How would Russia have changed if the Bolsheviks had not seized power
October 1917 was an epochal turn in the history of Russia. According to some, it was an unnatural scenario for the development of events, while others call it a natural result of the degradation of power. But what could our country become without a coup d'état?
If it wasn't...
Laureate Nobel Prize in literature, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: “October is a short, crude, local military coup according to plan. Our revolution roamed from month to month of the 17th year - quite spontaneously, and then a civil war and the same millions of KGB terror.
Some researchers suggest that if it had been possible to stop the unrestrained elements of the revolution in time, then not only the empire would have been preserved, but all its cultural and religious features, as well as economic achievements. It wouldn't be shameful Brest Peace”, signed by the Bolsheviks, and our country would be among the victorious states with all the ensuing geopolitical acquisitions.
Another part of the experts is convinced that the Bolsheviks were sole power, capable of stopping the country rolling into the abyss. The civil war, turmoil, terror and devastation that followed the revolution were a necessary sacrifice to achieve the cherished goal of building welfare state general equality and justice. The preservation of the former government, in their opinion, would inevitably lead to the disintegration of the country.
Geopolitics
Up to October revolution on the fronts of the First World War, the situation, albeit difficult, but still giving hope for a turning point, remained. Yes, in the Russian army, few people wanted to fight, but the forces German troops were exhausted. If it were possible to stop the agitational work of the left, because of which high percent desertion, by the autumn of 1917 the Russian army could resume the offensive and by the end of the year, together with the allies, force Germany, agonizing in revolutionary convulsions, to surrender.
Thanks to the victory, Russia would be able to keep Ukraine, Belarus, the Transcaucasian republics, and even increase its territories by dividing the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. And Poland and Finland after some time could well become Russian dominions. No less successful results of the war would await our country in the south. Russia would finally realize its centuries-old dream and take possession of Constantinople. It is not difficult to predict the further course of events: Constantinople retreats to Greece, and the Russian Empire gains control over the Straits.
Director Historical and Archival Institute Alexander Bezborodov expresses a different point of view. He believes that if the revolution had not taken place, the Russian Empire would have disintegrated into several small parts. “And then the process would only get worse. It would be a fragmentation of the country like the early feudal era that our country was going through, when nothing was left of it, and it became easy prey for who knows, ”concludes the historian.
And if we look even further into the future, in which our country exists not in a socialist, but in a capitalist form. How would this affect relations with Nazi Germany? Maybe, Russian government it would not help to forge the Reichswehr, and would not go to an agreement with Hitler, as the Soviet authorities did. The Fuhrer would hardly have given up his aggressive appetites, but a probable war would have taken on different terms, scales, and would have had a different scenario.
supreme power
By 1917, the monarchy in Russia had seriously discredited itself, however, excluding the Bolsheviks from the history, one can allow the preservation of the title, including by Nicholas II, who eventually became a symbol of victory. His dream is a constitutional monarchy However, in military circles, plans were hatched to restore unlimited autocracy, to which Nicholas objected.
One of the options for the development of events: the tsar resigns the powers of the “master of the Russian land” and transfers the throne to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who then, in the conditions of the catastrophe, was simply afraid to take on such responsibility. Another contender for the throne is Tsarevich Alexei, but his illness would hardly have allowed him to occupy the highest post. long time. Looking at how the events of the beginning of the 20th century resonate with the Time of Troubles at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, our ancestors could once more to witness the emergence of a new ruling dynasty.
At the same time, it must be noted that the option of preserving the monarchy would be realistic if it was possible to prevent the February Revolution and drive it deep underground liberal parties. After all, after February there is practically no political forces who supported the king. And after the abdication of Nicholas II, this process could no longer be reversed. And then what? The incapacitated Provisional Government would have been replaced by another form of government - it is possible that a parliamentary republic headed by a president.
However, is it possible to talk about the prospects for democracy in post-monarchist Russia? History of three European countries- Germany, Spain and Italy shows that the republics in the first third of the 20th century were extremely unstable, their history ended in dictatorship - Hitler, Franco, Mussolini. It is unlikely that Russia could have taken a different path: instead of a left-wing Bolshevik dictatorship, it would have received a right-wing dictatorship - a national-patriotic one. Otherwise, the country could fall apart.
Domestic politics
Even if it were possible to do away with Bolshevism, the danger of the existence of radical left movements would still remain in Russia. If there was a strong political will, Russia would have to turn, if not into a police state, then into a country with a rigid vertical of power, to which legislative, judicial and executive bodies would be subordinate.
Parliamentarianism would most likely have remained in its previous form, however, in order not to destabilize the situation in the country, the Duma would have to stop inter-factional wars and unite to achieve the tasks set by the government and the head of state. One of these tasks would be the intention to bring the country into the ranks of world economic leaders.
Capitalism, which has been gaining strength in Russia since the beginning of the 20th century, has given rise to a new social system not at all focused on social justice. Money, power and decent life had those who learned to exploit the less fortunate fellow citizens. In these conditions strong positions parties of a socialist persuasion would have received, and Russian capital, in order to avoid upheavals, would have had to listen to them.
At first, the Russian economy would have remained predominantly agrarian. Given that at the beginning of the 20th century the Russian share of world agricultural exports reached 40%, it would be a sin not to strengthen its position in this sector of the economy.
In the case of the status of the victorious country following the results of the First World War, Russia would receive its share of indemnities from the defeated Germany, which would allow it to invest additional funds in industrialization. But there are still many problems: this is both a peasant and a workers' issue, moreover, on radical economic reforms colossal costs and a large influx of labor were needed. Would Russia have been able to mobilize its forces, as the USSR did? Obviously yes, but the emphasis would not be on internal resources but on external loans.
In this case, the Russian economy would be more dependent on the world market, and no one knows how we would respond economic crisis, covering almost all capitalist countries in the late 1920s. It is possible that the authorities would not be able to cope with rising unemployment and falling living standards. And then the delayed scenario of October 1917 is quite likely.
Religion
On the eve of the October Revolution, the country was experiencing a serious religious crisis, largely due to the anti-clerical campaign conducted by the Bolsheviks. However, a blow to the status of the Russian Church was also dealt by the Provisional Government, which equated Orthodoxy with other religions and took away the educational institutions belonging to the Church. The Soviets secularized church property and abolished state status Orthodoxy is already on prepared ground.
Only if the Russian monarchy is preserved Orthodox Church could remain in its original state. If a republican era had begun in Russia, the consequences for the Church could have been the most unpredictable. It is unlikely that the clergy would face persecution, but freedom of religion would lead to another church schism, having generated whole line currents, rumors and sects.
World
In the event of the defeat of Bolshevism in Russia, the world and our relations with it would take shape according to a completely different scenario. Wouldn't be proletarian revolutions that changed political system China, Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, there would be no " cold war", which for many decades opposed the socialist East and the capitalist West, there would be no communist movements that are still popular in developed countries.
Most likely, Russia would not have lost millions of its citizens who immigrated abroad after the revolution. Using this scientific and cultural potential, our country could become the undisputed world leader not only in rocket science and ballet, but also in other industries, including high technologies. It is possible that the American dollar, which profited from the two world wars, would not have been the main reserve currency of the planet - this place of honor would have been given to the ruble.
October 1917 - revolution or coup?
The revolution is often called a social explosion. In the historical past of Russia, the revolution in October 1917 was the most significant. More recently, the concept of the "Great October Socialist Revolution" was proclaimed "the main event of the twentieth century", and therefore could not be the subject of criticism. However, in recent times more and more often there is a tendency to reconsider the role and place of this period of our history. Instead of the generally accepted Soviet times the term "Great October Socialist Revolution" appeared the expression "October Revolution". This was accompanied by a reassessment of the significance of the event that occurred in October 1917, from positive to almost negative. It should be noted that this radical reassessment of the significance and consequences of the October events of 1917 occurred mainly as a result of changes in public sentiment under the influence of the political struggle that unfolded in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s - early 1990s. and especially after its collapse. It should be noted that the appearance of various new versions of the October events of 1917 is often the result of an arbitrary interpretation of the very concept of "revolution". As you know, the essence of a revolution lies in changing the state of society, in a sharp transition to new stage its development. A coup d'état, usually carried out by force, is, in essence, a struggle for power between individual groups forces, while society continues to be in the same state. A real revolution sharply divides society, drawing into political struggle large masses people, brings new classes to power or social groups, changes the form of ownership, that is, it carries out an essential transformation of the system. The coup is limited, as a rule, to changes in the alignment of political forces that are at the state helm or seek to master it. Unlike a coup, which the forces interested in it plan and organize in advance, it is impossible to develop a "scenario" for a revolution, because, as evidenced by historical experience, revolutions develop according to their own "laws" and logic, which people can hardly master.
It is known that Russia "conceived" the revolution long before October 1917. Urgent Tasks community development remained unresolved for decades. Among them the most important were:
- * agrarian question;
- * bringing to the end of industrialization;
- * raising the cultural and educational level of the people;
In addition, the world war of 1914-1918. extremely aggravated all social contradictions and led to unprecedented economic ruin compared to other belligerent states. The autocracy once again demonstrated its helplessness, for which it was "punished" by the February Revolution. The social crisis reached such a depth that in the spring of 1917 Russia was actually falling apart as a state, and Russian capitalism - as social system. After the abdication of the tsar, it seemed that the Russian bourgeoisie, having come to state power, got a chance to overcome the crisis, but its representatives in the Provisional Government did not take advantage of this chance. In the autumn of 1917, the progressive paralysis of state power became apparent, which turned out to be unable even to hold the promised elections to the Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to determine further direction development of the country. Moreover, another - really terrible - alternative began to be seen. Almost ten million feral and furious soldiers, with weapons in their hands, in droves refused to obey the orders of the command, left the front and, having captured the echelons, moved inland.
Thus, the main causes of October 1917 were the deep contradictions that were accumulating in the political, economic, social, national spheres public life, which it was no longer possible to resolve in a reformist way, especially because of the position ruling circles, braking required process modernization. Immediate Results The October Revolution was real and undeniable: it snatched Russia out of a bloody, exhausting war; averted a national catastrophe that threatened a society that was increasingly plunging into a state of chaos; preserved the territorial integrity and independence of the country, protecting its sovereignty; freed the working people from exploitation and oppression, giving land to the peasants, transferring factories and plants to the management and control of the workers; established new form power - the Soviets - as a truly people's power.
Among those who do not agree to consider the October events of 1917 a revolution, there are popular assertions that, they say, the organizers of the armed uprising in Petrograd themselves - Lenin and Trotsky - called the coming of the Bolsheviks to power a coup. Indeed, in the works of Lenin and Trotsky one can find the expression "coup" or "October revolution", but even more often - and much more often! - they used the expression "October Revolution". Moreover, they used the term "October Revolution" precisely in the meaning of the concept of "revolution", that is, implying a radical change in the social system.
The social revolution developed gradually, in a completely various forms. large-scale peasant war; deep moral decay armies; workers' struggle for their rights; movement for national independence non-indigenous peoples of Russia - all these are components of the social revolution in Russia; and each of these movements supported popular Bolshevik slogans: "Peace to the peoples!", "Land to the peasants!", "All power to the Soviets!", "Factories to the workers!". Therefore, to assert that in October 1917 only a coup took place in Petrograd means deliberately ignoring historical facts. We must not forget that this event undermined the centuries-old foundations tsarist Russia and radically changed its vector historical development, initiating the creation of an entirely new society. No coup d'état unable to create a new society.
The October Revolution can be treated differently, and everyone has the right to their own point of view and own assessment its meanings. However, deny obvious fact that in October 1917 a revolution broke out in Petrograd - precisely a revolution, and not just a coup - means not understanding the essence of the very concept of "revolution". And although in form the uprising organized by the Bolsheviks and the seizure of power did resemble a coup d'etat, in fact it was the beginning of one of the most profound and dramatic in history. social revolutions. Historical facts irrefutably testify that the revolutions in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century were the result of a relatively long development Russian life, where the final phase was October. It is impossible to imagine the 20th century without the October Revolution in Russia, because without it the very history of this century would have been different.
Signs of both revolution and coup and conspiracy took place in the days of October. The events of October were the most sharp shape struggle between emerging new and obsolete old forms public relations. But nevertheless, having completed the work, I came to the conclusion that the events of October 1917 are called revolution, since in my essay I singled out the following signs:
growing contradictions in society;
the desire to change the existing order in Russia;
Copy the iframe
Belarus - at the official level, the communists in the countries former USSR- Rather, they celebrate the centenary on their own initiative ... but what exactly? Revolutions? Bunta? Revolt? Among the republics of the former Soviet Union there is no unity on this issue. But the understanding that there is nothing to celebrate on this day prevails in most of the once united republics.
For Russian communists, this day is the easiest. In the center of Moscow, not only are the doors to the tomb of the leader of the world proletariat always open, but the bust of Stalin is also waiting for his admirers, who today, apparently, consider the leaders of the revolution ... imperialists.
“October and Lenin saved the empire that burned down in the First World Empire. October and Lenin proposed a policy that allowed the disintegrated country to gather in the form union state, the great state of the USSR, which was a beacon for the whole world! ”, - said the chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov.
Some historians agree that the collapse of one - the Russian Empire - created only another one - already the Soviet one.
“Many say, they say, in the First world war many empires collapsed. It seems to me that in the case of Russian Empire, it would be more correct to say that it was reformatted thanks, first of all, to the Bolshevik revolution, ”says Belarusian historian Anatoly Trofimchik.
On this day, the following actually happened from revolutionary actions: the Bolsheviks stormed and plundered the Winter Palace in Petrograd, in which the subsequently arrested Provisional Government met. Despite the glorification of this event, seven people died in the shootout. A few hours earlier, the Second All-Russian Congress of the Soviets of Workers and soldiers' deputies meeting at the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens announced the transfer of power to the Soviets. And then? After it was almost five years of bloody civil war. It is difficult for the inhabitants of Belarus, where today is the day of the revolution, to unequivocally assess this event from a historical perspective.
“Well, for its time, it was evidently positive.
Today?
Today, you can't change history."
“For young people, no, for old people, yes.
Why?
Well, they remember, but now the youth, maybe they don't even know her. And for me, she is what is, what is not.
“For me, this is positive, because I was brought up on this, but now, compared to what I heard, it turns out that it was not very good for our country.”
Official festivities in Belarus are limited to a day off, laying carnations at numerous monuments to Lenin and symbolic actions like an attempt to reconstruct the famous shot of Aurora from ... a ship. In Ukraine, it seems that only the members of the Femen movement remembered the date. One of them “captured” a monument near the Arsenal plant in the capital and demanded the resignation of President Petro Poroshenko. According to the historian, today's memory of the Great October Revolution is far from reality.
“All this youth, even from the Belarusian Youth Union, no longer remembers and does not know the whole story. Why are they celebrating, when did this revolution happen and who were the leaders of this revolution. After all, there were many other leaders besides Lenin. History has remained such that one power was replaced by another power,” says Belarusian historian Igor Melnikov.
The very interpretation of these events differs in different post-Soviet states. Russian New Newspaper I looked through the textbooks of 15 countries and found out that although in most of these countries what happened is called a coup, sometimes the concept of rebellion occurs. Only in Belarus, Russia and Turkmenistan the events of October are interpreted as a Revolution.
The events of October 1917 are interpreted in different ways. "Democrats" stubbornly and persistently given historical period they call, I would even say - they call them names, a coup, although in reality, from a legal point of view, no one from this category of "historians" has ever tried to justify this. Let's try to evaluate this event not from the point of view of sympathies and antipathies for the Bolsheviks, but from the point of view of legal and political, from the point of view of that very historical moment.
On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicates the throne, and also abdicates for his son Alexei, in favor of his brother Mikhail. By that time, the Duma had already created a Provisional Government to replace the tsarist government dispersed by the rebels.
Michael did not accept the throne, but on condition. An interesting entry, on this occasion, from the diary of Nikolai, at that time, was already just Romanov: " “It turns out that Misha renounced. His manifesto ends with a four-east for elections in 6 months of the Constituent Assembly. God knows who advised him to sign such a disgusting thing! In Petrograd, the riots have stopped - if only it continued like this.”.
And here is the Manifesto of Michael: ““A heavy burden has been placed on ME by the will of my brother, who transferred the Imperial All-Russian Throne to ME in the time of unprecedented war and unrest of the people.
Inspired by the same thought with all the people that the good of our MOTHERLAND is above all, I accepted firm decision only if you accept supreme power, if such be the will of our Great People, who should by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, establish the form of government and new laws of the Russian State.
Therefore, invoking the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit to the Provisional Government, on the initiative State Duma arisen and invested with all the fullness of power, before being convened, in a possible the shortest time, on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage, the Constituent Assembly, by its decision on the form of government, will express the will of the people.
MICHAEL
That is, Michael left the decision on the succession to the throne and the fate of the monarchy in Russia at the mercy of the Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to decide what form of government would be in Russia.
Now let's decide why the Provisional Government was called "provisional". This is a very important legal point.
It was called temporary not only because it was hastily created during the period of unrest that was then acting legislature State Duma, but also because it, in the legal sense, had the authority before the start of work Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to resolve the issue of the form of government in Russia, on the basis of which an appropriate government should have been created.
That is, in the political sense, the Provisional Government had the task of convening a Constituent Assembly.
as show further developments, Temporarily the government was in no hurry to convene the Constituent Assembly. Power turned out to be sweet, and the pretext was suitable - war to the bitter end, horses are not changed at the crossing, etc. arguments.
Moreover, on July 4, 1917, the Provisional Government shot down a peaceful demonstration on Nevsky Prospekt demanding the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. "Newest" Russian historians they are trying to claim that it was a provocation of the Bolsheviks, but in fact the Bolsheviks did not even take part either in the preparations or in the demonstration itself, because. believed that no negotiations should be conducted with the VP, but that the course should be towards an armed uprising.
Thus, it is obvious that the Provisional Government was not going to carry out its main political task - the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.
I missed the development of events during the period of dual power, and let's go directly to the most legally significant fact - an armed uprising, an assault Winter Palace and the arrest of the Provisional Government.
The famous Leninist phrase, regarding the beginning of the overthrow of the Provisional Government, said by him on October 24, 1917: "Today is early, but tomorrow it will be late" has a fundamental legal meaning that determines the further assessment this event. What is the meaning of this statement?
Here we come to the completion date armed uprising and the overthrow of the Provisional Government from a legal point of view. To do this, let's answer the question, when did the rule of the Provisional Government end, in the legal sense!? That is, when it ceased to be legitimate.
According to the regulations, since the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. But if the Provisional Government did not want to convene the CC, did this mean that it could remain in power indefinitely? I don't think anyone would agree with that. Then the question arises, how to determine the deadline for the board of the EaP, provided it refuses to convene the CC?
Let's go back and remember that the EP was created by the current legislative body of the State Duma. Consequently, at the end of the powers of the State Duma itself, the powers of the Provisional Government should also have ceased.
And it was on October 24, 1917 that the powers of the State Duma ended! On October 25 (November 7), 1917, neither a legitimate Legislative nor a legitimate Executive power. Therefore, Lenin believed that it was too early to start an armed uprising and overthrow the VP on October 24, because. it, legally, was still competent, and its overthrow, in the legal sense, would be the overthrow of the legitimate authority. And on October 25, there was no longer any legal power in Russia, and the overthrow of the Provisional Government was no longer the overthrow of the legitimate power.
By the way, why did Lenin say "tomorrow is late." Because in the morning any party could declare itself in power, and new problems would begin. Therefore, the overthrow of the VP took place on the night of October 24th to 25th.
Thus, given historical event can in no way be considered a coup, tk. a coup is possible only in relation to legitimate power. Because Since October 25, 1917, the power of the Provisional Government was no longer legitimate, then its overthrow cannot be considered a coup.
Therefore, we have in the historical chronicle of Russia the day of November 7 as the day of the October Socialist Revolution. And arguing, from a historical and legal point of view, is possible only on the topic, whether it is Great or not. But to call this event a coup is not correct either from a legal, or from a political, or from a historical point of view.
The main event in the history of the 20th century has not yet found an assessment tolerable for everyone. In the history of Russia important place takes the October 1917 coup as an open challenge to the capitalist system of oppression. In this event, someone sees the apogee of the struggle of the human race for freedom, and someone curses October, considering it the greatest crime against humanity, someone calls it a coup, and someone calls it a revolution. Who is right?
In the Russian rebellious context, the events of October 25-26 follow the third wave of the revolutionary process that began in 1905. The Bolsheviks took power into their own hands because:
- Socio-economic difficulties intertwined into an insoluble knot.
- The convocation of the Constituent Assembly was delayed, and this became a serious problem.
- The authority of the Provisional Government fell to extremely low values.
- The Bolsheviks resolutely undertook to lead the country out of the impasse.
- The radical left of the socialist parties supported the Bolsheviks.
The concept of "coup" was freely used in Soviet journalism and documents until 1927. For the celebration of the tenth anniversary, the term "Great October Socialist Revolution" was introduced into use.
Three Views of the Armed Insurrection
Despite the fact that the autocracy was overthrown and the country was ruled by the Provisional Government, the tasks February Revolution have not yet been resolved. Political crisis required a search cardinal path exit from difficult situation. In the Bolshevik environment, three points of view on the armed uprising were formed:
- Leninskaya - an uprising without delay, and then the consolidation of the seizure of power by the Congress of Soviets.
- Trotsky and Stalin - the Congress of Soviets takes power, and if it does not vote, then start an uprising.
- Zinoviev and Kamenev - participation in the work of the pre-parliament and against the armed uprising.
Preparation of the uprising "for" and "against"
It so happened that the Leninist approach prevailed over other options and formed the basis of preparatory measures in three areas:
The alignment of forces and the dynamics of the armed coup
The uprising in Petrograd easily won, almost without meeting the resistance of the armed supporters of the Provisional Government. The balance of power was far from equal.
Armed Forces of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet | Armed forces on the side of the Provisional Government |
|---|---|
|
|
In total, about 325 thousand people. | In total, about 35 thousand people. |
On October 24, armed detachments of the Military Revolutionary Committee seized key places of life support and communications in the capital. Supporters of the Provisional Government (with the exception of individual detachments and women's battalion) did not protect the legitimate authority.
On October 25, the appeal "To the Citizens of Russia" announced the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the transfer of power to the Military Revolutionary Committee of Petrograd. Opening of the II Congress of Soviets.
On the night of October 26, the Provisional Government was arrested. Victory proclaimed at the Congress of Soviets socialist revolution. First Decrees Announced Soviet power"On the World" and "On the Land", the transformation of the Bolsheviks began.
Practice is the most important evaluation criterion
Any social upheaval, which is situationally called a coup or revolution, has its deep roots, which lie in the ability or inability to meet the urgent requirements of the time.
Problem | provisional government | Bolsheviks |
|---|---|---|
The relationship between government and people | Ignorance and misunderstanding of the basic needs of the people. | Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of people's aspirations. |
Political resolve | Indecisiveness, half-measures and delaying resolution pressing issues before the Constituent Assembly. | A bold exercise of political will that responds to the acute needs of the people at a decisive moment. |
Social class support | Activities in the interests of big capital and landowners against workers and peasants. | The proletariat, the peasantry and all who are tired of the war and the inaction of the Provisional Government. |
Form and content in the context of a historical event
The provisional government turned out to be powerless to really alleviate the plight of the people of Russia. Having lost faith in the Provisional Government, the people, for the most part, supported the coming to power of the Bolsheviks through an armed uprising. In form, the change of power in October 1917 was a coup, but in content and world-historical significance, it was a revolution. Its result was the emergence of the Soviet state.
