Developments in Russia did not suit the West. Ninth of March 1918, near the city of Murmansk landed English, then French, American and canadian troops, who in 1918 seized the Onega and Arkhangelsk. The fifth of April 1918 in the far East, near Vladivostok, landed the troops of Japan, and then the troops of British, American and French invaders.
In August 1918, British troops captured the Russian (Soviet) oil production of Baku and invaded Turkestan ASSR (in our Central Asia). Troops of the German invaders, in violation of the Brest peace fully occupied Ukraine, Crimea, seized Rostov-on-don, together with invaded by Turkish troops in the Caucasus. Twenty-fifth day of may 1918 began an organized Entente counter-revolutionary mutiny of the Czechoslovak corps, which consisted of the former Austro-Hungarian POWs in Russia. The invaders joined the white army.
By the summer of 1918, three quarters of the country were in the hands of the interventionists and white guards. On the territory of Ukraine and the Caucasus British and French troops took the place of the German. In the Baltic sea and the Black sea entered squadron England, USA and France. On the way interventionists and the white army stood up the worker-peasant Red army (RKKA).
The fifteenth of January 1918, the CPC adopted a decree "On the worker-peasant red army", which on the recommendation of the took volunteers, and only with the beginning of foreign intervention in the spring of 1918 was introduced universal conscription. A new attempt to seize the Soviet Russia was taken in 1920 in Poland, whose army was armed and equipped the United States, France and England. At the same time Poland began to attack the white army of Wrangel from the Crimea.
In the period from 1918 to 1920, the Red army fought the white armies of Kaledin, Kornilov, Alexeyev, Denikin, Krasnov, Kolchak, Yudenich and Wrangel previously specified. They were all fully provided for England, USA, France and carry out the will of these States. They were defeated by the red army. Why? Because they all fought with Russia and to defeat Russia in open battle, the West could not never for hundreds of years.
The red army had not found the strength and skills to defeat the Polish army, and the latter seized part of Ukraine and Belarus. In October 1920 Poland signed a truce. In October-November 1920, the Soviet troops defeated Wrangel's army in Northern Tavria and the district of Perekop and Chongar and liberated Crimea. The civil war was largely over. But the interventionists and the whites were expelled from the territory of the USSR (Russia) to autumn of 1922. Vladivostok was liberated from the Japanese invaders on October 25, 1922. In 1922, finally ended the eight year war with Germany, the Entente army and the white army.
In the Russian society has formed the opinion that the white army fought for the king, and the red is for socialism. It should be noted that against this opinion is objected the Bolsheviks. But this opinion is erroneous and completely untrue at that time. In the White army, monarchists were a small number, they were condemned by public opinion and you may say, were in hiding.
The commander of the don army, General Denisov S. V. wrote: "On the banner of the "white idea" was inscribed: "To the constituent Assembly," that is the same thing that was listed and on the banners of the February revolution Leaders and generals did not go against the February revolution, and never tell anyone of his subordinates were ordered to go such way." That is, the leaders and generals of the White army was never called to protect and restore the monarchy in Russia, the power of the Lord's anointed – the king. As Denisov wrote: "...I Never called for the protection of the old order."
"In other words, fighting red and White armies was not a struggle between "new" and "old" by the authorities; it was a battle of two "new" authorities – February and October... Key executives, Alekseev, Kornilov, Denikin and Kolchak was undoubtedly "the heroes of February," and their close relationship (not "addiction") with the forces of the West were completely natural, not "forced"," – writes V. Kozhinov.
And continues: "the West has long been and even ever was against the very existence of the great the powerful and independent of Russia and could not prevent the victory of the White army so Russia has recovered. The West, particularly in the years 1918-1922, did everything possible for the dismemberment of Russia, fully supporting any separatist aspirations."
The West not only supported, but strongly organized separatist aspirations, and not just in 20 years, but from 1985 to the present. Without a doubt, that without a "supply" from the West would have been unthinkable at first triumphal March on Moscow Denikin, who in October, 1919, reached the eagle. Like all the leaders of the white movement Anton Denikin was in absolute subjection to the West. This is especially clear from his humble recognition of "the supremacy," A. V. Kolchak.
Alexander Vasilyevich Kolchak was a direct protege of the West and therefore was the Supreme ruler. Kolchak was proclaimed Supreme ruler of Russia immediately after his meeting with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Kolchak's army in the most brutal way destroyed huge numbers of Russian peasants. Enlightened ruler Kolchak even his generals were sending curses on the direct line – a regime he has installed in Siberia. Kolchak the praise, put it about the films and set him a memorial plaque haters like Soviet Russia and Russia today, as well as ignorant people who do not know the history of their country.
The West took an active part in the preparation of the February 1917 revolution, unleashed the First world war intervention against the Soviet Republic and the Civil war. The West could do specified actions without your allies within Russia. This ally of the West was A. V. Kolchak. That's why he was propelled to the podium Pro-Western liberals.
How did the Crimean Tatar A. V. Kolchak, became Supreme ruler of Russia? In June of 1917, Kolchak went abroad and arrived in Omsk in November 1918. The evidence suggests that 17 (30) June Kolchak had a secret and important, according to him, the conversation with the US Ambassador Ruth and Admiral Glennon, with the result that he was in a position close to the mercenary commander.
In August Kolchak secretly arrived in London, where the sea Minister of great Britain discussed the issue of the "salvation" of Russia. He then secretly went to the United States, where he conferred not only with military, Maritime Ministers, but also with the Minister of foreign Affairs. Moreover, Kolchak met by then US President Woodrow Wilson. Admirals and generals in the world, tens of thousands, but Kolchak met the President of the United States, because with the help of Kolchak US were hoping to get, if not the whole of Russia, though Siberia.
It should be noted that Admiral Kolchak has not made the Emperor of Russia and the Provisional government, which was in Russia, the power of the West. In November 1918, Kolchak was proclaimed Omsk the Supreme ruler of Russia. His protege direct Kolchak the West supplied much more generous than Denikin. His army was delivered about a million of rifles, thousands of guns, hundreds of guns and vehicles, dozens of aircraft, about half a million sets of uniforms and a lot of other property. For the supply Kolchak after his victory was to convey the West one-third of Russia's gold reserves.
Kolchak was under the control of the West. When it is constantly present British General Knox and the French General Janin with his chief Advisor, captain Zinoviy Baskovym (younger brother of Sverdlov), which belonged, incidentally, to the French Freemasonry. There were, of course, and other secret observers. These representatives of the West with all the attention took care of the Admiral and his army. Kolchak's army committed such atrocities against the people, that they are afraid to read. More about this writes a number of researchers, including Sergei Mironov, in his book "the Civil war in Russia."
It is impossible not to pay attention to a large number of officers of the tsarist army, who served in the red army. Shulgin wrote in 1929: "One of the officers of the General staff, almost half remained with the Bolsheviks. And how many were ordinary officers, no one knows, but many". It is written by M. V. Nazarov, A. G. Kavtaradze, A. K. Byte (his brother Lieutenant-General K. K. of Bytes served in the red army).
The most thoroughly verified information leading military historian A. G. Kavtaradze, as the officers of the General staff, and the total number of officers of the tsarist army, who served in the red army. According to the calculations of A. G. Kavtaradze in the red army 70000-75000 people officers of the tsarist army. The specified number of officers was 30% of the officer corps of the army of the Russian Empire. However, he points out that even 30% of the king's officers appeared at all outside of any military service. This means that in the red army served not 30%, and about 43% cash by 1918, the officers continue to be on military service, in White – 57% (about 100,000 people).
The officers of the General staff, A. G. Kavtaradze says that the most valuable and prepared part of the officer corps of the Russian army corps of General staff officers in the red army was 639 (including 252 General) man that was 46 percent, in fact about half who continued to serve after the October 1917 officers of the General staff; the White army there were about 750 people. That is, the facts indicate that almost half of the best parts of the Russian elite officer corps served in the red army!
From White to the Red army moved more officers than Vice versa. Similarly, it is estimated that 14390 officers moved from the White army in the Red (every seventh). Why? Because I really love Russia, the state-Patriotic consciousness of officers and generals did not appeal to the White army, which fought against Russia and destroy it. But the Red army was gathering the Russian lands together. A Resurgent Russia. I think that most of the officers and red was considered evil, but evil is incomparably smaller than the white friends from the UK, USA and France. True Russian officers were concerned about the issue of the very existence of Russia, and not a matter of, say, about whether Russia's Parliament. Therefore, out of 100 commanders of the armies of the Reds in the years 1918-1922 82 were former tsarist generals and officers.
The white army did not set such a goal as the restoration of the monarchy in Russia and in fact at war with its own people for the interests of Western countries. The red army fought for the interests of Russia: it brought together the Russian lands, and revived the Russian state. Therefore, those who truly cared for Russia, was in the red army.
In the red army were even such heroic officers like General A. A. Brusilov, and in 1921 moved from the White army, General J. A. Slashchev-Crimea. His departure from the White army, he explained porfiri. Wrangel protest against leaders such as Prince Vladimir A. Obolensky, the most influential Mason, member of the Supreme Council of the few.
For whose interests they fought the White army, the title of the article J. A. Slamova "Slogans of Russian patriotism in the service of France." This wise man, hero of many changed their minds and had reason one item to declare the service of the White army to other countries ' interests, not the interests of Russia. Kolchak General A. P. Budberg wrote on 1 September 1919: "...Now, for us whites, unthinkable guerrilla war, because the population was not for us and against us."
S. G. Kara-Murza also writes that Lenin had to fight the royalists, like their real strength was not simple. Struggle under Lenin was not between Bolsheviks and "old Russia", and between different groups of revolutionaries. The civil war was a "war of February to October." In particular, he wrote the following: "There is, admittedly, heavily distorted, and the official Soviet propaganda, which for simplicity have made of the word "revolution" is a sacred symbol and was represented by all the opponents of Lenin's "counter-revolutionaries". And the Pokrass brothers, we even wrote a song like "White army, black Baron again, we are preparing the Royal throne"".
The Bolsheviks, as was soon shown by life itself, acted as restorers, regenerators killed February the Russian Empire, albeit under a different shell. It was at different times considered opponents of the Bolsheviks, including Vladimir Shulgin and even Anton Denikin. Every thinking person in Russia should understand that the Red army saved Russia.
V. Kozhinov indicates that in the years 1918-1922 somehow lost 939755 soldiers and commanders. As for the loss of the White army, it fought with the invaders United States, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, and its loss should be less. But with a certain degree of error can be assumed that both armies had lost about two million people.
Civilian casualties during February, the October revolution and the Civil war, in my opinion, it is impossible to calculate due to the lack of accounting for those who left at this time, abroad of Russian citizens. As you know, has emigrated abroad, millions of civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers of the White army.
About the causes of death and number of dead people of S. Kara-Murza writes: "during the revolution (and especially the Civil war) in Russia killed a lot of people. It is not known, but a strong case to say 12 million people. What killed this mass of people? Not by direct action of organized political forces, such as fighting and repression. During the years 1918-1922 from all causes died 939755 soldiers and commanders. Much, if not most of them from typhus. Accurate data on the losses is not white, but they are smaller. So the vast majority of citizens who are victims of the revolution (more than 9/10), did not die from the "red" or "white" bullets, but from chaos, from the scrapping of living arrangement. First of all, breaking state and economy."
To ascertain the mortality and fertility to the 1926 census is difficult, the results of different groups of demographers differ. If you take the average rating, the picture is this: in 1920, one thousand people died and were born 45,2 36,7; in 1923, died 29,1 49,7 were born. That is, in the last years of the Civil war Russia (even without the disaster of crop failure 1921) was losing 1.2 million lives a year, and in 1923, the population has grown by almost three million people.
The main causes of death in the Russian revolution was depriving them of their means of life and as a result of hunger, disease, epidemics, criminal violence. The collapse of the state as the forces guarding law and order, released the demon "molecular wars" – vzaimootnosheniya gangs, groups, neighbors ' yards, without any connection with any political project (but sometimes hiding behind them, as it happened, for example, "green").
What harvest collects death on the field of the economic chaos we see today: the state and agriculture only dilapidated, but Russia (that is, half of the Empire) for the year is net loss of one million lives, and given the unborn loses two million. And after the war and repression is not, and the loss of killings account for only about 30 Grand a year. During the years of reform "unnatural causes" it bounced not shower less than Civil. So there "invisible executioner". He wrote it, comparing Yeltsin's Russia with Russia during the Civil war.
A specified number of population losses during the Civil war is probably one of the minimum declared by our historians and researchers, but it is, in my opinion, very overpriced. Many point loss in two and more times higher. The large losses of cities and villages would have to be covered with the corpses of dead people. Who writes about tens of millions dead, not even imagine the absurdity of such allegations. This man writes or intentionally malicious myths, or did not imagine the numbers that appeal. Today, some fashion, even among normal people throw millions of victims.
The people who lived during the revolution and Civil war, were horrified at the sight of the battlefield after it, but no one has seen anything like it and couldn't see the peaceful towns and villages. Of course, after the event has passed almost a century, nobody will be caught by the hand and won't stop the myth-maker, but common sense, wisdom should stop the present Russian citizen from blind faith to all sorts of falsifiers. Without a doubt, the loss of people during the Civil war was less heralded, but in any case, the blame for the shed peoples blood falls on the West. The West has unleashed the First world war, the intervention against the Soviet Republic, the Civil war and thus gave to Russia the devastation.
But the hatred of the lower classes (mostly peasants) and the top of the white was mutual, and took almost racial in nature. On the mutual hatred of the peasantry and the top white write many, including Denikin in his memoirs, "Sketches of Russian troubles". He writes in his letters and Kolchak. This hatred of the common people was not the Reds, which saw peasants – Chapaev and Shchors. But the atrocities and executions enough on both sides. But in the atrocities white differences. It is impossible not to note that the vast majority of the data about our losses during the revolution, the Civil war and during world war II high. True these are extremely rare.
In the description of the revolution and the Civil war the falsifiers of our losses are overestimated to show the barbarity and cruelty of the Russians, the great Patriotic war of 1941-1945 – to show the stupidity of the Russian, allegedly won the war only due to the huge number of casualties. The liberal media, these numbers are constantly growing. Against them, no one particularly objected, because young still, and the old just feel sorry for the victims.
For all the atrocities of the Civil war in Russia, it is not included in no comparison with the civil wars of Western countries, including France, England and the United States. S. Mironov writes that the civil war known since the time of Ancient Greece and Rome... Take France of the XVI century. She was shocked when a series of civil wars known as Huguenot. One of the events of this period became a household word – massacre of St. Bartholomew. For these few, monstrous cruelty and perfidy night were brutally killed many Parisians and visitors of the French capital – the majority of people are peaceful and unarmed. The French king Charles IX was personally involved in this terrible massacre.
But somehow Russophobic part of the public opinion of the West (unfortunately considerable) associating cruelty of the XVI century with Charles IX, and his contemporary, the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his oprichnina terror... In the oprichnina, which lasted 20 years, killed more than three thousand people. The numbers were impressive. But for the time of the massacre, which began with the massacre of St. Bartholomew, for two or three days, it killed twice as many people than all the oprichnina in Russia, which lasted two decades!
But a very influential part of public opinion in the West continues to believe Ivan the terrible, the clearest example of a bloody ruler, and "the Ogre" Charles IX leads quietly into the shadows. Why? The answer is simple. The thing Russophobia significant part of Western public opinion. Harder to understand our compatriots among the "superintendents of perestroika", which in the years of Gorbachev filled the TV screen and the airwaves, the pages of the press of wild and rabid Russophobia. They are ten, or 20, or even 100 times exaggerated the number of casualties suffered by our people during the entire Soviet period. Including for the years 1918-1920 – the period of the Civil war in Russia. They referred to the inferiority of Russian, they are flawed. Called Russian scoops or, in the words of Yevgeny Yevtushenko, koalas. Accused its commitment to the traditions coming from the time of Ivan the terrible, from the XVI century.
Move on to the next, the XVII century. In the middle of his long and bloody civil war engulfed the whole "good old England". The sea of blood spilled, the ocean of suffering and of broken human destinies. But for a long time on the banks of the Thames rarely think about it. But in a good and respectable London frequently and persistently talking about the horrors in Russia for the period of 1918-1920. In particular, the fate of Nicholas II and his family. Just let me ask the Prim gentlemen, which began the tradition of executions of monarchs? In the Urals in the XX century? No, in London, in 1649.
When news of the execution in London of king Charles I reached Moscow, with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was sent to France who had taken refuge there to the bereaved family of the executed a caravan of "soft gold" – the finest Siberian furs. And how did in 1918, king George VI against his cousin Nicholas II and his family? He did not use the available possibilities then for the rescue of the Romanovs. But more about that in foggy Albion almost do not remember. As for the biggest civil war in the next, XVIII century, which raged in France, thinking about her often and sometimes very often. But I remember now how strange.
Long gone from the life of the French historians of the XIX and XX centuries, constitutes a remarkable direction of French historical science, experts on the history of the French revolution, studied it as a movement of the masses. Their work in the second half of the XX century, continued French historians-Communists, especially A. Sobol... Now are often the underlying causes of the French revolution of 1789, which became, after three years in the civil war, in France, some try to substitute the particulars, even the details... This kidnapping necklace French Queen Marie-Antoinette.
In 1918-1920 we had frequent blasphemy and desecration of religious shrines. Equally frequent were the executions of priests and monks (not all death sentences to them was unreasonable). But if you stand on the position of objectivity, we must admit that many priests, monks and even nuns took an active part in the Civil war on the side of the whites, and violated the commandment "thou shalt Not kill". Very broke... But perhaps during the civil war in France in the late eighteenth century in this respect was much better? Not only better, but quite the contrary. After the restoration of Royal power in 1815, the Vatican created and sent to France a special Commission and made a long list guillotined members of the clergy.
And if the Bolsheviks in the 1918-1920 struggle with religion and the clergy was, so to speak, the object to be solved simultaneously with the other, the main task for the radical Republicans of France, the Jacobins and especially for their extreme left wing in 1793-1794 years this task has become one of the main directions of their policy. This direction is called dechristianisation. That they were doing these "dechristianization" over religious shrines, you do not want to not only write, but even to remember. As it turns out, according to Russophobes, France is a good country, but Russia is bad, "this country".
As the largest Civil war of the XIX century between the North and the South of the United States, it occurs in a qualitatively new conditions – conditions of a completely new military equipment. Rifles and quick-firing guns on land, warships at sea made it particularly bloody and devastating. Heavy military losses combined with the destruction of entire fields before flowering... But Americans prefer seldom think about their Civil war. And remember is that only when you read the Margaret Mitchell novel gone with the wind.
Civil war in Russia was of a less violent nature than in the above countries. In the Civil war and foreign military intervention in the Soviet Union 1918-1920 (22) years Soviet Russia has regained much of its lands, including ceded to Germany at Brest peace Treaty. Completely Russia (USSR) returned to the land (except Poland and Finland) during the great Patriotic war against Nazi Germany of 1941-1945, and will lose most of these territories, as well as the entire Ukraine, the Baltic States, Transcaucasia, Byelorussia, Bessarabia (Moldova), Crimea and Central Asia in 1991. While in Russia returned Crimea, but this is enough for the President, who began to collect Russian lands, was inscribed in the history of the country in Golden letters.
The red army won because unlike the whites the Reds were in Union, not in conflict with the main invincible power of Russia – the peasantry – and continuously explained the value to workers of large single state, being able to find good arguments instead of estepanova the slogan, "Russia one and indivisible". Actually, the Bolsheviks were the only party that always defended the integrity of the state. During the Civil war, the country continued to commit actions aimed at the strengthening and protection of the state.
To protect the integrity of the state was created on the KGB, the Cheka, numbering in February, 1918, 120. Speculation about what the Cheka in 1918 terrorized Russia is untenable though, because 120 people, this is clearly not enough. By 1921, the Cheka, the number increased to 31 thousand people, as he was entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the state border. It was completed the nationalization of all banks, including foreign, through which foreign capital has taken control of industry in Russia.
Nationalization of industry was carried out with the aim of protecting the Soviet state from further plunder. It should be noted that weak industry of tsarist Russia was to seize foreigners, the capital of which was in mining, metallurgical and Metalworking industry 52% of locomotives – 100% of electrical and electrotechnical companies – 90%, etc.
In 1918 a decree was issued "On the establishment of schools for national minorities", and in 1919 – "On liquidation of illiteracy among the population of RSFSR". According to this decree, the entire population of the country aged eight to 50 years who cannot read and write, must learn to read and write in their native language or Russian on request. In 1918 was revealed the 33 major research Institute, which later became the basis of the whole network of applied research institutes. There were large number of major expeditions, the most significant of them in the region of the Kursk magnetic anomaly, did not stop operation even in a combat zone.
In the years 1919-1923 Commission on improving life scientists organized the supply of scientists special rations. This prevented a possible in the conditions of revolution the discontinuity of the development of Russian science. The concentration of funds in the Academy of Sciences allowed to collect and retain scientific personnel. It should be noted that all parties could come to power, the Bolsheviks were distinguished as statesmen, in matters of repression was the most moderate. Installing the repression stood Trotsky and those close to him politicians. But the arbitrariness of Trotsky resisted Lenin and then Stalin.
The repressive government during the Civil war in Russia is not included in any comparison with the repressive authorities of Western countries during the civil wars in these countries, that Eclipse even crimes M. N. Tukhachevsky, V. A. Antonov-Ovseenko, N. E. Kakurina in Tambov province in 1921. By the way, all three of them were cosmopolitan, all three negatively assessed the Russian culture, condemned the Russian peasants. In the 1930-ies under Stalin, all three were tried and sentenced to death.
Many, if not all, have distorted the forgers in our great history. We still have a long time to be cleansed from damage of dirt and to return the truth to people. And if you look at the facts, we will see how nerepressivnyh was our revolution and Civil war compared with the revolutions and civil wars in Western countries.
Take, for example, even official Soviet data and the data of the anti-Soviet emigration, which constituted the Bureau and meticulously kept account of political repression in the USSR. "According to published overseas data represented by this Bureau, in 1924 in the USSR there were approximately 1,500 political offenders, of which 500 were imprisoned, and others were denied the right to live in Moscow and Leningrad. These data foreign historians consider the most complete and reliable. Five hundred political prisoners, after a severe Civil war, in the presence of the underground opposition and of terrorism and a repressive government. Go, gentlemen and comrades, to common sense, do not pull on the threads of manipulators" - says S. G. Kara-Murza to our society.
Western liberal society creates criminals with their ideology of the cult of money, eliminating all sorts of moral restrictions. Liberal society claims that man is by nature selfish invader and exploiter. Supposedly the only state with his "nightstick" restrains the person from committing criminal acts. In liberal Western societies there is no concept of a "bright future" in any dimension. It is the concept of the movement. Injustice, poverty, crime, even theft and bribery of government officials does not undermine its image as officials, like all people, flawed.
People in a liberal society hate each other because they find each other disgusting creatures. In a civil liberal society, man is a wolf. Liberal society fosters a new type of person – the ugly creature. Such a society more resilient to internal turmoil, it is rich to live safely, it is calm feeling to the government. But God forbid to live in a Russian Orthodox man. Dostoevsky understood this when one of the main characters of the novel "the Brothers Karamazov" Dmitry's brother Ivan suggested to flee to America, Dmitry refused, saying that he will not be able to live there, and thus prefer prison life in America. It is understood and S. A. Yesenin, who could not stand the vulgar American society and shouted: "home, home, Home!".
It should be noted that Russian people are worse than other peoples can trade, but best of all knows how to create in design offices, factories, collective farms and state farms. When production is absent, factories, agriculture destroyed, Russian people falls and dies. The Bolsheviks promised the people a creative life, a strong state, and this was not the last value in the fact that the Red army won.
The Soviet ideology was directed to the ideal, to a "bright future". It appeared originally as a kind, lovely creature, spoiled unjust social conditions. In Soviet ideology of the traditional society man was a friend, comrade and brother. Such a society was raised human. For real, spiritually rich, good people it was only possible for a full life. Such people only, it could be an outstanding individuals. In such a society-the family everyone wanted to be rich and a hero.
Such a society is fine, but very demanding on the state. Why? Because if people initially wonderful, in the presence of injustice, poverty, crime and other negative phenomena to blame the government. In this society there is tremendous creative power, doing wonders, but also huge instability, as in all real or imagined enemies of the traditional society of the ills in the eyes of the people blame the state system. That is why Lenin and Stalin's time, corruption, embezzlement of state property and other crimes committed by public officials, by the people qualified as treason.
That such a society aimed towards a bright future, a strong, United, independent Russia defended the soldiers and commanders of the red army and won the Civil war, which ended with the creation of the Soviet Union. Stalin made a huge contribution to the victory of the red army. Lenin sent Stalin to the most difficult sectors of the front, and Stalin in an incredibly complex and intricate situations understood the situation, took the appropriate decisions and largely contributed to the victories of the red army in the most intense, critical moments.
In the Civil war, Stalin's role was particularly outstanding on the Tsaritsyn front, in the defense of Petrograd, on the Western front in the defeat of Denikin's armies in other battles. The desire to preserve the life of the Cossacks and soldiers of the red army can be seen in each row of letters addressed to Lenin, Stalin and fronts. It is thanks to Stalin, our country had the minimum possible losses during the Civil war.
There is an opinion that the creation of the Soviet Union, i.e. the creation of the state, divided into the Republic on a national basis, Lenin planted a time bomb under the Russian government. But this view again has come in our society from the West during the cold war with the USSR. In fact, when Lenin came to power, the Russian state was already collapsed on a national basis and to the territorial entities. The creation of the Soviet Union is a brilliant decision and V. I. Lenin as the army and the country remained centralized, and the nationalists of all stripes were knocked the ground from under his feet. The civil war in its national dimension was suppressed at a very early stage, which saved the lives of millions of citizens of the Russian Empire.
The establishment of national republics in the Union, not the Empire, neutralized occurred when "independence" nationalism. Army of the nationalists lost support, and the Red army in any part of Russia is not perceived as a foreign army. She was a total army of workers (Soviet Republic). Any other decision at that time could not lead Russia to reunite into a single state.
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success