000
ОтложитьЧитал
<<The share of the mobilized in Russia was the smallest, only 39% of all men aged 15-49, while in Germany 81%, Austria-Hungary 74%, France 79%, England 50% Italy – 72%. At the same time, for every thousand people mobilized in Russia, there were killed and dead 115, while Germany – 154, Austria – 122, France – 168, England – 125, etc.), for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Russia lost 45 men, Germany – 125, Austria – 90, France – 133, England – 62; Finally, for every thousand people at all, Russia lost 11 people, Germany – 31, Austria – 18, France – 34, England – 16. Let's add that almost the only of the fought countries, Russia did not have any problems with food. The inconceivable structure of "military bread" of the model of 1917 in Germany could not dreame to anyone in Russia. >>
Thus, the hardships of the war in Russia were much less severe than in Austria-Hungary and Germany or France, and no more severe than in England. Nevertheless, unlike these countries, in Russia, almost from the very beginning of the war, a conspiracy against the supreme authority (against Nicholas II) was brewing, and by the beginning of 1917 this plot had found a real plan.
…
Ten years after the catastrophe of 1917, Winston Churchill wrote about Russia and Nicholas II: [Winston Churchill. The World Crisis 1916-1918. Vol.1 N.Y. 1927. (P.227-228)]
“It is the shallow fashion of these times to dismiss the Tsarist regime as a purblind, corrupt, incompetent tyranny. But a survey of its thirty months' war with Germany and Austria should correct these loose impressions and expose the dominant facts. We may measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the battering it had endured, by the disasters it had survived, by the inexhaustible forces it had developed, and by the recovery it had made. In the governments of states, when great events are afoot, the leader of the nation, whoever he be, is held accountable for failure and vindicated by success. No matter who wrought the toil, who planned the struggle, to the supreme responsible authority belongs the blame or credit.
Why should this stern test be denied to Nicholas II? He had made many mistakes, what ruler has not? He was neither a great captain nor a great prince. He was only a true, simple man of average ability, of merciful disposition, upheld in all his daily life by his faith in God. But the brunt of supreme decisions centred upon him. At the summit where all problems are reduced to Yea or Nay, where events transcend the faculties of man and where all is inscrutable, he had to give the answers. His was the function of the compass needle. War or no war? Advance or retreat? Right or left? Democratise or hold firm? Quit or persevere? These were the battlefields of Nicholas II. Why should he reap no honour from them? The devoted onset of the Russian armies which saved Paris in 1914; the mastered agony of the munitionless retreat; the slowly regathered forces; the victories of Brusilov; the Russian entry upon the campaign of 1917, unconquered, stronger than ever; has he no share in these? In spite of errors vast and terrible, the regime he personified, over which he presided, to which his personal character gave the vital spark, had at this moment won the war for Russia.
He is about to be struck down. A dark hand, gloved at first in folly, now intervenes. Exit Tsar. Deliver him and all he loved to wounds and death. Belittle his efforts, asperse his conduct, insult his memory; but pause then to tell us who else was found capable. Who or what could guide the Russian State? Men gifted and daring; men ambitious and fierce, spirits audacious and commanding – of these there were no lack. But none could answer the few plain questions on which the life and fame of Russia turned.”
We do not know what «errors vast and terrible» Churchill had in mind. Maybe it's just his tribute to generally accepted at the time (and till now) the tradition of not talking about Nicholas II too well … However, perhaps Churchill was referring to the known anti-Semitism of the Russian tsar and "Pale of Settlement" for Jews, which existed in Russia until 1915. However, during the reign of Nicholas II, the restrictions for Jews were gradually abolished, and on April 1917 he has planned to complete abolition of all restrictions. According to the memoirs of Petrograd chief of secret police General K. Globachev, in early 1917, Nicholas II was planning to lift all restrictions on Jews in April 1917:[Globachev K. Truth about the Russian Revolution: Memoirs of a former head of the Petrograd police department. . – Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). 2009. (Chapter V). http://www.fedy-diary.ru/html/072009/glo01.html ]
«Justice Minister Dobrovolsky told me personally that the draft law on equal rights of Jews had already been prepared and, in all probability, the law would be declared at Easter 1917".
Perhaps Churchill had in mind also the anti-Jewish pogroms in 1905 (in Chisinau). However, the government of Nicholas II formally condemned the rioting, dismissed the regional governor, the perpetrators were arrested and punished by the court.[Robert K.Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967; Moscow 2003, p. 94–95; p. 122 in Russian edition] Leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church also condemned anti-Jewish pogroms. Appeals to the faithful condemning the anti-Jewish pogroms were read publicly in all churches of Russia.[Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Two hundred years together. Moscow 2001. T.I (P.329 – in Russian)] – Of course, this book by Solzhenitsyn and his concept on the subject is controversial (by some opinions), but in this case I am not referring to his concept, but to the facts, which he published in this book.
CONSPIRACY AGAINST NICHOLAS II.
In 1983, overseas was published recognition of the leader of the liberal ideology of the February Revolution, the Minister of the first Provisional Government Pavel Nikolayevich Mildyukova, which he did in a narrow circle of associates after his retirement in May 1917 [magazine "Veche", Munich, number 11, 1983 ], and then, shortly after the October revolution he set out this in a letter [from the letter to former member of the Board monarchist congresses Iosifu Vasilevichu Revenko, the end of December 1917 or early January 1918. Published according to the book: Konyaev NM The death of the red Moseses. The beginning of terror. 1918 year. M .: Veche, 2004.]:
"You know that a firm decision to use war for the production of the coup was made by us shortly after the outbreak of war, you also know that our army was to go on the offensive (in spring 1917), the results of whose radically would stop any hint of discontent and would be called here an explosion of patriotism and glee in the country. Do you understand now why I hesitated at the last minute to give my consent to the production of the coup, you know well what should be my internal state at this moment. History will curse the leaders of the so-called proletarians, but a history will also curse us, who caused the storm. "
However, as some modern historians believe [Katkov G.M. The February Revolution. Ch. 1,8] [Yakovtsev Ya. V. What is corruption? // "Secrets". – 2010.] [Voronin V.E. Zemstvo during the First World War and the Revolution of 1917.] (and I agree with them), these plans of the coup would remained only the plans if in the summer of 1916 Russian counterintelligence did not reveal the huge corruption in the organizations of two famous liberals (Lvov and Guchkov, Zemgor and Military Industrial Committees).
Let me remind you that Zemgor and the Military Industrial Committees were established in May-July 1915 on the basis of a public-private partnership as intermediary organizations for the distribution of orders for supplying the army and navy in private production – as for uniforms, supplies, construction of hospitals and sanitary trains , And military equipment – both in small and artisanal production (Zemgor), and in private large and medium production (Military Industrial Committees).
Further, I quote the above-mentioned book by the historian V. Voronin: "In the summer of 1916, the right press (the newspaper Russkoye Slovo and others), wich supported the government, started a powerful political campaign launched against the liberal leaders of Zemgor. Zemgor was accused of embezzling 500 million rubles, Issued to him by the treasury, as well as in financial support of revolutionary organizations and arbitrary release from military service. Right-wing activists saw in Zemgor's activity an attempt to create a parallel government ".
Similar accusations were also made against military industrial committees. Chairman of the Council of Ministers Boris Vladimirovich Sturmer intended even to dissolve Zemgor. Some researchers believe that although A. Guchkov and G. Lvov both prepared a palace coup in their organizations, they were personally innocent of corruption and even tried to fight it. One way or another, but the accusations against Zemgor and the military-industrial committees were so serious that it threatened their leadership (and personally Lvov and Guchkov) with the initiation of court cases and prison – no later than April 1917, when an total offensive was planed earlier (along with the allies). It could be no doubt that, in the face of the long-awaited offensive and a new burst of patriotism, lawsuits against corrupt officials would be warmly supported by the general public.