (whom most of the Romanov descendants do not recognize as Romanov at all, since on his father’s side he belongs to the German royal family of Hohenzollern ), the regent under which was to become... Boris Yeltsin.

What did tens of millions of Russian people, who bore all the burdens on their shoulders, think about all this fuss at the top? terrible war, nicknamed the Great War in Russia - the elite somehow did not think about this: what to take from them, from the dark people. He will endure, not for the first time.

In general, in February 1917, a variety of forces were ready to overthrow (and were preparing to overthrow) the Tsar, making rosy plans for how gloriously they would rule Russia and wage the war to a victorious end. They forgot only one thing: there is still a huge people of Russia, and it is unclear how they will behave.

However, smart people, who traditionally are not listened to, predicted the possible development of events quite accurately. So the former Chairman of the Council of Ministers Kokovtsov, in a conversation with the French Ambassador Paleologue, said:

I don’t think that the manifestations of current politics or even a palace coup would be enough to rouse the people. But a rebellion will break out immediately in the event of a military defeat or a famine crisis.

He echoed English ambassador in Russia Sir George Buchanan:

Revolution was in the air, and the only controversial question was whether it would come from above or from below. Palace coup was discussed openly, and at dinner at the embassy one of my friends who occupied a high position in the government informed me that the question was whether both the emperor and the empress would be killed, or only the latter; on the other hand, a popular uprising, caused by a general lack of food, could break out at any moment.

And on November 16, 1916, he wrote in a letter addressed to the British Foreign Office:

If unrest occurs, then, as they tell me, the army will refuse to fight. If unrest does occur, it will be for economic rather than political reasons, and it will be started not by the workers in the factories, but by the crowds queuing at the grocery stores.

As the English ambassador looked into the water: this is how it all happened - the performance of hungry crowds in Petrograd at the end of February 1917 quickly grew into a revolution that swept the entire country, captured all segments of the population and buried all the cunning plans of the Russian and foreign elite. Simplicity is enough for every wise man. True, it still remains a mystery: whether the food shortage in Petrograd was caused by the usual Russian sloppiness and bungling, or whether there was malicious intent, because in the Russian province there was enough food to feed at least the capital.

Finally, let’s ask a couple more questions without expecting an answer. Nowadays apologists for free market economy They claim that in market conditions and free trade there can be no queues. So where did the lines for bread come from in 1917, when there was no socialism yet and anyone could trade, in Petrograd, which soon blew up Russia, which, according to the same gentlemen, had previously fed the whole of Europe with bread? And could something like this happen again in the future?

Vladimir Agte, publicist

Was the Russian Revolution of 1917 inevitable? Did it determine the beginning of the civil war? Doctor of Historical Sciences, leading researcher at the St. Petersburg Institute of History, professor at the European University in St. Petersburg Boris Kolonitsky. I wrote down the main points of his speech.

WWI factor

In the year of the centenary of the Russian Revolution of 1917, fierce debate about its causes and consequences flares up again. Was it accidental or inevitable? How did the First World War affect the events of 1917? I divide those who answer these questions into three groups: optimists, pessimists and idiots. Idiots say that everything was good and wonderful in Russia, but some kind of conspiracy ruined it. Of course, there really were various conspiracies, but serious historians do not believe that the Russian revolution was the result of someone’s malicious intent.

Optimists say that Russia was doomed to revolution with the outbreak of the First World War. They believe that if our country had survived to the end and found itself in the camp of winners, this would have solved many of its problems. But we now know that not only for the vanquished, but also for the victors, the end of the First World War became a great test.

Take, for example, Italy, which was then called “the vanquished in the camp of the victors.” At first there was a big offensive by the left, and the country was on the verge of revolution, but then it emerged from the post-war socio-political crisis, establishing a fascist dictatorship in 1922. Or Great Britain - a country that, it would seem, only benefited from the end of the First World War.

But here is a list of events that then seriously shook the British Empire: crises in India and Egypt, the defeat of British colonial troops in Afghanistan, the forced recognition of Irish independence. Why do optimists believe that Russia, a country with a much more significant set of problems and with much greater difficulties, would have successfully survived the end of the First World War?

Now as for the pessimists, of which I include myself. The revolution in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was inevitable, and it’s not even about the First World War, from participation in which our country could not avoid due to the difficult geopolitical situation and the mood of the political elite.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation that Russia, by an incredibly lucky coincidence, would have avoided this war. There is a clear historical example showing that serious upheavals would have awaited it in any case. Let's imagine a country that has long been trying to become a constitutional monarchy, where it still great importance have a courtyard and a military elite. The agrarian question is acute in this country, and millions of peasants believe that only the division of large estates can make them happy. In addition, there are national and colonial issues, there is a young aggressive working class, a painful process of secularization, and there is a powerful anti-clerical and atheist movement.

Very reminiscent of Russia, isn't it? But I was just talking about Spain, which did not participate in the First World War, but on the contrary, thanks to military orders, it only benefited from it. Despite this, Spain could not avoid the revolution of 1931, after which it broke into the civil war of 1936-1939, one of the bloodiest civil wars in European history.

Image: Hulton Archive/Getty Images

World wave of revolutions

From this comparison it is clearly seen that the events of the Russian revolution cannot be considered outside the world context. The international situation on the eve of the First World War seems calm to us. But what really happened? In 1905 there was a constitutional revolution in Persia, in 1908 - a revolution in the Ottoman Empire, in 1910 - a revolution in Portugal, in 1911 - a revolution in China. The revolution in Portugal, after which the country became a republic, aroused enormous enthusiasm among republicans and anti-clericals throughout Europe. And then there was the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1917. Mexico may be too far away, but revolutions in the Ottoman Empire, Persia and China took place very close to Russia's borders. Sometimes the same people took part in revolutions in Persia, Turkey and Russia.

We say that the First World War gave birth to the revolution. But the revolution in Turkey gave rise to a deep crisis in the Ottoman Empire, against the backdrop of which the Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912 flared up. A direct consequence of this war was the First Balkan War of 1912-1913 and the Second Balkan War of 1913, which prepared the conditions for the First World War. In fact, sometimes wars give rise to revolutions, and sometimes revolutions give rise to wars. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a whole complex of revolutions and wars in the world, and the Russian revolution was an integral part of this global process.

We perceive the period of time from 1905 to 1914 in Russia as an exclusively peaceful period. Everything seems to be fine: it is in session, the literacy of the population is gradually increasing, urbanization processes are underway, and modernization is taking place. But as a result of all this, a young, aggressive working class appears, and on the eve of the First World War, the whole country was shaken by strikes, especially in St. Petersburg, where a real small civil war was unfolding in the streets.

"Russia was a police state"

Could the impending revolution be prevented by timely implementation of reforms? I believe that the political choice of the moment of reform is very important. When a political crisis begins, undertaking reforms is sometimes very dangerous. And although it is sometimes impossible to do anything else, they require special sapper care.

Any reforms begin and take place in the presence of some kind of coalition of reforms or a vector of reform influence; they require qualified expertise. It is important to create a functioning reform coalition that would work both to lobby for it and to implement it in practice. The process of lobbying the coalition for reform is not always easy and is very often accompanied by conflicts, sometimes quite severe.

I'm thinking a lot now about the problem of conflict culture, which can be very different. Pre-revolutionary Russia was largely a police state, but also under-policed. Qualified police are an expensive proposition.

How did you get out of the situation? Firstly, they recruited the population to perform police functions: various sotsky, ten and other prototypes of Soviet voluntary people's squads. Secondly, in Russia, armed forces were often used to solve police problems, primarily Cossacks, but sometimes infantry. But troops, if they are used to perform police tasks, do what they are trained to do - that is, they shoot and kill.

Therefore, in Russia, political conflicts often took place in the form of small civil wars. This feature of the domestic political culture does little to promote the formation of a favorable political and cultural background for carrying out reforms and overcoming crises.

Lenin and brick

It is difficult for me to imagine that Russia could go through this period of its history calmly, without revolutionary upheavals. Another thing is that it was entirely possible to do without a Civil War, especially such a bloody and fierce one. From the experience of world history, we know that revolutions are often accompanied by interventions and even more often descend into civil wars.

One of the key questions for Russia after February 1917 was whether civil war could be avoided. For example, in 1918, a revolution happened in Germany. After that, everything happened: the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919, the Kapp Putsch in 1920, the “” and the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. That is, local civil wars periodically broke out in Germany, sometimes with the use of artillery, armored vehicles and aviation, but a major civil war was still avoided there.

This happened thanks to the interaction of Social Democrats and trade unionists on the one hand and the generals on the other. Personally, they did not tolerate each other, but they had some experience of cooperation during the First World War. And, despite occasional difficulties, this cooperation has stood the test of time.

In Russia, as we know, such a coalition was destroyed after the failure of the so-called Kornilov speech. The point, of course, was not only the peculiarities of the personal relationship between Kerensky and Kornilov, not the vanity and envy of one and the dictatorial ambitions of the other. The problem was deeper.