On November 7, the country celebrates the 101st anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The event is old, but important, playing a significant role in the development of Russia and the whole world as a whole. Do people remember what happened on this day 101 years ago?
Storming of the Winter Palace on October 25, 1917. Petrograd. Still from the film "October". Directors Sergei Eisenstein, Grigory Alexandrov. 1927
With this question, I went out onto the streets of the city of Vyborg a year ago and tried to find out from passers-by what happened on November 7 (October 25, old style) more than 100 years ago. Someone remembered the confrontation between the “reds” and the provisional government. One person recalled the overthrow of the old regime by the new regime. There was some embarrassment: not everyone was able to give at least an approximate description of the events of a hundred years ago.
On November 7 (October 25, old style), 1917, the armed overthrow of the Russian Provisional Government took place and the Bolshevik Party came to power, proclaiming the establishment of Soviet power.
Why did the government overthrow happen?
The protracted First World War (1911 - 1918) became a kind of catalyst for radical revolutionary sentiments in society. Russia was the defending party in this war, and a significant shortage of ammunition, uniforms, and military equipment greatly undermined the morale of the army. Thus, at the beginning of the war, Russia had only 13 cruisers, while Germany and Austria-Hungary had 42. Russia also lagged behind in the number of heavy guns - at the beginning of hostilities there were about 240 of them in the country, and in Germany alone - 2076. Russia was inferior in both aviation and tanks.
The beginning of the revolution was also accelerated by the national movement, which intensified after the February Revolution. After the abdication of Nicholas II, the state was left without an autocrat and leader. The country was actually governed by two bodies: the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Provisional Government. The provisional government turned out to be unable to resolve pressing issues: labor, agrarian, nationalist.
Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky (1881-1970), Minister-Chairman of the Provisional Government. Petrograd, August 21, 1917. Source: RIA Novosti Landownership continued to exist . An important issue for the peasantry had still not been resolved - the common people wanted to own the land and dispose of it without permission. Martial law only delayed consideration of the demands of the peasant population. The provisional government did nothing to implement the agricultural program. The “Reds” promised at the rallies to solve the agrarian issue and provide the peasants with land. Their slogans “land to peasants”, “factories to workers” attracted more and more supporters.
As a result, the peasants, who made up the majority of the population of the Russian state, supported the Bolsheviks and refused to trust the Provisional Government. The revolutionary movement was also supported by the workers, who were tired of living rigidly under the yoke of the monarchy. By the fall of 1917, the real wages of the working population had fallen to 40-50% of the pre-war level.
The provisional government also did nothing to resolve the national issue. On the national question, tsarist Russia defended the slogan “one and indivisible” and pursued a policy of forced Russification, which was expressed, in particular, in the imposition of the Russian language. Nations, in turn, demanded cultural-national autonomy. Due to the multinationality of the country and the rigidity of state policy, the national issue becomes the most pressing. At the beginning of the 20th century, over 200 peoples lived on the territory of Russia, speaking 146 languages and dialects. The Bolsheviks proposed the right of nations to self-determination, the abolition of national privileges and restrictions, and the free development of national minorities. Therefore, the Provisional Government, which did not pay due attention to national minorities, lost their support.
V.I.Lenin. What happened in 1917? This is not a test question on the Unified State Exam and I believe that most readers still remember the Soviet school curriculum on history and even, perhaps, Lenin’s words about an event that happened 95 years ago: “The socialist revolution, the need for which the Bolsheviks talked so much about, has taken place.” These words were spoken by the leader of the Bolshevik Party immediately after the storming of the Winter Palace at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which began simultaneously with the storming. By the way, the assault on the palace, which was defended only by a company from the 1st Petrograd Women’s Battalion, was practically bloodless. The company did not offer significant resistance; no one shot the women from this company after the assault. They were disarmed, and after a couple of days the entire battalion was disbanded and the women were sent home. How did it happen that the Winter Palace was so poorly guarded? How did it happen that almost the entire Petrograd garrison took part in the storming of the Winter Palace and the capture of the city, and only the women’s battalion guarded the palace from the mutinous soldiers?
The Cossack regiments, on which Kerensky had high hopes, declared their neutrality and refused to obey the Provisional Government. On the afternoon of October 24, soldiers of the 1st Scooter Battalion left the Winter Palace. The vehicles of the armored and reserve divisions, which had previously guarded the Winter Palace around the clock, also left. Two Bolsheviks from this division, soldiers I. Zhdanovich and A. Morozov, persistently convinced their comrades to refuse support for the counter-revolutionary government. Despite the resistance of the Socialist Revolutionaries, of whom there were many in the unit, the general meeting of the division, after lengthy debates, accepted the Bolshevik proposal. Armored vehicles equipped with machine guns and three-inch guns left Palace Square.
In other words, there was no support for the Provisional Government either among the people or the army. Agitators of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing opposition parties split the army from the Provisional Government, persuading the Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies that had already been created by that time to submit to the Soviets. Of course, the officer corps basically kept the oath, but after February and the Tsar’s abdication of the throne, the oath did not bind them too much. Besides, you can’t go against your own soldiers; they can shoot you. By decision of its soldiers' council. The Soviets were everywhere, and they were the most effective weapon of the revolution. In October 1917, there were 1,429 Soviets in Russia, including over 700 Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Attempts to present the events of 1917 as a coup are completely unsuccessful. A handful of revolutionaries could not break a fairly powerful state mechanism without support from the bulk of the people, without creating alternative power structures. In general, it is not correct to say that it was the Bolsheviks who seized power in October 1917. The Soviets, a new organizational structure of the people, seized power. Created, of course, under the influence of the Bolsheviks, but not only them, but several left-wing opposition parties - Essers and Mensheviks took part in them. Only the further development of the revolution drove these parties in different directions and it was the Bolshevik wing of the opposition that brought to power. And the most consistent program of the Bolsheviks, its greatest correspondence with the interests of the bulk of the population, played a role in this. By creating alternative democratic structures of power - the Soviets - and putting forward a program attractive to the majority of the country's population, the Bolsheviks were doomed to success.
What was attractive about the Bolshevik program? What seduced the people so much? Why were Bolshevik agitators able to win the army over to their side? What was the “technology” of that revolution anyway? Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was an agricultural country, where more than 80% of the population was peasantry. The army, accordingly, also consisted mainly of representatives of the village. And the main issue for the peasants then was the question of land. The land mainly belonged to landowners. On average, one landowner had as much land as 300 peasant households. And it must be said that this was not always a sign of wealth; the nobility who owned estates and lands were in debt. Solonevich names these debts as one of the reasons for the February revolution:
The Russian nobility stood on the eve of a complete economic catastrophe, just as it stood before Peter the Great on the eve of a political one. In the pre-war years, noble landownership lost up to three million dessiatines a year. The debt of the noble landowners to the state reached the monstrous amount of three billion rubles. If this amount is translated into at least the price of a pound of meat (about two hryvnia in Russia then and about a dollar in the USA (USA - USA - Ed.) now), then it will equal 12-15 billion dollars. Two or three Marshall Plans combined. The nobility had no way to cover this debt - it faced complete bankruptcy.
Solonevich, being a monarchist, calls the social causes of the revolution almost like Lenin. The aristocracy, being completely in debt, could no longer maintain power. A new bourgeoisie was rushing to power. "The aristocracy and the bourgeoisie had very clear class motives."- writes Solonevich. And if a monarchist writes such words, then obviously it was not leftist ideology that dictated them. Back in the revolution of 1905, the peasantry showed itself in riots against the nobility. Not against the king, but against the aristocracy. Even then, the land issue was the main one. What exactly aggravated it so much? Solonevich, referring to Oldenburg, writes about “tragic contradictions”, almost like Marx:
The main one of these tragic contradictions was that at the beginning of the 20th century, a completely clearly defined class system continued to exist in the country. That at the same time the bulk of the country's population - its peasantry - was not fully empowered either economically, politically, in everyday life, or, moreover, in administrative terms. The bill on peasant equality was introduced into the Legislative Chambers by P. A. Stolypin. The State Council shredded and postponed this bill as best it could, and only in the fall of 1916, that is, just on the eve of the revolution, did this draft come to the consideration of the State Duma - but it remained unconsidered... and to this day (Oldenburg, p. .180). I formulated this position almost fourteen years ago in the “Theses of the Headquarters-Captain Movement” (p. 9): “The genius of the Russian people was squeezed in the iron grip of serfdom and those of its remnants that existed before 1917.”
Simply put, the cauldron of popular anger heated and heated and finally boiled. And, it should be noted that it was not just social inequality that warmed him. After all, for hundreds of years the peasantry was in virtual slavery to the nobles. But he endured. Because there were some justifications for this inequality. Nobility served to the sovereign. They did not just submit, but literally fought and died for the Tsar and the Fatherland. It was a military class, career military, as they say now. In the Middle Ages, the nobility carried out permanent military service, while the rest of the population was called upon to serve it only in cases of special danger to the country.. For this service, the sovereign gave land to the nobles. In the Moscow state at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, this is how the “local system” took shape. The Grand Duke transferred the estate to a serving man, who was obliged for this by military service. Peter I for the first time founded a permanent army of nobles who were in compulsory service and a collection of Danish people, the so-called recruits. In 1762, Peter III, who stayed on the throne for a short time, issued the most important document regulating the legal status of the nobility in Russia - the Manifesto “on the freedom of the nobility” of February 18, 1762. This document was adopted in order to satisfy the demands of the nobility, which considered itself “infringed” , since it was obliged to serve the state. For some reason, what was given to him in exchange for his service was forgotten. The manifesto freed the nobles from military service. Before this, during the reign of Elizabeth, a Decree was issued that prohibited anyone other than nobles from buying “people and peasants without land and with land.” Land ownership and soul ownership began to become the exclusive right of the nobles.
How did the Bolsheviks attract the sympathy of the people before the revolution of 1917? The slogan "Land to the peasants!" Together with the slogan “All power to the Soviets!” April theses of V.I. Lenin:
- The bourgeois-democratic revolution is over. The provisional government is unable to solve problems, hence the Bolshevik slogan: “No support for the provisional government.”
- Course for the socialist revolution: "All power to the Soviets." Achieve the resignation of the government and the Soviets take power into their own hands. The possibility of a peaceful revolution, the transfer of power into the hands of the workers.
- Immediate nationalization of the land, the beginning of peace treaties and the conclusion of peace with Germany.
- The right of nations to self-determination. United and indivisible Russia.
From the Decree on Land:
Adopted at the meeting of the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies at 2 o'clock on the night of October 27 - November 9) 1917.
1) Landownership of land is canceled immediately without any redemption.
2) Landowners' estates, as well as all appanage, monastic, church lands, with all their living and dead inventory, manor buildings and all accessories, shall be transferred to the disposal of volost land committees and district Soviets of peasant deputies until the Constituent Assembly... The fairest resolution the land question should be as follows: the right of private ownership of land is abolished forever; land cannot be sold, purchased, leased or pledged, or alienated in any other way. The entire land... turns into the national property and goes into the use of all those who work on it.
After the adoption of these decrees, it is not surprising that, having won in Petrograd, the revolution rapidly spread throughout the country. Power passed into the hands of the newly created Soviets. And it passed bloodlessly. Only in 1918, a group of generals under the leadership of General Alekseev, the last chief of staff of the tsarist army, began to form a Volunteer Army on the Don. And it’s clear why the Cossacks had land on the Don. This is the only class that was not interested in the decrees of the Soviet government. She didn't give them anything. And the Cossacks opposed it. And it became the backbone of Denikin’s army. Thus began the civil war in Russia. War of class interests. But this is another year, another story. And in 1917, the Russian peasantry received land and peace. And the return of the ancient veche democratic government of the state - the Soviets.
Article on the website: http://malchish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=435&Itemid=35
What happened in 1917? This is not a test question on the Unified State Exam and I believe that most readers still remember the Soviet school history curriculum and even, perhaps, Lenin’s words about an event that happened 99 years ago:
“The socialist revolution, the need for which the Bolsheviks spoke so much, has taken place.”
These words were spoken by the leader of the Bolshevik Party immediately after the storming of the Winter Palace at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which began simultaneously with the storming. By the way, the storming of the palace, which was defended only by a company from the 1st Petrograd Women’s Battalion, was practically bloodless. The company did not offer significant resistance; no one shot the women from this company after the assault. They were disarmed, and after a couple of days the entire battalion was disbanded and the women were sent home. How did it happen that the Winter Palace was so poorly guarded? How did it happen that almost the entire Petrograd garrison took part in the storming of the Winter Palace and the capture of the city, and only the women’s battalion guarded the palace from the mutinous soldiers?
The Cossack regiments, on which Kerensky had high hopes, declared their neutrality and refused to obey the Provisional Government. On the afternoon of October 24, soldiers of the 1st Scooter Battalion left the Winter Palace. The vehicles of the armored and reserve divisions, which had previously guarded the Winter Palace around the clock, also left. Two Bolsheviks from this division, soldiers I. Zhdanovich and A. Morozov, persistently convinced their comrades to abandon their support for the counter-revolutionary government. Despite the resistance of the Socialist Revolutionaries, of whom there were many in the unit, the general meeting of the division, after lengthy debates, accepted the Bolshevik proposal. Armored vehicles equipped with machine guns and three-inch guns left Palace Square.
In other words, there was no support for the Provisional Government either among the people or the army. Agitators of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing opposition parties split the army from the Provisional Government, persuading the Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies that had already been created by that time to submit to the Soviets. Of course, the officer corps basically kept the oath, but after February and the Tsar’s abdication of the throne, the oath did not bind them too much. Besides, you can’t go against your own soldiers; they can shoot you. By decision of its soldiers' council. The Soviets were everywhere, and they were the most effective weapon of the revolution. In October 1917, there were 1,429 Soviets in Russia, including over 700 Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Attempts to present the events of 1917 as a coup are completely unsuccessful. A handful of revolutionaries could not break a fairly powerful state mechanism without support from the bulk of the people, without creating alternative power structures. In general, it is not correct to say that it was the Bolsheviks who seized power in October 1917. The Soviets, a new organizational structure of the people, seized power. Created, of course, under the influence of the Bolsheviks, but not only them, but several left-wing opposition parties - Essers and Mensheviks took part in them. Only the further development of the revolution drove these parties in different directions and it was the Bolshevik wing of the opposition that brought to power. And the most consistent program of the Bolsheviks, its greatest correspondence with the interests of the bulk of the population, played a role in this. By creating alternative democratic structures of power - the Soviets - and putting forward a program attractive to the majority of the country's population, the Bolsheviks were doomed to success.
What was attractive about the Bolshevik program? What seduced the people so much? Why were Bolshevik agitators able to win the army over to their side? What was the “technology” of that revolution anyway? Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was an agricultural country, where more than 80% of the population was peasantry. The army, accordingly, also consisted mainly of representatives of the village. And the main issue for the peasants then was the question of land. The land mainly belonged to landowners. On average, one landowner had as much land as 300 peasant households. And it must be said that this was not always a sign of wealth; the nobility who owned estates and lands were in debt. Solonevich names these debts as one of the reasons for the February revolution:
The Russian nobility stood on the eve of a complete economic catastrophe, just as it stood before Peter the Great on the eve of a political one. In the pre-war years, noble landownership lost up to three million dessiatines a year. The debt of the noble landowners to the state reached the monstrous amount of three billion rubles. If this amount is translated into at least the price of a pound of meat (about two hryvnia in Russia then and about a dollar in the USA (USA - USA - Ed.) now), then it will equal 12-15 billion dollars. Two or three Marshall Plans combined. The nobility had no way to cover this debt - it faced complete bankruptcy.
Solonevich, being a monarchist, calls the social causes of the revolution almost like Lenin. The aristocracy, being completely in debt, could no longer maintain power. A new bourgeoisie was rushing to power.
"The aristocracy and the bourgeoisie had very clear class motives."- writes Solonevich.
And if a monarchist writes such words, then obviously it was not leftist ideology that dictated them. Back in the revolution of 1905, the peasantry showed itself in riots against the nobility. Not against the king, but against the aristocracy. Even then, the land issue was the main one. What exactly aggravated it so much? Solonevich, referring to Oldenburg, writes about “tragic contradictions”, almost like Marx:
The main one of these tragic contradictions was that at the beginning of the 20th century, a completely clearly defined class system continued to exist in the country. That at the same time the bulk of the country's population - its peasantry - was not fully empowered either economically, politically, in everyday life, or, moreover, in administrative terms. The bill on peasant equality was introduced into the Legislative Chambers by P.A. Stolypin. The State Council shredded and postponed this bill as soon as it could, and only in the fall of 1916, that is, just on the eve of the revolution, did this project come to the consideration of the State Duma - and it remained unconsidered... and to this day (Oldenburg, p. 180 ). I formulated this position almost fourteen years ago in the “Theses of the Staff-Captain Movement” (p. 9):
“The genius of the Russian people was clamped in the iron grip of serfdom and those of its remnants that existed before 1917.”
Simply put, the cauldron of popular anger heated and heated and finally boiled. And, it should be noted that it was not just social inequality that warmed him. After all, for hundreds of years the peasantry was in virtual slavery to the nobles. But he endured. Because there were some justifications for this inequality. Nobility served to the sovereign. They did not just submit, but literally fought and died for the Tsar and the Fatherland. It was a military class, career military, as they say now. In the Middle Ages, the nobility carried out permanent military service, while the rest of the population was called upon to serve it only in cases of special danger to the country.. For this service, the sovereign gave land to the nobles. In the Moscow state at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, this is how the “local system” took shape. The Grand Duke transferred the estate to a serving man, who was obliged for this by military service. Peter I for the first time founded a permanent army of nobles who were in compulsory service and a collection of Danish people, the so-called recruits. In 1762, Peter III, who stayed on the throne for a short time, issued the most important document regulating the legal status of the nobility in Russia - the Manifesto “on the freedom of the nobility” of February 18, 1762. This document was adopted in order to satisfy the demands of the nobility, which considered itself “infringed” , since it was obliged to serve the state. For some reason, what was given to him in exchange for his service was forgotten. The manifesto freed the nobles from military service. Before this, during the reign of Elizabeth, a Decree was issued that prohibited anyone other than nobles from buying “people and peasants without land and with land.” Land ownership and soul ownership began to become the exclusive right of the nobles.
Little by little, first the nobles (1762), then merchants, honorary citizens, and the clergy were exempted from military service, so that its burden finally fell exclusively on the peasants and townspeople. However, the nobility was not deprived of the lands that they had once received from the sovereign for their service. Thus, the landowners, freed from compulsory service to the state, turned from the service class into an idle, purely consumer class of slave owners. The military reform of Alexander II reintroduced universal conscription in 1872. From the charter:
"1. Defense of the throne and fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject. The male population, regardless of condition, is subject to military service.
- Cash ransom from military service and replacement by a hunter is not allowed. ..."
After the reforms of Alexander II, the nobility was forced to pay peasants for their work. Capitalism began to make its adjustments. As a result, from 1877 to 1914. the nobility lost almost two-thirds of its land fund. The noble lands were sold especially actively in 1906–1909. And the new bourgeois owners did not at all gain any legitimacy in owning land in the eyes of the peasants. Alexander's reforms abolished slavery, which was essentially serfdom, but did not improve the economic situation of the peasants who made up the backbone of the Russian people. In general, the history of the emergence of serfdom, which for some reason appeared after the liquidation of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and two independent republics with veche government (Novgorod and Pskov), raises many questions. Almost the entire population of the country becomes slaves after leaving “Tatar captivity” and the elimination of veche forms of government, isn’t it strange? Even Rome made slaves only of foreigners, why did they make their fellow peasants slaves in Rus'?
How did the Bolsheviks attract the sympathy of the people before the revolution of 1917? The slogan “Land to the peasants!” Together with the slogan “All power to the Soviets!” April theses of V.I. Lenin:
1. The bourgeois-democratic revolution is over. The provisional government is unable to solve problems, hence the Bolshevik slogan: “No support for the provisional government.”
2. Course towards a socialist revolution: “All power to the Soviets.” Achieve the resignation of the government and the Soviets take power into their own hands. The possibility of a peaceful revolution, the transfer of power into the hands of the workers.
3. Immediate nationalization of the land, the beginning of peace treaties and the conclusion of peace with Germany.
4. The right of nations to self-determination. United and indivisible Russia.
That is, power to the Soviets, land to the peasants, and peace with Germany. Isn't this what the peasantry wanted? Soldiers tired of war and worried about their abandoned farm? The Bolsheviks did not have a majority in the Soviets until June 1917. The Essers and Mensheviks played the leading roles there. But re-elections of deputies in June brought the Bolsheviks victory in the Soviets. And they earned this victory with just such a program. And they, unlike modern parties, fulfilled this program. Power was transferred to the Soviets, peace was made with Germany, and the land was transferred to the peasants. The first decrees of Soviet power were "Decree on Peace", "Decree on Land", "Decree on the formation of the Workers' and Peasants' Governments" And … "Decree on the abolition of the death penalty". The Bolsheviks were so bloodthirsty.
Plan
Revolution of 1917 in Russia
February Revolution
Policy of the Provisional Government
From February to October
October Revolution
The Bolsheviks came to power
II Congress of Soviets
Revolution of 1917 in Russia
Russia's entry into the First World War relieved the severity of social contradictions for some time. All segments of the population rallied around the government in a single patriotic impulse. The defeat at the front in the fight against Germany, the worsening situation of the people caused by the war, gave rise to mass discontent.
The situation was aggravated by the economic crisis that emerged in 1915-1916. Industry, rebuilt on a war footing, generally provided for the needs of the front. However, its one-sided development led to the fact that the rear suffered from a shortage of consumer goods. The consequence of this was an increase in prices and an increase in inflation: the purchasing power of the ruble fell to 27 kopecks. Fuel and transport crises developed. The capacity of the railways did not ensure military transportation and uninterrupted delivery of food to the city. The food crisis turned out to be especially acute. The peasants, not receiving the necessary industrial goods, refused to supply the products of their farms to the market. Bread lines appeared for the first time in Russia. Speculation flourished. The defeat of Russia on the fronts of the First World War dealt a significant blow to public consciousness. The population is tired of the protracted war. Worker strikes and peasant unrest grew. At the front, fraternization with the enemy and desertion became more frequent. Revolutionary agitators used all the government's mistakes to discredit the ruling elite. The Bolsheviks wanted the defeat of the tsarist government and called on the people to turn the war from an imperialist one into a civil one.
The liberal opposition intensified. The confrontation between the State Duma and the government intensified. The basis of the June Third political system, cooperation between bourgeois parties and the autocracy, collapsed. Speech by N.N. Miliukov on November 4, 1916, with sharp criticism of the policies of the tsar and ministers, marked the beginning of an “accusatory” campaign in the Fourth State Duma. The “Progressive Bloc” - an inter-parliamentary coalition of the majority of Duma factions - demanded the creation of a government of “people's trust” responsible to the Duma. However, Nicholas II rejected this proposal.
Nicholas II was catastrophically losing authority in society due to “Rasputinism,” the unceremonious intervention of Tsarina Alexander Feodorovna in state affairs and his inept actions as Supreme Commander-in-Chief. By the winter of 1916-1917. All segments of the Russian population realized the inability of the tsarist government to overcome the political and economic crisis.
February revolution.
At the beginning of 1917, interruptions in food supplies to major Russian cities intensified. By mid-February, 90 thousand Petrograd workers went on strike due to a shortage of speculative bread and rising prices. On February 18, workers from the Putilov plant joined them. The administration announced its closure. This was the reason for the start of mass protests in the capital.
On February 23 (new style - March 8), workers took to the streets of Petrograd with the slogans “Bread!”, “Down with war!”, “Down with autocracy!” Their political demonstration marked the beginning of the Revolution. On February 25, the strike in Petrograd became general. Demonstrations and rallies did not stop.
On the evening of February 25, Nicholas II, who was in Mogilev, sent the commander of the Petrograd Military District S.S. A telegram to Khabalov with a categorical demand to stop the unrest. Attempts by the authorities to use troops did not produce a positive effect; the soldiers refused to shoot at the people. However, officers and police killed more than 150 people on February 26th. In response, the guards of the Pavlovsk regiment, supporting the workers, opened fire on the police.
Chairman of the Duma M.V. Rodzianko warned Nicholas II that the government was paralyzed and "there is anarchy in the capital." To prevent the development of the revolution, he insisted on the immediate creation of a new government headed by a statesman who enjoyed the trust of society. However, the king rejected his proposal.
Moreover, he and the Council of Ministers decided to interrupt the meeting of the Duma and dissolve it for the holidays. Nicholas II sent troops to suppress the revolution, but a small detachment of General N.I. Ivanov was detained and not allowed into the capital.
On February 27, the mass transition of soldiers to the side of the workers, their seizure of the arsenal and the Peter and Paul Fortress, marked the victory of the revolution.
The arrests of tsarist ministers and the formation of new government bodies began. On the same day, elections to the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies were held in factories and military units, drawing on the experience of 1905, when the first organs of workers' political power were born. An Executive Committee was elected to manage its activities. The Menshevik N.S. became the chairman. Chkheidze, his deputy - Socialist Revolutionary A.F. Kepensky. The Executive Committee took upon itself the maintenance of public order and the supply of food to the population. On February 27, at a meeting of leaders of Duma factions, it was decided to form a Provisional Committee of the State Duma headed by M.V. Rodzianko. The task of the committee was “Restoring state and public order” and creating a new government. The temporary committee took control of all ministries.
On February 28, Nicholas II left Headquarters for Tsarskoye Selo, but was detained on the way by revolutionary troops. He had to turn to Pskov, to the headquarters of the northern front. After consultation with the front commanders, he became convinced that there was no force to suppress the revolution. On March 2, Nicholas signed a Manifesto abdicating the throne for himself and his son Alexei in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, when Duma deputies A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgin brought the text of the Manifesto to Petrograd, it became clear that the people did not want a monarchy. On March 3, Mikhail abdicated the throne, declaring that the future fate of the political system in Russia should be decided by the Constituent Assembly. The 300-year rule of classes and parties ended.
The bourgeoisie, a significant part of the wealthy intelligentsia (about 4 million people) relied on economic power, education, experience in participating in political life and managing government institutions. They sought to prevent the further development of the revolution, stabilize the socio-political situation and strengthen their property. The working class (18 million people) consisted of urban and rural proletarians. They managed to feel their political strength, were predisposed to revolutionary agitation and were ready to defend their rights with weapons. They fought for the introduction of an 8-hour working day, a guarantee of employment, and increased wages. Factory committees spontaneously arose in cities. To establish workers' control over production and resolve disputes with entrepreneurs.
The peasantry (30 million people) demanded the destruction of large private land properties and the transfer of land to those who cultivate it. Local land committees and village assemblies were created in the villages, which made decisions on the redistribution of land. Relations between peasants and landowners were extremely tense.
The extreme right (monarchists, Black Hundreds) suffered a complete collapse after the February revolution.
Cadets from the opposition party became the ruling party, initially occupying key positions in the provisional government. They stood for turning Russia into a parliamentary republic. On the agrarian issue, they still advocated the purchase by the state and peasants of the landowners' lands.
The Social Revolutionaries are the most massive party. The revolutionaries proposed turning Russia into a federal republic of free nations.
The Mensheviks, the second largest and most influential party, advocated the creation of a democratic republic.
The Bolsheviks took extreme left positions. In March, the party leadership was ready to cooperate with other social forces. However, after V.I. Lenin returned from immigration, the “April Theses” program was adopted.
What happened in 1917? This is not a Unified State Exam test question and I believe that most readers still remember the Soviet school curriculum on history and even, perhaps, Lenin’s words about the event that happened 100 years back:
“The socialist revolution, the need for which the Bolsheviks spoke so much, has taken place.”
These words were spoken by the leader of the Bolshevik Party immediately after the storming of the Winter Palace at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which began simultaneously with the storming. By the way, the storming of the palace, which was defended only by a company from the 1st Petrograd Women’s Battalion, was practically bloodless. The company did not offer significant resistance; no one shot the women from this company after the assault. They were disarmed, and after a couple of days the entire battalion was disbanded and the women were sent home. How did it happen that the Winter Palace was so poorly guarded? How did it happen that almost the entire Petrograd garrison took part in the storming of the Winter Palace and the capture of the city, and only the women’s battalion guarded the palace from the mutinous soldiers?
The Cossack regiments, on which Kerensky had high hopes, declared their neutrality and refused to obey the Provisional Government. On the afternoon of October 24, soldiers of the 1st Scooter Battalion left the Winter Palace. The vehicles of the armored and reserve divisions, which had previously guarded the Winter Palace around the clock, also left. Two Bolsheviks from this division, soldiers I. Zhdanovich and A. Morozov, persistently convinced their comrades to abandon their support for the counter-revolutionary government. Despite the resistance of the Socialist Revolutionaries, of whom there were many in the unit, the general meeting of the division, after lengthy debates, accepted the Bolshevik proposal. Armored vehicles equipped with machine guns and three-inch guns left Palace Square.
In other words, there was no support for the Provisional Government either among the people or the army. Agitators of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing opposition parties split the army from the Provisional Government, persuading the Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies that had already been created by that time to submit to the Soviets. Of course, the officer corps basically kept the oath, but after February and the Tsar’s abdication of the throne, the oath did not bind them too much. Besides, you can’t go against your own soldiers; they can shoot you. By decision of its soldiers' council. The Soviets were everywhere, and they were the most effective weapon of the revolution. In October 1917, there were 1,429 Soviets in Russia, including over 700 Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Attempts to present the events of 1917 as a coup are completely unsuccessful. A handful of revolutionaries could not break a fairly powerful state mechanism without support from the bulk of the people, without creating alternative power structures. In general, it is not correct to say that it was the Bolsheviks who seized power in October 1917. The Soviets, a new organizational structure of the people, seized power. Created, of course, under the influence of the Bolsheviks, but not only them, but several left-wing opposition parties - Essers and Mensheviks took part in them. Only the further development of the revolution drove these parties in different directions and it was the Bolshevik wing of the opposition that brought to power. And the most consistent program of the Bolsheviks, its greatest correspondence with the interests of the bulk of the population, played a role in this. By creating alternative democratic structures of power - the Soviets - and putting forward a program that was attractive to the majority of the country's population, the Bolsheviks were doomed to success.
What was attractive about the Bolshevik program? What seduced the people so much? Why were Bolshevik agitators able to win the army over to their side? What was the “technology” of that revolution anyway? Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was an agricultural country, where more than 80% of the population was peasantry. The army, accordingly, also consisted mainly of representatives of the village. And the main issue for the peasants then was the question of land. The land mainly belonged to landowners. On average, one landowner had as much land as 300 peasant households. And it must be said that this was not always a sign of wealth; the nobility who owned estates and lands were in debt. Solonevich names these debts as one of the reasons for the February revolution:
The Russian nobility stood on the eve of a complete economic catastrophe, just as it stood before Peter the Great on the eve of a political one. In the pre-war years, noble landownership lost up to three million dessiatines a year. The debt of the noble landowners to the state reached the monstrous amount of three billion rubles. If this amount is translated into at least the price of a pound of meat (about two hryvnia in Russia then and about a dollar in the USA (USA - USA - Ed.) now), then it will equal 12-15 billion dollars. Two or three Marshall Plans combined. The nobility had no way to cover this debt - it faced complete bankruptcy.
Solonevich, being a monarchist, calls the social causes of the revolution almost like Lenin. The aristocracy, being completely in debt, could no longer maintain power. A new bourgeoisie was rushing to power.
"The aristocracy and the bourgeoisie had very clear class motives."- writes Solonevich.
And if a monarchist writes such words, then obviously it was not leftist ideology that dictated them. Back in the revolution of 1905, the peasantry showed itself in riots against the nobility. Not against the king, but against the aristocracy. Even then, the land issue was the main one. What exactly aggravated it so much? Solonevich, referring to Oldenburg, writes about “tragic contradictions”, almost like Marx:
The main one of these tragic contradictions was that at the beginning of the 20th century, a completely clearly defined class system continued to exist in the country. That at the same time the bulk of the country's population - its peasantry - was not fully empowered either economically, politically, in everyday life, or, moreover, in administrative terms. The bill on peasant equality was introduced into the Legislative Chambers by P.A. Stolypin. The State Council shredded and postponed this bill as soon as it could, and only in the fall of 1916, that is, just on the eve of the revolution, did this project come to the consideration of the State Duma - and it remained unconsidered... and to this day (Oldenburg, p. 180 ). I formulated this position almost fourteen years ago in the “Theses of the Staff-Captain Movement” (p. 9):
“The genius of the Russian people was clamped in the iron grip of serfdom and those of its remnants that existed before 1917.”
Simply put, the cauldron of popular anger heated and heated and finally boiled. And, it should be noted that it was not just social inequality that warmed him. After all, for hundreds of years the peasantry was in virtual slavery to the nobles. But he endured. Because there were some justifications for this inequality. Nobility served to the sovereign. They did not just submit, but literally fought and died for the Tsar and the Fatherland. It was a military class, career military, as they say now. In the Middle Ages, the nobility carried out permanent military service, while the rest of the population was called upon to serve it only in cases of special danger to the country.. For this service, the sovereign gave land to the nobles. In the Moscow state at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, this is how the “local system” took shape. The Grand Duke transferred the estate to a serving man, who was obliged for this by military service. Peter I for the first time founded a permanent army of nobles who were in compulsory service and a collection of Danish people, the so-called recruits. In 1762, Peter III, who stayed on the throne for a short time, issued the most important document regulating the legal status of the nobility in Russia - the Manifesto “on the freedom of the nobility” of February 18, 1762. This document was adopted in order to satisfy the demands of the nobility, which considered itself “infringed” , since it was obliged to serve the state. For some reason, what was given to him in exchange for his service was forgotten. The manifesto freed the nobles from military service. Before this, during the reign of Elizabeth, a Decree was issued that prohibited anyone other than nobles from buying “people and peasants without land and with land.” Land ownership and soul ownership began to become the exclusive right of the nobles.
Little by little, first the nobles (1762), then merchants, honorary citizens, and the clergy were exempted from military service, so that its burden finally fell exclusively on the peasants and townspeople. However, the nobility was not deprived of the lands that they had once received from the sovereign for their service. Thus, the landowners, freed from compulsory service to the state, turned from the service class into an idle, purely consumer class of slave owners. The military reform of Alexander II reintroduced universal conscription in 1872. From the charter:
"1. Defense of the throne and fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject. The male population, regardless of condition, is subject to military service.
2. Cash ransom from military service and replacement by a hunter is not allowed. ..."
After the reforms of Alexander II, the nobility was forced to pay peasants for their work. Capitalism began to make its adjustments. As a result, from 1877 to 1914. the nobility lost almost two-thirds of its land fund. The noble lands were sold especially actively in 1906–1909. And the new bourgeois owners did not at all gain any legitimacy in owning land in the eyes of the peasants. Alexander's reforms abolished slavery, which was essentially serfdom, but did not improve the economic situation of the peasants who made up the backbone of the Russian people. In general, the history of the emergence of serfdom, which for some reason appeared after the liquidation of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and two independent republics with veche government (Novgorod and Pskov), raises many questions. Almost the entire population of the country becomes slaves after leaving “Tatar captivity” and the elimination of veche forms of government, isn’t it strange? Even Rome made slaves only of foreigners, why did they make their fellow peasants slaves in Rus'?
How did the Bolsheviks attract the sympathy of the people before the revolution of 1917? The slogan “Land to the peasants!” Together with the slogan “All power to the Soviets!” April theses of V.I. Lenin:
The bourgeois-democratic revolution is over. The Provisional Government is unable to solve problems, hence the Bolshevik slogan:"No support for the interim government."
Course towards socialist revolution: “All power to the Soviets.” Achieve the resignation of the government and the Soviets take power into their own hands. The possibility of a peaceful revolution, the transfer of power into the hands of the workers.
Immediate nationalization of the land, the beginning of peace treaties and the conclusion of peace with Germany.
The right of nations to self-determination. United and indivisible Russia.
That is, power to the Soviets, land to the peasants, and peace with Germany. Isn't this what the peasantry wanted? Soldiers tired of war and worried about their abandoned farm? The Bolsheviks did not have a majority in the Soviets until June 1917. The Essers and Mensheviks played the leading roles there. But re-elections of deputies in June brought the Bolsheviks victory in the Soviets. And they earned this victory with just such a program. And they, unlike modern parties, fulfilled this program. Power was transferred to the Soviets, peace was made with Germany, and the land was transferred to the peasants. The first decrees of the Soviet government were , , and ... . The Bolsheviks were so bloodthirsty.
The first decrees of Soviet power
From : Adopted at the meeting of the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies at 2 o'clock on the night of October 27 - November 9) 1917:
Landownership of land is canceled immediately without any redemption.
Landowners' estates, as well as all appanage, monastery, church lands, with all their living and dead inventory, manor buildings and all accessories, are transferred to the disposal of volost land committees and district Soviets of peasant deputies until the Constituent Assembly... The fairest resolution of the land issue should be is as follows: the right of private ownership of land is abolished forever; land cannot be sold, purchased, leased or pledged, or alienated in any other way. The entire land... turns into the national property and goes into the use of all workers on it.
After the adoption of these decrees, it is not surprising that, having won in Petrograd, the revolution rapidly spread throughout the country. Power passed into the hands of the newly created Soviets. And it passed bloodlessly. Only in 1918, a group of generals under the leadership of General Alekseev, the last chief of staff of the tsarist army, began to form a Volunteer Army on the Don. And it’s clear why the Cossacks had land on the Don. This is the only class that was not interested in the decrees of the Soviet government. She didn't give them anything. And the Cossacks opposed it. And it became the backbone of Denikin’s army.
All counter-revolutionary activities of Kolchak, Denikin, Krasnov, Yudenich, Semenov and other leaders of the White Movement were paid for by the governments of the USA, Germany, France, England and Japan.
Having met popular resistance and counting their losses, the interventionists decided to destroy young Soviet Russia, plunging it into Civil War.
And in 1917, the Russian peasantry received land and peace,the return of the ancient veche democratic government of the state - the Soviets.
Slavic flag - Red flag of Victory!
