Assessments of the results of the reign of Nicholas II, the eighteenth and last representative of the Romanov dynasty (Holstein-Gottorp) on the Russian throne, are very contradictory.
On the one hand, it must be admitted that the development of industrial relations in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century proceeded at an accelerated pace. Among the reasons for industrial growth can be called the investments of a number of Western European countries in the Russian economy, the reforms carried out by Witte and Stolypin. Everyone is now hearing the statement of the famous American economist Gershenkron: "Judging by the pace of equipping industry in the first years of the reign of Nicholas II, Russia would undoubtedly overtake the United States without the establishment of a communist regime." However, many Western authors strongly disagree with Gershenkron: “In putting forward this incontrovertible proof of imagination, the brilliant Cold War economist Gershenkron overlooks, however, that the 11-hour workday and poverty-stricken wages contributed to this rise. as a result of this, the undesirable companion of industrial development was the revolution "- this is the commentary of the French historian Marc Ferro.
Marc Ferro, historian, France
On the other hand, what gives us reason to believe this growth is rapid? Here are the data on the annual per capita national income of Russia in comparison with the United States:
In 1861 - 16% of the US level, in 1913 - only 11.5.
And with Germany: in 1861 - 40%, in 1913 - 32%.
We see that in 1913, compared with 1861, there is a tendency for Russia to lag behind the developed countries. That is, there was economic growth, of course, but growth relative to the Russian economy of the previous decades. The economies of the United States and developed countries of Western Europe grew even faster. Yes, to be honest, it could not be otherwise. In 1913, ALL Russian universities graduated 2624 lawyers, 1277 factory engineers, 236 clergymen, 208 railway engineers, 166 mining engineers and architects. Impressed? Russian universities graduated more lawyers than engineers of all specialties (almost as now). 1651 specialists with engineering education per year in a country whose population in 1913 was 164, 4 million people - is this enough for successful economic development? There was also a problem with skilled workers: after the parish school, working with a hammer, a shovel and a crowbar, of course, is very handy, but working on complex machines requires a completely different level of education. The result is a growing technological lag, the level of which is evidenced by the recall of one of Ford's engineers, who on the eve of World War I visited the famous (and very modern and advanced by Russian standards) Putilov plant. In his report, he called it "the most antediluvian factory ever seen." One can imagine what the factories were like in the Russian provinces. In terms of GDP per capita, Russia lagged behind the United States by 9.5 times (in industrial production - 21 times), from Great Britain - by 4.5 times, from Canada - 4 times, from Germany - by 3.5 times. In 1913, the share of Russia in global production was 1.72% (USA - 20%, Great Britain - 18%, Germany - 9%, France - 7.2%,).
Now let's look at the standard of living in pre-revolutionary Russia - comparing it with the standard of living in developed countries, of course. So, at the end of the reign of Nicholas II, the standard of living in our country was 3, 7 times lower than in Germany and 5, 5 times lower than in the United States. Academician Tarkhanov argued in his research from 1906 that the average Russian peasant consumes 20.44 rubles a year of food, and an English farmer - 101.25 rubles (in comparable prices).
Professor of Medicine Emil Dillon, who worked at various universities in Russia from 1877 to 1914, wrote:
“The Russian peasant goes to bed at six or five in the evening in winter because he cannot spend money on buying kerosene for the lamp. He has no meat, eggs, butter, milk, often no cabbage, he lives mainly on black bread and potatoes. Lives? He is dying of hunger because of not enough of them."
According to General V. Gurko, 40% of Russian conscripts before 1917 tried such products as meat, butter, sugar for the first time in their lives in the army.
And here is how Leo Tolstoy assessed this "economic growth" in his famous letter to Nicholas II:
“And as a result of all this strenuous and brutal government activity, the agricultural people - those 100 million on which the power of Russia is based - despite the unreasonably growing budget or, rather, as a result of this increase, is becoming impoverished every year, so that hunger has become a normal phenomenon. (1902).
“In the villages … bread is not given in plenty. Welding - millet, cabbage, potatoes, most have none. The food consists of herbal cabbage soup, whitened if there is a cow, and unbleached if there is no cow, and only bread. The majority have sold and pledged everything that can be sold and pledged."
V. G. Korolenko in 1907:
"Now, in starving areas, fathers are selling their daughters to merchants of living goods. The progress of the Russian famine is obvious."
The mortality rate from smallpox before the revolution in Russia was 36 times higher than in Spain, which was not too developed by European standards. From scarlet fever - 2, 5 times higher than in Romania. From diphtheria - 2 times higher than in Austria-Hungary.
In 1907, the income from the sale of grain abroad amounted to 431 million rubles. Of these, 180 million (41%) were spent on luxury goods for the aristocracy, 140 (32.5%) million were left abroad by Russian nobles (Paris, Nice, Baden-Baden, etc.), on investments in Russian industry - 58 million (13.4%).
The personality of Nicholas II also causes fierce controversy. For some, he is a martyr of the revolution, an innocent victim of the Bolshevik terror. Indeed, in the memoirs of contemporaries one can find many positive reviews about this monarch, for example: "The emperor was un charmeur - a" charmer ", a man with a kind and gentle gazelle look … My personal conversations with the tsar convince me that this man is undoubtedly smart, if we do not consider the mind as the highest development of the mind, as the ability to embrace the entire totality of phenomena and conditions "(AF Koni). The modern Russian Orthodox Church, which canonized the last emperor as a saint, also adopted this point of view.
For others, Nicholas II is still the personification of autocratic arbitrariness, the ruthless strangler of all progressive trends in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, and they also find a lot of examples of the insincerity and reactionaryness of the last emperor:
"The tsar is not able to conduct business honestly, and everything seeks to go roundabout ways … Since his majesty does not possess the abilities of either Metternich or Talleyrand, tricks usually lead him to one result: to a puddle - at best, slop, at worst - to a puddle blood or a puddle of blood."
"… this mentally abnormal regime is an interweaving of cowardice, blindness, deceit and stupidity."
The author of the cited texts is not Lenin or Trotsky, but S. Yu. Witte is one of the best prime ministers in the entire history of Russia.
S. Yu. Witte
There is also a third opinion about the responsibility of Nicholas II for the tragedy that befell Russia in 1917: "The role of Nicholas II, due to a certain routine, passivity and lack of ambition of his nature, was too insignificant to be accused of anything" (G. Hoyer, American Sovietologist). Surprisingly, this assessment of the personality of Nicholas II coincides with the characteristic given to Nicholas II by G. Rasputin:
"The Tsarina is a painfully wise ruler, I can do everything with her, I will reach everything, and he (Nicholas II) is a man of God. Well, what kind of Emperor is he? He would only play with the children, and with flowers, and deal with the garden, and not rule the kingdom …"
“The queen is a woman with a nail, she understands me. And the king drinks a lot. Frightened. I take vows from him so that I don't drink wine. I point him to half a month. And he, being a merchant at what fair, bargains for a week for himself. Weak ….
One of the main mistakes of Nicholas II, his apologists consider the "reckless" decision to abdicate the throne and "unwillingness to restore order" in the country. Indeed, at first glance, the position of the Russian monarch in 1917 was fundamentally different from the situation in which, for example, Louis XVI found himself, who immediately became a prisoner of the revolution. Nicholas II was far from the rebellious capital and was the supreme commander of the active army, the combat power of which was many tens of times superior to the forces of the Petersburg garrison.
Nicholas II at Headquarters (Mogilev)
At his service were the armed forces of the Allies and even Germany, whose Kaiser was a close relative of Nicholas. The ruling elite was far from patriotic sentiments and people from the emperor's inner circle repeatedly spoke out about the principled acceptability of the German occupation:
“Let us not, gentlemen, forget the fifth year. For me, it’s better the Germans cut off our tail than our peasants' head” (Prince Andronnikov).
"They (the revolutionary authorities) blamed me for the fact that at the moment when the news of the outbreak of the revolution reached the Tsar's attention, I told him:" Your Majesty! Now one thing remains: to open the Minsk Front to the Germans. Let the German troops come to pacify the bastards "(VN Voeikov, palace commandant).
V. N. Voeikov
"Better Germany than Revolution" (G. Rasputin).
However, objectively assessing the situation, it must be admitted that in Russia in 1917, Nicholas II did not have a chance to take advantage of these seemingly extremely favorable opportunities.
First of all, it should be said that the last Russian autocrat in the eyes of his subjects lost his sacred status of "God's anointed", and we can even name the day when this happened - January 9, 1905, Bloody Sunday. Russia at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II is a patriarchal and thoroughly monarchical country. For the absolute majority of the country's population, the authority of the emperor was indisputable, he was practically a demigod, capable of bringing a crowd of thousands to its knees with one wave of his hand. All abuses of power were associated with the activities of the "bad boyars" who separated the "good king-father" from the people and kept them in the dark about the true situation of the common people. Revolutionaries of all stripes did not enjoy wide support in society; they were mainly sympathized with by a few representatives of the intelligentsia and the liberal bourgeoisie. On January 9, 1905, everything changed. French historian Marc Ferro wrote about the peaceful demonstration of the workers of St. Petersburg:
"In a petition to the tsar, the workers turned to him for protection and asked him to carry out the just reforms expected from him. In this appeal … such concepts as service to the people, Orthodoxy, Holy Russia, love for the tsar and an uprising-revolution that would save society were mixed from socialism. 100 million men spoke in her voice."
But Nicholas II was not going to speak with the people loyal to him - knowing full well of the impending demonstration, he cowardly fled from Petersburg, leaving in his place the Cossacks and soldiers. What happened that day amazed Russian society and changed it forever. Maximilian Voloshin wrote in his diary:
“The bloody week in St. Petersburg was neither a revolution nor a day of revolution. What happened is much more important. procession. The government declared itself hostile to the people, because it gave the order to shoot at the people who sought protection from the king. These days were only a mystical prologue to a great folk tragedy that had not yet begun. "" A strange and almost incredible thing: they shot at the crowd, but they remained completely calm. After a volley, she will flee, and then again returns, picks up the dead and wounded and again stands in front of the soldiers, as if reproaching, but calm and unarmed. When the Cossacks attacked, only a few "intellectuals" fled; the workers and peasants stopped, bowed their heads low and calmly waited for the Cossacks, who were chopping with sabers on their bare necks. It was not a revolution, but a purely Russian national phenomenon: "rebellion on my knees." The same thing happened beyond the Narva outpost, where they fired at the procession with the peasants in front. The crowd with banners, icons, portraits of the emperor and priests in front did not scatter at the sight of the targeted blows, but fell to their knees singing the hymn "God Save the Tsar." “The people said: The last days have come… The Tsar gave the order to shoot at the icons.“People, like holy martyrs, are proud of their wounds.”“At the same time, the soldiers were treated without anger, but with irony. Newspaper sellers, selling official messengers, shouted: "The brilliant victory of the Russians on the Nevsky!"
And here is what O. Mandelstam wrote down in those days:
"A children's hat, a mitten, a woman's scarf, thrown on that day in the St. Petersburg snows, remained a reminder that the tsar must die, that the tsar will die."
S. Morozov said to Gorky:
"The Tsar is a fool. He forgot that the people who, with his consent, are shot today, were kneeling in front of his palace a year and a half ago and sang" God save the Tsar … "Yes, now the revolution is guaranteed … Years of propaganda would not have given what was achieved by His Majesty himself on this day."
Leo Tolstoy:
"The Tsar is considered a sacred person, but you have to be a fool, or an evil person, or a madman to do what Nicholas does."
Many participants in the peasant war of 1773-1775 were sure that E. Pugachev - Emperor Peter III, miraculously escaped from the palace, where he wanted to kill "the dissolute wife Katerinka and her lovers." On the fateful night of March 12, 1801, it was enough for Paul I to get to the rank and file soldiers, who would not hesitate to raise the conspirators who had penetrated into the Mikhailovsky Castle with bayonets. Ordinary participants in the Decembrist uprising believed that they were defending the rights of the legitimate emperor Constantine. Nicholas II became the first Russian emperor who, during his reign, could not count on the protection of his people.
The newspaper "Russian Word" wrote then:
"With what ease the village abandoned the king … I can't even believe it, as if a feather had been blown off the sleeve."
Moreover, Nicholas II also managed to lose the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was completely dependent on him. On February 27, 1917, when the troops of the capital's garrison began to go over to the side of the rebels, the Chief Prosecutor N. P. Raev proposed to the Synod to condemn the revolutionary movement. The synod rejected this proposal, saying that it is still unknown where the treason is coming from.
On March 4, 1917, in response to the granting of "freedom from the destructive tutelage of the state," the members of the Synod expressed "sincere joy at the onset of a new era in the life of the church."
On March 6, 1917, the chairman of the Synod, Metropolitan Vladimir, sent an order to the dioceses that prayers should be offered for the God-protected Russian state and the noble Provisional Government - even before the abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail. On March 9, 1917, the Synod issued an appeal to the people: "The will of God has been accomplished, Russia has embarked on the path of a new state life."
That is, in 1917 the Russian Orthodox Church categorically refused to consider Nicholas II a “saint”.
It is curious that the attitude of the church authorities and ordinary priests towards Lenin was more benevolent. After the death of the leader, millions of believers from all over the country went to church demanding to serve a requiem for the repose of his soul. As a result, the residence of the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon began to receive questions from provincial priests: do they have the right to conduct such services? The Patriarch (once arrested on Lenin's orders for 11 whole days) replied as follows:
“Vladimir Ilyich is not excommunicated from the Orthodox Church, and therefore every believer has the right and the opportunity to commemorate him. Ideologically, Vladimir Ilyich and I, of course, diverged, but I have information about him, as a man of the kindest and truly Christian soul"
Patriarch Tikhon
In the active army, Nicholas II was also terribly and tragically unpopular. According to Denikin's recollections, one of the Duma socialist deputies, invited to visit the army, was so struck by the freedom with which the officers in the canteens and clubs talked about the "vile activities of the government and debauchery at court," that he decided they wanted to provoke him. Moreover, at the beginning of January 1917, General Krymov, at a meeting with the Duma deputies, suggested imprisoning the empress in one of the monasteries, recalling the words of Brusilov: "If you have to choose between the tsar and Russia, I will choose Russia."
A. A. Brusilov
In the same month, the Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko was summoned by the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, who headed the Imperial Academy of Arts, and offered about the same. And the leader of the "Octobrists" AI Guchkov hatched a plan to seize the Tsar's train between Headquarters and Tsarskoye Selo in order to force Nicholas II to abdicate in favor of the heir with the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail. At the end of December 1916, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich warned Nicholas that the revolution should be expected no later than the spring of 1917 - just fantastic awareness, isn't it?
In his essay "The Sealed Carriage" S. Zweig wrote about the February Revolution of 1917:
"A few days later, the emigrants make a stunning discovery: the Russian revolution, the news of which so inspired their hearts, is not at all the revolution they dreamed of … This is a palace coup, inspired by British and French diplomats in order to prevent the tsar from making peace with Germany … ".
Later, a spokesman for the intelligence of the French General Staff, Captain de Maleycy, made a statement:
“The February revolution took place thanks to a conspiracy between the British and the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia. The inspiration was Ambassador Buchanan, the technical executor was Guchkov."
A. I. Guchkov, "technical director" of the February revolution according to de Maleisi
That is, in fact, the story with the "removal from power" of Paul I was actually repeated, only without the stranglehold and "apoplectic blow to the temple with a snuffbox."
The Americans realized that they were late, but it was not in their rules to retreat, so they sent to Russia not someone, but Leon Trotsky - with an American passport issued, according to some information, personally by US President Woodrow Wilson, and pockets full of dollars. And this, in contrast to no one and nothing confirmed by rumors about Lenin's "German money", is an irrefutable historical fact.
L. Trotsky
Woodrow Wilson
If we recall the documents on which the accusations of the Bolsheviks of working for the German General Staff were based, here is what the famous British intelligence officer Bruce Lockhart wrote about them, who organized the "conspiracy of ambassadors" against the Soviet regime:
“These were supposedly genuine, but in fact forged documents that I had seen before. They were printed on paper with the stamp of the German General Staff and were signed by various German staff officers … Some of them were addressed to Trotsky and contained various instructions that he had to perform as a German agent (Yeah, German! Do you remember who actually sent Trotsky to Russia?) After a while it turned out that these letters, allegedly sent from various places such as Spa, Berlin and Stockholm were typed on the same typewriter."
Bruce Lockhart
On April 2, 1919, the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper published a joint statement by the General Staff, the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (diplomatic intelligence) and the German State Bank that the documents that surfaced in the United States were "nothing more than how unscrupulous, so ridiculous forgery."German Foreign Minister F. Scheidemann, whose signature allegedly bore one of the forgeries, flew into a rage: "I declare that this letter is falsified from beginning to end, that all the events with which it connects my name are absolutely unknown to me" (in the same newspaper).
According to many Western historians, the decision to leave Mogilev "was … the most ridiculous mistake of Nicholas II during his entire reign." However, events showed that the Headquarters was not at all a safe place for the emperor: in order to arrest the person who returned there after the abdication of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government sent four commissars - that was quite enough.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that the emperor went from Headquarters to Petrograd after General Ivanov, who was appointed dictator of the rebellious capital. The latter with huge forces moved to Petrograd and Nicholas II had every reason to believe that by his appearance "order" in the city would be restored.
General Ivanov, the failed dictator of Petrograd
However, Ivanov did not make it to the capital - all the troops attached to him went over to the side of the revolution, including the privileged battalion of the George Knights from the personal guard of the emperor: without any pressure from his subordinates, this decision was made by his commander, General Pozharsky.
On March 2, in Pskov, General Ruzskaya met the emperor who had actually lost power with the words: "Gentlemen, it seems, we will have to surrender to the mercy of the victors."
General N. V. Ruzsky
Nicholas II, in fact, was politely arrested in Pskov, on the eve of the execution, he said: "God gives me the strength to forgive all enemies, but I cannot forgive General Ruzsky."
But even in this hopeless situation, Nicholas II made his last attempts to change the course of events, but it was too late: to the telegram appointing a government responsible to society, headed by Rodzianko, an answer was received that this was no longer enough. In the hope of supporting the army, Nicholas II turned to the front commanders and received the following answer: the desirability of Nicholas II's abdication was declared:
- Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (Caucasian Front);
- General Brusilov (South-Western Front);
- General Evert (Western Front);
- General Sakharov (Romanian Front);
- General Ruzskaya (Northern Front);
- Admiral Nepenin (Baltic Fleet).
The commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Kolchak, abstained.
On this day, at 13.00, the emperor decided to abdicate. At about 20.00, Duma deputies Guchkov and Shulgin arrived in Pskov, who adopted the act of abdication of Nicholas II, in which he transferred power to his brother Mikhail.
The next day, Mikhail refused to accept the crown.
Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich
So ingloriously ended the 304-year rule of Russia by the house of the Romanovs.
But Nicholas II, it seemed, still had chances to return to power - like Louis XVIII, he could enter the capital in the wagon train of the Allied occupation armies. However, hopes for help from foreign powers did not materialize: the reign of the last emperor had so compromised the Romanovs that even recent allies and closest relatives turned away from its representatives: Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Spain, where the Romanovs' relatives ruled, refused to accept the imperial family for on the grounds that their countries must be neutral. France openly declared that it did not want the "debunked tyrant" and especially his wife of German descent to set foot on republican soil. Mariel Buchanan, daughter of the British Ambassador to Russia, recounts her father's reaction to receiving a dispatch from London in her memoirs:
“The father changed his face:“The cabinet does not want the king to come to Great Britain. They are afraid … that if the Romanovs land in England, rebellions will rise in our country."
British Ambassador J. Buchanan
"The arrival of the former tsar in England was hostile and in fact opposed to the entire English people," the American Sovietologist N. Frankland was forced to admit. The only state that agreed to accept the Romanovs was Germany, but soon a revolution took place in this country too …
As a result, the American researcher V. Aleksandrov was forced to state a sad fact for the imperial family:
"After the Romanovs were betrayed and abandoned by their subjects, they were also mercilessly abandoned by their allies."
Indeed, the liquidation of the autocracy did not lead to complications in relations between Russia and the allies and even aroused certain hopes in the ruling circles of the Entente: "Revolutionary armies fight better," wrote the leading newspapers of France and Great Britain at that time.
However, Russia was unable to continue the war against Germany, and the conclusion of peace was in the vital interests of the absolute majority of the country's population - here the Bolsheviks had no room for maneuver. After the February Revolution, the army was rapidly decomposing, the soldiers literally fled to their homes, there was no one to keep the front.
Denikin said to Kerensky on July 29, 1917, at a meeting at Headquarters:
“Those who blame the collapse of the army on the Bolsheviks are lying! First of all, those who deepened the revolution are to blame. You, Mr. Kerensky! The Bolsheviks are just worms that have wound up in a wound inflicted on the army by others."
A. I. Denikin, who blamed the collapse of the army of Kerensky and the Provisional Government
V. A. Sukhomlinov, Minister of War in 1909-1915 wrote later:
“The people around Lenin are not my friends, they do not personify my ideal of national heroes. At the same time, I can no longer call them "robbers and robbers", after it became clear that they raised only the abandoned: the throne and power."
V. A. Sukhomlinov
The victory of the Bolsheviks at first did not embarrass the leaders of the world powers: the Balfour memorandum of December 21, 1917, supported by Clemenceau, indicated the need to "show the Bolsheviks that we do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia, and that it would be a deep mistake to think that we are promoting counter-revolution ".
The "14 points" of American President Wilson (January 8, 1918) assumed the liberation of all Russian territories, granting Russia a full and unhindered opportunity to make an independent decision regarding its political development, and promised Russia admission to the League of Nations and assistance. The price for this "generosity" should have been Russia's de facto renunciation of sovereignty and its transformation into a powerless colony of the Western World. The standard set of requirements for a "banana republic" is complete submission in exchange for the right of the puppet ruler to be a "good son of a bitch" and the ability to lick the master's boots. The revival of Russia as a united great state did not correspond to the interests of the victors. The appendix to the map of "New Russia" drawn up by the US Department of State said:
“All of Russia should be divided into large natural areas, each with its own distinct economic life. At the same time, no region should be independent enough to form a strong state."
And the "color" of the new Russian government did not matter. So, A. Kolchak "allies", as payment for his recognition as "the supreme ruler of Russia", forced to confirm the legality of separation from Russia Poland (and with it - Western Ukraine and Western Belarus) and Finland. And Kolchak was forced to leave the decision on the secession of Latvia, Estonia, the Caucasus and the Trans-Caspian region from Russia to the arbitration of the League of Nations (note dated May 26, 1919, signed by Kolchak on June 12, 1919). This shameful treaty was no better than the Brest-Litovsk Peace signed by the Bolsheviks, and was an act of surrender of Russia and its recognition as the defeated side. And, unlike Lenin, who was not going to observe the Brest-Litovsk Peace under any circumstances, Kolchak intended to honestly fulfill his obligation to dismantle the unified Russian state. If you throw sweet snot about the "noble patriots" Lieutenant Golitsyn and the cornet Obolensky into a landfill, and chop up the wild thickets of "spreading cranberries" that grew on the wastelands of Russian historical science for firewood, you will have to admit: the victory of the White movement inevitably led to the death of Russia and the cessation of its existence …
A. V. Kolchak, who signed the de facto act of surrender of Russia and recognized it as the losing party in exchange for recognizing himself as its Supreme Ruler.
To be ashamed, according to the former allies, there was nothing and no one. Driven by the mediocre rule of Nicholas II and his entourage to three revolutions and the Civil War, Russia was joyfully plundered not only by enemies, but even by former friends, allies, neighbors, practically relatives. Forgetting all decency, they stood up on all sides with knives and axes in their hands, eagerly calculating what else could be appropriated after the final death of our country. The intervention was attended by:
Entente countries - Great Britain, Greece, Italy, China, Romania, USA, France and Japan;
Countries of the Quadruple Alliance - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey
Other countries - Denmark, Canada, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Estonia.
American invaders in Arkhangelsk
Banquet invaders, Vladivostok - on the wall flags of France, USA, Japan, China
Serbian interventionists in Murmansk
But, to the great surprise of the predators, everything went wrong and the situation got out of hand. At first, Lenin refused the "super-profitable" offer to become a "good son of a bitch", and then a terrible thing happened: the Bolsheviks who had lifted power literally out of the mud were able to recreate the Russian Empire under new banners and a new name. Russia suddenly not only changed its mind about dying, but also dared to demand back much of the stolen goods. Even the loss of lost profits due to our sudden, unexpected for everyone, recovery was difficult, almost impossible, to forgive. And such "impudence" - and even more so. This is precisely what “democratic” Europe and “democratic squared” the United States have never forgiven - neither Russia, nor Lenin, nor the Bolsheviks.
