? When will the revolution in Russia? The number of dissatisfied is increasing. Even bloggers massively began to raise topics that everything is bad in Russia
Increasingly, in conversations, publications and at rallies, the word "revolution" began to be used. They began to think about the revolution. This is the worst possible symptom for power.
The left tries to justify its actions with the thesis that revolutions could not occur if governments met the legitimate demands of citizens in time.
But how to determine these legitimate "people's needs" that are not met in time by the governments? Is it legal to demand bread? Undoubtedly. But was it legal to demand an uninterrupted supply of bread during the war, and even coupled with political demands in February 1917? I think that after the siege of Leningrad (1941-1944), such a combination of bread and politics will cause some doubts, and some will call to apply the methods of a military tribunal to alarmists and politicians.
Were the "people's needs" realized already in February or only in October? Or in 1991? Or, in February and October 1917, were only the ambitions of those revolutionary groups who did and did these revolutionary acts in the name of seizing power were satisfied?
Each advanced revolutionary section of our intelligentsia sees the "people's needs" in its own way. And often "people's needs" really focus on personal ambitions, in the style of "if it's good for me, it's good for the people" or "if it's good for our party, then this is the realization of people's happiness."
Of course, all revolutionaries are inclined to blame the power itself for the birth of the revolution. The authorities are always to blame for not compromising with the revolutionaries, and therefore, they say, all the revolutions known in history took place. That is, they always want to explain the revolution not by the actions of the revolutionaries, but by the inaction or wrong action of the authorities.
This is both very strange and very natural at the same time.
Naturally, because criminals tend to blame the victim herself for the fact that she herself is to blame. Rapists are provoked by beautiful women in attractive clothes that emphasize their feminine virtues. Robbers - volumes of accumulated wealth. Swindlers - simplicity of morals and inexperience of citizens, etc.
And in themselves they, criminals, are innocent. Solely out of social inevitability and under the weight of circumstances hanging over him, as well as the actions or inactions of the victim himself, they were forced to kill, rob or rape.
But in the world of politics, as in any other field, nothing moves by itself if no effort is made. And if there were no revolutionaries, then there would be no revolutions. Exactly for this reason, if there were no buildings, then there would be neither builders nor customers. Where a person puts his efforts, there the results of these efforts appear.
This is a matter of human freedom. Some build empires, others make their efforts to destroy them. Some are creators, others are destroyers. Some will be rewarded as righteous creators, others will receive what they deserve as their opponents.
Delegitimization of power and removal of the taboo from the revolution
Any revolution, any revolutionaries do their main destructive work until the very act of insurrection or coup. The main task of any revolution before the revolution itself is to delegitimize power. Achieve a revolution in the minds of the citizens themselves. To convince some significant part of the population that it is necessary to stop obeying the authorities, stop considering it adequate, national and legally justified.
Modern revolutionaries often want to prove to us that a revolution in modern Russian society can be neither terrible nor bloody. Like, Russian society has a huge negative experience of the 20th century, and it will not follow the path of bloody upheavals.
First, who can guarantee that the repetition will be softer than the Bolshevik one? And no less important addition to this point is this: how much softer can it be? Will they kill not in millions or tens of millions, but in tens and hundreds of thousands?
Is the declared decline in bloody appetites a reason to agree to a revolution? And what if the appetite for bloodshed will increase in the process of revolutionary rule?
The thesis that revolutions can be bloodless is by no means confirmed by the revolutions in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949. Most likely, when they talk about bloodlessness, they mean “revolutions with a small letter”, coups. Revolutionary upheavals that change the regime of one or another personal power within the same power paradigm, for example, democracy.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Where the revolution seeks to destroy the world "to the ground", with a change in religious, political, and economic worldview, there, in fact, there is a real revolution. If a revolution only changes a regime, is it a revolution? Wouldn't it be better to call it a simple change of power?
Secondly, they say that the revolution takes on more radical forms when there are many young people in the society. And, they say, there are few young people in Russian society, which means that supposedly the revolution itself should be softer.
And who said that the leading revolutionary groups will be precisely the Russian youth, and, say, not Islamist from the migration that came to us legally or illegally?
There were and still are left-wing writers who propose that instead of the proletariat, it is Islamist youth that should be taken for the role of the advanced class. It may seem to the narrow-minded Left that they, like the proletariat, have nothing to lose but their chains. These young people are in no way connected with the historical tradition of the Russian state, their civilizational and religious centers are located outside of Russia, their identification is connected with the Islamist globalist project. Why not replace a played working class card?
We need to stop being afraid of Russian identity
The Russian Federation must recognize itself as Russia, and not as a faceless post-Soviet republic stuck between two equally insane humanistic projects. “Let's become like everyone else” and try to pull latex over ourselves from the territorial dimensions of Switzerland or the political organization of the United States, on the one hand. And the project “Give yesterday!” with the only desire to repeat the Soviet Union 2.0 either in the inhuman Stalinist guise, or in the stagnant-human Brezhnev version.
The Russian Federation is moving in its development at too low a speed, not fully using all the potential of the people.
If the modern government does not turn on the Russian national "reactor" in a calm, moderate, but traditional ideological frame, it will not be able to resist. Or, to be more precise, it will be very difficult for it to survive after the transfer of this power “by inheritance” from Putin to someone else.
The pro-Putin structure of power and its ideology are not sufficiently written down and not promoted either through the media or, more importantly, through the school. Where are the heirs? Where is the worldview-monolithically cohesive political class, which has received a non-Soviet and illiberal hardening at the universities and which will prolong the political course it has taken? Where are the people who went through a new general education school, where they were given solid political and historical knowledge about their Great Fatherland? Where, finally, are these newest schools and new universities that educate the nation, clarify the past and mobilize young forces for the future?
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
All higher education either remained Soviet, or became liberal and unable to train educated and conscious citizens of their homeland.
We pay a lot of attention to military and geopolitical issues, which is correct and seems to be working out. We are no less trying to solve economic and financial issues, which is probably not being done quite right, and obviously a lot is not working out. But after all, a citizen of our country is, first of all, a reasonable person. Is it being developed enough by our post-Soviet education, and is the mass media and the state itself feeding it with sound ideological food?
Yes, there are systemic parties, just as there are systemic banks, but there is no worldview ideological unity that permeates society, just as there is no national economic school. That is why our internal agenda is so pale and unstable, and therefore our economy is constantly in decline and globally does not know how and where to develop.
A large number of our citizens do not know their country either in the worldview and psychological terms, or in economic and economic terms.
People, citizens of the country are not a faceless electorate, they have their own history, their own behavioral stereotypes, their own psychological attitudes, demands for power, etc. And power should be national not because some “Great Russian chauvinists” want to establish their own regime suppression of other nationalities, but only because it can be its own, recognized, deeply legitimized, native power only if it corresponds to the ideas of the majority of people shaped by their lives.
Is the pressure atmosphere thickening?
Pension reform: What awaits Russia after Putin's words
Many revolutionary agitators have now radicalized their propaganda rhetoric about the thickened atmosphere of some kind of psychological pressure in society, increased fear spread by the authorities, even violence. Where to look at this pressure? Perhaps this is felt by our elite, whose activities fit into the rectangle: offshore companies, the Criminal Code, London, amnesty? Or is it that some particularly hot heads are not given the freedom to organize revolutionary cataclysms?
It seems to me that, in addition to the difficult passage of the pension reform and other unpopular reforms, the main carriers of the atmosphere of "psychological pressure" and "fear" are the instigators of revolutionary passions themselves.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
After the presidential election, they realized that at least until 2024 they have no chance by legal means to get into the power sinecure they longed for. And they will have to continue their “best years” either on Western grants or in party get-togethers.
The most dissatisfied are those who imagine themselves to be the revolutionary Dantons and Robespierres, the new Kerenskys, Lenins and Stalins. Dissatisfied are those who have a painfully “combed” thirst for power and lack a critical attitude towards their political abilities.
The revolution, in fact, is the embodiment of dissatisfaction with the outside world, often multiplied by one's own proud inferiority. Pride, narcissism, lofty thinking about oneself, self-exaltation and dissatisfaction with one's position in the world are things that are difficult for the state to capture.
Where does the revolution start and end? Where is the imitation?
They say that modern revolutions are not so terrible, they are less bloody, they do not encroach on the deep reorganization of society. They are allegedly aimed only at changing one group in power to another. The group of the overthrown ruler and his entourage to another group, the revolutionaries carrying out the coup.
The essence of the thesis is that there is no need to be afraid of modern revolutions, they are only violent in the event of a change of power. The authorities that do not want to make legitimate compromises or “popular demands”.
But then the question arises: “Where does the revolution begin, and where does the revolution end?” How will the revolution end? Who said, who guaranteed that the revolution, sweeping away the people in power, would not be further "deepened" by the radicals, permanently dissatisfied with the outside world?
Opening the revolutionary box with the desire to remove the "tyrant" and his "camarilla", can we count on the fact that everything will end with the transfer of power from "bad people" to "good revolutionaries"?
For example, who was good and who was bad in the 1991 situation? Yeltsin or Gorbachev?
B. Yeltsin. Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Wasn't the relationship between the communist, an adherent of socialism with a human face Gorbachev, and the communist, disillusioned with socialism, the liberal Yeltsin, akin to the relationship between the socialist Trudovik Kerensky and the social democrat, the Marxist Lenin? Both Yeltsin was a revolutionary and Gorbachev represented the revolutionary communist party. And Kerensky was a revolutionary, and Lenin breathed revolution.
There are no "good" people in the revolution at all. All its figures should be covered in thick black paint in our history. All of them aspired to personal power and did not care about the country.
Has any of our revolutions achieved the desired and declared goal - universal justice? Obviously not.
What then remains of revolutionary aspirations, except for “beaten dishes”, shed blood and yet another dissatisfaction with social reality?
Should law-abiding citizens become revolutionaries?
So, should “law-abiding citizens” be radicalized along with the revolutionaries if the government does not go for certain reforms demanded by the opposition? And can a “law-abiding citizen”, a conservative, in a certain situation become a revolutionary or sympathizers with revolutionaries?
Under the sauce of a kind of "democratizing" revolution, allegedly aimed only at the emergence of a more "sane", "democratic" government, they want to sell us a banal coup and a change in the management team.
What is the danger of such revolutions for the authorities? Yes, the fact that the modern government is ideologically practically not protected from them. The government swears by democracy, and the opposition swears by the same democracy. The only difference is that some are in power and others are not. Moreover, the latter, not in power, may well be used by other countries that simply do not like the specific direction of specific people who are now in power. Usual geopolitical rivalry.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
"There are few real violent ones"
What the revolution lacks today are real violent, untethered, morally unencumbered strong-willed bastards who are capable of leading the inflamed masses into practical revolutionary violent action.
“A cause is strong when blood flows under it” is the slogan of real revolutionaries who do not shy away from the shedding of blood. Real revolutionaries never stop fighting the regime. The revolution is themselves, it is their life.
Until the revolution is out of our schools, out of our culture and out of our heads, it will inevitably appear on our streets. This requires an intellectual struggle and the rejection of the revolution as a way to solve social problems in society. Revolution should not be attractive.
It is necessary to drive the idea of revolution into marginal left circles and to cultivate a strong rejection, both intellectual and religious and moral, of its methods and goals. Any political revolution must repel all decent citizens with its historical appearance.
To join the ranks of the revolutionaries should not occur to anyone, except for national traitors.
An armed revolutionary should receive a weighty prison term, an intellectual who writes or propagates the revolution should be left without a pulpit for his speeches and preferably without the possibility of quietly existing on external or internal means for his propaganda and preparation of the revolution.
If the government does not take care of this, then it will constantly clash with Bolotnaya Square until it defeats the government.
But this is not our life and we should not participate in our death.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
All those who are not against the revolution are already revolutionaries
There are revolutionaries both in the left, and in the liberal-democratic, and even in the national-democratic camps. All those who are not against the revolution are already revolutionaries. One must be a conscious opponent of the revolution, only such a position can be called civil, Orthodox and Russian.
You have to be either a clinical idiot, or a malicious destroyer and Russophobe, so that in the second millennium of Russian statehood, after 1917 and its consequences for the nation, you demand to start all over again, on someone else's knees from a new leaf, trying to burn to the ground the great multi-page (centuries-old) book of Russian life .
Revolutionary ideologists always urge not to think and boldly, recklessly march into the revolution, only in this way can they tempt the stupid human “brushwood” to participate in kindling the deadly fire of the revolution.
A revolution is death, first of all for the participants in the revolution themselves. You don’t see the point in life, everything seems bad - you better shoot yourself, but don’t go to the revolution. This is a 100% hit in hell, since the cause of the revolution is the cause of Satan.
By inviting people to the revolution, its ideologists tempt people: become like gods, make yourself the creators of history, but in reality people are only invited to carry revolutionary chestnuts from the fire and become that herd of pigs, which the demons who have inhabited them will overthrow into the bloody sea of revolution without any salvation.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
A revolutionary is always a Russophobe, always an atheist, and always a narcissist.
Let's not be like them!
Russian political scientists, sociologists and economists vied with each other that a revolution in Russia in 2018 is possible. In particular, experts insist on its implementation if the government does not reduce the degree of indignation that has grown in the public in recent years.
Most of the inhabitants of the state are dissatisfied with the actions of officials, people crave a change of power and hope that only this way will return the former well-being to every family. This article will tell about the future of Russia, as well as about the revolutionary mood of citizens.
A few years ago, in 2014, society was stirred up by a message about an impending one that was ready to overwhelm all of Russia, ruthlessly erasing traces of prosperity and joy from people's lives. In those days, economists, heads of banks, and the government of the Russian Federation itself, argued at every turn that this is a false statement, the crisis will not harm the country, because it can be easily prevented.
Officials categorically refused to accept the fact that hard times had come in the state, and it was time to "put things in order in it." But you can’t fool people: they began to save on many familiar things and even on food. It would seem that the situation that occurred in 2008 is repeating itself, and it knocked many out of the established life track.
Various sad and gloomy events took place in 2014, most Russians were forced to leave the country in a hurry and go abroad in search of better conditions. At the end of 2014-2015, the Russian government finally recognized the “invasion of the crisis” and began to develop large-scale anti-crisis measures, but all of them were practically invalid, because time had already been lost. It was at that moment that people started talking about a possible revolution that would happen in 2018.
When will the revolution start?
Nobody undertakes to predict the exact date of the beginning of revolutionary actions. This is such unexplored territory, completely dependent on the desire of the citizens of the Russian Federation, that even clairvoyants and astrologers refuse to build accurate forecasts.
Some political scientists and sociologists, based on polls and other statistical data, say that the revolution may unfold in 2017, because it is this year that the main unrest of citizens falls.
Others argue that mass rallies, protests and demonstrations will be associated with the upcoming presidential elections. Perhaps people will not be satisfied with the outcome of the race for the presidency, so they will decide on such radical actions.
Scenarios of the revolution in Russia
In order to understand what to prepare for, we propose to consider several scenarios according to which the revolution in the country will possibly develop. All these hypotheses were developed by experienced specialists, so the chances of their implementation are quite high.
Riot
As you can see, mass indignation is already beyond simple conversations. Residents of Russia do not sit peacefully on benches under the entrance - they go out to the squares of their cities with posters and loud slogans.
In institutes and other educational institutions, students are surveyed in order to determine their position in life, because modern youth, in most cases, is a participant in rallies, and not always peaceful ones.
Sociologist Natalya Tikhonova believes that mass demonstrations and protests are “still flowers”, active offensives can begin as early as the end of 2017 and last for several months, affecting.
In addition, law enforcement exercises are organized in various regions, where OMON and SOBR fighters are “trained” to stop riots. This means that officials are already preparing for the revolution, although they do not fully believe in it.
A crisis
Leading European economists raise doubts about the revolution in Russia in 2017-2018. They are sure that protests in the country are possible with a probability of 50% and will not be radical. In addition, the 2017-2018 Bloomberg Top Threats ranking also does not mention the revolution.
But this rating speaks of a severe economic crisis that will deal a serious blow to Russia. Experts predict a repeat of the Asian crisis of 1997, caused by the actions of Donald Trump, who unleashed an economic war with China.
Russian economists agree with similar statements. They expect a new round of the global economic crisis, because the economy in the world is subject to cyclical fluctuations and another "jump" in the negative direction can be expected already in 2018-2019.
Revolution in the mind
The political situation in the country can radically change not due to a revolution, but because of a new ideology in the minds of modern citizens. Well-known political scientist Valery Solovey does not support the theory of bloody revolutionary protests.
He is sure that people will stop hating the government and will simply consider it not legitimate. Because of this, it will lose its influence and significance for every Russian.
What do predictors think about the revolution?
Modern people often trust the forecasts of clairvoyants who lived many centuries before the events taking place in our country. Such soothsayers were Vanga, Nostradamus, Wolf Messing and others. If we look at their records regarding 2018, then everyone has a different opinion about the immediate future of the country.
Nostradamus claims that Russia should not expect something good and bright during this period, because the time of cataclysms, wars and mass protests is coming. Vanga said that in the period from 2010 to 2020, the Russian Federation will try to regain its former greatness and rise significantly in the ranking of successful countries in the world.
Wolf Messing generally pleases with his predictions - at the beginning of the 21st century, Russia will become a superpower and other countries will be equal to it.
To understand when there was a revolution in Russia, it is necessary to look back at the era. It was under the last emperor from the Romanov dynasty that the country was shaken by several social crises that caused the people to oppose the government. Historians single out the revolution of 1905-1907, the February revolution and the October year.
Background of revolutions
Until 1905, the Russian Empire lived under the laws of an absolute monarchy. The king was the sole autocrat. The adoption of important state decisions depended only on him. In the 19th century, such a conservative order of things did not suit a very small stratum of society from intellectuals and marginals. These people were guided by the West, where the Great French Revolution had long since taken place as a good example. She destroyed the power of the Bourbons and gave the inhabitants of the country civil liberties.
Even before the first revolutions took place in Russia, society learned about what political terror is. Radical supporters of change took up arms and staged assassination attempts on top government officials in order to force the authorities to pay attention to their demands.
Tsar Alexander II ascended the throne during the Crimean War, which Russia lost due to systematic economic lagging behind the West. The bitter defeat forced the young monarch to embark on reforms. The main one was the abolition of serfdom in 1861. Zemstvo, judicial, administrative and other reforms followed.
However, the radicals and terrorists were still unhappy. Many of them demanded a constitutional monarchy or even the abolition of tsarist power. The Narodnaya Volya organized a dozen assassination attempts on Alexander II. In 1881 he was killed. Under his son, Alexander III, a reactionary campaign was launched. Terrorists and political activists were severely repressed. This calmed the situation for a while. But the first revolutions in Russia were still just around the corner.
Mistakes of Nicholas II
Alexander III died in 1894 in the Crimean residence, where he improved his failing health. The monarch was relatively young (he was only 49 years old), and his death came as a complete surprise to the country. Russia froze in anticipation. The eldest son of Alexander III, Nicholas II, was on the throne. His reign (when there was a revolution in Russia) from the very beginning was overshadowed by unpleasant events.
First, in one of his first public speeches, the tsar declared that the desire of the progressive public for change was "meaningless dreams." For this phrase, Nikolai was criticized by all his opponents - from liberals to socialists. The monarch even got it from the great writer Leo Tolstoy. The count ridiculed the emperor's absurd statement in his article, written under the impression of what he heard.
Secondly, during the coronation ceremony of Nicholas II in Moscow, an accident occurred. The city authorities organized a festive event for the peasants and the poor. They were promised free "presents" from the king. So thousands of people ended up on the Khodynka field. At some point, a stampede began, which killed hundreds of passers-by. Later, when there was a revolution in Russia, many called these events symbolic allusions to a future big trouble.
The Russian revolutions also had objective reasons. What were they? In 1904, Nicholas II got involved in the war against Japan. The conflict flared up over the influence of the two rival powers in the Far East. Inept preparation, extended communications, a capricious attitude towards the enemy - all this became the reason for the defeat of the Russian army in that war. In 1905, a peace treaty was signed. Russia gave Japan the southern part of Sakhalin Island, as well as lease rights to the strategically important South Manchurian Railway.
At the beginning of the war, there was a surge of patriotism and hostility to the next national enemies in the country. Now, after the defeat, the revolution of 1905-1907 broke out with unprecedented force. in Russia. People wanted fundamental changes in the life of the state. Discontent was especially felt among the workers and peasants, whose standard of living was extremely low.
Bloody Sunday
The main reason for the start of the civil confrontation was the tragic events in St. Petersburg. On January 22, 1905, a delegation of workers went to the Winter Palace with a petition to the tsar. The proletarians asked the monarch to improve their working conditions, increase wages, etc. There were also political demands, the main of which was to convene a Constituent Assembly - a popular representation on the Western parliamentary model.
The police dispersed the procession. Firearms were used. According to various estimates, between 140 and 200 people died. The tragedy became known as Bloody Sunday. When the event became known throughout the country, mass strikes began in Russia. The dissatisfaction of the workers was fueled by professional revolutionaries and agitators of leftist convictions, who until then had carried out only underground work. The liberal opposition also became more active.
First Russian Revolution
Strikes and strikes had different intensity depending on the region of the empire. Revolution 1905-1907 in Russia, it raged especially strongly on the national outskirts of the state. For example, the Polish socialists managed to convince about 400,000 workers in the Kingdom of Poland not to go to work. Similar riots took place in the Baltic States and Georgia.
The radical political parties (Bolsheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries) decided that this was their last chance to seize power in the country with the help of an uprising of the masses. The agitators worked not only on peasants and workers, but also on ordinary soldiers. Thus began the armed uprisings in the army. The most famous episode in this series is the uprising on the battleship Potemkin.
In October 1905, the united St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies began its work, which coordinated the actions of the strikers throughout the capital of the empire. The events of the revolution took on a most violent character in December. It led to battles on Presnya and other parts of the city.
October 17 Manifesto
In the autumn of 1905, Nicholas II realized that he had lost control of the situation. He could suppress numerous uprisings with the help of the army, but this would not help get rid of the deep contradictions between the government and society. The monarch began to discuss with those close to him measures to reach a compromise with the dissatisfied.
The result of his decision was the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The development of the document was entrusted to a well-known official and diplomat Sergei Witte. Prior to that, he went to sign peace with the Japanese. Now Witte needed to have time to help his king as soon as possible. The situation was complicated by the fact that two million people were already on strike in October. Strikes covered almost all industries. Rail transport was paralyzed.
The October 17 Manifesto introduced several fundamental changes to the political system of the Russian Empire. Nicholas II had previously held sole power. Now he has transferred part of his legislative powers to a new body - the State Duma. It was supposed to be elected by popular vote and become a real representative body of power.
Also established such public principles as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, as well as the inviolability of the individual. These changes became an important part of the basic state laws of the Russian Empire. Thus, in fact, the first domestic constitution appeared.
Between revolutions
The publication of the Manifesto in 1905 (when there was a revolution in Russia) helped the authorities to take the situation under control. Most of the rebels calmed down. A temporary compromise was reached. The echo of the revolution was still heard in 1906, but now it was easier for the state repressive apparatus to cope with its most implacable opponents who refused to lay down their arms.
The so-called inter-revolutionary period began, when in 1906-1917. Russia was a constitutional monarchy. Now Nicholas had to reckon with the opinion of the State Duma, which could not accept his laws. The last Russian monarch was a conservative by nature. He did not believe in liberal ideas and believed that his sole power was given to him by God. Nikolai made concessions only because he no longer had a way out.
The first two convocations of the State Duma never completed their legal term. A natural period of reaction set in, when the monarchy took revenge. At this time, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin became the main associate of Nicholas II. His government could not reach an agreement with the Duma on some key political issues. Because of this conflict, on June 3, 1907, Nicholas II dissolved the representative assembly and made changes to the electoral system. III and IV convocations in their composition were already less radical than the first two. A dialogue began between the Duma and the government.
World War I
The main reasons for the revolution in Russia were the sole power of the monarch, which prevented the country from developing. When the principle of autocracy remained in the past, the situation stabilized. Economic growth has begun. Agrarian helped the peasants to create their own small private farms. A new social class has emerged. The country developed and grew rich before our eyes.
So why did subsequent revolutions take place in Russia? In short, Nicholas made the mistake of getting involved in World War I in 1914. Several million men were mobilized. As in the case of the Japanese campaign, at first the country experienced a patriotic upsurge. When the bloodshed dragged on, and reports of defeats began to arrive from the front, society began to worry again. No one could say for sure how long the war would drag on. The revolution in Russia was approaching again.
February Revolution
In historiography, there is the term "Great Russian Revolution". Usually, this generalized name refers to the events of 1917, when two coup d'etat took place in the country at once. The First World War hit hard on the country's economy. The impoverishment of the population continued. In the winter of 1917 in Petrograd (renamed because of anti-German sentiment) mass demonstrations of workers and townspeople began, dissatisfied with the high prices for bread.
This is how the February Revolution took place in Russia. Events developed rapidly. Nicholas II at that time was at Headquarters in Mogilev, not far from the front. The tsar, having learned about the unrest in the capital, boarded a train to return to Tsarskoye Selo. However, he was late. In Petrograd, the disgruntled army went over to the side of the rebels. The city was under the control of the rebels. On March 2, delegates went to the king, persuading him to sign his abdication. So the February Revolution in Russia left the monarchy in the past.
Restless 1917
After the beginning of the revolution was laid, the Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd. It included politicians previously known from the State Duma. They were mostly liberals or moderate socialists. Alexander Kerensky became the head of the Provisional Government.
Anarchy in the country allowed other radical political forces, such as the Bolsheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, to become more active. The struggle for power began. Formally, the Provisional Government was supposed to exist until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, when the country could decide how to live on by a general vote. However, the First World War was still going on, and the ministers did not want to refuse to help their allies in the Entente. This led to a sharp drop in the popularity of the Provisional Government in the army, as well as among the workers and peasants.
In August 1917, General Lavr Kornilov tried to organize a coup d'état. He also opposed the Bolsheviks, regarding them as a radical left-wing threat to Russia. The army was already moving towards Petrograd. At this point, the Provisional Government and Lenin's supporters briefly united. Bolshevik agitators destroyed Kornilov's army from within. The rebellion failed. The provisional government survived, but not for long.
Bolshevik coup
Of all domestic revolutions, the Great October Socialist Revolution is best known. This is due to the fact that its date - November 7 (according to the new style) - has been a public holiday on the territory of the former Russian Empire for more than 70 years.
At the head of the next coup stood Vladimir Lenin and the leaders of the Bolshevik Party enlisted the support of the Petrograd garrison. On October 25, according to the old style, the armed detachments that supported the communists captured key communication points in Petrograd - the telegraph, post office, and railway. The Provisional Government found itself isolated in the Winter Palace. After a short assault on the former royal residence, the ministers were arrested. The signal for the start of the decisive operation was a blank shot fired on the Aurora cruiser. Kerensky was not in the city, and later he managed to emigrate from Russia.
On the morning of October 26, the Bolsheviks were already the masters of Petrograd. Soon the first decrees of the new government appeared - the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land. The provisional government was unpopular precisely because of its desire to continue the war with Kaiser's Germany, while the Russian army was tired of fighting and was demoralized.
The simple and understandable slogans of the Bolsheviks were popular with the people. The peasants finally waited for the destruction of the nobility and the deprivation of their landed property. The soldiers learned that the imperialist war was over. True, in Russia itself it was far from peace. The Civil War began. The Bolsheviks had to fight for another 4 years against their opponents (whites) throughout the country in order to establish control over the territory of the former Russian Empire. In 1922 the USSR was formed. The Great October Socialist Revolution was an event that heralded a new era in the history of not only Russia, but the whole world.
For the first time in contemporary history, radical communists came to power. October 1917 surprised and frightened Western bourgeois society. The Bolsheviks hoped that Russia would become a springboard for starting a world revolution and destroying capitalism. This did not happen.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. In the afternoon we will hear about small riots, and in three or four hours the center of the Russian capital will be crowded with thousands of columns of demonstrators. The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities.
The well-known Russian political strategist, doctor of historical sciences, professor at MGIMO Valery Solovey believes that a revolution will take place in Russia and in his article he described the scenario for the development of events.
At the same time, Valery Solovey prefaces his article with the following words: “I will repeat once again, especially for lovers of political denunciations. Everything that is written in this note is nothing more than a summary of what I have stated in my articles and books over the past few years. Moreover, some of these publications were awarded with awards and prizes.
Here is the text of this publication by Valery Solovyov in full:
“All revolutions are the same, like the happy families of Leo Tolstoy. All of them go through three stages in their development: the moral delegitimization of the current government, mass political protest, and the overthrow of the old regime. Sometimes these stages practically coincide in time, sometimes they are separated from each other by some interval. For Russia, most likely, the second is true.
Moral delegitimization is also a revolution, but a psychological one. It always precedes a political revolution. Before overthrowing the government, people must massively despise and hate it. This is exactly what is happening in Russia now. In the parliamentary elections, the "party of crooks and thieves" suffered a moral and political defeat.
Despite the grandiose machine of administrative pressure and falsifications, it lost more than 10% in comparison with the results of the last elections and did not achieve the goal of a constitutional majority. And this is according to official data. According to unofficial, but quite reliable, "the party of crooks and thieves" lost in all major Russian cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Only the North Caucasus and some other national republics remain its reliable support. (Now, I hope, it is clear why the North Caucasus is heavily subsidized to the detriment of the Russian regions?)
This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. The structure of power, lovingly nurtured and cherished for the last 11 years, began to fail and crumble. In a number of regions, the bureaucratic corps played cautiously but consistently against the EdRa.
At the same time, people are not yet ready to take to the streets en masse and defend their right to free choice. The unanimous vote against the "party of swindlers and thieves" does not automatically lead to a collective street protest.
Moreover, after the parliamentary elections, there will be a decline in public activity for some time, which the authorities consider with relief as stabilization. But in reality this will turn out to be nothing more than a temporary pause before a new stage of the revolution. The HOW the presidential elections will be held will give a powerful new impetus to the moral delegitimization of power. But even more important will be the actions of the authorities after the elections.
Contrary to popular belief, revolutions are not necessarily preceded by a deep socio-economic crisis and mass impoverishment. Many revolutions took place against a backdrop of relative social prosperity. Incomparably more important for the political revolution is the so-called "revolution of expectations", that is, the situation when people lived well and hoped to live even better, but their hopes suddenly collapsed. This “revolution of expectations” will be fully experienced by our fellow citizens next year, when it becomes clear that the authorities are not going to fulfill the election promises, there is no money in the treasury and it is necessary to tighten their belts. It is easy to imagine the reaction of the military and police, who will be able to pay the promised increase in salaries for only a few months.
It is next year that the so-called new “social” (but in fact completely anti-social) laws on education and medicine will come into force, depriving the population of the opportunity to receive quality medical care and education free of charge. In 2012, the fiscal pressure on businesses and the population will sharply increase. Meanwhile, all studies say: increased fiscal pressure from a morally illegitimate government is a direct road to revolution.
Everything starts suddenly. Revolutions always start unexpectedly even for the revolutionaries themselves, the day and hour of none of them was predicted. By no means an ordinary mind of his era, Ulyanov-Lenin wrote bitterly in January 1917 that his generation would not live to see the revolution in Russia, perhaps children would see it.
An insignificant occasion will give impetus to a grandiose dynamic. Anything can serve as this reason: a street picket, a small rally, a spontaneous blocking of the road, the funeral of another victim of ethnic crime, a car hitting a woman with a child with a flashing light (If the straw is dry, sooner or later it will light up). And suddenly - and this is always "suddenly" - a small group of people will begin to turn into a crowd of many thousands, which will move into the city center, sweeping away the flimsy police cordons along the way.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. In the afternoon we will hear about small riots, and in three or four hours the center of the Russian capital will be crowded with thousands of columns of demonstrators, who will be joined by riot police. This is how a nation is born.
And what about the authorities, is it really not going to resist? Will try, of course. It is unlikely, however, that people who are afraid of whistling at a concert will muster the courage to give the order to open fire on civilians. Unless they really want to repeat the fate of Ceausescu and Gaddafi.
And it is absolutely incredible that SUCH orders were carried out. Those who give them away can hope to escape to their billions, accumulated by overwork in the field of serving the Motherland, but where do the executors of criminal orders flee? And crimes against humanity, as you know, have no statute of limitations and do not deserve indulgence.
The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities. Foreseeing its own future, it does and will do everything to delay its own end. However, the notorious Russian “tightening the screws” will only lead to the breakdown of the rusty thread and the final destruction of the power structure. Violence emanating from a morally illegitimate regime causes not fear and submission, but an explosion of indignation and an irresistible desire of the masses to overthrow it - such is the axiom of revolutions.
This, by the way, is the answer to those who associate the revolution with mass violence and bloodshed. Is there an idea for which those in power are willing to die? Or will there be fanatics willing to die for their offshore accounts?
Those who are obsessed with profit inevitably lose to people driven by the desire for freedom and justice. All revolutions in European countries over the past 20 years have been peaceful and bloodless, and Russia will not be an exception. Even in Romania, the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime was accompanied by only local and short-term violence.
Peaceful revolutions happen very quickly. The question of power in Russia will be resolved as quickly as in 1917 and 1991 - in three or four days ... "
Tags: Russia, Politics, revolution
November 11th, 2017 01:48 am
Our geopolitical enemies, and even our liberals, constantly blaming the Bolsheviks for the overthrow of the autocracy and the collapse of Russia, and at the same time belittling the role of the October Revolution, are absolutely calm about the February coup, considering it a democratic revolution.
Yes, in February 1917, it was a coup that, in modern terms, can be called the “Orange” or “Velvet” revolution.
Isn’t it because the February coup is treated like that because it was the Bolsheviks who defended the country, making it a superpower, just think about it !!! The same forces are now leading to fragmentation and destruction of our state, just as then by the hands of greedy and narrow-minded citizens.
Maybe it's time to call the enemies - ENEMIES?!
Today there are neither white nor red, not even green and gray-brown-crimson! There are WE who want the prosperity and strengthening of the country, and there are They who want the prosperity of their loved ones at any cost!
Who benefited from the February Revolution of 1917?
The February Revolution of 1917 in Russia is one of the most controversial moments in Russian history. For a long time it was perceived as the overthrow of the "hated tsarism", but today it is increasingly called a coup d'état.
When we talk about the February events of 1917, it is worth considering not just the causes of the revolution, but why it happened in 1917 and in February of this year.
To begin with, it is worth remembering the key task of our geopolitical opponents: to destroy Russia and Germany as major powers, with the complete elimination of their economic potential. To do this, the plans were to weaken and defeat Russia, and then disable Germany.
The plan for weakening Russia is being built gradually: from external pressure to internal.
Firstly, during the First World War it was necessary to undermine the military positions of Russia. That is why the Entente countries for several years could not agree to simultaneously launch an offensive against the enemy troops. The long-awaited first joint offensive will be planned only for April-May 1917, while Germany is preparing for a strategic defense.
German General Eric Ludendorff writes:
“Our situation was extremely difficult and almost hopeless. There was no need to think about the offensive, we had to keep reserves ready for defense. It was also impossible to hope that any of the Entente states would fail. Our defeat seemed inevitable…”.
Great Britain understood that if the offensive took place, then Russia would inevitably win. And the plans of the British to crush both Germany and Russia will collapse.
Second, in order to weaken Russia, the allies are suspending military supplies. Deliveries are strictly metered and pursue a dual goal: to prevent the defeat of Russia and its exit from the war and at the same time to avoid decisive victories on the Eastern Front.
But even this does not help: despite the fact that in the early years Russia suffered from a shortage of weapons, the courage of Russian fighters did not weaken. Yes, and Russian industry is doing everything to rearm the Russian army as soon as possible. And if at the beginning of the war the Russian field artillery had a stock of 1,000 shells per gun, by 1917 the stock per gun would be 4,000 shells. Now any major offensive can be planned, taking into account the massive artillery treatment of the enemy's defenses.
Under the conditions of the greatly increased combat power of the Russian army, the tired German army would not have been able to resist the onslaught from the west and east for a long time. Together with the Germans, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey would unconditionally follow to the bottom, whose troops held on solely thanks to German help.
However, the "allies" do not need our common victory in principle, because then we will have to share the trophies. We will have to give Russia the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, to open for her an exit from the clogged Black Sea to the Mediterranean. And Russia will emerge from the war not destroyed, but strengthened.
The third move will be a political game involving Turkey. In the summer of 1916, a state conspiracy was uncovered in Turkey, which aimed to conclude a separate peace. First of all, with England and France. If this happened, the allies promised to Russia might not give up the “straits”. However, the conspiracy will be revealed and a separate peace will not happen.
Thus, all attempts to destroy the country from the outside fail. This means that our pseudo-allies need to come up with new plans to achieve their goal. And it's time to follow the beaten path of the revolution of the early 20th century - to destroy the country from the inside.
Let's look at the chronology:
Foreshadowing.
Already in the autumn of 1916, the opposition was activated in the country. A conspiracy against the monarchy has been brewing in Russia for a long time. The opposition that wants change is afraid of a successful outcome of the war: a victory would strengthen the hated autocracy. Therefore, it is important to come to power now and bring the war to a victorious end. This is how the main parties in the Duma think: the Cadets and the Octobrists, united in the Progressive Bloc. The conspiracy is led by their leaders Pavel Milyukov and Alexander Guchkov, as well as State Duma Chairman Mikhail Rodzianko.
November 1, 1916 Pavel Milyukov becomes the mouthpiece of the opposition and delivers his well-known anti-government speech "Stupidity or treason?". His speech warms up the excited listeners and becomes practically a signal for the active preparation of the revolution.
There was another fact that makes the opposition move faster: in November 1917, the term of office of the State Duma of the fourth convocation expires. At the end of June 1916, Nicholas II will read a report, the result of a meeting with Prime Minister Stürmer. In it, the meeting participants formulate the government's strategy: "The creation of a workable and patriotic majority in the future State Duma is of particular importance in the serious situation caused by the war."
Indeed, after the last elections, many anti-state deputies now and then attack the state and the government in their speeches. It comes to the point that Minister of War Sukhomlinov is put on trial and accused of high treason, and it is the Duma circles that initiate his case.
Sir Edward Gray remarks to the Russian envoy on this occasion:
"You must have a very brave government if during the war it brings the minister of war to justice."
The elimination of interfering figures does not end there.
As early as the end of 1916, there were all the prerequisites for a revolution in Russia: on the one hand, the protracted war, the food crisis, the impoverishment of the population, and the unpopularity of the authorities. Protest moods were seething not only at the bottom, but also at the top, and on the other hand, at that time, rumors of treason began to spread intensively, in which Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Rasputin were accused. Both were credited with spying for Germany.
Radical members of the State Duma, officers and representatives of the elites believed that with the elimination of Rasputin it would be possible to defuse the situation in society.
In December 1916, Grigory Rasputin was assassinated. For proximity to the tsar and the influence that he had on the Russian autocrat. So, in 1912, when Russia wanted to intervene in the Balkan conflict for the first time, Rasputin begged Nicholas on his knees not to join the war. Count Witte in his memoirs points out that “he (Rasputin) pointed out all the disastrous results of the European fire, and the arrows of history turned in a different way. War has been averted." Rasputin also dissuaded Nicholas II from joining the First World War, but at the decisive moment the elder was not around - he was dying after an unsuccessful attempt on his life. As soon as he regained his senses, the elder sent telegrams, "begging the sovereign not to start a war, because with the war there would be an end to Russia and to themselves [the reigning persons] and they would put to the last man." But it was too late, Russia was already drawn into the war. And it is not surprising that the next attempt on Grigory Rasputin will take place in December 1916 as part of the final preparations for the February coup, when the tsar, under pressure from the "public", will have to abdicate. Without the abdication of Nicholas II, the entire plan for February burst like a soap bubble. And if Rasputin were alive in February-March 1917, he would have helped Nicholas II withstand the pressure of the Duma delegation, bad news, betrayal of his inner circle and avoid abdication.
And the situation after the murder of the “Tobolsk elder” continued to escalate even more.
The assassination of Rasputin will not affect the plans of Nicholas II: the Russian General Staff indicates the date of the Bosphorus operation: March-April 1917. Revolution after this March offensive will be impossible, which is why February will be the last date.
We must act immediately! Western intelligence leaders give their agents the green light
And on the eve of the coup, they have a legal way to be at the scene of future events and adjust plans. The next Inter-Allied Conference is taking place in Petrograd. The official goal is to coordinate the actions of the allies in organizing a future offensive. Unofficial - complete preparations for the coup. Surprisingly, before this conference, all coordination meetings took place only in France. But on the eve of the elimination of the Russian monarchy, the Entente Council, financed and pushed by the allied intelligence services, is being held for the first time in the Russian capital. While the generals and diplomats are talking about the war, the conspirators are preparing for a coup, giving the last instructions and money. The delegates arrive in the Russian capital on February 3, 1917, and leave on the 6th. Two and a half weeks later, on February 23, 1917, riots will begin in Petrograd ...
February 1917 will be the point at which the interests of the British and the interests of the internal conspirators converge.
There is no direct evidence of the financing by the British and French of the February Revolution and a conspiracy against the Russian Tsar. But it is precisely the logic of the events of deeds and actions that confirms that they organized and paid for the destruction of the Russian state.
“The behind-the-scenes work in preparing the revolution remained behind the scenes,” writes Milyukov in his memoirs.
It is surprising that it is impossible to find those involved in the revolution: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks are mostly in Swiss coffee houses and pubs, Lenin in Zurich and does not yet believe in the possibility of a revolution, Trotsky in New York, Stalin in exile. Events seem to develop by themselves, and the spokesmen for the people's anger themselves demand the removal of the hated monarchy. It is for this that large-scale riots are needed that can pass for a popular revolution. The dissatisfied part of the Russian elite is also ready for action, and is just waiting for an excuse.
And the unmistakable cause for discontent was chosen - bread.
But in fact, there was enough food in Russia - the surplus of bread in 1916 amounted to 197 million pounds. However, it is in February that supply disruptions will begin (as it looks like supply failures and empty shelves in the late 80s and early 90s) And another turmoil will unfold according to the scenario of 1905: demonstrations, troops, victims. But in the capital in 1917 there are not selected guards regiments, but their spare parts, which cannot contain the growing anger of the people. And it is growing rapidly: on February 22, no more than 20,000 workers take to the streets, on February 23, already 88,000 strikers are walking around shouting: “Down with the war!” and "Bread!" On February 24, 197,000 workers go on strike. On February 25, over 240 thousand people take to the streets of the city.
And now Russia is flaring up to overthrow the tsarist regime and become a detonator for the entire monarchist Europe. The February Revolution, despite being called the "Great Bloodless Revolution", will quickly lead to the collapse of the Russian army.
Hungarian Chancellor Count István Bethlen wrote in 1934:
“If Russia had remained an organized state in 1917, all the Danubian countries would now be only Russian provinces. Not only Prague, but also Budapest, Bucharest, Belgrade and Sofia would fulfill the will of the Russian rulers. In Constantinople on the Bosporus and in Catarro on the Adriatic, Russian military flags would fly. But as a result of the revolution, Russia lost the war and with it a number of regions ... "
Let's go back a little earlier.
The situation after the murder of the “Tobolsk elder” continued to escalate. Some members of the imperial house stood up in opposition to Nicholas II.
Especially sharp attacks in the direction of the king were from the Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich (grandson of Nicholas I). In a letter sent to the emperor, he asks to remove Alexandra Feodorovna from governing the country. Only in this case, in the opinion of the Grand Duke, would the revival of Russia begin and the lost confidence of the subjects would return. Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko in his memoirs claimed that there were attempts to "eliminate, destroy" the Empress. He names the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna as the initiator of such an idea, who allegedly made such a proposal in one of the private conversations.
Messages about the conspiracy are reported to Nikolai regularly. “Ah, conspiracy again, I thought so. Good, simple people are all worried. I know they love me and our mother Russia and, of course, they don’t want any coup, ”the emperor reacted to the fears of the adjutant wing A. A. Mordvinov.
However, information about the conspiracy is becoming more and more real. On February 13, 1917, Rodzianko informs General V.I. Gurko that, according to his information, “a coup has been prepared” and “the mob will carry it out.”
Start.
The reason for the riots in Petrograd was the dismissal of about 1000 workers of the Putilov factory. The strike of workers, which began on February 23 (March 8, according to the new style), coincided with a demonstration of many thousands of women organized by the Russian League for the Equality of Women. “Bread!”, “Down with the war!”, “Down with the autocracy!” – these were the demands of the protesters. An eyewitness to the events, the poetess Zinaida Gippius, left an entry in her diary:
“Today is a riot.
Nobody knows for sure, of course. The general version that began on Vyborgskaya, because of the bread. On the same day, a number of metropolitan factories stopped their work - Old Parviainen, Aivaz, Rosenkranz, Phoenix, Russian Renault, Erikson. By evening, the workers of the Vyborg and Petrograd sides had gathered on Nevsky Prospekt.
The number of demonstrators on the streets of Petrograd grew at an incredible rate. On February 23, there were 128 thousand people, on February 24 - about 214 thousand, and on February 25 - more than 305 thousand. By this time, the work of 421 enterprises of the city had actually stopped. Such a mass movement of workers attracted other strata of society - artisans, employees, intelligentsia and students. For a short time the procession was peaceful.
Already on the first day of the strike, clashes between demonstrators and the police and Cossacks were recorded in the city center. The capital's mayor A.P. Balk is forced to report to the commander of the Petrograd Military District, General S.S. Khabalov, that the police are not able to "stop the movement and the gathering of people." Restoring order in the city was complicated by the fact that the military did not want to use force against the demonstrators.
Many Cossacks, if not sympathetic to the workers, then kept neutrality. As the Bolshevik Vasily Kayurov recalls, one of the Cossack patrols smiled at the demonstrators, and some of them even “winked nicely.” The revolutionary mood of the workers spread to the soldiers. The fourth company of the reserve battalion of the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment rebelled. Its soldiers, sent to disperse the demonstration, suddenly opened fire on the police. The rebellion was suppressed by the forces of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, but 20 soldiers with weapons managed to escape. Events on the streets of Petrograd increasingly turned into an armed confrontation.
On Znamennaya Square, the bailiff Krylov, who was trying to crawl into the crowd and tear down the red flag, was brutally killed. The Cossack stabbed him with a saber, and the demonstrators finished him off with shovels. At the end of the first day of unrest, Rodzianko sends a telegram to the tsar, in which he reports that "in the capital there is anarchy" and "parts of the troops are shooting at each other."
But the king does not seem to realize what is happening. “Again, this fat Rodzianko writes all sorts of nonsense to me,” he nonchalantly remarks to the Minister of the Imperial Court, Frederiks.
coup
By the evening of February 27, almost the entire composition of the Petrograd garrison - about 160 thousand people - went over to the side of the rebels.
The commander of the Petrograd Military District, General Khabalov, is forced to inform Nicholas II:
“I ask you to report to His Imperial Majesty that I could not fulfill the order to restore order in the capital. Most of the units, one after the other, betrayed their duty, refusing to fight against the rebels.
The idea of a “cartel expedition”, which provided for the removal of hotel military units from the front and sending them to rebellious Petrograd, did not continue. All this threatened to turn into a civil war with unpredictable consequences.
(which later happened when someone realized that they were losing power over Russia. And these are not only officers and landowners, but Western sponsors who are also losing their supposed influence in Russia)
Acting in the spirit of revolutionary traditions, the rebels released from prisons not only political prisoners, but also criminals. At first, they easily overcame the resistance of the Kresty guards, and then they took the Peter and Paul Fortress. The unruly and motley revolutionary masses, not disdaining murders and robberies, plunged the city into chaos.
On February 27, at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the soldiers occupied the Tauride Palace. The State Duma found itself in a dual position: on the one hand, according to the decree of the emperor, it should have dissolved itself, but on the other hand, the pressure of the rebels and the virtual anarchy forced them to take some action. A compromise solution was a meeting under the guise of a "private meeting".
As a result, it was decided to form a body of power - the Provisional Committee. Later, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, P. N. Milyukov, recalled: “The intervention of the State Duma gave the street and military movement a center, gave it a banner and a slogan, and thereby turned the uprising into a revolution that ended with the overthrow of the old regime and dynasty.”
The revolutionary movement grew more and more. The soldiers capture the Arsenal, the main post office, telegraph, bridges and train stations. Petrograd was completely in the hands of the rebels.
A real tragedy broke out in Kronstadt, which was swept by a wave of lynching, resulting in the murder of more than a hundred officers of the Baltic Fleet.
On March 1, the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Alekseev, in a letter implores the emperor "for the sake of saving Russia and the dynasty, put at the head of the government a person whom Russia would trust."
Nicholas declares that by giving rights to others, he deprives himself of the power granted to them by God. The opportunity for a peaceful transformation of the country into a constitutional monarchy had already been lost. After the abdication of Nicholas II on March 2, a dual power actually developed in the state.
Official power was in the hands of the Provisional Government, but real power belonged to the Petrograd Soviet, which controlled the troops, railways, post office and telegraph. Colonel Mordvinov, who was on the royal train at the time of his abdication, recalled Nikolai's plans to move to Livadia.
“Your Majesty, leave as soon as possible abroad. Under the current conditions, even in the Crimea there is no life, ”Mordvinov tried to convince the king.
"No way. I would not want to leave Russia, I love her too much, ”Nikolai objected.
Leon Trotsky noted that the February uprising was spontaneous:
“No one planned in advance the ways of a coup, no one from above called for an uprising. The indignation that had accumulated over the years broke out to a large extent unexpectedly for the masses themselves.
However, Milyukov, in his memoirs, insists that the coup was planned shortly after the start of the war and before "the army was supposed to go on the offensive, the results of which would radically stop all hints of discontent and would cause an explosion of patriotism and jubilation in the country."
“History will curse the leaders of the so-called proletarians, but it will also curse us who caused the storm,” the former minister wrote.
The British historian Richard Pipes calls the actions of the tsarist government during the February uprising "fatal weakness of will", noting that "the Bolsheviks in such circumstances did not stop before executions." Although the February Revolution is called "bloodless", it nevertheless claimed the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians. In Petrograd alone, more than 300 people died and 1,200 were injured.
The February coup began an irreversible process of the collapse of the empire and the decentralization of power, accompanied by the activity of separatist movements. Independence was demanded by Poland and Finland, they started talking about independence in Siberia, and the Central Rada formed in Kyiv proclaimed "autonomous Ukraine". The events of February 1917 allowed the Bolsheviks to come out of hiding. Thanks to the amnesty announced by the Provisional Government, dozens of revolutionaries returned from exile and political exile, who had already hatched their plans, but who subsequently saved Russia from complete destruction, since it was the Bolsheviks who defended the country, making it a superpower. Which subsequently led to the start of a new war against Russia, which has not subsided to this day.
Thus, strange as it may sound, several reasons led to the February coup: this is precisely an improvement, and not a worsening of the military situation. It was necessary to make a revolution right now. And it was in February 1917 that the collapse of the great Russian Empire began with the light hand of our allies in the Entente. The plan for weakening Russia was further built gradually: from external pressure to internal, just as it happened later in the late 80s and early 90s.